“Introduction to Dokdo Issue (獨島問題概論)”(1955)
ANNEX 6
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 engine airplane described as being under the Command of the United States Forces in the Far East dropped bombs on Dokto 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 Dokto island as a bombing range, etc.
American Embassy,
Pusan, December 4, 1952
Note that it ends with “etc”. If you see other documents in the Annex, they add “etc” for the section they omitted mainly because it has not direct relationship with the Issue of Dokdo/Takeshima. However, As was shown in the previous post, original American official Note No.187 dated on 4th Dec. 1952 had contained the part of notification of Rusk Note following the bombing matter and it clearly denied ROK claim on Dokdo and warned her that U.S. considered Takeshima/Dokdo is Japanese territory. ROK government apparently blotted out to conceal the fact that their claim on Dokdo had been already rejected by U.S. , leaving the islets to Japan, from its own diplomats. Check the original document below.
“American Embassy’s Note Verbale No.187” dates on 4th Dec. 1952.
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 engine airplane described as being under the Command of the United States Forces in the Far East dropped bombs on Dokto 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 Dokto 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
As has told in the previous post, ROK government used the fact that U.S.’s suspension of the bombing on Liancourt Rocks after Korean fishermen/women were almost killed on 15th September, 1952. The document was thus included in the book for the purpose to reinforce their logic. However, Takeshima was finally decided to be released from bombing range by the U.S. & Japan Joint Committee on 19 Mar., 1953, not Korea-U.S. Committee, because of the petition by Shimane Prefecture.
Although Rusk Note went to public on April 1978, even today, Korean government keeps telling lies, such as Usando is Dokdo’s old name, to its own people and never stops illegal occupation on Japanese islets. The only way for innocent Korean people to escape from deception by its own government is to see the first-hand historical documents and old maps which are available on this blog.
The original idea of this “discovery” was brought by yabutarou and the photocopies of the book was provided by matsu. It was discussed on this blog on January 2010.
Related posts and links;
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 - Jul 26 - The Japan-U.S. Joint Committee designated Takeshima as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces (The Ministry of Foreign Affairs published this fact in the official gazette.)
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.")
1952 - Dec 4 - “American Embassy’s Note Verbale No.187” - U.S. iterates Rusk Note to ROK.
(American Embassy in Busan gave South Korean Government an official notification that Takeshima is not Korean territory by reminding Dean Rusk’s Note on 9th August, 1951, which rejected Korea’s demand for Takeshima/Dokdo. )
1953 - Mar 19 - Japan U.S. Joint Committee decided to release Takeshima from the designation of a bombing range for the U.S. Forcese
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)
スターマイン！ たまやぁ～
ReplyDelete한국 정부 외무부는,국민들에 대해서는 물론, 부내 직원들에 대해서도,독도는 일본 땅이라고 통지해 왔던 미국의 러스크서한을 은폐 하고 있었다.
한국 정부 외무부는,국민들에 대해서는 물론, 부내 직원들에 대해서도,독도는 일본 땅이라고 통지해 왔던 미국의 러스크서한을 은폐 하고 있었다.
한국 정부 외무부는,국민들에 대해서는 물론, 부내 직원들에 대해서도,독도는 일본 땅이라고 통지해 왔던 미국의 러스크서한을 은폐 하고 있었다.
한국 정부 외무부는,국민들에 대해서는 물론, 부내 직원들에 대해서도,독도는 일본 땅이라고 통지해 왔던 미국의 러스크서한을 은폐 하고 있었다.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt’s ture most Korean didn’t know what the Rusk Letter was until Japanese government tried to flame the Dokdo issue by allowing the Japanese history books describing Korea is unlawfully occupying Dokdo, which is not true. Now most Koreans who are concerned with Dokdo know about Rusk Note. Japanese say Rusk Note is an international law which proves Dokdo belongs to Japan. You should know Rusk Note was sent only to Korean ambassador in secret without agreement of allied countries. According to Potsdam, it was the allied countries that could decide the territory of Japan. So Rusk Note has no significance as a international law. Then you may ask why Korean government were reluctant to let the Korean know the Rusk Note? So far, Korean government and Korean people didn’t like to make a fuss about Dokdo issue because we believe Dokdo is Korean territory, . And Korean government was afraid of anti-Americanism after many Korean knew what American government did about Dokdo. But now we are different because of Japanese aggressive claim about Dokdo I wonder why Japanese government is revealing Japanese government document in 1877 which reported Japan has nothing to do with Dokdo.
ReplyDeleteSloww,
ReplyDeleteJapanese do not say such inconsistent claim like that “Rusk Note is an international law”. You had better study about the relation between Rusk Note and Treaty of Peace with Japan.
You should know Rusk Note was the rejecting answer to the Korean Government who asked to U.S. to put Dokdo in Korean territory.
Korean Government could announce Rusk Note officially if they want to do so. The reason they did not is because they did knew that Rusk Note was right.
Also,Japanese government document in 1877 has nothing to do with Takeshima-Dokdo issue because it does not say “Japan has nothing to do with Dokdo”.
You can not learn precise knowledge about Takeshima-Dokdo issue through the informations in Korea,for example,"truthofdokdo.com".
Chaamiey
ReplyDeleteI have seen so many Japanese people who proudly mention Rusk Note an international law justifying their claim. I’m glad you know what the Rusk Note means. You may agree Rusk Letter is not backing up Japanese claim at all. Then why does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan say like this, “based on this correspondence, it is obvious that Takeshima was affirmed as a territory of Japan” in its homepage.
Korean government didn’t announce Rusk Note officially because they didn’t want to. Why did they have to? Korean government has pursued the so called quite diplomacy which was proved to be wrong.
Japanese government document of 1877 is very significant because it acknowledged Dokdo as territory of Korea.
「ラスク書簡」は連合国の同意を得ていないから無効だと言われるが、1951年5月3日付け草案は米英共同でまとめられたものだし、さらに1951年6月14日付けで米英共同草案の改訂版がまとめられている。それは連合国に送付され意見を求めている。韓国は連合国ではなかったが、草案を示されている。竹島の帰属を朝鮮とすべしとの異論は韓国以外には出されていない。「ラスク書簡」は連合国の意向を踏まえ、米国が追加調査したうえで駐米韓国大使からの要請に対する回答を送ったものであって、米国の独断によるものではない。この客観的な事実を捻じ曲げ、米国の策略を疑うホサカ氏の論こそ陰謀論と言わねばならない。
ReplyDeleteそういう無理をしなければならないのも、歴史的にも国際法上も韓国に領有の根拠がないのに韓国領だと言い張り続けているからだ。朝鮮が統治していた事実があるならそれを示せばよい。しかし今に至るもそれは提示されていない。むしろ、朝鮮の統治が及んでいなかったこと、あるいは自国領と認識していなかったことが客観的事実により示されてきている。残るは韓国の、韓国社会の認識だけだ。たとえば1900年の大韓帝国勅令第四十一号の「石島」こそ独島だと主張しているが、この勅令の請議書（http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2010/02/1900-oct-22-petition-by.html ）によれば欝島郡守の管轄範囲は縦32km、横20kmとしている。竹島は鬱陵島の南東92kmにある島だ。つまり竹島は欝郡守の管轄範囲外であり、朝鮮の版図外と朝鮮政府が認識していたことを証明する証拠だ。つまり「512年からの朝鮮領」との主張が大嘘だったということであり、抗議できなかったのでなく抗議する必要がなかったというのが本当のところだ。
客観的事実を見ようとせず、「独島は韓国の領土」との妄想を正当化する材料ばかりを集めて世論を煽る韓国のマスコミや、それを許している韓国社会にこそ問題があるのではないか。
まとめると、日本の竹島領有主張は1905年の国際法に則った編入に依拠し、サンフランシスコ講和条約でも日本が放棄する領域から除外されている。すなわち竹島の帰属先は日本で確定している。一方、韓国の主張には法的な裏付けがない。法的な根拠を持たない韓国が、条約によって確定している日本の領土を武力を以て占拠しているのが、竹島問題なのだ。これは国際法の原則に照らしてみるならば「実効支配」などでなく「不法占拠」としか言いようがない。
Sloww
ReplyDelete>I have seen so many Japanese people who proudly mention Rusk Note an international law justifying their claim.
Rusk note is effective as the supplementary for the interpretation of the SF paece treaty in the international law.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Article 32
Supplementary means of interpretation
Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:
sloww,
ReplyDeleteMOFA says “Based on this correspondence, it is evident that Takeshima was affirmed as part of the territory of Japan”. It does not say “Rusk Note is an international law” as you wrote.
You can not prove that Japanese government document in 1877 says “Japan has nothing to do with Dokdo”.
You can not learn precise knowledge about Takeshima-Dokdo issue through the distorted informations in Korea.
opp
ReplyDeleteRusk Note was sent to Korean ambassador in secret without the agreement of the allied nations. It was the judgement made by America alone. According to Potsdam Declaration, the allied nations were supposed to decide the territory of Japan.
Vienna Convention Article 31
(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty;
(b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.
If the allied nations agreed with American position, there could be no problem in clearly including Dokdo as territory of Japan in the San Franciso Treaty.
And if you insist Rusk Note is effective as international law, SCAPIN No.677 is more and the most effective document that Dokdo is not territory of Japan.
After peace treaty, in 1951, Japanese government sumitted 日本領域圖 to衆議院which marked Dokdo as territory of Korea which means the acceptance of peach treaty. Now Japanese government is insisting international law is supporting Japanese claim because of Rusk Note?
Chaamiey
ReplyDeleteYou don't say anything about what MOFA said. That's fine.
Let me tell you about the Japanese government document in 1877.
In 1877, when asked if 竹島 and 松島 should be incorporated into 島根県, 太政官 said '竹島外一島の儀、本邦関係これなし' after inspection. How do we know 外一島 is Dokdo? The attached document says '外一島' is called 松島 and described the 外一島 in detail. The attached map '磯竹島略圖' marked Dokdo prcisely.
太政官指令文 was revealed by the professor
堀和生 of Kyoto University in 1987.
If you want the pictures of document and map, ask me.
sloww,
ReplyDeleteIf you want to say something about the Dajoukan order of 1877, there are many old Japanese documents and maps which you should read or see.
The Dajoukan order of 1877 is not intelligible material simply, though you intend to have understood it.
But, even if you study about old Japanese document and old maps as anything eagerly, you can not prove that The Dajoukan order in 1877 says “Japan has nothing to do with Takeshima/Dokdo”.
Chaamiey
ReplyDeleteI think I already proved it.
Anyway, thanks.
>Rusk Note was sent to Korean ambassador in secret without the agreement of the allied nations. It was the judgement made by America alone.
ReplyDeleteVienna Convention Article 31
48 countries have agreed on the San Francisco treaty. Who did say that Rusk note is a treaty？ Who did say that the international law need the agreement for the "supplementary means of interpretation" ?
>SCAPIN677
ReplyDeletePresent South Korea has lost the power of the "administration" of the US Forces base and Japanese embassy in South Korea. Do you think that Korea lost her sovereignty of these territories?
Japan lost her power of the administration of the Takeshima by SCAPIN677. But this doesn't mean the lost her Sovereignty.
-------------------------
PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie
ADMINISTRATION AND SOVEREIGNTY
It may happen that the process of government over an area, with the concomitant privileges and duties, falls into the hands of another state. Thus after the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War the four major Allied powers assumed supreme power in Germany. The legal competence of German state did not, however, disappear. What occurred is akin to legal representation or agency of necessity. The German state continued to existence. The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty. A similar case, recognized by the customary law for a very long time, is that of the belligerent occupation of enemy territory in time of war. The important features of ’sovereignty’ in such cases are the continued existence of legal personality and the attribution of territory to that legal person and not to holders for the time being.
