Japan and the Republic of Korea,
Considering the historical background of relationship between their
peoples and their mutual desire for good neighborliness and for the
normalization of their relations on the basis of the principle of
mutual respect for sovereignty;
Recognizing the importance of their close cooperation in conformity
with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations to the
promotion of their mutual welfare and common interests and to the
maintenance of international peace and security; and
Recalling the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Peace with Japan
signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951 and the
Resolution 195 (III) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on
December 12, 1948;
Have resolved to conclude the present Treaty on Basic Relations and have accordingly appointed as their Plenipotentiaries,
History of San Francisco Peace Treaty
1946 - SCAPIN 677 - #1
1946 - SCAPIN 1033 - #2
1947 - SCAPIN 1778 - #3
1949 - Willam J. Sebald's telegram - #4
1949 - A letter from W. Walton Butterworth - #5
1949 - December 29th; 6th Amendment of the Treaty Draft - #6
1950 - July - Commentary on Draft Treaty by the Department of State - #6-b
1950 - August - U.S. Draft of the Peace Treaty - #6-c
1950 - October 26th - USA Answers to Questions Submitted by the Australian Government - #7
1951 - April - May: Joint UK and USA Draft - extra(1)
1951 - June 1 - New Zealand's view - extra(2)
1951 - July 9th - Coversation of Yu Chan Yang with John F. Dulles - #8
1951 - July 19th - The 2nd Conversation between Yu Chan Yang and John F. Dulles - #9
1951 - August - Another letter from You Chan Yang - #10
1951 - August 3rd - Memorandum - #11(On re-ceiving Boggs's memo. I asked the Korean desk to find out whether anyone in the Korean Embassy officer had told him they believed Dokdo was near Ullengdo, or Takeshima Rock, and suspected that Parangdo was too.)
1951 - August - Rusk's Letter - #12
1951 - September 9th - San Francisco Peace Treaty - #13
Korea's Illegal Land Grab from Japan
1952- January: Syngman Rhee Line
After the Installation of Syngman Rhee Line - American documents
1952 - November - Confidential Security Information of USA - #1 ("It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington." )
1952 - December - Confidential Security Information of USA - #2( "I much appreciate your letter of November 14 in regard to the status of the Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks). The information 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.")
1953 July: Confidential Security Information of USA - #3( The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in assistant Secretary dated August 10,1951.")
1953 - November - Secret Security Information of USA - #4 ("The Liancourt Rocks case appears to have aspects in common with that of Shikotan Island" "Remind the ROK of our previous statement of view (the Rusk letter)")
Below is a translation of The 21st column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao
" Refutation against "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”When the territorial issue is in dispute, historical grounds for its sovereignty is indispensable. Therefore, the fact that the remarks "輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也 ("Yojiji" says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima.)" from the "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考)", which South Korea present as her logical base for its sovereignty on Takeshima, was a falsification during the process of compilation of the book in 1770, was a fatal blow to South Korea. Since it makes South Korea had invaded Takeshima, a Japanese territory, without any historical grounds. Korean must have admitted this fact of the falsification, considering they have kept failing to refute "１０ Ｉｓｓｕｅｓ ｏｆ Ｔａｋｅｓｈｉｍａ" which pointed out this fact of falsification, the pａｍｐｈｌｅｔ issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan in Feb.2008.
