제목   |  Japan`s Claim Over Dokdo 작성일   |  2010-11-23 조회수   |  3563

Parts highlighted indicate the main parts of this article so please, read at least the yellow parts to understand it with essential vocabulary.

Essential vocabulary: colonial legacy: 식민지적 유산/postcolonial: 탈신미지적/sovereignty: 통치권/The Allied Powers: 연합군

In this essay, I want to look at the related issues regarding the debate the territorial claim over Dokdo islets. This issue, in their different ways, represents a colonial legacy in a postcolonial world. Their resolution highlights the need for a postcolonial sensitivity and more positive global citizenship.
The Case of Dokdo

Dokdo consists of two small rocky islands surrounded by approximately 33 smaller rocks. In total it amounts to just less than two square kilometers. For such a small place it has generated intense political heat. There are two issues, the precise details of the counter claims and the more general historical context. In terms of the details, the historical record is clear; Dokdo was under effective Korean sovereignty until 1905. It was then annexed as part of Japanese imperial expansion in 1905.

With Japan's defeat in 1945 Japan's title was effectively renounced. The Allied Powers specifically excluded the islands from Japanese control in 1946. It is here that things get a bit hazy.

Japan managed to influence the San Francisco Peace Treaty so that the islets' sovereignty was put in doubt. Successive drafts of the treaty had conflicting conclusions. Korea's case was weakened by President Syngman Rhee's inability to make the Korean case for Dokdo. He instead focused on the quixotic case of Korean sovereignty over Tsushima Island.

Even as Japan-Korea relations improved, Dokdo remained unresolved. It has been used as a rallying platform for nationalist Japanese politicians, especially those wishing to burnish their ``tough" stance. The reality, however, is that Dokdo remains under effective Korean control. With sustained, low key persistence, Korea will remain in control of Dokdo.

The issue is not just one of political posturing. The rich fishing stocks and existence of gas hydrate makes the competing claims all that more economically relevant. Even the smallest of islands can become opportunities to extend 200-mile exclusive economic zones.

There is also the more general historical context: in the first part of the 20th century Japan was an imperial colonial power. The naming of the Sea of Japan as well as the claiming of Dokdo were part of the same imperial-colonial expansionism.

Behind recent Japanese claims lies a continuation of a colonial mentality and imperial expansionism. At the heart of both issues are a colonial legacy and a continuing colonial mentality.

인쇄하기