竹島問題の歴史

27.7.11

Korean President Bars Japanese Lawmakers from Korea

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has instructed his government to bar a group of Japanese lawmakers from entering Korea because they wish to visit the Korean island of Ulleungdo and the Dokdo Museum, which is a museum on the island that showcases maps and documents that Koreans say support their claim to Liancourt Rocks, which are called "Dokdo" in Korea and "Takeshima" in Japan. Both Korea and Japan claim sovereignty over the Rocks.
According to a July 27, 2011 article in Korea's Chosun Ilbo entitled "Lee Wants Japanese Lawmakers Barred from Dokdo Mission," the official reason for barring the Japanese is that "Seoul cannot guarantee their safety"; however, the chairman of Korea's Grand National Party (GNP) says they should be banned "because they're coming to deny Korea's constitutional order," whatever that means.

Why would it be dangerous for Japanese lawmakers to visit a Korean museum, and how does it "deny Korea's constitutional order"? Why would Korean authorities not want Japanese lawmakers to visit a museum that purportedly showcases evidence that supports Korea's historical claim to Liancourt Rocks?

The answer to all the above questions is that the Dokdo Museum is not an ordinary museum. It is an propaganda facility constructed to promulgate Korea's fabricated historical claims to Liancourt Rocks. Several of the exhibits there are distorted, childish models designed to brainwash school children and ignorant tourists, not Japanese lawmakers who are familiar with the history. It is pretty obvious that the real reason the Seoul government does not want the Japanese lawmakers visiting the Dokdo museum is that it fears the lawmakers will return to Japan afterwards and expose the blatant historical distortions being promulgated there.
Headlines should read as follows:
"Japanese Lawmakers Denied Entry to Korea for Wanting to Visit Korean Museum"

7 comments:

  1. Simple response!

    Koreans don't care where the four J-lawmakers want to visit.

    We are angry their intent to use this matter as a political show.
    They ignored the fact and truth that Dokdo is a Korean territory and there is no Takeshima except their immagination.

    Therefore, Koreans are angry their intent to use Dokdo for their political interest.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 한국 사람들은 무의식의 차원에서 한국이 독도의 정당한 영유권을 가지지 않는 것에 눈치채고 있을 것이다. 그러니까 일본의 국회 의원의 시찰에 의해서 한국의 주장의 허망이 밝혀지는 것을 두려워한다.
    만약 한국에 독도의 정당한 영유권이 있다면, 일본의 국회 의원이 100명이나 시찰하여도 두려워할 이유는 없다.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1. 한국사람들 두려워한다?

    --> 아니, 일본의 말도 안되는 주장에 분노하고 있다. 모든 한국인 독도가 한국 땅인 것을 알지만, 일본인은 어떤가? 독도가 한국 땅인지 아는 일본인이 더 많지 않은가?
    물론, 이제 일본의 거짓 역사교과서로 인해서 그걸 모르는 사람이 더 많을 수도 있겠다.

    2. 정당한 영유권이 있다면, 두려워할 필요없다?

    --> 정당한 영유권은 있는 것이다. 한국의 영유권을 무시하는 일본 국회의원의 입국금지 조치는 정당한 영유권이 있는 나라에서 할 수 있는 지극히 합법적인 조치이다.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Love Japan More!,

    The person reading this blog carefully knows that Korea has not ruled Takeshima (獨島(Dokdo) of the place where a Korean says) effectively.
    If the President of one country said to hear saying, "Japan looked straight at the history" that "Japan must not distort the history" to there, as for me, the successive Korean Presidents such as Kim Young Sam and Kim Dae-jung began Japan and Korea-affiliated study when I would have a problem with the Japan side. I compared Japan-Korea both claims, and which checked whether there was not contradiction logically one by one. As a result, what I understood is it is not Japan to have distorted the history, and to be a Korean person.
    A Korean side was not able to find the fact that ruled this island effectively even if I made a problem of Takeshima. Because territorial dispute is a problem of the international law, it is in a standard of evaluation whether both can show the evidence that it demands. In other words, I will search the issue of fact which accomplished the occupation with the indication of continuous and peaceful national authority. Japan is admitted in January, 1905 and sets fishery right and I issue a license of the sea lion hunting and do it and establish territorial sovereignty.
    "It is a symbol of the sovereignty recovery that I put the Tok-do together very first in a process of Japanese Aggression for the Korean Peninsula, and bookmaking is a done Korean territory, and is complete" and seems to be said to be it in Korea, but this claim contradicts a historical fact today. According to 請議書(Document to request to give an Imperial ordinance) of the "imperial palace newspaper" dated July 13, 1906 and great Korea empire Imperial ordinance 41st of October, 1900, the Korea government understands that I thought about Takeshima that out of the census registers and maps. In other words it is truth I was able to protest it, and not to have felt need of the protest.
    I am said "to be angry at the Japanese claim that is not talked" about, but I show an objective fact where can be wrong and point it out and will be a story to finish if I persuade you. There is not a meaning only by giving vent to feelings. Rather I may only enlarge the ditch and then will have a negative influence.
    You should show, "there is the fair dominium" whether it is a thing having what kind of proof. But grounds of the "right dominium" must be fair in light of international law. As for the Korean possession claim for Takeshima, there is not the thinking thing for the international law indeed historically as far as I know it either.


