Japan and the Republic of Korea,
Considering the historical background of relationship between their
peoples and their mutual desire for good neighborliness and for the
normalization of their relations on the basis of the principle of
mutual respect for sovereignty;
Recognizing the importance of their close cooperation in conformity
with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations to the
promotion of their mutual welfare and common interests and to the
maintenance of international peace and security; and
Recalling the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Peace with Japan
signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951 and the
Resolution 195 (III) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on
December 12, 1948;
Have resolved to conclude the present Treaty on Basic Relations and have accordingly appointed as their Plenipotentiaries,
Treaty of Peace with Japan (Signed at San Francisco, 8 September 1951)
CHAPTER II
TERRITORY
Article 2
(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
History of San Francisco Peace Treaty
1946 - SCAPIN 677 - #1
1946 - SCAPIN 1033 - #2
1947 - SCAPIN 1778 - #3
1949 - Willam J. Sebald's telegram - #4
1949 - A letter from W. Walton Butterworth - #5
1949 - December 29th; 6th Amendment of the Treaty Draft - #6
1950 - July - Commentary on Draft Treaty by the Department of State - #6-b
1950 - August - U.S. Draft of the Peace Treaty - #6-c
1950 - October 26th - USA Answers to Questions Submitted by the Australian Government - #7
1951 - April - May: Joint UK and USA Draft - extra(1)
1951 - June 1 - New Zealand's view - extra(2)
1951 - July 9th - Coversation of Yu Chan Yang with John F. Dulles - #8
1951 - July 19th - The 2nd Conversation between Yu Chan Yang and John F. Dulles - #9
1951 - August - Another letter from You Chan Yang - #10
1951 - August 3rd - Memorandum - #11(On re-ceiving Boggs's memo. I asked the Korean desk to find out whether anyone in the Korean Embassy officer had told him they believed Dokdo was near Ullengdo, or Takeshima Rock, and suspected that Parangdo was too.)
1951 - August - Rusk's Letter - #12
1951 - September 9th - San Francisco Peace Treaty - #13
Korea's Illegal Land Grab from Japan
1952- January: Syngman Rhee Line
After the Installation of Syngman Rhee Line - American documents
1952 - November - Confidential Security Information of USA - #1 ("It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington." )
1952 - December - Confidential Security Information of USA - #2( "I much appreciate your letter of November 14 in regard to the status of the Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks). The information you gave us had never been previously available to the Embassy. We had never heard of Deen Rusk’s letter to the Korean Ambassador in which the Department took a definite stand on this question.")
1953 July: Confidential Security Information of USA - #3( The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in assistant Secretary dated August 10,1951.")
1953 - November - Secret Security Information of USA - #4 ("The Liancourt Rocks case appears to have aspects in common with that of Shikotan Island" "Remind the ROK of our previous statement of view (the Rusk letter)")
Thanks Kaneganese, GJ again!
ReplyDeleteThe culprit who caused the Takeshima (Dokdo) issue was Rhee Syngman (李承晩). Why don't Korean people blame Rhee Syngman?
Thanks, pacifist
ReplyDeleteYour posts around SF treaty is very useful, actually. We should check if there is anything we haven't covered.
BTW, did you enjoy your holiday?
(Part 1)
ReplyDeleteKaneganese wrote " In the first to fifth drafts of the Treaty of San Francisco between Japan and the Allied powers, Liancourt Rocks were described as part of Korea. "
Kaneganese seems to know exactly SF Treaty was between Japan and the Allied powers, not between Japan and America. She also understood Rusk Note was a U.S. Government's reply on the issue of sovereignty between South Korea and Japan. But she wrongly concludes "There is no single doubt that American and Allied Powers concluded that Takeshima is Japanese territory." Rusk Note was American secret document on Dokdo ownership which was never informed to either Japan or the Allied Powers. Rusk Note was informed only to Korea which was not the signatory of SF Treaty. Thus, it's wrong to say "Allied Powers concluded that Takeshima is Japanese territory." American secret policy on Dokdo issue has nothing to do with the final draft of SF Treaty between Japan and the Allied Powers.
Rusk Note was a confidential memorandum.
In the first to fifth drafts of the SF Treaty, America agreed to include Dokdo as Korean land based on “Agreement Respecting The Disposition of Former Japanese Territories" by Allied Powers, but suddenly U.S. reversed her position in sixth draft.
Then, why did America change her position regarding Dokdo? It was not because America truly believed Dokdo was historically Japan's land. Instead, it’s widely known the Japan's lobby campaign and American interest in Dokdo as a strategical site influenced America to reverse her position on Dokdo ownership from including Dokdo as Korean land to including Dokdo as Japanese land.( I’ll argue this matter next later.)
There's on old U.S. government document proving U.S. was perceiving Dokdo as a part of Korea. It's recently revealed U.S. Navigation document titled “Asiatic Pilot: East Coast of Siberia, Sakhalin Island and Korea” published by U.S. Hydrographic office under the authority of the secretary of the navy in 1909. This document describes Matsu Shima(Ullongdo) and then Hornet Islands(Liancourt Rocks) for Dokdo as it's neighboring islands.
The original text of “Asiatic Pilot: East Coast of Siberia, Sakhalin Island and Korea”
The cover of “Asiatic Pilot: East Coast of Siberia, Sakhalin Island and Korea”
The table of contents of “Asiatic Pilot: East Coast of Siberia, Sakhalin Island and Korea”
American government clearly perceived Dokdo as Korean Ulleongdo’s neighboring island even 4 years after Japanese incorporation of Dokdo in 1905. Meanwhile, another Hydrographic Office document titled “Asiatic Pilot, The Japan Islands,” released in 1910 does not mention Dokdo or the Hornet Islands (Liancourt Rocks) at all.
(Part 2)
ReplyDeleteThere's one important point to be noted in the U.S. Navigation document above. This document clearly included Dokdo as a neighboring island of Ulleongdo. The pro-Japanese people have insisted Dokdo can't be a neighboring island of Ulleongdo because it's too far to be a neighboring island of Ulleongdo. Dokdo as a visible island from Ulleongdo has been consistently considered as a neighboring or an attached island to Ulleongdo by both Korean and Japanese people. Even American people considered so.
-----------------------------------
There's another document supporting American government viewed Dokdo as Korean land.
In a Oct.3, 1952 letter to US State Department, E. Allan Lightener at the U.S. Embassy in Pusan wrote the following:
“The history of these rocks has been reviewed more than once by the Department, and does not need extensive recounting here. The rocks, which are fertile seal breeding grounds, were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea. They were, of course, annexed together with the remaining territory of Korea when Japan extended its Empire over the former Korean State. However, during the course of this imperial control, the Japanese Government formally incorporated this territory into the metropolitan area of Japan and placed it administratively under the control of one of the Japanese prefectures. Therefore, when Japan agreed in Article Ⅱ of the peace treaty to renounce “all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quellait, Port Hamilton and Dagelet”, the drafters of the treaty did not included island within the area to be renounced.”
The image of original letter
This letter suggests American government was perceiving exactly Japan incorporated Dokdo which was historically Korean land.
In a Aug. 10, 1951 letter to Korean Ambassador to U.S. Yang Yu-chan, U.S . Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk wrote :
"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.." He must haven't seen the information treating Dokdo as part of Korea. Or he must have ignored it.
As those two documents prove, Dokdo was not ownerless when Japan illegally incorporated it. Japan falsely defined Dokdo as ownerless as a way to justify its illegal incorporation of Dokdo. Today, Japanese government insists Japan legally incorporated Dokdo according to international law, but such a claim is very shameless and immoral.
Correction:
ReplyDeleteIn a Oct.3, 1952 letter to US State Department, E. Allan Lightener at the U.S. Embassy in Pusan wrote the following:
-->
In a Oct.3, 1952 Despatch No. 659 entitled, "Koreans on Liancourt Rocks", the First Secretary of the American Embassy in Tokyo, John M. Steeves on behalf of Ambassador to Japan, Robert Murphy wrote the following:
The related page of original document
This document was sent to sent to US State Department and its copy was also sent to US Embassy in Korea. It's proved not only US officials at the US Embassy in Japan but also some Americans in the US State Department's Foreign Service clearly understood
Dokdo was historically Korean land Japan incorporated in 1905.
Mr. Mark Lovemo wrote about this letter at his site http://dokdo-research.com/page9.html as follows:
"The statement, which says that the State Department has reviewed the history of Dokdo and that the islets were once a part of Korea, is a direct contradiction to the statement made in Dean Rusk´s August 10 memorandum to the Korean Ambassador in Washington. The history of Dokdo related in this October 3 despatch really begs the question(s): From where did the American Embassy in Tokyo get their information, and what can account for the differences in the statements made in this despatch and those made in the August 10 memorandum? The implication here is that if the State Department had reviewed the history of Dokdo more than once, and that the conclusion of those reviews was that the islets had once been a part of the Kingdom of Korea, then the Americans had an understanding of Dokdo that was quite divergent from their policy of not recognizing the Korean claim."