Dokdo-or-Takeshima?

A Debate with Steve Barber (Frogmouth)

2011-12-16T04:07:00.002+09:00

I have been debating Steve Barber (Frogmouth) over at "The Marmot's Hole," where some people there do not like the subject of "Dokdo," so I am posting my last comment to Steve over there to this blog to give him an opportunity to respond here. I have invited him, so we shall see if he comes.

If you are interested in getting some background on the debate, you can go HERE and read up on it.
--------------------------------

Frogmouth wrote (#192):

Wrong very very wrong Mr Bevers. The Shogun did not give permission for Japanese to fish on Ulleungdo 1618. He alternately granted two families, the Oyas and Murakawas permission to voyage there and harvest resources in exchange for tributes. The voyage passes were for going to foreign lands. Japanese did not need permission to voyage to their own country.

The 1618 document was “permission to travel out to sea” (渡海免許) to an outlying island (落島), not to another country. To travel to another country, they would have needed a “red seal document” (朱印狀 – 주인장), which was the custom at the time, but the permission the two families received was not a “red seal document.”

A “red seal document” would have specified the country to which they were traveling. For example, if they were traveling to Korea, the document would have been worded something like this: “自日本到朝鮮國舟也,” which translates as “This ship is from Japan crossing to the country of Korea.” Besides, the only way permitted to travel to Korea at the time was through Tsushima (Daemado), which means “Takeshima” (Ulleungdo) was not considered part of Korea when the document was issued.

Frogmouth wrote (#192):

Saito Hosen’s report says this 州 is the lmilit of Japan. Here “州” means Province NOT place. And it certainly does not mean Ulleungdo Island because Saito Hosen uses the character “島” to mean island. In fact Saito Hosen used “州” consistenly throughout his report to refer to Oki Province.

In the 1667 document, Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) and Takeshima (Ulleungdo) were considered to be outlying islands of the Oki Domain (隠州), so the Oki Domain was considered to be Japan’s most northwestern territory because it stretched out to within sight of the Korean peninsula. Therefore, the document was not saying that Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was Japan’s most northwestern territory, but that the Oki Domain, which included the outlying islands of Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) and Takeshima (Ulleungdo), was Japan’s most northwestern territory.

Frogmouth wrote (#192):

Again wrong Mr Bevers. Korea wasn’t even aware Japan was voyaging to Ulleungdo and Dokdo because their was a vacant island policy. When Chosun found out Japan was visiting Ulleungdo they insisted Ulleungdo was theirs and the Japanese immediately agreed. There was no dispute just Japanese compliance. The area was declared off limits. No travel ban to Dokdo was issued because it would literally be suicide to voyage over a week round trip to desolate rocks, with no resources in very heavy seas.

You are being ridiculous, Frogmouth. Of course, there was a dispute over Ulleungdo in the 1690s, after Korean fishermen, including An Yong-bok, were caught fishing on Takeshima, which the Japanese claimed to be their territory. I am not even going to bother quoting all the back and forth between the two countries. The final result was that Japan recognized Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as Korean territory, but not Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks). Afterwards, Matsushima continued to be called “Oki’s Matsushima.”

Frogmouth wrote (#192):

Mr Bevers your assumptions and half-baked conclusions are laughable. Here’s what we know. Jang Han Sang saw Dokdo and gave a quite accurate assessment of its distance. He later stated that he could not see Japan. From these statements we know he did not consider Dokdo as Japanese territory.

Jang Han Sang guessed at the distance to an unnamed island (Liancourt Rocks) on the horizon and he was off by 30 km. His guess of the size of the unnamed island (Liancourt Rocks) was completely wrong since he guessed it to be no more than 1/3 the size of Ulleungdo, when, in fact, it is more like 1/390 the size.

Furthermore, he did not say “he could not see Japan”; he said Japan’s territory was “distant and hazy” (杳茫) with “no islands of significance” (無眼杓之島). Notice the 之 before 島, which means 眼杓 was describing the kind of island he saw. In other words, he saw an island (Liancourt Rocks), but it was “insignificant” (보잘것없는) since it was no more than 1/3 the size of Ulleungdo.

Frogmouth wrote (#192):

Again another incorrect translation from Mr Bevers. The document actually states Visible to the east of Ulleungdo is an island that is near or adjacent to the limits of JapanThus in reality this document shows Dokdo to be near but outside what the Koreans thought to be Japanese territory.

This is probably one of the more ridiculous claims you have made.
The Korean was as following:

鬱陵之東島嶼相望接于倭境

East of Ulleung (鬱陵之東 – 울릉지동) a small island is visible (島嶼相望 – 도서상마) that connects to Japanese territory (接于倭境).

接(접) means “to connect,” as in 접(接)하다 or 접속( 接續)하다. 于(우) means “to.” 倭(왜) means “Japanese.” 境(경) means “territory” or “border.” If you put them together you get, “connected to Japanese territory.” There was nothing said about it being “near” Japanese territory.

Frogmouth wrote (#194):

Actually Ulleungdo was incorporated during Shilla in 512 AD but the island was evactuated I think in the 16th Century.

Korea’s “empty island” policy started in 1403, which was the beginning of the 15th century, not the 16th. It lasted until 1883.

Frogmouth wrote (#197):

The measurements given on that report had nothing to do with the dimensions of Uldo County it was simply the size of Ulleungdo Island.

The measurements were for Uldo County because it was the subject of the sentence, Here is the relevant sentence:

該郡所管島는 竹島石島오、東西가 六十里오 南北이 四十里니, 合二百餘里라고 하였다더라.

[They said] the islands under the jurisdiction of the said county (該郡所管島는) are Jukdo and Seokdo (竹島石島오). From east to west it is 60 ri (東西가 六十里오). From north to south it is 40 ri (南北이 四十里니) for a total of 200 ri (合二百餘里).

The subject of that sentence is “the county” (該郡 – 해군), not the island. In fact, the whole article is about “Uldo County,” not Ulleungdo island.

Everything you wrote above were lies, Frogmouth, and it was not just because of your ignorance of Korean and Chinese characters. You do it intentionally, for reasons I do not understand.

1952 - Jan. - 『韓国沿岸水路誌』第一巻_韓国も竹島を「竹島」と呼んでいた

2011-12-13T23:38:00.003+09:00

下の史料は、檀紀４２８５年１月５日、韓国海軍本部水路官室というところが発行した『韓国沿岸水路誌』です。「竹島」という名前で、竹島＝独島が説明されています。(檀紀４２８５年は１９５２年です。)

図（表紙、奥付、「竹島」の部分、「鬱陵島と竹島」の部分）

同じ１９５２年の１月１８日には、李承晩ラインが宣言され、韓国は竹島を自国領と主張しました。この本が編集・刊行されたのは、まさにその直前、ということになります。「竹島」の写真もあり、まさしく、今の竹島＝独島です。

図（「竹島」の写真）２枚

項目名は「鬱陵島と竹島（獨島）」となっていますが、「竹島」の説明部分には「獨島」の名前はありません。目次でも、大きな項目として「鬱陵島と竹島（獨島）」としながら、「竹島」は「竹島」のままです。

図（目次）

「序」と「編集の言葉」の部分に、今年（＝１９５１年）８月に「海軍水路官室」が出来て、４ヶ月の奮闘の末に、ようやく韓国は自前の『水路誌』を持つことが出来た、と書かれています。それまでは韓国には外国の『水路誌』しかなかった、としています。

図（序、編集の言葉）

当時の韓国外務省や水産局がプッシュして無理やり李承晩ラインの中に竹島を取り込んだ１９５２年１月以前には、韓国海軍においては、独島に対する強烈な領有意識はなかったのではないかと思われます。あるいは無関心、と言うべきでしょうか。そして、ここには、「新羅以来の韓国の固有領土である独島が、１９０５年に日本に奪われ、１９４５年、解放とともに祖国の胸に帰ってきた」という「独島の物語＝神話」は、まだ全く存在しません。

そもそも、この本は、ほとんどが、日本側が出した（海軍省)水路部編『朝鮮沿岸水路誌』（昭和８年＝１９３３年）の翻訳と思われます。４か月でできた、と書いてあることからも、それが伺えます。（右側の四角をクリック　原文を見る）（vol １第３編　朝鮮東岸　鬱陵島及竹島）

しかも、まったくの丸写しではなく、新しい資料が取り込まれており、１９５１年末ごろの、韓国海軍＝韓国政府の、独島＝竹島認識の一端がうかがえるものだと思います。

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

『朝鮮沿岸水路誌』（昭和８年＝１９３３）と『韓国沿岸水路誌』（檀紀４２４１年＝１９５２）の比較

①

朝鮮沿岸水路誌（８９ｐ）

竹島（タケシマ）　　　此ノ島ハ日本海上ノ１小群嶼ニシテ島根縣隠岐島前ヨリ大約８６浬、鬱陵島ヨリ東南東方約５０浬ニ位シ幅１鏈餘ノ狭水道ヲ隔テテ東西ノ相對スル２島ト其ノ周圍ニ碁布スル幾多ノ小嶼トヨリ成ル（第８９頁對面對景圖第２５及２６参照）。

韓国沿岸水路誌（９１ｐ）

竹島　　　　이 섬은 東海上의 1小群嶼로서 鬱陵島에서 東南東方約５０浬에 位置하며

1鏈餘의狹水道를사이에두고 東西로相對하는2島와 그周圍에碁布하는

幾多의小嶼로서이루고있다。（第９２頁對面對景圖第２５及２６参照）

（翻訳）この島は、東海上の１小群嶼で、陵島より東南東方約５０浬に位置し、１鏈余の狭水道を隔てて東西に相対する２島と、その周囲に碁布する幾多の小嶼から成っている。（第９２頁対面対景図第２５及２６参照）

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

②

朝鮮沿岸水路誌（８９ｐ）

島上ニハ前記ノ如ク家屋ヲ建築スベキ地極メテ乏シク明治３７年１１月軍艦對馬ノ此ノ島ヲ實査セシ際ハ東方島ニ漁夫用ノ菰葺小屋アリシモ風波ノ為甚シク破壊シアリシト謂フ。

毎年夏季ニ至ラバ海驢獵ノ為鬱陵島ヨリ渡來スルモノ數十名ノ多キニ及ブコトアリ彼等ハ島上ニ小屋ヲ構ヘ、毎囘約１０日間假居スト謂フ。

韓国沿岸水路誌（９１ｐ）

島上에는 前記외같이 家屋을建築할만한 地域이 極히 稀少하다。毎年夏季가되면

海驢獵을為하여鬱陵島에서渡來하는者數１０名이라하며또春季부터鬱陵島로부터 和布（미역）及전복等의採取로數１０名의漁夫가渡來하며島上에 小屋을만들어

毎回約１０日間假居한다고한다。

（翻訳）島上には、前記の如く、家屋を建築すべき地が極めて稀少である。

毎年夏季になると、海驢猟の為に鬱陵島より渡来する者、数１０名と言い、また春季から鬱陵島から和布（わかめ）及び鰒等の採取に数１０名の漁夫が渡来し、島上に小屋を作り、毎回約１０日間、仮居するという。

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

③

朝鮮沿岸水路誌（９０ｐ）

位置　竹島ノ東方島ノ南端ハ明治４１年ノ測定ニ據レバ北緯３７度１４分１８秒、東経１３１度５２分３３秒ニ在リ。

韓国沿岸水路誌（９２ｐ）

位置竹島의東方島의南端은 檀紀４２４１年測定에依하면 北緯３７度１４分１８秒, 東経１３１度５２分３３秒에있다.

（翻訳）竹島の東方島の南端は、檀紀４２４１年の測定に依れば、北緯３７度１４分１８秒、東経１３１度５２分３３秒にある。　　　　　注：明治４１年＝檀紀４２４１年＝1908年

Korea to Build Underwater Park on "Dokdo" to Counter Japanese Claims

2011-11-25T15:01:00.000+09:00

According to an article in the Korean newspaper Dong-a Ilbo entitled "Breakwater, underwater park to be built on Dokdo islets," Korea plans to spend about $346 million to build an underwater park on "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks - Takeshima) to counter Japan's claim to the the rocky islets. Korea is upset that Japan listed "Takeshima" (Dokdo) as Japanese territory in middle school textbooks and in a "Diplomatic Blue Paper."

Here is my question: "How does building an $346 million underwater park counter Japan's historical claims to "Dokdo"?

"Tokyo teachers union denies Japan's claim to Dokdo." Really?

2011-10-31T15:22:00.003+09:00

According to an October 30 article in Korea's Dong-a Ilbo, a "Tokyo teachers union denies Japan's claim to Dokdo." Is the Korean headline true?

Here are what the newspaper says are quotes from the union.

The union said, "If schools teach the (Japanese) government`s unilateral opinion that Takeshima is Japanese territory illegally occupied by Korea, it could instill students with emotional nationalism."

"Dokdo is different from the Senkaku Islands (called the Diaoyu Islands in China), over which Japan has a terrestrial dispute, and the Northern Territory (Japanese name for the Kuril Islands), which is effectively governed by Russia."

The union added, "The history and civil ethics textbooks published by Ikuhosha, a right-leaning publisher which carries ultra-rightist opinions without reservation over history and territorial issues, distort history and antagonize the Constitution," adding, "Measures must be beefed up to block them from reaching students."

A union source said Friday, "When we teach this part, we will objectively teach students that Korea and Japan have differing views over Takeshima," adding, "We hope to contribute to efforts to find a peaceful resolution."

Instead of "denying Japan's claim to Dokdo," the union seems to be saying that it wants to "objectively teach students that Korea and Japan have differing views over Takeshima."

That's fine, but will they just teach that "Korea and Japan have differing views" or will they also look at the evidence for the two claims? If they just teach that Korea and Japan have differing views on Takeshima, then they are not really teaching anything, are they?

If they were to look at the historical evidence, then they would find that Korea does not really have any to support her claims. Korea has no old maps showing Takeshima (Dokdo), by any name. Korea has no old documents showing that Koreans ever traveled to Takeshima before Japanese started taking them there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s. And the only Korean references to Takeshima before the Japanese incorporated the rocky islets in 1905 are just vague references to a distance, unnamed island being visible from Ulleungdo. The Korean references suggest that Koreans could see the islets, but never traveled to them and even believed them to be Japanese.

Also, did the Tokyo teachers' union really refer to Takeshima as "Dokdo," as is quoted in the Dong-a Ilbo article?

I think Tokyo's teachers' union needs to start doing its job of teaching students the history of Takeshima instead of playing diplomat by ignoring the historical facts just to appease Korea.

1907 - 大韓新地誌 - 南章熙

2011-10-25T05:16:00.001+09:00

1908 - 問答大韓新地誌 By Tʻae-gŭk Yi

2011-10-25T05:10:00.002+09:00

1954 Aug 6 - "South Korea, Problem Nation"

2011-10-18T05:13:00.000+09:00

In an August 6, 1954 editorial entitled "South Korea, Problem Nation," the Meriden Journal suggested that South Korea was being too bellicose and gave its seizure and occupation of "the Takeshima Islands in the Sea of Japan" as just one example.

"The Ambabassador and VFM Yachi Discuss Liancourt Rock Dispute"

2011-09-07T05:31:00.001+09:00

The following is supposedly a SECRET document posted by Wikileaks that describes an April 20, 2006 conversation between former US Ambassador to Japan J. Thomas Schieffer and Japan's Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs Shotaro Yachi concerning the proposed 2006 Japanese maritime survey of waters near Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo). The interesting quote from the document is the following:

2. (S) The Ambassador stated the United States understands that Japan is within its rights under international law. The Koreans are behaving irrationally, and the United States is concerned that they may do something crazy, causing a major problem. Everyone needs to back off, he stressed, to enable the matter to be resolved peacefully. We do not want our two allies shooting at each other, he asserted. The Ambassador advised that he might get in touch with FM Aso later in the day.

Here is the whole document, as posted HERE at The Kyungyang Shinmun web site.

THE AMBASSADOR AND VFM YACHI DISCUSS LIANCOURT ROCK DISPUTE

S E C R E T TOKYO 002154

SIPDIS

SECDEF PASS TO DUSD LAWLESS

NSC PASS TO D. WILDER AND V. CHA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/20/2026

TAGS: PREL MARR KS JA

SUBJECT: THE AMBASSADOR AND VFM YACHI DISCUSS LIANCOURT ROCK DISPUTE

REF: TOKYO 002098

Classified By: Ambassador J. Thomas Schieffer. Reason: 1.4 (b)(d).

1. (S) At 11:00 a.m. on April 20, the Ambassador spoke with VFM Yachi, at Yachi‘s request, regarding simmering tensions between Japan and the ROK over a planned Japanese maritime survey near the disputed Liancourt Rocks (reftel).

He explained, briefly, that the ROK intended to propose to an international commission in June that features on the bottom of the sea in the disputed area be given Korean names. Japan wants to survey the area in order to make a counter-proposal at the meeting. Korea, Yachi stated, may use force to block the survey ship. Yachi further noted that he might travel to Seoul the following day, April 21, to try to resolve the matter peacefully.

2. (S) The Ambassador stated the United States understands that Japan is within its rights under international law. The Koreans are behaving irrationally, and the United States is concerned that they may do something crazy, causing a major problem. Everyone needs to back off, he stressed, to enable the matter to be resolved peacefully. We do not want our two allies shooting at each other, he asserted. The Ambassador advised that he might get in touch with FM Aso later in the day.

3. (C) Yachi thanked the Ambassador for his concern and said he would do his best. He requested that the Ambassador send an Embassy representative to the Foreign Ministry to hear Japan’s position on the issue.

SCHIEFFER

1902 - "On the Coasts of Cathay and Cipango Forty Years Ago"

2011-08-29T22:30:00.000+09:00

In an 1902 book entitled On the Coasts of Cathy and Cipango Forty Years Ago, Englishman William Blakeney recounts his experiences traveling in the Far East between 1857 and 1862 on the British ship Actœon. On page 191, he describes his ship's visit to "Dagelet Island" (Ulleungdo) in June 1859 as follows:

The Actœon hove to for a few hours off Dagelet Island, which emerges in solitary grandeur from the floor (2,000 feet deep) of the Japanese Sea, and rises to 4,000 feet above it. It lies 100 miles distant from the mainland of Korea, is clothed with forest from the verge of perpendicular cliffs of 500 feet, and is 20 miles in circumference. On every side were herds of seals, filling the air with sorrowful sounding cries, perhaps from terror at our appearing. We could make no headway through the dense undergrowth. La Perouse discovered this island in 1786, but there is no record of his landing.
A few half-starved Korean fishermen were collecting seaslugs, etc., for Chinese epicureans, but had only a ramshackle old junk in which to make the passage across a stormy sea in almost perpetual fog. A weird and lonely spot is Dagelet Island.

1897 - "The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia," Vol. X

2011-08-29T05:30:00.001+09:00

The 1897 edition of "The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia," which was published in New York, listed "Hornet Island" (Liancourt Rocks) as Japanese territory on page 237.

1895 - "The Korean Repository": Vol. 2 (Page 412)

2011-08-28T20:42:00.001+09:00

In an 1895 book entitled "The Korean Repository" (Vol. 2), F. H. Morsel describes "Wolung Do" (Ulleungdo), on pages 412-413, as having an islet that was a quarter of a mile off the southeast shore of the main island that was about 500 feet high and was named "Wo-san" (Usan).

In spite of a discrepancy in compass direction and distance, Mr. Morsel was almost certainly describing Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도), which is about one and quarter miles off Ulleungdo's northeast shore.

WOLUNG DO
WOL-UNG-DO or Matsusima as it is called by the Japanese, is an island off the east coast of Korea, 37° 48' north latitude and 130° 17' east longitude. It is about 190 miles from Fusan, 170 from Wonsan and 63 miles direct from the coast. 1 think this will be found more correct than the position given by the charts in common use, with the exception of those surveys made by the Japanese and Russians.

Explorers of those waters first named the island Dagelet. Some navigators gave it the position of another island and called it Argonaut and so named it on the charts. About 50 years ago, careful surveys were made by Russian, English and French navigators and it was then found that the island Argonaut had no existence, only Dagelet. There is no doubt the sailors who first located Argonaut, after leaving Dagelet got into a fog and after a day's sail, with perhaps contrary winds and currents, sighted Dagelet again and placed it cn the chart as another island.

Wol-ung-do is a gem in the sea. Notwithstanding its distance from the mainland the right of the Korean government to the island, has never been questioned by the Japanese government. The length from east to west is about ten miles, from north to south abont six and a half. Seen from the distance it looks like a dark towering rock, but on nearer approach it will bo seen to be composed of a collection of conical hills, with a peak 3000 feet high rising from the center and having the appearance of being supported by the smaller ones. The shore is steep and rugged; on all sides the water is very deep. A number of detached rocks, some having a height of 300 feet, are found near by. On the south east is an islet, called "Wo-san, about 500 feet high, a quarter of a mile from the main island with a deep passage between the two.

Unless examined closely, a landing seems impossible, but between Wo-san and the point projecting from the main land, there is a small beach and here close to the shore a vessel can find anchorage in from 16 to 25 fathoms, but even this harbor is available only in fine weather.

The inland is not inhabited, at least not permanently. In the spring Koreans visit it and remain until autumn and occupy their time building junks which are taken to the coast and sold. The island is not cultivated further than what is required to sustain the junk builders during their stay. There is good, fresh, cool water on the island.

W'ol-ung-do, whatever the Korean meaning may be. is an emerald gem of many shades. The whole island is rich in vegetation, wild flowers abound while among the trees are found the cedar, pine, teak, camphor and fir. The first three mentioned are not only numerous, but some of them are very large. Pine and teak from three to four feet in diameter can be found while the grain of the teak when sawed presents beautiful patterns. The camphor tree is not so plentiful, as most of the trees of this species have been pilfered. It is well worth the while of the owners of this beautiful spot to take good care of it and to guard its riches, for the island from its outer appearance is not alone a gem, but it is a real gem from the standpoint of the mineralogist, but where the door is open every one thinks he has a right to enter.

The rocks are of granite formation with veins of quartz and and gneiss. Gold, cinnabar, Dragon's blood or red sulphur of mereury are among the minerals found in the island. I believe others will yet be found, and it is for this, more than for its valuable trees that I call it a gem in the sea.

Japanese junks at times visited the island, camphor and teak are cut in convenient lengths, loaded and taken to the Kobe and O-aka market.

In 1884 a British subject, a friend of mine, obtained permission from the Korean government to cut timber on this island. The season was late and the emeute of December came on, so that he did not reach the island until the following March when he went there with fifty Japanese wood cutters. He spent four or five months felling trees, but was disturbed by a company of Japanese who likewise came armed with permission from the Korean government to cut timber. A dispute naturally arose, a lawsuit followed, which ended in wind, my friend Jen the island and the same party of Japanese made a second visit and took all the cut timber to Kobe.

F H. Morsa

1905 - May - Aug.: "The Outlook," Vol. LXXX (Page 818)

2011-08-28T18:16:00.003+09:00

"The Outlook" was a weekly newspaper published in New York, but, apparently, four months of articles were also compiled into a book, from which the article below is found.

In a July 29, 1905 article entitled "The Destruction of the Baltic Fleet" (pp. 811 - 819), the author George Kennon mentioned Liancourt Rocks (p. 818) in his description of the Japanese victory over the Russian fleet. When he mentioned Liancourt Rocks, he put in parentheses "Takeshima," which shows that, in July 1905, Americans already knew about Japan's incorporation of "Takeshima."

1909 - "Asiatic Pilot" - Description of Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks

2011-08-28T17:40:00.001+09:00

Below is a description of "Matsu Shima" (Ulleungdo) and "Hornet islands (Liancourt Rocks) from the 1909 edition of "Asiatic Pilot: East cost of Siberia, Sakhalin Island and Korea" (Page 189).
One thing I found interesting about the article was this: "A rock or islet lies off Seal Point, the southern extreme of the island." This interests me because a "rock or islet" appeared at that position on some old maps of Ulleungdo, but there no longer appears to be anything there today. I wonder if it was destroyed or removed for some reason.

ISLANDS IN THE JAPAN SEA
    Matsu Shima (Dagelet Island) is a collection of sharp conical hills, clothed with wood, crowned by an imposing peak, 4,000 feet high, in the center, in Lat. 37° 30' N., Long. 130° 53' E. The island is 18 miles in circumference and semicircular in shape.

    There are several rocks or islets along the coasts of Matsu Shima, principally, however, on the northern and eastern sides, some reaching an elevation of 400 to 500 feet. A rock, with a depth of 2 to 3 feet, lies on the northeastern side of Matsu Shima, with Boussole rock, near its eastern extreme, bearing 200° about 2 3/4 miles. With the exception of this rock, they are all, like the island, steep-to, and the lead affords no warning; but none of them are more than 1/4 mile from the cliffs, except Boussole rock, the largest, which is 1,400 yards from the northeast coast. Hole rock, on the northern shore, is remarkable from having a natural archway through it, while nearly abreast it on the shore is a smooth but steep sugar-loaf hill, apparently of bare granite, about 800 feet high. A rock or islet lies off Seal Point, the southern extreme of the island.

    The sides of the island are so steep in most places that soundings from a boat could only be obtained, almost at the base of the cliffs. Landing may be effected in fine weather on the small shingly beaches which occur at intervals, but the greater part of the island is inaccessible. Anchorage is charted southward of Boussole rock.

    During the spring and summer months some Koreans reside on the island; their principal occupation is to collect and dry large quantities of shellfish.

    Hornet islands (Liancourt rocks) are described as being two barren rocky islets, covered with guano, which makes them appear white; they are about a mile in extent northwest and southeast, \ mile apart, and apparently joined together by a reef. The western islet, elevated about 410 feet above the sea, has a sugar-loaf form; the easternmost is much lower and flat topped. The water appeared deep close-to, but these rocks are sometimes dangerous at night from their position, being near the track of vessels steering up the sea of Japan for Hakodate.
    Position—According to a survey made in 1908 by the Japanese Government, the eastern islet is situated in Lat. 37° 14' 18" N., Long. 131° 52' 22" E.

1906 Aug - "Korea Review," Vol. 6 -- "Ul-leung Do"

2011-08-28T15:17:00.005+09:00

Below is an interesting August 1906 article from the Korea Review entitled "Ulleungdo." What I found especially interesting about the article was the following description of Ulleungdo:

The main island is about eighteen miles long from east to west and perhaps twelve miles wide. There are several little rocky islets near it.

Notice that it gave the dimensions of Ulleungdo and said that it had "several little rocky islets near it." The Korean for "rocky islets" is seokdo (石島 - 석도). Nothing was said about Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks), which is ninety kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo.

THE KOREA REVIEW
AUGUST, 1906.
UI-Ieung Do.
(DAGELET ISLAND.)
For the Korean, the far-away, isolated island group in the Japan Sea is well named Ul-leung, which may be freely translated "Lonely Forest Expanse." On the mariners'chnrts it is called Dagelet Island, doubtless after some early explorer in this region. To the Japanese it is known as Matsushima or Isle of Pines. It lies 400 li (120 miles) off the eastern coast of Korea, almost due east from the town of Sam-ch'uk which is the point of embarkation for the infrequent craft which ply to the island. With a good west wind Korean boats reach the island in two days. It is this distance which lends enchantment and which has worked so powerfully upon the imagination of the people. In their estimation the island of Quelpart is comparatively near. No one was ever banished to Ul-leung. It would be too cruel a fate. It would be exile, not mere banishment in the Korean sense.
    Anciently the Chinese named this island Mu-reung, "Military Hill," after the name of a certain celebrated spot in China, but later they concluded that this name was too honorable for the distant and uninhabited island; so they changed it to U-reung or "Wing Hill." There is poetry in the name, for the main island is not unlike in shape to a wing spread out upon the sea.
    Isolated as this spot is it is not unrenowned in history. The Sam-guk-sa, the most ancient of Korean histories, states that under the name of U-san a Kingdom or tribe existed on the island in the days of ancient Silla. How it became known to Silla that the island was inhabited we are not told but we know that, in 513 A. D. during the reign of the Silla King Chi-jeung, the great general Yi Sa-bu, "Chief of A-Silla"* devised a way of conquering the semi-savages of this U-san without the shedding of blood. He fashioned a number of wooden lions and placed them in the prows of his war boats. As he neared the coast of the island and the startled natives saw these lions gaping with red mouths and glittering eyes, and heard the threat of the general that if they did not surrender at discretion he would let loose the horrid beasts upon them, they fell on their knees at once and did obeisance to Silla. At this time the name Ul-leung Do was conferred.

The main island is about eighteen miles long from east to west and perhaps twelve miles wide. There are several little rocky islets near it.
In the year 1160 Kim Yu-rip the governor of Kangwun Province was so adventurous as to make a trip to this island. His report is interesting and shows that he was a fairly keen observer. He said in his report to the King at Songdo that he had climbed to the crest of the central mountain peak and found it 13,000 paces from the west coast and from the summit to the east coast was 10,000 paces. From the summit to the south and north coasts was 15,000 and 8,000 paces respectively. This would make the island 23,000 paces long and the same in width. Reckoning even three feet to a pace, which is excessive, we should have about fourteen miles. We imagine he measured it with his eyes rather than his feet, but in any case his estimate was fairly accurate.
He reported that he found seven places where villages had formerly existed. He also found a bell, a pagoda, stone images and trees that had been planted by man. But at that time the island was without inhabitants.
FOOTNOTE: *It is surmised by some that the "a" of this A Silla meant "great." It is probable that the word Silla is of purely native origin and not of Chinese derivation. The "A" is probably identical with the Japanese O meaning great.

He said furthermore that he had seen in histories that in the thirteenth year of King Wang-gbn's reign, 931 A. D., tribute had been sent to Songdo in the shape of toraji, a species of campanula, used for food and medicine and also beans. His opinion was that the land was very fertile and he stated that the pine forests were magnificent. He could make no definite estimate of the number of people who were living there at the beginning of the dynasty, 918 A. D., but he found slab's of stone {probably slate) with which the houses were roofed.
At the time of the founding of the present dynasty, 1392 A. D., this island had become a place of refuge for criminals. In 1400 a government detective of Sam-ch'uk, named Kim In-u, went to the island and persuaded some of the refugees to come back to the mainland and submit to the authorities. He reported that bamboo, the size of a pine tree, flourished on the island and that the rats there were as large as cats.* Not fearing contradiction he affirmed that the peach stones there are as large as a man's two fists!
In the days of King Se jong, the palmy days of the present dynasty, 1437 A. D., a man named Nam was appointed to have charge of the island. At that time some seventy refugees, all of the Kim family or clan, were living there.
In 1470 a man named Pak Chong-wun visited the island and was detained there several months because of the weather. He found no inhabitants but brought back to the King an offering of bamboo of enormous size and some oysters to match.
    From early in the present dynasty the government sent a military officer to the islaud once in three years. He took fifteen axes and brought back samples of wood and other vegetable products.
    Japanese connection with the island began at least twenty years ago. They had
FOOTNOTE: *This through mistranslation probably gave rise to the storv that the shores of Ul-leung are infested with huge rats and the forests with 'wild cats ami that the two have periodical pitched battles.

discovered the splendid pine timber and began to help themselves. Koreans in greater or smaller numbers have occupied it for the better part of a century. In 1886 it was the writer's fortune to meet a man named Mitchell who had obtained some sort of concession to cut timber on Ul-leung and was on his way to Seoul in connection with the business. Complaints were frequent lietween the years 1880 and 1895 that Japanese were denuding the island of its fine growth of pine. Representations were made, we believe, by the Korean government and an attempt was made to put an end to this thieving but with poor success.

In 1898 the government began to take a more lively interest in that outlying domain and put the island in charge of an officer called a Kam and later, in 1900 placed a prefect there and named the place Mu-ta-dong or "District of the Fog Star," not inappropriately, since the prevailing rains are all from the east. The island was carefully measured and found to be sixty li (eighteen miles) from east to west and and forty li (twelve miles) from north to south.
The products of the island as reported today are bamboo, pine timber, peaches, a wood called sung-nam (石楠), rattan, cedar, reeds, a sea animal "like a cow with red eyes but no horns," [probably the sea lion]. This animal is called kaji by the Koreans and they say it will attack and kill single men but will retreat to the water before a number of men. It is said the mountain ginseng abounds there but no one dares to bring it to the mainland, because if the attempt is made the boat will surely be wrecked. In verification of this the Koreans relate the story of a Japanese who defied the augury and took a basket of the valuable roots on board a boat in a basket. The trip was a stormy one and at last the waves became so high that the impious man threw the Jonah overboard; whereupon the sea calmed at once!
At the present time there is a Korean population of 3,500 living in 600 or 700 houses. There are some Japanese police there to keep order between Koreans and Japanese, though up to a recent time, there were almost no Japanese resident on the island.

Little as the Koreans know about Ul-leung they prize its possession very highly and consider it an important part of the empire. The most valuable product is the pine lumber, which is so large that the finest and largest coffins can be made of it withont showing a single knot in the wood! Ul-leung pine is always requisitioned for royal burial caskets

The Diplomat: "Why Dokdo Matters to Korea"

2011-08-18T18:31:00.004+09:00

The Diplomat, which describes itself as "the premier international current-affairs magazine for the Asia-Pacific region," has posted an online article entitled "Why Dokdo Matters to Korea." I did not like some of the things said in the article, so I wrote the below comment.

One of the claims in the article is that the Japanese lawmakers who were denied entry to Korea a couple of weeks ago were "attempting to visit the disputed islands of Dokdo/Takeshima." Another is that "Japan’s annexation of the islands [Dokdo/Takeshima] was among the first in a series of actions that led to the colonization of the peninsula."

Here is how I responded to the article, though it includes a few corrections to mistakes I found in my comment after it was posted:

There are many problems with this article.

First, the Japanese lawmarkers did not go to Korea to visit “Dokdo” (Takeshima). They went there to visit the Dokdo Museum on the Korean island of Ulleungdo, which is about ninety kilometers northwest of “Dokdo.” The museum houses maps and documents that Koreans say support their claim to “Dokdo.” The Japanese stated that they had no intention of visiting the disputed islets.

Second, Korea refuses to take the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) not because Koreans have some “powerful historical memory” of Japanese colonial rule, but because Korea has no maps or documents to support any historical claim to “Dokdo.” In other words, Korea knows the ICJ would rule against her.

The reason Korea has no maps or documents is that her claims were all fabricated shortly after World War II with the hope that she would be able to gain Japanese territory, which included not only “Dokdo” but also the Japanese island of Tsushima. The United States, however, rejected Korea’s claims. In an August 9, 1951 letter to the Korean ambassador, US Secretary of State Dean Rusk wrote the following.
“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 jurisdiciton of the Oki Islands Branch of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea….”
Korea never even attempted to provide the US with evidence to support her claim. Instead, Korean President Syngman Rhee simply declared “Dokdo” Korean territory after the 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan, which allowed Japan to keep the island.

After visiting the Far East in 1954, US Special Mission Ambassador James Van Fleet wrote the following in his post-mission report:
"The Island of Dokto (otherwise called Liancourt and Take Shima) is in the Sea of Japan approximately midway between Korea and Honshu (131.80E, 36.20N). This Island is, in fact, only a group of barren, uninhabited rocks. When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the Republic of Korea asserted its claims to Dokto but the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty. The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory, we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea."
While Korea has no old maps showing “Dokdo,” by any name, or any documents showing that Koreans ever visited the islets before the Japanese started taking them there as deckhands on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s, Japan has maps of the islets dating back to the 1600s and documents clearly describing them. Also, Japan officially incorporated “Takeshima” (Dokdo) into Shimane Prefecture in February 1905, after receiving a 1904 request to do so by a Japanese fisherman who was using the islets to capture and process sea lions.

The incorporation of Takeshima had nothing to do with the colonization of Korea. The islets were just a small group of rocks that had little or no strategic value and were not a part of Korea, so it is wrong for the writers of the article to write that “Japan’s annexation of the islands was among the first in a series of actions that led to the colonization of the peninsula.”

Korean “outrage” over Japanese claims to “Dokdo” is the result of about sixty years of fabricated Korean propaganda. It is not Japan who refuses to discuss the issues in the dispute; it is Korea. To solve the problem, Korean historians need to start telling the truth about the history of “Dokdo.”

1955 - “Introduction to Dokdo Issue (獨島問題概論)” - ROK Government Blotted out Rusk Note to hide the truth from its own Diplomats.

