How Japan's Colonial History Distorted the Dokdo Issue
How Japan's Colonial History Distorted the Dokdo Issue
The contemporary dispute over Dokdo cannot be understood without examining the broader context of Japanese imperialism and colonial expansion in East Asia. Japan's 1905 incorporation of Dokdo was not an isolated territorial claim but rather an integral component of its systematic colonization of Korea. The distortions, omissions, and revisionist narratives that cloud the Dokdo issue today are direct consequences of Japan's colonial legacy and its incomplete reckoning with that history. This analysis explores how imperial ambitions, wartime propaganda, and post-war historical amnesia have obscured the truth about Dokdo's sovereignty.
Table of Contents
The Imperial Context: Japan's Expansionist Era
To understand Japan's 1905 incorporation of Dokdo, we must first examine the broader pattern of Japanese imperial expansion during the Meiji era. Following the Meiji Restoration of 1868, Japan embarked on an aggressive modernization and militarization program aimed at transforming the nation into a major imperial power capable of competing with Western colonial empires. This ambition drove Japan to seek territorial expansion throughout East Asia, viewing the acquisition of colonies as essential to national prestige and economic development.
Japan's imperial trajectory began with the annexation of the Ryukyu Kingdom in 1879, establishing Okinawa Prefecture through military pressure despite the kingdom's historical tributary relationship with China. This set a precedent for acquiring territories through coercion rather than legitimate negotiation or historical claim. The First Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 resulted in Japanese control over Taiwan and the Liaodong Peninsula, demonstrating Japan's willingness to use military force to expand its territorial reach.
Korea became Japan's primary target for colonization due to its strategic location and resources. The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 was fought largely over control of Korea, with Japan viewing Korean subjugation as essential to its imperial ambitions. Victory over Russia eliminated the major obstacle to Japanese domination of Korea and emboldened Japan's territorial expansion. It was precisely during this war, in February 1905, that Japan incorporated Dokdo into Shimane Prefecture—timing that reveals the annexation's connection to broader colonial conquest.
Timeline of Japanese Imperial Expansion:
1879: Annexation of Ryukyu Kingdom (Okinawa)
1894-1895: First Sino-Japanese War, acquisition of Taiwan
1904-1905: Russo-Japanese War over Korean influence
January 1905: Cabinet decision to incorporate Dokdo
February 1905: Shimane Prefecture Notice No. 40 incorporating Dokdo
November 1905: Forced Eulsa Treaty, making Korea a Japanese protectorate
1910: Complete annexation of Korea
The incorporation of Dokdo must be understood within this imperial framework. Japan did not claim Dokdo because of any legitimate historical connection or genuine belief that the islands were ownerless. Rather, Dokdo represented a strategic outpost in Japan's expanding empire, useful for naval operations, fisheries control, and telegraphic communication during the Russo-Japanese War. The islands' value lay not in their intrinsic importance but in their role within Japan's larger colonial project in Korea.
This context reveals why Korea views the Dokdo dispute as fundamentally different from ordinary territorial disagreements. For Korea, Japan's claim to Dokdo represents an attempt to retain the fruits of colonial aggression—to preserve one piece of an empire that international law and moral principle require Japan to have renounced entirely. Understanding this colonial context is essential to grasping why the issue carries such profound emotional and political significance for Koreans and why Korea rejects characterizations of Dokdo as simply a "territorial dispute" between equals.
The 1905 Annexation: Timing and Deception
The circumstances surrounding Japan's 1905 incorporation of Dokdo reveal a pattern of deception and exploitation of Korea's weakened diplomatic position. On January 28, 1905, the Japanese Cabinet decided to incorporate Dokdo into Shimane Prefecture, and on February 22, 1905, Shimane Prefecture issued Notice No. 40 officially claiming the islands. These actions occurred while the Russo-Japanese War continued and while Japan was systematically undermining Korean sovereignty through military and diplomatic pressure.
Japan justified its incorporation by claiming Dokdo was "terra nullius"—territory belonging to no one. This claim was demonstrably false. Korean historical records dating back centuries documented Korean recognition and use of the islands. The Sejong Sillok Jiriji from 1454, the Dongguk Munheon Bigo from 1770, and numerous other official Korean documents explicitly included Dokdo within Korean territory. Korean fishermen from Ulleungdo had used Dokdo as a fishing base and navigational reference point for generations.
