File this KT op-ed in your “Why the United States Needs to Disengage with South Korea NOW” drawer. All you need to read:
History is important because it serves as a reminder of past mistakes and helps prevent similar ones being made. In this sense, the latest Japanese claim to Dokdo may be looked at in years to come as the seed that led to new generations of Japanese having an inaccurate sense of history, perhaps encouraging them to repeat the actions of their forefathers without worrying about the ramifications. Therefore, this might not be an isolated issue that only affects Korea but one that could tie up the rest of the world into an even bigger knot.
With Japan the aggressor in this war of history, a two-pronged campaign to defeat it is needed.
First, at the first point of contact, Korea should take a stand. Its first mission is to get itself ready for a long war of attrition, meaning that it should refrain from reacting to every action and comment made by Tokyo. Secondly, politicians must not assume that Japan will change and behave.
For the rest of the world, it should be kept in mind that Korea is the first line of defense and offense, and that if it crumbles, it would soon be the turn of other countries.
For starters, let’s try to derail Japan’s bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.
If we don’t stop the Japs now in Dokdo, it’s only a matter of time before they’re in San Francisco!
Please…
{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }
Be sure to check out the writer’s e-mail address, too!
“Its first mission is to get itself ready for a long war of attrition, meaning that it should refrain from reacting to every action and comment made by Tokyo.”
And you can do your part by stop watching Japanese online porn starting today!
Is this writer a comedian?
Not a comedian – an assistant managing editor! Goes to show the state of journalism in Korea.
What’s up with Koreans and unprofessional work e-mail addresses? You see it all the time. Anyway, this “assistant managing editor” must have been hired directly from the loony bin.
That, and it looks like LMB has finally pulled out the trusty Blame Japan for Something to Deflect Domestic Criticism Strategy[tm], and we all thought he was above that. Some things will never change.
Unfortunately, the KT piece comes off as quite reasonably compared to the GNP leadership:
http://www.fnnews.com/view?ra=Sent0801m_View&corp=fnnews&arcid=00000921369956&cDateYear=2008&cDateMonth=07&cDateDay=16
“…it should refrain from reacting to every action and comment made by Tokyo.”
Well, this doesn’t seem such a bad idea. Stopping to freak out about Dokdo would be a good start.
#6 Saw that email address at the bottom too. “foolsdie@koreatimes.co.kr”???? You gotta be kidding…
This is an editorial that made my mind numb from its use of “facts” without understanding ending up with an editorial that was gibberish.
But the bottomline is that the warning of the “Yellow Peril” of the 1930s happening again is pure nonsense. Let’s see… Japan is in the same straits as Korea with a birth rate that makes it a non-viable society.
Hmmm…by the time they get ready to invade the world Japan’s army will be the false teeth generation. Watch out for Japan…they will gum you to death!!!
Query: Has Mr. “Assistant Managing Editor” ever actually been to Germany in order to experience the German sense of shame first-hand? Has this guy even been to Japan?
Even if 2MB is using the Dokdo issue to divert attention from mad cow hysteria, can we really blame him? So, did you expect him to use logic and reason to divert the attention of the Lemmingstock ’08 crowd?
They sure get those banners printed up quickly. I always wondered if they have an inventory in every civic organizations back room for every conceivable event they could possibly imagine to protest.
Those print shops sure must love the business…
Japan is doing LMB a huge favor by bringing up the Dokdo issue for him to use. Considering that LMB and Japan are on friendly terms, I wouldnt be surprised if this entire event is intentional or agreed upon by both sides.
#6
Just read that in Japanese Yonhap.Hilarious!
I was wondering what those words like “HB virus” and “100%” meant in the context.
Who is giving these weird science to politician anyway,Hwang Woo-suk?
The guy should think twice before speaking the idea to open public,that could also open the door to the logic of Nagasaki prefecture owns entire Korea!
“Japan is doing LMB a huge favor by bringing up the Dokdo issue for him to use. Considering that LMB and Japan are on friendly terms, I wouldnt be surprised if this entire event is intentional or agreed upon by both sides.”
No, the pattern has been that it is Korea, not Japan, that periodically creates a diplomatic confrontation over Dokdo by overreacting to strictly internal Japanese events. In Japan, a simple mention is made of the Takeshima, sans any direct provokation toward Korea, and Korea then turns an internal Japanese conversation into an international confrontation. This appears to be the case yet again. It happens again and again, year after year, like clockwork.
When one contrasts this to Korean administrations’ reluctance to make an issue of actual provocations by North Korea that involve actual aggression, threats, development of nuclear arms, kidnapping, and even murder, the independent international observer is left with an extremely unflattering impression that the nation has a very tenuous grip on reality.
As for whether the issue will help LMB, I’m afraid that is just not in the cards. He’s on the losing end of history, and anything he does will be unfairly criticized. He has already been criticized for his interactions and responses on the issue. No, I’m afraid that the provocateurs whose job it is to sabotage political and social progress in this country depend on the reliable populist irrationality to undermine people like LMB, who are in a position to possibly make a difference. He can’t, and it’s not his fault. As I said, he is simply on the losing end of history.
This has been explained many times by many people, but some people are just not receptive to a clearheaded view of reality.
“strictly internal Japanese events”
When one government attempts to bolster their claim to the territory occupied and claimed by another, it is not a strictly internal event.
Regarding #15: Exactly, user-81!
“When one government attempts to bolster their claim to the territory occupied and claimed by another, it is not a strictly internal event.”
Sounds good, but a truism does not a truth make and contextomy does not an argument make.
14
Internal issues? I wont even discuss with you on that since 15 has already done an excellent job of correcting you. I dont see how Korea occupied and controlled Dokdo is somehow a Japanese internal issue.
And how is it Koreas fault? Remember, Korea already controls Dokdo. They are the owners. They would have no reason to start anything with the Japanese, mainly because they already possess what is being argued and desired by the Japanese. Its Japan who desires that which they do not control or own. And thats their driving force for starting these immature annoyances and declarations of foreign territory. Knowing full well that such declarations is bad for international relations. Its Japan who’s being immature here. Why couldn’t they stick with the stance they’ve held on to during the last couple of decades? Why stir pointless disputes in the year 2008 over territory that Korea already controls in name and practice?
You claim that its Korea who starts these incidents. How so? What about the recent textbook row that happened a few days ago? How did Korea provoke the Japanese into making this declaration? Your mind baffles me. I cannot understand your logic. Japan is clearly at fault here and even a blind man can see it. This little incident wouldnt have occurred if Japan kept the status quo. Why are they trying to pick a fight?
I personally agree with you that the Koreans are over-reacting. They should just ignore the Japanese and give them the silent treatment, mainly because they already control Dokdo and the Japanese are just barking as usual. But on the same token, Japan should grow up and quit trying to pick pointless fights with people They have territorial disputes with all of their neighbors. South Korea, North Korea, China, Taiwan and Russia. If Hawaii was close enough to Japan, the Japanese would be claiming parts of Hawaii as their own as well.
One thing that baffles me is this.
“No, the pattern has been that it is Korea, not Japan, that periodically creates a diplomatic confrontation over Dokdo by overreacting to strictly internal Japanese events.”
So its Koreas fault that they are reacting to something the Japanese started. You claim that Korea started this incident because they got visibly annoyed over the Japanese declaring their territory as their own? That makes no sense. Japan threw the first punch. Its like saying that someone who got punched in the face for no reason started the fight because he got annoyed after getting punched. Make some sense. Quit letting your prejudice blind your judgement.
As for North Korea. Thats the South and North Korean governments problems. If the South Korean government doesnt want to make it an issue then thats their problem. This has no bearing to a foreign country declaring another countries territory as their own. The comparison doesnt match.
“There is no sense of shame in the collective mind of the Japanese, something evident in the German psyche.”
Well I must say that at least here he’s right.
Whenever you try to talk with Japanese about the war crimes their granddads did, they become extremely defensive and try to show you how much foreigners are to blame and blah-blah.
Sounds familiar, huh? The same happens when you try to argue with Koreans and Chinese too. The answer is always “yes but you’re worse in …”
Is it so hard to say you were wrong and get out of it keeping your dignity? Like Germans did for example?
And again, Germans didn’t consider the “economical cost” of their national unification. When life and freedom is at stake, money and economics doesn’t matter.
Do you know some other nation that took into account the “economical cost” of their national unification and left their brothers to starve under a terrible stalinist regime?
I’d be much more worried about China and North Korea. They really kill people and they ain’t joking around.
Modern Japan?
Give me a break –,-
#15
“When one government attempts to bolster their claim to the territory occupied and claimed by another, it is not a strictly internal event.”
The Japanese texbook guideline craftly avoids mentioning Japan’s claim on territory.It marely mention that there are some “difference in opinion between Tokyo and Seoul”and is a “dispute like the northern territory”.
Seoul got angry for this and states Dokdo wasn’t/isn’t/and never shall be an international disputes.So your accusation should be targeted to Seoul,not Tokyo.
“Its Japan who desires that which they do not control or own. And thats their driving force for starting these immature annoyances and declarations of foreign territory. ”
Pointing out the difference in territorial disputes is not an act of “immarure annoyance”.It is a normal diplomatic procedure.However,throwing eggs into the embassy is,and it isn’t Japanese doing that.
“How did Korea provoke the Japanese into making this declaration?”
I don’t know,maybe the bee-man?
“They have territorial disputes with all of their neighbors. South Korea, North Korea, China, Taiwan and Russia. If Hawaii was close enough to Japan, the Japanese would be claiming parts of Hawaii as their own as well.”
South and North Koreans hace issues with China over Gando and continental shelf at the Yellow Sea and Socotra Rock.
China has(had) border disputes with every single nation they hare their borders.Even went to war three times in the past half century.
Taiwan,not only has disputes with China and Japan,but also with four South East Asian countires(Vietnam,The Phillippines,Malaysia and Brunei) for they claim the Spratlys.
Russia also has border disputes with almost everyone,with exception of Belarus.(I think).
Let’s say Japan isn’t a black sheep in the family.
And some of their claim of parts of Hawaii are valid,for they probably paid enough cash for their condos!
Germany doesn’t have territory disputes, despite probably rightfully having some. A lot of East Poland and northern Czech isn’t really their land, historically.
They lost the war. So they shut up.
What about Japan? They lost the war. They don’t shut up.
Germany. They lost the war. They don’t dress up in their 1940′s gear.
Japan. They lost the war. They do dress up in their 1940′s gear.
Germany. They lost the war. Illegal to celebrate the 40′s.
Japan. They lost the war. Perfectly legal to celebrate the 40′s.
US was too easy on Japan. The only conclusion.
Germany could claim Alsace-Lorraine, but they don’t. Probably because they lost the war.
Actually, Germany probably has more to gain economically from claiming these lands.
Japan? What do they really have to gain?
They’re just pissing in a 360 degree direction, making neighbors angry.
That’s why they’re shitty people.
and that’s what North Korea and Japan have in common.
“Internal issues? I wont even discuss with you on that since 15 has already done an excellent job of correcting you.”
Bald assertion? Contextomy? That’s “an excellent job of correcting.”
Gentle reader, I know what you are thinking: “How is it that Mizar5 knows precisely the strings to pull that can cause his little sock puppets to enact the behaviors he would otherwise need to illustrate himself in support of his arguments?”
But no, it isn’t genious, but sloth. When the standards of discussion are so reliably abysmal, one need only sit back and watch the obtuse kneejerkers explode in apoplectic rage.
“Germany doesn’t have territory disputes, despite probably rightfully having some. A lot of East Poland and northern Czech isn’t really their land, historically.
They lost the war. So they shut up.”
Well,they didn’t actually.Not until 1970′s until they reached agreement with Poland.Same goes to Alsace-Lorraine with France,but that was in some other time.
“Germany. They lost the war. They don’t dress up in their 1940’s gear.
Japan. They lost the war. They do dress up in their 1940’s gear.”
You can’t wear Nazi outfit with Swastika in Germany,because it is illegal.But I don’t know about old school military uniform.Anyway they use the same iron cross as the symbol of their military.
And you won’t find anyone dressing up in 1940′s uniform in Japan except for some cos-play weirdos you see occasionary in Yasukuni shrine.
“Germany. They lost the war. Illegal to celebrate the 40’s.
Japan. They lost the war. Perfectly legal to celebrate the 40’s”
And what exactly are you talking about here? You don’t mean to say Yasukuni shrine is there to celebrate “the 40′s” but honour the war dead.(which I admit is controvertial in a way).
Aceface, perhaps deconstructing fallacies is a pastime of yours too?
It occurs to me that the perpetrators who goostep to the lemming march of anti-Japanese rhetoric are actually unaware of the obvious fact they are being taken for a ride.
Could it be that the pernicious poison of bias that is eroding the logical portion of their brains has also disabled the function of introspection?
While I have no personal position on the issue itself, I am nonethelss fascinated by the Liliputan nature of the argument. It’s a train wreck that you just can’t stop yourself from gawking at.
