While Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe continues to irk many Koreans with his reactionary approaches to history, our President Park Geun-hye only trains our patience by neither whipping him into better senses nor cajoling him for more amicable bilateral ties. What, then, should the good citizens of the Republic of Korea do in their quest for national interest vis-a-vis regional and global peace?
Part of these subjects may be left for the maturing of collective conscience within Japan to supersede political agitation. Dokdo is different; it is a clear and present challenge, involving not only national sovereignty but also economy and security. We need to arm ourselves with accurate historical knowledge to call out errors and distortions in the Japanese claim before the international audience.
Tokyo has accelerated its publicity campaign with the goal of referring to the Dokdo issue to the International Court of Justice. The digital age allows Japan to use a variety of new media to push its claim and put us in the defensive. We need to bolster governmental as well as private endeavors to prevent an unfavorable tilt in world opinion, beyond simply chanting “Dokdo is our land” or visiting the island in large numbers, an average of 200,000 a year.
The cyberspace forums store huge amounts of materials on Dokdo and “Takeshima” produced by academic researchers and government agencies of the two countries over the past decades. It is recommended that everyone take time out from watching the endless TV debates on sterile domestic political subjects and do individual research on Dokdo. “Knowledge is power,” teachers used to tell us in elementary school.
I am writing this piece with many pages of printouts from Korean, Japanese and neutral websites on Dokdo and “Takeshima” on the table. What particularly interests me in the old episodes are those of two individuals, An Yong-bok of Korea and Nakai Yozaburo of Japan, who, living two centuries apart, left significant marks in the fate of Dokdo.
Japanese texts and relics recently uncovered from the western coastal area of Shimane prefecture support Korean records on An’s confrontation with Japanese officials to win their recognition of the Korean control of Ulleungdo (then called Takeshima in Japan) and Dokdo (Matsushima) during his two visits to Japan in 1693 and 1696. An, of the reign of King Sukjong, had encountered Japanese trespassers on Ulleungdo Island and ventured into Japan to protest.
Persuaded by An, the Edo Shogunate decided to prohibit its subjects, including Ohya and Murakawa clans, from entering Ulleungdo and Dokdo to avoid harming the friendship with the Korean court a century after the Hideyoshi invasion. However, there were complications in this affair due to the intervention of Tsushima Island officials between Korea and Japan, and An was put into domestic exile for entering a foreign country without due authorization, instead of being honored for his solitary feat.
In contrast, Japan took advantage of a plea from Nakai, a marine businessman from Oki Island who was among a number of Japanese fishers and loggers who were illegally operating on Ulleungdo, then belonging to Korea’s Ulju County, Gangwon Province. Japanese accounts reveal well-coordinated acts of Japanese officials upon Nakai’s alleged request for “incorporation” of Dokdo (then called Takeshima) into Japanese territory.
Nakai’s petition in 1904 ― presumably through prior consultations with military and civilian authorities ― was referred to the home affairs, foreign and agriculture-commerce ministries where imperialist officials seriously considered Dokdo’s strategic value at the time when the Russo-Japanese War had just started. They worked swiftly to make a cabinet decision to incorporate “Takeshima” into Shimane prefecture in January 1905.
The Japanese Foreign Ministry recommended that a watchtower and a telegraph communication system be established on “Takeshima” to monitor enemy ships. Yet, a senior home ministry official was on record to oppose the measure, warning that the “disadvantage of arousing the suspicion that Japan attempts to gobble up Korea outweighs the (military) advantage of seizing the barren rocks, which are considered as belonging to Korea.”
People with average intelligence in Korea, Japan or elsewhere in the 21st century can see the falsity of the claim that Dokdo was taken into Japanese territory just to protect fishers gathering abalone and hunting sea lions. Incorporation of the Korean-controlled island was the very first step in Japan’s imperialist aggression of Korea, completed in formal annexation in 1910. The Treaty of Protectorate in November 1905 made the Joseon Kingdom unable to raise an objection to the stealing of national territory.
Dokdo was grabbed by “violence and greed” in a foreign invasion, the key condition for expulsion from occupied territories stipulated by the Cairo and Potsdam declarations issued in the final phase of World War II. After the war, the Supreme Commander of Allied Powers confirmed Dokdo, Ulleungdo and Jejudo as Korean territories and banned Japanese vessels from coming within 12 kilometers of Dokdo (MacArthur Line).
“Japan’s inalterable position on the sovereignty of Takeshima” posted by the Japanese Foreign Ministry produces some letters written by ranking U.S. officials before and after the San Francisco peace treaty which refused to accept Korea’s claim on Dokdo. Likewise, it illustrates a 10-point argument to dispute Korean rights to the island. The first item is that Japan had since ancient times recognized the existence of Takeshima, whereas Korea has no historical evidence proving its control or even awareness of Dokdo.
Koreans had not known Dokdo? Well, here I feel obliged to report my own experience in this connection. The first occasion that I had conviction about Dokdo being a part of Korea was when I travelled to Ulleungdo sometime in the early 1970s and saw Dokdo with my naked eyes from a vista point on Seonginbong Hill. Could Koreans on Ulleungdo have not considered the island on the horizon as a part of the country while seeing it on every fine day?
To deny what is undeniable is a resurgence of greed, if no violence yet.
By Kim Myong-sik
Kim Myong-sik is a former editorial writer for The Korea Herald. He served as director of the Korea Overseas Information Service. ― Ed.
