Dokdo-or-Takeshima?

작성자김춘근|작성시간09.02.27|조회수70 목록 댓글 0

Dokdo-or-Takeshima?

독도의 자연생태

독도는 섬이라 늘 물이 부족하다. 소금기 많은 강한 해풍이 불어와 생물이 살기에 적합하지 않다. 그러나 척박한 환경에도 불구하고 독도를 삶의 터전으로 삼은 곤충과 조류, 해조류들이 있다. 특히 한류와 난류가 교차하는 독도 주변 바다는 고래, 문어, 명태, 꽁치, 오징어, 새우, 전복, 소라, 해삼 등 다양한 어패류가 서식하는 어족 자원의 보고다. 그 가운데 전복과 소라, 게는 독도의 가장 중요한 수산자원으로 꼽힌다.

독도의 등대 곁을 날고 있는 갈매기떼
독도는 바다새들의 안식처이기도 하다. 바다제비(Storm Petrel), 슴새(Streaked shearwater), 괭이갈매기(Black-tailed gull)의 번식지로 널리 알려져 있으며, 황조롱이(Kestrel), 물수리(Osprey), 노랑지빠귀(Naumanns thrush) 등 22종의 조류가 서식한다. 이곳에 모여드는 희귀한 새들을 보호하기 위해 1982년 11월, 한국 정부는 독도를 천연기념물 제336호로 지정하였다. 그런가 하면 먼 곳을 여행하는 철새들에겐 지친 날개를 쉬게 하는 쉼터가 되고, 잠자리, 집게벌레, 메뚜기, 매미, 딱정벌레, 나비 등 7목 26과 37종의 곤충들에겐 이 작은 섬이 그들만의 천국이 된다.
독도에는 본래 강한 해풍과 부족한 토양 탓에 바위 틈에 자라는 약간의 식물만 있었다. 그러나 지금은 소나무와 동백나무, 해송, 사철나무, 개머루 등을 옮겨 심어 그 꽃을 볼 수 있게 되었다. 민들레, 괭이밥, 강아지풀, 바랭이, 쇠비름, 명아주, 질경이 등 육지에서 흔히 볼 수 있는 식물들도 살고 있으며, 동도의 분화구 주변과 남쪽암벽에는 도깨비쇠고비도 자생하고 있다.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Great Pictures of Liancourt Rocks on "The Boston Globe" Site

"The Boston Globe" has posted some great pictures of Liancourt Rocks and some Korean protests HERE.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

1894 - Carte De La Coree from "Le Petit Journal"

The following map appeared in the September 3, 1894 edition of the weekly French journal "Le Petit Journal. The map was entitled as "Carte De La Coree" and was found in a bound collection of fifty-four editions of the magazine. The map has been in the Korean news lately because some extreme Dokdo advocates are claiming HERE that it shows "Dokdo and the East Sea (Sea of Japan)" as Korean territory.

The following is a quote from another Korean article HERE:

이 가운데 김영준 KBS 자료감정위원이 기증한 조선 지도는 1894년 프랑스 잡지 <르 뻬띠(Le Petit)>에 실렸던 것으로, 울릉도와 독도가 '우산도'라는 명칭으로 조선의 영해 내에 표기돼 있다.

Among them, Kim Yeong-jun, a member of the Materials Appraisal Committe at KBS, donated a Joseon map that was printed in an 1894 edition of the French magazine "Le Petit" and showed Ulleungdo and Dokdo labeled as "Usando" and within Joseon territory.

As you might suspect, the above are more silly Dokdo claims. Here is the close-up of the map showing Ulleungdo and its neighboring island of Jukdo labeled as "I: Ouen-San," which was the French way of writing "Usan Island." Notice that the two islands were drawn right next to each other, which means they could not have been Ulleungdo and Dokdo since Dokdo is ninety-two kilometers away from Ulleungdo. The two island on the map were almost certainly Ulleungdo and its neighboring island of Jukdo, which is only two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore.

Besides the claims that Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo was Dokdo and that the map showed the Sea of Japan as Korean territory, another thing I found funny about one of the Korean articles linked to above was the following close-up of the map. Notice that the man puts his finger over the two islands in what appears to be an attempt to hide the fact that the islands were drawn right next to each other instead of ninety-two kilometers apart, which is the distance from Ulleungdo to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). Liancourt Rocks do not appear on the map.

The map does seem to show a boundary for Japan, but it does not show a boundary for Korea. Therefore, it is ridiculous to look at the map and say that the French recognized the Sea of Japan as Korean territory, especially when the sea was labeled as "Sea of Japan."

By the way, I read that someone paid 10 million won for the map on a Korean auction site in 2007.

US Think Tank Warns Seoul about Noisy Dokdo Protests

According to a February 26 Chosun Ilbo article entitled, "Plan Ahead, Campbell Think Tank Urges U.S., Korea," a US think tank has recently issued a report saying that Seoul's noisy protests over Dokdo could mar its international credibility. Here is how the newspaper summarized the part of the report that mentioned Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima):

The report urges Seoul and Washington to keep publicizing the importance of their bilateral relations at home. Historical issues are dogging Korean-Japanese relationship, it notes, and urges Japan to stop provoking Korea but adding that Korea's excessive response allows the issues to remain burning. It warns that Seoul's noisy protests over the Dokdo islets, an area it already controls, could mar its international credibility.

The report was entitled "The United States and the Asia-Pacific Region: Security Strategy for the Obama Administration" and was issued by the US think tank, "The Center for a New American Security," which was established by Kurt Campbell, who is the next likely U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

1950's Rand McNally Official War Map of Korea

This is the "Official War Map of Korea" which was published during the Korean War (June 1950 - July 1953).

The San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed in September 1951 and Rhee Syngman drew the Rhee Syngman Line including Liancourt Rocks in the Korean territory in January 1952 before the treaty would be effective in April that year.

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/1952-january-syngman-rhee-line.html

............
................................................

So the Takeshima/Dokdo issue began just in the same period as this map was made.

The main map of Korea didn't include either Ulleungdo or Liancourt Rocks, but you can see these islands in one of the seven additional maps, "Japan and Korea". [Click the left map to enlarge]

Ulleungdo was labelled as "ULLUNG (UTSURYO-TO)" and naturally painted in red, the same colour as Korea. Liancourt Rocks were labelled as "TAKE" and its colour is not clear - but at least it doesn't look in red when you used magnifying glass. And the name of the island was only labelled in Japanese name ("Take" of Takeshima), abbreviating "Shima" because "Shima"means island. This map seems to have adopted the same way to label Japanese islands, for example, Tanegashima was written as TANEGA, Yakushima was written as YAKU. So it is sure that the mapmaker believed that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Japan.

Takeshima/Dokdo was undoubtedly believed to be Japan's island before Rhee Syngman drew the line violating the international law.

[Broughton Bay was labelled as "Tongjoson Bay"]

An Yong-bok's "Usando" (于山島) probably "Ika-shima" (いか嶋)

On March 26, 1692, Japanese fishermen sailing from Japan's Oki Island arrived at Ulleungdo's Ika-shima (いか嶋), which according to the 1724 Japanese map above was most probably Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도). When the Japanese arrived, they were surprised to find that someone had already harvested most of abalone on the island. The next day the Japanese sailed to a place on Ulleungdo called Hamada-ura (浜田浦), which the above map shows was probably present-day Jeodong. There they found two boats. One boat was anchored and the other was floating offshore. They also saw about thirty Koreans.

Passing about 8 to 9 ken (間) in front of the boat offshore, the Japanese sailed to a place called Osaka-ura (大坂浦), where they found two Koreans left on shore. The Japanese took the two men on board and asked them what country they were from. One of the men, who was an interpreter, said they had come from a village in Joseon called "Kawaten" (かわてんかわく).

The Japanese told the Koreans that they came to the island each year with the permission of the Shogunate and asked the Koreans why they had come there. The Koreans replied that there was an island to the north to which they go to harvest abalone about once every three years. The Koreans said that eleven fishing boats set sail on February 21, but that five met with diaster and fifty-three people drifted to this island (Ulleungdo) on March 23. They said that when they arrived on the island they found abalone, so have been staying there. The Japanese then asked the Koreans why they had not already left. The Koreans said that their boats were damaged, so they needed time to repair them.

Here is the Japanese from which my above summary was based:

一、（元禄五、壬申年）二月十一日、爰元出船仕同晦日に隠岐国之福浦へ着舟仕

三月二廿四日に隠岐国より出舟仕　同廿六日之朝、五つ時に竹嶋之内いか嶋と申所へ着舟仕　様子見申候　得者鮑大分取上け申様に　相見へ不審に奉存

同廿七日之朝　浜田浦へ参申内に　唐船弐艘相見へ申候　内壱艘はすへ舟壱艘ハうき舟にて居申候　唐人三拾人斗見へ申候　其内弐人残し置　残り之者とも右之うき舟に乗り　此方之船より八九間程沖を通り　大阪浦と申所へ廻り申候　右之弐人残り申　内壱人は通しニテ　弐人共ニともども船に乗り　此方之舟へ参申候故乗せ申候　

而何国之者と相尋申候へ　ちやうせんかわてん国村之者と申候故　此嶋之儀公方様より拝領仕　毎年渡海いたし候　嶋にて候所に　何とて参候やと尋候へは

此嶋より北に当り嶋有之三年に一度宛国主之用にて　鮑取に参候国元は二月廿一日に類舟十一艘出舟いたし　難風に逢五艘に以上五拾三人乗し此嶋へ三月廿三日に漂着、

此嶋之様子見申候へは　鮑有之候間　致逗留　鮑取上けしと申候左候は丶此嶋を早々に罷立候様にと申候へ　共舟も少損じ候故　造作仕調次第に出舟可仕候間　私共船をすへ候様にと申に付　岡へ上り兼て拵置候　

