Japan Today
politics

Japan protests S Korean politician's landing on disputed islands

11 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

11 Comments
Login to comment

President Yoon has domestic political adversaries eager to rain on his parade.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Dokdo is historically South Korean territory and should remain so. There's no story here.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

The territorial claim of the Japanese government on Takeshima is comical. Japanese people know what 'Takeshima' literally means: bamboo island 竹島, but there is no bamboo in Takeshima.

But, there is another small island called 'bamboo island' (Jukdo 竹島 in Korean) at 2 km (1 mile) east of Ulleungdo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jukdo_(island)

You may see those abundant bamboos there: https://wayfaringflaneur.com/2018/09/02/jukdo%EC%A3%BD%EB%8F%84-bamboo-island/

Japanese government never mentions this real bamboo island (Jukdo in Korean) when they explain their territorial claim. They intentionally omit it, or obfuscate it with Ulleungdo. For example:

https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html

https://www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/na/takeshima/page1we_000057.html

Long times ago, Japanese fishermen certainly recognized the existence of Jukdo 竹島 near Ulleungdo island. At that time, Takeshima did not designate the Liancourt Rocks, but Jukdo to Japanese fishermen. Both Jukdo and Ulleungdo are now Korean territories that Japan and the other countries acknowledge. Now the Japanese government claims the territorial right with a wrong name or a wrong location.

There are 7 Japanese islands called the same name Takeshima (竹島 bamboo island) along the coast of Japan, and all of them have bamboo:

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%B3%B6_(%E6%9B%96%E6%98%A7%E3%81%95%E5%9B%9E%E9%81%BF)

But only one exception is the remotely-located Liancourt Rocks, called 'Dokdo' in Korean, which literally means a rock island. It is a consistency problem. Koreans knew that it consisted of rocks, and therefore bamboo could not grow there. The so-called bamboo island without any bamboo was just an ad hoc, imaginary island for Japan to forcefully occupy Dokdo in 1905. Now they still shout "the bamboo island without any bamboo is a Japanese territory".

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

All these posts claiming that the Liancourt Rocks are indisputably "South Korean" are meaningless. What would be meaningful is if Soith Korea agreed to settle this territorial dispue at the International Court of Justice. Japan has requested settlement at the ICJ three times and Soith Korea has refused each time.

Surely South Korea has all this "evidence" to obtain a ruling in it's favorand put this matter to rest for good.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

South Korea knows that as the ICJ is the judicial organ for the UN that it is partial to the Japan / US side, which is why Japan has been eager for the case to go there.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

South Korea knows that as the ICJ is the judicial organ for the UN that it is partial to the Japan / US side, which is why Japan has been eager for the case to go there.

Laughable. Telltale flunky diplomacy is Korean talent and it's been proven by the history around the end days of Joseon dynasty. They go straight to UN rather than facing Japanese experts, and deceive ignorant UN reps/officers. Look at so-called UN stupid special reports which have not been revised YET even now.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@kennyG

They go straight to UN rather than facing Japanese experts

Obviously so-called Japanese experts would be viewing the issue through a Japan-centric perspective.

Don't you find it odd that the Japan side has named the island Takeshima, even though there is no bamboo growing there?- but of course you don't, because you are a "Japan expert."

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Don't you find it odd that the Japan side has named the island Takeshima, even though there is no bamboo growing there?- but of course you don't, because you are a "Japan expert."

Not at all and you can go to the same web-site SJ linked to find out why it is being called Takeshima, which she has been always missing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

these two - like siblings who yell at their parents that the other has their elbow or pinky over the center line...grow the eff up.

visiting the island won't change anything more than whinging about said visit. yoon is trying to do a good thing, so let it roll

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Japan incorporated Takeshima in 1905. There were no South Korean objections at that time.

After World War II, South Korea requested the United States, which was drafting the San Francisco Peace Treaty, to add Takeshima to the territories Japan should abandon. However, the United States clearly rejected South Korea's request, stating that "Takeshima has never been treated as part of Korea and belongs to Japan."

However, in 1952, South Korea arbitrarily annexed Takeshima, detained about 4,000 Japanese fishermen who were fishing in the surrounding area, and killed at least eight of them while imprisoned.

There is no Allied country that clearly supports South Korea's invasion of Takeshima.

Japanese fishermen were unjustly detained by South Korea for about ten years until the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and South Korea was signed in 1965.

By the way, Koreans argue that it is strange to call Takeshima even though there is no bamboo, but that is simply because Koreans do not know Japanese naming standards. All you have to do is find out what standards pine, bamboo, and plum are named.

1 ( +1 / -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