Not going to do a full roundup of today’s action on the Dokdo front. I will point out, however, that the government is considering a plan to ease restrictions on tourism and development on the islets. Personally, I think this is a good idea, and it beats the hell out of some of the charged rhetoric. If you say the islands are yours, act like their yours. If the Japanese don’t like it, screw ‘em. Let them print a stamp.
Ampontan over at Japundit continues his great work from the other side of the East Sea, looking at some of today’s Japanese press coverage and warning that things may get worse before they get better.
Sphere: Related Content
45 Comments
Kimbob,
Here is what I think Korea should do.
Instead of raising the height of the flagpole on the islets, adding flagpoles, stationing more troops, or performing other silly antics that do not accomplish anything, why don’t Korea take its case to the International Court and agree with Japan to abide by the court’s decision.
If Korea’s 1900 claim and its subsequent administration of the islets are in accordance with international law, then Korea will win the case, get the fishing rights in the surrounding waters, save money and fingers, and end its goodwill-draining fuss with Japan. As it is now, Koreans have only a couple of rocks with a flagpole on it and not much else.
Again, if Korea’s claims are as strong as she claims, one has to wonder why she refuses to settle the issue in the International Court and receive all the benefits to which it would entitle her?
though i’m sure y’all would like it to be the other way around, let’s not forget that it’s the ‘mature’ japanese who are creating the tension. ok?
btw, gerry, won’t you give us your own version of why japan is correct in it’s claim to tokdo? lots of smart people around here, gerry. i’m sure they’d like to read your logic.
won’t you share your thoughts with us?
sorry, gerry, no need for you to explain, all one need do is visit your ‘fine’ blog ‘korea media watch’. i encourage those with the blood of the yemaek to visit. gerry seems fixated on korean sex when he’s not fixated on suporting the japanese. also, read the ‘article’ ‘korea, the prosperous world’
wonderful hate site.
Hey jtb,
The next time you feel like using the word “Jap” read this first.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startel.....641.htm?1c
As for Tokto, Japundit’s got a first peek at the motivation behind Shimane prefecture’s mystifyingly retarded willingness to create an international incident:
“The Sanin-Chuo News, which ran this story, noted that Japan and South Korea have a provisional agreement to allow fishing vessels from both countries to operate in the waters near Takeshima/Dokdo, but the South Korean Coast Guard (not sure of their official English name) is permanently stationed in the area and allows only Korean vessels to fish there. (Has this been reported in Korean newspapers?)”
Here’s hoping for the day when South Korea and Japan can work together in narrowing down the differences. (I can dream, can’t I?) They have so much in common, yet so different. I think when all the old people pass away, everyone can be friends.
Hey Umetaro,
I’ve heard a couple of Japanese had tried landing on Korean territory without admissions. Would you ask them why they got bored with fishing so easily?
Easing restrictions on development…mmm…would be a nice spot for an X-band GMD radar station…mmm….
Noolji,
Japan was the first country to claim the islets. They did it on January 28, 1905. It was incorporated into the Shimane Perfecture on February 22 (Takeshima Day). Korea did not annouce her claim to the islets until January 18, 1952, almost 47 years after Japan. That is why I say that Japan would probably win if the issue were taken to the International Court.
By the way, Korea Media Watch is a community, not a hate site. You could even post there if you wanted. As for the article, “Korea, the Prosperous World,” I do not remember reading it and have not bothered to go look through the postings to find it, yet. If I read it and find it to be inapropriate, I will delete it, but I will not delete it simply because the writer has an opinion different from Nooji Maripkan.
Hey blusas,
Are you talking about these retards?
http://english.chosun.com/w21d.....60029.html
I’d hope you’d be intelligent enough to realize that they don’t represent Japan in general. Much like I hope that Korean guy who tore up and ate the Japanese flag on tv doesn’t represent Koreans in general…
Hey, Gerry Bevers
I’m sorry u r wrong, it’s 1900, not 1952, five whole years BEFORE japan.
I happened to have read come articles on the issue myself, thank you.
Instead of saying “claimed in 1900! It’s true, I read it! Just because no one else has read it isn’t my problem”, why not show us a link which has evidence to support your claim that Korea claimed the islands at that time?
And don’t change your position to “old maps show it belonging to Korea!” because to keep things like islands, you have to maintain the borders which the dynasty which became Korea abandoned in the 15th century thus allowing anyone else to claim the islands which is what Japan did.
If you honestly believed that Korea had such a strong case, don’t you think they would be presenting facts instead of showboating like their North Korean cousins?
One more thing, I really don’t understand how this can be a dispute at all, I’ve been taught and read that island is no doubt territory of south korea. Maybe the articles i read were bias, i dunno, and i’m growing tired of all this.
Oh, so you want to see a link, I saw an article on paper which I cannot scan right now, even if i was so kind to do the work just because of you.
i dont care how you think of the matter, i merely speak of my knowledge, and my point.
Yet another problematic issue for the Japanese claim to Dokdo, particularly Japan?s 1905 ?incorporation?, is the existence of a land survey conducted by Korean authorities in 1900, known as Korean Government Imperial Ordinance No. 41 (Article 2), which stipulated that the Ullungdo-kun office was to have jurisdiction over Dokdo. This Korean Government order was promulgated on October 25, 1900; over four whole years before Japan sequestered the island as a terra nullius.
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html
there, now i can sleep. it was quite easy to find it, actually, over a cup of coffee.
Also, Gerry, let’s not forget the historical context here. The Japanese action was at the time Korea had lost its sovereignty, de facto, and about to lose it, de jure.
Also, right after the Japanese rooted out–read killed thousands of Koreans–with any gumption to oppose Japan’s grip over the peninsula.
Let me give you a simple analogy you might be able to comprehend. (Since you seem to be a pretty rational guy willing to listen to the voice of reason.)
Let’s say a man, armed to the teeth, breaks into your house at night. Wakes you up. Shows your brand new ipod and asks you grinning, “Would you like to give it to me as a gift?” Can you honestly tell me you could say, “No, punk, get outta here?” Case closed.
Gerry, you have destroyed any credibility you might have had. It’s obvious any position you take is going to be anti-Korean. You claimed earlier that Marmot’s bias showing, but perhaps you should consider your own position- pretty much anything you say here is going to be taken with a grain of salt, especially when you make strong opinionated claims which are in fact wrong.
Gerry is well known to take any positions that are anti-Korean (doesn’t matter what), no real surprise there. Accusing Marmot of being biased … I laughed so hard when I read that one.
Here’s what I think Korea should do on Tokdo.
1) Slap a complete news blackout to minimize run away anti-Japan feelings
2) Stop the protests, finger cuttings, and flag burnings - it’s unbecoming and counter-productive.
3) Stop the demands, slogans and songs dokdo is our land.
4) Send in more Marines, lift the flag poles higher, add another Taeguki on the island, build another observation deck.
5) Open up the island to international tourism.
6) Watch, sit back, and see the Japanese right wing whinings and laugh.
7) Agree to the requested meeting with Japan. Japan will ask to negotiate. Korea should just say, “sorry, Tokdo is our land, just look around the island, there is no room for negotiation on that part. Now if you would like to discuss the fairy route from Korea (Tokdo) to Japan, then you’re more than welcome”.
Cold hearted actions speak louder than just noise.
Gerry, the international court is going to be unfair. Gorea is a very poor nations and Japan is rich. Everybody knows that Gorea cant get a fair trial.
Also, why should Gorea go to court. In samgusagi, written in 1280 it says that takeshima belongs to Gorea in 600!! Do not accuse samgusagi of lies or I will send mighty Hwrang (gorean flower boys) to your house and they will kick your ass.
furthermore, a Japanese map from 1890 shows takashima island right in the middle of the sea of Japan belongs to Gorea. You cannot dispute this!!
You hate Gorea otherwise you would not utter such ridiculous comments. Do not attempt to steal history Gerry!!
Having just returned from Japan I was a little surprised (I am not sure why) that there was so much media coverage on it this morning.
Looking at it historically - I don’t have any documents that really pertain to the ownership of the island but I do have accounts.
Ullongdo was said to be uninhabited until around 1885 (not sure how true that is - but that was the Korean Customs Department’s findings). Shortly afterwards several Japanese also came to the island - illegally (?) and lived there while cutting timber. Not that this was the first time to cut timber - if you remember correctly Morse, an American in Japan (American Trading Company) was granted a concession by Kim Ok-kuin to harvest the timber, and at the same time he granted an Englishman in Nagasaki to do the same thing. Later the grants were pulled. The same concession was given to the Russians in the late 1890s. During 1897-1901 there are numerous accounts in newspapers and Customs’ reports that Japanese were living on Ullongdo Island and assaulting and extorting the Korean islanders. Why do I mention all of this? Dokto is visible from Ullongdo and though Korea did not have troops/settlers on it - is it reasonable to assume that the island would be Korea’s? Korea had many many islands along its coast during the Choson period that were not settled but that surely does not mean that they were not Korean territory.
Strange that there is so much anger about these rocks in the sea, but on the much larger island (now two islands) of Tsushima both heritages (Korean and Japanese) are given equal billing and the Tsushiman people are happy to show their close ties with Korea.
So much for the Korean-Japanese friendship year
Gerry:
You have been answered time and time again on this issue, give it a rest already. This will NEVER go to the International Court and Korea would be foolish to take it there.
But, alas, you seem to be unable to remove your blinders.
Whether Korea’s claims are strong or not is moot point. Look who is on the rocks, it’s not the Japanese. It’s not even a disputed territory, as far as Korea is concerned. I wonder what are all these benefits for Korea for settling in International courts, that you are talking about Gerry, other than giving legitimacy to Japanese claims? If the Mexicans sued the US to get back California and Texas, would the US agree to go to the international court so that they can have the moral victory? Of course not. Same thing here. Koreans have couple of rocks with a flagpole, yes, but if they graciously decide to give the rocks to Japan, Korea’s fishing space and boundary suddenly shrinks drastically. They’ll also probably have to give up the rich natural gas wells to Japan who have been probably paying a very close attention to the recent drillings worth $3 billion/yr by a Korean company . Of course if Korea is sure 100% that they’ll win, no problem. But everyone knows the reality that’s not how it works, no matter how good of a case you have, there is absolutely no 100% guarantee that you’ll win. If you’re a betting man, would you go to court to keep something which you already have?
For instance, how do we know that the much bigger economic and political influence of Japan isn’t going to effect the judges? If you have two equal quality products from Japan and Korea to buy from, which one would you buy? 99.9% of the time, I’m betting you’ll pick Japanese. Japan has a favorable familiar image, while Korea has an unfavorable and unfamiliar image. How do we know that won’t influence the judges sub-consciously? Again I ask, if Korea has the territory firmly in hand, why is it Korea’s responsiblity to take this to the court. Why do they have to do anything at all? To me it looks like the ball is the Japanese court.
There are some Japanese who believe that Ullungdo, and even southern Korea belongs to Japan (which I wouldn’t be surprised if you said you believed that as well). Shall we also give them the legitimacy and go to the courts when they decide to press for this claim? Wouldn’t that be a nonsensical situation? Again, just give me one tangible reason why Korea has to go to the courts, other then to look like a moral winner.
If we played by Gerry’s rules, Korea should then take the case of Manchuria and Gando to the world courts, and China should be morally obliged to accept the challenge to battle this out in the courts. Or better yet, Korea should take the case of Tsushima/Damado to the world courts, and Japan will readily and graciously accept the challenge to do battle in the courts. As if that’s going to happen.
Great Post Kimbob, I wonder how Gerry’s going to reply to this one. Its turning into an interesting thread. BTW I read somewhere that one of the judges of the international court is a Japanese. (Not that I think that the Japanese judge is going to be unfair due to his heritage, there is still the danger)
wonderful! I’ve got blocked!
As posted a few days ago, the International Court isn’t going to happen and cannot be enforced. Korea has Tokdo, Japan doesn’t. Should be the end of the story, but of course the political mileage of this issue is limitless (perfect for distracting Koreans from more immediate issues of concern) so that isn’t going to happen. Really, no need to cut off any fingers, injure fellow Koreans (like police officers), scare away Japanese tourists, or partake in other counter-productive behavoir, but tis the season to protest, so watch things get worse before they improve…
ok to be fair, i’ll say from the outset that i think, based solely on the evidence i’ve read that korea has a srtonger claim to the islands, BUT the fact that korea won’t accept japan’s proposal to take it to court (arbitration) certainly raises some serious questions. As for some other member’s comments that the international courts have no power, and no country is obligated to follow the ruling, this is wrong adn simply shows that the (opinion)/(knowlegde or intellignce) ratio is very high.
Its actually a relatively simple process (in theory). Both countries make a contract to abide by the courts decision which comes into effect when law to that effect is also passed in the respective countries. That way if either country defies the courts ruling then they are in breach od their own national law, which although possible, opens a far too big can of worms for either side to realistically do.
As for one of the UN judges being japanese this is actually true, although like any other court case if the judge could have some vested interest they would be forced to stand aside. this and much more can be seen at: http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/.....gnnot.html
1) Slap a complete news blackout to minimize run away anti-Japan feelings
The topic sells papers, gets ratings, and allows otherwise useless politicians to inflate their value by pandering to simple, nationalistic dumbasses. You’re expecting the very people that profit and benefit from anti-Japan feelings to impose the blackout?
2) Stop the protests, finger cuttings, and flag burnings - it??s unbecoming and counter-productive.
Unbecoming and counter-productive are the bedrocks of Korean problem-solving.
3) Stop the demands, slogans and songs dokdo is our land.
You may as well ask the French to stop drinking wine and surrendering.
4) Send in more Marines, lift the flag poles higher, add another Taeguki on the island, build another observation deck.
First suggestion that has a chance of being followed.
5) Open up the island to international tourism.
Yes, because there’s a large backlog of international tourists just waiting to spend time sitting on a rock in the middle of nowhere, where the only activity possible is staring at a Korean flag. I think you mean open up the island to Korean tourists. If they’re willing to pay top dollar for pots just because they were made by their starving brothers up North, they’ll certainly pay top dollar to sit on a rock in the middle of nowhere and sing songs about how great the rock is while crying and staring at the flag.
6) Watch, sit back, and see the Japanese right wing whinings and laugh.
Koreans are psychologically incapable of sitting back and laughing at provocation from the Japanese. You’d be better off asking them to sit back and ignore the World Cup.
7) Agree to the requested meeting with Japan. Japan will ask to negotiate. Korea should just say, ?橫sorry, Tokdo is our land, just look around the island, there is no room for negotiation on that part. Now if you would like to discuss the fairy route from Korea (Tokdo) to Japan, then you??re more than welcome??.
Have you ever heard anything short, sweet, and to the point from Korean diplomats? Me neither.
One of the ICJ judges is indeed Japanese, the honorable Hisashi Owada. He’s got a pretty hefty portfolio, a slew of academic positions and roles in Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From the records of some of the judges academic and professional history, they all appear to be fairly no-nonsense legalists with hefty international credentials. (If I had resumes half as good I could get any posh job I want!)
Besides, the ICJ has 15 members and it just so happens that the president/chief judge of the court is Chinese.
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/.....ompos.html
Perhaps an arbitration within the ICJ may not be such a bad idea afterall. The court has settled similar such disputes before. I noticed a case in 1997 over the maritime borders regarding Cameroon and Nigeria. A settlement would probably permanently end the bickering over the island, but I doubt either party in the dispute seem willing to actually put a close to the situation. Partly out of fear of losing, partly out of fear of surrending sovereignty, and partly out of sheer stubborness I’d imagine.
How many Koreans or Japanese actually live on these islands? Reminds me of a comment made by a Mexican President some years ago in reference to the territory they lost to the United States in 1848. His comment was that real sovereignty did not follow a flag, but rather followed a people. Thus to govern a territory, a nation first had an obligation to populate it.
You got some nerve Gerry. To actually think something different than that of most Koreans- surely you must hate Korea and be Anti-Korean. Maybe if you burn the Japanese flag, and cut off your finger, you will get in the graces of some on this board and they would then take your posts more seriously.
Dude. First Korea is not a poor country. It may work on the WTO for now but not most people. It sure does make it easier to believe everyone is against Korea and Korea could never get a fair trial- doesn??t it. I got some nerve. I actually think not all people are out to get Korea and they would actually get a fair trial. Therefore I must hate Korea and be Anti Korean.
Kimbob. Japan has a decidedly unfavorable image in Asia. One could argue Japan could not get a fair trial with a judge from some Asian country. But hey the judges are all probably from Scandinavia and they are as by the book and unbiased as you can get. You want something tangible? Would finally settling the situation and having better relations with Japan fit your tangible benefits? Doesn??t morality count for something? Personally I think there is a 50/50 chance to whom the island would go. I know I am probably Anti Korean for thinking that. But I admit if there was a 50% chance and I was Korea, I probably would not take it to court. If there was a 10% chance I would do it in a heartbeat.
I have just wasted a year of my life studying international law, and I am already forgetting things…:-
This might fit in with the tourism bit: my university (Kwandong University) has one of the first flying clubs in Korea. Among other things, members can fly to Dokdo. Apparently, they are going this weekend.
There is some info on my blog or you can go straight to the source at
club-beautifly dot com
Dear Michael: I’m sorry, but your comments just reflect on the quality of your intelligence and not about the truth of what I wrote….
I heard that a couple of Koreans amputated bits of their little fingers to show how worked up they were. The last time I heard about people doing that kind of thing was in pre-war Japan, and we know what followed. I just wish Koreans could be a little more original.
RE Robert Neff comment: “Ullongdo was said to be uninhabited until around 1885 …..”
Um…… I’m at a loss for words. Where on EARTH did you get that? Don’t take this the wrong way, but are you making that claim because some turn-of-the-last-century Western passerby said so in his travelogue? Has no “Western source” authenticated the Bronze Age sites there there?
Okay. Deep breath. Sorry.
I do recall something about the place being unoccupied for a short while at around that time, so maybe that’s what you’re talking about. But it was occupied for most of written history.
http://www.ulleung.go.kr/Ullun.....uce01.html
A short list of dates from Ulleungdo local govt.
One of the reasons Koreans claim Dokdo “throughout history” is because it is pretty clear Ulleungdo was far more associated, if not entirely associated, with Korea (Silla, Joseon), and Dokdo has always been lumped in with Ulleungdo, even by the Japanese on their maps, one of the reason Ulleundo and Dokdo are usually drawn so close together on the old Japanese maps.
Peter - not a problem with the breathing…
Actually although I can agree with you to an extent - according to the Customs’ records - which, I will concede were done by foreigners. There is an indication that the islands were visited and lived on part of the year, but were for the most part unihabited during the late Choson period until the 1880s (from what time they were uninhabited I am not sure).
You are indeed correct about the Bronze age material - being completely out of my own time period - you and I both know that I concentrate only on late Choson period. Prior to this - I naturally will have to agree with you - in fact, I completely missed the writer’s note about the 15th century. I thank you for pointing out my errors.
I do know that the fishing resources on the island were deemed not that good and the primary purpose of the Koreans seems to have been the harvesting of the timber on the island (Ullong) which was used to build the Korean junks that were then transported and sold to sailors/fishers as far away as Cheju(?). Most of the Koreans that were on the island during the Customs’ investigation were from Kangwon Province.
As for the unoccupied period - I can’t give you an amount of time - I do know that - according to the accounts of the Customs’ that the islands were unoccupied (does not mean that they were unused at least part of the year) until mid 1880s and that a couple of Japanese were also alleged to live on the island around 1888. The number of Japanese quickly rose during the 1890s (just after the Sino-Japanese War) to several hundred. They basically controlled the island through their strong-arm tactics and caused the Koreans to seek assistance from the Korean Government which in turn passed it on to the Customs Department.
Travelogue - hmmm., biting. Like I said above - Korean Imperial Customs Department reports, the negative point that you homed in on - made by a Westerner - commissioner of customs at Pusan.
So - to sum it all up. I concede on the bronze age and the early Choson era, I concede on the fact that there were Koreans that did come to the island (never said they hadn’t), but during the late Choson period do not appear to have lived there on a full time basis. What I don’t concede and you apparently agree with - the islands were not inhabited during the late Choson period until the mid 1880s.
