竹島問題の歴史

26.6.08

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).

73 comments:

  1. It is sad to know that the neighboring country is full of liers - educatinal system, newspapers and TVs.....it's no wonder if Koreans believe this kind of big lie. I hope sameday they will notice their big mistake caused by Rhee Syngmann.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do Korean actually know that former president Lee slaughtered not only almost 44 Japanese fishermen around "Lee line" , but also thousand of it's own people ? Even Choson ilbo makes so many lies about history when it comes to the history. No wonder Korean students are ignorant of their own history.  

    "Some 56.8 percent of secondary school students do not know which year the Korean War broke out, while 13.5 percent said the U.S. started the Korean War and 13.4 percent Japan."

    "Dokdo coast guards to protect Dokdo Islets from Japanese."?

    The truth about so-called Dokdo Coast Guards. cache

    Too many lies to count.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This Korean foolish article says that
    "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"

    But USA government denied this stupid Korean interpretation.
    "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."
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Confidential_Security_Information_about_Liancourt_Rocks

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry. The source of US denial is here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi opp, long time no see.

    This article is full of lies as Gerry noted. I'm spiritless to correct these errors... I still hope there will be Korean people who knew the truth and would disclose Rhee Syngmann's evildoings.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi pacifist,

    Please read this judicial precedent. This judicial precedent is very useful for the Takeshima dispute.

    ReplyDelete
  7. SCAPIN 1778 and other SCAPINs concerned with Takeshima are here.

    ReplyDelete
  8. dokdo-takeshima.com27/6/08 23:04

    Here's the Truth about American involvement in the Japan Peace Agreement. What the Americans said half a century ago means squat. They do not support Japan's claim to Dokdo to this day.

    RheeLineTruth

    Seriously what is the difference between the Rhee Line and other boundaries proposed by the British, New Zealand and SCAP? They are identical. Rhee was a courageous man for having the guts to stand up for his country instead of kissing up to foreign powers!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Look who is talking.

    A Korean ultra-nationalist.

    Don't you have self-criticizing ability in your rotten head? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. The agreement of Japan is more important than the opinion of Britain, the United States, and New Zealand in International Law. Japan has not agreed to the renouncement of Takeshima. Allied Power have not demanded the renouncement of Takeshima's title. Japan only agreed to the suspend of the administrative power exercise according to SCAPIN.

    PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie
    "The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty. A similar case, recognized by the customary law for a very long time, is that of the belligerent occupation of enemy territory in time of war. The important features of 'sovereignty' in such cases are the continued existence of legal personality and the attribution of territory to that legal person and not to holders for the time being."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve Barber (Dokdo-Takeshima),

    You are being ridiculous, again.

    The United States recognizes Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory, but does not want to be drawn into the dispute and has suggested that it be settled in the International Court of Justice, something that Korea has refused to do even though Japan has agreed to do it.

    Here is what US Special Mission Ambassador James Van Fleet wrote in a secret report about Liancourt Rocks after his mission to the Far East in 1954:

    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.

    The Mission was advised by Republic of Korea that:

    "What is still worse is that Japan now claims the possession of the little islet of Dokto known Liancourt Rocks near the Woolnungdo known as Dagelet. Japanese officials are making frequent visits to the islet with armed vessels molesting Korean fishermen there. They set up posts here and there in the islet with description declaring as if it were Japanese territory. Throughout our history and knowledge up to the very moment of the declaration of sovereignty over adjacent seas (Rhee Line), Korea's sovereignty over it has never been contended by any country, as it has long been an immovably established fact that the islet, Dokto, has been historically as well as legally a part of Woolnungdo (Dagelet) Korean territory."


    And concerning Korea's so-called "Peace Line," Van Fleet wrote the following:

    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.

    LINK

    ReplyDelete
  12. dokdo-takeshima.com28/6/08 16:05

    Gerry, did you slip and fall in the shower 50 years ago and lapse into a serious coma since then?

    If so, let me update you to America's position on the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute.

    U.S. policy on the Dokdo/Takeshima Island issue HAS BEEN and continues to be that the United States does not take a position on either Korea's claim or Japan's claim to the island. Our hope is that the two countries will resolve the issue amicably.

    Please read the following link from the official website of the U.S. Government.
    OfficialAmericanPolicyRegardingDokdo

    Gerry, stop bullshitting the public by posting confidential memorandums that never translated into official U.S. Government policy Gerry.

    Raquel (pacifists imaginary friend) You e-mailed me saying you are a student from Cincinnati. Please tell us which school, program and your teacher's name. We would like to know more about you. Are you a fake? I think so

    Opp, I'm sorry but post WWII Germany and Japan are totally unrelated.

    ReplyDelete
  13. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    Is it so inconvenient to read those US secret documents?

    They are not for your advantage, are they? :-)

    You better know that the Rhee Republic was a criminal republic
    in the eyes of many outside Korea, and the late Kim Ku surely knew that Rhee was a criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  14. dokdo-takeshima.com
    "Opp, I'm sorry but post WWII Germany and Japan are totally unrelated."

    PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie
    "The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty. A similar case, recognized by the customary law for a very long time, is that of the belligerent occupation of enemy territory in time of war. The important features of 'sovereignty' in such cases are the continued existence of legal personality and the attribution of territory to that legal person and not to holders for the time being."

    Brownlie is writing a general rule . Germany is only one example. The legal personality of Takeshima is Japan. Because the title by conquest was invalid after WW1, sovereignty cannot transfer without Japanse agreement. This is the same also in the civil law of a domestic law. Sorry, Korea can do nothing but give up.

    ReplyDelete
  15. dokdo-takeshima.com28/6/08 22:25

    Raquel, you said the key word here. "Secret" documents. Gerry posted confidential memorandums of some American officials opinions and I posted a press release statement from the U.S. Government's Embassy. My docs rule, Gerry's bite the dust.

    Opp, nobody is saying Japan ceased to exist after WII you are playing with yourself. The basis of the whole dispute is what territories defined Japan as a nation. Japan cannot exercise sovereignty over Liancourt Rocks without the concent of Allied Command. She signed those rights away. In short, she ceased to exercise effective control over the islands. No effective control no ownership equals cessation.

