To follow is a reply from Allan Lightner in
ADDRESS OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS TO
December 4, 1952
Sorry to hear that your trip has again been
postponed. However, we will very much look forward to seeing you early in the
I much appreciate your letter of November 14 in
regard to the status of the
(Liancourt Rocks). The information Dokdo Island
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. We of course knew of the ROK Government’s desire to have Article 2(a) of the Peace Treaty amended to include Dokdo and Parangdo and convoyed that request in a telegram to the Department at that time, along with other ROK suggestions for amendments to the draft treaty.
We were subsequently made aware of the fact that Article 2(a) was not to be
amended but had no inkling that that decision constituted a rejection of the
Korean claim. Well, now we know and we are very glad to have the information as we have been operating on the basis of wrong assumption for a long time.
I am sending with a transmitting despatch, a copy of the note that we have just sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which includes as a final paragraph the wording
suggested in the Department’s telegram no.365 of November 27 and which refers to
Dean Rusk's note to Ambassador Yang of August 10, 1951.
E. Allan Lightner, Jr.
Kenneth T. Young, Jr., Escuire,
Office of Northeast Asian Affairs,
The Department of the State,
CONFIDENTIAL SECURITY INFORMATION
This document shows that the information that the Department of State clearly mentioned that Liancourt Rocks were Japanese territory (Rusk's Letter) was transmitted to the Embassy in Pusan almost 15 months later. The "wrong assumption" in the letter may mean that they thought the rocks to be Korean territory.