Suin Kim comments

@ titaniumoxide

Most Korean right-wingers are delusional about the SF treaty! Their propaganda saying Sebald's decision was military-based not historical. From his telegram: "Japan's claim to these islands is old and appears valid.

I’m not a right-winger. What’s the delusion you found in my post? Do you think Sebald wanted to give Dokdo to Japan just because he truly believed Japan's claim to these islands was old and appeared valid? If he believed so, his belief contradicts SCAPIN 677, which means he was wrong. If Japan's claim to these islands was old and appeared valid, why did SCAPIN separate Dokdo from Japan?

It’s not propaganda to view Sebald’s recommendation was based on the U.S. military strategic interests. In 1949, Sebald exactly said “Security considerations might conceivably render the provision of weather and radar stations on these islands a matter of interest to the United States.” Yes, U.S. needed Dokdo to confront the communists in the emergence of Cold War as Japan needed it as a strategic point for Russo-Japanese war.

chucky3176Mar. 05, 2014 - 01:38PM JST

Japan didn’t claim Jejudo, but claimed Ulleongdo and Dokdo during the negotiation of SF Treaty. In 1947, Japanese government published a document entitled "Minor Islands in the Pacific, Minor Islands Adjacent to Japan Proper: Part IV:Minor Islands in the Pacific, Minor Islands in the Sea of Japan" distributed it to SCAP(Supreme Command of Allied Powers ) in order to not be disadvantaged in the negotiationsdeciding Japan's post-war territory. In this document, Japan falsely claimed both Ulleongdo and Dokdo describing there was no Korean name for Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo) and they were not shown in the maps made in Korea. With this book, Japan lobbied Willam J. Sebald who played a major role in reversing U.S. position supporting Dokdo was Korean land. He recommended U.S. that if Dokdo was given to Japan, U.S. could build weather and radar station there. His remark has something in common with Japanese bureaucrat‘s of 1905. Yamaza Enjiro, the Director of the Political Affairs Bureau told Nakai Yozaburo whose petition to incorporate Dokdo into Japanese land and lease it to him was rejected by Japan’s Ministry of Interior as follows:

" ..the incorporation is urgent particularly under the present situation, and it is absolutely necessary and advisable to build watchtowers and install wireless or submarine cable and keep watch on the hostile warships. “

CH3CHO Mar. 05, 2014 - 02:31PM JST

The professor fails to mention Article 6 of SCAPIN 677.

You are wrong. Prof. Shin mentioned Article 6 of SCAPIN 677. He said “ SCAPIN No. 677 states that the directive shall not be construed as the ultimate determination of Japan’s minor islands” Of course, SCAP’s directive excluding Dokdo from Japan was not the ultimate determination because it was SF Treaty that decide it, but Sf Treaty didn’t decide the ownership of Dokdo.

There’s an article of SCAPIN 677 the Japanese don’t want to cite. The Article 5 of SCAPIN 677 reads: “The definition of Japan contained in this directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from this Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein.” It means the definition of Japan excluding Dokdo can be changed only through SCAP’s a new directive and the definition of Japan excluding Dokdo would be effective until a change happens. The position of Dokdo excluded as Japanese territories in SCAPIN 677 was never changed while new directives about other territories such as Izu,Nanpo Islands and Nansei Islands were issued. In other words, SCAPIN 677 separating Dokdo from Japan remained effective when SF Treaty was concluded.

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5963761562906790520#editor/target=post;postID=4441328717436648820;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=1;src=postname

He also fails to mention 1951 letter from the State Department to US Embacy in Seoul regarding San Francisco Peace Treaty which set the ultimate determination of the islands. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Rusk_note_of_1951

You cite Dean Rusk’s wrong information misled by the Japanese government’ document mentioned above. The initial U.S. view on Dokdo is :

“The history of these rocks has been reviewed more than once by the Department, and does not need extensive recounting here. The rocks, which are fertile seal breeding grounds, were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea. They were, of course, annexed together with the remaining territory of Korea when Japan extended its Empire over the former Korean state.”

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EZBFIntdH10/UIkI_kJvtaI/AAAAAAAACAs/fgAjtls6o18/s1600/Steeves1.jpg

It is understandable, if high profile scholars have such low standards of research, people get brain washed.

It’s Japanese government that misleads their people with false claim on Dokdo.

sfjp330Mar. 01, 2014 - 07:14AM JST

It's not about apology, it's about compensation. The South Korean government needs to be forthright about the fact it spent the compensation money and take some responsibility itself, instead of blustering that Japan hasn’t apologized nor compensated enough.

Korean comfort women didn’t ask Korean government to compensate. If they just wanted the money and asked Korean government for money, Korean government could have given them the money they wanted. It’s not a huge sum of money for Korean government to compensate them if they want.

