Roh Moo-hyun's Angry Dokdo Speech

President Lee Myung-bak has been trying to mend fences with Japan by focusing less on the past and more on the future. (See HERE) For example, President Lee recently made the following comment:
"We of course cannot forget the past history but should not make it an obstacle for our future," Lee said. "We need not react irritably every time to Japanese lawmakers' remarks. Any politician in any country can express their personal ideas."
I was glad to hear President Lee say that, but there are many in Korea who do not want to mend fences with Japan, but, instead, want to continue the fruitless bickering on Korea-Japan historical issues, even if such bickering continues to damage Korea's international prestige and continues to keep the wheels of Korea's economy spinning in the mud. Many of these people admire former Korean President Roh Moo-hyun because President Roh seemed to love to bicker. In fact, some of his admirers have created a video featuring President Roh's angry Dokdo speech, which was delievered as a special Presidential Message on Korean national TV on April 25, 2006, which was two years ago, today.

Below is the video and a translation of the speech:

The following is a translation of President Roh's April 25, 2006 Dokdo speech:

My fellow Koreans,

Dokdo is our land. It is not only part of our territory but also our own soil of historic significance where forty years of painful history is engraved vividly.

Dokdo is our territory that was first to be annexed to Japan in the course of its usurpation of the Korean Peninsula.

The Russo-Japanese War was a war of aggression that Imperial Japan initiated to secure control over the Korean Peninsula.

Under the pretext of carrying out the Russo-Japanese War, Japan sent its troops to Korea and occupied the Korean Peninsula. The Japanese forces staged a siege around Korean royal palaces, terrorized the royal office and the Government of Korea to force them into signing the Korea-Japan Protocol, expropriated the land and people of Korea as it pleased, and established military facilities. Japan unilaterally proclaimed military rule over part of the Korean territory and eventually trampled on Korea’s sovereignty by taking away our fiscal and diplomatic rights.

As part of this process, Japan forcefully merged Dokdo into its territory, installed an observation tower and electric cables, and utilized them in their war efforts. While continuing the military occupation of the Korean Peninsula, Japan deprived Korea of sovereignty and secured colonial control over the Peninsula.

Japan’s present claim to Dokdo is claiming a right to what it had once occupied during an imperialist war of aggression, and what is worse, it is claiming a right to a former colonial territory of bygone years. This is an act of negating the complete liberation and independence of Korea. Moreover, this is an act of contending the legitimacy of Japan’s criminal history of waging wars of aggression and annihilation as well as forty years of exploitation, torture, imprisonment, forced labor, and even military sexual slavery. We cannot tolerate this for anything.

For Koreans, Dokdo is a symbol of the complete recovery of sovereignty. Along with homage by the Japanese leaders to the Yaskuni Shrine and Japanese history textbooks, Dokdo is a touchstone of Japan’s recognition of its past history as well as its determination for Korea-Japan relations of future and peace in East Asia.

As long as Japan continues to glorify its past wrongs and claim rights based on such history, friendly relations between Korea and Japan cannot be established properly.

As long as Japan is clinging on to these issues, we will be unable to trust any of Japan’s rhetoric concerning the future of Korea-Japan relations and peace in East Asia. No economic stake or cultural exchange will help break down this barrier.

Between Korea and Japan, the border to distinguish each nation’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is yet to be firmly established. This is due to Japan’s territorial claim to Dokto and Japan even insists upon drawing the EEZ line based on such a claim.

The issue of naming the underwater geological formations of the East Sea is related to that of EEZ. While the two nations are unable to form a consensus on the EEZ border, Japan has unjustly and preemptively designated a name for underwater geological formations within our own maritime zone and it is only our proper right to rectify this matter.

Thus, so long as Japan does not give up its unjust claims regarding the underwater geological formations of the East Sea, addressing the EEZ matter can brook no further delay. Consequently, the matter of Dokdo can no longer be dealt with quiet responses.

While there are, to be sure, certain concerns about playing into Japan's intent to turn Dokodo into a disputed area, Dokdo for us is not merely a matter pertaining to territorial rights over tiny islets but is emblematic of bringing closure to an unjust history in our relationship with Japan and of the full consolidation of Korea's sovereignty. It is a matter that calls for a public and dignified response.

