My Photo

Korean Radio/TV

Blogs about that part of Asia that isn't Korea

« Shimane Prefecture's 'Takeshima Day' a case of fish blowback? | Main | This is just wrong.</p »

Friday, March 18, 2005



>The county office shall be located at Taehadong; the county shall have under its jurisdiction the whole island of Ullngdo, Chukto and Sokto.

>Either the Japanese are not aware of this ordinance or they are just choosing to ignore it.

No, we aren't.
See the map of Ullungdo on this page.
You will see that three islands comprise Ullungdo, the main island and the much smaller Kwanundo and Chukdo to the east. Japan has always contended that the three islands in Ordinance 41 points to these three islands, not to present-day Takeshima. Note that both Chukto and Takeshima are written as "bamboo island" in Chinese characters. It seems a far more natural interpretation than the Korean claim that the latter two are present-day Takeshima, two pieces of rocks located 80 km away. I think it is the Koreans who are choosing to ignore the fact that another island named "Takeshima (bamboo island)" exists in the extreme vicinity of Ullungdo.

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. Today, not even the craziest right-winger can validate a claim that Ullungdo is historically Japanese territory.

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.


Just a little more on how the Lioncourt rocks came to be known as Takeshima
The Japanese government in 1905 chose to change the name of Matsushima to Takeshima because of the confusion of island names between Japan and the West.
In 1787, a Frenchman, Galaup de la Perouse, discovers Ullungdo and names it Dagelet Island. (Note that “discover” is used to mean that it was discovered by the westerners.)
In 1789, a British, James Colnett, discovers Ullungdo, and due to inaccurate coordinate measurement, thinks it a different island and names it Argonaut Island.
Thus, for some time, there were actually two Ullungdo islands drawn on Western maps for some time.

A German, Dr. Siebolt reads in Japanese literature that there are two islands between the Oki Island and the Korean peninsula, the one closer to Japan named Matsushima, and the one closer to the Korean peninsula named Takeshima. Thus, according to the Western map, he concludes that the closer Dagelet Island must be Matsushima, and the further Argonaut Island as Takeshima. However, in 1854, the Russian navy remeasures the coordinates and finds that Argonaut Island and Dagelet Island are the same island, the latter having been accurately mapped in the first place. Thus the Argonaut Island eventually disappears from Western maps.

An extremely complicated situation arose with the discovery of the Lioncourt rocks by a French whaling vessel in 1849 and the discovery of the Hornet rocks by the British in 1855, prior to the disappearance of the Argonaut Island from the maps. Although the Lioncourt rocks and the Hornet rocks were both the same island, in some Western maps, the Argonaut, Dagelet, Lioncourt, and Hornet were depicted as four separate entities on a single map. By 1870, most maps had dropped Argonaut Island (and the name Takeshima), and by 1900, only Dagelet Island (Matsushima) and Lioncourt (= Hornet) rocks remained. Due to the erroneous naming of Dagelet Island (Ullungdo) as Matsushima, the name Takeshima (the Japanese name for Ullungdo) was lost.
In 1905, when the Japanese government decided to make a modern claim to the Lioncourt rocks, it revived the name by giving the island the name of Takeshima.

Andy (AKA: The Yangban)


Interesting stuff. Do you have any links to that in the 'world language?'


No, sorry. These are all information from several Japanese sites.
You know how the uneducated right-wing Japanese stink at English (^o^).

And sorry, I've discovered a misspelling in my former posts.
Lioncourt Rocks should be Liancourt Rocks.


Good job on the information. I myself do not know who to side really. But I think even if it was Japanese or Korean exactly, both countries have to stop acting like little kids and actually try to resolve the issue. Both sides should have compromises (such as giving Liancourt Rocks to South Korea if they abandon trying to change the name of the Sea of Japan to East Sea) so at least both can deal with more important issues such as the strain between Taiwan and China and the nuclear threat of North Korea. I'm pretty sure that South Korea and Japan can live without a few traulers of fish each year. This dispute is probably costing more than they'd actually gain from the fishing.

Little Kim

(Yangban Edit: This was deleted for ethnic trolling. I'm usually pretty tolerant of 'provocative' statements, but this one went over the line.)


please let me explain about the map pruduced by the British gov't.
It was produced on March 1951 and the treaty was concluded on September.There were 9 proposision about the territory of Korea.First five propositions mentioned Lioncourt rocks as Korean territory.From sixth proposition it was ommitted.
This Map is British proposition and it was refused.


one mentioned "Chukto and Sokto are the Korean names for the two main islands of Takeshima"
but...AFAIK,Chukto refers small rock islet located nearby Ullungdo(West of Ullungdo).
there is no evidence what Sokto refers.
Korean say Sokto refer to Dokdo because it sounds similar.However until 1904 no one call Takeshima Dokdo.
If they had recognized sokto as Takeshima(Dokdo),they would have claimed about it when Japan proclaimed it belonged to Japan.
Some Korean say Dokdo was called Usando.
However,Usando was sometimes used as another name of Ullungdo and sometimes refered Shukto.
The map you can see from the link shows Usando as Ullungdo.Because he place where Usando exsits on the map is exactly where Ullungdo exists.
You can see from the German map produced in 1970 the location of Ullungdo and Takeshima.
the small island near 150 degree line is the one.

What Korean people claim has no consistency.
What was Dokdo called? Usando? Chukto? Sokto?
Do they have any their own map which shows Dokdo before 1905?

In addition the two maps above never say "East Sea" nor "Sea of Korea".


You can stand on Ullungdo and stare at Dokdo. Regardless of what the islands were called, Koreans have been living on Ulungdo and have known about Dodkdo's existence throughout history.

Mind you that 1951, Japan claimed Dokdo as well as Ullungdo, as indicated by the German map urecco has posted up for us.

For me, the harbinger of Japanese claims on the island seems to go back to 1905 when Takeshima was "claimed" by Japan and administered by Shimane. Mind you that Japan had already invaded Korea in precursor to invasion of China. I think the argument is that because of KOrea's failure to respond to the 1905 claim, Dokdo is legally Japanese.

But then again, SF treaty although it doesn't specifically mention Dokdo does make it clear that territories gained by Japan during its imperial conquests are to be given back in which case, 1905 claim on Takeshima would be invalid.


Japan proclaimed her sovereignty over Takeshima in 1905.It was not invasion.Japan had treated Takeshima as own territory nearly 300 years.
There is no reason to make it invalid and no treaty mentioned about it.
If the treaty does not mentioned anything,there is no change.


Dear melonbarmonster,

Korea insisted at the end of WWII that not only Ullungdo and Cheju but also Tsushima and Takeshima (Dokto) were theirs. But their claim to Tsushima was negated shortly thereafter. On August 10, 1951, Dean Rusk, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, replies in writing that "Based on the information we have, the U.S. concludes that at no time in history has the Liancourt Rocks ever been a territory of Korea." Upon receiving this letter and realizing that the US will not give Takeshima to Korea, President Lee Seung-Man announces the Lee Line on Jan. 18, 1952 (before the SF Treaty came into effect) and takes Takeshima by force. Since then, over 20 Japanese fishermen have been killed, more than 20 injured, and nearly 4,000 captured by the Korean navy. The captured fishermen were not returned to Japan until 1965, when the Japan-Korea Treaty was concluded. Lee knew very well that Takeshima was not included among the islands forfeited by Japan in the SF Treaty and that the allies did not regard it as an island taken by Japan during its imperial conquest.Under normal circumstances, such an action would have meant war, but since Japan was tied down by the pacifist constitution given to it the the U.S., we could only file official complaints against the Korean govenrment.

No wonder the Japanese media and the public used to regard South Korea to be a militant country and North Korea to be the peace-loving one. Curiously, it was the Sankei Shinbun, the parent company of Fusosha (publisher of the history textbook Koreans love to hate), that continued to take the opposite stand in defense of South Korea.

I think the Korean claim that Usando=Dokto is absurd because it is clearly stated in their historical record of Silla that "Usando is an island 40 km wide and 40km long." Definitely not Takeshima. Another record says, "Usanguk, also known as Ullungdo." In the Records of Taejong (1417, 17th year of King Taejong), it says that, "86 people live on Usando, and there are 15 houses and some fields." Now, as you know, Takeshima has no source of fresh water, and could not possibly have supported the permanent residence of such a large group of people. The Korean claims are pretty lame, I think. Why doesn't the Korean government just come out and say, "It's ours because we took it by force and control it now."


As for "effective control," I think that needs to be considered in the context of law and common practice (as understood in NEAsia) at the time, not now. The "effective control" argument cannot explain international behavior in 1905. I don't want to argue it here but I think Japan knew quite well what it was doing at the time, and it recognized Dokdo as Korean many times prior to 1905 even though there were not Koreans living there or a Korean lighthouse or whatnot, meaning it didn't think "effective control" was meant anything either way. Territory was recognized as belonging to one country or the other without "effective control" being an issue.

The official Japanese gov't sites talks about the points where it claimed Ulleungdo and/or Dokdo along the way, but it makes no mention of the times when Japan recognized either/or as Korean. I just lost six months of bookmarks so I'll have to get you something on that later.


I agree, passerby korea should just point out that they stole takeshima and tell japan to shove it. Everyone who knows and understands korea knows that they dont know how to behave on the internatinal level, so nobody would be suprised.


im 12 and i and in our class we had a forin exchange student from korea and she's been writting to us abou they might go to war and were studying it so im not going to take sides yet


Maps made by Japan of Chosun (Korea) clearly show Dokdo and Ulleungdo as Korean soil. This is prior to the 1905 claim by Japan. This renders Japan's terra nullius (no-man's land) claim as nonsense. Look at the map.
Dokdo and Ullengdo are inside the maps border. The map was made in 1886.


Here are some maps with English showing Japanese maps that support Korea's claims.


You can see in this military map also previously listed that despite Korea being occupied by Japan, Ulleungdo and Dokdo were still considered part of mainland Korea and the 1905 Incorporation of Dokdo had not been enacted.


I'm Korean so I'm very interested in Dokdo stuff.
It's obviously our island. We have Doko almost 100 years. Japanese government keeps insiting that Dokdo belongs to Japan but.. as you know, that weird government lies A LOT.
They lie on their textbook about World war. If any of you say that Dokdo is not Korean's in Korea, all of people will tear you because we already got enough mad from Japan. Don't say.
I don't know why that crazy people are lying, I don't know how they support their opinion because that must be lie.I don't want to know.

I can tell some facts(not fakes) about Dokdo.
A long time ago, a General named Lee Sa Bu(I'm nor sure about how to write his name in English)
got that island. It's written in Korean history book. SeaJongSilLok-JiLiJi,the Korean history book,in 50th page 3rd line, it says Dokdo belongs to Korea.
And Japanes insist their opinion with nothing(of cours thay have reasons but that's never true)

If any of you want to be against my opinion, sand me an E-mail. I can't say a lot of information in English.

Don't trust Japanes governament.


You don't have to be a genius to figure this out via the internet. If you access Japanese 19th century maps you can see the Chinese characters Japan put on both Ulluengdo and Dokdo. From there you can see the Japanese 1870 agreement giving control of these isles to Korea. The Han-ja characters of Dokdo on the Japanese maps correspond with the Han-ja characters on the 1870 document posted on Korean Dokdo websites.


I am shocked.
I studies World History in Europe and America, and I learned that Takeshima belongs to Korea.

But what Japaneses are doing?
They are claiming that Takeshima is their land like thieves.
I know that Tokto is the real name.
Anyways, I started to distrust Japaneses since they are showing immaturity and ugliness in diplomacy.


I also studies World History and I know that Takeshima doesn't exists in World History.
If you see the real map back in 800 A.D, it is stated that Dokdo is in East Sea of Korea.
I know that Japan is falsifying the truth and concealing theie ugly past, but this ugly diplomacy starts to disgust with my loving of Japanese products..
Whatever, I now understand why Koreans and Chineses don't even treat Japaneses as human being

Round table

No matter how hardly Japaneses claim, we all know that it is a Korean Territory.
Japaneses! Stop your childish behavior!
At least act mature not kindergarteners!


I am from England and I obviously believe that it is belonged to Korean Territory.
With regarding to WWII, you will recognize how distrustful Japanese are..
I would rather flush Japaneses if I were a Korean.

Andy (AKA: The Yangban)

Eoghan, Kaiser, Round Table, English,

It is pretty clear that the same guy wrote all four of those comments. I generally don't like double posting but I'll let this stay since it is funny.


Andy, you have just met a VANK netizen. Anyway, Coreans like that actually believe that flooding websites with nonsence will prove their point.

Anyway, keep up the good work giving both sides and letting people decide on their own.

The comments to this entry are closed.