Dokdo or Takeshima?
They're known as Takeshima in Japan, Dokdo in Korea, and internationally as the Lincourt Rocks: two ridiculously small volcanic islands located between Japan and South Korea, which were mapped by the French whaling ship Lincourt in 1849 and which both neighbors are claiming ownership of today. The Japanese side of the argument seems to be that they annexed the two uninhabited islands in 1905, which were officially entered into the books as Japanese territory. After World War II the status of the islands was not specifically addressed in the postwar treaties, which is where most of the current problem flows from. There's plenty of evidence to support each side, for example an 1880 German map showing the rocks as belonging to Japan (hence the world powers of the era considered the islands to be Japanese), a passage in a 1714 historical document in Korea that expressed worry about "Japanese territory" (the Lincourt Rocks) being so close to Korea's, and the fact that Korea doesn't seem to have ever named the islands in antiquity or mapped them clearly. On the other side of the argument, there are documents that show that the government of Japan considered the islands as belonging to Korea from the 1870s, and the Korean government did make an official survey of the islands in 1900, five years before Japan's annexation. The bottom line is that neither side has an iron-clad claim, and each only seemed to start caring about the islands when the other party showed interest, making the whole thing rather like two children fighting over a toy. I predict that South Korea will win the struggle in the end, because a) they have possessed the islands de facto for 50 years now, b) Dokdo/Takeshima are slightly closer to Korea than to Japan, and c) the Koreans are smart enough to make YouTube videos featuring foreigners from around the world holding signs that say "Dokdo belongs to Korea" -- if that doesn't clinch it, nothing will. Even the Korean branch of Dunkin' Doughnuts got into the fray recently with a line of "Do you know Dokdo?" T-shirts promoting Korea's claim to the islands. Um, whatevs.
For (way) more information on this topic, I recommend Occidentalism.org or Dokdo-or-Takeshima, two outstanding resources.
Do you know? [dok-do]
posted by Peter in Japan at 6:52 PM
6 Comments:
Hope I don't get flamed for writing on a hot topic like this. One thing I thought was funny was how both sides, but mostly the Korean side, do things like "accidentally" omit any maps from their research facilities that happen to give credence to the other side, and in one case I saw, the Koreans provided erroneous English translations of a line to avoid it helping the other side's case.
Really, Korea's going overboard and spamming Youtube with what can only be seen as propaganda for their side makes me want to take Japan's side just because, as many very smart independent researchers seem to be doing if the blogosphere is any gauge. Japan has offered to resolve the issue once and for all in the world court but Korea of course wouldn't want to risk any change of losing, so they say controversy? What controversey?
That country need to relax a little more.
10:42 PM
Because the International Court has shown long history of ruling in favor of richer nation and/or ignoring the details and sticking with whatever that is convenient for the powerful nations.
http://www.answers.com/topic/international-court-of-justice
Despite this diversity in structure, the ICJ has been criticized for favoring established powers. Under articles 3 and 9 of the ICJ Statute, the judges on the ICJ should represent "the main forms of civilization and … principal legal systems of the world." This definition suggests that the ICJ does not represent the interests of developing countries. Indeed, few Latin American countries have acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the ICJ. Conversely, most developed countries accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.
----------------------------------
I must also post this about your links which publicly express their bias
http://www.occidentalism.org/?page_id=73
Q: I am Korean
A: Thats good to hear
Q: This site is anti Korean!
A: The truth is anti Korean, because Koreans stand at odds with the truth. Joking aside, what specifically is anti Korean about this site?
Q: It just focuses on the bad things about Korea! Why dont you write about some other stuff?
A: Ah, so you admit there are bad things about Korea? I write about what interests me at the time. Not everything on this blog is about Korea, although a lot of it is. What is the problem again?
Q: Your articles are one sided. There are two sides to the story.
A: Well, maybe my articles are one sided – after all, I am writing about my opinion. As for there being two sides of the story, I tell the other side of the story, the one that the Korean media ignores or covers up or distorts.
With the blindingly nationalistic propaganda at work in Korea, my site is just a small counter reaction.
-------------------------------
Also from http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/search/label/Links%3A_Docs%2FMaps%20-%20English%2FWestern
Pro-Japanese Sites
* Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Eng.)
