national

Japan protests against South Korean drill on disputed islands

199 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

199 Comments
Login to comment

Meanwhile, Japan is preparing war games to maintain their grip on the Senkakus.

-3 ( +17 / -20 )

Japan shold also demand the loan money back.

6 ( +21 / -15 )

Meanwhile, Japan is preparing war games to maintain their grip on the Senkakus.

Where? I know that you're limited with Japanese with this one at least.

Takeshima was won over by Koreans after a few hounderds of machine guns bullets after they had taken it with force establishing armed positions on this island (first Koreans living there!) when Japan couldn't retaliate few years after the end of war. That's all.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

Japan doesn't want Dokdo, they just don't want to lose it.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

The Rusk Documents(correspondence sent by Dean Rusk, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, to Yang You Chan, the South Korean ambassador to the U.S at the August 10, 1951)

""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."

"The MacArthur line was to stand only until the conclusion of the Treaty of San Francisco: "the so-called MacArthur line will stand until the treaty comes into force." However, South Korean President Syngman Rhee disregard it and declared the Syngman Rhee line and the sovereignty over Dokdo on January 18, 1952, just before the Treaty of San Francisco came into force on April 28, 1952.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Rusk_note_of_1951

0 ( +11 / -11 )

What's new?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If that's a Japanese island, why is the Korean military training there, and not Japanese?

Japan shold also demand the loan money back.

Korea doesn't owe Japan any money. I don't know why Japanese keep saying this every time there's a conflict.

-3 ( +14 / -17 )

@OssanAmerica

Yes, Korean government back then didn't respond effectively, but this doesn't make Dokdo/Takeshima as Japan's land. The information Dean Rusk had was based on Japanese side. The problem here is the information Japan gave wasn't based on the true historical fact. That's what U.S. Department of State suspected. This document reminded the fact Japan established a protectorate over Korea in 1904, and annexed Korea in 1910.. Japan deprived diplomatic right of Korea in 1904, deprived Dokdo in 1905 and deprived whole Korea in 1910. Most people except the pro-Japanese people can easily figure out Dokdo/Takeshima was the victim of Imperial Japan's Expansionism and colonialism.

1 ( +12 / -11 )

Where?

@Chenchan--Okidaitojima http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japan-readies-huge-island-war-games-amid-youtube-pr-push

Takeshima was won over by Koreans after a few hounderds of machine guns bullets after they had taken it with force

Don't know, don't care. Japan took the Senkakus by force, so they belong to Japan. If you want to apply the same logic to Dokdo, okay. The biggest point for me is that Korea has held them for over 50 years and actually have structures on them. Meanwhile, Japan has nothing on the Senkakus. The Japanese government wants to preserve her cake and eat it too.

1 ( +12 / -11 )

Good for Korea! Koreans occupy the islands, Japan should pick the fights you can win.

-5 ( +11 / -16 )

sfjp330Oct. 26, 2013 - 08:34AM JST @OssanAmerica Yes, Korean government back then didn't respond effectively, but this doesn't make Dokdo/Takeshima as Japan's >land. The information Dean Rusk had was based on Japanese side. The problem here is the information Japan gave >wasn't based on the true historical fact. That's what U.S. Department of State suspected. This document reminded the >fact Japan established a protectorate over Korea in 1904, and annexed Korea in 1910.. Japan deprived diplomatic >right of Korea in 1904, deprived Dokdo in 1905 and deprived whole Korea in 1910. Most people except the pro->Japanese people can easily figure out Dokdo/Takeshima was the victim of Imperial Japan's Expansionism and >colonialism.

I am merely stating the U.S. position. As usual please provide supporting link. And I don't mean one of the thousands of Korean sites.

ControlFreakOct. 26, 2013 - 08:44AM JST Don't know, don't care. Japan took the Senkakus by force, so they belong to Japan

Incorrect. Unless you can name the battle and Chinese casualty numbers. The Senkakus remained part of Japan after WWII because the allies deemed it one of the "minor islands" and it was never taken by force.

-3 ( +11 / -14 )

Give it up Japan. Let the Koreans have their little rock.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

This document reminded the fact Japan established a protectorate over Korea in 1904, and annexed Korea in 1910.. Japan deprived diplomatic right of Korea in 1904, deprived Dokdo in 1905 and deprived whole Korea in 1910. Most people except the pro-Japanese people can easily figure out Dokdo/Takeshima was the victim of Imperial Japan's Expansionism and colonialism.

Irrelevant. 1904 treaty simply relates to Korea's foreign policy with third party nations and it did not preclude Korea from engaging in negotiations and protest to Japan. This is yet another failed argument presented over and over again.

Don't know, don't care. Japan took the Senkakus by force, so they belong to Japan. If you want to apply the same logic to Dokdo, okay. The biggest point for me is that Korea has held them for over 50 years and actually have structures on them. Meanwhile, Japan has nothing on the Senkakus. The Japanese government wants to preserve her cake and eat it too.

Okinawa prefecture simply incorprated Senkaku under terra nullius and as proven time and time again, were not part of the "prize" of Treaty of Shimonoseki. Takeshima, on the other hand, were taken by force with Korea's unilateral declaration of Rhee line which resulted in deaths, injury, and kidnapping of Japanese fishermen.

-2 ( +14 / -16 )

Keep it up Chucky.

"....While Rhee regime violated most basic tenets of democracy in authoritarian police rule imposed on Korean people, it has also in past done violence to most fundamental principles of international conduct and morality by committing acts of piracy on high seas around Rhee Line and then imprisioning and holding as political hostages Japanese fishermen and by seizing and holding non-Korean territory by force. The uncivilized practice of hostage diplomacy is one of our serious charges against Communist China and if continued by ROK it will be a great liability to a new democratic ROK regimeI therefore recommend strongly that as soon as new regime is in control in Korea (whether or not it be of interim character) we use all our influence to persuade it (1) to release and return to Japan all repeat all Japanese fishermen hostages (including those who have not completed their sentences) who have suffered so cruelly from Rhee's uncivilized and oppressive acts and (2) to cease practice of seizing Japanese fishing vessels on high seas. This would not only rid new ROK regime of liability of practicing hostage diplomacy but also more than anything else would lay foundation in Japan for really fruitful negotiations. At same time I would be prepared to press Kishi and GOJ most strongly that in return for repatriation of all fishermen, Japanese would exercise self-restraint in their fishing operations in Korean Straits until reasonable opportunity had been given for negotiation of mutually agreed ROK-Japan fishing conservation agreement. In addition to seizing Japanese boats on high seas and practicing hostage diplomacy, Rhee regime also seized by force and is holding illegally Takeshima Island which has always been considered as Japanese territory. This is very serious and permanent irritant in Japan-ROK relations and there can be no over-all ROK-Japan settlement until this Japanese island is returned to Japan.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Telegram_3470_to_the_Department_of_State

4 ( +14 / -10 )

Once again, they were invaders who forgot they lost the war, and refused to move out of Korea. And no amount of easily editable wiki pages can change that. Japan even demanded Korea's Jeju and Ullung islands, claiming they were rightful Japanese territories. lol... now Japanese claim Korea was never colonized or subjugated.

-14 ( +8 / -22 )

Once again, they were invaders who forgot they lost the war, and refused to move out of Korea. And no amount of easily editable wiki pages can change that. Japan even demanded Korea's Jeju and Ullung islands, claiming they were rightful Japanese territories. lol... now Japanese claim Korea was never colonized or subjugated.

Korean education is frightening.

First of all, Korea was not at war with Japan. They were never part of the Allieds despite their plea. The Provisional Government of Korea, when they lost funding from Chiang Kai Shek, sold porn mags to raise money. They couldn't even rejected by the Axis powers at that time.

As to the other part of your post, the absuridy goes beyond "editing".

1 ( +13 / -12 )

nigelboy,

Wow, a Japanese commenting about Korean education, when everybody is laughing at Japanese education of historic amnesia on WWII. Pot calling the kettle black. All you have shown me with that wiki document is that Japan was allowed privildges by the US, that went beyond what Japan deserved. Americans have always sided and supported Japan over Korea, including the early 1900's when the Ted Roosevelt's US even declared Korea belonged to Japan. So nothing new there. But just because the US was protecting their own interests in the Pacific doesn't mean Dokdo belongs to Japan.

-4 ( +10 / -14 )

Readers, please stop bickering and stay on topic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

chucky,

If you were to desribe Japanese education as "historical amnesia on WWII", the best description of Korean education is "Fantasy Novel"

There is a simple reason to why Japan were favored by the West during that time. It's called being civilized.

North China Herald 5 May 1905- Esson Third

" No land could possibly make a greater showing for bribery and corruption than Korea herself. On no piece of ground have men deceived and been deceived more universally than in this peninsula. No Government ever existed that was more infected with rottenness to the bones, cheating, lying, defrauding. But Korea has grown accustomed to and unconscious of her own way of doing such things and sees only the fault of others."

The New York Outlook : "Japanese in Korea"(Nov.11.1905) George Kennan

"The Koreans are mostly exaggerators or barefaced liars, by heredity and by training, and it is impossible to accept without careful verification, the statements which they make with regard to Japanese misbehavior."

-4 ( +12 / -16 )

All very Asian, and predictable. Whats unpredictable is China and Korea, will they colaborate?

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

This couldn't be any more classic! They protest South Korean actions while carrying out drills to 'defend' islands Korea administers! Talk about hypocrisy!

Anyway, the islands belong to South Korea, so South Korea can do as it pleases while Japan adds cheese to its whine (and says there is 'no dispute' about the Senkakus to boot!).

-3 ( +12 / -15 )

No islands that Koreans have been staring at and fishing on for thousands of years wasn't somehow miraculously claimed terra nullis by Japan in 1905... cough cough few years before I suppose Japanese then "discovered" the Korean peninsula. LOL.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

No, Nigelboy, being "civilized" still doesn't prove Dokdo belongs to Japan, not anymore than Congo belongs to Belgium because whites are civilized and blacks not. I would love to respond to your typical Japanese racist attacks, but that's out of topic and the mod will intervene. America may have supported Japan in the past, but are they supporting Japan on Dokdo today? I don't see the US demanding Korea get out of Dokdo, and they do not advocate Japan's stand on Dokdo. So therefore what some US officials said 50 to 60 years ago in secret document, means hill of beans. Anyway, if Japan feels so strongly about this, why don't they take the case to the UN security, or the International Court of Law? I got a feeling, it's going to end up just like Japan's WTO complaint against Korea regarding radiation fish from Fukushima. I hear that's ending up in deaf ears.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

Anyway, if Japan feels so strongly about this, why don't they take the case to the UN security, or the International Court of Law?

Japan requested Korea to go to ICJ. Korea refused. As to why, it's discussed in another article which I alluded to which points out that Korea does not recognize the authority of the International Court of Justice.

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

Nigel, Japan doesn't need Korea to take their case to the ICJ. But it is very problematic for Japan when they have very little support from their own Japanese historian community, regarding who rightfully owns the island. Most Japanese historians think Korea is the rightful owner, and criticize their own government for trying to turn this into a territorial issue, when it's really another historical dispute - a dispute that Japan just refuses to admit that they did wrong, subjugating Korea. Annexation of Dokdo in 1905 was the beginning, followed by annexation of Korea in 1910. To Koreans, the pile of rocks is a symbol that Korea shall never make the same mistake ever again.

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

Small Islands creating big problems for future peace between Japan and it's neighbors so better to solve it now while it's still in baby stage.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

There's only one way for Japan to take Dokdo. And that's by force. Unless Japan wants to go to war over it, they really should shut up. There is no way in hell S.Korea is ever going to give it up to Japan peacefully. This isn't 1905 all over again.

Japanese Historians Back Korean Sovereignty Over Dokdo

Four Japanese academics held a press conference in Busan on Tuesday to announce their support of Korea's sovereignty over the Dokdo islets. The four are members of a group opposed to Japan's colonial claim to the islets.

They stressed that Japan's claim to Dokdo is grounded in a history of invading neighboring countries.

In April, members of the group which includes historians, religious figures and activists, held protests in Tokyo and Osaka against Tokyo's shift to the far right in territorial issues and attempts to revise the country's pacifist constitution.

Norio Kuboi, a retired professor at Momoyama Gakuin University, and Yoshihiro Kuroda, a former professor at Shoin Women's University, are part of the group.

"We perceive the Dokdo issue as a historical issue rather than a territorial one," Kuboi said. "Japan occupied Dokdo to better conduct the [1904-05] Russo-Japanese War, and Tokyo has since recognized it as its territory. Regarding it as a territorial issue is like glorifying an invasion rather than repenting for it."

The historians plan to visit Dokdo on Wednesday.

They produced historical records and photographs, including a copy of a Japanese map drawn in the 18th century. They said Japan's feudal government in 1775 acknowledged Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo by having cartographers spend three to four years redrawing a map that had mistakenly included the islets as well as Korea's Ulleung Island as part of Japanese territory.

"There are hundreds of other Japanese maps from the past that do not include Dokdo in Japanese territory," said Lee Sang-tae, a Korean historian.

-4 ( +7 / -12 )

Ownership of the islands is not black and white. Both sides have reasonable claim over the islands.

If you are pro-Japan you'd say they were Japanese (like we have seen in the comments so far), and if you are pro-Korea, same thing.

Anyone claiming the islands 'clearly' belong to either side is biased, whether they admit it or not.

Truth is there is no peaceful solution, and the islands will still be disputed in 100 years. Sigh.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

*"Furthermore, a reunified Korea would be able to direct more energy to issues that received less attention before, especially highly charged historical disputes with Japan. There are several unresolved issues between the two countries, including the territorial disputes (Dokdo/Takeshima Islands, names of the Sea of Japan/East Sea) and numerous issues originating from Japan’s colonization of Korea and World War II (for example, the comfort women issue). Focusing more on these issues would fuel nationalism in an increasingly confident, assertive, and powerful Korea. This might be useful inbuilding cohesiveness among the formerly split Korean people, but Tokyo would likely feel threatened by Seoul’s intention to address its past grievances. While the two countries might not become openly hostile, their relations would almost certainly deteriorate, intensifying the tension in the region.

The second factor, which will further complicate the situation, is the on-going rise of China, assuming that it continues to grow without experiencing serious domestic instability. In the future, an increasingly powerful Chinese military power will render U.S. security guarantees in the region less credible. Despite the so-called “pivot,” the fact of the matter is that Chinese military power will grow relative to U.S. military power in the region. Given the Korean Peninsula’s importance to China’s security, Beijing may push Seoul to distance itself from Washington or even to align with it."*

Seems likely if thing continue with "drills" Lets hope an outside party can bring sense to the madness.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Ownership of the islands is not black and white.

Look again. Korean navy and military doing exercises on the island. Koreans living on and visiting the island, which has Korean made buildings on it. It looks and sounds like clear ownership to me. This has been going on for 60 years. Japan is too chicken to land their forces on the island, and all they can do is produce some vague US secret documents from one or two US officials supporting Japan. As if that endorsement from a dead US official is worth the paper that's written on. Nevermind 1960. Which country has the official position TODAY, that Dokdo belongs to Japanese? Nobody, and certainly not the US.

-3 ( +6 / -10 )

nigelboy: "Japan requested Korea to go to ICJ, but Korea refused."

Because it's a non-issue, same as the Senkakus. Or wait, are the Senkakus only a non-issue but suddenly Dodko is?

Answer me this: who's on the island and administers it at this moment? It's theirs.

-1 ( +9 / -11 )

After all Korea moved their army openly at Takeshima, which means they admitted it is an area of conflict formally.

Their former governments avoided this in a careful manner, as Japan is avoiding to deploy JSDF near Senkaku Islands, and sending Japanese Coast Guard instead.

@smithinjapan, they have made a right mess of it at last. Japan has now more convincing reason to bring this case to ICJ than before.

I'm really interested in what Korea is goint to do next. Anti-Japan sentiment is something like a drug for Korea and China, I guess. It is getting more and more difficult to get it off.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

smithinjapan: property line cases happen all the time here in the U.S. My cousin went through one a few years ago. Their neighbor's driveway was partially on their land. They settled the matter amicably through the city's court system and let their neighbors purchase that land from them.That's the civilized way to do it. If their neighbor refused, they would have taken them to court, and their neighbor would have been forced to go to court. You are saying, the neighbor could have just claimed there is no issue ...end of story. Really??? Korea built their driveway on Japan's territory. Japan has asked Korea to settle it in the ICJ multiple times. Korea refused. China claims Japan has built their driveway on China's territory. Japan says different. China never requested Japan to have the issue settled with any third party. So Japan says there is no issue. You're comparing apples to oranges. btw, Japan has signed an agreement to accept any decision by the ICJ. Korea & China are now behind the 8 ball to settle these matters once and for all. Japan requesting China to go to the ICJ is akin to my cousin's neighbors taking my cousin to court because they keep claiming the property is theirs ...doesn't work that way ...where is the logic in that?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

SK thinks they can jump on the band wagon with China against Japan in claiming territory. Unfortunately it's clear that hypocrisy SK knows that the Takeshima islands are not theirs. It is part of their inferiority complex toward Japan.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

CGB Spender: "It is part of their inferiority complex toward Japan."

No inferiority complex, my friend, though Japan most certain has a superiority complex. When I pointed out to nigelboy, for example, that Samsung is ahead of Panasonic in electronics sales his response was: "in your dreams".

Regardless, It's amusing you can say 'inferiority complex' with a straight face when Japan is conducting drills with whom?

0 ( +8 / -9 )

Nothing is static in the geopolitics. South and North Korea could put aside their differences, unite with China against a ultra nationalistic Japan. Its what they mean by destablizing the region. in the course of a year, things have went downhill, as was easily predicted when the right got back into power. The paranoia and hissy fits feed on itself; with a nuclear arms race in the region.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

It seems that the South Korean Drill this time is to protest against the YouTube video on Takeshima made by Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Actually, South Korean government already made the same kind of video, longer and more emotional, on 13th Oct., earlier than Japan. Why are they criticizing Japan? Japan did just the same they did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x49wbzLVGcg

One thing pretty funny is, the scene around 2:35 is quite analogous to the scene 1:35 of the following. This a Japanese drama made by NHK about the Russo-Japanese.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5ze4-iFEL4

4 ( +4 / -0 )

As ye so shall ye reap. After what Japan did to Korea, losing those rocks, if it ever had any right to them in the first place, is a very small price. Finders keepers, losers weepers. Shut up Abe and company.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Because it's a non-issue, same as the Senkakus. Or wait, are the Senkakus only a non-issue but suddenly Dodko is?

Smith. This was addressed to you to answer that question.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japan-readies-huge-island-war-games-amid-youtube-pr-push#comment_1665829

As others have alluded to on MANY occasions, it's apples and oranges. I don't know why you can't grasp at this simple concept.

Answer me this: who's on the island and administers it at this moment?

Perhaps Japan should forcibly administer them. What will be your position then, smith?

When I pointed out to nigelboy, for example, that Samsung is ahead of Panasonic in electronics sales his response was: "in your dreams".

If your pride is attached to one of only three recognizable companies in global terms, there are limits to it's usage. And no. That's not how the discussion went. But keept at it smith.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Sorry, I dropped a word. Please read "Russo-Japanese WAR."

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Norio Kuboi, a retired professor at Momoyama Gakuin University

LOL. The guy has been an elementary school teacher all his life. He had a part time teaching job as an emergency substitute at Momoyama.

Yoshihiro Kuroda, a former professor at Shoin Women's University, are part of the group.

LOL. He's a career high school teacher in Osaka. His job at the University was also an emergency substitute specializing in Human rights and social issues.

Are Koreans so desperate that they don't check the backgrounds of these individuals or perhaps it doesn't matter and feed their masses by claiming them as "historians".

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Japan is the only country in the world with disputes with ALL of its neighbors. Pathetic country.

Japan = Loses WWII, but says it is the victim of the war and, according to official Yasukuni Shrine web site, was forced into the war by the US. Still wants to keep land it stole from other countries before war.

Big whining baby.

Move on, Japan.

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

Mitch CohenOct. 26, 2013 - 11:59AM JST Ownership of the islands is not black and white. Both sides have reasonable claim over the islands.

If so the only solutiuon for civilized countries is to settle it at the ICJ. Japan has suggested this THREE times and South Korea has refused each time.

Sir_EdgarOct. 26, 2013 - 08:09PM JST Japan is the only country in the world with disputes with ALL of its neighbors. Pathetic country.

South Korea (3) has the same number of territorial disputes with neighbors as Japan (3). China has (14). What a pathetic statement.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

SK thinks they can jump on the band wagon with China against Japan in claiming territory.

News flash. S.Korea has held the island for 60 years, after it was taken from them by Japan in 1905 in an annexation move. S.Korea has always had the island, it is Japan who have been claiming territory lately in their nationalist movements, causing all these disputes.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

If so the only solutiuon for civilized countries is to settle it at the ICJ. Japan has suggested this THREE times and South Korea has refused each time.

I'm not surprised you support this stance, given your pro-Japan views. But the Korean stance is that the islands are not under dispute, just like Japan believes Senkakus are not under dispute.

South Korea (3) has the same number of territorial disputes with neighbors as Japan (3). China has (14). What a pathetic statement.

Another way to look at that would be that China has the least number of territorial disputes per area of land owned. Plus, one of Korea's 3 claims includes the Tsushima, which Koreans happily pay for a visa to visit for holidays. So it's not really under dispute the same way as Japan's 3 disputes.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

chucky3176Oct. 26, 2013 - 09:44PM JST News flash. S.Korea has held the island for 60 years, after it was taken from them by Japan in 1905 in an annexation >move. S.Korea has always had the island, it is Japan who have been claiming territory lately in their nationalist >movements, causing all these disputes.

South Korea has held the island ILLEGALLY since 1952. "The MacArthur line was to stand only until the conclusion of the Treaty of San Francisco: "the so-called MacArthur line will stand until the treaty comes into force." However, South Korean President Syngman Rhee disregard it and declared the Syngman Rhee line and the sovereignty over Dokdo on January 18, 1952, just before the Treaty of San Francisco came into force on April 28, 1952. Because of this the U.S. encouraged Japan to immediately file a claim. If your argument that South Korea has a valid claim then they have no reason to not go to the ICJ as Japan has suggested THREE times and make them shut up for good. Instead South Korea has refused, with supporters making pathetic excuses like "South Korea can't get a fair trial". We hear that line most often from those who have no confidence in winning through the legal process. Your comment about "Japan has been claiming territory causing all the disputes" is absurd considering that two of the disputes originated from the USSR and South Korea taking advantage of a defeated Japan, and the third by a newly risen military power flexing it's muscles. Sorry but the day I will believe that South Korea rightfully owns the Liancourt Rocks is when they face Japan's claim at the ICJ, submit all this evidence they claim to have, and win fair and square. Until then the country looks like a thief unwilling to appear at court.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

They better not practice a drill on the islands. It makes the situation worse. When the normalization treaty of 1965 was concluded, Park Chunghee admitted that the islands were disputed and the problem was shelved for future settlement. So South Korea should not have changed the status quo of the islets by building a fortress on it. And continuing to rule the islets assuming it is theirs for ever doesn't solve anything either. Go to arbitration by a third party as stipulated in the treaty of 1965 is the best and wise solution.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Incorrect. Unless you can name the battle and Chinese casualty numbers. The Senkakus remained part of Japan after WWII because the allies deemed it one of the "minor islands" and it was never taken by force.

They were taken in the process of the Sino-Japanese war. Oh, I know the Japanese like to claim terra nullius to make it look pretty, but fact is they were engaged in a war and annexed those islands because their enemy was down. Sounds like force to me, even they just walking onto the island after stomping the Chinese someplace else.

If you prefer the term "taken by war" that is fine, but of course someone might complain if no state of war technically exists (sigh). At the end of the day, its military might that got Korea Dokdo and Japan the Senkakus. I hate it, but there is nothing I can do about it. Its an ugly fact of the world. But I shall apply the facts equally.

If Japan wants Korea to just up and give Dokdo to Japan, then Japan should up and give the Senkakus to China. It would be nice because it show a rejection of taking land via military might. Japan, a country which claims to have renounced war, should make the first move and renounce the land grabs by war of the past.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Like I said, what stops Japan from going to ICJ, like they did against Korea at WTO? S.Korea will never agree to contest in court because you don't go to court when it's already Korea's territory for centuries and gains no benefits from any decision by the court. Japan can unilaterally take it the court, and then lose there, when their historians start testifying against them. Another option Japan has, cut off diplomatic ties with S.Korea. But that's going to hurt Japan more than Korea. And another option for Japan: military action. Japan already let the US know that after their constitutional change to abolish the article 9, they will unilaterally send military forces into Korea, if Japan's interests are threatened. So I'm pretty sure they're already preparing for some kind of clash over Dokdo.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Japan is the only country in the world with disputes with ALL of its neighbors. Pathetic country.

Claims made by both nations to the islands are not convincing, but I personally think Japan ought to cede them to South Korea. From South Korea's point of view of course 'cede' is not the correct term, because that country is convinced of its ownership. It is unfortunate that there still has not been fruitful diplomacy, understanding and give-and-take to settle the territorial dispute.

Stating that Japan is the only country in the world with disputes with all its neighbors is total nonsense. And labeling Japan as a pathetic country is pathetic.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Plus, one of Korea's 3 claims includes the Tsushima, which Koreans happily pay for a visa to visit for holidays.

The Tsushima claim by Korea, is not even a real dispute. It's just Korea making a point to Japan as a payback at Japan's constant claims over Dokdo, glorifying Japan's military past. Korea has no real intention to contest the ownership over Tsushima, so can't really be considered as a dispute. The other Korean dispute is with China, regarding some rocks in the Pacific, but nether countries have made it into a big deal, like Japan has done, like the Japan's disputes with Korea, China, and Russia.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

I want to make a judgment based on facts from both the pro-Korea and the pro-Japan sides. But I can see that only the pro-Japan side has provided some valid and informative third-party links to back up their arguments related to the disputed islands. On the other hand, the pro-Korea side has made far more bombastic claims that are not supported by any verifiable facts. I am not convinced by merely pompous rhetoric. Provide objective links to prove your points, pro-Korea guys.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

If I were to own all these disputed islands, what would happen to the problems that are being reported here ?

Any thoughts ?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

intlobserver, If you want third party links, you can easily look them up yourself. It's getting tiring to argue the same historical interpretations over and over again. I'm more interested in where do we go from here. If you want to learn about this, then you should do your own research. For instance, here's one link run by Canadians who counter all of Japan's claims.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-takeshima-related-historical-data

But I think it's either intellectual laziness or you already support Japan's side but just don't want to admit it, when you claim you've been convinced over by what's being said on an anonymous comment section at Japantoday.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

ControlFreakOct. 26, 2013 - 10:33PM JST "Incorrect. Unless you can name the battle and Chinese casualty numbers. The Senkakus remained part of Japan after WWII because the allies deemed it one of the "minor islands" and it was never taken by force."

They were taken in the process of the Sino-Japanese war.

Then please name the battle(s) for the Senkakus. How about the number of Chinese and Japanese casualties? How about the fact that at the end of the Sino-Japanese War and the Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed there is no mention of the Senkakus, although other isalands are named? If Japan won the war and was in a position to make demands upon a defeated China (Qing Empire to be exact) why wouldn't they take advabtage of it and mention the Senkakus? The reason is simple, neither side considered them to be Chinese in the first place. The victorious allied powers, which included China represente by ROC, deemed them one of the "minor excluded islands" and "not taken by force". You are attempting to re-write the outcome of WWII.

Oh, I know the Japanese like to claim terra nullius to make it look pretty, but fact is they were engaged in a war and >annexed those islands because their enemy was down. Sounds like force to me, even they just walking onto the >island after stomping the Chinese someplace else.

Except the Chinese didn't even know about it because they didn't consider it their territory to start with. That's not what "taken by force" means.

chucky3176Oct. 26, 2013 - 10:33PM JST

Like I said, what stops Japan from going to ICJ, like they did against Korea at WTO? S.Korea will never agree to >contest in court because you don't go to court when it's already Korea's territory for centuries and gains no benefits >from any decision by the court. J

Spoken like a true thief afraid to go to court and put the issue to rest. What stops Japan from doing so is South Korea's criminal -like behavior as hey know that both parties have to agree to settle at the ICJ to have the case heard. If South Korea will "never" agree to go to court it clearly indicates that they have no confidence in their claim of ownership from allegedly "ancient times". And you are incorrect, Japan I will "never" drop it's claim because they filed it as soon as South Korea unilaterally took the islands upon U.S. recommendation so South Korea has MUCH TO GAIN by going to the ICJ and putting the matter to rest for good.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Ossan, if Japan wants to resolve these issues peacefully as it claims, then she must follow her own examples and do these:

1) Stop racially demonizing her neighbors with propaganda materials. This is one good example why Koreans distrust the Japanese.

2) Stop hiding the crucial information that are in the documents housed in your Japanese national archives.

I'm referring to these

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-dokdo-takeshima-dispute-why-asia-distrusts-japan.html

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

What has Japan got so damaging they won't reveal what's been blacked out in crucial documents regarding the Takeshima issue with Korea?

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2010/06/25/national/high-court-upholds-disclosure-snub/#.UmvdGSRDncE

High court upholds disclosure snub

Kyodo News

The Tokyo High Court has rejected a suit filed by a group of South Koreans and Japanese researchers demanding that the government fully disclose documents on Japan-South Korea diplomatic talks between 1951 and 1965.

Presiding Judge Toshifumi Minami supported the Tokyo District Court’s ruling last December that the government’s decision to partially disclose the requested documents is appropriate.

The court said Wednesday that full disclosure may cause detrimental effects on a row over the Seoul-controlled islets called Dokdo in South Korea and Takeshima in Japan, as well as normalization talks with Pyongyang.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

It's getting tiring to argue the same historical interpretations over and over again. I'm more interested in where do we go from here. If you want to learn about this, then you should do your own research.

If I'm not mistaken it was Korea who drew the line and thought that it's Korean island. Then they landed there with michine guns and strifed Japanese Coast Gueard vessel. That's how it was. What if Japan would try to do the same right now?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Chenchan, you are mistaking.

The line was already drawn centuries ago showing it was a Korean island. Then Japan annexed the island without telling Korea. Five years later, they annexed all of Korea. Even many Japanese historians disagree with their own government that it's Japanese territory. Japan likes to pick and choose the evidence they like to show. But giving out partial evidences is same as giving false evidence.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Simply, it has been an illegal occupation by South Korea. The coward government keep doing hit and run since 1951. Instead of this drilling, Korea should meet Japan at ICJ for the future of 2 nations. Japan will never forgive S.Korea for Korea's illegal occupation, unless ICJ gives the final verdict. If Japan lost, Japan would detach from the issue.

From my study historically with many Korean documents since 512 AD, Dokto and Takeshima today is not the same island.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

1904 treaty simply relates to Korea's foreign policy with third party nations and it did not preclude Korea from engaging in negotiations and protest to Japan.

That's utter nonsense. Koreans who dared to disobey the Japanese during the 1895-1945 colonization were not even allowed to stay alive. Even Empress Myeongseong who disliked the Japanese was murdered brutally by them in her palace:

"The assassination, which took place on Oct. 8, 1895, left its mark in history for its viciousness and brutality. The writer Fusako Tsunoda in her book on the murder wrote, "Everywhere there were cries, 'Where is Queen Min?' The assailants approached a group of court ladies who were trembling with fear and slaughtered two of them who were especially beautiful. One of the victims bore a faint trace of smallpox on her temple, allowing the assailants to verify that she was Queen Min." Tsunoda also said, "After many years, one of the assailants confessed that they violently slashed and committed unspeakable atrocities on the body of the empress."

Japan thoroughly covered up its responsibility. The empress' body was burned and Japanese government propaganda portrayed the assassination as the result of a power struggle between Myeongseong and her father-in-law Heungseon Daewongun.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The only way to teach this child's bad behavior is to boycott the 2020 Olympic Games. The country is going down the sewerage tubes. The ground water is radioactive. Retailers are insistent on planting and fishing in radioactive areas while one clown has been shown eating radioactive rice and fish. Japan has become the mirage of the 21st century.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan has territorial disputes with ALL of its neighbors: China, South Korea, North Korea, Russia, and Taiwan. That's FIVE. Japan cannot let go of its colonial past.

South Korea only has two and China does not have as many as you say.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

The CAJONES of the Koreans - such a small Country but they really stand up for themselves. YOU gotta love the Koreans!

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Japanese call Koreans thieves and kidnappers, and is attempting to turn this into a racial war of some kind.

This is how the Japanese government sees the conflicts from Japan's view. Japan's propaganda at work here.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/evil-asian-neighbours.jpg

Notice the slanted eyes of the evil Koreans and Chinese, while the good Japanese people are the white and blonde people.

Look at the numerous ways this island issue has been spun by Japan. They never tell any truth. Scroll down to the parts where it says "Japan’s Government Intentionally Creates and Distributes False Charts" and "Japan Conceals Records Concerning Dokdo (Takeshima) Island"

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-dokdo-takeshima-dispute-why-asia-distrusts-japan.html

Is it any wonder why nobody trusts what Japan says when they say they are sorry for WWII actions? Look at their steady streams of actions. They demand from Korea, the island that Japan first stole from Korea in 1905 which then encouraged Japan to annex rest of Korea, only few years later. It's like the thief asking the theft victim to return the item that the victim took back from the thief.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Sir_EdgarOct. 27, 2013 - 03:31AM JST Japan has territorial disputes with ALL of its neighbors: China, South Korea, North Korea, Russia, and Taiwan. That's >FIVE. Japan cannot let go of its colonial past. South Korea only has two and China does not have as many as you say.

Sorry but South Korea has 3 and China has 14. Very easy to confirm.

chucky3176Oct. 27, 2013 - 04:26AM JST Japanese call Koreans thieves and kidnappers, and is attempting to turn this into a racial war of some kind.

That's exactly what South Koreans are doing. Ever hear of VANK?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

chucky, that site is laughable. 'Why Asia Distrusts Japan' lol That illustartion is pretty good - the 'whole Asia' is just China and Korea.

It's like the thief asking the theft victim to return the item that the victim took back from the thief.

So Koreans stole it back to be the same as Japan, right?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

if Japan has all the evidence

Evidence for what? I bet there would be as much on Japan as on the ones who rule South Korea right now. South Korea didn't take any notes during those talks?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Chenchan, this is the Japanese court's statement in 2010:

The court said Wednesday that full disclosure may cause detrimental effects on a row over the Seoul-controlled islets called Dokdo in South Korea and Takeshima in Japan

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2010/06/25/national/high-court-upholds-disclosure-snub/#.UmvdGSRDncE

So Japan itself says they won't release the full texts because it will make their position on Takeshima look bad. Japanese court's words, not mine.

And this is for Ossan, this clip counters all your points, including the San Fran treaty, into five minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOd6Yh2rCHs#t=14

The points were:

All the Japanese old maps say the Oki islands were the most north west limit of Japan.

Japan did a land grab in 1905 with Dokdo when Korea was under severe duress, then used that as the springboard into taking over Korea - a fact that Japan to this day still refuses to stubbornly recognize.

The SF treaty forced Japan to give up all the territory that Japan gained during and prior to WWII, and in the draft, Dokdo was clearly included as territory that Japan must give up. But Japan lobby went to work and took the island off the draft. The Japanese now say that's because the Americans recognize Dokdo as Japanese, but when in truth, it was due to Japan money lobby, in other words it was nothing more than bribes. That still doesn't negate the fact that Dokdo has been Korea's territory for centuries.
-7 ( +0 / -7 )

So Japan itself says they won't release the full texts because it will make their position on Takeshima look bad. Japanese court's words, not mine.

At best I think that would cause problems to both sides which is pure fantasy as the article don't give any citation and just journo's conjectures. How about that:

http://dokdo-research.com/temp15.html

Dokdo is nothing more than 'just an island for birds to poop' said by high ranked Korean negotiator ;) They're just laughing at the likes of you ;) Agreed?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The Tokyo High Court has rejected a suit filed by a group of South Koreans and Japanese researchers demanding that the government fully disclose documents on Japan-South Korea diplomatic talks between 1951 and 1965.

The better question is, why doesn't South Korea disclose those documents? The argument here is that these researchers claim that these diplomatic meetings' minutes has damaging effect on Japan in regards to Takeshima so why would the South Korean government withhold such pertinenent details of the minutes? Seem strange to me.

Korea has no maps or documents relating to Takeshima prior to Japan's incorporation. NONE. Virtually all of Korea's evidences has been shot down from their Samgukusagi (Usan=Dokdo) to their 1900 Imperial Ordinance. Hence, they are deduced to obfuscating Japanese documents. They are so desparate that their argument now is that since Japanese government does not disclose ALL of the documents relating to the negotiations, Japan must be hiding inconvenient facts about Takeshima that puts them at a disadvantage.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Korea has a lot of maps that show Dokdo. But Japan has zero maps, as all of their maps state that Oki Islands are the furthest Japanese limit line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rp3Cb-NH9A#t=22

Furthermore, many Japanese historians themselves back Korea as the rightful owner. These are your own historians refuting Japan's claims.

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/ENGISSUE/100/588561.html

Not to mention the former Japanese citizen/professor who Yuji Hosaka, who's in charge of the Dokto research in S.Korea who has made his work a lifetime effort. He felt it so strongly that he took up S.Korean citizenship. Interesting podcast.

http://thethreewisemonkeys.com/2011/09/05/the-truth-about-dokdo-an-interview-with-prof-yuji-hosaka-pt-1/

Furthermore, Dokdo is 80km from Korea (Ullungdo Islands), visible from Korea, while it's 187km from Japan (Oki Islands), and invisible from Japan.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Korea has a lot of maps that show Dokdo. But Japan has zero maps, as all of their maps state that Oki Islands are the furthest Japanese limit line.

Please show a Korean map that show Takeshima prior to Japan's incorporation. There are over 6,000 minor islands in Japan. What that link showed are maps that omitted such minor details. This is a classic example of Korea's attempt to obfuscate.

Furthermore, many Japanese historians themselves back Korea as the rightful owner. These are your own historians refuting Japan's claims.

The guy in the picture is a career elementary school teacher and was a former subtitute teacher in a university.

Not to mention the former Japanese citizen/professor who Yuji Hosaka, who's in charge of the Dokto research in S.Korea who has made his work a lifetime effort. He felt it so strongly that he took up S.Korean citizenship.

I remember him. I believe he stated last year that the post 1965 agreement prevents Japan from requesting Korea to go to ICJ. This was of course, proven false. Wasn't that you that brought this up?

Furthermore, Dokdo is 80km from Korea (Ullungdo Islands), visible from Korea, while it's 187km from Japan (Oki Islands), and invisible from Japan.

Irrelevant based on legal precedence set in Palmas Island case.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Dokdo is 80km from Korea (Ullungdo Islands), visible from Korea, while it's 187km from Japan (Oki Islands), and invisible from Japan.

You just nailed it!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This is a classic example of Korea's attempt to obfuscate.

How's showing the maps that Japan don't even have (other then the ones they have been caught fabricating in the past), "obfuscating"?

Even Japan's 1902 document says Dokdo is Korean.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/10/15/2012101501034.html

So then where's your proof that the island belonged to Japan?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

How's showing the maps that Japan don't even have (other then the ones they have been caught fabricating in the past), "obfuscating"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV_DdH-xmVY

??? The first part of the video shows Japanese maps dating back as early as 1656 showing Takeshima alone (two sister islands in detail) as well as subsequent maps that show the accurate location of Takeshima from Oki islands.

I'm still waiting ONE for Korea. Just one.

Even Japan's 1902 document says Dokdo is Korean.

Nope. It simply states that within 50 "海里” of Ulluengdo, there exists 3 minor islands. One of which is "Ryanko tou" known to Japanese fishermen and "Matsushima" known in Japan. Nowhere does it state that it belongs to Korea nor the islands are part of Ulluengdo. This is again, a desparate attempt to obfuscate the correspondence.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

lol..

Why did Japanese fishermen acquire licenses to visit the Ullung islands if they were visiting their own country? The Ulleung Island and Dokdo were always the same color in ancient maps of Japan, and they were perceived as a couple. Look at your own maps. After a clash with Koreans on the island in 1693, Japan forbade their people from going to Ulleung and Dokdo islands, documented in your archives. Why would Japan forbid their own citizens from traveling within their own country?

Joseon Korean led by Ahn Yong-bok clashed with Japanese fishermen on Ulleung Island in 1693. When conflicts occurred, the Ego Shogunate concluded that Ulleung and Dokdo belonged to Korea because they were closer to Joseon’s mainland. The shogunate asked the lord of Dottori if there were islands similar to Ulleung and Dokdo. This means that even the Edo Shogunate was unaware of Dokdo`s existence. As such, Japan’s sovereignty claim to Dokdo makes no sense.

If Japanese were to fish in waters of the Korean Empire, Japanese fishermen had to pay taxes. According to records from 1897, Japanese paid export taxes to the administrative chief of Ulleung Island when they exported fish products and sea lions they caught in Ulleung and Dokdo. Levying tax is clear evidence that Korea had effective control over the islets. And why would Japanese pay taxes to Joseon Korea if Japanese were fishing in their own country? Ridiculous stubborn logic from Japan, if you ask me.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Then please name the battle(s) for the Senkakus.

@OssanAmerica--You are not listening. During the same Sino-Japanese war the Japanese took the capital city of Tainan without a shot being fired in the city. There was no Battle of Tainan, but it was still taken by force because it was taken in the process of a war. Its the same with the Senkakus, no matter how much you toy with semantics or try to add validity to the terra nullius claim. It would have been a different story if China had not been getting stomped in a war. They would have protested that claim. But they protested it about as much as the taking of Tainan, which is to say they didn't, because they were whipped.

Except the Chinese didn't even know about it because they didn't consider it their territory to start with. That's not what "taken by force" means.

Of course they knew about the Senkakus! Okinawa was a vassal state of China for centuries and the Senkakus are directly between Okinawa and China. And those islands were not claimed by Japan or Okinawa until 1905. Of course China considered them theirs. They just made no formal claim because they did not think anyone would be contesting them, much like Native Americans did not have land deeds, but its obvious it was their land. But folks like yourself always seek to abuse officialdom to deny people their rights and property. That is one way America got to be so big. Its thievery.

Nonetheless, I support Japan's claim to the Senkakus, I just don't support the basis. A spade is a spade. Japan stole those islands in accordance with global norms.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Why did Japanese fishermen acquire licenses to visit the Ullung islands if they were visiting their own country? The Ulleung Island and Dokdo were always the same color in ancient maps of Japan, and they were perceived as a couple. Look at your own maps. After a clash with Koreans on the island in 1693, Japan forbade their people from going to Ulleung and Dokdo islands, documented in your archives. Why would Japan forbid their own citizens from traveling within their own country?

Ullung is Korean territory. Korea's desparate attempt to attach Takeshima as part of Ullungdo has been proven false. This of course dates back to (Usan=Takeshima) theory which in of itself is a joke considering that the ancient passage indicates 44 people living there with plenty of vegetation.

Joseon Korean led by Ahn Yong-bok clashed with Japanese fishermen on Ulleung Island in 1693. When conflicts occurred, the Ego Shogunate concluded that Ulleung and Dokdo belonged to Korea because they were closer to Joseon’s mainland. The shogunate asked the lord of Dottori if there were islands similar to Ulleung and Dokdo. This means that even the Edo Shogunate was unaware of Dokdo`s existence. As such, Japan’s sovereignty claim to Dokdo makes no sense.

Yes. Ulleung Island. You again show your distortion by stating (Ullueng and Dokdo).

If Japanese were to fish in waters of the Korean Empire, Japanese fishermen had to pay taxes. According to records from 1897, Japanese paid export taxes to the administrative chief of Ulleung Island when they exported fish products and sea lions they caught in Ulleung and Dokdo. Levying tax is clear evidence that Korea had effective control over the islets. And why would Japanese pay taxes to Joseon Korea if Japanese were fishing in their own country? Ridiculous stubborn logic from Japan, if you ask me.

You"re again attaching (Ullueng and Dokdo) when no such passage exists.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Japan in 1905 claimed that they discovered this island suddenly so they claimed it for Japan, using the Terra Nullus, completely ignoring the fact that Joseon Korea was administrating the same island through Ullung district, as I have shown you the documents over and over again including Japan's own documents and maps coupling the two islands as one.

If Takeshima was considered Japanese territory for centuries, as the Japanese now claim, why did Japan in 1905 have to use the Terra Nullus to claim the island as their own? After all, wouldn't it be funny if Japan declared Terra Nullus on Honshu Island, and claimed it as Japan's territory? Japanese have to make up their minds. Either they have to stick to the reason that the island belonged to Japan for centuries, or just stick to what their ancestors did in 1905 - declare that Takeshima was a newly discovered island claimed by Japan under Terra Nullus. But they can't use both excuses at the same time, because they don't make any sense.

But the very fact that Japan declared Terra Nullus on Takeshima tells us that Japan prior to 1905, Japan clearly did not think the island belonged to Japan, otherwise there would not have been any need for Terra Nullus.

Furthermore, Nigel, you just admitted that Ullung Island belongs to Korea, right? But the Japanese in 1951 believed that the islands of Ullung, Dokdo, as well as Jeju belonged to Japan, and they lobbied the Americans to keep them as Japanese, while South Korea was invaded by North Korea, and was too busy to defend themselves. Same thing happened in 1905, Japan stealing from Korea while Korea was in no shape to defend themselves. Japan always took advantage of Korea when she was weak.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Japan in 1905 claimed that they discovered this island suddenly so they claimed it for Japan, using the Terra Nullus, completely ignoring the fact that Joseon Korea was administrating the same island through Ullung district, as I have shown you the documents over and over again including Japan's own documents and maps coupling the two islands as one.

That's not Japan's claim. Your argument that Joseon Korea was administrating the island is false for their are no records or maps indicating so.

The problem with your post is that you are using the term "terra nullius" literally while Japan's position is based on the argument of "terra nullius" under internaitonal law. To put it simply, it's the first nation to exercize administration and effective control continuosly which comes in a form of state or local incorporation, assessing taxes, issuing commercial license, and or erecting/building markers and infrastructure.

The above precedence has been set legally so there is no sense in arguing who is closer or who is more likely to have discovered them.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

So in other words, Japan didn't

"exercize administration and effective control continuosly which comes in a form of state or local incorporation, assessing taxes, issuing commercial license, and or erecting/building markers and infrastructure."

...until 1905. If they didn't do this until 1905, then Japan's claims that it was Japanese territory for three hundred years is false.

In summary, any Japanese defense of Takeshima has always been Japanese, based on old maps, old claims, and old texts, cannot be used because Japan clearly in 1905, didn't think Takeshima was Japanese, so much so that they had to use the Terra Nullus to claim the territory.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

...until 1905. If they didn't do this until 1905, then Japan's claims that it was Japanese territory for three hundred years is false.

Like I said, that's not the argument at all. Noticed I qualified the above with "and/or" hence the soverignty of Japan can be traced back to Edo era (issuance of permission of passage from the Shogunate)

For obvious reasons, 1905 incorporation by Shimane is the strongest one for it basically includes all of the actions.

Korea has NONE.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

You keep saying Korea has NONE. As if that will make all of Japan's claims true. Right. You still don't make any sense. You don't declare Terra Nullus on your own country, which Japan did on 1905 (supposedly on an island that they had owned for centuries). Japan just throws everything at the wall, and hope something sticks. Like they did in the San Fran treaty, claiming that the islands of Dokdo, Ulleung, Jeju, and Gumeundo, which area all unquestionably Korean, as rightful Japanese territories (all the territories that Japan grabbed from Korea in 1905 to 1910 when they took over Korea). This lack of contrition over what they did, is the reason why Koreans don't believe a single word from Japanese who say they apologized. If they apologized, why they keep insisting on taking back territories they stole in the first place? Why not leave Korea alone, Japan?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

@chucky

Furthermore, Dokdo is 80km from Korea (Ullungdo Islands), visible from Korea, while it's 187km from Japan (Oki Islands), and invisible from Japan.

In the first place, Dokdo that Koreans are calling now is not the original Dokdo. It is a small island near Ullungdo. A Japanese high school student has proved this from various documents, very theoretically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlZB4QGSh8g

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Chucky3176: lazy or not, I just could not find any RELIABLE sources that can back up the pro-Korea claims. You cannot find what does not exist anyway. What have seen is a bunch of websites generated by or associated with Korea that self-promote the Koreans' stance on the disputed islands. The link you so called "third-party" is none better: it's said to be created by a Canadian man named Steven, who is an "expat," (NO expert), living or traveling in Korea. My impression on this site is that it is a Korea-controlled site, just like the many ones I have come across, and Steven, the so-called webmaster, is the paid translator. You expected me to trust a shoddy site like this? To live up to my expectation, your sources of information must match the same scale and level of being official and reliable as those provided by the pro-Japan camp. They have provided quotes from the US State Department.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

virgo98, the Dokdo island is clearly visible from Ulleung island on a clear day. There are many pictures and clips that shows this. What do you think the Koreans who lived on Ulleung island for centuries, call the distant island they saw in the horizon? Japan's claim is that Koreans didn't know about the island they could clearly see. Japan's claim is hard to believe. It's doubly hard to believe because Japan once also claimed that Ulleungdo, Jejudo, and Gomundo were all once Japanese islands as well. Whatever Japan claims, lacks credibility based on their past actions.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

"Dokdo is 80km from Korea (Ullungdo Islands), visible from Korea, while it's 187km from Japan (Oki Islands), and invisible from Japan."

"You just nailed it!"

Heck, one of the Habomai Islands is less than 4 kilometers from Nemuro Peninsula in Hokkaido, whilst being a LOT farther from the Russian mainland, but it's a "Russian" island.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

intlobserver, you as a third party unbiased observer (as you claim), have spent few hours researching this and came to the conclusion Japan's side is correct? I'm sorry why don't you just say the truth, you were on Japan's side from the beginning and stop this pretense of an unbiased reader. It's just easy to dismiss all the sites as Korea-controlled, without even properly examining the evidences given. And you couldn't have done that in few hours. And nowhere in the State Department say specifically Takeshima is Japanese territory either.

Read Japanese merchant, Aizuya Hachiemon’s testimony before he was executed by Japan in 1837 for violating Japanese government's ban on travel to Dokdo, and all the maps that clearly show Japan didn't consider Takeshima as their own. You maybe able to dismiss the source as "Korea controlled", but you can't dismiss the Japanese maps and Japanese documents.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-takeshima-incident-of-1837.html

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

it's said to be created by a Canadian man named Steven, who is an "expat," (NO expert), living or traveling in Korea. My impression on this site is that it is a Korea-controlled site, just like the many ones I have come across, and Steven, the so-called webmaster, is the paid translator

All of the materials are from Japanese researchers: Professor Hideki Kajimura, Professor Kazuo Hori, and Professor Shojin Sato. Also includes American Professor ~ Jon M. Van Dyke, American School Teacher~Mark Lovmo, and Japanese born professor Yuji Hosaka, and the owner of the web site Steven J. Barber. It looks third party enough to me. Well, at least, third party who has taken up Korea's position.

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

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

So what! Japan!

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The last time I checked the Korean flag is (literally) waving over Dokdo not the Japanese flag.

If you don't like it do something about it - otherwise stop complaining and move on.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

You keep saying Korea has NONE. As if that will make all of Japan's claims true.

In a word, yes. If Korea cannot establish evidence of effective control in a way of authority and administration to the islands, the islands, prior to Japan's incorporation was in fact terra nullius.

Read Japanese merchant, Aizuya Hachiemon’s testimony before he was executed by Japan in 1837 for violating Japanese government's ban on travel to Dokdo, and all the maps that clearly show Japan didn't consider Takeshima as their own. You maybe able to dismiss the source as "Korea controlled", but you can't dismiss the Japanese maps and Japanese documents.

Shogunate's ban was on Ullungdo. 嶋渡海一件記 全 indicates that he pretended to go to Takeshima (which was not banned but required permission) but instead sailed to Ullungdo to harvest products. This is again, another example of desperately trying to attach Ullungdo to Takeshima.

Much of Hosaka as well as Half moon and Barber's are like this for they omit important parts and write their own deluded theory based on an unfounded assumption that the Japanese government knew the islands were of Korean to begin with. While this is fun to debate among the net, such arguments are completely irrelevant for the only thing that counts from the legal aspect is whether or not Korea has established such effective control and exercized authority prior to Japan.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

nigelboy: "In a word, yes. If Korea cannot establish evidence of effective control in a way of authority and administration to the islands, the islands, prior to Japan's incorporation was in fact terra nullius."

You continue to miss the point. There IS NO ISSUE over the Dokdo Islands. There is NO DISPUTE. South Korea acknowledges this. All Japan can do is wiggle its finger and claim something is theirs they do not live on, control, or administer. It may have been Japan's for a while after they took it by force, same as Russia took the Kuriles in the waning days of WWII, but it's not theirs now.

See that spilt milk you're crying over? Best just admit what it is. SK has every right to conduct drills on its property, same as Japan does. And sorry, comparing an apple to an apple or an orange to an orange is not comparing apples to oranges. The Japanese government here is engaging in outright hypocrisy, and you all know it. You probably think Abe's denial of the past and Chinese leader's denial of the past is apples and oranges too, I bet. It's always that way when your bias is called out.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

"The last time I checked the Korean flag is (literally) waving over Dokdo not the Japanese flag.

If you don't like it do something about it - otherwise stop complaining and move on."

Well, lessee... the Japanese could try to forcibly evict the Koreans from "Dokdo" ( with a good chance of success, though with inevitable casualties on both sides ), then it would be the Japanese flag flying over "Dokdo" and the Koreans' turn to "do something about it, and otherwise stop complaining and move on," lol

1 ( +2 / -1 )

ControlFreakOct. 27, 2013 - 09:11AM JST "Then please name the battle(s) for the Senkakus." @OssanAmerica--You are not listening. During the same Sino-Japanese war the Japanese took the capital city of >Tainan without a shot being fired in the city. There was no Battle of Tainan, but it was still taken by force because it >was taken in the process of a war. Its the same with the Senkakus, no matter how much you toy with semantics or try >to add validity to the terra nullius claim.

Wrong again. The capital city of Tainan was inhabited by Chinese and unquestionably "Chinese territory" was it not?. When that city fell to he Japanese, everyone was aware of it, were they not? Please tell me how may Chinese were on the Senkakus when Japan incorporated them. Please show me evidence that China was aware of this incorporation and what letter of protest was submitted. They do not exist because China never considered the Senkakus their territory to begin with.

It would have been a different story if China had not been getting stomped in a war. They would have protested that >claim. But they protested it about as much as the taking of Tainan, which is to say they didn't, because they were >whipped.

You are using the Qing Dynasty's defeat as an excuse to explain away the lack of evidence. Defeat in a war isn't a disorganized free-for-all as you depict. Treaties are signed ending wars and they are explicit. The Treaty of Shimonoseki clearly defines what territories the Qing Dynasty had to hand over to Japan. It followed standard international protocol. Do you think for a moment that if Japan took something else that was Chinese territory that China would not have protested? And your excuse would that it was "because China was defeated"? Nonsense. Japan protested to the USSR immediately when the Soviets took the Southern Kuriles AFTER Japan surrendered. Defeat in a war does not equate the waiver of all rights as a sovereign nation. If it didn't it would be unable to negotiate and sign a peace treaty.

Except the Chinese didn't even know about it because they didn't consider it their territory to start with. That's not >what "taken by force" means.

Of course they knew about the Senkakus!

I didn't say they didn't know about the existence of the islands. I said they didn't know about Japan's incorporation and didn't care because they didn't consider it "their territory".

Nonetheless, I support Japan's claim to the Senkakus, I just don't support the basis. A spade is a spade. Japan stole >those islands in accordance with global norms.

Japan "stole" them from nobody. If they were stolen they would have been taken away at the end of WWII in accordance with the Postdam Agreement as "territory taken by force". The same Agreement made clear that the allied powers could not take territory that was theirs before Japan took them. Hence, the Spratleys and Paracels were taken away. But not the Senkakus.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

how many islands do Japan have?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I think Chinese have a better sense of history than Japanese actually. Which you should be sad about consider it is not a democracy.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

It is difficult to hold in greater disregard in this dispute. Japan is glib, stubborn and shameless; ROK petulant and insufferable.

Be that as it may, Korea's has it. Japan should, for the sake of both of them, be the bigger man, as it were, and let ROK have it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Sir_EdgarOct. 28, 2013 - 03:47AM JST I think Chinese have a better sense of history than Japanese actually. Which you should be sad about consider it is >not a democracy.

China can't even abide by a Treaty they themselves signed in 1972 and reaffirmed in 1978. And you call that a better sense of history?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Japan already claims around 2,000 islands-maybe it should give up one or two in the interests of world peace?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You continue to miss the point. There IS NO ISSUE over the Dokdo Islands. There is NO DISPUTE. South Korea acknowledges this. All Japan can do is wiggle its finger and claim something is theirs they do not live on, control, or administer. It may have been Japan's for a while after they took it by force, same as Russia took the Kuriles in the waning days of WWII, but it's not theirs now.

You might want to tell those Korean citizens and their VANKSTERS with their Dokdo t-shirts, underwear, placards at sporting events, graffitti all across the world, and basically spreading their garbage in foreign countries. And no. Japan did not take them by force. That would be Korea which resulted in kidnapping Japanese fishermen for political gain (see the post marked Oct. 26, 2013 - 09:54AM JST) as well as several deaths. I guess you are silent about this.

See that spilt milk you're crying over? Best just admit what it is. SK has every right to conduct drills on its property, same as Japan does

What in the world are you talking about?

And sorry, comparing an apple to an apple or an orange to an orange is not comparing apples to oranges. The Japanese government here is engaging in outright hypocrisy, and you all know it. You probably think Abe's denial of the past and Chinese leader's denial of the past is apples and oranges too, I bet. It's always that way when your bias is called out.

I believe many have pointed out to your the difference. Perhaps instead of ranting, you might try a counter argument for a change.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Sir_EdgarOct. 28, 2013 - 03:47AM JST

I think Chinese have a better sense of history than Japanese actually.

That is a joke carried too far. What happend in Tian An Men sq? Is Tibet Chinese territory from ancient days? What truth is left in Chinese history?

presto345Oct. 26, 2013 - 10:38PM JST

Claims made by both nations to the islands are not convincing, but I personally think Japan ought to cede them to South Korea.

This concession strategy works in most countries, but not in Korea. In 1700's when the sovereignty of Ulleungdo, which is a larger island in the sea of Japan, was disputed between Japan and Korea, Japanese Shogunate government conceded it to promote friendship between the two nations. However, Korea, after accepting the island, demanded Japan apologies for "wrongfully claiming the island" because, in Korean culture, concession is same as admission of wrong doing. No one would concede unless he is wrong. As a result, the relation between Japan and Korea deteriorated further because Japan conceded Ulleungdo.

The same would happen if Japan were to concede Takeshima. They will demand apologies for "wrongfully claiming Takeshima", and the relation will go further worse.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

There was a secret agreement between Japan and South Korea just before the normalization treaty was concluded in 1965. It was scooped by a South Korean magazine in its April issue of 2007, which Sankei newspaper reported immediately on March 20. The deal was as follows:

1. Both countries would recognize that the other claimed the islets as their own territory, and neither side would object when the other made a counter argument. They agreed to regard it as a problem that would have to be resolved in the future.

2. If any fishing territories were demarcated in the future, both countries could use Takeshima/Dokdo as their own territory to mark the boundaries. Those places where the two lines overlapped would be considered joint territory.

3. The status quo in which South Korea occupied the islets would be maintained, but the Koreans would not increase their police presence or build new facilities.

4. Both countries would uphold this agreement.

South Korea recognized that Japan claimed the islets as its own territory. And vice versa. Both agreed that it was a problem to be solved in time. But South Korea seems to have forgotten it and began to argue that there is no dispute over the islands while condemning Japan's claim to the islets as amnesia of history and resurgence of militarism. And No.3 is a total dead letter already.

As the islets were a seafarers' landmark for ages who sailed between Oki and Ullelungdo, it's high time to settle it peacefully or in a down-to-earth way and make the area more productive for the peoples of the region.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Japan did not take them by force. That would be Korea which resulted in kidnapping Japanese fishermen for political gain

Yes, you are right. Japan didn’t take Dokdo by force. Japan took it by greed. Cairo Declaration in 1943 stipulated "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed." It’s so simple. Dokdo is the land Imperial Japan took by force and was returned to its original owner.

As to the Japanese fishermen, they were illegally trespassing the line they shouldn’t cross. The acident was resulted from their act, not Korean political gain.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Yes, you are right. Japan didn’t take Dokdo by force. Japan took it by greed. Cairo Declaration in 1943 stipulated "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed." It’s so simple. Dokdo is the land Imperial Japan took by force and was returned to its original owner.

Perhaps you need to follow the thread more carefully. The islands were never "owned" by Korea based on their complete lack of historical evidence of exercizing effective control (state authority and administration) prior to Japan's incorporation. The Allieds determined this as well so Takeshima was not included in the territories that Japan had to renounce.

As to the Japanese fishermen, they were illegally trespassing the line they shouldn’t cross. The acident was resulted from their act, not Korean political gain.

According to the Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East made in 1954, the U.S. government maintained that the one-sided declaration of the Syngman Rhee Line was illegal under international law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngman_Rhee_Line

0 ( +4 / -4 )

You might want to tell those Korean citizens and their VANKSTERS with their Dokdo t-shirts, underwear, placards at sporting events, graffitti all across the world, and basically spreading their garbage in foreign countries. And no. Japan did not take them by force. That would be Korea which resulted in kidnapping Japanese fishermen for political gain (see the post marked Oct. 26, 2013 - 09:54AM JST) as well as several deaths. I guess you are silent about this.

Good point. Why bother making all of this noise and claims that Dokdo is theirs if they're confident of their ownership of it? I recall some Korean group even taking out a full-page ad at the NY Times just to let everyone know that the island "belongs to Korea." Speaks volumes about their confidence in their claims. Sheesh.

There is a simple reason to why Japan were favored by the West during that time. It's called being civilized.

North China Herald 5 May 1905- Esson Third

" No land could possibly make a greater showing for bribery and corruption than Korea herself. On no piece of ground have men deceived and been deceived more universally than in this peninsula. No Government ever existed that was more infected with rottenness to the bones, cheating, lying, defrauding. But Korea has grown accustomed to and unconscious of her own way of doing such things and sees only the fault of others."

The New York Outlook : "Japanese in Korea"(Nov.11.1905) George Kennan

"The Koreans are mostly exaggerators or barefaced liars, by heredity and by training, and it is impossible to accept without careful verification, the statements which they make with regard to Japanese misbehavior."