Since someone asked for some elucidation of Korea’s role as the perrenial provocateur in the Dokdo dispute, I thought the following outside source would be informative:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/japan2.pdf
Do you remember this incident?…
“This dispute recently came to a head when South Korea began printing postage stamps showing pictures of flowers and seagulls. On January 16, 2004, South Koreans arrived en masse at post offices around the country to purchase the stamps. The series, Nature of Tokdo,” included a painting of a lonely gray island, topped with vegetation like a green toupee. After three hours, 2.2 million stamps were sold, setting off a diplomatic row in which Japanese and South Korean leaders showed renewed hostility toward one another. Japanese officials said the issue violates the cooperative spirit of the Universal Postal Union.”
This was a provocation, especially considering the 1965 treaty as explained in this passage:
“Despite disagreement over the ownership of the Liancourt Rocks, in June 1965 the two claimants signed the Treaty on Basic Relations, which normalized their diplomatic relations. No mention was made of the status of Liancourt Rocks within the treaty’s text. Instead, both sides agreed to disagree and deleted all direct mention of the islands from the final document. The two sides did,
however, pledge to seek a peaceful settlement of any future disputes through diplomatic channels.”
However, the confrontational and provocative approaches that Korea has taken on numerous occassions, such as the one described in the exerpt above and the current confrontation do not appear to be in the spirit of this treaty.
By contrast, the planned Japanese textbook revisions do not appear to violate the spirit of the treaty. Since Korean schools have already been teaching the Korean version for quite some time, it is hypocritical to attempt to enjoin Japan from doing the same.
“Aceface, perhaps deconstructing fallacies is a pastime of yours too? ”
Perhaps.But you must clarify what you are trying to say or the benefit of non-English speaker such as I.
22. WJK:
“Germany. They lost the war. They don’t dress up in their 1940’s gear.
Japan. They lost the war. They do dress up in their 1940’s gear.”
You mean like the Koreans?
http://www.asianoffbeat.com/JustWrong/Coreana‘s-Nazi-Commercial-Featuring-Park-Jin-hee.jpg
BTW – for some reason the whole link didn’t take, just cut and paste.
Or there is this link:
http://www.asiaone.com/A1MEDIA/justwomen/04Apr08/20080502.101437_parkjinhee.jpg
Lazy, stop being a dumbass.
The New Nazi state is the People’s Republic of China.
You’ll find dress ups all over East Asia, but politically and economically, only PRC fits the bill.
Did you miss the news about the South Korean government sending storm troopers to the immigrant sector?
Ah, but you did hear about the Chinese troops cutting off tv, internet, journalists, and storming Tibet, right?
PS. Please write your congressman.
calm down.
until Scapin 637,dokdo belong to korea.
but next final version removed.
SF treaty final version did not metioned it.
it does not mean dokdo belong to japan.
1. SF treaty draft version did not metioned dokdo belong to japan.
2. SF treaty draft version metioned dokdo belong to korea.
3. final version removed by japanese lobby. but it does not mentioned that dokdo belong to japan. (do not mistake)
therefore, korea obey previous version of sf treaty.
Even 1951 Map (drawed by Japanese goverment 衆議院)
http://www.historyfoundation.or.kr/images/img/img080515_7.jpg
Dokdo was Officialy exclude in Territory of Japan.
#28, so the renewed hostility started because the Japanese government got upset because of a bunch of stamps? That’s very Korean of them.
Actually, the stamps were quite offensive:
http://image.epost.go.kr/stamp/data_img/so/SO2360.jpg
The site lists four of them, all dangerous flowers and menacing birds. I couldn’t find the one with the green toupee.
Nakagawa is a well known Korean troll who is a frequent poster on Youtube poking his head in every single video related to Japan and spewing the all too familiar stupidity and low class, vulgar comments so common among Koreans trolling that site. He goes by several monikers “yujimmiyuki”, “justinkayleighton”, “japanrotoRI”, “WarriorYo” and “japsdenyhistory” on Youtube. Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCeK0Trz9E0&feature=related
His comments (#91 and #98) on Sonagi’s post (which has now been closed for understandable reasons) were taken straight from Youtube, copied exactly word for word from what another poster wrote about Koreans. I would advise other posters really to think about giving anything written by Nakagawa about as much credibility as a dissertation of Korean logic written by Stacked or Pawi.
Wjk: LOL! I know, I was merely joking around to lighten the mood.