2011-08-15T23:02:00.003+09:00

In 1955, ROK Minisitry of Foreign Affairs published the book titled “Introduction to Dokdo Issue (独島問題概論)”. The purpose of this book is, according to the preface written by KIm Dong-Jo(金東祚), a Minister of Foreign Affairs of ROK, to help Korean diplomats’ at overseas agencies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs aquire better understandings on Dokdo Issue. However, the “American Embassy’s Note Verbale No.187” which dates on 4th Dec. 1952 attached in the 6th of “ANNEX” section of the book had crucial flaw for better understanding of the Issue.

“Introduction to Dokdo Issue (獨島問題概論)”(1955)

ANNEX 6

No. 187

The Embassy of the United States of America presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and has the honor to refer to the latter’s note of November 10,1952 stating that a single engine airplane described as being under the Command of the United States Forces in the Far East dropped bombs on Dokto Island on September 15, 1952. The embassy is advised that the limited amount of information provided in the Ministry’s note as well as the very long time which has elapsed since the incident is said to have taken place make it virtually impossible for the United Nations Command to determine the facts in the case. Preparations have, however, been expedited to dispense with the use of Dokto island as a bombing range, etc.

American Embassy,

Pusan, December 4, 1952

Note that it ends with “etc”. If you see other documents in the Annex, they add “etc” for the section they omitted mainly because it has not direct relationship with the Issue of Dokdo/Takeshima. However, As was shown in the previous post, original American official Note No.187 dated on 4th Dec. 1952 had contained the part of notification of Rusk Note following the bombing matter and it clearly denied ROK claim on Dokdo and warned her that U.S. considered Takeshima/Dokdo is Japanese territory. ROK government apparently blotted out to conceal the fact that their claim on Dokdo had been already rejected by U.S. , leaving the islets to Japan, from its own diplomats. Check the original document below.

“American Embassy’s Note Verbale No.187” dates on 4th Dec. 1952.

No. 187

The Embassy has taken note of the statement contained in the Ministry's Note that "Dokdo Island(Liancourt Rocks)...is a part of the territory of the Republic of Korea". The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this islands was stated in Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk's note to the Korean Ambassador in Washington dated August 10, 1951.

American Embassy,

Pusan, December 4, 1952

As has told in the previous post, ROK government used the fact that U.S.’s suspension of the bombing on Liancourt Rocks after Korean fishermen/women were almost killed on 15th September, 1952. The document was thus included in the book for the purpose to reinforce their logic. However, Takeshima was finally decided to be released from bombing range by the U.S. & Japan Joint Committee on 19 Mar., 1953, not Korea-U.S. Committee, because of the petition by Shimane Prefecture.

Although Rusk Note went to public on April 1978, even today, Korean government keeps telling lies, such as Usando is Dokdo’s old name, to its own people and never stops illegal occupation on Japanese islets. The only way for innocent Korean people to escape from deception by its own government is to see the first-hand historical documents and old maps which are available on this blog.

The original idea of this “discovery” was brought by yabutarou and the photocopies of the book was provided by matsu. It was discussed on this blog on January 2010.

Related posts and links;
1946 - Jan 29 - SCAPIN 677
1946 - Feb 13 - "Conference with GHQ/SCAP concerning separation of the administration"
1946 - Jun 22 - SCAPIN 1033
1947 - Sep 16 -SCAPIN 1778
1949 - Nov 14 - Willam J. Sebald's telegram
1949 - U.S. Maps DOES NOT Confirm Korean Sovereignty Over Dokdo
1949 - Nov 14 - A letter from W. Walton Butterworth
1949 - Dec 29 - U.S. Draft made on December 29, 1949
1950 - July - Commentary on Draft Treaty by the Department of State
1950 - Aug 7 - U.S. Draft made on August 7, 1950
1950 - Oct 26 - USA Answers to Questions Submitted by the Australian Government
1951 - Apr - May: Joint UK and USA Draft - extra(1)
1951 - Jun 1 - New Zealand's view - extra(2)
1951 - Jul 6 - SCAPIN 2160 (cache)
1951 - Jul 9 - Coversation of Yu Chan Yang with John F. Dulles
1951 - Jul 19 - The 2nd Conversation between Yu Chan Yang and John F. Dulles
1951 - Jul 26 - the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee designated Takeshima as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces stationed in Japan. (official gazette of Japan)
1951 - Aug 2 - Another letter from You Chan Yang
1951 - Aug 3 - Bogg’s Memorandum (On re-ceiving Boggs's memo. I asked the Korean desk to find out whether anyone in the Korean Embassy officer had told him they believed Dokdo was near Ullengdo, or Takeshima Rock, and suspected that Parangdo was too.)
1951 - Aug 9 - Rusk's Letter 　( 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. )
1951 - Sep 9 - San Francisco Peace Treaty
1951 - Sep 21 - Korean Government comprehended Takeshima/Dokdo was affirmed as a Japanese Territory in Peace Treaty
1952- Jan 18 - Syngman Rhee Line
1950's - Japan & Korea Argue Their Claims in 1950s Letters
1952 - Jul 26 - The Japan-U.S. Joint Committee designated Takeshima as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces (The Ministry of Foreign Affairs published this fact in the official gazette.)
1952 - Nov 5 - Confidential Security Information of USA ("It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington." )
1952 - Dec 4 - Confidential Security Information of USA ( "I much appreciate your letter of November 14 in regard to the status of the Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks). The information you gave us had never been previously available to the Embassy. We had never heard of Deen Rusk’s letter to the Korean Ambassador in which the Department took a definite stand on this question.")
1952 - Dec 4 - “American Embassy’s Note Verbale No.187” - U.S. iterates Rusk Note to ROK.
(American Embassy in Busan gave South Korean Government an official notification that Takeshima is not Korean territory by reminding Dean Rusk’s Note on 9th August, 1951, which rejected Korea’s demand for Takeshima/Dokdo. )
1953 - Mar 19 - Japan U.S. Joint Committee decided to release Takeshima from the designation of a bombing range for the U.S. Forcese
1953 Jul 22 - Confidential Security Information of USA “Possible Methods of Resolving Liancourt Rocks Dispute between Japan and ROK”( The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in assistant Secretary dated August 10,1951.")
1953 - Nov 30 - Secret Security Information of USA ("The Liancourt Rocks case appears to have aspects in common with that of Shikotan Island" "Remind the ROK of our previous statement of view (the Rusk letter)")
1953 - Dec 9 - SECRET SECURITY INFORMATION by Dulles
1953 - Jul 22 - US Doc. Reconfirms Dean Rusk Letter (Letter from Office of Northeast Asian Affairs To E. Allan Lightner American Embassy, Pusan Korea by L. Burmaster Office of U.S. Northeast Asian Affair )
1953 - Oct 13 - Daiichi-Daihou Maru Incident - the dispute over the Rhee Syngman Line
1954 - Aug - Report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East, 26 April - 7 August , 1954
2008 - Jul 30 - Press Briefing by Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council, Dennis Wilder, on President's Trip to Asia (cache)

1952 - Dec. 4 - “American Embassy’s Note Verbale No.187” - U.S. iterates Rusk Note to ROK.

2011-08-14T18:43:00.007+09:00

On 4th December 1952, American Embassy in Busan gave South Korean Government an official notification that Takeshima is not Korean territory by reminding Dean Rusk’s Note on 9th August, 1951, which rejected Korea’s demand for Takeshima/Dokdo.

No.187

The Embassy of the United States of America presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and has the honor to refer to the latter's note of November 10, 1952 stating that a single engined airplane described as being under the command of the United States in the Far East dropped bombs on Dokdo Island on September 15, 1952. The Embassy is advised that the limited amount of information provided in the Ministry's note as well as the very long time which has elapsed since the incident is said to have taken place make it virtually impossible for the United Nations Command to determine the facts in the case. Preparations have, however, been expedited to dispense with the use of Dokdo Island as a bombing range.

American Embassy,

Pusan, December 4, 1952

On 9th July 1951, Korean Government was formally declined it's greedy demands for Tsushima by Ambassador Dulles. Instead, she suddenly asked for Dokdo/Takeshima and even non-existent Parang-do on 19th, 1951. However, the 3rd August’s note inside American Governmen reveals that Mr. Boggs, long-time Geographer to the Department of State, couldn’t identify the location of Dokdo and Parang-do despite trying all resources in Washington, and neither did Korean Embassy. As a consequence, Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk officially denied Korea’s inordinate demand for Takeshima/Dokd on 9th 1951.

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. It is understood that the Korean Government's request that "Parangdo" be included among the islands named in the treaty as having been renounced by Japan has been withdrawn.

Korean Government didn’t offer a counterargument concerning the sovereignty of the islands before the Peace Treaty was signed on September 8, 1951. However, On Sep. 21st, 1951, ROK again claimed Dokdo/Takeshima based on SCAPIN-677 MacArthur line and U.S.’s apology to Korea for the victims of 1948 bombing incident. But American Embassy in Pusan laughed off ROK’s empty comment, “we have substantial documented evidence to prove that the isle has been in the Korean possession for many hundred years”, which they couldn’t present any. The series of denial by America cornered ROK and she weiled the big stick after she finally realized that Takeshima/Dokdo has formally left to Japan by San Francisco Peace Treaty. ROK suddenly set Rhee Line in open waters, enclosing Dokdo/Takeshima inside Korean side.

As was stated in the note, it was issued in the response to the ROK’s protest against the bombing incident happened on 15th Sep. Some 23 Korean fishermen and women divers fishing on Takeshima/Dokdo narrowly escaped from bombs dropped by the airplane which returned to the direction of Japan afterwards. Consequently, a “scholarly exploration” party by Korean government couldn’t reach to Takeshima. It is no wonder since SCAP and U.S. government considered Takeshima was Japanese territory and U.S. and Japan joint committee designated Takeshima as bombing range for U.S.Forces.

In July 1951, while Japan was still under Allied occupation, the Supreme Command for Allied Powers designated Takeshima as a bombing range for U.S. Forces by SCAPIN No. 2160. In July 1952, right after the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect, in response to the desire of the U.S. Forces to continue to use Takeshima as a training area, the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee established as the consultative body for the implementation of the Japan-U.S. Administrative Agreement (an agreement based on the former Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, which was succeeded by the current Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement) designated Takeshima as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces stationed in Japan. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs published this fact in the official gazette. ( “Takeshima as a Bombing Range for U.S. Forces” by Japanese MOFA)

Despite the fact that the islands are within the danger zone, the government of ROK not only didn’t take necessary steps to protect its own people dissuading fishermen/women from collecting shells on the islands but also even sent government lead “scientific expedition” whose “intent has obviously been to establish claim to Korean sovereignty over the rocks”. The similar incident had once happened in the June 8 of 1948. About 20 Korean were killed by the American bombing. In other words, ROK government took precedence its territorial ambitions over the life of its own people.

Next year, U.S. government ceased bombing because of the “crude implementation of Government control in Korea” and the U.S. and Japan “Joint Committee decided to release Takeshima from the designation of a bombing range for the U.S. Forces in March 1953”. Although the decision was made not only because of the incident, but because of petition by local people from Shimane on 20th May, 1952., Korean government soon started to take advantages of this cession as one of the proof U.S. ‘s recognition Korea’s sovereignty on the rocks.

This note is very important since Mr. Dennis Wilder, a Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council, officially told that U.S. policy on this territorial dispute has been firm and consistent since 1952 during the press briefing on President's trip to Asia on July 30, 2008. “Our position since 1952” apparently means the U.S. position described in this official Note to ROK.

This note No. 187 had been referred many times in other U.S. documents such as “Letter from E. Allan Lightner American Embassy, Pusan Korea To Office of Northeast Asian Affairs, the Department of the State by E. Allan Lightner, December 4, 1952” or “Possible Methods of Resolving Liancourt Rocks Dispute between Japan and ROK, July 22, 1953.” Thus we did know that U.S. conveyed ROK their position (Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks are Japanese territory) second time. However, this is the first time we had an chance to see the document itself, since Korean government had not those unfavourable documents made open to the public.

The original of the document is from NARA, Box "322 Liancourt Rocks, 1952-54", Korea, Seoul Embassy, Classified General Records, 1952-63, RG 84 Records of the Foreign Service Posts of the Department of State,1788-1964.

