Japan Should Steer Clear of the Historic Issue in the Territorial Dispute Over Takeshima
NISHIKAWA Megumi / Journalist
September 5, 2012
For Japan, the key to the Takeshima (Korean name: Dokdo) issue lies in keeping it separate from the issue of historic significance. It is important for Japan to appeal to the international community regarding the legitimacy of its claim strictly on the basis of hard facts and international law.
The case being made by the Japanese government is as follows. Even during the Closed Door policy of the Edo period, travel to Takeshima was not prohibited. In 1905, the Cabinet decided to incorporate the island into Shimane Prefecture. Under the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty that restored its post-WWII independence, Japan was to renounce its claim to "Korea, including the islands of Quelpart (Jejudo), Port Hamilton (Geomundo) and Dagelet (Ulleungdo)." Takeshima was not included in the article. Before the treaty was signed, South Korea requested the addition of Takeshima and was rebuffed by the United States on the grounds that the island had never been treated as part of Korean territory. Unsatisfied, South Korea unilaterally designated the "Syngman Rhee Line"in 1952 and began its illegal occupation of Takeshima. As such, Japan's claim is based on facts and international law.
Meanwhile for South Korea, Dokdo is nothing but an issue concerning historic significance. 1905 was the year it became a Japanese protectorate, and South Korea claims that Takeshima was unjustly incorporated into Shimane Prefecture while Korea was stripped of its diplomatic authority, which makes the move invalid under international law. The incorporation led to Japan's annexation of the country in 1910, and for South Korea the incident is the very symbol of colonial rule.
Japan is determined to resolve the issue based on the facts and international law. South Korea insists on adopting a historic perspective. Neither side is likely to compromise, so Japan must go about appealing its legitimacy in its own way.
What concerns me is that some conservative politicians – perhaps out of their pent-up resentment against South Korea - have begun to call for a revision of Japan's official statement regarding the "Comfort Women" issue made in 1993 by Kono Yohei, who was Cabinet Secretary in the administration of Prime Minister Miyazawa Kiichi. The statement recognized the element of coercion by saying that “in many cases they were recruited against their own will” in an act that "severely injured the honor and dignity of many women," and expressed the "sincere apologies and remorse" of the Japanese government. Former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo has commented on the necessity of reviewing this statement, while Matsubara Jin, Chairman of the National Security Commission, has also expressed his intentions of proposing a review by Cabinet members.
However, it would be unwise to deepen the rift with South Korea over this issue. By expanding bilateral confrontation to the Comfort Women issue would not only jolt the focus away from the territorial issue, but would play into the hands of South Korea, which is seeking to place Takeshima in the context of the issue of historic significance. Once the spotlight is turned on the Comfort Women, the international community is likely to adopt a historic perspective and Japan will undoubtedly be placed on the defensive regarding its claim to legitimacy on the Takeshima issue, no matter how hard it appeals to the facts and international law. In fact, the South Korean Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry has reportedly dispatched a directive to its diplomatic missions to emphasize the historic aspect to appeal their case on Dokdo to the international community. Japan must refrain from inflaming the situation by taking up the historic issue.
The writer is Expert Senior Writer on the Foreign News Desk at Mainichi Shimbun newspaper.
The case being made by the Japanese government is as follows. Even during the Closed Door policy of the Edo period, travel to Takeshima was not prohibited. In 1905, the Cabinet decided to incorporate the island into Shimane Prefecture. Under the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty that restored its post-WWII independence, Japan was to renounce its claim to "Korea, including the islands of Quelpart (Jejudo), Port Hamilton (Geomundo) and Dagelet (Ulleungdo)." Takeshima was not included in the article. Before the treaty was signed, South Korea requested the addition of Takeshima and was rebuffed by the United States on the grounds that the island had never been treated as part of Korean territory. Unsatisfied, South Korea unilaterally designated the "Syngman Rhee Line"in 1952 and began its illegal occupation of Takeshima. As such, Japan's claim is based on facts and international law.
Meanwhile for South Korea, Dokdo is nothing but an issue concerning historic significance. 1905 was the year it became a Japanese protectorate, and South Korea claims that Takeshima was unjustly incorporated into Shimane Prefecture while Korea was stripped of its diplomatic authority, which makes the move invalid under international law. The incorporation led to Japan's annexation of the country in 1910, and for South Korea the incident is the very symbol of colonial rule.
Japan is determined to resolve the issue based on the facts and international law. South Korea insists on adopting a historic perspective. Neither side is likely to compromise, so Japan must go about appealing its legitimacy in its own way.
What concerns me is that some conservative politicians – perhaps out of their pent-up resentment against South Korea - have begun to call for a revision of Japan's official statement regarding the "Comfort Women" issue made in 1993 by Kono Yohei, who was Cabinet Secretary in the administration of Prime Minister Miyazawa Kiichi. The statement recognized the element of coercion by saying that “in many cases they were recruited against their own will” in an act that "severely injured the honor and dignity of many women," and expressed the "sincere apologies and remorse" of the Japanese government. Former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo has commented on the necessity of reviewing this statement, while Matsubara Jin, Chairman of the National Security Commission, has also expressed his intentions of proposing a review by Cabinet members.
However, it would be unwise to deepen the rift with South Korea over this issue. By expanding bilateral confrontation to the Comfort Women issue would not only jolt the focus away from the territorial issue, but would play into the hands of South Korea, which is seeking to place Takeshima in the context of the issue of historic significance. Once the spotlight is turned on the Comfort Women, the international community is likely to adopt a historic perspective and Japan will undoubtedly be placed on the defensive regarding its claim to legitimacy on the Takeshima issue, no matter how hard it appeals to the facts and international law. In fact, the South Korean Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry has reportedly dispatched a directive to its diplomatic missions to emphasize the historic aspect to appeal their case on Dokdo to the international community. Japan must refrain from inflaming the situation by taking up the historic issue.
The writer is Expert Senior Writer on the Foreign News Desk at Mainichi Shimbun newspaper.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
竹島領有権に歴史問題を絡ませてはいけない
西川 恵 / ジャーナリスト
2012年 9月 5日
竹島（韓国名・独島）問題の日本にとってのポイントは、これを歴史問題と絡ませないことである。あくまで事実と国際法に基づいて正当性を国際社会に訴えていくことが大切だ。
竹島問題についての日本政府の主張は次の通りだ。江戸時代の鎖国令下でも竹島への渡航は禁止されなかった。１９０５年、島根県への編入を閣議決定した。日本が戦後の独立を回復した１９５１年のサンフランシスコ講和条約では日本が放棄すべき地域を「済州島、巨文島及び鬱陵島を含む朝鮮」と規定し、竹島は含まれなかった。韓国は講和条約締結前、竹島を含めるよう米国に要望したが、米国は「朝鮮の一部として扱われたことが決してない」と退けた。韓国はこれを不服として52年に一方的に「李承晩ライン」を設定し、竹島を不法占拠した…。事実と国際法に則っての主張である。
これに対して韓国にとって独島問題は歴史問題そのものである。１９０５年は日本が韓国を保護国とした年で、「韓国が外交権を奪われた中で竹島が不当に島根県に編入された。国際法上無効だ」と主張する。この編入は韓国にとって、１９１０年の日韓併合に向けた植民地支配を象徴する出来事以外の何ものでもない。
事実と国際法から判断しようとする日本と、歴史問題から見る韓国。双方の立場は交わりようがなく、日本は日本のやり方で正当性を主張していくしかない。
ここで私が懸念するのは、韓国に対する鬱屈した思いもあってか、一部の保守系の政治家から旧日本軍の従軍慰安婦問題について、１９９３年の宮沢喜一内閣時代の河野洋平官房長官談話を見直すべきだとの主張が出ていることだ。「総じて本人たちの意思に反し」「女性の名誉と尊厳を著しく傷つけた」として強制性を認め、「心からのおわびと反省の気持」を表明した談話である。安倍元首相はこの談話を見直す必要があると述べ、松原国家公安委員長も閣僚間での見直し論議を提起する考えを示した。
しかし慰安婦問題で韓国と対立をここで深めるのは賢明でない。領土問題から慰安婦問題に対立を広げることは、領土問題の焦点をずらし、歴史問題の脈絡の中に竹島問題を位置づけようとする韓国の主張にはまることなる。また慰安婦問題に焦点が集まれば、いくら事実と国際法に基づき日本が竹島問題の正当性を主張しても、国際社会は歴史問題の絡みで見るだろうし、そうなった場合の日本の守勢は明らかだ。実際、韓国の外交通商省は国際社会に独島問題をアピールするため、最近、在外公館に歴史的側面を強調するよう指針を出したという。日本から歴史問題を煽るようなことは慎まなければならない。
（筆者は毎日新聞 外信部 専門編集委員。）
竹島問題についての日本政府の主張は次の通りだ。江戸時代の鎖国令下でも竹島への渡航は禁止されなかった。１９０５年、島根県への編入を閣議決定した。日本が戦後の独立を回復した１９５１年のサンフランシスコ講和条約では日本が放棄すべき地域を「済州島、巨文島及び鬱陵島を含む朝鮮」と規定し、竹島は含まれなかった。韓国は講和条約締結前、竹島を含めるよう米国に要望したが、米国は「朝鮮の一部として扱われたことが決してない」と退けた。韓国はこれを不服として52年に一方的に「李承晩ライン」を設定し、竹島を不法占拠した…。事実と国際法に則っての主張である。
これに対して韓国にとって独島問題は歴史問題そのものである。１９０５年は日本が韓国を保護国とした年で、「韓国が外交権を奪われた中で竹島が不当に島根県に編入された。国際法上無効だ」と主張する。この編入は韓国にとって、１９１０年の日韓併合に向けた植民地支配を象徴する出来事以外の何ものでもない。
事実と国際法から判断しようとする日本と、歴史問題から見る韓国。双方の立場は交わりようがなく、日本は日本のやり方で正当性を主張していくしかない。
ここで私が懸念するのは、韓国に対する鬱屈した思いもあってか、一部の保守系の政治家から旧日本軍の従軍慰安婦問題について、１９９３年の宮沢喜一内閣時代の河野洋平官房長官談話を見直すべきだとの主張が出ていることだ。「総じて本人たちの意思に反し」「女性の名誉と尊厳を著しく傷つけた」として強制性を認め、「心からのおわびと反省の気持」を表明した談話である。安倍元首相はこの談話を見直す必要があると述べ、松原国家公安委員長も閣僚間での見直し論議を提起する考えを示した。
しかし慰安婦問題で韓国と対立をここで深めるのは賢明でない。領土問題から慰安婦問題に対立を広げることは、領土問題の焦点をずらし、歴史問題の脈絡の中に竹島問題を位置づけようとする韓国の主張にはまることなる。また慰安婦問題に焦点が集まれば、いくら事実と国際法に基づき日本が竹島問題の正当性を主張しても、国際社会は歴史問題の絡みで見るだろうし、そうなった場合の日本の守勢は明らかだ。実際、韓国の外交通商省は国際社会に独島問題をアピールするため、最近、在外公館に歴史的側面を強調するよう指針を出したという。日本から歴史問題を煽るようなことは慎まなければならない。
（筆者は毎日新聞 外信部 専門編集委員。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