Monday, October 30, 2006

The myth of Dokdo voluntary army---there was no hero

The following is the rough summary of the
The story of Dokdo voluntary righteous fighters was found false, distorted:There was no hero.
It was claimed by the official record in the Dokdo museum that
1)the voluntary army was formed to protect Dokdo between 1954 and 1956.
2)They fought against Japanese several times to protect Dokdo.

In truth it was in active just for 8 months at most and its main activity was to collect seaweed and there was no battle.


I think it is good that Korean people themselves has come to see the truth. That is a sign of mature culture.
All they need to do is collect empirical date and use logic to find the truth.
Sometimes their ultranationalism distort their interpretation, and the interpretation , in essence , is subject to vary but I think they will finally find out the crucial truth; that there is absolutely no map, no document that support their interpretation.
The point is how they react, when the whole truth comes out, to the fact that Korean government and historians have been deceiving its people.


한국전쟁의 혼란 속에서 사재를 털고 목숨을 걸며 3년 8개월간 독도를 지킨 것으로 알려진 독도의용수비대. 하지만 최근 이들의 활약이 과장·왜곡됐다며 "이제는 역사를 바로잡아야 한다"는 증언이 나오고 있습니다. 당시 독도 수비는 독도의용수비대가 아니라 국립경찰이 도맡아했다는 것입니다. <오마이뉴스>는 바른 '독도수호사(獨島守護史)'를 후세에 남기기 위해 3차례에 걸쳐 이같은 사실을 보도합니다. <편집자 주>

전직 경찰들 "고작 2~3개월 경비... 미역 캐러 가놓고 경비라니"

그렇다면 독도에 상주하며 경비했다고 알려진 나머지 기간 동안의 독도의용수비대의 활동은 무엇일까. 당시 상황을 기억하는 울릉도의 노인들은 "제주도 해녀들과 함께 미역을 채취했던 게 고작"이라고 입을 모았다.

1953년부터 울릉경찰서 경사로 10여 차례 독도 경비대장을 맡았던 최헌식(85세·경북 울릉군)씨는 "홍순칠 대장이 미역캐러 다닌 것은 나이든 울릉도 사람들이 다 안다"고 말했다.

"홍 대장이 남긴 다큐멘터리 수기를 봤는데, 3년 8개월 동안 독도를 지켰다는 기록은 95%가 거짓말이다. 울릉도 사람들한테 물어보면 '자기(홍 대장)가 언제 독도 지키러 갔느냐, 미역캐러 다녔지'라는 말이 대부분이다. 순 엉터리다."

최헌식씨는 "1954년 7월 울릉경찰서가 예산을 들여 독도 초소를 짓고 8월 말부터 경비를 시작했다"며 "독도의용수비대가 경비를 했다고 주장하더라도 고작 2~3개월 밖에 안했다"고 지적했다.

울릉도 등에서 경찰관 생활을 한 뒤 경북 포항시에서 은퇴 생활을 하고 있는 박병찬(79세)씨도 "홍 대장은 독도 서도에 30여 명을 데리고 가서 미역을 캐는 일을 했다"고 전했다.

결국 홍순칠 대장이 1953년 4월 20일부터 독도의용수비대를 창설해 1956년 12월까지 3년 8개월 동안 독도를 지켰다는 지금까지의 기록은 사실과 많이 달랐던 셈이다.

그나마 독도의용수비대가 독도를 지키며 경비업무에 도움을 준 것은 길게 잡아도 8개월. 나머지 기간은 울릉도 최대 이권사업인 미역채취에만 전념했다는게 생존자들의 증언이다.2006-10-30
2006 OhmyNews

"일본군하고 총격전? 없었어요. 새까만 거짓말이에요. 그랬으면 전쟁났지…."

지난 9월 29일 경북 포항에서 만난 독도의용수비대의 '독도수호 전투사(戰鬪史)'를 묻자 박병찬(79세)씨는 대번에 손사래부터 치고 나왔다. 1954년부터 울릉경찰서 경찰관으로 독도경비를 했던 그는 "일본 순시선은 먼 바다에서 동태만 살피고 돌아갔을 뿐 보이지도 않았다"고 과거를 회상했다.
去る 9月 29日慶北浦項で会った独島義勇守備隊の '独島守護戦闘社(戦闘史)'を問うとバックビョングチァン(79歳)さんは一遍にソンサレから打って出た.1954年から鬱陵警察で警察官で竹島警備を した彼は "日本巡視船は遠い海で動態だけ察して帰っただけ見えなかった"と過去を回想した.

현재까지 '사실'로 기록된 독도의용수비대의 전공은 꽤나 화려하다. ①일본 수산고등학교 실습선 하도마루호 나포(1953년 6월) ②일본 순시선 해구라호 발포 위협(1953년 7월) ③일본 경비정 3척 격퇴(1954년 4월) ④일본 순시선 오키호 총격전으로 격퇴(1954년 8월 23일) ⑤일본 순시선 3척, 항공기 1대 발포 격퇴(1955년 11월) 등 수차례에 걸친 전투를 벌였다는게 공식 역사다.
現在まで '事実'に記録された独島義勇守備隊の専攻はかなり華麗だ.①日本水産高等学校実習では荷島床号拿捕(1953年 6月) ②日本巡視船ヘグラホ発砲脅威(1953年 7月) ③日本警備艇 3尺撃退(1954年 4月) ④日本巡視船Oki号銃撃戦で撃退(1954年 8月 23日) ⑤日本巡視船 3尺,航空機 1台発砲撃退(1955年 11月) など何回にかけた戦闘をしたと言うのが公式歴史だ..2006-10-19 22:22 OhmyNews

Should Japan go nuclear?

Ito Kan thinks so. In his book "China's nuclear will control the world" he argues:
1 China will economically and militarily will be the equal power to the US in 2020 and China will take the hegemony in Asia .(It is wrong, like some of Japanese "wishful thinkers" , to consider China will collapse. China has the hidden ambition and China has politics and technology and patience to achieve it.)

2 Japan needs to go nuclear to counter it if she does not wants to go under Chinese rule because
(1) Neither MDsystem* nor nuclear umbrella will be of help to Japanese security;for, the effectiveness of the MD system is doubtful and no country bothers to launch a nuclear weapon,risking the huge cost. just because the ally was attacked by a nuclear weapon.
(2) Under the circumstance where Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is not functioning since there is no sign that the NPT-recognized nuclear weapon states will go nonnuclear, it is useless, unrealistic and hypocritical to say it is against the spirit of the treaty to go nuclear.
(3)It will be much cheaper than MD system.

3 Though Japan-US alliance is important, don't trust the Democratic Party in the US too much; China has had traditionally strong influence over it.

*Related links
A Far-Off Dream?
Two successive failures reflect vulnerabilities in US missile defense effortRude awakening to missile-defense dream
Missile-Defense System Critic Ted Postol Says He's A Target
この本はお薦めです。てか、今日買ってさっき読み終わったばかりですが、単なる右翼でも左翼思想でもありません。上記に紹介した以外にも面白い論点が沢山あります。右翼といえば、この前日米開戦の真実 大川周明著『米英東亜侵略史』を読み解くも本屋でみかけたときは右翼の雄叫びかとも思いましたが読んでみると著者の冷静な読解により現代にも活かせる内容になって大変面白かったです。ついでに、昨日読んだ本で戦争の日本近現代史―東大式レッスン!征韓論から太平洋戦争までもその時代に生きた人の認識に即した歴史の読解がまあまあ面白かったってところでしょうか。著者はちょっぴりフーコーを意識しているようです。日米開戦について他に沢山著書もあるからといって著者が手をつけなかったのは残念。

Saturday, October 28, 2006

The fake caption

The caption can be deceiving.

This photograph was utilized by Nationalist China for wartime propaganda. It appears in the Riguan Baohang Shilu 日寇暴行實錄, which was published by the Politburo of the Military Committee of the the Nationalist government in 1938. The caption reads:

The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang runs this photo with the caption: "The Japanese rounded up thousands of women. Most of them were gang raped or forced into military prostitution." Her photo credit reads "Politburo of Military Committee, Taipei." In a response to criticism of her use of the picture, Chang said:

The real caption of the original source was the following.
The caption of the photo is:
A group of women and children of the "Rising Sun" Village returning to the village from work in protection by our soldiers

In evening [villagers] happily return to their houses from white cotton field

Evil Japan discovered again!!

일제에 의해 왜곡된 화성행궁
수원화성사업소가 최근 화성행궁 앞에서 발견해 27일 공개한 옛 하천인 명당수의 호안석축. 일제가 화성행궁의 기운을 약화시키기 위해 조선시대 방식이 아닌 일본의 전통방식으로 석축을 마름모 형태로 쌓았다./지방/-지방기사 참조-/화성사업소 제공 2006.10.27 (수원=연합뉴스)
(수원=연합뉴스) 김인유 기자 = 일제가 민족정기 말살을 위해 수원 화성행궁(華城行宮) 앞을 흐르던 명당수의 물길과 유속을 바꾸고 하천 석축의 폭도 줄인 것으로 드러났다.
Rough Translation
Trying to get rid of Korea's energy and luck, Japanese empire changed the course of the sewer in front of Hwaseong and used ilonzege form of the blocks, which is a Japanese style, insead of in a Korean way.

via 木村幽閉記

Well, I have nothing to say. The followings are other links to show how Japan was evil.

Evil Japanese changed Corea to Korea
Korea versus Corea
Evil Japanese spiked Korea Japan's Cruel Imperial Past Revealed

Friday, October 27, 2006

The dark side of Japan --- Burakumin

Japan Probe has an insightful story to tell about the dark side of Japan---the discrimination of Burakumin.
He also provides the useful links Buraku Liberation News/wiki

I was brought up in Tokyo, and I am living at Tokyo, So I am not so familiar with the issue.(The distribution of discriminated communities varied greatly from region to region. No discriminated communities were identified in the following prefectures: Hokkaido, Aomori, Iwate, Miyagi, Akita, Yamagata, Fukushima, Tōkyō, Toyama, Ishikawa and
So let me warn you that the following opinion of mine comes from the one who belongs to the majority and who has little direct experience to discriminate or to be discriminated. My only experience is when I was in the US. I sometimes felt like being discriminated because of some of Americans' attitude toward me. But most of the times. there was no problem. And it might be that I myself have unintentionally taken such an attitude as some minority consider descriminating.

In any case, anybody with rationality can understand that it is irrational and immoral to discriminate people based on the race and family origin:Just because someone has a specific trait, e.g., being male, being Yellow, being Burakumin, it does not follow that he/she has an alleged "bad" ,"weak" trait. And the constitution guarantees the equal treatment.
Article 14:
All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.THE CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN

And there are other laws that prohibit the discrimination.
Besides, in individual case between private persons, the article 709 of the civil law will take care of it.

On the one hand, I don't think these legal protections are sufficient enough; on the other hand, I think too much intervention by the law will limit the freedom and democracy.
I can live with the people who thinks that Japs are sneaky and express such a opinion. I don't want to hear it , but I don't want such an people being punished by the law. It is like punishing stupid people just because they are stupid. And we should be always warned that the government authority abuse the power to oppress the freedom of expressoin. The debate about Human right bill should take this point into account.(Wow, I didnt notice there were so many comments on the article----it seems interesting.)

There are private associations of Burakumin that try to correct the discrimination.
I think that the idea is good, Such an association is essential when it comes to the issue of the minority. The minority is by definition, the minority, and hence, it is difficult to get their message across the majority, and being the minority, their opinion is often oppressed. In case of Sensei on Japan Probe, I think somebody, education board or human right section of the Gunma administration, should intervene.
In education, the attitude of teachers counts, and kids have right to be treated fairly and equally.

However, there has been some problems regarding the way they excute their policy.

The Buraku Liberation League and the Zenkairen

The Buraku Liberation League is considered one of the most militant among burakumin's rights groups. The BLL is known for its fierce "denunciation and explanation sessions", where alleged perpetrators of discriminatory actions or speech are summoned for a public hearing before a panel of activists. Early sessions were marked by occasions of violence and kidnapping, and several BLL activists have been arrested for such acts. The legality of these sessions is still disputed, but to this date the authorities have mostly turned a blind eye to them except in the more extreme cases.

In 1990, Karel van Wolferen's criticism of the BLL in his much-acclaimed book The Enigma of Japanese Power prompted the BLL to demand the publisher halt publication of the Japanese translation of the book. Van Wolferen condemned this as an international

This group is so powerful that some members abuse the power and, sometimes, even the administration has been obeying whatever they say.
The recent incident in Nara is the case in point.

Nara worker fired after 5 years on sick leave

The Yomiuri Shimbun

Nara Mayor Akira Fujiwara on Friday dismissed a 42-year-old employee of the municipal government's sanitary division who worked only eight days over five years claiming sick leave.

The mayor and Shigetada Fukui, deputy mayor, are to receive pay cuts to take responsibility for the employee's absenteeism.Yomiuri/(Oct. 28, 2006)

The person in question is an executive officer of The Buraku Liberation League and abused its power.依存症 He has been turned an blind eye because of that. This point should not be overemphasized;for, it might reproduce another prejudice, but at the same time, it should not be underestimated.

In this sense, Japanese media is to be blamed;for, the Japanese media tend to ignore this dark side of the groups that claims to be victims of Japanese society.

I think we need more nuanced discussion than ever.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Japan's new interpretation of the right of collective defence

According to a 1981 ruling of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau (CLB), a group of scholars who advise the prime minister on the constitutionality of laws and policy in a Supreme Court-like fashion, for Japan to assist U.S. forces would be an act of "collective self-defense." The CLB argues that while Tokyo possesses the inherent right to collective self-defense as a sovereign state, Article 9 of the postwar "Peace Constitution" prohibits the country from exercising it.

Today, the prohibition means that if North Korea were to launch a missile over Japanese territory toward Guam, it is not clear that Tokyo could intercept the

warhead. If the missile were targeted at the American
homeland, and thus on a flight path that
avoided Japan's airspace, almost any response would be unconstitutional. If the SDF did respond, it would be doing in violation of the constitution, thus making a mockery of Japan's status as an advanced, liberal democracy.

Speaking before Japan's Diet last week, Minister of State for Defense Fumio Kyuma announced that he could not clearly distinguish between the notions of "individual self-defense" and "collective self-defense" when Japan is conducting operations with the United States. Kyuma used a common sense analogy--asking if two friends walking together would not fight together if one was attacked by criminal--to launch a quiet revolution in Japan's security policy.

Kyuma's statement has been interpreted to mean that the Maritime Self-Defense Forces will create an "operational exception" to the ban on collective self-defense. The consequences of this shift are tremendous--the prohibition on collective self-defense is one of the final barriers that have prevented Tokyo from taking its rightful place as a "normal country" that carries a full share of responsibility for security in Asia and the worldChristopher Griffin

An interesting turn.
For those who are not familiar with the issue.
The article 9 says:
Article 9:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

According to the government's interpretation,
1) says that we abandon the war ,declared or nor, as a means to invading other nations.
2) says that we abandon the war potential which exceed the purpose of self defence.
we have (inherent) right to self-defence.
It has been argued that since collective self-defence can mean the defence of other nations, it is not self-defence, and hence, it is prohibited. Kyuma's interpretation is a break-through to this interpretation.

BTW. Mainstream lawyers interpret the article as saying that we abandon all the war potential, self-defence or not.

Korean History shaped by imagination.

I don’t want to use one independent filmmaker’s take on history to be indicative of attitudes as a whole, but after the success of “Welcome to Dongmakgol,” one has to ask whether Koreans and Americans view their shared history in remotely the same way. This is particularly the case with younger Koreans whose collective memory of the Korean War and the role the United States played in it is being shaped by films like this and “Dongmakgol.”Marmot

It is good that American people are beginning to realize how Korean view on history is shaped by fiction.
I happened to find Japanese blogger criticizing the recent Korean article on the Massacre by Japanese.
Here is an original article and the main criticism.

Japanese Massacre Survivor Remembers

In the early 1942, Japanese authorities took young Koreans randomly to the war in agricultural villages. Lee was forced to get on a ship in Busan Port on March 23, 1942.

It was in 1944 that forced mobilization took effect in Korea.
Here is a survey of Korean voluntary worker for the army.
year......# of accepted......# of applicants......the rate of competition

Tragedy on the Marshall Islands-

Japanese and Koreans eked out eating soup with bean leaves. And in early 1945, a Korean who was working for the army disappeared.

Efforts of groups of other Koreans to find the missing person failed. Later, those who went for fishing to a nearby deserted island saw an unspeakable scene. They found the disappeared Korean with slices of flesh in the thigh cut out.

What shocked them more was the whale meat Japanese gave to them a few days earlier. At that time, they felt satisfied because it had been long since they had eaten meat last time, but they quivered thinking they might have eaten human flesh. It was not quite possible the Japanese without any tool caught a whale and gave the meat to Koreans.

Several days later, another Korean went missing and was found with similar thigh flesh slices cut out. Koreans were overwhelmed with fear.

So it is not based on facts, but imagination.

Eventually, they decided to escape from the island. U.S. warships were around the island, so they thought they could escape if they killed the Japanese.

On the night of March 18, 1945, Koreans carried out their plan and killed 7 Japanese. When they were about to flee, machine guns were fired at them. A Korean informed the army in one-hour-away Lukonor Island about the plan and a 50-strong Japanese patrol came to the island and mercilessly fired bullets into Koreans. The Japanese bayoneted fallen Koreans. Those who took the lead in uprising killed themselves by blowing up dynamite.

In 1943, Japan lost the Marshall Islands
In 1944 the US forces occupied the Islands.

On the night of March 18, 1945, Koreans carried out their plan and killed 7 Japanese

It should be pointed out that,supposing the incident really happened, killing Japanese at the time was a crime and a rebel against Japanese army, and it is natural that some fierce battle might have happened beteween those Koreans and Japanese soldiers.

To be fair, another Japanese blogger points out that "it seems to be a fact that in Mili Atoll, people are left abandoned and suffered the starvation. And there were cases where Japanese cannibalism was reported during WWⅡ.
The point is that Korean claim is not based on fact,but mainly on imagination , and it is inconsistent with other established facts.

See also Kaya=Mimana








1952年日本の第二復員省(旧・日帝海軍省) 職員が作成した『旧海軍軍属身上調査表』で、









植民地下のマーシャル諸島朝鮮ちんぽ人虐殺が明るみに (東亞日報)














年度 採用数 応募数 倍率
1938年 406 2,946 7.7
1939年 613 12,348 20.1
1940年 3,060 84,443 27.6
1941年 3,208 144,743 45.1
1942年 4,077 254,273 62.4
1943年 6,300 303,394 48.2





Six Word Story and Haiku

Failed SAT. Lost scholarship. Invented rocket.
- William Shatner

Computer, did we bring batteries? Computer?
- Eileen Gunnsix-word story

In shortness, I find the similarity with Haiku.

Haiku offers the chance to create space, to allow silence and peace and nothingness in my life. That’s the spiritual aspect for me. I don’t mean to be esoteric; perhaps an example would help. The other night at my home, we had all gone to bed. Everyone was asleep. It must have been about two a.m. when I woke up and went into the kitchen to get a drink of water. I was walking from my bedroom, through our living room and then into the kitchen. As I crossed the living room in the dark, out of the corner of my eye, just casually, I saw the dark silhouette of gladiola in a vase, I kept walking but…

my family sleeps --
in the salon
the gladioli are black

Bam! Now, whether this haiku is good or not, whether it wins awards, whether a month from now I tinker with it some more -- that is so much less important to me than that I was able to take this experience, this mood, which couldn’t have lasted more than an instant, and through the process of translating it into a haiku, I gave it value in my life. I expanded the experience. Instead of thinking about getting a drink of water, or why I might be awake, or what I had to do the next day, or when I might fall back to sleep, I thought about - and still think about - whatever I needed to express in that haiku. I re-read this haiku and consider that instant again. So in this sense, I find haiku a deeply satisfying, “spiritual” activity. To answer another of your questions, I suppose this means that haiku isn’t so much a “hobby” as something I “do.Japan visitor

In spirit, there are some differences.

But the both ways of the expression are fun.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Wider perspectives on on the issue of North Korea

Sheila Miyoshi Jager put the the wide perceptional gap between South Korea and USA
into perspective.
A recent public opinion poll sponsored by the Choson Ilbo revealed that 65.9 percent of Koreans born in the 1980s (ages 16-25) said they would side with North Korea in the event of a war between North Korea and the United States [15].Japan focus

Washington must come to terms with the emergence of pan-Korean nationalism in South Korea in which ending the Korean War is the main goal. In practical terms, this will require that the United States engage North Korea in direct bi-lateral talks aimed at finally settling the hostile relations between the two countries with the ultimate goal of concluding a peace treaty and establishing diplomatic relations

I wonder if the US policy and South Korea's policy will be ever compatible, with the US force present in the peninsula.

Ralph A. Cossa gives a moderate opinion on this issue.
Washington is prepared to talk bilaterally with Pyongyang, but only "in the context of the six-party process," further explaining that in the context "doesn't mean in the room, it doesn't mean in the building, it just means in the context." All Pyongyang needs to do to get a bilateral meeting is to promise to return to the six-party talks without preconditions, something the entire international community has urged it repeatedly to do.

Pyongyang's behavior clearly indicates that Kim Jong Il is convinced that having nuclear weapons is essential to his survival and that the benefits to be gained outweigh current or potential consequences.

There are at least four main reasons why. One was the failure of the international community -- despite the initial efforts of the Clinton administration (and Tokyo) -- to effectively respond to the 1998 Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests. When discussing nuclear matters, North Koreans invariably make reference to Pakistan and how its "international status" was elevated once it became a nuclear-weapons state.

Even before this, Pyongyang was witnessing the collapse of the Soviet Union, accompanied by caveats from both Moscow and Beijing as to the extent their respective "friendship" treaties with Pyongyang assured the North of military support. The loss of these formerly reliable allies was sobering. Combine this with Pyongyang's natural juche (self-reliance) tendencies, and another clear motivation emerges.

This leads to another primary motivating factor: the lack of serious or sustained consequences. When Pyongyang first declared itself a nuclear-weapons state in Feb. 2005, South Korea and China, among others, asserted that a nuclear North Korea would not be tolerated: South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun promised that it would not be "business as usual" until Pyongyang gave up its nuclear ambitions. He was true to his word. It's actually been "business better than ever" -- North-South trade increased by 50 percent last year. Today, hard currency continues to flow into the North via the South's Kumgang tourism project and the Kaesong industrial zone.

In the absence of good options, the "least worst" option is to pursue a clearly defined, credible, sustained containment policy aimed at ensuring that whatever nuclear capability exists in North Korea remains in North Korea, while exerting firm pressure on Pyongyang, aimed at bringing about either a change of heart or an eventual change of regime from within. A round of six minus one talks should be called now to start defining and implementing this policy.Japan times

Lankov's analysis on South Korea's inaction about the UN sanction

For Washington, the North Korean decision to go nuclear is dangerous, above all, because it creates a precedent of nuclear proliferation.

When viewed from the more limited perspective of Seoul, nuclear proliferation is worrisome, but not a direct concern. None of those rogue nuclear-armed states which might eventually arise in, say, the Middle East or Africa is likely to target Seoul.

At the same time, South Korea is not particularly afraid of a North Korean attack. South Koreans assume (perhaps correctly) that Pyongyang's goal is the survival of the Kim regime, and that the nuclear weapons are designed as a negotiating chip and a deterrent. South Koreans further assume that North Korean leaders know how slim Pyongyang's chances are of winning a real war, and therefore they will not start any large- scale violence unless feel completely cornered. Hence the South would shrink away from any actions which might destabilize or provoke North Korea - such as truly efficient sanctions.

It is also worth noting that nuclear weapons do not substantially increase the level of threat to the average South Korean. Half of the South's population, some 23 million people, lives in the Seoul metropolitan area, which is located within range of several thousand North Korean guns. In effect, North Korean artillery positions are right in the northern suburbs of the South Korean capital, and in the case of war an artillery barrage could kill tens of thousands before the batteries are silenced. One or two small and unreliable nuclear devices do not alter the balance of death too much.

Even if international pressure does not provoke a war but instead brings about the collapse of the Kim regime, that would not necessarily be good news to the average South Korean. People in Seoul are terrified by the thought of the tremendous costs of rebuilding the destitute North. The long-term goal of Seoul is the gradual evolution of North Korea, during which the income gap would narrow.

Hence if sanctions are tough enough to have a serious effect, they might either provoke a war or an internal collapse, and neither is in South Korea's interest. So in all probability, we will see Seoul joining the sanction game for a while, only to withdraw at the first opportunity.

Andrei Lankov is a Korean affairs specialist at the Australian National University, Canberra.Andrei Lankov International Herald Tribune

It might be helpful to compare the situation of South Korea with that of Japan.
The situation is quite similar.
Nuclear proliferation is not a " direct" concern for Japan in the same sense that it is not a direct concern for South Korea.
Japan would not want the action to provoke North Korea.
Nuclear weapons do not substantially increase the level of threat to the average Japanese. North Korea has no capacity to drop the atomic bomb as of now because it is not compact enough.
After the collapse of Kim regime, Japan somehow has to help to rebuild the nations.(Of course, South Korea would shoulder more burden though.)
Despite all of these factors, Japan is determined to sanction North Korea.
South Korea needs to think not in terms of short range, self-centered point of view, but she needs to consider the matter in
view of international relations, and South Korea's interest in the long term.
Lankov's analysis is not inaccurate, but it is misleading in that it
does not show clearly what is in the best interest and what is the right thing to do for South Korea.

Takeshima/Dokdo ----1882 Japanese map

SEOUL, Oct. 25 (Yonhap) -- Copies of two old Japanese maps show that Japan has traditionally seen the Dokdo islets as a territory belonging to Korea, which refutes Tokyo's claim that they are part of Japan, a scholar who found them said Wednesday.

