1.

The stir created by the designation of ‘Takeshima

D ay’

With the climax of the ‘Korean Wave’, this year was called the
‘Year of J apanese - Korean F riendship’. Conseq uently both sides
were expecting great progress in friendly relations between the
two countries, J apan and Korea. H owever, S himane P refecture
Council incurred a strong rebuke from Korea by passing a bill
establishing ‘Takeshima D ay’. In addition, a huge stir is
spreading with various cooperating business ventures taking
place on either side, being suspended.

Takeshima is an island belonging to O ki( ) , S himamachi(

) in S himane P refecture. H owever, in Korea this island is
called D okdo and belongs to U lleung-eup(U lleung town) in

         
       
                
                   
                      
               !  "" #     $   #
%        &

- 1 -
G yeongsangbuk-do P rovince, and the on-going dispute over the
island' s j urisdiction dates back to former times.

I n 1 9 5 1 , the S himane P refecture side submitted a petition

with the title ‘R econfirming Takeshima as S himane P refecture
Territory’ and has continued to submit a copy whenever
anything happens. This is why the prefecture( ) dared to take
decisive action and establish a regulation by itself in order to
incite the J apanese government, which had not assumed any
role in the matter.

Takeshima appeared on the map of S himane P refecture only

recently. L ikewise, the people living in the prefecture show little
interest in the matter. N ot knowing when, but acknowledging
that the situation would spark a row G yeongsangbuk-do
P rovince and S himane P refecture, both of which have
administrative j urisdiction over D okdo, established sisterhood
relations, and 1 5 years have passed since. N aturally, one
would assume that some progress had been made on research
into Takeshima. H owever, only a few studies have touched upon
the subj ect. The present situation is the result of avoiding
confrontation with the past, and the attitude that the problem
of territorial j urisdiction is only a matter for the government.

I n other words, the dispute over Takeshima stands at the

forefront of the territorial dispute. S himane P refecture never
expected that it would provoke Korea to such an extent. This
shows the differences in their understanding of history. I think
that if one wishes to take action, one must do so after having
studied the situation completely. F or instance, when looking at
the S himane P refecture public broadcast shown on a

- 2 -
commercial TV station, or the intent behind the P refecture
Council’s institution of the bill, one finds that they are no
more than a copy of the M inistry of F oreign Affairs’(M O F A)
misconception.

I am in doubt of M O F A’s stand point claiming that “ historically

and under international law, (D okdo) is J apanese territory.”
Therefore, in this paper I will investigate whether this really is
the case.

2 . S eafaring E nterp rise to Takeshima( ) du ring

the E do( ) P eriod

M O F A’s internet homepage describes the following passages

under the title ‘The H istorical Truth about the O wnership of
Takeshima’.

I n the early E do period(1 6 1 8 ) , after receiving

( ) [
]) U lleungdo from the 

  the two houses of
O oya( ) and M urakawa( ) of H okihan( )
acq uired the right to sail there. E very year, they
went to this island to fish, and presented Abalone to the


  . At that time, Takeshima was being used as a
port of call on the way to U lleungdo and as a fishing
area. [Also] , at least in 1 6 6 1 , they received( ) Takeshima
as well.

B ased on this historical description, M O F A claims that “ at

the latest, by the mid-1 7 th century, our country had

- 3 -
established sovereignty over Takeshima by effective occupation.”
I s such a conclusion really possible?

F irst, there never existed a   ( ) by the name of ‘H okishū ’.

I t was common practice to use the names Tottorihan or
I nshū han because these   [a prefecture] had I naba and H oki
under their j urisdiction, and had a castle in Tottori. I t would
be deplorable to think the name could have been influenced by
Korea calling it H okishū ( ).

N ext, it says that they received( ) the authority to govern

U lleungdo and Takeshima from the 

   H owever, this is
absolutely untrue. H ere, what M O F A calls Takeshima was
called M atsushima( ) at the time, which is today’s
Takeshima. I shall use (U lleungdo) and (present-day
Takeshima) respectively in accordance with previous instances.
The fact that the O oya family received the authority to govern
the island from the 

  can be found in the O oya family
( ) records. These were borrowed from a document with
the title ‘A D uplicate of an E xtracted Account of S ailing to
Takeshima’ made in 1 8 1 0 by the 1 1 th  

( ) [a present
master] . The documents of the O oya family were almost
entirely lost to a fire, and the ‘D uplicate of an E xtracted
Account’ is a collection of the remaining documents. The word
 ( ) [receive] appears in a (a document replying to
q uestions and orders from the ) sent to the 
   
(
) [an official who inspects a state instead of the 

 ] by
 

in 1 6 8 1 .

- 4 -
 S ince in a feudal society all land is owned by the feudal
lord, it is impossible that the 

  distributed( ) islands
to its 
  ( ) [people living around the castle, namely
townspeople.]

Thirdly, Kawakami Kenz ō ( ) says that the 


 
only permitted (crossing the sea) to (U lleungdo) .
Concerning sea crossings to (present-day Takeshima) they
“ merely obtained the 

     ( ) [private opinion] on the
matter” (  
      
 
 
      
[
] A study of Takeshima from a S tandpoint of H istorical
G eography,1 9 6 6 ) . Kawakami was a researcher for the Treaty
B ureau of M O F A and was working on making it clear that
Takeshima was historically J apanese territory.

I f, as M O F A claims, the 

  gave U lleungdo to the
people, then this would have meant that U lleungdo was
J apanese territory and there would have been no need to issue
a special permit for crossing the sea. The reason why the L ord
of Tottori applied for the permit from the 

  and the


  granted it, was that there were concerns that
U lleungdo may have been Korean territory. Tsushimahan(
) had been plotting to take possession of U lleungdo calling it
I sotakeshima( ) j ust before the Tottori received the permit
for it in 1 6 1 4 . At that time, Korea protested strongly and sent
a statement saying that the sea route for coming-and-going to
Korea was only through Tsushima, and that those visiting
Korea’s shores by any other root would be considered pirates.
Thus, the 

  was not able to issue the Yonago( )
people, who wanted to sail to Takeshima(U lleungdo) , with a


  ( ) permitting to trade overseas. I nstead, the only

- 5 -
form of authoriz ation they could give was a  
( ) [an
official letter] .

A  
 is a document, j ointly signed by the    ( ) [the

highest level among warrior officials, about three people] ,
allowing only the holder himself to sail abroad. I t is a rare
case indeed that the receiver of a seafaring permit, in this case
to Takeshima, was a lord of   himself. M oreover, the


  issued a certificate called         ( ) , which
sanctioned crossing the sea no more than once. Accordingly,
they should have had to re-apply to the government every time
they wanted to cross the sea(to U lleungdo) . H owever, referring
to this, Kawakami Kenz ō wondered whether the 

  may
have treated Takeshima(U lleungdo) as J apanese territory, and
thus, considered traveling there ‘movement within’ the nation' s
borders.

F urther, there is the problem of whether one can believe the

issue date 1 6 1 8 to be correct. The O oya family abstract states
that the crossings started in 1 6 1 8 . This is the prevalent view
and the foreign ministry also states this. Yet, the document
merely shows ‘M ay 1 6 ’ with no sign of the year referred to.
B esides, among the four signatories were only two     and
the remaining two signatories were   

    (
) [subordinate to the    ] .

All four were appointed    in 1 6 2 2 . Thus, the document

must obviously have been issued later than 1 6 1 8 .

I t is peculiar that M O F A concludes that the year 1 6 6 1 is

connected to the award of present-day Takeshima, then called

- 6 -
M atsushima. The year 1 6 6 1 was used because Kawakami said
that “ 1 6 6 1 was the year the O oya and M urakawa families
became able to sail to present-day Takeshima with formal
recognition of the 

  ” . S everal years in which sea
crossings took place appear in the O oya family document.
H owever, this means no more than that they were able to sail
to M atsushima(present-day Takeshima) . Kawakami also could
not record more than “ gaining the 

     ( ) [private
opinion] ” . Thus, one cannot take this and claim that “ in 1 6 6 1
the 

  awarded both families” .

3 . The B an on S ail ing to Takeshima( U l l eu ngdo) and

M atsu shima( p resent- day Takeshima)

The people of Yonago( ) had engaged in seafaring

enterprise on and around Takeshima(U lleungdo) for 7 0 years
from the first half of the 1 7 th century. They brought back
precious goods such as abalone, seal oil, paulownia wood and
medicinal herbs. I t is written that the people “ do not pay
tributes in kind” to the 

  . H owever, they gave skewered
abalone to prominent figures in the 

  , or sent
paulownia wood to anyone who wanted it. In addition,
Tottorihan loaned a thousand sacks of rice every year as
expenses for the seafaring, gave support by lending the lord of
a   money, or settled accounts by exchanging skewered
abalone for money.

This is how Takeshima(U lleungdo) became known as an

island belonging to the H oki state, and S aito H ō sen wrote in
1 6 6 7 that M atsushima were in the northwest of the O ki S tate.
This historical document received attention because it is the
first written record of M atsushima(present-day Takeshima) . Yet,

- 7 -
both countries(J apan and Korea) conflict over whether one
should consider Takeshima(U lleungdo) or O ki the north-western
border of J apan. I think that because sea crossings to
Takeshima(U lleugdo) were at their most freq uent at the time,
the people of O ki recogniz ed the island as J apanese territory
belonging to the H oki S tate. H ad this not been the case, then
a territorial dispute, the case concerning Takeshima( ),
between J apan and Korea 3 0 years later would have been
without cause.

The ‘case concerning Takeshima’ concluded with the

confirmation that Takeshima(U lleungdo) was Korean territory.
S aying settlers would attract raids by J apanese pirates, the
Korean government introduced a policy banning people from
settling on the island after the 1 5 th century. N eedless to say,
this does not mean they gave up sovereignty over the island.
H owever, the people of Yonago( ) were able to carry on
sailing to the island, because it was uninhabited. Yet, this
behaviour is merely on a par with breaking into a house while
the owner is away and stealing valuable goods. O ne cannot
claim that such theft is eq uivalent to what the M inistry of
F oreign Affairs writes on its internet homepage: “ B ased upon
effective control over the island, our country established
sovereignty over Takeshima by the mid-1 7 th century at the
latest” .

I n 1 6 9 3 , Korea protested about people from Yonago sailing to

Takeshima. That year people from Yonago sailed to Takeshima
and saw that there were already Koreans living there. They
reported this to the   office and handed in a Korean hat and
woven headband as evidence. Tottorihan demanded that the


  deal with this problem.

- 8 -
 I n the following year again Korean people were on the island
already [before the J apanese] . Two of the Koreans were taken
to Yonago and were detained for two months. They were sent
to N agasaki, then were sent home via Tsushimahan on orders
of the 

  . At that time, the 

  ordered
Tsushimahan to req uest that Korea forbid its people from
coming to Takeshima.

In response, Korea asserted that the “ Takeshima the

J apanese talk about is our U lleungdo” . The ensuing diplomatic
negotiations called the ‘case concerning Takeshima’ lasted for
three years. The result was that the 

  prohibited
seafaring to Takeshima and notified Tottorihan of this.

F urther to this, M O F A’s homepage claims that, “ S ailing to

U lleungdo was forbidden, yet, sailing to Takeshima was not” .
Thus, it is saying that there was no mention of a ban landing
at Takeshima(M atsushima) .

H owever, since M atsushima is an island associated with

Takeshima, it was not given any special attention. Thus, a
separate seafaring license was not even issued, and there was
no need to refer to it separately. S ince M atsushima was an
island that ships j ust passed by or briefly anchored at on their
way to Takeshima(U lleungdo) , no one sailed out merely for the
purpose of landing on M atsushima when sailing to
Takeshima(U lleungdo) was forbidden.

I n either case, the important point is that the 


  was
forced to ban sailing to Takeshima in response to a document
presented to the 

  by Tottorihan on D ecember 2 5 ,
1 6 9 5 .

- 9 -
 Abe-bunggonokami( ) , a    to Tottorihan, had put
forward seven q uestions raised by Tottorihan regarding
Takeshima on D ecember 2 4 . The first of the q uestions raised
was: “ When was Takeshima included into I nshū ( ) and
H okishū ( ) ? ” . Tottorihan replied, “ Takeshima does not belong
to I nshū and H okishū .” And, replying to the seventh q uestion,
“ Are there any other islands the two nations(I nshū and
H okishū ) have j urisdiction over apart from Takeshima? " the
Tottorihan replied: “ There are no islands the two nations have
j urisdiction over, including Takeshima and M atsushima” .
I mportant here is that Tottorihan stated that “ both nations
I nshū ( ) and H okishū ( ) did not include” Takeshima and
M atsushima(present-day Takeshima) . O ne cannot say that
islands, not belonging to I nshu or H akushu, were J apanese
territory. I n other words, one cannot say that where sailing to
Takeshima was prohibited, the ban would not apply to
M atsushima.

As long as U lleungdo, then called Takeshima, was considered

Korean, then M atsushima(present-day Takeshima) , U lleungdo’s
sister island, is also Korean.

4 . A hn Y ong- bok’ s p rotest v isit to Tottori

The J apanese side knew that M atsushima existed along the

route to Takeshima. Although the Korean side has a record
describing the U san state of U lleungdo being merged with S illa
in 5 1 2 , there is no entry mentioning D okdo. The existence of
another island different from U lleungdo became known in the
mid-1 5 th century. The   
    [Article on U lj in County] in
the           ( ) [G eographical Appendix to the
Annals of King S ej ong] describes that, “ Two islands, U san and

- 10 -
M ureung, are located in the sea to the east of U lj in County,
and the two islands are not far apart. When it is clear and
bright due to wind, one can see from one to the other” .
H owever, because there was a ban on settling on U lleungdo,
this report would merely have been written by a civil servant
who was sent there occasionally. There is no information
collected from local people, and no one tried to confirm the
actual existence of U sando.

H ence, for example, the map of G angwon P rovince appearing

in   
 !  
 "    
   ( ) [R evised and
Augmented V ersion of the S urvey of the N ational G eography of
Korea] , published in 1 5 2 1 , depicted U sando to the west and of
the same siz e as U lleungdo. I t is said that the island was
initially called U sando, then appeared with names such as
S ambongdo and G aj ido. Yet, one cannot conclude that it is
present-day D okdo. H owever, because in 1 6 9 6 Ahn Yong-bok
from D ongrae came to J apan to protest before Tottorihan that
U sando was different from U lleungdo, one must conclude that
information about the island was already wide spread.

Ahn’s visit to J apan receives special mention in Korean

middle and high school history textbooks for asserting before
the 

  that D okdo was under Korean j urisdiction. Yet, in
J apan this historical event is considered a nonsensical
statement made by an impersonator or an individual prone to
exaggeration (etc.) . D espite being an important diplomatic issue,
they ignored Ahn’s visit. Conseq uently, it does not even appear
in         
( ) [H istory of Tottori P refecture] .

O n the Korean side there are historical records relating to

- 11 -
this incident for example      #        . I t records how
Ahn Yong-bok was arrested by the B ib y e ons a( ) [B order
D efense Command] and interrogated after returning from
J apan. That is to say, Ahn Yong-bok saw J apanese people on
U lleungdo and chased them to U sando saying, “ As M atsushima
is J asando it thus belongs to us.” J asando is U sando. Yet, in
J anuary of that year, the ban on sailing to Takeshima was
enforced and the people of Yonago did not go to the island
anymore. Therefore, Ahn Yong-bok’s remarks and actions are
made into nothing but lies.

There is a historical document held by Tottorihan, which

describes Ahn Yong-bok’s arrival and two months stay in the
H oki state in detail. I have previously mentioned this in (
) [A H istorical S tudy of J apan-Korea
R elations concerning Takeshima (U lleungdo) ] (2 0 0 0 , Taga
P ublisher) . B eing an affair involving two countries, I criticised
that the Korean side only depended on its own historical
records: ‘ ’[one’s own nation-centric historical
view] , when one should have elucidated by comparing both
countries’ historical documents.

Ahn Yong-bok who came to H oki state was carrying a

banner with the following inscripton: J ou l y ang d o G am s e j ang
S in A hnd ong j ig i( ) [The B anner of Ahn,
J oseon(Korea) ’s Tax Collecting O fficer for B oth I slands including
U lleungdo] . O kaj ima M asayoshi( ), the official of
Tottorihan, states in his Takeshimakō ( ) , published in
1 8 2 8 , that [Korea’s two islands of U lleungdo] here
stands for U lleungdo and U sando.

- 12 -
 F urther, it is still difficult to accept as a fact that Ahn
Yong-bok received from the L ord of H okihan( ) the
document ‘ ’ that appears in J os e on W ang j o S il l ok ,
and confirms U lleung and U san were both Korean territory.
Ahn was led to the J ō k a( ) [an urban district outside a
castle] , and treated as a diplomatic envoy. Yet, he did not meet
the L ord of the H an, so he did not receive any written
confirmation( ) . O ne cannot deny the possibility that the
petition( ) was submitted to the S hog u n via Tottorihan itself,
and that the case was mentioned in this process. I t can be
confirmed as a fact that during the B usan negotiations the
L ord of Tsushima notified the D ongrae B u s a( ) [magistrate]
that, " L ast Autumn, a person from your country submitted a
petition." The Korean side also confirmed this fact saying, “ I t
was a case of a petition made by a person who was blown (to
your country) by the wind” .

Thus, one must accept the fact that Ahn Yong-bok came to
Tottorihan to protest, and also accept that he insisted that the
two islands were Korean territory with U sando lying to the east
of U lleungdo.

5 . The M eij i G ov ernment D ecision

After the M eij i R estoration, the new government dispatched

foreign ministry officers to Korea, and they presented a report
entitled C hō s e nk ok u K ō s ai S him ats u N aitans ho(
) [An Confidential I nq uiry into the P articulars of Korea' s
F oreign R elations] in 1 8 7 0 (M e ij i 3 ) on their re turn. The
document gives details on how Takeshima and M atsushima
had become Korean. S tating that, “ M atsushima is an island
belonging to Takeshima. There are no documents published

- 13 -
about M atsushima and after G e nrok u J id ai( ) [G e nrok u
period] some settlers were sent for a while from Korea” , the
report shows the realiz ation that both Takeshima and
M atsushima are Korean territory.

