UPDATE 4: Meetings between Vice Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan met with Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi have so far been inconclusive, which means the Japanese boats might set sail afterall. We’ll have to wait and see.
UPDATE 3: The Independent Defense Network’s Shin In Gyun attempts to answer the question about which we all wonder: what would happen if the Republic of Korea Navy (No. 11 in the world) and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (No. 3 in the world) were to rumble? The answer: Korea would lose. Badly.
In addition to summarizing the Korean-language piece, Mingi Hyun added some thoughtful comments as well:
So, what is Shin’s advice? As the name of his organization suggests, he is advocating increased military expenditure to enable S. Korea to possess a navy that is basically 75% as capable as the JMSDF.
I believe it’s certainly an ambitious goal, and something that has probably never been done in Korean history. However, if S. Korea is to protect its territory, expanding overseas interests, and economic prosperity over the coming decades, a larger naval force is a requisite, not an option. As a retired Australian admiral commented in recent years, Alfred Thayer Mahan may have died a century ago, but he is alive and well in Asia’s major capitals. Staying nonchalant about what will eventually become a naval armaments and expansion race between China and Japan is too risky and simply irresponsible. S. Korea has the resources to better guard itself, and it should maximize their use if it hopes to turn the tides against the mishaps of history.
UPDATE 2: The Hankyoreh Shinmun reported that the Japanese press has been making “problematic reports” about the Dokdo crisis. In particular, it noted, the Japanese press is claiming that the increase in tensions is due to Korea’s internal political situation.
In an editorial, the Yomiuri Shimbun claimed that the most worrying thing was the tendency of President Roh to incite anti-Japanese sentiment by connecting the issue with Japan’s past invasions. The paper wondered if Korea’ s hardline position was perhaps meant to boost support for the Uri Party ahead of local elections. It said:
But we are concerned about Roh’s stance of trying to tie everything to Japan’s colonization of the Korean Peninsula to whip up anti-Japanese sentiment among the South Korean public. Since unified local elections, which are a prelude for the presidential election next year, are scheduled next month, Roh might be aiming to use this dispute as a means to boost the popularity of his government.
The confrontation over Japan’s planned maritime survey could be solved through diplomatic negotiations. But there will be no easy solution for the dispute over dominion over the Takeshima islets. A ruling by the International Court of Justice could be the only solution for the territorial dispute. Though Japan has been seeking such a ruling since 1954, South Korea has refused to discuss it at the U.N. tribunal.
Roh said Thursday that some people were claiming sovereignty over areas their country had occupied during a war of invasion. He emphasized that South Korea is entitled to occupy the Takeshima islets by force.
If he has such confidence in his claim, he should let the U.N. tribunal rule on the dispute.
The Nikkei, too, said that with local elections in Korea set for next month, there was little room for compromise.
Then, of course, there is the Sankei Shimbun, which in an editorial claimed that Korea’s control of Dokdo was itself a provocation, and sarcastically noted that so many Korean ministers and lawmakers were visiting the islets that it could cause environmental problems. In an op-ed, Tokyo Christian University professor Nishioka Tsutomu said Tokyo needed not to improve relations with the Roh administration, which he claimed was inciting anti-Japanese sentiment, but rather strengthen solidarity with Korea’s conservatives through politely explaining to them the situation. Interestingly, he also said that while some warn that Seoul-Tokyo tensions might hinder cooperation to resolve the North Korean abduction issue, in fact, such tensions would have little effect because the Roh administration hasn’t so far been cooperative on the issue anyway.
UPDATE: Sejong University professor Hosaka Yuji, a Japanese defector to Korea, wrote a post on Cheong Wa Dae Briefing analyzing Japanese intentions and strategy, comparing the recent flare-up over Dokdo to the Unyo Incident of 1875. He noted that Japan, a “warrior nation,” is a “genius at deception.” When they start wars, he said, the Japanese follow Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. In particular, they adhere to the principles that you must defeat your opponent even before the shooting starts and that in order to win, you must study your opponent thoroughly beforehand.
