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.

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.

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.

(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.

This all sounds like a good article.

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)?