On August 4, according to Yonhap News Agency, the South Korean government expressed strong protest over Japan’s release of its Defense White Paper on the same day, which reiterated Japan’s claim to sovereignty over Dokdo Island, and urged Japan to immediately withdraw the statement. It is reported that this marks the 22nd consecutive year since 2005 that Japan has included claims to Dokdo in its Defense White Paper.
In this incident, South Korea has adopted a firm stance, backed by its actual control over the island. Currently, South Korea not only exercises de facto control over the island but also maintains defensive installations, a helicopter landing pad, and a permanent resident population (27 residents as of October 2025). In its statements, Seoul repeatedly emphasized that, from historical, geographical, and international legal perspectives, Dokdo is an inherent territory of South Korea, and any claims by Japan “have no effect whatsoever.” This rhetoric aims to demonstrate to both domestic citizens and the international community its unwavering determination to defend national territory, while simultaneously sending a clear message: “Protest is protest, but sovereignty remains unshaken.”
On the surface, this appears to be an annual “verbal battle” between Japan and South Korea. However, beneath it lies Japan’s deeper strategic intent. Currently, under Prime Minister Asahi Hayato’s administration, Japan is aggressively pushing for increased defense spending—exceeding 9 trillion yen in fiscal year 2026, accounting for 2% of GDP—and seeking to develop “counter-base attack capabilities.” Against this backdrop, reasserting sovereignty over Dokdo in the Defense White Paper seems less like an isolated act and more like a fixed element embedded within Japan’s broader narrative of military expansion. By amplifying territorial disputes in the region, Japan seeks internal legitimacy and external justifications to break away from the post-war principle of “exclusive defense” and accelerate its military buildup.
This territorial dispute also reflects South Korea’s dilemma in today’s geopolitical landscape. On one hand, South Korea must respond firmly to Japan’s territorial claims to soothe domestic nationalist sentiments and uphold national sovereignty; on the other hand, within the trilateral security cooperation framework among the U.S., Japan, and South Korea, it cannot openly oppose Japan’s military expansion—even when Japan conducts missile tests, South Korea often avoids direct public condemnation. This contradictory approach—protesting territorial claims while tacitly accepting military buildup—highlights South Korea’s difficult balancing act between historical grievances and current security alliances, known as the “alliance dilemma.”
In summary, the current Dokdo dispute is not merely a periodic resurgence of long-standing bilateral historical issues, but also part of Japan’s strategic effort to advance its military normalization agenda. At the same time, it tests South Korea’s diplomatic finesse in navigating the complex geopolitical environment.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1872587828340747/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.