The ROK and Japan are in a spat over Japanese plans to release an educational guideline for teachers and textbook publishers, which states that the Dokdo Islets are Japanese territory.
There also seems to be differences in whether LMB knew about this beforehand.
The dispute, which was rekindled in recent months, will test bilateral relations which have showed signs of improving after President Lee Myung-bak took office in February as he called for a pragmatic approach on history issues.
Cheong Wa Dae spokesman Lee Dong-kwan Sunday denied the Kyodo News report that Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda informed President Lee of the plan during the summit talk last Wednesday in Japan.
“No such comments were made during the brief talk. In fact, President Lee had expressed worries over Japan’s plan to state in an educational document that it is part of its territory,” said the spokesman. Lee also said that the islets should not be a topic for territorial dispute.
And you can bet that the Blue House plans to take “countermeasures”.
Another official from the presidential office said on condition of anonymity that Cheong Wa Dae would take countermeasures if the Japanese government goes ahead with the measure as planned.
After delivering a speech at the opening of the 18th legislature on Friday, President Lee told the leaders of parliament that he sent a strong message to the Japanese Prime Minister during the talk last week that the Japanese government shouldn’t pursue the plan.
So much for the more “mature” relationship with Japan that the LMB administration was supposed to herald.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 177 comments… read them below or add one }
It takes two…
It is sad. In Japan you can see plenty of people on TV offering the Korean side of the dispute (like Korean professor Pak Il, who is a regular on TV). Is there anyone in Korea doing that?
@2
Do you also want Koreans on TV offering the Japanese point of view that comfort women weren’t abducted and forced but were seeking employment and liked it?
I’ll take the Korean side on both of those issues.
Well, that isn’t exactly a “JAPANESE” point of view, but certainly does represent one side of fact on the matter.
This Takeshima/Dokto dispute is getting more and more weird. After all, Japan doesn’t recognize Korean possession of the rock and Northern territorial dispute with Russia is on the geography text books, I don’t understand why we are giving special treatment to Korea. It only gives them the wrong sign.
Hub of Getting Worked Up Over What Doesn’t Really Matter
The only new sad thing here would be if your last sentence about the 2MB administration is correct.
Hang on though, isn’t he just reacting to what the Japanese government has put out? I’m yet to see the kind of finger-chopping whack-jobbery that was such a constant feature under the Roh administration. I’d love to see the LMB govt. sack up and take this to the ICJ so that Shack-o-hootchies Matt has something else to blawg about for once.
“Look! A distraction!” LMB must be happy that this will draw some of the attention away from him.
“LMB must be happy that this will draw some of the attention away from him.”
Exactly. And I got the feeling that he will not hesitate to use the “anti-Japanese” card to regain his popularity.
Business as usual on the peninsula…
I don’t get why Koreans get worked up over what other countries publish in their own textbooks. What Japan publishes and teaches in Japan is their business. They have every right to teach what they want, as does every nation.
I could imagine a couple weeks ago, as protesters where pulling down buses with rope, LMB pacing around in his office wondering “I wish those 일본놈 would go ahead and release that damn educational guideline crap about Dokdo right about now…”
Shakuhachi: “It is sad. In Japan you can see plenty of people on TV offering the Korean side of the dispute (like Korean professor Pak Il, who is a regular on TV). Is there anyone in Korea doing that?”
I am happy to inform you, Shakuhachi, that there is no shortage of people in Korea offering the Korean side of the dispute!
LMB is recalling the ambassador in Tokyo.
All Korea needs to do is let Japan’s claim fall on deaf ears. Ignore it and appease it.
Utis possesis!
#10… I think we all get Shakuhachi’s point, despite the wording.
Right, it’s worse; not whack-jobs in the street with cleavers; instead ROKGOV recalls its ambassador. See:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/.....efer=japan
by business as usual you mean
NK’s kill SK’s and no one cares
but anything to do with the US or Japanese brings out thousands upon thousands of jackasses!
spot on
and estimated 30 percent were sold by their fathers to the japanese
I see the pattern right now from the perspective of the Koreans:
Well, its that time of the year again! Now that the candlelight protests are dying down it’s time to shift the subject to those damn Japs! By the way, who gives a $hit if one of our fellow country women was brutally murdered by some North Koreans? We can’t protest that and the fact that North Korea’s not letting us investigate. Thats ok because we still love our brothers up there! Oh we must be patient with them~ but Japan! Hold on here! Oh those damn Japs! What did they say about Dokdo? Oh no~ we must pull our entire efforts and focus on Japan now! Screw whats going on in our land we need to all rise up and protest agaist what the Japs are saying and start writing $hit in blood about how evil they are and how Dokdo belongs to us!
Lee has been accused of being Japan lover and employee of Japan. After this US beef riots, Lee is forced to show a strong hand, otherwise face another hostile round of political crisis. And in today’s news, 7 out of 10 foreign investors wants out of Korea:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/ww.....27565.html
US beef, North Korea, energy crisis, now Dokto… this is getting ugly. Of course the process of deregulation of the Korean economy has been slow, the National Assembly was shut down for the last 2 months with the opposition walking out and joining the riots. All of Korea’s time was spent on fruitless topics while Rome burns.
What a sad country.
“So much for the more “mature” relationship with Japan that the LMB administration was supposed to herald.”
Considering the recent mass hysteria in Korea over killer American beef, I’m surprised it took LMB so long to play the Japan card.
Interestingly Japan mentioned “northern territories” per both Chosun Ilbo and Hankyoreh. I wonder if these “northern territories” mean Hokkaido or the Kuril Islands.
The Northern territories are islands of Kunashiri, Etorofu, Hobomai and Shikotan.
And they are not part of the Kurils, which Japan has abandoned in San Francisco Treaty, but islet belong to the island of Hokkaido.
Re #25, Andy Xie of Morgan Stanley had some interesting comments, as also reported in the KT:
So they condemn the move by Japan… yet one of their citizens is killed in cold blood and the express mild dissapointment with the North.
South Korea doesn’t deserve what it has. Let the Norks have it.
This issue will only hurt 2MB, in more ways than one. Already the rumors are spreading (e.g., claims he secretly agreed when in Japan a few months ago to hand over the rocks, and similar nonsense), and it will undoubtedly turn into another issue that will give the crazies an excuse to swarm out into the streets armed with their pathetic candles and cries, “Dokdo is Our Land!”
By the way, whenever I mention to a “progressive” (read fascist) Korean the fact that Kim Il-sung handed over half of Chungi, Korea’s Sacred Lake on Mount Paekdu, to the Chinese hordes as a “reward” for their help in re-dividing the peninsula, I get a dirty look.
Give Korea the one in the ‘East Sea’ and Japan the one in the Sea of Japan …
Or perhaps that could be distracted by a common hate of a common enemy. It worked in 1984. China’s probably a good bet.
Also, we’re forgetting the benefits: Wear a Dokdo shirt out at night and you won’t have to buy a single drink.
Japan’s PM Fukuda, like Lee, is also probably on the hot seat right now, from Japan’s right. He’s also forced to play politics. After all, this is the same man who said not long ago that it was just a rock not worth going to war over.
There’s a perfect solution to all this.
Take the squabble over to the International Court. If Japan wins, they take the rocks. If Korea wins, Korea keeps the rocks and Japan must hand over an island in Japan’s possession. I think that’s a fair deal.
#25 Japan has already proposed taking it to the World Courts and the ROK has flat refused.
#26 Of course: Japan has nothing to lose. Korea already has the rocks. Why would they legitimize Japan’s claim by agreeing to have the dispute arbitrated?
I don’t give a shit who has the rocks. But since they already do have them, I wish Koreans would just quit pissing and moaning about Japan’s pointless claims to them. G’damn cry babies.
What a country!
@NES
Actually, there are some Koreans who are brave enough to offer a objective point of view.
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2007/.....ort-women/
The problem is many Koreans are simply afraid of people who are different and get angry when people have different view than their own. People like Han Seung-jo and Cho Yeong-nam who express ed pro-Japanese views got ostracized and even had to quit their jobs. They just don’t seem to understand that people have the right to present a dissenting viewpoint and that intellectual freedom is a very important part of any advanced society.
“#25 Japan has already proposed taking it to the World Courts and the ROK has flat refused.”
Yeah but no one has proposed the trade offs yet. If Japan wins, they take the rocks. If Japan loses, not only they can’t have the rocks, they lose another one. The stakes are even so it’s fair and it will give the Koreans an incentive to go for it.
Are you high? What’s even about that?
“Shack-o-hootchies Matt”
There are probably quite a few stories behind the use of that appellation…
For WonKon: http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/.....ent-170400
Koreans might have something to win by taking it to the World Court. Any favorable ruling would strengthen their case on Gando, as well as Russia and China’s claim on southern “Japanese” islands.
Call Japan’s bluff and see what happens.
Park Hyun, has it ever occurred to you that Japan might have a legitimate claim over Dokdo? How much do you really know about the actual history?
“If Korea wins, Korea keeps the rocks and Japan must hand over an island in Japan’s possession. I think that’s a fair deal.”
It probably sounds fair to Koreans,but it seems pretty warped idea to the Japanese.
Anyway,ICJ offer has been Japanese policy since 1954.
“Japan’s PM Fukuda, like Lee, is also probably on the hot seat right now, from Japan’s right”
Not exactly,Since no one has any intention of going to war on Takeshima.
And the textbook guideline’ｓdescription
on Takeshima was
「我が国と韓国との間に竹島をめぐって主張に相違があることにも触れながら、北方領土と同様に我が国の領土について理解を深めさせることが必要だ」
This is a bad translation but,it means
“By mentioning the difference of opinion between Japan and Korea over Takeshima,it is necessary to give students deeper knowledge on our territory along with the Northern Territories”.
LDP right are angry for Fukuda failed to mention in the guidelines that “Takeshima is the Japanese sovereign territory”.
This guideline is simply an advice to teachers and teachers are not obliged to follow it,since it has no legal obligation.And it will only be valid four years from now.
There is nothing wrong with Japan teaching their students about Dokdo Takeshima.
The problem is Japanese schools won’t teach the truth about the islets. First, they won’t teach Japan has no historical claim before 1905 and second they won’t admit Japan’s true motivations for annexing the islands in 1905. If the Japanese students would learn this, maybe they’d understand why the Koreans get so bent outta shape when Japan continues to badger them.
I have no personal knowledge of the history myself but I’m not so sure it’s that slam dunk, frog. This site says otherwise: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/
frogmouth/Steve:
I think we’ve been through with this before.
http://ampontan.wordpress.com/.....refecture/
““By mentioning the difference of opinion between Japan and Korea over Takeshima,it is necessary to give students deeper knowledge on our territory along with the Northern Territories”.”
God forbid Japanese teachers mention the dispute as often as Korean teachers do.
Aceface, I read over your link…and this Steve Barber cleaned house.
I wish Japan WOULD win the argument that Dokdo historically belonged to Japan…then Korea can say it took Japanese territory as a reparation for Japan’s cruel colonization of Korea.
Alas, the historical argument is that Dokdo is and always was (with the exception of 1905-1945) Korean territory. So essentially, South Korea took merely Korean territory when it reclaimed Dokdo into its fold.
Looks like a complicated dispute. My preliminary opinion (hardly an informed conclusion) is that this is an uninhabitable rock rather than an island and cannot be claimed as an island by Japan. My judgement, however, is that it is hardly worthy of a diplomatic dispute and of zero diplomatic importance and that a mature Korean administration would simply perfunctorilly wave the issue away.
However, it would appear that the issue is kept alive on the Korean side purely for internal political purposes as it is a populist issue. It’s akin to making an issue over whether Obama wears a flag pin. Nobody wants to poh poh the issue for fear of not seeming “patriotic”. Maintaining hostility toward Japan is generally a good populist ploy and, by distracting the public from examining the fundamental issues, it perpetrates a corrupt status quo.
A pragmatic administration would realise that the Korean public can be played like a violin. Just as KDJ played pro-North sentiment to buy himself the Nobel Prize and Roh played anti-American sentiment to win the election, confronting Japan is a political plus.
But Dok Do can’t work for 2MB. The main problem that the Han Nara Party has is that it can’t harness anti-American, pro-communist sentiment, and this is the basis on which Korean populism is built. By trying to deal honestly with the US beef issue, it suffered a major defeat.
Like it or not, Korea must be turned over to the leftists. The future may be truly bleak, but short of law and order-style authoritarian control, which no longer works in Korea, there really is no other alternative. Anarchy must be allowed to reign.
The US played their cards right by moving to get the troops out of the capital and maintaining a lower profile. At this point, rather than attempting to win over public sentiment with diplomacy and good will, which simply no longer works, the only realistic way to obtain equity in trade is to begin to apply real pressure to Korea through trade retaliation. Every time a sincere, bilateral approach is applied, it is interpreted as pressure anyway, so there is no good will left to lose. In international relations, the equivalent of gunboat diplomacy is the only kind of message Korea really understands. For Korea, it’s going to be an increasingly difficult time as its weaknesses are exposed to the international community and it is increasingly understood that Korea can be bypassed as an irrelevent rogue state that offers no particular benefit and headaches that are just not worth the effort. But, unfortunately, considering all the damage that has been done, I believe this is in the cards.
Im taking Koreas side on this one. Im not even pro Korean or Japanense. I just find the Japanese childish in this instance.
This entire debacle is Japans fault. Japan is the provoker. On second thought, Japan is alway the provoker. If the Japanese education ministry simply shut up and left textbooks the way they were since 1945, this issue would have been completely avoided. Why are they trying to pick a fight with South Korea? What is their purpose. Why are they revising textbooks to piss Koreans off in the year 2008? Why didnt they state their territorial claims in 1945 rather than 2008? Whats their point in trying to claim an island that Korea has been controlling for the last couple of decades in the year 2008. I really see no point in the Japanese education ministry doing something like this. Perhaps the Japanese right wing is secretly helping Lee Myung Bak garner support at home. I dont know.
Notice how in every single Korea-Japan dispute, its the Japanese who bring up the past and start a mini war. Whether its warcrimes denial, dokdo, historical revisions or other Japanese problems that offends Koreans. Its always the Japanese who are provoking the Koreans. And when the Koreans get offended you have nonsensical Japanophiles stating that Koreans are over-reacting over something the Japanese started. The Japanese should quit acting like babies and realize that the world doesnt revolve around them.
And why does Japan have territorial disputes with every single one of her neighbors? This entire fight was pointless and the Japanese should be ashamed of themselves for starting it. They should have just left the status quo.
I beg to differ. I have followed this issue before – albeit not too closely on the historical claims side. It appears to me that it is typically the Korean side that has provoked Japan over the issue time and again. While the Korean nation is involved in its typical emotional overreaction to the issue, the Japanese public isn’t even the least bit familiar with the issue.
The story behind Taeshima Day so far as I understand is that the Shimane Prefecture, which is one of the poorer ones and feels that it rather desperately needs the fishing rights, prodded a reluctant Japanese govt. into action by declaring Takeshima Day. The Japanese govt. reacted in a halfhearted manner, providing perhaps a bit of reluctant lip service but did not act in a provocative manner towards Korea.
This time, I’m not sure why this suddenly became an issue. It is reported by Korean media sources that the issue might be mentioned in a Japanese textbook. Is this rumor true? If so, what’s the back story – was this also provoked by the Shimane Prefecture?
The West Island to the nutty Asians, the East Island to Japan.
The actual provokation for the declaration of the Takeshima Day ordinance in Feb 22, 2005, was, if I recall correctly, a direct provokation by SK, which turned away Japanese fishing boats in violation of a 1965 treaty between the two governments that had set a provisional fishing zone around the islands. In November 1998, South Korea and Japan agreed to renew the treaty that allowed fishing boats from Japan and South Korea to operate in each other’s 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zones if they obtained permits, while fishing quotas and conditions for such operations were to be decided by the two countries every year. This agreement laid the foundation for a subsequent 2002 fisheries accord in which each state agreed to lower its catch quota in order to preserve depleting fish stocks around the islands.
In response to the Takeshima Day declaration, the Japanese government expressed concern over the diplomatic row with South Korea, but it said that the state had no power to intervene in the Shimane assembly since the vote fell under the jurisdiction of a local government.
Occidentalism reports these events quite accurately here:
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=507
“Takeshima Day was established by the government of Shimane Prefecture in response to angry fishermen protesting against being excluded from Fishing around Takeshima/Dokdo islands, and to encourage the central government to take stronger steps to ensure Japanese sovereignty of the island. The Japanese central government did not want Shimane Prefecture to declare Takeshima Day as the central government wanted to take a low key approach (which had been unsuccessful).Japan’s central government tried to get the Shimane Prefecture to give up plans to pass the legislation. Both sides say they are keen to avoid the dispute hurting wider relations between the countries.”
So VG866 is incorrect in characterizing this as a Japanese provokation of Korea. The exact opposite is true.
The irony of this is that, while the historical claims are difficult to assess, de facto control of the island is exercised by Korea giving them the stronger claim. The mature manner of handling the situation would be to not provoke international discord, which S Korea seems incapable of doing.
The Japanese don’t have to be quiet or kowtow to anybody to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings or upsetting already sensitive people. If they already have them in their possesion, then Korea shouldn’t be silly enough to get upset everytime Japan brings it up.
Japan’s supposed “provocation” is highlighted in this article, titled ‘Takeshima Day,’ rhetoric just Shimane affair’:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp.....223a3.html
Excerpt:
“‘Takeshima has been occupied by South Korea for more than 50 years. In the past, we tried to get the rest of Japan to pay attention to the problem, but had no luck. Last year’s prefectural resolution to create ‘Takeshima Day’ has successfully raised the profile of the issue nationally,’ Shimane Gov. Nobuyoshi Sumita said in his opening remarks to a forum on the dispute’s history…Diet members representing the prefecture and Foreign Ministry officials had received official invitations to attend Wednesday’s forum, but declined, citing the delicate nature of the problem. ‘We have to study the historical facts without nationalistic sentiments on either side,’ Sumita said.”
Contrast this to the needless Korean hysteria over Dokdo.
Mizar ive read the stuff youve written in the past and you have a clear anti-Korea bias. Dont even deny it.
How is it that Korea somehow started this or any other debacle. Takeshima day for example was completely uncalled for. Korea controlled the islands and it was within Koreas EEZ limit. That was that. Korea exercised sole control of the islands and Japanese textbooks did not state entire control of the islands for several decades(until today). Why did Shimane Prefecture designiate ownership over the islands and even created Takeshima day when they knew Korea was A. In control of the islands. B. Sensitive to any claims on Korean territory, C. Did not want to issue to be brought up again.
Would Takeshima day have solved anything or was it nothing more than a shallow ploy to irritate the other side because the Japanese knew that they would never exercise control over the islands again. And the fact that you bring occidentalism hurts your credibility. Koreans are not over-reacting. Japans claims on Dokdo reminds them of japans brutal colonization. Granted Japan is not an imperial war mongering nation today, but claiming Dokdo certainally draws parrels. It also doesnt help Japans image.
“The mature manner of handling the situation would be to not provoke international discord, which S Korea seems incapable of doing.”
That would actually be what Japan is doing right now. Remember that Korea owns the islands right now. While Japan is doing to provocation and empty claims. What was the point of Takeshima day and altering textbooks in 2008? Why couldnt they just keep their mouth shuts like they did years before? You show your obvious anti-Korea bias. And by anti-korea I dont mean flat out hatred. I mean your insistence of take any side that is opposite of Koreas.
And let me just state this. How is it Koreas fault again?
Why did Japan hush up and do little about about Koreas ownership of the islands for over 40 years yet in 2008 changed its mind? Whos being provocative here? Why did Japan suddenly chose to claim the island in their textbooks knowing full well of the diplomatic fallout? Korea didnt start this fight. Its clear that Japan did.
Korea has every right to protect its EEZ limit and any attempts by the Japanese to land on Dokdo or illegally fish in Korean waters. I just find this whole incident by the Japanese government to be childish and pointless. Whats the point in starting a fight over the islands? Korea still controls the islands and will always control the islands.
“You show your obvious anti-Korea bias.”
This is what is known as a strawman argument – a fallacy in which a person describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, and then attributing that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position, or accusing him of bias). You have not, however, addressed or attempted to dispute the arguments that were put forward.
VG866 @48:
Well-said!!
Follow the (potential) money. What’s UNDER Dokeshima that both sides want so bad?
“This is what is known as a strawman argument – a fallacy in which a person describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, and then attributing that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position, or accusing him of bias). You have not, however, addressed or attempted to dispute the arguments that were put forward.”
Are you joking or is it because you cant address my comments? Please answer my questions. I answered your comments(rather easily might I add).
And I can accuse you of strawman as well. It doesnt change the fact that your points are easily refuted. Japan loudly banged the drums and declared Takeshima day knowing full well that Korea controls the islands and will always control the islands. Declaring Takeshima day served no purpose other than provoking the other side.
What other purpose was there? Would that holiday somehow give Japanese fisher men the oppurtunity to fish and land on Dokdo again? No. It was only created to irritate the other side.
“Korea still controls the islands and will always control the islands.”
Accordingly, there shouldn’t be a need for Koreans to take the issue so seriously. However, Korean politicians ultimately won’t ignore Japanese provocations – real or imagined – because there is so much political mileage to be gotten out of it.
And, no, I do not have an anti-Korean bias. My analysis of the issues are based on the facts and reasoned inference. I simply let the chips fall where they will and if my conclusions are incorrect, I adjust them accordingly.
Bias describes a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result irrespective of the facts and may be shown in an argument that expresses a particular perspective without any line of valid inferential logic. I will not use this term to characterize your arguments because I have no interest in setting up my own strawman arguments.
Politicians need Dokdo to build their careers. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist but the timing of this entire incident is just too perfect. And its even more awkward that Japan is doing this during LMBs rule. I wouldnt be surprised if LMB and Japanese officials secretly agreed to this. With LMBs popularity hovering at an all time low, this is the perfect opportunity for him to salvage his reputation and garner support again.
Its good to know that there are some issues both left and right wingers can agree on.
VG866 seems like a typical Korean nationalist (a.k.a Kyopo with a chip on his shoulder). Seems like the obsession (jealousy) of Japan really gets to these folks to the point where spewing hate-mongering vitriol on sites like this is not enough to satisfy them. No wonder they lose sleep scouring the internet trying to find any opportunity possible to elevate Korea at the expense of Japan.
Seems like a tough job that hardly noone would ever want to do. However, I guess to Koreans, it’s not work at all but rather pleasurable.
“And, no, I do not have an anti-Korean bias. My analysis of the issues are based on the facts and reasoned inference. I simply let the chips fall where they will and if my conclusions are incorrect, I adjust them accordingly.
Bias describes a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result irrespective of the facts and may be shown in an argument that expresses a particular perspective without any line of valid inferential logic. I will not use this term to characterize your arguments because I have no interest in setting up my own strawman arguments.”
Thats all fine and dandy of you to say but what about staying back on topic(like answering my questions) rather than telling me of your personal preferences.
On the Racism – Facism – Xenophobia Scale
Left Wing of Korea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pre-Civil Rights US South + Nazi Germany + Imperial Japan + Communist China
VG866, if you read my representations above, you will see that your arguments were indeed refuted. Rather than raise any new argumentsw or factual support for your prior arguments, you respone with sheer suppositions. For instance, take your statement, “What other purpose was there? Would that holiday somehow give Japanese fisher men the oppurtunity to fish and land on Dokdo again? No. It was only created to irritate the other side.”
This bald assertion is apparantly argued from the presumption of omniscience. If you presume to ascribe motives to people, you msut also support your thesis with some factual evidence. Nor does this argument against the politicians of Shimane address the evidence presented with regard to the reasoned restraint exhibited by the national public officials.
“And I can accuse you of strawman as well. It doesn’t change the fact that your points are easily refuted.”
Indeed you do may, but without basis.
If my points are so easily refuted, one wonders why you have not yet done so. However, I look forward to any refutations, as I have no corner on the facts and always look forward to new learning experiences.
“Japan loudly banged the drums and declared Takeshima day knowing full well that Korea controls the islands and will always control the islands. Declaring Takeshima day served no purpose other than provoking the other side.”
Japan did that and the text book thing to bring it international attention and to bait South Korea into over reacting – knowing full well what the reaction was going to be across the sea. It’s Korea’s stupidity to take the bait and turn this thing into a bigger incident then it really deserves to be. All they have to do is just sit tight, stay quiet, and let Japan make all the noise. But no.. you can’t let those Japs get away with spreading wrong information.
“And let me just state this. How is it Koreas fault again? Why did Japan hush up and do little about about Koreas ownership of the islands for over 40 years yet in 2008 changed its mind?”
Did they suddenly change their mind in 2008? Do you mean to say that this issue has not been an ongoing dispute? Funny, I seem to remember a popular song “Dokdo nun uri dang” as far back as the 1970s.
“Whos being provocative here? Why did Japan suddenly chose to claim the island in their textbooks knowing full well of the diplomatic fallout? Korea didnt start this fight. Its clear that Japan did.”
Is it so clear then? Perhaps I have missed something. I do not have all the facts at this point. Do you? What exactly are these facts that make it so abundantly clear?
“Korea has every right to protect its EEZ limit and any attempts by the Japanese to land on Dokdo or illegally fish in Korean waters.”
Were there alleged violations of the 1965 fishing accord? I don’t recall reading such at the time.
“I just find this whole incident by the Japanese government to be childish and pointless. Whats the point in starting a fight over the islands? Korea still controls the islands and will always control the islands.”
Why HAS Korea continued to raise the issue then? Doesn’t that seem childish and pointless?
I’m not the one expressing any biases here. I’m only looking for answers. From what I’ve seen so far, as elucidated above, Japan has not been the childish and pointless provocateur in this dispute. But of course there is much I still don’t know about the issue, and I would appreciate any evidence for the assertions you set forth.
If you have no reasoned arguments on the matter, however, I will consider our exchange concluded.
As for my personal take on this, I believe cm may have a point in conjecturing that Japan understands Koreans better than we know ourselves. It appears that all they need to do is whisper to inspire mass hysteria that causes Korea to discredit itself in the international community. Because we do appear to be making unreasoned fools of ourselves here, don’t you think?
Now, as for jag’s statement, “What’s UNDER Dokeshima that both sides want so bad?”, I see no compelling evidence to substantiate all the loose talk of indispensible minerals under the around Dokdo. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that there are hundreds of islands around Korea, and yet none save Dokdo is mentioned as a lucrative store of minerals? Even assuming that there are valuable minerals there, what would be the cost to extract them, and how much would they actually contribute to the national economy? If it were even viable to mine these resources, why hasn’t this been attempted?
As for me, I see nothing here but a domestically manufactured political issue whose express purpose is to promote needless ill will towards Japan for some perverse and ridiculous political reason. Of course, this is merely a reasoned hypotethesis, not an inescapable conclusion. With an open mind, I have long awaited evidence to the contrary. I appeal to someone to please provide this.
Mizar, say what you will, but after skimming through your long diatribes on this and other threads, it IS obvious that you have an anti-Korea bias.
I personally believe that Dodko belongs to Korea historically….and even if it didn’t, then I am happy to say that Korea took some Japanese land as a reparation for the colonization.
But never mind Koreans and their emotions for a second….these long, prolific comments on this issue (and on the Korean character in general) even on this thread is very revealing about people’s anti-Korea bias, mizar, especially yours. How you took this issue, of which you admit you are not that knowledgeable, and use it to make your negative generalizing comments about all Koreans is beyond me.
It is some sort of natural gas under it. I think they are still working on the technology to be able to use it IIRC.
“This time, I’m not sure why this suddenly became an issue. It is reported by Korean media sources that the issue might be mentioned in a Japanese textbook. Is this rumor true?”
So far the closest chance of Takeshima dispute to be mentioned in the geography textbook would be four years from now.
“If so, what’s the back story – was this also provoked by the Shimane Prefecture?”
It’s a long story.
It goes back to May 31 of 2005.
A South Korean fishing boat had violated Japanese EEZ and conducted illegal fhishing in Japanese waters.
http://english.chosun.com/w21d.....10013.html
What this Chosun Ilbo article isn’t telling is this boat,Sinpung-ho 502 run off from Japanese coast guard vessel with two Japanese officers on the boat and escaped into Korean EZZ(the two Japanese officers were on the boat for inspection).Sinpung-ho 502 didn’t stop even after the repeated request and naturally Japanese coast guard considered that Shinpung-ho 502 is taking Japanese officers as hostages.
Anyway,the standoff at the middle f sea of Japan was called off from the order of Japanese Foreign Minister after the negotiation with their counterpart,Korean Foreign Minister Ban-Ki-Moon,then UN secretary,with the promise that Korean side would investigate the Shinpung 502.
However,after Shinpung 502 had landed,the crew claimed they were severly beaten by the Japanese at sea(of which Japanese side furiously denied)and Koren Coastal Police had releasd the crew without no furthur investigation of what so ever.Added to the insult,Korean Coast Guard demanded the rights of investigation in Japanese waters to Japanese Coast Guards,which is clearly the violation of soverein rights.JCG turned it down.
What happened here,is Japanese coast guard(which belongs to the ministry of transportation)started to grow distrust to Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
for they think MoFA is imcompetent in solving issues with Seoul and easily sell of sovereign right to Koreans for the sake of fragile relationship.
And this led them to dispatch survey vessel off to Takeshima in april of 2006.There was a report in Korean media that Seoul had planned to adress it’s own new name of underwater geography around Takeshima at the international conference held in June in Germany.
J-MoFA had requested to halt the move,Yet Seoul had denied once again.Seeing another powerless Japanese diplomacy,J-Coast Guard had decided to dispatch the boat,but PM Abe Shinzo called off the dispatch at the last moment(because Korea had announced that they will seize the survey vessel and crews with more than two dozen ship and commandoes) and send in top J-diplomat to Seoul for the negotiation.Which had settled as Seoul to suspend the name adressing at the conference and Tokyo to stop underwater survey.
And this made Shimane prefecture furious,because many Shimane fhishermen’s fishery areas were violated by Korean poachers and has been asking repeatedly to both the Coast Guard and MoFA to settle the issues with South Koreans,which so far came up with no result.
Frustlated with being ignored by the central government,shimane prefecture started to campaining to put this issue on national agenda,including to put the issue in a column on geography textbook for junior highschool.(Territorial dispute with Russia is already on the book)Ministry of Education had promised Shimane to work on the next revision of teaching guideline and this happens to be yesterday.
The danger of living in Korea is the intellectual laziness it encourages. The media puts the locals through their xenophobic paces over and over, and we expats get all het up over and over. I admit that if you care about Korea, it gets frustrating watching it go backward while the rest of the world is globalizing. But it’s their coutnry, and their economy to screw up. Let ‘em do their Dokdo thang. And let ‘em do their rage-at-Olympic-refereeing/judging thang, ‘cos we all know that’s next.
#40
“Alas, the historical argument is that Dokdo is and always was (with the exception of 1905-1945) Korean territory. So essentially, South Korea took merely Korean territory when it reclaimed Dokdo into its fold.”
That’s your argument.Not ours.Anyway,you have court to prove your point.
#42
“And why does Japan have territorial disputes with every single one of her neighbors? ”
That is an interesting question,however you are also forgetting that every country in this part of the world has same problem.
China has border dispute with every single nation that share borders with(even went to war in three of them).
Same with Russia with the exception of border with Belarus.
Korea has problem not only with Japan,but also with China
over Socotra rock and Gando.
Taiwan has issues with Japan over the Senkakus,but they also claim the Spratlys which will make them in dispute with PRC,Vietnam,Malaysia,Burunei and the Phillippines at the same time.
So taking out Japan alone like a pariah doesn’t do justice.
“This entire fight was pointless and the Japanese should be ashamed of themselves for starting it.They should have just left the status quo.”
Indeed,and Jpaan have no intention of taking Takeshima by force.But Tokyo has been repeating the same claim since 1954.Korea tried to change the status quo by silencing Japan in 2005.
@23 I can attest to this. The last time I sported my Dokdo tshirt I was summoned from the street and was poured a few shots of soju.
I wish Soviet Russia was still around so non-communist states could stop bitching at each other over small issues and realize there are bigger issues out there.
On a holistic viewpoint, Japan should make a claim on the islands. Why? Because Japan’s soft power in the region is multiple folds stronger than Korea’s. Whether it is stronger than China’s we do not know, but China, Japan, and Russia all have significantly higher levels of soft power influence compared to North and South Korea. South Korea has a definite edge in terms of hard power politics over Japan (even if the JSDF is larger, it can’t be flexed) but no one is going to war in Northeast Asia while the US is around. So soft power rules the day.
Also, I support Korea’s claim on dokdo simply because using any sort of historical precedent to establish a territorial claim is inane and childish at best. If territory can be claimed due to past ownership records, then Korea is part of China, China is part of Mongolia, France is part of Britain, and the Native American Counsel has claim over all of the United States of America. Whoever owns whatever territory right now is pretty much the owner, and if people have a problem with it, they should go start a war and suffer the blowback and backlash from their stupidity.
Japan is aggressively (in diplomatic, not military sense) trying to claim various small rocks, EEZ’s, and under-water resources, because they lost the war and this is the only game they have left.
A hundred years ago, they’d simply invade and take what they wanted. We should feel fortunate that we live in an era where nations are fighting over rocks and fish, instead of invading countries.
Small islets like Lioncourt Rocks and Pinnacle islands cannot support permanent human habitation or have its own economy, so it shouldn’t be granted an EEZ anyway.
69, then what would constitute the limits of land masses that would grant an EEZ under the Law of the Sea that almost every major nation in the world would agree to? Anyone with a tiny islet would agree to establishing EEZ for ANY land mass owned by a country or else they wouldn’t agree to the international law. Almost every major power has tiny little islets off the coast of their lands and would gladly want the extension. Even with this un-complication, the stupid law has problems with sunken atolls etc. etc. we don’t need more complications with the law.
If only Korean society were capable of the introspection necessary to evaluate why some people might come to have an “anti-Korea bias”.
After all, there is no organized anti-Korea lobby in the US or Europe. Schoolchildren are not exhorted by their parents and teachers to hate Korea, drawing pictures of atom bombs exploding over City Hall to be proudly exhibited in public — most of them couldn’t find Korea on a map. There are no anti-Korean automobile or cell-phone import protests clogging the streets of our capitals and paralyzing our governments. Korea has no history as a great power exerting its influence around the world, and certainly has not been a colonialist.