-------------------------
It seems that your knowledge of the international law is poor.
opp
ReplyDeleteI don’t get your point.
You should explain in easier way for me if you want.
I didn’t say SCAPIN677 is an international law as strong evidence Dokdo is Korean territory. I said if you insist Rusk Note is effective as international law, SCAPIN No.677 is more and the most effective international document that Dokdo is not territory of Japan.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete>if you insist Rusk Note is effective as international law
ReplyDeleteThe interpretation of SF treaty based on international law
The interpretation of SF treaty based on international law
STEP1
48 countries who signed the treaty has agreed with the contents of the SF treaty.
STEP2
The South Korean ambassador letter to US, SCAPIN677 and so on distinguished Takeshima and Ulleungdo. These evidences prove that the ordinary meaning of "Ulleungdo" in the article2 of the SF treaty didn't contain Takeshima. Then SF treaty didn't contain Takeshima as a Japanese renunciation territory. And Japan recovered her full sovereignty of Takeshima according to the article 1(b) of the treaty.(interpretation according to the Vienna Convention Article 31)
STEP3
The letter of the author of a treaty(Rusk note) reconfirm the meaning of treaty which was showed in STEP2.(interpretation according to the Vienna Convention Article 32)
STEP4
It considers that 48 countries who signed the treaty has agreed including the meaning of STEP2.
Can you understand? You should read judicial precedents and textbook of a treaty interpretation.
opp
ReplyDeleteYou are not responding to my question accordingly.
I didn’t ask about SF Treaty.
Don’t try to be looked like you know much by writing a lot of things which are unrelated to the question.
Read Vienna Convention Article 31 I put in previous comment again, then you wll know why Rusk Note can’t be effective international law.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteopp
ReplyDeleteYou are not responding to my question accordingly.
I didn’t ask about SF Treaty.
Read Vienna Convention Article 31 I put in previous comment again, then you know why Rusk Note can’t be effective as international law.
Article 31 is regulations of the treaty itself. Article 32 is regulations for the supplement of the interpretation of a treaty.
ReplyDeleteRusk note is effective as the supplement of the interpretation of the SF treaty. Then article 31 is noting to do with the validity of rusk note.
Even 金明基 who is a Korean ultra nationalistic scholar of the international law admitted rusk note as the supplement of the interpretation of a SF treaty based on article 32.
I must say that you cannot understand even the difference between a treaty and a supplement for the interpretation of the treaty. And your knowledge of the international law is poor.
opp
ReplyDeleteTo be supplementary according Article 32, the supplement of interpretation should be resulted from the application of article 31.
Article 32 Supplementary means of interpretation Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:
(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.
I must say your knowledge of the international law is poor,too.
>To be supplementary according >Article 32, the supplement of >interpretation should be resulted >from the application of article 31.
ReplyDeleteI can't understand your selfish rule. Please show me the Judicial precedent which support your strange logic.
First the treaty interprets in the usual term of the a treaty. Second, the meaning is reconfirmed by the supplement.
This is normal procedure for the interpretation. See Interpretation of the Convention of 1919 Concerning Employment of Women During the Night (PCIJ)
An interpretation by the text of the SF treaty and Rusk note are adjusted. If you claim that it is clear that Japan did not renounce Takeshima without Rusk note, I will agree with you.
Interpretation of the SF treaty based on the Article 31
ReplyDeleteArticle 31
General rule of interpretation
1.A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
The ordinary meaning of the geographical term is as follows.
Legal Status of Eastern Greenland
This is a point as to which the burden of proof lies on Norway. The geographical meaning of the word "Greenland", i.e. the name which is habitually used in the maps to denominate the whole island, must be regarded as the ordinary meaning of the word. If it is alleged by one of the Parties that some unusual or exceptional meaning is to be attributed to it, it lies on that Party to establish its contention. In the opinion of the Court, Norway has not succeeded in establishing her contention.
