竹島問題の歴史

19.3.08

2008 - "10 Issues of Takeshima" by MOFA

2008 10 issues of Takeshima by MOFA_1

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan published the new brochure for Takeshima in Feb. 2008. You can download them in Japanese, English and Korean from their site below.

Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs English [PDF] /Japanese [PDF] /Korean [PDF] )

2008 - "10 Issues of Takeshima" by MOFA

Point 1. Japan has long recognized the existence of Takeshima.


A group of island that are currently called Takeshima were once known as "Matsusihma," and the island that is now known as Utsuryo (pronounced Ulleung in Korean) used to be known as "Takeshima" or "Isotakeshima." Although there has been a period of temporary confusion concerning the names of Takeshima and Utsuryo Island due to an error in the charting of Utsuryo Island by European explorers and others, it is obvious from a variety of written of written ducuments that Japan has long recognized the existence of "Takeshima" and "Matsushima." For example, on many maps, including "Kaisei Nippon Yochi Rotei Zenzu (Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads: first published in 1779)" by Sekisui Nagakubo, which is the most prominent published cartographic projection of Japan, the locations of Utsuryo Island and Takeshima are accurately recorded at their current position between the Korean Penninsula and the Oki Islands.

Point 2. There is no evidence that the ROK has long recognized the existence of Takeshima.

2-1
The ROK claims that, based on what is recorded in old Korean texts such as "Samguksagi(History of the Three Kingdom : 1145)", "Sejong Sillok Jiriji(Geographical Appendix to the Veritable Records of King Sejong: 1454)", "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam(A Revised Edition of the Augmented Study of Korea : 1531)", "Dongguk Munheonbigo(Study of Korean Documents: 1770)", "Mangi Yoram(Handbook of State Affairs: 1808)" and "Jeungbo Munheonbigo (Augmented Study of Documents: 1908)", Koreans had long been aware of the existence of the two islands of Utsuryo and Usan Island, and that this very Usan Island is the Takeshima of today.

2-2
However, whereas in "History of the Three Kingdoms", there is a description that Utsuryo Island which belonged to Usan Country became a part of Silla in the year of 512, but thee is no mention of Usan Island. Moreover, in records concerning Usan Island in ancient Korean documents, the island is described as a place in which many
people lived, and where large bamboo groves were cultivated. Such description does not represent the realities of Takeshima and rather reminds us of Utsuryo Island.

2-3
The ROK side claims that Usan Island is what the Japanese called Matsushima (present day Takeshima) based on the description in "Yeojiji (Record of Geography: 1656)" cited in "Study of Korean Documents", "Augmented Study of Documents" and "Handbook of State Affairs." However, there is a study which criticizes that the original text in "Record of Geography" indicates that Usan Island and Utsuryo Island are two names for one island and that the description in the documents such as "Study of Korean Documents" are indirect and inaccurate quotations from "Record of Geography". The study makes the point that the description in those documents were copied from "Ganggyego (Study of National Boundary)" (part of "Ganggyeji (Record of National Boundary: 1756)"), which had uncritically borrowed from the unreliable deposition by Ahn Yong-Bok (refer to point 5).

2-4
In the map attached to "A Revised Edition of the Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea," Utsuryo Island and Usan Island are described as two separate islands. If, as the ROK claims, Usan Island were the present Takeshima, then it should have been described as a much smaller island than Utsuryo Island situated east of Utsuryo Island. However, the Usan Island is portrayed on the map as being roughly of the same size as Utsuryo Island, and situated between the Korean Peninsula and Utsuryo Island (west of Utsuryo Island). This clearly shows that that island does not exist at all in reality.

Point 3. Japan used Takeshima as a stopover port en route to Utsuryo Island and as fishing ground. It thus established its sovereignty over Takeshima by the mid 17th century at the very latest.

3-1
In 1618 (Note), two merchants of Yonago in the region of Houki-no-kuni in Tottori clan--Jinkichi Ohya and Ichibei Murakawa--received permission for passage to Utsuryo Island (then "Takeshima") from the Shogunate via the feudal lord of Tottori. Subsequently, the two families took turns in traveling to Utsuryo Island once every year, and engaging in catching abalone and sea lions, and in felling trees, including bamboo. (Note) Some believe that it was in 1625.

3-2
Both families built ships bearing the sails emblazing the hollyhock crest of the ruling that was caught being sent in tribute to the Shogunate and others. The families were thus engaged in a kind of Shogunate-approved monopoly on the island.

3-3
During this period, Takeshima that was on the route from Oki to Utsuryo Island was a navigational port and docking point for ships. It was naturally utilized as a rich fishing ground for sea lions and abalone.