On March 13, 1993, President Kim Young-Sam announced that Korean government would not seek material compensation regarding the ‘comfortwomen’issue. and instead would urge the Japanese government to acknowledge the truth. On June 1993, the Korean government enacted a legislation on the livelihood stability for the victims. The payment started in August. And just yesterday, a revised bill on the livelihood stability for the comfort women was submitted to National Assembly plenary session. Korean government takes good care of them financially. What those women seek is Japanese government’s legal responsibility and compensation.

In 1965, South Korea agreed never to make further compensation demands against Japan, either at a government or individual level, after receiving U.S. $800 million. These comfort women should take up the issue with their own Korean goverment.

The international community has different view on 1965 treaty from Japan.

The International Commission of Jurists, in its report of a mission on "comfort women" published in 1994,which states that the treaties referred to by the Japanese Government never intended to include claims made by individuals for inhumane treatment. It argues that the word "claims" was not intended to cover claims in tort and that the term is not defined in the agreed minutes or the protocols. It also argues that there is nothing in the negotiations which concerns violations of individual rights resulting from war crimes and crimes against humanity. The International Commission of Jurists also holds that, in the case of the Republic of Korea, that the 1965 treaty with Japan relates to reparations paid to the Government and does not include claims of individuals based on damage suffered.

The Special Rapporteur of 1996 views that neither the San Francisco Peace Treaty nor the bilateral treaties were concerned with human rights violations in general or military sexual slavery in particular. The "intent" of the parties did not cover the specific claims made by "comfort women" and the treaties were not concerned with human rights violations of women during the conduct of the war by Japan. It is, therefore, the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur that the treaties do not cover the claims raised by former military sexual slaves and that the Government of Japan remains legally responsible for the consequent violations of international humanitarian law.

The McDougall report of 1998 states "It is also self-evident from the text of the 1965 Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Co-operation between Japan and the Republic of Korea that it is an economic treaty that resolves ‘property’ claims between the countries and does not address human rights issues .....There is no reference in the treaty to ‘comfort women’, rape, sexual slavery, or any other atrocities committed by the Japanese against Korean civilians. Rather, the provisions in the treaty refer to property and commercial relations between the two nations. In fact, Japan’s negotiator is said to have promised during the treaty talks that Japan would pay the Republic of Korea for any atrocities inflicted by the Japanese upon the Koreans ........... Clearly, the funds provided by Japan under the Settlement Agreement [with Korea] were intended only for economic restoration and not individual compensation for the victims of Japan’s atrocities. As such, the 1965 treaty - despite its seemingly sweeping language - extinguished only economic and property claims between the two nations and not private claims …".

On Aug. 10, 1999, the UN Sub-Commission adopted a resolution that the state responsibility and individual right to compensation still exist despite the peace agreement and bi-lateral agreements between Korea and Japan.

Even the Japanese government acknowledged in 1991 right after Kim Hak-Soon’s first press conference that these individual victims still hold the right to seek damages. Shunji Yanai, then chief of the Foreign Ministry’s Treaties Bureau, told an Upper House Budget Committee session on Aug. 27 that the Japan-South Korea Basic Treaty of 1965 had not deprived individual victims of their right to seek damages in domestic legal terms. "(The treaty) only prevents Japanese and South Korean governments from taking up issues as exercise of their diplomatic rights,"

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID:2218404

Japan's stance it was solved by 1965 treaty is not being accepted outside of Japan.

<ChenchanFeb. 23, 2014 - 05:43PM JST

Takeshima was the same Jpanese island as Shikoku was in 1951.

Do you have any evidence Takeshima was the same Japanese island as Shikoku was in 1951?

SCAP (Supreme Command for the Allied Powers) decided to separate Dokdo from Japan, initially U.S. had the correct understanding Dokdo belonged to Korea , the Allied Powers agreed to transfer the sovereignty on Dokdo to Korea and Britain excluded Dokdo from Japanese territories during the process of drafting of SF Treaty. They all correspond to the Cairo Declaration which stated “"Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed."

http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2014/01/scapin-677-separated-dokdotakeshima.html

U.S. supported Japanese claim on Dokdo during the late stage of drafting of SF Treaty for the U.S. strategic interests, but the final decision of SF Treaty omitted the fate of Dokdo. There’s no any mention Takeshima is Japanese territory in the final draft of SF Treaty.

Korea restored its sovereignty on Dokdo after Japanese defeat of WW2.

nigelboyFeb. 19, 2014 - 12:31AM JST

They were recruited to provide those "services" to armed forces in the area. How they were "recruited" by operators or why they have become one (sold by families due to economic hardships) is the same.

You are wrong. Keep in mind the issue is the comfort women falsely induced and forced to be sex slaves for the Imperial Japanese Army. Comparing them with the non-wartime professional prostitutes itself is nonsense.

That's a load of BS. I haven't seen any movement by the Korean government to address this issue. It's only recently that an opposition lawmaker within Korea revealed the Pak regime's direct involvment in the system. Furthermore, you yourself are doing a great job "undermining" it.

I said about the wrongdoings of the former Korean government. As to the so-called “system” you vaguely mentioned, it has nothing to do with the wartime sex slavery Imperial Japanese Army involved in an inhumane manner. Japanese government also involved in the comfort women system after the WW2 for GIs. What do you think about it? You can find some analogy from that with the so-called non-wartime Korean system. Bringing up the non-wartime Korean professional prostitutes in the debate on wartime sex slavers to justify Japan’s wartime atrocities doesn’t work at all. Why don’t you learn from the way Toru Hashimoto used to try in vain to justify wartime comfort women?

Practice what you preach and then you might get a little sympathy from the general Japanese population.

LOL. I practiced what I preached. What I want from the general Japanese population if I have is the correct understanding on history between Korea and Japan and Korean people, not the cheap sympathy misled by the ill-minded Japanese right wingers’ logic.

nigelboyFeb. 18, 2014 - 12:09PM JST

I don't need to. I've already stated what it is. What the Korean government operated afterwards is the "Same" system.

You need to say concretely what the “same system” to show your argument is on the right track. You may not distinguish the wartime comfort women who were sexually enslaved by the Japanese Imperial Army from non-wartime professional prostitutes.

How dare you undermine the atrocities and outright human right violations conducted by the Korean government lasting well into the 80's.

You should say concretely what the atrocities and outright human right violations conducted by the Korean government in your mind. The Korean formal governments did some wrongdoings. That’s the fact and no Koreans deny and undermine it. But what does the former Korean government’s wrongdoings have to do with the comfort women sexually victimized by the Imperial Japanese Army? Attacking Korean former government is Japanese right-wingers’ childish tactic to deny, minimize and downplay the atrocities and outright human right violations conducted by the Imperial Japanese Army. “We are not guilty because you did it, too” attitude is not effective as Toro Hashimoto case showed.

nigelboyFeb. 17, 2014 - 11:40PM JST

It's not the Japanese government fault that Korean counterparts didn't bring forth the issue which pretty much states that they themselves felt that these women weren't "forced" as they later claimed.

It seems that you admit 1965 tready didn’t include comfort women.

Also bear in mind that such system was in place during Korea during the Korean war and the U.S. force occupation.

You need to say concretely what such system is and the what the analogy is between the wartime comfort women and the professional prostitutions to persuade you are right.

CH3CHOFeb. 17, 2014 - 09:36AM JST

Citing that article can’t be the answer to my question.

There’s no any clue the victims who sexually enslaved under the Japanese military were addressed during the fourteen years of treaty negotiations and the sex slavery issue was included in the scope of claim of treaty. That issue was emerged for the first time in the early 1900s and then Japanese government denied Japanese Imperial government’s involvement in the comfort women issue. It was in 1993 when Japanese government apologized for Japanese military involvement. How can one say the non-issue in the treaty was solved in that treaty?

I wonder how many Japanese people know in 2005, the Korean government disclosed the records of the proceedings of the treaty even though some were not in favor of Korean position and Japan refused to do disclose them. Why? According to Asahi Shimbun, the Foreign Ministry stated reason was that disclosure of the documents in question would put Japan at a disadvantage in future negotiations with South Korea and North Korea.

However, fortunately, the Tokyo District Court ordered the Japanese government to disclose them in 2012. I look forward finding out how the Japanese side negotiated the agreement and if the comfort women was dealt or not.

Next time, I may comment on if the 1965 treaty deprived individual victims of their rights to seek compensation or.

sfjp330Feb. 15, 2014 - 04:54AM JST

Have you read the 1965 treaty? In 1965, South Korea agreed never to make further compensation demands against Japan, either at a government or individual level, after receiving U.S. $800 million. After you finalize the settlement, and receive all the monies as demanded, are you going back to the accuser 40 or 50 years later and say "it's not enough, give more money"?

Can you prove 1965 Korea-Japan treaty covered the compensation for the Korean comfort women coerced by the Imperial Japanese Army? The Japanese government does not even admit the existence of these women. How can you say Japanese government compensated them in the treaty?

J

@ Chamkun

You are misinformed. President Park didn’t say that in front of US senators. She said that in commemorating the March 1st Independence Movement anniversary in Seoul. She exactly said "The historical position of perpetrators and victims will remain unchanged even after a thousand years have passed.(가해자와 피해자라는 역사적 입장은 천년의 역사가 흘러도 변할 수 없는 것입니다. )“ She said the truth like the Earth orbits the Sun.

Now, it’s proved CH3CHO distorted what President Park said.

CH3CHOFeb. 12, 2014 - 01:43PM JST

I think you didn’t answer to the question “are you saying that Japan did nothing to make Koreans angry?” Instead, you gave a wrong lecture on “Han” which is being maliciously used by the Japanese right-wingers in Korea-bashing.

Recently, Korean President Ms. Pak made a speech that the Korean han against Japan will continue more than 1000 years.

As far as I know, President Park had never made such a statement. Please show your source.

UpgrayeddFeb. 13, 2014 - 04:00PM JST

There was a dispute on the ownership of the island before 1905.

Which island is in your mind? You must be confused with Ulleongdo. Yes, there was a dispute on Ulleongdo because the Japanese trespassed on Ulleongdo for the illegal lumbering and fishing under the protection of Japanese government. There was no dispute on Dokdo at that time, however, Japanese illegal incorporation of Dokdo was the result of Japanese invasion of Ulleongdo because Japanese illegal passage to Ulloengdo was followed by their use of Dokdo.

South Korea could have brought the issue up in international court and both sides could have argued their points in front of impartial mediators and judges.

I wonder where you heard such a made-up story. The Japanese government did not inquire Korean government about the ownership of Dokdo, nor notify its incorporation of Dokdo afterwards. Besides, The Japanese government did not announce its incorporation of Dokdo in the official gazette, nor make a public announcement on the central government level. Why did Japanese government incorporate Dokdo in a clandestine manner if they were honest? Korea learned of the Japan’s incorporation one year later in 1906 from the Japanese officials from Shimane Prefecture who unexpected visited Ulleongdo. Uldo Governor reported Dokdo belonging his county became Japanese land to the Korean central government and Korean government issued an order to investigate the situation, however no further action was taken because Japan already deprived Korea of diplomatic right.

Yes, Japanese false claim over Dokdo is definitely the main and serious obstacle to the relations of Korea and Japan. Yes, recent Japanese government’s instruction to teach the Japanese young generation Dokdo belongs to Japan is the example of its refuse to shed its imperialist past.

Fox Cloud LeleanFeb. 13, 2014 - 11:19AM JST

Really? Are you kidding me South Korea? You invade Takeshima by force, and then slag off Japan, accusing their rightful claim as a refusal to shed it's imperial past?

I’m curious what made you believe South Korea invaded Takeshima by force. Dokdo was the land belonging to Korea until Japan took it on the false ground that it had no owner in 1905 in spite of Japanese evidence Dokdo belonged to Korea. Wan’t it a justice Japan had to return the land Imperial Japan took by force or greed according to the Terms for Surrender Japan signed in 1945?

nigelboyFeb. 12, 2014 - 11:41PM JST

And of course, there are documents/reports issued by Allieds when IJA surrendered which includes shocking documents. For instance,

You missed the most shocking part of Report No. 49 :

" Early in May of 1942 Japanese agents arrived in Korea for the purpose of enlisting Korean girls for "comfort service" in newly conquered Japanese territories in Southeast Asia. The nature of this "service" was not specified but it was assumed to be work connected with visiting the wounded in hospitals, rolling bandages, and generally making the soldiers happy. The inducement used by these agents was plenty of money, an opportunity to pay off the family debts, easy work, and the prospect of a new life in a new land, Singapore. On the basis of these false representations many girls enlisted for overseas duty and were rewarded with an advance of a few hundred yen."

tinawatanabeFeb. 09, 2014 - 02:43PM JST

@Suin Kim What were the internal matters you were talking about then?

Why do some Japanese bringing up the Korean brothels for American GIs which Japan also had or some misinformation about Korean War in the discussion of wartime sex slaves by the Imperial Japanese Army? Do they think they can excuse, minimize or justify the Imperial Japanese aggression and crimes if they highlight dark side of Korean internal matters?

Nanao TasakaFeb. 09, 2014 - 01:00AM JST

During the war, the Korean people were Japanese citizens, and were willing and able participants in the Japanese Empire. South Korea at the time, position is exactly the same as Austria It is after the war that they decided that they were victims, and switched roles. were these women indeed slaves?

It’s one of the Japanese right-wingers’ malicious attempt to justify and downplay Imperial Japan’s aggression done to Korea. Have you ever read the Statement by Prime Minister Naoto Kan ? Your right-wing logic contradicts your government’s official position made by the honest Japanese politicians. Prime Minister Naoto Kan stated in 2010 as follows:

“ This year marks a significant juncture for the Japan-Republic of Korea relationship.

In August precisely one hundred years ago, the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty was concluded, making the beginning of the colonial rule of thirty six years. As demonstrated by strong resistance such as the Samil independence movement, the Korean people of that time was deprived of their country and culture, and their ethnic pride was deeply scarred by the colonial rule which was imposed against their will under the political and military circumstances.

I would like to face history with sincerity. I would like to have courage to squarely confront the facts of history and humility to accept them, as well as to be honest to reflect upon the errors of our own. Those who render pain tend to forget it while those who suffered cannot forget it easily. To the tremendous damage and sufferings that this colonial rule caused, I express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and my heartfelt apology.“

http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/statement/201008/10danwa_e.html

tinawatanabeFeb. 09, 2014 - 11:23AM JST

It's you who said that, I copy for you

You must haven’t read my comment carefully. Or you intentionally distorts what I said.

black_jackFeb. 05, 2014 - 09:31AM JST

There is no evidence that those women were kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery by the imperial army.

The following is from Kono Statement of 1993.

"As a result of the study which indicates that comfort stations were operated in extensive areas for long periods, it is apparent that there existed a great number of comfort women. Comfort stations were operated in response to the request of the military authorities of the day. The then Japanese military was, directly or indirectly, involved in the establishment and management of the comfort stations and the transfer of comfort women. The recruitment of the comfort women was conducted mainly by private recruiters who acted in response to the request of the military. The Government study has revealed that in many cases they were recruited against their own will, through coaxing coercion, etc., and that, at times, administrative/military personnel directly took part in the recruitments. They lived in misery at comfort stations under a coercive atmosphere."

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/women/fund/state9308.html

Even the US military reported that those women were paid prostitutes serving soldiers.

You intentionally ignored the main part of the report saying as follows:

" Early in May of 1942 Japanese agents arrived in Korea for the purpose of enlisting Korean girls for "comfort service" in newly conquered Japanese territories in Southeast Asia. The nature of this "service" was not specified but it was assumed to be work connected with visiting the wounded in hospitals, rolling bandages, and generally making the soldiers happy. The inducement used by these agents was plenty of money, an opportunity to pay off the family debts, easy work, and the prospect of a new life in a new land, Singapore. On the basis of these false representations many girls enlisted for overseas duty and were rewarded with an advance of a few hundred yen."

It's well reported how the Japanese induced the girls. That’s what the Japanese right wingers should keep in mind.

tinawatanabeFeb. 05, 2014 - 12:18PM JST

It is Koreans who maliciously use Korean internal matters to critisize Japan all over the world. Exhibit at French comic book festival? And what is your point of spreading your internal matters to the world for decades?

Comfort women issue is not Korean internal matter. I think more and more people would be enlightened about what the Imperial Japan did and how the Japanese right wingers try to justify and downplay it for their own sake.

I‘m sick of Japanese right-wingers who maliciously use Korean internal matters to justify and downplay Imperial Japan’s aggression done to Korea.

Masaki MiyamotoFeb. 04, 2014 - 08:13PM JST

Sexslave was present in the Korean War. Instruction manual Korean President signed there as evidence. http://img03.ti-da.net/usr/r/y/o/ryotaroneko/l_2013110601000847800059791.jpg

What is the relation Imperial Japan’s sex slaves and the picture you linked? You should explain how those prostitutes were sex slaves and show any evidence they were kidnapped and forced to be sex slaves and Korean government was involved.

JoeBigsFeb. 03, 2014 - 04:12PM JST

But, these Comfort Women weren't forced by Japanese Forces or the Korean's working for the JIA. No, my dear fellow beings, these Comfort Women were brought to work by the South Korean government itself! Oh, say it isn't so batman, say it isn't so!!! Korean government abusing Korean women and using them as sex-slaves?

Those Korean women were not sex slaves. They were professional prostitutes for GIAs. They have nothing to do with the sex slaves who were kidnapped and forced by the Imperial Japanese Army. What do you think about “特殊慰安施設協会(Special Comfort Facility Association)? Do you call those Japanese prostitutes sex slaves? Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreation_and_Amusement_Association . You can read “These representatives then met with the police on the 21st where they were formally asked to establish "comfort facilities", but to conceal the government's role as much as possible.”

JoeBigsJan. 30, 2014 - 10:53AM JST

After the San Francisco treaty meeting it was decided that Takashima was in fact sovereign Japan territory.

Please show any evidence showing Takeshima became Japanese territory in SF Treaty. Japanese government misleads that U.S. support for Japanese claim over Dokdo /Takeshima is the final decision of the Allied Powers in SF Treaty. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles said in 1953 that U.S. view on Dokdo/Takeshima was simply that of one of many signatories to treaty.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TR9lDoSWylMFhfDpgcbmp7uxJGjWLe5aa0Cn45_9dU8/edit

John Foster Dulles also said gave an answer to "What is the territory of Japanese sovereignty?" He said as follows:

"The Potsdam Surrender Terms constitute the only definition of peace terms to which, and by which, Japan and the Allied Powers as a whole are bound."

<www.ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~worldjpn/documents/texts/JPUS/19510905.S1E.html>

Most Japanese don't know the Allied Powers of SF Treaty agreed to return Dokdo to Korea during drafting process of SF Treaty.

“The Allied and Associated Powers agree that there shall be transferred in full sovereignty to the Republic of Korea all rights and titles to the Korean Mainland territory and all offshore Korean islands, including ..... Liancourt Rocks(Takeshima)....”

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UTHnxaMLM-w/UoTGsZSRfSI/AAAAAAAAE2M/I4yeDqBU0bw/s1600/%EC%97%B0%ED%95%A9%EA%B5%AD%ED%95%A9%EC%9D%98%EC%84%9C(7%EC%B0%A8%EC%B4%88%EC%95%881949+12+19)1.jpg

slump

So, you are saying-- you should only defend yourself in court if you think there is a chance you'll lose??? And, if you're 100% sure you'll win, you will refuse to defend yourself in court???You go to court to end disputes. Korea obviously doesn't want it to end.

No. I didn’t say that. If I’m 100% sure about my property, I don’t need to go to the court to ask the judge to decide if mine is mine or not. Asking the Judge is like I’m not sure if it’s mine.

If you think going to ICJ is the means to end disputes, why do you think Japan doesn’t try to take Senkaku/Diaoyu issue to ICJ ? Is Japan waiting for China to ask Japan to go? The territorial dispute between China and Japan looks very serious to the extend Mr. Abe compares the situation between China and Japan with that between Britain and Germany before 1914. Going to ICJ would be a great solution to end such dangerous situation involving territorial conflict with China.

Under ICJ rules, both nations must agree to take a contested case to the ICJ before the court takes any action. It’s Korean decision to go to ICJ or not. As long as Korea doesn’t feel any need to go to ICJ with Dokdo, legally there’s nothing wrong with Korean government’s decision not going to ICJ.

I heard Mr. Abe is reviewing to bring Takeshima issue to ICJ. I look forward seeing he does it. I’ll see how he makes lies toward the international community.

Why Won't the Koreans Take Up Japan´s Offer to Bring the Dokdo Issue before the ICJ? < http://dokdo-research.com/page10.html >

Okay, I'm done with replying here... maybe some other time.

I’m sorry I can’t hear from you about previous Japanese official documents saying Dokdo is not Japanese land and your honest translation as well.

SchopenhauerJan. 29, 2014 - 09:32AM JST

What are the school text books of theirs which imbue students with hatred to Japan?

Do you have evidence Korean school text books are imbued with hatred to Japan?

slumpFeb. 01, 2014 - 02:39AM JST

Yes. it’s a simply clear-cut fact Dokdo is Korean land. I showed the evidence you asked, then you should argue about them if you think they are wrong. In debating with Japanese over Dokdo/Takeshima issue, their typical behavior is asking the evidence first, refuting with Japan’s shabby logic next and then playing the last card of ICJ when they can’t refute anymore. The Japanese historian teachers would do the same. The Japanese don’t know exactly why Dokdo is Japanese land.

Korea has no any legal and moral obligation to accept Japan’s ICJ card. Japanese simply ask to go to ICJ without the clear-cut evidence Dokdo is Japanese land , while Korea doesn’t want to go to ICJ because there’s clear-cut evidence Dokdo is inherent part of Korea. Why should Korea accept Japan’s proposal based on the falsehood? Will you accept the thief’s proposal to go to the court if he claims yours is his? If you are dubious about your ownership, you should go.

Koreans have been peaceful with Dokdo. If Japan wants peace with Korea, please stop provocations over Dokdo.

Takeshima does not belong to Inaba Province or Hoki Provnce."

There are evidence Japanese government is trying to teach their young generation lies.

In 1696, Tottori Han said " Takeshima(Japanese old name for Ulleongdo) does not belong to Inaba Province or Hoki Provnceand( (一竹島は、因幡・伯耆に附属してはおりません。)" and "they were heard Matsushima(=Dokdo) doesn’t belong to any province of Japan( (松島は、何れかの国に附属する島ではないと聞いています。)" .http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/12/matsushimapresent-takeshima-doesnt.html

In 1870, Meijo Govenment ordered the officials of Ministry of Foreign Affairs to investigate how Ulleongdo and Dokdo became Korean land. http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/04/hos-takeshimaulleongdo-and.html

In 1877, Meiji Government ordered the Japanese to remember Japan has nothing to do with Ulleongdo and Dokdo . http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2013/01/japan-has-nothing-to-do-with-ulleongdo.html

There are more evidence Dokdo can’t be Japanese land.

slump Jan. 31, 2014 - 10:17AM JST

Every document translated by Korean "historians" substitutes a variant of the name 'Usando' liberally into 'Dokdo'. There is usually no disclaimer to that fact. Why is that?

You are wrong. It’s the Japanese who distort Korean every Usando in Korean old documents to deny Usando is Korean old name for Dokdo. It’s true there were confusions and flaws in ancient Korean perceptions on Usando, but some documents clearly describe Usando as today’s Dokdo.

Can you argue what Usando in “Annals of King Sejong” is ? The Japanese distort the said text by wrongly interpreting Usando and Ulleongdo could be seen from Uljin village, thus Usando indicates Jukdo. Jukdo is not seen from Uljin. The Japanese just omit “ They just omit the word “相去” meaning “each other”.

Can you argue “Dongguk Munheon Bigo (1770)" and "Mangi Yoram (1808)" recording ”According to "Yeojiji" , both Ullung and Usan are the land of Usanguk. Usan is the so-called Japanese (calling) Matsushima.“? Matsushima is Japanese traditional name for Dokdo.

How about Ahn Yong-bok’s statement of 1696 “Matsushima(Japanese old name for Dokdo) is the island called Jasan(=Usan) in the same province of (Korean) Gangwondo.(松島は同道の内子山と申す島御座候)” and Japanese document "Inabajshi"(因幡誌) proves Ahn's Jasan(Usan) is Japan is calling Matsushima. (山嶋（日本ニテ松嶋ト呼）是ナリ)? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BvBg6H8SXTI/UQd2m9fO2MI/AAAAAAAAEI8/FRm3IZTfSBY/s1600/%EC%9D%B4%EB%82%98%EB%B0%94%EC%A7%80+18--+%EC%9A%B0%EC%82%B0%EB%8F%84.jpg

What do you think is Usando Jang Ji-Yeon’s description Usando is in southeast of Ulluengdo in 1907?

The following is the Japanese official from Ministry of Home Affairs Tanabe Dauchi ‘s view on Usando when the development of Ulleongdo was discussed in 1876-77. . “I have heard that "Matsushima," was named by us (the Japanese), but the actual name is "Usan“ belonging to Chosun's Ulleungdo. (聞ク松島ハ我邦人ノ命ゼル名ニシテ其実ハ朝鮮蔚陵島ニ属スル于山ナリ)" ........To dispatch someone to inspect without any reason is like counting another's treasure, and trespassing into a neighbor's territory(今故なく人を遣てこれを巡視せしむ　之れ他人の宝を数ふといふ　況んや隣境を侵越するに類するをや　).” http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/2a343tan1649-1881/49.jpg

He objected the petition by Mutoh who misunderstood Ulleongdo as “Matsushima” and wanted to develop it by saying “Matsushima” was actually Usan belonging to Korean Ulleongdo. In 1877, Meiji Government concluded Japan had nothing to do with Ulleongdo and another island(=Dokdo). Meiji Government’s conclusion coincides with Tanabe Dauchi’s opinion.

How can the Japanese teachers teach these evidence to their students? It’s obvious the Japanese teachers can’t justify Japan’s claim over Dokdo without lies and contradictions.

Mitch CohenJan. 29, 2014 - 05:25AM JST

Japan claims that Korea did not know about Takeshima, although this holds little water as Takeshima can clearly be seen from the undisputed Korean island of Ulleungdo.

Right. “Annals of King Sejong(1454)” says Dokdo and Ulleongdo are on a clear windy day. Dokdo is the only island can be seen from Ulloengdo on a clear windy day. Ulleongdo can be seen from Dokdo, too. http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2013/10/japans-false-claim-on-dokdo-takeshima.html

Nakai Yozabur who was the main figure in Japan’s illegal incorporation of Dokdoin of 1905 said he thought Dokdo was Korean land and wanted Korea to lease Dokdo to him for his monopoly sea lion business in Dokdo. The three Japanese bureaucrats led him to believe Dokdo was ownerless and coaxed him to submit the petition to incorporate Dokdo into Japanese land. http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2013/02/japanese-incorporation-of-dokdo-in-1905.html

How can the Japanese teachers teach their students those facts?

Japan claims that Takeshima is inherent part of Japan and Japan incorporated it because there were no traces of occupation by any other countries. How can the Japanese teachers make the Japanese children understand this contradiction?

The operative term is "by any other countries". Hence there are no "lies" to speak of.

No, it was definitely a lie. Japan had many traces of occupation by Korea. Let alone Tottori Han’s answer(1696), the report of Ministry of Foreign Affairs officiers (1870) and Dajokan Order, the Home Ministry authorities implied in 1904 that Dokdo was suspected to be Korean land and rejected Nakai Yozaburo’s petition to incorporate Dokdo into Japanese land and lease it to him.

"“The gains would be extremely small while the situation would become grave if the acquistition of a barren islet suspected of being Korean territory at this point of time would amplify the suspicions of various foreign countries that Japan has an ambition to annex Korea.” (此時局ニ際シ(日露開戰中) 韓國領地ノ疑アル莫荒タル一箇不毛ノ岩礁ヲ收メテ環視ノ諸外國ニ我國ガ韓國倂呑ノ野心アルコトノ疑ヲ大ナラシムルハ利益ノ極メテ小ナルニ反シテ事體決シテ容易ナラズトヲ) "

Refer to Prof. Kazuo Hori‘s article “Japan’s Incorporation of Takeshima Into Its Territory in 1905” < http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/Kazuo-Hori-Dokdo.pdf>

And it's irrelevant since the inquiry of 1724 which comes later contradicts it by the same Tottori Clan. "隠州之内、　松嶋と云“

"隠州之内、　松嶋と云“ doesn’t correspond with Dajokan’s order to remember Japan has nothing to do with another island(Dokdo). You should trust what complies with what Japan’s highest authority of Meiji Government said.

I see two islands right ne Ulluengdo. And the map also has Takeshima/Dokdo with TWO sister islands, hardly 一島 isn't it?

You try to mislead 一島 means one island, thus it can’t be Dokdo because Dokdo consists of two islands. Stick to the historical evidence. You can find 外一島 with two islands, Dokdo in the attache map.

It's the legal definition of "terra nullius".

Yes. It's the legal definition of "terra nullius" meaning "land belonging to no one". The ground of Japanese Cabinet Decision to incorporate Dokdo was that there were no traces of occupation by any other countries. If Japan’s Cabinet in 1905 was right, the current Japan’s claim that Dokdo/Takeshima is an inherent part of Japan is a lie. If Japan’s claim that Dokdo/Takeshima is an inherent part of Japan is true, Japan’s Cabinet of 1905 lied. The truth is both assertions are false.

And it's irrelevant since the inquiry of 1724 which comes later contradicts it by the same Tottori Clan. "隠州之内、　松嶋と云“

Tottori Han'a reply that Dokdo doesn't belong to any province of Japan correspond with Meiji government’s recognition that Dokdo is Korean land.

There is no proof that 外一島 is the current Takeshima/Dokdo.

There’s no room for any doubt 外一島 is Dokdo/Takeshima because the attached document explains 外一島 is Dokdo and the attached map shows Dokdo as 外一島

You contradict yourself. If you believe "隱州視聽合紀" stated Dokdo was within Japan, you can‘t say Dokdo was terra nullius.

If Japan claims Japan incorporated Dokdo because it was terra nullius, Japan should drop its claim is Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan. But Japan claims both at the same time. How contradictory Japan’s claim to Dokdo is! A contradictory claim means a false claim.

Matsue Han ≠ Tottori Han. I thought I made this clear.

I explained what Tottori Han'a reply that Dokdo doesn't belong to any province of Japan means.

The 1870 and 1877 was in regards to Ulluengdo and possibily Arogaut but definitely not the current Takeshima for Dajokan based their information from maps such as these.

You are completely misleading. Meiji Governement didn’t order to investigate how Ulleongdoa and a ghost island “Argonaut” became Korean land in 1870. And Meiji government didn’t order to remember Japan had nothing to do with Ulleongdo and a phantom island Argonaut. It’s silly to say Japan’s Meiji government recorded on the non-existent island in its official documents. You don't need to bring that unrelated map to Dajokan Order. Dajokan Order was based on its attached map.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Td-67n0jiYXp7aQO-a3mBP3Qkpx31c3IIlsGjEzVYWDYf0n2h7vG2XOYyqm0fM8NQ_5sti2m9JGJO1Q63LTtdjrhByJGelQhYrGbptbJJe0G2MpkuM-d_buh

.

If your argument that “隱州視聽合紀” said Dokdo was within Japan can’t found in Japan’s Takeshima site, it means it’s already defeated and it’s against Japan’s false claim Takeshima is an inherent part of Japan.

Korea has not a single document to even describe the current Takeshima/Dokdo by their own government at that time.

Wrong. “Samguksaki(History of the Three Kingdoms)” written in 1145 A.D. records that Usanguk(Usan Country) became part of (Korean) Shilla Dynasty in 512 A.D. and “Annals of King Sejong” published in 1454 confirms Usando( Korean old name for Dokdo) is included in Usan Country. “Annals of King Sejong” states :

“Usan and Muleung are two islands in the due east sea of (Uljin) hyeon and these two islands are not far from each other and are visible on a clear windy day. They were called Usanguk or Ulleongdo during the Shilla Dynasty.”

I said the furtherest border was Ulluengdo based on those statements. What is that you are questioning?

I asked “If you say "隱州視聽合紀" included Dokdo as Japan’s land, how can you explain the other historical facts such as Tottri Han’s reply to Bakufu’s inquiry(1696), Meiji Government’s order(1870) to investigate how Dokdo became Japanese land and Dajokan Order(1877) to remember Japan has nothing to do with Dokdo?”

The document cites what surrounding islands consist within North, East, South, West of Oki island. Therefore, the border in the sentence above indicates Ulluengdo (竹島）as the border.

The statement from "隱州視聽合紀" is not favorable to Japan’s claim to Dokdo at all as I defeated before. It’s just the opposite. Saito Hosen said the northwest boundary of Japan was Oki. If your argument is so strong, why can’t we see it in the Japan’s official propaganda site of Takeshima?

If you say "隱州視聽合紀" included Dokdo as Japan’s land, how can you explain the other facts I mentioned previously? As I always say, Japan’s claim to Dokdo is full of contradiction.