My fellow Koreans,

The government will revisit the entirety of our response with regard to the matter of Dokdo. Together with the distortion of Japanese history textbooks and visits to the Yasukuni shrine, the matter of Dokdo will be dealt with head on. It will be reviewed in the context of rectifying the historical record between Korea and Japan and historical awareness building, our history of self-reliance and independence, and the safeguarding of our sovereignty.

Physical provocations will be met with strong and firm response. We will be incessant in our efforts to debunk the unjust actions of the Japanese Government before the world community and the Japanese people. We will continue to muster every measure of our national strength and diplomatic resources until the day when the Japanese Government remedies these wrongdoings.

We will also undertake all other necessary measures. For this is a matter where no compromise or surrender is possible, whatever the costs and sacrifices may be.

It is my hope that a series of actions assumed by the Japanese Government, which offend Korea's history and detract from the dignity of the Korean people, are not grounded in the general perception of the Japanese people. For I believe the Japanese people are well aware of the truth that actions, which jeopardize friendly relations between Korea and Japan as well as peace in East Asia, are by no means righteous or in Japan's own interests. This is why we must refrain from emotional responses and keep our calm.

I would like to request earnestly the following of the people and leaders of Japan.

We are no longer demanding renewed apologies. We are simply calling for actions that would do justice to the apologies which have repeatedly been made. We are asking for the cessation of actions of seeking to glorify or legitimize its unjust history, which offend Korea's sovereignty and the dignity of its people. We are not demanding any special treatment for Korea but actions keeping with the universal values and standards of the international community. We are asking for honesty and humility in the face of historical truth and the conscience of humanity.

It is when Japan comports itself in conformity with these standards towards its neighbors and the international community as well that it will finally stand as a nation of maturity that befits its economic size and as a nation that can assume a leading role in the international community.

My fellow Koreans,

Despite the painful history wrought by colonial rule, we have been continuously seeking to write a new history of good neighborly relations and amity with Japan. Under the shared aspirations of democracy and market economy, both countries have made strides towards the goals of mutual benefit, equality, peace and prosperity and have achieved vast developments in our relationship.

Both countries must now redouble our efforts to ensure a lasting commitment to these shared aspirations and goals. We must move forward beyond bilateral relations and contribute jointly to the peace and prosperity not only in Northeast Asia but also throughout the world. An honest recognition and settlement of history as well as having trust in reciprocal respect for each other's sovereignty are essential to this task.

Japan should stand tall by boldly divesting the dark chapter in its history of past imperialist aggressions. We are awaiting Japan’s determination for peace and prosperity in Northeast Asia of the 21st century and, furthermore, peace in the world.

Thank you.

After reading the above speech, I hope people can agree that Korea's new president is much more rational and mature. Hopefully, President Lee's policy will triumph over the attempts of Korea's anti-Japanese bickerers to sour relations between Korea and Japan. Historians should bicker over history, not governments.


  1. Anonymous25/4/08 14:26

    Gerry, you are misinterpreting the 2 speeches to mean Korea has made a fundamental shift in there approach to the Dokdo Takeshima dispute. This is as fallacy.

    You have also excluded the historical context of President Roh's "hostile" attitude. I think this message to Japan was addressed when the Japanese were threatening to send survey ships to the islets without permission from Korea. This was a major provocation by Japan and no doubt would provoke a similar response today from President Lee...maybe worse.

    President Roh's speech has many valid points regarding Japan's military involvement on Dokdo and how these activities were related to the colonization of the Korean peninsula.

    "..Dokdo is our territory that was first to be annexed to Japan in the course of its usurpation of the Korean Peninsula.."Under the pretext of carrying out the Russo-Japanese War, Japan sent its troops to Korea and occupied the Korean Peninsula. The Japanese forces staged a siege around Korean royal palaces, terrorized the royal office and the Government of Korea to force them into signing the Korea-Japan Protocol, expropriated the land and people of Korea as it pleased, and established military facilities. Japan unilaterally proclaimed military rule over part of the Korean territory and eventually trampled on Korea’s sovereignty by taking away our fiscal and diplomatic rights.

    As part of this process, Japan forcefully merged Dokdo into its territory, installed an observation tower and electric cables, and utilized them in their war efforts. While continuing the military occupation of the Korean Peninsula, Japan deprived Korea of sovereignty and secured colonial control over the Peninsula..."

    Roh is also correct in his description of the political circumstances surrounding Korea during the time when Japanese annexed Takeshima.

    Dokdo Political

    Another good point by Roh, Japanese military records from the Russo~Japanese War show Japan did seize Liancourt Rocks to colonize Korea.

    These documents describe how Japan seized Korean land during the Russo~Japanese War of 1904~1905

    These documents detail Japan's military involvement on Liancourt Rocks before the annexation of the islets
    Military Dokdo1
    Military Dokdo2

    Every time the Koreans describe the historical circumstances surrounding Japan's 1905 seizure of Liancout Rocks, the Japanese accuse Koreans of dwelling on the past. The truth is, the Koreans want to move forward but the Japanese continually cite their 1905 annexation as basis for drawing a new boundary between Korea and Japan. The Koreans will never accept this and I don't blame them at all.

    If Korea and Japan want to draw up a fair boundary between the two countries it has to based on the premise that Korea and Japan are equals. Ultimately possession of Dokdo Takeshima will determine the territorial limits of Japan and Korea. You can't draw the boundary between Korea and Japan based on a one hundred year old annexation done while Japan was in the process of colonizing the Korean peninsula. The political situation in 2008 is worlds apart from 1905.

    We know both Ulleungdo and the Okinoshimas are inhabitable and thus capable of generating EEZs. With this modern legal principle in mind, a equidistant linear boundary drawn between the Japan's Okinoshimas and Korea's Ulleungdo is fair.

  2. Steve Barber (dokdo-takeshima) wrote:

    "Another good point by Roh, Japanese military records from the Russo~Japanese War show Japan did seize Liancourt Rocks to colonize Korea."

    That is ridiculous assertion. How could seizing Liancourt Rocks help Japan colonize Korea? Besides, there were no Koreans on Liancourt from which to seize the Rocks. In fact, Koreans did not even know the rocks had been incorporation until the Japanese told them about it a year later. Do you know the meaning of the word, "seized," Steve?

    And when the Japanese told Ulleungdo's county magistrate about the incorporation of Liancourt Rocks, he did not even know where they were since he reported they were 40 kilometers (100 ri) away from Ulleungdo when, in fact, they are 92 kilometers away.

    When Ulleungdo's county head reported that Japanese had visited him and told him they had incorported the rocks, the county head reported that the rocks were a part of his county and were called "Dokdo" (獨島); however, he did not know the location of the rocks. It seems he just assumed the rocks were near Ulleungdo since Japanese boats were fishing them from Ulleungdo.

    When Korean officials received the Ulleungdo county head's report, they told him to investigate further. So what was the result of that investigation?

    Well, on July 13, 1906, which was just a couple of months after the Ulleungdo county head reported about Japan's incorporation of "Dokdo," the Korean newspaper, "Hwangseong Sinmun" (皇城新聞), reported HERE that the Japanese government had asked the Korean Ministry of Interior to clarify what neighboring islands were part of Ulleungdo. The Korean ministry reported Ulleungdo's neighboring islands were "Jukdo" (竹島) and "Seokdo" (石島). The Korean ministry did not mention anything about "Dokdo," even though they had received a report about the island just a couple of months earlier. That suggests that the investigation showed that "Dokdo" was not a neighboring island of Ulleungdo.

    Here is a translation of the July 13, 1906 Korean article:

    鬱島郡의 配置顛末

    統監府에서 內部에 公函하되 江原道 三陟郡 管下에 所在 鬱陵島에 所属島嶼와 郡廳設始 年月을 示明하라는 故로 答函하되、光武二年五月二十日에 鬱陵島監으로 設始 하였다가 光武四年十月二十五日에 政府會議 經由하야 郡守를 配置하니 郡廳은 台霞洞에 在하고 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 하였다이다.

