Newsletter

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak's visit to Dokdo on August 10, 2012 and the ensuing mention of the Japanese Emperor are driving ROK-Japan relations into the worst upheaval since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Tokyo went so far as to summon the Japanese ambassador to Korea Masatoshi Muto (武藤正敏), and make an official proposal to jointly refer the Dokdo dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). When Seoul naturally rejected the proposal, Tokyo, as if they knew that Seoul would do so, had Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura (藤村修) make the official announcement that Japan would take action independently. And Tokyo is making it clear that they would consider suspending the ROK-Japan summit shuttle diplomacy, the ROK-Japan Finance Minister talks, and the ROK-Japan swap agreement, and even interfering with the ROK in running for a non-permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.
A few years ago, Shimane Prefecture designated February 22 'Takeshima Day,' and Japanese Ambassador to the ROK Toshiyuki Takano (高野紀元) incited indignation from all the Koreans by making the reckless remark in the middle of Seoul that Dokdo was Japanese territory both historically and under international law. And Japan has specified that Dokdo was Japanese territory in their Diplomatic Bluebooks and Annual White Papers as well as in primary school, middle school, and high school textbooks. As if that was not enough, Japan is now buzzing like angry bees over President Lee's visit to Dokdo.

The Dokdo Dispute: Past and Present

The dispute over Dokdo is nothing new. It goes back as early as 300 years ago to the 17th century when Japanese fishermen started frequenting Ulleungdo for secret fishing operations once the Korean officials evacuated the island to protect the residents against the rampant Japanese piracy, and as recent as 100 years ago to 1905 when Japan, engaged in the Russo-Japanese War, seized Dokdo in the name of incorporation to meet their military needs to spy on the Vladivostok fleet of Russia.
This Dokdo dispute was concluded once and for all as Ahn Yong-bok's activities in Japan in 1696 had prompted the Tokukawa shogunate to forbid Japanese fishermen's fishing operations in the waters around Ulleungdo and Dokdo, and this measure was confirmed again in 1877 by the Minister of the Right (右大臣) Tomomi Iwakura (岩倉具視) of the Great Council of State, who said, "it should be remembered that Japan has no relations with Ulleungdo and Dokdo," and made it clear that the two islands should not be included in any of the maps to be made by the Japanese government.
This dispute, though once completely concluded, was revived as Japan provoked the Russo-Japanese War. As they were overwhelmed by the strong naval power of Russia, the Japanese navy requisitioned land in Ulleungdo and Dokdo on which to build lookout towers for early detection of the Russian navy's movement. As Ulleungdo was inhabited at that time, only three lookout tower sites were requisitioned. On the other hand, the uninhabited Dokdo was incorporated into Japanese territory in its entirety, not just lookout tower sites, raising a dispute again.
At that time, Japan requisitioned land for war not just in Ulleungdo but across the Korean peninsular, and in the process, mercilessly killed anyone who protested or refused to comply. Obviously, Japan recognized the strategic importance of Dokdo's location, as suggested by the fact that Japan ensured that its incorporation of Dokdo would not be known to the outside, although Koreans under death threat wouldn't have protested even if they had known about the incorporation.
But Japan has claimed, shamelessly, that their incorporation had been right under international law because Koreans had not protested. And it is ludicrous for them to claim that President Lee Myung-bak's visit to Dokdo was infringement on their territorial rights.

Japan's Independent Action with the ICJ and Yasukuni Shrine Visits Show Their Lingering Imperialistic Delusion

Japan's such claims have already faced criticism from many conscientious Japanese scholars, including Professor Seitsyu Naito (內藤正中), who said that they were "as shameless as laying claims to valuables after breaking into an empty house and stealing them."
Japan may have a vague hope that the ICJ would rule in favor of them just because Korea did not protest. But the ICJ's ruling of the 'Temple of Preah Vihear case' in favor of Cambodia because Thailand hadn't protested is being criticized as a wrong decision based on imperialistic legal principles rather than truths. For this reason, the case has remained unresolved for nearly 50 years since the ruling. Furthermore, unlike the Temple of Preah Vihear case, Japan's disseisin of Dokdo wasn't done and made known until Japan robbed Korea of diplomatic rights to ensure that Korea couldn't protest. According to the international press, the South Korean president's recent visit to Dokdo prompted 50 Japanese government officials and politicians to visit and worship at Yasukuni Shrine (靖國神社).
The Yasukuni Shrine of Japan is fundamentally different from the National Cemetery of Korea; while the latter enshrines those who died fighting for the country against invasion by foreign powers, the former is a place to pay tribute to war criminals, the masterminds behind the Second World War. Therefore, visiting the Yasukuni Shrine is nothing but reminding themselves of the past of their colonial rule over Korea and committing themselves to invading it, not reflecting on their shameful past marked by invasions.
After all, taking independent action with the ICJ or visiting Yasukuni Shrine is nothing but a shameful act showing that Japan still remains in the imperialistic delusion of the past.

Japan Should Repent its Past Wrongdoing and Move Toward Co-existence and Co-prosperity

President Lee Myung-bak's visit to Dokdo is a natural and simple event in which the head of a state paid a visit to national territory, not the kind of invasion of Japanese territory that the Japanese believe happened because Japan has no power over it. This is no headline material, nor should it necessitate visiting Yasukuni Shrine out of self-pity for their lack of power that invited such incident or taking independent action in the vague hope that the ICJ would rule in favor of Japan.
The world is breaking free from the tragic past and the shackle of ideology and running toward co-existence and co-prosperity. In particular, Korea and Japan, as leaders in the Pacific era, have a number of tasks that they need to do together, including not only economic cooperation but regional security cooperation to prevent North Korea from developing nuclear weapons that would pose threat common to both countries, and a coordinated response to the increasingly hegemonistic China.
To wisely sort out past affairs and move toward the future, the perpetrator, rather than the victim, must admit to, and reflect on, their atrocities first. Nevertheless, Japan is not reaching out to its neighbors to walk the path of co-existence and co-prosperity together, but refusing to take the hands of its neighbors reached out for them. I urge Japan to ask themselves and think about why the United States, not even a direct victim, has adopted the 'comfort women' resolution.