1946 - Feb. 13 - "Conference with GHQ/SCAP concerning separation of the administration"

GHQ/SCAP confirmed that SCAPIN677 was only for administrative convenience, not territorial direction.

On Feb. 13, 1946, 15 days after SCAPIN677 was issued, GHQ/SCAP officers verbally explained Japanese government official that the directive( SCAPIN677) was only for administrative convenience on the part of allied powers and it did not relate to the territorial issue since the territorial issue had to be decided by the peace treaty(San Francisco Peace Treaty, April 28,1952 ) in the future. This newly confirmed Japanese MOFA's official document re-confirmed Japanese government's claim that SCAPIN677 has nothing to do with territorial issue, and rejected Korea's distorted interpretation again.

Miscellaneous matters of old Japanese oversea land situation
2. The 1st conference concerning separation of the administration (Section 1, Division 1 of Postwar Processing)

(1946)13th Feb., a liaison officer Khoda had a first conference with GS "Lodge(?)" and "Pool(?)" concerning for the titled subject. Summary is as follows.

Ohda(黄田) "Today, I visited to make some question about our doubt concerning the directive, not mentioning about the issue of territory nor the validity of this directive.
American "This directive(
* SCAPIN677) was issued merely for administrative convenience on the part of allied powers. It only re-confirmed the administration which had already been done so far. Namely, it means the others (*which were excluded from Japan in SCAPIN677) were not SCAP's jurisdiction. For example, Ohshima(*大島) is CIN(*C)PAC's jurisdiction and Ulleungdo is under the command of the 24th army corps. Therefore, the decision of the range of Japan by this directive has anything to do with the territorial issue, since territorial issue is something which has to be decided by the peace treaty(*San Francisco Peace Treaty, April 28,1952 ) at some future time. "

* notes added by me

2. 行政の分離に関する第一回会談録(


問題乃至は本指令の妥当性等に付いては触れさることとし単に疑義に付質問を為さんか為参上せり」 米「本指令は単なる連合国側の行政的便宜より出てたるに過きす従来行はれ来りたることを本指令に依り確認せるものなり即ち其の他はSCAPの所管するところにあらす例えは大島はCINPACの所管鬱陵島は第二十四軍団の指揮下に在り従って本指令に依る日本の範囲の決定は何等領土問題とは関連を有せす之は他日講和会議にて決定さるへき問題なり」

Though the South Korean government claims that SCAPINs No.677, which is the instruction concerning the separation of the administration, issued by GHQ/ SCAP, has defined Takeshima/Dokdo outside of Japanese territory, this official document re-confirmed the claim is totally groundless. The fact is, the directive is only for administrative convenience on the part of allied powers, and it did not relate to the territorial issue since the territorial issue had to be decided by the peace treaty in the future, just like Japanese government claims. It is absurd for Korean to claim territorial sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo based on SCAPIN677, since the administrator who issued the directive itself clearly answered Japanese official that the directive(SCAPIN677) does not define Japan's territory.

To begin with, article No. 1 of SCAPIN677 itself clearly says "The Imperial Japanese Government is directed to cease exercising, or attempting to exercise, governmental or administrative authority over any area outside of Japan, or over any government officials and employees or any over persons within such areas. ", and Takeshima was simply listed as one of the "such areas" which Japanese government was not able to administrate under the occupation, not the areas outside of "Japanese territory as well as Ogasawara and Izu islets, etc. all of them were returned to Japan later, except for Ulleugndo and Jeju, which had been Korean territory before Japan's annexation, and Kurils, Habomai and Shikotan, which are still under the negotiation between Russia. Moreover, the article No.6 of the directive clearly wrote "6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration. " As the articles of SCAPIN677 clearly defines, it never direct the "territorial issue." The Korean claim is nothing but a irrational argument in the first place.

In addition, SCAPIN1033, which also Korean sovereignty claim bases on, clearly states "5. The present authorization is not an expression of allied policy relative to ultimate determination of national jurisdiction, international boundaries or fishing rights in the area concerned or in any other area”. It is clear that Korean interpretation of the document is only far-fetched argument as well.

On top of that, "The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年). ", which Korean media reported as the evidence of Japanese government's recognizing Takeshima as outside of the territory this January, only followed SCAPIN677 that limits the administrative power of Japan, unrelated to any territorial issue.

As it was showed, pro-Korean always take up only convenient parts of the documents, disregarding inconvenient parts. I hope they stop this kind of nonsense and develop the true discussion with the academic value based on a historical fact immediately. The first thing they need to do is to present clear evidence that Korea's Lee Dynasty or Great Korean government had recognized Takeshima as their territory before 1905. Secondly, Korean government is required to open all internal documents of the Great Korean Empire around 1905-1906 so that we can understand why Korean government didn't protest nor even made inquiry about Takeshima incorporation while they did for the similar case of 竹邊浦 near Ulleungdo. Korean Imperial government officially acquiesced Japan's sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo by not protesting about the island against Japan in 1906.

This document was found by "kingfish", reported by opp, and chaamiey helped us to decipher some of the obscure kanji. Lots of thanks to them.

Reference :
1906- Feb 20 & April 17 - "Official Documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vol.1" - Korean government protested about land transaction in 竹邊浦
Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Directives to the Japanese Government (SCAPINs) (Record Group 331) - 対日指令集 -
1946 - SCAPIN 677 - #1
1946 - SCAPIN 1033 - #2
1946 旧日本外地情況雑件2.行政の分離に関する司令部側との会談_2


  1. Anonymous1/2/09 23:52


  2. Good joooooob, Kaneganese again!
    You knocked out that frogman. Thank you.

  3. ありがとうございます。Thanks you, guys. If you find any mistake, please let me know.

  4. This is clearly a wrong interpretation. Let me tell you why.

    The Postdam Delaration limits Japan to the four main islands, Scapin 677 defines the status of minor and outlying islands. The Japan Peace Treaty legally seals the deal. Any problems outside of these treaties Japan had to seek solvents outside of SFPT. Listen to

    Dulles Pacifist, Kangeganese he wrote and signed the Japan Peace Treaty, not the boys sitting around the water cooler in Japan.

    This leaves the issue of other outlying islands for a later decision as Kaneganese stated. If Scapin has nothing to do with the definition of Japanese territory which Allied Command granted Islands such as Oki, Izu etc. back to Japan? The fate of these islands is not mentioned in either Potsdam nor the Japane Peace Treaty. By your definition Japan was never granted sovereignty over these islands. This is wrong.

    Second if Scap has nothing to do with defining Japanese territory, you pretty much shot down Japan's MOFA claim that Scapin 1078 in designating Dokdo a bombing range, indicates the islets were returned to Japan. I'm sure your buddy Pro Shimojo will appreciate that Kaneganese.

  5. Article 2 of Japan Peace Treaty is based on SCAP.



    Dulles talks, listen to him instead of putting your own spin on unclear records.

    Kaneganese you filled in a lot of the blanks with your own interpretation don't you think?

  6. Did you change your name AGAIN, Steve the frog hearted?

    BTW, the SCAPIN included the following sentence:
    "6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication
    of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration."

    (6 この指令中の条項は何れも、ポツダム宣言の第8条にある小島嶼の最終的決定に関する連合国側の政策を示すものと解釈してはならない。)

    And here is a confidential document written by Kenneth T. Young, Jr., Director of the Office of Northern Asian Affairs in 1952:

    "The action of the United States-Japan Joint Committee in designating these rocks as a facility of the Japanese Government is therefore
    justified. The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN677 f January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, including Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently. A later SCAPIN, No.1778 of September 16, 1947 designated the islets as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force and further provided that use of the range would be made only after notification through Japanese civil authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Islands and certain ports on Western Honsu.

    Sincerely yours,
    Kenneth T. Young, Jr.,
    Director,Office of Northeast Asian Affairs"

    So your insistency is nothing.

  7. 韓国はSCAPIN677の捏造解釈をいつまで続けるつもりなのでしょうか。SCAPIN677に基づいて行政権の停止を規定している法令を見つけ出してきては、「日本自身が独島を領土外と認めている」と騒いでいます。




  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. 外務省記録公開文書 リール番号A'-0106 コマ番号315「14.極東委員会および連合国対日理事会付託事項」 (http://gaikokiroku.mofa.go.jp/djvu/A0106/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=315)によれば、SCAP/GHQの上位組織である極東委員会には領域の調整に関する権限は与えられていませんでした。つまりSCAP/GHQにも領域の調整の権限がないわけで、韓国側の言うようなSCAPIN677による主権の移動(返還)が行われたわけでないことは論駁のしようがないことでしょう。




  10. I corrected the name of Mr. 黄田, a MOFA officer, according to one of my advisers. His name is pronounced as Ohda. Sorry for any inconveniences caused.



Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.