"Rie Akiba angers Korean netizens with Dokdo"

According to THIS ARTICLE, Korean "netizens" are angry at Rie Akiba over a comment she made about "Dokdo." Rie is the Japanese member of a panel of foreign women that are featured on a weekly Korean talk show. The women are asked their opinions on a variety of topics generally concerning Korea. The women respond in Korean with varying degrees of fluency.

Rie said that when she is asked her opinion on "Dokdo," she usually dodges the question by turning it around and asking the questioner his or her opinion, instead. She also asks why he or she has that opinion and where the questioner got the opinion.

The best answer Rie could have given would have been, "I don't want to talk about Dokdo," but the second best answer was probably the one she gave because if a foreigner gives an opinion different from the Korean opinion on Dokdo, the foreigner is generally crucified in Korea. If Rie had not said anything more about Dokdo, I think she would have been all right, but she added the following:

I have actually done some research on Dokdo. Korea first found it, but I cannot say for sure which country it belongs to. Korean people first found it, but the first people to name it were the Japanese.

First, there is no evidence to suggest that Koreans were the first to find "Dokdo." All the evidence shows that the Japanese were the first to both find and name the island, which was first named "Matsushima" and later "Takeshima." Second, there are maps and documents proving that the Japanese were visiting "Dokdo" (Takeshima) as far back as the 1600s, but Korea has no evidence of Koreans visiting the island before the Japanese started taking them there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s. Also, the Korean name for the island, "Dokdo," does not appear before the early 1900s.

If Rie had really researched the isssue, then I cannot understand how she could come to the conclusion that Koreans were the first to find Dokdo. Did she use Korean or Japanese sources? Is the history really that poorly explained in Japan?

I wonder if Rie really believes that "Dokdo" (Takeshima) was first found by Korea or if she only said that in a failed attempt to be diplomatic and avoid crucifixion?

Another member of the talk show panel, Canadian Dominique Noel, defends Rie Akiba against Korean netizens on her Web site. See HERE.

"Rename Dokdo 'Syngman Rhee Islets'"

Andy Jackson has written an article on Dokdo (Takeshima) in the Korea Times entitled "Rename Dokdo 'Syngman Rhee Islets," in which he concludes that Dokdo is Korean territory simply based on the fact that armed Koreans have occupied it since the 1950s. Here is part of what Mr. Jackson wrote:

Fearing that Japan would reassert its claim to Dokdo as soon as the treaty came into force, South Korean President Lee Seung-man (more commonly known in the West as Syngman Rhee) took time from working on the Korean War to declare a ``Peace Line" in the waters around the Korean peninsula in January of 1952. Of course, he made sure to place Dokdo within Korean territory.

He then went to work establishing Korea's effective control of Dokdo. In July of 1953, Korean soldiers fired on a small ship from the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency, which had come to enforce Japan's claim to the water around the islets. By June of 1954, there was a permanent Korean military presence on Dokdo. Since then, Korea has built housing, surveillance facilities, a lighthouse, and a dock there.

That settles it; Dokdo is Korean territory.

Dokdo is not Korean territory because of what the Silla Dynasty did 1500 years ago or because some fisherman took a trip to Japan in the 1690s. It is Korean territory because Lee Seung-man took military control of it and established that Korea was prepared to sacrifice blood and treasure to keep it.

Mr. Jackson wrote that Korea's 1900 Imperial Degree No. 41 set up the Korean administration of Dokdo and that Dokdo was a source of dispute between Korea and Japan before Japan's 1910 annexation of Korea, but he is wrong on both points.

Dokdo was not mentioned in the 1900 decree that established "Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and Ulleungdo's rock islets (石島 - Seokdo)" as making up Uldo County, and Korea's Ministry of Interior even confirmed HERE, in 1906, that Dokdo was not part of Uldo County.

