◇韓国人との討論１（英語）

韓国の人たちとの討論（竹島）

皆さんご存知のように途中までは翻訳したのですが、途中からやっていません。また少しずつ翻訳するかもしれませんが、一応、全討論をフリーページに入れておきます。英語が読める方、興味のある方は読みにチャレンジしてみてください。

◆　◆　◆

Jack

why does korea even have to consider going to the internatioanal court?
Doesn't have any merits to korea...only Japan benefits from it. Maybe korea will go to the court regarding dae-ma-do island...
Other than that..no way.
Has China and Japan gone to court regarding the island they are disputing right now? I don't think Japan will go..so why do you expect korea to go to the court?...
Also, reading the posts in the guest book, I don't find any valid Japanese claims...I only see "let's go to court"
Maybe because I don't see much Japanese claims in the guestbook, or they hesitate to express their ideas until they are perfectly sure or making it a private post..who knows?

And the Mr/Ms Agasa claims on the previous posts doesn't explain anything..S/he is just claiming titles, names, ownership without explaining...And they ignore korea's sides argument..S/he saying like it's sea of japan because many people/country start to call it recently(popularism?), dokdo is takeshima because it is japan's territory.(doesn't explain a thing why it's japan's)
Okay..if korea starts lobbying desperately..than someday the name might revert back to East sea...who knows?
And korea can claim dae-ma-do as Korea's island for the same reason as japanese has been claiming dokdo..heck..I even read that there are ancient map that actually proves it...but I don't think korea's gonna get the island back..

finally, what a great site this is! Really informative and interesting. God bless you man!



soudenjapan to Jack

Jack from South Korea asks in his message below, " why does korea even have to consider going to the internatioanal court?" There actually are some good reasons for the Korean government to consider.

(1) We have an agreement, as written in the basic treaty between South Korea and Japan, to take the controversial issue to a third party mediator if we are unable to reach an agreement through the diplomatic channel between the two countries.

(2) If the South Korean government fail to respect the treaty and breaks the agreement, it would send a potentially hazadous message to governments all over the world, including Japan's that they do not need to respect the treaties and agreemens with the South Korean government.

(3) The Japanese government has clearly said that it will respect and be binded by the judgment reached by Internatinal Court of Justice, even if the judgment favors South Korea. It is a very good oppotunity for the South Korean government to solve this issue once and for all, which benefits South Koreans if in fact they have as strong a case as they say they do over the possession of the two islands.





Jack to soudenjapan

I guess the only thing Japanese people want and claim is to go to the international court. I have seen too many of these statements.

Well, Korea doesn't believe dokdo is a disputed island so we don't have any incentives to go there. Like I said before, will japan go to international court for the disputed Daioyu/Senkaku island? Like the WTO the decision from international court have no influence. We don't want to waste time there.

As of speaking now, Japanese government are trying to change their history books by adding statements like "Japan invasion helped Korea during colonization" or "dokdo has been japan's island both historically and geographicaly."

Since Japan's going their own way without consent with their neiboring countries, so are we.




soudenjapan to Jack

You are missing my point, Jack. My point is not about what the Korean government or the Japanese government believes, but it is about what the two countries promised each other when they signed the basic treaty.

Now, it is up to the South Korean government whether or not it respect the treaty or ignore it at will. But I need to point out again that if the South Korean government breaks the treaty, it would inevitably leave an impression that others, including the Japanese government, can do the same as well if they choose to do so at will. That, as I have pointed out in the previous message, is not a positive outcome for the Korean people nor for the Japanese people.

Also, you can disrespect internatianl organizations like ICJ because their decisions are not backed up with legal authority. However, what if in the future the South Korean government needs their mediation to solve conflicts with other countries including Japan? Disrespecting international bodies is not an advantageous behavior for Korean people in the long run.



Jack to soudenjapan

Okay, what is the name of this so-called "basic treaty"? Inform me on this treaty you are mentioning. And I wasn't disrespecting the ICJ. I was just saying it has no enforcement power. I don't think korea will go to the ICJ in the future since we don't have much influence in this court as opposed to Japanese.


soudenjapan to Jack

Thank you for your question, Jack. Here is the name of the treaty and an excerpt that refers to the mutually agreed procedure through which to settle disputes between the two nations.


●Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea

http://www.answers.com/topic/treaty-on-basic-relations-between-japan-and-the-republic-of-korea

●Related Agreements

Agreement Between Japan And The Republic Of Korea Concerning The Settlement Of Problems In Regard To Property And Claims And Economic Cooperation

＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

Article III

1 Any dispute between the High Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or the implementation of this Agreement shall be settled primarily through diplomatic channels.

2 Any dispute which cannot be settled under the provision of paragraph 1 above shall be submitted for decision to an arbitral commission of three arbitrators; one to be appointed by the Government of each High Contracting Party within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt by the Government of either High Contracting Party from that of the other High Contracting Party of a note requesting arbitration of the dispute; and the third to be agreed upon by the two arbitrators so chosen or to be nominated by the Government of a third power as agreed upon by the two arbitrators within a further period of thirty days. However, the third arbitrator must not be a national of either High Contracting Party.

3 If, within the periods respectively referred to, the Government of either High Contracting Party fails to appoint an arbitrator, or the third arbitrator or the third nation is not agreed upon, the arbitral commission shall be composed of one arbitrator to be nominated by the Government of each of two nations respectively chosen by the Government of each High Contracting Party within a period of thirty days, and the third arbitrator to be nominated by the Government of a third po




Jennifer to soudenjapan

soudenjapan~ Don't you think that You must ask your government why tokyo still ignore the Cairo Conference and SCAPIN 677 before referring to "basic treaty"? According to historical and geographical informatiom Dokdo belongs to the Republic of Korea. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Also Korean government is considering Dokdo not a "disputed territory" but absolutely Korean territory. But Japan just seems to try to make "dispute" over Dokdo to take an opportunty to steal Dokdo by bring it to ICJ because of EEZ and greed. That's why you don't need to talk about "basic treaty". The only thing is that Japan just respects and follows the Cairo Conference of 1943 and SCAPIN 677!!!



soudenjapan to Jennifer

Take it to the Court, Jennifer. Make your case, Cairo Conference, SCAPIN 677, or whatever. You have a good chance of winning the case. If you actually win, the Japanese government will not raise the subject ever again. It is simple and clear and easy.

If you believe that ICJ is biased or is easily influenced by international politics, you can suggest to the Japanese government, as clearly written in the basic treaty, another third party mediator who Korean people believe is more proper and neutral.



WEBMASTER to soudenjapan

soudenjapan: Thanks for insight into the Basic Relations Treaty. As you point out, the situation could potentially provide slight problems in the future. While the Korean decision to not go into arbitration with Japan may not necessarily be breaking any "rules" of this agreement, soudenjapan is correct in pointing out that doing so is at least against the spirit of the agreement. I think Koreans understand that they have choices that they need to make, despite how unfair it is. I think they will choose to take that risk (whatever that is) and not go into arbitration. If the shoe were on the other foot, the Japanese wouldn't either, of course. This does happen on occasion, you know: The Americans completely broke away from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Russians. MAYBE the Americans will pay a price for this choice in the future, maybe not. Anyway, the decision the Koreans are making isn't anywhere near as severe as the ones the Americans made with the ABM Treaty.

One thing I disagree about soudenjapan's assertion is that "Japan promises to agree with the decision of a third party, whatever it is." Well, the Japanese can "promise" now, and change their minds later. Japan losing to the Koreans AND agreeing to follow the decision would be a major embarassment to any Japanese administration, so let's not kid ourselves. And I can't imagine certain interested parties in Japan would agree to such a loss. Maybe you believe in promises made by governments, soudenjapan, I don't. Promises are like a$$holes... I won't even go into the trust issues regarding the two countries and their past history, especially considering that Dokdo is a part of that contentious history.

It may not be pretty, but that's where it stands.




soudenjapan to WEBMASTER

In other words it is a matter of assurance. All you need to do, in that case, is to try to reach an agreement beforehand with the Japanese government over the authority of ICJ rulings.

But even if the Japanese government changes its mind after losing its case, what difference would it make for the South Korean government? The fact of the matter is that South Korean police/military force is there today and can keep staying in the islands with authority and claim this time strengthened by ICJ judgment. That's all. Whether the Japanese government keeps its promise or not is irrelevant in that sense.


Jennifer to soudenjapan

soudenjapan~Enjoy your studing!
1)In the Cairo Declaration, the Three Great Allies made it crystal clear to punish the aggression of Japan and to expel Japan from all territories which she ahs taken by violence and greed, and has determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent. Therefore, it is a corollary to think that the Korean territory including the Dokdo Islets(Liancourt Rocks), which was taken by violence and greed Japan, falls within the purview of this provision.
The Dokdo Islets are the first Korean territory to be taken by the Japanese violence and greed in 1905 amid the Russo-Japanese War.
At last, upon her surrender, Japan was expelled from the Dokdo Islets immediately after the end of WWII in the light of the international law, in accordance with the Korean Clause that : "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed in due course Korea shall become free and independent" in the Cairo Declaration
2)After the Allied Powers issued the Potsdam Declaration defining the terms for Japanese surrender on July 26, 1945, and ultimatum was broadcast to Japan from Potsdam, calling on her to accept unconditional surrender. The Japanese, however, rejected the ultimatum in a radio response. On August 6, 1945, the first of two atomic bombs was dropped on Hiroshima and three days later, on August 9, 1945, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Japanese emperor Hirohido issued, then, Japanese Imperial Rescript on her Surrender on radio broadcast for himself at noon on August 15, 1945(Tokyo time), accepting "the Potsdam Declaration" unconditionally.

Acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, the Japanese representatives signed on the Instrument of Surrender, at Tokyo Bay, Japan on September 2, 1945. With the acceptation of the terms of surrender by the Japanese representatives, the Cairo Declaration came into f





Jen to soudenjapan

soudenjapan~^^ There is another one.

In the Paragraph 3 of the SCAPIN NO. 677, Japan is defined further in detail as follows :
For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan(Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryuku(Nansei) Islands north of 30°North Latitude(excluding Kuchinoshima Island), and excluding (a) Utsryo(Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks(Take Island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju Island)
In particular, by excluding the Dokdo Islets(Liancourt Rocks, Take Island) which had been taken by Japanese Cabinet's illegal and Clandestine action on the first anniversary(January 18, 1905) of the Russo-Japanese war ahead of all the other Korean territories, fulfilled was the clause of the provision of the Cairo Statement : "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed".

In the light of international law, the original Korean title of the Dokdo Islets was, thus, restored formally after WWII by the SCAPIN No. 677 based upon the authority of the Cairo Declaration.




Jaehyun KIm

Every body know, Ulung Island has belonged to Korea and people in Ulung can see Dokdo with bare eyes if the weather is fine. And Japan even has insisted that Korea had nerver known dokdo's existence until 1905. Korea's record about Dokdo described Dokdo's shape relatively accurate. And Japan insisted that the island in that document is not Dokdo, it's just fantasy island that has never existed.(Neverland?)
Funny story. In Japan government's hompage, they show some parts of Sanfransisco that described that Dokdo belonged to Japan but it's not final version of that treaty. We all know that in the final version of that, Dokdo is deleted. That means after SCALPIN No.677, there is no other oder or agreement about Dokdo. Therefore SCALPIN No.677 is still in effect.
Don't be so greed, Japan. Don't pretend to be a victim of WW2.



soudenjapan to Jennifer and Jaehyun

Jennifer and Jaehyun, your arguments are fine. Both of you make great points. So take your points of view to ICJ or some other third party mediator. You may be able to wrap up this issue very quickly and for good.

Avoiding Dokdo/Takeshima issue by insisting that there is no issue exisisting between the two countries with regard to the ownership of the islands merely gives an oppotunity for Japanese natinalists to insist that there is no comfort women issue between South Korea and Japan.




