Newsletter

On February 22, 2013, the Shimane Prefecture (島根縣) of Japan held the 8th so-called 'Takhesima (竹島· Japanese name of Dokdo) Day' event. A senior government official attended this event for the first time, the one from the Cabinet Office, Government of Japan with the title of 'official in charge of ocean policy/territorial issues.' As many as 20 lawmakers, the largest number of all time, including those who also serve as government officials, also attended. What is 'Takeshima' anyway? It is Korean territory Dokdo, of course. It was in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese War that Japan declared, 'From now on, we will call Dokdo Takeshima.' Up until then, Japan had called Dokdo 'Matsushima (松島)' or 'Liancourt Rocks.' Why did the Japanese government name Dokdo 'Takeshima'? Couldn't it be that Japan had deep-rooted wistful feelings for the name 'Takeshima?' In fact, Japan has a special history surrounding the name 'Takeshima?'

Japan's Special History Surrounding the Name 'Takeshima'

In the late 17th century, Korea and Japan engaged in a sovereignty dispute over Ulleungdo. This incident is referred to as the 'Ulleungdo Boundary Dispute (鬱陵島爭界)' in Korean history, and the 'Takeshima Incident (竹島一件)' in Japanese history. This shows that Ullengdo was known to the Japanese of the time as 'Takeshima'. In 1696, after three years of heated debate, the Japanese government conceded that 'Takeshima (Ulleungdo) belonged to Joseon (Korea).' It was a decision 'for the sake of amity between Korea and Japan because Ulleungdo is closer to Korea and has never been part of Japan.' The Edo shogun (江戶幕府) of Japan posted the warning sign in every town that "crossing the sea (渡海) to 'Takeshima (Ulleungdo)' is banned." In 1837, there was even an incident where the man named 'Hachiemon' who sneaked into Ulleungdo for fishing was executed. In 1877, Daijō-kan, the institution at the highest level of Japan's Meiji (明治) government, remembering the 1696 decision, even issued the edict that 'neither Ulleungdo nor Dokdo is Japanese territory.' However, 'Takeshima' began to meet with trouble slowly but surely. In 1876, once Japan forced Korea to enter into the Treaty of Gwanghwa, a large number of Japanese infiltrated into Ulleungdo and committed unauthorized logging. Some Japanese even submitted a request for exploration, as if Ulleungdo were a newly discovered island. In 1880, the Japanese government sent the battleship Amagi for direct investigation of Ulleungdo. In the process, Japan learned that there was the real 'Takeshima' somewhere else which was Korean territory. It is an island known to Koreans for a long time as the 'Island of Bamboo,' also known as 'Daesom' or 'Jukdo,' and located in the sea off the Jeodong town in Ulleungdo. 'Jukdo' (Daesom) reads 'Takeshima' in Japanese.

Japan's Obsession with 'Takeshima' in Breach of Trust with Its Neighbor

In 1900, Emperor Gojong, through Imperial Decree No. 41, ordered that the governor of Ulleungdo should have jurisdiction over 'Ulleungdo, Jukdo (Daeseom), and Seokdo (Dokdo). Ridiculously, all the three islands had been either called 'Takeshima' or forcibly named so in Japanese history. In the 100th year after the end of the Russo-Japanese War, which was a war to ravage the Korean Peninsula, Japan designated 'Takeshima Day,' and is using what is called the acts of 'incorporating Dokdo into Japanese territory,' which were nothing but 'paper acts,' in swaying public opinion.

'For those who instigate 'Takeshima Day,' does Takeshima really mean nothing but Dokdo? Japan once revealed in public that they were still obsessed with the old 'Takeshima (Ulleungdo).' In 1947, the Japanese Foreign Ministry sent the U.S. State Department, which was initiating the San Francisco Peace Treaty, a PR material pleading them to include the old 'Takeshima'(Ulleungdo) and the new 'Takeshima (Dokdo)' in Japanese territory. However, Japan had already given up 'Takeshima and another island'(Ulleungdo and Dokdo) as early as ub the late 17th century, and confirmed it once again in the late 19th century.

Nevertheless, there are still some people in Japan who cling to the illusion of 'Takeshima' through 'Takeshima Day.' How much longer will they continue to obsess with 'Takeshima' in breach of trust with their neighbor from time immemorial? Would it be too much of a dream to expect the Japanese leaders of this generation to be as wise as their ancestors who declared that 'Takeshima belonged to Joseon (Korea)'?"