Following a meeting with the ruling party, government has decided to consider — albeit it very carefully and with great reservations — plans to replace the maritime police force currently based on Dokdo with a detachment of ROK Marines.
It’s the Grand National Party, ironically enough (given their reputation as, ahem, a “pro-Japanese” party), that’s leading the charge to put Marines on Dokdo, with the government expressing caution, pointing out that the deployment could give the impression that Seoul was itself recognizing the islets as a disputed territory.
One thing the GNP and the government did agree on is the need to turn Dokdo into an inhabited island. As concrete measures, the government will push the construction of a floating hotel and the development of other tourism products. The government and GNP also agreed on the need to establish an undersea mineral survey team for permanent deployment to Dokdo and to do away with requiring Koreans to get prior permission before visiting the islets.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 56 comments… read them below or add one }
Sounds like a great use of tax dollars. Might as well build a concrete land bridge to Dokdo while they’re at it.
bridges are cheap. They should build a tunnel and connect dokdo to Line 1.
not line 1. 6 or 7 would be better.
How do you make those rocks inhabitable??? wtf.
I’ll bet young ROK marines are lining up to be deployed there. 삼다 (
三多): rocks, water, flag-waving tourists; 삼무 (
三務 [ 삼무 ]
봄, 여름, 가을의 세 계절(季節)의 농사일(農事-)
三無): girls, bars, PC bangs.
Crap, I screwed up on the cut and paste. Try again:
I’ll bet young ROK marines are lining up to be deployed there.
삼다 (三多): rocks, water, flag-waving tourists;
삼무 (三無): girls, bars, PC bangs.
So whatever happened to the incident where a South Korean was shot dead by a North Korean guard? Has it gone away, thanks to this Japan-hate issue?
Actually, I heard they’re thinking of putting North Korean guards on Dokdo, now that South Korean marines have been ruled out.
“So whatever happened to the incident where a South Korean was shot dead by a North Korean guard? Has it gone away, thanks to this Japan-hate issue?”
Marmot’s Hole (where nearly half of the first page is Dokdo connected) is not the same as Korean media (where Dokdo is big but they also talk about real estate, big-boobed American starlets, and making your eyes big without plastic surgery). Even if it’s not here, it may be in the Korean press:
http://news.sbs.co.kr/section_.....1000446683
http://thestar.com.my/news/sto.....rldupdates
They say Park may have been shot by a 17 year old female recruit.
It’s a good point. Putting the soldiers there gives the appearance that South Korea’s claims are somewhat insecure…Question is, are they trying to give that impression at home or abroad?
I think it’s the GNP trying to look butch because they’ve been taking a ton of crap over the beef issue, but the government is right about deploying Marines — given how the Japanese haven’t done anything that seriously challenges Korean control, putting troops on the island makes it look like the islets are disputed, which — from the official Korean point of view — they are not.
At any rate, you’ll see ROKAF F-15Ks flying over Dokdo for drills next month — should provide some spectacular eye candy, if nothing else.
Inhabiting the islets doesn’t sound like an entirely shitty idea. If you’re a Korean fisherman, it might not be such a bad deal, especially if government subsidies are involved.
Develop other tourism products? I think Liancourt Golf & Country Club has a nice ring to it.
“If you’re a Korean fisherman, it might not be such a bad deal, especially if government subsidies are involved.”
That may not be,Since during any military drill,the commercial fishings
are usually suspended from the nearby waters.
One thing I was wondering.Wasn’t Dokdo,supposed to be a natural reserve of somekind? I wonder if there’s any legal contradiction of building so much concrete stuff in protected areas.
in addition to all this splendid logic, Dokdo is exactly what it looks like; a couple of rocks REALLY far from anything else. 80% of the time the tourist boats that go there can’t land at the jetty because of the waves; what business in its right mind would actually run a floating hotel into which customers were unable to enter 80% of the time?
This is a great idea for the GNP. The citizens want some action, and 2MB needs to give them what they want. Perhaps they’ll realize after spending millions on building up Dokdo, what a ridiculous idea it was. Or not. Realization of past mistakes here is rare.
I read about all the people wanting to buy real estate on Dokdo. Wow. Talk about an inconvenience to get groceries!
After 40 years of colonial exploitation, you’d think the Japanese would just let the Koreans have their rocks, especially since all the pre-colonial maps show Chosun in control of Dokdo. I bet all of Hello Kitty’s teenage girl customers are going to just love listening to Japanese nationalist propoganda – maybe we should have Barbie speak out for the War on Terror… just ridiculous.
#16
Not only your on a wrong thread,but you also didn’t get the irony…
I think they should build a canal to it.
And a golf course. (watch out for the water hazards on holes #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and especially 18.)
Ok.. I see now, yes, where it says ’satire.’ Seems like a lot writing to make a pretty simple point.
I’d think that it really would be in Japan’s long term interest to concede on Dokdo. With waning US power in NE Asia and China on the horizon, you’d think they’d want to soothe relations with S.K., especially since Korea has occupied the rocks for the last 50 years. Guess though that we’ll have to wait for another Japanese opposition coalition for that to happen.
“I’d think that it really would be in Japan’s long term interest to concede on Dokdo. ”
Perhaps.
And losing that in ICJ would be an idealistic solution.Because Korea literary wins Dokdo.(I have an idea that Seoul somehow doesn’t like this idea that Japan to “concede” on what they think is their territory.)
But it’s just me.
“I think Liancourt Golf & Country Club has a nice ring to it.”
It does sound pretty good, but I don’t think either of the rocks has enough space for mini-putt, let alone post-golf drinking and girling.
“what business in its right mind would actually run a floating hotel into which customers were unable to enter 80% of the time?”
Good point, but what business in their right mind would build a money losing resort in a neighboring dictatorship where tourists run the risk of getting shot to death?
#16 – haha. What would I do without stupid people to entertain me?
“One thing I was wondering.Wasn’t Dokdo,supposed to be a natural reserve of somekind? I wonder if there’s any legal contradiction of building so much concrete stuff in protected areas.”
I seem to recall reading something along those lines. Unfortunately, it is probably something the government and/or developers can find ways to circumvent. This is not unique to Korea. Other countries have been know to build (or drill!) in what are/were supposed to be protected areas.
The Korean government position that the Liancourt Rocks are not in dispute is pretty funny. By refusing to accept that there is in fact a dispute, they are able to avoid their treaty obligations with Japan to resolve it.
Dokdoforever (#16),
There is not even one old Korean map that shows Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) before the Japanese incorporated them in 1905. Also, there are no Korean documents that show Koreans even visited the rocks before the Japanese incorporation. The only evidence that Koreans went to “Dokdo” before 1905 are Japanese documents from the early 1900s that show Koreans were being used on Japanese fishing boats to fish the waters about Dokdo. In fact, the first mention of Koreans going to “Dokdo” said that the Koreas used the Japanese name to refer to the rocks. It was only later, in 1904, that Koreans started referring to the rocks as “Dokdo.”
In 1905, Japan incorporated Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), but Korea was not informed until 1906, when a group of Japanese prefectural officials visited Ulleungdo and told the Uldo (Ulleungdo) county head there about the incorporation. The Uldo County Head reported to his superiors that the Japanese had visited and told him that they had incorporated “Dokdo,” which he claimed was part of his county. However, the Uldo county head did not seem to know the location of “Dokdo” since he said it was about 100 ri from Ulleungdo, which would be only forty kilometers. The rocks are, in fact, ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo.
At the time, Japanese fishermen had been fishing Liancourt Rocks from Ulleungdo, which I think caused the Uldo County Head to just assume “Dokdo” was part of his county, even though he did not seem to know the location of the rocks. The Uldo county head was told by his superiors to investigate the situation further. Anyway, the incident was reported in Korean newspapers, which seemed to assume Dokdo was an inhabited island.
Apparently, after seeing the articles in the Korean newspapers, the Japanese Resident General asked the Korean Ministry of Interior to confirm what islands belonged to Ulleungdo. Korea’s Interior Ministry replied that the islands under the authority of the county were “Jukdo” (竹島) and Seokdo (石島) and that the county stretched sixty ri (24 km) from east to west and forty ri (16 km) from north to south. The Korean newspaper article reporting the Korean government reply and its translation can be seen HERE.
