*Professor Choe Suh Myun is a Dokdo Specialist and Director of the International Korea Research Center


To Prime Minister Noda Yoshihiko,

I saw the Prime Minister's press briefing on the 24th August, where he was arguing that Dokdo is Japanese territory. Paradoxically, I found new found hope in this press briefing to prove that Dokdo belongs to Korea. In addition to the academic evidence stated thus far, I felt there was further hope in bringing light on Dokdo's status.

The Prime Minister mentioned that Dokdo had been 'incorporated' as Japanese territory under international law. Why would there be a need to 'incorporate' something if it had originally been yours? Such acts themselves prove that Dokdo is not part of Japanese territory. Territory which originally belongs to Japan have never been incorporated as Japanese territory under international law, and have never received the justification of international law as well.

Didn't you argue that during the Edo period and "latest by the 17th century, Japan had established territorial rights over Dokdo." If so, let us examine once again what the situation was like during the 17th century.

As disputes between Japanese and Chosun fisherman, such as Ahn Yong-Bok, occurred repeatedly, the Tokugawa Shogunate questioned the Tottori(鳥取) prefecture, which was responsible for Japanese fishermen in that area, regarding Dokdo's territorial jurisdiction. Tottori(鳥取) prefecture replied "(We) do not own any island, including Dokdo." The Shogunate then instructed Japanese fishermen "not to venture at all near that island."

That is not all. Later, a Japanese from Hamada(濱田) was executed after having been found using Uleungdo as a smuggling base. His superiors were ordered to commit suicide by disembowelment, and the responsible officials were sentenced to life confinement.

If we were to return to the 17th century, as mentioned by Prime Minister Noda, we hope that he is able to reflect on the wisdom exercised by the then Japanese Shogunate, and their intelligent decision to ensure cordial relations with Korea. Looking back at such model examples of 'peace diplomacy,' can we not see the solution for resolving the Dokdo issue peacefully?

Furthermore, I cannot agree with the Prime Minister's remarks that 'documents supporting Dokdo as Korea's territory are vague and that there is insufficient clear evidence.' There is not a single country in this world which has as much supporting evidence for faraway island territories as they do for the mainland. Inevitably, Korea's supporting evidence for Dokdo and Uleungdo are not as clear as those for mainland Korea.

However and amazingly enough, the two islands have been documented in Korean history since the Shilla period. The Chosun Kingdom implemented a 'Gong-Do'(空島) policy to empty Dokdo and Uleungdo of inhabitants for fear of their misuse by pirates or Japanese invaders. Even then, Korean officials periodically monitored and managed the two islands.

The Prime Minister also mentioned the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951. The important thing is that not only was Dokdo not stipulated as Korean territory in the above treaty, but there is also no reference to the island as being Japanese territory. From that perspective, we can consider that the San Francisco Treaty aimed to find a balance in this particular issue.

Japan argues that it had incorporated Dokdo in 1905. In actual fact, Korea was under Japanese rule during this period, and the Russo-Japanese War was in full-swing. The Japanese forcefully incorporated Dokdo for use as a strategic naval point where they can easily anticipate the movements of Russia's naval forces. Such facts are stipulated in Japan's official documents as well. How can the Japanese now refute such historical evidence?

There are examples where several countries incorporated certain islands as their territory whilst expanding their boundaries. However, the basis of international law for territorial incorporation was that such acts were valid only when there were no other powers which claimed sovereignty over the said particular islands, and the territorial incorporation takes place in a peaceful manner. If the Japanese who incorporated Dokdo as Japanese territory were aware of Korea's territorial claims on Dokdo but did not request for Korea's permission, this would mean that their claims of incorporation were invalid from the beginning.

In this manner, Japan is aware that their territorial incorporation of Dokdo under international law is in actual fact contradictory under international law. Ironically however, they are still arguing that they will confirm Dokdo as Japanese territory by means of international law.

Prime Minister Noda. You mentioned that Japan is the 6th largest naval power in this world. It is a blessed country. At the same time, however, Japan is unfortunately harboring the burden of territorial issues with China, Korea and Russia. Considering that Japan's territorial issues with all three countries sparked after 1900, we cannot help but wonder if there are any similar aspects between the three issues. In that sense, the territorial issues appear to take on a distinctively historical character. If is really as the Prime Minister said, "not a historical issue but one that is under the jurisdiction of the international society's law and regulations," it is curious as to why Japan does not bring all three territorial issues to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

From Korea's point of view, it is completely unthinkable that we would go to the ICJ with our own territory. Our position is that we do not need to wait for another's verdict with regard to something that is ours. It is not in our interests to mention how the Kuril peninsula or Senkaku islands' disputes are different from Dokdo. However, since the Prime Minister keeps referring to international justice, I recommend that Japan takes the other two issues to the ICJ as well.

Korea and Japan are next door neighbors. If there is a fire, we need to put it out together, and if there is an epidemic, we need to prevent it together. It is extremely costly that the two sides should become so noisily embroiled over a small island.

I believe that the correct approach is a halt in Korea and Japan's emotional outbursts and the resolution of this issue through research by academics from both sides. It is my desire that the two countries reflect deeply on the mutual misfortunes brought about by this issue.

Source: DongA.com News (2012/08/27)

* The above viewpoint is that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.