Press Conference by the Assistant Press Secretary, 23 August 2012

The Japanese Position on Takeshima
ROK President Lee Myung-bak’s Visit to Takeshima
President Lee’s Conditions for the Japanese Emperor’s visit
The ROK Government’s Rejection to Prime Minister Noda’s Message
Issues Involving the Senkaku Islands
The Relationship between Japan, China, and the ROK

1. The Japanese Position on Takeshima

Mr. Sato: This is regarding the Japanese position on Takeshima. On 21 August last Tuesday, Japan officially presented the Republic of Korea (ROK) with a diplomatic proposal to institute proceedings before the International Court of Justice by a special agreement between the two countries and at the same time proposed about conciliation based on exchange of notes constituting an agreement between the two countries concerning the settlement of disputes over the sovereignty of Takeshima to settle it in a calm, fair, and amicable, peaceful way based on international law. A Counselor at the Japanese Embassy in Seoul delivered the diplomatic proposal to the ROK Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Seoul Tuesday afternoon. Please refer to the press release for details.

The ROK is an important member of the global community and supports the rule of law throughout international society through its activities in the United Nations and other international organizations. Additionally, the ROK has been positioning itself under the catchphrase of “Global Korea.” In this light, Japan believes that the ROK should fairly and unequivocally accept Japan’s proposal if it truly believes in its claim over the islands.

Japan has been making efforts recently in establishing a future-oriented bilateral relationship with the ROK at a variety of levels, but President Lee illegally set foot on Takeshima on 10 August, which clearly marred our mutual ties. Japan sincerely hopes that the ROK will sincerely respond to Japan’s proposal in good faith.

President Lee’s action has once again placed the spotlight on the sovereignty issue over the islands. However, the islands are clearly an integral and inherent part of Japan’s territory under international law, which is supported by historical facts.

I would like to take this opportunity to share with you some important historical facts related to Takeshima. Multiple historical documents confirm that Japan established its sovereignty over Takeshima at least by the mid-17th century. On the other hand, there is no evidence presented by the ROK that it had control over Takeshima before the establishment of Japan’s territorial sovereignty.

In January 1905, our government made a Cabinet decision to incorporate Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture, reaffirming Japan’s intention to claim the sovereignty. Later, upon the drafting of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the ROK submitted to the United States Government a request to include Takeshima among the territories Japan should renounce. The United States declined this request thereby expressing its position that Takeshima is an integral territory of Japan. This position is further verified by the fact that Takeshima was later designated as a bombing range for US Forces in Japan in 1952 by a bilateral agreement under the Japan-US Security Treaty.

In light of the historical facts and based upon international law, Takeshima is an integral and inherent part of Japanese territory. However, in 1952, the ROK unilaterally proclaimed an artificial boundary encompassing Takeshima, which it called the “Syngman Rhee Line” in clear contravention of international law, and the ROK has been illegally occupying Takeshima until today.

I have distributed a copy of a map. This map is a map of the ROK during the 16th Century Korean Peninsula. The ROK claims that Usan Island, which is described in old Korean text such as this “Revised Edition of the Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea,” published in 1531, is Takeshima of today.

You can see two islands to the east of the Korean Peninsula coast and the one closer to the peninsula is described as Usan Island. The further one is an island called Utsuryo Island. The ROK claims that Usan Island is present-day Takeshima. However, in this map, Usan Island, you can clearly see it, is located west of Utsuryo Island. But actually, present-day Takeshima is located east of Utsuryo Island. So this clearly shows that Usan Island is not Takeshima of present-day. This is just one example of why Japan claims its sovereignty over Takeshima, but I will stop here. Also there is a ten-point reference material describing our position, a map which I used during my opening statement appears on page 4. So this is the opening statement and I would like to open the floor for your questions.

2. ROK President Lee Myung-bak’s Visit to Takeshima

Q: The first question is why do you think ROK President Lee Myung-bak visited Takeshima this time?

Mr. Sato: The intention of President Lee Myung-bak’s landing on Takeshima? I do not want to speculate about his real intentions. Having said that, it is very regrettable because his act contradicts Japan’s position on Takeshima. After the landing, we immediately – the Government – pledged a strong protest and made our Ambassador to Seoul temporarily return to Tokyo to discuss the situation and the future measures. Yesterday, Ambassador Masatoshi Muto went back to Seoul because the Prime Minister and other ministers concerned decided policy lines, and one of them is to send out messages on the Japanese stance on Takeshima to the global community. The Ambassador will implement that mandate in the ROK. Also, we took the action of proposing to the ROK on Tuesday to bring this matter before the ICJ, and we would like to solve this sovereignty issue in an amicable way – a fairly, justly, peaceful manner.

3. President Lee’s Conditions for the Japanese Emperor’s visit

Q: Besides landing on the island, President Lee also talked about conditions for the visit by the Japanese Emperor. What countermeasures will Japan take?

Mr. Sato: Regarding the countermeasures Japan will take, we already started implementing some measures. One is to propose to the ROK to bring this matter before the ICJ, at the same time to propose a conciliation which is stipulated in the bilateral exchange of notes concerning the dispute settlement which is considered as a binding agreement between the two countries. As of now, these are what we believe appropriate measures to respond to the landing by the ROK leader on Takeshima. Having said that, the ICJ measure is not the only measure to respond to the situation. Prime Minister Noda instructed government officials to continue reviewing future possible response in a speedy manner and I think we are going to take action considering how the ROK will respond to our proposals.

4. The ROK Government’s Rejection to Prime Minister Noda’s Message

Q: I heard the ROK Government rejected the message from Prime Minister Noda so how will Japan respond to this action?

Mr. Sato: Actually, the ROK has declined a similar Japanese proposal in the past; twice in 1954 and 1962. Since the last time we proposed, 50 years have passed and many things have changed concerning the ROK. The ROK is now advocating “Global Korea” and the ROK is a responsible member of the United Nations whose charter stipulates the peaceful settlement of international disputes and that believes in the principle of the rule of law. We, the Japanese Government, sincerely believe that the ROK should fairly and unequivocally accept Japan’s proposal in good faith.

5. Issues Involving the Senkaku Islands

Q: Recently, Japan not only has a dispute with the ROK but also with China. On 15 August, 15 Chinese activists came to the Senkaku Islands and 5 of them landed on the islands and you sent them back to China. Why do you think Chinese activists decided to land on the Senkaku Islands?

Mr. Sato: The objective of the landing by Chinese activists this time – I think according to the homepage of their organization – they were expressing their dissatisfaction with the discussions regarding the management of the Senkaku Islands by the Japanese Government and they expressed their will to protest against the Japanese Government. That is public knowledge, but these statements completely contradict Japan’s position on the Senkaku Islands because the Senkaku Islands are inherently, in terms of international law and historical facts, Japanese territories. There are no territorial disputes to be settled between Japan and other parties so there is no room for the Japanese Government to accept their argument.

Q: You said the Senkaku Islands belong to Japan, why does the Japanese Government not allow Japanese people to step on the island?

Mr. Sato: Currently, most of the islands are owned by the private sector, the property of citizens of Japan, but the Government is leasing from the owner. The purpose of the lease is to maintain and manage the Senkaku Islands in a peaceful and stable manner because that is the agreement between the parties concerned. That is the reason why we, the Japanese Government, will not allow people to make a landing on the Senkaku Islands, except for government officials.

Q: I heard the Tokyo Government already applied for landing on the island, but what about the position of the Japanese Government?

Mr. Sato: Yes, you are right. We are aware that there was an application filed to the government to do some research over the Senkaku Islands. But as I explained in answering your previous question, the purpose of the lease of the Japanese Government on that area is to maintain and manage the Senkaku Islands in a peaceful and stable manner. So we will first study the application, not the Japanese Foreign Ministry but other competent authority, the government will study the application, and based on the government lease purpose, we will appropriately respond to the application.

Q: On 19 August, 10 Japanese people landed on Uotsuri Jima, what do you think is the main reason causing protest in China?

Mr. Sato: We are aware that there were demonstrations in China. Demonstrators were requesting to the Japanese Government for the immediate release of the detained Chinese activists. But the reaction of the Japanese Government was to give alerts to Japanese residents in China so that their safety would be ensured. So through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs homepage and other means, we issued travel advisory alerting them on possible danger. That is an action which we took. Going back to your question, the immediate release of the arrested people, basically some of their statements contradicts Japan’s stance over the Senkaku Islands because as I said, the Senkaku Islands are inherently a part of Japan based on international law and historical facts.

Since the Senkaku Islands are Japan’s, this time we dealt with the landing of Chinese activists on the Senkaku Islands in a determined manner based on domestic law and regulations. So it was a natural course of action for our country. There is no special link between what happened in China and our response to the incident because this is purely law enforcement activities on the part of Japan.

Q: Do you think the Chinese Government is involved in these protests or some action like that to make clearly that there is a dispute between China and Japan on the Senkaku Islands?

Mr. Sato: I do not want to speculate their involvement on the part of the Chinese Government but there is no change in our policy over the sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands. Even after the deportation of the activists to the Chinese side, the Foreign Ministry has made a protest, contacting the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities, and conveyed our request that the Chinese side would take comprehensive measures to prevent this type of incident so it will not happen in the future. Also, we do not wish to see the bilateral China-Japan relations deteriorate because we are one of the most important neighboring partners in the region and on the globe, so we need to make sure the broader perspective of bilateral relations will be maintained. As a matter of fact, through the diplomatic exchanges between the two governments, both sides referred to the importance of maintaining the broader perspective of bilateral relations.

6. The Relationship between Japan, China, and the ROK

Q: What do you think? The relationship between Japan and China and the ROK will be improved by the end of this year?

Mr. Sato: I hope so. With regard to China, this year marks the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the diplomatic relations between China and Japan. We have been striving to solidify our people-to-people exchanges. And cultural exchange and economic ties should be enhanced. So these kinds of efforts should continue despite that sometimes difficult issues happen as we saw just a week ago. On that difficult front as well, we have been trying to make sure the East China Sea will be a Sea of peace, cooperation and friendship. We would like to continue our cooperation so that by actually making progress in our cooperation in concrete terms, this type of activist behavior will be kept under control.

The Japan-ROK relations are important not only economically but also in terms of ensuring peace and stability in the region. We would not like to see the overall relationship deteriorate. That is exactly why we would like to settle the sovereignty issue of Takeshima through amicable means and we decided to take the matter before ICJ to reach a fair, just and peaceful solution. Thank you.

Back to Index