My Photo

Korean Radio/TV

Blogs about that part of Asia that isn't Korea

« KPR: Scandals and more scandals (plus more on the Seoul mayoral race) | Main | The Soccer gods must be screaming »

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Comments

Mizar5

Joint custody should be awarded both countries so they can learn to cooperate instead of bicker needlessly. Neither side has a clear claim so this is the only responsible solution.

Joseph

For the most responsible discussion of this issue, see:

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=487&language_id=1

pacifist

"The analysts are referring to the 1905 annexation of Dokdo (Takeshima to the Japanese) by the Shimane Prefecture".

More precisely, one should say that Takeshima/Dokdo was incorporated into Shimane Prefecture by Japanese Cabinet's dicision.

The Minister of the Interior proposed a Cabinet meeting concerning this matter, Yozaburo Nakai's plea to incorporate the island and lease it to him, on 10th January 1905 and it was approved by the Cabinet on 28th the same month.

The document proposed the Cabinet meeting about the incorporation says that "The uninhibited island which is located at NL 37°9'30", EL 131°55', about 85-ri north west of Oki, has no trace of occupation by other countries. Yozaburo Nakai, one of our country men, built a fishery house there, moved fishermen, installed equipments and began sea-lion hunting there the year before last and this time he made a plea for lending it to him. We need to determine which local government should govern it and the name of the island, so we would like to name the island "Takeshima" and would like to make it into Oki's jurisdiction of Shimane Prefecture. I would like to propose this matter to be argued in the Cabinet meeting".

pacifist

Dear Mizar5,

You wrote "Neither side has a clear claim" but Japan has a clear claim. Korea has not.

1) Japan knew Takeshima/Dokdo since the 17th century (there are evidences), while Korea didn't.
Koreans always say that they has old documents to show it belonged to Korea but they always mention Usando but this island is not Takeshima/Dokdo.
Usando was Ulleungdo or its neighboring island (Jukdo) because their old documents say Usando was fertile and people were living, which doesn't fit to the rock formation - Takeshima/Dokdo. And there were no maps of Takeshima/Dokdo depicting the unique shape of the rocks in Korea but there were several maps in Japan, which explains Japan knew the island while Korea didn't.

2)Japan used the island while no trace of use by Koreans in the island.
Since 17th century Japanese Shogunate recognised Ulleungdo was Japanese territory and gave two families in Shimane Prefecture permission to go to Ulleungdo. They used to stop at Takeshima/Dokdo (Matsushima at that time) before going to Ulleungdo because it was on the route to Ulleungdo.
After Shogunate banned to go to Ulleungdo in the late 17th century, to go to Takeshima/Dokdo was not banned. So it remained in Japan's territory.
In 19th century, Japanese began sea-lion hunting at the island - Liancourt rocks, but still no tarce of Koreans. (The name Matsushima was not used in these days.)
Koreans only came to know the island when one Japanese hired Korean fishermen in Ulleungdo in early 20th century - they called it "lonely island (Dokdo)" because it located far (92 km) from their mother island.

3)SF treaty after WWII clearly say that the islands Japan should return to Korea but it didn't include Takeshima/Dokdo because USA knew it belonged to Japan, as shown in Rusk's document etc. Korean ambassador tried to amend the treaty to include Dokdo into Korean territory but their plea was turned down.

Simply, Korea didn't know Takeshima/Dokdo and USA didn't admitted that it belonged to Korea. No right to Korea to claim Dokdo.
While Japan knew and used Takeshima/Dokdo and USA admitted it belonged to Japan.

pacifist

Dear Mizar5,

You wrote "Neither side has a clear claim" but Japan has a clear claim. Korea has not.

1) Japan knew Takeshima/Dokdo since the 17th century (there are evidences), while Korea didn't.
Koreans always say that they has old documents to show it belonged to Korea but they always mention Usando but this island is not Takeshima/Dokdo.
Usando was Ulleungdo or its neighboring island (Jukdo) because their old documents say Usando was fertile and people were living, which doesn't fit to the rock formation - Takeshima/Dokdo. And there were no maps of Takeshima/Dokdo depicting the unique shape of the rocks in Korea but there were several maps in Japan, which explains Japan knew the island while Korea didn't.

2)Japan used the island while no trace of use by Koreans in the island.
Since 17th century Japanese Shogunate recognised Ulleungdo was Japanese territory and gave two families in Shimane Prefecture permission to go to Ulleungdo. They used to stop at Takeshima/Dokdo (Matsushima at that time) before going to Ulleungdo because it was on the route to Ulleungdo.
After Shogunate banned to go to Ulleungdo in the late 17th century, to go to Takeshima/Dokdo was not banned. So it remained in Japan's territory.
In 19th century, Japanese began sea-lion hunting at the island - Liancourt rocks, but still no tarce of Koreans. (The name Matsushima was not used in these days.)
Koreans only came to know the island when one Japanese hired Korean fishermen in Ulleungdo in early 20th century - they called it "lonely island (Dokdo)" because it located far (92 km) from their mother island.

3)SF treaty after WWII clearly say that the islands Japan should return to Korea but it didn't include Takeshima/Dokdo because USA knew it belonged to Japan, as shown in Rusk's document etc. Korean ambassador tried to amend the treaty to include Dokdo into Korean territory but their plea was turned down.

Simply, Korea didn't know Takeshima/Dokdo and USA didn't admitted that it belonged to Korea. No right to Korea to claim Dokdo.
While Japan knew and used Takeshima/Dokdo and USA admitted it belonged to Japan.

wedgie

Andy writes..

"The annexation was just a reorganization of territory already claimed by the Japanese, at claim going back to the early 17th century...."

I'm calling bullshit on this one Andy. Please show evidence that Japan incorported Dokdo in the 17th Century.

Andy

Wedgie, follow the first of the three links at the bottom of the post. It leads to the first of my three Dokdo/Takeshima posts. That post includes what the Japanese say are feudal grants to the use of the island.

As thought I had made pretty clear in the posts, I see nothing on either side that seems to me to be a slam dunk on ownership. I see it as a conflict between two pretty weak cases.

pacifist

Andy,

I am paying respect to your site, but this is not a conflict between two pretty weak cases.

Think about it, (1) Japan knew and used Takeshima/Dokdo in the 17th century (while there is no evidence to show that Korea knew it or used it), (2) Takeshima/Dokdo locates on the route from Japan's Oki island to Ulleungdo and Japanese used to stop at the island before they go to Ulleungdo, the then Japan's territory (Japan recognised Ulleungdo as her territory in the 17th century), but there was no reason for Korean fishermen to come to Takeshima/Dokdo because they were engaging secretly in inshore fishing (taking seaweeds and abalones in Ulleungdo) under the empty island policy and Takeshima/Dokdo is a rock formation - unprofitable and risky island as it was 92 km (one day voyage) far from Ulleungdo, and (3) even in 1905 when Japan officially incorporated the island, there was no traces of Koreans there - it was 19th century when Japanese islanders found herds of sealions and began hunting them.

There is no clear evidence for Korea to claim the island.

Andy

OK, I am going to stay out of this fight from now on.

The comments to this entry are closed.