Thanks for these quotes. I think this pretty much explains historically why Koreans can't be trusted easily, including and especially when they make territorial claims. Their reputation precedes them.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Response to CH3CHOOct. 28, 2013 - 09:48AM JST

You learned wrong history of Korea-Japan dispute on Ulleongdo. The Shogunate didn’t conceded Ulleongdo just because to promote friendship. Japan had to stop claiming on Ulleongdo because it was concluded Ulleongdo belonged to Korea. There has been no time Japan owned Ulleongdo throughout the history except 36 years of colonial rule in Korea. Learn about how Tottori Han answered to Shogunate’s inquiry to the ownership of Takeshima(Ulleongdo then) in 1695. Tottori Han clearly replied “…Takeshima does not belong to Inaba Province or Hoki Provnce. (一竹島は、因幡・伯耆に附属してはおりません。)”. Tottori Han also replied ““…There are no other islands belonging to the two prefectures including Takeshima and Matsushima (Dokdo then)…” (一竹島、松島、その他、両国(因幡・伯耆)に附属する島は、ありません。)“ After these statement, the Shogunate prohibited the Japanese to voyage to Ulleongdo. In other words, the Shogunate conceded Ulleongdo because it was obviously Korean land. Of course, it included goodwill to keep good relationship with Korea.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Suin KimOct. 28, 2013 - 05:31PM JST

Takeshima does not belong to Inaba Province or Hoki Provnce.

That is because Takeshima, which is Ulleungdo today, belonged to OKI Province. Takeshima (Ulleungdo) is recorded in Onshu Shichogoki of 1667, which is a record of places belonging to Onshu aka Oki Province.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

That is because Takeshima, which is Ulleungdo today, belonged to OKI Province. Takeshima (Ulleungdo) is recorded in Onshu Shichogoki of 1667, which is a record of places belonging to Onshu aka Oki Province.

The reason Shogunate asked to Tottori Han is that the Japanese fishermen who went to Ulleongdo were from Hoki Province. The Shogunate wanted to where Ulleongdo and Dokdo belonged to. Did Shogunate inquire Oki Island? No. It wasn’t necessary. In the dialogue between Toda Yamashiro-no-kami in Edo and the feudal lord of Tsushima, there’s a phrase “In this way they had been there and had fished there, it didn’t mean to take Chosun’s island.“ Ulleongdo and Dokdo as well were considered as Korean land by the Shogunate. There was no other way for Shogunate to cede Ulleongdo and Dokdo, too.

In Onshu Shichogoki, Takeshima(Ulleungdo) was not recorded as a place belonging to Oki Province. Instead, Onshu Shichogoki described the northwest boundary of Japan was Oki Island. In other words, Ulleongdo and Dokdo were not belonged to Japan.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

My prediction as america loses its Obama face South Korea will butt up to China and that would be the turning point of diplomacy in that region

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Suin KimOct. 28, 2013 - 10:27PM JST

"In this way they had been there and had fished there, it didn't mean to take Chosun's island."

So, they meant Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks were Japanese inlands.

Onshu Shichogoki described the northwest boundary of Japan was Oki Island.

I know Korean news papers keep saying this to the Koreans who cannot read Japanese. I also know a naturalized Japanese Korean professor who makes living by spreading misinformation on liancourt Rocks.

Onshu Shichogoki says Oki Province is the northwest boundary of Japan. How can one say so? He set sail from Oki Island to the north west. In a day he he reached at Matsushima (Takeshima). In one more day, he reached at Takeshima (Ulleungdo). He landed on Takeshima and saw Korea and nothing but sea between Korea and Takeshima. So, he concluded this is the north west boundary of Japan. Oki Province is made up of a lot of islands, including Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Takeshima) and it makes the north west boundary of Japan.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It bothers me when intelligent people act dumb. The only way for Japan to really own any island is to put Japanese people on the ground and hoist the Japanese flag. End of story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CUBANOOct. 29, 2013 - 11:45AM JST

There are many cases in which nations resolved territorial disputes through bilateral negotiation, arbitration by third country or judgment by ICJ. Uleungdo is a case through bilateral nagotiation between Japan and Korea. You can see many cases at the homepage of ICJ.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

<><><>

So, they meant Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks were Japanese inlands.

No, you’re wrong. What he meant was “The Japanese fishermen trespassed to Korean Ulleongdo and Dokdo on the way to Ulleongdo and it didn’t mean to take Korean land. What they did was just a fishing on Korean land and now we return it.” I think the Japanese then were honest.

I know Korean news papers keep saying this to the Koreans who cannot read Japanese. I also know a naturalized Japanese Korean professor who makes living by spreading misinformation on liancourt Rocks.

If the writer of “Onshu Shicho Goki” considered Ulleongdo and Dokdo as Japanese land as you insist, why aren’t those two islands included in the map attached to “Onshu Shicho Goki” depicting islands consisting of Oki Province? The last sentence of “Onshu Shicho Goki” is “Thus, the northwest of Japan, we make this this province(此州) to be the boundary.” Japan claims “this province” indicates Ulleongdo and Dokdo. But this claim proved to be wrong by the Japanese scholar named Ikeuchi Satoshi. A naturalized Japanese Korean professor Hosaka Yuji doesn't spread misinformation. He always provides evidence for what he says.

Prof.keuchi Satoshi’s Interpretation : http://hide20.blog.ocn.ne.jp/mokei/2010/03/post_a546.html

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Suin KimOct. 29, 2013 - 04:52PM JST

Do not you see the contradiction in your statement? This province means this province. But then, you say this province means Oki Island rather than Oki Province.

See the original text of Onshu Shichogoki.

http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/takeshima04c.data/4-4-5-01.pdf

The map is on page 3 and 4. There are about 180 islands in Oki Province. But only 9 islands were drawn in the map. Therefore, the map is not comprehensive. The fact that some islands were not drawn on the map does not mean the islands did not belong to Oki Province.

The description on Takeshima and Matsushima is on page 5. Whenever a place out of Oki Province is referred, the province name is added to the name of the place. On the other hand, whenever a place in Oki Province is referred, the province name is omitted. Takeshima and Matsushima are referred without mentioning province name. This make them recognized to be included in Oki Province.

Professor Hosaka is least regarded in Japan because what he calls evidence is not evidence at all. He is just taking advantage of lack of Japanese language ability of Koreans.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

CH3CHOOct. 29, 2013 - 07:19PM JST

What’s the difference Oki Island and Oki Province? Do they mean different? I think it’s not a big deal in this argument. It’s not the contradiction in my statement at all. I used them same meaning. I used Oki Province, not Oki Island to explain the islands belonging to that province.

You claimed as if the writer of “Onshu Shicho Goki” regarded Takeshima(Ulleongdo) and Matsushima(Dokdo) as the northwest boundary of Japan and wrote so in his book. If it’s true, those two islands must be very important because they define the boundary of Japan. In other words, they should be included in the map of islands in Oki Province. It’s common sense.

You don’t mention about Prof. Ikeuchi Satoshi‘s interpretation on “this province”. He’s a Japanese and can read Japanese language precisely. You can refute his interpretation, if you don’t agree.

It’s no wonder Professor Hosaka is regarded so in Japan and you think of him in that way.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

All I can say is LOL at the Japanese claims.

What are the chances of Japanese claim of Takeshima island being considered part of the Oki province, when you can't even see the Takeshima island from 187km away in Oki. I would say virtually none, if not ludicrous considering that many Japanese historical documents specifically say Japanese shall be banned from Ulleungdo island. But what are the chances of Korean claims of Dokdo island part of Ulleungdo when it can be seen on any clear day, only 80km apart?

Also, the Japanese tried to claim in 1951 that Ulleung island, as well as Gomeundo, and Jejudo islands as rightful Japanese territories which the allies didn't buy. Japan has a history of land grabs, and this is another perfect example of their false claims, hoping by throwing everything at the wall, something will stick through some technicalities or loop holes. That's what happened with Dokdo in 1951.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Koreans have all the arguments in the world but are afraid to present them at the ICJ. Why is that?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Why should Korea go to icj when it's considered Korean territory, held by Koreans, flying a Korean flag on the island. It's already Korean territory, what's the point of suing yourself?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Why should Korea go to icj when it's considered Korean territory, held by Koreans, flying a Korean flag on the island. It's already Korean territory, what's the point of suing yourself?

It's not "suing yourself." From Korea's point of view, going to the ICJ would prove to the world that the rock belongs to Korea and make the Japanese shut up. The fact that they do not is detrimental to their claim.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

chucky3176Oct. 30, 2013 - 05:47AM JST Why should Korea go to icj when it's considered Korean territory, held by Koreans, flying a Korean flag on the island. >It's already Korean territory, what's the point of suing yourself?

Because South Korea claims to have all the evidence needed to prove their ownership. If so settling at the ICJ would be the rational thing to do. Yet they are afraid. Clearly they are not as confident in their evidence as are their internet supporters. It is held by Koreans, flying a Korean flag because South Korea took it ILLEGALLY in 1954. Only a thief who knows it would refuse to go to court and legalize his ownership.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

OssanAmerica Oct. 30, 2013 - 08:00AM JST Because South Korea claims to have all the evidence needed to prove their ownership. If so settling at the ICJ would be the rational thing to do. Yet they are afraid.

As far as South Korea concerns there is no dispute in Dokdo/Takeshima. If Japan is disputing the island then Jpaan is the one that must take South Korea to ICJ. You are posting the same questions so many times but you seem to be have difficulty understanding the logic. Why did Japan to tell the whole world that they were not taking China to the ICJ if you didn't have to? Japan had no intention of going to the ICJ over the Diaoyu/Senkaku but had every intention of going over the Dodko? How many Prime Minister has Japan had over the last 10 years? The change of leadership at the head of a Japan is a sign of democracy. It is also a sign of a dysfunctional politicians, but that is another story.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

As far as South Korea concerns there is no dispute in Dokdo/Takeshima. If Japan is disputing the island then Jpaan is the one that must take South Korea to ICJ.

Japan requested Korea to settle this matter via ICJ three times to Korea. Korea refused all three. Since Korea is not a signatory to Declarations Recogniziging the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory, she could just refuse Japan's request since Korea has positioned herself that she does not recognize a U.N. sanction legal organ in International Court of Justice.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

There's nothing that stops Japan from taking Korea to ICJ. None at all. Maybe Japan don't want to because they know they will lose when so many of their own historians in Japan don't back their own government, instead they are on Korea's side! All of Japan's historical argument is very flimsy considering that they claimed the Terra Nullus on the island in 1905. Why would any country claim Terra Nullus if they believe the land belongs to them?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

chucky3176Oct. 30, 2013 - 08:44AM JST There's nothing that stops Japan from taking Korea to ICJ. None at all.

Incorrect again. For a case to be heard by the ICJ both the Plaintiff and Defendant must agree to have it heard by the ICJ. This is how South Korea has weaseled out of going to court THREE times.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

It's amazing that Koreans and their VANKSTERs would appeal "Dokdo is ours" with their shirts, placards, banners, underwear, license plates, bill boards, newspaper ads and graffiti spreading their excess baggage ALL ACROSS THE WORLD except International Court of Justice.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

this is another perfect example of their false claims,

The strifing of Japanese CG vessel from Takeshima isn't 'false' but a 'fact'...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If Japan wins in court, they get Takeshima. If Korea wins in court, what do they get for the win? They get to shut up Japan? That doesn't sound like fair to me. Why doesn't Japan entice Korea with an incentive? If Japan wins they get Takeshima, but if they lose, Korea keeps Dokdo AND takes over Tsushima. Now that would be fair. I'm sure Japan would not mind since they are so sure that they will win in court.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

i seriously hate japan south korea and chinese government! what the hell! there are innocent people that probably dont even care about those island! im so scared one of these dayz there will be war between em! omg creedy people in the gov! we all need to stop these stupid war threats and **** we all need to stand up and say NO! when the time comes but thats just my wishful thinking T____T

1 ( +3 / -2 )

chucky3176Oct. 30, 2013 - 10:09AM JST

If Japan wins in court, they get Takeshima. If Korea wins in court, what do they get for the win?

Court is about JUSTICE. It is not gambling. If you steal, you must return.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

And South Korea stole Takeshima and are evading justice. Only the guilty are afraid to appear in court.

Japan stole it in 1905, then stole rest of Korea in 1910. Stop with the denials that it's not part of Japan's series of hostile attacks on Korea throughout history.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

chucky3176Oct. 31, 2013 - 04:13AM JST "And South Korea stole Takeshima and are evading justice. Only the guilty are afraid to appear in court." Japan stole it in 1905, then stole rest of Korea in 1910. Stop with the denials that it's not part of Japan's series of >hostile attacks on Korea throughout history.

Again, until South Korea grows a pair and decides to put this issue to rest for good at the ICJ, no matter what Korea supporters say, their country continues to look guilty. What rather remarkable is that these same supporters do not advocate going to the ICJ to make Japan "shut up or good".

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Again, until South Korea grows a pair and decides to put this issue to rest for good at the ICJ, no matter what Korea supporters say, their country continues to look guilty. What rather remarkable is that these same supporters do not advocate going to the ICJ to make Japan "shut up or good".

Again, South Korean government believes that there is no dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima, just like Japanese government believes there is no dispute over Senkaku/Diaoyu, and hence refuses to accept Japan's proposition to take the issue to the ICJ.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Mitch CohenOct. 31, 2013 - 09:21AM JST

Again, South Korean government believes that there is no dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima,

Then, why do we have this big "temporal joint fishing area" around Takeshima?

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E9%9F%93%E6%BC%81%E6%A5%AD%E5%8D%94%E5%AE%9A

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

nigelboyOct. 28, 2013 - 10:05AM JST , "“The islands were never "owned" by Korea based on their complete lack of historical evidence of exercizing effective control (state authority and administration) prior to Japan's incorporation. ”

Korea has a very strong evidence on effective control. It’s Korean Edict No.41 of 1900 placing Seokdo(Dokdo) under the jurisdiction of Uldo(Ulleongo) County. The automatic response from Japanese is Seokdo in Edict is not Dokdo, but they can’t tell what Seokdo is. One year after Japan’s illegal incorporation of Dokdo, the officials from Shimane Prefecture unexpectedly visited Ulleongdo and told Uldo Governor Shim that Japan incorporated Dokdo. On hearing this news, he immediately reported it to the centre government. "…Dokdo belonging to this county is located in the sea 100 ri from this county. ..... a group of Japanese Officials came to my office and said, “We came to inspect Dokdo since it is now Japanese territory…” Shocked by Shim's report, the Korea's highest government agency issued Order No.3 stating "I have read this report. Claiming Dokdo became Japan’s territory is absolutely groundless. Investigate the circumstances of the island and action of Japanese people and report again...“ Obviously, Korea was exercising the sovereignty over Dokdo when Japan incorporated Dokdo on the ground terra nullius(Nobody’s territory). Imperial Japan stole Dokdo by greed.

Korean Edict No. 41 : http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TvuS2OCie_4/URoLeYhzVII/AAAAAAAAESQ/8jvs2k2bhGU/s1600/%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EC%B9%99%EB%A0%B91.jpg

Governor Shim’s Report and Korean Government Order No.3 : http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8Zv2XK2LJ6M/URzW_o89u2I/AAAAAAAAET0/jqcgXiL2C_4/s640/%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EC%B9%99%EB%A0%B92.jpg

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Mitch CohenOct. 31, 2013 - 09:21AM JST "Again, until South Korea grows a pair and decides to put this issue to rest for good at the ICJ, no matter what Korea supporters say, their country continues to look guilty. What rather remarkable is that these same supporters do not advocate going to the ICJ to make Japan "shut up or good". Again, South Korean government believes that there is no dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima, just like Japanese >government believes there is no dispute over Senkaku/Diaoyu, and hence refuses to accept Japan's proposition to >take the issue to the ICJ.

Again you are mistaken in your analogy. Japan does not recognize a "dispute" but if China were to suggest they settle the matter at the ICJ Japan would be required to agree. To date China has failed to do so, In contrast, Japan has suggested going to the ICJ THREE times and South Korea has refused. They have no reason to since South Korea has not signed an agreement to accept ICJ rulings as Japan has. Another difference is that wjile Japan considers the Senkakus to be theirs they have not put people or structures on it and in fact have made it illegal to do so. In contrast South Korea defying the U.S, position illegally occupied Takeshima putting coast guard personnel on it and building structures. Again indicative of the South Korean theft mentality and the need to secure it first before debate.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Notice how Japan doesn't send undercover military in fishing boats to the island.

Nor does she send drones into the airspace around the islands.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Suin Kim

Sorry. The 1906 Hwangseoung newspaper clearly indicates the boundaries of Ulluengdo whereby the theory of Seokdo=Takeshima is debunked.

http://ameblo.jp/nidanosuke/image-10059918345-10046631579.html

Also, this is confirmed in the 1906 Daehan Jiji with the boundaries within 130 degrees 35 minutes (Takeshima 131 degrees 52 minutes)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3259/2855703334_e7e81d38cb_b.jpg

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Japanese (and people in general born after 1970) harbor bitter resentment of Koreans who harbor bitter resentment of Japanese colonial rule from 1910 to 1945.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

sakeshotzNov. 01, 2013 - 05:49AM JST Japanese (and people in general born after 1970) harbor bitter resentment of Koreans who harbor bitter resentment of >Japanese colonial rule from 1910 to 1945.

That happens because the Koreans who harbor bitter resentment were not around during the colonization and are the product of an anti-Japan education and society which really started around 1980.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

japanese harbor bitter resentment of Koreans?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Suin KimOct. 31, 2013 - 10:43PM JST

Korea has a very strong evidence on effective control. It’s Korean Edict No.41 of 1900 placing Seokdo

Korean Edict 41 is the proof Dokdo does not belong to Korea. It says Seokdo not Dokdo.

Ulleungdo, Jukdo and Seokdo belong to Korea. Dokdo does not. Korean say Seokdo is Dokdo without any documents to support that claim. Since Dokdo did not belong to Korea, it was terra nullius, which Japan claimed in 1905. Japan must thank Korean Edict 41.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

nigelboyNov. 01, 2013 - 03:04AM JST

You are 100% wrong.I expected that response. Japanese interpret Korean newspaper articles as they like. It’s seriously misleading.

The title of article is "Facts on Arrangement of Uldo County" (鬱島郡의 配置顛末)”, but what the Japanese Resident-General asked was what islands belonged to Ulleungdo, not Uldo County. Read it again. The answer from Korea “It said east-west is 60ri and south-north is 40ri, the total is about 200ri.)” is not related to the Uldo County. It's about the Ulleongdo which the Japanese Resident-General asked. Korean document and maps have the same phrase “east-west is 60ri and south-north is 40ri, the total is about 200ri.” related to Ulleongdo. It’s just the citation from those.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S1Ncrniz_3t4puzdZr2OtbVsGmKa1QboK5IPlM5cR8k/edit

In the epilogue of Daehan Jiji, the writer wrote he referenced the Japanese books due to the lack of time. Then, were there Japanese books describing Korean eastern limit as Daehan jiji did? Yes. Even the Japanese government’s waterway magazine(寰瀛水路誌, 1883) described the eastern boundary of Korea as E130º35. The decisive flaw of your evidence is Korean eastern boundary E130º35 excludes even Ulleongdo(E130°54′). In other words, it’s just an inaccurate description of Korean limit.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZpeUNvJd1Rfp8OgiCc7FQ41yCIKy-amRxsIWhubijyM/edit

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Suin KimOct. 31, 2013 - 10:43PM JST

the Korea's highest government agency issued Order No.3 stating "I have read this report. Claiming Dokdo became Japan’s territory is absolutely groundless. Investigate the circumstances of the island and action of Japanese people and report again...“

Where is the report in responce to Order 3? As far as I know, Korean government has not disclosed it. Propably, it would say, "Actually, Dokdo was not Korean to begin with."

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8Zv2XK2LJ6M/URzW_o89u2I/AAAAAAAAET0/jqcgXiL2C_4/s640/%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EC%B9%99%EB%A0%B92.jpg

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The title of article is "Facts on Arrangement of Uldo County" (鬱島郡의 配置顛末)”, but what the Japanese Resident-General asked was what islands belonged to Ulleungdo, not Uldo County. Read it again. The answer from Korea “It said east-west is 60ri and south-north is 40ri, the total is about 200ri.)” is not related to the Uldo County. It's about the Ulleongdo which the Japanese Resident-General asked. Korean document and maps have the same phrase “east-west is 60ri and south-north is 40ri, the total is about 200ri.” related to Ulleongdo. It’s just the citation from those.

Kind of desperate aren't you? The Korea's own argument through ancient historical records are that Takeshima is one of the islands associated with Ulluengdo. (Usan=Dokdo). Now you want to detach it and argue that Ministry was talking about Ulluengdo only despite the title of the article (Facts on Arrangement of ULDO COUNTY) states otherwise.

When discussing/inquiring boundaries, common sense tells you that you confirm and give full details to the most outer limits of the county especially the ones that are the closest to Japan. The mere fact that the Ministry is replying in detail of Ulluengdo clearly indicates, using basic common sense, that they were explaining Ulluengdo which was their boundary limit.

In the epilogue of Daehan Jiji, the writer wrote he referenced the Japanese books due to the lack of time. Then, were there Japanese books describing Korean eastern limit as Daehan jiji did? Yes. Even the Japanese government’s waterway magazine(寰瀛水路誌, 1883) described the eastern boundary of Korea as E130º35. The decisive flaw of your evidence is Korean eastern boundary E130º35 excludes even Ulleongdo(E130°54′). In other words, it’s just an inaccurate description of Korean limit.

Korean eastern boundary got better as years went by.

http://matuda.wiki.fc2.com/wiki/%E6%9C%9D%E9%AE%AE%E3%81%8C%E8%A8%98%E3%81%97%E3%81%9F%E5%9B%BD%E5%9C%9F%E3%81%AE%E6%9D%B1%E9%99%90%EF%BC%88%E6%97%A5%E9%A0%98%E7%AB%B9%EF%BC%89

Still not 131 degrees 52 minutes. Sorry.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

If Japanese naval ships do not enter South Korean waters near Dokdo/Takeshima, South Koreans do not need to have the drills. Do not enter their waters. Japanese naval ships wouldn’t dare to enter Russian waters, near the disputed islets administered by Russia. Why South Korean waters? Be consistent. Stop whining and move on.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

If Japanese naval ships do not enter South Korean waters near Dokdo/Takeshima,

Define "South Korean waters near Dokdo/Takeshima".

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

CH3CHONov. 01, 2013 - 09:24AM JST

Your comment is typical response from pro-Takeshima Japanese people.

If Seokdo is not Dokdo, what is Seokdo in Korean Edict 41? To claim Seokdo is not Dokdo, you should first reveal what Seokdo is. And Uldo Governer Shim clearly said “Dokdo belonging to this County..” Aside from Seokdo, what is Dokdo belonging to his county? Your insistence is groundless.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Suin KimNov. 01, 2013 - 05:31PM JST

If Seokdo is not Dokdo, what is Seokdo in Korean Edict 41?

The burden of proof is on Korea. If it wants to establish its rights on Dokdo by Edict 41 of 1900, Korea has to prove Seokdo is Dokdo. If it cannot, Japanese claim in 1905 will prevail. Japan does not have to prove what Seokdo is, or what the Korean government at the time meant by Seokdo in confusion.

Seokdo could be Kuanuemdo, or any islet near Ulleungdo or even some imaginary island. It does not matter to Japan. It just means Korea cannot prove its rights on Dokdo by Edict 41.

Do not you have any map or any land register of Seokdo? I think Korea is hiding.

And Uldo Governer Shim clearly said "Dokdo belonging to this County.."

That does not make Dokdo Korean territory. Japan claimed it one year earlier in 1905. Korea has to show its rights before 1905. And since Edict 41 of 1900 is not a proof, Korea has no case.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

nigelboyNov. 01, 2013 - 03:13PM JST

What a weird logic! Then, are you going to admit Dokdo is inseparable from Ulleongdo if I agree with you? Probably, you would not. OK. Let’s suppose it’s about Uldo County as you insist. Then, can you explain what those figures indicate? I’m sure you can’t.

This is not the issue related to the association of Ulleongdo with Dokdo. Please stick to the texts of the article. It’s said “統監府에서 內部에 公函하되 江原道 三陟郡 管下에 所在 鬱陵島에 所属島嶼와 郡廳設始 年月을 示明하라는 故로 答函하되、光武二年五月二十日에 鬱陵島監으로 設始 하였다가 光武四年十月二十五日에 政府會議를 經由하야 郡守를 配置하니 郡廳은 台霞洞에 在하고 該郡所管島는 竹島石島오、東西가 六十里오 南北이 四十里니, 合 二百餘里라고 하였다더라.” Is there any word indicating Uldo County? The Japanese Resident-General asked what islands belonged to Ulleungdo(鬱陵島), not what islands belonged to Uldo County(鬱島 or 鬱島郡).

I talk about the evidence, but you don’t You just tell your own thinking. You don’t mention about the Korean document and maps with same phrases describing Ulleongdo.

The Korean limits in the books you cited are meaningless. Some of them don’t even include Ulleongdo. Do you think Koreans could measure the longitude and attitude at the time? No way! They just referenced the Japanese books with the inaccurate descriptions about Korean limit. I showed how the Japanese government book was inaccurate.

Japanese geographer, Tabuchi Tomohiko (田淵友彦), described the Korean eastern point as 130º 58' E. longitude in his book “New Geography of Korea (韓國新地理, 1905). E130°58′ doesn't include Dokdo, but he wrote about Dokdo in the section of Ulleongdo of Gwangwon Province and included Dokdo in his map of Korea. He’s using the Japanese new name of Dokdo ”Takeshima(竹島), which means he knew Japan already incorporated it. This map proves Japan illegally incorporated Korean island.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1olqXDzFha5x2eAGoN3sEfKaPTWQ929EsgWQBzm7LjxE/edit

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What a weird logic! Then, are you going to admit Dokdo is inseparable from Ulleongdo if I agree with you? Probably, you would not. OK. Let’s suppose it’s about Uldo County as you insist. Then, can you explain what those figures indicate? I’m sure you can’t.

Only if you can prove Seokdo=Dokdo (Takeshima) in which this article, does not.

Is there any word indicating Uldo County?

The title. Duh.

The Japanese Resident-General asked what islands belonged to Ulleungdo(鬱陵島), not what islands belonged to Uldo County(鬱島 or 鬱島郡).

Does common sense not apply when discussing a simple article like this? I repeat.

When discussing/inquiring boundaries, common sense tells you that you confirm and give full details to the most outer limits of the county especially the ones that are the closest to Japan. The mere fact that the Ministry is replying in detail of Ulluengdo clearly indicates, using basic common sense, that they were explaining Ulluengdo which was their boundary limit.

What's the next argument? Since many maps during the late 19th century and early 20 century did not precisely describe Ulluengdo's 'minutes', all is invalid therefore by default, Takeshima (which is at least 1 degree East, i.e. 90-100 km East) belongs to Korea. Great logic there.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

nigelboyNov. 01, 2013 - 11:07PM JST

You still don’t mention about the evidence I showed. If you chose to stubbornly insist your own view ignoring the evidence, it ok with me. It’s your choice.

What do you think about Uldo Governor Shim’s report and Let me repeat.

Governor Shim : "…Dokdo belonging to this county is located in the sea 100 ri from this county. ...... a group of Japanese Officials came to my office and said, “We came to inspect Dokdo since it is now Japanese territory…” Prime Minister Bak Che-soon : “I have read this report. Claiming Dokdo became Japan’s territory is absolutely groundless. ”

There was one more response in Korean government on Japan’s illegal incorporation of Dokdo. Order from Ministry of Home Affairs : "It is not unusual for those Japanese Officials to inspect Ulleongdo Island while they were traveling in the area. However their claiming Dokdo as Japanese territory does not make sense at all. We find the Japanese claim shocking.(遊覽道次에 地界戶口之錄去 容或無怪어니와 獨島之稱云日本屬地는 必無其理니 今此所報가 甚涉訝然이라.)

Please forget about the inaccurate books. There a lot of evidence to prove Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was illegal. I collected the maps showing Japan’s perception Dokdo is Korean land.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/15qc1l1XD56wIQR-iTlrKne9JN2ZuD1KIaRgAjngk0Mk/edit

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What do you think about Uldo Governor Shim’s report and Let me repeat

Where is the follow up? Why are you directing the question to me when CH3CHO had already addressed it? Takeshima is not 100 ri from Ulluengdo. Why are the government calling it "Dokdo" on this and is immediately followed by "Seokdo" on the 鬱島郡의 配置顛末 without giving any details to the relative distance between Ulluengdo and Takeshima (92 km South East)?

I agree with CH3CHO in that.

Propably, it would say, "Actually, Dokdo was not Korean to begin with."

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

nigelboyNov. 04, 2013 - 05:20AM JST

"Why are you directing the question to me when CH3CHO had already addressed it? "

It’s because you said “Only if you can prove Seokdo=Dokdo (Takeshima) in which this article, does not.” I think CH3CHO is reading my comments, too.

Yes, Dokdo is beyond 100ri. Shim was just ignorant about the exact location of Dokdo. However, this doesn’t mean he is talking about other island than Dokdo. There’s no any island located in the sea 100 ri from Ulleongdo. Japanese naval vessel Niitaka reported Liancourt Rocks was written as "Dokdo" (獨島) by Koreans and the people were traveling from Ulleongdo to Dokdo. Above all, Shim was responding to the Japanese officials who said “We came to inspect Dokdo since it is now Japanese territory…” If Shim didn’t know about Dokdo, he couldn’t have responded immediately. There’s no possibility Shim didn’t know about Dokdo.

It’s not strange Shim used the name Dokdo instead of Seokdo at all. Seokdo is newly made name for Dokdo and Koreans were using the name Dokdo as mentioned in Niitaka logbook. Those two names indicating today’s Dokdo were being used together. Same thing happened in Japan, too. Japanese traditional name “Matsushima(=Dokdo)” was being used along with newly made name “Takeshima” even after 1905.

I’d like to introduce a map made by Imperial Japan's Army Land Survey Department in 1936, even though it seems you and CH3CHO are not interested in the evidence. It proves Dokdo was the land Imperial Japan took by greed.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AskyD2N-qMxL9dQsIbUlQnx71ieDjTayIM1S0dvkI7I/edit

Japan claims Takeshima/Dokdo is inherent part of Japan and Japan incorporated it because there were no traces of occupation by any other countries at the same time, which is very contradictory. The map linked shows Japanese claim is a lie.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Are we back to maps again, Suin Kim for I have yet to see ANY MAPS FROM KOREA indicating Takeshima prior to Japan's incorporation?

The map of 1936 is irrelevant for the simple fact that during that time, Takeshima was under administrative jurisdiction of Shimane Prefecture, Oki branch with various administrative documents indicating so.

So where is the follow up to No.3 of Governor Shim's report?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

nigelboyNov. 04, 2013 - 11:54PM JST

Are you anxious to see Korean maps? It’s here. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R0enZmJ-Za4AwCv8z8coymYJ1y9wkbSbtbtAokXMNuA/edit

Now, I’m anxious to see any Japanese old map showing Takeshima was inherent part of Japan. You should remember the maps depicted both Ulleongdo and Dokdo as Japanese land are invalid because, in 1696, the Shogunate officially announced Ulleongdo was Korean land.

The map of 1936 is showing Takeshima was the Korean land before Japan’s incorporation. On January 1946, SCAP(Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers) issued a directive which governmentally and administratively separated Japan from Dokdo and prohibited Japan to exercise or even attempt to exercise governmental or administrative authority over Dokdo. It’s highly likely that directive was based on the map of 1936.

Map of SCAPIN 677: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GqkqsN3hWWlZm1WW6iZLnS7ObQUYn70EPKwZTQ2mgKI/edit

What do you mean “the follow up to No.3 of Governor Shim's report”? Are you asking why Korea didn’t protest against Japanese government regarding Japanese illegal incorporation? If so, it’s a very unscrupulous question. Let me know if that question is what you meant.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Are you anxious to see Korean maps?

Oh god!!!! What I saw was a rather comical map of Ulluengdo and her nearby adjacent island in Jukdo. Where is the 92 km southeast of the said island in Takeshima? If Usan is Takeshima/Dokdo, where the hell is Jukdo?

As for SCAPIN 677,

"Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration"

The said order was abolished after the Treaty was ratified in April of 1952.

What do you mean “the follow up to No.3 of Governor Shim's report”? Are you asking why Korea didn’t protest against Japanese government regarding Japanese illegal incorporation? If so, it’s a very unscrupulous question. Let me know if that question is what you meant.

What I and CH3CHO referred to is the response from the central government of Korea in regards to Shim's report.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

nigelboyNov. 07, 2013 - 02:30AM JST

You don’t show me Japanese maps showing only Takeshima is inherent part of Japan. All you can do is bickering about Korean evidence. I know there’s no such maps in Japan. That’s why Japan’s claim Takeshima is inherent part of Japan is a lie.

Please give me the reasons why you think the island named Usando is Jukdo and Jukdo a small 51-acre island about two kilometers away from Ulleungdo should be in the whole map of Korea.

"Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration"

That is what the Japanese parrot about SCAPIN 677. No, it wasn't the ultimate determination, but it was definitely the determination of SCAP on Japan’s definition on the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration. SCAP governmentally and administratively separated Japan from Dokdo and stopped Japan to exercise governmental or administrative authority over Dokdo. SCAP put Dokdo outside of Japan. Accordingly, the Allied Powers agreed to transfer the sovereignty of Dokdo to Korea and the early US drafts of Treaty stipulated Dokdo was Korean land. You can deny Dokdo was one of the land Imperial Japan took by greed and violence.

Thank you for not asking an unscrupulous question why Korea didn’t protest against Japanese government regarding Japanese illegal incorporation.

“What I and CH3CHO referred to is the response from the central government of Korea in regards to Shim's report.”

I already mentioned it. The central government of Korea ordered to investigate the circumstances of the island and action of Japanese people and report again. Some Japanese absurdly keep asking what the next response to that order. There’s no record of next response, but it doesn’t make any difference. Japan tries to interpret no further response indicates Korea didn’t think Dokdo as Korea land, but they can't explain why Dokdo in shim’s report and Korean government’s order isn’t today’s Dokdo.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You don’t show me Japanese maps showing only Takeshima is inherent part of Japan. All you can do is bickering about Korean evidence. I know there’s no such maps in Japan. That’s why Japan’s claim Takeshima is inherent part of Japan is a lie.

http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/takeshima04d.data/8443-01.pdf

http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/takeshima04d.data/8442-01.pdf

http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/takeshima04d.data/5-3-3-01.pdf

http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/t-takeshima.gif

What are thoseJapanese maps from 1700's have in common? They accurately depict Takeshima which is separated by two islands (east and west islands).

Please give me the reasons why you think the island named Usando is Jukdo and Jukdo a small 51-acre island about two kilometers away from Ulleungdo should be in the whole map of Korea.

Not asking to place it in the "whole" map of Korea. What we're talking about are maps describing Ulluengdo and her nearby islets. Takeshima's surface area combined (east and west islands) amounts to only about 17 acres and 25 acres respectively which is smaller than that of Jukdo (51 acres). Korea's argument is that their maps which indicate Usando which is adjacent to Ulluengdo is Takeshima/Dokdo. Then where the heck is Jukdo which is not only closer (2 km away) and has larger surface area than Takeshima/Dokdo?

That is what the Japanese parrot about SCAPIN 677

And Koreans have done a poor job of refuting them for it was determined that "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"

Thank you for not asking an unscrupulous question why Korea didn’t protest against Japanese government regarding Japanese illegal incorporation.

Governor Shim, who was utterly clueless about Takeshima and her location, complained about it to the central government of Korea but your excuse now is that there are "no record of next response". Riiiight.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

nigleboy,

I asked the maps showing Takeshima was inherent part of Japan, not the maps of Takeshima. The accuracy of the maps has nothing to do with sovereignty over the land.

The Japanese in 17C used Dokdo as stopover on the way to Ulleongdo for illegal fishing, but that was all. In 1696, Tottri Han said to the Shogunate “It was told Matsushima(=today’s Takeshima) didn’t belong to any province.”(松島は、何れかの国に附属する島ではないと聞いております。) and consequently, the Shogunate issued the voyage ban to Korean Ulleongdo and Dokdo. Both Tottori Han and the Shogunate didn’t view the Japanese fishing activities in both Ulleongdo and Dokdo as the base of sovereignty. On the other hand, Japanese government today claims “Japan used Takeshima as a stopover port en route to Utsuryo Island and as fishing ground. It thus established its sovereignty over Takeshima by the mid 17th century at the very latest.” What a shame! Japan has a lot of old maps of Japan, but none of them depicted only Dokdo as Japanese land.

Not asking to place it in the "whole" map of Korea. The maps I showed were the whole maps of Korea. It’s general the mapmakers don’t draw the 51-acre sized and 2.2km distant island.

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

It was the U.S. view based on the flase information by the Japanese government’s pamphlet entitled “Minor Islands in the Pacific, Minor Islands in the Japan Sea” published on June 1947 and distributed to the SCAP and the Allied Powers. In that document Japan lied “ there was no Korean name for Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo) and they were not shown in the maps made in Korea. ”and Japan shamelessly claimed even Ulleongdo the unarguably Korean land.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oFYVugPHQ-Q/UnHvFU3ZuCI/AAAAAAAAE0U/-g6NG1zxQWU/s400/Minor+%EA%B7%B8%EB%A6%BC1.jpg

It’s well know US supported Japanese claim over Dokdo during the negotiations of SF Treaty for its strategic interests, but US was just one of the signatories of the treaty. Let me introduce US document before US strategic interests got involved in Dokdo. “ ...The history of these rocks has been reviewed more than once by the Department, and does not need extensive recounting here. The rocks, which are fertile seal breeding grounds, were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea. They were, of course, annexed together with the remaining territory of Korea when Japan extended its Empire over the former Korean state.” This US view coincides with the view of SCAP and the Allied Powers and early US drafts.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I asked the maps showing Takeshima was inherent part of Japan, not the maps of Takeshima. The accuracy of the maps has nothing to do with sovereignty over the land.

There are over 6,000 minor islands in Japan. Hence, what you are asking for essentially is an "inaccurate" map of entire Japan which includes Takeshima. This is utterly pointless.

The Japanese in 17C used Dokdo as stopover on the way to Ulleongdo for illegal fishing, but that was all. In 1696, Tottri Han said to the Shogunate “It was told Matsushima(=today’s Takeshima) didn’t belong to any province.”(松島は、何れかの国に附属する島ではないと聞いております。) and consequently, the Shogunate issued the voyage ban to Korean Ulleongdo and Dokdo.

Again. It's "Ulleongdo" only. Takeshima was administered by Matsue Han, yet another inconvenient fact that Koreans leave out.

It’s well know US supported Japanese claim over Dokdo during the negotiations of SF Treaty for its strategic interests, but US was just one of the signatories of the treaty. Let me introduce US document before US strategic interests got involved in Dokdo.......... “

The response as follows.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Confidential_Security_Information_about_Liancourt_Rocks

"The action of the United States-Japan Joint Committee in designating these rocks as a facility of the Japanese Government is therefore justified. The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN 677 of January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, including Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently. A later SCAPIN, No. 1778 of September 16, 1947 designated the islets as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force and further provided that use of the range would be made only after notification through Japanese civil authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Islands and certain ports on Western Honsu."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Possible_Methods_of_Resolving_Liancourt_Rocks_Dispute_between_Japan_and_ROK2

"......Well, now we know and we are very glad to have the information as we have been operating on the basis of wrong assumption for a long time."

To put it mildly, the person that wrote the October 3, 1952 dispatch was clueless, hence the correction.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

While there’s no old Japanese maps showing only Takeshima was inherent part of Japan, there are old Japanese maps showing Dokdo belonged to Korea.

No old map of Japan showing only Takeshima was inherent part of Japan menas Japan was not administrating Takeshima before 1905. If Takeshima was administered by Matsue Han, why did the Japanese Cabinet in 1905 incorporate Dokdo based on theory of terrae nullius(ownerless)? Who is lying? You or Japanese Cabinet of 1905? I think both are. Japanese claim over Dokdo itself is nonsense.

Japanese government claims “Takeshima was designated as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces stationed in Japan, which shows that Takeshima was treated as part of the territory of Japan. ” But, Japan intentionally omits the very important fact that America sent a letter to Korean government promising to stop using Dokdo as a bombing range on 20th Jan. 1953. “In response to your note verbale of 10 November 1953, addressed to the Embassy of the United States of America, the commanding-in-chief, United Nations Command, has authorized me to inform you that has directed all commanders concerned to take necessary action to immediately discontinue the use of Liancourt Rocks(Dokto Island) as a boming range.”

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/k6o4lA1NHJiArXs1jfSJlw-084xKj0upo1568dlI6laRAQ-fxbHxC2a39evJAX8m6oXQgimE_DgMV8QPtkqde_XEaPkw1G74BbFHPeYSLWvdb9aOgGlIaoqEWg

The Japanese keep citing US documents in favor of Japan, but US support for Japanese claim was just one view of the signatories of SF Treaty. US had no interest in the historical owner of Liancourt Rocks. Its concern was US strategic interests in Dokdo at the beginning of Cold War era. Mr. Dulles clearly said “Despite US view peace treaty a determination under terms Postsdam Declaration and that treaty leaves Takeshima to Japan, and despite our participation in Postdam and treaty and action under administrative agreement, ..........US view re Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty."

Well, now we know and we are very glad to have the information as we have been operating on the basis of wrong assumption for a long time.

Yes, he made the wrong assumption because he had never ever been informed of reverse of US policy over Dokdo based on Rusk Note. But his wrong assumption doesn’t change the historical fact “The rocks, which are fertile seal breeding grounds, were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea. They were, of course, annexed together with the remaining territory of Korea when Japan extended its Empire over the former Korean state.”

Instead of US documents showing selfish and temporary support for Japan , the Japanese should stick to their own historical official records of 1696, 1870 and 1877 proving Dokdo is inherent part of Korea if they really want to know the truth on Takeshima.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14-nTEJ-1NXQQTlsP92tDugQUaKjhN7TjnAK-D2Icyoo/edit

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11MJhsHx4yfxhf-b6tYEA3y_Ex-OfmE6Ma11wK2OrYhU/edit

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ooW-rQxIZb7IBpTILl4da6d4EeJFhDwisR3-xeR8llU/edit

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

No old map of Japan showing only Takeshima was inherent part of Japan menas Japan was not administrating Takeshima before 1905.

Nope. It simply means there is no point in issuing a map that shows minor islands in relation to Japan when one can simply issue maps that are more accurate. (i.e. Oki islands and Takeshima)

I take it again that KOREA HAS NO MAPS SHOWING TAKESHIMA/DOKDO PRIOR TO JAPAN'S INCORPORATION??

That's really what's important, isn't it when it comes to discussing maps? Let's get back to common sense, shall we?

Takeshima was administered by Matsue Han, why did the Japanese Cabinet in 1905 incorporate Dokdo based on theory of terrae nullius(ownerless)? Who is lying? You or Japanese Cabinet of 1905? I think both are. Japanese claim over Dokdo itself is nonsense.

Because the central government controlling Japan changed from Bakufu to Meiji government. Unfortuanatly for Korea, it still change the fact that it was administered and effectively controlled by Japan.

Japanese government claims...

Nope. That's not what the Japanese government is claiming at all. Their claim is based on the Treaty and the final interpretation of such wording based on the corresondences or work documents as per Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties.

the Japanese should stick to their own historical official records of 1696, 1870 and 1877 proving Dokdo is inherent part of Korea if they really want to know the truth on Takeshima.

Discussed and refuted already. Three phrases. Matsue Han, Jukdo, and Jukdo, respectively. Koreans need to get out of the" Ulleungdo nearby islet Dokdo" religion

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Up until 1870's, Japan didn't know Dokdo existed and Meiji Goverment acknowledged the ownership of Dokdo as Korean. Three decades later, Japan ridiculously called it 'terra nullius' describes territory that nobody owns so that the first nation to discover it is entitled to take it over, as "finders keepers", but the problem was Koreans already owned the island and used the island it for their fishing grounds. If you look at the history of Japan behavior, there is very little to support their actions.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Up until 1870's, Japan didn't know Dokdo existed

Ready my post dated Nov. 11, 2013 - 02:26AM JST

Those are Japanese maps from the 1700's.

Then look at the current up close map of Takeshima/Dokdo where the islets are separate by two small rocky islets (East and West islets).

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

nigelboy, An official expedition from a Korean government has been to Dokdo in 1476.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

nigelboyNov. 14, 2013 - 05:48AM JST

Takeshima (Dokdo) was not just a minor island if Japan considered it Japanese land because it was the island making Japanese border. Nagakubo Sekisui, the most prominent Japanese cartographer, drew Takeshima and marked it as Korean land. Drawing Korean island accurately doesn’t give Japan that island.

I take it again that KOREA HAS NO MAPS SHOWING TAKESHIMA/DOKDO PRIOR TO JAPAN'S INCORPORATION?? That's really what's important, isn't it when it comes to discussing maps? Let's get back to common sense, shall we?

I already showed the maps. You keep taking issue with Korean old maps while saying it’s ok Japan has no old maps showing Takekshima is inherent land of Japan.

Because the central government controlling Japan changed from Bakufu to Meiji government. Unfortuanatly for Korea, it still change the fact that it was administered and effectively controlled by Japan.

You tell lie after lie. Bakufu’s perception Dokdo was Korean land continued to Meiji government. Meiji government sent officials of MOFA to Korea to investigate how Dokdo became Korean land and reaffirmed Japan had nothing to do with Dokdo.

Nope. That's not what the Japanese government is claiming at all. Their claim is based on the Treaty and the final interpretation of such wording based on the corresondences or work documents as per Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties.

You are wrong. I cited ““Takeshima was designated as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces stationed in Japan, which shows that Takeshima was treated as part of the territory of Japan.” from website of MOFA of Japan. Japanese claim is based on uncertain US position on Dokdo such as Rusk Note and designating Dokdo as a bombing range.

Discussed and refuted already. Three phrases. Matsue Han, Jukdo, and Jukdo, respectively. Koreans need to get out of the" Ulleungdo nearby islet Dokdo" religion.

As long as those documents exist, Japan can never succeed in misleading the world and the Japanese as well with its false claim to Dokdo.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Takeshima (Dokdo) was not just a minor island if Japan considered it Japanese land because it was the island making Japanese border. Nagakubo Sekisui, the most prominent Japanese cartographer, drew Takeshima and marked it as Korean land. Drawing Korean island accurately doesn’t give Japan that island.

The concept of EEZ wasn't in place until the 20th century. The inconvenient fact that Japan has an accurate map of in the 1700's while Korea has NONE even before Japan's incorporation in 1905 clearly indicates that anyone with common sense would conclude that Korea never had administrative control.

I already showed the maps. You keep taking issue with Korean old maps while saying it’s ok Japan has no old maps showing Takekshima is inherent land of Japan.

You showed the map of Ulluengdo. I'm still waiting for the Dokdo/Takeshima map.

You tell lie after lie. Bakufu’s perception Dokdo was Korean land continued to Meiji government. Meiji government sent officials of MOFA to Korea to investigate how Dokdo became Korean land and reaffirmed Japan had nothing to do with Dokdo.

Nope. All those so called evidence you cited relates to Ullyengdo. It's people like Hosaka who omits or falsely translates passages which is why he has no credibility and is ridiculed in Japan. Of course, since Koreans don't know better, they decide to whine and dine him like royalty. Looks like he got a good thing going in Korea, lol.

You are wrong. I cited ““Takeshima was designated as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces stationed in Japan, which shows that Takeshima was treated as part of the territory of Japan.” from website of MOFA of Japan. Japanese claim is based on uncertain US position on Dokdo such as Rusk Note and designating Dokdo as a bombing range.

Because Korea took them by force through unilateral and illegal declaration of Rhee line and occupied the islands in 1952. This illegal possession is addressed in Van Fleet mission in 1954.

As long as those documents exist, Japan can never succeed in misleading the world and the Japanese as well with its false claim to Dokdo.

Gee. This so called documents easily rebuked using three phrases. Lol.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The inconvenient fact that Japan has an accurate map of in the 1700's while Korea has NONE even before Japan's incorporation in 1905 clearly indicates that anyone with common sense would conclude that Korea never had administrative control.

No. It’s not inconvenient fact to Korea. The Japanese fishermen illegally went to Korean Dokdo on the way to Ulleongdo for several decades. It must have been a piece of cake to draw the map of Dokdo for them. There is a very inconvenient fact about the maps you showed. Those maps are the proof the Japanese then perceived Dokdo was inseparable from Ulleongdo which is the fact Japanese don’t want to admit. Those maps are mainly about Ulleongdo, but Dokdo was included. In almost every Japanese map of Takeshima(Ulleongdo then), Matsushima(Dokdo then) is included. The first map is considered to be made in 1696 and a copy of the map Tottori Han submitted to the Bakufu. What happened in 1696? Tottori Han told Bakufu Dokdo was not belonging to any province of Japan. This map and the rest are the proof Dokdo along with Ulleongdo didn’t belong to Japan.

Having an accurate map means having sovereignty? In those maps, Ulleongdo are drawn more accurately than Dokdo. Why don’t you claim to Ulleongdo? If your logic is reasonable, Bakufu should have claimed to Ulleongdo based on accurate maps of Ulleongdo, Everyone knows your logic is nonsense.

As the Bakufu concluded, the Japanese who went to Dokdo were the trespasser to other country’s land. Your logic is that the thief who went to other’s land could draw the map of the land and insist it was his because he could draw the map accurately. It’s the theory of a thief. The Japanese government of 1905 used this theory of thief and the current Japanese government is trying to use it. What a shame!

You showed the map of Ulluengdo. I'm still waiting for the Dokdo/Takeshima map.

I didn’t show the map of Ulluengdo. I showed the map of Korea including Dokdo. Find it there. Japan has accurate old maps of Dokdo, but she has no map of Japan including Dokdo as Japanese land.

Nope. All those so called evidence you cited relates to Ullyengdo. It's people like Hosaka who omits or falsely translates passages which is why he has no credibility and is ridiculed in Japan. Of course, since Koreans don't know better, they decide to whine and dine him like royalty. Looks like he got a good thing going in Korea, lol.

If you are confident, you should provide the reliable evidence instead of just saying “No”. Now, you attack Prof. Hosaka again. It’s typical the Japanese suddenly blame him when they are in the corner when debating about Dokdo. If he is wrong, you should prove why he’s wrong. There are Japanese scholars who have no objection against his stance on Dokdo. Of course, Prof. Shimozo is different.

Because Korea took them by force through unilateral and illegal declaration of Rhee line and occupied the islands in 1952. This illegal possession is addressed in Van Fleet mission in 1954.

Now you changed the subject to President Rhee’s Peace Line. As a president of an independent state, he did the right thing to protect the marine resources of Korea from Japanese fishermen who were illegally crossing the boundaries imposed by SCAP 1033. U.S. the big supporter of Japan’s claim to Takeshima, said Rhee’s “Declaration of Sovereignty over Neighboring Seas” was illegal under international law. Can anyone show related international law being used to interpret Peace Line was illegal at that time?

Gee. This so called documents easily rebuked using three phrases. Lol.

No any Japanese including you and even Japanese government can rebuke those Japanese official documents. This means Japanese false claim to Dokdo can’t be successful forever.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

No. It’s not inconvenient fact to Korea.

Of course it is. How do claim that the past Korean government had adminstrative and effective control of a territory in which she has no map of? It's common sense.

As the Bakufu concluded, the Japanese who went to Dokdo were the trespasser to other country’s land.

For Ulluengdo. Like I repeated several times already, you need to stop associating Ulluengdo with Takeshima for it's 92 km away.

I didn’t show the map of Ulluengdo. I showed the map of Korea including Dokdo. Find it there. Japan has accurate old maps of Dokdo, but she has no map of Japan including Dokdo as Japanese land.

You showed nothing which remotely comes close to Takeshima which is located 92 km SE of Ulluengdo. NOTHING.

If you are confident, you should provide the reliable evidence instead of just saying “No”. Now, you attack Prof. Hosaka again. It’s typical the Japanese suddenly blame him when they are in the corner when debating about Dokdo. If he is wrong, you should prove why he’s wrong. There are Japanese scholars who have no objection against his stance on Dokdo. Of course, Prof. Shimozo is different.

I thought I did.

Now you changed the subject to President Rhee’s Peace Line. As a president of an independent state, he did the right thing to protect the marine resources of Korea from Japanese fishermen who were illegally crossing the boundaries imposed by SCAP 1033. U.S. the big supporter of Japan’s claim to Takeshima, said Rhee’s “Declaration of Sovereignty over Neighboring Seas” was illegal under international law. Can anyone show related international law being used to interpret Peace Line was illegal at that time?

I had to because the memorandum you cited was after the Treaty was signed as well as the subsequent events after the illegal occupation as a result of Rhee line. It's "unilateral", hence the denouncement by U.S. in a Van Fleet memo of 1954.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Matters could not be more different, which Japan's lengthy justification demonstrates. Japan claims that its right to sovereignty over the islands derive from a 1905 Japanese Cabinet decision that incorporated the islands into the Japan's empire. Woefully missing is explanation that Japan was beginning to colonize all of Korea at the time. The islands disputed today are shards of that history's early moments. To make it into anything else simply denies Japan's takeover of Korea.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

nigelboyNov. 16, 2013 - 12:16AM JST

How do claim that the past Korean government had adminstrative and effective control of a territory in which she has no map of? It's common sense...

Your comment is about Japan. How do claim that the past Japanese government had administrative and iffective control of a territory in which she has no map of? While Japan has documents saying Japan was not part of Japan, korea has documents describing Dokdo was inherent part of Korea.

For Ulluengdo. Like I repeated several times already, you need to stop associating Ulluengdo with Takeshima for it's 92 km away.

It’s your wishful interpretation. Edo Bakufu asked about not only Ulleongo but also Dokdo. Tottori Han replied both don’t belong to any province of Japan. Right after Tottori Han’s answer, Bakufu issued an ordinance prohibiting the voyage to Ulleongdo. The Japanese like you absurdly insist Bakufu didn’t prohibit the Japanese to go to Dokdo because there’s no specific mention on Dokdo in the Bakufu’s ordinance, but it’s nonsense. The Japanese went to Ulleongdo with the permission from Bakufu, then is there permission to go to Dokdo? The Japanese could go to Dokdo because they were allowed to go to Ulleongdo and couldn’t go to Dokdo because they weren’t allowed to go to Ulleongdo. It doesn’t make any sense to say Bakufu considered only Ulleongdo was Korean land while Tottori Han said both Ulleongdo and Dokdo were not Japanese land and submitted the map illustrating both Ulleongdo and Dokdo. Bakufu exactly knew the Japanese would go to Dokdo if they were prohibited to go to Ulleongdo. I know Japan should desperately deny Bakufu concluded Dokdo was Korean land and she has no other way than insisting no mention of Dokdo in Bakufu’s passage ban ordinance means Bakufu allowed the Japanese to go to Dokdo.

I thought I did.

Read what you said. You didn’t talk based on the evidence.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Your comment is about Japan. How do claim that the past Japanese government had administrative and iffective control of a territory in which she has no map of? While Japan has documents saying Japan was not part of Japan, korea has documents describing Dokdo was inherent part of Korea.

I did provide a map which details Takeshima as far back as 1700's indicating Takeshima consisting of two sister islands. Korea's map indicates Ulluengdo and nothing more.

It’s your wishful interpretation. Edo Bakufu asked about not only Ulleongo but also Dokdo. Tottori Han replied both don’t belong to any province of Japan.

There you go again. Tottori Han replied that the islands doesn' belong to them, specifically. Tottori han is no position to assume or dictate what belongs to Japan. She can only refer to territories which she herself administers.

The problem with Korea's argument is that they assume all their documents and even Japan's evidence are based on a false premise that Takeshima is a inherent part of Ulluengdo when the islands are in actuality 92 km away.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I did provide a map which details Takeshima as far back as 1700's indicating Takeshima consisting of two sister islands.

You can never say a map of Ulleongdo including Dokdo is the evidence Takeshima/Dokdo is an inherent land of Japan.

Korea's map indicates Ulluengdo and nothing more.

You should prove the other island than Ulleongdo in the maps I showed is not Dokdo.

There you go again. Tottori Han replied that the islands doesn' belong to them, specifically. Tottori han is no position to assume or dictate what belongs to Japan. She can only refer to territories which she herself administers.

Bakufu didn’t asked what territories Tottori Han administers. Tottori Han didn’t say Dokdo doesn’t belonging to Tottori Han. Tottori Han said Dokdo doesn’t belong to any province of Japan. He exactly knew Dokdo was not Japanese land and the fishermen from Tottori Han trespassed to Korean land. Bakufu had no slightest doubt about Tottori Han’s confirmation Dokdo is not Japanese land and prohibited the Japanese to go to Dokdo. Can you provide any evidence on your insistence Dokdo belonged to any province of Japan? I’m sure you can’t.

The problem with Korea's argument is that they assume all their documents and even Japan's evidence are based on a false premise that Takeshima is a inherent part of Ulluengdo when the islands are in actuality 92 km away.

The reason Dokdo is an inherent part of Ulleongdo is Dokdo was part of Usanguk referring to Ulleongdo. Shilla Kingdom incorporated Usanguk in 512 A.D.

Yes, Dokdo is about 90km away from Ulleongdo considerably far. However, the historical documents and maps from both Korean and Japanese side show Dokdo was considered to be close to Ulleongdo. There are descriptions “Dokdo within Ulleugndo( 竹島之內松島)", "Dokdo near Ulleungdo(竹島近邊松島), "The neighboring islands Dokdo and Ulleungdo(松島ハ竹島ノ隣島)” and “Ulleongdo and Dokdo are near each other.(.(皆さんの島と竹島は私たちの管轄の下にあって身近にある。)” Those expressions are from Japanese documents.

Korean document described Ulleongdo and Dokdo are not far from each other. Those two islands can be seen each other with the naked eye on a clear day, thus it’s not absurd they were considered close.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_QnBK_fCG0XpVDjIzfC4N6ACrlQc_EYG3O4EOpK4rfE/edit

Ulleongdo and Dokdo are inseparable each other. As seen in the maps you showed , the Japanese included Dokdo in the maps of Ulleongdo and almost all information on Dokdo in documents are through Ullleongdo.

From those evidence, Japan’s argument trying to separate Dokdo from Ulleongdo is not working. Dokdo was definitely attached island to Ulleongdo. If Ulleongdo is Korean land, logically Dokdo is also Korean land. They always go together.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Suin Kim

You're not even reading. The map I linked to are from 1700's which has a fairly accurate description of current Takeshima itself with two sister islands (east and west islands). Korea has nothing. What Korea has is a map of Ulluengdo and a small spot like island which is adjacent to her. The Korea's claim is that this is Dokdo/Takeshima despite being 92 km away. If that is Dokdo/Takeshima, where is Jukdo which is a mere 2 km away from Ullungdo and has more surface area than that of Takeshima/Dokdo?

Answer this question first.

Secondly, how in a world does Tottori han have the authority or the power to acknowledge what belongs to Bakufu (Japan at that time). What Tottori han can do is to state which territory she adminsters and nothing more. As indicated on numerous occasions, what the Koreans do is to attached Ullungdo with Takeshima by citing a single phrase such as the ones you gave when if you read the whole document, it states that Takeshima/Dokdo was used as a temporary docking area on the way to Ulluengdo and nothing more. In essence, it was not only used as a safe passage to Ullunengdo, it's used as a navigational tool on it's way to Ullungdo. Hence, the second question becomes if Bakufu ordered ban of passage to Ulluengdo and Takeshima/Dokdo, why doesn't it state (竹島又松島)?

1 ( +3 / -3 )

Definitely, you are not reading. I gave enough reasons why the accurate description of Takeshima isn’t related to sovereignty on it. The accurate maps of Takeshima was the result of Japanese illegal trespassing to Ulleongdo and Dokdo. It’s a shame to insist it’s mine because I drew it accurately.

Korea has nothing. What Korea has is a map of Ulluengdo and a small spot like island which is adjacent to her.

You are trying to read the old maps by the today’s standard. Takeshima in the old whole maps of Japan are not accurate in size, shape and location, either. In the maps I showed, it’s not a small spot. It has a name Usando. I guess you would demand the evidence Usando is today’s Dokdo. Let me cite what Tanabe Taichi(田邉太一), the chief of 公信局 a department concerning foreign documents and communication of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said when discussing about Mutho’s petition in 1877. He said “It is said that Matsushima ( Note: Matsushima was Japanese traditional name for Dokdo) was named by us Japanese, but the truth is, the real name of this island is Usan which belongs to Korean Ulleungdo(松島ハ我邦人ノ命ゼル名ニシテ其実ハ朝鮮蔚陵島ニ属スル于山ナリ) ” He clearly perceived Dokdo was Korean island attached to Ulleongdo.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/pIGFE6C42nJuj5cdtWPtFJI8IYmKhRu5ypzblKD5xzD6Snw2C3gF2BcsdVHiTx0_K4wFItrdUaWI3-6wsFm-TUKqsGeoNN03dxf9c4UHbusbJUBs2EqusEUQAA

If that is Dokdo/Takeshima, where is Jukdo which is a mere 2 km away from Ullungdo and has more surface area than that of Takeshima/Dokdo?

I think I gave the reasonable answer, If it’s not satisfactory, it’s something you should ask the mapmakers why they didn’t include a small 51-acre island about 2km away from Ulleungdo in the whole map of Korea. I answered. Now, it’s your turn.

how in a world does Tottori han have the authority or the power to acknowledge what belongs to Bakufu (Japan at that time). What Tottori han can do is to state which territory she adminsters and nothing more.

Why did Bakufu ask Tottori Han about the ownership of Ulleongdo and Dokdo? Why did Bakufu issue voyage ban to those island right after Tottri Han’s confirmation without asking other Hans? Is there any evidence on your stubborn insistence Dokdo was belonging to other province? If you show it, the argument on this gets over. I'm sure you cant' because you are wrong.

it was not only used as a safe passage to Ullunengdo, it's used as a navigational tool on it's way to Ullungdo.

Sorry I omitted Dokdo’s usage as a navigational tool, but it doesn’t make any difference. The fact Dokdo was used as temporary docking area and a navigational tool on the way to Ulleongdo means the Japanese had no reasons to go to Dokdo solely if they don’t go to Ulleongdo. The ban to go to Ulleongdo meant they had no business to go to Dokdo and Bakufu knew it.

if Bakufu ordered ban of passage to Ulluengdo and Takeshima/Dokdo, why doesn't it state (竹島又松島)

If you show me the permission to go to Dokdo if have, the argument gets over. But I know you can’t show. I have Japanese official document showing Bakufu in 1696 concluded Dokdo was Korean land, which means Bakufu pan of passage to Ulleongdo included Dokdo. In 1877, Shimane Prefecture sent an inquiry to Dajokan, the highest authority then, if Ulleongdo and another island(Matsushima then=Dokdo) should be included in Shimane’s jurisdiction for the registry of land. Shimane Prefecture attached a paper stating “Regarding the islands in question, they are known to have nothing to do with our country as per documents prepared in the first month of the 9th year of the Genruko after the entry of the Koreans into the island.” What happened in 9th year of the Genruko (=1696)? Bakufu issued the ordinance prohibiting to go to Ulleongdo. Insisting Dokdo was not included in the Bakufu’s ordinance because Dokdo was not specifically mention in that ordinance in spite of evidence is foolish.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eFaZGaoFawg/UPacMo2s00I/AAAAAAAADZM/_E2f_AJS0t4/s400/%25ED%2583%259C%25EC%25A0%2595%25EA%25B4%25801.jpg

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Definitely, you are not reading. I gave enough reasons why the accurate description of Takeshima isn’t related to sovereignty on it. The accurate maps of Takeshima was the result of Japanese illegal trespassing to Ulleongdo and Dokdo. It’s a shame to insist it’s mine because I drew it accurately.

??? Bakufu gave permission to sail to Ulluengdo. It's only when Koreans began to surface around Ullungdo that Bakufu butted in.

While I agree that maps in general has no bearing on the sovereignty, it's sure hard to convince that a state had effective control on them when there exists, I repeat, NO MAPS correctly describing the description, topography, and shape(s) of the island.

You are trying to read the old maps by the today’s standard. Takeshima in the old whole maps of Japan are not accurate in size, shape and location, either. In the maps I showed, it’s not a small spot. It has a name Usando. I guess you would demand the evidence Usando is today’s Dokdo. Let me cite what Tanabe Taichi(田邉太一), the chief of 公信局 a department concerning foreign documents and communication of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said when discussing about Mutho’s petition in 1877. He said “It is said that Matsushima ( Note: Matsushima was Japanese traditional name for Dokdo) was named by us Japanese, but the truth is, the real name of this island is Usan which belongs to Korean Ulleungdo(松島ハ我邦人ノ命ゼル名ニシテ其実ハ朝鮮蔚陵島ニ属スル于山ナリ) ” He clearly perceived Dokdo was Korean island attached to Ulleongdo.

Not accurate compared to the current standards but at least the Japanese map show two sister islands and the position relative to let's say Oki island.

And no. In 1877, the introduction of Western maps when they included a phantom island Arogaut resulted in this being "竹島” and Ullungdo as "松島”(Matsushima).

I think I gave the reasonable answer, If it’s not satisfactory, it’s something you should ask the mapmakers why they didn’t include a small 51-acre island about 2km away from Ulleungdo in the whole map of Korea. I answered. Now, it’s your turn.

Lame excuse. Did you forget the part about that "small 51- acre" island has more surface area than that of Dokdo/Takeshima?

Does common sense go out the window?

Why did Bakufu ask Tottori Han about the ownership of Ulleongdo and Dokdo? Why did Bakufu issue voyage ban to those island right after Tottri Han’s confirmation without asking other Hans? Is there any evidence on your stubborn insistence Dokdo was belonging to other province? If you show it, the argument on this gets over. I'm sure you cant' because you are wrong.

Do you have any idea why the voyage to Ulluengdo was banned? Sigh.

In any case, here's the report chronicling the events reported by Tottori han.

http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/takeshima04c.data/4-3-04-02.pdf

Pg 8. (1724)

隠州之内、 松嶋と云

Within Oshu (Matsue-han), there is Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo).

In other words, Tottori Clan only stated that Takeshima and Ulluengdo does not belong to them.

Sorry I omitted Dokdo’s usage as a navigational tool, but it doesn’t make any difference. The fact Dokdo was used as temporary docking area and a navigational tool on the way to Ulleongdo means the Japanese had no reasons to go to Dokdo solely if they don’t go to Ulleongdo. The ban to go to Ulleongdo meant they had no business to go to Dokdo and Bakufu knew it.

They did. Some were harvesting Seals there.

Furthermore, there were Han (Clans) that were punished for going to Ulluengdo under false pretenses that they were going to Takeshima/Dokdo.

最寄松島へ渡海之名目を以て竹島え渡り稼方見極上弥々益筋に有之ならば取計方も有之

ergo, Takeshima/Dokdo OK, Ullungdo not.

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%B3%B6%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6

If you show me the permission to go to Dokdo if have, the argument gets over. But I know you can’t show. I have Japanese official document showing Bakufu in 1696 concluded Dokdo was Korean land, which means Bakufu pan of passage to Ulleongdo included Dokdo

I did. But on the other hand, your Bakufu 1696 conclusion is Ulluengdo only and does not mention Takeshima/Dokdo.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

??? Bakufu gave permission to sail to Ulluengdo. It's only when Koreans began to surface around Ullungdo that Bakufu butted in.

What are you trying to say?

While I agree that maps in general has no bearing on the sovereignty,

Finally, you agree the accurately drawn Japanese map of Dokdo has nothing to do with sovereignty. It’s a progress. Due to the Japanese trespassing to Dokdo on the way to Ulleongdo, they could draw the accurate map of Dokdo, but the Japanese then didn’t claim Dokdo was Japanese land and Bakufu concluded it was not Japanese land in spite of Japanese voyage to that island. The Japanese government and people then were honest unlike those today.

it's sure hard to convince that a state had effective control on them when there exists, I repeat, NO MAPS correctly describing the description, topography, and shape(s) of the island.

It what you should ask to your government. I already showed you the maps. Without any document and map showing Japanese sovereignty to the land, claiming it is not convincing at all.

Not accurate compared to the current standards but at least the Japanese map show two sister islands and the position relative to let's say Oki island

You keep avoiding to talk about the whole map of Japan. In the whole map of Japan, there are no two sister islands. The worst is they don’t mark (only) Dokdo as Japanese land.

In 1877, the introduction of Western maps when they included a phantom island Arogaut resulted in this being "竹島” and Ullungdo as "松島”(Matsushima).

So what? What are you trying to say? I’m an expert on the western mapping error.

Lame excuse. Did you forget the part about that "small 51- acre" island has more surface area than that of Dokdo/Takeshima?

You don’t respond to the distance. Why do you think an island just 2km distant from Ulleongdo should be included in the whole map of Korea? Jukdo is 51 acre and Dokdo is 46. 32 acre. There’s no big difference.

Do you have any idea why the voyage to Ulluengdo was banned? Sigh. I know exactly. You can ask me anything about it if you want to.

Within Oshu (Matsue-han), there is Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo).

I think you are smart enough to know cutting the part you like and paste it is not persuasive. Please explain what the document is about.

In other words, Tottori Clan only stated that Takeshima and Ulluengdo does not belong to them.

You must know it’s lame evidence. Tottori Han said Dokdo and Ulluengdo did not belong to them and added “We are told Dokdo doesn’t belong to any province of Japan.” They convinced Bakufu that Dokdo was not Japanese land. Besides, Tottori Han said “But the Japanese from Izumo and Oki Country go there with people from Yonago by the same boat.” , which means Tottoi Han was well aware that fishermen from Oki went to Dokdo, but said it didn’t belong to any province of Japan of course including Oki Country. Tottori Han then clearly knew Dokdo didn’t belong to Oki. Nevertheless, Dokdo became to belong to Oki 45 years later? It doesn’t make sense. Even if Tottori Han viewed Dokdo was Oki’s later , this view didn’t reflect in Bakufu’s decision of 1696 because of the reasons mentioned. There are records Japanese Meiji government excluded Dokdo as Japanese land. If Dokdo is Oki’s Matsushima, it doesn’t correspond with the historical facts. In 1870, the Maiji Government ordered to investigate how Dokdo became Korean land and in 1877 and the same Government declared Dokdo was concluded as Korean land in 1696 as Shimane Prefecture reported “Regarding the islands in question, they are known to have nothing to do with our country as per documents prepared in the first month of the 9th year of the Genruko (1696) after the entry of the Koreans into the island.”

They did. Some were harvesting Seals there. The Japanese fisherment then never go to Dokdo as a sole destination. Whatever they did in Dokdo, it was on the way to Ulleongdo. The Japanese fishermen in 17C hunted seals in Dokdo? It’s a news to me. Please show me any evidence on it.

ergo, Takeshima/Dokdo OK, Ullungdo not.

I’m well aware of Takeshima(Ulleongdo then) Incident involved with Hachiemon. He was executed because he went to Ulleongdo. He just lied about voyaging to Dokdo and his map shows he knew Dokdo was Korean land along with Ulleongdo. He is an example the Japanese had no business to go to Dokdo alone.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/trespass-map.jpg http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/hachiemon-map2.jpg

I did. But on the other hand, your Bakufu 1696 conclusion is Ulluengdo only and does not mention Takeshima/Dokdo.

You didn't show show the permission to go to Dokdo. There’s no such a thing in Japan. Read the inquiry of Shimane Prefecture again. It’s said “they(Ulleongdo and Dokdo) are known to have nothing to do with our country as per documents prepared in the first month of the 9th year of the Genruko (1696) after the entry of the Koreans into the island.” From this, it’s so clear Dokdo was concluded as an island which has nothing to do with Japan in 1696. In other words, in Bakufu’s voyage ban ordinance of 1696 included Dokdo.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

What are you trying to say?

Bakufu, at the time, gave permission to sail to Ulluengdo. It's only when Korean people started to migrate there and conflicts arose between the Japanese that Bakufu decide to do something about the situation.

Finally, you agree the accurately drawn Japanese map of Dokdo has nothing to do with sovereignty. It’s a progress. Due to the Japanese trespassing to Dokdo on the way to Ulleongdo, they could draw the accurate map of Dokdo, but the Japanese then didn’t claim Dokdo was Japanese land and Bakufu concluded it was not Japanese land in spite of Japanese voyage to that island. The Japanese government and people then were honest unlike those today.

This makes no sense. The common sense would say that since Takeshima was allowed, they could draw a very detailed map as opposed to that of Ulluengdo.

You keep avoiding to talk about the whole map of Japan. In the whole map of Japan, there are no two sister islands. The worst is they don’t mark (only) Dokdo as Japanese land.

You keep ignoring the fact that there are over 6,000 islands in Japan. If one has to include the whole map of Japan along with Takeshima, it becomes simply a "dot". That's how small it is.

East Island+West Island=Takeshima

http://yamasansho.com/image/takeshima.jpg

You don’t respond to the distance. Why do you think an island just 2km distant from Ulleongdo should be included in the whole map of Korea? Jukdo is 51 acre and Dokdo is 46. 32 acre. There’s no big difference.

I never asked about the "whole" map of Korea. What I was referring to is the map of Ulluengdo and her nearby islets as proof that the latter is Dokdo/Takeshima. If the small island just East of Ullungdo is Dokdo/Takeshima, where is Jukdo which is also situated just EAST of Ulluengdo which has a LARGER surface area than that of Dokdo/Takeshima??

Tottori Han said Dokdo and Ulluengdo did not belong to them and added “We are told Dokdo doesn’t belong to any province of Japan.”

No they didn't. Why are you making stuff up now? You were doing so well.

I’m well aware of Takeshima(Ulleongdo then) Incident involved with Hachiemon. He was executed because he went to Ulleongdo. He just lied about voyaging to Dokdo and his map shows he knew Dokdo was Korean land along with Ulleongdo. He is an example the Japanese had no business to go to Dokdo alone.

You know this doesn't make sense right? What's the point of lying when voyages to either of them is illegal? C'mon now. Back to common sense please.

Read the inquiry of Shimane Prefecture

No. Tottori. "our" means Tottori-han.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Bakufu, at the time, gave permission to sail to Ulluengdo. It's only when Korean people started to migrate there and conflicts arose between the Japanese that Bakufu decide to do something about the situation.

You are trying to say Ulleongdo was inherent part of Japan? Ulleongdo has never been part of Japan, which is unarguable.

This makes no sense. The common sense would say that since Takeshima was allowed, they could draw a very detailed map as opposed to that of Ulluengdo.

The Japanese could go to Dokdo because they were allowed to go to Ulleongdo. No matter what reason, it was not related to sovereignty, right?

You keep ignoring the fact that there are over 6,000 islands in Japan. If one has to include the whole map of Japan along with Takeshima, it becomes simply a "dot". That's how small it is.

Take a look at Nagakubo’s map. Takeshima is bigger than a "dot" and importantly it was marked as Korean land. He drew just one islet of Dokdo, not two.

I never asked about the "whole" map of Korea. What I was referring to is the map of Ulluengdo and her nearby islets as proof that the latter is Dokdo/Takeshima. If the small island just East of Ullungdo is Dokdo/Takeshima, where is Jukdo which is also situated just EAST of Ulluengdo which has a LARGER surface area than that of Dokdo/Takeshima??

I didn’t show you the map of Ulleongdo. Don’t try to argue with me about it. But the distance of 2km is very close Ulleongdo. It’s not strange not to draw it. By the way, why do think the Japanese didn’t include Jukdo in the map of Ulleongdo? Where is Jukdo which has a LARGER surface area than that of Dokdo/Takeshima??

No they didn't. Why are you making stuff up now? You were doing so well.

Tottori Han replied " 松島は、何れかの国に附属する島ではないと聞いております。" (We haven't heard Matsushima ( Takeshima then) belong to any province of Japan.)

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/imuNsH6dGFgy-PJbwzakiAVl7FL4pgYV-xWhfxyNuKHYkt2Iw-cV7YV8QhFmbZ9Nf6kSL8DJq6CFWx1kce5cq_p4VTnG4yifJ5nqK0ax0mP8cdvtpniNRsBNfQ

You know this doesn't make sense right? What's the point of lying when voyages to either of them is illegal? C'mon now. Back to common sense please.

From Hachimon’s map, he clearly knew both Ulleongdo and Dokdo were Korean land, which means voyage to both lands were not allowed. He just took ill use of the fact Dokdo was not mentioned in Bakufu's ordinance of voyage ban to Ulleongdo.

No. Tottori. "our" means Tottori-han

"本邦關係無之相聞". 本邦 indicates Japan, not Tottori-Han. It means it was concluded in 1696 that Japan had nothing to do with Dokdo.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You are trying to say Ulleongdo was inherent part of Japan? Ulleongdo has never been part of Japan, which is unarguable.

No. The fact that Chosun had a empty island policy while Bakufu limited sailing for trade purposes caused this incident. Bakufu, through Tsushima han, decided not to get into soverignty matters in regards to Ulluengdo for it was not worth it to jeopardize conflict between the two.

The Japanese could go to Dokdo because they were allowed to go to Ulleongdo. No matter what reason, it was not related to sovereignty, right?

I don't think you are understanding. The maps I linked to previously are from the 1700's which at that time, banned sailing of Ulluengdo. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that since these maps show fairly accurately of Takeshima by indicating the East/West islands, common sense tells you that at that time, Japanese sailed there quite often.

Take a look at Nagakubo’s map. Takeshima is bigger than a "dot" and importantly it was marked as Korean land. He drew just one islet of Dokdo, not two.

Yes. As I explained previously, this is what happens when you try to incorporate a small 40-50 acre islands in relation to Honshu (main island of Japan). In reality, it should be a dot barely visible to the naked eye. However, the map itself portrays quite accurately the position in relation to Oki islands.

I

didn’t show you the map of Ulleongdo. Don’t try to argue with me about it. But the distance of 2km is very close Ulleongdo. It’s not strange not to draw it. By the way, why do think the Japanese didn’t include Jukdo in the map of Ulleongdo? Where is Jukdo which has a LARGER surface area than that of Dokdo/Takeshima??

The Japanese maps of Ulluengdo does show an island adjacent to Ulluengdo. Though the accuracy in terms of size is questionable, this is because sailing to Ulluengdo was banned, hence very little knowledge of the topography.

Tottori Han replied " 松島は、何れかの国に附属する島ではないと聞いております。" (We haven't heard Matsushima ( Takeshima then) belong to any province of Japan.)

Dare I say, that is a very "ambitious" Japanese translation to a very simple passage. May I ask who translated this?

From Hachimon’s map, he clearly knew both Ulleongdo and Dokdo were Korean land, which means voyage to both lands were not allowed. He just took ill use of the fact Dokdo was not mentioned in Bakufu's ordinance of voyage ban to Ulleongdo.

The KBS version which leaves out half of the written passage or the original one that has the remaining passage?

"

本邦關係無之相聞". 本邦 indicates Japan, not Tottori-Han. It means it was concluded in 1696 that Japan had nothing to do with Dokdo.

That's in regards to 竹島外一嶋.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

No. The fact that Chosun had a empty island policy while Bakufu limited sailing for trade purposes caused this incident. Bakufu, through Tsushima han, decided not to get into soverignty matters in regards to Ulluengdo for it was not worth it to jeopardize conflict between the two.

It was Ahn Yong-bok who led to that incident. Before it, Japanese fishermen took advantage of Korean empty policy. When Bakufu inquired Tottori Han regarding the title of Ulleongdo, Tottori Han replied “Takeshima(Ulleongdo then) doesn't belong to Inaba nor Hohki(竹島は、因幡・伯耆に附属してはおりません。)“ and "There are no islands as Takeshima, Matsushima (Dokdo then) and others belonged to both (Inaba and Hohki) countries.(竹島、松島、その他、両国(因幡・伯耆)に附属する島は、ありません。)” Right after Tottori Han’s reply, Bakufu banned the Japanese to go to Ulleongdo, which means Bakufu gave up Ulleongdo because it was not Japanese land.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that since these maps show fairly accurately of Takeshima by indicating the East/West islands, common sense tells you that at that time, Japanese sailed there quite often.

Please stop misleading. Two of the maps you showed were made in 1600s before the voyage ban to Ulleongdo. The last one was made in 1724, but it was the copy of the maps of 1600s by Oya and Murakwa clan. In other words, it’s not common sense to say Japanese sailed to Ulleongdo and Dokdo quite often after Bakufu’s voyage ban(1696) there based on the a map made in 1700s. As to the 3rd map, I don’t know when it was made, but it just look like a map “小谷伊兵衛より差出候竹嶋之絵図“ of 1696.

“幕末近くに鳥取藩士岡島正義がまとめた地誌「竹島考」に載っている「竹島松島之図」には、現在の鬱陵島と竹島が周囲の岩礁も含めて具体的に記されている。これは前記した大谷・村川の両家が伝える原図から書き写したものだという.”

In reality, it should be a dot barely visible to the naked eye. However, the map itself portrays quite accurately the position in relation to Oki islands.

According to your logic, there’s no problem with the inaccurate shape and the size of Dokdo in the whole map of Japan, but it’s a big problem Dokdo wasn’t depicted accurately in the whole map of Korea. I think inaccurate size and shape in the old maps isn’t a big problem as long as there’s an accurate name.

Dare I say, that is a very "ambitious" Japanese translation to a very simple passage. May I ask who translated this?

I have debated with many Japanese and you are the first Japanese making an issue with this. It’s interesting. Please tell your own translation. Is this close to what you have in your mind? “We haven’t heard Matsushima is not the island belonging to any Country of Japan.”

The KBS version which leaves out half of the written passage or the original one that has the remaining passage?

I think you should clearly explain it in detail.

That's in regards to 竹島外一嶋

外一嶋 is Matsushima(松島) Japanese traditional name for Dokdo. Another island(外一嶋) is drawn in the Map of Ulleongdo attached to Dajokan Order which said Japan has no relation to Takeshima(Ulleongdo then) and another island.

<http://dokdostudy.net/images/iso_md01_2.jpg >

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Tottori Han replied “Takeshima(Ulleongdo then) doesn't belong to Inaba nor Hohki(竹島は、因幡・伯耆に附属してはおりません。)“ and "There are no islands as Takeshima, Matsushima (Dokdo then) and others belonged to both (Inaba and Hohki) countries

Wait a second? Didn't you just state previously that "Tottori Han replied " 松島は、何れかの国に附属する島ではないと聞いております。" (We haven't heard Matsushima ( Takeshima then) belong to any province of Japan.)"??

This is my point all along. Tottori han merely replied Ulluengdo and Takeshima doesn't belong to Inaba nor Hohki which are two regions administered by Tottori han

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%A0%E5%B9%A1%E5%9B%BD http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BC%AF%E8%80%86%E5%9B%BD

Thank you.

幕末近くに鳥取藩士岡島正義がまとめた地誌「竹島考」に載っている「竹島松島之図」には、現在の鬱陵島と竹島が周囲の岩礁も含めて具体的に記されている。これは前記した大谷・村川の両家が伝える原図から書き写したものだという

Why are you copy/pasting an article that's only referring to one particular map?

According to your logic, there’s no problem with the inaccurate shape and the size of Dokdo in the whole map of Japan, but it’s a big problem Dokdo wasn’t depicted accurately in the whole map of Korea. I think inaccurate size and shape in the old maps isn’t a big problem as long as there’s an accurate name.

Nope. Problem with Korea is that there isn't any map indicating Takeshima/Dokdo, PERIOD

have debated with many Japanese and you are the first Japanese making an issue with this. It’s interesting. Please tell your own translation. Is this close to what you have in your mind? “We haven’t heard Matsushima is not the island belonging to any Country of Japan.”

See my first paragraph.

外一嶋 is Matsushima(松島) Japanese traditional name for Dokdo. Another island(外一嶋) is drawn in the Map of Ulleongdo attached to Dajokan Order which said Japan has no relation to Takeshima(Ulleongdo then) and another island.

Another ambitious yet this time, "projection".

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Wait a second? Didn't you just state previously that "Tottori Han replied " 松島は、何れかの国に附属する島ではないと聞いております。" (We haven't heard Matsushima ( Takeshima then) belong to any province of Japan.)"?? This is my point all along. Tottori han merely replied Ulluengdo and Takeshima doesn't belong to Inaba nor Hohki which are two regions administered by Tottori han

Did you forget about your argument in your previous comment? You said “ Bakufu, through Tsushima han, decided not to get into soverignty matters in regards to Ulluengdo for it was not worth it to jeopardize conflict between the two.” You talked about Ulleongdo, not Dokdo and that’s why I cited the sentence related to Ulleongdo(竹島). You know 竹島 at that time is Ulleongdo, right? The sentence " 松島は、何れかの国に附属する島ではないと聞いております。" is about Dokdo. Read the Japanese text.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/imuNsH6dGFgy-PJbwzakiAVl7FL4pgYV-xWhfxyNuKHYkt2Iw-cV7YV8QhFmbZ9Nf6kSL8DJq6CFWx1kce5cq_p4VTnG4yifJ5nqK0ax0mP8cdvtpniNRsBNfQ

Why are you copy/pasting an article that's only referring to one particular map?

That is the explanation about the map of 1724 you showed. It’s the copy of the map of 1600s http://voicejapan2.heteml.jp/janjan/government/0811/0811282405/1.php

Nope. Problem with Korea is that there isn't any map indicating Takeshima/Dokdo, PERIOD I think I can’t expect you say yes probably forever. It’s ok with me.

See my first paragraph. There’s no your interpretation.

Another ambitious yet this time, "projection". Dajokan Order (1877) said “"Concerning the inquiry about Takeshima and another island, you should remember that this country [Japan] has nothing to do with them."(伺之趣竹島外一嶋之義本邦關係無之義ト可相心得事.)

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/Gm06OD1-88AAZLxwUuT8-sUEixqHxeBiCrMZSqg9YQntg4nt_pH9BmFKdc5oBMRV52EemsXjjw1bV1pUYhVWec45wPE03XGB4Msz3FuSd_Qq7smejODJBQB6

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Did you forget about your argument in your previous comment? You said “ Bakufu, through Tsushima han, decided not to get into soverignty matters in regards to Ulluengdo for it was not worth it to jeopardize conflict between the two.” You talked about Ulleongdo, not Dokdo and that’s why I cited the sentence related to Ulleongdo(竹島). You know 竹島 at that time is Ulleongdo, right? The sentence " 松島は、何れかの国に附属する島ではないと聞いております。" is about Dokdo. Read the Japanese text.

Uhmm.. The link you just gave is a response from Tottori Han in which in your previous comment stated

""There are no islands Takeshima, Matsushima (Dokdo then) and others belonged to both (Inaba and Hohki) countries.(竹島、松島、その他、両国(因幡・伯耆)に附属する島は、ありません"

竹嶋松嶋其外両国之付属の嶋 無御座候.

And yet in 1724, the same Tottori Han reported

http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/takeshima04c.data/4-3-04-02.pdf

page 8,

"隠州之内、 松嶋と云"

Within Oshu (Matsue-han), there is Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo)." as I addressed previously.

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9A%A0%E5%B2%90%E5%9B%BD

That is the explanation about the map of 1724 you showed. It’s the copy of the map of 1600s

And the difference of each maps.

<www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/...01/index.../05_c.pdf‎>

“"Concerning the inquiry about Takeshima and another island, you should remember that this country [Japan] has nothing to do with them

So why are you assuming that the another island is Takeshima/Dokdo?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Uhmm.. The link you just gave is a response from Tottori Han in which in your previous comment stated

Yes, it’s all about what Tottori Han responded about Bakufu’s inquiry. Tottori Han which responded that they didn't hear Dokdo belonged to any province of Japan.

Dare I say, that is a very "ambitious" Japanese translation to a very simple passage. May I ask who translated this? Shimane Prefecture did. http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_00/index.data/taniguti-report.pdf

And the difference of each maps.

The link doesn’t work, but I know how each map is different. Afterwards, you shouldn;t bring this 724 map to say this map proves the Japanese sailed to Dokdo quite often after Bakufu’s voyage ban ordinance because it shows Dokdo fairly accurately.

So why are you assuming that the another island is Takeshima/Dokdo?

I’m not assuming. I already showed the attache map showing Ulleongdo and Dokdo. In addition to this map, there’s an attached document explaining about another island.

"Isotakeshima(磯竹島 ) has another name, Takeshima(竹島) . It is north-west of Oki province and the distance from Oki is about 120 里(Ri). The circumference is 10Ri ........... Next, there is another island called Matsushima(松島) . The circumference is about 30町(3.3km), It is on the same sea route as 竹島 (Ulleungdo). The distance from Oki is about 80里 (149km). Trees and a bamboos are rare. It yields fishes and sea animals, too.“

It says Matsushima(松島) is another island. You know Matsushima(松島) then is today’s Dokdo. Japan can’t deny the fact Dajokan said Japan had nothing to do with Ulleongdo and Dokdo. In other words, Japan’s claim Dokdo is inherent land of Japan is a lie.

“磯竹島、一ニ竹島ト稱ス。隠岐國ノ乾位、一百二拾里許ニ在リ。周回凡十里許。山峻険ニシテ、平地少シ。川三条在リ。......次ニ一島アリ。松島ト呼フ。周回三十町許。竹島ト同一線路ニ在リ。隠岐ヲ距ル八拾里許。樹竹稀ナリ。亦魚獣ヲ産ス。”

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/lDmX5ts98JB2NeM9WD48QAPim-mcyALxq1yFjZfh0CAC3G7ylFslGAXBIROGV4BYZc8VluQuT2eSALQ3SAdlA3bvBcOoUmY1ZKhSVxa05fMSLQiJiFaVZsC2kA

And yet in 1724, the same Tottori Han reported

Don’t you realize you contradict yourself? You firmly said "Tottori han is no position to assume or dictate what belongs to Japan. She can only refer to territories which she herself administers." and " how in a world does Tottori han have the authority or the power to acknowledge what belongs to Bakufu (Japan at that time). What Tottori han can do is to state which territory she adminsters and nothing more. " and then you insist as if Tottori Han said Matsushima belonged to Oki. I think you should abandon one of them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yes, it’s all about what Tottori Han responded about Bakufu’s inquiry. Tottori Han which responded that they didn't hear Dokdo belonged to any province of Japan.

And I gave the subsequent inquiry which clearly stated they are within Ohshu. Why are you repeating this irrelevant argument that's been defeated already?

The link doesn’t work, but I know how each map is different. Afterwards, you shouldn;t bring this 724 map to say this map proves the Japanese sailed to Dokdo quite often after Bakufu’s voyage ban ordinance because it shows Dokdo fairly accurately.

I'm simply using common sense here.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ABVbVsfiu9UJ:www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/index.data/05_c.pdf+&cd=1&hl=ja&ct=clnk&gl=jp

I’m not assuming. I already showed the attache map showing Ulleongdo and Dokdo. In addition to this map, there’s an attached document explaining about another island.

Then why not say ”竹島松島” instead of "竹島外一島”?

Don’t you realize you contradict yourself? You firmly said "Tottori han is no position to assume or dictate what belongs to Japan. She can only refer to territories which she herself administers." and " how in a world does Tottori han have the authority or the power to acknowledge what belongs to Bakufu (Japan at that time). What Tottori han can do is to state which territory she adminsters and nothing more. " and then you insist as if Tottori Han said Matsushima belonged to Oki. I think you should abandon one of them.

I'm MORE THAN willing to accept that Tottori han had no position to assume or dictate what belongs to Japan for it's obvious they didn't as evidenced by their CORRECTION in the latter statement which they indicated that it's within Onshu.

Are you?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

And I gave the subsequent inquiry which clearly stated they are within Ohshu. Why are you repeating this irrelevant argument that's been defeated already?

Please don’t misled by or mislead with the phrase "隠州之内、松嶋と云". There’s no any Japanese historical fact backing up Dokdo was within Oki. In 1667, the author of 隱州視聽合紀 about the observation on Oki island wrote the northwest boundary of Japan was Oki, which excluded Dokdo from Japan. In 1625 , Japanese fishermen started to go to Korean Dokdo, not Oki’s Dokdo with the red seal (朱印) for going to foreign land. The Japanese who went to Dokdo were from Tottori Han, which means Tottri Han was in the position to know where Dokdo belongs to, but in 1696 , Tottri Han stated Dokdo doesn’t belong to any province of Japan. . In 1870, the Meiji government ordered to find out how Dokdo became Korean land and in 1877 the same government concluded Japan had no relation to Dokdo. You can’t defeat all those historical evidence with just one phrase "隠州之内、松嶋と云" by Tottori Han.

Then why not say ”竹島松島” instead of "竹島外一島”?

It’s probably because Dokdo was not as important as Ulleongdo, but obviously, the attached map and document I showed perfectly proves 外一島 is Dokdo.

I'm MORE THAN willing to accept that Tottori han had no position to assume or dictate what belongs to Japan for it's obvious they didn't as evidenced by their CORRECTION in the latter statement which they indicated that it's within Onshu.

If choose that Tottori Han had no position to assume or dictate what belongs to Japan, then you should abandon Tottori Han’s latter statement Dokdo was within Oki because they are contradictory to each other.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Please don’t misled by or mislead with the phrase "隠州之内、松嶋と云". There’s no any Japanese historical fact backing up Dokdo was within Oki. In 1667, the author of 隱州視聽合紀 about the observation on Oki island wrote the northwest boundary of Japan was Oki, which excluded Dokdo from Japan

Nope. 隠州在北海中故云隠岐島、従是、南至雲州美穂関三十五里、辰巳至伯州赤碕浦四十里、未申至石州温泉津五十八里、自子至卯、無可往地、戍亥間行二日一夜有松島、又一日程有竹島、俗言磯竹島多竹魚海鹿、此二島無人之地、見高麗如自雲州望隠州、然則日本之乾地、以此州為限矣

The document cites what surrounding islands consist within North, East, South, West of Oki island. Therefore, the border in the sentence above indicates Ulluengdo (竹島)as the border.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The document cites what surrounding islands consist within North, East, South, West of Oki island. Therefore, the border in the sentence above indicates Ulluengdo (竹島)as the border.

The statement from "隱州視聽合紀" is not favorable to Japan’s claim to Dokdo at all as I defeated before. It’s just the opposite. Saito Hosen said the northwest boundary of Japan was Oki. If your argument is so strong, why can’t we see it in the Japan’s official propaganda site of Takeshima?

If you say "隱州視聽合紀" included Dokdo as Japan’s land, how can you explain the other facts I mentioned previously? As I always say, Japan’s claim to Dokdo is full of contradiction.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The statement from "隱州視聽合紀" is not favorable to Japan’s claim to Dokdo at all as I defeated before. It’s just the opposite. Saito Hosen said the northwest boundary of Japan was Oki. If your argument is so strong, why can’t we see it in the Japan’s official propaganda site of Takeshima?

You did no such thing at all. This, of course, was the time where Bakufu issued sailing permits to Ulluengdo so it's a no brainer.

And as to why it's not presented by the Japanese government, my guess is that it's "insignificant" in terms of soverignty under international law for let's face it. Korea has not a single document to even describe the current Takeshima/Dokdo by their own government at that time.

If you say "隱州視聽合紀" included Dokdo as Japan’s land, how can you explain the other facts I mentioned previously? As I always say, Japan’s claim to Dokdo is full of contradiction.

I said the furtherest border was Ulluengdo based on those statements. What is that you are questioning?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If your argument that “隱州視聽合紀” said Dokdo was within Japan can’t found in Japan’s Takeshima site, it means it’s already defeated and it’s against Japan’s false claim Takeshima is an inherent part of Japan.

Korea has not a single document to even describe the current Takeshima/Dokdo by their own government at that time.

Wrong. “Samguksaki(History of the Three Kingdoms)” written in 1145 A.D. records that Usanguk(Usan Country) became part of (Korean) Shilla Dynasty in 512 A.D. and “Annals of King Sejong” published in 1454 confirms Usando( Korean old name for Dokdo) is included in Usan Country. “Annals of King Sejong” states :

“Usan and Muleung are two islands in the due east sea of (Uljin) hyeon and these two islands are not far from each other and are visible on a clear windy day. They were called Usanguk or Ulleongdo during the Shilla Dynasty.”

I said the furtherest border was Ulluengdo based on those statements. What is that you are questioning?

I asked “If you say "隱州視聽合紀" included Dokdo as Japan’s land, how can you explain the other historical facts such as Tottri Han’s reply to Bakufu’s inquiry(1696), Meiji Government’s order(1870) to investigate how Dokdo became Japanese land and Dajokan Order(1877) to remember Japan has nothing to do with Dokdo?”

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If your argument that “隱州視聽合紀” said Dokdo was within Japan can’t found in Japan’s Takeshima site, it means it’s already defeated and it’s against Japan’s false claim Takeshima is an inherent part of Japan.

Why? The territory was deemed terra nullius hence the incorporation 1905.

Wrong. “Samguksaki(History of the Three Kingdoms)” written in 1145 A.D. records that Usanguk(Usan Country) became part of (Korean) Shilla Dynasty in 512 A.D. and “Annals of King Sejong” published in 1454 confirms Usando( Korean old name for Dokdo) is included in Usan Country. “Annals of King Sejong” states :

十三年夏六月 于山国帰服 歳以土宜為貢 于山国在溟州正東海島 或名欝陵島<-------Ulluengdo

I asked “If you say "隱州視聽合紀" included Dokdo as Japan’s land, how can you explain the other historical facts such as Tottri Han’s reply to Bakufu’s inquiry(1696), Meiji Government’s order(1870) to investigate how Dokdo became Japanese land and Dajokan Order(1877) to remember Japan has nothing to do with Dokdo?”

Matsue Han ≠ Tottori Han. I thought I made this clear. The 1870 and 1877 was in regards to Ulluengdo and possibily Arogaut but definitely not the current Takeshima for Dajokan based their information from maps such as these.

< http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka51/nihonzenzu-1877/03.jpg>

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You contradict yourself. If you believe "隱州視聽合紀" stated Dokdo was within Japan, you can‘t say Dokdo was terra nullius.

If Japan claims Japan incorporated Dokdo because it was terra nullius, Japan should drop its claim is Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan. But Japan claims both at the same time. How contradictory Japan’s claim to Dokdo is! A contradictory claim means a false claim.

Matsue Han ≠ Tottori Han. I thought I made this clear.

I explained what Tottori Han'a reply that Dokdo doesn't belong to any province of Japan means.

The 1870 and 1877 was in regards to Ulluengdo and possibily Arogaut but definitely not the current Takeshima for Dajokan based their information from maps such as these.

You are completely misleading. Meiji Governement didn’t order to investigate how Ulleongdoa and a ghost island “Argonaut” became Korean land in 1870. And Meiji government didn’t order to remember Japan had nothing to do with Ulleongdo and a phantom island Argonaut. It’s silly to say Japan’s Meiji government recorded on the non-existent island in its official documents. You don't need to bring that unrelated map to Dajokan Order. Dajokan Order was based on its attached map.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Td-67n0jiYXp7aQO-a3mBP3Qkpx31c3IIlsGjEzVYWDYf0n2h7vG2XOYyqm0fM8NQ_5sti2m9JGJO1Q63LTtdjrhByJGelQhYrGbptbJJe0G2MpkuM-d_buh

.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You contradict yourself. If you believe "隱州視聽合紀" stated Dokdo was within Japan, you can‘t say Dokdo was terra nullius.

It's the legal definition of "terra nullius".

I explained what Tottori Han'a reply that Dokdo doesn't belong to any province of Japan means

And it's irrelevant since the inquiry of 1724 which comes later contradicts it by the same Tottori Clan. "隠州之内、 松嶋と云"

You are completely misleading. Meiji Governement didn’t order to investigate how Ulleongdoa and a ghost island “Argonaut” became Korean land in 1870. And Meiji government didn’t order to remember Japan had nothing to do with Ulleongdo and a phantom island Argonaut. It’s silly to say Japan’s Meiji government recorded on the non-existent island in its official documents. You don't need to bring that unrelated map to Dajokan Order. Dajokan Order was based on its attached map.

Doesn't matter. There is no proof that 外一島 is the current Takeshima/Dokdo.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

It's the legal definition of "terra nullius".

Yes. It's the legal definition of "terra nullius" meaning "land belonging to no one". The ground of Japanese Cabinet Decision to incorporate Dokdo was that there were no traces of occupation by any other countries. If Japan’s Cabinet in 1905 was right, the current Japan’s claim that Dokdo/Takeshima is an inherent part of Japan is a lie. If Japan’s claim that Dokdo/Takeshima is an inherent part of Japan is true, Japan’s Cabinet of 1905 lied. The truth is both assertions are false.

And it's irrelevant since the inquiry of 1724 which comes later contradicts it by the same Tottori Clan. "隠州之内、 松嶋と云“

Tottori Han'a reply that Dokdo doesn't belong to any province of Japan correspond with Meiji government’s recognition that Dokdo is Korean land.

There is no proof that 外一島 is the current Takeshima/Dokdo.

There’s no room for any doubt 外一島 is Dokdo/Takeshima because the attached document explains 外一島 is Dokdo and the attached map shows Dokdo as 外一島

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yes. It's the legal definition of "terra nullius" meaning "land belonging to no one". The ground of Japanese Cabinet Decision to incorporate Dokdo was that there were no traces of occupation by any other countries. If Japan’s Cabinet in 1905 was right, the current Japan’s claim that Dokdo/Takeshima is an inherent part of Japan is a lie. If Japan’s claim that Dokdo/Takeshima is an inherent part of Japan is true, Japan’s Cabinet of 1905 lied. The truth is both assertions are false.

The operative term is "by any other countries". Hence there are no "lies" to speak of.

Tottori Han'a reply that Dokdo doesn't belong to any province of Japan correspond with Meiji government’s recognition that Dokdo is Korean land.

And it's irrelevant since the inquiry of 1724 which comes later contradicts it by the same Tottori Clan. "隠州之内、 松嶋と云"

There’s no room for any doubt 外一島 is Dokdo/Takeshima because the attached document explains 外一島 is Dokdo and the attached map shows Dokdo as 外一島

I see two islands right near Ulluengdo. And the map also has Takeshima/Dokdo with TWO sister islands, hardly 一島 isn't it?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The operative term is "by any other countries". Hence there are no "lies" to speak of.

No, it was definitely a lie. Japan had many traces of occupation by Korea. Let alone Tottori Han’s answer(1696), the report of Ministry of Foreign Affairs officiers (1870) and Dajokan Order, the Home Ministry authorities implied in 1904 that Dokdo was suspected to be Korean land and rejected Nakai Yozaburo’s petition to incorporate Dokdo into Japanese land and lease it to him.

"“The gains would be extremely small while the situation would become grave if the acquistition of a barren islet suspected of being Korean territory at this point of time would amplify the suspicions of various foreign countries that Japan has an ambition to annex Korea.” (此時局ニ際シ(日露開戰中) 韓國領地ノ疑アル莫荒タル一箇不毛ノ岩礁ヲ收メテ環視ノ諸外國ニ我國ガ韓國倂呑ノ野心アルコトノ疑ヲ大ナラシムルハ利益ノ極メテ小ナルニ反シテ事體決シテ容易ナラズトヲ) "

Refer to Prof. Kazuo Hori‘s article “Japan’s Incorporation of Takeshima Into Its Territory in 1905” < http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/Kazuo-Hori-Dokdo.pdf>

And it's irrelevant since the inquiry of 1724 which comes later contradicts it by the same Tottori Clan. "隠州之内、 松嶋と云“

"隠州之内、 松嶋と云“ doesn’t correspond with Dajokan’s order to remember Japan has nothing to do with another island(Dokdo). You should trust what complies with what Japan’s highest authority of Meiji Government said.

I see two islands right ne Ulluengdo. And the map also has Takeshima/Dokdo with TWO sister islands, hardly 一島 isn't it?

You try to mislead 一島 means one island, thus it can’t be Dokdo because Dokdo consists of two islands. Stick to the historical evidence. You can find 外一島 with two islands, Dokdo in the attache map.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites