tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post5772732077098897655..comments2024-01-26T17:48:29.804+09:00Comments on Dokdo-or-Takeshima?: 1952 November: Confidential Security Information of USAGerry Bevershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-79101085881434145972013-03-27T08:39:30.495+09:002013-03-27T08:39:30.495+09:00What dokdo-takeshima.com said is absolutely right....What dokdo-takeshima.com said is absolutely right.<br /><br />Japan’s MOFA claims "Based on this correspondence(Rusk Note), it is evident that Takeshima was affi rmed as part of the territory of Japan." And many Japanese believe so. However, it is a very foolish attempt and an illusory belief.<br /><br />Rusk Note has nothing to do with the final decision regarding Dokdo by the Allied Powers. It was a confidential document sent only to Korea. America had no right to decide exclusively Dokdo belongs to Japan.<br /><br /><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nsqHPo250luaK6j3sYva2qS6eH5_wQBWbPNQJrqViGY/edit" rel="nofollow">Rusk Note was a confidential document.</a><br /><br /><br />On Dec. 9, 1953, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles sent a telegram to the American Embassy in Tokyo stating :<br /><br />" ..... .Despite US view peace treaty a determination under terms Postsdam Declaration and that treaty leaves Takeshima 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. <b>US view re Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty</b>.“<br /><br />Mr. Dulles’ statement made it clear US support for Japanese claim on Dokdo was simply that of one of 48 signatories to the treaty. Thus, Japan’s interpretation that SF Peace Treaty gave Dokdo to Japan is just arbitrary. Rusk Note based on the Japanese false claim had no relation with SF Peace Treaty final draft regarding Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo).slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03747940942117080483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-60874404515507158232008-08-15T08:03:00.001+09:002008-08-15T08:03:00.001+09:00Steve,Are you really a teacher?Can't you read Engl...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Are you really a teacher?<BR/>Can't you read English properly?<BR/><BR/>Read the posting once again. The answer is in the posting.<BR/><BR/>These documents show USA's thought. The final document was written by the Secretary of State. The highest rank politician could have the same opinion as Rusk's Letter.<BR/><BR/>Read the Rusk's Letter again. It was written to Korea.pacifisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100903035796287895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-28118108363045283272008-08-15T08:03:00.000+09:002008-08-15T08:03:00.000+09:00Steve,Are you really a teacher?Can't you read Engl...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Are you really a teacher?<BR/>Can't you read English properly?<BR/><BR/>Read the posting once again. The answer is in the posting.<BR/><BR/>These documents show USA's thought. The final document was written by the Secretary of State. The highest rank politician could have the same opinion as Rusk's Letter.<BR/><BR/>Read the Rusk's Letter again. It was written to Korea.pacifisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100903035796287895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-47031512908171523992008-08-15T00:38:00.000+09:002008-08-15T00:38:00.000+09:00Pacifist, you are posting reams of data that is ea...Pacifist, you are posting reams of data that is easily shot down by a few facts.<BR/><BR/>1. There is no mention of Liancourt Rocks in the San Francisco Peace Treaty.<BR/><BR/>2. Korea is not signatory to the San Francisco Peace Treaty thus is has zero legal effect on Korea.<BR/><BR/>3. The American documents you cite were confidential and never became official U.S. policy on the matter. In fact not even Japan knew about these papers until they became declassified decades later.<BR/><BR/>4. America's views were but one country's opinion on the matter. Around 48 nations signed the Japan Peace Treaty. America did not the authority to unilaterally make decisions on the disposition of former Japanese outlying islands without consent of the other allied nations who signed the Japan Peace Treaty.<BR/><BR/>5. Even your own documents show the U.S. dropped support for Japan in the early 1950s.<BR/><BR/>Stop beating a dead horse and stop trying to baffle us with B.S.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-sf-truth.html" REL="nofollow">Japan-Peace-Treaty-Truth-1</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page9.html" REL="nofollow">Japan-Peace-Treaty-Truth-2</A>dokdo-takeshima.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262234000937445458noreply@blogger.com