Dokdo is a Korean land! Dokdo est une terre coréenne ! Dokdo ist eine koreanische Land! दोक्दो एक कोरियाई भूमि है! Dokdo è una terra coreana! 独島は韓国土地! 独岛是韩国的土地 ！ Токто является корейский земли! ¡Dokdo es un Coreano! Dokdo เป็นดินแดนเกาหลี Dokdo là một vùng đất Hàn Quốc! 독도는 영원히 한국땅!
韓國領 이라고 독도의 암벽에 새겨진 한자표기를 한글과 영문으로 같이 표기 하면 어떻겠습니까? 관계기관에 감히 건의 드립니다. 독도를 소개하는 거의 모든 사진과 영상물에 약방의 감초처럼 빠지지 않고 등장하는데(이명박 전 대통령, 김장훈씨도 그 표기 앞에서 사진을 찍었던 것이 많이 보도 됨) 볼 때마다 속상합니다. 몇년전 MBC-TV를 통하여 표기를 한글과 영문으로 함께 표기 할 계획이라고 보도 된것을 시청하기도 하였는데, 아직도 그대로 입니다. 다시 건의 드리오니 참고해 주시기 바랍니다.
Takeshima was treated as part of Japanese territory under the San Francisco Peace Treaty Signed in September 1951, the San Francisco Peace Treaty states that Japan recognizes the independence of Korea and renounces “Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.” The treaty thus excludes Takeshima from the areas to be renounced by Japan. Prior to the signing of the treaty, in July 1951, a request made by the ROK to include Takeshima to the areas to be renounced by Japan under the peace treaty was explicitly rejected by the United States. The government of the United States responded to the Korean government through the letter from the then US Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, Dean Rusk, stating that the rejection was on the grounds that Takeshima had never been treated as Korean territory and that Korea had at no point claimed sovereignty over Takeshima in the past. This fact unequivocally shows that Takeshima is an inherent part of the territory of Japan.
독도는 한국땅입니다. Hi, mister ignorant - or miss, I simply cannot care less - I just want to ask how you're so sure you're correct. The San Francisco Peace Treaty you seem to adore so much states only in the sixth, eighth, ninth, and fourteenth drafts that the territory of Japan includes Dokdo. The first five and seventh states it's Korea's. The tenth through thirteenth and the fifteenth through eighteenth as well as the final draft is silent on the matter. That's why it's a problem in the first place, you imbecile. The infamous Rusk Papers you speak of- is anything ever valid when it comes to politics? Dean Rusk's military background influenced his political decisions and Dokdo was no exception. If you studied more American records from the Japan Peace Treaty Archives in depth you'd see these papers do little more than show U.S. decisions on territorial ownership were based largely on military strategy. Plus, and I quote: "It should also be noted, The Rusk Papers were confidential memorandums. None of Rusk’s opinions were made public nor conveyed to the Japanese government. In fact, they weren’t made public until decades later. Thus, the Rusk papers never materialized in official U.S. support for Japan’s claim to Dokdo. Rusk’s views were just one phase of America’s policy toward Dokdo that would later change into a neutral stance on the issue." If you must know more, America had also seriously considered ceding Chejudo to Japan despite the fact the island was inhabited by Koreans and was always Korean land. So we know from these records true historical title was not the grounds for allied decisions in the disposition of land. You want to claim Chejudo as yours too? Sure, good luck with that. You'll need more than moronic copy and pasted arguments to pretend that's Japanese. Here's some reading material for you to catch up with the real side of things: The fatal flaw in Japan’s interpretation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty is their misleading conclusion the agreement was between the U.S. Government and Japan. In reality, about 48 countries participated in the negotiations. Naturally other nations, such as the United Kingdom and commonwealth members, had views that weren’t in line with U.S. policy. That caused great concern for the Americans. For example, the United Kingdom’s requested a linear boundary in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) that would have placed Dokdo Takeshima within Korean territory. The Americans objected saying the Japanese “felt psychologically boxed in” by this proposal. Also, we can read there was a growing sense of urgency for the Americans to quickly implement the Japan Peace Treaty and Joint Trusteeships of former Japanese territories. The disagreements between other Allied Forces may have been the reason. It may also explain why some issues remained resolved (Dokdo, Sahkalin etc.) even after the San Franciso Peace Treaty was signed. Finally, TLDR: It’s worthy to note, although the United States (Dean Rusk) “…didn’t feel that the Treaty should not adopt the theory that the Potsdam Declaration constituted a final renunciation of Takeshima…”, Other nations such as Canada and the USSR felt these WWII agreements should be taken literally or as guidelines for the Japan Peace Treaty to follow. The final determination of these islands was for the Allies to decide, not just Dean Rusk or General MacAthur. In the end, South Korea, like the USSR and India opted not to accept the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The ROK should not be vilified because she refused to allow foreign powers to determine her national boundaries. If you're too dumb to understand, here's an impossibly simple summary for your thick head. DOKDO IS KOREAN TERRITORY. Sincerely with zero respect, An actually educated Korean.
sorry,Long sentence 1. Introduction: Overview of the Peace Treaty The Treaty of Peace with Japan, which was signed in San Francisco on September 8, 1951, and came into force on April 28, 1952, legally ended World War II as relating to Japan and also ended the Allied occupation of Japan, which regained its sovereignty. Peace treaties generally include provisions for the restoration of diplomatic ties, reparations, territorial concessions, the treatment of expired commerce and navigation treaties, and other issues to resolve war-instigated problems and lay out the principles for postwar relations. The Treaty of Peace with Japan, too, includes clauses for the termination of the state of war (Article 1), renunciation of territorial claims to Korea, Taiwan, the Kuril Islands, and elsewhere (Article 2), US administration of the Nansei and Nanpo Islands (Article 3), disposition of property in the renounced territories, etc. (Article 4), security (Article 5), treaties and agreements regarding trading, maritime and other commercial ties (Article 12), reparations (Article 14), and the waiving of all claims against the Allied powers (Article 19). Forty-five Allied countries, including the United States, Britain, and France, became parties to the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Those that did not become party to the treaty concluded separate agreements.1 As regards South Korea, until around January 1951 the country was considered a party to the treaty as it was being drafted in the United States but ultimately was not allowed to sign it for legal reasons.2 2. Territory-Related Provisions As mentioned above, Article 2 of the treaty stipulates renunciation of Korea, Taiwan, the Kuril Islands, and other territories by Japan, while Article 3 stipulates the US administration of the Nansei and Nanpo Islands. Article 2 (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. (b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores. (c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905. (d) Japan renounces claims to territories in the League of Nations Mandate System and accepts the UN (US) trusteeship system; (e) Japan renounces claims to the Antarctic area; and (f) Japan renounces claims to the Spratly and Paracel Islands. Article 3 Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29° north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters. These provisions indicate the territories that Japan was to renounce or relinquish control over (administrative rights over the territories in Article 3 were returned to Japan over time in accordance with a subsequent bilateral agreement), but the treaty has no provisions for the territories that Japan was to retain (as territories belonging to Japan prior to the war and which the country would continue to administer). 3. Points at Issue in the Takeshima Dispute The Takeshima territorial dispute involves a number of issues relating to (1) historical title, (2) efforts by the Japanese and Korean governments to incorporate the islands into their respective territories, and (3) postwar developments. The first group of these issues focuses on whether the Usando referred to in ancient Korean documents and maps corresponds to modern-day Takeshima (Dokdo). Do these historical documents show that Takeshima is Korean territory? Can the fact that residents of Yonago (now in Tottori Prefecture) received permission from the shogunal government in the early Edo period (1603-1868) to fish for abalone around the island of Utsuryoto (Ulleungdo or Dagelet)--and also fished on and around what is now Takeshima--be construed to mean that Takeshima was part of Japanese territory? And how did the shogunal government's ban on travel to Utsuryoto, issued on March 1, 1696, affect the status of Takeshima? The second group of issues includes the Japanese cabinet decision of January 28, 1905, to incorporate Takeshima into the territory of Japan and whether the islands were Korean territory at the time. Also, does the March 29, 1877, Japanese Supreme Council (Dajo-kan) order to exclude "Takeshima and one other island" from the Japanese National Land Registry constitute evidence that the council did not consider what is now known as Takeshima to be part of Japanese territory? And does Korean Imperial Decree No. 41 of 1900 renaming Ulleungdo as Uldo and elevating it to the status of a county with jurisdiction over "Seokdo" indicate that the Korean government considered Takeshima part of its own territory? The third group of issues, meanwhile, deals with the postwar Allied occupation of Japan, the measures taken by the Allied powers, the establishment of South Korea, and changes, if any, to Takeshima's legal standing (as Japanese territory) following the signing of the Treaty of Peace with Japan.3 The treaty is without doubt an important document in the territorial dispute inasmuch as it supersedes all earlier arguments. If it effected a change in Takeshima's legal status, then any older evidence backing up a territorial claim would essentially be moot; in other words, if the treaty provides for Japan's renunciation of Takeshima, then there is no overturning this fact, regardless of what historical title it had or how valid the 1905 cabinet decision may be under international law. If, on the other hand, the treaty does nothing to change Takeshima's legal status, the fact that Japan possessed these islands prior to World War II4 also remains unchanged, and the treaty, in short, would confirm Japan's territorial claims. 