Just in case the F-5s didn’t make it clear enough:
Seoul?s top diplomat said yesterday the Tokto problem takes precedence over relations between South Korea and Japan, displaying Seoul?s resolution to protect its sovereignty over the tiny islets.
“The Tokto issue, which is directly linked to our territorial sovereignty, is the foremost issue in the Seoul-Tokyo relationship,” Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ban Ki-moon said during a weekly press briefing.
“In this sense, I clearly state that we will deal sternly with the issue to protect our territory,” he told reporters, though he also expressed hope that the bilateral relations should go well based on the future-oriented partnership.
Generally, I coincide with Nora’s take on Ban’s grandstanding. On the other hand, with so many other pending issues of far greater importance, I have no idea why the Japanese are pushing this. The only way they’ll ever take possession of those rocks is by prying them from the Koreans’ cold, dead fingers. If you’re going to stake a territorial claim on principle, fine. Do it quietly. But why make a big stink with an important partner over a territorial claim you’ll never, ever collect on? It seems to me that if the Japanese were unwilling to give up their claim, for whatever reason, there would be a need for some sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” arrangement made.
On a related note, it seems the Hankyoreh attempted to do a hatchet job on GNP lawmaker Kim Moon-soo by quoting him (in a headline, no less) as saying that Korea shouldn’t interfere in the Yasukuni Shrine issue and linking his opinions to those of now former Korea University professor Hanh Sung-jo. It was big news when it broke — my jaw dropped when I first read it. When I finished work and went to look for it, however, all traces of it had disappeared. Naturally enough, I found this a bit odd, so I went over to the bulletin board of the good lawmaker’s personal homepage to see what was what. Sure enough, there was a notice on his BBS protesting the piece and demanding it be withdrawn, which it apparently was. According to the notice, Kim clearly said during his interview with the Hani that the Korean people could never tolerate the Japanese prime minister praying for war criminals. He did say, however, that praying purely for the war dead (i.e., not the war criminals) was not something to be made an issue of. The notice also took issue with linking his (incorrectly reported) opinion with that of Prof. Hanh, a man whom Kim had never met and whose views on the Yasukuni Shrine issue he did not know.
40 Comments
Gerry, this time i have to disagree, the boats and aircraft have been the ones to stir up the issue again, in the short term at least, but as you mentioned, if they don’t do anything then that could be seen as accepting koreas ownership of the islands. (just like to hedge my bets).
Kimbob, i disagree that korea has nothing to gain, and japan has nothing to lose in accepting arbitration. There is a lot of face to be lost which is what this whole issue is about really. It would be a pretty big blow to either sides position if they were to lose the case. although parhaps japan has more to gain and less to lose than korea.
Out of interest does anyone actually know what type of figure the fishing rights around the islands are worth? I mean it is often used as a justification of the importance of the islands, but i was wondering how much its actually worth financially, and whether its even more than maintaining the coast guard etc.
Kimbob,
Yes, Korea is occupying the islets, but what benefits is she gaining from it? On the contrary, she is wasting money by keeping soldiers on the islet and sending out warships and fighters everytime a Japanese civilian boat or aircraft gets too close.
If Korea settles the issue in the International Court, she can start taking full advantage of the natural resources in the waters surrounding, and can stop wasting time and energy fighting over the islets with Japan.
If Korea’s occupation of the islets means Korea does not have to go to the International Court, then shouldn’t it also mean that she does not need to get upset at or bother to refute Japan’s claims on the islets? Why does Korea get so upset at Japan’s claims to the islets, and why is she always trying to make an issue of it? Could it be that Korea is not satisfied with just stationing troops on the islets, but also wants the benefits of having legal recognition for her claim to the islets?
No, Korea is not going to the International Court because she already occupies the islets; she is not going there because she fears she will lose the islets, which means her claim to them is not as strong as she tries to make people believe.
Marmot,
Why do you think it is the Japanese who are “pushing” the Tokdo/Takeshima issue? Was it the Japanese who sent four F-5s to chase away one small civilian aircraft? Was it the Japanese military who mobilized to protect the rocks from a small civilian motor boat? Was it the Japanese Foreign Affairs minister who said the islets were “the foremost issue in the Seoul-Tokyo relationship”? Did the Japanese issue postage stamps, give the rock cell phone service, or make the islets part of a marine national park? It seems quite obvious to me that it is Korea, not Japan, that is doing most of the pushing here.
By the way, when making territorial claims, is it wise to do it quietly? Don’t people have to know that you are making a claim? One can refute territorial claims or claim territory without making an issue of it, which is what Japan has been doing. If Japan stops refuting Korea’s claims on the islets, then Korea’s claims become stronger. Korea could then say, “We claimed the island, and Japan said nothing, so then it must me ours.” No, Japan seems to be trying to deal with the issue as quietly as possible; Korea is the one making all the noise.
Japan has legitimate claims on the islets, which is why Korea refuses to let the International Court of Justice settle the issue. Japan is willing, but Korea is not. If Korea’s claim was so secure, one would think that she would welcome the chance to settle the issue once and for all. Why does Korea not want to take the issue to the International Court?
Your bias is showing, Marmot. It is Korea who is making “a big stink” over the islets, not Japan.
Why should Korea take this to the international courts when it has the islets? If there’s even 0.00001% chance that Korea will lose in the courts, I would not think Korea would even risk that, if there’s no real return benefits for Korea for taking it to the courts. Of course Japan on the other hand, would have nothing to lose if they took this to court. Just think of this as a civil case. Would you agree to go to court because a person is accusing you that you stole his car? The same car that you firmly believe is yours? If you lose in court, you must give back the car. If you win, nothing changes (because you continue to own something that you had in the first place). With that why would you even bother going through the excercise, just to prove you’re right?
If this issue is the “foremost” one affecting bilateral realtions between Korean and Japan, perhaps the Japanese should concede soveriegnity (with appropriate reciprocal concessions from Seoul about fully shared fishing rights - which is the economic aspect of this issue) in exchange for Korea’s living up to it’s own statement of principles in the March 1 Declaration of Independence and desisting from its interminable whingeing about and attempts to renegotiate the terms of the settlement of Korea’s claims against Japan for the colonial occupation.
Of course, I don’t have any illusions about any scuh deal being realized, because there is no one on the Korean political scene with the vision or courage to effect such a deal - which admittedly would be hard to sell domestically because of general inability of Koreans to compromise instead of taking the zero-sum game approach.
“Tokdo is our land!” Well, it keeps people here from focusing on the government’s handling of the economy, North Korea, crooked politicians or whatever else is going wrong at the moment. This crap gets drudged up every year, and it usually originates from Korea, not Japan. Virtually every country in the world has territorial issues with neighbours, but does it have to sink to this level of nationalist idiocy? Most Japanese couldn’t give a flying you-know-what about Tokdo/Takeshima, aside from a few right wing nuts and nationalist fishermen in the neighbouring prefecture, but it is presented in the local media, not to mention the government, as being somehow representative of all Japanese (like the textbooks, the shrine, etc.) I am stunned into silence every time I read a Korean newspaper editorial suggesting Japan hasn’t become a “normal” country yet! Korea has Tokdo - the rocks aren’t going anywhere - and that is probably appropriate. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if “No Japanese” signs begin popping up again in Myongdong, not to mention Korean right wing lunatics cutting off their fingers, and suddenly Lotte Hotel has a lot of vacancies. Oops. I really like Korea, but isn’t it time to move on and focus on what matters in the present? I know it isn’t as easy as dwelling on past misery, but…
As pointed out, Korea has nothing to gain and everything to lose by going to the International Court. (Japan won’t be going to the International Court anytime soon to argue in favor of maintaining “Sea of Japan” either, as it remains a more widely accepted name than “East Sea”!) The Koreans control Tokdo - have since the fifties - and there seems to be little indication the Japanese are remotely serious about going to war to take it away from them. (I realize there exists a continued concern - paranoia, really - among many Koreans when it comes to the possibility of another Japanese invasion, but I would suggest they be more concerned with neighbours to the north and west…)
This is a moot point, but who would supposedly enforce an International Court of Justice decision that would almost certainly be ignored by one of the parties?
Oh please Gerry, get over the International Court business already! The International Court’s decisions have no legal binding, neither country has to follow what they say. Korea has no reason to go through the problems of taking the case there when they already occupy and control the islands. To Korea, there is not dispute, they own them. It is Japan that continues to cause waves by allowing the provocative actions of its citizens and misguided statements from its officials.
