≡ Menu

More Dokdo Stuff

So, the Korean government’s response to Japan’s latest Dokdo provocation* is getting some criticism from left and right.

The Chosun Ilbo thinks this thing should have been handled in a much more low-key fashion:

Experts say the way Korea handled the entire matter was a disaster.

Lee Won-duk, a professor of international relations at Kookmin University, said, “Those Japanese lawmakers are small fry in the LDP, but Korea’s president, prime minister, the chairman of the ruling party, and the minister of special affairs all made an effort to stand up to them. That was extremely unwise.”

“The Japanese lawmakers were probably surprised and delighted to find the entire political world in Korea agitated as they watched the issue get bigger and bigger,” said Prof. Park Chul-hee of Seoul National University Graduate School of International Studies. “Maybe they’ll decide to come to Korea as a bigger group next time.”

Frankly, if trouble-making Japanese lawmakers want to waste money flying over to Korea to wait around in immigration for a couple of hours, that’s fine with me. Enjoy the bibimbaps, guys!

Anyway, the Hankyoreh issued a similarly critical article. One can’t avoid the suspicion, however, that if the government had underplayed it, they’d be issuing just as critical an article.

Also in the Hani, they discuss why Takushoku University professor Masao Shimojo got bounced:

The individual denied entry Sunday night was Masao Shimojo, a Takushoku University professor known to be a right-wing academic on the Dokdo issue. Shimojo, who has consistently argued for Japan’s possession of Dokdo, arrived at Incheon International Airport at 9:30 p.m. on Sunday but was denied entry and prevented from passing the immigration review desk. After remaining within the airport for another three to four hours, Shimojo reportedly returned to Japan aboard a plane early Monday morning.

Shimojo was originally scheduled to arrive and enter the country with the lawmakers at Gimpo International Airport on Monday, but he appears to have taken a detour beforehand.

A senior ruling Grand National Party (GNP) official said, “Shimojo is a de facto leader of this Ulleung Island visit, and he appears to have come as a ‘forward party’ for testing purposes,” referring to the fact that the South Korean government provided notification that it would be denying entry.

Now, barring foreign lawmakers from coming over to engage in nonsense, I’m perfectly OK with. I’d have asked questions if they DIDN’T do that. Banning a guy with a Korean wife who owns property in Korea, though, if not something I think should be encouraged.

Oh, and there appears to be some fighting within the GNP over this, too. At least on Twitter.

Moving on, the Chosun Ilbo notes that one of the Japanese lawmakers who tried to enter the country, Masahisa Sato, seems to have a thing for Korean islands. In January, Sato — a veteran of the Japanese Self-Defense Force, which I will refer to by its Korean name, 자위대, just because it makes me giggle — came to Yeonpyeong-do to survey the damage done by the North Korean shelling. And best of all, he video recorded it, warning — at least according to the Chosun — that the same thing could happen to Japan, and the locals should join with the military to defend the country, like they were doing in Yeonpyeong-do. I don’t speak Japanese, so all I see is a Japanese dude with a mustache standing in front of a bombed-out house:

Sato also has a talent for making bulletin board comments, like Japan would consider a missile strike on Dokdo as a strike on Japanese territory; that Japan’s annexation of Korea was legal in terms of international law; and that there are doubts as to the appropriateness of the term “colonial rule.”

*Flagrant Gerry-baiting

About the author: Just the administrator of this humble blog.

  • cm

    Gerry, no, please don’t take Robert’s bait… oh god… please..

  • Wedge

    I’m with Profs. Lee and Park on this. By extension, it amuses me when Obama personally attacks someone like Limbaugh or Palin.

    “One can’t avoid the suspicion, however, that if the government had underplayed it, [the Hanky would] be issuing just as critical an article.”

    True dat.

  • YangachiBastardo

    Yangachi the Clairvoyant:” I see and foresee an ocean of shit raging over this thread”

  • cm

    #3, how much beatings can a dead horse get?

  • hardyandtiny

    what law prevented them from entering Korea?

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    what law prevented them from entering Korea?

    That would be immigration law.

  • Q

    자위대 sounds really funny. 자위대(自衛隊) Self-Defense Force can means, with the same Korean pronounciation, 자위대(自慰隊) Masturbation force. Thus question Koreans if Jap’anese force a 딸딸이 군대?

  • Q

    Jap’anese government banned civilians publicly support Dokdo as Korean territory from coming into Jap’an. 정광태 a singer of “독도는 우리땅” has not been allowed, since 1980s, to get a travel VISA to Jap’an simply because he supported and promoted the song of Dokdo as a Korean territory. It was Jap’an that started prohibiting some civilians’ entry into Jap’an.

  • hamel

    I doubt Gerry will rise to the bait.

    Turns out, he hasn’t even been to Ulleungdo himself!

  • Charles Tilly

    Last night, I was going through some past newspaper articles I had placed in a scrap book of mine and I came across this obituary for Kazuo Ohno, the founder of Japanese Butoh. According to the obituary that appeared in the New York Times’ June 2, 2010 print edition:

    Kazuo Ohno, a founder of Butoh, the influential Japanese dance-theater form whose traditional look of darkness and decay evoked for many the horrors of the wartime bombings of Japan, died on Tuesday in Yokohama, Japan. He was 103 and had continued to perform beyond his 100th year….

    Mr. Ohno’s solo performances, for which he was known, were irresistibly powerful and fraught with ambiguity. A humanist, he communicated the themes of the form through identifiable characters, most often flamboyantly female. The tottering women whom he personified onstage, his body twisted and grotesque, were both forces of nature and fragile creatures with flapping shoes and skewed wigs.

    In this, Mr. Ohno also embodied the dual nature of Butoh, developed in Japan after World War II. It mines the primeval darkness of life and death in harrowing theatrical physical imagery yet is also capable of the dramatic equivalent of raucous, often bawdy laughter.

    You can check out some of his work here.

    Also, here’s an essay by Kenneth J. Ruoff on Japanese tourism to Korea during the 1940′s (I wonder if Dokdo was a popular place back then). This essay is an excerpted version of a chapter from Dr. Ruoff’s recently published book Imperial Japan at Its Zenith: The Wartime Celebration of the Empires 2,600th Anniversary. Definitely a book that’s on my to-read list.

    Finally, I understand why South Korean officials needed to prevent the Japanese lawmakers from doing want they wanted to do. But….did 이재오 really need to do this? Frankly, he looks like a fucking idiot. Shouldn’t he be conspiring with LMB to hatch a plan to shaft 박근혜? I don’t know, just a thought.

  • frogmouth

    Masao Shimojo is not just a “guy with a Korean wife and land in Korea”

    He is Japan’s Takeshima Poster Boy, and he should be banned from Ulleungdo altogether.

    It’s important to remember, the whole center of the Dokdo Island dispute revolves around Ulleungdo Island first. The fate of Dokdo always depended on the situation on Ulleungdo. For at least five centuries Japanese trespassed, poached and squatted on Chosun’s Ulleungdo. These illegal activities are the whole basis for Japan’s claim to Dokdo today.

    These days some Japanese Takeshima lobbyists scurry like roaches on Ulleungdo trying to promote thier cause.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_RnlPmTnCc&feature=related

    Keep the Japanese out of Ulleungdo and Dokdo altogether.

  • gbevers

    Robert wrote:

    Frankly, if trouble-making Japanese lawmakers want to waste money flying over to Korea to wait around in immigration for a couple of hours, that’s fine with me. Enjoy the bibimbaps, guys!

    The Japanese came to Korea to visit the Dokdo Museum. Only in Korea or on this blog would that be defined as “trouble-making,” and it certainly was not a reason to bar them from entering Korea. You have been drinking the kimchi juice too long, Robert.

    The troublemakers were the Korean politicians and crazy Dokdo loonies who turned a simple fact-finding visit by Japanese lawmakers into an international news story with such comments as follows:

    GNP Chairman Hong Joon-pyo: “The Justice Ministry should ban their entry because they’re coming to deny Korea’s constitutional order.”

    Lee Ju-young, Policy Committee chairman of the GNP: “They’e assassins without swords.”

    Special Affairs Minister Lee Jae-oh: “The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan is trying to pounce on Korean territory, Dokdo, to recover its declining ground in Japan. And, “The descendants of war criminals are trying to test Korea.”

    Frogmouth (Steve Barber) wrote:

    Masao Shimojo is not just a “guy with a Korean wife and land in Korea”

    He is Japan’s Takeshima Poster Boy, and he should be banned from Ulleungdo altogether.

    Masao Shimojo is a university professor who studies and writes about the history of Takeshima (Dokdo). Just because his research disproves Korea’s historical claim to Dokdo should not be a reason for banning his visiting Ulleungdo.

    Korea does not want debate on its claims to Dokdo because it knows that its historical claims are easily proven bogus. That is why the Japanese professor and lawmakers were vilified before their coming to Korea and why they were barred from entering Korea. The Korean government is in containment mode, trying to prevent the truth of Dokdo from linking out to the rest of the world.

  • cm

    Not to put more oil to the fire… but… watch one Korean K1 fighter girl take on three Japanese Pro K1 men fighters. Could the Takeshima/Dokto had anything to do with this rigged fight?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb2ygTg8GMk

  • http://www.konnectmagazine.com Moses – the bulgogi monster

    Uh-oh. Sounds like tension still exists between these 2 countries. Even small events like this one. Goodness, couldn’t we all just get along?

  • Q

    I doubt Gerry will rise to the bait. Turns out, he hasn’t even been to Ulleungdo himself!

    Korean proverb: “서울 가본 놈하고 안가본 놈하고 우기면 안가본 놈이이긴다.”

  • robert neff

    Really Mr. Marmot – I never imagined you acting like a young innocent girl

    which I will refer to by its Korean name, 자위대, just because it makes me giggle

    Does the word jalapeno in Korean cause you to blush as well? Just teasing….

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    The Japanese came to Korea to visit the Dokdo Museum. Only in Korea or on this blog would that be defined as “trouble-making,” and it certainly was not a reason to bar them from entering Korea. You have been drinking the kimchi juice too long, Robert.

