national

Japan revises teaching manuals, says disputed islands its territory

114 Comments
By Elaine Lies

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

114 Comments
Login to comment

Why must stupid political and ideological battles always be fought out in the classroom? Why can't they just tell the kids the truth that the islands are disputed so that they'll know there's an issue to be resolved and not just to stick their heads in the sand. Who knows, some of these kids might view the problem with fresh minds and come up with an innovative solution.

25 ( +30 / -6 )

It's like they want the conflict with China and Korea. They just keep mucking it up and making it harder for themselves.

9 ( +18 / -9 )

Both China and Korea suffered under Japanese rule, with parts of China occupied in the 1930s and Korea colonized from 1910 to 1945.

The issue has nothing to do with annexation of Korea or occupation of parts of China during 1930s. It is rather unprofessional to mention this "victim" history in an unrelated topic.

Japan incorporated Takeshima in 1905. South Korean government occupied Takeshima in 1952, 7 years after WW2, killing fishermen there.

Japan incorporated Senkakus in 1895, more than 30 years before 1930s.

8 ( +23 / -15 )

telling lies is a sins.

-11 ( +9 / -20 )

And tomorrow Abe will be asking for talks and playing like current tensions arevcompletely the fault of Japan's neighbors.

6 ( +20 / -14 )

While they are at it they should revise a few other things.

-3 ( +5 / -9 )

It's not going to make a blind bit of difference to the kids who will just commit it to memory for a test and then forget about it.

It's not going to be well received in China, however.

Abe wants war.

And if he carries on like he is doing, he's going to get it.

13 ( +22 / -9 )

I have no idea why this is news or "creates tension". This is hardly news.

Japan has been protesting Korea over the illegal occupation of Takeshima ever since 1952. The textbook I used 30 years ago clearly stated Takeshima is Japanese territory but is under illegal occupation of South Korea.

The claim of Senkakus by China is rather recent. But the textbook my son used says that the Senkakus are claimed by China. Oh, I though China wanted Japan to recognize "dispute". What is wrong with textbooks that mention disputes?

What do the textbooks of China and Korea say about the islands? I think they say something that "creates tension" in the region.

5 ( +17 / -12 )

If, as Mr Shimomura asserts, Takeshima is part of Japan, why can't Japanese citizens travel there without a passport? Mr Shimomura's statement is factually incorrect. A true statement would be that Japan claims Takeshima, but it is currently controlled by South Korea.

In the case of the Senkaku islands Mr Shimomura is also in error when he states that "there is no dispute over their ownership", when such a dispute clearly exists. The fact that Mr Shimomura and the Japanese government refuse to acknowledge any dispute doesn't mean it magically disappears.

For an education minister to insist on teaching children obvious falsehoods and propaganda instead of facts makes him unfit for his job. He should resign forthwith.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

@BertieWooster, the sad thing is that the Japanese soldiers wont be the ones in the front... and Abe knows this.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

There is a world of difference between adults hard bargaining for resources and feeding these poison apples to kids.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Wow such a statement could be considered very provocative, I mean since it aims for the future. If Abe continues on this road they will soon be in a position similar to China and S.K., that is teach kids that there is no budging and no reconciliation whatsoever. I guess it means Abe is willing to raise the stakes in this game. He must have something hidden in the sleeve.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

ScroteJan. 28, 2014 - 04:05PM JST

A true statement would be that Japan claims Takeshima, but it is currently controlled by South Korea.

Well, well. That is what Prof. Shimomura has been saying, and that is what Abe wants to be written in Japanese textbooks.

Folks, what do you want Japanese textbooks say about the islands? "Takeshima is Japanese territory but is under control by South Korea." "Senkakus are Japanese territory and are under Japanese control but claimed by China." If these are your answers, then you are with Abe.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

teaching manuals would be changed to make clear that the rocky islets controlled by South Korea but claimed by both nations, known as Takeshima in Japan and Tokdo in South Korea, were Japanese territory.

Japanese Children will be confused about fabrication and lies about the text book. Doko or Takeshima is absolutely under control of ROK. When they visit there, they will acknowledge that it is not belong to them as text book dishonesty. Abe should explain them why can not they raise the Japan flag and singing national Anthem there?

sets of remote islands at the center of disputes with China and South Korea are integral parts of its territory,

Publishing in the text book does not translate as reality of sovereignty. For Daioyu or Senkaku, Japan is the landlord is name only who can not get the rent from regular come and go tenants. In fact, other disputed nations will be more energized than ever and they will not back off as Abe wished for.

Japan is the land of the fabricating history and text books.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Shimomura added, "After all, NHK says so, and if it's on TV, it must be true."

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The Japanese flag should be firmly planted on both sets of islands to dissuade Chinese and Korean thieves.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Regardless of who is right or wrong, I don't think it's a good idea to teach kids this, Despite the fact that China and the Koreas are brainwashing their own kids at school, it doesn't mean Japan has to do the same.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

ReformedBasherJan. 28, 2014 - 04:38PM JST

Are you saying that the textbooks should not touch on the islands? If not, what dou you think the textbooks say about the islands?

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

If the Japanese claim the islands are their's then I don't see the problem with teaching that in schools. You can bet that Chinese and S Korean schools teach their kids their version too.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Wow such a statement could be considered very provocative

...if China and Skorea hadn't already been making more grandiose claims.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Say they're disputed..never lie to kids they will eventually discover the truth anyway. Never cut kids away from the reality of things.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

I would like to say "this is how it starts", but that would be untrue. Japan already seems to have chosen which path it wants to thread. This country seems to want to re-educate its population. I find that quite disturbing.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

The issue has nothing to do with annexation of Korea or occupation of parts of China during 1930s. It is rather unprofessional to mention this "victim" history in an unrelated topic.--->Japan incorporated Takeshima in 1905.

Check the dates, I think the annexation was when they were "incorporated", first these rocks and later Korea proper. Unrelated? Maybe in your textbooks.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This is so depressing. Why can Japanese politicians never miss an opportunity to score an own goal? Japan should be working with both Koreas, China and others on joint textbooks that only teach facts that all sides can agree on. Germany-Poland, Germany-France and others in Europe have done just that. Failing that, it is absolutely fine to state the Japanese government position that the various islands are Japan's, but dishonest and foolish not to also add that other governments have different views in some cases. Britain for example does not recognise Argentina's claim to the Falkland islands and would plead its historical case at every opportunity, but it would be, as I say, dishonest and foolish to pretend that Argentina does not dispute Britain's position. Japanese people especially young people are often grossly ignorant of their own country's modern history and this is hardly going to help matters.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

theeastisredJan. 28, 2014 - 04:59PM JST

but it would be, as I say, dishonest and foolish to pretend that Argentina does not dispute Britain's position.

