竹島問題の歴史

19.8.12

1960 Apr 27 - American Ambassador says Takeshima is Japanese territory, not Korean

On 27th April, 1960, American Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II sent telegram to J. Graham Parsons, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, in Washington, and in it, he says that “Therefore we should also press new ROK regime to return Takeshima to Japan.” We already knew that U.S. warned ROK that Takeshima is Japanese island in both 1951 and 1952.

Telegram from D.MacArthur to SECSTATE in1960_1For Ass’t Sec’y Parsons from MacArthur
Seoul for Ambassador McConaughy

Now that we have prospect of new and democratic regime in Korea I strongly recommend that as soon as possible we seize opportunity to try to bring about durable solution to ROK-Japan dispute. As long as Rhee held power there seemed little chance of any solution but now we have entirely new situation which could lead to liquidation of ROK-Japan controversy. Implications of ROK-Japan dispute are not just bilateral between GOJ and ROK but deeply and directly involve US and our inescapable solution is to be found it will be produced only by our good offices and working closely with both ROK and GOJ. It is of utmost importance that we identify and be prepared to move swiftly for solution those specific ROK-GOJ problems which prevented progress toward basic settlement this festering dispute. We do not know what response Communists may make to new ROK regime and it is vital we try to put ROK-GOJ house in order as soon as possible.
 
Telegram from D.MacArthur to SECSTATE in1960_2While Rhee regime violated most basic tenets of democracy in authoritarian police rule imposed on Korean people, it has also in past done violence to most fundamental principles of international conduct and morality by committing acts of piracy on high seas around Rhee Line and then imprisoning and holding as political hostages Japanese fishermen and by seizing and holding non-Korean territory by force. The uncivilized practice of hostage diplomacy is one of our serious charges against Communist China and if continued by ROK it will be a great liability to a new democratic ROK regime.


I therefore recommend strongly that as soon as new regime is in control in Korea (whether or noti it be of interim character) we use all our influence to persuade it (1) to release and return to Japan all repeat all Japanese fishermen hostages (including those who have not completed their sentences) who have suffered so cruelly from Rhee’s uncivilized and oppressive acts and (2) to cease practice of seizing Japanese fishing vessels on high seas. This would not only rid new ROK reegime of liability of practicing hostage diplomacy but also more than anything else would lay foundation in Japan for really fruitful negotiations. At same time I would be prepared to press Kishi and GOJ most strongly that in return for repatriation of all fishermen, Japanese would exercise self-restraint in their fishing operations in Korean Straits until reasonable opportunity had been given for negotiation of mutually agreed ROK-Japan fishing conservation agreement.

Telegram from D.MacArthur to SECSTATE in1960_3In addition to seizing Japanese boats on high seas and practicing hostage diplomacy, Rhee regime also seized by force and is holding illegally Takeshima Island which has always been considered as Japanese territory. This is very serious and permanent irritant in Japan-ROK relations and there can be no over-all ROK-Japan settlement until this Japanese island is returned to Japan. Therefore we should also press new ROK regime to return Takeshima to Japan. If it is unwilling to do so pending satisfactory conclusion of over-all ROK-Japan negotiations, new regime should at least signify a willingness to withdraw from Takeshima as part of mutually satisfactory settlement of other outstanding issues between two countries. While we should press strongly for return of Takeshima to Japan, if by any chance new regime were unwilling to do so we should, as very minimum, insist that they agree to submit matter to International Court of Justice for arbitration.

Telegram from D.MacArthur to SECSTATE in1960_4Finally, we should inform new regime very clearly that it must be prepared to adjust its relations with Japan on terms of reciprocity, in such matters as diplomatic missions, visits by businessmen and journalists, commercial trade. Japanese have suffered Rhee’s occupation-minded approach for eight years and will be unwilling to accept such indefensible treatment from his successor. In its own interests, new regime should start with conformity with normal international standards of conduct, and could most usefully begin (in terms of Japanese and other free world opinion) by permitting Japanese diplomatic mission to enter and function in ROK on same terms ROK Embassy operates here.

If we now move swiftly with new ROK regime which should generally be receptive to our views because of our helpfulness, we may have initial opportunity, which may never reoccur, to influence its position on Japan-ROK problem. Japanese would certainly welcome warmly and reciprocate fully, measures indicating new ROK regime willing take “new look” at Japan.

MacArthur

Douglas MacArthur II is a nephew of General MacArthur and an American diplomat. He served as U.S. ambassador to Japan from 1957-1961.

The original documents are from Nikaidou.com with his permission. Thanks opp, for important information.

More to read...:

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 - Aug 2 - Another letter from You Chan Yang
1951 - Aug 3 - Bogg’s Memorandum
1951 - August 9 -Dean Rusk Letter (A letter by US Secretary of State Dean Rusk to the Korean Ambassador )
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
1952 - Nov. 5 - Confidential Security Information of USA
1952 - Dec. 4 - Confidential Security Information of USA
1952 - Dec 4 - “American Embassy’s Note Verbale No.187” - U.S. iterates Rusk Note to ROK.
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 - 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 - Nov 30 - Secret Security Information of USA
1953 - Dec. 9 - SECRET SECURITY INFORMATION by Dulles

53 comments:

  1. Hi Gerry, why do you think the current U.S. government seems to stay neutral as to the territorial dispute between Japan and Korea, despite the Rusk Documents and Ambassador MacArthur's telegraph (your latest post) that show the US's view on Liancourt Rocks?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi, I've realized this post was by Kaneganese. Hi, Kaneganese, may I ask the question I posted above?

    ReplyDelete
  4. まあ、この文書、なんと絶妙のタイミングで世の中に出たもんだ。

    Kaneganeseさん、仕事早っ!

    ReplyDelete
  5. 送信者がSCAPIN677を発行したマッカーサーの甥というのも因縁めいてるね。

    ReplyDelete
  6. 샌프란시스코에서 체결된 연합국의 대(對)일본평화조약에서 일본의 독도 침탈 로비는 결국실패했고, 독도는 한국영토로 확정되었으며, 일본 영역에서 제외되었습니다.

     サンフランシスコで締結された連合国の対日本平和条約において、日本の独島侵奪ロビー活動は結局失敗し、独島は韓国領土として確定され、日本の領域から除かれました。

    http://plaza1.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/booklet/dokdo16point.pdf

    p41

    (신용하/독도 학회 회장)
    (愼鏞廈シン・ヨンハ/独島学会会長)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi, Unknown

    Basically, I'm not reacting to any comments by "unknown", so log in with other ID next time, please.

    As for your question, in 1952, U.S. government tried to persuade ROK to stop Rhee Line, capture/detain of Japanese fishermen and vessels, and illegal occupation of Takeshima, but they had failed. They were unable to control President Rhee's anti-democratic brutality and hostility towards Japan, and I guess that is one of the reason they started to keep themselves from the dispute during the Cold War.

    ReplyDelete
  8. chaamieyさん

    oppさんの情報なのですが、調べたところ、韓国側の公開資料には含まれていないようです。この文章の背景や前後関係を確認する必要が有るので、急ぎ投稿してみました。皆様の情報をお待ちしております。

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Kaneganese! Thanks for the post. I have just read the same telegram which opp-san let me know at another blog.
    GJ!

    ReplyDelete
  10. For Korean people, I triede to make a translation into Korean language:

    ●While Rhee regime violated most basic tenets of democracy in authoritarian police rule imposed on Korean people, it has also in past done violence to most fundamental principles of international conduct and morality by committing acts of primacy on high seas around Rhee Line and then imprisioning (sic: imprisoning) and holding as political hostages Japanese fishermen and by seizing and holding non-Korean territory by force.

    이승만 정권이 한국민에게 독재적인 경찰 지배를 부과해 민주주의의 가장 기본이 되는 교의를 침해하는 한편으로, 동정권은 이승만 리인 주변의 공해 에 있어서 제일의적인 법을 범해 일본 어민을 구속해 정치적인 포로로서 보관 유지하는 것으로써, 또 한국의 것이 아닌 영토를 무력에 의해 빼앗아 보관 유지하는 것에 의해서 국제적 행위나 윤리성의 가장 기본적인 원칙도 침해했다.

    ●In addition to seizing Japanese boats on high seas and practicing hostage diplomacy, Rhee regime also seized by force and is holding illegally Takeshima Island which has always been considered as Japanese territory.

    공해에서 일본 선박을 포획 해 적대시 정책을 실시하는 일에 가세하고, 이승만 정권은 지금까지 항상 일본령이라고 생각할 수 있어 온 타케시마를 무력에 의해 점령해 불법으로 보관 유지하고 있다.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Rhee regime also seized by force and is holding
    illegally Takeshima Island which has always been considered as Japanese
    territory."

    Yes, let's ask the U.S. whether Dokdo belongs to Korea or Japan.

    The U.S. is halfway around the world from Dokdo. Surely they would be familiar with the history of Dokdo.

    Surely they would know to whom Dokdo belongs.

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  12. >Yes, let's ask the U.S. whether Dokdo belongs to Korea or Japan.

    If U.S. changed the positon of SF treaty and she reconsidered that the sovereignty of Takeshima should give to Korea. U.S. must appeal to ICJ according to the S.F. treaty.

    Article 22
    If in the opinion of any Party to the present Treaty there has arisen a dispute concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaty, which is not settled by reference to a special claims tribunal or by other agreed means, the dispute shall, at the request of any party thereto, be referred for decision to the International Court of Justice.


    Since the U.S. has not appealed to ICJ, her position of SF does not change according to the international law.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What are you talking about??

    ReplyDelete
  14. This is a very interesting telegram. Thanks for posting it, Kaneganese; thanks for finding it, Opp; and thanks for allowing us to post it, Nikaidou.

    Here is a part 1 of 2 transcription of the full telegram:
    -----------------

    For Ass’t Sec’y Parsons from MacArthur
    Seoul for Ambassador McConaughy

    Now that we have prospect of new and democratic regime in Korea I strongly recommend that as soon as possible we seize opportunity to try to bring about durable solution to ROK-Japan dispute. As long as Rhee held power there seemed little chance of any solution but now we have entirely new situation which could lead to liquidation of ROK-Japan controversy. Implications of ROK-Japan dispute are not just bilateral between GOJ and ROK but deeply and directly involve US and our inescapable solution is to be found it will be produced only by our good offices and working closely with both ROK and GOJ. It is of utmost importance that we identify and be prepared to move swiftly for solution those specific ROK-GOJ problems which prevented progress toward basic settlement this festering dispute. We do not know what response Communists may make to new ROK regime and it is vital we try to put ROK-GOJ house in order as soon as possible.

    While Rhee regime violated most basic tenets of democracy in authoritarian police rule imposed on Korean people, it has also in past done violence to most fundamental principles of international conduct and morality by committing acts of piracy on high seas around Rhee Line and then imprisoning and holding as political hostages Japanese fishermen and by seizing and holding non-Korean territory by force. The uncivilized practice of hostage diplomacy is one of our serious charges against Communist China and if continued by ROK it will be a great liability to a new democratic ROK regime.

    I therefore recommend strongly that as soon as new regime is in control in Korea (whether or noti it be of interim character) we use all our influence to persuade it (1) to release and return to Japan all repeat all Japanese fishermen hostages (including those who have not completed their sentences) who have suffered so cruelly from Rhee’s uncivilized and oppressive acts and (2) to cease practice of seizing Japanese fishing vessels on high seas. This would not only rid new ROK reegime of liability of practicing hostage diplomacy but also more than anything else would lay foundation in Japan for really fruitful negotiations. At same time I would be prepared to press Kishi and GOJ most strongly that in return for repatriation of all fishermen, Japanese would exercise self-restraint in their fishing operations in Korean Straits until reasonable opportunity had been given for negotiation of mutually agreed ROK-Japan fishing conservation agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Part 2 of 2

    In addition to seizing Japanese boats on high seas and practicing hostage diplomacy, Rhee regime also seized by force and is holding illegally Takeshima Island which has always been considered as Japanese territory. This is very serious and permanent irritant in Japan-ROK relations and there can be no over-all ROK-Japan settlement until this Japanese island is returned to Japan. Therefore we should also press new ROK regime to return Takeshima to Japan. If it is unwilling to do so pending satisfactory conclusion of over-all ROK-Japan negotiations, new regime should at least signify a willingness to withdraw from Takeshima as part of mutually satisfactory settlement of other outstanding issues between two countries. While we should press strongly for return of Takeshima to Japan, if by any chance new regime were unwilling to do so we should, as very minimum, insist that they agree to submit matter to
    International Court of Justice for arbitration.

    Finally, we should inform new regime very clearly that it must be prepared to adjust its relations with Japan on terms of reciprocity, in such matters as diplomatic missions, visits by businessmen and journalists, commercial trade. Japanese have suffered Rhee’s occupation-minded approach for eight years and will be unwilling to accept such indefensible treatment from his successor. In its own interests, new regime should start with conformity with normal international standards of conduct, and could most usefully begin (in terms of Japanese and other free world opinion) by permitting Japanese diplomatic mission to enter and function in ROK on same terms ROK Embassy operates here.

    If we now move swiftly with new ROK regime which should generally be receptive to our views because of our helpfulness, we may have initial opportunity, which may never reoccur, to influence its position on Japan-ROK problem. Japanese would certainly welcome warmly and reciprocate fully, measures indicating new ROK regime willing take “new look” at Japan.

    MacArthur

    ReplyDelete
  16. >What are you talking about??

    Present U.S. opinion without appealed to ICJ is not concerned with the sovereignty of the Takeshima.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Opp wrote:

    Article 22
    If in the opinion of any Party to the present Treaty there has arisen a dispute concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaty, which is not settled by reference to a special claims tribunal or by other agreed means, the dispute shall, at the request of any party thereto, be referred for decision to the International Court of Justice.


    Since Japan was a party to the treaty, she should be able to go to the ICJ unilaterally and ask for an interpretation of Article 2a of the treaty. Isn't that what Article 22 is saying?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Gerry,

    Yes. Japan can sue United States for the reconfirm about the Article 2a and demand re-instatement.

    And one more
    By SF treaty, the United States has agreed to recover Japanese full sovereignty of the Takeshima. But some Korean scholar claimed that the SF treaty is invalid for U.S.'s mistakes and U.S. changed her mind as Korean territory after S.F. treaty. Article 22 demand the sue for the dispute concerning execution of the Treaty too. If U.S. change her position against the treaty, the dispute between Japan should occur and she must go to ICJ. This shows that U.S can't change her position about SF treaty without ICJ.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Opp,

    Now that Japan has the Dean Rusk letter and other US documents acknowledging that the treaty left Takeshima as Japanese territory, Japan could probably win such a claim against the United States.

    Do you think Japan will do it?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I dont know why Korea is like this. There is a lot of evidence but they seem to ignore it.
    That is what we called Immature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand that it would be hard for other people to realize why we Koreans are like "this", but i personally believe that its not right to say that we are immature, while you have not seen any of the evidence our country has, which I'd love to share

      Delete
  21. Gerry,

    I want to do so, but Japan will not do. Because, Japan knows that the United States disinclination to involve in dispute between alliance partner. United States acceptance of the fact means criticizing Korean claim.

    I consider it more effective to commit the interpretation of "Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation" about Ianfu (comfort woman) together with dispute about Takeshima.

    If Korea can't escape from this proposal.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It looks like Douglas MacArthur II's personal opinion. Isn't it sort of natural for him to support Japanese government's claim as an US ambassador to Japan?

    The real nature of American policy on Dokdo is America never openly supported Japanese claim on Dokdo as stated in the following documents.

    1."American position in supporting Japanese claim on Dokdo had never been formally communicated to the Japanese Government." (From a letter of L. Burmaster of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs of U.S. State Department dated on Jul. 22,1953)

    Details is here and here.

    2. "The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public." (From the mission report of Van Fleet, a US special mission ambassador, dated on Aug. 1954)

    Details is here and here.

    3. "Department aware of peace treaty determinations and US administrative decisions which would Japanese expect us act in their far with any dispute with ROK over sovereignty Takeshima. However to best our knowledge formal statement US position to ROK in Rusk Note August 10, 1951 has not rpt not been communicated Japanese. ...........Despite US view peace treaty a determination under terms Postsdam Declaration and that treaty leaves Takeshim to Japan, and despite our participation in Postdam and treaty and action under administrative agreement, it does not rpt not necessarily follow US automatically responsible for settling or intervening in Japan's international disputes, territorial or otherwise, arised from peace treaty. US view re Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty." (From a telegram sent by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles at the American Embassy in Tokyo dated on Dec. 9, 1953)

    Details is here and here.

    Isn't it time for the Japanese to stop blindly believing Takeshima was given to Japan according to the SF Treaty because of American support through Rusk Note?

    ReplyDelete
  23. sloww,

    >Isn't it time for the Japanese to stop blindly believing Takeshima was given to Japan according to the SF Treaty because of American support through Rusk Note?