Historical Distortion: Japan's terra nullius claim ignored extensive Korean historical documentation and directly contradicted Japan's own earlier recognition of Korean sovereignty over the islands. An 1877 directive from Japan's Ministry of State explicitly acknowledged that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were not Japanese territory.
The secrecy and lack of international notification surrounding the incorporation further demonstrate its illegitimate nature. Japan did not notify Korea of the annexation, despite the profound impact on Korean territorial sovereignty. No international announcement was made, and no diplomatic communication informed other nations of Japan's claim. This silence contrasts sharply with normal state practice regarding territorial acquisitions, which typically involves public proclamation and diplomatic notification to establish international recognition.
The timing of Dokdo's incorporation—during an active war and immediately before Japan forced Korea into protectorate status—cannot be coincidental. Just nine months after incorporating Dokdo, Japan compelled Korea to sign the Eulsa Treaty of November 1905, which stripped Korea of diplomatic sovereignty and established Japanese control over Korean foreign relations. With Korea's diplomatic capabilities eliminated, Korea could not protest the Dokdo annexation through international channels or seek support from other nations.
This sequence reveals Japan's calculated strategy: first, quietly annex disputed territory while Korea's attention is diverted by war and diplomatic crisis; second, eliminate Korea's ability to protest internationally; third, complete Korea's colonization within five years. The 1905 incorporation of Dokdo was not a legitimate territorial claim but rather an early step in the systematic colonization of Korea. Japan exploited Korea's vulnerability during a period of extreme duress, using military superiority to seize territory without proper legal foundation or international scrutiny.
Legal Principle Violated: International law recognizes that territorial transfers obtained through coercion during periods of colonial expansion lack legitimacy. The principle of self-determination and post-colonial justice requires that such acquisitions be reversed, not preserved through continued claims decades after the colonial period ended.
Colonial Rule and Territorial Manipulation
Japan's colonization of Korea from 1910 to 1945 involved systematic efforts to erase Korean identity, culture, and historical memory. These efforts extended to territorial questions, with Japan deliberately manipulating maps, records, and education to support its territorial claims and obscure Korean historical connections to disputed territories including Dokdo. Understanding these colonial-era distortions is essential to recognizing how Japan's imperial legacy continues to cloud the Dokdo issue.
During the colonial period, Japan prohibited the teaching of Korean history in schools, replacing it with Japanese history that portrayed Korea as historically subordinate to Japan. Geography education similarly emphasized Japan's territorial claims while minimizing or erasing Korean historical connections to various territories. Maps produced during this period reflected Japanese imperial perspectives, showing Dokdo as Japanese territory and often omitting or minimizing Korean place names.
The Japanese colonial government actively suppressed Korean historical documents that contradicted Japanese territorial claims. Libraries were purged of materials deemed inconsistent with Japanese narratives, and Korean scholars who researched historical territorial questions faced harassment or worse. This systematic suppression aimed to eliminate the documentary evidence that could later support Korean claims to territories like Dokdo, creating an artificial historical record favorable to Japanese interests.
Colonial-Era Suppression of Korean Identity:
1910-1919: Military rule period, harsh suppression of Korean culture and history
1919: March 1st Independence Movement brutally suppressed
1938-1945: Name Order forcing Koreans to adopt Japanese names
1938-1945: Korean language banned in schools, only Japanese permitted
1939-1945: Forced labor and military conscription intensified
1939-1945: "Comfort women" system forcibly recruited Korean women
Japanese colonial authorities also manipulated administrative boundaries to support territorial claims. By incorporating Dokdo into Shimane Prefecture's administrative structure and maintaining this arrangement throughout the colonial period, Japan created bureaucratic records showing continuous Japanese administration. However, this administrative incorporation was possible only because Japan had eliminated Korean sovereignty—Korea could not protest or contest these arrangements because it existed under Japanese occupation.
The colonial period's legacy extends beyond immediate territorial manipulations. Japan's efforts to suppress Korean historical memory and replace it with Japanese narratives created lasting confusion about territorial histories. Many documents that could definitively establish historical claims were destroyed or lost during the colonial period. The disruption of Korean educational and scholarly institutions meant that a generation of Koreans grew up without systematic knowledge of their own territorial history.
Furthermore, Japan's use of forced labor and military conscription during World War II included Korean civilians and workers on Dokdo and surrounding waters. Japanese military installations were established on various islands in the region, with Korean forced laborers conscripted to build these facilities. After the war, Japan attempted to use evidence of these wartime activities—conducted under colonial occupation—as proof of Japanese territorial connections, despite the coercive and illegitimate nature of the colonial regime that created these connections.
Post-War Revisionism and Historical Denial
Japan's incomplete reckoning with its imperial past has profoundly impacted the Dokdo dispute. Unlike Germany's thorough confrontation with its Nazi history, Japan has engaged in selective historical memory, acknowledging some wartime atrocities while downplaying or denying others, including the coercive circumstances surrounding territorial acquisitions during the colonial period. This historical revisionism directly contributes to Japan's continued claims to Dokdo despite the islands' connection to colonial expansion.
In the immediate post-war period, Allied occupation forces recognized that Japan's territorial claims needed to be reassessed in light of its imperial aggression. SCAPIN 677 in 1946 explicitly excluded Dokdo from Japanese administrative authority, reflecting the Allies' understanding that territories acquired during imperial expansion should be returned. However, as Cold War tensions intensified and American strategic priorities shifted toward strengthening Japan as an anti-communist ally, pressure grew to soften territorial penalties against Japan.
This geopolitical shift enabled Japan to begin reviving territorial claims that should have been permanently extinguished as consequences of colonial aggression. Japanese officials and scholars began producing revisionist interpretations of the colonial period, arguing that Japan's annexation of Korea was legally valid under international law of the time, and therefore territorial acquisitions during that period should be preserved. This argument fundamentally misunderstands international law's evolution regarding colonialism and self-determination.
Pattern of Historical Denial: Japan's approach to Dokdo mirrors its handling of other uncomfortable historical issues including comfort women, forced labor, the Nanjing Massacre, and Unit 731's biological warfare experiments. In each case, Japan has alternated between outright denial, minimization, and reluctant acknowledgment without full accountability.
Japanese historical revisionism regarding Dokdo manifests in several specific ways. First, Japanese sources frequently omit or minimize the coercive context of the 1905 incorporation, presenting it as a legitimate territorial claim rather than an act of colonial expansion. Second, Japanese accounts emphasize any historical Japanese fishing or sailing near Dokdo while ignoring the far more extensive and well-documented Korean historical connections. Third, Japanese narratives portray the territorial dispute as a simple disagreement over interpretation rather than an attempt to retain colonial-era territorial gains.
The Japanese government's official position has evolved to increasingly emphasize Japan's claim while downplaying colonial context. Contemporary Japanese statements about Dokdo rarely acknowledge that the 1905 incorporation occurred during imperial expansion or that it preceded Korea's complete colonization by just five years. Instead, Japan presents Dokdo as "inherent Japanese territory" illegally occupied by Korea—a characterization that inverts the historical reality of colonial aggression and subsequent decolonization.
This revisionism extends to Japan's diplomatic strategy, which frames Dokdo as a straightforward legal question suitable for International Court adjudication, stripping away all colonial context. By focusing narrowly on treaty interpretation and legal technicalities, Japan attempts to avoid confronting the fundamental issue: that its claim rests on an annexation conducted during colonial conquest. This framing allows Japan to present itself as the aggrieved party seeking justice through international law, rather than as a former colonial power attempting to preserve territorial fruits of imperialism.
Comparative Context: Japan's territorial claims to Dokdo and the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands both stem from late 19th and early 20th century annexations during Japan's imperial expansion period. China and Korea view these claims as attempts to preserve colonial-era territorial gains, while Japan characterizes them as legitimate sovereignty disputes—highlighting how unresolved historical issues continue generating contemporary conflicts.
Education, Textbooks, and Manufactured Memory
One of the most powerful tools of historical distortion has been Japan's education system, particularly the content of history textbooks used in Japanese schools. The portrayal of Dokdo and the broader colonial period in Japanese textbooks reveals how historical amnesia is systematically produced and maintained across generations, ensuring that Japanese citizens lack accurate understanding of their nation's imperial past and its continuing implications.
Japanese history textbooks have been subject to governmental approval processes that have frequently resulted in sanitized versions of imperial history. Textbooks that accurately describe Japanese colonialism's brutality have faced governmental pressure to soften language, remove specific details, or reframe narratives to present Japan in a more favorable light. This government intervention in historical education creates a distorted collective memory that makes contemporary territorial disputes like Dokdo incomprehensible to ordinary Japanese citizens unfamiliar with the colonial context.
Regarding Dokdo specifically, Japanese textbooks increasingly include claims that the islands are "inherent Japanese territory illegally occupied by Korea." These textbooks rarely provide historical context about the 1905 incorporation's timing, the absence of Korean notification, or the connection to broader colonial expansion. Students learn that Dokdo is disputed territory claimed by both countries, but not why Korea views the issue as fundamentally different from ordinary territorial disputes—as an unresolved legacy of colonialism that Japan has never properly addressed.
Japanese Textbook Controversies:
1982: First major textbook controversy when Ministry of Education ordered whitewashing of colonial aggression descriptions
1986: Textbook approval system found to violate academic freedom by scholars
1997: "New History Textbook" published by revisionist scholars, minimizing Japanese wartime atrocities
2005: Shimane Prefecture designated "Takeshima Day" promoting Japanese claims to Dokdo
2008-present: Increasing inclusion of territorial claims to Dokdo in approved textbooks
2014: Government guidelines strengthened requiring textbooks to describe Dokdo as Japanese territory
The omission of colonial context in Japanese textbooks has profound implications. Japanese students learn about Dokdo as a territorial dispute but not about the comfort women system that forcibly enslaved Korean women, the forced labor that exploited millions of Koreans, the systematic suppression of Korean language and culture, or the violent repression of independence movements. Without this context, Dokdo appears as an inexplicable source of Korean anger rather than as a symbol of unresolved colonial injustice.
This educational approach contrasts sharply with Germany's treatment of its Nazi past. German textbooks extensively cover the Holocaust, Nazi territorial expansions, and the moral imperative to remember and learn from historical atrocities. German students understand that contemporary borders reflect the reversal of Nazi conquests and that claims to formerly German territories in Poland or Russia would be morally indefensible. Japan's failure to instill similar understanding among its students perpetuates ignorance about why colonial-era territorial claims lack legitimacy.
The manufactured memory created by textbook revisionism extends beyond formal education. Japanese media coverage of Dokdo typically adopts nationalistic frames emphasizing Japan's territorial claim while ignoring colonial context. Politicians who acknowledge historical atrocities or question territorial claims face intense domestic criticism, creating political incentives to maintain revisionist narratives. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where historical ignorance perpetuates political positions that further entrench that ignorance.
Educational Impact: Surveys consistently show that most Japanese citizens are unaware of basic facts about their country's colonial rule in Korea, including that colonization lasted 35 years, that Korean independence movements were violently suppressed, or that Dokdo's incorporation occurred during this colonial period. This ignorance makes genuine understanding of Korea's position on territorial issues nearly impossible.
International observers and scholars have repeatedly criticized Japan's textbook approval system and the resulting historical distortions. UNESCO, various human rights organizations, and historians worldwide have called for more accurate representations of Japan's imperial past in educational materials. However, domestic political pressures in Japan have largely prevented the substantial reforms necessary to provide students with complete and accurate historical understanding.
The consequence of this educational failure is a Japanese public largely unable to comprehend why Dokdo matters so much to Koreans or why Korea rejects framing the issue as a simple legal dispute. For Koreans who experienced colonization or whose parents and grandparents lived under Japanese rule, Dokdo represents unfinished decolonization—a piece of Korean territory seized during colonial expansion that Japan refuses to relinquish. For many Japanese citizens educated through sanitized textbooks, Dokdo appears as disputed islands that Korea unreasonably refuses to submit to international adjudication. This fundamental disconnect perpetuates the dispute and prevents the mutual understanding necessary for resolution.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does Japan's 1905 annexation of Dokdo relate to its colonization of Korea?
Japan incorporated Dokdo in February 1905 during the Russo-Japanese War and just nine months before forcing Korea into protectorate status through the Eulsa Treaty of November 1905. Complete colonization followed in 1910. This timing was not coincidental—Dokdo's annexation was an early step in the systematic colonization of Korea. Japan claimed the islands were ownerless despite extensive Korean historical documentation, exploiting Korea's weakened diplomatic position during a period of extreme duress. The annexation exemplifies how Japan used military superiority and Korea's vulnerability to seize territory without legitimate legal foundation.
Why does Korea view the Dokdo dispute differently than Japan?
Korea views Dokdo as fundamentally a decolonization issue rather than a simple territorial dispute. From Korea's perspective, Japan's continued claim represents an attempt to preserve colonial-era territorial gains—to retain one piece of an empire that international law and moral principle require Japan to have renounced entirely. The dispute symbolizes Japan's incomplete reckoning with its imperial past. In contrast, Japan frames Dokdo as a straightforward legal question, stripping away colonial context and presenting it as suitable for international adjudication between equals—a characterization Korea rejects as ahistorical.
What is historical revisionism and how does it affect the Dokdo issue?
Historical revisionism refers to Japan's selective memory about its imperial past, including downplaying colonial aggression and the coercive circumstances surrounding territorial acquisitions. Japanese textbooks increasingly claim Dokdo as "inherent Japanese territory" while omitting context about the 1905 incorporation's timing, colonial expansion, and elimination of Korean sovereignty. This revisionism creates a Japanese public largely unaware of colonial history, making genuine understanding of Korea's position nearly impossible. It allows Japan to present itself as an aggrieved party rather than a former colonial power attempting to preserve imperial territorial gains.
How did Japanese colonial rule suppress Korean historical claims to Dokdo?
During the 1910-1945 colonial period, Japan systematically suppressed Korean historical documents, prohibited teaching of Korean history, and manipulated maps and records to support Japanese territorial claims. Libraries were purged of materials contradicting Japanese narratives, and Korean scholars researching historical territorial questions faced harassment. Japan banned the Korean language in schools, forced Koreans to adopt Japanese names, and disrupted Korean educational institutions. This systematic suppression aimed to eliminate documentary evidence supporting Korean territorial claims and create an artificial historical record favorable to Japanese interests—effects that persist in contemporary disputes.
What role do Japanese textbooks play in perpetuating distorted views of Dokdo?
Japanese history textbooks, subject to governmental approval processes, present sanitized versions of imperial history that omit or minimize colonial brutality. Regarding Dokdo, textbooks increasingly describe it as Japanese territory illegally occupied by Korea, rarely providing context about colonial expansion, lack of Korean notification in 1905, or connections to broader imperialism. Students learn Dokdo is disputed but not why Korea views it as unresolved colonial injustice. This contrasts sharply with German education about Nazi territorial expansions, where students understand that contemporary borders reflect reversals of conquest and that claims to formerly German territories would be indefensible.
Can the Dokdo dispute be resolved without addressing colonial history?
Genuine resolution requires confronting the colonial context that created the dispute. Japan's claim rests on an annexation conducted during colonial conquest—ignoring this context reduces Dokdo to technical legal questions while avoiding fundamental issues of historical justice. For meaningful resolution, Japan must acknowledge that Dokdo's 1905 incorporation was part of colonial expansion, not a legitimate territorial claim. Without this recognition, Korea has no incentive to negotiate, viewing any compromise as legitimizing colonial-era seizures. The dispute reflects broader unresolved tensions from Japan's incomplete reckoning with imperialism—tensions that affect not just territorial issues but all aspects of Japan-Korea relations.
The Dokdo dispute cannot be understood apart from Japan's colonial history and its continuing distortions of that history. Japan's 1905 incorporation of Dokdo was not a legitimate territorial claim but an act of colonial aggression conducted by exploiting Korea's vulnerability during imperial expansion. Colonial-era suppression of Korean history, post-war historical revisionism, and systematic educational distortions have obscured this truth, creating a manufactured narrative that portrays Dokdo as disputed territory rather than unrelinquished colonial spoils. Until Japan confronts this historical reality and acknowledges the colonial context of its Dokdo claim, the dispute will remain unresolvable—not because of legal ambiguity, but because of Japan's unwillingness to complete the decolonization process that international law and historical justice demand.