That is Abe's point. He wants to teach children so that they fully understand the dispute and the Japanese position.

The teachers union of Japan was tend to be pro communist, pro China and pro North Korea. The teachers used to tend to just skip the island disputes. Abe wants the teachers to teach the issue.

-7 ( +7 / -14 )

That is Abe's point. He wants to teach children so that they fully understand the dispute and the Japanese position.

Abe wants to teach children so that they do not fully understand the dispute and only know the Japanese position.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

The overweening arrogance of the Japanese government beggars belief. Although as they say, pride comes before a fall

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

theeastisredJan. 28, 2014 - 05:12PM JST

Abe wants to teach children so that they do not fully understand the dispute and only know the Japanese position.

That is your assumption.

Children are smart. All kinds of materials on the issue are available in Japan. That is the big difference from China or Korea.

-2 ( +6 / -9 )

Then why then, do kids have such poor historical knowledge if plenty of materials are available?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

IParryU,

@BertieWooster, the sad thing is that the Japanese soldiers wont be the ones in the front... and Abe knows this.

Well, whatever happens, one thing is for certain, Abe won't be in the front line.

He'll be in a safe office in a bunker somewhere.

Those in the front line and those caught in the cross fire are the ones I feel sorry for.

They didn't want the war in the first place.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

He'll be in a safe office in a bunker somewhere.

True, drinking tea and meditating how Japanese he is. Hmm, he`d likely get the forces of his master, ahem ally the US to do most of the fighting for him.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Children are smart. All kinds of materials on the issue are available in Japan. That is the big difference from China or Korea.

If the best you can manage is that the Japanese situation is not as bad as those of China or Korea, you are setting your standards shockingly low. What is wrong with embarrassing those other countries with an honest and open manner of education that they can't (China) or won't (Korea) match? Japan should be the clear winner of these disputes in terms of openness, honesty, democracy etc, but it isn't thanks to idiotic and misguided people like Abe.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Japan should have done this long time ago. I think It is doing because all these years of Japan being nice and generous to SKorea and China did not help improve our relationships, but made them demand more apology and money and submission.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

but it isn't thanks to idiotic and misguided people like Abe.

Hmm, we have the small, conservative proportion of the Japanese electorate who turned up to vote in December 2012 to thank for that

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Abe wants to teach children so that they do not fully understand the dispute and only know the Japanese position.

That is your assumption.

Not assuming anything. Article clearly states that the Japanese position alone will be taught under this crazy proposal.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

aussie-musashiJan. 28, 2014 - 05:27PM JST

Then why then, do kids have such poor historical knowledge if plenty of materials are available?

I think Japanese kids have good understanding of history.

If you are talking about propaganda rather than facts, they do not know much about it. For example.

aussie-musashiJan. 28, 2014 - 05:24PM JST

By the status quo, I mean the unofficial agreements between Japan and China in 1972, and 1978, which agreed to "shelve the dispute", and leave it for future generations to solve.

Sir, what are "unofficial agreements"? Don't you think it is just propaganda rather than legally binding agreemnent between nations, usually ratified by parliaments on both sides? It is recorded, in 1972, that, when Japanese PM Tanaka asked Chinese PM Zhou of his idea about Senkakus, PM Zhou said he did not want to talk about the issue during the summit. Japan took this as China acquiesced Japanese occupation and sovereignty of Senkakus. China says there was an agreement. I want to know how people can reach an agreement by declining to talk about it.

Do you still say you have better understanding of territorial issues than Japanese kids?

1 ( +8 / -7 )

@CH3CHO

Perhaps when kids are late-middle school at earliest, it's okay to teach them about the disputes, but certainly not at earlier than that. And it should be taught in a neutral way. Let them form their own opinions rather than be taught the beliefs of others.

I really don't think it's a good idea for kids to be taught that any country, including their own, is a boogeyman. With any luck, things might have improved when they've grown up and are capable if thinking for themselves.

Peace comes from starting anew and young people are out best hope for the future. Let's not use them as a political tool. Things are bad enough as it is without upcoming generations, of all countries involved, being inundated with propaganda to keep antagonisms ongoing.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

The Japanese school masters should teach their kids what it was really like to live under Japanese occupation in places like China and Korea. Honesty is the best policy but then again maybe Oscar Wilde was right? If you are always honest, nobody will trust you. Will we be ever ready for total honesty between countries?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Sure , revise the textbooks and then keep wondering why, but why ? doesn't China and Korea want to accept Abe,s summit invitation. Didn't he issue it just like a day or two ago?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

CrazyJoeJan. 28, 2014 - 06:07PM JST

The Japanese school masters should teach their kids what it was really like to live under Japanese occupation in places like China and Korea.

I think the same should be said of Koreans. http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2983184

Sangsan High School to drop Kyohak textbook, Jan 08,2014

The Kyohak history textbook came under scrutiny for having a conservative bias and soft-pedaling its criticism of Japanese colonial rule and the 18-year dictatorship of Park Chung Hee.

In Korea, a textbook which gives neutral view on the Japanese annexation period gets fierce political criticism. I do not think Korean kids can develop a balanced view on the history.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

It's about time. Devote an entire chapter to Chinese territorial expansion, from Arunachal Pradesh to the South China Sea to the Senkaku Islands. It's all about context.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I'm pretty sure China and S.Korea already have their propoganda version in their schools.....

1 ( +5 / -5 )

I wonder.

Do China ans South Korea have them in text books as 'theirs', or 'disputed'?

Y'know. Before we all start throwing stones around.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Simple facts need to be presented to the children in texts.

Takeshima is claimed historically by 2 countries. Each case has verifiable merits, hence it is in dispute. Currently Korea occupies and controls Takeshima and this will not change in the foreseeable future.

The Senkakakus are claimed historically by 3 countries. Each case has verifiable merits, hence they are in dispute Currently Japan does not occupy the islands, but exerts control over and this will probably not change in the foreseeable future.

The Northern territories are claimed historically by 2 countries. Each has verifiable merits, hence they are in dispute. Currently Russia occupies and controls the 4 islands and this will probably not change in the foreseeable future, although small concessions may be granted by Russia.

This is how it is, regardless of politicians, Korean school kids or teachers unions opinions.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

CH3CHO,

Will you and your ilk give it a rest already... How many times when an argument comes up can the Japanese counter with their "But America/China/Korea/Germany/whatever place suits their needs was/is just as bad..." It's a messed up argumentative method that only proves the Japanese lack skills when it comes to defending their views.

