The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”, Part 4

Below is the second part of the translation of The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 4"

(3) Department of the Navy's recognition of "Takeshima and Matsushima"

Mr. Park wrote, " It is noteworthy that Liancourt Rocks was described only to 'Joseon waterway magazine（朝鮮水路誌）', and had not been described to 'Japanese waterway magazine "（ｐ45） He assumed it as a evidence that "Hydrography Department considered Liancourt Rocks, that is, Takeshima = Dokdo outside a Japanese territory." (p46)

However, this is groundless claim since his interpretation of the description of 'Joseon waterway magazine' was strained. The article "Situation" in 1894 edition of the book clearly described that territory of Korea is, " From 124º 30'E longitude to 130º 35'E". Naturally, Liancourt Rocks which situate in 131°55" E is not included in Korean territory.

Besides, the article "Japan Sea", in which Liancourt Rocks are listed, also list "Ulleungdo(another name Matsushima)" and "Waywoda Rock(ワイオダ岩)" as well. According to 'Joseon waterway magazine', "The Waywoda Rock, above water, was originally reported by the Russian corvette Veovoda, in 1859, as situated in lat. 42°16' N., long. 137°18' E." and "The Sea Chart of Hokkaido and Northeastern Islands(北洲及北東諸島)"(1893), which was drawn based on Admiralty Chart No．２４０５(1895), placed it between Hokkaido and Amur Coastal State(黒龍沿岸州).

"Waywoda Rock" was simply listed as the dangerous rocks(暗岩危礁)" in the Sea of Japan, and Liancourt Rocks was listed by the same reason. It can't be any kind of "evidence" that the author considered it as Joseon territory only because it was included in "Joseon waterway magazine".

On the other hand, Liancourt Rocks was discovered by French whaling ship Le Liancourt in 1849 and Takeshima, Matsushima and Liancourt Rocks are drawn in "Complete Map of Pacific Ocean" of French naval forces in 1851. Takeshima(Argonaut) disappeared from around Admiralty Chart No．2347 `JAPAN- NIPON, KIUSIU & SIHOK AND PART OF KOREA` (1876), and it described Matsushima(Uleungdo) and Liancourt Rocks. It was one year before Dajokan instructed "Takeshima and other island" and 4 years before Meiji government confirmed that Matsushima was Ulleungdo as well.

Therefore, Liancourt Rocks was actually "Terra nullius" that did not belong to the country at the time. It cannot be an invasion even if Meiji government had named it as Takeshima and incorporated into Shimane Prefecture as "Terra nullius" in 1905. Because there are no

historical grounds that make Liancourt Rocks a Korean
territory in South Korea, and "Dongguk Munheon Bigo（東国文献備考）"(1770)'s annotation, which SK had been relayed on as grounds of an argument, is already proved as the falsification of posterity.

Recently, Korean started to claim that Dokdo(=Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) as their "inherent territory", and Mr. Park even wrote that "it is needless to say that this is contradictory to "Takeshima as inherent territory" by Japanese government (p49). However, the only country which is qualified to claim it as "inherent part of the territory" is Japan. The term "Inherent Territory(固有の領土)" indicate the territory which have never been ruled by any other country either like northern territories. As for Takeshima, which had been "Terra nullius" in 1905, Japan was ruling effect from at least 1905 to prewar day. Japanese government has a right to claim Takeshima as "Terra nullius, but South Korea, who invaded Japanese territory in 1954, is apparently disqualified to do claim Dokdo as her "inherent territory" at all.

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

In conclusion, it is clear that Mr. Park's claim that "theMeiji government consistently held to the policy of making Takeshima and Matsushima outside the territory in Japan until incorporation in 1905" (p36) and they made Korean territory as Japanese territory justifying it as it was "Terra nullius" in the middle of Russo-Japanese War is baseless claim. His article "The Meiji Government's Recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" (Studies of the cultures in Northeast Asia, no.28, 2008, pp.33-49.) was only a political advertisement that fabricated the falsified history, which confused the Takeshima issue as the history issue, too.

“実事求是　〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２２回 朴炳渉氏の「明治政府の竹島＝独島認識」（「北東アジア文化研究」第２８号）を駁す　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 4

The 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 13th column “Sins of Asahi Shimbun and Mr. Wakamiya Yoshibumi(若宮啓文).

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)."

Reference :
1656 - "Yojiji (輿地志)" by Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠) didn't say "Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima."

1667 - Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)

1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)

1893 - "The Sea Chart of Hokkaido and Northeastern Islands(北洲及北東諸島)" plots Waywoda Rock far outside of Korean territory

1853-1922 - Kimotsuki Kaneyuki (肝付兼行)

1905 March (隱岐新報): Japan "officially" incorporates "Takashima"

Korea's online edition of the Chosun Ilbo has posted a November 7, 2009 article entitled, "1905 Edition of 'Oki Sinbo' ---Evidence of 'not original territory,'" which says that a researcher at the Korea Maritime Institute's Dokdo Research Center has found evidence in a March 1905 Japanese publication that the Japanese claim that "Dokdo" was "originally" Japanese territory is "a lie."

The researcher, whose name is Yu Mi-rin, supposedly said that the following sentence from a March 1905 article, entitled "Oki Boundary Expanded," in the Oki Sinbo (隱岐新報) is the evidence that Japanese are lying:

It is a happy event that two small islands and several islets, which our islanders have traveled to since ancient times, have been officially named Takeshima (竹島) and made a part of Oki territory.

우리 도민이 예로부터 도항하던 두 개의 섬과 많은 작은 섬들이 공식적으로 다케시마(竹島·독도를 일본에서 일컫는 말)라는 이름으로 오키 영토가 된 건 기쁜 일.

Here is the original Japanese with an English translation (courtesy of Kaneganese):

隱岐國境土の膨張

　　隱岐の西北八十五浬を距る海洋に存在する島嶼を竹島と命名し隱岐の新領土として隱岐島司の管轄に屬せしめられぬ、吾人豈太白を浮べて祝せざるを得んや、抑も竹島の地たる姉妹二つの島嶼、數多の小島嶼以て點々包圍せられ、其面積の如き未だ詳にせずと雖も、棲居敢て凌ぎ得ざるにあらずといふ、而して陸産としては殆んど利するものなきも、海産に於ては海獣其他漁利鮮なからずと聞く、由來我島民中夙に仝島に航して獲たる所のもの少なからず、事實上隱岐の領土に屬し居りしは既に久し、然るに公然之を認められざりしは遺憾の感ありしに、今や公認の令に接するを得たる上は我島民たるもの大に期する所なかるべからず、然れども仝島固と狭小なり、産物の濫採は永久の利を得る所以にあらざれば一時の利を競ふて無限の利を顧みざるが如きことなきを要す、當局者たる者亦大に此點に留意する所なかるべからず、兎に角隠岐の地籍に新領の上るは何れの町村の所属となるにせよ、確かに隱岐の一大幸福たり、吾人は快感禁じ難く玆に一言を陳じて隱岐境土の膨張を祝す、（弱魚）

"Oki News" - March 15, 1905 (16th vol.)

Editorial

"Expansion of Oki District Territory"

Islets located eighty-five nautical miles to the northwest of Oki, which have been named Takeshima, have been made new Oki territory and put under the jurisdiction of the governor. I must toast it.

To begin with, the two sister islets which make up Takeshima are surrounded by several smaller islets. Though the exact area size is unclear, it is said it is big enough for a shelter. There are almost no profitable land products, but there are marine products. It is said that there is great profit in marine mammals and various kinds of fish.

Originally, a significant number of Oki islanders have long sailed to the islets, thus it has been de-facto territory of Oki from long ago. Considering that fact, it was lamentable that it was not recognized officially as Oki's territory before now. On receiving the notice of official authorization, our islanders cannot help having great expectations. However, the islets are narrow from the start, so we should not compete for a short-term profit while ignoring the long-term since excessive harvesting of the products there could hurt continuing profits. Those autorities in charge should take note of this concern.

Anyway, it is a great blessing that new territory has joined the Oki cadastre, no matter which town or village the islets belong. I cannot help feeling pleased and will congratulate the expansion of Oki's territory by making remarks on this situation. (Weak Fish)

Contrary to what the Korean researcher claims, the above editorial seems to support Japanese claims that Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) was Japanese territory even before their 1905 incorporation. The rocks seem to have been considered unadministered Japanese territory long before 1905. The incorporation of the rocks in 1905 under Oki administration simply made it offical.

Countries, including the United States, have incorporated and unincorporated territory. Before 1905, Takeshima was essentially considered unincorporated Japanese territory, as is evidenced by a 1878 letter in which Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基), who was the Director of the Bureau of Documents in Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said "Hornet Rocks" (Matsushima/Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks) was Japanese territory:

Therefore, if the “Matsushima” being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan....

Many records say that “Argonaut,” which is the Western name for Takeshima (Ulleungdo), does not exist, and that “Dagelet,” which refers to Matsushima, is actually Takeshima (Ulleungdo). So what we call "Matsushima” (Liancourt Rocks) is called “Hornet Rocks” by Westerners. Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory, but there is still no agreement among countries concerning the other two islands.

The above 1878 document is evidence that the Japanese considered Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) to be Japanese territory before 1905, even though the rocks were not administered by any particular prefecture. That changed in 1905, when the Japanese government decided, officially, to incorporate Liancourt Rocks into Oki county after receiving a 1904 petition from Japanese businessman Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞), who argued that the rocks would be better managed and protected if they were incorporated.

Mr. Nakai sent his petition to incorporate Liancourt Rocks to the Japanese government because he had been told that the rocks were a part of Japanese territory. That fact is evidence that the Japanese at the time distinguished between incorporated and unincorporated territory. The Japanese believed Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory, but by putting them under the administration of a Japanese prefecture, it became "official."

Man Arrested for Planning to Torch Japanese Embassy

According to THIS KOREAN ARTICLE, on November 5th, Korean police requested an arrest warrant for a 38-year-old Korean man named Jang, who had been detained the night before, for planning to set fire to the Japanese Embassy in Seoul to protest Japanese "distortion of history and the Dokdo dispute." The man was also accused of planning to take embassy employees hostage.

However, before Mr. Jang was able to carry out his plans, he was arrested by police, who had learned of his plans and traced his whereabouts through his cell phone.

In a statement to police, Mr. Jang reportedly said, "It is vexing and regrettable that I was caught before I was able to carry out the criminal act, but I will keep trying and will not give up until the Japanese attitude changes."

It seems that Mr. Jang had planned to set fire to the embassy, take a hostage, and then hold a press conference to protest Japanese history books and Japanese claims on Dokdo.

According to THIS ENGLISH ARTICLE, when Mr. Jang was apprehended, he was carrying a knife, a lighter, and a copy of a handwritten press statement. The article also says investigators are checking to see if Mr. Jang has any history of psychiatric illness.

The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是）”, Part 3

Below is the second part of the translation of The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 3"

(2) "Dajokan Instruction for "Takeshima and the other island""

In 1877, Shimane Prefecture submitted "Consultation for the Compilation of Land Registration of Takeshima and the other island" in order to ask if they should include to the west of the San-in region since it locates to the northwest of Oki Country, which is within the jurisdiction. In response, Dajokan instructed "Takeshima and the other island has no relation to Japan."

However, there are room for the misjudgement. As Mr. Park himself wrote that " in those days, the number of civilians who gradually called Ulleungdo as Matsushima began to increase under the influence of the wrong western maps." (p44), the geographical recognition of Takeshima and Matsushima was intricate.

It is possible to catch a glimpse of confusion even in Dajoruiten(太政類典), compilation of selected documents of Daojkan, which includes Dajokan instruction in concern. "A Sketch Map of Isotakeshima(磯竹島略図)" which Shimane prefecture submitted, described traditional Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo). On the other hand, the document compiled by Shimane prefecture, Ulleungdo is likely to be misconstrued as Matsushima. For example, the documents continues the story about Takeshima(Ulleungdo), which was the name in Edo era, immediately after Matsushima was described.

The beginning of the confusion was for the Argonaut island, that became the island of the phantom later, and the Dagelet island to be drawn in Siebold's "Complete Map of Japan" in 1840, and to have added the island name of Takeshima and Matsushima, respectively. Later, Takeshima (Argonaut island) was described as "Unconfirmed", shown in the short dashed line in the chart etc. , and Ulleungdo, which had been called "Isotakeshima" or "Takeshima" from the early modern age, started to be labelled as "Matsushima". "The influence of the wrong western maps", which Mr. Park says, was the maps at that time which labelled Ulleungdo as "Matsushima" and Phantom island Argonaut as "Takeshima". It was obviously different from Takeshima and Matsushima that had been recorded in a chart etc. at that time were completely different from Shimane Prefecture's geographic understanding that made "Takeshima" of today "Matsushima".

The error in the chart etc. was corrected according to the measurement of the Amagi warship in 1880. The report by Amagi concluded that Matsushima was Joseon's Ulleungdo, and it was adopted in the book "Takeshima Hanzu Shozokuko(竹島版図所属考)" by Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA who investigated the issue by the order of Ministry of Foreign Affairs when the deforestation by Japanese on Ulleungdo became problem. Kitazawa lastly concluded that "Matsushima" is Joseon's Ulleungdo.

Then, the Meiji era government sends a secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs Higaki Naoe to Ullungdo to evict Japanese on the island. Kitazawa wrote that " it is necessary to know from old times Matsushima=Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks, was outside of our territory from old times. (「古来我版図外の地たるや知るべし」)". Mr. Park disregarded this and concluded that "A related organization such as Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Army, Naval forces and Dajokan thought this island to be a Korean territory" based solely on Dajokan instruction in 1877.

Because of these confusing description of the documents, I simply wrote " it is not clear if Takeshima of today is indicated or not", avoiding concluding, in my book "Takeshima, which country owns it. Japan or South Korea?" and also wrote that "it is possible that this indicate today's Takeshima" in Shimane Prefecture's brochure "Hasshin Takeshima(発信竹島)". However, when there is more spaces to go into details, such as journal "Shokun(諸君)", presenting the basis before and after, I summarized that "both "Takeshima and the other island" indicated today's Ulleungdo." It is sophistry of him to criticize that "It is too exceptional for changing own view so often" (p38)

“実事求是　〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２２回 朴炳渉氏の「明治政府の竹島＝独島認識」（「北東アジア文化研究」第２８号）を駁す　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 4
The 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 13th column “Sins of Asahi Shimbun and Mr. Wakamiya Yoshibumi(若宮啓文).

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)."
Reference :
1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 1/2) (島根県 渡航禁止のいきさつ)

1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876　(Part 2/2) (島根県 (竹島の)由来の概略)

1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)

1880 - Japanese Warship "Amagi" (軍艦天城) Surveys Ulleungdo and finds "Takeshima" is Jukdo.

1881 - Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA concluded that "Takeshima" is Jukdo in "A Study of Takeshima (Takeshima Kosho 竹島考証) "

2009 - Oct. 25 - 日韓の和解と友好を考えるマラソントーク (Marathon talk "For Reconciliation and Friendship of Japan-South Korea - )

2009 - Oct. 25 - 日韓の和解と友好を考えるマラソントーク (Marathon talk "For Reconciliation and Friendship of Japan-South Korea - Sovereignty of Japan that keeps being violated-")

UPDATE
ご報告です。

当日参加してきましたので簡単ですがご報告いたします。

前半は学生中心でしたが、後半に自民党衆議院議員新藤義孝氏、島根県議上代義郎氏、県土竹島を守る会の方々が登壇され、大変興味深いものとなりました。新藤先生は竹島の歴史について正確な知識をお持ちのようで、韓国の主張、特に于山島が現竹島であるなどという説が、如何に歴史的事実に反する妄言であるかをお話していました。韓国側、日本の外務省にも働きかけを行っているようですから、私も一国民として応援していこうと思いました。上代先生と守る会の方々のお話からは、島根県が国内からの様々な逆風に耐えて筋を通し竹島の日を制定したそのご苦労、そしてなかなか国が動かない、国民レベルの運動に広がらないといった焦りが窺えました。

実は今回学生以外にも、明らかに右翼と分かる方々も沢山登壇されました。下條先生が2月の竹島の日記念式典で野次を飛ばした右翼団体の方々に「こんなところで騒ぐくらいならもっときちんとした場所で主張してみよ」と発言の機会を与えた、と聞き及んでいます。正直私としては大いに違和感を感じるものでしたが、普段街宣車に耳を塞いできた自分にとっては、ある意味で勉強になったことも多々ありました。

竹島は我が国固有の領土であることは、3年以上この問題の歴史的背景を独自に学んできた私としては、ゆるぎなき事実であるとの認識です。領土・領空・領海を守ることは、国民として当然のことで、それはなんら隣国に対して脅威をもたらすものではありません。しかし竹島は韓国に不法占拠されている状態が続いており、韓国政府に対して各方面から強く要求し続ける必要があります。その思いを前提として今回の経験をまとめるならば、島根の関係者の方々、右翼も含めた真に国の行く末を案じる方々が孤立しないよう、そして特に先鋭化しないで良い方向に向かっていくよう、自分なりの方法で側面支援していこう、との思いを新たにする良い機会になった、と言うことです。

歴史的資料の発掘、韓国側重要書類の入手、「竹島問題に関する国際法論文選」出版プロジェクト2009、ブログでの研究成果の出版、韓国人の若者との対話の機会を設ける、ネットで活動している竹島研究家の方々や学生たちとの研究ネットワーク作り、竹島みやげの開発、等等沢山アイデアがありますが、こうした考えを一つ一つ実現して行きたいと思っていますので、是非皆様のご協力をお願いしたいと存じます。

(追記、ここまで)

１０月２５日、韓国の「独島の日」にあわせて拓殖大学下條教授と有志の方々が以下のイベントを開催します。学生さんたちが中心に、島根県議なども参加されるようですので、ご興味のある方は是非ご参加下さい。
Marathon talk "For Reconciliation and Friendship of Japan-South Korea - Sovereignty of Japan that keeps being violated-" to be held in Takushoku University on Sat Oct. 25 at 13:00

日韓の和解と友好を考えるマラソントーク　― 侵され続ける日本の主権 ―

●日時
１０月２５日（日）１３：００～１６：００（１２：３０～受付開始）

●場所
拓殖大学文京キャンパスＳ館４階４０１教室（東京メトロ丸の内線「茗荷谷」下車）

●登壇予定者
拓殖大学、早稲田大学、慶応大学学生及び大学院生。島根県議ほか。

●会場整理費
一般 ５００円
学生 無料

●主催
拓殖大学下條研究室

●後援
特定非営利活動法人日本領土領海戦略会議

The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”, Part 2

Below is the second part of the translation of The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr.Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 2"

(1) Takeshima and Matsushima in the Government Compilation Geography Books

Mr. Park enumerated the article "Oki(隠岐)" of 'Nihon Chishi Teiyo, vol.50 (Japanese topography summary : 日本地誌提要)", which is compiled by the government, as grounds to which the Meiji era government made Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) "Outside the territory in Japan." In the article of "Islands" of the same book, following "Shimazushima(島津島)" and "Matsushima(松島)", "the adjacent islands/dependencies of Oki" are enumerated as follows.

Ohmori island(大森島). It belongs to Tsuto village of Ochi Town. Twenty-cho north of Matsushima. The circumference is 25-cho and 57-ken. From east to west, it is 7-cho. South to north, 7-cho. ○ The dependency of "This Country(Honshu : 本州)". Chibu town, 45. Ama town, 16. Suki town, 75. Ochi Town, 43. 179 in total. Those are called Oki's small islands, in general. ○ And there are 2 islands, Matsushima and Takeshima, to north-west. According to the local's information passed down, people sail to Matsushima from Fukuura harbour. About 69-ri 35-cho in sea route. (From Oki's Fukuura) To Takeshima. About 100-ri and 4-cho. To Joseon. About 136-ri 30 cho in sea route.

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

　「大森島。穏地郡津戸村に属す。松島の北弐拾町。周回弐拾五町五拾七間。東西七町。南北五町。○本州の属島。知夫郡四拾五。海士郡壱拾六。周吉郡七拾五。穏地郡四拾三。合計壱百七拾九。之を総称して隠岐の小島と云。○又西北に方りて松島竹島の二島あり。土俗相伝えて云ふ。穏地郡福浦港より松島に至る。海路凡六拾九里参拾五町。竹島に至る。海路凡百里四町余。朝鮮に至る海路凡百三十六里参拾町」

Mr. Park derived the following conclusions from the description of this 'Japanese topography summary'.

It is important that this geography book, compiled by government, described Takeshima and Matsushima separately from the belonging island in the Mainland(本州). If two islands are not dependency of mainland, naturally, they are neither the dependency of Kyushu nor Hokkaido, thus it is understood that both islands were treated as outside of Japanese territory. (p34)

Mr. Park literally interpreted "belonging island in the Honshu(本州)" of the text here as the "Mainland (of Japan)", not "This Country(=Oki)", and interpreted Takeshima and was Matsushima of the following sentence, "○ And there are 2 islands, Matsushima and Takeshima、 to north-west." , are not dependency of Honshu(mainland).

However, "Belonging island in the Honshu" said by "Oki" of 'Nihon Chishi Teiyo' means "Belonging island in Oki Country(=Hon-shu : this country) ". That is apparent since in the article of Oki's "Situation" and "Government", all the word "州" are used for Oki itself, not a mainland of Japan(本州 : Honshu).

Besides, this book enumerates Shimazushima(島津島)", "Matsushima(松島)" and "Ohmori shima(大森島)" followed by the sentence "The dependency of "This Country(=Oki)" because the author meant that "Oki" has 179 tiny islets along with Shimazushima or Ohmorishima and there are two more islands "Takeshima and Matsushima" to the north-west. Thus, there is no trace, as Mr. Park claims, that "Takeshima and Matsushima were separately from the adjacent island in the Honshu(本州). " It is twisting an argument for him to insist that "If two islands are not dependency of mainland, naturally, they are neither the dependency of Kyushu nor Hokkaido, thus it is understood that both islands were treated as outside of Japanese territory."

In addition, in the article of "Oki" of this book, it say "From Takeshima(Ulleungdo) of the two islands to Joseon, it is about 136-ris and 30 cho by the sea." That is the concrete evidence the author of the book considered Takeshima(Ulleungdo) as Japanese territory, or he wouldn't have written the distance from Takeshima to Joseon.

Mr. Park ignored this fact and concluded that both islands were treated as the outside of Japanese territory based on this article of "Oki" of this book. He even cited Tanaka Akamaro(田中阿歌麻呂)'s "Old record of Takeshima of Oki Country"(Journal of Geography, Vol. 17, No. 8, 1905), and claimed that "Tanaka, the geographer of Meiji period, also considered as it was (outside of Japanese territory)".

"In the first year of the Meiji era(1968), the geography division of central government( 正院地誌課) denied Japan's sovereignty of "that(Takeshima=Dokdo, noted by Mr. Park)" and it led the maps published afterward showed the existence of "that" . Miyamoto Sanpei(宮本三平)'s "The map of Japanese Empire", published by the Ministry of Education, depicted it but didn't color it putting outside of the territory of the empire." (p34)

However, notably, Mr. Park used trick into the quote here. He inserted the note "that(Takeshima=Dokdo, noted by Mr. Park)" in Tanaka's article and claimed that Tanaka also considered Takeshima=Dokdo as outside of Japanese territory.

But, it totally disobeys the intention of Tanaka Akamaro. Because Tanaka soon corrected that "Takeshima of Oki" in the former article was not today's Takeshima ,as Mr. Park noted, in the very opening of "Additional remark" in the end of a book, in which he worte the article titled "The geography knowledge of Takeshima of Oki Country"(Journal of Geography, Vol. 18, No. 6, 1906) next year.

According to the article mentioned above, the article "Old record of Takeshima of Oki Country" in the no.200, 201 and 202 of the journal was not about Takeshima, but Ulleungdo. (p419)
------------------------------------------------------------
「以上の記事によれば本誌第二百号二百一号及び二百二号に掲げたる「隠岐国竹島に関する旧記」の記事は全く竹島の記事に非ずして欝陵島の記事なるが如し」（419頁）

As it is clear, Tanaka voluntarily corrected his own mistake of having confused Takeshima with Ulleungdo next year, and corrected in the additional remark. For all the fact, Mr. Park intentionally inserted the deceiving note "that(Takeshima=Dokdo, noted by Mr. Park)". Mr. Park, who twisted the "Oki" 'Nihon Chishi Teiyo' even dishonestly altered the article of Tanaka Akamaro so that he can use it as a logical base for him to claim that Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(today's Takeshima) was made outside of Japanese territory.

Mr. Park has preoccupying opinion that "The Meiji government consistently held fast to the policy of making Takeshima and Matsushima outside the territory of Japan until the "the incorporation of Ryanko-to(Takeshima=Dokdo)" in 1905", and this biased preconception made him arbitrarily interpret and even fabricates the factious history.

However, there were certain recognition that Takeshima and Matsushima were Japanese territory in the Meiji era. It stems from "Records on Observations in Oki Province (Onshu-shicho-goki : 隠州視聴合記)", which wrote Takeshima and Matsushima are the northwest limit of Japan (note 1), and Ohtsuki Shuhei(大槻修平)'s 'Saikoku Nihon Chishi Yoryaku (Revised Summary of Japanese Topography)' (1875) also follows it.(note 2) Mr. Park's claim, "it is not too much to say that all the governmental organization which has strong relation to Takeshima and Matsushima considered Dokdo to be Joseon territory(p46)", is totally groundless, since it turns out that Matsushima of the "Takeshima and the other island" in the 1877's Dajokan instruction was actually Ulleungdo, not today's Takeshia and this order, "Takeshima and the other island has nothing to do with our country.", didn't include today's Takeshima.

(note 1) Refer to colum no. 6 & 7

(note 2) In "Oki" articles of Otsuki Shuhei(大 槻修平)'s "Revised Japanese topography summary' (vol. 5) , it is recorded as follows. "To begin with, this country is the westernmost and is solitary island in Sea of Japan, and to the northwest sea, it exists both Matsushima Takeshima. It is said that both of them are close to Joseon area, but there are no inhabitants nor government for belonging and people from each area made it as a hunting grounds where they often came to hunt sealions.

“実事求是　〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２２回 朴炳渉氏の「明治政府の竹島＝独島認識」（「北東アジア文化研究」第２８号）を駁す　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 4

The 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 13th column “Sins of Asahi Shimbun and Mr. Wakamiya Yoshibumi(若宮啓文).

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)."

Reference :

1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 1/2) (島根県 渡航禁止のいきさつ)

1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876　(Part 2/2) (島根県 (竹島の)由来の概略)

1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)

1880 - Japanese Warship "Amagi" (軍艦天城) Surveys Ulleungdo and finds "Takeshima" is Jukdo.

1881- Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA concluded that "Takeshima" is Jukdo in "A Study of Takeshima (Takeshima Kosho 竹島考証)

中央日報「独島を守ろう」と作った教科書に誤り１５カ所

中央日報：
http://japanese.joins.com/article/article.php?aid=121457&servcode=400&sectcode=400
独島（トクト、日本名・竹島）をめぐり、昨年日本の外務省が「竹島は日本の領土」だという内容のハングル広報資料を出すと、韓国の中央政府・地方政府は先を争って独島守護対策をまとめた。しかし国務総理室や文化財庁などが１１日にハンナラ党の李性憲（イ・ソンホン）、韓善教（ハン・ソンギョ）議員に提出した国政監査資料によると、各機関の対策に一貫性がないことが明らかになった。

外交通商部は４月に慶尚北道（キョンサンブクド）教育庁に「小学校の独島教科書の内容に誤りがある」として検討するよう要請した。２月に発行された独島教科書のうち、▽１８８２年に倭寇が鬱陵島（ウルルンド）で略奪をする部分▽独島という名前が１９０６年に初めて使われたという部分などが歴史的事実と異なると外交通商部は指摘した。１８８２年には略奪したのではなく伐木をしたもので、独島の名前が初めて使われたのは１９０４年というものだ。また太宗（テジョン）実録の「于山島」（ウサンド）に言及した部分については、「日本側の批判を受けた部分だ」として削除を要請した。

このように外交通商部が修正または削除を勧めた部分は１５カ所に上る。外交通商部側は「教科書を３月に入手し内容を検討した。今後教科書を改訂したり類似した教科書政策を進める場合、総理室や外交通商部と協議してほしい」と要請した。「独島守護」の次元から作られた教科書が充分な関係官庁の協議を経ずに製作されていたのだ。

特に総理室は３月に各官庁に宛てた公文で「独島関連広報が機関別に個別・分散的に進められることで、広報引用資料が一致せず、広報論理の統一性が欠如した」と指摘したことが明らかになった。

韓善教議員は「独島問題が起きると各種の対策を浴びせながらしっかりと推進もできない問題が繰り返されている。各政府機関が事前調整なく拙速に事業を進めればむしろ逆効果になる」と主張した。

The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”, Part 1

Below is a first part of the translation of The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 1

Last time, I clarified the fact that Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)'s article " Refutation against "Analysys of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" (Dokdo Research, No. 4) was just an groundless false description. In the article, he failed to prove his claim that "there was neither "Fabrication" nor Falsification" of the historiography that Masao Shimojo claimed " to be true.

His false claim lead me taking up his another article "The Meiji Government's Recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" (Studies of the cultures in Northeast Asia, no.28, 2008, pp.33-49.) for discussion this time. Although he claims that "Meiji government recognized Takeshima and Matsushima as outside of territory", he again avoids and refrains from the historical facts which are definitely disadvantageous for him.

According to him, "the Meiji government consistently held to the policy of making Takeshima and Matsushima outside the territory in Japan until incorporation in 1905" (p36), but "the territory incorporation was decided in the Cabinet Council "since it was a pressing need under the difficult situation" in the middle of Russo-Japanese War, defining Takeshima=Dokdo as "Terra nullius." (p49)"

In his article, he wrote, "Shimojo Masao's opinion, which is extremely uncommon, on the definition of "Takeshima and another island" has been
changing every year. (p37)", while he tried to stress how much his claim is genuine. He denounced my opinion that "he changed his own opinion(p37)", "he changed his own opinion again (p38)" or "uncommon opinion(p38)".

Then, what is the "the opinion on the definition of "Takeshima and another island"" Mr. Park mentions? It is, in October of 1876, Shimane Prefecture 's inquiry about the inclusion of Takeshima and another island in the Sea of Japan" submitted to Minister of Interior And Dajokan, the highest governmental organ of Japan, responded that "Takeshima and another island, it is understood that our country has nothing to do with them" next year.

However, the fact is, that Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA investigated the situation and concluded that "another island" is actually Ulleungdo, and his conclusion was the Meiji government's opinion. "Another island = Matsushima" in 1877's Dajokan instruction was confirmed that it was Ulleungdo in 1881, resulting that "today's Takeshima/Dokdo has nothing to do with Dajokan's instruction," actually.

This fact collapses Mr. Park's claim that "the related organs, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Army, Navy and Dajokan considered the island as Joseon territory(p48), thus Japanese inclusion of Takeshima into Shimane was invasion." Maybe, Mr. Park niggled over my opinion so that he may able to conceal this fact. In the last summary, he concluded as follows.

" Afterwards, Japan that developed as an imperialism nation decided the territory incorporation of Takeshima = Dokdo by a Cabinet Council in the middle of Russo-Japanese War from the judgment with "the incorporation was urgent particularly under the present situation." Japan’s claim was based on terra nullius (meaning unclaimed land). It is needless to say that this is contradictory to "Takeshima as Inherent territory" theory on which present Japanese Government insists. (p49)"

However, it was not true. I am going to point out the problems in his article "The Meiji Government's Recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" (Studies of the cultures in Northeast Asia, no.28, 2008, pp.33-49.) now.

(to be continued to the part 2, 3, and 4)

“実事求是　〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２２回 朴炳渉氏の「明治政府の竹島＝独島認識」（「北東アジア文化研究」第２８号）を駁す　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 4

The 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 13th column “Sins of Asahi Shimbun and Mr. Wakamiya Yoshibumi(若宮啓文).

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)."

Reference :
1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 1/2) (島根県 渡航禁止のいきさつ)

1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876　(Part 2/2) (島根県 (竹島の)由来の概略)

1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)
1880 - Japanese Warship "Amagi" (軍艦天城) Surveys Ulleungdo and finds "Takeshima" is Jukdo.

1881 - Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA concluded that "Takeshima" is Jukdo in "A Study of Takeshima (Takeshima Kosho 竹島考証) "