Actually, refutations by people who side with South Korea just went to the wrong place. For example, Prof. Emeritus Naito(内藤正中) couldn't refute logically, instead, he simply assumed it to be a "Conflicting Theory" in his book "'An Introduction for Takeshima=Dokdo issue ‐ A Criticism for Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs." As for Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)'s case, he only refuted by a dimension quite different from the historical study. His so-called refutation was, " Ministry of Foreign Affairs quoted Shimojo's editorial without verifying at all. To begin with, Shimojo's editorial is a mistake." ("Dokdo Research", No.4, Yeungnam University) Mr. Park's typical logics can be seen in his article "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" (Dokdo research,No.4,2008 （「獨島研究」第4号・韓国嶺南大学校編(Japanese)). In the article, he claimed "What Shimojo wrote" are "often published in the right-wing magazines like ""Shokun !(諸君!)" and "Seiron(正論)". And it draw attention from non-specialists." and concluded that " it will be necessary to watch it carefully in the future. Moreover, it is an interesting point how the relation between he and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will develop in the future. "
Then, the pamphlet "１０ Ｉｓｓｕｅｓ ｏｆ Ｔａｋｅｓｈｉｍａ" which pointed out this fact of falsification, by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan might become the conduct of the "right wing" according to Park's logical style, too. However, what is required for the historical study is to clarify the fact of a more objective history through the adequate document criticism. It is not to misapprehend or deny the historical study itself by labeling my alma mater and Takushoku University, which I'm currently working for, as "Universities of right inclined" or me as "Minority", "Activist" and "Right wing".
Now, I'm going to look into Mr. Park's logic through his editorials if they are correct or not. This time, "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" ("Dokdo research", No.4). Next time, ""Meiji Government's Recognition of Takeshima/Dokdo" ("Study of Eastern Asian Culture", No.28 (『北東アジア文化研究』第28号)) published by Tottori College(鳥取短期大学).
Is there really no falsification in the notation of "Dongguk Munheon Bigo", as Mr. Park claimed "There was neither "Fabrication" nor "Falsification" of the historiography as Masao Shimojo advertised " ? In this column, the problem and the argument error of Mr. Park are to be pointed out.(1)Interpretation of "Yojigo(輿地考)"of the "Dongguk Munheon Bigo"
So far, South Korea had used the notation of "Yojigo(輿地考)"of the "Dongguk Munheon Bigo" as her logical base for its sovereignty on Takeshima. It says, "輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也 (Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima. )", and Korean automatically misread this "Usan" as today's Takeshima/Dokdo without verification and claim that Takeshima/Dokdo was an island belonging to Ulleungdo from the phrase "Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk".
However, Korean should have had perused the documents "Dongguk Yojiji (東国輿地志)", which supposed to be quoted as annotation, and "Dongguk Munheon Bigo" through document criticism method if she was going to use it as a logical base. However, "Yojiji (輿地志)" was not even an issue in the controversy of Japan-South Korea that had started in the 1950's, then naturally, even a basic research of verifying the compilation process of "Dongguk Munheon Bigo" was not done. This notation became an issue only after South Korea constructed the coming alongside the pier facilities in Takeshima in 1996.
In the process of the controversy started in 1996, the important fact was pointed out.That is, the quotation in "Dongguk Munheon Bigo" and the one from "Dongguk Yojiji (東国輿地志)" by Ryu Hyung-won(柳馨遠) in Dongguk Munheon Bigo’s source book "疆界誌" by Shin Gyong-jun (申景濬) was actually different. In "Dongguk Munheon Bigo"(1770) , it says that "輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也 (Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima. )", while "東国興地志"(1656) or known simply as "Yojiji(輿地志)" itself actually says that "一説干山 鬱陵 本一島(It is said that Usan and Ulleung were originally one island)". Then, when and at what stage this phrase in "東国興地志"(1656) was altered? Well, it was 申景濬's "疆界誌"（1756）, which was the source book of Dongguk Munheon Bigo. In "疆界誌", 申景濬 wrote that "一則其所謂松島而蓋二島倶是于山國也( one of them must be so-called Matsushima and probably two islands are both Usanguk.)" Since then, Usando started to be written as Matsushima(Japanese old name of today's Takeshima).
The fact that "Dongguk Munheon Bigo"(1770)'s annotation says that "輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也 (Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima. )", is the concrete evidence that quotation from "Yojiji" was actually falcified and created the false sentence. In fact, there is no mention of "Usando was Japanese so-called Matsushima" in original "Dongguk Yojiji".
