1. A study by Prof. Shin Yonha and Choi Chang-geunA Korean newspaper article about a Japanese book published by the Mainichi newspaper
"A named endowed chair professor of the Hanyang University, Shin Yong-ha and chief researcher of the Seoul Graduate School of International Studies, Choi Chang-geun, showed[....]Moreover, on page 82 of the book, “The Treaty of Peace with Japan” that contains the “Japanese territorial map,” there is a detailed Dokdo map with the explanation that “Japanese administrative power was suspended by order number 677 of the General Headquarters of the Allied Powers.” However, there is no content that Dokdo is a Japanese territory in the book."
|table of contents|
This is the table of contents and page82 of the book.
Takeshima(page 82) mentioned in the part of Japanese territory. It seems that Prof. Shin
disguised passed over the table of contents. The text body explains that Takeshima belongs to the Japanese local county at that time.
" Though Takeshima is in the Goka town of Ochi county NOW, Japanese government’s administrative right for it was ceased by SCAP’s directive in 1946."
It seems that Prof. Shin
disguised passed over this sentence. Prof. Shin fabricates is often hallucinate too. He explained 48 countries agreed to "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories".
2. A study by Prof. HosakaProf. Hosaka managed “Truth of Dokdo” video series. He explained the Japanese book published by the Mainichi newspaper too.
Truth of DokdoThere is no evidence that Japanese government corporated with Mainichi newspaper. It seems that Prof. Hosaka was hallucinate too. This is a publication about the SF peace treaty super edited by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs at Sep 1951.
"The Japanese government pronounced the results of San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan in 1951(6th Sept, 1951) in the Mainichi Newspaper. The Mainichi Newspaper, in corporation with the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, produced a Map of Japan describing Dokdo to be Korean territory."
Prof. Hosaka also negated the Rusk note in the video series according to the Dulles's statement.
John Foster Dulles served as the U.S. special envoy to the Peace Treaty with Japan, and latter became U.S. Secretary of State. He acknowledged in an address that the “Letter by Rusk” represented only the view of U.S.“ The US View re Takeshima is simply that one of many signatories to the treaty.”(from a document recorded by U.S. Secretary of John Foster Dulles)
Although the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs published the content of the “Letter by Rusk” in ten languages, the letter represented merely the views of the U.S. at that time, not the agreed upon consensus of the Allies Powers.The original secret document about the Dulles's statemant is here. Dulles pointed another important thing. Prof. Hosaka
"US view regarding Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty. Article 22 was framed for purpose settling treaty disputes. "USA and other signatories must go to International Court of Justice, when she has a problem in the interpretation of the treaty. There are no signatory countries who go to ICJ about the Takeshima. All signatory countries has been silent, though he Rusk note opened in 1968. International law view the silence as the connivance.
S.F peace treatyProf. Hosaka said follows too.
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.
Truth of DokdoThe original source of the letter is here. The letter didn’t say that U.S. Ambassador in Korea thought Dokdo was Korean territory. It seems that Prof. Hosaka must
"A letter from U.S. Ambassador in Korea who unaware of the Letter by Rusk, indicated that he operated on the assumption that Dokdo was Korean territory. (Nov, 1952)
“Although this Embassy is not in possession of complete information regarding the Department’s views on the ownership of Tokto Island (also called Dokdo, Takeshima, or the Liancourt Rocks), it appears that its status is unsettled."U.S. Ambassador in Korea didn’t thought that Dokdo was Korean territory. It seems that Prof. Hosaka
Munhwa NewsProf. Hosaka doesn’t show the evidence about this draft decision rule. Though I researched documents about the Far Eastern Commission, but I can’t find any document about the rule. The probability that the rule which Prof. Hosaka asserts
“ USA had assumed the role of the drafter about the peace treaty. It was set rule that the draft made by USA discussed at the Far Eastern Commission and the article of the draft was decided according to the agreement by commission members (11 countries). However the Rusk note wasn’t discussed at the Far Eastern Commission and commission members didn’t agree. USA sent Rusk note to Korea government behind closed doors and didn’t open other countries. USA beguiled into believing that the commission members agreed the Rusk note and sent only to Korea. Because USA violated this draft decision rule, Rusk note was invalid”
FAR EASTERN COMMISSION AND ALLIED COUNCIL FOR JAPANI think that Prof. Hosaka should change the title of his video to “Truth of childish Korean propaganda technique”.
A. The functions of the Far Eastern Commission shall be:
1. To formulate the policies, principles, and standards in conformity with which the fulfillment by Japan of its obligations under the Terms of Surrender may be accomplished.
2. To review, on the request of any member, any directive issued by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or any action taken by the Supreme Commander involving policy decisions within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
3. To consider such other matters as may be assigned to it by agreement among the participating Governments reached in accordance with the voting procedure provided for in Article V-2 hereunder.
B. The Commission shall not make recommendations with regard to the conduct of military operations nor with regard to territorial adjustments.
C. The Commission in its activities will proceed from the fact that there has been formed an Allied Council for Japan and will respect existing control machinery in Japan, including the chain of command from the United States Government to the Supreme Commander and the Supreme Commander's command of occupation forces.
3. Disposition of the Korean Scholar about Takeshima.
- They pass over the sentence of sources which are inconvenient for Korea.
- They give priority to sources by private person and company than government. They
give priority to sources under the discussion process than result. They give priority to internal document than official diplomatic document. (It thought that their criteria of the priority is whether it is convenient for Korea or not.)
- They make their own rule for denial inconvenient truth without proof.
- They often are hallucinate.