*“Abe’s refusal to engage with S. Korea marks end of Japan’s status as peaceful country,” says Haruki Wada, Hankoryeh, August 27. http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/907372.html
As most observer's are aware, the government of Japan, led by the LDP's Shinzo Abe, is intent on removing the restrictions on offensive military operations in Article 9 of the Japanese constitution. In light of the upheaval in South Korea- Japan relations, some notes from my interpretation of an EBS broadcast last February examining the historical issues related to Dokdo follow.
In February 2019, the South Korean EBS program had an expert on Dokdo, aka Takeshima, aka Liancourt Rocks, on to make the historical case that Dokdo (island) in the middle of the Sea of Japan/East Sea is and always has been the territory of Korea. The narrator, Professor Shin Yong Ha, dates the claim from the fifth century during the Shilla dynasty. The islands were recognized as under Korean jurisdiction during the reign of Se Jong the Great in the 15th Century. Two historical documents cataloging Korean territory during the 15th and 16th Century were received by neighboring states, "without objection." The Japanese claim dates from a historical document in 1667, referred to by them in 1960 in an attempt to back their claim.
Evidently South Korea's EBS presented the senior scholar's history lesson after military confrontations in the Sea of Japan to make the historical case. The so called "radar tracking dispute," described in earlier articles here as maritime patrol incidents had taken place in December and January. The first such incident had taken place not too far from Dokdo on December 20, 2018. Analysts believe the incident was Japan's initial escalatory response for the South Korean Supreme Court decision in respect to wartime slave labor claims against Japanese corporations.
In 1696 the Shoganate prohibited Japanese fisherman from approaching Dokdo. The Japanese government claims that the historical documents that Professor Shin Yong Ha has unearthed in various national libraries are not authentic. They "dispute the credibility" of the documents.
The Japanese invaded the Korean island of Euleongdo in 1895 during the Sino Japanese war. They took over the police force there. They had no legal authority to do this. Then the Japanese without notice in January 1905, "transferred" the "stateless" nearby island of Dokdo to itself. The islands were neither stateless, nor was any state notified of the transfer per the requirements of international law. The Korean legation in Tokyo was not informed. It has to be said here parenthetically, that the press typically recounts Japanese colonization of Korea as beginning with the annexation of Korea by Japan in 1910. This is simply a pro-Japanese affectation in the western press. The Japanese invasion and occupation of Korea started with the Sino-Japanese war much earlier and never ended until the Japanese surrender August 1945. Japanese revisionist history declares their occupation and annexation of Korea, not as an invasion and oppressive occupation, but "beneficial to Korea." The colonization was entirely illegal, accomplished by military invasion, characterized by exploitation of the people and resources of Korea, and enforced by torture and summary executions.
On Feb 22, 1905, the Japanese notified the Shimane Prefecture government in its own country that Dokdo had been transferred to its jurisdiction. This day is know as Takeshima Day in Japan. The Korean government even at the end of the year still didn't know. The Eulsa Treaty had been forced on Korea Nov 18, 1905. They effectively became a protectorate of Japan and lost their right to conduct foreign policy which was transferred to the resident general of Korea. So when the King found out in March 1906, his government's complaints were not forwarded to Japan by it's protectorate administration.
The Allied Supreme HQ issued an order on Jan 29, 1946, declaring Dokdo to be Korean territory to be returned to Korea, Order 677.* However the order was not styled as a final determination of the status of the island. There has been no contradictory indication in any other international document pertaining to territorial claims relative to imperial Japan and the island of Dokdo. The only contrary claims come from Japan itself. Japan seized Dokdo as part of imperial offensive that actually began with the Japanese Chinese war in 1894, and then annexed the island by a series of actions undisclosed internationally and consummated in 1906 after the infamous Eulsa Treaty in November 1905. The treaty established the Imperial Japanese protectorate over Korea and took away it's power to make foreign policy completely. Thereafter the issue was laid to rest until the defeat of Japan by the allied powers.
*http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.com/2014/01/scapin-677-separated-dokdotakeshima.html
The status of the island was not determined in the San Francisco Treaty after WWII, in which Korea wasn't represented. The US attempted to give Dokdo to Japan in order to obtain rights to establish military facilities there (to use it for bombing practice). Other allied nations disagreed, and the status of Dokdo was avoided completely in the San Francisco treaty. This is by no means an affirmative or dispositive indication of the islands territorial status or a contraindication of the Allied Powers original disposition in Order 677.
The Korean government regards Japanese claims to Dokdo as so unsupportable they will not submit the issue to international adjudication because the Japanese claim is spurious. According to Professor Shin, UN documents from the period unequivocally recognized the sovereignty of Korea over Dokdo.
Here is the link for reference. It apparently is no longer available:
https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/k21a17B0oh0nrzsBDIP
A description of the islands in 1667 in a Japanese complilation from the predecessor to the Shimane prefecture described the islands in comparison to the Oki islands, indicated that the latter marked the limit of Japanese territory. According to Professor Shin's interpretation of the document, "Eulongdo and Dokdo are to Korea as Oki is to Shimane prefecture." Japanese reliance on the documents is erroneous and misplaced.
This is an earlier lecture on the topic by the professor available on youtube:
독도, 왜 한국 영토인가? - 신용하 독도학회장(서울대 명예교수) Northeast Asia History Foundation May 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7qN6byv1mY
No comments:
Post a Comment