Where is the Korean proof?
- From: Jao Tsu <jt@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 16:47:27 -0700
http://www.glocom.org/media_reviews/n_review/20040506_news_review213/index.html
QUOTE:
ea of all the islets combined is only 0.25 sq.km., less than one-tenth the size of Central Park in New York City which is 3.4 sq.km. The islands themselves do not have much use, except for providing shelters to small fishing boats during a storm, for which the significance was greater in the days when the danger was more real. It was the development in the recent era of the international laws covering the seas and its floors surrounding land, which effectively provided certain rights for their utilization that substantially enhanced the importance of these small islands, in many cases only a little more than a rock.
As there are some points raised in the article leading to Korea's assertion that the islets are theirs, it might be worthwhile to compare notes.
The article says that the first historical references to the islands were in Korean documents referring to the islands as a part of a Korean state known as "Usankuk" (Ullung Island), which was incorporated into the Korean Silla Dynasty in 512 AD. This is indeed a fact recognized by scholars of both countries, but the problem is that there is NO indication that "Usankuk" included the Takeshima/Dokdo islands, some 100 kilometers away. In fact, there is a record in a fifteenth century Korean document describing that there were 15 families with the total of 87 people living on the island which Korea claims as Takeshima/Dokdo. As it is impossible to sustain the lives of 87 people on such a small islet even with the present day skills, it is more natural to assume that the portrayal is unlikely that of Takeshima/Dokdo.
Any "official" reference of either government without any ambiguity to the islets it refers to appears in a Japanese document in 1618, which assigned the governance of Takeshima to one of the local lords in the region close to Takeshima.
In 1696, as a result of negotiations between Japan and Korea concerning fishing in the vicinity of Ullung Island the Japanese government, Shogun at the time, prohibited passage of Japanese vessels to Ullung Island, but not to Takeshima, an indication of both governments recognizing the Ullung Island and Takeshima/Dokdo to be a separate entity.
In 1905, Japan reaffirmed its intention to possess Takeshima by a Cabinet decision, followed by a notification by Shimane Prefecture officially incorporating Takeshima as part of the Prefecture. It was publicized in the official bulletin and reported in newspapers, to which the Korean government expressed no objection, or even interest.
It is clearly stated In the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 that Japan did not include Takeshima in the definition of "Korea", when the independence of Korea was approved and all rights, titles and rights of claim was renounced. This means that Takeshima remained as Japan's territory when Korea became independent. In fact, in the draft of the peace treaty dated December 29, 1949, formulated by the US and its allies, Takeshima 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.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Where is the Korean proof?
- From: helenuhm
- Re: Where is the Korean proof?
- From: min10011
- Re: Where is the Korean proof?
- Prev by Date: Re: I need an advice for a squatter
- Next by Date: Re: Where is the Korean proof?
- Previous by thread: I need an advice for a squatter
- Next by thread: Re: Where is the Korean proof?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|