･Reconfirmation , Liacnorut Rocks is terrotory of Japan under the treaty of Peace San Fransisco.
During the process of discussion of Draft Treaty of Peace with Japan, and the attached memoramdom, communications ,Liacnurt Rocks had been separately stated, and independently described from the Dagelet-Ulluengdo,the position of Liancourt rocks had not ben recoguized as Ulleungdo's adjunctive island. After the draft Treaty discussion, It has determined that Liacnourt Rocks is not the renouced territory from Japan under the Peace Treary, It means, Liacnourt Rocks is territory of Japan.
Syungman Rhee, fascism-tendency dictator, he declaired "Syungman Rhee Line or Peace Line", which is actually "Invasion -abduction line" and abducted 4.000 Japanese fishermans and invaded Liacnourt Rocks , started illegal occupatin of Liancourt Rocks with arms.
The United States, which she is main subscriber of the Treaty of Peace with Japan (San Fransico Treaty). She established US-Japan (日米行政協定） and because of the treaty, she got permission using "Japanese territory " Takeshima-Liancourt Rocks as U.S bomming range .
During the U.S bombing range of Japan's Liacnurt Rocks, some Korean on liancourt Rocks got raid there and more an more illegal landing by Korean on Liacnour Rocks and it becomes serious problem between them. United States, she re-confirmed the position of Liacnourt Rocks under the Peace terary and re-concluded the position of Liacnourt Rocks is territory of Japan again. She referenced the process under the ground of Rusk Notes on 8.10.1952 and Treaty of Peace with Japan (San Fransisco Traety)
On this pages we can understand the "reconfirmation of Dean Rusk Notes and Traty of Peace with Japan on various records after Syungman Rhee's militarism invasion.
1952.10.16.Official －informal document
"Korean on Liancourt Rocks http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp9.html
by the Charge d´Affaires ad interim E. Allan Lightner, Jr., US Embassy, Korea,
To the US Ambassador to Japan, Robert Murphy.
"Use of Disputed Territory (Tokto Island) as Live Bombing Area".（enclosed memo)
1952.11.14.Confidential Security Information about Liancourt Rocks
Letter from Office of Northeast Asian Affairs To E. Allan Lightner American Embassy, Pusan Korea
by Kenneth T. Young, Jr. Director Office of Northeast Asian Affairs
It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington. During the course of drafting the Japanese Peace Treaty the Republic of Korea's views were solicited, in consequense of which, the Korean Ambassador requested the Secretary of State in a letter of July 19, 1951 to amend Article2 (a) of the draft treaty so as to include the islands of Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) and Parangdo as well as Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet among those islands over which Japan would renounce right, title and claim by virtue of recognizing Korea's independence. In his reply to the Korean Ambassador the Secretary stated in a letter dated August 10, 1951 that the United states could not concur in the proposed amendment as it applied to the Liancourt Rocks since according to his information the Liancourt Rocks had never been treated as a part of Korea, they had been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Japan's Shimane Prefecture since 1905 and it did not appear that they had over before been claimed by Korea. As a result Article2 (a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan makes no mention of the Liancourt Rocks;
"Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title, and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet."
The action of the United States-Japan Joint Committee in designating these rocks as a facility the Japanese Government is therefore justified.The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN677, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, include Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks),did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently.
1952.12.04CONFIDENTIAL SECURITY INFORMATION
by E. Allan Lightner, Jr. American Embassy, Pusan Korea
I much appreciate your letter of November 14 in regard to the status of the Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks). The information you gave us had never been previously available to the Embassy. We had never heard of Deen Rusk’s letter to the Korean Ambassador in which the Department took a definite stand on this question. We of course knew of the ROK Government’s desire to have Article 2(a) of the Peace Treaty amended to include Dokdo and Parangdo and convoyed that request in a telegram to the Department at that time, along with other ROK suggestions for amendments to the draft treaty. We were subsequently made aware of the fact that Article 2(a) was not to be amended but had no inkling that that decision constituted a rejection of the Korean claim. Well, now we know and we are very glad to have the information as we have been operating on the basis of wrong assumption for a long time.
I am sending with a transmitting despatch, a copy of the note that we have just sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which includes as a final paragraph the wording suggested in the Department’s telegram no.365 of November 27 and which refers to Dean Rusk’s note to Ambassador Yang of August 10, 1951.