    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
    SECTION 3. INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES
    Article 31
    General rule of interpretation
    3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:
    (a) any subsequent AGREEMMENT between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;
    (b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the AGREEMMENT of the parties regarding its interpretation;
    (c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.


    The opinion after the treaty cannot be used for the interpretation of a treaty without agreement between parties. Do you aware that present U.S. say about the "dispute" is neutral, but she never say that S.F. treaty is neutral? She can't change the interruption of the treaty for the estoppel.
    The agreement is not required about the preparatory work of the treaty before the treaty. Then Rusk document is effective as the supplementary means of interpretation.

    There is only one agreement applicable to the 31 article 3 clause (a). USA and Japan agreeeded to use the Takeshima as bombing place based on a security treaty in 1953.
    http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshima/pdfs/g_beigun01.pdf
    This agreement has taken the form of the formal treaty.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sloww,

    A part of your logic is correct.
    This text is also invalid for the interpretation of the SF treaty.

    http://news.donga.com/3//20080802/8610821/1

    Because this document has not reached an agreement of the parties though this document made after the treaty. Even the inside of the Department of State has not taken agreement(stamped as "DRAFT").

    ReplyDelete
  25. アメリカを提訴しないまでも、ミスがあったというステートメントくらいは出してもらって、少し感情を沈めてもらいたいですね。
    その後ならいくらでもオプションがあるのではと。たとえば撃沈しちゃうとか (^^;

    ReplyDelete
  26. opp,

    I can't understand your point. Would you please make it clear?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sloww,

    Which article is applied to a present U.S. policy?

    32 articles are applied to the rusk document. International law doesn't demand the open for the supplementary means. Korean scholar looks like prof. Hosaka make original rule which violates the international law for Korean claim. Poor Korean people who can't verify the truth believes the fabricated rule.

    Article 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.
    2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:
    (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.
    3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context: 12
    (a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;
    (b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation;
    (c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.
    4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended.
    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.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  29. opp,


    Which article is applied to a present U.S. policy?
    --> ?

    32 articles are applied to the rusk document.
    --> What's the evidence?

    International law doesn't demand the open for the supplementary means.
    --> What's the evidence? The article of SF Treaty doesn't say secret supplementary means is ok.

    Korean scholar looks like prof. Hosaka make original rule which violates the international law for Korean claim.
    --> What's the evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sloww:What's the evidence? The article of SF Treaty doesn't say secret supplementary means is ok.
    Slow:What's the evidence?

    Can’t you read article 32?
    article 32:Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion
    Do you see the ilusion that article32 discibes as the supplementary means should be opened? Sorry article32 has not set up any conditions for the preparatory work.
    And read the金明基’s research paper at 独島研究ジャーナル in 2009. He admited Rusk note as a supplementary means based on 32 articles. Though he was using another fabricated logic, in order to deny the Rusk note.

    Which article is applied to a present U.S. policy?
    -->Sloww: ?

    I understand that you can’t answer. US present policy can’t use for the intepritation of the SF treaty. Of course, US present position can’t use for the disaffirmance of SF treaty. And USA didn’t say that SF treaty is nutral about Takeshima. She never mentions about the treaty and has no right about the Japanese sovereignty.

    ReplyDelete
  31. opp,


    Go ahead with your ridiculous belief that a secret document such as Rusk Note which was never open to the parties involved is a supplementary means in the treaties. Who cares? Anyway, you admitted Rusk Note was a secret document.

    By the way, don't blame Prof. Hosaka without evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hi, pacifist

    Thank you for the Korean translation.


    Gerry,

    Thank you for your transcription of the full telegram. I've added it to the post.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I made some correction.

    On 27th April, 1960, American Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II send telegram to the Secretary of State in Washington



    On 27th April, 1960, American Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II sent telegram to J. Graham Parsons, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, in Washington

    ReplyDelete
  34. 本当に理解することができない。 なぜ私たちの土地を奪おうとするのか理解することはできない。 日本の歴史勉強はしないのか? 誤った歴史教育が最も問題だと見る。 韓国人が反日教育を受けると考えるのもとても幼稚だ。

    ReplyDelete
  35. tictok さん

    日本では今まで竹島教育をしてこなかったのです。

    なぜ日本が竹島を返せと訴えているのか、ぜひ、こちらのサイトでお勉強なさってくださいね。がんばってね^^

    ReplyDelete
  36. 1960.4.27 駐日アメリカ大使 ダグラス・マッカーサー2世の電文(日本語訳 ただし試作品)


    マッカーサーからパーソンズ副書記官へ
    マッコーノイ大使のためにソウルへ

     韓国に新しい民主主義体制の見通しが立った今、私は、できるだけ早く我々が韓国と日本の間の論争に終局的な解決をもたらすための機会を得るよう強く勧める。李承晩が権力を持つ限り解決の見込みはほとんど無いと思われるが、しかし、現在の我々には韓国と日本の論争を終わらせることができる全く新しい状況がある。
     韓国と日本の論争の意味は、単に日本と韓国の二国間のことではなく、深く直接に米国及び我々の北東アジアに対する不可避の責任に関わっている。実際問題として、理にかなった解決が見出されるとすれば、それは我々の良きあっせんと韓国及び日本の双方に密接に関わることによる。我々が、泥沼の論争の基本的な和解への前進を妨げている特定の韓国・日本間の問題を確認して、解決のために素早く行動する準備を整えることは最も重要なことである。
     共産主義者たちが新しい韓国の体制にどういう反応を見せるかは不明であり、我々ができるだけ早く韓国-日本の関係を整理することは不可欠だ。

     李政権は韓国民に対する権威主義的な警察支配によって民主主義の多くの基本的な信条を圧殺しているが、過去にもまた、公海上の李ラインにおいて海賊行為を行うことにより日本人漁業者たちを政治的人質として投獄して確保すること、韓国ではない領域を占拠して保持することによって、国際間の行為と道徳の最も基本的な原理に対して暴力を加えて来た。
      人質外交の野蛮な実行は共産中国に対する我々の重大な負い目の一つであり、韓国がこれを続けるならばそれは韓国の新しい民主主義の大きな負担となる。

    (続く)

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sloww: By the way, don't blame Prof. Hosaka without evidence.

