No.187
The Embassy of the United States of America presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and has the honor to refer to the latter's note of November 10, 1952 stating that a single engined airplane described as being under the command of the United States in the Far East dropped bombs on Dokdo Island on September 15, 1952. The Embassy is advised that the limited amount of information provided in the Ministry's note as well as the very long time which has elapsed since the incident is said to have taken place make it virtually impossible for the United Nations Command to determine the facts in the case. Preparations have, however, been expedited to dispense with the use of Dokdo Island as a bombing range.
The Embassy has taken note of the statement contained in the Ministry's Note that "Dokdo Island(Liancourt Rocks)...is a part of the territory of the Republic of Korea". The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this islands was stated in Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk's note to the Korean Ambassador in Washington dated August 10, 1951.
American Embassy,
Pusan, December 4, 1952
On 9th July 1951, Korean Government was formally declined it's greedy demands for Tsushima by Ambassador Dulles. Instead, she suddenly asked for Dokdo/Takeshima and even non-existent Parang-do on 19th, 1951. However, the 3rd August’s note inside American Governmen reveals that Mr. Boggs, long-time Geographer to the Department of State, couldn’t identify the location of Dokdo and Parang-do despite trying all resources in Washington, and neither did Korean Embassy. As a consequence, Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk officially denied Korea’s inordinate demand for Takeshima/Dokd on 9th 1951.
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. It is understood that the Korean Government's request that "Parangdo" be included among the islands named in the treaty as having been renounced by Japan has been withdrawn.
Korean Government didn’t offer a counterargument concerning the sovereignty of the islands before the Peace Treaty was signed on September 8, 1951. However, On Sep. 21st, 1951, ROK again claimed Dokdo/Takeshima based on SCAPIN-677 MacArthur line and U.S.’s apology to Korea for the victims of 1948 bombing incident. But American Embassy in Pusan laughed off ROK’s empty comment, “we have substantial documented evidence to prove that the isle has been in the Korean possession for many hundred years”, which they couldn’t present any. The series of denial by America cornered ROK and she weiled the big stick after she finally realized that Takeshima/Dokdo has formally left to Japan by San Francisco Peace Treaty. ROK suddenly set Rhee Line in open waters, enclosing Dokdo/Takeshima inside Korean side.
As was stated in the note, it was issued in the response to the ROK’s protest against the bombing incident happened on 15th Sep. Some 23 Korean fishermen and women divers fishing on Takeshima/Dokdo narrowly escaped from bombs dropped by the airplane which returned to the direction of Japan afterwards. Consequently, a “scholarly exploration” party by Korean government couldn’t reach to Takeshima. It is no wonder since SCAP and U.S. government considered Takeshima was Japanese territory and U.S. and Japan joint committee designated Takeshima as bombing range for U.S.Forces.
In July 1951, while Japan was still under Allied occupation, the Supreme Command for Allied Powers designated Takeshima as a bombing range for U.S. Forces by SCAPIN No. 2160. In July 1952, right after the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect, in response to the desire of the U.S. Forces to continue to use Takeshima as a training area, the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee established as the consultative body for the implementation of the Japan-U.S. Administrative Agreement (an agreement based on the former Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, which was succeeded by the current Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement) designated Takeshima as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces stationed in Japan. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs published this fact in the official gazette. ( “Takeshima as a Bombing Range for U.S. Forces” by Japanese MOFA)
Despite the fact that the islands are within the danger zone, the government of ROK not only didn’t take necessary steps to protect its own people dissuading fishermen/women from collecting shells on the islands but also even sent government lead “scientific expedition” whose “intent has obviously been to establish claim to Korean sovereignty over the rocks”. The similar incident had once happened in the June 8 of 1948. About 20 Korean were killed by the American bombing. In other words, ROK government took precedence its territorial ambitions over the life of its own people.
Next year, U.S. government ceased bombing because of the “crude implementation of Government control in Korea” and the U.S. and Japan “Joint Committee decided to release Takeshima from the designation of a bombing range for the U.S. Forces in March 1953”. Although the decision was made not only because of the incident, but because of petition by local people from Shimane on 20th May, 1952., Korean government soon started to take advantages of this cession as one of the proof U.S. ‘s recognition Korea’s sovereignty on the rocks.
This note is very important since Mr. Dennis Wilder, a Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council, officially told that U.S. policy on this territorial dispute has been firm and consistent since 1952 during the press briefing on President's trip to Asia on July 30, 2008. “Our position since 1952” apparently means the U.S. position described in this official Note to ROK.
This note No. 187 had been referred many times in other U.S. documents such as “Letter from E. Allan Lightner American Embassy, Pusan Korea To Office of Northeast Asian Affairs, the Department of the State by E. Allan Lightner, December 4, 1952” or “Possible Methods of Resolving Liancourt Rocks Dispute between Japan and ROK, July 22, 1953.” Thus we did know that U.S. conveyed ROK their position (Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks are Japanese territory) second time. However, this is the first time we had an chance to see the document itself, since Korean government had not those unfavourable documents made open to the public.
The original of the document is from NARA, Box "322 Liancourt Rocks, 1952-54", Korea, Seoul Embassy, Classified General Records, 1952-63, RG 84 Records of the Foreign Service Posts of the Department of State,1788-1964.
Related Posts;
1946 - Jan. 29 - SCAPIN 677
1946 - Feb. 13 - "Conference with GHQ/SCAP concerning separation of the administration"
1946 - Jun. 22 - SCAPIN 1033
1947 - Sep. 16 -SCAPIN 1778
1949 - Nov. 14 - Willam J. Sebald's telegram
1949 - U.S. Maps DOES NOT Confirm Korean Sovereignty Over Dokdo
1949 - Nov. 14 - A letter from W. Walton Butterworth
1949 - Dec. 29 - U.S. Draft made on December 29, 1949
1950 - July - Commentary on Draft Treaty by the Department of State
1950 - Aug. 7 - U.S. Draft made on August 7, 1950
1950 - Oct. 26 - USA Answers to Questions Submitted by the Australian Government
1951 - Apr. - May: Joint UK and USA Draft - extra(1)
1951 - Jun. 1 - New Zealand's view - extra(2)
1951 - Jul. 6 - SCAPIN 2160 (cache)
1951 - Jul. 9 - Coversation of Yu Chan Yang with John F. Dulles
1951 - Jul. 19 - The 2nd Conversation between Yu Chan Yang and John F. Dulles
1951 - Jul. 26 - the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee designated Takeshima as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces stationed in Japan. (official gazette of Japan)
1951 - Aug. 2 - Another letter from You Chan Yang
1951 - Aug.3 - Bogg’s Memorandum (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 - Aug. 9 - Rusk's Letter ( 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. )
1951 - Sep. 9 - San Francisco Peace Treaty
1951 - Sep. 21 - Korean Government comprehended Takeshima/Dokdo was affirmed as a Japanese Territory in Peace Treaty
1952- Jan. 18 - Syngman Rhee Line
1950's - Japan & Korea Argue Their Claims in 1950s Letters
1952 - Nov. 5 - Confidential Security Information of USA ("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 - Dec. 4 - Confidential Security Information of USA ( "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 Jul. 22 - Confidential Security Information of USA “Possible Methods of Resolving Liancourt Rocks Dispute between Japan and ROK”( The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in assistant Secretary dated August 10,1951.")
