Dok-Doh

[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 )

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 and900
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 and 1328
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
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?...6&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.

[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/landinf...apimg07_03.jpg
http://www.independence.or.kr/NEW/me.../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/Conte...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/ini...o/img/d2-8.jpg
Original document #2: http://www.independence.or.kr/NEW/me...e/19961403.jpg
trascribed into Korean with Chinese in brackets: http://www.independence.or.kr/NEW/me...e/19961401.gif
Official Gazette No. 1716: http://www.news.go.kr/warp/webapp/sy...15a38e91be43e6

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_kunit...ma/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: "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: 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)