After World War II the U.S. and other countries worked on the Treaty of San Francisco. During the process, there were some correspondences between the U.S. and Korea. The correspondences are known as the Rusk documents that stated as follows.
"As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea."
It was 1951. In 1952, the U.S. reconfirmed that the decision about Liancourt Rocks in the Rusk documents was valid after the Treaty of San Francisco. In 1954, the U.S. stated in Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East that:
* The unilateral declaration of territorial waters (Syngman Rhee line) is illegal.
* Liancourt Rocks are Japanese territory according to the San Francisco Treaty.
* The Liancourt Rocks territorial dispute should be solved through the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Japan proposed referring the dispute to the ICJ in 1954 and 1962. However, Korea didn't agree on Japan's proposal.
Another aspect of the dispute is interpretations of historical evidences, such as old maps. But I don't quite follow all the details. Island names are too confusing to me. But I assume that the U.S. examined all the information on the Liancourt Rocks and came to the conclusion stated in the Rusk documents.
From the 6th century or even before, Dokdo was internationally recognized as Korean territory by countries such as France and etc. Even National Geogrphic, one of the most prominent global magazine, recognized Dokdo as a Korean territory even back in the 1800s. (The map soon to be donated to the Smithsonian Institute!) Also, South Korea has much more evidence from the past: yet, the Japanese government has been creating controversies with "what they call their evidences" much more actively, spreading lies all over the world. Then why do Japan claim Dokdo as their own?
Well....
1) Japan is a country made of only islands. Therefore, Japanese constantly attempted to and still attempts to claim more land outside its territory for bigger fishing territories. (Dokdo would enlarge Japan's fishing territory immensely) For the same reason, Japan is arguing over other islands with China and Russia at the same time.
2) Currently, in 2008, the Japanese Prime Minister, Yasuo Fukuda's approval rating from the public plummeted. In order to get the citizens back on his side, he re-ignited the issue of Dokdo, a "patriotic" action as seen by the Japanese people.
There are obviously many more reasons, but these are the main reasons why the current issue has been brought up again.
I really hope it helps.
I recommend you check out the following site:
www.forthenextgeneration.com
(Click on the pictures for videos and click on links on the bottom. Great infos that presents both sides' claims. (But in the end, you'll be very convinced that Dokdo is Korean Territory as it has been for last 2 millenium)
Japan is not a dangerous place. The islands of Japan reach well over 4,000 feet (1,200 meters), and Japan is a geographically stable area, there's no chance of the islands sinking. As for why Japanese people would say the own Chinese and Korean islands, they may mean they used to in World War II, and some of the Japanese could be thinking they are superior to Korea and China
before 1953, Japan goverment did not recognized that Dokdo belong to Japan.
even Korea-Japan annexation period(1910~1945), Dokdo was classified as a part of Gangwondo, Korea.
After 1945, Korea liberation from Japan, Korea shortly govered by USFK and WW2 allied force. even that period, Dokdo was classified as a Korean territory.
Even 1951 Map (drawed by Japanese goverment 衆議院)
Dokdo was Officialy exclude in Territory of Japan.
This document is a memo entitled "Koreans on Liancourt Rocks" from the US Embassy, Tokyo to the US State Department, dated October 3, 1952.
"...The history of these rocks has been reviewed more than once by the Department, and does not need extensive recounting here. The rocks, which are fertile seal breeding grounds, were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea.They were, of course, annexed together with the remaining territory of Korea when Japan extended its Empire over the former Korean State..."
(a)Japan recognizing the independences of Korea, renounces all rights and title and to Korea, including the Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, and Liancourt Rock."
Here is the response of Rusk document from US goverment.
------------------------------------------
"[The] Department [is] aware of peace treaty determinations and US administrative decisions which would lead [the] Japanese [to] expect us to act in their [favor] in any dispute with [the] ROK over [the] sovereignty [of] Takeshima.
However to [the] best of our knowledge [a] formal statement [of the] US position to [the] ROK in [the] Rusk note [of] August 10, 1951 has not...been communicated [to the] Japanese. [The] Department believes [that it] may be advisable or necessary at sometime [to] inform [the] Japanese Government [regarding the] US position on Takeshima.
[The] Difficulty [at] this point is [the] question of timing as we do not...wish to add another issue to [the] already difficult ROK-Japan negotiations or involve ourselves further than necessary in their controversies, especialy in light [of] many current issues [that are] pending with [the] ROK."
It does not...necessarily follow [that the] US [is] automatically responsible for settling or intervening in Japan´s international disputes, territorial or otherwise, arising from the peace treaty.
[The] US view re Takeshima [is] simply that of one of many signatories to [the] treaty."
" The U.S. is not obligated to 'protect Japan' from Korean "pretensions" to Dokdo, and that such an idea cannot...be considered as [a] legitimate claim for US action under [the U.S.-Japan] security treaty."
rusk document written in 1951. Korean war happen 1950.
1, rusk documnet have not legal force by international law.
2. rusk deny dokdo was korea's in 'historical' fact by 'Japanese lobby'. and in that period, US goverment worry about korea conquered by 'Communists'. if korean peninsula conquered by communist, they think this is very dangerous to protect japan and they feel dangerous their asia protect line.
in that period, US "did not know" 1900 korean empire did declare dokdo. also, they did not know it was korea territory all times. in that period, data of dokdo was inefficient.(rusk documnet 1951 document, korean very busy in korean war against to north korea. korea did not have any enought time to objection. also, korean did not have any resource and friendship for lobby to US goverment.
1952, American Embassy of japan, claim was changed. according to that documnet, US official goverment confirmed that island was historically korea's.
1952.10.03. written by John.M.steve. US official goverment document from US embassy of japan.
according to this document, US assertion and attitude was changed. (very different from 1951 rusk document) in this document, US approved dokdo belong to korea's historically. 1 year after,US goverment changed their claim. so, rusk document's 'historical claim' become invalid.
According to 1953.12.9 US docuement,
"[The] US view re Takeshima [is] simply that of one of many signatories to [the] treaty."
" The U.S. is not obligated to 'protect Japan' from Korean "pretensions" to Dokdo, and that such an idea cannot...be considered as [a] legitimate claim for US action under [the U.S.-Japan] security treaty
Tokdo or Takeshima? The International Law of Territorial Acquisition in the Japan-Korea Island Dispute, Sean Fern, Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs, Volume 5 Number 1 (Winter 2005), pp.78–89
Legal Issues Related to Sovereignty over Dokdo and Its Maritime Boundary(Jan 2007), a William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu, USA
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
My understanding is this.
After World War II the U.S. and other countries worked on the Treaty of San Francisco. During the process, there were some correspondences between the U.S. and Korea. The correspondences are known as the Rusk documents that stated as follows.
"As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea."
It was 1951. In 1952, the U.S. reconfirmed that the decision about Liancourt Rocks in the Rusk documents was valid after the Treaty of San Francisco. In 1954, the U.S. stated in Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East that:
* The unilateral declaration of territorial waters (Syngman Rhee line) is illegal.
* Liancourt Rocks are Japanese territory according to the San Francisco Treaty.
* The Liancourt Rocks territorial dispute should be solved through the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Japan proposed referring the dispute to the ICJ in 1954 and 1962. However, Korea didn't agree on Japan's proposal.
You can find details in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusk_documents which has a link to a copy of the Rusk documents.
Another aspect of the dispute is interpretations of historical evidences, such as old maps. But I don't quite follow all the details. Island names are too confusing to me. But I assume that the U.S. examined all the information on the Liancourt Rocks and came to the conclusion stated in the Rusk documents.
From the 6th century or even before, Dokdo was internationally recognized as Korean territory by countries such as France and etc. Even National Geogrphic, one of the most prominent global magazine, recognized Dokdo as a Korean territory even back in the 1800s. (The map soon to be donated to the Smithsonian Institute!) Also, South Korea has much more evidence from the past: yet, the Japanese government has been creating controversies with "what they call their evidences" much more actively, spreading lies all over the world. Then why do Japan claim Dokdo as their own?
Well....
1) Japan is a country made of only islands. Therefore, Japanese constantly attempted to and still attempts to claim more land outside its territory for bigger fishing territories. (Dokdo would enlarge Japan's fishing territory immensely) For the same reason, Japan is arguing over other islands with China and Russia at the same time.
2) Currently, in 2008, the Japanese Prime Minister, Yasuo Fukuda's approval rating from the public plummeted. In order to get the citizens back on his side, he re-ignited the issue of Dokdo, a "patriotic" action as seen by the Japanese people.
There are obviously many more reasons, but these are the main reasons why the current issue has been brought up again.
I really hope it helps.
I recommend you check out the following site:
www.forthenextgeneration.com
(Click on the pictures for videos and click on links on the bottom. Great infos that presents both sides' claims. (But in the end, you'll be very convinced that Dokdo is Korean Territory as it has been for last 2 millenium)
The Links are :
http://www.forthenextgeneration.com/dokdo/dokdo_01...
http://www.forthenextgeneration.com/dokdo/dokdo_02...
Thanks
Japan is not a dangerous place. The islands of Japan reach well over 4,000 feet (1,200 meters), and Japan is a geographically stable area, there's no chance of the islands sinking. As for why Japanese people would say the own Chinese and Korean islands, they may mean they used to in World War II, and some of the Japanese could be thinking they are superior to Korea and China
Seoul to ask Russia to re-label Sea of Japan on maps
17:42 | 16/ 07/ 2008
MOSCOW, January 16 (RIA Novosti) - South Korea's government plans
to ask Moscow to order a re-labeling of Russian maps
to replace the name 'Sea of Japan' with 'East Sea',
a Korean diplomatic source in Moscow said.
The sea between the Korean peninsula and Japan is the focus of a territorial dispute
over Japan's claim to a group of islets controlled by South Korea and known in Korean
as Dokdo. On Tuesday South Korea recalled its ambassador from Tokyo
after Japan restated its claim.
South Korea says the name Sea of Japan, now used by most countries,
is a legacy of Japanese imperialism, and the 1910-1945 occupation of Korea,
and that the term East Sea has historically been used by Korea.
The source said maps produced in Russia and other countries had labeled the sea
as 'Korean sea' until the 19th century.
"We do not want the name of the sea to be associated with any particular country,
which is why we propose that it be called East Sea as has been in Korea.
This would satisfy both the Korean and Japanese nations," the source said.
The source said that the United Nations earlier made the same recommendation
to both countries. In response to South Korea's objections, most English-language
media now include the Korean version in parenthesis when mentioning the sea.
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak is expected to visit Russia in late September.
Well, masamasa is a Japanese.
don't believe his lie.
before 1953, Japan goverment did not recognized that Dokdo belong to Japan.
even Korea-Japan annexation period(1910~1945), Dokdo was classified as a part of Gangwondo, Korea.
After 1945, Korea liberation from Japan, Korea shortly govered by USFK and WW2 allied force. even that period, Dokdo was classified as a Korean territory.
Even 1951 Map (drawed by Japanese goverment 衆議院)
Dokdo was Officialy exclude in Territory of Japan.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/26908383...
------------------------------------------
Here are various goverments document of US.
Rusk document is just one of them.
-----------------------------------------
This document is a memo entitled "Koreans on Liancourt Rocks" from the US Embassy, Tokyo to the US State Department, dated October 3, 1952.