1953 - Nov. 30 - Secret Security Information of USA ("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)")
1953 - Dec. 9 - SECRET SECURITY INFORMATION by Dulles
1953 - Jul 22 - US Doc. Reconfirms Dean Rusk Letter (Letter from Office of Northeast Asian Affairs To E. Allan Lightner American Embassy, Pusan Korea by L. Burmaster Office of U.S. Northeast Asian Affair )
1953 - Oct 13 - Daiichi-Daihou Maru Incident - the dispute over the Rhee Syngman Line
1954 - Aug. - Report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East, 26 April - 7 August , 1954
2008 - Jul. 30 - Press Briefing by Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council, Dennis Wilder, on President's Trip to Asia (cache)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere are the facts:
ReplyDelete1. Korea claimed Dokdo first.
2. Korea currently controls Dokdo.
Korea claimed Dokdo 1500 years ago. (yes, that's one-five-zero-zero years ago.) Dokdo has appeared in Korean maps for many centuries.
The only time when Korea didn't have strong ownership of Dokdo was the period from late-19th to the first half of 20th Century, when Korea was weak and in a state of disarray, under Japanese colonial repression, and going through the devastating Korean War from 1950 to 1953.
But as soon as Korea regained its footing, it regained control of Dokdo and hasn't let go ever since.
Japan only became interested in Dokdo starting in the age of its imperialist aggression, in the beginning of the 20th Century. Before then, it had absolutely no interest in Dokdo. (Japan annexed Dokdo in 1905. The simple fact that it had to "annex" Dokdo from Korea proves that before then it didn't consider Dokdo its territory.)
The San Francisco Peace Treaty, which the Japanese love to use as evidence supporting their claim to Dokdo, in fact makes absolutely no mention of Dokdo. The treaty orders Japan to "recognize the independence of Korea" and "renounce all right, title and claim to Korea".
(Interestingly, the San Francisco Treaty does state that Japan renounces all claim to the Kurile Islands. But recently Japan has been trying to take the Kuril Islands back from Russia, which currently controls them. So, the Japanese are trying to use the San Francisco Treaty to support their claim to Dokdo, but they want to completely ignore it as it applies to the Kuril Islands. This is hyporcrisy.)
In short, Dokdo has been Korean territory since the beginning of history.
But Japan used deceptive means to annex Dokdo (and the rest of Korea) during the period of its imperialist expansion. It then tried to solidify its claim on Dokdo, opportunistically, in the years when Korea was in turmoil due to the Korean War and its aftermath.
But Korea took back effective control of Dokdo as soon as it could.
Dokdo is, and shall remain, Korean territory forever.
jk6411,
ReplyDelete"Here are the facts:
1. Korea claimed Dokdo first.
2. Korea currently controls Dokdo.
Korea claimed Dokdo 1500 years ago. (yes, that's one-five-zero-zero years ago.) Dokdo has appeared in Korean maps for many centuries. "
jk, no, they are not "fact", since there is no single concrete evidence to support them. They are the lies ROK government fabricated to trick you into in 1954. In fact, there are no single old Korean map which described Dokdo. Korean Academics already admitted it.
2010 - Dokdo Institute of Yeungnam University admits Usando in Choson's official map of Ulleungdo(鬱陵島圖形) in 1711 is Jukdo, not Dokdo/Takeshima.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2010/06/2010-dokdo-institute-of-yeungnam.html
It seems you don't have any basic knowledge of the issue. I recommend you to read the posts below first.
Q1: Has Dokdo been a part of Korea since the sixth century?
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/q1-has-dokdo-been-part-of-korea-since.html
Q 2: What is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island?
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/q-2-what-is-ulleungdos-largest.html
Q 3: Why did old Korean maps show Ulleungdo as two islands?
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/q-3-why-did-old-korean-maps-show.html
Q 4: Did King Sejong's geography text mention Dokdo?
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/q-4-did-king-sejongs-geography-text.html
Q 5: Did Korea's 1530 "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram" mention Dokdo?
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/q-5-did-koreas-1530-sinjeung-dongguk.html
Kaneganese,
ReplyDeletePlease see my response to Gerry Bevers here:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/donggyeong-san-cheon-paldo-jido.html
I don't know if it will convince you.
But I hope it will encourage you to take a closer look at these ancient Korean maps.
jk,
ReplyDeleteI asked you to bring concrete evidence, not explanation, which we have already heard so many times. You may have noticed, but what you tried to explain was not supported by any concrete evidence, unfortunately.
Your logic simply depend on the hypothesis, or prejudice imprinted by your own government, I'd have to say, that Ulleungdo and Dokdo are close enough. But the truth is, the close island to Ulleungdo is Jukdo, not Dokdo/Takeshima, the islets which consist of two rocks and locate 90km far. This is supported by many Korean old maps such as Map of Ulleungdo(鬱陵島圖形) which has "海長竹田" label on Usando. As you know, there is no bamboo on Dokdo. It is definitely Jukdo.
1711 - Bak Seok-chang''s (朴錫昌) Map of Ulleungdo
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/1711-bak-seok-changs-map-of-ulleungdo.html
Moreover, Korean old maps which has scales, such as 조선지도(朝鮮地圖)(奎16030) (1750-1768) clearly depicted Usando as Jukdo.
2010 - Dokdo Institute of Yeungnam University admits Usando in Choson's official map of Ulleungdo(鬱陵島圖形) in 1711 is Jukdo, not Dokdo/Takeshima.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2010/06/2010-dokdo-institute-of-yeungnam.html
Read the comment by Kyujanggak, Korean Seoul National University, researcher below.
"However, there is fairly large island Jukdo on the east side of Ulleungdo, and Usan(do) depicted right side of the map is considered to be it(Jukdo). (Lee Ki-bong)
---------------------------------------
다만 울릉도 동쪽에 현재 죽도(댓섬)라는 제법 큰 섬이 있는데, 지도 오른쪽의 于山(島)이 그것을 가리키는 것이 아닌가 생각된다.(이기봉)"
On top of that, the official Map of Korea made by the Ministry of Education of the Imperial Korea both depicted Usando as Jukdo, not Dokdo.
1899 - Korean Map: "Daehanjeondo" (大韓全圖) (玄采 大韓地誌)
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/1899-korean-map-daehanjeondo.html
1901 - "Daehanjiji" (大韓地誌) Map of Korea's Gangwon Province (玄采)
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/1901-daehanjiji-map-of-gangwondo.html
Both has meridian and parallels on it. The map was made before and after 1900, the year Imperial Edict No.41 was issued. This means Korean claim that the "seokdo" in the Edict was not Dokdo, apparently.
Are there any Korean official document which record the Joseon Inspector to Ulleungdo went to Dokdo?
---NO.
Are there any Korean old maps/documents which has correct distance between Ulleungdo and Dokdo?
---NO.
Are there any Korean old maps/documents which depicted Usando as two islets?
---NO.
On the contrary, there are so many maps/documents which depicted Takeshima(Matsushima in Edo era) as two islets with exact direction and distance.