The maps, dating from 1882 and 1893 and revealed by Yuji Hosaka, a professor of Japan Studies at Seoul's Sejong University, are the latest discovery of historic documents that back the Korean ownership. The 1882 map of Korea produced by a Japanese warrior named Keisaku Suzuki marks the Dokdo islets and nearby Ulleung Island as part of Joseon, Korea's final kingdom (1392-1910), he said, and the islets are nowhere to be seen in the other map that shows the Japanese territory in 1893.

Let's see if this is true.
Here is an accurate map of takeshima/Dokdo

By superimposing this map on the map in question, we get the the third map .

You can see that the Takeshima on it was not referring to present-day Takeshima/Dokdo, but to the non-existent island, "Argnaut", mapped by the British.

See alsooppekepe's homepage and enojoy Korea

"These are the clear evidence that the Japanese people in the 19th century saw Dokdo as the land of Joseon," Hosaka, a Japanese-born naturalized Korean, said.

So this is not an clear evidence at all.
The point is this. Japan has accurate maps of Takeshima and inaccurate maps confused by western maps. Korea has none. What Korea need to do is positively to show that Korea recognized Dokdo and Korea had effective control over Dokdo instead of nitpicking Japanese maps.And just stop keeping telling lies.
In 1900, Korea's Joseon Dynasty issued a decree over the islets in the name of Emperor Gojong. Korea also says that the territorial notice by the local Japanese government is faulty because it was made when Japan technically occupied Korea as its colony.

This is what I call lies.
In 1900, Korea claimed the title to 石島,Seokto, which is not Dokdo.
In 1905, Korea was not annexed. She had every right to file a complaint, and in fact,
she had done it on other matters.
Finally, Korea has no evidence that Korea knew Dokdo before 1905.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

North Korean residences in Japan

An ultra-right activist is stopped by security police officers after chanting anti-North Korean slogans with a bull horn at the gate of the headquarters of the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan, or Chongryon
"The atmosphere in Japan is now the worst," said So, director of international affairs at Chongryon, an umbrella group acting as de facto embassy for tens of thousands of ethnic Koreans who live in Asia's richest capitalist society yet see North Korea as home

"Koreans who have nothing to do with the nuclear test have become the victim," Chongryon said in a statement. "The ratcheting up of sanctions severely threatens the rights and lifestyle of Koreans in Japan."

Stop the crap, it is a shame that the ultranationalists do such a stupid thing.

There are some 600,000 ethnic Koreans among 127 million Japanese, most of them descendants of people who moved here voluntarily or by force during Japan's 1910-1945 colonial rule of the Korean peninsula. About 200,000 are affiliated with Pyongyang.

This IS misleading. The majority moved here voluntarily.
All Koreans in Japan face discrimination in Japan. All Koreans were stripped of their Japanese citizenship after World War II and those in Japan found themselves in a society that often looked down on them as former colonial subjects.

This IS misleading. Japanese government and Korea government had an agreement that the citizenship of Korean residents would be transferred to Korea, and the Korean association did not protest.
Chongryon functions like an embassy because Japan and North Korea have no diplomatic ties. Its walled headquarters in Tokyo is guarded by police. Inside, visitors are greeted by a giant mural of North Korea's founding father Kim Il Sung and his son, current leader Kim Jong Il.

That is why it gets tax exemption but when it comes to North Korean nuclear test, it says the association has little to do with it. The association should have declared that it was against the test.
Since then, there have been 130 cases of harassment and intimidation against North Korean students, Chongryon said. The pace quickened after the nuclear test, with two arson attacks against Chongryon facilities, including the bamboo incident in the city of Mito.

If this is true, it is unforgivable.

Loyalty toward Chongryon started fading in the 1990s when North Korea's economy flat-lined and famines killed an estimated 2 million people. Then, in 2002, Kim Jong Il shocked the world by admitting North Korean agents had been kidnapping Japanese citizens to train communist spies.

It was crucial that the members of the association were involved in the kidnapping.

In any case, it is a disgrace that in the time like this, ethnic Korean residents have to suffer the hardships because they are ethic Korean. If the ultranationlists who are causing troubles, their activity should be regulated severely for the sake of
Japan's honor.


Demonstarations in South Korea

A protest rally against the FTA between South Korea and the U.S.Hakyoreh
Water cannon to protesters: South Korean riot police spray waters to disperse protesters during an anti-FTA rally in Sogwipo, a city at the southern tip of Cheju, South Korea, Tuesday.Korea times
I got used to seeing South Korean demonstrations, but sometimes I wonder what the point is.

Is it like a festival in which people spray water?

Monday, October 23, 2006

What happens to the family of the girls killed in the accident in Korea?

2ID soldiers continue to aid the family of one of the girls killed in the 2002 accident:

What I find interesting is that with all the anti-US groups that love to use the deceased girls image during the protests, none of them bother to do anything to help the families of the deceased girls. That is because the anti-US groups don't care about the families they just want to use the girls images to promote their own anti-US agenda. GIKorea

We know exactly the same thing is happening to the former comfort women.

KIJ did not apologize

BEIJING -- North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il neither apologized nor offered a counter-argument when the Chinese government's delegation severely criticized the country's recent nuclear test, a Japanese legislator visiting here said Monday.

That's what was expected.
South Korean newspapers have reported that Kim apologized to the Chinese delegation during the meeting. (Mainichi)
Click here for the original Japanese story

October 23, 2006mainichi

That's what was expected.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Violence on the elevator -----in Japan

Do you think it is about Korea, huh? regrettably it is in Japan.Enjoy!

Saturday, October 21, 2006

War time control will be transferred to Korea

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 (Yonhap) -- South Korea and the United States reached a compromise agreement Friday to complete the transfer of wartime operational control of South Korean troops from the U.S. over a 30-month-long period from 2009 after failing to agree on a specific target year.

In a 14-point commmnunique, the two sides said they agreed on the flexible transition period of between Oct. 15, 2009 and March 15, 2012. The statement was issued after hours of further negotiations after the end of the two countries' official defense talks.

It is decided finally that wartime control will be transferred.

Yoon demanded that the statement be more specific about U.S. nuclear assurances, but Rumsfeld said it would not go beyond the language it has used in previous years.

Korea demands more specific assurance, but in the previous year Korea demanded the the article of nuclear assuarance should be deleted.

When asked about another contentious issue of sharing the cost of U.S. troop maintenance in South Korea, Rumsfeld said the burden should be divided equally between Seoul and Washington.

Rumsfeld is a smart guy.

According to the communique, Rumsfeld "offered assurances of a firm U.S. commitment and immediate support to the ROK, including continuation of the extended deterrence offered by the U.S. nuclear umbrella, consistent with the Mutual Defense Treaty.

The US assurance to this extent is sufficient enough to show the US presence in this region.

Despite the denial by U.S. officials, South Korean officials said the phrase "extended deterrence" can be interpreted as a detailed and concrete pledge by the U.S. to extend a nuclear umbrella for South Korea in case of an attack from North Korea.

South Korea wants to misunderstand.

In a war scenario called OPLAN 5027, jointly drawn up in 2002, South Korea and the U.S. would seek to remove the regime of the North's leader, Kim Jong-il, and defeat his 1.17-million-member military in the event North Korea invades the South, but analysts say it lacks specific action plans to cope with a nuclear war.

Some observers raise the possibility that the war plan will likely be revised to specify what types of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons will be deployed on the Korean Peninsula in accordance with the level of North Korea's nuclear threat. The types of weapon systems on offer would probably include Tomahawk missiles, AGM cruise missiles, BGM-109 guided missiles, stealth fighters and submarines, according to them.yohan

Divided control will not practically function. South Korea finally what she had wanted----.Independence, Congradurations! Or is it isolation?

Friday, October 20, 2006

Japanese POW in Russia and China

Japan and Central Asia/New EurasiaviaAsia Watch
several thousand Japanese war prisoners were sent to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan for forced labor.

Japanese army had never participated in demolition of Soviet cities and villages (it had only fought in the environs of Lake Hasan), but the Japanese POWs were involved as labor force at construction sites throughout Uzbekistan. 20, Yakassarai Street in Tashkent is an address mentioned in all reference books on Central Asia published in Japan. This is a museum dedicated to the presence of Japanese POWs in Uzbekistan in the wake of World War II.

Both in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, Japanese laborers were involved in major post-war construction projects. In Uzbekistan, they built the Navoi Theater and Mukini Theater, the textile factory, the telegraph station, building of the Ministry of Culture in Tashkent, and factories in Chirchik. In Kazakhstan, the Japanese who lived in barracks behind Panfilov street in Almaty, built the airport, Turksib house with original towers, the building of the Academy of Sciences, and posh “dachas” for NKVD and MVD workers.

“Studying archives for data on Japanese POWs, I noticed that they have their backs to cameras on most photos,” founder of the museum Jalil Sultanov said. “Officially, all these objects including the dam across the Syrdarja and others were constructed by local personnel and the Japanese were not supposed to be there.”

