독도 에세이 콘테스트 수상

Simplification of peace treaty at cost of neglecting history

Felix Filnkoessl              Felix.Filnkoessl@gmx.at Felix Filnkoessl is an Austrian who has a great interest in East Asia and political analysis. He will start studying Political Science and Japanese Studies at the University of Tuebingen, Germany, in October this year. He also plans to learn Korean and Mandarin.

The ongoing territorial dispute between the two countries over Dokdo, which comprises two main islets and numerous smaller rocks and is located about 90 kilometers east of South Korea’s Ulleungdo, has frequently strained South Korean-Japanese relations in the post World War II era. In order to understand the territorial dispute between South Korea and Japan, it is necessary to review briefly the origins of the dispute.

Korea’s claim to Dokdo goes back many centuries and is based on numerous maps and other documents. Japan claims, on the other hand, that Dokdo was terra nullius in 1905 and that Japan acted in accordance with international law in incorporating the islets into Japanese territory at that time.

But in fact, Tokyo secretly annexed the islets, as part of its move to install military observation facilities on it in the middle of the Russo-Japanese War.

The recent dispute comes primarily from conflicting views of whether Japan’s renunciation of sovereignty over its occupied territories after World War II included Dokdo.

The Japanese claim to Dokdo is based in large part on the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, which fails to mention particularly that Dokdo belongs to Korea.

Because the treaty remains a major element of Japan’s claim to Dokdo, it’s important to analyze the historical records in the context of this treaty.

Tokyo formally surrendered to the Allied Powers unconditionally on Sept. 2, 1945, following its defeat in World War II and the U.S. military took control of Japan.

The San Francisco Peace Treaty between the Allied Powers and Japan, which was to end the U.S. occupation of Japan and serve as a peace treaty between the former enemies, was officially signed by 49 nations on Sept. 8, 1951 and went into force on April 28, 1952.

Early drafts of the San Francisco Treaty proposed the return of Dokdo to Korea. These early drafts were very detailed and explicit, designed for a firm boundary of Japan’s territory.

From 1949, with growing tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, however, following drafts described Dokdo as Japanese territory, thus completely changing its previous proposition.

The outbreak of the Korean War on June 25, was one of the most important events in 1950, which influenced the strategy taken by the U.S. regarding Dokdo once again.

Subsequent treaty drafts were significantly shorter and more ambiguous than previous versions: The territorial clause in the new draft made no mention whatsoever of Dokdo and many of the specifics on some islands, the borders, and coordinates disappeared.

This approach of avoiding some the problems continued through most of the following drafts and also the final draft did not mention Dokdo.

As a result, both South Korea and Japan interpreted the omission of Dokdo in the peace treaty differently and neither was willing to accept the other’s position.

But why did Dokdo disappear from the treaty text?

The available evidence suggests that many of the key decisions related to Dokdo were made by the United States, and not Korea or Japan and had more to do with geopolitical considerations, rather than with a thorough examination of the history and an evaluation of historical claims.

One reason why Dokdo was left unmentioned might have been that, the U.S. and its Allies, facing lack of time with the Korean War underway, chose to complete the treaty quickly, by not addressing every detail and leaving certain problems unresolved. The ability of the United States to maintain its presence in South Korea was far from certain.

Therefore, rather than return Dokdo to South Korea and risk losing it in the event of a North Korean victory, thus opening the possibility of attacks on Tsushima and Japan, the drafters left the issue unresolved.

It was also related to the U.S. involvement in the Korean War, defending South Korea from the North’s invasion.

Under these circumstances, it would not have been smart for the U.S. to side either with South Korea or Japan on the dispute, as both countries were essential to the U.S. in suppressing communism in East Asia.

So they might have intentionally left Dokdo’s territorial status ambiguous, hoping that the Koreans and Japanese could later settle the issue on bilateral terms, thereby leaving the U.S. out of any potential dispute.

However, by not making clear definitions and boundaries the U.S. helped create further disharmony in the relations between Korea and Japan up to the present day. Japan has claimed that its sovereignty still extends over Dokdo, while the Koreans have rejected this assumption.

The Japanese Government says that the treaty does not specify that Dokdo is part of the Korean territory like Jejudo (Quelpart), Geomundo (Port Hamilton) and Ulleungdo (Dagelet).

Japan interpreted this omission as recognition to Japan’s claim, because it did not mention a return of Dokdo to Korea.

South Korea, on the other hand, pointed out that although the treaty did not list Dokdo with the other three large islands to be returned to Korea, it did not explicitly exclude Dokdo from Korea’s minor offshore islands.

Over one thousand such islands were returned to Korea together with the three major islands. If Japan’s interpretation on this matter were followed, these small islets besides the three islands would also be excluded from Korea’s possession.

In 1954 South Korea built a lighthouse on Dokdo, and since then has maintained control of the islets to the present, which has been unchallenged except through verbal protests.

This long period of effective occupation, especially when coupled with Korea’s strong historical claim to Dokdo, provides more than sufficient support for Korea’s claim of sovereignty over these islets.

The ongoing Dokdo dispute is the greatest barrier to deeper co-operation between South Korea and Japan and it continues to cause some cases of aggressive rhetoric on both sides.

Nonetheless, the two countries have tried to search for compromises at times of verbal hostilities, and neither country seems willing to seriously interrupt relations over this dispute.

When disaster hit Japan on March 11, 2011, South Koreans, like most of its Asian neighbors felt empathy toward their former colonial ruler.

In the following weeks, relations between South Korea and Japan were closer than ever before.

However, the remnants of the past reappeared after only a short amount of time, by Japanese provocations and froze further bilateral improvements.

Beside unquestionable historical evidence to Korea’s claims, there are also economic and political reasons for the Japanese to abandon their claims over Dokdo.

With this, they could take a stand against their annexation of Korea and their brutal actions in World War II, and both countries could perhaps start a new and peaceful relationship.