Below is a translation of The 24th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao
"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.”
On Nov. 4th, the National Assembly Library of South Korea released an English-translated version of the book titled "The Dokdo/Takeshima Controversy" by Naito Seichu, a Emeritus Professor of Shimane University and Mr. Park Byeong-seop. The book was already published by Shinkansha in Japan in March, 2007 and Korean version was published in March 2008 in South Korea. This English version is assumed to be "Part of the books excavation and the translation business promoted to share a historical fact that relates to Dokdo with the international society" and was published according to the instruction of Mr. Kim Hyong-o（金炯旿） who is a chairperson of the Diet of South Korea.Mr. Park Byoung-sup, whom Yonhap News Agency introduced as "a Korean Dokdo specialist residing permanently in Japan and a representative of "Takeshima = Dokdo research network", along with Naito Seichu, who serves as a emeritus professor at Shimane University in Japan, has been repeated baseless criticism/slander, such as "Criticism on Masao Shimojo" and "Criticism on Funasugi Rikinobu", through his "newsletter of half-moon"(半月城通信) and so on.
However, that is not the conclusion derived through the proper document criticism. If we look into the historical details why Takeshima, that had been named Matsushima in Edo period, was not named Matsushima but Takeshima in 1905, it explains naturally that today's Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) was not mentioned inDajokan Order.
On Nov. 15, 1904, Hori Shinji(堀信次), a secretary of the office of interior of Shimane Prefecture, inquired Higashi Bunsuke(東文輔), a Oki island governor, in regard to the naming of Takeshima, that had been called as "Ryanko". ("島嶼の命名に付、併せて御意見承知致度、此段及照会候也"). In reference to this, Higashi answered as follows.
However, there is a fatal defect in "The Dokdo/Takeshima Controversy". The authors seems to be under misapprehension that they had confuted Japanese claim by holding up only the points at issue which hardly influence the dispute over sovereignty of Takeshima.
In conclusion, publishing the English version of "The Dokdo/Takeshima Controversy" made South Korea disgrace herself in public, to all over the world, to expose the evidence that they have fabricated the false history by a groundless documents and cheated the international society.This time, his baseless claim was published and distributed to "the National Diet Libraries, diplomatic establishments, cultural academies in the United States, Germany and each countries plus foreign embassies in South Korea, and 326 of Library of Congress and Center for International Exchange, as well. Mr. Park's and Naito's true value is now exposed to the world under public scrutiny. Korean government, who distributed this "controversial" book to the world, drove herself into getting judged by the Historical Court of Justice before judgement by International Court of Justice they refused to go. However, the points of issue this book focused were criticism on the theory of "Inherent territory of Japan" by Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan and the instruction byDajokan , which said "Takeshima and another island is nothing to do with Japan" in 1877. If we look into these two points, the truth will come out of their own accord.
Prof. Naito's criticism on "the theory of Inherent part of the territory of Japan" started when Shimane Prefecture assembly enacted "Takeshima Day" ordinance on March 16, 2005, and Japanese MOFA wrote Takeshima as "the inherent territory of Japan" on its website. Prof. Naito criticized the theory of "the inherent territory of Japan" by MOFA by the article "Was Takeshima a Inherent territory of Japan?" published in 'World(世界)' magazine (June 2005 issue), and "Problem of the Takeshima as inherent territory theory" was announced in the No.69 edition of 'Hometown Iwami(郷土石見)' (August, 2005). His criticism on MOFA was compiled in the book " The compilation of translated articles on Dokdo, vol. I (独島論文翻訳撰I)" published by South Korean governmental organization, 東北アジアの平和のための正しい歴史定立企画団（ Northeast Asian History Foundation's former organization） on Dec. 2005, and it became Korea's crucial point of argument for offending Japan.
However, no matter how they criticize Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, South Korea's illegal occupancy of Takeshima never be justified as long as Korea keeps failing to show the evidence for their sovereignty on Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo til today. They have no rights to criticize Japan since Meiji government simply incorporated the island, which had never been Korean territory, into Shimane. Moreover, when Japanese Meiji government named the uninhabited island as Takeshima, they noted that "there were no traces of occupation by any other countries" so they "examined the matter and found that there is a fact of occupation (by Japanese) under the international law". This is one of the reason Japan claim the island as "inherent territory of Japan". Nevertheless, Prof.Naito criticizes MOFA since he stands on the assumption that Takeshima was Korean and twists that Japan had " invaded" it only because the incorporation was done in the middle of Japan-Russo war. It is not a right attitude for a researcher as it is same as interpreting the document through the one-sided preoccupation of the history.
The logical base Prof. Naito and Mr. Park rely on was the Dajokan Order in 1877, which says that "Takeshima and the other island has nothing to do with Japan." They call the incorporation as invasion since they misinterpreted "the other island" as today's Takeshima, and considered thatDajokan, the highest governmental organ of Japan, instructed that today's Takeshima is nothing to do with Japan.
"Originally, according to the folklore of populace, it is known that there are both Matsu/Take islands on the sea to the east of Joseon. However, up to now, Ulleungdo, which woodcutters and pioneers(樵耕者) from our area come and go, had been commonly known as Takeshima, but in fact the island in question is apparently Matsushima according to sea chart. In that case, there is no island to be applicable to the name of Takeshima except for this new island. Therefore, I take it for granted that we should divert this name(Takeshima), which we had been wrongfully called hitherto, to the name of the new island. (元来朝鮮の東方海上に松竹両島の存在するは一般口碑の伝ふる所、而して従来当地方より樵耕者の往来する欝陵島を竹島と通称するも、其実は松島にして海図 によるも瞭然たる次第に有之候。左すれば此新島を措いて他に竹島に該当すべきもの無之。依て従来誤称したる名称を転用し、竹島の通称を新島に冠せしめ候方 可然と存候)"
The reason Higashi, who was the governor of the Oki island, mentioned " in fact the island in question is apparently Matsushima according to sea chart" was because on the sea charts etc. published around the year ofDajokan Order in 1877, Takeshima(Argonaut), which the existence was not clear, and Matsushima(Daglet ), which in fact was Ulleungdo, were depicted. This is caused by the western maps which wrongfully located and named Takeshima and Matsushima according to Siebold's "the Map of Japan"(1840). "the Map of Japan"(1840) by Phillipp Franz Siebold applied the names Takeshima (Ulleungdo) to the non existent Argonaut and Matsushima to Dagelet or the real Ulleungdo island. This mistake was passed to the Japanese cartographers and made them depict Ulleungdo as Matsushima on sea charts and maps circulating in Japan. In other word, Matsushima which was mentioned as "another island" inDajokan Order in 1877, indicated Ulleungdo(Daglet), not today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks.
On the other hand, Liancourt Rocks, which was named as Takeshima and incorporated into Shimane in 1905, was found by a French ship, Liancourt, in 1949. And the 1864 edition of Admiralty Chart of Royal Navy mapped Takeshima(Argonaut), Matsushima(Ulleungdo), plus Liancourt Rocks(today's Takeshima). Among three islands, Takeshima(Argonaut) of unconfirmed whereabouts disappeared from 1876 edition of Royal Navy's sea-chart when it comes to sea-charts, and since then, Matsushima(Ulleungdo) and Liancourt Rocks were depicted. Therefore, Takeshima of today is not drawn though Takeshima (Argonaut) and Matsushima (Dagelet) are drawn in the maps produced referring to the sea-charts before 1876 versions.Japanese government finally realized this mistakes on the result of survey around Ulleungdo by the Warship Amagi in Sep. 1880. Kitazawa(北澤正誠), who was a non-regular employee of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, adopted this results of Amagi's survey in his book "A Study of Historical Evidence of Takeshima(竹島考証)" and "A Study of Historical Evidence of Territorial Issue of Takeshima(竹島版図所属考)", and they concluded that Matsushima, which was referred as "the other island（外一島）" so far was certainly a Ulleungdo. And Ulleungdo was called as Matsushima thereafter. This fact indicates that "the other island" in Dajokan Order in 1877, which said that Takeshima and other island has nothing to do with Japan, was not Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks but Ulleungdo.
Prof. Naito disregarded this fact and takes no assumption "the other island" was Takeshima of today every-time he see the Dajokan Order in 1877 and fabricated the false history, saying Dajokan, the supreme policy making authority, ordered Takeshima has nothing to do with Japan. However, as we had already seen, Prof. Naito's interpretation of the document is baseless, since Matsushima and Takeshima in 1877 Dajokan Order was identified as Ulleungdo and Jukdo(竹嶼, Korean name 竹島), which locates near Ulleungdo, respectively as a result of the survey done by warship Amagi in 1880.
This accurate/precise information and image of Ulleungdo was passed to Joseon, and in June,1882, Ulleungdo inspector Lee Gyu-on adopted this information and depicted Ulleungdo as Matsushima and Jukdo(Japanese call it as 竹嶼) as Takeshima(竹島) on his "Map of around Ulleungdo(欝陵島外図)". In next year, Nov. 1883, Higaki Naoe(檜垣直枝), a Junior secretary of the Ministry of Interior of Japan, submitted the report of his business trip to Ulleungdo, and Korean map of Ulleungdo was attached to it. This map reassured Matsushima in 1877 Dajokan Order, which said Matsushima as "Takeshima and other island", was Ulleungdo, not Takeshima of today. Meiji government based on "A Study of Historical Evidence of Territorial Issue of Takeshima" by Kitazawa at the time.
Consequently, according to the historical facts stated so far in this article, it is clear that Dajokan Order("Takeshima and another island has nothing to do with Japan") in 1877 doesn't include Takeshima of today. Therefore, there is no historical base for Prof.Naito's theory that Japanese government excluded Takeshima from its territory by Dajokan Order in 1877 and "invaded" the island in the middle of Japan-Russo war in 1905.
Additionally, Prof. Naito's criticism on "Theory of Inherent Part of the territory (of Japan)(固有の領土論)" is a totally groundless lie as well. The concept of "Inherent Part of territory(固有の領土)" indicates the territory which was yet to be occupied by other counties, just like northern territories of Japan (北方領土). What really happened was on January 28, 1905, Japanese government examined the matter and assured that " there were no traces of occupation by any other countries" and "there is a fact of occupation under the international law as it is clear from related documents" when they decide to incorporate Takeshima today into Shimane.
So far, Korean has been failing to prove Dokdo/Takeshima was their territory historically even after more than half century since they had invaded Takeshima. Under this cicumstance, it's absolutely meaningless for Prof. Naito to censure "Theory of Inherent Territory of Japan" by Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Therefore, South Korea, who included Takeshima inside Lee line and keeps illegal occupation of Japanese Takeshima until now, definitely deserves to be dubbed "An Aggressor Nation", while it is absolutelyunpardonable for them, who distort the history in order to claim the sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo, to accuse Japan falsely for aggressor .
On the occasion of publishing the English version of "The Dokdo/Takeshima Controversy", Mr. 柳鍾珌. the head of the National Diet Library, commented that "The international society correctly recognizes a historical fact and information on Dokdo through this book". However, against his will, all this book does is to advertise the distorted history for concealing the fact of the illegal occupancy by South Korea. If there is any patriotic sentiment in Korean's mind, I would say that they should collect the book right away in order to not disgrace the honorable history of the Republic of Korea anymore.
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 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 column “Absurd 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)."
English version of book on Dokdo released (Korea Herald, 2009.11.05)
1817 Aaron Arrowsmith's map of Japan and Von Siebold
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)
1877/78 - Watanabe Says Liancourt Rocks are Japanese (竹島考証 : 渡辺洪基 「松島之儀一」)1880 - Japanese Warship "Amagi" (軍艦天城) Surveys Ulleungdo and finds "Takeshima" is Jukdo.
1881 - Oki & Matsushima Same Color on 1881 Japanese Map ( Geographic Bureau of the Ministry of Interior (内務省地理局) 大日本府県分轄図 大日本全国略図)
1881 - 「竹島外一島之儀本邦関係無之について」再考−明治十四年大屋兼助外一名の「松島開拓願」を中心に− (島根県令境二郎「日本海内松島開墾之儀ニ付伺」,「内務権大書記官西村捨三の外務省書記官宛照会文書」)
1881年11月2日 - 「明治14年朝鮮蔚陵島へ入住の和我人民を撤諦せしめ爾後航行を禁する旨XX国政府へ照会す」(「別冊竹島所属考に明瞭なるか如く我の所謂竹島一名松島なるもの」)
1882 April 7 - King Kojong says Usando Neighboring Island of Ulleungdo (高宗実録 19卷, 19年 4月 7日 壬戌)
1883 - Japanese Map of Ulleungdo (朝鮮国蔚陵島出張桧垣内務省書記官復命ノ件)
1883年09月 - 「蔚陵島ニ邦人渡航禁止審査決議ノ件並ニ決済」 (「北緯37度30分東経130度49分の洋中に位する一の島嶼即ち日本称竹島或は松島朝鮮称蔚陵島の儀は、･･･（中略･･･）別冊竹島版図所蔵考記載の通りなり」)
1900年06月12日 - 在釜山領事官補赤塚正輔 「鬱陵島調査状況 山林調査状況報告の件」 (「鬱陵島ハ韓國江原道ニ屬シタル島嶼ニシテ松島又ハ竹島ト稱シ(東經百三十度八分二厘北緯三十七度五分)」)
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")
Pamphlet "10 Issues of Takeshima" by Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs
English [PDF] / Japanese [PDF] / Korean [PDF] / Arabic [PDF] / Chinese [PDF] / French [PDF] / German [PDF] / Portuguese [PDF] / Russian [PDF] / Spanish [PDF]