The Dokdo issue is one Korean problem for which I do place the blame squarely on the United States.
During the war, the US had ample opportunities to blow Dokdo out of the water. A minor bombing run would have sufficed.
This would have been a wonderful gift to the stability of the region. Not very forward thinking in my opinion.
25.
“Bald assertion? Contextomy? That’s “an excellent job of correcting.””
Gentle reader, I know what you are thinking: “How is it that Mizar5 knows precisely the strings to pull that can cause his little sock puppets to enact the behaviors he would otherwise need to illustrate himself in support of his arguments?”
But no, it isn’t genious, but sloth. When the standards of discussion are so reliably abysmal, one need only sit back and watch the obtuse kneejerkers explode in apoplectic rage.”
There you go again. Attacks on the writer without addressing, answering or countering his arguments. Youre full of hot air. Attacking me doesnt accomplish much if you do not even attempt to answer my questions.
So how is Japan declaring soverign Korean territory as their own a Japanese internal issue? Please explain your logic in detail. I cannot even begin to understand what kind of warped ideas you have on this issue.
All substative arguments were categorically addressed, and you may review my posts to catch up to them.
But you cannot expect interlocutors to accept intellectual laziness, so do not entreat them to repeat that which you either did not read the first time or take the time to comprehend.
My parting advise for you, pearls before swine if you will, is this: If you seek meaninful exchange, bear in mind that people worth engaging have better things to do than respond to empty rhetoric.
BTW, I did not mean to appear snide in my response to you, VG866 or to deride you, and I apologize for my wicked wit, troglodytic inquirer and devout agnostic that I am.
I get it. You are frustrated. You feel you have a real point and yet you can’t seem to defend it in a logically persuasive way.
You are at a loss for a response to the categorical refutation of your arguments, and so you raise your voice, metaphorically speaking, to defend your views against the incomprehensible, ie. argumentum ad baculum, or argument from force, or verbal bullying.
In such instances, I would council patience. it is often helpful to step back from your own conceptual framework and consider the merits of the other viewpoint before responding. That’s what I do, and in the process, I learn thigs about an issue that my own framework could not formerly have accomodated.
This requires a willingness to be open to the facets and logical inferences, a willingness to move beyond the old strategies that aren’t working, namely, cherry picking, and bombast in an attempt to win over your opponent to your own narrowly defined position through verbal bullying.
This is the very approach that Korean protestors resort to that so thoroughly undermines their credibility on a host of issues, including Dokdo, and that is the marrow of my argument.
The fact is, If the Korean contingent were willing to approach the issue with any degree of dispassion and intellectual honesty, they would already have won the day, so to speak in terms of their persuasive or soft power. Instead they resort to argument by means of the rod, and what Korean society doesn’t comprehend is the extent to which it invites derision.
By acting precisely as you do in this thread, like a mindless, faceless mob, parroting conventional pieties and working titself into a frenzy out of sheer frustration, reasoning is replaced by force, which results in the termination of logical argumentation.
This not only fails as a form of persuasion, but perpetrates confusion and misunderstanding by eliciting other kinds of behavior such as fear, anger, reciprocal use of force, etc. This, in a nutshell, is the singlemost hindrance to dialogue both within Korean society and with outside parties. After all, how can Korea expect to carry on an effective diplomatic policy when it cannot even carry on a functional civil discourse within its own social and academic institutions?
With regard to your questions, all your substantive arguments were categorically addressed in this thread if you will put in the time and effort to understand them. There is no shame in abandoning a partisan contextual framework to examine the facts of an issue at length. It in fact strengthens and empowers you.
I wish you every success in working through the issue.
I have to say, Mizar5 in this thread makes John Kerry look like the prime example of ‘eloquence in brevity’. I haven’t seen that many logic vocabularies since last time I judged an LD round…
Mizar5, you have to admit you are being excessively subtle in your refutation of the argument concerning your claim:
“the pattern has been that it is Korea, not Japan, that periodically creates a diplomatic confrontation over Dokdo by overreacting to strictly internal Japanese events.”
because the challenge has been concerning the definition of ‘internal Japanese events.’
The argument was basically, how is it an internal Japanese event when it concerns territories occupied by another state? In which you responded… truism and contextomy (btw… really? you couldn’t have typed ‘out of context’ instead?) without explaining as to how that’s so. If this was a debate round, you just lost that argument on the ground that you failed to expand on your claim.
Now just explain how the issue is an internal event when it concerns territories occupied by another nation? A little more than ‘truism’ and ‘contextomy’ would be helpful.
“The argument was basically, how is it an internal Japanese event when it concerns territories occupied by another state (sic)? In which you responded…without explaining as to how that’s so. If this was a debate round, you just lost that argument on the ground that you failed to expand on your claim.
Nonsense. I have supported my position in posts on this and the “And I Thought We Weren’t Going to See Much of Dokdo This Year” threads. While you may not have noticed them, it is improper to state that I did not support my claim.
To summarize, I explained how “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 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…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.”
In other words, this was an internal discussion, not a national action expressly intended to provoke Korea.
I also discussed the 1965 Treaty, in which the 2 nations agreed to disagree on the issue, and showed instances, such as the one above, in which Japan has attempted to keep things quiet in the interests of that agreement, while Korea has to the contrary been vociferous and provocative. In contrast, I have illustrated some of Korea’s attempts at international provocation, including the 2004 stamp issue which reached beyond Korean borders.
With regard to a textbook used in a Japanese classroom, this is arguably an internal matter, as, as Korean schools already teach its version of the issue, it would appear to be the pot calling the kettle black. Let’s at least be honest about it.
What is dishonest about my interlocutors, (excepting yourself, as you probably didn’t follow me like a hawk as they did, and thus possibly just didn’t see my prior explanations, I honestly acknowledged and responded to others’ statements in explaining my positions. However, my own arguments were simply not acknowledged as having been made. Very poor.
Now, you may disagree with my assessments and they may actually be incorrect, but to summarilydismiss them without directly refutating them is not a proper argument. In fact, the counter arguments I have seen to date are essentially red herring comments such as the one that the stamps portrayed “menacing birds”, V8′s comment that: “So its Koreas fault that they are reacting to something the Japanese started” sans any evidence to support the supposition, and ad hominem arguments about prejudice blinding my judgement” when in fact, I have assiduously avoided taking any position on the issue and am neutral on the issue.
Now I realize it seems petty to call for honesty over rhetoric, but that is the kernal of my position on the issue itself. I believe, as you do, that the Korean dialog concerning Dokdo is, as you have characterized it, “overreaction” and overblown rhetoric. Whether I can empathize with them or not is irrelevent. I am simply attempting to hold them to consistent standards of honesty and effective debate.
BTW, Mizar5, who supposedly “failed to expand on your claim” also provided external links including this one from the Japan Times:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060223a3.html
‘Takeshima Day,’ rhetoric just Shimane affair
By ERIC JOHNSTON
MATSUE, Shimane Pref. — Shimane Prefecture on Wednesday celebrated its first “Takeshima Day” by declaring that the tiny islets controlled by South Korea are part of Japan and calling on the government to pressure Seoul to hand them over.
Shimane Gov. Nobuyoshi Sumita speaks to reporters at the prefectural headquarters.
Central government officials were conspicuously absent from Wednesday’s event, however, in order to avoid straining ties further with Seoul.
“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.
Last March, the prefecture declared Feb. 22 “Takeshima Day.” That date in 1905 was when Japan forced Korea to cede the islets to Shimane.
Security was tight Wednesday afternoon in downtown Matsue, but the streets were quiet. There were no prominent posters or banners heralding “Takeshima Day” and no rightwing sound trucks drove around demanding the islets’ return.
A few protesters from South Korea showed up in front of the prefectural office in the morning, holding up signs declaring that Dokdo belongs to South Korea.
About 250 people, including representatives from local fishing unions as well as town assembly members from the Oki Islands, administered by Shimane Prefecture, attended the afternoon forum on the contentious issue.
Sumita called on the central government to pressure South Korea on Takeshima, which the South calls Dokdo, echoing calls from Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe earlier this week for both sides to take a cool-headed approach to resolve the issue.
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.
Tsuyoshi Kurai, head of the prefectural assembly, was more blunt, calling South Korea’s control of the islets illegal and urging Japanese diplomats to increase the pressure on Seoul.
The islets are about 50 nautical miles east of South Korea’s Ullung Island and about 90 nautical miles northwest of the Oki Islands. Tokyo and Seoul have argued over the islets for the past century.
However, it was the decision taken by the late South Korean President Syngman Rhee in the 1950s that led to the current dispute.
On Jan. 28, 1952, in the period shortly after the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed and before it was ratified, Rhee declared South Korean sovereignty over an area of the Sea of Japan where the islets are located and took control of them.
The islets was discussed during the peace treaty negotiations, but their status was not established. Japan protested Rhee’s move, but the issue has remained unresolved, with the occasional political flareup.
At Wednesday’s forum, Masao Shimojo, professor at Takushoku University who has written extensively on the dispute for the prefecture, said one reason row has not been resolved is the Japanese public’s lack of knowledge about the issue.
Shimojo’s views on history have appeared on the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform’s Web site. It was this group that published a textbook downplaying Japan’s wartime atrocities, which sparked angry protests in South Korea and China when it was approved for use in public schools.
“But the reason why the Takeshima problem still festers is because there has been no real dialogue with South Korea,” Shimojo said. “When Japan says something, South Korea responds with emotional, angry words. So to tell South Korea, as Japan does in negotiations, that historically, Takeshima is Japan’s, or that international law is on Japan’s side simply doesn’t work.”
In Shimojo’s view, Takeshima was legally incorporated into Japan in 1905, when the Korean government signed a treaty giving them to Japan.
The deal was struck when Korea was under Japanese control. Seoul’s position is that the government at the time signed the treaty against its will.
Lol, so you offered the warrant in another thread. Excellent. I was absent from this blog for a while.
So what we have is a portion of Japan (Shimane prefecture) wanting the central Japanese government to take an aggressive claim over the land that is currently being occupied by another country. While the discussion is technically internal, the subject at hand is international.
How would Canada feel if Michigan and Pennsylvania petition the federal government to annex Quebec? Sure, it’s just conversation between state government and the federal government, but the subject at hand is… not quite exclusive to United States.
It’s like my roommates having a discussion in front of me about whether to steal my rice or not. “What? We’re just having a talk between friends.”
My position on this issue is that vast majority of the Japanese population can’t give a flying fuck, and the Japanese equivalent of West Virginia is what’s making the ruckus. This ruckus, while laughably tiny, is amplified by Korean politicians in huge political troubles and fed to the Korean population. The Korean population, with their eyes and ears covered up by the gov’t/”journalists”, is led to believe that those morons in black vans represent what the Japanese actually thinks. And who can blame them? Every fucking ‘reliable’ sources in Korean language are leading them to that conclusion. In my view, there are two groups of assholes on the east and west of the East Sea of Japan.
My solution? Build an actual journalism college.
I think we are on the same page.
Or perhaps, I should say we are on the same “thread” now. But we are also in general agreement on the issue.
The analogy of Michigan and Pennsylvania petitioning the federal government to annex Quebec is not entirely an apples-to-apples one as the issues here are considerably more complex and less clear cut, and there are other examples that better fit the case.
The Island of Palmas (off the Phillipine coast) was disputed between the United States and the Netherlands, and the US lost the petition before the Court of Arbitration, referenced here:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/japan2.pdf
However, it is considered unlikely that Japan and SK will do the same. Why? It appears to better serve both their interests to just keep the matter going ad infinitim.
Some argue that the US probably has the best claim of all three parties over Dokdo, and have suggested that the resolution of the issue lies with the US: http://www.taiwanbasic.com/tw/dokdo.htm
Excerpt: “Dokdo was territory included in, and/or adjunct to, the areas “acquired” by the United States, and thus under the jurisdiction of US military authorities. As un-demarcated territory under the terms of the treaty, at the present time Dokdo is still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government (USMG). Although Dokdo has no native population, there are Korean troops there now. Under the SFPT, these personnel would be considered a subordinate occupying power. This is “agency.” USMG is the principal. The Korean troops are the agent…
The territorial clause of the US Constitution says: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…. ” Hence, under the provisions of the SFPT for (1) limbo cessions (such as the Kuriles, Spratly Islands, Taiwan, etc.) or for (2) un-demarcated territory , it is clear that the title to the territory escheats to “the conqueror,” which in the post-Napoleonic period is “the principal occupying power.” This is ownership in the sense of “having legal right to,” or “having title to,” however, it is more properly delineated as a kind of “quasi-trusteeship.” Hence, Korean government officials should be petitioning the US Congress to make final disposition of this “property” held under USMG, and subject to the jurisdiction of the US Congress under the territorial clause of the US Constitution.”
Since the US probably has the best claim of all three parties over Dokdo, perhaps LMB should have considered formally petitioning the US for rights to the island in exchange for the beef deal.
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 1 trackback }