Immediately following the 3/11 disaster in Japan, South Korea was the first country to send in a rescue team and continued to send relief aid and resources to Japan over the course of the month. A reported $31.8 million was pledged as aid, but the good will between the neighboring countries was quickly soured as old disputes were once again brought to surface. Upon approval of natonal elementary school textbooks and publication of the Diplomatic Bluebook 2011 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – both of which asserted Japan’s claims over the controversial Takeshima / Dokdo Islands – South Korea put a damper on their generosity.

This incident, though appearing to be a petty fight over a petty 46 acres, is a continuation of a long-term dispute over the islands. This project aims to contextualize the most recent argument over the islands through a historical timeline and a cartographic study of the representation of the islands and respective claims of ownership. The localized intention of the project is to remain as close to objectivity as possible in the portrayal of this century-long dispute, and to leverage the point of conflict to call attention to the underlying tensions between Japan and Korea. On a broader scale, the project is also a comment on the practice of map-making and proposes an alternative form that embeds a history of ownership as opposed to merely the current status of possession.

The project will take the form of a series of hand-drawn maps and a historical timeline that corresponds with the maps and details, through time, the island dispute. The compilation of maps, which could loosely be interpreted as a “textbook” of maps – reflects the incident related to 3/11 as well as the inherent history through its pages. The maps are to be aggregated in reverse chronological order, with the most recent incident detailed first. As became evident through midreview, it may be difficult for all maps to be repurposed at a single scale; accordingly, the handful of scales will be chosen to depict the context of the islands as well as a detailed depiction of the islands. Ideally, the maps will span a number of years with varying frequency, and that frequency is to reflect the activity and escalation of disputes surrounding the islands. For example, perhaps five maps are necessary to accurately portray a period of conflict or war, whereas one is sufficient to portray a period of rest. In creating the maps, other layers of information may be crucial, such as the representation of movement of borders through military occupation, as well as the demographics of the islands and its inhabitants. The production of these maps, and the layering of information, are to adhere as cosely as possible to the graphic standards of map-making. The accompanying historical timeline will serve as a guide through the series of maps, and will contains descriptions of significant events regarding the claim to the islands as well as a parallel background that explains the political and legalistic implication of the respective events.

The following images are taken from How to Lie with Maps, authored by Mark Monmonie, and show a few examples of the kind of information portrayed in a map that is relevant to this project.

Most recently, I have been focusing on maps that define the relationship between Japan and Korea over the Takeshima / Dokdo islands. My goal was to track the changes of possesion and claims on the islands, and use this as a way to analyze the tensions between Japan and Korea.

Dokdo or Takeshima is a blog that I found to be extremely helpful because it sourced many geographic representations of both Japan’s and Korea’s claims on the island. In terms of Japan’s representation of its land, David Rumsey’s online collection of Japanese historical maps contains depictions ranging from the early 1600s to the 1900s. I hope to be able to collect a number of relevant images and superimpose them to create an archive of sorts on the conflict. I find a certain significance in responding to this issue of international debate in a manner that mirrors its causes and contributors.

There has been a long history of “textbook disputes” – which is to say that the nationally-approved publications of various school textbooks in Japan have consistently served as kindle to the fire between Japan and Korea. The most recent instance of this is that related to the halt in 3/11 relief efforts from South Korea, after twelve textbooks that propounded Japanese ownership of the islands were approved. Out of those twelve, four went as far to say that Korea was occupying the islands illegally.

Interior of Japanese Textbook

Covers of the Texts

The textbook is especially crucial because the government is responsible for approving its contents; thus, anything written in the texts have been inferred to be supported by the Japanese government – implicitly, if not explicitly so. The propagation of material on this issue is a national matter, but it is especially important to the people of Shimane Prefecture (the prefecture to which the islands belong, according to Japan’s delegation).

Posters from Shimane Prefecture

The purpose of compiling these different representations is not so much to preserve a history, but to deliver a comprehensive and overwhelmingly objective presentation of the conflict. That the compilation – hopefully very extensive – borders on absurdist encourages a discussion that goes beyond the islands themselves and addresses the greater importance of creating a positive relationship between Japan and Korea.

In a study of national disasters conducted by Philip Nel and Marjolein Righarts, data collected from 187 countries and other political entities for the period 1950 to 2000 was analyzed in correlation to national disasters. They reported the following: “… rapid-onset natural disasters significantly increase the risk of violent civil conflict both in the short and medium-term, specifically in low- and middle-income countries that have high inequality, mixed political regimes (which are neither fully autocratic or democratic), and sluggish economic growth.”

Rakhi Bhavani argues the following in a publication on natural disaster conflicts:

“…Sudden changes brought on by natural disasters exacerbate problems that people face on a daily basis, heightening conditions for conflict such as grievances, political opportunity, and mobilization. Disasters create grievances that lead to conflict by causing mass disruption, impacting individual behavior, community and political organizations, and the power relationships between individuals, groups, and the organizations that serve them. In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, a country’s physical infrastructure is affected often preventing the adequate distribution of food and medical supplies. Crops are destroyed, giving rise to food shortages, famines, and localized conflicts over resources. As a disaster destroys many key social and political institutions, it threatens political stability and creates a power vacuum and opportunity for warlords and criminal gangs to usurp power…A natural disaster has the propensity to reshape society and along with it, its ability to manage risk, grievances, and political change.”

I plan to proceed by analzying a series of examples of conflicts between two nations that were causally linked to natural disasters. Then, I will take a closer look at the relationship between Japan and Korea, specifically, as well as their history of territorial disputes. These two studies will provide a better understanding of how natural disasters engender political, international conflict, and alternatively, how existing conflicts may be amplified by natural disasters.

A few examples of past cases of natural disaster-caused conflicts are the following:

• Drought in Kenya (Summer 2011)
• The Bhola Cyclone in Bangladesh (1970)
• The Irish Potato Famine (1845 – 1852)

I will delve in the details of these examples, as well as others, and how they present different conditions caused by natural disasters that exacerbate the tensions between the involved nations.

As I was reading about various cases, I realized that there was a common element of land ownership and claim; I found that it was necessary to understand the geographical relationship – along with the political – in order to fully grasp the resultant impact of the natural disaster and international conflict. Perhaps this is a more specific point of focus for my project, or direction that may dictate the presentation and explication of the relationship between natural disasters and international conflict.

In continuing my project focus from Assignment 1, I wish to use the topic of international relations to draw a connection to Japan’s 3/11 disaster. The conflict that I had previously analyzed was an internal conflict between the Japanese and Koreans, a direct consequence of the fear of rebellion and uprising from colonized Korea in the 1920s. Such was a case of the Japanese garnering a sort of xenophobia as a result of the fires and well poisonings that followed the Great Kantō Earthquake.

The 3/11 triple disasters presents a contraparallel issue. Since the late 2000s, Japan has experienced a case of the “Galapagos effect” in various industries, though most prominently in the electronics and mobile industries. After 3/11, there has been a growing concern of further isolation – one that does not follow the trend of progress – of Japan from the world economy and from global networks.

One notable initiative to prevent and remedy the image of Japan to other nations rests in tourism. The Japan Tourism Agency has since created new solutions to encourage visitors to see the beauties – both urban and natural – of Japan.

Message from Japan (video)

Similarly, as time approaches the anniversary of the 3/11 disaster, efforts made to connect Japan with other nations include a commemorative event that involves displaying videos of Japan’s cherry blossoms on the screens in New York City’s Times Square.

Despite similar efforts from Japan to improve its situation – worsened by the nuclear incident that already placed Japan in an unfavorable position – there are still conflicted sentiments between Japan and its neighbors. For example, South Korea suspended its humanitarian aid to Japan at the end of March 2011 upon Japan’s Ministry of Education’s approval of textbooks that allegedly stretched the truth regarding territorial claims on Dokdo/Takeshima – a series of islets along South Korea. A statement in The Diplomat makes the significance of this reaction quite clear: “Dokdo/Takeshima is not a mere subject of territorial controversy, but also symbolizes the legacy of Japanese colonial rule as the first ‘territorial’ concession to Japan in 1905.”

Japan has reached out to Australia in hopes of strengthening the Free Trade Agreement between the two countries. Japan’s rural areas near the Fukushima power plant were undoubtedly affected by the disaster, and Japan’s agricultural production has since suffered.

This has created tensions between Japan and Australia; while Japan hopes to leverage the goodwill between the countries to improve its resources, Australia is also looking for other alliances with neighboring East Asian countries – resulting in, essentially, economic threats to Japan. Japan and Australia are headed into another round of negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement this spring.

Japan, over the past year, has actively made the effort to open itself to international eyes in its call for aid and recovery from the disaster. However, the call has not always been returned with friendly answers. To better understand Japan’s current position in terms of international relations, the following are questions that merit acknowledgment:

• What consequences await Japan should a period of isolation follow?
• What is being done to alleviate the issue, and what situations have catalyzed further animosity?
• How can Japan most effectively reach out despite these differences that lie between the nation and its neighbors – both near and far?