AMPONTAN

Japan from the inside out

Takeshima – Prof. Shimojo

What is Takeshima?

Takeshima is an isolated group of islets in the Sea of Japan lying at 37 degrees 9 minutes north latitude and 131 degrees 55 minutes east longitude. The group is comprised of an eastern islet, a western islet, and several dozen reefs. The total area of the group is 0.23 square kilometers, or roughly five times that of the Tokyo Dome. They have been uninhabited since ancient times because it is next to impossible to obtain drinking water, and all four sides of the two islets are sheer cliffs.

The dispute over whether Takeshima belongs to Japan or South Korea is known in Japan as the Takeshima problem. In Japan, Takeshima is considered to be under the jurisdiction of Okinoshima-cho, Shimane Prefecture. In South Korea, Takeshima is referred to as Tokto or Dokto, and it is under the jurisdiction of Ullong-do, North Gyeongsang Province.

The Background of the Takeshima Problem

The Takeshima problem originated on January 18, 1952, when then-President Syngman Rhee of South Korea declared sovereignty over the sea around the Korean Peninsula and proclaimed the existence of the Syngman Rhee Line in international waters. Takeshima was on the Korean side of this line, though it had been incorporated into Shimane Prefecture on February 22, 1905.

Then, on September 2, 1954, the South Korean government decided to occupy Takeshima with military force. On September 15 they set up a lighthouse on one of the islets and notified the Japanese government. Japan approached the South Korean government about submitting the case to the International Court of Justice, but the South Koreans rejected this idea. Since then, Japan and South Korea have held no discussions about the Takeshima problem.

There were three reasons for establishing the Syngman Rhee Line. The first was the intent to avoid conflict over fishing activities. Japan had fished in the waters adjacent to the Korean Peninsula since before World War II. The South Koreans were concerned that continued Japanese fishing in those waters after the war would damage their fishing industry.

The second reason was related to the section in Article 2 (a) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty that defined Korean territory. At first, the treaty stated that Takeshima was Korean territory, but it had become Japanese territory by the final draft. When South Korea discovered the change, they thought they should claim sovereignty before the treaty went into effect.

The third reason for the line was that the Koreans wanted a diplomatic card to play in negotiations for normalizing relations between Korea and Japan. An issue for the Koreans in these negotiations was the assets held by individual Japanese still on the Korean Peninsula. According to some estimates, these assets accounted for 80% to 90% of all Korean assets at the time. Repatriating these assets to Japan would have bankrupted the country.

Eventually, Korea seized more than 200 Japanese fishing vessels using the Syngman Rhee Line as justification. They held the interned seamen and Takeshima as hostages to pressure the Japanese government into making concessions during the negotiations for normalization.

The South Korean Claim

One basis for South Korea’s claim that Takeshima is part of their territory is found in the document Dongguk Munheon Bigo (Explanatory Notes for Korean Documents), written in 1770. One section of this document, Yeojigo (Geographical Characteristics), contains the passage, “According to the Yeojiji (Topographical Records), Ulleong (island) and Usan (island) are all part of the Usan territory. Usan is therefore the Japanese (territory) Matsushima.” Thus, this document records that the island of Usan is the Japanese island Matsushima. Matsushima was the name formerly used in Japan for Takeshima.

The South Koreans use this passage as the grounds for their interpretation that the Usan appearing in the Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam (Survey of the Geography of Korea) of 1481 and the Sejong Sillok (Chronicles of King Sejong) of 1454 is also Matsushima. Additionally, the Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam states that the Usan territory, which consisted of the island of Ulleong and its outlying island of Usan, was incorporated into the Silla Kingdom in 512. Therefore, Takeshima was South Korean (Korean) territory from the beginning of the 6th century.

The Koreans also insist that since the Japanese claim to Takeshima is based in part on the Inshu Shicho Goki (Records of Observations of Oki Province) written in 1667 by Saito Hosen, a retainer of the Matsue daimyo, their own claim is based on documents predating these records by about 200 years. They assert that Takeshima was historically Korean territory because the name of Usan appeared in older documents.

The Basis of the Argument

The issue is whether the island of Usan was the island the Japanese called Matsushima, which today is called Takeshima. In other words, is the citation in the Dongguk Munheon Bigo correct?

The statement that Usan is Takeshima first appears in June 1696, when Ahn Yong-bok, who secretly entered the Tottori domain, testified after returning to Korea that “Matsushima is therefore Usan, and this is also our territory.” The expression “Stated in the Yeojiji ” is used in the Dongguk Munheon Bigo, so the Yeojiji, written in 1656, confirms this. All that would be necessary is to check the citation, but this presents two problems.

The first is that the Yeojiji no longer exists. The second is that the Dongguk Munheon Bigo itself is a collection of passages quoted from other texts. Recorded in the document corresponding to the underlying source is the passage, “The explanation according to the Yeojiji is that Usan and Ulleong are the same island”. This means that Usan and Ulleong were the same island referred to by different names. No reference at all is made to Matsushima, today known as Takeshima. In other words, the original passage was altered when it was quoted in the Dongguk Munheon Bigo, on which South Korea’s claim rests. The passage in that document now reads, “According to the Yeojiji, Ulleong and Usan are all part of the Usan territory. Usan is therefore the Japanese (territory) Matsushima.” Thus, one basis for the Korean argument falls apart.

The South Koreans, who regard Usan as Matsushima, or Takeshima, consider the Usan referred to in the Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam and the Sejong Sillok as Takeshima. They also consider the reference in those texts to the word “visible” to mean that Takeshima is visible from Ulleong. They therefore insist that Takeshima is their territory.

When Japan and Korea disputed the sovereignty of Ulleong about 300 years ago, however, the Koreans at that time interpreted the same passage to mean that Ulleong was visible from Ulsan on the Korean Peninsula to stake their claim to Ulleong. The same text has been used to claim Korean sovereignty over both Ulleong and Takeshima. This is evidence that the self-contradictory Korean positions present a problem for their interpretation.

Moreover, the policy used for islands when compiling the Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam and the Sejong Sillok Jiriji was to record the distance and direction from the government authority with jurisdiction. Ulleong is far from Ulsan Province, making actual measurements difficult. Therefore, the expression “visible” was used to express the distance from Ulsan to Ulleong. In that event, the Usan visible in the Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam and other sources is a small island near Ulleong.

In fact, An Yong-bok stated that Usan was northeast of Ulleong. A look at the map reveals that Takeshima is roughly to the southeast of Ulleong. Therefore, the Usan that An Yong-bok saw was Chikusho (now Chikuto, or Jukto in Korean), near Ulleong.

Further, South Korea relies on the Korean Government Imperial Ordinance #41 of 1900 to claim that the incorporation of Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture constituted an invasion. In this ordinance, the island Tolsom (Seokto in the Silla dialect) is mentioned as an islet of Ulleong. Since the pronunciation of Tolsom in the Silla dialect is similar to Dokto, the South Koreans insist it is undoubtedly that island. But Korea did not begin to call Takeshima Dokto until around 1904. It is not possible to claim that Tolsom is Dokto.

Here’s why: when Korea conducted surveys of Ulleong in 1882 and 1900, they did not confirm the existence of Takeshima. When Takeshima was incorporated into Shimane Prefecture, it was terra nullius—an uninhabited territory not part of any country. Therefore, Japan’s incorporation of Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture cannot be deemed an act of invasion.

Though South Korea insists that Takeshima is clearly their own territory on the basis of history and international law, the grounds for this assertion are tenuous.

Dialogue

As long as documents and historical materials cannot be verified, it will not be possible to make any progress on Japanese-Korean historical issues, much less the Takeshima problem, when the past is described from the historical perspective that an invasion occurred. Research into Takeshima in Japan has been at a standstill since the latter half of the 1960s. For Japan to insist on its own claims, it must have decisive arguments that overturn those of the other party. But Japan’s rebuttals have been insufficient.

When problems arise regarding the Takeshima issue, the South Koreans simply howl in protest. They have completely forgotten the historical background of this dispute. Additionally, their understanding of history tends to be one-sided because there is no Japanese-Korean dialogue. The examination of historical problems begins from a mutual understanding of the differences in Japanese and Korean social systems and culture and from the consideration of what constitutes the essence of the problem. I think the Takeshima problem should be the opportunity to take the first step in fostering true friendship between Japan and South Korea.

Sidebar
The area is the fishing grounds for the red queen crab (Chionoecetes japonicus)

The area near Takeshima has been a site for harvesting abalone, turban shells, and wakame seaweed since the Edo period. It was also the hunting grounds for sea lions. Today, it is the main site for harvesting the red queen crab. Japanese fishing craft, primarily from Shimane and Tottori Prefectures, operate in these waters. According to the Shimane Prefecture Fisheries Division, the catch of red queen crabs peaked in the early 1980s and totaled more than 20,000 tons. This catch subsequently declined every year, reaching 6,207 tons in 1998. It has continued to fall since then, dropping to 5,952 tons in 1999, 5,254 tons in 2000, 3,886 tons in 2001, 3,339 tons in 2002, and 3,135 tons in 2003. The value of this catch has slipped to 765 million yen.

With the 1999 Japanese-Korean fisheries agreement, Takeshima became a “provisional area” in which fishing vessels from both Japan and South Korea were allowed to operate under the regulations of their respective countries. The agreement stipulated, however, that the 12 nautical mile area around Takeshima would be the territorial waters of South Korea. Japanese fishing vessels are denied entry into this territory.

In addition, the Japanese prohibited fishing during the months of August and September to protect marine resources. In contrast, South Korea did not establish a period during which fishing would be prohibited. Thus, according to the Shimane Prefecture Fisheries Division, “As matters stand now, South Korea occupies the fishing grounds and the fishing vessels of Shimane Prefecture are excluded.”

Recently, the private sector in both countries finally began to discuss the issue, and an agreement was reached in which the South Koreans would prohibit fishing for one month. This agreement is not legally binding, however, and there are reports of repeated illegal incursions into Japanese waters outside the provisional area. Kazuo Higo, head of the Fisheries Division, stated, “Not all the reasons for the declining fish catch are attributable to the South Koreans, but I think they are one of the primary factors.”

Shimojo Masao

Born in Nagano Prefecture in 1950, Dr. Shimojo was awarded a Ph.D. from Kokugakuin University. He went to South Korea in 1983 and taught at several institutions. He served as the senior lecturer at the Samsung Training Institute and visiting professor at Inchon University. Dr. Shimojo returned to Japan in 1998 and was named a professor at the Takushoku University Institute for International Development. His published works include “The Road to Overcoming Japanese-Korean History” (Tendensha).

(Translation from the original Mainichi Shimbun article copyright by William Sakovich 2006-2007)

90 Responses to “Takeshima – Prof. Shimojo”

  1. toadface said

    This is post is typical of the stance the Japanes foreign ministry has taken recently. That is an attack on the ambiguity of some of Korea’s historical claims and a total lack of historical context surrounding the militaristic nature of Japan’s annexation of Dokdo in 1905.

    Japan cannot show any evidence of prior ownership to Dokdo before their Japanese Navy surveyed, mapped and annexed the island for installing underwater cables in 1905 during the Russo~Japanese War 1904~1905. The basis of Japan’s claim to Takshima is not acceptable under interational law whether Dokdo was ownerless or not.

    There are scores of Japanese Naval documents showing Japan’s annexation of Dokdo was an intregral part of their appropriation of land all across Northeast Asia during their war with Russia.

    Some of the more important documents are the logbooks of the Japanese Imperial battle cruiser Tsushima which surveyed Dokdo prior to Shimane Prefecture’s Incorporation of the island. We can see Dokdo (Takeshima) was surveyed for the installation of telegraph lines on November 20th of 1904, the Tsushima received these instructions as shown here on November 13th 1904.

    All of these pages detail Japan’s appropriation of territory during the Russo~Japanese War.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations.html

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations2.html

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations3.html

    The principle element of establishing sovereignty is the continuous peaceful display of effective control.(Max Huber, ICJ) Military annexations do not qualify Prof Shimojo….

  2. Toadface said

    Files showing Japan’s military activities on Dokdo before the annexation

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files.html

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html

    Professor Shimojo states the Dokdo dispute started in 1952. This is wrong. The Koreans protested Shimane Prefecture’s seizure of the island only days after they were notified in 1906.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-Objections.html

  3. Dokdo said

    This is just full of lies.
    Dokdo Islands did not become Japanese property just because the islands were not included on the final draft San Fransisco Peace Treaty. Once, Japanese over took Corea and took all of its rights illegally and the islands was also illegally taken by Japanese. Do you talk about history? I think there is more ancients maps that record Dokdo as Corean territory than Japanese. Dokdo became Corean territory much earlier than what you have described. Many Japanese truthfull doctors knows the truth yet their voices were hidden. The International Judicial Court would be bad idea because it is basically running by Japanese robby money. So what is the answer? The money rises and truth fallen. The truth will never be changed whatever some of the fullish humans try to do. Karma will come back to you and give back what you did. Don’t forget the golden rule. Coreans were givers back in the days, but the return was 1 failed conquer and 1 successful conquer from Japanese. Remember the KARMA.

  4. Mika said

    Toadface,

    Korea insisted at the end of WWII that not only Ullungdo and Cheju but also Tsushima and Takeshima were theirs. But their claim to Tsushima and Takeshima was negated shortly thereafter. Upon receiving the letter from Additional State Secretary Mr. Dean Rusk and realizing that the US will not give Takeshima to Korea, President Lee Seung-Man announced the Lee Line on Jan. 18, 1952 (before the SF Treaty came into effect) and took Takeshima by force. Since then, over 20 Japanese fishermen have been killed, 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. Under normal circumstances, such an action would have meant war. But Lee Seung-Man knew very well that Japan was tied down by the pacifist constitution given to it by the the US and that Japan could only file complaints against the Korean government. If you are unbiased and believe in justice, how can you support such action by Korea?

  5. Toadface said

    Mika, the San Francisco was a peace treaty signed between numerous states of which America was only one. This can’t be said to reflect the stance of all states involved.

    The stance of Mr Rusk issued in the infamous “Rusk Papers” were simply a confidential memorandum and not mentioned at all in the final draft of the San Francisco Peace Treaty at all. Consider the fact Dean Rusk was an rabid anti-communist who was partly responsible for dragging America into Viet Nam in the 1960s. In short, Mr Rusk was hoping to give Dokdo to Japan in the event the Korean peninsula would fall into communist hands. He was not an expert on Northeast Asian history but rather militarily posturing for Cold War tensions rising in Northeast Asia (ie Russia, China)

    America was not the boss of Korea, however Japan was bound to the treaties she signed such as the Potsdam Declaration (and attached parts of the Cairo Convention)

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-ww2.html

    Mika, both Korea and Japan were slyly lobbying for territory after WWII in fact Japan was trying to acquire Ulleungdo Island. This territory was indisputably Korean land since the 5th Century.

    I don’t support the Korean military’s actions against civilians, however they have a right to protect the lands they deem their territory. They have been burned once before and they are dead serious about defending every inch of their land.

    I don’t believe everything the Koreans or the Japanese historians say. From all of the research I’ve done over the years I’ve come to the following conclusion.

    Historically Dokdo did not belong to neither Korea nor Japan. In the eyes of both Koreans and Japanese, Dokdo-Takeshima belonged to Ulleungdo Island. They have always been regarded as inseparable until the Japanese Navy annexed the island for military control of the Korean peninsula.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/index.html

  6. ponta said

    For someone who really want to study the issue in detail.

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/

  7. Mac said

    From: http://ampontan.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/shimojo-masao-1-the-preconditions-for-an-east-asian-entity/#comment-20295

    > Steve said Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    > Oh I get it Mac, Koreans are like pigs and Japanese are like cute schoolgirls!

    OK, with a reference back to the comment on Hegelian Dialects (a tool which manipulates peoples into frenzied circular pattern of thought and actions), I will take the bait …

    Actually, what I said was “skewered piglets about to be roasted” … and what you did was basically start squealing on the stick that is stuck up your ass.

    Piglets do have a cute factor to them and, speaking as a strict vegetarian myself, pigs are highly intelligent and sensitive creatures closely related to human beings, if suffering from limited human communication skills.

    Now, can you read again what I wrote …

    OK, there is an issue. Let’s resolve. Let us recreate Takeshima Islands as “The International Islands of Love, Peace and Understanding” demanding that BOTH nations surrender their ambitions to own the rocks. Simple. We place them in the ownership of a trust or even bring about a new utopian resolve at the level of international law to make some kind of vehicle for all such dispute territories … no one owns them. They are returned back to nature.

    Would it work?

    Well, on the basis of all the evidence at hand, I reckon Japanese society would jump at the idea like a teenage girl on a boy band member … and Korean society would squeal like a skewered piglet about to be roasted. And there lies the difference between the two.

    I stand by that comment. You ignored the alternative and went back to your medieval war drums and shield bashing.

    If you gave the Japanese people the option of a Utopian peace and a neutral resolution, they would jump at it. The Korea people, subjected as they have been to far more racist propaganda and fear based social control could not. It would appear too much like yet another defeat for the male egos that aggressively rule public opinion and the other rational voices within Korea would be too afraid to speak out for the sake of suffering very real persecutions.

    The Japanese people stopped making wars, and their leaders stop terrorizing their citizens, 64 years ago. For Korea, as with their transformation from feudalism to a modern civil society, that process is much more recent, still ongoing and, especially if including the North, has still a very long way to go.

    So .. back to my point … in whose interest is it in to whip up divisions and antagonisms to keep the Korean and Japanese PEOPLE from functioning well together as we have documented here that they can and do?

    Elements with China would be one answer. The USA would be another. But even those are too both superficially obvious and unlikely (what do you think America really thinks of the Koreas?). So we need to look within Korean society to see who within Korean society would benefit from this at the expense of the people of the immediate region.

    At the very, very least we could presume these are capitalist or monetarist interests … the military and the munitions industry would be interested as it would justify their budgets and ensure their profits … global energy players if there are hydrocarbons under that water … the answer is everyone except the Korean or Japanese PEOPLE. And the environment, which would be my priority.

    Of course, within Japan, there are also minor players who would seek to use the Takeshima issue to weaken their internal opponents.

    So who are you “Steve”? Just another armchair historian or strategist like the rest of us, out to “Slap some Sneaky Jap”, or a player in the bigger game of public opinion?

  8. steve said

    Mac, where do I “bash medieval war drums”. Slap a Jap? WTF!! are you for real? If you are trying to insinuate I am anti-Japanese you are dead wrong.

    Check my website and see where I am anti-Japanese.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/

    What I did was post a summarized version of Japan’s historical involvement in the Ulleungdo Takeshima region over the last five centuries to explain why Koreans consider Japan’s claim to the islands a reinvasion of sorts.

    I’ve spent years studying to Dokdo Takeshima dispute. I am probably the only Westerner to have stayed on the islands with the permission of the Korean government. I have visited both Ulleungdo and Dokdo three times because I have friends who live there.

    I find the subject fascinating because it combines many elements I take interest in such as Japan’s colonial era, politics, and ancient cartography.

    I posted on the last thread to make some points.

    First, Professor Shimojo is a lobbyists for Japan’s MOFA and Shimane Prefecture. His approach to dealing with the Dokdo Takeshima shows he is either unqualified or unwilling to solve Japan Korean areas of contention. He is the one “stirring the pot” or whipping up divisions as you quoted. Why? Gas Hydrate, fish and revenue.

    Second, I wanted to make another issue clear. Given historical context Koreans are justified when they “squeal like pigs” (as you blathered), to protest to Japan’s claim to Dokdo Takeshima. I gave you important historical data and you discarded it as rhetoric no doubt without even checking it.

    Am I a “player in the bigger game of public opinion”? Who cares?

    The subject of Dokdo Takeshima is not a game or a popularity contest to me. It’s simply an issue I take great interest in.

    I support Korea’s claim to Dokdo from data gathered via on-line resources, books and on actual on site research. I am not an errand boy or yes man for any government like Professor Shimojo or his counterparts in Korea.

    Mac, I’m not going to be goaded into arguing about issues apart from the flawed articles by Professor Shimojo and the Dokdo Takeshima dispute. If you have any knowledge about either subject please feel free to comment. In other words, stick with the tour kid.

  9. steve said

    You can read the entire newpaper article here.

  10. Bender said

    Yawn…

  11. Mac said

    Listen to this expert … “Japan is trying to provoke Korea into making this an international dispute”. See article below.

    Married to a Korean … history of trolling forums on the issue under numerous pseudonyms … getting lots of attention … who paid for your trip out to the islands … the Korea Government?

    How on earth did you get dragged into this ridiculous argument Steve?

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2009/06/steve-barber-his-academic-site-in.html

    http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/archives/result_contents.asp?kh_id=200811250035

    You have avoided position entirely … there is a dispute, its pretty silly … so why not both sides just give up and turn them into an international peace/nature park rather than a military occupation and the cornerstone for nationalist fervor?

    Steve says, “I think Koreans need to implement a long-term strategy for dealing with this issue. Korea needs to stay calm when Japan tries to provoke her into making this an international dispute. At the same time, Korea should continue to develop Dokdo and increase acts of sovereignty over the islets,” said Barber, adding he will continue to visit Dokdo and Ulleungdo whenever possible for his research.

    So why does not Korea just go to the international court rather than chopping its fingers, cutting the heads of dogs and throwing dead pheasants over the embassy wall?

    “… the cyber war between Korean and Japanese internet users is not likely to end at least before the two governments reach a denouement over Tokyo’s irrational provocation.

  12. Mac said

    I did not realised that Gerry from Occindentalism lost his job because of his open discussion of the Liancort Island issue … http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=443.

    Recently he ran a piece on how KBS, the Korean national television broadcaster, did a television program showing that Manchuria is actually land belonging to the Korean race which had the Chinese in tears … of laughter.

    http://news.searchina.ne.jp/disp.cgi?y=2009&d=0908&f=national_0908_029.shtml

    Honestly Steve, instead of taking sides and stoking fires in a ridiculous argument, you really ought to devote your attentions to helping Korea understand how not to make itself look like an idiot on the world stage.

  13. steve said

    Mac, as I’ve stated above. If you have any comments regarding Dokdo Takeshima or the articles written by Professor Shimojo please feel free to comment. I’m all ears.

    I find it pretty hilarious you link me a site that also posts and distributes the works of Professor Shimojo, Shimane Prefecture and Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. None of the Japanese right wing lobbyists on that forum besides Mr Bevers even post their identity.

    I have a Korean wife and a daughter…so?
    I debated on many forums under other handles always with the same e-mail address….so?

    If you must know. I paid for my trips to Ulleungdo and Dokdo out of my own pocket. In fact, my friend and I both gave money to Dokdo’s only two residents to help pay for the meals and room they provided out of the goodness of their hearts.

    To stay on Dokdo Island for longer than the average stay of about an hour you need special permission from provincial governments, district gun office and the Ministry of Culture and Affairs. There were others on the island such as artists, photographers, reporters and film makers, they too had permission stay on Dokdo. Dokdo Island is not a theme park, it is a high security area and there are people running around with automatic weapons. Dokdo’s terrain is also treacherous and very dangerous. One of the security police fell to his death last year. This is why you need special permission to stay for longer.

    Gerry did not lose his job from posting about Dokdo. That is rubbish. His contract wasn’t renewed. In fact, he recently posted he didn’t have his contract renewed again by another school. I dunno maybe he has trouble holding a job. Anyway, this discussion is not about me nor the honorable Mr Bevers.

    The idea about the “theme park” is idealist Mack. But let’s examine it.

    Have you ever even taken the time to look at a map of the Dokdo region Mac? Korea has the most proximal territory from Dokdo Island. Ulleungdo is only 87 clicks from Dokdo. No matter what you turn Dokdo – Takeshima into, somewhere between Ulleungdo and Dokdo a national boundary will have to be drawn.

    There are three Korean fishing ports on Ulleungdo that utilize the waters surrounding Dokdo, Dodong, Jeodong and Hyeonpo. Drawing the Japan Korea boundary between Ulleungdo and Dokdo would hem in these fishermen to about 45~60kms and grant Japan’s Oki Islands

    Here are two maps that show possible division of ocean if the national boundaries were to be drawn between Ulleungdo and Dokdo based on modern marine law, either equidistant EEZ line or 12 nautical mile.

    You can see, your “Utopian Ocean Theme Park” is hardly an equitable solution to the residence of Ulleungdo who have lived within visual proximity of Dokdo since the 6th Century. They’d be frozen out of the region while Shimand Prefecture and Oki fishers would enjoy over 200 clicks of real estate.

    Because Dokdo Island is being territorialized any if Korea were even to allow Japanese fishermen access to the surrounding waters, the Japanese government would use this as legal leverage to degrade Korea’s sovereignty over the islands. Simply put, the Japanese could say because Korea didn’t assert uncontested effective control the island isn’t really theirs. This is why the ROK backpedaled on the last fisheries agreement.

    Mac, the Koreans who chop off fingers are hardly representative of the average person. In fact, those activists you saw killing pheasants in front of the Japanese embassy were hardcore ROK former elite soldiers. Every country has these people. You shouldn’t demonize the entire Korean nation for the actions of a few. It’s funny, you are accusing me of being a radical Korean activist when it is you who is hurling the childish insults and generalizations here.

    The Dokdo Issue is not a “ridiculous” issue. There many peripheral problems that are involved here Mac, so we shouldn’t downplay the Dokdo – Takeshima dispute’s importance. Issues like colonial era land acquisitions, post-colonial land reclamation (uti possidetis) modern marine boundary laws and EEZs, and the modern Japan Korean relations etc. From my experience those who refer to the Dokdo Issue as a ridiculous argument know very little about it.

    I don’t consider this a silly argument at all and I wasn’t dragged here. It’s a great forum to talk about the Dokdo issue!!

    Cheers

  14. ampontan said

    …my friend and I both gave money to Dokdo’s only two residents to help pay for the meals and room they provided out of the goodness of their hearts….

    A thoughtful gesture, but since the place is uninhabitable, and was uninhabited until recently, they’re almost certainly being paid (and provisioned) to be there by the Korean government.

    There were others on the island such as artists, photographers, reporters and film makers, they too had permission stay on Dokdo. Dokdo Island is not a theme park, it is a high security area and there are people running around with automatic weapons.

    Sure sounds like a theme park to me–for Korean comic book nationalists. The idea that they need automatic weapons is the most comical of all, but it probably plays well on KBS TV.

    The Japanese are about as likely to take military action against Takeshima as you are to admit that you’re wrong about anything.

    Because Dokdo Island is being territorialized any if Korea were even to allow Japanese fishermen access to the surrounding waters, the Japanese government would use this as legal leverage to degrade Korea’s sovereignty over the islands. Simply put, the Japanese could say because Korea didn’t assert uncontested effective control the island isn’t really theirs. This is why the ROK backpedaled on the last fisheries agreement.

    This is, without question, the lamest excuse for abrogating a voluntary agreement that I have ever seen, other than the stuff that periodically comes out of Pyeongyang.

    And you have the nerve to come here and call other people lobbyists?

  15. bender said

    One thing about “Dokdo” that is true- the last batch of western pacific sea lions (aka Japanese Sea Lions) lived there. were attested right around when the Koreans occupied the rocks, so it must have been the Koreans that made them extinct. What a shame. I hesitate to used the word, but it’s a god-damned shame.

  16. steve said

    Ampontan, I think the Korean guards have automatics weapons not for military deterrent but for stopping some radical NGOs from trying to perform symbolic acts of sovereignty (flag planting, demonstrations etc) I think I can remember when a boatload of Japanese thugs from Shimane Precture were threatening to voyage to Dokdo.

    Yes Dokdo’s two civilian residents Kim Seong Do and Kim Shin Yeol are subsidized by the Korean government. Of course their living on Dokdo is simply a display of effective control over the islets. We just felt it was only right to pay for our stay, that’s all.

    When the ROK government signed the 1999 fisheries agreement it was the era of sunshine and lollipops in Northeast Asia. I (and many Koreans) think the Korean administration was pissing on their shoes when they signed the agreement and after they checked the legal ramifications of it, the gov’t came to their senses. It was the right of the Korean government to do so.

    Bender, long before the Koreans took over Dokdo Island the Japanese were very involved in the commercial slaughter of Dokdo’s sea lion population. From what I understand the Japanese were killing hundred if not thousands of sea lions per year for decades during Korea’s colonization era. The Koreans may have been responsible for killing off the remainder of the sea lions but it was the Japanese that decimated Dokdo’s indigenous seal population not Koreans.

    Ampontan, by “lobbyist” I don’t necessarily I mean somebody who supports either side of the issue. I’m referring to those who are directly involved with the government and/or parrot the official stance of their respective MOFA or district.

    True, North Gyeongsan Province links to my website, however they approached me for permission. Also to get my work cited (ie wiki) it is necessary to have its data utilized in some official capacity or it is disregarded as heresay or opinion.

    I think it’s impossible I’ll ever get 100% support from the Korean government because I won’t fall in line exactly with their official stance on some issues. The reason I have little respect for Professor Shimojo’s articles is because he simply regurgitates every interpretation of historical documents Japan’s MOFA tosses to him. But I guess if Pro-Jo wants to be actively involved in the political side of the Dokdo problem those are the rules he has to play by. However, because Japan’s MOFA makes some ridiculous claims, he has lost a lot of credibility in supporting them.

  17. Bender said

    The Koreans may have been responsible for killing off the remainder of the sea lions but it was the Japanese that decimated Dokdo’s indigenous seal population not Koreans.

    Don’t see how Koreans can be immune from the blame & shame.

  18. Mac said

    I am sorry Steve but I cant remember any SEALs or the SAS tearing live piglets in half, Japanese grandmother cutting their own fingers off or entire cabinets walking over another nation’s flag. You are in denial.

    I am fairly well traveled, fairly well educated, fairly accommodating of cultural differences … but “Korea” has mental and social problems, very serious problems, that really exclude it from the list of developed nations.

    It was actually some high ranking Korean official, military I think was, who said in approximation that South Korea “suffered from a 35 year cultural deficit”. Meaning, it would take 35 years or so before the rough edges were worn off and it would harmonize with the world around it.

    For me, the levels of male-female violence (especially sex-related violence), its racism and its denial are three key issues its people have to address if they want to be fully accepted in the international sphere (the corruption is, thankfully, mostly an internal issue). But I do wonder what Korean women without the influence of Korean men would be like …

    What has made Liancourt Island issue ridiculous is South Korean government funded stuff like this …

    Has anyone see the VANK, ‘South Korea’s cyberdiplomatic corps’ website … a typical example: http://www.prkorea.com/english/e_truth/e_truth50_1.htm.

    What is the meaning of Dokdo to Koreans?

    First of all, Koreans consider Dokdo as a part of their body.

    Secondly, Dokdo is a part of Korea’s history.

    Thirdly, to the Korean people, Dokdo is their spiritual birthplace.
    Dokdo captures its visitors’ soul with its beautiful scenery made up with volcanic islands that were created in the ancient times. Furthermore, with rare sea birds such as fork-tailed petrel, Seum-se and black-tailed gull inhabiting in its islands, Dokdo is officially protected and designated as the natural monument No.336 by the Korean government.

    Also, Dokdo is the symbol of pride in Koreans.
    Using its geopolitical position of Dokdo and Ulleungdo, Japan attacked the Russia’s Balt fleet, and won the war in 1905. Five years later, Japan occupied Korea by force and committed unspeakable atrocities upon the Korean people for 35 years. By the collapse of the Imperial Japan at the World War II, Korea became an independent nation, and Japan returned Korea’s land to its rightful owner. However, failing to abandon its militaristic desire, Japan has been arguing its proprietary rights of Dokdo to this day.

    To Koreans, Dokdo is a holy cross for peace. It is a symbol of peace that will stop colonialism and militarism from ever reviving again.

    Definitely got some of that whacky Korean Christian stuff going on in that symbolism … Dokdo as our body … our cross … symbol of peace. They’ll be claiming its the New Jerusalem and the second coming next.

    If this is the voice of Korea, it is full of shit. Plain and simple. Please do something about it instead of joining it.

  19. Bender said

    However, failing to abandon its militaristic desire, Japan has been arguing its proprietary rights of Dokdo to this day.

    Delusional disorder. Period.

    VANK is sort of like one of those Aryan discussion boards, or worse, no?

  20. Mac said

    No, they are not delusional, just ordinary Koreans.

    Apparently it is a “student friendship organization” a bit like penpals … and makers of many a Youtube video like this one:

  21. steve said

    Mac, stop your mindless blathering about Korean mental problems, and half-assed generalizations about Korean culture. I’m simply not interested. Exactly how long have you lived in Korea? How many Korean friends do you have?

    Also VANK is an NGO you plod. Wikipedia says they are only 16,000 in number and 5,000 of those members are foreign. To say they are representative of the average Korean is nonsense. It’s clear you know nothing about the Dokdo issue so you are grasping at straws here.

    Mac you are straying off topic as well. This thread is about the Dokdo dispute and the flawed works of Professor Shimojo.

    Bender, I’m making excuses for the Koreans who may have killed off the remainder of Dokdo seals. My points are twofold. First, by the time the Koreans were in control of Dokdo again the bulk of the damage was done and the native seal population was already in serious trouble. Second Koreans had bigger issues to deal with around 1950 (like a major war) than a “let’s save the seals campaign.”

  22. steve said

    Correction above, I’m NOT making excuses for Koreans how have killed off the remainder of Dokdo’s seals.

  23. ampontan said

    Second Koreans had bigger issues to deal with around 1950 (like a major war) than a “let’s save the seals campaign.”

    “Around 1950″? Try 1952. Whatever “issues” Koreans were dealing with didn’t prevent them from occupying Takeshima by force of arms and killing a few fisherman.

    VANK is partially funded by the South Korean government, BTW.

    I think I can remember when a boatload of Japanese thugs from Shimane Precture were threatening to voyage to Dokdo.

    I think you can’t. I think you can’t provide any details on this at all, much less explain why they were thugs. (Korean yellow journalism doesn’t count.) A “boatload” threatening to go there? That doesn’t even make sense.

    However, I can provide citations for high-ranking Korean military personnel making public arguments for greater defense spending because of imaginary Japanese threats against Takeshima.

    So a “boatload of thugs” going to an uninhabited island requires a round the clock military presence with automatic weapons to prevent it.

    It’s comedy. Groucho Marx in Freedonia. “This means war!”

    When the ROK government signed the 1999 fisheries agreement it was the era of sunshine and lollipops in Northeast Asia.

    This tells us that (1) You know nothing of Northeast Asia in 1999, and (2) The South Korean government’s trustworthiness is on a level with Pyeongyang’s.

    I know Koreans think that their peninsula is the central player in Northeast Asia, but the only sunshine in this neck of the woods in 1999 was the South Korean Sunshine Policy towards North Korea.

    And yes, “sign a treaty with Seoul and watch them make up excuses to break it unilaterally” is really going to do wonders for the country abroad.

    The agreement did not address questions of sovereignty, and was designed that way on purpose. It only allowed Japanese fisherman to fish at certain locations at certain times.

    Meanwhile, the Korean fishermen violated the provisions of the treaty dealing with the type of fishing permitted, which has squat to do with sovereignty.

    The reason I have little respect for Professor Shimojo’s articles is because he simply regurgitates every interpretation of historical documents Japan’s MOFA tosses to him.

    The reason I have zero respect for you is that you’re peddling crap. Prof. Shimojo (and others) did the research and has been trying to prod the MOFA into action for at least 20 years, before anyone else was talking about it. He’s the one providing the MOFA with interpretations, not the other way around.

    I know because I met him 20 years ago and talked about it with him then.

    I also know because I’ve heard him complain about MOFA apathy and unwillingness to make waves.

    I also know, because like Bevers, he lost his job in job in South Korea for making these same points, before he got involved with Shimane Prefecture. (He already had an offer from his current university, so it didn’t bother him that much.)

    In other words, you’ve got it backwards. Again.

    But I guess if Pro-Jo

    Way to stay classy, Steve.

    And you have the nerve to come here and call other people parrots?

  24. Aceface said

    ” I’m NOT making excuses for Koreans how have killed off the remainder of Dokdo’s seals.”

    It’s “sea lion”not seals.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Sea_Lion

  25. Mac said

    I do not need to make any half-assed generalizations, all I do is quote the original sources … here is an typical editorial from Korean Times about the Takeshima Islands.

    Therefore, this might not be an isolated issue that only affects Korea but one that could tie up the rest of the world into an even bigger knot.

    The choice of weapon in this war started by Japan … a collective sense of determination emulating that of Jewish hunters pursuing those responsible for the Holocaust.

    With Japan the aggressor in this war of history, a two-pronged campaign to defeat it is needed.

    First, at the first point of contact, Korea should take a stand. Its first mission is to get itself ready for a long war of attrition, meaning that it should refrain from reacting to every action and comment made by Tokyo. Secondly, politicians must not assume that Japan will change and behave.

    For the rest of the world, it should be kept in mind that Korea is the first line of defense and offense, and that if it crumbles, it would soon be the turn of other countries.

    For starters, let’s try to derail Japan’s bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.

    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2008/07/137_27619.html

    At least the majority of those 6,000 VANKers are overseas Koreans, particularly American-Koreans.

  26. Aceface said

    Korea times….
    Try this too Mac.

    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/10/169_27819.html

  27. steve said

    Ampontan, the new nation of ROK made it clear that Dokdo was their territory and Japanese civilians took it upon themselves to violate President Rhee’s declaration. I don’t support what Korea did however these fishermen threw themselves into harm’s way and they paid the ultimate price for their foolishness.

    Japanese fishermen from Shimane were violating this area even while it they were prohibited from these waters by Allied Command’s SCAP Provisions. In other words, these Japanese had little respect for national boundaries regardless of who imposed them. It is not surprising the Japanese had been trespassing into Korean land for 500 years before 1952.

    Pro Jo? No offense intended, just an abbreviation, I mean you sign your posts “A” If I hurt anyone’s feelings I apologize.

    You are dead wrong about my thugs comment too Ampontan.

    The “boatload of thugs” I was referring to were right wing extremists who could well have been armed. Under international law simple acts such as flag planting, erecting structures or fishing can be seen as acts of sovereignty. American’s claim of prior occupation over Marcus Island was Captain Rose’s message in a bottle tied to a coconut tree.

    http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200405/200405060029.html

    That was the incident. I know these idiots were not representatives of Japan but really they are no different than the VANKers over here. I would want to be armed in dealing with these wackjobs too. They were quoted as saying “In accordance with Japan’s ancient racial spirit, we will dare to land on the Takeshima Islets.” What exactly is Japan’s “racial spirit?”

    Ampontan the Koreans had the right to back down from the 1999 “Agreement” it’s that simple. Do some fishermen violate fishing regulations…maybe? What’s your point? Are you trying to tell me that Japanese fishermen abide strictly by international fishing quotas etc?

    I totally agree the Korean government is incompetent. They were naïve to think signing a fishing agreement in good faith would not affect or degrade their sovereignty over Dokdo. Upon examining the legal impact of this treaty they changed their mind. It wasn’t a move to cheat or rob Japan, just a step back. Those government officials responsible for signing it were berated by legal experts. The point is, Japan is territorializing Dokdo island to the point that any fishing agreement granting Japan access to the islets waters is unlikely.

    I can’t believe a pro-Japanese person would have the brass balls to accuse other nations of international fishing agreements violation. Can you say “Pass the tuna Ampontan? The Koreans, Japanese, Spanish and Portuguese have ALL been the raping the ocean for decades.

    Ampontan Professor Shimojo is not the father of Takeshima. There is nothing new under the sun and none of the Professor Shimojo’s articles differ even from the works of his predecessor Kawakami’s Takeshima book from the 1960’s. The point is how closer are we to a solution to the problem since Takeshima Day and how much better off are the counties as a result of his efforts?

    Professor Shimojo and Japan’s MOFA activities with regard to Dokdo have been counterproductive. Because of Japan’s hardline rock = EEZ policy, recently I have began to notice some Korean maps showing Dokdo as a basepoint for a possible EEZ. This would draw equidistant boundary line between Oki Isand and Dokdo giving the Japanese a mere 78kms of ocean to fish. These maps could be a new direction for Korea or they could be a threat to prod Japan into a compromise ie the current boundary deal.

    For decades Japan has been under the impression they are in a position to make demands when they should have inked a deal to solidify the current boundary which is more than fair. If Korea makes Dokdo inhabitable under international standards like the Japanese are trying on the Okinotorishimas, Japan will really have something to cry about.

    If I’m peddling crap please feel free to tell me where I’m wrong regarding the historical relationship between Japan Korea and Dokdo Takeshima. Better yet come up with an amicable solution to the problem aside from Japan’s MOFA’s obligatory “Under international law Takeshima….” rhetoric.

    Seals, sea lions, you are picking fly-shit out of the pepper Aceface.

  28. ampontan said

    Pro Jo? No offense intended, just an abbreviation, I mean you sign your posts “A”

    I’m me. You ain’t him.

    As for the rest of it, all I can say is: good luck in the world.

  29. Aceface said

    “Seals, sea lions, you are picking fly-shit out of the pepper Aceface.”

    “fly-shit out of the pepper”?
    Never heard of this phrase.You know,you should come up here a little bit more often since you are the fountain of new knowledges,Toadface.

    I don’t know about you,but I’m a zoo-goer and such tiny differnce in zoological taxonomy matters greatly.Especially the Japanese Sea Lion is an independent species of sea lion which is now an extinct species and SK government is said to be planning re-introduction of California Sea Lion,which is a different species,to Liancourt rock.
    I also thought you too were interested in factual accuracy in the matter and this was only way for me to contribute in the debate.

    “The “boatload of thugs” I was referring to were right wing extremists who could well have been armed.”

    That’s higly unlikely.But I believe SK coast guards could have handle it.

    ” I don’t support what Korea did however these fishermen threw themselves into harm’s way and they paid the ultimate price for their foolishness.”

    Maybe you don’t know what happen when Korean fishermen abducted two Japanese coast guard personels from Japanese EEZ and run off to Korean waters on June of 2005.Korean coast guard refused to hand over these fools and foreign minister Ban Ki-Moon promised Japanese government for the prosectuion of these fishermen but eventually let them go with out any punishement.And one wonders why Ban is incapable as UN chief secretary.

  30. M-Bone said

    ” I don’t support what Korea did however these fishermen threw themselves into harm’s way and they paid the ultimate price for their foolishness.”

    How wonderfully conciliatory. I guess the Japanese navy should just butcher the many Korean fishermen who violate Japanese waters at present. This line of argument makes no sense.

    Anyway Steve, why don’t you write up your ideas on Dokdo, send them to be reviewed by the Journal of Asian Studies, and see what happens. Relentlessly repeating the same points on the internet over and over again doesn’t seem to be getting you anywhere.

  31. steve said

    M-bone, where do I say I’m trying to be conciliatory? As I’ve stated, what these fishermen in the early 50s did was foolish considering the newly founded ROK was coming off of 40years of Japanese colonization. The Koreans should butcher Japanese fishermen. Yawn, very dramatic but not funny at all.

    Regarding publications the only parties interested in publishing written works about Dokdo Takeshima are governmental organizations either Japanese or Korean. Like I said, because my posts don’t fall 100% with the ROK’s MOFA’s official policy line, it’s doubtful they would endorse my articles. Certain things I insert into my writing both Dokdo and Takeshima as well as using East Sea and Sea of Japan have resulted in some angry letters from some hard line Koreans. When you have a website like mine you can get dragged into somebody’s camp.

    Professor Shimojo gets published because he parrots the policy line of his MOFA and Shimane Prefecture. If he were to consistently use the name Dokdo or East Sea or differ one syllable from the Japanese government’s official public stance, they’d drop him like shit from a tall cow.

    That said, the Northeast Asian History Foundation did print something I wrote last year. So I think the exposure was good for my website.

    I don’t consider a lot of what I have written as 100 % original but also a collection of other research pages from both Koreans and Japanese. Surprisingly some of the best leads for my research came from Japanese themselves. What I’m trying to do is put this data together in cohesive pages with written translations, primary record images, historical maps and photographs to better explain the Dokdo Takeshima dispute.

    M-bone, as long as Japanese government–backed lobbyists write slanted historically incorrect articles about the Dokdo Takeshima dispute I will hold them accountable by writing rebuttals.

    Aceface, sigh…..yes you are right it is sea lions not seals.

  32. Aceface said

    “The Koreans should butcher Japanese fishermen. Yawn, very dramatic but not funny at all.”

    No.Not funny at all.Considering almost about a million Koreans were living on Japanese soil at the time that move was pretty irresponsible.What happened right after the Kanto Earthquake could have happened in return for that.

    “Professor Shimojo gets published because he parrots the policy line of his MOFA and Shimane Prefecture. If he were to consistently use the name Dokdo or East Sea or differ one syllable from the Japanese government’s official public stance, they’d drop him like shit from a tall cow.”

    I highly doubt that.Anyway since Shimojo IS the head of Takeshima study group of Shimane pref,isn’t it natural to find what he says and the stance of Shimane pref is identical.Same goes to MoFA.Afterall any government should have their position on territorial dispute.I would be more bothered if Shimojo has completely different sets of ideas apart from GoJ line.

    “Surprisingly some of the best leads for my research came from Japanese themselves.”

    Not particulary a surprise considering there is freedom of speech on this issue on this side of sea of Japan.

    “Japanese government–backed lobbyists write slanted historically incorrect articles about the Dokdo Takeshima dispute I will hold them accountable by writing rebuttals.”

    The only “government backed”historians are these guys from joint history study group with ROK.

    http://www.jkcf.or.jp/history/

    I also have to remind you that Northeast Asian History Foundation IS the 100% Korean government-sponsored propaganda organ and with your connection with such institution,I have to wonder what your definition of “government backed lobbyist” is all about.

    “Aceface, sigh…..yes you are right it is sea lions not seals.”

    You are welcome.

  33. steve said

    Aceface, the reason I posted the link to the article is because M-Bone said I should submit my writing to an Asian studies for results. That’s all. Do really think Japan’s MOFA or Shimane’s lobby machine would give me a call? You can call the Northeast Asian History Foundation anything you want they are just as credible as any Japanese organization writing articles about Dokdo Takeshima. So, getting articles published by them was a big step in boosting the credibility of my website.

    You doubt, Shimane Prefecture would drop Professor Shimojo if he used the name East Sea or Dokdo interchangeably in his articles? Don’t make me laugh, he knows where is bread is buttered. He is a yes man and a sell out. Professor Shimojo could gain credibility and respect in the field if he would show less bias in his translations and interpretations. A sixth-grader could see through some of his claims.

    Professor Shimojo claims Takeshima and Ulleungdo were part of Japan when there are scores of maps and a plethora of historical records that prove him wrong. He has to make these false assertions because there are no historical records of Dokdo separate of Ulleungdo. Thus he has painted himself into a corner by stretching the truth.

    There are some Korean historians who have committed the same mistake. This is the luxury I have as a non-Korean/Japanese writer. Even though I support Korea short of their hard-line government stance, there is still enough available data to show Korea’s claim to Dokdo Takeshima has more merit than Japan’s.

    Beyond the historical debate, the inherent geographical characteristics of the Dokdo region leave Japan in no position but to concede at the end of the day, the current boundary in place is fair. The Japan Korea limit now in place was about the same as the border proposed by the UK in no less than five of the initial drafts of the Japan Peace Treaty.

    My website now has enough data to show Japan has no claim to Dokdo Takeshima. Korea will never give up Dokdo Takeshima and nor should they. The only solution for this dispute to be resolved is for Japan to drop their claim and concede the 12 mile limit in place. Hopefully the new Japanese government will forget about Dokdo and let Japan/Korea begin a new era of modern peaceful relations based on trust and respect.

  34. Aceface said

    “You can call the Northeast Asian History Foundation anything you want they are just as credible as any Japanese organization writing articles about Dokdo Takeshima. So, getting articles published by them was a big step in boosting the credibility of my website.”

    I dunno,Toadface.Since there isn’t that many Japanese organizations writing article on Liancourt rock and they probably won’t start doing so from allowing a dude living in the other side of the world with a website.I agree that Koreans are more open minded and has liberal attitude in their editing policy,though.

    “Shimane Prefecture would drop Professor Shimojo if he used the name East Sea or Dokdo interchangeably in his articles? Don’t make me laugh, he knows where is bread is buttered. He is a yes man and a sell out.”

    Wait a second.What you’ve said was:
    “Professor Shimojo gets published because he parrots the policy line of his MOFA and Shimane Prefecture. If he were to consistently use the name Dokdo or East Sea or differ one syllable from the Japanese government’s official public stance”

    It isn’t that unusual to use the name of disputed territory”consistently”to reference the position of the other side here in Japan.
    Plus Shimojo is highly critical of MoFA’s”See-no-evil,Hear-no-evil,Speak-no-evil”stance andleaving everything at the responsibility of Shimane prefecture on this issue.

    “Professor Shimojo could gain credibility and respect in the field if he would show less bias in his translations and interpretations. A sixth-grader could see through some of his claims.”

    And you too with the way of your words,like attacking your opponent as “Yes man” and “sell-out”.A fifth-grader could see through the harsh wording is the proof of his or her anxiety.

  35. steve said

    Aceface, the Japanese government doesn’t support Shimane’s case for Dokdo because they know Professor Shimojo hasn’t got one. His case is weak as water, easily refuted and if you want me to go into detail about it please ask. After all you seem to think his case is justified.

    I really don’t know what you mean by “dude on the other side of the world”. If you are talking about me, I live in Korea.

    In fact, you can ask one of those nutbar Japanese right lobbyists who get their kicks out of posting my (former) address from my website WHOIS data on their creepy lobby forums. After my website was launched they posted my home address on every ch2 forum out there.

    http://ameblo.jp/sinesayoku/entry-10133340772.html

    BTW if you can read Japanese what exactly do they say about me? I know it can’t be good.

    Shimane Prefecture (Japan’s poorest) should be bickering for government subsidies like the other maritime communities that have seasonal work in developed countries NOT trying to impose a colonial era annexation that has no place in todays Asia.

    Shimane’s gets no respect because its residents most notably Yonago and the Oki Islands are those historically responsible for trespassing onto Korean territory for at least 400 years. Shimane’s grubby squatters and violent criminals swarmed Korean territory and drove out the locals in the same manner Meiji Era Japanese pushed the indigenous people out of Hokkaido and the Ryukyus.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-not-japanese-2.html

    The historical limit of Japan has always been Oki Islands. To separate Ulleungdo and Dokdo, two islands treated as appended sister islands goes against their historical relationship. It isn’t compatable with the geography of Korea and Japan’s mainland especially when we factor in both nations outermost inhabitable islands.

    Nobody on this forum has presented one good reason why the boundary between Japan and Korea should be pushed back to the colonial era. When all is said and done it just doesn’t make sense for Japan to extend their limit over 157kms West in this modern era. This is why Japan will ultimately fail to ever claim sovereignty over Dokdo Takeshima.

    Anxiety? That’s funny I run my website and help Koreas case for Dokdo because it’s fun and I’m right.

  36. M-Bone said

    “where do I say I’m trying to be conciliatory?”

    I think it would be nice if you were.

    “Regarding publications the only parties interested in publishing written works about Dokdo Takeshima are governmental organizations either Japanese or Korean.”

    This is manifestly not the case. Peer-reviewed academic journals in the English-speaking world are very interested in publishing high-quality scholarship, no matter what the origin, as long as it can pass what is supposed to be a rigorous vetting process. Having ideas published in something like the “Journal of Asian Studies”, which puts articles through three stages of review with scholars who are supposed to be non-partisan, would lend enormous credibility to positions like the ones that you are espousing. If it were of quality, journals like this one would jump at the chance to publish a piece that deals as objectively as possible with the Dokdo/Takeshima background. The fact that no article supporting the Korean position has passed such a review and given the tremendous energy that is invested in the Dokdo issue in Korea, this suggests to me that it is not ready to be put to the test.

    “M-bone, as long as Japanese government–backed lobbyists write slanted historically incorrect articles about the Dokdo Takeshima dispute I will hold them accountable by writing rebuttals.”

    This is what I’m talking about – scholars don’t really put much faith in pieces that are written with partisan backing. Historians don’t really care what Japanese or Korean government backed projects reveal as those projects support one position or the other from their inception. Something published in an academic context would hopefully be put to the sort of non-partisan test that has been desperately lacking in this debate.

    “You can call the Northeast Asian History Foundation anything you want they are just as credible as any Japanese organization writing articles about Dokdo Takeshima.”

    My point is that while both sides have shamelessly partisan organs, the best idea would be to set a stance outside those completely – preferably in an area that will comprehensively review your evidence.

    Otherwise, I see no reason why I should support one side or the other. I’m pretty sure that an international arbitration process is the answer but once again, Korean evidence doesn’t seem ready to be put to that test.

  37. ampontan said

    the Japanese government doesn’t support Shimane’s case for Dokdo because they know Professor Shimojo hasn’t got one.

    This after a dozen notes claiming that Prof. Shimojo is a tool of the Japanese Foreign Ministry.

    Shame they don’t have gyroscopes for humans.

  38. Bender said

    It’s fascinating some people believe that repeating the same argument 1,000 times somehow makes them right. Heck, it’s not even an argument, because there’s no attempt to actually persuade anyone.

  39. Aceface said

    “I really don’t know what you mean by “dude on the other side of the world”. If you are talking about me, I live in Korea.”

    Now,really.Another new info.Change my statement to “dude from the other side of the world”.

    “”In fact, you can ask one of those nutbar Japanese right lobbyists who get their kicks out of posting my (former) address from my website WHOIS data on their creepy lobby forums. After my website was launched they posted my home address on every ch2 forum out there.”

    Not exactly sure the nationality of this individual and whoever he or she is certainly a “right winger” and a Korea hater,but I don’t think this individual is a “lobbyist”by any meaning of the word.The HP yells at that you are Korean disguised as Canuck.And judging from the tone of the words,you deserve my support and sympathy.

    “Shimane Prefecture (Japan’s poorest) should be bickering for government subsidies like the other maritime communities that have seasonal work in developed countries”

    Not really.First of all,Shimane isn’t the Japan’s poorest.Okinawa is.Secondly,Shimane fishermen do demand subsidies,but also want the government to protect their fishing grounds within the EEZ of which is their main demands.Not the territorial claim.These facts,something you could pick up pretty easily have you able to read Japanese.

    ” Nobody on this forum has presented one good reason why the boundary between Japan and Korea should be pushed back to the colonial era.”

    How about this,the Japanese territorial claim of Liancourt rock goes beyond the colonial era,thus it’s claim should either be confirmed or denied at the international court?

    “Aceface, the Japanese government doesn’t support Shimane’s case for Dokdo because they know Professor Shimojo hasn’t got one.”

    And Ampontan is right.Isn’t that funny if Shimojo is a hired gun for Japanese governemnt as you’ve been constantly posting elsewhere?

  40. Mac said

    Looking to the top of the page, and comment 1 and 2 … is Steve “Toadface” as well? If so, I think it all just boils down to comment and link spam for his website. Best not to encourage him.

    The bottomline is that any nation which refuses to go to court to address their claims has, by default, sunk their own credibility and is not yet ready to join the rest of the international community.

    As to the rest of the Korean VANKers … one day, in a decade or two perhaps, they will grow up and mature. Their rough edges will soften and worldview widen. They will realise how ridiculous their brownshirt-style rhetoric sounded.

    I will end my involvement with some satire I read recently, “What does a Korean husband say to his wife who has two-black eyes? Nothing. He has already told her twice“. What hope has Japan … or anyone … rationalising with a society like that?

    Steve.

    Its a pile of rock covered in guano. Not even enough guano to make some money out of. And have already they shot all the remaining sea lions as target practise. WHY!?!? How on earth did you get into this one? Surely “being the man on the internet with the biggest and bestest website on the Liancourt rock is being the king of a very small castle?

    Are you sure there are not better issues to apply your time and energy to … like sexual violence, exploitation and abuse within the Korean societies or the state of the orphans and street children up in the North?

    If you don’t … why are you doing it? A test of loyalty of your “Korean-ness”, attention seeking mediawhoring or just jostling for rank with the current status quo?

    Why is it so important to you?

  41. steve said

    M-Bone I like your idea. However, I doubt if the JAS would be interested and I haven’t seen anything published by the Japanese side either. I also haven’t seen any westerners support Japan’s claim to Dokdo while recently I have seen some legal experts come forward to back Korea’s title.

    Ampontant, the Japanese government support to Professor Shimojo amounts to little more than the status quo. His Takeshima Day blunder was against the wishes of the federal government. Professor Shimojo gets far less support from the national government than his Korean government. I think it’s because the Japanese government realizes their case is lost and they’re wrong. At the same time they still want to appease the right wing so they’re afraid of the consequences of dropping the Dokdo matter entirely.

    Bender if there is no argument then there is no reason for you to comment on this thread, right? Move along folks, nothing to see here.

    Aceface, you are correct, Shimane is (one of) Japan’s poorest prefectures not the poorest. The Koreans want Japan to stay out of their EEZ too. The Koreans also want Japan to mind their own business when Japan demands Korean fishermen stay out of disputed waters that are administered by Russia, but we digress.

    Japan’s claim goes back to the 17th Century? This is false. I invite you to your money where Professor Shimojo’s mouth is and present historical data to support this. If you want to put your head in a noose go ahead. I’m all ears Aceface.

    The only claim can present is a shabby 1905 military annexation made at the height of the largest war to the day whilst colonizing the Korean peninsula. Korea would never accept this and it’s doubtful the ICJ would either.

    Mac, the ICJ is not God. Korea (and other nations as well) refuse to go to the ICJ and it doesn’t make their case any less valid. The ROK has nothing to gain Japan has no international support even few Japanese themselves support Japan’s claim either so why bother? To appeal to a few radical right wingers, Japanphiles or Korea haters?

    Mac I take an interest in the Dokdo Takeshima problem like anyone who has hobbies I guess. I post here because it is a forum that lacks input from the Korean side. Also, I have a personal interest in the Dokdo region. I have visited there many times and I have friends in Dodong (Ulleungdo’s administrative capital) Their livelihood depends on the fishing industry that Koreans have developed around throughout the decades and even during the colonial era.

    Ulleungdo also needs Dokdo for the tourism industry they have promoted in more recent years. Because of Dokdo far distance from the Oki Islands it’s impractical Japan could do this.

    My ultimate goal I guess would be for Japanese people to see that it makes no sense for Japan to possess these islands historically considered to be appended to Chosun’s Ulleungdo. The best option is a 12 mile nautical border East of Dokdo. If I was a hard-ass Korean lobbyists I’d be shooting for 80kms equidistant border from Dokdo. Under modern law Korea has every right to try this because Japan currently does. However I don’t think Korea extending an EEZ from Dokdo would be fair to Japan.

  42. Aceface said

    “. I also haven’t seen any westerners support Japan’s claim to Dokdo while recently I have seen some legal experts come forward to back Korea’s title.”

    Well,that’s not what I felt seeing certain moves in the U.S government like
    the U.S. Board on Geographic Names.

    “The Koreans want Japan to stay out of their EEZ too. ”

    And when did this happened in recent years?

    “The Koreans also want Japan to mind their own business when Japan demands Korean fishermen stay out of disputed waters that are administered by Russia, but we digress.”

    But since you put yourself into it,Japan demands Korean fisherman to stay out out of Japanese waters illegaly occupied by the Russians since that is precisely our business.Besides,ROK has been the supporter of Japan’s position for long time.Somehow they chose to undermine that after 1990.

    “I think it’s because the Japanese government realizes their case is lost and they’re wrong.At the same time they still want to appease the right wing so they’re afraid of the consequences of dropping the Dokdo matter entirely.”

    Not exactly.GoJ considers ROK as ally and partner rightly or wrongly which makes stark contrust with our attitude with Russia and China over disputed territory and waters.
    You might also want to go back to the history book that it happened to be the “right wingers” traditonally supported South Korea and forming lobby group by afilitating with The Unification Church and pachinko industry,

    “the ICJ is not God. Korea (and other nations as well) refuse to go to the ICJ and it doesn’t make their case any less valid. The ROK has nothing to gain Japan has no international support even few Japanese themselves support Japan’s claim either so why bother?”

    Because that’s what GoJ has been demanding to solve this case since 1965.
    Plus,though ICJ is not god,it is closest man can get for being objective and legal solution of territorial disputes.Plus ROK may gain something.Beating Japan and put an end to the dispute if they win.

    “1905 military annexation made at the height of the largest war to the day whilst colonizing the Korean peninsula. Korea would never accept this and it’s doubtful the ICJ would either.”

    Actually 1905 annexation treaty will probably be considered as valid from international legal perspective.Almost all of the post colonial nation ended it’s colonial status and got independence in the extention of the past treaties.Anyway,if Korea’s so “doubtful”,why care not come to ICJ and prove it?
    Biggest reason on the side of Korea is the fact that Korea sometimes lacks rule of law or to be more exact,it’s people do not have faith in the rule of law,thus don’t believe in legal settlement of disputes.

  43. steve said

    Aceface, the U.S. Government quickly backpedaled when they accidentally referred to the Dokdo Islands as Liancourt Rocks. If they were backing Japan they would have used the name Takeshima and not reversed their incorrect naming.

    The ICJ does not resolve issues. They merely make suggestions, they do not have the power to enforce their rulings. Whichever side wins, it’s uncertain the loser would even honor the court’s judgment. No matter what decision the ICJ makes there will be those who are not satisfied.

    Dokdo Island’s case differs in many cases because the islands may be used as a base-point for the Japan Korea boundary. Many other island disputes were distant outlying islands and little effect or consequence other than perhaps the possibility of EEZ generating territory.

    Thus, it’s not unreasonable that Korean insist on bilaterally negotiating what will ultimately be her easternmost limit. Don’t you agree? What governmental organization has the right to define another’s territorial boundary? Twice in the last century Korea has allowed others to dictate her borders and now she Korea demands to be involved first hand. This is not an unreasonable insistence and Korea shouldn’t be demonized or vilified for this.

    Aceface, isn’t is also true Japan has refused ICJ ruling on other disputes? For example China has demanded Japan go to the ICJ over Diaoyu island but Japan has refused. Thus I it is very hypocritical for you to bash Koreans for doing the same.

    When the ICJ makes decisions using “international” law is uses standards that were legally codified by colonial nations such as France, England, Spain, America and of course Japan, during the 19th century. This is where the problem exists. Because Mejij Japan embraced these principals before other Asian countries, like the West, she still enjoys a huge chunk of real estate from this legacy.

    The laws of territorial acquisition were created by a handful of nations who carved up the globe and seized lands from those they deemed incapable of governing themselves or “unenlightened” as the Japanese would say. Terms like terra nullius, prior occupation effective control were not based on equity of fairness. They were drafted to avoid conflict between fellow colonial states who also vied for territory. Some the landmark rulings for land disputes are a hundred years old now.

    Even if Jappan can prove her claim to Dokdo was legal by the laws of territorial acquisition from 100 years ago what relevance does it have today? Sure if Japan had continually exercised undisputed effective control over Dokdo since 1905 it would difficult to strip the islets away. However, it’s ridiculous for Japan to insist we retroactively impose the laws of territorial land claims from 1905 on modern Korea.

    Aceface, the Dokdo Takeshima problem is not about the rocks, both nations know they are worthless. It’s about the seabed resources (gas hydrate) and fish.

    Between the historically indisputable limits of Korea (Ulleungdo) and Japan (Oki) there is about 247 kms of water. Both of these islands are large, and inhabitable and thus can legally generate EEZs.

    Here is a map showing an EEZ drawn between the two islands such as suggested by Jon Van Dyke, legal professor.

    Korea currently settles for even less than the above map which is founded on the principles of United Nations Convention on of the Sea. So, the current boundary is more than fair based on modern maritime law but of course Japan demands we cite 19th Century laws laid down by colonial nations. This is wrong.

    Even two toddlers in a playground sharing a cookie understand the basic principle each child gets half. What part of 50-50 doesn’t the Japanese government understand?

    BTW Aceface, I’m still waiting for the proof of Japanese ownership over Dokdo before the colonial era.

  44. M-Bone said

    “However, I doubt if the JAS would be interested and I haven’t seen anything published by the Japanese side either.”

    Academic journals publish original research. They do not turn things down because a topic is not “sexy”. I also feel that this is a “sexy” topic – especially if an author can combine an analysis of the history with recent representation in both Japan and Korea.

    Even if you are right, I don’t think that you are going to change any minds online as even informed commenters don’t have the time or the resources to sift through the labyrinth of evidence surrounding those rocks.

  45. Aceface said

    “Aceface, the U.S. Government quickly backpedaled when they accidentally referred to the Dokdo Islands as Liancourt Rocks. If they were backing Japan they would have used the name Takeshima and not reversed their incorrect naming.”

    I don’t believe in “accident”.At least one U.S governmental branch thought they are too one sided on this particular issue and SK government went crazy like as if it was a second mad cow decease.

    Never said “they were backing Japan”,but the U.S Board on Geographic Names chose to call spade a spade,which is what it is,a disputed territory.

    “No matter what decision the ICJ makes there will be those who are not satisfied.”

    All I can say is that’s not going to be Japan.

    “Thus, it’s not unreasonable that Korean insist on bilaterally negotiating what will ultimately be her easternmost limit. Don’t you agree?”

    Not exactly.Since it was ROK side that rejected the bilateral negotiation of the rock.Although there’s a book came out 竹島密約 written by the man named Daniel Roh who says there has been a secret arrangement between the two nations that Japan maintain it’s claim and call for ICJ solution while Korea keep the island and gently rejects that.

    ” Aceface, isn’t is also true Japan has refused ICJ ruling on other disputes? For example China has demanded Japan go to the ICJ over Diaoyu island but Japan has refused. Thus I it is very hypocritical for you to bash Koreans for doing the same.”

    Never heard China demanded ICJ on this.Do you have any link?
    And which “China” are you talking about, you know both Republic of China and People’s Republic of China is involved in this.RoC would have difficult time dealing with Japan in ICJ since we don’t recognize them as state.PRC never used ICJ in dealing territorial disputes.Why would you want to do that if you have hegemon status? Besides,China even reject any kind of talk with Japan over territorial waters,perhaps they are buying more time when China gets stronger and Japan goes weakier or simply afraid of angry citizens for compromiseing with Tokyo like Seoul.

    ” When the ICJ makes decisions using “international” law is uses standards that were legally codified by colonial nations such as France, England, Spain, America and of course Japan, during the 19th century. This is where the problem exists.”

    I don’t think Japan belong to this club,since we’ve lost all of our assets after defeat in 1945.Besides this is one way of Korean excuse of using Int’l law when they find appropriate and reject it’s authority when they don’t.And isn’t it kind of odd that you send in one of your top diplomat to the head of United Nation on one hand and decline it’s authority at the other by saying,we don’t believe it because we can’t win?

    “It’s about the seabed resources (gas hydrate) and fish.”

    So far,I’ve never heard of anyone on this side claiming underwater resources except fish.And even that,many agree that it’s much more cheaper to import fish from Korea than J-fishermen catch them.So this isn’t exactly the economy backed argument.

    I’ve seen JOn Van Dyke argument since you’ve been posting this around at Marmot hole when you had issues with Gerry Bevers.So,tell me Steve,what does this Jon Van Dyke, legal professor,adviced Koreans on settling the case at ICJ?

    “BTW Aceface, I’m still waiting for the proof of Japanese ownership over Dokdo before the colonial era.”

    Never knew you were waiting.But since I’m a government backed lobbyist and you don’t have too much respect in my kind,perhaps I shall just outsource this debate to Gerry.

  46. Mac said

    All United Nations members are automatically subject to the International Court of Justice, the ICJ produces binding rulings between states.

    It is where States go to resolve border disputes when they cannot do so themselves … not God. Guatemala and Belize did so just last year and that was a dispute going back to the 1850s.

    Again it comes back to the question, so who does it benefit to keep the dispute live? I, personally, do not accuse ‘all Koreans’ – but certainly some Koreans, and now you stirring the pot. There is something unresolved within the Korean collective conscious … whatever you want to call it … that needs and feeds on having an enemy, emotional venting at an external enemy and Anti-Nipponism (as Ampontan coined the term).

    Could Korea have accept a defeat at the ICJ? … Definitely not in the 1950s or 60s. Perhaps not even now … but it should be able to. It would be proof of its maturity if it did take the risk.

    It is not healthy to whip up such nationalist passions.

    Involved in this is another factor, that of the Korea concept of justice interfacing with the more refined or developed international concept of justice. At present it still not does interface well. Korea still seems to seek a primitive retribution for the increasingly imagined crimes against it … its pound of flesh factor.

    Folks talk about the underlying feudal nature of Asia societies but there are also deeper tribal influences at play. Hence the ‘war drum and shield bashing’ references.

    I don’t think you are a player, Steve. I think you are being played … in a bad game.

  47. Mac said

    I re-read the line Aceface quote …” When the ICJ makes decisions using “international” law is uses standards that were legally codified by colonial nations … This is where the problem exists.”

    I am sorry but the mechanism you are using there is a terribly weak logical fallacy, i.e. France, England, Spain were colonialist … colonialist are all bad … Japan was a colonialist … therefore they and their law is all bad. Therefore only Korea is good? (For example, Japan’s abolition of slavery on the Korea peninsula was influence by exposure to developments in the West).

    The problem with Korean society, as a whole, is it has not yet evolved to the same level of practical rationalism and reason enough in order to accept international law. It is still cutting the head off pheasants and tearing piglets in half as a means of expression.

    Some of its better academics have but they either have to keep quiet and clandestine about their opinions, or leave to go to the US in order to develop their ideas.

  48. steve said

    Mac, I’m not “stirring the pot” Korea currently administers over Dokdo Island and has in place a 12 mile nautical limit which I’ve repeatedly stated is more than fair on this thread. I’m happy as a clam. It is Japan’s Shimane Prefecture and Professor Shimojo who are making unrealistic demands that is to push the Japanese border to Korea’s doorstep.

    Mac, didn’t you say you were finished on this thread after your tasteless “Korean wife-beater” joke? Take a hike and save your tacky comments for another forum.

    Secret arrangements, don’t mean much it’s agreements that carry

    Japan lost it’s assets after 1945? Take a list of the territorial land claims Japan made during the 19th Century and consider the fact that these minor outlying islands can generate 200 nautical mile EEZ. Most of the land grabs Japan made before 1895 were returned to Japan in the form of joint trusteeships with the U.S.

    Jon Van Dyke advises Korea to send this to ICJ because he says Korea has the stronger case. But Korea has zero incentive so seriously as I’ve said why should they.

    If Gerry Bevers can produce solid evidence that Japan considered Dokdo as part of their country before 1905 I’d love to see it. I’ve got about one hundred Japanese maps both national and prefecture that exclude the Dokdo altogether, eliminate the island from Japan or show them as Korean. My guess is Gerry will go into “Usando is Jukdo Islet” mode and stick with his multiple questionable translations. On top of all the data there are Japanese records indicating the islets were Korean to which the Japanese respond with lame excuses.

    Mac, didn’t you say you were finished on this thread after your tasteless “Korean wife-beater” joke? Take a hike and save your tacky comments for another forum.

  49. ampontan said

    Take a hike and save your tacky comments for another forum.

    You’re forgetting a couple of things here.

    One is that people are free to take a hike or pitch a tent as long as they follow my rules.

    Another is that there is only one person around here who makes that determination, and you ain’t him.

    If you have a problem with that, you can always take your own hike.

  50. Ken said

    Shimane pref. made it public that, what a, 650,ooo times of access came to the internet home-page from Korean IP address on Takeshima Day.

    http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/crime/090226/crm0902261952052-n1.htm

    I wonder why there are so many monomaniacs in Korea.
    I wish they would work at more constructive things.

  51. Aceface said

    “Secret arrangements, don’t mean much it’s agreements that carry!”

    Too true.But then this “secret arrangement” theory explains alot so I couldn’t just turn this down as a rumour,And this could persuade the Tokyo to conclude that Koreans aren’t reliable since they can’t keep arrangement either written or not.Thus wants case solved in open infront of the third party like ICJ more than ever before.

    “Most of the land grabs Japan made before 1895 were returned to Japan in the form of joint trusteeships with the U.S.”

    And that has nothing to do with colonialism since those islands were considered original Japanese territory.No?
    Meaning Japan is no longer holding the colonial assets but just being an soverign state with it’s own territory.

    “Jon Van Dyke advises Korea to send this to ICJ because he says Korea has the stronger case. But Korea has zero incentive so seriously as I’ve said why should they.”

    Meaning either Korean government find flawed logic or didn’t agree with Van Dyke thesis.So what’s the point of throwing red herring in to the argument,Steve?

    “Korea currently settles for even less than the above map which is founded on the principles of United Nations Convention on of the Sea.”?

    I doubt that.But if they do think Japan somekind of favor,I suggest them to stop and bring them to the court with all they’ve got.Japan will take the outcome what ever that might be.Just bring it on.

  52. steve said

    Ohhhh, I get it Ampontan, you welcome posters who make crude jokes about spousal abuse in Korea (like it doesn’t happen in Japan) but you strictly edit and moderate those who post factual rebuttals to the slanted articles written by the Japanese right wing lobbyists you so admire.

    I told Mac to take a hike because he said he would on post number 40, and you yourself have told me to stay on topic here. All I ask is you to do is follow the same guidelines for everyone here. In other words, can’t you keep your anti-Koreans on a shorter leash?

    Aceface, the Americans did chose to call a spade a spade. Have you read the U.S Board on Geographic Names. The U.S. admitted they screwed up and reversed their name almost immediatelty end of story.

    Bring in on? No Aceface you “bring it on” I’ve asked you for concrete proof of Japanese historical sovereignty over Dokdo prior to the colonial era and you are blathering about “secret agreements” “let’s go to ICJ”.

