DOCSLIB.ORG

Masterarbeit / Master's Thesis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MASTERARBEIT / MASTER’S THESIS Titel der Masterarbeit / Title of the Master‘s Thesis „The Influence of US Foreign Policy in East Asia after World War II on Relations between Japan and South Korea. The Example of Dokdo/Takeshima“ verfasst von / submitted by Julia Peindl-Böhm, BA angestrebter akademischer Grad / in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (MA) Wien, 2016 / Vienna 2016 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt / A 066 805 degree programme code as it appears on the student record sheet: Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt / Masterstudium Globalgeschichte und Global Studies degree programme as it appears on the student record sheet: Betreut von / Supervisor ao.Univ.-Prof. Dr. Margarete Maria Grandner Abstract After the Second World War the United States felt to some extent responsible for the world’s problems. One of those responsibilities was to prevent Communism from spreading too far in Western Europe as well as East Asia. Japan was seen as an important part of the Non-Communist world and there was discussion about boosting the Japanese economy and drafting a Peace Treaty to end United States occupation. After the Korean War broke out it was even more important to have Japan as an ally in the area. The drafting and signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan occurred partially during the Korean War – and it was very important for the United States to draft the final version of the Treaty in a way that would grant them a continuing amicable relationship with both Japan and South Korea. Into this backdrop comes the dispute about an island group, called “Dokdo” in Korean and “Takeshima” in Japanese, over which Korean and Japanese fishermen had a few skirmishes before Japan colonialized Korea in 1910. The United States’ failure to mention the ownership of the island group in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco – presumably because both countries were claiming them and the United States did not want to choose a side – caused the conflict to erupt again, this time on a national level. The case of Dokdo/Takeshima is still unresolved until today and plays a big part in the continuing discord between South Korea and Japan. 2 Zusammenfassung Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika waren nach dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs in einer besseren Verfassung als die meisten anderen Länder, die aktiv an dem Krieg beteiligt waren. Aus diesem Grund fühlte sich die amerikanische Außenpolitik teilweise verantwortlich Probleme in anderen Teilen der Welt zu lösen. Ein besonderes Anliegen der Amerikaner war es den kommunistischen Vormarsch in Europa und Ostasien zu verhindern. Japan wurde nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg von den USA besetzt und wandelte sich in wenigen Jahren vom Gegner zum Verbündeten gegen den Kommunismus in Ostasien. Während die japanische Wirtschaft angekurbelt wurde und Entwürfe für einen Friedensvertrag mit Japan verfasst wurden, brach 1950 der Koreakrieg aus. In dieser Zeit war es sehr wichtig für die Amerikaner ein gutes Verhältnis zu Japan und Südkorea zu haben und deswegen wurde der Friedensvertrag mit Japan auf eine Art und Weise verfasst, die – zumindest kurzfristig – keines der beiden Länder vor den Kopf stoßen würde. Die Kompromisslösung, die für den Friedensvertrag gefunden wurde, – besonders die Entscheidung das zukünftige japanische Territorium nicht genau festzulegen – hat einen alten Inselkonflikt zwischen japanischen und südkoreanischen Fischern wieder aufleben lassen und zu einem nationalen Problem gemacht, das bis heute besteht. Die betroffene Inselgruppe, die in Südkorea „Dokdo“ und in Japan „Takeshima“ genannt wird, wurde in den Entwürfen für den Friedensvertrag von San Francisco teilweise Südkorea und teilweise Japan zugeordnet aber in der endgültigen Version nicht erwähnt. Dieses Versäumnis hat einen Streit zwischen Südkorea und Japan ausgelöst, der nun schon über 60 Jahre anhält. Der geringe materielle Wert der Inselgruppe lässt vermuten, dass bei dem Streit das gegenseitige tiefsitzende Misstrauen ausgelebt wird, welches seit der Kolonialherrschaft Japans in Korea zwischen 1910 und 1945 besteht. Die schlechte Stimmung zwischen Südkorea und Japan macht auch den USA zu schaffen, da die Amerikaner mit beiden Staaten eng verbündet sind. Wie bei dem Entwurf des Friedensvertrags von San Francisco ziehen es die Amerikaner jedoch vor neutral zu bleiben, um keinen der beiden Verbündeten vor den Kopf zu stoßen. 3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 6 Part One – The Big Picture 2. US Foreign Relations after WWII 8 2.1. Origins and Beginning of the Cold War 8 2.2. The Division of Korea and the Korean War 12 2.3. US Interest in Japan as an ally 19 3. Korea – Japan Relations since 1900 23 3.1. Colonization of Korea 23 3.2. Korean Resentment towards Japan 25 Part Two – The Island Conflict 4. The case as it is presented by South Korea and Japan 29 4.1. “Dokdo” – Korean Island Group since Ancient Times 31 4.2. Japanese Annexation of “Takeshima” in 1905 33 5. US / Allied Powers Involvement 38 5.1. Wartime Declarations 38 5.2. The Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instructions 39 5.3. The San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan and its Connection to the Island Case 41 6. The Influence of “Dokdo/Takeshima” on South Korean – Japanese Relations 59 6.1. The Development of the Dispute after 1951 59 4 6.2. The Depiction of the Dokdo/Takeshima Case by the South Korean and Japanese Ministries of Foreign Affairs 61 7. Conclusions 68 8. Literature 69 Appendix I. Report by the National Security Council on the Position of the United States with Respect to Soviet-Directed World Communism 78 II. Intelligence Estimate Prepared by the Estimates Group, Office of Intelligence Research, Department of State 81 III. United States Courses of Action With Respect to Korea 85 IV. U.S. Initial Post-Surrender Policy for Japan 87 V. Final Text of the Communiqué [Cairo Conference] November 26, 1943 88 VI. Comment on Draft Treaty of Peace with Japan dated November 19, 1949 by W. J. Sebald 89 VII. Japan’s Consistent Position on the Territorial Sovereignty over Takeshima 93 VIII. The Korean Government’s Basic Position on Dokdo 94 IX. Q & A on Dokdo 94 X. MOFA Spokesperson’s Statement on the Account of ROK-Japan Relations in Japan’s Diplomatic Bluebook 2015 (April 7, 2015) 96 5 1. Introduction This work shows how relatively small decisions by a third party can have a huge impact on the foreign relations between two neighbors. I’m sure there are many cases that would fit the statement above. This paper is dedicated to an island conflict between South Korea and Japan. This conflict was elevated from a fight between fishermen into problematic foreign relations between South Korea and Japan. Both countries base their claims on the island group called Dokdo in Korean, and Takeshima in Japanese, on historical sources. However, the modern conflict started in 1952, after the Peace Treaty of San Francisco with Japan had been signed. The Peace Treaty had been drafted by the Allied Powers of World War II – mostly by the United States – and it caused at least three island conflicts by neglecting to clearly define Japanese territory. The island group Dokdo/Takeshima is currently occupied by South Korea and in the opinion of large parts of the South Korean population there is no dispute over it. However, there are a lot of articles, books, blogs etc. published about Dokdo/Takeshima in South Korea – more than in Japan. There is a Dokdo-museum on the South Korean island of Ulleungdo, and South Korean children are taught about the archipelago in school. The importance of the island group in South Korea is reflected in the literature about it. Thus, even though they don’t want to admit that the ownership of Dokdo/Takeshima is disputed, they desperately want to prove that it is South Korean. Many books and articles, even some written by Japanese natives, are biased towards Dokdo/Takeshima belonging to South Korea. This paper is divided into two parts. Part One is about the historical events and relations between the United States, the Soviet Union, Korea and Japan from the early to the mid-20th century. The reason for the Dokdo/Takeshima case’s continuing presence can be found in Korea’s and Japan’s colonial past. Since the material worth of the island group is quite negligible, the continuing dispute is most likely a matter of principle. United States Foreign Relations, especially the Cold War, the Korean War and US occupation policy in Japan, have had great influence on the case of Dokdo/Takeshima. Even though the island dispute is not very present in Part One of this paper, the events described in it explain the actions and decisions that led to the dispute. Part Two describes Dokdo/Takeshima’s geography and material value, as well as South Korea’s and Japan’s historical claims of the island group. The United States’ 6 part in the dispute is examined closely in the subchapters about the Wartime Declarations, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instructions and the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Finally, the island dispute’s strain on the relationship between South Korea and Japan is analyzed, and as proof of how important the case is for both parties, the paper gives an account of how Dokdo/Takeshima is presented on the websites of the respective Ministries of Foreign Affairs. 7 Part One – The Big Picture 2. US Foreign Relations after WWII 2.1. Origins and Beginning of the Cold War When the Second World War was over, most of the Allied Powers had years of recovery and reconstruction ahead of them. In the United States conditions were far better than in most countries that had been closely involved in the fighting.
Recommended publications
  • Foreign Aid and the Development of the Republic of Korea: the Effectiveness of Concessional Assistance

    Foreign Aid and the Development of the Republic of Korea: the Effectiveness of Concessional Assistance

    AID Evaluation Special Study No. 42 Foreign Aid and the Development of the Republic of Korea: The Effectiveness of Concessional Assistance December 1985 Agency for International Development (AID) Washington, D.C. 20523 PN-AAL-075 FOREIGN AID AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONCESSIONAL ASSISTANCE AID SPECIAL STUDY NO. 42 by David I. Steinberg u.s. Agency for International Development October 1985 The views in this report are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Agency for International Development. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . ................................................... v Summary . ................................................... vii Glossary . .................................................. x Map . ...•.........•..••........••..•••••.•..•••...•.......•. xi 1 • In trod u c t ion . .• . • • • . • • . • • . • . • . 1 1.1 Background . ...................................... 1 1.2 On Folklore and Definitions ..•...•.•.........•.••• 3 1. 2 .1 Growth . .................................... 7 1. 2. 2 Equity . .................................... 7 1.3 Factors in Korean Growth and Equity •.••.•......... 9 1. 3.1 Ethnici ty an~ Culture .•.•.................. 9 1. 3. 2 Land Reform ................................ 11 1.3.3 Education ..•...........•.......•........... l3 1. 3. 4 The Mer i tocratic State ......•....•......... 16 2. Korean Growth ..•••..................................... 1 7 2.1 Economic Accomplishments of the Republic of Korea, 1953-1983 ....•......................••..
  • Joint U.S. Korea Academic Studies

    Joint U.S. Korea Academic Studies

    1800 K Street NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 www.keia.org | @KoreaEconInst 2014 t. 202.464.1982 Vol. 25 2014 Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies Academic U.S.-Korea Joint 2014 25 Vol. ASIA’S SLIPPERY SLOPE: TRIANGULAR TENSIONS, IDENTITY GAPS, CONFLICTING REGIONALISM, AND DIPLOMATIC IMPASSE TOWARD NORTH KOREA JOINT EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: GILBERT ROZMAN, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY South Korea’s Triangular Relations Divergence on Economic Regionalism U.S.KOREA Japan-South Korea-U.S. Relations Asia-Pacific Regional Economic Integration: Sue Mi Terry U.S. Strategy and Approach Matthew P. Goodman ACADEMIC The Seoul-Beijing-Tokyo Triangle: Terra-centric Nordpolitik vs. Oceanic Realpolitik Japan and Regional Integration Dominoes: Sung-Yoon Lee Golden Opportunity or Another Political Failure? Takashi Terada STUDIES China-South Korea-U.S. Relations Gilbert Rozman Korean Bridge: Balancing Asian Economic ASIA’S SLIPPERY SLOPE: TRIANGULAR Regionalism Between the United States and China TENSIONS, IDENTITY GAPS, Russia, China, and the Korean Peninsula Jin Kyo Suh Valery Denisov and Alexander Lukin CONFLICTING REGIONALISM, AND China’s Choice: To Lead or to Follow on DIPLOMATIC IMPASSE TOWARD Asian Economic Integration National Identity Approaches to Zhang Xiaotong NORTH KOREA East and South Asia EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Japan’s National Identity Gaps: A Framework for New Thinking on Diplomacy Toward North Korea Analysis of International Relations in Asia GILBERT ROZMAN Gilbert Rozman South Korea’s Search for a New Diplomatic Strategy Toward North Korea; Trustpolitik National Identity and Attitudes Toward North as a Goldilocks Approach? Korean Defectors Shin-wha Lee Jiyoon Kim What to Do about North Korea Bridging the Chinese National Identity Gap: Mark Fitzpatrick Alternative Identities in Hong Kong and Taiwan Syaru Shirley Lin Purge of Jang Song-Taek and its Impact on China’s Policy Toward North Korea Identity and Strategy in India’s Asia-Pacific Policy Zhu Feng and Nathan Beauchamp-Mustafaga Deepa M.
  • Part 1:Peace and Unification

    Part 1:Peace and Unification

    Part 1:Peace and Unification Q1 A138th On June 25th the KPA army crossed the 38th parallel with tanks and artillery and quickly started to overrun South Korea. The southern ROK forces were not as well for war and quickly. The North Koreans would have probably secured the peninsula if UN forces had not intervened. The US interest in Korea was mostly to keep Japan secure and limit the USSR’s. Initially, UN forces were driven back until they occupied only a small of the peninsula in South Korea. Eventually, the UN forces were able to the tide and almost took control of the entire peninsula until China decided to 1 The Korean Armistice Agreement was between the United Nations Command, the Korean People’s Army for North Korea and the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army. The Armistice Agreement supposed to be drafted soon after the Armistice Agreement was signed. However, a peace treaty still has not been reached and North and South Korea are still technically at war. Also, South Korea’s president Rhee never signed the Armistice Agreement because he not accept Korea as being divided. Rhee wanted to completely unify the peninsula but would be unable to do so without the support of the UN forces. Kim Il-Sung also did not want to sign an armistice, to cease. Another provision in the Q3 Armistice was the swapping of prisoners of war. A3 Korean The Joint Security Area was established as the place for negotiation to take place and it is the only place that the North Korean and UNC forces meet face to face.
  • An Outline of the Territorial Dispute Over Takeshima*

    An Outline of the Territorial Dispute Over Takeshima*

    This article was translated by JIIA from Japanese into English as part of a research project sponsored by the Government of Japan to promote academic studies on the rule of law. JIIA takes full responsibility for the translation of this article. To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your personal use and research, please contact JIIA by e-mail ([email protected]) Citation: Rule of Law Series, Japan Digital Library (March 2015), http://www2.jiia.or.jp/en/digital_library/rule_of_law.php An Outline of the Territorial Dispute over Takeshima* Takashi Tsukamoto Evidence shows that in the 17th century economic activities were carried out by Japanese people on Takeshima, which Japan officially incorporated into Shimane Prefecture in 1905. Although the Japanese administration thereof was temporarily suspended during the postwar occupation, the sovereignty of Japan over the island was subsequently confirmed during the preparation of the Peace Treaty. In 1952, Korea placed the island within the so-called Syngman Rhee Line, which gave rise to a dispute between Japan and Korea over the attribution of the island. From 1954 onward, Korea has been stationing armed personnel on the island, and thereby de facto occupying it. Korea calls Takeshima as Dokdo. It alleges that the Usando that appears in ancient Korean books since the 15th century refers to Takeshima, and that the 1900 ordinance provided Takeshima (Seokdo) was within the administrative area of Ulleungdo. Also, it claims that the Japanese govern- ment determined in 1877 that Takeshima was not Japanese territory. This paper outlines the historical developments relating to the territorial dispute over Takeshima by dividing it into 21 chronological sections.
  • Toward Conflict Transformation of the Japan-Korea Territorial Dispute

    Toward Conflict Transformation of the Japan-Korea Territorial Dispute

    Takeshima or Dokdo? Toward Conflict Transformation of the Japan-Korea Territorial Dispute 1* Daisuke Akimoto This article examines the territorial dispute between Japan and Korea over the Takeshima/Dokdo Islands from a perspective of peace research and conflict resolution. This article employs a modified version of conflict analysis framework and analyzes the historical, political, legal, economic, and social aspects of the bilateral territorial conflict. Indeed, the dispute has long been insoluble due to the complicated historical, political, economic, and social factors underlying the relationship between the two countries. Moreover, it is difficult to legally settle the bilateral dispute because the Korean government has declined to refer the conflict to the International Court of Justice. In order to overcome the deadlock of the territorial conflict, this article proposes applying the transcend method for conflict transformation of the Japan-Korea territorial dispute and to conduct Ho‘oponopono—a traditional Native Hawaiian dispute- resolution approach for a mutual reconciliation—between the Japanese and Korean people. Keywords: Dokdo, Ho‘oponopono, Liancourt Rocks, Takeshima, transcend method I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 52 II. METHODOLOGY: POLICY ANALYSIS ASPECTS AND CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION METHODS ............................................................. 55 III. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: THE ORIGIN OF THE TAKESHIMA/DOKDO ISLANDS DISPUTE .............................................. 58 IV. POLITICAL ASPECT: THE POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE *Daisuke Akimoto is a research fellow of the Institute of Contemporary Asian Studies (ICAS) at Temple University Japan Campus, the Institute for Security & Development Policy (ISDP) Stockholm Japan Center, and the Japan-Korea Cultural Foundation. Akimoto holds a Ph.D. in Asian Studies and International Relations (University of Western Sydney), an M.A.
  • Disaster Named the Republic of Korea

    Disaster Named the Republic of Korea

    The Base National Korean Mind is Utterly Incomprehensible to the Japanese BY Kou Bunyu(Ga0 Wen-xiong), critic Falsehood, fraud, mutual mistrust, empty arguments, ignorance, humiliation, cowardliness—these are the true faces of the great Korean people with a history that is five thousand years old. Nationality Painted with Betrayal and Mistrust The Republic of Korea’s President Lee Myung-bak’s landing on Takeshima Island and utterly thoughtless comment concerning the Japanese Emperor instantly fueled anger and protests throughout Japan. There is the sense of resignation, rather than a mere rising of anti-Korean sentiment, that is beginning to settle among the Japanese people that Korea is no longer a proper nation. In spite of the fact that Japan and Korea concluded a Basic Treaty after World WarⅡ, one Korean President after another still obstinately demands that Japan should apologize and show regret. While Japan has accepted such Korean claims and repeatedly made such acceptance clear in writing—and has virtually made apologizing a ritual—Korean anti-Japanese sentiment has neither ceased nor calmed down. When President Kim Dae-jung and Roh Tae-woo’s two-generation-long, ten-year pro-Chinese, pro-North Korean, anti-Japanese and anti-American left-wing administrations changed to that of business-minded Lee Myung-bak, who clearly promised to end the troublesome Korean-Japanese relationship of the past, Japan, with much optimism, also expected a better and normalized relationship between the two countries. However, decent Japanese with common sense were utterly shocked by the sudden, drastic change in attitude and abnormal behaviors displayed by President Lee Myung-bak since this August, and cannot help but feel that “We have been betrayed again.” “You too, Lee Myung-bak!”—Japan’s mistrust against Korea continues to pile up all the more.
  • Territory Disputes and the Triangle Relationships Between Japan, South Korea and China

    Territory Disputes and the Triangle Relationships Between Japan, South Korea and China

    Territory Disputes and the Triangle Relationships between Japan, South Korea and China Xianghua Wen Supervisor: Peer Møller Christensen AALBORG UNIVERSITY Development and International Relations 10th Semester Thesis 09/30/2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1 1. METHODOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................. 5 1.1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .......................................................................... 6 1.2. EMPIRICAL DATA ................................................................................................ 7 1.3. GENERAL INTRODUCTION OF THE THESIS ................................................. 8 1.4. STRUCTURE OF THE MAIN PARTS OF THE THESIS ..................................... 9 2. THEORIES ............................................................................................................. 10 2.1. STRATEGIC TRIANGLES .................................................................................. 10 2.2. WORLD SYSTEM THEORY .............................................................................. 12 3. HISTORICAL REVIEW ...................................................................................... 15 3.1. TRIBUTARY SYSTEM IN EAST ASIA ............................................................. 15 3.2. GREATER EAST ASIA CO-PROSPERITY SPHERE ........................................ 18 3.3. EAST ASIA AND THE COLD WAR ..................................................................

  • 10 Points to Understand the Takeshima Dispute (PDF)

    With Definitive clarifications Q&A as to why Takeshima is Japan’s territory! 10 points to understand the Takeshima Dispute Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan Table of Contents ◆ Japan’s Consistent Position on Territorial Sovereignty over Takeshima P. 2 ◆ An Outline of the Japanese Position on Sovereignty over Takeshima and the Illegal Occupation by the Republic of Korea P. 3-P. 4 10 points to understand the Takeshima Dispute ▲ Point 1 Japan has long recognized the existence of “Takeshima.” P. 5-P. 6 ▲ Point 2 There is no evidence indicating that the ROK has long recognized the existence of Takeshima. P. 7 ▲ Point 3 Japan had established sovereignty over Takeshima by the mid-17th century at the latest. P. 8 ▲ Point 4 While Japan prohibited the passage to Utsuryo Island towards the end of the 17th century, the lack of a prohibition on passage to Takeshima continued. P. 9 ▲ Point 5 The ROK currently refers to the false statement made by Ahn Yong-bok as one of the foundations for its claim to sovereignty over Takeshima. P. 10 ▲ Point 6 In 1905, Japan reaffirmed its sovereignty over Takeshima through a Cabinet decision. P. 11-P. 12 ▲ Point 7 In the process of drafting the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the ROK requested that the United States add Takeshima to the territories to be renounced by Japan. However, the United States rejected that request. P. 13-P. 14 ▲ Point 8 Takeshima was designated as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces in Japan. P. 15 ▲ Point 9 The ROK delineated the so-called “Syngman Rhee Line” on the high seas in contravention of international law, and illegally occupied Takeshima as a unilateral act.
  • PDF Download

    PDF Download

    REVIEW OF ISLAND STUDIES The “Critical Date” of the Takeshima Dispute Miyoshi Masahiro 1. Introduction 2. Roots of the Takeshima Dispute 3. Takeshima and Three Treaty Negotiations 4. Korean Claims of “Effective Control” 5. The Critical Date A. Definition of “Dispute” B. The Critical Date in International Judicial Precedents C. Incidental Legal Issues 6. How Could the Takeshima Dispute Be Addressed? 7. Conclusion 1. Introduction One major pending issue in Japan’s relationship with South Korea is a territorial dispute over a group of small islands in the Sea of Japan called Takeshima in Japanese and Dokdo in Korean. There are currently no prospects for a resolution. The official Korean position is that a dispute does not exist at all, while Japan contends that there is one. Tokyo proposed on three occasions that the issue be referred to the International Court of Justice, which Seoul rejected each time, reasoning that there is no dispute to settle. At the same time, South Korea continues to reinforce what it calls the “effective control” of the islands, apparently in an attempt to turn its de facto possession into a fait accompli. It also continues to actively carry out international public relations activities to reinforce this view. While claiming territorial rights, Japan, on the other hand, has been decidedly unassertive, and some have voiced frustration with such a “weak-kneed” response.1 1 Japanese patrol boats have been hesitant to enforce jurisdictional rights around Takeshima ever since the South Korean government unilaterally proclaimed the Rhee Line in 1952. Japan has every right to exercise jurisdiction in the seas around Takeshima if the islands belong to Japan.
  • Takeshima: Japan's Territory

    Takeshima: Japan's Territory

    竹島 Takeshima Informational Leaflet Takeshima ～ Takeshima: Japan’s territory ～ ▲“Map of Takeshima and Matsushima submitted by Kotani Ihei" (Tottori Prefectural Museum) This is a map submitted by Tottori-Domain at the request of the Edo government in 1696. It depicts Shimane Peninsula, Oki Islands, Matsu- shima (currently called Takeshima), and Isotakeshima (Ulleungdo) in their correct locations. Also on Matsushima, it shows a picture of a cabin along with a “Boat Dock" annotation. Shimane Prefecture / Shimane Prefecture Board of Education The Shimane Citizen's Conference Supporting the Return of Takeshima and the Northern Territories ── Takeshima: Early Showa Period ── “Fishing at Takeshima" “Map of Takeshima" (South side up) Oki Fishermen actively hunted sea lions, gathered Drawn by late Isaburo Yawata from Oki Island. He abalone and wakame seaweed. visited Takeshima nine times during the early Showa period. Takeshima: Inaccessible Japanese Island ── To solve the Takeshima issue ── February 22 is To solve the Takeshima issue, it is important to keep the public informed and raise awareness regarding Takeshima. In light of historical Shimane Prefecture has been studying the Takeshima issue, raising awareness among Shimane citizens, and enriching international law, Takeshima education at schools. an inherent part of “Takeshima Territorial Right Estab- “Ordinance to establish Takeshima lishment Campaign, Oki Island Town Day" was adopted. Meeting"(October 24, 2010) (March 16, 2005 Shimane Prefectural Assembly) “Advertisement Tower” (JR Matsue Station) “Learning about Takeshima at Local “Takeshima Day" Memorial Ceremony Elementary Schools" (February 22, 2011) In 2009, all local Shimane elementary and middle schools started teaching children about Takeshima. ── What is the Takeshima issue ? ── On January 18, 1952, the then Presi- dent of the Republic of Korea (ROK), Syngman Rhee, issued a Declara- tion concerning maritime sovereignty, drew a line (“Syngman Rhee Line”) in the Sea of Japan that included the area over Takeshima.
  • Takeshima As Part of Japan’S Territory in the Prewar Era No

