Dokdo Police Stand Guard (16 Mar 05)

HISTORY:

The map and the report seem to corroborate each other. In other words, the map gives us the name of the island that had fields of haejang bamboo off Ulleungdo’s east shore, and the 1694 report gives us the distance to the island (2 kilometers) off of Ulleungdo’s east shore that had fields of haejang bamboo. Together they essentially tell us that Usando was a small island two kilometers off of Ulleungdo’s east shore and was covered in haejang bamboo. In other words, Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is about 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore, not Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks), which is essentially two large rocks that are 92 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo and do not have the soil to grow bamboo. Korean historians claim that “Usando” was the old name for “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks), but the 1694 report and the 1711? map, used together, seem to refute that claim. (Source: Occidentalism: Gerry Beavers, 13 Mar 2007.)

"The first written records on Dokdo are traced to Silla pon'gi (Annals of the Kings of Silla) and Yoljon (Biographies) both in Samguk sagi (History of the Three Kingdoms). These entries state that Dokdo became a part of the Korean territory in 512 A.D. when Usan'guk was subjugated by Silla."

Some Japanese scholars question whether Usan'guk comprised Dokdo as part of its territory when the country was brought under the dominion of Silla. To this query the Man'gi yoram (Handbook of state Affairs) of 1808 quotes the Yojiji (Gazette) in its chapter on military adminstration: "Usando and Dokdo all belonged to Usan'guk, and Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima."

The Japanese scholars concede to the fact that up until 1900 Ulleungdo had been called Takeshima and Dokdo, Matsushima, by Japanese. As for the Korean appellation Dokdo was originally called Usando implying its derivation from Usan'guk. (NOTE: Up to the 1870s, Usando on Japanese maps was to the WEST of Ulleungdo, but an 1877 map shows Usando to the EAST of Ulleungdo. This clearly indicates that Usando was actually the present Jukdo -- 2.2 km off the shore of Ulleungdo -- not Dokdo. (Source: Tanaka Kunitaka Website.))

Around the end of Koryo, waegu (Japanese pirates) had become increasingly rampant and plundered coastal areas. As Ulleungdo had been subject to their frequent and severe pillage, King T'aejong of the Choson dynasty sought the safety of the islanders by evacuating them and began to assume a vacant island policy toward Ulleungdo.

Some of them escaped to Ulleungdo for re-settlement, but were always compelled to return. In this process Dokdo acquired the official designation of Usando. (NOTE: Recent correlation of a 1711 map and a 1694 Korean inspection report demonstrated that Usando was actually a small island covered with bamboo 2km of the east coast of Ulleungdo -- and not Dokdo as the Koreans assert.)

Although the Chosun dynasty followed this vacant island policy for Ulleungdo and Dokdo since the time of King T'aejong -- the rock islands of Dokdo were uninhabitable anyway, this did not mean they had been abandoned. The administrative policy was adopted out of necessity to ensure the safety and security of the island's previous inhabitants.

Following in the footsteps of King T'aejong, King Sejong also adhered to this policy, but confirmed Korea's title to these islands in the Sejong sillok (Annals of King Sejong) as follows:

The two islands of Usan and Mullung are located in the sea due east of the hyon (country), and they are not far from each other, so one is visible from the other on a fine day. They were called Usan'guk during Silla period.

Koreans claim that Usan refers to Dokdo, and Mullung to Ullung, and the hyon to uljinhyon (country). (SITE NOTE: Others claim that "Usan" refers to "Jukdo" -- 2.2 km off-shore of Ulleung-do -- instead of "Dokdo" 92 km away -- negating this as "proof" of the historical ownership of Dokdo.)

The Chosun dynasty complied and published Ton'guk yoji sungnam (Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea) in 1481 and Sinjung tongguk yoji sungnam (Revised and Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea) in 1531 to define and demarcate authoritatively the territory of Korea.

Of these, the former has not survived but its contents are incorporated into the latter. The Revised and Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea states that "Dokdo and Ulleungdo are under the jurisdiction of Uljinhyon of Kangwondo as an administrative unit." On the map attached to the book are shown two separate islands of Usando (Dokdo) and Ulleungdo in the middle of the Eastern Sea.

The old Korean maps published thereafter follow with a very few exceptions the example set by this gazette and its attached map in recording the two separate islands. Slightly different locations of the islands are seen on the maps, which are attributable to immature cartographical skills, but which do not affect the fundamental question of Korea's title to these islands. In particular, the three major maps, i.e., Tongkuk chido (The Map of Korea) by Chong Sang-gi (1678-1752), Haejwa chondo of 1822, and Chosun chondo (A complete Map of Korea) by Kim Tae-gon (1821-46) show the exact location and name of Usando on the right side of Ulleungdo.

"The Japanese government cites Onshu shicho goki (Records on Observations in Oki Province) edited by Saito Hosen in 1667 as the first record of Dokdo. Saito was a retainer of the daimyo of Izumo (sesshu) and at his lord's behest made an observation trip to Oki Island (Okinoshima) whereupon he submitted these records to his lord. In the report Dokdo and Ulleungdo were both ascribed to Koryo (Korea) and Oki was indicated as Japan's western-most boundary:

Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Koryo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus Oki marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.

"The Japanese proposed that the matter be settled peacefully and asked the Koreans to send their delegates. An Yong-bok and Pak O-dun went to the Japanese side as Korean delegates, but were captured and forcefully taken to Oki. There An Yong-bok squarely confronted the lord of Okinoshima and protested against his capture while on the Korean land of Ulleungdo.

The lord found the case outside of his official competency and sent An Yong-bok to his superior, the magistrate of Hokishu (Shimane-ken today). Interrogated by the magistrate An explained in a dignified manner that Ulleungdo was Korea's territory and demanded that the magistrate prohibit Japanese fishermen from using the island. The magistrate of Hokishu appeared aware that Ulleungdo belonged to Korea and had An taken to the Kanpaku (Imperial Regent) of the Shogunate, who in turn confirmed Korea's title to Ulleungdo, ordered the magistrate of Hokishu to write a note that Ulleungdo was not Japan's land and to send An back to Korea with the note. While en route to Korea An was seized by the lord of Nagasaki, the note he was carrying was confiscated, and he was jailed on the grounds of having trespassed onto Japanese territory.

NOTE: The sticking point is An's note which was "stolen." According to the Japanese view, in 1696, the shogunate prohibited Japanese from sailing to Ulleung, but allowed them to go to Takeshima, which was handled as a fishing base until the Meiji era (1868-1912).

Japan's documents confirm that An Yong Bok came to Japan twice as a Korean delegate after fishing conflicts between Japanese and Korean fishermen. According to Chosun Dynasty documents, An said the lord of Hoki Province recognized the Ulleung and Takeshima islands as Chosun territory, but the document was stolen by members of Tsushima Province.

However, there are no documents to substantiate An's testimony.

The Japanese government has repeatedly notified South Korea that An's testimony was baseless after comparing his report with Japan's documents."

Taking advantage of this event the lord of Tsushima, So Yoshitsugu, attempted to annex Ulleungdo and Dokdo to Tsushima. He apprehended An still again, accused him of trespassing on Japanese territory, and had him returned to the magistrate of Tongae. He also sent an envoy named Tachibana Masashige to Tongae with a letter to be transmitted to the Chosun dynasty government through the magistrate. In the letter So pretended there existed an island named Takeshima that belonged to Japan which was similar to, but different from Ulleungdo. He stated that he would not allow any Korean boat to go to this island (Takeshima) and demanded that the Korean government prevent Korean fishermen from going there. The lord of Tsushima, who knew that Takeshima was but another name for Ulleungdo, likely attempted to trick the Korean government into accepting in writing the existence of a Japanese-owned island named Takeshima, start a dispute over the possession of Takeshima alias Ulleungdo, and finally absorb the island into his possession. This would have been a multi-stage strategy.

The Chosun dynasty government leaders split over the issue. At first the moderate faction in power prevailed and cautioned against a head-on clash with the Japanese whose militancy and ferociousness had been well demonstrated during the Hideyoshi invasions of Korea between1592 and1598. They feigned ignorance of the fact that Chukto (Takeshima) was another name for Ulleungdo and made only clear that Ulleungdo was Korea's territory, recognized Takeshima as Japan's, and promised to keep Koreans from fishing off the island. The response to the lord of Tsushima read in part:

Whereas our fishermen on the eastern coast are not allowed to go to sea and are prohibited to travel at will to Ulleungdo which is our own distant territory, how could they be authorized to go to other places? That this boat ventured into your territory of Takeshima and you took the trouble of remanding it, and that you dispatched an official letter from afar, we would like to express our gratitude for your good neighorliness.

The moderate faction's equivocation over the designation of Ulleungdo that was also called Chukto (Takeshima) and its accedence to the Japanese claim to an island named Takeshima were typical of an easy-going expedient that might sow the seeds of a dispute over the title to Ulleungdo itself.

Though he had half-accomplished his mission when he received Korea's reply stating "your territory of Takeshima " Tachibana Masahige, who was staying at the Japan House in Tongae, objected to the passage "Ulleungdo which is our own distant territory" He requested persistently for a fortnight that these words be deleted from the note but to no avail. The deletion of these words would have placed Ulleungdo at the disposal of Japan under the name of Takeshima. At this news the hardliners rose to action, censured the moderates, and drove them out of power. Nam Ku-man, the leader of the hardliners, implored the King to punish the moderates and recover the official letter they had given to the Japanese. This entreaty was understood and action was taken.

Nam Ku-man and his followers questioned An Yong-bok and others who had been kidnapped and taken to Japan, and learned of the scheme concocted by the lords of Tsushima and Nagasaki in disregard of the Kanpaku's directive to recognize Ulleungdo (Takeshima) as Korea's territory. Ignorant of this turn of events in the Korean government So of Tsushima sent Tachibana to Tongae again in August 1694 to repeat his request for expurgation of the words "our territory Ulleungdo" from the letter.

The new Korean government turned this down out of hand, declared the first reply null and void, and sent a new revised letter to the effect that Takeshima was another name for Ulleungdo which was Korea's territory. It reprehended the Japanese act of encroachment on Korean territory and the kidnapping of An Yong-bok and others. The letter strongly requested that the Shogunate in Edo be notified of this fact and that Japanese be barred form coming to Ulleungdo ever again. However, So Yoshitsugu of Tsushima took issue with this and confronted the Korean government without withdrawing his claim to Ulleungdo while calling it Takeshima. This led to tension between the Korean governement and the Shogunate in Edo.

In the meantime, So Yoshitsugu died and was succeeded by So Yoshimichi who paid a courtesy call to the Kanpaku in January 1696 upon his inauguration. In Edo, in the presence of the magistrates of Hoki and three other provinces, the Kanpaku raised important questions to So Yoshimichi on the question of Takeshima. After a series of queries, answers, and ensuing discussions, a decision was reached to recognize Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as Korea's territory.

The Kanpaku's instructions to So included the following:

Takeshima is about 160-ri (64km) from Oki but only about 40-ri (16km) from Korea; therefore, it can be considered Korean territory as it is nearer to that country.
Japanese are forbidden henceforth to make passage to Takeshima
The lord of Tsushima should communicate this to Korea
He should also send the Osakabe Daisuke (judge) of Tsushima to Korea officially to notify the Korean government of this decision and report the result of his mission to the Kanpaku.

This was an important decision by the Tokugawa Shogunate, the central government of Japan, and reconfirmed Korea's title to Ulleungdo and its adjacent islands. Upon his return to Tsushima So Yoshimichi sent a brief note to Korea through an official translator wherein he conveyed the decision of the Kanpaku, but delayed sending the Osakabe Daisuke to Korea.

Having realized So's intention to seize Ulleungdo and Dokdo despite the Kanpaku's decision An Yong-bok decided to visit the magistrate of Hokishu again and discuss the matter personally.

According to the Sukchong sillok (Annals of King Sukchong) An Yong-bok enlisted 16 fishermen and went to Ulleungdo in 1696. There he found some Japanese fishing boats at anchor. An protested loudly against the Japanese for their trespassing onto the Korean territory of Ulleungdo and threatened to arrest them. The Japanese said they were living on Matsushima (Dokdo) and strayed onto Takeshima (Ulleungdo) while fishing and would return. An Yong-bok retorted that Matsuhima was also Korea's possession and demanded to know why they were living on a Korean island. Early the next morning An and some Korean fishermen found fish in a cauldron, destroyed the cauldron, and fulminated against the Japanese who fled back to Japan.

An and his company pursued the Japanese boats to Oki Island (Okinoshima). Asked by the lord of Oki what had brought him there An explained that he had come to Oki several years before and obtained agreement from Japanese authorities in the form of an official document issued by the Kanpaku that the two islands of Ulleungdo and Usando lie within the boundary of Korea's territory. Whereupon he demanded to know why the Japanese had invaded Korean territory still again. The lord promised to transmit An's protest to his superior, the magistrate of Hokishu. No reply was forthcoming for a long period thereafter.

An Yong-bok and his company decided to negotiate directly with the magistrate. Impersonating a Revenue Supervisor for the two islands of Ulleungdo and Usando An met the magistrate and explained how the Kanpaku's letter, which had been issued to him and attested to Korean sovereignty over the two islands, had been seized and doctored by the lord of Tsushima who was attempting to incorporate these islands into his own territory. He also explained that this same lord had sent an emissary to the Korean government to achieve this end. An went on to say that he would lodge an appeal to the Kanpaku and debunk the whole frame-up.

The magistrate acknowledged An's demands and requested that the Korean government bring to his attention any future act of encroachment on the Korean possessions of Ulleungdo and Dokdo and any further exercise of authority by the lord of Tsushima over these islands by means of an official note and translator. Moreover, he promised to mete out heavy punishment for any such acts. The magistrate had been present several months before when the Kanpaku decided to recognize Korea's claim to Ulleungdo and Dokdo and instructed the lord of Tsushima to send the Osakabe Daisuke (judge) to Korea to notify the Korean government of his decision.

An Yong-bok's activity proved highly successful, because the lord of Tsushima sent Judge Tairano Naritsune to Korea in January 1697 to notify the Korean government of the Kanpaku's decision. By 1699 the diplomatic notes had been exchanged and all the formalities had been cleard to recognize Korea's title to Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

(SITE NOTE: The Japanese side disputes this account according to their records. According to the Shimane Province Website, "The Edo Shogunate Government prohibited visits to Utsuryo Island in 1696 owing to a conflict between Japan and Korea and it was left abandoned, but Takeshima was considered to belong to Japan and visits to these islands were not banned." The Japanese government's position is that since Takeshima island has always been a part of Japan, its inclusion into Shimane is only a formality.)

After the An Yong-bok incident and the Kanpaku's reconfirmation of Korea's title to Ulleungdo and Dokdo around the end of the 17th century, no documentary records of the period showed Japan's claim to these two islands. (This refers to the documents of the period released to date by the Japanese government.) Nor do any Japanese maps edited by the Japanese government or semi-governmental organizations since the end of the 17th century show these two islands as Japanese possessions.

The Sangoku setsujozu, (A Map of Three Adjoining Countries), a map attached to the Sanggoku tsuran zusetsu (An Illustrated General Survey of Three Countries) by Hayashi Shihei (1738-1793), an eminent scholar of the day, published in 1785 shows international boundaries and foreign countries in different colors: Korea is in yellow and Japan in green. On the map Ulleungdo and Dokdo are shown in their exact positions in yellow. Along side the islands Hayashi wrote, "Korea's possessions."

Hayashi also treated Korea and these two islands in the same way with an explanatory note in the Dainihonzu (A Great Japan's Map), another map attached to An Illustrated General Survey of Three Countries. In the latter part of the 18th century, a Japanese geographer made a map called Soezu (A Complete Illustrated Map) which uses colors to distinguish national borders and territories: Korea in yellow and Japan in red. Ulleungdo and Dokdo are not identified by name, but are shown in yellow in their accurate positions and described as "Korea's possessions."

These typical maps of the Tokugawa era are solid evidence that Ulleungdo and Dokdo are integral parts of Korea's territory, which the Japanese government cannot negate. The Tokugawa Shogunate and the Japanese people recognized and respected these two islands as Korea's until the Meiji Restoration of 1868.

When the Meiji government was established in 1868 and the Tokugawa regime overthrown by samurai, the Japanese Foreign Ministry sent Sada Hakubo and Moriyama Shigeru to Korea to study the Korean situation in December 1869. The list of items for investigation included the circumstances under which Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) had become Korea's possessions which was submitted to and approved by the Dajokan (the Council of State).

This list is evidence that the Foreign Ministry and the Dajokan both recognized Korea's title to these two islands. The report of this study mission was included in the Chosenkoku kosaishimatsu naitansho (A Confidential Inquiry into the Particulars of Korea's Foreign Relations) and was incorporated in the Nihon gaiko bunsho (Japan's Diplomatic Documents). This official document also substantiates the japanese government's acknowledgement of these two islands as Korea's territory.

Among the official documents released by the Japanese Ministry of Home Affairs are papers that attest to Korea's title to Ulleungdo and Dokdo. In 1876 the Ministry instructed all prefectures to conduct a land survey in order to make a national registery and map of the nation. At this time, Shimane prefecture inquired of the Ministry whether or not Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were to be covered by this survey. For five months the Ministry examined all the papers exchanged between Korea and Japan around the end of the 17th century and concluded that the question of the title to these two islands had already been resolved in 1699 (the 12th year of Genroku). The Ministry decided to exclude these islands from the survey. (SITE NOTE: According to Korean activists, since 1876 the Japanese fishermen again appeared and did fishery in the coastal sea of Dokdo and Uleungdo, the Joseon Dynasty made a severe protest and received an apology from Japan in 1881, the 18th year of king Gojong's reign. According to the activists, during the Joseon Dynasty, Dokdo was clearly recognized on the basis of geographical knowledge and belonged to the local administration system. In 1900 Dokdo came under the administration of Ganwon province by command of king Gojong. The name Dokdo was first used in 1906 by a magistrate of Uleung county, Shim Hong-taek, and according to the reorganization of administration district in 1914, Dokdo has belonged to North Gyeongsang province until today. (Source: Our Dokdo.))

However, the Ministry considered it necessary to refer the matter to the Dajokan for its sanction. Iwakura Tonomi, Minister of the Right, the third highest in the cabinet, and the acting head of the Dajokan also approved an instruction to be dispatched to Shimane prefecture. The directive made it clear that Japan had nothing to do with Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Dokdo that were part of Korea's territory and that they should be excluded from the land survey.

Not only the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs, and the Dajokan, but also the Ministry of the Army and the Navy, recognized Dokdo (Matsushima) as Korea's territory in the maps they edited and published.

Chosen jenzu (A Complete Map of Korea) published by the Staff Bureau of the Ministry of the Army in 1875 positions Dokdo in the territory of Korea in the deliberately expanded right-hand margin. [A Detailed Map of Korea (Chosen saiken zenzu) by Endo Someki published in Japan in 1873 shows Usando (Dokdo) and Ulleungdo as part of Kangwon province of Korea.] The Chosen tokai kaiganzu (A Map of the Eastern Coast of Korea) by the Hydrographic Bureau of the Ministry of the Navy places the two islands inside the Korean territory.

The latter published in 1876 was based on the charts mapped by Russian and British warships of Korean territory. In the lower right-hand section it shows the three accurate and vivid photograph-like drawings of Dokdo done by the Russians from three different directions and distances. The map was reprinted in 1887 and ran into many impressions until 1905.

The Ministry of the Navy also published Chosen suiroshi (The Korean Sealanes) wherein Dokdo appears in the Korean territory. Kan'ei suiroshi (The Sealanes of the World) published by the Ministry of the Navy in 1886 first uses the name Liancourt Rocks for Dokdo in part 4 of Korea's Eastern Coast, in Vol.·(second edition). The publication of the chart was discontinued in 1889 when the sealanes of the world were treated separately by countries. The japanese version does not include Dokdo.

This practice by the Ministry of the Navy had continued until January 1905 when Japan incorporated Dokdo sub rosa into Shimane prefecture without the knowledge of Korea. This was immediately after the Japanese victory in the Russo-Japanese War when Korea was virtually under Japanese control . Then in 1907 Japan began to show Dokdo north of Okinoshima in the chart in Vol.· of the Japanese Sealanes.

In 1876, Mutoh Heigaku (????), a Japanese businesssman in Vladivostok, proposed to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the government allow him to develop the Japanese territory of Matsushima. (Source.)

Following this, many Japanese who believed there to be a Japanese island called "Matsushima" (??) in the sea of Japan started sending numerous petitions to Minstry of Foreign Affairs between 1876 and 1878 asking that they be allowed to develop the island. Though Japanese in the Edo era had been clearly aware of the locations of Takeshima (?? = today's Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (?? = today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo), the non-existent island on Western maps called "Argonaut" and the turmoil in the Japanese government following the fall of the Edo Shogunate caused confusion and debate on the names and locations of islands in the Sea of Japan between Japan and Korea. (Source.)

In order to resolve these questions, Foreign Minister Terajima Munenori (????) finally ordered an on-site survey of Ulleungdo in 1880 (?????) and dispatched the warship Amagi to the Ulleungdo area to clear up the name confusion concerning the islands in the region. The Amagi discovered that "Matsushima" (??) was actually Ulleungdo and "Takeshima" (??) was a small island off the northern shore of Ulleungdo, which Koreans pronounce as Jukdo (??). The map made during the survey confirms that Takeshima was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (??).

Kitazawa Masanobu (????) wrote an account of this survey in the Takeshima Kosho (???? - "A Study of Takeshima"). In his account, he concluded that Matsushima was Ulleungdo and confirmed that both Ulleungdo and the island he called Takeshima, which was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, were not Japanese territory. Jukdo is about about two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore.

Here is what Kitazawa wrote about the 1880 Amagi survey.

(Translation of Japanese not included here) In the above (items) ?, ?, ?, and ?, there was so much argument about this and that that it was difficult to reach a decision. Even all the talk about conducting a survey had ended. In September 1880, when navy Ensign ???? and others of the Warship Amagi returned to port, they said they reached "Matsushima (??)", where they conducted a survey. The island was the so-called "Ulleungdo(???)" of old, where they found a small island off the northern shore that someone said was called "Takeshima(??)", though it was not much bigger than a rock. In one morning, long-held suspicions and arguments were cleared up. Now, I present the following picture.

The following is the report and the map of Ulleungdo and Jukdo made during the Amagi survey. It was attached to Kitazawa's "Takeshima Kosho" and labelled as "No.24", which was the last number of the referenced documents in the book.

No. 24
Waterway Report No. 33
This report was submitted by navy Ensign Miura Shigesato (????), who is a crewman of the Amagi.
Sea of Japan
At Matsushima, which Koreans call Ulleungdo, we found anchorage. Matsushima (Ulleungdo) is located about 140 ri northwest 3/4 of Oki Prefecture. It was unknown whether or not anchorage was available because no ship had done a precise survey of the area. However, our ship, Amagi, called at this place during our trip to Joseon (Korea) and found a place to anchor off the east shore of the island, as is shown on the map.
September 13, 1880
Navy Rear Admiral Yanagi Narayoshi
Director of the Bureau of Hydrography

After the above report, Kitazawa, the author of this compilation and MOFA official, wrote the final conclusion as follows: "I finally came to understand the situation when I learned that "Matsushima" (??) was Ulleungdo, and the other island, which was called Takeshima (??), was just a rock(?????)(??/Jukdo=Boussole rock). Thus, today's Matsushima is the island that was called "Takeshima" in 1699 (?????), and (they [= Ulleungdo and Jukdo] are) not historically Japanese territory."

As the Russo-Japanese war broke out on February 8, 1904, the Japanese Navy built many watchtowers with wireless telegraphs on Korean coasts including two on Ulleungdo (August 1904) to keep watch on the movements of the Russian Vladivostok fleet. In order to construct another on Dokdo, the Navy sent the warship Tsushima to the area in November 1904.

At this time a Japanese fisherman living in Shimane prefecture by the name of Nakai Yozaburo intented to obtain a Korean government exclusive license for sea lion hunting and fishing off Dokdo. He applied to the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce for negotiation with the Korean government on his behalf. This information was passed by the director of the ministry's Fisheries Bureau to Adm. Kimotsuki Kendo, Director of Hydrographic Bureau of the Ministry of the Navy, who assumed Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) to be a terra nullius, and told Nakai to apply to the Japanese government -- not the Korean government -- for "incorporation of Liancourt Rocks into Japanese territory and lease of the island." Adm. Kimotsuki apparently wanted to annex Dokdo and establish part of a Japanese surveillance network there. He also appears to have been taking advantage of the stationing of Japanese troops in Seoul, as well as Japan's prevailing influence over the Korean government at the time.

That Nakai was cognizant of the legal status of Dokdo is evident in Nakai Yozaburo rirekisho (Nakai's Personal History), Nakai jigyo keiei gaiyo (An Outline of Nakai's Business Operations), and Shimane Kenshi (Annals of Shimane prefecture). Nevertheless, he followed Adm. Kimotsuki's suggestion and filed the aforesaid application simultaneously to the Japanese Ministries of Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and Agriculture and Commerce on September 27, 1904.

At the Japanese cabinet meeting on January 28, 1905, Nakai's application was approved and it was decided:

to incorporate into Japan's territory a terra nullius located 85 nautical miles off Okinoshima at 39°9.30?N. latitude and131°55?E. longitude, because there is no evidence of its being occupied by any country, call it Takeshima, and place it under the jurisdiction of the Administrator of Okinoshima.

The Ministry of Home Affairs notified Shimane prefecture of this cabinet decision, and the prefecture, in turn, put the decision on public notice (Prefectural Notice No. 40) repeating the information given in the parentheses above (on the bulletin of the prefecture and local newspapers) on February 22, 1905. Now, this action is to be examined in light of international law, precedents and practice.

• Japan's claim to prior occupation of a terra nullis. As has been seen already, there are many documents attesting to Korea's title to Dokdo before January 1905, and the Japanese documents that ascertain Korea's possession of Dokdo before this period abound. There is also a publication on the topography of Korea by the Russian Ministry of the Treasury edited in 1898 and published in 1900 which recognizes Dokdo as part of Korean territory and shows the accurate location of the island taken from a survey conducted by Russian warships. These documents provide tangible evidence that Dokdo was not a terra nullis at the time of Japan's annexation of Dokdo.
• The mode of notification of the acquisition of the territory should be called into question. The acquisition of a new territory is to be notified to the countries involved, if it is to satisfy the requirements of international law and practice. The Japanese government had neither contacted the Korean government for inquiry on the question before hand, nor did it serve notification afterwards.

This contrasts sharply with Japan's action when it acquired the Bonin (Ogasawa) Islands in the Pacific. At this time Japan contacted Great Britain and the U.S. several times -- countries which were only remotely involved; moreover, it notified 12 European countries of its establishment of control over these islands.

Considering the Meiji government recognized Korea's title to Dokdo through the Foreign Ministry and the Dajokan in 1875, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Dajokan in 1877, the Ministry of the Army in 1875, and several times thereafter through the Ministry of the Navy in 1876 and the Ministry of the Home Affairs in 1905 when it opposed the plan to incorporate Dokdo, the question naturally follows why Japan did not contact the Korean government beforehand and did not notify it of the action afterwards.

The answer seems simple: the Japanese knew that the island had been under Korean sovereignty and the Korean government would have reacted immediately and strongly, had it known of Japan's intent or act of annexation. Also, the foreign diplomatic missions posted in Seoul were still active then, and Japan may have concluded it inadvisable to incur their suspicion of its aggresive designs by making public announcement of the acquisition of Dokdo.

Accordingly, the Japanese government may have tried to veil the matter from public knowledge. This action was followed by the construction of a watchtower on Dokdo by the Japanese Navy in July 1905. It was eventually removed after the end of the war with Russia.

The Japanese Navy drafted a plan on May 30 immediately following the sea battle, and on June 13, 1905, instructed the warship Hashitade to go to Dokdo Island for a further detailed survey. The Navy thus setup a plan for comprehensive facilities in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) including Ullungdo and Dokdo on June 24 of the same year. The plan called for (1) the construction of a large watchtower on the northern part of Ullungdo (nine men to be posted) and a wireless telegraphic station, (2) the construction of the long-pending watchtower on Dokdo (to be manned by four men), (3) the watchtowers of the two islands to be linked by submarine cables which are to be extended to the watch- tower on Oki Island (Okinoshima). These were illegal military facilities without regard to national boundaries. The construction of the new watchtower on Ullungdo started on July 14, 1905, and was completed on August 16, while that on Dokdo began on July 25 and completed on August 19. The original plan to link Dokdo with Oki Island (Okinoshima) by sub- marine cables were changed when the peace treaty with Russia was concluded in September 1905, and instead the line was set up between Dokdo and Matsue."

This work was started at the end of October 1905, and a link from Ullungdo to Matsue via Dokdo was completed on November 9 of the same year. Japan Naval General Staff. Consequently in 1905, a network of military communication lines were completed from the Korean mainland-Chukpyeon to Ullungdo, Dokdo, and Matsue.

The map on the right details another stage of Japan's militarization of the East Sea (Sea of Japan) The Dokdo ~ Matsue submarine line ensured that Japan could maintain control and monitor all acitivities in the region. The green line represents the first stage of Japanese Naval telegraph lines and the blue line illustrates the Dokdo~Matsue line which design was hastily planned immediately after the Battle of Tsushima. (SITE NOTE: The green line on the map for the first telegraph line runs from Sasebo across the Tsushima Strait to Idzuhara, Tsushima across the island to Sasuna, Tsushima then across the Chosen Strait to Fusan (Busan). It then went up the coast to Ulsan, Heung-hai, Yeng-hai, Peng-hai and Uljin-po. From Uljin-po, it ran to Matsu-Shima (Daglet or Ulleungdo). The map legend indicates this line was completed on 25 Sep 1904. The blue line ran from Matsu-Shima (Ulleungdo) to Liancourt Rocks (Hornet Island or Dokdo) and then to Matsuye. The map legend indicates this second line was completed on 9 Nov 1905.)

In short, for the Japanese government, Takeshima/Dokdo was nothing more than an object of military value, and it was closely related to and inseparable from military occupation of various parts of Korea at that time. (Source: Dokdo-Takeshima.com. SITE NOTE: This site operated by Steve Barber is highly recommended as a MUST READ site dealing with Dokdo -- though slanted to supporting the Korean claims. Author provides maps that show the Japanese as early as 1785 did NOT consider Dokdo as significant. All historical records be it Korean or Japanese show Dokdo's importance was inseparably bound to Ulleungdo Island. The Murakawa family became aware of the islands in the year 1617 after becoming shipwrecked in the vicinity.)

The Korean government became aware of the matter on March 23, 1906, one year after the event took place, when the lord of Okinoshima of Shimane prefecture and party called on magistrate Sim Hung-t'aek of Ulleungdo during their inspection trip to Dokdo and told him that the island had become Japan's possession.

The date, March 28, 1906, is important. On September 5, 1905, the Portsmouth Treaty was signed ending the Russo-Japanese War, and on November 18, 1905, Japan used its troops in Seoul and forced the Korean government to sign a Protectorate Treaty which it had drafted. The whole proceeding was illegal without the Emperor's sanction and seal and the royal court was surrounded by Japanese troops and therefore under duress.

The two essential points of the treaty are the transfer of full authority over foreign affairs to Japan and the appointment of a Japanese Resident-General under the Korean Emperor to supervise all aspects of Korean government operations. It thus reduced Korea to semi-colonial status.

The Korean ministry of Foreign Affairs was dismantled on January 17, 1906; the Resident-General's office opened in Seoul in February that year and took over the conduct of the foreign affairs of the Korean government. Then the lord of Okinoshima was sent to Ulleungdo to inform, as if casually, the Korean county magistrate of the incorporation of Dokdo. Under these circumstances, Korea could not take any measures against the Japanese action on Dokdo.

Startled at the news, magistrate Sim Hung-t'aek reported the following day (March 29, 1906) to the Ministry of Home Affairs through the Governor of Kwangwondo that he had been apprised of the incorporation of Dokdo, which was under the jurisdiction of Korea, into the Japanese territory. In his report he uses the words "this county" to refer to Korea.

Upon receipt of the report the Minister of Home Affairs renounced the Japanese claim stating that "it is totally groundless for the Japanese to lay claim to Dokdo and I am shocked by the report." Having received the report the Ch'amjong taeshin of the Uijongbu (State Council) - the acting head of government then - issued Directive No. · on April 29, 1906, wherein he denounced the Japanese claim as groundless and ordered a full inquiry into the matter.

Taehan maeil sinbo and Hwangsong sinmun, two major papers of the day, reported the Japanese action in full and protested vehemently against it. Also, Hwang Hyon (1855-1910), a well-known intellectual, bitterly criticized and protested against the Japanese invasion of Dokdo in his writings: Ohakimun (A Miscellany) and Maech'on yarok (Personal Accounts of Maech'on).

The Japanese government often indicates that the non-action of the Korean government when Dokdo was annexed demonstrates tacit acquiescence, but fails to take into account the fact that the Japanese Resident-General in Korea conducted foreign affairs and the Korean government had no diplomatic channel of its own to represent itself against the Japanese claim. It was five years prior to the Japanese annexation of the Empire of Korea that Dokdo fell prey to the Japanese machinations.

Tokyo Replies In Kind (Mar 2005) Things at the end of March 2005 was getting ridiculous. Reuters on 28 Mar 2005 reported that the ROK is to appoint an "ambassador" to make an international case for its ownership of a group of tiny islands which are also claimed by Japan, Yonhap news agency reported Sunday. Quoting a ROK official at the UN, Yonhap said President Roh Moo-hyun had chosen the country's current UN representative for the new post of "Tokto ambassador." In response, the Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun on 28 Mar 2005 reported that Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun said ROK middle school history textbooks distorted the truth about the Dokdo islets. In a commentary in its morning edition entitled "Historical Background to the Frictions", the paper said, "Korean state-sanctioned history books claim that Japan took the Dokdo Islets by force during the Russo-Japanese War, but Japan never exercised force in the matter, nor were there protests from Korea." This throws the "distorted history" remarks back at the Koreans. However, the official Japanese stance is one of calm deliberation to seek a summit between the two leaders. Again the DPRK came out to support the South's contention that Dokdo was historically Korean territory, but now the Chinese seem to be moving to support this position as the Japanese made plans to build a weather tracking station on some islets disputed between China and Japan.

The furor died down after Roh became "distracted" with other priorities -- scandals, failing economy, anti-American issues dealing with the relocation of forces out of Yongsan and off the DMZ, face-offs over cost-sharing with the Americans, farmer riots over the agricultural issues dealing with the WTO opening of the rice markets, Saemangeum Tidal Reclamation project challenges, Puan protests over the nuclear waste dump siting in the area, falling Uri Party popularity -- and Roh's popularity falling to all-time lows.

2006

January 2006

Photo Op: ROKAF F-15K Flys Over Dokdo (Jan 2006) In a photo op, ROKAF chief of staff, Kim Sung-il, flying the recently introduced F-15K fighter on 2 Jan led a formation flight over Dokdo. The aircraft took off from an air base (K2) in the southern city of Daegu at 4 p.m. and reached Dokdo islets in the East Sea about 20 minutes later. Kim led a squad of two F-15Ks and two F-16s and circled above the islets for several minutes, staying in communication with the Ulleungdo control unit and the Master Control and Report Center. Kim's flight was a symbolic gesture to inform Korea and the world that the Dokdo Islets belong to Korea.

F-15K fighter jet, regarded as one of the most powerful fighter jets in the world, can last around an hour in aerial combat whereas existing Korean fighter jets would last only five minutes over Dokdo, making the new jets eminently suitable to defend the outlying islets in the East Sea which Tokyo claims are Japanese territory. The message is that the F-15K is now considered operational in the defense of the country.


New Year's Greeting with F-15K

The next day, the Japanese government asked Korea through diplomatic channels to explain the sortie over Dokdo by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Kim Sung-il at the controls of one of the newly introduced F-15K fighter jets. The Japanese Embassy in Seoul called the Foreign Ministry, and requested an explanation of the motive behind the sortie. The official said the call was not in the nature of a protest, but it is rare for a foreign government to ask why Korea's Air Force chief of staff piloted a jet. Seoul reportedly told the embassy the aim of Kim's flight was to mark the New Year, boost the morale of pilots and test the new F-15K jet himself.

---

April 2006

Dokdo Standoff Ends with Compromise (April 2006) The annual "Dokdo Is Ours" festival started with the lead cheerleader Roh Moo-hyun stirring up the controversy. Last year Roh inflamed the situation to a point that a mother and son chopped their little fingers off and one man set himself on fire. Every Korean from the youngest school child to the oldest grandmother chanted in unison, "Dokdo is OURS." Politicians and government officials scrambled to have their picture taken on Dokdo. Marathon swimmers swam the 92 km to the island. Even drives to have people register as residents on the lifeless rock -- including reconstructing houses for them at public expense -- was started. The main point is that Roh did so to divert attention from his failing economy -- and now has blatantly used this patriotic fervor to stimulate backing for his flagging Uri Party in the upcoming May elections -- and the Mar resignation of his Prime Minister over a "golf scandal." Though the GNP at first attempted to stay out of the latest fray, they were finally drawn into supporting the "Dokdo is Ours" campaign that was rising after the Japanese announced they were going to survey the contested EEZ. (SITE NOTE: See Dokdo: Korea Net for background, but realize that the reference to Usando being the same as Dokdo on the website does NOT make sense as Usando is 8km from Uilengdo (main island), while Dokdo is 92km from Uilengdo. In addition, all the "proof" offered by the Koreans are suspect and under international law, the posession of the island was not settled after the end of WWII -- and the US specifically let the matter sit because of the conflicting claim by Syngman Rhee and the Japanese. In fact, the Mutual Defense Treaty with Korea is the one that states that the US will NOT automatically enter the fray to support Korea and must have Congressional approval. The reason is that the US position is that if Korea gets into a scrap over disputed islands and territory, it is on its own. As a matter of national honor, the Koreans in 1954 illegally seized the island and have held it by force with armed Maritime Police on the rock since that time. One Japanese activist was killed by mortar fire in 1954 attempting to land on the rock.)

The current spat occurred when Japan announced on 14 April, a plan to conduct maritime research in waters around Dokdo and notifies the International Hydrographic Organization of its plan. The South Korean government summons Japanese Ambassador to Seoul Shotaro Oshima to file an official protest against the planned survey. President Roh Moo-hyun labeled Japan's planned survey as "an offensive provocation" at a dinner with ruling and opposition party leaders at the presidential office and calls for a realignment of the country's "low-key" policy on the issue. A Japanese survey boat departed from Tokyo for Sakaiminata port in Tottori Prefecture, which was expected to serve as its home base during the ship's planned survey of the islets until the end of June. On 19 April, two Japanese survey boats set sail from Sakaiminata port, one at 3:30 p.m. and the other shortly after 5 p.m., putting the South Korean Coast Guard on high alert over a possible attempt to violate South Korean waters.

The waters surround a set of rocky outcroppings -- called Dokdo by Koreans and Takeshima in Japan -- that lie halfway between the countries and are claimed by both. The area is a rich fishing ground and is also believed to have methane hydrate deposits, a potential source of natural gas. The showdown highlighted the rising stakes of rival territorial claims in East Asia, and South Korea's deep-rooted bitterness over Japan's 1910-45 colonial rule. In the latest "showdown" the ROK Coast Guard showed off with their gunboats and the posturing over the "affront" of the Japanese attempting to survey the EEZ that was supposedly agreed to by the ROK as a "joint fishing ground." Tokyo maintains the survey is needed to match South Korean efforts to map the sea floor and name underwater formations including basins and ridges. They had four rounds of negotiations on the issue from 1996 to 2000 with little progress. As a tentative alternative, they signed another agreement in 1998 to operate a joint fishing area near the islets.

Seoul had reportedly planned to try to register Korean names for several of the formations at an international ocean-mapping conference to be held in June in Germany. Among the proposals may be a request to change the name of the Sea of Japan, the international acceptance of which Seoul has long considered a colonial vestige. Seoul prefers the moniker East Sea for the body of water separating the countries. Yachi said Seoul agreed not to submit its name-change proposals at the conference.

According to the Mainichi Times on 22 Apr, "South Korea and Japan defused a tense, high-seas standoff Saturday with a compromise that sees Japan withdraw plans to survey disputed waters and South Korea delay efforts to register Korean names for underwater features in the area, officials said. Both countries agreed to hold more talks on demarcating their sea boundaries as early as next month, as part of a deal that wrapped two-straight days of negotiations amid concerns of a possible maritime confrontation."

Japanese Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs Shotaro Yachi, made an emergency trip to the South Korean capital on 21 Apr to try to break the impasse triggered by Tokyo's plan to send survey ships into the disputed waters. South Korea had vehemently opposed the survey plans and dispatched 20 gunboats to the area, warning that a physical confrontation was possible if Japan proceeded. The talks on Friday were "severe" and "tense" according to Yachi, while South Korean Vice Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan said the two sides "failed to find common ground."

Public outrage has flared in South Korea, where protesters have burned Japanese flags and tried to storm Tokyo's embassy, which was surrounded by police in riot gear. A truck was parked on 22 Apr in front of the downtown hotel where the negotiations were being held, blaring patriotic songs. The vehicle was plastered with signs urging Koreans to boycott Japanese goods and claiming "Dokdo is our territory."

Communist North Korea -- which is technically still at war with rival South because the 1950-53 Korean War ended only in a cease fire -- suggested that the two Koreas offer a joint response to Japan's survey plan. Japan has maintained it has the right to conduct the survey under international law, but has kept its two unarmed survey ships out of the waters as both sides sought a diplomatic solution.

It was reported that the Japanese had started the process to take the matter to the World Court for litigation, however, there may be many obstacles ahead as the ROK does NOT want this matter to go before the World Court. It simply says that "Dokdo is Ours." But it does not provide a permanent tonic for the two sides' long-running territorial row. According to Yonhap News, Japan may push for another maritime survey in South Korean waters anytime after June 30. South Korea's attempt to register its own names for the underwater areas, if undertaken, will certainly face strong opposition from Japan as well. Tougher talks seem to lie ahead for the two nations.

On 25 April 2006, the Japan Today stated that South Korea demanded that Japan immediately drop its plan to conduct a maritime survey near a group of disputed islets in the Sea of Japan, while leaving the door open for bilateral negotiations if the plan is scrapped. "If Japan goes ahead with the survey in South Korea's exclusive economic zone, the government will sternly deal with the matter in accordance with international law and domestic laws," Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Ban Ki Moon said after a security policy meeting convened by President Roh Moo Hyun. "The Japanese government will be held responsible for any consequences that may arise from its actions," he told reporters. Roh convened the meeting of ministers in charge of foreign and security affairs in response to Japan's dispatch of two Japan Coast Guard vessels for the survey near waters of the South-Korean controlled islets, called Dokdo in South Korea and Takeshima in Japan, which also claims them.

The National Assembly also passed a resolution, urging the government to take strong countermeasures that would prevent Japan from conducting the survey within South Korea's EEZ. The resolution, unanimously passed by 241 lawmakers in attendance, demands Japan immediately drop the survey plan.

In Tokyo, Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said, "There is no problem in terms of international law in conducting a scientific maritime survey within our country's exclusive economic zone." Abe, the top government spokesman, repeatedly called for a "level-headed" response by both sides to the matter in accordance with international law, but also said Tokyo intends to go ahead with the planned survey. Bilateral relations have deteriorated since a Japanese local assembly in March 2005 approved an ordinance designating Feb 22 as "Takeshima Day" to press Japan's claims to the islets and the waters around them, which are rich in fisheries resources.

The main point is that Roh did so to divert attention from his failing economy -- and now has blatantly used this patriotic fervor to stimulate backing for his flagging Uri Party in the upcoming May elections -- and the Mar resignation of his Prime Minister over a "golf scandal." Though the GNP at first attempted to stay out of the latest fray, they were finally drawn into supporting the "Dokdo is Ours" campaign that was rising after the Japanese announced they were going to survey the contested EEZ.

(SITE NOTE: See Dokdo: Korea Net for background, but realize that the reference to Usando being the same as Dokdo on the website does NOT make sense as Usando is 8km from Uilengdo (main island), while Dokdo is 92km from Uilengdo. In addition, all the "proof" offered by the Koreans are suspect and under international law, the posession of the island was not settled after the end of WWII -- and the US specifically let the matter sit because of the conflicting claim by Syngman Rhee and the Japanese. In fact, the Mutual Defense Treaty with Korea is the one that states that the US will NOT automatically enter the fray to support Korea and must have Congressional approval. The reason is that the US position is that if Korea gets into a scrap over disputed islands and territory, it is on its own. As a matter of national honor, the Koreans in 1954 illegally seized the island and have held it by force with armed Maritime Police (popularly called Coast Guard) on the rock since that time.

The Shimane Prefectural Assembly's passed an ordinance designating 22 Feb. 2004 as "Takeshima Day" to reiterate Japan's territorial claim to the Takeshima islands. Though the ROK protested, Japan simply stated that this was a prefecture ordinance -- not a Japanese law -- and it could not interfere. Japan's renewed claim to Dokdo followed the discovery of large hydrocarbon deposits around the island, and to the rising nationalism in Japan. In 2004 a 10-year, $225-million gas exploration project was started southwest of Dokdo by Korea Gas, a state company. Korea National Oil and Woodside Petroleum of Australia started oil and gas exploration in the summer of 2005 north of Dokdo. Japan's claim to Dokdo is attributed to the rising trend of Japanese nationalism.

Personally we side with Korea possession as it dates back to the Chosun Dynasty in the 8th Century -- and even has historical references of the Chosun King forbidding his people to live on Ulleungdo -- near Dokdo -- indicating that the "area" belonged to the Chosun king. The Japanese at the time also admitted that Ulleungdo was Korean territory. Historically, the evidence seems to side with Korea. Japan on the other hand, states that the Chosun king ceded the island to Japan in 1905 -- the first land acquiesced to the Japanese BEFORE Japan annexed Korea in 1910. Whether this defense can be supported in an international court is debatable.

Another problem is that both countries didn't seem to indicate Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks specifically and the historical references being used are confusing at best. Though the Dokdo/Takeshima at 87km is closer to Ulleungdo (Kangwan-do, Korea) than Nishino-shima, Toyoda and Dogo Islands (Shimane Province, Japan) at 157.5km. The "proof" that Japanese had fished around Dokdo/Takeshima dating as far back as Korean records, makes everything murky. In Korea, Dokdo was called 'Usando', 'Hajido' and 'Sambongdo', and it is in the report of the governor of Ulleung-gun in 1906 where we can see Dokdo was called 'Dokdo'. In Japan, it was in the 17th century that the name "Dokdo" appeared; at that time Ulleungdo was called 'Jukdo' and Dokdo was called 'Songdo'. In modern times, the name "Songdo" disappeared, instead "Jukdo", which was originally the name for Ulleungdo, became the name for "Dokdo". The name 'Dokdo' appears for the first time in the Report of Sim Heungtak, the governor of Ulleung-gun in 1906. It is sometimes called "Dokdo" or "Dokdo" under different romanization standards. In 1849 French whale-hunters gave the name of their ship -- Liancourt -- to the islets. (Source: Global Security.org.) In addition, though the Korean side has shoals near Ulleungdo, the shoals and underwater reefs near Dokdo are closer to Japan. (See Google Earth Search) We ultimately believe that the matter should be settled in the World Court with ALL the evidence laid out -- in a winner-take-all battle -- where the fabricated evidence (and there is some centuries old) can be weeded out.)

1899 Map used by Koreans to "Prove" their claim to Dokdo. Unfortunately, the island claimed to be Dokdo on the map is much too close to Ulleungdo and in the wrong direction to be Dokdo. Other maps also confuse the issue by differing names.

The following is an excerpt from an essay by Mark J. Valencia in Nautilus.org in May 2006. It shows how convoluted this affair is due to interpretations of international maritime law under the 1982 UN Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

However at the heart of the dispute are two tiny islets called Takeshima by Japan and Dok Do by the Koreas. Both Japan and the Koreas claim sovereignty over the islets which are located 47 nautical miles east of South Korea's Ullung Island and 86 nautical miles northwest of Japan's Oki Island (Okinoshima). The islets appear to be unable to support human habitation without external assistance and arguably have no economic life of their own. Thus according to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) they should not generate a continental shelf or an EEZ.

South Korea has effectively controlled the islets since 1954. It occupies them and claims a 200 nm EEZ from Ullung Do which includes Dok Do. However, Japan argues that Takeshima can legally generate a Japanese continental shelf and EEZ. Its claim may be motivated by its concern that abandoning such a position might undermine its other claims to ocean space and resources around isolated islets such as the Senkakus in the East China Sea and Okinotorishima. The respective EEZ claims thus overlap and the area of overlap happens to include a rich squid fishery and potential deep water oil and methane hydrates (gas), as well as valuable minerals.

The legal situation is complex and uncertain. Both South Korea and Japan are parties to UNCLOS. But South Korea refuses to acknowledge Japan's claim either to Dok Do or to part of its EEZ. Its position is that a dispute over Dok Do does not exist because it is indisputably Korean territory. North Korea takes the same position and actually offered to help South Korea defend the islands during the recent confrontation.

According to UNCLOS, marine scientific research cannot be undertaken in another country's EEZ without that country's consent. Since Japan argues that it would be undertaking the survey in its own claimed EEZ, it feels there is no need to obtain South Korea's consent and that announcing its intentions was a simple courtesy. South Korea said it would arrest Japanese Coast Guard survey boats if they began to survey in South Korea's claimed zone. To back up its threat, it dispatched 20 gunboats to the area to conduct high seas seizure drills. But UNCLOS holds that government ships like those of the Japanese Coast Guard have immunity and thus presumably cannot be arrested. To do so could even be considered an act of war.

Also Japan could argue that it is undertaking a hydrographic survey not marine scientific research. Some countries like the United States and the United Kingdom argue that hydrographic surveys in another country's EEZ which by definition are generally undertaken to obtain information for the making of navigational charts and the safety of navigation cannot be regulated by the coastal state. Indeed they argue it is an exercise of the freedom of navigation and other internationally lawful uses of the sea accorded by UNCLOS. And UNCLOS also mandates that if countries are unable to agree on continental shelf or EEZ boundaries, the states concerned shall "make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and during this transitional period, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement". Thus Japan could try to legally challenge South Korea on any of these bases.

According to UNCLOS and the UN Charter both parties have an obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means. But if one party maintains there is no dispute, then the other must demonstrate that a dispute exists, presumably by diplomatic or ultimately physical means. Indeed Japan is apparently trying to force recognition that there is indeed such a dispute which must be settled according to the "Compulsory Procedures Entailing Binding Decisions" in UNCLOS. And it may well have succeeded. In an attempt to pre-empt this tactic, South Korea submitted a request to the UN Secretary General to exempt the current row from the dispute settlement procedures in UNCLOS.

To avoid compulsory settlement procedures, South Korea could argue that the so-called dispute necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of an unsettled sovereignty dispute over the islets and thus according to UNCLOS is excluded from the procedures. An excluded dispute may be submitted to settlement procedures only by agreement of the parties to the dispute. Assuming South Korean vessels arrest Japanese vessels, South Korea could also argue that the dispute concerns military or law enforcement activities which, according to UNCLOS, are excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal. Or it could argue that the dispute involves marine scientific research and it has not given its consent for such research in its EEZ. Thus in accordance with UNCLOS it is not obliged to submit to such settlement. Obviously there is a lot of room for legal maneuver and delay on both sides.

The agreed compromise consists of Japan canceling for now its planned survey and South Korea canceling its plan to register Korean names for submarine features near the disputed islets. However, South Korea has said that it is its sovereign right to do so and that it would indeed do so at an appropriate time. Meanwhile the two will try to negotiate their continental shelf and EEZ boundaries. Given the political sensitivities and the valuable resources in the disputed area as well as the legal complexities, this dispute is far from over. However, it would be far better for both parties and the region if this explosive issue were settled once and for all.

But the maritime boundary cannot be resolved until there is agreement on what to do about the sovereignty of the islands. One possibility would be to enclave the islands in a 12 nm territorial sea circle and to agree on a boundary equidistant between Ullung and Oki Island (Okinoshima)s. This approach would ignore the islets and leave their sovereignty to be determined by a wiser generation.

Another possibility would be for Japan to magnanimously agree to Korean sovereignty over Dok Do provided that both Koreas agree not to use it as a base point in boundary negotiations, and provided that the settlement include a caveat that each boundary issue should be decided on its own merits and that this settlement does not establish a precedent regarding any other unresolved maritime claims of either party.

This could mark the opening of a new chapter in Japan-Korea and even Japan-Asia relations. It would also be commensurate with the weight of the evidence, i.e., the Koreas' strong historical claim to Dok Do, Japan's historical acquiescence to South Korea's claim on several occasions, and South Korea's effective control of the features for more than 50 years. A boundary ignoring Dok Do would also be legally logical in that it is arguably not entitled to an EEZ or continental shelf under UNCLOS. Besides removing this nettlesome issue from regional politics, Japan would be demonstrating that it is benign, reasonable, far-sighted and generous, important qualities for a nation that aspires to regional leadership in the 21st Century.

---

ROK Name-change Proposals Spur Japanese Survey (Apr 2006) In January, Seoul announced that it would conduct a maritime survey in the East Sea, near Korean-controlled Dokdo from July 3 through 17. The current spat occurred when Japan announced on 14 April, a plan to conduct maritime research in waters around Dokdo and notified the International Hydrographic Organization of its plan. Tokyo maintained the survey is needed to match South Korean efforts to map the sea floor and name underwater formations including basins and ridges. Japan's planned survey was apparently motivated by what it perceived as South Korea's intent to register Korean names for submarine features in the area at the International Hydrographic Organization conference as a means to enhance Korea's claim to the area. Japan in response planned to collect bathymetric data to prepare Japanese names as counterproposals.

A Japanese news daily reports quoting a government official in Tokyo that a Korean maritime survey is to enter Japan's exclusive economic zone. But Japan's daily Sankei Shimbun stressed that Korea's planned maritime research would take place in waters between the two countries where their EEZs overlap. The paper also quoted an official with Japan's Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry as saying that the research may be related to the naming of a seabed near Dokdo. Japan registered the underwater basin in 1978 as "Tsushima Basin" with the International Hydrographic Organization and Korea is considering proposing its own name, Ulleung Basin.

They had four rounds of negotiations on the issue from 1996 to 2000 with little progress. As a tentative alternative, they signed another agreement in 1998 to operate a joint fishing area near the islets.


Dokdo protected by coast guard ships (Apr 2006)

The South Korean government summoned Japanese Ambassador to Seoul Shotaro Oshima to file an official protest against the planned survey. President Roh Moo-hyun labeled Japan's planned survey as "an offensive provocation" at a dinner with ruling and opposition party leaders at the presidential office and calls for a realignment of the country's "low-key" policy on the issue. A Japanese survey boat departed from Tokyo for Sakaiminata port in Tottori Prefecture, which was expected to serve as its home base during the ship's planned survey of the islets until the end of June. On 19 April, two Japanese survey boats set sail from Sakaiminata port, one at 3:30 p.m. and the other shortly after 5 p.m., putting the South Korean Coast Guard on high alert over a possible attempt to violate South Korean waters.

The waters surround a set of rocky outcroppings -- called Dokdo by Koreans and Takeshima in Japan -- that lie halfway between the countries and are claimed by both. The area is a rich fishing ground and is also believed to have methane hydrate deposits, a potential source of natural gas. The showdown highlighted the rising stakes of rival territorial claims in East Asia, and South Korea's deep-rooted bitterness over Japan's 1910-45 colonial rule. In the latest "showdown" the ROK Coast Guard showed off with their gunboats and the posturing over the "affront" of the Japanese attempting to survey the EEZ that was supposedly agreed to by the ROK as a "joint fishing ground." South Korea's coast guard said it has deployed more than 18 ships, including patrol vessels, near the islets to block the Japanese vessels from entering the EEZ claimed by South Korea."All preparations have been made. We will make sure the Japanese survey vessels do not cross our EEZ, using all available means, including stopping and searching, pushing out and seizing any Japanese vessels," an unidentified official at the coast guard headquarters in Incheon was quoted as saying in a Yonhap report.

According to the Mainichi Times on 22 Apr, "South Korea and Japan defused a tense, high-seas standoff with a compromise that sees Japan withdraw plans to survey disputed waters and South Korea delay efforts to register Korean names for underwater features in the area, officials said. Both countries agreed to hold more talks on demarcating their sea boundaries as early as next month, as part of a deal that wrapped two-straight days of negotiations amid concerns of a possible maritime confrontation."

Seoul had reportedly planned to try to register Korean names for several of the formations at an international ocean-mapping conference to be held in June in Germany. Among the proposals may be a request to change the name of the Sea of Japan, the international acceptance of which Seoul has long considered a colonial vestige. Seoul prefers the moniker East Sea for the body of water separating the countries. Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi said Seoul agreed not to submit its name-change proposals at the conference. But South Korea was vague in its agreement with Japan about postponing a proposal for the naming of geographical features in the waters surrounding the disputed Takeshima islets, simply telling negotiators it would seek Korean names "at an appropriate time." (Source: Daily Yomiuri.)

However, later the ROK government said it would re-embark on plans to give Korean names to the seabed in Dokdo waters because that part of maritime territory belongs to Korea. (SITE NOTE: The problem is that Dokdo is considered "disputed" and the ROK claims of it belonging to Korea has NOT been resolved in the World Court -- nor does the ROK want to submit it to litigation.) If Seoul reopens the name-change issue, Yachi on 24 Apr said, "Japan would theoretically have justifiable cause to return to the area to conduct surveys." If Tokyo does retaliate, the conflict would be back where it was previously.

However, the survey was not scrapped -- simply delayed. Japan had initially planned to launch the survey on 20 Apr, but delayed it in response to the South Korean protests. The Japanese government said the intended survey was to investigate the seafloor topography ahead of an international conference related to the appellation of seafloor topography in June. It came in response to South Korea's move to propose naming the seafloor topography of the area in question during the conference. The simple renaming of ocean floor has a deeper purpose as there is no definitive claim to the Dokdo/Takeshima and the claiming of the shelf extending from either Ulleungdo (Korea) or Oki (Japan) encompassing the island could prove beneficial in establishing a claim to Dokdo/Takeshima.

In Tokyo, Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said, "There is no problem in terms of international law in conducting a scientific maritime survey within our country's exclusive economic zone." Abe, the top government spokesman, repeatedly called for a "level-headed" response by both sides to the matter in accordance with international law, but also said Tokyo intends to go ahead with the planned survey. In other words, the area for the maritime survey is the disputed EEZ area that Japan claims is THEIR territory -- taunting the Koreans to take it to the World Courts. Seoul and Tokyo had several rounds of talks on the issue of an economic sea border from 1996 to 2000 with little progress. In a tentative step, they signed a fisheries agreement in 1998 to share a joint fishing area in their overlapping EEZ. The latest step by Korea to prevent the survey of the seabed lays claim to the disputed area.

Japanese Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs Shotaro Yachi, made an emergency trip to the South Korean capital on 21 Apr to try to break the impasse triggered by Tokyo's plan to send survey ships into the disputed waters. South Korea had vehemently opposed the survey plans and dispatched 20 gunboats to the area, warning that a physical confrontation was possible if Japan proceeded. The talks on Friday were "severe" and "tense" according to Yachi, while South Korean Vice Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan said the two sides "failed to find common ground."

Public outrage has flared in South Korea, where protesters have burned Japanese flags and tried to storm Tokyo's embassy, which was surrounded by police in riot gear. A truck was parked on 22 Apr in front of the downtown hotel where the negotiations were being held, blaring patriotic songs. The vehicle was plastered with signs urging Koreans to boycott Japanese goods and claiming "Dokdo is our territory." (SITE NOTE: Many South Koreans felt the dispute was directly related to the issue of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's visits to Yasukuni Shrine and the government's "misrepresentation of Japan's wartime past.")

Communist North Korea suggested that the two Koreas offer a joint response to Japan's survey plan. Japan has maintained it has the right to conduct the survey under international law, but has kept its two unarmed survey ships out of the waters as both sides sought a diplomatic solution.

It was reported that the Japanese had started the process to take the matter to the World Court for litigation, however, there may be many obstacles ahead as the ROK does NOT want this matter to go before the World Court. It simply says that "Dokdo is Ours." Shizuoka University Prof. Shunji Hiraiwa, who specializes in modern Korea, said, "In this agreement, I see that Japan and South Korea had a hard time settling the issue in a way that could satisfy both countries." He added: "What should be noted is that the two countries agreed to create an opportunity to talk about finalizing the borders of their exclusive economic zones. However, territorial rows are hard to resolve. The administration of South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun tends to link history [under Japanese colonial rule] with Japan-South Korea relations and avoids realistic solutions to problems. Depending on the circumstances, the government should consider such measures as taking negotiations over exclusive economic zones to the World Court."

But it does not provide a permanent tonic for the two sides' long-running territorial row. According to Yonhap News, Japan may push for another maritime survey in South Korean waters anytime after June 30. South Korea's attempt to register its own names for the underwater areas, if undertaken, will certainly face strong opposition from Japan as well. Tougher talks seem to lie ahead for the two nations.

After the stalemate was defused on 22 April, Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said that the agreement reached between Japan and South Korea on the dispute over the Takeshima islets came as "a result of efforts by both Japan and South Korea to peacefully settle the problem through clear-headed responses respecting international law." Abe also said, "We shall make efforts to build future-oriented friendly ties with South Korea through dialogue." The Japan Coast Guard issued a statement saying, "Although we decided to suspend a planned survey [of the seabed around Takeshima], we will strive to draw up a proper maritime chart covering the Sea of Japan." A statement issued by Shimane Gov. Nobuyoshi Sumita said, "The series of recent incidents has again shown the world that settling the row over the Takeshima islets is necessary for solving problems we have with South Korea in the Sea of Japan." However, on 25 Apr President Roh's hardline stance ended any talk of "future-oriented friendly ties."

On 25 April 2006, the Japan Today stated that South Korea demanded that Japan immediately drop its plan to conduct a maritime survey near a group of disputed islets in the Sea of Japan, while leaving the door open for bilateral negotiations if the plan is scrapped. "If Japan goes ahead with the survey in South Korea's exclusive economic zone, the government will sternly deal with the matter in accordance with international law and domestic laws," Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Ban Ki Moon said after a security policy meeting convened by President Roh Moo Hyun. "The Japanese government will be held responsible for any consequences that may arise from its actions," he told reporters. Roh convened the meeting of ministers in charge of foreign and security affairs in response to Japan's dispatch of two Japan Coast Guard vessels for the survey near waters of the South-Korean controlled islets, called Dokdo in South Korea and Takeshima in Japan, which also claims them.

The National Assembly also passed a resolution on 19 Apr, urging the government to take strong countermeasures that would prevent Japan from conducting the survey within South Korea's EEZ. The resolution, unanimously passed by 241 lawmakers in attendance, demands Japan immediately drop the survey plan.

Dokdo is located some 92 km east of South Korea's Ullung Island and about 157 kilometers northwest of Japan's Oki Island (Okinoshima)s. South Korea has so far used Ullung Island as the starting point of its EEZ as Dokdo would be still included in the zone. However, Seoul has recently started to consider moving the starting point to Dokdo amid the rising anti-Japanese sentiment in order to thwart the repeated provocations by Tokyo. However, if the EEZ makes Dokdo the "starting point" of the EEZ, Japan could use reefs in the southern part of East Sea/Sea of Japan waters separating the two nations as their "starting point." When taken altogether, the situation could become disadvantageous to the Korean side.

Bilateral relations have deteriorated since a Japanese local assembly in March 2005 approved an ordinance designating Feb 22 as "Takeshima Day" to press Japan's claims to the islets and the waters around them, which are rich in fisheries resources.

---

Roh Vows to Protect Dokdo At All Costs (Apr 2006) On 25 Apr 2006, President Roh Moo-hyun vowed South Korea would strongly defend Dokdo against Japanese claims, defining Tokyo's "repeated provocation as an act negating this country's complete liberation and independence from its former colonial ruler." In a special statement at Chong Wa Dae, he stressed South Korea would undertake all possible measures to protect Dokdo "whatever the costs and sacrifices may be because it is a matter of no compromise or surrender." ``Dokdo is our land,'' he said in a solemn tone in the nationally televised address. ``It is not only part of our territory but our own soil of a historic significance where 40 years of painful history is engraved vividly. "`Physical provocations will be met with strong and firm response,'' he added in the 10-minute speech. ``We will be incessant in our efforts to debunk the unjust Japanese actions before the world community and the Japanese people.'' (SITE NOTE: It was interesting to note that Roh only spoke of "40 years" of history -- instead of the disputed history which contains conflicting facts and historical maps. The South Korean government is expected to drastically beef up police forces on Dokdo, as well as on its East Sea border, while allowing its nationals greater access to the islets. This is the standard practice of the Roh government when beating the war drums -- putting on a show of force (though only symbolic in nature) and letting the photo-ops to involve the public and press. When criticized for his remarks, Roh instructed his embassies to "explain" the ROK positions on Dokdo -- as though the world would really care.)

Roh announced that Seoul will abandon its "silent diplomacy" on the Dokdo issue - a strategy to ignore Japanese claims to the islets - saying, "The Dokdo problem is not just about protecting our sovereignty over those small islets but about righting past wrongs in relations with Japan and establishing full sovereignty." Roh said Japan, by claiming sovereignty over Dokdo, was "claiming its territorial right over its former colony," which was tantamount to "a denial of Korea's full liberation and independence." The president warned it was a problem "where we can never give up or compromise, no matter what the sacrifice or cost."

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi told journalists after Roh's address he would like to meet with the Korean president. "I would like to deal with this issue in a calm manner on the premise of friendly relations between Korea and Japan," Koizumi said. He reiterated Tokyo's standard response that it wants to view the issue "in its entirety with a comprehensive and future-oriented outlook." "For that reason, it would be good to have a summit" with President Roh, he added. But the ruling Liberal Democratic Party's floor leader in the Diet, Toranosuke Katayama, accused Roh of "biased thinking" and added, "There is talk that he is taking on the issue because his approval rating is dropping, and that is not a good thing." (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)

Critics though were not so complimentary of the hard-line stance. "This is not an issue that can be solved with words. The Dokdo dispute can no longer be issued with temporary measures, so the government must come up with a definite stance on the islets and take step-by-step measures accordingly," said Grand National Party spokesman Rep. Lee Ke-jin. Jin Chang-soo, director of Sejong Institute Japan Center, said "It is questionable whether Roh's remarks will bring any results. It is good that the dialogue will band the people, but appropriate actions must ensue. I also believe the president should refrain from a hard-line diplomatic policy since it would limit our options and harden Japan's position. (Source: Korea Herald.)

There were concerns that the President's remarks might inflame the Japanese people to take on a nationalistic stance about the possession of Dokdo that had not been present in the past. On 28 Apr 2006 the Japanese government adopted a bill amending the basic education law to stress public spirit and Japanese traditions to promote a sense of patriotism. In essence, the rise of nationalism has now become a government priority -- as it prepares to expand its role to "protect its territory" from Russia to the north, China & Taiwan to the south, and Korea to the west.

This would complicate any negotiations on the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) forcing the situation into a head-on collision. However, the most common reaction that the Japanese showed was that Roh's statement was intended to please Koreans -- as expected after the Japanese appeared to come out of the situation with the upper hand. The Japanese media also reported that the Japanese government was expecting the Roh administration to continue toughening its stance, so as to help the ruling party with the local elections coming up in May. (Source: Donga Ilbo.)

BACKGROUND: In May 1996, Japan announced that it would set the EEZ borderline between Ullung Island and Dokdo, using Dokdo as the starting point of Japan's EEZ. But South Korea suggested the EEZ line be drawn between Dokdo and Oki Shoto of Japan with Dokdo as its starting point. A year later, however, Seoul proposed to mark the sea border from Ullung Island with the idea that Dokdo would still be included within the 200-nautical-mile EEZ boundary. The 1997 proposal drew harsh criticism from many South Korean scholars who argued that a country should adopt a part of its territory as the starting point of its EEZ. The ROK and Japan agreed to "jointly use" the EEZ -- but Japanese fishermen claim that they have been crowded out by the ROK fishermen. The EEZ is a contentious area.

Seoul and Tokyo held four rounds of unsuccessful talks between 1996 and 2000 over the demarcation of their EEZs. In May 1996, Japan announced that it would set the EEZ borderline between Ullung Island and Dokdo, using Dokdo as the starting point of Japan's EEZ. But South Korea suggested the EEZ line be drawn between Dokdo and Oki Island (Okinoshima)s of Japan with Dokdo as its starting point.

A year later, however, Seoul proposed to mark the sea border from Ullung Island with the idea that Dokdo would still be included within the 200-nautical-mile EEZ boundary. The 1997 proposal drew harsh criticism from many South Korean scholars who argued that a country should adopt a part of its territory as the starting point of its EEZ. But other experts have argued that there are numerous other ways to set the border when the length of the waters between two states concerned are shorter than required. The distance between South Korea and Japan is less then 400 nautical miles, making the two neighbors prone to disputes over the exact extent of the EEZ.

However, the Japanese media joined an avalanche of criticism of President Roh Moo-hyun after his televised tirade against Japan's claims to the Dokdo islets. Asahi Shimbun, which is generally liberal in its editorial outlook, said that President Roh was evidently unable to control his rage, interpreting the speech as a signal that there could be no improvement in bilateral relations between Korea and Japan for the rest of his term. The newspaper said that if territorial issues were thrust to the forefront of bilateral relations, the two nations would face a dilemma in addressing other issues. Mainichi Shimbun criticized Mr. Roh for inflexibility, while Yomiuri Shimbun said, "Roh has good reason to leave the matter to the World Court if he is so self-assured about the legitimacy of his country's stand in the dispute." Japan has proposed settling the dispute there twice in the past; those offers were rejected by Seoul. (Source: Joongang Ilbo.) Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso on Friday said President Roh Moo-hyun was making "a mistake" by linking Japan's claims to Korea's Dokdo with the island country's past colonial aggression. "The Dokdo issue is fundamentally a matter of dominion, not a historical matter," Aso told a Japanese House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committee meeting. "To weave our claims (to the island) together with history is a mistake, and I think it is an improper move." (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)

---

Korea Grasps at Straws to Prove its Ownership of Dokdo to the World (Apr 2006) According to the Chosun Ilbo on 28 Apr, a 1987 edition of the U.S. Air Force navigation map designates the area around the Dokdo islets as part of the Korea Air Defense Identification Zone. That means Japan needs authorization from Korea's Defense Ministry to enter the zone. The designation is in accordance with the U.S. Pacific Air Force Command established in the early 1950s. Experts say the significance of the finding lies in the fact that it has been practice in the international arena for over half a century. Unfortunately, there is the pragmatic view that the US recognizes that the ROK has physical control of the islet and therefore will publish the area in control of the ROK -- not a justification for ownership as the US recognizes it as a "disputed" area and has done so since the end of WWII negotiations between the US-ROK-Japan. Since no resolution could be reached, the islands were listed as the "Liancourt Rocks" -- NOT Dokdo or Takeshima -- and listed as "disputed."

In the past, the ROK has provided historical accounts that are not corroborated by Japanese historical documents. In addition, many of the Chosun Dynasty maps may be questioned that the island claimed by the ROK as Dokdo is really another island that was 8km from Ulleungdo -- not Dokdo which is 92km away. (SITE NOTE: Though we agree that the Dokdo belongs to the ROK, it is based on emotional reasons and not "proof" that we have seen so far. The ROK case looks weaker and weaker as one starts to look at the "proof." )

The National Assembly passed a measure on 1 May setting up a foundation to conduct research and publicize conclusions about the disputed islets of Dokdo, which Japan also claims. The foundation would try to counter alleged distortions in Japanese textbooks.

---

Japan attempt to Mend Fences Rebuffed (May 2006) Japan`s Senior Vice Foreign Minister Yasuhisa Shiozaki arrived in Seoul on May 1 to meet with Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon to attempt to mend the fences between the country -- and to cool off the situation. However, Ban was quoted as saying that Japan's claim on Dokdo is unacceptable as it is a violation of the Korean sovereignty at the meeting with Shiozaki. Ban was reported to have delivered to Mr. Shiozaki President Roh Moo-hyun's message that since Japan forcefully colonized the islets to wage war with Russia 100 years ago, its claim on Dokdo is as good as denying Korea's complete independence and liberation. The Minister also urged Japanese politicians to withdraw from their stance on Dokdo. (Source: Donga Ilbo.)

---

May 2006

Dokdo Resident Propaganda Resurfaces (May 2006) Instead of cooling off the hype, the ROK is heating up the dispute. The first telephone line will be installed for private use in Dokdo, Korea's easternmost islets. KT, a Korean telecom company, announced it will provide wired phone service for Kim Sung-do (66, resident of San 20, Dokdo-ri, Ulleung-eup, Ulleung-gun, North Gyeongsang Province), by sending several KT workers to him when he returns to Dokdo from Ulleungdo, a neighboring island, on May 3. There are six telephone lines and 11 hot lines in Dongdo, where Dokdo security guards are stationed. But Seodo, in which Mr. Kim resides, does not have any phone lines, giving Kim some problems in living there. KT is planning to provide the service without spoiling the islets' natural scenery by wirelessly linking Seodo with Dongdo, whose line is connected to Ulleungdo. (SITE NOTE: The islets appear to be unable to support human habitation without external assistance and arguably have no economic life of their own. Thus it can be argued that these "residences" are artificial -- and not real residences. It is like calling a hunting blind in a forest a "home" -- but in this case it would be classified by some as temporary "fishing huts" no matter how expensive.)

According to the Donga Ilbo, "With the phone, Mr. Kim is now able to make an emergency call as well as to say hello to his relatives. KT says that the phone service will show all over the world that Dokdo belongs to Korea. The last four figures of the phone number will be 1693. KT said the figures are to commemorate the work of Ahn Yong-bok, a Korean fisherman under King Sukjong, in the Joseon Dynasty. In 1693, he went to Japan to claim Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo and block Japanese fishermen from fishing in the Korean waters near Dokdo and Ulleungdo." (Source: Donga Ilbo.) (SITE NOTE: The only problem with the Ahn Yong-bok story is that the Japanese state there is no historical records to support Ahn's story of his visit to Tsushima's lord -- and even Ahn's account is filled with gaping holes...some indicating that he might have been speaking of another island instead of Dokdo.)


Kim Sung-do, who moved into Dokdo with his wife on 19 Feb 2006, examines his 1.3-ton-boat at a port in Ullung-do before sailing it to his new home hours later. (19 Feb 2006)

What is unsaid is that Kim was provided a new boat from "donations" and his home was built with government monies. The government is using Kim as propaganda. On 20 Feb it was announced two of the three Koreans who are registered residents of Dokdo islet, Kim Seong-do and Kim Shin-yeol, moved back home after 10 years. The couple moved to the islet in 1991 and left the islet in 1996 after their house collapsed in a storm and the dock became non-functional. The couple have been living on a neighboring island, Ullung-do, ever since. With its political tension with Japan over Dokdo escalating, the Ministry of Maritime Affaires and Fisheries spent 1.7 billion won ($1.75 million) to build a four-room house and repair the port facilities to lure civilian residents to the islets. The Maritime Ministry has "repaired" the couple's home, and private groups raised funds to buy a new fishing boat for them. The couple will soon have a neighbor in Pyung Bu-kyung, a 55-year-old poet, who plans to move to Dokdo sometime in April. (NOTE: These "residents" are "political pawns" as the ROK allowed people to register as residents to attempt to support their sovereignty case. As far as we know, prior to the 1990s, there were only fishing huts used for temporary shelter by fisherman, but no regular residents because of the lack of fresh water on both Seodo and Dongdo. The outpost on Dongdo is guarded by a lighthouse manned by maritime police and equipped with a helipad. Concrete docks were constructed after the old docks fell into disrepair in the late 1990s.)

For the 31 May elections, the four "residents" -- though there was no publicity of the other two "residents" moving in -- were able to cast absentee ballots along with the 37 security personnel on the islet. Though reserved for military, a special exception was made for the "residents."

On 5 May, the ROK announced that it would create a comprehensive plan for the development of the sensitive area. Under the plan, the government will start exploring submarine mineral resources in 2008, chiefly by drawing up a distribution chart of methane hydrate deposits tipped as a future energy resource and other mineral resources under the sea, and by developing a model to evaluate their economic viability. On top of that, W5 billion will be spent from 2007 on building 60-ton vessels dedicated to patrolling Dokdo. They will replace the current 10-ton boats that cannot sail in bad weather. The government is considering building a small solar power station and wind power station on the islets.

In May it was announced that a group was attempting to form a group of swimmers who would swim 242 km to Dokdo from the ROK mainland to publicize that Dokdo belonged to Korea. The group would be trained by the military to increase their stamina in order to survive the five-day swim to the islet.

At the end of May, the media reported that there were "endangered species" on or around the islet. A government survey found 107 kinds of birds including highly endangered falcons, 49 kinds of plant, 93 kinds of insect, 160 kinds of marine plants and several hundreds of marine invertebrates there. The Environment Ministry announced the findings of an ecological survey carried out between April last year and February 2006. One remarkable finding was a huge population of some 10,000 black-tailed gulls which practically own the islets besides some 600 fork-tailed petrels. Researchers were struck by the abundance of plants not native to the islets. Among the 49 kinds of plants they discovered, 19 originate elsewhere. There were also disappointments. Historical records say that some 30,000-50,000 Steller's sea lions were caught in Dokdo every year during Japanese colonial rule, but researchers found no surviving members of the species. It seems that every group wants to be in on the saving of Dokdo. Now this includes the environmentalists. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)

---

Japan Reacts: South Korea Claim "Illegal" (May 2006) On 12 May 2006, the Japanese government repeated its claim over the South Korean-controlled islets of Takeshima/Dokdo, saying Seoul has illegally occupied the islets since 1954. The Cabinet's fresh claim over the islets of Takeshima was made in a reply to House of Representatives politician Muneo Suzuki, who asked for historical and legal information on the islets. "(Japan) established the right to possession of the islets during the middle of the 17th century at the latest," it was stated. The Japanese government has previously claimed that the islets of Takeshima belong to Japan. However, this is apaprently the first time that it has called the South Korean claim to the area illegal. In Seoul, South Korea's Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry announced a statement saying that it cannot accept Japan's claim over the islets. (Source: Mainichi Daily)

In response, the ROK said on 12 May that it can "never tolerate" the Japanese government's fresh claim over the South Korean-controlled islets of Takeshima, known as Dokdo in Korean, in which it said South Korea has "illegally occupied" the islets since 1954. (SITE NOTE: The danger is that either side might accidentally commit an act of violence in a naval confrontation as the "truce" is only good until 30 Jun 2006.)

---

ROK to Renew Bid to Rename Seabed (May 2006) The Chosun Ilbo reported on 23 May that the government was preparing to submit ROK names for seafloor features in the Dokdo area to the International Hydrographic Organization. The government decided to resume the project which will again guarantee a flare-up of the previous dispute. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)

At that same time, Foreign ministers of Korea and Japan met on 23 May on the sidelines of a regional forum and discussed the lingering territorial dispute between the two countries. Korea's Ban Ki-moon and Japan's Taro Aso were both attending the Asia Cooperation Dialogue conference being held in Doha, Qatar. The ministers sat for one-on-one talks for the first time since the April spat over Japan's planned maritime survey around the disputed Dokdo islets in the East Sea. The two discussed how to resume negotiations on the Exclusive Economic Zone in the waters surrounding the rocky islands that are controlled by Korea but also claimed by Japan. Top diplomats from South Korea and Japan on on 23 May agreed to resume negotiations over their borderline for economic waters on June 12-13 in Tokyo.

On the same date, the Yomiuri Shimbun, a Japanese daily, reported that the Japanese government had methodically planned its attempted sea survey mission in the "ROK's territorial waters" -- though the Japanese claim it was in the overlapping Exclusive Economic Zone -- in April, which nearly turned into a diplomatic crisis. It quoted a source as saying Tokyo's attempt to send survey ships into the ROK waters was sanctioned by senior government figures. The daily said intra-governmental discussions among high-level Japanese officials regarding the sea survey began last December. Tokyo's Foreign Ministry sent a memo to the Japanese coast guard saying the sea exploration does not breach international laws and that the final decision was up to them. The paper also reports the Japanese government initially expected its Korean counterpart simply to denounce the plan and warn the ships to return. Instead President Roh reacted strongly claiming it was a matter of sovereignty. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)

---

June 2006

Seoul Will Name Dokdo as Starting Line of EEZ (June 2006) The government said on 5 Jun that it would propose Dokdo, the country's easternmost islets in the East Sea, as the starting line of its economic waters, during negotiations with Japan in Tokyo on June 12-13. It is the first time for the two countries to resume the negotiations after they failed to reach an agreement during their last round of talks in 2000. But the talks have remote chance of producing any progress as Japan claims that Dokdo belongs to its own territory and wants to designate it as the starting point of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

``We have no other way but to claim that Dokdo is the starting point of our economic waters, considering the recent developments, especially the situations last April,'' Seo Joo-seok, the senior presidential secretary for national security, told a KBS radio program. Seo concurrently heads an inter-governmental task force that was formed in May to map out measures to safeguard Dokdo. (Source: Korea Times.)

His remarks were seen as a first confirmation of Seoul's new position on the issue before the forthcoming EEZ talks, which some observers said mark an about-face from South Korea's earlier stance that it would not use Dokdo as its EEZ boundary. But Foreign Ministry officials denied that it represents a shift in the government's position. They say that although South Korea officially proposed the line be drawn between Ulleungdo and Oki Island (Okinoshima) in previous talks, it has never ruled out setting it between Dokdo and Oki Island (Okinoshima). (Source: Joongang Ilbo.)

---

Japan Coast Guard to Patrol Dokdo in July (June 2006) Donga Ilbo reported on 8 Jun that the Japanese Coast Guard decided to dispatch patrol ships if a maritime research expedition around the ROK's Dokdo islets by Seoul in July infringes on their announced Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Japan has claimed the ROK's easternmost islets and says that the maritime boundary for their EEZ lays between the Dokdo and Ulleungdo of the ROK. (SITE NOTE: This is an open challenge to the ROK over the use of military might over the disputed maritime area. The last time the ROK dispatched coast guard (maritime police) to the area when the Japanese attempted to conduct a maritime survey in April. The Japanese are doing the same with respect to the ROK intent to conduct a maritime survey. Any incident will certainly have reprecussions -- and possibly elevate the matter into international courts against the ROK will.)

---

ROK OKs Maritime Survey in July and Showdown Imminent (June-July 2006) On 28 Jun, the ROK government stated its intentions to conduct a maritime survey near Dokdo from July 3 to July 17 as scheduled despite Japan’s objection. A source in the National Oceanographic Research Institute (NORI) said on June 27, “We will conduct a survey on the currents in the waters near Dokdo using the oceanographic vessel No. 2000 (2,500 tons) from July 3 as announced through the navigation notice in January.” The No. 2000 is going to search for the black box of the F-15K fighter, which crashed into the East Sea on June 7, and move to the waters near Dokdo on July 3. (SITE NOTE: NORI used a 2,500-ton probe ship to determine the location of the wreckage then moved onto its survey mission. The ship is equipped with a sonar system which uses electronic detection waves to search deep sea waters. The Air Force continued searching for the black box with an unmanned submarine provided by KT Submarine Ltd., a private firm.)

Japan’s related bureaus such as Cabinet Office and Coast Guard decided to ask Korea to stop its scheduled survey by mobilizing a patrol boat when the oceanographic vessel enters what Japan claims as its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Japan has claimed that the midway line between Dokdo and Ulleungdo is the demarcation line between Korea’s and Japan’s EEZ. According to this claim, Dokdo and the neighboring waters are included in Japan’s EEZ. However, the government’s reported decision not to respond to Japan’s request to stop its examination of currents might cause serious conflicts between Korea and Japan. (Source: Donga Ilbo.)

On 3 Jul South Korea started surveying the sea currents in the East Sea, which included "an inspection" of the waters near the Dokdo islets. The 2,533-ton Haeyang 2000 left the outer port of Pusan with some 30 crew, including nine researchers, to survey the ocean current in the East Sea. The Korean Coast Guard (Maritime Police) decided to escort the Haeyang-2000 from its departure from Busan on July 3 until it completes surveying sea currents as planned. Once Haeyang-2000 approaches Dokdo, escorting guardships will be increased and patrol planes and choppers will stay close for its safety.

Japan warned South Korea that it would respond with ``appropriate actions'' should a South Korean survey ship enters its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). It urged Seoul to scrap the planned survey to avoid a possible high-seas showdown. Japan's chief cabinet secretary Shinzo Abe called on Seoul to stop the survey, saying, ``We again request the South Korean government to make a sensible decision to refrain from carrying out the survey.'' ``If South Korea goes ahead with the survey as planned, we will deal with it appropriately under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and domestic laws,'' he added. Once the ship enters the area claimed by Japan as its EEZ, Japan's Coast Guard will send patrol boats to turn back the South Korean vessel, Japanese officials said.

The ROK contends the survey was purely for scientific purposes aimed at studying sea currents, temperatures and saline density in waters near the islets until July 17. However, to back up the survey, the country's Coast Guard sent two maritime patrol aircraft to Pohang Airport, some 300 kilometers southeast of Seoul, and increased patrols near Dokdo. (Source: Korea Times.)

---

July 2006

ROK Survey Ship Enters EEZ After Japan "Warning" (July 2006) The 2,533-ton survey ship Hae Yang 2000 began conducting research 10 Jul and entered Japan's EEZ on 11 Jul in an area about 45 kilometers west-northwest of Takeshima. The ship was being escorted by a South Korean maritime police vessel. A Japan Coast Guard ship radioed the South Korean survey ship, asking it to stop. But the vessel continued, with the crew saying that Japan should not obstruct its research because it is being conducted in South Korea's EEZ

According to the Asahi Shimbun, "In a move that has reignited tensions, South Korea ignored repeated Japanese warnings Wednesday and sent a survey ship into Japan's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) near disputed islets in the Sea of Japan. A South Korean government official said the survey ship entered an area where the two countries' EEZs overlap around 6:40 a.m. The area includes the disputed islets known as Takeshima in Japan and Tokto in South Korea."

Japan's Foreign Ministry expressed concern and reiterated its demand that South Korea stop the survey. "It is highly regrettable that (South Korea) went ahead with its maritime survey despite our government's repeated call for a halt or putting it off. We demand an immediate halt," Foreign Ministry spokesman Yoshinori Katori said in a statement. He added that Japan will carry out its own maritime survey "at an appropriate time," reversing the government's previous stance. (SITE NOTE: The Japanese also stated that it would have maritime protection if it did so -- meaning that there is the potential of a military face-off.) Japan had planned to dispatch survey vessels to the same area near Takeshima in April, but South Korea angrily oppose d. Tokyo decided to put off its maritime research based on an agreement reached during vice foreign ministerial talks that eased, at least temporarily, the friction over the disputed territory. (Source: Asahi Shimbun.)

---

August 2006

Japan to Conduct Survey in Dokdo Area (Aug 2006) Kyodo News reported that Japan has told the ROK it will conduct a radioactive waste survey from late August to early September in waters near two disputed islets in the Sea of Japan, a Japanese Foreign Ministry source said Wednesday. The Japan Coast Guard will conduct the survey to examine the effects of radioactive waste dumped in waters near Vladivostok in Russia's Far Eastern region by the former Soviet Union. One or two of the sites to be covered in the survey are in the ROK-claimed EEZ, the source added. Japan started regular surveys on radiation contamination on the sea in 1995. Tokyo has conducted the radiation surveys in the East Sea every year since Russia revealed that a nuclear submarine dumped nuclear waste near Vladivostok in 1993.

Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon told reporters Japan would need permission if it wants to conduct a survey within Korea’s exclusive economic zone. But that is disputed as the survey area also is claimed by Japan. Another round of territorial squabbling is expected if Tokyo ignores the demand reasoning that waters near Dokdo are part of its EEZ -- which it does. The two countries clashed diplomatically in July, when Korea pushed ahead with its own sea current survey in the same region. Ban went to Japan to meet with the Japanese over a multitude of issues including Dokdo in Aug 2006. The two countries were scheduled in Sep 2006 to discuss demarcation of their EEZ boundaries.

The Korea Coast Guard on 15 Aug said it planned to reinforce its patrols in the disputed waters of the East Sea, which Korea shares with Japan. The national maritime police agency said it would provide more ships, fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters to defend against any "hostile movements from Japan." "We need to strengthen the police force on an everyday basis to secure Korea's maritime sovereignty," an official at the maritime police agency said.

The Korea Coast Guard said it has only one aircraft deployed in the area compared to Japan's 29. Korea has 22 helicopters while Japan has 46. Korea has 22 large warships, and 39 mid-size warships compared to Japan's 54 and 62. Korea is planning to purchase eight more warships and 11 aircraft by 2010. The Ministry of Planning and Budget said it has received the Coast Guard's annual budget plan. The maritime police agency has budgeted 687.6 billion won ($721 million) for 2007, and 965.9 billion won, 974.9 billion won and 996 billion won for 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively.

---

Korean Map with Dokdo and East Sea for Publicity (Aug 2006) On 13 Aug the ROK government plans to distribute a world map naming the waters between the Korean Peninsula and Japan as the 'East Sea,' and a set of South Korea-controlled islets over which Japan also claims sovereignty as 'Dokdo.' The map, which will be distributed worldwide, is the first government-produced world map in both Korean and English, said the officials at the National Geographic Information Institute (NGII), which falls under the construction ministry. "Through consultations with related ministries, we produced the map on the occasion of the 61st anniversary of Korea's liberation from Japanese colonial rule (1910-45) on Aug. 15," an NGII official said.

The 110 centimeter by 160 cm map was drawn on a scale of 1:2,800,000 using Mercator's projection, with the Korean Peninsula located at its center. The locations of Korea's two polar research institutes are also marked. The map provides information on time differences by region, as well as air and sea routes used by South Korean airlines and shipping companies. The NGII is using the map to promote the country's sovereignty over the rocky outcroppings.

---

Blog becomes Center of Controversy (Aug 2006) Gerry Bevers, an English teacher at a Korean university, started a personal project to investigate the historical facts of Korea's claims on Occidentalism blog. Gerry had been pursuing this subject at first at Korean Language Notes. A synopsis of the contents of his posts refuted ROK claims that islands next to Ulleungdo marked on old maps were actually Dokdo. Using analysis of maps and historical records, he built up a compelling case.

Soon Japanese activists supporting Japanese claim to Takeshima/Dokdo joined in the commentary and started quoting the references to support their claims. (SITE NOTE: In December 2006, the site came to the attention of the university's Dean and he told Gerry that he should cease posting to the site. Gerry did so. However, in Jan 2007 Gerry's contract was terminated allegedly because of substandard performance -- though he had superior performance ratings and was complimented on his Korean ability in teaching for his seven years at the university. We believe that Gerry's Korean Language Notes blog started to be quoted by Japanese activist sources claiming that Dokdo/Takeshima was Japanese territory. As such, Gerry came into the spotlight of ROK activists -- who then reported him to the university officials. Though Gerry stopped posting to the blog, his employment was ultimately terminated. He has taken his case to court to battle his dismissal, the litigation may take years.)

• Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 1 Gerry Beavers wrote, "There are no Korean maps or documents before 1905 that refers to any island in the Sea of Japan as "Dokdo," including the 1900 Korean Imperial Proclamation mentioned by the American law professor. Therefore, everytime the video claims that a Korean map or document says "Dokdo," you will know that it is a lie. Old Korean maps and documents referred to two islands in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). The islands were Ulleungdo (Muleungdo) and Usando. Koreans claim that Usando was Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks), so when they see Usando mentioned in a Korean document or on a Korean map, they often just call it Dokdo instead of using the name on the map or in the document. However, that is not only confusing, it is a big mistake because Korea's historical maps and documents suggest that Usando was actually Jukdo, which is a small island less than four kilometers off the east coast of Ulleungdo. This means that when the video talks about Japanese documents saying this or that about "Dokdo," the documents are most likely referring to Ulleungdo's neighboring island, Jukdo, not to present-day Dokdo. Usando was most likely Jukdo, a small island less than four kilometers off the east coast of Ulleungdo. The following Korean maps of Ulleungdo clearly show that Usando was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Dokdo, which is an island 92 kilometers away from Ulleungdo."
  
  
• Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 Gerry Beavers wrote, "In my first post on the issue, I used maps and quotes from Korean historical documents to show that the island Koreans are using to base their claim on Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) was actually just a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. Korea's own historical documents say that the island, "Usando," was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. They say that it was fertile, had trees and various plant life, and had people living on it. That is proof that Usando could not have been Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) since Liancourt Rocks is just barren rocks with no trees, soil, or water to support a settlement. To further emphasize the fact that Usando could not have been Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), here is a Korean record from the Annals of King Sejo: ... Notice that the record says that both Usando and Muleungdo (Ulleungdo) were suitable for settlements and that the islands had an abundance of plant and animal life, which included various kinds of trees. That means that Usando could not have been Liancourt Rocks because there is no soil for plants and trees, which makes it unsuitable for a settlement. Also, notice that the record again says that it was two days travel time to the two islands, just as the Chinese characters say on the bottom line connecting the two islands to the mainland on this 1710 Korean map. The above record is not unique, but one of many that show that Usando could not have been Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo)."
  
  
• Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3 Gerry Beavers wrote, "The following is an analysis of the report of a 1786 inspection of Ulleungdo. The report was submitted by Wonchun Governor Lee Chi-jung on July 4, 1786 and was recorded in the Ilseongrok, which was a daily chronicle of selected events and discussions in the Joseon royal court from 1752 to 1910. One problem with the 1786 report is that it seems incomplete since it fails to describe the east coast of Ulleungdo. ... The importance of the report is that it says unequivocally that there was a place on Ulleungdo called "Seal Beach" (????), where riflemen in the inspection party killed two sea lions. This is important because Korean historians have suggested that references to sea lion hunting in old Korean documents were evidence that Koreans traveled to "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks), but this 1786 report is proof that Koreans were hunting sea lions on Ulleungdo, not Dokdo."
  
  
• Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4 Gerry Beavers wrote, "The following is the report of a 1794 Korean inspection of Ulleungdo and my analysis of it. The report is significant because it refers to an island named Gajido (???), which Koreans claim was a reference to present-day "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks). However, there is little or no basis for such a claim since the report mentioned no coordinates for Gajido (???), no bearing, distance, or description. Also, there are no other references to the island in Korean historical documents. In fact, there is no solid evidence in any Korean document or on any Korean map before 1905 that would support the claim that Koreans even knew about "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks). So why do Koreans claim that Gajido was a reference to "Dokdo"? Well, they base their claim solely on the fact that sea lions lived on both Gajido (???) and on "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks). In fact, the name, Gajido (???), means "Seal Island." The problem with that logic, however, is that it ignores the fact that sea lions or seals also lived on Ulleungdo. In my analysis of the 1794 report, I will try to show that Gajido was not a reference to "Dokdo," but was simply a reference to a place, rock, or island on or around Ulleungdo. In fact, an 1886 inspection of Ulleungdo, which you can read about here, said that sea lions or seals were hunted on Ulleungdo. That report, in itself, pours cold water on Korea's "Gajido-was-Dokdo" claim, but the 1894 report below will pour even more."
  
  
• Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4 Supplement Gerry Beavers wrote, "I mentioned that Koreans claim that Gajido was a reference to "Dokdo" based solely on the fact that sea lions used to live there. I pointed out, however, that sea lions also used to live on Ulleungdo and that the document mentioning "Gajido" described it as a place on or near Ulleungdo. ... Here are two different references to the "sea lions" on Ulleungdo from two separate Korean historical documents, which I have already mentioned in previous posts: ... The 1786 document referred to sea lions, two caves, and a beach called "Gaji-gumi" (????), which means "Seal Beach." In my post, I suggested that "Seal Beach" was on the west side of Ulleungdo because on an 1882 Korean map of Ulleungdo, there was a cave on the west side of the island called Gaji-gul (???), which means "Seal Cave." The 1794 document also talked about sea lions on Ulleungdo. It said the inspection party surprised four or five sea lions that looked like "water buffalo" (??) and killed two of them. Then the record seemed to go on to talk about a beach and a valley near where the sea lions were killed. The record said that the inspection party walked four kilometers into the valley, which means it could not have been "Dokdo" since the whole island of Dokdo is not even four kilometers long."
  
  
• Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 5 Gerry Beavers wrote, "The following is a conversation between King Gojong and Lee Gyu-won on April 7, 1882, prior to Lee's departure on his inspection tour of Ulleungdo. Notice that King Gojong and Lee Gyu-won had different information on Ulleungdo's neighboring islands. King Gojong believed there were two islands next to Ulleungdo, "Songjukdo" and "Usando." Lee Gyu-won, however, said that "Usando" was just another name for Ulleungdo, and that "Songjukdo" was its only neighboring island. Lee said it was about 30 ri (approximately 12 kilometers) offshore and had rosewood trees and pipesteam bamboo as products."
  
  
• Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6 Gerry Beavers wrote, "If present-day maps show Ulleungdo with two neighboring islands called "Jukdo" and "Gwaneumdo," why did old Korean maps show it with only one neighboring island called "Usando" (??? - ???)? The following are cutouts of Ulleungdo from old Korean maps from the latter part of the Joseon Dynasty:" The cutouts showed only one island to the east -- indicating Usando, not Dokto.
  
  
• Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 7 Gerry Beavers wrote, "Koreans claim that they have known about "Dokdo" since 512 A.D., but there are no Korean maps from the Chosun Dynasty (1392 - 1910) or earlier that show any island in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) labeled as "Dokdo," nor are there any Korean documents that mention it before 1906. There are, however, several maps that show Ulleungdo (???) and an island next to Ulleungdo labeled Usando (???). Koreans claim that Usando was the old name for "Dokdo," but Japanese claim that Usando was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo. ... Usando was not present-day "Dokdo." It was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is approximately two kilometer's off of Ulleungdo's east shore. There are no Korean documents or maps before 1905 that show that Korea even knew about Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), much less considered them Korean territory."
  
  
• Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 1 Gerry Beavers stated, "Koreans claim that Usan (Usando) was the old name for present-day “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks), but the Japanese claim that it was Jukdo, which is a small island less than four kilometers off the east coast of Ulleungdo. Since “Dokdo” is ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo, it seems obvious that Usan (Usando) was not “Dokdo.” In fact, it looks like the Japanese claim that it was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (Chukdo) is correct."
  
  
• Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2 Gerry Beavers stated, "In the Dokdo/Takeshima debate, Korean historians claim that an island named “Gajido” (Seal Island) was a reference to “Dokdo,” but Japanese historians say that Gajido was just a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. I think Gajido was a reference to “Phoenix Rock,” which was near Seal Cave. The reason that I say this is not only because of the nearness of the rock to Seal Cave, but also because of the present-day name of the rock, which is “Lion Rock.” In Korean, a sea lion is called a “bada saja,” which literally means “sea lion.” I think sometime in the past Koreans changed the name from Phoenix Rock to Lion Rock because of all the seals or sea lions that used to live in the caves in that area. Finally, here is a question to see if you have been paying attention. Of all the islands, islets, and rocks mentioned on the map, which one do you think might have been a reference to “Dokdo”? Give up? Well, the people at the Kyujang Gak Institute at Seoul National University think that it might be “Elephant Rock,” but they cannot explain why it is located north of Ulleungdo. Here is what the Kyujang Gak Instutite said about the 1882 Ulleungdo map on its Web site:"
  
  
• Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2 Supplement Gerry Beavers stated, "The above passage says that Gajido was originally Usanguk, which was Ulleungdo. Gajido was either another name for Ulleungdo, a place on Ulleungdo, or one of Ulleungdo’s neighboring islands or islets. Koreans claim that Gajido was Dokdo, but their claim seems to be based solely on the fact that there were sea lions at Gajido and there were once sea lions on Dokdo. However, as the above passages clearly show, there were also sea lions on Ulleungdo. Gajido was not Dokdo. "
  
  
• Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 3 Gerry Beavers said, "Koreans claim or suggest that references to sea lion hunting in old Korean documents were proof that Koreans traveled to “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks), but the above map pours cold water on that claim since it shows that there were also sea lions on Ulleungdo. The map also shows that Usando was just a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. It was not “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks), as Koreans claim, since Dokdo is ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. Usando was most likely Jukdo (??), a small island less than four kilometers off of Ulleungdo’s east coast."
  
  
• Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4 Gerry Beavers stated, "The following are three old maps of Korea’s Gangwon Province, which included the islands of Ulleungdo (??? - ???) and Usando (??? - ???). All three maps show Usando as a smaller neighboring island of Ulleungdo. Next to the islands on all three maps is written the following (or a shortened version):????????? (?????????) “With (a good) wind, [the islands] can be reached in two days from Uljin.” Koreans claim that “Usando” was the old name for present-day “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks), but the following maps do not support that claim since they seem to be saying that Ulleungdo and Usando were both 2-days travel time from Uljin. If Usando had been present-day Dokdo, it would have required, at least, a third day of travel time since Dokdo is ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo."
  
  
• Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 5 Gerry Beavers stated, "Koreans claim that “Usando” was the old name for present-day Dokdo, which is essentially two islands ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. However, the above maps very clearly show Usando as a “single,” neighboring island of Ulleungdo in a location that is very close to where Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo is today. The question would have to be asked, “If Usando is “Dokdo,” then where is “Jukdo”? Dokdo does not appear on any Korean map or is mentioned in any Korean document before 1906, which was after Japan legally incorporated Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) in 1905."
  
  
• Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 6 Gerry Beavers stated, "Koreans claim that Usando was the old name for Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks - Takeshima), but the above map shows that Usando was not Dokdo. It was almost certainly Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo. If Usando were Dokdo, then a line should have been drawn from Ulleungdo to Usando showing that it would have required, at least, another day’s travel time to get there since Dokdo is ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. Since no such line was drawn on the map, that shows that Usando was just a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Dokdo. Besides, in 1894, Japan was referring to Dokdo as “Liancourt Rocks.”
  
  
• Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 Gerry Beavers stated, "The Gyujanggak Map & Document Museum at Seoul National says that the Usando on the map seems to be “Dokdo” (?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???). However, because the island is located off the east coast of Ullleungdo in almost the exact location as Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, and because the island had fields of bamboo that could grow twenty feet high, I think Seoul National University is full of crap mistaken. Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) is essentially just two barren rocks that did not have the soil to grow the kind of bamboo mentioned above. The Usando shown on the above map was almost certainly Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (?? - ??), which is approximately 2.2 kilometers off the northeast shore of Ulleungdo. By the way, Jukdo means “Bamboo Island” in English."
  
  

YouTube: Japanese Dokdo/Takeshima Issue Pt I
YouTube: Japanese Dokdo/Takeshima Issue Pt II
YouTube: Japanese Dokdo/Takeshima Issue Pt III
YouTube: Japanese Dokdo/Takeshima Issue Pt IV (Hat Tip: Gerry Beavers: Dokdo or Takeshima for pointing these out.)

---

September 2006

ROK-Japan Meeting over EEZ Unfruitful (Sep 2006) The Sept meeting of the ROK and Japan over the EEZ ended in a deadlock with nothing resolved. The Japanese announcement that it would launch a scientific mission to test for radiation in the waters -- that it has conducted since 1992 after a Soviet admission that it dumped nuclear reactors in the sea -- was protested by the ROK and also remains a bone of contention. The exact date of the Japanese test had not been announced as of Sept.

---

Joint Survey agreed Upon instead of Japan Radioactive Survey (Sep 2006) Bloomberg on 11 Sep 2006 reported that the ROK and Japan agreed to conduct a joint survey around a group of disputed islands that lie between the two nations. The ROK approved Japan's request to conduct a survey on the impact of radioactive waste dumped by the former Soviet Union between the 1950s and 1990s off its eastern port of Vladivostok, the ROK's Foreign Ministry said in a statement. ``South Korea and Japan held working-level talks on Sept. 8 and agreed in principle to conduct a joint survey on radioactive pollution in the East Sea,'' a reference to the waters between the two nations, the ministry said in a statement e-mailed late on Sept. 8.

---

FINALLY -- a Reasonable JOINT Solution (Oct 2006) On 8 Oct South Korea and Japan on Saturday began a weeklong JOINT ocean survey of radioactivity in the East Sea. The eight-day survey is in line with an earlier agreement between the two countries to jointly survey the level of radioactive waste dumped by the former Soviet Union between the 1960s and the 1990s. It was the first such survey conducted in the area since 1994-95 with the help of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency. A Korean research ship, Tamgu No. 1, which belongs to the National Fisheries Research and Development Institute, left the southern port of Busan in the afternoon with three Japanese scientists aboard. Three South Korean scientists also boarded a Japanese coast guard survey vessel, the Kaiyo, which left Japan's southwestern port of Moji the same day, said officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. One IAEA official boarded each of the two research ships to help the project, they said.

The two ships will collect samples of seawater and undersea soil in six spots, including areas near the South Korean islets of Dokdo, and share collected data, the officials said. The nearest point to the islets where the survey will be conducted is about 40 nautical miles away, they said. The location of the survey is sensitive, because the two countries are in conflict over where to draw their exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the area. South Korea currently controls the islets by keeping a police detachment there.

The survey was agreed at a working level meeting last month after their vice ministers held intense talks over Seoul's protest at Tokyo's original plan to conduct the survey alone in the disputed waters this year. Japan has been surveying the effects of radioactive waste dumped by the former Soviet Union near Vladivostok since 1993. Japan, South Korea and Russia conducted joint surveys in 1994 and 1995. (Source: Korea Herald.)

---

November 2006

Tokyo Allegedly Admits Knowledge of Document (Nov 2006) On 20 Nov 2006, Yonhap News reported that the Japanese government, in an unprecedented move, has acknowledged the existence of a 19th-century document that could prove Japan's longstanding claim over Dokdo, a set of South Korean islets, to be groundless. In a recent letter to Yonhap News Agency, Japan's Foreign Ministry said it was aware of an 1877 document sent by the Japanese Cabinet to other government offices as an official instruction. The document describes Dokdo and nearby Ulleungdo as not being part of Japan, and says the islands should not be included in its territory on official maps.

It apparently undermines a claim by Japan's government and scholars that Dokdo historically belongs to the island country. Contrary to the contents of the document, Japan has long maintained that the country effectively controlled the territory from ancient times and it reaffirmed its ownership in 1905 through a decree by Shimane Prefecture.

Responding to Yonhap's latest written inquiry sent to Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso, however, the ministry said it knows about the existence of the document drawn up by the Japanese government body called "Daijokan" in Japanese and "Taejeonggwan" in Korean. But it refused to comment further, saying a related investigation and analysis is under way. It is the first time for the Japanese government to officially recognize the document itself. Historians here said it would damage Japan's decades-old campaign to justify its claim to Dokdo. "The Taejeonggwan note is a decisive document to support South Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo, and for Japan it is like an Achilles' heel," Lee Suk-woo, professor of international law at South Korea's Inha University. A Japanese-born scholar, who asked not to be named, said that the document shows Japan ignored the official government document and carried out the imperialistic act of declaring its ownership in 1905. "But Japan may try to fabricate related facts," he said. (Source: Yonhap News.) (SITE NOTE: There is a question whether the ROK was manipulating the facts. The island claimed to be Dokdo, may in fact be Jukdo which is located just off the coast of Ulleungdo. The Japanese emporer did concede that Ulleungdo was Korean territory -- and of course, so would Jukdo. However, the ROK claims that the island was not Jukdo off the coast of Ulleungdo -- but actually Dokdo 92 km away.)

---

2007

January 2007

Japan and ROK Arrange EEZ Talks in Mid-Jan (Jan 2007) Yonhap News on 3 Jan reported that Japan and the ROK had been working to hold a meeting in Tokyo possibly in mid-January 2007 as part of their efforts to define their exclusive economic zones. The meeting would be the seventh in a series of negotiations. In the latest round, the discussions are expected to focus on measures for the two countries to conduct marine researches smoothly.

---

College English teacher Dismissed for Dokdo Statements (Jan 2007) Gerry Beavers, an English teacher at a Korean university, was dismissed allegedly because of remarks made on his blog -- Korean Language Notes and his website Occidentalism. On the site, Gerry had built up convincing arguments that the ROK had been systematically used half truths to bolster their claims to Dokdo. Most compelling was the ROK claims that the maps in the 1700s showed Dokdo -- thus "proof" that the rocks belonged to the ROK. However, the supposed "proof" was actually one of two islands off the coast of Ulleungdo -- and NOT Dokdo. In addition, Dokdo is 92 km away from Ulleungdo, while the old maps show the islands off Ulleungdo. The ROK claims the names of the islands were actually Dokdo, but Gerry refuted the claim using maps and historical references. (SEE Occidentalism blog becomes Center of Controversy (Aug 2006) for details.)

In December 2006, the site came to the attention of the university's Dean and he told Gerry that he should cease posting to the site. Gerry did so. However, in Jan 2007 Gerry's contract was terminated allegedly because of substandard performance -- though he had superior performance ratings and was complimented on his Korean ability in teaching for his seven years at the university. (SITE NOTE: We believe that Gerry's Korean Language Notes blog started to be quoted by Japanese activist sources claiming that Dokdo/Takeshima was Japanese territory. As such, Gerry came into the spotlight of ROK activists -- who then reported him to the university officials. Though Gerry stopped posting to the blog, his employment was ultimately terminated. He has taken his case to court to battle his dismissal, the litigation may take years.)

---

Online Sites Dealing with Dokdo (Jan 2007) According to Gerry Beaver's in Jan 2007, the Annals of King Gojong and King Sunjong were added to the online version of “The Annals of the Chosun Dynasty.” According to a previous message on the site, the records of the two kings were removed because it was feared that the Japanese had somehow manipulated them since they were compiled while Korea was a colony of Japan. Gerry added that it was a great resource from the National Institute of Korean History, but "I do not know if these new records of Kings Gojong and Sunjong have been edited and sanitized, but I am somewhat suspicious since they were offline for about one year." Unfortunately, the resource is only in Hangul.

According to Gerry another great Korean online history resource is Seoul National University’s Kyujanggak Institute for Korean Studies. According to Gerry, "The document and map collection and the technology used to present them online is simply fantastic. Zooming in on the details of a map is like zooming in from a spy satellite. It is amazing."

---

March 2007

Japan-ROK Talks on Dokdo (Mar 2007) Agence France Presse on 5 Mar reported that Japan and the ROK opened talks aimed at settling a territorial spat over a cluster of disputed islets. The one-day meeting focused on ways for the two countries to notify each other in advance if they want to conduct marine surveys around the islands claimed by both neighbors. Shortly after the meeting, the ROK rejected a Japanese request to conduct scientific research within the ROK 12-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) -- starting at Ulleungdo. The conclusion is that the ROK is still not ready to talk to the Japanese. On 16 Mar as if on cue, the Japanese were reported to be holding four boat captains (and their boats) for encroaching on the Japanese EEZ at Oki, Shimane prefecture.

---

April 2007

Korea, Japan Renew Arm Wrestling Over East Sea (Apr 2007) South Korea and Japan once again wrangled over the name for the body of water that divides them at the International Hydrographic Organization conference that was to open in Monaco on May 7, five years after the last. Both countries have already started their diplomatic campaigns over the name of what Korea calls the “East Sea”, and Japan has nominated a maritime affairs specialist as its candidate for the IHO Board of Directors.

In the August 2002 IHO conference, Korea insisted on using both "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan”, based on a 1974 IHO resolution saying that if two countries share a sea, they can both use the name of their choice. The IHO reversed its previous position on using the single appellation “Sea of Japan.” In the fourth edition of "Limits of Oceans and Seas", the IHO deleted “Sea of Japan” and put the matter up for a vote. But a month later, it suspended the vote without further explanation. South Korean government officials said this was because Japan used tremendous diplomatic pressure involving the entire Cabinet. Afterwards, the IHO asked South Korea and Japan to report a decision after bilateral consultations. The two countries predictably stuck to their guns: Seoul wants both names used and Tokyo only “Sea of Japan.”

The bone of contention at the upcoming IHO conference will again be the fourth revised edition of "Limits of Oceans and Seas.” Lee Ki-suk, a professor emeritus of geography at Seoul National University, who is going to attend the IHO conference, said, "In light of the sensitivity to everybody, the IHO Board of Directors is unlikely to decide on the issue and will probably let member countries make a decision at the conference." The Korean government has dispatched officials to Monaco, where the IHO is headquartered, to woo support from member countries.

An official with Korea’s National Oceanographic Research Institute said, "We are engaged in a total war, because we will have to wait another five years if we lose this chance." According to a South Korean government official, Japan also seems to be using all diplomatic means so that no final decision will be made on deleting the single appellation “Sea of Japan.”

Japan is attempting to win a seat on the IHO Board of Directors. It has nominated Hideo Nishida, the former director-general of the Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department of the Japan Coast Guard. Nishida competes with incumbent Greek and Chilean members who seek re-election, and with candidates from Norway, Australia and Nigeria. A senior NORI official said, "Candidate Nishida is a heavyweight. If he was elected, we’d have great difficulty pushing for the appellation ‘East Sea.’"

Korea Faces Heavy Seas at Ocean Conference (May 2007) Ahead of the International Hydrographic Organization conference in Monaco, there was tension as the IHO was expected to decide the official name of the body of water dividing Korea and Japan. The body was to settle whether a new edition of "Limits of Oceans and Seas," a guide book for map makers around the globe, will use both "East Sea," Korea’s name, and "Sea of Japan."

Until recently, Japan had been on the defensive. But days ahead of the conference Tokyo wrote to world-renowned experts on geographical designations asking for their support. In the letter, Japan says the designation "Sea of Japan" was in use before 1929, when the IHO used it for the first time, adding it is irrational to delete a name that is familiar to the international community. Japan is reportedly asking all 78 IHO member countries for support, stressing the fact that it contributes nearly 20 percent to the organization’s budget. It has even hinted it could break away from the IHO if the name "Sea of Japan" is not retained.

The Korean government insist on using "East Sea/Sea of Japan" based on a 1974 IHO resolution on using double designations. But in reality, Tokyo’s diplomatic offensives have left Seoul floundering. The Korean government has set up a taskforce at the Foreign Ministry without understanding the magnitude of the issue. In a summit last year, President Roh Moo-hyun suggested to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe calling the East Sea "Sea of Peace." In the battle for hearts and minds, that could damage Seoul’s position since it could be seen as not taking the matter too seriously. "With diplomatic efforts, we got the IHO to accept the idea of deleting the name 'Sea of Japan' 10 years after we first raised the issue,” a government official said. “But many countries are now listening to Japan’s arguments thanks to its many contributions to the IHO."

The biggest variable in the IHO conference will be the Board of Directors and Secretariat, which supported Seoul's position in 2002. Now they have pledged neutrality. Back then, the board was ready to delete "Sea of Japan" at Seoul's suggestion and put the matter up for a vote. But it suspended the vote without explanation a month later. A South Korean government official said this was because Japan used tremendous diplomatic pressure involving the entire Cabinet. This year, the IHO board of Directors instead entrusted a subcommittee with the matter.

Seoul either wants "Sea of Japan" deleted or at least get the discussion postponed until the next IHO conference in another five years. But a majority of IHO member countries are apparently in favor of reaching a decision on the fourth edition of "Limits of Oceans and Seas" since it has been 50 years since the third edition in 1953. "At the moment, it's hard to predict what scenario will be formulated,” a Foreign Ministry official said. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)

Solution: No change (May 2007) The IHO meeting ended without any changes. The head of the organization, David Wynford Williams, proposed publishing an updated version of the Limits of Oceans and Seas without the name of the disputed sea between South Korea and Japan -- suggesting that the name “Sea of Japan” be deleted from the world’s oceanographic maps until an agreement on the disputed name can be reached. Japan rejected the idea, chief cabinet secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki said, according to Yonhap. And a new version can’t be published until every country agrees to the changes.

The oceanographic map has not been updated since 1953. The international body sets the world's map standards. Japan registered Sea of Japan as the official name of the waters with the IHO in 1929 and continued to use the name in the third edition of the IHO Special Publication 23 in 1953. The 2002 general meeting put off settling the matter and published a tentative version with a blank space under the name of the waters.

Because the political implications, both Korea and Japan did NOT submit change requests to IHO. This would have led to a confrontation at the IHO which could have gone either way -- resulting in either side losing. In the meantime, foreign delegations expressed their discomfort in that they have received an average of 200 letters insisting on the legitimacy of the name East Sea. They said, "We were surprised by Korea's big interest in this issue and its aggressive attitude, but some delegations regarded the letters as spam mail, and that could backfire."

The decision was to postpone actions till a later date. The next IHO meeting is in 2009. However, the ROK viewed it as a victory since the IHO head suggested that the name "Sea of Japan" be deleted from the world's oceanographic maps. Seoul officials said, "As Japan has been successfully lobbying to reconfirm the Sea of Japan as the name to be used on new maps, it is hard for Korea to demand a vote to use only East Sea as the name of the waters or adopt both East Sea and Sea of Japan. But delaying this issue is not that bad for Korea in that Seoul can play for time to raise its influence." (Source: Joongang Ilbo and Donga Ilbo.) (SITE NOTE: The general opinion amongst American bloggers interested in Korean affairs was: "So what? This is a non-issue to the world.")

---

May 2007

Wikipedia Considers Changing Dokdo back to Liancourt Rocks (May 2007) On 26 May it was reported by the Chosun Ilbo (hangul) that the "Dokdo" page was being voted on to be changed back to "Liancourt Rocks." The blog "Occidentalism" Gerry Beavers wrote: "The Korean version of the Chosun Ilbo has published a May 25 article entitled “Danger of Dokdo Disappearing from Wikipedia,” which is warning Korean netizens that there is an online vote being taken at Wikipedia to decide if the online encyclopedia should use “Liancourt Rocks,” “Takeshima,” or “Dokdo” to describe the rocky islets between Japan and Korea. Currently, the online encyclopedia automatically directs you to the “Dokdo” page if you type in either “Liancourt Rocks” or “Takeshima.” The Chosun article seems to be calling Korean netizens to arms."

Wikipedia is a user-edited encyclopedia — open to all for article creation and editing. The Wikipedia entry describing the tiny islands has had its contents vandalized and restored over 4,000 times, with waves of what Wikipedians call “edit wars” — when two or more parties continually edit the piece to support a particular interpretation of an issue while removing the opposing view from the text of the article. (Source: OhMyNews, 28 Feb 2007.) It appears the editing of the Dokdo page took on a nationalistic edge between Japan and Korea causing the "editing" to be locked. Battles between Japanese and ROK proponents were taking place with each side replacing the others. Editing battles were going on endlessly by changing statements back and forth by reverting (RV) to the previous statement -- or reverting to the previous statement because someone had posted a point of view -- not fact (RV POV). Wikipedia administrators, the virtual referees of the site, stepped in and allowed only registered users with a track record on Wikipedia to make edits. A prominent message with a small icon of a padlock is placed at the top of the page. The Dokdo page statement stated: "Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. If you are prevented from editing this article, and you wish to make a change, please discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or create an account."

The Survey was to find out which name the "editors" thought was the best one under which to place this article: Dokdo, Takeshima, Liancourt Rocks, Dokdo/Takeshima or Takeshima/Dokdo. "Editors" were those who had posted more than 50 times and would not include any one registered within 30 days. It stated, "It has been proposed that Dokdo be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below. When there is a clear consensus please move the article and remove the notice, or request further assistance at Wikipedia:Requested moves if necessary."

The talk page was to survey the "editors" -- NOT to solicit votes from the public in general. However, when one went to the voting page of Wikipedia: Talk Page Dokdo it showed the talk page was linked from Chosun.com, naver.com, empas.com, daum.net, and Yahoo!Korea News -- all Korean sites. It appears the Chosun Ilbo article generated instant interest in Korea. Later on there is a piece on the "talk page" that said the survey was ruined by "sockpuppets" and invalid voters.

On the Wikipedia page of Dokdo a notice is posted: "The current title of this article, "Dokdo," is disputed. Wikipedia articles may have only one unique title; the use of the current title does not imply an endorsement of that title. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page."

Name Changed to Liancourt Rocks (May 2007) As of 31 May 2007, the name of the article was switched back to "Liancourt Rocks." Even though the Chosun Ilbo article seemed to have mobilized a great many Korean netizens to go to the Wikipedia site to try to influence the vote, it appears their efforts were in vain. If you type, "Dokdo" in the search window, you are directed ot the "Liancourt Rocks" article. (SITE NOTE: We thought it would remain as "Dokdo" because the ROK has possession -- even if disputed -- and the survey had been contaminated. Thus we thought it would remain in the status quo as "Dokdo." We were wrong.)

---

June 2007

ROK-Japan Agree to Hold Talks on Disputed Sea Borders on 17-18 Jun (Jun 2007) It was announced on 3 Jun that South Korea and Japan would hold a new round of talks aimed at defining their disputed sea borders in Seoul on 17-18 June. The decision came at bilateral talks between South Korean Foreign Minister Song Min-soon and his Japanese counterpart, Taro Aso, in the southern resort island of Jeju. Seoul and Tokyo have held seven rounds of talks on drawing up their exclusive economic zones (EEZ), but no significant progress has come from the talks amid Japan's claim to Dokdo.

---

July 2007

Japan's new defense white paper describes S. Korean islets as Japanese territory (Jul 2007)In the first draft of its latest defense white paper, Japan claimed Dokdo, a set of rocky South Korean islets in the East Sea, as its territory, South Korea's Defense Ministry said on 6 Jul. Dokdo has long been the target of Japan's territorial claims. South Korea has stationed a police contingent on the islets since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War to symbolize its ownership. A married couple now resides there during the fishing season. (SITE NOTE: The couple had its home provided for it at the expense of the ROK government to give the impression that it was inhabited. Telephone service was also provided to it. ROK citizens -- mostly from Ulleungdo -- have reregistered their residences as on Dokdo, though have not resided there.)

---

2008

February 2008

Seoul Protests Japan's Territorial Claim Over Dokdo (Feb 2008) The government on 22 Feb protested a ceremony held by a Japanese prefecture which claims territorial sovereignty over Korea's Dokdo islets. In a statement, the Foreign Ministry spokesman urged Japan to refrain from encroaching upon Korea's territorial sovereignty over Dokdo, which Japan calls Takeshima. The ministry also vowed to deal "sternly" with any attempt to violate Korea's territorial sovereignty over the islets in the East Sea. Japan's Shiname Prefecture designated February 22 as "Takeshima Day" in 2005 and holds a ceremony to commemorate the day every year. (Source: KBS Global.)

This was the final parting shot of the outgoing Roh Moo-hyun administration foreign ministry on Dokdo. The incoming administration of Lee Myeong-bak will have a completely different attitude towards Japan. Though the sovereignty issue of Dokdo will not be given up, it will simply be subdued. Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda will attend the inauguration of South Korean President-elect Lee Myung Bak in Seoul on 25 Feb and hold his first summit with the new president to enhance their ties and discuss ways to address the North Korean nuclear issue, Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura said on 20 Feb. Fukuda is expected to agree with Lee during their talks on the resumption of reciprocal visits between the top leaders of the two countries, underscoring the improvement of bilateral ties that became strained under their predecessors over historical and territorial issues. Relations between Japan and South Korea have deteriorated in recent years under current President Roh Moo Hyun's administration and former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who was in office from 2001 to 2006.

A territorial row over islets in the Sea of Japan, known as Dokdo in South Korea and Takeshima in Japan, has also overshadowed the countries relations. In a bid to mend ties, Koizumi's successor Shinzo Abe visited Seoul in October 2006 soon after becoming prime minister, but a reciprocal visit by Roh was not realized. Abe announced his resignation in September last year partly due to health reasons. (Source: AOL News.)

President-elect Lee Myung-bak said there will be no more demands for apologies from Japan during his presidency. "For a new, mature Seoul-Tokyo relationship, I don't want to ask them to apologize for, or examine themselves" over colonial rule of Korea, Lee told foreign reporters in Seoul.

Asked if he would continue the tradition of demanding apologies from Tokyo established by his predecessors, Lee said, "It's true that Japan has so far only made perfunctory apologies or self-examinations in the past, and such apologies failed to move the Korean people to a large extent. But I'm sure that Japan will conduct a mature diplomacy regardless."

Asahi Shimbun on 2 Feb reported that ROK President-elect Lee Myung Bak, in an interview Friday with Yoichi Funabashi, editor-in-chief of The Asahi Shimbun, said he would seek a "mature relationship" with Japan that did not linger on historical issues. "Prime Minister Fukuda's diplomacy is emphasizing Asia," Lee said. "Rather than make specific requests (on historical issues), I believe the relationship will become a more mature one." "Specialists should discuss (historical issues) with an open mind," he said. "Japan can conduct a mature diplomacy befitting an economic superpower. I will leave historical issues up to the judgment (of Japanese politicians)."

Lee indicated his willingness to visit Tokyo in late April to restore relations between the two sides, Japan's Kyodo news agency reported on 17 Feb. Quoting unnamed sources, Kyodo said Lee hopes to revive "shuttle diplomacy" between the two countries, whose ties have been strained over the years by a series of historical issues. The strain peaked whenever former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi visited the controversial Yasukuni war shrine in Tokyo that honors the war dead, including class-A war criminals of World War II. Relations further soured when Japan laid territorial claims over South Korea's Dokdo islets in the East Sea and refused to assume full responsibility for Korean "comfort women" dragged into sex slavery during World War II. Japan colonized Korea for much of the first half of the last century.

Lee said in a meeting with Japanese politicians that he was willing to seek renewed relations with Japan. "Korea and Japan must not be tied down by the past," he was quoted as saying by his spokesperson. "The Korean government is ready to increase efforts to expand and improve ties." "It's an expression of giving importance to Japan-South Korean relations," Kyodo quoted a Japanese official as saying of Lee's intended visit. Lee will make the visit after first travelling to the United States, South Korea's foremost ally, Kyodo reported, adding Lee is likely to announce his plan at an early date.

---

April 2008

S. Korea protests Japan's claim over Dokdo (Apr 2008) South Korea has lodged a strong complaint over Japan's renewed campaign to lay claim to Dokdo, a cluster of South Korean islets in the East Sea, a government official said on 8 Apr. In February, Japan's Foreign Ministry claimed on its Web site that Dokdo belongs to its territory both historically and legally. (Source: Yonhap News.)

Seoul warned yesterday it would "sternly respond" to Tokyo's most recent claim that disputed islets on the East Sea (Sea of Japan) belong to Japan. The latest dispute, which has surfaced repeatedly over the years, is causing tension between the countries just weeks before a summit between their leaders scheduled April 20.

A recent posting on the Web site of Japan's Foreign Ministry, entitled "Japan's inalterable position on the sovereignty of Takeshima [which Korea calls Dokdo]," said it is "apparent that Takeshima is an inherent part of the territory of Japan," based on historical fact and international law. Also on the Web site is a leaflet entitled "10 issues of Takeshima," which purports to show historical evidence and background material supporting the claim. "The occupation of Takeshima by the Republic of Korea is an illegal occupation undertaken on absolutely no basis in international law," the posting read. "Any measures taken with regard to Takeshima by the Republic of Korea based on such an illegal occupation have no legal justification."

Korean Foreign Ministry sources said on 8 Apr that senior officials, led by Vice Minister Kwon Jong-rak, met to discuss the most recent claim made by the Japanese Foreign Ministry. A senior Korean Foreign Ministry official said the government sent an official complaint about the posting, but no revisions have been made. "Dokdo is Korea's territory in terms of history, geography and international law and has been under our occupation," Kwon said after the meeting. "There should be no argument about this." (Source: Joongang Ilbo.) (SITE NOTE: As long as both sides agree to disagree, there is no problem. It is when the ROK makes an issue of it that the ROK citizenry get all hyped up about an issue that truly can't be resolved unless submitted to the World Courts -- something the ROK does NOT want to do. Lee Myeong-bak will keep it low key -- though the UDP and progressive will want to make it an issue to give him a black-eye in diplomacy.)

---

Korea Refutes New Dokdo Claims from Japan (Apr 2008) The Japanese Foreign Ministry in February on its website posted a 14-page document to support its claim to Korea’s Dokdo islets. Entitled “10 Issues of Takeshima” -- the Japanese name for Dokdo -- and available in Korean and English as well as Japanese, the controversial document is highly likely to mislead readers as to the legitimacy of Japan’s claims to the East Sea islets. Now, the Dokdo Research Center under the Korea Maritime Institute has produced a document entitled “Did Dokdo Really Belong to Japan?” which refutes the Japanese claims one by one.

Did Korea not recognize the existence of Dokdo?

The Japanese Foreign Ministry document claims, “Japan has long recognized the existence of Takeshima” but there is no evidence that Korea has been aware of its existence for long. It cites as a basis for its claim the “Kaisei Nipponyochiroteizendo (Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads)”, published in 1779 by Sekisui Nagakubo, which it claimed records the locations of Ulleung and Dokdo islands “in their positions between the Korean Peninsula and the Oki Island (Okinoshima)s.” The Dokdo Research Center points out that the two areas, unlike the rest of Japan, are not colored on such maps, in fact showing that Japan laid no claim to them.

The document maintains that what old Korean records call Usan Island is not Dokdo but another name for Ulleung Island. In refutation, the center said many historical texts including “Sejongshillok (Veritable Records of King Sejong During the Chosun Dynasty: 1454)” and “Donggukyeojiseungnam (Survey of the Geography of Korea: 1481)” show that Korea did regard the Ulleung Island and Usan Island as separate islands. “Donggukdaejeondo (Great Map of Korea: 1757)” exactly marks the location of Dokdo east of Ulleung Island.

Japan recognizes Ulleung Island and Dokdo islets as Korean territory

The Japanese document says, “In 1618, two merchants of Yonago received (overseas fishing) permission for passage to Utsuryo Island (Ulleung Island) via the feudal lord of Tottori” and used Dokdo “that was on the route from Oki to Utsuryo” as a “navigational port and docking point for ships.” In this way, it claims that Japan established its sovereignty over Dokdo in the mid-17th century. But, says Korea, since the permission was for fishing ships to go abroad, the record in fact proves that Japan did not consider Ulleung and Dokdo its territory.

A Japanese report in 1870 also shows that the country recognized Dokdo as Korean territory as it was part of Ulleung. Another claim in the document that “the deposition by Ahn Yong-bok (a civilian diplomat in the 1690s) contains many points that conflict with factual evidence” is also misleading -- and a record of interrogation of Ahn found in Japan’s Oki Island (Okinoshima) in 2005 puts those points right.

‘Seokdo’ in the Imperial Ordinance of 1900 refers to Dokdo.

The Japanese document says Japan confirmed its sovereignty over Dokdo through a declaration by Shimane Prefecture in 1905, incorporating Dokdo based on the fact that the islets belonged to no country and it occupied them first. But this claim contradicts the other assertion, that the islets already belonged to the country.

According to Imperial Ordinance No. 41 of 1900, the regions under the jurisdiction of Ulleung County included all of Ulleung Island, Jukdo and “Seokdo”, the transliteration of the Chinese name for Dokdo, whose local name at the time was “Stone Island.”

Korea rightfully guards Dokdo

The Japanese document maintains that Japan strongly protested against Korea’s “illegal occupation” of Dokdo in 1952, when then Korean president Syngman Rhee “issued a declaration concerning maritime sovereignty,” which encompassed the Dokdo islets into the so-called “peace line.” In fact, Rhee’s installation of the line and stationing of guards on the islets was an exercise of sovereignty over Korean territory, which is guaranteed under international law.

Finally, the document claims Korea rejected Japan’s proposal to take the “dispute” to the International Court of Justice. But Korea has no reason to fight about territory over which its sovereignty is established. The Dokdo Research Center said, “Japan’s move is tantamount to denying Korea’s complete liberation and independence and justifying its colonialist acts.” (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) (SITE NOTE: This is the same old Korean arguments that have been going on for years. It is different in tone that it does not incite any of the Roh Moo-hyun nationalism -- to deflect attention away from his failures. That the ROK seized the Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima/Dokdo in 1952 affected the writing of the Mutual Defense Pact in 1953 and that a Japanese nationalist was killed in the 1953 by ROK mortars is not mentioned.

---

May 2008

Korea, Japan patrol boats face off over intrusion (May 2008) Patrol boats from Korea and Japan confronted each other for six and half hours in waters off Koreas southeastern coast yesterday after Japan falsely accused a Korean fishing boat of intruding its territorial waters. The incident occurred in the waters 17 nautical miles south of Hong Island, South Gyeongsang Province, according to the Coast Guard in Busan.

Korean maritime police dispatched patrol vessels after they received an emergency radio message from the 134-ton trawler, Sejin 97, at 11:55 a.m. It sought help saying that it was being chased by the Japanese coast guard. It was operating together with another 134-ton trawler - Sejin 98. Korean maritime authorities found the two vessels about two hours later. Sejin 98 came under protection but the other was stranded between patrol boats of the two countries.

Six Korean patrol boats and a helicopter confronted with four Japanese patrol boats. Japan had claimed that Sejin 97 was caught while illegally operating inside Japans Exclusive Economic Zone. Sejin 97 was stopped by the Japanese coast guard and about 10 Japanese officials boarded it for inspection. Japan said the Korean boat fled with the 10 Japanese officials aboard.

Japan later admitted that the Korean boat did not intrude in its territorial waters, the Korean Coast Guard said. Sejin 97 did not enter Japans EEZ, officials said after they traced the boats operation sites through global positioning system-based devices and its electronic navigation chart. In 1997, Japan seized 15 Korean vessels for illegal fishing, according to the Seoul government. (Source: Yonhap News.) (SITE NOTE: This is a VERY strange report. Why would Japan board a vessel if it were not in its territorial waters? Why would the Korean vessel take off with 10 Japanese on-board? SOMETHING DOES NOT SMELL RIGHT... We assume the Japanese got their men back and then departed simply to avoid an international incident. The Korean GPS "proof" does not seem plausible unless they were using the Korean ships data. Nothing appeared in the Japanese English-online newspapers so this wasn't much of a blip.)

Japan captures fishing boat and its crew of 9 (May 2008) A South Korean fishing boat was seized on 18 May by Japanese patrol boats for entering Japan's Exclusive Economic Zone, the Korea Coast Guard announced. The seizure comes only two days after the Japan Coast Guard apologized for falsely accusing another South Korean fishing boat of violating the EEZ. Around 8:30 a.m. yesterday patrol boats belonging to the Japanese Fisheries Agency seized the 89-ton South Korean fishing boat, Deokyangho, 101 kilometers (63 miles) southeast of Dokdo Islets off the country's eastern coast. Deokyangho was towed to the Sakai Port in Tottori Prefecture of Japan. The fishing boat was allegedly four-tenths of a mile inside the EEZ.

On word of trouble, the Korea Coast Guard dispatched patrol boats to the site, but they returned after finding that the fishing boat was already inside Japan's territorial waters. "Whether or not the boat violated the Japanese EEZ will be known only after an investigation,"said Jang Su-pyo, a spokesman for the Korea Coast Guard. The crab fishing boat had nine crew members on board, including its 45-year-old captain, Cho Maeng-il.

Earlier on 16 May, the Japan Coast Guard officially apologized to the Korea Coast Guard for holding a South Korean fishing boat for hours and falsely accusing its crew of violating Japan's EEZ. According to the Korea Coast Guard, the captain of a 134-ton South Korean fishing boat, "97 Sejinho,"radioed the coast guard at 11:55 a.m. 16 May, saying it was being chased by patrol boats of the Japan Coast Guard. The Korean Coast Guard dispatched patrol boats and a helicopter to the sea 17 miles south of Hongdo, an island off the nation's southwest coast in South Gyeongsang Province. Five South Korean patrol boats and four Japanese patrol boats faced each other with the fishing boat held between them. Five officials from the Korea Coast Guard and 10 from the Japan Coast Guard boarded the boat and conducted a joint investigation. After examining the boat's GPS records and radar images, Japan Coast Guard officials admitted that they made a mistake in interpreting their radar images. According to Japan's Kyodo News, the Japan Coast Guard suspected that two Korean fishing boats, 97 Sejinho and 98 Sejinho, were fishing near Tsushima Island in the Japan's EEZ. The Japan Coast guard left at 8:30 p.m. and made its apology at 11 p.m., according to the Korea Coast Guard. (Source: Joongang Ilbo.)

---

Japan to claim Korean islets in teachers' guidebook: report (May 2008) Japan plans to describe South Korea's easternmost islets of Dokdo as part of its territory in this year's guidebook for public teachers and textbook publishers, a Japanese daily said on 18 May. The booklet, updated every 10 years by Japan's state-run educational center, is expected to be completed as early as next month and be fully used as a mandatory guidebook for public schools starting in 2012, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported.

Dokdo, whose waters are rich in natural resources, has long been the target of Japanese territorial claims. South Korea has stationed a police contingent on the islets for five decades to enforce its ownership. Japanese publishers are also expected to draft their public school textbooks based on the planned booklet as they have long customarily relied on the government's guideline. (Source: Yonhap News.)

New row with Japan looms on Dokdo (May 2008) Japan is to risk reigniting a territorial row with South Korea by claiming disputed islands as its territory in the school curriculum, the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reported on 18 May. The Japanese education ministry will describe the islets — known as Takeshima by Japanese and Dokdo by Koreans — as "Japanese territory"in its revised curriculum handbook, the daily said.

The school curriculum is revised about every 10 years and the latest revision of teachers' handbooks will be completed by July for use from April 2012, the newspaper said. The move came after conservative lawmakers in Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda's ruling party stepped up pressure on the ministry to describe the islets as Japanese. Japan claimed the islets in 1905 after winning a war with Russia in the region and went on to annex the entire Korean Peninsula from 1910 until its 1945 defeat in World War II. South Korea, whose military currently controls the islets, says Seoul's claim to them goes back centuries. South Korea's new President Lee Myung-bak vowed to turn the page in fraught relations with Japan when he visited in April, the first South Korean leader to visit Japan in more than three years. (Source: Joongang Ilbo.)

President Lee Myung-bak 19 May called on Japan to give up its alleged attempt to describe South Korea's easternmost islets of Dokdo as Japanese territory in its school textbook guidelines. "President Lee instructed Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan to look into some media reports alleging the Japanese government is pushing to revise its school teacher guidelines to describe Dokdo as part of Japanese territory," Lee's spokesperson Lee Dong-kwan said in a press briefing.

"Lee also ordered that the foreign minister ask Japan to rectify the Dokdo issue, if the Japanese government's move is found to be true," said the spokesperson, adding Minister Yu is to give a detailed media briefing on the issue later on Monday. On 19 May South Korea's foreign minister said he would call in the Japanese ambassador to deliver a protest over Japan's renewed campaign to claim Dokdo, a set of rocky islets in the East Sea. (SITE NOTE: On 19 May, President Lee Myung-bak was also quoted by presidential spokesman Lee Dong-kwan as instructing the government to confirm the truth and, if the report is true, demand that Japan mend its ways. Some observers speculate this could taint the honeymoon the two countries have been enjoying since the new government came to power in Seoul. On several occasions including a summit in April, the two countries have committed themselves to a "future-oriented relationship." A presidential official said the Dokdo issue requires a firm response because it is "a matter of territorial integrity." But he said Cheong Wa Dae plans "to separate this issue from other matters related to Japan's past wrongdoings. The Dokdo issue will not pose a problem that will harm the entire Korea-Japan relationship." ) (Source: Yonhap News.)

Seoul to 'Respond Firmly' to Japan's Dokdo Claims (May 2008) Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan on 19 May warned Korea will “respond firmly with any attempt to compromise our sovereignty over the Dokdo islets.” He was responding to reports that the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology has decided to claim the South Korean islets in the East Sea as Japanese territory in new textbook guidelines for middle schools that reach well into the next decade. (SITE NOTE: If only Korea would just let this rest. It is a disputed island -- with rich fishing grounds surrounding it. However, as long as the ROK does NOT submit this to international arbitration this will always be a disputed island. However, at the same time, the ROK wants the Japanese to NOT print any materials that the island is disputed -- claimed by Japan. The nationalism that can be stirred up by this incident is just NOT worth the cost.)

In a press conference, Yu said, "The government's position is that there can be no room for debate over our sovereignty over Dokdo from the standpoint of history and international law." Earlier that day, Yu called in Japanese Ambassador to Korea Toshinori Shigeie. He said if the report is true, “this is not only an illegal attempt to compromise our sovereignty over our legitimate territory of Dokdo, but also runs counter to our efforts to establish a future-oriented relationship.” He called on Tokyo immediately to rectify the situation. (SITE NOTE: The ROK uses terms like "national sovereignty" and "legitimate territory" and fails to recognize that it occupied Dokdo in 1959 by force and one Japanese nationalist was killed by ROK mortar fire. It was disputed then and its disputed now. Until it is recognized by international bodies as Korean, it is NOT Korea's "legitimate" territory -- it is only territory held by Korea by force.) (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)

Korean teachers demand apology from Japan over Dokdo claim (May 2008) South Korean teachers on 21 May called for an apology from Japan over its new educational campaign to claim Dokdo, a cluster of islets governed by Korea. "The move by the Japanese government to asert its territorial claim to Dokdo in the curriculum handbook for teachers is an act of usurpation of the sovereignty and the territory of the Republic of Korea," the Korean Federation of Teachers' Associations, a major umbrella union of teachers nationwide said in a protest letter addressed to Japanese Education Minister Kisaburo Tokai. (SITE NOTE: It is strange that teachers are OFFICIALLY wading into a political and diplomatic controversy. They never have before. One can only suspect that the Korean Federation of Teachers' Association is a cover for progressive teachers of the KTEW union that has sponsored so much anti-Japanese and anti-American fervor in the past.)

Japan's Education Ministry reportedly plans to describe Dokdo in the East Sea as the Japan's territory in its revised curriculum handbook for teachers which will be completed by July for use starting in 2012. The central government's directive was a major embarrassment for Korea, as Japan's territorial claim has so far originated solely in a circle of right-wing scholars. The Fusosha textbook, named after its publisher Fuso Publishing Co. and published in 2001, angered Korea for its territorial description of Dokdo and for glossing over Japan's war-time wrongdoing, but few schools have adopted the controversial book. (SITE NOTE: Growing nationalism on the part of Japan has increased in recent years. Such a statement from Japan is in line with its stance that Takeshima/Dokdo is their territory -- especially in light of the EEZ issues.)

"This time, it's particularly embarrassing, because the Education Ministry is giving a directive to teachers," Kim Dong-seok, spokesman for the teachers' union, said. (SITE NOTE: Even Korea admits it's a "guide" so this person is using the progressive method of misspeak to shape his argument.)

Seoul has expressed deep regret over Japan's move, after President Lee Myung-bak instructed pertinent officials to sternly deal with the issue. Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan called in Japanese ambassador to Seoul Toshinori Shigeie and delivered the message. Lee visited Tokyo last month and held a summit with his Japanese counterpart in which they agreed to put aside the differences over historical issues between the two sides and improve ties.

Dokdo meaning rock island, or lonely island in Korean, is a set of two main islets and 78 rocky outcroppings. It lies 92 kilometers east of South Korea's Ulleung Island, and 160 km west of Japan's Oki Island (Okinoshima) in Shimane Prefecture. The islets are called "Takeshima" in Japanese, meaning bamboo island. A Korean fishing family resides there during fishing seasons, aside a small Korean police detachment. (SITE NOTE: The "family" is a husband and wife living in a specially constructed home by the ROK government and provided free telephone services. They are a ROK government "symbol" that Dokdo is "occupied.")

International studies suggest the region is a massive reservoir of methane hydrate, a potential energy resource. (SITE NOTE: Voila!!! The real issue...) (Source: Yonhap News.)

---

Korea to Face Off With Japan Over Maritime Place-Names (May 2008) Korea and Japan are both preparing to have the geographical names of disputed areas internationally recognized in their own language next year. From as early as next year, the decision making process of the International Hydrographic Organization’s Sub-Committee on Undersea Feature Names (SCUFN) will be changed from unanimous call to majority vote. The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs said on 25 May it decided to demand modification of names of undersea sites near the Dokdo Islets. Until now, the Korean government abstained from such a move, fearing that it would be rejected because of the single Japanese member on the 12-member committee.

The Ulleung Basin, a submarine site 50 km east of Yeongdeok County in North Gyeongsang Province, is internationally called the Tsushima Basin. The Isabu Tablemount near the Ulleung Basin is also listed as Syun-yo Bank in the Gazetteer, the international geographical directory. (SITE NOTE: This is the same moves that the ROK played in Apr 2006 to rename the ocean floor -- and hopefully to gain legitimacy for their claims to the area. Japan registered the underwater basin in 1978 as "Tsushima Basin" with the International Hydrographic Organization and Korea is considering proposing its own name, Ulleung Basin.)

The government also plans to push for registration of names of two other places near Dokdo which are yet to be listed internationally. This is likely to cause a clash with Japan. The Korean government tried to submit a proposal to have 14 names approved -- including the four controversial sites -- in last year’s 20th meeting of the subcommittee. The Japanese strongly protested, and Korea dropped the four from the proposal. However, the Korean government now says it is confident to draw a favorable decision from the committee next year, as the decision making process has changed and Korea has more geographical records and information on the region. (SITE NOTE: The geographical records are based upon Korea's historical claims to the area, but Korea refuses to submit the issue to the international courts to resolve. It has refused to do so since 1954 when Japan first proposed for it to do so.) (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)

---

June 2008

Dokdo issue may put shuttle diplomacy with Japan in jeopardy (Jun 2008) Tokyo could jeopardize the hard-won resumption of shuttle diplomacy between the leaders of South Korea and Japan if it continues an outright campaign to lay claim to Dokdo, a set of rocky islets in the East Sea, a Seoul government official said on 1 Jun. (SITE NOTE: The same could be said if the statement were reversed. It is the ROK that is raising the issue.)

South Korea will raise the issue at the strategic dialogue to be held in Tokyo this week between Vice Foreign Minister Kwon Jong-rak and his Japanese counterpart Mitoji Yabunaka, added the Foreign Ministry official who asked not to be named, apparently due to the sensitivity of the matter. "We will take issue with Japan's reported move on Dokdo at the strategic dialogue, although it is mainly aimed at discussing global issues such as the North Korean nuclear crisis," he said. The meeting slated for Thursday will be the first high-level diplomatic contact between the two sides since media reports last month that Japan's Education Ministry is pushing to describe Dokdo as Japanese territory in its revised curriculum handbook to be used from 2012.

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, who has vowed to improve Seoul's ties with Tokyo over their bitter shared history, reacted strongly to the news, urging related officials to deal with it sternly. The government immediately called in the Japanese ambassador to Seoul to deliver a protest message. "We expect Japan to retract the move, as it would not want to damage ties with South Korea," the official said, adding Tokyo is supposed to make a final decision by July 14 on whether to insert the controversial description of Dokdo into the new curriculum.

If Tokyo holds its position, however, the shuttle diplomacy between the leaders of the two nations will likely be suspended again, he said. South Korean President Lee visited Tokyo last month and had a summit with Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda in which they agreed to resume the biannual summits. Fukuda is scheduled to make a reciprocal trip to Seoul in September for another summit with Lee.

Japanese and South Korean leaders began the shuttle diplomacy in July 2004, but the exchanges stopped a year later due to South Korea's anger over then Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's repeated visits to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo that honors Japan's war dead, including war criminals. Relations between Seoul and Tokyo have often been marred by disputes over history and territory, which are partially a legacy of Japan's colonial rule of Korea from 1910-45. (Source: Yonhap News.)

---

July 2008

Korea-Japan Tension Mounts Over Dokdo (Jul 2008) The Japanese government will make a final decision on whether new teaching guidelines for secondary schools will state Japan's claim to Korea’s Dokdo islets. The issue is capable of shaking bilateral relations, which the leaders of the two countries have pledged to improve, to the core.

That would be a fresh blow to the Lee Myung-bak administration following massive street protests over the last two months, scuppering a key foreign policy initiative -- that of strengthening the traditional Seoul-Washington-Tokyo alliance.

Japan will announce the teaching guidelines next Monday, after the Japanese press in May revealed that the issue was on the agenda. But it seems the Japanese government has already made a rough decision. Before it makes an official announcement, it is likely that Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda will brief President Lee on the Japanese government's position during the G8 meeting this week, a South Korean official said.

According to diplomatic sources and intelligence authorities, the Japanese Education Ministry, which is in charge of this issue, remains firm on this, saying the policy to describe Dokdo as Japanese territory in textbooks was formulated during the Koizumi administration. But there still is the possibility that Japanese political leaders including Fukuda may take diplomatic relations with Seoul into consideration and make a political decision to slam on the brakes.

The Korean government official said Japan is apparently also considering a compromise of using a vague expression, instead of calling the islets in the East Sea by their Japanese name “Takeshima.” Korea is making all-out efforts to prevent Japan from including its claim to Dokdo in the textbooks by making contact with former and incumbent Japanese lawmakers through Foreign Ministry officials and political leaders who are maintaining personal connections with Japanese officials. In an interview with the Japanese press on Monday, President Lee said, "I believe Japanese political leaders will not dare include Dokdo in the document" - a remark seen as an attempt to put pressure on Japanese politicians.

But it will be difficult for the Korean government to maintain quiet diplomacy unless Japan completely gives up on including Dokdo in textbooks. No compromise on the issue will be satisfactory. Another problem is that Korea already showed its trump cards in May, when the issue was brought up first. Based on press reports at that time, President Lee instructed the government agencies to take a tough line on this issue, and Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan called in the Japanese ambassador in Seoul to warn him against it. It remains to be seen what kind of forward-looking diplomatic solution President Lee will find, striking a balance between his relations with the Korean people and the Japanese government. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)

Pres. Office Warns Japan Over Claiming Dokdo Islets (Jul 2008) The Lee administration on 12 Jul warned Japan not to claim sovereignty over the Dokdo islets, saying, “Based on history, geography and international law, Dokdo is part of Korea’s sovereign territory.” The latest comment was a response to Japan’s move to claim jurisdiction over the islets in middle school textbooks.

