뉴스레터

Rim Young-jung

Professor emeritus, Department of History Education, Dongguk University

Professor Rim received his bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree in history from Dongguk University before beginning to teach at the university's department of history education. He has also worked as a researcher on history education for the National Institute of Korean History and as vice-chairman of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries' Committee for Dokdo Materials. For serving as an authority on historical research involving Dokdo, he received the 5th Dokdo Award from the Northeast Asian History Foundation in 2014.

His major publications include "A Collection of Japanese Research Papers Refuting Japan's Sovereignty Claim over Dokdo," "Ulleungdo, Dokdo, and Changes in Joseon's Ban on Maritime Travel," "Ahn Yong-bok's Involvement in the Historical Background to Sovereignty over Dokdo," "A Review of Details on the Dominium of Dokdo in Middle and High School History Textbooks," and "The Nature of Changes in Japanese Names for Dokdo."

Empirical as well as international legal evidence has made it an undeniable fact that the island Dokdo has historically, geographically, and legally been an inherent part of Korean territory. Nevertheless, the Japanese government has repeatedly been making farfetched claims over the island ever since Korea's liberation. Making such claims on Japan's sovereignty over Dokdo is tantamount to invading the island as well as the Korean peninsula all over again as Japan once did through imperialist wars of aggression.

The task at hand for Northeast Asia in the twenty-first century is to achieve peace and prosperity based an accurate understanding of history. This month's interview hence turns to Professor Emeritus Rim Young-jung of Dongguk University to explore the historicity and legitimacy of Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo and seek his advice on how to put an end to the dispute over Dokdo between Korea and Japan that has been going on for decades.

Q

The Northeast Asian History Foundation has been established to deal with historical distortions carried out by Korea's neighboring countries. What do you make of the achievements the Foundation's Dokdo Research Institute has made over the past ten years since 2008?

A

The Northeast Asian History Foundation started out as a research institution to perform comprehensive research on ancient Korean history and East Asian history with a focus on the history of the ancient Korean kingdom Koguryo. Since its establishment, the Foundation brought in a good number of competent researchers to carry out various projects aimed at forming arguments on issues involving Dokdo, developing plans and strategies to strengthen Korea's dominium of Dokdo, and participating in discussions overseas to correct inaccurate notations of the East Sea and Dokdo. Thanks to such efforts, I think Korean arguments regarding Dokdo have made it on to the right track.

Q

Has there been any change in the Japanese government's attitude regarding Dokdo since the Dokdo Research Institute began operating?

A

Japan has shifted its course from simply, repeatedly declaring its sovereignty over Dokdo to making more thorough, strategic sovereignty claims. For instance, including farfetched arguments about ongoing issues surrounding Dokdo in Japanese elementary, middle and high school textbooks has been intended to increase awareness about Japan's sovereignty over the island among its people. In 2005, the Shimane Prefectural Council established "Takeshima Day" and has since been celebrating the occasion every year. As for the Japanese central government, it established the Office of Policy Planning and Coordination on Territory and Sovereignty to more systematically engage in lobbying and public relations activities and form favorable public opinions overseas regarding its claims. Furthermore, a permanent exhibition similar to the Foundation's Dokdo Museum Seoul has been launched inside Tokyo's Hibiya Park. In other words, Japan seems to be making every effort on issues involving Dokdo based on a meticulously devised strategy.

Q

What are your thoughts on Japan educating its people, especially its youths about ongoing issues involving Dokdo through means like textbooks?

A

Japan is using textbooks to instill among its people the idea that Dokdo is Japanese territory. This is not something to take lightly. We in Korea need to provide accurate information through textbooks and history education and make content related to Dokdo available through mediums and methods that younger generations are more familiar with.

More than anything, culture is a factor crucial to public education and integration. Just as Jeong Kwang-tae's song "Dokdo is Our Land" became a subject of academic study in addition to being culturally enjoyed. Creating, distributing, and taking advantage of cultural content readily accessible to all would be the way to naturally spreading the value of the Korean island Dokdo to Koreans in their everyday lives. We need to keep publicizing ongoing issues involving Dokdo and perfect the public relations system so that no one remains illiterate about such issues.

There are lessons to learn from the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute between Britain and Argentina. Argentina taught through its textbooks that Britain was occupying the islands by force, which caused an Argentinean generation exposed to the argument for nearly thirty years to go to war with Britain to regain control over the islands. I believe there are circumstances in this case that may be comparable to the situation in Japan. People in Japan who used to have no interest in Dokdo now seem to be aware of the island's existence, which demonstrates that the Japanese curriculum guidelines intending to infuse even elementary school students with the argument that Dokdo has inherently been Japanese territory is a very serious issue. It is concerning to think of what might happen when children taught that the inherently Japanese territory Takeshima (the Japanese name for Dokdo) is being illegally occupied by Korea grow up to become adults. That is why Korea needs to encourage the public's interest in Dokdo's sovereignty issue by reorganizing its education system and actively publicizing the issue through popular television programs and other multimedia outlets.

Q

Do you think the so-called "strategy of ignoring" related to Dokdo should change?

A

I believe it's altogether wrong for Korea to ignore or give no response toward Dokdo-related issues, so I've always strongly criticized such strategies. The Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs should change its passive approach of "silent diplomacy" against Japan's sharp attacks and criticisms. Can you imagine what retaining such an approach might do to Dokdo and Korea's territorial sovereignty thirty years from now? From now on, Korea should focus on actively raising awareness and carry out a worldwide campaign to inform the falsity of Japan's arguments.

Q

Numerous documents and maps have been uncovered that prove Japan has recognized Dokdo as Korean territory in the past. Historical evidence alone seems to be capable of refuting Japan's sovereignty claim over Dokdo, but some say Korea needs to develop even stronger arguments. What is your view on developing stronger arguments?

A

It is blindingly obvious that Japan's claims are farfetched. There are Japanese documents and research publications clearly stating Takeshima as Joseon territory, including an ordinance issued by the Japanese Ministry of Finance, a publication on Japanese history describing how Ahn Yong-bok managed to have the Japanese bakufu issue a diplomatic document stating that Ulleungdo and Dokdo are part of Joseon's territory, not to mention the paper by Professor Naito Seichu (內藤正中, 1929-2012) proving with historical records that Ulleungdo and Dokdo have not been part of Japanese territory. There are also countless studies on the Joseon government official Nam Gu-man of the Soron faction who actively responded to territorial issues including that over Tsushima Island as well as on Joseon's diplomatic negotiations with the Japanese bakufu regarding territorial issues, all proving that Dokdo has been part of Korean territory and that sovereignty over the island lies with Korea.

Unfortunately, most people in Japan are not very familiar with Dokdo, nor are they aware of Japanese scholars or historical material supportive of Korea's argument. Now is the time to make such historical facts and evidences more visible. It's time to let the whole world know the truth by distributing English and Japanese translations of academic papers that convey Korea's consistent, solid arguments and disprove Japan's farfetched claims.

Q

What would be the best way to solve the problem of Japan repeatedly stirring up conflict with Korea and turning Dokdo into a subject of dispute?

A

Despite having committed war crimes, postwar Japan has repeatedly claimed that Korea has been illegally occupying an inherent territory of Japan and continues to disseminate that distorted historical fact through textbooks. The purpose for doing so is to further diplomatically provoke Korea and make the international society recognize Dokdo as an area of dispute. Such actions are, of course, not helpful for Korea and Japan in pursuing a future-oriented relationship.

Powerful countries basically wield greater influence when it comes to territorial issues. The ways of the powerful are what dominate the international order. Korea must try to grow stronger in order to prevent itself from being swept up in contests among the powerful. It has to unify public opinion rather than fall into internal division in times of crisis so that it may respond effectively in an international capacity. As a country with territorial sovereignty, Korea should attempt to independently and actively resolve territorial issues. I believe that is the path Korea is destined to pursue.

Q

What would be the first task Korea should take care of in order to put an end to Japan's farfetched claims over Dokdo?

A

Instruction no. 677 by the Supreme Commander for Allied Powers issued in 1946 designated Dokdo as Korean territory by stipulating that Ulleungdo, Dokdo, and Jejudo shall be excluded from Japanese territory. SCAPIN no. 1033 also stipulated that "Japanese vessels or personnel thereof will not approach closer than twelve miles to Takeshima." Japan accepted these instructions at the time and acknowledged that Dokdo was not part of its territory through Ordinance no. 24 by the Japanese Prime Minister and Ordinance no. 4 by the Japanese Ministry of Finance.

Claiming territorial sovereignty over an island despite being aware that it is not part of its own territory is an act detrimental to peace in East Asia. Japan is not likely to take a step back from making claims over Dokdo, but it will nevertheless be important for Korea to stand firm in the face of history and exercise its legitimate right to defend its territorial sovereignty. Only when the government and academia take the lead in actively responding to territorial issues will Korea be able to defend what it possesses. Using the many historical records and material proving that Dokdo is Korean territory, we should redouble efforts to end the sovereignty dispute over Dokdo.

Q

There has been a case where Korean and Japanese scholars engaged in joint research to correct a political distortion. Do you think something like that would be possible for issues involving Dokdo?

A

I believe it is possible for Korean and Japanese historians to conduct joint research and share information. However, because the nature of issues involving Dokdo is primarily political and diplomatic, I suspect that academic exchange and cooperation with Japan beyond the field of historical research might be somewhat impossible. On the other hand, prospects for cooperation with North Korea seem more positive. Although the two Koreas operate under different political systems and ideas, I think they basically share the same position on issues involving Dokdo. North Korea also teaches through textbooks that the island has been part of Joseon for generations and displays a firm attitude against Japanese provocations over the sovereignty of Dokdo. Yet, there is a possibility for North Korea to be swayed by Japan's lobbying tactics and withdraw from its former position to side with the Japanese argument, so Korea must be thoroughly prepared for all sorts of future developments.

Q

What sort of difficulties did you run into while studying Dokdo issues? If you have any ideas on the most practical, ultimate solution to resolving such issues, please share them as well.

A

Whenever a political issue arises, Dokdo turns into an object of national concern. This charges scholars like myself with a great sense of duty, but also weighs down on our shoulders. Studies on Dokdo related issues in Korea especially tend to be temporary, fragmentary, and intermittent, which makes it challenging to explore an issue in depth and forces studies to become discontinued.

Another difficulty is that there are almost no experts on Dokdo related issues in public service. In Japan, there are public servants who have been preoccupied with handling Dokdo related issues long enough to become experts. One of them would be Kawakami Kenzo (川上健三, 1905-1995). Kawakami worked on territorial issues at the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs' treaty division until his retirement, during which he argued that announcing Japan's incorporation of Dokdo through a public notice issued by Shimane Prefecture was an internationally legitimate move.

Meanwhile, Korean public servants work under a rotation of duties for the purpose of gaining comprehensive knowledge and experience across multiple services. Adhering to such a principle of work assignment to ensure fairness can hinder certain areas from making progress, areas like dealing with Dokdo related issues that require consistent, expert attention. The current system of assigning public servants is inappropriate for nurturing experts capable of competing and making achievements against their seasoned counterparts overseas who are equipped with expertise and experience. I believe maintaining the system will leave little chance for Korea to win, at least in terms of disputes over Dokdo, which is why the government must seriously reconsider the system.

Q

We would finally like to ask for your advice on which the direction the Foundation's Dokdo Research Institute should head toward in the future.

A

The Institute should be able to clearly suggest evidence supporting the fact that Dokdo has historically, legally, effectively been part of the territory of the Republic of Korea. It needs to secure enough staff, space, and research material to be able to actively, congruently conduct research across different fields like history, geography, and international law. It should strive to evolve into a world renowned research institute in charge of disseminating accurate information about Dokdo throughout the world.

What I would especially like to mention upon the institute's ten anniversary is that the only way the institute can properly respond to Dokdo related issues is to remain unaffected by political circumstances at home and abroad and focus on performing research for Korea's national interests. I appreciate all the efforts everyone at the institute has devoted over the past ten years and as a fellow scholar, I hope the institute continues to reap success in the future.