"于山島鬱陵島 一云武陵 一云羽陵 二島在県正東海中 三峯岌嶪撑空南峯梢卑 風日清明則峯頭樹木 及山根沙渚 歴々可見 風便則二日可到 一説干山 鬱陵 本一島 地方百里
(Usando/Ulleungdo are also called both Muleung and U-leung. The two islands are in the middle of the sea due east of the administrative seat. Three peaks shoot straight up to the sky, and the southern peak is a little lower. When it is windy and the weather is clear, you can clearly see the trees on the peaks of the mountains and the sand at their feet. You can travel there in two days with a fair wind. It is said that Usan and Ulleung were originally one island with an area of 100 ri)"(「東国興地志」巻之七 江原道 蔚珍) (Link to the image 1 , 2 )
→ Original ＋ Opinion (The phrase starts with "I think". )1756 - Shin Gyong-jun (申景濬) "疆界誌 旅菴全書" 巻之七 "Ganggyego (彊界考) " 十二 鬱陵島
"按 輿地志云 一説于山鬱陵本一島 ( Thinking about Yojiji, it says that Usan and Ulluen are the same island in one theory,) 而考諸圖志二島也 一則其所謂松島 ( But I think, considering many maps, it must be two island and one of them must be so-called Matsushima,) 而蓋二島 倶是于山國也(and probably two islands are both Usanguk.)"→ Fabirication (Replaced the original's phrase with " Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk."/ Omitted the words "I think" )
1770 - Shin Gyong-jun (申景濬) ・ Hong Gye-hui(洪啓禧) "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考) Yojigo(與地考)"
"輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也 (Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima. )"Surprisingly, against this fact of fabrication, Mr. Park still insists that "there was no fabrication nor alteration of historical documents as Prof. Shimojo claims." He explains the reason for that as follows.
(*This part was written by translater.)" As for "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考) ", the former part of the phrase (鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地) was the quotation, but the latter part "于山則倭所謂松島也" was Shin's opinion." This is apparent from "Yojiji (輿地志)". Therefore, there was no "fabrication nor alteration" of historical documents as Shimojo says."
However, Mr. Park made two critical failures even in this short sentences. First of all, he actually admitted the fact that the latter part "于山則倭所謂松島也 (Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima.)" was just a Shin's opinion inserted, while the former part was quotation.
Mr. Park finally admitted that the notation "于山則倭所謂松島也 (Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima.)" in "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考)" was Shin's opinion, in other words, the whole sentence, which omitted the words "I think", was not original but an alteration. He did inadvertently revealed Korean's secret (fabrication) of almost 300 years and frustrated their own ground for the illegal occupation of Japan's Takeshima.His second failure was that he claimed that as for "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考)", the former part of the phrase was the quotation. This notation "鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地(Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk)" meant much importance to Korean since it was the logical basis that Takeshima/Dokdo, which they believe to be called as Usando, was adjacent island (属島) of Ulleungdo. On this grounds, Korean have insisted that Takeshima/Dokdo be a Korean territory from the sixth (!?) century.
However, the same sentence with "鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地(Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk) or similar doesn't even exist in Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠)'s "Dongguk Yojiji (東国輿地志)" unlike Mr. Park insisted. The annotation of "疆界誌 " which was compiled by 申景濬, an author of "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考), says that "而蓋二島 倶是于山國也(and probably two islands are both Usan-country.)" and it is the grounds of an argument of the sentence "鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 (Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk.)" ("Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考)). Accordingly, "鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 (Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk.)" in "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考)) has anything to do with Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠)'s "Dongguk Yojiji (東国輿地志)". In fact, it was 洪啓嬉's embellishement and composition of annotation of 申景濬's book "疆界誌 "when they compiled "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考). Mr. Park employs sophistry as "there was no "fabrication nor alteration" of historical documents as Shimojo says", but it is just an reckless remark without any grounds.
As was explained so far, Takeshima Issue from historical point of view should be started with the document criticism of 申景濬's "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考). However, Mr. Park's study in his article "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" doesn't reach to the document criticism of 申景濬's "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考)". That is because as long as Mr. Park tries objecting by pasting the label like "Shimojo is what (right -wing)", he never reaches the region of " controversy". In fact, his purpose is political propaganda, not "controversy", as he has been working on "Criticism of Masao Shimojo" on his web-site "half-moon castle newsletter". In 2007, he even received a research grant from Korea Maritime Institute, South Korean governmental Organization, to study "Analysis of the conflicting perspectives on Ahn Yong-bok Incident between Japan-South Korea" and "Criticism of Shimojo Masao's claim".
The historical study on Takeshima Issue has gone beyond and already advanced even to the document criticism of 申景濬's "疆界誌" (1756), and the fact that the original text exists in 申's "疆界誌" has revealed. It is Lee Maeng-hyu (李孟休)'s "Chungwanji" (春官志) (1745). "Biography of Ahn Yong-bok(安龍福伝)" and the article "Ulleungdo" in "疆界誌" is plagiarism of the article "Ulleungdo Dispute(欝陵島争界)" "Chungwanji", and in the process, the part which 申 wrote speculation and inserted his opinion in "疆界誌" became the annotation of "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考)" later. Somehow, Mr. Park, who intended to "Analyse Shimojo Masao's Editorials", avoided the argument with Lee Maeng-hyu (李孟休)'s "Chungwanji" (春官志). Why? That is because the relevant part of "Chungwanji" actually defined Usando as Ulleungdo as follows.
1745 - Lee Maeng-hyu (李孟休) "Chungwanji" (春官志)
盖 是島 以其産竹也 故 謂 竹島 以有三峯也 故謂 三峯島 至於 于山 羽陵 蔚陵 武陵 礒竹 皆音 轉 訛而然 也
--------------------------------------------------------------
In general, this island is called Jukdo (竹島) because bamboo (竹) grows on it. It is called Sambongdo (三峰島) because it has "three peaks" (三峰). Usan (于山), Uleung (羽陵), Ulleung (蔚陵), Muleung (武陵), and Wuijuk (礒竹) are all mispronunciations.
As it is clear from this description, Lee's "Chungwanji" defined Usando as Ulleungdo. 申景濬 wrote speculation "按 輿地志云 一説于山鬱陵本一島 ( Thinking about Yojiji, it says that Usan and Ulluen are the same island in one theory,) "而考諸圖志二島也 一則其所謂松島 ( But I think, considering many maps, it must be two island and one of them must be so-called Matsushima,) 而蓋二島 倶是于山國也(and probably two islands are both Usanguk.)" in "疆界誌" (1756), leading fabricating false sentence "Usando was Japanese Matsushima" , which was in fact his own opinion.
Then, why Shin considered "Usando was Japanese Matsushima"? That is because of Ahn Yong-bok(安龍福), who smuggled himself into Japan and was expelled from The Sea of Karo (加露灘) by Tottori clan in 1696, testified that "松島即子山島、此亦我國地(Matsushima is Jasan-do, which is the land of our country)" to the interrogation after coming back and perjured himself that "Ulleungdo and Matsushima became Joseon territory through the own negotiation to the feudal lord of the Tottori clan". Namely, the metamorphosis of Usando, which was defined as Ulleungdo in Han Baek-gyeom(韓百謙)'s "Dongguk Jiliji(東国地理誌)" and Lee's "Chungwanji", into "Japanese Matsushima" have its origin in Ahn's false testimony.
Shin, who followed Ahn's false statement indiscriminately, even altered the quotation in "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考)" consequently and spread the groundless theory "Usando = Japan's Matsushima". Chung Dong-yu(鄭東愈) of the same period castigated Shin as " has weak-point of making self‐righteousness/far‐fetched opinions and assumes own view to be correct from old times.", while Mr. Park, who was neglectful of the document criticism of "疆界誌", seems to be blind to the historical facts. Therefore, Mr. Park's words "Therefore, there was no "fabrication nor alteration" of historical documents as Shimojo says." is just a thoughtless words of a man of negligent to the document criticism and interpreting the historiography arbitrary.
“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２１回 朴炳渉氏の「下條正男の論説を分析する」（「独島研究」第4号）を駁す 下條正男”
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.
The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”
The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."
The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"
The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”
The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory”
The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”
The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"