    Takeshima As Part of Japan’S Territory in the Prewar Era No

    Reference 1 History of Takeshima as part of Japan’s territory in the prewar era No. Content Date Created Repository No.1 Notification of Permission for Passage to Takeshima (copy) 1618 (Genwa 4) Municipal Yonago Historical-Museum No.2 Ensign of the Hollyhock Crest (Aoi-mon) for ships sailing for Takeshima 17th century (estimated) Municipal Yonago Historical-Museum No.3 Note submitted to the Shogunate patrol officer lodging at the Ohya family 1681 (Enpou 9) Shimane Prefecture Takeshima Reference Room in the 9th year of Enpou (1681) No.4 Letter from Kameyama Shozaemon to Oya Kyuemon-Katsuzane September 1660 (Manji 3) Shimane Prefecture Takeshima Reference Room No.5 Information document issued by Roju (Senior Councilor of the Shogunate) 1696 (Genroku 9) Tottori Prefectural Museum regarding the prohibition on passage to Utsuryo Island (copy) No.6 Attached map in the request for incorporation into the territory and lease 1904 (Meiji 37) Shimane Prefecture Public Records Center of "Lyanko Islands” (copy) No.7 Cabinet Decision of January 28, 1905 Jan. 28, 1905 (Meiji 38) National Archives of Japan No.8 Shimane Prefectural Notice No. 40, 1905 Feb. 22, 1905 (Meiji 38) Shimane Prefecture Public Records Center No.9 Original Record of Longitude and Latitude Measurement, 1908 Aug. 1908 (Meiji 41) Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department, Japan Coast Guard No.10 Ledger of State-Owned Land / Takeshima May 17, 1905 (Meiji 38) Shimane Prefecture Public Records Center No.11 Imperial Edict No. 54 of 1909 Mar. 29, 1909 (Meiji 42) National Archives of Japan No.12 Shimane Prefectural Ordinance No. 8 Mar. 1, 1906 (Meiji 39) Shimane Prefecture Public Records Center No.13 Rental fees for state-owned property (land use fees) 1925 (Taisho 14) Shimane Prefecture Public Records Center No.14 Official Gazette (6586) Jun.
  • U.S.-Korea-Japan Trilateral Cooperation

    U.S.-Korea-Japan Trilateral Cooperation

    1800 K Street NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 www.keia.org | @KoreaEconInst 2014 t. 202.464.1982 Vol. 25 2014 Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies Academic U.S.-Korea Joint 2014 25 Vol. ASIA’S SLIPPERY SLOPE: TRIANGULAR TENSIONS, IDENTITY GAPS, CONFLICTING REGIONALISM, AND DIPLOMATIC IMPASSE TOWARD NORTH KOREA JOINT EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: GILBERT ROZMAN, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY South Korea’s Triangular Relations Divergence on Economic Regionalism U.S.KOREA Japan-South Korea-U.S. Relations Asia-Pacific Regional Economic Integration: Sue Mi Terry U.S. Strategy and Approach Matthew P. Goodman ACADEMIC The Seoul-Beijing-Tokyo Triangle: Terra-centric Nordpolitik vs. Oceanic Realpolitik Japan and Regional Integration Dominoes: Sung-Yoon Lee Golden Opportunity or Another Political Failure? Takashi Terada STUDIES China-South Korea-U.S. Relations Gilbert Rozman Korean Bridge: Balancing Asian Economic ASIA’S SLIPPERY SLOPE: TRIANGULAR Regionalism Between the United States and China TENSIONS, IDENTITY GAPS, Russia, China, and the Korean Peninsula Jin Kyo Suh Valery Denisov and Alexander Lukin CONFLICTING REGIONALISM, AND China’s Choice: To Lead or to Follow on DIPLOMATIC IMPASSE TOWARD Asian Economic Integration National Identity Approaches to Zhang Xiaotong NORTH KOREA East and South Asia EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Japan’s National Identity Gaps: A Framework for New Thinking on Diplomacy Toward North Korea Analysis of International Relations in Asia GILBERT ROZMAN Gilbert Rozman South Korea’s Search for a New Diplomatic Strategy Toward North Korea; Trustpolitik National Identity and Attitudes Toward North as a Goldilocks Approach? Korean Defectors Shin-wha Lee Jiyoon Kim What to Do about North Korea Bridging the Chinese National Identity Gap: Mark Fitzpatrick Alternative Identities in Hong Kong and Taiwan Syaru Shirley Lin Purge of Jang Song-Taek and its Impact on China’s Policy Toward North Korea Identity and Strategy in India’s Asia-Pacific Policy Zhu Feng and Nathan Beauchamp-Mustafaga Deepa M.