By the way - Observation Island (the Korean name escapes me right now) of Komundo (Port Hamilton) was unoccupied by the Koreans (except for the small plots of land that they harvested) who all lived on the other two islands. Observation Island was also used by the Japanese to dry their catch and they had some small shacks there prior to the British coming in 1885. A writer above noted that during the 15th century Korea abandoned its control of the Ullong Islands which gave the right for other countries to claim it - would that give the British the right to claim Port Hamilton (Observation Island only)?
Correction - looking at the link that you sent me - it appears that the year was 1883 when 54 Koreans were on the Island - but were they living there full time or does that come a couple of years later? None the less it pretty much is along the same lines as the Customs’ report.
This all sounds like a good article.
I would like to hear some comments from any one who can help me. Doesn’t the entire civilized world know that the Japanese have used their economic clout to keep their “Japan Sea” and in the past decade, their PR work has resulted in the UK, USA, and Canada changing from “dokto” being a Korean territory to a disputed territory? I’m still a firm believer that at some point, the conscience of decend-minded men and women will prevail. Cutting off your own finger doesn’t bother me as much as images of thousands of men and women being mutilated one body part at a time, and having their body parts piled high for all Japanese to use as proof of Japanese superiority and power.
Gee “catherine,” isn’t it cold and wet under your little troll bridge?
No, my comments reflect on your baiting, trollish comments–although maybe your poor grasp of English makes them more incendiary than you intend them to be.
Mr Neff!
(Sorry for being an @$$ but while I’m at it I think I’ll point out what I think are misleading piftalls of calling only the 1800’s, and particularly the last few decades of the 1800’s as “late Chos?n.” If, say, one were to talk about post-port-opening of Chos?n as “late Chos?n,” that would be rather stingy periodization because it would be about 40 years or so on a 600 year nation (I’m even a jerk about the word “dynasty.”) )
From the looks of it there was a lot of wantta katta with Ull??ngdo. Here’s the fun thing though; as you can see, in the 1700’s there was a lot of wrangling over the island with the Japanese, and in 1696 a Japanese rep recognized Ull??ngdo as Korean territory and pledged not to fish or lumber there. EVEN when, it looks like, it may not have been populated much, at least not year round.
THAT, I think, is critical to the whole Tokto issue, frankly. Japan recognized time and time again that Ull??ngdo and Tokto (sometimes by extension and sometimes specifically) were Korean territory. IE, to the whole regional cultural sphere in question here, two countries could agree that an island was on or the other’s territory WHETHER OR NOT INHABITED. This “it’s not populated so up for grabs” nonsense was an imported Western concept. Japan, having like I say repeatedly recognized the uninhabited Tokto as Korean, even in the 1800’s, in 1905 claimed Tokdo and claimed it could because it was uninhabited. Sly, that. Like, “we want that island so we’re going to start playing by rules different than we’ve both played by for centuries.” (And like I always like to argue, seizing Tokto when there were Japanese troops were marching in the streets of Seoul was hardly an honest real estate aquisition.)
Same about K?mundo/Port Hamilton - I think it is merely a typical conflict of cultures, but the idea that it or any of the nearby islands were uninhabitied and therefore a foreign power could occupy them was valid at the time only for the Westerners.
Ornicky, part of japans position is that in 1905 Japan declared that Takeshima belonged to Japan. It was a cabnit decision and there are lots of documents to supprot this fact.
Here is a link that you can read from Japans MOFA
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/a.....ition.html
Now, your comment is that: (And like I always like to argue, seizing Tokto when there were Japanese troops were marching in the streets of Seoul was hardly an honest real estate aquisition.)-
Yes ornicky, its just not fair!! But lets be clear they didnt “seize” it, there was a cabnit decision and probally didnt even bother to notify korea. Dont try and pretend that the Korean govement was willing to go to war over this issue. The korean govt was in shambles, and japan started to take over. (Guess what, Its still not fair!! )
The japanese wanted it, and (even if) it was korean up intil that point, its japans now as far as japan is concerned. At this point people usually say, “what if japan says that vancouver belongs to japan” well i imagine the people of vancouver would laugh in unision. But 100 years ago, japan wanted it, japan was learing the legalistic tools of the west and they declaired it japanese territory. (But its not fair)
orinkcy, lots and lots and lots and lots of thigns are not fair, and they still have happened. Look at Alaska. that big peice of real estate calle Alaska used to belong to russia. Why, because the russians said so. Then it was sold to america. Is that fair? How did russia have the right to claim it. Well, russians said it was theres and unless sombody was willing to take it or trade/buy it… it was going to be russin for a while. yes its not fair.
This is all why it was actualy Korea that seized takeahima, and put troops there while the american soldiers were walking down the strees of tokyo. The japanse had zero control of the military at all. The korean side, always had some control, look at gwangju for example.
Now just to be clear, according to my logic, because Korea is there now, it belogns to korea. Yep, that is true. and its not fair… but korea is their now.. and it was korea that seized takeshima. And unless Japan is willing to get it back, in a few decades, it will be korean forever. Tough shit for the japanese.
Your other arguement that because japan was usineg “rules different than we??ve both played by for centuries ” is so dumb i wont bother.
Issues like takeshima are why nations have militaries.
In response to Dude, perhaps you read your own post and then rethink why Dokdo is Korean.
Your amateurish attempts to obfuscate the issue of how Japan came to call the islands its own in 1905 are rather pointless, as is your amusing definition of “seizure” when Korea was not in a position to press its interests is irrelevant to the arguement. You cite that Tokdo is Japanese because Korea lost it in 1905 irregardless of justice(the its not fair but tough shit principle) but completly miss out on the fact that presently the islands are occupied by Korea. Should not your same principle (not fair but tough shit) apply presently to Japan? Afterall the islands are not being administered by Japan and they lost them during the 1950’s, fair or not. Possession is afterall 9/10th’s of the law.
Dud, no one said anything about fair.
You say “…part of japans position is that in 1905 Japan declared that Takeshima belonged to Japan. It was a cabnit decision and there are lots of documents to supprot this fact.”
Whether cabinet decision or not I’m not so sure, but that it was a formal decision by the Japanese government seems to be accurate. How you have “lots” of documents to support evidence of one decision I do not know, but whatever.
Earlier, but in very same month Japan took Tokto, the Japanese government also made the formal (cabinet-level or not I dunno) decision to police the streets of Seoul. That’s right, when Japan took Tokto Japanese military police had the “legal” and “formally decided” authority maintain public security in the Korean capital. In the years preceeding 1905 as well, Japan made various other well documented decisions and actions that were aimed at asserting domination over Korea. Some of those moves were “legal” by international law as we know it today and some were not.
The point being that (1) Korea was already partially subjugated by Japan when it took the islets and (2) taking Tokto was, in context, one of many events in the eventual annexation of Korea. “Dont try and pretend that the Korean govement was willing to go to war over this issue,” you say, but the point is that it could not even if it was willing to and could not because of Japan. It’s like if I’ve got a stranglehold over someone and take something from his hands, saying “he didn’t seem to mind me taking it.”
Japan has just as much “legal” and “well documented” evidence to prove that it owns all of the Korean peninsula. Really, if people want to play legal games, why not? I dosen’t dare assert that because it knows that doing so would just be so wrong and evidence that it hasn’t faced its past, hasn’t surrendered, or whatever we call it. To me that is what makes the Tokto issue important. It clearly took the islets on the way in(to Korea) not as a separate event, and needs to learn to part with them now that it is out. By holding on to Tokto emotionally it is holding on to some of that imperialist legacy. If it’s going to use the legal argument to say it owns Tokto then there’s no reason not to claim the whole peninsula.
I, however, have little interest in the legal argument myself. My interest in the whole thing is largely a desire to understand the two countries involved and in that context the fact that Japan recognized the Tokto as Korean many times over even though uninhabited only to turn around and claim it based on being uninhabited says a lot about something, even if we can’t agree what. Think about it, for hunderds of years NE Asian nations recognied uninhabited islands as belonging to one or the other among them and then Japan for the first time “formally and well-documentedly” decides to take one with new rules. I don’t know how helpful that would be at the international court but IMHO it’s relevant if you have an interest in K/J relations and in particular the approach Japan takes to the issue as a society.
Dude said: Do not accuse samgusagi of lies or I will send mighty Hwrang (gorean flower boys) to your house and they will kick your ass.