Asian+Studies+Final+David+J


 * * ** Geographic disputes of East Asia (Korea-Japan-China) *** **

** Introduction **

According to Vasquez, “of all the different issues that can be disputed between governments, the risk for armed conflicts is greatest over the issue of conflicting claims to territory.”Such conflicts as between Israel and Palestine show just how violent and emotional territorial disputes can get. In fact, as scholars like Holsti demonstrate, “territorial disputes historically have been a frequent cause of wars.” Such being the case, East Asia proves to be an interesting and important area of study in regards to territorial disputes. With China growing rapidly both economically and in the International Arena, the US interested in keeping as much stability and peace in the East Asian region as possible, maintaining a close watch over the territorial disputes in the East Asian area is very interesting as well as an important fact. Furthermore, the fact that territorial disputes in East Asia are highly nationalistic and emotional in nature, because of the imperial past in the region, it proves to be an important fact to understand the historical nature of the issue. This being said, this particular research will go into a comprehensive analysis of three particular territorial disputes: Dokdo, Senkaku, and Gando involving the three major actors in the East Asian region: China, Japan, and Korea. Overview of the issue as well as the stance of each nation, and understanding the security dilemma within the region will give greater understanding to why no real solution has been found for a peaceful resolution to these disputes, and reveal a vague future for any resolution to come.


 * Part I. The Problem: Analysis of the Territorial Disputes **

** A. **** Dokdo/Takeshima - also known as Liancourt Rocks. **

What is known as Dokdo to the Koreans and Takeshima to the Japanese are roughly 2 small and rocky islets that are surrounded by 33 smaller rocks created as a result of volcanic activities. Claimed by both South Korea and Japan, the territorial dispute in this area is complicated by a variety of issues. First the issue of historical ownerships is difficult to verify because the islets of Dokdo were “neither easily inhabitable nor within convenient reach of the mainlands in pre-modern periods.” Such being the case, there were no real history of people living in Dokdo, thereby its citizenry cannot be looked to as a sign of what country the territory belongs to. In addition, Dokdo has been called various names through history, sometimes even interchangeably. Just a few of the names it has interchangeably been referred to as are: Ulleungdo, Usando, Hajido, Sambongdo, Jukdo, and Songdo. Essentially, having no distinct name throughout history has caused great confusion for both the Koreans and the Japanese in their attempt to prove that Dokdo/Takeshima has been theirs historically. Besides these complications, the fact that Dokdo has proven to be profitable has added further fuel to the situation. Dokdo has proven to be a valuable fishing ground with potentially a very large natural gas reserve. Thus Dokdo finds itself involved in the maritime disputes over whether to call the sea in this area Donghae (East Sea) or Sea of Japan. In addition, further claims were made by Japan on Dokdo when fhe discovery of large hydrocarbon deposits, a 10 year $225 million gas exploration project, was started southwest of Dokdo by Korea Gas. However, the most complicating variable in the Dokdo dispute proves to be the colonial past of Korea to Japan. For Korean, Dokdo has proven to be a matter of nationalistic importance. Conceding the territory to Japan would be a sign of past Japanese subjugation, and a great indignity to Korea’s national pride. Dokdo was the first part of the Korean Territory to have been annexed by Japan in 1905 before Korea was completely annexed to Japan 5 years later.For Korea, therefore, Dokdo is not just about a piece of territorially ambiguous volcanic rock in-between the two nations; it is a reminder of Korea’s colonial past. Thus when Japan started to teach their school children that “Takeshima” was rightfully theirs in their schoolbooksand when then created “Takeshima Day” for February 22, Korea responded with much affront and national criticism.

** A-1. Claims **

In large, therefore, Koreans claim that Japan took advantage of their political weakness during the period of Japanese colonialization, when the “islets were registered as a part of Shimane prefecture, Japan. For Korean’s therefore, any claim that Japan has to Dokdo comes illegitimately from their period of colonialization when they forcibly took Dokdo away.
 * Korea ** - In the debate over Dokdo, Korea maintains that the islets belonged to “Usanguk” during the Three Kingdoms Period. Afterwards it became to be called Usando during the Joseon Dynasty, along with the names Jasando, Gajido, and Sambongdo. These names are found in historical references throughout Korean literature, including Jiriji (Book of Geography), Sejong Sillok (Annals of King Sejong), Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam (Survey of the National Geography of Korea), and Dongguk Munheon Bigo (Reference Compilation of Korean Documents). Besides these historical documents, Koreans also point to “various land surveys and maps that show Dokdo (in its accurate geographic position) to be Korean territory. Some of these documents were even published in Japan: Japanese cartographer Dabuchi Tomohiko cited Dokdo as Korean Territory in ‘Kankoku Shinchishi (New Geography of Korea).”



For the Japanese therefore, the issue is simply about their having claimed land that had no claim to begin with, and aspiring to keep it within their territorial claim.
 * Japan ** - For the Japanese, they assert that Takeshima became theirs when they took a land that was not occupied (//terra nullius)// and incorporated it into the Japanese Empire on February 22, 1905. On that day the Governor of Shimane prefecture “proclaimed the islets to be under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands branch office...under the name of Takeshima.”

** B. **** Senkaku/Diaoyu/Diaoyutai Islands **



The Senkaku Islands (also called as Diaoyu Islands or Diaoyutai Islands) are the two uninhabited islands in the East China Sea that are disputed for sovereignty between China and Japan. They are located east of China, northeast of Taiwan, and northwest of Japan. The disputes have been a long ongoing one, however it has only really become relevant recently. Previously, in the 1800 – early 1900’s, there really hadn’t been any real reason to fight over some worthless rocks in the ocean. However, upon the discovery of oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons within the ocean floor there, both nations have taken active interest in its territorial ownership. What used to be worthless rocks now can determine each nations share to the economic resources found beneath.

** B-1. Claims **

For China, therefore, Diaoyu Islands were always theirs, and should have been returned with Taiwan post-WWII.
 * China: ** According to China, the Diaoyu Islands were indisputably their territorial property since the Ming Dynasty (1400). It was only upon the conclusion of the Sino-Japan war that Japan took the islands as well as Taiwan from them (1895). When WWII ended, Japan returned Taiwan but failed to return Diaoru Islands. The islands instead were given to the control of the United States for 27 years and were returned to Japan under the Okinawa Reversion Treaty.


 * Japan: ** From Japan’s point of view, Chinese claim over ownership over Senkaku is unfounded. They state that they took control over the islands when they were worthless rocks. The Islands were given to Japan during the Qing Dynasty as written in Article II of the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Upon signing, Japan had started to build factories on the island that processed fisheries. Thus Japanese workers inhabited these islands until 1945, when jurisdiction over the island went to the US. They even put in a lighthouse to show signs of human life on the island. For the Japanese, it was their nation that actually exercised the actual administration over the islands since 1977, and it was their researchers that found the oil fields under the islands sea. China has simply seen the economic benefits of the islands they signed over and are now arguing over its ownership.

** C. Gando/Jiandao/ Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture **

Territorially disputed between China and Korea, Gando for Koreans and Yanbian for the Chinese proves to be an interesting and complicated fight. Strategically located in between China and Northern Korea, this land has proven to be important for expansion of influence into the Northeast. The major complication of this territorial dispute once again is derived from Japanese Imperialism. During the time of colonialism of Korea, Japan intervened between Korea and China concerning Gando through the Eulsa Treaty. This treaty essentially handed over sovereignty of Gando to China on the condition that upon signing, China would sign ‘the Manchu Treaty’ that would “guarantee many rights to Japan (such as the right to construct railroads and to mine coal in northeastern territory).”Signed on September 4, 1909, China and Japan consented to the agreement in exchange for the treaty of the other party. Transaction of territory happened therefore without the consent of Korea. While the transaction should have been nulled post WWII, it was not. Debates over Gando however were silent until it was found that North Korea had transferred Mount Baekdu to China in the 1960’s. Adding to this national surprise, Koreans were deeply offended by what they perceived to be the distortion of Goguryeo history under the Northeast Project by the China. The result was what is known as the “Return Gando Campain,” which was started in the summer of 2004 in order to counter China’s historical misrepresentation. The issue has now become increasingly unclear as ambiguity of the territories original size made a variety of arguments on what should and should not be considered as Korean lands. Some emotional Korean nationalists designate Gando as the “entire land east of Shanhaiguan, the eastern starting point of the Great Wall of China, or the vast area between the Songhua River (also known as the Sungari River) and the Heilong River (called the Amur River in Russia).”Others who approach the issue more delicately would state that the land of Gando is comprised of the “small area of cultivated land opposite the Tumen River.” Currently there seems to be no bright future for any resolution to this territorial dispute despite the growing relationship between China and Korea.



** C-1. Claims **

Moreover, the Gando Treaty should be considered null and void for one of many reasons. First, the treaty is invalid by international law because Korea's (a third party) territorial rights were transferred to China by Japan on the basis of the Eulsa treaty, which itself was illegal and invalid. Second, all other treaties made by Imperial Japan, except for the Gando Treaty, became invalid with the unconditional surrender of Japan in 1945. Even the Manchu Treaty was invalidated, yet the Chinese have controlled Gando on the basis of the Gando Treaty, which was signed in exchanged for the Manchu Treaty. It should hold that if the Manchu Treaty was invalidated, so should the Gando Treaty. Last, ‘the Treaty on Basic Relations between the Republic of Korea and Japan’ in 1965 states that "It is confirmed that all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Japan and the Empire of Korea on or before August 22, 1910 are already null and void." This treaty therefore nullifies the Gando Treaty, effectively giving back control over Gando to the Koreans.
 * Korea ** - According to Korea, Gando has always been Korean land with Korean occupancy. It was made clear even in 1882 when China tried to suddenly evict Koreans who had long occupied and cultivated the land there. Negotiations therefore were still in progress when Japan colonialized Korea and made unilateral decisions based on Japanese interest. Thus when the Eulsa Treaty was signed, it was not with the rights and interests of the Koreans in mind.


 * China- ** In the opinion of China, there simply is no Gando. That entire area has always been under the territorial ownership of China.

** Part II. Possibility of Solution... **

** A. Emotions run high... **

In the case of territorial disputes in East Asia, a significant variable affecting the difficulty towards solution is its nationalistic emotions that are summed up in regards to anything hinting at the colonial past. All three territorial disputes can be traced back to Japanese Imperialism and the unilateral decisions that happened during that time. For Koreans, they view Dokdo and Gando as two instances colonial abuse. Dokdo was the first territory to be annexed from them before full colonialization 5 years later. During colonialization, the Japanese signed over Gando to China with no consideration for Korean interests. In the Koreans point of view, the end of WWII and the full surrender of Japan nullified all claims either Japan or China had to territory that had been Koreans. For these nations to claim otherwise is an affront to the nation of Korea, and a reminder of its colonial past. For Japan, they look to the issue of Dokdo and Senkaku and see claims being made for territory neither Korea nor China had originally wanted to claim for themselves. According their opinion, both had been taken // terra nullius ////. // Now that actual economic worth has been found on both Islands, they feel that Korea and China are now making historic claims. They feel therefore, that it is their national duty to maintain hold of these territories. For China, Senkaku and Gando have always been their lands without dispute. Senkaku is an embarrassing and hurtful reminder of their loss of the Sino-Japanese war, and it being not returned was the fault of the Japanese. Gando was never even questioned as a Korean land while they view Kokuryo has Chinese subjects and not Korea. The claims that Japan and Korea are making therefore seems ridiculous to China, and it would be an affront on their national pride to concede these territories. In all, these three territories involve the heated emotions of each three nations, their leaders, as well as their citizens. As debates continue to escalate, more and more citizens of each three States have become more and more nationalistic in their approach to these three territories. Now the situation is such that if any government were to make concessions on any one of these territories, they would be sure to gain the scorn and criticisms of their citizens and netizens. Thus political mockery and online name calling continues to escalate as time goes on. The possibility of solution any time soon is essential.

** B. East Asian Security Dilema **

Despite the intensity of the nationalistic emotions surrounding these three territories, an interesting fact is that no real armed struggle has occurred as a result. This actually is quite and interesting phenomenon considering that most territorial disputes //do// end up in armed clashes and conflict. In addition to the relative non-violence, another interesting aspect of East Asia’s territorial disputes is that the international arena has remained quiet silent. Unlike most territorial disputes that end up involving the US and other major superpowers in major ways, either as allies or overseers, territorial disputes in East Asia are mostly limited to bilateral talks between the two nations involved. While one might at first find it interesting that the US is not involving itself much, especially considering that Japan and Korea are two of its major allies, when considering the East Asian Security Dilemma it is quite easy to see why. Taking the realist point of view, the International Community and the US specifically have much interest in maintaining peace in East Asia. U.S does not want to see its two major allies in the area fight. With Korea and Japan being nuclear capable states with technologies that would not make it difficult for them to militarize nuclear energy for the purpose of war, US interest is to secure as much peaceful coexistence between the two as possible. China has no interest in challenging the current situation in East Asia. For them, this situation is ideal for their continual economic and national growth. Thus while each three Asian powers have power (individually and through its ally, the US) to really escalate territorial disputes militaristically, so far it is in each of their interests to not do so. Yet emotions continue to build and citizens become harsher and harsher in their opinions. However, solution seems quiet out of reach for the meantime.

** Conclusion **

Territorial disputes happen all around the world. East Asia alone has many more besides these (ex: Koguryo, Ieodo…etc). However, if there is a way to distinguish East Asian territorial disputes, then it has a very nationalistic in tone with a colonial background involved. The emotional nature therefore would seem possible for breakout into active military warfare, however, because of the security dilemma in the region, bilateral military actions and international interference have not been an option. Instead, most of the debates over the territories are happening between the citizens, netizens, and nationalist NGOs of each three nation. With citizens involved at such emotional levels, governments are unlikely to deal with the solution. Where this leaves the three countries in its territorial disputes is always back at 1.



< Location of Ieodo (Scotra Rock), and the Ieodo ocean research station>

Self Evaluation

What did you contribute specifically to your project?

This paper took me a long time to finish it. Since this paper was not a group project, I had to do everything by myself. I researched, wrote every detail I could find, and proofread it over and over.

How successful do you think you conveyed your research to your audience?

Whoever reads my research will fully understand the ongoing geographic disputes in East Asia. I hope one of the readers find a possible solution to it.... Overall, I believe I conveyed my research well to my reader.

What would have made your presentation more successful?

I am truly satisfied with my research paper, but still if I could make it more successful, I would like to write more about Ieodo, one of the dispute between China and Korea. I didn't write about it because it would ruin my format and would make this too lengthy. More, if I kept expanding my research, then there will be an endless things to talk about. Next time, if I had more time, I would truly like to continue on this research and find more about this. This was a really interesting topic to me.

How successful do you think your technology-based materials were in conveying your research?

I used footnotes on my pages document, but when I compied it on the wiki, all the foot notes disappeared. Therefore, I just cited my citations at the bottom of the wikipage.

What would have made your technology-based materials more successful?

If I have used footnotes, I would have made my wiki page better. I hope I could show my page document.

What did you learn from this project? Submit any other comments after this question.

I learned a lot. Overall, this gave me a great knowledge of ongoing territorial disputes in East Asia, and there are no solutions to it yet.

Work Cited

Jayshree Bajoria, Senior Staff Writer. "The Six-Party Talks on North Korea's Nuclear Program." Jayshree Bajoria, Senior Staff Writer, 1 July 2009. Web. 5 June 2011. .

"Six-Party Talks." //GlobalSecurity.org - Reliable Security Information//. Web. 05 June 2011. .

"Asian Network of Economic Policy Research (ANEPR) 2003-2004 Asia in Search of a New Order 16-17 January 2004." Web. 05 June 2011.

"Japan and South Korea as Allies Someday? - CSMonitor.com." //The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com//. 14 Dec. 2010. Web. 07 June 2011. .

"Korea and Japan as Allies? Nice Idea. Good Luck, Though." //The Marmot's Hole — Korea… in Blog Format//. Web. 05 June 2011. .

"China and Japan | South Sea | Senkaku | Diaoyu." //International News and World Headlines at GlobalPost//. Web. 05 June 2011. .

Vasquez, John. The War Puzzle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Print.

Holsti, Kalevi. Peace and War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Print.

"Liancourt Rocks / Takeshima / Dokdo / Tokto ." GlobalSecurity.org - Reliable Security Information. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 June 2011. .

"Dokdo - Debate Guide - Citizendium." Welcome to Citizendium - Citizendium. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 June 2011. .

Choi Won-hyung. "Japanese Textbooks Escalate Country’s Claims on Dokdo : National : Home." 한겨레 The Hankyoreh. 31 Mar. 2011. Web. 11 June 2011. .

Mark S. Lovmo. "The Territorial Dispute Over Dokdo." We Are Spreading the Truth. Forthenextgeneration. Web. 11 June 2011. .

"Korean Sentry :: View Topic - Our Lost Land: Gando." Korean Sentry :: Index. KOREANSENTRY, 17 Dec. 2008. Web. 11 June 2011. .

Chang-hoon, Lee. "Gando Dispute and Sino-Korean Conflict." Harold Economy. 30 Mar. 2010. Web. 11 June 2011. .

Hans Hogan. "Diaoyu Senkaku Islands A Lot of Noise over Some Formerly Worthless Rocks | Roaming Ronin æ¼æ³æµªäºº." //Roaming Ronin æ¼æ³æµªäºº | Wandering and Pondering around the World.// 1 Nov. 2010. Web. 11 June 2011. .