1973 Jun 16 - "Dong-a Ilbo" Questions the Discovery of "Parang Island"

This June 16, 1973 article in the Korean newspaper Dong-a Ilbo has helped answer a very important question for me. Who told the Korean government that Liancourt Rocks was Korean territory?

Well, according to Yu Jin-o ((洪鍾仁), who was quoted in the article, the Korean Prime Minister at the time told him that Korean President Rhee Syng-man had tasked him with finding out the boundaries of Korean territory. The Korean Prime Minister said the Korean President recommended that he go to Korean historians for the answers. As a result, the Prime Minister went to the renowned Korean historian Choi Nam-seon (崔南善), who told him that old Korean texts recorded that Korea's easternmost boundry was "Dokdo" (獨島) and its southwestern boundary was Parangseo (波浪嶼).

The problem with going to Mr. Choi Nam-seon for help in determining Korea's boundaries is that Mr. Choi wrote in his  1948 book "General Knowledge of Joseon" (朝鮮常識) that Korea's easternmost boundary was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of "Jukdo" (竹島), which is only 2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore. Here is what Mr. Choi wrote in 1948: (LINK):

Easternmost (極東)

130º 56 min 56 sec East Longitude (東経１３０度５６分２３秒)

 [Ulleungdo''s Jukdo in North Gyeongsang Province (慶尚北道鬱陵島竹島)]

I think Mr. Choi Nam-seon mistook Ulleungdo's neighboring island of "Jukdo" (竹島), which is only 2 km off Ulleungdo's east shore, for Japan's "Takeshima" (竹島), which is about 90 km to the southeast of Ulleungdo, because both names used the same Chinese characters: 竹島. And I think Korea's Patriotic Old Men's Association made the same mistake. In fact, Choi Nam-seon may have even been one of those Patriotic Old Men.

Here is my translation of the June 16, 1973 article.

Events Leading to a  Citizen of Jeju Province Applying for an Occupation Permit 

"In Science there are no miracles. We are at sea at coordinates 32º 10' N and 125º E. Within the twenty mile range of visibility, Parang Island cannot be detected."

In August 1951 Mr. Hong Jong-in (洪鍾仁), the head of the research team sent to find Parang Island in the sea 180 kilometers (km) to the southwest of Jejudo, sent the above cable to Son Won-il (孫元一), the Chief of Naval Operations. At the time Mr. Hong was the chairman of the Korean Alpine Club and editor-in-chief of the Chosun Ilbo. 

When the United States and Japan were making the first draft of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the research team sent to find Parang Island, with the help of the navy, searched the waters 180 km southwest of Jejudo, but, in the end, were unable to find it.

Is "Parang Island" really an island?

The question of this unconfirmed island has once again been brought up by Han Gwang-seop 韓光燮), a resident of Jeju Province. He claims to have confirmed the island and has applied to Jeju provincial authorities for a permit of occupation. (Refer to the article on Page 7 of the Donga Ilbo.) 

For now, Jeju authorities have returned his application, giving the reason, "It shows up as a reef on navigational charts and is outside our territory." However, the question is whether it is really an island coming up out of the sea at that location or whether it is part of the contiental shelf. If it is part of the continental shelf, then how it will be treated under international law becomes a question of interest. 

Han Gwang-seop said, "Navigational charts show that spot labeled only as as "current breaks." It is obvious that it is not an island above the surface of the water." According to the (Geneva) Convention on the Law of the Sea, 'An island is a natural area that is surrounded by water and sticks up out of the water at high tide.' It defines an area that naturally sticks up above the water at low tide but is submerged at high tide as an 'elevated area.' If an elevated area is outside territorial waters, it cannot have its own territorial waters."

 In 1951 the naval vessel ordered by President Rhee to do the first on-site search ended up not finding it. 

If it is submerged at high tide, it is not an island.

If it is part of the continental shelf, it becomes a problem dealt with under international law, which would generate a lot of interest.

Constitutional Law scholar Yu Jin-o (兪鎭午) explains the 1951 search for this island as follows:  

At the time of the evacuation to Busan, I went to see Prime Minister Jang Myeon (張勉), who said he had been instructed by the President to find the borders of our territory. He was told to prepare for Korea-Japan talks by first meeting with historians. Therefore, he met Choi Nam-seon (崔南善), who told him that old texts recorded our territory as Dokdo (獨島) to the east and Parangseo (波浪嶼) to the southwest, so he said we should do an on-site survey. Hong Jong-il (洪鍾仁) was made the team leader, and a naval survey team was sent to the site, but they were unable to find the island in the end.

Misters Yu Jin-o (兪鎭午) and Hong Jong-in (洪鍾仁) said that if it is only a reef and not an island, then it cannot be a territorial issue or be subject to administration with an occupation permit under international law, but if it can be confirmed as an island, then we could argue that our territory should be extended out to there. An official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also said on the 19th, "If it submerges at high tide and appears at low tide, it is an elevated area that is not recognized as an island under international law, and a place like that cannot be the object of possession."

The experts say that the issue with Parang Island is still unconfirmed, and even if it is confirmed, it will still remain open seas if it is a reef and not be a territorial issue. 

Reporter Kim Jin-bae (金珍培)

1973 Jun 16 - Korean newspaper "Maeil Gyeongje Sinmun" Reports the Discovery of "Parangseo" (坡浪嶼)

In an August 5, 1948 letter of petition to General Douglas MacArthur, a Korean organization known as the Patriotic Old Men's Association claimed that a "series of islands" named "Parangdo" belonged to Korea, but in spite of listing coordinates for the islands and giving distances to them HERE, no one could find them, so Korea dropped its claim.

However, in the following June 16, 1973 article, the Korean newspaper Maeil Gyeongje Sinmun reported the discovery of two newly discovered islands 177.6 kilometers to the southwest of Jeju Island (濟州島). The Korean man who discovered them named them "Parangseo" (파랑서) and "Harangseo" (하랑서).

The article gives the area of the small rock islands as being millions of square meters, which does not seem very small to me, so I suspect he was giving the dimensions as 520m x 392m. That would be a total area of 203,840 sq. meters. (Info in Korean language)

Two Uninhabited Islands Discovered Southwest of Jejudo 

In the open sea 177.6 kilometers to the southwest of Jejudo, two uninhabited islands have been discovered for the first time. The man who discovered them is Han Gwang-seop (韓光燮), who lives in Jeju Province. On the 15th he submitted an application for a permit to occupy waters on the open seas.
 
The two islands are 177.6 kilometers southwest of our southernmost island of Marado (마라도) at 32º 10' N and 125º E in the East China Sea. They are just small, rocky islands. The area of one is 5.2 million sq. meters, and the area of the other is 3.92 million sq. meters.

Mr. Han has named the islands "Parangseo" (파랑서) and "Harangseo" (하랑서). On sea charts they are listed as a reef.

1948 Aug 5 - Petition Concerning Sovereinty of "Docksum" by the Patriotic Old Men's Association (憂國老人會)

A group of Koreans who referred to themselves as the Patriotic Old Men's Association (憂國老人會), headquarted in Seoul, Korea, sent a 6-page petition letter dated August 5, 1948 to General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), claiming Korean sovereignty over "Docksom," Ulleungdo, Tsushma, and "Parang" Islands. The letter was apparently received by or transferred to  the US Political Adviser for Japan because carbon copies were made and sent to the US Representative in Seoul with a September 16 cover letter explaining the Korea petition. The cover letter and the 6-page Korean petition are posted below.

Notice in their claim for "Docksum" (Liancourt Rocks) that they wrote that the Korean name meant "pot island" and that it was given that name because it looked like a pot. Apparently, the Patriotic Old Men never saw Liancourt Rocks because they look nothing like a pot. The name "Dokdo" (獨島) actually means "Lonely Island."

The Patriotic Old Men seem to have thought Liancourt Rocks was a reference to either Ulleungdo or Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島), which is just two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore. Not only does Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo look more like a "pot" than Liancourt Rocks, the name "Jukdo" (竹島) uses the same Chinese characters as the Japanese name for Liancourt Rocks, "Takeshima" (竹島). The fact that the same Chinese characters were used for both islands is probably the source for the misunderstanding. The Patriotic Old Men must have thought the Japanese were trying to claim Ulleungdo and its neighboring of Jukdo.

As for their claim to Parangdo, the Patriotic Old Men seemed to think they were a "series of islands," instead of an underwater reef. An October 22, 1947 article in the Korean newspaper Dong-a Ilbo HERE talks about a "cluster of islands" called "Parangseo" (坡浪嶼); nevertheless, no one could find the islands, so Korea ended up dropping its demand they be included in the Peace Treaty. It was not until 1973 that a Korean man named Han Gwang-seop (韓光燮) found the islands "for the first time." (See HERE.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1947 Oct 22 - "Dong-a Ilbo" Reports Japan's Claim to "Parangseo" (坡浪嶼)



In an October 22, 1947 article, the Korean newspaper Dong-a Ilbo reported that Japan had told the MacArthur Command that the Yellow Sea islet of "Parangseo" (坡浪嶼) was Japanese territory. Parangseo is actually an underwater reef that is now called Ieodo (離於島 - 이어도) in Korea and Socotra Rock in Western countries. (Wikipedia)

The article claims that the Japanese had the MacArthur Line drawn to include Socotra Rock on the Japanese side, but I think it is possible that the Koreans simply assumed that from maps showing the MacArthur Line.

Notice in the article below that Korea thought Parangseo was a "cluster of islands" (한 무리의 섬), suggesting that it did not know it was really an underwater reef. In spite of giving the distances to the "islands" and their coordinates, Koreans could not find them and withdrew their demand that they be included in the 1952 Treaty of Peace with Japan. It was not until 1973 that a Korean man from Jeju Province named Han Gwang-seop (韓光燮) found the underwater reef. (See HERE and HERE.

Again Showing its Desire for Invasion,  Japan Has Reported to the MacArthur Command that the Yellow Sea Islet of Parangseo (坡浪嶼) Is Japanese Territory 

Unable to rid itself of its invasion mentality, the Japanese pirates are not only scheming to encroach on our East Sea island of Dokdo, as reported several times previously, they are once again infuriating us by now extending their ambitous scheming to the waters of the southern Yellow Sea. The problematic island is Parangseo (坡浪嶼), a cluster of islands located in the Yellow Sea at 32º 30' N and 125º E. 

The island is located 150 kilometers (kms) from Jejudo (濟州島), 290 kms from Mokpo, 450 kms from Nagasaki (長崎), and 320 kms from Shanghai (上海). Just looking at it geographically, the island is without question in our territory. 

Recently, the Japanese government petitioned the MacArthur Command to divide up the region of the Yellow Sea in a way favorable to them. The islands of Parang were placed within the so-called MacArthur Line, meaning they are part of their territory. However, besides being the only spawning area in the South Sea, it is also a large fishing grounds.

日本の侵略的野欲　今度は黄海 坡浪嶼に自己の領土とマッカーサー司令に報告

1947.10.22 東亜日報

　侵略根性を捨て切れない倭寇が東海の海において我々の関土である獨島を侵犯しようとする魔手を止めようとしていないことは再三報じたところだが、今度はまたしても南方の黄海の海にまでも野欲の魔手を伸ばし、新たに我々の感情を激昂させている。
　問題の島は、黄海上の北緯32度30分東経125度にある坡浪嶼という一群の島で、この島は済州島から150km、木浦から290km、日本の長崎から450km、上海から320kmの地点にあり、地理学上から見ただけでも当然に我々の版図に属することは二言を要しないことで、先般、日本政府は黄海の海を区域別に分けて自分たちに有利な条件を付けてマッカーサー司令部に報告し、この坡浪島嶼をいわゆる「マッカーサーライン」内に入れて自分たちの領土だと称しているのだ。
　なお、この島は南海に唯一の海産物の生殖地であると共に一大漁場でもある。

1735 Jan 19 - Disccusion on Delaying Ulleungdo Inspection - Confirms Usando (于山島) a Neighboring Island

This account is from the records of the Border Defense Council of Joseon (備邊司 - 비변사). The record is interesting in that it not only confirms that Usando (于山島) was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, but also that the policy of inspecting Ulleungdo every three years was diligently followed, though a request to postpone the inspection in 1734 was granted HERE. There is a brief mention of this discussion in the "Annals of King Yeong Jo" (英祖) HERE.

This record is also mentioned by Kim Jong-ho (金正浩) on his 1834 "Cheonggudo" (靑邱圖) map, where he wrote the following next to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Usando (于山島): LINK TO MAP

“In the 11th year of Yeongjo (1735), Gangwon Provincial Governor Jo Choi-su reported to the king, ‘A survey of Ulleungdo has found that the land is wide and fertile, and there are signs that people have lived there. Also, to its west is Usando, which is also wide and spacious.’ The so-called “west” character is different on this map, where (Usando) is to the east.”

You may notice in the record below, however, that instead of Gangwon Provincial Governor Jo Choi-su (趙最壽) describing Ulleungdo and its neighboring island of Usando, it looks like it was Haeng Jwachamchan Kim Chui-no  (行 左參贊) who described them.

----------------------------

Another Petition: Gangwon Governor Jo Choi-su (趙最壽) says, "I am charged with conducting the Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) inspection this year, but the harvest in the province was extremely bad and unavoidable. There are a variety of goods needed for the trip. All the men dispatched, including the commander and the Japanese interpreter, must be cared for. There are many. The cost required while they wait several months for calm winds cannot be adequately accounted for in this year of poor harvest. Many disturbances are expected. I respectfully ask that the mission be postponed this year, and that we wait for a year of abundant harvest to conduct it."

"This year the harvest in Gwandong (Gangwon Province) was, indeed, bad. Providing provisions for many men while they wait several months for calm winds is, indeed, a hardship, but the policy is that it be done once every three years. Already, it was not conducted last year. If it is postponed again this year, it will be the first time to go against policy; nevertheless, by what means do we do it?" 

The King asked, "How do we do this mission? 

Haeng Jwachamchan (左參贊) Kim Chui-ro (金取魯) said, "Between 1697 and 1698 the Royal Court sent Jang Han-sang (張漢相) to make a detailed survey map and return. And I have heard that Ulleungdo is very broad and fertile. Moreover, there are signs that people have lived there. And, to its west is Usando (于山島), which is also said to be wide and spacious. Since then, the policy of one inspection every three years has been followed. This instance of two years of consecutive postponements is different. The officials defending our coast should be admonished and warned that it is wrong to use the hardships of the province's poor harvest to neglect one's duty every year."

Hojopanseo (戶曹判書) Lee Jeong-je (李廷濟) said, "Back during 1697, the Japanese requested we give them Ulleungdo, but the Royal Court back then vehemently admonished them, denied their request, and sent Jang Han-sang (張漢相) to go look at the island. Ever since there has been a policy of going once every three years. This province's poor harvest is definitely something to consider, but neglecting this mission year after year is also serious because it can cause anxiety.

The King said, "What you both say is correct. Waiting for calm winds, even though a hardship, results in fears of crossing the sea and not wanting to go see it. We cannot allow the neglecting of this land to become commonplace. How can we not send someone into there? I think we must conduct the survey this year. It is permissable to assign it to several people.
----------------------------

又所啓, 江原監司趙最壽狀啓, 鬱陵島搜討, 今年當擧行, 而道內農事不免慘凶, 往來時所入雜物, 皆出民間, 營將及倭學等, 所率甚多, 累朔候風, 所費不貲, 當此荒年, 必多騷擾, 今年姑爲停止, 待年豐擧行事陳請矣, 今年關東年事, 果爲凶歉, 多人治送, 累朔候風, 不無弊端, 而此是定式以三年一往者也, 昨年旣不得擧行, 今年又爲停止, 則雖無當初定式之意, 何以爲之, 上曰, 此事何如, 行左參贊金取魯曰, 丁丑·戊寅年間朝家送張漢相, 看審圖形以來, 而聞 鬱陵島, 廣闊土沃, 曾有人居基址, 或有往來之痕, 其西又有于山島, 而亦且廣闊云矣, 其後仍有三年一搜討之定式, 此與年例操停止有異, 事係海防申飭, 恐不當以本道凶歉些少弊端, 每年停廢矣, 戶曹判書李廷濟曰, 往在丁丑年間, 倭人請得鬱陵島, 故朝家嚴飭不許, 而使張漢相往見此島, 三年一往仍爲定式矣, 本道凶荒, 固爲可念, 而此事之每每停廢, 亦甚可悶矣, 上曰, 兩重臣所達是矣, 候風雖有弊, 而此蓋憚於越海不欲往見之致也, 此地若棄之則已, 不然, 豈可不爲入送耶, 今年則搜討事擧行之意, 分付可也

1735 Jan 13 - Gangwon Governor's Request to Cancel Ulleungdo Inspection Rejected

This record comes from the Annals of King Yeong Jo (英祖). A more detailed discussion of the petition can be found HERE.

----------------------
Gangwon Governor Jo Choi-su (趙最壽) said, "I am charged with conducting the Ulleungdo inspection this year, but we are suffering a bad harvest year, so I request that it be canceled."

Kim Chui-ro (金取魯) and others said, "Back in 1697 the Japanese wanted this island. The Royal Court vehemently rebuked them and sent Jang Han-sang ((張漢相) to map it and return. It was decided to go once every three years, so it cannot be canceled."

The King agreed.
----------------------
 
강원도 감사 조최수(趙最壽)가 아뢰기를,

“울릉도(鬱陵島)의 수색 토벌을 금년에 마땅히 해야 하지만 흉년에 폐단이 있으니, 청컨대 이를 정지하도록 하소서.”

하였는데, 김취로(金取魯) 등이 말하기를,

“지난 정축년 (1697) 에 왜인들이 이 섬을 달라고 청하자, 조정에서 엄하게 배척하고 장한상(張漢相)을 보내어 그 섬의 모양을 그려서 왔으며, 3년에 한번씩 가 보기로 정하였으니, 이를 정지할 수가 없습니다.”

하니, 임금이 이를 옳게 여겼다.
 

江原監司趙最壽啓言: “鬱陵島搜討, 今年當行, 而歉歲有弊, 請停之。” 金取魯等曰: “往在丁丑, 倭人請得此島, 朝家嚴斥, 而遣張漢相, 圖形以來, 定以三年一往, 不可停也。” 上可之。

1734 Jan 15 - Gangwon Governor Asks to Postpone Ulleungdo Inspection

"This comes from the records of the Border Defense Council of Joseon (備邊司 - 비변사). It is not really important, but I wanted to translate something short.

------------------
On the same day, Yeongwuijeong (領議政) Sim (沈) goes before the King and  reports, "Gangwon Governor Eo Yu-yong (魚有龍) has petitioned the following:

'Next year is the Ulleungdo inspection, of which I am charged. When conducting the trip, the needed expenses are very many and wide-ranging. Last year several villages in Yeongdong had an especially bad harvest, making it difficult to carry out the orders. I ask that it be postponed for a while?'"

"The situation in this province is, indeed, as he said. Will you grant his request?"

The king replies, "I grant it."

-------------------

同日入侍時, 領議政沈所啓, 江原監司魚有龍狀啓以爲, 鬱陵島搜討明年當此, 而其往來之際各種浮費極爲浩多, 昨年嶺東諸邑凶歉尤甚, 勢難擧行, 姑爲停止云, 本道事狀誠然矣, 依施何如, 上曰, 依爲之。

Koreans Claim Tax Records Prove They Administered Dokdo

Asian News Agency reports in a September 6 article, entitled "Ulleung County Has 'Document Proving Effective Control of Dokdo,'" that an Uldo County record shows that Japanese fishermen paid export taxes on seal lions caught on "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks) in 1904. Koreans claim that proves Ulleung County exercised effective control over the island.

The document does not mention where the sea lions were captured, only that taxes were paid on sea lions harvested by Japanese fishermen operating from Ulleungdo. Koreans claim, however, that since Liancourt Rocks was the only place where there were sea lions at the time, the document proves the County had exercised effective control over the Rocks.

Japanese fishermen were fishing Liancourt Rocks from Ulleungdo in the early 1900s, but Liancourt Rocks were not part of Ulleung County, as was confirmed by the Korean Ministry of Interior in 1906.

In a July 13, 1906 Korean newspaper article HERE, the Korean Ministry of Interior defined Ulleung County as being only 24km from east-to-west and 16km from north-to-south. Since Liancourt Rocks is about 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo, that means they were outside the jurisdiction of the County.

If the Japanese fishermen had fished in international waters and brought their catch back to Ulleungdo for processing, they would have had to pay taxes, as well, but that would not make the international waters Korean territory.

Actually, the document might support the Japanese claim to Liancourt Rocks since it seems to be more evidence that Japanese knew of and were fishing the Rocks before they were incorporated into Japanese territory in 1905. Of course, if the document said that Japanese fishermen were fishing at "Seokdo" (石島 - 석도), which Koreans claim was the name of Liancourt Rocks at the time, it might mean something.

1876/77 - Watanabe Kouki's "Opinion on Matsushima - 2"

Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基) was the Director of the Bureau of Documents in Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affair in 1876 when he wrote the opinion below on the location of an island referred to as "Matsushima" in a petition by Mutoh Heigaku (武藤平学), who wanted permission to develop the island. The opinion is Director Watanabe's second opinion on the island. His first opinion can be found HERE. Both opinions were included in an 1881 Japanese Ministry report entitled "A Study of Historical Evidence of Takeshima" (竹島考証).

The Japanese Foreign Ministry was confused as to the location of the Matsushima mentioned in Mutoh Heigaku's petition not only because the island described sounded similar to the Korean island of Ulleungdo, which the Japanese referred to as Takeshima, but also because Matsushima was the name of an island near Japan's Oki Island that the Japanese referred to as "Oki's Matsushima" (隱岐ノ松島) and Western maps referred to as either Liancourt Rocks or Hornet Rocks.

Moreover, the British added to the confusion when the captain of the Bristish ship "HMS Argonaut" lost a rudder near Ulleungdo in 1789 and mismapped Ulleungdo's location as 37º 32' N and and 129º 50 E, resulting in many Western maps showing the non-existent island of "Argonaut" about 109 kilometers to the northwest of the real Ulleungdo, which was referred to by many Western nations as "Dagelet Island." This map confusion lasted through most of the 1800s.

Then in 1840, a map by Philipp Franz Balthasar von Siebold HERE was published that added to he confusion by co-labeling the non-existent island of Argonaut as "Takeshima," which was the Japanese name for Ulleungdo, and the real Ulleungdo as "Matsushima," which was the Japanese name for Liancourt Rocks. Dr. Siebold seems to have mistakenly shifted the names he saw on Japanese maps up from Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks to Argonaut and Ulleungdo, respectively.

Opinion on Matsushima - 2 

I have heard that Matsushima (松島) and Takeshima (竹島), called Ulleungdo in Korea, are just two names for the same island. However, I have also heard from the former Governor of Tottori Prefecture that there are, indeed, two islands. According to writings by Toda Takayoshi (戶田敬義), Katou (加藤), and Ken Kanamori (金森謙), there is an island called Takeshima about 40 ri to the north of the West Island (西島) of Oki’s Matsushima (隱岐囯松島) . [West Island is just a small island of Matsushima that islanders call “Next Island” (次島).] Also, it is said that Takeshima is about 140 ri  by ship from Yonago in Hoki Province (伯州米子). They say that you can sail from Yonago to Izumo (出雲) and then on past Oki’s Matsushima (隠岐ノ松島) to reach Takeshima (Ulleungdo).

However, it is also written that it is about 60 ri by ship from Oki’s Fukushima (福島), also called Fukuura (福浦), to Matsushima, and then about 40 ri from Matsushima to Takeshima. Moreover, it is about 40 ri from Takeshima on to Korea. This is based on the story of an old man who in 1724, the 9th year of Kyoho (享保), testified that he had sailed there several times. When asked he said, “The distance from the village of Mitsuyanagi of Hamanome (濱野目・三柳村) in Aimi County (會見郡) of Hoki Province (伯州) to Oki’s Dogo Island (隠岐ノ後島) is between 35 and 36 ri. Using this distance one can guess the distance from Takeshima to the mountains of Korea to be about 40 ri.” Based on this, there definitely seems to be two islands. 

If we look at Western texts, the British “Imperial Gazetteer” says that Dagelet Island (pronounced as “Dazera”),  that is Matsushima, is an island in the Sea of Japan that is situated between the Japanese Archipelago and the Korean Peninsula. Its northwest corner is at 37º 25' N and 130º 56' E (Greenwich means). It was named by La Pérouse in 1787. It has a coastline of sheer cliffs and is approximately 9 ri around. It is covered by dense forest up to its highest point.Also, “Lippincott’s Pronouncing Gazetteer of the World”  says that Dagelet is a small island in the Sea of Japan that is exactly between Japan and Korea. It has a circumference of 8 ri and is positioned at 37º 25' N and 130º 56' E. If you look this up on a map, the location of the island labeled as Dagelet, or Matsushima, on the British Navy’s nauticalchart seems to be at the same position in both books.

The British “Royal Atlas”; the “Atlas Universel,” by Brué of France; “Map of Japan and Korea” by James Wyld, geographer to the British Queen; “Map of Asia” by Kiepert of Germany; 1875 Gotha:  “Stieler Atlas”; a map by the Geographische Institu in Weimar all show the island of Dagelet in the same position.It is said an island is drawn with dotted lines, except on the British nautical chart, at 129º 57' E and 37º 50' N and labeled “Argonaut” or “Takeshima.” The island is also clearly shown at the same position on a map of the Russian Mapping Bureau.

Also, in the text of Ken Kanamori (金森謙), it is written that Takeshima has a circumference of 15 ri. Moreover, it you add up all the measurements done by Toda Takayoshi (戶田敬義)  on his map, they total about 23 ri. (That includes all the ins and outs of the shoreline.) That circumference is more than just a little different than that of Matsushima, or Dagelet. On the south corner of the map is drawn an island that has a circumference of about 1.5 ri. That island is probably Uindo (于人島) [Uindo (于人島) probably a misspelling of Usando (于山島)].

However, Matsushima and Takeshima are two islands, and since Matsushima is closer to our country than Takeshima, Korea also cannot oppose our saying Matsushima is part of Japan.

And regarding the importance of the island, it is situated almost midway between Japan and Korea. It is on the sea route from our San’in (山陰) region to Korea’s Yeongheung-bu (永興府), namely Port Wonsan, in Hamgyeong Province (咸鏡道),. When traveling from Nagasaki to Port Vladivostok, one must pass it, which means it is many times more important than Takeshima. Moreover, it has frequently caught the attention of such countries as English and Russia. It is known in this way by several other countries.

 

However, in our country it is unknown if Matsushima and Takeshima are two islands or one. Accordingly, we do not know if it is part of Korea or not. If a foreign country were to ask, we would not know how to answer. If we decide it does belong to our country, we must show obligation to it. If we decide it belongs to Korea, we do not know how foreign countries will react, so we must be careful. We must try reflecting on this point.

Written by Bureau of Documents Director Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基)

1840 Map - "Karte vom Japanischen Reiche," by Dr. Siebold

The 1840 map of Japan to the left was made by German physician and traveler Philipp Franz Balthasar von Siebold.  During his travels Dr. Siebold spent six years (1823 - 1829) in Japan, where he acquired some detailed maps of Japan and Korea made by the Japanese surveyor and cartographer Ino Tadataka. Siebold combined his knowledge of both Western and Japanese maps to make the map to the left, which is entitled "Karte vom Japanischen Reiche, nach Original-karten und astronomischen Beobachtungen der Japaner : die Inseln Kiu Siu, Sikok und Nippon."

One big problem with the Siebold map is that it included the non-existent island of Argonaut, which was a mismapping of the Korean island of Ulleungdo by the captain of the British ship "HMS Argonaut" in 1789. British Captain James Colnett mismapped Ulleungdo at the coordinates 37º 32' N and 129º 50' E, resulting in the non-existent island of "Argonaut" showing up on many Western maps about 110 kilometers to the northwest of the real Ulleungdo, which at the time was referred to by many Western nations as "Dagelet Island."

Dr. Siebold then labeled the non-existent Argonaut as "Takeshima," which was the Japanese name for Ulleungdo, and the real Ulleungdo as "Matsushima," which was the Japanese name for Liancourt Rocks. Dr. Siebold seems to have mistakenly shifted the names he saw on Japanese maps up from Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks to Argonaut and Ulleungdo, respectively.

Dr. Siebold's mistake caused a lot of confusion for some Japanese, who started to assume the non-existent island of Argonaut was Korea's Ulleungdo and the real Ulleungdo was Japan's Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks). The confusion came to a head in 1876 when Japanese businessman Mutoh Heigaku (武藤平学) petitioned the Japanese government HERE to develop Matsushima, which he believed to be Japanese territory.

As part of discussions in the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to determine the location of Mutoh's Matsushima, Bureau of Documents Director Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基) provided two opinions, HERE and HERE, on the possible location of the island.

Below is a close-up of the portion of the map that shows Ulleungdo (Matsushima) and the non-existent island of Argonaut (Takeshima).

1852 Weimar Geo Inst. Map - "Das Chinesische Reich"

The following map was published by the Weimar Geographisches Institut in 1852. Among the countries the map shows are Korea and Japan. In the Sea of Japan, the map also shows "I. Dagelet" and "I. Argonaut," which were "Ulleungdo" (Dagelet) and a non-existent, mismapped Ulleungdo (Argonaut).

Great Photo of Bak Seok-chang's (朴錫昌) 1711 Map of Ulleungo

Below is a great photo of the map Ulleungdo Inspector Bak Seok-chang (朴錫昌) made of Ulleungdo during his inspection of the island in 1711. The map is from Mr. Tanaka Kunitaka's Web site HERE. The bottom of the map represents the east shore of Ulleungdo. The small island just off the east shore is labeled "the so-called Usando" (所謂 于山島). On the same island is also written "groves of haejang bamboo" (海長竹田).

Two kilometers off the east shore of modern-day Ulleungdo is a small island named Jukdo, which has groves of haejang bamboo on it.

Also, notice the three prominent peaks in the center of the map. Because of those three peaks, Ulleungdo was sometimes called "Sambongdo" (三峯島), which means "Island of Three Peaks."

Koreans claims that Usando was the old Korean name for Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima / Dokdo), but this 1711 Korean map is clear evidence that Usando was the old name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo. Liancourt Rocks are just barren rocks with no soil to grow haejang bamboo.

Great Photo of "Inner Ulleungdo Map" (鬱陵島內圖)

Mr. Tanaka has posted the great photo of Lee Gyu-won's 1882 "Inner Ulleungdo Map" (鬱陵島內圖) below on his Web site HERE. The map is only of the interior of the island. It does not shore the shoreline or any surrounding islands. The protrusions on the outer edge of the map represent mountain peaks.

Also, Mr. has written that he will post the "Outer Ulleungdo Map" (鬱陵島外圖), which is the mate to the map below, on September 22. The "Outer Ulleungdo Map" shows the shoreline and surrounding islands and rocky islets. I cannot wait to see a good, detailed photo of that map.

This is a clever video.

Yomiuri Simbun Editorial - "Govt must stress sovereignty over isles to intl community"

In an August 26 editorial entitled, "Govt must stress sovereignty over the isles to intl community," the Yomiuri Shimbun wrote the following:

It is vital for Japan to make the legitimacy of its territorial claim and the reasoning behind it widely known to the international community by taking the dispute to the international court. The government also needs to make efforts to help as many people as possible properly understand the Takeshima issue by explaining it thoroughly.

When Shimane Prefecture established "Takeshima Day" in 2005 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the incorporation of Takeshima into the Prefecture, the Japanese public did not seem all that interested in the Takeshima dispute. Now, however, there seems to be much more Japanese interest.

I think there are two main reasons for the increased interest. One is that the Japanese public have learned much more about the history of Takeshima, which many now believe proves undeniably Japan's claim to the islets. The other may be that the Japanese have lost patience with all the Takeshima-related, anti-Japanese antics in South Korea. In other words, they have gotten tired of all the Korean stunts meant to say, "Hey, Japan, we've got your island. Nayh, nayh, nayh, nayh, nayh!"

In the August 25 Yonhap/Reuters photo below, South Korean high school students play basketball on Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks / Dokdo), where they were shipped to once again say to Japan, "Nayh, nayh, nayh, nayh, nayh!"

"Seoul to remove 'illegal' base of monument erected on Takeshima islet"

The Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbu reports HERE that the South Korean government has said that the circular base for the "Dokdo" monument to the left, which was erected on Liancourt Rocks by Koreans, was constructed illegally and must be removed.

The monument, which was unveiled on August 19, was erected by North Gyeongsang Province without obtaining permission from the central government in Seoul. However, on the back of the monument is engraved with "President Lee Myung-bak, Summer of 2012" in the Korean President's own handwriting. The Korean name from the island is written in Korean on the front of the monument. The Korean central government has said that the part of the monument with the inscription can stay, but the circular base must go.

The Japanese newspaper describes the dispute over the islets as follows:

Known as Dokdo in South Korea, the islands have been occupied by South Korea since the early 1950s despite a lack of legal authorization from either Japan or the United Nations.

I would just add that the United States rejected the Korean government's claim to the islets in an August 10, 1951 letter from US Secretary of State Dean Rusk to the Korean Ambassador, in which the US Secretatry wrote the follow:

As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiciton of the Oki Islands Branch of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea...."

"Korea to Send Back Noda's Letter Claiming It Violated Protocol

The Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo reported HERE that Korea would return the undelivered letter Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda wrote to Korean President Lee Myung-bak protesting his visit to Liancourt Rocks. The reason given for returning the letter was that it violated diplomatic protocol since its contents had been announced in advance. Korea also claimed the letter was inaccurate since it referred to the Rocks by the Japanese name instead of the Korean.

According to an article in the the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun HERE, Korean embassy officials trying to return the letter were turned away at the gate of the Japanese Foreign Ministry because they had not made an official appointment.

UPDATE: Jiji Press - "Japan Refuses to Accept Takeshima Letter Returned by Seoul"

Seoul, Aug. 23 (Jiji Press)--Japan's Foreign Ministry refused to accept a letter Thursday that was sent by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda to South Korean President Lee Myung Bak but returned. 

   An official at the South Korean embassy in Tokyo visited the ministry to return the letter, but the ministry refused to meet the official. 

   Following this, the South Korean embassy sent the letter back by registered mail.
Due to the unusual diplomatic spat, the bilateral relationship looks certain to deteriorate further. 

In the letter, sent Friday, Noda criticized Lee's unprecedented visit to the Sea of Japan islands of Takeshima, controlled by South Korea, on Aug. 10 and expressed regret over Lee's remarks on seeking an apology from Emperor Akihito for Japan's past colonial rule.

UPDATE 2: Dialy Yomiuri Online gives more detail HERE on the Korean President's refusing to receive the Japanese Prime Minister's letter, including the following quotes:

• According to the Yonhap news agency, a senior official of the South Korean presidential office said, "It makes no sense to reply to comments that are not true."
• The news agency quoted a South Korean government source as saying: "Even if our response [to Japan] is seen as diplomatically rude, there is no reason to change our principles on this matter. If we see this issue from the other side, Japan also has gone against diplomatic protocol in sending [Noda's] personal letter."
• Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura expressed concern over the issue. "Regarding diplomatic protocol, I can't think of a letter sent from a national leader to another leader being returned," he said at a press conference Thursday morning.
• A senior Foreign Ministry official said, "The fact that South Korea has decided to take an unusual step in response [to Noda's letter] may prove that the nation is shocked by Japan's objections [to Lee's remarks and actions]."

Korean Diplomat Suggests Japan Bet Its Claim to Tsushima Against Korea's Claim to Dokdo at ICJ

A Korea Times article HERE says that Korean diplomat Chang Dong-hee has suggested that Japan bet its claim to Tsushima against Korea's claim to Dokdo. Specifically, Mr. Chang said the following on a Korean radio program:

"If Japan lodges a protest with Korea over Dokdo, it should bet Tsushima."

Personally, I think it is a great idea. Japan agrees to take its claim to Tsushima to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and Korea agrees to take its claim to Dokdo, and both countries agree to abide by the Court's rulings. In other words, Japan bets its 1,500-plus-year claim to Tsushima and 400-plus-year claim to Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima / Dokdo) against Korea's claims to the two islands.

I would like to nominate that Korean diplomat for a Noble Peace Prize.

1954 - "Report of the Van Fleet Mission to the Far East"

Between April 26 and August 7, 1954, retired 4-star General James Alward Van Fleet traveled to Asia as a Special Ambassador for US President Dwight D. Eisenhower to chronicle a survey of the United States Military Assistance Programs in the Far East. He and his team conducted surveys of the military, economic, and political situation in the region. The report was submitted to the US President on October 4, 1954.

General Van Fleet had fought in World I, World II, and the Korean War. In 1951 he replaced General Matthew B. Ridgway as commander of the US Eight Army and United Nations Forces in Korea. His only son, Captain James A. Van Fleet, Jr. was a B-26 bomber pilot during the Korean War, where he was killed. When he retired from active duty in 1953, his medals and awards included three Distinguished Service Crosses, three Distinguished Service Medals, three Silver Stars, four Bronze Stars, and three Purple Hearts for wounds received in combat. President Harry S. Truman described him as "the greatest general we have ever had...." He died on September 23, 1992 at the age of 100.

In his "Top Secret" 1954 report, Special Ambassador Van Fleet included a topic entitled "Ownership of Dokto Island," where he comfirmed that the United States and the "Treaty of Peace with Japan" recognized "Dokdo" as Japanese territory. He wrote that South Korea had been confidentially informed of the US position, but that the US position had not been made public.

Below is the relevant paragraph from the original document, and below that is the transcribed section of the report from which it came. LINK

Inventory of Commitments & Problems-Korea

III. Korean Problems With Other Asian Nations

A. Japan

The United States is vitally interested in the establishment of close and friendly relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. The security of the two countries against the Communist threat from the Mainland of Asia is inextricably intertwined, and failure to achieve a rapprochement between them creates grave weaknesses from a security point of view that the Communists have sought and will continue to seek to exploit. For these reasons, the United States must endeavor in every way feasible to bring about a rapprochement between the two countries and mutually satisfactory settlement of the major problems outstanding between them.

The failure to achieve settlement thus far stems basically from the lingering hostility between the two peoples resulting from Japan's long rule over Korea. The bitter experiences of the Koreans under the Japanese rule understandably left a deep hatred and distrust of Japan in the minds of Koreans. These strong emotions representing the past seem to be more real in their minds that the present. They fear a renewal of Japanese aggression and view every Japanese move with suspicion. They are alarmed at Japan's reviving strength.

It is believed that the Japanese would like to forget the past--which holds unpleasant memories for them as well as the Koreans. They do not believe that their 40-year occupation of Korea was an entirely unmixed evil. Japan believes that if it was indebted to Korea, the debt was more than taken care of by the transfer to the Republic of Korea Government of Japan's entire public and private holdings in Korea at the end of World War II. Basically, both countries wish to establish normal diplomatic and commercial relations; they wish to trade with each other despite certain official utterances to the contrary.

There are several specific issues between the two countries that deserve careful analysis. It is believed that all of these can be resolved if serious and patient efforts are made and the United States Government provides the leadership in suggesting a strong person as a mediator who has the respect of both the Korean Government and the Japanese Government. These issues are set forth below:

1. Fisheries

Of the several problems at issue between Japan and Korea, the fisheries problem is by far the most important, not only because it is of vital concern to the Japanese (a nation that lives on fish) but because the Republic of Korea Government has taken overt action against Japanese fishermen apprehended fishing in the Sea of Japan (or Eastern Sea, as the Koreans call it) approximately 60 miles from Korean shores. The Japanese have eagerly sought a settlement with the Republic of Korea. As for the Koreans, they are genuinely concerned over the possible depletion of their fisheries resources by the superior Japanese fishing fleet. This is particularly acute for the Koreans because they do not have adequate vessels and equipment and trained personnel to fish in waters that are not closely adjacent of Korea. This problem involves the enforcement of the so-called "Rhee Line" or "Peace Line" in the Eastern Sea.

The essential facts are that the Republic of Korea Government has unilaterally proclaimed its sovereignty over a large area of the high seas bordering Korea and by the use of the Republic of Korea Navy has attempted to exclude Japanese fishermen from operations within the area. At times, the Republic of Korea Navy has fired upon Japanese vessels; some of the vessels have been apprehended and taken to Korean ports. After the crews have been tried and sentenced, most of the captured fishermen have been released, but the vessels usually have been detained and are now being reportedly operated by the Republic of Korea. It is believed that the Japanese Government is willing to enter into a reasonable fisheries conservation agreement that would guarantee the preservation of the fisheries and restrict Japanese operation in the area.

According to President Rhee, the "Peace Line" serves a three-fold purpose:

a. Conservation of valuable marine resources in Korea's coastal waters;

b. Elimination of future friction between Korea and Japan with respect to fisheries resources; and

c. Sea defence against Communist infiltration.

The position of the Republic of Korea Government has been to insist on the recognition of the so-called "Peace Line." The United States Government has consistently taken the position that the unilateral proclamation of sovereignty over the seas is illegal and that the fisheries dispute between Japan and Korea should be settled on the basis of a fisheries conservation agreement that would protect the interests of both countries. The chronology and other aspects of the fisheries is discussed in more detail in Enclosure No. 1.

2. Korean Residents in Japan

The Republic of Korea contends that the Koreans, resident in Japan on August 9, 1945, who now reside there, should be given treatment more favorably than that given to the average foreign national in Japan. There are now approximately 600,000 Koreans in Japan. A substantial number of these Koreans were conscripted laborers who were forcibly taken during World War II for Japanese production purposes. They were compelled to work in the mines and military factories. A tentative argument on the nationality status and treatment of the Koreans residents in Japan was reached at the second Japanese Conference of February-April 1952. It was agreed that all should be regarded as citizens of the Republic of Korea, and that, except for illegal entrants, they would be entitled to special treatment to enjoy many privileges ordinarily reserved for Japanese citizens. The agreement , however, has not come into effect because the Conference broke down over other issues. It is understood that the Republic of Korea refuses to approve this agreement until all outstanding issues were settled.

It would seem that the settlement of the problem of the Korean residents in Japan should not prove unduly difficult, if and when general settlement of other outstanding issues is reached. If relations between Japan and Korea continue to deteriorate, however, the Korean minority problem will become increasingly acute. It is understood that a high percentage of the Koreans in Japan, excluded from normal occupations, are on Japanese relief rolls or engaged in illegal activity and many of them are active Communists. These facts do not endear the Korean residents to the Japanese; retaliatory measures against the Korean minority by the Japanese Government--or by the Japanese people themselves-- remain distinct possibilities. The Republic of Korea advised this Mission that the Koreans "now live in a sort of 'no man's land', neither Japanese nor Korean, deprived both of the protection afforded to Japanese nationals under Japanese laws, ad of status of foreign nationals as provided in international law. Depending upon circumstances, they were sometimes treated as Japanese and, at other times, as foreign 'stateless' persons. They had no recourse to law or means of remedy against many discriminations which operated against them. * * * "

3. Korean-Japanese Trade Relations

The current trade relations between the Republic of Korea and Japan are not satisfactory; recent developments show little prospect of early improvement. Apparently, discrimination against Japan by the Republic of Korea continues, on a de fact basis, despite which equal treatment was provided for Japanese bidders. Only after pressure on the Republic of Korea Government by actual withdrawal by certain Foreign Operations Administration authorizations were these revisions made in the Korean Import Procurement Regulations.

Notwithstanding this revision in the Korean Import Procurement Regulations, the Japanese Government has recently informed the United States Ambassador in Tokyo that various devices and pressure are being used to prevent the placing of orders in Japan for goods to be used in Korea. These include the following--Korean firms state they have been told that if they purchase in Japan, they would be denied credit facilities at the Bank of Korea and would be black-listed by the Korean Procurement Agency for any future business regardless of the source of supply.

It seems clear that the Korean Government does not intend to comply with the new Import Procurement Regulations since the embargo against Japan is apparently retained in full effect. This action on the past of the Korean Government obviously prevents Korea from receiving the benefits of lower priced Japanese goods with this added advantage of early delivery; increases the cost of the Korean Procurement Program, thereby reducing its possible scope; it prevents United States dollars doing double duty by assisting in the support of Japanese economy (urgently needed because of the decline in special dollar receipts arising from offshore procurement and expenditures by security forces) as well as in rehabilitating Korea.

The trade balance between Japan and Korea over the past few months has not been favorable; the outstanding balance that Korea owes Japan amounts to approximately $37,000,000. The United States Ambassador in Tokyo states that the Koreans have cited this unfavorable balance of trade as evidence of Japanese embargo against Korean exports to Japan. Japan recently developed an import program for Korean products that include rice, laver (seaweed), and certain other products that are estimated at approximately $21 million annually.

Moreover, Japan has indicated a willingness to purchase substantial quantities of Korean rice provided the price is not greatly in excess of prices in other supplying countries. To date, the amount of rice exported to Japan, the natural export market for Korean rice, has not approached that exported in prior years. Early in September 1953, the Republic of Korea, on the basis of the bumper rice crop, planned to export 150,000 to 200,000 metric tons of rice to Japan. The Republic of Korea believed that these rice exports to Japan would provide the necessary foreign exchange to import an equivalent tonnage of cheaper grains together with a net gain of $20 million of foreign exchange. The Republic of Korea did not begin to purchase rice for export until December 10, 1953, and it was slow in making money available for rice purchases. Only about 120,000 tons of rice, therefore, became available for export.

The unresolved problem relates to the price at which the Republic of Korea will receive for the rice exported to Japan. It is reported that Japan can buy rice from Formosa and other Southeast Asian countries at $195 to $210 per ton delivered. and United States rice from California at $205 per ton delivered. The Republic of Korea, however, on the basis of the official rate of exchange of 180 Hwan to $1 calculates that it has made an investment of $290 per ton in the rice purchased for export. For this reason, and possibly for bargaining purposes, the Republic of Korea officials have asked $290 per ton. It is reported that Japan has offered $225 per ton for Korean rice if the proceeds are applied to the current indebtedness of the Republic of Korea to Japan under the Republic of Korea-Japan Trade Agreement, or $200 per ton if the proceeds are in free exchange. The Korean rice has always commanded premium price because it is considered the best rice by the Japanese.

The exportation of rice to Japan has become entangled with other economic and political questions including the factors involved in the breakup of the Republic of Korea-Japan talks in late 1953 precipitated by certain ill-advised statements about Korea by the Japanese delegate, Kubota (see page 25); the dispute between the Republic of Korea over each other's performance under the trade agreement; and the embargo by the Republic of Korea on trade with Japan. The official position of the Republic of Korea is that its embargo policy is justified because of Japan's trade restrictions against Korea. Figures are cited showing that Korean exports to Japan amounted to $8 million during the 12-month period ending March 31, 1954, that is, only one-half the amount mentioned in the target in the trade agreement; whereas, imports from Japan (including Foreign Operation Administration financed imports) total almost $65 million, or more than double the target mentioned in the trade agreement. The deficit in Korean exports to Japan was in commodities other than rice because rice was not a specified commodity in the trade agreement. The Japanese are also charged with imposing deliberate restrictions on imports from the Republic of Korea and with over-pricing and poor quality of Japanese exports to the Republic of Korea. On the other hand, Japan complains that the indebtedness of the Republic of Korea under the trade agreement has risen far above the swing limit provided for in the agreement, and that payments are long overdue.

The problem incidental to exporting rice to Japan can be readily solve once the basic issue of Republic of Korea-Japanese relationships is solved. It is important, however, that Republic of Korea export substantial quantities of rice to Japan or to some other country. The Foreign Operations Administration Agricultural Mission in 1953 and the Nathan Associates in 1954 regarded rice as the most important of Korea's potential exports and one that must eventually be increased to about 500,000 tons per year. It is, therefore, important for the Republic of Korea to export rice and Japan is its natural market. Immediate exportation of the present stocks is desirable if deterioration or damage by insects is to be prevented.

4. Ownership of Dokto Island

The Island of Dokto (otherwise called Liancourt and Take Shima) is in the Sea of Japan approximately midway between Korea and Honshu (131.80E, 36.20N). This Island is, in fact, only a group of barren, uninhabited rocks. When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the Republic of Korea asserted its claims to Dokto but the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty. The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory, we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea.

The Mission was advised by Republic of Korea that:

"What is still worse is that Japan now claims the possession of the little islet of Dokto known Liancourt Rocks near the Woolnungdo known as Dagelet. Japanese officials are making frequent visits to the islet with armed vessels molesting Korean fishermen there. They set up posts here and there in the islet with description declaring as if it were Japanese territory. Throughout our history and knowledge up to the very moment of the declaration of sovereignty over adjacent seas (Rhee Line), Korea's sovereignty over it has never been contended by any country, as it has long been an immovably established fact that the islet, Dokto, has been historically as well as legally a part of Woolnungdo (Dagelet) Korean territory."