Japan’s Foreign Minister Reiterates Claim to Dokdo, Sparking Korean Protest
For the 13th consecutive year, Japan’s Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi has asserted Japan’s claim to the Dokdo islands, known as Takeshima in Japan, during an annual foreign policy speech delivered to the Diet on Wednesday, February 20, 2026. The statement has swiftly drawn a strong rebuke from South Korea, which maintains effective control over the islands and considers them an integral part of its territory. This recurring dispute underscores the complex historical and geopolitical tensions between the two nations.
Motegi stated, according to reports from Yonhap News Agency, that “Takeshima in Shimane Prefecture is, in light of historical facts and under international law, inherently Japanese territory,” and pledged a “steadfast manner” in pursuing this claim. Yonhap News reported that the remarks mirrored those made a year prior by then-Foreign Minister Iwaya Takeshi. The assertion follows a pattern established in 2014 when then-Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida first made the claim in a foreign policy speech, with successive ministers repeating the statement annually.
A Long-Standing Territorial Dispute
The Dokdo/Takeshima islands, a small group of islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea), have been a source of contention between Japan and South Korea for decades. South Korea currently administers the islands, maintaining a small police detachment there and refers to them as Dokdo. Japan, however, continues to claim sovereignty based on its interpretation of historical records and international law. The dispute centers on differing interpretations of treaties and historical events, particularly those relating to the aftermath of World War II and the delineation of territorial waters.
The islands are strategically located and hold potential fishing and mineral resources, though their economic value is relatively limited. More significantly, the dispute has become a potent symbol of national pride and historical grievances for both countries. South Korea views Japan’s claims as a continuation of its colonial past, while Japan insists its claims are based on legitimate historical and legal grounds.
Motegi’s Tenure and Recent Diplomatic Efforts
Toshimitsu Motegi, born October 7, 1955, is currently serving as Japan’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, a position he previously held from 2019 to 2021. According to his Wikipedia profile, he also served as Secretary-General of the Liberal Democratic Party from 2021 to 2024 and held portfolios as Minister of State for Economic and Fiscal Policy and Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry. He assumed his current role on October 21, 2025, under Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi.
Despite the ongoing territorial dispute, Motegi acknowledged South Korea as an “important neighboring country” and expressed a desire to “develop our relationship in a future-oriented and stable manner.” This statement suggests a continued effort to maintain diplomatic channels despite the disagreement over Dokdo/Takeshima. However, the repeated assertion of the territorial claim is likely to complicate efforts to improve bilateral relations.
South Korea’s Response and International Implications
South Korea’s government has strongly protested Motegi’s statement, demanding its immediate retraction. MSN News reported that the government views Japan’s claims as unacceptable and a challenge to South Korea’s sovereignty. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Seoul issued a statement emphasizing that Dokdo is unequivocally Korean territory, both historically and legally.
The dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima has broader implications for regional security and cooperation. It strains relations between Japan and South Korea, both key allies of the United States in East Asia. The United States typically maintains a neutral stance on the territorial dispute, urging both countries to resolve their differences peacefully through dialogue. However, the ongoing disagreement can hinder trilateral cooperation on issues such as North Korea’s nuclear program and regional security challenges.
Historical Context and Legal Arguments
Japan’s claim to Dokdo/Takeshima is based on its assertion that the islands were historically part of Japanese territory and that they were incorporated into Japan before Korea gained independence from Japanese colonial rule in 1945. Japan argues that the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, which formally ended World War II, did not specifically address the ownership of Dokdo/Takeshima, and therefore Japan’s claim remains valid.
South Korea counters that the islands were historically considered part of Korean territory and that Japan illegally annexed them during its colonial occupation of Korea. South Korea points to historical maps and documents that demonstrate Korean control over the islands for centuries. South Korea argues that the San Francisco Peace Treaty implicitly recognized South Korea’s sovereignty over Dokdo/Takeshima by not including them in the territories relinquished by Japan.
The differing interpretations of historical events and legal documents make a resolution to the dispute exceedingly difficult. Both countries have deeply entrenched positions and are unlikely to compromise on what they consider a matter of national sovereignty.
Looking Ahead
The cycle of annual assertions and protests suggests that the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute is unlikely to be resolved in the near future. The next significant event to watch for will be the annual foreign policy speeches delivered by Japanese foreign ministers in the coming years, as these will likely continue to reiterate Japan’s claim to the islands. Continued diplomatic efforts, while challenging, remain crucial to preventing the dispute from escalating and further damaging relations between Japan and South Korea.
The ongoing tension highlights the importance of addressing historical grievances and fostering mutual understanding between the two countries. Without a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and acknowledge differing perspectives, the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute will likely remain a persistent source of friction in East Asia.
What are your thoughts on this ongoing dispute? Share your comments below.