Dear editor of Traveler,

I am a Korean highschool student. I happened to visit your website and see your posting on Dokdo, which is titled as “Why the Liancourt Rocks Are Some of the Most Disputed Islands in the World”. In this posting, the writer seems to be neutral on this issue, though I don’t think it’s fair the writer precedes Japan before Korea through the posting, he tries not to be with any side, Korea or Japan.

However, being neutral is not always a just and right way of posing position, when the answer is clear and unchanged. That’s exactly Japanese intention by raising this issue on the international platform. The biggest reason, just as the writer points out, why Japan objects to Dokdo as Korean territory is that the peace treaty after World War II does not articulate Dokdo as islands returning to Korea. If you research Korean history more, Dokdo has been treated as an accessory belonging to Uleung island, only 87 kilometer away from the west of Dokdo(So, Dokdo is closer to Korea than Japan), in the aspect of the Korean administrative district system. Therefore, it is clear that expressing Uleung island as islands returning to Korea includes returning Dokdo to Korea because it is accessory to Uleung island. As the writer mentions, Dokdo is as large as Grand Central Terminal. It is extremely unreasonable for such a small island to be articulated in the treaty.

Historically, Japan began to approach into Korean territory since 1870s with bare intent to have control over Korea. Since then, Japan forced Korean government to consent unilateral treaties that meet only Japanese interests in politics, diplomacy and economy. In 1905, Japan threatened Korean government to sign a treaty taking away Korean diplomatic power by force. Annexation of Dok-do and incorporation of the island into Japanese sovereignty occurred during this kind of colonialization. In 1910, Japan finally succeeded in annexation of Korean peninsular. So, Japanese basis for justifying Dok-do under its sovereignty is no more than justifying illegal colonialization. It was a stolen property on the part of Korea. After Japanese surrender in 1945, it is so much legitimate and reasonable to get it back to Korea. It is no different to say that a robber still claims the stolen property as his ownership.

I’d be deeply appreciated if Traveler would have clear and accurate position on this issue. It is not a dispute because dispute is a term that can be used under the circumstance the involving parties give more dominant answer. But, the historical fact that Dokdo belongs to Korea is simple and clear. It is only dispute on the part of country which strongly wants to make this fact into “dispute”. Thank you for your reading my email. I hope your Traveler will be more prosperous in the future.

Sincerely,