Japan and Korea's compeating claims to Dokdo/Takeshima Part Three: Korea's post-WWII 'regaining' of sovereignty

This is the third of a four-part series that I started last year on Korea and Japan's claims to Dokdo/Takeshima.  In part one, I went over Japan's claim.  In part two, I went over Korea's historical claim.

Once again, I am using the Dokdo page at Korea.net (the Korean government's 'official homepage').  Items lifted from Korea.net will be printed in green.

(Note: To make it easier on myself, I'm going to refer to Dokdo/Takeshima as Dokdo for the rest of this piece.  I referred to it as Takeshima while examining the Japanese claim.)

Korea claims that, during and after World War 2, the allies (especially the United States in its capacity of occupier of Japan) striped Japan of Dokdo and gave sovereignty of it back to Korea. 

Here is the relevant section in its entirety:

From the end of the 19^th century to the beginning of the 20^th century, Japan pursued a policy of imperialistic expansion. Japan won the Sino-Japanese war in 1894 and the Russo-Japanese war in 1904; the main issue at stake in both wars was control over Korea. After having beaten off its two colonial rivals, Japan forced Korea to become its protectorate in 1905, and finally annexed Korea by force in 1910. In the course of this imperial aggression, the Shimane Prefecture, a Japanese local authority, adopted a municipal ordinance to incorporate Dokdo into its jurisdiction without legal foundation and without notifying any state concerned. In this way, the invalid acquisition of Dokdo by Japan was conducted in the process of and as a part of Japan's annexation of Korea.

After the Second World War, Korea, being liberated from Japan, recovered its territory, including Dokdo. During and after the Second World War, the Allied Powers adopted a series of documents which contained provisions intended to make Japan return the entire pre-colonial Korean territory, including Dokdo, to Korea. These provisions are as follows:

The 1943 Cairo Declaration states: "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed".

The 1945 Potsdam Declaration declares: "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the Islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands we determine."

When it surrendered to the Allied Powers in 1945, Japan unconditionally accepted the Potsdam Declaration. The Allied Powers have never subsequently determined that Dokdo is part of the territory of Japan.

The 1946 SCAPIN (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction) No. 677 specifically excludes Dokdo (referred to as Liancourt Rocks) from Japan's territory as follows: "For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include: the four main islands of Japan... excluding Utsuryo Island, the Liancourt Rocks and Quelpart Island."

The 1951 San Francisco Treaty of Peace with Japan stipulates in Article 2(a): "Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet."

Although there are about 3,000 Korean islands, these three major islands are the only ones mentioned in the San Francisco Treaty. The fact that Ulleungdo (referred to as Dagelet) is one of the islands mentioned would indicate that its smaller neighboring islands, including Dokdo, were implicitly included into the above provision of the treaty.

Now let's go over it piece by piece.

The first paragraph starts out with some historical background.  It ends with this: 

In the course of this imperial aggression, the Shimane Prefecture, a Japanese local authority, adopted a municipal ordinance to incorporate Dokdo into its jurisdiction without legal foundation and without notifying any state concerned.  In this way, the invalid acquisition of Dokdo by Japan was conducted in the process of and as a part of Japan's annexation of Korea.

That is something you hear over and over from the Korean side.  It also explains why some Koreans make the claim that the dispute goes beyond just the two rocks:

Dokdo "is the first Korean territory to be lost to Japan during the time when the nation was being deprived of its sovereignty," Korea's National Security Council said last month. "This is not simply a territorial issue, but is nothing short of denial of the history of our national liberation, as well as a justification of aggression."

All this is built on the assumption that Japan never had a claim to Dokdo before 1905.  But, after going over Japan's historical claims to Dokdo (see part one), it seems pretty clear that they do have some claims to the islands prior to  1905.  Those prior claims are important because they change the whole me meaning of Shimane Prefecture's acquisition of Dokdo:

(2) Validity of the incorporation of Takeshima by the Japanese government in 1905
The measures to incorporate Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905, through the Cabinet decision and notification by Shimane Prefecture reaffirmed the intention of the Japanese government to claim territorial rights as a modern nation over Takeshima. There were no indications that Japan did not hold territorial rights prior to that, nor were there any counter claims by any other country of territorial rights over Takeshima. In addition, the incorporation of Takeshima was reported in the newspapers and was not undertaken secretly, hence it can be seen to have been implemented validly.

(Note: It is not an obligation under international law to notify foreign governments of measures to incorporate territory.)

The Japanese position is that Shimane Prefecture's incorporation of Dokdo was an internal administrative act based on prior sovereignty of the islands (much like a city annexing one of its suburban communities) not an acquisition of new territory for Japan. That distinction is crucial for the arguments that the Koreans make regarding allied actions (or inaction) on Dokdo.

In fact, you can use that distinction to pretty effectively counter some of the rest of the Korean government's position (which is just what I will do):

Korea:  The 1943 Cairo Declaration states: "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed".

Japan:  Japan did not could not have 'taken' Dokdo because it was already a Japanese possession long before 1905.

Korea:  The 1946 SCAPIN (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction) No. 677 specifically excludes Dokdo (referred to as Liancourt Rocks) from Japan's territory as follows: "For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include: the four main islands of Japan... excluding Utsuryo Island, the Liancourt Rocks and Quelpart Island."

Japan:  I will let the Japanese speak for themselves on this one:

In all of the documents regarding the series of measures taken prior to the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace with Japan (Directive SCAPIN-677 issued by the General Headquarters Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers on January 29, 1946, provides for an interim cessation by Japan of the exercise or attempt to exercise governmental or administrative authority over Takeshima, and Directive SCAPIN-1033 of June 22, 1946, places Takeshima outside the area delineated by the MacArthur Line, which established areas in which Japanese fishing, whaling and similar operations were authorized), it is made clear that the documents do not represent final decisions concerning the attribution of Japanese sovereign territory, and it is also clear that Takeshima is not excluded from Japanese territory

If the allies did not explicitly state that Dokdo was Korean, then Japan's historical claim to Dokdo was not invalidated.

Korea:  The 1951 San Francisco Treaty of Peace with Japan stipulates in Article 2(a): "Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet."

Although there are about 3,000 Korean islands, these three major islands are the only ones mentioned in the San Francisco Treaty. The fact that Ulleungdo (referred to as Dagelet) is one of the islands mentioned would indicate that its smaller neighboring islands, including Dokdo, were implicitly included into the above provision of the treaty.

Japan:  Japan has long recognized Korea's claim to Ulleungdo but has never recognized Korea's claim to Dokdo.  Shimane Prefecture could not have incorporated Dokdo unless it was already a part of Japan.  At over 85 kilometers distance apart, Dokdo can hardly be said to be a 'neighboring island.'

Japan never claimed any of the other '3,000 Korean islands' prior to the annexation of Korea in 1905 but it did claim Dokdo.

The rest of the Korean arguments have flaws as well.

Korea:  The 1945 Potsdam Declaration declares: "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the Islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands we determine."

When it surrendered to the Allied Powers in 1945, Japan unconditionally accepted the Potsdam Declaration. The Allied Powers have never subsequently determined that Dokdo is part of the territory of Japan.

Japan:  The Allied Powers never determined that Dokdo was part of the territory of Korea either.  The status of Dokdo became status quo ante bellum. So Japan's historical claim, upon which Shimane Prefecture's incorporation of Dokdo was base, is still valid.

Conclusion

Despite the strong emotions brought to the debate, neither side can make a slam dunk case regarding allied intentions regarding Dokdo/Takeshima.

Dokdo was excluded from Japanese territory during the allied occupation of Japan, but those documents were not legally binding.  The 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, which is the final word on the matter, neither excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory nor declared it to be Korean.  The simple fact is that there is nothing in the World War Two or Occupation documents that definitively states that Dokdo is Korean territory.

But the Treaty of San Francisco did not declare Dokdo to be Japanese either.  Since Japan's occupation of Korea was invalidated, the relationship between the nations before the occupation was restored.  Part of that relationship was contested ownership of Dokdo (see parts one and two of this series).  While that does not necessarily help Korea's historical claim, it does seem to invalidate any Japanese claims to Dokdo based on effective occupation from 1905 to 1945.  That is especially since Korea, as an occupied nation, was hardly in a position to defend its claim.

The bottom line is that Korea and Japan's competing claims to Dokdo/Takeshima are still a wash.

In Part four, I will examine Korea's claim to Dokdo based on events since 1951.

Comments

[pacifist]

If you study how the SF peace treaty developed, you will notice that Takeshima/Dokdo was intentionally excluded form the list that Korea would get back from Japan. It remained in the Japanese territory.

To follow is the same posting I posted in the former chapter:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As for the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it didn't include Takeshima/Dokdo in the list of Korean territory which was to be returned to Korea, it was intentionally delited from the list by USA.

It is apparent if you read the following data - written in chronological order.

1) 29th January 1946 - SCAPIN 677 (placed Takeshima/Dokdo outside Japan)

2) 22nd June 1946 - SCAPIN 1033 (blocked Japan from exploiting the adjacent ocean resources)

3) 16th September 1947 - SCAPIN 1778 (the islets for use by the Allied Powers as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force)

4) 19th September 1949 - SCAPIN 2046　(Abolished SCAPIN 1033)

5) 14th November 1949 - a telegram from William Sebald to W. Walton Butterworth:
“Article 6: Recommend reconsideration Liancourt rocks (Takeshima), Japan’s claim to these islands is old and valid. Security considerations might conceivably envisage weather and rader stations thereon”.

6) 19th November 1949 - a letter from Butterworth to the Secretary of the State:
“With regard to the dispositon of islands formerly posessed by Japan in the direction of Korea it is suggested that Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima) be specified in our proposed Article 3 as belonging to Japan. Japan’s claim to these islands is old and appears valid, and it is difficult to regard them as islands off the shore of Korea. Security considerations might render the provision of weather and radar station on these islands a matter of interest to the United States”.

7) 29th December 1949 - 6th amendment of the treaty draft:
“Article 3 1.The Territory of Japan shall comprise the four principal Japanese islands of Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Hokkaido and all adjacent minor islands, including the islands of the Inland sea(seto Naikai); Tsushima,Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), Oki retto, Sado, Okujiri, Rebun, Riishiri and all other islands in the Japan Sea (Nippon Kai) within a line connecting the farther shores of Tsushima, Takeshima and Rebun; the Goto archipelago, the Ryukyu Islands north of 29° N. Latitude, and all other islanls of the East China Sea east of longtude 127° east of Greenwich and north of 29°N. Latitude; the Izu Islands southward to end including Sofu Gan (lot’s Wife) and all other islands of the Philippine Sea nearer to the four principal islands than the islands named; and the Habomai group and Shikotan lying to the east and south of a line extending from a point in 43°35′ N.Lati- tude, 145°35′ E. logitude to a point in 44°N. latitude, 146°30′ E. longitude, and to the south of a line drawn due east on the parsllel in 44° N. Lati- tude. All of the islands identified above, with a three-mile belt of territorial waters, shall belong to Japan”.

8) July 1950 - Commentary on Draft Treaty of Peace with Japan:
(It also says that Takeshima belongs to Japan)

9) 19th July 1951 - Korea wanted amendment. Korean ambassador had a meeting with John Foster Dulles:
“Mr. Dulles then inquired as to the location of the two islands, Dokdo and Parangdo. Mr. han stated that these were two small islands lying in the Sea of Japan, he believed in the general vicinity of Ullungdo. Mr. Dulles asked whether these islands had been Korean before the Japanese annexation, to which the Ambassador replied in the affirmative. If that were the case, Mr Dulles saw no particular problem in including these islands in the pertinent part of the treaty which related to the renunciation of Japanese territorial claims to Korean territory”.(But after all, Korea's plea was rejected.)

10) the last draft of treaty:
“In the document footnote 2 above, Mr. Rusk continued : “As regards the island of Dokdo… this normally uninhibited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea”. (Korea had in the meantime withdrawn the claim to Parangdo.)

11) 8th September 1951 peace Conference - (treaty coming into effect on 28th April 1952)

12) 18th January 1952 - President Ree declared 海洋主権宣言, he made the Rhee Line which included Takeshima/Dokdo in Korean territory.
(Japan made an objection on 28th January 1952)

13) 1954 - “Report of Ambassador James A. Van Fleet”
“Unilateral proclamation of sovereignty over the seas (Syngman Rhee line) is illegal.
The United States had concluded Japanese sovereignty over the rocks.
The dispute over the rocks might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice”.

Addendum (Rusk's document; 10th August 1951)
Excerpt: "Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusk_documents

[pacifist]

The conclusion of the top comment is questionable:

He said, "The 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, which is the final word on the matter, neither excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory nor declared it to be Korean".

As I posted above, USA - the chief member of the allied nationas thought that Takeshima/Dokdo does NOT appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. It explains why the name of Takeshima/Dokdo was not included in the list of islands that Japan should return to Korea. USA thought that it was Japan's territory and that Japan didn't need to give it to Korea.

So the exclusion of the name Takeshima/Dokdo in the SF treaty HAD a important meaning, that it belongs to Japan.

So Korea had to declare the Rhee Line to steal the island before the SF treaty would be put into effect. If he didn't do anything, it would be returned to Japan safely.

"The simple fact is that there is nothing in the World War Two or Occupation documents that definitively states that Dokdo is Korean territory".
- Yes, that's right. They didn't have any right to claim Takeshima/Dokdo.