* 竹島硏究室
* Occidentalism (Eng.)
* Opp's Site (Eng, & Jap.)
* Shimane Prefecture (Eng. Jap. & Kor.)
* Shimane Prefecture's English Pamplet on Takeshima
* Tanaka Kunitaka's Site (Jap.)
* Tanaka Kunitaka's Site (Kor.)
* Toron Talker (Jap.)
* Yabutarou's Web Site
* Disputed Island of Liancourt Rocks, Takeshima 竹島 / Dokdo 獨島
Pro-Korean Sites
* Mark Lovemo's Site (Eng.)
* Steve Barber's Site (Eng.)
* 半月城通信
* 국사편찬위원회 (Kor.)
* 독도 수호지기 (Kor.)
* 서울대학교 규장각한국학연구원 (Kor.)
* 수박 겉핥기 (Kor.)
* 승정원일기 - 承政院日記 (Kor.)
For a more balanced look, take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks
Also http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html
The Cairo Conference of 1943 stipulated that "Japan will be expelled from all territories which she has taken by violence and greed [since the time of the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95]." Considering Japan´s methods, there can be little doubt that Japan´s annexation of Dokdo in 1905 (along with all other Korean territories by 1910) falls within the definition of territories taken by greed, as defined by the Cairo Declaration. If Japan believes that its methods in acquiring Dokdo in 1905 were legitimate, then Japan must believe that it can still, by the same logic, claim sovereignty over the rest of the Korean Peninnsula...
Also http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/japan2.pdf
Japan contends that as part of its
annexation of Korea, all Korean territory
became Japanese. It asserts, “the measures to
incorporate Takeshima reaffirmed the intention of the Japanese government to claim
territorial rights as a modern nation over
Takeshima. In addition, the incorporation of
Takeshima was reported in the newspapers
and was not undertaken secretly, hence it was
implemented validly.”33 Accordingly, in
Japan’s view the annexation of Korea
consisted of a peaceful, voluntary, and
negotiated merging of both countries.
And Also from same article
Despite Japan’s reliance on the 1905 and
1910 annexation treaties by which it argues
that all Korean territory became Japanese, it
is questionable whether Korea intended to
give up its title and pass sovereignty to the
Japanese, as is required for a valid cession.
Indeed, Korea resisted the annexation period
with uprisings, protests, and a continual
struggle to gain independence. Additionally,
when news of Japan’s incorporation of Tokdo
reached Korea, the Minister of Home Affairs
rejected the Japanese claim, stating, “it is
totally groundless for the Japanese to lay
claim to Tokdo and I am shocked at the
report.”41 The Korean State Council
responded by issuing Directive No. III on
April 29, 1906, wherein the council
denounced the Japanese claim as groundless.
Japan points to the absence of any action on the part of the Korean government when
the area was annexed but does not
acknowledge that the Japanese Resident-
General in Korea was responsible for foreign
affairs, leaving the Korean government no
diplomatic channel for disputing the Japanese
claim. Protestations of a peaceful transfer
reflect more on the harsh control of the
Japanese over Korea during the occupation
period than on actual events. Finally, any
argument that Korea voluntarily merged into
Japan as a result of peaceful negotiations has
been refuted repeatedly by a variety of
documentary sources. As such, Japanese
claims to title based on cession fail.
Also
Ultimately, South Korea has a stronger
claim to Liancourt than does Japan. Japan’s
claims rest largely on numerous agreements
with the Korean government, implying that
the islands originally belonged to Korea.
Accordingly, assuming Korea originally
possessed Liancourt and can
prove that it completed its
original claim by subsequent
affirmative manifestations of
sovereignty, a judicial body
should find in its favor.
11:46 PM
Peter - based on your description, it sounds like the French found them first. Maybe they should be the ones to get it?
8:04 AM
maglor, thanks for the tons of good info. I agree the "violence and greed" clause is important and it really puts Korea over the top as far as I'm concerned. I just wish they'd turn down their propaganda machine as it makes them look so insecure...
12:08 PM
Try my website.
Dokdo-Takeshima.com
Cheers
Steve Barber
1:56 AM
Try again.
Dokdo-Takeshima.com
1:58 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home