politics

Seoul protests over disputed island claims in Japan's textbooks

24 Comments

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

© 2018 AFP

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

24 Comments
Login to comment

The japanese government trying to brainwash kids again...

-7 ( +15 / -22 )

At least its mentioned in the textbooks.

And thats high school!

Islands are a world apart.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Be quiet pathetic country.

You ought to worry more about the plan being made up north to incinerate your capital in less than 60 mn.

-8 ( +14 / -22 )

But, of course, I am sure that South Korean textbooks explicitly address this issue and strongly advocate that the islands belong to South Korea.

Waddya bet?!

So, if South Korea is going to protest Japanese textbooks on this issue, seems that Japan can do the same.

Right?!

17 ( +22 / -5 )

South Korea just can't drop the subject for more than 5 minutes. Kind of rich to preach about defending its territory, when president Moon gave front row Winter Olympics seats to another neighbour that has its guns trained on Seoul and has recently killed South Korean troops.

If Japan is claiming those islands as well, what do the Koreans expect to see in Japanese textbooks..??

12 ( +21 / -9 )

Its so much area thinking, half a country against an island country

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

G.Mal.O.Q.: "Be quiet pathetic country."

Speaks volumes of your credibility.

TigersTokyoDome: "South Korea just can't drop the subject for more than 5 minutes."

He says, as Abe brings up abduction yet AGAIN as a precursor for nuclear talks and the desire for third-parties to bring up this bilateral issue (let me guess, though: "it's different", right?).

"Kind of rich to preach about defending its territory, when president Moon gave front row Winter Olympics seats to another neighbour that has its guns trained on Seoul and has recently killed South Korean troops."

So, South Korea can't address another nation's wrongful claims to islands while trying to make peace with its neighbour in something COMPLETELY separate? If someone prints something that involves you, just because you might have more pressing domestic issues, or closer bilateral issues, does not mean that you cannot address said print.

In any case, while I feel SK has every right to bring it up, same as I feel Japan does when/if SK does the same, it does them little good to complain about it beyond bringing it up. Abe's not about to do anything about it except smile, and SK likewise doesn't do anything when they bring politicians to Dokdo and Japan cries about it. Say something, and that's the end of it. SK doing anything more is like when Suga and Abe and co say "This is regrettable! The people of Japan will not accept this!" when SK does the same thing.

-5 ( +11 / -16 )

But, of course, I am sure that South Korean textbooks explicitly address this issue and strongly advocate that the islands belong to South Korea.

In this case the islands are legally part of Korea, so the text books should note that. Korea would be correct to claim them as Korean possessions.

There are other islands that Japan owns but which Korea claims. In these cases it is the other way around. Japan can note its claim but should state that the possession lies with Korea.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

The Anti-Korean education in Japan is really severe. No wonder there is so much Anti-Korean sentiment in this small island nation.

-11 ( +6 / -17 )

South Korea just can't drop the subject for more than 5 minutes.

And it has historical reasons for being nervous. Japan annexed the entirity of Korea and made it part of Japan.

The islands are legally part of Korea so I am not surprised they are nervous when a neighbouring country begins claiming them for themselves, a country which moves ever closer to removing pacifism from its constitution.

-12 ( +5 / -17 )

Seoul has controlled the islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) since 1945, when Tokyo's brutal colonial rule on the peninsula ended.

"The Liancourt Rocks have been administered by South Korea since 1954 by the Korea Coast Guard.[7] This action was taken after the United States stated in the Rusk documents that the Japanese claim to the Liancourt Rocks would not be renounced in their peace treaty with Japan. In 1954, Japan proposed a reference to the International Court of Justice, which South Korea rejected,"

"The Syngman Rhee Line (Hanja:李承晩線, Hangul: 이승만 라인) refers to a marine boundary line established by South Korean President Syngman Rhee in his "Peace Line" (평화선, Hanja:平和線) declaration of January 18, 1952, establishing a wide area of maritime sovereignty, beyond internationally accepted territorial waters, around the entire Korean Peninsula.[1][2] This included placing the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) in Korean territory."

Japan has asked South Korea to settle this territorial dispute at the International Court of Justice THREE TIMES, and South Korea has REFUSED EACH TIME.

If it bothers South Korea that Japan's position on the Liancourt Rocks is included in their textbooks, they need to grow up and settle the issue at the ICJ. Not complain and show the world how childish they are.

12 ( +19 / -7 )

If it bothers South Korea that Japan's position on the Liancourt Rocks is included in their textbooks, they need to grow up and settle the issue at the ICJ.

Stupid idea.Do you not think? ICJ is not binding ruling,and countires do not follow the rulings. When PM Abe changes the Article 9 in 1-2 years,there is no need to settle.Japan will Militarily retake it island Takeshima by force.And Northern Territories too.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

When PM Abe changes the Article 9 in 1-2 years,there is no need to settle.Japan will Militarily retake it island Takeshima by force.And Northern Territories too.

Yeah right...keep dreaming . The best whopper is retaking Northern Territories from Putin as well hey? How do you come up with these?: )

2 ( +6 / -4 )

OsssnAmerica said it all. Well put for those of us who have not researched the questionable dispute.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

I may not agree with everything Japanese textbooks teach, but I'm for this one. Those islands are Japanese end of story. Stop with the whining already. I read that years ago some dry cleaning shop in America owned by Koreans had clothes bags proclaiming Dodko as belonging to South Korea. Ridiculous and childish.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

Japan should drop all claims to Takeshima and be done with this situation.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

@OssanJapan

Rusk documents

Rusk document is an opinion of one biased person and does not constitute the official US position.

The official US position is that the US included the Liancourt Rocks under the KADIZ line in 1951, and accepts Korean air control around the Liancourt Rocks.

Japan has asked South Korea to settle this territorial dispute at the International Court of Justice THREE TIMES, and South Korea has REFUSED EACH TIME.

Japan demanding to go to the ICJ over the ownership of the Liancourt Rocks is like Korea demanding to go to the ICJ over the ownership of Honshu, or China claiming Hawaii. It is totally preposterous and not worth one's time. 

When Taiwan demands Japan to go to ICJ to settle the Diaoyu Islands disputes, which belong to the Republic of China according to the terms of surrender which Japan accepted, Japan refuses to do so, claiming that the Republic of China no longer exists and neither Taiwan nor China are its successor states.

-13 ( +4 / -17 )

When Taiwan demands Japan to go to ICJ to settle the Diaoyu Islands disputes, which belong to the Republic of China according to the terms of surrender which Japan accepted, Japan refuses to do so, claiming that the Republic of China no longer exists and neither Taiwan nor China are its successor states.

Exactly. Japan just uses the ICJ card when it's convenient to them, but not when it's not.

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

"Smith in Japan" always hit the nail right on the head... clear concise and to the point. Glad to see a commentator with good sense and judgment.

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

Um.. because they are part of Japan! Sorry! Get over it!

8 ( +13 / -5 )

There exists no excuse for South Korea to not settle the Liancourt Rocks dispute at the ICJ once and for all. Except of course unless South Korea feels it does not have legitimate arguments for it's sovereignty with any merit.

The Rusk note of 1951 addressed to the South Korean Ambassador You Chang Yang includes;

"With respect to request of the Korean Government that Article 2(a) of the draft be revised to provide that Japan "confirms that it renounced on August 9, 1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the islands Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo," the United States Government regrets that it is unable to concur in this proposed amendment. The United States Government does not feel that the Treaty should adopt the theory that Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration. 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. It is understood that the Korean Government's request that "Parangdo" be included among the islands named in the treaty as having been renounced by Japan has been withdrawn."

Dean Rusk did not write this as one individual, he did so for the U.S. Secretary of State, representing the position of the United States Government.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

As to the U.S. position on the Liancourt Rocks;

In 1953 Japan asked the U.S. to help oust South Korea. The US response was negative, but the choice of words is quite telling:

"On December 9, 1953, the US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles cabled the American Embassy in Tokyo, *"US view re Takeshima is simply that of one of many signatories to the treaty. The U.S. is not obligated to 'protect Japan' from Korean "pretensions" to Dokdo, and that such an idea cannot...be considered as a legitimate claim for US action under the U.S.-Japan security treaty.*

The 1954 Van Fleet mission to the Far East summarised: *"The United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty ... Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory , we have declined to interfere in the dispute.""*

And in 1960:

"U.S. Ambassador to Japan Douglas MacArthur II sent a telegram to J. Graham Parsons, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. In it, he said "**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. Therefore we should also press new ROK regime to return Takeshima to Japan." Further he said "While we should press strongly for return of Takeshima to Japan, if by any chance new regime were unwilling to do so we should, as very minimum, insist that they agree to submit matter to International Court of Justice for arbitration"

The islands are NOT legally part of South Korea. If South Korea were to settle at the ICJ and obtain a ruling in it's favor. THEN is would be. Until then, it is simply illegally occupied.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

I thought next war is UK vs Russia but might be S Korea against Japan.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

tokyodoumo Mar. 31 03:10 am JST

"Smith in Japan" always hit the nail right on the head... clear concise and to the point. Glad to see a commentator with good sense and judgment.

His argument has no single concreteness at all regarding why Takeshima/Dokdo belongs to Japan/Korea, though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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