    Prof. Hosaka never show evidences based on the international law. He said that Rusk note is invalid because it wasn't opened or hasn't agreement. But he can't explain why it should be opened or agreed by Allies. Then he only says that Rusk note is invalid because he want to think so.
    And poor Korean who don't have the ability of the verification like you believe Hosaka's essay.

    USA is important for the interpretation of the SF treaty because she is the drafter of the treaty as Allies. Japan give the right of the decision-making about her territory by the acceptance of Potsdam Declaration. Then Allies can demand renunciation Japan. However, the Allies has already exercised the right by the SF treaty. Then, after the SF treaty, US doesn't have any right.
    Think logically and read the treaties between Japan and Allies very well. All treaties and agreements consistent.

    ReplyDelete
  39. したがって、私は、新しい体制が韓国で整い次第(それが臨時的なものであっても無くても)直ちに、(1)全ての日本人漁業者の抑留者(未判決の者を含む)を解放して日本に帰還させること、(2)公海における日本漁船の拿捕を中止すること、を説得するためにあらゆる影響力を行使することを強く勧めたい。これは新しい韓国の政権から人質外交の不名誉を除くだけでなく、他の何にもまして、実り多い交渉のための日本の基礎となる。なお、私は、全ての漁民の本国送還と引き換えに、日本が相互に同意する韓日漁業保護協定の交渉のための適切な機会が与えられるまで朝鮮海峡における漁業を自制するよう岸首相と日本政府に最大限の圧力をかける用意はできている。

     さらに、公海における日本船舶の拿捕と人質外交の展開に加えて、李政権は、常に日本の領域と考えられて来た竹島を力で押さえて不法に保持している。 これは日韓関係における非常に重要で抜きがたい悩みの種であり、この島が日本に返還されるまでは韓日間に全面的な和解はない。 したがって、我々は韓国の新政権にも日本に竹島を返還するよう迫らなければならない。 韓日交渉の全面的な満足できる終結までそうする気がないならば、新政権は、少なくとも、両国間の他の未解決の問題の相互に満足できる解決の一部として竹島から撤退するという意思を表明しなければならない。
      我々は竹島を日本へ返還するよう強く迫らなければならないが、もし新政権がそうする気がないならば、我々は最低限としても彼らが問題を仲裁のための国際司法裁判所に提出することに同意するよう主張しなければならない。

     最後に、我々は新政権に、外交使節団やビジネスマン、ジャーナリストによる訪問、通商などの問題では平等互恵の条件に即して日本との関係を調節する用意が必要であることを明確に新政権に知らせなければならない。
      日本人は8年間李大統領の占領志向政策に苦しんでおり、彼の後継者からそのような弁護の余地のない取り扱いを受け入れる考えはない。新政権それ自身の利益のために、新政権は通常の国際行動基準に準拠することから始めなければならず、(日本及びその他の自由世界の意見において)韓国大使館がここで活動しているのと同じく日本の外交使節団が韓国に入国して活動することを認めることによって最も効果的に始めることができる。

    我々の存在意義の故に我々の見解に対して受容的であろう新しい韓国の政権とともに今速やかに動くならば、我々が日韓問題に影響を与える初めての機会となるかも知れず、そういう機会は再び発生しないかも知れない。日本は、韓国の新政権が日本に対して新しい眼を向けることを暖かく歓迎し、十分にこれに応えるだろう。
    マッカーサー

    ReplyDelete
  40. Most of ambassadors in a country would be apt to say affirmative opinions to the country naturally, so I read this in the context.

    Thinking about Sngman Rhee….
    He was the old hero in the exiled government in Shanghai during WWII .He was a very tough negotiator both to Japan and US, he was the half successor of Joseon Dynasty, had wanted to be the dictator for life of Korea. He was a strong anti-communist, he had killed the political enemy not only Jo Bongam, he had caused the “Jeju massacre”, more than 60 million people were estimated to be killed.
    He insisted the unification of North Korea by military force of US, then had ran very fast when North Korea had occupied Seoul, then had once insisted he would make exiled government in Fukuoka if North Korea had occupied even Fuzan. Then, at last he had exiled to Hawaii, and had died there.

    He had made Syngman Rhee Line, also made Dokto in Korean territory as established facts , so maybe he was the hero of independent Korea totally, though I am not sure about his historical estimation now in Korea or if Korean knew these historical facts.
    Anyway what a strong and strange leader Korean had in this historical critical situation!

    ReplyDelete
  41. opp,

    You didn't give evidence why Prof. Hosaks is wrong. You just gave your own thinking, which is very illogical.

    He doesn't need to explain why Rusk Note should be opened and agreed by Allied Powers to be reflected in drafts of treaty. It's common sense everybody knows. Can you explain why Rusk Note shouldn't be opened or agreed by Allied Powers?

    SF Treaty was between Japan and Allied Powers, not between US and Japan. US was just one of the Allied Powers. John Foster Dulles, the US Secretary of State, wrote "US view re Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty."

    ReplyDelete
  42. Sloww:You didn't give evidence why Prof. Hosaks is wrong. You just gave your own thinking, which is very illogical.

    Can’t you read the article 31 and 32 of “Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”?
    Rusk document abides by the article 32. If you don’t think so, show the terms of the article 32 which deny Rusk document.