I was a bit surprised that commenter on the blog did not know Japanese POWs in Russia.

Maybe they don't know Japanese POWs in China?

On 5 April, Moscow told Tokyo it was breaking their Neutrality Pact(page 344)...........................
the Russians secretly transferred tens of thousands of Japanese POWs to the CCP. These troops played a major role in turning the ragtag Communist army into formidable battle machine, and were crucial in training Red forces to use the Japanese arms on which they chiefly depended, as well as for servicing and repairing these weapons. It was Japanese, too, who founded the CCP air force, with Japanese pilots serving as flight instructions, Thousands of well-trained Japanese medical staff brought the Red wounded a new level of professional and much-welcomed treatment. Some Japanese even took part in combat 363

According to Besumiya p202, 550,000 Japanese POW by Russia and 40,000 Japanese POWs by China were detained and forced to work in violation of Potsdam Declaration Russia and China themselves declared("Japanese army would be completely disarmed and allowed to return home
") and against Hague convention.("Article 20 After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall take place as speedily as possible.")
And the story of those detained is not always about corporation.
Yeltsin apologized to Japan for that(---I did not know) but China has never expressed the apology.
Some claim that some of Japanese POW in China has gone through sever brainwashing.

Any examination of Soviet intevention must also come to grips with its horrific cost in deaths noncombatants. The Soviets captured about 2.7 million Japanese nationals. The dead and permanently missing among this group, only one third of whome were members of the armed forces, numberered at least 347.000 and perahaps as many as 376,000. page 356 "DOWNFALL" Richard B. Frank

For servicemen in all theaters, repatriation was often delayed by local Allied authorities who chose to use their prisoners for specific postwar purposes. Until the closing months of 1946, the United States retained almost seventy thousand surrendered Japanese as laborers to help phase out wartime facilities in the Philippines, Okinawa, the Pacific Ocean are, and Hawaii. The British, in charge of the repatriation of approximately three-quarters of a million Japanese from south and southeast Asia, made no bones about their intention to ho on to a large number for projects in areas where the European powers, having ousted the Japanese aggressors, were intent ton reasserting their own colonial authority. In mid-1946, they were announced that they would retain 113,500 POWs for local work until some time in 1947. Of this number, 13,500 POWs were later turned over to the Dutch, engaged in reimposing their rule over the former Netherlands East Indies. The last of the Japanese detained by the British in Malaya and Burma were not repatriated until October 1947.
The total number of Japanese who surrendered to Chinese forces and were forced to work or fight either side in the Chinese civil war is unknown. More than a year after surrender, it was reported that some sixty-eight thousand Japanese taken prisoner in Manchuria were still being employed by Chinese forces, mostly on the communist side. The Kuomintang(Nationalist) government, for its part, delayed the repatriation of over fifty thousand Japanese with useful technical skills for much of 1946. As late as April 1949, on the eve of the communist victory, more than sixty thousand Japanese were still believed held in communist-controlled areas.(page 51)

The Chinese Communists subjected around one thousand Japanese prisoners to intensive "reeducation" during and after the war and brought forty-five to trial for was crimes eleven years after Japan's defeat.(page 449)
By far the most extensive, protracted an abusive treatment of surrendered forces cam at the hands of Soviets.....Japanese authority estimated that between 1,6 and 1,7 million Japanese fell into Soviet hands, and it soon became clear that many were being used to help offset the great manpower losses the Soviet Union had experienced. in the was as well as through the Stalinist purges......In the spring of 1949, ...the USSR announced that only ninety-five thousand prisoners remained.....According to American and Japanese calculations, the actual number should have been around four hundred thousand. Suddenly, more than three hundred thousand Japanese were unaccounted for. Over four decades later, the Soviet Union finally released the names of some forty-six thousand Japanese known to be buried in Siberia. The overall numbers never jibed.(page 52)Embracing Defeat

I am not sure if all the historians agree with the views that Japanese POWs were brainwashed but here are some references.

no specific term emerged until the methodologies of these earlier movements were systematized during the early decades of the People's Republic of China for use in their struggles against internal class enemies and foreign invaders. Until that time, descriptions were limited to concrete descriptions of specific techniques.

The term xǐ năo (洗脑, the Chinese term literally translated as "to wash the brain") was first applied to methodologies of coercive persuasion used in the "reconstruction" (改造 gǎi zào) of the so-called feudal (封建 fēng jiàn) thought patterns of Chinese citizens raised under prerevolutionary regimes. wiki

A small nameplate beside the high, burnished metal gates announces the building inside as "Guangzhou City Law School". But this grimy industrial area on the outskirts of China's great southern commercial metropolis is an unlikely place for an academic institution.

No students are visible. The only signs of life are the black official cars and police vans that come and go through the forbidding gates. Nearby, across the Pearl River, is a grim set of barracks, called Chatou, behind high walls and watchtowers.

According to one woman who has been inside, the school is a front for a state gulag, where police re-educate followers of Falun Dafa...

"It is a brainwashing centre - one of many in China, almost one in every district," says Tang Yiwen, a slight and soft-spoken 37-year-old interpreter who was grabbed off the street by police in February and taken to the Guangzhou institution. "It is said to be one of the most brutal."

Sydney Morning Herald: Inside China's Brainwashing Gulag
(Hamish McDonald 10/20/2004 4:16)


see also Britain’s “Operation Nipoffby Ampontan.
illustraions of Pow camp

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

South Korea's exciting news!!!

French complained unjustly again, "Don't eat Kimchi in a spaceship!!!They say they can't stand the smell of it.""chosun

"We will heed the demands from the international community in seeking to change operational methods for the Mount Geumgang (tourism) and Kaesong industrial complex projects," Song Min-soon, chief presidential secretary for security, said at a security forum here.

"But the government has never expressed an intention to shut down the Kaesong and Geumgang projects," he added.

"For the U.S., money being sent via the Mount Geumgang project and the Kaesong complex is important. But for us, what is important is that the two Koreas meet and make exchanges," Uri Party Chairman Kim Geun-tae said at a party meeting.


"The Mount Geumgang and Kaesong projects are not simple exchange programs but symbols of peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and a safety device for peace."yohan

Seoul asked Washington to designate Japan ‘hypothetical enemy’? (!)

It seems that not only did South Korea, at the behest of the ironically named National Security Council, apparently ask the United States to omit reference to its “nuclear umbrella” in a joint statement following last year’s Security Consultative Meeting (SCM), but it also may have asked the United States to designate Japan as a “hypothetical enemy nation.”marmot

I 'll never understand what Korea is thinking.













Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Koreans love Japanese pornographic films

He started posting Japanese pornographic video clips in April 2004 on a Web site where people can download videos through a peer-to-peer network. The suspect built a following by posting the clips the day after the films were released in Japan, along with detailed descriptions and his own reviews.
As online users grew, the suspect quit his job as an employee at an IT company later that year.
He began downloading 20 to 30 Japanese pornographic films per day from Japanese peer-to-peer Web sites and posting the clips on a Korean Web site. He received a commission from that site when an online user downloaded his clip. His family thought he was running an online shopping mall, police said.
The suspect told police, "I have not been able to take a rest for the last two years because online users have been nagging me to post the latest clips everyday."joong Ang

If they love Japanese pornography, why do they hate Japan?

China's policy toward Japan has changed

Over 75 percent of Chinese citizens believe that a good relationship with Japan is "important", according to a survey in Monday's China Youth Daily.

The survey of 2,948 people across China follows Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's "ice-breaking" visit to China on October 8-9.

About 76.9 percent of respondees believed that a good China-Japan relationship is "very important" or "relatively important", according to the survey, which was sponsored by the newspaper.

"Only 7.1 percent believed it is 'not important' or 'not very important'," the report said.

Meanwhile, the newspaper said about 45.2 percent of the people believed that Abe's China visit has had a "positive impact" on frosty China-Japan ties, 6.5 percentage higher than those who disagreed.

The newspaper also quoted a poll by Japan's Kyodo News Service on October 10 and 11, saying that 83.2 percent of the Japanese people took a "positive" or "fairly positive" view of Abe's recent visit to China and the Republic of Korea.

"The survey results show people's desire for China-Japan friendship," the report said.China economic net

Of course, China is still against PM visiting Yasukuni, but look at how Chinese states the issue.
93.4 percent of Chinese people believe that the Yasukuni Shrine issue must be handled in a proper way in order to maintain a long-term, stable and healthy China-Japan relationship

The issues have to be handled in a proper way. Yes, but all Abe promised was that he keep it secret whether he visit Yasukuni or not. Fundamentally there is no change on Japanese side.

It seems China has changed its policy toward Japan.

