politics

S Korea holds drills around disputed islets amid row over canceled Japan talks

42 Comments
By Hyonhee Shin

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

© Thomson Reuters 2021.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

42 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

South Korea unliterally took the Liancourt Rocks in 1952. Japan has requeted ICJ settlement 3 times and SK has refused. Instead they carry out annual military exercises to "protect" the rocks from invasion, by a country that has a constitution that prohibits them from using military force to settle territorial disputes. What a country.

15 ( +26 / -11 )

Extremely despicable and insensitive move by SK. Summon the Korean Ambassador in Tokyo immediately and read him the riot act. Cease and desist this drill immediately.

they carry out annual military exercises to "protect" the rocks from invasion, by a country that has a constitution that prohibits them from using military force to settle territorial disputes. What a country.

Well argued. When the American-written constitution is scrapped, things are going to change. Japan will be able to take strong action and stop these drills. Make no mistake.

7 ( +19 / -12 )

According to South Korea, Dokdo was recognized by Japan as Korean territory in 1696 following an altercation between Japanese and Korean fishermen. But, in 1905, despite allegedly being the under formal jurisdiction of Korea’s Uldo county, the islands were annexed by Japan ahead of its occupation of the Korean peninsula, which lasted for 35 years up until 1945. According to Korea, the islands were “rightly” restored to them at the end of World War II, in 1952. Japan disagrees.

-3 ( +11 / -14 )

Share the fishing rights and be done with it.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Why didn’t Japan defend the islands when South Korea took them?

Japan took them when they were on the peninsula then Korea took them back. Sounds fair.

-5 ( +10 / -15 )

Fighto -

"...When the American-written constitution is scrapped, things are going to change. Japan will be able to take strong action and stop these drills. Make no mistake."

What kind of strong action do you envisage?

Are you suggesting something akin to going to war (again) over a few rocks in the sea?

Surely innocent people don't have to die because of what in the total scheme of things, amounts to a such a trivial thing.

The only way forward is for cool headedness to prevail.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

These petty spats reflect well on neither party. Both countries governments are to blame stirring up their populations for their own domestic political interests, to the overall disbenefit of the people and countries they are supposed to serve. Pathetic.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Japan's chief cabinet secretary Katsunobu Kato on Monday denied the Yonhap report, saying it was "one-sided" and the talks did not come off due to scheduling difficulties.

Most likely. A sideline Japan-Korea meet to the Summit wasn't even planned from the beginning, and the Korea side is full of lies. The whole schedule was pretty tight for Suga while South Korea is the secondary to the least important in Japan's diplomatic agendas.

Anything coming from Korean media outlets, Don't rush to trust. Always seek several sources for cross-checking their stories.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

Grow up boys and girls, China would love to see the two of you tangled up.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Gambare Nippon:

Japan will be able to take strong action and stop these drills. Make no mistake.

And you'll be on the front line, volunteering, right?

1 ( +13 / -12 )

Why didn’t Japan defend the islands when South Korea took them?

Japan took them when they were on the peninsula then Korea took them back. Sounds fair.

In order not to be deleted, I say, please do some google.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

Koreans, ethnic Koreans including not a few posters here always bring in UNHCR said this , said that or whatever International consensus, but the reality is that South Korea dodge fighting Japan under the rule of law at International court and chose the drills for virtual war against Japan

9 ( +15 / -6 )

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".

-13 ( +9 / -22 )

Sorry Japan history clearly shows the truth.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Sad that Korean politicians call for a boycott because of a dot on a map, but consider not a problem to cooperate with an event that could put a lot of people in risk. Priorities are clear here.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

Sorry Japan history clearly shows the truth.

Without commas, your sentence can be interprated in two directions.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

saitamaliving, alas grammar is becoming a lost art.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I give it another 1 or 2 decades before the rising sea levels eventually swallow these small rocks. Eventually both nation will realize they are fighting over some rocks that belong to mother nature and is useless to argue who discover it first in the past. Is not even habitable. Just share the fishing ground and problem is settle.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

@Fighto!

When the American-written constitution is scrapped, things are going to change.

Nothing will change because Korea is militarily stronger of 2, far stronger than Japan to be exact.

Ditto for the Southern Kurils islands, Russia is keeping them for eternity.

The only territory whose ownership will likely change in the near future is the Diaoyu Islands.

-13 ( +7 / -20 )

and so SK looks for conflict once more

7 ( +14 / -7 )

Grow up boys and girls, China would love to see the two of you tangled up.

Uh No.  Impossible as Japan is dealing with some sort of psychos who don't care what historical truths are.

They just cannot explain how come Taiwan is so different from themselves.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Well, they are Korean territory -- Korea has the right to do as it pleases. If Japan thinks it's Japanese territory, let them go stop the Koreans. No? Why not?

-7 ( +7 / -14 )

what 'Takeshima' literally means: bamboo island 竹島, but there is no bamboo in Takeshima.

That's nice but not really how disputes go. Like they would care if there's bamboo or shampoo on the island. They're saying the island is theirs.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

and so SK looks for conflict once more

Diplomatic finesse on the part of Japan was completely absent. If they were smart they would not have even mentioned the islands on that map as they are immaterial to the Olympics. Someone in the body politic in Japan wanted to stir the pot and this is the result. Just because one can do something doesn't always mean they should.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

It wouldn't be an ordinary week in this world until South Korea is crying about something Japan did or didn't so. Now it's map and Dokdo. Again.

Grow up!!!

6 ( +12 / -6 )

Another non story. Carrying out training around islands they currently control is a yearly event in that region, so it will happen again next year. What is the issue? Always back to the argument over who owns what. Those who control islands, sail around them. No matter if it is Japan with Senkaku, Russia with Northern Territories, Sth Korea with Takeshima/Dokdo or Britain with Gibraltar. Always those who claim ownership but do not have control will object.

I wish there was a way these issues could be worked out amicably so that nobody felt cheated and everyone gets something and saves face. Life is too short to spend a large amount of it arguing.

Better having another friend than another enemy at the end of the day. Find a way forward in peace.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I wish there was a way these issues could be worked out amicably so that nobody felt cheated and everyone gets something and saves face. Life is too short to spend a large amount of it arguing.

That way was supposed to be the UN. Such disputes were supposed to be settle there but it seems too often the UN is used as a megaphone for one nation to advance its claims over others than actually solve these problems as envisioned.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@smithinjapan, why would Japan go to war for a pair of very small rocks? Perhaps Japan should have a defense exercise to defend Tsushima from Korean aggression.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

@smithinjapan

why would Japan go to war for a pair of very small rocks?

1) This is one of few foreign held islands that Japan can go to war over and is considered entirely constitutional under Article 9, as Japan would consider the Liancourt Rocks and Southern Kurils as Japanese territory under foreign occupation and any military actions against them mere "Police Actions" within Japanese territory.

2) Japan and Korea almost went to war at the Liancourt Rocks in July of 2006.

Perhaps Japan should have a defense exercise to defend Tsushima from Korean aggression.

Japan doesn't bother, because Tsushima will fall to ROK marines in a day via an airborne assault and it would not be possible for JGSDF to stop the ROK landing because ROK can directly bombard all of Tsushima from Busan with 100,000 shells from several hundred K9 Howitzers before landing. Once the ROK takes Tsushima, it's not possible for Japan to recover Tsushima by military means and Japan must enter a negotiation for truce.

Unlike Japanese mainland, JMSDF cannot defend Tsushima because of the ROK military's ability to directly bombard and air-assault from Busan without resorting to sea transport.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Samit Basu well Japan needs to put pac2 missiles on Tsushima to defend it from Korean aggression. K9 Howitzers have a max range of 40 km and are not suitable. Most of them are needed to counter the northern Koreans. It would be an air battle over Tsushima in case of Korean invasion. Japan would never start a war over a pair of rocks. We will defend Japan to the upmost!

4 ( +7 / -3 )

There is no issue of territorial sovereignty over Dokdo, they are Korean territory.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

Well, they are Korean territory -- Korea has the right to do as it pleases. If Japan thinks it's Japanese territory, let them go stop the Koreans. No? Why not?

