1906 - July - the Korean Self-Strengthening Society (大韓自强會) blotted out Takeshima/Dokdo from its monthly magazine in 1906.

In 1906, one of the leading organizations of Patriotic Enlightenment Movement for the restoration of the sovereign right of the nation, “the Korean Self-Strengthening Society (大韓自强會)”, was founded by Jang Ji-yun（張志淵） and others. They published 13 edition of monthly magazines from July 1906 to July 1907. Interestingly, the front pages of those magazines are same and features Korean territory in red, blotting out Takeshima/Dokdo from her territory.

Moreover, the chapter of the Korean geography printed in the 3rd edition of the magazine published on July, 1906, clearly states that the eastern limit of Korean territory is 130º 35' E. longitude.

Remember that Jang Ji-yun was the president, the publisher and the editor in chief of Hwangseong Shinmun(皇城新聞). Its May 9 1906 article reported that 1906, Mar. 25, Uldo Prefect Governor Shim Hung-taek(沈興澤) reported that Japanese incorporated “Dokdo(獨島)” (note that he didn’t report Seokdo/石島) which locate "外洋百里(40km far in the open sea). And in a July 13, 1906 article clarified that the Korean government in 1906 did not recognize "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks) as being part of Uldo County (Ulleungdo), even though the government had just recently gotten a report on "Dokdo" from Shim.

This coincide with this Korean Self-Strengthening Society’s monthly magazine cover illustration of Korean Territory. It is crystal clear that Korean didn’t recognize Takeshima/Dokdo as its territory, at the time Korean got to know Japan’s incorporation in 1906. Apparently, Shim’s report was mistake and “獨島” was not “石島”, which today’s Korean claim as another name of Dokdo back then. In conclusion, 石島 in 1900’s Korean Imperial Edict No.41 (大韓勅令第41号) was not Japan’s Takeshima and Korean didn’t recognize Takeshima as its territory based on Korea’s own historical documents.

In 1907, Jang published "New Topography of Great Korea(大韓新地誌)". Its chapter of "location" states that Korea's eastern border is Tumen River and it is 130º 58' E. longitude. As for Ulleungdo, Jan wrote, that Uleung Island locates from 130º 45' N. to (130º) 35' N. and from 37º 34' E. to (37º) 31' E. (Probably the mistake for 130º 45' E. to (130º) 53' E. and from 37º 34' N. to (37º) 31' N. ) The states that Uleung island can be seen (from Korean peninsula) on a clear fine day. It also says that Usando exists to the south-east of the island. However, the map attached to the book also blotted out Takeshima/Dokdo from its "The Map of Korea(大韓全図)" and "The Map of Gyeongsangbuk-do(慶尚北道)" as well. On top of that, "The Map of Gyeongsangbuk-do(慶尚北道)" depicts Jukdo(竹島, not Japan's Takeshima) precisely on the location of Jukdo. From those historical documents, whatever the Usando Jan added really was, it is apparent that he considered Korea's easternmost was Ulleungdo and today's Takeshima/Dokdo was outside of Korean territory.

"The attatched　map of The New Topography of the Great Korea (大韓新地志附地圖)" (The National Library of Korea's site)

　　　

Which country will China try to occupy first, Taiwan or North Korea?

I have put up a new survey question on the right side of the blog that it is unrelated to the Takeshima-Dokdo dispute. The question is as follows:

Which country will China try to occupy first, Taiwan or North Korea?

•  Taiwan
• North Korea
• Neither
• Both at the same time

I apologize for the question being unrelated to the Takeshima-Dokdo dispute, but I have my reasons for asking it.

The Reason Japan Cannot Give Up Takeshima (Dokdo)

In a somewhat meandering article entitled, "A Korea-Japan alliance?" Peter M. Beck, who is supposedly a Research Fellow at Keio University in Tokyo, suggests that Japan's refusal to give up her "hopeless" claim to "Dokdo" is hurting the chances of creating a Korea-Japan alliance that could help counter an increasingly belligerent China and North Korea. Moreover, he believes that by giving up its claim to "Dokdo," Japan would receive "a flood of Korean goodwill."

I see three problems with the logic Mr. Beck uses in his attempt to entice Japanese to give up their claim to "Dokdo," and one of them is a really big one.

First, "Dokdo," which is called "Takeshima" by the Japanese, is just a small cluster of barren rocks in the middle of the Sea of Japan with no real economic or strategic importance, which means a territorial dispute over such insignificant rocks should not be an obstacle to forming an alliance between Korea and Japan. It is not Japan that considers the rocks an obstacle; it is Korea, even though Korea occupies the rocks. Therefore, if Korea is willing to put such insignificant rocks ahead of an alliance with Japan, then that is evidence that the alliance would not really be worth much.

Second, I think any Korean goodwill that Japan would receive by giving up her claim to Takeshima would be only temporary. Koreans would soon find other reasons for withholding their "goodwill." Therefore, giving up her claim to Takeshima would not really benefit Japan in the long run, unless she could get something more tangible in exchange,

Last, the biggest reason Japan cannot, and should not, give up her claim to Takeshima is that it would mean, in effect, accepting Korea's historical claims to Takeshima, which are essentially nothing but lies. Historically, Takeshima was never Korean territory, so until Korea recants her lies about Takeshima, Japan has an obligation to History to continue to maintain her claim to the barren rocks.

UPDATE:

Mr. Peter M. Beck has responded HERE to my comment about his article, which I have linked to above. The following is how I responded to his comment.

Mr Beck,

I did not focus on “Korean lies” in my above response to your article. I focused on your flawed logic, which, by the way, was shown again in your statement, “My views cannot be too flawed or biased as a major Japanese newspaper has asked me to write a version for them!”

There is nothing ambiguous about the fact that Japan, in 1905, incorporated Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), which you chose to refer to by its Korean name, “Dokdo.”

The fact that you have asked me “to explain why several official Meji maps indicate the rocks as being Korean” tells me that you do not really understand the history of the Rocks or the map confusion of the 1800s, which was caused by the mismapping of the Korean island of Ulleungdo by the British ship “Argonaut.”

Korea has no old maps showing Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) by any name or any documents showing that Koreans ever claimed or even visited the Rocks before the Japanese starting taking them there as deckhands on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s. In fact, the Rocks are only mentioned about three times in Korean history as being a distant, unnamed island visible from Ulleungdo, and each time it was referred to as being Japanese territory or suggested as being Japanese territory.

Let me say, again. There is no evidence that Korea ever claimed Liancourt Rocks before Japan incorporated them in 1905, and there is no evidence that Japan ever recognized any imaginary Korean claim to the Rocks.

Even without knowing which of the “several official Meiji maps” you are referring to, I can say pretty confidently that none of them recognized Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) as Korean territory. Are these “official” Meiji maps the only evidence you have to claim that the Rocks were Korean?

Why Did Koreans Fail to Mention Imperial Edict #41 to the US in 1951?

The following is a very well written and reasoned explanation in Korean for why Korea failed to use the 1900 Imperial Edict # 41 argument with US authorities in their failed attempt to get the US to recognize Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) as Korean territory in the 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan. The following Korean explanation can be found at this site:

독도 문제의 진실 獨島問題의真實

I do not know who runs the site, but he writes Korean quite fluently.

「칙령 제４１호」의 허구성－３

제2차 세계대전 이후의 일본 영토 범위는 샌프란시스코 강화 조약에 의해서 결정되었습니다. 그 조약의 최종 초안에서는 다케시마/독도는 일본의 영토라고 정해졌습니다. 그것을 알게 된 한국 정부는 양유찬(梁裕燦) 주미 한국 대사를 통해서 1951년7월19일차 문서로　독도를 한국의 영토에 넣어달라고 요청하는 문서를 미국 정부에 제출했습니다. 이것에 대해서 미국 정부는 1951년8월10 일차 이른바 러스크 서간을 통해서 한국 정부의 요청을 거부했습니다. 이것은 유명한 사실이기 때문에 여러분 다 알고 있겠지요.

그런데, 양유찬 대사는 미국에　대해서　독도를 한국의 영토에　넣어달라고 요청할 때, 그 근거로서 1900년 대한제국 황제 칙령 제41호를 주장하지 않았습니다. 왜 주장하지 않았을까요?

현대 한국 정부는 칙령 제41호에 규정된 석도（石島）가 독도이며 대한제국은 1900년에 독도가 한국 영토임을 세계에 선언했다고 주장하고 있습니다. 칙령 제41호는 한국이 독도 영유권을 주장하기 위한 중요한 근거인 것 같습니다.　그것이 사실이라면, 미국 정부에 대해서 제대로 설명하면 미국 정부도 고려했을 것이었습니다. 하지만　양 대사는 칙령 제 41호에 대해 언급하지 않았군요. 왜 언급 하지 않았을까요?

그 이유는 명백합니다.사실 칙령 제41호에 규정된 석도는 독도가 아니기 때문입니다. 당시 한국 정부는 칙령 제41호에 규정된 석도는 독도가 아니기를 잘 알고 있었습니다. 따라서 미국 정부에 대해서 거짓말을 할 수 없었습니다.
현대 한국 정부도 입에서는 칙령 제41호에 규정된 석도가 독도이라고 주장 합니다만, 석도에 관한 구체적인 지도나 문서를 전혀 제시 못하고 있습니다. 그러한 자료는 거의 없기 때문이지요.

한국 사람 들은　다케시마/독도를　불법점거　하고 있음을 속이려고 하는 정부의 허위 주장을　언제까지　믿습니까?　 한국의 선진화를 위해서는 진실을 보는 눈이 필요합니다.

Arirang: "Korean Lawmakers Hold Seminar of Dokdo"

According to a June 1 article from Arirang News HERE, Korean lawmakers seem worried that Japan's historical claims to Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima - Dokdo) are stronger than theirs, so they will try to "look at the evidence as a whole rather than trying to refute the part on which Japan bases its claims." That sounds like instead of trying to refute Japanese claims to Liancourt Rocks, which they seem unable to do, they will try to obfuscate and confound the debate.

Korean Lawmakers Hold SEminar on Dokdo

Korean lawmakers from the ruling and opposition parties gathered at the National Assembly on Wednesday for a seminar on Korea's Dokdo Islets in the East Sea.
Their objective was to deliver and discuss facts on the islets re-confirming Korea's control since historical times in a scholarly manner, with college professors, an international law judge and researchers.

[Interview : Park Sun-young, Co-chair
Assoc. of Lawmakers for Dokdo] "We, the Korean people care deeply about Dokdo, but we do not have good research that documents our territorial rights to the islets. In contrast, Japan has conducted many research projects to make an argument claiming Dokdo as theirs. We are in need of finding the best way to refute and react to these well prepared, but false claims from Japan. So we arranged for this seminar."

The discussants presented supporting documents dating as far back as the fourth century that show Dokdo belonging to ancient Korean kingdoms, which is some 11-hundred years earlier than the records used by Japan.

[Interview : Yuji Hosaka, Director
Dokdo Institute of Sejong University] "Japan's claims on Dokdo begin with a basis on historical truth, but end with many false facts. In other words, many of Japan's claims on the islets as a whole are unfounded. So we need to expose these false arguments. And to do so we should look at the evidence as a whole rather than trying to refute from the part on which Japan bases its claims. This is what we need at this point."

The advice by Professor Yuji Hosaka, a Japanese immigrant who is now a naturalized Korean citizen, was well received by the panel.

They also agreed on the need to hold more meetings to make Korea's claim on Dokdo consistent and strong.

[Reporter : Kang Seok-ho ed:mark
kangsh@arirang.co.kr] "Firmly united in their will to protect the islets from continued claims from Japan, Korean lawmakers from all sides of political spectrum will keep working to inform the world that the Dokdo Islets belong to Korea.

Kang Seok-ho, Arirang News."

JUN 01, 2011
Reporter : kangsh@arirangtv.com

1951 - Sep. 21 - Korean Government comprehended Takeshima/Dokdo was affirmed as a Japanese Territory in Peace Treaty

On Sep. 21st, 1951, South Korean Foreign Minister Pyun Yung-tai(卞栄泰) sent a letter to U.S. Ambassar Muccio. In his letter, he claimed that SCAPIN-677 is the cocnlusive factor to decide Takeshima/Dokdo is Korean territory. He also listed, as other factors, MacArthur line and U.S. apology to Korea for the victims of 1948 bombing incident.

Republic of Korea

Ministry of Foreign Affairs SEOUL

September 21, 1951

Dear Ambassador Muccio,

This note is to seek to draw your attention to the enclosed exerpt of Memorandum of SCAPIN-677, 29 January 1946, which should be regarded as a conslusive factor in deciding, in Korean favor, the controversy over the ownership of Dokdo, known as "Liancourt Rocks" and also as "Takeshima" in Japanese. The fact that the disputed isle has been put on the Korean side of the MacArthur Line is another manifestation of the SCAP memorandum under notice.

In 1948, if I do not remember wrongly, when air bombing practice caused casualities among the Korean fishermen in boats nestling near the isle SCAP apologized to this Goverment for the incident. Had SCAP regarded the isle as Japanese territory, the presence of the Koreans there would have been illegal and no apologies necessary. As evidenced by the Memorandum in question, SCAP has, at no time, doubted that the isle belongs or ought to belong, to Korea.

We have substantial documented evidence to prove that the isle has been in the Korean possession for many hundred years. The fact that Japan incorporated the isle into one of its nearby prefectures in 1905 (a deal sneaked on a prefectural level, not on a Governmental level, for the obvious convenience to back down more easily in case of a possible international trouble) cannot repudiate our rightful claims to the isle, supported not merely by Korean documents but by Japanese ones also.

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Sincerely yours,

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Yung Tai PYUN

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Minister of Foreign Affairs

Enclosure: Memorandum of SCAPIN-677, 29 January 1946

His Excellency

Note that this was sent AFTER the Peace Treaty was signed (08/09/1951). In other word, it is apparent Korean government did understand that Peace Treaty concluded that Takeshima was left to Japan as its sovereign territory, or she wouldn't have sent such a letter to make U.S. pay attention to SCAPIN-677. In fact, Korean Ambassodor to U.S. was already told by Dean Rusk, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, that the Japanese claim to the Liancourt Rocks would not be renounced in the peace treaty on 10th Aug., 1951 and this official notification was reiterated to ROK government on 4th Dec., 1952.

Possible Methods of Resolving Liancourt Rocks Dispute between Japan and ROK　(July 22, 1953)

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

With regard to the question of who has sovereignty over the Liancourt Rock (which are also known in Japanese as Takeshima, and in Korean as Dokdo), it may be of interest to recall that the United States position, contained in a note to the Republic of Korea's Ambassador date August 10, 1951 reads in part:

"....As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea......"

(This position has never been formally communicated to the Japanese Government but might well come to light were this dispute ever submitted to mediation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement.)

Since sending the August 10, 1951 note to the ROK Government, the United States Government has sent only one additional communication on the subject. This was done in response to the ROK protest of the alleged bombing of Dokdo Island by a United States military plane. The United States note of December 4, 1952 states:

"The Embassy has taken note of the statement contained in the Ministry's Note that　'Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks) .....is a part of the territory of the Republic of Korea.'　The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk’s note to the Korean Ambassador in Washington dated August 10,1951."

Pyun’s attempts urging U.S. to reconsider was laughed off, as it was documented in the following corresponding letter, which was accompanied by Pyun’s letter above, from Pusan to Washington. The Minister apparently failed to present alleged "substantial documented evidence to prove that the isle has been in the Korean possession for many hundred years”.

TRANSMITTAL OF LETTER FROM MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS ON KOREAN CLAIM TO DOKDO ISLAND (Oct. 3, 1951) (Records of the U.S Department of State relating to the Internal Affairs of Korea, 1950-54 Department of State Decimal File 795)

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

With regard to the " substantial documented evidence" referred to in the last paragraph of the letter, an officer of the Embassy was orally informed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that such evidence appears throughout Korean and Japanese archives. The implication was that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not possess a compilation of such "evidence" at this time. Although it was pointed out to the Minister that the Embassy would welcome the submission of such "evidence" for transmittal to the Department, it appears doubutful that such information will be forthcoming.

Today, Korean government claim that Takeshima was decided to be Korean territory by U.S.’s dropping its name from the article.

Later, Dokdo’s exclusion from Japan’s territory was reaffirmed by the Treaty of Peace with Japan, better known as the San Francisco Treaty, of September 8, 1951.

(Dokdo_Korean territory Basic Position of the Government of the Republic of Korea on Dokdo, 2010)

However, as Pyun’s letter shows, Korean government was well aware that Takeshima was left to Japan in San Francisco Peace Treaty. It is a shame ROK never stops distorting the fact and brainwashing her innocent nationals every day.

Ulleung County Symbol Recognizes 'Three Peaks' of Ulleungdo

One of the old names for the Korean island of Ulleungdo in Korean historical documents was "Sambongdo" (三峰島 - 삼봉도), which means "Island of Three Peaks." Ulleungdo's three prominent peaks were mentioned numerous times in Korean historical texts. Though some nationalistic Korean historians claim that Sambongdo was referring to Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima - Dokdo), Korea's own historical texts, and, apparently, even the symbol for Korea's Ulleung County (울릉군) seem to contradict that claim.

Notice that the Ulleung County symbol to the left shows three peaks against against a background of red. The county's Web site, HERE, describes the symbol as follows:

The oval shape of the outer edge of the symbol represents the sun rising over the East Sea (Sea of Japan). With Ulleungdo's Seongin Peak in the center, the shape of the mountains is shown with a design of three triangular peaks that represent Ulleung's unyielding spirit.

가장 자리를 둘러싼 타원은 동해에 떠오르는 태양을 상징하며 산의 형상은 울릉도의 성인봉을 중심으로 울릉의 굳굳한 기상을 삼각형태의 대칭구조로 2분하여 도안 되었습니다.

The Korean seems a little awkward to me, so if someone has a different translation, please let me know. For example, I assumed 굳굳한 meant 꿋꿋한. Also, the expression 2분하여 seems awkward to me.

Again, the three peaks of Ulleungdo were mentioned numerous times in Korea's historical documents.

Thanks, Chaamiey, for pointing out the symbol.

Video Comparing Korean Map Drawings of "Usando" (于山島), by Yabutarou

2011 May 13 - "Dong-a Ilbo" Reports Discovery of a "Dae Dongyeojido" Map Showing "Dokdo"

In a May 13 article entitled, "First Domestic Discovery of a Hand-drawn Dae Dongyeojido Map Showing Dokdo," Korea's Dong-a Ilbo reports the following:

A Dae Dongyeojido (大東輿地圖 – 대동여지도) map showing Dokdo has been discovered  domestically for the first time.

On the 11th, the Academy of Korean Studies revealed, "In November of last year, while researching old documents as part of an effort to promote Korean Studies, a hand-drawn copy of a Dae Dongyeojido map showing Dokdo was found in Seoul's Seodaemun District Korean Research Center library.

On this handdrawn copy, an island labeled "Usan" (于山) was drawn to the right of Ulleungdo. Usan was the old name for Dokdo. The sea was drawn blue and the islands were drawn yellow.

Worldwide, there are a total of 25 block-print or hand-drawn copies of the Dae Dongyeojido. As for copies showing Dokdo, until now there was only a block-print copy in Japan's Diet Library, none had been found domestically. In the block prints, Kim Jong-ho, himself, craved the map on the blocks in 1861. The hand-drawn copies were made by placing paper over the original blocks and tracing them.

The Research Director of the Academy of Korean Studies, Ok Yeong-jeong, said, "A hand-drawn Dae Dongyeojido map showing Dokdo is important for understanding how Dokdo was seen by Koreans in the 19th century.  Lee Sang-tae, an endowed professor at the Graduate School of Korea International Culture University, explained, "Japan has claimed sovereignty of Dokdo by saying 'Dokdo has hardly appeared on a Dae Dongyeojido, which is Korea's representative map,' but the discovery of this map has confirmed that claim is groundless."

Above Ulleungdo on the map is written, "In the 11th year of Yeongjong, Gangwon Gamsa Jo Choi-su inspected Ulleungdo, and Usando is to the east of Ulleungdo." Concerning this, Professor Lee explained, "Until the Daehan Emprie was established in 1897, King Yeongjo was called 'Yeongjong,' so this hand-drawn map was drawn sometime between 1861, when the Dae Dongyeojido was first made, and 1897.

Thanks for the link to the article, Chaamiey.

The following is an image of the map from YTN News:



Of course, the island the article is claiming to be "Dokdo" is actually Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도), which is two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore, as shown in the Google satellite image below:

Besides the Dae Dongyeojido shown above, Kim Jong-ho also drew the following 1834 map of Ulleungdo and Usando, a map which has gridlines for distance along the edge. Each gridline represented ten ri, which was about four kilometers. The gridlines prove that the Usan (于山) on the map could not have possibly been Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), which are are about 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo and are essentially made up of two rock islets, not one.

Steve Barber is back in the Korean news.

A foreigner's journey of discovery and Dokdo

Excerpt:

After many online discussions about Dokdo with both Japanese and Koreans it became apparent that the two countries have different approaches and origins to their beliefs.

Japan's effort to reclaim Dokdo, which it refers to as Takeshima is fueled by a small but determined group of right wingers. Most of these Japanese are anonymous.

They obsessively lobby and spread propaganda related to other issues of contention between Japan and her neighbors.

Following Internet links that claim Dokdo as Japan's inherent territory will eventually lead you to the same Japanese netizens who deny the Nanjing massacre, comfort women and other wartime atrocities.

However, Korea's claim for Dokdo is supported by the vast majority of Koreans who believe with conviction the islets are theirs.

With this in mind, the Korean government is truly representative of how Koreans feel about Dokdo while Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs seems to be appeasing right wing activists.

It takes a lot of gall for Steve Barber to say such stuff, considering that he used to anonymously post under a variety of IDs until he was caught doing it and his identity explosed.

2011 Apr. 14 - A Looter in the Sea of Japan (Korea plans ocean science research station on Takeshima/Dokdo)

While Japanese are still struggling with devastating aftermath of earthquake, Tsunami and nukes, Korea is planning to install building so-called research station, which is exactly the same action she did near Socotra Rock against China’s protest, on Takeshima.

Korea Plans Research Station on Dokdo (Choson Ilbo, Apr. 11, 2011)

Korea will set up an ocean science research station on Dokdo to observe waves, weather and pollution in the East Sea around the clock.

Grand National Party lawmakers on a National Assembly ad hoc committee on Dokdo and officials from the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs and the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology met on April 4 to discuss a response to new Japanese school textbooks that repeat Tokyo's claims to the islets and agreed to build the science station.

The station will be the country's third oceanic science base after Ieo Island and Gaeocho islet.

This kind of aggressive action against the country in the crisis is going to incure blame and be criticized by the international community. Even China, Hong Kong and Taiwan protesters stopped their plan to sending ships to Senkaku from this reason. Russian media wrote they should hand in Northern Territories to Japan.

This kind of aggression only provokes firm response by Japan.

Japan's Liberal Party Wants 'Dokdo Day' Enshrined in Law (Choson Ilbo, Apr. 13, 2011)

A committee in Japan's Liberal Democratic Party has asked the Japanese government to enshrine a "Takeshima Day," for the Japanese name of Korea's Dokdo, in law to assert the country's claim to the islets, the Sankei Shimbun reported Tuesday.

The call comes after Korea announced plans to set up an ocean science research station on Dokdo, which in turn was prompted by the Japanese government's approval of school textbooks that state Tokyo's claim.

It is even reported that “Korea may bolster its defense of the Dokdo islets by replacing police who now guard the territory with soldiers”. Are Korean finally ready to admit that Takeshima/Dokdo is a land in dispute? If so, this is exactly what Japan has longed for.

(Update)
Finally, Japanese government lodged a official protest against the Korean aggression on 14th night.

Tokyo Protests Against Marine Research Station on Dokdo

Japanese Foreign Minister Takeaki Matsumoto told lawmakers on Friday that Tokyo "cannot accept" Korea's plans to build a research station on Dokdo. Matsumoto said the Japanese government lodged a protest with the Korean government after confirming that Hyundai Engineering and Construction had been chosen to build the research station.

And Seoul responded with considering deploying new frigates near Takeshima/Dokdo.

Heartbreaking Earthquake & Tsunami in Japan

The destruction and death in Japan is so terrible that I have no words to describe the sadness I feel. I can only hope that there are no more deaths, more survivors are found, and the pain and hardship are alleviated quickly.

I hope the people who post to this blog from Japan are all safe and well.

"'Flash Patriotism'--Dokdo Bonds Gone After 5 Years"

The situation described in the following MBC News article HERE is another example that Korean interest in Takeshima (Dokdo) has waned.

"Flash Patriotism'--Dokdo Bonds Gone After 5 Years"

The Dokdo-related financial products launched at the height of the territorial dispute with Japan in 2005 and 2006 have almost all disappeared.

According to people in the securities circles, the "Dokdo Defense Bonds" launched by KB Asset Management in 2005 terminated the following year, and the "Dokdo Love Investment Trust" from Korea Investment Trust Management was dissolved in 2008 after a decline in customer interest.

The "Dokdo Cyber Branch" opened by Hyundai Securities in 2002 closed in 2008.

.

'반짝 애국심' 독도펀드 5년 만에 실종

일본과 독도 영유권 갈등이 한창이던 2005년과 2006년에 출시됐던 독도 관련 금융 상품이 대부분 사라진 것으로 나타났습니다.

증권 업계에 따르면 2005년 KB 자산운용이 출시한 '독도수호 행동펀드'는 이듬해 시한이 만료됐고, 한국투자신탁운용의 '독도사랑 투자신탁'은 고객들의 호응이 떨어지면서 2008년 청산됐습니다.

현대증권이 2002년에 개설했던 '독도 사이버 지점'은 2008년 폐쇄됐습니다.