When I own something, I live there and I’ve built there, why in the world would I let some arbitrary group proffer opinions on my ownership? Korea has absolutely NOTHING to gain by going to the International Court.
plunge,
i have a pretty limited knowledge of international law, but isn’t arbitration legally binding because of common law, and in an international case having the agreement ratified by the respective domestic governments? So before the actual case is started, both sides agree to abide by the decission of the court and thus make it legally binding.
i also disagree that korea has no reason to ‘go through the problems” of the legal settlement. They could clear up the issue once and for all.
And lastly, its by no means just japan who stirs up controversy over the islands, both korea and japan love keeping it close to the pubic eye, possibly as candu mentioned to draw attention from the other political issues.
Wow, it’s really sad that this is the foremost issue in the Seoul-Tokyo relationship.
Yes possession is often 9/10 of the law but If Korea had the only solid claim to the island they would want to get this whole mess done with and take it to court. That would be a major benefit. The problem is both have solid claims to the island and Korea would have a decent chance of losing it. It is obvious it is not only Japan stirring up the issue but Korea as well. Remember the stamp issue? Idealistically this would go to court but realistically Korea won’t have it for fear of losing it and realistically Japan must exert its claim from time to time or lose it as Gerry mentioned.
Brilliant post by Candu talking about using the issue for nationalism and to keep the public eye away from the real issues. I’m sure it will be a major part of someones Presidential platform in the next Presidential election.
gerry, you’re calling mr marmot biased? YOU? you’re the most serious korea basher i know. korea doesn’t need to go to court because there’s no issue here. get over it, ok?
I think it should be mandatory for any Korean or Japanese article mentioning the islets should come with a picture of them — something to show the physical reality of what they are fighting over. Also, whenever the news shows a clip from this or that speech, the same thing — plop a picture of them up.
“It is Japan that continues to cause waves by allowing the provocative actions of its citizens and misguided statements from its officials.”
What exactly do you expect the Japanese government to do about these rogues practicing their freedom of speech and movement?
If the Korean government has practical ownership of the islands and it’s obvious that Japan is not willing to stage an invasion to take them back, why on earth does the Korean government care about a boatload of misguided nationalists or the empty words of some minor politicians?
The answer is that Koreans don’t feel their possession is enough. It’s obvious that Korea not only needs practical ownership, but they desperately need the appearance of international legitimacy of their claim as well, and that’s what they have to gain by going to the international court.
If in fact they didn’t care about the legitimacy end of ownership and only cared about possession, then they wouldn’t overreact, raise a monumental stink, and risk their lucrative economic relationship with Japan every time a quote appeared in a Japanese newspaper from some idiots claiming to be legitimate owners.
Using your example above, if you own something, live there and have built there, why in the world would you care if the idiot across the street tells his friends that he’s the true owner of your property?
The answer is, you wouldn’t care. Now ask yourself why Koreans do care and what practical step they can take to remedy that concern.
They need to put up or shut up. Either go to the International Court and try to get the legitimacy they crave, or forget about legitimacy and ignore the Japanese provocations.
As is usually the case with Koreans, they’ll likely do neither. We can look forward to a future filled with angry rhetoric and posturing in response to every ripple from Japan, and at the same time they’ll do absolutely nothing to put a permanent end to the very ripples they can’t tolerate.
Gerry I would like to introduce you to a great site with a ton of research work on Tokdo. (It also has a link to Japanese point of view)
Looking through this well researched website I must give kudos to the guy who put it together.
** http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html **
Korea is overreacting? I disagree. I don’t think Japan (as a whole) has any “imperialistic” cravings yet but one should remember history. When Japan started inching toward Korea during the late 19th century and the early 20th century, they started with Tokdo and then Ulloongdo.
Juan the site you gave was nice. But the fact that it is titled “The Territorial Dispute Over Dokdo” infers a certain point of view or bias. They use the Korean name Dokdo for the island and not both the Korean/Japanese terms for the island. That tells me this website is biased. Also, I have read some much better claims from the Japanese side than what this one website offers again pointing to the bias of this site.
Hello non korean. The sources that you claim as much better from the Japanese side, I would love it if you could share it with us. I would like to compare it with the Korean ones.
And yes the author of the site is biased (bias may be the wrong choice of word) favorably toward the Korean side. But if you read his writing I believe that he tries to give a fair representation of the perception of both parties. I would love to see someone refute this guy’s research with detailed research of his/her own.
The Japanese point of view I found online so far has been found lacking in substancial research and logic. (most sites I found were in line with propaganda, and mixture of half truths) If you have something better it might change my perception on the topic
I would also like to know why Marmot thinks it is the Japanese pushing the issue. Does he think that private vessels and airplanes are following the orders of the Japanese government? Lets remember that last year the Japanese Coast Guard stopped Japanese nationalists from sailing to Takeshima/Dokto.
Japan does have the stronger claim to Takeshima/Dokto - the Koreans have cynically used Japan’s peace constitution to illegally invade and occupy that island, knowing that retribution is unlikely.
I think this issue perfectly illustrates the two cultral differences at play here. I guess you can also throw in the growing anti-Korean mood in the expat/ex-expat community who will support anything against Korea. There’s no such thing as unbiased. Everybody’s biased. But that’s another issue.
Korea’s over-reaction was entirely predictable considering that they highly distrust Japan based on history dating back to 1500’s. Starting with Hideyoshi who offered diplomacy upfront but in reality planning a invasion that wiped out 1/4 of Korea’s population. Same thing just before 1906 when they dragged out the Korean queen of a country which was a soveriegn nation at the time, slaughtering and butchering her in the court yards then dumping the body like a dog. Japan looked like a civilized peaceful negotiating country at that time as well. The last time Koreans tried to peacefully accept Japan’s every proposals and sat by and said nothing, Korea got turned into a Japanese prefecture. Taking in those considerations, Koreans’ paranoia reaction is entirely a no surprise.
What’s Japan’s take on this? They are practicing quiet diplomacy. Japan looks rational upfront but behind the scenes, they are doing everything they can to light the fire. Their people are not clamouring to get the islets back. So why the Japanese government continue to antagonize an issue by doing such as passing bills claiming the islet as Japan’s, knowing full well what the reactions are going to be from the otherside of the sea? Why push for something that their own people don’t care about? It’s like scratching a blackboard with claws. Japan has also once claimed the islands of Ullungdo and Cheju as Japan’s as well. Those claims died a slow death when Korea strongly denied them, and this claim for the Tokdo/Takeshima will as well. But then maybe not. Those islands represent how much territorial waters you get to possess - that includes rich fishing and rich natural gas potential.
I dont understand some parts of the discussion going on here.
shakuhachi: what is your basis of saying that Takeshima is Japanese territory? I have never really heard of a convincing argument from the Japanese side. Koreans clearly have earliest historic evidence as well as maps published by Japanese that draw Dokdo/takeshima as Korean territory. It is widely accepted that the treaties before the Japanese occupation are generally forced and illegal. Can you please explain more?
I also dont understand why people say Japanese are practicing quiet diplomacy. It was Takeda proclaimed Takeshima as Japanese territory in the middle of Seoul. It was the Japanese local government that started the Takeshima Day and started advertising it as Japanese. It were Japanese civilians that infringed (or at least tried to) the current border that is practically in effect by the Koreans.
In contrast, the Korean governemnt remains quiet. True, recently officials have responded strongly against Japanese claims to the island, but that is pure politics. A politician says what the people want to hear; and the people in Korea want officials to take strong measures (against what some say as Japanese Neo-imperialism), dont bow to Japanese declarations and demonstrate the independency and strenght of Korea. Hence, President Roh calls for compensation and Minister Ban puts Dokto infront of Korea-Japan Relations. But all they do is talk, and their talk is surely just for internal use only, not export use. Their talk is not taking little effect in Japan, and it is suppose to be that way.
In my opinion, it is the Japanese that are provoking Korea to elicit some reaction that will get them to the court. As said above, Japan has a disadvantage in their claim and a generally unaware public. They need to make a national Takeshima day, put advertisements and make stamps. They need to push and be loud. Korea in contrast enjoys practical ownership of Dokdo and an aware enthusiastic public. They have no reason to make this loud, and risk matters in court. I think people are mainly saying Korea is loud because the general public is indeed loud and government officials have spoken words to appease the public. These is apparent when you see majority of Korean people complain about their quiet and weak diplomacy when dealing with China or Japan. Also, remember that Minister Ban enraged Koreans when he discouraged army officers to enter Dokdo because that might ‘provoke’ the Japanese.
Kimbob Tarion my thoughts exactly! You just scratched that itching part on my back that I just couldn’t reach
Ahhhhh………
“What exactly do you expect the Japanese government to do about these rogues practicing their freedom of speech and movement?”
Hmmm… if they cared about their relationship with Korea, they would block the actions before Korea was forced to.
“If the Korean government has practical ownership of the islands and it??s obvious that Japan is not willing to stage an invasion to take them back, why on earth does the Korean government care about a boatload of misguided nationalists or the empty words of some minor politicians?”
The ambassador to Korea is a minor politician?
I suppose they could let the Japanese land then arrest them for trespassing, I’m sure that would be great for relations.
“Using your example above, if you own something, live there and have built there, why in the world would you care if the idiot across the street tells his friends that he??s the true owner of your property?”
Because in a situation like this, the longer and louder they shout it without you reacting, the more others might begin to believe it. You defend what is yours.
“They need to put up or shut up. Either go to the International Court and try to get the legitimacy they crave, or forget about legitimacy and ignore the Japanese provocations.”
Again with the bogus International Court crap. The International Court has no way to enforce their rulings. It is a last gasp by Japan as they have lost in every other way to lay claim to the islands. A ruling by the court is worth about as much as the paper it is printed on. It is foolish to think that either side would abide by the decision of the court.
Japan is being more and more proactive not only when it comes to DokDo, but with islands they are in dispute with Russia about as well. Saying it is a few misguided minor politicians or radicals is ridiculous, it is coming from the highest levels of the Japanese government.
In case someone here doesn’t know about the dispute with Russia, Japan’s parliament unanimously passed a resolution calling for a peace treaty deciding the fate of disputed territories in the North. This is fine except for the fact that they all of a sudden to add additional land to the dispute!
Tarion,
Here is a link to Japan’s position on Tokdo/Takeshima, according The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.
Here is a link to the Korean government’s position, according to the Ministry of Maritime Affairs Fisheries.
Reading the information on the Ministry of Maritime Affairs Fisheries site, it seems the Korean strategy for dealing with the “Tokdo/Takeshima issue is unrealistic and contradictory.
First, the Korean stategy is to deny that there is even a territorial dispute. To make such a denial with a straight face, one would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind. Second, given that the Korean government’s strategy is to denial that there is a dispute, the site suggests a “continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty,” and says “to make struggles with Japan is not consequently helpful.” However, the Korean government seems to be going out of its way “to make struggles with Japan.”
If Korea’s strategy is to deny there is a territorial dispute, why is the Korean government constantly fighting with Japan over the islets, and why did the Korean foreign minister come out and say that it was “the foremost issue in the Seoul/Tokyo relationship”? Is this a case of Korea talking out of both sides of her mouth at the same time?
I want to see a full-blown conflict over this. The JMSDF and JASDF could take out Korea’s maritime and air forces in a heartbeat. I’m not so sure the JGSDF could handle a boy scout troop, however. Let the games begin!
This has little to do with the Korean government’s policy of disregarding Dokdo as disputed territory. If an official representative of another country began laying claims on part of your land, you would want to confront them, not so much as part of a “dispute” over the territory but to protect your sovereignty and what is yours. If the Mexican government (for the lack of a better example) started laying claims on Texas, should the U.S. government stay quiet just because Texas is not “disputed territory?” As for the flybys, well if you got illegal Mexican immigrants (again, for the lack of a better example) trying to fly across the border into Texas, you would want to intercept them with whatever you got.
The interesting thing about the comments in this blog is that most “anti-Korean” (in whatever sense) comments have Korean flags next to them, while the “pro-Korean” (in whatever sense) comments have other countries’ flags. Geez, guys, Korea must have been really harsh on you to have made you all so disgruntled and wanting to lash out at any chance you got. I mean, I know Korea can be a difficult place, but surely there are also positive aspects that you can enjoy. Well, tough luck!
In a sense I can also understand where their frustrations come from. After all, if you ‘ve been screwed by a Hagwon, see massive public anti-American demonstrations on TV, and you see TV exposes on bad English teachers in Korea, you would be pissed and feel disgruntled and not too particularly supportive of the host country. I think if Korea wants to have ouside support from other countries on issues that effect Korea, Koreans need to be far less xenophobic and more open. That is just my opinion.
Thank you Gerry, for the links! I will have look at them
Just because some other country claims it, the territory doesnt become all of the sudden disputed. Mexico could claim Texas, but that doesnt make Texas a disputed territory.
Wooj said exactly what I wanted to say
If things were that way, heck, Korea should claim Tokyo and take it to the court. Hey, we dont have anything to loose right?
@Wedge: Korea and Japan are roughly equivalent in airforce; Korea has a weaker navy but superior (way superior) army. Korean soldiers have 2 years of experience in army while majority of Japanese never had a gun in their hands. But a war between them right now is sooo hyperthetical…
Ok, had a look at the sites Gerry linked but I must say I am still unsatisfied (with both of them actually). This is exactly why I find these sources unconvincing: They argue only their point and fail to address and/or refute the points and arguments made by the other side. Some sites are comprehensive of both viewpoints and contrast them, but those ones are usually biased.
Right now Im sitting on a school computer, hence cant type korean, so cant run a search, but I’ve read/seen a discussion between Korean Anchor Son and a Japanese Official from Siname. Those are the things I want, where the two views are equally represented, contrasted and compared.
kimbob - I agree, and I do feel sorry about it sometimes. Awe well.
“Hmmm?? if they cared about their relationship with Korea, they would block the actions before Korea was forced to.”
Block what? Block Japanese from flying in Japanese airspace? From going in international waters? Send the military in to the Shimane prefecture to put tape over all the local politicians lips and chop off their fingers so can’t write?
“The ambassador to Korea is a minor politician?”
In the absence of a Japanese invasion and physical takeover of the islands — which we all know is not going to happen — I don’t care if it’s Koizumi himself who claims ownership. Words and resolutions without action mean nothing unless the Koreans give them meaning.
The official position of the Japanese government has been that it’s a disputed area and that they believe they own Dokdo. It’s been that way for 50 years, so why does the ambassador repeating that long-held position mean anything more now than it did last month or last year or 10 years ago?
“Because in a situation like this, the longer and louder they shout it without you reacting, the more others might begin to believe it. You defend what is yours.”
For a minute there I thought you were Korean, because that last sentence implies that anyone outside of the Koreans and Japanese give a shit about two rocks. No seriously, are you really saying that the world’s powers are even listening to either side of this scrap, much less caring about it? If you asked George Bush or any other world leader what Dokdo is, you think there’d be something other than a blank stare on their faces? Hmmmm….Iraq, Al-Qaeda, Iran, Chechen rebels, the Sudan, and Dokdo. All matters of grave concern to the entire world.
Don’t fall into the Korean trap of pretending like this is of international importance. It’s not, and no one in the real world cares what Shimane prefecture politicians yell and scream about. Not even the people of the Shimane prefecture.
“Again with the bogus International Court crap. The International Court has no way to enforce their rulings. It is foolish to think that either side would abide by the decision of the court.”
If both sides submit to the authority of the court and agree to abide by the decision, it’s not foolish. We’re not talking about a one-sided Japanese suit here.
“Japan is being more and more proactive not only when it comes to DokDo, but with islands they are in dispute with Russia about as well. Saying it is a few misguided minor politicians or radicals is ridiculous, it is coming from the highest levels of the Japanese government.”
And by proactive you mean yelling louder and louder. Who cares? If you’re foolish enough to think that stamps and Takeshima Day will translate into an invasion, then your paranoia makes you worse than the Koreans on this issue. It’s no longer 1910, in case you hadn’t noticed.
“In case someone here doesn??t know about the dispute with Russia, Japan??s parliament unanimously passed a resolution calling for a peace treaty deciding the fate of disputed territories in the North. This is fine except for the fact that they all of a sudden to add additional land to the dispute!”
Once again, they can pass resolutions till the Kobe cows come home, and that doesn’t mean squat in practical terms.
Are you really frightened by stamps and resolutions? If you are, and the Koreans are, it’s your own damn fault.
Japan is not going to take any action that would jeopardize their “peaceful nation” status or risk starting a war with either Russia or Korea. Can you accept that simple fact? Once you do, your entire argument falls to pieces. And if you don’t, you’re not informed enough about Japan’s intentions to be taken seriously.
hanminjoke:
You keep contradicting yourself. First it was a minor politician, so nobody should care. Now it is, “I don??t care if it??s Koizumi himself who claims ownership. Words and resolutions without action mean nothing unless the Koreans give them meaning.” Words have great meaning, especially words that affect other nations either directly or indirectly. You can’t allow yourself to think that actions won’t follow these words, to do so is irresponsible in the extreme.
So, jabber on all you wish about meaningless gestures from Japan. Korea’s reaction is perfectly acceptable given the history between these two. It has nothing to do with being ‘frightened’ and everything to do with sensible security.
As far as the Japanese stopping provocations, yes it is their responsibility. Just like the US does its best to stop certain groups from provoking the Cubans.
Finally, you are kidding yourself to act as if this doesn’t matter. Japan is becoming more and more nationalistic and reactionary. Japan continues to build their armed forces and their rhetoric is becoming more pointed. With that, the entire dynamics of Asia are changing. To blithely ignore these changes is foolishness in the extreme.
It wasn’t that long ago when it was considered ludicrous to think the USSR would ever collapse, laughable to think of the Berlin wall coming down. Why, a person was ignorant of the situation to even think it might happen. To say that changes, even drastic changes in Asia won’t occur is showing lack of forethought as those above.
It is prudence, not fear or ignorance in action here.
Just wanted to add one more thing. This is from a friend, originally from Russia, now in the US. I’ll get a link to this when I can although I’m sure it will be in Russian.
For now, I give you his translation which shows just how seriously other nations are taking Japan’s sudden and increasingly shrill statements towards disputed territories.
From the Russian press, namely Nezavisimaya Gazeta asks the question of, Does Japan Want All The Kuriles?
Paper claims, now they are demanding that Moscow cede “all other northern territories,” and not just the islands of Habomai, Shikotan, Kunashiri and Etorofu.
The Japanese side has never voiced such territorial claims before. Until now, Tokyo saw the Southern Kurile Islands as “the northern territories.” However, now its seems that Japanese parliamentarians have extended this term to mean all the Kuriles.
Apart from territorial claims, Japan is trying to present other claims to Russia stemming from WWII. For instance, Tokyo wants to portray Japanese prisoners of war captured by the Red Army in northeast China, in Korea, South Sakhalin and the Kuriles, as interned persons.
Japan wants to receive material compensation from Russia.
Japan has also stepped up its territorial disputes with China and Korea, which may leave the international community taking a negative view on Tokyo’s “territorial syndrome.”
This insistent approach to presenting claims could convince Tokyo’s neighbors to forge an informal “front” against Japan. However, analysts believe that this would only complicate security in the Far East.
Here is the link to the Russian article.
http://www.ng.ru/world/2005-03-10/1_japan.html
What is the fishing grounds/oil exploration rights and other economic value of the region around Dokdo or Takeshima or whatever it is called? Now, what is the value of South Korean - Japanese trade?
I don’t know much about the relative merits of the claims, but one would think that people in both countries who care about what is truly important to both countries would try to find some area of compromise to keep their economies on an even keel.
Or maybe they feel a couple of rocks in the ocean are more important than tens of billions of dollars a year in trade.
Juan I am by no means an authority on this matter and have a hard time distinguishing fact from fiction since it is tough to find original sources on the matter and am at the mercy of a site’s bias. Yes there is bias in everything as kimbob mentions but if you read only one side surely it will bias you. People should try to get both sides and as neutral a side as possible. You said you found most Japanese sites in line with propaganda and I would also argue most Korean sites are in line with Korean propaganda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeshima sums up the whole thing well and fairly unbiasly. Since they call it the English name for the island and not the Japanese name or Korean name it is as neutral as you can get. It also lacks some depth as most encyclopedias do.
I have read the early claims by Korea are not solid because when they describe the island they talk about being able to see the island from another island and at least these days that is impossible, raising some doubt about the first Korean claims. I have to admit the site you gave is better than I first thought. For the Japanese claim it starts with 1905 and says nothing about previous accounts. But later I found way down at the bottom of the site, it does have previous Japanese claims. I am not convinced as the site states that the Japanese man that wanted to claim the island??s fishing rights was thinking of approaching Korea for fishing rights. It could be true but I highly doubt it and smells a bit like propaganda. Why would anyone from another country ask for another countries island’s fishing rights? It sounds absurd. The only way we will find this out is by doing true research and find the original source. The other good claim Japan has is the SCAP. Upon Japan’s defeat and occupation by the Allies, SCAP Instruction #677 of January 29, 1946 excluded the islands from Japan’s administrative authority. However, the instruction specifically stated that it was not an ‘ultimate determination’ of the islands’ fate, and all other islands listed in the document were eventually returned to Japan. The fact all the other islands went back to Japan tells me if Korea did not take this island over by force and by sinking a Japanese ship it probably would have gone back to Japan. Japan could have continued fighting but after such a short time after WWII and probably US pressure, it decided to call on the international court. Korea has past claims and is in possession of the island now making a good claim. Japan has previous claims and in 1905 by incorporating it into its modern nation state makes a good claim as well.