No, only those benighted people who come into close and continuous contact with Korea — usually out of naive friendship, belief in investment-promotion promises, or simply genuine interest — come to have this feeling you describe as “anti-Korea bias”. Isn’t that unusual? What do you suppose engenders the bad feelings?
cm, if you’re that concerned, drive South and go buy a new Genesis.
shell out some dough, and play games with your relatives and buy Hyundai stocks.
I don’t think you’re that concerned.
to conclude:
koreans = stupid and emotional
japanese = not stupid but BAD and hides emotions and picks on stupid/weaker people
that’s how it’s been, and that’s how it always will be. usually the non-stupid wins in any disputes.
i am a korean and i always thought that koreans are really stupid over dokdo because in this day and age japan would not ever be able to just come and take a child’s candy when there are adults watching but now reading the blatant anti-korean comments of learned foreigners on this site i am not sure that japan would not achieve that amazing feat of taking something away and claiming that “it was theirs in the first place” or “they gave it away of their own free accord” yet again! i marvel at their ingenuity and weep at my own stupid helpless people..
make me a japanese! let me eat whale and get away with it!
For Sale For Sale For Sale
Big Rock er I mean island in the middle of the ocean.
This Island (wink wink)features;
No soil or vegetation, you can forget about busting your butt doing weekend gardening.
No noisy neighbours, actually no neighbours for miles and miles.
A bird lovers paradise, seagulls, seagulls and more seagulls.
Huge Development Potential!
Possible uses, include;
* Leper Colony
* Outpost for the criminally insane
* Junior Hermit Kingdom (Senior Hermit Kingdom, big swim to the East)
* Residence for war criminals/and or deposed despots.
We take Cash, Mastercard or Visa.
How much?
The price is soo low, there is no need to lose an arm, a leg or even a finger!
Call now now now, and we’ll even through in a “I love Dogdoo” T shirt
i was wrong about saying the candles will stop when the 30 month deal goes thru.
but, I was right, that the 30 month issue was past a point of no return.
it’s sort of a miracle that 2MB somehow got the US to do the 30 month deal.
anyway, in your lifetime, you will never see South Korea tell Japan to take those two rocks.
That issue is past a point of no return.
A lot of present day Poland was Germany.
They don’t complain at all, though. I am not in anyway saying those rocks were of Japan nor am I saying they were stolen. I am saying that as one of the two nations hosting US bases because they lost world wars, Japan should not be waging territory wars with neighbors.
In the interest of stopping communism, the Japanese got off too easy after World War II.
Like I said long time ago, Japan has a territory dispute with Russia, Taiwan, Korea.
in your life time, you will never see Taiwan or Russia lose the dispute to Japan, either.
I was going to say something like: “Anyone with an anti-Korea bias is perfectly within their rights considering Korea’s grossly anti-foreign bias” but Mr Carr beat me to it.
JK: “How you took this issue, of which you admit you are not that knowledgeable, and use it to make your negative generalizing comments about all Koreans is beyond me.”
Apparently so, as I have never done any such thing. But let’s just acknowledge for the sake of argument that I am indeed the bad person you would make me out to be. Would you then be willing to put aside the silly fallacious arguments, the argumentum ad hominem, the red herring distractors, and proceed to address the issues in a logical, intellectually honest way?
Others here have expressed opinions differing from my own in a respectable manner. Once can only hope that you respect your own argument enough to join them and drive home your point with honesty and vigor. Now that would be a good discussion.
Anton;: “I was going to say something like: ‘Anyone with an anti-Korea bias is perfectly within their rights considering Korea’s grossly anti-foreign bias’ but Mr Carr beat me to it.”
Anton, bias is never defensible in the context of a constructive discussion. Dispassion and logic should prevail, and all biases should be examined mindfully in the cold light of reason.
yeah, mizar5, but this is a DOKDO thread…
I’m not defending the existence of so-called “anti-Korean bias”, but merely pointing out that it doesn’t really exist among those without contact with Koreans, and certainly doesn’t pop out sua sponte, like
HeraAthena from the forehead of Zeus.Yuna, you are brave. I admire someone who has the guts to express an unpopular opinion.
This is nuanced thinking, and flies in the face of political prejudices. As I say, you are brave Yuna, as I assume that you must deal with the culture on a daily basis whereas I am not so brave, as I am now removed from it.
People just take pot shots at me on a virtual forum, and that doesn’t hurt. But you who are presumably in a position to restore balance at a grass-roots level may have to pay a price for your dissent. Now that is heartenin. for a curmudgeon like myself.
Ghost yoon:
“Also, I support Korea’s claim on dokdo simply because using any sort of historical precedent to establish a territorial claim is inane and childish at best”
I agree with your reasoning while I don’t agree with your conclusion.
Having said that,you might want to check the labor of love from Korean Dokdologist before you just dump them into trash can.You’d admire their limitless imagination.
“Even with this un-complication, the stupid law has problems with sunken atolls etc. etc. we don’t need more complications with the law.”
It is also better of you to look into what the law itself says and Korea’s position based on it,before you complain about it’s “complication”.
cm:
“All they have to do is just sit tight, stay quiet, and let Japan make all the noise. But no.. you can’t let those Japs get away with spreading wrong information.”
But cm,Korean life is surrounded with everything but an accurate information!
The land of Ohmynews can certainly coexist with Japan being satisfied with it’s own idea on the rock.No?
wjk:
“In the interest of stopping communism, the Japanese got off too easy after World War II.”
And anyone who lives in South Korea should be thankful for it,because that’s partly the reason why you still exist.
“but now reading the blatant anti-korean comments of learned foreigners on this site i am not sure that japan would not achieve that amazing feat of taking something away and claiming that “it was theirs in the first place” or “they gave it away of their own free accord” yet again! i marvel at their ingenuity and weep at my own stupid helpless people..”
Yuna, I concur. That’s a good reason why ‘learned foreigners’ would side with Japan, even if most of them would care less about this issue. The good reason is that Japan is not Korea. We’ve just seen months of anti US beef protests that insulted many Americans. There are other endless examples of anti foreign sentiments in the media.
We shouldn’t be surprised at finding that there aren’t too many foreigners sympathizing with Korea’s position. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know why isolated Korea doesn’t have too many friends. Of course it also doesn’t help that Korea’s protest culture turns off many foreigners who prefer the dignified Japanese who are more alike to them, over the alien, noisy, unreasonable hotheads with candles who will protest the weather.
Compare this to the dispute for Hans Island between Canada and Denmark.
In the twisted, sado-masochistic relationship that is Korean and Japanese politics, “Dokdo” is the safety word.
…Canadians and Danes got fed up, made fun of the dispute. Their governments had little choice but agree to split the island in half. The international border is now recognized as passing right in the middle of the island.
Aw, come on, counsellor, “MAN UP”!
Why should Koreans spend so much energy on this when most Japanese couldn’t care less about it? People are just hurting themselves. Really, what’s the point? It’s not as if Japan can invade the islands.
I always get a chuckle about the “countermeasures” which Korea has at the ready to deal with national emergencies such as this one. Sounds good for the media and national consumption but in reality is nothing more than the same old tired mantra which the Japanese have heard time and again. Let’s see: What countermeasures can we “employ” today?
1. Find someone who doesn’t need their left pinky
2. Ban all imports of Japanese cars (all 3 due in this year).
3. Deploy the Han River cruise boat disguised as a turtle ship.
4. Spread nasty rumors and get the candle girls to bitch about Japanese beef
5. Claim Hokkaido as sovereign Korean territory
6. Recall the Korean Ambassador so he can attend the mud fesitval . . .then send him back to Tokyo.
Korean motto: “Speak loudly and carry a limp stick”. No double entendre intended.
Gee whiz, Sperwer. This doesn’t mean I don’t think Korea ought to be called out on some of the bullshit. “Bias” is not a good thing; “truth”, however, is. Statements of the truth, when uncomfortable, are also known as “misunderstandings” in the local vernacular.
Axl Rose — VG866 is Korean, not a kyopo. Note how VG866 uses parentheses.
“Misunderstanding” is korborgspeak for, at best, “misguided”, which really means biased, prejudiced and racist. It’s one of those special words like “inevitable” – the all purpose justification/rationalization for a Korean to break his word without having to acknowledge, let alone apologize or make amends for, his lack of honesty and integrity; it’s usage is particularly prevalent in business dealings with foreigners who “misunderstand” it.
But you knew that.
#94 I, too, have noted the use of “countermeasures” in the press lately. There were countermeasures threatened over the murder of the beachcomber, there were countermeasures directed against Japan for the latest Dokdo kerfuffle. My dictionary gives me “대책.” Does that sound right?
Also, I wonder how to say “Dokdo is birdshit” in Korean. 독도는 새 똥이에요. Or maybe 독도는 새의 똥이에요.
“All they (the Koreans) have to do is just sit tight, stay quiet, and let Japan make all the noise.”
LOL! Good one. When was the last time anyone saw a Korean “sit tight, stay quiet” and let the other side make all the noise? I think you’d have a better chance of seeing pigs fly than seeing a Korean react in a rational, calm and civilized manner.
Funny that 99% of the entire Korean population has their eyes glued to the TV set when even a local car dealership in Bucheon mutters the word “Dokdo” and where Korean school children from the ages of 4 to 17 can recite the entire “Dokdo is Our Land” by heart.
Contrast that to Japan where 95% of the entire population hardly has ever heard of or knows what Takeshima is and could care less about whether or not it belongs to Korea as they have more important things to think about…such as getting a job and supporting themselves during a recession.
Which is the more mature side? (Never mind the American beef protest orgy). You be the judge.
Aceface
I am well aware of what Korean Dokdo fabricationists have done and I also consider that inane and childish. The entire Northeast Asian sector of the world is comprised of countries who are essentially ten year olds children.
As for Law of the Sea and Korea’s position on it, I would appreciate an extrapolation.
@30 Genie
“Actually, there are some Koreans who are brave enough to offer a [sic] objective point of view.
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2007/.....ort-women/ ”
So then shakuhachi’s rhetorical question (#2) implying that Koreans don’t argue both sides like the Japanese was false. However, even with the link you provide, my statement still stands. Young Korean women were by and large abducted and forced rather than seeking employment and liking it. Some Koreans being involved does not change that and is not surprising given that there were Japanese collaborators. But still, a step-father selling his step-daughter to the Japanese is not equivalent to an independent Korean government selling women to the Japanese, which did not happen.
“The problem is many Koreans are simply afraid of people who are different and get angry when people have different view than their own.”
No shit.
The other problem is that many Japanese are filthy animals that sit around all day watching hentai to fulfill their robot-tentacle-rape fantasies in between running computer simulations to determine the statistical probability of recapturing territory lost at the end of WWII.
“People like Han Seung-jo and Cho Yeong-nam who express ed [sic] pro-Japanese views got ostracized and even had to quit their jobs.”
Hmmm… More examples of shakuhachi’s rhetorical question being false.
The Koreans effectively own Dokdo, even setting history aside, given that only they occupy it. So, I can agree that, rather than throwing childish tantrums, a collective yawn or collective snickering and finger pointing is more in order whenever Japan wants to whine otherwise.
I also wholeheartedly agree with those saying that more focus and uproar needs to be pointed at the murderous Norks.
“So, I can agree that, rather than throwing childish tantrums, a collective yawn or collective snickering and finger pointing is more in order…”
You had me up to the “finger pointing”. Stop with the ridicule! It’s childish, unsophisticated and not sentiment winning. That’s always where Korea’s ship runs aground.
Have you ever played poker?
“The entire Northeast Asian sector of the world is comprised of countries who are essentially ten year olds children.”
