竹島問題の歴史

19.11.08

1906 - Feb 20 & April 17 - "Official Documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vol.1" - Korean government protested about land transaction in 竹邊浦

Korean Imperial government officially acquiesced the Japan's sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo by not protesting about the island against Japan in 1906.

To follow is the official documents of the Imperial Korea's Ministry of Internal Affairs (大韓帝国議政府内部) in 1906 which recorded the exchanges among Korean central governmental officials, local officers, Japanese merchant and Japanese Resident-General. Imperial Korean government ordered the local government to investigate the situation when they received the report that a Japanese came to apply the official certification for the site after Japanese Navy removed watchtower that they built in
Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast, Uljin County, Gangwon Province. The nearest village on peninsula from Ulleungdo, which locates just opposite Ulleungdo. Then they sent official inquiry to protest the "land grab" against Japanese Governor General. As a result, they succeeded in preventing Japanese from gaining Korean land as illegal land transaction of the Korean land.

Famous Dokdo evangelist Prof. Shin also confirms this.

Right after the end of Russo-Japanese War, the chief of the watchtower and a Japanese merchant "conspired" to try to "snatch" the land when Imperial Japan took away the watchtower built in Jukbyeon coast, Uljin, Kangwon-to. Over the period of 6 months of dispute and negotiation, those efforts by Korean Imperial government succeeded to prevent this Shin Yong-ha (1997)).

Korean side, including Prof. Shin claims that Korean "couldn't protest" against Japanese in 1906 when they finally realized the incorporation of Takeshima/Dokdo into Shimane by Japan, not that they "didn't protest", on the grounds Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty on Nov. 17, 1905 practically deprived Korea of its diplomatic sovereignty. However, these Korean official documents revealed the fact that their claim is totally baseless. As their own documents shows, not only Korean did have a right to protest against Japan, but also they had actually succeeded in preventing Japanese from grabbing(!?) the land in Jukbyeon coast. On the contrary, they didn't even inquire of Japanese Resident-General, not to mention protest, for Takeshima/Dokdo case. Consequently, by the international law, it is naturally regarded that Korean Imperial government officially acquiesced the Japan's sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo by not expressing protest against Japan, even though they diplomatically protested for this other similar territorial case during the same period of time. In other word, Japanese government's claim to the title of Takeshima was unchallenged by the government of Korea in 1906. Thus, Japanese sovereignty was legally established internationally at this point.

Professor Shin seems to ignore this important fact intentionally.


Why they didn't protest for Dokdo, which, according to Ulleungdo magistrate, belongs to the county, while they did protest for
Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast?

The two cases shares three points in common. 1. Territorial Dispute (between Japan) , 2. Officials in Charge(朴齋純 & 李址鎔 & 李明來) 3. Period (Jan-May 1906).

1906 竹辺浦竹島時系列_2

As I showed above, in Takeshima case, when Korean central government finally received the report from Gangwon Province governor and Chunchon county magistrate Lee Myung-rae(江原道觀察署理・春川郡守 李明來), who originally received the report about "Dokdo", which locates 40km(!?) away from Ulleungdo, becoming Japanese territory from the county magistrate Shim Heung-taek(沈興沢), Minister of Interior Lee Jee-yong(内部大臣 李址鎔) and Prime Minister Bak Che-soon (議政府参政大臣・朴齋純) ordered governor Lee to investigate the "circumstances of the island in concern and the activity of Japanese on the island" by the "Directive no. III (指令第三号)" on 28 May. But there are absolutely no documents which tells us how governor Lee reported back or central government reacted, went public so far. There were even some Korean newspaper, which reported about Shim's report (大韓毎日申報, 1 May & 皇城新聞, 9 May ), though still wrongfully explaining that Japanese delegation came to investigate the population on "Dokdo" which is actually uninhabitable barren rock, but still, government didn't take any further action. Though we are not perfectly sure if Korean government intentionally hide those documents or there are no such documents in the first place. However, considering the contents of all the Korean official documents available, it is natural to conclude that Korean Imperial government must have had received the report from local officer that the island "独島(Dokdo)" in concern was found not to be Korean "Jukdo(竹島)", a neighbouring island of Ulleungdo, but actually the Liancourt Rocks/Japanese "Takeshima(竹島)" which happen to share same Chinese letter with Korean "Jukdo(竹島)", or they simply realized that it was Shim's mistake reporting Dokdo, which apparently locates "outside" of Uldo County, belonged to the County. In consequence, they didn't made even inquiry nor protest against Japan.

It is extremely hard to think of any other reason why those three officials (朴齋純 & 李址鎔 & 李明來) didn't even make inquiry to the Japanese Resident-General just like exactly
the same trio did in Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast case around the same period.

Actually, many Korean documents firmly support this. For example, the Korean newspaper, "Hwangseong Shinmun" (皇城新聞) reported the article "Facts on Arrangement of Uldo County" on 13 July, which is only a month and a half later the "
Directive no. III " was issued on 28 May. In the article, it says that when the Japanese Resident-General inqired the Korean Ministry of Interior about Ulleungdo Jurisdiction, Korean ministry officially replied the islands under the authority of the said county were Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島), and that it was sixty ri from east to west and forty ri from north to south for a total of 200 ri, which omit Dokdo from Uldo County . In addition, in September 26 edition, the same newspaper reported that the Uldo County magistrate had previously conducted a survey, starting the year of 1906, in accordance with an order from the Ministry of Interior, to determine boundaries and position of "the county," not the island. This implies Korean government did acknowledged the "boundaries of Uldo County" by the survey and must have realized Dokdo was totally outside of "Uldo County." On top of that, just like Japanese textbooks, all the Korean Geography textbooks define the eastern limit of Korea/Joseon as 130°35′~58′ E, excluding Takeshima/Dokdo which locates 131°55′ E.

Vaild Japanese Incorporation in terms of the International Law


As for Japanese incorporation of Takeshima, all the preocedures were done legitimately. Having received a request for incorporation by Yozaburo Nakai(中井養三郎) in September 1904,
the government of Japan confirmed that there were no traces of occupation by any other countries, while there were Japanese civilian's hut for economical activity, there is no problem in bringing Takeshima under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch and that "Takeshima" is the appropriate name for the islands. With this confirmation, the government, in January 1905, through the Cabinet decision, stipulated that the islands came under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch of Shimane Prefectural Government, and that the islands were officially named as "Takeshima." This decision was conveyed to the Governor of Shimane Prefecture by the Minister for Home Affairs. Based on the Cabinet Decision and the Ministerial Instruction from the Minister for Home Affairs, the Governor of Shimane Prefecture published in February 1905 that Takeshima was officially named as "Takeshima" and that it came under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch. He also informed the Okinoshima branch to this effect. These measures were carried in the newspapers of the day and were broadly publicized.Based on the Cabinet Decision stipulating that Takeshima came under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch of Shimane Prefectural Government, the governor registered Takeshima into the State Land Register, and established a license system for sea lion hunting. The hunting of sea lions continued from then until 1941. (See Japanese MOFA site. ) Those official procedures by Japan were considered to be the evidences for the display of sovereignty by Japan according to International Law. On the contrary, there are absolutely no trace of Korean display of sovereignty until 1950s.

Right after the incorporation, the Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks became famous since it located in the middle of the Japan Naval Battle and its name, sometimes with accurate maps, was printed and flying around in many media like official gazette(官報), newspaper(東京朝日新聞) and journals(日露戦争実記) all over Japan and even in Korea(皇城新聞) in 1905. Official gazette even corrected the name Liancourt Rocks to Takeshima. Since there were many Korean residents in Japan, especially Tokyo, plus Korean newspaper did reported "Angohu-to", there were plenty of chances for Korean to see "Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima" became Japanese island. It is highly unlikely that Korean couldn't protest in 1905, when they still kept diplomacy, because they didn't realized this "Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima" became Japanese territory. In fact, there are no single Korean documents which support they had any recognition of their sovereignty. Besides, even after they were told this by Shimane delegation and received the county magistrate's report in 1906, Korean government didn't even make inquiry to Japan about this issue as I show on this post. It is apparent Korean government then had no idea what this "Dokdo" island is nor had any recognition of Takeshima/Dokdo as their territory.

The documents were found by GTOMR and translated by matsu, with a great help of chaamiey and 小嶋日向守. Thank you, guys!! Beautiful collaboration. Love you all. And if you find the original document of those, please let us know where they are.

Official Documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vol.1, Dates Feb. 26, 1906

Subject : To prohibit the illegal personal trade of the watchtower in
Geunnbuk-myeon(近北面) Jukbyeon coast (竹邊浦) in Uljin(蔚珍) by Japanese

Inquiry No.3
Feb. 26, 1906
(From) Lee Jee-yong (李址鎔), the Minister of Interiors and the First Order of Merit
(To) Sir Park Che-soon (朴齊純), Prime Minister (議政府參政大臣)

(Lee) received the "Report no.16" from Lee
Myeong-rae(李明來), a governor of Gangwon-do and a magistrate of Chunchon(春川) county. The contents of the report as follows.

13th last month (January), I received a report from Yu(尹宇榮), a Uljin County Magistrate. It says that Japanese Navy had already retreated from the watchtower in
Geunnbuk-myeon, Jukbyeon coast in Uljin(蔚珍), but this time, a Japanese merchant named "Kohga(高賀)" visited the Magistrate of Uljin on 27th December(**). He said "I bought watchtower in Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast and its land from the administrator of watchtower. So I want Uljin Magistrate issue the official paper to approve my property." As a magistrate, I cannot process this by my own decision, so I report this to you."

(A commander of Kangwondo) ordered (Uljin magistrate) to swiftly investigate and report in detail the address, name and on what day, what month and at how much this "Kohga" man bought the land, as well as the name and the address of the administrator of the watchtower.

The magistrate of Uljin reported "By receiving the order, I summoned Kohga and inquired him more precisely. And he said "My address is
××××, 三養基郡, Saga prefecture, Japan. And my family name is Saga(佐賀) and my first name is Mataji (Matatsugu?). A family name of the administrator of the watchtower is Takahashi and his first name is Kiyosige. He currently stations at Naval base in Sasebo, but I'm not sure where his real address is. I bought the watchtower at the price of 180 yen when Japanese Navy retreated in October, last year (1905). But I didn't buy the land itself. But it is common practice that the land usually belongs to the owner of the property on it. So I offered the previous owner that I'd like to buy the land as well. (Or I'd like to buy the land as I'd told him before.)"

(
Lee Myeong-rae or Lee Jee-yong) investigated more precisely, and see this Japanese merchant Kohga's buying it from administrator Takahashi Kiyoshige privately, even after Japanese Navy who stationed the watchtower for military purpose and had already retreated, is like a bandit's illegal activity and this is unreasonable. So I report this to you. " I (Lee Jee-yong ) hope you to look into this matter, negotiate swiftly (with Japan), let them to ban right away and specify the deal.

From
Lee Jee-yong , the Minister of Interiors and the First Order of Merit, to Sir Park Che-soon, Prime Minister
Feb. 26, 1906


Official Documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vol.1, Dates Apr. 17, 1906

Subject : Inquiry about selling watchtower and attached building in
Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast in Uljin County to Japanese

Government Inquiry No.56 to the Ministry of Internal Affairs

Apr. 17, 1906
(From) Sir Park Che-soon, Prime Minister
(To) Lee Jee-yong, the Minister of Interiors and the First Order of Merit
(Approved by) Prime Minister, (參贊), Chief of secretary section, Chief of document section, Prime Minister, Chief of bureau, Chief of inquiry, First Chief

Receiving Inquiry no.3 from Sir Lee, I sent a letter to Japanese Resident General, concerning a case of prohibiting illegal personal trade of the watchtower in
Geunnbuk-myeon Jukbyeon coast in Uljin by Japanese, and received the reply document. To follow is what was written in the document from them.

"We received "Inquiry no. 13", concerning selling watchtower in
Jukbyeon coast in Uljin County and based on the inquiry, we sent documents to Naval Base in Sasebo in order to investigate the situation. The report says "The building and structures used for watchtower was determined to be transferred to the buyer after receiving the payment and it was sold to Koga(古賀) Mataji from Saga prefecture. The payment had been collected on 27th of December, last year. However, the site was never sold." (We) would reply (to your "Inquiry no.13") in this way, hoping you would understand the situation."

As we have received Japanese answer such, so please do refer this.

(From) Park Che-soon, Prime Minister (to) Lee Jee-yong , the Minister of Interiors and the First Order of Merit

Apr. 17, 1906

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

内部來去案 第1冊 光武10年2月26日條

울진의 근북면 죽변포 망루를 일본인이 사적으로 매매한 것은 불법이니 금지시킬 것

(文書番号)照會 第三號 
(発送日)光武十年二月二十六日(1906年02月26日)
(発送者)內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔
(受信者)議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下

現接 江原道觀察署理春川郡守李明來의 第十六號報告書內開
頃於上月十三日에 接閱蔚珍郡守 尹宇榮 報告書즉 內槪
本郡近北面竹邊浦望樓 留駐之日本海軍이 今爲撤歸이온바
今陰曆十二月二十七日 日本商人 高賀者 來到郡廳曰
竹邊浦所在望樓與地段을 並爲買得於望樓長인즉 自郡으로 認許公文成給이라하온바
郡守가 不可自下擅便故로 玆에 報告等因이하기
高賀者居住姓名과 何月日에 給價幾許買得과 望樓長之姓名居址을
幷即詳探報來하야 以爲轉報케는事로 指飭以送이더니
即接該郡守報告 內開
即到指令를 承準하와 招致高賀 詳問事狀인즉
自己는 日本佐賀縣三養基郡○××××番戶(*) 而姓은佐賀오名은亦次오
望樓長은 高橋오 名은淸重이오 居住는日本佐世保海兵團詰兵所오 居址는 不知이온바
上年十月日 駐箚撤歸之時에 給一百八十圓 買得望樓 而址地는 不爲買賣이온니
基址之隨家는意有常例하야 地段幷買之意로 前有所告이다故로 緣由報告等因을
據査하온즉
蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓은 日本海軍이軍用暫駐타가 已爲撤歸이온바
今此日本商民高賀亦次가 望樓長高橋淸重에게 私相賣買云者가 非徒違越定章이오라
萬不近理이하기
玆以仰佈하오니 査照하신 후 迅辦交涉하시와 即行禁止케하시고 示明하시믈 爲要.

內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔 議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下

光武十年二月二十六日

內部來去案 第1冊, 光武10年4月17日條, 議政府 照會 第五十六號 內部(1906.04.17)

울진의 근북면 죽변포 망루 및 부속건물을 일본인에게 매각함을 조회

(文書番号)議政府 照會 第五十六號 內部
(発送日)光武十年四月十七日(1906年04月17日)
(発送者)議政府參政大臣 朴齊純
(受信者)內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下
(決裁者)議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長

貴第三號 照會는接到하와

以蔚珍郡竹邊浦所在 望樓與地段 私相賣買禁止一事로
準即行文 日本統監□하고 業經照覆在案이온바
現樓該統監照覆內開
去月十四日 以蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓賣却一事 接到貴第十三號照會 當經閱悉
準即行文 我佐世保海軍鎭守府 調査事實 仍接復開
該望樓所用建物及營造物 以代金收納後 擧越他人之意 賣却於佐賀縣人古賀亦次
去年十二月二十七日 業經受領代金 然該敷地決無賣却等因
準此照覆 照亮爲盼等因이하기
玆에 照會하오니 照亮하심을 爲要.

議政府參政大臣 朴齊純  內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下

光武十年四月十七日

(note)

* The original document specify the address.
** The original document wrote it was lunar calender 27 Dec., which is solar calender 21 Jan. But it contradicts the day Uljin Magistrate reported to Gangwondo commander, so I considered it was mistake and translated as simply "27 Dec."


References:
1900 - The Times Map (China and Japan, Printing House, London)It shows Ulleungdo = Korean , Liancourt Rocks = Japanese
1905 - January 28th: the decision to incorporate Takeshima in to Shimane by a Cabinet meeting公文類集第29編 竹島編入閣議決定)
1905 - Feb 24 - Takeshima Incorporated into Shimane Prefecture (山陰新報 "隠岐の新島")
1905 - May 29 , 30 & June 5- An Extra of Official Gazette "The War Report of The Japan Naval Battle"
1905 - June 2 - 皇城新聞 : Korean called "Liancourt Rocks(リアンコルド岩)" as "Angohu島", not "Dokdo", Seokdo nor Usando.
1905 - June 3 - Japanese Magazine ”The True Record of Russo-Japanese War (日露戦争実記")
1905 - June 5 - Tokyo Asahi Shimbun Corrected "Liancourt Rocks" as "Takeshima"
1905 - Jul 3 - "Postcards to Commemorate Naval Battle" (山陰新報 " 海戦記念絵葉書")
1905 - Aug 6 - Japanese Officials to Visit Takeshima (山陰新報 "竹島渡航")
1905 - Aug 22 - "Governor Matsunaga Inspects Takeshima" (山陰新報 "松永知事の竹島視察")
1905 - Aug 22 - "Sea Pigs" Near Takeshima (山陰新報 "県庁内に海豚放養")
1906 - Mar 11 - "Voyage to Takeshima Decided" (山陰新報 "竹島行決定")
1906 - July - Korea Omits Dokdo from Uldo County (皇城新聞 「鬱島郡의 配置顛末)
Korean Eastern limits described in various books world wide exclude Takeshima/Dokdo from Korean Territory
The Territorial Recognitions which Western Maps of Japan Show for Takeshima/Liancour Rocks between 1880-1905 : Ver.1

17 comments:

  1. Well-done, Kaneganese! I've waited for this post!

    Korea could claim about Japan's deed, but they didn't claim about the incorporation of Liancourt Rocks.

    They investigated about the matter but didn't claim - it was because they got to know that Liancourt Rocks were out of Korean territory. Korera's eastern limit was Ulleungdo (Jukdo of Ulleungdo) and it was a common sense written in various books and textbooks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 力作ですね。Kaneganeseさん御苦労様です。

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks, pacifist & chaamiey

    I think it literally estoppel Korean side from futher argument.

    If you find any mistake or suggestion, please let me know.

    matsuさんのアドバイスで、最初の1/3でこの資料の持つ意味を簡潔に説明して、出来るだけ分かり易くしたつもりです。本当は資料を最初に持って来たいのですが、なかなか読んでもらえないと思い、このスタイルにしました。原文の画像が手に入るといいのですが…

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you, Kaneganese.

    I want to hear Korean people’s opinion.

    This document was first introduced by Korean Prof. 愼鏞廈 in 1989.

    http://i815.or.kr/media_data/thesis/1989/198902.html

    「朝鮮王朝の独島領有と日本帝国主義の独島侵略」 
    『韓国独立運動史研究』3 (1989)
    のち『独島の民族領土史研究』第3部 (1996) 知識産業社 所収


    五 러일전쟁(露日戰爭)과 일본제국주의(日本帝國主義)의 독도침략(獨島侵略)

    4. 일본해군(日本海軍)의 독도망루(獨島望樓) 설치 (設置)와 철거(撤去)

    일제는 러 • 일전쟁(戰爭) 종결 직후 심지어 강원도(江原道) 울진군(蔚珍郡)의 죽변포(竹邊浦)에 설치했던 망루(望樓)를 철거할때 망루장(望樓長)과 일본상인(日本商人)이 결탁하여 일제가 강제징발해 사용한 망루지단(望樓地段)을 침탈(侵奪)하려고 시도했으며,220) 6개월간이나 분쟁과 교섭이 진행되다가 한국 의정부(議政府)의 노력에 의해 저지되기도 하였다. 221)

    220) 『내부래거안(內部來去案)』(규(奎) No 17768), 제(第)1책(冊), 광무(光武) 10년(年) 2월(月) 26일조(日條) 내부대신(內部大臣)의 의정부참정대신(議政府參政大臣)에의 보고(報告) 참조.
    일제는 1905년 10월 죽변망루(竹邊望樓)를 철거할 때 일본해군(日本海軍)의 망루장(望樓長) 고교청중(高橋淸重) 이란 자가 일본상인(日本商人)에게 망루(望樓)와 그 지단(地段)을 매집(賣却)했다하여 울진군수(蔚珍郡守)에게 인허공문(認許公文)의 발급을 요구하며 이의 침탈(侵奪)을 기도했다가 항의에 부딪혀 6개월간이나 분쟁이 일어 났다.

    221) 『내부래거안(內部來去案)』, 제(第)1책(冊), 광무(光武) 10년(年) 4월(月) 17일조(日條), 의정부조회(議政府照會) 제(第) 56호(號)) 참조.



    So, in1989, the Korean professor knew it was possible for the Korean Government at that time to deal with 日本統監, when 鬱島郡守沈興澤 reported about the Shimane prefecture’s delegation visited 鬱陵島 and told about 獨島in 1906 .

    But he writes as below in conclusion. (七 맺음말)

    I cannot understand his way of thinking.

    (9)대한제국정부(大韓帝國政府)가 일본의 독도(獨島) 침탈(侵奪)을 알게 된 것은 1년 후인 1906년 3월 28일 도근현(島根縣) 은기도(隱岐島)의 지방관리(地方官吏) 일행이 독도(獨島)를 시찰한 다음 울릉도에 들리어 울도군수(鬱島郡守) 심흥택(沈興澤)에게 독도(獨島)를 일본영토(日本領土)로 「편입(編入)했음을 구두로 말했을 때였다. 경악한 울도군수는 이를 강원도관찰사(江原道觀察使)를 거쳐 내부대신(內部大臣)에게 보고했고, 내부대신(內部大臣)과 의정부(議政府) 참정대신(參政大臣)은 이 보고를 받고 독도(獨島)는 한국영토(韓國領土)임을 명확히 했으며, 일본의 이제 독도(獨島)가 일본영토(日本領土)로 되었다는 주장은 「전혀 근거(根據)가 없고(전속무근(全屬無根))」 「전혀 이치(理致)에 닿지 않는 것(필무기리(必無其理))」이라고 반박하는 지령문(指令文)을 내리었다. 또한 대한제국의 신문(新聞)들도 울도군수의 보고를 보도하면서 독도(獨島)가 일본영토(日本領土)로 되었다는 일본측의 주장에 항론(抗論)을 폈다. 그러나 1906년 3월말∼5월초의 이 시기는 이미 일제(日帝)가 1905년 11월 17일 「을사 5조약」을 강제 체결해서 대한제국의 외교권(外交權)을 박탈하고, 이어 1906년 1월 17일 대한제국의 외부(外部)가 완전히 폐지되었으며, 1906년 2월 1일부터는 일제통감부(日帝統監部)가 설치되고 활동을 시작하여 외교(外交)는 물론이요 한국의 내정(內政)까지도 완전히 지배하게 된 이후의 시기였다. 이러한 상태하에서 이 시기에는 대한제국정부(大韓帝國政府)와 한국인(韓國人)들은 일제의 독도(獨島) 침탈(侵奪)에 항의할 통로(通路)와 기관(機關)마저 빼앗겨 어찌할 수가 없었다.


    As this document shows, it was possible to deal with 日帝統監部after 1906년 2월 1일.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I forgot one word, Kaneganese.

    It's a great job!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Matsu, it was possible to deal with the Japanese government about land problems this is true.

    However, as documents leading up to Japan's annexation of Liancourt Rocks show, the Koreans were helpless to deal with the situation at all. Even since 1899 Japanese had overwhelmed Ulleungdo to the point the local administration on Ulleungdo (Dokdo's most proximal island) were up in arms as to how to address the issue.

    The Japanese Resident General Hayashi refused to remove illegal Japanese trespassers from Ulleungdo. The Japanese installed police on Ulleungdo without Korean consent and Hayashi pushed for legislation allowing for Japanese ownership of Korean land.

    The situation on the Korean mainland and on remote Ulleungdo and even more remote Dokdo are not analogous at all. The local administration on Ulleungdo were isolated, outnumbered and records show us they were afraid for their safety. It's not surprising Shim Heung Taek didn't openly protest when the Japanese landed on Ulleungdo in 1906. If he loudly objected to the Japanese delegation there would have been payback by the large number of Japanese thugs and squatters living on Ulleungdo.

    Japanese-Thugs-On-Ulleungdo

    The Korean government repeatedly complained about the situation on Ulleungdo and what did Hayashi do? Abosolutely nothing...... So this article you've written is based on a completely false premise.

    Kangerbangers the report that was sent back by the Interior Ministry did not give the circumference of Uldo County, it gave the dimension of Ulleungdo Island. You must correct this mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear dokdo-takeshima.com,

    Prof. 愼鏞廈 didn’t dare to admit the Korean government could protest Japan after 1906.02.01.

    But you have now admitted.

    I think it is a good progress.


    Then we should study what was the difference between the two cases, 竹島 and 竹邊浦.

    I think “Remoteness” is nothing to do with the issue.


    And the existence of 鬱島郡守 沈興澤 itself shows there was a way to do some activity for the residents of Ulleung island, if something happens.
    And actually 沈興澤 reported the situation to 江原道觀察署理 春川郡守 李明來. It was as same as 蔚珍郡守 尹宇榮 reported to 江原道觀察署理 春川郡守 李明來,the same person.

    Remember here, the characters are the same.

    江原道觀察署理 春川郡守 李明來
    内部大臣 李址鎔
    議政府参政大臣 朴齋純

    The same person should have thought the two case the same way.


    議政府参政大臣 朴齋純 could have done something for 独島, But he did nothing.

    I think it was because
    内部大臣 李址鎔 knew the document of 内部大臣 李乾夏 in 1900, which says Uldo county was in ”該地方이 蹤可八十里오 橫爲五十里라", so 独島(在於外洋百余里) was not included in the territory.
    内部 soon understood the mistake of 鬱島郡守 沈興澤, so the central government did nothing for 独島.

    ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

    As for the situation in 鬱陵島, 裵季周 for some times requested the central government to send policemen to the island.
    But the central government never did it.


    There is no record 沈興澤 and the residents in 鬱陵島 felt fear when 島根 delegation visited the island. They talked each other and some people changed their poems in Chinese character(漢詩)
    see 奥原碧雲『竹島及欝陵島』1907

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve the poison frog,

    Japanese on Ulleungdo and expanding Japanese territory are unrelated. Actually, as Kaneganese already mentioned, Japan didn't annex Ulleungdo although there were many Japanese civillians.

    As we've learned, Laincourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea in the end of 19th century (Korea's eastern limit was Ulleungdo) and Korea didn't claim about the incorporation of Liancourt Rocks whilst they had a chance to claim. So there is no ground for Korean people to say "Dokdo is ours".

    So all you have to do is, Steve the toad, to bring the evidence that shows Korea has a right to own the rocks, although you have failed for years and you will keep failing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Prof. Jon Van Dyke's 2007 article on Takeshima/Dokdo is full of lies, half-truth and unprofessional mistakes. Actually, his article was funded by Korean organization and most of historical parts were written by Korean scholars plus some anti-Japan academics like Hori Kazuo.

    "Through this treaty of 1905, japan solidified its control over Korea's foreign affairs, "reduced Korea to smi-colonial status," and led to the dismantling of the Korean Ministory of Foreign Affairs on January 17, 1906. (Shin, 1997) Although the treaty limited the authority of the resident-general "primarily" to diplomatic affairs, the new resident-general in fact took control of the entire administration, effectively removing any vestiges of sovereignty. (Ki-Baik Lee, 1984)Despite Korea's crippled status, the Korean State Council (Ch'amjong taeshin of the Uijongbu) nonetheless issued a protest of Japan's purported annexation of Dokdo/Takeshima on April 29, 1906, shortly after it learned of this move.(Shin, 1997)"

    Apparently, Korean government still held the right of diplomatic affairs and was not effectively removed any vestiges of sovereignty.

    Moreover the new resident-general in fact "didn't take control of the entire administration". Moreover, the "Directive no. III" he claimed as "protest", citing Shin's article, was not a protest at all, but just an internal documents which ordered local governor to investigate the situation and the "population of Dokdo".

    Gosh, this is disgusting. Who is lying here? Prof. Shin? the Korean academics who wrote this lines for Prof. van Dyke? or Prof. himself? In either case, the article is rubbish as a scholatic article, but we can use this as a counter proof in the future since Prof. concluded that Korean sovereignty claim was effective only because he believes the Korean historical claim before 1905 is valid. In other words, Korean need to give us the concrete evidence of their effective control over the island before 1905, which nobody had succeeded in so far.

    Plus, it has English translation of Korean words, which we can use as a reference...

    Is "the Korean State Council (Ch'amjong taeshin of the Uijongbu) " 議政府?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kaneganese,

    I thinks "relinquished sovereignty" is the wrong word as it implies that Korea had clear, accepted and unchallenged sovereignty over the Liancourt Rocks.

    Something like "did not assert sovereignty" would be better.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks, Matt

    You are right. The word is not appropriate. If you find any mistake, please let me know. Thanks, again.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kaneganese,

    I think you should have included September 26, 1906 as another important date because an article in the Hwangseong Sinmun that day comfirmed that the Uldo County magistrate had previously conducted a survey to determine boundaries and position of "the county," not the island. Here is what the article said:

    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.


    What happened to the boundry and position survey report mentioned in the article? I find it very suspicious that the only evidence of the Uldo County boundary survey being done are the newspaper accounts in the July 13 and September 26 editions of the Hwangseong Sinmun.

    Why isn't there a Korean record of the Japanese request for a confirmation of Ulleungdo's neighboring islands, as was reported in the July 13 article? Where is the report from the Uldo County magistrate that was mentioned in the September 26 article?

    That official survey report excluding Dokdo from Uldo County would be the final nail in the coffin for Korea's silly claims.

    Did Rhee Syngman or a subsequent Korean administration hide or destroy the official report, but forgot about about the reporting of the survey report in the Hwangseong Sinmun?

    I think Dokdo/Takeshima researchers should be concentrating on finding evidence of that 1906 survey report because that report might finally put Korean claims to rest.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks, Gerry

    I'll add the information.

    By the way, when do you think "今年 爲始" ? If it was done followed by this Directive no. III on 28 May, it might be June, but it is impossible that the year started in June.

    And I noticed that you had already mentioned about "1900 report from Korea's Mininstry of Interior to Korea's Wuijeongbu, date October 22, " in the comment section of the article post. We were trying to read the documents here. (matsu wrote and translated it for us.)

    제목 울릉도를 울도로 개칭하고 도감을 군수로 개정하기를 청함
    문서번호 鬱陵島를 鬱島로 改稱하고 島監을 郡守로 改正에 關한 請議書
    발송일 光武四年十月二十二日(1900년 10월 22일)
    발송자 議政府贊政內部大臣 李乾夏
    수신자 議政府議政 尹容善 閤下 査照 
    右 는 該島가 東溟에 特立하야 大陸이 遠隔하온바 開國五百四年에 島監을 設置하야 島民을 保護하고 事務를 管掌케 할싀 該島監 裵季周의 報牒과 本部視察官 禹用鼎과 東萊稅務司의 視察錄을 參互節査하온즉 該地方이 蹤可八十里오 橫爲五十里라 四圍峭壁에 中有巨山하야 自北止南하고 間有大川하야 深廣이 幾容舟楫하고 其土가 沃腴하고 其民이 質野하야 自數十年來로 民蓄이 蕃殖하야 戶數가 爲四百餘家오 墾田이 爲萬餘斗落이라 居民의 一年農作擔包數爻가 藷爲二萬餘包오 大麥이 爲二萬餘包오 黃豆爲一萬餘包오 小麥이 爲五千包라하오니 大率戶數와 田數와 穀數를 陸處한 山郡에 較計하오면 數或不及이오나 不甚相左뿐더러 挽近外國人이 往來交易하야 交際上도 亦有하온지라 島監이라 稱號하오미 行政上에 果有妨碍기로 鬱陵島를 鬱島라 改稱하고 島監을 郡守로 改正하오미 妥當하읍기 此段勅令案을 會議에 提呈事.

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/11/16th-column-seeking-truth-based-solely.html?showComment=1226415600000#c1422180941467436504


    I am thinking writing a post about the document, but I always fail to open the bigger image of the documents on Kyujanguaak site. Could you get me the image of the original document from the site, please? I think the document is very important for the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gerry,

    I finally got the images from Kyujanguaak site with IE7.

    I think though Korean upgraded Ulleungdo to Uldo County in 1900 Oct., they kept using "Ulleungdo" and "Uldo county" almost the same meaning as before. Old Korean documents and maps prove this conception. When they say "Ulleungdo" in documents and maps, it basically means "Ulleungdo plus adjacent neighbouring islets."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kaneganese,

    今年 爲始 means "starting this year." Since the article talked about census, then I think the census was done just prior to September 26. And since the article said that the census and survey had been done separately, that would mean that the survey was done sometime before the census.

    I think the July 13 article reported the new boundary survey results, which means the boundary survey was done sometime before July 13.

    The fact that the dimensions given in the July 13, 1906 article were 60 ri east-west and 40 ri north-south and those given in the October 22, 1900 document were 50 ri wide 80 ri in length suggest that a new survey had been done.

    Nevertheless, I would love to see the 1906 survey report.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I have made a correction from "shape" to "circumstances" for the translation of 形便 in "Directive no. III (指令第三号)".

    ReplyDelete
  17. It’s a desperate try to justify Japan’s illegal incorporation of Dokdo.

    Kaneganese claims Korea could protest when it knew Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo even in 1906 basing on the Korean government’s inquiry about Japanese illegal personal trade of the watchtower in Jukbyeo coast.

    A Japanese false attempt to grab the watchtower site can be summarized as follows:

    A Japanese civilian named Kohga asked a Uljin County Magistrate for an official certification for the site of watchtower in Jukbyeon coast. He insisted the site of watchtower is his property because he bought watchtower. His claim considered as illegal was reported to Korean Prime Minister. Korea inquired Japanese Resident-General of Korea of this illegal personal trade and received the letter from Japanese Resident- General that it was true he bought the watchtower, but it was not true he bought the site of watchtower.

    Japan’s illegal incorporation of Dokdo can be summarized as follows:

    A Japanese named Nakai Yozaburo planed to ask Japanese Resident-General in Korea the way he could use Dokdo for sealion fishing he considered as Korea land. But Japanese high ranking officials persuaded him to apply for the incorporation of Dokdo into Japanese land and lease it to him. Nakai was told Dokdo was ownerless and Japan needed it for building watchtower for Russo-Japan War. Despite there was an objection from an Home Ministry official who suspected Dokdo was Korean land, Nakai submitted the application. The Japanese Cabinet decided to incorporate Dokdo into Japanese land on the ground Dokdo was ownerless. Japan didn’t inquire before and didn’t notify Korea after Cabinet’s decision. Korea had no idea Dokdo was incorporated into Japanese land for year until the officials from Shimane Prefecture who unexpectedly dropped by Ulleongdo told the Governor Shim Dokdo became Japanese land.

    Those two cases are not comparable. Their nature and importance aren’t analogous even though both cases show Japanese greed for Korean land. The biggest difference is incorporation of Dokdo was the act by Japanese government and the land grabbing attempt of Jukbyeon coast was the act by a Japanese civilian. Inquiring about the act by a Japanese civilian can be done with no diplomatic sovereignty and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The fact Korea inquired about or protested against a Japanese civilian wrongdoing doesn’t mean Korea could freely protest against a Japanese government’s wrongdoing, too.

    The next big difference is a Japanese civilian’s attempt to falsely grab land of Jukbyeon was preventable because Korea could know it in advance, but in case of Japanese government’s incorporation of Dokdo, it is different.

    The fact Korea inquired about or protested against a Japanese civilian wrongdoing doesn’t mean Korea could freely protest against a Japanese government’s wrongdoing.


    According to Prof. Shin, it took 6 months to prevent a Japanese land grabbing. That Japanese lied and Japanese Resident General confirmed his lie. Obviously, it sounds so simple criminal case to be solved quickly, probably within a few days. But Korea had to make efforts to solve this problem for 6 months. It illustrates how it was difficult for Korea to deal with Japanese Resident-General to correct the problem which was against the Japanese.

    It can be imagined it was not easy at all for Korean government to deal with
    Japanese Resident General regarding Japanese Dokdo grabbing especially under the situation that Korea was deprived of diplomatic sovereignty and Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs was abolished. Japanese Resident General of Korea was notoriously representing the interests of Imperial Japan, not of Korea. Besides, Korea was on the brink of losing the whole Korea at the time by Japan. Thus, it’s not strange or abnormal or whatever Korean government didn’t take any action against Japanese government about Japanese stealing of uninhabited small barren islands in a danger of being deprived of the whole country.






    ReplyDelete