politics

Tokyo ready to share info on N Korean missile with Seoul

56 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

56 Comments

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

Japanese Defense Minister Taro Kono said he and U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper talked over the phone Thursday and agreed that cooperation among the two countries and South Korea is important in dealing with matters related to North Korea's latest missile test.

As it should be with grown adult nations...

Following the missile launch, South Korea asked Japan for information based on GSOMIA, but not vice versa, South Korean Defense Minister Jeong Kyeong Doo has said.

sUmThInG SuMtHiNg CnN sUmThInG

9 ( +16 / -7 )

"As the missile fell close to Japan, South Korea needs Japanese data to analyze how the missile traveled after liftoff, including high-resolution reconnaissance satellite images, a Foreign Ministry source said."

Say no more!

11 ( +18 / -7 )

Hahaha! I wonder what incredible story those Korea nationalistic posters will come up with now that it's Korea asking Japan.

Joke aside, we all lose if we try to stand alone against the North and China. I've always believed and still do, that Japan and S. Korea should put their BS to the side and start acting like true allies. They're both free countries (to an extended), unlike N. Korea and Winnie the Pooh's nation.

14 ( +22 / -8 )

North Korea is making it easier for SK and Japan to find some common ground. As long as they keep on popping off missiles, they will push Japan and SK back to cooperating with each other!

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Isn't this Kim ordered his lapdog to get the data for their own analysis? or Moon wanted to send present to his master?

12 ( +19 / -7 )

Haha where are the usual suspects? Looks like GSOMIA is a two way street. Funny how we've gotten one report about GSOMIA being used and its South Korea asking for information from Japan. But I thought Japan couldn't learn anything without the help of South Korea??

Oh, and look at that. Japan didn't waste any time sharing the info either.

Who are the instigators in this rocky relationship again?

18 ( +25 / -7 )

" But I thought Japan couldn't learn anything without the help of South Korea??"

Maybe Japan heard it all on the TV?

Well, according to a certain JT regular that's how Japan would/will fare without SK's "intelligence".

SK is a joke.

12 ( +21 / -9 )

Just one thougt: LOL@ ROK

10 ( +20 / -10 )

Maybe Japan heard it all on the TV?

Oooh that's right. There must have been a report on CNN and South Korea forgot to DVR it.

14 ( +20 / -6 )

Tokyo apparently hopes to urge Seoul to rethink its decision to scrap the pact -- formally called the General Security of Military Information Agreement -- by offering to share sensitive information under the arrangement.

Look who's trying to crawl back. Lol ship's sailed.

-19 ( +5 / -24 )

"Following the missile launch, South Korea asked Japan for information based on GSOMIA, but not vice versa, South Korean Defense Minister Jeong Kyeong Doo has said."

Directly from the "donkey's" mouth.

11 ( +19 / -8 )

So much for all the anti-Japan posters on here who claimed South Korea do not need Japan. Japans intelligence on the missiles was 100 times better than SKs, which is a why they are now begging for information.

SK better not scrap the intelligence sharing pact in November, and this is why.

14 ( +23 / -9 )

Look who's trying to crawl back. Lol ship's sailed.

I don't think you're reading the same article the rest of us are.

Begging? The information sharing is valid until expiry in November. How is that begging?

If you terminate your rental/lease agreement and it expires in a month, are you begging your landlord to live there for the remainder of the lease?

How one loses all logic in order to push an agenda...

Except that South Korea has tried to sell the world on the false idea that Japan needs them for intelligence when so far it has been almost exclusively the other way around.

13 ( +20 / -7 )

@Heck

Begging? The information sharing is valid until expiry in November. How is that begging?

If you terminate your rental/lease agreement and it expires in a month, are you begging your landlord to live there for the remainder of the lease?

How one loses all logic in order to push an agenda...

Yeah Right. Japan wouldn't scrap it and respect original expiry unlike Soviet, but didn't ask for SK's data unlike SK which got no pride.

10 ( +18 / -8 )

Except that South Korea has tried to sell the world on the false idea that Japan needs them for intelligence when so far it has been almost exclusively the other way around.