Related Posts;
1946 - Jan. 29 - SCAPIN 677
1946 - Feb. 13 - "Conference with GHQ/SCAP concerning separation of the administration"
1946 - Jun. 22 - SCAPIN 1033
1947 - Sep. 16 -SCAPIN 1778
1949 - Nov. 14 - Willam J. Sebald's telegram
1949 - U.S. Maps DOES NOT Confirm Korean Sovereignty Over Dokdo
1949 - Nov. 14 - A letter from W. Walton Butterworth
1949 - Dec. 29 - U.S. Draft made on December 29, 1949
1950 - July - Commentary on Draft Treaty by the Department of State
1950 - Aug. 7 - U.S. Draft made on August 7, 1950
1950 - Oct. 26 - USA Answers to Questions Submitted by the Australian Government
1951 - Apr. - May: Joint UK and USA Draft - extra(1)
1951 - Jun. 1 - New Zealand's view - extra(2)
1951 - Jul. 6 - SCAPIN 2160 (cache)
1951 - Jul. 9 - Coversation of Yu Chan Yang with John F. Dulles
1951 - Jul. 19 - The 2nd Conversation between Yu Chan Yang and John F. Dulles
1951 - Jul. 26 - the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee designated Takeshima as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces stationed in Japan. (official gazette of Japan)
1951 - Aug. 2 - Another letter from You Chan Yang
1951 - Aug.3 - Bogg’s Memorandum (On re-ceiving Boggs's memo. I asked the Korean desk to find out whether anyone in the Korean Embassy officer had told him they believed Dokdo was near Ullengdo, or Takeshima Rock, and suspected that Parangdo was too.)
1951 - Aug. 9 - Rusk's Letter 　( 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. )
1951 - Sep. 9 - San Francisco Peace Treaty
1951 - Sep. 21 - Korean Government comprehended Takeshima/Dokdo was affirmed as a Japanese Territory in Peace Treaty
1952- Jan. 18 - Syngman Rhee Line
1950's - Japan & Korea Argue Their Claims in 1950s Letters
1952 - Nov. 5 - Confidential Security Information of USA ("It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington." )
1952 - Dec. 4 - Confidential Security Information of USA ( "I much appreciate your letter of November 14 in regard to the status of the Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks). The information you gave us had never been previously available to the Embassy. We had never heard of Deen Rusk’s letter to the Korean Ambassador in which the Department took a definite stand on this question.")
1953 Jul. 22 - Confidential Security Information of USA “Possible Methods of Resolving Liancourt Rocks Dispute between Japan and ROK”( The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in assistant Secretary dated August 10,1951.")
1953 - Nov. 30 - Secret Security Information of USA ("The Liancourt Rocks case appears to have aspects in common with that of Shikotan Island" "Remind the ROK of our previous statement of view (the Rusk letter)")
1953 - Dec. 9 - SECRET SECURITY INFORMATION by Dulles
1953 - Jul 22 - US Doc. Reconfirms Dean Rusk Letter (Letter from Office of Northeast Asian Affairs To E. Allan Lightner American Embassy, Pusan Korea by L. Burmaster Office of U.S. Northeast Asian Affair )
1953 - Oct 13 - Daiichi-Daihou Maru Incident - the dispute over the Rhee Syngman Line
1954 - Aug. - Report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East, 26 April - 7 August , 1954
2008 - Jul. 30 - Press Briefing by Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council, Dennis Wilder, on President's Trip to Asia (cache)

Should Japanese Boycott Ulleungdo?

2011-08-04T15:23:00.000+09:00

I have put up a new survey on the right-hand side of the blog that asks the following question:

Should Japanese boycott travel to the Korean island of Ulleungdo to protest South Korea's barring of Japanese lawmakers to the island?

( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) I don't know.blockquote>

Yonhap --"Dokdo ferry operator imposes ban on Japanese passengers"

2011-08-04T15:08:00.001+09:00

According to an Aug. 3 Yonhap News article HERE, a South Korean operator of a regular ferry service to Ulleungdo and Dokdo has said that "all Japanese citizens" are indefinitely barred from taking its ferries from South Korean east coast city of Gangneung to Ulleungdo and Dokdo. The article says he is barring Japanese "in protest against Tokyo's latest territorical claims."

Excerpt

"Our decision is to protest against the Japanese lawmakers' attempt to visit Ulleung Island earlier this week," said an official of Seaspovill Co., referring to the East Sea island located some 90 kilometers west of Dokdo. "It is in line with the government's will to sternly respond to the Japanese (government's) renewed assertion."
...

"Any Japanese passengers will not be allowed to board our ferries starting today," according to the official. "We will not scrap the decision until Japan stops making its absurd claims."

This may just be a marketing ploy to get more Korean customers since there are other ferries serving the same route.

Japanese Politicians Stopped from Leaving Korean Airport

2011-08-01T21:36:00.010+09:00

Three Japanese lawmakers arrived in Seoul, South Korea on the morning of August 1, but were denied entry into the country at Seoul's Gimpo International Airport because the Korean government claimed it could not guarantee their safety.

The three lawmakers wanted to visit the Dokdo Museum on Ulleungdo, which showcases maps and documents that supposedly support Korea's claim to Takeshima (Dokdo), a small group of rocky islets that is claimed by both Japan and Korea. The Korean president, himself, ordered that the Japanese lawmakers be denied entry to Korea ("Lee Wants Japanese Lawmakers Barred from Dokdo Mission").

Even Japanese Professor Shimojo Masao, who studies the history of the disputed islets, was denied entry to Korea on Sunday (July 31) even though he was not on the list of those banned from entry. According to this article, "Right-wing Japanese prof. heading to Ulleung Island denied entry to S. Korea", he was denied entry "due to the local Justice Ministry's disapproval of his visit."

I have read that Professor Shimojo has a Korean wife and property in South Korea. Is anyone who disagrees with Korea's historical claim to Takeshima a "right-winger" and banned from Korea?

It is very possible that the Japanese lawmakers would have been attacked by ultra-nationalist Koreans, but the Korean government and some of her politicians helped to incite the fanatics with hysterical rhetoric that claimed the Japanese were coming to Korea to "deny Korea's constitutional order" and "to pounce on Korean territory."

The policy committee chairman of Korea's leading Grand National Party called the Japanese "assassins without swords," and Korea's Special Affairs Minister called them "descendants of war criminals." See LINK.

The photo to the left shows Korean protesters throwing salt and red pepper powder up into the air near the arrival gate inside the Korean airport while airport security stand by and watch.

Why would Koreans not want Japanese lawmakers visiting the Dokdo Museum on Ulleungdo since it supposedly has evidence to prove Korea's claim to Takeshima (Dokdo)?

The answer is that the museum does not have evidence to prove Korea's claims. It is essentially a propaganda facility designed to brainwash Korean school children and ignorant Korean tourists. The Korean government most probably did not want Japanese lawmakers seeing the distorted history and exhibits in the museum, fearing that they would return to Japan and expose the distortions and fabrications.

HERE is just one example of how the museum uses distorted models to try to support its false historical claim to Takeshima (Dokdo).

The Japanese lawmakers were denied entry to Korea because it was feared they would expose the lies of the Dokdo Museum.

Japan Probe has a great article on the story HERE.

The following is a Japanese language report of statements made by the Japanese lawmakers at the airport:

"Korea bans entry of Japanese reps on Ulleung foray"

2011-07-30T02:12:00.000+09:00

Korea's Joongang Daily is reporting HERE that Seoul has informed Tokyo that it would ban from entering Korea four Japanese lawmakers planning to visit the Korean island of Ulleungdo and the Dokdo Museum there.

The Korean government said that it was banning the lawmakers because it would be "difficult to guarantee their safety and out of consideration of the influence on bilateral relations." However, I think the real reason for banning the Japanese is that the Korean government knows that the Dokdo Museum is a sham promoting distorted history to which the Korean government does not want the Japanese drawing international attention.

Should Japanese Lawmakers Be Barred from Visiting Dokdo Museum?

2011-07-27T12:02:00.002+09:00

I have put up a new survey on the right side of the blog that asks the following question:

Should Japanese lawmakers be barred from visiting Dokdo Museum?

( )Yes
( ) No
( ) I don't know.

Please let me know how you feel.

Korean President Bars Japanese Lawmakers from Korea

2011-07-27T11:20:00.006+09:00

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"

Why are Koreans afraid of Japanese lawmakers visiting Ulleungdo?

2011-07-24T05:49:00.004+09:00

Japanese lawmakers plan to visit the Korean island of Ulleungdo, where they also plan to visit the Dokdo Museum, a museum dedicated to spreading Korea's false territorial claims to the Japanese islets of Takeshima, which Koreans call Dokdo. Koreans have illegally occupied Takeshima since the 1950s, beginning soon after the 1951 Peace Treaty recognized the islets as Japanese territory.

In the photo to the left, Korean protestors rip up a portraint of one of the Japanese lawmakers planning to visit the museum during a rally near the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. LINK

I think the reason Koreans are opposed to Japanese lawmakers visiting the museum is that they fear the lawmakers will expose some of the distortions and outrageous claims made at the museum, which is more of a propaganda facility than a real museum. The Korean government seems to be embarrassed by the museum. If Seoul were proud of the museum, then wouldn't the Korean government be encouraging the Japanese to visit the museum rather than discouraging them?

Probably one of the more infamous examples of the distortions at the Dokdo museum is an altered model of a 1530 Korean map. In the original map, an island labeled Usando (于山島 - 우산도) appears off the west coast of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도), but in the model at the museum, Usando appears off the east coast of Ulleungdo. Koreans claim that Usando was the old name for "Dokdo," but Dokdo is off the east coast of Ulleungdo, so the museum staff apparently switched the location of the island on the model to better support their claim.

A copy of the original map and the altered model at the museum appear below:

"Seoul in Quanary Over Japanese Lawmakers" Planned Visit to Dokdo Museum

2011-07-20T05:56:00.000+09:00

In a 19 July 2011 online article entitled "Seoul in Quandary Over Japanese Lawmakers' Dokdo Mission," the Chosun Ilbo reports that "Korean lawmakers were up in arms" on hearing that lawmakers from Japan's Liberal Democratic Party plan to visit Ulleungdo and the "Dokdo Museum" during their visit to Korea next month. The following is an excerpt from the article:

Japanese media reported Friday that the LDP lawmakers plan to visit Korea on Aug. 1-4. They want to meet Korean lawmakers on Aug. 1 and board a ferry to Ulleung the next day, where they plan to spend the night and visit the Dokdo Museum.

Korean lawmakers were up in arms. Special Affairs Minister Lee Jae-oh tweeted, "If their visit aims at supporting their country's groundless territorial claim on Dokdo, it's tantamount to encroachment of Korea's sovereignty. I will use all means to stop them landing on the island."

Doesn't the Dokdo Museum supposedly have evidence that supports Korea's territorial claim over Dokdo? Is seems Korean lawmakers would want Japanese lawmakers to visit the place.

1906 - July 13 - Daehan Maeil Shinbo "Ikeda's Official Letter" - Japanese Resident-General made inquiry about Uldo County, not Ulleung Island.

2011-07-15T18:17:00.011+09:00

On July 13, 1906, the Korean newspaper, Daehan Maeil Sinbo (大韓毎日申報:The Korea Daily News), reported that that the Japanese Resident-General asked the Korean Ministry of Interior to clarify the names of towns and titles of villages and the year/month of establishment of “Uldo County” (鬱島郡面名洞号).

池田公函　

統監府通信管理局長池田十三郎氏가江原道三陟郡으로부터分設한鬱島郡面名洞号와設置何年月을昭詳録交하라고内部에公函하얏다더라

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ikeda’s Official Letter

Mr. Ikeda Juzaburo(池田十三郎), chief of the Administrative Bureau of Communications of the Japanese Resident-General, sent Korean Ministry of Interior an official letter of inquiry, asking for the clarification of the names of towns and titles of villages and the year/month of establishment of Uldo County, which was branched out of Samcheok County, Gangwon-do.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

池田公文書簡

統監府通信管理局長池田十三郎氏が江原道三陟郡から分設した鬱島郡の面の名や洞・号と設置の年月を回答せよと内務部に公文を送ったとのこと。

Note that article says Mr. Ikeda asked about the towns and villages of “Uldo County”, not “Ulleung Island”. As we have already found, the article in the Korean newspaper, Hwangseong Shinmun (皇城新聞) on a same day reported that the Korean ministry replied that the county was established on October 25, 1900, and that the neighboring islands were Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島), or rocky island Jukdo(竹島石島). The Korean ministry also gave the dimensions of Ulleungdo as sixty ri from east to west and forty ri from north to south for a total of 200 ri. This left “Dokdo” outside of the County, meaning Korean government set Takeshima/Dokdo outside of their territory.

Pro-Korean claim that this dimension is for the solo island of Ulleungdo, not Uldo County, however, it is extremely unnatural to answer the area/dimension of sole island when you are asked about the Uldo County. Moreover, it almost coincides with the areas given by Lee Geon-ha(李乾夏), a Minister of Internal Affairs of Korea, who submitted the petition for the ordinance in the Imperial Edict which made Ulleungdo a County of Gangwon Province (大韓勅令第41号) in 1900. It is apparent that Korean government at the time didn’t even hint that they considered Seokdo(石島) in this Edict was today’s Dokdo(独島) as they suddenly started to claim around 1969.

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 in the open sea(外洋百余里) 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 "circumamstances of the island in concern and the activity of Japanese on the island" by the "Directive no. III (指令第三号)" on 20th May.

If Korean government found out that Shim’s “Dokdo” was appended island of Ulleungdo and “Seokdo” in Ordinance 41 in 1900 was another name of the island, they must have answered “竹島独島(JukdoDokdo)”, instead of “竹島石島(JukdoSeokdo)”, in the reply letter to the Resident-General, who asked about the towns and villages of “Uldo County”, not “Ulleung Island”.

From those articles, it is apparent that Korean government then didn’t consider Dokdo/Takeshima as their territory, and technically, that means they officially acquiesced the Japan's sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo by not interpolating "Dokdo" in the answer to claim the sovereignty.

chaamiey helped me for translating the article and corrected my mistakes. Two hanguls which are not used today were replaced by 한 and 하 by his advice. Thak you, chaamiey.

Related posts;
1899 - Sep 23 - "Hwangseong Sinmun" (皇城新聞) 1899 Sep 23: Ulleungdo Situation
1900 - "Uldo-gi" (鬱島記), by U Yong-jeong (禹用鼎)
1900 - Oct. 22 - A petition by 李乾夏 "鬱陵島를鬱島로改稱하고島監을郡守로改正에關한請議書", which excluded Dokdo from Uldo County.
1900 - Imperial Edict Makes Ulleungdo a County of Gangwon Province (大韓勅令第41号)
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
1906 - July - Korea Omits Dokdo from Uldo County (皇城新聞「鬱島郡의 配置顛末」)
1906 - Apr 1 - Japanese Tell Koreans of Takeshima Incorporation (山陰新報 "竹島土産")
1906 - Apr 8 - "Diary of My Trip to Takeshima" # 3 (山陰新報 "竹嶋渡海日記")
1906 - Sep 26 - Boundary Survey of Uldo County Conducted (皇城新聞 "鬱島戸口")
1913 - June 22- Location of Us ando Unknown in Early 1900s (毎日申報 "無人島探検中止")

1906 - July - the Korean Self-Strengthening Society (大韓自强會) blotted out Takeshima/Dokdo from its monthly magazine in 1906.

2011-06-29T04:48:00.009+09:00

In 1906, one of the leading organizations of Patriotic Enlightenment Movement for the restoration of the sovereign right of the nation, “the Korean Self-Strengthening Society (大韓自强會)”, was founded by Jang Ji-yun（張志淵） and others. They published 13 edition of monthly magazines from July 1906 to July 1907. Interestingly, the front pages of those magazines are same and features Korean territory in red, blotting out Takeshima/Dokdo from her territory.

Moreover, the chapter of the Korean geography printed in the 3rd edition of the magazine published on July, 1906, clearly states that the eastern limit of Korean territory is 130º 35' E. longitude.

Remember that Jang Ji-yun was the president, the publisher and the editor in chief of Hwangseong Shinmun(皇城新聞). Its May 9 1906 article reported that 1906, Mar. 25, Uldo Prefect Governor Shim Hung-taek(沈興澤) reported that Japanese incorporated “Dokdo(獨島)” (note that he didn’t report Seokdo/石島) which locate "外洋百里(40km far in the open sea). And in a July 13, 1906 article clarified that the Korean government in 1906 did not recognize "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks) as being part of Uldo County (Ulleungdo), even though the government had just recently gotten a report on "Dokdo" from Shim.

This coincide with this Korean Self-Strengthening Society’s monthly magazine cover illustration of Korean Territory. It is crystal clear that Korean didn’t recognize Takeshima/Dokdo as its territory, at the time Korean got to know Japan’s incorporation in 1906. Apparently, Shim’s report was mistake and “獨島” was not “石島”, which today’s Korean claim as another name of Dokdo back then. In conclusion, 石島 in 1900’s Korean Imperial Edict No.41 (大韓勅令第41号) was not Japan’s Takeshima and Korean didn’t recognize Takeshima as its territory based on Korea’s own historical documents.

In 1907, Jang published "New Topography of Great Korea(大韓新地誌)". Its chapter of "location" states that Korea's eastern border is Tumen River and it is 130º 58' E. longitude. As for Ulleungdo, Jan wrote, that Uleung Island locates from 130º 45' N. to (130º) 35' N. and from 37º 34' E. to (37º) 31' E. (Probably the mistake for 130º 45' E. to (130º) 53' E. and from 37º 34' N. to (37º) 31' N. ) The states that Uleung island can be seen (from Korean peninsula) on a clear fine day. It also says that Usando exists to the south-east of the island. However, the map attached to the book also blotted out Takeshima/Dokdo from its "The Map of Korea(大韓全図)" and "The Map of Gyeongsangbuk-do(慶尚北道)" as well. On top of that, "The Map of Gyeongsangbuk-do(慶尚北道)" depicts Jukdo(竹島, not Japan's Takeshima) precisely on the location of Jukdo. From those historical documents, whatever the Usando Jan added really was, it is apparent that he considered Korea's easternmost was Ulleungdo and today's Takeshima/Dokdo was outside of Korean territory.

"The attatched　map of The New Topography of the Great Korea (大韓新地志附地圖)" (The National Library of Korea's site)

Which country will China try to occupy first, Taiwan or North Korea?

2011-06-20T01:34:00.000+09:00

I have put up a new survey question on the right side of the blog that it is unrelated to the Takeshima-Dokdo dispute. The question is as follows:

Which country will China try to occupy first, Taiwan or North Korea?
Taiwan

North Korea

Neither

Both at the same time

I apologize for the question being unrelated to the Takeshima-Dokdo dispute, but I have my reasons for asking it.

The Reason Japan Cannot Give Up Takeshima (Dokdo)

2011-06-10T12:05:00.015+09:00

In a somewhat meandering article entitled, "A Korea-Japan alliance?" Peter M. Beck, who is supposedly a Research Fellow at Keio University in Tokyo, suggests that Japan's refusal to give up her "hopeless" claim to "Dokdo" is hurting the chances of creating a Korea-Japan alliance that could help counter an increasingly belligerent China and North Korea. Moreover, he believes that by giving up its claim to "Dokdo," Japan would receive "a flood of Korean goodwill."

I see three problems with the logic Mr. Beck uses in his attempt to entice Japanese to give up their claim to "Dokdo," and one of them is a really big one.

First, "Dokdo," which is called "Takeshima" by the Japanese, is just a small cluster of barren rocks in the middle of the Sea of Japan with no real economic or strategic importance, which means a territorial dispute over such insignificant rocks should not be an obstacle to forming an alliance between Korea and Japan. It is not Japan that considers the rocks an obstacle; it is Korea, even though Korea occupies the rocks. Therefore, if Korea is willing to put such insignificant rocks ahead of an alliance with Japan, then that is evidence that the alliance would not really be worth much.

Second, I think any Korean goodwill that Japan would receive by giving up her claim to Takeshima would be only temporary. Koreans would soon find other reasons for withholding their "goodwill." Therefore, giving up her claim to Takeshima would not really benefit Japan in the long run, unless she could get something more tangible in exchange,

Last, the biggest reason Japan cannot, and should not, give up her claim to Takeshima is that it would mean, in effect, accepting Korea's historical claims to Takeshima, which are essentially nothing but lies. Historically, Takeshima was never Korean territory, so until Korea recants her lies about Takeshima, Japan has an obligation to History to continue to maintain her claim to the barren rocks.

UPDATE:

Mr. Peter M. Beck has responded HERE to my comment about his article, which I have linked to above. The following is how I responded to his comment.

Mr Beck,

I did not focus on “Korean lies” in my above response to your article. I focused on your flawed logic, which, by the way, was shown again in your statement, “My views cannot be too flawed or biased as a major Japanese newspaper has asked me to write a version for them!”

There is nothing ambiguous about the fact that Japan, in 1905, incorporated Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), which you chose to refer to by its Korean name, “Dokdo.”

The fact that you have asked me “to explain why several official Meji maps indicate the rocks as being Korean” tells me that you do not really understand the history of the Rocks or the map confusion of the 1800s, which was caused by the mismapping of the Korean island of Ulleungdo by the British ship “Argonaut.”

Korea has no old maps showing Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) by any name or any documents showing that Koreans ever claimed or even visited the Rocks before the Japanese starting taking them there as deckhands on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s. In fact, the Rocks are only mentioned about three times in Korean history as being a distant, unnamed island visible from Ulleungdo, and each time it was referred to as being Japanese territory or suggested as being Japanese territory.

Let me say, again. There is no evidence that Korea ever claimed Liancourt Rocks before Japan incorporated them in 1905, and there is no evidence that Japan ever recognized any imaginary Korean claim to the Rocks.

Even without knowing which of the “several official Meiji maps” you are referring to, I can say pretty confidently that none of them recognized Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) as Korean territory. Are these “official” Meiji maps the only evidence you have to claim that the Rocks were Korean?

Why Did Koreans Fail to Mention Imperial Edict #41 to the US in 1951?

2011-06-06T04:14:00.003+09:00

The following is a very well written and reasoned explanation in Korean for why Korea failed to use the 1900 Imperial Edict # 41 argument with US authorities in their failed attempt to get the US to recognize Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) as Korean territory in the 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan. The following Korean explanation can be found at this site:

독도 문제의 진실 獨島問題의真實

I do not know who runs the site, but he writes Korean quite fluently.

「칙령 제４１호」의 허구성－３

제2차 세계대전 이후의 일본 영토 범위는 샌프란시스코 강화 조약에 의해서 결정되었습니다. 그 조약의 최종 초안에서는 다케시마/독도는 일본의 영토라고 정해졌습니다. 그것을 알게 된 한국 정부는 양유찬(梁裕燦) 주미 한국 대사를 통해서 1951년7월19일차 문서로　독도를 한국의 영토에 넣어달라고 요청하는 문서를 미국 정부에 제출했습니다. 이것에 대해서 미국 정부는 1951년8월10 일차 이른바 러스크 서간을 통해서 한국 정부의 요청을 거부했습니다. 이것은 유명한 사실이기 때문에 여러분 다 알고 있겠지요.

그런데, 양유찬 대사는 미국에　대해서　독도를 한국의 영토에　넣어달라고 요청할 때, 그 근거로서 1900년 대한제국 황제 칙령 제41호를 주장하지 않았습니다. 왜 주장하지 않았을까요?

현대 한국 정부는 칙령 제41호에 규정된 석도（石島）가 독도이며 대한제국은 1900년에 독도가 한국 영토임을 세계에 선언했다고 주장하고 있습니다. 칙령 제41호는 한국이 독도 영유권을 주장하기 위한 중요한 근거인 것 같습니다.　그것이 사실이라면, 미국 정부에 대해서 제대로 설명하면 미국 정부도 고려했을 것이었습니다. 하지만　양 대사는 칙령 제 41호에 대해 언급하지 않았군요. 왜 언급 하지 않았을까요?

그 이유는 명백합니다.사실 칙령 제41호에 규정된 석도는 독도가 아니기 때문입니다. 당시 한국 정부는 칙령 제41호에 규정된 석도는 독도가 아니기를 잘 알고 있었습니다. 따라서 미국 정부에 대해서 거짓말을 할 수 없었습니다.
현대 한국 정부도 입에서는 칙령 제41호에 규정된 석도가 독도이라고 주장 합니다만, 석도에 관한 구체적인 지도나 문서를 전혀 제시 못하고 있습니다. 그러한 자료는 거의 없기 때문이지요.

한국 사람 들은　다케시마/독도를　불법점거　하고 있음을 속이려고 하는 정부의 허위 주장을　언제까지　믿습니까?　 한국의 선진화를 위해서는 진실을 보는 눈이 필요합니다.

Arirang: "Korean Lawmakers Hold Seminar of Dokdo"

2011-06-02T11:49:00.001+09:00

According to a June 1 article from Arirang News HERE, Korean lawmakers seem worried that Japan's historical claims to Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima - Dokdo) are stronger than theirs, so they will try to "look at the evidence as a whole rather than trying to refute the part on which Japan bases its claims." That sounds like instead of trying to refute Japanese claims to Liancourt Rocks, which they seem unable to do, they will try to obfuscate and confound the debate.

Korean Lawmakers Hold SEminar on Dokdo

Korean lawmakers from the ruling and opposition parties gathered at the National Assembly on Wednesday for a seminar on Korea's Dokdo Islets in the East Sea.
Their objective was to deliver and discuss facts on the islets re-confirming Korea's control since historical times in a scholarly manner, with college professors, an international law judge and researchers.

[Interview : Park Sun-young, Co-chair
Assoc. of Lawmakers for Dokdo] "We, the Korean people care deeply about Dokdo, but we do not have good research that documents our territorial rights to the islets. In contrast, Japan has conducted many research projects to make an argument claiming Dokdo as theirs. We are in need of finding the best way to refute and react to these well prepared, but false claims from Japan. So we arranged for this seminar."

The discussants presented supporting documents dating as far back as the fourth century that show Dokdo belonging to ancient Korean kingdoms, which is some 11-hundred years earlier than the records used by Japan.

[Interview : Yuji Hosaka, Director
Dokdo Institute of Sejong University] "Japan's claims on Dokdo begin with a basis on historical truth, but end with many false facts. In other words, many of Japan's claims on the islets as a whole are unfounded. So we need to expose these false arguments. And to do so we should look at the evidence as a whole rather than trying to refute from the part on which Japan bases its claims. This is what we need at this point."

The advice by Professor Yuji Hosaka, a Japanese immigrant who is now a naturalized Korean citizen, was well received by the panel.

They also agreed on the need to hold more meetings to make Korea's claim on Dokdo consistent and strong.

[Reporter : Kang Seok-ho ed:mark
kangsh@arirang.co.kr] "Firmly united in their will to protect the islets from continued claims from Japan, Korean lawmakers from all sides of political spectrum will keep working to inform the world that the Dokdo Islets belong to Korea.

Kang Seok-ho, Arirang News."

JUN 01, 2011
Reporter : kangsh@arirangtv.com

1951 - Sep. 21 - Korean Government comprehended Takeshima/Dokdo was affirmed as a Japanese Territory in Peace Treaty

2011-05-24T02:41:00.008+09:00

On Sep. 21st, 1951, South Korean Foreign Minister Pyun Yung-tai(卞栄泰) sent a letter to U.S. Ambassar Muccio. In his letter, he claimed that SCAPIN-677 is the cocnlusive factor to decide Takeshima/Dokdo is Korean territory. He also listed, as other factors, MacArthur line and U.S. apology to Korea for the victims of 1948 bombing incident.

Republic of Korea

Ministry of Foreign Affairs SEOUL

September 21, 1951

Dear Ambassador Muccio,

This note is to seek to draw your attention to the enclosed exerpt of Memorandum of SCAPIN-677, 29 January 1946, which should be regarded as a conslusive factor in deciding, in Korean favor, the controversy over the ownership of Dokdo, known as "Liancourt Rocks" and also as "Takeshima" in Japanese. The fact that the disputed isle has been put on the Korean side of the MacArthur Line is another manifestation of the SCAP memorandum under notice.

In 1948, if I do not remember wrongly, when air bombing practice caused casualities among the Korean fishermen in boats nestling near the isle SCAP apologized to this Goverment for the incident. Had SCAP regarded the isle as Japanese territory, the presence of the Koreans there would have been illegal and no apologies necessary. As evidenced by the Memorandum in question, SCAP has, at no time, doubted that the isle belongs or ought to belong, to Korea.

We have substantial documented evidence to prove that the isle has been in the Korean possession for many hundred years. The fact that Japan incorporated the isle into one of its nearby prefectures in 1905 (a deal sneaked on a prefectural level, not on a Governmental level, for the obvious convenience to back down more easily in case of a possible international trouble) cannot repudiate our rightful claims to the isle, supported not merely by Korean documents but by Japanese ones also.

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Sincerely yours,

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Yung Tai PYUN

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Minister of Foreign Affairs

Enclosure: Memorandum of SCAPIN-677, 29 January 1946

His Excellency

Note that this was sent AFTER the Peace Treaty was signed (08/09/1951). In other word, it is apparent Korean government did understand that Peace Treaty concluded that Takeshima was left to Japan as its sovereign territory, or she wouldn't have sent such a letter to make U.S. pay attention to SCAPIN-677. In fact, Korean Ambassodor to U.S. was already told by Dean Rusk, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, that the Japanese claim to the Liancourt Rocks would not be renounced in the peace treaty on 10th Aug., 1951 and this official notification was reiterated to ROK government on 4th Dec., 1952.

Possible Methods of Resolving Liancourt Rocks Dispute between Japan and ROK　(July 22, 1953)

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

With regard to the question of who has sovereignty over the Liancourt Rock (which are also known in Japanese as Takeshima, and in Korean as Dokdo), it may be of interest to recall that the United States position, contained in a note to the Republic of Korea's Ambassador date August 10, 1951 reads in part:

"....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......"

(This position has never been formally communicated to the Japanese Government but might well come to light were this dispute ever submitted to mediation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement.)

Since sending the August 10, 1951 note to the ROK Government, the United States Government has sent only one additional communication on the subject. This was done in response to the ROK protest of the alleged bombing of Dokdo Island by a United States military plane. The United States note of December 4, 1952 states:

"The Embassy has taken note of the statement contained in the Ministry's Note that　'Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks) .....is a part of the territory of the Republic of Korea.'　The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk’s note to the Korean Ambassador in Washington dated August 10,1951."

Pyun’s attempts urging U.S. to reconsider was laughed off, as it was documented in the following corresponding letter, which was accompanied by Pyun’s letter above, from Pusan to Washington. The Minister apparently failed to present alleged "substantial documented evidence to prove that the isle has been in the Korean possession for many hundred years”.

TRANSMITTAL OF LETTER FROM MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS ON KOREAN CLAIM TO DOKDO ISLAND (Oct. 3, 1951) (Records of the U.S Department of State relating to the Internal Affairs of Korea, 1950-54 Department of State Decimal File 795)

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

With regard to the " substantial documented evidence" referred to in the last paragraph of the letter, an officer of the Embassy was orally informed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that such evidence appears throughout Korean and Japanese archives. The implication was that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not possess a compilation of such "evidence" at this time. Although it was pointed out to the Minister that the Embassy would welcome the submission of such "evidence" for transmittal to the Department, it appears doubutful that such information will be forthcoming.

Today, Korean government claim that Takeshima was decided to be Korean territory by U.S.’s dropping its name from the article.

Later, Dokdo’s exclusion from Japan’s territory was reaffirmed by the Treaty of Peace with Japan, better known as the San Francisco Treaty, of September 8, 1951.

(Dokdo_Korean territory Basic Position of the Government of the Republic of Korea on Dokdo, 2010)

However, as Pyun’s letter shows, Korean government was well aware that Takeshima was left to Japan in San Francisco Peace Treaty. It is a shame ROK never stops distorting the fact and brainwashing her innocent nationals every day.

Ulleung County Symbol Recognizes 'Three Peaks' of Ulleungdo

2011-05-20T23:09:00.004+09:00

One of the old names for the Korean island of Ulleungdo in Korean historical documents was "Sambongdo" (三峰島 - 삼봉도), which means "Island of Three Peaks." Ulleungdo's three prominent peaks were mentioned numerous times in Korean historical texts. Though some nationalistic Korean historians claim that Sambongdo was referring to Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima - Dokdo), Korea's own historical texts, and, apparently, even the symbol for Korea's Ulleung County (울릉군) seem to contradict that claim.

Notice that the Ulleung County symbol to the left shows three peaks against against a background of red. The county's Web site, HERE, describes the symbol as follows:

The oval shape of the outer edge of the symbol represents the sun rising over the East Sea (Sea of Japan). With Ulleungdo's Seongin Peak in the center, the shape of the mountains is shown with a design of three triangular peaks that represent Ulleung's unyielding spirit.

가장 자리를 둘러싼 타원은 동해에 떠오르는 태양을 상징하며 산의 형상은 울릉도의 성인봉을 중심으로 울릉의 굳굳한 기상을 삼각형태의 대칭구조로 2분하여 도안 되었습니다.

The Korean seems a little awkward to me, so if someone has a different translation, please let me know. For example, I assumed 굳굳한 meant 꿋꿋한. Also, the expression 2분하여 seems awkward to me.

Again, the three peaks of Ulleungdo were mentioned numerous times in Korea's historical documents.

Thanks, Chaamiey, for pointing out the symbol.

Video Comparing Korean Map Drawings of "Usando" (于山島), by Yabutarou

2011-05-17T04:51:00.001+09:00

Dong-a Reports Discovery of a "Dae Dongyeojido" Map Showing "Dokdo"

2011-05-16T03:54:00.013+09:00

In a May 13 article entitled, "First Domestic Discovery of a Hand-drawn Dae Dongyeojido Map Showing Dokdo," Korea's Dong-a Ilbo reports the following:

A Dae Dongyeojido (大東輿地圖 – 대동여지도) map showing Dokdo has been discovered domestically for the first time.

On the 11th, the Academy of Korean Studies revealed, "In November of last year, while researching old documents as part of an effort to promote Korean Studies, a hand-drawn copy of a Dae Dongyeojido map showing Dokdo was found in Seoul's Seodaemun District Korean Research Center library.

On this handdrawn copy, an island labeled "Usan" (于山) was drawn to the right of Ulleungdo. Usan was the old name for Dokdo. The sea was drawn blue and the islands were drawn yellow.

Worldwide, there are a total of 25 block-print or hand-drawn copies of the Dae Dongyeojido. As for copies showing Dokdo, until now there was only a block-print copy in Japan's Diet Library, none had been found domestically. In the block prints, Kim Jong-ho, himself, craved the map on the blocks in 1861. The hand-drawn copies were made by placing paper over the original blocks and tracing them.

The Research Director of the Academy of Korean Studies, Ok Yeong-jeong, said, "A hand-drawn Dae Dongyeojido map showing Dokdo is important for understanding how Dokdo was seen by Koreans in the 19th century. Lee Sang-tae, an endowed professor at the Graduate School of Korea International Culture University, explained, "Japan has claimed sovereignty of Dokdo by saying 'Dokdo has hardly appeared on a Dae Dongyeojido, which is Korea's representative map,' but the discovery of this map has confirmed that claim is groundless."

Above Ulleungdo on the map is written, "In the 11th year of Yeongjong, Gangwon Gamsa Jo Choi-su inspected Ulleungdo, and Usando is to the east of Ulleungdo." Concerning this, Professor Lee explained, "Until the Daehan Emprie was established in 1897, King Yeongjo was called 'Yeongjong,' so this hand-drawn map was drawn sometime between 1861, when the Dae Dongyeojido was first made, and 1897.

Thanks for the link to the article, Chaamiey.

The following is an image of the map from YTN News:

Of course, the island the article is claiming to be "Dokdo" is actually Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도), which is two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore, as shown in the Google satellite image below:

Besides the Dae Dongyeojido shown above, Kim Jong-ho also drew the following 1834 map of Ulleungdo and Usando, a map which has gridlines for distance along the edge. Each gridline represented ten ri, which was about four kilometers. The gridlines prove that the Usan (于山) on the map could not have possibly been Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), which are are about 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo and are essentially made up of two rock islets, not one.

Steve Barber is back in the Korean news.

2011-05-03T21:44:00.013+09:00

A foreigner's journey of discovery and Dokdo

Excerpt:

After many online discussions about Dokdo with both Japanese and Koreans it became apparent that the two countries have different approaches and origins to their beliefs.

Japan's effort to reclaim Dokdo, which it refers to as Takeshima is fueled by a small but determined group of right wingers. Most of these Japanese are anonymous.

They obsessively lobby and spread propaganda related to other issues of contention between Japan and her neighbors.

Following Internet links that claim Dokdo as Japan's inherent territory will eventually lead you to the same Japanese netizens who deny the Nanjing massacre, comfort women and other wartime atrocities.

However, Korea's claim for Dokdo is supported by the vast majority of Koreans who believe with conviction the islets are theirs.

With this in mind, the Korean government is truly representative of how Koreans feel about Dokdo while Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs seems to be appeasing right wing activists.

It takes a lot of gall for Steve Barber to say such stuff, considering that he used to anonymously post under a variety of IDs until he was caught doing it and his identity explosed.

2011 Apr. 14 - A Looter in the Sea of Japan (Korea plans ocean science research station on Takeshima/Dokdo)

2011-04-14T02:50:00.005+09:00

While Japanese are still struggling with devastating aftermath of earthquake, Tsunami and nukes, Korea is planning to install building so-called research station, which is exactly the same action she did near Socotra Rock against China’s protest, on Takeshima.

Korea Plans Research Station on Dokdo (Choson Ilbo, Apr. 11, 2011)

Korea will set up an ocean science research station on Dokdo to observe waves, weather and pollution in the East Sea around the clock.

Grand National Party lawmakers on a National Assembly ad hoc committee on Dokdo and officials from the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs and the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology met on April 4 to discuss a response to new Japanese school textbooks that repeat Tokyo's claims to the islets and agreed to build the science station.

The station will be the country's third oceanic science base after Ieo Island and Gaeocho islet.

This kind of aggressive action against the country in the crisis is going to incure blame and be criticized by the international community. Even China, Hong Kong and Taiwan protesters stopped their plan to sending ships to Senkaku from this reason. Russian media wrote they should hand in Northern Territories to Japan.

This kind of aggression only provokes firm response by Japan.

Japan's Liberal Party Wants 'Dokdo Day' Enshrined in Law (Choson Ilbo, Apr. 13, 2011)

A committee in Japan's Liberal Democratic Party has asked the Japanese government to enshrine a "Takeshima Day," for the Japanese name of Korea's Dokdo, in law to assert the country's claim to the islets, the Sankei Shimbun reported Tuesday.

The call comes after Korea announced plans to set up an ocean science research station on Dokdo, which in turn was prompted by the Japanese government's approval of school textbooks that state Tokyo's claim.

It is even reported that “Korea may bolster its defense of the Dokdo islets by replacing police who now guard the territory with soldiers”. Are Korean finally ready to admit that Takeshima/Dokdo is a land in dispute? If so, this is exactly what Japan has longed for.

(Update)
Finally, Japanese government lodged a official protest against the Korean aggression on 14th night.

Tokyo Protests Against Marine Research Station on Dokdo
Japanese Foreign Minister Takeaki Matsumoto told lawmakers on Friday that Tokyo "cannot accept" Korea's plans to build a research station on Dokdo. Matsumoto said the Japanese government lodged a protest with the Korean government after confirming that Hyundai Engineering and Construction had been chosen to build the research station.

And Seoul responded with considering deploying new frigates near Takeshima/Dokdo.

Heartbreaking Earthquake & Tsunami in Japan

2011-03-14T12:39:00.002+09:00

The destruction and death in Japan is so terrible that I have no words to describe the sadness I feel. I can only hope that there are no more deaths, more survivors are found, and the pain and hardship are alleviated quickly.

I hope the people who post to this blog from Japan are all safe and well.

"'Flash Patriotism'--Dokdo Bonds Gone After 5 Years"

2011-03-01T21:15:00.008+09:00

The situation described in the following MBC News article HERE is another example that Korean interest in Takeshima (Dokdo) has waned.

"Flash Patriotism'--Dokdo Bonds Gone After 5 Years"
The Dokdo-related financial products launched at the height of the territorial dispute with Japan in 2005 and 2006 have almost all disappeared.

According to people in the securities circles, the "Dokdo Defense Bonds" launched by KB Asset Management in 2005 terminated the following year, and the "Dokdo Love Investment Trust" from Korea Investment Trust Management was dissolved in 2008 after a decline in customer interest.
The "Dokdo Cyber Branch" opened by Hyundai Securities in 2002 closed in 2008.
.
'반짝 애국심' 독도펀드 5년 만에 실종
일본과 독도 영유권 갈등이 한창이던 2005년과 2006년에 출시됐던 독도 관련 금융 상품이 대부분 사라진 것으로 나타났습니다.

증권 업계에 따르면 2005년 KB 자산운용이 출시한 '독도수호 행동펀드'는 이듬해 시한이 만료됐고, 한국투자신탁운용의 '독도사랑 투자신탁'은 고객들의 호응이 떨어지면서 2008년 청산됐습니다.

현대증권이 2002년에 개설했던 '독도 사이버 지점'은 2008년 폐쇄됐습니다.

S. Koreans Attend Takeshima Day Ceremonies

2011-02-25T01:11:00.004+09:00

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled "DPJ Attends 'Takeshima Day' for the First Time," a group of about ten South Koreans "quietly" attended Takeshima Day ceremonies.

While DPJ lawmakers may have been a first-time surprise a small group of about 10 people who traveled from South Korea had frequented the event before. Mr. Komuro said a group about the same size was present last year as well but was unsure whether it was the same individuals.
"I don't think they were here to support [Japan's territorial claims]. But they didn't protest," said Mr. Komuro. They sat in their seats and listened quietly."

DPJ Lawmakers Attend 'Takeshima Day' Ceremonies

2011-02-23T14:49:00.016+09:00

"The Mainichi Daily News" reports HERE that a record-high thirteen Japanese parlimentarians, including two lawmakers from the ruling Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), attended Takeshima Day ceremonies on February 22, along with 500 other participants. This was the first time DPJ lawmakers have attended the Takeshima Day ceremonies.

In contrast, no major rallies were held by South Korean protestors near the ceremony site this year. In the past, Koreans had held rallies denouncing Japan's territorial claim to Takeshima, claiming, instead, that the islets belonged to Korea. Moveover, only about ten Korean civic group members even bothered to rally in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul this year. The Korean government did, however, issue its prefunctory statement denouncing Takeshima Day and insisting Takeshima belonged to Korea, where the islets are called Dokdo.

While political interest in the Takeshima dispute seems to be growing in Japan, interest in Korea seems to be dying, possibly because an overwhelming amount of historical evidence refuting Korean claims has been made public over the past few years. Afterall, it is hard to rally for a cause in which you no longer truly believe.

The Korean government seems to have given up trying to find evidence to support its historical claims to Takeshima and has decided, instead, to remain relatively quiet on the issue, probably hoping the world forgets about all the noisy claims Koreans made just a few years ago.

Takeshima Day -- February 22

2011-02-22T17:20:00.003+09:00

Today is Japan's "Takeshima Day," which is the day that commemorates the February 22, 1905 incorporation of Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) into Japan's Oki County. See the 1905 newspaper article announcing the incorporation HERE.

Any news on how it is being celebrated in Japan?

1947 - Roh Do-yang "National Geographic Student Atlas for Middle School” excluded Takeshima/Dokdo from Korea

2011-02-18T08:14:00.008+09:00

left : "National Geographic Student Atlas for Middle School(中等國土地理附圖)”（文友社、1947）

The “Map of Korea” in this supplementary atlas for Middle school student, made by the geographer/editorial officer of the Ministry of Education, clearly excludes Takeshima/Dokdo from its territory.

Although a map itself doesn’t stand as a concrete evidence for territorial dispute unless there is clear indication of territorial border, this Korean textbook made by the editorial official of the Ministry of Education gives a heavy blow on Korea’s territorial claim. In fact, today’s Korean maps never drops Dokdo off from its map of Korea, and pro-Korean propaganda sites list up many old Japanese maps, which lack Takeshima, to claim Japan didn’t recognize Takeshima as its territory.

Korean claim “Dokdo was the first victim of the Japanese aggression upon Korea. Dokdo has come back to our bosom with our liberation. Dokdo is the symbol of Korean independence.” However, as it was already revealed, Korean, except the residents of Ulleungdo, immediately after liberation didn’t even know about Takeshima/Dokdo and believed the easternmost of their country is Ulleungdo’s Jukdo until April 1947, the time when Japanese from Sakaiminato came to Takeshima and claimed that the island is Japan’s. This textbook atlas is an another concrete evidence to support Japanese claim that Korea’s recent blind belief about Takeshima/Dokdo is just an ex post facto explanation hammered out afterwards.

As this map and other Korean maps published until 1947 shows, Korean didn’t recognize Takeshima/Dokdo as their territory at the year of 1947. In the summer of 1947, Korean found Takeshima/Dokdo and started aggressions upon Takeshima, the inherent territory of Japan. However, there is no single Korean documents/maps that shows Korean owned the island before 1905, the year Japan officially incorporated it into Shimane prefecture.

Prof. Roh Do-yang(盧道陽, 1909-2004) is a Korean geographer. According to Songdo(松都) High School HP, he graduated from Komazawa(駒澤) University, Tokyo, Japan and taught at Songdo High School. He once served the Ministry of Education as a editorial officer(文教部編修官) after 1945. He was a founder/fist chairman of Korean Geographical Society（大韓地理学会） and a emeritus professor of Hoseo University(湖西大).

Reference;

1899 - Korean Map: "Daehanjeondo" (大韓全圖) (玄采大韓地誌)

1901 - "Daehanjiji" (大韓地誌) Map of Korea's Gangwon Province (玄采)

1906 - "Daehan Jiji" (大韓地誌) by Hyeon Chae (玄采)

1907 - "Chodeung Daehan Jiji" (初等大韓地誌)

1907 June - "Sinpyeon Daehan Jiri" (新編大韓地理)

1907 - Daehan Shinjiji Attached Maps (大韓新地志附地圖)

1922 - "Map of Daehanminguk" (대한민국 디도) (大韓民国図)

after 1945 - "Geography for Middle School(中等地理)" by the Association of Gyeongbuk Geographers(慶北地理學會) admits Dokdo is outside of the territory of Korea

Problem with Blogger's SPAM Filtering

2011-02-13T00:32:00.002+09:00

There seems to be a problem with Blogger's SPAM filtering system since it is causing many comments to go into the SPAM Box instead of being posted to the blog. I will try to regularly check the Spam Box until Blogger finally fixes the problem.

Actually, I am not sure if it is a problem with the SPAM filter or if someone in Blogger is deliberately trying to sabotage this blog.

One reason I suspect sabotage is that the votes in the survey question that appeared in the right column of the blog suddenly switched from a large majority of people who though Korea was being untruthful about Korean historical claims to Takeshima to a majority of people who thought Korea was being truthful. This all happened after the voting had stopped.

There have also been other strange things that have happened on this blog, including our Page View counter suddenly losing over a million hits.

Anyway, I will try to keep a better eye on our Spam box.

Daum Map's "Jukdo" (죽도 - 竹島)

2011-02-11T09:24:00.006+09:00

I noticed today that Korea's Daum Map site has a high resolution image of Ulleungdo's neighboring island of "Jukdo" (죽도 - 竹島), which is, of course, different from Japan's Takeshima (竹島). The image below can be made much larger.

Link to Map

Walking View of Jukdo

Some New Gadgets Added to the Blog

2011-02-10T15:51:00.004+09:00

I have added the following enhancements to the blog.

A "Headlines" feature near the top of the blog that scrolls through headlines with the following keywords: Takeshima, Dokdo, 竹島, and 독도.
.
A "Search This Blog" feature at the top of the right column that allows keyword search on this blog.
.
A "Popular Post" feature was added in the right-hand column, just below the list of maps.

If anyone has any other suggests for improving the blog, please let me know.

I have been so busy with my son the past few months that I have not paid much attention to the blog, but I plan to be spending more time trying to improve the blog in the future.

Page Views for This Blog for Feb. 3 - Feb. 9

2011-02-10T14:37:00.009+09:00

The following are the number of page views this blog, "Dokdo-or-Takeshima?," has received for the week of Feb. 3 - Feb. 9. The page views are divided up by country.

Japan.............................603
USA................................168
Korea..............................151
Germany........................... 43
U.K.................................. 26
Poland.............................. 19
Canada............................. 17
France.............................. 15
Russia............................... 15
Belize................................ 11