뉴스레터

Q

The Japanese government repeats provocative territorial claims over Dokdo through its annual Diplomatic Bluebook and Defense White Paper. This year is no exception; Japan's groundless territorial claims over Dokdo included in its Diplomatic Bluebook released on April 5, 2013 not only distorted history but hurt the pride of Koreans. To refute Japan's false claims, we need to understand what's wrong with them. To this end, let us learn more about Japan's annual Diplomatic Bluebook: the controversial terms it uses annually; since when and why it became controversial; and how it differs from the Defense White Paper. This will offer a critical look at the root of 'territorial disputes' raised by Japan.

A

What is the Diplomatic Bluebook? Why is it called a bluebook, not a white paper?

White paper refers to a government document designed to inform the people of its administrative affairs. The name white paper originates from the white cover that the U.K. government began to use for documents that informed the people of the details of its foreign policies. The report issued in 1922 by Winston Churchill, who was the Secretary of State for the Colonies, was called the 'Churchill White Paper.' And every government report issued from that point on came to be called a white paper. In recent years, white paper has been established as the term that refers to government-issued reports on various issues. On the other hand, a parliament-issued report designed to inform the people of economic and social changes that occurred after budget was passed by the parliament was called a 'bluebook.' Of the many white papers issued by Japan, the Diplomatic Bluebook is the only one that is called a bluebook. This name originates from the blue cover of the U.K. parliament's diplomatic commission report which Japan used as a reference when it began writing diplomatic reports for the first time in 1957.

Why is Japan's Diplomatic Bluebook controversial?

Japan's Diplomatic Bluebook is controversial to us because it is one of the main methods employed by the Japanese government to express its distorted view on history and its position on issues that it tussles over with its South Korea counterpart. Japan is conducting acts of state related to historical issues on a regular basis. In 2013, for example, Shimane Prefecture hosted the so-called 'Takeshima Day' on February 22 (instead of revoking the pledge to make it a national event hosted by the Japanese government, a parliamentary secretary of the Cabinet Office was sent to the Shimane prefectural government's ceremony), and the high school textbook screening results were announced in late March. And in early April, the Diplomatic Bluebook approved by the cabinet was released. The Defense White Paper is also scheduled to be released in July or August. In addition, the Prime Minister and government officials may visit the Yasukuni Shrine during its annual spring festival in April, autumn festival in October, or on August 15, the anniversary of the end of World War II. Since these ceremonies, festivals, and announcements are scheduled like annual events, diplomatic friction with South Korea is also destined to take place at any time. In particular, the Diplomatic Bluebook, the textbook, and the Defense White Paper are called 'a package of three' that includes controversial descriptions of Dokdo, thereby gives rise to diplomatic friction with South Korea.

What parts of Japan's Diplomatic Bluebook are controversial?

The parts of the Diplomatic Bluebook in which they lay claims to Dokdo prompt us to take whatever measures necessary to counter them. This year's edition of Japan's Diplomatic Bluebook (approved at the cabinet meeting on April 5) read: "There is an issue between Japan and South Korea regarding sovereignty over Takeshima (the Japanese name for Dokdo), and the Japanese government holds the consistent position that Takeshima is clearly an inherent part of Japanese territory in light of historical facts and under international law." This was protested by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) of South Korea, which expressed its position through the spokesperson that "Dokdo is, without doubt, an integral part of the ROK territory in terms of history, geography and international law." The same day, Park Jun-young, the head of the ROK MOFA Northeast Asian Affairs Bureau, summoned Kurai Takashi, minister and deputy chief of mission at the Japanese Embassy in South Korea, to his MOFA office, complaining about the Diplomatic Bluebook's unreasonable claims to Dokdo and urged them to withdraw such claims.

Apparently, Japan's intentions behind the Diplomatic Bluebook are to document Japan's response to the Dokdo issue and to use it as the basis of laying claims to Dokdo in the international community. For instance, the Diplomatic Bluebook 2009 through 2012 read that the Japanese government's position "should be promoted at home and abroad through pamphlets and the like." But the Diplomatic Bluebook 2013 stated the fact that South Korean President Lee Myung-bak visited Dokdo on August 10, 2012 and wrote that "(the Japanese government) proposed that following the policy of amicable resolution of disputes under international law both countries should jointly bring a case before the International Court of Justice and conduct arbitration based on the official documents for dispute resolution exchanged between Japan and South Korea, but on the 30th day of the same month, the South Korean government refused this proposal."

Since when did Japan's Diplomatic Bluebook become controversial?

The Diplomatic Bluebook has been released once a year since 1957 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. It is from the 1963 edition that the Bluebook started including Japan's territorial claims over Dokdo. From 1971 to 1987, the Bluebook used expressions that highlighted the 'illegal occupation' of Dokdo by South Korea. From 2000 onward, however, their consistent claims have been that Dokdo is 'an inherent part of Japanese territory' in terms of history and international law. A big change that started to occur from 2005 is the significant increase in the length of the Dokdo-related description. Every year since 1963, except for 14 intermittent years in the last 50 years, the Diplomatic Bluebook has specified Japan's claims related to Dokdo over and over again.

How does the Bluebook differ from the Defense White Paper?

While the Diplomatic Bluebook began to include Japan's territorial claims over Dokdo from 1957, it isn't until 2005 that such claims started to appear in Japan's Defense White Paper. For eight years since then, the Defense White Paper has maintained that Dokdo is 'an inherent part of Japanese territory.' On the first page of Defense of Japan 2012 (annual White Paper), 'Part I: Security Environment Surrounding Japan,' it read: "there are territorial issues over the inherent parts of Japanese territory, i.e. the Northern Territories (Japanese name for the Kuril Islands) and Takeshima (竹島: Japanese name for Dokdo), which remain unresolved," making it clear that Dokdo is Japanese territory.

The first Defense White Paper of Japan was issued in 1970 by Defense Minister Nakasone Yasuhiro in the wake of the announcement of the Nixon doctrine in 1969, and then of the plan to withdraw the U.S. armed force from East Asia. The purpose of this white paper was to raise the need for change in Japan's defense policy in the situation where the prospect of the U.S. defense of East Asia was unclear. It reflected the Japanese policy-maker's determination to break from the Yoshida doctrine which had kept defense power to a minimum since WWII. But the second Defense White Paper wasn't published until 1976. And a Dokdo-related description first appeared in the 1978 edition of White Paper, disappeared from the subsequent editions, but has appeared in every edition since the comeback in 1997.

Dokdo-related descriptions in the Defense White Paper are much shorter than those in the Diplomatic Bluebook, and they have not increased in length even since 2005 when the expression 'inherent territory' first appeared. The relatively less weight placed on the Dokdo issue in the Defense White Paper compared with the Diplomatic Bluebook may suggest the intention of the Japanese government to let its people and the world know that it is treating the Dokdo issue as a diplomatic issue rather than as a defense issue.