    "US view re Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty."
    Then, show the terms of the article 31 and 32 which can apply to this comment.
    You can't answer. Hosaka can't answer too, because his standard is not the international law but his own desire and rule. Which is real Hosaka or the multilateral treaty?
    Since the United States was the drafter of SF treaty, Rusk document has big value. The status of signatory does not affect a treaty interpretation (See article 31 and 32).

    ReplyDelete
  43. 한국에서 새로운 민주주의 정권이 탄생할 전망입니다. 나는 최대한 빨리 이 것은 한일논쟁의 영속적해결을 시도하는 기회라 본다고 강하게 진언합니다. 이승만이 권력을 장악하고 있는 한 해결의 기회는 거의 없는 것처럼 보여왔습니다만, 지금 우리들은 한일 논쟁을 완전히 해결로 이끌 수 있는 새로운 상황에 있습니다. 한일이 계속 논쟁을 하는 관계는 단순히 두 국가간의 문제에 그치지 않고, 미국 및 동북아에서의 우리들이 피할 수 없는 책무가 깊이 직접적으로 이어지고 있는 것입니다. 현실 문제로서 합리적인 해결책을 찾아낼 수 있다면 그것은 우리나라의 우수한 정부부문이 제작하고 일본정부 및 한국과 밀접하게 협력하고 작업하는 것 외에는 없을 것입니다. 제일 중요한 것은 이 수렁 분쟁이 기본적인 해결로 향하는 것을 가로막는 일본・한국간의 개별 문제를 특정하고, 우리들이 그 해결을 위해 빨리 움직이도록 준비하는 것입니다. 우리들은 공산주의자들이 한국 신정권에게 어떤 행동을 일으킬지는 예측할 수 없습니다. 빨리 한일관계를 정상적인 상태로 돌리는 일이 시급합니다.

    이승만 정권은 자국민에 대한 경찰국가적 독재통치로 인해 민주주의의 가장 근본적인 이념을 파기한 한편, 과거에 국제사회에서 취해야 할 제일 기본적인 행동 규범이나 도덕도 짓밟고 있습니다. 이승만라인(평화선) 주변의 공해상에서 해적행위를 일삼아서 일본 어민을 잡고 투고하고, 정치적인 인질로서 구속하고, 무력으로 타국의 영토를 강탈하고 점거하고 있습니다. 이 인질외교라는 만행은 공산주의 중국에 대한 우리들의 강한 비난중 하나입니다. 만약 앞으로도 한국이 인질외교를 지속한다면 그것은 한국에 새롭게 탄생하는 민주주의적 정권에 큰 빚이 될 것입니다.

    그러므로 나는 다음과 같이 강하게 진언합니다. 한국에서의 신정권 (그것이 잠정적인지 여부에 관계없이)이 성립하면 즉시 우리들은 모든 영향력을 행사해서 다음 두 항목의 실행을 한국에게 강요해야 합니다. (1) 인질로 잡힌 모든 일본인어부(판결미확정인 자도 포함)를 즉시 석방하고, 일본에 송환시킬 것. 이승만의 야만적이고 잔혹한 처사로 그들은 견딜 수 없는 고통을 받고 있다. (2) 공해상에서의 일본어선 나포를 중지할 것.

    ReplyDelete
  44. 이것은 한국 신정권에 인질외교의 실행이란 책임을 떠넘기지 않고 끝날 뿐만 아니라, 무엇보다도 진정한 결실있는 교섭을 위한 기반을 일본에게 구축할 수 있을 것입니다. 동시에 나는 해안내각에게 모든 어민의 귀환의 상환으로 양쪽이 합의 가능한 한일어업협정의 체결교섭을 위한 타당한 기회가 찾아올 때 까지는 조선해협에서의 어업활동을 자제하도록 최대한 압력을 가할 준비가 되어 있습니다.

    이승만정권은 공해상에서의 일본배 나포와 인질외교 실행에 가담해, 지금까지 항상 일본땅으로 생각해왔던 독도를 무력으로 빼았고, 불법으로 점거하고 있습니다. 이 것은 한일관계로서 비상식적으로 심각하고 끝 없는 분쟁의 불씨입니다. 이 일본 섬이 일본에 반환될 때 까지는 한일의 포괄적인 화해는 있을 수 없습니다. 따라서 우리들은 한국의 신정권에 대해서도 독도를 일본에게 반환하도록 압력을 가해야 합니다. 만약 포괄적인 한일교섭에 만족할 결론이 나오지 않은 채 독도를 반환할 의사가 없다고 말한다면, 신정권은 적어도 두 국가간의 그 외의 미해결 논점을 양쪽이 납득하고 해결하기 위한 일환으로 독도를 떠날 의사가 있다는 것을 보여줘야합니다. 우리들은 일본으로 독도를 반환하도록 강력하게 압력을 가해야 하지만, 만일 신정권이 그 의사가 없을 경우, 최소한 국제사법재판소로의 제소에 응하도록 계속 설득을 해야 합니다.

    마지막으로 우리들은 신정권에 대해 외교사절, 실업가와 언론인의 왕래, 상거래등의 사항에서의 호혜라는 관점으로 일본과의 관계를 조정하는 태세를 갖추어야 한다는 것을 명확히 알려야 합니다. 일본인은 이승만의 침략적인 수법으로 8년간 계속 고통을 격고 있습니다. 이 변명의 여지가 없는 처사를 후임자도 감수할하지 않을 것입니다. 신정권은 우선, 정상적인 국제적 행동범위에 따라 시작해야 합니다. 그것이 한국자신의 이익이 되는 것입니다. 일본의 외교사절이 입국해서 재일한국대사관과 같은 기능을 가질 것(일본이나 다른 자유주의제국과의 사고방식과 같은 의미로서)을 인정해야 합니다.

