politics

South Korea protests Japan's claim to isles

60 Comments

South Korea summoned a senior Japanese diplomat Tuesday to protest his country's renewed claim to a disputed island in its latest defense white paper, the foreign ministry said.

The ministry said the protest was delivered when it called in Kurai Takashi, the deputy chief of mission.

It said South Korea "strongly protests Japan's re-inclusion of territorial claims" to Seoul-controlled islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) known as Dokdo in Korean and Takeshima in Japan.

"The government once again makes clear the plain fact that Dokdo is our indigenous territory," it said in a statement.

The South's defense ministry vowed to take unspecified stern action, saying Japan should immediately take "corrective measures".

It said Japan's repeated claims to the islets would undermine efforts to develop "future-oriented" military cooperation.

Last month South Korea shelved the signing of an information-sharing agreement with Japan.

It would have been the first military agreement between the two nations since the end of Japan's 1910-45 colonial rule. But the planned pact sparked angry reaction from opposition parties and activists.

Many older Koreans have bitter memories of Japan's brutal rule, and historical disputes still mar their relationship despite close economic ties.

© AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

60 Comments
Login to comment

Gosh, the "democratic" peace-loving Japan should stop creating disputes with its neighbor's territory.

-9 ( +10 / -19 )

Ah Japan making friends the world over. Maybe its time Japan stopped being so aggressive towards its neighbors. Its amusing really to read the constant name calling that comes from the Japanese towards the Chinese re their island dispute yet here is Japan doing exactly the same to S Korea as China is doing to Japan over the Senkaku's. Its funny how many say the China is the only country in Asia causing waves yet here we have Japan in dispute with South Korea, Russia, Taiwan, China over different island groups. Maybe poor little Japan isnt as innocent as the China bashers would like us to believe.

-9 ( +9 / -18 )

Japan needs to drop claims to Liancourt Rocks. Japan lost all rights when they left them undefended. Better relations with the Republic of Korea are worth giving up these rocks.

17 ( +20 / -3 )

"CletusAug. 01, 2012 - 07:43AM JST

Ah Japan making friends the world over. Maybe its time Japan stopped being so aggressive towards its neighbors

LOL. Japan has 4 territorial disputes with it;s neighbors. China has 17. And no country in Asia is comming to the US for help because they're being bullied by Japan.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

Inclusion of "Takeshima" in the defense white paper is "aggressive" per Cletus. Lol. Based on this logic, Australia's declaration of whale sanctuary is aggressive.

And who are friends with Russia, china, and SK?

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

OssanAmerica

LOL. Japan has 4 territorial disputes with it;s neighbors. China has 17.

Try again Ossan, China has 14 and Japan 6. But this isnt a competition though. The fact is you yourself are constantly critisising China for its territorial disputes yet Japan (and other countries countries also have them). Infact there is another Asian nation with more territorial disputes than both Japan and China combined and l dont hear you calling them bullies.

And no country in Asia is comming to the US for help because they're being bullied by Japan.

Of course not because most other nations see Japan for what they are and that is a joke....

14,6

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

nigelboy

Inclusion of "Takeshima" in the defense white paper is "aggressive" per Cletus. Lol. Based on this logic, Australia's declaration of whale sanctuary is aggressive.

Um dont you mean the IWC's declaration. Dont let the truth get in the way of a good story ey nigelboy......

And adding disputed islands to a DEFENCE white paper is very different to an international body establishing something by vote.

And who are friends with Russia, china, and SK?

And what's that got to do with anything?

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Seems like the islands are more important to the Japanese then what is going on in their country at this time. With all of the radiation all over Japan, and with the 59 nuclear reactors that is located in every corner of Japan, Japan has the notion thin think more about the islands than about its people. If you ask me, I think Japan should put more concentration and energy in trying to fix the problem that they caused and which is destroying almost everything in the sea and the ocean, due to their stupidity and selfish ambitions to make money for themselves and not think about the livelihoods of their own citizens and the citizens of this world.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Japan has lost Takeshima for good and they need to accept that. They will lose the Senkakus too if they don't get some SDF members stationed on there soon.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Um dont you mean the IWC's declaration. Dont let the truth get in the way of a good story ey nigelboy......

No. I'm talking about the "Australian whale sanctuary".

And what's that got to do with anything?

A lot. Read your comment.

"Ah Japan making friends the world over."

Again, who are friends with Russia, China, and SK?

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

Cletus Aug. 01, 2012 - 07:43AM JST Ah Japan making friends the world over. Maybe its time Japan stopped being so aggressive towards its neighbors. Its amusing really to read the constant name calling that comes from the Japanese towards the Chinese re their island dispute yet here is Japan doing exactly the same to S Korea as China is doing to Japan over the Senkaku's

Ah... China making friends the world over with their fat check books. There is a vast difference between Japan's island dispute against China and South Korea, but China's actions are politically motivated to embargo on rare-earth exports that have far-reaching implications. The issue of rare-earth materials has created tension between China and it's neighbors. The Japanese companies had delayed shipments of rare-earths from China. This may sound like a minor trade dispute, but China shows true colors when they control majority of the world's rare-earths. China still has the same regime as after the WWII and they are still the same. And I know that you support this regime. Good for you.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

nigelboy

No. I'm talking about the "Australian whale sanctuary".

Ah yes the one that is in Australian EEZ waters. And your point is?

Again, who are friends with Russia, China, and SK?

You really need to ask. They are friends with lots of countries

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Can't we just build a League of Asian Nations...and be superfriends?

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Ah yes the one that is in Australian EEZ waters. And your point is?

It also includes the Antartic territory which Australia claims but only recognized by few countries as well as the fact that exercizing territory sovereignty claims goes against the ATS.

You really need to ask. They are friends with lots of countries

Like who? I know Russia and China are "friends" with such problem nations such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea. As for SK, though they have "relationship" with other democratic nations, it pales to the friendship that these democratic nations have with Japan.

-2 ( +10 / -12 )

Nigelboy - the ATS doesn't discount Antarctic territorial claims but it does preclude making new claims, which I undserstand is what Australia did in trying to extend it's EEZ over the area which became the current whale sanctuary - so it's reasonable to criticize the validity of that, which I and probably many Australians do. But just because whatever country you like/are from doesn't recognize the pre-ATS Antarctic claims doesn't mean much - not until someone tries to violate them.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I have a fantastic idea. If these people wanted these islands so badly, then they should fight to the DEATH. They would all go to these islands and they would all be carrying machine guns. They would all kill each other, and the winner takes the islands. Sounds fair, no?

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

nigelboy

As for SK, though they have "relationship" with other democratic nations, it pales to the friendship that these democratic nations have with Japan.

[Citation needed] Source please?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Each nation should send a champion to figth for the disputed rocks/islands. May I suggest a judo contest ?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan is paranoid, the Noda government is heading to doom after september ! She needs to kicks up troubles to deception her nationals Noda is tough for the sake to survive....

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Last month South Korea shelved the signing of an information-sharing agreement with Japan.

The fundamental issue that US reluctant to punish North Korea for those sneaky attacks across the border was because the alliance in north east asia is unreliable, fragile and embarassing! Both ROK and Japan loves fighting each other rather than piss off communist North Korea and China! America has failed to settle down her allies infights how much do you expect them works like a team! So, dont be surprised North Korea will loss nothing after another brilliant attack next time!

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

In the 1950's when we had the administrative agreement (pre- SOFA) , the U.S Air Force was using the island as a bombing range. So at least at that time it was considered a Japanese island.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

With a debt load over double GDP, a nuclear energy problem, a political landscape that's worse than a train wreck and a host of other issues, I think Noda and the government have more pressing things to deal with than a bunch of rocks.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Japan against Russia against Korea against China against Philippine against Vietnam.....

Someone can setup a round table for all those big kids to talk these disputes out, on common ground?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Japan should use the army if necessary to recover these islands,because historically belong the Japanese people!

Japan should appeal this case to the International Court of Justice in haia,to resume its legitimate possession of these islands.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

issa1- Of all the moronic ideas.

Japan should use the army if necessary to recover these islands,because historically belong the Japanese people!

One you would get stomped. The SK Army is pretty damn good. Your guys, are just pretty damn weak. You wouldn't stand a chance. But if you do decide to do that and somehow win, which I can not imagine, don't cry when China does the same thing to you.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Most people don't realize that Japan is potentially the second nuclear power, not the third or fourth. It's interesting that Fukushima Daiichi Plant is the center where they brought the nuclear material from Russia and where they're doing plutonium enrichment for nuclear detonators. The fact is Japan has the most advanced missile launch system outside of the United States and Russia for launching satellites and can easily snap on warheads, and I'm sure they have occult programs in Japan which have been going on for decades.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Just out of curiosity, what are the structures on the island that show up on google maps? They look fairly recent.... http://goo.gl/maps/cTI62

0 ( +0 / -0 )

issa1 "Japan should use the army if necessary to recover these islands,because historically belong the Japanese people!"

This will NEVER happen it is against article #9 to use the military in an offensive role. By no stretch of the truth could it be called "defensive". Second as far as I am concerned the Liancourt Rocks are part of Korea. Which would mean it is an invasion of a sovereign country. Am beginning to understand what a thorn claiming these rocks is on relations with the Republic of Korea. If the PM would read this urge him to stop all claims. Perhaps the Korean government could relax its stand on Japan a bit. Calling for military force against a country which should be our friends is not right. Just wish the Japanese government would remove their headquarters from their hindquarters and do what is just and proper.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Issa, if Japan wants to go to the ICJ by all means, Japan should do so. But be warned, you are likely to lose. Japan needs to stop this. Japan undermines its own claim to the Senkakus by pursuing this. Korea's claim to Dokdo/Takeshima is every bit as strong if not stronger, than Japan's claim to the Senkakus, which are geographically much closer to Taiwan than Okinawa. Japan has a real issue with China and needs SK as an ally. As to the idea of sending the army, please re-read Sandiegoluv and Yuri's posts. Does Japan even have an amphibious assault capability? SK certainly does, and I don't like the GSDF's chances against the ROKMC. Beyond that, if Japan "invaded" Korean territory you can bet your tail that North Korea would start lobbing missiles into Tokyo. Fortunately Issa, no one in Ichigaya is going to take your advice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seriously Issa, do you comprehend what a wet dream a Japanese attack against ROK controlled territory would be for North Korea and China? Pull your head out, dude!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Issa, if Japan wants to go to the ICJ by all means, Japan should do so.

Japan is already waiting for Korea to show up.

But be warned, you are likely to lose

I would say without a doubt, NO. The Korean government knows this so they try to avoid the ICJ. Ironically, it's reported on Yonhap news that this current statement by the Korean counterparts is word for word same as that of 2010 which the article states that the Korean officials don't want to make it a "big deal" where U.N. would force both countries to settle this matter via ICJ immediately.

As for Issa's post, I would say that the army will probably not be involved as much as JMSDF which every military experts will agree that Korea has little chance.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

nigelboy

As for Issa's post, I would say that the army will probably not be involved as much as JMSDF which every military experts will agree that Korea has little chance.

No chance! Really... And every expert agrees with that. Please provide some proof to back up that blanket statement there Nigelboy

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

No chance! Really... And every expert agrees with that. Please provide some proof to back up that blanket statement there Nigelboy

There was an article in 2006 where a Korean military think tank analyzed both nations capabilities and came up with the conclusion that at that time, Korea had no chance.

http://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/fi9999/diary/200604210002/

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

nigelboy

There was an article in 2006 where a Korean military think tank analyzed both nations capabilities and came up with the conclusion that at that time, Korea had no chance. http://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/fi9999/diary/200604210002/

LOL thats a classic Nigelboy.

Couple of points for you though. You claim firstly that every military expert agrees that South Korea would be defeated by Japan. False. You manage to show one (only one) article that says S.K would be defeated and you claim it is from a SK military think tank. Yet the group is called Korean Defence Net and is made up of citizens and students that want stronger SK defence forces. Hardly the SK military think tank you describe.....

Also the article you cite is so disjointed it even refers to the JMSDF as the IJN a name that has not been used since 1945.

So please how about some actual experts to back up your claim

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Headline

South Korea protests Japan's claim to isles

Cletus Protests nigelboy's claim... hahahaha

So please how about some actual experts to back up your claim

1 ( +4 / -3 )

You manage to show one (only one) article that says S.K would be defeated and you claim it is from a SK military think tank. Yet the group is called Korean Defence Net and is made up of citizens and students that want stronger SK defence forces. Hardly the SK military think tank you describe

I could cite you military experts from Japan but of course, you would then criticize them as being nationalists so their views are skewed. But then again, wouldn't nationalists want Japan to have stronger military forces, and therefore conclude that JMSDF are inferior?  Or could it be that the mebers of Korean Defenfence Net wants stronger SK defence forces because of the superior JMSDF? Chicken or the egg?

Also the article you cite is so disjointed it even refers to the JMSDF as the IJN a name that has not been used since 1945.

Don't rely on google translator. But then again, some people have no choice but to use them. LOL.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

China - Russia - South Korea..island disputing with Japan appears to be quite trendy these days.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As long as there is no unification of South Korea with North Korea, Japan and China will stay happy.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Crazy Joe, you are mistaken a lot of people would be happy to see Korea united under the Republic of Korea. Would be very happy if the Japanese National government would stop putting fuel on the fire. Ending this would bring the contested areas to 2. While Japan can not help what the local politicians say or do, they can dictate national policy. Guys for the last time please do the right thing!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CletusAug. 01, 2012 - 09:26AM JST OssanAmerica "LOL. Japan has 4 territorial disputes with it;s neighbors. China has 17."

Try again Ossan, China has 14 and Japan 6. But this isnt a competition though.

Wow...14...as copmpred to 6. Yea, Japan really is a big problem isn't it? LOL

The fact is you yourself are constantly critisising China for its territorial disputes yet Japan (and other countries >countries also have them). Infact there is another Asian nation with more territorial disputes than both Japan and >China combined and l dont hear you calling them bullies.

Wrong cletus, I'm not crticising China for having disputres, I'm criticizing China for they way they are handling those disputes, with force ad the threat of force. In other words, acting like a bully.

"And no country in Asia is comming to the US for help because they're being bullied by Japan.

Of course not because most other nations see Japan for what they are and that is a joke...."

Really? Who considers Japan a joke other than J-bashers like yourself?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

sandiegoluvAug. 01, 2012 - 09:59PM JST

"Japan should use the army if necessary to recover these islands,because historically belong the Japanese people!"

One you would get stomped. The SK Army is pretty damn good. Your guys, are just pretty damn weak. You wouldn't >stand a chance.

I do not think that is correct.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

issa1Aug. 01, 2012 - 07:42PM JST Japan should use the army if necessary to recover these islands,because historically belong the Japanese people!

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitutiuon prohibts using military force to settle international disputes.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan, still expansionist as always. Japan has no rightful claim in Liancourt. Neither Daioryu, or Kuril islands for that matter. China, Korea, and Russia should team up and force Japan to relinquish all claims to the islands.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

japan can have dokdo/takeshima as far as i'm concerned. but it puzzles me that japan would sacrifice so much good will of korean people over something that amounts so very little to japan or anybody really. the powers that be in korea is secretly laughing...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

japan can have dokdo/takeshima as far as i'm concerned. but it puzzles me that japan would sacrifice so much good will of korean people over something that amounts so very little to japan or anybody really. the powers that be in korea is secretly laughing...

I don't think Japan sacrificed anything if you consider "placing" Takeshima on their White Paper as sacrifice. But I sure do get a kick out of those Korean citizens with their "Dokdo is ours" ads, posters, t-shirts, condomns, and what not. Didn't some entertainer plan to swim to Takeshima?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Bob SneiderAug. 03, 2012 - 04:20PM JST

Japan has no rightful claim in Liancourt. Neither Daioryu, or Kuril islands for that matter. China, Korea, and Russia should team up and force Japan to relinquish all claims to the islands.

Korea had no people on the islands since the 1300s, while the Japanese had them populated for four hundred years before WWII. Hell, even the WWII peace treaties and later formal communications strictly stated that the islands are Japanese. The US military even used smaller islands for training exercises, and Korea sent several people to their deaths as a result of their post war land grab.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Korea had no people on the islands since the 1300s, while the Japanese had them populated for four hundred years before WWII.

baroil

There was no civilian population in Takeshima. The island was used as temporary docks for Japanese fishermen and seal hunts.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@nigelboy - you said, " i don't think Japan sacrificed anything if you consider..." i disagree. koreans still have a certain degree of animosity (to put it mildly) toward the japanese from the colonial era. insisting dokdo doesn't help that feeling go away. one example is the recent attempt at the intelligence-sharing treaty between japanese and korean military that didn't come to fruition because of the bad press. with the threat from China looming and increasing every day, japan is in need of a friend. korea carries some weight and can be a good ally in some situations. by insisting that tiny rock in the middle of nowhere, japan SACRIFICES that possibility.

you seem to think that putting some empty words in some WHITE book does not cost Japan anything. I think otherwise - it costs Japan much more than you seem to regard...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

i disagree. koreans still have a certain degree of animosity (to put it mildly) toward the japanese from the colonial era. insisting dokdo doesn't help that feeling go away.

Then I suggest your brothers to severe ties with Japan for it appears neither side is progressing. It's the best thing to do.

one example is the recent attempt at the intelligence-sharing treaty between japanese and korean military that didn't come to fruition because of the bad press.

Which Korea requested first in 2008. Another bad idea that Japan should of never entertained.

with the threat from China looming and increasing every day, japan is in need of a friend. korea carries some weight and can be a good ally in some situations.

Japan does have friends. Don't need Korea though. Unreliable, demanding, petty.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

nigelboy Aug. 04, 2012 - 03:50AM JST Then I suggest your brothers to severe ties with Japan for it appears neither side is progressing. It's the best thing to do.

South Korea sends foreign aid and huge sum of money to help Japan with their Earthquake recovery and a couple of months later they announce this madness. This shows Japanese culture of bowing and being thankful and all that nonsense is all but hypocritical in their inner ambitions and insatiable greed. Their manipulation of history is problem and this is going to lead to a state where no one in Japan is unable to see the truth and rely on their ability to create their own world of self-indulgence in the false knowledge. There is much truth to “it’s ours” attitude from Japan.The world is unable to know who right. But who cares? Look at reactions from Korea and Japan: why is Korea upset and Japan isn’t? Japan has no memory of their territorial greed earlier in the 20th century led to.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

sfjp330

Japan position has been that Takeshima is part of Japan and hasn't and will not change their stance. Historical evidence proves this so what does Earthquake recovery has anything to do with this is beyond me.

Look at reactions from Korea and Japan: why is Korea upset and Japan isn’t?

Because it's Korea.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

nigelboy Aug. 04, 2012 - 04:49AM JST Japan position has been that Takeshima is part of Japan and hasn't and will not change their stance.

The problem is that San Francisco Peace Treaty failed to put an end to territorial disputes over Dokdo because U.S. did not give serious consideration to rival claims to titles over contentious territories as they were more concerned with their own strategic interests. The multilateral pact fell short of defining the Islands that both Japan and Korea claim sovereignty over. It failed to mention not only Dokdo, but also the Senkaku Islands that Japan, China, and Taiwan all claim sovereignty over. This treaty draft leaves impression Korean interests and sensibilities not sufficiently taken into consideration.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Sfjp330

I didn't specifically mention the San Francisco Peace Treaty but what is your evidence to support that the U.S. " did not give serious consideration to rival claims"?

The verbiage of the treaty was drafted on numerous occasions with the final decision was to just to include the territories that Japan had to relinquish.(U.S-U.K. Meeting May 1951) This is further supported by memorandum exchanged between the relevant parties and therefore is the reason why the Korean official wanted to include Takeshima on the Article 2 of the treaty. (Dulles/Yang)

In addition, Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties under Article 31 (General rule of interpretation) states,

(b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.

Hence, the fact that the Allieds rejected the request from Korea (per Dulles/Yang memo) leaves no question that the islands were to maintain as Japanese territory.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

nigelboy Aug. 04, 2012 - 06:49AM JST I didn't specifically mention the San Francisco Peace Treaty but what is your evidence to support that the U.S. " did not give serious consideration to rival claims"?

This is concerning the discussion on Dokdo`s sovereignty when the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed, at the time, the State Department report first gives a detailed explanation on how Dokdo was excluded from the list of Korean territory that Japan was to return in Article 2 of the San Francisco treaty. It then points out that whether the accord implies a legal decision that Dokdo remains with Japan was still a question.

The 1945 Potsdam Declaration stated that "minor islands," along with Honshu and Hokkaido, remain under Japanese sovereignty. So the State Department pointed out that there could be a controversy on whether Japan has rights to all the islands that are not mentioned in the San Francisco treaty, which succeeds the Potsdam Declaration. It added that it was also controversial whether those who drafted the treaty intended to include those minor islands. On this, the report points out that "it can be considered controversial whether the Rusk documents were based on enough historical understanding."

The 1952 U.S.-Japan Administrative Agreement designates Dokdo as a "Japanese facility and area to be used as a U.S. bombing range." But the report notes that the fact that Washington accepted Dokdo as a Japanese facility and area does not necessarily mean that Washington recognized Dokdo as belonging to Japan.

The report further clarifies this, saying that it was because Washington notified Seoul that "it would not use Dokdo as a U.S. bombing range," following Koreas protest. It has been revealed that Japanese scholars have wrongfully claimed Dokdo through their own interpretation of certain documents in Japans interest, without carefully examining diplomatic documents.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This is concerning the discussion on Dokdo`s sovereignty when the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed, at the time, the State Department report first gives a detailed explanation on how Dokdo was excluded from the list of Korean territory that Japan was to return in Article 2 of the San Francisco treaty. It then points out that whether the accord implies a legal decision that Dokdo remains with Japan was still a question.

Which report?

The 1945 Potsdam Declaration stated that "minor islands," along with Honshu and Hokkaido, remain under Japanese sovereignty. So the State Department pointed out that there could be a controversy on whether Japan has rights to all the islands that are not mentioned in the San Francisco treaty, which succeeds the Potsdam Declaration. It added that it was also controversial whether those who drafted the treaty intended to include those minor islands. On this, the report points out that "it can be considered controversial whether the Rusk documents were based on enough historical understanding."

Again which report?

The 1952 U.S.-Japan Administrative Agreement designates Dokdo as a "Japanese facility and area to be used as a U.S. bombing range." But the report notes that the fact that Washington accepted Dokdo as a Japanese facility and area does not necessarily mean that Washington recognized Dokdo as belonging to Japan.

Why don't you just give me the report???

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Nigelboy...since you have your own hardline conclusion of " leaves no question that the islands were to maintain as Japanese territory." IWhat more there to discuss about? I only go by facts.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nigelboy...since you have your own hardline conclusion of " leaves no question that the islands were to maintain as Japanese territory." IWhat more there to discuss about? I only go by facts.

With all due respect sfjp330, all you did was copy/paste Korean Herald article about an amazing discovery by Korean researcher but as usual, none of them follow it up. You aren't going by "facts". You are basically accepting the scholar's claim without even looking at the "report". So please give the link to this so-called "report".

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Minor correction (Rusk-Yang memo)

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

i for one think south korea should give up the takeshima. i mean, where would the japanese go when the rock they call japan sinks to the bottom of the ocean?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

All I can say is Japan needs to pick its fights wisely. These "islands" are not worth the heartache. Most Japanese and me think they will find something new but who knows? that Korean guy, do not push it. Talk like that makes Japan want to do nothing for South Korea in the case of renewed civil war.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

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