諸道具改見申へは舟八艘　其外諸道具見へ不申候付　通辞へ此由尋候へは　浦々へ廻し遣し候と申候

先此方之舟すへ候へと申候へ共唐人は大勢此方は纔に　弐十一人にて御座候に付　無心元奉存、

竹嶋より三月廿七日之七つ時分より　出舟仕申候然共何にても印無之御座候では如何と奉存　唐人の拵置候　串鮑少々笠壱つ網頭巾壱つかうじ壱つ取致出舟

四月朔日に石州浜田浦へ着舟仕夫より当月四日に雲州雲津浦迄参翌五日之七つ時分に米子に入津仕候

村川市兵衛舟頭　平兵衛　　

同　　黒兵衛

「元禄六年酉四月朝鮮人召つれ参候時諸事控」（大谷家文書）

I find the above story quite interesting because it tells us the following:

The first place the Japanese stopped when they arrived at Ulleungdo was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which they referred to as Ika-shima (いか嶋). Stopping at Jukdo first suggests that they considered the island to be important.
.
Japanese maps show Ika-shima (いか嶋) or Iga-shima (イガ嶋) as Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo.
.
The Japanese said that most of the abalone on Ika-shima had been caught, which tells us that the Japanese would go to Ika-shima to harvest abalone.
.
The Korean interpreter also referred to an island to the north of Ulleungdo where Koreans would also go to harvest abalone. Since Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo is off the northeast shore of Ulleungdo, the island to which Koreans went to harvest abalone was most probably Jukdo since there are no other islands north of Ulleungdo, except for Gwaneumdo, which is only about 100 meters offshore.

It appears that the abalone of Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo was popular with both Koreans and Japanese. In fact, there is a passage in an 1881 Japanese report (竹島考證上) that referred to the above incident as follows:

此島ノ以北三里許ニ亦タ一島アリテ上好ノ鮑最多シ　因リテ朝鮮ヨリ三五年ニ一回漁人ヲ遣ハシテ鮑ヲ取ラシム　彼曽テ此竹島ヲ知ラサリシニ我元禄五年ノ春此島ニ漂流メ始テ竹島アルコトヲ知ルナリ

About three ri north of this island [Ulleungdo] was another island where there were a lot of excellent quality abalone. Therefore, every three or five years, fishermen from Joseon were sent there to harvest the abalone. That country did not know about Takeshima (Ulleungdo) before then. It is said that in the spring of 1692, people drifted to the island and learned about Takeshima for the first time.

The above passage gives us more information about the island to the north of Ulleungdo since we learn that it was three ri to the north. Since it was the Korean fishermen who must have given that information to the Japanese, it is possible that it could have been three Korean ri, which would be about 1.2 kilometers. Again, that would suggest that the island to the north was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo.

According to Japan's "竹島紀事," when questioned by the Lord of Tsushima in 1693, An Yong-bok said the following:

この度參候島より北東に当たり大きなる嶋これあり候. かの地逗留の內, ようやく二度, これを見申し候. 彼島を存じたるもの申し候は. 于山島と申し候通り申し開き候. 終に參りたる事はこれ無く候. 大方路法一日路これ有るべく候.

Northeast of the island to which I travelled [Ulleungdo], there is a large island. While I was there [on Ulleungdo], I saw the island only twice. According to someone who knew that island, it was called "Usando." That's just what I heard. I have never been there. It is about a day away.

Notice that An Yong-bok also mentioned that there was an island northeast of Ulleungdo that he heard was called "Usando" (于山島). He said he had never been to the island, but that he guessed it to be about a day away.

We know from the above testimony that An Yong-bok believed Usando to be a large island northeast of Ulleungdo that he had never been to, but that he could see from Ulleungdo. The only island visible northeast of Ulleungdo is Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is two kilometers off Ulleungdo's northeast shore.

Also, since An Yong-bok was taken by Japanese fisherman back to Oki Island, it is very likely they would have stopped at Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) on the way, where they could have rested and eaten a meal. If that were the case, then the fact that An Yong-bok said he had never been to "Usando" would mean that Usando was not Liancourt Rocks.

I think it is very possible that An Yong-bok was the interpreter that the Japanese fishermen talked to in 1692 and that An Yong-bok's "Usando" (于山島) was the abalone-rich island "about three ri to the north of Ulleungdo." In other words, I think An Yong-bok's Usando was the island that the Japanese referred to as "Ika-shima" and that Koreans today refer to as "Jukdo," which is two kilometers off Ulleungdo's northeast shore.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

1884 Applet‎on Map of Japan and Korea, USA

This map, "The Islands of Japan with Corea, Manchooria and the New Russian Acquisitions", was removed from the book "The Earth and it's Inhabitants: Asia (Chinese Empire, Korea and Japan)", authored by Elisse Reclus and published by D. Applet‎on and Company (New York) in 1884.

This map seems to have been very precisely drawn: there is no Argonaut island (phantom island), and there are Dagelet island (Ulleungdo) labelled as "Dagelet I." which was painted as the same colour as Korea (yellow) and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) as "Hornet Is." which was not coloured. Of course there are Oki islands ("Oki Is.") in red, the colour of Japan.

....

......

.....

So this is the oldest and the most precise map we have ever seen. Although this map was published in New York, USA, the information may have been originated from UK because I have heard that the cartographer was British as the same books were originally published in Europe.

(Broughton Bay was labelled as "Broughton B.")

Monday, February 23, 2009

Another Ridiculous Claim from Hosaka Yuji

Hosaka Yuji, the Japanese professor at Korea's Sejong University, has made another ridiculous claim about Dokdo. This time he says that the maps below "clearly prove" that Usando (于山島)was Dokdo because they show Usando drawn with a mountain peak. He says the island could not have been Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo because Jukdo is flat on top.

Hosaka Yuji is sounding more and more like a clown who is willing to say almost anything to get media attention. If the drawing of the peak meant anything, couldn't it have meant that the island shoots almost straight up 100 meters from the sea? Isn't the fact that Usando was drawn as one island, not two, much more convincing evidence that it was not Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) since Dokdo is essentially two rock islets and ninety-two kilometers away from Ulleungdo?

I doubt that even Korean professors would be silly enough to make the above claim. Link to the Korean Article

Sunday, February 22, 2009

2009 - Feb. 22 - Happy Takeshima Day!

Today was the 4th Takeshima Day and Shimane Prefecture held the ceremony in Matsue. Senator Ms. Yamatani Eriko（山谷えり子） , a member of the House of Councilors of Japan, was invited and had a lecture. According to Sanin-Chuo Shimpo (cache), she lectured "It is necessary to expand the budget of the Takeshima Issue, and to appeal to the world opinion". And Professor Shimojo of Takushoku University said "Takeshima Day should be turnabout slowly. Why don't you make the place that can pass a remark freely besides the ceremony each other?"

They also reported that there was no major disruption though there was a scene that became some struggle between policemen and a several South Korean groups, who were protesting outdoor.

According to their other article (cache), participants are 520 people, who are 20 people more than last year. Both Rep. Kamei Hisaoki (亀井久興) and Rep. Kamei Akiko (亀井亜紀子), members of the House of Representatives, attended among Diet members related to the prefecture, and the representation attended for other three Shimane representatives. The Foreign Minister and the Agriculture Minister to whom the prefecture had requested participation were absent this time.

You can watch FNN news on this event here.(Japanese)

Another interesting news from TBS.
Dokdo learning facility for Infant appears in South Korea (Japanese)(cache)

Thanks, GTOMR. I agree this is a brainwash of infant. Horrible.

Normally, it is silent on Takeshima Day on Japanese TV, but this year, even some central media reported it. I think it is a good trend. We need more Japanese aware of this issue and what Korean are doing to their kids while they intimidate Japanese not to teach anything about Takeshima in classroom because it "obstruct" a good relationship of two countries. I don't think such a double standard is tolerable in any sense.

1876 General Gazetteer, UK

This book is "General Gazetteer", a geographical dictionary, by R. Brookes, M.D. published in London, UK in 1876. (William Tegg & Co.)

To follow is from the description about "Corea":

...

COREA, a kingdom of Asia, bounded on the N. by Chinese Tartary, on the E. by the Sea of Japan, on the S. by a narrow sea, which separates it from the Japanese islands, and on the W. by the Yellow Sea, which separates it from China. The W. coast is flanked by innumerable islands. It is a peninsula, being surrounded on every side by the sea, except towards the N. It is governed by a king, tributary to the emperor of China, and is divided into eight provinces, Hien-king, Ping-ngang, Hoang-hai, Kiang-yuen, King-ki, Tehu-sin, King-chan, and Tehuen-so, which contains 33 cities of the first, 53 of the second, and 70 of the third rank. Pop. 8,000,000. The towns are populous, and the inhabitants follow nearly the same customs, and are of the same religion, with the Chinese.
The country abounds in corn and rice, of which last they have two kinds, one of which delights in water, and the other, which is the better sort, is cultivated on dry ground, like corn. There are mines of gold and silver in the mountains, and good pearl fisheries on the coast. The Coreans are well made, ingenious, brave, and tractable. They are fond of dancing and music, and show great aptness for acquiring the sciences, which they apply to with ardour. They are less fastidious and less ceremonious than the Chinese, but equally jealous of admitting strangers into the country. Men of learning are distinguished from other people by two plumes of feathers, which they wear in their caps. Their women are less confined than those in China, and have the liberty of appearing in company with the other sex. In China, parents often marry children without their consent, but in Corea they choose for themselves.
They never bury their dead till three years after their decease, but keep them in coffins for that time. Corea extends from N. to S. from the lat. of 34.30. to 42. 30. N., and from E. to W. from 125. to 129. of E. long. Kiang-ki-tao, nearly in the centre of the kingdom, is the capital.

It apparently excluded the islands in the Sea of Japan from Korean territory.

Even in the late 19th century, western people didn't think that the islands were Korean territory. (Liancourt Rocks is located at about 132 E. long.)

No geographical books from the world, Japan and even from Korea mention that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Korea.

Korea's claim to Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) only began in the 1950's when Rhee Syngman drew the Rhee Syngman Line - until then, Liancourt Rocks had never ever been owned by Korea.

1855 Pronouncing Gazetteer, USA

This is a massive Gazetteer (over 1700 pages) "Pronouncing Gazetteer of the World", a geographical dictionary, which was published in 1855 in Philadelphia, USA by Lippincott Company.

There is no description about Liancourt Rocks or Argonaut island although it referred to Dagelet island.

To follow is from the description of "Corea". It didn't mention Liancourt Rocks directly but many of the readers may think it's interesting.

.....

COREA, or KOREA, ko-ree’ a, (called by the natives Tsyosien, by the Chinese, to whom it is tributary, Kao-lee, and by the Japanese, Ko-rai, ko’ri’, whence its European name of Corea, or Korea,) is an extensive peninsular country in North-eastern Asia, whose limits are not accurately known, bounded E. by the Sea of Japan, S. by the Strait of Corea, and W. by the Whanghai, or Yellow Sea, and the Gulf of Leao-tong. The capital, Kingkitao, is situated on the Kiang River, in the centre of the kingdom, lat. 37°40’N., and lon. 127°20’E. Corea comprises a peninsula with a small portion of the continent to which it is attached; the continental portion extending in breadth from lon. 124°to 132°E., the peninsula from lon. 125°15’ to 131°30’ E., between lat. 33°20’ and 43°N., its average width being about 135 miles, while the total length of the country, from N. to S., is somewhat less than 600 miles. Corea also includes numerous groups of islands in the Yellow Sea and Strait of Corea, and the island of Quelpart, 50 miles S. of the peninsula. Area of continental portion, about 80,000 square miles.

The longitude 131°30' E. ,which was mentioned in the peninsula portion, would include Ulleungdo although it still excludes Liancourt Rocks.

Western people didn't think that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Korea in the 19th century at all, as many other books and maps indicated.

....

And to follow is about Dagelet island (Ulleungdo):

DAGELET
An island in the Sea of Japan, about midway
between Japan and Corea, 8 miles in circumference. Lat. (N.point) 37°25' N.,
lon. 130° 56' E.

UPDATE:

GTOMR found that "Matsushima-No-Gi (Arguments on Matsushima)" from the three-volume book "A Study of Historical Evidence of Takeshima (竹島考証)" (1881) mentioned this "Pronouncing Gazetteer of the World" in its Section No.12 "Argument on Matsushima II".

http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/2a343tan1649-1881/24.jpg

The description of ”section No 12 Argument on Matsushima II" ( 第拾貳號　松島之議ニ) is as follows:

又リツピンコツト著プロナヲンシンク、ガセツテル、ゼヲールルドニダゼラハ日本海ノ小島ニシテ日本朝鮮ノ殆ント中間ニアリ、周圍八里北點北緯三十七度二十五分、東經百三十度五十六分」トアリ、
Puronawonsinku (Pronouncing) Gasetsuteru (Gazetteer)
Ze Worurudo (of the World) written by Ritsupinkotto (Lippincott) mentions that Dazera (Dagelet) is a small island in the Sea of Japan, which is located at almost the midpoint between Japan and Korea and its circunference is 8-ri. North point 37 degree 25 min N lat, 130 degree 56 min E long.

.....

Monday, February 16, 2009

Korean Translation of Jang Han-sang's 1694 Inspection Record

There is now a Korean translation of the "Ulleungdo Sacheok" (蔚陵島事蹟), which is a record of Jang Han-sang's (張漢相) 1694 inspection of Ulleungdo. The Korean translation can be found HERE.

One of the more interesting passages from the record is the following:

登島山峰審望彼國之域則杳茫無眼杓之島其遠近未知幾許

The Koreans have translated the passage as follows:

섬의 산위에 올라 저 나라의 땅을 자세히 바라보면 묘망(杳茫)하여 눈에 띄이는 섬이 없어 거리가 얼마나 되는지 딱히 알 수가 없었다.

If you climb to the top of the island's peak and look carefully at their land, it is so far away that no island is visible. Therefore, the distance could not be known for sure.

An article published by the Korea Maritime Institute HERE claims that the above passage is evidence that Jang Han-sang considered the distant island he saw faintly to the southeast of Ulleungdo to be Korean territory, not Japanese, since the above passage said no islands could be seen when looking at Japanese land.

I have two problems with the Korean claim. First, it does not make sense logically. Inspector Jang had previously said he saw an island far off to the southeast of Ulleungdo that he judged to be less than one third the size of Ulleungdo and about 120 kilometers away. The unnamed island he saw had to be Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). Since Liancourt Rocks is only about one 390th the size of Ulleungdo, not one third, and since it is only ninety-two kilometers away, not 120 kilometers, we know that the Korean inspector did not go to the island and that it was unknown to him, which suggests it was not Korean. Therefore, it would not make sense for the inspector to say he saw a distant island and then later say he saw no islands.

The second problem I have with the Korean claim is the Korean translation of the above passage. The Korean is a mistranslation. Why would the Korean inspector use the characters 之島 if he did not see an island? Therefore, I think the phrase 杳茫無眼杓之島 was describing the island the inspector had seen to the southeast of Ulleungdo, which would mean that the above passage is evidence that the inspector considered the island southeast of Ulleungdo to be Japanese since he said he was looking at Japanese land.

I think 杳茫無眼杓之島 might be translated as "a distant, hazy, inconspicuous island." Therefore, I would like to suggest the following translation of the above passage:

登島山峰審望彼國之域則杳茫無眼杓之島其遠近未知幾許

If you climb the island's peak and look closely at that country's (Japan's) territory (登島山峰審望彼國之域則), there is a distant, hazy, inconspicuous island (杳茫無眼杓之島), of which the distance is unknown (其遠近未知幾許).

The Chinese breaks down as follows:

登島山峰 - climb the island’s peak
審望彼國之域 - carefully look at that country’s (Japan’s) territory
則 - If
杳茫 - distant and hazy
無眼杓 - unimposing, inconspicuous (literally: “not eye-catching”)
之島 - island
其遠近 - the distance
未知 - unknown
幾許 - How far

The above is one of only two times in Korean history, before Japan incorporated Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) in 1905, in which the Rocks were referred to, and in both instances it was in reference to Japanese territory. The second reference was in a 1714 document in which the following was written:

鬱陵之東島嶼相望接于倭境

"Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island that is on the border of Japan.”

鬱陵之東 - to the east of Ulleungdo
島嶼相望 - an island is visible
接于倭境 - that is on the border of Japan

Korea has no old maps of Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), and the only two references to the rocks in Korean history, before Japan incorporated them in 1905, suggest that they were part of Japanese territory.

UPDATE

I have had second thoughts about my translation. I now think the passage could also be translated as follows:

登島山峰審望彼國之域則杳茫無眼杓之島其遠近未知幾許

If you climb the island's peak[s] and look closely at that country's (Japan's) territory, it (Japan's territory) is distant and hazy and there is no imposing island, so the distance (to mainland Japan) cannot be known.

In the above passage, Inspector Jang did not say he did not see an island; he said he did not see an "imposing island" (large island). We know he saw an island because he had already written in his report that he saw one to the southeast of Ulleungdo, but, apparently, it was not an island he considered to be "imposing." In other words, the island he saw to the southeast of Ulleungdo was not large enough for him to considered it a threat.

The above passage does suggest that Inspector Jang thought that the island he saw to the southeast of Ulleungdo was Japanese territory or, at least, the beginning of it.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

1894 Japanese map of Korea "朝鮮輿地図"

This Japanese map of Korea “朝鮮輿地図” was published in 1894 (the 27^th year of Meiji) as a reduced copy of Kim Ok-gyun (金玉均)’s map of Korea.

P.S. Sorry, the same map was already introduced by Gerry here:

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1894-japanese-map-of-korea-chosen.html

The preface of the map:

此図ハ前年金玉均氏カ本国ヲ去ル時携帯シ来レル彼邦無二ノ明細分間大絵図ニシテ氏生前姑クモ座右ヲ離サザリシガ先般上海ニ航スルニ及テ何思ケン當地ノ或貴顕ノ方ニ遺シ置ケリシヲ時事ニ感ズル所アリ乞テ之ヲ縮写シ図中八道諸州府県郡兵営水営諸鎮名勝名邑山川岬角港湾島嶼ノ位置一見掌ヲ指スガ如シ彼レ曽テ国力ヲ以テ調査シタルモノ之ニ加フルニ便覧ノ為メ京城元山津釜山浦仁川漢江等附近ノ箇所五区ニ分チ特ニ切図トナシ尚京城ヨリ諸名区ニ至ル里程表ヲ加エ併セテ図ノ縁辺ニ付記セリ坊間往々朝鮮図アルモ未タ如此モノ有ラズ実ニ天下無比ノ明細図也弊堂聊カ報国ノ心ヲ以テ務メテ廉売ヲ●（上の字の下に日）トシ内国人士ニ頒タント欲ス乞フ各所ノ書店ニ就テ購買アランコトヲ

"This map originated from the one and only detailed map of Korea that Kim Ok-gyun had brought with him when he left his country a few years ago. He always had the map with him during his lifetime, however he left it to a certain gentleman when he set out for Shanghai. As I felt it important considering current events, I begged to make a reduced copy of the map. It contained a lot of information including eight districts, prefectures, barracks, naval bases, places of scenic beauty, beautiful villages, mountains and rivers, capes and horns, bays and islands, which can be understood at a glance. It was investigated and made by him with the dignity of his country. I added small maps of five famous places including Seoul, Wonsan, Pusan harbour, Inchon and Hangan and also added a table of distances from Seoul at the rim of the map. There had been many maps of Korea but none of them can be compared with this detailed map. We try to sell this map at a reasonable price with a patriotic spirit, hoping to distribute this map to high-spirited gentlemen within our country. We beg you to buy your copy at your nearest book shop."

Kim Ok-gyun was assassinated in Shanghai on March 28^th 1894 (some sources mentioned it was February 29^th). [The drawing at the left is from a Korean magazine at that time.] This map was printed on March 1^st and published on March 7^th 1894, so it seems that the map was published before Kim Ok-gyun’s assassination but the preface mentioned “during his lifetime” and referred to the “current events” which suggested as if he had already been killed when the publication was made.

Anyway, this map was published at such a critical time when Kim Ok-gyun was assassinated and Sino-Japanese war was to take a place. According to the preface, the map was a reduced copy of the original map of Korea made by Kim Ok-gyun. Then, please take a look at the islands in the Sea of Japan. [Please click the map to enlarge]

竹島 (Takeshima/Jukdo) is drawn at about the same longitude as Tsushima (129 degree E long.) and its shape is different from Ulleungdo. Although there are place names such as a river 猪田川 and a mountain 中峰, it is definitely Argonaut island – the phantom island of Ulleungdo. On the other hand, there is an island 松島 (Matsushima/Songdo) drawn at almost the same longitude as Kitakyushu (Kokura/Moji) which is located at around 130 degree 53 minutes E long. The shape and the location are definitely those of Ulleungdo. There are no Liancourt Rocks in the map.

It shows that Korea recognized that they had two islands in the Sea of Japan – Takeshima/Jukdo (Argonaut) and Matsushima/Songdo (Dagelet) but they didn’t recognize Liancourt Rocks to be their territory in the 1890’s. Please remember that the original map was made by Korean government with the dignity of the nation as the preface of the above map mentioned. This is a very important source to understand what happened in 1900 and 1905/1906.

(1) Did the islands in the Edict #41 (1900) include Jukdo (Takeshima/Argonaut)? Did it mean Ulleungdo (Songdo) and Jukdo (Argonaut)?

If the original map of Kim Ok-gyun was made with the dignity of the nation of Korea, it is crystal clear that Korea didn't recognise Liancourt Rocks to be their territory. So the islands in the Edict, "the whole Ulleungdo and 竹島石島 (Jukdo Sokdo)" can't include Liancourt Rocks.

(2) When the chief of Ulleungdo was informed of Japan’s recent incorporation of an island called Takeshima in 1906, didn’t he misunderstand as if one of the two islands, Argonaut (Takeshima/Jukdo) , was incorporated?

In addition, there is a copy of handwriting by Pak Yong-hyo (朴泳孝), who was a comrade of Kim Ok-gyun, at the left upper place of the map. It reads "紹隆三寶" which means "Succeed the three treasures and make them prosper". (Three treasures are nation, people and monarch.)

http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04-1/takeshima04-h.html

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

２月１４日（土）１３：００～　朴炳渉「竹島問題をどう考えるか」

以下の情報を見つけましたので、お知らせします。

朴氏は東大での玄大松氏によるなんちゃってシンポジウムと同じく、またもや出来レースのようなことをされるようですね。竹島の日を間近に控えて何かしたい、ということなのでしょうか。非常に残念ながら、私は多忙のため参加出来そうにありませんが、良識のある方でお時間のある方は是非とも参加され、正しい知識をお持ちでない発言を繰り返す朝日新聞の若宮さんにご注進されることを願っています。

２月１４日（土）１３：００～
文京区民センター　参加費７００円
竹島問題をどう考えるか
報告者　朴炳渉（竹島＝独島問題研究ネット代表）
　　　　　　若宮啓文（朝日新聞論説主幹）

1894 French map of Korea and Japan

France had a lot of information about Korea in the 19th century because there were many French missionaries sent to this hermit country, although many of them were massacred later. Anyway, they had more information about Korea than other western countries had. So we have kept a big interest in French maps of Korea, although they are very scarce.
...................

Here is a French map of Korea and Japan at last - "Chine Orientale, Coree, Japon" from E. Schraider's "Atlas de geographie moderne" which was published in 1894 in Paris, France by Librairie Hachette et Cie.

Please look at the islands in the "Mer du Japon" - Ulleungdo was labelled as "Is. Dagelet (Matsou Sima) (Jap)" whilst Liancourt Rocks were labelled as "Is. Liancourt ou Hornet (Jap)".

.........

........

.......

Now you may notice that there is a word (Jap) just below of each island name. France recognised that Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks belonged to Japan, as many other western countries did. At least, French people didn't think that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Korea - this is very important because French people knew more about Korea than other western countries. This is another evidence to show that the world didn't recognise that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Korea.

(Broughton bay was labelled as "G.de Broughton")

...........

[Click the left map to enlarge]

........

Additionally, I would like to show you another "French map" here. This is from a French magazine "Le Tour de Monde", which was published in the 1860's in France. In this map of China and Korea, Korea didn't have either Ulleungdo or Liancourt Rocks.

(Broughton bay was labelled as "Golfe de Coree")

[Click the map to enlarge]

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

1893 Andree's Allgemeiner Handatlas

The following two maps are from "Andree's Allgemeiner Handatlas" (1893) which was published in Leipzig, Germany by Velhagen & Klasing.

The first one is a map of China, Korea and Japan "Ubersichtskarte von China und Japan". In this map, Korean territory was indicated in yellow whilst Japan's territory was shown in orange. Please take a look at Ulleungdo, which was labelled as "Matsu Schima" - it looks as coloured in yellow. Yes, it accurately shows that Ulleungdo belonged to Korea. Then, please take a close look at Liancourt Rocks, which is labelled as "Liancourt R." - it was coloured in orange! Yes, it shows that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Japan. At least, the rocks were not recognised as Korean territory in the 1890's - it is quite natural because Korean eastern limit had been believed to be Ulleungdo.

(Broughton bay was labelled as "Broughton Bai")

The next one is a map of China and Korea, "Ostchina und Korea". Korean territory is shown in yellow and Japan's teritory is coloured in red. Liancourt Rocks were not drawn in this map. Ulleungdo, which was labelled as "Matsu Schima", looks as coloured in red - Japan's territory, although this is inconsistent with the map above. But anyway, it is certain that western people believed that Liancourt Rocks were out of Korean territory.

(Broughton Bay was labelled as "Broughton B.")

This German atlas is one of the circumstantial evidences to show that Liancourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea at all at least in 1890's, before the Korean Edict #41 in 1900 and the incorporation of the rocks into Japan's Shimane prefecture in 1905.

Friday, February 06, 2009

1903 Encyclopaedia Britannica Map

This is a map issued in Edinburgh 1903 by Adam & Charles Black for Encyclopaedia Britannica (10th Edition), one of the most famous encyclopaedias in the world.
(The original design of this map seems to be one of the Century maps [USA].)

Please take a look at the islands in the Sea of Japan - Taka Shima, Matsu Shima, Hornet Is. (Liancourt Rocks) and Oki Is.

....

Although Taka Shima (Argonaut island) is a phantom island, remaining islands are mapped at the right locations. Most importantly, all these islands were painted in the same colour as Japan.

This is another evidence that western people believed that Liancourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea in the early 1900's when Korean Edict #41 was already promulgated and Japan was yet to incorporate the rocks into Shimane prefecture.

Broughton bay is labeled as Broughton Bay.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

RAS Will Sponsor a Lecture on Dokdo on Feb. 24

The Royal Asiatic Society (RAS) has invited Dr. Kim Yong-deok to speak on the history of Dokdo and the legal aspects of the dispute at Somerset Palace in Seoul on February 24. The description of the lecture follows:

RAS Lecture Meeting
February 24, 2009
Tuesday, 7:30 p.m.
2nd floor, Residents lounge
Somerset Palace, Seoul
Dr. Kim, Yongdeok

History and Justice - Approaches to the Dokdo Island Issue

The dispute between Korea and Japan concerning Dokdo Island is especially difficult for outsiders to understand. The highly emotional, nationalistic rhetoric often used by both sides provides no objective basis for an informed opinion. Many have gained the impression that there exists no such objective, factual basis and that they should take sides in the dispute simply on the basis of their own instinctive liking for one or the other country.

Among scholars of history and law in Japan and Korea, there has long been controversy surrounding their differing ways of seeing the history of Dokdo and of applying the system of international law to it. Yet all agree that accurate history must of course be based on historical facts, which are established by reference to concrete evidence as to what really happened in the past. Accurate historical research leads to correct history, which in turn supports right legal judgment and the establishment of justice.

Our speaker tonight, Professor Kim Yongdeok, is one of the most respected Korean scholars of Japanese history, and of the history of relations between Japan and Korea. He has long advocated a reasoned dialogue in place of impassioned rhetoric in order to resolve the Dokdo issue. His opinion is that although there is plentiful evidence in support of the Korean claims to sovereignty over Dokdo among Korean sources, the most persuasive way to convince any third party and the international community at large will be to invoke foreign sources, including Japanese documents, about Dokdo (Takeshima in Japanese) to support the claims made by Korea. Tonight he will explain the Korean position in the current dispute, not by making use of Korean sources, or mere rhetoric, but by refering to Japanese and other foreign sources and employing a logic based entirely on historical evidence and the rules of international law.

Kim Yongdeok has been the President of the Northeast Asian History Foundation, Seoul, since 2006. He received his B.A and M.A in history from Seoul National University before going to Harvard, where he received a Ph.D. in history in 1979. From 1980 until his retirement in 2008 he was a Professor in the Department of History at Seoul National University. During that time he served as President of the (Korean) Association of Japanese History Research (1996-1998), as President of the Korean Historical Association (1999-2000), as Dean of the Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University (2003-2006), as Director of the Institute for Japanese Studies, Seoul National University (2004-2006). He has published a number of books and articles on Japanese history and on the relations between Japan and Korea. LINK

Despite the statement in the lecture announcement that history should be studied objectively and based on historical facts and "concrete evidence," it seems obvious from the announcement that Dr. Kim will not be there to explain the history of Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) objectively, but will be there to promote Korea's invented claims.

The announcement also says that Dr. Kim will be focusing on Japanese sources instead of Korean. In other words, he seems to be planning to avoid the embarrassing task of trying to explain that why there are no old Korean maps showing Dokdo and why there is no evidence, Korean, Japanese, or otherwise, that Koreans ever traveled to Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) before Japanese fishermen started taking them there in the early 1900s. Instead, he will likely try to claim that Japan recognized Korea's claim on Dokdo by using smoke-and-mirror evidence that is far from "concrete." Many of the people who read this blog already know some of the shady methods that Korean historians use to try to distort the history of Dokdo.

Anyway, the lecture could be interesting, not because of what Dr. Kim will likely say, but because there may be some in the audience who will question some of his claims, if given the chance.

If anyone is thinking about visiting Korea and is interested in the Dokdo dispute, February 24 may be a good time to visit.

Thanks, Matt, for the heads up.

Sunday, February 01, 2009

1946 - Feb. 13 - "Conference with GHQ/SCAP concerning separation of the administration"

GHQ/SCAP confirmed that SCAPIN677 was only for administrative convenience, not territorial direction.

On Feb. 13, 1946, 15 days after SCAPIN677 was issued, GHQ/SCAP officers verbally explained Japanese government official that the directive( SCAPIN677) was only for administrative convenience on the part of allied powers and it did not relate to the territorial issue since the territorial issue had to be decided by the peace treaty（San Francisco Peace Treaty, April 28,1952 ） in the future. This newly confirmed Japanese MOFA's official document re-confirmed Japanese government's claim that SCAPIN677 has nothing to do with territorial issue, and rejected Korea's distorted interpretation again.

Miscellaneous matters of old Japanese oversea land situation
2. The 1st conference concerning separation of the administration (Section 1, Division 1 of Postwar Processing)

(1946)13th Feb., a liaison officer Khoda had a first conference with GS "Lodge(?)" and "Pool(?)" concerning for the titled subject. Summary is as follows.

Khoda "Today, I visited to make some question about our doubt concerning the directive, not mentioning about the issue of territory nor the validity of this directive. "
American "This directive(* SCAPIN677) was issued merely for administrative convenience on the part of allied powers. It only re-confirmed the administration which had already been done so far. Namely, it means the others (*which were excluded from Japan in SCAPIN677) were not SCAP's jurisdiction. For example, Ohshima(*大島) is CIN(*C)PAC's jurisdiction and Ulleungdo is under the command of the 24th army corps. Therefore, the decision of the range of Japan by this directive has anything to do with the territorial issue, since territorial issue is something which has to be decided by the peace treaty（*San Francisco Peace Treaty, April 28,1952 ） at some future time. "

* notes added by me

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
旧日本外地情況雑件
2. 行政の分離に関する第一回会談録（終戦第一部第一課）

（昭和二十一年）二月十三日黄田連絡官GS「ロッヂ」大尉及び「プール」中尉と標記の件に関し第一回会談を行ひたり要旨左の如し
黄「本日は領土の歸屬問題乃至は本指令の妥当性等に付いては触れさることとし単に疑義に付質問を為さんか為参上せり」米「本指令は単なる連合国側の行政的便宜より出てたるに過きす従来行はれ来りたることを本指令に依り確認せるものなり即ち其の他はSCAPの所管するところにあらす例えは大島はCINPACの所管。鬱陵島は第二十四軍団の指揮下に在り従って本指令に依る日本の範囲の決定は何等領土問題とは関連を有せす之は他日講和会議にて決定さるへき問題なり」

Though the South Korean government claims that SCAPINs No.677, which is the instruction concerning the separation of the administration, issued by GHQ/ SCAP, has defined Takeshima/Dokdo outside of Japanese territory, this official document re-confirmed the claim is totally groundless. The fact is, the directive is only for administrative convenience on the part of allied powers, and it did not relate to the territorial issue since the territorial issue had to be decided by the peace treaty in the future, just like Japanese government claims. It is absurd for Korean to claim territorial sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo based on SCAPIN677, since the administrator who issued the directive itself clearly answered Japanese official that the directive(ＳＣＡＰＩＮ677) does not define Japan's territory.

To begin with, article No. 1 of SCAPIN677 itself clearly says "The Imperial Japanese Government is directed to cease exercising, or attempting to exercise, governmental or administrative authority over any area outside of Japan, or over any government officials and employees or any over persons within such areas. ", and Takeshima was simply listed as one of the "such areas" which Japanese government was not able to administrate under the occupation, not the areas outside of "Japanese territory as well as Ogasawara and Izu islets, etc. all of them were returned to Japan later, except for Ulleugndo and Jeju, which had been Korean territory before Japan's annexation, and Kurils, Habomai and Shikotan, which are still under the negotiation between Russia. Moreover, the article No.6 of the directive clearly wrote "6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration. " As the articles of SCAPIN677 clearly defines, it never direct the "territorial issue." The Korean claim is nothing but a irrational argument in the first place.

In addition, SCAPIN1033, which also Korean sovereignty claim bases on, clearly states "5. The present authorization is not an expression‎ of allied policy relative to ultimate determination of national jurisdiction, international boundaries or fishing rights in the area concerned or in any other area”. It is clear that Korean interpretation of the document is only far-fetched argument as well.

On top of that, "The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年). ", which Korean media reported as the evidence of Japanese government's recognizing Takeshima as outside of the territory this January, only followed SCAPIN677 that limits the administrative power of Japan, unrelated to any territorial issue.

As it was showed, pro-Korean always take up only convenient parts of the documents, disregarding inconvenient parts. I hope they stop this kind of nonsense and develop the true discussion with the academic value based on a historical fact immediately. The first thing they need to do is to present clear evidence that Korea's Lee Dynasty or Great Korean government had recognized Takeshima as their territory before 1905. Secondly, Korean government is required to open all internal documents of the Great Korean Empire around 1905-1906 so that we can understand why Korean government didn't protest nor even made inquiry about Takeshima incorporation while they did for the similar case of 竹邊浦 near Ulleungdo. Korean Imperial government officially acquiesced Japan's sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo by not protesting about the island against Japan in 1906.

This document was found by "kingfish", reported by opp, and chaamiey helped us to decipher some of the obscure kanji. Lots of thanks to them.

Reference :
1906- Feb 20 & April 17 - "Official Documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vol.1" - Korean government protested about land transaction in 竹邊浦
Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Directives to the Japanese Government (SCAPINs) (Record Group 331) - 対日指令集 -
1946 - SCAPIN 677 - #1
1946 - SCAPIN 1033 - #2

Saturday, January 24, 2009

The 17th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”

Below is a translation of The 17th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

"The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).”

Chosun Ilbo of South Korea made a front page report "Discovery of the Japanese Ordinance Excludes Dokdo from Territory" on January 3 at the beginning of the New Year. Theｙ are "the Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet office, No.24"and "Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4" in 1951, and the name of Takeshima is seen along with Ogasawara Islands and the Iwo-to islands, etc. as islands excluded from Japan.
However, these two laws do not offer any evidences that Japanese Government excluded Takeshima from a "Japanese territory". As Yomiuri Shimbun January 7 may tell, "The laws in concern only for the range where the administrative power of Japanese Government under the occupation during that time reaches to be shown, and is not showing of the range of Japanese territory" (Northeast Asia Division) as an opinion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese government under the occupation of the Allied Powers army at that time in 1951 only followed the clause 3 of SCAPIN677 of General Headquarters/ Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, which included Takeshima in "Region excluded from the range in Japan" on the administration. It was unrelated to the range in the territory as the instruction was described clearly in clause 6, "Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration."

Chosun Ilbo stretch the meaning of parts in The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4, and it reported that "Japanese Ordinance Excludes Dokdo from Territory". Korea's emeritus professor 金燦奎 of 慶熙 University even made a statement which has illogical leap. He claimed "Japan recovered sovereignty by the San Francisco Peace Treaty which came into effect on April 28, 1952. The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet office, No.24 was finally revised on July 8, 1961 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 was on June 26 , 1968. Those two laws were revised finally way after the Japanese recovery of the sovereignty. Unlike SCAPIN 677 above, Japanese government independently decided those revision without the influence of military administration. The excavation of these laws exactly make our standpoint advantageous in the Dokdo issue." ("Segye Times" Internet dated January 6 version)

However, Mr. Kim's logic turned out to be the theory which urges Korean interpretation of SCAPIN677 actually to be corrected. Korean claim SCAPIN677 Takeshima from Japanese territory. As Prof. Kim pointed out, laws in concern originally defined the islands excluded to be (1) the Kurile (Chishima) Islands, the Habomai Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Aki-yuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan island. (2)Ogasawara(Bonin) and Iwo Island Groups (3)Utsuryo (Ullung) island, Take island and Quelpart (Cheju) Island, but the ordinance of Ministry of Finance no.4 which was revised on June 26, 1968 dropped "Ogasawara and Iwo Island Groups".

It is because the day June 26, 1968 when the ordinance of Ministry of Finance no.4 was revised, is the exact day when Ogasawara Islands and the Iwo islands where the United States had been exercising the administrative right were restored to Japan. This is the concrete evidence that those islands which were excluded from Japanese sphere "on administrative purpose"by SCAPIN677 were not actually "excluded" from the territory of Japan. In fact, the area which were also defined as "excluded from Japanese sphere ", such as the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands south of 30° North Latitude (including Kuchinoshima island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano (Nazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all other outlying Pacific Islands [including the Daito (Ohigashi or Oagari) Island Group, and Valece Vela (Okino-tori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Sangos (Nakano-tori) Islands], were returned to Japanese administration later with some exception. Then, naturally, the remaining territorial issue becomes Northern Territories issue, which currently in dispute between Russia, the Kurile Islands, and Takeshima.

This time, Korea's raising issue of Takeshima in two old Japanese laws actually gave us an good opportunity to confirm‎ the fact that Takeshima in clause 3 of SCAPIN677 didn't exclude Takeshima from Japanese territory at all. Here, one of the grounds that South Korea insists on sovereignty of Takeshima disappeared once again.

“実事求是　〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜第17回　昭和26年の「総理府令24号」と「大蔵省令4号」について　下條正男”

Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.

No.16 ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."
No.15 " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory" ”
No.14 " A Reckless Courage of the professor Kimishima Kazuhiko(君島和彦) of Tokyo Gakugei University（東京学芸大学）. ”
No.13 "Sins of Asahi Shimbun and Mr. Wakamiya Yoshibumi(若宮啓文)”
No.12 " Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”
No.11 “South Korea's Misunderstanding of 'A Map of Three
Adjoining Countries (Sangoku Setsujozu 三国接壌図)' by Hayashi Shihei(林子平)”
No.10 " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory”

No.9 "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”
No.8 "The Historical Facts"

No.6 "Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)."

No.5 "South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan'"

No.4 "Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."

References :

"Old Japanese Document Shows Dokdo Is Korean Territory"
Japan Denies Excluding Dokdo in Newly Found Papers (Choson Ilbo)

1946 - SCAPIN 677 (History of SF Peace Treaty #1)

1953 - Jul 22 - US Doc. Reconfirm‎s Dean Rusk Letter　(Memorandum by Mr. Robert A. Fearey of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs）
1954 - Report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

2008 - Dec. 10 - South Korea' Expansionism/Territorial Ambition never dies.

In July, 50 South Korean lawmakers handed a resolution to their legislature demanding that the government claim Tsushima as its territory. But this time, according to Japanese newspaper Sankei Shimbun, they actually submitted the territorial resolution to the Diet subcommittee last December.

Korea's claim for Takeshima/Dokdo has no historical nor legal basis, as we have studied for the last few years. And as for Tushima, they neither have any historical basis to claim. As we know, Korean president Rhee Syngman originally claimed Tushima, before he started his absurd claim on Takeshima as well as non-existent "Parangdo" in 1949, but it was rejected by Allied Forces and Korean government officially agreed not to claim Tsushima.

However, it seems that they have no ability to understand history nor international law. This time, 50 members of Korean Diet submitted the resolution to claim Tsushma as their territory without any legal basis once again.

On January 18th 1952, the President of ROK Syngman Rhee (李承晩) suddenly issued a Declaration concerning maritime sovereignty, with which he installed the so-called “Syngman Rhee Line” including Liancourt Rocks in the Korean territory, it was three months before April when the Peace Treaty, which admitted Takeshima as Japanese territory, would be effective. The fishing boats, which were mostly Japanese, that violated the Syngman Rhee Line were seized by South Korea. Japanese records claim that until an agreement was reached in 1965, 3929 of Japanese people were arrested, 328 of Japanese ships were seized, and casualty was 44 of Japanese.

Korean have been illegally occupied Takeshima/Dokdo and refusing to go to ICJ to settle the dispute peacefully for more than 55 years. This time, Korea's expansionism went too far and I almost feel sad for their crazy action. Having said that, it is favourable for Japan since it simply proves the nature of Korea's greedy ambition for grabbing the land from Japan as much as possible and the lacks of ability of reading historical record and international law properly, which can be seen in Takeshima/Dokdo dispute as well. Now, it is apparent that Korean territorial claim on Takeshima/Dokdo is baseless and came out of greed just like in the case of Tsushima.

South Korea's territory resolution for Tsushima referred to the Diet subcommittee. (cache) Sankei Shimbun, Jan. 15, 2009

On 14th this month, it revealed that the diplomatic trade union committee of the South Korean Diet had referred "the resolution of demand the confirmation and restoration of Tsushima as a Republic of Korea's territory" in order to make Tsushima a South Korea territory. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarified it in "Assembly member league for the action to defend Japanese territory" general meeting. This resolution was submitted by 50 assembly members of ruling and opposition parties in the South Korea Diet last July, and referred to this committee in August the next day. According to the ministry, the resolution was referred to the subcommittee on Dec. 10 last year and the subcommittee discussion will not have started yet, though the Minister of Diplomatic Trade of South Korea has declared that "The claim of sovereignty on Tsushima is inapposite" .

References ;
1951 - July 19th - The 2nd Conversation between Yu Chan Yang and John F. Dulles

1952- January: Syngman Rhee Line

Korea’s three 21st century invasions of Japan (Ampontan)

Thursday, January 08, 2009

"Old Japanese Document Shows Dokdo Is Korean Territory"

A January 3 Korea Times article entitled, "Old Japanese Documents Shows Dokdo is Korean Territory," says the state-owned Korea Maritime Institute has discovered a Japanese document entitled "Prime Ministerial Ordinance No. 24," dated June 6, 1951, which "effectively excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory."

I do not know anything about the above Japanese document, but when "effectively" appears in a Korean Dokdo claim, that usually means the claim is exaggerated or untrue. The Korean article does not quote the Japanese document, which is another clue that the claim is exaggerated.

Besides, does it make sense that Japan would exclude Takeshima (Dokdo) from Japanese territory while insisting that the Peace Treaty recognize Japan's claim to Takeshima?

UPDATE

According to a January 8 article in Korea's Chosun Ilbo entitled "Japan Denies Excluding Dokdo in Newly Found Papers," Tokyo claimed that a piece of "1951 legislation only excluded Dokdo from areas under Japanese administration" at the time.

Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Akamatsu Takeshi said the following:

The two 1951 documents were revision of the relevant legislation of 1949 according to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction Notes (SCAPIN) No. 677 of the allied forces. The sphere of administrative authority and territorial space do not always match.

SCAPIN No. 677 excluded Takeshima (Dokdo) from Japan's governmental and administrative control in January 1946, but the instruction from the Supreme Commander was not meant to be a permanment exclusion, as the instruction, itself, said:

6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Postdam Declaration.

SCAPIN No. 677 only separated Takeshima (Dokdo) from Japanese "government and administrative control" until the status of Takeshima could be determined. Later, it was determined that Takeshima was, indeed, Japanese territory, as US Secretary of State Dean Rusk made clear in this 1951 letter to the Korean ambassador:

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

Accordingly, Takeshima was not included in the territory that Japan was to give up claim to in the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco. Therefore, between 1946 and March 1952, which was when the treaty when into effect, Japan did not have "governmental and administrative" control over Takeshima, which means it would have naturally been excluded from any Japanese legislation made during that period.

However, according to the Chosun Ilbo article, Korean experts claim the Japanese are "splitting hairs":

Korean experts have dismissed the distinction as splitting hairs. Shin Yong-ha, professor at the Ewha Academy for Advanced Studies of Ewha Womans University, said, "The reason why General Headquarters separated the Dokdo Islets from Japanese territory and specified it in SCAPIN No. 677 is because it judged after several months of investigation that the islets were part of Ulleung Island." SCAPIN No.677 used the term "the definition of Japan," not "the definition of Japanese administration," because it referred to the territory, Shin said. The two 1951 documents show that the Japanese government followed SCAPIN No. 677.

SCAPIN No. 677 did not say that the Dokdo "islets were part of Ulleung Island." In fact, it did not even mention the name "Dokdo." Moreover, the definition of Japan was given only for the purpose of the directive, as the directive, itself, said: "For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include...." You can read the full directive below:

GENERAL HEADQUARTERS
SUPREME COMMANDER FOR THE ALLIED POWERS

29 January 1946

AG 091(29 Jan. 46) GS
(SCAPIN - 677)

MEMORANDUM FOR : IMPERIAL JAPANESE GOVERNMENT

THROUGH : Central Liaison office, Tokyo

SUBJECT : Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan.

Page 1

1. The Imperial Japanese Government is directed to cease exercising, or attempting to exercise, governmental or administrative authority over any area outside of Japan, or over any government officials and employees or any other persons within such areas.

2. Except as authorized by this Headquarters, the Imperial Japanese Government will not communicate with government officials and employees or with any other persons outside of Japan for any purpose other than the routine operation of authorized shipping, communications and weather services.

3. For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shinkoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands north of 30°North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island), and excluding (a) Utsuryo (Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks (Take Island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju Island, (b) the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands south of 30°North Latitude (including Kuchinoshima Island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano(Kazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all the outlying Pacific Islands (including the Daito (Ohigashi or Oagari) Island Group, and Parece Vela (Okinotori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Ganges Habomai (Hapomaze Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Akiyuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan Island.

Page 2

4. Further areas specifically excluded from the governmental and administrative jurisdiction of the Imperial Japanese Government are the following : (a) all Pacific Islands seized or occupied under mandate or otherwise by Japan since the beginning of the World War in 1914, (b) Manchura, Formosa and the Pescadores, (c) Korea, and (d) Karafuto.

5. The definition of Japan contained in this directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from this Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein.

6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Postdam Declaration.

7. The Imperial Japanese Government will prepare and submit to this Headquarters a report of all governmental agencies in Japan the functions of which pertain to areas outside a statement as defined in this directive. Such report will include a statement of the functions, organization and personnel of each of the agencies concerned.

8. All records of the agencies referred to in paragraph 7above will be preserved and kept available for inspection by this Headquarters.

FOR THE SUPREME COMMANDER :

(sgd.) H. W. ALLEN
Colonel, AGD
Asst. Adjutant General

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

1903 Japanese Textbook of Geography

This textbook is titled as "改定　外国新地理　附図" (Revised: New Geography of Foreign Countries - Supplement Maps) and was published by Sanseido (三省堂) which is one of the largest publishing companies in Japan. It was published in April, the 36th year of Meiji (1903) as you can see in the last page of the textbook (please see the second photo).

This book of maps seems to have been used as a texbook of high school because there was a handwriting of a name of a Japanese boy Kitahara who scribbled "Third year class B of Obama Middle School" (小浜中等学校) in a blank page. Middle Schools (旧制中等学校） in those days are equivalent to High Schools today. ..................

The year 1903 seems to be a very critical year because Korean Empire had just promulgated the Edict #41 three years ago and was two years before the incorporation of Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks).

Then, please look at the map of Korea in the book. It shows 欝陵島（松島） "Ulleungdo (Matsushima)" in the Sea of Japan but Liancourt Rocks were not included in the map. It is clear that Japan thought (and the world thought too) that Korea's easten limit was Ulleungdo, because many maps and books of geography clearly mentioned so.

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/korean-eastern-limits-described-in.html

So it is natural that Kimotsuki, a director of Hydrography Department of Navy, advised Nakai Yozaburo in 1904 that Liancourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea.

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/12/1853-1922-kimotsuki-kaneyuki.html

A Pro-Korean blog made by Steve Barber mentioned "........ the grounds for incorporation were clearly made known. Kimotsuki' s claim that Takeshima/Tokdo was owned by no one at all in 1904 was totally different from the past position taken by the Navy's Hydrographic Department, as stated already."
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-nakai.html

He wants to mislead and impress people that Japanese Navy had a malicious mind to invade Korea already in early 1900's and that Japanese Navy pretended Liancourt Rocks were ownerless islands although they were Korean islands, but his comments above are untrue.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

2009 Version of my Dokdo Song

Good news. The 2009 version of my Dokdo song, “Is this the way to Dokdo Island,” is out. You can listen to it for free at the following link:

“Is this the way to Dokdo Island?”

I have changed a few lyrics and tried to pick up the tempo a little. It may still need some work, but I think it is a lot better than the 2008 version. It may take 40 to 60 seconds to load, but it should load. Enjoy.

NOTE:

I do not mean for the song to offend anyone, except for the Dokdo fanatics who have cut off fingers; stabbed themselves; killed live pheasants; displayed chopped up, boiled dogs; and burned, destroyed and eaten Japanese flags.

Monday, January 05, 2009

1946(昭和21)年2月13日 - 外務省外交文書「旧日本外地情況雑件　 2．行政の分離に関する司令部側との会談」

1946年2月13日、外務省黄田連絡官が連合国総司令部と会談を持ち、行政の分離に関する質問をした際の外交記録の存在が確認されました。これにより、連合軍総司令部民生部の担当官が日本外務省の連絡官に対して”行政の分離に関する指令（SCAPIN677）は、単なる連合軍側の行政的便宜のために設定されているに過ぎず、領土問題とは関連がなく、領土問題は後日締結される平和条約（サンフランシスコ平和条約( 1951年9月8日署名、 1952年4月28日発効) ）で決定されるべき問題であること”と明確に回答していたことが、明らかになりました。

旧日本外地情況雑件
2. 行政の分離に関する第一回会談録（終戦第一部第一課）

（昭和二十一年）二月十三日黄田連絡官GS「ロッヂ」大尉及び「プール」中尉と標記の件に関し第一回会談を行ひたり要旨左の如し
黄「本日は領土の歸屬問題乃至は本指令の妥当性等に付いては触れさることとし単に疑義に付質問を為さんか為参上せり」
米「本指令は単なる連合国側の行政的便宜より出てたるに過きす従来行はれ来りたることを本指令に依り確認せるものなり即ち其の他はSCAPの所管するところにあらす例えは大島はCINPACの所管。鬱陵島は第二十四軍団の指揮下に在り従って本指令に依る日本の範囲の決定は何等領土問題とは関連を有せす之は他日講和会議にて決定さるへき問題なり」　
（注：CINPAC(Commander in Chief, Pacific : 太平洋軍最高司令官) ←CINCPAC (Commander‐in‐Chief, Pacific Command : 太平洋軍司令官) の誤記か？）

この前の文書である「1．日本政府から外地の行政管理権分離に関する指令AG091(29　JAN．1946)GS及日本政府の報告書」の最後の部分にSCAPIN677の邦訳とその修正である677/1（1951年12月5日付）の原文が添付されており、民生局(GS)のいう"本指令"がSCAPIN677を指していることは疑いがありません。

韓国政府は、総司令部/連合軍総司令部（General Headquarters/ Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers）から日本政府宛てに出された訓令であるSCAPINs（Supreme Command for Allied Powers Instruction Note)のうち、行政の分離に関する指令である連合国総司令部訓令第677号をもって「連合軍総司令部が竹島を日本の領土外に指定した」と主張しますが、この外交文書により改めて、本指令が単なる連合国側の便宜的措置であって領土に関する指令ではなく、領土問題は1952年に発効されたサンフランシスコ講和条約によって決定されるものであった、という事実が再確認されました。これは、訓令を発した当事者の連合軍総司令部の担当官が「ＳＣＡＰＩＮｓが日本国の領土を規定するものではない」ということを、日本の外務省に明らかにしていることから、もはやSCAPIN677を根拠に領土権の主張を繰り広げることは、大変愚かなことであると言わざるを得ません。

そもそも、SCAPIN677は、列挙された地域に対して日本政府が”政治上又は行政上の権力を行使すること、及、行使しようと企てることは総て停止するよう”に指令したものであり、竹島は”この指令の目的から言う日本の範囲から除かれる地域として”あげれらたもので、領土外とされたものでないことは文脈からも明らかです。また、第六項に”この指令中の条項は何れも、ポツダム宣言の第8条にある小島嶼の最終的決定に関する連合国側の政策を示すものと解釈してはならない。”と明示されており、この指令を領土に関する指令と主張することはそもそも暴論なのです。

さらに、韓国政府がＳＣＡＰＩＮ677とともに其の領土権の主張の根拠としてあげる、竹島周囲12海里以内の地域を日本の操業区域から除外したSCAPIN1033についても、第五項において”この認可は、関係地域またはその他どの地域に関しても、日本の管轄権、国際境界線または漁業権についての最終決定に関する連合国側の政策の表明ではない”としていることから、この指令を韓国が領土主張の根拠とすることも、牽強付会の空論に過ぎないことが明確です。

また、先日「朝鮮総督府交通局共済組合の本邦内にある財産の整理に関する政令の施行に関する総理府令（昭和二十六年六月六日総理府令第二十四号）」等について、これが日本政府が竹島を領土ではないと認めていた証拠として韓国の朝鮮日報が報道しましたが、これについても全文を読みさえすれば、日本の行政権を限定したＳＣＡＰＩＮ677を踏襲したに過ぎず、なんら領土問題とは関係がないことは明らかです。

韓国側には、文書のうち都合のよい部分のみを取り上げ、都合の悪いことを無視して持論を展開するといった、このようなとてつもない愚挙を一刻も早く改め、歴史的事実に基づいた学問的価値のある議論を展開して頂くことを希望します。第一、韓国は李氏朝鮮/大韓帝国が1905年以前に竹島を自国領として認識していた明確な証拠を何一つ提示していません。日本の領土としての認識があいまいであった証拠や認識不足をいくら探して上げ連ねても1905年に閣議決定により正式に領土として編入している以上、それは決定的証拠にはなりえません。そのような時間と資金があるのなら、韓国独自の今だ公開されていない、1906年の大韓帝国政府の内部文書を、すべて至急公開すべきではないでしょうか。

さてその後、建国直後の1948年8月を皮切りに繰り返し対馬島返還要求をした大韓民国李承晩大統領は、連合軍と日本との講和条約にも対馬のみならず、波浪島、竹島までも韓国領として明記するよう要求しました。その結果、講和条約の第五次草案(1949年 11月2日)　までは、‘Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima)’の名称が日本が放棄する韓国領の島として鬱陵島と並び明記されていたものの、それ以降の草案では、同月14日付のSebaldの書簡通り、韓国領としての明記がおとされました。1951年7月19日の米韓会談において、韓国は対馬の領有権主張を取り下げることに同意しましたが（このことから、現在対馬の領有権を主張している韓国人の行為は、領土拡張主義として非難に値すべきものといえます。）、波浪島、独島（竹島）を韓国領として明記すよう再度求めました。しかし、同年8月10日付けの書簡において、米国国務長官ディーン・ラスクは「竹島は歴史的に韓国領として扱われたことがなく日本領であること」を韓国政府に通知しました。そして約一ヶ月後の同年9月8日、連合国と日本の間で、サンフランシスコ平和条約が結ばれ、総司令部/連合軍総司令部（GHQ/SCAPIN）による占領統治は終わりを告げ（つまり、占領軍の訓令であるＳＣＡＰＩＮは効力を失い）、日本の独立が承認されました。そしてこの講和条約最終案において、竹島は最終的に日本が放棄する領土として明記されず、日本の領土として連合国により承認されました。1954年8月15日、大統領特命大使ヴァン・フリートが大統領に送った報告書においても、連合国としてのアメリカによる竹島の日本領としての認識は追認されています。

ちなみに、このサンフランシスコ平和条約により、日本は朝鮮の独立を承認し、朝鮮に対する全ての権利・権原及び請求権を放棄しました。韓国は「韓国は日本と戦争状態になく、連合国宣言にも署名していない」として米英から署名国としての参加を拒否されましたが、起草段階からその草案を米政府により送付されていた上に、韓国領として対馬、波浪島、竹島を明記するように外交的に要求しており、実際に第5次案までは彼らの要求どおりに明記されていました。しかし後にこれらの3島に対する韓国の権原がない事実をアメリカにより指摘され、結局平和条約最終案からは韓国領から除外され、結果的に日本領として認められることになりました。この条約起草過程において竹島が、日本が放棄する領土から除外されていくプロセスは、日本の竹島領有権の証拠として重要な意味を持ちます。また、韓国は1965年の日韓基本条約の締結において、「日本国及び大韓民国は　1951年九月八日にサン・フランシスコ市で署名された日本国との平和条約の関係規定及び1948年十二月十二日に国際連合総会で採択された決議第百九十五号（III）を想起し、　この基本関係に関する条約を締結することに決定し...」として合意しており、署名できなかったことを理由に竹島問題においてサンフランシスコ平和条約を無効であるとすることは、本末転倒でしょう。

この文書は、Enjoy Koreaのkingfish氏が発見されたもので、oppさんに情報を頂きました。また、chaamieyさんの読解された難読漢字も追加しました。みなさん、ありがとうございました。英文に訳す前に、詳細について日本語で議論が出来ればと思い、既にYahoo!サイトでも紹介されていますが、大変重要な資料なので、こちらでも掲示しご意見を広く頂たいと思います。（この”黄田連絡官”は、年代等から後の外務事務次官、黄田多喜夫氏であると思われます。民生局（GS）の”「ロッヂ」大尉及び「プール」中尉”に関しては、今のところ不明です。）

Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Directives to the Japanese Government (SCAPINs) (Record Group 331) - 対日指令集 -

1946 - SCAPIN 677

1946 - SCAPIN 1033

竹島に関するサンフランシスコ平和条約草案の変遷（英語）

総務省「法令データ提供システム」
旧令による共済組合等からの年金受給者のための特別措置法第四条第三項の規定に基く附属の島を定める省令（昭和二十六年二月十三日大蔵省令第四号）

朝鮮総督府交通局共済組合の本邦内にある財産の整理に関する政令の施行に関する総理府令（昭和二十六年六月六日総理府令第二十四号）

Saturday, January 03, 2009

Korean Dokdo Documentary Flopping at Theaters

According to THIS KOREAN ARTICLE, the Korean documentary "I'm Sorry Dokdo" is flopping at Korean theaters. Besides showing on only about sixty screens around the country, some of the theaters are just squeezing it in between other movies or showing it at only midnight showings.

Instead of reinvigorating interest in the Dokdo dispute, which was the intent of the documentary, the film seems to be confirm‎ing a lack of interest in the dispute among Koreans, at least to the extent that they are unwilling to spend money to watch a documentary about it.

Actually, the documentary does not sound very interesting since it does not really deal with the historical facts of the dispute, but, instead, focuses on people who are involved in drawing attention to the fact that Korea currently occupies the islets, such as the old Korean man and his wife who live on one of the islets.

Though I am interested in the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute, I would not waste my time and money watching the above documentary, which seems to ignore the historical facts of the dispute.

Purpose of this Blog

The purpose of this blog is to discuss current and historical issues related to the territorial dispute between Japan and Korea over Liancourt Rocks, which is a small group of rocky islets located in the Sea of Japan. Japanese refer to the islets as "Takeshima" while Koreans refer to them as "Dokdo." All views are welcome, and comments may be made in any language, but personal attacks, foul language, and comments dealing with unrelated issues will be unwelcome and may be deleted. The goal is civil discussion and debate.
.
You have the right to know.
.
알 권리가 있다.
.
あなたには、知る権利があります.

"Cheonggudo" (靑邱圖) Atlas (1860 - 1872)

This Korean map of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도) showed it with a small island off its eastern shore labeled as "Usan" (于山). Hash marks at the bottom of the map showed that Usan was less than 4 km off Ulleungdo's east shore. That would mean that it would be Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is about 2.2 km off Ulleungdo's east shore. Koreans claim that Usando was the old name for Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks), but Dokdo is 92 km southeast of Ulleungdo and is essentially two islands, not one. The map is stored in the National Library of Korea.

"Cheonggudo" (靑邱圖) Atlas (1834)

This Korean map of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도) showed Usan (于山 - 우산) as a neighboring island just off Ulleungdo's east shore. The hash marks at the bottom of the map showed the island to be about 4 km offshore. Usando was the old Korean name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is about 2.2 km of Ulleungdo's east shore. Koreans claim that Usando was the old Korean name for "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks), which is 92 km southeast of Ulleungdo, but this map and many others prove that claim false. The map is stored in Seoul National University's Kyujanggak Center for Korean Studies.

"Joseon Jido" (朝鮮地圖) Atlas (1898)

"Haejwa Jeondo" (海左全圖) - mid 1800s

This old Korean map showed Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도) with a small neighboring island just off its east shore labeled as "Usan" (于山 - 우산). Koreans claim that Usando (于山島 - 우산도) was the old name for Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks), but this map is evidence against the Korean claim. Liancourt Rocks is essentially two islands 92 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo, but the Usan on this map is just off Ulleungdo's east shore and is only one island. In fact, Usando was the old name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도), which is only two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore.

Carte de la Coree (1846)

This map was made iin 1846 by Kim Dae-geon (金大建), who was Korea's first Catholic priest. He made this map for the benefit of the French priest he works with. He was killed by the Joseon government the same year this map was made. The map shows Ulleungdo labeled in French as "Oulangto" and its neighboring island of Usando labeled as "Ousan." Koreans claim that Usando (于山島 - 우산도) was the old name for Dokdo (Liancourt Rock), but this map shows Usando as one island just of the east shore of Ulleungdo. That tells us that Usando was almost certainly Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도), which is only 2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore. Also, this island could not have been Liancourt Rocks since Liancourt Rocks is essentially two islands not one. The original of this map is stored in the National Library of France.

Joseon Jeondo (朝鮮全圖) from the "Gakdo Jido" (各道地圖) Atlas (latter 18th c.)

This old Korean map showed an island labeled as "Usando" (于山島 - 우산도) just off the east shore of Ulleundo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도). Koreans claim that Usando was the old name for Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks), but this map is more evidence against that claim. Liancourt Rocks is essentially two islands ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo, but this map shows Usando as one island just off Ulleungdo's east shore. Usando was, in fact, the old name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도), which is about two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore. This map is stored in Korea's Yeongnam University Museum.

"Dong Yeodo" (東輿圖) Atlas (1795 - 1800)

This map showed Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도) with a neighboring island labeled as "Usan" (于山 - 우산). Usando (于山島) was the old Korean name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도), which is about 2.2 km off Ulleungdo's east shore. Koreans claim that Usando was the old name for "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks), which is 92 km southeast of Ulleungdo, but this map and many others prove that claim wrong. The map is stored in Japan's "University of Tsukuba Library" (筑波大学附属図書館).

"Donggyeong San Cheon - Paldo Jido (東京山川八道地圖) Atlas (date unknown)

"Joseon Jido" (朝鮮地圖) Atlas (1750 - 1768)

This Korean map of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도) showed "Usan" (于山 - 우산) as a neighboring island. The grid lines on the map helped show the small island's relative distance from Ulleungdo. Usando (于山島 - 우산도) was the old Korean name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도), which is about 2.2 km off Ulleungdo's east shore. Korean's claim that Usando was the old name for "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks), but this map and many others prove that claim false.

"Jeongukdo" (全國圖) from the "Dongguk Daecheondo" (東國大全圖) - 1740

This old Korean map shows Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도) with a small neighboring island just off its east shore labeled as "Usando" (于山島 - 우산도). Koreans claim that Usando was the old name for Dokdo, but this map is evidence against that claim. Liancourt Rocks is essentially two islands ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo, but the Usando on this map is one island just off the east shore of Ulleungdo. Usando was, in fact, the old name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도), which is about two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore. This map is stored in the Korean National Museum.

Korean Map of Ulleungdo (1711)

The map is an inspector's map that showed Ulleungdo with an island off its east shore labeled as "the so-called Usando" (所謂于山島). The small island was also labeled as having "fields of haejang bamboo" (海長竹田). Koreans claim that Usando was Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks), but this map shows that it could not have been Dokdo since Dokdo is just rocks without the soil to grow haejang bamboo. Also, Usando was shown as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, but Dokdo is 92 km southeast of Ulleungdo. Stored in Seoul Nat'l University's Kyujanggak Institute of Korean Studies.

Dokdo/Takeshima News

Dokdo Jukdo Liancourt Rocks Takeshima Ulleungdo 독도 울릉도 竹島鬱陵島

샤이니 랩 프로듀서 JQ, ‘다케시마의 ..

매일경제

- 2009 년 2 월 27 일

- 9시간 전

UCC 스타 출신 가수 JQ가 일본이 제정한 ‘다케시마의 날’을 반대하기 위해 앨범 ‘Run For the Dokdo’를 오는 3월 1일 발매한다. 가수 JQ는 기획사 없이 홀로 데뷔해, ...

Google에서 발췌 - 2/2009

샤이니 랩프로듀서 JQ, '다케시마의 날' 제정 반대 앨범 출시

YTN

- 2009 년 2 월 24 일

(서울=뉴스와이어) 2009년 02월 24일 [16:38]--UCC스타 출신 가수 JQ가 오는 3월 1일, 일본이 '다케시마의 날'을 제정한 것을 반대하기 위해 앨범 "Run For the Dokdo" ...

Google에서 발췌 - 2/2009

韓 네티즌 60%, 日 다케시마의날 제정 사실 모른다

YTN

- 2009 년 2 월 19 일

그 일환으로 13일부터 특별페이지에서는 독도 관련 5개의 Poll을 진행 (dokdo.andu.hanafos.com/poll/poll.asp)하고 있다. 먼저 <일본이 2월 22일을 다케시마의날로 ...