Award Winning Works of 4th Int’l Essay Contest on Dokdo Bronze Prize

Information is knowledge

Bronze Prize Murray Barnett The writer is an Australian living in Seoul.

In February 2008, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs publisheda pamphlet entitled "10 Issues of Takeshima." The contents page states that Dokdo is "...clearly an inherent territory of Japan, in the light of historical facts...." The publication, through a series of 10 points, then attempts to argue why this assertion should be taken as fact. Yet, the vast array of irrefutable evidence showing that Dokdo is an infrangiblepart of Korean territory was virtually ignored. This bias demonstrates that the writers of the pamphlet ignored Einstein's maxim about knowledge. True knowledge is not merely information; it is the result of a balanced, objective review of all available evidence. Such a review is detailed below; and if the pamphlet were rewritten, incorporating theknowledge presented, it could be called "Ten truths about Dokdo - Not known in Japan."

Points one and two in the pamphlet state that Japan has long recognized Dokdo, whereas Korea hasn't - the argument being that as Japan recognized Dokdo first, they have the right to claim sovereignty. The argument is disingenuous for two reasons.

Firstly, entries in Samguk Sagi (History of the Three Kingdoms) showthat Dokdo became part of Korea in 512, 1,155 years before the Japanese first officially mentioned the islets. Secondly, when the Japanese did first record the existence of Dokdo, it actually attributed it to Korea. Onshushicho goki (Records on Observations in Oki Province), written in 1667, stated that the Oki Island was Japan's westernmost territory and Dokdo was part of Goryeo (Korea).

The mendacious nature of the pamphlet is further amplified by pointsthree, four and five, which refer to fishing rights on Dokdo and the neighbouring larger island, Ullungdo in the 17th century. The pamphlet states that in 1618, Japanese merchants were given permission by the Japanese government to travel to Dokdo, with implied rights to fish there, thus supposedly establishing Japanese sovereignty. The information provided lacks credibility because an important fact is omitted - permission was unilaterally given by the Japanese authorities, without the knowledge of the Korean government.

The pamphlet goes on to give an account of An Yong-bok. An was a Korean patriot who, from 1693 to 1696, was a major influence in having the Japanese officially recognize Korean sovereignty over Dokdo in 1697 - another fact that was omitted. According to the pamphlet's inaccurate account,An was "repatriated" to Korea where he was "interrogated" by Korean authorities. In fact, An was working as a delegate on behalf of the Korean government, was wrongly arrested and jailed by the Japanese, and when he returned to Korea, gave the authorities updates on illegal Japanese activities.

Point six describes a unilateral decision by the Japanese government in1905 to officially announce for the first time that the island’s name was Takeshima and that it fell under Japanese jurisdiction. It is important to note that the Japanese waited until a time when they had gained some confidencein the international arena to make such an announcement. They were winning the Russo - Japanese War and had recently established economic and military dominance over Korea. The only logical conclusion that can be reached is that the Japanese actions were motivated by imperial ambition rather than historical accuracy.

Japanese claims of American support regarding Dokdo between the years 1951 and 1952 are included as points seven and eight. Point seven refers to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which was signed by 48 nations in September 1951, and served to officially end World War II. The pamphlet correctlystates that in the drafting process of the treaty, the Americans argued that Dokdo was a territory of Japan. However, the pamphlet fails to mention that, due to other Allied Nations disagreeing with the Americans, the final draft deleted any reference to Dokdo. Point eight mentions that Dokdo was designated as a bombing range for American forces in Japan in 1952, without mentioning that U.S. military maps at the time clearly show Dokdo as Korean territory.

Points nine and ten refer to the "illegal" occupation of Dokdo by a battalion of the ROK coast guard as a result of the Syngman Rhee Line being brought into effect in January 1952, and Korea's unwillingness to have the "occupation issue" decided by the International Court of Justice. PresidentRhee was simply reasserting Korean sovereignty over Dokdo - something that Japan unilaterally and illegally claimed in 1905. There was and is no need to have the matter referred to the International Court of Justice, as historical records unambiguously support the veracity of Korea's claim to Dokdo.

For truth to prevail, analysis of any issue needs to be objective. Yet thisbiased pamphlet lacks probity - it dissimulates and prevaricates, disseminating incorrect and misleading information, trying to influence the reader to reach a conclusion that is not supported by the facts. The concern is that if a reader only reads this pamphlet and does no further research, they will have information - but not knowledge.