Just because anoter place does then same does not make it ok, AKA two wrongds don't make it right.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Knox HarringtonJan. 28, 2014 - 07:50PM JST

It's a messed up argumentative method that only proves the Japanese lack skills when it comes to defending their views.

Just because anoter place does then same does not make it ok, AKA two wrongds don't make it right.

When did I say so? I am of the view that two wrongs make two wrongs. When I criticized Korean textbooks in my previous comment, I clearly made my point that Koreans should change their education.

I invite you to an argument on how Japan should teach territorial issues over the islands. I bet your opinion would not be so different from Abe's.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Asia's territorial disputes Why they are not going to Hague?(ICJ)

4 ( +6 / -2 )

China says there was an agreement. I want to know how people can reach an agreement by declining to talk about it.

Simple, China had just re-established relations with Japan after 23 years of isolation, and likely as not figured that the issue of the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands could be left for later. It is now Japan for its part that is insisting that no dispute exists, and inflaming tensions in the region

0 ( +5 / -5 )

MountBladeJan. 28, 2014 - 08:17PM JST

Asia's territorial disputes Why they are not going to Hague?(ICJ)

Good point. On September 26, 2012, Japanese PM Noda made this speach at UN. http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/noda/statement/201209/26un_e.html

Once again, in cooperation with the United Nations, I call for nations to recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ as Japan did and for non-member countries of the ICC and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to join at an early date.

There are still a number of territorial and maritime disputes in many parts of the world. It is the philosophy of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as a shared principle in the international community, to settle disputes in a peaceful manner based on international law. Japan, under any circumstance, is determined to comply with the principle and seek peaceful solutions based on international law. The world should pay more attention to the role the international judicial institutions can play in the peaceful settlement of disputes.

The speech is meant to be directed to China and Korea. I do not know why they do not take this offer. But it is said that China does not want a settlement through ICJ because it does not like the idea of "rule of law", for the "law" is written by the West. It likes the idea of "rule of power", where the strong takes from the weak. Korea does not like ICJ settlement because it only has weak arguement.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Well Japan has a new PM now. If he hadnt already visited Yasukuni shrine, or instigated moves to revise history textbooks, perhaps he could make the offer again, publicly, to settle all territorial disputes at the ICJ. If he was truly interested in "dialogue" with China and South Korea, thats what he would do. In all fairness though, remembering the suffering it inflicted on its neighbours during the war, Japan should withdraw from all existing territorial disputes. That would show true remorse.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

aussie-musashiJan. 28, 2014 - 08:28PM JST

China says there was an agreement. I want to know how people can reach an agreement by declining to talk about it.

Simple, China had just re-established relations with Japan after 23 years of isolation, and likely as not figured that the issue of the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands could be left for later.

OK. That is what the Chinese leader thought about. Why can it amount to be an "agreement" between China and Japan?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

As the below link shows, an agreement did exist

http://www1.american.edu/TED/ice/DIAOYU.HTM

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

The issue has nothing to do with annexation of Korea or occupation of parts of China during 1930s

The issue has nothing to do with annexation for Japan because Japan is very dishonest and made up history is taught in schools. This has everything to do with the annexation for Korea, who see the island as the symbolism of Japan as a nation who is proud of its own military aggressions of the past, and who will never change. It's a reminder for Koreans, not to let that happen again.

By the way, Japan shouldn't be shocked and outraged that they can't get to sit down with S.Korea to talk.

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

A modern forward looking nation would without any doubt make sure that the education system provided to its youth guaranties the basis for self reflection and self judgement so that the people of this nation can develop a sense of criticism needed for any healthy democracy.

Japan is doing the complete opposite and this action only proves that Japan is not a democracy. This is actually not totally new as the LDP has controlled Japan for the majority if it's post war period, the fact that the population isn't taught to think, this is why the population is so apathetic in Japan. But the present government is taking things further by basically imposing plain propaganda to the population from its early age. Call it whatever you want, but this is a distatorship. Imposing a single limited view defined by the government for the education of people is a dictatorship. The kind of dictatorship that produces short minded people that see nationalism as the only representation of their country. The argumentation of CH3CHO is an example of that.

One could believe that a government in 2014 would try to give people a sense of reflection about a territorial issue by providing a basis for judgement and by even teaching to people the position of China. That would be undoubtly positive to people since they will have the basis for making a personal idea on the matter and even come with new and innovative positions. Instead of that, we have a government that basically forces an idea to the mind of people removing them any chance for thinking. Build the perfect mass of controllable minds in a sense by filling them with predefined ideas that they will consider the absolute truth, biased truth provided by a neo-nationalist government.

Furthermore, what a silly idea is to fill young minds with useless nationalistic propaganda when instead they could change the Japanese education system so that it provides people a better opening to the world. Instead of creating open minded people, curious to the world around them, the government wants to create nationalistic people who fear even more anything that is outside Japan.

Japanese can't blame anymore China to be this or that, Japan is becoming just like China, a dictatorship.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

aussie-musashiJan. 28, 2014 - 08:54PM JST

Your link does not prove any agreement. An agreement between nations usually takes the form of treaty, or joint statement at least. Your link does not show nothing of such kinds.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Senkakus belong to Japan according to international law - they are not in dispute.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Does anyone have any examples of what's written into current Chinese or Korean textbooks? It would be an interesting comparison. No speculation, just the actual quotes.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@Knox Harrington

CH3CHO and his ilk? As opposed to you and yours?

@Chucky

South Korea is the country that failed to distribute war reparations to it's citizens so unless you have developed a sense of humour, please don't bring up dishonesty.

@Both of you

Japan is quite correct to point out hypocrisy. Are your countries special somehow?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

It's a disputed island so we shouldn't be surprised at this. In England we are told the Falklands belong to us, in Argentina they are told they (Malvinas) belong to them. I just hope Japan doesn't go the embarrassing route of giving away free car stickers with books to try and support their case:

Buy this book and get a Dokdo car sticker

Please attach this car sticker on your car that inform other people on the road thant "Dokdo is korean territory ".

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Korean-Manga-book-Learn-Korean-Culture-Dokdo-Sticker-/200639625592

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Japan claims that Takeshima is inherent part of Japan and Japan incorporated it because there were no traces of occupation by any other countries. How can the Japanese teachers make the Japanese children understand this contradiction?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Funny as hell how Communist China and it's tributary state of Korea are yelling, screaming, fuming, pointing fingers and their heads are spinning off over this.

Interesting how they forget that they have been teaching their kids that those islands are theirs for ages now.

The tributary state of Korea indoctrinates their school kids from Kindergarten to be and live anti-Japan. Hell their school teacher take those kids to anti-Japan protests to further indoctrinate them. When you think of the word hypocrites they come to mind.

Then their is Communist China and their whitewashed textbooks, heck why even go into it. They are masters at brainwashing their people. I am surprised that they didn't blame the Tiananmen square massacre on Japan and the U.S...

But give them time they will whitewash that massacre and in another 20 years (if the CCP is still around) they will claim that the massacre was done by Japan and America.

Hypocritical propaganda works best when you have your paid posters to push your propaganda. Communist China and it's tributary states have many here.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

I will agree that Takeshima/Dokdo is South Korean the day they settle it at the ICJ and the court rules in their favor. Likewise, I will agree that the Senkakus are Chinese when the ICJ rules in China's favor. The General Secretary of the UN is South Korean. China is on the Permanent Security Council. Yet these two nations have no desire to settle an argument through the legal arm of the UN? Takeshima/Dokodo was claimed and ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED by South Korea. Japan has asked to settle the issue THREE times at the ICJ but Souh Korea has refused. As for Senkakus it was incorporated peacefully and legally and it is up to China to bring a claim at the ICJ if they feel otherwise. But they would rather keep sending ships there too "change the status quo through coerceion".

1 ( +8 / -7 )

And if the car sticker doesn't convince you that Dokdo/Takeshima is Korean, maybe the boxer shorts will do it for you (or the socks). lol, how embarrassing.

http://populargusts.blogspot.jp/2008_08_01_archive.html

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Ouch !! I see this going a long way to taking the pressure of Asia ....not !

What's with these two countries antagonizing each other..is this the latest world scheme ? War always brings investment. Only problem is today we as humans can do today what it took them 5 years to accomplish in ww2 in about 45min. Only problem is it will take about 500 years minimum before it's even attainable to remodel

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Can we all just get along?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Abe wants to revise the history books? Well, there's a surprise...not. Nothing new here. The LDP always tried to rewrite history and conceal the truth about Japan's wicked past from its young people. Sadly, they have all but succeeded, producing generations of brainwashed sheeple, who cannot question anything or think for themselves. History will repeat itself.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Trying to change history, or rather the perception of it is futile now that the Internet is available. Anyone can see all people's views on anything, and it isn't just hearsay written in a book that is someone's subjective view - video evidence abounds. Changing textbooks smacks of a backward, island mentality that I thought Japan had grown out of. Seems not.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Here's an idea: instead of being selfish butt-holes over a couple of specs of rock with 'possible' gas fields, why not show the world that Asia is not a pit of animosity and share them? Those pissy little specs of rock and their supposed gas fields are not gonna produce enough gas to compensate either country for a the cost of the already lost trade and potentially a war. This pair of antagonistic twits really need to grow a brain!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

With the rise and return of the Japanese economy, anything that comes out of Japan will be scrutenized by its jealous neighbors. As a so called African-American, I walk around with a hyphen in my classification everyday and am well aware if the atrocities commited by the majority in my ancestors but walking around pointing fingers at people today is not the answer. We all know the truth no matter what is written. Japan has every right to print what they want, but the Koreans and Chinese have the right to feel the way they feel too. Does it create dialog? No, it just goes on and on until someone falls apart and starts a war.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Bullying the big neighbour to make sure the dialogue demand will be rejected (I bet my head that Abe doe not want to meet with Xi Jinping) and then play the victim. That is the Abe's strategy to get inside vote and outside support.

Dangerous game!

The behaviour of China is irrelevant. Japan as a big and - still respected - democracy is expected to play a mature and role model game by the rest of the world.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

sigh it's been 68 years people. Get over it

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I think everyone remembers the history...how Japan kept dialog basically up to Pearl then ...wham! ...as Open stayed maybe this is a new version of history on a larger scale. Both bodies are pushing only this time it's not with the USA

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The way in which the Beijing, Seoul and Tokyo governments behave, there won't be any substantive talking any time soon.

Tokyo gets faulted a lot for this lack of dialogue or discussion but that's blindly one sided. Seoul has its own equally bad habits, including the use of political expedience as justification for ignoring treaties that prior governments already have signed with Tokyo.

Beijing's avaricious territorial policy is rather blatantly apparent to every nation that shares a maritime border with China.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Indeed, it’s a dangerous game played by all of the parties involved.

But, one of the catalysts that accelerates progressively pugnacious and provocative actions in Japan is that Abe's admin is being overwhelmed by the anxiety coming from assertive and clout-gaining China and “deserting” S.K .

For people who are aware: Abe was considering two options in Oct. 2013 for “celebrating” his one year in power: A. Fly to Beijing to have a summit. B. Visit Yasukuni Shrine. However, China declared its ADIZ in the end of Nov, and worse, Japan was left to hang dry by international community when the episode draw close. To reactive on his dismay and devastation, reactive Abe took option B. (As you can understand Abe’s frustration.)

Maybe, both China and S.K should make some efforts and overtures to encourage positive responses from Japan, which is increasingly isolated.

When a country is cornered, what do you expect ? Acting out could be a way of crying for help.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

How come Japanese never complain about the Kuril Islands that is controlled by Russia? Japanese are disputing this island and they are very quiet about it. Japanese only bark like a dog against China and Korea.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

EthanWilberJan. 29, 2014 - 12:29AM JST For people who are aware: Abe was considering two options in Oct. 2013 for “celebrating” his one year in power: A. >Fly to Beijing to have a summit. B. Visit Yasukuni Shrine. However, China declared its ADIZ in the end of Nov, and >worse, Japan was left to hang dry by international community when the episode draw close. To reactive on his dismay >and devastation, reactive Abe took option B. (As you can understand Abe’s frustration.)

Please provide a link to support your above paragraph.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

I think tinawatanabe may have a good point. Could this be an example of Japan changing strategy because they are completely fed up with the never ending criticism from S.K. and China? Of course this type of act, in a symbolic sense, has also been played by many other countries when involved in diplomatic tensions. For instance it could be a means to get a better position before negotiations. Later on they could give something to the opponent by promising to re-revise the textbooks. What would China give in response, withdrawing the borders of the ADIZ?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

You know, it really doesn't matter right now what the textbooks said. Right now it's necessary to unite the neighbors to the bullying by China before it escalates further. Instead of calm conversations with Korea, et.al., we get this kind of hooey and visits to Yasukuni. There is no good reason to poke sticks in this hornet's nest.

I'm starting to think that Abe is completely clueless when it comes to foreign policy. He always seems to manage to undo any progress by sticking his foot in it again and again...right now Japan should be leading. Instead they're just aggravating. And doing China a favor by being so inept.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

What is the root cause of this LDP drive to war? It is the capitalist system in Japan. War is inevitable under this system because the rich capitalists must find new markets and compete with the capitalists of other nations to control those markets. Deja vu? If you think you have seen this before you are right? Do a search for "Coming full circle: Shinzo Abe" to find a recent interesting article from The Hindu concerning his history.

Many people are drawn to Japan wanting to escape the capitalist way of life of their home countries. But their is no escape. The growth of Japanese capitalism and the LDP alliance with US imperialism can only lead to war again. The US capitalists need to control the markets of Asia. They need the aid of their "partner" Japanese capitalists. The up and coming Chinese capitalists stand in the way of their control of Asia. For that basic economic reason, war is a matter of time under this system. It is necessary to question this worldwide system of capitalism.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Putting this stuff in the textbooks will only tie the hands of future politicians and prolong the territorial tensions with Japan's neighbors to future generations.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

GREAT for Japan!!!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

What the government care is all about money. If I could go back to school, say junior high school, I wish I could study how to build good relationship with china. Even if the government makes clear " it is Japanese territory" in the text book, I believe that it presumably ends up being a small question for the test. I really doubt that listing the governent's saying in the text book can solve this issue. Hou about make students watch video where both countires opinions are clearly stated. I think as long as the both govenments are saying the small land is ours, while insisting negotiation is important, this issue won't be solved

1 ( +1 / -0 )

As a South Korean, I believe Japan is free to teach their children that Takeshima is Japanese territory, because that is their belief, and after all Korean children are taught that Dokdo is Korean territory. Likewise with the Senkaku/Diaoyu claims between Japan/China/Taiwan.

However, what worries me is this:

The conservative Abe has said he wants to revise Japanese history to have a less apologetic tone, a sensitive topic for Asian neighbors such as South Korea and China, where memories linger of Japanese aggression before and during World War Two.

Japan's future will largely depend on their trade and political relationship with China and SK, and if Japanese children grow up without understanding the historical context of Japan-China-SK relations, it will lead to further diplomatic and possibly even military conflict.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Here's a historians pov, and no people here probably won't like hearing this as this is Japanese news source. nonetheless, i would hear responses.

1) Japan did not even have her own name for Diaoyu Islands before 1921, Japan had been following China to call the islands Diaoyu Islands for 800 years until 1921, 20+ years after defeating China, Japan decided to change the name to Senkaku Islands, named by the British.

2) Japan never dared claim Diaoyu Islands until they defeated China in 1895 and claimed the Diaoyu Islands in 1896. If Japan had not believed that Diaoyu Islands belonging to China, Japan did not need to claim the Diaoyu Islands only after defeating China.

3) Japan was granted the administrative right over Diaoyu Island, not an owner of Diaoyu Islands. Japan is the same as a property managing company which responsible to maintain the property in good order, such as collecting trash etc. Although, in reality, the USA did not and does not have any right to grant even the administrative right of Chinese territory to any countries without China's permission.

4) China can produce a lot of historical evidences to prove that Diaoyu Islands have been belonging to China since the 13th Century, but Japan could produce zero pre-1885 historical evidence to support her claim. If Diaoyu Islands did belong to Japan, why is Japan unable to produce pre-1885 evidence to support her claim ?

5) As for now, the USA is using her military superiority to force China to stop getting back the Diaoyu Islands. The act of the USA is against the truth and damaging her own integrity. Regardless, this situation will end very soon.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Here's a historians pov, and no people here probably won't like hearing this as this is Japanese news source. nonetheless, i would hear responses.

1) Japan did not even have her own name for Diaoyu Islands before 1921, Japan had been following China to call the islands Diaoyu Islands for 800 years until 1921, 20+ years after defeating China, Japan decided to change the name to Senkaku Islands, named by the British.

etc..

@captaincoolz - Japan's claim to Senkaku is based on legality rather than historical sovereignty over the islands. As you have outlined, China can lay historical claim to Senkaku, but the Japanese view is that they legally incorporated the islands.

In contrast, Japan's claim to Takeshima is based on historical claims rather than legal sovereignty over the islands. Japan claims that Korea did not know about Takeshima, although this holds little water as Takeshima can clearly be seen from the undisputed Korean island of Ulleungdo.

See this picture: http://en.dokdo.go.kr/eng/img/introduction/korea_dokdo_dokdo_seen_from_ulleungdo.jpg

1 ( +4 / -3 )

captaincoolzJan. 29, 2014 - 05:15AM JST Here's a historians pov, and no people here probably won't like hearing this as this is Japanese news source. >nonetheless, i would hear responses.

This is not a Japanese news source and you must mean Chinese historian.

1) Japan did not even have her own name for Diaoyu Islands before 1921, Japan had been following China to call the islands Diaoyu Islands for 800 years until 1921, 20+ years after defeating China, Japan decided to change the name to Senkaku Islands, named by the British. 2) Japan never dared claim Diaoyu Islands until they defeated China in 1895 and claimed the Diaoyu Islands in 1896. If Japan had not believed that Diaoyu Islands belonging to China, Japan did not need to claim the Diaoyu Islands only after defeating China.

Japan incorporated the Senkaku islands after following internationally accepted protocol including investigating ownership in January of 1885.The Treaty of Shimonoseki which ended the Sino-Japanese War of 1884/85 was signed by Japan and China (Qing Dynasty) in April of 1885. In it, China ceded territory to Japan such as Taiwan and the Pescadores. The Senkakus were not mentioned because neither Japan nor China considered them to be Chinese territory. The gaping hole in the Chinese argument of prior ownership is that Japan had no need to go through the incorporation process if it believed they were Chinese. All they had to do was demand it at the Treaty of Shimonoseki and include it in the list of territories China was to hand over to Japan.

3) Japan was granted the administrative right over Diaoyu Island, not an owner of Diaoyu Islands. Japan is the same >as a property managing company which responsible to maintain the property in good order, such as collecting trash >etc. Although, in reality, the USA did not and does not have any right to grant even the administrative right of Chinese >territory to any countries without China's permission.

That Japan has administrative rights as far as the WWII allies are concerned (that includes China under ROC) certaibly does not recognize ownership or any rights whatsoever by the PRC which did not even exist during WWII. The United States most certainly had the right to grant administrative rights as he head representative of the Allied powers. And how does "permission" from a country that did not even exist in WWII play any role?

4) China can produce a lot of historical evidences to prove that Diaoyu Islands have been belonging to China since >the 13th Century, but Japan could produce zero pre-1885 historical evidence to support her claim. If Diaoyu Islands >did belong to Japan, why is Japan unable to produce pre-1885 evidence to support her claim ?

If so go ahead and present them at the International Court of Justice. Japan could then present the numerous Chinese maps from the 1950s and 60s that show the Senkakus to be Japanese territory, and how the maps suddenly changed after the 1970s.

5) As for now, the USA is using her military superiority to force China to stop getting back the Diaoyu Islands. The act >of the USA is against the truth and damaging her own integrity. Regardless, this situation will end very soon.

No we are stopping Fascist China from stealing it's neighbor's territory through force, intimidation and coercion. China at this point has no integrity in the eyes of the entire world.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

However, what worries me is this:

It is worrisome if that is exactly what he said. What I would like to know is when did he say this and where can I read it in Japanese? Because I have no recollection of these words being spoken by Abe. I think this could be a case of a mistaken translation.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

OssanAmerica, your comments are all false. Let me point them out to you.

Japan incorporated the Senkaku islands after following internationally accepted protocol,

Japan's official documents show that from the time of the facts-finding missions to Diaoyu Dao in 1885 to the occupation of the islands in 1895, Japan had consistently acted in secrecy without making its moves public, including the incomplete survey at that time. This proves that Japan's claim of sovereignty over the islands under terra nullius does not have legal effect under international law. The islands have always been under Taiwan’s jurisdiction, otherwise Taiwan wouldn’t want them back too.

That Japan has administrative rights as far as the WWII allies are concerned (that includes China under ROC) certaibly does not recognize ownership or any rights whatsoever by the PRC which did not even exist during WWII

You seem to have a problem with the terms ROC and PRC, they are both China the same as Hong Kong and Macau. You see there is only “one China.” And, even the US did not have the right to grant administrative rights to Japan, in October 1971, the US administration stated that "the United States believes that a return of administrative rights over those islands to Japan, from which the rights were received, can in no way prejudice any underlying claims. The United States cannot add to the legal rights Japan possessed before it transferred administration of the islands to us, nor can the United States, by giving back what it received, diminish the rights of other claimants... The United States has made no claim to Diaoyu Dao and considers that any conflicting claims to the islands are a matter for resolution by the parties concerned."

If so go ahead and present them at the International Court of Justice. Japan could then present the numerous Chinese maps from the 1950s and 60s that show the Senkakus to be Japanese territory, and how the maps suddenly changed after the 1970s

But you see even Japan does not want China to use the ICJ hence the “no dispute” claim. You mentioned about the maps, but maps are meant to be changed with the flows and time. China has Japanese and foreign maps that show the islands belong to China. To better prove the point I think the foreign maps are more reliable.

No we are stopping Fascist China from stealing it's neighbor's territory through force, intimidation and coercion. China at this point has no integrity in the eyes of the entire world.

How can it be stealing when they belong to China in the first place? I have been following the news and it’s always been Japan which created the problems and provoked China since the beginning. I am an outsider so if I believe in China that means there must be a lot more people who believe in China as well.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

captaincoolzJan. 29, 2014 - 05:15AM JST

1) Japan did not even have her own name for Diaoyu Islands before 1921,

What Chinese call "Diaoyou" island is called "Uotsurijima" in Japanaese from ancient times.

2) Japan never dared claim Diaoyu Islands until they defeated China in 1895 and claimed the Diaoyu Islands in 1896.

The government needs to maintain the territory after incorporation. If the rightful new territory is too close to an aggressive country, the lawful incorporation may provoke the hegemony.

3) Japan was granted the administrative right over Diaoyu Island, not an owner of Diaoyu Islands

Read San Francisco Peace Treaty, Article 3.

Japan entrusted the US the administrative rights of Senkakus included in Ryukyu, while maintaining sovereignty, which were returned to Japan in 1972.

4) China can produce a lot of historical evidences

Yes, I know "Shun Feng Xiang Song" and other stuff. It can be concluded the author knew the island. But that does not mean China established effective control over the islands at the time.

5) As for now, the USA is using her military superiority to force China to stop getting back the Diaoyu Islands. The act of the USA is against the truth and damaging her own integrity. Regardless, this situation will end very soon.

This aggressive Chinese policy is the very heart of the issue.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

CH3CHO: "Japan has been protesting Korea over the illegal occupation of Takeshima ever since 1952."

Sorry, bud, the islands are called "Dokdo". There is no dispute. Same as Abe says there is no dispute over the Senkakus. So which is it? Japan can try and rewrite history all it wants -- won't change the fact that SK owns the islands, and the more time passes, the more the world will recognize said fact. Japan has the same advantage with the Senkaku islands, save that they are just rocks no one lives on.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

smithinjapanJan. 29, 2014 - 12:57PM JST

Sorry, bud, the islands are called "Dokdo". There is no dispute.

Why do we see this big "Provisional Zone" around Takeshima in the Korea Japan Fishery Treaty? http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:Japan_Korea_provisional_zone_J.svg

The Treaty including this provisional zone was ratified by Korean Congress in year 2000.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

If Japan can insist that there is no dispute over Diaoyu, South Korea can insist the same over Dokdo, and Russia could by rights say the same for the northern territories. The fact Russia has even offered to generously return two of the islets shows considerable good-will on their part

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Aussie: exactly! The hypocrisy of the Japanese government would be astounding if not a long time practice. When it's Senkakus it's a "non-issue" that China "must accept". When the shoe's on the other foot the government and posters on here cry about the ICJ and what not. Quite funny to watch the heads spin.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

aussie-musashiJan. 29, 2014 - 03:56PM JST

If Japan can insist that there is no dispute over Diaoyu

If China wants to make it a "dispute", it can do so by bringing the case to International Court of Justice. Japan has recognized the jurisdiction of ICJ, so Japan will not and cannot evade from the law suit.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Strangely, I haven't seen Shinzo Abe jumping on the bandwagon about this recently. Maybe he's afraid China might say yes. Although considering Japan was responsible for about 15-20 million deaths in China, 200,000 women from Korea coerced into the sex slave system, in addition to 35 years of colonisation and suppression of Korean culture - I'd say Japan should withdraw from all territorial disputes to show its remorse

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

aussie-musashiJan. 29, 2014 - 05:44PM JST

Strangely, I haven't seen Shinzo Abe jumping on the bandwagon about this recently. Maybe he's afraid China might say yes.

Read this. http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3

If China recognizes the jurisdiction of ICJ and bring the case to ICJ, regardless what Abe says, legal proceedings start to decide which country has Senkakus. It is a great way to settle the case peacefully.

The leaders of China know this but will not do this, because they want to use their military power.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

So, are you disagreeing with Abe's position that no dispute exists?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

aussie-musashiJan. 29, 2014 - 06:15PM JST

So, are you disagreeing with Abe's position that no dispute exists?

Do I need to say twice? I do not support Abe anyway.

CH3CHOJan. 29, 2014 - 05:30PM JST

If China wants to make it a "dispute", it can do so by bringing the case to International Court of Justice.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

CH3CHO: "Do I need to say twice?"

You didn't answer the question. Do you think there is a dispute or not? Don't fob it off by saying, "If China wants to make it a dispute...". That's not an answer, it's a cop-out.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

smithinjapanJan. 29, 2014 - 07:44PM JST

What is th edefinition of a dispute? Be sure to answer.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Of course the situation is under dispute.

It's being argued about and the validity of a status is being questioned.

Doesn't matter if one side disagrees whether there is a dispute or not, because by virtue of the fact of the disagreement a dispute has come into existance.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

flowers, you long response is pure nonsense. Japan had no reason to "incorporate" an island that they could simply demand from China as war booty if they really believed it was Chinese. You present nothing to explain this. Your "one China" argument flies in the face of historical realty, the ROC lead by Chiang Kai Shek was an allied power in WWII. The PRC (Communist China)was not founded until 1948. Hong Kong and Macao are part of China but are politically run separately from the rest of mainland China. The US had the rights in accordance with the Cairo and Potsdam declarations and the San Francisco Treaty. The US considers the Senkakus part of territory covered under Article 5 of the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty, which is enough for China to give up trying to take them by military force. As for the ICJ, it's ridiculous for you to state that Japan doesn't want to go to the ICJ when it is China who is the claimant and only they can bring a claim to the ICJ, but refuse to do so. Meantime please explain why PRC maps from the 1950s and 60s show the Senkakus as Japanese territory if they were "always Chinese" as you say.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Interesting posts on the issue.

But what about the history teachers? Surely they would simply highlight the bias in the reviewed texts and manuals, and point students to primary sources of information, easily available online, and let them make their own decisions?

That's a history teacher's job, after all.

I'm a former history teacher. That's what I would do.

Students are young adults, give them some credit.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

That's a history teacher's job, after all.

That's a Western history teacher's job. The way they teach, and the way they teach history, are both quite different in Japan.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@Strangerland

Nah, I don't buy the Western history teacher's job argument. I'm old enough to remember teaching history back home just like it's taught here in Japan, but it changed; and good historians, who are also teachers, helped to make it change.

I've taught history in schools in four other Asian countries, and, yes, there are propagandists who call themselves history teachers, just like back home, but they are easily found out by students.

But there are also those who circumvent the confines of classroom texts, if they use them at all; it's not difficult, especially when most of the class doubt the rubbish in the texts anyway.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

When I say it's taught differently, I mean the whole approach to teaching history is different here. In Western countries we usually do a chronological progression through some span of history, usually involving the history of how our countries became countries. Here they jump around and analyze specific events, who the players were, what their connections where, and how they all relate together. There is also a lot of rote memorization, and not as much free discussion. The teachers aren't as likely to go off on tangents, and point kids at different places where they can get information.

I'm not saying the teachers are bad, I'm just saying that it's not an equivalent comparison to how history is taught in the west.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Mitch CohenJan. 29, 2014 - 05:25AM JST

Japan claims that Korea did not know about Takeshima, although this holds little water as Takeshima can clearly be seen from the undisputed Korean island of Ulleungdo.

Right. “Annals of King Sejong(1454)” says Dokdo and Ulleongdo are on a clear windy day. Dokdo is the only island can be seen from Ulloengdo on a clear windy day. Ulleongdo can be seen from Dokdo, too. http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2013/10/japans-false-claim-on-dokdo-takeshima.html

Nakai Yozabur who was the main figure in Japan’s illegal incorporation of Dokdoin of 1905 said he thought Dokdo was Korean land and wanted Korea to lease Dokdo to him for his monopoly sea lion business in Dokdo. The three Japanese bureaucrats led him to believe Dokdo was ownerless and coaxed him to submit the petition to incorporate Dokdo into Japanese land. http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2013/02/japanese-incorporation-of-dokdo-in-1905.html

How can the Japanese teachers teach their students those facts?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@Suin Kim

Every document translated by Korean "historians" substitutes a variant of the name 'Usando' liberally into 'Dokdo'. There is usually no disclaimer to that fact. Why is that? Or, the assumption that "Usando is the old name for Dokto" is stated as fact. The whole arguments are based on the critical assumption that Usando is, in fact, the same island as present day Dokdo. Japanese researchers only have to refute that one assumption with evidence (which they have done), and all those Korean papers/essays/arguments have no meaning whatsoever. Wouldn't changing names on historical documents during translation equate to distorting the facts? Enlighten me as to where my logic is flawed please. Liars tend to accuse other people the most of lying. ...in this case, this holds true.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

slump Jan. 31, 2014 - 10:17AM JST

Every document translated by Korean "historians" substitutes a variant of the name 'Usando' liberally into 'Dokdo'. There is usually no disclaimer to that fact. Why is that?

You are wrong. It’s the Japanese who distort Korean every Usando in Korean old documents to deny Usando is Korean old name for Dokdo. It’s true there were confusions and flaws in ancient Korean perceptions on Usando, but some documents clearly describe Usando as today’s Dokdo.

Can you argue what Usando in “Annals of King Sejong” is ? The Japanese distort the said text by wrongly interpreting Usando and Ulleongdo could be seen from Uljin village, thus Usando indicates Jukdo. Jukdo is not seen from Uljin. The Japanese just omit “ They just omit the word “相去” meaning “each other”.

Can you argue “Dongguk Munheon Bigo (1770)" and "Mangi Yoram (1808)" recording ”According to "Yeojiji" , both Ullung and Usan are the land of Usanguk. Usan is the so-called Japanese (calling) Matsushima.“? Matsushima is Japanese traditional name for Dokdo.

How about Ahn Yong-bok’s statement of 1696 “Matsushima(Japanese old name for Dokdo) is the island called Jasan(=Usan) in the same province of (Korean) Gangwondo.(松島は同道の内子山と申す島御座候)” and Japanese document "Inabajshi"(因幡誌) proves Ahn's Jasan(Usan) is Japan is calling Matsushima. (山嶋(日本ニテ松嶋ト呼)是ナリ)? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BvBg6H8SXTI/UQd2m9fO2MI/AAAAAAAAEI8/FRm3IZTfSBY/s1600/%EC%9D%B4%EB%82%98%EB%B0%94%EC%A7%80+18--+%EC%9A%B0%EC%82%B0%EB%8F%84.jpg

What do you think is Usando Jang Ji-Yeon’s description Usando is in southeast of Ulluengdo in 1907?

The following is the Japanese official from Ministry of Home Affairs Tanabe Dauchi ‘s view on Usando when the development of Ulleongdo was discussed in 1876-77. . “I have heard that "Matsushima," was named by us (the Japanese), but the actual name is "Usan“ belonging to Chosun's Ulleungdo. (聞ク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)" ........To dispatch someone to inspect without any reason is like counting another's treasure, and trespassing into a neighbor's territory(今故なく人を遣てこれを巡視せしむ 之れ他人の宝を数ふといふ 況んや隣境を侵越するに類するをや ).” http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/2a343tan1649-1881/49.jpg

He objected the petition by Mutoh who misunderstood Ulleongdo as “Matsushima” and wanted to develop it by saying “Matsushima” was actually Usan belonging to Korean Ulleongdo. In 1877, Meiji Government concluded Japan had nothing to do with Ulleongdo and another island(=Dokdo). Meiji Government’s conclusion coincides with Tanabe Dauchi’s opinion.

How can the Japanese teachers teach these evidence to their students? It’s obvious the Japanese teachers can’t justify Japan’s claim over Dokdo without lies and contradictions.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Suin Kim

Wow, that is a very complicated rebuttal with lots of parentheses around different islands' names-- all signifying critical assumptions made which are assumed to be proven with supplemental arguments. It is obviously not a simply clear-cut fact that Dokdo was Korean territory. This calls for both cases to be brought to the ICJ and debated, don't you think?

Peace.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

slumpFeb. 01, 2014 - 02:39AM JST

Yes. it’s a simply clear-cut fact Dokdo is Korean land. I showed the evidence you asked, then you should argue about them if you think they are wrong. In debating with Japanese over Dokdo/Takeshima issue, their typical behavior is asking the evidence first, refuting with Japan’s shabby logic next and then playing the last card of ICJ when they can’t refute anymore. The Japanese historian teachers would do the same. The Japanese don’t know exactly why Dokdo is Japanese land.

Korea has no any legal and moral obligation to accept Japan’s ICJ card. Japanese simply ask to go to ICJ without the clear-cut evidence Dokdo is Japanese land , while Korea doesn’t want to go to ICJ because there’s clear-cut evidence Dokdo is inherent part of Korea. Why should Korea accept Japan’s proposal based on the falsehood? Will you accept the thief’s proposal to go to the court if he claims yours is his? If you are dubious about your ownership, you should go.

Koreans have been peaceful with Dokdo. If Japan wants peace with Korea, please stop provocations over Dokdo.

Takeshima does not belong to Inaba Province or Hoki Provnce."

There are evidence Japanese government is trying to teach their young generation lies.

In 1696, Tottori Han said " Takeshima(Japanese old name for Ulleongdo) does not belong to Inaba Province or Hoki Provnceand( (一竹島は、因幡・伯耆に附属してはおりません。)" and "they were heard Matsushima(=Dokdo) doesn’t belong to any province of Japan( (松島は、何れかの国に附属する島ではないと聞いています。)" .http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/12/matsushimapresent-takeshima-doesnt.html

In 1870, Meijo Govenment ordered the officials of Ministry of Foreign Affairs to investigate how Ulleongdo and Dokdo became Korean land. http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/04/hos-takeshimaulleongdo-and.html

In 1877, Meiji Government ordered the Japanese to remember Japan has nothing to do with Ulleongdo and Dokdo . http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2013/01/japan-has-nothing-to-do-with-ulleongdo.html

There are more evidence Dokdo can’t be Japanese land.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Suin Kim

If you are dubious about your ownership, you should go.

I am so lost here. So, you are saying-- you should only defend yourself in court if you think there is a chance you'll lose??? And, if you're 100% sure you'll win, you will refuse to defend yourself in court??? You go to court to end disputes. Korea obviously doesn't want it to end.

Too bad international law has its limits. Hypothetically speaking, if these two countries were citizens in a civilized first world country, Korea would have been served with a summons and forced to go to court to argue their case... and the matter would have already been resolved one way or another.

Oh, yeah... all those "Dokdo"s in parentheses, should actually be the island of Jukdo when translated honestly. So, yes, thank you for all the evidence proving Jukdo should stay as Korean land. And, what does it have to do with this argument? ...Okay, I'm done with replying here... maybe some other time.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

slump

So, you are saying-- you should only defend yourself in court if you think there is a chance you'll lose??? And, if you're 100% sure you'll win, you will refuse to defend yourself in court???You go to court to end disputes. Korea obviously doesn't want it to end.

No. I didn’t say that. If I’m 100% sure about my property, I don’t need to go to the court to ask the judge to decide if mine is mine or not. Asking the Judge is like I’m not sure if it’s mine.

If you think going to ICJ is the means to end disputes, why do you think Japan doesn’t try to take Senkaku/Diaoyu issue to ICJ ? Is Japan waiting for China to ask Japan to go? The territorial dispute between China and Japan looks very serious to the extend Mr. Abe compares the situation between China and Japan with that between Britain and Germany before 1914. Going to ICJ would be a great solution to end such dangerous situation involving territorial conflict with China.

Under ICJ rules, both nations must agree to take a contested case to the ICJ before the court takes any action. It’s Korean decision to go to ICJ or not. As long as Korea doesn’t feel any need to go to ICJ with Dokdo, legally there’s nothing wrong with Korean government’s decision not going to ICJ.

I heard Mr. Abe is reviewing to bring Takeshima issue to ICJ. I look forward seeing he does it. I’ll see how he makes lies toward the international community.

Why Won't the Koreans Take Up Japan´s Offer to Bring the Dokdo Issue before the ICJ? < http://dokdo-research.com/page10.html >

Okay, I'm done with replying here... maybe some other time.

I’m sorry I can’t hear from you about previous Japanese official documents saying Dokdo is not Japanese land and your honest translation as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why Won't the Koreans Take Up Japan´s Offer to Bring the Dokdo Issue before the ICJ?

Well, the fact Japan is refusing to recognise a dispute over the Diaoyu islands - which would be necessary to bring the matter before the ICJ, may be playing a part.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

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