3-4
Therefore, we firmly believe that Japan has established the sovereignty of Takeshima by the beginning of the Edo Period (1603-1867) in the mid 17th century at the very latest.

3-5
If the Shogunate then had recognized Utsuryo Island and Takeshima as foreign territories, it should have banned passage to these islands in 1653 when it issued its directive of "sakoku", closing Japan to the outside world and prohibiting Japanese from traveling abroad. However, no such measure was actually taken.

Point 4. At the end of the 17th century Japan prohibited passage of ships to Utsuryo Island, but not to Takeshima.

4-1
With the permission of the Shogunate to make passage for Utsuryo Island, the Ohya and Murakawa families of Yonago engaged in their monopolistic business enterprise unhindered by others for approximately 70 years.

4-2
In 1692 when the Murakawa family traveled to Utsuryo Island, they encountered many Korean on the island engaged in fishing. The following year, when the Ohya family made the the journey to the island, they also met with many Koreans and decided to bring two of these Koreans, Ahn Yong-Bok and Park Eo-Doon, back with them to Japan. This was at a time that the royal dynasty of Korea prohibited its people from travelling to Utsuryo Island.

4-3.
The feudal clan of Tsushima(which was the point of contact with the Korean Government at that time), following directions from the Shogunate, which had become aware of the situation, repatriated Ahn and Park to Korea, and initiated negotiations with Korean requesting it to prohibit its fishermen's passage to Uturyo island. However, these negotiations failed to reach agreement, given a difference in opinions concerning the attribution of Utsuryo Island.

4-4
Having received a report from the Tsushima clan concerning the breaking-off of negotiations, the Shogunate decided to prohibit passage to Utsuryo Island in January 1696, judging that it is in the best interest of Japan to maintain favorable relations with Korea, The Tsushima clan was directed to convey this decision to the Korean side. The course of these negotiations concerning the attribution of Utsuryo Island is known generally as the "Takeshima Ikken (The Affair of Takeshima)."

4-5
On the other hand, passage to Takeshima was not banned. This clearly shows that Japan has regarded Takeshima as its territory since then.

Point 5. The deposition by Ahn Yong-Bok, on which ROK side bases its claim, contains many points that conflict with factual evidence.

5-1
After the Shogunate decided to prohibit passage to Utsuryo Island, Ahn Yong-Bok came once again to Japan. After that, Ahn, who was once again repatriated to Korean, was interrogated by the Korean officials as being in contravention of the ban on travel to Utsuryo Island. The deposition made by Ahn at the time is cited by the ROK side today as one of the foundations for its claim on the sovereignty over Takeshima.

5-2
According to documents held by the ROK side, Ahn
Yong-Bok confessed that while in Japan he had acquired a written document from
the Edo Shogunate that indicated the Shogunate's acceptance of Utsuryo Island and Takeshima as territories of Korea. He also confessed that this document was later confiscated by the lord of Tsushima. However, according to documents held by the Japanese side, although there are records of Ahn Yong-Bok having visited Japan in 1693 and 1696, there are no records that a written document such as that claimed by the ROK side was ever given to Ahn Yong-Bok.

5-3
Moreover, according to the documents held by the ROK side, Ahn Yong-Bok is reported to have stated on his 1696 visit to Japan that there were many Japanese on Utsuryo Island. However, his visit to Japan on that occasion was after the Shogunate had decided to prohibit passage to Utsuryo Island, and neither the Ohya nor Murakawa family went to the island at that time.

5-4
The descriptions on Ahn Yong-Bok in the documents held by the ROK side are based on the deposition made by a person who had raveled overseas violating national prohibition, and was interrogated upon his return to Korea. The deposition contains many points that conflict with factual evidence, including but not limited to those mentioned above. Regardless of that, these descriptions have been cited by the ROK side as one of the foundations for sovereignty over Takeshima.

Point 6. Japan reaffirmed its intention to claim sovereignty over Takeshima by incorporating Takaeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905.

6-1
It was at the beginning of the 1900s that sea lion hunting came to be undertaken in a full fledged manner in Takeshima. However, since there quickly grew to be excessive competition in sea lion hunting, Yozaburo Nakai, a resident of the Oki Islands of Shimane Prefecture, who aimed to stabilize his sea lion hunting business submitted a request in September 1904 to three government ministers (Home Minister, Foreign Minister, Agriculture and Commerce Minister) to incorporate the territory of the Lyanko Islands and to extend a 10-year lease on its utilization.
(Note) "Lyanko Islands" was a Japanese colloquial term for Takeshima derived from "Liancourt Islands," the Western name given to Takeshima. At that time, Utsuryo Island came to be called “Matsushima” in addition to “Takeshima” and current Takeshima came to be called to “Lyanko Islands” in addition to “Matsushima” due to charting errors by European explorers.

6-2
Having received the request from Nakai, the Government of Japan, hearing opinions from Shimane Prefecture, confirmed that there is no problem in bringing Takeshima under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch and that "Takeshima" is the appropriate name for the island. With this confirmation, the Government, in January 1905, through a Cabinet decision, stipulated that the islands came under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch of Shimane Prefectural Government, and that the island were officially named as "Takeshima." This decision was conveyed to the Governor of Shimane Prefecture by the Minister for Home Affairs. With this Cabinet Decision, Japan reaffirmed its intention to claim sovereignty over Takeshima.

6-3
Based on the Cabinet Decision and the Ministerial Instruction from the Minister for Home Affairs, the Governor of Shimane Prefecture published in February 1905 that Takeshima was officially named as "Takeshima" and that it came under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch. He also informed the Okinoshima branch to this effect. These measures were carried in the newspapers of the day and were broadly publicized.

6-4
Based on the Cabinet Decision stipulating that Takeshima came under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch of Shimane Prefectual Government, the governor registered Takeshima into the State Land Register, and established a license system for sea lion hunting. The hunting of sea lions continued from then until 1941.

6-5
In Korea, it is said that records exist that according to the stipulations of Imperial Ordinance No. 41 of 1900, not only was the name Utsuryo Island to be changed to Utsu Island (pronounced Uldo in Korean), but that the monitoring of the island would be henceforth undertaken by a county magistrate. Some researchers point out that this ordinance stipulates that the region under the jurisdiction of Utsuryo County included "all of Ulleungdo (Utsuryo Island), Jukdo (Takeshima) and Seokdo (Ishijima)," (the names of the islands are written in Chinese characters (ideogram)) and that, while this "Jukdo" refers to a small island called "Chikusho" adjacent to Utsuryo Island, "Seokdo" (literally meaning “stone island”) actually corresponds to the current "Dokdo." According to the researchers, , Seokdo ( 石島) turned to Dokdo (独島) (literally meaning lone island) because they are phonetically interchangeable in a Korean dialect despite the fact that they do not share the same ideograms.

6-6
If it were, however, the case that "Seokdo" corresponds to the current Takeshima ("Dokdo"), there would be doubts as to why the Imperial Ordinance of 1900 did not use "Dokdo" in the text, why the name "Usan Island," which the ROK claims to be the former name of Takeshima, was not used, and when and how the name Dokdo was first used.

6-7
Whatever the case, even assuming such doubts will be cleared, there is no evidence that Korea had ever exercised effective control over Takeshima around the time of the promulgation of the Imperial Ordinance. Therefore, it is considered that Korea had never established sovereignty over Takeshima.

Point 7. In the drafting process of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, the United States rejected the request by the ROK that Takeshima be added to the relevant article of the Treaty as one of the areas Japan would renounce, claiming that Takeshima had been under the jurisdiction of
Japan.

7-1
The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed in September 1951, stipulates that “Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet."

7-2
Upon learning of the content of this part of the Treaty drafted by the United States and the United Kingdom in July 1951, the ROK had You Chan Yang, Korean Ambassador to the United States, send a letter to Dean G. Acheson, the Secretary of State of the United States. In the letter, the Ambassador wrote, "My Government requests that the word ’renounces’ in Paragraph(a), Article Number 2, should be replaced by confirms that it renounced on August 9, 1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the islands Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo."

7-3
In August of the same year, the United States responded to the letter by a letter from Dean Rusk, United States Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs to Ambassador Yang. The content of the response was, "...the United States Government does not feel that the Treaty (San Francisco Peace Treaty) should adopt the theory that Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration. 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." Based on this correcspondence, it is evident that Takeshima was affirmed as part of the territory of Japan.

7-4
The report of Ambassador Van Fleet (refer to point 10) states that "the United States concluded that they (the islands of Takeshima) remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty. "



Point 8. In 1952, Takeshima was designated as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces stationed in Japan, which shows that Takeshima was treated as part of the territory of Japan.

8-1
In July 1950, while Japan was still under Allied occupation, the supreme command for allied Powers designated Takeshima as a bombing range for U.S. Forces by an instruction note (SCAPIN-2160).

8-2
In July 1952, given the expressed desire by the U.S. Forces to continue to utilize Takeshima as a training area, the Joint Committee established for the purpose of implementing the Japan-U.S. Administrative Agreement under the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty designated Takeshima as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces stationed in Japan. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly published this fact through the Official Gazette.

