Newsletter

The purpose of planning this international conference

NAHF held an international conference on August 12 under the theme of ‘Treaty of San Francisco to mark 70th anniversary, history and future task’. The conference was held in commemoration of the 76th anniversary of Liberation Day. We discussed the history of the Treaty of San Francisco signed in 1951, and the pending issues derived from it. This was an event designed to examine the task for the East Asian Peace Community in global perspective.

The Treaty of San Francisco was signed by 48 Allied countries, including the United States, and Japan(the defeated country) to settle responsibility for the Asia-Pacific War and build a peace regime. However, as its character has changed to anti-communist treaty due to the rise of the Cold War system, it is evaluated today as the cause of historical and territorial conflict in East Asia. The conference began with the opening remarks of NAHF President Lee Young-ho and the congratulatory speech of Deputy Prime Minister Yoo Eun-hye. And there were presentations and discussions on six topics.

Review of the Treaty of San Francisco and Historical Pending Issues

In the first session, there were three presentations on ‘The history of the Treaty of San Francisco for 70 years and its present meaning’.

Alexis Dudden of the University of Connecticut presented ‘the topic of Controversy related to the legacy of the Treaty of San Francisco’. She analyzed that ‘the theory of inherent territory’ claimed by Japan is the result of territorial policy to encompass Northeast Asia to exclude the relevance to imperial issues. But she criticized the theory that Japan claims. Because it denies Japan's history in its historic aspect, and it also conflicts with the logic associated with Dokdo and the East China Sea.

Yoshizawa Fumitoshi of the Niigata University of International and Information Studies presented ‘the Treaty of San Francisco and the origin of post-war relations between Korea and Japan’. He defined the 1965 system, which was established as a subsystem based on the Treaty of San Francisco, as a colonial system in which Cold War logic was planted. And he mentioned the post-Cold War process for establishing a peace regime on the Korean peninsula and the Korean Supreme Court's ruling on victims of forced mobilization(October 30, 2018). In conclusion, he argued that these were influential in the qualitative transition of the 1965 system by blocking the legalization of colonial rule.

Do Si-hwan of the NAHF presented the theme of ‘International Legal Review on the Treaty of San Francisco and Historical Pending Issues between Korea and Japan’. He used the frame that distorted history, which Japan claims under the 'deviation from the postwar system' and 'historical revisionism' against the Treaty of San Francisco. And he identified the problems of sexual slavery victims for the Japanese imperial army, the damage caused by forced mobilization of Japanese imperialism, and the Japanese claim to invade Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo. In addition, it suggested that Japan has international responsibilities in relation to 'the principle of respect for territorial sovereignty' and 'victim-centered approach'. This is based on the 'compliance with the principles of the UN Charter' and 'realization of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' as stated in the preamble of the treaty.

The Origin, Solution, and Task of the East Asian Territorial Conflict

In the second session, there were three presentations on ‘the 70th anniversary of the Treaty of San Francisco, the task of the Northeast Asian Peace Community’.

Hara Kimie of the University of Waterloo presented the theme of ‘The Treaty of San Francisco and the origin of territorial disputes in East Asia’. The Treaty of San Francisco ensured that the United States had overwhelming influence in East Asia and allowed Japan to flourish economically. However, the essence of the territorial issue in East Asia was regional conflicts that supported the structural sustainability of the San Francisco system. Therefore, in that the confrontational structure did not collapse even after the Post Cold War, he proposed to apply the model of conflict resolution such as the Declaration of Helsinki to East Asia(1975).

Lee Sung-hwan of Keimyung University presented ‘The Treaty of San Francisco and the Solution for the Territorial Conflict in Northeast Asia’. The following are the solutions to territorial issues in East Asia based on the Treaty of San Francisco. First, the 'Senkaku issue' is likely to compromise because China's claim to sovereignty is insufficient compared to Japan's aggressive policy and claims related to resources. Second, the 'Kuril Islands Issue' needs to consider the Soviet Union's participation in the war against Japan and the agreement before the Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration(1956). Third, on the extension of the diplomatic agreement on the territorial dispute over Ulleungdo and the Dajokan directive, the Japanese annexed Dokdo is not valid, and the contents of the Rusk document do not match the facts. In this regard, he argued that Dokdo should be recognized as Korea's territory.

Abe Kohki of the Meijigakuin University presented the theme of ‘the Treaty of San Francisco and the Peace Community: From a Japanese perspective’. He suggested pursuing the present peace of nonviolence and forming an East Asian peace community; the present peace is different from the classical peace that the Treaty of San Francisco presupposed to. In order to build a peace community in East Asia, it is necessary to establish order based on human dignity, and to confront and overcome colonialism. In this regard, he emphasized that Japan should seriously treat the ‘injustice’ left by the Treaty of San Francisco and the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement.

The Implementation of Peace Community through Territorial Sovereignty and Respect for Human Rights

Korea was not a party to the Treaty of San Francisco because Japan used the Cold War phase. Through this conference, it was thoroughly confirmed that Japan's invasion of sovereignty over Dokdo and the historical revisionism deny the liberation of Korea and the spirit of the treaty. Experts from Korea, the United States, Japan and Canada discussed in depth the history, international law, international relations, and the tasks needed to build an East Asian peace community.

I hope this conference will contribute to the establishment of the East Asian Peace Community based on the obligation to comply with the principle of the UN Charter and to realize Human Rights.