SEOUL – Chinese,
South Korean, and Japanese diplomats recently took to the podium of the United
Nations General Assembly to reassert their countries’ positions on the territorial
issues surrounding several small islands in the seas of East Asia.
But the composed manner in which they delivered their remarks belied their
countries’ long-simmering tensions
over the islands, which have come to a near boil in the last few months.
With the situation threatening to
escalate further, both sides need to contain the conflict quickly and restore
the status quo. Indeed, the situation is all the more volatile in view
of the political transition now underway in China.
Meanwhile, the Republic
of Korea and Japan
are engaged in a territorial
standoff over the islets of Dokdo (called Takeshima in Japanese). In early
August, Lee Myung-bak became the first South Korean president to visit the
islets; Japan’s
government responded by proposing to take the sovereignty issue to the
International Court of Justice.
But the ICJ cannot exercise
jurisdiction in the dispute without both countries’ consent, and South
Korea has rejected Japan’s
proposal, maintaining that Lee was within his authority to visit the islets,
given that Dokdo is unquestionably South Korean territory. Indeed, South
Korea’s government denies that there is any
dispute over the islands.
Historical context is crucial to
assessing the Dokdo issue. Like the rest of Korea,
Dokdo was annexed by Japan
in the early twentieth century, and restored to Korean control after World War
II, when Korea
regained its independence. Thus, while outsiders might view the desolate
islands as insignificant, for Koreans, Japan’s
position on Dokdo is tantamount to a challenge to their country’s independence
and a denial of its right to exercise sovereignty over its own territory.
As a result, Dokdo has been a thorn in
relations between the two countries for decades. In 2005, the creation of a
so-called “Takeshima Day” by a local government in Japan
triggered a public uproar in South Korea.
But Japan has
not shied away from the issue, with prominent political figures joining
Takeshima Day celebrations each year.
Furthermore, Japan’s habit of distorting
facts in its history books – for example, denying that its former colonial
subjects were forced into sexual slavery – has fueled distrust and anger in
South Korea and elsewhere in East Asia, including China.
Dokdo is situated midway between the
Korean peninsula and Japan’s
main island, roughly 115 nautical miles from each. But the islets are much
closer to the nearest Korean island, Ulleungdo, than to Japan’s
Okishima.
A survey of historical documents shows
a distinct shift in Japan’s
position on Dokdo. For example, in the late seventeenth century, when conflict
between Korea
and Japan
erupted over the passage of Japanese fishermen to Ulleungdo, Tottori-han (one
of Japan’s
feudal clans) told Japan’s
central government that Ulleungdo and Dokdo did not fall within Japanese
territory.
Likewise, a report in 1870 by Japan’s
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “A Confidential Inquiry into the Particulars of
Korea’s Foreign Relations,” shows that the ministry recognized Dokdo as Korean
territory. Indeed, the report includes the subject title “How Takeshima and
Matsushima Came to Belong to Joseon” (later renamed Korea).
Moreover, the Dajokan, Japan’s
highest decision-making body in 1868-1885, denied any claims of sovereignty
over Dokdo through its Order of 1877. Yet, in 1905, Japan
took measures to incorporate Dokdo in order to use it as a strategic military
site for its war with Russia.
The final text of the 1951 San
Francisco Peace Treaty, which ended WWII in the Pacific, makes no mention of
Dokdo. But earlier versions identified the islets as Korean territory. The
reference in the final version, drafted by the United
States, was removed in light of US interests
in building strategic partnerships with both South
Korea and Japan.
However, the 1943 Cairo Declaration, which stipulated the Allied Powers’
basic position on Japan’s
territorial boundaries after WWII, stated that Japan
would be expelled from all territories that it had annexed through violence. In
this context, the unconditional return of Dokdo to Korea
– and Korea’s
continued sovereignty over Dokdo – is indisputable.
In an increasingly interconnected
world, significant challenges can be addressed only through regional and global
partnerships. But, in order to build a meaningful framework for cooperation,
enduring distrust among East Asian countries must be dispelled. Regional
leaders must not get caught up in finger-pointing or avoid taking
responsibility for past transgressions. An honest evaluation of history is
crucial to establishing lasting peace and prosperity in East Asia.