    Facts on Arrangement of Uldo County

    The Resident-General sent an official letter to the Interior Ministry asking it to clarify what islands belonged to Ulleungdo, which is under the administration of Samcheok County in Gangwon Province, and the year and month the county office was established. The response was that the post of Ulleungdo Administrator was established on May 20, 1898, and then on October 25, 1900, the government decided to post a county magistrate with the county office being at Daehadong (台霞洞). It said the islands under the authority of the said county were Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島), and that it was sixty ri from east to west and forty ri from north to south for a total of 200 ri.

  3. Anonymous25/4/08 15:34

    Gerry, I've posted all the information above showing how Japan seized Korean land.

    This process started in February 1904 please see this document.


    Later that year (August 1904 Korea lost her ability freely conduct state to state affairs when Japan assumed control over her foreign affairs office.


    The Koreans didn't know Japan incorporated the islands. Neither did the Japanese outside of a few official who were involved in the annexation process. This is a clear example of how Japan failed to publicly announce the incorporation.

    Gerry states: "How could seizing Liancourt Rocks help Japan colonized Korea...?"

    Gerry, don't play stupid. I have explained to you numerous times that Japan needed to install a telegraph station and watchtowers on Takeshima. This was recorded in November 13th 1904 by secret instruction #276 issued to the Japanese Imperial Warship Tsushima. The construction survey was done on November 20th 1904 and the results were issued to the Navy's Hydrographic Dept on January 5th 1905 about a month before the Japanese seized (yes seized) Liancourt Rocks.

    It was also recorded in Nakai Yozaburo's diary Yamaza Enjiro stated "It was urgent to install these facilities to keep watch on Russian Warships in the East Sea.

    Please read the information I give you before blathering on. I'll post the links again.


    The shady political circumstances surrounding Japan "incorporation" are almost as lame as the aforementioned military ones.


    Gerry, you are no better than the crusty combovers who work for Japan's MOFA. I posted a response stating there should be a solution to this problem based on modern premise that Korea and Japan are equals and you still ramble on about how "legal" Japan's 1905 claim is. As I've shown, it is Japan's MOFA and Takeshima lunatic right-wing lobbyists who are stopping Asia from moving forward. As long as they want to re-impose 100 year-old colonial era territorial boundaries upon modern developed states, they will provoke harsh responses.

  4. Steve,

    First, let's make it clear Japan did not "seize" Liancourt Rocks, since, even you admit Koreans did not know about the incorporation. A seizure is "to forcible take something," which implies that people would know about it.

    Second, Japan installed watchtowers on Ulleungdo without "seizing" or incorporating the island, so there would have been no reason to incorporate Liancourt Rocks to just install watchtowers.

    Third, the 1906 article says that Japan's Resident-General asked Korea's Ministry of Interior to clarify the neighboring islands of Ulleungdo, which means that regardless of what freedoms Korea have had to conduct "state-to-state" affairs, she still had the freedom to conduct internal affairs; otherwise, why would the Japanese have even bothered asking?

    Now, why don't you respond to the July 13, 1906 article? The Korean Ministry of Interior had already been informed about "Dokdo," yet just a couple of months after hearing the name "Dokdo," the Korean ministry did not include it as being one of Ulleungdo's neighboring islands. That suggests that it had been confirmed that Dokdo was outside Korean territory.

    Your blog is just a bunch of garbage arranged for subterfuge and obfuscation. I honestly do not understand what kind of personal satisfaction you could get out of it.

  5. Anonymous25/4/08 22:35

    Regarding the 1906 article. I don't know why the Foreign Ministry of the Interior replied as such Gerry, I wasn't there. Everytime you make a point on this blog, I see your posts followed by "this suggests" or "this implies" I'm not interested in your suggestions Gerry.

    Don't put the burden on me to reason the exact military motives for Japan's military annexation. Just accept the historical evidences thus far.

    The first evidence of this was Japanese Political Affairs Bureau Director Yamaza Enjiro. He outright said the incorporation was urgent particularly under the present situation, and it is absolutely necessary and advisable to construct watchtowers and install wireless or submarine cable and keep watch on the hostile warships. This was around September of 1904.

