|
Special Report: Tokdo–Takeshima Dispute
http://europe.cnn.com/WORLD/9602/skorea_japan/02-20/ http://www.tokdo.com/english/english_index.htm This is provided as a service of the USCINCPAC Virtual Information Center Answering tomorrow’s questions today! |
Prepared on: 6 July 2001
Special Report: Tokdo-Takeshima Dispute Executive Summary 1. Assessment. The long-standing Tokdo-Takeshima dispute will remain unresolved for the foreseeable future. While the ROK maintains control of the islands by the posting of coast guard personnel there, Japan will continue to dispute Korea ’s claim and ultra-nationalists on both sides will periodically fan the flames of this issue. U.S. policy will remain neutral in hopes that its two allies will be able to resolve the conflicting claims peacefully. Although Japan and the ROK have fishing agreements for the waters around the islands, this will not diminish either country’s claim to the territory in their own eyes. 2. Background. Called Tokdo ( Lonely Islands in Korean), Takeshima ( Bamboo Island in Japanese), and the Liancourt Rocks in English, the volcanic isles are situated some 90 miles off each nation's shore. They are located at 37°14′18″north latitude and 131°52′12″east longitude and comprise 34 rock islets, including the two most prominent, Tongdo and Sudo. Tongdo on the east is 99.4 meters above sea level, is 64,698 square meters in size. And Sudo on the west is 174 meters above sea level is 91,740 square meters in size. The islands were formed 4.5∼2.5 million years ago and are mainly composed of volcanic tuff and other volcanic rock. Both countries claim the islands because their sailors and fishermen used them as rest stops centuries ago. South Korea has the advantage of controlling the islands now. Seoul has stationed Coast Guard officials on the rocky outcroppings since 1954. Japan has often asserted its rights to the islands and sent its own Coast Guard to patrol the area. 3. Discussion. Recent history of the dispute emerged in 1952 when South Korea claimed the `Rhee Line' around the whole of the Korean peninsula and two years later South Korea occupied the two previously uninhabited islands which constitute the group and have remained in control ever since. South Korean activities on the islands have been repeatedly protested by the Japanese government. Despite the presence of a South Korean coast guard base, the islands are not worth much. The real issue is potential wealth from the sea. Waters surrounding the islands contain rich fishing grounds and possible mineral deposits. The heart of this disagreement is economic. Both countries want sovereignty over the isles in order to maximize the fishing and mineral rights they can claim. The United States takes no position on the dispute which is one of several sources of discord between these two important U.S. allies in Northeast Asia . The United States has endeavored to avoid direct involvement. U.S. policymakers seem to judge that American interests in stability, free navigation and good relations with Asian allies and friends are best served by this low-key approach. Although the San Francisco Peace Treaty (Appendix A) does not specifically mention the islands for return to Korea after WWII; the fact that Japan does not administratively control the islands places them outside the territory governed by the Japan-U.S. Mutual Security Treaty (Appendix C). And while Korea might be interpreted as having administrative control with its current coast guard contingent, it is doubtful the U.S. would recognize the legitimacy based on the known history of the dispute. As such, the Mutual Defense Treaty between the U.S. and the ROK (Appendix D) would also appear to be inapplicable since the treaty commits the U.S. to defend only that territory recognized by the U.S. as belonging to Seoul . Prepared on: 6 July 2001
Special Report: Tokdo-Takeshima Dispute Table of Contents 1. Assessment: 5 A. Short Term (Next two years): 5 B. Long Term (Two years plus): 5 2. Background: 5 3. Discussion. 6 A. Historical Timeline. 7 B. Korea’s Version of Tokdo History. 9 C. Japan’s Version of Takeshima’s History. 21 D. 1997 Japanese Press Secretary Statement 22 E. Various media reports since 1996. 22 Japan Formally Demands Korea Cancel Plan To Build Berth In Tokdo. 22 Japan's island claim sparks patriotic fury in Seoul 23 International: Seoul fury at Japanese in dispute over rocky islets. 23 Seoul opens war games at isle claimed by Japan. 23 America's key allies in East Asia unleash their ancient animosities. 24 East Wind West Wind (Column By Mary B. Kim); Japanese Claim to Tokto Absurd. 24 Declaration of 200nm Economic Exclusion Zones. 24 Lighthouse Planned On a Disputed Islet 25 Feud of islets TOKYO.. 25 Japan protests Takeshima Wharf Facilities. 25 Japan Unveils Basic Fisheries Pact Accord with ROK.. 26 South Korea, Japan agree fisheries treaty. 27 Address registration revives islands dispute. 27 Japan’s 2000 Diplomatic Blue Book Re-Highlights Island Dispute. 28 South Korean ministry brushes off Japanese premier's remark on disputed isle. 28 South Korean civic group attacks government over Tokdo islets issue. 28 National headquarters for protection of Tokdo opens today. 29 DPRK Reportedly Trying To Build Military Facility on Isle Disputed by Japan, ROK.. 30 Japan-S. Korea Territorial Row Disrupts Local Interchange Project 30 Disputed islet remark leads South Korean province to halt Japanese exchanges. 31 Cyberspace gets in on the Act 31 Korea-Japan fishery accord is not related to control over Tokdo. 32 Japan Northern Territories and the Tokdo/Takeshima Issue. 32 F. U.S. Policy. 33 4. Appendix A. The San Francisco Peace Treaty. 35 5. Appendix B. SCALPIN NO. 677. 48 6. Appendix C. Treaty Of Mutual Cooperation And Security Between Japan and The United States of America. 50 7. Appendix D. Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America 52
Special Report: Tokdo-Takeshima Dispute
http://www.tokdo.com/english/tokdo_50.htm1 This long-standing dispute will remain unresolved for the foreseeable future. While the ROK maintains control of the islands by the posting of coast guard personnel there, Japan will continue to dispute Korea ’s claim and ultra-nationalists on both sides will periodically fan the flames of this issue. U.S. policy will remain neutral in hopes that its two allies will be able to peacefully resolve the row. Although Japan and the ROK have fishing agreements for the waters around the islands, this will not diminish either country’s claim to the territory in their own eyes. Expect Korea to continue to man the island and slowly improve its facilities. Japan will continue to raise the issue with periodic rhetoric concerning their claim. For fear of being too weak in the public eye, Tokyo will remain adamant in its claim but not push the issue formally as long as other more important territorial disputes exist. Should Japan ever resolve its row with Russia concerning the South Kuriles , it will press for negotiations to settle Takeshima/Tokdo. Japan will press for guaranteed fishing and or mineral rights in those talks, but Seoul 's occupation of the island will preserve its advantage. Called Tokdo in Korean, Takeshima in Japanese, and the Liancourt Rocks in English, the volcanic isles are situated some 90 miles off each nation's shore. They are located at 37°14′18″north latitude and 131°52′12″east longitude and comprise 34 rock islets, including the two most prominent, Tongdo and Sudo. Tongdo on the east is 99.4 meters above sea level, is 64,698 square meters in size. And Sudo on the west is 174 meters above sea level is 91,740 square meters in size. Therefore, including a reef, Tokdo's total is 186,173 square meters. Tokdo comes from the word Sukdo, " rock island ." In the dialect of Ullungdo, Sukdo, the main of Tokdo, is pronounced "tokdo." The islands were formed 4.5∼2.5 million years ago and are composed mainly of volcanic tuff and other volcanic rock. Both countries claim the islands because their sailors and fishermen used them as rest stops centuries ago. South Korea has the advantage of controlling the islands now. Seoul has stationed Coast Guard officials on the rocky outcroppings since 1954. Japan has often asserted its rights to the islands and sent its own Coast Guard to patrol the area. Recent history of the dispute emerged in 1952 when South Korea claimed the `Rhee Line' around the whole of the Korean peninsula and two years later South Korea occupied the two previously uninhabited islands which constitute the group and have remained in control ever since. South Korean activities on the islands have been repeatedly protested by the Japanese government. Despite the presence of a South Korean coast guard base, the islands are not worth much. The real issue is potential wealth from the sea. Waters surrounding the islands contain rich fishing grounds and possible mineral deposits. The heart of this disagreement is economic. Both countries want sovereignty over the isles in order to maximize the fishing and mineral rights they can claim. Source: Tug of war over islands gets more heated http://europe.cnn.com/WORLD/9602/skorea_japan/02-20/
http://korea.insights.co.kr/english/island/tokdo/is_2.html 512 – Korea ’s King claims Tokdo as a part of Korea 1904 – Japanese Army Occupies Seoul 1905 – Japan Claims Takeshima 1910 – Japan annexes Korea 1945 – ROK Liberation from Japan (ROK assumes Tokdo is returned) 1950’s – First Korean settlers on Tokdo 1952 (18 Jan) ROK President Singman Rhee establishes the “Rhee Line” that includes Tokdo in Korean waters 1952 – Japan sends a note of protest to ROK on the Rhee Line 1954 – ROK Coast Guard deploys a detachment to the island 1965 – Signing of Korea-Japan fisheries pact Treaty 1995 – ROK ratifies the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and declares a 200nm Exclusive Economic Zone 1996 (Jan) – Japan ratifies the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and declares a 200nm Exclusive Economic Zone 1996 (8 Feb) – Japan formally requests that the ROK cancel plans to build a berth on the easternmost island of Tokdo ( Tongdo Island ). 1996 (12 Feb) – ROK announces it will conduct military exercises involving destroyers, anti-submarine helicopters and fighter aircraft, around the islands 1996 (15 Feb) – ROK begins military exercises around the islands. 1996 (Dec) – ROK announces plans to build a lighthouse beginning construction in 1997 and finishing in 1998 1997 (Nov) – Japan demands that wharf facilities constructed by the ROK be removed 1998 (Nov) – New fisheries pact agreement signed establishing a provisional zone around the Island and set up a joint fisheries committee to manage fishery resources in the zone 1999 (Jan) – ROK legislature approves fisheries agreement 1999 (Dec) – Japanese nationals register their permanent addresses on Takeshima prompting the ROKG to allow it citizens to do the same. 2000 (May) Japan ’s Diplomatic Blue Book is released renewing Japan ’s claim to Takeshima after not touching the issue in the 1998 and 1999 editions. 2000 (Sep) PM Mori makes statement in an interview that Takeshima is Japan ’s territory based on historical facts and international law. ROKG refutes his statement. 2000 (Nov) – Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is denounced for including a map on the Internet homepage of the ROK embassy in Japan which does not show the Tokdo islets as part of Korean territory (Tokdo was not displayed in the satellite photo). ROKG dismissed the allegation that the islands were erased to avoid conflict with Japan . 2000 (Dec) The National Headquarters for the protection of Tokdo is established in Seoul . 2001 (Mar) Shimane prefecture's governor Nobuyoshi Sumita, says Takeshima is illegally occupied by South Koreans. North Kyongsang Province subsequently decides to stop all exchanges with Shimane, its Japanese sister prefecture, in protest of the prefecture governor's remarks. 2001 (Mar) – ROK’s Constitutional Court ruled that the 1999 Korea- Japan Fishery Agreement, which designates the eastern-most islets of Tokdo as in waters between Korea and Japan, has no direct relations to the sovereignty issue of the islets and does not violate the Korean constitution. 2001 (Jun) - Tokyo notifies Seoul that it will bar Korean boats from fishing in the sea off the Sanriku region in protest against a fishing agreement between South Korea and Russia that covers waters claimed by Japan (Southern Kuriles). Under the Seoul-Moscow agreement signed by the two governments last December, 26 South Korean boats are allowed to catch up to 15,000 tons of saury in the waters off the Southern Kurils beginning in mid-August. Japan has complained about the accord, accusing Korea of effectively recognizing Russia 's rights over the area, and eventually decided to retaliate by banning Korean boats from fishing in its economic zone off northeastern Honshu . According to the Samguk Sagi (History of the Three Kingdoms), the two islands of Ullung-do and Tok-do were called Usanguk and were ruled by Isabu who paid tribute to Shilla Dynasty King Chijung (in 512 A.D.). In 1693, when Korean fishermen led by An Yong-bok strongly protested against Japanese who were trying to poach in the sea around Ullung-do and Song-do (Tok-do), Japan's Tokugawa government sent an official letter in 1696, to the Chief of Tsushima not to d ispatch Japanese fishermen to the area, according to the Official Record of King Sukjong. Beijing supports Korea 's claim pointing out that Tok-do was a tributary to the Shilla Kingdom as far back as 512 A.D. and that Japan admitted as early as 1667 that Tok-do was a Korean territory. Source: Tok-do Revisited Lee Wha Rang Korean Overseas Information Service. http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/tok-do.htm First Written Records on Tokdo
The first written records on Tokdo are tracked to "Silla pon'gi (Annals of the Kings of Silla)" and "Yoljon (Biographies)" both in Samguk sagi (History of the Three Kingdoms). These entries state that Tokdo became a part of the Korean territory in 512 A.D. when Usan'guk was subjugated by Silla. Some Japanese scholars question whether Usan'guk comprised Tokdo as part of its territory in addition to Ull ngdo when the country was brought under the dominion of Silla. To his query, Man'gi yoram (Handbook of state Affairs) of 1808 quotes Yojiji (Gazetter) in its chapter on military administration : " Usando and Tokdo all belonged to Usan'guk, and Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima." The Japanese scholars accede to that fact that, up to 1900, Ullungdo had been called Takeshima and Tokdo, Matsushima, by Japanese. As for the Korean appellation, Tokdo was originally called Usando, implying its derivation from Usan'guk. Around the end of Koryo, waegu (Japanese pirates) had become increasingly rampant, plundering coastal areas, and as Ull ngdo had been subject to their frequent and severe pillage, King T'aejong of the Choson dynasty sought the safety of the islanders by evacuating them inland and took a vacant island policy toward Ullungdo. Some of them escaped to Ullungdo for re-settlement, but were brought back inland again and again. In this process, Tokdo acquired the official designation of Usando. Although the Chosun dynasty had, since King T'aejong, continued the vacant island policy for Ull ngdo and Tokdo, the latter presenting no problem as the rock islands were uninhibited, and this did not mean they were abandoned. The administrative policy was adopted out of necessity to ensure the safety and security of the inhabitants. Following in the footsteps of King T'aejong, King Sejong adhered to the vacant island, but confirmed Korea's title to these islands in the gazetteer in Sejong sillok (Annals of King Sejong) as follows: " Two islands of Usan and Mullung are located in the sea due east of the hyon (country), and they are not far off from each other, so one is visible from the other on a fine day. They were called Usan'guk during period of Silla." Usan refers to Tokdo, and Mullung to Ullung, and the hyon to Uljinhyon(country). The Chosun dynasty government complied and published Ton'guk yoji sungnam (Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea) in 1481 and Sinjung tongguk yoji sungnam (Revised and Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea) in 1531 to define and demarcate authoritatively the territory of Korea . Of these, the former has not survived but its contents are incorporated into the latter. The Revised and Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea states that "Tokdo and Ullungdo are under the jurisdiction of Uljinhyon of Kangwondo as an administrative unit." On the map attached to the book are shown two separate islands of Usando(Tokdo) and Ull ngdo in the middle of the Eastern Sea . The old maps published in Korea thereafter follow, with a very few exception, the example set by this gazetteer and its attached map in recording the two separate islands. Slightly different locations of the islands are seen on the maps, which are attributable to immature cartographical skills, but which do not affect the fundamental question of Korea 's title to these islands. In particular, the three major maps, i.e., Tongguk chido (The Map of Korea) by Chong Sang-gi(1678-1752), Haejwa chondo of 1822, and Chosun chondo(A complete Map of Korea) by Kim Tae-gon(1821-46) show the exact location and name of Usando on the right side of Ullungdo. http://www.tokdo.com/english/tokdo_01.htm First Japanese Record on Tokdo
The Japanese government cites Onshu shicho goki (Records on Observation in Oki Province ) edited by Saito Hosen in 1667 as the first record on Tokdo. Saito was a retainer of the daimyo of Izumo (sesshu) and at his lord's behest made an observation trip to Oki Island and submitted the report to his lord. In the report, Tokdo and Ull ngdo were both ascribed to Koryo ( Korea ), and Oki to Japan as its westernmost boundary in the following way: Oki is in the middle of the North Sea , so it is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in the direction of northwest, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel distance. These two islands are uninhabited and getting a sight of Koryo from there is like viewing Oki from Honshu . And thus Oki marks the northwestern boundary of Japan . Here again, Matsushima refers to Tokdo and Takeshima to Ullungdo. This first Japanese record on Tokdo as an official document clearly places Oki within Japan 's territory, and Tokdo and Ullungdo within that of Koryo http://www.tokdo.com/english/tokdo_02.htm
Map of Japan Dated 1855 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/japan_1855.jpg Disputes over Ullungdo and Tokdo at the End of the 17th Century
Around the end of the 17th century, Japan attempted to seize Ullungdo and Tokdo but was frustrated by the activities of a Korean named An Yong-bok and the hardliners in the government who prevailed over the appeasers and took tough measures to defend them. Although the Chosun dynasty government adhered to the vacant island policy, the Korean fishermen along the southern and eastern coasts could not resist the temptation to fish in the rich fishing grounds off these two islands. On the other hand, the Tokugawa Shogunate, being aware of this Korean government policy, granted licenses to Otani Jinkichi and Murakami Ichihei of Yonago to take passage to Tokdo without the knowledge of the Korean government in 1618. This enabled the Otanis and Murakamis to cross secretly to Ull ngdo to fish and fell trees. This often gave rise to conflicts between the fishermen from Korea and Japan . At last, in the spring of 1693, in the 19th year of King Sukchong, about 40 Korean fisherman from Tonghae and Ulsan clashed with the fishermen of the Otamis and the Murakamis. The Japanese proposed that the matter be settled peacefully and asked the Koreans to send their delegates. An Yong-bok and Pak O-dun went over to the Japanese side as Korean delegates, but were taken by force to Oki. There An Yong-bok squarely confronted the lord of Okinoshima and protested against his detention while he as a Korean entered the Korean land of Ullungdo . The lord found the case beyond his control and sent An Yong-bok to his superior the magistrate of Hokishu (Shimane-ken today). Interrogated by the magistrate. An explained in a dignified manner that Ullungdo was Korea 's territory and demanded that the magistrate keep the Japanese fishermen off the island. The magistrate of Hokishu was aware that Ullungdo belonged to Korea and transferred An to the Kanpaku (Imperial Regent) of the Shogunate, who in turn confirmed Korea's title to Ullungdo, ordered the magistrate of Hokishu to write a note that Ull ngdo was not Japan's land, and to sent An back to Korea. While en route to Korea , An was seized by the lord of Nagasaki , the note he was carrying with him was taken away and he was jailed on the grounds that he had trespassed on Japanese territory. Availing himself of this event, the lord of Tsushima, So Yoshitsugu, attempted to annex Ullungdo and Tokdo to Tsushima . He apprehended An as an intruder into the Japanese territory of Takeshima and turned him over to the magistrate of Tonghae. So Yoshitsugu sent an envoy named Tachibana Masashige to Tongnae with his letter to be transmitted to the Chosun dynasty government through the magistrate. In the letter, So pretended there existed a Takeshima that belonged to Japan and that was similar to but was different from Ullungdo. He stated that he would not allow any Korean boat to go to Takeshima and demanded that the Korean government strictly keep the Korean fishermen from Takeshima. The lord of Tsushima who knew that Takeshima was but another name for Ullungdo might have tried to inveigle the Korean government into accepting the existence of a Japanese-owned island of Takeshima in written form, to start a dispute over the possession of Takeshima alias Ull ngdo, and finally to absorb the island into his possession. This was a multi-stage stratagem. The Chosun dynasty government leaders split over the issue between the hawks and the doves. First the moderate faction in power prevailed, cautioning against a head-on clash the Japanese whose militancy and ferociousness were well proved during the Hideyoshi invasion of Korea (1592-1598). They feigned ignorance of the fact that Chukto (Takeshima) was another name for Ullungdo and only made it clear that Ullungdo was Korea's territory, recognized Takeshima as Japan's and promised to keep Koreans from fishing off the island. The response to the lord of Tsushima reads in part: Whereas our fishermen on the eastern coast are not allowed to go out to an ocean, and are even prohibited to travel at will to Ullungdo that is our territory but is thought to be rather far off, how could they be authorized to go over to other places? Now that this boat had ventured into your territory of Takeshima and your side took the trouble of remanding them to us, and dispatching an official letter from afar, we should like to express our gratitude for your amities of good neighborliness. The moderate faction's equivocation over the designation of Ullungdo that was also called Chukto (Takeshima) and its accidence to the Japanese claim to a Takeshima were typical of an easy-going expedient that might sow the seeds of a dispute over the title to Ullungdo itself. Tachibana Masahige, who was staying at the Japan House in Tongae, though he had half-accomplished his mission when he received Korea's reply stating "your territory of Takeshima...." but found objectionable the passage..." our territory Ullungdo." He persistently requested for a fortnight that these words be deleted from the note, but to no avail. The deletion of these words would place Ullungdo at the disposal of Japan in the name of Takeshima. At the news, the hardliners rose to action, censured the moderates, and drove them out of power. Now in power, Nam Ku-man, the leader of the hardliners, memorialized the King to punish the appeasers and recover the official letter they had given to the Japanese. This was granted royal sanction. Nam Ku-man and his followers questioned An Yong-bok and others who had been kidnapped to Japan, and eventually became aware of the scheme concocted by the lords of Tsushima and Nagasaki in disregard of the Kanpaku's directive to recognize Ullungdo(Takeshima) as Korea's territory. Ignorant of this turn of events in the Korean government, So of Tsushima sent Tachibana to Tongnae again in August 1694, to repeat his request for expurgation of the words "Our territory Ullungdo" from the letter. The new Korean government turned this down out of hand, declared the first reply null and void, and sent a new, revised letter to the effect that Takeshima was another name for Ullungdo which was Korea's territory. It reprehended the Japanese act of encroachment on the Korean territory and the kidnapping of An Yong-bok and others from the Korean territory. The letter strongly requested that the Shogunate in Edo be notified of this fact and that Japanese be barred form coming to Ullungdo again. However, So Yoshitsugu of Tsushima took issue with this and confronted the Korean government without withdrawing his claim to Ullungdo, calling it Takeshima. This led to tension between the Korean government and the Shogunate in Edo. In the meantime, So Yoshitsugu died and was succeeded by So Yoshimichi who, on his inauguration, paid a courtesy call on the Kanpaku in January 1896. There in Edo, in the presence of the magistrates of Hoki and three other provinces, the Kanpaku raised some pointed questions to So Yoshimichi on the question of Takeshima. After a series of queries and answers and the ensuing discussions, a decision was reached to recognize Takeshima(Ullungdo) as Korea's territory. The Kanpaku's instructions to So included the following: (1) Takeshima is about 160-ri(64km) from Hoki while it is only Takeshima is about 40-ri(16km) from Korea, and it can be considered to be a Korean territory as it is nearer to the country ; (2) Japanese are to be forbidden henceforth to make passage to Takeshima ; (3) the lord of Tsushima should communicate this to Korea ; (4) he should also send the Osakabe Daisuke(judge) of Tsushima to Korea officially to notify the Korean government of this decision and report the result of his mission to the Kanpaku. This was an important decision by the Tokugawa Shogunate as the central government of Japan to reconfirm Korea's title to Ullungdo and its adjacent islands. Upon his return to Tsushima, So Yoshimichi sent a brief note to Korea through an official translator wherein he conveyed the decision of the Kanpaku, but he resorted to a delaying tactic without sending the Osakabe Daisuke. An Yong-bok, having realized So's stratagem to seize Ullungdo and Tokdo eventually despite the Kanpaku's decision, decided to visit the magistrate of Hokishu again and negotiate the question personally. According to the Sukchong sillok(Annals of King Sukchong), An Yong-bok enlisted 16 fishermen and went to Ullungdo in 1696.There he found some Japanese fishing boats at anchor. An protested loudly against the Japanese for their transgression into the Korean territory of Ullungdo and threatened to capture them. The Japanese said they were living in Matsushima(Tokdo) and strayed into the place while fishing and would return to where they came from. An Yong-bok retorted that Matsuhima was also Korea's possession and demanded to know why they were living on a Korean island. Early the next morning, he and the Korean fishermen fish in a cauldron. An and his company destroyed the cauldron and fulminated against them, and all the Japanese took flight to Japan. An and his company pushed the Japanese boats to Oki island. Asked by the lord of Oki what had brought him there, An explained that he had come to the island several years before, Japanese authorities had agreed to place the two islands of Ullungdo and Usando within the boundary of Korea's territory, and he had been issued Kanpaku's official document to that effect. Then he pressed for the reason why the Japanese had invaded the Korean territory again, and the lord promised to transmit An's protest to his superior, the magistrate of Hokishu. However, no reply was forthcoming for a long period of time. An Yong-bok and his company decided to negotiate directly with the magistrate. Impersonating a Revenue Supervisor for the two islands of Ullungdo and Usando, An met the magistrate and explained how the Kanpaku's letter issued to him, attesting to Korean sovereignty over the two islands, had been seized and doctored by the lord of Tsushima, who attempted to incorporate these islands into his possession by sending an emissary to the Korean government. An went on to say that he would lodge an appeal to the Kanpaku and debunk the whole frame-up. The magistrate granted him permission and requested that Korea bring to his attention by means of an official note and a translator any future act encroachment on Ullungdo and Tokdo that were Korean possessions and any stretch of authority by the lord of Tsushima vis-à-vis the question of these islands and promised to mete out heavy punishment for any such act. The magistrate had been presented several months before when the Kanpaku decided to recognize Korea's claim to Ullungdo and Tokdo and instructed the lord of Tsushima to send the Osakabe Daisuke (judge) to Korea to notify the Korean government of his decision. An Yong-bok's activity proved highly successful. Now, the lord of Tsushima sent Judge Tahirano Naritsune to Korea in January 1697, to notify the Korean government of the Kanpaku's decision. By 1699 the diplomatic notes had been exchanged and all the formalities had been cleared to recognize Koreans title to Ullungdo and Tokdo. After the Kanpaku reconfirmed Korea's title to Ullungdo and Tokdo around the end of the 17th century with the An Yong-bok incident as the turning point, no documentary records of the period showed Japan's claim to these two islands. (This refers to the documents of the period released to date by the Japanese government.) Nor do any Japanese maps edited by the Japanese government or semi-governmental organizations since the end of the 17th century show these two islands as Japanese possessions. The Sangoku setsujozu, (A Map of Three Adjoining Countries), a map attached to the Sanggoku tsuran zusetsu (An Illustrated General Survey of Three Countries) by Hayashi Shihei (1738-1793), an eminent scholar of the day, published in 1785 shows international boundaries and foreign countries in different colors: Korea in yellow and Japan in green. On the map Ullungdo and Tokdo are shown in their exact positions in yellow. Alongside the islands Hayashi writes, "Korea's possessions." Hayashi also treats Korea and these two islands in the same way in colors and explanatory note in the Dainihonzu (A Great Japan's Map), another map attached to An Illustrated General Survey of Three Countries. In the latter part of the 18th century, a Japanese geographer made a map called Soezu (A Complete Illustrated Map) which uses colors to distinguish national borders and territories: Korea in yellow and Japan in red. Ullungdo and Tokdo are not identified by name are shown in yellows in their accurate positions and described as "Korea's possessions." These typical maps of the Tokugawa era are solid evidence that Ullungdo and Tokdo are integral parts of Korea's territory, which the Japanese government cannot negate. The Tokugawa Shogunate and the Japanese people had since recognized and respected these two islands as Korea's until the Meiji Restoration of 1868. http://www.tokdo.com/english/tokdo_03.htm Meiji Government's Reconfirmation of Korea's Title to Tokdo
When the Meiji government was established in 1868 in place of the Tokugawa regime overthrown by the samurai, the Japanese Foreign Ministry sent Sada Hakubo and Moriyama Shigeru to Korea to study the Korean situation in December 1869. The list of items for investigation included the circumstances under which Takeshima (Ullungdo) and Matsushima (Tokdo) had become Korea's possessions, and it was submitted to and approved by the Dajokan (the Council of State). This list is evidence that the Foreign Ministry and the Dajokan both recognized Korea's title to these two islands. the report of this study mission was included in the Chosenkoku kosaishimatsu naitansho (A Confidential Inquiry into the Particulars of Korea's Foreign Relations) and was incorporated in the Nihon gaiko bunsho (Japan's Diplomatic Documents). This official document also substantiates the Japanese government's acknowledgement of these two islands as Korea's territory. Among the official documents released by the Japanese Ministry of Home Affairs are papers that attest to Korea's title to Ullungdo and Tokdo. In 1876 the Ministry instructed all the prefectures to conduct a land survey in order to make a national cadastre and a map of the nation. At this time, Shimane prefecture inquired of the Ministry whether or not Takeshima (Ullungdo) and Matsushima (Tokdo) were to be covered by this survey. The Ministry had examined for five months all the papers exchanged between Korea and Japan around the end of the 17th century and concluded that the question of the title to these two islands had already been resolved in 1699 (the 12th year of Genroku). The Ministry decided to exclude these islands from survey. However, the Ministry considered it necessary to refer the matter to the Dajokan for its sanction. To this, Iwakura Tonomi, Minister of the Right, the third highest in the cabinet and the acting head of the Dajokan approved an instruction to be sent to the instruction was dispatched to Shimane prefecture. The directive made it clear that Japan had nothing to do with Takeshima (Ullungdo) and Tokdo that were part of Korea's territory and that they should be excluded from the land survey. Not only the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs, and the Dajokan, but also the Ministry of the Army and the Navy, recognized Tokdo (Matsushima) as Korea's territory in the maps they edited and published. Chosen jenzu (A Complete Map of Korea) published by the Staff Bureau of the Ministry of the Army in 1875 positions Tokdo in the territory of Korea in the deliberately expanded right hand margin. The Chosen tokai kaiganzu (A Map of the Eastern Coast of Korea) by the Hydrographic Bureau of the Ministry of the Navy places the two islands inside the Korean territory. The latter published in 1876 was based on the charts mapped by Russian and British warships and positions Tokdo in the Korean territory. It shows, in the lower right hand section, the three accurate and vivid photograph-like drawings of Tokdo done by the Russians from three different directions and distances. The map was reprinted in 1887 and ran into many impressions until 1905. The Ministry of the Navy also published Chosen suiroshi (The Korean Sea lanes) wherein Tokdo appears in the Korean territory. Kan'ei suiroshi (The Sea lanes of the World) by the Ministry of the Navy in 1886 first uses the name "Liancourt Rocks" for Tokdo in part 4, "Korea's Eastern Coast," in Vol.Ⅱ(second edition). The publication of the chart was discontinued in 1889 when the sea lanes of the world were treated separately by countries. The Japanese version does not include Tokdo. This practice by the Ministry of the Navy had continued until January 1905 when Japan incorporated Tokdo sub rosa into Shimane prefecture without the knowledge of Korea. This was immediately after the Japanese victory in the Russo-Japanese War when Korea was virtually under Japanese control . Then in 1907 Japan began to show Tokdo north of Okinoshima in the chart in Vol.Ⅳ of the Japanese Sea lanes. http://www.tokdo.com/english/tokdo_04.htm Chosun Dynasty's Re-development of Ullungdo and Tokdo and Imperial Ordinance No.41
While the Chosun dynasty government was taking the vacant island policy for Ullungdo and Tokdo, foreign men-of-war began appearing in the Korean territorial seas from the close of the 18th century, and they gave western names to these islands. In 1787, French Naval Captain Jean Francois Galaupe de Perouse took warships, the Bussole and others, to the Korean seas off Chejudo and Ullungdo and surveyed the coastal areas. Ullungdo was named after Dagelet, an instructor at the French Naval Academy who had come with Captain de Perouse. Then in 1849, another French warship Liancourt survey Tokdo and christened it "Liancourt Rocks." After that "Dagelet Island" and "Liancourt Rocks" were used in the European maps and gazetteers. Then Russians followed suit. In 1854, the Russian warship Palada under the command of a Putiatin made a survey of Tokdo and gave it the name of "Manalai and Olivutsa Rocks." but Tokdo was popularly known "Liancourt Rocks" in Europe. The Chosun dynasty government felt a tense atmosphere when Korea was forces by the Japanese to open its ports in 1876 and Japanese came en masse to Ullungdo and indulged in felling trees and fishing. The Korean from mainland coast also began to settle down there. The government sent Yi Kyu-won as inspector to Ullungdo to study the situation there in April 1882. He found 140 Koreans on the island; 115 of them (82%) were from Chollado; 14 (10%) from Kangwondo; and 10 (7%) from Kyungsangdo; and one from Kyonggido. the Japanese numbered 78. From June 1882, the Korean government began to file strong protests with the Japanese Foreign Ministry against the Japanese intrusion into the felling of trees on the island demanded that an immediate end be put to such illegal acts. In March 1883, the government appointed Kim Ok-kyun, a leader of the progressive group, Commissioner for the Development of the Southeastern Islands and Whaling, and set about developing and resetting Ullungdo and tokdo in earnest, thus abandoning the vacant island policy. Apparent in the official of Kim was government intention to cover not only Ullungdo but also Tokdo by "Southeastern Islands." The government appointed a head for the island and encouraged resettlement. As a result the population of the island had increased to 1,134 (662 males and 472 females) dwelling in 397 house in 12 villages as of March 1897. A total of 1,160 acres of land had come under cultivation. But fishing off the island and Tokdo was the most important industry to support the population. The Chosun dynasty was renamed Taehan Cheguk or the Empire of Korea in 1899 and as Japanese encroachment on Ullungdo and logging had become a serious problem, the government sent an investigation team headed by U Yong-Jong to Ullungdo in October, 1897. U found about 70 Japanese intruders there while the head of the island could do nothing without any troops to enforce the law. A dire need was felt for a counteraction. To cope with the situation the government promulgated Imperial Ordinance No.41 on October 25, 1900, which renamed Ullungdo Uldo and upgraded the office of the head to kunsu(country magistrate). The new kun covered Ullungdo and its adjoining island which had been under the control of Uljinhyun in Kangwondo. Article Ⅱ of the ordinance designated Taehadong as kun office venue and defined the jurisdiction of the Uldo country magistrate as extending over the whole of Ullungdo and Chukto, and Sokto. Here Chukto refers to Chuksodo, a rocky islet adjoining Ullungdo that was confirmed by Yi Kyu-won in his diary during his inspection trip there. Sokto is Tokdo. A majority of the people settled down on Ullungdo had come from Chollado. In the dialect of that region, tol(돌 in the vulgate; 石 in Chinese character) become tok(독), thus tolsom (rocky island) becomes toksom. Having been reported this way, the government registered the island as Sokto 石島 in the Chinese writing system, which was preferred by the literati-official (as was Latin under Roman occupation and French after the Norman conquest in Great Britain) even after the creation of the han'gul, an indigenous alphabet in 1447. A plethora of similar cases is found in Korea, particularly in the southern region, not in the names of islands, but also those of valleys. In some cases toksom becomes tokto 獨島: tok 獨 standing for the sound of tok(corruption of tol) and to 島, a Chinese character, meaning som(island). Although the government adopted the name of Sokto for Tokdo when the ordinance came into effect, the residents of Ullungdo called the island Sokto or Tokdo interchangeably. The Japanese first referred to this island as Tokdo in 1904 during the Russo-Japanese war when the Japanese warship Niitakago was sent to Ullungdo to investigate the area in preparation for building a watchtower on Tokdo. An entry in the report dated September 25, 1904 reads: "The Liancourt Rocks are called Tokdo by the Koreans while it is referred to as that the Korean government exercised its sovereignty over Tokdo(Sokto) in 1900 by the promulgation of Imperial Ordinance No.41 and by the appointment of the country magistrate. http://www.tokdo.com/english/tokdo_05.htm Japan's Annexation of Tokdo
As the Russo-Japanese war broke out on February 8, 1904, the Japanese Navy built many watchtowers with wireless telegraphs on Korean coasts including two on Ullungdo (in August 1904) to keep watch on the movements of the Russian Vladivostok fleet. In order to construct another on Tokdo, the Navy sent the warship Tsushima to the area to prepare for the work in November 1904. At this time a Japanese fisherman living in Shimane prefecture by the name of Nakai Yozaburo intended to obtain a Korean government exclusive license for sea lion hunting and fishing off Tokdo. He applied to Japanese Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce for negotiations with the Korean government on his behalf.37 This information was passed to the Navy by the Director of the Fisheries Bureau of the Ministry. Adm. Kimotsuki Kendo, Director of Hydrographic Bureau of the Ministry of the Navy, assumed Tokdo (Liancourt) to be a terra nullius, and told Nakai to apply to the Japanese government, not the Korean government, for "incorporation of Liancourt into Japanese territory and also for lease of the island." Adm. Kimotsuki apparently tried to take advantage of the stationing of Japanese troops in Seoul and the prevailing Japanese influence over the Korean government for annexation of Tokdo and the establishment of a Japanese surveillance network there. That Nakai was cognizant of the legal status of Tokdo is evident in "Nakai Yozaburo rirekisho (Nakai's Personal History)." "Nakai jigyo keiei gaiyo (An Outline of Nakai's Business Operations)," and Shimane Kenshi (Annals of Shimane prefecture). But he followed Adm. Kimotsuki's demand and filed the afore-said application to the Ministries of Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and Agriculture and Commerce simultaneously on September 27, 1904. At the Japanese cabinet meeting on January 28, 1905, Nakai's application was approved and it was decided " to incorporate into Japan's territory a terra nullius in lat. 39°9.30″N. and long. 131°55″E., 85 nautical miles off Okinoshima, there being no evidence of its being occupied by any country: to call it Takeshima, and to place it under the jurisdiction of the administrator of Okinoshima." The Ministry of Home Affairs notified Shimane prefecture of this cabinet decision, and the prefecture, in turn, put the decision on public notice (Prefectural Notice No. 40) repeating the information given in the parentheses above (on the bulletin of the prefecture and local newspapers) on February 22, 1905. Now, this Japanese action is to be examined in light of international law, precedents and practice. First, Japan's claim to prior occupation of a terra nullis. As has been seen already, there are many documents attesting to Korea's title to Tokdo before January 1905, and the Japanese documents that ascertain Korea's possession of Tokdo before this period abound, too. There is also a Russian publication on the topography of Korea by the Ministry of the Treasury of the Russian government, edited in 1898 and published in 1900, which recognizes Tokdo as part of the Korean territory, and which shows the accurate location of the island drawing on the survey conducted by the Russian warships.42 These documents provide tangible evidence that Tokdo was not a terra nullis at the time of Japan's annexation of Tokdo. Second, the mode of notification of the acquisition of the territory should be called into question. The acquisition of a new territory is to be notified to the countries involved if it is to satisfy the requirements of international law and practice. The Japanese government had neither contacted the Korean government for inquiry on the question beforehand nor served any notification afterwards. This contrasts sharply with the Japan's action when it acquired the Bonin (Ogasawa) Islands in the Pacific. Then Japan contracted Great Britain and the U.S. several times, which were only remotely involved in them; it notified 12 European countries of its establishment of control over the islands. Considering that the Meiji government recognized Korea's title to Tokdo in 1875 through the Foreign Ministry and the Dajokan, in 1877 through the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Dajokan, in 1875 through the Ministry of the Army, in 1876 and several times thereafter through the Ministry of the Navy, and in 1905 through the Ministry of the Home Affairs when it opposed the plan to incorporate Tokdo, the question naturally follows why Japan did not contact the Korean government beforehand and did not notify it of the action afterwards. The answer seems simple: the Japanese knew that the island had been under Korean sovereignty and the Korean government would have reacted immediately and strongly, had it known of Japan's intent or act of annexation. Another point for consideration is that foreign diplomatic missions posted in Seoul were still active then, and Japan may have concluded it inadvisable to incur their suspicion of its aggressive designs on Korea after the end of the Russo-Japanese war by making public announcement of the acquisition of Tokdo. Accordingly, the Japanese government may have tried to veil the matter from public knowledge. This action was followed by the construction of a watchtower on Tokdo by the Japanese Navy in July 1905. It was eventually removed after the end of the war with Russia. http://www.tokdo.com/english/tokdo_06.htm Korean Government's Reaction
The Korean government became aware of the matter on March 23, 1906, one year after the event took place, when the lord of Okinoshima of Shimane prefecture and party called on magistrate Sim Hung-t'aek of Ullungdo during their inspection trip to Tokdo and told him that the island had become Japan's possession. The date, March 28, 1906, is important. On September 5, 1905, the Portsmouth Treaty was signed ending the Russo-Japanese War, and on November 18, 1905, Japan used its troops in Seoul and forced a Protectorate Treaty it had drafted upon Korea. The whole proceeding was illegal without obtaining the Emperor's sanction and seal and with the royal court under duress because it was surrounded by Japanese troops. The two essential points of the treaty are the transfer of full authority over foreign affairs to Japan and the appointment of a Japanese Resident-General under the Korean Emperor to supervise all aspects of the Korean government operation. It thus reduced Korea to semi-colonial status. The Korean ministry of Foreign Affairs was dismantled on January 17, 1906; the Resident-General's office opened in Seoul in February that year and took over the conduct of the foreign affairs of the Korean government. Then the lord of Okinoshima was sent to Ullungdo to inform, as if casually, the Korean county magistrate of the incorporation of Tokdo. Under these circumstances, Korea could not take any measures against the Japanese action on Tokdo. Startled at the news, magistrate Sim Hung-t'aek reported the following day (March 29, 1906) to the Ministry of Home Affairs through the Governor of Kwangwondo that he had been apprised of the incorporation into the Japanese territory of Tokdo that was under the jurisdiction of "this county." By "this county," Tokdo was meant to be part of the Korean territory. The Minister of Home Affairs, upon receipt of the report, renounced the Japanese claim, stating that "it is totally groundless for the Japanese to lay claim to Tokdo and I am shocked at the report." Having thus been reported, the Ch'amjong taeshin of the Uijongbu (State Council) - the acting head of government then - issued Directive No. Ⅲ on April 29, 1906, wherein he denounced the Japanese claim as groundless and ordered a full inquiry into the matter. Taehan maeil sinbo and Hwangsong sinmun, two major papers of the day, reported the Japanese action in full and protested vehemently against it. Also, Hwang Hyon (1855~1910), a known savant of the day, bitterly criticized and protested against the Japanese invasion of Tokdo in his writings: Ohakimun (A Miscellany) and Maech'on yarok (Personal Accounts of Maech'on). The Japanese government today has often pointed out the non-action on the part of the Korean government when Tokdo was annexed and tended to take it as its acquiescence, but it fails to take into account the fact that the Japanese Resident-General in Korea conducted foreign affairs and the Korean government had no diplomatic channel of its own to make representation against the Japanese claim. It was five years prior to the Japanese annexation of the Empire of Korea that Tokdo fell prey to the Japanese machinations. http://www.tokdo.com/english/tokdo_07.htm SCAPIN NO.677 and Reversion of Tokdo
Following the surrender of Japan, SCAP GHQ was set up in Tokyo, which began to implement the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. As the initial step, a Memorandum for Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas form Japan was issues as SCAPIN (Supreme Command for Allied Powers Instruction) No.677 (Contents of document are located at Appendix B). This directive limited Japan's territory to the four main islands of Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu, and Shigoku, and about 1,000 smaller islands. Excluded form the definition in Clause 5 of Japan's territories were Ullungdo, Tokdo and Chejudo. Clause 5 of the instruction provides that "the definition of the Japan contained in the directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from the Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein." Therefore, without another specific instruction by SCAP this definition could not be changed and would continue to be binding. In accordance with this instruction, SCAP transferred the jurisdiction over Tokdo to the U.S. Military Government in Korea on January 29, 1946. When the Republic of Korea was proclaimed on August 15, 1948, all the territories of Korea, including Tokdo, automatically reverted to the Korean government. On June 22, 1946, SCAPIN No. 1033 was issued, in which Clause 5 set up a fishing and whaling area permitted for Japanese fishermen and prohibited Japanese ships and crew from entering the 12-nautical mile seas off the Liancourt Rocks at lat. 37°15"N. and long. 131°53"E.,and approaching the island. http://www.tokdo.com/english/tokdo_08.htm
Present Takeshima was being called Matsushima before.
The accurate time when present Takeshima is discovered isn't clear. There was a thing which came and went to Ulleung Island from the beginning of the 15th century. A Japanese knew at least in the early stages of the Edo Period. Present Takeshima has already been recognized as Matsushima.
1618 A.D. Ganwa 4 years [1618 A.D.] is the early stages of the Edo Period. At that time, an Ulleung Island was being called Takeshima. And, an Ulleung Island was given to the Ooya Family in Yonago by the shogunate. Then, the Ooya Family managed an Ulleung Island with the Murakawa Family. They did abalone and sea lion fishing in the Ulleung Island and cut down lumber from the island. Matsushima was being used as a port of call. After that, Edo shogunate forbade voyaging to the Gemroku 9-year (1696 years) to Ulleung Island because of the quarrel between the Koreas. They were thinking about Takeshima with the Japanese territory. Therefore, they didn't forbid voyaging. 1883 A.D. The 16th year of Meiji [1883 A.D] Rule about the commerce of Japan and the Korea is concluded. Many fishermen came to go to the Ulleung Island. They called at the Takeshima in the middle of that. 1904 A.D. The 37th year of Meiji [1904 A.D.] Nakai Youzaburou went hunting for sea lion near Takeshima. He applied for Takeshima's territorial possessions and the loan to the government to do sea lion hunting. The decision of the Japanese Government which received this was like this. It was news in the cabinet council on (1905 years) January 28, the 38th year of Meiji. Government named this island Takeshima formally.
The decision of the Japanese Government which received this was like this. It was news in the cabinet council on (1905 years) January 28, the 38th year of Meiji. Government named this island Takeshima formally. They decided what the jurisdiction of Shimane Prefecture Oki Island did. Shimane prefectural governor announced those contents by Shimane Prefecture notice No. 40 dated February 22, 1905 officially.
Furthermore, in the same year, Shimane Prefecture did registration to the public land ledger of Oki Island four groups. The permission of the sea lion fishing by the fishing control rules. The establishment of the temporary lighthouse. The governor's inspection. Local research on the actual condition were done again in 1906 of the next year. Investigation was done by the third managers and so on in Shimane Prefecture. The various necessary conditions that they required law of nations with this were completely satisfied. If they see it historically, Takeshima and northern 4 Islands are the territory of our country. And, they are the territories which are characteristic of our country even if they see it from international law. Nevertheless, these territories are occupied for many years illegally by other countries. http://ww1.enjoy.ne.jp/~koukokutenbo/e_Takeshima's_history.htm Q: Yesterday, Japan and Korea held top-level talks in Ikura. Could you share with us what was discussed in these talks? Also, yesterday, Secretary General Kato of the Asian Affairs Bureau called upon Minister Kim of the Korean Embassy in Tokyo to protest the plan of the Korean Government to develop Tokdo Island. Could you also elaborate on that? Spokesman Tanaka: At the thirteenth meeting of Japan-Republic of Korea senior officials, which was held 2 June, we reviewed the international situation and above all the situation on the Korean Peninsula. I understand that a briefing has been held on this already. Regarding your second question, on 30 May, the Ocean and Fishery Department of the Republic of Korea announced an ocean development plan called "Ocean and Fishery Vision for the 21st Century," which includes a plan for Takeshima Island. Regarding this plan, Director-General Ryozo Kato of the Asian Affairs Bureau called in Minister Kim Yong Kyoo of the Embassy of the Republic of Korea yesterday and stated our long-standing policy on the territorial issue of Takeshima Island. He expressed his regrets and protested to the Government of the Republic of Korea that such a plan was formulated, and he requested the suspension of quay facility building works and cancellation of all measures embodied in the plan on Takeshima Island. It is my understanding that the Republic of Korea side repeated the position of the Government of the Republic of Korea. Minister Kim promised us that he would convey the message to the home government. Q: Could you tell me the position of the Government of Japan on Takeshima Island? Spokesman Tanaka: Takeshima Island is an integral part of Japanese territory and this has been our long-standing position on Takeshima Island. There is no question about this. Source: Press Conference by the Press Secretary; June 3, 1997 http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/press/1997/6/603.html#2 SEOUL, Feb. 9 (Oana-Yonhap) -- Japan formally requested yesterday that the South Korean government cancel its plan to build a berth on the easternmost Island of Tokdo, claiming that the islet is a Japanese territory, a foreign ministry official said today. The Japanese foreign ministry lodged the verbal protest with the South Korean foreign ministry through a telephone call late yesterday, the official said. Dismissing the protest as absurd, the official reiterated the foreign ministry's position, as expressed in a spokesman's statement, that Tokdo belongs to South Korea both historically and in terms of international law. "The planned building of a berth in Tokdo will be due exercise of our country's sovereignty over the islet," he said. Bernama; Kuala Lumpur; Feb 9, 1996 SEOUL (Feb 11, 1996 09:47 a.m. EST) - South Korea whipped itself into a nationalistic fervor on Sunday as citizens' groups took to the streets to protest against renewed Japanese claims to two disputed islands. Protesters held anti-Japanese rallies in Seoul, burning the Japanese flag along with an effigy of Japanese Foreign Minister Yukihiko Ikeda. The protests came one day after President Kim Young-sam cancelled a meeting with Tokyo legislators and threatened to scrap a summit with Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto, All major newspapers carried pictures of the Korean national flag fluttering over the Tokdo islands, barren outcrops of rock in the Sea of Japan with no more than a handful of permanent residents. Ikeda sparked Korean outrage last week by lodging a diplomatic protest against work begun by South Korea to improve a wharf on the islands. He again asserted Tokyo's sovereignty over the specks of land midway between Japan and South Korea. About 300 protesters gathered in a Seoul park to vent their anger against Korea's former colonial master. In a written statement, the chairman of the Association of Korea Christian Church Youth, one of protest organizers, said: "It is insane and unreasonable for Japan to protest our construction of a wharf." Park Chan-sung said Japan's actions were a "second attempt to invade our country. Japan should fire those who made remarks on Tokdo Island and apologies." Another protest leader, Lee Dae-young of the Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice, said: "Japan's claim to Tokdo is a blasphemy to our history and people." On Saturday a spokesman for President Kim branded Tokyo's claim to the islands "preposterous" and "intolerable" and said Japan was again "glorifying its past crimes." The hardline official response, just two months before general elections, plays well with a Korean public that is ultra-sensitive about Tokyo's brutal 35-year colonization of the Korean peninsula that ended in 1945. Even opposition parties have joined Kim's ruling New Korea Party in taking up an issue loaded with patriotic symbolism. Source: Reuters http://archive.nandotimes.com/newsroom/ntn/world/021196/world8_8310.html SOUTH KOREA announced yesterday that it will soon stage military exercises, involving destroyers, anti-submarine helicopters and fighter aircraft, around a tiny group of islets disputed between Seoul and Tokyo. Regular navy, air force and coastguard maneuvers, originally due to be cancelled, would go ahead by the end of March, the Defense Ministry said. The announcement is seen as a direct warning to Japan, which pressed its claim to the three specks of volcanic rock by asking Korea to stop building a harbor there last Thursday. The Daily Telegraph; London (UK); Feb 13, 1996; Robert Guest in Tokyo South Korea began a military exercise on Feb 15, 1996 around the tiny islands over which it is locked in a territorial split with Japan, a ministry spokesman said. Japanese officials said the exercise was partly intended to protest Japan's claim over the islands, called Tokdo in Korea and Takeshima in Japan. New York Times; New York; Feb 15, 1996 South Korean forces patrolled the skies and seas in a show of strength aimed at warding off any predatory move from its enemy. The target of the chest-thumping, which occurred last week, wasn't North Korea, but an older rival: Japan. A turf fight over a tiny atoll in the Sea of Japan between South Korea and Japan has brought to the surface the ancient animosity between two nations that are Asia's most powerful economies and Washington's most important allies in the region. Fragile at the best of times, Korean-Japanese relations have splintered in the past several years; diplomats blame the crumbling of the Cold War order and political reform in both countries. But when South Korean coast guardsmen began building a wharf on the main island last week, prompting an inevitable protest from Tokyo, the response from Seoul was explosive. President Kim Young Sam refused to meet a delegation of Japanese lawmakers, forcing them to cancel their trip. He ordered military maneuvers around the islets and took the unusual step of telephoning officers in the field and exhorting them to defend Korean territory and national pride. Footage of the exercises and President Kim's call dominated the nightly news broadcasts. And anti-Japanese demonstrations sprang up throughout South Korea. Diplomats and analysts suspect President Kim timed the decision in part to impress voters with his hard-line credentials ahead of key legislative elections in April. The move also comes as Tokyo is in the process of corralling the atoll within a 200-mile exclusive economic zone off its shore. Both governments are under pressure from fishermen and merchants to preserve within their respective borders the fertile seas around the islets. Wall Street Journal; New York; Feb 21, 1996 Tokto as a diplomatic issue first surfaced in February 1952 when the Japanese government sent a note of protest to the Korean mission to Japan in Tokyo. On Jan. 18 of that same year, a ``Peace Line'' had been proclaimed by the Korean government, which the Japanese called the ``Rhee Line,'' named after its author, President Syngman Rhee. It had been met with a loud protest by the Japanese. Japan's claim to Tokto, or Takeshima, as they call it, is based on its assertion that before the 1910 Annexation Treaty, there was no protest by the Korean Kingdom regarding the status of the islands. But records show that Japan had taken over the islands after the 1905 Korea-Japan Agreement which, everyone knows, had been made under duress, and after which time Korea had lost its ability to carry out its own foreign affairs. Even though the Japanese government knows that Korea would never concede Tokto islands, they have publicized the issue occasionally for the benefit of the Japanese Diet, or the press. Korea Herald; Seoul; Feb 21, 1996 On 20 February, 1996, Japan and South Korea announced 200 nautical mile economic exclusion zones around their respective coasts. Seoul's proclamation came within hours of Tokyo's. States have the right to establish economic exclusion zones, which provide for exclusive fishing and mineral rights, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. South Korea ratified the convention in November 1995. Japan plans to followed suit in 1996. The announcements were timed to bolster the two countries' competing claims for Tokdo/Takeshima. The islets have been contested since 1904, when the Japanese army occupying Seoul started helping itself to Korean property and territory. Japan annexed the isles in 1905. Koreans assumed that they reverted to Seoul after liberation in 1945. Tokyo disagreed. The quarrel reignited earlier this month when Japan ordered the South Koreans to stop building a wharf there. President Kim Young-sam vowed not to yield an inch of sovereign territory, increased the number of coastguards protecting Tokdo's lone inhabitant (a fisherman) from 26 to 34, and staged a military exercise in the surrounding waters. Japan has ruled out the use of force to retake the islets. Since the South Koreans currently occupy them, this means that they will almost certainly remain Korean. A compromise is possible, however, on who is allowed to exploit nearby fisheries, which are both nations' real objective in claiming the otherwise worthless 45-acre volcanic rocks. International: Tokyo's island dispute with Seoul worsens
The Daily Telegraph; London (UK); Feb 21, 1996 South Korea is planning to build a lighthouse on a barren islet also claimed by Japan, the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Ministry said. The announcement comes only a month before scheduled summit talks between the leaders of Japan and South Korea and isn't expected to sit well in Tokyo. South Korea currently has de facto control over the group of volcanic islets called Tokdo in Korea and Takeshima in Japan and has posted 34 policemen and a lone fisherman on one of the main islets in the group. Construction of the lighthouse is expected to begin sometime next year, and reach completion in 1998, the official said. South Korea is constructing a wharf there, despite Japan's protests. Seoul has also said it may build a desalination facility and allow more civilians to live there. Currently, drinking water needs to be shipped in. The waters around the disputed islets are rich in fish, and both countries claim exclusive fishing rights there. Asian Wall Street Journal; New York; Dec 13, 1996 Japan is demanding the removal of wharf facilities completed by South Korea on a parcel of rocky islets claimed by the two countries. Japan's Vice-Foreign Minister Shunji Yanai made the demand yesterday when he summoned South Korean Ambassador to Japan Kim Dae-chi to his office to protest the completion of the facilities, a ministry official said. The protest was made as South Korea celebrated completion of the chain lying between the two countries, known as Tokdo in South Korea and Takeshima in Japan. China Daily; New York, N.Y.; Nov 7, 1997 On 7 November 1997, Japan demanded the removal of wharf facilities completed by South Korea on Takeshima (Tokdo Island),a parcel of rocky islets claimed by the two countries. Japan's Vice-Foreign Minister Shunji Yanai made the demand yesterday when he summoned South Korean Ambassador to Japan Kim Dae-chi to his office to protest the completion of the facilities, a ministry official said. China Daily; 7 Nov 1997 Japan and South Korea clinched a basic agreement on a new fisheries pact early Friday morning by hammering out a compromise over how to demarcate a provisional economic zone around a disputed island in the Sea of Japan. According to details of the accord announced by the Japanese side, the two countries agreed to set the eastern end of the provisional zone around the island, named Takeshima in Japan and Tok-do in South Korea, at 135 degrees and 30 minutes of east longitude, with the southern and western ends demarcated at 35 nautical miles from their coastlines. Both countries claim their sovereignty over the island, but have set aside the dispute to move forward their fisheries negotiations. Tokyo and Seoul also concurred to gradually reduce their fish catch quotas in each other's exclusive economic zone so that they will come to equal levels in three years. South Korea's fish catch amounts to 220,000 tons a year in waters off Japanese coasts, excluding that of pollacks, while Japan's hauls come to 100,000 tons in waters off South Korean coasts. The details of the basic agreement were unveiled at a early morning press conference, with Koko Sato, chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party's special committee on international fisheries affairs, and others present. Sato was a leading political negotiator for Japan on the issue. The provisional zone around Takeshima, differences over which had long kept their negotiations mired, also includes some 40 pct of Yamato Tai, a good fishing bank located northeast of Takeshima. The two countries will also establish another provisional zone which will partly cover waters south of Cheju-do, a South Korean island located off the southern tip of the Korean Peninsula. The two governments agreed to set up a joint fisheries committee of experts to properly manage fishery resources in the provisional zone around Takeshima. They also agreed to take strict steps, in accordance with their domestic law, against illegal fishing activities. Jiji Press English News Service; Tokyo; Sep 25, 1998 Japan, Korea Reach Basic Agreement in Fisheries DisputeJapan and South Korea reached a basic agreement Friday on a new treaty to determine fishing boundaries and quotas around hotly disputed islands, a government spokesman said. The breakthrough comes ahead of the visit to Tokyo next month of South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, during which the two countries are expected to sign a fisheries treaty. ``I think fishing people on both sides ... may feel some dissatisfaction, but I ask their understanding for the sake of long-term friendship,'' said Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi, who attended the talks. The countries agreed to establish a joint fishing zone around disputed islets at 35 nautical miles (40 miles, 64 kilometers) from the shores of the two countries, said Isao Koya, a spokesman for Japan's fisheries ministry. The islets, called Takeshima in Japan and Tok-do in Korea, are surrounded by fertile fishing grounds and have been the source of much acrimony between the two countries. Japan had wanted to make the joint fishing zone small in order to limit South Korean fishing in it. Japan had been insisting on a boundary of 36 nautical miles (41 miles, 66 kilometers) from the countries' shores. Japan backed down on that demand, but secured a compromise on the demarcation line, agreeing to establish it between what each country had proposed. The two sides also agreed to reduce their fishing catches in each other's waters. Friday's meeting included Fisheries Minister Shoichi Nakagawa, his South Korean counterpart Kim Sun-gil and other officials from the two sides. Tempers flared between the neighbors in January after Japan backed out of a fisheries pact that had set exclusive fishing rights within 12 nautical miles (14 miles, 22 kilometers). The two nations have been negotiating new fishing areas to comply with the 1994 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which allows a nation exclusive fishing rights within 200 nautical miles (230 miles, 370 kilometers) of its shores. Japan and South Korea are less than 400 nautical miles (460 miles, 740 kilometers) apart, so there are overlapping areas, and the two sides had been unable to come up with a compromise http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/14_1/9809/t4151308.htm Japan and South Korea signed an agreement Saturday {28th November} to renew a treaty permitting fishing operations in each other's economic waters. Japanese Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura and South Korean Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Hong Sun-yong signed the new treaty after a meeting of 11 ministers from both nations in Kagoshima on Japan's southern main island of Kyushu. The renewal of the 1965 treaty, which will expire in late January, was based on a compromise over the demarcation of territorial waters surrounding a disputed group of islets, called Takeshima in Japan and Tokto in Korea. The two nations will set a "provisional fishing zone" around the islets, and in waters south of South Korea's Chechu Island. Under the accord fishing boats from Japan and South Korea will be allowed to operate in each other's 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zones if they obtain permits, while fishing quotas and conditions for such operations will be decided upon by the two countries every year. A joint fisheries committee will be established to meet at least once a year to discuss measures to preserve fishing resources in the provisional fishing zones, including limiting the number of fishing boats to be allowed to operate there. The renewed pact will be valid for three years, requiring a six- month advance notice for abrogation. BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific - Political; London; Nov 28, 1998 http://online.janes.com/janesdata/yb/jeez/images/m0069054.jpg Address registration revives islands disputeTokyo and Seoul have resumed wrangling over tiny but strategically significant islands virtually equidistant from Japan and South Korea. Japanese nationals recently registered permanent addresses on the Tokdo islands (which Japan calls the Takeshimas), prompting Seoul to fire off a letter to Tokyo calling for "immediate cancellation of the registrations". A South Korean Foreign Ministry official said yesterday Tokyo had responded coolly, stating it "cannot bar its residents from shifting census registration, as the island is part of its territory". South Koreans have been allowed to register permanent addresses on the islands following the Japanese move. Japanese and South Koreans have two types of addresses - a permanent address from the place where their family roots originate, and a temporary address where they reside. South China Morning Post; Hong Kong; Dec 28, 1999; ROGER DEAN DU MARS in Seoul On 9 May 2000, Japan on Tuesday renewed its claim over South Korean-held disputed islets, spelling out the issue in its annual diplomatic report for the first time in three years. "Japan maintains a consistent position that it (Takeshima) is an indigenous part of Japanese territory, according to historic facts and international laws, and our policy is to continue consultations tenaciously between the two nations," it said. The ministry did not touch on the issue in 1998 or 1999. In the 1997 report, it said the territorial row "came into the spotlight" in negotiations over a bilateral fisheries pact, but the leaders of both nations agreed to sidestep the issue, particularly in declaring a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The ministry denied that it had any particular motive for including the Takeshima issue in the 2000 version. Japan renews claim over disputed islets with South Korea
BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific - Political; London; May 9, 2000 Seoul, 26th September: The Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry reiterated Seoul's position Tuesday [26th September] that eastern island Tokdo in the East Sea is South Korean territory as it reacted to Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori's remarks claiming otherwise. "Tokdo is, by history, geography and international law, clearly our sovereign territory," said the ministry statement. "Our government has exercised our sovereignty over Tokdo and its coastal waters, and our ownership of Tokdo stands firm. No matter who in Japan says what about owning Tokdo is not worth a slightest consideration," it said. The statement was a reaction to Mori's remarks during an exclusive interview last week with South Korean television station KBS. Mori said it was Japan's consistent stance that Takeshima, Japanese name for Tokdo, is its territory based on historical facts and international law. KBS had edited out the remark when it aired Mori's interview on 21st September, one day before President Kim Dae-jung left for Tokyo for summit with Mori. KBS officials said the remark was unedited [as received] because Mori's claims were made by other Japanese prime ministers in the past and was deemed unworthy as news. BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific - Political; London; Sep 26, 2000 Seoul, 17th November: A civic organization Friday [17th November] denounced the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for including a satellite map of South Korea on the Internet homepage of the South Korean embassy in Japan which does not show the Tokdo islets as part of Korean territory. The islets, which were missing from the map, are a major point of contention between Korea and Japan, which also claims they are part of its territory. "The government must have deliberately deleted the Tokdo islets from the satellite photo to avoid diplomatic conflicts with Japan," the organization called "Tokdo Guards" insisted. "It is difficult to think that the South Korean embassy in Japan mistakenly carried a photo which does not show Tokdo because no other South Korean embassy web site has a similar photo," the group said. The organization called for the resignation of the South Korean ambassador to Japan and an apology from Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Lee Joung-binn. It also charged that the repeated claims that Tokdo is Japanese territory by Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori and Japan's ambassador to Seoul Terusuke Terada must have been made with the tacit approval of the South Korean government. In response, a ministry official said the homepage in question also contains another map which properly shows the Tokdo islets, saying "The satellite photo might have missed the Tokdo islets for technical reasons." The ministry instructed in the day its embassy in Japan to replace the map in question with another one including clear Tokdo islets, the official said, dismissing the allegation that the government erased the islets on the map to avoid diplomatic conflicts with Japan. BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific - Political; London; Nov 17, 2000; The national headquarters for the protection of Tokdo, the easternmost islets between the Korean Peninsula and Japan that are claimed by both nations, will hold an opening ceremony here today. "The headquarters in the Suwoon Building in downtown Seoul will serve as a center for citizen campaigns calling for Korean sovereignty over the Tokdo islets in the East Sea," an official of the organizing committee said. Many renowned social leaders such as Cardinal Stephen Kim, Rev. Kang Won-ryong and Buddhist monk Wol Joo will serve as advisors to the headquarters. Korea National Council of Churches Chairman Kim Kyong- shik, Rev. Kim Seung-hoon, Korean Confederation of Trade Unions Chairman Dan Byong-ho, poet Kim Ji-ha and many other prominent figures will take posts as standing chairmen or co-chairmen. Korea Herald; Seoul; Dec 2, 2000 South Korea: Department to be set up in Ullung to assert claim to Tokdo islets
BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific - Political; London; Dec 22, 2000; A department to seek exclusive Korean control of the Tokdo islets will be set up in the Ullung County office to strengthen the nation's sovereignty over the rocky islets in the East Sea, Kyongsang Province officials said Friday [22 December]. The islets are the source of a major dispute between South Korea and Japan, which both claim them as part of their national territory. "We recently finished consultations with the Government Administration and Home Affairs Ministry on the establishment of the department," an official said. The Tokdo department will be staffed with three officials who will gather historical records on the islets and systematically work to achieve the nation's control of them. The department will also work towards the preservation of the islets' cultural properties and natural monuments. Permission to visit the islets, which has been handled by the maritime police agency, will be transferred to the department. Ullung County will set the framework for the department's affairs next month, and its local council will vote on it before the department is established next month, Tokdo [known as Takeshima in Japanese] is an outcropping of rocky islets claimed by both Korea and Japan. The nation has a position that Tokdo is by history, geography and international law, its sovereign territory. Japan contests the issue apparently in hopes of broadening its fishing and mineral rights, which are determined by national boundaries. It is reported that a possibility is increasing for North Korea [DPRK] to take some kind of a specific action about Takeshima Island [called "Tokto" in Korean], over which both Japan and South Korea [ROK] are claiming their territorial rights. The island is located northwest of the Oki Islands of Japan's Shimane Prefecture. The island consists of two small islets called Higashijima Island (or Onnajima Island), Nishijima Island (or Otokojima Island), and tens of reefs in the area surrounding the two islets. The ROK's patrol unit is stationed on Higashijima Island since 1954, and the country is trying to make its dominium over the island an accomplished fact, by taking such steps as expanding its facilities located on the island. According to a military source, the DPRK side, at the end of last year, suddenly issued a commentary on Nodong Sinmun, the organ of the Workers Party of Korea, which said: "If the Japanese authorities touches on that land even a little, a merciless punishment will be brought upon them." The commentary also stressed a position that the DPRK "will have absolutely no tolerance over infringement on the people's dignity and the country's autonomy." Although the commentary is viewed to be a feint against the fact that Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori and others claimed Japan's dominium over the island, the military source revealed: "There is reliable information that General Secretary Kim Chong-il ordered specific action concerning Takeshima Island." The source also said that the DPRK has "completed organizing troops," and the concerned authorities are hastening to analyze the information. The true aim of the DPRK and what form of actions it will take is unclear at this point. However, the military source pointed out: "There is a possibility that [the DPRK] will try to make the islands a military facility. We need to watch cautiously how the DPRK will arrive at a compromise with the ROK." JPP20010122000032 Tokyo Foresight in Japanese 20 Jan 01 p 26 Disputed islet remark leads South Korean province to halt Japanese exchanges
On 6 March 2001, North Kyongsang Province decided to stop all exchanges with Shimane, its Japanese sister prefecture, in protest of the prefecture governor's remarks that South Korea is illegally occupying Tokdo He said the province immediately recalled an official who had been dispatched to the Japanese prefecture as part of a bilateral exchange program, and it will tentatively put a halt to all official exchanges with Shimane. The province also sent a letter of protest to the governor to prevent the recurrence of such reckless remarks, he added. BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific - Political; London; Mar 6, 2001; Seoul, March 6 (Jiji Press)--A controversy over the ownership of an island claimed both by Japan and South Korea Tuesday disrupted an interchange project between local municipalities from each country. The South Korean province of Kyongsang-bukto said it has decided to suspend a bilateral interchange project with Shimane Prefecture of western Japan. Kyongsang-bukto province took the step following recent remarks by Shimane prefecture's governor Nobuyoshi Sumita, who said Takeshima, as the controversial island is called in Japan, is illegally occupied by South Koreans. In South Korea, the island, called Tok-Do by Koreans, is considered to be under the jurisdiction of Kyongsang-bukto, while in Japan, it is regarded as part of Shimane Prefecture. Kyongsang-bukto and Shimane concluded a sisterhood agreement in October 1989 and have since carried out various programs such as mutual dispatches of officials and students. Jiji Press English News Service; Tokyo; Mar 6, 2001; Taegu, 6 March: North Kyongsang Province Tuesday [6 March] decided to stop all exchanges with Shimane, its Japanese sister prefecture, in protest of the prefecture governor's remarks that South Korea is illegally occupying Tokdo [known as Takeshima in Japanese]. "The province and its three million residents will watch the matter closely and take strong measures to protect their pride and Korean sovereignty over Tokdo," a spokesman for the province said. He said the province immediately recalled an official who had been dispatched to the Japanese prefecture as part of a bilateral exchange program, and it will tentatively put a halt to all official exchanges with Shimane. The province also sent a letter of protest to the governor to prevent the recurrence of such reckless remarks, he added. Monitoring Asia Pacific - Political; London; Mar 6, 2001; On 14 March 2001, a silent war erupted in cyberspace over securing Tokdo, the island located southeast of Ullungdo, which continues to be a thorny issue between Korea and Japan. The targets were two domains that were up for new owners, tokdo.net and takeshima.net. At 8:30 p.m. the domains were up for grabs, and after 13 minutes, the competition ended with Korea's success. A Korean domain- service provider, yesdomain.com, and a citizen in Taejon were respectively able to become the new owners. When news came on March 12 that the two domains related to Tokdo would be designated as deleted domains, an active online campaign was carried out for Koreans to secure them. The two domains had been deleted after the previous owners had not paid the annual maintenance fees. Netizens showed deep interest in the domain war, expressing encouragement on bulletin boards and wishing their fellow Koreans success in obtaining the domains. As the domain names drew high interest, we think the Japanese also tried to obtain the IP addresses, said Yu Yong-ki, president of yesdomain.com. The domain company had also succeeded in grabbing hold of the domain Tokdo.com' in April last year. The fervor of Korean netizens to confirm that Tokdo is our land, at least in cyberspace, seems to have paid off, he said. The company plans to donate the domain to the Tokdo Guardian Party (TGP, www.tokdo.co.kr), a civil organization devoted to promoting efforts to acknowledge Tokdo as Korean territory. The war over 祖yber territory' is becoming fiercer than ever, said Yu. It's a matter of national pride,・he said, adding that, although it might not mean much now, it will be significant later on as the roles of domain names become bigger and bigger. Koreans seems to have the winning position in the Tokto dispute, at least in cyberspace. Tokdo-related domain names, such as 'tokdo.com', 'tokdo.co.kr', 'takeshima.com', 'takeshima.net', 'takeshima.org' and 'takeshima.co.kr' are all currently owned by Koreans, officially making Tokdo online Korean territory. Korean Netizens Win Battle in Cyberspace Over Tokdo http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/Weekly2001/03.14.2001/Korea9.htm The Constitutional Court ruled Wednesday that the 1999 Korea- Japan Fishery Agreement, which designates the eastern-most islets of Tokdo as in waters between Korea and Japan, has no direct relations to the sovereignty issue of the islets and does not violate the Korean constitution. Declaring the agreement "constitutional," the judges said in their ruling, "Even though the Tokdo Islets lie in the waters between Korea and Japan, the fishery agreement in question just targets issues related to fishing rights. It does not have any connection to issues related to territorial rights over the disputed islets and their territorial waters." The Tokdo Islets, which lie between Korea and Japan in waters known as the East Sea to Koreans and the Sea of Japan to the Japanese, are claimed as sovereign territory by both nations. A farmers' movement activist, identified only as Kim, filed a complaint with the constitutional court in March, 1999, claiming that the Korea-Japan Fishery Agreement trespassed on the basic rights of the Korean people by forcing them to give up their fishing rights in the waters around the islets. Korea Herald; Seoul; Mar 23, 2001; The Japanese government's latest decision to ban Korean fishing vessels from Japan's exclusive economic zone is unjustified. Following on the heels of a bitter dispute over history textbooks glossing over its military past and wartime crimes, this is yet another sign that Japan has a long way to go before coming to terms with its modern history. Tokyo notified Seoul last week that it would bar Korean boats from fishing in the sea off the Sanriku region in protest against a fishing agreement between South Korea and Russia that covers waters claimed by Japan. This is without a doubt in conflict with international law and practice concerning maritime activities, let alone violating the bilateral fisheries accord between Seoul and Tokyo. Under the Seoul-Moscow agreement signed by the two governments last December, 26 South Korean boats are allowed to catch up to 15,000 tons of saury in the waters off the Southern Kurils beginning in mid-August. Japan has complained about the accord, accusing Korea of effectively recognizing Russia's rights over the area, and eventually decided to retaliate by banning Korean boats from fishing in its economic zone off northeastern Honshu. The Korean government was justified in condemning this clearly unwarranted action by Japan. Foreign Minister Han Seung-soo summoned Japanese Ambassador Terusuke Terada to deliver a formal protest Monday. But he also hinted at a possible solution by saying that Korean fishing vessels may not enter the disputed waters when Japan opens to them other part of its economic zone as it did in 1992. Terada's response was disappointingly rigid, however. He warned that Korea would cause "serious legal and diplomatic problems" in the event that its fishing vessels operate in the Kurils with approval from Russia, not Japan. His language was not only stronger than necessary but his statement was also illogical, considering that the disputed maritime area remains under the de facto control of Russia. This is incredible arrogance on the part of Terada and his government in Tokyo. His statement is tantamount to asserting that Japan has the right to permit fishing vessels from a third country to operate in the waters off Tokdo, a disputed island located between Korea and Japan. The island is under Korea's control, though Japan has claimed its territorial right over it for centuries. Tokdo further provides an illustration of two neighboring nations reaching consensus regarding their fishing rights in overlapping economic zones regardless of a territorial dispute. The 1999 Korea- Japan fisheries agreement deals exclusively with fishing activities by the two countries without mentioning their territorial rights. It is no wonder that the Korean government faced severe criticism from the public for its "lenient" attitude in handling important territorial matters. For decades, the territorial dispute with Russia over the four islands off Hokkaido has posed a major diplomatic challenge to Japan. Lost sovereignty over the "Northern Territories" has been a matter of national pride to many Japanese as well. But it is also true that Japan's claim is not fully justified in view of the geopolitical developments in the area over the last century. Many historians share the view that it is an issue demanding political compromise. Japan should pay heed to Russia's clarification that the Korean fishing vessels' activities in the disputed area would be "of a purely commercial nature." In an announcement issued last week, the Russian foreign ministry said it did not expect "practical cooperation between Korea and Russia in the fisheries industry" would hurt their relations with any third country. It said the approval was given in accordance with the 1991 bilateral agreement between Russia and Korea on cooperation in the fisheries industry. We urge the Korean government to stand firm on its stance and retaliate against Japan with corresponding measures, if it does not withdraw its decision. With no sign of a solution on the textbook controversy as yet, the fisheries discord could further damage the avowed spirit of "new partnership" between the two nations. Officials at the Foreign Ministry should not make senseless concessions, if the two neighbors are to redefine their relations for a truly constructive future. Japan's irrational claim
Korea Herald; Seoul; Jun 27, 2001 The United States takes no position on the dispute, which is important for U.S. interests largely because the dispute is one of several sources of discord between these two important U.S. allies in Northeast Asia. The United States has endeavored to avoid direct involvement. U.S. policymakers seem to judge that American interests in stability, free navigation and good relations with Asian allies and friends are best served by this low key approach. Both the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the U.S. and Japan and the Mutual Defense Treaty between the U.S. and the ROK are crafted to cover areas administered by each country. Specifically, the U.S. (under Article V in the U.S.-Japan treaty and Article III in the U.S. Korea treaty) is obligated to recognize an armed attack in the territories only under the administration of Japan or Korea and would be required to act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes. No doubt, this was a clever American attempt to exclude the Northern Territories/Kuril Islands and the Liancourt Rocks (Tokdo/Takeshima) from the agreements. In spite of the fact that the San Francisco Peace Treaty (Appendix A) does not specifically mention the islands for return to Korea after WWII; the fact that Japan does not administratively control the islands makes the Japan-U.S. Mutual Cooperation and Security Treaty inapplicable (Appendix C). And while Korea might be interpreted as having administrative control with its current coast guard contingent, it is doubtful the U.S. would recognize the legitimacy based on the known history of the dispute. As such, the Mutual Defense Treaty between the U.S. and the ROK (Appendix D) would also appear to be inapplicable. East Asia: Disputed Islands/Offshore Claims Issues For U.S. Policy July 28, 1992 Congressional Research Services, Library of Congress Robert G. Sutter http://www.fas.org/man/crs/92-7-28.htm American Defense Commitments and Asian Island Disputes http://www.boundaries.com/US-Asia.htm Other Sources: Janes Online http://online.janes.com/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&VdkVgwKey=%2Fcontent1%2Fjanesdata%2Fyb%2Fjeez%2Fjeez0041%2Ehtm&DocOffset=2&DocsFound=6&QueryZip=Takeshima&Collection=current%5FMags&Collection=current%5FSent&Collection=current%5FDir&Collection=current%5FSRep&Collection=current%5Fyb&Collection=current%5FImagelib&ViewTemplate=janes%5Fdoc%5Fview%2Ehts&Prod_Name=JEEZ&; Japan and South Korea tussle over islets to gain economic advantage http://www.lasvegassun.com/from.ed/1996/feb/20/504378403.html World Flags http://www.3dflags.com/world.html
Treaty of Peace with Japan WHEREAS the Allied Powers and Japan are resolved that henceforth their relations shall be those of nations which, as sovereign equals, cooperate in friendly association to promote their common welfare and to maintain international peace and security, and are therefore desirous of concluding a Treaty of Peace which will settle questions still outstanding as a result of the existence of a state of war between them; WHEREAS Japan for its part declares its intention to apply for membership in the United Nations and in all circumstances to conform to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations; to strive to realize the objectives of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; to seek to create within Japan conditions of stability and well-being as defined in Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations and already initiated by post-surrender Japanese legislation; and in public and private trade and commerce to conform to internationally accepted fair practices; WHEREAS the Allied Powers welcome the intentions of Japan set out in the foregoing paragraph; THE ALLIED POWERS AND JAPAN have therefore determined to conclude the present Treaty of Peace, and have accordingly appointed the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, who, after presentation of their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed on the following provisions: CHAPTER I PEACE Article 1 (a) The state of war between Japan and each of the Allied Powers is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force between Japan and the Allied Power concerned as provided for in Article 23. (b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters. CHAPTER II TERRITORY 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. (b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores. (c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905. (d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of 2 April 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan. (e) Japan renounces all claim to any right or title to or interest in connection with any part of the Antarctic area, whether deriving from the activities of Japanese nationals or otherwise. (f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratley Islands and to the Paracel Islands. Article 3 Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29deg. north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters. Article 4 (a) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this Article, the disposition of property of Japan and of its nationals in the areas referred to in Article 2, and their claims, including debts, against the authorities presently administering such areas and the residents (including juridical persons) thereof, and the disposition in Japan of property of such authorities and residents, and of claims, including debts, of such authorities and residents against Japan and its nationals, shall be the subject of special arrangements between Japan and such authorities. The property of any of the Allied Powers or its nationals in the areas referred to in Article 2 shall, insofar as this has not already been done, be returned by the administering authority in the condition in which it now exists. (The term nationals whenever used in the present Treaty includes juridical persons.) (b) Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to directives of the United States Military Government in any of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3. (c) Japanese owned submarine cables connection Japan with territory removed from Japanese control pursuant to the present Treaty shall be equally divided, Japan retaining the Japanese terminal and adjoining half of the cable, and the detached territory the remainder of the cable and connecting terminal facilities. CHAPTER III SECURITY Article 5 (a) Japan accepts the obligations set forth in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular the obligations (i) to settle its international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered; (ii) to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations; (iii) to give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the Charter and to refrain from giving assistance to any State against which the United Nations may take preventive or enforcement action. (b) The Allied Powers confirm that they will be guided by the principles of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations in their relations with Japan. (c) The Allied Powers for their part recognize that Japan as a sovereign nation possesses the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense referred to in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and that Japan may voluntarily enter into collective security arrangements. Article 6 (a) All occupation forces of the Allied Powers shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as possible after the coming into force of the present Treaty, and in any case not later than 90 days thereafter. Nothing in this provision shall, however, prevent the stationing or retention of foreign armed forces in Japanese territory under or in consequence of any bilateral or multilateral agreements which have been or may be made between one or more of the Allied Powers, on the one hand, and Japan on the other. (b) The provisions of Article 9 of the Potsdam Proclamation of 26 July 1945, dealing with the return of Japanese military forces to their homes, to the extent not already completed, will be carried out. (c) All Japanese property for which compensation has not already been paid, which was supplied for the use of the occupation forces and which remains in the possession of those forces at the time of the coming into force of the present Treaty, shall be returned to the Japanese Government within the same 90 days unless other arrangements are made by mutual agreement. CHAPTER IV POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CLAUSES Article 7 (a) Each of the Allied Powers, within one year after the present Treaty has come into force between it and Japan, will notify Japan which of its prewar bilateral treaties or conventions with Japan it wishes to continue in force or revive, and any treaties or conventions so notified shall continue in force or by revived subject only to such amendments as may be necessary to ensure conformity with the present Treaty. The treaties and conventions so notified shall be considered as having been continued in force or revived three months after the date of notification and shall be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations. All such treaties and conventions as to which Japan is not so notified shall be regarded as abrogated. (b) Any notification made under paragraph (a) of this Article may except from the operation or revival of a treaty or convention any territory for the international relations of which the notifying Power is responsible, until three months after the date on which notice is given to Japan that such exception shall cease to apply. Article 8 (a) Japan will recognize the full force of all treaties now or hereafter concluded by the Allied Powers for terminating the state of war initiated on 1 September 1939, as well as any other arrangements by the Allied Powers for or in connection with the restoration of peace. Japan also accepts the arrangements made for terminating the former League of Nations and Permanent Court of International Justice. (b) Japan renounces all such rights and interests as it may derive from being a signatory power of the Conventions of St. Germain-en-Laye of 10 September 1919, and the Straits Agreement of Montreux of 20 July 1936, and from Article 16 of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey signed at Lausanne on 24 July 1923. (c) Japan renounces all rights, title and interests acquired under, and is discharged from all obligations resulting from, the Agreement between Germany and the Creditor Powers of 20 January 1930 and its Annexes, including the Trust Agreement, dated 17 May 1930, the Convention of 20 January 1930, respecting the Bank for International Settlements; and the Statutes of the Bank for International Settlements. Japan will notify to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris within six months of the first coming into force of the present Treaty its renunciation of the rights, title and interests referred to in this paragraph. Article 9 Japan will enter promptly into negotiations with the Allied Powers so desiring for the conclusion of bilateral and multilateral agreements providing for the regulation or limitation of fishing and the conservation and development of fisheries on the high seas. Article 10 Japan renounces all special rights and interests in China, including all benefits and privileges resulting from the provisions of the final Protocol signed at Peking on 7 September 1901, and all annexes, notes and documents supplementary thereto, and agrees to the abrogation in respect to Japan of the said protocol, annexes, notes and documents. Article 11 Japan accepts the judgments of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and of other Allied War Crimes Courts both within and outside Japan, and will carry out the sentences imposed thereby upon Japanese nationals imprisoned in Japan. The power to grant clemency, to reduce sentences and to parole with respect to such prisoners may not be exercised except on the decision of the Government or Governments which imposed the sentence in each instance, and on recommendation of Japan. In the case of persons sentenced by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, such power may not be exercised except on the decision of a majority of the Governments represented on the Tribunal, and on the recommendation of Japan. Article 12 (a) Japan declares its readiness promptly to enter into negotiations for the conclusion with each of the Allied Powers of treaties or agreements to place their trading, maritime and other commercial relations on a stable and friendly basis. (b) Pending the conclusion of the relevant treaty or agreement, Japan will, during a period of four years from the first coming into force of the present Treaty (1) accord to each of the Allied Powers, its nationals, products and vessels (i) most-favored-nation treatment with respect to customs duties, charges, restrictions and other regulations on or in connection with the importation and exportation of goods; (ii) national treatment with respect to shipping, navigation and imported goods, and with respect to natural and juridical persons and their interests - such treatment to include all matters pertaining to the levying and collection of taxes, access to the courts, the making and performance of contracts, rights to property (tangible and intangible), participating in juridical entities constituted under Japanese law, and generally the conduct of all kinds of business and professional activities; (2) ensure that external purchases and sales of Japanese state trading enterprises shall be based solely on commercial considerations. (c) In respect to any matter, however, Japan shall be obliged to accord to an Allied Power national treatment, or most-favored-nation treatment, only to the extent that the Allied Power concerned accords Japan national treatment or most-favored-nation treatment, as the case may be, in respect of the same matter. The reciprocity envisaged in the foregoing sentence shall be determined, in the case of products, vessels and juridical entities of, and persons domiciled in, any non-metropolitan territory of an Allied Power, and in the case of juridical entities of, and persons domiciled in, any state or province of an Allied Power having a federal government, by reference to the treatment accorded to Japan in such territory, state or province. (d) In the application of this Article, a discriminatory measure shall not be considered to derogate from the grant of national or most-favored-nation treatment, as the case may be, if such measure is based on an exception customarily provided for in the commercial treaties of the party applying it, or on the need to safeguard that party's external financial position or balance of payments (except in respect to shipping and navigation), or on the need to maintain its essential security interests, and provided such measure is proportionate to the circumstances and not applied in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. (e) Japan's obligations under this Article shall not be affected by the exercise of any Allied rights under Article 14 of the present Treaty; nor shall the provisions of this Article be understood as limiting the undertakings assumed by Japan by virtue of Article 15 of the Treaty. Article 13 (a) Japan will enter into negotiations with any of the Allied Powers, promptly upon the request of such Power or Powers, for the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral agreements relating to international civil air transport. (b) Pending the conclusion of such agreement or agreements, Japan will, during a period of four years from the first coming into force of the present Treaty, extend to such Power treatment not less favorable with respect to air-traffic rights and privileges than those exercised by any such Powers at the date of such coming into force, and will accord complete equality of opportunity in respect to the operation and development of air services. (c) Pending its becoming a party to the Convention on International Civil Aviation in accordance with Article 93 thereof, Japan will give effect to the provisions of that Convention applicable to the international navigation of aircraft, and will give effect to the standards, practices and procedures adopted as annexes to the Convention in accordance with the terms of the Convention. CHAPTER V CLAIMS AND PROPERTY Article 14 (a) It is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war. Nevertheless it is also recognized that the resources of Japan are not presently sufficient, if it is to maintain a viable economy, to make complete reparation for all such damage and suffering and at the same time meet its other obligations. Therefore, 1. Japan will promptly enter into negotiations with Allied Powers so desiring, whose present territories were occupied by Japanese forces and damaged by Japan, with a view to assisting to compensate those countries for the cost of repairing the damage done, by making available the services of the Japanese people in production, salvaging and other work for the Allied Powers in question. Such arrangements shall avoid the imposition of additional liabilities on other Allied Powers, and, where the manufacturing of raw materials is called for, they shall be supplied by the Allied Powers in question, so as not to throw any foreign exchange burden upon Japan. 2. (I) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (II) below, each of the Allied Powers shall have the right to seize, retain, liquidate or otherwise dispose of all property, rights and interests of (a) Japan and Japanese nationals, (b) persons acting for or on behalf of Japan or Japanese nationals, and (c) entities owned or controlled by Japan or Japanese nationals, which on the first coming into force of the present Treaty were subject to its jurisdiction. The property, rights and interests specified in this subparagraph shall include those now blocked, vested or in the possession or under the control of enemy property authorities of Allied Powers, which belong to, or were held or managed on behalf of, any of the persons or entities mentioned in (a), (b) or (c) above at the time such assets came under the controls of such authorities. (II) The following shall be excepted from the right specified in subparagraph (I) above: (i) property of Japanese natural persons who during the war resided with the permission of the Government concerned in the territory of one of the Allied Powers, other than territory occupied by Japan, except property subjected to restrictions during the war and not released from such restrictions as of the date of the first coming into force of the present Treaty; (ii) all real property, furniture and fixtures owned by the Government of Japan and used for diplomatic or consular purposes, and all personal furniture and furnishings and other private property not of an investment nature which was normally necessary for the carrying out of diplomatic and consular functions, owned by Japanese diplomatic and consular personnel; (iii) property belonging to religious bodies or private charitable institutions and used exclusively for religious or charitable purposes; (iv) property, rights and interests which have come within its jurisdiction in consequence of the resumption of trade and financial relations subsequent to 2 September 1945, between the country concerned and Japan, except such as have resulted from transactions contrary to the laws of the Allied Power concerned; (v) obligations of Japan or Japanese nationals, any right, title or interest in tangible property located in Japan, interests in enterprises organized under the laws of Japan, or any paper evidence thereof; provided that this exception shall only apply to obligations of Japan and its nationals expressed in Japanese currency. (III) Property referred to in exceptions (i) through (v) above shall be returned subject to reasonable expenses for its preservation and administration. If any such property has been liquidated the proceeds shall be returned instead. (IV) The right to seize, retain, liquidate or otherwise dispose of property as provided in subparagraph (I) above shall be exercised in accordance with the laws of the Allied Power concerned, and the owner shall have only such rights as may be given him by those laws. (V) The Allied Powers agree to deal with Japanese trademarks and literary and artistic property rights on a basis as favorable to Japan as circumstances ruling in each country will permit. (b) Except as otherwise provided in the present Treaty, the Allied Powers waive all reparations claims of the Allied Powers, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of any actions taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the war, and claims of the Allied Powers for direct military costs of occupation. Article 15 (a) Upon application made within nine months of the coming into force of the present Treaty between Japan and the Allied Power concerned, Japan will, within six months of the date of such application, return the property, tangible and intangible, and all rights or interests of any kind in Japan of each Allied Power and its nationals which was within Japan at any time between 7 December 1941 and 2 September 1945, unless the owner has freely disposed thereof without duress or fraud. Such property shall be returned free of all encumbrances and charges to which it may have become subject because of the war, and without any charges for its return. Property whose return is not applied for by or on behalf of the owner or by his Government within the prescribed period may be disposed of by the Japanese Government as it may determine. In cases where such property was within Japan on 7 December 1941, and cannot be returned or has suffered injury or damage as a result of the war, compensation will be made on terms not less favorable than the terms provided in the draft Allied Powers Property Compensation Law approved by the Japanese Cabinet on 13 July 1951. (b) With respect to industrial property rights impaired during the war, Japan will continue to accord to the Allied Powers and their nationals benefits no less than those heretofore accorded by Cabinet Orders No. 309 effective 1 September 1949, No. 12 effective 28 January 1950, and No. 9 effective 1 February 1950, all as now amended, provided such nationals have applied for such benefits within the time limits prescribed therein. (c) (i) Japan acknowledges that the literary and artistic property rights which existed in Japan on 6 December 1941, in respect to the published and unpublished works of the Allied Powers and their nationals have continued in force since that date, and recognizes those rights which have arisen, or but for the war would have arisen, in Japan since that date, by the operation of any conventions and agreements to which Japan was a party on that date, irrespective of whether or not such conventions or agreements were abrogated or suspended upon or since the outbreak of war by the domestic law of Japan or of the Allied Power concerned. (ii) Without the need for application by the proprietor of the right and without the payment of any fee or compliance with any other formality, the period from 7 December 1941 until the coming into force of the present Treaty between Japan and the Allied Power concerned shall be excluded from the running of the normal term of such rights; and such period, with an additional period of six months, shall be excluded from the time within which a literary work must be translated into Japanese in order to obtain translating rights in Japan. Article 16 As an expression of its desire to indemnify those members of the armed forces of the Allied Powers who suffered undue hardships while prisoners of war of Japan, Japan will transfer its assets and those of its nationals in countries which were neutral during the war, or which were at war with any of the Allied Powers, or, at its option, the equivalent of such assets, to the International Committee of the Red Cross which shall liquidate such assets and distribute the resultant fund to appropriate national agencies, for the benefit of former prisoners of war and their families on such basis as it may determine to be equitable. The categories of assets described in Article 14(a)2(II)(ii) through (v) of the present Treaty shall be excepted from transfer, as well as assets of Japanese natural persons not residents of Japan on the first coming into force of the Treaty. It is equally understood that the transfer provision of this Article has no application to the 19,770 shares in the Bank for International Settlements presently owned by Japanese financial institutions. Article 17 (a) Upon the request of any of the Allied Powers, the Japanese Government shall review and revise in conformity with international law any decision or order of the Japanese Prize Courts in cases involving ownership rights of nationals of that Allied Power and shall supply copies of all documents comprising the records of these cases, including the decisions taken and orders issued. In any case in which such review or revision shows that restoration is due, the provisions of Article 15 shall apply to the property concerned. (b) The Japanese Government shall take the necessary measures to enable nationals of any of the Allied Powers at any time within one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty between Japan and the Allied Power concerned to submit to the appropriate Japanese authorities for review any judgment given by a Japanese court between 7 December 1941 and such coming into force, in any proceedings in which any such national was unable to make adequate presentation of his case either as plaintiff or defendant. The Japanese Government shall provide that, where the national has suffered injury by reason of any such judgment, he shall be restored in the position in which he was before the judgment was given or shall be afforded such relief as may be just and equitable in the circumstances. Article 18 (a) It is recognized that the intervention of the state of war has not affected the obligation to pay pecuniary debts arising out of obligations and contracts (including those in respect of bonds) which existed and rights which were acquired before the existence of a state of war, and which are due by the Government or nationals of Japan to the Government or nationals of one of the Allied Powers, or are due by the Government or nationals of one of the Allied Powers to the Government or nationals of Japan. The intervention of a state of war shall equally not be regarded as affecting the obligation to consider on their merits claims for loss or damage to property or for personal injury or death which arose before the existence of a state of war, and which may be presented or re-presented by the Government of one of the Allied Powers to the Government of Japan, or by the Government of Japan to any of the Governments of the Allied Powers. The provisions of this paragraph are without prejudice to the rights conferred by Article 14. (b) Japan affirms its liability for the prewar external debt of the Japanese State and for debts of corporate bodies subsequently declared to be liabilities of the Japanese State, and expresses its intention to enter into negotiations at an early date with its creditors with respect to the resumption of payments on those debts; to encourage negotiations in respect to other prewar claims and obligations; and to facilitate the transfer of sums accordingly. Article 19 (a) Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nationals against the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of the war or out of actions taken because of the existence of a state of war, and waives all claims arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of any of the Allied Powers in Japanese territory prior to the coming into force of the present Treaty. (b) The foregoing waiver includes any claims arising out of actions taken by any of the Allied Powers with respect to Japanese ships between 1 September 1939 and the coming into force of the present Treaty, as well as any claims and debts arising in respect to Japanese prisoners of war and civilian internees in the hands of the Allied Powers, but does not include Japanese claims specifically recognized in the laws of any Allied Power enacted since 2 September 1945. (c) Subject to reciprocal renunciation, the Japanese Government also renounces all claims (including debts) against Germany and German nationals on behalf of the Japanese Government and Japanese nationals, including intergovernmental claims and claims for loss or damage sustained during the war, but excepting (a) claims in respect of contracts entered into and rights acquired before 1 September 1939, and (b) claims arising out of trade and financial relations between Japan and Germany after 2 September 1945. Such renunciation shall not prejudice actions taken in accordance with Articles 16 and 20 of the present Treaty. (d) Japan recognizes the validity of all acts and omissions done during the period of occupation under or in consequence of directives of the occupation authorities or authorized by Japanese law at that time, and will take no action subjecting Allied nationals to civil or criminal liability arising out of such acts or omissions. Article 20 Japan will take all necessary measures to ensure such disposition of German assets in Japan as has been or may be determined by those powers entitled under the Protocol of the proceedings of the Berlin Conference of 1945 to dispose of those assets, and pending the final disposition of such assets will be responsible for the conservation and administration thereof. Article 21 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 25 of the present Treaty, China shall be entitled to the benefits of Articles 10 and 14(a)2; and Korea to the benefits of Articles 2, 4, 9 and 12 of the present Treaty. CHAPTER VI SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES Article 22 If in the opinion of any Party to the present Treaty there has arisen a dispute concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaty, which is not settled by reference to a special claims tribunal or by other agreed means, the dispute shall, at the request of any party thereto, be referred for decision to the International Court of Justice. Japan and those Allied Powers which are not already parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice will deposit with the Registrar of the Court, at the time of their respective ratifications of the present Treaty, and in conformity with the resolution of the United Nations Security Council, dated 15 October 1946, a general declaration accepting the jurisdiction, without special agreement, of the Court generally in respect to all disputes of the character referred to in this Article. CHAPTER VII FINAL CLAUSES Article 23 (a) The present Treaty shall be ratified by the States which sign it, including Japan, and will come into force for all the States which have then ratified it, when instruments of ratification have been deposited by Japan and by a majority, including the United States of America as the principal occupying Power, of the following States, namely Australia, Canada, Ceylon, France, Indonesia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Republic of the Philippines, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. The present Treaty shall come into force of each State which subsequently ratifies it, on the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification. (b) If the Treaty has not come into force within nine months after the date of the deposit of Japan's ratification, any State which has ratified it may bring the Treaty into force between itself and Japan by a notification to that effect given to the Governments of Japan and the United States of America not later than three years after the date of deposit of Japan's ratification. Article 24 All instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Government of the United States of America which will notify all the signatory States of each such deposit, of the date of the coming into force of the Treaty under paragraph (a) of Article 23, and of any notifications made under paragraph (b) of Article 23. Article 25 For the purposes of the present Treaty the Allied Powers shall be the States at war with Japan, or any State which previously formed a part of the territory of a State named in Article 23, provided that in each case the State concerned has signed and ratified the Treaty. Subject to the provisions of Article 21, the present Treaty shall not confer any rights, titles or benefits on any State which is not an Allied Power as herein defined; nor shall any right, title or interest of Japan be deemed to be diminished or prejudiced by any provision of the Treaty in favor of a State which is not an Allied Power as so defined. Article 26 Japan will be prepared to conclude with any State which signed or adhered to the United Nations Declaration of 1 January 1942, and which is at war with Japan, or with any State which previously formed a part of the territory of a State named in Article 23, which is not a signatory of the present Treaty, a bilateral Treaty of Peace on the same or substantially the same terms as are provided for in the present Treaty, but this obligation on the part of Japan will expire three years after the first coming into force of the present Treaty. Should Japan make a peace settlement or war claims settlement with any State granting that State greater advantages than those provided by the present Treaty, those same advantages shall be extended to the parties to the present Treaty. Article 27 The present Treaty shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America which shall furnish each signatory State with a certified copy thereof. IN FAITH WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty. DONE at the city of San Francisco this eighth day of September 1951, in the English, French, and Spanish languages, all being equally authentic, and in the Japanese language. http://newtaiwan.virtualave.net/sanfrancisco01.htm
SCAPIN NO. 677
GENERAL HEADQUARTERS SUPREME COMMANDER FOR THE ALLIED POWERS (29 January 1946)
AG 091(29 Jan. 46) GS
(SCAPIN - 677)
MEMORANDUM FOR: IMPERIAL JAPANESE GOVERNMENT THROUGH : Central Liaison office, Tokyo
SUBJECT : Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan.
1. The Imperial Japanese Government is directed to cease exercising or attempting to exercise, governmental or administrative authority over any area outside of Japan, or over any government officials and employees or any other persons within such areas.
2. Except as authorized by this Headquarters, the Imperial Japanese Government will not communicate with government officials and employees or with any other persons outside of Japan for any purposes other than the routine operation of authorized shipping, communications and weather services.
3. For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu(Nansei) Islands north of 30°North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island), and excluding (a) Utsryo(Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks( Take Island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju Island), (b) the Ryukyu(Nansei) Islands south of 30°North Latitude( including Kuchinoshima Island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin(Ogasawara) and Volcano(Kazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all the outlying Pacific Islands (including the Daito(Ohigashi or Oagari) Island Group, and Parece Vela ( Okinotori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Ganges (Nakno-tori) Islands, and (c) the Kurile (Chishima) Islands, the Habomai (Hapomaze Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Akiyuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan Island.
4. Further areas specifically excluded from the governmental and administrative jurisdiction of the Imperial Japanese Government are mandate or otherwise by Japan since the beginning of the World War in 1914, (b) Manchura, Formosa and the Pescadores, (c) Korea, and (d) Karafuto.
5. The definition of Japan contained in this directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from this Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein.
6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Postdam Declaration.
7. The Imperial Japanese Government will prepare and submit to this Headquarters a report of all governmental agencies in Japan the functions of which pertain to areas outside a statement as defined in this directive. Such report will include a statement of the functions, organization and personnel of each of the agencies concerned.
8. All records of the agencies referred to in paragraph 7 above will be preserved and kept available for inspection by this Headquarters.
FOR THE SUPREME COMMANDER :
(sgd.) H.W. ALLEN
Colonel, AGD
Asst. Adjutant General http://www.tokdo.com/english/tokdo_30.htm
ARTICLE I The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. The Parties will endeavor in concert with other peace-loving countries to strengthen the United Nations so that its mission of maintaining international peace and security may be discharged more effectively. ARTICLE II The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between them. ARTICLE III The Parties, individually and in cooperation with each other, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop, subject to their constitutional provisions, their capacities to resist armed attack. ARTICLE IV The Parties will consult together from time to time regarding the implementation of this Treaty, and, at the request of either Party, whenever the security of Japan or international peace and security in the Far East is threatened. ARTICLE V Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security. ARTICLE VI For the purpose of contributing to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East, the United States of America is granted the use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan. The use of these facilities and areas as well as the status of United States armed forces in Japan shall be governed by a separate agreement, replacing the Administrative Agreement under Article III of the Security Treaty between Japan and the United States of America, signed at Tokyo on February 28, 1952, as amended, and by such other arrangements as may be agreed upon. ARTICLE VII This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations or the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security. ARTICLE VIII This Treaty shall be ratified by Japan and the United States of America in accordance with their respective constitutional processes and will enter into force on the date on which the instruments of ratification thereof have been exchanged by them in Tokyo. ARTICLE IX The Security Treaty between Japan and the United States of America signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951 shall expire upon the entering into force of this Treaty. ARTICLE X This Treaty shall remain in force until in the opinion of the Governments of Japan and the United States of America there shall have come into force such United Nations arrangements as will satisfactorily provide for the maintenance of international peace and security in the Japan area. However, after the Treaty has been in force for ten years, either Party may give notice to the other Party of its intention to terminate the Treaty, in which case the Treaty shall terminate one year after such notice has been given.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.
DONE in duplicate at Washington in the Japanese and English languages, both equally authentic, this 19th day of January, 1960. FOR JAPAN: Nobusuke Kishi Aiichiro Fujiyama Mitsujiro Ishii Tadashi Adachi Koichiro Asakai http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/1.html
Signed at Washington: October 1, 1953
Entered into Force: November 17, 1954 The Parties to this Treaty,
Reaffirming their desire to live in peace with all governments, and desiring to strengthen the fabric of peace in the Pacific area,
Desiring to declare publicly and formally their common determination to defend themselves against external armed attack so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone in the Pacific area,
Desiring further to strengthen their efforts for collective defense for the preservation of peace and security pending the development of a more comprehensive and effective system of regional security in the Pacific area,
Have agreed as follows:
Article 1The Parties undertake to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, or obligations assumed by any Party towards the United Nations. Article 2The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of either of them, the political independence or security of either of the Parties is threatened by external armed attack. Separately and jointly, by self-help and mutual aid, the Parties will maintain and develop appropriate means to deter armed attack and will take suitable measures in consultation and agreement to implement this Treat and to further its purposes. Article 3Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties in territories now under their respective administrative control, or hereafter recognized by one of the Parties as lawfully brought under the administrative control of the other, would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. Article 4The Republic of Korea grants, and the United States of America accepts, the right to dispose United States land, air and sea forces in and about the territory of the Republic of Korea as determined by mutual agreement. Article 5This Treaty shall be ratified by the United States of America and the Republic of Korea in accordance with their respective constitutional processes and will come into force when instruments of ratification thereof have been exchanged by them at Washington. Article 6This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. Either party may terminate it one year after notice has been given to the other Party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.
Done in duplicate at Washington, in the Korean and English languages, this first day of October, 1953.
For the Republic of Korea:
(signed) Y.T. Pyun | For the United States of America:
(signed) John Foster Dulles |
Understanding of the United States of America It is the understanding of the United States that neither party is obligated, under Article 3 of the above Treaty, to come to the aid of the other except in case of an external armed attack against such party; nor shall anything in the present Treaty be construed as requiring the United States to give assistance to Korea except in the event of an armed attack against territory which has been recognized by the United States or lawfully brought under the administrative control of the Republic of Korea. http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/1953/mutdef.htm
| 