Oh really? You should of seen how many ten year old kids were in the European sector before 1914…
Tripod #91, I don’t want to rain on your “westerners are so mature” parade, but my understanding was that the Tartupaluk (Hans Ø/Hans Island) case has not been settled. In 2007 Canadian satellite pictures suggested to the Canadians that the border runs straight through the island, not east of the island as the Canadian Government previously suggested. But it is only the Canadians that are proposing a Solomon’s solution of dividing the island. The Danes still claim 100% of the island, at least as far as I know.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/240019
As for Denmarks’s ability to represent Greenland in territorial disputes, see my earlier comment.
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/.....ent-157051
And you can probably get rid of the snicker, too. How about a confident smile?
am amused that my sarcasm has turned into a lauded bravery. unless those who responded to me are also using sarcasm themselves?
about the koreans going mad over mad cow disease, which i am -no sarcasm here- embarrassed about, CHANGE is a current big big J dorama with actor kimura takuya – he becomes a thirty something prime minister, and in one of the episodes he absolutely floors the american agricultural envoy,portrayed as a aggressive former quarterback, with his impressive knowledge of the deal itself and stands for the rights of the japanese people.
now, THAT is the lovely civilized way to express unhappy opinions, not like these uncivilized mad bunch you see in the city hall square, neh?
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....lenews_wsj
ghost yoon.
This started all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngman_Rhee_Line
“The entire Northeast Asian sector of the world is comprised of countries who are essentially ten year olds children.”
According to Douglas MacArthur,the Japanese were mentally fifteen years old at the time of 1945.I think we’ve grown up a bit after six decades.
103
No disagreements here. But after WWI and summer school session WWII, there was a movement towards institutionalization and neutrality. Plus some real cleverdicks in office who were at least pragmatic. Gaulle excluded since he could never get his head out of his ass.
Unfortunately, I can’t seem to recall a rational realpolitik practitioner in Northeast Asia. Like EVER.
I, as a Korean citizen, wholeheartedly realize and accept that the most likely center for WWIII will be in Northeast Asia, the eye of the storm comprised of four of the most economically, militarily, and geopolitically powerful nations in the world (US, China, Russia, Japan) and the inevitable shitstorm that Korea will go through as being a lovely centerpiece to it all as it goes schizophrenic trying to decide what the hell to do when it hates all of them equally.
Honestly, Dokdo has got nothing on the issue that is the secretive hard power politics in the region.
I just realized there is an incomplete sentence, and the lack of the word “through” after the phrase “that Korea will go”. Please consider this a quick errata.
Aceface, decades mean nothing when everyone has alzheimer’s. These countries are still retarded kids in the body of old people.
@102 Maddlew
Being called childish and unsophisticated by the guy with the gun-totin’ kitty av… I guess it’s time to call it a day.
Come on, Maddlew! A little giggle over the Jap textbooks when the Koreans already occupy Dokdo is far better than the typical tantrums. Besides, you seem to be OK with the ridicule I dished out to the Koreans but got yer knickers in a knot only when I brought up the Japanese whining over “lost territory.”
I guess I’m sophisticated enough to not care about winning your sentiment.
Yeah,but I don’t see any candle rally nor angry politician barking infront of TV cameras in this side of sea of Japan.
Let’s say the symptom is very different between Japan and Korea,for we didn’t hesitate in cooperting with South Korea despite of this tiny island being taken.
That, and those to the west of the East Sea are too busy masturbating to hentai…
Shit! I meant *east*. I really should call it a day…
Well, probably east and west…
I don’t wear knickers, I wear girls panties because they have a slimming effect and make me feel sexy. I also use lotion to avoid knotting and bunching.
Always welcome wry sense of humour in discussion,NES.Keep it up!
What’s wrong with a gun toting kitty? It took me five generations of genetic engineering to create a litter of cat snipers. Snicker away!
@117
Crap! Don’t make me warm up to you!
@118
But can your kitty play Halo?
http://www.ampy.com.br/blog/wp.....ttyweb.jpg
http://www.worth1000.com/entri.....tdop_w.jpg
I find the dumbest arguments coming from people who claim someone is “Gyopo” or “Korean” and then generalizing them by saying they are all pro-Korean, nationalistic, etc… Wake up. It’s a matter of opinion and NOT because he/she is a “Gyopo” or “Korean”.
“Yuna, you are brave. I admire someone who has the guts to express an unpopular opinion.”
What guts? It’s a popular opinion here.
“What guts? It’s a popular opinion here.”
Classic red herring.
aceface, I agree. Interestingly enough, it is because of Japan’s noncombative withdrawal that Korea is divided. There were no major Japanese resistance or battles against the Red Army in particular.
Also, because of Japan, South Korea survived as an exporting nation.
It is time for China and Russia to pay for their war crimes across the world.
Guess again, nimrod. The Russians destroyed Japan’s Kwantung Army (which consisted of 5 subsidiary armies) in 1945 before reaching Korea. And the subsequent Japanese surrender occasioned by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki obviated against any further futile resistance the remnants of the Kwantung Army in Korea and the rear echelon troops garrisoning Korea might have been able to mount.
If the Russians had had to fight their way into the peninsula, they likely would not have agreed to the US proposal to stop their advance at the 38th and split the administrative chore of disarming what was left of Japanese forces between them based on that demarcation line. But that’s just speculation.
Korea? Japan? Dispute? Reasonable? Rational?
I’m getting a beer.
wjk:
Well,I think the credit mainly goes to the U.S,since Japan didn’t send anything until 1964 and it was Americans who buy made in Korea.Like I said in one occasion,Japan just “helped” Korean success.
Sperwer:
I agree,except for one thing.There were no Kwantung Army in Korea.I think they were all disarmed in Manchukuo.
user-81: “What guts? It’s a popular opinion here.”
My intital response did not do this parry justice. I spoke hastily in characterizing the argument as a classic red herring, when it is is in fact a clever construction, turning the appeal to popularity back upon itself.
A more thoughtful response would be to point out that the argument is an accident fallacy, that is, a generalization applied when circumstances instead suggest that it is an exception.
Regardless of whether the argument referenced here is popular within this limited context, it argues against a prevailing cultural norm within an extremely coercive environment.
I didn’t mean to suggest there was, except some survivors of the “August Storm” battles in Manchuria.
And maybe what WJK means about Japan is the capital equipment left behind with which Korea, North and South, began to re-industrialize after the Pacific War.
) Even today, because of the installed base, Japan is the leading capital good supplier to Korea.
63, 62
You didnt refute any of my arguments. What you did was state that Japanese sailors were bitter at being unable to fish in Korean waters so they declared Takeshima day. As if Takeshima day was going to fix everything and give them new fishing grounds plus end the dispute. Instead Takeshima day only served to annoy the Koreans even more. Face it, the whole purpose of Takeshima day was to provoke the Koreans. If you think otherwise, what was its purpose? You fail to answer this because you had no point, no refutations. You were merely stating your clear anti-korea bias. I know how you work. Anyone that goes against popular Korean opinion is what you side with. No matter how ridiculous.
How is Japan right in declaring Takeshima day out of the blue when all Korea wanted to do was be left alone. Korea did nothing to provoke Japan into declaring Takeshima day. Korea was merely minding its own buisness, then *BOOM* Takeshima day and claims that Korean territory is Japanese. What a slap in the face for no reason. You dont call that provocation? You have yet to answer or refute anything. Koreas biggest source of anti japanese sentiment isnt Korean schools. Its the Japanese themselves who constantly stir BS for no reason.
65
Maybe you dont realize whats going on right now. Korea is the current owner of Dokdo. Koreans can do whatever they want with Dokdo and there is nothing the Japanese can do about it. Korea can mine, fish, blow up or open a shopping mall on Dokdo for all I care. Whereas Japan isnt so much as allowed to even smell Dokdo. With Koreans being the current owners of Dokdo why did Japan declare Dokdo as Japanese territory in 2008 knowing full well of the consequences? Why were they trying to pick a fight with Korea? Wouldnt it have been more prudent of them to keep the status quo of stating Dokdo as a disputed territory. That same stance they held for decades? Why provoke the Koreans now? Mind you, theres a huge difference between “disputed territory” and “soverign territory”. And the fact is, Japan is declaring a rock that Koreans claim and control as their own. Despite the fact that the Japanese arnt even allowed to get close to it. That doesnt sound like control to me.
You claim that Koreans are the ones who are raising the Dokdo issue. Wrong. They arnt the ones who are raising the Dokdo issue. Why would they when they already control it. Its the Japanese who constantly start these little feuds. From Takeshima day to text books in the year 2008.
I bet in 100 years later on Dokdo, there will still be three lighthouses keep aid to navigation for squid fishing-boats and other commercial vessel passing by, there will still be Korean coast-guard police posts, Resident off-duty Dokdo policemen calling their family & friends with KT Telecom, Dokdo tour-boats serving people embark from Ulungdo, Korean politician will love to use Dokdo cards whenever possible and so on. On the other side of East Sea, Takeshima day might be celebrated by 5 to 100 some local politicians and fishermen in Shinmane Prefecture, only few Japanese middle-school students might give some interest on one or two paragraphs of Takeshima from distorted textbook guided by Japanese politicians while most of them wondering why they have to know this stuff along with 100 millions of other Japanese who don’t even know where it is nor give damn shit about it. Uncle Sam, Chinese, Russian will keeping their position distanced from this on-and-off issue between their two allies. Wait a minute! Will Korea still be one of the allies to the US? That I don’t know.
Wow, it’s 2008 and a Dokdo thread can still generate more than 100 comments. It’s nice when there are things you can depend on.
@ 130 (VG866) Here we see an illustration of the Argumentum ad Nauseam fallacy. While failing to address the categorical refutations of his original argument, VG866 is seen to employ the use of constant repetition, in an apparent belief that his assertions will be more likely to accepted as true if repeated numerous times.
113
“That, and those to the east of the East Sea are too busy masturbating to hentai…”
Yeah, but you forgot to mention that those to the west of the Sea of Japan are masturbating to those east of the Sea of Japan…
And those to west of the Sea of Japan seem to go into some orgasmic frenzy each time they win an international basket weaving competition by making disparaging comments about those to the east of the Sea of Japan.
And those to the east of the Sea of Japan just look at the ridiculous humorous behavior displayed by those to the west of the Sea of Japan and just shake their heads in pity with a bit of a chuckle. You would probably see the same reaction by Michael Jordan when faced with taunting threats to defeat him in a game of 1 on 1 by a 2 foot tall, one legged, retarded midget
yo, Sprewer, babo waegookin,
You shall never call me a nimrod,
got it?
Good.
Much of what the Japanese brought was destroyed in the 625 war. That’s not what revived South Korea.
Much of what the Japanese brought was concentrated in North Korea. Now one of the poorest in the entire world.
You’re just an idiot.
Amen, brother.
It’s a rerun I’ve seen a dozen times already. So much huffin’. And puffin’. And posturin’. But seriously lackin’ action.
I demand more entertainment bang for my attentiveness buck.
C’mon, boys, get a shootin’.
137, it doesn’t help when you feed the trolls and act like one too. nice try being a stealth troll. i’ll give it 4/10.
Gerry Bevers didn’t show yet? Maybe, he is dead. This is his topic.
Maybe he shaked up with a Korean honey and look at this issue in totally different view. The honey view.
The Japanese are asses. With the conflict with the Chinese coming so close, they want to antagonize Koreans?
What an ass!
So what have you got to say about South Korea rallying for full two months for anti-U.S beef based on misguided media coverage,tourist getting shot at in the north while the tax payer in the south paying all the expense for the tour,having conflict with China over long gone ancient kingdom,and then making a fuss with Japan for a piece of rock in sea-of-whatever,all these at the same time,baduk?
Japan textbooks’ claiming that Dokdo is historically Japanese territory is not a distortion; it is a fact.
If there were enough evidence out there that proves Japan’s Shimane Prefecture inclusion was not legal, then why did the US reject the Korean Government’s request that Takeshima be included among the islands named in the SF Peace Treaty?
Korea insisted at the end of WWII that not only Ullungdo and Cheju but also Tsushima and Takeshima were theirs. But their claim to Tsushima and Takeshima was negated shortly thereafter.
The letter from Additional State Secretary Mr. Dean Rusk to the Ambassador of ROK in 1951 states;
“This normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shiname Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.”
Upon receiving the letter from Additional State Secretary Mr. Dean Rusk and realizing that the US will not give Takeshima to Korea, President Lee Seung-Man announced the Lee Line on Jan. 18, 1952 (before the SF Treaty came into effect) and took Takeshima by force.
Since then, over 20 Japanese fishermen have been killed, and nearly 4,000 captured by the Korean navy. The captured fishermen were not returned to Japan until 1965, when the Japan-Korea Treaty was concluded. Under normal circumstances, such an action would have meant war. But Lee Seung-Man knew very well that Japan was tied down by the pacifist constitution given to it by the the US and that Japan could only file complaints against the Korean government.
There is an absolutely huge
documentation gap between Korea and Japan on the Dokdo/Takeshima issue.
Korea claims “Usando” in old maps is Dokdo. The old Korean document “Records of King Taejong” states there were 15 houses and 86 people lived in Usando. If Usando really were Dokdo, can you explain how 86 people could live in that small island?
Korea has no solid historical evidence that prove Takeshima originally belonged to Korea, which is why they are trying to tie the Dokdo/Takeshima issue to Japans wartime conduct in WW2 to gain some sympathy vote.
In this following article, the Korean professor says that the only claim Korean has on Takeshima is the fact that it currently possesses the islets.
http://www.516.co.kr/board/vie.....catecode=Z
Genie, you are wrong on so many points I hardly know where to start.
First, the Dean Rusk letter was a confidential memorandum. Not one syllable of what Mr Rusk ever said even found the sacred text of the San Fran Peace Treaty. If you can find any mention of Liancourt Rocks in the Japan Peace Treaty, please post it. The American’s dropped support for Japan when the Americans could be assured a footprint on the Asian mainland almost immediately after the Korean War ended.
As Mr Dulles pointed out:
“The U.S. view is one of many signatories of the treaty…” In other words, even if America did support Japan Dulles insists America’s opinion carries no more weight than that of the other 47 nations who signed the Japan Peace Treaty. Thus, Dulles admits America could not unilaterally make any judgements regarding the disposition of former Japanese territories without the consent of all signatory nations to the treaty.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dulles-doc1.jpg
To put an end to any assertions America supported or supports Japan’s claim to Takeshima a 2005 public statement by the American Embassy is Seoul sets the record straight. It states “…U.S. policy on the Dokdo/Takeshima issue has been and continues to be that the United States does not take a position on either Korea’s claim or Japan’s claim to the island…”
Here is the S.F. Peace Treaty in detail.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-sf-truth.html
The Koreans say Usando is Dokdo. Both Japanese and Korean records state that Usando is what Japanese call “Matsushima” This was based on the 1696 altercation in which Anyongbok (a Korean) voyaged all the way to Japan to dispute Japanese trespassing on Ulleungdo. In 2005 the Japanese records of Ayongbok’s statement was found in the Murakawa family records. Here is was found Anyongbok’s statement that Usando was Japanese for Matsushima and this island was Korean territory.
This is the document where Anyongbok drew the eight provinces of Korea. We can see below Gangwando 江原道 Province, Anyongbok included Takeshima-Ulleungdo (竹島) and Matsushima-Dokdo (松島) Japan raised no objection to Anyongbok’s claim at all.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/anyongbok-doc15.jpg
There is a huge documentation gap between Japan and Korea. There should be. At the time Japan annexed Dokdo, Korea was at least a century behind Japan. Japan’s Meiji Era cartographers were citing precise British Naval maps and their Harvard educated government was craftily “legally” annexing every chunk of Asia they could get their grubby hands on.
Korea is not trying to get a “sympathy” vote here and those of us who have done in depth research as to the relationship between Japanese expansionism and colonialism don’t need to get emotional to prove our point.
Japan’s records prove the incorporation of Takeshima was a three pronged invasion.
The first invasion came from the wave of illegal Japanese squatters who illegally logged, fished and settled on Korea’s Ulleungdo Island starting around the late 1800s. The population of illegal Japanese on Korea’s Ulleungdo reached about 1,000 during peak fishing seasons. Chosun demanded these violent criminals be removed repeatedly, in response Hayashi Gonsuke illegally installed Japanese police there in 1902. One of these Ulleungdo trespassers named Nakai Yozaburo became Japan “legal” basis for the incorporation of Takeshima.
You can see the original documents here:
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com.....anese.html
The second invasion was military. This was during the Russo Japanese War from 1904~1905. The Japanese Imperial Navy systematically surveyed and mapped Takeshima for the explicit purpose of installing watchtowers and telegraph lines to help defeat Russia’s advancing Baltic Fleet. The smoking gun for this theory would be the November logbooks of the Japanese Warship Tsushima and her watchtower construction report submitted in January 1905.
You can see the original documents here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html
The other part of this invasion involved the political process used to “legally” incorporate Takeshima. This guidance was facilitated by pros like Komura Jutaro (expanionist) Yamaza Enjiro (Gen-yo-sha right wing extremist) and Kiyourga Keigo (military Yamagata faction)
You can see more documents here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com.....itics.html
There is more to these records than emotional finger pointing or an attempt to vilify Japan. These records expose the legal flaws in Japan’s incorporation. Remember territorial land acquisitions must be part of a peaceful natural process (Max Huber ICJ) They show why Koreans are justified for being furious when Japan’s demands we draw the boundary of Japan-Korea back to the colonial era.
Do you think it is feasible to do this ???
Fascinating discussion.
Change in tone after reading Frogmout in #143, eh Mizar? So now you see it’s not grounds to make your negative generalizations of all Koreans after all. I hope.
nice try. anyway.
“So now you see it’s not grounds to make your negative generalizations of all Koreans after all. I hope.”
Frogmouth is Steve Berber,JK.He is not Korean.
Frogmouth:
In my eyes,you are making your own claim to support your thesis,not debunking that of Genies’s.
“First, the Dean Rusk letter was a confidential memorandum. Not one syllable of what Mr Rusk ever said even found the sacred text of the San Fran Peace Treaty. If you can find any mention of Liancourt Rocks in the Japan Peace Treaty, please post it. ”
Genie said “US reject the Korean Government’s request that Takeshima be included among the islands named in the SF Peace Treaty” .Genie didn’t say a word that the name Takeshima/Dokdo/Liancourt Rock is being mentioned in SF treaty.
And Rusk letter being confifrntial at the time doesn’t undermine it’s proof as American view of Liancourt Rock in that moment of history,No?
And
“The American’s dropped support for Japan when the Americans could be assured a footprint on the Asian mainland almost immediately after the Korean War ended. ”
But reading the state department classified telegram you’ve linked,it says
“Despite US view peace treaty a determination under terms Potsdam declaration and that treaty leaves Takeshima to Japan,and despite our participation in Potsdam and treaty and action under administrative agreement,it does not report not necessarily follow U.S automatically responisble for settling or intervening in Japan international disputes
territorial or otherwise,arising from peace treaty.”
What ever the interpretation of this telegram,it seems the state department is full aware of Japanese sovereignity over Takeshima,yet chose not to support.
Anyway,SF treaty means limited importance to settle the dispute with Koreans over Takeshima/Dokdo for neither Seoul nor Pyongyang are signatories.
“There is a huge documentation gap between Japan and Korea. There should be. At the time Japan annexed Dokdo, Korea was at least a century behind Japan. Japan’s Meiji Era cartographers were citing precise British Naval maps and their Harvard educated government was craftily “legally” annexing every chunk of Asia they could get their grubby hands on.”
Grubby hands,I don’t know.But for most of the cases,these surveys are act of defining Japan’s own boundary to protect itself from western inperialism and only confirms the accuracy of Japanese geographic claim in Meiji era,not to undermine them and as I trust in many legal cases in any country,that works for the better and nothing to be accused of.
Added to that,Japanese/Korean claim on Takeshima also uses many pre-western geographical survey and government documents and that too contributes in “documentation gaps” as Genie claims.
Aceface, I was talking to Mizar. DUH!
Sperwer, did you even take the time to read the documents I posted. Listen I didn’t take the time and effort to translate the primary documents to only to be branded as emotional.
Here is the original quote by Japan’s Foreign Minister Hayashi Gonsuke himself.
“…Many of these Japanese settlers are ignorant and tough. However, since there are no authorities controlling them (Japanese), any disputes between residents are resolved only through brute force and in worst cases even murder. Especially with Koreans they resorted to the use of physical force, therefore the island’s administrator had difficulty controlling the island….”
“…Before the new administrator came into office, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Pak Je-Sun discussed with the secretary any possible measures to deal with Japanese on Ulleungdo. The Minister said that the would-be County Administrator feared that terrible things may happen as these Japanese residents are so violent. He had heard from the former chief (Bae-gye-ju) how difficult it had been to control Ulleungdo due to Japanese behavior there….”
Here is the orignal quote from a Japanese 1902 report of the situation on Korea’s Ulleungdo.
“…Moreover, since the most of the (Japanese) transients were ignorant and illiterate, two groups of people developed. The strong subjugated the weak, and the wise tricked the ignorant. Also, there was an extreme case, in which a bad person used a dangerous weapon to forcefully seize property….”
Again, both Japanese reports describe the Japanese squatters on Ulleungdo as ignorant, illiterate and violent. What other kind of person would voyage hundreds of kilometers to squat on a foreign island to poach fish and illegally fell trees? A Rhodes Scholar?
To call someone ignorant, illiterate and violent does sound a little harsh, but if the primary historical documents state so, sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade…Sperwer Again let the historical docs do the talking. Please read the link, somebody took their blood, sweat and tears to translate them.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com.....anese.html
Aceface you missed my point on the SF Peace Treaty document I supplied.
These days the Japanese lobbyists are trying to use the ambiguities of the treaty to insinuate the ommission of a decision over sovereignty of Takeshima means Japan regains sovereignty. The document by Dulles disproves that for a few of reasons.
First Dulles concedes no final decision on the disposition of former Japanese territories can be made without total consent of all signatories of the Japan Peace Treaty. This means even though the U.S. may have temporarily backed the Japanese (as they did the Koreans in the first five drafts) no final decision could be reached by the Americans alone.
Also by Dulles telling the Japanese to refer to Article 22 of the Japan Peace Treaty he is saying that the Japanese have to solve this issue outside of the framework of the San Francisco Peace Treaty proving this treaty did not resolve the issue as Japan’s MOFA asserts.
On one other note. Dulles makes it clear it was only America’s interpretation that WWII wartime agreements such as the Postdam Declaration and the Cairo Convention were not relevant to resolving the issue of disposition of former Japanese terrtories. Other nations such as Canada and Russia agreed that Postsdam and the Cairo Convention should be interpreted literally and that the definition of Japan should be limited to the four main islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kysushu and Shikoku. They rightfully though the contentious issue of former Japanese territories should be resolved outside of the S.F. Peace Treaty.
Here was Canada’s Proposal.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/may3-1951.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/may3-1951-2.jpg
Frogmouth:
And as for you claim on “Japan’s records prove the incorporation of Takeshima was a three pronged invasion.”
The first case is undeniably a classic imperialism.But that was on Ulleungdo,not Takeshima.
And extraterritoriality was a norm in East Asia at the time,even so in Japan until 1911.he U.S,Great Britain,The Netherland,Russia and Austria-Hungary all had consular jurisdiction in Japan.They were definitely unfair.But they were authorized by the treaty(mo matter how unfair they were) Japan made with these countries.
“in response Hayashi Gonsuke illegally installed Japanese police there in 1902″
The Japanese consular jurisdiction was also authorized by The Treaty OF Ganghwa in 1876,meaning that wasn’t illegal.
The fact Nakai Yozaburo was a resident in Ulleungdo and active in claiming Takeshima as Japanese territory means only two thing.
1)Nakai was fully aware of international law that annexing Ulleungdo was impossible at the time.Naturally he has to look for some where else.
2)Liancourt Rock can be an international disputed territory,yet still hasn’t claimed by Joseon Government which means there wre rooms for venture to Nakai’s eyes.
Opportunist he maybe,and his persuasion to the government for claiming Takeshima has clear confirmation.But that is within the range of border determination,not imperialism.Connecting his action with upcoming Korean annexation seems overstretch to my eyes.
Second and Third claim are simple acts of the nation on soil they think as their sovereign territory.Hence not the act of hostile to foreign country.
“These records expose the legal flaws in Japan’s incorporation. Remember territorial land acquisitions must be part of a peaceful natural process (Max Huber ICJ) They show why Koreans are justified for being furious when Japan’s demands we draw the boundary of Japan-Korea back to the colonial era.”
And Genie claimed about Syngman Rhee’s action over “Syngman Rhee Line” in 1952 that caused Japanese casualties.And I believe you must be aware of Tokyo’s position to solve the dispute at ICJ since 1954.
Okay, I gotta ask this: Even IF it’s proven that Japan somehow was the legitimate owner of Dokdo prior to its oppressive colonization of Korea….so what??
As a reparation for its colonization, I wouldn’t mind seeing Korea get Japanese territory….even the damn city of Tokyo! But if Dokdo was always Japanese territory, then I’ll settle for that.
Alas, the historical arguments seem to favor Korea’s side on this one.
But let’s say that back in the 1600s that Dokdo DID belong to Japan. THEN what? Should Korea give it back? And if your answer is yes, would your answer be different if it was acknowledged that Japan’s ownership of Dokdo only began in 1905 due to military aggression by Japan?
“These days the Japanese lobbyists are trying to use the ambiguities of the treaty to insinuate the ommission of a decision over sovereignty of Takeshima means Japan regains sovereignty. The document by Dulles disproves that for a few of reasons.”
I think we’ve been through this and I’ve mentioned that there are no “lobbyists” to speak of in case of Takeshima/Dokdo disputes,like we have on the Northern Territory in Japan.And my fading memory tells me that you’ve reffered of Prof.Shimojo of Takushoku University.
Well,he is a scholar and not any more “lobbyist” as you are,Steve.
And the fact remains Washington brushed off Syngman Rhee’s request for Tsushima and Takeshima from SF remains.No?
At least that means the U.S wasn’t suppotive to Korean claim and that’s what counts of SF treaty in this issue.
“Canada and Russia agreed that Postsdam and the Cairo Convention should be interpreted literally and that the definition of Japan should be limited to the four main islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kysushu and Shikoku. They rightfully though the contentious issue of former Japanese territories should be resolved outside of the S.F. Peace Treaty. ”
Well,this is Cairo Declaration
“It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.”
No mentioning of Takeshima/Dokdo/Liancourt Rock as I see.
And this is Potsdam Declaration.
“The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine. ”
Somehow,you’ve missed out “such minor islands we determine” part.
Aren’t you trying to use the ambiguities of the declaration to insinuate the ommission of a decision over sovereignty of Takeshima means Korea regains sovereignty.
And as I read your link on Canada,Ottawa seemed to be mentioning of Formaosa(Taiwan)and Japanese position was confirming the end of Japanese sovereignty over the island,yet not recognizing it returning to Republic of China’s sovereignty which was against Cairo declaration.
Two reasons.
1)Tokyo was aware of independence movement within Taiwan that goes back the date of Japanese rule.That could overthrow runaway Kuomintang rule on the island
2)Tokyo wanted to leave the room for building ties with People’s Republic of China.
3)Cairo declaration was just a communique without any signature,thus possess no legal restriction.
Soviet Union was occupying Sakhalin and the Kurils and Hobomai,Shikotan Kunashiri and Etorofu which were not being mentioned in neither Cairo nor Potsdam.I’d assume they had motivation to limiting Japanese sovereignity as much as possible.And you must also be aware what John Foster Dulles had made clear to Japanese on how these issues be solved with Moscow.
133. Its not working. You accuse me of this and that yet you refuse to answer my questions. Why is that? Just get on with the debate if youre so sure youre right.
======================================
141
Its not fair to use the Rusk documents as evidence. First and foremost Dean Rusk was never a historian or an expert on the matter. Korea right after the war was an unknown country with little in documents or records accessible by the west at the time. For example they did not know of Ordinance 41 which predates any Japanese claim to Dokdo. Or the countless bits and pieces of evidence available today.
He(Rusk) was the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs. His job was not to determine historical ownership of the islands but to find the alternative better suited for the US. Rusk was a staunch anti communist who preferred Dokdo being administered by the Japanese due to the following reasons
A. The US was in complete control of Japan. But not in Korea.
B. The Communists had already occupied the Northern half of Korea.
C. South Korea was surrounded by hostile communist nations(China, The soon to be formed communist North and the Soviet Union).
D. At any moments notice, the communist could storm the South and take control of it.
E. South Korea could turn Communist.
Rusk viewed Japanese ownership of the islands was a better bet at staving off communism. It was the safer option of the two. The US believed that South Korea was a risky proposition at the time. And indeed it was. The Korean war happened shortly after that.
The official stance of the United States has always been neutrality. Which is true even to this day. And the Rusk documents were never revealed to the Japanese until decades later when they were made public. An obvious indication that they didnt want the Japanese to know nor were they truly siding with the Japanese. And last but no least. Japans 1905 claim is invalidated by international law which states that territory must not be taken/stolen/annexed for military or aggressive purposes. Japans 1905 Dokdo grab was clearly for military purposes. As demonstrated by Japanese military and naval records and the fact that Dokdo was taken during the same year Korea was forced to become a protectorate/colony of japan(1905 Eulsa treaty).
“Its not fair to use the Rusk documents as evidence. First and foremost Dean Rusk was never a historian or an expert on the matter.”
And Dean Rusk also wasn’t a Korean.
But being the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs of
US government gives him some sort of authority on the issue,don’t you think?
After all,this is the man who later become the secretary of state under Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
The name Dean Rusk was reffered by poster Genie to show an example of how the U.S governement sees the dispute and the reason of why Washington had turned down the Syngman Rhee’s demand in reflecting on SF treaty.Not as the ultimate proof of Takeshima being the Japanese territory,but the U.S state department didn’t see Takeshima,Korean at that moment of history.
Like I said,the fact it was kept confidential and hadn’t been shown to Japanese only adds more credivility that Rusk’s opinion came not from the intention of favoring the Japanese,but the way a statesman with neutral view point sees it.
What I don’t understand about both VG866 and frogmouth are the way they reduce down Rusk’s motivation into personal judgement with limited knowledge,but him being the head of the bureaucracy I see no evidence that his judgement suffers any ignorance with no shortage of information both formal and informal,let alone advice from international legal expert and diplomatic record researchers.
Him being a staunch anti-communist doesn’t harm his reputation in this case a bit,for Syngman Rhee was far worth and I don’t hear neither of you accusing Rhee’s decision of seizing the rock with brute force because of Rhee a fanatic anti communist.
“Japans 1905 claim is invalidated by international law which states that territory must not be taken/stolen/annexed for military or aggressive purposes. Japans 1905 Dokdo grab was clearly for military purposes.”
Japan was fighting Russo-Japanese war at the time.Building a watch tower and telegram station was indeed for military purposese,but hardly an aggressive especially Tokyo considered Takeshima as their territory and also took the legal measure to make sure.
And I’m repeating this for the third time now,but Genie had reffered the seizing Takeshima by the South Korean armed forces after the announcement of Lee line in 1952 which was an act of aggressive purposes.Because many
unarmed Shimane fishermen were killed in the process by South Korean Navy.
But regardless of such acts,you only condemn Japanese establishment of a watch tower and telegram station in 1905 and taking a blindeye to acts of Koreans.Added to that,it has been Tokyo that is promoting the case to be solved at International Court of Justice and Seoul keep rejecting.Which certainly contradicts your above statements on “Japanese claim
invalidated by international law which states that territory must not be taken/stolen/annexed for military or aggressive purposes.”
1951 map made by japanese goverment
http://www.historyfoundation.o.....0515_7.jpg
Until 1952, Japan did not recognized dokdo belong to Japan.
even Japanese official goverment map is not recognized dokdo belong to Japan.
Japan start claiming since 1952.
since 1952, japanese made new theory, “historically, takeshima belong to japan!”
#1 Third Party Legal Study
Tokdo or Takeshima? The International Law of Territorial Acquisition in the Japan-Korea Island Dispute, Sean Fern, Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs, Volume 5 Number 1 (Winter 2005), pp.78–89
http://www.stanford.edu/group/.....japan2.pdf
#2 Third Party Legal Study
Legal Issues Related to Sovereignty over Dokdo and Its Maritime Boundary(Jan 2007), a William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu, USA
http://www.informaworld.com/sm.....mptype=rss
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/jonvandyke-doc.pdf
According to John. M. Vandyke(Prof, of Hawaii Univ.) Korea will win if go to ICJ.
However, Japan have a double standard. they do not go to ICJ with China and Russia.
Japanese custom to think that “We do not go to ICJ with China and Russia. (Whole Kuril islands, Diaoyutai Islands) we Japanese refused to go to ICJ. because we anyhow wanted island must belong to japan! However, when we Japanese put pressure go to ICJ with korea(we Japanese nothing to loose!), that is perfectly normal and OK.” Typical Japanese double standard..cowardly and sickening.
#155
”Until 1952, Japan did not recognized dokdo belong to Japan.
even Japanese official goverment map is not recognized dokdo belong to Japan. ”
The map was made by the house of representative at diet,which was operating under control of GHQ until April 28th of 1952.
The line being drawn in so called “MacArthur line” that restricts Japanese fishing vessel activities,not borderline of Korean waters.Thus your argument doesn’t stand.Nakagawa.
“Third Party Legal Study”you’ve presented conveniently support Korean claim of the island.So if you are cold-war era U.S State department official considering the rock belong to Japan,you will be canned for being “staunchy anti-communist”,and if you are American scholar supporting Korean claim,you’ll be lionized as “the third party”autority?
Sounds to me a double standard.
And the first one us written by a graduate school student and was adviced from Victor Cha,former National Security Counsil member and first class Korea schlar.
Yet to me it seems venting to Korean side of the argument.
I mean you start writing papers with the neutral name,Liancourt Rock and in the last paragraph,calling it Tokdo?
“However, Japan have a double standard. they do not go to ICJ with China and Russia.”
Well,as for case with China,The Senkakus is under Japanese control and neither Beijing nor Taipei came up with ICJ solution.So there’s no point of us bringing that up.
In case of Russia,Moscow doesn’t want to take it to the court,for not only foru islands,but entire Kurils and half of Sakhalin could be on the agenda once it’s been taken to the court.
Anyway,Tokyo’s offer to Seoul of taking Takeshima/Dokdo solution to the ICJ is more of a friendly one for Tokyo thinks South Korea is potential ally while China and Russia are not.Thus sees ICJ,a harmelss solution.