    See here:

    The second proof of Japan's military agenda on Liancourt Rocks is the outright command for the warship Tsushima to survey the islands for military watchtower construction on November 13th 1904. This is recorded in the logbooks of the warship on this document.

    See here:

    The third evidence is the watchtower construction survey of Liancourt Rocks dated December 5th 1905. It stated the East Islet was a good location for military facilities. This was accompanied by a map drawn by the Vice Commander of the Tsushima.

    See here:

    Gerry all of this proof leads us to the conclusion Japan's "incorporation" was little more than a military annexation undertaken during the largest war (Russo~Japanese) of the day for Japan's bid to colonize Korea. This is important for both legal reasons and political ones.

    You and your Takeshima lobbyists want to constantly drag us back to the colonial era trying to use Japan's 1905 annexation of Takeshima as land claim. This is shabby to begin with. What's worse is that after forcibly leading us to this painful era you want to ignore reams of historical data that show how rotten Japan's incorporation was to begin with. If you want to use Japan's 1905 annexation as the basis for land claim, don't piss and moan when others explain the circumstances around it.

    Even this article you've posted about Presidents Roh and Lee shows how you take two different pieces of data out of context and make rash statements Gerry.

    Wow you insulted my blog, that hurts!! Well judging by my hits these days, somebody out there likes it. I guess, one man's "subterfuge and obfuscation" is another mans historical context.

  6. Steve,

    My suggestion was that Dokdo was not Korean territory. No suggestion was needed in regard to its not being a neighboring island of Ulleungdo since the 1906 article said very clearly that Korea's Interior Ministry listed Ulleungdo's neignboring islands as being only Jukdo and Seokdo. By the way, for someone who does not like suggestions or implications, you sure do make a lot of them.

    Before you can claim that Japan "seized" Liancourt Rocks from Korea, you first have to show that the Rocks belonged to Korea, but you do not even bother doing that, do you? And I think the reason you do not bother is that you know there is no solid evidence showing that the rocks were ever Korean territory. For example, Korea has not one single map of the Rocks or any document showing that Koreans ever traveled to the them.

    It is funny that when I ask you to comment on Korea's Interior Ministry's omitting "Dokdo" from Ulleungdo's neighboring islands, you say you cannot comment because you were not there. That is funny because you manage to comment on other events that happened during that time, even though you were not there.

    Why do you post links to Japanese documents without providing a translation? I cannot read Japanese, and I value your summaries about as much I value used toilet paper.

    Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞) petitioned for the incorporation of Liancourt Rocks on September 29, 1904, so that he could start a sea lion hunting business there. The Japanese government accepted his petition. See "Petition to Incorporate Ryanko-to (Liancourt Rocks)."

    Just because the Russo-Japan war happened at about the same time as Mr. Nakai Yozaburo's petition does not mean that Liancourt Rocks were incorporated for military purposes. As I said before, watchtowers could have been built on the rocks without Japan's incorporating them.

    I guess we will never know if people are visiting your blog to criticize it or to praise it since you do not allow comments on it.

  7. Anonymous26/4/08 01:54

    Gerry, my e-mail address is at the top of my website, front row center.

    I'm not dodging your question about the 1906 inquiry. I'm just not filling in the blanks like you are. The inquiry says Jukdo and Seokdo are part of Uldo County. Then it gives the dimensions of Ulleungdo Island from old historical records and maps. Koreans say Seokdo is Dokdo that's all. You say it isn't, what's your point?

    Gerry, countries incorporate land for a reason and Japan incorporated Liancourt Rocks for a reason.

    Here there two theories as to why Japan annexed Liancourt Rocks.

    Your explanation is that Japan needed to incorporate Liancourt Rocks because they felt an urgent desire to support a greasy squatter's bid to wack seals during a major war. This was as Russia's Baltic Fleet was about to engage the Japanese Navy in the waters surrounding Takeshima.

    In light of the data I've presented above, the assertions you and Japan's MOFA make are quite laughable. Especially when I gave you a clear historical reference that even shows Yamaza Enjiro stated to the fact. That is why I devoted a great deal of time and effort to researching all aspects of Japan's incorporation political and miitary.

    We also know the Japanese Imperial Navy mapped and zoned the waters surrounding Ullengdo and Liancourt Rocks only months before they annexed Dokdo.


    The explanation for Japan's annexation I give is supported by many military-political records and maps from JACARS website. While yours is a superficial excuse regurgitated from the pages of Japan's MOFA's Propaganda Brochure.

    No Judge Gerry, I don't have to show that Liancourt Rocks was Korean territory to negate Japan's claim. Ownerless or not, territorial acquisitions must be part of a natural peaceful process as stated by Max Huber. Annexing an island for military purposes does not fall into this category. Land claims must also be done in an open and public manner. Japan's claim was not public much like their silent claim of Marcus Island a few years earlier.

    Do you need a translation of Japan's military survey of Liancourt Rocks? Please read this page then.


    As I've stated at the top of this thread Gerry, Korea doesn't accept Japan's 1905 military annexation of Liancourt Rocks, nor should they.

    We must remember, ownership of Dokdo Takeshima is more than just a land claim. This island will determine the boundary between Japan and Korea. In 1905 it was really no big deal that Japan annexed Liancourt Rocks. Korea was a dirt-poor underdeveloped country. Japan already controlled much of Korea politically. Hundreds if not thousands of illegal Japanese squatters were living on Korea's neighbour island Ulleungdo. There were Japan military watchtowers on Ulleungdo and Japanese military-police stationed there as well. Ulleungdo was effectively Japanese territory at this time.

    In 2008, Korea's economic clout rivals many of the European powers who once dominated Asia. Korea is a free country and the political situation in northeast Asia is very different Gerry. I think 10,000 Koreans live on Ulleungdo and they need the waters surrounding both Ulleungdo and Dokdo for their livelihood. Yet you wish to push back the boundary to the situation of the colonial era. That's ridiculous.

    Japan's policy on small outlying islands is to declare these rocks as EEZ no matter how small.
    The Japanese claim a 400,000 square km EEZ around tiny Marcus Island. Because they have taken this posture on Marcus Island and the Okinotoroshimas, they are in a sense bound to follow this posture on Takeshima or face weakening their dispute with China in the Okinotoroshimas. That would mean if Japan were given Dokdo, they could try to extend their boundary even further outward toward Ulleungdo. This would create serious friction and exasperate the situation more.

    So you see Gerry, it is the Japanese who are the ones dwelling on the past not the Koreans. Japan insists on revisiting the colonial era when they demand Dokdo. The Japanese should attempt to resolve the dispute by putting forth modern, logical proposals bearing in mind Korea is an equal NOT a colony.

    Also, If these maps are Japan's MOFA's slimy method of diplomacy they've got a lot of to learn about politics.



  8. Steve,

    Putting up an email address is much different from allowing people to post comments to your site. A comment's section would allow people to point out all the inaccuracies, lies, half-truths, ommissions, subterfuge, and obfuscation on your site for all visitors to your site to see. An email address would allow only you to see something that you already know.

    The 1906 article said that when the Korean Ministry of Interior was asked to clarify Ulleungdo's neighboring islands, the ministry listed only "Jukdo" (竹島) and "Seokdo" (石島). The ministry did not mention "Dokdo" (獨島), even though the Udo (Ulleungdo) county magistrate had claimed Dokdo as part of his county just a couple of months earlier. Of course, when the Udo county magistrate made the claim, he did not even know where Dokdo was. If Korea had wanted to protest Japan's incorporation of Liancourt Rocks, they had the perfect opportunity to do so in July 1906, but Korea did not protest it.

    Also, the boundaries given for Ulleungdo excluded Dokdo since they were only big enough to include the main island of Ulleungdo and its surrounding islands, such as Jukdo (竹島). So my point is that the 1906 article shows Korean claims of Seokdo (石島) being Dokdo (獨島) are false. Next time I will get some crayons and draw you a picture.

    Liancourt Rocks was incorporated and leased to Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞) for sea lion hunting, just as his petition requested. Mr.Nakai's petition is the reason the islands were incorporated, and the reason is supported by other Japanese documents.

