Ampontan compares Korean and Japanese newspaper editorials on Dokdo.
You might notice a slight difference in tone and demeanor.
Korean Vs. Japanese Editorials on Dokdo
This entry was written by Robert Koehler, posted on July 25, 2008 at 6:55 pm, filed under Japan, South Korea. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
242 Comments
One of the great things about this blog is that, reading the arguments of Gerry Bevers and Frog, I have learned a number of facts about Dokdo that I formerly was not clear about:
1. Korea’s historical claim over Dokdo appears to be founded on distortions. The claim that Korea was aware of the Liancourt Rocks in the 16th Century is based on questionable maps. Wikipedia: “A Korean claim is partly based on references to a Korean island called Usan-do (우산, 于山) in various historical records and maps such as Samguk Sagi, Annals of Joseon Dynasty and Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam. According to the Korean view, these refer to today’s Liancourt Rocks, while the Japanese side argues that they must refer to a different island located in the immediate vicinity of the nearest larger Korean island Ulleung-do, and ironically called Jukdo (죽도 竹島), meaning “bamboo island,” or the name the Japanese give to the Liancourt Rocks.” There are other conflicting interpretations of Korean and Japanese maps that do not conclusively support Korea’s position.
2. It appears that Korea was not aware of the Liancourt Rocks until the Japanese brought their attention to it when they incorporated the “unclaimed” islands as part of Shimane Prefecture in 1905. The Rocks are not clearly visible from Ulleongdo, as is often claimed, and Korea up to Chosun had no maps showing it. Japan claims the incorporation was valid on grounds that Liancourt Rocks was terra nullius and that Korea did not dispute the incorporation when the news was published.
3. Japan was the first nation to claim the Rocks and the first to occupy them as they built an observation tower there.
4. The US Rusk Report acknowledged Japanese claims. Wiklipedia again: “In Aug 10, 1951, a notification currently known as Rusk documents was sent to South Korea as a final U.S. Government reply on the issue of sovereignty between South Korea and Japan, and it states that Liancourt Rocks are territory of Japan.” The subsequent dmarkation excluded Dok Do, and it was not designated Korean territory.
5. Sigmund Lee drew up his own boundaries including the Liancourt Rocks in violation of the US demarkation.
6. Korea illegally occupied it militarily and continues to do so to this day.
7. Japan took the case to the ICJ but Korea was a no show.
8. A 1965 agreement with Japan shares fishing rights in the waters between Korea and Japan. It was agreed to acknowlege the Rocks as disputed territory and to show mutual sensitivity, but Korea has violated the accord on numerous occasions through beligerant and provocative actions. These include the taking of Japanese hostages, issuing of Dok Do stamps, turning Sminane Japanese fishing boats away in direct violation of the accord, demonstrations on Japanese soil, and disruptive diplomatic posturing including the current rejection of a Japanese offer for a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the annual ASEAN regional security summit in Singapore and current plans to send marines to replace a police contingent on Dokdo to thwart Japan’s territorial claim to the islets.
9. By contrast, the Japanese government has acted calmly and with diplomatic consideration, damping down Shimane calls for it to take action on the question. It plans to address the matter in school texts in a nonprovocative and nonconfrontational fashion acknowledging the dispute. Wikipedia: ” ‘if military tensions escalate, that would bring no benefit to either Japan or South Korea,’ Nobutaka Machimura, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary said. “So we need to calmly deal with the situation.’”
Formerly, I simply accepted Korean claims to soverignty over Dok Do out of sympathy and because the vehemence of the Korean arguments coupled with the inconsequential nature of the issue led me to accept the arguments without critical consideration. However, the facts speak rather clearly. Korea’s claims are exaggerated. The US’s neutrality and Japan’s diplomatic approach are clearly acknowledgements of the emotional irrationality with which Korea deals with nationalistic issues.
Given the weakness of Korea’s position, it is understandable why Korea does not wish to have the case adjudicated in an international court. However, it behooves Korea to cooperate with Japan rather than continue to be adversarial and provocative on the issue.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/.....an_and_ROK
@ 1. A self-correction on item #7 from Chosun Ilbo:
“The Japanese Foreign Ministry in February on its website posted a 14-page document to support its claim to Korea’s Dokdo islets. Entitled “10 Issues of Takeshima”…The Japanese document maintains that Japan strongly protested against Korea’s “illegal occupation” of Dokdo in 1952, when then Korean president Syngman Rhee “issued a declaration concerning maritime sovereignty,” which encompassed the Dokdo islets into the so-called “peace line.” In fact, Rhee’s installation of the line and stationing of guards on the islets was an exercise of sovereignty over Korean territory, which is guaranteed under international law. Finally, the document claims Korea rejected Japan’s proposal to take the “dispute” to the International Court of Justice.”
http://english.chosun.com/w21d.....20024.html
Sorry, Mizar, I’m not convinced. Despite how really truly annoying Koreans can be about Dokdo, and how bad they are at arguing their position for it, I still think Japan’s claims are b.s. - they grabbed the islets when they had Korea by the throat, and Rhee did what he did as soon as he got the Americans off his back.
That said, of course the Japanese editorials are all asking Seoul to calm down, and of course, the Koreans aren’t going to calm down about it. If the Japanese were as rational and as unbiased as they’re made out to be, they would have recognized that bringing up the subject would provoke Koreans and make things harder during the six-party talks.
They did it anyway. The Korean editorials point this out, fairly, and then use over-the-top language that makes them look like fools.
This is getting boring as North Korea’s “compromises.”
Park Hyun (#4),
There was no one for the Japanese to “grab” Liancourt Rocks from in 1905. As I have written on this blog before, the islets were unclaimed by anyone, except by Japanese, before they incorporated them in 1905. There is no evidence that Koreans ever visited the rocks before the Japanese started taking them there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s, and Korea does not have a single old map of the rocks.
Since you are not convinced of Japan’s historical claims, then I assume you are convinced of Korea’s, right? If you are convinced of Korea’s claims, then can you tell me why you are convinced of them?
“If the Japanese were as rational and as unbiased as they’re made out to be, they would have recognized that bringing up the subject would provoke Koreans and make things harder during the six-party talks.”
Yes. The Japanese government should have anticipated that Korea would have an irrational emotional overreaction to the education guideline.
Wrong Mizar. you are oversimplifying the issue and you are wrong.
Let’s take this apart step by step. Part One
The Koreans were clearly cognizant of Dokdo is a couple of very old documents. I think the first clear evidence of this was the 1694. Here it stated:
This was the so-called Sambong (三峯 - “Three Peaks”). The winding shape of Daegwanryeon (大關嶺 - mountain range on the east coast of the Korean peninsula) was visible to the west. Looking toward the east, there was one island far off to the southeast. The size was only about one-third of Ulleungdo. It was only about 300 ri [120 kilometers] away.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/300-ri-shillok.jpg
The next document would be a 1714 Report from a Chosun inspector it reads.
I listened carefully to the people in the ports (浦人) who said, “Pyeonghae (平海) and Uljin (蔚珍) are closest to Ulleungdo, and there are no obstructions along the sea route. Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island that is near the border of Japan.”
This document shows many Koreans of the coastal areas were both aware of the distant island to the East and that they considered the islands near Japan’s border but not part of Japan.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/1714-East-Island.jpg
In 2005 documents were uncovered from the Murakawa household showing that a Korean man (Anyongbok) went to Japan and protested Japanese fishing on Korea’s Ulleungdo. Here can be found Anyongboks assertions that Usando (于山島) was Matsushima (松島) It was also recorded that Takeshima Ulleungdo (竹島) and Matsushima~Dokdo (松島) were part of Chosun’s Gangwando 江原道 Province.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/anyongbok-doc15.jpg
Anyongbok recorded the distance of Usando to be 50ri which is about double the distance, However Japanese maps also made similar mistakes. In addition, Jukdo Islet is only about one half of a ri so this record shows Jukdo was not Usando in this document. Whatever the Japanese lobbyists dispute about the Anyongbok record, it shows the Koreans protested about Matsushima-Dokdo (松島). To these assertions the Japanese raised no objections at all in the following correspondences.
In more modern records the Japaese Black Dragon Fishing manual confirms Korean cognizance of Dokdo at least 5 years before the Japanese annexed Dokdo. This means the Japanese cannot assert as you do Koreans on Ulleungdo weren’t aware of Dokdo.
The Black Dragon Fishing Manual of spring 1901 states “Koreans and Japanese fishermen call this island Yangkodo (Liancourt)
You are also wrong about the visibility factor Mizar5. As I pointed out above the 1694 document records Dokdo’s visibility but so does the 1903 edition of the Black Dragon Fishing Manual Here it states:
“…About 30-ri south-east of Ulleungdo, and almost the same distance north-west from Japan’s Oki county, there is an uninhabited island. One can see it from the highest point of 山峯 (mountain) in Ulleungdo when the weather is fine…”
You can see the documents here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-20cent.html
Japan military occupation was part of the colonization of Korea. It was not natural nor peaceful. It was not open and public and Korea contested the act with what remained of her government and through the local media. Korea does not, and should not accept this annexation done during the largest war of the day while Japan was in the process of annexing the whole Korean nation.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html
Are you still asserting the Japan Peace Treaty gave the islands to Japan?
1. The Rusk papers were confidential memorandums that never saw any part of the Japan Peace Treaty.
2. Korea was neither participatory nor signatory to the S.F. Peace Treaty. It has zero legal effect on Korea.
3. America told the Japanese to take the issue to the ICJ and Korea refuses, as Japan does on her disputes. The Americans (Dulles) concluded the Japan Peace Treaty did not grant sovereignty to the Japanese and Japan would have to refer to Article 22 (ICJ) to resolve terrtitorial issues. Korea refuses, tough shit.
Gerry Bevers. Whether or not Liancourt Rocks was ownerless or not there are certain conditions a country must do to incorporate new lands. It must be done in an open and public manner and there must be an announcement to the degree so other interested sovereigns may have the opportunity to do so. Japan’s clandestine annexation was not sufficiently open and public enough.
Syngmane Rhee drew his Peace Line and to this day it stands. Here is Rhee’s Peace Line.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/rhee-line-limit.jpg
Here are the measurements from the nearest islands and land that now stands as a result of Syngman Rhee’s “brutal land grab.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/12-mile-limit.gif
Seriously what is wrong the current boundary in place. Clearly the waters of the region are divided up in a fair manner.
This is what greedy Japan’s MOFA wants. I a나 you, is this fair?
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/jap.....border.gif
Formouth’s argument in short:
Japan is evil and has propensity for expansionism. Therefore, Japan took the rocks illegally.
Here’s the law in short:
Can you convict someone with propensity evidence? Usually not, because it’s so prejudicial. Is propensity evidence enough to negate contrary evidence? I’d say most likely not.
And I agree with mizar5 that it’s not referendum on Japan. Should leave wartime atrocities out of the argument. It only serves to cloud the issue. Well, that’s why “propensity evidence” is tricky.
Misspelled “frogmouth”. No intentions.
Anyways, if Japan is so bent on expansionism (and still is, as many Korean friends here are so determined to point out), why claim “Dokdo” rather than bigger fish like Ulleungdo, Jejudo, or even parts of the peninsula itself?
Seems logical to assume Japan never considered “Dokdo” Korean, even back in its imperial stage. It’s also interesting that, if what Matt pointed out is true, Imperial Japan never incorporated parts of Korea into “mainland” Japan.
Well, I guess “propensity” is everything.
Bevers,
I’m never really “convinced” of anything. However, two things put me in the Korea camp: the 1905 date of “incorporation,” and the fact that Korea has been in possession of the islets for five decades now.
Disapproving of Korea’s reaction is not the same thing as approving of Japan’s claim.
Also, has it occurred to anyone else that Japan’s bringing up Dokdo might be so that it can use whatever precedent it gets from court rulings to claim islands from Russia and China?
Mizar,
Yes, the two instances that Frogmouth mentioned are the only two pieces of instances that Koreans during the Joseon era probably saw Liancourt Rocks from Ulleungdo, but they support the Japanese claim, not the Korea.
In the 1694, Ulleungdo Inspector Jang Han-sang (張漢相) went to Ulleungdo and surveyed the island. He reported seeing in the distance southeast of Ulleungdo an island that looked to be about one third the size of Ulleungdo and said that it looked to be about 300 ri (120 km) away, which tells us he did not go to the island since Ulleungdo is about 390 times bigger than Liancourt Rocks, not three times bigger. He also reported that there was a small island five ri (2 km) to the east of Ulleungdo that had haejang bamboo growing on one side. That was obviously Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도), which is about two kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore. Another inspection by Bak Chang-seok (朴昌錫) in 1711 produced a map that showed a small island off Ulleungdo’s east shore labeled as having “fields of haejang bamboo” (海長竹田), which is bamboo that can grow up to six meters tall. The name of the island was labeled as “the so-called Usando” (所謂 于山島), which proves that Usando was not Liancourt Rocks, as Koreans claim, but rather was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo. You can see the map and my translation of the relevant passage of the document HERE.
In the 1714 document, the Korean fisherman did not say it was “near” the border of Japan; he it was “on” or “connecting to” (接) to the border of Japan. Here is the passage:
Therefore, the above passage is evidence that Korean fisherman considered the island to be part of the Japanese border. Also, the fact that the Korean fisherman said that the island was “visible” from Ulleungdo suggests that he never went there.
By the way, judging by how Korea’s National Institute of Korean History (NIKH) translates the above passage, it seems they realize how damaging it is to the Korean claim. Here is how it was translated by the HIKH:
If you know how to read Chinese characters, you should realize that the Korean translation is ridiculous. Anyway, HERE is my translation of the full passage and a scan of the actual document.
Both of the above passages occurred after the claims of An Yong-bok, who did not know the distance to Liancourt Rocks. In fact, the 1694 inspection was conducted because of An Yong-bok. The fact that neither the 1694 or 1711 inspection recognized Liancourt Rocks as being Usando is evidence that Koreans did not consider Liancourt Rocks to be Korean territory.
The 1711 map was just the beginning of a string of Ulleungdo maps that showed Usando to be Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks. The last known Korean map of just the island of Ulleungdo was made sometime between 1884 and 1994, which was after Ulleungdo was opened up for settlement, also shows Usando (于山) as Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks. You can see the map HERE.
For some reason, Frogmouth (Steve Barber) likes to distort the evidence, so keep that in mind when you visit his silly site.
Gerry we discussed you incorrect translation on your blog. Right here.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blog.....ungdo.html
You clearly mistranslated the Korean term deliberately “접해 있다”
You say it means “connected to” however as I tried to pound into your thick skull it means adjacent to or near when used to describe territorial borders.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/adjacent.jpg
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/border.jpg
The 1714 does not say connected to Japan’s border. It says is near or adjacent to Japan’s limit or boundary. At any rate the document shows Koreans were cognizant of the island.
Frogmouth says -
“In more modern records the Japaese Black Dragon Fishing manual confirms Korean cognizance of Dokdo at least 5 years before the Japanese annexed Dokdo. This means the Japanese cannot assert as you do Koreans on Ulleungdo weren’t aware of Dokdo.
The Black Dragon Fishing Manual of spring 1901 states “Koreans and Japanese fishermen call this island Yangkodo (Liancourt)”
Frogmouth, we have been over this before. The Korean fishermen (not the government) were cognizant of the Liancourt Rocks because they were employees on Japanese ships, as is clearly stated in the Black Dragon Fishing Manual. That is a hell of a fact to leave out of your assertion.
To anyone who may be interested,
The Black Dragon Fishing Manual confirms that Korean fishermen were traveling to Liancourt Rocks on Japanese fishing boats in 1901 and were using the Japanese name for the rocks, not Dokdo, Usando, Sambongdo, Seokdo, or any other name that Koreans claim that used to call the islets. The reference in the “Japanese” manual was the first time anywhere that it was mentioned that Koreans were traveling to Liancourt Rocks, and they were doing it on Japanese fishing boats. There was no Korean document or map to show that Koreans had ever visited the rocks before that.
Gerry, you also misinterpreted the 1711 map. You ran on the premise that this neighbouring island next to Ulleungdo was Jukdo. However when we note the positions of the other places marked on Ulleungdo we can see this island was not Jukdo but rather an island added on from previous surveys.
The 1711 map you cite shows “So-called Usando” in front of Dodong Harbour. This is about 4kms off but more importantly it is totally wrong relative to Jeodong, Three Angles Rocks and Dodong where we now know Inspector Pak left his stone marker. These other places are marked accurately on Ulleungdo, but the Usando is way far off of Jukdo’s location. In fact Jukdo Islet isn’t even visible from Dodong.
It is most plausible the islet was an incorporated island from a previouls survey because it is drawn due East (as in the Ulleungdo Shillok) and has the same Haejang bamboo phrase as well. This is also because five islands are drawn on the map that simply don’t exists Gerry
You can see Shimane Prefecture followed your flawed reasoning and wrongly labelled Dodong in front of this “Jukdo” when in fact Dodong was far to the North. This is all because you worked backwards from the premise this island was Jukdo.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/shimane-1711.jpg
Mr Cho wrote an interesting article about your misinterpretations on his blog.
http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10032700058
Frogmouth,
Look at Korea’s National Institute of Korean History’s translation. Even they used “connect.” Or are you going to claim that their translation means “islands are ‘adjacent’ all the way to the Japanese border.”?
The Chinese character was 이을 接. 잇다 means “join,” “connect,” or “link.”
Matt, if the Koreans were working for or with the Japanese on Liancourt Rocks they too were utilizing the resources of the islets. It cannot be said the islands were truly ownerless or terra nullius as the Japanese wrongly assert.
The Japanese who were on Liancourt Rocks were ignorant, illiterate violent trespassers who had been told to get the Hell off Korean land at least six years before the Japanese used them as a “legal basis” to annex Liancourt Rocks.
Why doesn’t Japan’s MOFA mention that little tidbit of data?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com.....anese.html
Frogmouth,
I am not going to argue with you about the 1711 map because even Korea’s Dokdo Museum Director admitted that the Usando on that map was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo. See HERE
Man, gbevers, you’re going to CONTINUE to argue about some islands which have no bearing on your life (except one time when you brought it upon yourself) when you could actually be doing something productive with your life. Pathetic.
No, JK, I am going to continue arguing about it because I know it makes you pee your pants worrying about it.
But gbevers, it just makes you look silly and obsessed with something useless.
And as I’ve said many times before, I HOPE you prove that Dokdo belongs rightfully to Japan…so I can say Korea TOOK Japanese land when it took Dokdo. I personally would have been okay with it if Korea had taken Okinawa. Heck, the city of Tokyo would have been a fine possession for Korea to take from Japan!
So good luck in trying to prove Dokdo really belongs to Japan because I’ll be happy if you DO prove it. But alas, you’re failing on that end.
Gerry the character you are talking about is 接. It is translated as “접해 있다” on the Korea National History Website.
http://sillok.history.go.kr/in.....mp;tabid=k
It is also translated as “접해 있다” in my published Dokdo book which also used a historical research group to translate this document. See the link below.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/1714.jpg
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/adjacent.jpg
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/border.jpg
Koreans don’t use “접해 있다” in the definition you are inferring when they talk about territories or areas. In fact it means they quite near but not touching each other. If they are very close or touching Koreans use other words to emphasize the close proximity. In this case they would say “바로 접해 있다“
The example “잇다“ is used for “linking” lines or objects it is not used in describing territorial boundaries Gerry.
After reading #25: SLAMD DUNK, eh Gevers?
@22: Barber’s just as obsessed as Gerry and the islands have no bearing on his life either — wouldn’t you say that makes him equally pathetic?
Frogmouth,
The Korean and Japanese borders did not butt up to each other. Their borders ended at their farthermost islands, which means that the Korean fishermen believed that Liancourt Rocks was Japan’s farthermost island. If he had believed that the island was Korean, he would have said that Japan was beyond the island, not that the island bordered Japan.
In this case, 接(접) means 接境 (접경), which means it is on the border of Japan.
JK,
I consider you pathetic for following me around like a little, retarded puppy.
Gbevers,
Hm, it doesn’t take much effort to write a comment a few lines long. You, on the other hand, write endlessly long posts on Dokdo for YEARS, despite the effect it’s had on your livelihood and despite the fact that it doesn’t make your life in Korea any better.
@13, it probably isn’t mostly because in int’l court they would never win as the govt hasn’t be able to produce historical evidence that Dokdo is Japanese.
Not to mention Japan isn’t in a position to threaten Russia or China.
lmao gbevers you are the pathetic one here.
and stop crying every time someone confronts you.
Gerry the document does not say (接境) “접경” Stop editing the original Chinese characters. That’s really shabby.
The text says “接于倭境” Here is the original record.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/1714-East-Island.jpg
-
In Korean it says “왜경(倭境)에 접해 있다”
-
“접해 있다” (接) means is adjacent to, near to or borders on. (于) means at or on.
“”왜경(倭境)” Wae-gyeong means Japanese territory,
-
It says the island to the East is adjacent to, near or borders on Japanese territory Gerry. This important document describes Liancourt Rocks as adjacent to or bordering Japanese territory and not as part of Japanese territory. It also records Koreans residing on coastal areas such as Pyeong-Hae and Uljin knew of Liancourt Rocks.
-
This was written about 20 years after the Shogunate inquired about the status of Takeshima-Ulleungdo (竹島) Matsushima-Dokdo (松島) The Japanese too concluded Ulleungdo and Dokdo were not part of Japanese territory.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-tottori.html
You are being silly again, Frogmouth, and you are also showing your ignorance of Chinese writing. I do not know how to read Chinese that well, but I know how to read it better than you.
接境 is just 接于倭境 without the preposition 于 (”to,” “on,” or “at”) and the adjective 倭 (Japanese).
I am going to sleep. If someone wants to believe the goofy stuff you write, let them. I don’t care.
@35, so we should believe you instead? Your personal opinion of him isn’t an argument, but given that you have been resorting to personal insults i gather you dont have anything worthwhile to say.
so i’m supposed to believe that korean fishermen who had been scouring the area for ages had no idea about the rocks but japanese fishermen did?
on that point alone, i find it very hard to believe that japan introduced the rocks to korea
“No, JK, I am going to continue arguing about it because I know it makes you pee your pants worrying about it.”
Gerry, did you pee your pants when they told you you’re fired?
#39 was mean and unfair. Can it be removed?
I really don’t care about the details you guys are thrashing out here. I’m just curious about one thing:
If Japan always had possession of the islets, why did it suddenly need to stake a claim on them in 1905?
“You might notice a slight difference in tone and demeanor.”
I noticed a HUGE “difference in tone and demeanor,” between the Japanese and Korean editorials.
Park Hyun,
I could not sleep, and I am in Korea.
Japan “incorporated” Liancourt Rocks in 1905, but Japanese considered them their territory before that as can be seen by 1877 THIS DOCUMENT from the Director of the Bureau of Documents at Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Incorporated territory is different from unincorporated territory. For example, Javis Island is an unincorporated territory of the United States of American. It is located halfway between Hawaii and the Cook Islands and is only a 4.5 km coral island. The United States has other unincorporated territories, as well, including Kingman Reef, which essentially just a submerged tropical atol 920 nautical miles south of Honolulu.
And there are two kinds of unincorporated territory, organized and unorganized. For example, Guam is considered to be an “organized” unincorporated territory of the United States.
In 1905, Japan legally incorporated Liancourt Rocks into Shimane Prefecture because Japanese businessman Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞) wanted to invest in a sea lion harvesting business on the rocks and wanted Japan to incorporate the islets to help protect his investment. HERE is a link to a translation of his petition, which was accepted by the Japanese government.
Yozaburo had been fishing the rocks before the incorporation and had built facilities there in 1903.
Anyway, the point is that Japan legally incorporated territory that was unclaimed by any other country.
Park Hyun: “I really don’t care about the details you guys are thrashing out here. I’m just curious about one thing:If Japan always had possession of the islets, why did it suddenly need to stake a claim on them in 1905?”
Neither Japan nor Korea ever staked a claim on the islets until Japan incorporated the unclaimed islands as part of Shimane Prefecture in Shimane Prefectural Notice No. 40 of Feb 22, 1905.
Korea subsequently claimed them when South Korean President Syngman Rhee declared the Syngman Rhee line and the sovereignty over Dokdo on January 18, 1952, just before the Treaty of San Francisco came into force on April 28, 1952. This was an illegal unilateral territorial-waters declaration.
According to Russian and European maps during the first contact the islet was named ergo claimed.
Sounds to me that Japan was the ones who didn’t know about the islets funny how all of your problems become projected on to us.
Export dependency, etc…
Stacked,
The Japanese traveled to Liancourt Rocks long before any Europeans did. HERE is a Japanese map of Liancourt Rocks from the 1600s.
European maps were made long before the 17th century.
And I’m asking for the back ups of that “European maps made long before the 17th century”with the said rock is charted,stacked.
I would but i have no idea what back ups are.
Stacked,
He means back up your silly claim, you goofball.
A Japanese actor said “Japan should give the island to Korea”. His website was flooded with threatening angry messages. Later on, he had to issue an official apology. So it’s a load of poppy cock that Japan is totally innocent in esclating this issue, and that Japanese are totally free to disagree on this issue in their country, while Koreans aren’t.
I’m not exactly thrilled with Korea’s usual convulsive over-reactions, make no mistake about it. But..
Japanese knew fully well what the reaction of Korea would be, yet they went ahead and threw the pebble at the big sleeping dog anyway. Now they look all surprised, pretending they are innocent and persecuted. So what did they really expect? Please. If Japan doesn’t really care as many here point out and claim, why does Japan continue to make this into a disputed issue? Why doesn’t Japan just let sleeping dogs lay where it does? After all, this is just a useless rock right?
Mizar,
Did Korea have anything “claimed” at that time, and if so, in what form?
And Mizar5:
“One of the great things about this blog is that, reading the arguments of Gerry Bevers and Frog,”
Yet you have somehow managed to taken in all of Gbever’s points, yet threw out all of Frog’s points. You see, in a clouded historical/territorial disputes like this, there is no black and white truth. Usually the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Yet you’ve managed to be biased enough to support/accept any and all position that is against Korea. The more I read your posts lately, the more you sound bitter. And I find myself skipping and ignoring your posts more and more. But do keep it up (I mean the drowning yourself in negativity).
so, Mizar 5, you are from Kyong Sang Do, and you think Korea stole Dokdo from Japan. Also, your grandparents did not have a bad time during Japanese occupation.
Anything else?
Were your parents like Lee Hwae Chang’s parents?
#55 - Are we to assume that because someone deviates somewhat from the nationalist line on one issue that he and his family are/were traitors to their nation?
“The more I read your posts lately, the more you sound bitter. And I find myself skipping and ignoring your posts more and more. But do keep it up (I mean the drowning yourself in negativity).”
I merely investigate the truth from an unbiased perspective with an open mind.
But I’m really not intereested in getting dragged into these personal attacks. So forgive me if I do not respond in kind.
“Yo mama” insults. I guess that’s one way to attempt to shut down free inquiry and debate.
“I merely investigate the truth from an unbiased perspective with an open mind. ”
You merely repeated and accepted without question every point of Gbevers, but threw out every counter argument from Frog at post #1. Yet you recognized Frog’s along with Gbever’s posts as intelligent enough to help you to learn. Does that sound unbiased to you?
