Talk:Rusk documents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rusk documents article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Time line

July, 1951. beging of Korean war cease-fire talks(face hard going)
July 19, 1951. request from South Korea(domain and to confiram continuing MacAther Line)
August 2, 1951. request from South Korea(above and claim compensation )
August 10, 1951. reply from the US government(Rusk documents)
(untried)September, 1951. japan decided to abandon the islets (may be Liancort?) on the treaty.
(untried)November, 1951. japan denied to abandon the islets (may be Liancort?) on the treaty.
(untried)November, 1951. The US embassy to Busan did lip service.
January 18,1952. the Syngman Rhee line was declared(begining of Liancort problem)
(internal)October 3,1952.the US Embassy dispatched to U.S.state dep.
April 28, 1952. The treaty of peace with Japan was concluded(independence of Korea)
July 27, 1953. agree on an armistice (Korea didn't attend signing ceremony)
Match 16,2005.U.S. policy on the Dokdo/Takeshima Island is neutrality. The Korean war could be rephrased as civil war of korean district of Japan. Liancort Rocks is involved in the war　as disputed aera. References 3 [2] is not historical materials but KBS think that in November 1951 is in the midst of the Korean War.Cease-fire talks faced such a hard going.--Forestfarmer 04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I want this time line to be section.but nobody edited or commented. I paied such a effort.this would not be used.what was wrong ? but this adjusted time scale right.incipit would be wrong.--Forestfarmer 13:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Forestfarmer, I think that you should be post to the Article page this time line. Why did you post to the note page? --Celldea 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Do nobody complaint to this seciton ?I will have moved this section to Article page --Forestfarmer 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

i disagree with moving this to the article. after it's corrected for spelling & grammar, & properly wikified, this should be integrated into Dokdo, because that's what the timeline is about, not this article. thanks. Appleby 16:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry and I'm not native but I don't understand your writing.please write concrate exsample .This Time Line include your writing and historical bacdrop.spelling is as source.--Forestfarmer 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your contributions. however, the timeline needs to be fixed before it goes into an article. there are many spelling and grammar errors. i do not understand it enough to fix them all myself. for example, what is "(untried)"? what are the question marks after some dates? i don't understand the "armistice (excepted South Korea)" part. do you have english sources for the information so that other editors can try to help? thanks. Appleby 17:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks for concrate exsample."untrid" is no source.I can not found authority. armistice (excepted South Korea) is from japanese wiki page "Korean war".Korean president didn't attend signing ceremony and I worte so.if you thougth South Korea agreed on an armistice,I reedit that point.--Forestfarmer 18:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

reannounce:
Do nobody complaint to this seciton ?I will have moved this section to Article page --Forestfarmer 08:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full text

I corrected the Rusk Documents in the Article. and here is a full text. --Carl Daniels 03:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the full text as it's found on Wikisource and linked from Rusk documents. There's no need to have it here cluttering up the talk page for no reason. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internal documents and External documents

This section deal with internal documents and external documents
Usualy external documents is not dnied by internal documents. Do you think so? --Forestfarmer 21:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this document shows non-binding negotiation discussions while drafting a Treaty, I would think that the final Treaty is what matters. In any negotiations, external documents can contain exaggerations, bluffs, threats, misleading statements, "salesman" pitches, to pressure the other side. If you are interested in the true thinking of the parties, the internal documents would be more honest and accurate. Dollarfifty 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You think that the final Treaty is what matters but I do't know but If you would treat honest and accurate about Rusk documents.you should discuss this note or Treaty of San Franciscol or you made INTERNAL DOCUMET section . It is not external documents not to contain exaggerations, bluffs, threats, misleading statements, "salesman" pitches, to pressure the other side.I don't understand what you alleged.--Forestfarmer 10:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"[2] Also there exist other U.S. State Department documents [3] as well as CIA documents [4] that seem to contradict the Rusk documents.",These two document not have soruce.I would edit and delete these contents by no source.Anybady source please --Forestfarmer 10:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If anybody say "source is KBS",Japanese media wouldn't keep silence.--Forestfarmer 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

announce:anyone argue above sentence.I would delete these sentence really.I would consider "revert" to be vandalism.--Forestfarmer 03:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moved recent addition from article for further work

i tried to clean up some of the grammar, but it's taking too much time and i can't understand some of it without time-consuming comparisons with the original source. i don't even know if this is necessary, given that the entire not-too-long source is linked. as it is, however, the writing is simply not up to encyclopedia standards, perhaps others can help with spelling, grammar, wording, accuracy, pov, wikifying, etc. thanks. Appleby 17:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot understand.　As for details and the background, only the fact is written using Wikisauce at least.--Celldea 12:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Why did you move? If you had any question, you post to here your opinion. I can't understand that the full text was moved.--Junmai 11:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

the reasons are explained above. please let others fluent in english clean up the wording before restoring it to the article. thanks. Appleby 14:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please point out a bad expression concretely. It is not suitable to delete the full text. --Celldea 15:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I do't understand your writing but DO you want to say "I WANT TO CLEAN UP AND WAIT ALL"?WHO ARE YOU. --Forestfarmer 14:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Forestfatrmer, I think so too.
Appleby, is this description inconvenient for you?--Dent2000q 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Appleby,when do you finish to clean up .I think that it is about time may revert.--Forestfarmer 06:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Details

The demand from the South Korea government to U.S. Government was three of the followings;

  1. Takeshima(Dokdo) is added to the abandonment territory in Japan and it considers as a South Korean territory.
  2. The legal transfer of vested properties of Japanese in Korea to the Republic of Korea.
  3. Admit the MacArthur Line (*) by the Treaty of San Francisco continuously.
(*)The MacArthur Line: It is a fishery operation district in Japan that Douglas MacArthur decides when he served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP).

However, although the U.S. Government accepted processing of the Japan property in Korea in the Rusk document, it is supposed that the demand of the dominium of Takeshima and the demand of the MacArthur Line continuation cannot be consented.
Especially about the dispute over Takeshima(Dokdo), it has answered as follows

"As regards the islands of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks 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."


[edit] Background

While making of the Treaty of San Francisco, the following communications existed about the benefits of South Korea, between the South Korea government and the U.S. Government at that time.

The Allied Powers makes the Draft Treaty of Peace With Japan(Treaty of San Francisco).
It was written in it that Takeshima(Dokdo) was included in the territory in Japan. (ChapterII Territorial Clauses,　Article 3)
Three demands of the above-mentioned were submitted to that draft by South Korean ambassador Dr.You Chan Yang.
The demands were submitted again by South Korean ambassador.
The Rusk documents were sent by Dean Rusk to South Korea ambassador as a final U.S. Government reply.


[edit] Conclusion

The insistence on the Takeshima(Dokdo) owning right of South Korea is as followings;

  • There is no description of Takeshima(Dokdo) in paragraph(a) Article 2 of the Treaty of San Francisco, because of admitting the territory in Japan.
  • The MacArthur Line decided by the U.S. Government is effective now. (This interpretation is the basis of the Syngman Rhee line was declared by South Korea.)

However, the Rusk documents shows that they are not correct. It is confirmed that U.S. Government thought that it is a territory in Japan. Moreover, it is guessed that the U.S. Government thought, "The MacArthur Line is not the one providing to the fishery operation district in Japan after WW2". At that time, the South Korea government recognizes that there is no validity in insistence. They required just because they recognized.
Legal vigor isn't generated in this document. However, paragraph(a) Article 2 of the Treaty of San Francisco should be interpreted, "Takeshima(dokdo) isn't an abandonment territory in Japan".

[edit] Why did you delete a whole sentence?

If you find expression which should be corrected, You should write here your suggestions. I cannot understand that you do whole sentence deletion of the report written by others.--Celldea 16:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

it will be obvious to any editor fluent in english that pretty much every sentence has grammatical, pov, accuracy, style, and/or wikifying issues. &, as i pointed out, i'm not sure if this is even necessary as the entire not-too-long document is already summarized here, and available in full at the linked wikisource. just in case other editors feel it still belongs, i have left it here for further work to bring it up to wikipedia standards. Appleby 16:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Then, you will only have concretely to point out a bad description. I cannot understand what you want to say because your opinion is abstract. That I'm regarding as questionable is whether to delete the whole sentence of the report written by others without consensus.
"Too-long, not necessary"??? I don't think so. Your description about this article is not related to this Article as Forestfarmer has pointed out. Moreover, you are not clearly answering to Forestfarmer.--Celldea 17:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the above content is not necessary, since the full actual document can be seen at the click of a mouse. The writing is ungrammatical and especially the Conclusion is atrociously biased. Dollarfifty 18:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This description is the summary of the document. Your indication is irrelevant.--Celldea 18:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aesthetic appearance of intro

Please leave the paragraphs as they are now in order to make the intro appear more aesthetically pleasing. Splitting the third paragraph ruins the balance of the intro. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

I did a great overall improvement.the reason is as follows,

  1. Opning paragaraph deal only takesima disputed.
  2. Rusk documents have laege variety of meaning.
  3. Korean and Japanese discuss only takesima disputed

because of above,I made the explanation of the Opening paragraph a minimum. and I made a variety of seciton. We would discuss here before to edit opening paragraph.--Forestfarmer 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

the previous version much better explains the context & meaning of the subject early in the article. timeline & restatement of the contents, which i don't think really even belong in this article, should come later. this is not even considering the ridiculous pov & incomprehensible grammar, which i've been begging to have fixed if you want it in the article at all. since this is such an obscure article, have fun blogging away and, not to be rude, but it is obvious you're practicing your english here. but please, please do not alter the introduction. thanks. Appleby 05:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your sentence.It is too difficult to raed for me.but
Do you read a My above account? Rusk documents have laege variety of meaning.meaning of This documents have not only Takesima disputed but also a Korean independence day,lee line,etc.and
"this is not even considering the ridiculous pov & incomprehensible grammar, which i've been begging to have fixed if you want it in the article at all."
Sorry.but you ONLY write Takesima disputed in opening paragraph ETERNITY.I would not like to edit like this.but you don't stop writing Takesima disputed in opening paragraph.why do you want to edit opening paragraph only?Japanese and Krean are editing only opening paragraph.
Caution:meaning of Rusk document is not only Takesima disputed.
and opening paragaph is not so long usually.you should think You should think about the balance with the body.
Do you fix my mistake?
it disgraced yourself when you had wroten unreasonable things. I felt that you are only working for wikipedia from your theory.
It is necessary to discuss more concretely either.
Appleby,You only write abuse and didn't reply my suggestion.you didn't write even the reson to stick opening paragraph.It is vandalism to keep reveting.and please call "Dollarfifty" to come here--Forestfarmer 07:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

apart from this discussion."Dollarfifty":you wrote summary "Per discussion".what is this meaning?don't write mere trash reason.--Forestfarmer 11:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see any reason reverting it by Appleby and Dollarfifty. If the behavior hasn't stopped, it is clear vandalism.--Celldea 15:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you read this section in the discussion ?--Forestfarmer 17:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry .When "by" related to "It",I'm misunderstood.It maight be "I cannot see any reason Appleby & Dollarfifty reverting it ."I'm a foolish man.I wrote in the reflection. --Forestfarmer 21:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I mean that "Appleby and Dollarfifty always reverting without valid reason. Their behavior is clear vandalism." Anyhow, the article has been protected. I hope their vandalism will be stopped by the protect.--Celldea 12:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The dispatch from the U.S. Ambassador to Tokyo and CIA documents

In International Law, only the treaty is effective. After the SF treaty, the United States is the same as the third country about territory of Japan. I think that it should delete these meaningless descriptions on International Law.--Opp2 08:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. The CIA document is written, "Japan decided to abandon the islets after signing the San Francisco Peace Treaty in September 1951 ", and is unrelated to the SF treaty. In International Law, because it is only Japan that can abandon the title, the document about Japanese decision by Japanese Government is necessary.
  2. The document of U.S. Ambassador to Tokyo is being written, " Therefore, when Japan Article Ⅱof the peace treaty to renounce "all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quellait , Port Hamilton and Degelet", the drafters of the treaty did not include these islands within the area to be renounced". It is confirmed that Japan doesn't abandon title by SF treaty.

It is neither the United States nor The Allied Powers that can abandon the territory of Japan. It is only Japan. The Allied Powers only has the right to demand the abandonment territory to Japan. I want the Korean to study International Law.--Opp2 08:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected

Until the two sides can work out their differences and come to a consensus on what changes (if any) should be made to this article, this page will remain protected. There have been too many editors working in concert to avoid various policies, and too much POV-pushing back and forth on this article. This needs to stop now. Discuss things here first, and then we'll see about unprotecting the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If other side's insistence was nothing,I think to be the best as It is.--Forestfarmer 08:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independence day of Korea

The bit about the independence day of Korea is silly. Rusk is talking about the question of whether or not Japan relinquished all claim to everything other than its major islands by accepting the Potsdam declaration; it has nothing to do with setting the date on which Korea gained independence. --Reuben 19:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

my understanding is SK tried to become and behave as a victorious nation as Italy to avoid categorize as the lost nations, though the attempt was completely unsuccessful and ignored (as my knowledge, the UK strongly opposed it and as a result, it was the origin of the word the third nations (non-victorious, non-lost). Jjok
Do you mean Third world? That originally referred to non-alignment during the Cold War, not WW2. I don't really get your drift about "victorious nations" and "lost nations," but it doesn't appear to be relevant here. The section in Rusk's letter clearly had nothing to do with the date of Korean independence. It's simply not what he was talking about. He was only noting that the definition of Japanese territory in the Potsdam declaration was not intended to be final; other islands such as Okinawa were taken out of Japanese control at the surrender, but later returned to Japan. Korea was obviously already an independent country. --Reuben 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I found "the third country national" was a completely japanese term (and it is different from Third world). Korea was obviously not an independent country before the Victory over Japan Day and thereafter taken out of Japanese control and controlled by The Allied Powers until Aug. 13, 1948. Jjok
Whatever your opinion on this, it appears to have no connection to the "Rusk documents." --Reuben 14:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "independence day" is misleading. This passage is actually referring to the day Korea's sovereignty was recognized, not the day it declared independence. Korea's Independence Day is just as accurate as the American Independence Day (the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which was of course not recognized by the British). Ashibaka (tock) 00:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If so, that still has nothing in particular to do with the Rusk documents, which wasn't talking about Korea's independence or anybody's recognition of it. Rusk didn't accept the Korean ambassador's requests about Dokdo, but he didn't say anything at all about Korean independence. This section was original research, and it's now removed. --Reuben 15:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Law section mainly deleted

I have removed much of the "Location on International Law" section.

1. It is unintelligible, badly spelled, and suffers from poor punctuation rendering it meaningless and better deleted.

2. It appears POV

3. It is missing citations

Particularly poor is "It is confirmed that Takesima is a territory of Japan by the draft on December 29 ,1949 and it is confirmed that Takeshima is not included in the abandonment territory by The Rusk documents.Because treaty is interpreted as the things that It is necessary to interpret triaty in the meaning of a word at that time."

This is clear POV, lacking in citation, and interpretation of international law, which I sincerely doubt given the level of English displayed that the writer is qualified to do. Further, it is not Wikipedia policy to interpret law, simply to state it.

What is clear is that this is a communication, not a signed 'agreement'. It may state the U.S. government's own interpretation of their position, but under not stretch of the imagination can I see this document 'confirming' anything legally regarding any treaties.

There may be precedents in other cases such as the Norway / Denmark dispute, but this does not mean Wikipedia can say 'X is true because Y was true'. There are two many other factors that may render these two differently in a court case (who made the communication drafts, the claimants or someone else etc.) . At best, mention the precedent - do not interpret it.

I suggest these whole article is looked at carefully because it seems to me to be a 'backdoor approach' to the whole Dokdo/Takeshima problem.

Macgruder 17:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Korean independence" or sovereignty

Please read the Korean ambassador's requests, and then Rusk's response. There's no suggestion of continuing Japanese sovereignty over Korea, and that wasn't even under discussion. The Korean ambassador tried to argue that Japan had permanently renounced Dokdo/Takeshima in the Potsdam declaration, and Rusk rejected that argument. The Potsdam declaration does explicitly limit Japanese sovereignty to the home islands of Japan plus whatever minor islands the Allied administration should determine, so the claim that Japan retained sovereignty over Korea is nonsense. But the Allies intended to restore Japanese sovereignty at a later date to other outlying islands, as was eventually done with Okinawa, so there were some outlying islands for which Japanese sovereignty had been broken off, but for which there was not yet a final disposition - i.e. Japanese sovereignty might be restored at a later date. All of this has nothing to do with the independence of Korea. If you can find a reliable external source that makes such an interpretation of the Rusk documents, I'd like to see it. The "independence day of Korea" bit seems to have been a very tortured and original reading by the first author of this wiki article (which was massively JPOV to start with). --Reuben 16:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Relevant section clearly says "Korea and the islands":
With respect to request of the Korean Government that Article 2(a) of the draft be revised to provide that Japan "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 Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo," the United States Government regrets that it is unable to concur in this proposed amendment.
And while it may have limited it, the US clearly didn't feel the Potsdam declaration was permanent on its own:
The United States Government does not feel that the Treaty should adopt the theory that Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration.
It sounds like they aren't agreeing about the part of Korea as a whole as well... I think the original independence day part should be cut, but what I put in I think is a fair assessment of what this says. Komdori 16:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This interpretation is original research. Find an authoritative outside source to support "the idea that the international community should view Korea as continuing to be part of Japan until the conclusion of Treaty of San Francisco, on April 28, 1952." I don't think you will find one, because it doesn't match what Rusk actually wrote. --Reuben 04:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, if this is the only objection, I guess we can replace that sentence out of the changes with something as close to the actual documents as possible. Komdori 14:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I put in a compromise version in accord with what we discussed here. Hopefully it's closer to an acceptable version (it's straight from the documents this time). Komdori 14:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that's still a pretty tenuous interpretation. Nowhere does Rusk say anything remotely like "Japan maintained sovereignty over Korea and its islands after August 9, 1945." You are trying to take the negation of one extreme position, and turn it into the affirmation of an opposed, equally extreme, position. And the reading you propose directly contradicts the plain text of the Potsdam Declaration, which explicitly says that Japan did not maintain sovereignty outside the home islands. --Reuben 04:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I know I'm jumping in this a little blind (I missed the discussions of the text change), but isn't it pretty black and white? I think there is little if any interpretation there. Would you feel better to have "Japan did not renounce sovereignty over Korea and its islands permanently on August 9, 1945" instead of "Japan maintained sovereignty over Korea and its islands after August 9, 1945."? You may interpret the Potsdam Declaration differently, but the United States clearly stated this was their position in the Rusk Documents... and that's the topic of this article. —LactoseTIT 12:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
No, that wouldn't be better, because the documents themselves don't say that. Rusk rejected Yang's extreme interpretation of the Potsdam Declaration, which also would have applied to Okinawa, the Volcano Islands, and many other areas that were outside the limits of Japanese sovereignty under that Declaration and explicitly mentioned in the 1946 memorandum. In particular, he did not but that that reasoning applied to the Liancourt Rocks. He did not affirm the diametrically opposed position, that Japan still had a claim to sovereignty over all of the areas mentioned. Obviously, the reality can fall somewhere in the middle: Japan had a continuing claim to some of the areas in question. Basically, if you want to interpret in a continuing Japanese claim to Korea after 1945, there must be a credible outside source for it. Otherwise, it's an extrapolation from the document that amounts to original research. I do not expect that you will find such outside confirmation, but if you can, I'll accept it. --Reuben 16:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
We don't need an outside source, we can use the document itself. Here it is, quoted together. While the Korean government wanted it to be "revised to provide that Japan "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 Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo," the United States Government regrets that it is unable to concur in this proposed amendment. The United States Government not feel that the Treaty should adopt the theory that Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration."
That part had nothing to do with Dokdo, clarified when it changed the subject saying, "As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was..."
It's explicit. The Korean government wanted it to say that Japan renounced right/claim to "Korea and the islands which were part of Korea" on August 9, 1945, but the US was "unable to concur". The bit about linking this to Liberation Day was stupid, but the Potsdam declaration being a non-permanent measure (a stopgap until the real peace treaty is signed) is quite clear.
There is no interpretation here, just a quote. Komdori 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Since we seem to be going in circles a bit... you seem to want to say that when the US said it wasn't a formal or final renunciation over "the areas dealt with in the Declaration," that they meant to say "the areas dealt with in the Declaration except for the Korean mainland," (and perhaps a few other places). Since the original documents don't make this provision, we have to go based on what it says unless you can find a source. Interpretting "areas dealt with in the Declaration" (which include the mainland) as something else (something not including the mainland) would be original research, unless you can find something to back it up. Komdori 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The Potsdam Declaration does not mention Korea at all, and neither does the 1946 memorandum discussing various outlying islands. What would Rusk's response have been if Yang had requested the same text but without reference to any islands? We don't know. We can only speculate, and that's original research. It doesn't belong here. All we know is that he didn't accept Yang's interpretation as a whole. --Reuben 20:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not mistaken. The Potsdam Declaration says Japan will control only its mainland, ceding the other areas (which included Korea). Yang asked for this to be formalized, and his question explicitly included the Korean mainland, and as a whole it was rejected (as you said). What would be speculation would be picking what part of it Rusk rejected. Komdori 20:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, this is an important point from the documents, in fact it's the first point made. We cannot just delete it, how would you suggest wording it? Komdori 21:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The article can say what the document actually says, that Rusk did not view the limitation of Japanese sovereignty to the four home islands as permanent or final. Anything else is speculation, unless you can provide a source. --Reuben 21:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems like we argued a lot for nothing. I looked (briefly) at your change and it seems great. The only minor issue might be the demand section. It's a bit misleading to make it sound like it was all about Dokdo, when the proposed amendment was clearly more broad. If anything, we might be able to add a quote later from the document to clarify or something, but overall this would be very minor. Komdori 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Whew, that's a relief - I was afraid I might be going crazy (or more so) to be disagreeing for so long with very reasonably editors. Please go ahead and make the changes you think will help. If it needs to be clearer that the Potsdam Declaration was provisional, that's fine - as long as it doesn't make it sound like Korea was somehow residually part of Japan after 1945. The Cairo Declaration, other statements by Rusk, etc. make it abundantly clear that that's not the case. --Reuben 21:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that Reuben is confusing about Sovereignty, Administration, Recognition of State, and Territorial Title. The theory has divided about the approval time of the state(Constitutive Theory and Declarative theory). Declarative theory is powerful but it cannot explain Taiwan and Somalia. And, the recognition of states doesn't prove the acquisition of sovereignty and title about specific region. The sovereignty of Japan is remarkably limited but Japan didn't transfer or abandon her sovereignty and title till SF treaty.

PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie
ADMINISTRATON AND SOVEREIGNTY
It may happen that the process of government over an area, with the concomitant privileges and duties, falls into the hands of another state. Thus after the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War the four major Allied powers assumed supreme power in Germany. The legal competence of German state did not, however, disappear. What occurred is akin to legal representation or agency of necessity. The German state continued to existence. The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty. A similar case, recognized by the customary law for a very long time, is that of the belligerent occupation of enemy territory in time of war. The important features of 'sovereignty' in such cases are the continued existence of legal personality and the attribution of territory to that legal person and not to holders for the time being.

South Korea might have become independent before the SF treaty(Viewpoint of Declarative theory). However, Korea acquired legal sovereignty and title by SF treaty. And, it is SF treaty, and not RUSK Document to have a legal effect. RUSK Document can be only used to interpret the SF treaty. Japan has recovered full sovereignty by Article 1 of the SF treaty and the treaty doesn't use "renounced" but "renounces".

Article 1
(a) The state of war between Japan and each of the Allied Powers is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force between Japan and the Allied Power concerned as provided for in Article 23.
(b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.
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.

Japan approved the jurisdiction over Okinawa by the United States at Article 3 of SF treaty. This articles were needed because Japan recovers the full sovereignty of Okinawa by Article 1.
It reviews. The limitation of sovereignty doesn't mean the move of sovereignty. The agreement of Japan is necessary for the move of sovereignty. Japan has recovered all sovereignties by the SF treaty. Japan abandoned the sovereignty and title of peninsular by SF treaty. However South Korea might have been independent before the SF treaty. --Opp2 07:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be a breach of international law by the United States and allies. The approval of Japan is necessary so that South Korea may become independent in International Law. It should be thought that a legal recovery was done by the SF treaty.--Opp2 08:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting we change something here, then? Perhaps adding a line, "Permanent Korean sovereignty was later assured at the Treaty of San Francisco," perhaps with a quote of Article 2(a)? Something like that might go after the section on the US response basically denying permanent sovereignty based on Potsdam alone to kind of complete the story (I really believe the number of references external to Rusk should be at a minimum, but it might help tie up loose ends). Not sure if this is what you meant, though, or if this would be opposed by anyone. As it is, it kind of lets the reader hanging along the lines of, "OK, so Korean sovereignty wasn't really recognized then, so when was it recognized?" —LactoseTIT 09:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Did Japan renounce half of sovereignty by accepting Potsdam Declaration? I think that it is an impossible interpretation on the point of the law.--Opp2 05:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The effective date of the SF treaty can be assumed to be as a Korean independence day in one theory. However It is a mistake the complete denial of this, and a mistake the assumption of this as final conclusion.--Opp2 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In the early treaty draft, there was a article that Japan approves S.Korea indipentdent go back to the United Nations approval day. However, this article was deleted. Because it was clear that the Soviet Union would not sign when there were such article. In the SF treaty, a lot of other insufficient matters are for the infighting of Allies. These are not the responsibilities of Japan but mismanagements of Allies. --Opp2 03:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shade of meaning

The South Korean government claims the sovereignty on Takeshima (Dokdo) based on the Syngman Rhee line. However, it is confirmed to have thought there is no description of Takeshima in the abandonment territory in Japan by this documents it is a territory in Japan in U.S. Government. Moreover, it had the intention that it is not the one providing to the fishery operation district in Japan after the war and the MacArthur line can be read. [4]

I deleted previous tail and added above sentence.and added Japanese forreign ministry link.Is it a problem ? --Forestfarmer 10:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence repeats material that's already included in the article in more appropriate sections. I can't make heads or tails of the second or third sentences. The Japanese foreign ministry link is already in the References list, so there's no need to keep inserting new sections to include it in. --Reuben 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] territorial sovereignty and territorial title

present description of the article is follows.

Japanese sovereignty was not permanently limited to the home islands; that is, the Potsdam Declaration did not formally or permanently renounce sovereignty over all areas outside those listed in the Declaration.

"Permanent sovereignty" and "permanently renounced sovereignty" are strange as the law term. Temporary renounciation of sovereignty is impossible. When sovereignty is renounced once, to restore her sovereingnty is impossible. When sovereignty is renounced once, it is necessary to acquire sovereignty again by the cession from sovereign state for claiming her rights. When sovereignty is limited, it is possible to restore sovereignty. The limitation of sovereignty doesn't mean renounciation.(See Brownlie) To interpret for the Potsdam declaration clause 8 to have already been fulfilled, these strange terms are needed. The Potsdam declaration clause 8 was fulfilled by Article 2 of the SF treaty.

John Foster Dulles's Speech at the San Francisco Peace Conference September 5, 1951
Therefore, the treaty embodies article 8 of the Surrender Terms which provided that Japanese sovereignty should be limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and some minor islands. The renunciations contained in article 2 of chapter II strictly and scrupulously conform to that surrender term.

Therefore, not renounced but renounces was used at the SF treaty article2.
By the way, the occupation by GHQ is done by clause 7 of Potsdam Declaration and Instrument of Surrender. The legal basis of SCAPIN is also the same.

Potsdam declaration July 26, 1945
(7) Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's warmaking power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.

Instrument of Surrender September 2, 1945
We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever action may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that Declaration. (SYC.) The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender.

It is certain that SCAPIN assumed the sovereignty renouncement of future Japan. However, there is no legally direct relation between scapin and Potsdam declaration clause 8. A legal system is as follows.(In parentheses, it is based on the agreement of the Allies)

  • about occupation
Potsdam declaration clause 7-Instrument of Surrender-(Far Eastern Commission)-GHQ-SCAPIN-Japan gov
The authority of the territory adjustment is not given to Far Eastern Commission.
  • about territory
The Cairo Declaration-Potsdam declaration clause 8-(Draft of treaty DOS:Rusk,Dulls)-(Allies)-SF treaty

These treaties are considered very well. If an extra interpretation is done, contradiction is generated.--Opp2 04:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

reference material
Momorandum of Conversation date July 19, 1951[1]
Participants Yu Chang Yeng, Korean Ambassador.... Ambassador Dulles....
Mr. Dulles was in doubt that the formulate confirming Japan's renunciation of certain territorial claims to Korea could be included in the treaty in the form suggested by the ROK. He explained that terms of the Japanese surrender instrument of August 9,1945 did not, of themselves, technically constitute a formal and final determination of this question. He added, however, that the department would consider including in the treaty a clause giving retroactive effect to the Japanese renunciation of territorial claims to August 9, 1945.--Opp2 04:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State that uses power and Sovereign

Please refer to the above my quotation of Brownlie.
After the war, Poland ruled the east of Oder and the Neisse line same as the sovereign. Germany was not able to use her power and protest at all. Even the Germany government disappeared. Does the east of Oder and the Neisse line become terra nullius, and did Poland acquire? The answer is No. Still, the sovereign was Germany, and Poland is the agency of sovereign(Germany). Poland became a sovereign only after the East Germany was established, and the East Germany renounced her sovereignty by the treaty.
After S. Korea had been established, South Korea easserted her power same as the sovereign of the peninsula. However, the sovereign was Japan till SF treaty and S. Korea was agency of sovereign(Japan).
After this juridical logic is understood well, please read the Rusk Documents, the SF treaty, SCAPIN and Dulles's speech. When sovereignty is renounced once, all rights are lost. It is the same as the ownership of the land. If Japan renounced her sovereignty by the Potsdam declaration acceptance, Japanese jurisdiction and administration was lost too at the same time. SCAPIN and Article 2 of the SF treaty become valueless.--Opp2 23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Opp, your own reasoning about these issues doesn't matter. We are bound by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We can write about what the documents in question actually say, and we can write about what established historians conclude from them. But this is not the place to argue about international law or try to draw our own inferences. Stick with things that have cited sources, please. --Reuben 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
"Permanently renounce sovereignty" is your own reason, original research and illogicality without Reliable sources. Please don't create nonsensical phrase and concept for your own reason.--Opp2 23:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
When did Rusk say that "Japanese sovereignty was not permanently limited to the home islands; that is, the Potsdam Declaration did not formally or permanently renounce sovereignty over all areas outside those listed in the Declaration"?--Opp2 23:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rusk writes: "The United States Government does not feel that the Treaty should adopt the theory that Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration." Are you arguing that we should say "final" instead of "permanent?" As for the areas listed in the declaration, read the Potsdam Declaration. The areas listed are the home islands, as the only ones over which Japan retained sovereignty. Frankly, it's quite hard to communicate with you in English - I only have the vaguest sense of what exactly you are trying to get across. --Reuben 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my English is poor. Japan renounced her sovereignty about a Korean peninsula by the Potsdam declaration acceptance. The sovereignty of Japan which had already lost was limited by the SCAPIN677. In addition, Japan renounced sovereignty which had already lost and limited by the SF treaty again. To do such an impossible interpretation, ”permanent” was created. Read the SF treaty. Article 2 is not "renounced" but "renounces" about Korea. This has not been changed from the first draft of treaty in 1948 at all. I do not understand why to change to practically ”renounced”. --Opp2 00:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The rusk documents and the demand of South Korea are concerning the article of the SF treaty. The most importance is a treaty article. Why does it try to be found the meaning which deviates from the article of treaty from Rusk Documents? Japan renounced the sovereignty of the peninsula by the SF treaty though it might be unbearable for the Korean. --Opp2 00:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Opp, Rusk's letter itself uses the phrase "a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty." But the Potsdam declaration explicitly does limit Japanese sovereignty to the home islands. Those are what the documents say. Those are what the article can present. Trying to interpret this to draw some kind of conclusion about the status of Korea other than what's directly stated is original research, and it doesn't belong here. Those are the rules. If you can find outside, authoritative scholarship to back up your interpretation, then there's no problem. I encourage you to do so. --Reuben 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my stupidity, but I'm getting a bit lost here; what edit are we talking about? I agree that we have to stick to what the documents say (at most) and keep any interpretation to sourced statements. That being said, the Rusk Documents themselves somewhat directly state that they are operating under the interpretation that the Potsdam declaration was a temporary stop-gap until a proper peace treaty (SF) could be made. To boil it down, exactly what change is desired? I think that for the most part this idea I described is already in the article. Looking at the article, the only thing I don't quite understand is the change Jjok? made where it says, "while Koreas are practically independent." I don't know on what that's based/what exactly it is supposed to mean. It's probably a true statement (the fact Korea was practically independent in the interim), but I don't see that expressed as part of the negotiating position of Rusk. --Cheers, Komdori 22:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time figuring that out myself. I believe Opp is dissatisfied with the current article in a way that I don't quite understand. My best guess is that he wants to say Korea remained a Japanese colony until 1952. From my point of view, the most correct thing is not to draw any conclusions about the sovereignty of Korea between 1945 and 1952 beyond what's clearly stated and sourced. --Reuben 22:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Your mistake was that you interpreted a part of of the Potsdam declaration clause 8(especially about Korea peninsula) was executed when Japan accepted Potsdam Declaration.--Opp2 08:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Komdori, "The Potsdam declaration was a temporary stop-gap until a proper peace treaty (SF) could be made" is almost accurate. The Allies was suspended the execution of the Potsdam declaration clause 8. Because they were not able to "determine" the islands which ware described at clause 8. Not only clause 8 but also clause 12 was not fulfilled because of the internal trouble of Allies. This is a speech of Dalles.
John Foster Dulles's Speech at the San Francisco Peace Conference, September 5, 1951
The Potsdam Surrender Terms constitute the only definition of peace terms to which, and by which, Japan and the Allied Powers as a whole are bound. There have been some private understandings between some Allied Governments; but by these Japan was not bound, nor were other Allies bound. Therefore, the treaty embodies article 8 of the Surrender Terms which provided that Japanese sovereignty should be limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and some minor islands. The renunciations contained in article 2 of chapter II strictly and scrupulously conform to that surrender term.
Some question has been raised as to whether the geographical name "Kurile Islands" mentioned in article 2 (c) includes the Habomai Islands. It is the view of the United States that it does not. If, however, there were a dispute about this, it could be referred to the International Court of Justice under article 22.
Some Allied Powers suggested that article 2 should not merely delimit Japanese sovereignty according to Potsdam, but specify precisely the ultimate disposition of each of the ex-Japanese territories. This, admittedly, would have been neater. But it would have raised questions as to which there are now no agreed answers. We had either to give Japan peace on the Potsdam Surrender Terms or deny peace to Japan while the Allies quarrel about what shall be done with what Japan is prepared, and required, to give up. Clearly, the wise course was to proceed now, so far as Japan is concerned, leaving the future to resolve doubts by invoking international solvents other than this treaty.
He has selected the term with great deliberation. And, he said that article 2 of the SF treaty is a execution based on the Potsdam declaration clause 8. Japan could not fulfilling the Potsdam declaration clause 8 till SF treaty for the infighting by Allies. Therefore, the sovereign of the peninsula becomes Japan till SF treaty.--Opp2 07:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Reuben, when did the Rusk say that "Japanese sovereignty was not permanently limited to the home islands; that is, the Potsdam Declaration did not formally or permanently renounce sovereignty over all areas outside those listed in the Declaration" ? If you ridicule me, you should ridicule yourself first. You say also that "But the Potsdam declaration explicitly does limit Japanese sovereignty to the home islands." What do you want to say by this your comment? Is it written that this clause 8 of Potsdam Declaration will be executed at the same time as accepting of Potsdam Declaration? Did Rusk say that Japan already have executed clause 8? Do you understand the subject of the discussion between U.S. and South Korea? The subject is when this Potsdam declaration clause 8 was executed by Japan. The South Korea government interpreted Japan excuted clause 8 when the Potsdam was accepted. The United States（Rusk) refused Korean interpretation. Your interpretation about clause 8 is the same as the interpretation of the South Korea government that Rusk denied.
Japan had the obligation to renounce Japanese sovereignty in the area that had been shown in clause 8 because Japan accepted Potsdam Declaration. However, the acceptance of the Potsdam declaration doesn't mean the execution of clause 8 as the Rusk, Dulles, SF treaty and SCAPIN says. You only have to image the incentive stock option. The acquisition of the incentive stock option only acquired the right. The acquisition of the incentive stock option never means the acquisition of acorporate stock. If you exercise the right, you can acquire formal or final acorporate stocks. If you do not, you can't get the acorporate stocks. That is, you will not get the acorporate stocks until exercising the right.
  • Accepting Potsdam Declaration: Japan had the obligation to renounce Japanese sovereignty. The Allies acquired the right to make Japan renounce her territory. (unexecution)
  • SCAPIN: The capacity and power of the Japanese sovereignty was extremely derogated(cease and exclude Japanese jurisdiction by scapin). But this doesn't means that Japan renounced her sovereignty. Because Japan has sovereignty, it is possible to derogat Japanese sovereignty.
  • SF Treaty: Japan renounced her sovereignty according this treaty. The Allies exercised their right about clause8 which acquired in the Potsdam declaration acceptance.
Therefore, the sovereign about Korean peninsula and Taiwan and Okinawa and Iwojima etc. till the SF treaty is Japan, though the capacity and power of the Japanese sovereignty was extremely derogated by scapin. The sovereign of Okinawa and Iwojima remained Japan because she didn't renounce her sovereignty by the SF treaty. Please become calm a little more, and read each materials well. And, you should think about the reason why the SF treaty used present tense.--Opp2 05:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Without authoritative references, this is all just your own argumentation - it's original research. For Wikipedia, it's totally irrelevant. The article text should simply describe what's in the original documents. If you can find a reliable source to support the idea that Korea was still under some kind of residual Japanese sovereignty after 1945, then we can work on how to describe that. As long as it's based on your own argumentation, though, it doesn't belong here. --Reuben 08:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested you that if you ridicule me, you should ridicule yourself first. "Japanese sovereignty was not permanently limited to the home islands; that is, the Potsdam Declaration did not formally or permanently renounce sovereignty over all areas outside those listed in the Declaration" Is this a simply describe what's in the original documents?　This your strange interpretation which has many contradictions is original research. You should present the reliable source which shows Japan carried out clause 8 when Japan accepted Potsdam declaration. (Though Rusk denied this interraption) Please show me.--Opp2 08:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the text as it was said basically the same thing as the Rusk documents. You have edited it to use the same words as the Rusk documents, and I haven't objected to that. I'll ignore the rest of your comments, since it seems you are arguing for the sake of argument, rather than to improve the article. --Reuben 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Reuben. Please teach me, because my English is poor. Is "will be" past perfect form like your strange interpretation and original reserch?--Opp2 10:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.(Potsdam Declaration)
  • September 22, 1945 Japanese sovereignty will be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor outlying islands as may be determined in accordance with the Cairo Declaration and other agreements to which the United States is or may be a party.(United States Initial Post Surrender Policy For Japan)
  • December 20, 1945 Japanese sovereignty will be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and about thousand smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands.(General MacArther's Instruction to his Commands concering the Aims of Jpana Occupation)
  • July 11, 1947 Japanese sovereignty will be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor outlying islands as may be determined.(Basic Post-Surrender Policy For Japan)
  • September 8, 1951 Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title, and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.(SF treaty)
Do you have something to say about the article? Or do you just enjoy arguing? --Reuben 17:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
There are some interesting points, I think, but perhaps it would be better to discuss this kind of thing either at the Potsdam Declaration or Treaty of San Francisco page. I noticed that the Postdam page in particular is quite sparse. If you can get some sources discussing the implications and various interpretations of that treaty, it might be worthwhile. For example, the Rusk Documents do discuss the US interpretation of this treaty. Other than some bits of perhaps awkward wording in it, though, I don't see much of anything that needs to be changed factually on this article (point it out if there is something specific).
I'm sure that Potsdam was analyzed and discussed by Japan, Korea, and the US, and the Rusk documents position specifically was surely discussed academically as well. From that standpoint, if we can find some relevant information about Rusk analysis it might make a great new section. Opp2, hard to tell behind the Internet, but you seem to have knowledge of or at least an interest in international law. If you have access to a law library maybe you can get some items about Rusk (or Potsdam for that page) that aren't here. As always foreign language sources are okay, too, but English ones would be preferred.
Treaty specifics are kind of dry, most people are much more interested in the actual battles, crimes, damages, etc. This leaves a lot of misunderstanding and just general lack of content for some articles like this one. --Cheers, Komdori 17:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch-Indonesia case

This may be similar case to the date of the independence of Korea issue.

"Dutch withhold apology in Indonesia", The Associated Press, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2005.[2]

Until 2005, the independence date of Indonesia was Dec. 27, 1949 in the Netherlands (correspond to April 28, 1952 for Japan), not the de facto independence day, Aug. 17, 1945 (correspond to August 9, 1945 or 12 August, 1948 or March 1, 1919), that made Dutch apology to Indonesia for the colonial rule during Aug. 17, 1945 to Dec. 27, 1949. Jjok 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the relevance? Does the US celebrate its independence from when it was recognized by the British? Does Indonesia celebrate its independence from 1949 because the Dutch say so? Of course not. Korean independence is not defined by when a past colonizer formally recognizes it, any more than it is for other countries. By the way, the independence of the Republic of Korea was recognized by the UN General Assembly in 1948. This argument is really rather silly, especially since Korea calls August 15, 1945 "Liberation Day," not "Independence Day." It seems that there's a lot of bizarre wrangling with words for no real goal other than to denigrate symbols of Korean independence. --Reuben 22:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, it really does make sense for "Liberation Day" to match V-J Day. If we have a source picking at the choice of date, we could talk about it, but I don't think it will really belong on the Rusk documents page. --Cheers, Komdori 22:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Reuben say that "Does the US celebrate its independence from when it was recognized by the British? Does Indonesia celebrate its independence from 1949 because the Dutch say so? Of course not." Exactly, this is a reason why these states support the "Declarative theory". However, this theory cannot explain case of Taiwan. The Governments of Taiwan, she control effectively her territory. She are not interfered by another country, and she express her state function perfectly. But she cannot become state because another country doesn't approve as a state. This becomes an insistence along of Constitutive Theory. Therefore, theories concerning an independent day are not yet united. By the way, the theory conflicts whether the United Nations approval becomes a recognition of states too. --Opp2 06:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
How does this relate to the current article? --Reuben 08:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I only pointed out your ignorance. --Opp2 12:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
In other words, you're arguing for the sake of argument, and to make yourself feel superior? Take it elsewhere. --Reuben 00:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)