See the video below. It was once deleted because of Korean claim, but it is a fine video.
http://www.youtube.com/user/GloriousJapanForever
8.15 特集③
ReplyDelete「興奮せずに根拠を提示すべき」
在日独島研究者朴炳渉氏「日本と独島の歴史討論を避けてはいけない」
ソウル新聞 2011-08-14
http://www.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20110814800017&spage=1
「独島に関する国内向けの研究や主張はあふれるほど多いが、国際的に通じるかは疑問です。独島を日本との領土協議の対象としてはいけないが、歴史討論まで避けてはいけないでしょう。」
在日同胞二世の朴炳渉（パク・ビョンソプ 69)氏は、日本で会社員生活をしながらパソコン通信で日本軍慰安婦など歴史問題に関する文を掲載する仕事をしており、約10年前から独島に本格的に関心を持ち始めた。2003年から専門研究者として認められて関連論文を発表し、2007年には内藤正中島根大学名誉教授とともに『独島＝竹島論争』という本を出した。この本はその年、日本図書館協会の選定図書に選ばれた。このように関心を深めた理由は、独島問題が見た目より「奥が深かったため」という。
「独島を無条件に守るというのではなく、まず事実を究明しようという姿勢に立ちました。」
彼が下した暫定結論は、古文献に現れる「于山島」の表記を根拠に独島を私たちの土地だと主張すれば逆襲に遭いかねないということだ。
「于山島の表記は、時代によっていろいろ変わったことが問題でしょう。日本側は鬱陵島のすぐ傍らにある竹島（チュクト）を于山島と表記したものなどを挙げて、「韓国は独島を認識したことがなく、他の島を自分の島だと考えた、と主張していますね。」
朴氏は、むしろ、鬱陵島と独島(外一島）が日本の土地でないと確認した1877年の明治政府の指令や、鬱陵島と竹島（チュクト）、石島(独島)を鬱陵郡に含ませた1900年大韓帝国勅令を強調する必要があると語った。
「独島が私たちの土地である根拠は、朝鮮と日本が鬱陵島と付属島嶼である独島がどこの国に属するのか相当期間の論議を行ったあげく、17世紀に入って朝鮮の領土と結論を下し、1877年に明治政府が、1900年に大韓帝国がこれを再確認した点でしょう。」
日本で独島を守ろうと努めて来た朴氏に独島問題と関連して韓国の弱点を訊ねると、すぐに予想通り「感情的に興奮して抗議するのに終わるだけで、基礎研究を充実して国際的に通用する論理を開発しようとする努力が弱いようだ。」という返事が返ってきた。
「2007～2009年の第二次韓日歴史共同研究の当時、独島を共同研究主題から除外したのは理解できません。日本と政治的に独島領土問題を協議する必要はないが、研究レベルの対話さえ拒否してはいけません。」
日本人を説得して独島問題を解決することはできないが、日本人を説得できるほどに私たちの論理を整え弱点を補完してこそ国際的に通用するだろうというわけだ。
「独島が日本の領土だと主張する日本の動きに感情的に興奮して抗議し非難するよりは、具体的な根拠を提示する必要があります。証拠を出しさえすれば別に説得する必要も無いですから。」
日本極右派の威嚇を考慮して写真を載せないで欲しいと依頼した在日同胞の老研究者の呼び掛けには興奮は全く混じっておらず、深い響きがあった。
Kaneganese,
ReplyDeleteI find it regrettable that over-zealous Korean scholars have claimed that on every ancient close-up map of Ulleungdo, the island labeled as Usando is Dokdo. I must disagree with them. On some of those maps, Usando is Dokdo, but in others, it is Jukdo.
The unfortunate fact that both Dokdo and Jukdo were called Usando in the past have caused much confusion, but it can be resolved.
Take a look at these three close-up maps of Ulleungdo.
"Cheonggudo" (靑邱圖) Atlas (1860 - 1872)
"Dong Yeodo" (東輿圖) Atlas (1795 - 1800)
"Haedong Yeojido" (海東輿地圖) Atlas (1776 - 1795)
On these maps, Usando resembles Jukdo. It is elongated north-to-south, just like real-life Jukdo, and it is drawn very close to Ulleungdo.
Now take a look at these other close-up maps of Ulleungdo.
Samcheok & Ulleungdo (1884 - 1894)
"Gwandong Bangyeo" (關東方輿) - late 1800s?)
"Joseon Jido" (朝鮮地圖) Atlas (1750 - 1768)
On these three maps, Usando looks quite different - it looks nothing like real-life Jukdo. You see that Ulleungdo is drawn as a large mountainous island, and Usando is drawn as a small, jagged-looking island with seemingly two mountainous parts. (just like Dokdo) Also on these maps, Usando is drawn a lot farther from Ulleungdo than on the previous three maps.
Especially on the "Gwandong Bangyeo" (關東方輿) map, Usando is drawn as far away from Ulleungdo as possible. You can also see that Ulleungo and its nearby islets are surrounded by blue water, but Usando is surrounded by blue water all by itself, to emphasize that is not near Ulleungdo. So, Usando on these three maps is Dokdo.
As for the grid lines on these maps denoting distances, you can't take them too seriously. Old Korean maps did not have the distances between the Korean islands, or the distances between the islands and the Korean mainland, very exact. The distances were all over the place, to be honest. Ulleungdo and Dokdo were always drawn much too close together, and often the two islands were drawn much closer to the Korean mainland than they are in real-life. But that was due to the culture and Koreans' mentality at the time.
You can't compare old Korean maps and old Japanese maps using the same standards. The two countries, while geographically close together, are very different, especially in terms of history. While Japan welcomed contact with the West and by the late 19th Century became a thoroughly modern country, Korea remained closed off to the outside world and had almost no contact with the West until the 20th Century. The two countries' maps reflect this. By the late 19th Century, Japanese maps were pretty accurate, and had the distances about right. But Koreans were still drawing maps in the old ways.
(Koreans’ knowledge of the outside world was very limited, as I said in my other long post. All they knew was Korea and the immediate neighborhood, China and Japan. All they knew was that east of Korea there were two islands, Ulleungdo and Dokdo, and beyond that there was Japan, and beyond that was unknown. So, they probably didn't see a need to get the distances between the two islands exactly right. Unlike the southern and western coasts of Korea, where there are countless small islands, off the east coast of Korea there are only two, Ulleungdo and Dokdo, and there was absolutely no mistaking them..)
I know that the rationale is difficult to comprehend, in this ultra-modern age we're living in, but you really have to try to put yourself in the shoes of the men who drew these maps; it was a very different age and culture back then.
Take a look at this map:
ReplyDelete1894 - "Jissoku Chosen Zenzu" (實側朝鮮全圖) by So Mokan (宗孟寬)
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1894-jissoku-chosen-zenzu-by-so-mokan.html
This is a Japanese map of Korea made in 1894. Although the distances in this map are more accurate than in Korean maps of the time, they are not exactly right. Even in this map, Ulleungdo and Dokdo ("Takeshima" and "Matsushima") are drawn closer to Korea than they are in real-life. Dokdo, in particular, is drawn much closer to Korea than it should be. In real-life, Dokdo is about equidistant from Korea and Japan, but on this map Dokdo is twice closer to Korea than Japan. This indicates that this map-maker considered both islands not Japanese but Korean territory.
(If you look at old Korean maps, the mapmakers often drew Ulleungdo and Dokdo closer to Korea than they actually are, and Tsushima farther from Korea than it actually is. This was to indicate that the former two are Korean territory, and the latter is Japanese territory.
* It is human nature to keep one's possessions close to oneself and others' possessions farther away. *
Korean mapmakers sometimes even drew Dokdo closer to Korea than Ulleungdo (so that Dokdo appeared west of Ulleungdo), to emphasize Korea's ownership of Dokdo.)
1875 - "Chosen Yochi Zenzu" by Sekiguchi Bisyo (關口備正)
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1875-chosen-yoshi-zenzu-sekiguchi-bisyo.html
This is another Japanese map of Korea. Here too, Ulleungdo and Dokdo are closer to Korea than they are in real-life, and Dokdo is drawn very very faraway from Japan.
