Professor Han Sung-Joo is a professor emeritus at Korea University and former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea.


It was reported that Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda lodged a complaint via a letter addressed to President Lee Myung-bak over the visit to Dokdo on August 10, by using the expression “President Lee Myung-bak’s landing on Takeshima.”

One cannot help but view it as an obvious intention to provoke and insult the head of the state of the Republic of Korea. In light of the hidden meaning of the expression that the Korean president illegally “landed” on a foreign territory, such an expression suggests a defiant undertone that goes beyond unfriendly language.

Are there any grounds for Japan to claim a territorial right over Dokdo at all? Back in 1954, when Japan proposed for the first time to refer the claim to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), then Foreign Minister Byun Young-tae refuted eloquently that Dokdo was the land victimized first in the process of Japan’s invasion of Korea.

It is a well-known historical fact that Japan in 1904 forced Korea to sign agreements which effectively deprived it of diplomatic rights and in February 1905 illegally incorporated Dokdo into Japan’s territory. As such, the Dokdo issue is not so much a matter of territorial rights as it is a matter of history.

Today, when Korea reviews the significance of its independence commemorating the 67th anniversary of independence from the Japanese colonial rule, Japan’s negation of Korean territorial rights to Dokdo amounts to justifying Japan’s invasion of the Korean Peninsula and denying Korea’s independence and sovereignty.

Fifty years ago, in the course of negotiations for the normalization of diplomatic relations between the two countries, Japan made persistent attempts to bring up the issue of territorial rights over Dokdo, which the Korean government immediately and resolutely rejected.

Although Japan made subsequent attempts to raise the question through various channels since then, this might be the first time for Japan to claim territorial rights through a document addressed to the head of state using such a provocative language.

Prime Minister Noda probably had several aims with the letter. He may have intended to elevate the level of discussion from the working level to the head of government level. If our government officially receives the letter and makes a reply signed by the president, including any substantial comment on Dokdo, Tokyo may use it as the main ground for Korea’s acknowledgement of the existence of disputes over Dokdo. Prime Minister Noda’s letter is not only impolite, but seems to contain a hidden trap to lure President Lee into a trap of dispute.

It seems the Korean government is making the right decision not to deliver Noda’s letter to the president but to return it. There is no reason to be bound by normal diplomatic practices in dealing with a letter written with no consideration of international norms and decency. Our government has long been resolutely rejecting Japan’s attempts to render the Dokdo issue an official matter between the two governments.

Since a letter reply signed by the president can be the highest level of diplomatic documents, the presidential reply can have much more repercussions beyond just making it an official matter. It can also be utilized for Japan’s propaganda in promoting the territorial disputes over Dokdo. It can constitute a precedent for the subsequent Japanese prime ministers to send similar letters.

Careful considerations are needed, keeping in mind the hidden intention of Japan. Now is a time that calls for thoughtful and deliberate efforts to convince the international community that Dokdo is an integral and irrefutable part of Korean territory and thus it cannot be an object of dispute.

Korea and Japan share many common values and should make cooperative relationships in various areas. For this to happen, the two nations should have an accurate perception of history and learn from it. A history that is distorted or obliterated by territorial ambition would not only hinder the bilateral cooperation but cause the consequence of deterioration of the relationship. Only when Korea-Japan relations are built on the foundation of accurate historical perception, could the genuine future-oriented relationship be possible. 

Source: Korean Joongang Daily, Viewpoint, 25 Aug 2012