Thursday, February 16, 2006

I might as well vote for Kim Jung-il

Reuters: S.Korean foreign minister to run for top UN job (Feb 14)

I know what he says about the diplomatic issues between Korea and its neighbors: he's one of the typical Korean politicians who're refusing to talk over the territorial issue on Takeshima at the Hague. Any politician who doesn't pay respect to international law doesn't deserve the responsible position in the U.N.

Reuters also reports:

Ban said South Korea's spectacular rise from the ruins of war and its economic and political accomplishments mirror the ideals of the U.N. and thus make its candidate ideal for the job.

I think S.Korea should first consider performing its financial duty appropriate to its "accomplishments" which Ban is proud of.



At 16 February, 2006 19:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please read the following document compiled by Mark S. Lovmo:

At 17 February, 2006 01:59, Blogger Suika Dorobo said...

I already did last year, anonymous. Looks like the author of that page has the other half of the story left to study, but it won't be so hard for him to find out who's actually telling a lie, once he comes to realize Korea has thousands of Hwang Woo-suks in the field of history.

Anyway if Koreans like that page they could print it out and take it to the Hague: they'd have no reason they have to stay away from the court if they were confident of their claim. It's a pity they're just wasting their time instead, shouting around in front of Japanese embassy every week, burning Japanese national flags, breaking into a Japanese prefectual assembly with knives in their hands, making cyber attacks to the websites who describes "dokdo" as "Takeshima", etc, etc.

Now back to Ban. Can you imagine this anti-Japan government leader could ever ask Japan for supporting his candidacy? That's not all: Koreans are asking the same thing to US, while they've been opposing US human right law on N.Korea, and even worse, they're refusing to support UN resolution for human rights in N.Korea every year, thereby helping the N.Korean gangster survive.

At 31 March, 2006 09:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact of the matter is that Dokdo belongs to the Koreans. The Japanese have always lameted the fact that their territory was surrounded by water and that there was no inlet into a continent. The entire population of Japan should be imploring to the Chinese, the Koreans and the rest of the Asian population for what they have done during the WWII.

At 27 April, 2006 12:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why Won't the Koreans Take Up Japan´s Offer to Bring the Dokdo Issue before the ICJ?

Really, why hasn´t the Republic of Korea taken up Japan´s offer to take the Dokdo dispute before the International Court of Justice (ICJ)? After all, it seems only natural that if the Koreans believe that they have a legitimate claim to Dokdo, they should be more than willing to submit to arbitration by an authoritative and objective international organization such as the ICJ.

A few things to keep in mind about the ICJ: A territorial dispute can only be brought to the ICJ if both countries involved in the dispute agree to settle it there. Korea sees no reason to take the sovereignty of Dokdo before the ICJ, so the Japanese cannot have their day in court. Also, as the rulings from the ICJ do not have any legal force, neither country has to heed the judgement of the Court. Therefore, if either Japan or Korea (or both) do not like the decision handed down by the ICJ, they could simply ignore it. Taking a dispute to the ICJ is akin to a "gentleman´s agreement", and there is no guarantee that either the Korean or Japanese government would follow an ICJ ruling that was not in their favor. As responsive as these two governments are to public opinion in their respective countries on this issue, it is really hard to believe that either government would respect a ruling on the sovereignty of Dokdo that would go against popular national opinion. So much for the ICJ...

Even if an ICJ ruling over Dokdo could be respected and accepted by the public and governments of both countries, there are serious mitigating circumstances that would make the Koreans rethink the wisdom of taking the issue to the ICJ. If past decisions of the ICJ are taken into account, it seems the ICJ does not take into consideration the concept of imperialist aggression, nor does it weigh judgements heavily on historical background. Two cases brought before the ICJ are instructive:

The Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (1953) between The U.K. and France has been pointed out as similar to the dispute over Dokdo. The Miniquiers and Ecrehos are uninhabited reefs off the coast of northern France. Britain and France agreed in the 13th century that these reefs would belong to France. The French did not take any administrative action to formally incorporate the islands, assuming that they were naturally French territory. Later in the 1800s, Britain saw the fishing value of the islands and began to use them and to take administrative action to recognize them as British territory. When the two nations took the issue to the ICJ, the Court took into account the administrative steps that Britain had taken and their detailed instances of "effective occupation" since the 19th century. The French had the claim of historical legitimacy, but the ICJ ruled in favor of the U.K. because France´s failure to lodge a protest was decided to be an abandonment of its territorial rights. Likewise in the case of Dokdo, the ICJ might rule that Korea was negligent in keeping its rights to the islets, following the precedent of the Minquiers and Ecrehos Case. This is especially true if the Court cannot take into consideration the concept of imperialist aggression (i.e. the fact that the Japanese Empire took over the foreign affairs of Korea in 1906, thereby not allowing an effective Korean protest to the Japanese takeover of Dokdo).

The other case that may help us understand why Korea won´t go before the ICJ is that of the Preah Vihear Temple Case (1962) between Thailand and Cambodia. Thailand and French Indochina agreed to a demarcation of their common border, and the Preah Vihear Temple was to be on the Thai side of the border as stipulated by treaty. However, when the Thai King commissioned the French military to make a map to be attached to the treaty, the temple was shown on the Cambodian side of the border. The Thais considered the error a minor one and did not correct it, thinking that as the treaty clearly mentioned that the temple would be in Thai territory, the error would not be problematic. When brought before the ICJ, the case was decided in favor of Cambodia, since the Thais had not requested correction of the map and had themselves distributed copies of the map. Again, the ICJ´s view was that the country that did not speak up to correct something that they did not agree with was the one to be punished. This is particularly troubling since the Court put more importance on a map and not the treaty the two states had signed. One can also see how the ICJ again did not take into consideration the actions of an imperialist power.

Such precedents would not bode well for the Koreans if they decided to take the Dokdo issue before the ICJ. If Japan were in Korea´s position, if the shoe were on the other foot, nobody would expect that Japan would be willing to go to the ICJ considering the nature of that court. The Japanese Foreign Ministry is well aware of the nature of the court and of Japan´s potential advantage before the ICJ. The Koreans rightfully will not take the ICJ into consideration; instead they state that Dokdo is actually NOT a disputed island, since they are not the ones arguing over its sovereignty. The situation is just that of Japan wanting something that is not theirs.

At 28 April, 2006 07:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duika Dorobo, if you say there are thousands of people like Hwang Woo-Suk in Korea, I have to argue that Japan has more than those of Korea and they are more cruel and absurd people. So, I say that he would find out Japan as such a biggest liar. And, how sad to see such a fatuous person like you. Have you learned to respect and not to be hipocritical against others that you do not know of?

You say that Koreans aren't confident but I need to tell you that Koreans are confident. It's just that it's kind of funny to go to the court and claim that Dokdo is Korea's island when it already is as it was since a long time ago. What I'm wondering is that why aren't Japanese going to the court that Dokdo belongs to them. And, if Dokdo is Japan's land(such a nonsense I've heard of) why wouldn't any other countries help you fight Korean government? Isn't this the international era of the history where all people are connected to each other?

You would never understand the way Koreans are actingbecause you're Japanese - aren't you? I don't expect Japanese people to understand what Koreans are thinking because they just can't. Have you ever seen your family, friends, neighbors, teachers, or any other person dying by foreigners' hands? Have you ever seen people's ear and nose cut by foreigners' hands? Have you ever seen people buried alive by foreigners' hands? Have you ever changed your name into some other foreign language because you have to? Have you ever live in the world where you can't even express your pride for your own country? Have you ever experienced your leader being killed and some foreigner ruling and controlling over you? Have you ever seen your kids dying from starvation when foreigners' babies are healthy and chubby? Have you ever been raped all day by so many foreigners? Have you ever been tortured for what you didn't do? Have you ever been in the war with your own people? Have your country ever been divided into half because some other foreigners got involved in the cold war? That's what Koreans saw and experienced when Japan was occupying Korea and afterward. You would never know what was left of them. You would never understand why Koreans can't hate North Koreans although they don't share so many ideas. Young people of Japan would never know what had happened and what is the real truth because Japan has taught them wrong history. It's very sad to hear that people are raised that way.

Here are just few reasons why Dokdo belongs to Korea
1. In 1900, Dokdo which was part of Uljin-hyun, was officially incorporated into Kangwondo as an attached island of Ullung-kun according to royal decree no. 41 by King Kojong. This is 5 years earlier than Japan's claim to have incorporated Dokdo to Shimane in 1905.
2. In Cairo Declaration, it promised that the land given to Japan by coercion and violence will be given back to Korea; Dokdo was owned by Japanese at the time of invation thus, Japan should give up on Dokdo.
3. Japan's feudal government, the shogunate, agreed the owndership of Dokdo to Korea; found from the visist of AhYongBok.
4. Dokdo is located some 87km east of South Korea's Ullungdo while it is 157km northwest of Oki, Japan's westernmost island; As for geopolitic, Dokdo belongs to Korea which is nearer by almost half of the distance between Japan and Dokdo.
5. Usan(Dokdo) of Ullungdo was estimated to be established by native wanderers but It was returned to Shilla after 6C A.D
6. The name Ullungdo was established and the name Usan was transferred to the attached island, Dokdo. In Kangwondo Uljinhyunjo, a map compiled in 1432, it is recorded that, "two islands, Usan and Mureung, are in the center of Jungdong Sea in Uljin-hyun". This makes it clear that there are two islands named Mureung and Usan in the East Sea.
7. In 1694, Jang Hansang, an official of Samcheok, published a book with records of the discovery of an island a third of the size of Ullungdo about 730 miles from Ullungdo. The Japanese claim that Ullung and Usan both refer to Ullungdo, but Korea already knew of Ullungdo and Dokdo in the 17th century. The precise location of Ullungdo and Usando are shown in the < Dongkuk Geography > by Jung Sangik in the 18th century.In maps from the end of the Chosun Period, Usando is always shown next to Ullungdo.
8. The complete map of Shimane Prefecture contained in the folding map, which was created in 1910, indeed did not include Dokdo. `Complete Map of Great Chosun' and the `Gangwondo' contained in the folding map of Chosun (all 11 pages), which are presumed to be created in the 1890's in this country clearly contained the Dokdo under the name of 'Wusan.'


Post a Comment

<< Home