imported>Chunbum Park |
|
| (31 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{subpages}} | | {{subpages}} |
| [[Image:Map of Dokdo.png|right|thumb|350px|{{#ifexist:Template:Map of Dokdo.png/credit|{{Map of Dokdo.png/credit}}<br/>|}}Coordinates: 37° 14´ N, 131° 52´ E<ref name="koreapdf">South Korea. Part I: Profile of Dokdo. ''Korea.net''. Web. <http://www.korea.net/news/issue/attach/45_9095_1_en.pdf>.</ref>]]
| | '''Dokdo''' is a group of volcanic islets in the Sea of Japan, occupied by South Korea and claimed by Japan. The ecology consists of a moderate maritime climate with a diverse marine life, a large presence of birds, and some vegetation. For more information, see [[Dokdo (Takeshima)/Debate Guide|the Debate Guide]] and [[Dokdo (Takeshima)/Gallery|the Gallery]]. |
| '''Dokdo''' is a small group of volcanic islands located in the [[East Sea]] (Sea of Japan). [[South Korea]] administers the islets as an area of the [[Ulleung|Ulleung County]], Northern [[Gyeongsang|Gyeongsang Province]]. The 46-acre formation consists of two main islands that house a lighthouse, a radar station, a helicopter pad, and a small police force. Because Dokdo shelters a rich but delicate ecosystem, the South Korean government has designated the islets as a nature reserve and has provided environmental guidelines for the visiting tourists. The sovereignty over Dokdo has been contested by [[Japan]] on historical and legal grounds and remains one of the more serious disputes between South Korea and its former colonial ruler. Since at least 1905, the islands were called, in Japanese, '''Takeshima''' (竹島), meaning the "bamboo island". The Korean name has many different transliterations in English, including "Tok-do", "Dok-to", and "Tok Islets" (<span style="font-family: Batang, Serif">독도</span>), all of which equate to "rocky island". The islets have two English titles: '''Liancourt Rocks''' and '''Hornet Rocks'''.<ref name="russian">'''Note''': In 1854, the Russian warship ''Palleda'' surveyed Dokdo and named it "Manala" and "Olivutsa" Rocks.</ref> "Liancourt" has its origin in the name of the French whaling ship that first encountered and charted the islets in 1849. | |
|
| |
|
| == Geography ==
| | [[Category:Suggestion Bot Tag]] |
| {{Image|Dokdo zoomin.png|left|300px|A detailed map of Dokdo.}}
| |
| | |
| {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="width: 22em; clear: left; float: left; margin: 0.5em 1em 0.8em 0px;"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! style="text-align: left;" | Geographical data on Dokdo
| |
| |-
| |
| |
| |
| {| class="wikitable" style="width: 100%; margin: 3px 0 0 0;"
| |
| ! colspan="2" |Individual coordinates
| |
| |-
| |
| | Dongdo
| |
| | <nowiki>37° 14' 26.8" N, 131° 52' 10.4'' E</nowiki>
| |
| |-
| |
| | Seodo
| |
| | <nowiki>37° 14' 30.6" N, 131° 51' 54.6'' E</nowiki>
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| {| class="wikitable" style="width: 100%; margin: 3px 0 0 0;"
| |
| ! colspan="2" |Closest distances to Japan & S. Korea
| |
| |-
| |
| | Oki Island (Japanese islet)
| |
| | 157.5 km
| |
| |-
| |
| | Ulleung-do (S. Korean islet)
| |
| | 87.4 km
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| {| class="wikitable" style="width: 100%; margin: 3px 0 0 0;"
| |
| ! colspan="2" |Summit heights
| |
| |-
| |
| | Dongdo
| |
| | 98.6 m
| |
| |-
| |
| | Seodo
| |
| | 168.5 m
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| {| class="wikitable" style="width: 100%; margin: 3px 0 0 0;"
| |
| ! colspan="2" |Land Area
| |
| |-
| |
| | Total
| |
| | 187,453 m<sup>2</sup>
| |
| |-
| |
| | Dongdo
| |
| | 73,297 m<sup>2</sup>
| |
| |-
| |
| | Seodo
| |
| | 88,639 m<sup>2</sup>
| |
| |-
| |
| | Affiliated islands
| |
| | 25,517 m<sup>2</sup>
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| {| class="wikitable" style="width: 100%; margin: 3px 0 0 0;"
| |
| ! colspan="2" |Individual circumferences
| |
| |-
| |
| | Dongdo
| |
| | 2.8 km
| |
| |-
| |
| | Seodo
| |
| | 2.6 km
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| {| class="wikitable" style="width: 100%; margin: 3px 0 0 0;"
| |
| ! colspan="2" |Miscellaneous
| |
| |-
| |
| | Average sea level height
| |
| | 16 cm
| |
| |-
| |
| | Distance b/w Dongdo & Seodo
| |
| | 151 m
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| |}
| |
| Dokdo lies in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) as a part of an underwater volcano that erupted repeatedly<ref name="cenozoic">"Geographical and Geological Features of Dokdo." ''Truth of Dokdo''. Web. 3 Sept. 2007. <http://www.truthofdokdo.or.kr/eng/html/story_geography1.html>.</ref> from 4.6 to 2.5 million years ago.<ref name="nat">"Volcanic Landforms." ''The National Atlas of Korea''. National Geographic Information Institute. Web. 10 May 2008. <http://atlas.ngii.go.kr/english/explanation/natural_1_7.jsp>.</ref> The underwater Dokdo volcano stands 2 km high from its base of 20 ~ 25 km diameter and rises to a guyot<ref name-"adsabs">Kim, C., et al, 2007.</ref> summit that is 10 km wide.<ref name="click">"Dokdo, the Easternmost Island Group of Korean Territory: Geographical Understanding." ''Click Korea: Access to Korean Arts & Culture''. Korea Foundation. Web. 11 Sept. 2010. <http://www.clickkorea.org/Dokdo/02.htm>.</ref> The islets on top of this summit consist mostly of [[trachyte]] and [[trachyandesite]] differentiated from the parental alkali basalt magma of the underwater volcano.<ref name="kang">Kang, Moo-hee, et al, 2006. pp. 61</ref> Samples of these rocks reveal that Dokdo is the oldest existing island in Korea ([[Awaji Island]] is the oldest in Japan)<ref name="oldestjapan">''2003 IEARN Conference''. Proc. of アイアーン国際会議開幕. JEARN, 21 July 2003. Web. 11 Sept. 2010. <http://www.jearn.jp/2003conference/news/0721.html>.</ref>; Korea's second oldest island is [[Ulleungdo]],<ref name="SNU">Nah.</ref> which formed 2 million years after Dokdo from the same hot spot, with similar igneous composition to Dokdo.<ref name="cenozoic"/> Due to sedimentation, the 2 islands (''Seo-do'' and ''Dong-do'' in Korean, ''Otoko-jima'' and ''Onna-jima'' in Japanese; both literally meaning ''western island'' and ''eastern island'', respectively)<ref name="EastWest">"Special Report: Tokdo-Takeshima Dispute." Dokdo, Korean Island: Proofs & Facts. 6 July 2001. Web. 11 Sept. 2010. <http://www.dokdocorea.com/report/dokdo.doc>.</ref><ref name="mofaname">Japan. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Northeast Asia Division, Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau. ''The Issue of Takeshima''. Feb. 2008. Web. 11 Sept. 2010. <http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/index.html>.</ref> that make up most of Dokdo separated 2 million years ago<ref name="cenozoic"/> and are now positioned 151 meters apart from each other.<ref name="net">"Dokdo: A Profile." ''Korea.net''. Web. 9 Jan. 2006. <http://www.korea.net/News/Issues/issueDetailView.asp?board_no=5727>.</ref> The western islet is steeper and larger than the eastern islet, and it is also the tallest body in the island cluster.<ref name="corea">Kim, Hoo-ran. "Dokdo Is a Korean Island." Dokdo, Korean Island: Proofs & Facts. Web. 11 Sept. 2010. <http://www.dokdocorea.com/news-view.htm?p=2&n=5>.</ref> 87 smaller rocks scatter around the two main islands within a radius of a few kilometers,<ref name="ngii">"Dokdo of Korea." ''The National Atlas of Korea''. National Geographic Information Institute. Web. 2 Sept. 2007. <http://www.ngii.go.kr/jsp/ngii_eng/html/main/data/data_02.html>.</ref> and more than 30 of such geographical features have been named by the South Korean government ministries.<ref name="name">"Ten Reefs around Dokdo to Receive Names." ''Korea.net''. Web. <http://www.dynamickorea.go.kr/news/issues/issueDetailView.asp?board_no=15428&menu_code=A>.</ref>
| |
| | |
| == Climate & Ecology ==
| |
| | |
| Dokdo has a moderate maritime climate created by the warm<ref name="click"/> and cold ocean currents that come together near the islands.<ref name="koreapdf"/> The average year-round temperature is 12°C, and the coldest and the hottest extremes occur in January (1°C) and August (23°C) respectively. The average yearly rainfall is 1,240 mm, and in the winter the islands experience heavy snowfall. Rain and snow average 150 days a year, and just over 160 days are cloudy or foggy; hence, the number of clear days on Dokdo averages only 50 days annually.<ref name="gov">http://www.dokdo.go.kr/</ref>
| |
| | |
| Dokdo's diverse ecosystem is influenced heavily by its climate and geography. Its central location in the Sea of Japan makes it a popular breeding area and rest stop for numerous species of birds. Among the numerous avian species found in Dokdo, the [[black-tailed gull]]s that are present between the months of May and August<ref name="yahoo">Kim, Hye-mi. "독도 비상! 갈매기 1만마리 '똥폭탄' 공습." ''Yonhap News''. 15 July 2007. Web. 11 Sept. 2010. <http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2007/06/15/0200000000AKR20070615064600004.HTML>.</ref> comprise the largest population.<ref name="empas">Kim, Rahn. "Dokdo Becomes Habitat for Rare Species." ''Korea Times''. 네이트 뉴스, 29 May 2006. Web. 27 May 2008. <http://news.nate.com/view/20060529n07424>.</ref> Dokdo is also home to a diverse marine life that is attracted to the area by the abundance of plankton. The waters around Dokdo can sustain a wide range of species including cod, seaweed, shrimp, shellfish, and flatfish due to the collision of the North Korean Cold Current and the Tsushima Warm Current around the islets.<ref name="plank">"Dokdo Islets a Treasure Trove of Resources." ''Chosun Ilbo''. 20 Mar. 2005. Web. 27 May 2008. <http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200503/200503200011.html>.</ref><ref name="click05">"History and Culture of Dokdo Islands: Ecological Environment." ''Click Korea: Access to Korean Arts & Culture''. Korea Foundation. Web. 11 Sept. 2010. <http://www.clickkorea.org/Dokdo/05.htm>.</ref> The richness of the marine ecosystem was attested by the discovery of a [[coral colony]] near Dokdo in 2007, which was the first to be found in the Sea of Japan.<ref name="monument">"Protection of Rare Species Puts Brighter Korean Stamp on Dokdo." ''Korea.net''. 13 June 2007. Web. 27 May 2008. <http://www.korea.net/News/issues/issueDetailView.asp?board_no=16727&menu_code=A>.</ref>
| |
| | |
| Although many birds and fish find Dokdo to be a habitable environment, the case is not the same with plants. Strong, salty sea winds (with an average velocity of 4.3m/s)<ref name="gov"/>, barren soil, and the lack of fresh water are unfavorable to vegetation. Furthermore, Dokdo can undergo severe drought if there is a shortfall of rain or snow because the islets' thin soil cannot retain much water, and the water produced by the moss on Dokdo amounts to very little.<ref name="koreapdf"/>
| |
| | |
| [[Image:Dokdo Photo.jpg|right|thumb|350px|{{#ifexist:Template:Dokdo Photo.jpg/credit|{{Dokdo Photo.jpg/credit}}<br/>|}}A photo of Dongdo (left) & Seodo (right) at sunset. More at [[Dokdo/Gallery]].]]
| |
| As much as Dokdo's ecosystem is healthy and diverse, it is equally delicate and vulnerable. A study in 2006 found that the 2 mammal species that were previously reported on Dokdo, the [[stellar sea lion]]s and the [[fur seal]]s, have completely disappeared from the islands.<ref name="empas"/> The study also found in Dokdo, 8 of the species that are endangered in Korea,<ref name="enmin">Ministry of Environment. ''Ministry of Environment Conducts Survey on Dok-do’s Ecosystem.'' Ministry of Environment, 1 June 2006. Web. 27 May 2008. <http://eng.me.go.kr/docs/news/press_view.html?seq=334&page=3&mcode=>.</ref> including the [[Red-footed Falcon|red-footed falcon]],<ref name="red">South Korea. Ministry of Environment. ''Green Korea''. Ministry of Environment. Web. 18 July 2008. <http://eng.me.go.kr/docs/publication/filedown.html?filename=Green%20Korea%202006.pdf&mcode=A>.</ref> the [[Siberian honey buzzard]], the [[owl]], the [[black kite]], the [[Japanese murrelet]], and the [[swan]]. The researchers expressed concerns that the 19 alien plant species found during the study could be invasive species.<ref name="empas"/> Currently, Dokdo is inhabited by 107 species of birds, 49 species of plants (of which 19 are alien species), and 93 species of insects;<ref name="enmin"/> and as many as 160 different species of seaweeds and 100 species of fish live in the surrounding waters.<ref name="koreapdf"/>
| |
| | |
| === Environmental policies ===
| |
| | |
| The South Korean government implemented several policies concerning Dokdo's environment, which it views as a natural monument<ref name="monumentnumber">'''Note''': Dokdo was designated as Natural Monument, No. 336, in 1982.</ref><ref name="monument"/> Due to the issues with Japan, however, the overall policies have been an inconsistent balancing act between the environment and its sovereignty claims.
| |
| | |
| While the government prohibited visitors from setting foot on the islets (until 2005), it also stationed a police unit there, whose presence has brought pollution to the area's coastline.<ref name="pollutioncoast">McCurry, Justin. "Rocky Relations between Japan and South Korea over Disputed Islands." ''Guardian''. 18 Aug. 2010. Web. 11 Sept. 2010. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/japan-south-korea-disputed-islands>.</ref>
| |
| | |
| | |
| and . However, in March 2005, the government lifted the visitation ban<ref name="visitation">"60 Travelers Make First Visit to Dokdo as Visitation Ban Is Lifted." ''Korea.net''. Web. <http://www.korea.net/News/news/NewsView.asp?serial_no=20050330035∂=101&SearchDay=>.</ref> and allowed up to 70 visitors to the East Islet a day<ref name="foot">"Admissions to Enter." ''Korea.net''. Web. <http://www.korea.net/news/issues/issueDetailView.asp?board_no=12365>.</ref>, after the governing council of the [[Shimane|Shimane Prefecture]] in Japan designated February 22nd as the ''Takeshima Day''.<ref name="allow">"Gov't Ready to Open Wider Dokdo to Tourists." ''Korea.net''. Web. <http://www.korea.net/News/Issues/issueDetailView.asp?board_no=6402>.</ref> In the same month, the South Korean government expanded the limit to allow up to 140 persons on Dokdo per day,<ref name="atjapan">Takahashi, Kosuke. "Japan-South Korea Ties on the Rocks." ''Asia Times Online''. 23 Mar. 2005. Web. 11 Sept. 2010. <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/GC23Dh03.html>.</ref><ref name="chosunvisit">"Gov't to Allow 140 Visitors to Dokdo A Day." Chosun Ilbo. 22 Mar. 2005. Web. <http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200503/200503220011.html>.</ref> which the Ministry of Environment claimed would have zero compromise on Dokdo's environment. However, the government had to follow that guarantee with a plea to the public to not violate the rules by producing noise pollution with musical instruments, straying off from the tour routes, and taking rocks as souvenirs.<ref name="damg">"Visitors Asked Not to Damage Dokdo." ''Korea.net''. 3 May 2005. Web. <http://www.korea.net/News/Issues/issueDetailView.asp?board_no=6753>.</ref> To make up for the lift of the protective ban on visiting the islets, the Ministry of Environment began monitoring Dokdo for signs of negative developments in the same year.<ref name="enron">Ministry of Environment. ''Dokdo Island, No Problem with Its Ecosystem after Loosened Regulations''. ''Ministry of Environment''. 30 June 2005. Web. <http://eng.me.go.kr/docs/news/press_view.html?seq=287&page=8&mcode=>.</ref> And in 2006, the monitoring activities around Dokdo were expanded to biannual surveys and 4-season studies that would be conducted every 5 years.<ref name="enmin"/>
| |
| | |
| == Demographics ==
| |
| | |
| In May of 1968, a South Korean fisherman named Chwe (or Choi) Jongdeok moved into Dokdo and became the first to reside on the islets.<ref name="fisherman">"Dokdo: Inhabitants and Visitors." ''Korea.net''. 5 July 2007. Web. 16 June 2008. <http://www.korea.net/News/issues/issueDetailView.asp?board_no=16474&menu_code=A>.</ref> Since then, Dokdo saw a continual presence of at least one or two fishing families, in addition to the coast guard (i.e. the police) that has been stationed there since 1954.<ref name="cg">"Government Protests Japan's Dokdo Claim." ''Korea.net''. 31 Mar. 2006. Web. 16 June 2008. <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=20&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dynamickorea.go.kr%2FNews%2FIssues%2FissueDetailView.asp%3Fboard_no%3D11812&ei=uD9XSMCOMZrCgQSywfj2Ag&usg=AFQjCNGGRiegmSA87Gp9bods0PNFAlUYmA&sig2=Mau3eIgESwvkjBhJwHyodQ>.</ref><ref name="fern86">Fern, 2005. pp. 86</ref> The only current residents of the islets are a fisherman and his wife, Kim Song-do and Kim Shin-yeol, who have lived there since 1991.<ref name=korearesidents">Michael, Ha. "For Kim and His Wife, Dokdo Debate Hits Home." ''Korea Times''. 21 Aug. 2008. Web. 11 Sept. 2010. <http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/06/251_29785.html>.</ref><ref name="fisherman"/>
| |
| | |
| == Territorial dispute with Japan ==
| |
| [[Image:Japanese Map of Dokdo 1.gif|right|thumb|350px|{{#ifexist:Template:Japanese Map of Dokdo 1.gif/credit|{{Japanese Map of Dokdo 1.gif/credit}}<br/>|}}A Japanese map from 1785 that indicates ''Takeshima'' to be a Korean territory. Note that around this time the Japanese called Dokdo ''Matsushima'' and the neighboring island of Ulleungdo ''Matsushima'' or ''Takeshima''.<ref name="kajimura">Kajimura, Hideki. 1978</ref> [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Image:Japanese_Map_of_Dokdo_2.jpg Click here for another Japanese map] that indicates both Dokdo and Ulleungdo to be Korean territories.]]
| |
| | |
| ''The following text focuses on the history of the dispute. See the [[Dokdo/Debate Guide|debate guide]] for details on the cases made by Japan and South Korea based on historical evidences and the [[international law]].''
| |
| | |
| After World War II and the liberation of Korea from Japan, Dokdo arose as a major point of contention between Japan and South Korea. Japan has asserted that South Korea's occupation of Dokdo is illegal because Japan was the first to lay claim on the islets in 1905 when the islets were ''terra nullius'' (claimed by no one).<ref name="noman">"Review of Assertions Concerning Sovereignty over Dokdo on the Homepage of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan." ''Korea.net''. Web. 17 July 2008. <http://www.korea.net/news/Issues/issueDetailView.asp?board_no=12401&menu_code=B>.</ref> South Korea has responded with Korean sources that refer to the islets from as early as 512 A.D. and the Japanese records that acknowledge Dokdo's status as a Korean territory.<ref name="kajimura"/>
| |
| | |
| In the wake of the dispute, the Japanese government and the media propagandized the Japanese case while reducing the Korean side into [[straw man]] arguments. As a result, the notion that "Takeshima is inherently a Japanese territory beyond all question" penetrated the Japanese consciousness for the first time during 1952 to 1954. The "illegal occupation" of ''Takeshima'' by South Korea fed into the Japanese public's anti-Korean sentiments, and the issue was used to push initiatives for [[Japan Self-Defense Forces|Japanese rearmament]]. Although the Japanese people criticized their government for failing to adopt a more aggressive approach, Koreans did not take delight at the situation but rather viewed it repulsively as a case of corruption between the two countries.<ref name="kajimura"/>
| |
| | |
| === After World War II ===
| |
| | |
| In September 1945, a month after Japan's surrender in World War II, the Allied occupation forces placed Dokdo within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Sixth Army based in Japan. But, in less than a year, General [[Douglas MacArthur|MacArthur]], who was then the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, created the MacArthur Line, which put Dokdo within the jurisdiction of the U.S. XXIV Corps responsible for all of South Korea.<ref name="harvard">Koo, Min-gyo, 2005</ref> Although some scholars speculate that the MacArthur Line indicates the Allies' acceptance of the Korean claim,<ref name="alliedmap">"Allied Map Shows Dokdo Is Korean." ''Chosun Ilbo''. 27 Feb. 2005. Web. <http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200502/200502270023.html>.</ref> the boundary was actually drawn for convenience of the administrators.<ref name="hara368">Hara, 2001. pp. 368</ref>
| |
| | |
| === San Francisco Peace Treaty ===
| |
| | |
| The dispute between South Korea and Japan over the ownership of Dokdo ultimately originates from the [[San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951]], which was a formal agreement to the end of the Pacific War and the return of national sovereignty to the occupied Japan.<ref name="PINR1">Weinstein, Michael A. "South Korea's and Japan's Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute Escalates Toward Confrontation." The Power and Interest News Report. 10 May 2006. Web. 8 July 2008. <http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=487>.</ref> The treaty in general did not specify to which country Japan renounced its former territories and to which precise limit these territories extended;<ref name="hara362">Hara, 2001. pp. 362</ref> in the case of the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute, the main question regarding the peace treaty was whether the islands were included in the "Korea" that Japan renounced in the San Francisco treaty.<ref name="hara368"/>
| |
| | |
| In fact, in the earlier drafts of the treaty that were written between the late 1946 and November 1949, the US State Department specified that Japan return Dokdo to the Korean mainland. However, William J. Sebald, who was a political adviser to General MacArthur suggested in a commentary to the State Department that Dokdo be defined as a Japanese territory for historical and strategic reasons. First, Sebald thought that Japan's sovereignty over Dokdo appeared valid and that "it is difficult to regard... <nowiki>[ Dokdo ]</nowiki> as islands off the shore of Korea". Secondly, Sebald pointed out that, if Dokdo were to be a South Korean territory, the U.S. risked losing the islets as a potential station for weather and radar surveillance due to the communist threats from the North. Therefore, the December draft of the San Francisco treaty was changed to state that "Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks)... shall belong to Japan." (Chapter II, Territorial Clauses, Article 3) This shift in the U.S.'s position may have also been influenced by the Japanese Foreign Office, which in the early post-war years provided the U.S. government with several pamphlets about the Japanese territories.<ref name="hara369-71">Hara, 2001. pp. 369-371</ref>
| |
| | |
| Then all of a sudden, after John Foster Dulles was put in charge of the peace treaty and the Korean War precipitated, the treaty drafts from August and onwards ceased to mention "Takeshima" (as the islets were referred to) altogether. The entire treaty became shorter and simpler, and many of the specifics on the coordinates, borders, and the islands disappeared. It is likely that Dulles purposefully rewrote the treaty to open room for disputes between Japan and the other countries, and thereby provide buffer against a potential domino effect in case of communist expansion. Dulles expected that, if South Korea were not to fall in the hands of the communists, it would take the disputes with Japan to the International Court of Justice, as suggested by the treaty in Chapter 6, Article 22.<ref name="hara371-3">Hara, 2001. pp. 371-3</ref>
| |
| | |
| The San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed on September 8, 1951,<ref name="jpri">Johnson, 2001</ref> and it took effect on April 28, 1952.<ref name="hara374-5">Hara, 2001. pp. 374-5</ref>
| |
| | |
| === Proclamation of the Rhee Line ===
| |
| | |
| Before the Japanese government could regain national rule on April 28, 1952, the South Korean President Syngman Rhee issued on January 18 the "the Declaration of Maritime Sovereignty", which basically kept the "MacArthur Line" from expiring as a result of the peace treaty. The South Korean government realized that, without such an affirmative action on South Korea's part, Japan would eventually get the islets due to U.S.'s prioritizing Japan in its Cold War strategy; at the same time, South Korea believed that it could make a stronger case, based on historical evidences. <ref name="hara374-5"/>
| |
| | |
| Despite the Japanese government's protests, the "Syngman Rhee Line" was kept in place,<ref name="hara374-5"/> and the South Korean ships began seizing the Japanese fishing vessels that transgressed the line.<ref name="harvard"/> Instead of retaliating, Japan publicized the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty's designation of Dokdo as a training ground for the U.S. military and claimed that the U.S. recognized the islets as a Japanese territory by asking Japan rather than South Korea for permission over the islands. South Korea protested the deal, and therefore the U.S. Air Force excluded Dokdo from its training areas on February 27, 1953. In response, Japanese maritime police vessels began interrogating Korean fishermen around the areas of Dokdo and even engaged in exchanges of gunfire with the South Korean volunteer forces stationed on the islets.<ref name="van20">Van, 2004. pp. 20</ref><ref name="kajimura"/>
| |
| | |
| Such a time of intense hostility saw more civilian involvement in the dispute over Dokdo. During the month of May in 1954, South Korean and Japanese citizens, escorted by patrol boats from their respective countries, made multiple trips to Dokdo to erect signs of their ownership of the islets and knock down the works from the other country.<ref name="van20"/><ref name="kajimura"/>
| |
| | |
| === Stationing of South Korea's police unit ===
| |
| | |
| At the height of confrontations in August 1954, South Korea occupied Dokdo, where a lighthouse was built and a permanent police garrison was stationed. With no other way to continue, in September 1954 Japan proposed to request a trial from the International Court of Justice, but South Korea refused, thereby putting the dispute in a deadlock. With neither side wanting to risk war over such tiny islands, the basic situation of the dispute today has remained essentially the same as that of 1954.<ref name="kajimura"/>
| |
| | |
| === Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and South Korea ===
| |
| | |
| The Dokdo-Takeshima dispute flared up again with the 1965 Japan-Korea Normalization Treaty, which established diplomatic relations between the two countries. Japan tried to have the treaty mandate the two countries to take the dispute to the ICJ, but, again, South Korea rejected. In the end, both sides agreed to disagree, the treaty was signed, and, thus, the Japanese government made a big compromise of allowing the dispute to remain deadlocked. A Japanese international law scholar commented regarding the Treaty, "frankly speaking, Japan has almost lost all hope of regaining... [ Dokdo ]."<ref name="kajimura"/>
| |
| | |
