小說

Why now, at this moment, the historical truth of Dokdo's sovereignty and America's hidden intentions...

The level of historical awareness of the Northeast Asian Foundation, whose head is a New Rightist

On July 6, 2026, the Northeast Asian History Foundation released the 'Dokdo Bombing Incident Report' dated June 24, 1948, from the US Far East Air Force (FEAF). I'm not sure about the circumstances of its discovery, but it appears to be a classified document prepared while investigating the tragedy of the Dokdo bombing incident, in which 14 Korean fishermen were killed and many injured while fishing near Dokdo during a US Air Force bombing exercise on June 8, 1948. The FEAF, the entity that prepared this document, is an acronym for 'Far East Air Force.' In its singular form, it refers to the US Army Air Corps organization stationed in the Philippines, established in 1941. In its plural form, 'Far East Air Forces,' it refers to the air force command unit for the Southwest Pacific region, created in 1944. The fighter command headquarters that devastated the Korean Peninsula during the Korean War came from this plural FEAF, the Far East Command, and its location was in Tokyo, Japan. The singular or plural form is not important. Why were the US forces in the Philippines and the US forces in Japan linked together, and why were they used as a base during the Korean War?

 Meiji Seimeikan (明治生命館, Meiji Building), an imperialist-style building resembling a Greek temple, photographed by the US military in 1951

Current Meiji Seimeikan / Early sketch by architect Shinichiro Okada (1883~1932)

 The core point is that the Northeast Asian Foundation, in its report, states that it 'clearly established' that Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) was 'a part of Korea' in September 1947, thus focusing the report on the 'territorial issue.' The Northeast Asian Foundation is a government-funded institution created during the Roh Moo-hyun administration to counter China's Northeast Project and Japan's distortion of history textbooks, but I have never heard of any researchers there raising issues with colonial historiography. Park Ji-hyang (1953~), who was flustered when the 'Hwandangogi' was mentioned early in the Lee Jae-myung administration, is its head, and it seems she tried to create a 'Dokdo is our land' atmosphere in line with the government's character. Park Ji-hyang was appointed during Yoon Suk-yeol's tenure and is one of the co-authors of <Re-recognition of History Before and After Liberation>, aligning with the New Right.

The Northeast Asia Foundation explained that this record is primary historical evidence that the United States recognized Dokdo as Korean territory immediately after liberation, and said that beyond a historical discovery, it is expected to be a powerful weapon in securing Korea's sovereignty and in international disputes. This is an outrageous statement. In an environment of political disadvantage where no one knew the detailed inside story, the claim by one of the survivors that 150 people died was buried. Furthermore, there was even a bombing of Dokdo during the Korean War, but to conclude that the interpretation of this incident is merely a confirmation of national territory, such an attitude goes beyond colonial historiography and is a modern pro-American sycophancy, typical of the New Right. While it might be understandable during the chaotic period of liberation, how can such an interpretation be made in 2026? I see it as an illogical development, even before academic research opinions or the political judgment of an institution.

Territorial grievances, Syngman Rhee's emergence, the requiem of the Korean War

Nearly two months after June 24, the date the report on the Dokdo bombing incident of June 8, 1948, was written, in August, Syngman Rhee held a press conference with foreign correspondents and demanded the return of Tsushima from Japan. The United States recorded the announcement date as August 17 (KOREA’S RECENT CLAIM TO THE ISLAND OF TSUSHIMA, OIR Report No. 4900, March 30, 1950, DEPARTMENT Of STATE), but the Korean Presidential Archives states it as August 19. From August 19, the next day, domestic media began reporting on it, and within ten days, Japan responded that there was no basis for the return. However, the issue of Tsushima's return was internationally debated in China, the Soviet Union, Hong Kong, and Guangdong, until Syngman Rhee stated at a New Year's press conference in 1950, 'First, let's unify by our own efforts, and then gradually deal with the return of Tsushima.' In other words, as long as the Allied Powers were present, there would be no re-invasion by Japan, so they should not hurt each other's feelings, and the issue of Tsushima's attribution would be decided at the peace conference as justice would prevail. He took a step back.

Scene from the 'Tsushima Return Demand Press Conference,' AP interview on August 19, 1948

To evaluate Syngman Rhee as a leader with historical awareness, based on his statement that Tsushima Island is historically Korean territory, is a very dangerous idea. This is one of the achievements of Syngman Rhee that the New Right often emphasizes, but from a national historical perspective, Syngman Rhee was merely a trap that hindered Korea's slow start after liberation. If one were to deeply examine many contemporary nationalist politicians such as Lee Si-yeong, Lee Dong-nyeong, Song Byeong-jo, Cha Yi-seok, Jo Wan-gu, and Kim Gu, it could be argued that the 'nationalism' that was attempted to be erased from modern and contemporary history, at America's behest, left no trace through Syngman Rhee, truly serving as a conduit for national betrayal. In this context, Syngman Rhee's remarks about the subjugation of Tsushima Island can be interpreted from two perspectives.

First, it is a practice of proxy rule where the United States provides prior information and guides the Korean Peninsula's politics, especially on territorial issues, in the desired direction. As public opinion for the recovery of lost territories grew after liberation, and various groups, especially elderly people with a history of anti-Japanese activism, began to assert island sovereignty, the US first addressed Dokdo, and Syngman Rhee then addressed Tsushima, engaging in a deception campaign against the public. The US was closely watching which way the national sentiment in the liberated space would flow, and Syngman Rhee was faithfully fulfilling his role as the meticulously cultivated first figure of the American-style '녹화사업' (greenification project). That practice and method have continued to mislead public sentiment to this day, and one only needs to recall the role writers like Yoo Si-min have played in politics over the past 30 years.

Second, the view that the territorial remarks concerning Dokdo and Tsushima were a prelude to the eradication of Korean Peninsula nationalism, which would later lead to the Korean War.

Let's recall the unprecedented massacre known as the 'Jeju 4.3 Incident,' which lasted for over eight years, starting from the 'commotion' at the March 1st (read as 'Samiljeol,' not 'Samjeomiljeol') commemoration ceremony in 1947 and continuing until the opening of Hallasan Mountain in 1954, after the Korean War. And in October 1948, two months after Syngman Rhee announced the recovery of Tsushima, there was the Yeosu-Suncheon Incident, where the National Defense Guard in Yeosu and Suncheon, who refused to suppress the Jeju 4.3 Incident, were massacred and their actions were dismissed as an armed rebellion. At times, it was even called the 'Yeosu-Suncheon Rebellion,' making it seem like a real rebellion had occurred. The Yeosu-Suncheon Incident, Jeju 4.3, and the Korean War are intertwined with continuous territorial issues and the involvement of the United States behind the scenes. It is very unpleasant to hear the public's national sentiment dismissed as mere unrest or commotion. From the perspective of New Right historians, on the contrary, words related to the Korean people, nation, and nationalism must be grating to their ears. Does a country that distorts the historical context and misleads perspectives to prevent Koreans from speaking about the Korean people in Korea deserve to exist on Earth? The question is, how much longer can we endure with someone else's perspective?

The joy of escaping colonial slavery was short-lived; the chaos of liberation revealed a truth that people's thoughts about the strange territory were finally bursting out. So, Syngman Rhee had the domestic media hold a press conference demanding the return of Tsushima from the United States first. The fact that the U.S. Department of State, Office of Intelligence Research, Division of Research for Far East (OIR) report #4900 in 1950 recorded the date of this interview as August 17, 1948, means that the U.S. instructed Syngman Rhee's foreign press conference two days earlier. Based on the U.S. analysis, 'In the heart of every Korean is a longing for the return of those islands,' the U.S. made Syngman Rhee align with public opinion by claiming Tsushima was originally Korean territory. However, according to the report, Japan had exercised actual control over Tsushima for over 350 years (as of OIR #4900 in 1950), so why did Koreans react this way? This requires further investigation. In the next installment, I will explain the U.S. solution to territorial issues in island regions, including the Dokdo and Tsushima issues.