SF treaty is as follows.
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.
Geographical area of the term of "Dagelet(Ulleungdo) " is important for the interpretation of the SF treaty. However, it is very easy to prove this.
The Korean Ambassador to the Secretary of State, Washington, July 19, 1951.
1.My Government requests that the word “renounces” in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by “confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo.”
Even South Korea recognized Ulreungdo and Takeshima are another islands. From distance, it can say tht Takeshima is not belonging island of Ulleungdo too.
Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia)
The Court observes that these three islands are surrounded by many smaller islands that could be said to "belong" to them geographically. The Court, however, considers that this cannot apply to Ligitan and Sipadan, which are situated more than 40 nautical miles away from the three islands in question.
Then, If you claim that it is clear that Japan did not renounce Takeshima without Rusk note, I will agree with you.
opp
ReplyDeleteTo be supplementary according >Article 32, the supplement of >interpretation should be resulted >from the application of article 31.
→ This is not what I said. I just cited Article 32.
I’m sorry I didn’t get your point. You may try again.
I have nothing against SF Treaty. As the result of SF Treaty, Dokdo became Koeran territory again.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete>I just cited Article 32.
ReplyDeleteSee my article on 16/10/11 00:07. Rusk note confirmed this result. It consistent completely with 32 articles. Do you want to say that Rusk note is effective as supplementary means? If you say so, I will agree with you.
>As the result of SF Treaty, Dokdo became Koeran territory again.
You want to think so. But the truth differs from your wish. SF treaty never say so. See my article on 16/10/11 00:07.
Sloww,
ReplyDeleteUS Secretary of State Dean Rusk rejected Korean claims to Dokdo in an August 9, 1951 letter, in which he wrote the following:
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.
That is why Dokdo was not included among the territory returned to Korea in Article 2a of the 1952 Treaty of Peace with Japan. Here is the relevant part from the treaty:
Article 1
(b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.
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.
Notice that Dokdo was not included among the territory that Japan was to renounce, even though Korea had requested that it be included.
Then, in his 1954 post-mission report of the Far East, US Special Mission Ambassador James Van Fleet wrote the following:
The Island of Dokto (otherwise called Liancourt and TakeShima) 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 that Japan 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 the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea.
The above confirms that the United States did, in fact, recognize Takeshima (Dokdo) as Japanese territory and also believed that the 1952 treaty did, as well.
Korea has no old maps of Dokdo or any documents showing that Koreans ever visited the island before the Japanese started taking them there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s.
Boggs is an American geographer.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------
DATE: July 16、 1951
TO: NA - Mr. Fearey
FROM: OIR/GE - Mr. Boggs
[snip]
If it is decided to give them to Korea, it would be necessary only to add "and Liancourt Rocks" the end of Art.2,par.(a).
*original source is here and here
-----------------------------
This shows that the term of "Dagelet(Ulleungdo)" doesn't have the meaning of Takeshima geographically and Japan didn't renounce Takeshima at the SF treaty.
Gerry
ReplyDeleteI found new materials about SF treaty from the "Tokto charyo: Miguk pyon" which was published from 国史編纂委員会.
Steve quotes ambiguous Bogg's memo here, and he makes the story.
But Boggs had sent the detailed memo agan after three days.
Original is here and here
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletecorrection
ReplyDeleteOriginal of Boggs's new memo is here and here
Opp,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting letter, and the following phrase is the most interesting part of it:
If it is decided to give them to Korea, it would be necessary only to add "and Liancourt Rocks" at the end of Art. 2, par. (a).
Of course, "and Liancourt Rocks" was not added to the end of Art. 2, par. (a) of the treaty, which is even more evidence, if anymore were needed, to show that the 1952 treaty recognized Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory.
Thank you for sharing that letter, Opp.
Gerry Bevers
ReplyDeleteThat is why Dokdo was not included among the territory returned to Korea in Article 2a of the 1952 Treaty of Peace with Japan
--> Even though America recognized Dokdo as Japanese territory in Rusk Note, Rusk Note wasn’t reflected in SF Treaty. Because this letter was confidentially sent to only Korea and not to the Allied Nations. If SF final drafts was made based on the Rusk Note, why wasn’t Dokdo specified as Japanese territory? Other Allied Nations such as UK, New Zealand and Canada didn't agree with U.S. policy over Dokdo.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-japan-peace-treaty-and-dokdo.html
The early U.S. drafts of SF Treaty specified Dokdo as Korean territory and later U.S. drafts specified Dokdo as Japan's territory, but the final joint draft omitted Dokdo. This shows there was disagreement between nations resulting in ommitting Dokdo.
The fact Dokdo was not included among islands Japan should renounce desn't mean Dokdo is Japanese territory. Other hundreds of Korean islands were not mentioned, either.
SF Treaty regarding Japanese territory was based on the Potsdam Declaration as Mr. Dulles said in his speech at SF Treaty Conference. In his speech, he never mentioned anything related to Rusk Note, instead he stated:
“What is the territory of Japanese sovereignty? Chapter II deals with that. Japan formally ratifies the territorial provisions of the Potsdam Surrender Terms, provisions which, so far as Japan is concerned, were actually carried into effect 6 years ago.”…The Potsdam Surrender Terms constitute the only definition of peace terms to which, and by which, Japan and the Allied Powers as a whole are bound. There have been some private understandings between some Allied Governments; but by these Japan was not bound, nor were other Allies bound. Therefore, the treaty embodies article 8 of the Surrender Terms which provided that Japanese sovereignty should be limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and some minor islands. “
Mr. Dulles’ speech represented the official U.S.Policy over Japan's territory.
Do you know the 일본영역도 which was put in the Mainichi Newspaper in 1952 after SF Treaty? This map shows Dokdo as Korean territory, which means Dokdo was thought as territory of Korean in Japan.
In Mr. Dulles's report in 1954, America confirms her position supporting Japanese claim to Dokdo.
--> Yes, he does, but he wrote:
"The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public."
This indicates U.S. never openly, officially supported Japan's claim to Dokdo. Again,Rusk Note has nothing to do with SF Treaty by Allied Nations.
There are some papers showing contradiction or inconsistence of U.S. to the statement made in Rusk Note and U.S. positions over territorial ownership based on her interests. I can give you information about this, if you want.
In conclusion, Rusk Note is just U.S. position over Dokdo during the early 1950s in secret and it is not a strong background for Japanese claim over Dokdo today.
Korea has no old maps of Dokdo or any documents showing that Koreans ever visited the island before the Japanese started taking them there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s.
--> This means the history of Takeshima started from early 1900s and Japan never claimed Dokdo as her territory before 1905, right? That’s fine. Old Korean maps would be useless to you because you don’t trust them. Instead, there are many old Japanese maps and documents proving Dokdo belongs to Korea.
[sloww]
ReplyDeleteIf SF final drafts was made based on the Rusk Note, why wasn't Dokdo specified as Japanese territory?
The fact Dokdo was not included among islands Japan should renounce desn't mean Dokdo is Japanese territory.
--------------------------------------------------------
[fact]
U.S. – U.K. Meeting on April 25, 1951
The Americans would prefer a wording which emphasized the full sovereignty of Japan such territory as we should leave her and, exclude by name from her sovereignty and only such territory and islands as might be necessary to avoid confusion.
SF treaty
Article 1 (b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.
--------------------------------------------------------
The fact Takeshima was not included among islands Japan should renounce means Japanese full sovereignty by article 1(b).
[Slaww]
Other Allied Nations such as UK, New Zealand and Canada didn't agree with US policy over Dokdo.
------------------------
[fact]
U.S. – U.K. Meeting on May 2, 1951
Both Delegations agreed that it would be preferable to specify only the territory over which Japan was renouncing sovereignty. In this connection, United States Article 3 would require the insertion of the three islands Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT
(a) More precise information concerning the disposition of former Japanese territories, e.g., the Paracel, Volcano and Marcus and Izu Islands, is requested.
It is thought that the islands of the Inland Sea, Oki Retto, Sado, Okujiri, IRebun, Riishiri, Tsushima, Takeshima, the Goto Archipelago, the northernmost Ryukyus, and the Izus, all long recognized as Japanese, would be retained by Japan.
Commentary on Draft Treaty by the Department of State on June 1, 1951
New Zealand
"In view of the need to ensure that none of the islands near Japan is left in disputed sovereignty, the New Zealand Government favors the precise delimitation by latitude and longitude of the territory to be retained by Japan as suggested in Article 1 of the United Kingdom's draft. The adoption of this device could for example make it clear that the Habomai Islands and Shikotan at present under Russian occupation will remain with Japan."
------------------------
UK has been convinced by renunciation of three islands. New Zealand suggested about the regular method. Australia comfirmed detailed information. Did they go against “US policy over Takeshima”?
[Sloww]
Do you know the 일본영역도 which was put in the Mainichi Newspaper in 1952 after SF Treaty?
Does a private newspaper have priority over national representation with full power in Korean rule? It differs in international law.
[Sloww]
ReplyDeleteNote, Rusk Note wasn't reflected in SF Treaty.
--------------------------------------------------------
1. Draft on June 14, 1951 (US distributed this Draft to Korea)
“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.”
2. Korean demand against the draft
My Government requests that the word “renounces” in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by “confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo.
4.Rusk note
5.Final text of the treaty
“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 sentence of draft on June 14, 1951 was completely the same as final text. Therefore it can say that the Rusk note had already reflected the territorial sentence of the article2 of the SF treaty.
[Sloww]
ReplyDeleteOther hundreds of Korean islands were not mentioned, either.
This is the same as the claim of the Korean government of the 1950s. However, this opinion is contradictory to the correction demand of South Korea to a draft.
--------------------------------------------------------
Korean demand against the draft
My Government requests that the word “renounces” in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by “confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo.
--------------------------------------------------------
South Korea has only mentioned Dokdo(Takeshima) and Parangdo. She did not mention other hundreds of islands. South Korea recognized that the position of Takeshima is different from other islands technically and geographically. Furthermore, other Korean islands can be considered as follows on international law.
1.Korea acquired the title of other islands by the peaceful effective control after SF treaty.
2.Most islands are in less than 3 nautical miles from a peninsula, Quelpart, Port Hamilton or Dagelet. Japan renounced other islands by the SFtreaty as a legal unit of these territories.
Of course, this legal theory is inapplicable to Takeshima.
Gerry Bevers
ReplyDeleteIf it is decided to give them to Korea, it would be necessary only to add "and Liancourt Rocks" at the end of Art. 2, par. (a).
-->
How come do you conclude this sentence is in favor of Japan?
Mr. Boggs suggests to use the name of Liancourts Rocks instead of other name such as Takeshima if U.S.decides Dokdo as Koran territory because Japan says :
"while there is a Korean name for Dagelet, none exists for the Liancourts Rocks and they are not shown in the maps made in Korea, ",
He consistently included Dokdo as the territory Japan should renounce. He didn't mean " If it is decided to give them to Japan, don't put the Liancourts Rocks as Koean territory Japan should return."
opp
ReplyDeleteDoes a private newspaper have priority over national representation with full power in Korean rule? It differs in international law.
--> You mean Mainich Newspaer printed that which was against the government's position and fooled the Japanese people? If you believe so, I have nothing to say.
This is the same as the claim of the Korean government of the 1950s. However, this opinion is contradictory to the correction demand of South Korea to a draft.
--> Korea asked to specifify Dokdo as territory Japan renounces, but America refused it in Rusk Note in secret. Then U.S. could know the importance of Dokdo to Korea and assumably even the possible future dispute over Dokdo between Korea and Japan. I think U.S. was smart enough to put Dokdo as Japanese territory if she wanted to give Dokdo to Japan. But she didn't. She couldn't because the other Allied Nations didn't agree with U.S. policy over Dokdo.
Sloww,
ReplyDeleteThe reason why Korean Government demanded to put Takeshima/Dokdo in to Korean territory is that they knew Takeshima/Dokdo would remain as Japanese territory in SF Peace Treaty.
Then, U.S. refused that Korean demand about Takeshima/Dokdo through the Rusk note.
Korean Government know, from 1951 until today, the fact that Takeshima/Dokdo is in Japanese territory in SF Peace Treaty.
It is useless to insist that Takeshima/Dokdo is not included in Japan’s territory.
Chaameiey
ReplyDeleteYes, Korean Government worried Dokdo to be put as Japanese territory in SF Treaty, but it wasn't in the final draft,which was right.
Korean Government know, from 1951 until today, the fact that Takeshima/Dokdo is in Japanese territory in SF Peace Treaty.
--> How do you know this? Give me any evidence if you can.
It is useless to insist that Takeshima/Dokdo
--> I just said the fact.
Sloww,
ReplyDeleteAfter all you do not seem to be able to understand it. I have already written the answer.
[Sloww]
ReplyDeleteIf you believe so, I have nothing to say.
I agree that you couldn’t anything to say. Your comment never proof that Japanese government agree with the renunciation of the Takeshima. And you will not know even what Japanese government protested the Lee line and Korean illegal occupancy of Takeshima.
[Sloww]
Korea asked to specifify Dokdo as territory Japan renounces, but America refused it in Rusk Note in secret. Then U.S. could know the importance of Dokdo to Korea and assumably even the possible future dispute over Dokdo between Korea and Japan.
You only repeat the selfish rule which violate the international law. International law does not require the published supplement.
-------------------------------
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Article 32
Supplementary means of interpretation Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:
PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie
ROOTS OF TITLE
(e) Disposition by joint decision of the principal powers
After the defeat of the Central Powers in the First World War, and the Axis Powers in the Second World War, the leading victor states assumed a power of disposition, to the exercised jointly, over the territory of the defeated states. In the years 1919 and 1920 decisions were taken by the Supreme Council of Allied and Associated States; in 1943 and 1945 by meetings of leaders at Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam, and subsequently by meetings of Foreign Ministers, States losing territory as a consequence of dispositions in this wise might, and often did, renounce title by the provisions of a peace treaty to the areas concerned, but the dispositions were usually in possession prior to the coming into force of a peace treaty. The existence of this power of disposition or assignment is recognized by jurists, but they find it difficult to suggest, or to agree upon, a satisfactory legal basis for it. Some translate political realities into legal forms by supposing that the community of states has delegated such a power to the ‘principal’ or ‘great’ powers. Others, at least in relation to the Second World War, postulate a right to impose measures of security, which may include frontier changes, on an aggressor consequent on his defeat in a war of collective defense and sanction.
Much turns on the extent to which recognition and acquiescence may counteract any elements of illegality which may infect such procedures in some cases. Disposition of the kind normally are recognized by multilateral peace treaty or otherwise. In same cases, for example, the Geneva Conference of 1954, in regard to Indo-China, the express delegation of power prior to agreed disposition of territory ensures that a certain number of states are bound to accept the results of procedure.
--------------------------
Future? Even in the future, the consent of Japan is indispensable for the transfer of sovereignty of Takeshima.
[Slow]
I think U.S. was smart enough to put Dokdo as Japanese territory if she wanted to give Dokdo to Japan. But she didn't. She couldn't because the other Allied Nations didn't agree with U.S. policy over Dokdo.
Is the evidence of this personal opinion a distorted Australian question? I am demanding not your essay but evidence.