4. Interpretations of Article 2(a) The question of whether the treaty altered Takeshima's legal status hinges on what "Korea" stipulated in Article 2(a) means: "Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet." If "Korea" includes Takeshima, then Japan will have forfeited the islands, and if it does not, then Japan retains ownership. Interpretations of treaties are prescribed by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, adopted on May 23, 1969, and which came into force on January 27, 1980: Article 31. General Rule of Interpretation 1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. Article 32. Supplementary Means of Interpretation Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of Article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to Article 31: (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; . . . The provisions on interpretation of treaties contained in Article 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention reflect pre-existing international law and may be applied to treaties concluded before the entering into force of the convention.5 That Article 31 is an expression of international customary law has been confirmed in subsequent rulings of the International Court of Justice, such as the 1994 territorial dispute between Libya and Chad6 and the 1999 incident between Botswana and Namibia involving Kasikili/Sedudu Island.7 What would be the implications of Article 2(a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan if such rules of interpretation were applied? First of all, the "Korea" referred to in the peace treaty would be that state that was annexed by Japan in 1910 and was now being disjoined from it. This can be gleaned from the treaty's "context," "object," and "purpose"--as mentioned in the first paragraph of the Vienna Convention's Article 31--namely, the Korean Empire's loss of independence in 1910, the reference in the Cairo Declaration of December 1, 1943, that the "three great powers . . . are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent" (the Cairo Declaration was referred to in Clause 8 of the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945), and the establishment of the Republic of Korea (along with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) in 1948. The article contains nothing that would suggest that Japan is to make any new territorial concessions to Korea upon de-annexation, and Takeshima was not part of the Korea that Japan annexed in 1910. Takeshima did not become Japanese territory as part of the annexation of the Korean Peninsula, nor was it ever placed under the jurisdiction of the Governor-General of Korea under Japanese rule. One can conclude, then, that the "Korea" in Article 2(a) to which Japan renounces "all right, title and claim" does not include Takeshima. While it is already clear from the Vienna Convention's rule of interpretation in Article 31 that the territory renounced by Japan does not include Takeshima, this can be further reconfirmed and any ambiguity or obscurity eliminated through recourse to the "supplementary means of interpretation"--as stipulated in Article 32 of the convention--by examining the "preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion." 5. State Department Drafts The process of drafting the Treaty of Peace with Japan can broadly be differentiated into two distinct periods: before and after summer 1950. Until then, the task was in the hands of officials at the State Department, who created a working draft for review within the US government. Thereafter, John Foster Dulles--working as a consultant to the secretary of state after stepping down as interim senator in November 1949--took over and began conferring with other governments to finalize the document. Britain was preparing its own draft, and working-level consultations were held in Washington in May 1951 to produce a joint document. This was further revised the following month when Dulles visited London, and this basically became the treaty that was signed in San Francisco in September, although minor amendments continued to be made after July.8 The preparation of a draft by the State Department began in March 1947 with several territorial and other clauses. By August 5 the same year, a full draft (though still considered tentative) from the preamble to final provisions was completed. This was the year when a peace treaty with Italy was concluded, and so Japan was no doubt considered next. Subsequent versions include a draft that includes the territorial clauses with a handwritten memo reading "Re-draft 2 January [1948]"; the draft of October 13, 1949; that of November 2, 1949; and that of December 29, 1949.9 The territory-related articles of the State Department drafts begin with a list of islands that Japan is to retain, which are also identified in an accompanying map, and continue to a list of territories that Japan is to concede to other countries or to renounce. Drafts of November 2, 1949, and earlier do not include Takeshima as being within the territorial limits of Japan and stipulates that Japan is to renounce Takeshima to Korea. Article 3 of the November 2 draft reads:10 Article 3 1. The Territory of Japan shall comprise the four principal Japanese islands of Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Hokkaido and all adjacent minor islands, including the islands of the Inland sea (Seto Naikai), Sado, Oki Retto, Tsushima, the Goto Archipelago, the Ryukyu Islands north of 29° N. latitude, and the Izu Islands southward to and including Sofu Gan (Lot's Wife), and all other islands within a line beginning at a point in 45° 45′ N. latitude, 140° longitude east of Greenwich, . . . 2. This line of allocation is indicated on the map attached to the peace Treaty. Article 6 1. Japan hereby renounces in favor of Korea all rights and titles to the Korean mainland territory and all offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart (Saishu To), the Nan How group (San To, or Komun Do) which forms Port Hamilton (Tonaikai), Dagelet Island (Utsuryo To, or Matsu Shima), Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima), and all other islands and islets to which Japan has acquired title lying outside the line described in Article 3 and to the east of the meridian 124°15′ E. longitude, . . . 2. This line is indicated on the map attached to the present Treaty. In a November 14, 1949, telegram to the secretary of state, Acting Political Adviser in Japan William J. Sebald recommended that the inclusion of the Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima) be reconsidered: "Japan's claim to these islands is old and appears valid."11 The recommendation was incorporated in the December 29, 1949, draft12--the final State Department draft--whose Article 3 now explicitly cited "Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks)" as being part of the territory of Japan and whose Article 6 no longer referred to Takeshima as territory to be renounced. Article 3 1. The Territory of Japan shall comprise the four principal Japanese islands of Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Hokkaido and all adjacent minor islands, including the islands of the Inland sea (Seto Naikai); Tsushima, Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), Oki Retto, Sado, Okujiri, Rebun, Riishiri and all other islands in the Japan Sea (Nippon Kai) within a line connecting the farther shores of Tsushima, Takeshima and Rebun; the Goto archipelago, the Ryukyu Islands north of 29° N. latitude, and all other islands of the East China Sea east of longitude 127° east of Greenwich and north of 29°N. latitude; the Izu Islands southward to end including Sofu Gan (Lot's Wife) and all other islands of the Philippine Sea nearer to the four principal islands than the islands named; and the Habomai group and Shikotan lying to the east and south of a line extending from a point in 43°35′ N. latitude, 145°35′ E. longitude to a point in 44°N. latitude, 146°30′ E. longitude, and to the south of a line drawn due east on the parallel in 44° N. latitude. . . . 2. All of the islands mentioned above are shown on the map attached to the present Treaty. Article 6 Japan hereby renounces in favor of Korea all rights and titles to the Korean mainland territory and all offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart (Saishu To), the Nan How group (San To, or Komun Do) which forms Port Hamilton (Tonaikai), Dagelet Island (Utsuryo To, or Matsu Shima), and all other offshore Korean islands and islets to which Japan had acquired title. 6. The Dulles Revisions After John Foster Dulles was named consultant to the secretary of state in April 1950 and joined the treaty drafting process, a version simpler than the State Department drafts was drawn up on August 7, 1950.13 The gist of this draft, revised on September 11,14 was subsequently summarized into seven points and presented to other concerned countries. The summary was also released to the media in November and became known as the Seven Principles of the Treaty with Japan.15 The reactions of foreign governments and the conclusions of a review within the US government were incorporated into the provisional US draft of March 23, 1951.16 This was presented to other governments and, as noted above, integrated with the British draft to produce the Joint United States-United Kingdom Draft Peace Treaty of May 3, 1951,17 and the Revised United States-United Kingdom Draft of a Japanese Peace Treaty of June 14.18 After Dulles joined the drafting process, the wording became simplified, and the list of islands Japan was to retain was deleted. In the Seven Principles, Japan's renunciation of Korea was reworded as just "Japan would recognize the independence of Korea"; the US draft notes, "Japan renounces all rights, titles and claims to Korea, Formosa and the Pescadores"; the Joint US-UK draft says, "Japan renounces all rights, titles and claims to Korea (including Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet)"; and the Revised US-UK draft notes, "Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet." Only those territories to be forfeited by Japan were included, and the provisions containing the territories to be retained were deleted; thus there was no longer any mention of Takeshima, but there was no change in the understanding that the islands would be retained by Japan. In response to questions about the Seven Principles submitted by the Australian government requesting "more precise information concerning the disposition of former Japanese territories," the United States wrote, "It is thought that the islands of the Inland Sea, Oki Retto, Sado, Okujiri, Rebun, Riishiri, Tsushima, Takeshima, the Goto Archipelago, the northernmost Ryukyus, and the Izus, all long recognized as Japanese, would be retained by Japan."19 7. US Rejection of Korean Revision Requests On July 19, 1951, Korean Ambassador to the United States Yang You-chan visited Dulles and handed him a letter addressed to US Secretary of State Dean Acheson requesting revisions to the draft treaty. The letter makes three requests, the first of which was for Takeshima (Dokdo) to be included among the islands to be renounced by Japan. Specifically, it asked that Article 2, Paragraph a, which in the Revised US-UK Draft read, Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, "renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet," be replaced by "confirms that it renounced on August 9, 1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the islands [of] Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo."20 In response, Dulles inquired as to the location of the two islands, Dokdo and Parangdo. First Secretary Han Pyo-wook of the Korean Embassy, rather than Ambassador Yang, stated that "these were two small islands lying in the Sea of Japan, he believed in the general vicinity of Ullungdo. Mr. Dulles asked whether these islands had been Korean before the Japanese annexation, to which the Ambassador replied in the affirmative. If that were the case, Mr. Dulles saw no particular problem in including these islands in the pertinent part of the treaty which related to the renunciation of Japanese territorial claims to Korean territory."21 The US reply to the Korean request of July 19, 1951, was made in the form of a letter, dated August 10, to the Korean ambassador from Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs Dean Rusk, writing on behalf of the secretary of state. The reply reads: ". . . the United States Government regrets that it is unable to concur in this proposed amendment. . . . As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea."22 Thus Article 2, Paragraph (a) on the renunciation of territory to Korea in the Revised US-UK Draft remained unchanged, and it became the wording found in the final treaty. 8. Summary of Article 2(a) Debate As explained in section 4 above, the "Korea" Japan renounced in the peace treaty's Article 2(a) is that Japan annexed in 1910. While this is clear from the "context," "object," and "purpose"--as described in the first paragraph of the Vienna Convention's Article 31 on the "general rule of interpretation"--I have made an attempt to reconfirm this fact and eliminate any ambiguity or obscurity through recourse to the "supplementary means of interpretation"--as stipulated in Article 32 of the convention-- by examining the "preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion" in sections 5 to 7. Section 7, in particular, clearly shows that the "Korea" renounced in Article 2(a) does not include Takeshima. Clause 8 of the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, specifies that Japanese sovereignty "shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine," meaning that Japan could have been stripped even of those islands that were historically part of the country depending on the wording of the peace treaty. But as the treaty stipulated no change in the legal standing of Takeshima, the islands were confirmed as Japanese territory. 9. Supplemental Remarks Several divergent views have been expressed in response to the historical documents this author introduced in "Heiwa Joyaku to Takeshima (sairon)" (see note 8). They include, (1) the argument that Takeshima was separated from Japan by SCAPIN (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction Note) 677 on "Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan" and SCAPIN 1033 on "Area Authorized for Japanese Fishing and Whaling" and remained separate when the peace treaty was concluded; (2) the argument that countries recognized Dokdo as being part of the Republic of Korea when it was established; (3) the argument that while Japan successfully lobbied for Takeshima to be included as Japanese territory in the December 1949 draft treaty, this clause was not included in the final draft, and thus the status of Takeshima remained undefined; and (4) the argument, again, that Japanese lobbying persuaded the United States to regard Takeshima as being Japanese territory but that Washington subsequently changed its mind. I would like to supplement my paper by considering these arguments in the space remaining.23 First, regarding arguments (1) and (2), it must be pointed out that the General Headquarters of SCAP was an administrative organization for Japan's occupation and had no authority over territorial disposition. In addition, Paragraph 6 of SCAPIN 677 explicitly states, "Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration," and Paragraph 5 of SCAPIN 1033 notes, "The present authorization is not an expression of allied policy relative to ultimate determination of national jurisdiction, international boundaries or fishing rights in the area concerned or in any other area."24 That territorial disposition would be addressed in the peace treaty was well understood, as evidenced by the February 1946 remarks by a GHQ official and an August 1947 report by the interim US military government in Korea.25 As for points (3) and (4), I have referred repeatedly in this paper to the fact that the Dulles drafts mentioned only those territories to be renounced by Japan. Thus the question is not one of Takeshima not being included as Japanese territory in the peace treaty; provisions itemizing the territories retained by Japan do not exist. Despite this, it is clear that Takeshima belongs to Japan (section 6) and that the islands have not been separated from Japan (section 8). The "lobbying activities" presumably refer to Political Adviser Sebald's recommendations on the November 2, 1949, draft (section 5) or to English reference materials prepared and presented by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs26 for the eventual drafting of a peace treaty. The argument that Washington changed its mind refers to a discovery of a document27 in the State Department's records created after the peace treaty was concluded that is at odds with the Dean Rusk letter (section 7). The important question here, though, is not whether Japan did or did not carry out lobbying activities or whether or not a party to the treaty had a change of heart after signing the document but what was decided by the treaty: Takeshima remained part of Japan. 10. Conclusion (2012) marks the sixtieth anniversary of the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty that restored Japan's sovereignty. The Takeshima territorial dispute became explicit (came about between the governments of Japan and South Korea) because the South Korean demand for the continued enforcement of the MacArthur Line was rejected during the drafting of the peace treaty (note 22), upon which the South Korean government unilaterally proclaimed the Syngman Rhee Line--inside of which Takeshima was included--on January 18, 1952. In that sense, this year is also the sixtieth anniversary of the Takeshima dispute. The Takeshima dispute entered in a new phase when the South Korean president visited Takeshima in August, and the Japanese government renewed its proposal to settle the dispute through the International Court of Justice. To truly solve the dispute, both the governments and people of the two countries must deepen dialogue on this issue by broadly sharing historical documents--including those, as referred to in section 3--and by proceeding in accordance with international law.
You mean, Dokdo was not written in San Fransisco treaty, so it's Japan's territory, right? But, before the San Fransisco treaty was made, there was one more treaty. In 1946, an Anweisung was made by the allied countries. It says that "Japan return all territory include all islands." It's the newest treaty about Dokdo. In San Fransisco treaty, there wasn't Dokdo. But, it doesn't mean Dokdo is Japanese. The anweisung, which is the newest treaty about Dokdo, should be applied. No treaty about Dokdo was made after the anweisung said that Dokdo should be returned to Korea.
First of all you have to know this Usan-guk wasn't built on dokdo most of their city was on Ulreung-Do, Dokdo was just a part of Usan-guk, Usan-guk was Small nation near by sinra,goguyroe that speaks korean and in 後三國時代(I can't translate it to english) Usan-guk asked integrate their country to goryu and after that momment Usan-guk had been the part of Korea
독도는 한국의땅이다~!! 独島は韓国の領土 独岛是韩国领土 Dokdo belongs to Korea Dokdo Corea tierra îles Dokdo coréen terre Pulau Dokdo adalah tanah Korea Токто - корейская земля Dokdo ist das Land von Korea L'isola di Dokdo è la terra della Corea Dokdo là của Hàn Quốc เกาะด็อกโดเป็นเกาะของเกาหลี
+お肌かさかさ 야 임마 시비걸지마 독도가 니내땅 이냐? 또 시비걸면 죽여버린다. 그리고 니네 옛날에 팬티도 안입었잖아 세종실록 지리지 50페이지 3째줄 에도 독도가 우리나라땅 이라고 나왔어 그리고 안용복이 니네한테 증거를 얻어 왔어 그리고 니네 과학기술 높은 이유도 우리나라사람을 실험에 썼잖아 또 니내들 때문에 윤동주 선생님 그리고 1800명이 니네 인체 실험 때문에 죽었어 이 나쁜 놈들아 그리고 니네가 죽인 사람만 해도 엄청 많아 그런데 독도를 또 다캐시마라고 하고 니네 땅이라고하고 신라장군 이사부가 더 먼저 발견 했어 그리고 니네 우리나라사람 귀,코 몽땅 베어갔잖아 빡빡이 놈들아 다캐가 뭐야? 설명해봐 이 대머리들아 이 왜놈 들아 우리 국보도 훔쳐갔는데 그 물건도 니네 국보 1호 잖아 야! 다시한번 말하는데 독도는 우리땅이다 이 멍청이 에다 미개하고 팬티도 안입는 놈에다 곧있으면 땅도 가라않는 놈들아!!
![[GoGoDokdo!]독도는우리땅 플래시몹(Dokdo is Korea Land) 20120225 서울역편(공식일정) - (사)한국재능기부봉사단](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CZABj9WeFbY/mqdefault.jpg)
![[GoGoDokdo!]독도는우리땅 플래시몹(Dokdo is Korea Land) 20120225 서울역편(공식일정) - (사)한국재능기부봉사단](/img/tr.png)
![[엠빅네이처] 독도를 위협하는 세 가지! 독도는 바닷속도 편하지가 않다.](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5kUmFeV-Hrs/mqdefault.jpg)
안녕하세요. 저는 독도는 우리땅을 좋아하는 재균이 9살이에요. 저는 어리지만 저는 팬! 정광태 아저씨 노래 잘불르세요. 정광태 잘하시네요.! 짱!!!~
외국인이세요?
@@용-y8k 닉 해석하면 정재균 맞고요. 진짜 9살같아요.
하늘하늘 한국 나이로 15살일거같네요
이제 19살 이시겠네
수능보셨나?
정광태 아저씨 독도는 저희 대!한!민국 독도입니다.
독도는 일본 땅이라고 지지 않습니다. 저는 독도를 완전 대박 좋아합니다.
정광태 아저씨 파이팅!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ken Ishi 역사를 제대로 안다면 그 말이 안 나오겠죠... 진화나 더 하고 오세요.
Ken Ishi 일본사람들이인정한물건도많아요!
Gina Eugenio ㅑ
초등생 시절 정말
롯데
독도는 우리땅이다
예전 일본지도에도 독도를 한국땅으로표기했고 독도에는 우리나라사람이살고 우린 독도갈때 여권필요없어!!너흰필요하지?
그리고 한국과 더 가깝다!
독도는 우리땅!!
ㄷ
등 모두 오늘 준영 민재 제가
殺す
허언증말기환자 울릉도가 독도에 가장 가까워서 한국 땅 맞음
@@チハたん-h5r 1905年に独島を日本に奪われている。 1910年韓国領土を奪われている。 1946年1月29日、SCAPIN 677号、韓半島周辺の済州島、鬱陵島、独島などを日本の主権から提案して韓国に送り返した 1953年、日本の巡視船が独島上陸韓国は独島にある日本人を退ける集めて独島守備隊を作り、勝つ2015年、日本の安倍政権は、独島を持つために日本の人々に自分に有利な主張だけを話して小学校5、6年生の社会教科書すべてが独島が日本領土だと主張している独島が韓国の土地である理由はさらにある 私はそのうち基本的なことを言っただけだ。
싫어요 누른사람은 대부분이 일본인 이다
인정
나일본새키...ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ
ㅇㅈ
인정
ㅇㅈ
하와이는 미국땅 대마도도 우리땅 독도도 우리땅 맞다고생각하면 좋아요
7.62 mm 하와이는 미국땅 대마도도 일본땅 독도는 일본땅
독도는 한국땅입니다 이 미친 일본놈아
뭔 쉬이발대마도가우리땅이여
@@UNroCK_SEvaNT 대마도는 원래 일본땅 이었습니다.공부나 배우시져
@@U_____T ㅇㅈ
2019년에 보고 있는 사람? 저밖에 없나요?
2020
2021
(왜 출책을 하고 있쥐?)
아름다운 독도.독도로날아간호랑나비.독도는한국땅.도요새의비밀...많이있어요 코끼리아저씨.짜라빠빠.......
독도는우리땅
독도노래 잘 부르고 싶어서 지금 1시간째 연습중 어렵네요 ㅠㅠ
2021 여기써!
오늘은 우리나라의 땅 독도의 날입니다. 일본인들은 우리나라에 역사를 뺴앗아가지고뭔 난리일까요? 우리나라가 먼저 독도를 차지했는데 ㅋ , 오늘만이라도 독도를 사랑합시다
殺す
조선 빼앗으니 난리피우는거죠 뭐
@@チハたん-h5r
マジうるさい
私は日韓夫婦ですが
あなたみたいな日本人
はずかしいです。
JESSICA 외동딸 ILLINOIS CHICAGO ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ
@厚生労働省후생노동성 개새키
아빠묵묵
엄마하나사랑해요
이미래사랑해요
윈희엄사랑해요
김선영사랑해요
@厚生労働省후생노동성 Fuck ya Dokdo is Korea Land ur asshole
장아라 💩韓国人TikTokでめっちゃ怒ってて草
독도는 대한민국 땅 !!!!! 대한민국 화이팅!!
강제 교육 한국의 교육은 쓰레기.
*****
니 가 도 쓰레기다.
마음 쓰레기😧😧💩
금붕어의 똥💩ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ
歴史教科書を捏造して洗脳させる日本はもっとゴミ！
JIN UTA
大丈夫w
日本は韓国と違ってマインドコントロールとかやんないしw自己紹介乙ww
what dokdo is just korea's land
캄사함니다
듣고또듣고 다시들어도 계속 좋은음악 경쾌하고 아름다운 우리 언어가 감칠맛 나게 잘도 흐름니다
감사합니다
여러분 이제부터 독도는 우리땅이라고 왜 칩시다 독도는 우리땅
독도는 우리땅!!!!!
맞아용 독도는랑울릉도는우리땅이에용용 ㅎㅎㅎㅎㅎㅋㅋㅎㅎㅎ 정답용 ㅎㅎ
독도는 대한민국 땅!!!!!!!!독도는 앞으로 내가 지킨다~!!!!
너는 대통령이 아니 잖아😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
***** 바보 군 열심히 해요ㅋㅋㅋ
( ^ω^ )ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ
+。 あっぷるパイ 왜 독도가 우리땅이라고 맞는말하는데 구지 옆에 와서 꼽살이신지...ㅋㅋㅋ 어디가 맘에 안드신건지 설명좀...ㅋㅋㅋ 그럼 시민하나하나가 아이건 대통령이 지켜야해 정부도 아니고 대통령하나가 지켜야되 어디서듣고오신 좆논리이신지...ㅋㅋㅋ 우리나라가 공산국가인가요? 그렇게 ㅂㄷㅂㄷ할꺼면 그냥 이영상보지말고 꺼지삼 존나 좆논리 오지게 펼치지 말고...에휴
님아 인권 침해 자제 좀 님들이 독도 일본땅이라고 하는 거랑 비슷(?) 한 건데 왜 상관인지 (다른점이 있다면 우린 우리땅이 우리땅이라고 주장하는 것)
이거 。이분한테 한거임
독도는 우리땅!!!
대한민국 최고 애국가수
독도오빠~~
감사합니다 ^^♥️
노래 너무 잘하시네요 독도는우리땅 활팅
오늘도 내일도 독도는 우리땅 입니다!
영상감사합니다.
독도는 우리땅💕
내 머리는 천재 독도를 지키는 분들은 다천재
하나바다독사랑해요
엄마하나아빠목목
나천재 입니다 지니어스요
독도는 대한민국 땅이다. 내가 인정한다
독도는 일본땅입니다.
친일파냐?
@@kijinkid2000 웃기고 있네! 일본인이냐 아니면 친일파냐. 일본인이면 그나마 이해를하는데 (이유: 학교에서 그렇게 배웠스니까)친일파면 씨×× 새×× 저× 꺼××
@@kijinkid2000 독도는 한국땅입니다.
@@kijinkid2000 6명한태 개털리고 빤스런
비오는 오늘 듣기 좋은 노래네요~
울릉도에서 독도까지87.4km 일본오키섬에서 독도까지157.5km
홍정인 領有権に距離は関係ないって知らないのか？
크으 팩트 오져따리
@@さんいーじー 占有権に距離が関係がないのはどこの国の法律か。
@@さんいーじー 뭐라적었노
독도는 우리땅!!!!!!
違う！日本の領土だ！
Cao ni ma
@@日本国-i4u 독도는 대한민국땅이다!!!!
竹島は日本国の領土だ！
@@日本国-i4u 독도는 일본땅이 맞습니다
한국인들이 멍청해서 선동당한거고 정작 논리로는 반박을 못허던데요
dokdo is japan island
독도는 대한민국의 가장 동쪽의 있는 섬
독도는 우리땅!!!!내땅!!!!당신땅!!!!!우리 모두의 땅!!!!!일본시키들 땅 아냐!!!!!!!
독도는 일본 땅입니다.
@@kijinkid2000 일본인응 껴정 독도한국꺼야
저 학교에서 독도 노래 외우기 숙제였는데 이것 덕분에 통과 했으요♡♡
잘됫
ㅇㅈ
저둣
독도 우리 땅!!!!!!!!!!!!!
일본 땅 아니야 착각하지마!!!!!!!! 일본!!!
착각하는게아니고 일부러그러는거에요 지들이영토많이차지할라고
@@채은나라 영토를 많이 차지하는거 보단 독도에 미래자원이 많고 많은 물고기 특이하고 희귀한 생물도 많아서 일부러 자기내 꺼라고 우기는 거에용
일본은 착각 안하고살아요 착각=착한생각
독도=한국땅
울룡도=한국땅
독도=일.제.땅.아.님
울륭도=일.제.땅.절.대.아.님
ㄴㄴ 독도도 일제땅 절대아님
울룡도 였음??? 울릉도 아님??
을릉도가 한국땅이면 독도도 한국땅인거
@@Anyujin-I-love-you 울릉도
울룡도랑 울륭도가 아니라 울릉도입니다.
독도는 한국따아아아아아아아아아아아아아앙!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
크
일본아독도은우리땅이야컴퓨터로검색해봨ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ
ㅇㅇ
이유는?
@@UNroCK_SEvaNT 너 일본인이냐? 일본인이면 친절하게 일본어로말해주지
1905年に独島を日本に奪われている。 1910年韓国領土を奪われている。 1946年1月29日、SCAPIN 677号、韓半島周辺の済州島、鬱陵島、独島などを日本の主権から提案して韓国に送り返した 1953年、日本の巡視船が独島上陸韓国は独島にある日本人を退ける集めて独島守備隊を作り、勝つ2015年、日本の安倍政権は、独島を持つために日本の人々に自分に有利な主張だけを話して小学校5、6年生の社会教科書すべてが独島が日本領土だと主張している1次~5次草案までは、独島は韓国領土として記載された。 7回目の草案でも、独島は連合国の合意形式で韓国領土として記載されたところが、米国務省は6次、8回目の草案などと独島を日本領土と記載した連合国の中で、独島を日本領土だと主張した国は米国だけだった なぜなら米国は6.25が行われている状況で戦略的に日本統治下に日本をおこうとしたためだ独島が韓国の土地である理由はさらにある 私はそのうち基本的なことを言っただけだ。
"독도는 한국땅"이라는 표어를 창안하신분은 ' 미주최초의 독도운동가 김나현님'의 작품이다. "독도는한국땅"이라는 단어를 사용하려면 김나현남에게 허락을 받아야 마땅한것이 아닌가?
님영상좋아요 구독하고갑니다 ㅂㅂ~
벨소리로 사용중 입니다.
독도는 우리땅이다!!!!!
선배님 고맙습니다
일본아 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 우리동해를 영어로하면 독도우리땅증명되 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 아니 도둑 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 역사에남을것이야 입본아
일본에는 강치라고 예전에 바다사자가 살고 있었습니다. 근데 그 일본새끼들이 강치 가죽좋다고 강치 멸종시킴 그리고 강치더잡으려고 자기땅이라고 주장하다보니까 자연스럽게 자기땅이라고 인식하게 되는거죠 지금은 강치가 조금씩 나타나고 있습니다^^
채널버파
황주환 ㅇㅇ
최고멋쟁이 east sea
일본은 north seaㅋ
아베놈이 과거사만 겸손히 받아들여도 좋은 동맹이 되었을텐데 아쉽다
안녕하세요 , 즐감하고 응원합니다,, 승승 장구하길 기원드립니다,,
시간 되시면 제 실방에 놀러 오시면 노래로 잘모시겠습니다,
제 실방은 ~월 , 화,, 목,,5시30분에 합니다,,감사합니다,,
독도 그리고 이사부가 제일 먼저 발견함
일본인 꺼져.또 좀 있으면 갈아앉는게 개쎄끼들아.(일본인 한테 쓴겨.)
+박범기
쓰레기 놈
ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ
+。 あっぷるパイ 쓰레기놈 당신 ㅋㅋㅋ
에휴..
니같은 놈 때문에
일본이 깝치는 거라고
작작해 이 쓰레기 놈아
+S Mine 초코 ?왜 박범기님한테
10/25
오늘 독도의 날
지증왕 십삼년 섬나라 우산국~♡
안녕 하세요 점심 식사 맛있게하세요 응원 합니다
Dokdo is a Korean land!
Dokdo est une terre coréenne !
Dokdo ist eine koreanische Land!
दोक्दो एक कोरियाई भूमि है!
Dokdo è una terra coreana!
独島は韓国土地!
独岛是韩国的土地 ！
Токто является корейский земли!
¡Dokdo es un Coreano!
Dokdo เป็นดินแดนเกาหลี
Dokdo là một vùng đất Hàn Quốc!
독도는 영원히 한국땅!
D Park 감사
D Park Dokdo is Korean territory! There is no Takeshima!
혹시 프로필사진 안중근의사님의 손도장인가요?
네,맛습니다!
감사합니다
독도는 우리땅이야!!!!
와 ㅅㅂ.. 타이거 d 형님 오셨습니까..
캬 나만온거 아니었네
여러분!! 제가 여름방학 공통과제로 독도에관련된 표어나 포스터를 그려야 하는데 아이디어가 생각나지가 않아요. 혹시 좋은 아이디어 있으신분은 알려주세요.ㅠㅠ
대마도는 우리땅
일본인이 전쟁으로 우리나라땅 가져갔어요
韓國領 이라고 독도의 암벽에 새겨진 한자표기를 한글과 영문으로 같이 표기 하면 어떻겠습니까? 관계기관에 감히 건의 드립니다. 독도를 소개하는 거의 모든 사진과 영상물에 약방의 감초처럼 빠지지 않고 등장하는데(이명박 전 대통령, 김장훈씨도 그 표기 앞에서 사진을 찍었던 것이 많이 보도 됨) 볼 때마다 속상합니다. 몇년전 MBC-TV를 통하여 표기를 한글과 영문으로 함께 표기 할 계획이라고 보도 된것을 시청하기도 하였는데, 아직도 그대로 입니다. 다시 건의 드리오니 참고해 주시기 바랍니다.
선조들이 지켜주신 독도를 이제 우리가 지켜야할 차례입니다
중국조선족인데요 중학시절 많이들엇어요 김치주제가 코끼리아저씨 바보온달과평강공주 젤인상깊은건힘내라힘그노래 그시절한중수교도안됏는데 라디오로들으면서가사외우고 학교서야유회가면불럿던기억생생하네요 선생님들도놀라하시고 ㅎㅎ
다케시마 아니다 독도다!!!!!!!!
다케시마가 뭐죠
먹는건가요
@@닏디그습드10년전 일본이 독도보고 그렇게불러요
아마 저분은 드립 치신것 같아요
정광태
모든 사람 마음에 사는 사람
감사합니다.
독도는우땅!!
건종
이주현 인정
티주 ㅑ
난 왜 이렇게 못난 오늘 하루도 화이팅 하시길
독도는대햔민국=독도는대햔민국
땅이데이=독도는대햔민국땅이이데이
=정광태 정광탁/화이팅 화이팅
~~☆☆☆♧♧♧♤♤♤🦊🐗🐷🦁=
솔직히 지금 들으면 유치하지만 한국인이라면 모두가 최소한 한번이라도 들어본 국민음악
이런 음악이 애국가 말고 얼마나 있을까...
내가지킨다독도는!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
정광태 좋은노래 ~~~
독도는 우리땅 맞아요
수행평가로 이 노래 외우고 있으면 좋아요~
재미있어요
독도 파이팅 한국 힘내
정광태 아저씨 힘내세요
돌아가심
네 근데 이건 세종실록지리지에도나와있고 일본역사책에도나와있는데 양심을속겨서 한말임 근데 답변고마움 ^^ 오늘도즐거운하루
하...한국의독도는내가지킨다!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
독도는대한민국땅이라고!😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡
+이준희 ㅎㅇ?
후후후
@@김민준-c6w 그니까 독도=한국이라고... 한국의독도
제주도까지 51.2km 경상북도 12.4km
경상남도 62.2km 강원도 49.2km
야뭔소리햐
화이팅입니다
우리 땅이야
일본인이에요
이노래 노래방에서 많이 해욬ㅋㅋㅋㅋ
술 마실땤ㅋㅋㅋ
넘 웃겨섴ㅋㅋㅋ
이노래하면 일본사람들이 빵 터짐ㅋㅋㅋㅋ
일본 Karaoke에도 이 노래가 있어요??
came here for parasite! 😂
Dokdo is korean land
이분 독도에서 사시면 될듯
대한민국사랑해요
Takeshima was treated as part of Japanese territory under the San Francisco Peace Treaty
Signed in September 1951, the San Francisco Peace Treaty states that Japan recognizes the independence of Korea and renounces “Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.” The treaty thus excludes Takeshima from the areas to be renounced by Japan.
Prior to the signing of the treaty, in July 1951, a request made by the ROK to include Takeshima to the areas to be renounced by Japan under the peace treaty was explicitly rejected by the United States. The government of the United States responded to the Korean government through the letter from the then US Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, Dean Rusk, stating that the rejection was on the grounds that Takeshima had never been treated as Korean territory and that Korea had at no point claimed sovereignty over Takeshima in the past. This fact unequivocally shows that Takeshima is an inherent part of the territory of Japan.
영어 모르시나? 샌프란시스코 조약에 의하면 미 정부는 한국과 일본의 땅을 정할때 독도를 일본 땅이라고 규정 했습니다
독도는 한국땅입니다.
Hi, mister ignorant - or miss, I simply cannot care less - I just want to ask how you're so sure you're correct.
The San Francisco Peace Treaty you seem to adore so much states only in the sixth, eighth, ninth, and fourteenth drafts that the territory of Japan includes Dokdo. The first five and seventh states it's Korea's. The tenth through thirteenth and the fifteenth through eighteenth as well as the final draft is silent on the matter. That's why it's a problem in the first place, you imbecile.
The infamous Rusk Papers you speak of- is anything ever valid when it comes to politics? Dean Rusk's military background influenced his political decisions and Dokdo was no exception. If you studied more American records from the Japan Peace Treaty Archives in depth you'd see these papers do little more than show U.S. decisions on territorial ownership were based largely on military strategy. Plus, and I quote: "It should also be noted, The Rusk Papers were confidential memorandums. None of Rusk’s opinions were made public nor conveyed to the Japanese government. In fact, they weren’t made public until decades later. Thus, the Rusk papers never materialized in official U.S. support for Japan’s claim to Dokdo. Rusk’s views were just one phase of America’s policy toward Dokdo that would later change into a neutral stance on the issue."
If you must know more, America had also seriously considered ceding Chejudo to Japan despite the fact the island was inhabited by Koreans and was always Korean land. So we know from these records true historical title was not the grounds for allied decisions in the disposition of land. You want to claim Chejudo as yours too? Sure, good luck with that. You'll need more than moronic copy and pasted arguments to pretend that's Japanese.
Here's some reading material for you to catch up with the real side of things:
The fatal flaw in Japan’s interpretation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty is their misleading conclusion the agreement was between the U.S. Government and Japan. In reality, about 48 countries participated in the negotiations. Naturally other nations, such as the United Kingdom and commonwealth members, had views that weren’t in line with U.S. policy. That caused great concern for the Americans. For example, the United Kingdom’s requested a linear boundary in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) that would have placed Dokdo Takeshima within Korean territory. The Americans objected saying the Japanese “felt psychologically boxed in” by this proposal. Also, we can read there was a growing sense of urgency for the Americans to quickly implement the Japan Peace Treaty and Joint Trusteeships of former Japanese territories. The disagreements between other Allied Forces may have been the reason. It may also explain why some issues remained resolved (Dokdo, Sahkalin etc.) even after the San Franciso Peace Treaty was signed.
Finally, TLDR: It’s worthy to note, although the United States (Dean Rusk) “…didn’t feel that the Treaty should not adopt the theory that the Potsdam Declaration constituted a final renunciation of Takeshima…”, Other nations such as Canada and the USSR felt these WWII agreements should be taken literally or as guidelines for the Japan Peace Treaty to follow. The final determination of these islands was for the Allies to decide, not just Dean Rusk or General MacAthur. In the end, South Korea, like the USSR and India opted not to accept the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The ROK should not be vilified because she refused to allow foreign powers to determine her national boundaries.
If you're too dumb to understand, here's an impossibly simple summary for your thick head.
DOKDO IS KOREAN TERRITORY.
Sincerely with zero respect,
An actually educated Korean.
sorry,Long sentence
1. Introduction: Overview of the Peace Treaty
The Treaty of Peace with Japan, which was signed in San Francisco on September 8, 1951, and came into force on April 28, 1952, legally ended World War II as relating to Japan and also ended the Allied occupation of Japan, which regained its sovereignty.
Peace treaties generally include provisions for the restoration of diplomatic ties, reparations, territorial concessions, the treatment of expired commerce and navigation treaties, and other issues to resolve war-instigated problems and lay out the principles for postwar relations. The Treaty of Peace with Japan, too, includes clauses for the termination of the state of war (Article 1), renunciation of territorial claims to Korea, Taiwan, the Kuril Islands, and elsewhere (Article 2), US administration of the Nansei and Nanpo Islands (Article 3), disposition of property in the renounced territories, etc. (Article 4), security (Article 5), treaties and agreements regarding trading, maritime and other commercial ties (Article 12), reparations (Article 14), and the waiving of all claims against the Allied powers (Article 19).
Forty-five Allied countries, including the United States, Britain, and France, became parties to the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Those that did not become party to the treaty concluded separate agreements.1 As regards South Korea, until around January 1951 the country was considered a party to the treaty as it was being drafted in the United States but ultimately was not allowed to sign it for legal reasons.2
2. Territory-Related Provisions
As mentioned above, Article 2 of the treaty stipulates renunciation of Korea, Taiwan, the Kuril Islands, and other territories by Japan, while Article 3 stipulates the US administration of the Nansei and Nanpo Islands.
Article 2
(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. (b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores. (c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905. (d) Japan renounces claims to territories in the League of Nations Mandate System and accepts the UN (US) trusteeship system; (e) Japan renounces claims to the Antarctic area; and (f) Japan renounces claims to the Spratly and Paracel Islands.
Article 3
Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29° north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters.
These provisions indicate the territories that Japan was to renounce or relinquish control over (administrative rights over the territories in Article 3 were returned to Japan over time in accordance with a subsequent bilateral agreement), but the treaty has no provisions for the territories that Japan was to retain (as territories belonging to Japan prior to the war and which the country would continue to administer).
3. Points at Issue in the Takeshima Dispute
The Takeshima territorial dispute involves a number of issues relating to (1) historical title, (2) efforts by the Japanese and Korean governments to incorporate the islands into their respective territories, and (3) postwar developments.
The first group of these issues focuses on whether the Usando referred to in ancient Korean documents and maps corresponds to modern-day Takeshima (Dokdo). Do these historical documents show that Takeshima is Korean territory? Can the fact that residents of Yonago (now in Tottori Prefecture) received permission from the shogunal government in the early Edo period (1603-1868) to fish for abalone around the island of Utsuryoto (Ulleungdo or Dagelet)--and also fished on and around what is now Takeshima--be construed to mean that Takeshima was part of Japanese territory? And how did the shogunal government's ban on travel to Utsuryoto, issued on March 1, 1696, affect the status of Takeshima?
The second group of issues includes the Japanese cabinet decision of January 28, 1905, to incorporate Takeshima into the territory of Japan and whether the islands were Korean territory at the time. Also, does the March 29, 1877, Japanese Supreme Council (Dajo-kan) order to exclude "Takeshima and one other island" from the Japanese National Land Registry constitute evidence that the council did not consider what is now known as Takeshima to be part of Japanese territory? And does Korean Imperial Decree No. 41 of 1900 renaming Ulleungdo as Uldo and elevating it to the status of a county with jurisdiction over "Seokdo" indicate that the Korean government considered Takeshima part of its own territory?
The third group of issues, meanwhile, deals with the postwar Allied occupation of Japan, the measures taken by the Allied powers, the establishment of South Korea, and changes, if any, to Takeshima's legal standing (as Japanese territory) following the signing of the Treaty of Peace with Japan.3
The treaty is without doubt an important document in the territorial dispute inasmuch as it supersedes all earlier arguments. If it effected a change in Takeshima's legal status, then any older evidence backing up a territorial claim would essentially be moot; in other words, if the treaty provides for Japan's renunciation of Takeshima, then there is no overturning this fact, regardless of what historical title it had or how valid the 1905 cabinet decision may be under international law. If, on the other hand, the treaty does nothing to change Takeshima's legal status, the fact that Japan possessed these islands prior to World War II4 also remains unchanged, and the treaty, in short, would confirm Japan's territorial claims.
4. Interpretations of Article 2(a)
The question of whether the treaty altered Takeshima's legal status hinges on what "Korea" stipulated in Article 2(a) means: "Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet." If "Korea" includes Takeshima, then Japan will have forfeited the islands, and if it does not, then Japan retains ownership.
Interpretations of treaties are prescribed by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, adopted on May 23, 1969, and which came into force on January 27, 1980:
Article 31. General Rule of Interpretation
1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
Article 32. Supplementary Means of Interpretation
Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of Article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to Article 31: (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; . . .
The provisions on interpretation of treaties contained in Article 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention reflect pre-existing international law and may be applied to treaties concluded before the entering into force of the convention.5 That Article 31 is an expression of international customary law has been confirmed in subsequent rulings of the International Court of Justice, such as the 1994 territorial dispute between Libya and Chad6 and the 1999 incident between Botswana and Namibia involving Kasikili/Sedudu Island.7 What would be the implications of Article 2(a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan if such rules of interpretation were applied?
First of all, the "Korea" referred to in the peace treaty would be that state that was annexed by Japan in 1910 and was now being disjoined from it. This can be gleaned from the treaty's "context," "object," and "purpose"--as mentioned in the first paragraph of the Vienna Convention's Article 31--namely, the Korean Empire's loss of independence in 1910, the reference in the Cairo Declaration of December 1, 1943, that the "three great powers . . . are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent" (the Cairo Declaration was referred to in Clause 8 of the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945), and the establishment of the Republic of Korea (along with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) in 1948. The article contains nothing that would suggest that Japan is to make any new territorial concessions to Korea upon de-annexation, and Takeshima was not part of the Korea that Japan annexed in 1910. Takeshima did not become Japanese territory as part of the annexation of the Korean Peninsula, nor was it ever placed under the jurisdiction of the Governor-General of Korea under Japanese rule. One can conclude, then, that the "Korea" in Article 2(a) to which Japan renounces "all right, title and claim" does not include Takeshima.
While it is already clear from the Vienna Convention's rule of interpretation in Article 31 that the territory renounced by Japan does not include Takeshima, this can be further reconfirmed and any ambiguity or obscurity eliminated through recourse to the "supplementary means of interpretation"--as stipulated in Article 32 of the convention--by examining the "preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion."
5. State Department Drafts
The process of drafting the Treaty of Peace with Japan can broadly be differentiated into two distinct periods: before and after summer 1950. Until then, the task was in the hands of officials at the State Department, who created a working draft for review within the US government. Thereafter, John Foster Dulles--working as a consultant to the secretary of state after stepping down as interim senator in November 1949--took over and began conferring with other governments to finalize the document. Britain was preparing its own draft, and working-level consultations were held in Washington in May 1951 to produce a joint document. This was further revised the following month when Dulles visited London, and this basically became the treaty that was signed in San Francisco in September, although minor amendments continued to be made after July.8
The preparation of a draft by the State Department began in March 1947 with several territorial and other clauses. By August 5 the same year, a full draft (though still considered tentative) from the preamble to final provisions was completed. This was the year when a peace treaty with Italy was concluded, and so Japan was no doubt considered next. Subsequent versions include a draft that includes the territorial clauses with a handwritten memo reading "Re-draft 2 January [1948]"; the draft of October 13, 1949; that of November 2, 1949; and that of December 29, 1949.9
The territory-related articles of the State Department drafts begin with a list of islands that Japan is to retain, which are also identified in an accompanying map, and continue to a list of territories that Japan is to concede to other countries or to renounce. Drafts of November 2, 1949, and earlier do not include Takeshima as being within the territorial limits of Japan and stipulates that Japan is to renounce Takeshima to Korea. Article 3 of the November 2 draft reads:10
Article 3
1. The Territory of Japan shall comprise the four principal Japanese islands of Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Hokkaido and all adjacent minor islands, including the islands of the Inland sea (Seto Naikai), Sado, Oki Retto, Tsushima, the Goto Archipelago, the Ryukyu Islands north of 29° N. latitude, and the Izu Islands southward to and including Sofu Gan (Lot's Wife), and all other islands within a line beginning at a point in 45° 45′ N. latitude, 140° longitude east of Greenwich, . . .
2. This line of allocation is indicated on the map attached to the peace Treaty.
Article 6
1. Japan hereby renounces in favor of Korea all rights and titles to the Korean mainland territory and all offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart (Saishu To), the Nan How group (San To, or Komun Do) which forms Port Hamilton (Tonaikai), Dagelet Island (Utsuryo To, or Matsu Shima), Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima), and all other islands and islets to which Japan has acquired title lying outside the line described in Article 3 and to the east of the meridian 124°15′ E. longitude, . . .
2. This line is indicated on the map attached to the present Treaty.
In a November 14, 1949, telegram to the secretary of state, Acting Political Adviser in Japan William J. Sebald recommended that the inclusion of the Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima) be reconsidered: "Japan's claim to these islands is old and appears valid."11 The recommendation was incorporated in the December 29, 1949, draft12--the final State Department draft--whose Article 3 now explicitly cited "Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks)" as being part of the territory of Japan and whose Article 6 no longer referred to Takeshima as territory to be renounced.
Article 3
1. The Territory of Japan shall comprise the four principal Japanese islands of Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Hokkaido and all adjacent minor islands, including the islands of the Inland sea (Seto Naikai); Tsushima, Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), Oki Retto, Sado, Okujiri, Rebun, Riishiri and all other islands in the Japan Sea (Nippon Kai) within a line connecting the farther shores of Tsushima, Takeshima and Rebun; the Goto archipelago, the Ryukyu Islands north of 29° N. latitude, and all other islands of the East China Sea east of longitude 127° east of Greenwich and north of 29°N. latitude; the Izu Islands southward to end including Sofu Gan (Lot's Wife) and all other islands of the Philippine Sea nearer to the four principal islands than the islands named; and the Habomai group and Shikotan lying to the east and south of a line extending from a point in 43°35′ N. latitude, 145°35′ E. longitude to a point in 44°N. latitude, 146°30′ E. longitude, and to the south of a line drawn due east on the parallel in 44° N. latitude. . . .
2. All of the islands mentioned above are shown on the map attached to the present Treaty.
Article 6
Japan hereby renounces in favor of Korea all rights and titles to the Korean mainland territory and all offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart (Saishu To), the Nan How group (San To, or Komun Do) which forms Port Hamilton (Tonaikai), Dagelet Island (Utsuryo To, or Matsu Shima), and all other offshore Korean islands and islets to which Japan had acquired title.
6. The Dulles Revisions
After John Foster Dulles was named consultant to the secretary of state in April 1950 and joined the treaty drafting process, a version simpler than the State Department drafts was drawn up on August 7, 1950.13 The gist of this draft, revised on September 11,14 was subsequently summarized into seven points and presented to other concerned countries. The summary was also released to the media in November and became known as the Seven Principles of the Treaty with Japan.15 The reactions of foreign governments and the conclusions of a review within the US government were incorporated into the provisional US draft of March 23, 1951.16 This was presented to other governments and, as noted above, integrated with the British draft to produce the Joint United States-United Kingdom Draft Peace Treaty of May 3, 1951,17 and the Revised United States-United Kingdom Draft of a Japanese Peace Treaty of June 14.18
After Dulles joined the drafting process, the wording became simplified, and the list of islands Japan was to retain was deleted. In the Seven Principles, Japan's renunciation of Korea was reworded as just "Japan would recognize the independence of Korea"; the US draft notes, "Japan renounces all rights, titles and claims to Korea, Formosa and the Pescadores"; the Joint US-UK draft says, "Japan renounces all rights, titles and claims to Korea (including Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet)"; and the Revised US-UK draft notes, "Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet." Only those territories to be forfeited by Japan were included, and the provisions containing the territories to be retained were deleted; thus there was no longer any mention of Takeshima, but there was no change in the understanding that the islands would be retained by Japan. In response to questions about the Seven Principles submitted by the Australian government requesting "more precise information concerning the disposition of former Japanese territories," the United States wrote, "It is thought that the islands of the Inland Sea, Oki Retto, Sado, Okujiri, Rebun, Riishiri, Tsushima, Takeshima, the Goto Archipelago, the northernmost Ryukyus, and the Izus, all long recognized as Japanese, would be retained by Japan."19
7. US Rejection of Korean Revision Requests
On July 19, 1951, Korean Ambassador to the United States Yang You-chan visited Dulles and handed him a letter addressed to US Secretary of State Dean Acheson requesting revisions to the draft treaty. The letter makes three requests, the first of which was for Takeshima (Dokdo) to be included among the islands to be renounced by Japan. Specifically, it asked that Article 2, Paragraph a, which in the Revised US-UK Draft read, Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, "renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet," be replaced by "confirms that it renounced on August 9, 1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the islands [of] Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo."20 In response, Dulles inquired as to the location of the two islands, Dokdo and Parangdo. First Secretary Han Pyo-wook of the Korean Embassy, rather than Ambassador Yang, stated that "these were two small islands lying in the Sea of Japan, he believed in the general vicinity of Ullungdo. Mr. Dulles asked whether these islands had been Korean before the Japanese annexation, to which the Ambassador replied in the affirmative. If that were the case, Mr. Dulles saw no particular problem in including these islands in the pertinent part of the treaty which related to the renunciation of Japanese territorial claims to Korean territory."21
The US reply to the Korean request of July 19, 1951, was made in the form of a letter, dated August 10, to the Korean ambassador from Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs Dean Rusk, writing on behalf of the secretary of state. The reply reads:
". . . the United States Government regrets that it is unable to concur in this proposed amendment. . . . As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea."22
Thus Article 2, Paragraph (a) on the renunciation of territory to Korea in the Revised US-UK Draft remained unchanged, and it became the wording found in the final treaty.
8. Summary of Article 2(a) Debate
As explained in section 4 above, the "Korea" Japan renounced in the peace treaty's Article 2(a) is that Japan annexed in 1910. While this is clear from the "context," "object," and "purpose"--as described in the first paragraph of the Vienna Convention's Article 31 on the "general rule of interpretation"--I have made an attempt to reconfirm this fact and eliminate any ambiguity or obscurity through recourse to the "supplementary means of interpretation"--as stipulated in Article 32 of the convention-- by examining the "preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion" in sections 5 to 7. Section 7, in particular, clearly shows that the "Korea" renounced in Article 2(a) does not include Takeshima.
Clause 8 of the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, specifies that Japanese sovereignty "shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine," meaning that Japan could have been stripped even of those islands that were historically part of the country depending on the wording of the peace treaty. But as the treaty stipulated no change in the legal standing of Takeshima, the islands were confirmed as Japanese territory.
9. Supplemental Remarks
Several divergent views have been expressed in response to the historical documents this author introduced in "Heiwa Joyaku to Takeshima (sairon)" (see note 8). They include, (1) the argument that Takeshima was separated from Japan by SCAPIN (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction Note) 677 on "Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan" and SCAPIN 1033 on "Area Authorized for Japanese Fishing and Whaling" and remained separate when the peace treaty was concluded; (2) the argument that countries recognized Dokdo as being part of the Republic of Korea when it was established; (3) the argument that while Japan successfully lobbied for Takeshima to be included as Japanese territory in the December 1949 draft treaty, this clause was not included in the final draft, and thus the status of Takeshima remained undefined; and (4) the argument, again, that Japanese lobbying persuaded the United States to regard Takeshima as being Japanese territory but that Washington subsequently changed its mind. I would like to supplement my paper by considering these arguments in the space remaining.23
First, regarding arguments (1) and (2), it must be pointed out that the General Headquarters of SCAP was an administrative organization for Japan's occupation and had no authority over territorial disposition. In addition, Paragraph 6 of SCAPIN 677 explicitly states, "Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration," and Paragraph 5 of SCAPIN 1033 notes, "The present authorization is not an expression of allied policy relative to ultimate determination of national jurisdiction, international boundaries or fishing rights in the area concerned or in any other area."24 That territorial disposition would be addressed in the peace treaty was well understood, as evidenced by the February 1946 remarks by a GHQ official and an August 1947 report by the interim US military government in Korea.25
As for points (3) and (4), I have referred repeatedly in this paper to the fact that the Dulles drafts mentioned only those territories to be renounced by Japan. Thus the question is not one of Takeshima not being included as Japanese territory in the peace treaty; provisions itemizing the territories retained by Japan do not exist. Despite this, it is clear that Takeshima belongs to Japan (section 6) and that the islands have not been separated from Japan (section 8). The "lobbying activities" presumably refer to Political Adviser Sebald's recommendations on the November 2, 1949, draft (section 5) or to English reference materials prepared and presented by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs26 for the eventual drafting of a peace treaty. The argument that Washington changed its mind refers to a discovery of a document27 in the State Department's records created after the peace treaty was concluded that is at odds with the Dean Rusk letter (section 7). The important question here, though, is not whether Japan did or did not carry out lobbying activities or whether or not a party to the treaty had a change of heart after signing the document but what was decided by the treaty: Takeshima remained part of Japan.
10. Conclusion
(2012) marks the sixtieth anniversary of the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty that restored Japan's sovereignty. The Takeshima territorial dispute became explicit (came about between the governments of Japan and South Korea) because the South Korean demand for the continued enforcement of the MacArthur Line was rejected during the drafting of the peace treaty (note 22), upon which the South Korean government unilaterally proclaimed the Syngman Rhee Line--inside of which Takeshima was included--on January 18, 1952. In that sense, this year is also the sixtieth anniversary of the Takeshima dispute.
The Takeshima dispute entered in a new phase when the South Korean president visited Takeshima in August, and the Japanese government renewed its proposal to settle the dispute through the International Court of Justice. To truly solve the dispute, both the governments and people of the two countries must deepen dialogue on this issue by broadly sharing historical documents--including those, as referred to in section 3--and by proceeding in accordance with international law.
You mean, Dokdo was not written in San Fransisco treaty, so it's Japan's territory, right? But, before the San Fransisco treaty was made, there was one more treaty. In 1946, an Anweisung was made by the allied countries. It says that "Japan return all territory include all islands." It's the newest treaty about Dokdo. In San Fransisco treaty, there wasn't Dokdo. But, it doesn't mean Dokdo is Japanese. The anweisung, which is the newest treaty about Dokdo, should be applied. No treaty about Dokdo was made after the anweisung said that Dokdo should be returned to Korea.
umm I don't want to read all this paragraphs because I don't have time but Ulengdo is connected to dokdo by the volcanoes under the ground(sea)
이건 언제들어도 신나는 노래네 ㅎㅎㅎ
독도는대한민국땅
0:45 i like that part
Where is the people of U-San-Guk????
Why Silla invaded U-San-guk, the other nation?
How U-san-guk go to Korea?
usan guk was small country but sinlla control usan guk
First of all you have to know this Usan-guk wasn't built on dokdo most of their city was on Ulreung-Do, Dokdo was just a part of Usan-guk, Usan-guk was Small nation near by sinra,goguyroe
that speaks korean and in 後三國時代(I can't translate it to english) Usan-guk asked integrate their country to goryu
and after that momment Usan-guk had been the part of Korea
ㄹㅇ가슴이 웅장해진다
난 이 버전이 제일 좋음 뽕짝거리는 전주가 딱 내 취향...ㅋ 아재취향 07년생은 지나갑니다...
독도가 니내 땅이면 대마도는 우리땅
외냐 유리나러거 더 갑갔다
독도는 우리땅
그건 아니고 일본도 우리나라 영토를 마음대로 자기나라 영토이라고 했으니 우리는 일본에 좋은 영토 우리나라 영토라고 하면되요
시험만 되면 자꾸 생각나더라고요
ㅅㅂ 영토분쟁은 이번 사회시험범위도 아닌대 자꾸 생각나서 시험 조질뻔함
독도울 땅!
독도는 우리땅! 대한민국 만세!
2100년에 무슨일이 벌어질까요?
2012.10.25(목)
2012년 112번째 생일이 되어서야 축하하네요.
'독도~ 생일 축하축하 >.
독도는 한국땅이다 일본놈들 독도 넘보지 마라
대마도도 우리땅
@코큰kokeun 일본땅임
안녕하십니까 저는 이다은입니다 나이는8
맞아
2020년에 보는 사람 나밖에 없네
몇명의 일본인들도 독도가 우리땅이라고 인정하고 여러가지이유로 독도는 우리땅
인정
헤드셋으로 들으면서 따라불름ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 엄마는 일본사람이거든요!? 근데 아빠가 한국인이에요 국제결혼하셨죠. 그렇지만 제가 이거 틀고 신나게 부르고 있는데......엄마가 제가 독도는 우리땅~! 하니...우리땅!!이러시네요...ㅋ 여러분 엄마가 우리땅!!한게 일본땅이라고 알죠? 아니에요...전 엄마와 12년생활도 함께했고,뱃속에도 있어서 그런가..? 엄마가 독도가 대한민국땅이라고 한게 확~ 느껴지더라구요...그래서 신나게 부르면서 내내 미안했네요...(뭔가 밑에 욕이 달릴듯한 느낌적인느낌)
인정
독도야 너는혼자아니야
한국사람들이지켜. ..
망언하는 일본. 처벌받아라
피피현하 맞아요 우리가 지킵시다!
독도는 한국의땅이다~!!
独島は韓国の領土
独岛是韩国领土
Dokdo belongs to Korea
Dokdo Corea tierra
îles Dokdo coréen terre
Pulau Dokdo adalah tanah Korea
Токто - корейская земля
Dokdo ist das Land von Korea
L'isola di Dokdo è la terra della Corea
Dokdo là của Hàn Quốc
เกาะด็อกโดเป็นเกาะของเกาหลี
브금이 왤캐 좋냐ㅋㅋ
NK-POPと同じ香りがして好き
在《無限挑戰》聽到他們唱!!
Heard in "Infinite Challenge"!
일본인꺼저라!!
개새끼 핵터트린새끼가
당장 조용히 해라
독도는 우리땅이다
꺼져 다캐시마가 우린 뭔지 몰라!!
그러니까 아가리 묵념하고
조용히 하라고!!
신고하기전에 당장 독도가 우리 땅이라고 말해!!
+お肌かさかさ 야 임마
시비걸지마 독도가 니내땅 이냐?
또 시비걸면 죽여버린다.
그리고 니네 옛날에 팬티도
안입었잖아
세종실록 지리지 50페이지
3째줄 에도 독도가
우리나라땅 이라고 나왔어
그리고 안용복이 니네한테
증거를 얻어 왔어
그리고 니네 과학기술 높은
이유도 우리나라사람을
실험에 썼잖아
또 니내들 때문에 윤동주 선생님 그리고 1800명이
니네 인체 실험 때문에 죽었어 이 나쁜 놈들아
그리고 니네가 죽인 사람만 해도 엄청 많아
그런데 독도를 또 다캐시마라고 하고
니네 땅이라고하고
신라장군 이사부가
더 먼저 발견 했어
그리고 니네 우리나라사람
귀,코 몽땅 베어갔잖아
빡빡이 놈들아
다캐가 뭐야?
설명해봐 이 대머리들아
이 왜놈 들아 우리 국보도
훔쳐갔는데
그 물건도 니네 국보
1호 잖아
야! 다시한번 말하는데 독도는 우리땅이다 이 멍청이
에다 미개하고 팬티도 안입는 놈에다 곧있으면 땅도 가라않는 놈들아!!
takeshima is Japanese territory！！！
ㅗㅗ뭐라는거임 독도는 대한민국 고유 영토
와따시와 간코쿠노데스
하지메마시떼🗻
김성태 뭐라는겨... 나는 한국의입니다..?ㅋㅋ
독도는 울땅 이야ㅇㅋ
마크노잼
독도는우리땅!!!!!
독도는우리땅!!!!!!독도야사랑해!!♡
お肌かさかさ
RUclips정차니
한분만이 아십니다.진실은 밝혀집니다!그것도 모든 인류가 보는 앞에서!대단하고,정의롭고,위대하신 그대를 위해서 박수만이 정답입니다.미안합니다.어른답지 못해서!
If Japanese admit that Dokdo is Korean land, then we admit Northern territories is Japanese land.