Dear Kyodo,

I hope this message finds you well. My name is Yuri Hwang, and I am a college student actively engaged in advocating for the recognition of "Dokdo" and the "East Sea" in Korea.

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the article titled "Japan protests South Korean military drills near disputed islets," published on your website. The article contains several inaccuracies and misrepresentations that I believe need to be addressed to provide a balanced and historically accurate perspective.

The article quotes Hiroyuki Namazu of Japan's Foreign Ministry as saying the islets are "an integral part of Japanese territory in light of historical facts and based on international law." This assertion is fundamentally flawed and misrepresents the historical and legal status of the islets, known as Dokdo in Korea.

Historically, Dokdo has been recognized as Korean territory for centuries. Numerous historical documents and maps, including those from Japanese sources, have acknowledged Korean sovereignty over Dokdo. For example, the "Samguk Sagi" and "Sejong Sillok Jiriji," historical Korean texts, document Korean control over the islets dating back to the 6th century. Additionally, many old Japanese maps, such as the "Dajokan Order" of 1877, do not include Dokdo as part of Japanese territory.

Legally, Dokdo was reaffirmed as Korean territory following World War II. The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, while not explicitly mentioning Dokdo, implicitly recognized Korean sovereignty by excluding it from territories Japan was allowed to retain. The Allied Powers' directives, such as SCAPIN No. 677, also placed Dokdo under Korean administrative control. South Korea has maintained effective control over Dokdo since 1954, conducting regular administrative and defense activities.

The article also refers to the body of water surrounding Dokdo as the "Sea of Japan." To provide a more balanced perspective, it is important to recognize that this body of water is also known as the "East Sea" in Korea. Using both names (East Sea/Sea of Japan) would acknowledge the differing perspectives and respect the historical and cultural significance of the name "East Sea" for Koreans.

To ensure a more balanced and accurate representation of this issue, I respectfully request the following adjustments:

1. Recognize and present the historical and legal grounds supporting Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo.

2. Implement the dual naming convention (East Sea/Sea of Japan) to acknowledge the diverse viewpoints.

3. Offer a comprehensive view of the territorial dispute by including Korea's historical claims and its current administrative and defense activities on Dokdo.

Thank you for your consideration. I hope that future articles will present a more balanced and accurate portrayal of this significant issue.

Best regards,

Yuri Hwang