Prime Minister Han Asserts Korea’s Claim over Takeshima
On Sunday, South Korea’s Prime Minister, Han Seung Soo, criticized Japan’s new educational guideline which implies that Takeshima is an integral part of Japan saying,
“Dokdo belongs to Korea historically, geographically and in terms of international laws. There is no question about our sovereign rights to Dokto because we effectively control it.”
I’m going to have to side with the Koreans on this one. By saying that, I don’t mean to condone the wanton killing of innocent birds or any protest activity that employs violent or disgusting means to get its message across. What I do mean to say is that there are two sides to this story and the Koreans, despite the unfortunate ways in which some of them have chosen to express their feelings, are basically in the right.
From a legal standpoint, it’s said that “possession is nine tenths of the law”, and Korea has occupied these islets since 1954, or the last 54 years.
From a historical standpoint, it depends on which side you talk to. For example, in 1836 there was the so-called “Takeshima Incident” in which Aizuya Hachiemon was put to death for violating the Edo Bakufu’s restriction on travel to foreign countries. If you believe the Korean argument, he was executed for traveling to Liancourt (the European name of Takeshima/Dokdo), which proves that Dokdo was considered to be foreign territory by the Edo Bakufu. If you believe the Japanese argument, he was executed for traveling to the Korean island of Ulleungdo, while falsely claiming that he was only going as far as Liancourt, which proves that Takeshima was considered to be Japanese territory by the Edo Bakufu. The arguments are made all the more difficult to follow by the fact that the different names used don’t consistently refer to the same outcroppings and islands. For instance, until 1900, Takeshima was called “Matsushima” by Japan, and the name “Takeshima” referred to the present day Ulleungdo…and if you want maps, they’ve got maps. Oh boy, have they got maps. As to whose claim the maps vindicate, please refer to the discussion of the Takeshima Incident above.
From a moral standpoint, Korea gets my full support. Since Hideyoshi’s Toyotomi’s invasion of Korea in 1592, the two countries have had a one-sided relationship; with Korea always bearing the brunt of Japanese aggression and discrimination. In 1876, Ironically, (given the bitterness that some Japanese still feel over the encroachment of Commander Perry’s “black ships”) Japan forced a commercial treaty with Korea in a time when Korea had earned the nickname “Hermit Kingdom” because it had closed itself off from communication with all countries except China. On February 22, 2005, the 100th anniversary of the official announcement that the islets came under their jurisdiction, the Shimane Prefectual Government established “Takeshima Day”. Personally, I found that move incredibly crass and insensitive because the annexation of these islets was a steppingstone to the eventual full annexation of the Korean Peninsula in 1910, and as such is a symbol of Japan’s brutal colonial rule over Korea.
What Korea fears is that this new educational guideline is just one step in a scenario that Japan is building up, according to which Japan eventually gets sovereignty over the Takeshima Islands. This is understandably no small matter to Korea. Even though these “islands” are in reality mere outcroppings, they bring with them rich fishing and mineral rights, and their loss would reopen old wounds from the colonial past.
On the Japanese side, it is obviously the rightists who say they will not rest until “every grain of Japanese territory” is “returned” to Japan that are behind this move. Most Japanese have little or no interest in this issue, but any Japanese who tried to contradict the right’s territorial claims could soon find themselves in very hot water; a fact that former LDP member Muneo Suzuki, who was persecuted for suggesting that Japan should compromise with Russia on the Northern Territories issue, can attest to. Here is an extract of the guideline in question, which I downloaded from the blog “Dokdo-or Takeshima?“, in which Japan is repeatedly referred to as “Wagakuni”:
「北方領土が我が国の固有の領土であることなど、我が国の領域をめぐる問題にも着目させるようにすること」（内容の取扱い）とあることから、北方領土（歯舞群島、色丹島、国後島、択捉島）については、その位置と範囲を確認させるとともに、北方領土は我が国の固有の領土であるが、現在ロシア連邦によって不法に占拠されているため、その返還を求めていることなどについて、的確に扱う必要がある。また、我が国と韓国の間に竹島をめぐって主張に相違があることなどにも触れ、北方領土と同様に我が国の領土・領域について理解を深めさせることも必要である。
(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 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.
