Embedded Files
サンフランシスコ平和条約が作成されるまでの草案の過程を読んでいくと、現竹島は鬱陵島とは別個に記載表記され、検討された結果、日本がサンフランシスコ平和条約において放棄する領土に含まれない事が決定した。つまり竹島は日本領土出る事が決まった。
李承晩は、国際法違反の一方的な李承晩ラインを設定し、この範囲に日本領土竹島を含め、この範囲で4000人の日本人漁師を拉致監禁し、死傷者を出し、そして竹島を侵略し不法占拠し始めた。 また、当時、現竹島は既に日本の領土に復帰しており、日本とアメリカとの行政協定において竹島を米軍の爆撃訓練地指定とした。この事は竹島が日本の領土でなければ指定できないものである。韓国側にはこの話は通知されなかったが、違法に入島した韓国人が米軍の爆撃を受けて死亡し、さらに日本と韓国との板ばさみにあいそうになり、事態を重く見たアメリカはこの件について調査をすることになるが、この元と成ったのは、Dean Rusk Documentとサンフランシスコ平和条約であった。 事態を検討した過程において、アメリカは、現竹島はScapinで一旦行政権を停止したものの、サンフランシスコ平和条約によって日本領土と成った事を再確認したのであった。
1. 1952.11.05.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
2. 1952.12.04CONFIDENTIAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Letter from E. Allan Lightner American Embassy, Pusan Korea To Office of Northeast Asian Affairs, the Department of the State (1pages) by E. Allan Lightner, Jr. American Embassy, Pusan Korea
3. 1952.12.04.USDOS 1952j. US Embassy in Korea "Note No.187 to ROK Ministery of Foreign Affairs"
4. 1953.04.? Memorandum for Mr. Leonhart by R. B. Finn, Subject：Liancourt Rocks
5. 1953.07.15 Japanese claim to Takeshima Island, also claimed by the Republic of Korea.
Code FJfile1082.
6. 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
7. 1953.11.30.Memorandum in regard to the Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima Island) controversy
by William T. Turner
8. 1953.12.09 From Securetary of States, Washington (Dulles) to Tokyo and Seoul.
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)
1.1952.11.05.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
I have read both Tokyo's despatch No. 659 of October 3, 1952, entitled, "Koreans on Liancourt Rocks" as well as Pusan's Memorandum of October 15, 1952, entitled, "Use of Disputed Territory (Tokto Island) as Live Bombing Area" enclosed in your letter of October 16, 1952 to Ambassador Murphy.
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."
E. Allan Lightner, Esquire
Charge d'affaires, a.i.,
American Embassy,
Pusan, Korea.
FE:NA:RMHerndon:eb
November 5, 1952
cc-Amembassy, TokyoOfficial - Informal
Confidential Security Information
The action of the United States-Japan Joint Committee in designating these rocks as a facility of the Japanese Government is therefore justified. The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN 677 of January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, including Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently. A later SCAPIN, No. 1778 of September 16, 1947 designated the islets as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force and further provided that use of the range would be made only after notification through Japanese civil authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Islands and certain ports on Western Honsu.
Sincerely yours,
Kenneth T. Young, Jr.
Director
Office of Northeast Asian Affairs
2.1952.12.04CONFIDENTIAL 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.
それゆえ、釜山米国大使館は、韓国に対して、アメリカの竹島に対する見解はRusk Noteに述べられている、とサイド通告しました。そのときの口上書。
3.1952.12.04.USDOS 1952j. US Embassy in Korea "Note No.187 to ROK Ministery of Foreign Affairs" 1952/12/4 (USNARA/Doc. No: N/A)(on file with author)
ANNEX 6
No. 187
The Embassy of the United States of America presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and has the honor to refer to the latter’s note of November 10,1952 stating that a single engine airplane described as being under the Command of the United States Forces in the Far East dropped bombs on Dokto Island on September 15, 1952. The embassy is advised that the limited amount of information provided in the Ministry’s note as well as the very long time which has elapsed since the incident is said to have taken place make it virtually impossible for the United Nations Command to determine the facts in the case. Preparations have, however, been expedited to dispense with the use of Dokto island as a bombing range, etc.