    Drinking the kimchi juice too long? Perhaps. But clearly, kimchi juice has nothing on the stuff you guys are drinking in West Texas, since you’d have to be on some really good shit to believe that The Great Ulleungdo Visit That Wasn’t was a simple fact-finding visit and not a public political stunt to 이슈화 Dokdo.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Ok Robert, I know you are Gerry-baiting, but bait the poor deluded guy with just one thing at a time. Dokdo is quite enough. No need to make the guy have an aneurysm with a word like 이슈화.

    (That said, very nicely done!)

  • http://vmphotography.com.au hoju_saram

    The Korean government is in containment mode, trying to prevent the truth of Dokdo from linking out to the rest of the world.

    Containment mode? That sounds very serious. Can the truth leak as far as Australia?

  • hamel

    Gerry:

    You have been drinking the kimchi juice too long, Robert.

    Rumor has it this was something that people said to you in decades past, Gerry.

    I often wonder if your veering towards Takeshima Territory wasn’t a subconscious effort by you to prove your detractors wrong…

  • H.Schmidt

    If the Korean government let in these Japanese clowns, then they would have lost the battle. I’d say forget the bibimbap, just lock them altogether with the illegal Chinese immigrants.

    And under Korea’s immigration law, it is 100% justifiable to ban entry if the visit is offensive to Korea’s interests. The Japanese clearly stated that they were visiting Dokdo to challenge Korea’s claim to it.

    I hope the Korean government bans any more Japanese clowns who choose to “visit” Dokdo. That will just waste their time, money and, most importantly, their national pride.

  • gbevers

    Korea, again, shooting itself in the foot. They are other places for Japanese to go.

    The Mainichi Daily News: “South Korean ferry operator imposes ban on Japanese passengers

    Excerpt

    SEOUL (Kyodo) — A South Korean operator of a regular ferry service to disputed South Korean-controlled islets said Wednesday that it has decided to ban Japanese nationals from boarding its ships in protest against Tokyo’s latest territorial claims, according to Yonhap News Agency.

    Seaspovill Co. said that all Japanese citizens will be indefinitely barred from taking its ferries departing from Gangneung on South Korea’s east coast to the islets, known as Dokdo to Koreans and as Takeshima to Japanese, as well as Ulleungdo, according to Yonhap.

    ”Our decision is to protest against the Japanese lawmakers’ attempt to visit Ulleungdo earlier this week,” said an official of Seaspovill. ”It is in line with the government’s will to sternly respond to the Japanese (government’s) renewed assertion.”

    ”Any Japanese passengers will not be allowed to board our ferries starting today,” the official was quoted as saying. ”We will not scrap the decision until Japan stops making its absurd claims.”

  • gbevers

    The Christian Science Monitor: “East Asia’s top 5 island disputes

    First on the list–”Takeshima/Dokdo islands — claimed by Japan and South Korea”

    An island chain in the Sea of Japan, known as the Dokdo islands by Seoul and Takeshima by Tokyo, was claimed by Japan in 1905, prior to its annexation of the Korean peninsula. However, South Korea says the islands became its territory when it declared independence in 1945. The islands are a sore reminder of this colonial past and are patrolled by South Korean police. They were in the spotlight this week after South Korea denied Japanese lawmakers entry into the country because they planned to pay a visit to the South Korean island closest to the disputed chain. Tensions also flared in January 2011 after Japan arrested the captain of a South Korean fishing vessel that had floated into the disputed territory.

  • Q

    Shojin Sato, Japanese Expansionist Policy and the Question of Dokdo – Takeshima: Then President of the Asian Rearch Institute, Japanese researcher Shojin Sato, gives historical context and perspective regarding Japan’s 1905 annexation of Dokdo (Takeshima).

    At the beginning of 1910, Foreign Minster Komura Jutaro spoke before the Budget Committee of the House of Representatives of the Diet:

    … To concentrate emigrants in Manchuria and Korea is to concentrate the Yamato (Japanese) people. Prior to the Russo-Japanese War, Japan had been an insular country, but as the result of the war, it has become a sort of continental state.

    The Japanese government dispatched Japanese to Korea and Northeast China not only as combatants but also as emigrants to settle down there, turn the areas into Japanese territories, multiply the Yamato people, and to convert the island country of Japan into a continental state.

    Had Japan not suffered defeat in the Asia and Pacific war, the multitude of Japanese would have settled down permanently in Northeast China, Korea, Taiwan, Saipan, and Palau, forced the emperor system and the Japanese language upon the natives, and dominated them under the slogans of “Five Races in Harmony” or “Korea and Manchuria are like one body.”

    Those Japapense “emigrants” who had invaded many parts of Asia and the Pacific compelled the local peoples to use the Japanese language, built Shinto shrines, and renamed places in the Japanese style. As the war ended, these shrines were destroyed and the place names reverted to the original ones in Taiwan, Korea and Northest China.

    As has already been observed, Sakhalin and Hokkaido were the lands of the aborigines who had first settled down there. The Japanese move to reoccupy Tokdo and reclaim the northen islands is but a link in the chain of its overall imperialistic design against other lands and peoples today to expand its territories including the economic water zone. The history of Japan’s aggression still continues today. The Ainu Moshiri that includes the islands of Kunashiri, Etorofu, Habomai and Shikotan (these are Ainu words) and that is termend “northern territories” by the Japanese government is the homeland of the Ainu, Uilta, Nivkh and other northern peoples. To free the Ainu Moshiri from the colonial control of Japan is a prerequisite to the task of checking Japan’s reoccupation of Tokdo.

    In the midst of the imperialistic war between Japan and Russia, both trying to colonize Korea, the former took possession of Tokdo and proceeded to annex all of Korea. It was 36 years before its occupation of Tokdo that Japan named Ainu Moshiri Hokkaid and incorporated it into its territory.

    If the Japanese scholars of the modern and contemporary history of Asia wish to forestall Japan’s designs of aggression on other lands and countries, they are advised to cope squrely with the Japanese move to reoccupy Tokdo and reclaim the title of the northern islands. This research activity involves an ideological implication to concur with or negate aggression. It bears on the basic perception of history of the researcher.

    If a researcher wishes to check Japan’s attempt at the reoccupation of Tokdo 1) he or she should clarify the fact and the historical meaning of the occupation of Tokdo in the course of Japan’s aggression agrainst Korea, and 2) examine critically the history of Japanese emigration, i.e. the history of Japan’s colonization of foreign lands and peoples.

  • gbevers

    Arirang — “US State Department Asks for ‘Restraint’ on Dokdo Islets Issue”

    Excerpt

    US State Department Spokesman Mark Toner asked for continued ‘restraint’ between Korea and Japan over the renewed row over the Dokdo Islets.

    Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday Toner said he hoped that the two nations would “work peacefully and diplomatically to find a mutually acceptable solution”.

    He added that the US would not take a position over Korea’s easternmost islets to which he referred to as the Liancourt Rocks a moniker named after a 19th century French whaling ship that almost crashed on the island.

    It seems more countries have taken notice of South Korea’s barring of the Japanese lawmakers than some “Poli Sci” people thought would.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    It seems more countries have taken notice of South Korea’s barring of the Japanese lawmakers than some “Poli Sci” people thought would.

    Well, Gerry, that COULD be a concerned warning by a State Department unnerved by South Korea’s provocative banning of the three Japanese lawmakers. Or it COULD be just a 원칙적인 response to a question posed by a (presumably) Korean journalist:

    QUESTION: I’m not asking about North Korea today.

    MR. TONER: Wow.

    QUESTION: You can relax a bit. (Laughter.) You said on diplomatic tensions between South Korea and Japan, I think you know that Japan released defense white paper describing a set of South Korean-controlled islet in the East Sea as its territory, so relations between the two countries are worsening. So I think I know it is a sensitive diplomatic matter, but I think you have some things to say about comments about the issue.

    MR. TONER: You’re referring to what are broadly known as – or internationally known as the Liancourt Rocks, I think?

    QUESTION: Yes.

    MR. TONER: That’s right. Okay. Well, you know, probably, that – already that we don’t take, as a government, a position regarding the sovereignty of the Liancourt Rocks. We do recognize this is a longstanding dispute between the two countries. And thus far, it’s an issue that’s been handled with restraint. We would hope that such restraint would continue to be exercised and that they would work – both South Korea and Japan – work peacefully and diplomatically to find a mutually acceptable solution.

    QUESTION: Following up, I know there are a number of Japanese lawmakers from the right of the political spectrum who are trying to go to what the Koreans call Dokdo, what the Japanese call Takeshima. Does the U.S. have a view on that and whether the (inaudible) – that was a good idea to try to go there?

    MR. TONER: I just would say what – reiterate what I just said, which is that thus far, this is an issue that’s been handled with restraint, and we would hope that both sides would continue to exercise restraint.

    Yeah, in the back.

    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2011/08/169481.htm#SOUTHKOREA

    Now, using those super poli-sci analytical skills I learned at Georgetown, where we spend years learning to decipher inscrutable diplomatic jargon such as this, I’m going to venture that it’s more likely the latter case.

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers, just because you believe everything Professor Shimojo and Japan’s MOFA says is true doesn’t mean we do. I believe he should be banned from Ulleungdo because his intentions to visit are obviously not of a tourist nature.

    Professor Shimojo is the ringmaster of Japan’s Takeshima circus. Keep this right winger out of Ulleungdo. Next time I go, I’d be glad to send him some lovely Ulleungdo brochures and “Dokdo is Korean t-shits”. Professor Shimojo can visit my website. I now have a Japanese and Korean version so he can read what the real world thinks about Japan’s Takeshima case.

    The Korean government is not in “containment mode” Mr Bevers. It’s more like pest control. Keep these rats out of Ulleungdo and Dokdo will be just fine.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japan/

  • gbevers

    Robert wrote:

    Well, Gerry, that COULD be a concerned warning by a State Department unnerved by South Korea’s provocative banning of the three Japanese lawmakers. Or it COULD be just a 원칙적인 response to a question posed by a (presumably) Korean journalist:…

    Whether it was a general policy statement or a “concerned warning,” the point is that the Japanese lawmakers’ being barred from entering Korea was “issue” enough that it came up in a US State Department briefing, which suggests that it was more than just a blip on the radar screen. Can’t you admit that it got more media attention than you expected, Mr. Georgetown?

    Frogmouth (Steve Barber) wrote (#27):

    Mr Bevers, just because you believe everything Professor Shimojo and Japan’s MOFA says is true doesn’t mean we do. I believe he should be banned from Ulleungdo because his intentions to visit are obviously not of a tourist nature.

    I do not have to believe Professor Shimojo or Japan’s MOFA because I have confirmed the documents and maps, myself. Even you know Korea has no historical claim to Dokdo, which is why you avoid talking about Korean documents and maps and why your Web site does not have a Discussion Board. Your Web site is full of ridiculous conspiracy theories and fabricated explanations.

    What were Professor Masao Shimojo intentions, Steve? You do not know what they were. You just want him banned him from Korea because he disagrees with Korea’s historical claims to Dokdo, which is Fascist reason for banning someone from entering Korea, especially a scholar. You are just making goofball remarks, as usual.

    Robert wrote:

    Drinking the kimchi juice too long? Perhaps. But clearly, kimchi juice has nothing on the stuff you guys are drinking in West Texas, since you’d have to be on some really good shit to believe that The Great Ulleungdo Visit That Wasn’t was a simple fact-finding visit and not a public political stunt to 이슈화 Dokdo.

    Anytime a politician goes anywhere, it could be defined as a “political stunt,” but is that a good reason to bar lawmakers from a friendly country from visiting one of your museums?

    Dokdo has been an “issue” for years, and it is almost always the Koreans who are making the biggest issue of it, just as they did this time with all of their threats and name-calling, of which you chose not to make an issue.

    So why not discuss Dokdo with Japanese lawmakers? What is Korea afraid of? If Korea does not want to discuss Dokdo, then let the Japanese visit the museum and that would have been the end of it. Why did Korea make such an “issue” of it?

    The Japanese were not planning to protest or burn any flags. They were, in fact, coming to Korea on a fact-finding mission, which was why Professor Masao Shimojo was going with them to Ulleungdo. I know because I know another researcher, whom Korean Immigration failed to stop, who was supposed to join them. More later.

  • Q

    Next time, let’s handle this issue at the lowest level of Kimpo airport. Let the lowest ranked officers at the airport ban the entry of jap’anese lawmaker comedians who try to make farce in Korea.

    Nex time, high ranking Korean officers would better pay more attention to other more important affairs.

  • bibimbong

    robert,
    do u think the US should have denied hugo chavez a visa to give that “bush is a devil” & “the US is a terrorist state” speech at the UN back in 2006?

  • JK

    OMG, gbevers, what are you trying to do…look like an even BIGGER idiot? Holy damn…

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    Whether it was a general policy statement or a “concerned warning,” the point is that the Japanese lawmakers’ being barred from entering Korea was “issue” enough that it came up in a US State Department briefing, which suggests that it was more than just a blip on the radar screen. Can’t you admit that it got more media attention than you expected, Mr. Georgetown?

    OK, Gerry, now you’re being either a) disingenuous, or b) slow. The issue “came up in a US State Department briefing” because a Korean correspondent, looking for something to quote in a Korean newspaper, asked the spokesman a question about it. And he got a boilerplate response.

    Anytime a politician goes anywhere, it could be defined as a “political stunt,” but is that a good reason to bar lawmakers from a friendly country from visiting one of your museums?

    Dokdo has been an “issue” for years, and it is almost always the Koreans who are making the biggest issue of it, just as they did this time with all of their threats and name-calling, of which you chose not to make an issue.

    So why not discuss Dokdo with Japanese lawmakers? What is Korea afraid of? If Korea does not want to discuss Dokdo, then let the Japanese visit the museum and that would have been the end of it. Why did Korea make such an “issue” of it?

    The Japanese were not planning to protest or burn any flags. They were, in fact, coming to Korea on a fact-finding mission, which was why Professor Masao Shimojo was going with them to Ulleungdo. I know because I know another researcher, whom Korean Immigration failed to stop, who was supposed to join them. More later.

    Again, Gerry, you’re either being a) disingenuous, or b) slow, although with this, I’ll add option c) doing way too much West Texas peyote. I’m going to let your insistence that this was a “fact-finding mission” speak for itself. And as for why Korea doesn’t discuss Dokdo with Japanese lawmakers, I’m going to guess it’s probably for much the same reason Japan isn’t particularly keen on discussing the question of ownership of the Senkaku Islands with China or Taiwan, namely, because Korea doesn’t recognize Dokdo as a disputed territory, there’s nothing to discuss. You might not understand this, but I think we can rest assured that the Japanese Foreign Ministry does.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    do u think the US should have denied hugo chavez a visa to give that “bush is a devil” & “the US is a terrorist state” speech at the UN back in 2006?

    No. Sadly, issuing visas to guys like Chavez comes with hosting the UN in New York.

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers, you are missing the point. If the honorable Professor Shimojo wants to come to Ulleungdo to sightsee that’s fine. But we know otherwise. This clown has had literally decades to come to Ulleungdo and now all of the sudden he is so horny to visit the Dokdo museum? Give me a break.

    Professor Shimojo is a lobbyist first and a “scholar” second. He works for Shimane Prefecture he practically runs Shimane Prefecture and Japan’s MOFA’s whole Takeshima lobby movement. He also lobbies on other territorial issues in favor of Japan.

    Professor Shimojo’s intentions are to raise a stink. Takeshima has been his little pet project and he knows he is running out of time. Japan is in big trouble and Korea’s stock is rising. Korea’s clout in Northeast Asia is increasing and Japan’s is sinking like a stone.

    Wow, Mr Bevers has convinced himself Dokdo isn’t Korean. He also has convinced himself the colonization of Korea was a good thing and that Japanese didn’t coerce Korean comfort women into prostitution. Never once have I seen you side with Korean on any contentious Korean Japanese issue. You are anti-Korean.

    With all of your “research” surely you visited Ulleungdo and Dokdo right Gerry? No? You mean you spent over a decade whining about Dokdo and you never even took a few days to at least visit the area? Yeah, you are a real “researcher” Mr Bevers.

    I don’t manage discussion board because I don’t have time to “debate” ad nausem with the same collection of anonymous Japanese nutbars. If and when I have time to discuss the issue I do. I just do it on my terms.

    Did you get more information about this issue Gerry?

    From who? Your Japanese “friends” on their (not your) Takeshima blog.

  • JK

    Gbevers’ stubbornness and bitterness on this issue is palpable.

  • frogmouth

    Wanna hear something funny J.K?

    On one thread on “Mr Bevers” blog an group of Japanese Takeshima lobbyists were nattering away in Japanese.

    Mr Bevers had to ask them “Hey guys what are you talking about..? I can’t understand you..”

    He started his “research website” but the Japanese came in and locked him out of his own house. Just like the Japanese pushed the Koreans out of Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

    Mr Bevers doesn’t even know what these anonymous Japanese lobbyists are even saying on “his blog” half of the time.

  • Charles Tilly

    Gbevers’ stubbornness and bitterness on this issue is palpable.

    And so is your pathetic-ness and loser-ness on this issue palpable as well. Any idea when you’re going to go fuck off yet?

  • JK

    Charles Tilly, when your stupid *ss quits popping up on this blog to insult various people online here.

    Frogmouth, LOL!

  • gbevers

    Robert Wrote (#32):

    I’m going to guess it’s probably for much the same reason Japan isn’t particularly keen on discussing the question of ownership of the Senkaku Islands with China or Taiwan, namely, because Korea doesn’t recognize Dokdo as a disputed territory, there’s nothing to discuss.

    Bad guess, Robert. Korea is refusing to discuss Dokdo because she knows she is in the wrong and has nothing to support her claim, but Japan is refusing to discuss Senkaku because she knows she is in the right and has overwhelming evidence to support hers, including the United States’ returning Senkaku to Japan with the return of Okinawa in 1972.

    Japan incorporated Senkaku in 1895; China and Taiwan did not start protesting that incorporation until 1971, just a couple of years after oil was discovered in the area.. Japan incorporated Takeshima (Dokdo) in 1905, but Korea did not start protesting that incorporation until after 1945, and without any evidence to refute Japanese claims. In both cases, the United States recognized Japanese sovereignty.

    Frogmouth (Stever Barber) wrote (#34):

    Mr Bevers, you are missing the point. If the honorable Professor Shimojo wants to come to Ulleungdo to sightsee that’s fine. But we know otherwise. This clown has had literally decades to come to Ulleungdo and now all of the sudden he is so horny to visit the Dokdo museum? Give me a break.

    I am missing the point, Steve, because your comments are not only disjointed, but also provide no evidence to back your claims. Professor Shimojo has been to Ulleungdo and to Dokdo Museum. This time he was going there to guide the Japanese lawmakers and to explain the history. Do you have any evidence to prove otherwise?

    Frogmouth (Steve Barber) wrote (#34):

    With all of your “research” surely you visited Ulleungdo and Dokdo right Gerry? No? You mean you spent over a decade whining about Dokdo and you never even took a few days to at least visit the area? Yeah, you are a real “researcher” Mr Bevers.

    Even with all of your research and visits to Ulleungdo and Dokdo, you still cannot show me even one old Korean map showing “Dokdo,” by any name, or any Korean document showing that Koreans ever traveled to the island before the Japanese starting taking them there as deckhands on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s. So, what have your trips produced? Not a damn thing.

    In all of Korean history, there are only about three references to an unnamed island described as being visible in the distance to the east of Ulleungdo that was described as being Japanese territory or implied as being Japanese territory. Korea has no documents to show that Koreans ever traveled there or claimed the island before the Japanese started taking them there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s.

    Frogmouth (Steve Barber) wrote:

    I don’t manage discussion board because I don’t have time to “debate” ad nausem with the same collection of anonymous Japanese nutbars. If and when I have time to discuss the issue I do. I just do it on my terms.

    Bullshit! The real reason you do not have a discussion board is that your site is a propaganda site filled with errors and fabrications that you do not want others pointing out. You can have a discussion board without your having to comment on it all the time.

    Frogmouth (Steve Barber) wrote:

    He started his “research website” but the Japanese came in and locked him out of his own house. Just like the Japanese pushed the Koreans out of Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

    Mr Bevers doesn’t even know what these anonymous Japanese lobbyists are even saying on “his blog” half of the time.

    Unlike your Web site, mine is open to all people who which to comment, and in any language they which to do it, as long as it is relevant and not abusive. I have not been “locked out” of my site, which is obvious to anyone who takes the time to read the list of contributors. My name is on top because I manage and control the site.

    By the way, here is a link to an interesting article in the Korea Times:

    “Total defeat on Dokdo”

  • Q

    A kind reminder for gerry-san,

    I just finished writing about your post over at the Marmot’s Hole, where they do not generally like to read comments about the Takeshima/Dokdo dispute.

    I will not debate it there and do not recommend that anyone here do either

    남아일언 중천금(男兒一言 重千金) : 남자의 말 한 마디는 천 금의 무게를 가진다. A word of a man weighs a thousand pieces of gold. gerry’s words weigh a piece of cheapy chewing gum.

  • Q

    Sean Fern, Dokdo or Takeshima? The International Law of Territorial Acquisition in the Japan
    – Korea Island Dispute:
    In this article Sean Fern (Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs) explains why Korea’s claim to Dokdo Island would prevail over Japan.

    Superior Claims Under International Law

    In order for either state to gain the exclusive economic zone afforded by Liancourt, it must first establish internationally recognized sovereignty over the island. Considering the claims of both sides to the Liancourt Rocks, Korea has established the stronger claim because it has manifested greater acts of sovereignty in the area. While Korea offers limited arguments that it acquired Liancourt as a result of a particular method of territorial acquisition, it has demonstrated ownership by manifesting relevant, affirmative acts of sovereignty as necessitated by the Palmas and Clipperton decisions.

    Despite Japan’s reliance on the 1905 and 1910 annexation treaties by which it argues that all Korean territory became Japanese, it is uestionable whether Korea intended to give up its title and pass sovereignty to the Japanese, as is required for a valid cession. Indeed, Korea resisted the annexation period with uprisings, protests, and a continual struggle to gain independence. Additionally, when news of Japan’s incorporation of Tokdo reached Korea, the Minister of Home Affairs rejected the Japanese claim, stating, “it is totally groundless for the Japanese to lay claim to Tokdo and I am shocked at the report.”41 The Korean State Council responded by issuing Directive No. III on April 29, 1906, wherein the council denounced the Japanese claim as groundless.

    Japan points to the absence of any action on the part of the Korean government when the area was annexed but does not acknowledge that the Japanese Resident-General in Korea was responsible for foreign affairs, leaving the Korean government no diplomatic channel for disputing the Japanese claim. Protestations of a peaceful transfer reflect more on the harsh control of the Japanese over Korea during the occupation period than on actual events. Finally, any argument that Korea voluntarily merged into Japan as a result of peaceful negotiations has been refuted repeatedly by a variety of documentary sources. As such, Japanese claims to title based on cession fail.

    South Korea has an enormous advantage over Japan because it has de facto possession of the islands and has undertaken a variety of infrastructure projects and improvements. As the Palmas decision shows, international judicial bodies highlight establishing sovereignty through positive acts, especially when occupying a territory. Effective possession of the Liancourt Rocks generally entitles Korea to the claim.

  • frogmouth

    Here you go again Gerry mistaking your opinions for fact and then feebly attempting to ram it down our throats.

    Shimojo and his lackies (Mr Bever etal) are wrong on many points I’ve dismantled their rubbish in these posts.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-mofas-propaganda-brochure.html

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/shimane-prefectures-propaganda-brochure.html

    And yes Korea did protest Japan’s annexation of Dokdo. Now go off on one of your patented bizarre tangents about the Resident General… blah blah. Look Korea contested and that is fact, given Korea’s political situation at this time any other theories about Korea’s couldah, wouldah shoulda is just speculation.

    Again about my discussion board. When and where I debate the Dokdo issue is my choice. I dont’ intend on spending all my time entertaining every Japanese lobbyists who comes off of Youtube or Channel. There are far more prodctive ways to spend my time. So Bullshit yourself Mr Bevers.

    If you had taken the time to visit Ulleungdo you would have seen the critical error you made in your assessment of early Chosun maps. These charts were based on more than just surveys.

    My site is filled with fabrications and errors…Yawn. Again we stray into the realm of Mr Bevers opinions. Don’t care. But at the end of the day it’s my site and you are just a little errand boy for Japan’s Takeshima lobby movement.

    And don’t call that blog you visit “my site” anymore Gerry cause it aint. If you can’t even understand what these anonymous crackpots are saying you have zero control over this blog.

    You sold out Mr Bevers. You hooked up with Japan’s MOFA and Shimane Prefecture and now you are bound to all their lies I’ve exposed above.

    Yes Gerry, you site is open to all people of all languages. The trouble is when I shot down all of their rubbish. They refused to engage in debate with me and simply nattered away to each other in Japanese hoping and praying I’d leave them alone!!

    Pretty funny…

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    Bad guess, Robert. Korea is refusing to discuss Dokdo because she knows she is in the wrong and has nothing to support her claim, but Japan is refusing to discuss Senkaku because she knows she is in the right and has overwhelming evidence to support hers, including the United States’ returning Senkaku to Japan with the return of Okinawa in 1972.

    So I take it the “Why is Country A so afraid to discuss its claim if it’s so confident?” line of argumentation doesn’t apply in this case, then, Gerry?

  • dogbertt

    It is truly bizarre to see two White men so absolutely, totally, and irredeemably invested in opposite sides of the Liancourt Rocks controversy.

    And pitiful, of course.

  • gbevers

    Robert Koehler wrote (#43):

    So I take it the “Why is Country A so afraid to discuss its claim if it’s so confident?” line of argumentation doesn’t apply in this case, then, Gerry?

    Stop being disingenuous, Robert, or are you just slow? Senkaku is different from Dokdo because Japan has clear, strong evidence to support her claim to Senkaku, which means taking the issue to ICJ would be a farce and a waste of time. Korea, on the other hand, has no evidence to support her claim to Dokdo, which is why she refuses to take it the ICJ.

    When a commenter wrote that denying Japanese lawmakers entry to Korea to visit Ulleungdo would cause the rest of the world to take notice, Robert wrote:

    I seriously doubt that. And of the countries that would notice, like China, I don’t think you’ll see much sympathy for the Japanese.

    Well, Robert, was wrong because the world did take notice; moreover, the Japanese public took notice. Even Koreans now realize it was a mistake to deny the Japanese entry:

    Excerpt from Joongang Ilbo: “Dokdo and crazy populism”

    Realizing those political gains, their colleagues in the Diet started to say they too wished to visit Ulleung Island. At first, the incident was only reported by the right-wing Sankei Shimbun, but more Japanese media began following the story and it gained something of an international spotlight.

    “Thus far it’s an issue that has been handled with restraint,” U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said. “We would hope that such restraint would continue to be exercised and that South Korea and Japan work peacefully and diplomatically to find a mutually acceptable solution.”

    That comment indicates that Washington is treating Dokdo as a disputed area, so the whole thing has been a gain for Japan. Who has worsened the situation? Of course, the Japanese lawmakers started the provocation. They are no different from terrorists in the Korean people’s minds. At the very least, they’re like extortionists, forcing Korea to treat them in a way that gets them sympathy back home.

    Excerpt from Korea Times: “Total defeat on Dokdo”

    In hindsight, the Korean government seems to be the loser in the current fight surrounding the islets. In contrast, the three lawmakers, who had been little known in Japan, have emerged victoriously. They returned home like heroes who had won a hard-fought battle. They achieved their political purpose by stealing the spotlight from the media of Korea, Japan and other nations.

    Many Japanese netizens were also jubilant, describing the recent incident as a diplomatic victory for Japan while scornfully downgrading Korea and its people regarding their seemingly emotional responses.

    The best way of dealing with the Japanese politicians would have been totally ignoring them regardless of their itinerary while in Korea. Such a scenario seems impossible here regrettably, due to harsh competitiveness among the mass media. If it happened in other countries, where the government enjoys support from relatively docile newspapers and broadcasters, such an incident might have failed to attract wide coverage.

    My Japanese friend wrote telling me how the Korean government’s stopping the Japanese lawmakers from entering Korea prompted all kinds on Takeshima in Japan, which she said was rare. Here is some of what she wrote:

    I was surprised that not only newspapers, but many TV news, breakfast television and wide shows aired the situation precisely. This is extremely rare in Japan. If Korea let them go to Ulleungdo silently, none of Japanese media would have aired this amount of program.

    She then gave me a long lists of links to Japanese coverage of the incident.

    Ampontan has posted another very interesting article on the subject entitled “The drama queendom,” which includes a translation of what Professor Shimojo had to say about the visit. The professor was one of those barred from entering Korea.

  • gbevers

    Frogmouth (#42),

    Let me say it, again. Your site is so full of fabrication and distortion that it is silly. You live in a dream world.

    I am not going to waste my time pointing out all of your fabrications and distortions in the links you posted not only because I have done it a hundred times already, but also because people like Dogbertt have more important things to read and discuss, such as the different varieties of kimchi, or something similar.

  • Q

    Gerry wrote:

    I just finished writing about your post over at the Marmot’s Hole, where they do not generally like to read comments about the Takeshima/Dokdo dispute.

    I will not debate it there and do not recommend that anyone here do either

    Gerry, the liar.

  • gbevers

    Here are a couple of the Japanese TV news stories on the Japanese lawmakers being barred from entering Korea.

    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgihtcq1IiU&feature=player_embedded

    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPkIT1Fk6UM&feature=player_embedded#at=18

  • hamel

    Gerry

    Stop being disingenuous, Robert, or are you just slow?

    This is somewhat ironic because this is what some of us have been asking you for, lo, all these years.

    If by “disingenuous” you mean willfully, deliberately thick, then Gerry Bevers, I’ma hafta call you out on it.

  • gbevers

    Hamel wrote (#48):

    This is somewhat ironic because this is what some of us have been asking you for, lo, all these years.

    If by “disingenuous” you mean willfully, deliberately thick, then Gerry Bevers, I’ma hafta call you out on it.

    Call me out on what, Hamel? Your opinion of me? Shouldn’t you be calling yourself out?

    Here are two more two links to a Japanese news report on Korea’s barring the Japanese lawmakers. This one is longer and more scornful or belittling of the Korean action.

    Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmWQGuYlaqc&feature=player_embedded#at=11

    Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pJW6R0IQJs&feature=player_embedded

  • gbevers
  • Charles Tilly

    @51:

    Them bitches too pale. They need some protein….

  • slim

    If Japan had control of those islands, we’d have some real porn, maybe with squid tentacles!