Jen to soudenjapan

soudenjapan^^ Do you still believe that the sovereignty over Dokdo is undecided even after reading all evidence, information and comments? How disappointing! It was already returned back to Korea. It's time for Japan to stop nagging Korea still saying "Let's go to the ICJ" and to say "So Sorry". If Japan wants to steal Dokdo by any methods, just or unjust by lobby or money against the truth like your ancestors who attacked and took other countries by force,
and then just repeat "going to the ICJ"!! It only shows how Japan has been bellicose and hideous! I really hope Korea will never give any favor to Japan like bring it to the ICJ.
Japan is Not deserved for it.



Karls to soudenjapan

I don't know who you are.
maybe you are japanese.
the japanese goverment try to take dokdo problem to ICJ and try to make dokdo a dispute area.
But all korean don't think dokdo is dispute area and it is no wonder that dokdo is korean territory.
therefore there was no reason to have any action to japanese trying to make dokdo problem. most of korean didn't know that japanese was robbing to the all the world during last 50 years.
In this situation, taking it to ICJ is not fair. korean needs enough time to let all the world know the fact about this problem.

This time, there is no profits to korean even though korean win the case in ICJ, and If lose, korean lose natural territoy. moreover korean have had no action about dokdo during japanese robbing time.
Imagine! do you want to take it to icj, if you are korean ?




Jenn to soudenjapan

I want to make sure one more thing about the clause 6 of SCAPIN you wrote!
SCAPIN 677 is called the definition of Japan.
This directive limited Japan's territory to the four main islands of Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu, and Shigoku, and about 1,000 smaller islands. Excluded form the definition in Clause 3 of Japan's territories were Ullungdo, Dokdo and Chejudo.
As you Know, over Dokdo, drowning Japanese government has tried to catch at a straw by citing clause 6 what you said^^ and claimed that Japanese territory is not finally limited. HA! The clause 6 just made a room for revision just in case one of the Allied Nations raised an objection because the Allied Powers were in complicated relationship with their respective benefits and expectations. However, if Japan wants to change the limitation of her own territory, she must qualify the clause 5 of SCAPIN No.677.
Clause 5 of the instruction provides that "the definition of the Japan contained in the directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from the Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein." Therefore, without another specific instruction by SCAP this definition could not be changed and would continue to be binding. In accordance with this instruction, SCAP transferred the jurisdiction over Dokdo to the U.S. Military Government in Korea on January 29, 1946. When the Republic of Korea was proclaimed on August 15, 1948, all the territories of Korea, including Dokdo, automatically reverted to the Korean government.

soudenjapan or anonymouse guest~I think you're learning now. Good job! It may be difficult for you to admit that your government has been wrong and still making some hazardous mistakes. Maybe You want to believe Japanese government is not greedy. But the more you are studying history including Dokdo, the more disappointed you are by Japan's greed and impertinence. If you love your country, endeavor to correct Japan's ugly and obstructive attitudes



soudenjapan


About the lack of remorse Jens pointed out, I don't know if she is correct or not, but I do have an impression that there are feelings generally held amongst the Japanese public that Japan has already done enough and it is a past issue. I'm not sure if such feelings are reversible or not after 60 years of the end of WW II. I doubt it.

I personally wish that the Japanese hadn't done that which inflicted such an unbearable pain on Korean and Chinese people as well as on others in the world. I also wish that the Koreans hadn't failed to protect themselves, regardless of the surrounding geopolitical conditions at that time including the militaristic intention Japan's Imperial Army had back then.

As far as Dokdo/Takeshima issue is concerned, I believe that it has nothing to do with a revival of expansionist militarism in Japan. It is merely a long standing territorial dispute that always existed in the last 50 years. And the Korean government could resolve it in favor of its assertion rather quickly by merely going through a certain international procedure. Clearly it has nothing to do with a revival of anything or the lack of remorse on the Japanese side.




Jenn soudenjapan

Thank you for your comment!

I think you're not indifferent to history^^ Good! I hope you keep studying why other Asian countries including Korea and China, the closest neighboring countries are really indignant about Japan while Japanese claimed that Japan has already done enough and it is a past issue. On the contrary, I realized that Japanese government has never give up the imperialistic ideas, attitudes and ambition even since WW2 during the last week when I read and wrote comments looking into historical and legal background over Dokdo.