8-3
The Japan-U.S. Administrative Agreement stipulated that the Joint Committee shall serve as the means for consultation in determining the facilities and areas in Japan. Therefore, the fact that Takeshima was discussed in the Committee and the fact that the island was designated as an area for use by the U.S. Forces stationed in Japan clearly shows that Takeshima is part of the territory of Japan.

Point 9. The ROK is illegally occupying Takeshima, against which Japan has been consistently making strong protests.

9-1
In January 1952, the President of the ROK Syngman Rhee issued a Declaration concerning maritime sovereignty, with which he installed the so-called "Syngman Rhee Line." Installation of this "line" encompassing the islands of Takeshima was a unilateral act in contravention of international law.

9-2
In March 1953, the Joint Committee decided to release Takeshima from the designation of a bombing range for the U.S. Forces. It prompted resumption of fishing by Japanese on and around Takeshima, where it was confirmed at the same time that there were also Koreans engaged in fishing. In July of the same year, a Japanese patrol vessel of the Maritime Safety Agency (now the Japan Coast Guard) that demanded Koreans engaged in illegal fishing to leave the vicinity of Takeshima was fired upon by the Korean authorities that were supporting and protecting the Korean fishermen.

9-3
In June 1954, the Ministry of Home Affairs of the ROK announced that the ROK Coast Guard had urgently dispatched a permanent battalion on Takeshima. In August of the same year a vessel of the Maritime Safety Agency on patrol in the vicinity of Takeshima was fired on from Takeshima. Through this incident, it was confirmed that the ROK security personnel had been stationed on Takeshima.

9-4
Since then,the ROK has kept and keeps, security personnel stationed on Takeshima as well as constructing lodgings, a monitoring facility, a lighthouse, and port and docking facilities.

9-5
The occupation of Takeshima by the ROK is an illegal occupation undertaken on absolutely no basis of international law. No measure taken by the ROK during its illegal occupation with regard to Takeshima has any legal justification. This illegal occupation is not acceptable in any way, gien Japan's position on its sovereignty over Takeshima. Japan has been consistently making strong protests against each and every measure taken by the ROK and demanding the withdrawal of the measure.

Point 10. Although Japan proposed to the ROK that the dispute over Takeshima be referred to the International Court of Justice, the ROK rejected this proposal.

10-1
Since the installation of the "Syngman Rhee Line" by the ROK, Japan has been repeated protesting against the ROK's actions such as claims of sovereignty over Takeshima, fishing activities around Takeshima, fires against patrol vessels, and the construction of structures on the island. In order to resolve the dispute in a peaceful manner, Japan proposed, with a note verbale, to the ROK that the issue concerning the sovereignty of Takeshima be referred to the International Court of Justice in September 1954. However, the ROK rejected this proposal. In addition, on the occasion of the Foreign Ministerial talks in March 1962, Zentaro Kosaka, then Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, made a proposal to Choi Duk-shin, then Minister of Foreign Affairs of the ROK, to refer the issue to the Court, but this proposal was not accepted by the ROK again. This situation remains the same until now.

10-2
The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction over a dispute only when the parties to the dispute have agreed to bring the case to the Court. Accordingly, even if Japan refers the issue to the Court unilaterally, the ROK has no obligation to respond to it, and the Court will not have jurisdiction until the ROK voluntarily accepts it.

10-3
According to the report of Ambassador Van Fleet who visited the ROK in 1954, which was made public in 1986, the United States concluded that Takeshima is Japanese territory, and took the position that the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice. Ambassador Fleet reports that though the United States conveyed this suggestion to the ROK, the ROK argued that “Dokto” was a part of Utsuryo Island.

17 comments:

  1. I hope all the Koreans will read this! It's a pity that they have not properly informed concerning the Takeshima (Dokdo) issue. When all the Koreans understand the situation truly, both of the countries will be familiar to each other and will be true friends.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kaneganese,

    The post looks good.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you, pacifist and Gerry.
    I think it is well-written and it was actually a good English lesson for me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am very ashamed of lack of my English ability and there are no refutate of that willfulness document.

    But dear pacifist.
    Actually you didn't read korean's insistence or proofs of dokdo or even a word! then how could you assertion " When all the Koreans understand the situation truly, both of the countries will be familiar to each other and will be true friends."

    In fact in that document there are a lot of problems.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I can find some problems right now!
    Look at the point 2.
    They claimed that Korea suggest proofs of dokdo through "Samguksagi(History of the Three Kingdom : 1145)", "Sejong Sillok Jiriji(Geographical Appendix to the Veritable Records of King Sejong: 1454)", "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam(A Revised Edition of the Augmented Study of Korea : 1531)", "Dongguk Munheonbigo(Study of Korean Documents: 1770)", "Mangi Yoram(Handbook of State Affairs: 1808)" and "Jeungbo Munheonbigo (Augmented Study of Documents: 1908).
    And then they insisted there were and there are no evidence. There is great contradiction. All of those old Korean remains are evidence and Japan are just denying them. In addition to Japan does not have enough remains like Korea, so they are trying to seek problems in honorable remains.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. IN 1808, Mankiyoram compiled by Joseon dynasty undoubtedly set to parchment that , according to "Record of Geography", Usan Kingdom's sphere included Ullungdo Islands and Dokdo Islands, which meant Ullungdo and Dokdo were the territory of Usan Kingdom. Japan said there is (not are) a study which criticizes that the original text in "Record of Geography" indicates that Usan Island and Utsuryo Island are two names for one island and that the description in the documents such as "Study of Korean Documents" are indirect and inaccurate quotations from "Record of Geography". It is very questionable that how could disclaim old grand ruins by only one study.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am researching of it.
    If you want to know more,
    just contact me or plz read counter opinion before you conclude your thought

    ReplyDelete
  9. hae lim,

    Thank you for your posting.

    You wrote;
    "And then they insisted there were and there are no evidence. There is great contradiction. All of those old Korean remains are evidence and Japan are just denying them."

    However, they are not mentioning Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima). Please read the following:

    As to "Samguksagi(History of the Three Kingdom : 1145)":
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/q1-has-dokdo-been-part-of-korea-since.html

    As to "Sejong Sillok Jiriji(Geographical Appendix to the Veritable Records of King Sejong: 1454)":
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/where-have-all-usandos-gone.html

    As to Kinf Taejong's books:
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/1530-paldo-chongdo-map-of-eight.html

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/q-3-why-did-old-korean-maps-show.html

    As to "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam(A Revised Edition of the Augmented Study of Korea : 1531)":
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/01/2007-funasugi-rikinobu-takeshima-in.html

    All the documents above indicate that Korean documents didn't mention Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).

    And you wrote;
    "IN 1808, Mankiyoram compiled by Joseon dynasty undoubtedly set to parchment that , according to "Record of Geography", Usan Kingdom's sphere included Ullungdo Islands and Dokdo Islands, which meant Ullungdo and Dokdo were the territory of Usan Kingdom".

    I haven't read the document yet but this can't be true because the name "Dokdo" didn't exist in 1808, it was created in the early 20th century. So I think you referred to the name of Usando, but Usando was not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).

    Please read this:
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/11/korean-scholar-says-usando-was.html

    Please give us your opinion after reading the postings above. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Point 1. Japan has long recognized the existence of Takeshima.
    -->

    In the original edition of "The Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads" published in 1779, Ulleungdo and Dokdo are uncolored as is the Korean Peninsula
    Also, the Ulleungdo and Dokdo are located outside the grid of Japan’s longitudinal and latitudinal lines, indicating that Dokdo is outside of Japanese territory.

    "The Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads " shows Japan recognized the existence of Dokdo, but there's no doubt Japan also knew Dokdo belonged to Korea. The most significant evidence for this is Meiji Government's Report about how Ulleungdo and Dokdo became Chosun’s possessions in 1870.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-japanese-1870-report-on-chosun.html

    And there are ancient Japanese maps with Dokdo marked as Korean territory.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/professor-hosaka-exhibits-1894-map.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1785-japanese-map-by-hiyoshi-shihei.html


    There are also many Japanese charts exclued Dokdo.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-historical-maps-excluded-dokdo-i.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-historical-maps-excluded-dokdo-ii.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-historical-maps-excluded-dokdo-iii.html

    In conclusion, point1 of MOFA doesn't support Japan's claim to Dokdo at all.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Regarding MOFA's point 3:


    The fact that the Shogunate issued the two merchants of Yonago a passage permit (竹島渡海免許奉書 ) to Utsuryo Island(Ulleungdo) itself testifies that the Shogunate did consider Ulleungdo as a foreign territory, because the passage permit was not necessary for Japanese going to Japan's territory. If this not true, is there any evidence the passage permit was issued in case of traveling to Japan's domestic lands?


    Japan used Takeshima as a stopover port en route to Utsuryo Island and as fishing ground. It thus established its sovereignty over Takeshima.

    -->
    Using a foreign land as a stopover port and a fishing ground ( or navigational port and docking point as written in the MOFA's Homepage) can't be the base for sovereignty claim. Using Dokdo as a stopover port en route to Ulleugndo and a fishing ground means Japanese fishermen didn't need to go to Dokdo without going to Ulleungdo. If this is not true, is there any evidence Japanese fishers traveled to Dokdo as a sole destination?

    Claiming sovereignty over a land which had never been used as a sole or final destination is not reasonable.

    Japanese fishermen did just fishing activity and it has nothing to do with sovereignty, This can be supported by Japan's Dajokan Order(太政官指令文)'s attached document No.1 of 1877 which includes 戸田山城守(one of the Shogunate 老 中 )'s statement "Japanese did just fishing activity and it was not intended to take Korean island away."(右ノ首尾ニテ罷渡リ 漁仕?候マテニテ朝鮮ノ島ヲ日本ヘ取候ト申ニテモ無 之 )".

    If Japan established sovereignty over Dokdo because Japanese fishers used Dokdo as stopover port and a fishing ground, why doesn't Japan claim Japan established sovereignty over Ulleungdo for the same reason? Japanese merchants used Ulleungdo as a ground for monopoly business.

    As expressed in the Japanese documents "Matsushima(Dokdo) in Takeshima(Ulleungdo)(「竹嶋之内、松嶋」)" and " Matsushima in the Vicinity of Takeshima(竹嶋近辺松嶋) " , Ulleungdo and Dokdo can't be separated each other. Japan hasn't ever established sovereignty over Ulleungdo and this means Japan hasn't ever established sovereignty over Dokdo.

    If it's ture Japan established sovereignty over Dokdo, why isn't there any record about Japan's sovereignty over Dokdo and why did the Japanese maps of 17th century exclude Dokdo as Japanese territory?

    If Japan established sovereignty over Dokdo, why did Totorri clan ( say “…There are no other islands belonging to the two prefectures(因幡 or 伯耆) including Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo)…" in 1695" and "Matsushima(Dokdo) doesn't belong to any province(州 )" in 1696?"


    If Japan established sovereignty over Dokdo, why did Dajokan order 4 Japanese MOFA officials to investigate the background of how Ulleungdo and Dokdo became Chosun Possessions in 1870?


    If Japan established sovereignty over Dokdo, why did Dajokan say
    "Takeshima(=Ulleungdo) and another island(=Dokdo) have nothing to do with Japan" in 1877?


    If Japan established sovereignty over Dokdo, why did Japanese Cabinet decide to incorporate Dokdo because there were no traces of occupation by any other countries(無主地) in 1905?

    In conclusion, MOFA's claim Japan established sovereignty over Dokdo by the mid 17th century proves self-contradiction.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Regarding MOFA's point 4


    It seems to be true Japan wanted to maintain favorable relations with Korea, but, from records we can infer this is not the only main reason for the Shogunate's ban of traveling to Ulleungdo. Moreover, considering the history, it's hard to believe Japan gave up the land just for the favorable relations with other country.


    The Shogunate's passage ban to Ulleungdo in 1696 was resulted from two historical facts : Korean government's strong position on ownership of Ulleugndo during the territorial dispute of Ulleungdo with Japan in 1693 and Shogunate's inquiry about Ulleungdo in 1695.


    In 1693, during the territorial dispute between Chosun(Korean) government and Tsushima Clan, Chosun clarified Ulleungdo was Chosun's territory.
    In 1694, the Shogunate started to investigate Ulleungdo after this dispute.
    In 1695, to the inquiry by the Shogunate about Ulleung and Dokdo, the Tottori Prefecture answered :
    "Takeshima did not belong to Inaba Province or Hoki Provnce."
    " There were no other islands belonging to the two prefectures including Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo)…”
    "Matsushima(Dokdo) was not an island belong to any province (of Japan)." Immediately after this session, the Shogunate banned the Japanese to travel to Ulleungdo.


    What led to the Shogunat's passage ban to Ulleungdo is Shogunat's conclusion both Ulleungdo ad Dokdo are Korean territory. This conclusion reaffirmed in the Dajokan document of 1877. Dajokan said : "Regarding Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and the other island (Dokdo), it is to be understood that our country has nothing to do with them".


    Following is what included in the Shogunate's letter to Tottori and Tsushima Clans. "... From the beginning, that island was never taken from Choson by force, and it does not make sense [for Choson] to turn it over to us. The only thing to do is to prohibit permanently the Japanese people from going there for fishing. …”



    The passage to Takeshima was not banned. This clearly shows that Japan has regarded Takeshima as its territory since then.


    -->
    What was Japanese fishermen's relationship with Dokdo throught 17th century? Japanese fishermen were not interested in Dokdo itself at all. Dokdo was useless if they don't go to Ulleungdo, because Dokdo had little value for fishing or logging. This can be proved by the MOFA's statement that Dokdo was used as a stopover port, navigational port , docking point or whatever. It's said there were fishing activity around Dokdo, but it was done when they go to Ulleungdo.
    When Japanese fishermen were prohibited to travel to Ulleungdo , they had no more need to go to Dokdo. If this is not true, is there any evidence Japanese fishers went to Dokdo as a sole destination before and after the voyage ban to Ulleungdo?


    There's no historical evidence showing the Shogunate government consciously distinguished Takeshima (Ulleungdo) from Matsushima (Dokdo). If Japan insists passage to Dokdo was not banned because there's no mention of Dokdo in the document of voyage ban to Ulleungdo( 竹島渡海禁止令奉書) of 1696, is there mention of Dokdo in the document of passage permit to Ulleungdo (竹島渡海免許奉書) ? Or is there voyage permit to Dokdo(松島渡海免許奉書 )issued?

    As an attached island to Ulleungdo, Dokdo can't be separated from Ulleungdo. The voyage permission to Ulleungdo in 1616 included that to Dokdo and the voyage ban to Ulleungdo in 1696 included that to Dokdo . That's why Japanese fishermen could go to Dokdo in 1616 and were banned to go to Dokdo in 1696.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Regarding point 5


    Takeahima pamphlet by the MOFA of Japan emphasizes Ahn Yong-bok was a criminal and regards Ahn's deposition as unreliable or false on the ground that some of his deposition conflicts with factual evidence or certain facts in Korea’s records are not included in Japan’s records. But Takeahima pamphlet doesn't mention the most significant and reliable part of Ahn Incident which is recorded in the Japanese document.


    Korea doesn't cite every bit of his deposition as the base for sovereignty claim on Dokdo. However, Ahn's activity recorded in the Japanese document "元祿九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一卷之覺書" is one of the strong foundations for Korean sovereignty claim on Dokdo. This document was found in the Oki Island in 2005.


    According to "元祿九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一卷之覺書", the Oki Island official who investigated Ahn recorded what Ahn stated as follows:

    "Ahn Yong-bok said that 竹島(Takeshima) is the island of bamboo and there is an island called Ulleungdo in Dongnae-bu of Gangwon province in Chosun. It is referred to as the island of bamboo. He also said he had a map of eight provinces of Korea(八道ノ図 ) that says so. 松嶋(Matsushima) is the island called Jasan in the same province of Gangwon. It's 松嶋(Matsushima) and drawn in the map of eight provinces(八道ノ図)."

    (安龍福が申すには、竹島を竹の島と申し、朝鮮國江原道東莱府の内ニ欝陵島と申す島御座候。是を竹の島と申由申候。則八道の図に記之所持仕候。松島は同道の内子山と申す島御座候。是を松島と申由、是も八道の図に記し申候)


    Ahn said Matsushima(=present Dokdo) is called Jasan(=Usan) and it's in the Korea Gangwon Province along with Ulleongdo.


    A map of eight provinces of Korea(八道ノ図) he showed Oki Island investigator was not found, but at the end of the record, the text map "朝鮮之八道(Eight Provinces of Chosun) included the wording "此道ノ中 竹嶋松嶋 有之" which means "Ulleongdo and Dokdo are in the Gwang-won Province(江原道)."

    Text Map of Korean Eight Provinces



    Regardless of the conflicting testimony, Ahn's statement that Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Dokdo) were part of Gangwon Province of Korea cannot be disputed. This is what Korea cites as one of the foundations for sovereignty claim over Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Regarding Point 6

    Point 6. Japan reaffirmed its intention to claim sovereignty over Takeshima by incorporating Takaeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905.


    How is it possible for a nation to reaffirm its intention to claim its sovereignty over the land it had never been affirmed before?

    Nakai Yozaburo thought Dokdo was the land attached to Korean Ulleongdo (本島ノ鬱陵島ヲ附屬シテ韓國ノ所領ナリト思ハルルヲ以テ將ニ統監府ニ就テ爲所アラントシ) and planned to request Korean government to lease the Korean Dokdo to him.

    In 1904, Japanese Cabinet didn’t say Japan incorporates Dokdo to reaffirm its sovereignty over Takeshima. It said there were no traces of occupation by any other countries, which means Japan had never occupied that island before and Japan could take it because it was ownerless. However, it was a lie because Korea had lots of traces of occupying the said island.

    As one of the traces of Korean occupying Dokdo/Takeshima, a Japanese official from Ministry of Home Affairs rejected Nakai’s application for incorporating Dokdo into Japanese land saying as follows:

    "The gains would be extremely small while the situation would become grave if the acquisition of a barren islet suspected of being Korean territory at this point of time [during the Russo-Japanese War] should amplify the suspicions of various foreign countries that Japan has an ambition to annex Korea."
    (時局ナレバコソ其領土編入ヲ急要トスルナリ望樓ヲ建築シ無線若クハ海底電信ヲ設置セバ敵艦監視上極メテ屈竟ナラズヤ特ニ外交上內務ノ如キ顧慮ヲ要スルコトナシ須ラク速カニ願書ヲ本省ニ回附セシ厶ベシト)

    There are more evidence showing the traces of Korean occupying Dokdo such as Tottori Han’s Reply to Bakufu’s Inquiry (1696), the Report of Japanese officials from Ministry of Foreign Affairs(1870) and Dajokan Order(1877). They are not merely traces of Korean occupying Dokdo/Takehisma. They are the decisive evidence Dokdo was belonging to Korea.

    Dokdo doesn’t belong to any province of Japan.
    How Dokdo became Korean land?
    Japan has nothing to do with Ulleongdo and another island(Dokdo)


    Japan incorporated Korean Dokdo into Japanese land out of territorial greed by the pretext of Nakai’s petition for his sea lion hunting business. Japan wanted Korean Dokdo for the strategic reason of ongoing Russo-Japanese War. Director Yamaza Enjiro from Political Affairs Bureau coaxed Nakai said as follows:

    "The incorporation was urgent particularly under the present situation, and it is absolutely necessary and advisable to construct watchtowers and install wireless or submarine cable and keep watch on the hostile warships.”.(氏ハ時局ナレバコソ其領土編入ヲ急要トスルナリ望樓ヲ建築シ無線若クハ海底電信ヲ設置セバ敵艦監視上極メテ屈竟ナラズヤ)


    If Dokdo was the inherent land of Jap , why did Director Yamaza Enjiro need to coax Nakai to submit the petition to incorporate Dokdo for military facilities?

    The Way Japan Incorporated Dokdo/Takeshima in 1905


    Japan should stop self-destroying false claim over Dokdo.


    Korean Imperial Ordinance No. 41 itself is the proof of Korean sovereignty over Dokdo. If Japan is in the position to deny Seokdo=Dokdo, Japan has a burden of proof what Seokdo exactly indicates. Doubts don’t make Japan’s position persuasive.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Regarding Point 7

    1.

    Point 7 : The report of Ambassador Van Fleet (refer to point 10) states that "the United States concluded that they (the islands of Takeshima) remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty. "

    It’s just a distortion of SF Treaty by the Japanese Government. U.S. was not the only signatory for SF Treaty. The fact U.S. rejected Korean request based on the Japanese false information doesn’t mean the other 47 signatories agreed with U.S.

    Rusk Note was nothing but an evidence showing U.S. secret support for Japanese claim over Dokdo. In other words, it was never been reflected in the final decision of SF Treaty signed by the Allied Powers. U.S. made it clear U.S. support for Japanese claim over Dokdo was just one of the views of the Allied Powers.

    Rusk Note has nothing to do with the final decision of the Allied Powers in SF Treaty.

    Dean Rusk said "...the United States Government does not feel that the Treaty (San Francisco Peace Treaty) should adopt the theory that Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration.“, but it contradicts what John Foster Dulles said at the San Francisco Peace Conference on September 5th, 1951.

    John Foster Dulles said as follows:

    "What is the territory of Japanese sovereignty? Chapter II deals with that. Japan formally ratifies the territorial provisions of the Potsdam Surrender Terms, provisions which, so far as Japan is concerned, were actually carried into effect 6 years ago.
    The Potsdam Surrender Terms constitute the only definition of peace terms to which, and by which, Japan and the Allied Powers as a whole are bound. There have been some private understandings between some Allied Governments; but by these Japan was not bound, nor were other Allies bound. Therefore, the treaty embodies article 8 of the Surrender Terms which provided that Japanese sovereignty should be limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and some minor islands. The renunciations contained in article 2 of chapter II strictly and scrupulously conform to that surrender term." (Link)

    Contrary to Dean Rusk, John Foster Dulles clearly said what bounds Japan was the Potsdam Surrender Terms, not the private U.S. policy in favor of Japan’s false claim over Dokdo/Takehsima including Rusk Note. The Potsdam Surrender Terms stipulated Japanese sovereignty should be limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and some minor islands and the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers(SCAP) excluded Dokdo/Takehsima from Japan.

    Dean Rusk’s knowledge on Dokdo/Takehsima wat that it had 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. Where did this incorrect information come from? It was from Japanese government propaganda pamphlet “Minor Islands Adjacent to Japan Proper; Minor Islands in the Sea of Japan"(1947) to claim Dokdo/Takehsima and Ulleongdo as well during the negotiations of SF Treaty. Of course, the said Japanese government didn't tell Korea had historical documents showing Korean sovereignty over Dokdo and Japan incorporated Korean Dokdo on the ground that Dokdo had no owner in 1905.(Link to The Way Japan Incorporated Dokdo/Takeshima)

    ReplyDelete