Japan should put old colonial dreams behind

Nathan McMurray

This is the sixth in a series of contributed articles by international and Korean experts shedding light on Japan’s claim on Korea’s easternmost islets of Dokdo and other affairs that prove Japan’s lack of remorse about historic misdeeds it has committed. ― E.D.

Discussions often break down into confusing comparisons of ancient documents and lists of dates of nearly forgotten events. Scholars in Korea and Japan have amassed impressive collections of artifacts that they use as evidence to carefully challenge the other side’s claims. What one side calls fact the other side calls fantasy.

A case in point is the ancient Korean record called the “Samguk Sagi.” It refers to a Korean official named Yi Sa-bu who ruled the Usan Kingdom, which allegedly included Ulleung Island and its satellite Dokdo. The lyrics of the Korean folk song “Dokdo is Our Land” refer to this saying, “the island kingdom Usan; Yi Sa-bu, the general of Silla, would laugh in heaven.”

Like the laughter of the general, Japanese scholars tend to mock the Usan Kingdom as less credible than stories of Atlantis. Yet no one can laugh off two historical facts: 1. Japan claimed Dokdo as part of its imperial expansion; and 2. Korea has controlled Dokdo since the defeat of the Empire of Japan.

The Japanese seized control of the Dokdo Islets in 1905, claiming it was “terra nullius,” meaning that it was “land belonging to no one.” They made this claim despite the existence of all those dusty old records documenting centuries of use and occupation.

The 1905 seizure happened just a month before Japan officially made Korea a protectorate and just a few years before Japan officially annexed Korea in 1910. Thus, the seizure of Dodko, Korea’s easternmost part, was a major event in Japan’s misguided age of empire.

Korea did not regain control of the islets until after Japan’s defeat in World War II. The 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan, the so called San Francisco Treaty, between Japan and the Allied Powers did not explicitly mention Dokdo.

Japan is quick to point this out. Yet Korea had control of the islets since before the treaty was signed by order of the Allied Powers in 1946. Further, the treaty said nothing of returning Dokdo to Japanese control.

The San Francisco Treaty is not the only relevant post war document. For example, the Cairo Convention of 1943 explicitly expels Japan from “territories, which she had taken by violence and greed.”

Later, Japan and Korea also executed what is frequently referred to as the 1965 Treaty, which strengthened diplomatic relations between Seoul and Tokyo. Under the 1965 Treaty, Japan agreed that all matters regarding property rights stemming from its occupation of Korea were resolved completely and finally.

Many Koreans, and most notably the victims of sexual slavery at the hands of the Japanese military, have concerns about the legitimacy of the 1965 Treaty and its effect on their rights. The fact remains, however, that upon the execution of the treaty, Japan did not include the Dokdo issue, when it was well aware that Korea was in control of the islets.

Regardless of how you interpret the events I refer to, it seems remarkable to me that the Japanese leadership has decided to aggravate its relationship with its closest and arguably most important neighbor by again claiming Dokdo ― a distant strand of rocky islets that cannot be seen from any part of Japanese territory.

It is also remarkable that Japan tries to make these claims while cherry picking history. Specifically, the Japanese leadership wants to claim Dokdo without referencing its imperial past or taking responsibility for that past. It is a staggering act of mental gymnastics.

Indeed, Japanese diplomats treat any reference to the dark legacy of Japanese imperial rule with regard to Dokdo (or many other sensitive issues between Korea and Japan) as unacceptable.

It appears that they believe the painful events Japan endured as a result of World War II ― namely the merciless bombing of Tokyo, the atomic attacks, and the loss of territory to Russia ― has absolved them from any remaining imperial stain.

Without a doubt, the Japan of today is far removed from the culture of radical Japanese nationalism and militarism that marked much of the last century. But true repentance requires restitution. Japan cannot continue to claim spoils seized through unlawful expansion or selective amnesia to reassess its history.

I find it tragic that the Japanese leadership, by claiming Dokdo and by continuing to offend the sensitivities of the women who suffered as sexual slaves at the hands of the Japanese military, continues to linger in the past instead of moving toward the future.

As a person who has advised Korean and Japanese clients on successful business ventures, I have witnessed firsthand the benefits of mutual cooperation between parties from these two countries. There is much to build on.

I know that there are many people in both Korea and Japan that would like to see increased cooperation based on mutual trust and respect both on economic matters and matters related to strategic defense.

Sadly, the true potential for a vibrant East Asian region will never be reached if the Japanese leadership continues to pander to right-wing domestic forces that seem committed to the unproductive course of selectively editing history in a vain attempt to cling to the specters of a dead empire.

Nathan McMurray has a lengthy background in Korea and China as both a scholar and a legal professional working with global companies on corporate advisory and dispute resolution matters. He currently works for Barun Law and writes a blog at www.korealawtoday.com. <The Korea Times/Nathan McMurray>

news@theasian.asia