Now I am wondering what Koizmi has an eye on politically distorting history and raising an argument over Dokdo even though he knows Japan has no right over Dokdo.
You said that as far as Dokdo issue, it was merely a long standing territorial dispute.^^ That's what Japanese government wants! Your government just wants Japanese and world to believe that Dokdo issue is a territorial dispute and the solution is going to the ICS whatever the truth and evidence are. It's no wonder Japan tries to say go to the ICS although she knows Korea will never give her a chance^^ Doesn't it sound cool to say go to the ICS to people who doesn't know or doesn't study the background? Japanese government is just a wordmonger.

Dokdo is Korean territory and if you are still not sure, review the comments and research the Korean refutation as well as Japan's claim. You can know what the points are by comparing different standpoints.

I'm sure Japan is NOT enough to put herself on an equal footing with Korea over Dokdo. Japan is NOT in a position to say to go to the ICS with absurd evidence.




Jennifer to soudenjapan

finally I want to say that I really enjoyed the argument with you^^ It was a good chance for me to think about the relationship between Korea and Japan. I think Japan is still the close(geographically} but distant country. But I don't want to blame all Japanese people. I just think mostly japanese are likely to be indifferent and I wonder if there are civic groups in Japan to check the government and to corect the errors.
If you visit the museums in Korea like Independence Museums, War Museums, Seodaemun Prison History Hall where you can experience how Japanese killed and tortured Koreans, it'll help you to understand Far East Asia incluidng Korea and Japan.



soudenjapan

I do not believe that the Japanese public know much about what was happening in Korea back then. How Korean leaders, for instance, reacted to historical events that took place a hundred year ago. Detailed historical information from Korean viewpoints certainly help the Japanese get a new perspective with which to reevaluate the impact of the policies persued by the Imperial Japan at that time.

However, neither the detailed information provided at this website nor in this guestbook, while not underestimating its value, change the important fact that the South Korean government is clearly in violation of Japan-S.Korea (S.Korea-Japan) basic treaty signed by the our countries. Such an oppotunistic vilolation may be in interest of Korean people in short term. But it may not be in longer term because it could sooner or later backfire in ways that severely damage interest of the Koreans. I tend to be concerned about it. If you keep your promises others keep theirs. That's how treaties and other forms of international arrangements work in this world. If you don't keep your promises they don't either.



WEBMASTER to soudenjapan


To soudenjapan:
Thanks again for your input. You do indeed point out an issue that the Koreans need to think about. However, I don't think anyone is too concerned about the weight of the provisions of the Basic Relations Treaty, even most people in Japan. Remember the BRT was only really set up to facilitate Japanese investment in the ROK at a time when the Koreans were poor. That's my reading of the history of the issue, anyway. I do not believe that Korea is in "violation" of the treaty, but is only going against the SPIRIT of the agreement. You worry about it (and you may(?) be right). I don't worry about it, and neither do pretty much any Koreans. Personally, I think the Japanese has bigger fish to fry elsewhere. Think China(!)




soudenjapan to WEBMASTER

Thanks for your comment, Webmaster. Sure, it's up to Korean people, after all. But filled with surprises, as they say, life will never be that easy even for Koreans though. But then again, come to think of it, after all the Japanese too will experience once in a while difficulties with relations with other countries as well as in the goings of their own lives. So it may not necessarily be a bad deal for the Japanese to keep the right to use such a logic that can be utilized in their own advantage in the course of future relationship with the Korean people.




Jacob to soudenjapan

I think Japanese government is an extreme right wing. Japanese government has been distorting history and relationship with Korea and China provoking but not listening to other countries. Does Tokyo want a war again in East Asia?? Just look at Germany and study how she has been STILL trying to show remorse, compensate for her past trespass and behave
differently from Japan. If Japan repented of her crime, she wouldn't distort history and truth including Dokdo and history textbooks.
Shame on you!!




soudenjapan to Jacob

Jacob, I don't know what kind of compensation the German government still offers, but in the case of the compensation agreement between South Korea and Japan, it is clearly written in the Japan-Korea (Korea-Japan) Treaty that the compensation is thorough and completely closed, and no claim, no assertion of any form for further compensation for events that occurred before the day of the agreement are allowed to be raised in any manner between the two countries. Moreover, it was agreed too, I heard, that the compensation paid by the Japanese government to the Korean government would surely go to individuals, those who suffered during the WW II. But the South Korean government seems to have failed to keep the promise--it did not even tell the public about it until recently-- and consumed the money for other purposes.

