US Has Responsibility To Defend South Korea’s Ownership of Dokdo Island

Published in Hankook Ilbo
(South Korea) on 2 February 2014
by Editorial (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Yeonju Sung. Edited by Gillian Palmer.
On Jan. 30, a day before the Lunar New Year in 2014, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe declared that he planned to take the Dokdo ownership dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Involving the ICJ in the dispute is not a surprise; this has been a typical political action of Japan. Yoshihiko Noda, a former Japanese prime minister, made such a statement in August 2012 when former Korean President Lee Mung-bak visited Dokdo Island. Noda dropped his plan at that time due to objections from the United States. Abe said the same thing as Noda, but Abe seemed more determined to take action regardless of other countries’ opinions. Considering Abe caused recent historical provocations between Korea and Japan, his words at this time are more considerable than before. In fact, Japan recently ratcheted up the tension. In January, Japan decided to add [the sentence] “Takeshima [a Japanese name for Dokdo] is Japanese territory” to the new manual for middle school and high school teachers.

The dispute cannot be brought to the ICJ unless both sides agree to take it to the court. Also, Korea has effectively governed the island, so Japan has no grounds for ownership. For this reason, the Korean government did not react to Japan’s assertion.

With Abe’s provocation, Korea needs to reconsider the political measures for the ownership of Dokdo Island. Since Korea has controlled the island, the Korean government has not taken strong action so far. The government used to think that official reactions could cause misconceptions of the island as a disputed territory in the international community. Instead, the government has tried to strengthen Korean control over Dokdo, such as establishing the Korea Dokdo Research Center. But these days, Japanese organized diplomatic offensives cannot be ignored anymore. If Korea keeps reacting passively to Japanese assertions, the international community could believe that Korea is not being more assertive on this issue.

In this context, senior adviser of the Korean Democratic Party Sohn Hak-kyu understood the situation. He said, “The United States has to explain why the San Francisco Peace Treaty did not include a clause about Dokdo Island.” After World War II, the allied powers and Japan agreed with this peace treaty. Until the fifth revision, it obviously showed that Korea had ownership of Dokdo Island, so Japan had to return it. For some reason, however, it disappeared from the sixth revision. At this point, the U.S. fundamentally caused disorder. Thus, the U.S. should correct this problem before the historical dispute between Korea and Japan becomes worse.


<미국은 '독도 한국 영유권' 명확히 할 책임 있다>

아베 신조 일본 총리가 설 전날인 지난달 30일 독도 영유권 문제를 국제사법재판소(ICJ)에 단독 제소하는 방안을 검토하고 있다고 밝혔다. ICJ 제소는 일본이 독도 문제를 걸고 넘어질 때마다 들고 나온 상투적 수법이긴 하다. 2012년 8월 이명박 대통령의 독도 방문 직후 노다 요시히코 당시 총리도 단독 제소 입장을 밝혔다가 미국의 반대로 철회한 바 있다. 그러나 이번 단독 제소 운운은 과거사에 대해 끝없는 도발을 계속하고 있는 아베 총리의 입에서 나왔다는 점에서 달리 볼 수 밖에 없다. 일본은 지난달 중ㆍ고교 학습지도요령 해설서에 "다케시마(독도의 일본명)는 일본 땅"이라고 명기토록 하는 등 노골적으로 독도 영유권을 주장하는 도발 수위를 높여가고 있다.

ICJ 제소는 한쪽 일방만으로는 성립될 수 없다. 더욱이 독도는 우리가 실효지배하고 있어 명분으로나 현실적으로나 일본이 독도 영유권을 주장할 근거는 없다. 우리 정부가 "무의미한 짓"이라고 일축한 것도 이런 이유에서다.

이번 아베 총리의 도발을 계기로 우리의 독도 정책을 재검토할 필요가 있다. 정부는 실효적 지배라는 명분을 내세워 적극적 대응을 자제해 왔다. 맞받아쳐봐야 국제적으로 분쟁지역이란 오해만 사게 된다는 판단에서다. 대신 해양연구센터를 세우는 등 실효적 지배를 강화하는데 주력해왔다. 그러나 일본이 조직적인 외교공세를 펴는 마당에 우리가 이를 마냥 무시할 수는 없는 상황까지 왔다. 자칫 일본의 주장에 무력하게 끌려간다는 인상을 줄 수도 있다.

이런 점에서 손학규 민주당 상임고문이 "샌프란시스코 강화조약에서 독도 관련 조항이 빠진 이유를 미국은 규명해야 한다"고 주장한 것은 일리가 있다. 전후 연합국과 일본이 체결한 평화조약인 강화조약에는 5차 수정안까지 독도를 일본이 한국에 넘겨야 할 지역으로 명시돼 있었으나 6차 수정안에서 갑자기 빠졌다. 한일 과거사 분쟁이 돌이킬 수 없는 지경으로 치닫고 있는 이 시점에서 미국은 혼란을 야기한 당사자로서 이제 이 문제를 명확히 해야 할 책임이 있다.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: Trump’s Disappointment Will Have No Adverse Consequences for Putin*

             

Australia: As Trump Turns His Back on Renewables, China Is Building the Future

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Australia: Donald Trump Is Not the Only Moving Part When It Comes to Global Trade

Topics

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor

Indonesia: Trump’s Chaos Strategy Is Hurting His Allies, Not Just His Rivals

Sri Lanka: Epstein Files, Mossad and Kompromat Diplomacy

Sri Lanka: Is America Moving towards the Far Right?

Turkey: Musk versus the Machine: Disrupting the 2-Party System

Canada: How To Avoid ICE? Follow the Rules

Canada: Trump Doesn’t Hold All the Cards on International Trade

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Trump and Ukraine: a Step in the Right Direction

Related Articles

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Hong Kong: China, Japan, South Korea Pave Way for Summit Talks; Liu Teng-Chung: Responding to Trump

South Korea: Where Is the War in Ukraine Heading?

Zimbabwe: China Is the True Power in Putin and Kim’s Budding Friendship

South Korea: Explore Nuclear Options