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

There is no real dispute

Bronze Prize Hong Chang-ki The writer is an aspiring economist who is currently studying at the Mander Portman Woodward Cambridge.

In 2008, British journalist Michael Breen stirred strong animosityamong Koreans when he published “Poems for Dokdo,” ridiculing the affection that Koreans have towards the island that is “legally Japanese.” The intensity of the response can be attributed to the U.K.’s infamous reputation for pursuing territorial disputes against other nations, for instance the Minquiers and Ecrehos case and the Falkland Islands case. Breen’s actions were seen as a result of ignorance that seemed almost intentional.

Five years have passed, but not much has changed in the U.K. One of the most frustrating things for me while studying at Mander Portman Woodward Cambridge is the prevalent apathy regarding Dokdo. This kind of misconception is not exclusive to the U.K.; the Japanese government has been spreading it persistently in the global society.

Although Dokdo does admittedly evoke a strong sentiment in Koreans,the response is not entirely emotional. It is an affectionate claim based on valid facts. To clarify this, the Northeast Asian History Foundation has recently published a report rebutting Japan’s groundless territorial claims using 10 historical truths. The report tackles the Japanese government’s groundless claims quite effectively.

The most significant fact is that both Japan and Korea have long recognized Dokdo as Korean territory. Many Japanese maps and documents created before the Japanese annexation of Korea, namely “The Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads” and “The Map of Japanese Coastal Areas (Dai Nihon Enkai Yochi Zenzu),” do not mark Dokdo as part of Japanese territory. Most importantly, it is stated in an order issued by Japan’s state council dated 1877 that “Concerning the inquiry about Takeshima and the other island, it is to be understood that this country (Japan) has nothing to do with them.” In contrast to this, Korea has always expressed clear recognition of the island as its territory. In “The Newly Enlarged Geography of Korea (Shinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam),” dated 1530, Dokdo is clearly recorded on “The Map of the Eight Provinces of Korea (Paldo Chongdo).”

Compared to this concrete evidence, the trivial claims made by the Japanese government are petty at best. There are written artifacts to prove that Japan’s claims about the Edo Shogunate perceiving Dokdo as Japanese territory in the 17th century were groundless, thus excluding it from thefishing ban it enforced on its domestic fishermen. An Yong-bok’s activities to advocate Korea’s rights over Dokdo in the 17th century are also verified in the Japanese document “One-Volume Memorandum Concerning the Korean Boat that Came Alongside the Pier in the Ninth Year of Genroku.”

Apart from historical facts that prove Korea’s legitimacy, all evidencepoints against Japan when it comes to the issue of effective occupation. The report proves how Japan illegally occupied Dokdo during the Russo-Japanese war. Although Japan argues that it incorporated the island based on the rationale of “terra nullius,” meaning that Dokdo was unclaimed territory, Korea had already held claim over the island as historical records show. Furthermore, the Korean government reaffirmed its claim by issuing Korean Imperial Ordinance No. 41 in 1900 before the Japanese government did in 1905, clarifying Dokdo’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, Korea has clearly reinforced its legitimacy through actions such as protecting Dokdo from the U.S. bombing practices, giving the island an administrative address and stationing public officials to protect Korean residents.

Korea has full historical legitimacy and effective occupation over Dokdo.The island is also explicitly protected by the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations, and implicitly protected by the San Francisco Peace Treaty. So one cannot help but wonder why the Dokdo issue is even considered to be a territorial dispute. Why should the Republic of Korea be badgered into trying to prove its legitimacy, when the truth is already clear? Why is the Japanese government so eager to make this a judicial issue by taking the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)?

The reason is clear. The most disturbing “truth” about Dokdo is thatJapan’s proposal to take this issue to the ICJ is simply another falsification disguised as a judicial procedure. The Japanese government’s intention is to make the issue look like a legitimate dispute, when it is merely a groundless and disrespectful provocation. In addition to denying their ab-horrent actions during the annexation of Korea, the Japanese are once again attempting to threaten Korea’s territorial security.

In conclusion, there is no real “dispute” regarding Dokdo. The island isnot subject to diplomatic negotiation because it legitimately belongs to the ROK. The Japanese government’s claims over Dokdo represent a potential threat to the Republic of Korea’s sovereignty and security. Such imperialistic attempts should be met with firm and rational objection from the government and all Korean citizens.