The Embassy has taken note of the statement contained in the Ministry's Note that "Dokdo Island(Liancourt Rocks)...is a part of the territory of the Republic of Korea". The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this islands was stated in Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk's note to the Korean Ambassador in Washington dated August 10, 1951.
American Embassy,
Pusan, December 4, 1952
赤字部分発見：Kamegamese@Dokdo or takeshima
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2011/08/1952-dec-4-american-embassys-note.html
（*当初、2nd paragraph (the Embassy has taken note...)以降の部分は、韓国政府刊行の文書に掲載されておらず、第一Paragraphの最後Boming rangeの後に、etct とかかれそれ以降の部分が意図的に省略されていた。（上記Matsu氏のリンク内を参照の事）。韓国側が2nd Paragraphを意図的に省略した理由は、Rusk noteが公式に口上書で伝えられたことを隠蔽するためだった。）
*なお、この口上書は、1952.11.10.Note barbal from ROK MOFA to US Embassy in Korea.
に対する返答の口上書
1953年3月5日の参議院外務委員会・法務委員会連合審査会において、同年2月27日に米空軍司令官が竹島を韓国領と認めて爆撃演習を中止した旨の発表を韓国国防部がしたことに関する質疑が行われ、下田条約局長が、次のように述べています。
「この間の国防部の発表のありました直後に私アメリカ大使館員と会いましたのですが、念のため聞きますと、米大使館は一笑に付しておりまし た。これは余りにも明白な問題であつて取るに足らんという態度であつたのであります。＜中略＞ 単に調査を求めて、そうしてその回答を待つておりましたが 昨日回答がございました。内容はこれはただ軍で爆撃の演習を停止したというだけの事実の回答でありますので、追つて米国政府の見解はアメリカ大使館から正式にあることと存じます。」
→米国大使館側において、このときの何か記録があるのではないか？（今後の課題）
1953.03.04 米国側は、竹島に対する韓国の領有権を承認した事実はないと発表。（田村）
4.1953.04.? Memorandum for Mr. Leonhart by R. B. Finn, Subject：Liancourt Rocks
“I Suggest that the United States Government might consider issuing at some appropriate time a statement to the effect that by our interpretation of the Peace Treaty sovereignty over the Liancourt Rocks clearly remains in Japan. The ROK continues to argue that it has sovereignty over these rocks, despite letters from the Department to ROK Ambassador Yang. Although U.S. intrusion into ROK-Japan problems is not greatly appreciated, I feel that the issue is clear and that the haggling and physical jnjury that are likely to ensue from continued debate over this problem might be avoided by an appropriate statement by the United States
この文書に補記されたLeonhartの文
"Mr. Berger, I agree with Finn's recommendation, and think it might be made in connection with the transmittal. If you concur, let's have Despatch retyped and sent to the Amb or JGP for approval.
Record Group 84, Japan, Tokyo Embassy, Classified General Records 1953～1955, Box No.21～58
Box No.21
5.1953.07.15 No.11 1953年（昭和28年)7月15日付在東京英国大使館発英国外務省宛報告
Foreign Office: Political Departments: General Correspondence from 1906-1966. Japanese claim to Takeshima Island, also claimed by the Republic of Korea.
Code FJfile1082. (FO371/105378)
5. Meanwhile you may wish to be considering what should be our attitude. If required to mediate we should of course have to ask both sides to present their case; but our preliminary view is that under Article 2 of the Peace Treaty, of which we are co-signatories, Takeshima unmistakeably forms part of Japanese territory
6.1953.07.22 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.”
7.1953.11.30 Secret security Information. アメリカは無責任にも逃げる
ただし、ここでも、再度Rusk noteを確認
1953.11.30 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.
8.1953.12.09 From Securetary of States, Washington (Dulles) to Tokyo and Seoul.
（アメリカの立場はDean Rusk noteに書いてある通り（竹島は日本領土）
（アメリカは安保条約に基づいて介入する必要はない）
(国際司法裁判所で解決するのが望ましい）
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.
Date Unknown. 日本政府行政管轄地域図・日本漁船捕鯨船操業区域図
1952."Map to Illustrate Territorial Clauses of THE JAPANESE PEACE TREATY"
United States, 82nd Congress 2nd session, SENATE,Executive Report No.2, Japanese Peace Treaty and Other Treaties relating to Security in the Pacific / Report of the Committee on Foreing Relations on Exectives, A, B, C and D, Washington: Unites States Govement Printing Office, 1952
（Liancourt Rock（竹島）は日本が放棄する領土に含まれて居ないことを再確認する地図）
1954.伊勢丹～王子の造兵工廠跡に居た、U.S.Army Map Service Far Eastが 作製したもの。
KOREA 25万分の1シリーズ。国や地域別でまとめてます
図名は SAMCHOK
版次は EDITION 4 1954
NJ 52-11 SERIES L552
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/korea/
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/korea/txu-oclc-6612232-nj52-11.jpg
これは1954年の米国の地図ですが、Dean Rusk documentおよびSFPTの見解のとおり、竹島Liancourt Rocksは、韓国領土として認識されていません。http://tsushima.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/korea/1248067258/680-688情報提供なさっていただいた方、ありがとうございます。韓国の範囲に竹島は記載がありません。この三陟圖の上部の部分
この三陟一体の表紙の下部部分
Japan
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/japan/japan_key.jpg
Japan - Topographic Maps Series L506, 1:250,000, U.S. Army Map Service, 1954-
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/japan/
NJ 53-13 Oki-Gunto (4.3 MB)
1965.09.24. Letter from U.S Naval OCEANOGRRAHPHIC Office to Korea Hydrographic Office.
U.S Naval OCEANOGRRAHPHIC Office
Washington 25. D.C
Airmail
Captain Chul Ung Chon
Director
Republic of Korea hydrographic office
I.P.o box 1578
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Dear Captain Chon;
Tis is in further reference to your letter, serial 1591, of 9August
1965 concerning the light list destgnation of the navigation light on
Takeshima, and our reply, serial 9725 of 30 August 1965, explaing
our policy of referring such matters to our Department of States
Im please to inform you that Department of States has now agreed
that we may amend the light list to reflect Korean administration of
Tok to light. Accordnigly, the following change to H.O. Pub. No. 112
will appear in Notice to Marltime No.39 of 1965:
18855............ Tok to (Liancourt Rocks...........
The Department of States was careful to point out, however,that this
decision does not alter its basic position in regard to the disputed
soverignty of the Island concerned. Consequently, no change in the
name of the island will be made pending a settlement of the Japanese
Korean dispute over ownership
I trust that this action will be satisfactory to you
Sincerly yours
Copy to
Department of State (geographer)
1996.Japan administrative area map.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/japan_divisions.jpg
なお、アメリカは、2008年にUSGSの地名問題が出たときに、以下のようにコメントしている。
http://aoyagi.txt-nifty.com/ura/2008/07/post_772b.html
Q In South Korea, the leadership there is very concerned and upset about the U.S. Agency for Geographic Names changing the designation of a small group of islands to undesignated. Has there been any thought to revisiting that? Have you all addressed that, given that the President is going to be there in a few days?
MR. WILDER: We were contacted by the South Korean government at very high levels and asked to re-look at this question. The President directed Secretary Rice to check into this and see exactly what did happen with this change of designation. It was decided after that review that the change in designation was not warranted at this time. And so that database is now being restored to where it was prior to this change in designation, I think which occurred about seven days ago on the database.
We regret that this change in designation was perceived by South Koreans as some sort of change in our policy. 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.
アメリカは、領土問題は二国間で解決すべき問題と認識しているが、1952年からの立場は変わっていない、といっている。 1952年の立場とは、、Keneath T YoungやL.Burmasterの話であり、これらはDean Rusk documentの再確認である。つまり、アメリカは、サンフランシスコ平和所言う訳における竹島の扱いは、を日本領土であると認識している。
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse