A study of the territorial dispute between Japan and Korea over Liancourt Rocks, a small cluster of barren, rocky islets in the Sea of Japan that Japanese call Takeshima and Koreans call Dokdo.
It will really show the level of Koreans politics. Lame duck politician often needs unnecessary alien tension in politically immature country, like in China, or Russia or other under developing countries.In politically matured country as liberal democracy, (maybe after McCarthyism), brinkmanship means political suicide. And I also hope Mr. Lee Myung-bak and his relatives will not go to the jail, as so many pre-presidents had gone, in spite of his this effort.
Seriously, you can't call THAT a brinkmanship.Brinkmanship would be applied to a country like North Korea. The Korean president only took a visit to the island and that's all there is.I've heard that Koreans and Korean soldiers live on that island, so I guess even if the ownership of Dokdo is still in dispute, president could take a visit.btw 'under developing' countries? You really should check your grammar and social studies.
Agree but it's the police station deployed there and not the army
Personally, i think it's about time Korea initiated some action to settle the past. Am i not aware of what leadersmb has up his ass? I do assume this scene may be a political show, the kind u may see in third world countries. May be the reason behind this imature Korean politics lies on the fact that the history is yet to be settled. But, that's that. point i want to make is that korea has been too silent when encountered japan's mishaps (e.i. war criminal shinto visits by japanese political leaders despite requests from korea over several years, describing WW2 korean sex slaves as "volunteer prostitutes" in their school text books, raising their imperial flag which is considered as nazi flag in korea in the olympics and Asian games.)Dokdo issue needs to be settled btwn the two nations, not via International Court of Justice which isnt so justful as their title claims, but through scholars who has some knowledge on "how to interprete" the history. My anticipation is high on the final outcome of this chaos.
Sorry for my poor English. I am afraid it could be the start of mutual brinkmanship.Psychologically Japan seems to begin thinking they would not trust Korea politically any more, worse than China, and their atonement time was over, from now. I do not know much about Korea. Maybe they had not been trusting Japan for long, and they do not feel receiving enough atonement from Japan yet. It is very sad that each nation lacks imagination for partner’s misunderstanding.Japan is basically very persevering, hide their emotion, and pretend to be nice and peaceful, after WWII. But looking their history, if the national mood had changed, their opinion often became very extreme. There are half- hidden arguments that Japan should have very small amount of nuclear weapons for counterattack. Politically it is very difficult now but technologically, it is very easy.( It is same in Korea)Japan’s experience of atomic bombing could cause the sudden reversal from passive to active in non-trustful, stressful situation. China has many nuclear weapons , and maybe North Korea has few for show. Japan does not know how Korea deals with them when they unified North Korea. Japan would doubt to become hostile country from the unification, especially under distrustful relation with Korea.Or if North Korea was unified by China, or became more fictional country under strong influence from China, maybe China wants this scenario, nobody knows how Korea reacts against that. These Southeast Asian countries share neither same value nor same culture (besides economical profit), and seem in latent mutual distrust. They are not like US-European countries at all nevertheless they are so close geographically , in one or two hours flight distance.So still, the level of the collective security here is very low and fragile.I think Japan and Korea should make efforts of unremitting conversations for mutual trust. When economy is good, it will be OK. But if economical disaster happens, like in 1920’s, we would be in very serious situation. And a vitally influential disaster from China’s economical clash could happen in very near future. That is why I called this as “brinkmanship”.
Nozomu,sorry about using some harsh language. wanted to edit that but it seems impossibleI agree with you on that Korea and Japan should have good, trusting relationship.
Yo, I'm Japanese too, and I have to say this. I personally think that the U.S. should have settled this dispute between us long time ago. Korea became independent today because of the U.S., and it was also U.S. that allocated those Liancourt rocks to Japan after WWII. They should have made up their mind back in the 50's. Sometimes, I imagine that this dispute is left alone by the U.S. to keep us Asians squabbling among ourselves, so we will not team up together with China against U.S. President Lee should not fan the fire of national hatred like this. Only people he is benefiting will be the Americans.
So why is the background of the picture photoshopped to include planes and what looks like parachutes?
I don't have Photoshop. I did it with Windows' "Paint." The planes and parachutes come from a screenshot of the movie trailer "Red Dawn." I meant to suggest that the Japanese are so angered by President Lee's visit to Liancourt Rocks, that they are ready to invade them. Of course, the Japanese are not going to invade the Rocks, but they are quite angry, probably more angry than the Korean President anticipated.The visit was a mistake because it seems to have angered even Japanese who, until now, had tried to ignore the dispute. Moreover, it has once again made the dispute international news. Is that something South Korea really wanted?South Korea occupies Liancourt Rocks, yet it still feels the need to taunt Japan by standing up and yelling, "Hey, look at us! We got your island. Nayh, nayh, nayh, nayh, nayh!"That is really childish and it doesn't help Korea or the Korea President's political party.
Thank you for the clarification about the picture. As you probably already know, the current Korean President is very unpopular because he seems to do the things that people strongly oppose (Four Major River Restoration, selling Incheon International Airport, etc..) In this regard, as you suggest, his visit to Dokdo is another event that may have negative effect on Korean's part and thus not what Koreans wanted. There is quite a lot of people who view his visit as a way to cover up his low rating before his administration ends.Anyhow, what I'm trying to say is that Koreans do realize that the visit may have negative effects by intensifying tension between Korea and Japan and unnecessarily escalating this unilateral debate about Dokdo. Despite this, the reason why many Koreans 'support' President Lee's visit to Dokdo and Park's ill-timed celebration at the Olympics is because of Japan's (only the far rightists, I hope) continuous attempt to acquire Dokdo. On top of that, Japan's stance on its war crimes (neither sincere nor sufficient apology has been made by the Japanese gov.) and distortion of history in textbooks (eg about comfort women) have gradually fueled the anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. I hope you do understand where this sentiment of disgust and anger is coming from. Yes, the sign display is childish and the visit may have brought unneeded attention, but they are not the root of the issue.Lastly, that sign does not mean "Hey, look at us! We got your island. Nayh, nayh, nayh, nayh, nayh!" as you suggest. It is simply an expression of this accrued anti-far-rightist Japanese sentiment, not as a footballer, but as a Korean citizen I believe (but unfortunately at a bad place indeed)
Hi,Unfortunately, it looks like the anger does not come only from rightists but also from paid Nikkei readers who well know vital economical relations between two countries.http://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXNASFK1401S_U2A810C1000000/Sorry I couldn't find English version, but it says 90% supports "Takeshima is Japan's territory, hardly forgive his action" while 10% "Takeshima has been effectively controlled by Korea, we cannot resist the action."Just for your info.
Mr. Lee,I understand that many Koreans may resent Japan for annexing Korea in 1910, but that is a separate issue. Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) were never part of Korean territory, which means they were not part of that annexation.After Japan was defeated in World War II, Korean President Syngman Rhee wanted more than just Korean territory returned. He felt Korea deserved some Japanese territory as compensation for Korea's being under Japanese rule for 35 years. Besides Liancourt Rocks, he also tried to claim Tsushima (Daemado), which had also never been Korean territory. The United States rejected both claims, which was why Tsushima and Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) were not included in the 1952 Peace Treaty as territory to be returned to Korea.The Korean history of Dokdo, which you make have learned in school in Korea was all fabricated by the Rhee government in the 1950s and has been force-fed to generations of South Koreans ever since. If you look closely at the Korean maps and documents that the Korean government claims supports its historical claim, you will find there is no map that shows Liancourt Rocks by any name nor any document that shows Koreans ever traveled to the Rocks before the Japanese started taking them there as deckhands on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s. In fact, there is only two references in all of Korean history to an unnamed island visiblbe to the east of Ulleungdo that probably Liancourt Rocks, but one of those references clearly said it was part of Japanese territory and the other suggested it.In a July 22, 1714 entry in Korean King Sukjong's Bo Gweol Jeong O (補闕正吳), the following was written as part of a warning that East Coast defenses should be strenthened to guard against a possible invasion from Japan:"I listened carefully to the people in the ports (浦人) who said, 'Pyeonghae (平海) and Uljin (蔚珍) are closest to Ulleungdo, and there are no obstructions along the sea route. Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island attached to Japanese territory.'"To the east of Ulleung (鬱陵之東) an island is visible (島嶼相望) that connects to Japanese territory (接于倭境).South Korea now occupies Liancourt Rocks, so there is no need for the South Korean government to constantly chastise Japan for mentioning its claim to the Rocks, and there is certainly no reason for the South Korean president to travel there. It only exacerbates the dispute and animosities between the two countries.The Japanese government, on the other hand, must occasionally mention its claim to the Rocks in order to maintain its claim. It does not do it to antagonize Koreans, as I am sure the Korean government already knows.
Mr. Bevers, since you are able to understand Korean, please refer to below link for some maps:http://blog.naver.com/mooska?Redirect=Log&logNo=20125427579
광복절을 하루 앞둔 14일 공군전투기 편대가 태극기가 휘날리는 독도 상공을 지나고 있다.True shot. S Korean air force fighters are flying over Takeshima. http://img.segye.com/content/image/2012/08/14/20120814021959_0.jpg
Why do Japan get angry about President Lee's visit to Korean land? If she is not happy with his Korean president's visit to Korean land, she should had stopped to allow the Japanese history textbooks teaching Korea is illegally occupying Takeshima which is Korean land.Why Japan don't know her provocation on Dokdo make the Korean people angry? It's very selfish. If Japan don't want to stop provocation on Dokdo, she should accept whatever Korea does on Dokdo. Did Japan expect Korea to be quite to them all the time in spite of the continuous provocation on Dokdo? Now she is angry because Korea is not quited to them?Shame on Japan!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yeah, probably the voters to the quick-poll are deceived by their evil government. I cannot help watching Korean savior help them to prove its fraud at the formal court.
Another pie on his own face.http://view.koreaherald.com/kh/view.php?ud=20120816001279Korean side story is one-sided.Kyodo reported the article from Tokyo based on its Japanese domestic source, it's a false charge of Presidental office.Is he closing eyes? Whose eyes? Japanese eyes? His own eyes?
Han Sem Kim wrote: "Mr. Bevers, since you are able to understand Korean, please refer to below link for some maps:"Be more specific, Mr. Kim. Link to even one old Korean map that you think shows Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).Many Koreans claim that "Usando" was the old Korean name for Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), but Korean maps and documents show that it was just a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks. Even the Head of the Dokdo Museum on Ulleungdo has admitted that Usando on Korean maps was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is only 2km offshore.Japanese maps also show Usando as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks.
How Ulleungdo and Dokdo have appeared in Japanese maps over the years1724 Japanese map of Takeshima and Matsushima (Ulleungdo and Dokdo)http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/tottori-museum/1724-04/8442.jpg1785 Illustrated Survey of Three Countries Map by Hayashi Shihei.http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WzN3JMZpmGA/TJojaDZ1ONI/AAAAAAAAAyo/fi27KCdr7Y0/s1600/sangoku-tsuuranzusetsu.jpg1779 Japanese map by Nagakubo Sekisui. Note Takeshima and Matsushima. (Ulleungdo & Dokdo)http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/Nagakubo-Sekisui-full.jpghttp://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/nagakubo-sekisui-ull-dok.jpg1833 Japanese map. Note Takeshima and Matsushima http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/newyochiroteimap-1833/map.jpghttp://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/newyochiroteimap-1833/07.jpg1855 Japanese map. Note Takeshima and Matsushima.http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/senkaku/koukokusoukaiganzu-1855/02.jpghttp://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/senkaku/koukokusoukaiganzu-1855/03.jpghttp://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-takeshima-incident-of-1837These are two Japanese maps relating to the case of Aizuya Hachiemon. Note Takeshima and Matsushima.1877 Japanese map by Mori Kinseki. Note Takeshima and Matsushima.http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/mori-kinsekis-1877-map-of-japankorea1882 Japanese map of Korea. Note Takeshima and Matsushima. http://www.dokdohistory.com/upload/board/fckeditor/99-1(2).jpg1894 Japanese map of Korea. Note Takeshima and Matsushima.http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/senshin-1894/index1.htmlhttp://www.dokdohistory.com/upload/board/fckeditor/106-1.JPG1936 Japanese Army Map shows Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Korean territory. 1877 Japanese map of Korea. Note Ulleungdo and Usando.http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/genbanchousenzenzu-1877/map.jpghttp://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/genbanchousenzenzu-1877/ullungdo.jpg1894 Japanese map of Korea. Note Ulleungdo and Usando.(click on lower-right quadrant for enlarged view.)http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/m27-chosenzenzu/index1.htmlHow Ulleungdo and Dokdo have appeared in Korean maps"대조선국전도-동여도(大朝鮮國全圖-東輿圖)" (late 19th Century map)http://blog.naver.com/storyphoto/viewer.html?src=http%3A%2F%2Fblogfiles2.naver.net%2Fdata33%2F2008%2F7%2F20%2F257%2F0020_cms1530.jpg"1890.08 National Geographic 제2권 4호 Korea" (1890 map)http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=cms1530&logNo=10033261020"해좌전도(海左全圖)" (mid-19th C) http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10033214692"Carte de la Coree" (1846 map. Ulleungdo and Usando are labelled 'Oulangto' and 'Ousan'.) http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10033214761"18__? 접역전도(?域全圖)" (19th C)http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10033442554"동국지도-동국전도(東國地圖-東國全圖), 19세기 전기" (early 19th C)http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10033214723"각도지도-조선전도(各道地圖-朝鮮全圖),18세기후반" (late 18th C)http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10033214642“조선전도” (early 19th C)http://user.chol.com/~zstokdo/t_corea_data/06_1.jpg
visit www.downloadbox.com for more information about dokdo or takeshima.