    I did not read your links, Steve. Did any of them include a petition by the military to incorporate Liancourt Rocks?

    If Japan were going to incorporate Liancourt Rocks, the Japanese navy would naturally have to survey the islands to determine exactly what it was incorporating. Simply because a watchtower could be put on the rocks does not mean it was incorporated for that purpose.

    Whether or not you can "negate" Japan's claim to Liancourt Rocks without showing they were Korean territory does not change the fact that you do have to show they were Korean territory if you are going to claim that Japan "seized" them from Korea. Are you now admitting that Japan did not seize them from Korea?

    What are the translations of the logbooks supposed to prove, Steve? Are they supposed to be the petition to incorporate Liancourt Rocks for military purposes?

    HERE is our post on the logbooks of the Japanese Warship Hashidate, which was sent to Liancourt Rocks in June 1905 to determine if the rocks were suitable for building a watchtower. They found Mr. Nakai Yozaburo and thirty-five fishermen from Oki Island hunting sea lions there since the territory had already been incorporated in February 1905 and the fishing rights leased to Mr. Nakai Yozaburo. Also, by June, the Russian navy had already been defeated in the Sea of Japan, so how urgent was a watchtower at that time?

    Your comments are getting too silly and "slimy" for me to waste enough time on you.

  9. CORRECTION: Your comments are getting too silly and "slimy" for me to waste anymore time on you.

  10. Anonymous26/4/08 15:23

    Gerry, the report issued in 1906 was a compilation of Ulleungdo maps and Ordinance 41. It gives the dimensions of Ulleungdo from old maps and lists the islands also inclusive. It doesn't give us the identity of Seokdo nor the dimension of Uldo County with islands. Also, what did the Korean Interior Ministry (presumably in Seoul) know about Ulleungdo's surrounding islands or what other appellations Koreans may have had for Dokdo in 1900? The simply relayed what files they had on Uldo country.

    It also doesn't tell us if the Koreans raised any further objections following the reply. The fact Koreans were asking these questions to the Japanese Resident General in Seoul speaks volumes. It shows the Koreans had lost the ability to conduct state-to-state objections at this point. If Korea did object formally the Japanese Resident General would have g-filed it anyway.

    The warship Hashidate's survey of the island was initiated only three days after the Battle of Tsushima Gerry. The war was still on and Russia had not been "defeated" If you will notice I focus on Japan's military activities BEFORE the incorporation. This shows the real basis for Japan's incorporation was military.

    The Japanese surveyed Dokdo for watchtowers because on June 15th of 1904 Russian ships of the Vladivostok Fleet attacked the Japanese transports Sado Maru and Hitachi Maru. Also the Battle of Ulsan took place on August 14th 1904 only ninety days before the Japanese surveyed Liancourt Rocks for military watchtowers.


    Gerry, If you wish to make an ass of yourself by trying to convince us that the Japanese Imperial Government wanted to incorporate Liancourt Rocks for the purpose of killing seals while war raged in the Sea of Japan please do. It exposes you shabby approach to history and your bias.

    Here is what was really happening in Korea and northeast Asia at the time Japan annexed Liancourt Rocks.


    The Japanese would have never publicly annexed Dokdo using their military agenda as its premise. Komura Jutaro knew full well this wasn't legal. He also knew using heavy tactics in the region might agitate other foreign nations. Foreign intervention was a constant concern of the Japanese at this time. The Japanese still didn't have full support of other western nations until later on.

    The study of the Dokdo Takeshima issue involves ALL data involving islets. This includes the political and military circumstances surrounding Liancourt Rocks and the manner in which they were annexed in 1905. Outside of Shimane Prefecture's right wing rags and your circle of Takeshima lobbyists (cheerleaders) your version doesn't wash Gerry.

    Twice on this thread I've presented reasons why Japan's demands are both unreasonable and impractical in the year 2008 and what have you suggested, Gerry? Squat. Just more ranting "Seokdo isn't Dokdo!!" This is typical of Japan's thick-headed, narrow-minded approach to the Dokdo Takeshima problem.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.