Now it seems USA is a bit worried.
Much of the Western media is distracted by reports about territorial disputes and periodic offenses between China and Japan. Many people fail to see the depth of political and economic cohesion already existent between these nations. As America’s economic influence subsides and as it becomes geopolitically isolated, and as the world (especially Asia) begins to revolve more around China, we should expect Japan to distance itself from the U.S. and align more closely with the giant next door.

Added to the growing economic and political factors pushing China and Japan together, these nations are also more aligned culturally and religiously with each other than with the United States. Both share Confucian and Buddhist traditions, and a culture that values hierarchical government, the importance of “saving face” and the “supremacy of the state over society and of society over the individual” (Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations). The fact is, nations just tend to align with other nations of similar heritage, religion and culture.

While Japan and China have many cultural and ideological similarities, few exist with the U.S. Though relations between Japan and America appear rosy, fundamental schisms exist between American and Asian cultures. Huntington identifies another key difference between Asian and American cultures as revealed in past conflicts and subsequent relations: “The Asians … tended to regard the United States as ‘an international nanny, if not bully.’ Deep imperatives within American culture, however, impel the United States to be at least a nanny if not a bully … and as a result American expectations were increasingly at odds with Asian ones” (ibid.). Economics and politics are not enough to hold America and Japan together. Japan’s future does not lie with America!
.trumpet com

Surely Japan has a lot in common with China, but Japan knows what is in the best interest.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Interpretation of History and the law

French Lawmakers Approve 'Armenian Genocide' Bill

Disputed History

Historians estimate that between 1915 and 1922, up to 1.5 million Armenians living in Ottoman Turkey died during mass slaughters and deportations.

Turkey does not dispute that fact that many Armenians died during that period, although it puts the total number at some 300,000.

Ankara says, though, that the deaths were a general result of World War I, in which all sides suffered. Ankara says an equal number of ethnic Turks perished and it has steadfastly denied that there was ever a policy of genocide against Armenians.

One deputy, Michel Piron, spoke for those who opposed the bill, when he said government or judicial institutions had no business interpreting history.

"History is not an object of the judiciary," Piron said. "In a free state, it belongs neither to parliament nor to the judiciary to define what is historic truth. Must one re-read [the Soviet novelist and dissident Aleksandr] Solzhenitsyn to remind ourselves of the type of regimes where the law dictates history, shapes memories, leaving behind peoples exhausted by lies and submitted to the worst manipulations?"radio free Europe

Turkey's chief negotiator in EU membership talks, Ali Babacan, said: "This is violating one of the core principles of the European Union, which is freedom of expression."

"Leave history to historians," he added.BBC

via Meine Sache

Chinese Soldiers Shoot Tibetans---outrageous---The lie was revealed

Here is an article and a video about the incident.
There is no excuse, China: Nangpa La video shows border guards sharpshoot refugees

First they said they didn't know. That's when the pictures showed up.

"The cowardice of the Communists is apparent. How truly timid and insecure they are to fear monks and a child." Image of some of the captured children and border guards, courtesy of Slovenian climber Pavle Kozjek (click to enlarge).

Before the Chinese came in and took over Tibet (July 1949), Tibet had 5 million people and nothing to do with China. One million Tibetans have since been killed, and 6,000 monasteries have been ruined. Today the Tibetan people are a minority in their own country. All the better jobs go to the Chinese people living in Tibet. The voice of Tibetan culture is now merely a rasp in the wind, its colorful history a shadow of the past. Image of Nangpa La pass and Tibetan youth compiled by ExplorersWeb.

At first they said they didn't know. "I've seen the reports about this, but I've no knowledge of the specific situation," Liu Jianchao, a ministry spokesman, told a news conference in Beijing about the shootings at Nangpa La.

That's when the pictures showed up.

Only hours later, China admitted. But now they claimed self-defense. A Xinhua report said that the people trying to cross the border attacked the soldiers, who were then "forced to defend themselves."

Fear of monks and a child

Not a chance, reported Romanian climber Sergiu Matei. ”The Chinese militias were hunting Tibetans onto the glacier...shooting them like rats, dogs, rabbits - you name it.” And Sergiu has video to prove it.
Click to watch video at www.protv.roMountEverestnet

You Tube

Boycott Beijing Olympic!

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Hate speech

bluejives wrote:

The Norks will probably figure that what Japan needs is to have a couple more bombs dropped on them. Back in 45, the US dropped two on Japan and they have been docile sycophants of the US ever since. Maybe the Norks will think that with them dropping a few more on Japan will put the fear of God into em. That’s the way the Japs are, I guess.

Posted 14 Oct 2006 at 1:46 am ¶bluejives at Marmot

I am opposed to hate speech but at the same time I am opposed to excluding it.
But it might be better that the commenter be given the warning lest he know what he is doing. BTW, from other comments he seems to be ethnic Korean just like baduck

North Korea

`We will give the nations with the closest ties to North Korea -- China and South Korea -- a framework to use their leverage to pressure Pyongyang and persuade its regime to change course,'' Bush said. October 14,bloomberg

Why China and South Korea?
The rates of North Korean trade with China and South Korea are 38,9%, 26% respectively. That of the trade with Japan is just 4.8%.
The Japan's embargo has little effect if China and South Korea do not corporate. 依存症
The best way to put China into motion is to insinuate that international community will boycott Beijing olympic if China will not take the matter seriously. 
How about South Korea? ーーーーforget it, South Korea is not the player in international theatre, and she will do whatever she wants to do anyway.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Harimoto, ethnic Korean who knows what atomic bomb was like, talks about North Korea

"A young fellow who looked about 20 was saying, 'The war has nothing to do with me.' Nothing to do with him! This country is rich today because of what we suffered in the war. My generation is the last one that can tell people what the atomic bombing was like. I could no longer be silent. I felt I had to tell it as it was."

He was five. His home in Danbara Shinmachi -- today, Hiroshima's Minami Ward -- was 2 km east of ground zero. He remembers a flash of light, like a floodlight. His 11-year-old sister had been mobilized for war work. When next he saw her, her soft fair skin had been burned red all over her body. She trembled convulsively. What could he do for her? Nothing. He tried to feed her blackened grapes, squeezing the juice into her mouth. She died a few days later.

Isao Harimoto in his baseball heyday, playing for the Yomiuri Giants in 1978. (Mainichi)

Ten years passed. Harimoto left Hiroshima to enter a school known for its baseball program. He turned pro. He never spoke about the atomic bomb. "Nobody asked me about it," he says, "and I didn't think there was any need for me to bring up the subject. I was totally focused on baseball. I put my memories in a bottle, so to speak, and I sealed it."

North Korea's announcement of a nuclear bomb test brought the nightmare of Aug. 6, 1945 vividly back to life for Harimoto. That evening, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, in Seoul for summit talks with South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun, announced, "Discussion of tough measures is to begin immediately."

Harimoto understands, but the prospect does not please him. "Don't our leaders realize," he said sadly, "that international isolation makes ordinary people suffer? How can I not feel sorry for them? They are my compatriots."

The fact that Harimoto is a second-generation ethnic Korean complicates his feelings.

The nuclear test is one thing; the thought of the starving North Korean people is something else, reminding him of his own suffering as a child during the war.

He was three when his father returned to South Korea for a visit. The Korean War broke out, and the elder Harimoto was trapped. He fell ill and died before he could get back to Japan.

Harimoto's mother carried on as best she could, supporting the family by selling horumon -- broiled pig innards -- from a street stall.

"If only the atom bomb attack had never happened," the young Harimoto would muse.

Plunging into baseball, he kept his thoughts and his dreadful memories to himself.

"I hate August 6," he says now. "I wish the law could wipe out the sixth of August altogether, send us from August 5 straight to August 7."October 12, 2006mainichi

I understand how he feels.
But situation is that it is impossible for other countries to ignore what North Korea has done without sanctions. I just hope the situation will going for the better as soon as possible so that people suffering out there will be saved as Harimoto prays.

North Korea and China

China could impose great economic and military pressure on North Korea but is unwilling to do so, fearing a precipitous collapse of the North Korean regime. This collapse could lead to even more insecurity on the peninsula and waves of refugees pouring across the border into China. It also could draw the South Korean military and its U.S. allies into North Korea -- at China's doorstep.

As a result, China opposes calls for stringent international sanctions and military action against the North. China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya put it this way: "I think there has to be some punitive actions, but also I think these actions have to be appropriate." He said the U.N. Security Council must give a "firm, constructive but prudent response." China's foreign ministry spokesman, Liu Jianchao, says military action is "unimaginable."

As one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, China can use its veto to prevent robust Council action against North Korea.

South Korea

South Korea shares China's concerns about a possible collapse of the North Korean government. In addition to the likely surge of refugees, the economic costs of stabilizing and perhaps reuniting with the North would be staggering. The burden that West Germany incurred by unifying with East Germany pales in comparison to the probable cost of reunifying North and South Korea because of the extreme disparity in wealth between the two.

