竹島問題の歴史

23.7.08

They insist that Tsushima was Korean territory

According to Chosun Online, a professor Song Sun-cheol (may not exact) of Kangwon University insists that Tsushima was Korean territory showing the 1549 Japanese map of Korea, "朝鮮国地理図". http://www.chosunonline.com/article/20080717000015
Actually Tsushima was drawn but it may have been drawn because it is located at near Chosun. One can't claim ownership from this kind of map.

When the local government of Tsushima sent treasure (gold) to the Imperial Court of Japan in 701 AD, emperor was glad to have the gift and gave the name of the era Taiho (大宝, treasure). So at least Tsushima was Japanese territory in 701 AD. And in the 魏志倭人伝, the old record of China (陳寿 233~297 AD) also referred to Tsushima as a part of Japanese counties. So the scholar's theory is out of question.

By the way, in this map Usando was drawn at the west of Ulleungdo. This map was another proof that Usando was not Liancourt Rocks. The professor may have shot his own foot.

9 comments:

  1. Gerry,

    Please correct English in the text if you need. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gerry,

    I read another news on Chosun online, which is about a new book written by Prof.Park Song-yong (パク・ソンヨン教授)of 嶺南大独島研究所, the title is 『独島研究叢書』(京仁文化社刊)and was published on July 22nd. Have you ever heard of this book?

    If you have a chance to read it, could you please let us know about it. I was interested in it because the article says that the book referred to the voyage of people of Ulleungdo to Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Korean claims on Tsushima (대마도) are ridiculous.

    In 1407 in the Records of King Taejong (太宗實錄) HERE, the Lord of Tsushima suggested to King Taejong that he be allowed to establish villages on Ulleungdo. The Korean king replied that the Japanese emperor would consider that treason. And when the Tsushima lord replied that that would not be considered teason in Japan, the Korean king said that if happened within the borders of Japan, it might be considered treason, but that this would be different since they would be crossing beyond their border.

    Also, in the Records of King Sejong in 1426 HERE, Korea's defence ministry (兵曹), in an exchange withthe the Gangwon Provincial Governor, worried that if people in the region learned the "secret" of making gunpowder, then they might run away to Muleungdo (武陵島) or Tsushima (對馬島) and teach the secret to the Japanese. That is evidence that Tsushima was not part of Korea, even though Koreans claim that King Sejong had conquered Tsushima just a few years earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  4. hello. I'm japanese but I try to be fair.
    I thought Korea had said "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories" by the Allied Powers was very important to interprate "Treaty of San Francisco" which dicided about the territory of Japan internationally.
    I don't know what the Agreement means in international law but the Agreement has said that Liancourt Rocks is in Korea and Tsushima Island is in Japan.
    If Korea want to rely on the Agreement, Korea must admit that Tsushima Island is in Japan. If Korea claims Tsushima, Korea loses the reason why Liancourt Rocks is korean though the Treaty of San Francisco doesn't mention Liancourt Rocks as korean territory.
    Then how does Korea prove Liancourt Rocks is in korea in international law? Only history? I don't think it's enough because the history of Liancourt Rocks is arguable itself.
    I wonder those who claim Tsushima recognise this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kinkan,

    The San Francisco Treaty did not give Liancourt Rocks to Korea. It allowed Japan to keep the rocks.

    As for Tsushima, Korea has no historical claim on that island, either.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gerry Bevers, thank you for your response.

    >The San Francisco Treaty did not give Liancourt Rocks to Korea. It allowed Japan to keep the rocks.

    I know Japanese Goverment thinks so. But the academic meeting of Dokdo or Dokdo-Gakkai thinks "Treaty of San Francisco" doesn't mention Liancourt Rocks is in Japanese territory either, so Korea thinks Liancourt Rocks is in Korea because of "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories".

    And what I wanted to tell was that it seems very illugical for Korean to claim Liancourt Rocks and Tsushima at the same time because the Agreement Korea depends on clearly says Tsushima is in Japan.

    I'm sorry my comment might be improper in this blog because it's not related to the belonging of Liancourt Rocks or Tsushima, but just s logic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kinkan,

    Please read the following:
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/report-of-van-fleet-mission-to-far-east.html

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    It says:
    When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the Republic of Korea asserted its claims to Dokto but the United States concluded that they
    remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the
    Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    And please look at the Peace Treaty itself:

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

    At a very early stage, Liancourt Rocks were included in the list above but after investigating and considering USA dropped Liancourt Rocks from the list. The process can be read elsewhere in the blog. As a result, Liancourt Rocks were not given to Korea. So van Fleet mentioned "they remained under Japanese sovereignty".

    This decision was a shock to Rhee Syngman because it was his insistency that "Dokdo is ours", which made him urge to make Rhee Syngman Line three months before the conclusion of the Peace Treaty. And it was the beginning of the Takeshima/Dokdo dispute.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don`t consider the SF Treaty as god-given and therefore without errors. I think the US were wrong on Dokdo in the SF Treaty.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gerry,

    I don't think the japanese can take the Dokdo and tsushima.
    http://english.dokdohistory.com/#
    please search about dokdo,and visit
    this site.
    http://dokdo.kcg.go.kr/sub04/a_1.asp
    I'm sorry for there's no English one. It contain a thought of two country(kor,jap),about The San Francisco Treaty too.
    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete