뉴스레터

Dokdo is clearly Korean territory. Nevertheless, Japan continues to provoke Korea regarding the matter. The following passage in Japan's middle school social studies textbook instruction guide, revised in July 2008, caused a diplomatic row with Korea.

The Northern Territories are inherently ours [Japan's]. However, they are currently illegally occupied by Russia. Thus, there needs to be an accurate coverage of related matters, including Japan's demands for their return. Furthermore, as with the Northern Territories, there must be mention of the divergent claims over Takeshima between Japan and Korea in order to deepen the students' understanding of our [Japan's] territories.

After the transfer of power from the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), the high school social studies instruction guide was again revised in December 2009. The following passage was added to the revised version.

Based on related coverage in the middle school curriculum, instructors must provide an accurate coverage our [Japan's] legitimate stance on the Northern Territories and other territorial issues facing our nation [Japan] in order to deepen the students' understanding in the matters.

However, Japan and Russia's dispute over the Northern Territories is fundamentally different from the issues surrounding Korea's Dokdo. Japan forcefully occupied Dokdo for its strategic value in the Russo-Japanese War—more specifically, in Japan's battle against the Baltic Fleet. In contrast, Japan gained the Northern Territories from Russia as the spoils of the Russo-Japanese War. However, after its defeat in World War II, Japan had to return the islands to the former Soviet Union pursuant to the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Nevertheless, the Japanese government wants to treat these two fundamentally different cases—Northern Territories and Dokdo—as issues of the same nature. This is indicative of the Japanese government's intention to obfuscate the essence of the Dokdo issue.

In announcing the revision of the instruction guide, Kawabata Tatsuo, Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (MEXT), commented that while "Takeshima is Japan's territory," Korea has set out to depict it as their territory that had been forcefully taken away from them by Japan. This comment should at least be preceded by an explanation on what is meant by "inherent territory," especially given that it was issued by a government ministry of the world's no. 2 economic power. Without even defining what "inherent territory" is, Japan is laying its claim on Dokdo. This is beyond comprehension.

The Fundamental Difference between the Northern Territories and Dokdo

Hence, I looked up "inherent" in Kojien, published by Iwanami Shoten and considered an authoritative dictionary in Japan. "Inherent" is defined as "of or related to something that was always there." However, if in fact Dokdo was always there as Japanese territory, Japan must clarify why the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA) has set forth incomprehensible claims in the pamphlet "10 Issues of Takeshima." The pamphlet states that in 1905, the Japanese government incorporated Dokdo into Shimane Prefecture and "reaffirmed Japan's intention to claim sovereignty over Takeshima." This statement contradicts Japan's claim that Dokdo is an inherent part of Japanese territory. There must be some explanation as to why a nation would go through the process of claiming sovereignty over a territory that was inherently theirs to begin and why they would highlight that there was no evidence the island had been occupied by another country at that time.

Even if these claims were true, there is another noteworthy point for consideration. Nakai Yozaburo [中井養三郞], as a part of his efforts at getting the Japanese government to forcefully incorporate Dokdo, submitted a business proposal to the Oki Island government office. Upon reviewing the proposal, a member of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs pointed out that "the gains would be extremely small while the situation would become grave if the acquisition of a barren islet suspected of being Korean territory...would amplify the suspicions of various foreign countries that Japan had an ambition to annex Korea."Had this comment been utterly false?

History Education Must be Truthful and Honest

The government is an entity designed to protect national self-interest. Nevertheless, when it comes to historical education, truth must prevail.

Yamaza Enjiro [山座圓二郞], the Political Affairs Director of MOFA around the time of the Russo-Japanese War, insisted that the circumstances called for the urgent incorporation of Dokdo. He pointed out that constructing watchtowers or installing submarine cables in and around Dokdo would be effective in monitoring hostile warships. It has been proven that Yamaza did make the above comment. Nevertheless, Japan continues to deny it and claims that "Japan had been using Takeshima as fishing grounds and as an anchorage for vessels en route to Ulleungdo" and that "Japan had established its sovereignty over Takeshima by the mid-17th century at the latest."

Japan should put an end to its lies and openly recognize that it had forcefully seized Dokdo for gaining an upper hand in the Russo-Japanese War. Furthermore, Japan should not offer its "deep regrets" in words only for the 36 years of colonial rule over Korea. It must firmly resolve not to bring up the Dokdo issue again and teach its middle and high school students that invading other countries is wrong. If Japan does this, the Northeast Asian Community will naturally come into being without the need for great fanfare. History education is a means of learning from past experiences to bring about a better future.