Dispute over Liancourt Rocks flares up (again)

Democratic Party of Japan lawmaker Ryuichi Doi admitted Wednesday to signing a declaration that Japan should give up claims to the Liancourt Rocks during a visit to South Korea in February.

The Liancourt Rocks are a group of two islets and 35 rocks in the Sea of Japan about halfway between Japan and Korea. They are known as Takeshima (“bamboo islands”) in Japanese and Dokdo (“solitary island”) in Korean. Both countries have historical claims to the islands, but the current dispute really began after World War II. As a result of the Treaty of San Francisco, Japan gave up sovereignty over its occupied territories, including Korea. In the first five drafts of the treaty, the Liancourt Rocks were described as Korean territory, but in the fifth through seventh drafts, as well as the final draft of 1951, they were referred to as Japanese islands. The islands have been administered by South Korea since 1954. Japan proposed to South Korea to refer the case to the International Court of Justice in 1954, but South Korea rejected the proposal.

The dispute involves convoluted arguments over who first claimed the islands, and the legitimacy of historical treaties signed by now defunct governments. The U.S. recognizes Japan’s claim to the islands, but refuses to get involved in the dispute, and has been downplaying its recognition of Japan’s claim in recent years. Both Japan’s and South Korea’s historical claims are questionable. The islands’ name has changed several times over the centuries, and it’s uncertain whether the islands in historical documents refer to the actual Liancourt Rocks. There are also questions over the reliability of ancient maps. Almost all historical documents and maps refer to the islands as Korean territory, and Japanese scholars concern themselves mainly with challenging those documents.

On Feb. 27, Doi signed the declaration during a visit with Christian-affiliated lawmakers in South Korea at a memorial event for a 1919 independence movement against Japanese occupation of Korea. While Doi disagreed with the South Korean claims over the islands in the declaration, he signed it because he “was not taking part in the event as a representative of the DPJ or the Japanese government.” He apparently didn’t take into account his status as a Japanese lawmaker when he signed the declaration. Prime Minister Naoto Kan said Doi’s act was “extremely deplorable” and he would “take appropriate measures on the issue.”

The dispute over a group of small, mainly uninhabitable islands may seem baffling to outsiders. There are only two South Korean residents on the islands: an octopus fisherman and his wife. Non-permanent personnel on the island includes 37 South Korean police officers, three Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries personnel, and three lighthouse keepers living on the islets on a rotating basis. Outside observers may ask, “Who cares about a few rocks?” The rocks themselves aren’t so important, but the waters around them are. The islands lie in rich fishing waters, which is important considering Japan’s reliance on seafood. The area may also contain large gas deposits, important to both countries as neither has an abundance of natural resources.

I have used the English name for the islands, which comes from the name of a French whaling ship that came close to wrecking on the islands in 1849, rather than the Japanese or Korean names so as to avoid taking sides on the issue. Personally I think South Korea has a stronger historical claim to the islands, but Japan has a stronger legal claim. While I’d like to see some sort of compromise on the issue, I doubt either side would be willing to accommodate the other. Any perception of ceding ground will infuriate each country’s nationalists, and be seen as a sign of weakness in the country’s leaders, evidenced by the reaction to Doi’s recent actions.