Below is a translation of The 15th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao
" South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory" ”
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan took up the Takeshima issue in the guidelines for Teachers' handbook of the new course of study on the junior high school social studies on July 14. South Korea, that had repulsed this news strongly, established the Dokto laboratory in "North Western Asian History Foundation", on August 14, one month after. The theoretical background of the foundation is based on the claim by Shimane University professor emeritus' Naitou Seichu(内藤正中) along with Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉), a permanent Korean resident in Japan, who works for Dokdo research center in South Korea as a consultative committee member and the distributor of "Half-moon's newsletter". South Korean uses their "theories" as a basis for accusing Japan. In his article titled as "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorial" （韓国嶺南大學校『独島研究』４号）, Mr. Park blindly followed Naito's theory by criticising Japanese claim of "inherent part of the territory of Japan". However, it exposed the limitation of his own studies and Korean claim of sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo.
This concept of "inherent part of the territory" indicates the territory which had never been ruled by another country, and northern territories(北方領土) correspond to it. However, there are no grounds which shows "Inherent part of the territory of Korea" on Korean side, unfortunately, at all. The reason is Japanese Government did decide Takeshima to be incorporated into a Japanese territory in January, 1905 in the Cabinet Council, and had been keeping the effective control until the end of WWII. The point of the issue here is, if Korean had recognized Takeshima/Dokdo within their own territory plus had effective control on it or not. In order to clear this point, Korean had been insisting that "Seokdo(石島)" in the Imperial Ordinance No.41 in 1900 must be today's Takeshima/Dokdo. According to their "logic", in the dialect of fishermen in Cholra-do, who had immigrated to Ulleungdo, 石 was pronounced as "Tol" and its pronounciation is similar to the pronunciation "Tok" for "独" which makes Seokdo another name of Dokdo.
However, there is a leap in their logic. It is merely 1903 when squid's fishery was discovered in the neighboring waters of Ulleungdo, though Korean tend to consider as if the squid fishing was active at that time as well as just like today. It is recorded in 'South Korea fishery magazine' that the South Korea government published in 1910, and it is 1907 from that the Korean people of Ulleungdo started the squid fishing. The South Korea people of Ulleungdo had been engaged in agriculture till then. The name of "Dokdo(独島)" started to be used after 1904, and Takeshima was called "Ryanco/Yanko(= Liancourt) island" until then. Then, Korean logic that Seokdo is today's Dokdo and its reasoning of the dialect of Cholra-do is a totally fer-fetched interpretation.
Consequently, the "effective control" over Takeshima by Korea is nothing but a imagination. Korean set "Rhee line" on January 18, 1952, with Takeshima included within, and Japanese Government formally protested against this. Therefore, Takeshima had already come in the ground of the disputed land at the point of 1952. The reason for it is that the refusal of South Korea, is spite of Japanese Government's propose for bringing a case to International Court of Justice to South Korea in October, 1954, made Takesihma "disputed land".
Therefore, even if the South Korea government keeps setting up the lighthouse on Takeshima, alongside with the pier facilities etc. being constructed, it doesn't mean they have effective control. What South Korea is doing today is the same as the "alibi concocting" by the criminal. They will receive the verdict of history.
On this point, Japan is not an exception, since the chance of the solution had already visited the Takeshima issue many times. According to the report of South Korean, it was former Prime Minister Mori (森喜朗), a chairman of the Japan-South Korea assembly member league, who turn the heat to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to make the repatriation of the hydro graphic survey ship, though the Japan Coast Guard were to send them, opposing to the Korean attempt to change the name of a place bottom of the sea in relation to Takeshima issue in 2006. As a result, the exclusive economic zone on which South Korea insists has greatly made inroads into Japan. North Korea, who uses abduction issue in order to offence Japan, makes use of the Korean historical recognition of this issue as "Japanese invasion", is vigilant for the best results from the normalization talks future ahead. Although there is an influential group in Japan which try to speed up diplomatic normalization with North Korea, it is necessary to pull out the bindieye between Japan-South Korea ahead of that. Otherwise, Japan will leave the history the stain in result.Reference :
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.
Other Column of the Series:
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 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)."