S ubseq uently, the new government faced the problem of how

they were going to manage the application for the development
of Takeshima or M atsushima. I n the late 1 8 th century, a
western ship entered the S ea of J apan, found unmapped
Takeshima and M atsushima and wanted to give them new
names. O ne example is S mith’s ‘M ap of J apan’( ) on
which Takeshima is named ‘Argonaut’ and M atsushima
‘D az ure’. S iebold, who was in N agasaki, confused the names of
Takeshima and M atsushima, so that U lleungdo (Takeshima)
became M atsushima and M atsushima(present-day Takeshima)
became Takeshima. L ater, a F rench whaling vessel called
present-day Takeshima the $  % 
 R ocks, and this name was
used on western sea maps. I t became known as the L ianko
R ocks in J apan as well.

Amid this confusion of names, the J apanese government felt

the necessity to confirm the situation on the island and
investigate by sending ships and asking S himane P refecture
about the issue. I n 1 8 7 6 , at the req uest of the government,
S himane P refecture surveyed the historical references. The
prefecture then asked the M inistry of H ome Affairs whether
they could include the island located to the northwest of O ki
in sphere. The M inistry of H ome Affairs conducted its own
independent research and came to the conclusion that there
was another island, apart from Takeshima, and that was not
considered J apanese territory. H owever, the matter of territorial

- 14 -
j urisdiction was so important that they asked for a decision by
the !    ( ) [Council of the S tate] in M arch of the
following year. E ventually, with the approval given by I wakura
( ) the M inister of S tate and three other officials under him,
the H ome Affairs M inistry concluded that, “ Takeshima and the
other island had no relation to J apan.”

Also, in 1 8 8 0 the H ydrographic O ffice of the M inistry of N avy

sent the battleship Amagi( ) to conduct a survey, concluding
that “ I t is U lleungdo(called so in the olden days) . And suddenly,
a burning q uestion of many years was answered knowing that
it is merely a rock, although it is called an island in that
region.” This appears in Kitaz awa S eisei’s( )   
 
 
( ) [R esearch into Takeshima] (1 9 9 6 , reprint) .

6 . I mp erial O rdinance N o. 4 1 of the K orean E mp ire

I mperial O rdinance N o. 4 1 of the Korean E mpire was issued on

O ctober 2 5 , 1 9 0 0 . I t stated that U lleungdo was to be renamed
U ldo. !   (chief of the I sland) was to be called &
 

(magistrate of a county) , and the county system brought into

effect. F urther, U ldo County received j urisdiction over J ukdo
and S eokdo, as well as U ldo. H ere the Korean side argued that
J ukdo is J ukseodo( ) , I ocated near U lleungdo, and S eokdo
corresponds to D okdo. At that time, many people in the county
were from(Korea’s) J eolla P rovince and they spoke J eolla
dialect. Therefore they pronounced ‘D ok’ which means ‘alone’ or
‘lonley’( ) as ‘D ol’ meaning ‘stone’( ) . What was meant as D ol
I sland( / S tone I sland) came to be written according to the
spoken form. This is how the island came to be called D okdo
( ).

- 15 -
 I n relation to this, there is a story about M atsushima
(present-day Takeshima) recorded on S eptember 2 5 , 1 9 0 4 in
the logbook of the battleship N iitaka( ) . I t describes how a
log was taken of comments made by people who had been to
M atsushima and had seen the L ianc ou rt R ocks first hand. I t
reports that, “ The Korean people call the L ianc ou rt R ocks
D okdo( ) , and J apanese fishermen call them the L iankodō
(L ianko I sland) , a contracted form.” I n other words, when
Koreans write the island’s name in Chinese letters, it appears
as D okdo( ) , not S eokdo( ).

L ikewise, due to the fact that they recogniz ed S eokdo as

D okdo included in U ldo County, Kannishi( ) , the director of
S himane P refecture, and his party asked M agistrate S him
H eung-taek( ) of U I do County about the matter of
incorporating L iank od ō . The M agistrate of U ldo County was
shocked at the news of D okdo becoming J apanese and
immediately reported this to the G angwon P rovincial O ffice
demanding action.

I f one confirms the fact that the imperial ordinance of 1 9 0 0

refers to [S tone I sland] , namely D okdo, as Korean territory,
then the 1 9 0 5 J apanese incorporation of L iankodō cannot be
j ustified by referring to it as occupation of   

 

O ne cannot accept that the J apanese officials did not know

that L iankodō was Korean territory. L et me list a few examples.
F irst, Tabuchi Tomohiko( ) lists Yangkodō in his book
    

 
( ) [N ew Korean G eography] (1 9 0 5 ) in
the section on G angwon P rovince. “ B elieving this island to be
Korean” , N akai Yoz aburō , who applied for the incorporation of

- 16 -
D okdo into J apan, came to the capital in order to submit to
the Korean government an petition for a lease( ,
, 1 9 0 7 ).

The B ureau of L ocal Affairs of the M inistry of H ome Affairs,

which received the petition from N akai, rej ected the application
replying that, “ B y taking over such barren islands, which
might be territory of Korea, may amplify foreign countries’
mistrust of us. This may give the impression that our country
has ambitions to absorb Korea” (V ol. 1 , Tak e s him a K ank e i
S hiry ō [ ], S himane P refecture P ublic R elations
D epartment) .

7 . The I ncorp oration of L iankodō into J ap an

I n the autumn of 1 9 0 4 N akai Yoz aburō of S himane P refecture,

S aigō cho( ) went to Tokyo. After his application to the
M inistry of H ome Affairs was turned down, he met Yamaz a
E nz iro( ) , the D irector of P olitical Affairs at M O F A.
Yamaz a said, “ The present situation really calls for
incorporation as the prime obj ective, and there is no need to
worry as the H ome Affairs M inistry appears to be.” S ince
Yamaz a had worked at the legation in S eoul, he knew Korea
well. M oreover, M aki B okushin( ) , the D irector of F isheries
of the M inistry of Agriculture and Commerce, discussed this
affair with Kimotsuki Kaneyuki( ), the D irector of
H ydrography at the Admiralty. Then they submitted the
application for the ‘incorporation and lease of Yankodō ’ to the
three ministers of home affairs, foreign affairs and of
agriculture and commerce. Kimotsuki( ) , a director at the
Admiralty, said, “ F rom G eneral Kimostuki’s( ) conclusions,
we confirmed that this island does not belong to anyone.”

- 17 -
R eferring to the fact that N akai had begun to catch seals on
L iankodō the year before, the director proposed that the island
be incorporated into J apan by applying the theory of occupying
  

 

This was when the R usso-J apanese war had already started.
I n J une, an army transport ship was sunk in the Tsushima
S trait, which caused concern over the V ladivostok fleet’s
southwards advance. The navy decided to construct observation
posts on the Korean east coast and lay a telegraph cable. I n
S eptember, an undersea telegraph cable was deployed between
U lleungdo and the Korean coast. F or that reason, D irector
Yamaz a of the M inistry of F oreign Affairs built a watchtower on
L iankodō (present-day Takeshima) and laid an undersea cable
saying “ there will be no more anxiety in terms of the
surveillance of enemy ships” , and also said that incorporation
of territory was of immediate importance.

O n J anuary 8 , 1 9 0 5 the Cabinet’s decision was recorded as

follows.

In the attached document the home affairs

minister contemplates the matter of j urisdiction over an
uninhabited isaland since there are no indications
that another country has claimed the uninhabited
island, and according to related documents, it is clear
that a man called N akai Yoz aburō migrated to the
island in q uestion, in year 3 6 of '  , to engage in
fishery. Thus, the occupation has been endorsed by
international law, and we move to incorporate the
island in J apan

- 18 -
 S aying that it is unknown whom this uninhabited island
belongs to is obviously a one-sided and arbitrary decision. As
mentioned above, five years earlier in 1 9 0 0 , the I mperial
O rdinance of Korea was promulgated. This would be why the
M inistry of H ome Affairs said “ There are suspicions that the
island may be Korean territory” . Also, it says that N akai
really did migrate there and engaged in fishing. H owever, he
merely put up a temporary, small house and only went to the
island during the fishing season. This does not amount to
what could be called migration. According to a report by the
warship Tsushima, “ it was a temporary stay of about 1 0
days.” The J apanese side claimed that they incorporated
D okdo by way of occupying   

  I f D okdo was  


 , the theory of indigenous territory cannot stand. Also,
the truth about “ occupation” becomes clear with the afore as
well.

F or these reasons the F oreign M inistry is putting forward a

theory of reconfirming territorial sovereignty on its homepage.
I t reads: “ The incorporation of Takeshima into J apanese
territory by cabinet decision and shimane P refecture P ublic
N otice was an act taken by J apanese government intention as
a modern nation with the aim of possessing Takeshima...
S ince it was also published in a newspaper, the act was not
conducted secretly; I t was a valid undertaking.”

H owever, the Korean side insists that occupation cannot be

considered valid since J apan neither informed the countries
concerned of the cabinet decision on territorial acq uisition,
nor published it in the official gaz ette. I n addition, S himane
P refecture that took the measure of incorporating Takeshima
into J apanese territory had given only within-prefecture-notification.

- 19 -
 F urther, J apan claims that the island is indigenous
J apanese territory. H owever, as seen above on two occasions
in 1 6 9 6 and 1 8 7 7 they had decided that the island had no
connection with J apan. I n addition, since the E do period they
have denied that they held rights to the island. N ot once did
they maintain that it was under J apanese j urisdiction. That
is to say that J apan never reaffirmed its intention to possess
the island.

The name of the island can rather serve as an example for

the J apanese side not having any vested territorial interests
in the island. What caused J apan to give up calling
Takeshima M atsushima, and without any q uestions use the
name $  % 
 R ocks coined by the F rench whaling ship?

The circumstances under which the new name was chosen

are also strange. Consulted by S himane P refecture’s D irector
of H ome Affairs, the G overnor of O ki replied that even if it
was a mistake to name U lleungdo Takeshima, ignoring the
historic background, the new island should be named
Takeshima since it was recorded as M atsushima(due to
S iebold’s misunderstanding) . I f we go by the governor’s reason
for naming the island, then it should not have been called
Takeshima but M atsushima, and this applies likewise to the
E do period. And yet, no q uestions were asked in the S himane
P refecture office, and the name ‘Takeshima’, as appears in
the reply by the governor, were passed on to the home affairs
ministry. A cabinet meeting decided on that name. E ven
locally there was very little awareness of the ‘new island’
Takeshima. Can one therefore call it J apan’s indigenous
territory?

- 20 -
 I n thinking about incorporating territory, one must bare in
mind that J apanese military forces were stationed in Korea at
the time.

I will now attempt to make this point clear. J apan declared

war on R ussia on F ebruary 1 0 , 1 9 0 4 and on F ebruary 2 3
concluded the J apan-Korea P rotocol. This was after J apanese
forces had landed at I ncheon, entered S eoul and brought the
city under military control. The Korean administration was
taken over by J apan. And J apan became able to temporarily
expropriate roads needed by its army. The right to station
army or forces and to expropriate land were ensured.
F urthermore, on M ay 3 1 , the Cabinet decided on ! 
   
&      ( ) [P rinciples Concerning F acilities in
Korea] , making it clear that J apanese policy intended to make
Korea a protectorate. O n August 2 2 , in the first
‘J apanese-Korean Agreement’, the Korean government was
forced to accept economic and foreign affairs advisors
appointed by J apan.

F ollowing the occupation of D alian in J anuary 1 9 0 5 the

battle of M ukden broke out in M arch. O n J anuary 2 8 , j ust
before the battle in the S ea of J apan in M ay, the J apanese
Cabinet passed a resolution to incorporate L iankodō . The
aforementioned shows that Yamaz a the D irector of P olitical
Affairs at the M inistry of F oreign Affairs and Kimotsuki, the
D irector of H ydrography at the Admiralty, were purposefully
influencing the events. The annexation of Takeshima took
place in J anuary under circumstances of war, after the
J apanese military had seiz ed control of public security in the
S eoul area. Conseq uently, even though the Korean

- 21 -
government may have been ‘informed’ of J apan incorporating
Takeshima into its territory, because the circumstances were
such that Korea could not have raised any obj ections, it is
acceptable to think that J apan simply disregarded Korea from
the outset. After the peace treaty between J apan and R ussia
was concluded, the second ‘J apanese-Korean Agreement’ was
signed on N ovember 1 7 . F rom D ecember 2 0 the Korean
R esidency-G eneral was established, and Korea swiftly became
a J apanese protectorate.

The 1 0 0 th anniversary of the J apanese incorporation of

Takeshima is also the 1 0 0 th anniversary of the J apanese
coloniz ation of Korea. The J apanese incorporation of
Takeshima was the first step of coloniz ing Korea.

8 . The U nresol v ed P robl em of Takeshima

The 1 9 4 3 Cairo D eclaration stipulates that J apan shall return

territories seiz ed by force. S ince this excludes ‘indigenous
territory’, Kawakami Kenz ō and others began to research
Takeshima, and wrote   
      
 
 
      

( ) [A S tudy of Takeshima from a

S tandpoint of H istorical G eography] .