    지금 우리들이 한국의 신정권에 대해 신속히 제의하면 우리들이 한일문제에 대해 신정권의 입장에 영향을 줄 처음으로서 마지막의 기회를 얻는 것이 될 것입니다. 한국의 신정권은 우리나라의 원조를 받는 이상 우리들의 의견에 대략 동의하는 것입니다. 일본인은 틀림없이 이 제안을 한국 신정권이 일본에게 “뉴 룩 정책”을 진행할지 여부를 묻는 척도로서 따듯하게 환영하고 충분한 호혜적입장을 취할 것입니다.


    (I borrowed this translated sentence from an other site.)

    ReplyDelete


  45. I wonder what the source of Mr. Nozomu Yoshida said..."Thinking about Sngman Rhee…."is, but it doesn't matter. There are lots of distorted documents about Korea in Japan.

    There is wrong information for sure. He was not a hero during WWII. He was an independence activist against brutal Imperial Japanese colonial rule in Korea which started in 1910. He did a lot of things to fight against Imperial Japan. That's why he was tough on Japan even after the Korean liberation from Imperial Japan.

    One of his achievements as the first Korean president is proclamation of Peace Line(Syngman Rhee Line). He took an affirmative action on South Korea's party by issuing "the Declaration of Maritime Sovereignty". He punished the Japanese trespassers to Dokdo who violated the Peace Line. He did what he should do to defend the Korean sovereignty on Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I would like to you about the 10 reasons why Dokdo islet (Takeshima) assert as "The Dokdo Rock Islets is Korea's territory. I hope to click on the annexed document file. And then you will find the detailed contents about " The 10 reasons why Dokdo islet (Takeshima) assert as "The Dokdo Rock Islets is Korea's territory." Have a good luck ! today" You say that many 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. but they assert Dokdo to be a Japan's territory with only "The notification 40 of the Shimane Prefecture of Japan on Feb. 22nd., 1905." But 5 years ago before being issuing "The notification 40 of the Shimane Prefecture of Japan on Feb. 22nd., 1905. " The imperial edict 41 of the Korean Empire and Dokdo (Takeshima) on 1900 had been issued.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). Therefore Dokdo is korea's territory, because the Korean Empire edict 41 in an official gazette of the Korean Empire first of all had been issued as Korean territory in 1900 than "The notification 40 of the Shimane Prefecture of Japan on Feb. 22nd., 1905." The assertion of Japanese people is wrong.
    Nevember 19th., 2012
    Thank you for your comment.
    Shin Ho Lee

    ReplyDelete
  47. 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)."
    Footnote: 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.

    ReplyDelete
  48. In 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?“
    I did not said as " The United States care about American secret and selfish policy over Dokdo based on American interests. SCAPIN 1033(MEMORANDUM FOR IMPERIAL JAPANESE GOVERNMENT says that 3. Authorization in paragraph 2 above is subject to the following provisions : (a) Japanese vessels will not approach closer than twelve (12) miles to any island within the authorized area which lies south of 30°North Latitude with the exception of Sofu Gan. Personnel from such vessels will not land on islands lying south of 30°North Latitude, except Sofu Gan. nor have contact with any inhabitants thereof.
    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? he 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?"
    I didn't say such a words.

    ReplyDelete
  49. You can find a imagedocument of Dean Rusk Note herein http:// whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/09/rusk-note-was-confidential-memorandum_6.html. I hope to open the homepage of rusk-note-was-confidential-memorandum that decribe as follows " 2012년 9월 6일 목요일Rusk Note was a confidential memorandum between America and Korea.



    The Japanese believe the Sanfrancisco Peace Treaty gave them Dokdo because of Rusk Note. Rusk Note is nothing but a US secret position regarding Dokdo in favor of Japan's claim during the peace treaty negotiations.


    Rusk Note


    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.


    Below is the U.S. documents proving Rusk Note was a U.S. confidential memorandum
    which was never open to the public.




    1. 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."

    ReplyDelete
  50. 2012年12月5日刊の
    小川和久『それでどうする 日本の領土 これが答えだ』(アスコム)132p~135p
    で、この文献を紹介しています。
    この文献について、活字でも世の中に広がっていくのは、良いことだと思います。

    小川和久氏のもと原稿は、以下のサイトのもののようです。
    2012年8月28日付なので、8月19日付のKaneganeseさんのほうが早いですね。

    このサイトの最後の一文
    「こういう外交文書を丹念に渉猟することが外交の基本であることは、言うまでもありません。何組かのリサーチチームを米国に派遣し、国立公文書館での発掘作業を同時進行させるぐらい、日本政府にとって朝飯前のはずです。それがないのですから、日本の領土問題は、これまでの怠慢外交のツケが回ってきたと言われても仕方がないのです。 」
    に賛成です。
    ただし、本当に「日本政府にとって朝飯前」なのですかね?
    これまでまったく出来ていないんだから。
    ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
    http://www.mag2.com/o/journal/2012/0828.html
    アメリカも「竹島は日本の領土」
    政府は“公文書”の真贋見極める精査を
    小川 和久
    陸上自衛隊生徒教育隊・航空学校修了。新聞記者を経て日本初の軍事アナリストとして独立。軍事はもちろん電力、電話、金融など重要インフラ産業のネットワーク・セキュリティの分野でも活動。

    竹島をめぐって日韓両国が泥仕合の様相を呈していますが、竹島が日本の領土であり、韓国が不法占拠しているとした米国政府の電文が紹介され、話題を呼んでいます。
     電文は、駐日米国大使ダグラス・マッカーサーJr.(マッカーサー元帥の甥)が、アイゼンハワー政権のクリスチャン・ハーター国務長官(パーソンズ極東担当国務次官補経由)とソウルのマッコーニー駐韓米国大使に宛てたもの(1960年4月7日付け)です。
     私はこの電文の存在を知人の田坂富代さん(静岡県下田市議会副議長)のブログで知り、西恭之君(静岡県立大学グローバル地域センター特任助教)にネイティブの英語力を駆使して確認作業などをしてもらいました。
     その結果、米公文書記録管理局のアーキビスト(文書管理専門家)、デビッド・ラングバート氏がマッカーサーJr.大使の公電が本物であり、正式名称と保管場所は次のとおりであると、評論家トニー・マラーノ氏に回答したことなどが判明しました(米東部時間8月22日11時20分)。

     Telegram 3470 to the Department of State, April 27, 1960, file: 350 Korea, 1959-1961 Classified General Correspondence, Embassy Japan, RG 84, National Archives.