1882 - Shinsen Chosen Yochi Zenzu (新撰朝鮮輿地全圖) by Wakabayashi Tokushaburo (若林篤三郞)
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1882-shinsen-chosen-yochi-zenzu-by.html
You see the same thing here.
Regarding the last two maps, Gerry Bevers alleges that the island labeled as "Takeshima" (Ulleungdo) in these maps is actually the non-existent island of "Argonaut" and the island labeled "Matsushima" (Dokdo) is actually Ulleungdo.
However, this is irrelevant. The important thing is that Japanese mapmakers drew these maps of Korea, and they drew Ulleungdo and Dokdo where they thought they were. They drew the two islands as they, Japanese, perceived them.
Also, I would like to point out that in these maps Ulleungdo is drawn with the small islet of Usando (Jukdo) drawn WEST of it instead of to the east, which is incorrect. Also, the shape of Dokdo (“Matsushima”) is inconsistent in these maps. (not only is the shape inconsistent, it is never drawn as two islets, the way it is in real-life.) This means that, as modern as Japan had become by the late 19th Century, Japanese still didn't know too much about Ulleungdo and Dokdo. They didn't know exactly where these islands were, or what these islands looked like. They didn’t know, and they didn't care, probably because they didn't consider the two islands Japanese territory.
So, you can see that even Japanese maps of Korea didn't depict Ulleungdo and Dokdo accurately. Most notably, they depicted Ulleungdo and Dokdo much closer to Korea than they are in real-life. If the Japanese mapmakers really considered Dokdo their territory, they would have drawn it closer to Japan (or at least equidistant from Korea and Japan, the way it is in real-life). But they drew it much much closer to Korea than Japan.
ReplyDelete1899 Korean Map: "Daehanjeondo" (大韓全圖)
You mentioned this map and said that the island labeled "Usan" can't be Dokdo because it's much too close to Ulleungdo. But once again, you can't take the distances too seriously. If you'll take a closer look at this map, you'll notice something interesting: Ulleungdo is drawn closer to Korea than Tsushima. In reality, Tsushima is 50km away from Korea and Ulleungdo is 120km away from Korea, so Ulleungdo should have been drawn more than twice as far from Korea as Tsushima, but that's not the case! The Korean mapmaker drew Ulleungdo and Usando (Dokdo) much closer to Korea, to emphasize Korea's ownership of the two islands. And the two islands were drawn right next to each other, because they were considered one inseparable group.
Now, look at this map:
Donggyeong San Cheon (東京山川) - Paldo Jido (八道地圖)
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/donggyeong-san-cheon-paldo-jido.html
This map is very important and informative. On the national map of Korea, you see Ulleungdo and Usando next to each other. Ulleungdo is depicted as a large mountainous island, and Usando is depicted as a small, jagged, very mountainous island with seemingly two peaks (just like Dokdo). There is no way this Usando can be Jukdo, because Jukdo is a flat tabletop of an island. But if you scroll down to the close-up map of Gangwon province and Ulleungdo, you'll see that on this close-up map, Usando looks very different. It is depicted as a flat island (no mountain markings), and it is elongated north-to-south; it looks like Jukdo. So, even within this same atlas, you can see that Usando can be either Dokdo or Jukdo, depending on how it is depicted. On the national map, it is Dokdo, and in the close-up map, it is Jukdo.
(For more of my observations on this map, please refer to my response to Gerry Bevers.)
So with old Korean close-up maps of Ulleungdo, there is some room for confusion because sometimes the Usando on the map resembles Jukdo and sometimes it resembles Dokdo. But with large national maps of Korea, there is no confusion. If you see Ulleungdo and Usando side-by-side on a national map of Korea, it's Ulleungdo and Dokdo.
(It can't be Ulleungdo and Jukdo, because Jukdo is simply too insignificant. Jukdo is a tiny 50-acre island that is dwarfed by Ulleungdo which is only 2km away from it, and for all practical purposes it's been considered a part of Ulleungdo throughout history; hence, it deserves no place on a national map of Korea. Dokdo, on the other hand, has every right to be on a national map right next to Ulleungdo, because it is the easternmost island in the Korean territory.)
jk,
ReplyDeleteYes, Kim Jong-ho(金正浩) finally reached to the conclusion that Usando and Ulleungdo are same island. That is the reason 東輿圖 and 大東輿地圖 doesn't have Usando. This is very important fact for Takeshima Issue. At least I'm glad you admit it.
Anyway, before you claim your countries top brains as "over-zealous Korean scholars ", you'd better read their academic journals. If you think their recognition is not true, tell them so.
奎章閣 published a good series of books on old maps, such as "鄭尚驥의《東國地圖》 : 原本系統의筆寫本". They are well written. You'll be ashamed of yourself if you read them.
Others like 呉尚學 and 金基赫, they are also not bad. But if you keep reading things written by 李相泰, an old master who label every single Usando as Dokdo automatically, you'll get brainwashed.
As they say, Korean information on Ulleungdo developed dramatically since 1694, the year Joseon dynasty started to send Inspectors every three years. That is the reason Usando, which was a kind of imaginary island locate west to Ulleungdo switched to the east and described as one island with bamboo field near Ulleugdo, Jukdo. The officials made maps of Joseon and 6 of them were left today. None of them depict Dokdo.
And as for "Joseon Jido" (朝鮮地圖) , I believe it was made around 1770, and "Gwandong Bangyeo" (關東方輿) - late 1800s?), they have ２０方里 grids on Ulleungdo map. That makes Usando locates approximately 8-12km away from Ulleugdo, meaning it is Jukdo, not Dokdo. The latter is apparently a copy of the former.
You can check how far real Dokdo is when you compare those old maps with real location. You can see how close real Jukdo and Usando in 朝鮮地圖 are. See opp's site below.
http://takeshima.cafe.coocan.jp/wp/?page_id=170
The former, "Joseon Jido" (朝鮮地圖) is very important in Korean history of Geography since it has 備辺司 stamp on it. In other words, it is the official map of Joseon. According to 奎章閣's researcher and others, it is made by 申景濬, or the copy of the map he made. As you know, he is the author of『東国文献備考』. So this Usando=Jukdo perception makes Usando and Matsushima in the phrase「于山則 倭所謂 松島也」 of the book is actually Jukdo.
Korean old maps with grids are very accurate, or at least it shows their recognition of their country, in short, it shows how the Korean geographer saw the geography of Korea and Usando is not Dokdo, at the time. In conclusion, Usando changes from imaginary island(before 1694), Jukdo(1694-), dissapear(1856-the end of 1800s) and goes back to Jukdo around 1900.
Claiming Usando was an old name of Dokdo was the most stupid mistake ROK government made. Do yourself a favour and stick to Seokdo, if you don't want to lose Dokdo. As Mr. Park, a radical Dokdo activist of Zainichi says. (Thanks chaamiey, for translating interesting news.)
서울新聞 2011-08-14
http://www.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20110814800017&spage=1
Some pro-Korean lines up Japanese old maps which lacks Takeshima to try to claim Japan didn't recognize Takeshima. However, the point is, Japan does has many maps which accurately depicted Takeshima with correct direction and distance and they in fact have old history documents which prove they are hunting sealions or used the islets as a stopover place to Ulleungdo, while Korea has absolutely none.
ReplyDeleteMid 17th century - Illustrative Map of Matsushima (松嶋絵図) by Murakawa Clan
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/mid-17th-century-illustrative-maps-of.html
1696c.a. - "Illustrative Map of Takeshima submitted by Kotani Ihei(小谷伊兵衛より差出候竹嶋之絵図)"
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/1696-illustrative-map-of-takeshima.html
Other pro-Korean shows many Meiji maps which has Argonaut(Takeshima) and Dagelet(Matsushima) and claim that Japanese recognized Matsushima as Korean, but it is not Dokdo/Takeshima, but Ulleungdo.
And you should know though Lee Dynasty failed to modernize their country fast enough, Koreans already started to open its country at the end of 19C and learned geography and western style maps making through Japan and other western countries such as America. Ministry of Education(学部) of Joseon/Korea made western style map such as 大韓全圖.
However, the official Map of Korea made by the Ministry of Education of the Imperial Korea both depicted Usando as Jukdo, not Dokdo.
1899 - Korean Map: "Daehanjeondo" (大韓全圖) (玄采 大韓地誌)
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/1899-korean-map-daehanjeondo.html
1901 - "Daehanjiji" (大韓地誌) Map of Korea's Gangwon Province (玄采)
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/1901-daehanjiji-map-of-gangwondo.html
Both has meridian and parallels on it. The map was made before and after 1900, the year Imperial Edict No.41 was issued. This means Korean claim that the "seokdo" in the Edict was not Dokdo, apparently.
Moreover, Geography text books made by Korean government also tells that Dokdo was outside of the Korea.
紇法（J.Hulbert)『士民必知』 (Knowledge Necessary for All translationa by Kim Taegyon金澤榮)(1895)
東経線一百二十三度至一百三十一度
其島南曰濟洲東曰鬱陵西南曰江華
『大韓地誌』(1899)
東経１３０度３５分
Apparently, not only Korea's old maps, but also geography texts say Takeshima was not Korean territory.
Kaneganese,
ReplyDeleteYou misread my comments.
The three "pro-Korean" comments were in fact one long comment by me separated into 3 sections.
Please go back and read it over again.
By the way, I never admitted that Usando is Ulleungdo. That is ludicrous.
Ulleungdo is Ulleungdo. Usando is either Dokdo or Jukdo, depending on what scale of map it is on and how it is depicted.
Jk6411,
ReplyDeleteThere are NO old Korean maps that show "Dokdo" by any name, including the name "Usando." NONE. Not even one.
In Korean history, Koreans have used "Usando" (于山島 - 우산도) to refer to either Ulleungdo or to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is about 2 km offshore of Ulleungdo. That is all.
If you, Jk6411, could find even one old Korean map that showed Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), by any name, you would be a hero in Korea because Koreans have been looking for one for decades, but have been unable to find one.
I will give you some hints. 1) Dokdo is no west of Ulleungdo. 2) It's not right next to Ulleungdo. 3) And it is, at least, two islets, not one.
Koreans used to point to any island labeled as "Usando" on Korean maps and say it was "Dokdo," but now some of the more rational Koreans have come to realize that such claims are outrageous and makes Koreans look foolish in the eyes of the world, so the Korean media have stopped focusing on Korean maps and even their claimed history of Dokdo. Now, the news coverage is on Dokdo festivals and art contests.
The reason the Korean government is pushing "quiet diplomacy" in regard to Dokdo is that it knows that Dokdo was not a part of Korean history and, therefore, does not want to talk about the history. Instead, the Korean government simply says, "Japanese claims are absurd," and foolishly hopes the world will accept that.
The genie is out of the bottle, and Koreans cannot put it back in, again.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGerry, let’s not politicize the issue too much. Let’s just try to find out the truth.
ReplyDeleteI guess you’re still not convinced that Usando is Dokdo.
In old national maps of Korea, Usando is always Dokdo.
This is clearest in maps such as “Donggyeong San Cheon (東京山川) - Paldo Jido (八道地圖)” and "Dae Joseonguk Jeondo (大朝鮮國全圖)”. In both of these maps, Usando is depicted as a small, very mountainous island. (This is what Dokdo looks like in real-life. Jukdo does not at all look like this.)
Now, you might have a problem with the shape of Usando, because it’s not drawn as two islets. But look at every other island in these two maps. None of the islands’ shapes are depicted accurately; they are all drawn as circles. (Look at Tsushima, for example. Tsushima is depicted as a circular island in both of these maps. But in reality, Tsushima is very elongated north-to-south.)
So, you can’t take the islands’ shapes too literally. From looking at these maps, about all you can tell about the islands are their relative sizes and whether they are mountainous or not.
Also, you can’t take the distances on these maps too literally. In the above two maps, you see that the Japanese island of Tsushima is drawn at the same distance from Korea or farther from Korea than Ulleungdo. This is obviously incorrect. (In reality, Tsushima is only 50km from Korea, and Ulleungdo is 120km from Korea, much farther.) The mapmaker simply drew Ulleungdo closer to Korea to emphasize that it’s Korean territory, and drew Tsushima farther from Korea to emphasize that it’s not Korean territory.
So, you can’t take the distances too literally. Ulleungdo and Usando may have been drawn right next to each other on the map, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they were actually that close together. The two islands were perceived as one group, “Usanguk”, and that’s why they were drawn right next to each other. (In fact, in very old Korean maps, Usanguk was drawn as one island, not two. So it’s not surprising that in later maps, when they were drawn as two separate islands, they remained very close to each other.)
With close-up maps of Ulleungdo, there can be confusion because sometimes Usando looks like Jukdo and sometimes it looks like Dokdo.
As I said in my previous comment, in these three maps of Ulleungdo, Usando looks very much like Jukdo:
"Cheonggudo" (靑邱圖) Atlas (1860 - 1872)
"Dong Yeodo" (東輿圖) Atlas (1795 - 1800)
"Haedong Yeojido" (海東輿地圖) Atlas (1776 - 1795)
For the sake of convenience, I’ll just call them Ulleungdo maps #1, #2, and #3.
But in these other maps of Ulleungdo, Usando looks very much like Dokdo.
Samcheok & Ulleungdo (1884 - 1894)
"Gwandong Bangyeo" (關東方輿) - late 1800s?)
"Joseon Jido" (朝鮮地圖) Atlas (1750 - 1768)
For the sake of convenience, I’ll call them Ulleungdo maps #4, #5, and #6.
(cont’d)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs I said before, in maps #1, #2, and #3, Usando very much resembles Jukdo, and it is drawn right next to Ulleungdo as it should be. But in maps #4, #5, and #6, Usando doesn’t resemble Jukdo at all – Usando is depicted as a jagged looking island with two mountainous halves, and it is drawn much farther from Ulleungdo. This has to be Dokdo.
ReplyDeleteRegarding map #5 “Gwandong Bangyeo" (關 東方輿) and map #6 "Joseon Jido" (朝鮮地圖), blogger Kaneganese said that Usando, as it is drawn in these maps, is 8-12km away from Ulleungdo, and therefore it is Jukdo. (??) If Usando is depicted 8-12km away from Ulleungdo, how could it possibly be Jukdo? Jukdo is only 2km away from Ulleungdo. There is no way that the mapmaker could have been off by that much. (If Usando was Jukdo, he would have drawn it very close to Ulleungdo.)
In fact, there is no island 8-12km east of Ulleungdo. The mapmaker just drew Usando as far from Ulleungdo as possible, to indicate that it is far away. This, and the fact that Usando is depicted very similar to actual Dokdo, means that this Usando is Dokdo.
