As a Korean, it may be hard to make an impartial comment on the escalating dispute between Korea and Japan over the territorial rights to Dokdo. Basically, we Koreans do not consider the Dokdo issue a symmetrical controversy because Korea has had “effective control” over the group of islets in the East Sea for more than six decades. No one believes that there can be any change to it.

Yet, it should be worthwhile to examine what logic the Japanese have developed to support their claim on “Takeshima” and see how convincingly our officials are at countering it on their firm position of “no subject of territorial dispute and no negotiation.”

When President Syngman Rhee drew what he called “Peace Line” through the middle of the East Sea running many kilometers east of Dokdo in January 1952, the Japanese turned to Americans for arbitration, intervention or whatever. At that time, the Korean War was still raging and the U.S. Forces in Japan, which were playing the supporting role for the U.N. Forces fighting in Korea, were using Dokdo for bombing practice. The San Francisco Peace Treaty had been signed in the previous year to take effect in April 1952.

The treaty officially renounced all right, title and claim to Korea and other territories it had taken in its imperialist aggressions but only listed Quelpart (Jejudo), Port Hamilton (Geomundo) and Dagelet (Ulleungdo) as islands belonging to Korea. Japan referred to the omission of Dokdo as evidence of the United States’ and the international community’s denial of Korea’s claim on the rocky islets.

However, the naming of just three Korean islands out of about 3,000, in a treaty to which Korea is not a signatory, did not affect the status of Dokdo. More important was that, since the end of World War II, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers in Tokyo had most clearly recognized Korea’s rights over Dokdo. SCAP Instruction No. 677 issued in January 1946 specifically excluded Jejudo, Ulleungdo and Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) from areas where Japan was allowed to exercise political or administrative powers.

In the following SCAPIN No. 1033, a dividing line was drawn in the East Sea to prohibit Japanese fishing vessels and personnel from approaching within 12 miles of Dokdo (Takeshima). This so-called “MacArthur Line” was abolished in April 1952 shortly before the San Francisco Treaty came into force, but President Rhee’s “Peace Line” was already in effect around Dokdo.

Japan’s nine-point “Inalterable Position on the Sovereignty of Takeshima” posted in the Foreign Ministry Website explains historical grounds for its claim on the islets in the East Sea (Sea of Japan). It prominently refers to the saga of a Korean fisherman on Ulleung-do, An Yong-bok, late in the 17th century who played a significant role in the early conflicts between Korean and Japanese fishermen in the waters around Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

The Korean and Japanese accounts of the activities of An and his colleague Pak Eo-dun are largely similar but contain an essential difference on one point. Korean records, including descriptions in the Royal Diary of King Suk-jong, state that An, on his second visit to Japan, obtained a written document from the Edo Shogunate that Japanese fishermen were permanently banned from making passages to Ulleungdo and Dokdo, which were recognized as Korean territories. Japan claims that the story was An’s fabrication.

For the following two centuries, there were few records of major conflicts between the two neighboring countries on the East Sea islands with both governments maintaining official prohibitions for their people. In 1877, Daijokan, the Council of State of the Meiji Government, stated that Japan had nothing to do with either Ulleungdo or Dokdo. Meanwhile, Korea upgraded Ulleungdo to a county level and ordered its magistrate to control Dokdo.

Toward the end of the 19th century, Japanese imperialism stretched its arms to Korea, China and Russia and Dokdo became the first spoil as Japan unilaterally announced the incorporation of the islets into its Shimane Prefecture in February 1905, nine months before Korea became a protectorate of Japan. But, Japan’s grabbing of Dokdo was one of the strongest pieces of evidence that Japan had no right to the islets until that time.

A most preposterous part of Japan’s “inalterable position” is the introduction of Yozaburo Nakai, a resident of Oki Islands in Shimane Prefecture, as the one who petitioned the government for the incorporation of “Takeshima” in September 1904 allegedly for his sea lion hunting business. Japan cannot deceive the world about the fact that it needed the strategically located Ulleungdo and Dokdo for naval operations in the Russo-Japan War. The Russian Baltic Fleet was destroyed in a battle in the Korea Strait and Japan won the war.

Korea was totally occupied by Japan in 1910 and remained its colony for 35 years. The Cairo Declaration in December 1943 and the Potsdam Declaration in July 1945 confirmed the principle that Japan should return all territories acquired by “violence and greed” and Dokdo was a perfect example of this category. The Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers implemented this principle with the SCAPIN measures.

Japan has made great efforts to discredit Korea’s historical materials concerning Dokdo, which happen to be more abundant than the Japanese collection. Some old Korean maps show Ulleungdo and Dokdo in similar sizes and some others had their position interchanged. The historical name of Usan, which once indicated Ulleungdo and its vicinity and then Dokdo caused confusion as ancient map makers had conflicting information from navigators. Likewise, some Japanese maps had designated Ulleungdo as Takeshima and Dokdo as Matsushima.

The stale maps and documents, however authentic, cannot bring the Dokdo issue to rest, because it is basically a matter of powers. We lost it when Korea was weak in the midst of a regional power game and we regained it when the victor lost in a world war.

If the Japanese are still anxious to gather more evidence in preparation for bringing the issue to the International Court of Justice, Korea has one powerful piece of evidence to beat their claim. It is the picture of the faint outline of Dokdo seen from Ulleungdo 84 kilometers away. “Takeshima” cannot be seen from any island or coast of Japan.

(A piece of advice to the compilers of government Websites: English items on Dokdo need a lot of editing as well as a checkup of factual details. I am afraid to imagine possible errors in the texts of other languages.)

By Kim Myong-sik

Kim Myong-sik, a former editorial writer of The Korea Herald, served as the director of the Korea Overseas Information Service during the 2000s. ― Ed.