[Opinion] The true history of Dokdo

Posted on : 2013-03-07 15:43 KST Modified on : 2013-03-07 15:43 KST
Historical evidence shows the dispute between South Korea and Japan is not as complicated as some like to claim

By Patrick Jolly

The Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty of 1905, also known as Eulsa, began Korea‘s modern colonial history. Japan’s international standing allowed it to bring Korea into its territorial holdings through a series of arrangements with Western colonial powers designed to maintain peace in East Asia. This progression adversely shaped Korea for nearly a century, and robbed it of longstanding historical claims to Dokdo - dating back to the sixth century -during the reign of Silla.

Japan’s victory over Russia, also in 1905, created diplomatic leverage with the United States and gave it preferential status in the Portsmouth Treaty of 1905 negotiations (Sept. 5), which sought to settle high-impact international concerns at the close of the Japan-Russo War. The outcome placed Japan in a position to force the “Protectorate” Treaty of 1905, (Nov. 17), which authorized Japanese control of all ports, including Dokdo, and placed troops on Korean streets.

Budding international relationships and conditions left Korea in an unenviable predicament, between two colonial powers.

With the United States already occupying the Philippines, following the Spanish-America War (1898), it had no interest in facing opposition from Japan. Existing evidence suggests that Japan and the United States met to discuss privately the sensitive diplomatic issue of Japan colonizing Korea.

Theodore Roosevelt‘s desire “for maintenance of peace in the Far East” quoted from the Taft-Katsura Agreement, highlights diplomatic concerns that predate Portsmouth by more than a month (July 27, 1905).

Discovered in 1924, made public in 1925, the Agreement provides insight into shared, gradual, objectives and reveals Roosevelt’s determination to maintain peace with the Meiji through planned security agreements, “spheres of influence,” that allowed Japan to control Korea. In return, the United States kept an unchallenged position in the Philippines.

Its significance and long-term impact on Korea’s overall political

development continue to arouse speculation however it’s clear that the exchange between Taft-Katsura is reflected in both Portsmouth (Article II) and Protectorate (Article I) treaties of 1905.

Not everyone approved. Horace Allen, Consul General to Korea, protested any plan that compromised Korea’s independence, without success, and, in 1906, Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize for his participation in Portsmouth.

Less recent but equally useful in framing colonial circumstances, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance (1902, updated in 1905), is another example that brings Japan‘s willingness to cooperate with larger colonial systems into sharper focus. Britain’s support for Japan’s preeminence in Korea was strengthened and reiterated (Article III, 1905), but not recognized as an equal partner through this or previous agreements (the Japanese Treaty of Amity and Commerce of 1858).

Japan enjoyed five years of uninterrupted international acceptance in Korea prior to complete annexation. However, due to corruption and political discontent, collaborators had their interests as well.

Cooperation with Meiji from inside the late Joseon government became a hostile reality, yet treacherous political maneuvering did not represent the ruling government, or citizens, and events during the signing of the “agreement” made it clear that Japan would never achieve legitimate government status, one by the people.

In 1905 several of King Gojong’s high-ranking administrative assistants committed suicide, when Ito Hirobumi, Meiji’s Resident-General of Korea, forced Korea’s official notary seal to the Protectorate Treaty of ‘05 and Gojong, in 1907, opposed this aggressiveness to such an extent that he sent delegates to The Hague and, while there, an envoy member committed suicide in protest to Korea being stripped of its diplomatic authority.

Yi Wan-Yong, a collaborator, signed the Treaty of Annexation (1910), following an attempt on his life. This continued 35 years of solid foreign rule overall best remembered by its exploitation and mass arrests, notably the Korean Conspiracy Trial of 1912.

Many documents pertaining to the occupation years (1910-45) are elusive, or undisclosed, so an academic-level of certainty is difficult to achieve. We do know that “progress” and “modernization” under duress led to unjust laws that relegated Koreans to second-class citizens and caused great losses in personal income and potential.

Korea by the end of the war in 1953 was war-torn and impoverished. Japan, conversely, benefited from another economic rebirth, partly due to the Korean War, and, with this came measurable international influence.

Despite this, President Syngman Rhee established a peace line in the Pacific (1952) as an attempt to normalize relations. Japan refuses to acknowledge its legitimacy, citing colonial agreements that were finalized in 1905 as proof of present-day ownership.

Japan attempted to create the impression that it was being victimized when it declared national “Takeshima Day” in 2005, in response to Korea “occupying” Japanese territory. In addition to the problem of Japan’s current bias, also found in its school textbooks, all countries involved in legitimizing the subordination of Korea should evaluate deeper, established, aspects of an ongoing problem that seems immensely complex.

It isn’t. Dokdo has always belonged to Korea.

Patrick Jolly has been a university instructor in Korea for 10 years and is currently employed at Pyeongtaek University where he teaches business and English courses.

 

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

Most viewed articles