In 2005, Japan’s Shimane Prefecture adopted the ‘Takeshima Day’ ordinance that designated the 22nd of February, the day Dokdo was incorporated into Japan in 1905, as a prefectura lmemorial day. The passage of the ordinance, the Korean reaction and the wide domestic coverage propelled ‘Takeshima’ to the fore of Japan’s domestic debates on South Korea. It transformed the previously obscure and unknown to most Japanese dispute into one of the main symbols in Japan’s nationalistic debates.
Commentators in South Korea but also in the English language media and academia have interpreted this ordinance as another expression of the rising official and popular nationalism in Japan. The process that culminated in the passage of the ordinance however is much more complex than this. The ordinance was adopted against the wish of the government and key membersof the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and, as I will explain below, was directed at Tokyo rather than at Seoul. Furthermore, Japan’s other territorial disputethe dispute with Russia over the South Kuriles/Northern Territories- has played an important role in bringing about the ordinance.
Shimane Prefecture’s Dokdo related activism did not start in 2005 but dates back to the early postwar years. Japan’s defeat in the Asia-Pacific War and the loss of colonies, as well as the occupation brought about a sudden increase in population and shrinkage in fishing areas available for all of Japanese fishermen. Spurred by these developments, Shimane Prefecture, whose fishermen could no longer fish in waters near the Korean Peninsula and where many of former colonizers expelled from the Peninsula have settled, embarked on a campaign urging the Occupation Authorities and the Japanese Government to return Dokdo to Japan. The Japanese government also perceived Dokdo as rightfully belonging to Japan and during preparations for the San-Francisco Peace Treaty lobbied the US to include the rocks in Japan’s territory. The final version of the Peace Treaty however carried no references to Dokdo. While South Korea has effectively administered the rocks since 1952, both the Japanese and the Korean governments have adopted interpretations of the Treaty, favorable to their respective positions.
The dispute over Dokdo’s belonging was one of the main stumbling blocks in Japan-South Korea normalization negotiations that started in 1951. Meanwhile, Shimane Prefecture continued to send petitions to the central government arguing the need to establish Japan’s rights to the rocks. As such in the 1950s, the positions of Matsue (Shimane’s prefectural capital) and Tokyo on the territorial dispute were identical.
However, the conclusion of the 1965 Basic Treaty which normalized relations between Japan and South Korea created a divide in Shimane’s and Tokyo’s relations. As Daniel Roh (2008) has showed in his Takeshima Mitsuyaku (The Takeshima Secret Pact), in early 1960s both the Japanese and the Korean governments came to perceive the issue of ownership over the rocks as relatively insignificant but neither side could compromise for domestic political reasons. As such, they reached a tacit agreement to shelve the dispute. According to the agreement, both governments would continue to hold their respective interpretations regarding ownership of the rocks, but would maintain the status quo and avoid escalation of the dispute.
From that point onwards, the perceptions of the dispute in Tokyo and Matsue diverged. While officially adhering to the position that Dokdo is illegally occupied by South Korea, Tokyo’s interests changed from attempts to retrieve the territory to a policy that aimed at keeping ‘Takeshima’ away from the domestic public discourse. Contrastingly, in late 1960s, Tokyo embarked on an extensive domestic campaign related to the Northern Territories. The purpose of the campaign was to consolidate the public opinion around the ‘Northern Territories’ issue and through this to divert domestic nationalism away from the US and the American bases on Okinawa towards the Soviet Union. The campaign involved extensive educational activities, establishment of numerous memorials on Hokkaido and the enactment of the national ‘Northern Territories Day’ in 1981. This extensive campaign has managed to transform ‘Northern Territories’ from an issue that until 1970s was of interest mainly to former residents of the four islands into a national symbol.
However the extensive attention paid by the central government to ‘Northern Territories’ from late 1960s, created a visible contradiction in Japan’s policy related to territorial disputes. On one hand, Japan’s official position on both of the disputes remained identical: both Dokdo (Takeshima) and South Kuriles (Northern Territories) were argued to be illegally occupied by South Korea and the Soviet Union respectively. In terms of domestic policy however, the central government has invested heavily in the Northern Territories campaign but, with rare exceptions, has kept silent on Dokdo and did not allocate any resources to it.
The bilateral fishing agreement that accompanied the 1965 normalization treaty enabled Japanese fishermen to fish in waters near the rocks and, while from late 1970s the Korean authorities prevented them from entering the 12 miles zone near the rocks, the agreement solved most of Shimane’s fishing related grievances. The duplicity in Tokyo’s position however has created a sense of victimhood and injustice among Shimane’s prefectural elites and became the main stimulant in Dokdo related activism. At the same time, Tokyo’s ‘Northern Territories’ campaign informed and shaped prefecture’s own campaign and the nature of their demands from the government.
The 2005 ‘Takeshima Day’ ordinance was an integral part of Shimane Prefecture’s five decades long Dokdo related campaign. Certain actions of the Korean government such as the issuance of the second Dokdo memorial stamp in 2004 served as the immediate trigger for Shimane Prefecture’s 2004 memorandum that became the basis for the 2005 ordinance. These actions however were interpreted through the lens of victimhood and injustice caused by Tokyo. Thus the memorandum demanded from Tokyo to adopt certain domestic polices related to the ‘Northern Territories’ such as the national day and a governmental body in charge of developing and coordinating related policies, to the Dokdo issue as well. The prefectural ordinance was a response to Tokyo’s denial to accommodate Shimane’s demands and was adopted despite requests from the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the government not to do so.
Today, both ‘Northern Territories’ and ‘Takeshima’ are important symbols in Japan’s nationalism directed at its neighbors. The processes that led to emergence of these national symbols however are quite different. In a somewhat ironic fashion, Tokyo’s successful attempt to raise the visibility of ‘Northern Territories’ in the domestic discourse, facilitated the emergence of ‘Takeshima’ as another national symbol-against the desire of the central government.

1. 머리말
2. 독도, 도쿄 그리고 시마네 현
3. 일본의 존재론적인 안보, ‘상대’로서의 한국 그리고 ‘독도’
4. 결론

• 알렉산더 북(Victoria University of Wellington) | Alexander Bukh