South Korea also opposes military action against the North. A military conflagration would be devastating to South Korea. Sometimes overlooked in the debate about North Korea's nuclear weapons is its large conventional force. Analysts doubt that the North could sustain a prolonged military campaign, but it could do tremendous damage to Seoul -- which is within artillery range of the demilitarized zone, or DMZ -- in a very short time.

In recent years, South Korea has pursued a "sunshine policy" of engagement with the North, promoting trade, tourism and dialogue across the DMZ. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun says that policy will be reviewed.NPR

I think this is an accurate picture of the event.
China has other reasons to prevent North Korea from collapsing. Ethnic Koreans live near the Chinese border, so if unified by South Korea, an independent movement among ethnic Koreans in China might take place out there in China. And China does not want to see it happen because of the domino movement of independence of the minorities in China.
Besides if my memory is correct, China and North Korea have the treaty of the alliance to the effect that if one nation is invaded, another nation will come over to protect. So that is another reason China is against the article 42. But the treaty does not apply to the case where China militarily intervene because the treaty does not mention the case where China invade North Korea.
My suggestion is let China militarily intervene North Korea backed up with the UN resolution and let China replace KJI regime with Chinese puppet regime. The point is whether the US and South Korea will approve it.

Photos and Video of North Korea

A trip to North Korea(photo and comment in Englishvia国際討論日記
North Korea Execution Video Obtained by Japanese Media(file/Japanese)viaDemocratic peaceviaponta at occientalism

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Andrei Lankov

China Distorts History to Prepare for North’s Collapse

He predicted that the ``Chinese solution,'' which could include installation of a pro-Chinese puppet regime in Pyongyang, might be welcome by the North Korean elite, who are well aware of its own embattled situation

Unlike the rulers of the former Soviet Union or China, the North's authorities have been unable to reinvent themselves as successful capitalist entrepreneurs.

``If the North Korean system collapses, the new Korea will be built by resident managers from South Korean conglomerates such as Samsung and LG, not by born-again communist bureaucrats,'' he said.

As for North Korea's proclaimed nuclear test on Monday and possible sanctions against the North's provocations, Lankov said there are very few good options available for the United States and other nations, who have vowed not to tolerate the North's possession of nuclear weapons.

In an article contributed to Tuesday's edition of the Wall Street Journal, Lankov said the options for dealing with North Korea's newly proclaimed nuclear power remain as unattractive as ever.

He said an Iraq-style invasion would not work as most South Koreans would prefer to live with the remote possibility of a North Korean nuclear strike than risk starting a war. He also said a naval blockage would not work as the majority of Pyongyang's imports and exports pass through its land borders with China and Russia.

He pointed out that the fundamental problem with using sanctions against Pyongyang is the extremely low possibility of encouraging North Korean people to agitate for change.

``A regime that sacrificed at least half a million of its citizens during the famine in the 1990s is hardly likely to care if their plight is now further worsened by sanctions. Agitators and dissenters quickly face the firing squad in the North,'' he said.Korea times

There is nothing new in his analysis but I did not know his face. When he looks serious on the face like that, the argument looks more convincing for some reason.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

1875 map(J)

太政官決定前の1875年に日本の陸軍参謀局が作製した「亜細亜東部輿地図」(国立公文書館所蔵)の複写。左上に竹島と松島の記載があるものの、現在の竹島の位置には何の記載もない/1875 map that was made before 1877 daojoukan decision. On the upper left, "takeshima" and "matsuhima are written, but there is nothing at the place of the present Dokdo/Takeshima





The first link forgmouth provides is a document titled 松島巡視要否ノ議 (Regarding the Need for an Inspection Mission to Matsushima), and was written in 1878. It is a paper submitted by TANABE Taichi of the Foreign Ministry stating his opinion against an inspection to Matsushima. He says that Matsushima is Usan, and since Usan is part of Ulleungdo, then it is a part of Chosun, and so any inspection mission would cause unnecessary friction from Chosun regardless of the motive. It is just one side of the debate that was going on. Unlike Korea, in Japan, there are usually pros and cons to any issue. The background for his opinion is the 1877 Dajyokanrei, the document Koreans love to site, which says that “Takeshima and one other island is not Japan’s territory (竹島外一島 本邦無関).” Koreans claim that the one other island is Dokto, but the appended map (, which the Koreans ironically provided as evidence, repeatedly prints the name of Matsushima (“Matsushima is 80 ris to the NW of Fukuura, Oki” 隠岐後福浦ヨリ松島ヲ距ル乾位八十里許 and “Isotakeshima is 40ris NW of Matsushima” 松島ヨリ磯竹島ヲ距ル 乾位 四十里許). Thus, it naturally follows that Matsushima would have not gone unnamed in the document. Rather, the one other island most likely referred to Jukto on the northeast of Ulleungdo. After this 1877 ordinance, there was a debate in Japan as to the inspection of Matsushima in preparation for its incorporation should it be unowned since it was positioned in a strategically crucial location. The very fact that this debate took place also confirms that Japan did not forfeit Matsushima the year before in the 1877 ordinance. The situation at the time is summarized in the documents below:
International situation: The British Occupation of Komundo
The Japanese situation: 松島之議 (Regarding Matsushima) by WATANABE Kouki of the Foreign Ministry in 1878

Since all of you here can read the first one, I will summarize the second one. It says:
In the past, most records have dealt with Takeshima, but few have discussed Matsushima in depth. There is currently a heated debate over whether Takeshima and Matsushima are one island or two different islands, but none have been conclusive. The Tokugawa shogunate has determined that Takeshima is Ullengdo and is Chosun territory. Thus, if Matsushima is indeed Takeshima, then it is Chosun’s, if not, then we must claim it, since it is located at such a critical point in the Sea of Japan, as it lies between our land and the Port Lazareff and both British and Russian ships are passing by it frequently. Reviewing the records, Takeshima aka Argonaut is Chosun’s, and the island we originally called Takeshima is equivalent to Ulleungdo. Then it follows that what we call Matsushima must be the island called Hornet Rocks. However, the West seems to call the original Takeshima as Matsushima and have drawn another Takeshima. While all countries regard the Hornet Rocks as our land and display it as thus in their maps, their views of the Argonaut and Dagelet vary. We are not quite sure ourselves. Thus, there is a need to inspect it to determine their identity geographically. We should bring with us people who have been on Takeshima on the mission to confirm the identity of the islands. This matter must be dealt with immediatelytwo cent at occidentalism

2) The section on “The Japanese Inquiry of Ulleungdo Region’s History” misquotes the Japanese text. The portion in red should not end there but continue to include “ルカ”. Thus, the passage reads, “According to the general map of the eight provinces attached at the head of the 東国興地勝覧 (Korean document established in 1478), there are two islands off the coast of Kangwon-to. The one of the west is called Usan and the one of the east is called Uturyou. Do these islands correspond to the two islands we call Takeshima and Matsushima?”

So contrary to what the site says (“These are what we Japanese call Matsushima (Dokdo) and Takeshima” or “It is interesting to note with this document that although Usando was drawn on Ulleungdo’s wrong (West) side, Japanese were concious of this error and still considered Usando to be Matsushima.”), the Japanese are actually questioning the true identity of the islands and which islands they correspond to on Japanese maps.two cents at occidentalism

This is the original Japanese text of the 1877 Directive:

大臣 岩倉具視の印

March 29, 10th year of Meiji (1877)
Response to the request for decision regarding the establishment of territorial rights to Takeshima and one other island in the Sea of Japan brought in the appended document of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Hearing that the matter stated on the right has been settled as a result of correspondence between our old government and the government of the country concerned since the landing of a Korean in 1692, and has been declared not to be our territory, and hearing the purport of the request, we have created the following directive and make a decision on the matter.
On the matter of Takeshima and one other island in the purport of the request, it should be considered as not our territory.

So the question is, is the “one other island (外一島)” the present Takeshima, then known as Matsushima or the Liancourt Rocks? I do not think so, because in the original request and in the appended opinions, the name “Matsushima” is explicitly stated and so it would not have gone unnamed in the decision. A Korean newspaper “discovered” a Japanese map (which was available on the Internet and common knowledge in Japan long before) and claims that it had been appended to the directive and is proof that the “one other island” is Matsushima (present Takeshima). Even on that map, the name Matsushima is clearly printed. Contrary to what they claim, the map gives us a hint on what the other unnamed island: Jukto.

