竹島問題の歴史

14.8.08

1953 December: SECRET SECURITY INFORMATION by Dulles

After the Installation of Syngman Rhee Line - American documents: Part Five
To follow was written by John Foster Dulles (1888-1959), the 52nd United States Secretary of State, on December 9, 1953.

FROM: SecState WASHINGTON

NR: 497

DATE: December 9, 1953, 7 pm

SENT TOKYO 1387 RPTD INFO SEOUL 497 FROM DEPT.

Tokyo’s 1306 repeated Seoul 129.



Department aware of peace treaty determinations and
US administrative decisions which would lead Japanese expect us act in their far [favor] in any dispute with ROK over sovereignty Takeshima. However to best our knowledge formal statement US position to ROK in Rusk Note August 10, 1951 has not rpt not been communicated Japanese. Department believes may be advisable or
necessary at sometime inform Japanese Government US position on Takeshima.
Difficulty this point is question of timing as we do not rpt not wish add
another issue to already difficult ROK-Japan negotiations or involve ourselves
further than necessary in their controversies, especially in light many current
issues pending with ROK.



Despite US view peace treaty a determination under
terms Potsdam Declaration and that treaty leaves Takeshima to Japan, and despite our participation in Potsdam and treaty and action under administrative
agreement, it does not rpt not necessarily follow us automatically responsible
for settling or intervening in Japan’s international disputes, territorial or
otherwise, arising from peace treaty. US view re Takeshima simply that of one of
many signatories to treaty. Article 22 was framed for purpose settling treaty
disputes. New element mentioned paragraph 3 your 1275 of Japanese feeling United States should protect Japan from ROK pretensions to Takeshima cannot rpt not be considered as legitimate claim for US action under security treaty. For more serious threat to both US and Japan in Soviet occupation Habomais does not rpt not impel US take military action against USSR nor rpt nor would would Japanese seriously contend such was our obligation despite our public declaration Habomais are Japanese territory. While not rpt not desirable impress on Japanese Government security treaty represents no rpt no legal commitment on part US, Japan should understand benefits security treaty should not rpt not be
dissipated on issues susceptible judicial settlement. Therefore as stated DEPTEL
to Pusan 365 rptd info Tokyo 1360 November 26, 1952 and restated DEPTEL
1198 US should not rpt not become involved in territorial dispute arising from
Korean claim to Takeshima.


Issue seems less acute at moment so perhaps no rpt no action on our part required. However in case issue revived believe our general line should be that this issue, if it cannot rpt not be settled by Japanese and Koreans themselves, is kind of issue appropriate for presentation International Court of Justice.


DULLES


SECRET SECURITY INFORMATION

As well as many other documents, this document shows that USA knew that Liancourt Rocks belong to Japan and that ROK illegally occupied the rocks. But USA didn't want to intervene in the dispute between the two countries. This "neutral" stance is the same today.

1 comment:

  1. What's the big deal about American supporting Japanese claim on Dokdo?

    The main point of this telegram is Secretary Dulles mentioned the US position supporting Japan's claim on Dokdo in the Rusk Note was not conveyed to Japan. US position supporting Japan's claim on Dokdo in the Rusk Note was not conveyed even to the members of Allied Powers.

    Japan's MOFA pamphlet on the "Ten Issues of Takeshima" states that "Based on this correspondence(=Rusk Note), it is evident Takeshima was affirmed as part of territory of Japan.", which is far from the truth. Japanese government and the pro Japanese people should stop citing the Rusk Note to claim Dokdo was given to Japan because of it. How could such a secret US position be reflected in the SF Treaty? It clearly says American view on Dokdo was simply that of one of many signatories to treaty.



    ReplyDelete