I don't know, maybe unlike you and Koreans, Japanese have common sense at least. Don'tya think?

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Two years ago, the North Korean government killed and burned a South Korean official, and SK did nothing.

The week Trump talked to Kim Jong Un for the first time, South Korea cancelled its regular drill with the U.S. along the border, yet it still did its drill on the Liancourt Rocks.

A survey found that South Koreans view Abe more negatively than Kim Jong Un, a dictator who imprisons entire families, gives death sentences to his own officers, and executes people in public.

Another survey found that almost half of South Koreans would side with North Korea in a war against Japan, while 40% said "I don't know".

South Korea needs to stop obsessing over the past and get its priorities straight.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

South Korea needs to stop obsessing over the past and get its priorities straight.

The legacy of that war still divides Korea into north and south. It is not as if a unified Korea returned to normal after the Japanese left. The wars Japan started led to the partition of their nation into hostile camps and the South Koreans feel aggrieved. In some ways I do not blame them.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Dokdo is South Korea's sovereign territory, and so what's wrong for it to be used for whatever purposes by South Korea, one may say.

The catch is Japan also lays claim to the islet, calling it Takeshima, and so the legal status of its sovereignty is in the limbo.  

When such is the case, no party should touch a finger on the disputed territory and try to change the status quo of it. Let the disputed islet remain in the limbo and legally untouchable for anyone.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The islands are Koreans,live with it and move on.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

For those who ask why Korea doesn't take this to the international court:

This has been mentioned time and time again in previous articles regarding Dokdo but Korea doesn't see the need to take it to the court because they see no reason to fight for what they rightfully own.

It's the exact same strategy that Japan uses with the other territories it disputes with China and Russia because they see no reason to fight for what they believe to own.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

How can you upvote or downvote an objective paraphrase of a historical perspective? Isn't this sort of like shooting the messenger?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Do those who say "Takeshima doesn't have Bamboo" not know that the Chinese character for "大韓民国" means "big Korea"?

Korea is a very small country.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Tsushima Island is a bona fide Japanese territory and Jeju Island is a bona fide Korean territory. There is no dispute about it. So, it's absurd to claim otherwise and take the case of their sovereignty to ICJ. Can the islets at issue be considered in the same vein?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

The Koreans call the islets "Dokdo" and represent them in Chinese characters as 独島, pronounced as [tokto], while the Japanese call them "Takeshima", written in Chinese characters as 竹島 and pronounced as [takeshima]. The Chinese characters for the first elements are conveniently used as mere phonetic symbols which have nothing to do with the meaning. 

The first element of the island's name is [tok] in Korean and [take] in Japanese, which strongly suggests that in ancient times this barren island was called similarly in both Korean and Japanese. What does this mean? Consider.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@KurukiToday  01:03 pm JST

For those who ask why Korea doesn't take this to the international court:

This has been mentioned time and time again in previous articles regarding Dokdo but Korea doesn't see the need to take it to the court because they see no reason to fight for what they rightfully own.

It's the exact same strategy that Japan uses with the other territories it disputes with China and Russia because they see no reason to fight for what they believe to own.

I suppose this has been also mentioned time and time again here at JT boards. South Korea/PRC/Russia have not declared recognizing compulsory jurisdiction by ICJ, Japan has done already long time ago.

Has PRC ever tried to take the case(disputed islands) as a non-declaring state to ICJ? I guess not. If PRC declared it and did so, Japan must obey to the verdict of ICJ.

May I ask if you see the difference? Irony here is that permanent members of UNSC like US, Russia, PRC, France, do not trust the outcoming verdicts by ICJ

May I ask you once again if you see the difference? between the one ready for Int'l decision regardless triggering it by itself or not...and the one with loophole.?

BTW, May I ask if South Korea believes it is rightfully correct in concluding that war time labor and comfort women issues do not have to be judged at ICJ, even if 1965 Treaty and agreement clearly stipulated the arbitration clause?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites