Below is the second part of the translation of The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao
" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 4"
(3) Department of the Navy's recognition of "Takeshima and Matsushima"
Mr. Park wrote, " It is noteworthy that Liancourt Rocks was described only to 'Joseon waterway magazine（朝鮮水路誌）', and had not been described to 'Japanese waterway magazine "（ｐ45） He assumed it as a evidence that "Hydrography Department considered Liancourt Rocks, that is, Takeshima = Dokdo outside a Japanese territory." (p46)
However, this is groundless claim since his interpretation of the description of 'Joseon waterway magazine' was strained. The article "Situation" in 1894 edition of the book clearly described that territory of Korea is, " From 124º 30'E longitude to 130º 35'E". Naturally, Liancourt Rocks which situate in 131°55" E is not included in Korean territory.
Besides, the article "Japan Sea", in which Liancourt Rocks are listed, also list "Ulleungdo(another name Matsushima)" and "Waywoda Rock(ワイオダ岩)" as well. According to 'Joseon waterway magazine', "The Waywoda Rock, above water, was originally reported by the Russian corvette Veovoda, in 1859, as situated in lat. 42°16' N., long. 137°18' E." and "The Sea Chart of Hokkaido and Northeastern Islands(北洲及北東諸島)"(1893), which was drawn based on Admiralty Chart No．２４０５(1895), placed it between Hokkaido and Amur Coastal State(黒龍沿岸州).
"Waywoda Rock" was simply listed as the dangerous rocks(暗岩危礁)" in the Sea of Japan, and Liancourt Rocks was listed by the same reason. It can't be any kind of "evidence" that the author considered it as Joseon territory only because it was included in "Joseon waterway magazine".
On the other hand, Liancourt Rocks was discovered by French whaling ship Le Liancourt in 1849 and Takeshima, Matsushima and Liancourt Rocks are drawn in "Complete Map of Pacific Ocean" of French naval forces in 1851. Takeshima(Argonaut) disappeared from around Admiralty Chart No．2347 `JAPAN- NIPON, KIUSIU & SIHOK AND PART OF KOREA` (1876), and it described Matsushima(Uleungdo) and Liancourt Rocks. It was one year before Dajokan instructed "Takeshima and other island" and 4 years before Meiji government confirmed that Matsushima was Ulleungdo as well.Therefore, Liancourt Rocks was actually "Terra nullius" that did not belong to the country at the time. It cannot be an invasion even if Meiji government had named it as Takeshima and incorporated into Shimane Prefecture as "Terra nullius" in 1905. Because there are no
historical grounds that make Liancourt Rocks a Korean
territory in South Korea, and "Dongguk Munheon Bigo（東国文献備考）"(1770)'s annotation, which SK had been relayed on as grounds of an argument, is already proved as the falsification of posterity.
Recently, Korean started to claim that Dokdo(=Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) as their "inherent territory", and Mr. Park even wrote that "it is needless to say that this is contradictory to "Takeshima as inherent territory" by Japanese government (p49). However, the only country which is qualified to claim it as "inherent part of the territory" is Japan. The term "Inherent Territory(固有の領土)" indicate the territory which have never been ruled by any other country either like northern territories. As for Takeshima, which had been "Terra nullius" in 1905, Japan was ruling effect from at least 1905 to prewar day. Japanese government has a right to claim Takeshima as "Terra nullius, but South Korea, who invaded Japanese territory in 1954, is apparently disqualified to do claim Dokdo as her "inherent territory" at all.
---------------------------------------------In conclusion, it is clear that Mr. Park's claim that "theMeiji government consistently held to the policy of making Takeshima and Matsushima outside the territory in Japan until incorporation in 1905" (p36) and they made Korean territory as Japanese territory justifying it as it was "Terra nullius" in the middle of Russo-Japanese War is baseless claim. His article "The Meiji Government's Recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" (Studies of the cultures in Northeast Asia, no.28, 2008, pp.33-49.) was only a political advertisement that fabricated the falsified history, which confused the Takeshima issue as the history issue, too.
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.
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)."
1656 - "Yojiji (輿地志)" by Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠) didn't say "Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima."
1667 - Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)
1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)
1893 - "The Sea Chart of Hokkaido and Northeastern Islands(北洲及北東諸島)" plots Waywoda Rock far outside of Korean territory
1853-1922 - Kimotsuki Kaneyuki (肝付兼行)