Even though the Korean government had heard about “Dokdo” from the Ulleungdo County Head just a few months earlier, it appears that the investigation requested by the Korean government revealed that “Dokdo” was not a part of Ulleungdo since the Korean Interior Ministry did not mention it in its response to the Japanese Resident General. Also, Dokdo was far beyond the dimensions the Korean ministry gave for Uldo county.
Koreans did not start claiming Dokdo until the late 1940s, when Rhee Syngman attempted to grab as much Japanese territory as he could after the defeat of Japan in World War II. The US government, however, refused to recognize Korea’s claim on “Dokdo,” which prompted Korea to take it by force. Korean police still occupy the islands.
As for Korea’s not recognizing that there is a dispute with Japan over Liancourt Rocks, the following picture is the only explanation I can give for that:
“What dispute?”
Gerry during the early 20th century the Koreans were fully aware of Dokdo Islets. This was recorded in the 1901 Black Dragon Fishing Manual. So the old argument that Korean’s were not aware of the islets when Japan’s Navy annexed (yes annexed) the islets is dead. We know for sure the Koreans were cognizant of the islands at the time of ordinance 41 in 1900.
Not surprisingly this document also lists Liancourt Rocks under Korea’s Gangwando Province like some other Japanese records of this era.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-20cent.html
You say “Japan “incorporated” Liancourt Rocks and Korea wasn’t notified.” The whole world wasn’t notified of Japan’s annexation of the rocks. You know territorial acquisitions have to be open and public.
Japan’s incorporation was done via Japanese trespassers and squatters living on Korea’s Ulleungdo. It bizarre how you mention this so casually like it was only natural up to one thousand Japanese would be living on Korean land.
The Korean government ordered these Japanese off the island for at least 6 years before Japan annexed Dokdo. Japan’s Foreign Minister Hayashi’s response was to station police on Ulleungdo without the consent of the Korean government. This was despite the fact he conceded it was illegal. What’s worse, when Chosun demanded their removal, he refursed. It’s not surprising the Uldo governor didn’t openly object when the Japanese told him they had annexed Dokdo. Previous governors were scared shitless to administer over Ulleungdo in the early 1900s
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com.....anese.html
You are also wrong about the reply by the Ministry they did not give the dimensions of Uldo Country in the reply. They simply quoted the dimensions of Ulleungdo Island (200ri) from ancient Chosun maps and a brief outline of Ordinance 41.
http://www16.tok2.com/home/ota.....861-63.JPG
Also what did the Ministry of the Interior know about the geography of Ulleungdo in 1906? Not much apparently the maps they were using were ancient copies of ancient maps. This was while Harvard Grad Japanese Colonialists cited top notch British Naval maps.
This time the Japanese really pissed of the Koreans. From what I understand the Koreans would like to make Dokdo inhabitable. This means they could potentially extend their border or claim the islets as an EEZ.
Frogmouth’s reasoning may make sense if Japan was claiming Ulleungdo, but not so much for “Dokdo”. The fishing document says that the rocks were uninhabited, and both the Koreans and the Japanese knew about it then. Gerry’s documents give an explanation for why the Koreans knew of the rocks: because of the Japanese. You have to argue out of the whole context of what’s available, not just rely on one document that can be interpreted several ways. In other words, I think frogmouth’s argument is weak.
It seems pretty clear that S Korea grabbed the rocks right after Japan regained independence (under the SF Treaty) because their (= Korean) claims on the rocks were denied by the Americans. So it is disputed territory after all, and there’s nothing inherently wrong in stating so.
One should note that Japan did concede this time by also noting in their textbook guideline that Korea disagrees with Japan’s position. Given how Korea teaches its children about “Dokdo”, why can’t Japan even mention it?
So what would the ROK Government hope to accomplish by replacing the current police armed with assault rifles with marines armed with assault rifles? Does the ROK marine uniform contain some sort of anti-Japanese kryptonite or something, thus making a detachment of marines more able to defend the (ahem) “islands”?
Yeah, but wouldn’t a floating hotel presumably be offshore and thus not really qualify as ‘inhabiting’ the stones?
Frogmouth (Steve Barber),
Yes, Korean fishermen on Japanese fishing boats knew of Liancourt Rocks in 1901, but they were using the Japanese name for the island, not “Dokdo” (獨島), “Usando” (于山島), “Seokdo” (石島), or any of the other names that Korea claims were old names for Liancourt Rocks. If Koreans were so well aware of the rocks in 1901, why didn’t they have their own name for them?
The 1901 pamplet was a Japanese fishing guide and Liancourt Rocks were only mentioned in the Gangwondo section, and were not mentioned as being a part of Ulleungdo or Gangwon Province. If Liancourt Rocks had really been a part of Gangwon Province, why was it listed under its Japanese name?
Koreans were personally notified by the Japanese one year after Liancourt Rocks were incorporated, but the notification of the incorporation appeared in a Japanese newspapers and in a government bulletin before then. At the time, Japan was pretty busy with its war with Russia.
However, even after Korean officials were informed of the Japanese incorporation of Liancourt Rocks, they did not protest it, even though the Japanese Residents-general asked them months later to clarify which islands belonged to Uldo (Ulleungdo) County. As the July 13, 1906 Korean newspaper article I linked to above shows, Koreans were given a chance to protest the incorporation of the rocks after they knew about it, yet they did not protest it.
The dimensions given in the 1906 article were for Uldo County, regardless of where the dimensions may have come from, and the dimensions clearly excluded “Dokdo” from Uldo county. Dokdo was not even listed as one of the islands in the county, even though Ulleungdo’s County head had claimed Dokdo was part of his county months earlier.
By the way, Steve, you contradicted yourself in your post. You started it by saying that Koreans were “fully aware of Dokdo Islets” in the early 20th century, but you ended your post with the suggestion that Korea’s Interior Ministry did not know much about the geography of Ulleungdo in 1906.
Regardless of how much the Korean government may have known about the geography of Ulleungdo in 1906, she had been told of “Dokdo,” and had been informed of Japan’s incorporation of the islets, yet she did not protest the incorporation, in spite of being given the opportunity to do so by Japan’s Residents-general.
do you think Chosun in 1906 could protest to Japan, and get something back from Japan, in 1906?
Not 1996.
1906.
The historical debate is interesting, but not particularly relevent in terms of how such disputes are adjudicated today.
As I have discussed, some have suggested that the resolution of the issue may lie with the US: http://www.taiwanbasic.com/tw/dokdo.htm
The logic is that, as Dokdo was acquired by the United States is and un-demarcated territory under the terms of the treaty, it remains subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government, and the Korean troops there now would be considered a subordinate occupying power.Korean government officials should be petitioning the US Congress to make final disposition of this property.
Korea lobbies Washington very hard over a variety of things, but to my knowledge has not seriously pressed for a resolution of the Dokdo issue. Why not? And if Japan were really serious about the issue, wouldn’t they have taken the issue to an international court by now?
My conclusion is that Korea wants Dokdo to remain a hotly disputed territory for political purposes while Japan has always downplayed the issue for economic reasons (their positive balance of trade with Korea)
While the Koreans blame the Japanese for starting trouble, the fact is that the flareups have been exclusively on the Korean side. For the Japanese govt, the poor fisherman of the Shimane Prefecture are just not an important enough political constituency to warrent anything but the most prefunctory lipservice about Japan’s claims to Dokdo.
Let’s face it. Dokdo has zero strategic significance, and the claims about minerals are patent nonsence. Korea has nearly as many islands as upper New York State, and there is no reason to believe that Dokdo is the least bit remarkable in terms of mineral deposits. And the costs of drilling would also negate any business case for doing so.
The issue of Dokdo is sheer political invention – sheer drama, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
WJK (#30),
Since Koreans did not protest in 1906, I guess we will never know if Japan would have accepted it or not, but the fact that the Japanese Residents-General bothered to ask Korea’s Interior Ministry about the islands belonging to Uldo County is evidence that Koreans still had a say in their government. As for protests, the Korean governmnt protested other things during that time, but she did not protest the incorporation of Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). Why not?
The most likely reason Koreans did not protest the incorporation of Liancourt Rocks was that they had no historical claim to them and probably saw little value in them, anyway.
@32:
Gbevers,
Sigh. There you go again.
“Since Koreans did not protest in 1906, I guess we will never know if Japan would have accepted it or not, but the fact that the Japanese Residents-General bothered to ask Korea’s Interior Ministry about the islands belonging to Uldo County is evidence that Koreans still had a say in their government.”
Boy, that’s a stretch even for the most ardent anti-Korean folks. You really ARE dense; no WONDER you were the only one on this entire blog surprised at how your job situation last year turned out for you. Anyway, Japan was on the verge of taking ALL Korean land…and you are saying that because Korean’s Interior Ministry didn’t (or couldn’t) protest the seizure of Dokdo just four years PRIOR to the Japanese seizure of ALL of Korea…that this meant that Korea had no historical claim to Dokdo? Gbevers, think of it like this: According to you, Japan took Dokdo in 1906. Four years later, they took all of the Korean peninsula and the Korean officials were hardly allowed to protest this move. Now surely you won’t argue that Koreans have no historical claim to the entire Korean peninsula, will you? So then why do you say the lack of protest by Korea’s ministers meant that Korea had no claim to Dokdo? The fact remains that Dokdo, as well as the rest of Korean territory, was seized by the Japanese against the will of the Koreans.
“The most likely reason Koreans did not protest….”
You see? You have to come to your conclusions by saying phrases like “the most likely reasons Koreans….” That is not a sound conclusion.
Anything else, gbevers? I really am hoping that you can prove that Dokdo was historically Japan’s….and thus I can then say that Korea took Japanese territory as a reparation for its wrongful colonization by Japan. Alas, Korea took nothing more than Korean territory when it took Dokdo.
But I shall hope you eventually succeed and use sound sources and arguments to prove that Dokdo really is Japanese territory…but I won’t be holding my breath because it’s pretty clear that Dokdo was always Korean and thus will continue to be Korean.
Bottom line: suicide rate in the ROK marines is about to go up.
Frogmouth:
“This was recorded in the 1901 Black Dragon Fishing Manual. So the old argument that Korean’s were not aware of the islets when Japan’s Navy annexed (yes annexed) the islets is dead.”
As I recall your rebuffed the credibility of the momorandum of Dean Rusk,the U.S Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs at the time of Rhee line by saying “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”.Yet you chose to build an argument based on Black Dragon Society,the pre-war Japanese ultra naionalist group that lobbied the annexation of Korea.Very interesting.
I think BDS was far more staunchy anti-communist and war mongering than any of the American cold war warriors.
Have this never comes to you that BDS was neither band of historians nor geographers,and not even related to fishing industry?
If I could have any new finding from this so called “fishing guide”,It is the fact that even the expansionists like BDS had no interest of what so ever on Dokdo/Takeshima,which contradicts your thesis that Takeshima annexation was the omen of Korean annexation.
“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.”
It’s also bizarre how you mention this so casually like it was only natural up to 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 and most of them are from Shimane prefecture.
And what do you make of Rhee’s most trusted American Ambassador James Van Fleet
had reported that Liancouret rock belngs to Japan according to SF treaty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....o_Far_East
Liancourt Rocks had virtually zero economic value in 1906. They could not sustain habitation, and offered no harbor to fishing vessels. Basically, they were little more than a hazard to navigation and a high place in the sea — that’s why Japan erected a lighthouse/observation tower there during the Russo-Japanese War.
In 1982, the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea introduced the concept of exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and continental-shelf seabed rights.
Here’s the little-known “secret” that few in Korea want to talk about: Liancourt Rocks are not islands under the Law of the Sea. Islands are clearly defined as places which can support “human habitation or economic life” (UN Convention on Law of the Sea, Art. 121) by means of the resources found on the supposed island itself. Accordingly, it is likely as a matter of law that Liancourt Rocks have no eligible coastline from which to reckon EEZ and seabed rights.
The Rocks may therefore rightfully belong to Korea by law, but have a different value than Koreans want to ascribe to them. Since the EEZ and continental-shelf claims are the real value inhering to Korea from its Dokdo claim, reason dictates that this is why Korea steadfastly refuses to submit the dispute to any international tribunal. It’s better to exercise those rights under the occupation of Liancourt Rocks in dispute with Japan — What’s that? Oh, there’s no dispute? Sorry. — than to risk the judgment of an international tribunal.
Anyway, it’s a shame that batshit nationalists have seized control of the agenda, so that anyone expressing a contrary opinion based on a reasonable interpretation of evidence, fact, and law becomes an Enemy of The People. But, that’s the nature of Korean public discourse.
And for the record, I don’t have a dog in this fight.
gbevers wrote
“There is not even one old Korean map that shows Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) before the Japanese incorporated them in 1905.”
Really? Well what’s this?
http://www.dokdocorea.com/map.htm
I’m sure that plenty of the historical evidence is under dispute, but there appears to be much more in favor of the Korean side.
#37
Looks like you can’t read Hanja. All but one of the Korean maps before the Japanese incorporation in 1905 fail to show two distinct islands off the east coast of Korea. They’re all JAPANESE maps.
The one that shows two islands (Map 2) have the position all wrong: “Usando” is closer to the Korean mainland than Ullengdo. Great.
So, in the end, it happens so that Japan knew of the islands (rocks) for some while before 1905, but Korea probably didn’t. Maybe some fishermen, but that has never been documented.
BTW, Brendon must be right about the legal aspects. I wonder if some country started fortifying uninhabited rocks, it would qualify as an “island”. Oh, but then you have to also consider the economic feasibility for doing so (occupying an island just for the sake of obtaining EEZ).
BTW, “you can’t read Hanja” wasn’t nice. I take that back. Sorry about that.
But I still hold my case. The Koreans don’t have enough evidence to bludgeon pheasants and cry foul play against Japan.
“BTW, Brendon must be right about the legal aspects. I wonder if some country started fortifying uninhabited rocks, it would qualify as an “island.”
Japan does that with this atoll. For strategic reasons the U.S. favors Japan and China is against it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.....EZ_Dispute
http://210.71.56.6/ftproot/soc...../oki05.jpg
And China is doing this in the Spratlys.
http://kei-liberty.mo-blog.jp/...../photo.jpg
http://images.google.co.jp/img.....D%26sa%3DN
http://userdisk.webry.biglobe......684756.jpg
They may be Japanese maps, but they show Chosun controlling Dokdo, recognizing Korean sovereignty over the rocks, which is the point after all.
Brandon, regarding EEZ Korea’s Ulleungdo Island is only 90 kms from Dokdo Island and is easily capable of generating an EEZ that could extend over the islets. Many have proposed an equidistant line drawn between Ulleungdo and Dokdo Island as a border. Koreans maintain that Dokdo cannot generate and EEZ but the Japanese do.
It’s the Japanese who ascribe EEZs to every rock in the ocean. The Japanese cliam 400,000 kms sq around the miniscule (bedroom sized) Okinotorishima’s. If they get Dokdo they’ll extend their border even further midway between Ulleungdo and Dokdo
http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=1542
Gerry Bevers the Koreans lost the ability to independently conduct state to state affairs in August of 1904. For all we know they did contest and their complaints got g-filed. What we do know is Uldo Governor stated “Dokdo, belonging to this county has been claimed by the Japanese…” And you hang on the fact he gave the wrong distance.
I didn’t contradict myself at all Gerry. I’m saying Dokdo was a distant island from a distanct island. The Interior Ministry (in Seould I presume) had to rely on what (ancient) outdated data they
Aceface, I think the Dragon Fishing Guide is a great document for evidence the islets were Korean and not Japanese. After all if a pro Japanese right wing group didn’t consider Liancourt Rocks Japanese no Japanese did.
In case anyone was curious. Korea currently maintains a 12 nautical mile zone around Dokdo.
-
This is the current boundary between Korea and Japan. Click map twice.
-
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/12-mile-limit.gif
-
And this is what Japan demands the border must be.
-
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/jap.....border.gif
Really? Still?
Aren’t there more pressing issues, such as faltering foreign investment and the impending housing crisis?
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/ww.....27565.html
http://www.korealawblog.com/en.....ge_crisis/
http://ampontan.wordpress.com/.....takeshima/
Wouldn’t it be in Korea’s interest to focus on those issues? Or did I miss a meeting that said fighting over Liancourt will solve everything..
Does the Korean Government have an official line on why they don’t submit the case to an international tribunal?
There’s the “it’s not under dispute” argument, which seems to be odd grounds on which to withdraw ones ambassador and appears to fly in the face of reality.
Then there’s the “we wouldn’t get a fair hearing” argument, which I’ve heard from some privately, and the always popular “we don’t want it settled since it’s useful on the domestic political scene” but I wonder if there is any official position?
#42
Not if the Japanese realized later that nobody owned the rocks after all. So it’s essential that the Koreans produce their own maps, journals or whatever to prove that they have been aware of and using the rocks.
I somehow suspect the failure to be able to do so is behind the “accelerated protests”, to put it nicely.
#44
I second that. I think it’s the Koreans who are aggressively fighting with its neighbors (i.e., China & Japan) over “historic” issues, although it’s often depicted the other way. It is easy to pick on the “big guys”, I guess.
#45
Probably because the guys high-up realize that they do in fact lack historical evidence to occupy the rocks. If they do lose, that’ll be a disaster because their nation-building myth revolves around it. Probably enough to topple the regime.
For Japan, it has nothing to lose. That’s why they won’t take the rocks back by force: not worth it. Also, I’m sure Japan knows that claiming the rocks will infuriate the Koreans, but the Koreans probably have more to lose by cutting off relations with Japan and not the other way around, so it’s not particularly in the interest of the Japanese to appease Korean nationalism, methinks. So they claim the rocks anyways.
#39, squatch
“BTW, “you can’t read Hanja” wasn’t nice. I take that back. Sorry about that.”
This brazen show of conscience and manners has no place here mister!
I think what Brendon is pointing to is that neither Korea nor Japan can make any headway under LOSC to lay colorable claim to the Liancourt Rocks as an “island” for the purpose of fixing the boundaries of an EEZ w/ the Rocks at the core. Given that the Rocks are nearly the same distance from the nearest bona fide islands of Korea and Japan, Ulleungdo(87 km) and the Oki Islands (157 km), respectively, under LOSC the Rocks lie within each country’s putative EEC and they should negotiate an equitable sharing arrangement re the relevant sea resources.
Sperwer, Korea doesn’t need to make Dokdo inhabitable at all. Korea currently maintains the stance that inhabitable islands cannot generate EEZs however Japan does.
How do you arrive at the bizarre figure that Ulleungdo and Oki are about the same distance form Dokdo? You already quoted the distances Japan’s Oki is almost double the distance.
Here is a map showing the position of Dokdo relative to an equidistant line drawn between Oki and Ulleungdo. Using this method, Korea gets Dokdo hands down.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/ull-oki-EEZ.gif
I think Korea is using the threat of declaring Dokdo an EEZ to make Japan shut up about the islets. If Korea decides to take the stance that these rocks are capable of generating an EEZ there is sweet F.A. Japan can do about it as long Japan’s MOFA maintains declares 400,000sq kms around the Okinotorishimas (bedroom-sized rocks).
On the other side if Japan gains sovereignty over Takeshima, she is practically bound to follow the same posture as on the Okinotorishimas or face weakening her claim. In other words, Japan would have to take the stance that Takeshima is an EEZ as well thus extending Japan’s boundary midway to Ulleungdo. This would give the residents of Ulleungdo a measly 45 clicks. Why should the residents of Dokdo’s most proximal island, Korean land since the 6th Century be boxed in to the tune of 45 kms? Japan’s demands are ridiculous.
This problem stems from the “international law” Japan used to annex Dokdo in 1905. During the Russo Japanese War (1904~1905), Japan’s Imperial Navy’s Hydrographic Director Admiral Kenko Kimotsuki asserted Japan should have Takeshima because it was marginally (10kms?) closer to Japan’s mainland than Korea. In other words no consideration was given to Chosun’s Ulleungdo Island at all. Then it didn’t really matter because there was no border between Korea and Japan anyway. The Japanese already had three watchtowers on Ulleungdo, numerous illegal settlements and police to boot.
Squatch, I disagree with your statement. The source of the historical records albeit Japanese or Korean is moot. What we want is to know are the historical territorial perceptions of Koreans and Japanese.
Through all of the conflicting data we know the Koreans have undisputed title over Dokdo’s most proximal islands at least 1000 years before the Japanese arrived in the region in 1618. We also know historically Japanese considered the Oki Islands as her westernmost limit. Japan both excluded the islands from her territory in scores of maps and documents. However, more importantly she included the islets as Korean land in many maps as well.
Japan cannot muster enough evidence to push the Koreans off the rocks.
Jesus, if you guys put half this energy into productive endeavors cancer would’ve been cured by now.
It’s like an Asperger’s Olympics.
With no medals.
What I really want to know is: Now that the Sapsal Dogs are gone – is Tokdo/Dokdo (according to the local newspapers – we foreigners are confused about the spelling of these contested islets – why should I be different?)still haunted by ghosts? I remember about a year or two ago reading about Tokdo/Dokdo’s ghost.
My comment got caught in the spam filter.
Sperwer:
Actually, Korea and Japan agreed in 1999 that they’ll set fishing zones right between Ulleungdo and Oki. This placed a common-use zone right around “Dokdo”. However, the Koreans decided to disregard the deal and made the area inaccessible to Japanese fishermen, who were predominantly from Shimane. Frustrated, Shimane Prefecture lawmakers tried to move the Japanese government into action by establishing “Takeshima Day”.
The rest of the story you probably know.
Squatch, I think the in the 1998 treaty it was an early draft and they agreed to continue discussions regarding opening up the waters to both sides.
From what I’ve heard the Koreans had several reservations about opening up the waters directly beside Dokdo. First they may have been concerned radicals would attempt to forcefully demonstrate acts of sovereignty over the islets and plant flags etc.
The Koreans were also concerned opening up the adjacent waters could be misinterpreted as the degradation of Korea’s sovereignty over Dokdo so they decided to maintain a 12 mile nautical border around Dokdo.
As I’ve shown before, the limit Korea currently enforces is as below. (click map twice)
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/12-mile-limit.gif
You can see the residents of the Oki Islands still have at least 140 kms of waters to fish. The malnourished fishermen of Japan’s impoverished Shimane Prefecture have more than enough water to fish.
Takeshima Day wasn’t established to “open up fishing waters” it was dreamed up to hype this dispute and raise hackles in Seoul. This tactic combined with the recent schoolbook announcement is going to bite Tokyo in the ass if or when the ROK deeems Dokdo “inhabitable” and declares the islet as an EEZ. Then the residents of Shimane may lose almost 80 kms more.
The Japanese should have been happy with a border that was already more than fair……
Frogmouth:
I assume you mean that Korea currently maintains the stance that UNinhabitable islands cannot generate an EEZ. (Although I also note your rather gleeful expectation that Korea eventually will declare the rocks habitable in order to try to get over on the Japanese in the future.)
If that is the case, then why does Korea have its panties in such a twist about the Rocks, whose significance under the prevailing international legal regime – the LOSC – is therefore nil?
Your answer perhaps — judging by your reference to and characterization of Japan’s Okinotorishimas — will be that Japan does not share this stance and hence will try to assert an EEZ based on the Rocks if their sovereignty is acknowledged.
Who knows?
The only certainty is that were Japan to take such a position it would clearly be wrong under the LOSC and any attempt by Japan to assert an EEZ on the base of the Rocks would be subject to (successful) challenge by Korea under LOSC. There really can’t be any doubt about this given the provision in the LOSC about the impotence of uninhabitable islands for the purpose of creating EEZ entitlements.
Re the relative distances, I didn’t really mean to minimize the relative distance of the rocks from indisputable Korean and Japanese territory, just to denigrate its significance in terms of providing any sort of a clearcut basis for settling EEZ rights in the overlapping zone, which would include the Rocks. As I’m sure you know, an equidistant line is NOT the prescribed resolution in the LOSC, which pretty much leaves the method of resolving overlapping claims to the good faith negotiations of the parties.
I’m not going to comment on your other comments on the state of international law as it might have pertained to Japanese claims at the time of the Russo-Japanese War because they, like your comments to Squatch, are hopelessly conclusory.
You must log in to post a comment.