The CIA is lending international support to Japan’s drive to deprive Korea of the Dokdo Islets, says the Voluntary Agency Network of Korea (VANK).
According to the Yonhap News report, VANK claims that over time between 2002 and 2006, the CIA has moved toward reflecting Japan’s calls to designate the Dokdo Islets a disputed territory that should be presented before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
VANKS’s analysis of the CIA’s annual reports revealed that while in 2002 the islets were NOT market “Liancourt Rocks” on either the Korea or Japan maps, in 2004 and 2005, the name “Liancourt Rocks” was inserted on both maps.
In particular, the Liancourt Rocks was marked with an arrow in the Japan map in 2005, but in 2006, the arrow was added to the Korean map as well.
According to Yonhap, the term “Liancourt Rocks” is used by Japan in third countries in order to dismiss Korea’s sovereignty over the islets. The name is derived from a French whaling ship that “discovered” the islets in 1849.
Moreover, in 2002, the CIA simply said the Dokdo Islets were a dispute because of claims by Japan, but in 2004, the terms “intensified” and “highlight” were added to the dispute description, and in 2005, it added “unresolved” and “fishing rights.”
In 2006, however, the description was changed to, “South Korea and Japan claim Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima), occupied by South Korea since 1954.”
VANK claims this is a perfect reflection of Japan’s intention to make the Dokdo Islets a disputed territory and bring the matter before the ICJ.
The problem is that the CIA’s distorted information about the Dokdo Islets (note: Korea refuses to recognize the islets as disputed) influences all the international bodies, travel agencies and mapmakers that make use of CIA information.
VANK cited the example of Internet map provider MapSoftWorld. The provider marked the Dokdo Islets as the “Liancourt Rocks” and as part of Japan’s Shimane Prefecture last year, but after hearing VANK’s complaints, it switched ownership of the islets to Korea and simultaneously marked the waters in which they are found as the “East Sea” and “Sea of Japan.” As of Tuesday, however, the islets were left completely unmarked and the sea labeled the “Sea of Japan” only.
VANK president Park Ki-tae said, “Japan is conducting concentrated lobbying of not just the CIA, but also famous global institutions, broadcasters and map companies… Recently, France Arte TV and National Geographic, which had previously marked the islets as the Dokdo Islets, have begun simultaneously marking them Dokdo/Takeshima.”
See also Mark Lovmo’s site on the Dokdo dispute/non-dispute.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
I heard the CIA even reassigned dozens of agents in the Middle East to help Japan steal Dokdo, VANK VANK VANK.
Wait a minute. The chief VANK-er complains,“Japan is conducting concentrated lobbying of not just the CIA, but also famous global institutions, broadcasters and map companies…” yet that is exactly what VANK does, apparently not nearly as well as the evil Japanese. Guess this crucial issue is all in the hands of the Dokdo Riders on their Daelim scooters, tearing down the sidewalks of Western cities and running red lights across the globe….
Yawn. Let’s change the channel.
This criticism is 10 fold funny coming from VANK, known for their mail bombing tactics of harassment until they get what they want. Aren’t they also the group holding conferences about how Japan is still persecuting Korea at world leading universities seemingly to reach all potential international judges as soon as possible?
I don’t know how the CIA is ‘helping’ anyone thought to be honest, the rocks are disputed and they are just reporting the facts. If Korea doesn’t want to admit that Japan is claiming them as well (which would mean they are disputed) she is being ignorant. One can say that the rocks are wrongly claimed by Japan all they want, but the fact that Japan also claiming them makes them disputed does not change.
I think the Liancourt Rocks term is used as to not take sides or to show that one sides with either side. From the Korean point of view, calling the rocks anything other then Dokdo would be to take sides, but from the view of all outside of Korea and Japan, Dokdo is the Korean name and Takeshima is the Japanese name, therefore any name other than those two is neutral.
I have a solution.
Both Japan and Korea have a land shortage and have expensive land reclamation projects.
I propose — the islands be divided 50/50.
Heavy machinery and barges should be used to break up the land and cart it off to the respecive coasts of both nations to add to their main territory. 50 of the Tokdo soil and rock will go to Korea. 50 of the Takeshima or whatever soil and rock will go to Japan.
They will dig down to X meters below sea level.
And then everyone can shut the……….
Waaaait a minute–I thought this all sounded familiar:
http://www.rjkoehler.com/?p=1484
Now we just need Gerry Bevers and Kushibo arguing whether you can see the little seagull shit-covered rocks from where I can’t remember
usinkorea, that solution would not be acceptable to the Korean side because she views this as a closed issue that is not open for compromise. I can understand them to an extent, even though historically Japan has claimed ownership of the rocks for round about the same time as Korea has, it has only recently started to make claims in modern times which is mighty suspicious, just like that Chinese side on the Senkaku islands issue only making claims after gas fields were found. But at the same time, an issue being closed and not open for compromise has never stopped Korea from pushing something, take a look at the normalization of relations act 1964 for S. Korea and Japan where it says all issues of Japanese reparations for WW2 are closed.
My personal “solution” is that the rocks are not islands, but rocks and can not be claimed. Just like a beach, it’s everyone’s. The rocks are not islands and, without lots of government spending to build special buildings, are uninhabitable which is why this type of dispute is possible. Had people been living there for a long time under natural circumstances, they would be islands and claimable (as well as conquerable).
I still say these should be given to the Frogs. Let them handle the issue. After all, if they hadn’t discovered the damned rocks there wouldn’t be all this trouble.
And a rock feels no pain;
And an island never cries.
I’d like Kim Jung-Il to chime in on the issue, not by claiming the rocks, but rather by unloading enough of his arsenal to completely wipe them from the map. Then he could brag that he attacked both Japan and South Korea. Just gotta get those SK troops off the rocks first so there are no casualties.
The CIA??? So is all that guano to be considered WMD, or just another South Korean fertilizer shipment destined for North Korea?
Although I am originally from a land-locked Midwestern state in North America, I have decided to claim Dokdo/Takeshima for my own. The new name is “Lincoln Island,” in honor of the island in the Jules Verne novel, “Mysterious Island” (which is blown to smithereens by a volcano). Please adjust your maps and histories accordingly (yes, that’s you, CIA peoples). Thanks.
If either of the other sides refuses to acknowledge my claim, I will be forced to wage war on them. This may include, but will not be limited to, printing maps of their countries and turning them into a “Sea of Fire” in my BBQ, and tirelessly continuing poke fun.
Important Note: if you are currently living on, have troops stationed on, or run tours to/on Lincoln Island, please contact me for the rent, tax, and other fees schedule. Thanks in advance, and have I nice day.
If only I had any fingers left to cut off!
Thank you! This one is really precious, just hilarious!
This is the same CIA that, in its former incarnation as the OSS was training Korean exiles in China to invade Korea during the Japanese occupation?
The real story behind the Liancourt Rocks appears to be a KCIA-related – on one hand, a ploy to expand Korea’s maritime rights and, more important, an engineered appeal to Korean jingoistic nationalism as a political tool for distraction and mind control.
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 2 trackbacks }