According to the article, a Mr. Sugihara, who is a consultant on the "Takeshima issue" for Shimane Prefecture, explained, "In the US, Takeshima was recognized as Japanese territory around that period." Actually, the US government had told Korea in the 1950s that she considered Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory (see HERE), so the 1967 American map may have been a continued reflection of that belief.
Korea calls Liancourt Rocks "Dokdo" (獨島 - 독도) and has been forcibly occupying them since the 1950s, when Korean President Rhee Syngman unilaterally declared them Korean territory.
Thank you, Gerry
ReplyDeleteI forgot to mention about this article.
The article says, it was donated by former Shimane prefecture municipal worker Mr. Kawasaki who bought it when he was a student.
Takeshima was depicted in the map of "Japan and Korea". It is labelled as "Takeshima" in alphabets(Romanized Japanese), and the national borderline of Japan and Korea was drawn between Korean Ulleungdo ,to the northwest of Japan. It clearly shows Takeshima as Japanese territory.
Mr. Sugihara, consultant of Takeshima issue for Shimane prefecture pointed out "In U.S., Takeshima was recognized as Japanese territory around that period." He is willing to study the history of description of sovereignty over Takeshima in Hammond's World Atlas.
The map is published by Hammond Inc. in 1967. The hammond is famous American company for it's world Atlas along with British Tcompany the Times.There are only few libraries such as University Libraries who own 1967 edition of the map in Japan.
Thank you, Kaneganese.
ReplyDeleteThank you Gerry, it is another evidence that USA believed (or still believes?) that Liancourt rocks belong to Japan.
ReplyDeleteWe have evidences that Japan knew and used Liancourt rocks at least since the 17th century whilst Korea had no evidences. On the contrary, evidences show that Korean eastern limit was Ulleungdo's Jukdo, not Liancourt rocks. Korea didn't know Liancourt rocks exactly until early 20th century. And USA recognised that the incorporation of Liancourt rocks in 1905 was legitimate under the international law, and USA denounced the unlawful occupation by Korea in the 1950's.
There is no righteous argument for Korea to keep Liancourt rocks occupied. Worst enough, Korea killed Japanese fishermen to keep it occupied. For the future good relationship of the two countries, Korea should appologise and give Liancourt rocks back to Japan. I hope the new president of Korea will do this.
(pacifist from Washington DC)
You're welcome, Pacifist.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be doing a lot of traveling these days. Are you enjoying Washington D.C.?
Pacifist, there is every right for Korea to keep Dokdo Takeshima.
ReplyDeleteFirst is geography. Korea's Ulleungdo is only 87 kms from Dokdo and it is an inhabitable island capable of having an EEZ declared around it. This would allow a maritime boundary of 200 miles. The Oki Islands are also the same so equidistant lines drawn between the two islands would easily leave Dokdo within Korean land.
Second is economics. The residents of Ulleungdo are fishermen. They depend on the waters surrounding their island for their livelihood. Dokdo is very close so naturally they fish these waters. Giving Japan Dokdo would mean Japan extend their boundary probably half way to Ulleungdo. Drawing the maritime boundary there would encroach too much on Korea's Ulleungdo, an indisputable island of Korea's since the 6th Century.
If the ICJ gave Dokdo to Japan, it would only give the residents of Jadong, Sadong and Dodong a measly 45 kilometers of fishing waters and the residents of the Okishimas over 200kms of fishing waters. This is fair?
The third is politics. When Japan claimed Dokdo in 1905 Korea was militarily occupied protectorate of Japan. The island of Ulleungdo was swamped with illegal Japanese squatters and Korea had lost her ability to independently conduct international political affairs. This was the backdrop of Japan's claim to Dokdo today. Today Korea is strong and independent and refuses to have her boundaries based on the colonial era or by foreign governments as in 1905 and 1950. This is her right.
You see Pacifist, in reality Japan has no legal basis in the year 2008 to claim Dokdo. Japan's claim is wholly based on a 1905 wartime annexation at a time that has little or nothing to do with the modern reality of Japan, Korea and the East Sea (Sea of Japan) today. Having no valid, modern basis for their claim to Dokdo, Japan's argument remains based on the past and is doomed to fail.....
Steve Barber (Dokdo-Takeshima),
ReplyDeleteWhat does fairness have to do with South Korea's illegally occupying Japanese territory? You cannot just take another country's territory because you think it is fair to give your country's fishermen more fishing grounds. That is not how international law works.
From what I understand, Liancourt Rocks would not qualify as an island capable of being used in a claim to extend an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) because it is just rock islets with no trees on them. Even the soil that Korea has been bringing to the island to try to grow trees just washes away off the rock surface when it rains. Besides, since Liancourt Rocks is being illegally occupied, it would not qualified, anyway.
The Korean newspaper, Hwangseong Sinmun (皇城新聞 - 황성신문), reported in a July 13, 1906 article HERE that the Japanese Resident-General in Korea asked the Korean Ministry of Interior to clarify what islands belonged to Ulleungdo. Korea replied that Uldo (Ulleungdo) county included only the islands of Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島), which shows that the Korean government in 1906 did not consider Dokdo (獨島) to be a part of Ulleungdo even though the Korean government had already heard about "Dokdo" by July 1906.
Therefore, the above article is evidence that, regardless of whether Korea had control of her international affairs or not, she still had a say in her domestic affairs, otherwise the Japanese Resident-General would not have asked the Korean Interior Ministry to clarify the neighboring islands of Ulleungdo. In other words, Korea had a chance to dispute the Japanese claim on Liancourt Rocks in July 1906, but she did not do it, nor did any other country, which means Liancourt Rocks is legally Japanese territory.
Gerry says:
ReplyDelete"...What does fairness have to do with South Korea's illegally occupying Japanese territory? You cannot just take another country's territory because you think it is fair to give your country's fishermen more fishing grounds. That is not how international law works...."
Korea is illegally occupying Japanese territory? Says who? The Japanese? The last time I've heard the Americans do not support other side of the dispute and China supports Korea. I've heard the Russians side with the Koreans too.
Gerry Says
"...From what you understand you can't claim uninhabited islands as EEZs..."
Well Gerry unfortunately the Japanese government doesn't agree with you. Japan's MOFA insists that the Okinotoroshimas which are little more than the size of a bedroom at high tide are capable of generating an EEZ. The Japanese government is currently trying to cultivate coral on this reef and reinforcing it with cement because the reef is eroding.
The Japanese are bound to follow this line of policy with Dokdo or they face the dilemma of weakening their claim to Okinotorishimas as well. So they will continue to follow this ridiculous premise if they ever manage to grab Dokdo. This would put the fishing towns of Jadong, Hyeonpo and Dodong is a bad situation. Forty clicks of ocean is next to nothing in terms of ocean boundary.
The reality is Dokdo Island lies almost midway between Korea and Japan. Ulleungdo Island is far closer to Dokdo and is in fact visible from Ulleungdo. The fishing communities of Dodong, Jadong and Hyeonpo rely heavily on the Dokdo region to survive. Putting the Japan Korea boundary only 40 clicks from Ulleungdo is not a realistic solution to the Dokdo Takeshima problem in 2008. The border being at the current location is quite fair. Ulleungdo residents get about 100 kms of ocean and Oki fishermen get about 140kms. What's so bad about that?
Your self serving translation of the Hwaseong Shimun article is still based on your interpretation that Seokdo is not Dokdo. Well Gerry, the Koreans insist Seokdo is Dokdo and I've seen nothing on this forum to prove otherwise. All this document does Gerry is echo the papers shuffled by the interior ministry. Did the Interior Ministry in Seoul know the identity or appellation of surrounding islands near a remote island of Gangwando? I doubt it.
When the Japanese annexed Dokdo in 1905, the region was very different. Ulleungdo was overrun with Japanese squatters. The Japanese had unhampered access to Korean logging and fishing on Ulleungdo. Dodong, Jadong and Hyeonpo were squalid villages. Now these communities thrive and bustle on fishing and tourism. Ulleungdo now has many development projects on the go that will further increase fishing in Ulleung county. Korea will utilize the waters around Dokdo even more.
The boundaries proposed by the United Kingdom, New Zealand and SCAP during post WWII negotiations were correct. The boundary between Korea and Japan should be about 12kms East of Dokdo - Takeshima.
FairBoundary
The Americans did tell the Koreans they supported Japan's claim to Dokdo. However they didn't tell the Japanese and they never once showed public support for Japan's claim to Dokdo Takeshima. All of these correspondences were confidential. Furthemore we know the decisions made in the 1950s were military in nature and NOT historically researched decisions.
ReplyDeleteSanFranPeaceTruth
Posting foreign maps of Dokdo Takeshima as proof of ownership is a pretty lame premise Gerry. It's typical of your dump-and-run tactic of argument. But, I'll play.
Here is a foreign map shows Dokdo as Korean territory. Now Korea can have Dokdo O.K.?
DokdoMap
Steve Barber (Dokdo-Takeshima),
ReplyDeleteWhat is wrong with my translation of the Hwangseong Sinmun article? You forgot to say.
Just a few months before the Hwangseong Sinmun article, the Korean government was referring to Liancourt Rocks as "Dokdo," even though they did not seem to know where the rocks were. And even you have admitted that Korean fishermen were using "Dokdo" to refer to Liancourt Rocks before 1906. So if the Korean government and media were using the name "Dokdo" (獨島 - Lonely Island) to refer to Liancourt Rocks in April and May 1906, then why would Korea's Interior Ministry suddenly refer to it as "Seokdo" (石島 - Rock Island) in July 1906? The answer is they wouldn't have, which means they were not using "Sokdo" to refer to Liancourt Rocks in the 1900 Korean edict. Therefore, The July 1906 newspaper article is evidence that "Seokdo" was not "Dokdo," and that Koreans today who claim it was are wrong.
Steve Barber wrote: "Did the Interior Ministry in Seoul know the identity or appellation of surrounding islands near a remote island of Gangwando? I doubt it.
Gerry writes: Well, if Korea's Interior Ministry did not know the name of the island, then wouldn't that be more evidence that the island was not a Korean island?
Steve Barber wrote: The Americans did tell the Koreans they supported Japan's claim to Dokdo. However they didn't tell the Japanese and they never once showed public support for Japan's claim to Dokdo Takeshima. All of these correspondences were confidential. Furthemore we know the decisions made in the 1950s were military in nature and NOT historically researched decisions.
Gerry Bevers writes: If the decisions about Liancourt Rocks were strictly military in nature, then the United States would not have sided with either Korea or Japan on the issue. The fact that the US government risked alienating South Korea by telling her that the US supported Japan's claim on Liancourt Rocks is evidence that the US government had done her research quite well. And all the document and map evidence today tell us that the United States was right to agree with Japan's claim.
Gerry,
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm enjoying Washington DC, although I'm busy working on my specialty field and I regret that there is no time for sightseeing.
Steve,
All were said by Gerry, so I won't add anything. But I would say only one thing.
You wrote "Posting foreign maps of Dokdo Takeshima as proof of ownership is a pretty lame premise Gerry".
Isn't this saying about your postings? You only posted Japan's maps, not Korean maps. Why didn't you post Korean maps, not "foreign maps" to show the ownership of Takeshima/Dokdo? Everybody knows the reason.
Gerry, the Interior Ministry knew little or nothing about the actual situation on Ulleungdo and your theories mean nothing to me. There is still nothing on this forum to prove that Seokdo is anything other than Liancourt Rocks. At this point in time the Koreans had bigger fish to fry than agonize over a couple of rocks. The whole Korean state was being swallowed whole by Imperialist Japan.
ReplyDeleteThe American's didn't support Korea because the communists had all but overrun the entire Korean peninsula. Period. It had nothing to do with a history, economy, politics or geography. U.S. and Allied decision in post WWII were military decisions. When the situation on the Korean peninsula was more stable and the ROK US Alliance became stronger the Americans dropped support for Japan like shit from a tall cow.
Pacifist, I've got at least 80 maps on my website that prove without a shadow of a doubt Japan has zero claim to Dokdo prior to their annexation of the island. Korea has Dokdo, if Japan wants to get her grubby hands on the rocks they've got to come up with something more than their 1905 military annexation. Otherwise how much better are they than Syngman Rhee who they blubber about ad nauseum?
You continually harp on these "poor fishermen" killed after trespassing on Korea's land yet you gloss over 40 years of Japanese colonial rule over Korea. It's pretty sickening but not surprising at all coming from a Japanese, right wing radical like yourself.
Again I see the Takeshima right wingers are bickering about the past and have no practical proposals for how we should draw Korea and Japan's national boundaries. On the basis of geography, economy and politics I've outlined above why it's best to leave the boundary as is. The Japanese Takeshima lobbyists on this forum cannot put forth any justifications for Japan's ownership to Dokdo other their wartime colonial era annexation. It's clear they are doomed to fail with this approach.
Have a nice evening, Steve.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteI'm not a right wing lobbyist, actually I think that I'm in the centre, maybe a little bit sliding to left wing. Pro-Koreans used to say right winger if one insist anything against Korean government but this way of criticism is completely wrong. You should refrain from saying such stupidity.
Although around the year 1905, when Takeshima(Liancourt rocks) was incorporated, Japan had some effect on Korean peninsula as you say. But Korea was not annexed yet and Korea had still some autonomy.
Takeshima (Liancourt rocks) was incorporated into Japan because there was no trace of occupation by any other country - as you may know (Korea didn't know the island before the early 20th century and they got to know it by the hand of Japan).
As to Russo-Jaopanese war, Japan didn't need to incorporate it to build watch towers, as she alrerady installed watch towers on Korean islands including Ulleungdo. There was no need to incorporate it to install watch towers.
Only reason to incorporate it was commercial use by Japanese. But if you want to insist that they incorporated it because of Russo-Japanese war, it maybe a possibility that navy was afraid that Russia may incorporate it before Japan did...but this possibility is very small and anyway, as far as Russia didn't incorporate it before 1905, Japan's incorporation is legitimate, and the world recognised it to be legitimate.
You wrote,"The American's didn't support Korea because the communists had all but overrun the entire Korean peninsula".
USA supported Korea because they had to fight with communists together, but they only couldn't help from advicing because Ree Syngmann did apparently illegal thing under the international law.
If your opinion is true and USA only didn't support Korea for some reasons, then why did UK and France also think that Liancourt rocks didn't belong to Korea?
As to the maps in your website, all the Korean maps didn't depict Liancourt rocks. How can you insist that Liancourt rocks belong to Korea?
You have to think twice.
Pacifist I don't need a pro-Takeshima lobbyists version of colonial Japan's involvement in Korea and on Liancourt Rocks. I've sourced by own information from JACARs website, Japanese and other foreign publications.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to keep blathering the Japan annexed Dokdo during the largest war of the day (Russo-Japanese,) for the purpose of killing seals Pacifist, please continue this silly premise. It only shows how ignorant you are about the history of your own country
We know Japan annexed Dokdo for military purposes.
It was recorded in the diary of Nakai Yozaburao. Yamaza Enjiro stated it was urgent to build watchtowers and telegraph stations on Liancourt Rocks. So your silly statement that "Japan didn't need Liancourt Rocks" is you just spouting off rubbish without any historical basis.
NakaiDiary
We also know the Japanese Imperial Navy surveyed the islets for the explicit purpose of building military facilities on Liancourt Rocks at least three months before Japan "incorporated" the islands. These records are found in the logbooks of the warship Tsushima.
It's also apparent the Japanese Imperial Navy submitted the military facilities construction report on January 5th around a month before the Japanese took Dokdo.
JapaneseNavyOnLiancourt
Pacifist I don't know what the hell you are talking about with regard to the UK or the French but in post WWII there were numerous opinions voiced about the fate of Liancourt Rocks.
Early on in the Japan Peace negotiations the Americans favoured giving Liancourt Rocks to Korea (the first five drafts) After MacArthur made his policy of establishing joint trusteeships on Japanese outlying islands the Americans began to push for Japanese ownership with the hope of setting up a radar and weather base for the US Military.
The UK did not support Japan's bid for Dokdo initially. They proposed a linear boundary around Japan that clearly excluded Dokdo from Japanese land. This plan was supported by New Zealand. After pressure from the Americans this plan was changed, not because of historical title but because Japan felt "hemmed in" by a linear boundary.
The Canadians felt that the issue of Liancourt Rocks should be left out of the peace treaty and should be resolved by Korean and Japan.
The Russians wanted the Japan Korea peace treaty to literally follow the territorial boundaries specified in earlier wartime treaties (Cairo, Potsdam) This too would have left Dokdo outside of Japanese territory. So in reality America's policy was of the minority.
Please read here.
SanFranDokdo
But as I've stated repeatedly Pacifist. Arguing over interpretations of past history of Dokdo Takeshima issue won't change the geographic, political and economic reality of the region today. In the year 2008 there is no valid reason why Japan should own Dokdo. You must learn to let go of Japan's Imperialist past Pacifist. We can't draw the boundary of Japan and Korea on the expansionist colonial era. It just won't work.
As the Korea-Japan boundary is now, the Koreans have around 230kms of territory from the Korean mainland to the 12kms limit around Dokdo. This gives the fishermen on Ullueungdo around 100kms of water to fish. The Japanese have a little less fishing waters if you measure from their mainland at around 200kms. The fishermen on the Oki Islands still get about 140kms of territory to fish. Although the Koreans get a little more waters we must consider that Ulleungdo, a Korean territory since the 6th Century is somewhat further from the Korea's coast than Japan's Oki Islands.
Pacifist, you and Japan must stop being so greedy.
The current boundary is fair for both sides. It should be settled by establishing a permanent boundary and signing a fishing agreement.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou must read my postings again with your eyes open.
I didn't write "Japan didn't need Liancourt Rocks", I meant that Japan didn't need Liancourt rocks to be incorporated for the purpose of installing watchtowers.
Japan needed information including info from watchtowers, which was natural because Japan, a small counrtry in asia, was to fight against one of the largest military countries in the world. But you must consider that Russo-Japanese war was not only for Japan but also for Korera. If Japan had been defeated, Korea couldn't survive today because Russia was aiming to snatch Manchuria and Korean peninsula and if they were annexed into Russia, they wouldn't be returned forever as well as other Russian asian territories.
Anyway, Japan needed information including info from watchtowers, it's true. So they surveyed for good places to install watchtowers. It's nartural and not illegal.
And as I wrote before, Japan didn't need Liancourt rocks for the purpose of installing watchtowers because many other watchtowers were already installed on Korean islands without incorporating them.
If your theory was right, Japan had to incorporate Ulleungdo and other Korean islands to install watchtowers, but this didn't happen.
Liancourt rocks were ownerless island before 1905, so there was no problem to install watchtowers.
Why Japan had to incorporate it in order to install watchtowers?
Your theory is full of inconsistency.