Award Winning Works of 4th Int’l Essay Contest on Dokdo Gold Prize

Ten truths Japanese don’t know about Dokdo

Gold Prize Esther Yoon The writer is a student at Yongsan International School of Seoul (YISS), active in Model United Nations, mock trials, forensics debate, and community service at school.

For decades, two small, rocky islets have been a source of politicaland social tension between two of the most powerful Asian nations. The islets are but a tiny, insignificant dot on a map; however, they mean much more to the people of Japan and South Korea. The Japanese call the islets Takeshima and have claimed their official ownership since 1905, during the Russo – Japanese War. Koreans call the land Dokdo and claim it has historically been Korean territory and was wrongfully taken during the Japanese occupation of Korea.

As is with all territorial disputes, one must examine the history. Detailed research of ancient documents and records reveals various truths and facts about Dokdo that contradict, or even disprove, Japanese arguments. One such fact involves the Japanese claim of having managed Dokdo from as early as the 17th century. The claim is false. While it is true that the Edo Shogunate granted access to Ulleungdo to Japanese merchant families in 1618, this was not explicit permission to manage Dokdo – it was for travelling to Ulleungdo. The current claim also ignores the fact that, in 1905, the Japanese government officially recognized Dokdo as terra nullius, or previously unmanaged land. Terra nullius therefore signified that the Japanese government dmitted it had no previous claims to the islets. Even if one overlooks this contradiction, another important fact is that the Edo Shogunate even recognized Ulleungdo (and, therefore, Dokdo) as land not under Japanese jurisdiction and banned Japanese travel to the islands in 1696.

This leads to another important fact. The Korean claims to Dokdo datevery, very far back in history. The first official Korean records of Dokdo were in 512 CE, when maps, geographical surveys, and government accounts registered the islets as part of the Silla Dynasty. In the centuries that followed, such documentation continued. In 1454, Dokdo was identified in the Geographical Appendix to the Veritable Records of King Sejong. It also appeared in The Newly Enlarged Geographical Survey of Korea in 1531, the Reference Compilation of Materials on Korea in 1770, and The Book of Ten Thousand Techniques of Governance in 1808.

One of Japan’s most persistent arguments is that Dokdo was legally incorporated as Japanese territory in 1905. In 1905, the Japanese Shimane prefectural government registered Dokdo as part of the Oki Island. However, the story behind this incorporation may not be well known in Japan; here, another unknown fact emerges. The incorporation began when Japanese fisherman Yozaburo Nakai asked the Japanese government for fishing rights in Dokdo. The interesting part is that Nakai, a resident of Oki Island, had initially planned on requesting fishing rights from the Korean government, but had been discouraged by the Japanese Fisheries BureauDirector. Only after Nakai asked the Japanese government was Dokdo formally registered as Japanese territory. By the time the Korean government was informed of these actions, it was already under the Japanese protectorate and therefore unable to pursue effective diplomatic measures to rectify the situation.

The Japanese occupation of the Korean peninsula came to an end with the Allied victory in World War II. South Korea regained her dignity and independence and, in the years that followed, the Japanese government negotiated with the Allied powers regarding the territories it had occupied. Another unknown fact concerns these negotiations. Up to the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan continuously lobbied for the Allies to recognize her sovereignty over Dokdo. However, the first drafts of the treaty included Dokdo in the list of territories to be returned to Korea. This was in accordance with the 1943 Cairo Declaration and 1945 Potsdam Declaration,which required Japan to relinquish territories she had obtained through “violence and greed.” However, William Sebald, an American with strong personal ties with the Japanese government, oversaw the final drafts of the treaty. These decisions also came at a time when Korea was unable to properly represent her case as the Korean War ravaged the peninsula and South Korean President Syngman Rhee was preoccupied with domestic political strife. Sebald’s possible bias and the unfortunate timing of the decisions led to the eventual removal of Dokdo from the 1952 Treaty, leaving the dispute technically “unsolved.”

During this period, three more facts can be found in Japanese historicalrecords. A Japanese survey conducted by Ihohara Fumiichi in the 20th century clearly registered Dokdo as Korean territory. Japanese scholar Hibata Sekko categorized Dokdo as part of Korea’s Gangwon Province in 1930. In 1923, the Japanese Navy published “Korean Coastal Straits,” citing Dokdo as part of Ulleungdo, a nearby Korean island.

Most recently, Japan’s main argument has centered on a study in 1966 titled “A Historical and Geographical Study of Takeshima” by Kawakami Kenzo, a Japanese Foreign Ministry researcher. In the study, Kenzo attempts to prove that Koreans were unaware of the existence of Dokdo prior to the Japanese occupation. The two major flaws in his argument are the two last unknown facts in this dispute. The first is that Dokdo is indeed visible from Ulleungdo on clear days, contrary to Kenzo’s statement. The second is that Koreans were indeed able to travel to Dokdo before the Japanese occupation; Koreans had actually been covering even longer distancesby boat prior to the time. Kenzo argues that Koreans were unable to neither see nor reach Dokdo and were, therefore, unaware of its existence before Japan acquired it in 1905. His argument is, however, clearly based on inaccurate premises. While these flaws may seem insignificant, they are part of a study that has been one of Japan’s main arguments from 1966 to the present.

Over the years, the Japanese have made several claims and arguments in an attempt to prove their sovereignty over the two islets. Historical records and these 10 facts, or 10 truths, actually support the Korean argument. After a thorough and unbiased examination of the evidence at hand, it seems logically undeniable that there is a wealth of information of which Japan is unaware. In the end, the islets are not Takeshima. They are not Liancourt Rocks. History has spoken. They are Dokdo.