Below is a translation of The 25th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao
"Opinion Ad by The Unity of Asian Peace and History Education"" Unity of Asian Peace and history education" of South Korea (consists of 64 groups in total ) took out the issue ad to a San-in Chuo Shimpo, the local paper in Shimane, the next day of "Takeshima Day" commemorative ceremony of the 5th held in Shimane Prefecture Matsue City (February 23, 2010). Korean groups had payed for the groundless issue ads to The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, etc. up to now, but they finally landed on Japan. The purpose of the issue ad by the pressure groups from South Korea is to seal Japan's claim of the sovereignty of the Takeshima. To that end, Korean always use the old trick, namely, the logic to tie the Japan's incorporation of Korea in 1910 and the incorporation of Takeshima in 1905 so that they could call the incorporation as "invasion" arbitrary.
However, there is no fact Takeshima/Dokdo has ever been a Korean territory historically nor in accordance with the International Law, as the the Shimane Prefecture's Takeshima Research Group proved empirically. Therefore, annexation of Korea in 1910 has anything to do with incorporation of Takeshima in 1905 at all, thus it is necessary to separate the two as individual historical event respectively, since they are unrelated in any way to each other. For all those fact, why South Korea tie the annexation in 1910 to the Takeshima issue, exclaiming and overemphasizing Japan's "invasion" frantically? That is because, in Korea, they tend to see the historical event in view of posterity and translate the history arbitrary.
The issue ad by "Unity of Asian Peace and history education" frankly tells it. In the issue ad, they say that "Takeshima/Dokdo issue might be mere territorial issues for Japanese people, but it for people in South Korea is the symbolical existence reminded of a painful scar of colonization, and one of the pages of the painful history to which the invasion and colonialism brought." Nevertheless, this claim can be justified only after Korean could prove Takeshima/Dokdo to be historical Korean territories.
However, Korean kept failing to prove this crucial point up to now, to our regret. Japan's incorporation of Takeshima, which was "Terra nullius", in 1905 has nothing to do with annexation of Korea in 1910, let alone it never be "one of the pages of the painful history to which the invasion and colonialism brought." The issue ad they posted are written intentionally, as a sharp pen, "mere territorial issues for Japanese people" as if it is not so serious, yet Takeshima is lawfully Japanese territory in accordance with International Law. Today's Takeshima/Dokdo issue stems from the fact that Korean government set the "Rhee Syngman Line" on the high seas and included Takeshima withing the line on Jan. 18th, 1952.
As a historical fact, it is Japan, not Korea, that a part of territory is deprived and his own sovereignty was violated. Appealing to an emotionally‐loaded argument such as "reminds of a painful scar of colonizations" is only the political demagogues to conceal the fact of their own "invasion" of Takeshima.
The reason that the majestic historical fact of "Invasion of Takeshima by Korea" had somehow been replaced by "the symbolical existence reminded of a painful scar of colonizations for Korean" owes Korea's serious flaw of historical translation. Appealing to the emotionally-charged argument as such is only a political demagogy to conceal the fact of their invasion of Takeshima. In fact, every time both country argue the issue, South Korean tries to think out various reasons to make Takeshima/Dokdo as its territory by arbitrary interpreting the document and historical materials without historical grounds.
The misconception of history that "Incorporation of Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture was the first sacrifice of Invasion by Japan" originally derived from the statement of Byeon Yeong-tae(卞栄泰) the Minister of foreign affairs, made in October, 1954. When Japanese Government proposed bringing a case to International Court of Justice to the South Korea government that constructed the lighthouse in Takeshima and disposed the coast security force in September, 1954, Byeon called it as "The second invasion" following the annexation of Korea in 1910. Since then, the perception of history assumed to be "The second invasion" has been the grounds of an argument of "History issue" afterwards.
However, to call it as "The second invasion", South Korean is obliged to prove empirically and show the historical evidence that Takeshima was Korean territory before 1905, which SK had never succeeded whatsoever. The fact that Japan had incorporated Takeshima, which was not Korea's territory either, into Shimane Prefecture, it cannot be said, "The first sacrifice of the invasion in South Korea".
Nevertheless, why does South Korea who invaded Japan's inherent territory Takeshima goes out of control as they are doing today? ---It is because diplomatic posture of Japan has not established. As for the solution of the Takeshima issue, it is not described in the manifest of the Democratic Party of Japan(民主党) though it appears in "Democratic Party policy collection INDEX2009(民主党政策集INDEX2009)". Their halfway/incomplete political stance appears to the fact from which "Takeshima" is not clearly described to the manual of the course of study of the high school on December 25 last year.
In the midst of the confusion of Japanese political situation, ridiculing the unstable diplomatic policy, this issue ad was published by "Peace and history education unity of Asia". The fact it was published in the local paper of Shimane Prefecture that enacted "Takeshima Day" ordinance was tantamount to the mockery of primitive Japanese diplomacy. As for the solution of the Takeshima issue, though the Liberal-Democratic Party(自民党) made it as a public commitment in 1996, the they were also critical to the enactment of "Takeshima Day" ordinance in 2005. Meanwhile, it looks Democratic Party does not have strong will for solving the issue either. According Korean magazine "Monthly Korea(月刊朝鮮)", Mr. Hatoyama, the president of the Democratic Party (incumbent Prime Minister of Japan) that visited South Korea to have conferences with Han Myeongsuk(韓明淑), was reportedly said "It is a diplomatic failure of Japan that caused South Korean people to have the idea to receive the invasion from Japan again by the Takeshima issue".
In addition, according to the magazine, when Ms. Han explained Hatoyama, "The purpose of President Roh Moo-hyun's special speech is to teach this Japanese Government and its people that Takeshima issue is not only a territory issue but also a problem of wrong perception of history of Japan.", Hatoyama reportedly showed sympathy, saying "All territorial issues start from the history. For Takeshima issue, it seems for us to have to make an effort so that Japan may understand a historical fact more accurately."
This Hatoyama's remark came after he received the one hour and a half long explanation concerning the Takeshima issue from South Korean Professor Hosaka Yuji, and this kind of history understanding closely resembles the perception of history of the Hokkaido teachers' union that is one of the power/voter bases of the Democratic Party. Hokkaido Teachers' Union reported Takeshima Issue in its organ/the study material as follows.
"A big difference of the perception of history of Japan-South Korea was shown off over "Takeshima/Dokto" issue. While it was recognized as a territorial issue in Japan, in Korea, it is considered as a problem of the invasion and colonizations because "Dokto" was occupied in the process of the colonization by Japan. In a word, when Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology clearly described "Takeshima as its territory" in the teacher's manual for Junior High school history, for Korea, it means the unfair move do try to justify its invasion and colonization of Korea. The thing is extremely important because if we peruse the historical fact, it is clear that Korea's claim follow the fact..."
Hokkaido teachers' union's perception of history is common with the opinion of "Peace and history education unity of Asia" (64 groups in the total of the composition group) of South Korea published in a San-in Chuo Shimpo. In fact, the advertiser of the issue ad, such as "Federation of Korean Trade Unions(韓国労働組合総連盟)", "Korean Confederation of Trade Unions(全国民主労働組合総連盟)", and "Korean Teachers & Education Workers' Union (全国教職員労働組合)", hold similar political stances with the power/voter bases of the Democratic Party.
However, to our regret, there is no such a fact at all that Takeshima had historically become a South Korean territory. It is expressed in the issue ad of "Unity of Asian Peace and history education", that "As it is the centennial year of annexation this year, is it a time for both citizens to stand up in order to reflect on the wrong history so that it soften pains even a little in victims who might not have healed yet ?"
This statement is not based on historical fact, though it seems to be at first site. Because Japan's annexation of Korea in 1910 has nothing to do with incorporation of Takeshima in 1906 in the first place. So, apparently, it is simply the sophistry for them to justify Korea's own invasion, to assert " Don't you think that they should delete Japan's territorial claim, which stimulates the pain that Korean doesn't want to recall, from the teacher's guideline of manual for Junior high school textbook?" Though we have no clue of the background why the issue ad, which disregard the historical fact, was published in San-in Chuo Shimpo, it was great for Japan in a way. Because we could identified who was responsible for the delay of the solution of the Takeshima issue and confused relations between Japan and South Korea.
Then, let me request " Unity of Asian Peace and history education", who made issue ad, to show historical grounds that proves Takeshima was a Korean territory and to explain how on the earth Japan's territorial claim on the island could be "The second invasion". They are responsible for what they said and done as long as its contents derive far from historical fact and it is simply to criticize Japan, though I do listen to their opinion as the opinion.
(This was written for the counterargument against the issue ad, but I was recommended to publish as the issue ad. Since the advertisement rates are unaffordable for me, it is listed and put as a series of my column. )
“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２５回 「アジアの平和と歴史教育連帯」の意見広告について 下條正男”
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.
The 24th column “South Korean Government dug their own grave by publishing the English version of "The Dokdo/Takeshima Controversy" by Prof. Emeritus Naito Seichu and Mr. Park Byeong-seop.”
The 23rd column " Refutation against the report of South Korean Yonhap News Agency which misread the Mori Kohan（森幸安）'s "The Map of Tsushima(對馬輿地図)"
The 22th column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””,
Part 1,
Part 2,
Part 3,
Part 4The 21st column " Refutation against "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”
The 19th column “"Korea Maritime Institute(KMI : 韓国海洋水産開発院）, who lacks ability to read their own historical documents, criticized on Shimane Prefecture. "”
The 18th column “Absurd and Peculiar Theory of Prof. Hosaka, plus the "Children and textbook nationwide net 21" and others' Getting "Out of Control.””
The 17th column “The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).”
The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."
The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"
The 14th column “A reckless Courage of the Professor Kimishima Kazuhiko(君島和彦) of Tokyo Gakugei University(東京学芸大学).
The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”
The 11th column “South Korea's Misunderstanding of 'A Map of Three Adjoining Countries (Sangoku Setsujozu 三国接壌図)' by Hayashi Shihei(林子平)”
The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory”
The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”
The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."
Japanese government approved all five elementary school social studies textbooks and two atlases that marked Takeshima as Japanese territory.
日経 教科書検定、竹島が全社に登場 国境線で意見も （元 リンク:リンク切れ）
