Loading...
Neutrality Commitment|
This project does not aim to criticize or defend any specific historical narrative or nation. We objectively present differences in textbook and official descriptions to encourage multi-faceted understanding.
ArchiveInternational relations/foreign policy1945-presentSea of Japan
U.S. position regarding Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) and description of the peace treaty
Perspectives Summary
Related Photos1
United StatesInternational relations/foreign policy1945-presentSea of Japan
U.S. position regarding Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) and description of the peace treaty
Source:U.S. government historical archives/State Department opinion (general description)
Source Nature:
Official Government StatementOriginal Language
In the post-World War II peacebuilding efforts in Asia, the United States played an important role as a member of the Allied Powers in responding to Japan and South Korea's initial claims to sovereignty over Takeshima.
In 1946, the Allied Supreme Headquarters (GHQ) issued the directive ``SCAPIN 677,'' which specified that Takeshima would be temporarily placed outside of Japan's jurisdiction. However, during the formulation process of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, the Korean government requested that Takeshima be included in the territory that Japan should renounce. In response, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk responded in a letter (Rusk Letter) that ``Takeshima has never been treated as part of Korea in the past, and has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Bureau of Shimane Prefecture since around 1905.'' This shows that the United States' understanding at the time was that ``Takeshima is Japanese territory.''
Article 2(a) of the treaty only lists ``Jeju, Geomundo, and Ulleungdo'' as the Korean islands that Japan should renounce, and does not mention Takeshima. Since South Korea assumed effective control in 1952, the United States has avoided direct judgment on the final attribution of sovereignty and has maintained a neutral position. The United States has consistently expressed the position that Japan and South Korea should seek a resolution through peaceful means and while respecting international legal procedures.
Interactive Verification & Exploration
Notes on this comparison
This comparison is based on general descriptions from official or widely used history textbooks in each country. While minor nuances may change in translation, the goal is to highlight differences in how major events are perceived, the order of description, and what is emphasized. In particular, notable differences in the naming of events and the background of their occurrence can be seen between "United States" and "Japan".