politics

Japan steps up claim to S Korea-held islets at 'Takeshima Day' event amid tensions

66 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

66 Comments
Login to comment

As if ties between Japan and South Korea were not bad enough already, now Japan retaliates potentially making things even worse.

The International community is watching both nations and is not impressed with either.

Rather than getting angrier at each other, they both need to get together and discuss things with an open mind and at least attempt to understand each others views. Allowing the past to disrupt the present ensures the future is not as harmonious as it needs to be.

Better to have more friends than more enemies.

0 ( +21 / -21 )

Japan should demand this is settled at ICJ. No more illegal occupation! If SK truly believes they are right then agree to ICJ.

1 ( +28 / -27 )

Why do they have to make such a big fuss over these islands. 50 PEOPLE LIVE THERE. 50! LOOK IT UP.

THE WORLD WONT CHANGE BECAUSE YOU WANT TO SAY THE TINY ISLANDS ARE YOURS.

They need to take chill pills. All of them. And maybe take a vacation. On those islands.

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

Japan has as much right as any other country.

3 ( +18 / -15 )

In the meantime, tourism is up. Shows you how much the usual people care 2 flicks about international relations. Government and Extreme right crybabies wanna go to war, let them fight it out on some deserted island and leave the rest of us in peace.

15 ( +16 / -1 )

This is a bad move by Abe.

Will only bring back images of rampaging sadistic Imperial Japanese troops again.

Black Déjà vu.

-16 ( +10 / -26 )

Doesn't matter how many protesters and how many times protests are held, SK will not return the rocks.

Regardless of who's right & who's wrong, they are not possessed by Japan, not controlled by Japan and not manned by Japan.

Which by all accounts indicates that it is SK that possesses, controls and mans them.

So blustering to the natives for points is not going to cut it.

The only thing I can see in Japan's favor is, seeing Abe & Trump are inseperable buddies, why doesn't Abe lean on his mate to pressure the SKoreans to give up the islands. Trump has big influence on the peninsula, so shouldn't be too difficult.

Otherwise I see no positive solution for Japan re this, just more angst, ire, chest puffing/thumping and a waste of valuable time, resources and money, which could all be spent on helping the ordinary good folks of Japan.

Spreading Nippon Kaigi's Law doesn't help the suffering people here.

2 ( +17 / -15 )

The territorial claim of the Japanese government on Takeshima is even comical. Japanese people know what 'Takeshima' literally means: bamboo island 竹島, but there is no bamboo in Takeshima. Has any Japanese here thought about this discrepancy?

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/

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 Ulleungo 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. Wake up. There is no bamboo in the Japanese 'Takeshima'.

-15 ( +15 / -30 )

Time for Japan to show the world Japan is the mature big brother. Give up those useless islands. Who cares

-7 ( +16 / -23 )

SAme should be done for Senkaku islands held by the Chinese Senkaku Day

-11 ( +7 / -18 )

What the hell are they scuffling about? They all share the same ideology.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Seems so-called Takeshima Day is only an excuse for an ultra-rightist orgy--and orgy of impotence.

-4 ( +12 / -16 )

As if ties between Japan and South Korea were not bad enough already, now Japan retaliates potentially making things even worse.

Don't confuse a little protest as the mindset of the entire country. I don't know a single person here harping about some rocks in the sea.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

@Gambare

War over the island is the last resort. But if it happens, Japan will finish it off within days. Even if South Korea is backed up by PRC

Please don't!!

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Happens with too much peace. Eventually a generation of children and morons who have never know anything but peace decide war is a good idea. They make good cannon fodder for wicked old politicians.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Both governments are as bad as each other, instead of working together in light of their real joint interests they scrap like two drunks outside a down at heel bar while a bystander (China) nicks their wallets!

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Something feel off these few months. Is like the two goverments are purposely picking a fight with each other and escalating things. There seems to be some goal here to intentionally increasing the tension for both sides. Whatever, they can do whatever they want. Hasn't change much anyway after 7decades.

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

Good for these people.

Japan has tried many times to reason with these South Korean nationalists but has been pointless.

One can only take so much of this nonsense before reacting.

6 ( +17 / -11 )

Japanese and Korean peoples are more similar in race and therefore, cooperate to resolve their differences - perhaps such cooperation can help to promote friendship which will help to resolve more threatening territorial difference as with the Northern territories.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

I know....Janken Hoi......!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

More provocations from Japan.

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

Tell me, other than a few extrmists, who cares? Possession in 9/10 of the law. Are we going to war for this? And suppose Abe / Japan got these islands, then what? Militarize them? Throw a bunch of ultra-nationalists there? I guess prosperity ≠ maturity.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

@Gambare

tell those same people to go to the northen island to do the same that are just 16 KM from japan coast, i don't think they will, they know who they play with, Russian will sink they boat, the Japanese government knows who they can bully.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

This is 2019, right? And they're still arguing over these rocks?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

The territorial claim of the Japanese government on Takeshima is even comical. Japanese people know what 'Takeshima' literally means: bamboo island 竹島, but there is no bamboo in Takeshima. Has any Japanese here thought about this discrepancy?

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/

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 Ulleungo 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. Wake up. There is no bamboo in the Japanese 'Takeshima'.

Your claim above is merely a kind of layman-level. Check Japan's official stance before you post.

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

9 ( +15 / -6 )

Well, folks we've reached a time, after having peace for so long, that we've forgotten the horrors of War, and War somewhat serves our prolonged existence here for our Numbers can only be but limited given the resources we have available.

Tensions are rising between differing Countries, for various reasons, conflict will arise sooner than later, young people will die before their time, and thus we will be back to the equilibrium that allows us to continue. Though given Nuclear weapons, we can sort of end that completely and put and end to us full stop.

Japan's troubles with Korea and China are no different from those of others, it's sooner or later going to spill over into some incident, and one has to wonder regardless who is leading the respective Countries at the time, how it will play out.

India & Pakistan are the first to watch here.... lets see how things prevail.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nationalism.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This are Japanese Islands illegally occupied by S. Korea, Japan would win in international courts!

S. Korea has been nasty towards Japan on many many issues including settled agreements yet you expect Japan to give up its rights while S. Korea continues to piss on Japan's head and ask for more compensation and apologies, while trying to build statues towards comfort women, trying to change the name of Japan Sea.

Dont give up your rights Japan! not towards an aggressive S. Korea who constantly used Japan as a punching bag.

12 ( +18 / -6 )

Has anyone else noticed how the Japan haters expect Japan to constantly surrender land to either China(Senkaku Islands), to Russia(northern territories), to S. Korea the (Takeshima island).

If you listen to the haters Japan you should constantly give up land and water that belongs to you. Stand up for yourself! No one else will!

11 ( +17 / -6 )

Japan is just stirring the pot again. This is not how diplomacy works.  

Canada and Denmark have a dispute over an island directly in the middle of a strait. We swap flags and either Canadian Whiskey or Danish Schnapps depending on whose troops periodically occupy it. We made a dispute a running gag, waiting for the politicians to figure it out. Quite a different approach

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

Japan is just stirring the pot again. This is not how diplomacy works.  

Canada and Denmark have a dispute over an island directly in the middle of a strait. We swap flags and either Canadian Whiskey or Danish Schnapps depending on whose troops periodically occupy it. We made a dispute a running gag, waiting for the politicians to figure it out. Quite a different approach

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

@showchinmono

Your claim above is merely a kind of layman-level. Check Japan's official stance before you post.

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

Why is the content of the web document so complicated even just regarding naming? When you tell a lie, then the logic becomes complicated.

The Korean name is simply 'Dokdo' 獨島, which originally tried to express the old Korean name of the island 'dol seom', literally meaning 'rock island', by Chinese written characters. In Ulleungdo of Korea, you can see 'Dokdo' when the sky is clean. In Japan, you never can see it, even with a telescope.

I think S. Koreans are also partially responsible for this dispute. They should have never responded seriously to the comical Japanese territorial claim but laughing out loud.

Wake up. The Japanese 'Takeshima' 竹島 is composed of two big rocks 獨, not of bamboos 竹. Tell the Japanese government to come with a correct name first before arguing. Or, do the Japanese leaders believe they can plant and grow bamboos on the two rocks? Good luck!

-14 ( +5 / -19 )

@Ganbare Japan!

Japan should demand this is settled at ICJ. 

And Japan in turn should accept Taiwan's challenge at the ICJ instead of running away from it.

@名無しさん

Why do they have to make such a big fuss over these islands.

