Overcoming centuries of animosity has proven difficult. Indeed, the shadow of history often looms over the present. Korea’s disaster team was the first foreign group to search for survivors from Japan’s devastating earthquake, but less than three weeks later, Tokyo’s release of textbooks, which insist Dok-do (a cluster of small rocky islands claimed by Japan under the name Takeshima) belongs to Japan, threw cold water on the Korean people’s outpouring of emotional and financial support for Japan.
How can we resolve differing interpretations of history? The simple answer is we cannot. This year marks the 150th anniversary of the outbreak of the American Civil War, yet many white Southerners still refer to the ‘War of Northern Aggression’ and proudly fly a flag most Americans consider a symbol of racism and rebellion. The important thing is that these Southerners do not reflect the views of the vast majority of Americans.
While Tokyo continues to claim Dok-do, the average Japanese just doesn’t care. Most Japanese would not be able to find the island on a map. Indeed, I could not find a single public sign in Tokyo or any other of the seven major cities I have visited concerning ‘Takeshima’. The Okinawa Visitor’s Bureau informed me that it is impossible for Japanese civilians to visit the Senkaku Islands and expressed surprise when I told them Koreans could freely visit Dok-do. The Japanese who really care about Dok-do are much more of a minority and even more powerless than those who yearn for the Confederacy. Unlike Koreans, few Japanese are willing to die for these rocks.
I told my Japanese audiences that if Tokyo renounced its hopeless claim, there would be a flood of Korean goodwill. Yet, many Japanese believe this would undermine Tokyo’s claim to the Northern Territories (even though Moscow shows no intention of even discussing what it calls the Kurile Islands). Keio University’s Soeya Yoshihide argues that the real issue is Japan’s domestic politics: the right-wingers must be placated. Japanese are crazy about Korean food, dramas and Girls’ Generation, not Dok-do! Given Korea’s military control of Dok-do, Tokyo’s claim should be ignored.
If mistrust should no longer be an obstacle to closer ties with Japan, then there are three good reasons for forming an alliance rather than pursuing the ad hoc military cooperation we have seen to date. For starters, China and North Korea have become increasingly belligerent. North Korea attacked the South twice last year and China has repeatedly sent ships into waters controlled by Japan or Korea. Kim Jong-il’s unprecedented third visit to China in the past year reminds us that the two countries are locked in an ever-tightening embrace. Sadly, the Cold War is alive and well in Northeast Asia.
The second reason Korea and Japan should pursue an alliance is a preoccupied and faltering United States. Thanks to George W. Bush, the US government is broke and militarily over-extended. President Obama inherited two botched wars that have cost the lives of over 6,000 US soldiers and several trillion dollars. Washington will have little choice but to demand ever-increasing contributions to the basing of an ever-decreasing number of US troops in Korea and Japan. Clinging to an increasingly tattered American skirt in the face of a rising and more threatening China will not ensure the defence of Korea or Japan.
Moreover, even though Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with her Korean and Japanese counterparts last fall in Washington, the Obama Administration has shown no interest in creating a formal structure that would institutionalize trilateral cooperation. The Clinton Administration initiated the Trilateral Cooperation and Oversight Group, but it was allowed to wither and die under President Bush. Korea and Japan will have to take matters into their own hands.
Fortunately, Seoul and Tokyo have the right leaders needed to make this happen. It may be difficult to see from Seoul, but since taking power from the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) two years ago, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) has adopted a more friendly approach towards Korea. Prime Minister Kan not only apologised to Korea upon taking office, he also pledged to return the 1,205 Chosun Dynasty texts stolen during the Japanese occupation. The LDP tried to block their return, but failed. Both of the DPJ’s first two prime ministers pledged not to visit the controversial Yasukuni Shrine.
The initiative to form an alliance will most likely have to come from Seoul, given that Tokyo is preoccupied with recovering from the earthquake and halting the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns. In addition, Prime Minister Kan is fighting for his political life due to the LDP’s intransigence and an insurrection within his own party. Nevertheless, the DPJ should be in power for at least another year.
President Lee rightly focused on Japan’s recovery from the earthquake during his visit to Japan last week with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. But if he follows through with plans for an official visit later this year, he should not miss this window of opportunity. The proposals made by the Korean and Japanese defense ministers in January to improve intelligence sharing and logistical support provide a good place to start. It is high time America’s best friends in Asia became better friends with each other.
Peter Beck is a Council on Foreign Relations-Hitachi Research Fellow at Keio University, Tokyo.
I see three problems with the logic Mr. Beck uses in his attempt to entice Japanese to give up their claim to “Dokdo,” and one of them is a really big one.
First, “Dokdo,” which is called “Takeshima” by the Japanese, is just a small cluster of barren rocks in the middle of the Sea of Japan with no real economic or strategic importance, which means a territorial dispute over such insignificant rocks should not be an obstacle to forming an alliance between Korea and Japan. It is not Japan that considers the rocks an obstacle; it is Korea, even though Korea occupies the rocks. Therefore, if Korea is willing to put such insignificant rocks ahead of an alliance with Japan, then that is evidence that the alliance would not really be worth much.
Second, I think any Korean goodwill that Japan would receive by giving up her claim to Takeshima would be only temporary. Koreans would soon find other reasons for withholding their “goodwill.” Therefore, Japan would not really benefit in the long run by giving up her claim to Takeshima, unless she could get something more tangible in exchange.
Last, the biggest reason Japan cannot, and should not, give up her claim to Takeshima is that it would mean, in effect, accepting Korea’s historical claims to Takeshima (Dokdo), which are essentially nothing but lies. Historically, Takeshima was never Korean territory, so until Korea recants her lies about Takeshima, Japan has an obligation to History to continue to maintain her claim to the barren rocks.
“The historical evidence, in any event, certainly favors Korea more than Japan. Because
the islets were “remote, access was difficult, and, above all, [they] were uninhabitable,”397
constant physical occupation was not required,398 and the occasional visits by Korean
fishers accompanied by displays of sovereignty, usually under the view that Dokdo was an
appendage or dependency of Ullungdo, served as adequate evidence of “occupation.”399
Significant evidence of Japanese “acquiescence” to Korea’s sovereignty can be found in the
maps issued by Japanese cartographers in the late eighteenth century, which place Dokdo
as part of Korea’s territory and make no claim on behalf of Japan.400 Also of substantial
significance are the Japanese actions in the late nineteenth century indicating recognition
that Japan did not possess the islets.401 Korean officials and commentators did attempt to
protest the Japanese annexation of Dokdo, which was not widely publicized at the time,
when they learned about it a year later in 1906, but the Korean Peninsula was occupied
by Japanese military forces during this period and the Korean government was effectively
being run by Japanese “advisors.” “To expect or infer a possibility of protest or opposition
of a government, completely powerless in the face of Japanese aggression in the age of
imperialism, is not a convincing argument.”
Peter – Your views are biased and illogical, and you do not sound scholarly. Haven’t you even read the Rusk documents?
I am one your “average Japanese,” but I DO care about Takeshima. I also know, despite your claim, that most Japanese think that Japan should not give up the rocks that belong to her rightfully. Historically, and in terms of international law, the rocks ARE Japanese territory. That’s why Korea has continued to refuse to go to the International Court to settle the Takeshima-Dokto case. Korea will NEVER able to win if she does, and she knows it.
Korea shamelessly claims everything is originally hers: Chinese characters, Confucious, kendo, samurai, origami, ninja, just to name a few. The Korean historical claims to the rocks are also nothing but lies. All historical Korean maps of Dokto, for example, show one island when Dokto is supposed to consist of two rocks. What Korea construes as Dokto and shows on her maps as Dokto is actually a small island named Usando, which is about 2 km off Ilungdo.
If you are not bribed by Koreans, I recommend that you visit
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/
and read Gerry Bevers’ logically and succinctly argued June 11 post on your article. He is not a scholar by profession but is extremely knowledgeable of the Takeshima-Dokto issue.
This is just pure nonsense. Korea doesn’t claim Chinese characters, Confucious, kendo, samurai, origami, ninja, or any of those things.
Chihiro
Gerry Bevers’s article is logical? Maybe to you. I found him seriously biased.
How much do you know about the Rusk Document? Some Japanese people think the Rusk Note supports their claim that Dokdo is Japanese territory, which is not right. The Rusk Note is just a letter sent to the Korean ambassador by America. It was the allied nations not America that had authority to decide what Japanese territory was. So the Rusk Note has no significance in international law.
I am sorry for the delay in responding to the responses.
Both writers focus on the “Korean lies” about the ROK claim to Dok-do. My article did not comment on the veracity of Korea’s claim, only the fact that Korea controls them. Korea has nothing to gain from international arbitration. I would say that the historical record is ambiguous for the simple reason that the rocks are uninhabitable. However, before rejecting the ROK’s claim, the two writers will have to explain why several official Meji maps indicate the rocks as being Korean. I can send jpg files if the authors do not believe me or are in denial.
Even if the rocks were Japanese, have either of the writers taken a look at a map of Germany pre-WW II and today? Countries that lose wars tend to have chunks of their territory taken away.
Finally, I would like to refer the authors to a report I prepared for the International Crisis Group entitled, “The Undercurrents of Conflict in Northeast Asia,” which they can download at the ICG website. My views cannot be too flawed or biased as a major Japanese newspaper has asked me to write a version for them! The article has also been picked up by seven or eight other publications/websites.
Mr Beck,
I did not focus on “Korean lies” in my above response to your article. I focused on your flawed logic, which, by the way, was shown again in your statement, “My views cannot be too flawed or biased as a major Japanese newspaper has asked me to write a version for them!”
There is nothing ambiguous about the fact that Japan, in 1905, incorporated Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), which you chose to refer to by its Korean name, “Dokdo.”
The fact that you have asked me “to explain why several official Meji maps indicate the rocks as being Korean” tells me that you do not really understand the history of the Rocks or the map confusion of the 1800s, which was caused by the mismapping of the Korean island of Ulleungdo by the British ship “Argonaut.”
Korea has no old maps showing Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) by any name or any documents showing that Koreans ever claimed or even visited the Rocks before the Japanese starting taking them there as deckhands on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s. In fact, the Rocks are only mentioned about three times in Korean history as being a distant, unnamed island visible from Ulleungdo, and each time it was referred to as being Japanese territory or suggested as being Japanese territory.
Let me say, again. There is no evidence that Korea ever claimed Liancourt Rocks before Japan incorporated them in 1905, and there is no evidence that Japan ever recognized any imaginary Korean claim to the Rocks.
Even without knowing which of the “several official Meiji maps” you are referring to, I can say pretty confidently that none of them recognized Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) as Korean territory. Are these “official” Meiji maps the only evidence you have to claim that the Rocks were Korean?
Gerry Bevers, you are wrong.
The Korean government officially claimed Dokdo by putting it under the administration of Ulleungdo in 1900, 5 years prior to Japan’s forceful incorporation of Dokdo in 1905.
The Meiji Map he is referring to is a map of Taejungkwan
“Even if the rocks were Japanese, have either of the writers taken a look at a map of Germany pre-WW II and today? Countries that lose wars tend to have chunks of their territory taken away.”
I agree with you exactly, Mr. Beck. This is what I have been saying for years. Even IF Gerry Bevers was right that Dokdo rightfully belonged to Japan (which he isn’t), to me, its loss of Dokdo was a cost of a war that Japan initiated…and then lost. Heck, I wouldn’t have minded if Korea had taken the city of Tokyo from Japan.
So while I would feel happy if Gerry Bevers could prove that Dokdo rightfully belonged to Japan (because that would indicate that Koreans took Japanese territory, which would make me very well pleased indeed), I am afraid that day will never come because Bevers has repeatedly failed to prove Japan’s legitimate claim to Dokdo. His argument that Dokdo is Japanese territory is based on its forced takeover in 1906. I wonder if Bevers will next argue that the city of Seoul belongs to Japan, too, since Japan took it over in 1910.
JK & Mr. Beck,
The 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan did not give Korea Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), even though Korea argued that the Rocks be given to her.
In an August 9, 1951 letter to the Korean Ambassador, US Secretary of State Dean Rusk clearly rejected Korea’s claim to Liancourt Rocks with the following statement:
“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….”
Then in his 1954 post-mission report of his mission to the Far East, US Special Mission Ambassador James Van Fleet confirmed that the Peace Treaty allowed Liancourt Rocks to remain under Japanese sovereignty. Here is the excerpt from his report:
“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.”
Therefore, there is no reason to look at any German maps or to try to equate those Japanese who claim Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory to racist White Southerners in the United States.
Hi, Mr. Beck
>why several official Meji maps indicate the rocks as being Korean.
The answer is here.
http://takeshima.cafe.coocan.jp/eng/japan/map.html
Opp are you still out there lobbying, pretending to be a lawyer?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/
BTW the Japanese “Ulleungdo=Argonaut” excuse is rubbish.
“Even if the rocks were Japanese, have either of the writers taken a look at a map of Germany pre-WW II and today? Countries that lose wars tend to have chunks of their territory taken away.”
This insistence is illegal in International Law.
PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie
“ADMINISTRATION AND SOVEREIGNTY
It may happen that the process of government over an area, with the concomitant privileges and duties, falls into the hands of another state. Thus after the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War the four major Allied powers assumed supreme power in Germany. The legal competence of German state did not, however, disappear. What occurred is akin to legal representation or agency of necessity. The German state continued to existence. The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty. A similar case, recognized by the customary law for a very long time, is that of the belligerent occupation of enemy territory in time of war. The important features of ’sovereignty’ in such cases are the continued existence of legal personality and the attribution of territory to that legal person and not to holders for the time being.”
Germany lost her territory because she had agreed to the treaty about the border.
Treaty of Zgorzelec, 1950
Treaty of Warsaw, 1970
Gesetz zu dem Vertrag vom 7. Dezember 1970
Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany September 12, 1990
Mr Beck, You should study the international law.
“The 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan did not give Korea Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), even though Korea argued that the Rocks be given to her.”
Korea wanted its rocks back that were rightfully Korean. The treaty led by the US did not give it to Korea nor to Japan. So Korea took it since its legitimate historical claim was not being recognized. What’s so hard about this to understand, Mr Bevers.
Japan was in no position to \give\ Korea any territory. It had territory taken from it for starting (and losing) a war. It lost the southern island of Sakhalin to the Soviet Union because up until the Russo-Japanese War, Russia had owned the entire island. The USSR took it back. Japan owned and then lost Formosa, Hong Kong, Manchuria, and Korea due to its aggressive expansion policies. In 1906, it took Dokdo. In 1910 it took the entire Korean peninsula. South Korea, once independent took the rest of its territory from Japan by taking back Dokdo. FURTHERMORE, the Treaty of Peace did not say that Japan should get Dokdo.
James Van Fleet was wrong…and thus wisely decided to keep out of the conflict between Japan and Korea over the islands.
Are you trying to say,Mr Bevers, that Korea took Japanese land? After WWII, Japan only lost the territory it took from other countries from 1895-1945, never any part of Japan Proper. I would not mind the prospect of Korea taking actual Japanese territory, so I hope you are right, Mr Bevers, about Dokdo. Somehow, though, you’ve failed in this endeavor for the last ten years. Korea merely took back its own land when it took Dokdo, whether the US understood this historical claim or not.
There are some interesting legal precedents here too to take note of, irrespective of ‘ye olde past’.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/Sean-Fern-Dokdo.pdf
In a nutshell, Korea has ‘manifested greater affirmative acts of sovereignty” akin to other similar scenarios mentioned in the above paper. Looks like the Liancourt Rocks are ‘Dokdo’ after all.
The Japan Peace Treaty means nothing for the following reason.
First, there was no mention of Liancourt Rocks in the Japan Peace Treaty.
Second, Korea was not signatory to the Japan Peace Treaty (San Francisco Peace Treaty)
Three, the decisions made were regarding territorial dispositions of former Japanese lands were military posturing for the cold war and NOT based on historical ownership.
Opp, Mr Lawyer. There are only two documents that matter here. The Potsdam Declaration and the Japan Peace Treaty.
Under the terms of surrender Japan agreed to the conditions of the Potsdam Declaration. It stated “Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.”
Notice is says “AND, such islands as we determine” meaning only if Allied Command specifically determined Liancourt Rocks was Japanese, could they again claim the islets.
Japan was stripped of Liancourt Rocks by Potsdam and signed the Japan Peace Treaty. Without a formal ratification of Potsdam’s territorial limits on Liacourt Rocks (Dokdo) Japan has no title over the island and thus Korea is legally entitled to claim the rocks as ownerless.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-japan-peace-treaty-and-dokdo.html
The Rusk Papers, Van Fleet Report mean nothing. They were all confidential memorandums. Even so, the views of the U.S. politions don’t dictate the decisions of a Peace Treaty signed by dozens of nations.
Personally, the one that REALLY killed “Dokdo” for me is the revelation that Korea apparently didn’t have its own map that plotted the island with reasonable accuracy (they keep plotting Jukdo, and that not too well), while in comparison Japan did. If your strategy is to rely on twisting OTHER people’s maps to SUPPOSEDLY prove YOUR ownership, you’ve already LOST.
But what is the greater flaw of Beck’s rebuttal is that he does not answer to Bever’s point 1 and 2. When it comes to Japan, Korea is too much of a “Take-Take-Take” country for the idea to work better than appeasing Hitler (oh darn now it is Godwin’s law but…)
Korea would be the last country in the world to form an alliance with Japan.
The Korean economy is heavily reliant on Japan’s. And Korea receives much financial assistance from Japan, even though almost all Korean citizens do not know about this fact.
The United States is also helping so much by supporting the US Army base in Korea. Without that help, Korea can’t survive.
Sadly, a recent poll of Korean high school students shows some unbelievable results.
Q. Which country is the Korea’s enemy?
A. 1. Japan (44.5 per cent), 2. North Korea (22.1 per cent), 3. United States (19.9 per cent), 4. China (12.8 per cent), 5. Russia (0.6 per cent)
If korea is so reliant on japan then why is korea’s economy growing by over 4% ayear. Why is hyundai gaining marketshare in north america? why is samsung still the biggest semiconductor, tv, and cell phone manufacturer? and if japan is so great why did it have 2 lost decades and 5 prime ministers in 5 years.
Hiro:
“The United States is also helping so much by supporting the US Army base in Korea. ”
…There are army bases in Japan too. You are obviously a juvenile because your logic seems flawed. Korean economy and Japan economy export most of the same goods (TVs, IT, etc). How is the Korean economy reliant on Japan? Financial assistance from Japan? …what? Your country is still in recession. End of Story.
Also, Hyundai took 10per cent of N. American market share for the first time. Toyota is at 14per cent. Old story but, Samsung overtook Sony and other Japanese electronics companies COMBINED a few years ago.
The few Japanese suffering from inferiority complex only hinders progress of a Korean-Japanese Alliance.
I seriously doubt that there would be goodwill received. Chances are that the Koreans are going to belittle Japan for backing down, and use the chance to “prove” their own “superiority.”
Typical Anglo-Saxon divide and conquer tactic.
Beck is just anxious that South Korea and Japan will inevitably break the shackles of US protectorate status once US influence is evicted from East Asia, which is a plain sight to see given the rise of China’s massive economy and decline of America’s influence given her imperial overstretch in the Middle East and horrible financial crisis/debt mountain at home.
China would probably outright annex Korea and Japan should they ever form a formal anti-China alliance with the United States. What does Beck know? He demonstrates no knowledge of geopolitics in East Asia.
From the tensions that these two countries impose upon each other over such insignificant matter, I hope Japan and Korea never become allies.
The Liancourt Rocks in my fullest opinion is nothing more than a fight over pride.
I feel sorry for any foreigner who is forced to live in these two countries. They suffer a malaise. I hope Korea and Japan come to a realization that degrading each other is definitely not a way to solve any problem. I hope they will one day see each other as equals.