(EDITORIAL from the Korea Times on Jan. 6) - Documents on Dokdo: Tokyo Needs to Be More Honest Before Truth

Japan has denied wartime crimes and distorted historical facts, saying there are
no official Japanese government documents backing them up. Tokyo also rejected
records of other countries and even accounts of live victims under similar
contexts, making it doubly difficult for its neighbors to seek compensation or
set things right.
This is why we think it especially significant that two Koreans have recently
discovered Japanese governmental documents tracing back to 1951, which show Tokyo
officially excluded Dokdo islets from its territory on two occasions, by
ordinances from the Prime Minister's Office and the Ministry of Finance,
respectively. The ordinances, which were made to distinguish ``current'' Japanese
islands from islands of ``colonial days," unequivocally kept Dokdo out along with
Jeju and Ulleung islands. Unlike Korea, Japan does not specify own territory in
its Constitution, so the two decrees can be said as having legal authority on
territorial issues.
As a matter of fact, the international society clearly excluded the three Korean
islands from the Japanese territory as early as in 1945, as shown by the
Directive No. 677 issued by the allied forces' headquarters in Tokyo. Japan
claimed the final text of San Francisco Treaty in 1952 omitted Dokdo's exclusion
from Japanese territory, but most historians agree it was due to the lobbying by
the Japanese government.
Will the latest finding decisively change the situation of territorial dispute
between Korea and Japan toward Seoul's favor, then?
Hardly. It was only weeks ago the Japanese Foreign Ministry distributed pamphlets
containing its territorial claims on the rocky outcroppings in 10 languages
though its overseas missions, turning a deaf ear to Seoul's belated protests.
All this shows the Korean government needs to make more active and systematic
efforts for both developing diplomatic logic and staging public relations
activities abroad. In a hands-off policy called ``quiet diplomacy,'' Seoul has so
far been caught off guard by Tokyo's repeated provocation and fussed about
belatedly and emotionally.
Korea's only logic has been that Koreans discovered the islets earlier and lived
there earlier, but the international community, especially people in Western
countries have seen that a country's territory could change according to changing
dynamics of international politics.
To know how unprepared Seoul is for an eventual territorial duel, one has only to
visit major Web sites, in which Dokdo is spelled as diverse as ``Tok Island,''
``Tok-do,'' and ``Dok Island,'' while its Japanese counterpart is one and the
same, Takeshima. In the British Library site, there are only four academic theses
on Tok Island against about 400 on Takeshima.
The government, instead of just welcoming private citizens' voluntary and
strenuous efforts, should do what it can and try to find out more. It's all the
more regrettable, considering the Dokdo islet issue instantly draws attention of
almost all Koreans, while only a small group of the Japanese people show similar
interests in it.
Global financial turmoil and other international situations have made a joint
front among three Northeast Asian countries more important than ever. It is also
desirable for governments to separate diplomatically sensitive issues from their
overall cooperation. This does not mean, however, Seoul could put these problems
on the back burner but rather requires more skillful and consistent diplomacy.
Next year marks the centenary of Korea's annexation to Japan.
(END)