Dear Editor of The National Bureau of Asian Research(NBR). ,

  Hello, I’m very much pleased to have a chance to write this message to such a renowned research institute like NBR. I am Jiwoo Park, a Korean highschool student. I happened to visit your web site and read a commentary, titled as “Japan’s Territorial Problem; The Northern Territories, Takeshima, and the Senkaku Islands” written by Kazuhiko Togo in May 8, 2012.

  First of all, I admit that the Japanese commentator tried to stand his position on this issue as neutral as possible. However, I have to point out a couple of errors on this commentary because they are not based on historically obvious facts. I strongly believe it makes sense to do such things in order for readers not to have mistaken or biased views on this issue.

  First, granted this commentary is written on the part of Japan as the title suggests, “Japan’s Territorial Problem”, the other name of the island called in Korea, “Dokdo” must be marked next to Takeshima. Dokdo is undoubtedly a Korean territory in terms of international law and historical facts and is currently under the legitimate control of Korean government, so it must be marked as its qualified name.

  Second, the writer introduced clearly wrong facts on the San Francisco Treaty in 1951. He said, as quoted, “the conclusion of the SFT was in favor of Japan...which acknowledged Japanese ownership of these islands.” It is obviously wrong and even nonsense. Rather, the drafts of the treaty clearly included Dokdo among territories that be returned to Korea, up to its fifth version. But, the final version of treaty does not articulate Dokdo. Yes, it was omitted. The omission of the island does not mean the island should not return to Korea, because the big island near Dokdo, Uleung island, still remained in the treaty. So, the writer’s argument goes far beyond rational interpretation.

   Third, the writer gave another distortion of the historical fact about the Decree of the Korean Government in 1900. Quoted as “But the Korean side should... also realize that not all of its historic analysis seems to be correct, such as its contention that the 1900 Imperial Decree declared Takeshima to be Korean” I like to ask the writer what on earth is not correct in the Decree. Confronting illegal cutting trees in Dokdo by Japanese who slip into Dokdo secretly, the Korean government organized a group including a Japanese consul in Korea to investigate the case in 1900. Based on the report of the group following investigation, the Korean government pronounced the Decree granting the status of local government to Uleung Islands and positioning a governor to the islands in 1900. The Decree made clear Uleung islands include Dokdo under its administrative jurisdiction. Japan made no complaint on this decree at that time. The Korean government pronounced the Decree through the official process of the declaration of the decree, so it became known to the world.

  I earnestly request you to review the commentary closely based on my findings. I believe any commentary from such a renowned institute like you must be responsible for its authentic nature, especially in regard to historical facts. I think the commentary does not reflect historical facts, so I'd like to ask you to take appropriate action to it.         

Thank you for your reading my comment. If you have any comments or other responses, they would be welcome at my email address, jemma0607@naver.com  I wish you best luck