July 16th, 2008Is It Takeshima or Dokdo?
武島 (Takeshima) is a group of disputed islets situated between Japan and South Korea. The South Korean government claims this patch of land is sovereign territory and refers to it as Dokdo. Japan, on the other hand, steadfastly sticks to the position that the island group is an integral part of the country’s territory historically as well as according to international law. This has been the case for over half a century, and will likely continue to be the story for the same length of time.
We can see the same kind of story between Japan and Russia concerning the sovereignty of 色丹 (Shikotan), 国後 (Kunashiri), 択捉 (Etorofu), and the はぼまい (Habomai) group of islets just off the northern coast of 北海道 (Hokkaido). Unlike the situation with Russia, though, the South Koreans are much more ambitious with their dramatic territorial claims.
But who is the rightful nation to this semi-appealing group of rocks sitting exposed in the middle of the Sea of Japan?
Historical Perspective
Japan first took control of Takeshima in the early part of the Edo period (1603-1867). Before this time, there were no inhabitants on the islands, and the only significance this small region had was the fishing. The islets were put under the jurisdiction of Shimane Prefecture in 1905, and all was well and good with the situation.
This changed in the 1950’s, though, when South Korean President Syngman Rhee declared Takeshima as sovereign Korean territory and gave them the name of Dokdo (meaning “Independent”). This transpired shortly before the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect in 1952, where Japan’s internationally recognized sovereign territory was mapped out. Since this time, South Korean military personnel have illegally occupied the islets.
The Current Situation
South Korea and Japan are neighbours, both politically and geographically. The nations have worked together well in the past, and they’ll need to continue working together if they hope to create any lasting relations with North Korea and secure their position as an economic power-house on the Pacific coast. While there has been quite a lot of huffing and puffing on various subjects, the nations of South Korea and Japan are not all that different. Why the mention of a group of islets in a teachers’ manual warrants the recall of ambassadors and prompts official protests is beyond me.
The teacher’s book explicitly avoided talking about the Takeshima islets as though they were an integral part of Japan’s territory, and asked that lessons on this disputed collection of rocks be handled in the same fashion as how teachers currently discuss the disputed regions in the northern territories. This includes discussing the dispute between the nations, as well as the history behind the political impasses.
Looking at this from a third perspective, it’s clear that Japan’s Education, Science and Technology Ministry has clearly given a good amount of consideration towards South Korea and how they would view the instruction booklet. Despite this, the South Korean government is opposed to the move, and proved it by temporarily recalling their Ambassador to Japan, Kwon Chul Hyun.
That said, what Japanese school children are taught in school regarding these disputed lands could affect their sovereignty at some point in the future. If the residents of this nation are completely unaware of the history regarding Takeshima, they may let the region go at some point in the future to the Koreans, which could then affect Japan’s commercial concerns in the region.
Or so I’m told.
Diplomatic consideration belongs in government buildings and should have little to do with how Japan decides to discuss a portion of their history with the coming generations. Unlike the curriculum guidelines that are laid out by the ministry every ten years, the instruction manual is not legally binding. That said, it’s significance cannot go unnoticed as it often serves as a guideline when editing school textbooks and during classroom exercises. For this reason, publishers will have to commit themselves to providing incredibly clear explanations of the situation in their textbooks, while teachers must properly educate their students. This will be some slippery ground as nations tend to be quite sensitive about topics such as sovereign soil.
Finding a solution to the Takeshima islets issue will be incredibly difficult. Hopefully the governments of these two nations can sit down and rationally discuss the topic without upsetting too many of the ultra-nationalistic individuals on both sides of the sea. It’s incredibly important that Japanese people understand the issue and can state their case to the international community, but it’s also important to keep an open dialogue with their passionate neighbours.
It’s Takedokdo.
It should be shared.
Good introduction to the issue. Short, but very informative. It’s good that people like yourself take the time to make relatively unknown, controversial topics like this available and easy to digest.
Nice piece!
Jason, you have some serious problems with this article.
First the Japanese did not “take control” of Takeshima (then Matsushima) in the early 17th Century. That is a myth perpetrated by Japan’s MOFA and pro-Takeshima lobbyists,
In 1618 one Japanese man was caught in a storm and happened upon the Ulleungdo and Dokdo region. From there he requested permission to voyage there from the Shogunate and was granted the right. (foreign travel was banned then) The Oya and Murakawa families of Yonago voyaged to Korea’s Ulleungdo (illegally) to harvest trees and fish in exchange for paying annual tributes. The Japanese never once voyaged to Dokdo Takeshima as a sole destination. They went there en route to steal from Korea’s rich Ulleungdo Island. Takeshima is a small, barrren rock with no shelter and little or no fresh water.
In 1696, the Koreans confronted the Japanese about the illegal voyages and the Japanese agreed to stay out of Ulleungdo. It was also recorded when the Shogunate inquire, that neither Ulleungdo nor Dokdo (Takeshima) were part of Japan.
From then on the Japanese did not consider Dokdo Takeshima as their territory. In facts almost all of Japanese national maps either excluded the islets or showed them as Korean territory.
Japan annexed the islands in 1905 during the Russ-Japanese War while Japan fought for the exclusive right to colonize the Korean peninsula. The Japanese Imperial Navy systematically surveyed and mapped Dokdo for military watchtowers about 1 month before they seized the islet. This was recorded by the Japanese Warship Tsushima’s November logbooks.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html
The San Francisco Peace Treaty makes no mention of Liancourt Rocks. There were confidential memorandums circulated between the U.S. and Japan that suggest that the American military supported Japan. This was because the Allies were concerned the Korean peninsula would fall into communist hands (Korean War era)
Also it was recorded the Americans wanted to locate military bases on former Japanese outlying islands after WWII. America was in the process of negotiating joint trusteeships of these islands so the U.S. military could established bases on them. Very early on the Americans wanted to put up weather and radar stations on Dokdo Takeshima. With security considerations with the Japanese the Americans could do this.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-sf-truth.html
Dokdo’s nearest proximal island is Korea’s Ulleungdo. Ancient Koreans have lived within visual proximity of Dokdo Takeshima since about the 6th Century called the Unified Shilla era. The Koreans were in this region a whole millenium before the Japanese arrived on the scene.
Korea currently maintains a 12 nautical mile limit around Dokdo Takeshima. When we measure the current distances from the nearest Korean and Japanese islands and landfalls we can see the current boundary is more than fair. Check yourself and see how unreasonable Japan’s MOFA is.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/index.html
You should check the facts, Jason.
일본인들은 말합니다. 세계의 97%의 지도가 ‘일본해’라고 표기하니 포기하라고. 그러나 한국인들은 말합니다. 세계의 3% 지도가 ‘동해’라고 표기하니까 이제 시작이라고. 이런 거 돌리는 거 20초도 안 걸립니다. 아주 잠깐만 시간을 투자하세요. 일본에게 한국 네티즌의 힘을 보여 줍시다
The Japanese people say, 97% of the world map marks’ Sea of Japan ‘ so give up. But Korean people say, 3% of the world map marks ‘ East Sea’so we will start fighting. It doesn’t take even 20 seconds to turn this. Just sacrifice a little time. Let’s show the power of the Korean netizen to Japan.
日本の人々は話す。世界の97% の地図はそれに印を付けて断念すると同時に’ 日本海’ 。しかし韓国の人々は話す。示す世界の開始’ 東海’ の3% の地図はこれをよく好むこと! それは回り、湧き出る! 20 初めてそれはつかまえられない。時ただ時間は日本にショーを韓国のnetizen の力かなり投資する
While I can appreciate your patriotism, I vote that we abolish all names and refer to everything by their geographical coordinates and make the entire Earth a “World Heritage Site” … this way, all land is legally owned by the useless UN, and everything is reduced to a set of numbers rather than names, which come with ill-recorded histories.
There are bigger problems in the world to solve. Fighting over a group of unpopulated rocks is just … time consuming.
Fine.
Leave it as Sea Of Japan.
But it will never be Takeshima
Support Dokdo.
Toadface has a pont.
And you know even some Japanes think that Japan should stop claiming false info.
I thank those people for their honesty and bravery.
Jason, I’m not trying to be rude.
If you think that’s time consuming? Just give it up.
Koreans will fight till victory.
I understand that Koreans will fight until victory, as it’s in the blood of every Korean to do so. I respect that aspect of Korean culture more than any written words can convey. However, given the number of problems that South Korea is facing right now, is it not a little foolish to fight over an unpopulated rock in the middle of a shared sea? Shouldn’t the South Korean government be a little more concerned with the threats issued by their incredibly isolated and erratic neighbour to the north? Would it not be better to focus on the economy and strengthening trade relations with other nations?
Why isn’t the South Korean government taking this issue up with the Americans? They’re the ones who “stole it” with the San Francisco Peace Treaty in the early 50s? Sure, Japan could hand over control to South Korea as a sign of good will and re-draw a bunch of maps if that would resolve some other disputes with the nation but, as it stands now, if Japan were to do that it would only make the other long-standing issues between these two proud nations more difficult.
Since writing this post I have heard quite a number of arguments on three sides of the story and, as usual, there is not one difinitive truth about the matter. Unfortunately, this is something that should be resolved with both the Korean and Japanese governments agreeing to leave the island uninhabited, and make it an isle without nationality.
Much like a parent must do when two children argue about the same toy, if nobody can reach an acceptable agreement, then it should be taken away from both until such an agreement can be made. Is this a feasible tactic? No. But it would certainly get the two countries talking about how to resolve this, and many other, long-standing issues that stand in the way of mutual economic growth and unity.