Your Prof.Van Dyke,who believes Korea would win in ICJ, also says,”Each situation be evaluated on it’s own merit”at the end of the papers,instead of making vicious speculation on “Typical Japanese double standard” as you do.
Anyway,Tokyo has been putting ICJ card on the table for half century,it’s Seoul who’s running away from it.
Well, Aceface. why you using proxy IP?
This map drawed by japanese goverment.
According to your logic,
USA and Japan admitted dokdo belong to Korea.
You still do not answer why japanese do not go to ICJ with China and Russia solve this issue.
Japanese custom to think that “We do not go to ICJ with China and Russia. (Whole Kuril islands, Diaoyutai Islands) we Japanese refused to go to ICJ. because we anyhow wanted island must belong to japan! However, when we Japanese put pressure go to ICJ with korea(we Japanese nothing to loose!), that is perfectly normal and OK.” Typical Japanese double standard..cowardly and sickening.
Well, Aceface. why you using proxy IP?
This map drawed by japanese goverment.
According to your logic,
USA and Japan admitted dokdo belong to Korea.
You still do not answer why japanese do not go to ICJ with China and Russia solve this issue.
if you think Japan’s stance is totally right, then japan must request to ICJ with China and Russia.
Japanese custom to think that “We do not go to ICJ with China and Russia. (Whole Kuril islands, Diaoyutai Islands) we Japanese refused to go to ICJ. because we anyhow wanted island must belong to japan! However, when we Japanese put pressure go to ICJ with korea(we Japanese nothing to loose!), that is perfectly normal and OK.” Typical Japanese double standard..cowardly and sickening.
dude, japan has 2 territorial dispute issue, kuril island and Diaoyutai island.why japan never go to ICJ?
you absolutely double standard.
japan do not go to icj with russia and china. first, japan must go kuril island and Diaoyutai island issue to ICJ, first.
Well. What merit for Korea? Nothing.
Aceface, the Japanese did not have the right to station police on Korean soil without the consent of the Korean government period.
Even Hayashi’s concedes this in his letter of 1901, Hayashi states:
“We acknowledge under treaty law, this is not a given right Japan can impose upon your government…”
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com.....anese.html
Despite this Hayashi put these police on Ulleungdo, what’s worse was even after Chosun demanded their removal Hayashi refused. It didn’t really matter, only a year and a half later Korea would be occupied.
Isn’t it ironic the same man who refused to remove the Japanese squatters from Ulleungdo (Hayashi) was the same man who coerced the Koreans into signing the Japan Korea Protocal in February 1904?
Aceface, my comments about the San Francisco Peace Treaty are.
1. The Japanese say because the treaty makes no mention of Liancourt Rocks it should be interpreted to mean Japan regained sovereignty over the island. This is wrong and Dulles’s comments prove even Japan’s strongest ally did not agree with this interpretation.
2. Allied (American) decisions on the islands had little to do with a comprehensive study of the region’s history. They were military decisions. When America decided to incorporate joint trusteeships into the framework of deciding the disposition of former Japanese territories the whole decisiion became tainted and invalid.
3. The S.F. Peace Treaty is not legally binding on Korea at all.
Regarding Dean Rusk’s judgment. This is the same man who got America mired in Vietnam, and who also favoured military intervention during the Cuban Missle Crisis!!! That’s why I don’t take his assessment on Takeshima Dokdo seriously. Nuff said.
Aceface, how can you tell us that building a watchtower for the purpose of defeating Russia during the largest war of the day is not “aggression”? First, it wasn’t Tokyo who decided the island was Japanese it was the Japanese Navy’s Hyrographic Deptment’s ADMIRAL Kimotsuki who thought Japan should take the islets. During wartime Japan’s Hydographic Department became a military organ whose information was used in planning naval strategy.
Whatever you definition of aggression is, Japan’s 1905 annexation doesn’t even remotely qualify as a “natural, peaceful” method of territorial acquisition by any stretch of the imagination.
President Rhee established the “Peace Line” and Japanese try to paint this measure as some sort of draconian land grab. In reality, Rhee’s Peace Line is no different that numerous border proposals presented by the Allies in earler drafts of the S.F. Peace Treaty and SCAP instructions.
Here is Rhee’s Peace Line.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/rhee-line-limit.jpg
Here is an earlier draft of the S.F. Peace Treaty Map.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Allied.jpg
Here is SCAP’s map
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Scapmap.jpg
No difference at all……..
I agree with Nakagawa. Unless Japan goes to ICJ as other nations demand, they should shut up.
Interesting…
A Korean Canadian who apparently has some pull with how the Library of Congress names the islands apparently has sounded off…
Fodder for those looking to prove the existance of a global kyopo conspiracy? I hope not.
http://english.chosun.com/w21d.....70008.html
I meant existence, sorry…
Again, I would like to inform everyone that “Nakagawa” is a well known Korean troll who is a frequent poster on Youtube who is infamous for spewing putrid and disgusting racist comments in every single video related to Japan. His idiocy (Daehanmingook-ness) should really be taken into consideration before taking his arguments seriously.
So… Is Dokdo really part of Korea or Japan?
I mean, really, all emotionalism aside…
Whose was it before 1895 when the Japanese started their most recent (and infamous) colonial efforts?
If we had an objective timeline of who controlled it when, we could look at this without anyone venting their spleen. Granted Korea has it now; but where has it been?
Whose was it before 1895 when the Japanese started their most recent (and infamous) colonial efforts?
Pre-1895, the Dokto rocks belonged to some seagulls.
jtb-in-texas: “So… Is Dokdo really part of Korea or Japan? I mean, really, all emotionalism aside”
The mindfuck of it is that there is no real answer to the question. And it happens to lie off the coast of Korea – a nation of people who can’t handle ambiguity.
Since you called….
Frogmouth,I’ve already wrote every single argument you’ve reffered.
What I don’t understand is since you think “Allied (American) decisions on the islands had little to do with a comprehensive study of the region’s history” and “The S.F. Peace Treaty is not legally binding on Korea at all” on
#160,why are you connecting them with Rhee line in #161?
And when did “other nations”demanded Japan to go to ICJ?
Yawn… cry about it. SK police has the islet garrisoned. Let’s see if the Japanese really are as stupid and evil as SK ultra-nationalists claim they are and actually take forceful measures like some here are wishing they would. I’m going to go ahead and bet on ‘not bloody likely’.
As I understand it, only quite a small number of the Japanese population actually cares or even knows about Dokdo issue. I’ve been told that most Japanese people, when they hear the name ‘Takeshima’ either don’t know or thinks it’s some island off of Tokyo port (apparently coincidentally also named Takeshima).
I understand and emphasize with Korean population’s reaction. It’s no brainer that when such issues are raised, the immediate association is with the Occupation. Think about it. ‘A Korean land claimed by the Japanese’, and as fates would have it, the major argument is based on the 1905 treaty (major ouch).
Overreaction? Sure, since it’s only the Japanese equivalent of Neocons raising these issues (which, thankfully, does not comprise of most of Japanese population). But word association is quite a bit faster and more powerful than the complex reality. And I don’t think anyone doubts that the noise provided by the Takeshima-Japanese is amplified a million times by Korean politicians who are in political trouble.
So, to sum up.
1. Apathetic vast majority of Japanese population barely consciously aware of the issue.
2. Tiny asshole-y part of Japanese population amplified by #4
3. naive Korean population played like Eric Clapton’s guitar by #2 and #4
4. Korean politicians who failed to cover up their dirty little secrets.
Equals this fuck-all fest.
#169
”I’ve been told that most Japanese people, when they hear the name ‘Takeshima’ either don’t know or thinks it’s some island off of Tokyo port (apparently coincidentally also named Takeshima). ”
It’s “TakeshiBA”.And it’s a pier in Tokyo port for the ferry to go to some islands.
Apart from that,I basically agree with what you say,except that “tiny asshole-y”part….
@#170
.
Then we’re gonna have to agree to disagree on the asshole part. I think ‘asshole-y’, because they’re as responsible as Korean politicians in political trouble when it comes to keeping the cycle up. I didn’t bother to say asshole-y with the Korean politicians in political trouble because, frankly I thought it would be redundant
Is the spelling difference in Japanese as subtle as Takeshima/Takeshiba?
Assface
Aceface I posted the data above to dispell any myths put out there by Japanese lobbyists. They have been deliberately misleading the public about the Japan Peace Treaty in their latest propaganda brochure. This was the publication on Ampotan’s website you seem to love.
In their brochure Shimane states that “…the Japan Peace Treaty confirmed with finality that Takeshima is Japanese territory as it always has been…”
This we know is not true. It’s ridiculous for Japan to interpret the confidential memorandums of some American officials as representative of the 48 participatory nations involved in the Japan Peace Treaty. Especially when the document I presented shows the Americans (Dulles) told the Japanese to refer to Article 22 (go to ICJ) in 1953. The U.S. did not interpret the Japan Peace Treaty as the Japanese would like us to believe.
My point with Rhee’s Peace Line is that Japanese lobbyists assert that the boundary was a greedy land grab. In reality this border was proposed numerous times before by the allies. In fact, I’d say it was the best option when we consider the region as a whole.
S.W. Bogg’s who was the U.S. Government State Dept’s Geographer knew Dokdo Takeshima was a potential area for dispute. Using the geography of the East Sea (Sea of Japan) he too determined that Dokdo should be Korean territrory.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/SFUS.jpg
These days I’ve been seeing more and more crafty maps drawn by the Japanse with the border drawn between Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Is this Japan’s idea of diplomacy? It’s no wonder the Koreans don’t trust the Japanese. When Japanese draft and distribute maps like this in only perpetuates the wrong stereotype of two-faced Japanese backstabbers.
See this map.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com.....ricks2.jpg
This is the boundary that Korea enforces with a 12 nautical mile limit around Dokdo.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/12-mile-limit.gif
This is what Japan wants. Japanese policy with regard to tiny uninhabited rocks is that these islets can generate EEZs. Using the map from Yahoo above and numerous other Japanese maps that show the Korea Japan boundary between Ulleungdo and Dokdo it’s clear how unreasonable Japan’s demands are when we consider the geography of the East Sea (Sea of Japan)
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/jap.....border.gif
I think the current boundary is quite fair when we compare the distances to Korean and Japanese landfalls and islands right now. However, not only are Japan’s demands unfair, they would simply push the Koreans and Japanese into each others faces which would result in further naval and fishing clashes. Giving Takeshima to Japan wouldn’t resolve the tensions in the area at all.
Japan, should stop harassing the Koreans.
On the lighter side here are some cartoons
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-comic.jpg
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/tak.....ailure.jpg
Ooops!!
Sorry about the “assface” header !!
I typed the post and saved the file under that name when the website was down this afternoon…
No offense intended.
#173, Buck-toothed Japanese… always milk-spewing funny. Not.
“Is the spelling difference in Japanese as subtle as Takeshima/Takeshiba?”
竹島Takeshima、竹芝Takeshiba.
Steve,you dissapointed me.You’ve leached the new low.
Oh, Japan has been wanting to settle this at the International Court of Justice since 1956, and to be honest, I think they realise that Korea would probably win. The reason they are holding out is because they do not want to seem soft on territorial possessions because that might effect how China and Russia see other disputed territories that are not just TINY PIECES OF ROCK THAT SHOULD NOT BE DESIGNATED AS NATIONAL TERRITORY ANYWAY.
Hopefully someone in Korea will realise that diplomacy, not military posturing or animal cruelty, is the way responsible nations settle their disputes.
japanese people need to know that
long time ago chinese and koreans went and help them with education and all
but all japanese did was not being thankful
that is so not fair
You must log in to post a comment.