竹島問題の歴史

8.1.09

"Old Japanese Document Shows Dokdo Is Korean Territory"

A January 3 Korea Times article entitled, "Old Japanese Documents Shows Dokdo is Korean Territory," says the state-owned Korea Maritime Institute has discovered a Japanese document entitled "Prime Ministerial Ordinance No. 24," dated June 6, 1951, which "effectively excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory."

I do not know anything about the above Japanese document, but when "effectively" appears in a Korean Dokdo claim, that usually means the claim is exaggerated or untrue. The Korean article does not quote the Japanese document, which is another clue that the claim is exaggerated.

Besides, does it make sense that Japan would exclude Takeshima (Dokdo) from Japanese territory while insisting that the Peace Treaty recognize Japan's claim to Takeshima?

UPDATE

According to a January 8 article in Korea's Chosun Ilbo entitled "Japan Denies Excluding Dokdo in Newly Found Papers," Tokyo claimed that a piece of "1951 legislation only excluded Dokdo from areas under Japanese administration" at the time.

Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Akamatsu Takeshi said the following:

The two 1951 documents were revision of the relevant legislation of 1949 according to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction Notes (SCAPIN) No. 677 of the allied forces. The sphere of administrative authority and territorial space do not always match.
SCAPIN No. 677 excluded Takeshima (Dokdo) from Japan's governmental and administrative control in January 1946, but the instruction from the Supreme Commander was not meant to be a permanment exclusion, as the instruction, itself, said:

6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Postdam Declaration.

SCAPIN No. 677 only separated Takeshima (Dokdo) from Japanese "government and administrative control" until the status of Takeshima could be determined. Later, it was determined that Takeshima was, indeed, Japanese territory, as US Secretary of State Dean Rusk made clear in this 1951 letter to the Korean ambassador:

As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.
Accordingly, Takeshima was not included in the territory that Japan was to give up claim to in the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco. Therefore, between 1946 and March 1952, which was when the treaty when into effect, Japan did not have "governmental and administrative" control over Takeshima, which means it would have naturally been excluded from any Japanese legislation made during that period.

However, according to the Chosun Ilbo article, Korean experts claim the Japanese are "splitting hairs":

Korean experts have dismissed the distinction as splitting hairs. Shin Yong-ha, professor at the Ewha Academy for Advanced Studies of Ewha Womans University, said, "The reason why General Headquarters separated the Dokdo Islets from Japanese territory and specified it in SCAPIN No. 677 is because it judged after several months of investigation that the islets were part of Ulleung Island." SCAPIN No.677 used the term "the definition of Japan," not "the definition of Japanese administration," because it referred to the territory, Shin said. The two 1951 documents show that the Japanese government followed SCAPIN No. 677.
SCAPIN No. 677 did not say that the Dokdo "islets were part of Ulleung Island." In fact, it did not even mention the name "Dokdo." Moreover, the definition of Japan was given only for the purpose of the directive, as the directive, itself, said: "For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include...." You can read the full directive below:

GENERAL HEADQUARTERS
SUPREME COMMANDER FOR THE ALLIED POWERS

29 January 1946

AG 091(29 Jan. 46) GS
(SCAPIN - 677)

MEMORANDUM FOR : IMPERIAL JAPANESE GOVERNMENT

THROUGH : Central Liaison office, Tokyo

SUBJECT : Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan.

Page 1

1. The Imperial Japanese Government is directed to cease exercising, or attempting to exercise, governmental or administrative authority over any area outside of Japan, or over any government officials and employees or any other persons within such areas.

2. Except as authorized by this Headquarters, the Imperial Japanese Government will not communicate with government officials and employees or with any other persons outside of Japan for any purpose other than the routine operation of authorized shipping, communications and weather services.

3. For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shinkoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands north of 30°North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island), and excluding (a) Utsuryo (Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks (Take Island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju Island, (b) the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands south of 30°North Latitude (including Kuchinoshima Island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano(Kazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all the outlying Pacific Islands (including the Daito (Ohigashi or Oagari) Island Group, and Parece Vela (Okinotori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Ganges Habomai (Hapomaze Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Akiyuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan Island.

Page 2

4. Further areas specifically excluded from the governmental and administrative jurisdiction of the Imperial Japanese Government are the following : (a) all Pacific Islands seized or occupied under mandate or otherwise by Japan since the beginning of the World War in 1914, (b) Manchura, Formosa and the Pescadores, (c) Korea, and (d) Karafuto.

5. The definition of Japan contained in this directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from this Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein.

6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Postdam Declaration.

7. The Imperial Japanese Government will prepare and submit to this Headquarters a report of all governmental agencies in Japan the functions of which pertain to areas outside a statement as defined in this directive. Such report will include a statement of the functions, organization and personnel of each of the agencies concerned.

8. All records of the agencies referred to in paragraph 7above will be preserved and kept available for inspection by this Headquarters.

FOR THE SUPREME COMMANDER :

(sgd.) H. W. ALLEN
Colonel, AGD
Asst. Adjutant General

8 comments:

  1. >when "effectively" appears in a Korean Dokdo claim, that usually means the claim is exaggerated or untrue.



    Yes,this is another example of that kind of news.



    After Japan surrendered to the Allied Forces in 1945, GHQ(The Alliance Nation's Armed Forces General Headquarters)temporarily appointed the range where Japanese Government should carry out administration, by SCAPIN(Supreme Command for Allied Powers Instruction Note)No.677.

    In that order, Takeshima/Dokto was excluded from Japan.

    Therefore, when the Japanese Government established laws and ordinances,they excluded Takeshima/Dokto from Japan,according to SCAPIN No.677.
    It was a matter of course.

    That's all. It can not be the object of the argument on Takeshima/Dokto dispute.


    Many people who read the article are laughing,in Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As always. Every time Korean claims they found "the evidence" without showing the whole document, it always means they are hiding something infavourable to them.

    You can read whole below and instantly notice that it has nothing to do with "territorial claim". If it is, it means all the islands, Chishima, Habomai, Sikotan, Ogasawara, Iwo-to, Daito-islands, Okinotorishima and Minamitorishima are all outside of Japan. That is simply impossible. This Ministerial ordinance was set for the pensioners in the surrounding islands in which Japan's administrative power was temporarily installed by SCAP/GHQ by SCAPIN 677.

    旧令による共済組合等からの年金受給者のための特別措置法第四条第三項の規定に基く附属の島を定める省令
    (昭和二十六年二月十三日大蔵省令第四号)
    http://law.e-gov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26F03401000004.html

    朝鮮総督府交通局共済組合の本邦内にある財産の整理に関する政令の施行に関する総理府令
    (昭和二十六年六月六日総理府令第二十四号)
    http://law.e-gov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26F03101000024.html

    I'm really sorry, but I have to say this South Korean lawyer, Choi Bong-tae is illiterate or simply lying.

    1. This is not territorial documents.
    2. They don't "disclose" whole document.
    3. It is available even on the web.

    When I have time, I'm going to translate the document, but I'm not sure if it's worth. But we found the MOFA's document which shows SCAP/GHQ didn't consider that SCAPIN is territorial matter but San Francisco Peace Treaty was. I'll do it first. I hope intelligent Korean would notice that this document is no evidence, soon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't have much knowledge about history of Doko or Takeshima. Hope following helps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks

    ReplyDelete
  4. No, it does not help, Godalways1.

    No wonder you do not know much about the history of Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) if you are using the Wikipedia article as reference. That article reads like a bunch of gobbledygook that has just come out of a blender. It is hard to follow even for someone who knows the history. How could a novice be expected to understand it?

    The person or people who wrote it do not know how to write English very well, and the facts are all screwed up. For example, only Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was recognized by the Japanese Shogunate as Korean territory in 1696. Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) was not mentioned.

    Instead of writing "Korea claims this," and "Japan claims that," the writer should have focused more on documented facts and maps, rather than nationalistic interpretations.

    It is a terrible article.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This website fails so badly LMAO

    ReplyDelete
  6. Explain why exactly it fails Dokdo-Korea? Is it because the facts are uncomfortable for you in your Korean centered universe? I find this website extremely informative and well written. It seems you just have an axe to grind and have no interest in finding out the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why the journalists of Choson Ilbo didn't even read those laws before they wrote the article? They are available on a few sites on the net. If you read the laws themselves, you will notice something is wrong in Dr.Yu and this lawyers claim. They could have had saved the face. It's too late.

    Japanese government in 1951 was not allowed to administrate the areas defined by SCAPIN677 until SF Peace Treaty was signed in September 1951. The Ordinance No. 4 by Ministry of Finance was set for the pensioners of such as mutual aid unions. It defines the islands where Japanese government was not able to administrate the clerical works of the pensions for the pensioners who used to work the organizations which doesn't exist anymore and so on in Feb. 1951. And the Ministral Ordinance no.24 was a law concerning the property of the Japanese Governor-General's traffic bureau mutual aid union. Japanese government was not on the liberty of processing their properties left in those areas which were defined as outside of administrative areas by SCAPIN677 in June 1951.

    Sankei's journalist Mr.Abiru posted what he heard from MOFA officer on the phone on his blog.

    ReplyDelete
  8. According to 中央日報 (Japanese versin), the document was a note which was sent to pension recipients (especially to Zainichi Koreans).

    http://japanese.joins.com/article/article.php?aid=109582&servcode=A00&sectcode=A10

    The document mentioned "第二条 令第十四条の規定に基づき政令第二百九十一号第二条第一項第二号の規定を準用する場合・・・以外の島しょをいう。
    一.千島列島、歯舞群島(水晶、勇留、秋勇留、志発および多楽島を含む。)及び色丹島。
    二.小笠原諸島及び硫黄列島
    三.欝陵島◆竹の島◆及び済州島
    四.北緯三十度以南の南西諸島(琉球列島を除く)
    五.大東諸島、沖ノ鳥島、南鳥島及び中の鳥島"

    It is strange that they used the word 竹の島 (Take-no-shima, island of bamboo) instead of Takeshima.
    Anyway, it only stated that these islands were not under control of Japanese government but it doesn't mean that they were not Japanese land. The list also contained Ogasawara islands, Iwo-jima, Okino^torishima, Nansei archipelago etc which are Japanese territory.

    ReplyDelete