Give me a freaking break, anyone making comments about this thread are not exactly unbiased. Everyone is biased to a some degree based on the mood of how pissed off they are with Korea or Koreans at this moment.
I read both Gbevers and Frog’s and frankly they speak in gibberish to me with all those maps, links, and quotes. I don’t give a rat’s ass which country has historical rights to the island - and I’m not an expert to determine anything. All I know is that Korea had the island occupied for fifty years so that should be that, no fighting, no arguments, no stupid embarrassing displays of nationalism, just end of story - and let’s just move along.
no, no, no, Mizar 5.
I sincerely believe you and cm have more in common than either of you admit.
I am curious, though. Any relatives who studied in Japanese universities during the colonial period? How about Imperial govt jobs? Any of those jobs with legal gun possessions?
Acutally, I myself have a relative who studied in Japan during the era, and seemlessly got incorporated into Rhee Syng Man’s crowd. The other one didn’t get that high, but did managed to get into a school usually reserved for Japanese elites.
These kind of comments illustrate precisely what’s holding Korea back. It’s called triumphalism. In argument it’s known as argumentum ad baculum, “my way or the highway”. If you don’t agree with us you are a traitor.
But true strength of character lies in the ability to stand back and suspend belief long enough to listen to both sides of an argument.
True patriotism lies not in “my nation, right or wrong” but allowing the light of truth to illuminate our minds so we may better ourselves.
The greatest obstacle to progress is stubborn partisanship while the greatest stimulus is the humility to examine and
admitting when it appears that one has been wrong.
Thus, having formerly placed great credence in the Korean claims simply from the benefit of the doubt, I have opened my mind to the benefit of doubt.
It appears that I my opinions on the issue were not even worthy to be called opinions because they were informed not by information but by noise. My sympathies were coerced, and not informed by fact.
Now, how can a patriotic Korean attempt to undertake negotiations with foreign powers unless he dispassionately understands the circumstances of the case? Unless he does, it becomes a shouting match, and then a war. It results in mutual hostility and it serves no one’s interests.
But to be guided by wisdom and calm, and to measure one’s options in view of what is ethical and just, rather than simply what can be obtained through posturing and bullying, is to win the day.
In the end, the one who did not fear to stand for honesty and integrity is the one who will be judged by history the winner.
“You merely repeated and accepted without question every point of Gbevers, but threw out every counter argument from Frog at post #1. Yet you recognized Frog’s along with Gbever’s posts as intelligent enough to help you to learn. Does that sound unbiased to you?”
No it does not. That is what is called a strawman argument. One sets up a position other than the one actually being pur forth and attributes this position to his opponent.
A dispassionate thinker learns from both sides, and keeps an open mind to both. He weighs the evidence on both sides and pieces together the facts. And he remains willing to alter his perspective to accomodate new facts, or to re-evaluate those he has come to accept.
@ #13, good point, imho. Poke at the smaller fish for precedence and practice, before taking on the big fish.
@#51, I’ve always thought they were just useless rocks, but the way they keep coming up in the news, makes me wonder if there’s something valuable, (oil, natural gas, mineral deposits, whatever), in, on, under, or around those rocks that make it worth the effort. It could just be for territory and nationalism, but I just can’t shake this feeling.
Please, anyone, correct me if I’m wrong, but is surveying disputed land illegal?
How can you nerds be having yet another round of Dokdo Wars without anyone mentioning Breen’s latest editorial on the subject?
http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/ne.....28152.html
Point being, regardless of ownership, Dok Rock has zero relation to either country’s history or geographic integrity.
wjk, my relatives were Milyang Parks from Andong. They were wealthy landowners who dissapated their wealth through indulgence. They made mistakes but they were hardworking agriculturalists. I do not know to what extent some of my relatives cooperated with the Japanese but I suspect that some of them must have just to get by as they were the top dogs. But how is that any worse than working for a corporate master who lays off the rank and file to pad the bonuses of top execs in the US?
#62
Except that neither sides have clear cut evidences to be decidedly convincing of one side over another. The possibilities are endless and we can go on an eternity without finding the answers. Perhaps the rocks may not belong to either countries historically. Yet here you are, saying you have found the truth. Except that all of it is from ‘facts’ provided by Gbever’s interpretations of it being rightfully belonging to Japan. Is that coincidence?
I found some old European maps defined the rocks belong to Korean territory before before 1905.
Furthermore, you can see the rocks from Ulung island with your bare eyes on a sunny day. It’s difficult to assume that the dwellers on the island wouldn’t have contacted with the rocks.
Koreans are so stupid that they don’t know how to effectively communicate their opinions. That’s the main gap between K&J.
Gerry, post 35. Stop editing the original text and admit you are wrong.
The 1714 clearly describes Liancourt Rocks as outside Japanese territory.
You are showing your slimy agenda driven method of translation. In fact you removed two Chinese characters to arrive at your erroneous translation. That is B.S. and I hope everyone here can see how you are deliberately misleading readers.
None of the translations from either my book nor the Korean historical foundation uses your “접경“ translation. Even if we do accept your version it doesn’t imply Liancourt Rocks were part of Japan at all. It still describes Liancourt Rocks as outside of Japanese territory. Quit trying to baffle us with bullshit Gerry.
“I’m not an expert to determine anything. All I know is that Korea had the island occupied for fifty years so that should be that, no fighting, no arguments, no stupid embarrassing displays of nationalism, just end of story - and let’s just move along.”
That’s pretty much the status quo, although, as I have said Korean polititos use the islets as a populist control tool. The reason the Japanese central govt mutes dwon the issue is that Shimane is not an influential political or economic bloc, and the reason for the Japanese diplomatic applomb is the far-sighthedness to understand how low an economic and political priority Dokdo really is.
As for historic claims, while Japan was the first to claim it, and apparantly not in an imperialist context, what is significant is that Korea was the first to forcibly occupy it when it was taken unilaterally by Sigmund Rhee in violation of international law.
This is why the real Korean Dokdo thinktank advocates placing more inhabitants on the island in an attempt to legitimize the Korean claim. While the historical claim is put forth as a red herring, the real historians harbor no illusions about the historical claims, and accordingly opt for the strategy of might makes right, as there are precedents whereby the ICJ has ruled in favor of those who exercise de facto control.
My point is two-fold. I remain critical of the Korean politico’s use of Dokdo as a tool of mind control. And I believe that the contining provocations on the Korean side are foolish from the perspective of Korean interests, as well as in the spirit of maturity and ethics.
Nationalistic self=righteousness is a prescription for disaster, and, unfortunately, Korea is headed full tilt into the storm.
Now, you may call me bitter, a traitor or a dislectic agnostic insomniac who lies awake wondering if there is a D O G. But I believe the proper, nationalistic amd ethical thing to do is to share the resources equally with one’s neighbor - to drop the grudges and become a good neighbor. To me this is the wise, self-interested and responsible course for a nation emerging into the status of an advanced power.
cm at #52
“A Japanese actor said “Japan should give the island to Korea”. His website was flooded with threatening angry messages. Later on, he had to issue an official apology. ”
That’s not exactly what he said,and he didn’t issue no apology.
The actor is Takaoka Sousuke and Japan’s sweetheart,Miyazaki Aoi’s husband.Takaoka was in the role of Zainichi Korean in the 2004 movie called “パッチギ！박치기” directed by Izutsu Kazuyuki and was in Seoul for PR tour at the time of interview by Chosun Ilbo on March 12.
Chosun Ilbo had reported that Takaoka had said
“個人的には日本という国はあまり好きではない。韓国に対し、日本は卑劣なように思える。 日本政府は正しい情報を国民に伝えるよう願う
Personally I don’t like Japan that much.I think Japan acts treacherous towared Korea.I wish Japanese government to tell the right information to it’s people.”
“So it’s a load of poppy cock that Japan is totally innocent in esclating this issue, and that Japanese are totally free to disagree on this issue in their country, while Koreans aren’t. ”
Flood of comments from 2ch did attack Takaoka’s personal website,and Takaoka responded with harsh comments.
There was some sort of an apology for the use of negative language to some of the posters on his blog’s commentary section,but there has been no “official apology” on what he had said(or said to be said)regarding Japan-Korea relation.
“Stop caliming Takeshima and give the Korean the right” appeared as an op-ed of the second largest daily Asahi Shimbun(circulation 8million)by chairman of editorial board and former Seoul correspondent Wakamiya Yoshibumi on March 27,2005.
http://www.asahi.com/column/wa.....70067.html
Wakamiya had also written the same thing on island dispute in the book “Korea and Japan” co-authored with ex-prime minister of ROK and former CEO of Donga Ilbo,Kwon O-kyu.
“I’m not exactly thrilled with Korea’s usual convulsive over-reactions, make no mistake about it. But..”
If so,cm.You might want to leave Mizar5 alone with his opinions.
Japan’s claim is based on terra nullius (meaning unclaimed land). Under this kind of claim, the first country to
claim that land gets it, unless another country can prove it was their territory first. So It is entirely up to Korea to produce a Korean map prior to 1905 with the name “Dokdo(独島)” on it as Korean territory. They have always been unable to do this, since no such map exists.
Therefore, in the meantime, the terra nulius claim wins out and Takeshima is legally Japan’s (illegally occupied by Korean soldiers).
“Now, you may call me bitter, a traitor or a dislectic agnostic insomniac who lies awake wondering if there is a D O G.”
Aww.. come on… now you really sound bitter. I did call you bitter, but I didn’t call you a traitor. WJK insinuated you a traitor. But then again, I don’t take him seriously and he’s in my ignore list.
Genie,
In your logic, it is cristal clear that Sengaku belongs to China. Japan has been illegaly occupying the island.
I’, not the least bit bitter, but what I meant to say was dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I suppose Woody Allen said it better though “teleological existential atheist.”
http://image.chosun.com/siteda.....0033_0.jpg
This Russian map printed in 1876 tells that the rocks belong to Korea.
Mizar5, you can’t be a traitor to Korea since you seem an American, even though you have the Korean background.
cm said -
“Japanese knew fully well what the reaction of Korea would be, yet they went ahead and threw the pebble at the big sleeping dog anyway. Now they look all surprised, pretending they are innocent and persecuted. So what did they really expect? Please. If Japan doesn’t really care as many here point out and claim, why does Japan continue to make this into a disputed issue? Why doesn’t Japan just let sleeping dogs lay where it does? After all, this is just a useless rock right?”
We already know what the reaction of Koreans is going to be in any situation. If there is any dispute where Koreans do not react in blind rage and circle the wagons mentality, please let me know. At some point people have to stop worrying about Korean reactions and just treat them like the crazy homeless guy yelling obscenities on the street.
@70, there are plenty of maps.
@71, he’s not Korean he’s a Jap claiming to be a Korean-American.
@73, dont cry when someone argues back all you do is solidify the japanese nerd stereotype.
Next time I find myself in a real situation in which some jackass gives to me behavioral generalizations about Koreans, I’ll remind myself to fly into a blind rage and knock his lights out for being such a stereotypical “Koreans have hwabyung” Jap/Japwannabe.
@79, I never cry over this kind of thing. I have nothing to do with Korea.
Technically, it is true that Japan has been illegaly occupying Sengaku islands.
Why do you nips keep arguing about Dokdo? No one in the int’l community gives a shit to be honest.
Hell even Australia tells you to fuck off when you try to whale of all things.
“there are plenty of maps.”
Like I said,I want to see it.Stacked.
“he’s not Korean he’s a Jap claiming to be a Korean-American.”
With words like “dyslexic agnostic insomniac” and “teleological existential atheist.” and no spelling mistakes?
I think not.
How about talking about the issue at hand and analyse the differences in tone in the editorials from a journalistic point of view? That would be something worthy to thrash out.
I think, aceface, you’re about ready to pounce on a produced map, and say,
Ah, ha !
But, that’s not DokDo !
That’s JukDo!
Or something to that effect, which is basically the heart of Bevers’s argument.
But, you can’t conclusively say that’s JukDo. How can you? That it’s Dokdo cannot be proven conclusively, 100%, either.
I find it problematic the Japanese are claiming an island they became aware of in 1905, and claiming it as theirs, with colonialism in full swing.
Germany lost more than 40% of its original land after 1945. Lots of physical raping, too. They’re not asking for any of the land back, land with rich natural resources and strategic value.
Japan is asking North, East, West, and South for land with hardly any comparable natural resources, but admittedly of strategic locations. Germany had these INHABITED lands for 100+ years. Japan is claiming land or “rocks” or “submerged rocks”, uninhabited rocks in some cases, just to fuck with neigbors.
That is my conclusion, and the Japanese should fuck off. Acquiring these lands have immaterial impact on Japan.
“At some point people have to stop worrying about Korean reactions and just treat them like the crazy homeless guy yelling obscenities on the street.”
True. It’s sad to see Koreans walk right into traps laid out by Japan.
You are already treating the Koreans as “crazy homeless guy yelling obscenities on the street”. In fact many are.
I don’t see why you would see the need to preach the converted.
may I ask what the Japanese effort is in getting Sakhalin back from the Russians?
no effort? negligence?
Then, this is just Japan fucking around with Koreans.
Koreans are justified in telling Japan to eat shit.
“True. It’s sad to see Koreans walk right into traps laid out by Japan. ”
Ha!Incredible mindset!
A trap by the Japanase!
CM,you and your Korean friends are just continuosly shooting on your own feet!
It’s basically a suicidal act, by the Korean Government and Co.
Actually its Japan’s shooting themselves.
Unlike the general population of the world. The elite and the governments around the world are aware of the truth. So congrats on deluding yourself because the rest of the world isn’t as delusion as you.
Case in point, Japan has been crying about it from day 1. Even after the pacific war the US government basically told you to fuck off.
So please feel free to grow up and mature and instead of watching cartoons and repeating “Japan is great!” like your self-esteem depends on it.
my Japanese freinds, fuck with my mind a little further, please.
Korea claims foreign devil maps dating earlier than the Imperial Japanese maps are showing the Sea of Japan to be actually the Sea of Korea.
What is your argument to support that it is the Sea of Japan?
Is it on the line, of “we registered it properly first”?
@1, 2, 3:
So instead of blindly believing the Korean claims, you now blindly believe the Occidentalism claims…
Come on now, did you really find this on your own, or are you just parroting what Gerry Bevers has already said ad nauseam? It looks awfully familiar.
#80
Korea is barking over Manchuria, right? And also this submerged shoal somewhere in the Yellow Sea.
It’s Korea that’s endlessly fighting over territorial claims and “history” with its neighbors, China and Japan. All the while China and Japan are deepening their ties, economically and strategically. I heard they’re even going to have joint military drills. China-U.S. relations are not bad, either. And of course, the U.S.-Japan alliance stands firm, and never have been better.
Who’s Korea’s ally now? Last time I heard, Koreans perceive the U.S. as their #1 threat. How in the world did that happen?
wjk,
For Japan, it’s a fact that Takeshima is historically Japanese territory. Japan has every right to teach what it wants in its own borders. It’s Korea that always try to force their views on rest of the world and it’s the same problem about‘Sea of Japan’/’East Sea’issue .
What right do they have in telling us what to call that body of water? Imagine the French demanding that the other countries should call the ‘English Channel’ ‘La Manche(The Sleeve)’. Koreans can use the ‘East Sea’, the ‘Sea of Korea’ or whatever they want in their own country and leave the rest of the world alone. I know they call the ‘East China Sea’ the ‘South Sea’ in Korea, however, I don’t see them demanding that other countries should use ‘South Sea’.
Korea has no realistic chance of ever getting Manchuria, and frankly there isn’t even a Korean majority there to support it.
Korea gave up Manchuria around AD 668.
The Kim clan did this, for their own benefit and security.
This is the 2nd biggest crime committed by the Kim clan in all of Korean history.
The 1st biggest crime is the birth of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il.
Other insults to Korean kind include abuse of the Joseon and Goryo courts, IMF under Kim Yong Sam, and the pseudo opening of North Korea by Kim Dae Jung.
I don’t support barking over Manchuria.
Goguryo is a kingdom that Shilla destroyed for its own benefit.
Barking about it now, is really an after thought, and the epitome of patheticness.
Korea had its chances, like many other non-Han tribes in East Asia had.
Kim Jong Il is our Joseph Stalin. He’s a Kim.
wjk,
Can you st