    You're right, Opp Brownlie is only writing a general rule, a rule that is of questionable relevance to Japan's post WWII negotiations at all. Don't compare apples and oranges, cut and paste a tiny snippet of reams of data and then try to tell us this is the law.

    Japanese Takeshima lobbyists are saying the Allies concluded Takeshima was Japan's land in Post WWII negotiations. This is wrong on many accounts.

    First the final draft of the Japan Peace Treaty (the only draft that matters) doesn't even mention Liancourt Rocks.

    Second, the confidential memorandums exchanged by the U.S. during these negotiations never materialized into official U.S. policy. Thus, Japanese can not assert this reflected America's stance on the issue at all. At any rate other nations had their own opinions of the territorial dispostion of former Japanese terrtories.

    Canada wanted to follow the spirit of the Postdam Declaration leaving Japan's territory to be determined outside of the Japan Peace Treaty.

    CanadaTreaty

    This would have meant that Japan's territory would have been limited to the four major islands, as we can see here.

    PotsdamDeclatation

    Because Russia also had a territorial dispute with Japan they too wanted to stick with the wartime agreements that limited Japan to the four major islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Shikoku and Kyushu.

    So Opp as you can read by the Rusk notes although the U.S. "did not feel the Postdam Declaration was important..." other nations did. This means America's posture on the matter was based on only their interpretation that WWII Allied agreements were irrelevant.

    The British and the New Zealanders also wanted to define Japan's territory in a linear fashion that definitely would have excluded Takeshima from Japanese terrtory. This proposal was dropped not because Takeshima was considered an island of Japan's but rather because the Japanese felt "psychologically boxed in" (whatever the Hell that means)

    At the very least we can say the Japan Peace Treaty has zero legal effect on the ROK simply because they were not signatory. It's pretty ballsy to say the Koreans should have to abide by a treaty they weren't even allowed to actively participate in don't you think?

    There were some maps drawn up for the border between Korea and Japan such as the U.K,s proposal seen here.
    TreatyLimit1

    Also and earlier draft of the Japan Korea Peace Treaty looked like this.
    TreatyLimit2

    And SCAPs map looked like this.
    TreatyLimit3

    So really what is this difference between these maps and Rhee's "Peace Line"? See here.
    RheeLimit

    I don't agree with the way the Koreans enforced the Peace Line but anyone with a brain can now see the only geographically practical location for a boundary between Korea and Japan would be somewhere between Takeshima and the Oki Islands. Drawing the boundary between Ulleungdo and Takeshima would put fishermen from both countries eyeball to eyeball and just sow the seeds for further confrontation. Ulleungdo is a fishing community within visual distance of Dokdo.

    Drawing the Korea/Japan border between Ulleungdo and Dokdo would be like dumping a shovelful of red ants on a black ant hill. It's a stupid idea. The American Geographer from the U.S. State Dept knew this way back in 1951. Mr Boggs knew this area had potential for conflict and suggested Dokdo be given to Korea
    BoggsKnew

    Keep the boundary where it is and keep the peace.

    ReplyDelete
  16. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    I'm very glad that your rotten brain still has a healthy part to say "I don't agree with the way the Koreans enforced the Peace".

    What is the "geographically practical location" should be decided at ICJ. Your brain is not healthy enough to decide on the matter. :-)


    ___________________________________

    I don't agree with the way the Koreans enforced the Peace Line but anyone with a brain can now see the only geographically practical location for a boundary between Korea and Japan would be somewhere between Takeshima and the Oki Islands.

    ReplyDelete
  17. dokdo-takeshima.com29/6/08 01:21

    Raquel (whoever)

    Why does it surprise you I don't agree about everything the Koreans say about Dokdo? I'm not Korean as I've said and I don't parrot everything Korea's MOFA says unlike the lobbyists on this forum who mindlessly translate every piece of garbage Japan's MOFA tosses to them. (Kaneganese)

    The crusty combovers at the ICJ are not the boss of Korea. Korea has once let the fate of her country in foreign hands and it won't happen again.

    First take a look at the Dokdo Takeshima region on this map.

    DokoRegionMap

    When Japan decided that Liancourt Rocks should be annexed as part of Japan, Kimotsuki Kenko of Japan's Imperical Navy's Hydrographic Dept determined that because Liancourt Rocks was marginally closer to Japan's mainland the islets should be part of Japan. The aforementioned basis of baseline from mainland geography this is a not very practical or fair method to determine ownership of Liancourt Rocks and it is a seriously flawed approach to drawing the boundary between Japan and Korea.

    In 1905 when Japan annexed Dokdo there was no boundary between Japan and Korea. Japan's Imperial Army had already begun the process of military occupation on the Korean peninsula so for Japan to annex Liancourt Rocks didn't really matter. In fact it was only months after Liancourt Rocks was annexed that Japan "negotiated" unlimited rights to all Korean coastal waters and ports.

    You can see the documents here please read them.

    KoreanCoastDoc1
    KoreanCoastDoc2

    So knowing there was no linear boundary between Korean and Japan when she annexed these islets in 1905 we can't say simply whopping a line between Ulleungdo and Dokdo is a remedy in 2008. This approach can't work because of the radical difference between the region in 1905 and now. Lets' look at them one by one.

    First politics. The Dokdo region is worlds apart politically now from 1905. Korea is free and independent. Ulleungdo is now governed and administered by Ulleung Gun This area is in no way under Japan's sphere of influence in 2008. Transportation to and from the island in 1905 was almost completely controlled by Japanese in 1905. Now highspeed boats and helicopters shuttle Koreans to and from Ulleungdo and Dokdo in just hours. Japan has zero political influence in this region now.

    Next demographics. In 1905 about 10~20 percent of residents on Ulleungdo were Japanese citizens. The Japanese had built numerous houses on Ulleungdo which were of course illegal. The number of Japanese that would swarm Ulleungdo during peak fishing seasons would swell up to around 1000. These people even by Hayashi Gonsuke's (Japan's Foreign Minister) were violent, illiterate squatters who settled disputes by physical force especially in their dealings with the native Koreans. In short. Ulleungdo was under seige by Japanese in 1905. One of these illegal squatters and fisherman (Nakai Yozaburo) on Ulleungdo became the whole basis for Japan's "legal" incorporation of Liancourt Rocks. In 2008 all residents on Ulleungdo are Korean of course.

    Economics. In 1905 most of the Korean residents except for some of the transients from Chollanamdo were farmers on Ulleungdo. These people eeked out a meager living as farmers on Ulleungdo. They rarely used money, they mostly bartered with each other or Japanese. Fishing was controlled mostly by Japanese with old style boats. Now in 2005 the residents of Ulleungdo are by and large fishermen by trade who use modern fishing vessels that require far more ocean. They utilize the waters around Ulleungdo for their livelihood. Also Ulleungdo and the region are popular tourist destinations. Of course this includes the waters around Ulleungdo's most proximal land Dokdo Island.

    If Japan were to acquire Takeshima she would have to include a buffer zone of sorts around the islets to ensure Korean's didn't venture too closely. But most importantly because of Japan's policy of declaring all rocks as EEZ she would be obligated to follow this posture in the case of Dokdo Takeshima as well or face weakening her claim to other uninhabitable rocks she claims such as the Okinotorishimas and perhaps even tiny Marcus Island.

    This would mean extending Japan's boundary virtually to the front door of Korea's Ulleungdo Island, and only give dozens of kms for her while the Oki Islands would gain a windfall of almost 200kms. This is not a fair solution and it would simply push the Koreans and the Japanese into each others faces, setting the stage for future altercations.

    Raquel (whoever) Japan's case for Dokdo Takeshima is doomed to fail. Not only because we can tear apart Japan's false historical claim to the islets but because there is no logical basis for her to have the islands in the year 2008 and onward. Japan's case doesn't make sense from all other aspects even outside of the historical issues everyone on this forum bickers about.

    Raquel (whoever) do you think hurling childish insults here impresses anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  18. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    If you are so sure that Japan's attempt for Takeshima is doomed to fail, why don't you push your people to go to ICJ?

    Because "Korea has once let the fate of her country in foreign hands and it won't happen again"?

    You are shooting in your own foot again, baboya.

    What was valid in the late 19th century and the early 20th century is not valid today in 2008. The world has changed. If you didn't realize it, I'm very sorry for your rotten head. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  19. dokdo-takeshima.com said...
    "Japan cannot exercise sovereignty over Liancourt Rocks without the concent of Allied Command."

    HAHA. Sorry, Japan recovered her full sovereignty by SF treaty.

    San Francisco Peace Treaty

    Article 1
    (a) The state of war between Japan and each of the Allied Powers is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force between Japan and the Allied Power concerned as provided for in Article 23.
    (b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.


    Sorry, Korea can do nothing but give up.

    ReplyDelete
  20. dokdo-takeshima.com29/6/08 15:04

    Opp, unfortunately for Japan those "territorial waters" didn't include Dokdo.

    Again there is no mention of Liancourt Rocks in the Japan Peace Treaty.

    Thank you.

    Raquel (whoever) you are brilliant:-(

    ReplyDelete
  21. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    The San Francisco Peace Treaty is irrelevant.

    What is relevant is why Korea set the Lee Line just before the Treary came into force.

    Korea was obviously sneaking up on something that she was rightfully denied. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Raquel,

    The San Francisco Treaty is relevant because it determined what lands were to be returned to Korea, and Liancourt Rocks were not included among them, as US documents HERE and HERE make it clear.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Gerry,

    What I meant by "irrelevant" is that Korea was not a signatory of the Treaty.

    ReplyDelete
  24. dokdo-takeshima.com said...
    "Opp, unfortunately for Japan those "territorial waters" didn't include Dokdo."

    Sorry, only Korean say so. Japan also has recovered the sovereignty of even a Korean peninsula by this Article 1. Then Japan could renounce the title of the Korean peninsular by Article 2 based on the recovering sovereignty. Japan permitted the United States the administrative right as a sovereign about Okinawa. Because Japan recovered her full sovereignty of Japan by Article 1, these renouncement and permission ware possible.

    "Again there is no mention of Liancourt Rocks in the Japan Peace Treaty."

    Of course. Therefore, Japan who is a legal personality of Takeshima didn't agree to the transfer of sovereignty of Takeshima. The Allied Forces was not demanding the renouncement of Takeshima's sovereignty. Anything doesn't write in the treaty. That is, a legal position of Takeshima was not changed. Why does Korea create the legal effect not described in the agreement? These are the delusions that act against international law.

    Sorry, Korea can do nothing but give up. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  25. opp,

    We all know that Korea will not give it up even if they realize that they are wrong.

    Because giving it back to their neighbor will "cause their stomachs to hurt". :-)

    Eventually, Japan will be forced to take it back by force if Japan really wants it back.

    ReplyDelete
  26. As raquel wrote, they wouldn't give it up even if they knew the truth. This may be due to their custom of ostentatiousness - they care much about how they are looked by others.

    So there should be some excuses for them to admit and receive the truth.

    I think it would be adequate to criticize Rhee Syngmann - all the evildoings were done by him and all the innocent people of Korea (including innocent governments) were cheated by Rhee Syngmann. How do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  27. dokdo-takeshima.com29/6/08 23:09

    Opp, I'm sorry for you but the mere ommission of Liancourt Rocks does not mean the island was ceded to Japan. That is merely your interpretation.

    Japan cannot legally recover sovereignty without consent from allied command. The Japanese signed away the rights to exercise sovereignty over Liancourt Rocks. The Allies acting were charged with hti authority. Japan can't do shit without Allied Command's instruction. Japan ceased to exercise the minimum amount of sovereignty over Liancourt Rocks, with no sovereignty comes the loss of effective control. At this point Liancourt Rocks is free game. (ownerless)

    In the meantime Korea has taken possession of Liancourt Rocks. The San Francisco Peace Treaty has zero legal effect on ROK because she was neither actively involved in the negotiations nor signatory to the treaty. Sorry but the Japanese are screwed and don't blame the Koreans. The Americans were playing Korea and Japan.

    Gerry, you silly sausage. Those confidential memorandums never represented American policy on the issue of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Liancourt Rocks were never mentioned in the treaty at all. Even so these documents only represent the (confidential) opinion of the Americans. (you must be American) Over 48 countries participated in the Japan Peace Treaty.

    As I've said there were many different views exchanged by different nations during the SF Peace Treaty. The Canadians wanted to leave outlying islands out of the treaty, as did the Russians the Brits and the NZers wanted the same.

    Opp you are the Olympic cut and paste champion of the Dokdo world. Why don't you cut and paste the part of the San Francixco Peace Treaty that mentions Liancourt Rocks?

    Here is the treaty text in its entirety.
    JapanPeaceTreaty

    Pacifist, the border between Korea and Japan enforced by Rhee is no different than previous American drafts of the SF Peace Treaty. It is also about the same as Britains/New Zealands proposal as well.

    Here is the boundary in the early drafts of American's proposal for the peace treaty.
    JapanPeaceTreatyMap1
    Here is the British and NZ proposal.
    BritishProposalText
    BritishProposalMap
    And finally President Rhee's Peace Line. You can see they are about the same.
    RheePeaceLineMap

    Pacifist, quit resorting to propaganda by calling someone "evil" That's childish.

    Raquel, the Koreans won't give up?
    It's Japan that's been harassing the Koreans for 50 years.

    Japan!LeaveKoreaAlone

    ReplyDelete
  28. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    If I was the rightful owner of the Liancourt Rocks, I would never behave like the histeric Koreans no matter what the Japanese would say because I would be so sure of myself.

    There is something wrong in the Korean behaviors.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Steve,

    "Pacifist, the border between Korea and Japan enforced by Rhee is no different than previous American drafts of the SF Peace Treaty".

    Steve, the draft was amended because they recognised that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Japan, not to Korea, as "secret" documents show.

    In result, they dropped the name of Liancourt Rocks from the list of islands which Japan should return to Korea.

    Steve, this last decision was every thing. No matter what Korea insisted in the process of making drafts, the result was as above.

    This thought of USA didn't change after that. The official American maps in the 60's, 70's even in the 80's, haven't shown that Liancourt Rocks belong to Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  30. dokdo-takeshima.com30/6/08 00:43

    Pacifist the San Francisco Peace Treaty was amended many times that is true. I agree.

    The points I've always made about this treaty are as follows.

    You can't selectively take confidential memorandums sent by the Americans and say they about to official U.S. policy. Secondly you can't say the views of the U.S. represented all of the opinions of Allied Command. America is not Allied Command. And the ultimate definition of Japan's territorial limits was to be determined by Allied Command not Uncle Sam.

    As I've shown above amended or not there were many different views presented at the SF Peace Treaty and the American drafts that supported Japan carry no more weight than the drafts that didn't. In the end the Allies didn't feel they were up to the task and didn't decide at all.

    Pacifist the last decision was to drop the Laincourt Rocks issue like shit from a tall cow. The U.S. officially told the Japanese to take the issue up with the Koreans or bitch to the ICJ which they do to this day.

    When all is said and done Pacifist American policy on Liancourt Rocks was based on military decisions anyway. You can see why America preferred to support Japan's claim here. They envisioned weather and radar stations on Liancout Rocks. Japan never mentions that part of this text. They always quote the first part on their propaganda brochure.
    USRadarOnTakeshima

    You see Pacifist America sided with Japan because they could force the Japanese to allow the Americans to use Japan's outlying islands for joint U.S. Japan air force bases. Because Korea was at war, the Americans were afraid the communists would overrun the Korean peninsula. This was General MacArthurs idea as seen here.

    DoogieMac1
    DoogieMac2

    This whole mess is America's fault. Why?

    Because the U.S. turned the Japan Peace Treaty into something is was never meant to be. The commie busting officers of the U.S. (Doogie Mac and Rusk et al) wanted to use this treaty as a method to stop communist agression in northeast Asia by establishing joint U.S. Japan trusteeships on Japanese outlying islands. The more strategic territory the Yanks could give the Japanese, the better of the Americans could posture for the upcoming Cold War. That's why the Americans supported Japan. That's why Russia walked out on the negotiations Pacifist.

    It also explains why America dropped support for Japan when the situation on the Korean peninsula improved and the US and ROK forces became close allies.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Steve,

    You can't read the Treaty, can you?
    Is it saying that Japan should give Liancourt Rocks to Korea?

    As you know very well, Liancourt Rocks were included in the list of islands which Japan should return to Korea in the very early stage, but it was dropped from the list in the final Treaty.

    What does it mean?
    The secret documents only illustrate the reason why, what kind of change in the USA occured during the process of making drafts.

    They changed it because they recognised that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Japan and that Korea's insistency was void.

    So the result is every thing, Steve. Look at the truth.

    Your theory that it was made by military reasons is only your imagination.

    Japan was in the weak position in those days because she was defeated by USA while Korea had to fight against communists of the North, so USA wanted to help Korea.

    So USA said the truth to Korea in the most modest way - USA advised to go to ICJ instead of attacking her. But her modesity made Rhee Syngmann misunderstand that he could keep occupying the rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  32. dokdo-takeshima.com said...
    "Opp, I'm sorry for you but the mere ommission of Liancourt Rocks does not mean the island was ceded to Japan."

    "CEDED TO JAPAN"? HAHA! When was Takeshima acquired from Japan? Who acquired Takeshima from Japan before SF treaty? Because the conquest became unlawful after World War I, the agreement of Japan is necessary for the cession. When did Japan agree to the cession of Takeshima?

    "Japan cannot legally recover sovereignty without consent from allied command."

    Do you understand the recovery and the cession are different? It is necessary to be ceded again to acquire new sovereignty when sovereignty is renounced. When sovereignty is limited, a cession is not needed. And, the sovereignty of Japan was only limited by SCAPIN and the instrument of surrender. And, the sovereignty of Japan has recovered (It is not a cession) by the SF treaty.

    San Francisco Peace Treaty
    Article 1
    (a) The state of war between Japan and each of the Allied Powers is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force between Japan and the Allied Power concerned as provided for in Article 23.
    (b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.

    Allied Forces also consented to the SF treaty and signed.
    By the way, GHQ is only occupation forces of the law of war. Because the conquest is invalid, occupation forces cannot acquire the territory. They was only an agent of Japan. And, the warfare ended by the SF treaty(see Artile1 (a)). Sorry, Korea can do nothing but give up. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  33. opp,

    Sorry, but Korea will never give it up.

    She seems to be wishing to have a war with "Ilbon" over the Rocks for their tiny overrated "jajonsim". :-)

    ReplyDelete
  34. dokdo-takeshima.com30/6/08 12:22

    Oh, Opp I'm sorry what I meant was the "ommission" of Takeshima does not amount to "recovery" Japan does not recover sovereignty without consent of the allies. Period.

    Ha ha ha!!! Opp If your claim is correct, then do only islands noted in the Peace Treaty including Jeju-do, Geomundo and Ulleungdo belong to Korea, while thousands of other islands, such as Ganghwado and Heuksando still remain under Japanese colonization? Of course not.

    As I've mentioned Opp the San Francisco Peace Treaty has nothing to do with Korea they didn't sign it. If Japan has a problem with it they should take it up with the ghost of General MacArthur.

    General Order No. 1 was issued on Sept. 2, 1945. President Harry Truman approved this Order before its promulgation, the United States is the "conqueror" of Japan and her overseas territories, and General MacArthur is the head of the United States military forces. Hence, the strongest presumption would be that the United States is the principal occupying power. Importantly, Article 23 of the SFPT fully confirms this.

    Military occupation is conducted under a military government. For territorial cessions and un-demarcated territory, it is important to realize the military government of the principal occupying power does not end with the coming into force of the peace treaty. This can be seen through an overview of the military history of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico, and Cuba after the Spanish American War.

    Dokdo was territory included in, and/or adjunct to, the areas "acquired" by the United States, and thus under the jurisdiction of U.S. military authorities. As un-demarcated territory under the terms of the treaty, at the present time Dokdo is still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government (USMG).

    Although Dokdo has no native population, there are Korean troops there now. Under the SFPT, these personnel would be considered a subordinate occupying power. This is "agency." USMG is the principal. The Korean troops are the agent.

    So you see Opp, I'm so sorry you can only lose....

    Opp if you are a lawyer, please give us your credentials, if you are not please stop pretending to be one and save your legal opinions for someone who is really qualified.

    ReplyDelete
  35. dokdo-takeshima.com said...
    "Military occupation is conducted under a military government.

    HAHA!! Army cannot become a GOVENMENT. Donnot create international law. It is your fantasy story.

    the United States Military Government (USMG).

    Puhaha!! Which country approved USMJ as a government? Donnot create a fictitious government. You should study international law. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  36. http://homepage.gallaudet.edu/David.Penna/Recogn.htm
    Recognition of a government is usually a formal act by one government acknowledging that another government is the representative of a recognized state. Recognition has legal consequences in both international and domestic law.

    Was the United States Military Government (USMG) the representative of USA? Had the governmental organism that centered on the president disappeared after WW2? Had the Department of State in the United States disappeared after WW2? Which country recognized not the United States but USMG as the representative of USA? Sorry, such a country doesn't exist in the world. It is an absurd story that doesn't know basic International Law. Tank you.

    ReplyDelete
  37. dokdo-takeshima.com4/7/08 01:13

    Opp the information I've given you was not my assertion. It was written by Roger C. S. Lin, and Richard W. Hartzell.

    Lin Dr. Roger C. S. "..Lin has a Ph.D. in international law from Meijo University, Nagoya, Japan. He has done extensive research into military jurisdiction under the US Constitution, the laws of war, the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the customary laws of treaties, and the Insular Cases of the US Supreme Court. Dr. Lin has served as Chairman of the Taiwan Civil Democratic Party, and currently lives in Taipei, Taiwan..."

    DoctorC.S.Lin

    What are your credentials Opp?

    Get a degree or leave the lawyering to the lawyers Mr Big Shot.

    ReplyDelete
  38. dokdo-takeshima.com

    Please teach me which country recognized USMG as a government.
    The answer is NO COUNTRY.
    Thank you!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Speaking of lies...
    I heard Japan is going to include their claim over islands around it in its guidelines for K12(is it?) educational text books.
    It never occured to me a nation would try to make people accept such confounded lies as truth by teaching their kids lies on grounds that there is no English documents to prove them otherwise, basing its claim on some promises it made with a third party.
    It's not even been a century, yet Japan is trying to reclaim their "EMPIRE".
    Do leaders of Japan have no conscience? It seems they don't. For one thing, they won't stop lying for themselves but would feed groundless claims they erected on a float of irrelevant pacts to their children, who will now unknowingly lie.
    Japanese people are just way to nice and naive that they never mean to challenge their so-called leaders. And what did that lead to the last time? Years of slaughter, military occupation to feed their insatiable greed.

    Japanese people should take it to themselves to see beyond covering, pretense and try and attempt at being objectively honest. Stop these a few heads of the country from making the whole nation look like a sham. I thought the nation earned itself enough disgrace to last a few centuries the last time. I don't think needs more shameful labels. I could be wrong...

    ReplyDelete
  40. Gracie,

    As to the guideline for education, please read another article.

    But I would like to ask you, do you think there is a dispute concerning Takeshima/Dokdo?
    I think you do.
    If there is a dispute, it means there are two different views - Korean side and Japan side.

    Korea keeps educating "Dokdo is ours" for years, why can't Japan educate the same as Korea - "Takeshima is ours"?

    This is a matter of domestic matter. No other country except Korea and Chinac claims domestic matter of other countries.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous18/7/08 20:03

    I can't believe the comments on this page....discussing who Dokdo belongs too? Japanese still trying to own Dokdo Island? Listen people, all I know is that Japanese will never be able to own the island. It belongs to Korean People. You japanese should be ashamed of yourselves. If you have time to steal back the Island, you should be focussing on apologizing for all the murders and rapes you have commited. All the Koreans, Chinese,and Americans you have murdered will never be forgotten. When thouse sins has not been forgotten, but you dare to put claims on Dokdo and other chinese territories as yours? No wonder your country is condemned with massive earth quakes. Those of you who post these lies, shame on you, shame on all of you. All the blood that you have shed are still fresh.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous20/7/08 15:52

    Pacifist & kaneganese,
    The map in 1800s you’ve posted by European countries are not de facto maps, here are reasons why.
    1) Korea did not have ties with any European counties. Korea was ISOLATED from the world
    2) Japan in other hand, open doors to Europeans in 1853 during Edo period
    Without having contact with both counties, how can “outsider” know who owns what? If I claim your house is mine without your voice, is that legally or accurate picture of true ownership? Can I claim your house as mine, if I have outsider draw your property line with my name; is that legally binding in Japan? If this is not true or legally binding, then why are you keep insisting the maps from European counties in 1800 as proof that the Dokdo belongs to Japan?
    Last year, many scholars including from US and Japan, agreed Dokdo should remained a part of Korean Territory due to stronger arguments regarding sovereignty. What credential do you have say otherwise?

    dokdo-takeshima.com (Steve),
    Thank you for much useful info. You ROCK!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous(3:52 PM )

    Please use ID if you want us to teke you seriously. Korea opened its country before 1900. There were many foreigners already in 1880s. Still, Korean didn't know about Liancourt Rocks.

    When Japan officially incorporated Takeshima into Shimane in 1905, they checked those documents if other countries were claiming the sovereignty, but as the maps and documents shows, all of them showed Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory, or no man's land. Korean documents and maps had no mention of Takeshima. That's why Japanese government declared that the island had no trace of being occupied by other countries except Japan.

    Those western maps are very important for the dispute pf the sovereignty over the island.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous20/7/08 17:34

    Kaneganese,

    Provide documents showing there was a foreign diplomat in Korea in 1800's, before Japan had control over Korea. As late as 1871, Korea successfully fought back Americans.

    Korea never opened the door willingly; it was after Japanese start to have control over Korea in late 1800. When Western countries came to Korea, Japanese already had pretty much control over Korea. This is obvious was Japanese thugs were successfully infiltrate to Queen Min's palace and kill her set her body on fire in 1895, before Japan Annexed Korea in 1910. Queen Min was killed because she opposed Japanese control over Korea.

    http://www.koreaaward.com/korea/history_ChallengesOfModernization.htm

    http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/korea/kp_korea.htm

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous20/7/08 17:38

    Kaneganese,
    Ignore previous post...

    Provide documents showing there was a foreign diplomat in Korea in 1800's, before Japan had control over Korea. As late as 1871, Korea successfully fought back Americans.

    Korea never opened the door willingly; it was after Japanese start to have control over Korea in late 1800. When Western countries came to Korea, Japanese already had pretty much control over Korea. This is obvious since Japanese thugs were successfully able to infiltrate to Queen Min's palace (what happened to palace guards?) and kill her set her body on fire in 1895, before Japan Annexed Korea in 1910. Queen Min was killed because she opposed Japanese control over Korea.

    http://www.koreaaward.com/korea/history_ChallengesOfModernization.htm

    http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/korea/kp_korea.htm

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous20/7/08 18:27

    Kaneganese,

    What creditential do you have to keep instisting Dokdo belongs to Japan despite many international scharlors?

    Professor John Van Dyke of Univerisity of Hawaii, presented thesis"A Study of the Legal Issues Related to Sovereignty over Dokdo" that found Korea's historical claim to the land much stronger than that put forth by Japan. Van Dyke urged Korea to take a more active stance to persuade the international court."

    Larry Niksch, a specialist in Asian Affairs with the Congressional Research Service of the US Libary of Congress also had same conclusion. Despite all your claim, Niksch finds no offical Japanese claim to island prior to 1905. He also stated even 1905 claim made by Shimane Prefecture, he found this is more likely an early steps towards taking control of Korea than reiteration of long-held sovereignty.

    This was presented in International seminar in 2007, this seminar included scholars from Japan and over 100 scholars in History, International relations, and Law of Sea discipline.

    ReplyDelete
  47. anonymous(5:38 PM)

    Are you the same person with anonymous(3:52 PM)?

    If you are, study more about your own country's history, before you ask someone for any documentation for what he/she didn't say (foreign diplomat ? What are you talking about?).

    Anyway, use ID if you want to have decent discussion, or I can't comment on you.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous(6:27 PM)

    Are you a new anonymous?

    Did you read all the Professor John Van Dyke's thesis? If you haven't, I highly reccomend to do so. Since his logic is based on Korean claim that Usando in 512 A.D. was today's Takeshima/Dokdo. And he used Prof, Shin YongHa's mistaken translation of Onshu Shicho Ghoki. Even Korean academics, and pro-korean Kim Il-song sympathiser Naito Seichu admit Prof.'s translation is not true. But in other words, if Usando was not Takeshima/Dokdo, and Saito Hosen, the writer of Onshu Shicho Gohki, didn't write it is Korean's, it is Japanese land, according to his logic. Don't just read what you want to read. Read thoroughly his thesis, which was funded by Korean organization with many help of Korean scholar.

    I don't think, his study was done neutral, but I was really pleased to read it since the only reason he concluded Korean claim is valid is Usando theory and he admitted Japanese government's protest after 1952 were valid. This is a very good result for Japanese. Since all Japan should do is to ask Korea to provide concrete evidence to proove Usano was Takeshima/Dokto, which is almost impossible for Korea nowadays. Many Korean scholars unwillingly started to admit Usando was not Takeshima.

    Anyway, he told Korean that Korea can win the case if it were proceeded in ICJ. Why Korean firmly refuse it if she really think Prof's conclusion is true? The fact is, Korean know that they provided the documents and translation which only favours to Korea and didn't pass the ones which favours to Japan. Korean knew it and they cannot say yes to Prof's reccomendation.

    I know Larry Niksch came to Korean leaded, without any pro-Japan, so-called conference, but I don't know what he said. All I know was what he studied for so-called comfort woman issue was full of ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  49. All the anonymous fellows,

    I cannot comment on anonymous comments anymore. If you want to make a serious discussion, please use ID. So that I can identify whom I am talking to.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous20/7/08 19:19

    kaneganese,
    You did not have issue with commenting before... I guess you can not argue the truth

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonymous20/7/08 19:33

    kaneganese,
    "All I know was what he studied for so-called comfort woman issue was full of ignorance." - You must be kidding, are you claiming that did not happen? Perhaps, you are not tought your dark side of history.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous20/7/08 19:49

    kaneganese:
    Regarding your comment at 6:29 PM. Did you bother to evlauate links provided before asking people to learn history? The links are pretty clear of Korean history. If you have counter argument, you should state your argument other than "use ID if you want to have decent discussion, or I can't comment on you".

    ReplyDelete
  53. Such a bunch of losers...He can't even have guts to use ID and take responsibility what he says.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous,

    Please use your ID before commenting.

    And this is not a blog to talk about comfort women, but I would add one thing - there is a misunderstanding in the comfort women issue which was intentionally made by anti-Japan organisations.

    There were comfort women (or whores I should say) before WW2 inside Japan and Korea too, if you want to call them so - it was admitted as a business in those days. As war was going hard, they were brought to the place beside military bases because all of Japanese young males were there but it was a business, not forced by the military power. In those days, women from some poor families in poor district or villiages sometimes had to go into such business but it was the same in Japan too. And sometimes their dads had to make a deal with the whorehouse owners when their daughters didn't know about it - so the "sold" daughters may have felt as if they were "forced". But as I wrote above, the situation was the same in Japan too, and 80% or 90% of such women were Japanese. But none of them have complained as they were "forced" to do so. 

    And one more thing about the misunderstanding was the word "女子挺身隊" (a party of girls who dedicated their bodies). This word was used as volunteer works of girls at factories etc, not "comfort women" but the word was taken as different meaning. It is a big misunderstanding.

    And at the end, I would add one more thing - it has been said that Korean soldiers had inadequate sexual relations with Vietnamese women during the Vietnam war. Many illegitinate children in Vietnam suffered from non-recognition by Korean fathers, but I've heard that the news was not distributed into Korea at all.

    But anyway, this blog is for Takeshima/Dokdo issue. Please give your opinions on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous20/7/08 20:35

    I can't beleive this, Blog masters writing lies... lies... lies.

    Isn't it ironic that your Japanese propaganda blog site started with ... Lies, lies, lies. Any people with some knowlege of history will see lob sided Japanese propaganda and lies you posting along the way.

    Shame on you! Good night

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anonymous,

    This is not a lie. You are made to believe anti-Japan propaganda by such organisations.

    But this blog is not for discussion on the issue. Please discuss the matter at some other bolgs.

    Please give your opinon on the Takeshima/Dokdo issue. We have not received evidence yet to show that Korea really knew and used Liancourt Rocks before Japanese did.
    Aren't there such evidences?

    ReplyDelete
  57. ”I can't beleive this, Blog masters writing lies... lies... lies.

    Isn't it ironic that your Japanese propaganda blog site started with ... Lies, lies, lies. Any people with some knowlege of history will see lob sided Japanese propaganda and lies you posting along the way.


    Gerry's not Japanese. Read before you critisize, will you?

    ReplyDelete
  58. No more anonymous, guys.

    Are there decent Korean who has guts to use ID and take responsibility for what he/she said?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous21/7/08 03:30

    There is no point on arguing on this blog because japanese will never admit all the wrongs it has done, eventhough all the world knows about it. Why don't you japanese teach your children that you never Murdered any Koreans, Chinese, or Americans. Teach your children that you never forced comfort woman to give up their bodies to your perverted needs. Teach your children that you never murdered Queen Min and burt her body. Teach your children Pear Harbor never happened.Teach your childrens lie after lies. Ignorance is bliss right?
    Oh, by the way this is a new writer, I tried to use my ID but it does not seem to work. My ID is Seanie61275

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous,

    You can name yourself in the way you like, if you registered to google I think.

    Back to your comment, it is a usual practice to mix up all the "wrong doings" of Japanese imeperialism but it's not right in this blog.

    If we argue about the annexation, the war, the situation of Yi Dynasty, the situation of the Korean progressive political parties, etc...it would be endless, because I know you have your opinions but we too have our opinions.

    But this is not the blog to argue these problems. These are not related with Takeshima/Dokdo issue. Steve always use the same tactics but the annexation of Korea (1910) and the incorporation of Takeshima (1905) was another thing.

    Steve always says that Korea couldn't refute in 1905 because they were under control of Japan. But it was not right.

    In those days Korea was a protectorate of Japan because Korea was on the verge of collapse, but it was still a country. They could do their domestic administration although they couldn't conclude a treaty with foreign countries without Japan's permission.

    In reality, the Korean government of the Great Korean Empire (大韓帝国) ordered the investigation of the incorporation of Takeshima and the Japanese convoy to Ulleungdo (1906). The local government answered to the central government but after that the central government didn't order anything, which means they noticed that the island was not Korean territory - as 大韓帝国 clearly recognised its eastern limit of territory was Ullengdo (please read 大韓地誌).

    And Steve always criticizes that the purpose of the incorporation was military reason in connection with Russo-Japanese war. It was a fact that it happend during the war but Steve's insistency is unreasonable because Japan had already installed watchtowers in Ulleungdo and another Korean islands in 1904. Japan could install watchtowers at Liancourt Rocks without the incorporation. Liancourt was not Korean land, it was an ownerless island before the incorporation, it was not a merit to incorporate it for the military reason.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anonymous21/7/08 13:17

    Kaneganese,

    I did try to log in, but It would not let me post the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anonymous21/7/08 14:30

    pacifist:

    "Steve (dokdo-takeshima.com) always says that Korea couldn't refute in 1905 because they were under control of Japan. But it was not right" - You can see from below link, that it is true that Japan had taken control of Korea prior to 1905.
    Understanding of Korean-Japanese history in mid to late 1800 is important to Dokdo issue as Japan officially claimed to incorporated Takeshima into Shimane in 1905. Even before 1905, Japan had control over Korea. This is obvious since Japanese Minister in Korea was able to murder last Korean Queen Min in her palace because she was aligning with Russian. How can anyone get to Queen’s quarter and kill her if you do not have such power over Korea?

    Doesn't that prove Steve is correct, that Korea couldn't refute Japanese claim of Dokdo in Shimane in 1905. It’s seems, pro-Japanese are forgetting or may not taught in school, the true history.

    http://www.shikokuhenrotrail.com/japanhistory/meijihistory.html

    ReplyDelete
  63. Did you say "Korea was a protectorate of Japan"? lol...Do you know what japanese did to korean as "Protectorate of japan" as you call it? Does protector try to destroy one country's history? Does protector dig up korean royal familes tombs and steal the priceless history and use it as private furnitures, house hold items, building block to houses, and so on? Does protector make all Koreans get rid of their Korean names and use only japanese names? Don't forget all the murders and rapes you have commited and the medical experiments you have done on innocent civilians as "protector". You can try to package all your wrong doings as you wish, but history does not change. Korea was protectorate of japan huh? Murdered our last Queen in her palace and burnt her body...hmmmm good job japan. If you do not accept your history of wrong doings that you have commited and teach you children lies and after lies...you will be judged. Life is very fair.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Flance,

    The subject of this blog is Dokdo/Takeshima, so please try to stay on that subject.

    ReplyDelete
  65. According to you..."Steve always says that Korea couldn't refute in 1905 because they were under control of Japan. But it was not right".
    Are you saying that Korea was not under the control of japan? Are you even denying the fact that japan colonize Korea? Are you denying all the history which is not in favor of japan? I really can't understand...are you that ignorant? Are you saying that under japanese colonization, Koreans were free to do as we pleased? When japanese attacked Pearl Harbor unprovoked and and murdered many innocent Americans, that also never happend?
    Are japanese trying to re-write the history? You don't want to talk about this on this site because it should only deal with Dokdo? I disagree. Dokdo and japanese colonization or should I say foceful occupation should be talked about together as one. Let all the truth come out.

    ReplyDelete
  66. About your comment to Gracie,

    "Korea keeps educating "Dokdo is ours" for years, why can't Japan educate the same as Korea -"Takeshima is ours"?

    I don't think its okay to teach children facts that are not true.
    Then they will grow up with believing in lies...right? no?
    Thats same thing as teaching my child that the shed on your back yard is actually mine, so we should gather inaccurate and false ducuments and take back the shed. And also say, "Oh, and daddy did not kill our neighbors dog, experimented on the cat, burned down the trees, stole all the valuables I can take, and raped the neighbors wife and daughter when I forced myself into our neighbors house...it never happened eventhough what police and people say otherwise..."

    ReplyDelete
  67. About your comment...

    opp,

    We all know that Korea will not give it up even if they realize that they are wrong.

    Because giving it back to their neighbor will "cause their stomachs to hurt". :-)

    Eventually, Japan will be forced to take it back by force if Japan really wants it back.

    By force? Do you mean war?
    I thank that is a great idea...
    I think the Korean gov't should end this outrageous attacks from japan once and for all. under japanese colonization, North Koreans had suffered as much as South Koreans. The past dictator Kim Il Song, was actually a freedom fighter working together with other japanese resistance. Its just that he favored communism. Which eventually let to the Korean war and the division. North Koreans suffered as much as South Koreans did and had to endure same hardships. I believe war between japan and Korea will actually give chance of uniting the two. And with unified force, especially with North Korean's nuclear capabilities, The united Korea can end this nonsence once and for all.

    ReplyDelete
  68. gerry,
    Why is that blog sites posted by one of three (gerry, kanehanese, or pacifist) starts with history of Rhee Line, but when Korean uses the history you say go back to Dokdo issues? How can Dokdo issue be settled without looking at the history? Historically, Dokdo belongs to Korea.
    Why do pacifist, kaneganese, and gerry ignore Japanese maps prior to 1905 as legitimate? See a map created by Hayashi Shihei (Japanese Scholar), he clearly labeled and colored the Dokdo as Joseon (Korea).
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-Hayashi-shihei.html (Steve Barbar’s site)
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-Japanese-records1.html (Other maps from Steve’s site)
    Japanesse Documents showing, they have "noting to do" with island.
    http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp14.html
    yet, Korea had land survey of Dokdo.

    Below is good link to Dokdo history and info for people who wants to learn more on Dokdo
    http://www.korea.net/News/Issues/issueView.asp?issue_no=45
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com

    http://www.dokdo.go.kr/for/index.php?lang_code=ENG

    http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html

    ReplyDelete
  69. Garry Bevers

    It seems you already decided your position and criticize most Korean claims as lies or groundless. And most of your posts are against Korean side.

    When I read the purpose of this blog, I expected very fair discussion from both sides. But you are leading this blog as pro-Japan, which is very disappointing.

    I don’t care if you are pro-Japan or not, but if you want your blog as unbiased and constructive site of discusstion for both Korean and Japanese, you should do some changes.

    ReplyDelete
  70. jenn


    I think Garry not to be favor in Korea by the favor in Japan. Will not what he is interested in be true? It is seen to me to solve a dispute over the dominium of an island known as Takeshima or Tok-do based on objective evidence to occupy most of his interest.
    It will be because you do not know some facts if you feel his claim when it is favor in Japan. As for criticizing him, you acquired complete knowledge; should leave it.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Makotoさんへ
    本人とコンタクトがとれYabutaroさんのWondrousさんに対する憶測が間違いだと判明しました。
    故意でないにしろ、結果的には誹謗中傷になりますので関連コメントを削除願えないでしょうか。お願いします。

    ReplyDelete
  72. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Makotoさんへ
    勘違いではありません。SPAMメールやツイッターを悪用していたと類推されるコメント、悪用を前提としたコメントを含めて削除をお願いしたいということです。悪用が錯誤だったわけですから。

    ReplyDelete