    Professor Shimojo’s (and thus Japan’s MOFA and Shimane’s) whole historical case hinges on the incorrect translation of one character in Saito Hosen’s 1667 report on Oki. Both Korean and Japanese scholars have come forward stated this translation is not correct.

    Lands acquired before 1895 had nothing to do with colonialism? Tell that to the displaced Anui of Hokkaido

  53. ampontan said

    you strictly edit and moderate those

    You have written 21 posts to this site since last Monday.

    Most of them are longer than newspaper op-eds, self-contradictory, and unreadable.

    Of those 21 posts, all of which were approved, I removed two brief sentences from one of them for being in the wrong thread, after I specifically told you to put it here. You could still write those same things in this thread.

    In other words, dude: Cry me a river.

    If you think you’re factually correct, everyone else isn’t, and the world desperately needs to hear what you have to say, take M-Bone’s advice and write an academic paper.

    Here’s a tip: When people see some unshaven guy with a dirty raincoat and 1000 documents (or original maps) jammed into a plastic trash bag on a street corner yelling at the passers-by that he has ironclad proof the secret radio broadcasts of the Big-Eyed Beans From Venus are turning our brains into bacon rinds, they walk around him and look the other way.

    It’s the same in cyberspace.

  54. steve said

    Ampontan, of course I don’t question your right to edit the website you’ve worked so hard to build. I don’t have a problem at all with my posts you edited. Read Mac’s post 40 again. My point is, you run the risk of undermining your website’s credibility and driving away traffic by not applying the same criterion across the board for others here.

    So now you are inferring the years of research I’ve done on this subject amount to the incoherent rantings of a transient deralect on the street corner. Pretty not funny Ampontan.

    After all North Gyeongsan Province links to me, the Northeast Asian History Foundation has published me, wikipedia cites my website and numerous Korean newspapers have reported me. And the Korean government has given me the honor of special permission to visit a highly restricted area because of my work. Your analogy is offensive and rude.

    The fact nobody on this forum (or representative of Japan’s case for Takeshima) can put forth an articulate rebuttal to my-called “yelling” tells us the posters here know the truth. Japan has no historical title to Dokdo.

    Mmm bacon rinds……

  55. Mac said

    Steve … another logical fallacy. Please adress the disproportionate levels of gender and domestic violence in Korea against that of any other “developed nation”.

    There is no such comparison possible with peace loving Japan. “Because it happens once in Japan, it excuses all the Korean cases”. It is a huge problem with Korea, far outreaching their tinpot dictatorship claims over a pile of uninhabitable rocks,

    The joke I repeated was a Korean joke, like the old saying,

    • ”the real taste of dried fish and tame women can only be derived from beating them once every three days”.

    Ask your wife Steve, I will explain the context in a moment.

    However, there is no joke to statistics such as 40 to 60% of South Korean women said they had been beaten by their husbands, 9% have been beaten badly enough to need medical treatment, 7% of household experience sexual violence (reported spousal rape) and the Korean Women’s Hot Line revealing that 42% of those interviewed had been assaulted more than once a week. Less than 3 percent of battered women, and 2% of Korean rape victims attempt to report the crime to the police because of their attitudes … look at the Korean state’s involvement in the prostitution industry as a “pimp” to quote John Lie (still known as “comfort women right up until at least the 70s), the South Korean Army’s own comfort women brigades and abuse of Vietnamese and North Korean women post-WWII …. and so on.

    Violence against children is up around the 69% mark (74% performed by the mother) and violence towards parents around 33%. Korea also exports its domestic violence and sex abuse to America (400% higher rates of domestic violence). 20% of Korean married foreign nations have suffered physical violence in the home, the number increases doubles or triples when sexual and verbal violence are included (36% rape and 24% strangulation … strangulation seems to be a very habitual form of abuse).

    You should try reading up some of the academics like Catherine Sarah Soh, Byun Wha-soon, Suyeon Park, Young In Son etc. You will note they are all Korea and not right-wing Japanese sympathizers

    The point I am making is to step back from the “little boy’s game” you are playing and look at the bigger picture of who you exactly are taking sides with to make your metaphorical cock feel bigger. Of course, the Liancourt Rocks are a marvelous distraction, resting as they are on pure and simple, false and institutionalized anti-Japanese racism.

    So why does the Korea government, media and education departments … and you …. spend all of their time indoctrinating children over a useless pile of rocks rather than using the same resources to stop violence against women?

  56. steve said

    Mac, Professor Shimojo~Dokdo and Korean Spousal abuse…?

    Not related, not interested.

    Go fish.

  57. Aceface said

    “But you strictly edit and moderate those who post factual rebuttals to the slanted articles written by the Japanese right wing lobbyists you so admire.”

    So Shimojo is now”lobbyist” again?Funny you are SO flexible with facts when accusing others.

    “Aceface, the Americans did chose to call a spade a spade. Have you read the U.S Board on Geographic Names. The U.S. admitted they screwed up and reversed their name almost immediatelty end of story.”

    That’s more like “calling a spade,a clover in the name of national interest” to my eyes.

    “I’ve asked you for concrete proof of Japanese historical sovereignty over Dokdo prior to the colonial era and you are blathering about “secret agreements” “let’s go to ICJ”.”

    And my answer was you can go talk to Gerry Bevers.I admit.I’m a novice in this game.So I just throw in the towel in this “concrete prrof of Japanese historucal soverignty over Liancourt Rock prior to colonial era”.

    Now I’ve also asked you for the link for China taking Senkaku issue to the ICJ and Japan refused this.

    “Secret agreements” I don’t intend to blather much.”Let’s go to ICJ” I do.
    Why is it so bothering to you to bring this to court since you are so certain with your version of history perception and “proof” that Japan has no historical title on the rock?

    “Lands acquired before 1895 had nothing to do with colonialism? Tell that to the displaced Anui of Hokkaido”

    I’m not exactly the one to correct spelling of others,but it’s “Ainu”.It’s a bit complicated issue since Ainu people are also Japanese citizen and not exactly asking for independence from Tokyo.

    “Professor Shimojo’s (and thus Japan’s MOFA and Shimane’s) whole historical case hinges on the incorrect translation of one character in Saito Hosen’s 1667 report on Oki. Both Korean and Japanese scholars have come forward stated this translation is not correct.”

    Are you sure this “Japanese scholars” are not Japanese rightwing lobbyists?
    They are everywhere,you know.

    Just asking from curiosity,Steve.but how could a guy,who can’t even read a single word of a home page written in Japanese(of which the HP adress is “Die!Left wingers!!)can tell “whole historical case hinges on the incorrect translation of one character in Saito Hosen’s 1667 report on Oki”?
    Did your six sense told you this? Or is it something you picked up from internet?

    “The fact nobody on this forum (or representative of Japan’s case for Takeshima) can put forth an articulate rebuttal to my-called “yelling” tells us the posters here know the truth. Japan has no historical title to Dokdo.”

    You are forgetting our little “It’s seals.No,It’s Sea lions” debate.Steve.

    Well,my idea is internet forum isn’t exactly the best place to solve the territorial dispute and inspite of all it’s fault,International Court of Justice probably serves better to tackle on the matter.

  58. steve said

    Aceface if you are a novice about Dokdo, then what are doing debating about a subject you don’t know anything about? Just don’t know when to stay out of debate I guess.

    Talk to Gerry Bevers? Check “his” website I’ve been there many times The trouble is, Gerry doesn’t have a website anymore. Almost all of the posts are articles by Professor Shimojo or by anonymous Japanese Takeshima advocates. Pretty much like here, so what’s the difference?

    The Japanese pushed Gerry out of his own blog, like they pushed the Koreans out of Ulleungdo and the Anui out of Hokkaido!! Now Gerry is bound to follow the views of Japan’s MOFA and Shimane Prefecture or offend his allies. But I remember a time when he too said Japan had no claim prior to 1905 but he’d never admit it now, he’s in too deep.

    The Ainu aren’t asking for independence because there is hardly any left. Their plight is similar to Native Americans who also been either displaced or assimilated.

    Aceface, as I’ve said, I don’t’ take credit for some of the articles I’ve written. What I’ve done is gathered them, added images of the primary records to support them and pictures for reference.

    Where I lacked translation ability I hired professional agencies and paid them money out of my own pocket. As you know, I live in Korea so translation is quite reasonable here, even Hanja or Kanji. When there were portions of text that were very critical I had to verify or scrutinize the record further by rechecking. I don’t want to mislead with a wrong translation, it’s embarrassing to make an error. These days a university in Taegu has offered to help me and has translated the diary of Nakai Yozaburo for me so I’m looking forward to presenting that data in the future.

    Aceface, if we take all of the data out there Japanese and Korean data it leads us clearly to the conclusion that Dokdo was Korean. There are documents that state this in black and white. However, Japan has rebuttals about some that remain unproven and there is no concrete way to confirm Japan’s interpretations.

    What you are asking Korea to do is leave the interpretation of these records up to adjudicators and academics that are less qualified than the Korean or Japanese historians themselves. This is a coin toss and Korea would be foolish to leave the destiny of Dokdo to these people.

    The ICJ like any international organization is susceptible to corruption, bribes or backdoor deals. This is common practice in international politics. Japan is the second largest economy and carries far more international clout than the ROK so the Koreans are rightfully wary of the ICJ.

    The internet is a great forum for me to get the truth about Dokdo out there. The internet is a public place and public opinion drives politics.

    The overall message I’d like to leave is “the current boundary between Japan and Korea is fair.” So let’s ink the deal and solidify the 12 mile limit around Dokdo. The worst thing that could happen is the equitable division of the East Sea (Sea of Japan) and that ain’t half bad. Don’t you think Aceface?

  59. Bender said

    After all North Gyeongsan Province links to me, the Northeast Asian History Foundation has published me, wikipedia cites my website and numerous Korean newspapers have reported me. And the Korean government has given me the honor of special permission to visit a highly restricted area because of my work. Your analogy is offensive and rude.

    Exactly why Koreans, especially its regime, cannot be taken seriously regarding their nationalistic, ethnocentric hyperbole. It’s sure a wonder why some people choose to side with the dark side and feel righteous about it.

  60. Aceface said

    ”Aceface if you are a novice about Dokdo, then what are doing debating about a subject you don’t know anything about? Just don’t know when to stay out of debate I guess.”

    Well,I know a little about country,Japan,you know.Plus one or two on Japan-Korea relation.Just have a feeling the rock haven’t eaten up my own life.
    Besides you do talk quite a lot about things you don’t know very much too.Wouldn’t you think?

    “The Ainu aren’t asking for independence because there is hardly any left. Their plight is similar to Native Americans who also been either displaced or assimilated.”

    I think it’s slightly more complicated since nation of Japan and Ainu has intersection longer than the United States.And I also have a feeling you are comparing an apple and an orange.

    “What you are asking Korea to do is leave the interpretation of these records up to adjudicators and academics that are less qualified than the Korean or Japanese historians themselves.”

    The risk belongs to the both sides.No? Although I think that can be overcome if the facts are well presented.
    Besides you too know that what probably would be more focused in ICJ is neither the 1905 nor pre-colonial period but the time when Syngman Rhee line has started and it’s implication to the Korean claim of Liancourt Rock.

    “The ICJ like any international organization is susceptible to corruption, bribes or backdoor deals. This is common practice in international politics. Japan is the second largest economy and carries far more international clout than the ROK so the Koreans are rightfully wary of the ICJ.”

    Like I’ve said.Korean send in their former foreign minister now.UN has been accusing Japan for multiple reason from the education of Zainichi Koreans to comfort women.Japan also failed to become member of security council.I don’t particluary find Japanese chance of buying out the UN is big.

    ” The internet is a public place and public opinion drives politics.”

    Yeah,but that’s not exactly an idea widely sahred in Japan and could be one of the reasons why people don’t go out to the street of Tokyo in fear of the American beef.

    “So let’s ink the deal and solidify the 12 mile limit around Dokdo. The worst thing that could happen is the equitable division of the East Sea (Sea of Japan) and that ain’t half bad. Don’t you think Aceface?”

    Noooo.The worst thing is ending this dialogue on Liancourt Rock.
    I’ll tell you one big secret,Steve.

    The Japanese are not that interested in Liancourt rock.Tokyo is interested in taking back the Northern territory from Moscow and to keep this hardline stance,we can’t just dump another territorial dispute in the dust shoot.
    We need to tell Moscow that we are dead serious about taking what’s been stolen from us and there is no exception.

    Plus we have more bonus by bringing up territorial issue with Korea.
    It helps the world to understand what kind of problem we are facing in dealing with neighbors and “Being German” would never be the solution in this part of the world since this place just isn’t Europe.
    And the best way to tell this to the world is to show how Korean react when dealing with things Japanese.

    If Korea thinks ICJ is corrupt and untrustworthy,that’s fine.

    If VANKers want to rewrite every single map on the planet with the name Takeshima and Sea of Japan,be my guest.

    If Korea finds a guy whose mission of his lifetime is googling down the word “Dokdo”and “Takeshima” all day and night and show up every single English forum and start having free lecture and eventually start yelling at the skeptics for not agreeing him,that’s exactly the kind of a guy we want to represent Korea on the matter.Because that actually does symbolize Korean psyche.

    BTW,Steve.What ever happened to the link I asked you on “China-taking-Senkaku-issue-to-the-ICJ-and-Japan-refused”?

    “Aceface, isn’t is also true Japan has refused ICJ ruling on other disputes? For example China has demanded Japan go to the ICJ over Diaoyu island but Japan has refused. Thus I it is very hypocritical for you to bash Koreans for doing the same.”

    If the above statement is true,I may change my mind asking Korea to stand in front of the ICJ court,or may only ask after we settle this in ICJ with China. But so far I couldn’t find any info on this.The internet is a great forum for me to get “the truth about Dokdo” out there. I really want your help on this one.

  61. Mac said

    Actually, I am not talking about “spousal abuse” (because Korean women being abused are not just spouses), I am working to portray the Korean psyche relative to the current discussion; issues of dominance, submission and ‘male ego’ … and asking you personally why you, an non-involved party, would chose to become a Dokdo Nerd?

    > people don’t go out to the street of Tokyo in fear of the American beef.

    Because Tokyo, until Seoul, does not pour their millions into whipping up public support against foreigners via NGOs ahead of meetings to ratify the pending US free trade agreement as the Korea government did.

    10,000s demonstrators in candlelight vigils, some dressed as cows, nightly rallies are in Seoul and 22 other South Korean cities to protest, 10,000s of young internet-obsessed South Koreans, whipped into a frenzy (… sounds familiar? Of course, it is the same rent-a-mob wheeled out for Dokdo Rallies).

    > The Ainu aren’t asking for independence because there is hardly any left. Their plight is similar to Native Americans who also been either displaced or assimilated.

    Another logical fallacy. Actually, it is more like the Picts being displaced by the Scotus in Scotland and naturally integrating with the dominant culture. I cant remember the Pictish Liberation Front demanding the return of Pictland from the Scots. (The displacement is actually more recent than the Ainu and the Picts have a far better claim to creating Scotland than the Scots. The AInu did not own or rule Japan).

    > What you are asking Korea to do is leave the interpretation of these records up to adjudicators and academics that are less qualified than the Korean or Japanese historians themselves.

    Another logical fallacy, not to say a HUGE insult to legal process of the ICJ and abilities of the judges. It also shows a VAST lack of understanding on your own and the Korean’s understanding of what taking a case to the ICJ means. That is to say to say, it is about international law and procedure.

    In this, we have essence of the problem. Your average Korean does not want or seek “justice” and the Korean legal system is not based on rationalism and reason. They want some bloodletting, preferably some blood money and a melodramatic act of contrition on Japan’s behalf for all of the sins “Korea” projects upon it. And they are, quite rightly, never going to get it.

    They know they are never going to get it, so they want to been seen to suffer and have public displays of hair-pulling and chest-beating (… or finger chopping and piglet tearing in half to be more precise) … and use the threat of violence and unlawful actions to get what they want.

    You see, it all relates back to national psyche in which the Korean people are playing out the part of the suffering abused woman (to a Japan, China or America) but where, in fact, the hyper-masculine leadership is actually, in a very real and direct manner, abusing its citizenship.

    What I am trying to do for yourself and others is to demonstrate how far out of balance, how extreme the imbalance within the Korean psyche is over such matters.

    And, yes, it all relates to and is inextricable from the comfort woman issue too. It is the same deal. Ordinary Koreans (the legacy of the vast Korean slave caste), being abused or pimped off by Korean leaders (the legacy of the yang-ban caste). The Yang-ban attempting to distract attention from themselves by portraying the Japanese (or Americans, whoever) as the bigger gangsters.

    Korea is never going to get a satisfactory act of contrition from the Japanese over the comfort women either. Quite rightly so again. Legally, by international law, the matter was settled (the the Korean leadership screwed the women for a second, third and fourth time ).

    You see, the only way to avoid being abused within Korean society, and rise above the status of being a concubine, is to become the honorable and submissive wife (unquestioning conformity to the leadership).

    > The ICJ like any international organization is susceptible to corruption, bribes or backdoor deals. This is common practice in international politics.

    Joke and an insult … is that what your confirm to average Koreans? What you really mean is the Korean people have little faith in THEIR justice system which is at best based on contrition and payments of bloodmoney and at worst “susceptible corruption, bribes or backdoor deals”. Fact.

    Would you care to show us any evidence of the ICJ or judges corruption? The world’s media would truly hail you if you could.

    > After all North Gyeongsan Province links to me, the Northeast Asian History Foundation has published me, wikipedia cites my website and numerous Korean newspapers … because of my work.

    Come on, another joke … all it means is that a) the VANKers got to the Wikipedia and b) you are useful to their propagandic agenda. On a personal level, you getting off on the attention which is far greater than other accomplishment that you have experienced in your life.

    But all you are is a performing wei-guk-in to be wheeled out now, and discarded at yesterday’s entertainment in the future. “Look, it must be true … even white men say so“.

    What I am trying to get you to see is that you are being used … played … not to achieve anything on the world stage ( because actually you are making things more of a mess and worse) but by a small element within Korea over the majority of Korean people.

    You do not seem to know what that small element is really about (… self-preservation, financial interest) nor, strangely, much about the Korean psyche.

    And if that is not enough … you are not even getting a cut of the money!!! Unless, of course, you are.

    Now that, by Korean standards, is insane. Are they even going to buck you up in the future? You know, privilege retirement home or something?

  62. steve said

    Aceface if Japan is so horny for the ICJ why don’t’ they demand to go to ICJ on her disputes with China too? From what I understand Japan and China are both afraid of arbitration in this case because of risk. Japan has not demanded China go to ICJ on this case like they have with the Koreans due to risk.

    The risk of Dokdo’s ownership belongs to both sides?

    That’s funny Aceface. Korea currently administers over Dokdo. You are acting as if neither side has possession of the islets. Korea has owned Dokdo for over 50 years. She has invested money in the region including building fishing and tourism businesses.

    The ICJ matter you are blubbering about is simply about risk. Korea has nothing to gain and Japan has nothing to lose. If your going to tell me Korea can gain “proper ownership” of Dokdo. Don’t make me laugh. The correct owner of Dokdo has the islets and if you have any proof otherwise bring it on.

    Aceface you don’t think the risk of the Japanese buying out the ICJ is big. But you admit there is a chance and Korea doesn’t want to take even one millionth of a percent risk. It would also be political suicide for the Korean government to be so careless as to take even a small chance on the territorial integrity of the ROK.

    You are gonna tell me secrets about the internal workings of the Japanese government. I didn’t know Japan’s Secret Service debated on in the internet.

    Aceface, if you can’t understand such as basic concept as for two nations to divide an area in half, then your nationalism has blinded you. The geography of the Dokdo region makes it best that both Oki and Ulleungdo get fair amounts of territory and this would put Dokdo rightfully in Korean territory. Even after WWII U.S. geologists knew this as they drafted the Japan Peace Treaty. However, the U.S. military changed this.

    On the simple basis of fair division of territory and the intrinsic geographic qualities (ie distances of islands and nearest landfalls) there is no reason why Japan should have Dokdo.

    Don’t talk with me about VANK Aceface. I’m not a VANKer. One time about two years ago I had a student from VANK ask me to write an article for VANK and I kindly refused.

    Mac, I don’t post all over cyberspace. I like to post on anti-Korean or Japanphile website and mop the floor we people like you who say Japan’s claim to Takeshima is stronger then come up blank when I call their bluff.

    Look at the posts by Mac and Aceface. It’s just a bunch of bluster. They are so adamant Korea go to ICJ yet they can’t put any evidence Japan has historical title to the rocks. Why should Korea go to the ICJ when Japan can’t put together a strong historical case worthy of adjudicating?

    The ICJ is not craps table and simply making a claim doesn’t get your ass in the front door. Both of you are putting the cart before the horse. Put together a strong historical case and then it gets ruled on. I ‘ve seen nothing from either of you to show Japan’s case to Takeshima should be entertained.

    Mac, I don’t post all over cyberspace. I like to post on anti-Korean or Japanphile websites and ask those who support Japan’s case to Dokdo for proof of historical title. They always fail.

    Again if anyone on this forum has any evidence of Japan’s superior historical title to Dokdo please put it forward

    Thought so…….

  63. Aceface said

    “Aceface if Japan is so horny for the ICJ why don’t’ they demand to go to ICJ on her disputes with China too? From what I understand Japan and China are both afraid of arbitration in this case because of risk. Japan has not demanded China go to ICJ on this case like they have with the Koreans due to risk.”

    You are not answering my question,Steve.Where is the link that I was asking about “China-taking-Senkaku-issue-to-the-ICJ-and-Japan-refused”? Although I can wait.

    Let me go back to the history of WW2.WW2 ended by Japan accepting the demand from allied forces of which China was included.
    All of the territory that belong to China were either handed over or “abandoned”(Which is now a knind of big debate between Taiwan independent activists and China,whether this means that Japan “returned Taiwan to China or simply abandonded”.
    Senkaku “dispute” popped up right after the U.S returning Okinawa and ending of the ROC-Japan relationship.Also American oil company “Creston” asked to drill the Senkaku to Tokyo and Washington and denied by both,so they went to Taipei.And what ever Taipei wants,so does Beijing.
    If China wanted Senkaku so badly they had every opportunity to get it during various conference with the allied forces in Theran or Potsudam.Chiang Kai-shek could raise this any time from 45 to 52 or even afterward.Yet he(or Beijing)waited until 1974?

    If China formally demand this issue to be settled at ICJ,damn right Tokyo should.But we won’t tell them to do so from our side for numbers of reasons.So perhaps you can add to your crusade of asking Chinese to go to ICJ,if you have any additonal time other than defending Dokdo.

    “The risk of Dokdo’s ownership belongs to both sides? ”

    Nope.the risk to”leave the interpretation of these records up to adjudicators and academics that are less qualified than the Korean or Japanese historians themselves.”(Your words,not mine)

    “She has invested money in the region including building fishing and tourism businesses.”

    Well,Japan not invested money but also granted foreign aids for Korea INC too,you know.

    “But you admit there is a chance and Korea doesn’t want to take even one millionth of a percent risk. It would also be political suicide for the Korean government to be so careless as to take even a small chance on the territorial integrity of the ROK.”

    Koreans are already taking HUGE risk by sending money to Pyongyang for ten years in the name of “Sunshine Policy” and kicking American asses out from their own country.”One millionth of a percent risk” of losing a rock in the ocean means that much?If that is the truth,then their nationalism has blinded them.Coolheaded mind expat as yourself should help them from the nation from the edge.

    “Even after WWII U.S. geologists knew this as they drafted the Japan Peace Treaty. However, the U.S. military changed this.”

    Just like the U.S Board on Geographic Names did last year in the manner that you’ve presented as “admitted they screwed up and reversed their name almost immediately”

    “Don’t talk with me about VANK Aceface. I’m not a VANKer.”

    And maybe,just maybe,Steve.Prof Shimojo has just about same sort of idea on “Japanese-rightwing-lobbyist-yesman-sellout”title you labeled on him.(Although I agree he is a rightist)

    “people like you who say Japan’s claim to Takeshima is stronger then come up blank when I call their bluff.”

    Never said “stronger”.I just said “Let’s go to the court to see how bluff it is”.

    “Why should Korea go to the ICJ when Japan can’t put together a strong historical case worthy of adjudicating?”

    Because we can end this dispute?Perhaps?
    Why should Korean not going to the iCJ when Japan can’t put together a strong hisotical case worthy of adjudicating?

    ” I ‘ve seen nothing from either of you to show Japan’s case to Takeshima should be entertained.”

    Don’t know about Mac.But I’ve already admitted I am incapable of such tasks.

    Now it’s your turn to give me the info I’ve been demanding.When did China demanded Japan for ICJ solustion,Steve?

    This is important not only I can learn new knowledge on the matter but also to find out how much you are accurate with “facts” and “truth” when accusing Japan.

  64. Mac said

    The ownership of the rocks is not the issue. Anyone fixated on them is missing point. This is why I keep asking, or provoking, Steve to step back and look at the bigger picture. He is a little fish caught up in a little rock pool, or eddy, thinking it is the whole of the Japanese Sea and trying to drag us and others into it.

    It is a bit of a con for Steve to invoke the name of the ‘Northeast Asian History Foundation’, which is named to sound if it is an international operation. It is not.

    The Korean government funded NEAHF is a more skillful strategy somewhere between a strategic foresight propaganda unit and a diplomatic outfit. It operates clearly under the bigger framework of Korean national interests. Its founding followed the “success” Korea had with the Goguryeo Research Foundation and is quite specifically aimed at the Japan and Liancourt Rocks issue.

    It is an extension of a research institute directly responsible to the Korean president. I would interpret that as an ‘intelligence operation’ and is involved in advising in the setting of Korean national policies and receives 20 Billin won in government funding plus backhanded establishment funds from the corporations.

    Asked if it is ready to live up to its name and present a balanced historical view of Northeast Asians, the president Chung Jae-jeong (obviously a good man) recently admitted that the foundation is yet to be ready to fully embrace opposing [read pro-japanese] views. He estimated that it would likely take at least 10 years to become a truly international body. I estimate it will shut down before than, once it serves its purpose

    See below.

    Stuff like “the Internal Court of Justice is corrupt and the Japanese are going to bribe them” is just insane. It might work on a fear-based level at the proletariat level … and exploits inherent Korean tendencies towards xenophobia and supremacism … but the leadership of Korea are not that stupid.

    a) they are not willing to take the risk of losing, so they know their case is not that good
    b) it is worth more to them … is more politically useful … for it to remain UNRESOLVED and used as leverage over Japanese related issues.

    It is all at a very low, tabloid level … propaganda … and one cannot engage at that level of argument. its the whole “baffle them with screed of bullshit approach” to tire out any opposition. Unfortunately, both Koreas still act like Violet Elizabeth Bott who would “ scream and scream until she was sick” to get the ice cream they want.

    As for the Korean military juntas and their criminal cronies back in the days when the issue first came up, they were getting such a rake off from both the Japanese and Americans … and were in such a strong position politically … do you think they really cared? They were more interest in terrorizing their own civilians and prostituting them out as either whores or mercenaries.

    I am interested to know what the secret “conspiracy theory” version of events mentioned above is. I wont believe it … but I dare say there are some grains of truth in that book worth knowing.

    You have you basic axis of foundation all wrong Steve. It is not about Korean versus Japan, it is about ‘leadership versus the people’.

    The Northeast Asian History Foundation was founded with the goal of establishing a basis for peace and prosperity in Northeast Asia by confronting [Japanese] distortions of history that have caused considerable anguish in this region [Yang-ban Koreans] and the world at large [American-Koreans], and developing a correct [Korean] understanding [interpretation] of history through comprehensive long-term research and systematic and strategic policy development [propaganda and buying international academic favor $1M to Harvard, free conference etc].

    The problem is, Korea is just not ready yet to fully enter into the international community, as when the Japanese feminists exhorted Chinese and Korean feminism to overcome national boundaries but were confronted by vociferous protest, particularly from the Korean–American participants. There can be no international solidarity or shared history. For the Koreans, nationalism was not incompatible with feminism despite it being Japanese activists and feminists that first brought to light the comfort women issue.

    In order to advance, the Koreans will have to give up being so Koreans and, most probably, give up a few rock here and there as well. It is happening slowly through the rise in status of women, international travel and global youth culture … not Jingu rattle old men pushing angry electrons around the internet.

  65. steve said

    Aceface I’ve given you enough reasons why Korea doesn’t want to go to ICJ.

    First, There is no guarantee there wouldn’t be back door corruption of double dealing. You say it’s not likely but why should Korea take the chance. These days ICJ rulings have been under criticism for poor decisions for example their rulings on genocide in the former Yugoslavia.

    Second ICJ rulings are not binding they are advisory. So even Korea wins Japan does not have to honor their decision and vise versa. It’s a waste of time.

    Third for domestic reasons, it would be a political disaster for any Korean government to careless leave the territorial integrity of their nation at the hands of a foreign organization. The Korea public would not put up with it.

    Fourth, There simply is no incentive for Korea to do so. The ROK currently administers over Dokdo for the last 50 years.

    Fifth, the current boundary (already supported in previous drafts of the Japan Peace Treaty) already equitably divides the marine resources of the East Sea (Sea of Japan) quite well. Japan already has the worlds 7th largest EEZ at over 4 million sq kms while Korea’s is a paltry one-fifteenth of that.

    Sixth, solving the problem via the ICJ would leave one country a loser no matter what the decision. If Japan and Korea negotiate the Dokdo Takeshima in conjunction with other areas of contention they could reach agreements that would reach an agreement that would satisfy both countries.

    Seventh, The ICJ rulings on territorial disputes are strongly based on the laws of territorial acquisition drafted by colonial nations. These laws strongly favor the colonial nations of the 19th Century and Korea was not part of this exclusive group of a handful of nations who had the luxury of seizing real estate from “unenlightened nations” (Korea) or “savages (Ainu-Native Americans)

    Eighth is a double answer and it’s my favourite! Because they don’t wanna and they don’t’ gotta.

    Aceface, about the China Japan and ICJ I already answered you above both nations seem reluctant to go to ICJ on the dispute. Maybe they will work out a compromise like I stated above.

    Japan cannot muster international support for their case to Dokdo Takeshima as long as they publish second rate propaganda flyers like the following. Here is a classic case of poor history.

    On Shimane’s Takeshima brochure which I’m sure the honorable Professor Shimojo was involved in they show a map of the back cover that is colour-coded. They say this map proves (Dokdo) Takeshima was Japanese territory.

    You can see the map from the back page here.

    However, looking at other maps of Oki Islands (Japan) and the islands it’s clear Shimane Prefecture selected one map that is color coded to suit them and ignored the vast majority that don’t.

    for the last three images, drop the space between the dot com.

    dokdo-takeshima .com/ull-dok-oki-col-1.jpg
    dokdo-takeshima .com/ull-dok-oki-col-2.jpg
    dokdo-takeshima .com/seibold-study2.jpg

    Seriously I don’t see why Korea should go to the ICJ from the flimsy case Japan has put forth thus far. Anyone can file a claim or lawsuit, but that alone doesn’t mean they deserve a day in court.

  66. Ken said

    The Japanese think Korea never appears in court because they are not confident about Takeshima as they cannot submit (read) ancient documents in Chinese.
    But a Korean confessed their real intention that the reason is because those who are superior in power or money always win, such is court.
    For Korea is a country where perjuries are 671 times more than Japan as follows.

    http://www.geocities.co.jp/HeartLand-Kaede/3250/noriasa/k2.htm

    At all events, the longer Korea occupies illegally and escapes from ICJ, the more Korea haters there are in Japan.
    This may be a nice barrier to avoid the theory of K.

  67. bender said

    It is all at a very low, tabloid level … propaganda … and one cannot engage at that level of argument. its the whole “baffle them with screed of bullshit approach” to tire out any opposition. Unfortunately, both Koreas still act like Violet Elizabeth Bott who would “ scream and scream until she was sick” to get the ice cream they want.

    Well said. What good can be achieved by pleasing petty nationalism?

    But I disagree that it’s the ruling elite that’s behind all the nonsense. Nationalism, ethnocentrism, racism, intolerance…all of these are like dope. Once they’re wide-spread, they’re practically impossible to shake out of the system. Japan and Germany needed total defeat to shake them off. Korean nationalism is running amok without anybody to stop it, and don’t expect them to be able to shake the stuff off themselves. America overcame racism, at least at the public level, but that was quite miraculous and I don’t see Korean society to be dynamic and tolerant as the U.S. (I sincerely hope someone can disprove me on this!) In Korea, much like Germany circa 1933-45, there are academics throwing nationalistic/racist propaganda garbage at the people. Pretty amazing, when you stop and remember that it is already the year 2009.

    Anyways, helping them inject dope is the worst a foreigner can do- it’s even criminal if you think of the consequences. Similar to those guys in former Yugoslavia who advocated ethno-hate.

  68. Aceface said

    “Seriously I don’t see why Korea should go to the ICJ from the flimsy case Japan has put forth thus far. Anyone can file a claim or lawsuit, but that alone doesn’t mean they deserve a day in court.”

    But that’s what the so-called “the rule of the law” is all about.

    “First, There is no guarantee there wouldn’t be back door corruption of double dealing. You say it’s not likely but why should Korea take the chance. These days ICJ rulings have been under criticism for poor decisions for example their rulings on genocide in the former Yugoslavia.”

    But the criticism upon the former Yugoslavia actually PROVES the fariness of ICJ and lack of backdoor negotiation.The criticisnm mostly goes to the time consuming procedure of fact checking.Besides,again you are comparing an apple and orange.Territorial disputes requires no witness hearing as is the case in ethnic cleansing.

    “Second ICJ rulings are not binding they are advisory. So even Korea wins Japan does not have to honor their decision and vise versa. It’s a waste of time.”

    Not really,Since Korea has the control over the Dokdo even if Japan won’t honor the decision(of which I highly doubt)it only strengthen Korea’s position.Koreans are already wasting enough time with arguing on the lost kingdom of Kogryo,comfort women and revision of J-K treaty,so what’s the deal with another legal feud?
    Besides Korea wastes huge amount of their time and taxes to promote their side of argument over the rock inspite of them holding it.You know this anymore than others,Steve.

    “Third for domestic reasons, it would be a political disaster for any Korean government to careless leave the territorial integrity of their nation at the hands of a foreign organization. ”

    South Korea has been the member of the United Nation since 1991.So calling it “a foreign organization” is a mistake.And you know what?They’ve been already doing so by allowing the UN forces to secure the south of 38th parellel for more than half century!

    “Fifth, the current boundary (already supported in previous drafts of the Japan Peace Treaty) already equitably divides the marine resources of the East Sea (Sea of Japan) quite well. Japan already has the worlds 7th largest EEZ at over 4 million sq kms while Korea’s is a paltry one-fifteenth of that”

    That’s because Japan being an island nation in the middle of ocean and has nothing to with territorial disputes.Your logic in senseless.

    And the seventh is simply not true.Especially most of the nation in the world are once the colony of others,thus international law can’t be bending too much to the former colonial nations and Takeshima/Dokdo dispute is very rare case of former colonial nation and former colony has border dispute.I need you to name one case when former colonial nation gets advantage because of simply being imperial power in the 19th century.

    “Japan cannot muster international support for their case to Dokdo Takeshima as long as they publish second rate propaganda flyers like the following. Here is a classic case of poor history.”

    Perhaps.But that’s something we have to worry about.Not you.
    And being second rate is good enough if your adversary is VANK.
    We have other tasks for our best and brightest.

    “Aceface, about the China Japan and ICJ I already answered you above both nations seem reluctant to go to ICJ on the dispute. Maybe they will work out a compromise like I stated above.”

    No.YOUR ANSWER was

    “Aceface, isn’t is also true Japan has refused ICJ ruling on other disputes? For example China has demanded Japan go to the ICJ over Diaoyu island but Japan has refused. Thus I it is very hypocritical for you to bash Koreans for doing the same.”

    “true”,”for example””hypocritical”,These are strong words,Steve.
    You just pick this up because you find this argument from the comment section of Marmot hole or somewhere.All the ragtag of information on Japan to construct your whole argument is questionable since you have sappy resaerch ability.Although I respect your time and effort to dig up the old map,though.

  69. Mac said

    Steve is willing to state that which is untrue. His argument is based on false logics and racial slur.

    Where the groundless slur goes as far as tarnish an entire nation as corrupt and given to bribery at an international level. It is race hatred. The question at a personal level is, why Steve?

    Here is reality …

    In contentious cases, that is adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute, the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states. A judgment of the Court is binding, final and without appeal.

    Article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the Court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue can be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action.

    By signing the Charter, a members of the United Nations undertake to comply with any decision of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is a party.

    Thank you Bender. I am careful only to reference Korean/non-Japanese sources on these subjects. You are right. The problem, which Steve is echoing perfectly, lies with Korean’s attitudes towards law, justice and their own judiciary system.

    Korea has become a nation of fraud in which the rich and powerful flourish over a second ‘Nobi’ caste, even within legal and academic systems … and so Koreans therefore see it, and fear it, all around them. It is a psychological projection.

    But why has Steve caught it or bought into it? This is what I do not understand. As he won’t answer, please allow me to extrapolate.

    Following investigations by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, and studies by Korea Research Foundation, it is stated that more than one in 30 of academics alone (not graduates) have dubious qualifications (one only has to look at where it starts in the Hagwon industry). There is not the will to take this issue further and look too deeply because, of course, many of the ruling Korean elite have benefited from the system.

    This is not actually a criticism of the individuals. Most of those individuals are only trying to survive and do what they have to do to achieve it.

    It is a criticism of the prevalent culture and one must understand that culture before one engages in whatever noise it produces.

    Advisory opinions are a different function of the ICJ open only to specified United Nations bodies and agencies.

    You know, Korea goes on about how terrible Japan treated its honorable women and so on … one of the funnier public frauds this year was the ‘Korea Naked News scam’. Funny that it was just a scam but also for the statement the dumb broads made after being scammed in a business designed to exploit getting their yah-yahs out in public. However, the case is illuminating of cultural tendencies.

    After a month of operation, with no one being paid, Naked News Korea shut down. CEO John Chau disappeared with all of the company’s money and other senior executives left the country.

    In the pre-requisite act of public contrition, 4 presenters sobbed for compensation, “We received lots of criticisms about us being presenters for Naked News Korea. But we still went ahead to do it … We felt proud to be part of the company. But in the end, it was just a move to cheat us females of our dignity and money … John Chau bought the naming rights to scam everyone in a one-time deal …

    I staked everything on this job and look how I ended up … We also hope that the criticisms levelled towards our parents will stop. We feel like we’ve been conned and cajoled into doing this“, before bursting into tears.

    Sounds familiar?

    The 4 left were the only presenters who were contracted to present news in semi-nude form but accepted pressure to strip completely for its adults-only version performing. Yes, two service were available. One for adults and another for teenagers. Koreans spend more on porn per capita than any other country (average $526 per year against Japan’s $156 … and Germany’s $8).

    What point am I making?

    Dokdo … dildo … the comfort woman issue. They have all been reduced to tabloid levels of entertainment. Regular emotional releases for a people dumbed down, controlled by fear and suffering from a system inherent with abuse and injustice. Unable to address and change it, hence they project their problems on others who they attempt to drag into their own psychopathology.

    The Koreans perceive “The Japanese” as they experienced their Yang-ban masters and confuse the two … because they don’t know any different. Too few have experienced reality.

    Dokdo is just another titillation, specialist pornography, hentai comicbook politics, required for one of South Korea’s regular emotive ejaculations giving them a feeling of temporary release.

    In which case Steve, unless you are aware of this and being paid as a shill in some way (not all payment is cash), you are just another online pornographer.

    What you should be reporting is the truth about the ICJ, and encouraging the Koreans to just go and fix it.

  70. Mac said

    Steve is willing to state that which is untrue. His is an argument build on false logic and racial slur. Here is reality …

    A judgment of the Court is binding, final and without appeal … by signing the UN Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is a party.

    Reality contradicts Steve.

    In contentious cases (adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute), the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. Article 94 of the UN Charter establishes the duty of all member states to comply with decisions of the Court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue can be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action.

    “Advisory opinions” are a different function of the Court.

  71. steve said

    Aceface, I repeat Japan and refuses to go to the ICJ on her dispute, with China. If not please show me a link where Japan has demanded the ICJ solve the Japan-China that’s the issue here. Japan is to applying the same standards.

    The point is, if Japan (and you) have so much faith in the ICJ then why doesn’t Japan also demand China go to the ICJ about her dispute with China? I mean the ICJ is the best way right?

    The ICJ isn’t the best or only way to solve bilateral disputes. Both Japan and China are using the islands as a bargaining chip in further disputes. This was my point six above. The ICJ ruling either way will leave one country dissatisfied.

    I find it hilarious you hold me to answer your burden of proof on my quotes but yet you still haven’t put your money where your big mouth is and given proof of Japan’s historical title to Dokdo before the colonization era? I’m still waiting…

    Aceface, Japan has the 7th largest EEZ not because she is an island. Her EEZ is so large because she claims huge tracts of ocean around every tiny outlying rock or island. Many of these large chains of islands were “officially” claimed during the colonial era such as the Rykyus, Hokkaido, Ogasawaras and Marcus Islands. The outlying islands account for around 2.5 million sq kms from what I understand.

    Right now, against international laws of the sea Japan unilaterally claims 400,000 square kms around the Okinotorishimas which are about the size of a bedroom. I don’t’ think either Korea or Japan should be able to claim huge EEZs around small island chains. This should only be allowed for large mainland areas.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-not-japanese-1.html

    Japan’s annexation of Marcus Island was a classic example of how Japanese of the colonial era “lawless adventurers” (as Komura Jutaro himself called them) sailed throughout the Pacific Ocean as far away as Midway Island to plunder the resources of neighbouring territories, slaughtering the wildlife to the point the Americans had to formally complain.

    What a surprise it was when I read Nakai Yozaburo ( the man who was the basis for Japan’s annexation of Dokdo) also was involved in the Ogasawaras, Ulleungdo and even the Korean peninsula. He too was a vagabond poacher who trespassed onto Korean territory (Ulleungdo)

    Remove the space before “com”
    dokdo-takeshima. com/dokdo-marcus-island.html

    You doubt Japan wouldn’t honor an ICJ decision. That’s your opinion and Korea feels differently. The fact is ICJs decisions are only advisory to Korea and thus toothless.

    You think the ICJ’s decision in the former Yugoslavial was fair. Well that’s your opinion others don’t. Korea feels the ICJ is not the best solvent for the Dokdo Takeshima dispute Aceface and that’s not illegal at all.

    The ICJ is not part of the ROK Aceface. Thus it is an organization comprised of foreign countries. Korea wants to be more directly involved in the decision process not just a small part of it. That’s not an unreasonable request and Korea has the right to demand this.

    Mac this is from the ICJ’s website.

    The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.

    Are you telling me if Korea or Japan didn’t comply with an ICJ ruling about Dokdo Takeshima the UN would come storming in and forcibly remove them or impose sanctions? That’s pretty ridiculous don’t you think? The ICJ would assume an advisory role in this issue and this ruling would not have any effect beyond the court.

    From what I understand, there are only 66 countries worldwide that recognize the ICJs decisions as compulsory. China, Russia, Taiwan and Korea are not on the list. Thus the ICJ doesn’t have legal effect on these nations.

    Now does anyone here have any data to support Japan’s historical title to Dokdo?

    Well here you can see Japan ceded both Ulleungdo and Dokdo to Korea in 1837.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-takeshima-incident.html

  72. ampontan said

    I repeat Japan and refuses to go to the ICJ on her dispute, with China.

    Aceface, Bender, Mac, et al.: Do you really want to keep feeding this vampire/troll? He’s just a parasite living on your opposition.

    If you want to keep it going, be my guest, but I had to approve this particular comment because of the WordPress spam software limit for URL links. It’s going to be last one I approve when prompted to do so.

    If the commenter doesn’t like it, he can consider this:

    Eighth is a double answer and it’s my favourite! Because they don’t wanna and they don’t’ gotta.

    I’ve got no time for children around here.

  73. Aceface said

    Bill.Just one more post.

    “Aceface, I repeat Japan and refuses to go to the ICJ on her dispute, with China. If not please show me a link where Japan has demanded the ICJ solve the Japan-China that’s the issue here. Japan is to applying the same standards.”

    Actually,I don’t understand what you mean here,Steve.

    Japan never refused to go to the ICJ on the dispute with Senkakus since China never asked for it.And it was your argument that Japan did,not me.

    “The point is, if Japan (and you) have so much faith in the ICJ then why doesn’t Japan also demand China go to the ICJ about her dispute with China? I mean the ICJ is the best way right?”

    Why does Japan needs to demand China to come to ICJ.We are entirely confident with situation right now.

    I think you’re having problem with how court works,Steve.

    If A thinks B violates his rights or property,yet B do not answer the demand from A and insists the status quo,A can go to court and solve the problem by law by filing lawsuit against B.See.This is how system works in civilized world.

    Since Japan is not concerned with Chinese claim on Senkaku,nor demanding to China to stop the claim itself,why does Tokyo need to go to court anyway? It just isn’t our problem.If China demand the issue to be settled by the international law at ICJ,That’s another argument,and this is what Japan is demanding to Korea.NO?

    You should have asked why Tokyo won’t ask Russia for the northern territory instead,since that’s much more closer argument.
    The reason is Soviet Union had violated international law on multiple occasion against Japan,including the removal of Japanese from occupied territory and have them worked at Siberian gulag and took all the private properties from all of Soviet occupied area and none of them are solved since we never had any peace treaty with Soviet Union.In legal sense,we are still at war with Moscow!
    ICJ solution could open more cans of worm than simply handing over the territory we want if we go to court before we have peace treaty.And Russia would never come to the ICJ since the risk is too high.We will never sign peace treaty with Russia until we have our territory back.In case of South Korea,this isn’t happening since all of our legal dipsputes were solved in 1965 treaty except the territorial dispute.

    “I find it hilarious you hold me to answer your burden of proof on my quotes but yet you still haven’t put your money where your big mouth is and given proof of Japan’s historical title to Dokdo before the colonization era? I’m still waiting…”

    You can wait all you want,But I’ve ALREADY told you that I’m incapable with such task.Meaning I don’t know.

    “Aceface, Japan has the 7th largest EEZ not because she is an island. Her EEZ is so large because she claims huge tracts of ocean around every tiny outlying rock or island.”

    I think these atatesments are contradicting,No?

    “Many of these large chains of islands were “officially” claimed during the colonial era such as the Rykyus, Hokkaido, Ogasawaras and Marcus Islands. The outlying islands account for around 2.5 million sq kms from what I understand.”

    1)Ryukyu has been under joint control between Japan and China for centuries.And annexed to Kagoshima prefecture in 1871.Meaning Ryukyu never had independent status until Japanese take over.However,in 1974,when Okinawa,at the time under American occupation had public poll with the choice of 1)to remain under the U.S 2)Independence 3)Return to Japan under the pre-war status of Okinawa prefecutre.Majority of voters chosed 3.So you can’t call Okinawa-Japan relation as colonial relation.

    2)Hokkaido.Never demanded independece nor any uniform kingdom existed.Ainu were also living elsewhere in Honsyu island and they were assimilated in to the population just like immigrqants from continental Asia.

    3)Ogasawara and Marcus island were no-man island with disputes with the U.S.Yet the U.S dropped it’s territorial claim based on international law.Another contratictory case for your thesis on international law.

    “Right now, against international laws of the sea Japan unilaterally claims 400,000 square kms around the Okinotorishimas which are about the size of a bedroom.”

    As long as Okinotorishima can be habitable,then that’s not against international law.The only counterarugument comes from China and China is practicing same sort of things in elsewhere on the Spratlys and Paracels islands.So they are basically shooting their own feet.
    Anyway,the EEZ zone claimed by Japan via Okinotorishima can either be claim by Japan or be international waters,thus can’t be considered as territorial disputes between soverign countries like aforementioned cases.

    ”What a surprise it was when I read Nakai Yozaburo ( the man who was the basis for Japan’s annexation of Dokdo) also was involved in the Ogasawaras, Ulleungdo and even the Korean peninsula. He too was a vagabond poacher who trespassed onto Korean territory (Ulleungdo)”

    But it wasn’t Nakai who made Japanese Sea Lion extinct from the face of the earth.That was when Takeshima was occupied by Korea.So I don’t think Koreans are in the plae to accuse Nakai.At least Sea Lion hunting on Liancourt rock was sustainable.

    “You doubt Japan wouldn’t honor an ICJ decision. That’s your opinion and Korea feels differently. The fact is ICJs decisions are only advisory to Korea and thus toothless.”

    But ICJ’s decisions being “only advisory”isn’t particluary a bad thing.No?
    If Japan won’t honor an ICJ decision,Korea could not only keep the island but have more righteous reason to keep the rock instead of phony maps of yours.

    “You think the ICJ’s decision in the former Yugoslavial was fair. Well that’s your opinion others don’t.”

    I’m sure guy like Slovodan Milosvic didn’t think that way.But you probably knows that International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia isn’t exactly ICJ,but different legal body.

    “The ICJ is not part of the ROK Aceface. Thus it is an organization comprised of foreign countries.”

    Ofcourse it isn’t.That’s why it’s more reliable.ICJ belong to the UN of which ROK is the member and also sending their top diplomat as the chief secretary.

    “Korea wants to be more directly involved in the decision process not just a small part of it. That’s not an unreasonable request and Korea has the right to demand this.”

    Not exactly sure what is “directly involed in the decision process”means.I thought Koreans didn’t want corruption and back door deals.Anyway,they can surely bring all of their maps and their best diplomat to fight in court,which is what “directly involved” means in court procedure.

    Now Ampontan.I’ve used up all of our ammunition.

    I’m not exactly a supporter of Shimojo,nor I agree with his writing to tell you the truth.But his dignity certainly should be defended from VANKEResque troll even in the internet.

    Steve may be a good map collector,but Korea certainly needs better hired gun if they want to pursue their noble cause of defending Dokdo.

  74. steve said

    Bill?

    Aceface, as I posted above. I have no ties to VANK. I have quarrel with Japan as a nation. I take no sides on Japan Korean issues aside from the Dokdo Takeshima dispute.

    Regarding your analogy about court. Just because A thinks he was violated by B it does not make a court case. As I’ve said above the ICJ is not truly a world court because their rulings are often simply ignored. Even the U.S. Supreme Court gave permission to ignore the ICJs ruling against the U.S. in their case against Mexico.

    The ICJ’s rulings are only binding in theory.

    The Japanese takeover of the Ryukyus gave them independence. I had a good laugh at that one Aceface.

    Why don’t you read wikipedia’s version of Japan’s takeover of the Ryukyus Aceface?

    In the process of annexation, the Japanese military assassinated Ryukyu politicians and civilians who opposed the takeover. The Ryukyu Kingdom became part of its northern neighbour, the Satsuma han. Later, it became its own prefecture, Okinawa Prefecture, when the prefectural system was adopted nationwide. Compulsory Japanese education was enforced on the Ryukyu children, whereby they were taught Japanese language, culture and identity, while strictly forbidden the use of their native language.

    Hokkaido was the same. The Japanese swarmed on masse, displaced the indginenous people and then annexed the island. The original population is watered down to the point they have no power to resists. This form of genocide is what China is doing to this day.

    Marcus Island?
    The U.S. dropped it’s claim because Japan sent warships to Marcus Island to intimidate the real rightful owner. Captain Rosehill actually had the first act of real sovereignty over the island thirteen years before the Japanese, however he failed to file the Treasury Bond with the State Department. This is “international law” It’s not a moral guide or an equitable way to divide the world’s territory. 19th Century Internatonal law of territorial acquisition amounted to first come, first serve and might means right. That is why I think this “internatonal law” you cited is a poor way to resolve territorial disputes today.

    The United Nation Convention on Laws of the Sea states that “rocks which could not sustain human habitation or economic life of their own would have no economic zone or continental shelf” Japan signed this agreement and then unilaterally declared uninhabitable rocks as an EEZ. This is wrong.

    By being “directly involved in the decision process I mean Korea should be front row center when drawing her boundary with Japan.” That means one on one with Japan on equal footing without outside intervention. Why are you (and Japanese) so afraid of this Aceface?

    Seriously, Aceface how does supporting Korea’s claim to Dokdo by running a website and debating the subject with primary documents and maps make me a VANKer? Is everyone who takes Korea’s side on a matter of Japan Korean relations a VANKer?

    I’m not attacking Professor Shimojo’s dignity. I’m holding him accountable for his academic work especially in the field of Dokdo Takeshima historical translations and interpretations. Ampontan you too are accountable for this by translating and posting in online.

    Assuming Professor Shimojo really has the credentials he says, he must be aware of the falsehoods he is purveying because they are so wrong at a rudimentary level on the Dokdo Takshima subject.

    I’ve outlined some of the major points here.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-mofa-2008.html

  75. Mac said

    OK … I am out Amp. If I were you, I would edit out all the link spam, except one out of respect, right up to the top of the topic.

    Incidentally, 50 lawmakers from 10 Korean NGOs calling themselves “The Korean National Council the United Preparatory Government” recently filed a petition with the International Court of Justice to seek global recognition of Gando, in the northeastern region of China, as part of the Korean territory … and, guess what, it is the Japanese’s fault!!!

    > Mac this is from the ICJ’s website.

    Steve,

    this illustrates perfectly a fault in your way of thinking and your mode of argument. Yes …

    a) Contentious Jurisdiction – both Koreas are on the list

    AND

    b) Advisory Jurisdiction

    Those are two separate functions.

    Now, wake up Steve, can you see how sure you can be about something that is entirely wrong – even when it is pointed out to you – and how you misuse it for the sake of your “mission”.

    I had a look at your own site. You do not allow discussion on it. Instead you troll others sites. That is not very cool. Are you only a one way broadcaster …?

    I was going to make an informed, yet sympathetic, comment on the Korean’s relationship with its own judiciary system, the culture of fraud even within academia, and why it exits, based on the Korea Research Foundation recent statements but I guess it would be wasted on you if you are not open to discussion.

    Start a forum on your own site. I’d love to discuss the cultural and psychological aspects of this issue with you and why you find it so important.

  76. Aceface said

    “Just because A thinks he was violated by B it does not make a court case.”

    You are ignoring”A can go to court and solve the problem by law by filing lawsuit against B”.

    ” The Japanese takeover of the Ryukyus gave them independence. I had a good laugh at that one Aceface”

    Oops.Remove “before” and add “until”.Never said Japanese take over of the Ryukyu gave them independence though.

    ”In the process of annexation, the Japanese military assassinated Ryukyu politicians and civilians who opposed the takeover”

    “Japanese military” ig, samurai of Satsuma clan?I’m impressed with the quality of Wikipedia yet again.That’s 1609,you are talking about.We call these years “feudal era”not “colonial era”.

    Ans you are not getting the point.Okinawan(Ryukyus)chose to returrn to Japan at their will in 1974 when they had choice.Meaning Chinese analogy so not stand.

    “Hokkaido was the same.”

    Hokkaido never had any kingdom of any sort.The better analogy would be Baekje or Gaya.

    “This is “international law” It’s not a moral guide or an equitable way to divide the world’s territory.”

    Well, Marcus island was returned to Japan in 1968 by the U.S recognizing Japanese claim of soverignity based on international law.

    “The United Nation Convention on Laws of the Sea states that “rocks which could not sustain human habitation or economic life of their own would have no economic zone or continental shelf” Japan signed this agreement and then unilaterally declared uninhabitable rocks as an EEZ. This is wrong.”

    Not exactly.As long as you have certain amount of surface shows up above the ocean,it will be considered as “habitable”.Just like many lagoons and reefs in the coral zone.

    “That means one on one with Japan on equal footing without outside intervention. Why are you (and Japanese) so afraid of this Aceface?”

    Actually,That’s what we did.That’s one of the reason why it took 14years of negotiations to normalize our ties with Korea.One of the mystery is the process had accelrated after Park took office and this issue was removed from the negotiation.(Which is why there is this secret agreement theory pops up)
    And Korea has been occupying the rock and Japan basically kept the official line ever since.”We maintain the claim and demand ICJ solution”was the policy and Korea simply chose to ignore it.
    Things went crazy after Kim Young Sam took the office.Koreans suddenly start attacking Japanese claim,something that had been going on for more than four decades.
    Korean chose the line that “there is no such terrotorial dispute”thus we don’t(or can’t)talk directly.

    “Seriously, Aceface how does supporting Korea’s claim to Dokdo by running a website and debating the subject with primary documents and maps make me a VANKer? Is everyone who takes Korea’s side on a matter of Japan Korean relations a VANKer?”

    And everyone who takes Japan’s side on a matter of Japan Korean relation become “Pro-Japanese,Anti-Korean”,or “Japanese right-wing lobbyist”?
    Those are your words when you start coming over here yelling.Steve.

    Apology for mistaking you as VANKer,Usual spelling mistakes.
    It was intended to spell “W”,not “V”.

  77. Ken said

    M,B,A, you guys are too serious.
    His way of arguement is typically Korean style as follows.
    1. Arrogance of loud voice at face-to-face, repetition and bald letters at mail
    2. Counter question against unanswerable question
    3. Averting of topic against unfavorable topic
    4. Conclusion with no evidence
    5. Abuse
    Here we are and the next will be,
    6. Victory declaration by himself
    Senkaku islands are peacefully owned by Japan and Chinese executives say they will lose in ICJ and so it cannot be compared to Takeshima.
    Do not be deceived by his averting of topic.
    Just he came here because he cannot convince Gerry Bevers who can read 3 concerned languages though I have no interest in the Kabob-like characters.
    Takeshima is good stuff to know the substance of Koreans. Let’s leave him to Gerry Bevers.

  78. bender said

    I happen to only read Mac’s comments, because Barber’s is just worthless junk. He’s neither a historian nor a lawyer, and can’t even read Chinese characters. Golly, I’m not sure if he can read English for that matter. Not worth devoting the time to read them. I’m moving ahead.

  79. steve said

    My point stands. The ICJs decisions are only binding in theory. Countries that are handed down unfavourable decisions simply ignore it. Also only about 66 countries consider ICJs jurisdiction as compulsory Korea, China, Taiwan and I think even Russia do not consider ICJ jurisdiction as compulsory. The ICJ has no bite.

    Aceface, the Rykyus of 1974 has nothing to do with the Rykyus of 19th Century. By 1974 the demographics, culture, language had been changed for many generations. The original inhabitants had no choice but to be forcibly annexed by Japan and then were assimilated. A century later the damage was done.

    The Japanese didn’t get the Ryukyus under international law but U.S. support. The Americans Ulysses S Grant gave them to Japan when they asked for mediation. The Americans favoured Japan because they followed American ideals. It reminds me of the Taft Katsura Agreement where Japan received tacit consent to colonize Korea. The Japanese stormed in and abolished the Ryukyu kingdom and the Ryukyu King exiled. This was in accordance with “international law’? If so, it’s bullshit.

    Hokkaido is the same as North America where my ancestors stripped away their lands, overwhelmed their population and displaced the locals onto squalid reservations to die. Much like the Native Americans they are displaced and watered down powerless to ever get back what they’ve lost.

    Marcus Island was given back to Japan after WWII because the U.S. negotiated a joint security arrangement for military bases in tandem with the Japan Peace Treaty Aceface. America was double-dealing during the San Francisco Peace Treaty to grant the Japanese joint-ownership (trusteeships) of these islands if the Yanks could use former Japanese outlying islands for US bases. Allied Command did not make decisions on former Japanese outlying islands based on title alone. Many of these negotiations were simply strategic military moves to posture against the advance of communism in Asia.

    That is what the Americans wanted to do on Dokdo Island as well, it’s why Rusk and the U.S. military brass temporarily supported Japan’s claim for Takeshima. The U.S. wanted to install radar and weather stations on Dokdo. This is your idea of fair international law? The whole process was corrupted by military agenda. That is why they failed to reach an agreement on Takeshima after WWII. The Americans tainted the whole process. Thus, Korea shouldn’t trust foreign intervention.

    Aceface you under international law, land colonial claims were legal. I don’t dispute some of these claims could be seen as valid. However, historical context is key. Is the colonial era ‘international law” of yesteryear still applicable in 2009?

    Some Japanese still argue that the annexation of Korea was “legal” under international law and you know they may have a valid point. After all the Hague, (basically the world court at the time) deemed Korea incapable of governing herself and gave Japan the nod to control Korea. At the time Japan annexed Dokdo coerced treaties were legal, child labor was legal and women couldn’t vote.

    With the colonial issue my point is. It’s one thing to forcibly annex a territory and then maintain sovereignty over it for a century. However, it’s another thing to lose effective control over these areas for over 50 years and then demand to re-annex them and redraw the modern boundary based on the political circumstances of 1905. It won’t work.

    I gave you at least seven reasons why the Koreans don’t want to go to the ICJ on post number 68, Aceface. Your inference that Korea doesn’t go because their case is weak doesn’t really wash. Perhaps, if Japan proposes some joint agreement on other issues of contention behind closed doors Korea will entertain the idea.

    If you want to know more about the problems with international law the link provided lists why Japan’s 1905 annexation was not legal.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-expansionism-politics.html

    Ken, Gerry Bevers can’t speak three languages. He has trouble with his usage of Korean when he translates (my Korean wife will testify to that) and he is very slick when he goes from the original Hanja~Kanji to English. He also claims he knows about only 1200 Chinese characters which is certainly not worthy of translating historical records. Mr Bevers would be far better off hiring and paying professionals because as it stands his interpretations are always verified through Japan’s lobby movement.

    Bender, (peanut gallery) before you slag my comments, take a stroll down memory lane and read your useless drivel above.

  80. ampontan said

    I clearly explained the ground rules for commenting more than once to everyone taking part in the current discussion, since this discussion began.

    The last sentence in comment #79 is unacceptable.

    Therefore, I modified the posting privileges for that commenter. They are now at a level identical to the posting privileges he allows for any visitor to his own website.

  81. Aceface said

    “Countries that are handed down unfavourable decisions simply ignore it.”

    Which isn’t a bad news for Korea

    “Also only about 66 countries consider ICJs jurisdiction as compulsory Korea, China, Taiwan and I think even Russia do not consider ICJ jurisdiction as compulsory. ”

    Is Taiwan counted as country inspite it doesn’t have a seat in UN?
    Anyway,it can be changed by Korea simply reconsider ICJ jutrisdiction as compulsory.

    “Aceface, the Rykyus of 1974 has nothing to do with the Rykyus of 19th Century. By 1974 the demographics, culture, language had been changed for many generations. ”

    Actually,it does.Since if Okinawans do not favor Japanese rule,they cpuld have been rejected it.Plus thiry years of Amerian rule had also gave significant change in culture and society,but not demography since most of the people who are born or considered to belong to the mainland left the island.

    “The Japanese didn’t get the Ryukyus under international law but U.S. support. ”

    The Japanese government used the international law to back down the Chinese claim of the Ryukyu being the vassal state of China.The U,S supported Japanese logic since,as you’ve said it,it was American ideals.If the international law belong to the colonial power and only serve their purposes,why it never worked out for Qing Dynasty.which was the largest empire in Asia at the time?

    “The Japanese stormed in and abolished the Ryukyu kingdom and the Ryukyu King exiled. This was in accordance with “international law’? If so, it’s bullshit.”

    No.King was deoprted to Edo and given the status of Japanese aristocrat just like other feudal lords from elsewhere around the country.There were no international law invloved since Ryukyu wasn’t independent nation.

    Re:Hokkaido

    Like I’ve been saying multiple times,Hokkaido was never an independent nation,thus it is rather unfit for the argument.And I’ve presented Baekje or Gaya as the better analogy.Being swallowed into the more powerful state and lost nationhood.

    “Marcus Island was given back to Japan after WWII because the U.S. negotiated a joint security arrangement for military bases in tandem with the Japan Peace Treaty ”

    These are all related with international law,Steve.The U.S-Japan seurity treaty and San Francisco Treaty.

    “That is what the Americans wanted to do on Dokdo Island as well, it’s why Rusk and the U.S. military brass temporarily supported Japan’s claim for Takeshima. The U.S. wanted to install radar and weather stations on Dokdo. This is your idea of fair international law? ”

    You know that the U.S troops had also garrisoned in South Korea at the time.Americans could install whatever they like on Liancourt rock either it belongs to Japan or Korea.The decision was made purely from the view point of international law,just like U.S Board on Geographic Names did last year and then backed down after facing fierce Korean opposition.

    “The Americans tainted the whole process. Thus, Korea shouldn’t trust foreign intervention.”

    Yeah,they also shouldn’t trust the U.S house resolution on comfort women then.

    “Aceface you under international law, land colonial claims were legal. I don’t dispute some of these claims could be seen as valid. However, historical context is key. Is the colonial era ‘international law” of yesteryear still applicable in 2009?”

    And my answer is “Yes”,precicely because of the historical context.Since we don’t live in perfect world and law and order will not be built in a day we carry some of the legacy from the past.
    Korea won’t be independent nation had it not given short-lived independence status after the Japanese victory against Qing in the first Sino-Japanese war.Otherwise it’s independence would have probably been denied in either Cairo or Yalta conference by the allied leaders.Korea could have been remained as part of China like Inner Mongolia or Tibet.

    “if Japan proposes some joint agreement on other issues of contention behind closed doors Korea will entertain the idea”

    Of which we did in 1965.And we have what we have now.
    Korea just isn’t reliable.So I want ICJ solution.Let’s make this black and white,

    ” Some Japanese still argue that the annexation of Korea was “legal” under international law and you know they may have a valid point.”

    Not “some”.That’s the official stance of MoFA.

  82. Mac said

    Following Steve’s logic … if the Ainu were the true Japanese, the “Japanese” are really Koreans or Chinese; wasn’t it therefore Koreans or Chinese who were carrying out genocide on the true Japanese?

    At what point did those Koreans or Chinese change uniform and become “the Japanese” to slaughter and steal from the Ainu? As the Ainu have now died off or been bred out, the rest of history is really just the ‘Korean in Korea’ fighting and arguing with the ‘Koreans in Japan’.

    Steve ignored Koreans seeing fit to go to the ICJ over Gando. For the record, Russia just went to the ICJ with Georgia last year. No, Taiwan is not a state/seat holder and is therefore not eligible. Steve is perfectly capable of understanding but does not want to … his argument falls to pieces if taken slowly piece by piece … which I guess is why he uses the “avalanche of information” tactic … by why should anyone have to?

    The whole point of accepting to go to the ICJ is that one must accepts, in advance, that its orders are binding (and under what terms). Parties who ascent to its jurisdiction must comply with its directives. Nations cannot act like petulant teenagers.

    One of the major surprises of recent times is that the ICJ actually has a great record of securing compliance … albeit in case case taking 47 years to do so!

  83. Ken said

    “Hanja”?

    Is it what they call ‘Chinese character’ in non-Korean world?
    Even those who have heard the word would not be able to spell it out. vvvv

    Korea could break in co-holder of World Cup 2002 by sending women to FIFA directers who are more matchless than ordinary people.
    So Koreans seem thinking lobby movement is effective to even judges in law-abiding countries but it works Only IN Korea (OINK).

  84. bender said

    By 1974 the demographics, culture, language had been changed for many generations.

    Ignorance is bliss!

  85. Mac said

    I hope that, rather than to slink away to lick his wounds, prejudices confirmed that all Japanese or Japanese apologists are rabid right winger revisionists, Canadian Steve Barber of the Dokdo Takeshima website can reflect a bit upon causal elements of his own conduct and approach.

    To have a dancing white monkey climb up upon the organ grinder’s organ and clap along to the nationalist’s, or racist’s, tune, really does not add very much to the discussion.

    Come on Steve, if you need help install a discussion forum on your website, I am very willing to do it for you.

    I made a serious joke above about how it was Korean and Chinese immigrants who committed the genocide upon the real Japanese (called Ainu), to exploit just one of the types of logical fallacies Steve uses in his arguments. I wanted to take this element further and bring it up to date, referencing a fairly good article here:

    http://thegrandnarrative.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/where-do-ajosshis-come-from-part-2-the-colonial-origins-of-the-south-korean-military/

    and ‘Imitating the Colonizers: The Legacy of the Disciplining State from Manchukuo to South Korea by Suk-Jung Han’

    referring to here:

    while nobody in any country likes having foreigners explain their history to them, in this particular case Korea specialists outside of the country … with more job security … really do seem to have a much more balanced and objective view of the period than Koreans themselves.

    and

    the Korean military regimes of 1961 to 1987 had uniquely pervasive … control of Korean society … (read dictatorship) … the bulk of their military officers and bureaucrats in the 1960s had served in the Japanese colonial state … Once in power they had no hesitation in recreating a state model that … demonstrably delivered high growth under an authoritarian, top-down control of society

    So, it is not only the ‘Korean-Japanese’ who persecuted and murder the Real ‘Ainu-Japanese’ … but it was the ‘Japanesed-Koreans’ who persecuted the ‘Korean-Koreans’ who either stayed at home or had nothing to do with the nasty Japanese Colonialist who, according to Steve’s logic, were actually the Koreans in Japan. (Confused? Well, I suppose it makes a change from someone claiming “it is all Japan’s fault” whilst refusing to go to court to fix it… )

    I agree with the author that Japanese and Korean have a lot more in common than they might like to agree on and let me underline this bit:

    something that Korean social-science scholars have only just begun acknowledging – let alone the Korean public … still living in a “militarized” regime even now.

    … and there we have the nub. It is all stuff Korean academics, upon whom responsible politicians dependent, have only just begun acknowledging – let alone the Korean public.

    Now, while Steve Barber plays with himself in the rock pools of an uninhabitable islet in the Japanese Sea, might I remind him of other issue needing address within Korean society where:

    sex crimes committed against children under 13 rose by 90 percent from 2003 to 2008, the average age of victims dropping … and more than 350,000 abortions are performed each year, equivalent to about 80 percent of the total number of babies born.

    In one recent ‘wonjo kyoje’ case, involving a homeless runaway child who adult men had paid for accommodation and given “pocketmoney”, the Korean judge made the ruling that, “the purpose of the youth protection law does not lie in restricting love relationships between minors and adults, but in preventing underage sex from becoming a subject of commercial deals … a broadened application of the law would pose a threat to people’s freedom of privacy.”

  86. Bender said

    I like traveling to the Ryukyus. The girls are pretty. Yes, they look different from mainlanders. Steve’s comment is just absurd and ignorant.

  87. Mac said

    Traveling anywhere because the ‘girls are pretty’ is always a good idea. If in doubt, when you get lost in a distant town or foreign nation, always follow the most attractive woman you can see, I say. They are bound to be going in the right direction. And even if they are not, they will improve the view.

    Of course, now I am getting older, they are starting to call it ‘stalking’.

    There are a lot very beautiful Korea girls as well. I hope they liberate themselves from all this crap not carry on generations of anger and hatred. The future lies in young women’s (**** edit as you will), not grumpy old dragging around old books.

    It is only a shame the Korea men do not appreciate it. Which is probably why Steve’s wife married him. He is probably a really nice, gentle man in comparison to the face slapping, whore-buying, hard-drinking, porn-obsessed, street-spitting sexist Korea guys she was used to.

  88. Jason said

    Mac, regarding your post #87 and the last part of #85, what does ANY of that have to do with the topic at hand? When you resort to name-calling and cheap shots as a last desperate option, it weakens and invalidates any argument or point you or any other anti-Korean right winger on here was trying to make.

  89. [...] of their attempted visit, Prof. Shimojo Masao, described by Yonhap as “a Takushoku University professor with very rightist views on [...]

  90. Aceface said

    Wasn’t too surprised with Prof Shimojo got kicked out from Korea.Samething happened in ’97 to the member of Asia Women’s Fund who tried to enter the country for the hearing of former comfort women wanting to accept money from the fund.
    共同通信ニュース速報[1997-07-23]
    韓国政府が入国禁止措置  慰安婦問題で女性運動家

     【ソウル23日共同】韓国政府筋は二十三日、日本の「女性のた
    めのアジア平和国民基金」(原文兵衛理事長)が今年一月に韓国の
    元従軍慰安婦に一時金などを支給した際に協力した日本の女性市民
    運動家に対して、韓国政府が十四日付で入国禁止措置を取ったこと
    を明らかにした。                      
     韓国政府が同基金に関連した活動で入国禁止措置まで取るのは異
    例のことで、今後、日本側の元従軍慰安婦への償い事業に影響を与
    えるとみられる。                      
     入国禁止措置の対象となったのは「日本の戦後責任をハッキリさ
    せる会」の臼杵敬子代表(49)。臼杵代表は基金の一時金を受け
    取りたいという元慰安婦の要望を同基金に伝えるなどし、基金活動
    の懸け橋的な役割を果たしてきた。              
     基金の一時金支給に反対している「韓国挺身隊問題対策協議会」
    (挺対協)などが四月、臼杵代表の韓国入国を認めないよう韓国法
    務省に要求、韓国政府がこれを受け入れる形となった。     
     関係筋によると、韓国政府は十九日に臼杵代表に対する措置を在
    韓日本大使館に通告してきたという。日本大使館側は「バランスを
    欠いた措置であり再考を願う」と韓国政府に要請したが、決定変更
    は困難との回答だったという。                
     同基金は今年一月に七人の元慰安婦の女性に一時金などを支給、
    韓国政府や挺対協などの市民運動は強く反発した。しかし、最近は
    元慰安婦の一部から日本の一時金を受け取りたいという希望が出始
    めている。 
    ——
    Ace: Nice to see you again. My next post is about this and you just made it longer!

    – A.                        

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 118 other followers

%d bloggers like this: