Dok-Doh

[ISSAC RU]

haha..the dok doh conflict is getting worse by the second..It is going to burn american's backyard off....

[Kaoru]

haha..the dok doh conflict is getting worse by the second..It is going to burn american's backyard off....


The what?? *clueless* >_< Am I supposed to know about that? I've never seen it mentioned anywhere. How come you know about it and I don't? No fair!

Kaoru

[ISSAC RU]

This is why CNN doesn't help....

basic story goes like this :

there is a piny little island , south koreans have the full control over it . They call it dok doh , but at the same time Japanese claim it as their part of territory..which they call it chu-doh...blah..blah..blah..
(extrem nationalism V.S. nationalism )

Americans want to Japanese and the South Koreans to cooperated , but they just don't...which screw up their Northeast Asian Plan..

[drizzt]

oh great another fight to contend with......"prays for us to let them settle it peacefully"

[ISSAC RU]

Actually I quite concerned about Japanese foreign policy in the late few months.
Strong policy against China and Korea might isolated Japan from the rest of North-east Asia.

Dok-Doh thing might slow Japan down a little bit from her evil plan of joining the big 5 during the New UN re-consitution.

[mingshi]

Before taking your step on global politics, let's learn how to spell and pronounce geographical locations in proper English. On my first read I thought it was about some new Bogu invention...

That's Tokto/Dokdo in Korean and Takeshima in Japanese. :smoker:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4361343.stm

Meanwhile, China still got arms embargo. Another 234,483,942 people saved.

[ISSAC RU]

I believe in this year summer The arms embargo will be abolished by EU.

[AkuSokuZan]

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHh Why are we talking politics on a kendo related forum?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[DanDan]

독도는 우리땅! 우리땅!

it's from a song heheh

[Stpk4]

타케시마 끄저
takeshima does not exist, it is dok doh! : D get out of my house!

[Anjin-san]

From the title I thought you were making up new nidan waza...

[drizzt]

^^ thats what i wondered at first to......

i have a plan.....from now on all wars must be resolved by chess games......star wars chess at that.... Pick your countrys best nerds and let them have at it to settle disputes !!!!!!!!!!


sorry im in a sarcastic mood....

[Berugijin]

타케시마 끄저
takeshima does not exist, it is dok doh! : D get out of my house!

Korea does not exist, it is 朝鮮 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen) (Chosen)! :D get out of their land!

[ISSAC RU]

Korea does not exist, it is 朝鮮 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen) (Chosen)! :D get out of their land!

That burns....~!~......

[kendo-boi]

I believe in this year summer The arms embargo will be abolished by EU.

That's nice to know!:)

[eXact]

whats nice to know is how does this 16 year old talk about politics like my great uncle, blah blah blah blah dok-doh!?!?!?!?!

[KhawMengLee]

That's nice to know!:)

No biggie...more weapons in China's hands? So what? China's considered a evil nation but it hasn't invaded anyone so far in the last decade. The US is a democrasy and it went to war on a lie.

Go Figure.

[Akai Bushi]

What is each side's claim to having that island?
Historically speaking.

[samurai999]

China's considered a evil nation but it hasn't invaded anyone so far in the last decade.
Go Figure.

China considered evil? Are you referring to the "Axis of Evil" speech? If so, I don't think Chinas on that list.

Tim

[h2o]

I think he is referring to the frosty relationship China has had with large parts of the western world the last decades. Since it is a "communist" regime, it should also automagically end up on any US not-our-friends-list.

[kendo-boi]

No biggie...more weapons in China's hands? So what? China's considered a evil nation but it hasn't invaded anyone so far in the last decade. The US is a democrasy and it went to war on a lie.


Go Figure.

I dont think China is evil and if it is put on the list as a evil nation i would be pissed!....dont want a war going on!:rolleyes:

[Akai Bushi]

Why does S. Korea have rights to the island?

[Nazo]

http://www.koreaemb.org/archive/2005/4_1/foreign/foreign8.asp

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=1869

http://old.dokdo.go.kr/english/html/territory/info_district.html

have a look at some links for information about dokdo.

[ikumdo]

That burns....~!~......

yeah i agree that does burn.

bit rude and out order i would say.

[Berugijin]

http://www.koreaemb.org/archive/2005/4_1/foreign/foreign8.asp

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=1869

http://old.dokdo.go.kr/english/html/territory/info_district.html

have a look at some links for information about dokdo.

Hmmm... Nice objective information you have there. Korean embassy, Seoul newspaper, very objective indeed.

[Berugijin]

yeah i agree that does burn.

bit rude and out order i would say.

I agree, but when you say something shocking it will last a lot longer and hopefully have a remaining impression.

I just simply tried to get my point across that territorial disputes are stupid. Korea is obviously not going to hand the island over so Japan should either stop nagging or invade.

What if the Italians laid claim to France? After all it was once conquered by Iulius Caesar.

[Akai Bushi]

I agree whoever has it has it.

Whoever takes it has it.

Isn't that how the world has always worked.

It's Korea's.

[Akai Bushi]

I really have no consern with who got there first and firmly believe that whoever controls it has it, but since a number of Pro Korean arguements have been posted I thought it would be good to put up the Japan arguement as well just for balance to the forum.
http://www.pref.shimane.jp/section/takesima/eng/top.html

http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html

[ikumdo]

I really have no consern with who got there first and firmly believe that whoever controls it has it, but since a number of Pro Korean arguements have been posted I thought it would be good to put up the Japan arguement as well just for balance to the forum.
http://www.pref.shimane.jp/section/takesima/eng/top.html

http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html

i respect that.

[KhawMengLee]

Sigh...why don't they get a Korean Super Kumdo team vs. Japanese Super Kendo team shiai going down over the island. Winner takes all!

Either that or they get the Japanese PM and The Korean Prez to kick each other in the nuts at the same time. Winner is the guy left standing or, if both opponents are down, the one who can sing a Barry White song without sounding like Michael Jackson.

[Nazo]

Hmmm... Nice objective information you have there. Korean embassy, Seoul newspaper, very objective indeed.

ok then how about http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/index.html

okok so maybe those links were favoring the korean side, but I still say the island is still korean, even if you give it another name like liancourt or takeshima doesnt change the fact its dokdo and korean.

[Akai Bushi]

What does everyone think about Senkaku or the Kuril Islands?

[Yaiba]

Sigh...why don't they get a Korean Super Kumdo team vs. Japanese Super Kendo team shiai going down over the island. Winner takes all!

Either that or they get the Japanese PM and The Korean Prez to kick each other in the nuts at the same time. Winner is the guy left standing or, if both opponents are down, the one who can sing a Barry White song without sounding like Michael Jackson.

Hahaha... if only it was that simple for resolving all disputes then that would be great. Although, how would you choose the shimpans (judges)? Could you ever find a group of shimpans that were completely neutral? Hmmm... :confused:

[Yaiba]

What does everyone think about Senkaku or the Kuril Islands?

As I understand it, the dispute over the Senkaku (or Kuril) Islands between Japan and Russia is not as "grey" as the dispute that we're seeing over Dokdo/Takeshima between Korea and Japan. To my knowledge, Senkaku was first inhabited by the Japanese and there are presently many "Japanese" that still reside there. The Russians occupied those islands in the closing days of WW2 and claimed them for itself in the San Francisco treaty (I think... please correct me if I'm wrong). Dokdo/Takeshima on the other hand is uninhabited so its become more of a historical argument as to who claimed it in the first place. All I know is that there is like a Korean weather station outpost there. Frankly, both countries are interested in the surrounding waters for fishing purposes rather than the islands itself, I think.

[ikumdo]

Sigh...why don't they get a Korean Super Kumdo team vs. Japanese Super Kendo team shiai going down over the island. Winner takes all!

Either that or they get the Japanese PM and The Korean Prez to kick each other in the nuts at the same time. Winner is the guy left standing or, if both opponents are down, the one who can sing a Barry White song without sounding like Michael Jackson.


what's the deal with u and kicking men in the groin?

disclaimer: please do not attempt in real life as permanent damage can be caused followed by sever embarresment.

[ikumdo]

Hahaha... if only it was that simple for resolving all disputes then that would be great. Although, how would you choose the shimpans (judges)? Could you ever find a group of shimpans that were completely neutral? Hmmm... :confused:

yeah that's a good question?

asnwer is no, have u ever seen any of the world championships?


ooohhhhh.........cringe, struck a nerve. sorry.

[KhawMengLee]

what's the deal with u and kicking men in the groin?

disclaimer: please do not attempt in real life as permanent damage can be caused followed by sever embarresment.

When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will definately agree to follow;)

[ikumdo]

When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will definately agree to follow;)

wow that's so scary.

i take it that u r female.

women absolutely don't understand the ramifications of aggresing the male genitalia.


please repent and turn from ur evil was.

[Akai Bushi]

Senkaku and Kuril Islands are different.

Senkaku is disputed between China and Japan.

Kuril Islands disputed between Japan and Russia.

[Yaiba]

Senkaku and Kuril Islands are different.

Senkaku is disputed between China and Japan.

Kuril Islands disputed between Japan and Russia.

Crap... sorry, my mistake. I wasn't thinking clearly... *sigh* :surprise:

I got Senkaku mixed up with "Chishima-rettou", which is the Japanese name for the Kuril Islands. "Karafuto", which is the name for Sakhalin, is another larger island north of Japan that has apparently been disputed with Russia for the past 150 years but I don't think the Japanese government is seeking this territory - just the Kuril Islands that belonged to Japan before WW2.

As for Senkaku (or "Diaoyu") Islands, this is similar to the case of Dokdo/Takeshima because it is uninhabited by either the Japanese or Chinese. Apparently there are vast oil reserves in this area that both countries would like to get their hands on. Again, this is similar to Korea and Japan wanting to claim Dokdo/Takeshima for itself to gain exclusive waterway-rights for fishing purposes.

[Berugijin]

but I still say the island is still korean, even if you give it another name like liancourt or takeshima doesnt change the fact its dokdo and korean.

Oh ok then that settles it. I'll just call Koizumi (who is on my speed dial) and tell him that Nazo (who has a PhD political sciences, geography and history) simply states that Takeshima is Korean. We don't need stupid things like facts right?

[KhawMengLee]

wow that's so scary.

i take it that u r female.

women absolutely don't understand the ramifications of aggresing the male genitalia.


please repent and turn from ur evil was.


er...no, not a women...its an age old church motto:


CUIUS TESTICULOS HABES, HABEAS CARDIA ET CEREBELLUM

[Berugijin]

CUIUS TESTICULOS HABES, HABEAS CARDIA ET CEREBELLUM

Those who have testicles have a heart and a brain.

...et non usus :-) (probably faulty grammer)

[NorthernKendoka]

Today one of the korean students was drawing a map of Korea for a presentation, I noticed it included Dokdo. The Dokdo/Takeshima discussion could have made my day, but the class just continued like notthing had happened.

[KevinF]

My God, Issac,

you obviously learned your history from a Chinese cereal box! This post combined with the Tibet and Taiwan post is really over the top.

