South Korea has responded to these textbook claims by aiming to teach students about Dokdo at an even younger age---as if Korean children aren't already vocal about the rocks---and by sending on Thursday
a team and two ships to Dokdo for the inspection as a way to further proclaim Korean rule over the islets.
All in addition to the usual demonstrations of disapproval.
The Korea Times' Political Editor Kim Jong-chan has written a piece calling for a Dokdo museum to be built on the rocks or on the larger Ulleung-do. "Proposal For Museum On Dokdo" goes twelve sentences before achieving Godwin's law:
Adolf Hitler engineered the Holocaust that massacred six million Jews. For the past decades, Germans have repented of the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime (1933-1945) and its collaborators.
Japan is different. Japan's school textbooks whitewash the wrongdoings it committed against the peoples of Korea, China and other Asian nations during World War II (1939-1945).
The column meanders in the typically Korean way, giving the author's main idea in the very last sentence with little support in the preceding paragraphs, closing with:
As far as the historical issues are concerned, the ruling camp needs to be assertive and take more effective measures to bolster Korea's rightful sovereignty over Dokdo. Building a history museum on Dokdo or nearby larger Ullung Island will help students and visitors learn more about them.
Bringing up Hitler isn't that uncommon when talking about Japanese Occupation, and comparing Korean tragedies with western ones happens pretty often. And we've seen that writing style before, one that probably makes sense in Korean but is jarring to readers' expectations in English. What's surprising here is that Kim doesn't know such a museum already exists.
The Dokdo Museum (독도박물관) is on Ulleung-do, and it's been there since 1995. I knew about it because I can use Google, and because I've read about some of the "evidence" in the museum being disputed. Gypsy Scholar paid a visit in 2006, and wrote:
My official position is that Dokdo belongs to Korea.
Unofficially, I don't really know, and the museum didn't help me to decide one way or the other because the information was all in Korean ... except for a brochure written in strange English.
But I'm sure things have changed since 2006. The curator introduces the museum:
In this only one territorial museum of Korea, We will find, collect and reaserch all materials about sea of Korea continuously as well as confirm the basement of our theories and arrangement of historical materials to argue against Japan's insistence. And with the result from our efforts, we will do our best to inspire awareness of our territory and nation to our people by exhibition, education, advertisement. Please support us with your heart.
In ulleung with ancient mysteries, Dokdo museum is waiting for your visit. Welcome to Dokdo museum!
Anyway, a museum on Dokdo would be unfeasible because comparatively few people attempt to go there, and even fewer are able to reach the island because of uncooperative weather, though the rocks did see a record number of visitors in 2009. Moreover, because the people visiting the rocks are either Koreans who have agreed with the Korean stance since birth or are foreigners unwittingly dragged along, it's unnecessary to crowd up the tiny rocks with even more development.
35 comments:
I believe you mean "next year will be the 100th anniversary of the first anniversary of his death". :)
Hmm, that's tricky. I'm gonna let mine stand. I think it makes sense. Regardless, we're going to have a month of festivities next March.
To hell with it, let's celebrate both!
Not necessarily, it could also be the first anniversary of the hundredth anniversary. Why not?
Calling for something which already exists to be built... pure madness... like calling for a Korean English language newspaper of high standing and journalistic integrity... there is no need, for we already... oh.
From 4th grade? My students are already learning about Dokdo and I teach 2nd grade.
Look, this is a byproduct of the Korean whitewashing of their past, combined with some of the occupation left over. If they dont have DokDo now, what will they talk of? What will get them excitie?. Ive lived here for a while, and honestly, I dont know what really gets the locals excited, save competitions (against nonkoreans, soccer..srsly..local soccer has hardly any fans, right) and drinking to forget their troubles.
wasnt dokdo a non issue brought up by i seung man to get people off his back for being a plant of MacArthur?
hmm. while I don't have much to add to the dokdo issue for now, Jay presents an interesting question: when DID Dokdo start to become such a big deal?
I'd be interested to read a history of Dokdo blow-ups in the Korean media, and see how the press' handling of Dokdo sovereignty claims has changed over the years.
What’s this guy talking about? You’re right Brain, there already is a Dokdo museum on Ulleungdo in Dodong. There is also a museum for Ulleungdo’s history right beside it.
You can see some of the artifacts here.
Artifacts-on-Ulleungdo
Dokdo became a big deal when greedy Shimane Prefecture (Japan’s answer to Chollanamdo) declared “Takeshima Day” in 2005. However to Koreans it’s been a hot issue here for decades.
Foreigners are unwittingly dragged along? I don’t think so. North Gyeongsan Province offers these tours and treats these people like kings. All they have to do is listen to the obligatory little rant about Dokdo and stick with the tour. The last story I read, they put these “poor foreigners” up in Daeha Resort which is amazing. I stayed in a dank, mouldy minbak that had cats living in the walls.
Roboseyo, Korea’s first newpaper article disputing Japan’s annexation of Dokdo was in 1906 immediately after being informed the Japanese had seized the islets.
Korea-Objects-Japan's-Annexation
Cheers!
Ouch, again with "Brain."
You're right, I probably shouldn't have written "foreigners unwittingly dragged along." In my mind I was thinking about the photo-ops for public school NSETs. In any event, the people visiting Dokdo, and the ones interested in learning about it, are the ones who already agree with Korea's stance. I don't think anybody comes away from a trip to the Dokdo museum comes away being overwhelmed with a convincing argument.
no, ive heard about the b4 the occupation protests, but I dont really believe them. For a few reasons, which I wont argue here, because one things Ive learned here is the word "understand" as in "you dont understand" which means you wont follow me, obey me. so I wont get into that, but I dont believe those articles are real.
When I was studying Korean history, back when Dokdo as an issue wasnt in the papers (it goes and comes), it was mentioned it came from I seung Man, who was fighting the locals for not supporting him, so he did something to distract them.
which makes a good point, when dokdo is brought up, what is the gov't doing so the people arent watching.
i did have an interesting Korean v American situation yesterday. Theres a nice guy at my school, hes just an old conservative Ajeoshii, but hes a good man. He and I were talking about foods. He gave me his bread that came with his lunch, which was nasty, grease soaked, but he was trying to be nice. Then he went on to tell me Koreans dont like bread like westerners (NOT THIS THING, my moms bagels would weep at the site of it!!!! har), and then he asked me which on did I like more, a hamburger or a piece of ddeok he had in his hand. I was dumbfounded, and he was insisitant. Luckily, someone popped in and said it was a difficult question to answer.
and then, i was asked which is more delicious, Korean or American hamburgers?!?!
just made me smile, and a tad envious actually, how anyone can be that simple. must make their lives more happy.
oh well, i just wanted to share that, im off to read these terrible books i got from amazon, damn western thrist for personal knowledge.... :)
Hey Brian, sorry about the typo. It still comes off as somewhat of a compliment don’t you think?
Most foreigners don’t understand the Dokdo problem because they haven’t really studied the issue in detail. Because they lack understanding of the history and long-term implications of the the Dokdo-Takehsima dispute westerners can’t understand why Koreans get all bent out of shape over “these stupid guano-covered rocks…”
The Dokdo museum really does lack English translations and some of the more convincing records that support Korea’s historical title. However I think people are looking for black and white in a dispute with a lot of grey areas. Research into Dokdo’s historical title can only be determined by studying a plethora of maps and records and then arriving at logical conclusions.
I didn’t see any of the more recent maps or documents that those of us who are knowledgeable on the subject are familiar with. A couple of the more convincing records are below.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-takeshima-incident-of-1837.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/professor-hosaka-exhibits-1894-map.html
I went with a tour group sponsored by North Gyeongsan Province and Arirang T.V. It was more of a social event with the press being wined and dined. I went along to do research for my website and when I saw it was just a party, I broke off from their tour and went out on my own, which may have left some offended.
Korea should open up Dokdo more and put lodging so more people can visit there and stay longer. I also think they should have some more permanent residents stay there.
theres some odd things being said in the statement before mine...
i think alot of foreigners, esp the ones who have lived here for a while, understand the dokdo issue very well
i also find when most Korean people use "do u understand" actually means "do u agree" its a hierarcial society after all, not open to debate so much
like i think i said b4, right or wrong, if they went to court and lost the dokdo issue, it would be a disaster here and raise alot of hate for anything not kimchi-based. and of course, we know, everything foreign would be white americans, and thus, it would be become anti american/japanese, whatever. holy shit, would that be a disaster, the whining!!!!!
:)
Jay, I’m not talking about the rudimentary facts about Dokdo here. I can only think of one other white foreigner in Korea who has a general idea about Dokdo and that would be Gerry Bevers.
Unfortunately, Mr Bevers is more interested in raising the hackles of Koreans than doing a balanced research about Dokdo Takeshima. The scope of his “research” in far too narrow.
Beyond that most expats are clueless about the historical facts of Dokdo. Expats in Korea are generally a transient bunch who have more important issues.
Jay, you stated Korea’s before occupation protests about Dokdo weren’t real? This shows right off the bat you haven’t got the facts. The Hwangseong Shinmun and Daehan Maeil Shinbo both objected about Japan’s annexation of Dokdo. This is accepted by both Japanese and Korean academics alike.
Again you can images of the Daehan Maeil Shinbo article on this thread. You can also see the objections voiced by Korean government officials. Primary documents don’t lie.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/korean-objections-to-japans-1905-claim.html
I agree, if the Korean government took the issue to the ICJ it would be political suicide
You know what I hate? People who tell me that "Westerns" or "foreigners" can't understand the Liancourt Rocks issue.
Let me tell you this much, d-t.com: The only reason I know so much about the issue was because of Korea's incessant whining of the issue and how ¾ of my students would bring it up as a topic of conversation daily. So I did A LOT of research and the more I read, the more I felt myself side against Korea on the matter.
Even though I've done all this research on the topic, more so than 90% of the people I know, simply because I don't side with Korea, I "obviously don't understand" and need to "please understand Korean culture more."
This argument isn't an argument at all: Its a mantra for Koreans. Siding against Korea on Liancourt suddenly makes me anti-Korean, uneducated or unsympathetic. That's not a debate, that's an ultimatum: Either you're with us or against us. You're basically no better than Right wing American extremists. The reaction of Koreans when I express my ideas about the Rocks has pushed me further away from siding with Korea and in fact, makes me far less sympathetic to Korea's plight.
Still, I know propaganda and zealotry when I see it, so I try to divorce myself from people like you and attempt to remain neutral. Until this matter is settled, I call them the Liancourt Rocks and I try to look at both sides of the argument (which is FAR more than I can say about most Koreans).
But CUT YOUR BULLSHIT OUT with bashing non-Koreans and their knowledge (whether copious or non) about the Rocks. It doesn't help your case and just makes you look like an asshole.
Me post, I find the Koreans “whine” usually after the Japanese pull some stunt to get their collective Hanboks in a knot, most recently the schoolbooks fiasco. Japan’s declaration of Takeshima Day ensures at least once a year the Koreans will be pissed off.
I think the insidious manner in which Japan is trying to slowly covet Dokdo makes the Koreans look overzealous. Japan quietly prints data, maps and publishes articles stating Dokdo is theirs. If Korea protests, it makes them look hostile. However, if Korea just sits back and says nothing, it can be construed as tacit approval or lack of objection. Historical this had led to the erosion of sovereignty for Korea over the Dokdo region.
Me post, you’ve done your “research” have you? Exactly where did you source your data? I’d like to know. What wealth of primary historical records did you find and translate to arrive at your conclusion?
I’d really like to know where you sourced your data for this “research” me post. Oh let me guess, you cracked a few government pamphlets, googled “dokdo, takeshima” and then read a few rants from a “takeshima” website
.
This is the scope of your research no doubt.
Me post, where do I “bash” expats. My point is, a read a lot of expat website and I hear the same quotes from people who don’t even have the basic facts. When I call their bluff, I’m surprised how little they know. This is not a generalization, but my observations after many years of discussing this on the net.
You are making strawman arguments here. Nowhere do I say I’m “neutral” on the issue. There is no case, just an examination of all the facts from compiling primary documents.
You don’t side with Korea?
Well, Me Post, please enlighten us as to why Dokdo-Takeshima is NOT Korean. I’d really like to know.
As a foreigner who HAS been to Dokdo and does believe Dokdo is Korean Territory, I find it a bit disparaging that we are cast off as though we are unwittingly dragged there and manipulated by some great and all powerful conspiracy. As a World Historian and student of International Law, I am confused as to what is so confusing about the status of the islands. Japan lost the Second World War. They surrended uncoditionally. As such, they forfeited their rights to all lands they occupied during their period of imperial expansion. The great (and sad) irony is NONE of my Japanese Friends had EVER even heard of these rocks, by any name, until I asked them how they felt about it. It's a non-issue to the younger Japanese Generation - who increasingly realize the disservice their history textbooks have done them.
please enlighten us as to why Dokdo-Takeshima is NOT Korean
Please enlighten us as to why the Liancourt Rocks ARE Korean
ie Rather than put down someone else because you believe their level of research is not up to your standards, put up or shut up and show us what a "real" researcher such as yourself has done to "prove" one side against the other
I suspect the westerners who have gone to Dokdo with an eye to genuinely learning more about the rocks are less common than those who go along because it's part of a school trip, or because it's built into their tour of Korea. Maybe "unwittingly" is wrong . . . but they certainly don't understand the passion most Koreans feel for the rocks, and I'm not sure they'd be comfortable being used as propaganda in an international conflict if they did.
Anyway, I've talked with some Japanese as well (my fiancee is Japanese), and they, too, hadn't heard about the rocks until they came to Korea. You could see that as an ignorance of history, the shortcomings of their textbooks, but you might also see it the Korean side overdoing it. In a generation or so this might not even be an issue . . . oh, of course I know Koreans will continue to "love" Dokdo, but you might have a younger generation of Japanese politicians simply giving the rocks away, or coming to some sort of compromise that allows for both countries the fishing rights or whatever.
Far be it from me to tell Koreans what to care about, but it is ironic of course that students as young as kindergarten are singing Dokdo songs, and middle school students are drawing anti-Japan Dokdo posters, but nobody seems to care about the other "Korean land" where 22+ million people are being held captive. North Korea does require more sophistication than songs about rocks and anti-Japanese propaganda, but you can forgive some westerners for questioning priorities.
Hey Darth, I’ve been compiling data to support Korea’s claim to Dokdo for I’d say around four years now. This means I’ve done my own field research on both Ulleungdo and Dokdo numerous times. I’ve also sourced many of the original records from Japanese Korean historical archives and publications and had them translated when necessary. Some of my information is cited from other writers who are Japanese and Korean professors.
The website I’ve worked on is here. Of course it’s still a work in progress and ultimately will be translated in Korean and Japanese.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/
I think the data I’ve put together gives dokdo-takeshima.com a level of credibility beyond anonymous bloggers who post on cyberspace. As it stands, North Gyeongsan Province’s Dokdo website links to dokdo-takeshima.com. Wikipedia cites the website, and recently Yeongnam University’s Dokdo research website also linked to us.
Darth, if I could summarize the issue of Dokdo’s true historical owner I’d say this.
Historically Dokdo Island did not belong to Korea or Japan. In the eyes of both nations Dokdo belonged to Ulleungdo Island. There is not one historical record of Dokdo separate from Ulleungdo.
Beyond the debate of historical records, from a geographic standpoint it makes no sense whatsoever to whop up a boundary between Ulleungdo and Dokdo given the fact the two are only 87kms apart and the nearest Japanese island about 157kms away.
Beyond the debate of historical records, from a geographic standpoint it makes no sense whatsoever to whop up a boundary between Ulleungdo and Dokdo given the fact the two are only 87kms apart and the nearest Japanese island about 157kms away.
This is an absolutely irrelevant argument as stated.
If you want to discuss distances, do so in terms of how much each country's nautical territory increases/decreases. Discussing territory in terms of relative distances to neighbouring landmasses is childish and takes nothing into account of international historical precedence. The fact that your site LEADS with this argument shows how little you know about territory and land ownership. The second anyone tells me that Liancourt is closer to Korea, I immediately tune them out for being so dumb.
Here's a map for you:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Outre-mer_en.png
Does this mean that Canada, Mexico, Africa, Australia and various Asian countries are all part of France because of their relative relation to French land? Give me a break. Alternately, because some of these islands are so far away, does that mean that they are not really France's? Rather that they are part of whatever country is closer to them? In the real world, that's not how things work.
You want to complain that Japan's claim to Liancourt decreases Korean nautical territory? Fine. But don't claim that Liancourt is Korea's because it's closer to Korea. That's the height of fucking stupid.
This is me posting, thanks for proving my point. Claiming territory because it’s closer is stupid, but that is exactly what Japan did in 1905.
During the Russo~Japanese War of 1904~1905 when Japan claimed Dokdo, Admiral Kimotsuki Kenko of Japan’s Hyrographic Department took a baseline measurement from both mainland Japan and Korea. Upon realizing Dokdo was a few miles closer to Japan than Korea, he decided Japan should annex the islands.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-illegal-1905-annexation-of-dokdo.html
Korea’s Ulleungdo was not factored into the equation at all despite the fact the island is large, inhabitable and even visible from Dokdo. In modern martime law, Ulleungdo can generate an EEZ which extends up to 200 nautical miles. So Japan’s geographic basis for claiming Dokdo is totally out of line with modern maritime law. As you yourself admit, Japan’s claim was stupid.
When we look at historical, political and geographical bases for Japan’s 1905 annexation of Dokdo we begin to understand why Japan should not have the islands. Dokdo cannot be used as a basepoint from which to draw an equitable modern border between Korea and Japan.
At the time Japan annexed Dokdo, modern maritime law for defining territorial limits simply didn’t exist. Today, distance does matter Me Post. Using the laws and circumstances of the colonial era to resolve modern border disputes is a pretty foolish approach.
BTW, nice cussing…
Korea’s Ulleungdo was not factored into the equation at all despite the fact the island is large, inhabitable and even visible from Dokdo.
So Japan’s geographic basis for claiming Dokdo is totally out of line with modern maritime law. As you yourself admit, Japan’s claim was stupid.
So why the fuck are you still backing your point up with the same shitty argument? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Was Japan's claim stupid because it's closer? YES. But yours is fucking dumber because you're still using proximity as a point of contention in one sentence then claiming its a dumb argument if Japan uses it. Double standard much?
Furthermore:
In modern martime law, Ulleungdo can generate an EEZ which extends up to 200 nautical miles. So Japan’s geographic basis for claiming Dokdo is totally out of line with modern maritime law.
Good thing an EEZ means absolutely zero in land ownership, right? I mean, with all your research on the matter, and what with you being Canadian and all, I'm sure that you know that France has territory within Canada by claiming Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon and that the nautical territory (or EEZ) was disputed, but NOT the land ownership. I mean, SURELY you're not being so astronomically dumb that you think just because one country has land that is inside another country's EEZ that that country can no longer claim the land, right?
I mean, you're not that dumb, of course. You've done "research;" more than anyone else, or so you like to say.
Good. I'm glad you're not using EEZ as a legitimate argument since it's completely invalid. I would hate to think I'm forced to debate with a person who can't distinguish the difference between land ownership and EEZ ownership, which are two completely different things and are able to be negotiated between territories as EEZ is generally 200 nautical miles and generally defaults to the most proximate state, but not always and can - and has - been arbitrated by the countries involved, as exampled by Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon.
As a Canadian, you would know this, of course, and would therefore be too smart to use EEZ as any type of legitimate argument to validate Korea's claim on Liancourt, right? Furthermore, I'm sure that as a Canadian, you would be informing people in Korea NOT to be using that as any form of valid argument - which it's not - nor would you have an entire page dedicated to it on any website, seeing as a cursory Google search would be able to smash that argument in, oh, 5 seconds (I'm being generous here).
Good. I'm glad we cleared that up. You were saying?
When we look at historical, political and geographical bases for Japan’s 1905 annexation of Dokdo we begin to understand why Japan should not have the islands.
No we don't. We can disagree with the political and geographical reasons, and that's fine, you're welcome to it, but we cannot say that we should all understand why Japan should not have the islands. That's a lawyer's trick. Especially since:
Using the laws and circumstances of the colonial era to resolve modern border disputes is a pretty foolish approach.
IRONY. There's this website, maybe you've heard of it, called dokdo-takeshima.com. It does nothing but talk about the history of this dispute about the Liancourt Rocks and uses "circumstance of the colonial era" to "resolve a modern border dispute."
Dokdo cannot be used as a basepoint from which to draw an equitable modern border between Korea and Japan.
Um, of course it can. Stop being dumb. If Liancourt is proven to belong to Japan, they'll simply have to negotiate territorial waters. No one in the world is arguing that it has to be "equitable" and I'm sure you were remiss in using that word, right? I mean, territorial water disputes happen all the time, and very often they are not "equitable." They can try to be, and should, but it is not necessary to have "equitable" water especially when one country's land borders another. Proof: North Korea/South Korea, Canada/France, Canada/US, UK/Iceland, etc, etc...
BTW, nice cussing...
Thanks. Nice completely asinine counter-argument. It hasn't been this fucking easy to tear apart an argument since 5th fucking grade.
Nice attempt at covering your arse Mepost. You didn’t know that Japan used a simple baseline measurement from Japan-Korea mainland when the annexed the islets did you? It seems your “research” was a little shabby after all. Otherwise you wouldn’t have put your foot in your mouth.
With regard to distance and land claim I’m not applying a double standard at all. In 1905, Japan used a simple baseline measurement from mainland to annex Dokdo. This in itself is not bad if not for adjacent Ulleungdo Island. All of the geographical attributes of a region are a consideration when resolving territorial boundaries, not just one.
On a related note. Even thought Japan annexed Dokdo a Japan Korea boundary was never even established as all of Korea was currently under Japanese military rule. Korea itself was annexed only a few years later. So really how can we “re-impose” a boundary that never really existed? Even throughout the colonial era Korean fishermen on Ulleungdo fished the waters surrounding Dokdo at will.
Mepost, your analogy of the Saint Pierre and Miquelon Islands case analogy is moot.
From what I just read now, this case wasn’t about ownership of the islands at all. It was about the boundary surrounding the islands which were indisputably French. If the historical ownership of the islands was under dispute and the islands were in Canada’s EEZ this case might have some relevance. The issue here is how Dokdo’s close proximity to Ulleungdo and resulting maritime boundary affects Korea’s title to Dokdo.
Mepost, you stated Ulleungdo’s proximity to Dokdo has nothing to do with territorial ownership.
Nowhere do I say Ulleungdo’s potential EEZ automatically grants ownership of Dokdo to Korea. That’s your little strawman argument. I simply said it “can generate an EEZ” and this is relevant. The same could be said for Japan’s Oki Islands.
Professor Jon Van Dyke, expert on Maritime Boundary Disputes, International Law and Laws of the Sea. Harvard and Yale Grad disagrees with you. Islands falling within one nation’s maritime boundaries do strengthen territorial ownership over the island. Both Ulleungdo and Oki Islands are capable of generating these two overlapping EEZ (Martime Boundaries). These would merge about 35kms East of Dokdo. This would put Dokdo on the Korean side of the equidistant line and weigh in Korea’s favor.
Jon Van Dyke, Professor of Law, Harvard and Yale Grad.
”..It would probably promote the ultimate acceptance by Japan of Korea’s sovereignty over Dokdo if Korea were to state clearly that small islands including Dokdo should have little or no effect on maritime boundary limitations. This position would allow the maritime boundary with Japan in the East Sea to be drawn as the equidistant line between Korea’s Ulleungdo and Japan’s Oki Islands, which would put Dokdo on the Korean side of the line, thereby further strengthens Korea’s claim to the Dokdo Islets…”
“…The boundary between Korea and Japan should be the equidistant line between Korea’s Ulleungdo and Japan’s Oki Islands. This line would put Dokdo on the Korean side of the boundary and reinforce the logic of Korea’s claim under the contiguity approach…”
So, as you see Dokdo’s closer proximity to Ulleungdo does strengthen Korea’s title to the islet. Maritime boundaries do in fact affect land ownership. It helps gives Korea’s title legitimacy. Put simple you are wrong.
Japan is bound to follow the posture of rocks equal EEZs because she has done so in other cases such as the Okinotorishimas. If Japan opts for a compromise on Dokdo, Japan fears she could jeopardize her claim to other areas of dispute. Again the above is a quote Professor Jon Van Dyke, you did say lawyers should debate this issue right?
Aside from your irrelevant EEZ example, Ulleungdo Island must be a consideration over Dokdo Island’s historical owner. By both Japan and Korea, throughout the ages, Ulleungdo and Dokdo have been inseparable and they must remain this way.
Mepost, are you so naive as to think that Japan wants Dokdo Island and is not interested in acquiring all of the adjacent waters, and potential resources and will negotiate a treaty to share them?
Japan has shown her intention with what she would like to do with Dokdo when if or when she acquires the islands. Her ambition is to put up and equidistant boundary line between Ulleungdo and Dokdo Island. This can be seen on the maps that have been appearing on the internet. Do these charts look like a compromise?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/japanese-tricks2.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/mapfan-1.jpg
Japan’s Shimane Prefecture Takeshima brochure is titled “Return our Islands and Our Sea! Does that sound like Japan wants to negotiate over the sovereignty of Dokdo’s adjacent waters ?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/shimane-argument0.jpg
As I’ve said Mepost, Dokdo can not be used as a base point to draw and equitable boundary between Japan and Korea. Doing so would give the fishermen of Korea’s Ulleungdo only about 45kms adjacent water and Oki Islanders about 200kms. This is wrong. If you can’t wrap your head around the concept of sharing something 50-50 then I feel sorry for you.
Your last diatribe was brilliant though, Mepost. Your solution is that Japan and Korea sit down and resolve the Dokdo Takeshima dispute by proposing a settlement that is inequitable. The whole concept of using international law to resolve border disputes is to arrive at solutions that are “equitable”
First, I need you to stop making assumptions about me. Insult me if you want, I don't care, but don't assume what I know or don't know and don't assume what my position on this matter is when you clearly don't know where I stand. This is important especially considering two things: A) I'm evidentially far smarter than you based purely on your level of language comprehension and your level of argumentation and B) I've read your website "cover-to-cover" whilst doing my research. Anything you've put there, I've already read. Keep that in mind in the future, kid.
Yes, I knew about Japan's claim to Liancourt based on measurement. Not only is it on your site, you dumb fuck, I've seen it mentioned on other pro-Dokdo websites and sources plus it ALWAYS comes up as a point of contention whenever I'm debating with any Korean. Do you honestly think I've never argued about Liancourt with a Korean that hasn't mentioned that Japan claimed it was closer but it is really closer to Korea? Hi, welcome to Korea. I know you're new here but please try to keep up...
If you look over my posts, NOWHERE do I say that Japan's claim is more legit than Korea's. In fact, I'm pretty clear that I think ANY claim based on relative distance is about as valid as yours: Not at all. The counter-argument to relative land distance is ALWAYS France. Therefore, there is no backtracking, no foot in mouth. Stop assuming and stop making shit up, you dumb fuck. I can't argue against made up bullshit. I deal with facts. Stick to them.
RE: Your double standard: Yes you are. You can't use relative distance to landmasses. If Japan can't do it (which they can't), YOU can't do it to favour Korea. Your argument is moot. END OF DISCUSSION. Try, just try, to understand what I'm saying here, 'cause I know you're not the sharpest spoon in the drawer here. STOP USING RELATIVE DISTANCE AS A POINT OF CONTENTION. ITS INVALID.
RE: "Re-imposition of boundary" - This is a deviation off the main topic. I don't care what was or was not there before. I took issue with you using relative distance in order to claim Liancourt for Korea in the NOW. That's all I'm debating with you. Stop mucking the waters with all your useless shit.
RE: Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon: Valid. Understand why: You're using Ulleungdo's EEZ as a reason Liancourt should belong to Korea. EEZ is established AFTER land ownership. Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon and Canada's EEZ is established AFTER both had claimed their land. In the case of Liancourt, EEZ disputes should be AFTER the islands are ruled in favour of one country or the other. EEZ CANNOT be used to define who's land it belongs to. Otherwise Canada could easily claim Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon as Canadian territory. Likewise, should Liancourt be ruled in favour of Japan, Ulleungdo could be claimed as Japanese territory because it falls under the larger EEZ. Understand? You can't argue a point one way but disregard the reverse. You establish the land FIRST, then discuss EEZ. NOT the reverse.
RE: Nowhere do I say Ulleungdo’s potential EEZ automatically grants ownership of Dokdo to Korea. That’s your little strawman argument.
Really? Could have fooled me:
Here's a page on why Japan can't claim Liancourt because of EEZ limitations (which is actually called Why Japan Can't Have Dokdo. Hmm. Subtle. I love it):
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/why-japan-cant-have-dokdo-i.html
If it can't be Japan's, then who should it belong to? Nobody?
And here's a page on how Liancourt is visible from Korea's Ulleungdo island (falling into Ulleungdo EEZ), therefore, why it should belong to Korea:
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/a-visual-study-of-dokdo.html
Furthermore, here's your quote from 2 posts ago:
Korea’s Ulleungdo was not factored into the equation at all despite the fact the island is large, inhabitable and even visible from Dokdo. In modern martime law, Ulleungdo can generate an EEZ which extends up to 200 nautical miles.
Dude. Now you're just being fucking stupid. Like, really, really fucking stupid. If you're not using Ulleungdo's EEZ to argue Korea's ownership of Liancourt in that last line, what the fuck are you doing? Why are you even bringing it up? For shits and giggles? And why are you bullshitting me, telling me you didn't say something you said TWO FUCKING POSTS AGO?!? Stop telling me what you think I'm saying and pay the fuck attention to what YOU'RE actually saying, you dumb fuck.
Lastly, if your counter argument is going to be: "Well that's the point! If Dokdo belongs to Japan, then Ulleungdo's EEZ is cut short!" Yeah, genius. That's the whole point of landownership and why EEZ is determined AFTER the fact, as it was with Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon. Ulleungdo loses EEZ? Yup, I can understand and see why and they'd have to deal with it. Now, you're catching up with the big boys. Like I said, you can complain about loss of nautical territory, but them's the breaks if Liancourt goes to Japan. Suck it up, princess.
Once again, EEZ generation means absolutely ZERO in landownership. Otherwise, the fact that the EU has the largest EEZ in the world would mean that we'd all be French. Stop bringing up EEZ. It means nothing.
RE: Jon Van Dyke: Yeah, here's the words I'm noticing: "probably, acceptance, would allow, which would, thereby further strengthens, should be..." You know what's awesome? Speaking in hypotheticals. Good job mining for a quote (from an idiot talking about somewhere called "East Sea" apparently. Why are we even listening to a dumb fucker talking about a fictional sea?) that hypothetically places Liancourt in Korean territory if hypothetical equidistant borders are marked up.
Good thing all of that would be COMPLETELY MOOT if Liancourt were ruled in Japan's favour. You know what I can do? Speak in hypotheticals about what Korea's borders would be if Liancourt were under Japanese territory. Good job raising an issue that has zero relevance in terms of who owns the land NOW, you twit. This is all under the umbrella argument of relative distance which is once again - with feeling now - completely irrelevant. Your whole argument is completely worthless. I absolutely don't care who measures what where how. Relative distance is NOT a valid argument in land ownership, you dumb fuck. Sweet kimchi, you should be fired from your life. At the very least, fire yourself from your own website, please.
RE: Historical ownership: This is a DIFFERENT ARGUMENT which I'm not debating with you considering how dumb you are about relative distance. I specifically took issue with your bringing up relative distance. I'm NOT debating history, Japanese/Korean motivations, propaganda or any other topic about Liancourt. My issue was relative distance, any deviation for the main topic of relative distance is off-topic and completely irrelevant.
Before I forget, I thought you wouldn't be so stupid as to think that there's some unwritten rule that nautical territory must be equal for both Japan and Korea. But apparently, you are that dumb. The whole issue of Liancourt is BECAUSE both Japan and Korea would stand to lose so much ground or gain so much ground depending on who owns the land. Once land ownership is determined, THEN EEZ is determined, which will advantage one nation and handicap the other. However, them's the breaks. Tough shit to whomever loses. That's why land ownership is such a big deal. But there's absolutely ZERO rule ANYWHERE that land ownership and nautical territory needs to be equal between any neighbouring nations. If you can whip out this mythical rule somewhere, you MIGHT have an argument. Go ahead. Go find it, I'll wait right over there while I'm holding my breath. Until then, you're just full of shit. Any "equitable" solution would come AFTER land ownership is determined. And if they end up getting 18% of the nautical territory that they asked for - like in the case of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, then too bad. We strive for "equitable," but it is rarely so, princess.
In conclusion, not only did you not prove your point successfully, not only did I use your own words and examples to prove your own points wrong, not only could you not stay on topic, you could not refrain, I notice, from pointing out to me that I'm anti-Korea and uneducated and that I "need to understand Korean culture." Furthermore, you don't know what my ultimate stance on Liancourt is, nor what my potential solution to the problem would be, but you felt free to assume that I would "propos[e] a settlement that is inequitable" - putting words in my mouth that are not mine. This is WHY people don't argue with people like you about Liancourt. Your whole last section, once again devolves into me being "anti-Korean/Pro-Japanese" and your whole argument is me "being an uneducated foreigner" and "please understand Korean culture" and you couldn't stay on fucking topic without losing your mind.
THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT EXACTLY. I COULDN'T HAVE PLANNED THIS BETTER IF I'D TRIED.
We're done here, by the way. Humiliating you was fun for a while, but now you've devolved into the EXACT close-minded, uneducated, Right wing propagandist stereotype I was talking about. I got better things to do than debate with your dumb ass. Do more research, princess. Your argument and argumentation is shit. Good day, douchebag.
Me post, take a deep breath, get back on whatever meds you usually take, and read slowly.
EEZs do strengthen a nation’s claim to territory. Jon Van Dyke uses the “probabilities” and “ifs” to illustrate a scenario. He clearly states an EEZ created by Ulleungdo would strengthen Korea’s claim. Remember I said Ulleungdo “CAN” generate an EEZ? Also I said before,
You are not a lawyer, so as you, yourself stated “That's a lawyer's trick” That’s why I quoted an Ivy League Professor (Jon Van Dyke) who has graduated with honors from both Yale and Harvard who again clearly stated:
”..It would probably promote the ultimate acceptance by Japan of Korea’s sovereignty over Dokdo if Korea were to state clearly that small islands including Dokdo should have little or no effect on maritime boundary limitations. This position would allow the maritime boundary with Japan in the East Sea to be drawn as the equidistant line between Korea’s Ulleungdo and Japan’s Oki Islands, which would put Dokdo on the Korean side of the line, thereby further strengthens Korea’s claim to the Dokdo Islets…”
“…The boundary between Korea and Japan should be the equidistant line between Korea’s Ulleungdo and Japan’s Oki Islands. This line would put Dokdo on the Korean side of the boundary and reinforce the logic of Korea’s claim under the contiguity approach…”
Which leave us with a big dilemma Mepost. Who has more credibility? Some anonymous internet gasbag named “mepost” or an any Ivy League graduate with literally decades of experience in the field of international law who worked as a law clerk in the California Supreme Court and published numerous books?
Erm,…that’s a tough one Mepost , but excuse me if I go with the Ivy League guy.
You are wrong here on the EEZ issue. All of your vile language and obnoxious bluster can’t hide that. Your opinion on legal matters mean sweet F.A. so just swallow the grape Kool-aid and admit you lost.
Mepost, I never said there is a rule that says each country must have an equal amount of territory. I’m saying in order to resolve this dispute in an amicable manner and arrive at an equitable solution, to divide the ocean resources as evenly as possible would be the best way. Otherwise what incentive do Japan and Korea have to bilaterally arrive at an agreement.?
The pages that say “why Japan can’t have dokdo” are views and reasons and to why Dokdo should be Korea’s. I created these pages to compile related information for readers to consider why the islands should remain Korean. In case you are not a native speaker Mepost, let me remind you, the word “can’t” doesn’t mean legal reasons Mepost in every aspect…duh.
Mepost you stated “…Discussing territory in terms of relative distances to neighbouring landmasses is childish and takes nothing into account of international historical precedence…”
Since you appear to lack understanding about Ulleungdo’s relevance in the Dokdo dispute. Let’s continue to look into another way in which Ulleungdo’s close proximity strengthens Korea’s title. I admit it’s my opinion that Ulleungdo and Dokdo should remain together, but my view does have legal basis and agreement with some legal experts.
Again Harvard, Yale Grad Professor Jon Van Dyke who has decades of experience in dealing with international law (ie…) Cites the case of Palmas Islands as a legitimate legal basis for Korea to use Ulleungdo’s close proximity and historical relationship with Dokdo to bolster their claim.
Here Professor Jon Van Dyke gives his legal opinion on Dokdo and Ulleungdo.
“…Nonetheless, a land area closely linked to another area, utilized by the residents of that adjacent area, may “belong” to that adjacent area as a matter of logic, common sense and historical practice. Some island as viewed as “dependent” on other islands and some groups of islands have been historically viewed as units. In such cases it would be illogical to divide such islands between different sovereigns. Even arbitrator Max Huber (ICJ) acknowledged that “..regards groups of islands, it is possible that a group of islands, under certain circumstances may be regarded as in law a unit and that the fate of the principal part may involve the rest..”
The above opinion is not just that of legal expert Jon Van Dyke but of course some Korean international lawyers such as Jong-In Bae (L.L.M. Edinburgh University), also agree.
On an earlier post of yours above you quoted
“IRONY. There's this website, maybe you've heard of it, called dokdo-takeshima.com. It does nothing but talk about the history of this dispute about the Liancourt Rocks and uses "circumstance of the colonial era" to "resolve a modern border dispute."
I don’t get your point, but here’s mine. Japan has no historical title to Dokdo prior to 1905. This is fact. The Japanese legal claim to Dokdo is based on the laws of territorial acquisition of 1905. However, there are many modern legal concepts that have come into play in the last century, EEZs, the concept of non-encroachment, uti possidetis etc. Japan wants to retroactively apply the laws of 1905 and ignore many of the subsequent legal concepts that have evolved since then. This won’t work in modern Asia.
Mepost you also quoted.
“…but don't assume what I know or don't know and don't assume what my position on this matter is when you clearly don't know where I stand…”
I don’t pretend. You blather so much on the net, you probably can’t remember your last sentence.
http://briandeutsch.blogspot.com/2010/03/dokdo-video-plays-on-times-square.html?showComment=1267543867767#c7679482044595583166
BTW mepost, I read on the same thread Japan has ownership of Dokdo because of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Would you like to elaborate on that please? I have the SFPT in its entirety at the link below. Maybe you can find the part under Article 2’s Territorial Clause that states Japan regains sovereignty over Dokdo. I’m having trouble finding it…
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/japan-peace-treaty-txt.pdf
Please come back and show us how “smart” you are
Part 1 or 2
Dokdo became an issue after World War II, when Korea's first president, Rhee Syngman, tried to claim as much Japanese territory as he could after the Japanese defeat. The US government rejected Korean claims on both the Japanese island of Tsushima (Daemado) and Takeshima (Dokdo). It was after the US rejected his claims that Rhee Syngman unilaterally claimed Takeshima as Korea territory.
The "Dokdo" mythology was cooked up after World War II using old Korean maps to make wild claims, when, in fact, Korea has not even one old map of "Dokdo" by any name. Also, Korea has no documents suggesting any Korean ever traveled there before the Japanese fisherman started taking Koreans there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s. The Japanese, on the other hand, I been traveling to Takeshima (Dokdo) since the 1600s and have numerous maps to prove it.
The Japanese officially incorporated Takeshima into Shimane prefecture in 1905. In 1906, Shimane prefecture officials visited Ulleungdo and told the magistrate there of their incorporation of Takeshima. The Ulleungdo magistrate did not protest or make any claims to "Dokdo" to the Japanese officials, but he did send a message to his superiors telling of the Japanese visit and said that the island was part of his county. However, the Korean official did not seem to know where the island was since he wrote that it was about 100 ri from Ulleungdo, when it was actually about 200 ri away. The superiors of the Korean official did not seem to know about the island, either, and asked the Ulleungdo county magistrate to investigate further.
The incident was reported in Korean newspapers with the same erroneous distance given by the Ulleungdo magistrate. They even believed it to be an inhabitable island.
The Korean newspaper articles apparently got the attention of the Japanese governor-general in Korea since he asked the Korean Interior ministry to clarify the islands belonging to Ulleungdo county. The Korean Interior Ministry's response was reported in the July 13, 1906 edition of the Korean newspaper Hwangseong Sinmun as follows:
Facts on Arrangement of Uldo County
The Resident-General sent an official letter to the Interior Ministry asking it to clarify what islands belonged to Ulleungdo, which is under the administration of Samcheok County in Gangwon Province, and the year and month the county office was established. The response was that the post of Ulleungdo Administrator was established on May 20, 1898, and then on October 25, 1900, the government decided to post a county magistrate with the county office being at Daehadong (台霞洞). It said the islands under the authority of the said county were Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島), and that it was sixty ri from east to west and forty ri from north to south for a total of 200 ri.
Notice that the Korean Interior Ministry reported the only islands under the authority of Ulleungdo were "Jukdo" and "Seokdo." Jukdo is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island and is only about two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore. Seokdo was a catchall phrase for the other rock islets around Ulleungdo. Nothing was mentioned of an island named "Dokdo," which was the name of the island the Ulleungdo magistrate had claimed as being a part of his county just a couple of months earlier.
Moreover, the Korean Interior Ministry gave the area of Ulleungdo County as stretching sixty ri (24 kilometers) east-to-west forty ri (16 kilometers) north-to-south. Since "Dokdo" is actually about 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo, that means that Korea's Ministry of Interior did not consider "Dokdo" as being part of Ulleungdo county.
Part 2 of 2
The Japanese were sailing to Takeshima (Dokdo) from Ulleungdo in the early 1900s and even took Koreans along as shiphands on their fishing boats; therefore, the Ulleungdo magistrate had probably heard of "Dokdo" and just assumed it was part of his county, even though he did not know exactly where it was. When his superiors asked him to conduct an inspection of "Dokdo," the Ulleungdo magistrate most likely discovered that it was farther from Ulleungdo he had assumed and that it was nothing but a couple of barren rocks in the middle of nowhere, which might help explain why the Korean government never bothered to contest the Japanese incorporation of Takeshima.
Again, Korea has no old maps showing "Dokdo," by any name, and the only two references in Korean history to an island that was probably "Dokdo" suggested that it was Japanese territory visible from Ulleungdo.
Gerry Bevers, you are getting old and so are your easily refuted arguments.
The Japanese didn't "incorporate" Dokdo. Their navy sub rosa annexed the islets whilst in the midst of colonizing the Korean peninsula. It was a military act of aggression not peaceful nor a natural process. Japan seized Dokdo to install watchtowers and install telegraph lines during the Russ-Japanese War of 1904~1905. This unknown war is sometimes called World War Zero.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-illegal-1905-annexation-of-dokdo.html
The proof of Japan's military agenda involving Dokdo can be found in the logbooks of the Japanese Warship Tsushima and the subsequent report submitted to Japanese Navy's Hydrographic Dept.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-takeshima-x-files-ii.html
The opinions of the U.S. Government and Post WWII mean nothing with regard to territorial ownership of Dokdo. You forgot to mention Japan was lobbying for Korea’s Ulleungdo and the Allies were mulling granting Chejudo to Japan as well.
Korea was not signatory to the Japan Peace Traty. Second the U.S. could not unilaterally make decisions on Dokdo without a consensus of all members of Allied Command. Third there was no mention of Dokdo in the Japan Peace Treaty. Fourth U.S. decisions were military and had nothing to do with historical title of Dokdo at all.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-japan-peace-treaty-and-dokdo.html
BTW Mr Bevers, Korea didn’t “claim” Japanese territory. The Koreans rightfully solidified the MacArthur Line because Japanese fishermen were violating SCAP 1033 even while it was still in effect.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/japanese-violate-macline-2.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/japanese-violate-macline-3.jpg
Con't
Korea clearly objected to Japan’s annexation in 1906. They stated Dokdo was Korean territory through government, newspapers and private individuals. Your explanation of these objections is “probably this”, “apparently this” or “this means”. Even worse you pull this bizarre interpretation out or your backside that the characters “石島 to means all surrounding rocks?? Give me a break. There is not one shred of evidence to support that theory.
The dimensions given in the Home Ministry’s report had nothing to do with the size of Uldo County. It was the dimension of Ulleungdo from old Korean maps, please stop spreading false information.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/korean-objections-to-japans-1905-claim.html
We may never know exactly what happened after these records as Japan had already taken over Korea’s Foreign Affairs Office since 1905. So it’s not good history to make any assumptions on the inner workings of the Korean Government post August 1904.
Korea knew of Dokdo hundred of years before the Japanese seized the islands in 1905. And no Mr Bevers Korean records DO NOT describe the islets as part of Japan but rather confirmed their visibility from Korea’s Ulleungdo. Koreans also described Dokdo as separate from Japanese territory and thus attached to Chosun. I’ve debunked your slanted translations of those Chosun records numerous times but still you insist on purveying these falsehoods.
The “Japanese” did not sail to Dokdo.
Japanese illegally sailed to Korea’s Ulleungdo Island and violated treaties between Korea and Japan and broke the travel ban issued by Japan’s highest authority. Historical facts considered the maps you cite as proof of Japanese sovereignty over Dokdo are in reality records of trespassing.
In fact the maps drawn by the Murakawas are usually titled “Map of Ulleungdo” Even the circa 1656 Japanese map of Dokdo itself describes the island as 100 ri from Oki County meaning the island was not part of Japan at all.
Japanese did take to Koreans to Dokdo in the early 1900s. They also took Koreans to Ulleungdo this was simply because they had larger, more modern vessels. As you admit, Koreans were also involved on Dokdo before Japan annexed the island. With this in mind Japan did not have a clear cut case of “terra nullius” or “no-man’s-land” in 1905. So even when we case doubts on Korea’s case, Japan really has none of their own.
Gerry Bevers, you should be lobbying for a reasonable solution to this problem instead of using Dokdo as a proxy to take out your frustrations on Korea. I’ve heard Korea is considering using Dokdo as a basepoint from which to draw her EEZ. If Korea manages to pull this off, Shimane Prefecture will lose big time. You should stick with a practical solution such as I’ve always suggested.
Japan and Korea should solidify the MacArthur Line and grant Korea a 12 mile boundary around Dokdo.
Post a Comment