He explained that in 1875, the Japanese—judging that the time was right to strike with the virtual overthrow of the Daewongun and King Gojong’s assumption of direct royal rule—strategized that they could open up Joseon Korea by getting the Koreans to shoot first and then appealing to the international community that the Koreans had attacked a Japanese ship that was merely carrying out a survey. Through this diplomatic war, Tokyo could bring international pressure to bear on Korea.
He noted that everything went according to plan. The Koreans fired the first shots, and international condemnation focused on Korea, which—it was said—had attacked a peaceful Japanese ship. In February 1876, Korea and Japan signed the Treaty of Ganghwa.
He said that like 1875 incident, the recent Dokdo mess is the result of careful calculations on the part of Japan. He said:
Japan has closely studied international law and the Law of the Sea, and planned so that third countries would ultimately conclude that Japan’s actions weren’t bad… Their logic is that since Korea has carried out several submarine surveys over the last four years in the area (the waters where Korea and Japan have yet to define the EEZ boundary, including the waters around Dokdo), Japan, too, could carry out surveys.
He explained that Japan claims the area to be its own EEZ, as there is no agreement between Tokyo and Seoul over the waters between the two countries, and is making good use of international law, which dictates that you cannot seize an official vessel of a foreign nation.
He warned that if there is an armed clash, it would benefit Japan, as Japan could use it to make the waters around Dokdo a disputed region and possibly get Dokdo submitted to the ICJ, and it would strengthen the position of Japanese right-wingers who are pressing for constitutional amendments to turn the Japan Self Defense Force into a real military.
He concluded that while Japan, since its modernization, has managed to justify its military actions, we live in different times because Korea and the rest of the international community isn’t so foolish to play into Japanese hands.
ORIGINAL POST: Ooooo, more Dokdo.
- Yonhap is reporting that the Japanese will soon announce a suspension of their
invasionmarine research mission to the waters off Dokdo.
Japan has promised to hold off conducting a controversial hydrographic survey in South Korea’s waters in an effort to find a diplomatic solution to the latest standoff between the two sides, a top Seoul official said Friday.
“Japan is expected to announce the decision soon,” Vice Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan told reporters in Seoul.
Yu added that his country will block Japan’s survey plan at any cost.
His remarks came ahead of a senior Japanese official’s trip to Seoul for related talks.
Japan’s undersecretary for foreign affairs, Shotaro Yachi, is scheduled to arrive here later in the day for a two-day trip, during which he will discuss ways of resolving the dispute with his South Korean counterpart Yu.
South Korea’s Foreign Ministry said it accepted Yachi’s offer to visit Seoul on the condition that Japan suspends its maritime research plan.Why do I get the feeling there’s more to this deal than Yonhap is reporting.
- As Crosby, Stills and Nash said, you gotta teach your children well. The Education Ministry has ordered 16 metropolitan and provincial offices of education to conduct at elementary, middle and high schools special classes refuting historical distortions found in Japanese textbooks and Tokyo’s territorial claims on the Dokdo islets. The ministry has instructed schools to make active use of this video, produced by the Korean Broadcasters Association. Film available in Korean, English, French and Spanish. Share it with someone you love.
- The Hankyoreh’s roundup of the Japanese media reaction to this whole mess was interesting. The Asahi and Nikkei told both sides to cool off. The Asahi, in particular, said the Koreans misunderstood the aim of the mission, but at the same time, talk of “forcing through a survey” and “seizing the Japanese ships” was anachronistic at a time when Korea and Japan needed to work together for the future of Northeast Asia. The Yomiuri and Mainichi, however, called on Japan to take its case to the international community if Korea blocked it from carrying out its survey. The Sankei Shimbun, of course, slammed Korea for “continuously provoking” Japan over Dokdo, calling Korea’s control of Dokdo itself a “provocation.” Oh, and for good measure, it turned President Roh’s comments around, calling the Korean government “ultra-nationalist” and claiming that it was Japan, not Korea, that was conducting “quiet diplomacy.”
- Yonhap reports a U.S. Congressional source familiar with Japan said the Dokdo incident is being used for domestic political purposes in Japan, namely, by Chief Cabinet Secretary Abe Shinzo, who is battling it out for control of the post-Koizumi LDP. He also noted that President Roh had no choice but to respond to the Japanese move, noting he could be impeached if he let the Japanese research ships near Dokdo. The piece also interviewed Cornell professor Mark Selden, who said Japan was provoking Korea at a time when relations were already tense. He also said Korea had strong grounds for claiming Dokdo, while Japan’s claims were simply provocative. He noted that from the records he’s read, not only does Korea have strong historical grounds, having claimed the islands since the Silla period, but it has also occupied the islets from independence to the current day.
- Why is the Korea Times running interviews with Prof. Shin Yong-ha? Yes, that Shin Yong-ha.
- You know, it’s nice to know that in these times, when passions are running high, the Kyunghyang Shinmun can keep its editorial cartoonist’s pen focused squarely on the principal adversary—the United States.
U.S. “FTA” submarine: We’ve passed Dokdo, and we’ll be landing on the mainland shortly. - According to this chart (don’t blame me, blame the reader who sent it to me), Korea had better hope the situation doesn’t deteriorate into a dick-measuring contest.
25 Comments
Comments on your bullet points:
* What does Yonhap (or its sources) know that the reading public doesn’t know, for them to come out and say Japan is going to call off the survey?
* Funny thing about the Sankei Shimbun is that I read somewhere in the last 24 hours (can’t recall where now) that oddly, circa 1954 when this whole issue first flared up (and it was nasty), that paper—of all the papers in Japan!—actually took South Korea’s side. (Wish I could recall where I read that particular juicy tidbit now.)
* The US congressional source interviewed by Yonhap seems to be right on the money, especially vis-a-vis posturing the run-up to the LDP leadership race.
* Ah hah. Shin Yong-ha. I mentioned the EEZ boundary line he’s proposing in a comment on the last Dokdo thread (one that seems to be a tit-for-tat counterpoint to Japan’s official stand on where the boundary line should be). He does indeed seem to be rather on the flaky side, shall we say?
* As for your last item, ouch. Did you really have to post that? We now know what 50 of the next 100 comments are going to be about. Still, maybe it’s better than endlessly discussing Dokdo. I guess it’s going to a bit harder to snicker at the French now….
* As for your last item, ouch. Did you really have to post that? We now know what 50 of the next 100 comments are going to be about. Still, maybe it’s better than endlessly discussing Dokdo.
If so… mission accomplished.
This is South Korea’s victory.
I challenge all of you to go to a men’s bath house and verify for yourselves…Shouldn’t be too hard to find one in either Korea or Japan. Not my fault if your behavior gets you in trouble. The one who forwarded the link should be the first man to try it.
Blast the LDP.
Roh and Koizumi were playing out an old political trick. When internal affairs are unsatisfactory, steer interest into foreign affairs. Every political leader in every country uses this play.
Yeah, don’t teach your kids critical thinking or tolerance, that might break the almighty chain of “han.” Are they going to bust out the crayons to teach the children well like this school did last year?:
http://aog.2y.net/forums/index.....8&st=0
Sure, both sides should cool off, let the hottest of the hotheads take the lead….
Victory??? Are you kidding? South Korea gave up her sneaky plan to register names for the surrounding seabed at the upcoming IHO meeting in June. To interrupt such an provoking action was Japan’s priority in the beginning.
Koizumi and Abe have simply made the successful negotiation with two unarmed vassals, and if anything, shown the world (including Koreans) it IS the disputed zone and how immature the Roh administration really is. Roh and Ban didn’t know how to withdraw fists they lifted, and Abe send his man to give Korean a chance to act in a civilized manner.
Korea, from the government to media and the people, was hysterical all the way while Japan kept its cool and said nothing but “researching and peaceful negotiation”… Japan is after all the big brother to South Korea.
“U.S. “FTA” submarine: We’ve passed Dokdo, and we’ll be landing on the mainland shortly.”
It takes a fevered imagination to lump all these “invasions” together, well done.
Mark Selden is obviously clueless when it comes to the historical issues surrounding Dokdo/Takeshima, and to brush off Japan’s claims as “provocative” shows that he is also extremely biased.
As for the chart on average penis size, I do not know why the US size is only 5 inches. About thirty years ago, I remember reading that the average size in the US was 6 inches. Could it be that the increasing number of Korean immigrants to the US has brought out average down?
Correction: “…has brought our average down?”
Gerry, take a field trip, and while you’re at it do the same in Japan.
Interesting…
I have a question someone here might be able to answer regarding bullet number two, the textbook issue. Although Japan has gotten a big rap over its approval of textbooks, I know there are alternative textbooks that the MOE has approved which provide varying degrees of “questionionable” interpretations of history. I’m wondering if anyone can shed light on the South Korean MOE’s procedures for authorizing history textbooks, the consistancy of them, and the number available for schools to choose from. Thanks!
So, what’s the deal with the partial penis data? (Note: this is not to be confused with ‘partial-penis data’) Why is the flaccid-penis size of some nations’ male members (of society) not known?
wjk
Apr 21st, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Gerry, take a field trip, and while you’re at it do the same in Japan.
LOL… perhaps you should be the first one to do this since you obviously seem the most worried about it, pencil penis.
No, wait, don’t. This is funny.
Ray, your penis is small. I just invited people to go take a look for themselves. You could look at mine, too.
* As for your last item, ouch. Did you really have to post that?
It was a dumb idea
Oh well…
I’d like to see some more data so we can determine if there’s any correlation between penis and ball size. Given the preliminary data on the French, my hypothesis is that there’s no such correlation.
Robert:
Thanks for the update and translation, re Hosaka Yuji’s commentary on this situation. He makes some good points, ones that have been echoed elsewhere, and ring true.
You’re welcome. We try to provide more around here than just comparative penis stats.
Ah, I found the Sankei Shimbun reference. It comes from a commentor on the Flying Yangban’s first post on the Dokdo/Takeshima issue. (In the interests of full disclosure—lest he or she thinks I’m misrepresenting him—the commentor appears to take the Japanese side in the debate). Thus, when describing Japanese press reaction to the first flare-up between the two countries in the 1950s, he or she writes:
“Curiously, it was the Sankei Shinbun, the parent company of Fusosha (publisher of the history textbook Koreans love to hate), that continued to take the opposite stand in defense of South Korea.”
The Sankei is, I gather, widely regarded today as the flagship paper of the conservative establishment in Japan.
(Link)
That comment is worth reading in its entirety (via the link), by the way, because the commentor fills in a lot of the history from the 1950s. It’s not a pretty picture.
I have the perfect solution for Dokdo. Since neither side has any undisputable historical evidence to support its claim of ownership, and given the mutual responsibility for poor relations among neigboring countries and sister cultures, joint ownership and stewardship should be awarded to both Japan and Korea. That way, they can learn to work out their issues like good neighbors instead of turning every small news item into high political drama.
you’re hilarious, mizar!
A suggestion: Next time a Korean tells you that Korea has never invaded a country, you should ask, “What about Takeshima?”
It is odd that Koreans can be so sure that Dokdo is historically Korean territory, yet are unable to tell you much about that history. The limit to their knowledge seems to be, “Dokdo has been Korean territory since Shilla” and “Dokdo can be seen from Ulleungdo.” Also, some of them can also sing part of the song, “독도는 우리 땅.”
The Korean education system seems to use the same methods to teach the history of Dokdo and Japanese-Korean relations as is used to teach a mass-game routine.
Well, like I mentioned in an earlier post, historyn no matter who owned what once aupon a time, doesn’t really matter much when it comes to an island that is (or was) essentially uninhabited. You leave it you lose it. Question is, what happened in 1952?? If any of the events as related in the link Sewing provided actually happened, Japan could actually have an argument; assuming of course that they can prove there were Japanese on the “Takeshima” in 1952 that were forcibly. If those events happened as that post says and Korea knows that documentation exists to prove it, they would do well to settle the issue quietly and at a bi-lateral level.
Someone else mentioned the incongruity of Japan’s EEZ claims down around Okinotorishima; what if Korea did something really novel like get together with China and team up on Japan in trying to secure a subsequent agreement to the Maritime Law in a Package deal officially recognizing Japan’s territorial control of Okinotorishima but denying their claim to EEZ extension, while at the same time recognizing Korea’s territoral control of Dokdo and also denying their claims to using Dokdo as a starting point for their EEZ. Everyone gets something, history is fucked with (assuming ‘52 stays quiet) and Roh can start worrying about helping refugees out of North Korea. Too much to ask for?