The first article is from Naito Seitsu honourary Professor of Shimane University. In his interview with the Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo he describes why he feels the Korean claim to Dokdo has validity.
Chosun Ilbo: "You've said Korea's claims to the islets (Dokdo) have some basis..."
Naito Seitsu: "Even within Japan, there are many materials printed prior to WWII supporting the claim that Dokdo Islets are Korean territory. The Japanese Foreign Ministry just doesn't put those materials on its homepage..."
Chosun Ilbo: "What are the reasons for your views that the islets are Korean?"
Naito Seitsu: "Toward the end of the 1600s, Japan and Chosun (Korea) conducted discussions in Busan about sovereignty over the Dokdo and Ulleungdo Islands. At the end of the discussions, Japan recognized that the islands were Korean territory and in 1696 banned travel to Ulleung Island. Currently the Japanese government is claiming that it banned travel to Ulleung Island but not Dokdo Islets. In fact, Japanese couldn't go to either Ulleung or Dokdo. There were fishermen who went there clandestinely, but among fishermen it was understood that Dokdo Islets were Korean..."
Naito Seitsu takes a scholarly approach to his views. Like many Koreans, he too asserts Dokdo Island was thought to be Korean territory after Ulleungdo was "ceded" to Korea after the An Yong Bok Incident.
Japanese Scholar of Russo~Korean History
Excerpts from the Japanese Scholar Wada Haruki News Article
"...The Dokdo - Takeshima problem is not a territorial dispute between two sovereign states but a problem rooted in the historical relationship between the two countries..."
"The Dokdo - Takeshima problem is dfferent in character from the Northern Islands problem between Russia and Japan. The Dokdo - Takeshima problem involves a long-standing contest between Japan and Korea over some uninhabited rocky islands. It was during the Russo - Japanese War of 1904~1905, that Japan gave the name Takeshima to the islands, and this became one link in the process of colonization by which all of Korea was controlled, turned into a protectorate, and then assimilated..."
"...Discussions at various levels are called for, including especially those of academic specialists. Shimane Prefectural University has a Northeast Asia Research Center, a prefectural think tank for regional cooperation. It is an astonishing contradiction for the prefectural assembly to have promoted a resolution (Takeshima Day) showing such ignorance of history and so lacking in diplomatic sensitivity. .."
Wada Haruki rightfully admonished Shimane Prefecture for not recognizing past war aggressions, harshly criticizing Japan's Takeshima Day Declaration of February 2005.
Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima in 1905
Excerpts from Kazuo Hori's 'Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima in 1905'
"...In the final analysis, the incorporation of Takeshima/Tokdo was similar to the military actions Japan took in many other parts of Korea at that time for the execution of the war, by infringing upon Korea' s sovereignty. Only, it took advantage of an individual fisherman who sought to monopolize the fishing grounds and did not end at its occupation but took the form of its incorporation. If Japan's military occupation of the Korean Peninsula was the prerequisite for the "annexation of Korea.."
"... In other words, Korea' s central government, local Ullungdo County Chief and civilians all considered Japanese incorporation of Takeshima/Tokdo as aggression at that time. But, by that time, Japan had virtually started colonial rule over Korea, by establishing the Residency-General in Korea. That is why no further development could be made within the Korean government to cope with the problem of Takeshima/Tokdo. As the entire country was being robbed of its sovereignty and vanishing, the problem of the owner- ship of a small rocky island was hurled away. However, that the Korean people clearly raised objection to the Japanese action of incorporating Takeshima/Tokdo is a decisively important fact worthy of historical evaluation...."
"...However, the Japanese government did not take any concrete measures while the Japanese trespassing on Ullungdo continued ceaselessly. The Korean government repeatedly protested. As the Japanese government feared that this might develop into a diplomatic dispute, Japanese Ministries of Home Affairs and Justice each issued an unofficial notification banning voyages to Ullungdo.
In September 1883, the Japanese government directly sent a secretary of the Home Ministry and a ship to pull out the Japanese on Ullungdo and forcibly brought back all of the 254 Japanese engaged in logging. This was the first diplomatic negotiation the Japanese government conducted on Ullungdo. Chosenkoku utsuryoto e hojin toko kinshino ken (On the Prohibition of Japanese Voyages to Ullungdo of Korea) Nihon gaiko bunsho (Japanese Diplomatic Docu- ments), Yols. 14, 15, 16. Those Japanese withdrawn from the island were all criminals of illegal departure from Japan and illegal trading, but they were all released after being judged not guilty. It is noteworthy that the Japanese Foreign Ministry at that time raised an objection to the acquittal of all of them out of consideration for the Korean government on the matter..."
"...A territorial problem should be examined individually and thoroughly from a historical viewpoint. In the case of Tokdo/Takeshima, the word "historical" should include the direct process leading to the incorporation of the island and also what kind of relationship Japan had with Korea in 1905..."
For a thorough historical study of the Dokdo - Takeshima dispute from the Japanese perspective Kazuo Hori's article is a must-read. The PDF version of his 1997 Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima in 1905 can be found here.
Kazuo Hori's 1997 Article.
'The Question of Takeshima - Dokdo
