≡ Menu

Japan abandons effort to buy Korea Amphibious Assault Vehicle: report

Citing a Korean government official, the Hankyoreh reports that Japan apparently abandoned an effort to import the Korea Amphibious Assault Vehicle (KAAV) after President Lee visited Dokdo.

Instead, Japan is now considering purchasing American AAV7s.

According to the official, earlier this year Japan was really interested in importing the KAAV as part of Tokyo’s efforts to deal with the Chinese threat against the Senkaku Islands.

The Japanese felt the KAAV, used by the Korean Marine Corps, was the best fit after US Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the US was suspending development of the EFV.

This was back in those heady days of June, when it looked like Korea and Japan were set to form what critics feared looked a lot like a military alliance. Japan, too, had announced last year it would export weapons to Korea and Australia, and Tokyo figured importing a Korean weapons system first would make later Korean imports of Japanese weapons smoother. Buying and selling weapons would help move the relationship towards a semi-alliance, too.

Then everything pretty much went to shit in July. The military intelligence deal blew up in Lee Myung-bak’s face, one of Lee’s top security advisors was forced to resign, and then President Lee visited Dokdo.

The Korean government had believed the Japanese were still interested in buying the KAAV, and on Aug 27, NHK reported that the JSDF was putting together 3 billion yen to buy four amphibious assault vehicles. Unfortunately, NHK reported the vehicle under consideration was the American AAV7 now used by USFJ.

In other words, with the deterioration in Korea—Japan ties, Tokyo is now going to buy an old-model American fighting vehicle.

Marmot’s Note: Boy, it’s shitburgers all around—Korea loses a historic weapons deal opportunity; Japan has to settle for an outdated weapons system; the United States, Korea and Japan get to ponder the lost strategic opportunities; and the Chinese go to bed knowing that Korea came this close to selling weapons to the Japanese intended for use against them.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

BTW, the KAAV is manufactured by Samsung Techwin. Shitty month for Samsung.

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

  • Barreira

    >>Japan apparently abandoned an effort to import the Korea
    >>Amphibious Assault Vehicle (KAAV) after President Lee visited
    >>Dokdo.
    >>Instead, Japan is now considering purchasing American AAV7s.

    Well, if JP ever goes nuts over the various disputed islands, it would be ironic if they used Korean amphibious vehicles to assault a Korean island. Not that the current JP government would appreciate this, since they seem to lack sense of irony at a biological level….

  • SomeguyinKorea

    “Boy, it’s shitburgers all around—Korea loses a historic weapons deal opportunity; Japan has to settle for an outdated weapons system; the United States, Korea and Japan get to ponder the lost strategic opportunities; and the Chinese go to bed knowing that Korea came this close to selling weapons to the Japanese intended for use against them.”

    Yes, but LMB diverted attention away from his scandal ridden party and regains–possibly–some of the support he lost with that military intelligence sharing plan. ;)

  • slim

    Frivolous actions have consequences, Mr Bulldozer.

  • http://www.busanhaps.com Bobby McGill

    “Those heady days of June”

    Well put. It was during those days when in my head there was a sliver of hope that the region’s two must needed allies would come together. Now it is indeed shitburgers all around and back to square minus one.

  • Seth Gecko

    BTW, the KAAV is manufactured by Samsung Techwin.

    You mean Samsung Techlose.

  • http://www.chinasmack.com/tag/funny/page/3 Jakgani

    LMB messed up.

    He should have thought about things before going to Dokdo.

    Going to Dokdo – didn’t do any good at all – just caused more bad things to happen.

  • DLBarch

    The dismay in American security circles over 2MB’s monumental mishandling of relations with Japan over the last month cannot be overemphasized. The complete meltdown of Chong Wa Dae’s prudent, thoughtful, and considered policymaking vis-a-vis Japan has been an unaccountable wonder to behold.

    To make matters worse, it has all been so unnecessary. If 2MB’s foreign policy stumbles had come in response to some new, aggressive policy initiatives coming out of Tokyo, his missteps could have been forgiven…or at least understood.

    As it is, 2MB and his national security team have inflicted these wounds themselves, almost to the point of committing national security malpractice.

    If the administration can just coast along to December without making any more mistakes before handing the reigns over to the next government, it should count itself lucky.

    DLB

  • cm

    I don’t believe this deal would have gone through, even without the Dokdo issue flaring up again. It would have been a political suicide if Japan had bought this from Korea.

  • cm

    I meant political suicide for Japan’s PM, if Japan had bought this from Korea, even before Dokdo flareup.

  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    Eh, the were just probably flirting with the idea, like Russia. May have ended up buying the French ship, also like Russia.

  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    Btw… doesn’t Japan already have the Ōsumi class LST?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Csumi_class_LST

  • cubuff70

    Isn’t the KAAV just a kimche version of the AAV7? Although a shame that the Japanese and Koreans couldn’t come together on this one in light of the larger danger (Chinese territorial aggression), I think the Japanese will be fine with the AAV7…

  • ysp

    It is misguided to label Korea as the primary or sole instigator here. We known that Japanese policy is that Dokdo is rightfully their land – even if they have not been vocal upfront, they have always been quietly and diligently keeping the Takeshima agenda alive, working steadily behind the scenes on ways to frame the dispute in its own favor internationally.

    Then LMB suddenly visits Dokdo. The Japanese govt can act all surprised and respond indignantly, but the reality is that LMB called them out big time. It was not a petty or impulsive move – actually it is a very strategic one. As people have mentioned, LMB has always been eager to improve relations with Japan, so I do not think that he would have done this kind of thing lightly.

    Reality is that both countries know that increased cooperation is important in the long term, and that there are grievances which impede those efforts and need to be resolved somehow. But through his visit, LMB made clear that Korea will NOT accept Dokdo as a legitimate dispute up for negotiation or which can be used by Japan as diplomatic leverage in shaping the future relations of Korea and Japan.

  • slim

    “But through his visit, LMB made clear that Korea will NOT accept Dokdo as a legitimate dispute up for negotiation or which can be used by Japan as diplomatic leverage in shaping the future relations of Korea and Japan.”

    Nonsense. Korea has never at all wavered on this issue and over the years has only added to fortifications on the island, named battleships after it and drummed the issue into every head in the land for decades in heavy handed propaganda campaigns that would leave the uninformed outsider thinking that Japan controls islands that Korea wants back.

    Lee is a lame duck on his way out and this self-serving opportunism has set back the bilateral relationship with Japan by 5 years and thrown a spanner in the US alliance system at the very time China is flexing its muscles against most of its neighbors. Lee has also set the bar even higher for the next Korean leader who needs a popularity shot in the arm. The news at the top of this thread is relatively minor, but just the beginning.

    How do we say “clusterfuck” in Korean?

  • YangachiBastardo

    Korea has never at all wavered on this issue and over the years has only added to fortifications on the island, named battleships after it and drummed the issue into every head in the land for decades in heavy handed propaganda campaigns that would leave the uninformed outsider thinking that Japan controls islands that Korea wants back

    Oh Lord that was precisely my idea back in 2009, when i expressed this view to my ex i was tsunamied with the loudest “NEVERRRRRRRRRRRR” i ever heard in my life

  • cm

    I’m in favor of taking this to ICJ court and resolve this issue once and for all. On one condition. If Japan loses, the EEZ line shall be redrawn in favor of Korea. If Japan wins, she can have the island. I think this will spread the risks around fairly and evenly – it’ll be risky for both countries to take it to court, and the rewards are rewarding for both, in case the one party wins.

  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    Claw Sta Puck.

  • cm

    My point is, you got to give an incentive to Korea to go to court, other then just getting a moral victory. And give Japan enough risks, so that they don’t think of the court as a can’t lose proposition.

  • DLBarch

    I think Korea should stay as far away from the ICJ as possible. It has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

    As for 2MB, the man lost me when he buckled and forced Kim Tae-Hyo to fall on his sword. Kim is probably one of the most forward-thinking rising stars of Korea’s foreign policy and security establishment. How Chong Wa Dae failed to insulate him from political criticism is just astounding.

    I know all of this has an inside-baseball feel to it, but these things are noticed and talked about in Washington and Tokyo. Kim’s dismissal was a real travesty.

    DLB

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    DLBarch wrote (#17):

    I think Korea should stay as far away from the ICJ as possible. It has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

    No, if Korea agreed with Japan to take their Liancourt Rocks dispute to the ICJ, Korea could possibly gain undisputed title to them and remove a thorn in the side of Korea-Japan relations. If Korea lost, she would lose some barren, poop-covered rocks, but she would gain better relations with Japan and save on the cost of maintaining a police force there.

    If I were Korea, I would sit down with Japan and work out a compromise that might involve turning the Rocks and their underwater plateau into a nature preserve that would be patroled by both countries. The preserve would encompass an area of about a 15km radius which would be banned from exploration and fishing.

  • ysp

    To Slim:
    I never said that Korea wavered – of course they haven’t. But this visit is Korea trying to hit directly at Japan’s efforts to frame this issue to their strategic advantage.

    Basically these islands are not ‘important’ at all, despite all that talk about fishing grounds and natural gas or whatever. I also think Japan knows it will never have sovereignty over them.

    But they are largely want to use it as a piece of diplomatic strategy – for those possible situations where this issue could be utilized as a kind of grievance against Korea, an issue that they can matter-of-factly bring to the tables of diplomatic deliberations between the two countries. (like the way Korea brings historical grievances to diplomatic tables)

    LMB is a human rat, but in this case you can’t explain it by saying he visit Dokdo impulsively, or just to look cool. He is known as being pro-Japan. It was clearly a premeditated move. Remember, both sides recognize the need for improved relations and mutual benefits in the big picture. Achieving this will require discussion and compromise on numerous issues. Korea is effectively stating the Dokdo should not be one of those issues at the table, and of course it goes without saying that they stay away from ICJ.

  • Q

    gbevers wrote:

    If I were Korea,

    sounds so creepy…

  • TheKorean2

    The question should be why the hell does Japanese “SELF-DEFENSE force” needs amphibious assault vehicles in first place? For what? to invade Korea?

    As for Gerry bevers, S.Korea doesn’t need to work out compromise with Japan. There’s NOTHING to gain from Japan alliance in economically or militarily anyways. It’s our sovereign right to protect our territories. If Japan acts like this, its their OWN fault in political suicide.

  • cm

    “If Korea lost, she would lose some barren, poop-covered rocks, but she would gain better relations with Japan and save on the cost of maintaining a police force there.”

    The implications would be much larger then that, when this whole thing will effect both country’s EEZ claims.

    Even if this was somehow solved, I highly doubt it will lead to cooperative relations, when there’s still the history issue.

  • YangachiBastardo

    cm: i think you have more chance to convince Ahmadinejad that Israel is after all not such a bad place

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Cm wrote (#24):

    The implications would be much larger then that, when this whole thing will effect both country’s EEZ claims.

    The ownership of Liancourt Rocks would not affect either country’s EEZ because they would most likely be classified as “rocks,” not an island. Rocks cannot be used to extend a country’s EEZ.

  • TheKorean2

    Gerry bevers, there’s no way S.Korea will give the rocks or islands to Japan for “better relations”. Either way, South Korean EEZ will be affected if they do give them.

  • Creo69

    ” There’s NOTHING to gain from Japan alliance in economically or militarily anyways…”

    And this my friends is why this dribble will continue for eternity. Korea spends a ton of money on the Dokdo issue, along with a ton of emotional capital…a ton. Koreans have everything to gain by learning to get along with their neighbors.

  • Q

    The doomed Japanese economy and national crisis from disasters would make Japan to be more dependent on Korea. It is Japan, not Korea, that needs urgent cooperation with neighbors.

  • TheKorean2

    Creo69, S.Korea do get along with its neighbors, except for Japan of course. But S.Korea isn’t the one claiming her neighbors territories, is she?

  • Hamilton

    Creo69, S.Korea do get along with its neighbors, except for Japan of course.

    So things are just jiffy with NORTH KOREA and CHINA?

    Sometimes the insane crap you say is hillarious. I almost spit coffee all over my keyboard after reading that whopper of a lie.

  • TheKorean2

    Hamilton, as for NK and China, do you see SK claiming their territories? Yes, we do get along even with minor border clashes.

  • http://vmphotography.com.au hoju_saram

    Japan is the main problem in this whole mess. If they dropped the constant low-level antagonizing Korea would probably be less vociferous. Of course, Korea’s problem is learning to ignore them. You see the same sort of interplay between 6-year-olds in every classroom in the world: the little kid who keeps poking the other kid, then hiding the transgression and looking innocent, and the other kid with no self-control screaming and yelling and disrupting the classroom – and ultimately drawing the ire of everyone.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    TheKorean2 wrote:

    But S.Korea isn’t the one claiming her neighbors territories, is she?

    Actually, S. Korea is claiming and illegally occupying her neighbor’s territory because Korea’s claim to the Rocks was rejected by the United States and the signers of the Peace Treaty with Japan in 1951.

  • cm

    “The ownership of Liancourt Rocks would not affect either country’s EEZ because they would most likely be classified as “rocks,” not an island. Rocks cannot be used to extend a country’s EEZ.”

    Gbevers, neither of the country, S.Korea and Japan would agree with you. And that’s what counts most. That’s why the EEZ question must be included with Dokdo/Takeshima question if that is ever going to be addressed at the ICJ.

  • cm

    #33,

    and the teacher is Gbevers, constantly admonishing the picked on kid, while patting the head of his favorite student (the kid who’s doing the poking), who happens to be the teacher’s pet.

  • TheKorean2

    Of course hoju saram, if you look at the bigger picture, it isn’t S.Korea who isn’t antagonizing its neighbors, its Japan. S.Korea is open for better relations with its neighbors (NK, China, and Japan). All of which are quarrelsome in different degrees. You can blame Japan for starting all this mess, deteriorating SK-Japan relations.

  • cm

    #37,

    Korea can have better relations with Japan simply by just ignoring their claims.

  • TheKorean2

    Gbevers, you mean illegal as in taking over in 1905? The same time when Korea was Japanese protectorate. Oh, btw, Korea was not a signatory to the peace treaty of 1951.

  • TheKorean2

    Cm, yes but Japan isn’t ignoring the issue as well. If Dokdo or any other territories goes to Japan, its a symbol of the same imperial ambitions that Japan did back in 1905 on Korea.

  • jk6411

    TheKorean2,

    Your ID is hilarious, by the way. :-)
    And I thought I had the most unimaginative ID on this blog..

  • jk6411

    TK might sue you for copying his name.
    You may have to pay him a royalty. ;)

  • Creo69

    “But S.Korea isn’t the one claiming her neighbors territories, is she?”

    Canada could claim Alaska is theirs from sun up till sundown…Americans wouldn’t give it the time of day. We know it is ours. Dokdo will belong to Korea when Koreans actually believe it is theirs. At that point there is nothing to squabble over.

  • cm

    TheKorean2, why would any of the territories go to Japan? That’s just paranoia. Just ignore the damn trolls, ever heard of that before?

  • TheKorean2

    Creo69, of course America won’t give a crap, you know why? Because Canada and America have been in good and peaceful terms for decades. I don’t think you know the whole situation here, Dokdo is a symbol of Korean sovereignty, its Japan who is squabbling over it. Koreans are retaliating and defending their territory.

  • cm

    It’s like talking to a wall…

  • Hamilton

    Hamilton, as for NK and China, do you see SK claiming their territories?

    Actually I and the rest of the world do. The norKs claim that South Korea illegally occupies territory in the East Sea. I guess you have never heard of their issues with the NLL. China claims every piece of dirt of sea that a Chinaman every visited or pissed on in the last 5000 years so they are claiming the entire Yellow Sea.

    Yes, we do get along even with minor border clashes.

    Not very minor for the families of those killed by North Korea.

    So Japan has killed how many Koreans since 1945? 0 or so?. North Korea has killed hundreds, kidnapped more including blowing civilian airliners out of the sky, blowing a ship in 2 in 2010 and shelling a South Korean Island.

    Yes I can see it now, North Korea is a much better neighbor than Japan. You my friend have battered wife syndrome.

  • H.Schmidt

    KAAVs are much more advanced than AAV7s. I’m surprised Japan is actually going to buy the outdated AAV7s.

