The US stance on Korea Japan land dispute

[bluesky79]

Recently, James Steinberg, former Deputy Secretary of State, criticized Japan's ICJ suit regarding Dokdo. Steinberg believe that the question of whether Japan should revert to formal mechanisms, namely the ICJ, is probably not the right way to go, precisely because any attempt definitely to resolve these things, even through neutral processes, is going to lead one or the other party unsatisfied.

Steinberg's comment may represent Obama administration's stance on Dokdo because Steinberg is one of Obama's closest advisors. The territorial disagreements in East Asia doesn't need to be resolved at the sovereignty level, so long as the related parties recognize each other's joint exploration rights and ease tensions. I look forward to more updates on US's stance on East Asian territorial disputes.

(http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=104&oid=003&aid=004825456)

 

[ThirdTerm]

Korean President Lee Myung-bak made a surprise visit to Dokdo as a protest against Japan's stance on the issue of "comfort women" to play to a domestic audience ahead of elections and fan the flames of nationalism unnecessarily among younger generations with no wartime or colonial experience. South Korea has kept a police contingent since 1954 on the islets and international law generally sides with countries that exert effective control over a territory regardless of competing historical claims and Japan cannot rely on South Korea's goodwill to resolve the dispute through face-to-face negotiation considering the country's history of animosity towards Japan and Argentina set a bad precedent by invading other country's territory in a similar situation.