tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post8815127093072238985..comments2024-01-26T17:48:29.804+09:00Comments on Dokdo-or-Takeshima?: 1953 December: SECRET SECURITY INFORMATION by DullesGerry Bevershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-50650805528650439122012-09-07T20:35:19.224+09:002012-09-07T20:35:19.224+09:00What's the big deal about American supporting ...What's the big deal about American supporting Japanese claim on Dokdo?<br /><br />The main point of this telegram is Secretary Dulles mentioned the US position supporting Japan's claim on Dokdo in the Rusk Note was not conveyed to Japan. US position supporting Japan's claim on Dokdo in the Rusk Note was not conveyed even to the members of Allied Powers. <br /><br />Japan's MOFA pamphlet on the "Ten Issues of Takeshima" states that "Based on this correspondence(=Rusk Note), it is evident Takeshima was affirmed as part of territory of Japan.", which is far from the truth. Japanese government and the pro Japanese people should stop citing the Rusk Note to claim Dokdo was given to Japan because of it. How could such a secret US position be reflected in the SF Treaty? It clearly says American view on Dokdo was simply that of one of many signatories to treaty.<br /><br /><br /><br />slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.com