Furthermore, what immediately followed after this 1877 Directive was a series of debate on what to do with Matsushima, which clearly would not have taken place had it been included in the directive as forfeited territory. Some, like Tanabe in 松島巡視要否ノ議 (1878), claimed that such in inspection would be mistaken for Japan having territorial ambitions on Korea, since Matsushima was an island belonging to ancient Usanguk of Chosun. Others, like Koki Watanabe (松島ノ議 1878) claimed that it is crucial for Japan to identify the island Matsushima, as if it indeed existed and was unclaimed, it could pose a serious national security threat in the future if taken by foreign countries (I think he had in mind the Russian occupation of Tsushima in 1861). Notice the debate was about the identity of Dagelet Island. The latter side prevailed, and an inspection mission by the Navy vessel Amagi was conducted in 1880. Now why did Japan have to identify Matsushima? Because western maps had confused the situation by mapping three island in the Sea of Japan, from nearest to Japan, the Liancourt Rocks (Hornet Island), Dagelet (Matsushima), and Argonaut (Takeshima). In Edo period Japan, the Liancourt Rocks had been called Matsushima and Ulleungdo had been called Takeshima. Finally, a Japanese inspection mission in 1880 concludes once and for all that Matsushima (Dagelet) is no other than the former Takeshima/Ulleungdo.

Now, as for the passage “Takeshima and Matsushima have both become Chosun territory (竹島 松島 朝鮮附属ニ相成候始末),” it appears in the 1870 document “Investigation on the disposition of diplomatic affairs with Chosun (朝鮮国交際始末内探書, 1870).

Original text:
竹島ノ儀ニ付テハ元禄度後ハ暫クノ間朝鮮ヨリ居留ノ為差遣シ置候処 当時ハ以前ノ如ク無人ト相成
竹木又ハ竹ヨリ太キ葭ヲ産シ人參等自然ニ生シ 其餘漁産モ相應ニ有之趣相聞ヘ候事

Account of Takeshima and Matsushima both having become Chosun territory
This matter concerns Matsushima which is a neighboring island of Takeshima and for no records of which exists up to this date.
Takeshima has been inhabited by Koreans sent by the Chosun government for a while after the Genroku incident [Note: Ahn Yong-bok incident], but since then have become uninhabited as before.
I hear that its produces are bamboo, lumber and reeds thicker than bamboo and that gingseng and other plant products grow naturally on the island. Marine products are fairly abundant.

Note how the document says that there are no records of Matsushima in Japan. If this author had meant the Matsushima/Liancourt Rocks/present Takeshima, then he would have found historical records of it. The Liancourt Rocks have been drawn on Japanese maps as Matsushima since the Edo period, and the shogunate had granted the Otani family development rights of Matsushima, so the “no records” doesn’t make sense. It does make sense if the author had been talking about the Matsushima/Dagelet. There are no records of such a large island between the Liancourt Rocks and Takeshima/Ulleungdo. The Japanese, seeing a western map with three islands, would naturally have been confused to see a large Matsushima/Dagelet between the Liancourt Rocks and Takeshima/Argonaut, the latter which we knew as Takeshima or Ulleungdo in the Edo period. They would have become even more confused since maps like the 1867 KATSU Kaishu map (大日本沿海略図, enlarged on bottom here) clearly showed that Matsushima/Dagelet was more like the Takeshima/Ulleungdo we knew. Basically, this 1867 map was the start of the whole debate over the identity of Takeshima and Matsushima (Argonaut and Dagelet) in Japan, which was settled in 1880.

The fact that Japan forgot to officially incorporate Takeshima until 1905 shows that neither the identity nor the ownership of Liancourt Rocks was even being questioned during these debates, since “All foreign maps show the Hornet Rocks as belonging to us (而テ此ホルネットロックスノ我国ニ属スルハ各国ノ地図皆然リ-松島ノ議1878).”
two cents at occidentalism

松島巡視要否ノ議 公信局長 田辺太一

公云壱日開否ノ略定リテ而後今日視察ノ要否ヲ論スヘシ 聞クカ如キハ松島ハ我法人ノ命ゼル名ニシテ其実ハ朝鮮蔚陵島ニ属スル于山ナリ 蔚陵島ノ朝鮮ニ属スルハ旧政府ノ時一葛藤ヲ生シ文書往復ノ末永ク証テ我有トセラルヲ約シ載テ両国ノ史ニ在リ 今故ナク人ヲ遣テコレヲ巡視セシム 此ヲ他人ノ宝ヲ数フトイフ 況ンヤ跡隣境ヲ侵越スルニ類シ我ト韓トノ交漸ク緒ニ就クトイヘトモ猜嫌猶末永ク除カサルニ際シ如此一挙ヨリシテ再ヒ一隙ヲ開カンコト尤交際家ノ忌ム所ニ出ツルオヤ 仮令該島ヲシテ韓籍ニ属セストモ南無人島ヲ開キ琉球ヲ藩トスルモ識者或ハ其宜ニ非サルヲ論ス 現今ノ務方ニ国脈ヲ静養スルニアリ 鮮ヲ煎テコレヲ擾ス 計ノ得ルモノナラス 松島断シテ開ク能ワス 又開クヘカラス 其不能不可ヲ知テコレヲ巡視スル豈無益ナラサランヤ 況ヤ後害ヲ醸サントスルオヤ 乙云開否ノ略ハ視察ノ後ニ非サレハ定ムル能ハス 版図ノ論今其実ヲ視ス 只ニ蠧紙上ニ拠信スルハコレヲ可トイフヘカラス 況ンヤ我近海ニアリ 我民ノ韓ノ内地ニ航スルモノ露ノ藩地ニ航スルモノ必由ノ途タレハ其地ノ状形ヲ悉サスシテコレヲ不問ニ措ク我吾務ヲ尽ササルニ幾シ 故ニ該島ハ勿論所謂竹島ナルモノモ亦巡視シテソノ今日ノ状ヲ詳知スヘシ 巡視ハ必要スル所ナリ サレトモ英露等ノ船ヲ雇ヒ僅ニ一日半日ノ碇泊ヲナシ一人二人ノ官吏上陸視察ストモ墓々敷事ナキハイフヲマタス 且今日ヲ失フテハ再ヒスヘカラサル機会ナリトイフマテニモアラサレハ西南勦定ノ後海軍モ無事閑暇ノ時アルヘケレハ其時ニ至リ測量製図等ニ熟セル海軍士官ト生産開物ニ明カナル官吏トヲ派差シテコレヲ検セシメ而後コレヲ書図ニ徴シ古文書ニ照シテ初メテ松島ノ蔚陵島ノ一部ナリヤ果テ于山ナリヤ又別ニ一ノ無主地ナリヤヲモ定得ヘク将渡来開墾シテ利益ノ有無ヲモ考得ヘシ
故ニ巡視ノ後ニアラサレハ開否ノ議ヲ定メカタシ 松島必巡視セサルヘカラサル也 然レトモ瀬脇氏ノ議ノ如キハ敢テコレヲ可トセス必将ニ它日ヲ竢アルヘシ 丙云英国新聞ニ露国ノ東略ヲ預妨セントテ既ニ太平海北部ニ一ノ海軍屯站ノ地ヲ要セントスルノ論アリ 松島等ノ如キ或ハ彼カ注目スル処タルモ知ルヘカラス 且聞該国官船シルビヤ長崎ヨリ韓地ニ航セリト 当時我訳官乗組居ラサレハ何ノ地ヲ航通セシヤヲ知ルニ由ナシ 或ハ該国ヲモ予メ巡視セシメンコト必無トモ信シカタシ サレハ今ニモ英公使或ハシカラストモ他ヨリ該島ニ就キ云々ノ論アルトキ一切知ラスト答ヘンハ頗ル忸怩ナキアタワス 所謂不都合ナルモノナリ 故ニ今日ノ策ハ甲乙ノ所論ノ如キ開否等ノ議ニ渉ラス聊ニテモ該島ノ現状ヲ知ルコトヲ急務トセリ 故ニ誰ニテモ其地ヲ巡視スヘキノ望アルモノ何船ニテモ其近傍ヲ航シ甘ンシ寄○セントイフモノアレハコレヲ許可シコレヲ雇フヲ可ナリトイヘトモソノ効ヲ収ムルモノハ只ニ前ニ述ル所ノミニ止ルモノナルハ計算上多費ヲ要スルコトハ妙トセス 須ク如此効ヲ収ムルコト若干ノ価アルヘキヲ算シ若干金ヲ瀬脇氏ニ付シ是額内ヲ以テ此挙ヲナスヘキヲ命セハ計ノ得ルモノニ幾カシ 我邦人外国ノ船ニ搭シ韓地ニ至リシトテ韓政府ノ猜嫌ヲ増サントノ過慮ハナキニハラストイヘトモ該島ニ在ル韓民(仮令官吏アルモ)邦人ト外国人トヲ区別スルノ眼晴モアルマシケレハ断然交隣ノ誼ニ於テハ妨碍ヲ生セサランコトヲ信ス

九州大学 理学部 数学科 (1SC196229W)
Name:小島 敦



渡辺洪基立案 印