竹島問題の歴史

29.8.08

IHT: "A fierce Korean pride in a lonely group of islets"

The International Herald Tribune (IHT) has published an August 28 article on Dokdo by Choe Sang-Hun entitled "A fierce Korean pride in a lonely group of islets."
The IHT article comes out just one day after an Associated Press (AP) article by Kim Hyun-jin entitled "SKorean emotions run high over island dispute."
Is it just coincidence that two different articles written by two different men with Korean names have the same theme?
No, it is probably not a coincidence. Both of the men were probably part of the group of foreign journalists carried out to the islets this week on a South Korean Coast Guard ship as part of a government-sponsored tour, as was mentioned in the IHT article. However, I do not really understand why both articles seem to have the same theme, which is that Dokdo is more than just rocks to Koreans, and they will fight to keep them. Is that the message the Korean government wanted to send?
What was the message the Korean government was hoping to send by sponsoring this foreign press tour of Dokdo? Were they simply trying to tell the world, "We have control of the rocks and we are keeping them"?
Is it just coincidence that Korea's Chosun Ilbo posted an article today (August 29) entitled "Japan 'Should Recognize Korea's Effective Control of Dokdo,'" where it was reported that the "renowned Japanese economic and social critic Kenichi Omae" has urged the Japanese government to admit Korea's "effective control" of the Dokdo islets?
Is the Korean government now trying to take the attention off the history of Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) and put it on "effective control"? If that is Korea's plan, then I think it is a good one because Korea's historical argument for the islets is so weak that to continue to focus on it would end up causing Korea a great deal of embarassment as the historical facts become known to the rest of the world.

4 comments:

  1. 오마에씨는 조선일보의 표제에 있는 일은 일절 말하지 않았다.
    조선일보가, 기사의 문장으로부터 적당한 어구를 추출하고, 적당한 해석을 하고 있을 뿐
    전형적 왜곡 기사

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gerry, the Dokdo Takeshima dispute is not just a historical problem. The problem is also a territorial issue and if both sides keep arguing about the historical issues they'll never solve the territorial part.

    Neither Korea nor Japan are denying the past, they just have different versions of it. Japan is insisting this issue be resolved by the ICJ. In reality no adjudicator is capable of granting a one percent amicable solution to this problem as many of the historical records that revolve around the issue are open to many interpretations and thus subjective.

    So really, what Japan can never do it justify their claim to Dokdo on the merits of pure fairness. That being an equitable division of the East Sea's (Sea of Japan's) marine resources based on the inherent geographical attributes of the Dokdo Takeshima region. Because Ulleungdo is so close to Dokdo, it is just not acceptable to whop up the Japan - Korea boundary between the two especially when you consider Ulleungdo is Korean land since the 6th Century. As always, Ulleungdo and Dokdo are together and they always should be.

    At the end of the day what we currently already have is a border between Korea and Japan that is already quite fair. Korea's 12 nautical mile limit around Dokdo is equitable.

    The-Current-Limit-Is-Fair

    I think it's outrageous Japan demands Shimane's Oki Island's fishermen be entitled to twice the amount of water than the fishermen of Korea's Ulleungdo. Don't you Gerry? Clearly Japan's policy toward Dokdo is a reflection of her aggressive policy on expanding her territorial EEZs.

    Expansionist-Japan-2008

    Japan will ultimately fail in their quest to re-annex Dokdo Takeshima Gerry. That's because Japan cannot justify her claim in a modern context.

    Thus, Japan's MOFA and their Takeshima lobbyists remain hopelessly stuck in the past and continue to give themselves a black eye by insisting we draw Korea's territorial limits to the Japan's expansionist era.

    What a shame.......

    ReplyDelete
  3. 당신은, 한국과 일본의, 언쟁을 부추기고 있다.
    한반도와 일본 열도의 역사적 연결은, 낡고, 한편 우호적임 역사가 길다.
    당신은, 일본내에 재일 한국인이 대부분 살아, 사이 좋게 살고 있는 것을 생각해야 한다.
    일본내의 한국인은, 공평한 정보로 접하고 있기 때문에, 타케시마에 관해서는, 일본 영토라고 생각하는 사람들이 적지 않은 것을 알아야 한다.
    본래, 왜인은, 일본 열도 뿐만 아니라, 한반도에 살고 있었다.이것은 중국의 역사서에 쓰여져 있는 상식이다.
    한반도 남부로부터 죠몽 토기도 출토하고 있다.
    또, 울릉도에 살아, 우산간 지방을 만든 사람들도, 왜인이었다.
    가야(임라), (쿠다라)백제도 왜인과 관계가 깊고, 다이와와는 형제국이었다.
    당신은 너무도 무지하다.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 小嶋日向守 //
    1. Please show me any supporting evidence for your outrageous claims.
    2. Why you translate into Korean? Just write it in either in Japanese(in this case I won't understand though) or English. Computer translator is lame, and so the output is, as I see.

    ReplyDelete