Presidential spokesman Lee Dong-kwan in Seoul told reporters on 12 Jul, “The Dokdo islets are no longer a subject of territorial dispute.” Kyodo News of Japan said Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda told President Lee Myung-bak of Japan’s intent to claim sovereignty over the islets at the G-8 meeting. But the Korean presidential office categorically denied the report. “The meeting was unofficial and too short for any serious discourse,” spokesman Lee said. “It was President Lee who first raised the issue and our concern over the move. The Japanese prime minister answered that he fully understands our position.”

Officially, the presidential office maintained a prudent approach, saying it will wait for Japan’s final decision. Still, the Lee administration did not hide its intent to take substantial measures to beef up Korea’s sovereignty over the islets, along with strong protests, if Japan claims Dokdo. A senior presidential official said, “For now, it is very unlikely for the Japanese government to accept our demand against its planned claim to the island. Should that happen, we have to take strong measures. We are ready to endure sour relations between the two countries.”

The comments indicate that the Lee administration will not budge over the sovereignty debate, and is willing to sacrifice relations with Japan that had been recovering. The presidential office is taking the matter seriously given that national pride and territorial sovereignty are at stake.

A lukewarm reaction to the Japanese move could provoke public outcry in Korea. President Lee publicly warned Japan July 6 against claiming sovereignty over the islets in an interview with Kyoto News. He also expressed his grave concern to Japanese leader Fukuda Wednesday. The presidential office held a series of meetings chaired by chief of staff Chung Chung-kil attended by officials from the Foreign and Maritime Affairs Ministry. They reportedly reconfirmed the government’s die-hard approach on the matter. (SITE NOTE: GNP and UDP politicians flew by helicopter to Dokdo as the nationalist fever heated up. Seoul recalled its ambassador to Japan -- after he delivered a message to the Japanese foreign ministry of the ROK's hardline stance on Dokdo.) (Source: Donga Ilbo.)

Dokdo dispute bursts back into flame (Jul 2008) Seoul and Tokyo are set for another round in their decades-long territorial dispute over a set of small, rocky islets in the East Sea. Tokyo, after months of deliberation, announced a plan yesterday to define the Dokdo Islets as Japanese territory in new book of education guidelines for middle school students. The move comes despite repeated warnings from Seoul that doing so would disrupt relations between the two countries.

In response, Seoul summoned Japanese Ambassador to South Korea Toshinori Shigeie to file a complaint and decided to call South Korea’s Ambassador to Japan Kwon Chul-hyeon back to Korea.

The government also announced a series of measures to cement South Korea’s control over the islets, a group of about 33 rocks 215 kilometers (133 miles) off South Korea’s east coast.

Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura said yesterday that the Japanese government will describe Dokdo as its territory in the new education guidelines beginning in 2012. The current textbooks do not mention the islets, which are called Takeshima in Japan. Yesterday’s decision has been anticipated since May when Japanese media reported Tokyo was considering such a move. Seoul responded angrily at the time, summoning Shigeie to the Foreign Ministry here in protest and warning against the move.

But the warning appears to have fallen on deaf ears. “The government as a whole deems it necessary to teach about the Takeshima Islands,” Machimura said. “We expect the South Korean side to react calmly.” The reaction from Seoul was anything but. President Lee Myung-bak expressed “deep disappointment and regrets” over Tokyo’s move, given the two countries’ pledge just months ago to seek future-oriented relations while setting aside past historical issues, according to the Blue House spokesman Lee Dong-kwan.

“Japan should stop repeatedly taking issue with Dokdo whenever the administration changes here, even after promising to seek future-oriented relations,” the spokesman quoted President Lee as saying. The Foreign Ministry also made an unusually intense response, along with other agencies. “The Japanese government, which has distorted past history through its textbooks, has made yet another illegitimate attempt to ruin our territorial right to Dokdo,” Foreign Ministry Spokesman Moon Tae-young said in a briefing yesterday. “Our government can never accept that and we strongly urge the Japanese government to stop such attempts ... We highlight again that we will take stern measures on any attempt to ruin our territorial rights on Dokdo.” Moon stressed that Dokdo is Korean territory “in terms of history, geography and international law.”

He also said the government decided to bring Kwon back to Seoul temporarily as a protest. Kwon, who will first visit Japan’s foreign ministry to file a complaint, will be back in Seoul as early as tomorrow. It is the first time for South Korea to withdraw its ambassador to Japan since 2001 when Seoul summoned former ambassador Choi Sang-ryong in protest against history textbook revisions. Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan also summoned Shigeie at 5 p.m. for the second time this year to register a complaint. During the meeting, Yu “strongly urged” the Japanese government to “immediately delete” the part about Dokdo in the new education guidelines.” “He also expressed the deepest regret that the latest change would give the wrong territorial impression to Japan’s young generations,” said a senior ministry official who asked for the customary anonymity.

Seoul on 13 Jul pledged to take several measures to cement its control over Dokdo, currently occupied by the South Korean police and three local fishermen. For one thing, the Maritime Ministry will announce plans for sustainable development on Dokdo, including measures to preserve oceanic resources and to better maintain government installations on the islets. The Education Minister will also send a letter of protest to his Japanese counterpart, while the National Police Agency, which has a complement of 37 officers on the islets, will beef up monitoring near the area. (Source: Joongang Ilbo.) (SITE NOTE: Our position continues to be that the ROK has no business in what the Japanese educate their young with. It is interference in the internal affairs of a sovereing nation of Japan. Regardless of what they feel about the content, it is Japanese students, in Japanese schools, under Japanese law, with Japanese textbooks and Japanese parents who get to say the "yea-nay" on content taught to their children. The ROK has no business in interfering -- just as the Japanese have no business in interfering in Korea's internal affairs. To some the level of how "civilized" a society is can be ascertained by its ability to understand this principle of live and let live -- or in the simplest terms, that care of their own backyard and don't bother with your neighbors. As to the possession of Dokdo, the World Courts are the only place that can end this dispute. The ROK can NOT unilaterally claim that it owns Dokdo under international law. Though it has maintained possession of the islet since 1954 -- it is still recognized in all documents, including those with the US, as "disputed islands." Gerry Beavers has made a good case that the ROK is on shaky ground if it goes to the World Courts -- and this may be the main reason that it flat refuses for it to go to have the matter settled.)

The Ministry of Defense said it has ordered troops to reinforce the defense of the islets. The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs said it would conduct extensive research into the ecosystem, fishing resources and maritime environment in the sea surrounding Dokdo. The education minister will also send a letter of protest to his Japanese counterpart, while the South Korean police chief will call the head of the contingent stationed on Dokdo to give words of encouragement and instruct on the reinforcement of maritime defenses, the presidential office said. South Korean academic foundations will hold a series of forums in Seoul to call international attention to the past record of Japan's historical and territorial distortions. (Source: < a href=http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/07/116_27562.html>Korea Times.)

However, the fact remains that no one really cares outside of Korea and Japan whether the rocks sink to the bottom of the sea or not. A bicycle tour of Europe by a group of Christian youths was cancelled for unspecified reasons, but the truth was that there was simply no interest in the purpose of the trip through Europe -- to bring awareness of Korea's claim to Dokdo.

Protests Remain Small in front of Japanese Embassy (Jul 2008) Dozens of South Koreans gathered late Monday (14 Jul) in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul and angrily protested Tokyo's renewed claim to a cluster of South Korean-controlled islets. Japanese flags and the picture of the Japanese Foreign Minister was burned. The progressive groups are starting to mass to protest this item. (SITE NOTE: Sadly, the progressives are trying to spread misinformation again on the internet by claiming the Lee Myeong-bak "sold out" Korea during the G-8 summit and kissed away Dokdo to the Japanese. After the Japanese government announced new guidelines for school teachers that effectively state Tokyo’s territorial claim to Korea’s Dokdo islets, groundless rumors are spreading once again through the Internet that President Lee Myung-bak ceded control over the islets to Japan. The Dokdo rumors began spreading in earnest after the Japanese daily Yomiuri Shimbun reported that during the G8 Summit in Hokkaido last Wednesday, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda informed President Lee of his Education Ministry’s decision to state Tokyo’s territorial claim. The Yomiuri reported Lee responded by saying that now was not a good time and asked the Japanese leader to hold off on the announcement. Cheong Wa Dae denied the report, but rumors that Lee had sold Dokdo to Japan spread like wildfire. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.))

Korean lawmakers and civic groups joined the fray on 15 Jul, while more than 100 protesters besieged the Japanese Embassy in downtown Seoul. With protesters burning placards and launching candlelight vigils in front of the Japanese Embassy, officials deployed more than 100 police officers to guard the embassy, up from the usual 30.

Scores of union workers threw rotten eggs and tomatoes at the Japanese Embassy here on 16 Jul, denouncing Tokyo's fresh claim to the South Korean islets of Dokdo and demanding a tough response from Seoul. Some 100 members of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, a progressive umbrella union, criticized Japan's claiming of the islets as its territory, as well as the Lee Myung-bak government's diplomacy. ``Japan's claim is apparently an aggressive act and Japan is still haunted by its past imperialism. We cannot forgive Japan which plans such provocative behavior without reflection on its wartime atrocities,'' the union said in its statement during a rally in front of the embassy on 16 Jul. The group claimed that such an act was a result of President Lee's humiliating diplomacy.

About 300 members of the Korea Agent Orange Veterans' Association, one of conservative civic groups, called for Japan to scrap the description of Dokdo as its territory in a teaching guidebook for middle school teachers.

Even the Comfort Women rally joined in the added protest against the Japanese over Dokdo during its 15 Jul street rally. Comfort women screamed out how Japan stole them away and brutally used them and now Japan was trying to steal Korean territory. However, most of the protests remained small though the internet protests were increasing rapidly.

“After the end of the Second World War, Japan signed the San Francisco Treaty that stipulated that Japan surrender every right and claim to the Korean Peninsula, Jeju Island and Ulleung Island, which includes Dokdo,” said Lee Suk-haeng, leader of the labor union. “But Japan insists that Dokdo is under its sovereignty, which breaks international law.” (SITE NOTE: THIS IS HOGWASH!!! The US Military Government always considered Dokdo as administered from Japan -- and even used it for a short time as a bombing range causing some fishermen's deaths by bombers from Japan. It was because of the hassles with Syngman Rhee that they finally decided to simply make it a "disputed" territory. Rhee soon afterwards occupied the islets militarily and some incidents with mortars killed a Japanese nationalist there. The fight was over fishing rights. Since the end of WWII the islets have been disputed territory.)

Both the conservative-leaning Korean Federation of Teachers' Associations and progressive Korean Teachers and Education Workers' Union have decided to give special lectures on Dokdo to students starting the second semester. The two groups are separately making handbooks about the easternmost islets, and are considering announcing a joint statement and having joint lectures. ``The subject of national history is being neglected at schools. We'll discuss ways to attach more importance to the subject,'' Kim Dong-seok, the spokesman of the association said. Hyun In-cheol, the spokesman of the union, also said, ``We'll form solidarity with any teachers' groups on the Dokdo issue, which is an historical, social, and educational matter.'' (Source: Korea Times.)

We wrote the following on GI ROK Drop on 16 Jul:

I agree that LMB is grateful for the nationalist card over Dokdo coming up like it did, but I also think he knows that he doesn’t want to play it too strongly — like the muck-racking tactics of Roh Moo-hyun. He’ll try to play it at a diplomatic level — while trying to appear to be the staunch defender of Korean territory.

He’s got a lot of pokers in the fire which aim at getting closer to the Japanese both economically and militarily. He doesn’t want to get too deep into the nationalistic b.s. like how Roh stirred up the masses to hysterical heights including finger chopping. He is only going for the show part with the Science Ministry promising more surveys, KNP waving the flag with more patrol boats, etc. etc. Thus what we’re seeing is the typical eyewash stuff like the GNP and UDP politicians hopping on a helicopter to visit Dokdo. He’s also aware that the progressives are trying to turn this around with rumors that he sold out Korea during the G-8 summit using their favorite misinformation tool — the internet. Thus he has to off-set this by squeezing the portals with threats of clamp-downs to get them to silence these dissidents.

I also think that people are underestimating LMB being “on the ropes” — because such a person would not even think of going after Roh Moo-hyun over illegal transfer of classified materials. All the conservative elements are going after the progressives — and you don’t do this if you’re in a position of weakness.

However, I have to interject my own personal opinion here. This is really a bullshit item. Disregarding the nationalistic b.s. of who “owns” that rock, this is a question of sovereignty — but not over the rock, but over the right of a parent in a sovereign nation to say how his/her child should be educated under the laws of his/her sovereign nation. This deals with the JAPANESE education system for JAPANESE kids by JAPANESE teachers in JAPANESE schools with JAPANESE textbooks — and approved in the end by JAPANESE parents who pay JAPANESE taxes to support the JAPANESE education system. My point is that Korea has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation.

They do this to the Japanese, Chinese — and even the Americans. The Chinese played hardball with them when they tried it with them — and they are still smarting from the last Chinese rewriting of history. The Japanese simple ignore them like pests — except in one community. In America…that’s another story…

The bottomline over this item is that the ROK has a lot of bluff and fury over its historical “proof” but a lot of their “proof” has been countered by the Japanese maps, surveys, documents and histories. Ask Gerry Beavers for his documentation and visit the various Japanese sites. This is why the Koreans are trying to rename the ocean floor around Dokto with Korean names — BUT it has not worked so far because it lacks international support. This is why Koreans make such big noises in the media over their supposed “discoveries” in old European maps — even if some are questionable.

The Koreans truly believe that people have short memories of the events immediately following WWII. However, people still remember how Korea got Dokdo by force, people still remember the Japanese nationalists dying in the mortar attacks, people still remember the history of the island. People hold up the US-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty and point to the Congressional addendum that was put there specifically to cover those rocks whereby if the the ROK gets in a fight over it — it is on its own…the same as the MDL.

The move by Syngman Rhee to grab the islets to justify his “Rhee Line” as a laughable attempt to grab Japanese lands as “reparations” started as a nationalist move. However, it’s changed over the years into one of Exclusive Economic Zones. All this current nationalism b.s. is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover a grab of potential wealth in undersea mineral resources and the rich fishing grounds that surround the islets.

This is a case for the World Courts — but the ROK will NOT go there because its case is weak. Thus all the bluff and bluster of the “Dokdo is Korean Territory.” The Japanese on the other hand DO want to go there — and they wouldn’t do this without feeling that they can win. Thus its attitude is that “I can wait” as long as the EEZ is shared by Korea and Japan.

In a nutshell, this Dokdo perenial hate-fest is getting to be a really irksome event where Koreans make fools of themselves in front of the world. The world doesn’t give a rats about the Korean claim — and even the youth group bicycling through Europe to spread Dokdo awareness gave up and returned to Korea with their tail between their legs. No one gives a damn about this in the international community.

---

NY Times Ad Claims ROK Sovereignty over Dokdo (Jul 2008) Kyodo News on 10 Jul reported that the New York Times on 9 Jul carried a full-page ad claiming the ROK's sovereignty over a pair of rocky islets in the Sea of Japan, called Takeshima in Japan and Dokdo in the ROK. The ad, titled "Do you know?" says, "Dokdo and East Sea (Sea of Japan). For the last 2,000 years, the body of water between Korea and Japan has been called the 'East Sea.'" "Dokdo (two islands) located in the East Sea is a part of (South) Korean territory. The Japanese government must acknowledge this fact," said the ad put up by the advertiser who is identified only as http://www.ForTheNextGeneration.com. (SITE NOTE: A lot of people could blow holes in the factual content of this ad -- especially the comment of the "East Sea." The website has a webpage which features a lot of the misinformation which has been debunked by others.)


A full-page advertisement promoting Korea's East Sea and Dokdo islets published in the 9 July 2008 edition of the New York Times by singer Kim Jang-hoon and freelance Korean public relations expert Seo Kyoung-duk (Yonhap: Chosun Ilbo)

---

Korean Textbooks Make Little Mention of Dokdo (Jul 2008) The country’s textbooks give scant information on the disputed Dokdo islets, and worry is growing over the Korean government’s lukewarm reaction to Japan’s latest claim to the islets. Seoul’s plan to strengthen education on historical distortions on East Asia including Dokdo is expected to take effect in 2012, when East Asian history will debut as a high school subject across the nation.

No specific historical description of Dokdo

Korean textbooks simply provide rough descriptions of the islets and fail to give students systematic historical information. In elementary school textbooks, Dokdo is simply presented through photos and pictures of guards on the rocky islets. Middle school history textbooks offer descriptions about Dokdo limited to historical facts from the Joseon Dynasty, such as historical movements involving the islets and Japan’s acknowledgement of Dokdo as Joseon territory in 1696.

The historical importance and territorial sovereignty of the islets are often dismissed in most Korean textbooks on social science. Depending on the curriculum, certain history textbooks in high school focusing on Korea-Japan relations give short historical facts about the islets during the Three Kingdoms and Joseon eras. About six publishers of modern Korean history textbooks cover Dokdo in descriptions of national struggles against Japanese colonial rule, but fail to give more detailed information. Mention of the islets comprise a simple chronicle and short historical facts that the Korean Empire took over Dokdo in 1900, when it raised the status of Ulleung island, and that Japan unilaterally claimed sovereignty over the islets in 1905.

Comprehensive historical data needed


Child Drawing of Dokdo as Korean Territory (2007)

History teachers say textbook revisions should keep up with the historical situation of the times. Given Japan’s latest move to claim the islets, including the use of diplomatic documents and parliamentary speeches, teachers in Korea are urging more active measures to counter Japan’s offensive. Kim Hong-seon, a history teacher at a Seoul high school, said, “Textbooks (in Korea) only repeat simple facts and historical changes (about Dokdo) without going much into recent Japanese claims. They should contain more detailed information on the Japanese move to twist history, international law and the response from the international community to provide students with more comprehensive information.” Others suggest more aggressive cooperation with Japanese textbook publishers given the time required to revise textbooks. Kim Yeong-seok, principal of Seonju Middle School in North Gyeongsang Province, said, “Though the Northeast Asian History Foundation has published information on the Dokdo islets, the data hasn’t been fully utilized in class. To resolve the problem, the Education Ministry needs to distribute reference books reflecting the historical dispute over Dokdo and intensify teacher training to enhance awareness.” (Source: Donga Ilbo.)

---

Cheong Wa Dae Blasts Over Japanese Media Distortion (Jul 2008) Japanese media expressed their support in unison Tuesday over Japan’s Education, Science and Technology Ministry’s claim to the Dokdo islets in its curriculum guidelines for social studies at middle schools. Controversy ignited however over the truth or falsehood of remarks attributed to President Lee in regard to the Dokdo islets by Japanese daily Yomiuri, although the Japanese Foreign Ministry clearly stated the controversy as groundless.

All Japanese media render support to Dokdo sovereignty issue

The Japanese daily Yomiuri, which has covered the sovereignty issue of the Dokdo islets in depth since its earlier reports on May 18, argued in its editorial entitled “Teach the Truth: Takeshima Part of Japan” (the Japanese call the islets Takeshima) that “By the mid-17th century, Japan had established its sovereignty over the Takeshima islets.” In its 15 Jul editorial entitled “Territorial Issue Requires Cool Head and Mind,” Mainichi newspaper pointed out that, “If history serves as any guide, it is only natural for Japan to describe the Takeshima islets in textbooks as an integral part of the nation’s territory which is according to international law.” The Sankei newspaper argued Takeshima as Japan’s sovereign territory citing historical background in its editorial. It said, “It is regrettable that the disputed islets haven’t clearly been mentioned as our territory in instruction manuals.”

Japanese Foreign Ministry denies Yomiuri’s coverage of Lee’s remark

Japanese daily Yomiuri reported on 15 Jul that Korean President Lee Myung-bak said, “It is not proper timing. Give me more time,” when he was told about the Japanese government’s decision to mention the Dokdo islets in its guidebook by Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda at Toyako, Hokkaido, on July 9. Japanese Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs Mitoji Yabunaka, however, denied Yomiuri’s report saying, “That is not the case,” and said the ministry would review countermeasures. He also said, “Korean Ambassador to Japan Kwon Chul-hyun who visited the Japanese foreign ministry in protest over Yomiuri’s unfounded reports about President Lee’s remarks requested immediate measures be taken to correct them.” ? Cheong Wa Dae simmers over Japanese media manipulation Cheong Wa Dae reputed Yomiuri’s report Tuesday. Presidential spokesman Lee Dong-kwan said in a briefing, “Japan hadn’t made any decision (about how to refer to the Dokdo islets) when the two heads of states met on July 9. Given this, it makes no sense to deliver its decision to President Lee. Moreover, the argument that the president asked for more time is absolutely not true.”

He added, “It is understandable that the Japanese prime minister might have asked for understanding, but his remarks cannot be viewed as notice. If Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda had delivered notice to Lee, he should have mentioned the Japanese government’s decision. However, President Lee had first expressed his concerns over some moves by Japan to claim its sovereignty of Dokdo.” “If some Japanese media (and the government) intentionally present news falsely in order to divide Korean society and distort the historical facts on the Dokdo islets, the Korean government will not just sit idly by and watch,” he stressed.

However, Democratic Party spokesman Choi Jae-seong criticized, “If the news report is true, President Lee should be impeached. If the president, who should protect the nation’s territory and abide by the Constitution, really said to wait for more proper timing, he was in clear breach of the Constitution.” Meanwhile, the ruling Grand National Party spokesperson Cho yoon-seon blamed the Democratic Party saying, “The DP shouldn’t attempt to utilize the Dokdo issue as a political tool to attack the administration so as to divide the nation and the people.” (SITE NOTE: The rumors on the internet by the radical elements trying to restart candlelight vigil protests grew over the issue.) (Source: Donga Ilbo.)

---

U.S. Library of Congress to File Dokdo Under 'Sea of Japan' (Jul 2008) The U.S. Library of Congress is making changes to the subject heading for Korea’s Dokdo Islands amid renewed attempts by Japan to establish the territory as disputed in the eyes of the international community. Now filed under "Tok Island (Korea)," the library is moving to change the entry to an old international moniker, "Liancourt Rocks," and is also trying to add “Islands of the Sea of Japan” -- the body of water Korea calls the East Sea -- for the higher classification of the islets.

The name Liancourt Rocks originated from Le Liancourt, the French whaling ship whose crew were the first Europeans to encounter and chart the islets in 1849.

The ostensible reason is to incorporate the decisions of the U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the Board on Geographic Names (BGN), two agencies that call Dokdo Liancourt Rocks. The change to the subject heading is to come in a meeting on 16 Jul. With the decision, major libraries and organizations in North America as well as around the world are expected to follow suit. And Japan is likely to take advantage of this in its efforts to stir up a dispute over Dokdo.

The Committee on Korean Materials under the Council on East Asian Libraries (CEAL) on 14 Jul passed to the Library of Congress opposing opinions it collected from Korean librarians in the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and France, and asked the Library of Congress to postpone its 16 Jul meeting. Hana Kim, the Korean studies librarian at the University of Toronto, who concurrently serves as chair of the CEAL committee, said, “Japanese lobbying appears to be behind the Library of Congress’ move to change the subject heading from ‘Tok Island’ to Liancourt Rocks, and to classify it under ‘Islands of the Sea of Japan.’”

The Korean Embassy in Washington on Monday made urgent contact with the Library of Congress, asking it to maintain the current subject heading. Lee Ki-suk, a professor emeritus of geography at Seoul National University who also serves as chairman of civic group the Society for East Sea, said, "If the U.S. Library of Congress changes the subject heading, the decision can have repercussions for other organizations. Korea should strongly protest, stressing the need to describe Dokdo in conformity with the resolution of the UN Conference on Standardization of Geographical Names." (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)

As an added note, online encyclopedias around the world are increasingly adopting a French name, Liancourt Rocks, to refer to the South Korean islets of Dokdo rather than the indigenous name, apparently as a result of Japanese lobbying, a non-governmental organization said on 15 Jul. Some encyclopedias call them the Liancourt Rocks, named after a French whaling ship that first introduced the islets to Europe. According to NGO groups, Japan reportedly backs this reference to reinforce its attempt to lay claim to the islets. (Source: Yonhap News.)

Korean Americans Block Dokdo Name Change The U.S. Library of Congress has withdrawn its plan to review the renaming of the Dokdo islets after protests from Korean Americans. Director Kim Dong-seok of the Korean-American Voters' Council said that he immediately alerted Korean Americans after watching a KBS news report about the planned name change, and that they sent letters to the library, protesting its proposed action. Protest letters were also sent to 48 members of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Kim said he called the chairman on the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment and five other members of Congress, urging Congress not to meddle in the Dokdo issue. He stressed continued efforts to make sure the U.S. Congress uses the name Dokdo when referring to the islets, noting that the U.S. government and White House currently use an antiquated international moniker, "Liancourt Rocks." (Source: KBS Global and Korea Times.) (SITE NOTE: Liancourt Rocks is very important in that it is used in the historical documents that set it up as a "disputed" islet. It is NOT antiquated and has significant historical value in diplomatic documents.)

We wrote the following in the blog GI Korea on 17 Jul:

This is unbelievable. A South Korea lobby group (disguised as the Korean-American Voters' Council) tells the US Congress not to "meddle" in the Dokdo issue, but then sees to it that the US Congress uses only the "Dokdo" moniker -- instead of Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks -- which in effect means the US Congress will take sides on this issue -- and that means meddling!!!! Huh????

I hope this is not true.

Sorry. There is something very, very wrong with this report when a small "lobby group" of a FOREIGN COUNTRY -- because its actions show exactly what it is -- can control the actions of a US government department.

My only question is -- Is the Korean-American Voters Council registered as a lobbying agent for South Korea? Then we get into a very different bucket of worms.

We added:

To add more crud to this discussion, “online encyclopedias around the world are increasingly adopting a French name, Liancourt Rocks, to refer to the South Korean islets of Dokdo rather than the indigenous name, apparently as a result of Japanese lobbying, a non-governmental organization said on 15 Jul. Some encyclopedias call them the Liancourt Rocks, named after a French whaling ship that first introduced the islets to Europe. According to NGO groups, Japan reportedly backs this reference to reinforce its attempt to lay claim to the islets.” (Yonhap News.)

So from my previous post, one can see that though the online encyclopedias, the U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the Board on Geographic Names (BGN) are using “Liancourt Rocks”, the Korean-American Voters’ Council was able to make the US Congress do an about face. I say that something does NOT smell right at all.

Wrote on GI ROK Dropon 17 Jul.

The plot thickens…

Now the Chosun Ilbo has an article of a Korean librarian in Toronto, Canada stopping the Library of Congress action by an email she sent while nursing her son with a fever. Give me a break… So the Korean lobby group did what?

In the same article, “Dr. Barbara Tillett, chief of the Library of Congress Cataloging Policy and Support Office, said she was withdrawing the suggestion to change the subject heading for Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks, which was submitted in December 2007. Tillett added the discussion will be delayed until there is an enlightened international resolution and a decision by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names.” The bottomline is that the decision has been delayed — not stopped. According to other sources, the US Board of Geographic Names (BGN) had already made up its mind. So what is really going on?

GI Korea reminded me that I should always be respectful when poking people in the eye…or something like that. I don’t want to overstep my invite to post on his fine blog, but the Dokdo issue really irks me, but that is from a personal viewpoint. This deals with another issue — the right of an American to voice his opinion over the actions of the U.S. Library of Congress.

What follows is NOT intended to create controversy — though it may stir up some ill-feelings towards me by activist Koreans. It is only to encourage those AMERICANS who feel strongly that the U.S. Library of Congress should not be used as a pawn in the power games of Korea to simply send an email to the Library of Congress Cataloging, Policy and Support Office (CPSO) to express their views as an AMERICAN in Korea who understands the issues. Because of their workload, do not expect a response back. Be aware that this “Dokdo” change to “Liancourt Rocks” is just one of a vast amount of changes they do annually to update records. In the scheme of things dealing with their workload, it is a miniscule item. (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/annrep05.pdf : CPSO Annual Report)

It appears that “Korean-Americans” worked the system to delay the changing of “Dokdo” to “Liancourt Rocks” in the Library of Congress records. Supposedly a group called the Korean-American Voters’ Council — acting exactly like a South Korean lobby – stepped in and called Congressmen and others to stop the change. Then the Chosun Ilbo ran a story of a librarian in Toronto, Canada named Hana Kim was taking the bows for stopping the decision. Then we hear about Korean-Americans in the Washington D.C. area supporting the “Dokdo is Ours” campaign.

“…In an email reply to the Chosun Ilbo on Tuesday, Dr. Barbara Tillett, chief of the Library of Congress Cataloging Policy and Support Office, said she was withdrawing the suggestion to change the subject heading for Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks, which was submitted in December 2007. Tillet added the discussion will be delayed until there is an enlightened international resolution and a decision by the U.S. Board of Geographic Names.“ The Library of Congress was originally to adopt the suggestion on 16 Jul, “a decision that would have had repercussions for other libraries in the U.S. and other major countries. Japan was expected to take advantage of this in its efforts to stir up international dispute over Dokdo.” (http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200807/200807170008.html : Chosun Ilbo.)

”…The statement comes one day after the U.S. Library of Congress, apparently in response to South Korean anger over Tokyo’s move, postponed a meeting on changing the name of Dokdo, also claimed by Japan, to the Liancourt Rocks, which had been named after a French whaling ship that first introduced the islets to Europe.” (http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/07/113_27726.html : Korea Times)

I am suggesting that Americans here in Korea — who feel that the American government and all of its agencies should be impartial in this Dokdo-Takeshima-Liancourt Rocks dispute — should speak up. I’m suggesting that they — as American citizens — let their opinions be heard.

The term “Dokdo” should NOT be used in the Library of Congress headings in order for the U.S. to continue to remain neutral on this matter. The use of “Dokdo” in headings gives the appearance that the U.S. is supporting the ROK claims to the islets — just as the use of “Takeshima” would support Japan’s claims. The U.S. must remain neutral in this issue.

The US has made its views on this issue very plain in the 1951 discussions over the islets. In the historical documents, “Liancourt Rocks” is the term used for the rocks. Throughout the Military Government period of Korea after WWII, the islets were used as a bombing range controlled by FEAF in Japan and naturally the control was favored to remain in Japan. However, because of the ruckus dealing with Syngman Rhee’s (Yi Syng-man) laughable “Rhee Line” to gain Japanese territory as “reparations”, it was decided to leave the islets in “disputed” status. Even after the ROK forcibly assumed control of the islets, the islets have remained as “disputed.”

The US Congress has made itself very clear on the US impartiality over the ROK getting involved in disputed territories in its 1953 ROK-US Mutual Defense Treaty where the US Congress added, “It is the understanding of the United States that neither party is obligated, under Article 3 of the above Treaty, to come to the aid of the other except in case of an external armed attack against such party; nor shall anything in the present Treaty be construed as requiring the United States to give assistance to Korea except in the event of an armed attack against territory which has been recognized by the United States or lawfully brought under the administrative control of the Republic of Korea.” (http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/3rdBW/MutualDefenseTreaty.html : Mutual Defense Treaty.)

Who should you write to to make your views as an AMERICAN known? Queries may be sent to CPSO as follows:
E-Mail: cpso@loc.gov
Telephone: (202) 707-4380
Fax: (202) 707-6629
U.S. Mail:
Cataloging Policy and Support Office
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave. S.E.
Washington, DC 20540-4305
Barbara Tillett, chief of CPSO, can be reached by e-mail at btil@loc.gov
) Contact CPSO

(SITE NOTE: This proposal is not a well-thought out proposal. If the ROK does this, it could lead to severe diplomatic tensions. The Japanese have been willing to not press the disputed issue as long as they are granted a share of the fishing grounds in the overlapping areas of the EEZ. If the fishing agreement -- hashed out starting in 1996 and finalized in 1999 -- is annuled, tensions are certain to arise. The bottomline is that as long as the ROK has agreed to "share" the disputed zone, the Japanese has not forced its claim to go to the World Courts -- or the UN. As it stands the EEZ starts at Ulleungdo and the 12 mile EEZ limit places Dokdo on the outer limit. The Japanese play the same game so that the Dokdo area "overlaps" in each others EEZs. If the ROK moves its outer limit to Dokdo, it will be doing two things: (1) It will be declaring that it is unilaterally establishing Dokdo as Korean territory as the basis of international agreements (the setting of EEZ limits) and (2) Japan's territorial waters are now part of the Korean EEZ. Shooting wars have been started over less.)

Seoul and Tokyo had several rounds of talks on the issue of an economic sea border from 1996 to 2000 with little progress. In a tentative step, they signed a fisheries agreement in 1999, leaving the overlapping boundaries in waters of the East Sea as middle zones. Dokdo is located some 87 kilometers east of South Korea's Ulleung Island and about 157 kilometers northwest of Japan's Oki Island (Okinoshima)s.

The two countries had agreed that the overlapping EEZ does not include the territorial waters of Dokdo, which are set at 12 nautical miles from the islets. South Korea has stationed a police contingent on the islets for five decades to enforce its ownership and forbid Japanese vessels from entering the nearby waters. (Source: Yonhap News.)

U.S. agency changes Dokdo designation as "Undesignated Territory" (Jul 2008) An official United States agency has crashed into the middle of the feud between Seoul and Tokyo over the Dokdo Islets by appearing to lean towards Japan. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) recently revised its description of the islets from a South Korean territory to a territory with "undesignated sovereignty." (SITE NOTE: This is old news. The Library of Congress was to change its designation based upon the US Board of Geographic Names early in the month. The BGN homepage shows that it named the rocky islets “Liancourt Rocks” and designated under "Undesignated Sovereignty" as of 6:30 a.m., August 21, 1996. The BGN is a federal agency that makes decisions on geographical names in the U.S. and foreign countries. Decisions are made in regular meetings of about 50 officials from the departments of the Interior, State, and Defense, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security and the Postal Service.)

The Korean Foreign Ministry held an emergency meeting yesterday and decided to form a task force under a vice minister to deal with the change, said a senior ministry official. An order had already been sent to the South Korean Embassy in Washington on Saturday night (26 Jul) to express Seoul's concerns and investigate the change. The United States has provided a preliminary reply to the Korean Embassy, explaining that the change was made to maintain what it called a neutral position on the islets, according to the Korean government. Seoul said it will try to reverse the new classification.

Until last week, the U.S. Board of Geographic Names stated on its Internet site that the Liancourt Rocks, a term also used to refer to Dokdo, were under the control of South Korea. But yesterday the islets were identified as under "undesignated sovereignty." While it was not immediately known when the change was made, the islets were classified as South Korean territory as late as July 17. The board is an agency that aims at maintaining uniform usage of geographic names throughout the U.S. government.

“Liancourt Rocks” shows up as the standard name for Dokdo followed by eight variants. Among the variants, Japanese "Take Sima" comes in first and Korean name third as "Tok-to." In addition, the variants include "Hornet Islands" because of many hornets on the islets, and "Dokdo," a different English spelling of the Korean name referring to the islets.

The U.S. board uses the name Liancourt Rocks for Dokdo, derived from the name of the French whaling ship whose crew first told Europeans about the islets in the 19th century. The board said last week that it has used the name Liancourt Rocks to identify the islets since 1977. The Web site of the U.S. board used to show other names with which Liancourt Rocks are called, listing "Tok-to" first and then Takeshima; but the order was changed so that the Japanese name appeared first and then the Korean name. (Source: Joongang Ilbo and Donga Ilbo.)

---

Don't exploit isle row, Lee tells Cabinet -- Nonpartisan effort would serve S. Korea best, he says (Jul 2008) President Lee Myung Bak called on 16 Jul for a "strategic and nonpartisan" response to Japan's latest move regarding the disputed islets lying halfway between the two nations, the presidential office said. Speaking at a weekly Cabinet meeting, Lee said that while the South Korean people's anger over the dispute is understandable, it should not be exploited for political gain, according to a presidential spokesman. Lee referred to joint efforts by Germany and Poland on creating a history textbook and said it is necessary to promote efforts by South Korea and Japan to jointly compile history texts and use them in schools to contribute to regional peace and prosperity, the spokesman said. (Source: Japan Times.)

S. Korea to implement measures to make Dokdo habitable (Jul 2008) South Korea will launch a set of measures to make the Dokdo islets habitable for both permanent residents and visitors as part of moves to dispel Japan's territorial claims to the islets in the East Sea, official sources said on 20 Jul. In a meeting of government policymakers and lawmakers from the ruling Grand National Party (GNP), the two sides agreed to launch a research team to check for underseas mineral resources around the islets, build a hotel and develop tour packages that can enhance access to Dokdo for ordinary people.

At present, there are two permanent residents on the islets located 216 kilometers from the port of Jukbyeon on the east coast of South Korea. There are also two Ulleung county officials and a 50-man police contingent who are there to guard the islets. Because there are no adequate lodgings, visitors and fishermen usually cannot stay overnight.

GNP spokesman Cha Myeong-jin said after the meeting held at the Prime Minister residence that lawmakers asked the government to consider the deployment of marines on the islet to bolster security. "The government said it will look into the matter and weigh the effects that such a move can have on the overall situation," the lawmaker said. He then said the government agreed to scrap all use of the term "actual control" when referring to South Korea's ownership of Dokdo and to tackle any territorial claims as a challenge to the country's sovereignty. (SITE NOTE: This is a significant step as the ROK is saying that it no longer has "actual controls" the islet -- as the term implies that Japan has a claim on it. Instead it is saying it has "effective control" and that it would treat other claims as a sovereignty issue -- meaning that it is Korean territory. This is a declaration that the ROK has unilaterally claimed the islets -- and a strong reaction from Japan can be expected next.)

Before the meeting, Prime Minister Han Seung-soo said that Japan's latest claim on Dokdo is groundless and stressed there can be no dispute on South Korea's sovereignty. "The islets historically, geographically and legally belong to Korea," he said. He added Japan is trying to turn Dokdo into a international issue so there is a need to approach this matter with a strategic mindset, Han noted. In a meeting of ruling party lawmakers and government policymakers, the premier said South Korea effectively controls Dokdo and expressed grave concerns over recent claims by Japan to the islets.

The meeting was held after Japan's Education Ministry announced a set of guidelines for junior high school teachers and textbook publishers that claimed Dokdo as belonging to Japan. Seoul has denounced the move taken last Monday as a threat to peace in Northeast Asia and recalled its ambassador in protest. (Source: Yonhap News.)

The tombstone of the "first resident" of Dokdo was moved to Dokdo. The first resident in Dokdo was Choi Jong-deok and his address was 67 mountain, Dodong-ri, Uleung-eup, Uleung county, North Gyeongsang province. He was a resident of Uleungdo and went to the island in March 1965 to catch marine products. He started to construct necessary buildings in Dokdo in May 1968. He was registered as a Dokdo resident on October 14, 1981 and died on Dokdo on September 23, 1987. Since then his son-in-law, Jo Jun-gi moved in the same address and lived there until he moved to the address, 63 mountain. He moved out from the island on March 31, 1994. The present residents are the couple Gim Seong-do and Gim Sin-yeol who have been living at the address 63 mountain since November 17, 1991. Their main job is fishery. (Source: Our Dokdo.)

In addition, the National Assembly is considering an idea to fill in an area on Dokdo to allow more "residents" to remain there -- atleast in the fishing season, like the other "permanent residents" who live in houses built for them by the government during the warmer months.

Korea to Settle Dokdo Unilaterally (Jul 2008) The government and ruling Grand National Party agreed on 20 Jul to explore undersea mineral resources in waters near Dokdo and make the islets habitable for both permanent residents and visitors in efforts to quash Japanese claim to the islets. The Japanese government last week published guidelines that effectively call on teachers to stress Japan's territorial claim in class.

Those in a meeting attended by senior government and GNP leaders, including GNP Chairman Park Hee-tae and Prime Minister Han Seung-soo, agreed on a plan to make Dokdo habitable by developing tourism products, including building a marine hotel and a village, GNP spokesman Cha Myeong-jin said. They also agreed to use the term "territorial defense" in reference to Dokdo, in place of the previous term "effective dominion," a diplomatic term premised on a territorial dispute.

Korea to Conduct Drills Around Dokdo (Jul 2008) Korea will conduct military drills in the East Sea near Dokdo this month and in November to prepare the country to defend the islets. The Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard will participate in the exercises.

Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee at a special National Assembly session on Monday said Korea will keep holding military exercises to ready itself to safeguard Dokdo. “We will work with the Coast Guard to have in place countermeasures against non-military, military and other provocative acts threatening our sovereignty over Dokdo,” he added. The move comes in response to a fresh territorial claim to the islets by Japan.

Lee said the government considers stationing military troops on Dokdo one option to safeguard Korean territory but added the matter requires a careful approach. “If we station military troops on the islets, it could not only provoke military tension between Korea and Japan but also provide room for regarding the islets as a disputed territory under international law,” he said. “Because any small conflict can lead to a military confrontation, we will try to take strategic, long-term measures.” (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)

Seoul Plans to Launch Dokdo Task Force (Jul 2008) The government plans to launch a task force to help reinforce its sovereignty over Dokdo in the East Sea in a bid to dispel any possible attempt by Japan to lay claim to the islets, an official said on 24 Jul. The decision was made during a policy coordination meeting between government departments presided over by Prime Minister Han Seung-soo. The task force will involve representatives from related ministries, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of National Defense, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the official said.

The group will take charge of various measures to protect Dokdo, the rocky islets that have been at the center of diplomatic tension between Seoul and Tokyo. In addition to the establishment of the task force, the government decided to beef up the security by expanding annual military drills and deploying more patrol ships near Dokdo, said the official. ``To prepare for a possible armed clash near Dokdo, the government will expand the `Dokdo protection exercise' as well as dispatch more patrol ships near the islets,'' the official said. South Korea has conducted military drills aimed at enhancing the security of Dokdo twice a year since 2005. The first exercise for this year is to take place later this month, while the other is scheduled for November, Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee told the National Assembly earlier this week.

This year, South Korea's new F-15K fleet is expected to participate in the drill, according to military sources. Other agreed measures during the policy consultation meeting include construction of an oceanic scientific base beginning 2009, increasing shelters for fishermen and building a breakwater on Dokdo, part of efforts to make the islets habitable for both permanent residents and visitors.

The government will also set up the state-funded Dokdo Research Institute that will take charge of research or studies on the islets in the future to promote South Korea's sovereignty from a standpoint of history and international law. The government plans to build museums on Dokdo in Seoul to help educate students about South Korea's sovereignty.

Japan has repeatedly attempted to lay claim to Dokdo by distorting history. Earlier this month, Tokyo announced that its education ministry would publish teaching manuals in which the islets are referred to as Japan's territory. In a major policy turnaround, in response, South Korea has taken hard-line steps. It rejected a Japanese proposal to hold bilateral talks at an Asian security forum in Singapore this week. Seoul also recalled its ambassador from Tokyo. Seoul has stationed a 50-strong police contingent on Dokdo since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War. (Source: Korea Times.)

The GNP suggested dispatching a contingent of the Marine Corps in place of police currently stationed on the islets to reinforce the islets' defense. Government officials promised to give serious thought to the idea but added this could be seen as an admission that Dokdo is disputed. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)

Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee said the government considered stationing military troops on Dokdo as one option to safeguard Korean territory but added the matter required a careful approach. "If we station military troops on the islets, it could not only provoke military tension between Korea and Japan but also provide room for regarding the islets as a disputed territory under international law," he said. "Because any small conflict can lead to a military confrontation, we will try to take strategic, long-term measures." (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)

---

S Korea rejects Japan's proposal for talks (Jul 2008) South Korea has rejected Japan’s proposal for foreign ministerial talks on the sidelines of a regional security forum to be held in Singapore next week, apparently due to Tokyo’s renewed claim to a disputed set of islets in the Sea of Japan, Yonhap News Agency reported on 17 Jul. In a regular press briefing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Moon Tae Young said no foreign ministerial talks between Seoul and Tokyo have been set at the moment, adding that such bilateral talks were not held last year and either in 2005 at the annual regional forum. Asked to confirm the Yonhap report, Moon said, ‘‘It is not appropriate to specifically comment on what was discussed through bilateral diplomatic channels.’’ (Source: Japan Today.) (SITE NOTE: LMB is trying to look tough -- and I'm sure he has already talked to the Japanese folks about this already. He's trying to get the Korean people to accept his idea that they need to take a "long view" -- and prepare for a legal confrontation with Japan sometime in the future -- but not now. This means he must "look" tough in his dealings with the Japanese for now. The Japanese after enduring the Roh years Yasukuni Shrine tirades and Dokdo fanaticism should be able to understand this and bend to what LMB is trying to do. It is a far better alternative than the Roh years.)

---

Korean Nationalists Look Like Brutes (Jul 2008) The Koreans attempted to impugn the Japanese honor by killing their national bird, the pheasant, atop the Japanese flag. About 40 military veterans wearing army uniforms staged a gory protest outside Japan's embassy on 18 Jul. They cut the heads off live pheasants, Japan's national bird, and dripped the blood on Japanese flags and on pictures of Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda and former Japanese leaders. Some battered birds to death with hammers. Others cut open bellies and ate the livers, shouting: "Dokdo is our territory!" Unfortunately, there was an unintended irony to this. [Source: The Standard]

The Korean nationalists killed Common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), and it's name in Japan is Kourai-kiji meaning "Korean Pheasant". The national bird of Japan is Green Pheasant (Phasianidae versicolor), a subspecies of Common pheasant only seen in Japan. Then the protestors threw a ladder at a newsman for the Kyodo News -- but unfortunately he was a Korean working for the paper. He required nine stitches in his head. The pictures were spread throughout Japan making Koreans look like barbarians in their killing of nine pheasants by cutting their heads off for the cameras. The Koreans are looking more and more like mindless brutes in the international press.


Pheasant Bashing at Japanese Embassy (18 Jul 2008)

Unlike in years past, it seems the Japanese are reacting with their own violence in return. Protests by Japanese right-wing political groups caused security to be tightened at South Korean diplomatic missions in Japan following Japan's renewed claim to Dokdo, official sources said on 18 Jul. Sources at the South Korean Embassy said one man was arrested by local police after trying to force his way into the ambassador's residence. The residence is adjacent to the embassy in the Japanese capital. However, by and large, the Japanese public doesn't really care about the Dokdo/Takeshima issue. They feel it is strictly a matter between the fishing community of Shimane and the Koreans who refuse to "share" the fishing grounds per the ROK-Japan fishing agreement to "share" the overlapping EEZ area.



Veterans Group protesting against Fukuda in front of Japanese Embassy in Seoul. Later the veteran group went to Tsushima to protest there.

SITE NOTE: The only thing that is saving Korea from a reciprocal protest against its embassy in Japan and desecration of its flag (and other symbols of Korea) is that the majority of the Japanese people don't give a damn about the Dokdo/Takeshima issue. To them it deals with only the Shimane folks who are complaining of their fishing rights.

However, this latest episode of pheasant bashing — pun intended — is that it was photographed and plastered across the front pages of the Japanese papers. The people doing the animal brutality were the Agent Orange vets wearing military uniforms — giving the image of militaristic Koreans as brutal, savage, uncultured, low-class, dirty, bloody (remember the Japanese eta were descended from butchers who did the "unclean" work) and a whole group of other negative images.

The pictures in the Japanese media that I have seen appear to be more bloody and violent than the ones seen in Korea — perhaps because they were cropped and enhanced to give that effect.

The combined image is enough to make the blood boil in the nationalist organizations in Japan. The visual image of a military group splattering blood over the Japanese flag — a sacred symbol to the nationalists – is a thing worth fighting over. Thus you have the initial onslaught of the Japanese nationalists in an attack on the Korean Embassy in Japan — and the resultant increased security.

One can only hope for the Koreans' sake that the outrage does not catch on with the rest of Japan.

“When the Japanese government departments decided to integrate Dokdo into Japanese territory, they said there is no ‘trace’ of occupation of the islets by other countries, but it is a very lopsided argument,” he said in a phone interview with JoongAng Ilbo on July 16.

“Their argument cannot be correct given the facts [I found].”

• I. SMALL WORDS WITH BIG MEANINGS
  
  When Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura's stated that the Japanese government would describe Dokdo as its territory in the new education guidelines beginning in 2012, it touched off a fire-storm -- seriously damaging Lee Myeong-bak's "future-oriented relations" with Japan. President Lee continued to come under fire from the opposition UDP following Tokyo's renewed claim, especially due to his policy of seeking stronger ties with the neighboring country and vow not to seek an apology from the nation over issues linked to Japan's colonial rule of Korea.
  
  President Lee Myung Bak on 16 Jul called for a "strategic and nonpartisan" response to Japan's latest move regarding the disputed islets. Lee said that while the South Korean people's anger over the dispute is understandable, it should not be exploited for political gain. (Source: Japan Times.)
  
  There are other tidbits that confuse. Is Dokdo one island or two?
  
  Dokdo consists of two small islets: East Dokdo and West Dokdo.
  
  Is Tokdo an "island" or an "islet" or a "rock"?
  
  The Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone has adressed three point for the definition of “island”
  . 1) any piece of land that is completely surrounded by water.
  2) It has to be above at high tide
  3) It has to be naturally made.
  
  Thus Dokdo is an "island" -- but simply because it is of its small size, it can be called an "islet" = small island. The name "Liancourt Rocks" is simply a descriptive name that has been accepted because of its description as two major outcroppings (rocks) with numerous submerged reefs covering an area of over 21,000 sq. meters.
  
  
• II. THE JAPANESE TEACHING GUIDE: HAS ANYONE READ IT?
  
  Interestingly the firestorm was over only a small portion of the new guidlines for teacher's handbook dealing with Takeshima (Dokdo). It is apparent that most Koreans have not even bothered to find out what it said -- nor does the Korean media want to publish it either.
  
  A translation on Dokdo-or-Takeshima read:
  
  

  "Northern territories (Etorofu island, Kunashiri island, Shikotan island and Habomai islands of Kuril Islands) are our inherent territory. They are illegally occupied by Russia. It is necessary to deepen the understanding about our country's territory in a way identical with the Northern territories by mentioning that there exist differing assertions between our country and Korea over Takeshima."

  The passage focuses on the four Japanese islands seized by the Soviet Union in the closing days of WWII just before Japan surrendered in World War II. It seems a very mild statement that uses Takeshima as an example of the main point being the disputed islands to the north with Russia -- and was, in fact, consciously "toned down" by the Japanese for fear of an over-reaction by the Koreans.
  
  

  As expected, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on 18 Jul 2008 that it found it regrettable the Japanese official handbook for the new school curriculum guideline for social science classes at middle school describes the so-called northern territories as illegally occupied by Russia. The Russian Foreign Ministry criticized the description, saying, "It will not contribute to the development of bilateral cooperation and the resolution of the border issue between the two countries." (Source: Yomiuri Shinbun.)
  
  In the dispute, the Russians offered two of the islands to Japan and would discuss the other two at a later date. The Japanese refused this offer. The claim of the Japanese government is based on the Japan-Russian Treaty of Trade and Friendship concluded in 1855. This was the first treaty that Japan and Russia officially concluded. Both countries had been engaged in exploring the Kuril Islands for 200 years. The Second Article of the Treaty provided that the boundary line was demarcated between Etorofu (Iturup) and Urup, and "all the Island of Etorofu belongs to Japan, all the Island of Urup and the Kuril Islands to the north of it (Urup) belongs to Russia" in the Japanese text. The Japanese consider Shikotan and Habomai the coastal islands of Hokkaido, situated out of the Kuril volcanic group, and previously under jurisdiction of Hokkaido.
  
  However, in the case of Dokdo, it is the Senkaku/Daioyutai Islands issue in its dispute with China that has significance. The islands were taken over for the same terra nullus reasoning in 1895 but once oil was discovered there, the Taiwanese claimed the islands in 1971 followed by China. After WWII, the allies allowed these islands to be retained by Japan as an extension of Okinawa. If this is taken to the World Courts unilaterally -- as the Chinese and Taiwan will never agree -- the precendent of the validity of the "terra nullus" argument will become a key point. If the Dokdo issue were taken to the World Court unilaterally -- as the ROK will not agree -- it will provide legal precedent for the resolution of the Senkaku/Daioyutai arguments over terra nulllus.
  
  The reason Taiwan and China have a weak case in Senkaku/Daioyutai is that Chiang Kai-shek had said nothing of Senkaku in neither Cairo nor Potsdam conference on these islands,even though he was one of the three participant of these historic summits that decided how to deal with post-war Japan. There were no mention on the territory to Japanese government from neither Taipei nor Beijing until 1971. It popped out only after the UN published a report on potential under water oil field. Chiang Kai-shek hadn’t mentioned a word to the U.S either, even though the Senkaku along with whole Okinawa islands was under U.S occupation. (Remember that Okinawa wasn’t part of Japan until it was returned in 1972 after a plebiscite of the Okinawan people agreed to join Japan rather than be independent.). PRC only followed ROC in the same year.
  
  In effect, Dokdo is NOT important. However, the principle of terra nullus is. It could be the key to gaining control of the Senkaku/Daioyutai Islands and its oil wealth that the energy deficient Japanese desparately need to sustain its economy and industry.
  
  The Chinese have started to develop the oil despite Senkaku/Daioyutai being a disputed island chain -- setting up a situation that is simply a "I am a big dog -- and you are a puppy. Want to fight?" situation. Faced with issue, the Japanese thought it important enough that the they interpreted the Peace Constitution to give the SDF the power to take actions in “regional defense”. This policy has long reaching effects in that Taiwan is now included in its "area of influence" and theoretically, if Taiwan is attacked by China, the Japanese can join in its defense. Many feel that Tokyo will win at ICJ on the Senkakus, if the case goes there. But since it's under Japanese control, and neither of the government in Taiwan nor China can endure the defeat, it's diplomatically wiser not to make such offer from the Japanese side. Because of the international risks of it developing into a major multi-country face-off that could explode into WWIII, the Japanese have opted to not press the matter at this time.
  
  But take this "regional defense" permission over the Senkaku/Daioyutai dispute and apply it more closely to home during any future face-off over Dokdo. With this reinterpretation of the Peace Constitution, the Japanese can invoke the notion of "territorial defense" that any military buildup at Dokdo -- including increased patrol boats to "protect" Dokdo -- could be construed as a threat to the "territorial defense" of Japan as the Japanese EEZs overlap in the area. Shooting wars have started over less.

  Though often mentioned in the Korean media, it has NOT been translated in any of the newspapers -- progressive or conservative -- as far as we know. We suspect that the media is deliberately NOT printing the translation because a lot of people would wonder, "What's the fuss about?" This is a good news story that sells newspapers -- and you don't bite the hand that feeds you. "Dokdo is Ours" stories are guaranteed sellers.
  
  However, the translated sections has appeared in many English blogs in Korea and Japan with the same question being asked: "What is so offensive about the sentence?"
  
  The Koreans say it is offensive because it is the FIRST TIME that the Japanese have put a statement that Dokdo belongs to Japan in a text book. THIS IS NONSENSE!!! This statement is the follow-on of the 2006 announcement that Dokdo/Takeshima was Japan's domain. (SITE NOTE: Though the fact that Dokdo/Takeshima was a disputed islet, up to 2005 the Japanese central government kept a low profile letting Shimane province make all the ruckus. When confronted, the central government replied that it was "improper" for it to interfere in the operations of a local government. After 2006, MOFA posted on its webpage the Japanese government position that Takeshima was Japanese territory.)
  
  But the key point is that the Japanese have been saying the same thing for over 50 years -- making this whole affair over this statement ridiculous. If the Japanese had not said that Dokdo was theirs in 1952, it would not be a disputed island today. Since 1954, the Japanese have contended that the ROK has occupied the islet illegally and that the islet is the "inherent territory" of Japan.
  
  This remains the official policy of the Japanese government today. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) has stated in its "Issue of Takeshima": "Japan's Inalterable Position on the Sovereignty of Takeshima: "(1). In the light of historical facts and based upon international law, it is apparent that Takeshima is an inherent part of the territory of Japan. (2). The occupation of Takeshima by the Republic of Korea is an illegal occupation undertaken on absolutely no basis in international law. Any measures taken with regard to Takeshima by the Republic of Korea based on such an illegal occupation have no legal justification." (SITE NOTE: Though this format for "Issues of Takeshima" was posted in Feb 2008, the same message was on the MOFA page dealing with Takeshima since 2005 as far as we know -- perhaps long before.)
  
  MOFA added a note: "The Republic of Korea has yet to demonstrate a clear basis for its claims that, prior to Japan's effective control over Takeshima and establishment of sovereignty, the Republic of Korea had previously demonstrated effective control over Takeshima." What this means is that before the Japanese took control of Dokdo/Takeshima in 1905, the ROK cannot show any historical proof that it had "effectived control" (effective dominion) over the islets of Dokdo/Takeshima. In other words, all the "proof" that the ROK claims to show ownership of Dokdo is based ancient historical texts is based on inference (i.e., the fishermen of that time "must have known" of Dokdo's existence). Furthermore, the ROK claims that ancient maps show Dokdo are highly suspect as the island shown is in the positon of Jukdo to the NORTH of Ulleungdo. (Source: Issue of Takeshima.)
  
  
• III. WAS THE DOKDO INCIDENT ORCHESTRATED?
  
  So what happened? Look at the timing. The announcement that the Japanese were planning to change the guidelines for dealing with the Dokdo issue was published in May 2008. (Source: Yonhap News.) It was in the midst of the anti-US beef protests that had nothing to do with health reasons. It was a progressive movement to destabilize the government.
  
  The anti-US beef protests in June were fizzling as the protests became politicized. The progressives needed something to stir the pot. They needed to divert the attention of the people away from their failed efforts to stop the beef entering the country -- and how the Korean people were starting to actually look forward to the inexpensive US beef being sold. The Dokdo issue was a sure-fire way to pull the rug out from under Lee Myeong-bak's feet. Lee left for the G-8 conference in Japan on 8 Jul.
  
  After Lee returned from the G-8 Conference in Japan on 10 Jul, the progressives started rumors that "LMB sold out Korea" and kissed away Dokdo to the Japanese. After the Japanese government announced new guidelines for school teachers that effectively state Tokyo's territorial claim to Korea's Dokdo islets, groundless rumors were spreading once again through the Internet that President Lee Myung-bak ceded control over the islets to Japan.
  
  By the fact that these rumors originated on the internet and spread in the same manner and same Agora bulletin boards that the misinformation of the anti-US beef protests was spread indicated the progressives were behind this. Atleast it had the progressive fingerprints all over this -- though one can't prove it. The progressives were seeking to keep Lee Myeong-bak off-balance -- and in doing so, keep him from implementing the witch hunts for progressives in government and public corporations. In addition, if he was constantly under pressure with the Dokdo issue, his promised projects such as privatization and eliminating "government by committees" would be postponed.
  
  Lee was attacking the KBS and MBC. He was attacking Roh Moo-hyun, the former President who didn't get the respect that he demanded. He was rooting out the old Roh appointees for corruption in the public corporations. The committees that Roh had put in place were under extreme pressure to move on -- as Lee eliminated them one by one. Lee was placing conservatives in every position he could fill --- and once he got them in place, he expected for them to continue the job. Roh's policies were all in the trash can and Roh's programs were slowly being shelved -- or altered into a new form amenable to conservative tastes. And Lee was just starting. After the anti-US beef fiasco that nearly toppled him, he was coming back with a vengeance. The progressives were fighting for their very existence.
  
  But the progressives can't take all the credit for getting the rumors against Lee started. The Yomiuri Shimbun did not help matters when they stated that Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda had given Lee Myeong-bak a "heads up" of the Japanese government's policy of describing Takeshima in the teachers's guide book as "Territory of Japan" during the Japan-South Korea presidential talk held at the G-8 summit in the Hokkaido Toyako. The Dokdo rumors began spreading in earnest after the Japanese daily Yomiuri Shimbun reported that during the G8 Summit in Hokkaido last Wednesday, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda informed President Lee of his Education Ministry's decision to state Tokyo's territorial claim. The Yomiuri reported Lee responded by saying that now was not a good time and asked the Japanese leader to hold off on the announcement. Cheong Wa Dae denied the report, but rumors that Lee had sold Dokdo to Japan spread like wildfire. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) Lee Myeong-bak denied this and demanded a retraction from the Yomiuri. In fact, the passage was still "under consideration" at the time.
  
  To make it even worse, the Koreans were burning flags and pictures of Prime Minister Fukuda along with killing pheasants on Japanese flags in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. Everyone -- from teachers to unions; from conservatives to liberals to radicals -- wanted to join in. They all wanted to throw rotten eggs at the Japanese Embassy. Even the old comfort women joined the protest -- and every nut group was finding that protesting for Dokdo was related somehow to their cause.
  
  
  Pheasant Bashing at Japanese Embassy (18 Jul 2008)
  
  This infuriated some nationalist groups in Japan -- and one of its members actually invaded the South Korean Embassy living quarters next door. However, as a whole, there was very little reaction in Japan to the Korean protests -- besides amused asides over how barbaric the Koreans really were in their abuse of animals. (SITE NOTE: There is a bit of irony involved. The Koreans killed nine Common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) known in Japan as Kourai-kiji meaning "Korean Pheasant". The national bird of Japan is the Green Pheasant (Phasianidae versicolor), a subspecies of Common pheasant only seen in Japan. The Koreans come off as not only brutes, but as uneducated ones as well.)
  
  Then on 24 Jul the conservative veteran group -- the same pheasant killers -- went to Tsushima to demonstrate that "Tsushima is ours too!" Hopefully the Japanese viewed them with amusement -- and not irritation. These folks of the lunatic fringe needed to be reined in immediately.
  
  Thus the answer to the original question of whether it was orchestrated is -- yes, it was started by the progressives -- and maintained with the assistance of the media, both conservative and progressive, in their attempts to sell newspapers. But in the end, every activist NGO group, both conservative and progressive, wanted to join in. Once started, it took on a life of its own. This is why the GNP and government officials are pleading for calm so that the protests do not get out of hand -- as they did in the past with the hate-mongering rhetoric of Roh Moo-hyun to spur them on.
  
  
• IV. KWON CHUL-HYUN: A LOOSE CANNON?
  
  On 16 Jul, the Ambassador to Japan, Kwon Chul-hyun, was recalled to Seoul, but not before he stopped by the Japanese Foreign Ministry to deliver a scathing diatribe to Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs Mitoji Yabunaka on 15 Jul. Yabunaka replied that it would be undesirable for Korea-Japan relations to deteriorate because of this issue. He told Ambassador Kwon that the two sides should remain calm and continue ahead to a new era of Korea-Japan cooperation. (Source: Korea Times.) It appears that Kwon was awarded the Japan ambassadorship because he was a good party veteran -- and had earned his reward for supporting Lee in his presidential run.
  
  We first thought that being recalled -- a very high diplomatic protest action -- was rather unusual considering the circumstances. Even when the ROK and Japan were having a face-off in 2006, no one was called home except for consultations. In fact, we thought it was just for show to appease the growing number of voices screaming for Japanese blood. We thought that the Lee Myeong-bak folks had already coordinated this with the Japanese to try to buy some time to defuse the situation in Korea. We were certain that after all the hassles from past demonstrations, the Japanese would understand.
  
  However, later we began to think that perhaps Kwon Chul-hyun was a "loose cannon." The reason he had been recalled "indefinitely" may perhaps have had more to do with his personality -- and being too close to the controversy and his antagonism towards Japan. Kwon Chul-hyun was the GNP spokesman back in 2001. He expressed outrage over Japanese middle school history books due to "distortions" of history and the "whitewashing" of atrocities during WWII. Kwon called on the Kim Dae-jung administration to "take all possible steps to revise the textbooks." (Source: People's Daily.) During years as GNP spokesman, he used an aggressive, accusatory speech-making style because at the time the GNP was the minority party and constantly on the attack or defense. His forte appeared to be speaking in the attack mode -- not a good trait for a diplomat.
  
  Then on 17 Jul he warned that Seoul could withdraw its support for Japan in negotiations with North Korea, including negotiations over the abduction of Japanese nationals by the North, due to Tokyo’s renewed claim to the Dokdo islets. He stated that, “Seoul has traditionally given Japan a certain degree of support at the six-party talks, especially on the nuclear, missile, and abduction issues,” Kwon Chul-hyun said. These statements were where he overstepped his bounds by threatening to remove support for Japan's positions under the six-party talks. It was very inappropriate. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) (SITE NOTE: Unfortunately, he didn't review Roh Moo-hyun's support of the Japanese on the very same issues when Roh in effect said, the North Korean missiles are not intended for us Koreans -- meaning they were for the Japanese -- so there was no worry. And then Roh sent one of the North Korean spies who was wanted by the Japanese for the abduction of a Japanese citizen back to North Korea as a sign of good faith. In addition, there existed a tri-party agreement between the US-ROK-Japan on coordinated dealings with the North that Roh immediately reneged on once in office.)
  
  During a GNP press conference on 21 Jul, Kwon again made remarks that were called, "diplomatically inappropriate." He stated, "Japan has traits as an island country like the United Kingdom, (Japan) hates being isolated and has an instrinsic desire to make inroads into the continent." The GNP quickly hustled him out of the room and later said he retracted parts of his statement. (Source: AOL.com.) Most papers edited out his remarks, but the damage had been done. While the GNP called for "calm and a strategic approach" toward the Dokdo dispute, a loose cannon like Kwon Chul-hyun just complicates Lee Myeong-bak's job.
  
  On 4 Aug it was reported that Kwon Chul-hyun would return to Japan, three weeks after being recalled in protest over Japan's renewed claim to Dokdo. "The ambassador will go back to his office in Tokyo Tuesday (5 Aug) because he finished what he was supposed to do here," Moon Tae-young, spokesman for the foreign ministry, told reporters. In Seoul, Kwon reported details of the incident to the presidential office, the foreign ministry and the parliament. He also took part in consultations with related government officials, the spokesman added. The report stated that upon returning the envoy will call on Japan's government to take "a more sincere stance towards building future-oriented relations between the two countries."
  
  Though Kwon returned to Japan, we wonder if he is on a short leash -- with the threat that his job may be in the balance if he shoots off his mouth without thinking.
  
  
• V. LEE MYEONG-BAK: A VOICE OF REASON AND HAN SEUNG-SOO: THE MAN WITH THE PLAN
  
  Lee Myeong-bak seemed to be the only voice of reason in the emotional rampage that followed. He called for calm and taking the "long view" and emphasized "strategic planning" to achieve the goal of ensuring that Dokdo remained a possession of the ROK. He took on the position of the leader of the ROK ready to defend Dokdo to the death from the Japanese, but with a different twist. He was talking of fighting the Japanese diplomatically. Luckily there is no one like Roh Moo-hyun around to continue to stir the pot and the protests died down after an initial flash.
  
  The Lee administration took the first steps in taking the "long view" of establishing its claim to Dokdo. We applaud Lee Myeong-bak for finally taking the substantive actions that the Roh Moo-hyun administration failed to do. Roh played to the masses with hysterical demonstrations which were short-term measures that had no effect on the status of the islets internationally. The LMB administration is finally preparing its defenses to strengthen its position on Dokdo in the international arena. As we have said, we believe Roh wasted valuable time and resources when he should have mobilized the ROK's REAL experts -- not the "hobbyists" the ROK currently relies on for supplying proof -- into forming a cogent and defensible package of documentation to prove its case.
  
  Emotionally, we side with the Koreans on the ownership of the islets, but after looking at the arguments, we think that the ROK simply has not proven its case. The latest step to approach this matter with "a strategic mindset" per what Prime Minister Han Seung-soo said is finally something that made sense -- though I'd filter out his nationalistic rhetoric provided strictly for the masses. Prime Minister Han Seung-soo said that Japan's latest claim on Dokdo is "groundless" and stressed there can be no dispute on South Korea's sovereignty. "The islets historically, geographically and legally belong to Korea," he said. He added Japan is trying to turn Dokdo into a international issue so there is a need to approach this matter with "a strategic mindset". In a meeting of ruling party lawmakers and government policymakers, the premier said South Korea "effectively controls" Dokdo and expressed grave concerns over recent claims by Japan to the islets. However, later he would switch the term "effective control" (effective dominion) for "territorial defense."
  
  
• VI. "ACTUAL CONTROL" - "EFFECTIVE CONTROL" ELIMINATED AND "TERRITORIAL DEFENSE" SUBSTITUTED
  
  The meetings on 19 Jul agreed to use the term "territorial defense" in reference to Dokdo, in place of the previous term "effective control" (effective dominion), a diplomatic term premised on a territorial dispute. GNP spokesman Cha Myeong-jin said the government agreed to scrap all use of the term "actual control" (actual dominion) when referring to South Korea's ownership of Dokdo and to tackle any territorial claims as a challenge to the country's sovereignty. (Source: Yonhap News.)
  
  To most Koreans, simply saying "Dokdo is OURS" is enough. They think that if they say it loud enough and long enough, the world will believe that it belongs to Korea. However, in the world of diplomatic legalese there has to be proof of "control" (dominion). Unfortunately, Dokdo is disputed.
  
  In the following discussion of "word-smithing", please remember that Prime Minister Han Seung-soo was appointed the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Apr 2001 and then elected as the President of the General Assembly of the United Nations in September 2001. In May 2007, Dr. Han was appointed to serve as a Special Envoy on Climate Change for the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon -- former Foreign Minister under Roh Moo-hyun in 2006. As such, Prime Minister Han has broad experience in diplomatic dealings. The cancellation of the use of "actual control" and the usage of the words "territorial defense" to replace "effective control" (effective dominion) has significance and were not chosen lightly. These are words that have grave consequences attached to them. They were chosen with the diplomatic dealings in mind. They were chosen to forestall any move by Japan to take this issue of Korean sovereignty over Dokdo to the World Courts.
  
  
  • A. ELIMINATION OF "ACTUAL CONTROL" AND "EFFECTIVE CONTROL": To understand the word play of "actual control" (actual dominion) and "effective control" (effective dominion), perhaps if the Dokdo issue were looked at as if it were a case of "adverse possession" jury trial in a US court, it might be easier to understand. For the ROK to have "adverse possession" -- control of a property that is contested -- there must be a preponderance of the evidence showing that (1) Korea had held the tract (Dokdo) adversely or hostilely for a period of ten years; (2) That the possession has been "open and notorious" -- meaning well-known to all (3) That possession has been "exclusive" -- not used by others; and (4) That the possession has been continuous. The ROK meets all of this criteria since it took control of the islet in 1954.
    
    However, it fails the test of "adverse possession" in other areas. (1) Possession is NOT under claim of title or color of title (Under "color of title", Korea has no "title" (document) as it has not been awarded possession by the World Court. Under the concept of "claim of title or right", Korea, as the party claiming adverse possession, has no deed or other document of title, but merely asserts ownership. (2) Possession has NOT been "actual." Though "effective control" has been established, "actual" control has NOT as there is no "title" to Dokdo awarded from a World Court. In this case, the ROK would be viewed as a "squatter." (Source: West Virginia Jury Instruction: Adverse Possession.)
    
    The important part is that the government is relinquishing the use of "actual control" (actual dominion) and "effective control" (effective dominion). This is very significant as "dominion" in legalese is used to indicate "sovereignty" over an area. The use of "actual control" (actual dominion) implied that Dokdo was Korea's without having to go through the World Courts to gain "title" to the islet. The reasoning was that Dokdo has ALWAYS been part of Korea -- and therefore has never been disputed. They were simply stating that they were unilaterally assuming dominion over Dokdo. This was in violation of international law and violated the 1965 Japan-South Korea Basic Treaty.
    
    By scrapping the use of the term "actual control" it bypasses the difficulties of violations of international law and allegations of a breach of the 1965 Basic Japan-ROK Treaty. The major problem with using the term "actual control" (actual dominion) was that the ROK must exercise "absolute dominion" over the property. This means that the ROK has to have a "title" -- an internationally recognized document awarding possession. This is the problem in that Korea has NOT been awarded a "title" (document) by a World Court to exercise the aforementioned "dominion" over the islet of Dokdo nor does it have clear-cut historical proof of its claims. In other words, the ROK had just unilaterally declared that Dokdo was theirs without going through the World Court or any international body to substantiate its claims.
    
    Thus the next obvious word choice to substitute for "actual control" (actual dominion) would be "effective control" (effective dominion). "Effective control" is the similar to having more than 50 percent interest in a company so that though you don't own all of it, you control it and "effectively" it is yours. Thus when the ROK used the term "effective control" it meant, "Though this is a disputed islet, we control it and you will never get it back." Actually with this old definition, no one had a real problem -- except Japan -- as it reflected the actual state of Dokdo as it exists today -- a disputed island under the control of the ROK.
    
    However, by using the term "effective control", it still admits that Dokdo is a disputed islet ... and still subject to World Court arbitration. Thus the ROK made a logical choice by stating they would use NEITHER "actual control" (actual dominion) NOR "effective control" (effective dominion).
    
    This is playing a word game but an amazingly slick one. By not using "actual control" or "effective control" the arguments for taking the disputed islands to the World Court disappears. In effect, the ROK does not state in documents that it "controls" the islets. But then it substitutes the word, "territorial defense" which now switches the arena of dispute of the islets from the diplomatic venue over a disputed islet -- into an internal ROK national defense issue dealing with the ROK territorial integrity. Though Dokdo still remains a disputed islet on the books, it is not being claimed as having Korean sovereignty (dominion) -- but now it becomes a national defense issue.
    
    
    Police on Dokdo (25 Jul 2008)
    
    
  • B. "TERRITORIAL DEFENSE": Someone might say, "If you no longer use "actual control" and "effective control", then doesn't this mean that the ROK is giving up its claims to Dokdo?"
    
    This is where the Prime Minister Han's diplomatic background comes in by coming up with this solution. The ROK is now going to substitute "territorial defense" in place of any claims of "effective control" (effective dominion). At this stage, Korea has NOT given up its claims on Tokdo as a disputed islet, but it no longer make it a "federal case" of occupying it. Thus in order for Japan to assert its claim, it attempt to "occupy" the islet which, of course, everyone knows that Japan will not risk an international incident by invading Dokdo. Japan still considers Dokdo a very minor irritation point in its foreign policy -- however, it is a major point in principle because of the other disputed islands with Russia, China and Taiwan.
    
    Thus this is relatively safe maneuver for the ROK -- that is UNLESS the Korean radicals and nuts do something so stupid as to push this over the brink. The biggest danger is that something will happen to enflame the now indifferent Japanese populace. What Prime Minister Han is doing is a calculated risk, but it is heavily weighted on his side.
    
    Though the thought of Dokdo being essential for the territorial defense of Korea is laughable, try to think of an argument where you try to debunk the ROK using this term. Finding points that it is ridiculous is easy. But if you try to debunk why the ROK should NOT choose to call this a "territorial defense" issue, you end up admitting that it is strictly a decision that only the ROK can make. It as an internal affair.
    
    The point is that "territorial defense" is based on the ROK's perception of what is required for its territorial defense or integrity. No outsider can dictate those needs. One could argue till one is blue in the face but it will not change the situation one iota. The decision of what is required to defend Korea belongs with the Koreans. The slyness of this strategy of using the terminology of "territorial defense" is that this issue cannot be taken to the World Court or any international body as this is strictly an internal affair of the ROK.
    
