The article to the left appeared in the September 26, 1906 edition of the Korean newspaper, Hwangseong Sinmun (皇城新聞). The article mentioned that the magistrate of Uldo County (鬱島郡 - 울도군) had conducted two surveys ordered by Korea's Ministry of Interior. One was a boundary and position (境界位寘) survey of the county, and the other was a census survey.
The article gave the results of the census survey, but did not give the results of the boundary survey. However, a July 13 article in the same newspaper mentioned the boundaries of Uldo County when it reported on a response from Korea's Ministry of Interior to a request from the Japanese Residents General in Korea to clarify the islands belonging to Ulleungdo.
In its response, the Korean Ministry of Interior reported that the islands under the authority of Uldo County were Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도) and Seokdo (石島 - 석도) and that the boundaries were twenty-four kilometers (60 ri) from east to west and sixteen kilometers (40 ri) from north to south. This was the first time that boundaries for Uldo County were given since its incorporation in 1900.
The actual east-west distance from the western shore of Ulleungdo to the farthermost rock off its eastern shore is about fourteen kilometers, and the distance from the southern tip of the island to its northern shore is about ten kilometers. If the 1906 measurements were correct, then that would mean that the island had a sea boundary of about five kilometers around it.
This information is very important in the Dokdo-Takeshima debate because it shows that in July 1906 Korea's Interior Ministry and, apparently, the Uldo County magistrate did not consider Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) to be a part of Uldo County since Liancourt Rocks is about ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo and, therefore, outside the boundaries given for the county.
This article confirms that a boundary and position survey of Uldo County was actually done, rather than just using measurements from old documents.
Here is my translation of the Korean article:
鬱陵島戶口
鬱陵島郡守가 內部訓令을 承準하와 該郡境界位寘와 戶口 帳籍을 今年 爲始하야 一一 調査하였는데 男이 合 一千九百十六口오 女가 合 一千一百十 六口오 戶數가 六百十四戶라더라.Population of Ulleungdo
Starting this year, the Uldo County magistrate, in accordance with an order from the Ministry of Interior, conducted separate surveys of the county's boundaries-position and household census. The total number of men was 1,916, the total number of women 1,616, and the number of households 614.
Could someone please check to make sure I got the Chinese characters correct because I am not sure of these characters:
ReplyDelete承準
I just typed in what they looked like.
「承準」seems to be correct.
ReplyDelete「承」means to obey an order and 「準」means a standard.
So,「承準」means to obey the execution procedure that was ordered by the upper administration.
Thank you, Chaamiey. I think I will translate it as "in accordance with."
ReplyDeleteThere must have been details of border of 欝郡 followed... (because the article said that they searched for the border and family registration) but there is no mention of the border.
ReplyDeleteWere the rest of the article failed to pass the censorship?
Pacifist,
ReplyDeleteI think the reason the article only reported the census survey was because that was the survey they had just finished doing.
Since the article said that two surveys--a boundary-position survey and a census survey--had already been done by September 26, we can assume the boundary-position survey had been done earlier.
I think the order to do the surveys probably came in May or June, after the Korean government got Sim Heung-taek's report on the Japanese officials visit to Ulleungdo. In fact, at that time, Sim was told to investigate further situation in regard to "Dokdo."
I have tried to find the survey report from Sim to the Ministry of Interior, but have been unable to find it. I suspect that the South Korean government has that report somewhere, but maybe they are just not making it public.
I find it strange that I have found other reports on Ulleungdo reported in the "Hwangseong Sinmun," but I cannot find the survey report or the request for it. Also, I cannot find the request for clarification of Ulleungdo's neighboring islands from the Japanese Residents-General or the Ministry of Interior's response to that request. Why can I find other reports, but not those? I looked in the wrong places or is there some other reason?
If Korea has destroyed evidence or is trying to hide documents, then we will have to piece together the story from indirect sources like the "Hwangseong Sinmun." Here is what I think happened.
When Korean newspapers started reporting in May about Sim Heung-taek's report on "Dokdo," I think the Japanese Residents-General saw those articles and asked Korea's Ministry of Interior to clarify the islands belonging to Ulleungdo. And I think that was when Korea's Ministry of Interior told Uldo County Magistrate Sim Heung-taek to do the surveys.
I think Sim did the boundary and position survey first, which allowed the Korean ministry to respond by July to the Japanese request for clarification of Ulleungdo's neighboring islands. I think the boundaries mentioned in that July 13 article came from Sim's survey report.
Then I think Sim probably started doing the census report, which was probably finished sometime in September or maybe earlier. I am not sure how often boats were running to and from Ulleungdo at that time but I think July and August may have been the fishing season, so maybe boats did not want to return to the mainland until after the fishing season, which may explain why the article came out on September 26. I don't know. I am just guessing.
Anyway, I think the boundaries of Uldo County that were mentioned in the July 13 article were probably the boundary limits reported from Sim's survey of Uldo County.
Thank you for posting this interesting post.
ReplyDeleteYou might think that the July 13 article of Hwangseong Sinmun is one of evidences which means that Takeshima is outside boundaries of Korea historically. The conclusion of mine is same, but I do not think that this article is a sufficient evidence; it is a weak evidence.
As you know, in Jan 1905 Meiji Government declared that Takeshima is its territory and Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty was made in Nov 1905. After conclusion of the treaty Japan had complete responsibility for Korea's foreign affairs.
In this situation, I think, Korea could not insist its ownership toward Takeshima even if the islets was inside the boundaries of Korea (of course I do not think Takeshima was, is, and will be in Korean territory).
Gerry, tell the truth.
ReplyDeleteThe dimensions given on the reply were not the dimensions of Uldo County they were simply the size of Ulleungdo from old Chosun maps.
You can see the identical measurements given on this map of Ulleungdo and others.
Ulleungdo's-Dimensions
東西六十餘里南北四十餘里周二百餘里
(East to West about 60ri, North to South about 40 ri, and 200 ri around)
So the information regarding the dimension was simply an old quote of Ulleungdo's size from maps not the limits of Uldo County.
I've told you this countless times and you still continue to mislead people. Why?
Mr.Bevers,
ReplyDelete「二 調査하였는데」seems to be 「一一 調査하였는데」.
「一一」means one by one.
Mr.dokdo-takeshima.com,
ReplyDeleteThe question of Resident-General to the Interior Ministry was about islands belonged to Ulleungdo.
It means they wanted to know size or range of the jurisdiction of Uldo County.
For that question, it does not make sense to reply with size of Ulleungdo.
In addition to,
The map you showed says「東西六十餘里南北四十餘里周二百餘里」, but July 13 1906 article says 「東西가 六十里오 南北이 四十里니, 合二百餘里」.
Though 「周」is appropriate to show the size of the island, July 13 article did not use「周」,but used 「合」.
So,it doesn't seem to show Ulleungdo's size.
Dokdo-Takeshima (Steve Barber),
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Uldo-gi (鬱島記 - 울도기), which described the survey taken just before Ulleungdo was made into a county, the circumference of Ulleungdo was 145 ri, not 200. Also, the length was described as being 70 ri and the width 40 ri.
The distances in the Uldo-gi and the distances in the July 13, 1906 article were different, which tells us the 1906 numbers were the result of a new survey.
Just because the numbers agree with the numbers done in older surveys does not mean they were not 1906 numbers. Maybe, those older surveys were more accurate than you would like to believe.
Steve, I think you are the one who is trying to mislead people.
Chaamiey,
Thank you. I made the corrections to the post.
Chaimey, the character means total size but the size referred to is not Uldo County it is the size of Ulleungdo it's no co-incidence the dimensions given are the same as the Ulleungdo map I posted above. The Interior Ministry had only a vague idea about the geography of Ulleungdo they were still citing ancient Chosun maps as I've shown above. Also, the correspondence give no idea what the what the identity of Seokdo is either.
ReplyDeleteThe July inquiry letter did not ask about the boundary of Uldo, it simply asked what islands were under the jurisdiction of Uldo County
Using Gerry's theory the Koreans pulled a random dimension for the territorial limits of Uldo County measuring 24kms East to West and 16kms North to South. Exactly how did they arrive at this measurement? The figure given is from old charts, that's all.
The Interior Ministry just used what information they had. They cited old maps and the cited Ordinance 41 that's all they had. Even Shim Heung Taek himself quoted one hundred ri beyond Ulleungdo's shore was part of Uldo County. This was the wrong distance to Dokdo but it shows the authorities on Ulleungdo knew the boundary of Korea extended far beyong Ulleungdo's shore. That's 40kms quote shows the Interior Ministry's information did not concur with the real situation on Ulleungdo.
Blue Hills, Japan had already begun to dismantle Korea's foreign affairs department by August 1904. Well before the Japan Korea Protectorate Treaty. Even if Korea had protested the Japanese would have g-filed the complaint anyway. Do you think the Japanese would have returned Dokdo to Korea even if they had learned the Koreans had previously incorporated the island?
Japanese-Control-Korea
Mr.dokdo-takeshima.com,
ReplyDeleteYes, it is more appropriate to change Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty in 1905, or the Second Japan-Korea Teaty, to the Fisrt Japan-Korea Treaty in 1904 in my post. But this does not affect appropriateness of my opinion because I insist that Korea could not insist its ownership toward Takeshima in 1906 in that situation.
The difference between your opinion and mine is whether before Jan 1905 Korea regarded Takeshima as its territory or not.
blue hills,
ReplyDeleteJapan occupied effectively before Protectorate Treaty in 1905. Four fishermans ware licenced about sea lion hunting by Shimane Prefecture.
Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v. Norway) case
"It is impossible to read the records of the decisions in cases as to territorial sovereignty without observing that in many cases the tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the way of the actual exercise of sovereign rights, provided that the other State could not make out a superior claim. This is particularly true in the case of claims to sovereignty over areas in thinly populated or unsettled countries."
blue hills,
ReplyDeleteAnd, I will point out the interesting fact. Korea complained about the treatment of the Korean royalty concerned with the annexation treaty against Japan in 1910. The treatment of the Korean royalty has been improved by this protest. In addition, Korean newspaper protested about Takeshima on May 1906. Did the newspaper become an issue prohibition for the article? I think that this request about Uldo County by the Japanese Residents General on September 1906 means the Japanese response about the newspaper article. Is this request by Japanese Residents General overpowering? I donot think so. International Law demands the specific evidence without doubt.
In an October 22, 1900 report from Korea's Mininstry of Interior to Korea's Wuijeongbu, the area of Ulleungdo was given as follows:
ReplyDelete-----------------
該地方이 縱可八十里오 橫爲誤十里라
The area is about eighty ri [34 km] vertically and about fifty ri [20 km] horizontally.
-----------------
The above dimensions were the ones given by the Ministry of Interior just before making Ulleungdo into a county. Since they were different from those given in the July 13, 1906 article, we can assume that the 1906 numbers were from the new boundary survey done that year.
Correction:
ReplyDelete該地方이 縱可八十里오 橫爲五十里라
The area is about eighty ri [34 km] vertically and about fifty ri [20 km] horizontally.
opp,
ReplyDeleteI'm with you, I would add the following facts too.
Pre-Korean people used to say that Korea COULD NOT claim the incorporaton because Korea had been controlled by Japan by 1905.
But it was not true. Although they were not permitted to conclude Treaties with foreign countries for their own, Korea was still a country.
1) The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Korean 朴斉純 claimed UK-Japanese Alliance but he didn't claim the incorporation of Liancourt Rocks.
To follow is an evidence to prove 朴 claimed UK-Japanese Alliance:
在韓萩原代理公使から桂外務大臣への、1905年（明治40年）10月17日発『第384号』:
「英国公使は、韓国外部大臣より公文を以て、英韓両国間には積年の深厚なる友誼存続するに関はらず、此次英国政府が日本との間に訂立せる同盟條約中、韓国の地位に関して規定する所は、従前の約旨に違反する不当の條約なりとの旨意の照会を受けたる由にて、本日本官を来訪して意見を求めたるに付、本官は之に対し、同大臣は林公使より日英同盟條約の成立を通告したるに対して同意味の回答を与えたる旨を告げ、且つ本官は唯今の所、何等の措置を採らずして「イグノヲア」する積なる旨を答へたるに、同公使は本国政府に報告して多分同様の態度を採るに至るべき旨を陳べたり。
同大臣より林公使に与へたる回答は、沼野の病気欠勤中発送せられたりしが、英国公使宛のものは同外交官補に秘して発送したるものなるべし。」
It seems that 朴 claimed the alliance sending official documents to both UK and Japan.
2)Ito Hirobumi, the first 韓国統監, and Kojong 高宗 were in close relationship, having talks every once in a while. At some occasions, Ito received Kojong's claim.
顧れば昨年十一月、日韓協約の調印了せり。
同月二十九日、自分の出発帰国せんとするに際し、陛下は宮内府大臣李載克氏を自分の許に遣はされ、五箇條の御希望を伝示せられたり。
其の第一は、皇室の経費増加に関することにして、臨時経常を合して一となし、之を全く国庫の財政と区分して、王室に一任せよとのことなり。
此の件は、自分に於ても直ちに御同意申上げ、目賀田顧問にも之を諮り、竟に五十万円の増額を為すことにせり。
第二は、皇室財産に関することにして、此の点に付ては、他日愼重なる調査を為したる上ならでは、直ちに自分の意見を言上し難き旨を覆奏せり。
第三は、皇室所有財産に対しては、財政顧問をして干渉せしめざること。
第四は、皇室の財政は、宮内府自から之を整理し、一般財政の整理とを区別すること。
第五は、宮中の肅清を為し、文明国の模範に拠り、将来の弊害を防がんとすること等なりし。
此の五箇案に対し、第二條を除くの外、自分は悉く御同意申上げ、且其の言責を重んじて之を実行せしめたり。
http://ameblo.jp/dreamtale/theme1-10000375602.html
And Ito received a claim from the Korean governemnt:
（口語訳）
李夏栄法部大臣
「監獄制度改善の必要は明白なり」とし、その後希望として「もとより韓国の法律、裁判組織は不完全であるが、従来、軍律を犯したる韓国人は、全て日本官憲で組織される軍法会議で審判処罰される。自分等は、此等及罪人は、宣言された刑に相当する罪を犯したために処罰されていると信じ、少しも不審に思ってはいないが、無智なる多数の人民中には、軍隊の不審を思う者も無いわけではない。従って今度は、右審判委員会に韓国官憲を立会せれば、韓国人は大に安堵するでしょう。」
伊藤博文
「貴説は妥当である。」
李法相
「従来の経験によれば、犯罪者中には死刑に処せられた者も少なくない。しかし、其の親族等は、如何なる罪によってこのような重刑に処せられたのか知り得ない為、大いに不安の念を抱いている。軍律発布の当時、自分は外務大臣の職にあったために、重刑執行の報告に接すると共に、幾多の人民から請願を受けた。請願の要旨は、韓国官憲が軍法会議に立ち会わないのは遺憾であるとの事であったため、その当時、この問題を提出したが、軍の同意を得ることは出来なかった。今回幸にしてこれを実行出来れば、韓国人にとっては大幸である。」
伊藤
「貴説を穏当と認め、軍に照会しよう。審判委員は、まさしく軍司令部又は師団司令部に設置されるべきである。これに韓国の官憲、例えば観察使のような者を立ち会わせることに定めれば良いだろう。」
李法相
「自分は、決して権利として主張しているのではなく、韓国人の感情を融和する為に、得策と信じるのみです。」（何故かトーンダウン（笑））
伊藤
「若し実行することが出来れば、貴説のようにするのは得策である。軍と協議すべし。」
李法相
「死刑に相当する罪人の審判だけでもよいです。」
伊藤
「改正軍令では死刑を削除した。軍において起稿した原案には、死刑を残してあった。その理由は、従来の経験では、法令にはなるべく重刑を記載しなければ、韓国人は之を軽視する傾向があるため、今後は実際死刑には処さなくとも、法文中には存置するのが得策であるというものであった。しかしながら、自分（伊藤）は、死刑は苛酷過ぎると認めたため、本案中からこれを削除させた。従って、重刑に処すべき軍人の審判にのみ韓国官憲を立会わせる事とし、 「審判委員の審判委員会には、韓国の官憲一名にこれに列席聴聞させる」というような意味の規定を設けることを、軍に交渉すべきである。」
これに対して各大臣が「その通りである。そのように行われる事を切望する。」と述べた。
最後に再び李法相が「もし韓国官憲が列席しても、決して発言権を得る事を望み、又は判決を飜そうとするような事を為してはなすべきではない。もしこれを試みても翻すことが出来ないのは、疑いが無い。」という言葉を以て、この場面は終了する。
http://dreamtale.ameblo.jp/dreamtale/theme6-10000125843.html
The Minister of Justice of Korea claimed about prisons in Korea. Ito approved the claim about the criminal law in Korea.
So if Korea really thought Liancourt Rocks were their territory, they could claim.
pacifist
ReplyDelete1905年（明治40年）10月17日の文面では、日本にも抗議文を送ったかどうかは判断できないように思います。ただ、1905年11月26日に元議政府で特進官の趙秉世が第二次日韓協約への抗議文を林公使に送っています。「脅迫、強制によって調印させたので撤回せよ」という主旨です。特進官というのがどういう役職なのか不明ではありますが。その後、日本に無視されて趙は服毒自殺したらしいてすけど。
pacifist,
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the Korea empire didn't notice the Japanese effective control. The hunter was catching the sea lion on Takeshima. A Japanese army constructed the watchtower on the Takeshima. Still, Korea could not aware. It is not possible to protest for the unknown thing.
Malaysia is doing the same claim as Korea about the military communications equipment in the precedent of PEDRA BRANCA.
"Malaysia does not dispute that characterization; on the contrary this conduct by Singapore, in Malaysia's opinion “has raised serious concerns about Singapore’s use of Horsburgh Lighthouse for non-light (and especially military) purposes”. In its Agent's words “[t]his conduct does not fall within the consent given for the construction and operation of the lighthouse”.
Malaysia also says that the installation was undertaken secretly and that it became aware of it only on receipt of Singapore’s Memorial."
However, the court admited the Singapore's action as an act à titre de souverain.
"The Court is not able to assess the strength of the assertions made on the two sides about Malaysia’s knowledge of the installation. What is significant for the Court is that Singapore’s action is an act à titre de souverain. The conduct is inconsistent with Singapore recognizing any limit on its freedom of action."
The country where the evidence of the effective control doesn't exist tries to avoid the other party's effect rule. Therefore, it seems that the insistence become same. However, the court doesn't admit the rebuttal. International Law impose the obligation of administration with the right of owning. It is considered that the obligation is not fulfilled if a country did not the effective control by another country.
opp様
ReplyDeleteありがとうございます。
仰るとおりなのですが、イギリス側から意見を求められて、
「本官は之に対し、同大臣は林公使より日英同盟條約の成立を通告したるに対して同意味の回答を与えたる旨を告げ、且つ本官は唯今の所、何等の措置を採らずして「イグノヲア」する積なる旨を答へたるに・・」と答えています。
まずここで、日英同盟条約成立の通告をした相手は大韓帝国でしょうか、イギリスでしょうか?
大韓帝国に対して通告したのなら：
通告した際に「同意味の回答を与えた」のは日本なのか韓国なのかと考えると、韓国側しか考えられないと思うのですが、いかがでしょうか。もしも日本が「同意味の回答を与えた」とするとその回答というのはイギリスに対して行った「無視するつもりだ」という回答でしょうか。でもそれは韓国側に言うには不適切ですよね。韓国側が回答した、そしてそれはイギリスに対したのと同意味の（つまり抗議の）回答だったということになります。（イギリスの対しての場合と同様に文書だったのか口頭だったのかは不明ですが。）
イギリスに対して同盟成立の通告をするというのは変ですが、仮にイギリスに対して通告したのなら、日本がイギリスに対して既に「同意味の（無視するという）回答をした」ということで意味は通りますが、同盟相手に同盟条約成立の通告をするというのは不自然ですし、その時点で既に大韓帝国側が抗議の意思をあらわにしていなければ「無視する」という回答も生じないわけですから文脈としておかしくなります。
だとすると、この文章からは大韓帝国側はイギリスに対してと同じような抗議の意思を日本側にも表していたと考えざるを得ないように思うのですが、いかがでしょうか。
文中の「同大臣」は大韓帝国の外部大臣ですね。つまり、林公使が韓国の外部大臣に日英同盟成立を通告した際に、その韓国外部大臣が「（イギリスに対したものと）同じ意味の」回答をした、つまり同盟に抗議ないし不満の意見を述べた（文書か口頭かは不明ですが、表現からすれば口頭だった可能性が高いように思います。）
opp様
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for showing us the interesting example of the dispute over an island.
opp様
ReplyDelete追加です。
文中最後に「同大臣より林公使に与へたる回答は、沼野の病気欠勤中発送せられたりしが、英国公使宛のものは同外交官補に秘して発送したるものなるべし。」とありましたにおで、韓国外部大臣の回答（抗議の内容）はやはり文書のようですね。
한국측은, 일본이 독도(Takeshima)를 영토 편입했을 때에 일본에 외교권이 지배되고 있었기 때문에 일본에 대해서 항의하고 싶어도 할 수 없었다고 한다.
ReplyDelete그러나, 1905년 8월 12일, 일본과 영국 사이에 제2차 영일 동맹이 체결되었으나, 그 조약의 한국의 지위에 관한 조항에 대해서, 한국 외부 대신이 일본과 영국 양국에 대해서 부당한 조항이다고 문서로 항의했다.
한국은 영일 동맹이라는 고도로 정치적인 문제에 관해서 일본과 영국에 항의할 수 있었으니까, 독도(Takeshima) 편입에 대해서도 항의하려고 한다면 할 수 있었다고 생각할 수 있다.
韓国側は、日本が独島（Takeshima）を領土編入したときに、日本に外交権を支配されていたから日本に対して抗議したくてもできなかったと言う。
しかし、１９０５年８月１２日、日本とイギリスとの間で第２次日英同盟が締結されたが、その条約の韓国の地位に関する条項について、韓国の外部大臣は、日本とイギリス両国に対して、不当な条項であると文書で抗議した。
韓国は、日英同盟という高度に政治的な問題に関して日本とイギリスに抗議することができたのだから、独島（Takeshima）編入に対しても抗議しようと思うならば抗議することはできたと考えられる。
最初から日本語で書き込めばよかったのですね。無理をして拙い英語で書く必要はなかったのでした。
ReplyDeletechammieyさん、pacifistさん、oppさん、ご返答ありがとうございます。私が、「Korea could not insist its ownership toward Takeshima」と記したことの真意は、「（日本側にとって不利益な主張であれば）大韓帝国からの主張は受け入れられない情勢にあった」という点にあります。この観点から、私の主張はお三方の主張と大きく異なるところはないだろうと、補足させてください。
1つこの場を借りて述べておいた方が良いだろう事を申し上げておきます。竹島領有に対する日本の確実な領有は1905年を遡ることがないだろうというのが私の現時点での意見です。なお、朝鮮／大韓帝国についてみれば、「そもそも竹島の存在自体を認識していなかったであろう」と私は考えています。
chaamiey様
ReplyDelete話は変わりますが、お願いがあります。
chaamiey様のブログに李承晩ライン関連の新聞の切り抜き記事が掲載されていて、興味深く読ませていただきました。あの記事の幾つかをこのブログで借用させていただくことは可能でしょうか?よろしくご検討の程お願い申し上げます。
（追記：chaamiey様がギターの達人だったのを知りませんでした。お見それしました。）
pacifist,
ReplyDelete文書で送ったみたいですね。すみません。
That judicial precedent is very useful. The Middle lock is away from the Pedra Branca island only at 0.6 miles. The court said that Malaysia had historical title of both islands. But the Acting State Secretary of Johor send a letter to the Colonial Secretary of Singapore;
"I have the honour to refer to your letter . . . dated 12th June 1953, addressed to the British Adviser, Johore, on the question of the status of Pedra Branca Rock some 40 miles from Singapore and to inform you that the Johore Government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca."
Then court said that "It is the clearly stated position of the Acting Secretary of the State of Johor in 1953 that Johor did not claim ownership of Pedra Branca. That statement has major significance."
However, the court did not apply this circumstances of Pedra Branca to the Middle Rock, thougt Singapore claim that "Middle Rock goes together with sovereignty over Pedra Branca". This situation is corresponding to the take a passage prohibition to Takeshima(Ulleungdo) by Bakufu in Edo period .
pacifistさん、
ReplyDelete聴いていただいたのならばうれしいです。かつてはそれが一番の趣味でしたが、今は眼に悪いネット探索に代わってしまいました。
新聞記事はどうぞお使いください。
chaamiey様
ReplyDeleteありがとうございます！
Gerry Bevers
ReplyDeleteI suspect that the South Korean government has that report somewhere, but maybe they are just not making it public.
-->Please allow me to tell you what I suspect.
The result of the survey about boundary and position of Ulldo should come after the content of census report in the same article , but there's no.
I suspect the Japanese Residents-General forced Hwangseong Shinmun not to include the content of the survey result of border & position of Ulldo in that article. The report about border & position of Ulldo must probably have been very unfavorable to Japan. It was Ulldo County Governor Shim Heung-taek who conducted the survey. He must probably have reported something like "Ulldo County's boundary includes Dokdo.", which was very harmful for Japan's claiming for the justice of illegal incorporation of Dokdo.
Shim Heung-taek was the very person who reported the unexpected news of Japanese incorporation of Dokdo to the Korean central government in 1905. In his report, the surprised Shim wrote that he was notified by a group of Japanese officials that Dokdo belonging to Ulldo County became Japanese territory. There's no chance at all he made a statement denying Dokdo was a part of Ulldo County. Moreover, this survey was done by the order of Korea's Ministry of Interior. There's no reason for him to report something against Korea.
For this reason, I suspect Japanese Residents-General forced Hwangseong Shinmun not to print the content of the survey report about the boundary and position of Ulldo County.
I used the term 'suspect', but it can be a historical truth when considering two historical facts :
1. In Feb. 24, 1904, Japan deleted the Hwangseong Shinmun article about Korea– Japan Treaty(韓日議定書)
2. In Nov. 20,1905, Japan arrested the people involved and suspended publication when Hwangseong Shinmun printed the editorial (是日也放聲大哭) lamenting the Protectorate Treaty between Korea and Japan,
Therefore, your suspicion the South Korean government has that report somewhere likely can't be true.
In addition, the numbers in the July 13, 1906 article of Hwangseong Shinmun have nothing to do with the boundary of Ulldo County. Korean Ministry of Interior was not asked about the boundary of Ulldo County.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s a shame to insist Korea could protest against Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo if Korea wanted to do so.
If Japan was an honorable country then as implied by the Japanese commentors here, why didn’t Japan officially inform Korea of its incorporation of Dokdo in 1905, so that Korean government could officially protest at the time of Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo?
In Jan.28 1905, Japan illegally incorporated Dokdo, but it was Mar. 28, 1906 when the Japanese officials from Shimane Prefecture who unexpectedly dropped by Ulleongdo told Uldo Governor Shim that Dokdo belonging to his County was incorporated.
Pacifist said "Although they were not permitted to conclude Treaties with foreign countries for their own, Korea was still a country." A country without a Ministry of Foreign Affairs was a real country?
Japan deprived Korea of its diplomatic sovereignty in Nov. 17, 1905, abolished Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs(外部) in Jan. 17, 1906 and Japan’s Office of the Resident-General was established to enforce colonial rule in Korea in Feb.1 1906. In other words, when Shimane officials notified Shim of Japan’s illegal incorporation of Dokdo, Korean government couldn’t officially protest against Japanese government’s incorporation of Dokdo. It can be easily inferred Japan wouldn’t return Dokdo to Korea even if Korea could and did protest,
Pacifist and chaamiey said Korea could protest against Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo citing Park Je-soon’s case which protested against UK-Japanese Alliance , but it was before Japan deprived Korea of its diplomatic sovereignty in Nov. 17, 1905.
More importantly, Korea could protest right away when she became to know UK-Japanese Alliance. In case of Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo, it was not known to Korea for one year and Korea had no way to take an action at the time of Japan’s illegal action on Dokdo.
If you guys have a good conscience, before asking why Korea didn’t protest,reflect whether it was right or not Japan didn’t promptly and officially notify Korea of its incorporation of Dokdo .
Sloww,
ReplyDeleteyou do not need to worry about that problem. Korean government could officially protest against Japanese government’s incorporation of Takeshima, if they wanted to do so in 1906. We checked it by some historical records.
If Korean government submits the claim that the protest against Japan was impossible in 1906, at the ICJ in the future, Japanese government will smash the claim immediately.
Chaamiey,
ReplyDeleteWhat did I worry about?
Are you talking about the so-called Jukbyeon coast case? A nation’s illegal incorporation of land and a civilian’s attempt to falsely grab the land are not same cases.
You can see my answer to Jukbyeon coast case here
If protest is so important matter to you, can you answer why Japan didn’t give Korea an opportunity to protest against Japanese intention or decision to incorporate of Dokdo in 1905?