"죽도의 날"에의 길: 시마네 현과 도쿄와의 관계라고 하는 관점으로부터의 분석 = The Way to "Takeshima Day": An Analysis from the Perspective of Relationship Between Tokyo and Shimane Ken

국문 초록 (Abstract)

2005년 2월 22일, 일본 시마네 현은 ‘다케시마 의 날’ 제정을 선포하고 1905년 독도편입의 날을 기념하였다. 선포문의 문구는 ‘다케시마’에 관한 한국 내에서 폭넓은 반응에 대한 논쟁을 촉발시켰다. 이것은 기존의 애매하고 잘 알지 못하던 대부분의 일본 사람들에게 애국주의의 주된 상징으로 논쟁을 불러일으킨 계기로 변질되었다.
한국에서 뿐만 아니라 영어판 미디어와 학계에서는 이 선포가 일본의 공식적이고 대중적인 민족주의의 또 다른 표현으로 해석하였다. 그런데 포고문의 문장에서 표현된 과정은 이것보다 더 복잡하다. 이 포고문은 여당인 자민당의 주요 의원들과 정부의 여망을 반영한 것이고, 내가 다음에 서술하겠지만 한국보다는 일본정부를 겨냥한 것이었다. 나아가, 이 포고문은 일본의 또 다른 러시아와의 영토분쟁 -남쿠릴/북방영토- 문제에 대한 중요한 역할을 부여하는 논쟁이 되었다.
시마네 현의 독도관련 행동은 2005년에 시작된 것이 아니라, 전후 태평양전쟁에서 식민지를 상실한 일본의 패전, 그리고 일본어부들의 급격한 증가와 어장의 축소와 관련된 모든 문제와 관련된 것이다. 그런 현실 속에서 시마네 현의 어부들은 더 이상 한국해역에서 어업을 할 수 없게 되었고, 기존 식민지에서 고립되어 있던 독도 점령을 당국에게 요구하게 되었다. 일본정부도 역시 정당하게 독도를 일본 영토라고 인식하게 되고 샌프란시스코 평화회의를 위한 준비기간에 미국에 로비활동을 벌여 독도의 일본 영토화를 꾀하였다. 최종 평화협상에서는 결국 독도에 대한 언급을 하지 않았다. 하지만 한국은 1952년 이후 이 섬을 실효적으로 지배하게 되었고 일본과 한국은 이 조약을 서로 자기에게 유리한 입장으로 해석하게 되었다.
독도의 소속에 관한 분쟁은 1951년 시작된 한·일 관계정상화의 주된 장애가 되었다. 그 동안 시마네 현은 중앙정부에 청원서를 계속 제출하고 독도에 관한 그들의 권리를 주장할 것을 요구하였다. 1950년대까지, 마츠에(시마네의 현청 소재지)와 일본 중앙정부의 영토 분쟁에 대한 입장은 달랐다.
그러나 1965년 한일 간 기본조약으로 관계정상화가 이루어지자 시마네와 도쿄의 입장이 분리되게 되었다. Daniel Roh(2008) 씨가 그의 논문 다케시마 미츠야키 (다케시마 비밀 협정)에서 밝힌 바로, 1960년대 초 일본과 한국은 소유권의 문제가 별로 중요시 되지 않는 문제로 인식되었다. 그러나 양측은 모두 국내정치적인 이유로 타협할 수 없게 되었다. 이리하여, 양측은 이 분쟁을 덮어두기 위한 무언의 합의를 이루게 되었다. 합의에 의하면 양국은 이 섬에 대한 각자의 해석에 대한 주장을 계속하지만, 현상을 유지하고 분쟁의 고조를 피한다는 것이었다.
그런 관점에서 일본 중앙정부의 관점과 마츠에 시의 입장이 나뉘게 되었다. 하지만 공식적으로 독도는 한국이 불법적으로 점거하고 있다는 입장을 고수하고 일본 중앙정부의 관심은 국내 공론화에서 독도 영토문제를 멀리한다는 정책으로 생각을 바꾸게 되었다. 이와는 달리 1960년대 후반, 일본정부는 북방영토와 관련된 문제에서 국내 움직임을 매우 강하게 거론하였다. 이 움직임의 목적은 ‘북방영토’ 문제에 대한 여론을 강화시키는 것이었고, 이것을 통하여 국내문제로서 소련에 대항하는 오키나와 미군기지에 대한 여론을 바꾸자는 것으로 표출되었다. 이런 움직임은 강한 교육적인 활동으로 개입되었고, 많은 혹...

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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 prefectural memorial 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 members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and, as I will explain below, was directed at Tokyo rather than at Seoul. Furthermore, Japan’s other territorial dispute- the 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 an...

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 Asahi Shimbun, "‘Ken Dokuji no Fuku Kyoza o Haifu' (Prefecture distributes its own supplementary teaching material]" 4-,
• 2 Nakajima, K, "‘Is Japanese maritime strategy changing? An analysis of the Takcshima/Dokdo issue'. USJP Occasional Papers" Program on US-Japan Relations. Harvard University 2007
• 3 Ilosaka. M., "ihon no Rvodo Mondai.lloppd Yonto, Take sliima. Senkaku sltotd [Japan's Territorial Problems: Northern Territories, Takeshinta. the Senkaku Islands]" Kadokawa Shotcn 2012
• 4 Koyasu. N, "[Ajia] Wa do Katararetekitaka' [How has ‘Asia' been narrated]" Fujiwara shotcn 2003
• 5 Sugihara. T, "Zoku Takeshima no gyogyouken no hensen ni tsuite [Continued: transformations in Takeshima fishing rights]"
• 6 Neumann. I, "Uses of the ‘Other’: the East in European Identity Formation" Manchester University Press 1999
• 7 James. W, "Trade relations of Korea and Japan: moving from conflict to coop eration?. East-West Center Working Papers 11: 7"
• 8 Kajimura. H, "The question of Takeshima/Tokdo" 28 (28): 423-475, 1997
• 9 Nagai. Y, "The process of establishing Takeshinta day in Shimane Prefecture" 18 : 1-18, 2012
• 10 Kimura. M, "The economics of Japanese imperialism in Korea. 1910-1939" 48 (48): 555-574, 1995
• 11 Koo. M.G, "The Scnkaku/Diaoyu dispute and Sino-Japanese political-economic relations: cold politics and hot economics?" 22 (22): 205-232, 2009
• 12 Hagstrom. I, "The "abnormal" stale: identity, norm/exception and Japan" European Journal of International Relations
• 13 Shimane Prefecture, "Teian/Yobosho [Proposals and Demands]" Shi manc Prefecture Prefectural Administration Documents Division 2002
• 14 A.-talii Shimbun, "Takeshima. Nikkan Kyovu An Mo Aru’ [Takcshima: there is also a proposal for joint ownership]" there is also a proposal for joint ownership], morning edition. 10 January, p. I 1-, 1963
• 15 ShimojO. M, "Takeshima was nikkan tlochira no monoka [Is Takeshima Japanese or Korean?]" Bungei Shunju 2004
• 16 Shimane Prefecture, "Takeshima no rydokcn no soki kakuritsu ni tsuite [Regarding swift establishment of territorial rights to Takeshima]. in Kuni he no jtiien yobo [Key priority demands to the central government]" Prefecture Prcfcctural Administration Documents Division
• 17 Yokota. H, "Takeshima no hi jorei seitei no butai ura [The backstage of Takeshima Day ordinance]" Shukan Asahi 170-, 2005
• 18 Oki Association of Town and Village Assemblies, "Takeshima no Ryodoken Kakulto ni Kan Sunt Chinjosho [Petition Related to Securing Takeshima Ter ritorial Rights]" Shimanc Prefectural Library. Takeshima collection 1963
• 19 Shimanc Prcfcctural Assembly, "Takeshima no Ryddoken Kakuritsuni Kan sunt Ikenslto [Memorandum on Establishing Territorial Rights to Takeshima]" Shimanc Prefecture 2004
• 20 Shimane Prcfcctural Assembly, "Takeshima no Ryddoken Kakulto ni Kan Suru Kenmin Undo Suishin Ydkd-an [An Outline of Proposal to Promote Prefectural Citizen’s Movement for Securing Territorial Rights to Takeshima]" Shimane Prefecture 1965
• 21 Furuya. T, "Takeshima ni ltte Mita [I went to Takeshima!]" Seirindo 2012
• 22 Cabinet Office, "Takeshima ni Kan Suru Tokubetsu Seron Chdsa [Special public opinion poll on Takeshima]"
• 23 Roh. D., "Takeshima Mitsuyaku [The Takeshima Secret Pact]" Soshisha 2008
• 24 Oki Fishing Union, "Takeshima Gyoku no Sogyo Seigen no Kaijoho ni Tsuku Chin jo [A Petition to Lift the Operation Restrictions in the Takeshima Fishing Zone]" Shimanc Prcfcctural Library. Takeshima collection 1951
• 25 Shimane Prefecture, "Takeshima" Shimane Prefectural Council for Facilitating the Solution of Takeshima Problem 1979
• 26 Weinstein. M, "South Korea-Japan Dokdo/Takcshima dispute: toward confrontation" The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus
• 27 Hopf. T, "Social Construction of International Politics" Cornell University Press 2002
• 28 Shimanc Prefecture, "Shinslui Shimanc Ken shi (New history of Shimanc Pre fecture)" Shimane Prefecture 1967
• 29 Ishida. R, "Shimane Prefectural Assembly Interpolations" Shimane Prefectural Assembly 2001
• 30 Shimanc Prcfcctural Assembly, "Shimane Kengikai Rekidai Gicho/ Fukugicho Ichiran [List of Shimane Prefectural Assembly's Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen]"
• 31 Shimane Prefecture., "Shimane Ken Tdkeisho [Statistical data of Shimane Pre fecture]" Shimane Prcfcctural Statistics Association 2011
• 32 Chugoku Regional Agricultural Administration Office, "Shimane Ken Gyogyo no Ugoki [Shimane Prefecture's fishing industry]"
• 33 Nakasonc, Y, "Sengo Nihon Gaiko [Japan’s Postwar Diplomacy]" Shinchosha 2012
• 34 Iwabuchi. K, "Recentering Globalization: Popular Culture and Japanese Transnationalism" Duke University Press 2002
• 35 Atkins. E. T, "Primitive Selves: Koreana in the Japanese Colonial Gaze. 1910-1945" University of California Press 2010
• 36 Schocnhaum. T. J., "Peace in Northeast Asia" Edward Elgar Publishing 2008
• 37 Saaler. S, "Pan-Asianism in Modern Japanese History: Colonialism, Regionalism and Borders" Routledge 2007
• 38 Oguma. E., "Pan-Asianism in Modern Japanese History: Colonialism, Regionalism and Borders" Routledge 200-213, 2007
• 39 Mitzcn. J, "Ontological security in world politics: state identity and the security dilemma" 12 (12): 341-370, 2006
• 40 Steele. B, "Ontological Security in International Relations" Routledge 2008
• 41 Zarakol, A, "Ontological (in) security and state denial of historical crimes: Turkey and Japan" 24 (24): 3-23, 2010
• 42 Takaya. H, "Ohaba Joho Shi. Dakyo (Compromise After Significant Concessions). Asahi Sliimbun" 1-, 1998
• 43 Tottori Prefecture, "Nikkan Zantei Suiki Oyobi Waga Kuni llaitateki Keizai Suiki ni Okeru Gyogyo Chitsujo no Kakurilsu ni Tsuite [Petition Regarding Establishment of Fishery Related Order in Japan-Korea Provisional Zone and Japan's EEZ], submitted to MOFA. MLIT and MAFF"
• 44 Yomiuri Shimbun, "Nikkan 100 Nen' (100 years of Japan-Korca relations). Yomiuri Shimbun" 3-, 2010
• 45 Yamamoto. K, "Nihonjin ga ikenai niltonryodo [Japanese Territories That Cannot be Visited by Japanese]" Shogakkan 2007
• 46 Nanpd doho engokai, "Nihon Ryfido no hanashi [A Talk on Japan's Territo ries]" Nanpo doho engokai 1965
• 47 Kataoka. C, "Nichflkan gyogyO kankeishi II [History of fish eries relationship among Japan. Korea and China 2]" 88 : 137-159, 2007
• 48 Cummings. B, "Korea's Place in the Sun" W. W. Norton 1997
• 49 Prcstowitz. C, "Korea as number one'" Foreign Policy
• 50 NVakita. Y, "Kongo no nikkankankei to rekishi ninshiki mondai [The future of Japan-Korca relations and the problem of historical consciousness]" 337 : 88-102, 2013
• 51 Yomiuri Shimbun, "Kokka Scnryaku wo Kangacru [Thinking about national strategy]. Yomiuri Shimbun" 4-, 2006
• 52 Shimane Prefecture, "Kensei no Ayumi Sliowa 54-57 [Prefectural Politics 1979-1982]" General Affairs Division 1983
• 53 Shimanc Prefecture, "Kensei no Ayumi Shown 51-53 [Prefectural Politics 1976-1978]" General Affairs Division 1979
• 54 Yamano. S, "Kenkanryii [Haling the Korean Wave]" Shinyusha 2005
• 55 Tci. T, "Kankoku no Imeji [The Image of Korea]" Chuo koron shinsha 1995
• 56 Suzuki. S, "Japan’s socialization into Janus-faced European international society" 11 (11): 137-164, 2005
• 57 Caprio. M, "Japanese Assimilation Policies in Colonial Korea. 1910-1945" University of Washington Press 2009
• 58 Emmers. R, "Japan-Korca relations and the Tokdo/Takcshima dispute: the interplay of nationalism and natural resources. RSIS Working Paper" S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. Nanyang Technological University 2010
• 59 Tanaka. S, "Japan's Orient" University of California Press 1995
• 60 Bukh. A., "Japan's Identity and Foreign Policy: Russia as Japan's ‘Other'" Routledge 2009
• 61 Nakasone. Y, "Interpolations at budget commission, house of representa tives on 19 September 1983" National Diet Library
• 62 Catalinac. A, "Identity theory and foreign policy: explaining Japan’s responses to the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 U.S. War in Iraq" 35 (35): 58-100, 2007
• 63 Cabinet Office, "Hoppdryddo Mondai ni Kan Suru Tokubelsu Seron Chosa (Special public opinion poll on the Northern Territories problem)"
• 64 The Economist, "Hallyu. yeah!"
• 65 Fukuhara. Y, "Gyogyo mondai to ryodo mondai no kosaku [The interplay of fishing and territorial disputes]" 23 : 65-78, 2012
• 66 Ito. H, "Gakko Kyoiku to Takeshinta Mondai' [ School education and Take shima problem]"
• 67 Lee. S, "Dokdo: Historical Appraisal and International Justice" Brill 41-71,
• 68 Tamaki, T, "Deconstructing Japan's Image of South Korea: Identity in Foreign Policy" Palgrave Macmillan 2010
• 69 Shimane Prefectural Assembly, "Dai 135 Kai Shimane Kengikai Ketsugiroku [Records of 135th Shimane Prefectural Assembly Resolutions]" Shi mane Prefecture 1951
• 70 Berger. T., "Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan" Johns Hopkins University Press 1998
• 71 Bukh. A, "Constructing Japan's "Northern Territories": domestic actors, interests, and the symbolism of the disputed islands" 12 (12): 483-509, 2012
• 72 Iluh. M. M, "Bak Jung Hui. il jeonggyaek deul c meori sugyco ‘sconbyae nim deul dowa jusipsio" [Park Chung Hee. bowing his head to Japanese politi cians asking ‘seniors, please help""
• 73 The Economist, "A Game of Leapfrog"
• 74 Sumita. N, "50 nen ni watari scifu. media ni mushi sarcta shi manekenmin no takeshima he no omoi o kike (Listen to Shimanc residents thoughts about Takeshima after 50 years of being ignored by the government and the media)" 17 (17): 21-23, 2005
• 75 MOFA [Ministry of Foreign Affairs], "10 Issues of Takeshinta" North east Asia Division 2008
• 76 Ohira. M, "'Nikkan kaidan ni kan suru shugiin honkaigi ni okeru Ohira Masayoshi gaisho no hokoku‘[Foreign Minister's Ohira Masayoshi report on Japan Korea talks to the House of Representatives]" World and Japan