Award Winning Works of 4th Int’l Essay Contest on Dokdo Prize

Rhetoric against (dirty) ‘Claims’

Kwon Sun-chang An atheist, a debater, and an admirer of nature and science, Kwon Sun-chang is one of the many individuals who are interested in territorial disputes. He has his own manifested beliefs and philosophy. However he is also open and willing to accept the fact that his ideas are falsifiable.

Heate debate, a one-sided argument, and senseless nationalismhave spurred the controversial issue to the worst predicament possible. The territorial dispute between Korea and Japan over the Dokdo islet has reached its peak and is now a global issue. To be straight to the point, as a proud Korean, I have a resilient belief that Korea’s sovereignty over Dokdo is legitimate.

A personal and subjective claim, however, will only exacerbate the situation. Therefore, it is critical that our premise of thought must be to acknowledge historical records and to consolidate our logic based on “facts.” Only with this thought in mind can Koreans effectively approach the third parties with correct data as well as the viewpoint of Korea.

There’s a stark contrast between attitudes towards the dispute. Whereas Japan shows a relatively cool-minded and objective approach, Koreans often get emotional and carried away. This phenomenon lies at the very heart of this territorial dispute.

Since the Japanese public and the government are relatively aware that their probability of success is low, the Japanese people are not that serious about the dispute. Rather, the Japanese have nothing to lose and are therefore enjoying a risk-free game.

On the contrary, if the Senkaku Islands were at stake, Japan’s attitude would be quite the contrast to that of the care-free and easygoing attitude they’re currently showing towards Korea. Whereas defending the rights of Dokdo has a significant meaning to us with the territorial dispute, Dokdo has become the symbol of sovereignty and independence.

During the 20th century, Japan’s annexation of the Dokdo island in the year 1905 was executed during phase 1. Five years later, phase 2 took place with the entire peninsula at the hands of Imperialist Japan. Whenever Japan utters sovereignty over Dokdo, it feels as though Japanese suppressionhasn’t come to an end.

The very act of claiming Dokdo as a territory of Japan symbolically means that Korea’s independence is a partial one (our territorial domain is restricted to that of phase 1). There’s no way Koreans can be rational with this idea in mind. It’s just not possible.

Korea’s reluctant attitude towards submitting to ICJ (International Court of Justice) may also seem unconvincing and “fishy” towards the third party. However, this view is greatly distorted for the following reason: Although Korea is unwilling to be judged by the ICJ, it does not mean Koreais afraid of legal confrontations. It just means Korea is not comfortable with going to ICJ, a particular court of law.

With ICJ governing the territorial dispute, Japan has two clear head starts. First, prominent Japanese judges are on the ICJ council whereas Korea has none. To me Japan’s suggestion seems as sly as that of a fox.

Japanese politicians claim a peaceful resolve regarding the territorial disputes through ICJ when they clearly have no guts to have legal confrontations with China and Russia. China and Russia have affiliated judges inside the ICJ headquarters.

Considering this fact, Japan has no intention to go to ICJ without a clear advantage. If Japan was really interested in justice and setting things straight I’d like to see the Japanese government challenge the above mentioned countries under the jurisdiction of ICJ.

Secondly, ICJ is a renowned court for valuing conservative interest groups and ideas. With this fact in mind, Japan is secretly hoping that ICJ might as well value the laws of the past imperialist Japan equally legal and legitimate to that of present day laws.

There are several historical episodes that bolster Korea’s rights over the island. In the year 1905, when Japan secretively took the stance of action of DTA (Domain Transfer Action), the Korean government was unaware of it. By the time Japan took control of diplomatic rights of Korea, Japanhad sent an official to the Dokdo islands.

The official’s claim is evident in the records of both countries’ newspapers and related documents alike. The wise old man foolishly admits Korea’s sovereignty by stating “‘Dokdo’ has now ‘become’ a territorial domain of Japan.” Of all the countries on earth, which government would find thenecessity of stating the blatant bullying with an official declaration.

With this inconvenient truth, the contemporary Japanese government says the following. “There is no original copy of the record, so the authenticity is of question.” Also, An Yong-bok’s personal heroic episode does not seem to convince the third parties as much as our government previously thought. The main reason is because foreigners “emphasizes” the criminal record of An Yong-bok.

Back then illegally trespassing another country without the king’s approval was given the most gruesome punishment. Since his questionable “tale” of fending off the Japanese fisherman from Dokdo and arriving in Japan for further argument and acquisition were all obtained via physical interrogation, using An’s episode may seem invalid to the eyes of the third party.

Technically speaking however, the Korean (朝鮮) government’s action towards An’s personal judgments were quite optimistic. Without public consensus, regardless of nobility and rank, forming them through commoners like An and even the elites of the government would have been difficult. An’s statement wouldn’t have been officially documented.

This episode clearly shows that our ancestors had a resolute and consoli-dated territorial sovereignty over Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Also, in regards to An’s defense, there’s still a good reason why he should be trusted. His crime was not that of a savage outlaw. Hypothetically speaking, it couldalso be seen as “ignoring the traffic lights and running through the roadway in order to catch a thief” although unfortunately, trespassing was dealt with the strictest charges “back then.”

The Japanese government also intentionally neglects the historical record of 1900 which states that “henceforth, Dokdo island is an affiliated province of Ulleungdo,” and Dokdo being written as Seokdo (石島) earned the Japanese an excuse to claim territorial sovereignty. This statementhowever is clearly a trickery.

The term Dokdo first appeared in the records of 1906. Then how couldthe word “Dokdo” possibly be used in an official document written in 1900? The people of Ulleungdo called Dokdo a stone island (독섬&돌섬) which had to be written as “Seokdo (石島)” and pronounced “Dokdo.” If Japan were to argue the sovereignty of Dokdo than the Japanese government has to come up with a suitable substitute to claim as Seokdo.

Whenever Japanese historians confront the word Seokdo (Dokdo) written in the historical records of Korea they deny it to be Dokdo and create a fantasy illusion near Ulleungdo. As a figure of speech, if I were to say “What is the brightest light found in the midnight sky that is compatibleto that of the sun?” it’d be common sense to hypothetise the moon. However, the emboldened Japanese government would probably disagree with this fact with great “persistence.”

Recently, Japanese and Korean professors of East Asian history met inorder to further discuss and if possible, resolve the dispute. However, Japan has cowardly formed a new chronological logic that seems to contradict the past claims in order to abruptly get away with the current predicament.

The contemporary claim goes as the following : “Dokdo was and still isJapan’s territorial domain even before 1905 when DTA took place. The Japanese government included Dokdo as a province of Shimane Prefecture (시마네현).” PNT (Perspective as National Territory) was a supportive measure to bolster DTA during the aftermath of WWII, a time when imperialism and ambition for colonies came to an abrupt end with the loss of the war.

Again, as a figure of speech, Japan’s statement could be the same as saying “I found an orphan so I raised him.” However, after being captured for kidnapping the child, the kidnapper allegedly claims that “I have and always have been taking care of him ever since.” If so, Japan has to clearlyprove ever since “when” and the reason for telling a lie in the first place.

As a Korean, I believe the Japanese government should be the target of contempt. However, it seems as though Japan feels fighting for Dokdo is worth all the ruckus they’re causing. Japan has a lot to gain with Dokdo in their hands.

The most important reason is because of the expansion of the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone). With the thousands of islands scattered around Japan, the EEZ of Japan is formed by lining up all of the islands. Therefore, obtaining Dokdo means a larger EEZ for Japan.

For the benefit of the variety of fish caught near Dokdo due to the convergence of the warmer and colder current, Japan cannot easily give up on the little piece of island. Also, military wise, Dokdo is an essential base to have.

Japan may feel secure and find it easier to activate emergency militarydrills when an enemy executes an assault from the Pacific Ocean. The above mentioned details discourage me from feeling unconditional hate towards Japan. However, the fact remains that the empathy I have towardsJapan is of the utmost minimum.

Fighting for legal rights is a noble creed. On the other hand, fighting savagely, cleverly, and in an unprofessional way for greed and national interest is far from noble. Although the dispute shows no signs of improvement, both countries will reach an agreement in time.