Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

Yonhap News says Dokdo was annexed in 1910

June 16th, 2007 . by Gerry-Bevers
This June 15, Yonhap News article, “Seoul, Tokyo to hold EEZ talks next week,” says that Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) was “annexed” by Japan in 1910, but the annexation actually took place in 1905, and Korea was informed of it in 1906. (Yonhap is a Korean news service.)  

Here is the relevant section of the article:

The Korean islets were annexed by Japan along with the Korean Peninsula in 1910, but Tokyo claims its territorial rights to the islets were declared five years before the start of Japanese colonial rule. Historians, however, say Korea had already been under effective control of Japan well before the start of the 20th century.

The Japanese told Korea in 1906 that they had annexed “Takeshima” (Dokdo), so I do not understand why the Yonhap article is saying that Japan annexed the islets in 1910, unless it is to try to give the impression that “Dokdo” was somehow forcibly annexed along with the rest of Korea, which was not the case.

These days it seems that Korea’s Dokdo advocates have realized that they can no longer fool people into believing that a small neighboring island of Ulleungdo on old Korean maps was “Dokdo,” which is why I think you do not see much about Korean maps anymore in the Korean media and on Korea’s Web sites. Their propaganda seems to have shifted to focusing on trying to make people believe that Dokdo’s annexation and Korea’s annexation was one and the same. They seem to have realized that foreigners can easily look at a Korean map and say, “Hey, that doesn’t look like Dokdo,” but it is not as easy for the foreigners to check the facts in old Korean and Japanese documents.

Again, why would Yonhap News make the erroneous claim that Japan annexed “Dokdo” in 1910 when even Korean historical documents show that Korea was told about the annexation in 1906?

 


74 Responses to “Yonhap News says Dokdo was annexed in 1910”

  1. comment number 1 by: pacifist

    General Tiger,

    That was why I added “can someone give me a better translation?” Should we just say “Korean-Japanese Treaty” ?

    Yes, it is called as “the third Japan-Korean agreement” in Japan but I think Korean people may call it 丁未 treaty (I don’t know how to pronounce in Korea).

    all that Japan did for Korea was for its own profits

    Every country does something good to own country. So if you insist so, I admit it has such an aspect. But the origin of this problem is based in Korea.
    They were on the verge of bunkruptcy. If nobody lend her a hand, she would definitely collapse. If she collapsed, Russia or China (Qing) or whatever, would occupy it and include in their territory. Then, Korea would vanish forever.

    But Japan wanted Korea to be independent. It’s because of Japan’s security reason – so if you want to say it as “own profits”, you are right.

    Anyway, Japan couldn’t let Korea collapse so she lent a hand, lending big money.
    Japan hoped Korea would modernize as Japan did (Meiji restoration), but traditional government didn’t understand the situation of the world and rejected to modernize her, spending money on own entertainment, not on modernizing the country.

    If Korea was an independent country from the beginning, these problems didn’t occur.

  2. comment number 2 by: pacifist

    Matt,

    I’ve heard from Gery that he can’t access Occidentalism from Korea now.

    toadface didn’t answer after the last posting he did several hours ago.

    Are there anybody from Korea seeing this site right now?

    Was Occidentalism selected as one of “harmful” sites by Korean governemnt? (Congrats!) Or is anything wrong happening in Seoul? 

  3. comment number 3 by: Matt

    Matt,

    I’ve heard from Gery that he can’t access Occidentalism from Korea now.

    toadface didn’t answer after the last posting he did several hours ago.

    Are there anybody from Korea seeing this site right now?

    A mystery. Can anyone confirm Occi cant be seen in Korea?

  4. comment number 4 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Pacifist & Matt,

    I can now see Occidentalism.

  5. comment number 5 by: Apr26

    Gerry-Bevers said, “Korean historical documents show that Korea was told about the annexation in 1906.”
    Would anyone translate this Korean document dated feb.22, 1905, the same day as Shimane prefecture declared Takeshima its territory.
    http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=gj_006_1905_02_22_0040

    It seems Korean Government knew the declaration of territorial title of Liancourt Rocks by the Japanese Government on the same day.

    Also, would anyone translate the “directive #3” of this Korean document into English?
    http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=mk_002_001_000_0560

  6. comment number 6 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Apr26,

    The 1905 document does not say anything about Dokdo. It seems to be talking about plans for Japan’s taking over Korea’s diplomatic and communications responsibities. The title of the post is misleading since it translates as “Japan Seizes Dokdo.” The author of the post seems to have wanted to link Japan’s taking over Korea’s diplomatic and communication duties with Japan’s incorporation of Takeshima (Dokdo).

    As for the second document, I may translate that tonight when I get home from work.

  7. comment number 7 by: toadface

    Opp, stop entering irrelevant material the San Franciso Treaty. The Rusk papers are confidential and not binding at all. The Vienna Law of Treaties was written decads after the San Francisco Peace Treaty. I’m pretty sick of you cut and pasting and dumping legal crap all over the net. Especially your sock-puppet routine over at wikipedia.

    Pacifist and Gerry, it seems both of you are talking through your hats without even a basic study of some of the coerced agreements Korea were subject to long before this “official annexation” you blather on about. General Tiger has his facts straight.

    Regardless of what Japanese right wingers say, Korea for all purposes ceased being a free country upon being forced to sign the Japan Korea protocol on February 23 1904. This “treaty” stipulated: Japan would assume supervision over all Korea’s foreign affairs, fiscal responsibilities, transportation (rail) communications (telegraph, phone and mail sevice), use Japanese currency and take over all areas deemed of military importance and setting up army and navy bases there. What was left for the Koreans to control…..?

    Pacifist you are doing exactly what I said the Japanese Takeshima lobbyists are. That is playing hard and fast with a century old colonial land grab and ignoring the reams of historical data that shows Japan did not consider Dokdo part of her territory prior to 1905 and more often considered Dokdo as attached to Ulleungdo.

    I’ve read Saito Hosen’s report of Oki. I’ve got a copy of it for you. Study it, learn it, live it. It will make you a better man Pacifist.
    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/saito-oki-text3.jpg

    You can find another translation at Hanmaumy’s wesite here.
    http://dokdo.naezip.net/Dokdo/Dokdo14Eun.htm

    Why don’t you just give up your silly illogical translation of Satio Hosen’s report like many other Japanese scholars have, Pacifist?

    Pacifist stop being so slimy like Ponta by trying to soft sell Japan’s annexation of Korea like it was some humanitarian mission or “necessary” to defend Japan. It makes you look like an arse. I’m being honest.

  8. comment number 8 by: egg

    toadface

    The Rusk papers are confidential and not binding at all.

    Wasn`t Mr.Rusk secretary of states at that time?
    Are you thinking that it was just a private letter which has nothing to do with the official politics?
    I feel it natural to think that America who was a counter part of Japan at SF treaty ( needless to say about Japan )thought that the rocks belonged to Japan.
    It is not a part of the SF treaty but I think it has a great importance when interpreting the treaty.

  9. comment number 9 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    Don’t deceive people. The 1904 treaty didn’t effect diplomacy:

    大日本帝国皇帝陛下の特命全権公使林権助及大韓帝国皇帝陛下の外部大臣臨時署理陸軍参将李址鎔は各相当の委任を受け左の条款を協定す

    第1条 日韓両帝国間に恒久不易の親交を保持し東洋の平和を確立する為め大韓帝国政府は大日本帝国政府を確信し施設の改善に関し其忠告を容るる事
    (About friendship between Korea and Japan)

    第2条 大日本帝国政府は大韓帝国の皇室を確実なる親誼を以て安全康寧ならしむる事
    (About Korea’s Imperial Household.)

    第3条 大日本帝国政府は大韓帝国の独立及領土保全を確実に保証する事
    (About Korea’s territorial integrity.)

    第4条 第三国の侵害に依り若くは内乱の為め大韓帝国の皇室の安寧或は領土の保全に危険ある場合は大日本帝国政府は速に臨機必要の措置を取るへし而して大韓帝国政府は右大日本帝国の行動を容易ならしむる為め十分便宜を与ふる事
    大日本帝国政府は前項の目的を達する為め軍略上必要の地点を臨機収用することを得る事
    (About treatment when a civil war occurs.)

    第5条 両国政府は相互の承認を経すして後来本協約の趣意に違反すへき協約を第三国との間に訂立する事を得さる事
    (About treaty with other countries.)

    第6条 本協約に関連する未悉(みしつ)の細条は大日本帝国代表者と大韓帝国外部大臣との間に臨機協定する事
    (About conferences concerning other subjects of discussion.)

      明治37年2月23日     特命全権公使  林権助

      光武8年2月23日     外部大臣臨時署理陸軍参将  李址鎔

    Korea’s diplomacy was restricted after November 1905.

     日本国政府及韓国政府は両帝国を結合する利害共通の主義を鞏固ならしめんことを欲し韓国の富強の実を認むる時に至る迄此目的を以て左の条款を約定せり

    第1条 日本国政府は在東京外務省に由り今後韓国の外国に対する関係及事務を監理指揮すへく日本国の外交代表者及び領事は外国に於ける韓国の臣民及利益を保護すへし

    (MOFA will control and direct relations with foreign countries, while Japan’s diplomatic representatives will protect Korean people’s advantages in foreign countries.)
    第2条 日本国政府は韓国と他国との間に現存する条約の実行を全ふするの任に当り韓国政府は今後日本国政府の仲介に由らすして国際的性質を有する何等の条約若は約束をなささることを約す

    第3条 日本国政府は其代表者として韓国皇帝陛下の闕下(けっか)に一名の統監(レヂデントゼネラル)を置く統監は専ら外交に関する事項を管理する為め京城に駐在し親しく韓国皇帝陛下に内謁するの権利を有す日本国政府は又韓国の各開港場及其他日本国政府の必要と認むる地に理事官(レヂデント)を置くの権利を有す理事官は統監の指揮の下に従来在韓国日本領事に属したる一切の職権を執行し并に本条約の条款を完全に実行する為め必要とすへき一切の事務を掌理すへし

    第4条 日本国と韓国との間に現存する条約及約束は本協約の条款に抵触せさる限総て其効力を継続するものとす

    第5条 日本国政府は韓国皇室の安寧と尊厳を維持することを保証する

     右証拠として下名は各本国政府より相当の委任を受け本協約に記名調印するものなり

      明治38年11月17日        特命全権公使  林権助

      光武9年11月17日        外部大臣  朴齊純

    toadface, when you say a word you should study about the matter beforehand.

  10. comment number 10 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    I’ve read Saito Hosen’s report of Oki.

    We’ve told you the real translation of the text before. Didn’t you remember? You should learn Japanese language first before you read translated text.

    The text clearly says that Ulleungdo was Japan’s boundary because one can see Chosun from there. toadface, you should remember that Ulleungdo was uninhibited in those days and Japanese people stood there and saw Korean mainland. It is natural that they thought it was the boundary.

    toadface, I won’t repeat the Japanese language lessons here for you. Please don’t bring the same materials to deceive people.

  11. comment number 11 by: opp

    Opp, stop entering irrelevant material the San Franciso Treaty. The Rusk papers are confidential and not binding at all. The Vienna Law of Treaties was written decads after the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

    The Vienna Law of Treaties is a codification of the common law that already exists. It is a judicial precedent of eastern Greenland that can use the draft and the negotiation record for the agreement interpretation. Naturally, it is befor the SF treaty. It is your original rule without grounds again and again.

  12. comment number 12 by: toadface

    Egg yes Mr Rusk was Secretary of State at the time but the fact is none of the statements he made ever were included in the decisions or stipulated in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. I’ll bet the documents didn’t even become public knowledge until much later. The Vanfleet Report was confidential until the mid 1980’s, this is not what I’d call an open public support of Japan’s claim to Dokdo by the United States at all.

    Pacifist, are going to use the shabby “I’m Japanese only I can interpret Japanese documents…..” excuse The translation I’ve given is accepted by some Japanese who have written articles on Dokdo. So you are wrong on that point. You should use a logical approach to history instead of your right-wing Japanese ambitions.

    There are no Japanese maps that show Takeshima or Matsushima as part of any prefecture or as part of Japan at this time. The shogunate issued voyage passes, that’s all.

    Pacifist you are confusing the formal announcement of a protectorate with the actual situation on the Korean peninsula prior to the fall of 1905. In 1904 the Japanese cabinet had suggested many other proposals that were implemented. The Katsura cabinet accepted the protectorate over Korea in April 1905, when the war was starting to go their way.

    In August of 1904 the Japanese appointed Durham White Stevens (a pro-Japanese mouthpiece) became the “advisor” over diplomatic (foreign) affairs. Magata Jutaro became the financial “advisor”, Maruyama Shigetoshi became the police advisor, Kato Masuo became the court “advisor” and Nozu Shigetake became the military “advisor”. These men had great infleunce and sometimes even the right to approve cabinet decisions. Korea’s abilty to govern herself as a sovereign nation was severly compromised well before November 1905. Japan was moving toward a protectorate well before the end of the Russo Japanese War.

    Pacifist I suggest you do some reading about the subject of the colonization of Korea outside of the Japanese education system. Try the “Abacus and the Sword” by Peter Duus. Cutting and pasting reams of garbled Japanese Kanji and then spewing your spin on it doesn’t cut it.

    Opp for the last time the San Fransico Peace Treaty never gave Liancourt Rocks to Japan. For all legal purposes America acted as an agent over Japan’s control over Dokdo at this time. The San Francisco Peace Treaty states the disputes over interpretations of the treaty can be settled at the ICJ. Korea wasn’t signatory and is in within her rights not to do so. In fact Japan also refused the ICJ as a method of settlement.

    So you see, Japan’s issue is with America not Korea, it was America who left this issue unresolved. If America stated Liancourt Rocks was Japanese territory then why don’t they support Japan’s claim now? You know Opp America maintains a nuetral stance on the Dokdo issue….to bad for you.

  13. comment number 13 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    Cutting and pasting reams of garbled Japanese Kanji and then spewing your spin on it doesn’t cut it.

    The original treaties between Japan and Korea were concluded in Kanji. I showed you the original treaties. You must learn Japanese or Kanji if you want to investigate these complicated problems.

    excuse The translation I’ve given is accepted by some Japanese who have written articles on Dokdo.

    If he was a Japanese, why he couldn’t read the Japanese text right? Your translation is full of mistakes, why?

    toadface, you must forget the important thing.
    You have to show that Korea knew, used or owned the Liancourt rocks before 1905. But you couldn’t.

    toadface, in 1902 the Korean people in Ulleungdo didn’t have own ships. To follow is a translated text by Kaneganese:
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-does-it-say-about.html

    So they had to hire Japanese ships to go to mainland of Korea.
    It proves that Korean people in the 1900’s couldn’t go to Liancourt rocks by themselves. They were hired by Japanese and brought to the rocks by Japanese ships.

  14. comment number 14 by: egg

    toadface
    Thanks for your reply.

    this is not what I’d call an open public support of Japan’s claim to Dokdo by the United States at all.

    I can`t get your logic. My knowlege is limited but I would like to show my ideas. Please tell me where you think I am wrong.

    1.A treaty is an agreement between countries, same as a contract is between indivisuals.
    2.It binds the countries which agreed with it, because both wills of the countries met.
    3.Same as an interpretation of contracts, it is important what the will of the countries involved was.
    4.Only the countries which agreed with the treaty will be bound.

    I understand the treaty was not only agreed between Japan and America but still both countries played a major rolls when making the treaty, didn`t it? Thus it is important to know what both countries thought about the rocks. Other countries which took part in the teraty joined under the condition which both countries made.
    The next point is as what Japan thought about the rocks is obvious, so, what America thought. Mr.Rusk and Mr.Vanfleet was an official working for American official interest. Especially about the Rusk papaers, weren`t they written in response to the Korean government`s request to force Japan to abandon the rocks? They state clear NO to Korea`s request. Of course the papers will not bind Korea but at the same time they are showing America`s will against the rocks, that they belonged to Japan. As America`s will was like that, mentioning about the rock, Japan won`t be binded by the treaty or will not be forced by the treaty to abandon the rocks (because the countries involved in the treaty had no intention to force Japan to abandon the rocks).
    And the conclusion is that Korea has no title against the rocks.

  15. comment number 15 by: egg

    toadface
    I would like to delete Mr.Vanfleet`s name in the above because it will be off topix in the context.

  16. comment number 16 by: opp

    toadface’s original rule
    Opp for the last time the San Fransico Peace Treaty never gave Liancourt Rocks to Japan. For all legal purposes America acted as an agent over Japan’s control over Dokdo at this time.

    International law
    PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie
    ADMINISTRATON AND SOVEREIGNTY
    It may happen that the process of government over an area, with the concomitant privileges and duties, falls into the hands of another state. Thus after the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War the four major Allied powers assumed supreme power in Germany. The legal competence of German state did not, however, disappear. What occurred is akin to legal representation or agency of necessity. The German state continued to existence. The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty. A similar case, recognized by the customary law for a very long time, is that of the belligerent occupation of enemy territory in time of war. The important features of ‘sovereignty’ in such cases are the continued existence of legal personality and the attribution of territory to that legal person and not to holders for the time being.

    The Allies even did not demand Takeshima’s renunciation by the SF treaty. The importance is neither the Allies, nor South Korea, and it does at the will of Japan. When did Japan renounce the Japanese title of Takeshima?

  17. comment number 17 by: Apr26

    Gerry-Bevers,
    “The title of the post is misleading since it translates as “Japan Seizes Dokdo.” The author of the post seems to have wanted to link Japan’s taking over Korea’s diplomatic and communication duties with Japan’s incorporation of Takeshima (Dokdo).”

    This document ( http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=gj_006_1905_02_22_0040 ) is not just a post, but a official deplomatic document from Korean government archives.

  18. comment number 18 by: pacifist

    but a official deplomatic document from Korean government archives

    If this is true, then Korean governemnt is shifting its propaganada as Gerry pointed out.

    Their propaganda seems to have shifted to focusing on trying to make people believe that Dokdo’s annexation and Korea’s annexation was one and the same.

    But I wonder why do they put new lies on the old lies, is it for the election? These “lies on lies” have a tendency to be revealed easily. And the bigger the lies, bigger the effect of the reveal of the lies. Korean government won’t be able to hold out when the lies were exposed.

  19. comment number 19 by: toadface

    http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page9.html

    Opp, title is not a gimmie. You need effective control of a territory, for effective control you need to exert the minumum degree of sovereignty. Japan lost sovereignty. Japan gave up the right to exercise effective control.

    You can get out your box of crayons and make a “Takeshima title” and keep on your wall. Korea will take the island…….deal?

  20. comment number 20 by: toadface

    Egg, the conclusion you make is your interpretation. People are filling in the blanks on America’s intentions when it was clear Amerca did not support Japan’s claim when the chips were down.

    Mr Lovmo’s website has hands down the best historical analysis of America’s involvement in the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute. You can see America dropped support for Japan when she realized it would be in her best interest to take a nuetral stance. Remember the Koreans foolishly didn’t even submit a rebuttal to Japanese claim to Takeshima until 1953, long after the SF Peace Treaty came into effect.

    Read the link I gave you above Egg.

  21. comment number 21 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    People are filling in the blanks on America’s intentions when it was clear Amerca did not support Japan’s claim when the chips were down.

    America supported Japan’s soveereignty over Takeshima because they dropped it from the list that Japan should return to Korea.

    But after South Korea’s military power occupied it brutally, USA didn’t want to stimulate South Korea because they had the common enemy – North and communists. It was the times of cold war, you should see the history.

    USA wanted to resolve the issue in peaceful manner and proposed to go to ICJ but Korea ignored it. And after Japan proposed the ICJ again she rejected it.

    So the international view point won’t support Korea. Do you know about the Harvard conference, toadface? Do you want to hear what UK professionals of internationa law said in the conference?

  22. comment number 22 by: opp

    toadface

    You need effective control of a territory, for effective control you need to exert the minumum degree of sovereignty. Japan lost sovereignty.

    After the WW2, Takeshima came in terra nullius? Why does the occupation at the war become title? The title by conquest revived? Japan doesn’t agree to the abandonment of her sovereignty though agreed to the cease of jurisdiction. Don’t make your own rule.

  23. comment number 23 by: pacifist

    On January 18, 1952, South Korea unilaterally proclaimed the so-called Rhee Line to include the islands as its territory, and began to seize Japanese fishing vessels found within the line

    (From an American-Korean scholar’s report;
    http://www.asiaquarterly.com/content/view/26/1/

    Isn’t this an unlawful deed, toadface?
    This is the origin of the dispute and this deed by the military dictator Syngman Rhee was illegal from the viewpoint of the international law.

    You, Syngman supporter, may see this deed as right but that view is not normal in the world.

  24. comment number 24 by: egg

    toadface

    Read the link I gave you above Egg.

    Are you saying about the link you gave to opp? Thanks I will look into it. (Though it will take me some time.)

    Egg, the conclusion you make is your interpretation

    Yes, it is only my interpretation. But if you gave me some clues where you can`t accept them or some new evidence that counter argues my interpretation, I would appreciate you much. (Sorry, it must cost you some time and effort and you might say it is provided in the link though.)
    .
    By the way, speaking generally, when there are two guys interpretating a evidence in different ways, which interpretation should be taken? Do you think there are some rules to decide? If there is no agreement about that, these debates will go on endlessly, each other only telling his own claim and never lisrening to others. I am not trying to accuse you or blame you or anything of that kind. I would like to listen to your opinion. Do you have some ideas?