gv-09




OccidentalismDuc, sequere, aut de via decede!HomeArchivesHall of Shame화병 FAQTagsTemporary DatabaseLies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9
May 1st, 2007 . by Gerry-Bevers
Location of Usando Unknown in 1903 and 1913

The following article was printed in the Korean newspaper, Maeil Shinbo (每日新報), on June 22, 1913:

鬱島郡 西面居 金元俊은 鬱島 東北方 4, 50里에 位置하는 于山嶋(無人島)에 移住코자 移住民을 募集하고 探索키로 決定하였으나 10數年前 同地 韓國人이 聯合 探索하였어도 發見치 못하고 海圖에도 없으며 現時 航海路가 頻繁한데도 이를 現認하였다는 일이 없다하여 中止하다.

每日申報 1913.6.22

Kim Won-jun, a resident of Seo-myeon (西面) in Uldo County (鬱島郡), wanted to gather people to migrate to Usando (an uninhabited island), which is located forty to fifty ri northeast of Uldo, and decided to search for the island. However, he said that Koreans on the island (Ulleungdo) had tried conducting a joint search for the island (Usando) ten or more years earlier, but were unable to find it. He also said that the island was uncharted, and that even after several trips in search of it, it could not be found, so he has given up.

Maeil Sinbo, June 22, 1913

Notice that the article said that an Uldo (Ulleungdo) resident named Kim Won-jun tried to find Usando in 1913, but was unable to do so. Notice also that the article said a group of Uldo residents had tried to find Usando ten or more years earlier (1903), but also failed. Kim claimed that Usando was supposedly forty to fifty ri northeast of Ulleungdo, but there are no islands in that area, which would explain why he and the other Koreans had failed to find it.

Korean maps tell us that Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is located about 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s northeast shore. (See maps here, here, here, and here.) In 1903, two kilometers was equal to five Korean ri, so it seems very likely that the island that was supposedly 40 to 50 ri northeast of Ulleungdo was actually 4 to 5 ri northeast of Ulleungdo. Usando was simply an old name for Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, but was apparently no longer being used by Ulleungdo residents in 1903 and 1913.

In 1899, the Korean newspaper, Hwangseong Shinmun, said that “Usando/Jukdo” was Ulleungdo’s most prominent neighboring island. Here is the relevant section of the 1899 article:

In the sea east of Uljin is an island named Ulleung. Of its six, small neighboring islands, Usando/Jukdo (于山島竹圖) are/is the most prominent (崔著者). The Daehanjiji says that Ulleungdo is the old Country of Usan. It has an area of 100 ri. Three peaks stand out (律兀).

By 1903, just four years after the above article, had Ulleungdo’s most prominent neighboring island disappeared or had the name “Usando” simply been replaced by the name “Jukdo”?

The 1913 article shows us that Koreans living on Ulleungdo at the time did not consider “Usando” to be Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) since they most certainly would have known of the rocks by then and since they believed Usando to be forty to fifty ri northeast of Ulleungdo, not ninty-two kilometers to the southeast, which is where Liancourt Rocks are. The above 1913 article also tells us that Koreans living on Ulleungdo in 1903 did not know where Usando was, so that means that even if they did know of Liancourt Rocks at the time, they did not consider them to be Usando.

For an explanation of how the names “Usando” and “Jukdo” came to be used to refer to the same island, click HERE.

Japanese Translation Provided by Kaneganese

(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)

1903年と1913年、于山島の位置は不明だった。

次の記事は1913年6月22日付の韓国の毎日新報に掲載されたものです。

“鬱島郡西面在住の金元俊さんが、鬱島(=鬱陵島)東北40-50里の位置にある無人島の于山島へ移住するために移住民を募集して、その島を探すことにしました。しかし、彼によると鬱陵島の島民が、10数年前にその于山島を共同で探索しようとしたものの、発見できなかったということです。また、その島は海図に記されておらず、何度か探索船を出したものの発見できず、中止したそうです。 每日申報 1913.6.22”

記事によると鬱島郡の金元俊氏が1913年に于山島を見つけようとしたけれど、発見できなかったということですよね?また、10数年前(1903年頃)にも鬱島(=鬱陵島)の住民が于山島を発見できなかった事も伝えています。金氏は于山島が鬱陵島の北東40から50里にあるはずなのに、その場所では島が発見できなかったと述べていますが、そのことから何故彼やそのほかの韓国人達が于山島を見つけられなかったかが説明がつくのです。

韓国の地図をみれば、于山島が鬱陵島の北東沖2.2kmに浮かぶ隣接島の竹嶼である事が分かります。(各地図へのリンク)1903年時点では、2kmが韓国の5里に相当しますので、鬱陵島北東40から50里の場所にあるはずの島は、実際には北東沖4-5里の場所にあった可能性が高いのです。于山島は鬱陵島の隣接島である竹嶼の古名ですが、1903年と1913年における鬱陵島の住民は明らかに、この于山島という名称を使っていなかったようです。

1899年の韓国の皇城新聞は、”于山島竹島”が鬱陵島の最も主要な隣接島であると記述しています。その記事の関連部分をここに掲載しました。〈リンク〉

“蔚珍の東方沖の海中に、鬱陵と言う名の島がある。その島には6つの隣接した小さな島嶼があり、それらのうち于山島竹島がもっとも主要な島である。大韓地誌には、鬱陵島は昔の于山国ことで面積は100里ある、と載っている。3つの峰がそびえている。”

この記事の経った4年後の1903年に鬱陵島の最も主要な隣接島が消えてしまった、もしくは于山島と言う名前が”竹島(=竹嶼)”と言う名称にとって変わったのでしょうか?

1913年の新聞記事によれば、当時の鬱陵島の韓国人達は”于山島”をLiancourt Rocks(竹島/Dokdo) であるとは考えていなかったことが分かります。というのも、その年までには鬱陵島の住民はLiancourt Rocks(竹島/Dokdo)の事を明らかに知っていたはずだし、彼等は于山島が鬱陵島の南東92kmではなく、東北40-50里沖にあると考えていたのですから。この1913年の記事はまた、1903年当時の鬱陵島に住む韓国人は于山島がどこにあるのか分かっていなかった事を伝えています。つまり、その当時例え彼等がLiancourt Rocks(竹島/Dokdo)の事を知っていたとしてもそれを于山島とはみなしてはいなかった事を意味するのです。

“于山島”と”竹島(=竹嶼)”の名称がどちらも一つの島を指すようになった経緯をここで説明しています。〈リンク〉

Links to More Posts on Takeshima/Dokdo (With Japanese translations)

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 1

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4 Supplement

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 5

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 7

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 8

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 1

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2 Supplement

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 3

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 5

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 6

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 8

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 9

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 10

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 11

Posted in Verus Historia | 70 Comments »



70 Responses to “Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9”
comment number 1 by: Gerry-Bevers
May 1st, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Toadface,

I had to repost the above post, so your snide comment disappeared. If you would like to repost it, feel free.

comment number 2 by: GTOMR
May 1st, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Sorry for Interruption.
I read old post again now to recover database,because my hard disc crush out….orz.
TO Mr Gerry,
Here is the Chinese-character based 1794 report, a Korean translation, and my translation:

二十六日轉向可支島, 四五箇可支魚, 驚駭躍出, 形若水牛。

そこで宿泊してから、26日に向きを変え可支島(ガジド)へ向かった。 そこで、4,5頭のアシカが驚いて飛出した。まるで水牛のようだった。

I think ,this 形若水牛”Water buffallow shapes”
are about tells about 可支島,not seals are “as if buffallow”
Cf:report of 李奎遠 1882
又有一浦 名船板邱尾 南邊洋中 有二小島 形如臥牛 而左右回旋 勢若相抱 一曰竹島 一曰島項 只有叢竹而已 日暮 下陸

So this 可支島,like buffalow shape (island)
is surely 観音島.
.
Bcoz Seals never resemble to Buffallow.
Buffallow tend to offensive, but seals are very chicken and runaway.
Is there any seals resemble to Buffalow?
Seals picture in Swapocmundo(Namibia)
Buffalow’s photo on Tana toraja(Indonesia)
.
If someone already posted it ,sorry for interrupt.

comment number 3 by: ponta
May 1st, 2007 at 10:38 pm

It is getting clearer and clearer how Korea came
do demand to the US that non-Korean territory like Tsuhima, Prangdo, Dokdo be given to Korea.
I recommend all the people who are interested in this issue to read all of Gerry’s posts.

comment number 4 by: Gerry-Bevers
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:23 am

If anyone is interested, I have added a little bit to my post and have corrected a couple of logical errors.

comment number 5 by: Kaneganese
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:07 am

I think another important thing in this article is, Korean on Ulleundo in 1913 considered Usando to be a habitable island, since they “wanted to gather people to migrate to Usando”. That also explains they didn’t believe Usando as Liancourt Rocks(竹島/Dokdo).
From Japanese documents, we know thatJapanese started to employ Korean residents of Ulleundo and Jejudo to hunt sea lion on Takeshima since few years after 1900. So Korean residents on Ulleundo at that time clearly should have known that they couldn’t migrate to the island.

Thank you, Gerry.

(Japanese translation for Gerry’s post)
(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)

1903年と1913年、于山島の位置は不明だった。

次の記事は1913年6月22日付の韓国の毎日新報に掲載されたものです。

“鬱島郡西面在住の金元俊さんが、鬱島(=鬱陵島)東北40-50里の位置にある無人島の于山島へ移住するために移住民を募集して、その島を探すことにしました。しかし、彼によると鬱陵島の島民が、10数年前にその于山島を共同で探索しようとしたものの、発見できなかったということです。また、その島は海図に記されておらず、何度か探索船を出したものの発見できず、中止したそうです。 每日申報 1913.6.22”

記事によると鬱島郡の金元俊氏が1913年に于山島を見つけようとしたけれど、発見できなかったということですよね?また、10数年前(1903年頃)にも鬱島(=鬱陵島)の住民が于山島を発見できなかった事も伝えています。金氏は于山島が鬱陵島の北東40から50里にあるはずなのに、その場所では島が発見できなかったと述べていますが、そのことから何故彼やそのほかの韓国人達が于山島を見つけられなかったかが説明がつくのです。

韓国の地図をみれば、于山島が鬱陵島の北東沖2.2kmに浮かぶ隣接島の竹嶼である事が分かります。(各地図へのリンク)1903年時点では、2kmが韓国の5里に相当しますので、鬱陵島北東40から50里の場所にあるはずの島は、実際には北東沖4-5里の場所にあった可能性が高いのです。于山島は鬱陵島の隣接島である竹嶼の古名ですが、1903年と1913年における鬱陵島の住民は明らかに、この于山島という名称を使っていなかったようです。

1899年の韓国の皇城新聞は、”于山島竹島”が鬱陵島の最も主要な隣接島であると記述しています。その記事の関連部分をここに掲載しました。〈リンク〉

“蔚珍の東方沖の海中に、鬱陵と言う名の島がある。その島には6つの隣接した小さな島嶼があり、それらのうち于山島竹島がもっとも主要な島である。大韓地誌には、鬱陵島は昔の于山国ことで面積は100里ある、と載っている。3つの峰がそびえている。”

この記事の経った4年後の1903年に鬱陵島の最も主要な隣接島が消えてしまった、もしくは于山島と言う名前が”竹島(=竹嶼)”と言う名称にとって変わったのでしょうか?

1913年の新聞記事によれば、当時の鬱陵島の韓国人達は”于山島”をLiancourt Rocks(竹島/Dokdo) であるとは考えていなかったことが分かります。というのも、その年までには鬱陵島の住民はLiancourt Rocks(竹島/Dokdo)の事を明らかに知っていたはずだし、彼等は于山島が鬱陵島の南東92kmではなく、東北40-50里沖にあると考えていたのですから。この1913年の記事はまた、1903年当時の鬱陵島に住む韓国人は于山島がどこにあるのか分かっていなかった事を伝えています。つまり、その当時例え彼等がLiancourt Rocks(竹島/Dokdo)の事を知っていたとしてもそれを于山島とはみなしてはいなかった事を意味するのです。

“于山島”と”竹島(=竹嶼)”の名称がどちらも一つの島を指すようになった経緯をここで説明しています。〈リンク〉

comment number 6 by: Gerry-Bevers
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:47 am

Thank you for the translation, Kaneganese.

Yes, you are right. It is obvious from the article that Mr. Kim believed Usando to be habitable since he was gathering people to settle there. That is more evidence that he did not consider Usando to be Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) since Liancourt Rocks has little water and no soil to grow crops.

comment number 7 by: opp
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:35 am

This newspaper article is very interesting. This article shows another fact. The Korean is not to be able to understand the geography even in a place away from Ullengdo at 20km in 1903. Were they able to recognize Takeshima away at 90km?

comment number 8 by: toadface
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:56 am

Actually, the logbooks of the Japanese battle cruiser Niitaka clearly recorded that Koreans had named, were involved with and were very much cognizant of Dokdo before the Japanese annexed the island in 1905.

The logbook of the Niitaka on September 24, 1904 reads as follows “Korean call the Liancourt Rocks Dokdo while the Japanese fishermen call it Lianco…..” It is possible to moor the vessels between the two rocks, but a small boat is usually pulled ashore. When the sea is rough and it is difficult to anchor, boats usually take refuge on Ulleungdo until the weather calms down.. Those who come from Ulleungdo to catch sea lions use a Japanese vessel that can load 60 to 70 koku (307 to 358 bushels) and build huts to stay there for about 10 days each time: The catch is plentiful: and the number of the crew sometimes exceeds 40 to 50, but they talk about the lack of fresh water…..”

The relevant page of the Niitaka’s logbook is here.

comment number 9 by: Gerry-Bevers
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:29 pm

Toadface,

Korean fishermen were very probably only “cognizant” of Liancourt Rocks in 1904 because they were working on “Japanese” fishing boats that were hunting sea lions and fishing around Liancourt Rocks. There is little or no evidence that Koreans were cognizant of the rocks before then.

As for the name “Dokdo,” it had no history. In fact, if my memory is correct, when the Koreans first started working on Japanese fishing boats, they used the same name for the rocks as the Japanese did. Since the name “Dokdo” never appeared on any Korean map or in any Korean document, the Korean fishermen probably just began using “Dokdo” as descriptive word, not as a proper noun. For example, even Ulleungdo has been described as a “lone island” (Dokdo).

When Koreans inspected Ulleungdo in 1900, they discovered that the Korean residents there did not even have a boat that could travel to the Korean mainland. They depended on the Japanese for transportation and trade, except for the occasional trading boat from the Cholla area. Koreans on Ulleungdo at the time were basically just farmers, not fishermen. Without the Japanese, they most likely would not have had the means to travel to Liancourt Rocks, and, thereby, come to know of the rocks.

Usando was not Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks), and the name “Dokdo” never appeared in any Korean document or on any Korean map before the Japanese told the Uldo (Ulleungdo) County Head about the rocks in 1906. I think it may have been the first time the county head had heard about the rocks since he did not even know their location. The Japanese may have even told him that Korean fishermen on Japanese boats called the rocks “Dokdo.”

When the Ulluengdo county head reported about “Dokdo” to his superiors, I think he just repeated what the Japanese told him about the rocks. For example, the Japanese probably told him that the rocks were about 100 ri from Ulleungdo, meaning that they were about 100 kilometers away. The county head, not knowing the Japanese measurement for ri at the time, just repeated the 100 ri to his superiors. However, in Korea at the time, 100 ri was only forty kilometers, which is not even half the distance to “Dokdo.” If Dokdo had really been a part of Ulleungdo, then the county head should have known the direction and distance to the island, but he didn’t.

When the county head’s superiors received his letter, the superiors did not question the mistaken distance, which suggests that they also did not know where the island was. That may be why they instructed the county head to get more information about “Dokdo.” The fact that Koreans never protested Japan’s incorporation of Liancourt Rocks suggests that further investigation revealed that the rocks did not belong to Korea.

The Ulleungdo county head and other Korean officials probably just assumed that Dokdo would be in Korean territory since they thought it to be only forty kilometers from Ulleungdo, but after they discovered that it was actually ninety-two kilometers east southeast of Ulleungdo, they probably realized their mistake, which was most likely the reason they never complained to Japan.

comment number 10 by: toadface
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:02 pm

Gerry, nationality aside, the residents of Ulleungdo hunted sea lions from this island not from Japan. It’s just another piece of evidence showing the strong territorial economic bond between Ulleungdo/Korea and Dokdo. The Niitaka also shows the Koreans had a stake in Dokdo as well which makes Japan’s “terra nullius” claim doubtful.

The 1904 Niitaka Log Books show first Koreans were also involved on Dokdo. You say there is no record of Korean on Dokdo before this. I suppose you are now implying the Koreans named the island the day before the Niitaka report. The name Dokdo was also used by Shim Heungtaek when he asserted the island was part of Uldo county about a year and a half later.

There were three major surveys of Liancourt Rocks by the Japanese during the Russo~Japanese War of 1904~1905. They were all undertaken by Japanese Imperial Navy ships: The Niitaka, The Tsushima, and the Hashidate. The survey by the Tsushima is the smoking gun that reveals Japan’s true motivations behind annexing Dokdo.

The Tsushima’s survey on November 20th 1904 was done for the purpose of installing naval watchtowers and telegraph lines. On November 13th 1904 the Tsushima received her instructions to survey Liancourt.

Because the date of the Tsushima survey predates the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion was can say with conviction the annexation of Dokdo was a military land grab. This is also supported by other Japanese Naval records from January 5th showing again before the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion, the Japanese government had long since prepared a military application for Dokdo.
Japan is obligated by her terms of surrender in 1945 to be expelled from “all territories seized by greed or violence” Military land grabs fall under this category.

In 1905 Japan claimed Dokdo on the basis of “terra nullius” and that Takeshima was an “inherent part of Japan from ancient times”

Terra Nullius no longer carries much weight in the International court. Lawyers from all around the world have been tearing this doctrine apart, thus the Japanese craftily dropped this part of their claim.

As far as Takeshima being “an inherent part of Japan” there is no evidence of this at all from all maps and documents made by Japan. So in fact Japan’s original claim is baseless.

Now all that is left of Japan’s claim is “We took Dokdo in 1905 and it was legal”

Japan is trying to claim Dokdo on colonial laws made even before our great grandfathers were born. Under these same laws many Japanese still assert the 1910 annexation of Korea was legal, maybe they are right. But who in their right mind would entertain the idea of granting territories to countries from laws (terra nullius) that were passed when child labor was legal, women couldn’t vote and coercion could be an accepted practice under “international law”?

comment number 11 by: GTOMR
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:02 pm

The logbook of the Niitaka on September 24, 1904 reads as follows “Korean call the Liancourt Rocks Dokdo while the Japanese fishermen call it Lianco

This reported was the discription heard from the pepole(unknown:Japanese or Korean?)who visited Liancourt Rocks on 1904 survey.

In the report on 1902,there was only Japan’s name about Liancourt Rocks.They had no mention about Korean’ name.
本島の正東約五十海里に三小島あり。之をリヤンコ島と云い本邦人は松島と称す。
This report has another discription that some years ago, Someone from Yamaguchi Prefecture try to catch ,but failed.
数年以前山口県潜水器船の望を属して出漁したるものありしが、潜水の際、無数の海馬群に 妨げると。飲料水欠乏との為に、満足に営業すること能わざるして還りたると。

But ,In the report on 1903,both Japanese and Korean call it “Lyanco-do”
韓人及び本邦漁人は之れをヤンコと呼び

So,it can assumed that Japanese try to use Liancourt Rocks around late of 1890’s or early 1900’s ,had already use Liaancourt Rocks on 1902 ,then Koraen in Ullungdo got to know about Liancourt Rocks around 1903,then it became popular on 1904 and so-called Dokdo.
.

but they talk about the lack of fresh water…..”

I read about the water in Liancourt Rocks brouhgt to sick脚気 and not recommended to drink.(I forgot which records)

Another Logbook of 庚子号 for the survey (Im not sure this Matsushima is Liancourt rocks or not)has discription on 12OCT1902
They tested the fishing in “Matsushima”
水産試験場報告[第1冊]第2号(広島県水産試験場)
10月12日(元山→松島)松島は無人島なるも本邦魚師網業者の納屋を構えたるを以て寄航調査し且流網を試みたるも無漁   10月16日(元山→長興川)本日松島付近で鯛及延縄を試み漁獲ありたり午后一時出発 午后五時碇泊

comment number 12 by: Gerry-Bevers
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 pm

Toadface wrote:

Gerry, nationality aside, the residents of Ulleungdo hunted sea lions from this island not from Japan. It’s just another piece of evidence showing the strong territorial economic bond between Ulleungdo/Korea and Dokdo.

Yes, the “Japanese” residents on Ulleungdo hunted sea lions at Liancourt Rocks, and they used cheap Korean labor to help them. That shows that it was the Japanese that had the strong territorial and economic bond with Liancourt Rocks, not the Koreans. The Koreans were just hired hands.

comment number 13 by: toadface
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:09 pm

Gerry, those who hunted lived on Ulleungdo. Not Japan. They were hunting from Ulleungdo before Japan annexed Dokdo. Their nationality doesn’t change the geography of the region.

Second, Japan’s annexation wasn’t for the purpose of wacking seals Gerry. Records prove it was a military annexation. By the time the Japanese Prefecture civilian government inspected Takeshima in 1906, the Japanese had already constructed naval watchtowers and radio/telegraph equipment for about a year.

The Japanese Naval documents proving the Japanese Imperial Navy’s military ambitions on Dokdo are piling up Gerry. They are burying Japan’s claim but most importantly they will kill public support for Japan’s claim to Dokdo.

comment number 14 by: ponta
May 4th, 2007 at 12:25 am

Toadface

those who hunted lived on Ulleungdo. Not Japan. They were hunting from Ulleungdo before Japan annexed Dokdo.

Do you have a document that show they were hunting? According to Japanese record, they were not hunting but were collecting seaweed, if I remember correctly.

Records prove it was a military annexation

Whether it is a military annexation, it is irrelevant;for, Dokdo was not Korean territory in the first place.

Kaneganese
いつも翻訳ご苦労様でございます。頭が下がります。
m(_ _)m 名訳です。

comment number 15 by: Gerry-Bevers
May 4th, 2007 at 3:57 am

Toadface,

What is piling up is the evidence proving that Korean claims on Dokdo are based on lies and half-truths. The overwhelming evidence against Korea’s claims has forced even you, Toadface, to reduce your arguments to some ridiculous theory involving watchtowers.

Building a watchtower on an unclaimed, uninhabited island is not taking an island by force. It is evidence that you have territorial claim on and interest in the island. That is precisely what Korea has been trying to do by building all the facilities she has on Dokdo. The difference is that when Korea did it, the island had already been claimed by Japan, and, in Korea’s case, she did use force. That was not the case with Japan.

Korea can keep lying to her people about Dokdo if she wants to, but the rest of the world will eventually know the truth. That means that if Koreans continue to claim Dokdo is Korean territory, they will eventually start to look pretty foolish to the rest of the world. Will it really be worth it?

comment number 16 by: GarlicBreath
May 4th, 2007 at 4:21 am

Great job Mr Bevers. Once again takeshima island is proven to be 100% Japanese land.

comment number 17 by: toadface
May 4th, 2007 at 7:46 am

Gerry, the introduction of Japanese Naval documents is not reducing the argument over possession of Dokdo in the least bit. The public doesn’t share your anti-Korean pro-Japanese views Gerry and there is no way Japan will ever muster international support for their claim to Dokdo if they have to rely on the shabby 1905 colonial military annexation.

Now that even the Japanese Foreign Ministry admits their historical claim is a sham and has dropped their initial “terra nullius” claim their whole basis for harrassing the Koreans over the Dokdo issue now hinges on whether or not the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion was legal.

The military issue is just one part of Japan’s claim that falls short of being legal.

Whether or not Dokdo was occupied or ownerless is moot Gerry. The terms of international law regarding effective control are clear. Continual and peaceful sovereignty is required. Land grabs during the largest war of the day don’t qualify.

Gerry, it is your argument that is dying. All you are doing is posting crude Chosun maps and putting your spin on them. I’ve seen nothing from the Japanese side from you to support Japan’s claim in itself. In fact, I still don’t see anything from you that dismisses the 1870 Report on Chosun that clearly states Jukdo (Takeshima) and Songdo (Matsushima/Dokdo) were Korean territory. Just a shabby attempt to invent new “neighbour islands”.

Of course I don’t expect to convince you Gerry Bevers that the military annexation of Dokdo was illegal. You’ve previously openly stated your support for the Japanese occupation of the entire Korean peninsula.

Thank God the rest of the free world doesn’t support your views.

Hanmamy is still waiting for you to debate him on his website. He wants to debunk you in person.

comment number 18 by: opp
May 4th, 2007 at 9:43 am

It is useless repeat how much fabrication International Law.

comment number 19 by: opp
May 4th, 2007 at 9:55 am

Meaning of Hoover’s peace.

PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie P148
(About the interpretation of the peace by Huber)
First , it would be better if the principle were expressed as one of acquiescence, since, if a pierce of territory were occupied by an aggressor, the ‘prescribing’ state would have a peaceful and uninterrupted possession, but there would be no acquiescence.
The second problem is to decide what suffices to prevent possession from being peaceful and uninterrupted. In principle the answer is clear: any conduct indicating a lack of acquiescence. Thus protests will be sufficient. In the Chamizal arbitration United states claimed, as against Mexico (SYC.) Furthermore, possession must be peaceable to provide a basis for prescription, and, in the opinion of the Commissioners, diplomatic protests by Mexico prevented title arising. A failure to take action which might lead to violence could not be held to jeopardize Mexican rights.

The expression of the protest is a minimum condition. Japan doesn’t fight against the Korea empire, and not received Korean protest. Japan doesn’t fight against the Korea empire, and not received the protest. The Korea empire doesn’t notice the effective control of Japan before that. In addition, She didnot know Takeshima.

comment number 20 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 10 » Occidentalism
May 4th, 2007 at 12:04 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 21 by: toadface
May 4th, 2007 at 9:42 pm

Opp, again you cite one man’s interpretation of international law.

Japan’s problem is, now that the world knows their claim to Takeshima was an unfounded military land grab, nobody cares…….

Soon I will translating the log books of the Niitaka, Tsushima and Hashidate Warships and the world can read the shameful truth behind Japan’s annexation of Liancourt Rocks.

comment number 22 by: ponta
May 4th, 2007 at 10:42 pm

Opp, again you cite one man’s interpretation of international law.

Here is another man’s interpretation of international law

The exercise of state power over territory must be peaceful in the sense that it is not challenged by other states.

It seems it is the established interpretation.
Why don’t you cite scholar’s interpretation that fits your interpretation?
(Textbook on International Law )
by Martin Dixon)
J

comment number 23 by: pacifist
May 5th, 2007 at 10:23 pm

toadface,
.

there is no way Japan will ever muster international support for their claim to Dokdo if they have to rely on the shabby 1905 colonial military annexation.

.
Are you still fantasying the “1905 colonial military annexation”?
Korea was not a colony in 1905, and annexation (more exactly incorporation) of Takeshima/Dokdo was not military one.
If you want to insist it was “military”, you should prove that it had been Korean territory before 1905 but you failed.
.
toadface, the incorporation was done peacefully and it was admitted internationally lawful.

comment number 24 by: pacifist
May 5th, 2007 at 10:38 pm

toadface,
.

Takeshima was an unfounded military land grab

.
Please show us the grounds of your insistence.
The word “military land grab” may mean to rob another country’s land with military forces.
But…
.
1) Korea didn’t have Takeshima/Dokdo before 1905. (There is no evidence, you couldn’t find the evidence and USA after the WWII admitted that it han’t belonged to Korea in the history.)
.
2) Japan didn’t use military forces. She only re-affirmed the island to be Japanese territory and decided in the cabinet that it to be officially incorporated.
The decision was transported to Shimane prefecture and the prefecture ran advertisement in newspapaers and effectively controlled through periodic rounds of inspection of the island since then.
.
toadface, where is “military” land grab? Your insistence seems childish.
You are trying to distort the history with some navy recordds of warships but before you do it, you should show the evidence that Korea really owned the island before 1905. Don’t dodge the point, toadface.

comment number 25 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 12 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:02 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 26 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 11 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:06 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 27 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 10 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:09 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 28 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 9 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:10 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 29 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 8 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:12 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 30 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 7 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:14 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 31 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 6 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:16 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 32 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 5 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:18 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 33 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 4 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:20 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 34 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 3 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:22 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 35 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 2 Supplement » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:25 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 36 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 2 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:27 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 37 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 1 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:31 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 38 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 8 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:34 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 39 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 7 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:35 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 40 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 6 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:37 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 41 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 5 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:39 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 42 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 4 Supplement » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:41 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 43 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 4 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:44 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 44 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 3 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:47 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 45 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 2 » Occidentalism
May 5th, 2007 at 11:49 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

comment number 46 by: toadface
May 6th, 2007 at 12:47 am

Ponta and Pacifist (aka frick and frack)

Japan’s acquisition of Dokdo in 1905 was a premeditated annexation for the purpose of controling the East Sea during the Russo~Japanese War.

Dokdo Island was systematically surveyed (before annexation) zoned (before annexation) and then had military facilities installed during the largest war to that date.

Thus, we know Japan’s “Incorporation” was not part of peaceful process which is one of the key elements of a legal acquisition of territory.

At any rate, none of you guys are lawyers so you opinions mean jack. What is more important to me is getting out to the public the original documents from the Japanese archives from the Russo~Japanese War that show Japan’s military involvement on the Korean land and on Dokdo prior to their land grab.

On November 13th 1904 well before the incorporation of Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) the Japanese Imperial Navy Battle Cruiser Tsushima received her orders to inspect Dokdo for the purpose of installing “電信” telegraph lines. From this and other references we know the Japanese Military appropriated Dokdo.


Seriously, I couldn’t care less what a couple of right-wing Japanese lobbyist think about what constitutes “legal” possession of Dokdo. There are Japanese nut bars who still insist that the 1910 annexation of the entire Korean peninsula was legal. But nobody West of Oki believes this.

My goal is to expose the current Japanese claim to Takeshima for what it originally was in 1905 not to convert radical Japanese activist such as you Pacifist and Ponta. The public will see the truth. They will see the original documents from the Japanese military archives with translations and then they will make up their own minds from there.

comment number 47 by: pacifist
May 6th, 2007 at 1:16 am

toadface,
.

Dokdo Island was systematically surveyed (before annexation) zoned (before annexation) and then had military facilities installed during the largest war to that date.

.
Yes, Navy investigated every area around the Sea of Japan to install radio wires.
It included Japanese islands and ownerless islands.
But the purpose of the installation of wire was to catch the Baltic fleet approaching, not incorporating Takeshima/Dokdo. Navy just wanted information concerning the fleet. It was not necessary to incorporate the island to install the wire. toadface, this is the point.
It was because it didn’t belong to Korea, and it had never belonged to her in the history.
.
On the other hand, the incorporation was proposed by the Minister of the Interior Kensei Yoshikawa to the Prime Minster Taro Katsura, it was not proposed by Navy.
.
toadface, your insistence is groundless.
Before you scribble childish things, you have to show the evidence that Korea really owned the island, although this is quite a hard task for you, because it is now highly likely that Korea didn’t own the island but also didn’t know it.
Sorry for toadface, but your insistence won’t be accepted by the world.

comment number 48 by: pacifist
May 6th, 2007 at 1:23 am

toadface,
.

radical Japanese activist such as you Pacifist and Ponta.

.
We are not radical activists, just ordinary citizens. Don’t use dirty tricks to deceive the people.
.

The public will see the truth.

Yes, I agree with you.
Now almost all of the readers of this site know the truth, toadface. The truth will be soon known to the public.

comment number 49 by: toadface
May 6th, 2007 at 7:39 am

Pacifist, I’ve mentioned to you numerous times. Japan’s need to incoroporate Dokdo was first to control the East Sea militarily and second to prevent another country from taking it. At any rate, the annexation of Dokdo was an intregral part of Japan’s plan to defeat Russia and maintain her exclusive right to dominate Korea. Thus, the annexation of Dokdo was an inseparable part of Japan’s colonization of Japan and military aggression in Northeast Asia.

The installation of the military facilities are what make Japan’s basis for incorporation of Liancourt Rocks illegal by international law and under the terms of surrender by the Japanese in 1945. The inner workings behind how and why Japan took Dokdo were neither known or considered relevant by the Americans in 1945. They are relevant now and they are not acceptable.

Ponta and Pacifist. You guys have been trolling the net on a deliberate attempt to spread Japanese right wing propaganda on every Japanese issue of contention from comfort women to sea of japan to Dokdo. Normal Japanese citizens my ass.

comment number 50 by: Gerry-Bevers
May 6th, 2007 at 8:53 am

Toadface,

People are learning the truth about “Dokdo,” Toadface, and they are also learning that you and your site are full of crap. Are you really blind to it, or are you just playing dumb?

Think about your reputation, Toadface, and think about the time and energy you have wasted trying to propagate the Korean lie about Dokdo. Has it really been worth it? Or has it been a drain on your sanity and your soul? Does shame no longer bother you?

Toadface, maybe it is time for you to take a hard look in the mirror and reflect on your lost honor and on how you might regain it. It is not too late for you to climb out of the hole you’ve dug, but it would be stupid to continue to dig it deeper. Afterall, people know your real name.

comment number 51 by: toadface
May 6th, 2007 at 9:21 am

What a laugh riot you are Gerry.

Time after time you have been wrong on key issues of your posts. The trouble is Gerry you’ve aligned yourself with a crew of right-wing Japanese Takeshima lobbyists without the balls or integrity to tell you when you are wrong.

Yes let’t talk piece of crap Gerry.

Your last 2 posts are simplistic attempts to show that Koreans were not cognizant of Dokdo well after 1905 when these documents below show you are dead wrong Gerry.

Both the records of the Japanese battle cruiser Niitaka (1904) and the Black Dragon Fishing manual of 1903 show the Koreans were both cognizant and involved on Dokdo Island before the Japanese annexed it. These papers have been posted here before so whose really playing dumb here Gerry? Or is your memory getting bad in your old age?

Gerry, look at what most people including authors of books have said about this forum of which you have chosen to vent your distorted views and then we’ll you can decide who has dug a hole. It’s obvious you post here because you can’t stand up to the critical eye of those who know the Dokdo issue well and don’t mindlessly parrot the POV of Japan’s MOFA like frick and frack (Ponta and Pacifist) You’ve surrounded yourself with your brigade of Takeshima “yes men” whose heads bob up and down and murmur “yes Gerry” at every pile of shite you toss to them. Pretty sad, remember when you used to post on the Korean Herald Gerry? What happened to you?

Hanmaumy’s invitation to debate you still stands Gerry.

I will continue to post all Japanese military documents related to Dokdo especially from the 1904~1905 Russo~Japanese War. We know Japan’s historical claim is a sham and the terra nullius claim is bogus too. When all of the Japanese Naval Archives related material are on the table it will put a stake in the heart of Japan’s silly assertions they wanted to hunt seals in 1905.

comment number 52 by: ponta
May 6th, 2007 at 9:32 am

Mr Toadface

Both the records of the Japanese battle cruiser Niitaka (1904) and the Black Dragon Fishing manual of 1903 show the Koreans were both cognizant and involved on Dokdo Island before the Japanese annexed it.

Where the hell is the Korean document that show Korean government was cognizant of Dokdo.

The trouble is Gerry you’ve aligned yourself with a crew of right-wing Japanese Takeshima lobbyists

It is ironical that you aligned yourself with
Japanese imperialist(Niitaka) and Japanese rightist(blackdragon) without the integrity to tell when you are wrong.

Japanese documents show Koreans were employed by Japanese agents to hunt sea lion. No wonder there were some Koreans who were cognizant of Dokdo. But that does not show Korean government nor Korean Journalism nor Korea in general was cognizant of Dokdo.

comment number 53 by: Gerry-Bevers
May 6th, 2007 at 10:05 am

Toadface,

You are using strawman arguments again, Toadface. My last two posts were trying to show that “Usando” was not Dokdo, and I think they succeeded.

Hanmaumy now admits that the Usando next to Ulleungdo on Korean maps was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). Moreover, even the director of the Dokdo Museum now admits it. By admitting that Usando was just Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, Koreans have essentially admitted that they have no old maps showing Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). Are you now man enough to admit that, too, Toadface?

The only connection that Korea had with Liancourt Rocks before the Japanese annexed them in 1905 was the Korean fishermen who were hired to work on Japanese boats fishing around Liancourt Rocks. There is little or no evidence that Korea knew about the rocks before then. And even in 1906, one year after Japan annexed the rocks, the county head of Ulleungdo still did not know where the rocks were.

I have eight Korean books on “Dokdo” and probably 90 percent of the content in six of them is nothing but crap, so who are these authors of books you talk about? Maybe, I know them.

comment number 54 by: GTOMR
May 6th, 2007 at 10:16 am

toadface said #51

Both the records of the Japanese battle cruiser Niitaka (1904) and the Black Dragon Fishing manual of 1903 show the Koreans were both cognizant and involved on Dokdo Island before the Japanese annexed 

It can assumed the fishing activities in Liancourt Rock had started from 1903.Korean had cognizant of Liancourt Rock around 1903 because Japan’s fishing company started to hire korean brought into Liancourt Rocks.
.
In addition,both Japanese and Korean didn’t call it Usando于山島 and 石島.
.
On 1902, it can assumed that fishing activities in Liancourt Rocks hadn’t goes on. The report of Ullungdo by Ministery of Foreign affairs Commerce Office on 1902  ,Japanese call it “Liyanco-island”,but nothing mentioned about “how korean call it Liancourt ROcks” and nothing report about fishing activities like seals huntings or fishing.

comment number 55 by: GTOMR
May 6th, 2007 at 10:43 am

Sorry for double post;
Does anyone know which is this Chong-Sokdo(Rocky island)in Kang-won Province? 江原道▲石島 on Japan Imperial Chosun Photo collection(大日本帝国朝鮮写真帖)on 1910.Because of unclear photo and letter,I cannot tell what it is.
There was many easy-name of Sokdo石島 in Korea.I think it is not 観音島 or Liancourt Rocks.

comment number 56 by: goda
May 6th, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Sorry for intervene.

Toadface,

You are very interesting man.
But I think, it is an opportunity of withdrawal for you.

You are mistaking the way from the starting point.

In my perception, it is essentially irrelevant whether there was an intention of the invasion in Japan.

Evidence that show Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks was South Korea territory, is all.

1. at that time, had South Korea actually own Takeshima?
2. or had South Korea insited Takeshima as her territory at that time?
3. and Japan had admitted it at the time?

This is all.

Your concept, suffering/victimized thought or plot theory, is completely nonsense.
And also tjis is the most weak point of your Blog.

This is an idea with universality of modern people.

comment number 57 by: goda
May 6th, 2007 at 12:54 pm

“At the time” means when both Japan and South Korea correctly recognized existence of Liancourt Rocks.

It’s about or before 1905.

comment number 58 by: goda
May 6th, 2007 at 12:57 pm

correct to “At that time “, sorry.

comment number 59 by: pacifist
May 6th, 2007 at 3:57 pm

My dear toadface,
.

Pacifist, I’ve mentioned to you numerous times.

.
Yes, you have and I’ve answered to you numerous times too. I won’t say the same things again here.
.
Just hold up and get out of the hole toadface.

comment number 60 by: toadface
May 6th, 2007 at 9:06 pm

First, Korea owns Dokdo and has effectively managed the island for much longer than Japan.

Japan wants to drag this issue to the ICJ on grounds that first the have a historical claim that is stronger than that of Korea’s and second that their 1905 claim was valid.

First there is not one shred of evidence that Japan historical claim to Dokdo goes back prior to the military annexation of Dokdo. So all that leaves us with is their 1905 claim to Dokdo.

In 1905 Japan claimed Dokdo on 2 legal theories. One is that the island was terra nullius, however Japan no longer makes this claim. So really all Japan has is their 1905 Shimane Prefecture Inclusion.

In 1904~1905 Japan surveyed, zoned and annexed Dokdo for military purposes. This was for Japan to assert military control over the region to defeat Russia in the Russo~Japanese War. This is not a legal method to acquire land under both international law and by the terms of peace treaties Japan was subject to in 1945 (Cairo Convention).

Even if Japan could put forth a strong argument that in 1905 military annexations were legal, who is willing to entertain the idea that Japan should be given territories she stole during the height of a major war?

Goda, I’m not trying to create false sympathy for Korea here. I’m gathering the military records related to Takeshima from Japan’s own naval archives to prove a theory long asserted by both Korean and some Japanese scholars. The theory that Japan’s annexation of Dokdo was purely a military move has long been proven. I’m just putting out the actual records and translating them.

If Japan wants to drag this case to the ICJ they need to do better. First they must prove title to Takeshima prior to the 1905 annexation of the island. They must show stronger historical title NOT just cognizance. They must find a rational way to explain documents and maps of theirs the show Dokdo as Korean land without wild theories and mystery island shell games.

From what I’ve seen Japan has failed on all of these points. No ICJ.

comment number 61 by: pacifist
May 6th, 2007 at 10:09 pm

toadface,
.

First, Korea owns Dokdo and has effectively managed the island for much longer than Japan.

.
Korea doesn’t own it, she just occupies it. even if she holds it for many years, the ownership won’t change.
.
Suppose toadface, you takes my fountain pen away and I claim that it is mine. If you hold it for 10 years or 50 years or more, I have a right to say “Hey return it to me!”
You don’t have a right to own it until I give it to you.
.

the military annexation of Dokd

In 1904~1905 Japan surveyed, zoned and annexed Dokdo for military purposes.

Even if you repeated it hundreds times, the history won’t change. There was no military annexation of the island until SK did it in 1950’s.
.

This is not a legal method to acquire land under both international law and by the terms of peace treaties Japan was subject to in 1945 (Cairo Convention).

Although it was not a military incorporation, you can’t decide one thing happened in 1905 with the 1945 declaration.
.

This was for Japan to assert military control over the region to defeat Russia in the Russo~Japanese War.

It was not militarily controlled, just used for a radio. And as I repeated many times it was not Korean land so that Koreans can’t complain if Japanese Navy used it.
.

she stole during the height of a major war?

Stole???
From who???
.
Rather you should say SK stole it from Japan in 1950’s as you stole my fountain pen(the latter is fictitious of course), as it was already under Japan’s control.
.
But in 1905, it didn’t belong to any countries including Korea.
.
toadface, game is over.

comment number 62 by: madboots
May 6th, 2007 at 10:50 pm

How long are you planning to continue such meaningless arguments, toadface?

I admit Japan’s terra nullius theory was next to nonsense, but your illegal integration theory was also absurd and will be hardly understood by the public.
All your aruguments are fundamentally based on the assumption that Korea had already been cognizant and had proclaimed of the island at the time of Japan’s integration.
And this is what we are supposed to be discussing in this thread.
Besides, what Gerry has been striven for is just revelation about lies seen in Korean researchers’ arguments and her goverment’s official statements and at last, consequent corrections by themselves, I think it is highly unlikely to happen, though. He might be anti-Korean debater, but it does not mean he is a pro-Japanese activist.

comment number 63 by: nigelboy
May 6th, 2007 at 10:54 pm

If Japan wants to drag this case to the ICJ they need to do better. First they must prove title to Takeshima prior to the 1905 annexation of the island. They must show stronger historical title NOT just cognizance. They must find a rational way to explain documents and maps of theirs the show Dokdo as Korean land without wild theories and mystery island shell games.

From what I’ve seen Japan has failed on all of these points. No ICJ.

Yes toadface. Go to ICJ now because Japan’s claim is weak. Stick it to Japan at the world stage. Prove to the world that Korea was right and Japan was wrong the whole time.

comment number 64 by: helical
May 6th, 2007 at 11:59 pm

If Japan wants to drag this case to the ICJ they need to do better.

From what I’ve seen Japan has failed on all of these points. No ICJ.

Whoa, that almost sounds like you don’t want Korea and Japan to go to the ICJ. That couldn’t possibly be the case, could it? After all, if Korea is so sure it has irrefutable evidence that it is the rightful owner of Dokdo, she wouldn’t have any reason to not take it to court and have the ownership recognized by the international community once and for all, no?
So strange.

Oh that’s right, Korea thinks Japan is going to mount a military attack once the court rules in favor or Korea and Japan is not happy with the ruling.
Sorry, but not as many people in the world share those standards of behavior as one in Korea might imagine.

comment number 65 by: goda
May 7th, 2007 at 7:22 am

Retroactive of the law is prohibited since it is modern.
South Korea is an exception. They are still alive in pre-modern ages.

At that time, the vessel from many foreign countries came and went to the Sea of Japan and ther informations caused confusion on Ulleungdo and Matsushima (Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks ), and receiving this chaos, Japan ousted to be have necessity to clarify the political slant internationally, and investigated islands.

Takeshima was not very worthy before except the local residents in Shimane Pref.

But Takeshima’s military importance increased in the rise of an international military tension, and Japan used this island naturally before long.
In the world at that time, it’s the course of nature.
Anything doesn’t change still now basically.

You seems to prove the specific historical view that may be described as the invasional historical view of The Imperial Japan, and try to tie to the profit of South Korea this of the Takeshima problem.

If my view is right, I think it is foolish.
After all, the historical view is only a one of many point, one of the cuts or phase of the history. Thing can be seen as one want to see. and there are neither value of devotion nor a actual profit, moreover it, to persist it, seems only to disgrace your evaluation.

>First, Korea owns Dokdo and has effectively managed the island for much longer than Japan.

It is clearly an illegal occupancy by South Korea on International Law.

I recommend you to value an academic attitude more. Behaving politically and foolish doesn’t come recommended.

comment number 66 by: toadface
May 7th, 2007 at 8:24 am

Goda, I suggest you read the terms of the Cairo Convention and the Potsdam Declaration. (Greed and violence) Also read Max Hubers ruling regarding the principle elements of a legitimate land claim (see continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty)

Here is a question. If the Japanese Navy was not involved with the process of annexation, then why do some naval documents use the name Takeshima before the actual annexation?

It seems very odd that some Japanese documents used the term Takeshima before the Shimane government formally announced it. This document was dated about a month before, yet you can read Takeshima (now or namely Liancourt Rocks) it date January 1st. Strange.

Goda all Japanese Naval documents and maps show Dokdo’s appropriation was no different or inseparable in any way from the lands she was occupying on Korean land.

This is typical of the Japanese mindset. They shamelessly try to apply colonial era international law on land claims from their expansionist era and then scratch their heads wondering why all of their neighbours loathe them. Time to move on boys, there isn’t snowball’s chance in Hell Japan will ever own Dokdo.

comment number 67 by: pacifist
May 7th, 2007 at 3:56 pm

toadface,
.
Stop murmuring around. Your theory is nothing until you prove that Korea owned takeshima/Dokdo before 1905.
It was not Korean land as every evidence shows, nor Russian land. So it is unlawful thing to use it, incorporate it and name it whatever.

comment number 68 by: goda
May 7th, 2007 at 4:25 pm

I’ve read these documents except Max Huber’s.
So, what do you want to saying about?
An international law has been maintained little by little since end of the World War I.
However, it is after the end of the World War II that it came to be worthy to evaluate its actual effect or legitimacy.
I am not interested in the dream.

I feel strange on that You feel strange.
Japan had investigated in 1880, 25 years before the Cabinet decision about name of the Takeshima.
Do you want to insist obstinately that the name of Takeshima falls from the heaven without any details and was decided suddenly at the cabinet decision?

The Oki island suggested of Takeshima naming to the Japanese Government on November 30, 1904.

Moreover, I’ll never be surprized if Japanese Navel used “Takeshima” some years before the Cabinet conclusion.

>This is typical of the Japanese mindset.

You have already known the fact of what you said it as “strange or typical”.
I recommend you to throws sterore-typed way of thought, caught in the prediction, away.
It’s tedious.
I’m saying this with my kindness for you.

comment number 69 by: pacifist
May 7th, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Sorry, correction:
.

So it is unlawful thing to use it,

SHOULD BE:
So it is NOT unlawful thing to use it,….

comment number 70 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 11 · Occidentalism
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 am

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 [...]

  





Search this blog:

  • 最終更新:2009-08-22 10:44:47

このWIKIを編集するにはパスワード入力が必要です

認証パスワード