It couldn’t possibly be Jukdo. (Dokdo is a jagged mountainous island, while Jukdo is a flat island.)
Also, Kenaganese said that map #6 “Joseon Jido” (朝鮮地圖) is “very important in Korean history of Geography since it has 備辺司 stamp on it. In other words, it is the official map of Joseon.”
WELL… IF THIS OFFICIAL MAP HAS USANDO DRAWN AS DOKDO, THEN USANDO REALLY MUST BE DOKDO.
Also, I have noticed something else.
Maps #1, #2, and #3 show Usando drawn similar to Jukdo, and maps #4, #5, and #6 show Usando drawn very similar to Dokdo.
However, maps #4, #5, and #6 also seem to show Jukdo on them. You can see it immediately to the lower-right of Ulleungdo. (This island looks very similar to Jukdo in map #1. It has to be Jukdo, because it’s depicted as the biggest of Ulleungdo’s islets. Maps #4, #5, and #6 all have it, while maps #1, #2, and #3 don’t.) Apparently, the mapmaker considered Jukdo so insignificant that he didn’t bother to depict it in its correct location; he just drew it underneath Ulleungdo with all the other little imaginary islets of Ulleungdo; also, he didn’t bother to give it a name.
Again, this is on the official Joseon map of Ulleungdo.
And one more thing.
In all these close-up maps of Ulleungdo, Ulleungdo is drawn with five little islets underneath it. But are there really five islets just off the south shore of Ulleungdo? No. There are around five islets to the north of Ulleungdo, and two to the east (Jukdo being the largest of them). But there are no islets south of Ulleungdo. So, these five islets were placed there simply because this was the style of drawing Ulleungdo.
As I’ve said many times, you can’t interpret these old Korean maps literally. These maps weren’t 100% maps: they were part maps and part works of art. That’s the way maps were drawn in olden times. So, you can’t scrutinize them as fastidiously as you would modern maps.
Just because Dokdo wasn’t depicted accurately in old Korean maps, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.
Especially in national maps of Korea, if you see Usando next to Ulleungdo, it’s Dokdo, not Jukdo. Jukdo is just one of the little islets off the coast of Ulleungdo – it’s of no import. (As we’ve seen, in some close-up maps of Ulleungdo, Jukdo isn’t even given a name.) Dokdo, on the other hand, is the easternmost island in Korea and therefore very significant. Ulleungdo and Dokdo were considered “sister islands” in the vast sea, and that’s why they were drawn so close together.
Jk6411,
ReplyDeleteI am not politicizing anything. I am an American, not Japanese. I am just tired of you and Koreans lying about their maps and history.
So, according to you, the clearest Korean map to show that Usando (于山島) was Dokdo was the “Donggyeong San Cheon (東京山川) - Paldo Jido (八道地圖)”?
Well, here is a link to the “Donggyeong San Cheon (東京山川) - Paldo Jido (八道地圖)”, which shows Usando (于山도) as a single island just off Ulleungdo's (鬱陵島) east shore.
1) If the Usando on the map is Dokdo, then why does the map show it as single island instead of two? Dokdo is makeup of essentially two islets, not one. See HERE.
2) If the Usando on the map is Dokdo, then why does he map show it just off the east shore of Ulleungdo instead of 90 km southeast of Ulleungdo?
3) If the Usando on the map is Dokdo, then where is Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is just 2 km off Ulleungdo's east shore? See HERE.
4) If the Usando on the map is Dokdo, then why does the writing on the map mention only Ulleungdo as being 2 days away from Uljin by sea? If the Usando on the map were Dokdo, then wouldn't it have mentioned that it would take, at least, extra day to get to it, considering that it is 90 kilometers beyong Ulleungdo?
If that is the clearest map of Dokdo that Koreans have, then they have nothing.
Click HERE to see comparisons of the Usando on Korea's old maps to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島) and Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks).
In 1694, Jang Han-sang (張漢相) was sent to Ulleungdo to inspect the island. In his inspection report, he wrote that there was a small island 2 kilometers on the east shore of Ulleungdo that had haejang bamboo growing on one side. Here is what he wrote in his report, translated into Korean and English:
--------------
東方五里許 有一小島 不甚高大 海長竹叢生於一面
동쪽으로 5리 (2킬로) 쯤에 한 작은 섬이 있는데, 고대(高大)하지 않으며 해장죽 (海長竹)이 한쪽면에 무더기로 자라고 있다.
About five ri (2 km) to the east (of Ulleungdo) is one small island. It is not very big or very high, and it has a grove of haejang bamboo (海長竹) growing on one side.
----------------
In 1711, Ulleungdo Inspector Bak Seok-chang (朴錫昌) drew a map of Ulleungdo that showed a small island just off the east shore of Ulleundo labeled "the so-called Usando" (所謂 于山島 - 소위 우산도). Also, written on the island was "field of haejang bamboo" (海長竹田), which means that the island on the map was almost certain the island described as being 2 km offshore in Jang Han-sang's inspection report. See HERE.
Haejang bamboo can grow up to seven meters tall, and there is still haejang bamboo on Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도 - Bamboo Island), which, again, is a small island just 2 km off Ulleungdo's east shore. The bamboo does not grow on Dokdo because it does not have the soil.
The following video compares old Japanese and Korean maps. The Japanese knew about Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), which that called "Takeshima." They traveled to Liancourt Rocks and they mapped Liancourt Rocks. Koreans never mapped Liancourt Rocks never traveled there until the Japanese starting taking them there as deckhands on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s.
Link to Video
In 1900, under the reign of Emperor Kojong, the Great Han Empire of Korea issued the Korean Imperial Edict No. 41, placing then-Seokdo (Dokdo) under the jurisdiction of Uldo-gun (Ulleungdo). In 1906, Sim Heung-taek, Uldo-gun County Chief, was notified that the eastern islands of Korea had been incorporated into Japan by a survey team from Japan's Shimane Prefecture. Sim right after submitted a report to the Governor of the Gangwon-do (province) in ways to counter the ridiculous and self-contradictory act. In 1900 (in 37th year of the emperor Ko-Jong), the Korean Empire had promulgated the Korean Empire edict 41 in an official gazette of the Korean Empire with the purpose of administering and ruling suitably Ulleungdo and Seokdo (or Dokdo in Korea and Takeshima in Japan). The Korean imperial edict 41 in an official gazette of the Korean Empire had issued as "The Korean Empire in 1900(in 37th year of the emperor Ko-Jong) rename Ulleungdo island together with Seokdo islet (Dokdo islets) and Jukdo islet(竹島) as Uldo county“, and then had specified, as "designate the sphere of it's jurisdiction as the whole Ulleungdo island and both Jukdo(竹島) islet and Seokdo islet(石島)."
ReplyDeleteFootnote: Originally Liancourt Rock, or Seokdo islet(石島) was called as "Seokdo islet(石島)" in 1900s, but People of Cheollado who had emigrated from Cheollado in Korea to "Seokdo islet(石島)" had pronounced and called so "Seokdo islet(石島)" as "Dokseom(獨섬) in dialect of Cheollado, that is to say, 獨島(독도) in Chinese characters). Japan in Meiji era had disseized illegally Dokdo (Takeshima) by force of arms and bayonets with the purpose of constructing a military base of the great Japanese Empire shortly after Russia- Japan war. That is to say, the then government office of Shimane prefecture had promulgated Shimane Prefecture notification No. 40 in Feb. 1905 according to the enacted ordinance of Shimane prefecture of Japan, called as "Takeshima(竹島) was annexed to Shimaneken. On the basis of this fact, today, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan has asserted Dokdo (takeshima) as "Japan's territory". Truly truly if this Dokdo islet (Takeshima) had been a inherent territory of Japan, Intentionally has Japan been necessary to promulgate Shimane prefecture notification No. 40 that is called as "Takeshima(竹島) was annexed to Shimanek prefecture of Japan." in Feb. 1905? This Shimane prefecture notification No. 40, that is to say, is only a official forcible document that had disproved the fact that Japan in Meiji era had plundered Dokdo (Takeshima) from the great Korean Empire by force of arms and bayonets.
Writer: Sung Keong Hee
Translator: Shin Ho Lee
Japan in Meiji era had disseized illegally Dokdo (Takeshima) by force of arms and bayonets with the purpose of constructing a military base of the great Japanese Empire shortly after Russia- Japan war. That is to say, the then government office of Shimane prefecture had promulgated Shimane Prefecture notification No. 40 in Feb. 1905 according to the enacted ordinance of Shimane prefecture of Japan, called as "Takeshima(竹島) was annexed to Shimaneken. On the basis of this fact, today, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan has asserted Dokdo (takeshima) as "Japan's territory". Truly truly if this Dokdo islet (Takeshima) had been a inherent territory of Japan, Intentionally has Japan been necessary to promulgate Shimane prefecture notification No. 40 that is called as "Takeshima(竹島) was annexed to Shimanek prefecture of Japan." in Feb. 1905? This Shimane prefecture notification No. 40, that is to say, is only a official forcible document that had disproved the fact that Japan in Meiji era had plundered Dokdo (Takeshima) from the great Korean Empire by force of arms and bayonets.
ReplyDeleteHowever, The then Japan that had devised a plot in collusion with the United States of America had changed stealthily a territorial right of Korea about Dokdo (Takeshima) in a draft for the San Francisco Peace Treaty in to Japan. Shortly after that, because most of the allied powers including the Great British Empire had refused to change stealthily a territorial right of Korea about Dokdo (Takeshima) in a draft into Japan, Japan in accordance with a secret talks with a American official had excluded Dokdo (Takeshima) issue in a draft from 7th., San francisco peace talk for concluding San Francisco Peace Treaty on August 7th., 1950. At last, the final draft for Peace Treaty had been finalized on August 13th., 1951 and since then, 49 nations including the United States of America had concluded San Francisco peace Treaty with Japan on September 8th., 1951.
Chapter II, Article 2, (a) of the San Francisco Peace treaty is stipulated as "Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.". On the basis of Chapter II, Article 2, (a) of the San Francisco Peace treaty, Japan
insist on Japan's own way employing Machiavellian tactics that Dokdo (Takeshima) is a Japan's territory, because "Dokdo" is not only excluded in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, but also Dokdo is not a territory that shall be redelivered to Korea. If so, where is the basis that Dokdo is a territory of Japan, because Dokdo had been omitted in the San Francisco Peace Treaty? In general, it will be valid that Dokdo (Takeshima) is not only located on more nearer to Ulleungdo (Dagelet) than O-ki island in Shimane prefecture of Japan, but also Dokdo interpret as a territory of Korea, because Ulleungdo (Dagelet) can be interpreted to include all of large and small islands and islets in the vicinity of Ulleungdo.
Writer: Seong Kyeong Hee
Translator: Lee Shin Ho
이신호 씨,
ReplyDeleteMany Japanese know that most Koreans cannot read the San Francisco Peace Treaty correctly. You had added a good example of it through your comment above.
PART 1
ReplyDeleteWho cares about American secret and selfish policy over Dokdo based on American interests? SF Peace Treaty was between Japan and the Allied Powers, not America. American government pretended to support Japanese claim over Dokdo through Rusk Note, but Rusk Note was a American confidential document conveyed only to Korea. The Japanese believe the Peace Treaty gave them Dokdo because of Rusk Note. Rusk Note was nothing but a US secret position regarding Dokdo in favor of Japan's claim during the peace treaty negotiations.
Rusk Note was never made public.
If America truly supported Japan's territorial claim over Dokdo, why didn't America officially support Japanese claim over Dokdo?
Why didn't America let Japan know she supported Japanese claim over Dokdo through Rusk Note?
Why didn't America let the Allied Powers know she supported Japanese claim over Dokdo by making it public?
Why didn't America let the SF Peace Treaty final draft stipulate Dokdo as Japanese land if she truly supported Japan's claim over Dokdo?
Has Dokdo formally left to Japan by San Francisco Peace Treaty?
Who said so? There's no any mention of Dokdo in SF Peace Treaty draft.
As to the Rhee line, it was a legitimate measures taken to proclaim the right over territorial waters to protect fishery and other natural resources within its adjacent waters and to maintain peace between South Korea and Japan. Rhee's Declaration of "Sovereignty Over Neighboring Seas" was an affirmative action he took as a president of sovereign state and an independent state. President Rhee did the best for his country in the matter of Dokdo.
In part 2, I'll reveal what Japan's MOFA doesn't like to tell about the designation of Dokdo as a US bombing range.
Reply for the new inquiries of sloww
ReplyDeleteIn the drafts of the Sanfrancisco peace treaty of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth preliminary talk, Dokdo (Takeshima) is clearly inscribed as "Korean territory" as “Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island (Utsuryo) Island and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima).” In spite of that, before concluding completely the Sanfrancisco peace treaty I know that Syngman Rhee Government had received reply of dean Rusk Note. That is why after talking in secret meeting between the United States and Japan Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima) was completely excluded from the Sanfrancisco peace treaty such as "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." By the way, You had asked, as "Who cares about American secret and selfish policy over Dokdo based on American interests?“
Shortly after a secret meeting between the U. S. and Japan, Dokdo islet that in a draft for San Francisco Peace Dokdo was included, but in the final San Francisco peace treaty, Dokdo islet was deleted as a Korean territory. In a draft for the San Francisco peace treaty that was written on March 19th., 1947, Dokdo islet was included : Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island (Utsuryo) Island and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima). But in the final San Francisco Peace Treaty that was issued on September 8th., 1951, Dokdo was deleted 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.
The reason why Dokdo was deleted from the final San Francisco Peace Treaty was because Dean Rusk Note was a secret information document. Because I believe Dean Rusk Note was already publicized after the time of 61 years have passed. I don't grasp why Dean Rusk Note was forced to be a secret information document. I am sure that the reason why Dokdo islet was deleted from the final San Francisco Peace Treaty is because Dean Rusk supported Takeshima as a Japan's territory. How about my opinion?
Why didn't America officially support Japanese claim over Dokdo? The reason is because Dean Rusk Note was a Secret information that America recognize or support Dokdo islet as a Japan's territory after a secret meeting.
Why didn't America let Japan know she supported Japanese claim over Dokdo through Rusk Note?
The reason is the same as the above mentions.
Why didn't America let the Allied Powers know she supported Japanese claim over Dokdo by making it public?
The reason is the same as the above mentions.
Why didn't America let the SF Peace Treaty final draft stipulate Dokdo as Japanese land if she truly supported Japan's claim over Dokdo?
The reason is because Dean Rusk Note was a Secret information that America recognize or support Dokdo islet as a Japan's territory after a secret meeting.
Has Dokdo formally left to Japan by San Francisco Peace Treaty? Who said so?"
It is not that I said so.
After that. you said like this "There's no any mention of Dokdo in SF Peace Treaty raft."
I didn't say such a words. Please don't say like that.
November 18th., 2012.
No matter what the reasons were, Japanese government's lobbying or US strategic interests, it was true US strongly supported Japan's claim on Dokdo through the Rusk Note, but Rusk Note has a critical weakness for Japan to use as a strong base for claiming Dokdo was given to Japan in the SF PeaceTreaty. Rusk Note was a US confidential memorandum sent only to Korea. Peace Treaty is about the agreement between Japan and the Allied Powers, not between Japan and US. It wasn't delivered either to Japan or to the Allied Powers.
ReplyDelete1. Even the US Embassy in Korea didn't know about Rusk Note.
On Oct.3 1952, the First Secretary of the American Embassy in Tokyo, John M. Steeves on behalf of Ambassador to Japan, Robert Murphy sent a despatch No.659 entitled "Koreans on Liancourt Rocks" to the US State Department and its copy to US Embassy in Korea. In this letter, Mr. Steeves wrote as follows:
" ...The history of these rocks has been reviewed more than once by the Department, and does not need extensive recounting here. The rocks, witch are fertile seal breeding grounds,
were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea. They were, of course, annexed together with the remaining terrritory 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 Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet", the drafters of the treaty did not include these islands with the area to be renounced. Japan has, and with reason, assumed that its sovereignty still extends over these islands. For obvious reasons, the Koreans have disputed this assumption."
I have tried to post a image original documents of Dean Rusk Note, a image original documents of Dean Rusk Note can not be pasted to post on my comment and separately I can not post it's image original document file anywhere in this page.
2. Rusk Note was never made public.
In his report to the President Eisenhower in August 1954, Van Fleet(a US special mission ambassador) wrote on the "Ownership of Dokto Island".
"The Island of Dokdo (otherwise called Liancourt and Take Shima) is in the Sea of Japan approximately midway between Korea and Honshu(131.80E, 36.20N). This Island is, in fact,
only a group of barren, uninhabited rocks. When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the Republic of Korea asserted its claims to Dokto but the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the islands thatJapan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty. The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory. we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that might properly be referred to the International Court of Jaustice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea."
On November 18th., 2012
To Mr. 이신호
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment for me.
My writing 'Part1' wasn't an inquiry for answers and I didn't ask you anything. I think you misunderstood what I wrote. My comment was refuting the above posting. What I tried to say was Rusk Note was completely invalid. Anyway, I was impressed by your sincere concern on Dokdo and most of what you wrote was right.
--------------------------------
You wrote "The reason why Dokdo was deleted from the final San Francisco Peace Treaty was because Dean Rusk Note was a secret information document." I think the fact Rusk Note was a secret document was not directly related to the reason Dokdo was left out of final draft of SF Peace Treaty.
Influenced by the Acting Political Advisor in Japan William J. Sebald who was extremely favorable to Japan, U.S. government wanted to put Dokdo within Japanese territory.
In his note to the U.S. Secretary of State dated on Nov. 14, 1949, William J. Sebald stated as follows:
"Recommend reconsideration Liancourt Rocks(Takeshima), Japan´s claim to these islands is old and appears valid. Security considerations might conceivably envisage weather and radar stations thereon."
Mr. Sebald´s views on Dokdo´s sovereignty based on interests to Japan and U.S. influenced the U.S. 6,8,9th draft to include Dokdo as Japanese land.
However, the United Kingdom opposed to U.S. draft including Dokdo as Japanese land. The draft of United Kingdom clearly placed Dokdo outside of Japan´s territory.
The British map showing definition of Japanese territory is here.
The San Francisco Peace Treaty was the agreement between Japan and the Allied Powers, not between Japan and America. American diplomats failed to persuade
the Allied Powers to give Dokdo to Japan. That's why Dokdo was left out on final joint draft of Peace Treaty. But because Dokdo was the Korean land Imperial Japan took by greed in 1905, it was returned to Korea.
To: Mr. sloww
ReplyDeleteThank you four good new facts that is related with Dokdo. For the first time I am anxious to hear your nationality and job from you right now. And also Are you a professor in university or director of the Dokdo historic Institute in Korea. I agree with you concerning the fact that Rusk Note was completely invalid. Yesterday I have read Dean Rusk Note and Yang Yu Chan Note and I could grasp the fact of between Dean Rusk and Yang Yu Chan. I could grasp on Nevember 19th., 2012 the fact the fact Rusk Note was a secret document was not directly related to the reason Dokdo was left out of final draft of SF Peace Treaty. Influenced by the Acting Political Advisor in Japan William J. Sebald who was extremely favorable to Japan, U.S. government wanted to put Dokdo within Japanese territory.
You said as "The San Francisco Peace Treaty was the agreement between Japan and the Allied Powers, not between Japan and America. American diplomats failed to persuade the Allied Powers to give Dokdo to Japan. That's why Dokdo was left out on final joint draft of Peace Treaty. But because Dokdo was the Korean land Imperial Japan took by greed in 1905, it was returned to Korea." In a draft for the San Francisco peace treaty that was written on March 19th., 1947, Dokdo islet was included : Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island (Utsuryo) Island and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima). But in the final San Francisco Peace Treaty that was issued on September 8th., 1951, Dokdo was deleted in 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.
If so, Did which country delete Dokdo islet as Korea's territory in Chapter II. Territory - Article 2 (a) of the San francisco Peace treaty ? I want to know about the fact that which country deleted Dokdo islet as Korea's territory in Chapter II. Territory - Article 2 (a) the San francisco Peace treaty.
Thank a lot for your new facts what you say. I am still searching and studying the fact about the historic true facts.
On November 20th., 2012
Mr. Lee
Mr. Lee
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to know you. I'm neither a professor nor a direct of Dokdo institudes. Like you, I'm studying things related to Dokdo and trying to tell the truth about sovereignty issue about Dokdo between Korea and Japan. You can get some valuable information on Dokdo issue at http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/ and http://dokdo-research.com/. You can send me 이메일 if you need.
-----------------------
You wrote ".... which country delete Dokdo islet as Korea's territory in Chapter II. Territory - Article 2 (a) of the San francisco Peace treaty?"
i'm certain it's not correct to say Dokdo as Korea's territory was deleted from Article 2 (a) of SF Peace treaty. American position toward Korean sovereignty on Dokdo was changed after William J. Sebald's intervention to include Dokdo as Japanese territory but the other Allied Powers didn't want include Dokdo as Japanese territory. As a result, Dokdo was not specifically mentioned in the final draft of the SF Peace Treaty because of the disagreement between America and Allied Powers.
Thank you so much for informative data and facts, which helped me to make it sure again about Ulleungdo's Jukdo. The Tokugawa Family, which allowed the Tsushima Domain to have commercial trade with the Chosun Dynasty with about 3,000 men working in Pusan, laboriously tried to prohibit Japanese fishermen from landing for water and other provisions on the Jukdo, adjacent to the bigger Ulleungdo island. Its prohibition notice was erroneously contended to be a sign that the Tokugawa Family had appeared to abandon its island nation's claim to the current Jukdo (Takeshima), or forcefully-occupied Dokdo, "92 km southeast of Ulleungdo and is essentially two islands, not one." Academic kudos to your efforts in shedding light on these complex nomenclatures.
ReplyDeleteHello, Fumeo.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have misunderstood something.
草梁倭館 was irrelevant to the topic under discussion.
From the very beginning, You have the mistaken idea that 竹嶼(chiksho) is 竹島(Jukdo/chikutou).
You can't read Japanese document, can you?