Mr. Jackson also neglected to mention that Korea has no old maps showing Dokdo, by any name, and that the United States told Korea in 1951, HERE, that Korea had no claim to Dokdo. Also, Mr. Jackson did not mention that, in 1954, US Special Ambassador James A. Van Fleet told Korea that the United States concluded that Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) remained under Japanese sovereignty and that they were not included among the islands that Japan released from its sovereignty under the 1952 Peace Treaty. The following is the relevant excerpt from the 1954 Van Fleet Mission Report:

4. Ownership of Dokto Island

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.

I have some sympathy for Mr. Jackson because he writes for a Korean newspaper, so he probably had little choice but to conclude that Dokdo was Korean territory, but to base that conclusion simply on the fact that armed Koreans have occupied the islets since the 1950s would mean that other occupied lands in the world are the territories of their occupiers simply because they occupy them and are willing to die for them. It that really how international law works?

"Hokkaido Teachers Support Korea Over Dokdo"

Korea's Chosun Ilbo reports that, in November 2008, a teachers' union on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido distributed materials that support Korea's sovereignty claim over Dokdo (Takeshima). The material urged teachers to instruct students that Korea' claims were lawful, despite what new textbooks might say. The following is supposedly a quote from the union's November 28, 2008 newsletter:

"If you read historical factors cool-headedly, the Korean claim is based on stark facts," the union said in its newsletter on Nov. 28, 2008. "Some organizations including Shimane Prefecture are laying claim to Takeshima [the Japanese name for Dokdo]. That is a wrongful act aimed at justifying Japanese aggression and colonial rule."

The incident is news today because the Japanese newspaper "Sankei Shimbun" mentioned it in a Sunday editorial, in which it urged teachers to instruct students that Takeshima (Dokdo) is part of Japanese territory. Link to Chosun Ilbo Article

My View

Japan's 1905 incorporation of Takeshima had nothing to do with Japanese aggression or colonial rule, as suggested in the last sentence of the teacher union's newsletter quote, but, interestingly, the union's claim is the same claim made by Korean nationalists. I wonder who make up the leadership of that teacher's union.

If Hokkaido's teacher's union "cool-headly" studied the "stark" historical "facts," it would realize that Korea's historial claims to Takeshima (Dokdo) are totally bogus.

"Lesson Learned From Dokdo," by Tong Kim

Tong Kim is supposedly a research professor with the Ilmin Institute of International Relations at Korea University and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), yet, his July 12 Korea Times article, "Lessons Learned From Dokdo," seems to be more evidence that when it comes to "Dokdo," Korean professors seem more than willing to throw integrity and objectivity right out the window.

English Web Sites Supporting Japan's View on Liancourt Rocks?

Yuji Hosaka, one of Korea's Dokdo crusaders, has had an article translationed in the JoongAng Ilbo entitled, "Take the right approach on Dokdo," which suggests, "If we deflect the back-handed arguments of some Japanese, more and more will begin to share our point of view."

In the article, Mr. Hosaka complained about a Korean-language Web site he found that criticizes him and other "pro-Korean Japanese scholars." He does not mention the name of the site, but he asked the "cyber police" to investigate and found out that the site was created in Great Britain by someone with a Japanese name. He said that many Japanese operate sites abroad to avoid lawsuits and being reported.

Mr. Hosaka also wrote the following:

It’s widely known that this Japanese scholar has operated not only the site I found out about but also many others, all to promote his distorted arguments about the Dokdo issue. In order to attack Korea’s claims, he has even asked Americans to operate an English-language site on Dokdo.

He uses software to manipulate the visitor numbers for Web sites that attack Korea so that they will be listed on top of lists of frequently visited Web sites. Japanese “cyber-forces” even infiltrate Korean Web sites on the Dokdo issue. Their strategy is to wage a war in cyberspace against Korea through measures that nobody notices.

I know of no other English-language Web site that is operated by an American who support Japan's claims on Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), except mine, so in case some may mistakenly think that my site here is the one Mr. Hosaka is talking about, I want to make it very clear that no Japanese or anyone else ever asked me to begin this blog on the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute.