The issue at hand isn't the islets themselves, but the EEZ around it.

Should Japan renounce its claims, the PMZ then formally becomes Korea's EEZ and Korea gets to control most of the sea between Korea and Japan.

You are wondering why the Korean destroyer and coast guard ship were so close to Japanese mainland during the P-1 radar fiasco. That water is currently PMZ administered mutually by Japan and Korea, but becomes Korea's exclusive EEZ should Japan renounce its claim. In other word, Japan loses most of fishing ground.

@Hiro

 Is like the two goverments are purposely picking a fight with each other and escalating things. 

Korea is not particularly invested in tensions with Japan, but Japan is because of Abe administration's drive to cross out the Article 9.

To cross out Article 9, Abe needs to sell a narrative to Japanese public that Japan is under threat from all sides, and must rearm to defend itself.

@Serrano

This is 2019, right? And they're still arguing over these rocks?

It's not really about the rocks, but the EEZ around it.

@AlexBecu

This are Japanese Islands illegally occupied by S. Korea, Japan would win in international courts!

At this point, Japan has less than 1% chance of a win at the ICJ because Korea has accumulated vast amount of Japanese documents proving that Japanese were aware of the Liancourt Rocks belonging to Korea prior to 1905, thanks to Japan's leftwing scholars who provided the Korean government with such material.

Heck, the Imperial Japanese Navy's 1932 navigation chart listed the Liancourt Rocks as under the administration of the Japanese occupation government of Korea, you can't get any more official than that. 

Has anyone else noticed how the Japan haters expect Japan to constantly surrender land to either China(Senkaku Islands), to Russia(northern territories), to S. Korea the (Takeshima island).

Japan has a legal obligation to return the Diaoyu Islands to the Republic of China as per the terms of surrender. Japan's claiming that the Republic of China doesn't exist anymore.

As for the Kurils, they were Russian to begin with until the Russo-Japanese War and then reverted back to the Soviet Union/Russia following Japan's surrender.

As for the Liancourt Rocks, this was never Japanese territory, it was listed as a Korean territory even during Japanese occupation of Korea, and Japanese fishermen paid fishing tax to the Korean government to fish there from 1900~1904.

-9 ( +8 / -17 )

You can stand on Ulleungdo and stare at Dokdo. No Japan did not discover and claim them 1905 terra nullis in 1905 which just happens to be 5 years before Japan invades Korea. Japan really needs to get rid of this rabid neo-fascist, right wing nuts. Unfortunately, they're running the roost at the moment.

-7 ( +8 / -15 )

Better to have more friends than more enemies.

As the Heidi period draws to a close it's meaning "achieve peace" is looking very hollow.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

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

This document of the Japanese government never mentions the real bamboo island, Jukdo, located 2 km east of Ulleung island. Jukdo is one of popular destinations for tourism in Korea. It will be a good idea for Japanese people to visit the real Takeshima as an celebrating event for the Japanese Takeshima Day. You will be surprised at the ubiquitousness of bamboo there. I hope the Takeshima day will boost tourism in Jukdo, the real bamboo island.

http://www.koreatriptips.com/en/tourist-attractions/2358793

https://www.gettyimages.co.nz/videos/island-of-jukdo

-13 ( +6 / -19 )

Police scuffle with right-wingers outside the venue where the annual "Takeshita Day" ceremony was held by the Shimane prefectural government in Matsue on Friday.

good to see the police scuffle with right-wingers.

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

No seriously how does anyone actually think that Japan discovered "Takeshima" in 1905??? Does anyone actually believe this?

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

@SamitBasu.

No the Kurils were NOT originally Russian. The Russo - Japanese treaty of 1875 in St.Petersburg drew the border between the islands of Uruppu and Etorofu. Everything north of this line was Russian and everything south was Japanese ( starting from Etorofu , Kunashir, Shikotan and the Habomais) .

Japanese preferred the Islands due to their fishing way of life while the Sakhalin , which hitherto, had been a source of contention remained with the Russians.

Russia invaded Japan towards the end of. WW2 and acquired the islands which Japan is contesting.

The acquisition by Japan of many territories outside its main lands was due to its power at the time

( gunboat diplomacy ) . Nobody in Asia could challenge Japan so it could ( arbitrarily)take what it fancied, the Senkakus/ Diaoyu/ Diaoyutai, the Ryukyus/ Okinawas and the Dokdo/ Takeshimas, remember even the mother countries were not powerful to stop this or were already subjugated to Japan.

Now, it's time that these countries have become powerful too and are challenging the right of Japan to own and keep those islands. In their eyes, Japan " Stole " the island due to its strength at the time, and the question remains , to be Or not to be Japanese ? The Dokdo is in Korean hands, let's not fool ourselves, for we know well what it will take to even try to take them away from them.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

This document of the Japanese government never mentions the real bamboo island, Jukdo, located 2 km east of Ulleung island. Jukdo is one of popular destinations for tourism in Korea. It will be a good idea for Japanese people to visit the real Takeshima as an celebrating event for the Japanese Takeshima Day. You will be surprised at the ubiquitousness of bamboo there. I hope the Takeshima day will boost tourism in Jukdo, the real bamboo island.

You had better read if you always demand outside sources before you post. Ulsan-island in the link is your Jukdo.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

this island has been part of Japan since medival period and Japanese used to live in the island but after Japan was defeated in WW2, Korea declared it is part of Korea unilaterally.Thats definitely abominable internationally. SInce then many Japanese fishermen who were fishing around it were caught and killed by Korean governmet brutally but Korea didnt care such a shameful action. On the other hand Korea blamed Russia for unilateral annexation of Crimea. Such a double standard is their nature. SHAME ON KOREA !.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

This island was part of Japan throughout history. We have many documents. After Japan was defeated in WW2, Korea decleared the island was part of Korea unilaterally. Many Japanese fishermen who were fishing around it were killed by Korean goverenment. Thats definitely abominable internationally but Korea didnt care such a shameful action. On the other hand Korea blamed Russia for unilateral annexation of Crimea. Such a double standard is their nature.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

alexbecu:

Has anyone else noticed how the Japan haters expect Japan to constantly surrender land to either China(Senkaku Islands), to Russia(northern territories), to S. Korea the (Takeshima island).

Sorry to break this to you, but you can only surrender something which you already have. It may be a difficult concept to grasp but it's like telling Beyoncé to give up custody of Kim Kardashian's children.

Japan controls only Diaoyutai/Senkaku. But of course, if you want to make a grab for Dokdo or the Southern Kurils, then be my guest. Will you volunteer to go to the front line?

kano hiroshi:

this island has been part of Japan since medival period and Japanese used to live in the island but after Japan was defeated in WW2, Korea declared it is part of Korea unilaterally.

And Hokkaido or Ezo used to belong to the Ainus before most of them were massacred. And Okinawa used to be the independent kingdom of Ryukyu. How far do you want to go back? I'm sure both JT's appreciate your arguments.

If we're going to start using land-grabbing during times of war arguments, then perhaps Poland should get back part of Russia, and Germany should get back western Poland and the whole of Austria. Hell, give the Americas and Australia back to the natives!

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

@showchinmono

You had better read if you always demand outside sources before you post. Ulsan-island in the link is your Jukdo.

That is a typical deceptive tactic of Japanese government. Wherever Usan (not Ulsan) was located, this document intentionally omits Jukdo, the bamboo island.

Jukdo (죽도/竹島) is a small island adjacent to Ulleungdo, South Korea, in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). It was formerly also known as Jukseodo (죽서도/竹嶼島) in Korea and China and as Boussole Rock in Europe. It lies 2 km (1 mi) east of Ulleungdo, and is the largest island in the group apart from Ulleungdo itself. In 2004, one family of three members was living on the island.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jukdo_(island)

Although Jukdo is a part of Ulleung island, the ancient Japanese fishermen clearly recognized Jukdo as Takeshima as a small island near Ulleungdo island. Whatever the Japanese government deceives and distorts, it is simple and clear that

Bamboo island = Jukdo = Takeshima = ****죽도/竹島 = 죽서도/竹嶼島 = Boussole Rock

In the world, only the Japanese government tries to complicate and distort this simple relationship in naming.

The truth is always simple and clear.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

"""In the world, only the Japanese government tries to complicate and distort this simple relationship in naming.The truth is always simple and clear.""" Dont tell a lie !! Which country admited Takeshima is part of Korea?  ONLY Korea authrorized Takeshima is part of Korea !! Why didn't Korea authorize Russia's unilateral annexation of Crimea like Korea did? Such a double standard is Korea's nature !!

4 ( +10 / -6 )

this island has been part of Japan since medival period and Japanese used to live in the island but after Japan was defeated in WW2, Korea declared it is part of Korea unilaterally.Thats definitely abominable internationally. SInce then many Japanese fishermen who were fishing around it were caught and killed by Korean governmet brutally but Korea didnt care such a shameful action. On the other hand Korea blamed Russia for unilateral annexation of Crimea. Such a double standard is their nature. SHAME ON KOREA !.

So in the war Japan (unilaterally of course) annexed Korea. Are you saying that was fair but then Korea "annexing" a tiny island is not?

It's really time for Sth Korea, China & Japan to all put on their big-boy pants & settle these island disputes. But because all 3 governments want to pander to their respective right wing nut job nationalist groups of course none of them are willing to do so.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

SJToday  05:48 pm JST

@showchinmono

You had better read if you always demand outside sources before you post. Ulsan-island in the link is your Jukdo.

That is a typical deceptive tactic of Japanese government. Wherever Usan (not Ulsan) was located, this document intentionally omits Jukdo, the bamboo island.

*Jukdo** (죽도/竹島) is a small island adjacent to Ulleungdo, South Korea, in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). It was formerly also known as Jukseodo (죽서도/竹嶼島) in Korea and China and as Boussole Rock in Europe. It lies 2 km (1 mi) east of Ulleungdo, and is the largest island in the group apart from Ulleungdo itself. In 2004, one family of three members was living on the island.*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jukdo_(island)

Although Jukdo is a part of Ulleung island, the ancient Japanese fishermen clearly recognized Jukdo as Takeshima as a small island near Ulleungdo island. Whatever the Japanese government deceives and distorts, it is simple and clear that

Bamboo island = Jukdo = Takeshima = *****죽도/竹島 = 죽서도/竹嶼島 = Boussole Rock*

In the world, only the Japanese government tries to complicate and distort this simple relationship in naming.

The truth is always simple and clear.

All I can say for you is "I gave you good outside source, so read again"

Note Takeshima(Your Dokdo) under the dispute is 90km southeast of Ulleung island

6 ( +10 / -4 )

showchinmono - that's an interesting link you provided.

However as it is the official line of Japan's Ministry Of Foreign Affairs, it has valuable information to add to the discussion, but of course only presents the view it wants to present - the view of the Govt of Japan.

In all debate we do need to hear / read documented opposing opinions, and one can find just as easily such information.

Whose reams of maps, papers, diary logs, accounts etc etc are credible and whose are not?

Providing a formal document doesn't mean the case is closed - far from it. Documents in of themselves could be truthful documents or they could official "untruthful or part-truthful" documents.

Unfortunately both parties don't seem to be able to accept that evidence exists supporting each sides contrary positons.

This full glass / empty glass only approach, will guarantee the debate continues for a long time.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Since both sides have contradicting positions and alleged evidence to back their claims, the only rational solution (among civilized nations) would be to take the matter before the International Court of Justice and let the Court decide.

However, Japan has requested to settle this dispute THREE TIMES, and each time South Korea has refused.

And South Korea has unilaterally occupied the Liancourt Rocks. These facts say all about South Korea as a nation and their position on this dispute.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

@showchinonimo

* "*I gave you good outside source"

@browny1

Yes. It's not an "outside source".

Whenever I have heard my Japanese and Korean friends and otherwise talk about such issues, they always seemed to me to be trying their best to follow the official line or narrative of their country's respective governments as far as they knew them.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

SJ always needs and requests outside source ( I should have written external source as SJ calls it) for discussion. So I provided. Whether it is Japanese narrative or SK narrative,does not matter. Even SK official narrative knows the reason and does not even question why Japanese calling the disputed islands Takeshima (Korean Dokdo) where there's no Bamboo but just 2 rocks. It's even before layman-level.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

As for the dispute itself. One would realize S.K narratives are failing on every single disputed points.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%B3%B6_(%E5%B3%B6%E6%A0%B9%E7%9C%8C)

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Mlodinow said

""So in the war Japan (unilaterally of course) annexed Korea. Are you saying that was fair but then Korea "annexing" a tiny island is not?""

Japan already atoned for the annexation of Korean peninsula but Korea doesn't atone but justify the annexaiton of the island. What's wrong with me saying that was fair but then Korea "annexing" a tiny island is not? Your argument is wrong !

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@Showchinmono

I agree that the bamboo naming argument seems to be clutching at straws.

Two points, in English outside is the same as external

And narrative often implies that the story told may not be an entirely accurate reflection of the facts, because it is a story that conforms to an overarching aim or value. Both the Japanese and Korean narratives are just that. So giving an article from the Japanese MOFA does not make the facts any clearer.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The link in my previous post seems linked to wrong place. Try this one

 

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%B3%B6_(%E5%B3%B6%E6%A0%B9%E7%9C%8C)

 

 

Comparison tables in the link for every single disputed points are comprehensive and good, which do not omit SK arguments. One would realize SK arguments are failing both historically and legally if you pay attention to them and think by yourself, though it's only for those who can read Japanese.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

On August 10, 1951, Dean Rusk, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, sent a diplomatic correspondence to Yang You Chan, the South Korean ambassador to the U.S (kown as Rusk documents) and said:

"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."

3 ( +6 / -3 )

In 1954, the Van Fleet mission to the Far East reported:

“When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the Republic of Korea asserted its claims to Dokto but 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. The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory, we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea.”

5 ( +6 / -1 )

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, and said:

“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 imprisoning 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 regime. 

I 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 influence to persuade it (1) to release and return to Japan all repeat all Japan 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….. 

…..

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. Therefore we should also press new ROK regime to return Takeshima to Japan. If it is unwilling to do so pending satisfactory conclusion of over-all ROK-Japan negotiations, new regime should at least signify a willingness to withdraw from Takeshima as part of mutually satisfactory settlement of other outstanding issues between two countries. 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.”

3 ( +6 / -3 )

As I stated many differing opinions re status / ownership of Takeshima exist. To insist that the official Japanese govt version is the only one and true version, doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

Here is an example linking differing views -

https://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/legal-study-of-the-dokdo-issue-i.html

And here is just one of those examples.

www.dokdo-takeshima.com/.../images/Kazuo-Hori-Dokdo.pdf

Nothing in such conflicts is absolute and to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Crickets!!!!!

Any comments or is this discussion over?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

There are several other islands called as the same name Takeshima (竹島 bamboo island) in Japan, and please find any island where there is no bamboo.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%B3%B6

No 1. 竹島 (愛知県) - 愛知県蒲郡市の島

No 2. 竹島 (鹿児島県) - 鹿児島県三島村の島

No 3. 竹島 (熊本県) - 熊本県天草市の島

No 4. 竹島 (宮城県) - 宮城県南三陸町の島

No 5. 竹島 (山口県) - 山口県山口市の島

No 6. 多景島 - 別名「竹島」。琵琶湖の島の1つ

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Simply, Korea has no intention to settle the matter once and for all at ICJ in a civil professional manner as recommended by the U.S. Japan perhaps should just re-take Takeshima by force if necessary as that seems to be the only course of action to bring Korea to the table. Unfortunately, this is probably the only cards left that Japan has for Korea to understand the seriousness of this matter and if it escalates so be it... (Its not like South Korea wants friendly relationships with Japan anyways...nor do they want to consider historical academic evidence to discuss any issues be it comfort women, Takeshima/Dokdo, or East Sea renaming of Sea of Japan, or complaining about the Japanese rising sun flag on clothing art, etc..) Seriously... Japan has been too lenient and calm hoping that Korea could take a more mature, calm stance on any historical perspectives between the two countries.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Nihonryu - why should SK follow US's recommendation? What authority does the US have in all of this? What makes their recommendation superior to their own thinking?

Your recommendation is for war (re-take Takeshima by force). I can't see you attracting much support from the citizens of Japan for that stroke of genius. What put 1,000s of lives in peril for a couple of rocks???

And re the historical issues - just as many opinions and pieces of evidence exists that don't support your views. So I for one don't buy the arrogant argument from any party - SK, Japan or otherwise - that my point is the one and only correct one and all others are incorrect - and if you don't agree we will attack.

Sheeesh. Turn the clock back 80 years.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And still no comments on the links I posted. Why?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

browny1Feb. 27  08:56 pm JST

And still no comments on the links I posted. Why?

I ve been suspended. So If you want to discuss the disputed points one by one. That's make it easier.

What do you want to begin with?

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