총 44페이지
25페이지 본문시작
People
something that the U.S. could not decide on its own, but only
at the data regardless of your nationality.” I felt quite at ease
in agreement with the allies at the time, and that it was only
because of that. There was actually a substantial amount of
sent as a secret document to Korea with that knowledge. The
datathatshowedJapaneseaggression.SinceIwasfromJapan,
U.S., which was supporting the Korean War, was heavily
I was concerned that I would get in trouble after interpreting
lobbied by Japan at the time, so it seems that the U.S. was
such data properly, but I learned a lot at that time about how
persuaded by Japan to allow them to use Dokdo as a radar
important it is as a scholar to look at the data objectively
base if they made it a Japanese territory. But in 1953 and
regardlessofotherfactors.
1954,agroupofkeyU.S.figuresputoutadocumentthatsays
Before I was naturalized, my advisor at Korea University
oppositeofwhattheRuskLettersays:“Dokdodidnotbecome
put me in a position to do research outside of my country.
aJapaneseterritory.”
Therefore, the materials I look at are not secondary sources,
Japaniscurrentlyworkingtorefutemyclaimsandevidence.
but originals, the primary sources. Determining “which side
In2021,the“NationalMuseumofTerritoryandSovereignty”
is right” in a historical dispute depends on how the original
in the center of Tokyo, Japan,
sourceisinterpreted.Inthecourseofmyresearch,Iwasvery
ⓒWIKIPEDIA
announced that the Rusk Letter was
surprisedtofindoutthatJapanwascoveringupanddistorting
notonlyaU.S.claim,butalsoafact
historical facts. Japanese papers and internet sites were
agreed upon by its allies, the United
claiming conclusions that could never be drawn by reading
Kingdom and Australia. In reality,
thewholestory.Ithought,“ItisquitepossiblethatDokdoisa
the United Kingdom, Australia, and
Koreanterritory.”Incontrast,Ifoundalotofevidencethatthe
even the Netherlands never saw the
Korean professor’s interpretation of the primary sources was
Rusk Letter from the U.S., nor did
freeofcover-upsanddistortions.Therefore,itwasnotdifficult
they claim that Dokdo was Japanese
tomaintainobjectivity.
territory. I have been researching
The Argus: What attitude do you think we, as
▲ “Rusk Letter” become
and writing about these Japanese
the common basis for
college students and young adults in our 20s in
Japan’s claim. Yet, U.S.
misrepresentations on various sites
Korea,shouldhavetowardtheissueof Dokdoterritorial
disapprove it.
andpapers.
rightsandwhateffortsweshouldmake?
Hosaka:Asstudents,weneedtolearnthetruthaboutDokdo
and why it is Korean territory so that we can get the facts
[DesirableattitudestowardDokdo]
straight.FromaKoreanperspective,itisimportanttonotonly
recognizethat“DokdoisKoreanterritory,”butalsotothinkof
The Argus: The territorial sovereignty dispute
it as an island that must be protected. In this era of increased
overtheDokdoIslandsisanemotionallycharged
militarycooperationbetweenKoreaandJapan,itisimportant
issue for both Japan and Korea. It must have been
to remember what Dokdo means in this context. In 1901,
difficult to take a non-partisan stance on this, so I am
Japan incorporated Dokdo into Shimane Prefecture with the
curious to know what special efforts you made to
intentionofusingitasamilitarybase,andithasbeenusedas
maintainlogicandobjectivity.
such.In1949,U.S.troopsstationedinJapanattemptedtouse
Hosaka: Because of the collection and interpretation of the
original materials, I do not think it is confusing because of
Dokdoasamilitarybase,andintheprocess,Japanofferedto
the biased opinions of each country. It is just a difference in
buildaradarstationsothattheU.S.coulduseitasamilitary
interpretation, a difference in explanation of what Japan said
baseiftheU.S.wouldreturnittoJapan.Despitethishistoryof
in 1905, what Japan said in 1977, and so on. It is a distortion
aggression,IthinkthelevelofawarenessofDokdoterritorial
by one side or the other. I have been trained a lot to be as
sovereignty among young Koreans today is very minimal.
objective as possible, and when I did my master’s in ancient
We need to learn more about and love Dokdo, the island that
history,myadvisortrainedmethoroughlyinthat.Atthattime,
needs to be protected. To do this, we need to go to Dokdo.
because I was a Japanese national, he said, “Don’t do it in
MythoughtafterninevisitsisthatyouhavetogotoDokdoat
favorofJapan.Youdon’thavetofavorKorea.Youhavetolook
leastoncetodevelopaloveforit.
23
OCTOBER 2023
something that the U.S. could not decide on its own, but only
at the data regardless of your nationality.” I felt quite at ease
in agreement with the allies at the time, and that it was only
because of that. There was actually a substantial amount of
sent as a secret document to Korea with that knowledge. The
datathatshowedJapaneseaggression.SinceIwasfromJapan,
U.S., which was supporting the Korean War, was heavily
I was concerned that I would get in trouble after interpreting
lobbied by Japan at the time, so it seems that the U.S. was
such data properly, but I learned a lot at that time about how
persuaded by Japan to allow them to use Dokdo as a radar
important it is as a scholar to look at the data objectively
base if they made it a Japanese territory. But in 1953 and
regardlessofotherfactors.
1954,agroupofkeyU.S.figuresputoutadocumentthatsays
Before I was naturalized, my advisor at Korea University
oppositeofwhattheRuskLettersays:“Dokdodidnotbecome
put me in a position to do research outside of my country.
aJapaneseterritory.”
Therefore, the materials I look at are not secondary sources,
Japaniscurrentlyworkingtorefutemyclaimsandevidence.
but originals, the primary sources. Determining “which side
In2021,the“NationalMuseumofTerritoryandSovereignty”
is right” in a historical dispute depends on how the original
in the center of Tokyo, Japan,
sourceisinterpreted.Inthecourseofmyresearch,Iwasvery
ⓒWIKIPEDIA
announced that the Rusk Letter was
surprisedtofindoutthatJapanwascoveringupanddistorting
notonlyaU.S.claim,butalsoafact
historical facts. Japanese papers and internet sites were
agreed upon by its allies, the United
claiming conclusions that could never be drawn by reading
Kingdom and Australia. In reality,
thewholestory.Ithought,“ItisquitepossiblethatDokdoisa
the United Kingdom, Australia, and
Koreanterritory.”Incontrast,Ifoundalotofevidencethatthe
even the Netherlands never saw the
Korean professor’s interpretation of the primary sources was
Rusk Letter from the U.S., nor did
freeofcover-upsanddistortions.Therefore,itwasnotdifficult
they claim that Dokdo was Japanese
tomaintainobjectivity.
territory. I have been researching
The Argus: What attitude do you think we, as
▲ “Rusk Letter” become
and writing about these Japanese
the common basis for
college students and young adults in our 20s in
Japan’s claim. Yet, U.S.
misrepresentations on various sites
Korea,shouldhavetowardtheissueof Dokdoterritorial
disapprove it.
andpapers.
rightsandwhateffortsweshouldmake?
Hosaka:Asstudents,weneedtolearnthetruthaboutDokdo
and why it is Korean territory so that we can get the facts
[DesirableattitudestowardDokdo]
straight.FromaKoreanperspective,itisimportanttonotonly
recognizethat“DokdoisKoreanterritory,”butalsotothinkof
The Argus: The territorial sovereignty dispute
it as an island that must be protected. In this era of increased
overtheDokdoIslandsisanemotionallycharged
militarycooperationbetweenKoreaandJapan,itisimportant
issue for both Japan and Korea. It must have been
to remember what Dokdo means in this context. In 1901,
difficult to take a non-partisan stance on this, so I am
Japan incorporated Dokdo into Shimane Prefecture with the
curious to know what special efforts you made to
intentionofusingitasamilitarybase,andithasbeenusedas
maintainlogicandobjectivity.
such.In1949,U.S.troopsstationedinJapanattemptedtouse
Hosaka: Because of the collection and interpretation of the
original materials, I do not think it is confusing because of
Dokdoasamilitarybase,andintheprocess,Japanofferedto
the biased opinions of each country. It is just a difference in
buildaradarstationsothattheU.S.coulduseitasamilitary
interpretation, a difference in explanation of what Japan said
baseiftheU.S.wouldreturnittoJapan.Despitethishistoryof
in 1905, what Japan said in 1977, and so on. It is a distortion
aggression,IthinkthelevelofawarenessofDokdoterritorial
by one side or the other. I have been trained a lot to be as
sovereignty among young Koreans today is very minimal.
objective as possible, and when I did my master’s in ancient
We need to learn more about and love Dokdo, the island that
history,myadvisortrainedmethoroughlyinthat.Atthattime,
needs to be protected. To do this, we need to go to Dokdo.
because I was a Japanese national, he said, “Don’t do it in
MythoughtafterninevisitsisthatyouhavetogotoDokdoat
favorofJapan.Youdon’thavetofavorKorea.Youhavetolook
leastoncetodevelopaloveforit.
23
OCTOBER 2023
25페이지 본문끝
메뉴
현재 포커스의 아래내용들은 동일한 컨텐츠를 가지고 페이지넘김 효과및 시각적 효과를 제공하는 페이지이므로 스크린리더 사용자는 여기까지만 낭독하시고 위의 페이지이동 링크를 사용하여 다음페이지로 이동하시기 바랍니다.