    It really tells you how much Japan hates Korea.

  • TheKorean2

    Hamilton, I don’t know about the North Korean or Chinese claims as you say but Japan has always denied the past and claims Korean territory. Japanese have done far much atrocities to Korean people than North Koreans ever did. The South Koreans can forgive their northern brothers but never the Japanese.

  • AED

    u sure about that? the korean war was quite the bloody conflict. and if south koreans can forgive their northern brothers can they not forgiev their eastern cousins?

  • hacker

    AED – The million dollar question

  • TheKorean2

    AED, Korean war was a civil war in Korea 60 years ago torn by two foreign superpowers, we can forgive our northern brothers. Japanese atrocities on Korean people far outnumbered the North Koreans 20 to 1.

  • hacker

    Being surrounded by hostile neighbors is so much fun, gives an unending chain of blame.

  • Q

    gbevers wrote:

    Korea’s claim to the Rocks was rejected by the United States and the signers of the Peace Treaty with Japan in 1951.

    Why do you keep lying, gbevers? SCAPIN excluded Dokdo from Japan and SF Peace Treaty confirmed SCAPIN directives:

    Japan recognizes the validity of all acts and omissions done during the period of occupation under or in consequence of directives of the occupation authorities

  • Creo69

    “Creo69, of course America won’t give a crap, you know why? Because Canada and America have been in good and peaceful terms for decades. I don’t think you know the whole situation here, Dokdo is a symbol of Korean sovereignty, its Japan who is squabbling over it. Koreans are retaliating and defending their territory.”

    I have been watching this go back and forth on a daily basis for EIGHT years. It takes two parties to squabble. When one quits it is over. If it belongs to Korea, what the hell is there to squabble over? It is like someone trying to lay claim to my virginity. I know it is mine. Not even worthy of a response.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    The Korean2 wrote (#39):

    Oh, btw, Korea was not a signatory to the peace treaty of 1951.

    Are you suggesting that Korea is still part of the Japanese Empire, including the islands of Chejudo, Ulleungdo, and Geomundo?

    Korea, of course, was not a signatory to the treaty because Korea was part of the Japanese Empire and fought on the side of Japan. Japan, who signed for you, simply agreed to break up its empire and give you the part that was Korea.

  • TheKorean2

    Gerry bevers, what are you saying? S.Korea never signed the peace treaty of 1951. Korea wasn’t part of Japan in 1951, idiot.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    However, Korean2, Japan did not agree to give you Liancourt Rocks.

  • cm

    hahahaha…

    shakes my head, two hands on the face, here comes the lunatic brigade.

  • TheKorean2

    Creo69, why don’t you ask the Japanese government to stop the claims on Dokdo. Why do Japanese squabble over their own disputed islands?

  • hacker

    Funny someone would actually use the US and Canada as a territory dispute reference. There are currently 5 disputes that NO ONE reads about in the papers and I would bet most people don’t even know about.

  • TheKorean2

    Gerry bevers, the Allied powers did, with approval of Syngman Rhee line, given back to its former owners before 1905.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    The Korean2 wrote (#57):

    S.Korea never signed the peace treaty of 1951. Korea wasn’t part of Japan in 1951, idiot.

    Legally, I think, Korea was still part of Japan; otherwise, why did Article 2a of the treaty say the following:

    Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

  • TheKorean2

    Gerry bevers, Legally? 1951, Korea was already divided into two sovereign states.

  • Q

    Japanese proverb: 嘘も百回繰り返せば真実になる (거짓말도 백번하면 진실이 된다. If you tell a lie big enough and repeated often, then people will believe it at the end.)

    “I call it the sickness of Japan. First, we hide, then we postpone, and then we assume no responsibility.” Misyhei Murata (Japan’s former Ambassador to Switzerland – 6:43)

  • Creo69

    “Creo69, why don’t you ask the Japanese government to stop the claims on Dokdo. Why do Japanese squabble over their own disputed islands?”

    First, because I don’t believe that Dokdo belongs to Japan and never have. Korea has the real power on this issue and the real power to end the dispute in an instant. Two, because for the Japanese this issue is not about “land.” It is about annoying the hell out of Koreans and rubbing salt in their wounds. The Japanese feel absolutely no emotional pain over this issue and would love if it continued indefinitely. The only ones who suffer the effects of the hate this issue generates are Koreans.

    Next week all the teachers at the school I work at are holding classes pertaining to Dokdo at my school. It sickens me to think that the nice kids at my school are going to have this hatred and pain inserted in their hearts and will hold it while they wait for an acknowledgement and apology from Japan that will never arrive.

    Do you honestly believe Japan will ever issue and apology to Koreans that will be sufficient? Or, is the real solution for Koreans to move on and allow their hearts and minds to begin to heal.

  • TheKorean2

    Creo69, with the historical barrage and other disputes, I think Koreans will fight this til the end as well. We can’t move on until Japan moves on and stop this crap.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    TheKorean2 wrote:

    Gerry bevers, the Allied powers did, with approval of Syngman Rhee line, given back to its former owners before 1905.

    The Allied Powers did not approve the Syngman Rhee Line. The “MacArthur Line” was to stand only until the treaty came into force.”

  • Q

    Sincerity, sincerity, sincerity! Willy Brandt’s Silent Apology :

    On December 7, 1970, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt travelled to Warsaw, Poland and dropped to his knees before the monument to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943. Many in Poland and Germany were deeply moved by this famous gesture of repentance and apology.

  • hamel

    Legally, I think, Korea was still part of Japan; otherwise, why did Article 2a of the treaty say the following:

    Seriously, Gerry? So the 1948 creation of the Republic of Korea, that the United Nations and the United States gave their blessing to and oversaw, was a sham, a legal fiction?

    Or, could it perhaps be different: maybe the 1951 peace treaty enshrined on paper Japanese recgnition of something that had already taken place, so that nobody (in Japan or elsewhere) could later on turn around and say “Japan has never recognized Korean independence”?

  • Creo69

    “Creo69, with the historical barrage and other disputes, I think Koreans will fight this til the end as well. We can’t move on until Japan moves on and stop this crap.”

    What is the “end” and at what price will that come? Seems to me that the “end” is an acknowledgement and apology of a magnitude that can never be satisfied. Is there an apology that could equal the pain that the Japanese caused? Impossible. The ONLY solution is for Koreans to stop this squabbling and put this energy towards something positive.

  • TheKorean2

    Gever bevers, the Syngman Rhee Line was implemented after MacArthur line was abolished. Back then, Japan wasn’t even independent.

    Go read this: “A Study on the Legitimacy of the Peace Line” by Prof. Hosaka Yuji

  • jk6411

    At times like this, I wish I were a Finn..

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Hamel wrote (#70):

    Seriously, Gerry? So the 1948 creation of the Republic of Korea, that the United Nations and the United States gave their blessing to and oversaw, was a sham, a legal fiction?

    Read the August 10, 1951 letter from US Asst. Secretary of State Dean Rusk to the South Korean Ambassador:

    The United States Government does not feel that the Treaty should adopt the theory that Japan’s acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration.

    Dean Rusk added:

    As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.

    Regarding the MacArthur Line, the Secretary wrote:

    The Government of the United States regrets that it is unable to accept the Korean Government’s amendment to Article 9 of the draft treaty. In view of the many national interests involved, any attempt to include in the treaty provisions governing fishing in high seas areas would indefinitely delay the treaty’s conclusion. It is desired to point out, however, that the so-called MacArthur line will stand until the treaty comes into force, and that Korea, which obtains the benefits of Article 9, will have the opportunity of negotiating a fishing agreement with Japan prior to that date.

    Korea did not negotiate a fishing agreement with Japan before the date of the signing of the treaty.

  • http://pawikoreapics.blogspot.com/ pawikirogii 石鵝

    forgiveness? have the japanese asked to be forgiven?

  • Creo69

    “Sincerity, sincerity, sincerity! Willy Brandt’s Silent Apology :

    On December 7, 1970, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt travelled to Warsaw, Poland and dropped to his knees before the monument to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943. Many in Poland and Germany were deeply moved by this famous gesture of repentance and apology.”

    In the article it says “he dropped to his knees.” Got news for you…you will never see a Japanese Prime Minister on his knees apologizing to Korea in your life time. For that matter, Koreans would probably say, “this has been done before … insufficient.”

    The Dokdo issue is not about a resolution, it is about a perverse pleasure that both parties receive from the continuity of this argument. This argument will continue until the hatred in the hearts of Koreans has been burned away over time. I suspect a very, very long time.

  • H.Schmidt

    Gerry Bevers is a troll. Don’t feed the troll guys.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    TheKorean2 wrote:

    Gever bevers, the Syngman Rhee Line was implemented after MacArthur line was abolished. Back then, Japan wasn’t even independent.

    No, Syngman Rhee declared his “Peace Line” on January 18, 1952. The Treaty did not go into effect until April 28, 1952.

    Syngman Rhee declared his “Peace Line” after he was told by the US that Korea would not get Liancourt Rocks. He did it to unilaterally claim Liancourt Rocks.

    By the way, Korea was not “legally” independent in January 1952, either.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    H.Schmidt wrote (#77):

    Gerry Bevers is a troll. Don’t feed the troll guys.

    Because I actually quote historical documents?

  • hamel

    Because I actually quote historical documents?

    No, because you make silly statements such as this:

    By the way, Korea was not “legally” independent in January 1952, either.

    By the way, you didn’t answer my earlier question:

    Was the 1948 creation of the Republic of Korea, that the United Nations and the United States gave their blessing to and oversaw, a sham, a legal fiction?

  • jk6411

    The Dokdo issue is not about a resolution, it is about a perverse pleasure that both parties receive from the continuity of this argument.

    Creo,
    Watch your mouth.

    Koreans don’t want to hate Japan.
    In fact, when Japan was hit by the March 2011 earthquake, Koreans were initially filled with compassion and donated a huge amount of money to help Japan.
    They donated more money for the Japan earthquake than they had ever done for any foreign natural disaster.

    (Of course, their hearts soon changed when Japanese govt brought out new school textbooks saying that Dokdo is Japanese.
    But initially they were very compassionate and wanted to help Japan in any way possible.)

  • hamel

    In fact, wasn’t Douglas MacArthur himself present in Seoul to proclaim the Republic of Korea on August 15, 1948?

    And there was a US Embassy (amongst others)in Seoul by June 25, 1950.

    How what all that be possible if, as you say, Korea was still “legally” under Japanese sovereignty.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Hamel wrote (#80):

    Was the 1948 creation of the Republic of Korea, that the United Nations and the United States gave their blessing to and oversaw, a sham, a legal fiction?

    They must have been “conditional” blessings. Did you not read or understand what the Rusk Letter said?

    The United States Government does not feel that the Treaty should adopt the theory that Japan’s acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration.

    That means that in August 1951 the United States believed that Korea was still formally part of Japan.

  • cm

    Shouldn’t have helped, really. It’s not really help if there are strings attached. Would have been better off not helping in the first place.

  • cm

    ^ I’m referring to #81

  • hamel

    Gerry:

    Was the 1948 creation of the Republic of Korea, that the United Nations and the United States gave their blessing to and oversaw, a sham, a legal fiction?

    They must have been “conditional” blessings. Did you not read or understand what the Rusk Letter said?

    I read the sections you quoted, and again, helpfully, below, and I believe that we have different understandings of the letter.

    The United States Government does not feel that the Treaty should adopt the theory that Japan’s acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration.

    That means that in August 1951 the United States believed that Korea was still formally part of Japan.

    I don’t think that is what it means at all.

    By 1951, Korea already had foreign embassies, foreign loans, representation (though not yet membership) at the United Nations (장면/John Chang, I believe).

    The Korean War started because, in the eyes of the UN and the US, one nation had invaded another sovereign nation’s territory. I don’t recall reading that there was a debate in the UN Security Council about whether North Korea had invaded Japan’s territory or not. It was understood immediately that it was the Republic of Korea who had been invaded.

    It would be helpful if there were a scholar of international law here to guide us in our interpretation of Rusk’s letter, the San Fran Peace Treaty and so on, but no, I don’t agree with your understanding at this point in time.

  • Creo69

    “Creo,
    Watch your mouth.

    Koreans don’t want to hate Japan.
    In fact, when Japan was hit by the March 2011 earthquake, Koreans were initially filled with compassion and donated a huge amount of money to help Japan.
    They donated more money for the Japan earthquake than they had ever done for any foreign natural disaster.

    (Of course, their hearts soon changed when Japanese govt brought out new school textbooks saying that Dokdo is Japanese.
    But initially they were very compassionate and wanted to help Japan in any way possible.)”

    As you may have noticed I used the word “perverse” to describe the relationship between Korea and Japan. “Perverse” at best to a rationale observer.

  • TheKorean2

    Creo69, it wasn’t Korea who invaded Japan, it was the other way around. Stop trying to blame Korea for fault here. It’s Japan who is ALWAYS the hostile one.

    As for Gerry Bevers, you need to stop assuring something that isn’t true. South Korea was already sovereign since 1948 while Japan wasn’t at that time.

  • jk6411

    I’m sorry.
    In my last comment I accidentally left out the most impt part of your quote:

    “This argument will continue until the hatred in the hearts of Koreans has been burned away over time.”

  • cm

    I tell ya, I think the roles of trolling and reacting has reversed itself, with Japan increasingly acting like jerks. Like this where Japan has just lifted the ban on Rising Sun flags at sporting events, and the crowds entered the stadium with scores of Rising Sun flags in a U-20 Woman’s soccer game between Japan and Korea.

    http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=shm&sid1=104&oid=020&aid=0002363252

    There were 200 Korean supporters in the crowd, facing off across them were the Japanese nationalists holding and waving the flags, much to the chagrine of the Korean supporters.

    Things must be pretty tough in Japan right now, since the Japanese nationalism is off the roof.

  • Creo69

    “Stop trying to blame Korea for fault here. ”

    Korea is 50% of the problem…they have the choice to quit responding to Japan today. They choose to do otherwise. You can’t have “tit for tat” without a little “tit.”

  • cm

    The best outcome for Korea and Japan right now, is everyone to just step back, and just ignore one another.

  • Creo69

    “I tell ya, I think the roles of trolling and reacting has reversed itself, with Japan increasingly acting like jerks. Like this where Japan has just lifted the ban on Rising Sun flags at sporting events, and the crowds entered the stadium with scores of Rising Sun flags in a U-20 Woman’s soccer game between Japan and Korea.

    http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=shm&sid1=104&oid=020&aid=0002363252

    There were 200 Korean supporters in the crowd, facing off across them were the Japanese nationalists holding and waving the flags, much to the chagrine of the Korean supporters.

    Things must be pretty tough in Japan right now, since the Japanese nationalism is off the roof.”

    Because Koreans getting kicked out of the Olympics for political messages and Koreans tossing bottles of human feces at the Japanese embassy is more favorable, right?

    Again, plenty of blame to go around for both sides and there always is.

  • cm

    #91, agree with Creo, wouldn’t it look better for Korea if Korea took the high road?

  • Creo69

    “The best outcome for Korea and Japan right now, is everyone to just step back, and just ignore one another.”

    CM,

    I agree with you 100%. It may not be as much fun but this is the healthy thing for Koreans to do. Ignore them and put the energy into something positive.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com setnaffa

    Does “the Bev” post on ROKdrop as “Tom”?

  • Q

    Japanese government is on full-blown conflict with neighbors over islands: Japan MPs defy PM’s bid to calm island row with China.

    As such, part-time job Japanophile trolls got busier…

  • Creo69

    “Like this where Japan has just lifted the ban on Rising Sun flags at sporting events, and the crowds entered the stadium with scores of Rising Sun flags in a U-20 Woman’s soccer game between Japan and Korea.”

    That is actually pretty horrible. But what does it tell you about the attitude of the Japanese…think Koreans will be getting that apology they are waiting for anytime soon?

  • cm

    #98,

    no. The more Koreans demand from Japan, the more hardened Japan gets.

  • Q

    Creo69 wants Korea to find “ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

  • Creo69

    “no. The more Koreans demand from Japan, the more hardened Japan gets.”

    Actually, the way I see it. The height of Japanese apologies is now behind us. Japan has tired of being contrite and being shamed by Koreans eternally. They also think enough time has passed where the rest of the world views these acts as something far in the past.

    Sun Flags are just the start.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Setnaffa wrote (#96):

    Does “the Bev” post on ROKdrop as “Tom”?

    I always post under my real name, Mr. Naffa.

  • http://pawikoreapics.blogspot.com/ pawikirogii 石鵝

    ‘The height of Japanese apologies is now behind us. Japan has tired of being contrite and being shamed by Koreans eternally. They also think enough time has passed where the rest of the world views these acts as something far in the past.’ said the little creep

    ‘hahahahahaha.’ pawi

  • Q

    “Legitimate” rapists do not know apology, because they believe female bodies have ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    Japan has tired of being contrite and being shamed by Koreans eternally.

    Interesting way of looking at it. Others might look at recent statements and assume the Japanese were never really contrite or ashamed at all.

  • Q

    Gerry, do you agree with this article? The US, not Japan, was the Aggressor

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    Hamel—Read Q’s link. It’s hella funny.

  • TheKorean2

    pawikirogii, I like your site. Hilarious.

  • Creo69

    “‘The height of Japanese apologies is now behind us. Japan has tired of being contrite and being shamed by Koreans eternally. They also think enough time has passed where the rest of the world views these acts as something far in the past.’ said the little creep

    ‘hahahahahaha.’ pawi”

    Pawi,

    Do you seriously think in the future Koreans will receive more than they already have from the Japanese? I am asking you a serious question. And if you do, I would be interested to hear the scenario you believe this will happen under. Personally, I just can’t imagine it.

  • http://pawikoreapics.blogspot.com/ pawikirogii 石鵝

    thanks. i’ve been meaning to update w more gerry bevers movie posters so stay tuned! :-D

  • Creo69

    “Interesting way of looking at it. Others might look at recent statements and assume the Japanese were never really contrite or ashamed at all.”

    I was stating what I perceive the Japanese perspective to be on this issue. How do you think they “look” at this?

  • cm

    Creo69. I disagree. Japanese were never contrite nor ashamed. They merely tried their put their best face forward while politely denying everything. Everything is changing because Japan is fearful for its future and Japanese are confused where their country is going. Nationalism that was always under their surface, is the only thing that they can fall back to.

    Korea’s constant harping at Japan, has lead to this. More harping on Japan will only drive the Japanese into a tighter defensive shell. Best thing for Korea to do is accept the fact Japan will never change, and stop harping. Instead redirect the wasted energy to economically beat them.

  • Creo69

    “Creo69. I disagree. Japanese were never contrite nor ashamed. ”

    You guys are trying to make it sound like I BELIEVE that the Japanese were contrite and ashamed. Not happening. I said I believe the Japanese BELIEVE they were contrite and ashamed.

    Other than that, I agree with your statement. I think the back and forth is not productive and is not going to badger the Japanese into an apology. They view this time as their past and only wish to put it behind them.

  • http://pawikoreapics.blogspot.com/ pawikirogii 石鵝

    yes i do. its in japans interest to have good relations w korea. look,
    do you know anything about koreans? i know you are an expert w everything wrong in korrabut do eber noyice what is right about the place? koreans still have a sense of forgiveness. if japan eere actually show some contrition over what thry did to koteans, we wont have this issue to talk about. how might they do this?

    1. remove class a war criminals from yasukuni. make it a crime for any politician to step foot on gtounds that harbor class a war criminals.
    2. compensate all former sex dlaves regardless of ethnicity.
    3. revise history books to show yhe true of jspanese behavior.
    4. have japanesr king go to korea and apologize to the korean people. he must do this outside the thrown room of kyeongbok palace

  • http://pawikoreapics.blogspot.com/ pawikirogii 石鵝

    sorry; mobile.

  • Creo69

    “yes i do.”

    Pawi,

    OK…another question. Do you think any progress has been made towards achieving your four items? Honestly, I get so bogged down in the media from both sides that I just don’t see the progress if there is any to be seen. And, I have been reading about these issues daily for going on 8 years now.

  • http://pawikoreapics.blogspot.com/ pawikirogii 石鵝

    i apologize to you for calling you a creep. i can see you are more fair minded thsn i thought. no, no progress made on the four items. yet. korea just became rich, as time goes on, it will become more difficult for japan to ignore korean sentiment. sorry for shrt reply. hrd to wrte on mobile.

  • Creo69

    Pawi,

    I wish that I could agree you but I can’t. Younger Koreans today certainly don’t have the animosity towards Japan that the people I work with who are over 50-60 have. Another generation of Koreans and I just don’t feel they will be nearly as passionate about demanding the things you wish for. At some point and time, the horrors of yesterday will be viewed as something you can’t fairly hold the current generation accountable for. Of course, maybe that generation will have less “face” to lose and be willing to make a sincere apology.

  • Wedge

    Oh, cool, just what we need: another Liancourt Rocks pissing contest on the Hole. Let me sum up my feelings on the topic: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz [bumps head on desk, drools].

  • hamel
  • YangachiBastardo

    At times like this, I wish I were a Finn

    LOL i have the same feeling when i listen to these guys:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7kJRGPgvRQ

  • hamel

    Gerry: sorry, I seem to have Sperwered the HTML tags, so I must repost:

    Was the 1948 creation of the Republic of Korea, that the United Nations and the United States gave their blessing to and oversaw, a sham, a legal fiction?

    They must have been “conditional” blessings. Did you not read or understand what the Rusk Letter said?

    I read the sections you quoted, and again, helpfully, below, and I believe that we have different understandings of the letter.

    The United States Government does not feel that the Treaty should adopt the theory that Japan’s acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration.

    That means that in August 1951 the United States believed that Korea was still formally part of Japan.

    I don’t think that is what it means at all.

    By 1951, Korea already had foreign embassies, foreign loans, representation (though not yet membership) at the United Nations (장면/John Chang, I believe).

    The Korean War started because, in the eyes of the UN and the US, one nation had invaded another sovereign nation’s territory. I don’t recall reading that there was a debate in the UN Security Council about whether North Korea had invaded Japan’s territory or not. It was understood immediately that it was the Republic of Korea who had been invaded.

    It would be helpful if there were a scholar of international law here to guide us in our interpretation of Rusk’s letter, the San Fran Peace Treaty and so on, but no, I don’t agree with your understanding at this point in time.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Creo69 wrote (#118):

    I wish that I could agree you but I can’t. Younger Koreans today certainly don’t have the animosity towards Japan that the people I work with who are over 50-60 have.

    That is because Koreans in their 50s and 60s grew up hearing Rhee Syngman’s rabid anti-Japanese propaganda. The Koreans I knew who had actually lived during the colonial period did not hate the Japanese the way your 50- and 60-year-olds do. On the contrary, all the colonial-aged Koreans I have talked with liked the Japanese and said they had never had any problem with them.

  • hamel

    On the contrary, all the colonial-aged Koreans I have talked with liked the Japanese and said they had never had any problem with them.

    The plural of anecdote is not data, Gerry.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    I don’t think that is what it means at all

    What DO YOU think it means, then, Hamel. You have a deplorable penchant for responding to reasoned arguments (NB that I don’t say conclusive) with simple blanket denials

  • hamel

    Sperwer: Well, as I hinted at to Gerry at least twice, I believe that when the United States and United Nations midwifed the birth of the Republic of Korea in 1948, they were actually engaged in the creation of a sovereign state, not some potential state, pending a future signing of a peace treaty with Japan.

    At the same time, I believe that the creation of the new nation of the Republic of Korea did not simultaneously mean Japan’s abrogation of claims to that territory. That was enshrined in the San Fran Peace Treaty of 1951.

    While these two things do seem to be contradictory, I do not believe they are mutually exclusive, NOR do I believe that Japanese sovereignty over Korea continued, de facto or de jure, until the 1951 Treaty.

    Furthermore, I believe that, when the DPRK invaded the ROK in 1950, it was one state invading another, not one half of a rebellious Japanese province invading the other half.

    These are the things that I believe now, because they are the facts as I see them.

    As a former lawyer, and student at the alma mater of Hugo Grotius, perhaps you can enlighten me if I am wrong.

  • hamel

    Sperwer: and if we are to speak about penchants, your own one for using exceedingly negative adjectives in front of nouns connected to interlocutors with whom you do not agree is quite striking.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Yeah, but it elicited any answer this time, unlike by previous inquiries to you.

    And I think you are just right on your interpretation. So why not articulate it, instead of coyly baiting Bevers.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    “an”, “my”

  • hamel

    Sperwer: perhaps because I hope (perhaps naively), that by asking some Socratic questions and having Gerry do the reasoning through (e.g. Was the 1948 creation of the Republic of Korea, that the United Nations and the United States gave their blessing to and oversaw, a sham, a legal fiction?), he will figure out for himself that what he is asserting doesn’t make any sense in terms of the facts.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Socratic interrogation is best left to a Socratic genius who has the help of a Platonic puppet to craft the dialogue so it goes just the way he needs it to.

  • hamel

    Thank you, oh wise one.

    Even though it doesn’t work on Gerry, I think the point is made to others sometimes.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Hamel wrote (#124):

    The plural of anecdote is not data, Gerry.

    I would love to see some legitimate data on Korea’s colonial period. Do you have a link to some?

    I have found that Koreans tell their true feelings about the colonial period when no other Koreans are around. Here is my anecdote:

    I am jogging in Incheon’s “Central Park” when an elderly Korean man calls me over to his bench and asks me to sit down. He tells me I shouldn’t over do it. Apparently, I look as if I am ready to have a heart attack. Anyway, he starts speaking to me in English and tells me that he lives nearby with his son and daughter-in-law.

    I ask him where he learned English. He says he learned it on a US army base in Taegu, where he worked after the war. I ask him if he lived during the colonial period. He says, “Yes.” I then ask him what it was like during the colonial period. He looks at the ground and shakes his head from side to side and says, “It was bad.”

    I tell him that my mother-in-law told me she liked the Japanese and had no problem them. He suddenly looks up, smiles at me, and says, “I liked the Japanese, too.” He then pulls out a Japanese literary magazine from inside his jacket and says he gets one every month. He says he comes to the park almost everyday to read it because he doesn’t want to lose his Japanese language skills.

    In a 2004 BBC News article entitled “Sumo returns to Seoul,” I thought the following quotes were interesting:

    Thousands of Koreans turned out on the first day – some drawn by curiosity, others by nostalgia.

    “I last saw sumo here in 1942,” said Lee Byoeng-chon, who like many Koreans of his generation was educated in Japanese.

    “I’ve overcome my hard feelings towards Japan. It’s often the younger people who are more hostile. They’ve been fed only the worst stories about the colonial period but they don’t know the reality the way we do.”

  • hamel

    I would love to see some legitimate data on Korea’s colonial period. Do you have a link to some?

    I doubt we could agree on what constituted legitimate data.

    I am jogging in Incheon’s “Central Park” when an elderly Korean man calls me over to his bench and asks me to sit down.

    I wonder how many times you have posted that anecdote here, Gerry. Do you retype it each time, or do you copy and paste it?

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    @132

    We should go on the road as Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon ;)

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    @132

    I also think it only works on those who are relatively uninformed and/or haven’t thought through their position – in which case it’s really a matter of pearls among swine, not a jewel in its own right

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Hamel wrote:

    I wonder how many times you have posted that anecdote here, Gerry. Do you retype it each time, or do you copy and paste it?

    I think I retype it everytime because that is one of my favorite anecdotes. You should have seen the smile on the man’s face when I told him my Korean mother-in-law liked the Japanese.

    However, I do search for the Sumo wrestling quote each time. By the way, what do you think of that quote?

  • hamel

    gbevers: I don’t suspect your integrity that much that I don’t believe the anecdotes themselves. I am pretty sure they happened as you told them (there was also another pro-Japanese memory anecdote that you have told before, but not on this occasion).

    However I also have read about the destruction of Shinto shrines in Korea that took place almost immediately after the announcement of Japanese surrender. There was also the celebration that took place at Dongdaemun Stadium (among others).

  • TheKorean2

    Gerry Bevers,
    So what if some elderly person has some good memories in the colonial period. What does that have to do with anything? I don’t know why you call our first president “anti-Japanese” when he was one of the leaders of the provisional government. You can call most of our presidents, “anti-Japanese” since they didn’t like them.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Hamel wrote:

    However I also have read about the destruction of Shinto shrines in Korea that took place almost immediately after the announcement of Japanese surrender. There was also the celebration that took place at Dongdaemun Stadium (among others).

    When the North Korean Army entered Seoul in June 1950, Seoulites had hung up signs and banners that read, “Welcome Liberators.”

    Korea was on the losing side in World War II, so switching loyalties was the wise thing to do. Have you seen the movie “The Outlaw Josey Wales”?

    Outlaw Josey Wales: Missouri Boat Ride

  • hamel

    When the North Korean Army entered Seoul in June 1950, Seoulites had hung up signs and banners that read, “Welcome Liberators.”

    Korea was on the losing side in World War II, so switching loyalties was the wise thing to do.

    I was careful not to make any mention of Koreans welcoming the arriving American and Russian forces. I was talking about spontaneous celebrations of the loss of Japan and reprisals against Japanese, almost a month before the Americans showed up, and when the Japanese were still in charge. Therefore, I think the charge of “switching loyalties” is irrelevant, because there was nobody to switch to until September 8th!

    Have you seen the movie “The Outlaw Josey Wales”?

    Never heard of it.

  • hamel

    Robert Koehler:

    Hamel—Read Q’s link. It’s hella funny.

    If you are referring to the link at #106 above, I have read the first section but am yet to find a funny part. Should I keep reading?

    I know an American man off-blog, who in his discussions with me has expressed a view not so dissimilar to that in the first section of the article from the SDH-Fact – i.e. it could be argued that the Americans pushed Japan to war through its economic and oil blockade.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    @143
    A lot of people on the left make that argument. I bet you could find it or its equivalent somewhere in Cousin Brucie Cumin’s work

  • hamel

    Sperwer: it seems from the article that a Secretary of the United States made that argument, though 13 years beforehand. Whether wright or wrong, no SecState would make that argument after 1941.

  • Arghaeri

    virginity. I know it is mine. Not even worthy of a response.

    How so Creo, I heard you gave it away years ago? Surely your not seriously still claiming possession?

  • Arghaeri

    That means that in August 1951 the United States believed that Korea was still formally part of Japan.

    No Gerry it means precisely what it says that he did not consider that it constituted a formal renunciation of sovereignty by Japan. Not that Korea was formally part of Japan.

  • http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

    “How so Creo, I heard you gave it away years ago? Surely, you’re not seriously still claiming possession?”

    Hey, Arghaeri, hearsay is no evidence. If Creo claims it and nobody else does, it’s his! I don’t hear anybody else claiming his virginity, but I do hear that possession is nine-tenths of the law, so the claim alone must be worth at least six-tenths! Or do you imagine he has to have a patent?

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

  • cm

    I think it’s funny Gbevers keeps repeating the history of Korea according to Uyoku dantai. Korea was still part of Japanese Empire in 1952? Hey, I learn something new everyday! Honestly, I don’t know why anybody would bother to debate this guy. LOL.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Gerry: “If Korea lost, she would lose some barren, poop-covered rocks, but she would gain better relations with Japan and save on the cost of maintaining a police force there.”

    Cm: “The implications would be much larger then that, when this whole thing will effect both country’s EEZ claims.”

    Gerry: “The ownership of Liancourt Rocks would not affect either country’s EEZ because they would most likely be classified as “rocks,” not an island. Rocks cannot be used to extend a country’s EEZ.”

    Cm: Gbevers, neither of the country, S.Korea and Japan would agree with you. And that’s what counts most. That’s why the EEZ question must be included with Dokdo/Takeshima question if that is ever going to be addressed at the ICJ.

    Cm: I think it’s funny Gbevers keeps repeating the history of Korea according to Uyoku dantai. Korea was still part of Japanese Empire in 1952? Hey, I learn something new everyday! Honestly, I don’t know why anybody would bother to debate this guy. LOL.

    Gerry: I enjoyed our debate, Cm.

  • Q

    gbever wrote:

    I enjoyed our debate

    Gerry, this is for you. Tell your boss that you did not miss your work:

    Nippon Kaigi Kokkai Giin Kondankai (日本会議国会議員懇談会)

    Multi-partisan. Established in 1997 and is the largest organization demanding the revision of the constitution. The Japan League, often called the “Japan Conference” in English, denies that World War II was a war of aggression; it downplays the Nanjing Masacre; wants education reform with a strong central control and an educaatino curriculum based on patriotic values; and rejects equality between the sexes. Diet Members’ Japan League was established to support and work with Japan League.

    The Diet Member’s Japan League has three main political goals: 1) history/education/family issues; 2) defense/diplomacy/territory issues (headed by current PM Abe Shinzo in 2002); and 3) Constitution/Imperial Family/Yasukuni Shrine issues. It has succeeded in producing a textbook on morality, Note for Heart.

    LDP Policy Research Council Chairman Shoichi Nakagawa is the Acting Chair, Prime Minister Abe is the Deputy Chief Secretary, Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Hakubun Shimomura is the Secretary General and Foreign Minister Taro Aso is a Special Advisers to Prime Minister Abe belong to this group. The League’s President is Takeo Hiranuma, former METI minister, who is a signatory to the “Facts” advertisement in the Washington Post.

    Website: http://www.nipponkaigi.org

  • cm

    #149,

    Yes Gerry. I just realized today how much time I wasted on you. It’s few minutes of my life I’ll never get back.

  • tapadamornin

    I’m new to this site and based out of Japan, but wanted to quickly chime in on a few comments above.

    Sadly, whomever is at fault in this whole situation, it’s almost guaranteed to get worse now. The DPJ (the more liberal of the two major parties) is completely floundering right now, and the LDP — the more right-wing party — is probably going to gain a lot of ground in the next election. There are a couple of people here who seem to believe that all the Japanese are right-wing nationalists, but the DPJ — for the most part — has done a pretty good job of keeping people away from Yasukuni, and have tried to improve bilateral ties with Korea since they first came into power a couple of years ago. The same can’t be said for the LDP, and territorial disputes are going to heat up if they regain control of the government. Already, the xenophobic Ishihara is trying to purchase Senkaku islands, so between that issue and Dokdo/Takeshima the issue, territorial disputes have been getting a lot of press.

    I think that despite what a few people here believe, the dispute over D/T is generally ignored by most people. However, this last visit by President LMB was kind of hard to ignore because it got a LOT more press coverage. Not really because he visited D/T, but because the President had never done that before. And while even his visit could have probably been forgotten in relatively little time, it was his comments about the emperor that pretty much pissed everyone off. Even the host of the liberal news program Houdou Station on Asahi TV (which most ultra-nationalists believe is controlled by Zainichi Koreans) was kind of speechless at those comments.

    To be honest, the timing of this flare up is really bad. Korea has the right to do whatever they want, but like a few people pointed out above, if LMB had just ignored the islands and if Korea had just silently maintained their control of the islands this issue could have blown over fairly quickly with very few people paying much attention like usual.

    Now, despite a growing movement of leftists pushing back against the restart of nuclear power plants, the government is probably going to shift back to the right. That will affect not only domestic taxation and energy policy here, but also foreign policy — which will probably be more stubborn, and spend less time on developing much needed diplomatic ties. The very fact that Japan took this to the ICJ is basically proof that even the more liberal members of the government can’t really deal with Korea through talks anymore without getting decimated in the next election.

    On a side note, in reply to #114, there’s nothing the government can do to Yasukuni. It’s prevented by the Constitution to interfere with a private religious institution. The only reason those politicians can visit the place is by saying, “I’m doing this as an individual and not as an elected official.” If you were looking for a better solution, it would probably be to have the government create some kind of official site to remember the victims of WWII (including non-war criminal soldiers), and put the impetus on politicians to visit that one. If such a place existed, it would make those that continue to visit Yasukuni look much more extreme.

    Also, if you’re interested, here are all of the history textbooks and how the cover WWII (circa 2008):
    http://web.archive.org/web/20110720035131/http://www.je-kaleidoscope.jp/english/index.html
    There are Korean and English versions available (although I can’t read the Korean one, so I can’t verify what is written). The “New History Textbook” is the fucked up revised history one, but as far as I know, it was only used in approx. 15 private schools.

    Anyway, my comment is long enough. Sorry to intrude.

  • TheKorean2

    Gerry bevers is ignorant troll, better to ignore this pro-Japanese scum.

  • hamel

    tapadamornin: I want to thank you for your informative, timely and not at all overly long comment. It really is good and useful to get a perspective from someone who is based in Japan. What you wrote about the politics and the shrine jibe with what I have read/heard before.

    Regarding the school text books, I have heard before that Japanese school teachers tend to be more left wing than most, and tend to use supplementary materials outside the authorized textbooks to teach kids the dark side of Japan in WWII. Is this the case as far as you know? And if so, what kind of impact is this having on the next generation of Japanese citizens?

  • cm

    Japanese were more offended by the LMB’s remarks on the emperor, rather then his visit to Dokto.

    Koreans look upon Japan and are puzzled why the Japanese still have a deep emotional attachment to the emperor of Japan. His father emperor Hirohito was responsible for the war, yet he was allowed to live a long life and kept his mystical position of emperor of Japan.

  • Veritas

    #154
    Generally speaking, that’s the case.
    Which is the main reason why the revisionist textbook was shot down in almost all of the public schools – sure, they can release ‘em, but that doesn’t mean they’ll actually be used in schools. Teachers in Japan have, in some cases, been accused of being overly leftist – criticizing kids who have members in the police force or the JSDF as being “tool of the government” and such. I’ve been told that the situation is not as bad these days, but back when my professor went to teach in Japan (that’s still back in the 70s and such) the Japan Teachers’ Union gave him a really hard time for, well, just being an American.

  • mickster

    The attack vehicle post seems to have turned into now familiar Dokdo/Takeshima and LMB-emperor debates.

    To those of you who believe Tokyo is making claims on Takeshima just to be defiant to Korea, you are wrong. Most people in the government, well-meaning bureaucrats included, seems to seriously believe we have a case. (I am sure there are low creatures on both sides who get pleasure out of yelling matches.)

    Hi Q, at 54:
    I do not mean to side with the notorious gbeavers, but what he says about the San Francisco Treaty is not a complete lie. The U.S.-drafted pact leaves out Liancourt Rocks from territories on which Japan should give up its sovereignty. And the portion of the treaty you quoted is not about territories but about Claims and Property — like contracts and debts. So, I do not agree that it is the reaffirmation of SCAPIN677, which does exclude Liancourt Rocks from Japan’s control but also says “Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands ….”
    The San Francisco Treaty is among the ‘evidences’ that the Japanese government depends on along with the fact that the Syngman Rhee line was declared unilaterally by Korea.
    BUT those are just post-war technicalities. It ain’t matter. Even if those were somehow settled, the disagreement would probably drag on.
    Most netizens are bickering over who found or controlled the islets before Japan formally declared them part of its territory in 1905. To Koreans, as I see it, it symbolizes the beginning of Japan’s annexation of their mother land and imperialist expansion because they had been Korea’s. Japan maintains otherwise though it’s just another technicality. So we do not get too much hyped over the issue. “Evidences” like old maps or documents that each side points to are not conclusive to the best of my knowledge; you can pick and choose whichever is in your favor.
    Well, that’s just one personal view. I’m not here to make a case in favor of either side. I’m a product of Japanese history education, as much as Koreans are of the Korean version. But believe me, Japan’s not making a Takeshima claim just to harrass Koreans. We need to agree to disagree.

    cm at 155:
    Most Japanese do not see Hirohito as the centerpiece of our aggression; rather he was a poor, weak puppet used by trigger-happy expansionists. Sure, he could have done a better job of countering the evil trend, but most of us, for good or bad, want to keep the emperor above politics. Whether that’s discreet in the eyes of outside observers is a good question, but if you ask, that’s why. Our U.S.-drafted constitution also detaches him from politics.

  • mickster

    This is just a personal tweet; not much content, I apologize in advance.
    After my last posting, it’s embarrasing to say this, but…
    The Korean MOFAT’s pages on Dokdo/Takeshima issue are very well organized indeed. By comparison, the Japanese MOFA’s look puny. They need to do a better job.
    If I had to compare their pages and vote for one, I would definately vote for Korea’s. Maybe MOFA would better end up providing links to Mr. Bever’s blog :).
    I do not read Korean, so I read MOFAT’s English version. More serious proof reading work seemed necessary, but they seemed impressive overall.
    I tried to read the Japanese-language version, but the quality of translation was so bad — seemed almost like machine-translated — that I found it easier to read in English. I assume Korea has good talents at writing Japanese, but maybe MOFAT does not care to preach to the Japanese.
    Nothing more. Sorry to disturb.

  • tapadamornin

    I was away for the weekend, so I apologize for my late reply. Others have already answered some of the questions, but I thought I would add some details:

    1) As for teachers being left wing, that’s generally the case. I’m sure that is not universal, but as you may have heard, it is generally only the teachers that fight (and have gone to court) to avoid standing during the singing of the national anthem, Kimigayo:

    http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/8-osaka-teachers-face-punishment-over-refusal-to-sing-national-anthem

    There have been numerous cases, but in most for most teachers they are either suing to remove enforced standing during the anthem, or to keep their positions after being reprimanded by the school board for not standing. Many of these teachers have done so at the risk of pay cuts, demotions, and loss of work.

    2) I would say that the biggest problem with the Japanese education system is not that they don’t cover the reality of WWII, but that there isn’t a lot of emphasis put on comprehension or reflection. Japan focuses more on rote memorization to meet the demands of University entrance exams, so for secondary school students the details might be available, but it will depend *entirely* on the teacher to provide supplementary materials and develop the curriculum in their classroom.

    Also, from my experience, most of the “War is Bad” speeches end up being centered on the atomic bombings not through the fault of the teachers but simply because there are ample (though dwindling) numbers of people who survived the bombings to talk in the schools. I’ve talked with my Japanese wife about this many times, and she agrees with with me, but August is a month that focuses entirely too much on what happened in Japan. Both Aug. 6th and 9th are ceremonies to remembers the civilians killed by the atomic bombs (while simultaneously suing for peace), and on Aug. 15th there is a ceremony led by the emperor that honors the people killed in the war and prays for peace. It is a “War is Bad” ceremony, but again, it doesn’t go far enough (in my opinion) to honor the people killed by Japanese aggression.

    At the same time, you have those jackasses going to Yasukuni, which I suppose could be acceptable if it was an honest expression to honor lost Japanese soldiers — like Arlington cemetery, but instead it’s more of a self-centered tribute to nationalism. That Yasukuni shrine contains the spirits of war criminals and is attached to the most fucked up revisionist museum I’ve ever been to, only makes it that much worse. Note: Seriously, if you ever want to see the scary potential of revisionism, just visit this place.

    For those of you interested though, there are HUGE protests outside the shrine against the right-wingers and politicians that visit the shrine on Aug. 15th, and the whole street is lined with police because the ultra-nationalists frequently attack the peace protesters (the difference is quite striking – much like elderly/hippies versus militant neo-nazis):

    http://www.tokyoreporter.com/2009/08/19/right-wing-groups-clash-with-police-in-kudanshita/

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

    Most of the elderly people I’ve met and talked with are terribly repentant for the war, but it’s the disenfranchised baby-boomers and NEETs (the full-time 2ch-ers) that take up the reigns of nationalism. Interestingly enough, the right-wingers were out in full force to attack and criticize the protesters against nuclear power. Not because they care at all about nuclear power but because the protesters are protesting against the government, making them anti-Japanese.

  • Q

    @mickster (#157),

    During the Allies occupation of Japan, General Headquarters Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers promulgated SCAPIN No. 677 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/SCAPIN677):

    Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands north of 30° North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island); andexcluding (a) Utsuryo (Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks (Take Island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju) Island (b) the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands south of 30° North Latitude (including Kuchinoshima Island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano (Kazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all the other outlying Pacific Islands [including the Daito (Ohigashi or Oagari) Island Group, and Parece Vela (Okinotori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Ganges (Nakano-tori) Islands], and (c) the Kurile (Chishima) Islands, the Habomai (Hapomaze) Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Akiyuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan Island.

    The SCAPIN has been revised twice: SCAPIN 841 issued on March 22, 1946 returning Izu and Nanpo Islands to Japan; the revised SCAPIN 677 dated December 5, 1951 returned the islands between 30-29 degree N. latitude and Kagoshima Ten Village Islands to Japanese sovereignty. However, no such directives, memoranda and/or orders were ever issued to change the separation of Dokdo. The territorial provisions in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty merely conformed what had already become an accomplished fact. The separation of Dokdo by SCAPIN No. 677 — so far as it has not been changed specifically — should be acknowledged and respected as the accomplished facts which were actually carried into effect by the Peace Treaty. (Source: Professor Young K Kim, A Suggestion for an Impeccable logical integrity, Dec. 2011: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=young_kim)

    San Francisco Peace Treaty pronounced that:

    Japan recognizes the validity of all acts and omissions done during the period of occupation under or in consequence of directives of the occupation authorities or authorized by Japanese law at that time, and will take no action subjecting Allied nationals to civil or criminal liability arising out of such acts or omissions.

    SF Peace Treaty does not contain any definition of Japanese territory. In other words, without recognizing SCAPIN directives, Japan owns no territory, even four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku). SCAPIN directives excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory, and SF Peace Treaty ordered Japan to recognize the directive. That decision has not changed, even though some islands were returned to Japan later with subsequent directives.

  • Q

    mickster wrote:

    Most Japanese do not see Hirohito as the centerpiece of our aggression; rather he was a poor, weak puppet used by trigger-happy expansionists.

    BBC has a nice documentary Timewatch Emperor Hirohito World War II:

    During Hirohito’s lifetime he was often depicted as a benign and even passive bystander to events, more interested in marine biology than geopolitics. Since his death in 1989, that image has been challenged by critics who argue that Hirohito encouraged the military aggression toward China in the early 1930s, participated in the planning of the attacks on Pearl Harbor (1941) and prolonged the war against the U.S. and Great Britain unnecessarily.

  • mickster

    Q(160,161):
    Thank you for your responses.
    Some are bitter pills to swallow, but educational in many ways.
    I will not continue the debate; it’s not my purpose nor do I just have the stamina for it. I think I overreacted to the ‘complete lie’ part without much regard to who you’re dealing with. Sorry for the intrusion.
    The emperor part was a response to cm’s ‘why.’ As you are trying to show, I am aware it’s more our sentiment than an established fact.

    I wish you well.

  • Q

    @mickster,

    No human being is perfect. Thank you for your comments full of respect and thoughtfulness. I wish you well too.

  • DLBarch

    In follow up to mine @ 7, Ralph Cossa, at CSIS Pacific Forum, has a brutally frank assessment of 2MB’s mind-boggling mishandling of Korea-Japan relations over the last two months that’s worth reading in full:

    http://csis.org/publication/pacnet-56-korea-japan-enough-enough

    But the real money quote is here:

    “There is plenty of blame to go around but it’s clear that South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak’s call for a public apology by the Japanese Emperor and his unprecedented trip last month to Dokdo Island unnecessarily upped the ante between Seoul and Tokyo, which also claims the ROK- occupied islets (which it calls Takeshima). Lee called the isolated rocks ‘a place worth sacrificing our lives to defend.’

    “Defend against what? While Tokyo periodically restates its claim, it has never threatened to use force to recover Takeshima/Dokdo and has not sent warships into nearby waters or turned a blind eye to (if not encouraged) activists to land there, as China does periodically in the Senkaku/Daioyu islands. At least, not yet!”

    Classic Ralph! “Defend against what?” indeed. 2MB doesn’t seem to have an answer.

    DLB

  • Pingback: More Korea—China—Japan not getting along stuff

  • Pingback: Math doesn’t look good for Senkaku dispute: WSJ op-ed

  • Pingback: Daily Roundup: Fear of Japan, Comfort Women ‘proof’, Snowpiercer panned, and more

  • Pingback: Daily Round-up: It’s the Japanese people, not the gov’t; Bohai Strait; Park Chan-wook’s crowdsourced film