    The problem now will be how to show "national resolve" to "defend Dokdo to the death" -- without enflaming the Japanese into a battle over regional territorial rights. The ROK by using the term "territorial defense" now can state that the military use of force is a distinct possibility in the defense of Dokdo. Remember that the confrontations of 2006 over the surveys in the Dokdo area nearly ended up with a face-off. Japan definitely does NOT want a face-off. Thus this seems to be a relatively safe ploy. The politicians can speak with all the bluff and bluster they want -- knowing full well the Japanese do not want a confrontation.
    
    This is why the ROK must be VERY careful about placing ROK military troops on Dokdo. Currently, the ROK KNP Maritime Police stationed on the island are considered "civil" para-military -- not military forces. Seoul has stationed a 50-strong police contingent on Dokdo since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War. Even the Japanese MOFA documents refer to the forces guarding the islet as "police." If military forces -- such ROK Marines -- are moved onto Dokdo this might escalate the confrontation.
    
    The danger is that the Japanese may call its bluff. In 2006, the Dokdo survey ship issue almost led to a face-off between ROK and Japanese patrol boats/cruisers. In 2008, though not directly related to Dokdo, there was a face-off between the Korean coast guard (KNP) and the Japanese coast guard (SDF).
    
    But what if Japan also takes the same tact and also calls "Takeshima/Dokdo" essential for its "territorial defense." Then what? Just as Korea can build a case, the Japanese can build an even stronger case as it is now involved in setting up its Missile Defense System line with its X-band radar in place and SM-3 missiles on its Aegis destroyers plying the East Sea/Sea of Japan. In Jul 2007, a Japanese Defense ministry white paper was translated that showed Dokdo as a JAPANESE radar site -- though it was considered a typo at the time.
    
    As to the status of Dokdo under this "territorial defense" tactic, Korea is taking a calculated risk that Japan will avoid a head-on confrontation over this new tactic. It will buy the ROK time. If Japan calls the ROK's bluff, then we have a face-off situation. At this time, Japan's Foreign Ministry is calling for calm -- and the ROK Foreign Ministry and GNP politicians are doing the same. No one wants a face-off.
• VII. TERRITORIAL DEFENSE: COULD IT ESCALATE TO A SHOOTING WAR?
  
  
  • A. IMPACTS OF THE TERM "TERRITORIAL DEFENSE": The use of the term "territorial defense" to replace "effective control" has elevated Dokdo to the level of a defense line -- sort of like a Maginot Line except in the water. Any attempt to forcibly take the islet would be tantamount to a declaration of war. In effect, the ROK has thrown the gauntlet down in front of the Japanese stating that if they attempt to enter the defense zone surrounding Dokdo, military force could be used. We want to stress the word "COULD" as the ROK does NOT want a face-off.
    
    This is a dangerous gambit as the Diet has already granted the interpretation of the Peace Constitution that the JSDF naval forces can be used in regional defense roles -- and Dokdo being only 220 km from Matsue, Japan -- and 160 km from Oki Island (Okinoshima) -- is unarguably within the range of what one would call "regional." What the ROK is counting on is the lack of "national resolve" on the part of the Japanese populace to consider Dokdo as worth fighting for. It is a calculated risk as most Japanese think the Dokdo/Takeshima is strictly a problem for the Shimane province dealing with fishing rights -- not an issue of Japanese sovereignty.
    
    Before you say that it could NEVER escalate into a shooting war, remember the Korean "volunteers" who occupied Dokdo in 1952. Japanese sent boats to Dokdo periodically as a show of force and there are skirmishes. On 12 Jul 1953, three Japanese patrol boats arrived as a show of force at Dokdo and came under fire from the Dokdo forces. The ships returned fired, but under the mortar barrage lost one ship, 16 injured and a number of Japanese killed. Skirmishes continued into 1954. Violence and loss of life have already been a part of the struggle for possession of this rock. (Source: The Territorial Dispute over Dokdo
    
    Because of the violence between Japan and Korea over Dokdo in 1953, the US Congress added a caveat to the Mutual Defense Treaty that stated that if Korea should initiate hostilities over the "Liancourt Rocks" (among others), it was on its own. It stated, "It is the understanding of the United States that neither party is obligated, under Article 3 of the above Treaty, to come to the aid of the other except in case of an external armed attack against such party; nor shall anything in the present Treaty be construed as requiring the United States to give assistance to Korea except in the event of an armed attack against territory which has been recognized by the United States or lawfully brought under the administrative control of the Republic of Korea."
    
    In recent years, there have been face-offs between the ROK Coast Guard (KNP) and Japanese Coast Guard (SDF) -- the most recent being in 2008. In 2006, tensions arose to the point that the was a potential for a military face off after the ROK denied the Japanese permission for a underwater survey in the disputed area around Dokdo. According to the Asahi Shimbun on 28 Jun 2006, "In a move that has reignited tensions, South Korea ignored repeated Japanese warnings and sent a survey ship into Japan's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) near disputed islets in the Sea of Japan. A South Korean government official said the survey ship entered an area where the two countries' EEZs overlap around 6:40 a.m."
    
    In retaliation in Aug 2006, Kyodo News reported that Japan told the ROK it would conduct a radioactive waste survey from late August to early September in waters near two disputed islets in the Sea of Japan. The Japan Coast Guard was to conduct the survey to examine the effects of radioactive waste dumped in waters near Vladivostok in Russia's Far Eastern region by the former Soviet Union. One or two of the sites to be covered in the survey are in the ROK-claimed EEZ -- claiming the inspections had been done since 1993. The Japanese sent patrol boats to "patrol" the waters near Dokdo.
    
    Then Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon -- now the head of the UN -- said Japan would need permission if it wanted to conduct a survey within Korea's EEZ -- right after the ROK unilaterally sent a survey ship into the Japanese EEZ. The Koreans sent patrol boats to "protect" the waters near Dokdo. Ban went to Japan to meet with the Japanese over a multitude of issues including Dokdo in Aug 2006. The two countries were scheduled in Sep 2006 to discuss demarcation of their EEZ boundaries -- but those talks broke down. Eventually the tensions died down.
    
    The bottomline is this. When you bring two armed para-military forces in close proximity to one another, one slip of a trigger finger and you can have a full-blown battle. Do a flashback to 30 June 2002 and the inter-Korean naval clash near the Northern Limit Line in the Yellow Sea after the ROK and North Koreans faced off against one another. The Maritime Demarcation Line served as a de-facto maritime border between the Koreas since the 1950-53 Korean War. Both sides claimed the other started the shooting first, but in truth it is irrelevant. Lives were lost on both sides in an inconclusive battle over an arbitrary dividing line.
    
    The same can be true at Dokdo when you create an arbitrary dividing line claiming "territorial defense" and face off two opposing forces. Thus what we are saying here is that this is serious business. It has happened before and can happen again with reprecussions that no one can even imagine.
    
    
  • B. RELATIVE STRENGTH OF ROK VERSUS JAPAN MILITARY STRENGTH: If one thinks that the ROK Navy is strong enough for a face-off compared to the Japanese, please reconsider your opinions. At the time escalated tensions in Aug 2006, the Korea Coast Guard (ROK Navy) said it had only one aircraft deployed in the area compared to Japan's 29. Korea had 22 helicopters while Japan had 46. Korea had 22 large warships, and 39 mid-size warships compared to Japan's 54 and 62. (SITE NOTE: As this is a strictly a potential air-sea conflict, no comparison is made between the land forces.)
    
    It is a unspoken fact that since the 1970s, the Japanese have been lacking only a carrier to form a carrier battle group, while the ROK is still basically only a second-rate coastal defense force -- which was neglected during the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun years. It is trying to play catch-up to regain its strength as a credible coastal defense unit, while expanding its submarine and cruisers to enhance its long-range stand-off capabilities.
    
    The Japanese had a blue-water Navy prior to WWII and the US never took it away its capability after the war -- though it placed heavy restrictions upon its employment through the Peace Constitution. However, the USFJ has played blind to the creative naming of blue-water cruisers and destroyers as "coastal defense ships" -- with the tacit understanding of the US government. Couple this with the fact that its latest upgrades of its Aegis destroyers with SM-3 missiles in conjunction with the Missile Defense System (MDS). It is a potent force that should not be taken lightly. As for the air force defenses, the bulk of the ROKAF is in KF-16s which only have 15 minutes time over the islands due to fuel reserves. Though the newer F-15Ks (29 aircraft) do have a longer hang time over Dokdo, the ROK forces pale against the numbers of JSDAF F-15DJs (223 aircraft). (Source: GlobalSecurity.org.)
    
    Remember that the range from Japan and Korea to Dokdo is approximately the same as both the ROK and Japan have no carriers. Then take into consideration that the Japanese have inflight refueling capabilities that far exceed anything the ROKAF can muster. In the event of a military face-off over Dokdo, the ROK will be simply outnumbered and outclassed.
    
    You can see the problem immediately. There are more Japanese fighters that could provide air cover over Dokdo than Korean fighters. The ROK could deploy its latest helicopter-troop ship the Dokdo to the area, but it would be sitting duck without air cover in a real shooting war. The ROK Navy when faced off against the Japanese are simply out-gunned and out-classed.
    
    Since 1953, the Japanese Navy has reassumed its power as a respected blue-water navy assisting the US with refueling operations for the Afghanistan conflict. It has provided ships for other international peace-keeping roles. The Diet has approved the role of the JSDF Navy in a regional defense role -- that would extend to Dokdo. In contrast, the ROK Navy is a coastal defense organization that only in recent years joined in West Pac exercises in Hawaii. It is currently undergoing testing of its missile shoot-down capabilities in the Pacific Range off Hawaii as part of the MDS that it is developing in conjunction with the US. It is only in the ROK dreams that it can even be considered to be in the same class as the Japanese fleet.
    
    Also remember that the Japanese Diet approved the interpretation under the Peace Constitution that Japan can take on a territorial role in defense of its disputed territories. This interpretation gave an expanded role for the JSDF Navy. With the Diet's permission it took on a regional defense role for the first time. This interpretation of the Japanese regional defense role would now extend to Dokdo as a regional disputed area.
    
    Of course, no one wants such a military clash as both sides would lose.
    
    
  • C. ROK ACTIONS TO ENFORCE ITS "TERRITORIAL DEFENSE": Following through with the change to using "territorial defense" in lieu of "effective control," Korea will conduct military drills in the East Sea near Dokdo in Jul 2008 and in Nov 2008 to prepare the country to defend the islets. The Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard will participate in the exercises. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) However, the government added a caveat saying that the schedule is subject to change depending on other drills, plans or weather, and that the exercises do not necessarily have to be carried out once in the first half and another time in the second half of the year. The government has conducted the Dokdo defense exercises twice every year since 2003. The Navy, Air Force, and Korea Coast Guard participate in the drills.
    
    As part of this, the latest F-15Ks will participate -- but all of this is for show to give the Koreans a false sense that they have power to project a "show of force" to the Japanese. Remember that ROK is outgunned and outclassed in all areas of naval and aerial combat by sheer numbers. The Japanese will not be impressed.
    
    The GNP suggested dispatching a contingent of the Marine Corps in place of police currently stationed on the islets to reinforce the islets' defense. Government officials promised to give serious thought to the idea but added this could be seen as an admission that Dokdo is disputed. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee said the government considered stationing military troops on Dokdo as one option to safeguard Korean territory but added the matter required a careful approach. "If we station military troops on the islets, it could not only provoke military tension between Korea and Japan but also provide room for regarding the islets as a disputed territory under international law," he said. "Because any small conflict can lead to a military confrontation, we will try to take strategic, long-term measures." (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)
    
    The only thing in the ROK favor is that the Japanese do NOT want a shooting war, though the ROK has pushed the envelope to the limit as late as 2006. At present, the Japanese populace in general think of Dokdo/Takeshima as a fishing dispute involving primarily the Shimane community -- and having little effect over Japan itself. Besides the ultra-nationalists, there is very little interest in the Dokdo issue.
    
    As long as the Japanese populace do not get heated up, the ROK is safe in pushing the envelope. However, the danger exists that it may blow up in their faces. The Japanese SDF has the authorization for regional defense, the ships and aircraft to back up their threat, but only lack the "national will" to commit to a face-off. If the ROK pushes the envelope too far, it may explode in their faces.
    
    Again at this time, the Japanese Foreign Ministry is calling for calm -- and the ROK Foreign Ministry and GNP politicians are doing the same. No one wants a face-off. It is extremely important that the dispute does not escalate to the point that the two sides are engaged in a face-off involving military patrol boats/cruisers. One accidental mishap and clash will have catastrophic results. Calm is essential -- the military forces must remain separated.
• VIII. LONG RANGE STRATEGIC PLANNING AND ACTIONS:
  
  We believe that the Lee Myeong-bak administration finally took a look at the evidence that Korea had arrayed before them to justify their case. We believe they found it riddled with the types of falcious logic and emotional arguments that plague the progressive movement. We believe that they found that most of it could not stand up to the close scrutiny and validation of the international scientific, historical and cartographical communities.
  
  On the other hand, the Japanese are steadily increasing their sphere of influence in scientific and cartographic societies -- and through its bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council -- primarily through "money politics." The Japanese had formed the Takeshima Branch under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) and enlisted the scientific, historical and cartographical societies to assist them in building their case. Though the much publicized elements seen in the media were from the Shimane community, the real work was being done behind the scenes by the scholars of Japan.
  
  The ROK, on the other hand, had started the Korea Dokdo Research Center under the Korea Maritime Institute. Unfortunately, its work was simply local and completely ineffective.
  
  But the worst shock was probably when the Lee Myeong-bak cabinet reviewed the "proof" that the ROK was relying on to convince the world that Dokdo belonged to Korea. We believe that the LMB staff took a hard look to rebut these claims, but probably ended up with the same conclusion of many others. The basis of the ROK's historical claims to Dokdo are based on Ulleungdo being historically documented as part of Korea. No one disputes this. However, then the ROK makes a stretch that states that Dokdo was part of Ulleungdo and the fishermen of that period knew of the presence of Dokdo, it starts to get weak as there is no hard documentation of this fact.
  
  The Japanese posted a document in Feb 2008 that claimed that Takeshima was "clearly" Japanese territory from the standpoint of both history and international law. It said South Korea was illegally occupying the islands. The document outlines 10 reasons why the islands belong to Japan. It claims that Japan used the islands as a fishing base and anchorage en route to Ulleung Island and thus "established its sovereignty over Takeshima by the mid 17th century at the very latest."
  
  Roh Moo-hyun did a grave disservice to his country by using the Dokdo issue to distract attention away from his failed economic, diplomatic, fiscal, military and domestic programs. In making it an emotional issue, the ROK never took the steps to build a solid case for its international arguments. It has relied on "experts" who were nothing more than hobbyists. It has produced a case that is not defensible.
  
  Now with the gauntlet thrown to the ground, the ROK has time to breathe -- but it is betting that the Japanese will not react strongly. It is a calculated risk based upon the fact that the general Japanese populace consider the Dokdo issue only a regional problem over Shimane province's fishing rights. However, recent events by Koreans to insult the Japanese may backfire and turn this situation into a political and military face-off. We hope the Korean populace cools down so this doesn't happen.
  
  Remember the object is to buy time.. The ROK needs to develop long-range plans, build up documentation to support its case in the World Courts -- while reassuring the Korean populace that it considers "Dokdo is OURS!". The object is to buy time and forestall any Japanese moves to move it to the World Courts at this time.
  
  This is something that Japan can only view with nervousness. With this action, Korea has moved the dispute to another level in the diplomatic game -- towards a situation that will have to be resolved in the World Courts, but one which the ROK will refuse to do so. This is a dangerous game that the ROK is playing, but one where it is a calculated risk that favors the ROK at this time.
  
  
  • A. DOKDO TASK FORCE: Prime Minister Han Seung-soo proposed setting up a task force on the islets involving all related ministries. "It is time to more actively tackle the issue on a governmental basis," Han was quoted as saying by officials. "All ministries should join hands to make clear to the international community that Dokdo belongs to Korea." The task force will involve representatives from related ministries, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of National Defense, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs -- and fall under the Prime Minister's office.
    
    There is a lot that can be done if they allow each ministry to let its people think up their own projects to assist in the drive. With the proper motivation, this could become a major project that will unite the Lee Myeong-bak government.
    
    
  • B. DOKDO RESEARCH CENTER: DEVELOP INTERNATIONAL AWARENESS: Korea is on the ropes in the area of Dokdo awareness. We believe that the ROK has taken this step because it has finally opened its eyes and rationally looked at its "proof" for its claims of ownership of Dokdo and realized that what people have been saying for years is true. Korea has a very weak case. He also saw that Korea was losing the international battle of visibility of Dokdo as Korean territory. In the area of international awareness of the Dokdo issue, Korea was losing the war.
    
    It was seeing that it was losing its publicity battle internationally at the grassroots level. Bike rides through Europe and motorcycle rides through Asia to raise the awareness of the Dokdo issue were complete flops. No one cared. Though it is a national item in Korea, the truth is that the majority of the world neither knows -- nor cares about the existence of Dokdo. Even in Japan most Japanese don't even know where Dokdo is.
    
    In Feb 2007, Wikipedia announced that it was going to vote on a change from "Dokdo" to "Liancourt Rocks" due to Wikipedia is a user-edited encyclopedia — open to all for article creation and editing, but an "editing war" ensued whereby people edited between "Dokdo" and "Takeshima" more than 4,000 times. (Source: OhMyNews, 28 Feb 2007.) As of 31 May 2007, the name of the article was switched back to "Liancourt Rocks" -- and "Dokdo" and "Takeshima" are shown with "disambiguation notices." Online encyclopedias around the world are increasingly adopting Liancourt Rocks to refer to Dokdo. (Source: Yonhap News.)
    
    Yonhap reported that as ``a result of Japanese lobbying,'' a growing number of Web sites and online references around the world are deciding to stop using the Korean name Dokdo when referring to the islets.'' Some of the major online dictionary sites and Internet portals that stopped using the name Dokdo include yahoo.com, reference.com, infoplease.com and aol.bartleby.com. (Source: Korea Times
    
    Then the Library of Congress wanted to make changes to the subject heading for Dokdo now filed under "Tok Island (Korea)" and change the entry to "Liancourt Rocks". It was also trying to add "Islands of the Sea of Japan" -- the body of water Korea calls the East Sea -- for the higher classification of the islets. After frantic calls by the Korean Embassy, Korean lobby groups and even Canadian librarians, Dr. Barbara Tillett, chief of the Library of Congress Cataloging Policy and Support Office, said she was withdrawing the suggestion to change the subject heading for Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks, which was submitted in December 2007. Tillett added the discussion was to be delayed "until there is an enlightened international resolution and a decision by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names." Unfortunately for Korea, the ostensible reason to effect the name was to incorporate the decisions of the U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the Board on Geographic Names (BGN), which use Liancourt Rocks. (Source: Chosun Ilbo and Chosun Ilbo.)
    
    The impact of the Library of Congress move to use "Liancourt Rocks" would be that many foreign countries and organizations would follow suit. These were indicators that the ROK was losing its influence in shaping public opinion around the world over the Dokdo issue -- especially on the internet.
    
    Around the world, the Koreans in attacking websites that disagree with them over the Dokdo issue has alienated on-line organizations, but more worrisome, it has alienated the average internet user. Most could care less about the Dokdo issue, but when it interupts their internet usage, they do form an opinion. The Korean technique of crashing servers by focused email attacks has now come to roost. Other negative impressions come from the volume of SPAM that end up in everyone's mailbox originating from Korean servers. The overall impression of any internet issue dealing with Korea starts off with negatives in the on-line populations minds worldwide.
    
    Korea Dokdo Research Center under the Korea Maritime Institute said on 23 Jul that it has published a 15-page booklet titled ``Dokdo Is Korean Territory'' in four languages -- Korean, English, Japanese and Chinese. The booklet is an extension of a pamphlet developed to counter a Japanese report on Dokdo, ``10 Issues of Takeshima,'' which the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted on its Web site in three languages. The center will distribute the booklet to Korean residents and Korean studies scholars overseas through Korean embassies in other countries and international associations. (Source: Korea Times.)
    
    However, we do not think these booklets will help much as it is being distributed to those who already believe. The ROK publicity efforts are not reaching anyone outside of the Korean circle -- even if they are overseas. The ROK is trying to influence world-wide public opinion on a matter that interests only Koreans -- and the nationalistic Japanese side which constitutes only a small portion of the Japanese populace. Many foreigners have joined in this discussion -- most because of their emotional relationship with Korea -- and have come away siding with the Japanese side because of the evidence presented.
    
    The problem is one that has plagued the progressive camp for years. They truly believe that perception is as formidable as reality. In other words, truth is not necessarily essential in achieving one's goals. It is the perception of truth that wins. One may argue that this is silly, but the progressives have used it for over a decade to sway the masses in Korea to hysterical fits of nationalistic fervor based on strictly emotional arguments. The most recent example of this being the anti-US beef protests -- with Apr-May for the teeny-bopper version and May-July for the adult version. This swaying of the truth is closely tied to the Korean belief that the end justifies the means using the propensity of Koreans to follow "herd behavior" (i.e., where someone does something because others are doing it). MBC's PD-Notebook reports on the mad-cow BSE issue are ideal examples of how this works in action.
    
    This was great for convincing all of Korea that Dokdo is the possession of Korea. Koreans from top to bottom believe it in their souls. However, this same technique when applied to the international populace becomes laughable. Articles take on the flavor of "yellow journalism" where facts are warped so far out of shape that they no longer reflect the truth. When this type of propaganda is applied to the international scientific and historical bodies, it results in derision and scorn. A perfect example of this is Hwang Woo-suk, the disgraced former national scientist, whose supposed cloning achievements fooled Korea and the world until it caught up to him.
    
    Korea needs to hire a new ad agency. During the anti-US beef protests, Lee Myeong-bak rightly fired the last advertising agency promoting the government. A new creative one needs to be found. If I had the power, I'd try to find the progressive volunteer ad folks that did the internet ad campaigns. They were fresh, creative and funny -- yet innovative and insightful. They delivered their messages with a wallop. They were great...that is what they need even if they are from the "enemy" camp.
    
    In our opinion, the ROK needs to harness the energy of these creative geniuses to create an ad campaign that will appeal to the young online users -- not of Korea -- but of the world. During the latest anti-US beef protests, these young people -- whoever they are -- created an ad campaign that was almost unstoppable. My recommendations to the Lee Myeong-bak administration is find them and employ them.
    
    The old staid conservative ad agencies the government used before do NOT work. New thinking is required to reach an international audience to sway their opinions.
    
    One positive step was announced on 5 Aug when Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan said the ministry would create new Spanish, Chinese and Japanese language versions of its official Web site to promote Korea’s diplomatic policies, including those on Dokdo, to a wider range of people around the world. The ministry currently operates Korean and English versions of its official Web site.
    
    
    
    A life-sized figure of thief wearing a Japanese flag as a mask is installed on a signboard in Manhattan's Times Square. The sign reads, 'Stop island theft. Japan attempts to steal Asia's islands by distorting history.' It is part of a 'guerrilla' campaign by Yi Je-seok of advertising agency Draft FCB New York to promote Korea's sovereignty over the Dokdo islets. Yi produced and installed the figures around Times Square and the Empire State Building. /Yonhap
    
    (SITE NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW NOT TO ADVERTISE DOKDO AWARENESS. No one is paying attention and the message is ambiguous -- STOP ISLAND THEFT. Which island? Hawaii??? This works in Korea where everyone knows what island, but in NYC no one knows or even cares where it is. These folks need to be fired if they were paid money for this. The same signboard was installed Pennsylvania Avenue and similarly disregarded.)
    
    My first recommendation would be to fire the person at the Korea Dokdo Research Center who came up with the idea for the 15-page booklet. This is the staid, stuck-in-a-rut thinking that has lost Korea its international battle in public awareness. These type of people REACT to situations -- just as the booklet is a reaction to the Japanese "10 Issues of Takeshima" on the INTERNET.
    
    The ROK government needs to break out of its conservative mold and hire on new thinkers. I highly recommend they look for the folks that we used by the progressives as "volunteers." There were quite a few hangul news articles written about these groups so it should not be hard to locate them -- or simply send out a casting call on one of the progressive bulletin boards that the government is looking for bright, creative advertising people to develop a Dokdo awareness campaign. Despite their progressive background, the chance to defend Dokdo will surely result in hundreds if not thousands of inquiries.
    
    The ROK government needs to think outside the box. As it is right now, it is losing the battle over international awareness in the Dokdo issues as it stands right now.
    
    
  • C. DEVELOP DOMESTIC AWARENESS : This is similar to preaching to the choir. Domestic awareness is really not a problem. The problem is how to clear up the misinformation -- and teach the Korean people the salient points to discuss the possession of Dokdo logically.
    
    
    • 1. SEOUL DOKDO MUSEUM: The government plans to build museums on Dokdo in Seoul to help educate students about South Korea's sovereignty. Currently there is a Dokdo Museum located on Ulleungdo but the exhibits according to reports are very sketchy -- and even the map display of the islet has been criticized as having errors.
      
      My question is what type of displays will the museums show. There are two sides to history and the truth is always somewhere in between. The Dokdo history is actually modern history. The objective of museums are to show exhibits that show the factual nature of something. If not, it will simply become a propaganda shop.
      
      I believe the chances of any museum on Dokdo becoming nothing more than a propaganda display is very good. The North Korean variety museum has exhibits portraying the bad Americans and the loyal and brave North Korean soldiers. These are not museums, but propaganda displays. How nice it looks will depend on how much money the government is willing to spend.
      
      
    • 2. DOKDO ON 100,000 WON NOTE: Another item to raise domestic awareness is by the Bank of Korea putting Dokdo on the new W100,000 bill when it is issued next year was announced on 22 Jul 2008. The central bank had decided in Dec 2007 to put Daedongyeojido, or the 1861 Grand Map of Korea, on the new banknote. Considered to be the most scientific and accurate map based on field researches and investigations, Daedongyeojido was drawn in 1861 by Kim Jeong-ho (?~1866), the first geographer and cartographer during the Joseon Dynasty who created a scale map of modern cartographic precision on the basis of his extensive travels throughout the Korean Peninsula.
      
      But questions were raised about the appropriateness of this decision after experts pointed out that while the accompanying manuscript for the map does cite Dokdo as Korean territory, the original woodblock printed version did not mark the islets. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) In Dec 2007, the Bank of Korea had officially announced that it would use the manuscript of Daedongyeojido showing Dokdo as its preliminary design of the new 100,000-won banknote because Dokdo is printed on the prior manuscript of the map. Considering the results of a public opinion survey on the preliminary design for the new 100,000-won banknote last December, the central bank decided to mark Dokdo, based on the manuscript of Daedongyeojido showing the islands, as its preliminary design (Source: Korea.net.)
      
      
    • 3. EXPAND DOKDO SECTIONS IN TEXTBOOKS: Seoul also plans to expand the sections on Dokdo in its textbooks to inform students of the country's sovereignty over the islets and request Japan to co-publish a history textbook. In Jul 2008, it was reported that the country's textbooks give scant information on the disputed Dokdo islets. Seoul's plan to strengthen education on historical distortions on East Asia including Dokdo is expected to take effect in 2012, when East Asian history will debut as a high school subject across the nation.
      
      Korean textbooks simply provide rough descriptions of the islets and fail to give students systematic historical information. In elementary school textbooks, Dokdo is simply presented through photos and pictures of guards on the rocky islets. Middle school history textbooks offer descriptions about Dokdo limited to historical facts from the Joseon Dynasty, such as historical movements involving the islets and Japan's acknowledgement of Dokdo as Joseon territory in 1696.
      
      The historical importance and territorial sovereignty of the islets are often dismissed in most Korean textbooks on social science. Depending on the curriculum, certain history textbooks in high school focusing on Korea-Japan relations give short historical facts about the islets during the Three Kingdoms and Joseon eras. About six publishers of modern Korean history textbooks cover Dokdo in descriptions of national struggles against Japanese colonial rule, but fail to give more detailed information. Mention of the islets comprise a simple chronicle and short historical facts that the Korean Empire took over Dokdo in 1900, when it raised the status of Ulleung island, and that Japan unilaterally claimed sovereignty over the islets in 1905.
      
      History teachers say textbook revisions should keep up with the historical situation of the times. Given Japan's latest move to claim the islets, including the use of diplomatic documents and parliamentary speeches, teachers in Korea are urging more active measures to counter Japan's offensive. (Source: Donga Ilbo.)
    
    
    

    If you notice there is a bit of hypocrisy in the ROK increasing its study of Dokdo. It is all right for the ROK to teach that Dokdo is their islet, but the Japanese who have just as much claim on the islet must NOT even mention the topic in the teachers guide. Our opinion has always been this whole textbook affair is a "sovereignty issue" that the ROK has no business being involved in. This is a question of sovereignty — but not over the rock, but over the right of a parent in a sovereign nation to say how his/her child should be educated under the laws of his/her sovereign nation. This deals with the JAPANESE education system for JAPANESE kids by JAPANESE teachers in JAPANESE schools with JAPANESE textbooks — and approved in the end by JAPANESE parents who pay JAPANESE taxes to support the JAPANESE education system.
    
    To make this whole debate even more ridiculous is that there are already textbooks from four publishers that contain passages on Takeshima. It is not a FIRST time that many of the activists claim.
    
    My point is that Korea has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. The Koreans don't realize how silly they sound when the media like the Joongang Ilbo states, "Claiming that Dokdo is Japan’s territory is one thing; teaching it to teenagers is another. The latter is tantamount to encouraging young people to dispute the ownership of Korea’s territory in the future when they grow up…." Reverse the statement about the Japanese saying Takeshima is ours and the editorial's comments seem rather boorish in being blind to the fact that Dokdo is DISPUTED and the Japanese have just as much right as the Koreans to say it is theirs. If you don't like it go to the World Court -- but then the ROK will never do that.
    
    They do this to the Japanese, Chinese — and even the Americans. The Chinese played hardball with them when they tried it with them — and they are still smarting from the last Chinese rewriting of history. The Japanese simple ignore them like pests — except in one community. In America…that's another story…

  • D. DOKDO RESEARCH CENTER: OCEANIC SCIENCE RESEARCH: Dokdo is important as an outpost for oceanic science. The government is planning to establish a base there and expects basic scientific data on wave height and ocean currents near the islets to help more accurate weather forecasts. It will also carry out research to maintaining the ecological balance of the islets, which are valuable because they are home to various finny tribes, 70 kinds of plants and natural formations. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)
    
    
  • E. DOKDO RESEARCH INSTITUTE (NORTHEAST ASIA HISTORY FOUNDATION): HISTORICAL RESEARCH ON DOKDO: The government will set up the state-funded Dokdo Research Institute that will take charge of research or studies on the islets in the future to promote South Korea's sovereignty from a standpoint of history and international law. In order to reinforce research on historical records that Dokdo is part of Korea, the government plans to build a research institute on Dokdo, affiliated with the Northeast Asia History Foundation. The foundation opened in 2006 to systemically study the area's past, mainly the history of Japan. The new Dokdo institute, consisting of civil experts and high-ranking government officials, will conduct comprehensive research into the historical dispute over the islets to gather viable evidence of Seoul's sovereignty.
    
    Experts here have been advising the government to make more efforts in collecting historical evidence to strengthen the country's assertion of sovereignty over Dokdo, claiming the public displays of rage merely give the international community the idea that there is a legitimate dispute. (Source: Yonhap News.)
    
    After President Lee came out recommending a "long view" in dealing with Dokdo, many Korean scholars have said that what the country needs is not another round of angry protests in front of the Japanese Embassy, but a systematic effort to find more historical records and scientific evidence that Dokdo is indeed part of Korea.
    
    As we have said before, we believe the ROK's case is very weak -- based mostly on (1) the coloring of Dokdo on old maps to prove that Japan recognized Dokdo as Korean territory in a childish game of "my-map-is-better-colored-than-your-map." and (2) a series of maps where the ROK attempts to prove through old maps that an island -- that looks suspiciously like Jukdo about 2.2km off the coast of Ulleungdo -- is actually Dokdo 92km away. These old maps do NOT show an islet located a great distance from the Korean mainland -- and actually weakens Korea's case.
    
    The Korean "experts" show documentation that Ulleungdo fell under the jurisdiction of Gangwando's administration since 612 AD to prove their historical case of Dokdo's being Korean territory. Claims are that Korean fishermen knew about the islets as early as 500 AD. Unfortunately, they do not provide written proof that Dokdo specifically falls under the administration -- or even if they knew of the islets existence. Instead, they state that the fishermen "must have known" about the islets.
    
    The ROK claims that it has long been aware of the existence of the two islands of Ulleungdo (Utsuryo) and Usando, which they claim as Dokdo of today. Their belief is based on what is recorded in old Korean texts such as "Samguksagi (History of the Three Kingdom : 1145)", "Sejong Sillok Jiriji (Geographical Appendix to the Veritable Records of King Sejong: 1454)", "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam(A Revised Edition of the Augmented Study of Korea : 1531)", "Dongguk Munheonbigo(Study of Korean Documents: 1770)", "Mangi Yoram(Handbook of State Affairs: 1808)" and "Jeungbo Munheonbigo (Augmented Study of Documents: 1908)".
    
    The pro-Japanese side, on the other hand, claim the islets have been its territory since the 17th century. In order to counter the ROK claims to Dokdo based on Usando being Dokdo, it has built up a very convincing argument that Usan Island that the Koreans claim as Dokdo is actually Jukdo -- an island 2.2km off Ulleungdo. But in the end, a lot of the Korean "proof" can simply be thrown out as there is NO dispute that Ulleungdo and Jukdo were historically Korean territory -- and have always been as admitted to by countless Japanese documents -- including a 1880 Japanese naval survey. (See MOFA and Dokdo-or-Takeshima for Japanese document and Dokdo News for more information.)
    
    The "Illustrative Map of Matsushima" is the first precise and accurate map of today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo in the world. (Takeshima was called Matsushima then.) It is considered to be made around 1656. If you compare it with modern geographical/topographical maps, it is very accurate and detailed. The Japanese side claim this is the one of the critical and concrete evidence of Japanese sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo from mid-17th century. Murakawa and Ohya clans were hunting sea lions and harvesting abalones on the island on the way from Ulleungdo with the official licence from Tokugawa Shogunate. The abalones were presented to Shogunate every year, and the audience to Tokugawa Shogun was specially permitted exceptionally as a civilian tradesman. Murakawa clan, especially, was the one who went to today's Takeshima intensively as a sole destination, but later, Ohya clan joined the plan.
    
    
    Map of Matsushima (now Dokdo) in 1656
    
    
    Map of Dokdo from GSI Survey (2008)
    
    They problem for novices trying to understand the issues is that the "experts" of both sides argue the use the multiple names for Ulleungdo=Usando (at times); Jukdo=Usando=Sambongdo=Seokdo; and Dokdo=Takeshima=Matsushima=Liancourt Rocks=Daget Island.
    
    Throw in the Japanese variations of their names over the years, it gets to be an even more muddled issue. There is also name confusion over the islands Matsushima and Takeshima in the Japanese documentation. The Edo Shogunate also used the term Matsushima for Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo. Adding even more to the confusion was inclusion on Western maps of the non-existent island of "Argonaut" along with "Dagelet" island (which later was accepted as Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks by the west) being mispositioned on the maps.
    
    It gets too confusing!!! It is too much for a mere novice like me to understand.
    
    Also the ridiculous screaming matches continue over whether one can see Dokdo from Ulleungdo on a clear day as "proof" that Dokdo is Korean territory. One translation of this famous excerpt is: “To the east of Ulleung(do) are mutually visible islands/islets contiguous/adjacent to the border of Japan.” The issue goes back to books and government records written during the Joseon Dynasty, including "Geography of the Sejong-Sillok," written in 1454, and "Geography of Goryeo History," written in 1451. The documents include phrases that people could see Usando (Dokdo) from Ulleungdo on a clear day. (Source: Joongang Ilbo.)
    
    But the point in all this furor over seeing Dokdo from Ulleungdo is garbage in that the original text referred to Usando. If one accepts that Usando = Jukdo -- and not Dokdo -- the argument over seeing Dokdo is non-existent. The Japanese side has assembled very believable evidence that Usando is modern day Jukdo -- 2.2km off shore from Ulleungdo and is easily seen from shore on a clear day. These types of arguments are what makes this whole mess so muddled. The media and "hobbyists" need to get out of this argument and let REAL scientists, historians, cartographers and archaeological specialists be involved.
    
    There is a lot of screaming dealing with the Korean use of terra nullus (no-man land) to gain sovereignty over Tokdo in 1905. However, few look at the reall reasons Japan wanted Dokdo. Instead, the Koreans somehow ignorantly yell that the Japanese coveted the "beautiful" islets from long ago and used the annexation of Korea as an excuse to take Dokdo. We feel it may be "partly" true. Japan had annexation plans for Korea without doubt, but the reason Dokdo became important was military. They needed a trans-oceanic telegraph link to Japan. Dokdo was to become a repeater station. The documents we saw showed that two links were to be established -- one through Tsushima from Pusan and the other from the mainland to Ulleungdo and then across the trench to Dokdo as a tie point and then to Japan. We have not seen any further documentation of the hook ups or success of the link, but this would be the most reasonable reason that it became important -- especially with the Japanese military and their elevated powers after their Russo and Sino-Japan victories.
    
    Another problem with the weak historical proof deals with the actions of the Allied Forces after WWII in dividing up the territory between Japan and Korea. It has a direct bearing on how a World Court would view the ownership of Dokdo. Korea was not treated as a part of Japan, but a sovereign country even though it was a colony of Japan at the start of WWII. The convoluted reasoning for doing so is best described elsewhere. In the draft of the peace treaty dated December 29, 1949, formulated by the US and its allies, Takeshima (Dokdo) was explicitly mentioned as a part of Japanese territory. The direct reference was dropped in the treaty eventually signed for the reason that the rocks were too insignificant to be mentioned in the prestigious document, and there was no indication of change of policy by the US and its allies. There appears to be evidence that Gen MacArthur and the Acting Political Advisor to the Secretary of State Sebald supported Japan's claim to Takeshima (Dokdo). (See Sebald Message) In addition, there is a reference to Article 6 with a recommendation for the reconsideration of the Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima) to support the Japanese claim. (See Article 6.)
    
    The problem with the negotiations after the end of WWII was Syngman Rhee's (Yi Syng Man) insistence that his reparations line include Tsushima island to the south. On 18 Jan 1952, President Syngman Rhee declared unilateral ocean rights and announced that Takeshima was included within the Rhee Line (the Yi Syng-man Declaration Line). Koreans claim that despite Japan's efforts to bring the issue up once again for the 1952 San Francisco peace treaty, the issue was excluded from the negotiation table. In 1952, the Japanese sent a note of protest to Korea over the Rhee Line. As a compromise, the allies gave Ulleung (Utsuro) Island to Korea and Tsushima to Japan with the "Liancourt Rocks" (Dokdo/Takeshima) disputed.
    
    In 1952 Korean "volunteers" led by Hong Soon-chil occupied Dokdo starting on 20 April 1953. Sometimes histories claim they were South Korean coast guard or Maritime police, but they were not officially affiliated with the government though supported by the North Kyongsanh Police Chief Kim Jong-won. They were met in 27 June 1953 by the Japanese coast guard in two cutters. Shimane Prefecture and the Japan Coast Guard carried out an inspection of Dokdo (Takeshima) after ordering the six South Koreans to leave the island (going from the East islet to the West islet), and erected a wooden territorial marker on the shore. After a series of skirmishes on 12 Jul 1953, three Japanese patrol boats arrived as a show of force. The ships came under fire from the Dokdo forces. The ships returned fired, but under the mortar barrage lost one ship, 16 injured and a number of Japanese killed. There was another incident on 24 Aug 1954. The Koreans took possession of the islet in 1954 building a lighthouse and a helicopter pad on the East islet, but Dokdo still remained in disputed status. (Source: The Territorial Dispute over Dokdo.)
    
    In 1954, the Japanese wanted to send the matter to the International Courts to decide, but South Korea refused -- and has continued to refuse ever since.
    
    It is true that two sides need to agree in order to bring the item to the World Courts (International Court of Justice). The Korean position is that it does not need to give in as long as it has "control" -- and can scream to the world that it has "sovereignty" based on historical documents. However, the Japanese are slowly and methodically building their case to trap Korea internationally.
    
    Our point is that the ROK needs REAL proof in documentation. It needs to put their certified historians, cartographers, librarians, etc. -- the operative word being "certified" with credible credentials -- to work on verifying and discovering proof. The Lee Myeong-bak administration has taken the "long-view" to prove that Dokdo is Korea's and we applaud them for it. We, however, caution the Lee administration of being suckered into accepting proof from people with "credentials" but in the wrong specialty. For example, in Feb 2008, the headlines blared that Japanese Professor Yuji supposedly "unveiled" a 1894 Japanese map showing Dokdo as Korean Territory. It turns out that Professor Hosaka is of an engineering background and teaches at a Sejeong University in Seoul -- not in Japan. This is the type of "credentials" that should NOT be accepted.
    
    We feel that an impartial body is the only way to sort out the claims of both sides in a World Court. This is what Lee Myeong-bak is preparing for in trying to get the ROK's side of the argument into a solid evidentiary case -- not a groundless mess of inferred conclusions and coloring-book maps as proof. This is something that the "short-sighted" Roh Moo-hyun administration did not do -- instead only using the Dokdo issue for short-term political purposes.
    
    
  • F. "OCCUPANCY" OF DOKDO?: The entire land of Dokdo would cost no more than W273 million at a price of W5,000 per pyeong. However, the problem is that Dokdo is a "hostile" environment -- meaning it has no natural water source. In order to have habitation, water would have to be imported to supply normal needs. Because it was inhabitable -- and no attempt was ever made to establish a settlement there -- Japan claimed Dokdo under the terms of terra nullus, a Latin expression deriving from Roman Law meaning "land belonging to no one", "nobody's land" i.e. "empty land", and applying the general principle of res nullius to real estate, in terms of private ownership and/or as territory under public law. (Source: People.Virginia.edu.)
    
    The Japanese maintain that they had incorporated Dokdo, an island they considered to be a terra nullius, into the Japanese Empire on 28 Jan 1905. At that time, the Governor of Shimane prefecture proclaimed the islets, referred to as "Takeshima," to be under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands branch office of the Shimane prefectural government. To this day Dokdo remains a part of Goka Village, Oki-gun, Shimane prefecture on Japanese registries. The Japanese government has even allowed their citizens to declare themselves residents of the islets. (Source: People Daily.) In response, the ROK allowed hundreds to change their home of record to Dokdo in 2005 -- but this was simply worthless fluff as none of them resided on the islet -- the same as the Japanese.
    
    The substantive proof of occupancy was someone actually residing on the islet. Some of the current moves by the ROK are to fulfill the international standards of "occupancy and control" of an area to determine proof of ownership. The Japanese side maintains that the ROK NEVER occupied the islets and show "proof" from surveys -- both Japanese and US prior to the forced occupation of the islets in 1954.
    
    Things started getting a little ridiculous when the Korean government decided to build a solar energy power plant on Dokdo. The Ministry of Knowledge Economy said it was currently drawing up a blueprint for the 50 kilowatt plant, which will be stationed on Dongdo, the eastern inhabited islet of the Dokdo cluster. A 50 kw plant can produce enough energy for about 17 households, equivalent to approximately 30 percent of what is used on Dokdo. The government had originally decided against building a solar power plant on Dongdo earlier this year due to lack of economic feasibility, but is now moving ahead with it after Japan renewed its claim over the islets last month. The cost of the undertaking is projected to be about US$2 million. (Chosun Ilbo: Arirang.) (SITE NOTE: These solar energy projects have been successful in providing electricity on isolated islands.)
    
    Why is "occupancy" so important now?
    
    The reason is the convoluted reasoning because of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) issue. Dokdo falls within EEZs that can be generated by both Korea’s Ulleungdo and Japan’s Oki. Both countries EEZs overlap in this area. Drawing an equidistant line between the islands looks as such. Using this baseline measurement Dokdo as non-EEZ generating islet/rock clearly falls on this side. (Source: Dokdo-or-Takeshima EEZ.)
    
    Currently Dokdo is NOT claimed as an EEZ because under international law the island must be "habitable" -- and the ROK is trying to skew the meaning to be "inhabited." This "occupancy" logic would be a point in arguing that Dokdo can be used as the baseline for the EEZ -- even though it would be a rather far reach under the 1982 UN Convention of Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Japanese use Okinotorishima -- the farthest "island" (actually a submerged atoll) as a base line for its EEZ. The difference between Oki Island and Dokdo is that Oki is documented historically as the farthest eastward "territorial" point of Japan, while Dokdo is a disputed island with debatable Korean historical claims to its sovereignty. (SITE NOTE: There is a difference between "territory" (sovereignty) claims to land and EEZ claims which are economic claims to waters based on a 12-mile territorial limit. Thus these arguments must be kept separated though they are interrelated.)
    
    Remember that The Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone has addressed the three points for the definition of “island”.
    
    
    • (1) any piece of land that is completely surrounded by water.
      
    • (2) It has to be above high tide
      
    • (3) It has to be naturally made.
      
    Therefore, the submerged atoll of Okishino -- which can be seen above water at high tide -- can be called an island and even though not inhabitable, it is an island that can be used as the base point for its EEZ. The Korean problem is that Dokdo is disputed. It does not possess "sovereignty" -- besides its own unilateral claims -- and therefore cannot justify an international EEZ.
    
    The bottomline is that the ROK is trying to do an "end run" by trying to make claims that Dokdo is "inhabited" -- because it has no natural water source -- into an island that is "habitable". The first "resident" in Dokdo was Choi Jong-deok and his address was 67 mountain (San 67), Dodong-ri, Uleung-eup, Uleung county, North Gyeongsang province. He was a resident of Uleungdo and went to the island in March 1965 to catch marine products. He started to construct necessary buildings in Dokdo in May 1968. He was registered as a Dokdo resident on October 14, 1981 and died on Dokdo on September 23, 1987. His tombstone was relocated to Dokdo in Jul 2008. (Source: Our Dokdo.)
    
    His son-in-law, Jo Jun-gi moved into the same address and lived there until he moved to 63 mountain (San 63). He vacated this address on March 31, 1994. The present residents of 63 Mountain (San 63) are the couple Kim Seong-do and Kim Sin-yeol who have been living at the address 63 mountain (San 63) since November 17, 1991. The couple moved to the islet in 1991 and left the islet in 1996 after their house collapsed in a storm and the dock became non-functional. The couple had been living on a neighboring island, Ullung-do, until the ROK government built a house for them to return to. The house was constructed by the ROK government -- with telephone service also courtesy of the ROK government. The Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries spent 1.7 billion won ($1.75 million) to build a four-room house and repair the port facilities to lure civilian residents to the islets. The Maritime Ministry has "repaired" the couple's home, and private groups raised funds to buy a new fishing boat for them. In Nov 1997, the docks were repaired. Their main job is fishery with a boat bought for them by contributors.
    
    Unfortunately, these "residents" only live on the islets during the fishing season -- and not in the unseasonable winter months. Pyung Bu-kyung, a 55-year-old poet, was supposed to move to Dokdo sometime in April 2006. However, we have not heard of any more news on his relocation actions.
    
    The attempts to make the islets habitable are simply efforts to establish that Dokdo has a permanent colony of residents. The governments efforts in this area can only be seen as very weak -- simply because Dokdo is a hostile environment with no natural water source. The current "permanent" residents only live on Dokdo during the fishing season.
    
    In November 1997, despite repeated protests by Japan, they built a docking facility to enable use by a 500-ton supply ship. They built a manned lighthouse in December 1998.
    
    In Jul 2008, the GNP proposed "filling in" some areas of Dokdo to provide for more areas for residents and establishing a hotel there. Regardless, these "residents" will still be viewed by any international body only as "temporary residents" because their main residences will remain on Ulleungdo.
    
    There is also talk of establishing a hotel on the islet, but if one thinks of how many ways that is a losing proposition, you lose count. Some of the latest suggestions to "develop" Dokdo by politicians and the administration are falling into the category of "brain-storming" rather than realistic proposals. For example, some have proposed filling in some of the areas to assist in building the hotels and residences.
    
    On 24 Jul, the policy consultation meeting agreed to include construction of an oceanic scientific base beginning 2009, increasing shelters for fishermen and building a breakwater on Dokdo, increasing access to the islets that are often isolated by bad weather, as part of efforts to make the islets habitable for both permanent residents and visitors.
    
    
  • G. DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNDERSEA AREAS AROUND DOKDO: This will only become a potential conflict area if and when the ROK moves past the "survey" stage into a "development" stage. As Koreans are famed for the speed at which they can mobilize efforts to "develop" resources (oil, mining, land development, etc.), the Japanese may react swiftly -- and a face-off is possible. Though the gas hydrate bed is located in the deep-sea trough area of the Dokdo islet towards the ROK side, it is still a disputed islet claimed by Japan and the channels are in "international waters."
    
    Development of the undersea bed could start a face-off which neither the ROK nor the Japanese want. At this point in time, the ROK should not even consider anything remotely associated with development despite Knowledge Economy Minister recommendation to do so. The development of the gas hydrate beds was put on the shelf in 2005 and needs to be put back on the shelf again.
    
    
    • 1. MINING OF GAS HYDRATE DEPOSITS: The government wants to develop gas hydrate near Dokdo as a means to strengthen its dominion over the islets in the face of renewed Japanese territorial ambitions. Knowledge Economy Minister Lee Yoon-ho on 24 Jul told the National Assembly that development of gas hydrate near Dokdo would help Korea protect its territorial rights and secure energy resources. These resources were discovered in 2005, but not developed.
      
      Gas hydrate, dubbed "burning ice," is created when natural gas meets water at low temperature and high pressure. It is touted as a new energy resource. Korea successfully extracted gas hydrate in the Ulleung Basin in the East Sea in June last year, and in November found a huge deposit of gas hydrate estimated to be 600 million tons. The Ministry calculates this would be enough to meet 30 years of demand in Korea. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) (SITE NOTE: These statements were part of a larger discussion about the energy crisis dealing with KEPCO and KOGAS. Natural gas prices globally have risen steadily this year, totaling $759 per ton during the first half of this year. In 2002, the average was $221 per ton. KOGAS has been forming partnerships with leading companies, including Russia’s Gazprom, Malaysia’s Petronas and Italy’s Eni. In 2008, the company will spend 182.2 billion won ($180.4) in developing resources in other countries. The mining of gas hydrate was just a side topic in the Parliamentary discussion.)
      
      An article appeared in the Chosun Ilbo on 21 Mar 2005 that attempted to build up the case of the economic importance of Dokdo other than its fishery value. Some estimate the islets' value at tens and hundreds of trillion won. Some 600 million tons of gas hydrate - natural gas condensed into semisolid form - are believed to be deposited along the broad seabed extending from Dokdo to Guryongpo, North Gyeongsang Province. Gas hydrate is a next-generation energy source that could translate into liquid natural gas if adequate technology is made available. The 600 million tons of liquid natural gas this would produce are 30 times Korea's LNG imports last year. Converted into money, they are worth $150 billion (W150 trillion).
      
      
    • 2. COLLECTION OF DEEP OCEAN WATER: Dokdo also has resources of deep ocean water, which is more expensive than oil. Imported from Japan, it is sold at more than W8,000 (US$8.04) a liter. Located 200 meters under Dokdo, the deep ocean water is rich in nutrients like nitrogen and phosphor but free from microbes as the temperature is low and sunlight does not penetrate. Countries around the world are trying to make food with deep ocean water, and the volume of its market is estimated at W2 trillion a year in Japan. Dr. Kim Hyun-joo, a researcher at the Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute, said 90 percent of seawater in the East Sea was deep ocean water. Since the coastal areas near Dokdo slope more steeply than elsewhere, developing them would not be too expensive, he added. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)
      
      
    • 3.CAUTION ON DEVELOPMENTS ON "SHELF" SIDE TOWARDS JAPAN: People sometimes wonder why are the ROK and Japan getting so heated up over their supposed "surveys" into the contested waters of Dokdo. They also question why the ROK wants to rename some of the undersea areas with Korean names. On the surface it all appears frivilous. However, look under the surface of the water to get some answers. If one looks at the undersea maps, the East Sea/Sea of Japan appears to be a trough with a shelf running along the Japanese coast done towards Tsushima and then back up along the Korean coast. In the center is the undersea trough known as the East Sea/Sea of Japan.
      
      
      1953 Map detail (National Geographics) showing underwater shelf.
      
      The fact is the location of Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks is on the JAPANESE shelf while Ulleungdo and Jukdo are on the KOREAN shelf. As long as the ROK are "surveying" the bottom and trying to change the names of the undersea areas to Korean names, the Japanese really won't raise too big a ruckus as they counter the Korean moves politically within the scientific community.
      
      HOWEVER, if the ROK moved to exploit the underground resources, this could result in the Japanese relooking at this issue as a national sovereignty issue with Korea viewed as impinging upon the sacred Nippon homeland. If the ROK takes physical action to "develop" the area, the Japanese anger may be aroused. Such a move could mobilize the now indifferent Japanese populace as a move may be perceived as a tactic to "invade" their homeland.
      
      Under the 1982 UN Convention of Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) entitles coastal states to 200 nautical miles of sovereign access to living and mineral resources within an exclusive economic zone. In addition, any islands and in some instances rocks that are capable of sustaining human life, over which states establish sovereignty, are also accorded individual maritime zones. (Dokdo does NOT qualify -- though the ROK is now trying an end run by having "permanent residents".) Within the EEZ, the coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the fish stocks of the zone. Concurrent with the convention entering into force in February 1996, Japan and South Korea created economic exclusion zones around their respective territories, and each of these zones included the Liancourt Rocks.
      
      How it will play out is anyone's guess.
    
    
    
  • H. FISHING AGREEMENT AND EEZ -- A REASON FOR A FACE-OFF: For Ulleung Island residents living on fishing, the Dokdo islets are a livelihood in themselves, with some 60 percent of their catch coming from waters around Dokdo. The entire catch of Ulleung Island last year was 4,903 tons (worth W12.9 billion or US$12.9 million), of which 2,900 tons (W7.6 billion) were caught round Dokdo. "Were we barred from fishing around Dokdo, we'd have no alternative but to seek another means of livelihood; we'd have to give up fishing or leave Ulleung Island," said Kim Jong-gil, 53, a fisherman on the island said in Mar 2005.
    
    Under the 2002 Korea-Japan Fishery Agreement, South Korea was allowed to catch 149,200 tons of fish while Japan was limited to 94,000 tons. In January 2002, the actual fishing industry output by Koreans was 149,218 tons, while the Japanese caught 93,773 tons.17
    
    Dokdo and neighboring areas abound with plankton and a variety of fish including cod and flatfish because there the North Korean Cold Current meets the Tsushima Warm Current. National Fisheries Research and Development Institute researcher Lee Dong-won said as a pair of volcanic islands Doko was ecologically valuable because it is home to diverse ecosystems from seaweed to shrimps and shells. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.)
    
    A domestic marine expert argued on 25 Jul that the undersea area around Korea's eastern islands of Dokdo and Ulleungdo creates a rich fishing zone, as it produces more phytoplanktons than other areas in the East Sea. Dr. Yoo Shin-jae at the Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute said in his latest report that the Ulleung Basin has 20 to 30 percent more phytoplanktons than other East Sea areas, due to upwelling, or the surging of cool and nutrient-rich sea water toward the sea surface. He said that the upwelling mixes cold water from the deep with nutrient salts which are useful in proliferation of microorganisms, creating a rich fishing zone around the islands. The research also argued that satellite data shows that the waters off the east coast contain up to ten times as much chlorophyll as Japan's coastal sea. (Source: KBS Global.)
    
    But also rolled up into this mess is the fishing agreements between the two nations -- a part of which deals with the rich fishing grounds around Dokdo. On 17 Jul a GNP legislator called on the government to annul its decade-old fisheries pact with Japan, claiming Dokdo islets must be included in the country's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). "Our government designated Ulleung islands as the starting point of its EEZ in the 1999 fisheries agreement with Japan and left Dokdo in the 'middle zone', which is not a legitimate term under international law," said Chung Mong-joon. "The agreement is partly to blame for Japan's wrong belief (that Dokdo is its territory)."
    
    "The government must annul the deal immediately and renew the fishing pact by setting Dokdo as the base point of Korea's EEZ," Chung added. "The fishing accord can be cancelled unilaterally by either side." The EEZ issue is closely connected to the sovereignty of the rocky Dokdo islets, which are surrounded by rich fishing grounds. (Source: Yonhap News.)
    
    On 1 Aug the GNP called on the government to annul its decade-old fisheries pact with Japan, claiming the deal puts at risk Seoul's ownership of the Dokdo islets. The government reacted coolly to the demand, citing the need to consider all angles prior to a revision or abrogation of the agreement. Public anger has been escalating here since Japan renewed its claim to the South Korean-controlled islets last month. "The government should seriously consider revising the 1999 fisheries agreement as our sovereignty of Dokdo has been seriously threatened by the botched deal," said Park Hee-tae, chairman of the ruling Grand National Party, during a party conference. "The negotiations had been rushed ahead of then-President Kim Dae-jung's visit to Japan, making Dokdo a region of undesignated sovereignty." Seoul and Japan had signed the fisheries pact as a tentative step towards settling a longtime dispute over the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the two countries. The agreement designated the two nation's overlapping maritime boundaries in the East Sea, including Dokdo, as middle zones. South Korea's ruling party claims the government should include the Dokdo islets in the country's EEZ by revising the original fisheries deal with Japan. The 1999 agreement can be cancelled unilaterally by either side.
    
    The government, however, gave a terse response. "We must first consider whether revising or annulling the deal will not have a negative effect in terms of firming up our sovereignty of Dokdo," said Vice Foreign Minister Shin Kak-soo during the conference. "We might end up playing into Japan's hand by drawing further international attention to the issue." Shin, however, indicated a shift in the government's previous "quiet policy" on the islets. "I believe that quiet diplomacy is no longer enough," he said. "An active measure is needed to let the international society know that Dokdo is Korea's land." Previously, the Korean government rarely voiced strong criticism when Tokyo's claims to Dokdo surfaced, believing that the longer Seoul quietly controls the islets, the better the country's case would be if the issue were ever raised in international courts.
    
    Meanwhile, Park Ji-won, an independent lawmaker and a close aide to former President Kim Dae-jung, rebuffed the GNP's criticism of the fisheries pact. "The fisheries pact has nothing to do with Dokdo's sovereignty," he said. "If you consult with maritime law experts and fisheries industry workers, you will be able to confirm that (South Korea is) gaining far more than Japan." (Source: Yonhap News
    
    

    (SITE NOTE: This proposal is not well-thought out. If the ROK does this, it could lead to severe diplomatic tensions. The Japanese have been willing to not press the disputed issue as long as they are granted a share of the fishing grounds in the overlapping areas of the EEZ. If the fishing agreement -- hashed out starting in 1996 and finalized in 1999 -- is annuled, tensions are certain to arise. The bottomline is that as long as the ROK has agreed to "share" the disputed zone, the Japanese has not forced its claim to go to the World Courts -- or the UN. As it stands the EEZ starts at Ulleungdo and the 12 mile EEZ limit places Dokdo on the outer limit. The Japanese play the same game so that the Dokdo area "overlaps" in each others EEZs. If the ROK moves its outer limit to Dokdo, it will be doing two things: (1) It will be declaring that it is unilaterally establishing Dokdo as Korean territory as the basis of international agreements (the setting of EEZ limits which also happens to be illegal under the UNCLOS) and (2) Japan's territorial waters are now part of the Korean EEZ. Shooting wars have been started over less.
    
    An article in a joint project of Korea Times and the Northeast Asian History Foundation also warned of caution. A prominent legal scholar says Korea should adopt a long-term, cautious approach in dealing with the emotionally charged issue of Dokdo. He warned that some Korean politicians are taking a populist approach, which in the long run may not necessarily advance Korea's interests. Park Chun-ho, a judge serving in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and a professor emeritus at Korea University, is a leading authority on international marine law. In an interview with The Korea Times, he said the Japanese government is being ``very small-minded'' about the Dokdo issue, but that doesn't mean Korea needs to resort to raw emotion whenever Japan claims sovereignty over the islets, he added. Park's approach on this sensitive topic has its share of critics. In particular, he argues that calls to scrap or renegotiate the 1999 Korea-Japan fisheries pact should be viewed with caution. He said the Korean fishing industry benefited enormously from the agreement, more so than the Japanese side. He argued that the government should look at the potential economic impact to the Korean fishing industry before considering abandoning the agreement.
    
    Treading Carefully on Fisheries Pact
    
    Park said the government should be careful when criticizing the 1999 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) for the commercial fishing industry. Recently there have been calls by politicians here, including leaders of the governing Grand National Party, to scrap or demand a renegotiation of the pact. That economic pact did not use Dokdo but instead Ulleung-do, an island closer to mainland Korea, as a reference point in figuring out exclusionary fishing areas for each side. Critics of the agreement say it strengthened Japan's territorial claim over the islets. ``Some experts and politicians say the agreement is flawed and that it should be renegotiated. But scrapping the fisheries agreement wouldn't necessarily benefit Korea,'' Park said. He said that while there might have been procedural problems, ``the government should recognize that this agreement benefited Korea's commercial fishing industry. Economically, the agreement didn't hurt us. ``With this agreement, Korea and Japan were able to fish peacefully for the past few years. And the Korean fishermen are actually catching more fish compared to their Japanese counterparts,'' Park said. ``Besides, I don't think the Japanese government would be open to starting another round of negotiations. I actually think this is a beneficial agreement. If we were to scrap it, both Korea and Japan would suffer. And Korea stands to lose more than Japan,'' he said. ``Thanks to this pact, Koreans can fish in that region peacefully. Pulling away from the agreement would put Korean fishermen in a difficult situation.''
    
    Park observed that Japan has been particularly aggressive in maintaining as large an EEZ as possible, as much as 10 times larger than the country's total land area. The Japanese government feels that if it loses one EEZ dispute, it might have a domino effect, he said. ``The government should closely watch Japan. And Korea should try so that the issue doesn't give other nations a negative impression on how it deals with international pacts and agreements,'' he said. ``To be sure, the Japanese government has been small-minded about this. And a lot of foreign governments don't quite understand why an economic superpower like Japan continues to make a big issue out of this and why it can't just deal with it in a mature manner.''
    
    Steering Away From International Court
    
    Park also said it would be best to avoid taking the matter to an international court. He said such a move would not conclusively resolve the issue. It would also attract international media and possibly create an unfavorable impression that may hurt Korea's long-term interests. He commented on the possibility of the case going to the International Court of Justice: ``That would not mean a final resolution to the matter. No matter how it turns out, it could open doors to even more questions rather than conclusive answers.'' Park also cautioned that, ``to take this to the International Court, the Korean government would need to prepare extremely well. This certainly is not something that should be taken casually. It would mean committing a great deal of government resources. ``I think taking this issue to the court would not resolve it. We would just waste a lot of government resources in the end,'' he said. ``It would be best to steer away from taking the issue to the international legal system. There is no immediate solution to this.''
    
    ``And of course, another difficult aspect is that this is not just a cut-and-dry territorial or legal issue. It stirs up raw emotions, nationalism and Japan's brutal imperialistic past,'' Park said. ``Other nations might look at it and wonder why this stirs up so much emotion. But this matter between Korea and Japan is quite unique. There is a deep psychological and emotional aspect to this. ``And it's not just in Korea that this issue stirs up emotions. Similar emotions can be found in Japan also,'' he said. Park noted that the recent controversy involving the islets' designation in the U.S. geographical board is reminding foreign governments to be more cautious as well. Look at what happened with the U.S. Board on Geographic Names and its back-and-forth change of designation for Dokdo, he said. ``I think the U.S. government is now realizing that it should be extremely careful in the future when dealing with this sensitive topic.'' But he said it doesn't look like this matter could be resolved anytime soon. ``This is a recurring matter to us. It's almost like an annual event. We should turn away from emotional responses and embrace a more long-term, strategic approach in handling this.
    
    Tokyo's Small-Minded Approach
    
    Park also chastised the Japanese government for being small-minded and for failing to deal with the Dokdo issue in a more cooperative, mature manner. ``But also in Korea, there are a lot of pundits who resort to raw emotion whenever the controversy pops up. That kind of response doesn't really help our cause and may play into Japan's hand. This has become an annual occurrence for the two nations,'' Park said. He said it might be better for the Korean government to avoid making emotionally charged statements. ``It might even be better strategically for the government to not make major statements. But of course, if the government doesn't say much, it may look awkward and the public would ask why the government isn't saying anything. ``Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet to resolve this matter. I think this territorial issue between Korea and Japan will continue like this,'' Park said. ``Even the slightest provocation generates explosive emotional responses. The situation here is unique to Japan and Korea. It would not be easy to find a comparable example in other countries.''
    
    He noted that this year, until just a few weeks ago, the Japanese government kept relatively quite on its Dokdo claim. ``Last year and this year until recently, the Dokdo issue took a backseat. One reason for that is that Korea and Japan saw their relations deteriorate rapidly a few years ago because of Japan's territorial claim. And still there was no resolution to the controversy.'' Park noted that usually Japan's claim over the East Sea islets renews itself annually during an early part of the year. ``There is now Takeshima Day in Japan's Shimane Prefecture, on Feb. 22," Park noted. Takeshima is the name Japan uses for the East Sea islets. ``That just further inflames emotions in both countries.''
    
    Park said it's a shame that the Japanese government continues to make its claim over Dokdo. He acknowledged that even the Japanese themselves don't expect Korea to yield on this issue but that nonetheless Tokyo continues to make its territorial claim, to the detriment of Korea-Japan bilateral diplomacy. ``Japan is a major economic power, as is Korea. Japan is being selfish and small-minded. I hope this issue can be dealt with in a more peaceful, mature manner. But of course, that's not easy. ``Also in Korea, advice to take a more cautious approach often gets lost because of the populist, emotional responses. ``The Japanese government is always keeping a close eye on what Korea is doing on the Dokdo issue. For the most part, Tokyo keeps quiet but it will make a move when possible. The Japanese government can be crafty.'' Park said that Tokyo ought to remember its past sins committed against the Korean people. ``Japan should take a mature approach on the Dokdo sovereignty issue. But it seems like Tokyo isn't able to do that yet. Japan should realize that claiming Dokdo does nothing but hurt Korea-Japan bilateral relations.'' (Source: Korea Times.)

    In 1965, the Korea-Japan fisheries pact Treaty was signed. The old treaty was based on a compromise over the demarcation of territorial waters surrounding a disputed group of islets, called Takeshima in Japan and Tokto in Korea. However, Japanese fishermen said Seoul has declared a 19.2-kilometer territorial zone around the islets, virtually banning their vessels from entering.
    
    On 30 Apr 1978, South Korea implemented a 12-mile territorial water zone, banning Japanese fishing boats from entering. In Nov 1998, a new fisheries pact agreement was signed establishing a provisional zone around the Island and set up a joint fisheries committee to manage fishery resources in the zone. Though both countries claimed their sovereignty over the island, they set aside the dispute to move forward their fisheries negotiations. Tokyo and Seoul concurred to gradually reduce their fish catch quotas in each other's exclusive economic zone so that they will come to equal levels in three years. It never happened as the Japanese claim the Koreans "lock them out" of the fishing areas. South Korea's fish catch amounts to 220,000 tons a year in waters off Japanese coasts, excluding that of pollacks, while Japan's hauls come to 100,000 tons in waters off South Korean coasts.
    
    The provisional zone around Dokdo/Takeshima, differences over which had long kept their negotiations mired, also includes some 40 percent of Yamato Tai, a good fishing bank located northeast of Dokdo/Takeshima. Japan had wanted to make the joint fishing zone small in order to limit South Korean fishing in it. Japan had been insisting on a boundary of 36 nautical miles (41 miles, 66 kilometers) from the countries' shores. Japan backed down on that demand, but secured a compromise on the demarcation line, agreeing to establish it between what each country had proposed. The two sides also agreed to reduce their fishing catches in each other's waters.
    
    Seoul and Tokyo had several rounds of talks on the issue of an economic sea border from 1996 to 2000 with little progress. In a tentative step, they signed a fisheries agreement in 1999, leaving the overlapping boundaries in waters of the East Sea as middle zones. Dokdo is located some 87 kilometers east of South Korea's Ulleung Island and about 157 kilometers northwest of Japan's Oki Island (Okinoshima)s.
    
    The two countries had agreed that the overlapping EEZ does not include the territorial waters of Dokdo, which are set at 12 nautical miles from the islets. South Korea has stationed a police contingent on the islets for five decades to enforce its ownership and forbid Japanese vessels from entering the nearby waters.
    
    In Jan 1999 the ROK legislature approved the fisheries agreement as the 1965 treaty was to expire in late January 1999. The fishing agreement was protested and sent to the Constitutional Court. The court ruled that the agreement did not violate the Constitution as Dokdo was a disputed territory. However, in Jul 2008, a GNP legislator proposed legislation to annul the 1999 fishing agreement. This would be a BIG mistake -- and really needs to be thought through on the part of the ROK.
    
    The Japanese basically are willing to let the Dokdo/Takeshima ownership debate slide as long as there is a fishing agreement in place where they "share" the overlapping fishing grounds -- even though experience has shown that the Koreans not only don't share, but are encroaching on the Japanese grounds repeatedly. The Japanese may not even react to the latest declaration by the ROK of changing Dokdo to a "territorial defense" area. They can still bide their time and attempt to work the fishing issues through ministerial channels.
    
    However, without a fishing agreement, there is no reason that a full-court press by Japan over the Tokdo sovereignty issue should not be pursued -- something the ROK does NOT want at this time. The ROK needs to back off any talk about annulling the fishing agreements -- the same as to the development of undersea resources.
    
    
  • I. 1965 ROK-JAPAN BASIC TREATY:
    
    Prime Minister Han Seung-soo on 22 Jul spurned the political calls for revising the 1965 ROK-Japan Basic Treat, which was signed to normalize the diplomattic ties between the two neighbors after Japan's 1910-1945 colonial rule. "The treaty has been the basis of the relationaship between the two countries for the past 40 years," he said during a parliamentary session. "It would be unwise to risk legal stability and breach international faith by breaking off the treaty. (Source: Xinhua.net.)
    The unpopularity of the treaty was raised when the secret agreement between Park Chung-hee and Japan was revealed that showed the Japanese had paid $800 million in soft loans and grants in lump sum in exchange for a quit claim for future claims against Japan from the colonial period. Since then all attempts to receive compensation for losses incurred during the colonial period have been denied based upon the treaty -- including those of the Comfort Women.
    
    Ampontan blog made a statement of secret agreements dealing with Dokdo prior to the signing of the 1965 ROK-Japan Basic Treaty. Supposedly the Joongang Magazine had an article that showed that the ROK and Japan had made secret agreements to keep the status-quo in regards to Dokdo. Five months before the Japanese and the South Koreans signed the 1965 Treaty of Basic Relations restoring ties between the two countries, the governments reached a secret agreement about Takeshima. The ROK has allegedly violated the agreements. The agreement stipulated that:
    
    
    • Both countries recognized that the other claimed the islets as their own territory, and neither side would object when the other made a counterargument.
    • They would regard it as a problem that would have to be resolved in the future.
    • If any fishing territories were demarcated in the future, both countries could use Takeshima as their own territory to mark the boundaries. Those places where the two lines overlapped would be considered joint territory.
    • The status quo in which South Korea occupied the islets would be maintained, but the Koreans would not increase their police presence or build new facilities.
    • Both countries were to uphold that agreement.
    
    
    Of course, Korea violated this side-agreement as it claims sovereignty over Dokdo. Those wishing to abrogate the 1965 ROK-Japan Basic Treaty are those that have an old bone to pick with the treaty -- most because Japan cannot be sued for the past wrongs done -- i.e., the Comfort Women issue. They will try to use this opportunity to further their agenda. They must not be allowed to succeed.
    
    
  • J. BILATERAL FREE TRADE AGREEMENT: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is in charge of diplomacy for South Korea, as well as handling external trade and matters related to overseas Korean nationals. As long as it is embroiled in the Dokdo issue, the ROK-Japan FTA negotiations will suffer. The South Korean Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry postponed indefinitely the discussions on a bilateral free trade agreement. The bilateral FTA talks were shelved in November 2004 over issues of history and disagreements over market liberalization of agricultural, forestry and fisheries sectors. In April, South Korean President Lee Myung Bak and Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda agreed during a summit meeting to launch a working-level discussion to resume negotiations over an economic partnership agreement, including the FTA.
    
    The idea for a ROK-Japan FTA started in the Kim Dae-jung administration in 1998; was initiated in the Roh Moo-hyun administration in 2003; and now has been passed to the Lee Myeong-bak administration. A ROK-Japan FTA would increase Korean exports of apparel, leather goods, agricultural produce and fish, and Japanese exports of high-end machineries, metal and chemical products. The most serious problems lie in manufacturing - rather than agriculture - since both countries are highly industrialized. More than 30 percent of Japan's imports from Korea and more than 70 percent of ROK imports from Japan are manufactured goods with tariffs. Despite successful Korean exports of vegetables such as tomatoes and bell peppers to Japan, agricultural sectors in both countries are generally not internationally competitive and do not pose significant threats to each other. Japan's Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries is not opposed to the ROK-Japan FTA negotiations. (Source: Yomiuri Shinbun.)
    
    Judging from past behavior in face-offs of 2006, there will be no effects to trade agreements in the long run, though some negotiations may be delayed. In past face-offs between the ROK and Japan business interests from the highest government levels to the lowest shop owners stated simply: "Business is business."
• IX. THE U.S. POSITION ON DOKDO
  
  The US government had told Korea in the 1950s that she considered Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory. In an August 9, 1951 letter to the Korean Ambassador, US Secretary of State Dean Rusk wrote the following: "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 Island (Okinoshima)s Branch of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea...." Some Koreans and Dokdo advocates claim that the US government changed her mind on the status of Liancourt Rocks with the signing of the 1952 treaty between Japan and the US, but a 1953 letter reconfirms that the US government still considered Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese even after the signing of the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1953. The 1954 Van Fleet report, also reconfirmed the US position. (Source: Dokdo-or-Takeshima.)
  
  However, the current position of the US on Dokdo is that it remains neutral. The U.S. will NOT come to the ROK aid in case of hostilities between the ROK and Japan based upon the Mutual Defense Treaty. PERIOD. The US is neutral on this issue of Dokdo sovereignty. The treaty was signed in Oct 1953 and ratified in Nov 1954. However, the Congress attached an Understanding of the United States of America to the Mutual Defense Treaty. It states: "It is the understanding of the United States that neither party is obligated, under Article 3 of the above Treaty, to come to the aid of the other except in case of an external armed attack against such party; nor shall anything in the present Treaty be construed as requiring the United States to give assistance to Korea except in the event of an armed attack against territory which has been recognized by the United States or lawfully brought under the administrative control of the Republic of Korea." Even to this date, as far as the US is concerned under international law standards, Dokdo (Takeshima) is not "lawfully under the administrative control" of the ROK.
  
  This is the reason that Americans in Korea should not get involved in Korea in the politics and demonstrations for Dokdo. Do it in your home country -- like saying "I (heart) Do