"...The history of these rocks has been reviewed more than once by the Department, and does not need extensive recounting here. The rocks, which are fertile seal breeding grounds, were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea.They were, of course, annexed together with the remaining territory of Korea when Japan extended its Empire over the former Korean State..."
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/26908010...
--------------------------------------------
(a)Japan recognizing the independences of Korea, renounces all rights and title and to Korea, including the Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, and Liancourt Rock."
1951.7.13 US goverment
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/26907949...
------------------------------------------
Here is the response of Rusk document from US goverment.
------------------------------------------
"[The] Department [is] aware of peace treaty determinations and US administrative decisions which would lead [the] Japanese [to] expect us to act in their [favor] in any dispute with [the] ROK over [the] sovereignty [of] Takeshima.
However to [the] best of our knowledge [a] formal statement [of the] US position to [the] ROK in [the] Rusk note [of] August 10, 1951 has not...been communicated [to the] Japanese. [The] Department believes [that it] may be advisable or necessary at sometime [to] inform [the] Japanese Government [regarding the] US position on Takeshima.
[The] Difficulty [at] this point is [the] question of timing as we do not...wish to add another issue to [the] already difficult ROK-Japan negotiations or involve ourselves further than necessary in their controversies, especialy in light [of] many current issues [that are] pending with [the] ROK."
It does not...necessarily follow [that the] US [is] automatically responsible for settling or intervening in Japan´s international disputes, territorial or otherwise, arising from the peace treaty.
[The] US view re Takeshima [is] simply that of one of many signatories to [the] treaty."
" The U.S. is not obligated to 'protect Japan' from Korean "pretensions" to Dokdo, and that such an idea cannot...be considered as [a] legitimate claim for US action under [the U.S.-Japan] security treaty."
1953.12.9 US goverment
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/26907879...
--------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
rusk document written in 1951. Korean war happen 1950.
1, rusk documnet have not legal force by international law.
2. rusk deny dokdo was korea's in 'historical' fact by 'Japanese lobby'. and in that period, US goverment worry about korea conquered by 'Communists'. if korean peninsula conquered by communist, they think this is very dangerous to protect japan and they feel dangerous their asia protect line.
in that period, US "did not know" 1900 korean empire did declare dokdo. also, they did not know it was korea territory all times. in that period, data of dokdo was inefficient.(rusk documnet 1951 document, korean very busy in korean war against to north korea. korea did not have any enought time to objection. also, korean did not have any resource and friendship for lobby to US goverment.
1952, American Embassy of japan, claim was changed. according to that documnet, US official goverment confirmed that island was historically korea's.
1952.10.03. written by John.M.steve. US official goverment document from US embassy of japan.
according to this document, US assertion and attitude was changed. (very different from 1951 rusk document) in this document, US approved dokdo belong to korea's historically. 1 year after,US goverment changed their claim. so, rusk document's 'historical claim' become invalid.
According to 1953.12.9 US docuement,
"[The] US view re Takeshima [is] simply that of one of many signatories to [the] treaty."
" The U.S. is not obligated to 'protect Japan' from Korean "pretensions" to Dokdo, and that such an idea cannot...be considered as [a] legitimate claim for US action under [the U.S.-Japan] security treaty
-------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the Good academic document from Japanese professor,
-------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese scholar Kazuo Hori's 1997 Article.(please read this)
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/kazuo-hori-doc.pdf
#1 Third Party Legal Study
Tokdo or Takeshima? The International Law of Territorial Acquisition in the Japan-Korea Island Dispute, Sean Fern, Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs, Volume 5 Number 1 (Winter 2005), pp.78–89
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/japa...
#2 Third Party Legal Study
Legal Issues Related to Sovereignty over Dokdo and Its Maritime Boundary(Jan 2007), a William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu, USA
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a...
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/jonvandyke-doc.pdf
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/
#1 Third Party Analyse in dokdo/takeshima.
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html
#2 Third Party Analyse in dokdo/takeshima.