The Japanese government on Friday approved its annual defense white paper which defines Dokdo, a set of rocky Korean islets in the East Sea, as part of Japanese territory, raising tension less than a month after the two countries held a summit, South Korean diplomats here said, according to Yonhap News.
Officials at the South Korean embassy in Tokyo said that the 2009 Japanese defense white paper endorsed by the Japanese cabinet contains the same expressions on Dokdo as the 2008 document.
As good a time as any to bring up this video from Beijing last summer that I just saw yesterday on TV. It's from the popular show 무한도전 (Infinite Challenge), and is a compilation of dozens of foreigners singing bits of the Korean song "독도는우리땅" ("Dokdo is our land.")
Sneaky, I wonder if they knew what they were signing up for. As easy as it is to snicker at the Dokdo obsession on this side of the Sea of Japan, it is really irresponsible and immature for Japan to continue to lay claim to the rocks like this, knowing that doing so provokes such an angry response over here. If Japan is so confident in its claims to the rocks, why doesn't it submit a case to the United Nations or Hague Tribunal?
Posts
23 comments:
I just think it's really funny. God bless East Asian hyper-nationalism.
When is Jeff Probst gonna host Survivor: Liancourt Rocks, and have two tribes, one from Japan, one from Korea.
The winner's nation gets to claim it.
It's either that or 가위 바위 보 ㅋㅋ
Since the 1960's, the Japanese government has repeatedly requested that the dispute be taken before the International Court of Justice.
South Korea would also have to consent for the case to go to the Hague, and they refuse.
It would be political suicide for any Japanese administration to submit a claim to the International Court of Justice Judicial arm of the UN in the Hague), same for any Korean admin. The risk of defeat makes this a certainty.
Anyway, Korea is in poessesion of the rocks. In my boks, that is why Dokdo belongs to Korea.
Two #!%$$ covered rocks... who gives a damn... really...
My guess is that Japanese conservatives need to rally the public, and they do this by pushing the ugly buttons of the Koreans. Japan's prime minister has called for an early election, their conservative party is taking a pretty big hit. If you watch their politics, antagonizing Korean nationalism has been a tried-and-true method used by the conservatives to win votes.
If Koreans would simply not react emotionally, rather respond calmly and logically, that little ploy by the Japanese conservatives would fall flat and they would have to use some other ploy to win votes.
@Ryan Freer
Possession still does not mean ownership. Sigh.
Whether its suicide or not, Japan has manned up and offered to do this legally through court. Korea is the one acting like a child. I have lost all sympathy for Koreans in this matter.
@Nirguna
Because, as one of the greatest geniuses of our time put it:
"When I was six years old my father said to me... 'Son, stocks may rise and fall, utilities and transportation systems may collapse. People are no damn good, but they will always need land and they'll pay through the nose to get it! Remember,' my father said... 'Land.'"
Gillian:
This white paper is not a sign of a new policy or any new plan. It is merely the work of bureaucrats including a line in a report that restates the same policy position Japan has had for decades. It's nothing special: just a sentence buried inside a big report. The Japanese media didn't even report on it until Koreans started complaining about it.
The number of voters who care about this issue is tiny, and it really wouldn't make sense to use this issue as a pre-election rallying point.
The opposition party has plenty of conservative members who visit Yasukuni and stand by the official government position on this issue. Don't expect any change over this once they take power.
The cynic in me thinks the Japanese do it because they know the Koreans will act up over it and make fools of themselves.
@J
Didn't know that about the International Court though. I think the Koreans should settle the thing there. By refusing to go they are nullifying their own nationalism: if they are so sure they are in the right then what are they afraid of?
Korea have more to lose than Japan if this case will be brought to the International Court of Justice. For one, they are already in possession of the rocks (at least for now). If the court decides, that the rightful owner is Korea, then Japan lost nothing, other than the effort to try.
arvinsign, you're right. But I was asking why Japan didn't just make its case to those international bodies. But like "J" wrote in an earlier comment:
"South Korea would also have to consent for the case to go to the Hague, and they refuse."
So I guess that clears it up.
Im not sure whether Korea really did refuse to bring this case to the Hague. This is the first time i heard of such.
For one, im also not sure why Japan needs the consent of Korea to bring this matter to the International Court? Any clarifications on this?
Submit the Dokdo issue to the Hague? You mean the same Hague that gave Japan “consent” to colonize Korea in the early 1900s? Fat chance. The ICJ doesn’t have the authority to enforce a verdict anyway. International solvents can only suggest a resolution which wouldn’t appease both sides, so why bother?
Take a look at a map of the area, the current 12 mile limit around Dokdo is as fair a boundary as one could want.
Current-boundary
@ steven b
Its hard to believe that reference you posted. It was written by a Korean so its not neutral. All the arguments there points to Korea as the rightful owner and Japan as the aggressive one. So we are making ourselves fools by using that as a reference in any argument concerning Dokdo-Takeshima. Im not saying the informations are wrong, its just that there are so many references (other than those written by a Korean or Japanese fanatic) all around the internet and local libraries that would give us a better (and fair) picture.
Steve B:
"Submit the Dokdo issue to the Hague? You mean the same Hague that gave Japan “consent” to colonize Korea in the early 1900s? Fat chance."
Yes, because the international court of justice is located in the same city as the international conference that ignored Koreans in the early 1900's, it is the same. Such utterly stupid arguments may work on the "kill jap" websites you frequent, but it won't work on the sane readers of this blog.
If the evidence is so plainly in Korea's favor (as your propaganda website argues), it shouldn't be hard to get a favorable judgment from an international organization made up of non-Koreans and non-Japanese.
J if you are saying I frequent a forum called "killjap" you can kindly go pound salt up your *ss. Put your money where your big mouth is before you make wild accusations. If you are referring to the lame mudslinging by Gerry Bevers and his creepy anonymous Japanese lobbyists you're gonna have to do better than that, because I'm calling bullshit on you.
The Dokdo Island issue is not just an island dispute. It is a border dispute. Korea has the right to be front row center during the decision process that will ultimately determine her national eastern limit. No country (Korea or otherwise) should ever allow a foreign organization to dictate her territorial boundaries. This is a bilateral problem, and Japan's incessant blubbering does not create an international dispute.
Dokdo Island has been territorialized, which I think is wrong. Dokdo should not be used as a criterion for determining the boundary between Japan and Korea. Unfortunately Dokdo is being used as a pawn by Japan to attempt to seize more ocean resources. Recently it seems Korea may be attempting to also use Dokdo in the same manner. Whether Korea is serious in these claims, or they are posturing for a compromise, I don't know. What is clear, is that Japan opened this can of worms and it may blow up in her face.
Looking at the geographical locations of Japanese Korean mainland and outlying islands. If Dokdo is indeed used as a basis for determining the boundary between Japan and Korea, the only equitable solution would be to maintain the current 12 mile limit imposed by the ROK.
If Japan's territory is allowed to extend West of Dokdo, Korea's fishing communities on Ulleungdo (Dodong, Jeodong, Sadong, and Hyeonpo) would only have 45kms of water to fish, while Japan's Oki Islands would gain 205kms. How fair is that?
J, if you have trouble understanding the concept of "half for me and half for you", I feel sorry for you.
I wish that non-Koreans and non-Japanese refer to the islets as Liancourt Rocks (or Hornet Rocks) to maintain our neutrality in this matter. Calling them "Dokdo" or "Takeshima" just plays into the hands of either party. I personally give a rat's fat ass who owns those rocks.
I hate when countries with a national sense of low self-esteem try to bring "foreigners" into their disputes. It is interesting that some Koreans like foreigners only when it is convenient for them and in this case helping them make their inane and pitiful claim for a useless pile of rocks. Any other time (when they are not trying to get us to accept their claims) they spend their time maligning us and treating us like disease-ridden drug-induced sex maniacs. Only if they could see that we would be more sympathetic towards their claims if they got rid of their disdain for us foreigners.
Several months ago a student of mine asked what I thought about "Dokdo" and I said that officially they are called Liancourt Rocks by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names. As an American, I told my students that Japan is our ally just as South Korea is our ally and friends (ideally) do not pick sides in a dispute between equally valued friends. The students were satisfied with that.
Again, who gives a flyin' (expletive) about a pile of rocks?
With past instances of ICJ verdicts simply being ignored when it goes against them what makes people think that taking the case to the ICJ would be the end-all to this idiotic dispute?
The only thing I agree with is that the US and everyone else needs to stay out of this dispute.
"With past instances of ICJ verdicts simply being ignored when it goes against them what makes people think that taking the case to the ICJ would be the end-all to this idiotic dispute?"
-- Unless we have sufficient statistical evidence that the powers of the ICJ is futile, and its existence non-sense i still agree that they (ICJ) can help a lot to mediate this issue. Not necessarily end this dispute for good, but at least provide some measures to prevent this from escalating. We should focus on its achievements in settling disputes rather than its short comings.
I can also argue that bilateral talks without the intervention of the ICJ or any country for example will not also guarantee a solution (especially if they dont agree with the conditions and terms), so why not try it with an international mediator instead?
Keith, as I’ve said, the Dokdo problem is more about the territory surrounding the rocks and Japan’s motives for her 1905 annexation than the islets themselves. Thus, when foreigners scoff at Japanese for fighting over “those damn rocks” it really shows they have no knowledge about the history or the importance of the dispute.
The foreign name for Dokdo “Liancourt Rocks” came about in 1849 however Koreans and Japanese were aware of the islets for centuries before. Don’t you think is arrogant for Westerners to insist we use their designated names for the geographical features of Asian countries. What if China started printing maps of America and altered the names of U.S. islands?
Arvinsign, during post WWII while the Allies mulled over the fate of former “Japanese” territories Korea sat on the sidelines while Japan lobbied for Ulleungdo and Dokdo. In secret meetings, the U.S. arranged joint trusteeships with the Japanese for some of “Japan’s” islands such as Okinawa etc. Dokdo was one of the islets America wanted to install military systems on. In other words, the whole process was tainted by back door dealing. The Japan Peace Treaty was meant to be just that, however the U.S. twisted into something entirely different.
The ICJ as with any international agency is open to corruption, double dealing and lobbying. Anyone who says otherwise is naïve or just plain stupid. Japan as the worlds #2 economy carries much more influence and would put Korea at a disadvantage. Could the ICJ be unbiased? Maybe, but why should Korea risk losing an island and 200 clicks of prime ocean real estate, only to find out the ICJ is crooked as a dog’s hind leg?
There is another issue at stake here. The whole idea of territorial acquisitions in the 19th Century is on trial here. The rules which 19th Century colonial nations such as Britian, France, Spain and Japan are still being applied to 21st Century territorial disputes. This is bullshit. What concept of “modern international law” did Aboriginal Austrailians, Native Americans, Hokkaido islanders and for that matter backward Chosun Korea have in the early 1900s?
As long as the West continues to use archaic “laws” of territorial land acquisitions former colonies will be reluctant to submit their cases to the ICJ. And they should. Border disputes should be settled on modern law using just principles such as “non-encroachment” and equal distribution of territory.
As I’ve said numerous times here, we currently have a fair border between Japan and Korea with the 12 nautical mile set by the Koreans. This is the same border proposed by the United Kingdom and Australia during post WWII Japan Peace talks. It was also agreed upon numerous times in early drafts of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The current border was not a draconian land grab as Japan insists, it was a solidified boundary already in put in place by the Allies after WWII.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-sf-truth.html
I'm always happy to have celebrity commenters on my site:
http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_dir/2009/06/15/200906150037.asp
steven b, i quite agree with your statement "Don’t you think is arrogant for Westerners to insist we use their designated names for the geographical features of Asian countries". It makes a lot of sense for me.
However this is what worries me
"Arvinsign, during post WWII ....In secret meetings, the U.S. arranged... . In other words, the whole process was tainted by back door dealing. ...The Japan Peace Treaty was meant to be just that, however the U.S. twisted into something entirely different."
When discussing issues of historical importance i prefer history with a solid evidence rather than conspiracy theories. I dont know if there was a basis for this alleged secret meetings, any sort of documented research or scholarly work. I will appreciate it very much if you can link me to any information (neutral and unbiased) relevant to this. Thanks
Hey Brian!
Celebrity?….erm, I dunno about that.
How are things in Suncheon? I’m a Gwangyang man myself, in fact I got married in Chungmadong overlooking the mighty Posco Steelworks.
Arvinsign, one of the objectives of my website, was to present some facts about Dokdo to support Korea by using primary records. The facts (not theories) I’ve stated are supported by original records.
That’s why I gave you the link above. Please read the original files from U.S. Government Archives.
With regard to the Japan Peace Treaty (San Francisco Peace Treaty) Confidential (Secret) records from the U.S. Foreign Affairs Office show us the historical events that drove U.S. policy in her decision making process with regard to the disposition of former Japanese outlying islands.
First America supported Korea’s claim to Dokdo in five drafts of the Japan Peace Treaty.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/SF.jpg
On November 2, 1949 General MacArthur outlined U.S. policy on the disposition of former Japanese outlying islands. MacArthur’s plan was to conduct secret bilateral negotiations about allowing the U.S. and Japan to have joint trusteeships for some of the islands to allow America to install military bases on the strategic locations.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/sf-mac3.jpg
Only, twelve days later, the U.S. (a staunch supporter of Japan William J. Sebald) reversed American policy on Dokdo saying Japan’s claim was valid and that security arrangements could involves radar (military) and weather stations on Dokdo.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/us-radar-takeshima.jpg
When we read the original files from Allied negotiations during the S.F. Peace Treaty, we can clearly see it was America’s posturing for the Cold War with Russia and China that influence U.S. policy on Dokdo. It was not a genuine search for a fair Japan Korea boundary nor a genuine search for the true historical owner of the islets. The Japan Peace Treaty was not meant to be about the disposition of Japanese outlying islands. The U.S. poisoned the S.F. Peace Treaty and then walked away when the contentious issue of disputed territories became too hot to handle.
This is what happens when foreign coutnries meddle in the affairs of other nations. The whole process can become tainted by lobbying and back door deals. Many poorer members of the ICJ could easily be swayed by “special” favors or bribes.
Post a Comment