The 17th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”

Below is a translation of The 17th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

"The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).

Chosun Ilbo of South Korea made a front page report "Discovery of the Japanese Ordinance Excludes Dokdo from Territory" on January 3 at the beginning of the New Year. They are "the Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet office, No.24"and "Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4" in 1951, and the name of Takeshima is seen along with Ogasawara Islands and the Iwo-to islands, etc. as islands excluded from Japan.

However, these two laws do not offer any evidences that Japanese Government excluded Takeshima from a "Japanese territory". As Yomiuri Shimbun January 7 may tell, "The laws in concern only for the range where the administrative power of Japanese Government under the occupation during that time reaches to be shown, and is not showing of the range of Japanese territory" (Northeast Asia Division) as an opinion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese government under the occupation of the Allied Powers army at that time in 1951 only followed the clause 3 of SCAPIN677 of General Headquarters/ Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, which included Takeshima in "Region excluded from the range in Japan" on the administration. It was unrelated to the range in the territory as the instruction was described clearly in clause 6, "Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration."

Chosun Ilbo stretch the meaning of parts in The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4, and it reported that "Japanese Ordinance Excludes Dokdo from Territory". Korea's emeritus professor 金燦奎 of 慶熙 University even made a statement which has illogical leap. He claimed "Japan recovered sovereignty by the San Francisco Peace Treaty which came into effect on April 28, 1952. The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet office, No.24 was finally revised on July 8, 1961 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 was on June 26 , 1968. Those two laws were revised finally way after the Japanese recovery of the sovereignty. Unlike SCAPIN 677 above, Japanese government independently decided those revision without the influence of military administration. The excavation of these laws exactly make our standpoint advantageous in the Dokdo issue." ("Segye Times" Internet dated January 6 version)

However, Mr. Kim's logic turned out to be the theory which urges Korean interpretation of SCAPIN677 actually to be corrected. Korean claim SCAPIN677 Takeshima from Japanese territory. As Prof. Kim pointed out, laws in concern originally defined the islands excluded to be (1) the Kurile (Chishima) Islands, the Habomai Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Aki-yuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan island. (2)Ogasawara(Bonin) and Iwo Island Groups (3)Utsuryo (Ullung) island, Take island and Quelpart (Cheju) Island, but the ordinance of Ministry of Finance no.4 which was revised on June 26, 1968 dropped "Ogasawara and Iwo Island Groups".

It is because the day June 26, 1968 when the ordinance of Ministry of Finance no.4 was revised, is the exact day when Ogasawara Islands and the Iwo islands where the United States had been exercising the administrative right were restored to Japan. This is the concrete evidence that those islands which were excluded from Japanese sphere "on administrative purpose"by SCAPIN677 were not actually "excluded" from the territory of Japan. In fact, the area which were also defined as "excluded from Japanese sphere ", such as the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands south of 30° North Latitude (including Kuchinoshima island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano (Nazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all other outlying Pacific Islands [including the Daito (Ohigashi or Oagari) Island Group, and Valece Vela (Okino-tori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Sangos (Nakano-tori) Islands], were returned to Japanese administration later with some exception. Then, naturally, the remaining territorial issue becomes Northern Territories issue, which currently in dispute between Russia, the Kurile Islands, and Takeshima.

This time, Korea's raising issue of Takeshima in two old Japanese laws actually gave us an good opportunity to confirm the fact that Takeshima in clause 3 of SCAPIN677 didn't exclude Takeshima from Japanese territory at all. Here, one of the grounds that South Korea insists on sovereignty of Takeshima disappeared once again.

“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第17回 昭和26年の「総理府令24号」と「大蔵省令4号」について 下條正男”

Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.

The 24th column “South Korean Government dug their own grave by publishing the English version of "The Dokdo/Takeshima Controversy" by Prof. Emeritus Naito Seichu and Mr. Park Byeong-seop.”

The 23rd column " Refutation against the report of South Korean Yonhap News Agency which misread the Mori Kohan(森幸安)'s "The Map of Tsushima(對馬輿地図)"

The 22th column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, 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 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”

The 19th column “"Korea Maritime Institute(KMI : 韓国海洋水産開発院), who lacks ability to read their own historical documents, criticized on Shimane Prefecture. "”

The 18th columnAbsurd and Peculiar Theory of Prof. Hosaka, plus the "Children and textbook nationwide net 21" and others' Getting "Out of Control.”

The 17th column “The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).

The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."

The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"

The 14th column “A reckless Courage of the Professor Kimishima Kazuhiko(君島和彦) of Tokyo Gakugei University(東京学芸大学).

The 13th column “Sins of Asahi Shimbun and Mr. Wakamiya Yoshibumi(若宮啓文).

The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”

The 11th column “South Korea's Misunderstanding of 'A Map of Three Adjoining Countries (Sangoku Setsujozu 三国接壌図)' by Hayashi Shihei(林子平)”

The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

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)."

References :

"Old Japanese Document Shows Dokdo Is Korean Territory"
Japan Denies Excluding Dokdo in Newly Found Papers (Choson Ilbo)

1946 - SCAPIN 677 (History of SF Peace Treaty #1)

1953 - Jul 22 - US Doc. Reconfirms Dean Rusk Letter (Memorandum by Mr. Robert A. Fearey of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs)
1954 - Report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East


2008 - Dec. 10 - South Korea' Expansionism/Territorial Ambition never dies.

In July, 50 South Korean lawmakers handed a resolution to their legislature demanding that the government claim Tsushima as its territory. But this time, according to Japanese newspaper Sankei Shimbun, they actually submitted the territorial resolution to the Diet subcommittee last December.

Korea's claim for Takeshima/Dokdo has no historical nor legal basis, as we have studied for the last few years. And as for Tushima, they neither have any historical basis to claim. As we know, Korean president Rhee Syngman originally claimed Tushima, before he started his absurd claim on Takeshima as well as non-existent "Parangdo" in 1949, but it was rejected by Allied Forces and Korean government officially agreed not to claim Tsushima.

However, it seems that they have no ability to understand history nor international law. This time, 50 members of Korean Diet submitted the resolution to claim Tsushma as their territory without any legal basis once again.

On January 18th 1952, the President of ROK Syngman Rhee (李承晩) suddenly issued a Declaration concerning maritime sovereignty, with which he installed the so-called “Syngman Rhee Line” including Liancourt Rocks in the Korean territory, it was three months before April when the Peace Treaty, which admitted Takeshima as Japanese territory, would be effective. The fishing boats, which were mostly Japanese, that violated the Syngman Rhee Line were seized by South Korea. Japanese records claim that until an agreement was reached in 1965, 3929 of Japanese people were arrested, 328 of Japanese ships were seized, and casualty was 44 of Japanese.

Korean have been illegally occupied Takeshima/Dokdo and refusing to go to ICJ to settle the dispute peacefully for more than 55 years. This time, Korea's expansionism went too far and I almost feel sad for their crazy action. Having said that, it is favourable for Japan since it simply proves the nature of Korea's greedy ambition for grabbing the land from Japan as much as possible and the lacks of ability of reading historical record and international law properly, which can be seen in Takeshima/Dokdo dispute as well. Now, it is apparent that Korean territorial claim on Takeshima/Dokdo is baseless and came out of greed just like in the case of Tsushima.

South Korea's territory resolution for Tsushima referred to the Diet subcommittee. (cache) Sankei Shimbun, Jan. 15, 2009

On 14th this month, it revealed that the diplomatic trade union committee of the South Korean Diet had referred "the resolution of demand the confirmation and restoration of Tsushima as a Republic of Korea's territory" in order to make Tsushima a South Korea territory. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarified it in "Assembly member league for the action to defend Japanese territory" general meeting.
This resolution was submitted by 50 assembly members of ruling and opposition parties in the South Korea Diet last July, and referred to this committee in August the next day. According to the ministry, the resolution was referred to the subcommittee on Dec. 10 last year and the subcommittee discussion will not have started yet, though the Minister of Diplomatic Trade of South Korea has declared that "The claim of sovereignty on Tsushima is inapposite" .

References ;
1951 - July 19th - The 2nd Conversation between Yu Chan Yang and John F. Dulles

1952- January: Syngman Rhee Line

Korea’s three 21st century invasions of Japan (Ampontan)


"Old Japanese Document Shows Dokdo Is Korean Territory"

A January 3 Korea Times article entitled, "Old Japanese Documents Shows Dokdo is Korean Territory," says the state-owned Korea Maritime Institute has discovered a Japanese document entitled "Prime Ministerial Ordinance No. 24," dated June 6, 1951, which "effectively excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory."

I do not know anything about the above Japanese document, but when "effectively" appears in a Korean Dokdo claim, that usually means the claim is exaggerated or untrue. The Korean article does not quote the Japanese document, which is another clue that the claim is exaggerated.

Besides, does it make sense that Japan would exclude Takeshima (Dokdo) from Japanese territory while insisting that the Peace Treaty recognize Japan's claim to Takeshima?


According to a January 8 article in Korea's Chosun Ilbo entitled "Japan Denies Excluding Dokdo in Newly Found Papers," Tokyo claimed that a piece of "1951 legislation only excluded Dokdo from areas under Japanese administration" at the time.

Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Akamatsu Takeshi said the following:

The two 1951 documents were revision of the relevant legislation of 1949 according to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction Notes (SCAPIN) No. 677 of the allied forces. The sphere of administrative authority and territorial space do not always match.
SCAPIN No. 677 excluded Takeshima (Dokdo) from Japan's governmental and administrative control in January 1946, but the instruction from the Supreme Commander was not meant to be a permanment exclusion, as the instruction, itself, said:

6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Postdam Declaration.

SCAPIN No. 677 only separated Takeshima (Dokdo) from Japanese "government and administrative control" until the status of Takeshima could be determined. Later, it was determined that Takeshima was, indeed, Japanese territory, as US Secretary of State Dean Rusk made clear in this 1951 letter to the Korean ambassador:

As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.
Accordingly, Takeshima was not included in the territory that Japan was to give up claim to in the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco. Therefore, between 1946 and March 1952, which was when the treaty when into effect, Japan did not have "governmental and administrative" control over Takeshima, which means it would have naturally been excluded from any Japanese legislation made during that period.

However, according to the Chosun Ilbo article, Korean experts claim the Japanese are "splitting hairs":

Korean experts have dismissed the distinction as splitting hairs. Shin Yong-ha, professor at the Ewha Academy for Advanced Studies of Ewha Womans University, said, "The reason why General Headquarters separated the Dokdo Islets from Japanese territory and specified it in SCAPIN No. 677 is because it judged after several months of investigation that the islets were part of Ulleung Island." SCAPIN No.677 used the term "the definition of Japan," not "the definition of Japanese administration," because it referred to the territory, Shin said. The two 1951 documents show that the Japanese government followed SCAPIN No. 677.
SCAPIN No. 677 did not say that the Dokdo "islets were part of Ulleung Island." In fact, it did not even mention the name "Dokdo." Moreover, the definition of Japan was given only for the purpose of the directive, as the directive, itself, said: "For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include...." You can read the full directive below:


29 January 1946

AG 091(29 Jan. 46) GS
(SCAPIN - 677)


THROUGH : Central Liaison office, Tokyo

SUBJECT : Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan.

Page 1

1. The Imperial Japanese Government is directed to cease exercising, or attempting to exercise, governmental or administrative authority over any area outside of Japan, or over any government officials and employees or any other persons within such areas.

2. Except as authorized by this Headquarters, the Imperial Japanese Government will not communicate with government officials and employees or with any other persons outside of Japan for any purpose other than the routine operation of authorized shipping, communications and weather services.

3. For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shinkoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands north of 30°North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island), and excluding (a) Utsuryo (Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks (Take Island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju Island, (b) the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands south of 30°North Latitude (including Kuchinoshima Island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano(Kazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all the outlying Pacific Islands (including the Daito (Ohigashi or Oagari) Island Group, and Parece Vela (Okinotori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Ganges Habomai (Hapomaze Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Akiyuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan Island.

Page 2

4. Further areas specifically excluded from the governmental and administrative jurisdiction of the Imperial Japanese Government are the following : (a) all Pacific Islands seized or occupied under mandate or otherwise by Japan since the beginning of the World War in 1914, (b) Manchura, Formosa and the Pescadores, (c) Korea, and (d) Karafuto.

5. The definition of Japan contained in this directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from this Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein.

6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Postdam Declaration.

7. The Imperial Japanese Government will prepare and submit to this Headquarters a report of all governmental agencies in Japan the functions of which pertain to areas outside a statement as defined in this directive. Such report will include a statement of the functions, organization and personnel of each of the agencies concerned.

8. All records of the agencies referred to in paragraph 7above will be preserved and kept available for inspection by this Headquarters.


(sgd.) H. W. ALLEN
Colonel, AGD
Asst. Adjutant General


1903 Japanese Textbook of Geography

This textbook is titled as "改定 外国新地理 附図" (Revised: New Geography of Foreign Countries - Supplement Maps) and was published by Sanseido (三省堂) which is one of the largest publishing companies in Japan. It was published in April, the 36th year of Meiji (1903) as you can see in the last page of the textbook (please see the second photo).

This book of maps seems to have been used as a texbook of high school because there was a handwriting of a name of a Japanese boy Kitahara who scribbled "Third year class B of Obama Middle School" (小浜中等学校) in a blank page. Middle Schools (旧制中等学校) in those days are equivalent to High Schools today. ..................

The year 1903 seems to be a very critical year because Korean Empire had just promulgated the Edict #41 three years ago and was two years before the incorporation of Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks).

Then, please look at the map of Korea in the book. It shows 欝陵島(松島) "Ulleungdo (Matsushima)" in the Sea of Japan but Liancourt Rocks were not included in the map. It is clear that Japan thought (and the world thought too) that Korea's easten limit was Ulleungdo, because many maps and books of geography clearly mentioned so.

So it is natural that Kimotsuki, a director of Hydrography Department of Navy, advised Nakai Yozaburo in 1904 that Liancourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea.

A Pro-Korean blog made by Steve Barber mentioned "........ the grounds for incorporation were clearly made known. Kimotsuki' s claim that Takeshima/Tokdo was owned by no one at all in 1904 was totally different from the past position taken by the Navy's Hydrographic Department, as stated already."

He wants to mislead and impress people that Japanese Navy had a malicious mind to invade Korea already in early 1900's and that Japanese Navy pretended Liancourt Rocks were ownerless islands although they were Korean islands, but his comments above are untrue.


2009 Version of my Dokdo Song

Good news. The 2009 version of my Dokdo song, “Is this the way to Dokdo Island,” is out. You can listen to it for free at the following link:

“Is this the way to Dokdo Island?”

I have changed a few lyrics and tried to pick up the tempo a little. It may still need some work, but I think it is a lot better than the 2008 version. It may take 40 to 60 seconds to load, but it should load. Enjoy.


I do not mean for the song to offend anyone, except for the Dokdo fanatics who have cut off fingers; stabbed themselves; killed live pheasants; displayed chopped up, boiled dogs; and burned, destroyed and eaten Japanese flags.


1946(昭和21)年2月13日 - 外務省外交文書「旧日本外地情況雑件  2.行政の分離に関する司令部側との会談 」

1946年2月13日、外務省黄田連絡官が連合国総司令部と会談を持ち、行政の分離に関する質問をした際の外交記録の存在が確認されました。これにより、連合軍総司令部民生部の担当官が日本外務省の連絡官に対して”行政の分離に関する指令(SCAPIN677)は、単なる連合軍側の行政的便宜のために設定されているに過ぎず、領土問題とは関連がなく、領土問題は後日締結される平和条約(サンフランシスコ平和条約( 1951年9月8日署名、 1952年4月28日発効) )で決定されるべき問題であること”と明確に回答していたことが、明らかになりました。

2. 行政の分離に関する第一回会談録(終戦第一部第一課)


CINPAC(Commander in Chief, Pacific : 太平洋軍最高司令官) ←CINCPAC (Commander‐in‐Chief, Pacific Command : 太平洋軍司令官) の誤記か?
この前の文書である「1.日本政府から外地の行政管理権分離に関する指令AG091(29 JAN.1946)GS及日本政府の報告書」の最後の部分にSCAPIN677の邦訳とその修正である677/1(1951年12月5日付)の原文が添付されており、民生局(GS)のいう"本指令"がSCAPIN677を指していることは疑いがありません。

韓国政府は、総司令部/連合軍総司令部(General Headquarters/ Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers)から日本政府宛てに出された訓令であるSCAPINs(Supreme Command for Allied Powers Instruction Note)のうち、行政の分離に関する指令である連合国総司令部訓令第677号 をもって「連合軍総司令部が竹島を日本の領土外に指定した」と主張しますが、この外交文書により改めて、本指令が単なる連合国側の便宜的措置であって領土に関する指令ではなく、領土問題は1952年に発効されたサンフランシスコ講和条約によって決定されるものであった、という事実が再確認されました。これは、訓令を発した当事者の連合軍総司令部の担当官が「SCAPINsが日本国の領土を規定するものではない」ということを、日本の外務省に明らかにしていることから、もはやSCAPIN677を根拠に領土権の主張を繰り広げることは、大変愚かなことであると言わざるを得ません。





さてその後、建国直後の1948年8月を皮切りに繰り返し対馬島返還要求をした大韓民国李承晩大統領は、連合軍と日本との講和条約にも対馬のみならず波浪島、竹島までも韓国領として明記するよう要求しました。その結果、講和条約の第五次草案(1949年 11月2日) までは 、‘Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima)’の名称が日本が放棄する韓国領の島として鬱陵島と並び明記されていたものの、それ以降の草案では、同月14日付のSebaldの書簡通り、韓国領としての明記がおとされました。1951年7月19日の米韓会談において、韓国は対馬の領有権主張を取り下げることに同意しましたが(このことから、現在対馬の領有権を主張している韓国人の行為は、領土拡張主義として非難に値すべきものといえます。)波浪島、独島(竹島)を韓国領として明記すよう再度求めました。しかし、同年8月10日付けの書簡において、米国国務長官ディーン・ラスクは「竹島は歴史的に韓国領として扱われたことがなく日本領であること」を韓国政府に通知しました。そして約一ヶ月後の同年9月8日、連合国と日本の間で、サンフランシスコ平和条約が結ばれ、総司令部/連合軍総司令部(GHQ/SCAPIN)による占領統治は終わりを告げ(つまり、占領軍の訓令であるSCAPINは効力を失い)、日本の独立が承認されました。そしてこの講和条約最終案において、竹島は最終的に日本が放棄する領土として明記されず、日本の領土として連合国により承認されました。1954年8月15日、大統領特命大使ヴァン・フリートが大統領に送った報告書においても、連合国としてのアメリカによる竹島の日本領としての認識は追認されています

ちなみに、このサンフランシスコ平和条約により、日本は朝鮮の独立を承認し、朝鮮に対する全ての権利・権原及び請求権を放棄しました。韓国は「韓国は日本と戦争状態になく、連合国宣言にも署名していない」として米英から署名国としての参加を拒否されましたが、起草段階からその草案を米政府により送付されていた上に、韓国領として対馬、波浪島、竹島を明記するように外交的に要求しており、実際に第5次案までは彼らの要求どおりに明記されていました。しかし後にこれらの3島に対する韓国の権原がない事実をアメリカにより指摘され、結局平和条約最終案からは韓国領から除外され、結果的に日本領として認められることになりました。この条約起草過程において竹島が、日本が放棄する領土から除外されていくプロセスは、日本の竹島領有権の証拠として重要な意味を持ちます。また、韓国は1965年の日韓基本条約の締結において、「日本国及び大韓民国は 1951年九月八日にサン・フランシスコ市で署名された日本国との平和条約の関係規定及び1948年十二月十二日に国際連合総会で採択された決議第百九十五号(III)を想起し、  この基本関係に関する条約を締結することに決定し...」として合意しており、署名できなかったことを理由に竹島問題においてサンフランシスコ平和条約を無効であるとすることは、本末転倒でしょう。

この文書は、Enjoy Koreaのkingfish氏が発見されたもので、oppさんに情報を頂きました。また、chaamieyさんの読解された難読漢字も追加しました。みなさん、ありがとうございました。英文に訳す前に、詳細について日本語で議論が出来ればと思い、既にYahoo!サイトでも紹介されていますが、大変重要な資料なので、こちらでも掲示しご意見を広く頂たいと思います。(この”黄田連絡官”は、年代等から後の外務事務次官、黄田多喜夫氏であると思われます。民生局(GS)の”「ロッヂ」大尉及び「プール」中尉”に関しては、今のところ不明です。

Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Directives to the Japanese Government (SCAPINs) (Record Group 331) - 対日指令集 -

1946 - SCAPIN 677

1946 - SCAPIN 1033




1946 旧日本外地情況雑件2.行政の分離に関する司令部側との会談_2


Korean Dokdo Documentary Flopping at Theaters

According to THIS KOREAN ARTICLE, the Korean documentary "I'm Sorry Dokdo" is flopping at Korean theaters. Besides showing on only about sixty screens around the country, some of the theaters are just squeezing it in between other movies or showing it at only midnight showings.

Instead of reinvigorating interest in the Dokdo dispute, which was the intent of the documentary, the film seems to be confirming a lack of interest in the dispute among Koreans, at least to the extent that they are unwilling to spend money to watch a documentary about it.

Actually, the documentary does not sound very interesting since it does not really deal with the historical facts of the dispute, but, instead, focuses on people who are involved in drawing attention to the fact that Korea currently occupies the islets, such as the old Korean man and his wife who live on one of the islets.

Though I am interested in the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute, I would not waste my time and money watching the above documentary, which seems to ignore the historical facts of the dispute.


A Korean Song: "Do you know Dokdo Island?"

According to THIS KOREAN ARTICLE, the following Korean song was written to help inform non-Koreans about the Korean claim on Dokdo. You be the judge of how successful it might be.

Anyway, the above Korean song inspired me to write my own Dokdo song, sung to the tune "Is this the way to Amarillo?" Listen to the original song while reading my lyrics. It might help.

Is this the way to Dokdo Island?

When the bird crap is falling
from Korea’s East Sea sky
How I long to be there
feeding gulls and dodging droppings.

Every poop-covered rock
I have ever seen
is just as ugly
as those in the East Sea.

Is this the way to Dokdo island?
Every year I’m chopping off fingers,
Screaming, yelling ’bout Dokdo Island
and future Jap invasions there.

Show me the way to Dokdo Island,
Just a couple of silly rocks.
Screaming, yelling ’bout Dokdo Island
And future Jap invasions there.

Sha la la la la la la la
Sha la la la la la la la
Sha la la la la la la la
Oh, I love the sea gulls there.

There’s a megaphone blaring
Korean shouts of hatred and suffering
over Dokdo Island
and those trying to steal her.

Just across the street
people pump their fists
cuttin up live pheasants
What a bloody mess!

Is this the way to Dokdo island?
Every year I'm chopping off fingers,
Screaming, yelling ’bout Dokdo Island
and future Jap invasions there.

Show me the way to Dokdo Island,
Just a couple of silly rocks.
Screaming, yelling ’bout Dokdo Island
and future Jap invasions there.

Sha la la la la la la la
Sha la la la la la la la
Sha la la la la la la la
Oh, I love the sea gulls there.

Sha la la la la la la la
Sha la la la la la la la
Sha la la la la la la la
Oh, I love the sea gulls there.

Oh, I love the sea gulls there.
Oh, I love the sea gulls there.

Sha la la la la la la la
Sha la la la la la la la