竹島問題の歴史

26.7.14

1905-May. 14 - San-in Shimbun "Sea-lion Hunting on Takeshima"

Althogh pro-Korean claim that Japanese secretly incorporated Takeshima into Shimane knowingly that it is Korean, so many hard evidences at the time prove that this is not the case, as has alredy been showed on this site as well. The article I introduced here is one of them.

The report about Sea-lion hunging on Takeshima dates back to two weeks before the famous Battle of Tsushima  which almost ended around Takeshima on 28th May 1905. This is one of the good evidence not only that incorporation was not "secret" at all, but also people of Shimane has already know the fact of incorporation very well.

 "●Sea-lion Hunting on Takeshima
 As you readers have already know, Takeshima is a solitary island far off in the sea which locates 85 sea-ris north-west of Oki country and one of the island is around 20-chou(町), the other is merely aounrd 12-chou. Mr. Nakai Yonesaburo first voyaged tothe year before last and found the colony of Sea-lion. He found it is a pity that the island is omitted from the sea-chart, and petitioned to the  national government. Through the good offices of Mr. Nakai, the islands were determined as the territory of the empire and incorporated into our Shimane prefecture by the Prefectural Order on 22 Feb. Ths islands are, as were described above, a meeting place of sea-lions for three months from May to July. Now apart from Nr. Nakai, three more rivals has emerged. Then they publised the licence only to those four and is going to let the four to hunt cooperatively.  Furthermore, from what I hear, the period of time above are the period of their deivery, so the female are on the land for nurcing the baby, and male also land for the love of female. This is convenient for hunting. 7-8 thousand of sea-lion are on the same zone, tops, but excessive hunting would damage their reproduction. So the number of hunting is limited to 6-7 hundred per year so that they would make a profit for 5-10 years."
-------------------------------------------------------------
山陰新聞 明治卅八年五月十四日
●竹島の海獺獵(あじかれう)

讀者も知れる如く、竹島は隱岐國の西北八十五海里にある絕海の孤島 にして、一は周回二十町、他の一は同上十一二町に過ぎず。這(こ)は、西鄕の中井米三郎氏が一昨年始めて渡航し、海獺の集合地なることを發見せしも、海圖 に洩れたるを遺憾とし、中央政府に稟申(りんしん)する等、大に斡旋の勞を執りし結果、帝國の領土とすることに決定し、去る二月廿二日の縣告示を以て、本 縣の管轄に歸せしものなるが、同島は實に前記の如く海獺の集合地にして、其期は五月より七月まで三ヶ月間なるが、今は同氏の外に三人の競爭者を生じたるを 以て、其向(そのむき)にては右四人の外には可か(きよか)を與へず、四人も亦共同して獵せしめん方針なりといへり。尙ほ聞く所に據れば右の期間は、海獺 が分娩するときにして、牝は哺乳の爲め陸地に上り、牡は牝を戀ひて上陸するものにして、銃殺に好便を與ふる次第なるが、多く上陸しるときには一區域にても 尙ほ七八千頭を下らす。然れども濫獲は生殖を害するを以て、一年凡そ六七百頭を限りなば、尙ほ五年や十年の利益を保持し得べしとのこと。


※ 「稟申」は、原文では「票申」と誤植されている


The article says the man's name was Yonesaburo, but it is Yozaburo or Yosaburo, in fact. San-in Shimbun(山陰新聞) is a local newspaper in Matsue, and now it called San-in Chuo Shinpo(山陰中央新報).

The article was founded and provided by Mr. Magic Eye, who is a good researcher and a collector of those historical stuff. Thank you for sharing a good information with us !

20.6.14

竹島問題100問100答に対する批判


竹島問題100問100答に対する批判
  →元ファイル(韓国語)
  →機械翻訳ファイル(日本語)

Matsuさんから紹介いただいた、島根県発刊の「竹島問題100問100答」に対する慶北道独島史料研究会の反論です。慶北道独島史料研究会というのはこれまで聞いたことがありませんが、対象が島根県の著作ということで同じ自治体の「慶北道」の名前を使って立ち上げたのかもしれません。
著者は金柄烈を中心に柳美林、保坂 祐二という代わり映えのしないメンバーが中心とのことです。


発刊辞
2008年2月、日本外務省は「竹島問題を理解するための10のポイント(10 Issues of Takeshima)」を発刊してオンラインおよびオフラインで独島について歪曲された事実を伝播しようとした。だが、これが日本国民や国際社会で特別な 呼応を得ることができなかったためか、2009年12月にこれを補完した「竹島問題の概要(Outline of Takeshima Issue)」を再び発刊した。
日本のこのような挑発に対し、我が国は東北アジア歴史財団と韓国海洋水産開発院でそれぞれ「独島の真実(The Truth of Dokdo)2008」と「独島は果たして日本の領土だったか?」を発刊したが、日本の主張に対し各項目別に反駁するというよりも独島が私たちの領土だと いうことに力点を置いて内容を構成したので別段呼応を得られなかった。
これに対し自信を得たのか、日本は今回また再び「竹島問題100問100 答」(以下「百問百答」と略称)という膨大な内容の冊子を発刊して、多くの人々の目と耳を幻惑させている。これに対し、私たち慶尚北道史料研究会では、こ れを傍観すれば日本人はもちろん我が国の人々までも「百問百答」に出てくる内容が事実かも知れないという誤解を生じる素地があると考え、これに対する反論 を準備することになった。
もちろん、これまでいくつかの団体で「百問百答」を批判する学術セミナーを開催することもした。しかしこれらのセミナー は「百問百答」に対して一つ一つ反論を提起するよりは、従前と同じように「韓国はもちろん日本の古文献でも私たちの領土になっている」、「島根県の独島編 入は国際法的に不法、無効だ」のように総論形式になっているため、一般国民の立場ではそれほど満足できないのが現実だった。
その上セミナー発表文というものは、一般市中で購入することもできない非売品限定本であったため、何日か過ぎた今は、そういうセミナーがあったという事実さえ記憶している人がほとんどいない。
これに対し、私たち史料研究会では「百問百答」に対して一つ一つ反論を提起することで、日本の主張が根拠がないということを明確に立証する一方、これを冊子で発刊して1回性にならないようにする必要があると意見を集約した。
し かし、竹島問題研究会が長い期間中準備した「百問百答」に対し、私たちが短期間内に批判文を作成するには多くの困難が伴った。それでも満足するほどの水準 の批判文が作成される時まで長期間発刊を遅らせるのは、より一層話にならない処置なので、不足したままで今回「「竹島問題100問100答」に対する批 判」を発刊することになった。
この本に入った内容は、筆者が常識水準でいつも知っていたものなどを簡単に整理したものなので、これだけが全部だと 言うことはできない。また、責任執筆者の原稿が完成した後、それぞれの原稿に対し他の執筆者が意見を提示したのだが、それを受け入れない場合、全面的に責 任執筆者の意志に従った。
従ってこの本の内容は慶尚北道または史料研究会の統一された意見だと見るよりは、全的に責任執筆者個々人の常識的な意見だと見なければならない。
そして「百問百答」中には、「第1部 私たちの島竹島」と「第9部 島根県の活動を知ろう」のように、批判が必要ない部分も非常に多くの部分を占めているために、これらに対しては一つ一つ批判をしなかった。
この本が私たちの国民に、独島問題に対する自信を持つようにするのに少しでも役に立ったら良いと執筆者は考えている。合わせて日本語に翻訳されて、日本の人々が独島に対し客観的な知識を持つようになるのにも役に立つように願う。

2014年5月 慶尚北道 独島史料研究会 会長 
金柄烈(キム・ビョンリョル)
Matsuさん訳

なお、全文訳は著作権上問題があるかもしれませんが、慶北道独島史料研究会も島根県の100問100答を全文訳して公開しており掲載することにしました。

15.5.14

The Diplomat: "The ICJ and the Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute"

The Diplomat has a pretty Good Article on the Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute, where I just posted the following comment:

This article is a good and fair summary of the current situation with the Liancourt Rocks dispute, but it seems to be trying too hard not to offend either Japan or South Korea. Fortunately, I do not have to worry about that.

The reason Korea refuses to take the Liancourt Rocks dispute to the International Court of Justice is that Korea knows it has little to no evidence to support its historical claim to the Rocks and that Japan has a great deal of evidence to support hers. Moreover, the 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan recognized Japan's claim to the Rocks by not including them among the territories to which Japan gave up claim, as was confirmed in a Top Secret, 1954 report by President Eisenhower's Special Ambassador to the Far East, General James Alward Van Fleet, in which the General wrote the following:
"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."
The South Korean claim that there is no dispute with Japan over Liancourt Rocks is ridiculous, especially when the South Korean government has been refusing to meet with Japanese officials because Japan publicly claims the Rocks.

South Korea currently occupies Liancourt Rocks and knows that Japan will not use military force to retake the them, so why is South Korea making such a fuss over the Rocks and using the dispute as an excuse not to improve diplomatic and military cooperation with Japan? That is the question the United States should be asking itself and South Korea. The answer may be that South Korea wants to keep its options open with both China and the United States.

By feigning outrage with Japan over Liancourt Rocks, South Korea may be hoping to ease Chinese concerns of a possible South Korea-Japan military alliance while also using the dispute as an excuse for rejecting US requests to form a closer alliance with Japan. In other words, Korea seems to be using its old strategy of trying to remain neutral by playing off against great powers. I think South Korea should reconsider such a strategy, especially since it did not work last time.

8.3.14

2006 April 20 - "The Ambassador and VFM Yachi Discuss Liancourt Rocks Dispute"

If THIS DOCUMENT has already been posted, please let me know.
----------------------

S E C R E T TOKYO 002154

SIPDIS

 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

7.3.14

1864 Japanese Map entitled 大日本海陸全圖, by Seiken Gengyo and Ebisuya Shoshichi

I am pretty sure we have discussed this map before, but I cannot find it on this site. What do we know about this map and the mapmaker? I have a renewed interest in it.

I notice that many of the Japanese place names on the map are in katakana, including Matsushima (マツシマ), but Ulleungdo is labeled in kanji (竹島 -Takeshima). Likewise, other larger islands. such as Tsushima (對馬), are labeled in kanji, but their smaller, neighboring islands are generally labeled in katakana. Is it possible the mapmaker used a system whereby he labeled larger, main islands in kanji and smaller, nearby islands in katakana to show they were close enough to be considered neighboring islands of the larger island?

If such a system was used, maybe the "Matsushima" (マツシマ) on this map was not referring to Liancourt Rocks, but rather to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島)? That would explain why the two islands are so close together on this map and similar maps and why Matsushima is drawn as one island instead of two.




18.1.14

Original text of the chinese documents about Takeshima

original text
Gerry posted an article about this news.

Mr. Matsu got the Korean researcher’s (Yoo Mi-rim) book and original texts of Chinese documents became identified. It also turned out that there ware fatal mistakes in Yoo Mi-rim’s interpretation of Chinese records. She didn’t verify a possibility that “竹島” described in those documents are Jukdo. She neglected important descriptions about geographic and local administration during annexation in Chinese records.
We must verify original records of Korean publications, because Korean scholar often uses gimmicks like this.

I Original text

1.MAP about SCAPIN

This map was made according to SCAPIN677.

附記
1.本圖根據盟軍總部一九四六年一月二十九日曁三月二十二日致(This map based on the SCAPINs from Jan 29, 1946 till Mar 22, 11946) 日本政府而製
2.本図 係供日本領土疆界四周範圍之參考(This map was supplied for the consultation of the Japanese border) 至於劃界内之小島位置與數目 須以精確之詳細圖爲準

China recognized SCAPIN and this map as the  consultation.

『舊日本領土』

Original text of 『日本領土處理辨法草案』 is as follows.
盟軍摠部於1946年1月29日會領發指令 詳細規定 以爲占領期間 日本之行政區域 盟摠指令 對和約自無任何拘束力 惟此爲最重要之参考文献 
"SCAP/GHQ ordered the Japanese administration area during  occupation at Jan 29, 1946. Though SCAPIN didn't have the vigor against peace treaty, it is the most important background material."
China recognized SCAPIN was not concerned with the peace treaty and the most important background material.

3.『日本領土處理辨法硏究 」

Original text of 『日本領土處理辨法草案』 is as follows.

元屬韓國 就法理道義言 我均應主張以之屬韓國 在韓國托治其間 此三島應由美國或中國托治 或者鬱陵 竹島由美托管 濟州由我托管
"It is originally belong to Korea. In legal and moral principles, we have to of course say that they belong to Korea. During the trusteeship, these three islands should be governed by the United States or China, During the trusteeship, the three islands should be governed by the United States or China and otherwise United States should have jurisdiction over Ulleongdo and 竹島 and China should have jurisdiction over Jeju Island."
China recognized that ”竹島” should return to Korea according to SCAPIN. It seems that China didn't research the history about Ulleongdo and "竹島" at this time, because there is no specific description about the history.

4.『日本領土處理辨法草案』 

Original text of 『日本領土處理辨法草案』 is as follows.
鬱陵島 原屬新羅 慶長之役時 爲日軍所占據 德川幕府時 復歸還韓國 日本併合朝鮮後 仍屬朝鮮慶尙北道管轄、其本島 爲7255(原文ママ)平方公里 竹島卽爲屬島 人口據1928年調査 爲10466人 日本人 僅佔600名 則鬱陵島竹島 不應劃歸日本
"Ulleongdo originally belonged to Shilla. Japanese troops occupied during the Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1596 and it was went back to Korea in the period of Tokugawa Bakufu. Since Japan annexed Korea, it remained under the jurisdiction of North Gyeongsang Province of Korea. The area of the main island is about 7,225 square meter and 竹島 is the attached island. According to the survey of 1928, the population is 10,466 and only 600 among these are Japanese. Then, Ulleongdo and 竹島 should not be returned to Japan."
Governor-General of Korea, 1918
This is first record which describes about the specific history. China researched the old history of the Ulleongdo. She made judgement according to old history of the Ulleongdo and administration area during the annexation.
Ulleongdo which was consisted of the main island and an attached island “竹島” was under the jurisdiction of North Gyeongsang Province during the annexation.
This map was made by the Governor-General of Korea at 1918. This map proves that “竹島” which was under the jurisdiction of North Gyeongsang Province is not Liancourt Rocks but Jukdo. Liancourt Rocks had been exercised jurisdiction by Shimane prefecture of Japan during the annexation. Then "竹島" of this record is Jukdo.

5. 『韓國疆域問題意見』

Original text of 『韓國疆域問題意見』 is as follows.
鬱陵島 卽古于山國 又名羽陵島 武陵島 鬱陵島位於日本海中 北緯37度27分至34分 東經130度47分至56分 面積73平方公里、海岸線延長45公里、離韓國江原道 竹辺66海里 釜山173海里 日本鳥取縣境港172海里 人口17664名 日本人僅642名(1943年)、農産有馬鈴薯玉蜀黍大豆麥等 爲島民常食 海産亦相當豊富 每年漁獲價額 在30萬日圓以上 該島所屬問題 在昔日韓兩國 一再攘奪 自1884年以後韓人移住該島者 浸假增加 勢力日大 爭論始平 初屬江原道 1907年(韓 隆熙 元年)編入慶尙南道 日韓合併後 1914年(大正3年)改屬慶尙北道 翌年頒布島制 設島司面長等官 以治理之 在日人統治時 尙不敢劃歸日本 公認該島爲韓國領土 毫無疑義 竹島在該島之東北部("竹島" is located at the northeast of Ulleungdo) 面積不大 爲鬱陵島之屬島
See above map. "竹島" which is located at the northeast of Ulleungdo is Jukdo(Chuk-to). Liancourt Rocks is located at the southeast of Ulleungdo. Then "竹島" of this record is Jukdo.

 

II Conclusion

  • First, China made judgement "竹島(Liancourt Rocks)" should be returned to Korea according to SCAPIN, though they knew that SCAPIN has no effect against peace treaty.
  • Next, China researched the historical materials and administration area during the annexation. And they made judgement that "竹島(Jukdo)" should be retuned to Korea.
It has possibility that China mixed up Liancourt Rocks and Jukdo. However Liancourt Rocks will become Japanese territory and Jukdo become Korean according to her latest criteria which are local administration during annexation and attached island. This Chinese criteria that border should according to the local administration during the annexation isn't strange.  A similar criteria often apply to the decision making about the border of colony at the ICJ.
 

III Korean gimmicks



1.PATCHWORK of the records

Korean ignore unfavorable descriptions for their claim and patch up various records. Then they make their story what they want.
In this case, they emphasize records which are according to SCAPIN, because "竹島" of SCAPIN is Liancourt Rocks. Next, they decide prematurely that "竹島" of all Chinese records is Liancourt Rocks, though descriptions of some records prove out that "竹島" is Jukdo.
"日本領土處理辨法硏究" was described according to SCAPIN. But this doesn't prove that “日本領土處理辨法草案”and "日本領土處理辨法草案" ware same. We often change an opinion in the process of examination according to the new information and situation. Korean can't understand this common sense. They pick up only the record which has the favorable description and they disguise like it is final decision. After that Korean apply this decision to other records looks like patchwork. Korean uses same gimmick in follow cases.


Korean old Maps about the Usando
Korean ignore the geographic information of maps. They concluded this Usando is Liancourt Rocks from the name of “Usando”. They say that Usando is Liancourt Rocks because it was proved by another record, though the geographic information of this map correspond to Jukdo.
Japanese Maps about the Matsushima at 19th
Korean ignore the geographic information of maps. They concluded this 松島 is Liancourt Rocks from the name of “松島”. They say that 松島 is Liancourt Rocks because it was proved by another record, though the geographic information of this map correspond to Ulleungdo.
Peace treaty under the process of examination after the WW2
Korean ignore latest drafter’s decision. And they say that early drafter's opinion which was changed is valuable.
 
 (under construction)

Related articles