뉴스레터

A new book on Dokdo titled "Dokdo 1947" was published in August 2010, widening our horizons for the Dokdo issue by shedding a light on the relations among Korea, U.S. and Japan. Focusing on the events during the year 1947 and the three nations' dynamics until 1951, the book explores what lies at the heart of the Dokdo issue and adds momentum to resolving this issue. The author, Professor Jeong Byeong-jun received "Dokdo Protection Prize (독도수호상)" at the "Dokdo Research Awards Ceremony (독도연구상 시상식)" held by the Northeast Asian History Foundation. Taking this opportunity, we met Professor Jeong for an interview._Editor's Note

Your book, "Dokdo 1947", has received a lot of praise from scholars and experts, who say that the book has widened the horizons for the Dokdo issue. What brought you to study this issue?

While working for the National Institute of Korean History, I was dispatched to the National Archives and Records Administration in 2001 and had a chance to study historical documents in the U.S. There, I happened to take a look at the U.S. diplomatic documents written in the early 1950s, which claim that Japan's assertions are true. I was at a loss after reading them, and through further research, I found out that it all began with the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. I was curious about what had happened in San Francisco back then, and why the U.S. sided with Japan. My research began out of pure curiosity, but I felt uneasy and uncomfortable as I read relevant documents, and decided to further study this issue.

In 2005, you discovered the fact that a map annexed to the U.K.'s draft proposal for the Japan Peace Treaty indicated that Dokdo is Korean territory. How did you feel when you found the map?

In fact, I was not that shocked when I first saw the U.S. diplomatic documents in 2001. Then a few years later, I discovered that U.K. map while examining various documents in 2005, including the records kept by John Foster Dulles, who played a leading role in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Most of the documents were only available in microfilms, but I was fortunate enough to see some of them in their original form, and that huge map was one of them. I felt great when I found the map, but at that time it did not occur to me that the map was not known to Koreans. It felt somewhat strange that there were no documents accompanying the map. After looking up classified documents related to the map, I found out that a relevant document, written by British Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO), was stored in the U.K. Later I learned that Koreans only knew the U.K. document and not the map in the U.S. In February the same year, the map was made known to public when the Ambassador to Japan made a careless remark that Dokdo is Japanese territory. The map was on the spotlight, and I had a number of press interviews at that time. But I felt a bit sad and frustrated.

What do you think brought those feelings to you when you made the map public?

While searching for documents, I came to realize that studying the issue of Dokdo is somewhat sad by its nature. I tried to find an answer to the question – "Why Koreans know about the document only and not the map?" After research, I discovered that an expert at Japan's National Diet Library placed some of the U.S. and U.K. documents magazines in order to claim that Dokdo is Japanese territory. Then, these documents were brought to Korea and made into a book. The U.S. State Department's drafts No.1 to 9 were first discovered by a Japanese scholar and numbered as they were introduced to Korea. So I looked up that Japanese scholar's papers, but there was no map attached. Only the footnote said that the author checked the document in the U.K. and the map in the U.S. It is obvious that he chose not to disclose the map because it was not in the interests of Japan, and I felt sad, disturbed and frustrated.

Is this why you came to publish the book?

I felt that I should do more than just presenting the map to the public. After writing an article about the FCO map, I decided to deal with post-war Dokdo issue, focusing on the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Still, Koreans have little knowledge of the U.S. archiving system and NARA documents. I know better than most Koreans when it comes to NARA, and I thought I could draw on my expertise and write a book. It was kind of a reverse chronological process. First, I studied the U.S. documents from 1952 to 1953, and then examined historical records concerning the San Francisco Peace Treaty. After that, I looked up documents from World War II to see actions taken by Japanese, and the records about Korea during the talks. The U.S. described Dokdo as Liancourt Rocks in the drafts of the Treaty, and I tried to understand how the U.S. sees the Dokdo issue. My worked ended up looking at the Dokdo issue in the context of relations among Korea, Japan and the U.S. before and after World War II

It looks like the title of the book, 《Dokdo 1947》, holds great significance. It seems that you believe 1947 is a watershed year for sovereignty disputes over Dokdo. Why the year 1947?

I know that 1951, which is the year of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, is a critical year for the Dokdo issue, when a significant decision was made. But I thought that there must be a starting point where the perspectives of Korea, Japan and the U.S. on Dokdo began to diverge. 1947 is the year when Korea began its investigation on the Dokdo issue and recognized Daemado, Parangdo and Dokdo as a group of islets. In the same year, Japan's diplomatic policies on Dokdo started to take concrete shape, including creating PR material with a false claim that Dokdo belongs to Japan. It was also in 1947 when the U.S. State Department began making drafts for the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan, and described that "Liancourt Rocks" are Korean territory. To reiterate, 1947 was the starting point when the three countries' perceptions on Dokdo began to diverge. These different standpoints were culminated in the Peace Treaty talks in 1951, and they went their separate ways afterwards. That is why I thought that the year1947 holds particular significance, and titled the book accordingly. No one else has ever looked at the historic importance of 1947 in this context.

Your book points out that we should clearly understand that the Dokdo issue is a result of the U.S.' post-war actions and its global strategy to cope with the Cold War. However, it seems that most of the research pursued in Korea concentrate on finding historical origins only.

I think there is a structural problem. The Dokdo controversy is not only an issue between Korea and Japan, but it all began in the process of change in regional order after World War II. Japanese territory was determined by the Peace Treaty and talks among major countries. As Korea was one of Japanese colonies back then, its status and territory was significantly affected by how things turned out for Japan. Although Korea was a major stakeholder in the Peace Treaty talks, it was considered as a third party and could not voice its opinions. It is my view that the U.S., as a superpower, played a critical role in the Dokdo issue and that resulted in the current situation. Such view was rather rare in the past, but now people are paying more attention to the San Francisco Peace Treaty talks. With new perspectives and good research, I expect we will see much progress in this area.

It is almost impossible to discuss territorial disputes in the Asia Pacific region without looking at the role of the U.S., including the one over Senkaku Islands between China and Japan. Yet the U.S. takes a superficial view that it considers its own national interests when dealing with such disputes, and we cannot expect the U.S. to take any concrete actions. Against this backdrop, wouldn't it be an unattainable goal for the involved countries to resolve the issue as they want?

I do not think that the U.S. showed any favor or hostility toward Russia, Korea, or China and handled the matters for a particular island. The U.S. clearly determined the part where it has to do with their national interests, but it maintains an indifferent stance to other territorial disputes. The San Francisco Peace Treaty was a very favorable agreement to Japan: Unlike other treaties, it did not ask for war responsibility, not did it call for compensation and cession of territory. Korea and China, who had territorial disputes with Japan, were not invited, and Russia was present but did not sign the treaty. That is, the Treaty abolished wartime territorial policies, but signed without discussing or agreeing on new territorial policies, and also without participation of major stakeholders. As such, it can be said that current territorial disputes in Northeast Asia are the result of the San Francisco regime. Of course, the U.S. can change its stance according to their national interests. The situation will be different if China becomes more powerful and reorganizes regional order as they like.

You have written several other books including 《Study on Syngman Rhee 》, 《 Korean War : Conflict over the 38th parallel and Foramation of War》. These books deal with events of contemporary Korean history, but they can be considered as matters of the past. However, the disputes over Dokdo are a very sensitive, ongoing issue. What was the most difficult thing while writing 《Dokdo 1947》?

Most of my research topics have been sensitive issues. There were people who tried to dissuade me from dealing with those topics, but I thought that such research would make a great and meaningful contribution. The most difficult part was research analysis. In the past, researchers paid attention only to whether Dokdo appeared in the drafts and how it was described. However, I decided to first understand the context of the drafts and documents. I had to review all treaties that are in any way related to the Peace Treaty with Japan, and it was an exhausting work. I began reading related documents in 2001, and devoted to collecting documents from 2005. Two years ago, I began writing the book by browsing and organizing the collected documents. The sheer amount of documents was indeed overwhelming.

How did Korean and overseas academia respond to the book?

The first response was that it was too thick. It will take some more time to read the book thoroughly and evaluate it. It would be great if people in Japan read it and give me feedback. I am willing to respond earnestly to any response or opinion.

Is there any area which deserves our greater attention in terms of the research on Dokdo?

I just hope that people study original historical documents more closely. Analyzing existing documents and records from new perspectives is important, but I believe that it is equally important to discover new documents and create new ideas.

Though somewhat belatedly, I would like to congratulate you on receiving the "Dokdo Research Awards (독도연구상)" from the Foundation. Could you tell me how you felt about receiving the award and are there any suggestions you have to the Foundation?

Let me express my sincere gratitude for giving me this award. I think the award is a token of encouragement for me and other researchers. It is my belief that all historical research should be founded in facts and records. I hope that the Foundation pays greater attention to creating a database for new and existing documents and records.