    -----------------------
    このブログを丁寧に読んでいる人は竹島(韓国人がいうところの獨島)を朝鮮が実効的に支配したことがないのを知っていますよ。

    私は金泳三や金大中といった歴代の韓国大統領が「日本は歴史を歪曲するな」「日本は歴史を直視せよ」と言うのを聞いて、一国の大統領がそこまで言うのなら、日本側に問題があるのだろうと日韓関係の勉強を始めました。日韓双方の主張を比べてみて、どちらが論理的に矛盾がないかを一つ一つ確かめていったのです。その結果わかったことは、歴史を歪曲していたのは日本でなく韓国の方だということです。

    竹島の問題にしても韓国側がこの島を実効的に支配した事実は見出せませんでした。領土紛争は国際法の問題ですから、それが求める証拠をどちらが提示できているかが判断の基準になります。すなわち継続的かつ平穏な国家権能の表示を伴った占有をなした事実の有無を探求していくことになります。日本は1905年1月に編入するとともに漁業権を設定し、アシカ猟の免許を交付するなどして領域主権を確立しています。

    今日、韓国では「独島は日本の韓半島侵奪の過程において一番最初に併呑された韓国の領土であり、完全な主権回復の象徴だ」などと言われているようですが、この主張は史実と矛盾します。1906年7月13日付けの『皇城新聞』や1900年10月の大韓帝国勅令第四十一号の請議書によると朝鮮政府は竹島を版図外と考えていたことがわかります。つまり抗議出来なかったのでなく抗議の必要を感じていなかったのが本当のところです。


    「日本の話にならない主張に怒っている」といわれますが、どこが間違えているのか客観的な事実を示して指摘し、説得すれば済む話でしょう。感情を爆発させているだけでは意味ありません。むしろ溝を広げてしまうだけかもしれず、そうなるとマイナスの影響を与えることになります。

    「正当な領有権はある」というのなら、それがどのような裏付けを持つものなのかを示すべきです。ただし、その「正しい領有権」の根拠が国際法に照らして正当でなければなりません。私の知る限り、竹島に対する韓国の領有主張は歴史的にも国際法的にもなるほどと思うようなものはありません。

    2011.7.30

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Love Japan More
    >정당한 영유권은 있는 것이다.<

    How do you prove Korea's legal sovereignty over Dokdo? Give me one nation that supports Korea's claim.

    Moreover, the Japanese lawmakers do not intend to make this a political show, but their visit might become one that is embarrassing to Koreans, if unreasonable outrage like the ones in the past happens and is broadcast all over the world.

    When receiving a foreign politicians’ visit, the gov't of a developed nation is expected to show its ability and commitment to ensure the safety of the guests. The Korean gov't demonstrates that it doesn't even have the "pride" to do so, thereby already admitting that Korea is not a first-class state.

    万全を尽くして外国の政治家の安全を確保するのが先進国のプライドなのにそれを韓国政府が放棄しているんだから既に自らが二流国家を名乗ったも同然なんだよ。
    雉を殺したり中途半端な切腹の真似事をしたり日章旗を燃やしたりと、見てる世界中の人々までが恥ずかしくなることはやめてほしい。

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Unknown
    Name one nation that supports Japanese claim. You want to talk about the Rusk Letter? Forget about it. It’s written long time ago and sent only to Koran ambassador in secret. If America truly supports Japan these days, why they did they keep silent over Dokdo issue?

    So their intention was successful, right? Korean government prohibited 3 Japanese lawmakers’ entry to Korea, because their intention was against Korea’s immigration control law How dare Japanese lawmakers did ignore Korean government’s warning? They were so rude. It’s surprising they are lawmakers in Japan.

    It was not their formal visiting. I know even in Japan, there were many people who opposed to their visit to Ulleungdo. Will Japan will welcome the Chinese lawmakers who come to Japan to have intentions to claim to Senkaku? Definitely no.

    ReplyDelete