It's no wonder the Japanese Foreign Minister called the Chinese "scary."

I'm even more amused by your followup posting against strong Japanese foreign policy - which by the way, is largely a result of the Japanese government and poeple getting tired of hearing c**p from China and Korea about WWII. I guess 18 official apologies are not enough. I guess the billions of yen that pour in China from Japanese companies and subsidy/loan support are not enough.

The reality of the situation is a geopoliticla one. China wants to assert itself as the undisputed leader in Asia. Japan is in the way. So China has reheated the textbook issue and the vists by the Japanese PM to Yasukuni jinja in order to stave off Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. The Chinese governemnt didn't apologize for the recent riots and protests in China which resulted in injuries to two Japanese students and the looting of Japanese business. Futher, China hasn't apologized for recent incursions into Japanese territorial waters yb the Chinese navy (submarine incident last year). With Chinese funding for military programs skyrocketing and the government in Beijing all but encouraging anti-Japanese sentiment, I completly sympathize with the Japanese. I hope they get balls and eliminate the clause in their constitution which prevents a standing army and I further hpe they stand up to the bullys of Asia (China and North Korea).

With regard to the islands (there is a disputed one vis-a-vis China and another with Korea) in specific, I would love to see Japanese troops occupy the island and give both China and Korea the finger.

[rainmaker]

Kevin-san,

I was rather disappointed at your personal opinion, especially, your attitude toward to Korean and Chinese. I guess you are taking Japan side since your girlfriend is from Japan and you have been living in Japan. I guess you don't really know what is going on behind and wrote such hatred attitude toward Korean and Chinese. You are educated man. I don't think it is smart to hear one side story and make a decision. I don't think you have never been thought from Korean or Chinses point of view. I would really suggest you to learn all the fact before you decide what is wrong and right.

Best Regards.


My God, Issac,

you obviously learned your history from a Chinese cereal box! This post combined with the Tibet and Taiwan post is really over the top.

It's no wonder the Japanese Foreign Minister called the Chinese "scary."

I'm even more amused by your followup posting against strong Japanese foreign policy - which by the way, is largely a result of the Japanese government and poeple getting tired of hearing c**p from China and Korea about WWII. I guess 18 official apologies are not enough. I guess the billions of yen that pour in China from Japanese companies and subsidy/loan support are not enough.

The reality of the situation is a geopoliticla one. China wants to assert itself as the undisputed leader in Asia. Japan is in the way. So China has reheated the textbook issue and the vists by the Japanese PM to Yasukuni jinja in order to stave off Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. The Chinese governemnt didn't apologize for the recent riots and protests in China which resulted in injuries to two Japanese students and the looting of Japanese business. Futher, China hasn't apologized for recent incursions into Japanese territorial waters yb the Chinese navy (submarine incident last year). With Chinese funding for military programs skyrocketing and the government in Beijing all but encouraging anti-Japanese sentiment, I completly sympathize with the Japanese. I hope they get balls and eliminate the clause in their constitution which prevents a standing army and I further hpe they stand up to the bullys of Asia (China and North Korea).

With regard to the islands (there is a disputed one vis-a-vis China and another with Korea) in specific, I would love to see Japanese troops occupy the island and give both China and Korea the finger.

[KevinF]

No Rainmaker,

I don't have a side save the side of fairness. Yes, I have lived in Japan, and yes, my gf is Japanese, but this in no way shaped my answer. I can look Japanese people in the eye and explain how I firmly stand behind the use of atomic weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I am harsh in my cirticism of unfiar trade practices by any nation.

My statements should not be read as "hatred" against China or Korea.

Looking at the situation objectively, which is what I try to do, I do see China twisting history to position themselves against Japan in the Asia of the next 20 years. China complains about Japanese textbooks and is unwilling to print the truth in their own. As there is no free press in China, and as all textbooks are printed by the state, current anti-Japanese sentiment is plainly a result of a long, well-planned campaign against Japan. The political ramifications are clear and China can only gain from any anti-Japanese sentiment. It seems interesting that the largest anti-Japanese riots ever in China came just as Japan is pushing with Germany for a reorganization of the U.N. Security Council and a permanent seat within.

I would love to see a more powerful Japan - not for the sake of it, but as a hedge against Chinese expansionism and Asian dominance. This is in the interests of world stability. I would hope that most could see the value of having a powerful counterbalance to China in Asia - and the reality is that only Japan has the potential to do it.

[KevinF]

Addendum: I do know the other side. Japan is responsible for numerous and horrendous events in both Korea and China during WWII (60 years ago). China signed away rights to pursue monetary gain or settlements from Japan over 20 years ago, and I wonder if anyone could tally for us the amount of moeny that has poured into China through Japanese support and Japanese companies?

Hey, by the way, when the tsunami hit southern asia, didn't the Japanese government donate the most of any nation save the U.S. (and then, only because the U.S. tsunami relief was a combined government and private charity effort)? Where were the benevolent Chinese and Korean governments? Try reading this article: China Fails the Tsunami Test (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6785287/)

Further, I would consider supporting China in its anti-Japanese stand the moment the PRC revises their textbooks with a fair and balanced view of Mao's "Great Leap Forward" and the Invasion and occupation of Tibet. How many tanks have to roll over students or how many monks have to be thrown into prison before people realize that China is not the peaceful nation of toy-producing elves they would wish you to believe?

I'll side with the Japanese Foreign minister for now: China *is* scary.

[KevinF]

To return the discussion to the issue of the original posting, I find the official position of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affaris quite interesting:

The Issue of Takeshima (http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html)

The history of Takeshima/Dokdoh from the Korean perspective is here:

Dokdo: A Profile (http://www.korea.net/News/Issues/issueDetailView.asp?board_no=5727)

The liberal Asahi-Shimbun has a fairly balanced view of things:

History Lesson: Heart of the Matter (http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200504060187.html)

Read the above and make up your own minds. :wink:

[rainmaker]

Kevin, it has been my experience that American people who have lived in Japan does not learn about Asia but they just learn only about Japan. I call this Japanized. I have often seen them they criticizing other Asian countries or even worse they looking down on Chinese and Japanese more than Japanese themselves. Anyway, it is your decision to take which side you will be.

But Let me tell you why you are not being objective, Kevin.

My statements should not be read as "hatred" against China or Korea.
=> You wrote "With regard to the islands (there is a disputed one vis-a-vis China and another with Korea) in specific, I would love to see Japanese troops occupy the island and give both China and Korea the finger."
-> To me and other Korean and Chinese, this is hatred comment.

Looking at the situation objectively, which is what I try to do, I do see China twisting history to position themselves against Japan in the Asia of the next 20 years.
=> Read this. Both China and Korea is not twisting fact. It is Japanese government who is twisting international history. You are not being objective again.
http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-1/japan.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1319495.stm

I would love to see a more powerful Japan - not for the sake of it, but as a hedge against Chinese expansionism and Asian dominance.
=> I strongly disagree with this. History repeats often. Why do other Asian countries and Americans have to rely on Japan as hedging against China ? Why do we need two bullies instead of one ?

I do know the other side. Japan is responsible for numerous and horrendous events in both Korea and China during WWII (60 years ago).
=> Yes, you do know but you didn't experience the pain. For you, 60 years can be long but for some of our grandfather and grandmother, 60 years is very short. If your parents were beheaded or raped by Japanese soldier 60 years ago, can you forget about it? Would you appreciate that if I tell you to forget about it and move on ? Also, we still see some old ladies who were forced to go to war and become a sex slave. Read this article.
http://www.china.org.cn/english/FR/9903.htm

China signed away rights to pursue monetary gain or settlements from Japan over 20 years ago, and I wonder if anyone could tally for us the amount of moeny that has poured into China through Japanese support and Japanese companies?
=> Korean and Chinese government does not want only apologies or monetary gain but they want Japanese government to act. Everytime, we are about to forget about war and move on, Japanese government always bring back other issues like textbook and Dokto.

Read the above and make up your own minds.
=> I have read such discussion since when I was 12 years old and I have made up my mind. I just hope you too take read both side and look at their history before you make up your mind. I don't think you have listened both side yet.

Finally, yes, I am Korean and I love my country. Question is do I hate Japanese ? No. I love people and culture of Japan. I used to travel to Japan every month for two years and have made many friends. I love my Japanese Kendo sensei, sempai and friends. I just don't agree with Japanese government policy toward Asian nation.
.

[rainmaker]

If you want to know what happened during Japanese invasion to Korea, you can click this link.

Warning !! This is very cruel photos and I do not recommend underage & pregnent people to click this link.

http://nojum.com/japan/japan.html

[KevinF]

Rainmaker,

Kudos for a well-thought and good effort. I enjoy this.

First of all, I already admited the Japanese Imperial army did horrible things. For this, the Japanese people and government were punished with invasion, bombings, and a "regime change" in 1945 that included the only use of atmoic weapons on a population. Do you think it would be fair for U.S. leaders in 2050 to demand apologies and reparations from Afghanistan because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

Let me add to this by saying horrible things were done by both the allies and the axis powers during the second world war. While I defend the use of atomic weapons by the U.S. as a logical course of action which may have saved many lives at the expense of others, I deplore the firebombing of Dresden and the virtual apathy of the U.S. and its allies with regard to Germany's Final Solution. Furthermore, as the son of immigrants, I recall listening to stories of the horrendous treatment by the Russian army in the Czech Republic - random shootings, tossing babies out of windows, raping of women, etc.

You say that 60 years is very short. I say that nations should look to the current and future situation rather than live in the past. Shold nations take your view of things, there would never be peace.

As Koren troops are currently illegally occupying Takeshima, it would be a horrible incident to actually see Japanese troops land on the island, however, I sympathize with Japan in the current power struggle in Asia. My advocating Japenese posession by menas of troops is not a comment of hatred. If you assume this, then Korean occupation of the islands by means of force would also be a statement of hatred? Well, my friend, this is sadly the status quo.

Both China and Korea are not twisting facts? Excuse me? Listen, I have seen the textbooks in question as I was there from 1999 to 2002. First of all, the textbooks are used in less than 1% of all junior high schools in Japan. Secondly, the passages are questionable. My answer to this is, and always will be: any fair comparison of textbooks from all three nations would find that Chinese textboooks are state-sponsered communist propaganda and that Korean textbooks twist the truth regarding the current issues in Noth Korea to appease the North. Japanese textbooks are largely very good, and if anything, promote a feeling that all war is bad, leading the current generation of Japanese people to be generally very pacifist.

I guess your position is that a strong bully in China is better than having two equally powerful naitons in Asia (Japan and China)? Rainmaker, that makes no sense. China holds its close ties with North Korea over the South, and will always have this as a bargaining chip, so I don't think anyone can see South Korea being the counterweight to China in Asia. It they could do it, I would advocate that just as soon as I would advocate Japan. You see, any sane person would see China with its natural resources, enormous army and vast population as a *threat*. You apparently see China as a benevolent great uncle.

You siad: "Korean and Chinese government does not want only apologies or monetary gain but they want Japanese government to act."

Eh? Act in what way? If not by apologizing or by giving money, that what would you like them to do? I mean, we are talking about a nation that only has a self-defense force, right? A nation that by its constitution, cannot take military action? I wish China and Korea would have something like that in thier constitutions..... As it is, China can't keep from using their military to threaten Taiwan.

Rainmaker, you accuse me of bais because I lived in Japan etc., yet argue that you hold the truth. Then you go on to say that you are Korean and you love your country.... Hey, just to let you know, I was a foreigner in Japan..... who is biased again?

By the way, I'll just toss this in for fun. My father spent two years protecting South Korea from North Korea while stationed there in the 1980s. He had only nice things to say about Korea and its people. We have discussed the issue plenty, and even he (who has never been to Japan) has indicated that the Korean hatred for Japan, especially amongst the younger generation who had no direct knowledge of the events, is extreme and promoted by the Korean government (which was also my argument for China). I think Korea should only be allowed to speak to issues of aggression and war once they become a complete nation, or at least the North stops testing rockets shot illegally over other nations.

[samurai999]

Rainmaker,


Let me add to this by saying horrible things were done by both the allies and the axis powers during the second world war.

People really have to understand exactly this statement. Atrocities aren't just limited to one country. EVERY country is guilty of something in the past. It is these politicians that really don't want to admit it and force the agenda on other countries to apologize. Its not that the atrocities committed were bad, its just that every country has to fess up to them.


TIm

[KevinF]

Tim,

would 18 times be enough?

[JSchmidt]

Ah yes..the wonderfully free & democratic China:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4617657.stm

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/chn-180505-action-eng

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA170182005?open&of=ENG-CHN

[samurai999]

Tim,

would 18 times be enough?


whoops, mistyped. What i meant is "not that the atrocities committed WEREN'T bad"...

But from the level of schoolbook and media coverage I have seen, each atrocity is horrible within itself. EACH ONE IS JUST AS BAD. Just as intolerable. Just as unacceptable. Thats what i meant.

Tim

[rainmaker]

...................................

[drizzt]

People really have to understand exactly this statement. Atrocities aren't just limited to one country. EVERY country is guilty of something in the past. It is these politicians that really don't want to admit it and force the agenda on other countries to apologize. Its not that the atrocities committed weren't bad, its just that every country has to fess up to them.


TIm

Nicely put. when they happen, most "atrocities" are not even viewed as bad

I saw something earlier, and beleive it to be a valid point. Why does the media only show the bad things a country does. have we sunk that low as to only enjoy bad?you never see a story about the acts of kindness soldiers are doing in Iraq. UN peace keepers, or red cross vollunteers go into african country's and risk there lives everyday to bring food and aid to starving people. Yet our lovely liberal news media seems content only to cover trash like the michael jackson trial. There greatest joy in life is to talk about the EVIL US government, or for that matter the evil governments of the world...............

why have we sunk this low? is it only the US media thats gotten this bad or is it a global problem?


sorry for striking out on an aside to the main topic, but i think the general philisophical point fits in well here. Maybe i should revive the political debate thread on this subject..........

[rainmaker]

Kevin-san,

First of all, I already admited the Japanese Imperial army did horrible things. For this, the Japanese people and government were punished with invasion, bombings, and a "regime change" in 1945 that included the only use of atmoic weapons on a population. Do you think it would be fair for U.S. leaders in 2050 to demand apologies and reparations from Afghanistan because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
=> If Afghanistan change the textbook and educate their childen that it was act of world freedom, yes, US should demand apologies… If they claim Hawaii is part of Afghanistan, yes. If they claim they raped American woman in order to boost soldiers morale, yes...


Let me add to this by saying horrible things were done by both the allies and the axis powers during the second world war. While I defend the use of atomic weapons by the U.S. as a logical course of action which may have saved many lives at the expense of others, I deplore the firebombing of Dresden and the virtual apathy of the U.S. and its allies with regard to Germany's Final Solution. Furthermore, as the son of immigrants, I recall listening to stories of the horrendous treatment by the Russian army in the Czech Republic - random shootings, tossing babies out of windows, raping of women, etc.
=> I am not talking about US or other region. I cannot talk behalf of Czech since I don't even know their history.


You say that 60 years is very short. I say that nations should look to the current and future situation rather than live in the past. Shold nations take your view of things, there would never be peace.
=> If you don't fix the problem and rather trying to hide the problem, how our relationship will improve ? You may say when can you forgive Japan, but all I can say it will take long time to heal such wounds. History itself repeat. Japan invades Korean numerous times through the history. That is why we cannot just forget the past and move on.

As Koren troops are currently illegally occupying Takeshima, it would be a horrible incident to actually see Japanese troops land on the island, however, I sympathize with Japan in the current power struggle in Asia.
=> You are assuming Tokdo is Japanse island and therefore Korean troop is illegally occyupying it. Let me tell you my point. It is Korean land and we are protecting our land from Japan.

My advocating Japenese posession by menas of troops is not a comment of hatred. If you assume this, then Korean occupation of the islands by means of force would also be a statement of hatred? Well, my friend, this is sadly the status quo.
=> I have learned since elementary schools that giving finger is symbol of hatred. Especially when you are ignorant. Korean occupation is not a statement of hatred, it is statement of protecting Korean land.


First of all, the textbooks are used in less than 1% of all junior high schools in Japan.
=> Even 1%, it is wrong.

Secondly, the passages are questionable. My answer to this is, and always will be: any fair comparison of textbooks from all three nations would find that Chinese textboooks are state-sponsered communist propaganda and that Korean textbooks twist the truth regarding the current issues in Noth Korea to appease the North.
=> Yes, we might have changed our domestic history but we never twisted fact about other international history.

Japanese textbooks are largely very good, and if anything, promote a feeling that all war is bad, leading the current generation of Japanese people to be generally very pacifist.
=> You must learned with 99% text book. But then again, I don't assume you read all 99% text book.


I guess your position is that a strong bully in China is better than having two equally powerful naitons in Asia (Japan and China)? Rainmaker, that makes no sense. China holds its close ties with North Korea over the South, and will always have this as a bargaining chip, so I don't think anyone can see South Korea being the counterweight to China in Asia. It they could do it, I would advocate that just as soon as I would advocate Japan. You see, any sane person would see China with its natural resources, enormous army and vast population as a *threat*. You apparently see China as a benevolent great uncle.
=> You are assuming that China and S. Korea ties are not strong. Maybe. But let's not forget that South Korean and China's trade is about $6.3B and 50% of total Korean investment is send to China last year. North Korea and China ? About $1B/year. Can you still say China holds its close ties with North Korea ???


You siad: "Korean and Chinese government does not want only apologies or monetary gain but they want Japanese government to act."
Eh? Act in what way? If not by apologizing or by giving money, that what would you like them to do? I mean, we are talking about a nation that only has a self-defense force, right? A nation that by its constitution, cannot take military action? I wish China and Korea would have something like that in thier constitutions..... As it is, China can't keep from using their military to threaten Taiwan.
=> Yes, they verbally apologize 18 times. But they still refuse to fix the problem. Such as textbook, comfort woman, Bio weapon testing on human, Tokdo.. Do you think it is real apologies ???

Rainmaker, you accuse me of bais because I lived in Japan etc., yet argue that you hold the truth. Then you go on to say that you are Korean and you love your country.... Hey, just to let you know, I was a foreigner in Japan..... who is biased again?
=> True, because of I am Korean, I can be very bised. But you don’t know the all the fact and still taking Japanese side. I call that biased.


By the way, I'll just toss this in for fun. My father spent two years protecting South Korea from North Korea while stationed there in the 1980s. He had only nice things to say about Korea and its people. We have discussed the issue plenty, and even he (who has never been to Japan) has indicated that the Korean hatred for Japan, especially amongst the younger generation who had no direct knowledge of the events, is extreme and promoted by the Korean government (which was also my argument for China).

=> See ? Koreans still cannot get over Japanese invastion. Is it Korean's fault ? It is not only Korean government saying Japanese were bad but we also heard very often how Japanse soldiers killed our grandfather and grandmother for 36 years. Again, have you ever heard from those Korean people about how they have treated ? If you didn't, you just don't know.

I think Korea should only be allowed to speak to issues of aggression and war once they become a complete nation, or at least the North stops testing rockets shot illegally over other nations.[/QUOTE]

Is this means we are not allowed speak the issue of aggression and war ?? What kind of theory is that ? Read what you wrote and try to understand. Is it your theory that once North Korea stops rocket shots, Japanese can speak to South Korea about Textbook, Tokdo, comfort woman and others ???

Yes, I even myself, used to hate Japanse when I was teenagers. I grow up since then. I try to appreciate both side. I tried to learn Japanese culture and people. I have found beauty in it too. However, let's not be confused. That doesn't mean I agree with their foreign policy. Some Koreans telling me that I love Japan culture too much. I have always tell them that it has broaden my view of people. It is not people that is cruel. It is their ignorance that harms others...

[KevinF]

Rainmaker:

from Dictionary.com: Bias = 1. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment. 2. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.

In your last two posts, you have admitted your pro-Korea bias based on your education, cultural background and national pride. I side with Japan regarding general issues such as constitutional reform to allow a standing army, increased responsibility in the world such as a permanent seat on the UNSec Council, etc. I grew up here in the US and in Europe, and have no such cultural baggage, and I was in the very environment you cirticize, allowing me, as an outsider, to gain a broader perspective of the issues. I insist my stands are not biased in favor of Japan in the sense of the definitions listed above, but you have made a good argument for your opinions being prejudiced.

You wrote: => If you don't fix the problem and rather trying to hide the problem, how our relationship will improve ? You may say when can you forgive Japan, but all I can say it will take long time to heal such wounds. History itself repeat. Japan invades Korean numerous times through the history. That is why we cannot just forget the past and move on.

Rainmaker, there is a point of diminishing returns. There is a point when the Prime Ministers of Japan will say, "hey, look, we don't want to hear about this anymore." The Japanese people will support this because they will be fed up as well. By the way, this is already happening. Japan has been a peaceful nation for the past 60 years. This is more than Korea can say, as the two Koreas have not even signed a peace treaty and their nation is fractured in two. Officially, only a "Cease Fire" is in effect in the Koreas. Almost every year, there is some violent incident in the waters off of Korea with North and South Korean ships firing on each other.

Seen obvectively, in comparison to the violence in Korea, Japan has been a totally innocent force in the world for the past 60 years....

You wrote: "I have learned since elementary schools that giving finger is symbol of hatred. Especially when you are ignorant. Korean occupation is not a statement of hatred, it is statement of protecting Korean land."

Giving the finger is a statement of defiance and annoyance, not particularly of hatred.

Regarding the textbooks in specific, you seem to argue now that if its an internal matter, its okay for a nations' textbooks to be full of lies. Its only not okay if the lies in question are about other nations.... hmmm... let me think about this.... no indians were killed in the US policy of Manifest Destiny. Wait, even better yet, lets let Germany not mention the Holocaust becasue its an "internal" matter, right? Is that really your position?

I'm just asking to be fair. Most Jpaanese textbooks are generally fair about history, both national and international, in comparision to the treatment on the Korean war and the Korean division in Korean textbooks and 100x more fair in comparision to Chinese textbooks in their discussion about just about anything (assuming you can measure fairness in numerical quantities).

By the way, yes, of all nations in the world, North Korea has closeest ties with China. This has created problems for China when North Koreans flee into China and then attempt to make it to South Korea, sually by slipping into the embassy of some sympathetic nation. Further, South Korean and Chinese economic ties are strong, but the political ones are somewhat weak. My position on this is to say that the Koreas are in no position to bargiain with China, or to assume a more dominant role in Asia. Korea really can't because of the afore mentioned unresolved war, so that really only leaves Japan as a hedge against unchecked Chinese aggression.

You got my theory wrong at the bottom of your post. I said that Korea should only talk to Japan about violence and aggression after they finish or resolve their own war. Until Korea is reunited and peaceful for 60 years, I don't really think they should be in any position to dictate anything to anyone...

By the way, in your last paragraph, you kind of take a stab at showing how you are actually fair regarding Japan, because you enjoy some Japanese culture. In so doing, you mention that your Korean friends berate you for it. This shows me that (assuming your friends are representative of average Koreans), many - if not most - Koreans harbor hatred for modern Japan. It's kind of sad when a country hates another for the sins of generations past.

[samurai999]

Actually, i posted something a while back in another thread something to the lines of this...

My parents are of Japanese ancestry, but from grossly different backgrounds. My dads side came to America pre-1900s, started life in Southern California and my grandfather fought in the great war ON THE US side as a translator. My moms side came from Japan. All from Japan. But her family wasn't involved in the war, they were all scholars and intellectuals.(though sometimes I think the trait hasn't passed on to me. LOL :D)

What angers me is all of these PACs in california asking for Japanese reparations. Not just apologies mind you or changes in textbooks, but billions of dollars in reparations. There was an Asian-American activist group (including Japanese_americans) who were protesting in front of the Japanese embassy in SF for those reparations. This affects me, an american citizen (and had ancestors) who had nothing to do with the atrocities committed in China and korea. How? My mom is still a citizen of Japan with permanent resident status in the US. Say if Japan agreed to pay reparations in the billions, my mom has to pay for it since she is a Japanese citizen. How ridiculous is that? And most likely since she is retiring soon, I will have to pay for it. Even though I or my family lineage had NOTHING to do with any of the comfort women, the rape of nanking, the Bataan death marches, the biological experiments, etc... it seems to me that all the anger, the frustration, and calls for apolgies aren't good enough without money and that is what is not agreeing with me..

Tim

[rainmaker]

Rainmaker, there is a point of diminishing returns. There is a point when the Prime Ministers of Japan will say, "hey, look, we don't want to hear about this anymore." The Japanese people will support this because they will be fed up as well.
=> As I said, you and Japanese governement think it is more than enough. Chinese and Korean obviously think it is not enough. Again, they are trying not to solve the problem but rather walk away. Koreans and Chinese are also fed up with Japanese government reaction. Who can dare to say enough is enough. Definitely not you, Kevin, not PM.

This is more than Korea can say, as the two Koreas have not even signed a peace treaty and their nation is fractured in two. Officially, only a "Cease Fire" is in effect in the Koreas. Almost every year, there is some violent incident in the waters off of Korea with North and South Korean ships firing on each other. Seen obvectively, in comparison to the violence in Korea, Japan has been a totally innocent force in the world for the past 60 years....

=> Do you know how Korea is divided into two countries ? Right after Japan invades, it is devided by both US and Soviet. It was all started with Japan in the beginning and ideologies caused by western counties.

Giving the finger is a statement of defiance and annoyance, not particularly of hatred.
=> Defiance and annoyance can cause or coming from hatred. Kevin, you are playing with word...

Regarding the textbooks in specific, you seem to argue now that if its an internal matter, its okay for a nations' textbooks to be full of lies. Its only not okay if the lies in question are about other nations.... hmmm... let me think about this.... no indians were killed in the US policy of Manifest Destiny. Wait, even better yet, lets let Germany not mention the Holocaust becasue its an "internal" matter, right? Is that really your position?
=> It seems like you don't really know the history of this either. Our old history book claimed that North Korea as vicious enemy. As south Korea is trying their best to make peace talk with North Korea, we have toned down such claim. We don't name them as enemy anymore. We just say it is tragedy that same nationality divided into two ideology. Again, I don't consider this as twisting our history. Just like US don't call Russia and China as enemy, we don't call North Korea as enemy. Again, this is got nothing to do with Japanese foregin policy.

I'm just asking to be fair. Most Jpaanese textbooks are generally fair about history, both national and international, in comparision to the treatment on the Korean war and the Korean division in Korean textbooks and 100x more fair in comparision to Chinese textbooks in their discussion about just about anything (assuming you can measure fairness in numerical quantities).
=> Wow, I am just amazed you have time and knowledge to go over all the textbook of Japan, Korea and China in three years of living in Japan. But your statement like this actually make me scared.

By the way, yes, of all nations in the world, North Korea has closeest ties with China. This has created problems for China when North Koreans flee into China and then attempt to make it to South Korea, sually by slipping into the embassy of some sympathetic nation. Further, South Korean and Chinese economic ties are strong, but the political ones are somewhat weak. My position on this is to say that the Koreas are in no position to bargiain with China, or to assume a more dominant role in Asia. Korea really can't because of the afore mentioned unresolved war, so that really only leaves Japan as a hedge against unchecked Chinese aggression.
=> Are you telling me that our country's freedom and safety has to be relied by Japanese ? Hey, Wait a minuite, isn't this what happened 50 years ago ? Isn't this what happened 200 years ago? Why do we want to repeat our history again ?

You got my theory wrong at the bottom of your post. I said that Korea should only talk to Japan about violence and aggression after they finish or resolve their own war. Until Korea is reunited and peaceful for 60 years, I don't really think they should be in any position to dictate anything to anyone...
=> We are not talking about Korean war here. We are talking about Japan and Korean relationship. South Korea has been been in war for last 50 years. You have made your mind that Korean is violent and aggressive people. Because North Korea and South Korea issue, you cannot talk about textbook, comfort woman and other issues ? That is wrong.

By the way, in your last paragraph, you kind of take a stab at showing how you are actually fair regarding Japan, because you enjoy some Japanese culture. In so doing, you mention that your Korean friends berate you for it. This shows me that (assuming your friends are representative of average Koreans), many - if not most - Koreans harbor hatred for modern Japan. It's kind of sad when a country hates another for the sins of generations past.

=> Kevin. Now I understand how you make your conclusion. Because you have chat with me for 3 times, you assume my personal opinion represents all my friends and Korean. You even made a conclusion that " Koreans harbor hatred for modern Japan". Please don't do that. It is called stereo type. Our dicussion is based on my personal opinion and does not reflect all Korean's opinion. I just hope your opinion does not reflect all your friend or US public. Kevin, I just hope your knowledge is not from limited resources.

Again, you have already made up your mind about Korea and China. It is sad that you have not even trying to listen otherside of world. Before you make any conclusion or make recommendation, I really recommend you to read more book about relatioship between Korea and Japan.

[KevinF]

Blaiming the present dissection of Korea on the U.S and Soviet forces at the end of WWII does not effect my position. In fact, to bring this back to the issue at hand, I guess we can blame the Korean occupation of Takeshima on the war as well, and as Korea came out on the side of the victors (much in the same way France was allowed to occupy Germany after 1945), I can just blame the present Korean military and police force in Takeshima on the arbitrary delineation of Japanese boundaries following the surrender in August of 1945. Since there were never any inhabitants of the island until the issue became a political one and an obvious point of national pride for Korea, I can just blame the situation on the war and hope it will be corrected one day (like the division of Korea).

Rainmaker, I understand your position. You want Japan to be humble. You shroud this in the guise of asking that Japan be responsible. I don't doubt that you are actually scared of history repeating itself, and I don't belittle your position. I just think its wrong, and there isn't any logic behind much of what you are saying.

The reality is that Japan has been a responsible nation and a very giving country for the past 60 years. Compare this to the turbulent history of China with its invasion of Tibet, leaps forward and its political turmoil in regard to Taiwan or to the war and division of Korea, and the reality is the Japan is possibly the most peaceful nation in Asia in post-war history.

I understand you blame this whole thing on Japan, but it doesn't change the present. Japan is a responsible, peaceful nation in the eyes of everyone save China and Korea. I honestly believe the both China and Korea manipulate the situation at certain times to instigate and raise tension between the nations. This is called playing politics, and both China and Korea are good at it. In fact, I would argue that China is a grand master at politics.

One of the things that I am frightened about in your responses it that your default is to side with China, a communist nation that has a deploarable history of human rights abuses, and whose people do not have unfettered access to the truth or to even both sides of the story, regardless of which one is the truth. The only thing that China and Korea have in common is the shared hatred of Japan. You know, didn't China occupy Korea for much longer than Japan ever did?

I am far more worried about the possibility of China expanding and asserting itself than any possibility of Japanese nationalism. In many ways, I feel sorry for Japan, because for 60 years, the country has been denied many things other nations are allowed to take for granted. All other nations on Earth are "allowed" to have an army, an anthem and national pride. Korea and China jump at the chance to point fingers and cry about history.

Since you freely admit that your posts are based on your personal opinion, and since mine are as well (although mine are logical, I believe), I see that we will always disagree on this. I can live with that.

And finally, no, I don't assume your position represents that of all Koreans. I just wonder what most Koreans are like if you are a "moderate" in your stand on Japan. I didn't stereotype - I used your words as a representative indication of what most Koreans must think and feel. This was deliberate, and explicit and based on what you said your Korean friends were telling you about liking Japan and Japanese culture too much.

[KevinF]

The following are taken from the FRUS stands for Foreign Relations of the United States, published by the Department of State of the U.S. government. Those books are consist of the collection of top secret documentations and telegrams subsequently released or made public.



from November 14, 1949:

FRUS 1949 volume 7 page898 (http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/frus1949.gif) and900 (http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/frus1949-2.gif)
740.0011 PW(Peace)/11-1449
The Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Sebald) to the Secretary of State
Tokyo, November 14, 1949. SECRET
495. For Butterworth: General MacArther and I have independently given careful study and consideration to the November 2 draft treaty forwarded under cover of your letter November 4, minus chapter 5 reserved for security provisions. General MacArthur submits the following observations: (omit)The following are our preliminary comments concerning those provisions which we consider of high importance:

Article 4: Presumably security provisions will effect eventual determination Taiwan and adjacent islands. Suggest consideration question of trusteeship for Taiwan consequent upon plebiscite.

Article 5, paragraph2: Japan will unquestionably advance strong claim to Etorofu, Kunashiri, Habomai, and Shikotan. Believe United States should support such claim and due allowance made in draft for peculiarities this situation. Consider problem highly important in view questions permanent boundary and fisheries.

Article 6: Recommend reconsideration Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima). Japan`s claim to these islands is old and appears valid.Security Considerations might conceivably envisage weather and radar stations thereon.(omit)


from 1950:



FRUS 1950 volume6 page1327 (http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/frus-undated.gif) and 1328 (http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/frus-undated2.gif)
694.001/10-2650
Undated Memorandum by Mr. Robert A. Fearey of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs
[Washington] SECRET
Answers to Questions Submitted by the Australian Government Arising Out of the Statement of Principles Regarding Japanese Treaty Prepared by the United States Government

(omit)
It is thought that the island of the Inland Sea, Oki Retto, Sado, Okujiri, Rebun, Rishiri, Tsushima,Takeshima , the Goto Archipelago, the northernmost Ryukyus, and the Izus, all long recognized as Japanese, would be retained by Japan.(omit)


July 19, 1951:



FRUS 1951 volume6 page 1202&1203 (http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/frus1951.gif)
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Change of Korean Affairs in the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs (Emmons)
[Washington,] July 19, 1951. SECRET
Subject: Japanese Peace Treaty
Participants: Dr. Yu Chan Yang, Korean Ambassador
Mr. Pyo Wook Han, First Secretary,Korean Embassy
Ambassador John Foster Dulles
Mr. Arthur B. Emmons, 3rd., Officer in Charge, Korean Affairs

The Korean Ambassador called upon Mr. Dulles at 2 o`clock this afternoon by prior appointment. In opening the conversation Dr. Yang presented Mr. Dulles with a note addressd to the Secretary (copy attached) raising certain points which the Korean Govenment wished to have considered for incorporation in the Japanese peace treaty.(omit)

Mr. Dulles noted that paragraph1 of the Korean Ambassador`s communication made no reference to the Island of Tsushima and the Korean Ambassador agreed that this had been omitted. Mr. Dulles then inquired as to the location of the two islands, Dokdo and Parangdo. Mr. Han stated that these were two small islands lying in the Sea of Japan, he believed in the general vicinity of Ullungdo. Mr. Dulles asked whethr these islands had been Korean before the Japanese annexation, to which the Ambassador replied in the affirmative. If that were the case, Mr. Dulles saw no particular problem in including these islands in the petinent part of the treaty which related to the renunciation of Japanese territorial claims to Korean territory.(omit)

This normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shiname Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. geovisit();http://visit.geocities.jp/visit.gif?&r=http%3A//www.google.com/search%3Fq%3DTakeshima%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3D off%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN&b=Netscape%205.0%20%28Windows%3B%20en-US%29&s=1024x768&o=Win32&c=16&j=true&v=1.2



Rainmaker,


I really don't want to discuss this anymore. I think we've exhausted the well here. I included the text above to indicate that the U.S. supported Japanese claims on Takeshima, further, Japan has tried to settle its claim peacefully through the International World Court, while Korea has refused to even recognize that the islands are disputed and has gone so far as to issue commerative stamps depicting the islands and even fired on Japanese fishing vessels during the 1970s.

(http://visit.geocities.jp/visit.gif)

[rainmaker]

Read this... It will help you understand why Korea claims Tokdo is Korea land..

Anyway, do you have any accurate map which show exact location of Dokdo before 1905?

1. My personal opinion is irrelevant; I only relay facts from documents for anyone to examine. One expert, among many others, is Prof. Hori, Kazuo 堀和生, Kyoto University, Department of Economics. Please refer to Hori, Kazuo, Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima Into Its Territory in 1905. Korea Observer 28: pp. 477-525 Autumn 1997.

There are two such maps both called 대한여지도 大韓輿地圖, cartographed circa 1898. One is archived at Seoul National University, 奎章閣 Library, and the other on display at Sungshin Women's University Museum 誠信女子大學校 博物館. Unfortunately I cannot find a link with images big enough to identify Usando 于山島, Song, Byong Ki states that the map was cartographed by the Ministry of Education of the Choson Government 大韓帝國學部 in 1898, saying, "On this highly refined map, there is one small island to the east of Ullungdo 鬱陵島 called Usando 于山島...because the island at that was called Usando 于山島 in Seoul 漢城.")

Seoul National Univerity Library, 奎章閣 Library, 대한여지도 大韓輿地圖, 1898
http://www.land.go.kr/images/landinfo/popup/popup_mapimg07_03.jpg
http://www.independence.or.kr/NEW/media_data/thesis/1989/image/198902-02.jpg

Sungshin Women's Univ. Museum 誠信女子大學校 博物館, 대한여지도 大韓輿地圖, 1898
http://www.sungshin.ac.kr/~museum/1진열실/대한여1.gif

I am also aware of the existence of modern maps cartographed by the British, the French, US Americans, Russians, Germans, the Dutch, the Portuguese, and even the Japanese themselves identifying Tokdo, Dokdo, Boussole, Liancourt Rocks, Hornet Rocks, Manalai and Olivutsn Rocks, Takeshima as Corean, Coreene, Chosen, Tiosionj, or Korean before and after 1905. Identifying such sources with consistency and with cimprehensiveness would deserve a separate thread or subforum on its own due to the huge number of such cartographic works, already numbering in the hundreds just in Korea & Japan each.

To Koreans the island was also known as as "Kajido" 可支島 (Sealion island), "Sambongdo" 三峰島(Three-Rock Island) and "Sokdo" 石島. Since at least 1881, the island has been called Dokdo by Koreans, meaning "Lonely Island" or "Rock Island", depending on the Sino-Korean character that one uses for the word, "Dok" 獨~독. Two indigenous names used by Ullung Is. residents for the /toksom/ or /tolsom/ meaning "rocky island."

2. Since Silla's rule over the State of Usan 于山國 as a tributary state with all jurisdiction over said island, Koryo 高麗 dynasty continued its control over the territory, moving in people and out according to circumstances, as any government should to protect its people, land, natural resources, and sovereignty.

3-A. The earliest Choson 朝鮮 dynastic record of the island is found in the geographical section of the annals, The Veritable Records of King Sejong the Great 世宗壯憲大王實錄, compiled during 1432-1454, Circuit of Kangwon 江源道, District of Uljin 蔚珍縣, book 153, leaf 11 r. lines 3-8.

3-C. Prof. Hori Kazuo states, as is obvious from a straightforward reading of the text itself,

"The first apprearance of Takeshima Is.=Tokdo Is. in Choson 朝鮮 literature is earlier than that in Japanese literature by at least 213 years. According to (above mentioned) The Veritable Records of King Sejong the Great 世宗壯憲大王實錄, apart from Ullungdo Is. 鬱陵島 already known from Silla 新羅 times, Takeshima Is.=Tokdo Is. is depicted as an independent island which is visible from the other on a clear day. In Korea this Usando Is. 于山島 is also known as Tokdo Is. 獨島."

4-A. The earliest Japanese non-cartographic record of the islands that are believed to be identical to those mentioned in Korean sources, in contrast to Korean records that clearly state Korea's soverignty over both islands of Ullungdo 鬱陵島 (Dagelet Is.) and Tokdo 獨島 (Liancourt Rocks), only begins in 1667 with no claim to soverignty over the two islands at all. This came more than 200 years after the Choson 朝鮮 dynastic record, with Records on Observations in Oki Province (Onshu shichyou gokki) 隱州視聽合記 by Saitou Toyohito 斉藤豊仙, a hanshi 藩士 of Izumo 出雲 (east of today's Shimane ken 島根縣), book 1;

4-C. For anyone who might not be famiiar with the Classical Chinese grammar & textual anaysis, let me provide a straigh-forward translation of the following passage.

"見高麗如自雲州望隠州然則日本之乾地以此州為限"

"(from these places 松嶋 and 竹嶋) the viewing of Koryo 高麗(meaning 朝鮮) can be compared to the viewing of Inshu 隠州 Province from Unshu 雲州 Province. (Due to these proximities found in each country's landscapes) it therefore follows that as for the north-west region of Nippon 日本, one considers this Province 此州 as the (north-western) limit."

4-D. What could be 'this Province' 此州 ? 松嶋 and 竹嶋 were not provinces 州 at any point in Korean history, so . Neither did Nippon 日本 ever claimed them to be provinces 州 during its brief seizure of Tokdo 獨島 in 1905. This province 此州, the name of which was abbreviated in this terse passage of Classical Chinese could have been none other than the Province the book is describing; Oki 隠州 Province itself. Hence from the very beginning of Japan's description of the two islands, any concept of Japanese soverignty over the two islands of Ullungdo 鬱陵島 (Dagelet Is.) and Tokdo 獨島 (Liancourt Rocks) is entirely absent. They were positively recognized as outside Japanese territory, and by all accounts belonging to Koryo 高麗-Choson 朝鮮.

note: Mr. Tanaka Kunitaka's 田中邦貴 reading of 此州 as '松嶋 and 竹嶋' is considered highly irregular in terms of Classical Chinese text interpretation; if that were the case, Saitou Toyohito 斉藤豊仙 would have written this island (these islands) 此嶋 instead of this province 此州. The fact mains solid that his actual writing does not have 此嶋, but has 此州, this province, that is Oki 隠州 Province. Another point is that while an island such as Okishima Is. 隱岐嶋 is also the seat of a provincial government 隱州, it may well be referred to as a province 州, but an island 嶋, simply by being an island but not a seat of a provincial governmental office, may not be called a 州, a province.

5-A. Going back to your 1905 incident, let me find a year close to the year of the seizure of Tokdo 獨島 by Japan in Nov. 1905, The Imperial Editct No. 41, Article 2, dated Oct. 25, 1900, issued by Chosun Dynasty Emperor Kojong 大韓帝國高宗皇帝勅令第四十一號第二條 will make the point clear that the two islands were clearly under Korean rule at the time of its seizure by Japan in Feb. 1905. See Chosun Dynasty's Re-development of Ullungdo and Tokdo and Imperial Ordinance No.41 (http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_5.html)

5-B. Korean Soereignty over 鬱陵島 and 獨島 Evidenced in Imperial Ordinance, October 25, 1900 published in Official Gazette No. 1716 大韓帝國官報第千七百十六號, October 27, 1900

Original document #1: http://www.koreartnet.com/wOOrII/initial/dokdo/img/d2-8.jpg
Original document #2: http://www.independence.or.kr/NEW/media_data/thesis/1996/image/19961403.jpg
trascribed into Korean with Chinese in brackets: http://www.independence.or.kr/NEW/media_data/thesis/1996/image/19961401.gif
Official Gazette No. 1716: http://www.news.go.kr/warp/webapp/sys/dn_attach?id=0212b7945d15a38e91be43e6

Article 3..In the Official Gazette of the 504th year since the beginning of the State, Month of 8, in references to Prefectural Offices, 19 characters starting from 鬱陵島 shall be legislated; in the Official Gazette of the 505th year since the beginning of the State, in reference to Imperial Ordinance No. 36, Article 5, the 六字 in 江原道二十六郡 shalled be amended to 七字; under Prefecture of Anhyob 安峽郡 shall be added the three characters of 鬱陵島.

5-C. "Japan has nothing to do with 'Ullungdo and Dokdo.'" Japanese Dajokan 泰政官, the Council of State, 1877,

In Oct. 16, 1876, Shimane ken 島根縣 asks Ministry of Home Affairs whether Takeshima 竹島 and Matsushima 松島 should be included in the map & land registry of Shimane ken. The Ministry concluded, "Takeshima 竹島 and Matsushima 松島 are Choson territory, and are not related to Nippon." The Ministry also files a request a formal decision to the Council of State, Mar. 17, 1877. Below is the formal decision from the Council of State.

Japan has nothing to with the islands (http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp14.html)

[rainmaker]

Read this too... Well, you ask for it...

In response to the compilation of the cadastre for Takeshima and another island in the Sea of Japan as per Home Office Inquiry.

Knowing that our country has nothing to do with them as the result of the communication between our old government and that country involved after the entry into the island by the Koreans in the fifth year of the Genroku, and having examined the view stated in the inquiry, the following draft instruction has been made for deliberation and sanction.

Draft Instruction

In reference to Takeshima and another island, it is to be understood that our country has nothing to do with them."Even 23 years before the Choson Ordinance, Japan denies its connection to the two islands.

During the conference about SF treaty, Korean maybe officer mentioned the same thing. However U.S. officer concluded;

Then U.S. omitted Dokdo from the islands which were renounced by Japan.
In fact, SF treaty never mention the islets belong to Korea.
How can it automatically belong to Korea?6-A. A literal reading of the following documents should suffice to nullify your SCAP/FRUS quotations. The reason they never took effect, was that the historical accuracy of those claims you quote were not such that could supercede what had been decided, announced, and enforced by the following documents. Although a bit long, I shall reproduce full texts whenever possible to prevent, and hopefully minimize circular debate and repetition.

6-B. Cairo Declaration, 1943: US, China, UK "The World and Japan" Database Project
Database of Postwar Japanese Politics and International Relations
Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo
[Title] The Cairo Declaration

[Place] North Africa
[Date] November 27, 1943
[Source] Department of State , The Department of State Bulletin, No.232,p.393. Japan's Foreign Relations-Basic Documents Vol.1, pp.55-56.

President Roosevelt, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and Prime Minister Churchill, together with their respective military and diplomatic advisers, have completed a conference in North Africa.

The following general statement was issued:

(paragraph 1)"The several military missions have agreed upon future military operations against Japan. The Three Great Allies expressed their resolve to bring unrelenting pressure against their brutal enemies by sea, Iand, and air. This pressure is already rising.

(paragraph 2)"The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion. It is their purpose that [u]Japan [B]shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China(1). Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed(2). The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent.

(paragraph 3)"With these objects in view the three Allies, in harmony with those of the United Nations at war with Japan, will continue to persevere in the serious and prolonged operations necessary to procure the unconditional surrender of Japan." 6-C. Note that the time range to be governed by the stripping of all territories "seized, occupied, stolen, or taken" by Japan is defined since 1914 in clause (1), there is no such limit in clause (2). Hence the seizure of Tokdo in 1905 by Shimane ken, and by extension by Japan, falls under clause (2) of Cairo Declaration.

6-D. Also noteworthy is the immutable fact that Japan was required to return all the following territories "seized, occupied, stolen, or taken" from its neighboring countires although the act of "seizing, occupying, stealing, or taking" occurred prior to 1914, or 1910.

(1) 1895.04: Taiwan & Penghudao 澎湖島 all returned to China
(2) 1905.02: Tokdo returned to Korea
(3) 1905.11: Liaodong Peninsula returned to China
(4) 1905.11: Sakhalin Is. returned to Russia
(5) 1910.08.22: Korea is returned to Korea

None of these decisions, announcements, and enforcements has been revoked to date, which only proves the loose nature of the said "SCAP/FRUS documents" frequently avoiding responsibility by such apologetic disclaimers as requoted below in 6-E.

6-E. I have already disproved all the points made by the three SCAP/FRUS quotations in this thread, post #5, SCAP Recognizes Takeshima as part of Japan (http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/10FRUS.html) linked to a page supplied by a Tanaka Kunitaka たなかくにたか 田中邦貴. Full page in Japanese & Korean below. Sorry, Mr.Tanaka does not offer an English page; however, Mark S. Lovmo provides a balancing English page with useful links below.

Japanese page by Tanaka Kunitaka (http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/)
Korean page by Tanaka Kunitaka (http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/Takeshima/)

The 1948 Bombing of Dokdo Island by Mark S. Lovmo (http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/)
The Territorial Dispute over Dokdo by Mark S. Lovmo (http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html)

Therefore I shall not repeat my demonstration, but only comment on the language aspect of the officers' statements. Compare the weak statements below with the consistent use of 'will,' 'shall,' 'resolve,' and 'determined' in the Cairo Declaration. Obviously the three SCAP/FRUS quotations are not on the same plane as those statements that were announced & enforced, not classified and stored in an archive for decades without any practical force. Are not such instances of speech full of wind called double speak, which refers to the behavior of saying one thing but not really wanting to say it for some reason ? Forgive my dry humor; I'm exhausted, but I can go on if you want. ;-)

(SCAP/FRUS quotation #1: The Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Wiiliam J. Sebald) to the Secretary of State, Tokyo, November 14, 1949) "is old and appears valid..."

I have already elaborated as to the inaccurate and misleading nature of the Japanese rule over the island being old, as 大韓帝國's rule over the island is older than Japan's, Choson's rule over the island is even older, Koryo's rule over the island is even more so, with Shilla's rule over the island since 512 CE being the oldest. (see post #11, also this post #16, paragraphs 1-5) Therefore whatever claim to antiquity should come from Korea, not from Japan.

And what kind of statement is "appears valid ?" Even taking into consideration his obvious ingnorance in both Korean sources & Japanese sources, William J. Sebald's statement betrays his uncertainty and desire to avoid ultimate responsibility that might arise from his unsupported statement. Was Secretary of State expecting a report from Wiiliam J. Sebald for which Sebald was not prepared to speak with much confidence or substance ? That's an obvious point, but I couldn't rely on common sense without making an explicit statement of this obvious fact.

(SCAP/FRUS quotation #2: Undated Memorandum by Mr. Robert A. Fearey of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs, Washington) "it is thought that .... would be...."

Robert A. Fearey also sounds unsure of his statement; why put a personal disclaimer by saying "I think" instead of making a straight statement ? Well he went further to put the statement in the passive form "It is thought that..." so that the agent of the action of airing his opinion, which is himself, can be left unstated. This is a sure sign of wanting to avoid responsibility.

Also why say "would" when there is the coverb of certainty "will/shall" ? That the English language was being used in such selective and cautious manner obliges me with good reason to further doubt the seriousness of said statement.

(SCAP/FRUS quotation #3: Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge of Korean Affairs in the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs (Emmons), Washington, July 19, 1951) "according to our information..."

Again a disclaimer is found, meaning Officer Emmons had not grasped all relevant & necessary information to enable him to make any valid statement. No further comment on these obscure statements for now.

[samurai999]

Good job... You guys officially started a pi**ing contest.

Tim

[rainmaker]

You just can see that there are not much things to do here in Florida.... That is why they have to recount presidential vote over and over again...



Good job... You guys officially started a pi**ing contest.

Tim

[KevinF]

Well... that's impressive... might take a while to counter that massive amount of bulls**t, and besides, I want to eat dinner and watch "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou"... I'll deal with you later...

[rainmaker]

As a matter of fact, I don't think you deserve to read this. You have already stamped this as bulls**t even before you read this. You still don't think you are streotyped person ? You don't need to deal with me later. You are not worth my time..

Well... that's impressive... might take a while to counter that massive amount of bulls**t, and besides, I want to eat dinner and watch "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou"... I'll deal with you later...

[rainmaker]

Also found great article from MIT university. "Apologies in International Politics"

http://web.mit.edu/polisci/research/wip/Lind.pdf

[KevinF]

Rainmaker, here you go (by the way, please don't whine about my calling your post bovine excrement - this is the flames thread, take it - you've already peronsally labeled me as a number of things earlier):

First, I agree in part with your post. Let's not look to the SCAP/FRUS quotations for guidance on Takeshima. We can ignore them and still conclude the rightful owners of the islands.

The Cairo Issue and Takeshima

The Cairo Conference decelaration of 1943 stipulates "It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen form the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed."

If Japan's argument has validity, and Takeshima is an integral part of Japan, then the Cario Conference would in no way apply to Takeshima. Further, the islands were not taken from Korea, and the discussion below should demonstrate why Takeshima is an integral part of Japan.

The San Franciso Peace Treaty does not mention Takeshima. This should be read as the Peace Treaty defers judgement of the status of Takeshima, and not that the island is assumed to be Korean. By the same logic, it should not be inferred that Takeshima belongs to Japan. Sadly, we cannot look to the SF Peace Treaty for any resolution here.

The 1905 Claim by Japan

On January 28, 1905, Takeshima was officially incorporated into Shimane Prefecture in Japan. On August 19th of the same year, Japan built a naval watchtower on the island. At this time, there were no Koreans on the island, and further, Korea only learned of the watchtower on March 28 of the following year when an offical from Japan let it slip in a meeting.

Even if we assumed that the Japanese incorporation of the islands into Shimane Prefecture was illegal (or fell under the purvue of the Cairo Conference - your point 6-C), it is obvious that Korea was not in control of the island at this time. Further, there was no effort to exercise control (what the Japanese Foreign Ministry calls "effective control" over the islands in the press statement of 2004 listed in a previous post).

Let's assume jsut for the moment that the Shimane incorportion was illegal (just for moment okay - not necessarily my official stand on that), or that the Cairo Conference would specifically apply to Takeshima. Japan's historical claims extend almost 300 years previous to the incorporation in question.

The Map Issue

In your post number 65 on this thread, you ask if there was a map showing the accurate location of the island in question marking the Japanese claim. I take the question to mean that you are either a) ignorant of previous Japanese maps concerning Takeshima or b) that if there were a such a map, it would loan credibility to an assertion of a legtimate claim by Japan. The maps that you mention and to which you offer links are apparently from 1898 - some 6 years before the prefectural incorporation of the islands as such into Shimane.

Japan has a claim to Takeshima going back as far as 1618.* While it gave up claims to nearby Utsuryo island in 1696, it never gave up its claim to Takeshima.* In the 17th and 19th centuries, it was Japanese (not Korean) subjects who were making us of the islands.

Taken from Flying Yangban (http://gopkorea.blogs.com/flyingyangban/2005/03/japan_and_korea.html): "I also think that proximity cannot be made the basis of territorial claims. Historically speaking, Japan (Tokugawa government) regarded Ullungdo as its territory, which resulted in a bitter dispute similar to that of today over Takeshima. Interestingly, before the Meiji era, it had been Ullungdo that had been called Takeshima by the Japanese. Shogun Tsunayoshi agreed to officially acknowledge Ullungdo as Chosun territory as a show of friendship. This act by the shogun infuriated his subject Konyo Aoki who contended that the rightful ownership of Ullungdo (Takeshima) by Japan is clearly written even in ancient Chinese history records. But what was done was done..." [elipses added]

"That the Tokugawa government regarded present-day Takeshima (then known as Matsushima) as Japanese territory is clear in a record of an execution of a fisherman, Yaemon Aizu, in 1836. His offense was that he reported to officials that he would be going to Matsushima (present-day Takeshima), but actually went to Ullungdo (Tokugawa-period Takeshima, by then Chosun territory), which was a serious breach of the isolation policy. In short, he was punished for going to a foreign country. It is clear from this ruling that fishing on Matsushima (present-day Takeshima) was considered OK since it was Japanese territory."

The author of the blog above quotes the Joongang Ilbo with the following: "in 1696, the 22nd year under King Sukjong's reign, 16 fishermen, including An Yong-bok of Dongrae, went to Ulleungdo island. When Mr. An saw Japanese fishermen and fishing boats, he rebuked them as to why they were on Korean soil. The Japanese responded that they were residents of Takeshima and came to Ulleungdo island for fishing. They claimed that Tokto was a part of Japanese territory."

Takeshima Tokai Yuraiki Bassho Hikae (??????????), written by ?ya Kyuemon (??????), records that in 1618 the Tokugawa Shogunate granted the ?ya and Murakawa families of H?ki province (modern Tottori) the permission to take feudal tenure of Ulleung-do, known at the time as Takeshima in Japanese. The families were using the sea around the islet for fishing as late as 1696. On the seaway to Ulleung-do were the Liancourt Rocks, known as Matsushima (??) by the Japanese, which were used as an intermediate port of call by their fishermen.

With regard to your points 3A through 4D, I must point to the following, taken liberally from Answers.com:

"The location of the Liancourt Rocks is recorded in several maps published in Japan such as Kaisei Nippon Yochi Rotei Zenzu (??????????, Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads) published by Sekisui Nagakubo (?????) in 1779. Korean scholars however reject this map because the Liancourt Rocks are merely included in the map (that is exclusively for navigational purposes) together with Busan and Gyeoungsang Province, both of which belonged and still belong to Korea. If this map were to be brought up as proof of Japan's claim to the Liancourt Rocks, it would also imply that Busan and Gyeoungsang Province, both of which have never belonged to Japan, are also part of Japanese territory.

Korean also researchers argue that Sangoku Tsuran Yochi Rotei Zensu (??????????) by Shihei Hayashi (???) published in 1785, marks the Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory, pointing to a small island illustrated next to Ulleung-do. Japanese scholars point out that the island corresponds to Chuksodo, an islet adjoining island of Ulleung-do, rather than the Liancourt Rocks.

Professor Kim Mun-Gi (???) of Pusan University of Foreign Studies claims that he found an old Japanese map titled Chosen Hachido-no Zu (??????, 1758) that writes Ulleung-do and the Liancourt Rocks as one big island within the Korean territory and so that this map evidences that Japan recognized the Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory. Some Japanese sources claim that the map only shows that the island called Ulleung-do is a territory of a state called Usan-guk and does not mention the Liancourt Rocks.[2]

Park Young-Sik (???), a Korean scholar, argues that Historical Geography of Great Japan (???????), published by Yoshira Dogo (????) on March 31, 1900, records that when the local government of Shimane prefecture had inquired of the Japanese Meiji government whether the Liancourt Rocks would be merged into Shimane county, the Meiji government of Japan issued on March 17, 1877 that Japan had no relation with Takeshima. However, this refers to the islet of Ulleung-do, not the Liancourt Rocks, as noted on the page 434-435 of Historical Geography of Great Japan.

According to Korean scholars, Dae Dong Yeo Ji Do (?????, ?????), a map of Korea created by Jeongho Kim (???, ???) in 1861, includes the Liancourt Rocks.[3](This map is incomplete)

It should be noted that, as a result of the confusion between the names "Matsushima" and "Takeshima" on the part of Japan, there is much historical controversy when Japanese documents refer to the Liancourt Rocks. Most Japanese documents and maps after 1905 use the name "Takeshima" or outrightedly place the islands in Korean territory under the title "Dokdo", while pre-1905 documents tend to use either "Takeshima", "Matsushima", or entirely exclude the islets.

I am actually being really fair with the above use of quotations. It basically states that there are competing maps. Some are incomplete, some are confused about the location of the islands, and other correctly identify the island are Japanese or as Koreans depending on the authors and purpose.

Your mentioning of the bombing of Takeshima doesn't really support your position either. To sum it up for those who are reading, "From 1947 to 1953, the United States armed forces periodically used Dokdo/Takeshima as a bombing range. On June 8, 1948, several Korean boats were in the water around Dokdo and were sunk as a result of a flight of American airplanes bombing the islets. An estimated 150 to 320 Korean fisherman were killed as a result."

[continues on next post]

[KevinF]

I would argue that during the inident, SCAP Instruction #677 of January 29, 1946 (which excluded the islands from Japan's administrative authority) was in effect, and therefore, it was Korean ships and not Japanese ones to get bombed. I must note that all other islands mentioned in SCAP #677 were later returned to Japanese control. Takeshima is the only one not returned.

The North Korean Claim

"According to the North Korean constitution, the entire Korean peninsula and surrounding islands, including Takeshima, belongs to North Korea (as in the South Korean constitution) and North Korean' state press heavily criticizes Japan for their 'attempts to invade the Republic territory.'"

You know, I just realized that Koreans seem to care a lot more about this issue than almost any Japanese do. According to a website by Mark S. Lovmo (http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html): Countless Korean Dokdo websites and web-boards have come online. Koreans have also been hacking into, and disrupting Japanese webservers that harbor pro-Japanese Dokdo websites. Almost all domain names related to Dokdo are controlled by Koreans. Dokdo related domain names such as 'liancourt.org', 'tokdo.com', 'tokdo.co.kr', 'takeshima.com', 'takeshima.net', 'takeshima.org', 'takeshima.co.kr', 'tokdo.net' and 'takeshima.net' were all snatched up by Koreans almost in the minutes immediately after they became available. In cyberspace, Dokdo is entirely Korean territory. Mark indicates that the reason for this is the recent polls of other Asian nations which show more support for Japanese claims than for Korean ones.

I haven't really bothered to investigate the Japanese language information available online for additional information regarding Takeshima. Just like you, I already had my opinion regarding this before we started this little chat. I hope that I have taken your claims seriously (because your last post was annoying in its whining), and at least shown good reason for some of your points to be seriously doubted and called into question. As Mark's quote above indicates, there is a lot more information online to support your contentions because of Korean hatred for Japan and rampant nationalism, so your specific posts are difficult to contend with (if only for the lack of English language information, and not for lack of conviction).

Anyway, the islands are illegally occupied. And finally:

Why won't Korea let the International Courts settle the issue if their claims are so rock solid (pun intended)?

[KevinF]

Rainmaker,

Thanks for your link to the article by Jennifer Lind. It was interesting.

Doing a search of her name through Google, I cam across an interesting article in the Journal of the Air Force Associatioin that I would like to share with you:

I noticed a few interesting quotes:

Fueled by superheated economic expansion, the mainland communist giant (China) has launched an aggressive military modernization program and is testing the limits of its military reach. In 2004, for instance, Chinese surveillance and reconnaissance vessels conducted more than 30 illegal incursions into Japanese territorial waters.

Hmmm... what was I saying a couple of posts ago about Chinese aggression?

Here's another: There are even reports that China, flexing its growing economic and military muscle, has begun demanding that Australia end or modify its 50-year-old alliance with the United States.

Well, I don't want to distract from the main Takeshima discussion, but this is exactly what I was taking about when I mentioned my support for the removal of Article 9 of the Japanese constitution and for Japan to assume a larger, more normal role in Asia.

[drizzt]

Here's another: There are even reports that China, flexing its growing economic and military muscle, has begun demanding that Australia end or modify its 50-year-old alliance with the United States.


if that statement is remotley accurate, i beleive china may overstep its bounds very quickly....(note to quote a popular phrase" i have no dog in this fight", im simply commenting on a topic introduced in a single paragraph)

[ISSAC RU]

Rainmaker,

Thanks for your link to the article by Jennifer Lind. It was interesting.

Doing a search of her name through Google, I cam across an interesting article in the Journal of the Air Force Associatioin that I would like to share with you:

I noticed a few interesting quotes:

Fueled by superheated economic expansion, the mainland communist giant (China) has launched an aggressive military modernization program and is testing the limits of its military reach. In 2004, for instance, Chinese surveillance and reconnaissance vessels conducted more than 30 illegal incursions into Japanese territorial waters.

Hmmm... what was I saying a couple of posts ago about Chinese aggression?

Here's another: There are even reports that China, flexing its growing economic and military muscle, has begun demanding that Australia end or modify its 50-year-old alliance with the United States.

Well, I don't want to distract from the main Takeshima discussion, but this is exactly what I was taking about when I mentioned my support for the removal of Article 9 of the Japanese constitution and for Japan to assume a larger, more normal role in Asia.

Ausises are now our friend , take that Uncle Sam .....
FTA between AUS and China would benefit AUS around 50 something
bilion dollars every year.
WUhahahahahahah.........You can't stop us.......
We can see thru Capitalist like no-one else..

Sry about going away from the topic , Ignore my comments and
please continue the posts about The Korean territory issue.

[KevinF]

Issac,

Learn to spell. Learn some grammar. Then come back and talk okay?

Australia has financial ties with China, but has virtually nothing in commen with the "mainland communist giant" culturally, politically and historically.

Oh wait, you said something intelligent: "ignore my comments." I apologize, I should read your intelligent-sounding and cleverly-crafted posts more carefully.

[rainmaker]

Kevin-san,
Sorry, if have become too personal on this issue. I just believe that Dokto is part of our country and I want to protect our land. I have to admit that there are few incident that I was not respecting your opinion. Please accept my apology. I cannot blame that you have chosen to take Japanese side due to many reasons. It is your choice. But I am only asking you to listen both side before you make your judgment.

If Japan's argument has validity, and Takeshima is an integral part of Japan, then the Cario Conference would in no way apply to Takeshima. Further, the islands were not taken from Korea, and the discussion below should demonstrate why Takeshima is an integral part of Japan.
=> Yup !! Everyone agrees on this part. That is why everyone is trying to show historical proof who owns this island prior to 1914.

History issue

I guess you already read answers.com.

Japan's claim: Takeshima Tokai Yuraiki Bassho Hikae (??????????), written by ?ya Kyuemon (??????), records that in 1618 the Tokugawa Shogunate granted the ?ya and Murakawa families of H?ki province (modern Tottori) the permission to take feudal tenure of Ulleung-do, known at the time as Takeshima in Japanese. The families were using the sea around the islet for fishing as late as 1696. On the seaway to Ulleung-do were the Liancourt Rocks, known as Matsushima (??) by the Japanese, which were used as an intermediate port of call by their fishermen.

=> They used to give out permission when they travel to foreign region. If they are fishing in their own land, why do they need permission ?

Korean's claim:
-The first written records on Tokdo are traced to Silla pon'gi (Annals of the Kings of Silla) and Yoljon (Biographies) both in Samguk sagi (History of the Three Kingdoms). These entries state that Tokdo became a part of the Korean territory in 512 A.D. when Usan'guk was subjuated by Silla. Some Japanese scholars question whether Usan'guk comprised Tokdo as part of its territory when the country was brought under the dominion of Silla. To this query the Man'gi yoram (Handbook of state Affairs) of 1808 quotes the Yojiji (Gazette) in its chapter on military administration: " Usando and Tokdo all belonged to Usan'guk, and Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima."
The Japanese scholars concede to the fact that up until 1900 Ullungdo had been called Takeshima and Tokdo, Matsushima, by Japanese. As for the Korean appellation Tokdo was originally called Usando implying its derivation from Usan'guk.

Around the end of Koryo, waegu (Japanese pirates) had become increasingly rampant and plundered coastal areas. As Ullungdo had been subject to their frequent and severe pillage, King T'aejong of the Choson dynasty sought the safety of the islanders by evacuating them and began to assume a vacant island policy toward Ullungdo.

Some of them escaped to Ullungdo for re-settlement, but were always compelled to return. In this process Tokdo acquired the official designation of Usando.

Although the Chosun dynasty followed this vacant island policy for Ullungdo and Tokdo since the time of King T'aejong -- the rock islands of Tokdo were uninhabitable anyway, this did not mean they had been abandoned. The administrative policy was adopted out of necessity to ensure the safety and security of the island's previous inhabitants.
Following in the footsteps of King T'aejong King Sejong also adhered to this policy, but confirmed Korea's title to these islands in the Sejong sillok (Annals of King Sejong) as follows:
The two islands of Usan and Mullung are located in the sea due east of the hyon (country), and they are not far from each other, so one is visible from the other on a fine day. They were called Usan'guk during Silla period.
Usan refers to Tokdo, and Mullung to Ullung, and the hyon to uljinhyon (country).

Japan Claim
Even if we assumed that the Japanese incorporation of the islands into Shimane Prefecture was illegal (or fell under the purvue of the Cairo Conference - your point 6-C), it is obvious that Korea was not in control of the island at this time. Further, there was no effort to exercise control (what the Japanese Foreign Ministry calls "effective control" over the islands in the press statement of 2004 listed in a previous post).
=> There has been many records that people used to live in this island before 1905. You cannot just take over the someone else's island because no one lives there. Do you know how many islands in US that are not in controlled. Will all those island can be subject to be claimed by other countries ??? In addition, On October 25, 1900, the Korean Empire issued Korean Government Imperial Ordinance No. 41, incorporating Dokdo as part of Korean Empire.
=> Also think about political weakness at that time. Japan is equipped with modern military equipment and ready to invades to mainland. Korea didn't have enough power to refuse such Prefecture.

The Map Issue
I am actually being really fair with the above use of quotations. It basically states that there are competing maps. Some are incomplete, some are confused about the location of the islands, and other correctly identify the island are Japanese or as Koreans depending on the authors and purpose.
=> Take a look at these maps. You can see that some of Japanese Map also agree that Dokto is part of Korean territory. There are many maps made by Japan that Dokto is part of Korea. Of course you can say Japanese were confused too….
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Maps+of+Korea&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1
- Paldochongdo, Korean map published on 1531
- Early 1700 Map
- 1757 Korean map, Jung SangGi
- 1785, Japanese map, Hayasi
- 1882, Japanese map, by Japanese
- 1882, Great Japan Map, by Japanese
- 1886, Morikinseki map, by Japanese
- 1878, Bungyunsando, by Japanese
- 1936, by Japanese government

Why won't Korea let the International Courts settle the issue if their claims are so rock solid (pun intended)?
=> Simple. How do you guarantee that it will be fair judgment. We don't think it will be fair judgment since Japan is still policy & economically stronger than Korea. Once it goes to court, Japan can buy vote from other country. You cannot ignore their lobbying ability.

I would love to see a more powerful Japan. My advocating Japanese possession by means of troops is not a comment of hatred.
=> You also have been keep telling me that you are sorry for Japan and you want to give them more power. They military budget per year is $5B, 2nd largest spending in the world. They have 150K army, 45K navy, 45K air force. 203 F15 and so on. It is almost impossible for Russia, China and N. Korea to invade Japan. How much power do they need ? Do you want to give them a right to invade other countries ? Japanese are not stupid. They are already developing nuclear weapon with help of US. Koreans already scared of such aggression of Japanese.

Finally, I am not scared of regular Japanese people. I am scared of Japanese extremist within the government. I am sure I don't need to explain why..

[ISSAC RU]

Kevin-san,

I would love to see a more powerful Japan. My advocating Japanese possession by means of troops is not a comment of hatred.
=> You also have been keep telling me that you are sorry for Japan and you want to give them more power. They military budget per year is $5B, 2nd largest spending in the world. They have 150K army, 45K navy, 45K air force. 203 F15 and so on. It is almost impossible for Russia, China and N. Korea to invade Japan. How much power do they need ? Do you want to give them a right to invade other countries ? Japanese are not stupid. They are already developing nuclear weapon with help of US. Koreans already scared of such aggression of Japanese.

Finally, I am not scared of regular Japanese people. I am scared of Japanese extremist within the government. I am sure I don't need to explain why..



Japan is a very scary country . Its military budget is 2nd in the World.
Right after U.S.A.
Stop Japanese aggression before it is too late.

[samurai999]

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#WorldMilitarySpending

I smell BS Isaac... China has bigger military budget than Japan.. And it is CHINA that is 3rd to the US.. in addition, the US usually spends money more on technologies rather than massing troops.

Stop your ultranationalism and chill.

TIm

[Berugijin]

Japan is a very scary country . Its military budget is 2nd in the World.
Right after U.S.A.
Stop Japanese aggression before it is too late.

"Among non-Nato nations, Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan) spent US $46.9 billion on defense in 2003, The People's Republic of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China), US$ 32.8 billion, and Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia), US $13 billion, (5%, 4%, and 1% of the world total, respectively)."

(According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_budget, admittedly a questionable source)

"Japan spends about US$46 billion on its military yearly, ranking among the top five military spenders in the world [1] (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904504.html) (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904504.html)."

(According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan#Modern_era)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $45.841 billion (2004)

(According to http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html#Military)

However, from the CIA World Factbook the $45 billion is only 1% of the GDP. When we look at China in the Factbook we see that they spent "$67.49 billion (2004)" and this is " 4.3% (2004)" of the GDP.

These numbers can be viewed in yet another way: Japan has "males age 18-49: 22,234,663 (2005 est.)" fit for military service. China has "males age 18-49: 281,240,272 (2005 est.)" fit for service.

I wonder about that Japanese agression, where is it? You mean that they want to invade Taiwan? Or how they annexed Tibet? Oh wait that was China! I'm afraid that the Japanese are about as aggressive as big pink fluffy bunnies, hellbent on keeping the Wa (I don't think this involves shooting and that sort of things). You can make the bushido-argument like in WW2, but the average Japanese rather watches baseball than practice kendo (which is just so smelly).

[rainmaker]

Sorry. My currency exchange rate was wrong. It is $44B, in 2003.

Asia Times, Aug 19, 2004: US spending alone has risen from $296 billion in 1997 to $336 billion in 2002 and $379 billion in 2003. In contrast, Japan spends an average of about $44 billion annually on its military, France about $40 billion, the United Kingdom about $35 billion and China about $26 billion.


They military budget per year is $5B, 2nd largest spending in the world.

[rainmaker]

War does not start because of aggressive people. I believe it is can be caused by many other reason, including politics, ideology, ignorance and many others. I don't believe Japanese people prior WW2 enjoyed killing people.


I wonder about that Japanese agression, where is it? You mean that they want to invade Taiwan? Or how they annexed Tibet? Oh wait that was China! I'm afraid that the Japanese are about as aggressive as big pink fluffy bunnies, hellbent on keeping the Wa (I don't think this involves shooting and that sort of things). You can make the bushido-argument like in WW2, but the average Japanese rather watches baseball than practice kendo (which is just so smelly).

[Yaiba]

Japan is a very scary country . Its military budget is 2nd in the World.
Right after U.S.A.
Stop Japanese aggression before it is too late.
Issac Ru... I hope you really are a 16-year old and not an adult because then I could forgive you for your silly comments about "Japanese aggession". *Sigh*... I understand that you're proud of your Chinese heritage, and that's OK, but your posts about anything to do with Japan is bordering on "hate"... All you're doing is just alienating yourself from everyone else.

Firstly, I think you fail to realise that Japan has had a pacifist constitution in place since the end of WW2, which means that Japan does not allow its military to attack another soverign state. Secondly, Japan's military is a self defence force, which means that it cannot engage in combat unless it is under direct threat by another military aggressor. Thirdly, Japan's military expenditure reflects its need to continually upgrade and be prepared for a potential war in an unsteady region where it is surrounded by countries such as North Korea and China, both of which are certainly not close friends of Japan. Also, they had to worry about the USSR up until the early-90's, and even though it is Russia now, Japan does not have an official peace treaty with them yet. Lastly, Japan is the 2nd largest economy in the world and, therefore, it cannot afford to neglect its military (regardless of its strong ties with the US) as it is too big a gamble.

Kevin F... I understand your point of view about wanting Japan to play a more significant military role in East Asia but I do not agree that Japan should revise/denounce its pacifist constitution. Japan does not need another Hiroshima or Nagasaki incident, nor does it need another fire-bombing of Tokyo and its major cities... and for this reason, the majority of sensible Japanese citizens will not allow this to happen (has anyone seen what Hiroshima is like each year on August 6th?). Many even voiced their concerns and objections to the Japanese government's decision to send military engineers to Iraq, even though these engineers are there on non-combat humanitarian duties.

Japan has changed so much for the better in the last 60 years... and it disappoints me to see people still trying to compare today's Japan to the Japan of pre-1945.

[KevinF]

Yaiba,

Thank you - finally a well-balanced, moderate and eloquent opinion (which to me, carries more weight not only because fo your expression, but because of your geographic location).

Issac Ru is normally off the deep end when it comes to these postings. Do a search of his posts to find such gems as "the Dali Llama = Osama bin Laden" etc.). It's fine though, this is a flames thread, after all.

In principle, I would love to agree with you, Yaiba. As a matter of princple, the fewer the nations with a capacity to destroy the better... however, this neglects the current geopolitical situation in Asia. It would seem that you and I both agree that China poses a threat to the stabi