I started this blog because I could find no evidence supporting Korea's claims on "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks) and wanted to explore the history more. After a few years of studying the issue, I have still found no evidence supporting Korea's claims. Korea has no old maps showing Liancourt Rocks or any documents showing that Koreans ever went there before Japanese started taking them there on Japanese fishing boats in the 1900s. Morever, the only two references in Korean history to an island that was probably Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) were references to an unnamed, distant island visible from Ulleungdo, and those references suggested that the island was Japanese territory. (See HERE.)

I have read some of Mr. Hosaka's claims on Dokdo, but found them so ridiculous and flimsy that they are almost comical. I realize that Mr. Hosaka is now living and working in Korea, but he should still try to be a little more objective in the future. His school would probably keep him even without his making such silly claims.

Finally, if the English Web site he was referring to was this blog, then he should also stop lying.

1953 American map made by the National Geographic Society

This is a map called "China Coast and Korea" which was published in Washington, October 1953. It was compiled and drawn in the Cartographic Section of the National Geographic Society for The National Geographic Magazine. It was published 22 months after Korea's Rhee Syngmann drew the line, Rhee Syngmann Line, which included Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) in Korean territory. However, American people didn't change the name of Takeshima to the Korean name.

Ulleungdo was labeled as "Ullung Do (Dagelet)" with place names "Chang-dong" and "To-dong", "Namyang-dong". And there is a credit in red "Korea" under the name of "Ullung Do (Dagelet)", while Liancourt Rocks were labeled as "Take Shima (Liancourt Rocks)", not in Korean name.

USA thought that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Japan, as you can see the following letter which was sent in July 1953 - three months before the above map was made:

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/1953-jul-22-us-doc-reconfirms-dean-rusk.html

And in 1954 Van Fleet also reported that Liancourt Rocks remained under Japanese sovereignty:

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/report-of-van-fleet-mission-to-far-east.html

Article on the Syngman Rhee Line: Lies, lies, lies.

Below is a link to a June 25 Chosun Ilbo article talking about the "Syngman Rhee Line" or the so-called "Peace Line." The article is full of lies, but I will let people find them for themselves.

"60 Years of the Republic: The Syngman Rhee Line"

Update:

The following is a paragraph from the article that contains at least three lies, one of which was pointed out by one of our commenters, who writes under the id of "Opp."

The Dokdo Islets, which had been part of Korean territory since the sixth century, were illegally occupied by Japan during the colonial period but returned to Korea under the Directive SCAPIN-677 issued by the General Headquarters Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers on Jan. 29, 1946, which specifically excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory. However, Japan continued to trespass into waters near Dokdo, marking it as Japanese.

The first lie in the paragraph is the claim that the "Dokdo Islets,...has been part of Korean territory since the sixth century," which is a lie because Korea has no maps or documents to back up that claim. The second lie is that Japan illegally occupied "Dokdo" during the colonial period, but, in fact, Japan legally incorporated Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) in 1905 without any opposition from any country, including Korea, and 1905 was before Korea became a colony of Japan.

Finally, the third lie, as pointed out by commenter Opp, is the statement that the "Dokdo Islets... was returned to Korea under the Directive SCAPIN-677, which was issued by the General Headquarters Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers." That is easily proven to be a lie by the following US document, dated November 5, 1952:

Official - Informal

Confidential Security Information

Dear Al;

I have read both Tokyo's despatch No.659 of 3, 1952,of October 15, 1952, entitled, "Use of Disputed Territory (Tokto Island) as Live Bombing Area" enclosed in your letter of October 16, 1952 to Ambassador Murphy.

It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington. During the course of drafting the Japanese Peace Treaty the Republic of Korea's views were solicited, in consequense of which, the Korean Ambassador requested the Secretary of State in a
letter of July 19, 1951 to amend Article2 (a) of the draft treaty so as to include the islands of Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) and Parangdo as well as Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet among those islands over which Japan would renounce right, title and claim by virtue of recognizing Korea's independence. In his reply to the Korean Ambassador the Secretary stated in a letter dated August 10, 1951 that the United states could not concur in the proposed amendment as it applied to the Liancourt Rocks since according to his information the Liancourt Rocks had never been treated as a part of Korea, they had been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Japan's Shimane Prefecture since 1905 and it did not appear that they had over before been claimed by Korea. As a result Article2 (a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan makes no mention of the Liancourt Rocks;

"Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title, and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet."

E. Allan Lightner, Esquire
Charge D'affaires, a.i.,
American Embassy
,Pusan, Korea. page2

Official - Informal

Confidential Security Information

The action of the United States-Japan Joint Committee in designating these rocks as a facility of the Japanese Government is therefore justified. The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN677 of January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, including Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently. A later SCAPIN, No.1778 of September 16, 1947 designated the islets as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force and further provided that use of the range would be made only after notification through Japanese civil authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Islands and certain ports on Western Honbu.

Sincerely yours,

Kenneth T. Young, Jr.,
Director
Office of Northeast Asian Affairs,

To view the original letter, click HERE.

In 1954, after returning from a mission to the Far East, US Special Mission Ambassador James Van Fleet wrote the following about Liancourt Rocks in a secret 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.

Ambassador Van Fleet also wrote the following about Korea's so-called "Peace Line":

The position of the Republic of Korea Government has been to insist on the recognition of the agreed "Peace Line." The United States Government has consistently taken the position that the unilateral proclamation of sovereignty over the seas is illegal, without wanting to upset any of the two respective nations and that the fisheries dispute between Japan and Korea should be settled on the basis of a fisheries conservation agreement that would protect the interests of both countries. The chronology and other aspects of the fisheries is discussed in more detail in Enclosure No. 1.

LINK

People should be aware that the Korean media regularly reports false claims about Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).

Japan's Immature Relations with China & S. Korea

Daily Yomiuri: "POLITICAL PULSE / Difficulty with the neighbors / Immature relations with China, S. Korea underline need for more work," by Tetsuya Harada

Japanese Government Bows to Korea on Takeshima

It seems like the people governing Japan at the moment are a bunch of inconsistent, Korean-ass-kissing pussies. Teaching Japanese children the truth of Takeshima should be an uncompromising responsibility of the Japanese government. Takeshima should not be the focus of Korea-Japan relations, but it also should not be ignored in Japanese schools. Not teaching the truth of Takeshima for fear of Korean displeasure is an extremely cowardly act.

Here is a link to a May 28, 2008 article from "Kyodo News":

"Schools to skip row on Takeshima"

Korean Teacher Union Calls on Japan to Apologize for Dokdo

A May 20 Yonhap News article entitled, "Korean teachers demand apology from Japan over Dokdo claim," says that a South Korean teachers's union "has called for an apology from Japan over its new educational campaign to claim Dokdo."

In a letter addressed to Japanese Education Minister Kisaburo Tokai, the "Korean Federation of Teachers' Associations" said the following:

"The move by the Japanese government to asert its territorial claim to Dokdo in the curriculum handbook for teachers is an act of usurpation of the sovereignty and the territory of the Republic of Korea."

I think Korea's teachers' union should apologize to the world for making such a ridiculous demand. Also, I think Korean President Lee Myeong-bak should apologize for making "Dokdo" an issue after having said just a little over a month ago that he would put aside historical differences with Japan to improve ties.

Korean presidents seem to have a hard time remembering the promises they make, but President Lee seems to be having an especially hard time remembering what he said to Japan about historical isssues and what he said to the United States about US beef imports.

"Japan Claims Dokdo in Foreign Ministry Document"

The following is a link to an April 10, Chosun Ilbo article entitled "Japan Claims Dokdo in Foreign Ministry Document."

Korea to Use "National Geographic" to Publicize Dokdo Sovereignty

Below is a link to an article reporting that North Gyeongsang Province (慶尙北道) officials plan to use "world-renowned media corporations," including National Geographic, to promote the "history, geography, and natural resources of Dokdo and Ulleungdo." They believe that a documentary on the islands will help strengthen Korea's sovereignty claim over Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks).

I do know about the other media corporations they plan to use, but I do not think their plan for promoting Korean sovereignty over Dokdo will work with National Geographic, which I suspect will want to give a more balanced historical description of the islands than Koreans may want. I think rather than promoting Korean sovereignty over Dokdo, such a documentary with National Geographic will only serve to inform the world that Korea's sovereignty claims on "Dokdo" are disputed by Japan.

Actually, I wish the "History Channel" would do a program on the history of Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima). I think that would be interesting.

Here is a link to the English article:

"Dokdo to enchant TV audiences worldwide"

Here is a link to what appears to be a Japanese translation of a Yonhap News article on the Korean plan:

慶尚北道、海外放送通じて独島・鬱陵島知ら

Wikipedia Drops "History" Section from Liancourt Rocks Description

Today I noticed that Wikipedia has dropped the history section from its description of Liancourt Rocks. (See HERE.) Apparently, the online dictionary got tired of the back-and-forth debate between those claiming the rocks belong to Japan and those claiming they belong to Korea. Instead, they have included a section called "International Dispute," which says the following:

There are conflicting interpretations about the state of sovereignty over the islands in pre-modern times. A Korean claim is partly based on references to a Korean islands called Usan-do in various historical records and maps. According to the Korean view, these refer to today's Liancourt Rocks, while the Japanese side argues that they must refer to a different island, today called Jukdo, a small islet located in the immediate vicinity of the nearest larger Korean island Ulleung-do.

Japan officially incorporated the islands as part of its territory in 1905, shortly before it occupied Korea itself as a protectorate.

The present-day conflict largely stems from conflicting interpretations of whether Japan's renunciation of sovereignty over its occupied territories after the Second World War was supposed to cover the Liancourt Rocks too. A decision by the Supreme Command of the Allied occupation powers (SCAP), Instruction #677 of January 29, 1946, listed the Liancourt Rocks as part of those territories over which Japanese sovereignty was to be suspended, but the final peace treaty between Japan and the Allied powers, the Treaty of San Francisco, did not mention them.

Maybe the above was the only way for Wikipedia to deal with the problem of people always changing the history section to suit their biased views of history, but it means the dictionary has decided not to talk about the history. Unfortunately, the references it used for the article almost all point to Korean sites, which do distort the history of the islets.

Yomiuri Shimbun: "Detailed map of Takeshima completed"

The following is a link to a Yomiuri Shimbun article talking about a new topographical map of Takeshima compiled by Japan's Geographical Survey Institute. This news was talked about before, but this English article explains it in an easy-to-understand way and gives some good background information.

"Detailed map of Takehima completed"

Article on "Dokdo Islands" in "Vladivostok News"

Below is a link to a November 2 article on "Dokdo Islands" in the online Russia newspaper, Vladivostok News. I found a couple of pieces of interesting information in the article, which was fairly objective, considering that only people supporting Korea's claim on Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) were interviewed. However, besides the quotes from the Koreans, I do disagree with the statement in the article that said, "the territorial clash started in 1905." There was no territorial clash in 1905 since Korea never protested Japan's incorporation of the islands until sometime after World War II. The clash actually started in the 1950s when Koreans illegally occupied Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks - Dokdo). Koreans claims that "Dokdo" is a symbol of their sovereignty, but I see it as a symbol of their aggression. Korea's actions and statements concerning Dokdo are a black mark on Korea and speak badly of Korea's politicians and historians.

"Dokdo Islands--land of contention"

Links to Western Articles on Dokdo/Takeshima

2005

• Mar 14 - "S Korean fury over island dispute" - BBC News
  Koreans chop off fingers & burn Japanese flags

2006

2007