@tanker - How did SK try to sell the idea Japan was toast without SK's help? Care to post a link?

Or are you confusing one single poster on JT with the official SK government position?

-18 ( +5 / -23 )

Its time for Japan to get its own nukes. Japan needs to shed its second rank thinking and become a true and equal peer with USA, China, Russia, and even India now. It never can without the "2nd strike" powers that other nations have. BTW - why is Korea the only nation that Japan kicks around with impunity, while treating NK with kid gloves? Its the nukes!

4 ( +12 / -8 )

It seems to me SK is abiding by the GSOMIA agreement until it actually terminates in November, acting like the mature adults in the room.

@doley

Perhaps it is only to you that SK looks mature adult who's gone hysteric and ending GOSMIA, and that it looks abiding by it by raising its right over its head until the very last minute.

11 ( +17 / -6 )

Perhaps it is only to you that SK looks mature adult who's gone hysteric and ending GOSMIA

@showchim - so Japan's trade curbs were a mature adult decision, but not renewing GSOMIA was hysteric?

Had it been the other way around (SK with the trade curb, Japan not renewing GSOMIA), you'd be saying the complete opposite.

-17 ( +3 / -20 )

HeckleberryToday  09:23 am JST

Perhaps it is only to you that SK looks mature adult who's gone hysteric and ending GOSMIA

@showchim - so Japan's trade curbs were a mature adult decision, but not renewing GSOMIA was hysteric?

Had it been the other way around (SK with the trade curb, Japan not renewing GSOMIA), you'd be saying the complete opposite.

We would've found it out if it had happened. For now all we know SK asked for it Japan still didn't

11 ( +18 / -7 )

Hurt feelings drive us to poor choices.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

So much for all the anti-Japan posters on here who claimed South Korea do not need Japan. Japans intelligence on the missiles was 100 times better than SKs, which is a why they are now begging for information.

A rather petty comment...

-15 ( +4 / -19 )

showchinmonoToday  08:09 am JST

Isn't this Kim ordered his lapdog to get the data for their own analysis?

The best comment here so far. Kim is so reliant on South Korea, who is so reliant on Japan. The thing is, as the situation worsens, South Korea must rely on someone else in Japan's abscence. That will be China, and we all know how China treats its assumed property.

So the future is looking bleak for South Korea. I'm surprised they don't have much foresight in this. Japan will keep rolling along without a fake ally, and South Korea will become China 2.0 Lite.

That's a far cry from the "New Japan" South Koreans were trying so desperately to advertise themselves in the 2000's.

15 ( +20 / -5 )

I'm a bit confused but not surprised that SK is asking Japan for data. However wasn't it the Moon who just recently reported to the media that his country can do without Japan's data. hmm. guess not everyone in SK got or read his memo. What other data is needed? A missile flew it landed in EEZ of Japan. end of story. The who, why or what is not important at this stage since it already happened. The resolve is what is Japan going to do about this aside a fist in the air. If any other country aside the US, it would have been shot down or one sent back as a defensive measure, end of story. Ask Russia or China to see what their response would be and I can be the entire farm it would not be a fist in the air.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

So many Japanese posters here coming up with illogical conclusions. Yet the same people go on vacation when JT reports that Japan failed to detect recent NK missiles on multiple occasions.

Furthermore, these same people don’t even mention anything about how the Japanese government announced 17 minutes after the missile launch, not one, but TWO missiles were launched from NK, only to backtrack several hours later and say it was just the one missile. Good luck with Tokyo trying to intercept the invisible missile.

Abe’s usual media control at work here again to portray to his sheep that he is the victim and master of Korean diplomacy.

It seems SK is abiding by the GSOMIA agreement until it actually terminates in November, acting like the mature adults in the room.

Grow up Japan!

-10 ( +6 / -16 )

We would've found it out if it had happened. For now all we know SK asked for it Japan still didn't

@showchim - SK requested information from Japan, whilst there is a valid agreement in place.

But that's apparently a call to arms to bash SK.. okay.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

Thanks for posting this again Tom (last time exactly the same comment was posted a few weeks ago).

Anyhow, I'll reply the same again too.

Tom DoleyToday  11:06 am JST

So many Japanese posters here coming up with illogical conclusions. Yet the same people go on vacation when JT reports that Japan failed to detect recent NK missiles on multiple occasions.

That article was commented on by many 'Japanese posters'. Why be disingenuous about it?

The conclusion drawn was: GSOMIA is a token arrangement to include South Korea in Japan/US security information transfer. It doesn't matter if SOuth Korea pulls out, their contributions were worthless for real-time launch detection anyway.

Furthermore, these same people don’t even mention anything about how the Japanese government announced 17 minutes after the missile launch, not one, but TWO missiles were launched from NK, only to backtrack several hours later and say it was just the one missile. Good luck with Tokyo trying to intercept the invisible missile.

On what planet is this even remotely viewed as a negative? Mistakenly detecting two missiles rather than one is FAR better than mistakingly detecting one missile rather than two.

And besides, North Korea is NEVER going to deliberately target Japan with a missile. If they do they Pyongyang be invaded within the hour.

Abe’s usual media control at work here again to portray to his sheep that he is the victim and master of Korean diplomacy.

This is a huge stretch, sounds like poorly worded propaganda from a local Seoul tabloid.

It seems SK is abiding by the GSOMIA agreement until it actually terminates in November, acting like the mature adults in the room.

This is not even being contested whether it's 'mature' or not. How can you label South Korea's actions as 'adult' when the government has convinced their citizens to boycott - not just Japanese goods - but everything to do with Japan across the board? They are literally lighting themselves on fire to protest NORMALISATION of export procedures (removed from fast-track list) for some high tech materials. That is complete lunacy.

11 ( +17 / -6 )

Tom DoleyToday  11:06 am JST

Grow up Japan!

Yeah the same guy who argues that "SCAPIN 677 and the Peace treaty, with only SCAPIN specifically excluding Dokdo from Japanese territory" but never mentions the San Francisco Peace treaty that has 40 odd nations as signatories, clearly stating in article 2;

(a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

And Article 4 stating that;

The property of any of the Allied Powers or its nationals in the areas referred to in Article 2 shall, in so far as this has not already been done, be returned by the administering authority in the condition in which it now exists. 

Since within article 2 it does not identify Dokudo, Takeshima and/or  Liancourt Rocks as Republic of Korea's sovereign territory and in article 4 it states that any property controlled by the allies will be returned to administering authority.

A nation that constantly violates international treaties is the one that needs to GROW UP !

7 ( +15 / -8 )

What is Tokyo thinking ???.North korea is in Korea ??? not in America.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Playing 3rd leg in politics or any subjects using the 3rd party manipulation is too old style and not up to date in subjects model of operations.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

This is not even being contested whether it's 'mature' or not. How can you label South Korea's actions as 'adult' when the government has convinced their citizens to boycott - not just Japanese goods - but everything to do with Japan across the board?

@Hill - The boycott of Japanese goods by Korean citizens was on a voluntary basis. Unless you're talking about a local council in Seoul that put up the 'No Japan' banners which were promptly removed due to complaints by Korean citizens who deemed it highly inappropriate.

You'll argue Japan's trade curb wasn't retaliatory, while you'd probably argue SK's decision not to renew GSOMIA was. But you can't have it both ways. Either they're both retaliatory (and I'd say they are), or they aren't.

They are literally lighting themselves on fire to protest NORMALISATION of export procedures (removed from fast-track list) for some high tech materials. That is complete lunacy.

Who is 'they'? One nutjob? There are nutjobs on both sides. Recently a Japanese nutjob threatened mass murder in a Japanese art museum for displaying uncomfortable truths about Japan. But I'll never hear you argue that 'the Japanese are threatening mass murder in a fit of hysteria', because you brush aside lunacy by Japan while highlighting anything from Korea.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

HeckleberryToday  11:46 am JST

@showchim - SK requested information from Japan, whilst there is a valid agreement in place.

But that's apparently a call to arms to bash SK.. okay.

I am not sure if you understand how GSOMIA works. If SK really needs it, it would get it as long as US allows for it because Japan shares it with US always. Sure, there's a time lag.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Since you're confused (too many words to take in?) I'll reply to help you out.

HeckleberryToday  06:57 pm JST

@Hill - The boycott of Japanese goods by Korean citizens was on a voluntary basis. Unless you're talking about a local council in Seoul that put up the 'No Japan' banners which were promptly removed due to complaints by Korean citizens who deemed it highly inappropriate.

I said the "the government has convinced their citizens to boycott". That means the government issued statements condemning Japan's action that were a reaction not just to South Korea not providing information on where the imports of high tech materials ended up over a 3 year period, but to the overall disdain South Korea has toward Japan despite the 1965 treaty and compensation, and the 2015 final irreversible agreement.

You'll argue Japan's trade curb wasn't retaliatory, while you'd probably argue SK's decision not to renew GSOMIA was. But you can't have it both ways. Either they're both retaliatory (and I'd say they are), or they aren't.

I will argue? I'd probably argue? Instead of going off on hypothetical tangents how about sticking to things that have actually been mentioned.

Who is 'they'? One nutjob? There are nutjobs on both sides.

The recent self immolation in July, and the 2017 one, also near the Japanese embassy in Seoul = They. The 2017 incident was to protest the 2015 agreement. It appears to be a legitimate form of protest in South Korea.

Recently a Japanese nutjob threatened mass murder in a Japanese art museum for displaying uncomfortable truths about Japan. But I'll never hear you argue that 'the Japanese are threatening mass murder in a fit of hysteria', because you brush aside lunacy by Japan while highlighting anything from Korea.

You're trying way to hard to argue semantics. Also you're bringing hypotheticals into it again. I don't accept those, so that's all. But I will say that your false equivalence is way off the mark, in that I mentioned the extreme protests they (the two cases) go to over Japan's actions, whereas you mention a threat that could've easily been sent in by anyone who could communicate in fluent Japanese. It's not out of the realms of possibility that it was done simply to stir up anti-Japan sentiment in South Korea, ie: no actual intention to carry it out. And to this date they haven't.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

How did SK try to sell the idea Japan was toast without SK's help? Care to post a link?

You're comment:

Either they're both retaliatory (and I'd say they are)

So you are telling me that you believe SK scrapping GSOMIA is retaliatory but the South Korea government doesn't believe that Japan will be helpless without their so-called intelligence? That's not much of a retaliation now is it.

But you can't have it both ways

You're right about that one, but not how you think.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Furthermore, these same people don’t even mention anything about how the Japanese government announced 17 minutes after the missile launch, not one, but TWO missiles were launched from NK, only to backtrack several hours later and say it was just the one missile. Good luck with Tokyo trying to intercept the invisible missile.

How on earth do you come to the conclusion that this is a bad thing? As long as they detected the original missile. Plus, it's a damn sight better than the big fat nothing that South Korea detected...

9 ( +9 / -0 )

@Hillclimber

On what planet is this even remotely viewed as a negative? Mistakenly detecting two missiles rather than one is **FAR** better than mistakingly detecting one missile rather than two.

Yeah, Japan over estimated the number of projectiles launched this time, but they also detected ZERO missiles rather than the ONE for the two missiles prior to that. On what planet is this viewed positively? Detecting launches is the first stage of tracking any missile, yet Japan can't even get this right.

And you ramble on about SK's information being worthless when they correctly detected the launches.

Hilarious!

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

@Triring

Article 2

(a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

Since within article 2 it does not identify Dokudo, Takeshima and/or Liancourt Rocks as Republic of Korea's sovereign territory and in article 4 it states that any property controlled by the allies will be returned to administering authority.

Does Article 2 also identify the thousands of other islands of Korea? According to your logic, they must not be territories of Korea then. The word 'including' in that article does not imply 'including only'.

Again, don't change definitions of English words to try and fit your narrative.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

@extanker

Plus, it's a damn sight better than the big fat nothing that South Korea detected...

Please, enlighten us on how you made that inference from the article above.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Please, enlighten us on how you made that inference from the article above.

You actually think South Korea would lower themselves to asking Japan for assistance if they had detected anything themselves? There's a reason that the usual suspects haven't shown up here to comment in defense of South Korea and that's because there is no defense. South Korea has publicly revealed that scrapping GSOMIA might not be in their best interest.

Now how about you address how on earth you can possibly believe that detecting an extra missile in addition to the actual missile is a bad thing.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

@extanker

You actually think South Korea would lower themselves to asking Japan for assistance if they had detected anything themselves? 

Koreans did detect the launch alright.

What they were trying to verify was the evasive maneuver flight pattern at the terminal descend stage.

The missile landed halfway between Korea and Japan, thereby making the flight detection at the final descent stage quite tricky due to distance.

Just as Japan has trouble detecting incoming NK missiles, the ROK has trouble detecting missiles that's flying away from them in the final descent stage.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Koreans did detect the launch alright.

Really? Is that fact, or an assumption? I'm not seeing anything to indicate that to be accurate.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

You actually think South Korea would lower themselves to asking Japan for assistance if they had detected anything themselves?

Lower oneself? GSOMIA is still in effect until November.

..if they had detected anything themselves? SK already broadcast the missile launch soon after it occurred. You don’t have to add your own thoughts to the sentence. Let’s call a spade a spade.

Now how about you address how on earth you can possibly believe that detecting an extra missile in addition to the actual missile is a bad thing.

Re read my post above.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

@Strangerland

Really? Is that fact, or an assumption?

The US itself depends on Korea for NK missile launch warning and according to Bob Woodward's book "Fear", it's 7 seconds.

This is why the US THAAD deployment in Korea has only one radar and not the customary two, because it gets its detection radar feed from the Korean military.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

So many Japanese posters here coming up with illogical conclusions. Yet the same people go on vacation when JT reports that Japan failed to detect recent NK missiles on multiple occasions.

How can you be so sure Japan didn't really detect the NK missiles? Maybe they did and tried to keep it a secret, now with SK admitting asking for Japanese data there's proof, that JP can detect - and the data is even sensitive.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Tom DoleyToday  06:44 am JST

@Hillclimber

*On what planet is this even remotely viewed as a negative? Mistakenly detecting two missiles rather than one is **FAR** better than mistakingly detecting one missile rather than two.*

Yeah, Japan over estimated the number of projectiles launched this time, but they also detected ZERO missiles rather than the ONE for the two missiles prior to that. On what planet is this viewed positively? Detecting launches is the first stage of tracking any missile, yet Japan can't even get this right.

And you ramble on about SK's information being worthless when they correctly detected the launches.

Hilarious!

It seems you are pointing out and laughing at Japan's lacking of the skill for accurate data. Guess you are expected to tell how come then SK requested for such info. It is all for Kim's ruling the great Korean peninsula isn't it LOL?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Tom DoleyToday  06:45 am JST

@Triring

Article 2

(a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

Since within article 2 it does not identify Dokudo, Takeshima and/or Liancourt Rocks as Republic of Korea's sovereign territory and in article 4 it states that any property controlled by the allies will be returned to administering authority.

Does Article 2 also identify the thousands of other islands of Korea? According to your logic, they must not be territories of Korea then. The word 'including' in that article does not imply 'including only'.

Again, don't change definitions of English words to try and fit your narrative.

Yeah Yeah, nothing new from typical Korean narrative. SK kept demanding US to include Takeshima as one of its territories Japan was officially to give up but continuously REJECTED. Not only Rusk's memo but also all the other memo& reporting issued by US which had emphasized " It is not your territory" "we believe it is Japan" doesn't matter to you Koreans does it? and all you wish is focusing on the words game in SCAPIN and SanFran treaty. At least, you Koreans should have realized SCAPIN is really bad idea for you to convince anybody else. See? this is one of the biggest typical reasons why Japan and Korea cannot succeed in writing mutually allowable history text books. Every time you Koreans go hysteric and pound on the table screaming and ignore whatever proofs uncomfortable unless it goes along with your fake or wishing narrative. It is like you guys are saying, at the court, unless it is accepted, voice recording cannot provide any evidence capacity even if it is the truths of the history. No wonder Koreans like ignoring which have been clearly kept as official dialogues for 1965 Treaty.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I believe Japan should worry about Japan only. I would not trust any country with any information. South Korea couldn't care less about Japan, so there is no benefit in sharing any information, and the US is only interested for its own geo-political reasons.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

How can you be so sure Japan didn't really detect the NK missiles? Maybe they did and tried to keep it a secret, ...

So now you're admitting that Japan is sly and an untrustworthy partner.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

It seems you are pointing out and laughing at Japan's lacking of the skill for accurate data.....

Well actually no, not at Japan's lack of skills, but at the hypocrites crying out the opposite.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

*and all you wish is focusing on the words game in SCAPIN and SanFran treaty.*

Funny how the Japanese keep talking about Korea not abiding by the wordings in other agreements (even though they did), and you now say Japan doesn't need to follow the exact wordings of SCAPIN 677 and the Peace Treaty. So when it applies to Korea it's word games, but not when it applies to Japan. Great!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@Tom Doley

 Funny how the Japanese keep talking about Korea not abiding by the wordings in other agreements (even though they did), and you now say Japan doesn't need to follow the exact wordings of SCAPIN 677 and the Peace Treaty. So when it applies to Korea it's word games, but not when it applies to Japan. Great!

 

Japan did follow the exact wordings of SCAPIN 677 while she had to until it expired. SCAPINs were instruction notes about “ provisional suspension of Japanese administration” not about “sovereignty transfer”, which is obvious from not only 677-6 but also from 1033-5, that had lapsed by complete restoration of Japan as a sovereign equal upon conclusion of peace treaty.

 

Japan stands on exact wordings of the agreements, treaties along with spirits of those,  backed up by all the other documents such as Rusk Memo which was reconfirmed on several other occasions by other US officials, Report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East, and several other documents( even if they are not legal document signed)** which I don’t even bother to list up here as I know you Koreans wouldn’t admit no matter what.

 Likewise Japan follows the treaty word by word for 1965 treaty too and all the other materials like agreed minutes and actual dialogue recorded to back up its understanding of the treaty as legitimate. That’s not words game Japan practices. It is Korean splitting hair that plays words game.

 

Does Article 2 also identify the thousands of other islands of Korea? According to your logic, they must not be territories of Korea then. The word 'including' in that article does not imply 'including only'.

 

Wrong. SF treaty intentionally excluded Dokdo as the official response of Allies to insistent requests by SK to include among those islands over which Japan was to renounce it’s right ,title, claim in the treaty.  You Koreans cannot split your hair here.

 

Letter from Office of Northeast Asian Affairs To E. Allan Lightner American Embassy, Pusan Korea by Kenneth T. Young, Jr.

.... that the United States could not concur in the proposed amendment as it applied to the Liancourt Rocks since according to his information the Liancourt Rocks had never been treated as a part of Korea, they had been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Japan's Shimane Prefecture since 1905 and it did not appear that they had ever before been claimed by Korea. As a result Article 2(a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan makes no mention of the Liancourt Rocks:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Confidential_Security_Information_about_Liancourt_Rocks

 

Also there’s something like this for the record during drafting peace treaty.

 

Summary Record of First Meeting between US and UK held in Washington at 10.30 a.m. on the 25th April.

 Mr. Allison said that the American View was that our defining of the Japanese boundaries would have a bad psychological effect on the Japanese and emphasize the contraction of their country. The Americans would prefer a wording which emphasized the full sovereignty of Japan such territory as we should leave her and, exclude by name from her sovereignty and only such territory and islands as might be necessary to avoid confusion.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Draft_Treaty_of_Peace_WithJapan#U.S..E2.80.93_U.K._Meeting_on_April_25.2C_1951

Meaning SF Treaty clarified by name for territories and islands to be excluded from Japan’s sovereignty.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan did follow the exact wordings of SCAPIN 677 while she had to until it expired.

Great! So now you acknowledge that Japan agreed to Dokdo being Korean, and they decided to back flip on this when SCAPIN677 expired (ie. embodied in the San Fan peace treaty).

Thanks for showing Japan's convoluted logic.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

SCAPIN 677 was provisional suspension of Japan’s administration over the disputed islets, nothing to do with sovereignty transfer.

Another classic!

SCAPIN 677 defined Japan by excluding Ullung Island, Liancourt Rocks and Cheju Island. Ullung and Cheju were never disputed. Why Liancourt Rocks?

Stop making stories to back up your fake Japanese narrative!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Tom DoleyToday  09:46 pm JST

SCAPIN 677 was provisional suspension of Japan’s administration over the disputed islets, nothing to do with sovereignty transfer.

Another classic!

SCAPIN 677 defined Japan by excluding Ullung Island, Liancourt Rocks and Cheju Island. Ullung and Cheju were never disputed. Why Liancourt Rocks?

Stop making stories to back up your fake Japanese narrative!

Sure nothing was disputed that time as a nation called SK did not even existed when SCAPIN 677 was issued. Heck. did I have to clarify the disputed islets meant to be Takeshima/Dokdo? See all you can do is resorting to words game. No one can make up official documents issued by US those days. It says a lot that you have nothing else but only sticking to 677. Pathetic.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If SCAPIN 677 had nothing to do with sovereign transfer, then why did the US request permission from the ROK to use Dokdo as a practice bombing range? And why did the US stop using it when ROK later requested the practice be stopped? Who had effective control? It ain’t the land of the rising sun, that’s for sure.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Tom DoleyToday  03:26 pm JST

If SCAPIN 677 had nothing to do with sovereign transfer, then why did the US request permission from the ROK to use Dokdo as a practice bombing range? And why did the US stop using it when ROK later requested the practice be stopped? Who had effective control? It ain’t the land of the rising sun, that’s for sure.

 

If 677 had anything to do with sovereignty transfer, where to? SK was not a sovereign but under US occupation too.  As for bombing practice, don’t omit the fact SCAPIN 1778 dated 1947 Sep 16 already officially gave advance warning about bombing practice by designating Liancourt rocks, only to Japanese government but nothing informed to Korean nationals. And you had 1st bombing incident on June 8 1948.  As for the letter from Lieutenant General Coulter requesting SK PM to use Liancourt Rocks as a bombing range dated 1951 June 20, It is nothing but polite form of pre-notice in order to avoid the same tragedy ( despite there was 2nd bombing incident). Also there was no time lag between this communication (between EUSAK and SK PM) and SCAPIN 2160 giving the same pre-notice to Japanese government (which had no mention of warning to be communicated to Korean population again which contradicted the letter from Lieutenant General Coulter)

Liancourt Rocks were officially removed from Bombing Range area by the decision made by Japan-US Joint committee implementing Japanese-American security arrangements which listed Liancourt Rocks as a facility of Japanese government. No matter how you try to split your hair, it does not work. Those things you referred to had happened during the mess of Korean War plus back-and-forth drafting process of the peace treaty. Nothing could override the final decision.  Lastly those cowards who keep running away from the settlement at Int’l Court should not ask the question like Who had effective control?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If 677 had anything to do with sovereignty transfer, where to? SK was not a sovereign but under US occupation too.

Of course. Korea was under US and USSR occupation. So sovereignty was stripped from Japan as per Cairo and Potsdam declaration during this period awaiting the establishment of ROK. SCAPIN 677 'defines' Japan and applies it to all future directives and memos. No ifs and buts. Its definitive.

already officially gave advance warning about bombing practice by designating Liancourt rocks

US giving advance warnings is not the same as US requesting permission and following orders to stop using it by ROK.

Lastly those cowards who keep running away from the settlement at Int’l Court 

This is such a laughable statement given that Japan were the cowards in adamantly objecting to Korea's presence at the peace treaty discussions. Why go to ICJ now?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites