This time, the VANKers take issue with the CIA for “reflecting Japanese logic” regarding Dokdo in its World Factbook, according to the Chosun Ilbo and Dong-A Ilbo:
The CIA World Factbook, a website maintained by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, lists the Korean-administered Dokdo Islets as disputed territory.
The Voluntary Agency Network of Korea (VANK), a group trailing the Internet for what it says are distortions about Korea, said Sunday it found CIA factbooks from 2002 to 2005 biased towards Japan’s claim to the islands, giving the international community the impression that the Dokdo Islets were subject to an “unresolved dispute”.
The CIA factbook’s section on Korea includes Dokdo in its section on international disputes, along with the Military Demarcation Line between North and South Korea. The site, which was updated last month, points to an ???unresolved dispute with Japan over the Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima).???? It also points to friction over fishing rights, reflecting an argument used by Tokyo.
According to the Korean-language Yonhap News report, the CIA website is also guilty of starting off its nation reports on Japan and China by praising their brilliant histories and great civilizations, while for Korea, no mention of its “5,000 years of history” is made. Rather, the introduction begins with the Korean War.
43 Comments
I have been reading alot of hateful postings toward anything Korean from those foreigners who live in Korea. I’d say why not just leave? Just leave Korea and let those who love korea take care of their own problems instead of wasting your time and effort hating them? I happen to be of Korean descent who is very interested in history of all people. But, I cannot tolerate injustice and hate coming from those who are ignorant of the korean people.
Criticism (as distinguished from “hate”) is actually a mark of concern and care.
??Love it or leave it?? is an American logic, which is very irrationally and illogically based. And I don??t buy it. Although I understand your point, lej, you may find a better to put it.
This is getting truly stupid. This guy (column in Korean) believes S. Korea should let N. Korea use the islands as a missile base as a defense against Japan. Why isn’t Koizumi putting a muzzle on those idiots in the Shimane Prefecture assembly? Those worthless rocks mean nothing to the majority of the Japanese, and the issue just inflames the highly flammable Korean public. I guess NUKES IN NORTH KOREA is just like genital warts to them - sure it flares up now and then, but it’s just an annoyance - no biggie.
The factbook also has the won per dollar rate at 1,191.61. Obviously, it’s not like the CIA cares about what’s in the online factbook or updating it. It would be foolish to take the information there as if it’s a CIA statement on the Tokdo issue. There is some good information there though, e.g., I will now refer to the East Sea/Sea of Japan as the Sea of the Liancourt Rocks. It must be such a chore for Korean “journalists” to scour the internet in order to maintain their massive inferiority complexes.
No, I think Google made that easier for them. Actually, I guess most Koreans still use Yahoo to search for Dokdo. I asked a Korean about this,a dn they say the only reason either side cares is because it moves the boundary and includes a lot of good fishing waters for whichever side controls the rocks. But as far as I can see, as long as Korean has military control of the place, Japan can’t really do anything, and they certainnly ain’t about to launch a full attack to reclaim Dokdo.
“Yankee go home” sounds a little funny coming from a guy with the stars and stripes next to his name.
I would say by stating the obvious, the island in question is in dispute, is not a bias towards Japan. More VANK propaganda.
Lej. Being critical of something does not mean you hate something. Heck you should listen to a bunch of Americans being critical of America. It does not mean they hate their country. They are critical for many reasons such as frustration and a wanting to improve society. Sometimes Koreans are pretty critical of Korea too but that does not mean they hate Korea. But if you were to extend your “love it or leave it” logic to this board. Logic would dictate that you never come to this board again because “I cannot tolerate injustice and hate coming from those who are ignorant of the Korean people.” Of course I hope you keep coming to this board to contribute to the community. Many of the people on this board are anything but ignorant of Korea since they have been living here 10-15-20-25 years. Have you ever lived in Korea- how long? I bet more than a few “foreigners” on this board have spent more time in Korea than you.
What’s this “Liancourt” thing? Anyone know more about it beyond the fact that a French whaling ship gave it that name? Maybe America could invade and kick both Korean and Japanese asses off the island, and then give it to France…wouldn’t that be funny?
Really…c’mon~ Possession is 9/10ths of the law…most Japanese couldn’t care less. Is it an actual issue? (beyond the fact that everybody’s sitting around talking about whether it’s an issue or not…)
This is getting to be like a bad sitcom. What proof do the VANKers provide for all their many grievances beyond It Hurts Our Pride (TM)? Do they really want the CIA to detail every invasion and counter-invasion from Ko-Chosun to the Korean War? Is there enough room in cyberspace?
Lej, I for one believe that Tokdo belongs to Korea - and isn’t going anywhere soon - but does saying there is a territorial dispute between Korea and Japan - which, there clearly is - make me a Korea-hater? Does having an opinion on the issue that is more moderate than that of flag-burning ultra-nationalists make me the enemy? Is any criticism or perceived criticism of Korea, or anything related to Korea, hate? (I had a Hyundai Stellar years ago that was an absolute piece of crap. Does saying it mean I hate Korea? Can I cancel that out if I sing the praises of my LG “aircon” unit or the great bibimpap I had for lunch?)
Saying that there is a territorial dispute doesn’t make you a Korea hater, it just makes you wrong (techically). The Japanese have yet to file a complaint in international court in order to have Tokto considered a legally disputed territory. That’s why those VANKers are all worked up about what the CIA factbook says.
The CIA factbook is correct: the Liacourt rocks are disputed territory. Even Korea’s foreign minister has essentially said they are disputed territory. The so-called VANKers are not only making fools of themselves, but also Korea, but highlighting Korea’s silly stance on the issue.
If the Liacourt dispute were taken to the International Court, I think Japan would win, and I think Korea also thinks so, which is why she is refusing to take it to the International Court, even though Japan would like to settle it there.
Their CIA factbook complaint, together with their Japanese textbook complaints, tell me that the VANKers are turning into a bunch of wackos.
I think it’s Lia*n*court, Gerry…’least according to that CIA page~
Is Korea female?
Gerry… While I think you are right to roll your eyes over these Koreans (and Japanese) who automatically hyperventilate whenever the issue of Dockdo comes up, I think you are wrong to think that the reason that Korea refuses to go to the ICJ is because its case is weak…
Actually, much depends on how the Court determines the so-called cut-off date. Depending what that turns to be Korea may have a very strong case. OR, a very weak one.
Why risk it then? If Korea sits tight and control the rocks for 60 more years, the question might become moot. On the other hand, Japan has every reason to cry foul, even if its case is quite weak, which I actually think is, IMHO. It doesn’t cost anything, and certainly looks like those shifty Koreans have something to hide, doesn’t it?
So, Gerry, be free to chuckle over the insanity of it all, but let’s not turn it into a simple situation….
Thorin makes a good point. Why does Korea need to do anything regarding Dokdo? Korea already has possession. If Japan or any other country thinks it should have Dokdo, wouldn’t it be their reponsibility to file a grievance and get the diplomatic ball rolling?
So why doesn’t Japan take the dispute to the courts if they want the rocks so badly?
I say give the rocks back to the Frogs. Let the Koreans start hating them for a while. It’s a proven fun pastime in the U.S. - think of the countless Leno jokes over the years.
the koreans already hate the french (’frog’ is the federal republic of germany, doncha know?). they inaded kanghwa-do in the 19th century (i think over martyred french priests) and stole a bunch of ancient korean documents and stuff (because two wrongs make a right when it comes to avenging priests’ deaths).
and now they won’t give them back. i helped out with a translation of a documentary on this a long time ago.
I believe Japan does want this dispute in the court and has asked to do so but BOTH parties have to agree to bring it to the international court and to abide by the decision. Korea is in possession of the rock now and has not agreed to settle the dispute in the international court. Thus nothing can be done. Maybe there could be a UN resolution on the matter- I don’t know. If Japan ever does try to get a security seat this could be a bargaining chip with Korea.
Although I have no sympathy for the wan- er, Vankers, I believe that Gerry Bevers is wrong when he says that Japan would probably win its case in a hearing. However, I would enjoy reading his attempts to explain why.
Someone smart I know said that to call (as Japan does) Tokdo a ‘disputed territory’ is to give more credence or weight to the Japanese claim than they actually deserve. If Mexican President Vicente Fox were to turn around tomorrow and ask the US to please return California and/or Texas, clearly such a request would not be met. This is not to say that there are not historical arguments that could be made for it - because there are. But to then henceforth refer to California and/or Texas as a ‘disputed territory’ would be to make President Fox’s (thus far hypothetical) request appear to have legitimacy.
I agree with Oranckay when he says that a lot of the problem is that although Korea’s case might be the right one, they so often have a bad way of expressing or making it. Vankers don’t help that, and Oranckay also wittily suggested that they spend more time and money learning English than they do history (or international politics, for that matter).
from my memory banks, here’s gerry’s reasoning:
japan officially annexes korea and declares that tokto belongs to japan. since japan’s annexation of korea was legal, it’s declaration on tokdo was also legal. it was legal then and carries legal weight now. that’s gerry’s argument. he’s been very clever in not mentioning it here. you can see why.
Let’s look past al this jingoism for a win-win solution: Those islets would be a great place to build an exile palace for Kim Jong-il and his clan. Think of it: a place where he can be lord of all he surveys and not ruin people’s lives. A place where his dependency on South Korean largesse would be clear and transparent. A place which, if Kim still remains too much trouble, can be taken out with airpower without the attendent threat to South Korea.
The sad thing is Koreans are such a bunch of crybaby whiners that the honorable Japanese will let them keep it just to shut them up.
Wow, such an intelligent comment. Move along now troll.
the koreans already hate the french
I don’t think the French and France occupy much of the thoughts of the Korean population at large. Saying that Koreans hate the French is the same as saying that all Koreans eat dog-meat, or all white people living south of the Avoyelles eat cocodril
they inaded [sic] kanghwa-do in the 19th century (i think over martyred french priests) and stole a bunch of ancient korean documents and stuff.
Wow. What an accurate description showing in-depth knowledge of the matter! I suggest you go back to the documentary you helped translate and come back later, when you are ready to discuss topics as the ??????????? (and why in the first place there would be a *??*????????? at all), the introduction of the Christian faith in Korea, and the torture and execution of Christians (foreign priests and local followers).
I am one of the folks who believes Korea is correct in this dispute over Liancourt Rocks (Tokto), if only for the reason that MacArthur’s military administration in post-War Japan gave the rocks to Korea when coming up with its statutory definition of “Japan”. But definitely, there is a dispute over this territory, one which Japan is probably reluctant have arbitrated.
But for God’s sake, can we be satisfied at the Tokto issue or will we also have to change every map to “East Sea” while we’re at it? I’ll give the VANKers Tokto if they will shut the fuck up about East Sea already.
All I have to say is that the most intelligent and objective comment so far I read on this thread was Hamel’s post. The rest of you just sound like Americans who live in Korea who have a bias against VANKers whoever they may be. Please explain why because it sounds more like biased opinion than objective reasoning.
Please tell me if I’m wrong of not. By reading this thread I’m assuming most of you are americans living in Korea who could care less about the tokdo issue so hence the devil-may-care (i.e tokdo referred to as a “bunch of rocks”) attitude. IMO, this type of attitude does not foster objectivity but rather ignorance if anything. It actually creates a false impression of objectivity if you assume or claim, by virtue of BEING American or other nationality besides Korean and Japanese, that you are outside of the tokdo/takeshima debate.
I mean, like Hamel has suggested, it’s not as if California is in dispute. If it were, I bet some of you may raise the same ruckus like the very koreans or sub-section of koreans (vankers) you criticise.
will, you may be right that there are mindless Korea bashers on this list, people who take delight in criticizing every bit of minutiae they can, often speaking of Korean issues in a belittling or condescending way, but who rarely apply the same standards or the same scrutiny to other countries, including their home country.
It seems to be a subtype of expatriate that isn’t happy unless he (or she) is talking about how stupid, foolish, emotional, or whatever the “host country” and/or its people are. It’s certainly not exclusive to Korea. In my experience, I’ve encountered the same type of people in Japan and Hong Kong.
That said, not all criticism of Korean issues falls under this heading. A lot of the people on some of these established blogs are very knowledgeable and write with a fair amount of objectivity. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to filter out the crap.
As for the VANK people, the reason they are so poorly regarded is that they are a loud bunch of agitators who seem to be driven by an anti-American and anti-Japanese agenda. Their vision of Korean nationalism has as its essence hating countries other than Korea.
They trawl Al Gore’s creation for anything that could remotely not fit in with their agenda and then use their media ties to announce it as if it’s news: the CIA misspells President Roh’s name!
In addition to their blind, hurtful, and detrimental jingoism, they are often hampered by an inability to understand the meaning or grasp the nuance of the material they are reporting on, or the issues that underlie them.
God help us if they ever become the public face of Korea.
K U S H I B O
Well, thanks for informing me, Kushibo. You have been very helpful. So, are the VANKers a political entity? It seems to me that the main article of this thread did raise a legitimate concern about the CIA’s carelessness in publishing Korean history. But because all the VANKers were the first to take up the cause, people here already made up their minds that the issue itself was frivolous. To me, that is sad.
This is why I hate domestic politics and now maybe even international politics. People follow a certain agenda whether leftist or rightist to such a degree that they forget things like compassion and mutual respect and understanding.
Kushibo,
Nice post. But becareful… people might call you a Noolji-lover now…
Tokdo belongs to Korea, period.
dda, when i wrote that “the koreans already hate the french,” i was making a glib statement in relation to the glib statement that tokto be taken away from both korea and japan and handed over to the french who named it liancourt rocks.
since you beg for elaboration, what i was referring to ever so obliquely is that france has been the object of hatred du jour by korean nationalists in the past over the refusal to return certain important historical documents it took by force in the 19th century.
now, let me make this clear: i was not saying that the french are the most hated nation by korean nationalists (that honor goes to the japanese or the americans, depending on the news of the day), nor am i endorsing such hatred (i am not).
then you said, “I don??t think the French and France occupy much of the thoughts of the Korean population at large.”
to which i say, you are right. that is true right now. but a few years ago, france-bashing reached a fevered pitch, which died down but then enjoyed an end-of-the-horror-film-when-the-monster-you-think-is-dead-suddenly-comes-back-to-life-for-one-last-hurrah revival when brigette bardot started making insulting comments about korea and koreans in general (so it was reported) over the continued allowing of dog meat sales in korea.
when i said, “they inaded [sic] kanghwa-do in the 19th century (i think over martyred french priests) and stole a bunch of ancient korean documents and stuff,” you replied (sarcastically, i think):
being catholic and knowing at least a little bit of history of this country, i know exactly what you’re talking about.
but again, you seem to be mistaking my glib response to a glib post as (a) my endorsement of such a view rather than a passing mention that such sentiment has existed, and (b) an attempt to provide a detailed analysis of the matter at hand, as in a term paper.
no, dda, it was a glib comment about a glib comment. i only mentioned the documentary i helped translate because it was a product of the france-bashing media frenzy at the time.
good day, sir. and good luck with all your endeavors.
I was in Korea non-stop from 1994 until October last year, and have never seen any france-bashing reaching any fevered pitch. Maybe you weren’t in the same Korea… There was mention in the newspapers, on TV (the quality of Korean TV being what it is, anything from ????????’s wedding announcement and above qualifies as frenzy, so it’s hard to tell anyway) and the radio, but that never really reached the man in the street — as opposed to the Yankee-bashing and Nip-bashing… or the all-encompassing Westerner-bashing during the erroneously called IMF-crisis (a fine example of confusing the disease and the medicine if I saw ever saw one), when it wasn’t too clever to be around any number of drunken Koreans at night.
Even when that stupid air-head Brigitte Bardot made inane comments on dog-meat eating and Koreans, the “frenzy” didn’t last much longer than the after-meal burp. I remember laughing out loud with friends on one of her comments: “No single French person would eat dog meat!”. This dog-meat Frenchie had to disagree…
As for history and the ????????????, if you know what I am talking about, oh well, good for you.
First of all, the Japanese argument to the Liancourt Rocks (a.k.a. Dokdo) is probably the most pathetic claim in any territorial dispute on the face of this planet. Since “some” people haven’t seen the reason yet, I’ll take the liberty of explaining why.
1) The Liancourt Rocks (I only use that name so that I don’t seem like a Korean nationalist) were first granted to the Ooya and Murakawa families of Hoki Province (modern-day Tottori Prefecture) by the Tokuwaga Shogunate in the 1650’s under the name Matsushima.
1)) Unfortunately for Japanese right-wing politicians, this claim is FALSE. Koreans has already conquered the Liancourt Rocks in 512, when Shilla subjugated the island kingdom Usan-guk to its rule. Furthermore, the Tokuwaga Shogunate confirmed Korean rule over the islets in 1697, making the 1650’s presentation of the Liancourt Rocks to the Ooya and Murakawa families void.
2) The Liancourt Rocks were a terra nullius when incorporated as part of Imperial Japan on February 22nd, 1905 by Shimane Prefecture, as requested by a Japanese fisherman.
2)) Again, FALSE. As mentioned earlier, Korea already owned the islands in 1905, as generously admitted by the Tokuwaga Shogunate in 1697 and confirmed by Emperor Kojong of the Korean Empire in 1900. In addition, this particular claim would be contradictory to the Japanese argument itself, since Japan claims to have given the islets to the Ooya and Murakawa families in the 1650’s. As you may or may not know, the Latin term “terra nullius” means an ownerless land, thus showing that if (this is IF) the islets has no owner before 1905, then the claim that the islets were given to the Ooya and Murakawa families nearly three centuries previously is again, void and null. Either that, or the entire claim that the islets were a terra nullius is one big fat LIE.
Daniel,
Thanks for using the name “Liancourt Rocks” to make it seem you are not a Korean nationalist. That and the neutral tone of your post make me a believer.
So Silla conquered the Liancourt Rocks in 512? Interesting. And after the Sillalites stormed the beaches of Liancourt, exactly how many people did they find living there?
Of what little I know about the issue of those rocks, what I do think is of critical importance and always seems to be forgotten, is that whether there were people living there or not is not relevant as far as the historical debate between Korea and Japan are concerned. Yes you read that correctly, I’m actually saying it doesn’t matter whether there were people there or not. I’m no lawyer so I can’t tell you what a court would say, but as far as the history of the issue and the social perceptions of each society, whether they were occupied or not was never a part of the criteria for staking claim.
Why? Because Japan recognized them time and time again, in writing, as Korean territory when they were not occupied. It did so in in at least in 1692, 1866, 1876, and as late as 1877, only to turn around and claim it in 1905. That’s right, after saying they belonged to Korea in 1877 it said it was Japanese 28 years later. Some say, and flame me to death if you can’t handle being otherized but mostly Westerners say, that Japan had the right to claim it in 1905 because it was unoccupied. I can see how someone versed in Western law would think so, but we need to remember that those bird poop covered rocks weren’t inhabited in 1877 either, or any of the many years Japan stated they were Korean in years prior to that. So, why, prior to 1905, did Japan say they were Korean when it shouldn’t have to for lack of inhabitants, sometimes going so far as to inform Korea of its position (that they were KOrean) and prohibiting Japanese from fishing there? Because traditionally, both Korea and Japan did not believe you had to inhabit an island to claim it. Japan recognized them as Korean and Korea recognized them as Korean and accepted Japan’s position without them ever having regular inhabitants. To say those uninhabited rocks were Korean in 1877, then claim them in 1905 and say in 2005 that it could claim them in 1905 because they were unoccupied and, finally, to say they are “historically” Japanese is a bunch of bull.
Some will say that those historical Japanese statements of Korean ownership were about Ulleungdo and not the rocks. Now, I think it’s pretty clear that both sides always considered the rocks to be associated with Ulleungdo and admit to suspecting anyone who suggests otherwise of lying , at least to himself, but lets entertain that idea for a moment. For some of the years Japan said the island(s) were Korean, Ulleungdo and the little sub-islets near it Ulleungdo was not “officially” inhabited (though I just have to believe some number of people were living there nonetheless). So, even if we assume that the Japanese were talking about Ulleungdo and we exclude the rocks in quesotin from that, Japan was on some occasions recognizing an uninhabited island (Ulleungdo) as Korean, so again, the “we (Japan) annexed Takeshima in 1905 because it was uninhabited” argumetn is nonsense, at least as far as the “uninhabited” part is concerned.
I am of the position that Japan’s 1905 claim is a confession of guilt more than anything else given the stranglehold Japan already had on Korea at the time. I mean that if Japan had some serious claim originating in some earlier century the issue would probably be above my head and I wouldn’t see an important connection between the islets and the colonial occupation, but saying they innocently took the rocks when Japanese military police were patrolling the streets of Seoul with regular police powers is IMHO just an admission that Japan took them as part of the process of eating the whole peninsula, and actually is why I think the issue symbolically important - for Japan “as a whole” it seems to me to almost be an inability to come to terms with past agression. I’ll argue that some other day at some other place, but for now let me also say that I also recognize that for individual Japanese I can see how they would think the islands belong to Japan and don’t think any Japanese person who says as much is as sick as one who says, for example, that the comfort women were actually having fun or something like that.
I can’t believe the Japanese right-wing government are reverting back to its terroristic past. It’s scary that they are revising their textbook and claiming that Dokdo is part of their land…which is NOT. Even the Tokugaway gov told Japanese citizens to not fish near the Dokdo Island because it wasn’t part of the Shimane prefecture.
Furthermore, why can’t Japan’s government apologize to Korea, China, Philippines, Vietnam….etc…for its past warcrimes. I am very disappointed everytime a sex slave, forced labor or a family member traumatized …lose a lawsuit against the Japanese gov because they use the 1952 Treaty of Peace as an excuse to weave their way out of this issue.
Recently, Japan’s right approved a newly revised textbook claiming not only the Dokdo Islands, but also the Diaoyutai Island and the Kuril Island to belong to them.
I just hope Japan’s right-wing numbskulls know that peeving Korea, China and other neighbors in the area will make them the loser in the long run.
i hope the japanese readers glance at the asashi shinbum (even though it is a leftist newspaper) as they seem to understand koreans very well.
vagabond_md wrote:
i hope the japanese readers glance at the asashi shinbum (even though it is a leftist newspaper) as they seem to understand koreans very well.
Do you mean this?
The editorial mentions Murayama’s apology, but the LDP members (who rule today) made it clear they did not support it. LDP members said Murayama’s verbal apology was not an official statement of apology.
That’s one reason Koizumi’s recent apology is significant, because it follows the same wording of Murayama’s ten years earlier, and it is being touted as “official,” although nearly 100 members of the LDP visited Yasukuni Shrine that same day the apology was announced. This is the problem that the Asahi Shimbun is talking about.
absolutely free diet pill
You may find it interesting to take a look at the sites dedicated to diet pill dollar
free video style keno game downloads
Please take a look at some helpful info in the field of cheryl keno johnson c smith university
ganar dinero real pagina web
In your free time, check out the sites in the field of gamble