     以下、要点だけを箇条書きしておきます。

    (1)韓国に新しき民主主義体制の誕生が予期される今、私は、日韓間に存在する紛争を永続的に解決する機会をできるだけ早く確保しておかれるようお勧めします。李承晩が権力の座にあった間、それらの解決の機会はほぼ無きに等しいものでしたが、今や、全く新しい局面を迎え、韓国と日本間の論争を清算へと導ける可能性があります。

    (2)李政権は、韓国の人々に押し付けた権威主義的、警察国家的な支配により、民主主義の基本的な教義をほとんど踏みにじってきましたが、過去にも、李承晩ライン周辺の公海上で海賊行為を働き、日本人の漁師らを政治的な捕虜として収監し、韓国外の領土を武力により強奪する形で、国際規範および倫理の最も基本的な原則を破壊した経緯があります。

    (3)韓国新政権が、その支配体制(暫定的なものであると否とを問わず)が整ったできるだけ早い段階で、1)李政権の野蛮かつ圧政的な取扱いにひどく苦しめられてきた日本人漁師の人質たち(刑期満了前の者を含む)すべてを解放し、日本に返すこと、2)公海上での日本漁船の拿捕をやめること、を説得するよう、我が国のあらゆる影響力を行使するよう、強くお勧めします。

    (4)李政権は、公海上で日本の船を拿捕し、人質外交を展開するのみならず、常に日本の領土とみなされてきた竹島を、武力により、違法に占有しています。

    (5)この日本の島が日本に返還されることなくしては、日韓の根本的な和解はありえません。

    (6)二国間の他の懸案事項の、互いに満足できる解決の一環として、竹島から撤退する意思を表示すべきです。

    (7)最低限、国際司法裁判所に仲裁を求めて問題を提起することに同意するよう主張すべきです。

    (8)日本人は、李承晩の占領軍的政策の被害を8年間にもわたって被り続けており、後継者からそのような弁解の余地のない取扱いを受け続けることは望むはずがありません。

     下線の箇所は、来年春にスタートする韓国の新政権へのメッセージとしても、そのまま通用する内容だと思います。(引用者註 (1)と(8)に下線)
     日本政府は、直ちにこの電文の真贋を精査し、公文書として相違ない場合には、国際司法裁判所への提訴にあたって世界に向けて公表すべきです。
     こういう外交文書を丹念に渉猟することが外交の基本であることは、言うまでもありません。何組かのリサーチチームを米国に派遣し、国立公文書館での発掘作業を同時進行させるぐらい、日本政府にとって朝飯前のはずです。それがないのですから、日本の領土問題は、これまでの怠慢外交のツケが回ってきたと言われても仕方がないのです。
    『NEWSを疑え』より抜粋

    ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
    ところで、この電文の「発見者」は、誰なんですかね?

    Kaneganeseさんの引用している「二階堂」さん? 
    http://www.nikaidou.com/archives/28275

    それとも小川和久氏の言う「田坂富代さん(静岡県下田市議会副議長)」?
    http://tomiyo.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2012/08/index.html
    しかし、この田坂富代さんのサイトは8月23日付で
    「さて、あるブログ主様から記事拡散依頼を頂戴し、わたくしも
    拡散が必要な記事だと思いましたので、協力させて頂きます。」
    とあって、そもそもの発信源ではないようです。

    以下の「べべこ」さんも、同じ8月19日付けで、掲載は早いですね。
    http://blog.goo.ne.jp/inoribito_001/e/7de29d6f120aa9fdaff5e22ef8cbe4e7
    でも、いちばん早いコメントが2012-08-19 22:20:32 なので、
    たぶんKaneganeseさんのほうが早かったのだと思います。



    「二階堂」さんのブログは
    http://www.nikaidou.com/archives/28275
    2012-8-19 08:54と、

    Kaneganeseさんと同じ日(19.8.12  Posted by Kaneganese at 15:39)の朝です。

    最初に
    「米国務省の文書が届いた。米国政府関係者より。
     これは古いですが、駐日大使から国務省本省への公電(秘密指定解除済み)です。まだでてないのかな他では。」

    とあるので、この「二階堂」さんが、日本での最初の発信者でしょうか?

    二階堂さんにこの文書を送ってきた「米国政府関係者」は、日本びいきの人なんですかね。

    こういう人の協力を得て、「何組かのリサーチチームを米国に派遣し、国立公文書館での発掘作業を同時進行させるぐらい」のことを、日本政府にはぜひやってもらいたいものです。

    ReplyDelete
  51. 日本政府がこれまで動かなかったのは、竹島密約が生きていたからだと思います。しかし、今は密約の効能も切れてしまって、日韓国交正常化から40年を経て、竹島問題はようやく新たな段階に進んで来た、というところでしょう。
    これからの竹島問題は、外的条件では相変わらずいろいろと制約を受けますが、国内条件としての制約はほぼ無くなったので、その限りでは政府としても動きやすくなったろうと思いますよ。

    ReplyDelete