샌프란시스코 평화 조약이 작성될 때까지의 초안의 과정을 읽어 가면, 현타케시마는 울릉도와는 별개에 기재표기록되어 검토된 결과,일본이 샌프란시스코 평화 조약에 대해”방폐하는 영토”에 포함되지 않는것이 결정되었다.즉 타케시마는 일본 영토로서 남는 것이 정해졌다.
이승만은, 국제법 위반의 일방적인 이승만 리인을 설정해, 이 범위에 일본 영토 타케시마를 포함해 4000명의 일본인 어부를 납치 감금해, 사상자를 내, 그리고 타케시마를 침략해 불법 점거하기 시작했다. 또, 당시 , 현타케시마는 이미 일본의 영토에 복귀하고 있어, 일본과 미국과의 행정 협정에 대해 타케시마를 미군의 폭격 훈련지 지정으로 했다.이 일은 타케시마가 일본의 영토인 것을 나타내고 있다.한국측에는 폭격지 훈련의 이야기는 통지되지 않았지만, 위법으로 뉴우지마 한 한국인이 미군의 폭격을 받아 사망해, 한층 더 일본과 한국과의 사이에 맞을 것 같게 되어, 사태를 중요하게 본 미국은 이 건에 대하고 조사를 하게 되지만, 이 원으로 완성된 것은,Dean Rusk Document와 샌프란시스코 평화 조약이었다. 사태를 검토한 과정에 대하고, 미국은, 현타케시마는Scapin로 일단 행정권을 정지했지만, 샌프란시스코 평화 조약에 의해서 일본 영토와 완성된 일을 재확인한 것이다.
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
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
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. 미국은 직접 개입을 피하려고 하지만, 샌프란시스코 조약에 있어서의 타케시마의 취급은, Dean Rusk Note에 쓰여져 있으면 재확인하는
Memorandum in regard to the Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima Island) controversy
by William T. Turner
(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
덧붙여 미국은, 2008년에 USGS의 지명 문제가 나왔을 때에, 이하와 같이 코멘트하고 있다.
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.
미국은, 영토 문제는 2국간에 해결해야 할 문제라고 인식하고 있지만, 1952년부터의 입장은 변함없는, 이라고 한다. 1952년의 입장이란, , Keneath T Young나 L.Burmaster의 이야기이며, 이것들은 Dean Rusk document의 재확인이다.즉, 미국은, 타케시마를 일본 영토이다고 생각한다.
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として残る事が決まった。
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、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あることを示している。韓国側には爆撃地訓練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。
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
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
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. アメリカは直接介入を避けようとするが、サンフランシスコ条約における竹島の扱いは、Dean Rusk Noteに書かれてあると再確認する
Memorandum in regard to the Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima Island) controversyby William T. Turner
(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
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。
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、竹島を日本領土であると思っている。
![](¥"/UploadFile/exc_board_14/2009/07/10/image004.jpg¥")