竹島問題の歴史

13.2.08

The 4th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

Below is a translation of The 4th column: “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts (実事求是),” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

"Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."

The Northeast Asian History Foundation of Korea has produced an educational video that was made public on January 18, 2008. The video deals with the Takeshima (Dokdo) issue, and includes interviews with three specialists: Hong () Song-kun, Naito Seichu(内藤正中) and Kim Byeong-yeol (金柄烈). The problem with the video is that no evidence was shown to prove that Takeshima (Dokdo) was Korean territory, and their arguments include errors.

The first speaker, Hong () Song-kun, mentioned a Japanese document entitled, 元禄九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一巻之覚書 (Memorandum on the visit of a Korean ship in the 9th year of Genroku)" and claimed that it was proof that Takeshima (Dokdo) was Korean territory. He claimed it was a report on the investigation on Ahn Yong-bok and said, “It clearly said that Dokdo belonged to Gangwondo (江原道).” However, if you read the “元禄九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一巻之覚書,” you realize that it was not a report on the investigation, but only a transcript of Ahn Yong-bok's testimony, where Ahn said, “Japan's Matsushima is Jasando (子山嶋) and is part of Ganwon Province (江原道). Japan did not admit Takeshima (Dokdo) was Korean territory. In fact, the Tottori clan did not take him seriously and deported him from Karo-nada (Sea of Karo). In the light of these facts, it is clear that Hong’s theory was wrong.

The reason Koreans today applause Ahn Yong-bok’s activities is because the testimony Ahn gave to Korean officials was recorded in the “Annals of King Sukjong (粛宗)”. However, testimony written in both the “Annals of King Sukjong (粛宗)” and in the “漂人領来謄録” is considered unreliable since the testimony Ahn gave to the Japanese and the testimony he gave to the Koreans do not match in certain parts. In other words, Ahn perjured himself.

Hong () also said that Usando was clearly written as Japan’s so-called Matsushima (Dokdo) in the "Mangi Yoram 萬機要覽," which was a Korean text published in 1808; however, it seems Mr. Hong did not read the original text. The article that Mr. Hong based his claim begins with, “According to the 文献備考”, which was requotation of the “東国文献備考” (1770), and the article in the “東国文献備考” was fabricated by Sin Gyong-jun (申景濬) when he compiled the "Yojigo (輿地考)." He changed the text in the “輿地志” to “Usando is Japan’s so-called Matsushima (Dokdo),” based on his book, "Ganggyego 彊界考." Therefore, the statement that Mr. Hong said was proof that Usando was Dokdo was a requotation from a fabricated document.

The same goes for Naito Seichu, who said that making a voyage to Ulleungdo during the time of Korea’s empty island policy was like going into someone's empty house, and he called it a "thief mentality." However, the Edo Shogunate regarded Ulleungdo as Japan’s territory when the chief fishermen of the Oya family clan in Yonago, Tottori brought Ahn Yong-bok and Park O-dun (朴於屯) back to Japan. However, as the Tsushima clan negotiated with Korea on orders from the Shogunate, opinions inside the clans split into two parties. One party thought that Ulleungdo was Japan’s territory, and the other thought it was Korean. The former party made their argument based on the fact that Japan effectively controlled the island for over 80 years. In the end, it was the Tsushima clan who proposed stopping the negotiations and conceded that Ulleungdo was Korean territory because of the evidence in Korea's "Dongguk Yoji Seungram (東国輿地勝覧)." Therefore, Naito Seichu was wrong to say Japan had a "thief mentality."

The last speaker was Kim Byeong-yeol (金柄烈). He called the incorporation of Takeshima (Dokdo) into Shimane prefecture "an invasion." He also said, “You could incorporate it if it were ownerless land, but Takeshima (Dokdo) was Korean territory.” He mentioned the activity of Ahn Yong-bok as grounds of his claim and say that "Seokdo" in the 1900 "Ordinance #41" was Dokdo. However, there is no historical evidence to support Ahn Yong-bok's claims. For example, Takeshima (Dokdo) was not drawn in such Korean maps such as the "Ulleungdo Dohyeong (欝陵島図形),the "Ulleungdo Woido (欝陵島外図)," or the Daehan Jeondo (大韓全図)." Takeshima (Dokdo) was outside Korean territory and was certainly “terra nullius." Japan incorporated ownerless land, and it was acceptable under international law, as Kim pointed out.

They put the educational video up for viewing on January 18th, the very same day that Korea invaded Takeshima (Dokdo) after drawing the “Rhee Syngman Line” on the open sea. The problem is that there was no historical grounds for Rhee Syngman to draw the line. As Mr. Naito expressed in the Northeast Asian History Foundation's educational video, Rhee's action was based on "thief mentality."

Translated by Pacifist

Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.

Other Column of the Series:

The 24th column “South Korean Government dug their own grave by publishing the English version of "The Dokdo/Takeshima Controversy" by Prof. Emeritus Naito Seichu and Mr. Park Byeong-seop.”


The 23rd column " Refutation against the report of South Korean Yonhap News Agency which misread the Mori Kohan(森幸安)'s "The Map of Tsushima(對馬輿地図)"


The 22th column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

The 21st column " Refutation against "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”

The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”

The 19th column “"Korea Maritime Institute(KMI : 韓国海洋水産開発院), who lacks ability to read their own historical documents, criticized on Shimane Prefecture. "”

The 18th columnAbsurd and Peculiar Theory of Prof. Hosaka, plus the "Children and textbook nationwide net 21" and others' Getting "Out of Control.”

The 17th column “The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).

The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."

The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"

The 14th column “A reckless Courage of the Professor Kimishima Kazuhiko(君島和彦) of Tokyo Gakugei University(東京学芸大学).

The 13th column “Sins of Asahi Shimbun and Mr. Wakamiya Yoshibumi(若宮啓文).

The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”

The 11th column “South Korea's Misunderstanding of 'A Map of Three Adjoining Countries (Sangoku Setsujozu 三国接壌図)' by Hayashi Shihei(林子平)”

The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"

The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"

The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."

8 comments:

  1. dokdo-takeshima.com14/2/08 14:02

    This is a humorous post. It is typical of Pro-Jo's stance on Takeshima.

    To summarize his post, he takes shots at Korea's historical claim but at the end of the day he fails to provide any proof of Japan's. Read his post on this pro-Japanese website and note nowhere can be found proof of Japan's historical claim prior to the 1905 military annexation.

    Regarding Anyongbok, regardless of the conflicting testimony, here is what we cannot dispute. Anyongbok went to Japan to protest Japanese trespassing on Ulleungdo and Jasando. In his documents he quoted Takeshima~Ulleungdo (竹島) and Matsushima~Dokdo (松島) were part of Gangwando (江原道) Province Korea.

    Here is an image of the document.
    Takeshima~Matsushima part of Ganwando

    These records were sent to the Japanese shogunate. If the Japanese thought Matsushima (Dokdo) was part of Japan they surely would have protested Anyongboks assertions. But they didn't.

    BTW, President Rhee's Peace Line wasn't based on "thief mentality" is was based on the territorial limits drawn by the allies during the negotiations during the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Japan's limits are almost identical.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve Barber,

    The purpose of the article was not to prove Japan's claim, but to point out the errors in the claims made in the video.

    An Yong-bok said Usando (于山島) was Matsushima (松島), but there is no firm evidence that he was talking about Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). His distances were all wrong and the Korean maps made after the incident showed Usando to be Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). Click the following link to see a 1711 map of Ulleungdo made by Ulleungdo inspector Bak Chang-seok (朴昌錫)

    1711 Map of Ulleungdo

    In fact, not only does the above map not show Usando as Dokdo (Liancourt Rock), Korea has no old maps that show Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) by any name.

    You must be confused again, Steve, because the Japanese did protest An Yong-bok's assertions. It was only later that Japan agreed to concede Ulleungdo was Korean territory, but not Matsushima (Dokdo).

    Rhee was told by the allies that his line was illegal, and the peace treaty allowed Japan to keep Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo).

    ReplyDelete
  3. dokdo-takeshima.com14/2/08 21:59

    Gerry, the purpose of the above article is to mindlessly parrot the stance of Shimane's leading activist Professor Shimojo. You can read his view on the matter on Ampontan's blog.

    Pro-Shimojo presents little to support Japan's historical title and simpy takes potshots at Korea's claim. He too relies wholeheartedly on Japan's flimsy 1905 annexation and has all but ignored the fact Japan has no historical claim at all.

    On top of that he rudely dismisses Korea's valid claims as "howling". This is shameful. Read it here.

    Pr-jo

    If you read his article there is no mention at all of Japan's own claim. WTF?

    Gerry, you are wrong. The Japanese were given notice in 1696 that Takeshima AND Matsushima were part of Gangwando Province by Anyongbok. Japan made no mention of Matsushima (Dokdo) in the correspondence that followed. They did not protest at all. Why not?

    It's simple Gerry, the Japanese had no reason to contest ownership of two rocks with no fresh water, poor fishing, and over 5 days return sailing. With the loss of Ulleungdo the Japanese had no reason at all to voyage to Matsushima, in fact it would have been almost suicidal in this era.

    In other words, ancient Korean documents that say "Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima" cannot be dismissed on Shimojo's assumptions that Anyongbok's Usando was not Matsushima.

    The Shogunate's and Dottori's correspondence predates the second Anyongbok incident, this is said to have already affected the Shogunates decision before the spring of 1696.

    Shogunate~Dottori

    Gerry, the map you post has nothing to do with Anyongbok's incident as recorded. First Anyongbok said Jasando (Matsusshima) was 50ri away from Ulleungdo. As you know this is much too far away to be Jukdo Islet.

    The map you link to is typical of incorrect ancient maps of Ulleungdo. As you know there are five large islands on this map(the same size as "Usando") located to the South. These islands do not exist. Secondly the position of this Usando as related to other prominent rock formations on Ulleungdo's shore make it unlikely the islands were included as part of the initial on-site survey but rather added on later.

    The map you cite is a departure from the Anyongbok incident which states Matsushima~Usando was a distant island and thus we can't say they are related at all. As for the true identity of Usando, Anyongbok was far more familiar with the region than the inspectors who only visited the island for a few days, every few years under the vacant islands policy.

    Gerry says "Rhee was told by the allies his line was illegal and the peace treaty allowed Japan to keep the islands...."

    Gerry, did Kaneganese and Pacifist slip something in your drink to utter such nonsense? Nowhere within the sacred text of the San Francisco Peace Treaty is there any mention of Liancourt Rocks. Various drafts of the treaty gave the islands to Korea, Japan or simply excluded the issue. The final draft dropped the islands totally.

    Additionally we know the allied countries determined the possession of Japan's outlying islands more on military advantage rather that true territorial rights. This can be seen on the example of Marcus Islands and Cheju Islands.

    Pro-Jo's stance on Takeshima is refuted here.

    Shimane's Outdated Stance on Takeshima

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve Barber,

    As I said, the purpose of the article was to point out the errors in the claims made in the video, and Professor Shimojo Masao did a good job of doing that.

    Korea's historical claims on Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) are all smoke and mirrors, just like your arguments.

    It does not matter what An Yong-bok said since he was a lying, goofball nobody. Japan did not concede Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) to Korea, and there are no Japanese or Korean documents that say they did.

    An Yong-bok said that Matsushima was 50 Japanese ri (200 km) away from Ulleungdo while the Korean mainland was only 30 Japanese ri (120 km). The distance from the Korean mainland to Ulleungdo was pretty much correct since the real distance is about 134 kilometers, but the distance to An Yong-bok's Matsushima (Jasando) was more than double the distance from Ulleungdo to Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks). An said Matsushima was 200 kilometers away from Ulleungdo, but the distance of Dokdo from Ulleungdo is only 92 kilometers.

    The 1711 map most certainly does have something to do with the events in the 1690s since those events caused Korea to begin regular inspections of Ulleungdo, and the 1711 map shows that Usando was almost certainly Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, not Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks).

    Regardless of whether those five islands shown just off Ulleungdo's southern shore on many Korean maps are islets or rocks, dozens of Korean maps show "Usando" as a neighboring of Ulleungdo, but no Korean map shows is as Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks). Also, those islands or rocks shown off Ulleungdo's southern shore were not named, but the island just off Ulleungdo's east coast was named. It was named Usando. Even Korean historians are now starting to admit that the Usando on many of Korea's maps was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo.

    Regardless of what An Yong-bok may have thought, it was the opinion of Korean officials that mattered, and their opinion was that Usando was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Dokdo.

    Stop playing dumb, Steve. The reason "Liancourt Rocks" was not mentioned in Article Two of the San Francisco treaty was because that article was talking about the territory that Japan had to give up. Here is the relevant portion of the article:

    (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

    The postion of the United States was made quite clear in Sec. of State Dean Rusk's letter to the Korean ambassador:

    As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  5. dokdo-takeshima.com16/2/08 00:11

    Gerry, you are so predictable it's almost sad. Why don't you just let me talk directly to the Takeshima lobbyists head director and eliminate you (the middleman) altogether?

    Anyongbok said Matushima was 50ri away from Ulleungdo, the Oyas and the Murakawas said is was 40ri and they voyaged there many times as well. They were both inaccurate. The point is there is no way in Hell one could mistake 50ri for only 2ri. Anyongbok's Jasando was not Jukdo, get over it.

    At any rate, his correspondence was forwarded to the Japanese shogunate. He declared Matsushima as part of Korea and no matter what you feel Jasando may or may not have been, to the Japanese Matsushima meant Dokdo~Takeshima. Japan made no objection to Anyongbok's assertions. Some would say this amounts so acquiesence, I say it is 100% proof positive Japan did not consider Matsushima as Japanese territory in the 17th Century.

    This view is buttressed by the 1695 Dottori correspondence with the Shogunate in early 1695.

    Dottori 1695

    Gerry, maybe some historians agree some maps show Usando in the position of Jukdo Islet. It shows they have enough integrity to agree with many theories (unlike you) However, these same historians are quick to point out Anyongbok's Jasando was Matsushima. The difference is Gerry, you are trying to make blanket statements on a plethora of Usando historical references that lead us in many different direction to suit your agenda. This is not history, but lobbying.

    As far as YOUR interpretations of these maps, they are just that. The phrase I continually see in you posts is "almost certainly" Well, we aren't going to be remapping northeast Asia on your agenda-driven assumptions Gerry. The Usando issue is but one area of contention in the Dokdo Takeshima dispute and your Usando=Jukdo=Takeshima is Japanese land is a very simplistic approach.

    The San Francisco Peace Treay isn't worth the parchment it is printed on for a variety of reasons Gerry. Let's dismantle this document on a point by point basis.

    First as I've said, the final draft of the San Francisco Peace Treaty made no mention of Liancourt Rocks, and anyone who says it did is full of it. Here is the entire text of the treaty Gerry and if you can point out the part about Liancourt Rocks please enlighten us all.

    San Fran Treaty Doesn't Mention Liancourt Rocks

    Next the decisions the Americans made regarding the disposition of Japan's outlying islands were for military decisions. This can be seen on a number of documents.

    The correspondence by Steeves shows although some Americans believed Liancourt Rocks was historically Korea, military agenda took precedent over this matter.

    Steeves Document

    This document shows the British even considered giving Chejudo to the Japanese in the event communists overran the Korean peninsula.

    Japanese Cheju

    But probably the most obvious example of America's military agenda in the San Francisco Peace Treaty are the documents concerning Marcus Island. Marcus Island much like Liancourt Rocks was clandestinely annexed in 1898 with very little notification. Although Japan had sovereignty over island, the Americans did not give sovereignty back after WWII.

    The San Francisco Peace Treaty documents explain why. The Americans wanted a long-term naval base there. So as you see, the San Francisco Peace Treaty was not a treaty that gave territories based on historical title at all.

    Marcus Doc1

    Marcus Doc2

    America never returned Marcus Island to Japan. They sold the island back in the 1970s I think.

    Korea is in no way legally bound by allied decisions as she wasn't signatory to the San Francisco Peace Treaty. In fact, none of Japan's neighbours, (China, Russia, North Korea) those who bore the brunt of Japan's aggressions had any say at all. This is shameful.

    I'm also sick of the Japanese lobbyists on this forum blubbering about the Rhee line as if it was some land grabbing draconian line dreamed up at the last minute. It was simply the establishment of the boundary proposed by other nations in earlier drafts of the San Fran Peace Treaty. The Rhee line is almost identical.

    Rhee line

    SF Treaty line

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you, GROMR

    I've been looking for the videos. I hope they will be translated in English.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gerry,

    You should know that Korean committed emptying ulleung-do and dok-do policy for centuries..

    And yes. there might have been times when korean map makers were confused about dok-do and juk-do..

    But as I said, you should know it has been left uninhabited for centuries, so there could be some mistake.

    Don't judge it on your own way by having strict criteria about Korean side historical Data when finding errors, while having loose one about japanese data.

    ReplyDelete