뉴스레터

By 2015, it will have been half a century since the conclusion of the Korea-Japan Agreement. Eve after all these years, however, the negotiations that led up to the Korea-Japan Agreement and the interpretation of the Agreement text are still in dispute. In August 2005, the Korean government fully disclosed its diplomatic documents relating to the Korea-Japan talks, 161 of them running up to about 36,000 pages. The Japanese government (MOFA) followed suit, disclosing its own diplomatic documents running about 60,000 pages in May 2008 as they lost the case brought against them by a Japanese civil-society organization demanding the full disclosure of relevant information. This organization, formed after the Korean government's full disclosure of its diplomatic documents relating to the Korea-Japan talks, is known as the Organization for Demanding Full Disclosure of the Diplomatic Documents Relating to the Korea-Japan Talks. These disclosed documents, however, were poorly organized and lacking consistency in year or agenda. and, therefore, impossible to use as they were for reference. Besides, about one-fourth of their texts were blacked out.

Nevertheless, the documents disclosed by the MOFA were still key materials that would prove most valuable in studying Japan's thinking and policy concerning the negotiations for normalizing diplomatic ties between Korea and Japan. There was no question that efforts to organize and analyze these documents would pay off in the form of intellectual property in the fields related to Korea-Japan relations as well as the Korean government's diplomatic policy toward Japan.

Accordingly, a project of collecting, organizing, and annotating Japan's diplomatic documents relating to the Korea-Japan talks was undertaken for four years, from 2009, the year after the MOFA made the partial disclosure of such documents, to 2012, by the Institute of Japanese Studies of Kookmin University and the Dokdo Research Institute of the Northeast Asian History Foundation. And this book is one of the project's results. The research team divided the 60,000-page documents into ten categories by topic: 1) claims/economic cooperation; 2) basic relations; 3) legal status; 4) cultural properties; 5) vessels; 6) fisheries; 7) Dokdo; 8) repatriation to North Korea; 9) detainees; and 10) other. Only those documents concerning Dokdo were selected, annotated, and published into Japan's Diplomatic Documents Concerning Dokdo from 1952 to 1969 (6 volumes in total) and Annotations of Japan's Diplomatic Documents Concerning Dokdo from 1952 to 1969 by the Northeast Asian History Foundation in 2011. This book, consisting of seven papers in total and an appendix, represents the results of academic studies of these references and annotations. The topics of the papers included in this book are as follows.

* The Development of Japan's Dokdo Policy during the Period of the Korea-Japan Talks (Lee Won-deok)
* The Historicity and Political Implications of the Dokdo Issue between Korea and Japan within the Continuity of the Period of Colonial Rule (Jeon Sang-sook)
* Analysis of the Japanese Government's Perception of Territory and Response during the Formation of the Treaty of Peace with Japan: Verification of Japan's Intention to Take Possession of its 'Inherent Territory of Takeshima (Dokdo)' (Jang Bak-jin)
* The Korea-Japan Talks and Dokdo: With Focus on the Responses of Korea, Japan, and the U.S. (Jo Yoon-soo)
* Negotiations for "Letter of Exchange on Dispute Settlement" and the Matter of Sovereignty over Dokdo (Choi Hi-sik)
* The Evolution of Japan's Perception of Dokdo and Response during the Period of the Korea-Japan Talks: With Focus on the Diet Minutes of Japan (Jeong Mi-ae)
* The Korean Press and the Dokdo Issue during the Period of the Korea-Japan Talks: With Focus on Japan's Diplomatic Documents from 1961 to 1965 (Park Seon-young)

In addition to the seven papers above, "A Letter of Exchange Regarding the Theory of Sovereignty over Dokdo" and "A Letter of Exchange Regarding the Bringing of the Dokdo Issue to the International Court of Justice" are included as an appendix, providing valuable basic materials for research related to Dokdo.

Japan's Moves Regarding Dokdo Divided Into Three Periods

Of Japan's documents on the Korea-Japan talks, those concerning Dokdo were analyzed. On the basis of this analysis, this book divides Japan's moves regarding Dokdo into three periods. Period 1 is the 1950s, during which Dokdo became an object of dispute once Korea declared the Peace Line, and Japan, after considering various options, proposed to resolve the dispute by bringing it to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Period 2 is between 1962 and 1963, during which Japan sought to deal with Korea's proposal for mediation by a third country, which emerged as a new solution as the claims issue made progress. Period 3 is a period during which efforts were made to confirm the rules for resolving the Dokdo issue in an official letter of exchange as the Korea-Japan talks entered the final stage toward settlement. The reports included in this book cover the following periods:

Period 1: Jeon Sang-sook, Jang Bak-jin
Periods 1 through 3: Jo Yoon-soo, Jeong Mi-ae
Periods 2 through 3: Park Seon-young
Period 3: Choi Hi-sik

The Dokdo issue, if we consider it within the continuity of Korea-Japan relations around the period of colonial rule, is symbolic of the Korea issue defined in the context of international power relations where the U.S. tried to reconstruct order in post-WWII East Asia while helping the national growth of Japan as a strategic partner of its choice. This can be also inferred from the responses of Korea, Japan, and the U.S. to the Dokdo issue during the Korea-Japan talks.

The Documents Confirm that Japan Was Uninterested in Dokdo in the Past

Contrary to what they claim today, Japan didn't negotiate actively to claim the ownership of Dokdo during the postwar period when territorial order was being determined, as confirmed by an in-depth exploration of Japan's perception and response to territorial issues during this period. Therefore, Japan's claims to Dokdo based on the argument that the island is an inherent part of Japanese territory are not valid. To illustrate the point, not a single reference to Dokdo is found in Japan's diplomatic documents relating to the San Francisco Peace Treaty. There are three possible reasons why Dokdo was not noted in the official records of negotiation. First of all, Japan may have been certain that Dokdo was Japanese territory for which no negotiation was required. Secondly, Japan may have not attempted negotiation because they perceived Dokdo as Korean territory. Thirdly, Japan may not have been much interested in Dokdo. These three scenarios were reviewed carefully, and it was concluded that the most probable explanation was that Japan was 'uninterested in Dokdo.' It was about the Northern Territories and the Ryukyu Islands that Japan consistently showed enthusiasm during the Peace Treaty process. As for Dokdo, on the other hand, which they claim to be an inherent part of their territory today, Japan showed little response.

That Japan was uninterested in Dokdo during the period of the Korea-Japan talks can be also verified by Japan's Diet minutes or related news reports of the time. By examining how the Japanese administrations from 1950 to 1966 (Shigeru Yoshida-Ichiro Hatoyama-Nobusuke Kishi-Hayato Ikeda-Sato Eisaku) perceived and dealt with Dokdo, one can see that at first, after the war, Japan didn't think highly of the strategic value of Dokdo, but, as time went by, became more specific and aggressive in their perception and response to Dokdo. The Yoshida administration years, which coincide with Period 1, saw not only the conclusion of the Peace Treaty but also the declaration of the Peace Line by Korea. But the Yoshida administration, as it is confirmed, focused on cooperation rather than confrontation as it sought to find middle ground while trying hard to figure out how to deal with this, and didn't take much issue with Dokdo. It was from 1962 that Japan began to take a tough stance on Dokdo, bringing up the island as a condition for reaching agreement in the Korea-Japan talks. In 1963, Japan demanded the settlement of the Dokdo issue as a prerequisite for normalizing diplomatic relations with Korea. The diplomatic documents of Japan include detailed reports on the Korean media's coverage of the Korea-Japan talks. This suggests that the Japanese authorities kept an eye on the Korean media covering the Korea-Japan talks. However, the coverage related to Dokdo was hardly mentioned. This also suggests that Japan was simply regarding the Dokdo issue as one of the bargaining chips necessary for the Korea-Japan talks, and was not quite committed to resolving it.

Through the diplomatic documents of Japan, with special attention to Period 3, the research team sought answers to the following questions: "Why and how did Korea and Japan, though each had insisted that 'Dokdo is not an item on the agenda of the Korea-Japan talks, and the discussion of it can wait until after the normalization of diplomatic relations,' and that the Dokdo issue should be brought to the ICJ, respectively, begin the negotiations for the 'Letter of Exchange on Dispute Settlement?'" and "What significance does this letter have for the Dokdo issue today?" As a result, the following conclusion has been reached: First, while it is true that Japan seemed to consider Dokdo important, persistently laying claims to the island and proposing to bring the issue to the ICJ, the Japanese government didn't attach high strategic value to Dokdo, and their approach to the Dokdo issue was from the perspective of domestic measures. Second, Japan sought a breakthrough for the settlement of the Dokdo issue by the Letter of Exchange, but ended up reinforcing 'the status quo' of Korea's effective control of the island.

The Official Documents of Korea and Japan Reveal the Falsehood of Japan's Claims to Dokdo

As we have seen so for, this book clearly reveals the falsehood of Japan's present claims to Dodko by exploring the official documents of Korea and Japan relating to the talks for normalizing diplomatic relations between the two countries, and reminds us of the political significance of the Dokdo issue. This book's significance lies in the fact that it represents research results based on primary sources, i.e. the diplomatic documents relating the Korea-Japan talks. Detailed reviews and analyses of these documents can produce good materials that serve as the basis of refuting Japan's logic about Dokdo. In this regard, I hope that follow-up studies will continue.