| Although the conventional view is that the U.S. had largely kept out of the controversy, U.S. State Department documents that were declassified in 2004 revealed otherwise. With the aim to hasten the normalization of diplomatic ties between the two countries, the U.S. tried make South Korea, which had the upper hand in the dispute by controlling Dokdo, to accept Japanese demands regarding the islets. On August 9, 1963, the U.S. State Department directed the U.S. Embassy in Korea to press its host government to accept Japan's demand that South Korea's fishing zone be limited to 12 miles (instead of 40 miles). The directive also authorized the embassy to inform the Korean officials that, in case South Korea failed to concur, the U.S. would not hesitate to denounce the "Syngman Rhee Line” as illegal. Also, on May 18, 1965, when the South Korean President [[Park Chung-hee]] was visiting Washington, the U.S. Secretary of State [[Dean Rusk]] proposed a compromise in which Japan and the Republic of Korea would both maintain a lighthouse on Dokdo. Secretary Rusk suggested that the joint occupation should allow the controversy to resolve without the need for either side to address the question of which country owned the islets, although the compromise was cordially dismissed by the Korean President anyways.<ref name="declassified">[http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200406/200406200016.html U.S. Proposed Joint Korea-Japan Lighthouse on Dokdo in 1965], ''Chosun Ilbo'', updated: 2004-06-20, date accessed: 2008-07-13</ref>
| |
| | |
| Giving in to American pressure, South Korea established a 12-mile exclusive fishing zone around Dokdo, in addition to a 3-mile territorial waters. Japan also set up a 3-mile territorial waters and granted fishing rights in area of 500 m radius around the islets. The tacit understanding that arose among the local fishermen became so that the Japanese could fish outside of the 3 nm territorial waters and inside the 12-mile exclusive fishing zone. Since then, fishermen from both countries have been operating around Dokdo peacefully, and the 1999 Korea-Japan fisheries agreement continued the joint fishing around Dokdo by allowing fishing vessels from both countries to operate in each other’s 200 nm [[Exclusive Economic Zone]]s with permits.<ref name="fern88">Fern, 2005. pp. 88</ref><ref name="kajimura"/>
| |
| | |
| === Global discourses and propaganda ===
| |
| | |
| The international coverage of the dispute steadily increased from the early 1990s in print and on the web, peaking around 2005~2008. The Korean and Japanese governments proactively propagandized the issue in English, particularly through the internet, where there have been extensive discussions in the context of the larger issue of [[Japan-Korea relations]]. The most prominent clash among [[netizen]]s took place at [[Wikipedia]], where the title of the article on Dokdo was changed from "Dokdo" to "Liancourt Rocks" in May 2007. Similar cases with other services also attracted attention among the netizens, including [[Google Earth]]'s description of the islets as "Liancourt Rocks," and Microsoft's preference for the Korean name in the Japanese user registration for the [[Xbox Live]].
| |
| | |
| A major controversy arose in July 2008 when the [[Library of Congress|U.S. Library of Congress]] considered changing the name used to refer to Dokdo from "Tok Island" to "Liancourt Rocks." The move was reflective of the recent designations of the islets as "undesignated sovereignty" by the U.S. [[National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency]] (NGA) and the Board on Geographic Names (BGN) of the [[U.S. Department of State]]. Suspicions abounded among the Koreans regarding the possibility of Japan's lobbying of the U.S. government, although the decision was in fact made by low-level technical officials. The controversy was resolved with the intervention of the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] administration, which promptly ordered the NGA, BGN and the LOC to abandon the neutral designations.<ref name="FSIstanford">[http://aparc.stanford.edu/news/korea_needs_lowkey_longterm_approach_to_dokdotakeshima_controversy_says_straub_20080801/ Korea needs low-key, long-term approach to Dokdo/Takeshima controversy, says Straub], ''Shorenstein APARC News''. Stanford University. 2008-08-01.</ref><ref name="chosunnga">[http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200807/200807300003.html U.S. Geographical Agency Reflected Japanese Position], ''Chosun Ilbo''. 2008-07-30.</ref><ref name="BGNdokdo">[http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200807/200807310016.html U.S. Board Marks Dokdo as Korean at Bush’s Orders], ''Chosun Ilbo''. 2008-07-31.</ref><ref name="chosuncongressresolved">[http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200808/200808010007.html How Korea Got Its Way Over Dokdo in the U.S.], ''Chosun Ilbo''. 2008-08-01.</ref>
| |
| | |
| Controversies from Japan and the US generated much stronger activism by the Koreans in garnering outside support. Since 2005, several advertisements promoting the Korean point of view on the issue were put in prominent American newspapers such as the ''[[Washington Post|The Washington Post]]'' and ''[[New York Times|The New York Times]]''. In 2008 in [[New York City]], where there is a large Korean population, about a hundred Korean-owned dry cleaners began using plastic bags carrying an advertisement about Dokdo. A year later, it was reported that a tour company in New York City used three of its buses to display nonprofit advertisements about Dokdo.<ref name="2005ad">[http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200711/200711300009.html Korean Patriot Scores Another Success in U.S. Museum], ''Chosun Ilbo''. 2007-11-30.</ref><ref name="drycleaners">[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/nyregion/21islands.html On City’s Plastic Bags, an Old and Distant Dispute], Kareem Fahim, ''The New York Times''. 2009-05-20.</ref>
| |
| | |
| A Korean international scholar, [[David C. Kang]], at the [[University of Southern California|USC]] noted, however, that the lack of activism on part of the Japanese constituted a form of "passive aggressi<nowiki>[on]</nowiki>," and the overt display of emotion and enthusiasm by the Koreans served to undermine their case on the issue:<ref name="publicdiplo">[http://publicdiplomacymagazine.com/case-study/koreas-emotional-diplomacy/ Korea’s Emotional Diplomacy], David C. Kang. ''Public Diplomacy Magazine''. 2009-06-27.</ref>
| |
| | |
| <blockquote>So the Korean mindset makes perfect sense: “Koreans really care about Dokdo; our claim is justified and the more resistance we face, the more emotional we become in order to convince you.” Yet, in American culture, it works in reverse. The more emotional a person becomes, the less he or she is perceived to be serious. The belief in the U.S. is that one needs to “calm down” and that only when the people are rational can we really make headway into solving the problems and issues.</blockquote>
| |
| <blockquote>
| |
| I have been in meetings with sitting U.S., Korean, and Japanese officials, and watched an American official say “Koreans are emotional about this issue,” while the Koreans nod approvingly, thinking the Americans understand how important this is to Koreans. Yet the exact opposite message is sent! The message the American sent was: “You guys are crazy and we just try to avoid you;” not “your emotional claim means you are more serious than the Japanese.” To that end, shouts about politics at a baseball game serve to undermine, not enhance, Korea’s claim on Dokdo in international and, in particular, Western eyes.</blockquote>
| |
| | |
| === Conclusion ===
| |
| [[Image:Dokdo Is Our Land.jpg|right|thumb|350px|{{#ifexist:Template:Dokdo Is Our Land.jpg/credit|{{Dokdo Is Our Land.jpg/credit}}<br/>|}}At the [[Meiji Jingu Temple]] in [[Shibuya, Tokyo]], a Japanese ''ema'' (wooden block for writing prayers) reads at the bottom, "P.S. Dokdo is Korean land."]] | |
| | |
| Today, the people of the two countries hold very different attitudes regarding the dispute. For Koreans, who are bitter at Japan for imposing oppressive rule from 1910 to 1945 and for whitewashing its [[Japanese militarism|militaristic past]], the dispute has remained a matter of justice and truth. In contrast, many Japanese today are not aware of the dispute, and those who do know about it treat it as nothing more than a territorial issue.<ref name="time">[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,501060508-1189390,00.html Rocky Relations], Jim Frederick, ''TIME Magazine'', 2006-05-01</ref> Consequently, South Korea's refusal to take the dispute to the [[International Court of Justice]] remains a puzzle for the Japanese.
| |
| | |
| By way of response, South Korea has argued that it does not need international arbitration because Dokdo is inherently a Korean territory. Indeed, if South Korea agrees to bring the dispute before the ICJ, there is only the risk that South Korea will lose control of the islands if the court rules in Japan's favor. Analysts have pointed out that South Korea's case is superior to Japan's in terms of the historical evidences and by its de facto control of the islets, which is a greater manifestation of sovereignty under the international law. However, since the International Court of Justice has in the past prioritized the intent of the colonizer (i.e. the U.S. and its postwar occupation of Japan), it may side with Japan in a trial, based on the evidence that the United States planned to give the islets to Japan in some later drafts of the San Francisco Treaty.<ref name="ICG">[http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/07093CRS.pdf "Northeast Asia's Undercurrents of Conflicts"], ''International Crisis Group'', 2005-12-15.</ref><ref name="kajimura"/> Thus, the ultimate resolution is not entirely predictable, and so far South Korea has not found good reasons to risk its ''de facto'' control.
| |
| | |
| Analysts have speculated that the dispute over control of Dokdo will continue to figure prominently in [[Japan-South Korea relations]] in the future. This is partly because any attempt by a politician to disown the islets as a national territory risks a serious political backlash both in Korea and in Japan. Furthermore, although the economic value of the islands themselves may be small, their control is a determining factor in the designation of the official rights over fisheries and the potential reserves of natural gas in the East Sea (Sea of Japan). Nevertheless, the two countries have allowed room for compromise at times of crisis, and "neither country seems willing to break off relations over a minor territorial dispute."<ref name="fern88"/><ref name="ICG"/><ref name="time"/><ref name="PINR1"/>
| |
|
| |
| ====Notes====
| |
| {{reflist|2}}
| |
