What's new

Japan's step by step for regaining "Takeshima"

Protest continues Day & Night



To Korean protestors, please do not forget cleanup before you go home !
 
well with such grass-roots support the south Korean PM will have no trouble putting a millitary presence on the islands...and when he does...as i explained....

its game over Japan
 
I'm sorry, but I fail to see any proof that 'Takeshima' belongs to Japan yet. All you seem to be doing is complaining about Koreans =/
 
and why should we fight each other while we can live our life in any place we want ?
does'nt the corean able to live in this 'Takeshima' ?
So it's meaningless if it become a part of any country.
Those politicians only cause the problems between people around the world only for their self-interest.
 
I think his point was more of, what Europe has become. Not what it has done, and hopes Asia can eventually change for the good too.

Thanks Drew-san, perhaps I was being a bit cryptic. Europe tore itself apart in the 20thC (two world wars, the raising and tearing down of the Iron Curtain, the Balkans disaster(s) etc) but begins the 21stC in a condition which, if you consider its history, is amazingly harmonious.

The Japan / Korea / China relationship never seems to move on, and never will while squabbles such as the current one persist.
 
I'm sorry, but I fail to see any proof that 'Takeshima' belongs to Japan yet. All you seem to be doing is complaining about Koreans =/

i think korean should insist it in the trial.
Why do they run away?

frus-1.jpg

FRUS stands for Foreign Relations of the United States, published by the Department of State of the U.S. government. Those books are consist of the collection of top secret documentations and telegrams.

frus1-1.jpg


----------- November 14, 1949. -----------

FRUS 1949 volume 7 page898 and900
740.0011 PW(Peace)/11-1449
The Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Sebald) to the Secretary of State
Tokyo, November 14, 1949.
SECRET
495. For Butterworth: General MacArther and I have independently given careful study and consideration to the November 2 draft treaty forwarded under cover of your letter November 4, minus chapter 5 reserved for security provisions. General MacArthur submits the following observations: (omit)The following are our preliminary comments concerning those provisions which we consider of high importance:

Article 4: Presumably security provisions will effect eventual determination Taiwan and adjacent islands. Suggest consideration question of trusteeship for Taiwan consequent upon plebiscite.

Article 5, paragraph2: Japan will unquestionably advance strong claim to Etorofu, Kunashiri, Habomai, and Shikotan. Believe United States should support such claim and due allowance made in draft for peculiarities this situation. Consider problem highly important in view questions permanent boundary and fisheries.

Article 6: Recommend reconsideration Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima). Japan`s claim to these islands is old and appears valid.Security Considerations might conceivably envisage weather and radar stations thereon.(omit)







----------- Undated in 1950. -----------

FRUS 1950 volume6 page1327 and 1328
694.001/10-2650
Undated Memorandum by Mr. Robert A. Fearey of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs
[Washington]
SECRET
Answers to Questions Submitted by the Australian Government Arising Out of the Statement of Principles Regarding Japanese Treaty Prepared by the United States Government

(omit)
It is thought that the island of the Inland Sea, Oki Retto, Sado, Okujiri, Rebun, Rishiri, Tsushima,Takeshima , the Goto Archipelago, the northernmost Ryukyus, and the Izus, all long recognized as Japanese, would be retained by Japan.(omit)






----------- July 19, 1951. -----------

FRUS 1951 volume6 page 1202&1203
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Change of Korean Affairs in the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs (Emmons)
[Washington,] July 19, 1951.
SECRET
Subject: Japanese Peace Treaty
Participants: Dr. Yu Chan Yang, Korean Ambassador
Mr. Pyo Wook Han, First Secretary,Korean Embassy
Ambassador John Foster Dulles
Mr. Arthur B. Emmons, 3rd., Officer in Charge, Korean Affairs

The Korean Ambassador called upon Mr. Dulles at 2 o`clock this afternoon by prior appointment. In opening the conversation Dr. Yang presented Mr. Dulles with a note addressd to the Secretary (copy attached) raising certain points which the Korean Govenment wished to have considered for incorporation in the Japanese peace treaty.(omit)

Mr. Dulles noted that paragraph1 of the Korean Ambassador`s communication made no reference to the Island of Tsushima and the Korean Ambassador agreed that this had been omitted. Mr. Dulles then inquired as to the location of the two islands, Dokdo and Parangdo. Mr. Han stated that these were two small islands lying in the Sea of Japan, he believed in the general vicinity of Ullungdo. Mr. Dulles asked whethr these islands had been Korean before the Japanese annexation, to which the Ambassador replied in the affirmative. If that were the case, Mr. Dulles saw no particular problem in including these islands in the petinent part of the treaty which related to the renunciation of Japanese territorial claims to Korean territory.(omit)

This normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shiname Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.




 
3 Korean members of Korea National Dokto (Takeshima in Japanese) Defense Association or something similar visits Japan and make demonstration in front of Japan's Minsitry of Education.



Welcome to Japan, all the way from South Korea, but looks like a street performer.
 
What I don't understand about the Korean attitudes on this issue except their nationalistic behaviors is the reason why they have refused to go to Hague, the International Court of Justice, to resolve this peacefully.

About 30 years have already passed since South Korea democratized.
 
What is the purpose of this thread? To discuss the matter of 'Takeshima' or to childishly insult Koreans?
 
What is the purpose of this thread? To discuss the matter of 'Takeshima' or to childishly insult Koreans?


i agree....

there is just TOO much Korea bashing going on...

funny as there are probably only about 3 genetic markers between your two peoples....

which is the case for ALMOST all neighbouring countries...

except England and France of course...

Astro-boy seems very passionate about this topic.....
but perhaps come to the grim realisation that YOU WILL NEVER GET IT BACK.

what can you DO to Korea?

NOTHING?
 
Protesting of all sorts is ' norm ' in S Korea.

Takeshima sovereignty isn't incontestible,Japan indeed have occupied those rocks in the past.
 
If I remember correctly, didn't the incorporation of the island into Japan lead to the full-scale process of annexation to Japan? If that is true, there is no mystery about their overreaction. Korea is still haunted by horrifying memories inflected by Japan. What is more, the success of virtually any kind is measured against the Japanese equivalent.
Until the country moves out of the current state of insecurity, the attitude of the Korean people will probably not drastically change.
 
If I remember correctly, didn't the incorporation of the island into Japan lead to the full-scale process of annexation to Japan? If that is true, there is no mystery about their overreaction. Korea is still haunted by horrifying memories inflected by Japan. What is more, the success of virtually any kind is measured against the Japanese equivalent.
Until the country moves out of the current state of insecurity, the attitude of the Korean people will probably not drastically change.

I think Koreans try to incorprate the island with history of Japanese annexation of Korea, while it has nothing to do with it. Please look at my starting post of this thread. There is no history isssue between Japan and others, including South Korea.

But of course, so-called history card is likely important for the Koreans and Korean-background residents in Japan, USA, etc. to steal islands.😊
 
I am not an expert on history so I cannot say for sure which country holds the proper right to the island. And, probably the case made by the Korean side lacks enough evidence.
But, it is certain that Koreans are reacting more to the symbolic meaning of the action that Japanese are engaging in. To their eyes, the Japanese claim appears similar to what Japan did during the pre-annexation period.
Whether the link between these two events is substantiated or not, it is obvious that Koreans are not in the mood to settle down and calmly discuss the issue. I don't think provocation is a reasonable way to solve a problem when the opponent ostensibly displays illogical and emotional responses.
In the current state of affairs, Japan's move is nothing but a provocation, since the country lacks resources to bring back the island under their sovereignty. The Self-defense forces cannot attack the island. It can only defend.
As long as the government provides financial support to those fishermen who lost their place to do their business, Japan would gain more by not provoking the neighbor. It can be likened to living in an apartment. The residents need to find a way to get along. Otherwise the situation can escalate. One difference, though, is that there is no police to intermediate between the two parties when it comes to international relations.:)
 
I am not an expert on history so I cannot say for sure which country holds the proper right to the island. And, probably the case made by the Korean side lacks enough evidence.
But, it is certain that Koreans are reacting more to the symbolic meaning of the action that Japanese are engaging in. To their eyes, the Japanese claim appears similar to what Japan did during the pre-annexation period.
Whether the link between these two events is substantiated or not, it is obvious that Koreans are not in the mood to settle down and calmly discuss the issue. I don't think provocation is a reasonable way to solve a problem when the opponent ostensibly displays illogical and emotional responses.
In the current state of affairs, Japan's move is nothing but a provocation, since the country lacks resources to bring back the island under their sovereignty. The Self-defense forces cannot attack the island. It can only defend.
As long as the government provides financial support to those fishermen who lost their place to do their business, Japan would gain more by not provoking the neighbor. It can be likened to living in an apartment. The residents need to find a way to get along. Otherwise the situation can escalate. One difference, though, is that there is no police to intermediate between the two parties when it comes to international relations.:)

I think J-givernment has continued to tell South Korea "Let's go to International Court" for the past 50 years.

Or you want Japan to keep quiet only ?
 
I think J-givernment has continued to tell South Korea "Let's go to International Court" for the past 50 years.
Or you want Japan to keep quiet only ?

It would be great if Japan could bring Korea to the court. But, my understanding of the way in which most of the territorial disputes have been resolved is that the disputing two parties find middle ground between themselves, rarely relying on an international institution. Probably this is because there is no enforcement of submission to the ruling of the court. If the parties cannot reach a compromise or unwilling to go to court, then the two sides might engage in war, as seen in the conflict between Russia and Georgia. The latter scenario does not apply since the Japanese self-defense forces cannot invade.

With the island successfully occupied and controlled by the Koreans, there is no incentive for them to contest in the court. Also, among the current 15 judge positions is a Japanese judge but no member from Korea.

Even if Japan manages to bring Korea to the court, the prospect of smooth enforcement of the court's decision seems dim. The enforcing authority of its decision is the UN, viewed by many as a defunct institution. Also, the current secretary of the UN is Korean.

Given the low probability of successfully regaining the sovereignty of the island, it seems, unfortunately, wise and beneficial to the relationship of the two countries if Japan behaves more yielding. We all know that Japanese people are good at it.😊
 
It would be great if Japan could bring Korea to the court. But, my understanding of the way in which most of the territorial disputes have been resolved is that the disputing two parties find middle ground between themselves, rarely relying on an international institution. Probably this is because there is no enforcement of submission to the ruling of the court. If the parties cannot reach a compromise or unwilling to go to court, then the two sides might engage in war, as seen in the conflict between Russia and Georgia. The latter scenario does not apply since the Japanese self-defense forces cannot invade.
With the island successfully occupied and controlled by the Koreans, there is no incentive for them to contest in the court. Also, among the current 15 judge positions is a Japanese judge but no member from Korea.
Even if Japan manages to bring Korea to the court, the prospect of smooth enforcement of the court's decision seems dim. The enforcing authority of its decision is the UN, viewed by many as a defunct institution. Also, the current secretary of the UN is Korean.
Given the low probability of successfully regaining the sovereignty of the island, it seems, unfortunately, wise and beneficial to the relationship of the two countries if Japan behaves more yielding. We all know that Japanese people are good at it.😊

It is likely that you are seeking excuse for excuse.
Japan is not in a hurry, being always quiet. Life is long, and the isalnd never disappear. Plus the island is not the place where people can live.
But SK is nosiy, while you say ...successfully occupying the island. In addition, they are spending lots of money to "protect" the isalnd.
So, I am very intersted in the situation.

It is a good idea for J-government to raise Takeshima territorial issue ONCE a Year to awaken SK government. Only making some comments, without any money, will be more than enough to let them make candle demo.
Don't you think so ? 😊
 
Back
Top Bottom