Far East Cynic

Happy Takeshima Day!

GI Korea reminds us that there are more important things than worrying about a couple of mid ocean rocks:

bus

  4. The post World War II order did not take away Takeshima from Japan. That is the only history that matters.

    Besides I lived 8 1/2 years in Japan, speak Japanese, and every time I went to Seoul I had to work my ass off and deal with a goddamn curfew.

    So yea-I’m rooting for the Japanese.

  5. Skippy San, as with all areas of the Dokdo Takeshima dispute it’s a little more complex than that. After living in Japan, I’m sure you’ve heard the Japanese spin on the Japanese Peace Treaty also known as the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

    Let me summarize.

    When the Japanese surrendered to the Allies the initial terms of surrender also referred to as the Potsdam Declaration defined the territory of Japan as follows.

    “..(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine…”

    Throughout the numerous drafts of the Japan Peace Treaty the Allies granted Dokdo Takeshima to Korea in the first five drafts, then to Japan in a few drafts and then finally Allied Command decided to leave the issue of contentious disputed areas out of the Japan Peace Treaty altogether.

    There were numerous confidential memorandums that show the U.S. supported Japan’s claim to the islands. However, documents show this was because America was in the process of drafting joint trusteeships with Japan on these outlying islands to station troops and surveillance equipment to stem the encroachment of communism in NE Asia (ie China USSR) In other words, U.S. decisions were not based on historical title but rather military posturing.

    On top of that, other Allied Command nations did not support Japan’s title to Dokdo Takeshima but rather preferred to confine Japan to the limits of the aforementioned Potsdam Declaration.

    Article 2 territorial provisions of the Japan Peace Treaty makes no mention of Dokdo Takeshima.

    However, before signing and drafting the Japan Peace Treaty Jon Foster Dulles acknowledged there were unresolved territorial issues that must be dealt with using other solvents outside of the Japan Peace Treaty. In other words, the Japan Peace Treaty’s omission of Dokdo Takeshima cannot be interpreted to mean the islands were returned to Japan at all.

    Jon Foster stated in San Francisco right before the Japan Peace Treaty was signed:

    “…What is the territory of Japanese sovereignty? Chapter II deals with that. Japan formally ratifies the territorial provisions of the Potsdam Surrender Terms, provisions which, so far as Japan is concerned, were actually carried into effect 6 years ago.”…The Potsdam Surrender Terms constitute the only definition of peace terms to which, and by which, Japan and the Allied Powers as a whole are bound. There have been some private understandings between some Allied Governments; but by these Japan was not bound, nor were other Allies bound. Therefore, the treaty embodies article 8 of the Surrender Terms which provided that Japanese sovereignty should be limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and some minor islands. The renunciations contained in article 2 of chapter II strictly and scrupulously conform to that surrender term.
    Some question has been raised as to whether the geographical name “Kurile Islands” mentioned in article 2 includes the Habomai Islands. It is the view of the United States that it does not. If, however, there were a dispute about this, it could be referred to the International Court of Justice under article 22.
    Some Allied Powers suggested that article 2 should not merely delimit Japanese sovereignty according to Potsdam, but specify precisely the ultimate disposition of each of the ex-Japanese territories. This, admittedly, would have been neater. But it would have raised questions as to which there are now no agreed answers. We had either to give Japan peace on the Potsdam Surrender Terms or deny peace to Japan while the Allies quarrel about what shall be done with what Japan is prepared, and required, to give up. Clearly, the wise course was to proceed now, so far as Japan is concerned, leaving the future to resolve doubts by invoking international solvents other than this treaty.
    Rather than trusting the interpretation of Japan’s MOFA’s we should source the primary records related to this issue and make judgements. The fact is, the Japan Peace Treaty had nothing to do with the fate of Dokdo Takeshima. However, Japan was signatory and bound to the terms of surrender of the Potsdam Declaration. Without a formal ratification or explicit instructions by Allied Command, Japan could not and cannot regain sovereignty over Dokdo.

    What complicates things more is that the Republic of Korea was frozen out of the whole negotiation process. Because Korea was not involved nor signatory, the Japan Peace Treaty has zero legal effect on the ROK. Japan not having any residual sovereignty over Dokdo made this island effectively terra nullius or ownerless and thus open to incorporation. It was really just a bad break for Japan.

    I told ya it was complicated…

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-japan-peace-treaty-and-dokdo.html

    If you have any questions, just ask.

    Cheers!!

  6. Pingback: ???? – ??????????????????? - » Blog Archive » ??????????????????????????????????