1953.07.22 COMFIDENTIAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Letter from Office of Northeast Asian Affairs To E. Allan Lightner American Embassy, Pusan Korea (3pages)
by L. Burmaster Office of U.S. Northeast Asian Affair
Possible Methods of Resolving Liancourt Rocks Dispute Between Japan and the Republic of Korea
Since sending the August 10,1951 note to the ROK Government, the United States Government has sent only one additional communication on the subject this was done in response to the ROK protest of the a??leged bombing of Dokdo Island by a United States military plane. The United States note of December 4, 1952 states:
" The Embassy has taken note of the statement contained in the Ministry’s Note that ‘Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks)…… is apart of the territory of the Republic of Korea.’ The United States Government’s understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in Assistant Secretary of States Dean Rusk’s note to the Korean Ambassador in Washington dated August 10, 1951.”
1953.11.30 Secret security Information.
Memorandum in regard to the Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima Island) controversy
by William T. Turner
MEMORANDUM IN REGARD TO THE LIANCOURT ROCKS
(TAKESHIMA ISLAND) CONTROVERSY.
Ambassador Allison contends (Tokyo's 1306, November 23) that the United States is "inescapably involved" in the Takeshima dispute. In evidence, he points to the Rusk note of 1951 and to the Potsdam Declaration, the Peace Treaty, etc..
There can be no question that the United States has committed itself to an attitude in this matter. However, I fail to see that the commitment carries with it the obligation to intervene between two contestants who are now sovereign nations and who have available to them ample machinery for settlement of such disputes. I cannot believe that a dispute of such essentially unimportant nature will lead to a situation serious enough to justify an intervention by us which could only create lasting resentment on the part of the loser. This is certainly no time to exacerbate our relations with either country. I think that this hands-off position should be maintained regardless of the validity of the claim of either party. I think that the Department is on firm grounds in maintaining that the United States Government is "not legitimately involved in this matter" as has already been pointed out in the Department's note to the Embassy.
The Liancourt Rocks case appears to have aspects in common with that of Shikotan Island, off the coast of Hokkaido, which was occupied by Soviet troops in 1945. We have publicly declared our view that this Island belongs to Japan, but no one in Japan or elsewhere seriously expects us to take military action under the Security Treaty to reclaim this Island for Japan. I think we need not feel undue anxiety even in the unlikely contingency that Japan should invoke the Security Treaty with respect to the Liancourt Rocks.
Nevertheless, I do not think we can or should continue to withhold indefinitely an expression of our position in this matter, particularly if the dispute continues to worsen. Sooner or later the Japanese will get wind of the Rusk letter and will then resent our failure to inform them of something which would measurably strengthen their position. Even if they do not, I think we would be remiss in not apprising the Japanese of a position which we have consistently maintained and which we are under no obligation not to divulge.
Accordingly, I suggest that we adopt the following course of action;
Express to the ROK Government our concern over repeated clashes with the Japanese over the Liancourt Rocks.
Remind the ROK of our previous statement of view (the Rusk letter); express strong hope that settlement can be reached with the Japanese; state that the United States seeksto avoid any form of intervention in this matter but if clashes continue to occure we may be forced to give publicity to the Rusk letter and to reiterate the view expressed therein; suggest that if the ROK can not accept the view expressed in the Rusk letter, it take steps toward arbitration or appeal the matter to the ICJ.
In case the foregoing steps do not alleviate the situation, seek an appropriate occasion to publicize the Rusk note and disclaim any desire to intervene in this matter.
1954.04.26-08.07. Report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East
United States Military Assistance Program Far East "Van Fleet Mission" 26 April - 7 August 1954
by Ambassador James A. Van Fleet
4. Ownership of Dokto Island
The Island of Dokto (otherwise called Liancourt and Take Shima) is in the Sea of Japan approximately midway between Korea and Honshu (131.80E, 36.20N). This Island is, in fact, only a group of barren, uninhabited rocks. When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the Republic of Korea asserted its claims to Dokto but the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty. The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory, we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea.
By the way, we know there are issue about Geography name of USGS on 2008 and United States Officially commented as follows;
Let me be very clear that our policy on this territorial dispute has been firm and consistent since 1952, and that is, we do not take a position on this territorial dispute; that we believe that South Korea and Japan need to work diplomatically to resolve this issue. But it is their issue to resolve.
United States policy is, the territorial dispute is the issue between Japan and Korea, altohugh U.S policy has been firm and consistent since 1952 , which reconfirms the translation of SFPT and Rusk document which confirmed Liancourt Rocks is territory of Japan.
Conclusion; United States, which is main drafter of the SFPT, they recognized and re-confirmed Liancourt Rocks is territory of Japan under the Peace Treaty , judging the process of drafts treaty of Peace and Dean Rusk Document which they concluded that Liacourt rocks(Takehsima) is teritory of Japan under the SFPT.