Sometimes, dispatching fisherman doesn’t fully get the point across. To up the ante, China has taken out ads in the U.S. pushing their claim on Diaoyu to the American people.
PRC mouthpiece The China Daily also writes that the government’s Diaoyu whitepaper makes a “watertight case for China’s Diaoyu claim.”
Go figure –though “watertight” is clever.
Have yet read the whitepaper, but will add to my holiday to-do list–though I do so fully prepared to be convinced of China’s claim. Convinced like so many “scholars worldwide.”
“What worldwide scholars,” you ask? Well, how about those from the Ukraine?
Ukrainian international relations expert Denis Necheporuk told Xinhua that the white paper confirmed that the Diaoyu Islands are inherent territory of China.
“Japan needs to understand that the truth is on the Chinese side. And it’s obvious. This is indicated by the historical, geographical and legal facts,” Necheporuk said.
I can’t agree or disagree with the outspoken Ukrainian communist Necheporuk at this point, but glad to see the heavy hitters are weighing in on the issue.
It is interesting watching the coverage by a free media vs. a state controlled media. Japan wins that battle. At least they have the sense to realize that I would likely Google proclaimed experts like “Denis Necheporuk.”
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
Gerry’s good at that sort of thing. Maybe he could have a go at it.
#1
Both China and Japan are following South Korea. Now all three nations are engaged in the newspaper ad war.
Silly ad wars. There are better ways to get people on your side than this.
Dear Asian countries: Please take out ads in U.S. papers to raise awareness about stuff that is important like human trafficking. Honestly, we don’t care about your stupid islands. Not Daioyu, not Dokdo, not Takeshima, not any of these stupid places that nobody outside of your countries cares about. And certainly don’t start a fucking war over this bullshit.
True, cm. And it’s interesting that the foreign papers in which they wage their ad wars always seem to be American.
Well it is the US that sort of glossed over the postwar settlement in 1951 because their mind was on anticommunism and turning japan into an anticommunist bulwark.
cm
Nah, Japan’s not good at it. Remeber the pittifully racist public relations video made by Tokyo discussed in anther thread. It was for dometic consumption but as dokdo-takeshima.com said the world is watching. It’s sort of a public relations disaster. The very fact Tokkyo needs to make such a clip also goes to show the public awareness is quite low.
3gyupsal
You are right. But expect some good revenues for American publishers.
rwd
Nice to hear that perspective from an American (are you?)
And, some personal observations…
The Chinese “overreaction” to the Jpn govt’s purchase of some Senkaku islands is a way to reflect on Japan’s “overeaction” to LMB’s Dokdo visit. From the Korean point of view, he visited what’s under Korean control for decades. Now, from the Japanese perspective, the Senkaku purchase does not really change much; it has been under Japanese control for decades and, if anything, public control is more a guarantee that it is safeguarded from poeple like Tokyo Gov. Ishihara. But it turned out to be a big slap in the face to Beijing.
It’s also interesting China is totally bypassing ICJ and is taking the issue directly to the U.N. Is it becasue they have more control there than at ICJ? Or are they paving the way for eventually reclaiming Senkaku/Diaoyu by force? If I remeber right, when Beijing took disputed islands from the Philippines by force, the U.S. deterrent did not work.
mickster wrote:
Really? How about this WaPo ad of 2008?
MH has an analysis on the ad.
Sorry, it was 2007. Oh, we can also see the WaPo ad assented by Japanese Diet members recommends for more detail to visit ‘Society for the Dissemination of Historical Facts’ where also claims ‘The US, not Japan, was the Aggressor’.
Q:
OK, I must admit some do.
What I mean is not that Japan won’t launch ads but is not good at “following Korea” in the ad war. If it does, it does a poor job. Your link was about comfort women and the ad was poorly done. Who would care to read the “facts” printed in small text?
The Chinese version on the islands is much better designed and eye-catching. Well, as 3gyupsal says, most people don’t care anyway.
The ad has been an important reference to Japanese government’s position, because it was published and signed by Japanese Diet members, whilst Korean ads were produced by civilian activists. I’d say the significance weighs a lot more upon the Japanese ads by Japanese government, no matter how creative Korean ads by civilians were.
For the record, the ad war started by Japanese government in 2007 and was followed by Korean civilian activists, and now again Japanese and PRC governments.
Oh, it’s not Japan and PRC following Korea, then.
Gbnhj wrote (#1):
I’m good at what sort of thing?
Anyway, I think the Diaoyu/Senkaku dispute should be settled in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), just as I think the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute should be settled there. I also think Japan’s Northern Territories dispute with Russia should be settled there.
I think Japan should say to China, “Okay, bring your ‘watertight’ case and let’s go to the ICJ.” If Japan were to do that, I don’t think China would agree because I think China knows its “watertight” case is not as watertight as it wants people to believe.
However, Japan should wait until the Korean government says, “You don’t take Senkaku to the ICJ, so why should we take Dokdo?” If Korea were to make that argument, then Japan should say, “Okay, we’ll take Senkaku to the ICJ if you take Dokdo.”
However, Korea will never take Dokdo to the ICJ unless they can get the same three judges who cheated Roy Jones Jr. out of his boxing Gold Medal at the 1988 Seoul Olympics.
I’m all for Korea once and for all settle this issue at ICJ instead of letting things dragged on for centuries. But unlike Gerry, I think Korea is practically guaranteed a win.
Mr Bevers, you mean this? http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/feb/15/olympic-moments-roy-jones-jr
I agree that Seoul will not take the case to ICJ, for a different reason.
But I have to agree with cm, though, that, maybe for a different reason again, Tokyo has little chance. ROK has controlled the rocks for decades; that alone is good enough reason.
There’s major difference, it really depends on who is funding the ads. as for Dokdo ads on foreign media are 100% funded by individuals where as Chinese and Japanese ads are funded by their governments. American and Russian does same thing, funny how ESLers over here are such hypocrites when your home country does more fake advertisements in foreign media. The biggest American propaganda – WMD in Iraq and even advertised how it was necessary to invade Iraq and it’s advertised all over news media around the world.
Looking into disputants’ claims for rightful control of an island group, and rendering an opinion on same, of course.
Cm wrote (#14):
If Korea is “practically guaranteed a win,” then why doesn’t Korea take its case to the ICJ and finally put an end to all the bickering?
It does not require a 2-digit IQ to know that Japan wants to go to the ICJ because it knows it will win, and Korea doesn’t want to go there because it knows it will lose.
Korea has no historical claim to Liancourt Rocks, but Japan does and has the maps and documents to prove it. Moreover, Japan legally incorporated Liancourt Rocks in 1905.
The only claim Korea has to the Rocks is that it forcefully occupied the Rocks in the 1950s, after the United States rejected Korea’s claim to them.
Japan has invited Korea to let the ICJ settle the dispute, so if Korea is “practically guaranteed a win,” it should take Japan up on its offer, go to the ICJ, and finally put an end to the silly dispute so that the two countries can concentrate on more important problems.
When Japan is threatening to its claim unilaterally to the ICJ and when Korea is calling Japan’s claim a second invasion, it is as ridiculous for Korea to continue say there is no dispute. In fact, it is so ridiculous that it would be like Madonna’s claiming she’s a virgin.
Think of all the money, time, and goodwill Korea has wasted on the Rocks. Think of all of Korea’s missed opportunities because of the Rocks. Think of all the damage to Korea’s credibility because of the lies she has told about the Rocks.
It’s not worth it. Korea should agree with Japan to take the dispute to the ICJ and let the chips fall where they may. Or Korea could sit down with Japan and the two countries could reach a compromise, possibly agreeing to make the islets a jointly managed nature preserve.
#18, Gerry, the reason why Korea won’t take it to the ICJ is because based on similar cases in the past at the ICJ, that court seems to disregard the concepts of colonial imperial aggression. The ICJ may say that in 1905, Korea didn’t speak up when Japan incorporated the territory under Terra Nulluis. But we all know, Korea was being annexed at that time, therefore couldn’t speak up. But the point is, based on past couple of cases, there is a chance that the ICJ may not accept that.
It’s a real concern, which I’m sure the Japanese and you, are fully aware of. I think this is a legitimate concern for Koreans that they don’t want to risk something when they’re in a position where they’ve controlled the island for 60 years. But your side keep asking the same question, in your tactic to weaken Korea’s position. Nevertheless, it is just my opinion that despite the concerns, the courts will still rule in Korea’s favor, because the public opinion and the sympathy for Korea against Japanese colonial rule is so great outside of Japan and Korea, that those ICJ judges (minus the Japanese judges who should be ruled out of the trial) will be impossible for them to ignore the colonial aspect of the case. Plus what Mickster said, the fact that Korea has had possession for 60 years alone, is going to favor Korea.
“The only claim Korea has to the Rocks is that it forcefully occupied the Rocks in the 1950s, after the United States rejected Korea’s claim to them.”
Read “Korean Empire Ordinance No. 41″ in 1900. Terra nullius? The US government contradicted their claims against the Rusk’s memorandum many times.
Gerry, why don’t you tell the Japanese gov’t to refer the Senkaku issue to ICJ with China.
TheKorean2 (#20),
YOU should read the ordinance, Korean2, because Dokdo was not mentioned in it. The “Seokdo” mentioned in the ordinance was not Dokdo. Seokdo means “rock islets” and was referring to the unnamed, rocky islets around Ulleungdo, not to Dokdo.
The story Koreans tell about “Dokdo” (獨島) being the Jolla Province pronunciation for “Seokdo” (石島) is a fairytale that does not explain why the Chinese characters are different or why no location was given for Seokdo. Korean2, you are too old to believe in fairytales.
1. Seokdo (means “rock island) is just a regional dialect of Jeolla-do dialectal version since many residents there was from that area back then. You can’t refute that.
Here are many dialectical versions of “Sok”
http://dokdo-research.com/temp19.html
2. “The Japanese first referred to this island as Tokdo in 1904 during the Russo-Japanese war when the Japanese warship Niitakago was sent to Ullungdo to investigate the area in preparation for the building of a watchtower on Tokdo. An entry in the report dated September 25, 1904 reads: ‘”The Liancourt Rocks are called Tokdo by the Koreans and are referred to as that by the Korean government which has exercised sovereignty over Tokdo (Sokto) since 1900 by promulgation of Imperial Ordinance No.41 and the appointment of the country magistrate.”‘
http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_5.html
So Seokdo is fairytale? Well, according to Japanese report in 1904, it is another name of Dokdo. Nice try.
Japan has many Takeshimas:
The disputed island is proven to be located in Kagoshima, as we could see the island of the map used in Takeshima Struggle (竹島爭奪戰) android app developed by Japanese programmer.
Gerry, please prove that bamboos are naturally grown in Dokdo. Defend your position!
Takeshima island in the ‘Takeshima Struggle’ is idential to the Takeshima island in Kagoshima. It is not Dokdo.
>TheKorean2 October 1, 2012 at 11:36 am
Here is the link to a pdf photocopy of Niitaka logbook.
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/niitaka/
Click blue 02.
It says Koreans call Liancourt Rocks Dokdo. But it does not say anything about Seokdo. Check yourself.
Bevers says..
It’s not worth it. Korea should agree with Japan to take the dispute to the ICJ and let the chips fall where they may. Or Korea could sit down with Japan and the two countries could reach a compromise, possibly agreeing to make the islets a jointly managed nature preserve.
Yeah right..
Give Mr Bevers, boys of Bushido a crack at Dokdo and in six months they’ll be lobbying for Ulleungdo.
frogmouth,
You’re forgetting “Minama,” southern Gyeongsangdo…
Stereo, Re-read my 2nd point again.
2. “The Japanese first referred to this island as Tokdo in 1904 during the Russo-Japanese war when the Japanese warship Niitakago was sent to Ullungdo to investigate the area in preparation for the building of a watchtower on Tokdo. An entry in the report dated September 25, 1904 reads: ‘”The Liancourt Rocks are called Tokdo by the Koreans and are referred to as that by the Korean government which has exercised sovereignty over Tokdo (Sokto) since 1900 by promulgation of Imperial Ordinance No.41 and the appointment of the country magistrate.”‘
http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_5.html
TK2 @#31,
The Niitaka’s log does not say that.
It simply says that Koreans call the island Dokdo and Japanese call it Lianko.
The webpage you linked is not accurate.
There is a newer version of the document, a booklet titled “Korea’s Territorial Rights to Tokdo”.
It’s supposed to be available at http://www.dokdoinkorea.com.
(But right now the website is down for some reason.)
jk641,
“Dokdo was long known as Usando in Korea. The first reference to “Dokdo” was found in the logbook of a Japanese warship, Niitakago, which surveyed the area in 1904. The logbook entry stated: “People on Matsushima (Ulleungdo) call Dokdo Liancourt Rocks, while the Japanese fishermen call it Ryanko Islands.” As for Korean documents, the name “Dokdo” was first found in a report prepared by Ulleung county governor Sim Heung-taek in 1906. The entry in the Niitakago logbook indicates that the Korean people living on Ulleungdo used the name “Dokdo” before 1904.”
http://www.japanfocus.org/-lee-sang_tae/1728
It’s actually “Ryanko island”.
Lianko, Ryanko, same thing.
hahaha
You must log in to post a comment.