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

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.