Wooj. I don’t think that just because I think that both sides have a legit claim to the island, it makes me Anti-Korean. If you can see why Korea does not want to take it to court (for fear of losing it), surely you can see why Japan wants to assert its claim from time to time ( for fear of losing it).
non korean thankyou for the reply
Also if you read the external links in wikipedia for both perceptions you have to agree that the Japanese link there is very weak. (Please get me a link to better Japanese claims because so far I can’t find any site acceptably refuting http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html )
Wikipedia you mention as a great site on the topic was the first site I researched. That is where from the external links, I got the site for the well researched essay I posted a link to on the previous post.
I have to agree that they try to be unbiased by calling it in English (Liancourt) and their stuff is pretty balanced between the two sides also. (but what is up with the takeshima on the link?
You stated “I have read the early claims by Korea are not solid because when they describe the island they talk about being able to see the island from another island and at least these days that is impossible, raising some doubt about the first Korean claims.”
Hello? Japan claimed that Dokdo was unviewable from Ulloongdo (Another Korean Island that Japan tried to calim for its own) and try to use it as one of their ammos for its cause. BUT anyone who lives in Ulloongdo and anyone who visits Ulloongdo (its a great tourist place) knows Dokdo is perfectly viewable from Ulloongdo! Before one makes a claim they should actually go there and check it out! What do you mean that it is impossible these days? Did the Island migrate?
Also the fishing rights you state as unbelievable. Fishing rights are very important. The reason Japan wants Dokdo now is 1. More land (sea area rather) 2. Better fishing grounds 3. Natural Gas 4. and maybe just maybe other ulterior motives.
Little known fact: There used to be a huge populations of sea lions at Dokdo. A little after Japan claimed first Dokdo and then Korea as its own (yes during the colony period) Japanese fishermen wiped out all the sea lion population in the area. If it was their land I am sure that the Japanese fishermen would have shown a lot more restraint in popultion control. Its like sticking you hands in your neighbors coffers. You don’t show restraint for what you would usually show if it was yours. (They did similar things with a lot of Korean resources, bamboos, gold, national treasures etc.)
You state the fishing story as unbelivable and propaganda. Umm.. sorry to inform you that the fisherman story is actually brought up by Japan as their defense.
Also you state the SCAP instruction. But if you’re right on this it means not only Dokdo but Cheju Island (the biggest Korean Island) and Ulloongdo also belongs to Japan!
Japan has previous claims? Look at the evidence again! Evidence both from Korea and JAPAN! The old documents repeatedly show Dokdo as belonging to Korea.
I fully respect that you are trying to stay on neutral grounds (though slightly leaning on the Japanese side) and are looking at both sides of the story. Most people don’t and it shows that you’re an open person. I hope that you will look at the evidences from both sides (not propaganda, both happening from Korea and Japan) and decide. Thanks
Juan. First thank you for always being polite with your posts. It is something I need to work on sometimes. What I was saying about not being able to see the Island in dispute was researched some time ago by me and I was reciting it by memory. If I have time I will check it out again. But you are assuming that the island you can see Dokdo/Takeshima from is from the island Ulloongdo- it might be from a different island. Again I need to check this out further. With Scap I believe Cheju island and Ulloongdo was a different part of that agreement. Instruction #677 dealt with territory claims that the allies believed Japan had a better claim with and Dokdo/Takeshima was part of that. Cheju and Ulloong were not part of that specific section.
Hello non korean. What do you mean? All the posts I saw you mke were polite (Maybe I missed the good ones
Here is the link to a picutre from Ulloongdo where you can see Dokdo. Its not a good one so I will try to find a better one.
The final, settling argument of the Tokdo issue:
MacArthur gave Tokdo to Korea. Finished. If Japan doesn’t like it, go complain in Washington.
Japan: You started a war. You lost it. So it turns out you lose this island. Finished.