I cannot speak for the Japanese people but my personal impression is that they do not know how to handle this compensation issue at this time for the conditions described above.

Of course one can say, as Webmaster did, that the treaty is not that politically important anymore to keep-- there must be some truth in the idea-- but in that case the South Koran government must declear first that it is officially getting out of the treaty with Japan. I don't believe that an oppotunistic approach should be taken which could damage the credibility of the honorable South Korean government.





Kim to soudenjapan

It is true that according to the basic treaty between Korea and Japan, every compesation was closed.
But this basic treaty had been kept by both Korean and Japanese governments as a top secret to public until recent years. I don't know why they tried to hide the contents of treaty.
But through some parts of the treaty which were opened to public recently, I can guess that in the agreements between Korea and Japan, there are some unmoral points.

Japan has insisted that every apology and compensation was ended by that treaty, even though new facts for which Japan should have apologized were found, Japan would not appologize and compensate for that. Maybe it's legal and valid.But I don't think it's a rightfull and moral idea. Of course it's just my opinion.

But nearly every year, some of Japanese top officers or politicians denied Japanese criminal acts(i.e comport women, workers who were forced to come to Japan and diied or killed during WW2 and many things in Korea, China and many asian nations) or sin in past years and even insisted that Japan had tried to keep Asia from western powers. It is sure that now even Japanese government itself tries to reorganize their history. But Fact is Fact!

I admit that in monetary compensation problem, Korean Government did wrong and was unmoral because they did not do what they had to do.
But Japanese government should appology sincerely for newely found sins and that's what Germany did.

You know, german ex-prime minister Billy Brand visied Poland knied in front of graves of victims during WW2 and appologied for german's sin in WW2. That moved people's hearts. Couldn't Japan move hearts of Korean, Chinese and the world citizens just like Germany did?(I mentioned 'apology', not 'compensation'.)
I'm sory that my words are too emotional and someone could think it's not reasonable.




Jenn to soudenjapan

soudenjapan, AS a japanese You must compare the attitudes toward neighboring countries(the victims) between Germany and Japan. You can gather information over Internet. what Koreans want is Japan's sincerity not hypocricy. I'm not saying about any treaty but her own heart.
Only Japanese people are not aware of What they did and what their government is doing and saying even though other countries can see and smell something terrible. How sad~!
If you want, I can introduce a Japanese woman who is gathering information, studying history
and requiring Japanese government to change errors and apologize deeply. I think if Japanese citizens are trying to know the truth and react appropriately although Japanese government was on the wrong track, I can find a hope of rebuilding the relationship based on trust for the next generation.




soudenjapan to Jennifer

Jennifer, I know that you want to expand the scope of this Dokdo/Takeshima issue into an issue with broader implication. That is a wrong approach, however. I don't believe the issue has anything to do with imperialism or nationalism. It simply is a legal dispute that has been going on for 50 years. At issue now is a legal clarification of the status of the islands. It is a highly technical matter whose judgment should be left out to experts in the relevant field, historians, international law experts.

As for textbook issue, I do not see changes of alarming nature are forth coming. But you are free to express your concerns about textbooks. I believe that it is better if they try more to integrate, in our history textbooks, viewpoints of other Asian peoples, not only Koreans and Chinese but also others like Taiwanees, Indonesians, Malaysians, Thais, etc. Some of them might be negative descriptions and others might be positive.

As for studying more about issues, if you have any information, I would be very much interested in reading deatiled descriptions of how they actually executed the alleged crime against so-called comfort women. I am especially interested in descriptions of the process of organizing 400,000 women, against their will, only by force, by abduction, without their cooperation, and these all done while nobody noticing it until 1980s. That sounds like a magic to me. But the magic could and may have actually happened. I have read some of horrific description of anecdotes, but I have never been informed of the whole system of the alleged crime.



Jenn to soudenjapan

soudenjapan! It depends on you If you believe that the issue has anything to do with imperialism or nationalism or not. But I don't agree with you. The issue can't be free from history(before and during WW2). At that time both imperialism and nationalism were core of Japan. Also your government is cling to them.

Every isuue like Dokdo, your history textbooks, sexual slavery, Japanese government attitudes toward the victims and so on is complicated connected. Without Imperialism and nationalism I can't understand why Japan is trying to make "dispute" over Dokdo on purpose.

Japan has no plausible evidence or background except invasion. Does Japan believe the invasion of Korea was right? And I'm skeptical about Japan's history education. Almost whenever I meet Japanese and talk about "the history", I really am surprised because usually Japanese have no idea what they did and they think they were and are OK. It looks too absurd.

While other countries who were the victims try to educate the detailed history, Japan, which was the assailant try to educate the less detailed one and skip something important like sexual slavery and justify or glorify the millitary attack. Always Japan's harmful attitudes make other Asian countries CRAZY.



Jenn to soudenjapan

soudenjapan~! If you visit the belowed sites, you can find information about sexual slavery(comfort women) in English or Japanese.

1)http://www.nanum.org
(you can choose Eng or jap)

2)http://www.womenandwar.net/english

3)http://www.jca.apc.org/JWRC





Kim to soudenjapan

This time I will just say the legal point.
First, was the Japan's annexation of Dokdo legal? According to the Japan's claim, Japan took the island because there was no country who owned that island and the island had not belonged to any other country untill 1905.

That also means Dokdo didn't belonged to Japan untill then. Therefore if Korea simply proves that the island was Korea's one at that time, all disputes over Dokdo would be ended. Is it right?
In 1900 as the Korean Emperor's order, Dokdo was declared officially as the territory of Korea. It was 5 years earlier than Japan. Of course Korea had Dokdo since ADv 512 and that declaration simfly chaged the name of island and confirmed that Dokdo was under Korean gorvenment's administative control, not an annexation.

Japan insisted that the island in that document was not Dokdo and Korea didn't know where Dokdo is and even existence of Dokdo.
But as I mentioned ahead, people in Ullung Island which is Korean territory can see Dokdo with bare eyes. It's impossible not to know of existence of Dokdo.

And in Korean documents in late 13C, they named Dokdo as Sambongdo(It means three peaks island.) and described the shape of Dokdo very accurately. Japan also insisted that Sambongdo meant Ulungdo. Of course Japan's insist is wrong because the describtion dosen't fit for Ulung at all.

As I told, Korean government had known the existence of Dokdo, and have control over that island. Therefore Japan's claim in 1905 was not effective and valid. And after WW2, Japan had to return it's all colonies which Japan occupied with violence and force. It is natural that Dokdo belongs to Korea because Dokdo was Korea's territory before Japan's annexation of Korea.




soudenjapan to Kim

Kim, the issues you raised are too technical for me to comment on. That is why those technical issues should be handled by experts, both Korean and Japanese. In the end the final judgment should be reached by independent, fair-minded group of people on which side of claim is more convincing and valid.

Jennifer, thanks for URL, but those are not the type of information I was looking for. But anyway I believe that there are some women who experienced such a unbearable hardship during that period of time. It is highly unlikely, however, that the Japanese government can do something for them to ease or overcome the phisical and psychological pains they still experience today. It is a legal issue, and I'm sure that there are Koreans who are waiting and demanding, but not getting, compensations from the Korean government. That is a fact of life.

Some people raised the issue of Japan's qualification for becoming a new U.N. Security Council member. I don't know whether or not Japan deserves a seat as a permanent member, but a great number of countries throughout the world say that Japan should be a member. I personally oppose to the idea itself that Japan makes further committment to the U.N., but it is good to know that surprisingly so many governments around the world put their trust and approval for Japan for what she's done all over the world in the last 60 years.