B y issuing S CAP I N N o. 6 7 7 in 1 9 4 6 , G eneral H eadq uarters,

S upreme Commander for the Allied P owers included
Takeshima in an area where the J apanese governmnet’s
administraion ceased as far as Korea was concerned. S CAP I N
N o. 1 0 3 3 , issued in the same year, locates Takeshima outside
the limits of J apanese fishing.

- 22 -
 S ome believe that the documents lost validity when the
Treaty of P eace with J apan came into effect in 1 9 5 2 , and
that Takeshima became J apanese territory as a result of the
conclusion of the treaty. They argue that a document such as
the above should not be construed as the final decision on
matters of territorial sovereignty.

H owever, some argue that it is wrong to believe that the

abrogation of S CAP I N N o. 1 0 3 3 , effected three days before the
treaty came into effect, automatically meant that all other
directives were made void. The Korean side insists that since
the only directive expressly referring to Takeshima is S CAP I N
N o. 6 6 7 , then surely there is no reason why the peace treaty
should conflict with it, and that there was no substantive
change.

These problems were caused as a result of intensification of

the Cold War in the F ar E ast, and U S attempted to tackle
this situation.

I n S eptember 1 9 4 9 the S oviet U nion announced that it was

in possession of nuclear weapons. In O ctober the
pro-American R epublic of China was replaced by the P eople’s
R epublic of China, and in 1 9 5 0 the Korean War broke out.
With the U S -S oviet Cold War stand off spreading throughout
the F ar E ast, the U S ordered D ulles, the advisor to the
D epartment of S tate, to open preliminary negotiations in
order to facilitate the conclusion of the Treaty of P eace with
J apan. The U S aimed to make J apan its ally, while the
defeated nation resisted rearmament persisting with the idea
of a ‘peace-loving J apan’. According to Kawakami, the

- 23 -
territorial division outlined in the draft peace agreement
proceeded as part of efforts to establish “ stability in the F ar
E ast.”

Takeshima is shown as Korean territory until the draft

dated N ovember 2 , 1 9 4 9 . S iebold, a political advisor stationed
in J apan, noticed this and suggested to the D epartment of
S tate that Takeshima be incorporated into J apan. H e argued
that a weather and radar facility should be installed
there(Takeshima) in consideration of the security situation.
This is how after the draft of D ecember 2 9 , 1 9 4 9 , Takeshima
was classified as J apanese territory. At that time G reat
B ritain and N ew Z ealand had placed Takeshima outside
J apanese territory, but D ulles’ persuasion led to the final
draft being ratified.

O f course Korea rebelled demanding that Takeshima be

mentioned expressly. The U S did not accept this stating that
“ one cannot consider that Korea had maintained its territorial
claim.” This was the result of J apanese diplomacy
advocating the theory of ‘J apan’s inherent territory’. H owever,
Korea was not merely looking on. Kim D ong-j o the then
director of political affairs in the [Korean] F oreign M inistry
said that the U S had clearly excluded Takeshima from
J apanese j urisdiction and “ had tacitly endorsed Korean
sovereignty over the island.” O ne can say that America’s
double standards resulted in this issue being settled
ambiguously.

The Treaty of P eace with J apan drawn up under U S

leadership does not refer to Takeshima. This is why the

- 24 -
J apanese and Korean side interpret the situation differently.
Therefore, in the postscript of his own book even Kawakami
himself, who had worked at the J apanese M inistry of F oreign
Affairs advocating the ‘inherent territory’ theory, found himself
having to note that the Takeshima issue is, as of yet,
unresolved. I n the book, he hints that no answers had been
found to problems pertaining to post-war history and to points
of controversy over international law.

I n any case, issues pertaining to historical events are as is

stated in this article. D espite Kawakami’s book being a good
classic on Takeshima research, of course, today almost 4 0
years after it was published, various works have been
published bringing forth much criticism of the book. The
J apanese M inistry of F oreign Affairs’ obsolete way of thinking
and habit of ignoring such research results is inexcusable.

The Takeshima issue is a challenge for both J apan and

Korea. There is an urgent need to establish a common forum
to elucidate upon an obj ective comparison of historical
sources belonging to both sides. I n Korea, a collection of the
J apanese side’s original historical materials has already been
published such as S ong B yeong-gi’s !     "   
(  
     (A selection of H istorical M aterials on S overeignty
over D okdo) (2 0 0 4 , H allym U niversity Asian R esearch
I nstitute) . S ince this is a historical problem, I think it is
crucial to confirm historical facts and then to start respect
them.

[O riginal M ay 2 0 0 5 , pp.5 3 -6 3 ]

- 25 -