[KS] Library of Congress Korean Controversy

[Eugene Y. Park]

Dear David (Scofield) and Scott:

That's right: welcome back to Scott's original assertions minus his
retraction of the nationalistic spam stuff. If David still finds merit in
the labeling of Hana Kim's posting in such manner, then I respect that. In
the same way some Koreans in Korea may accuse me--an American researching
in Korean history--of promoting "imperialistic" or "racist" American
scholarship in Korean Studies, I should just accept that to David, a
person perceived as a Korean cannot have views that happen to correspond
to that of a Korean government without being a Korean "nationalist."

I'm afraid that I also agree to disagree on Scott's reasoning regarding
"lobbying": If a Canadian citizen working for the US Library of Congress
takes a work-related action reflecting a position that happens to match
that of the South Korean government, then she's "lobbying" for the ROK
government. I don't get it, but the logic evidently is clear to Scott.

As for the two questions that both Scott and David want to see answered, I
suggest referring to this discussion group's archive. If I'm not mistaken,
years ago there were some really good, relevant postings addressing many
related questions. I also recall that in the past, both Gari Ledyard and
John Duncan expressed their views in a way that I found very even-handed
and well informed, but I don't want to put any words into their mouths.

So to add my penny's worth, here we go. And the first question:

> 1. It is frequently claimed that Japan "stole" the Dokto-Takeshima islets
> in
> 1905, but from my understanding they were unoccupied at the time and thus
> Japan
> invoked the principle of "terra nullius" in justifying its claim to them.
> Is it
> too much of stretch, then, to claim that their occupation was quite
> separate
> from Japan's subsequent colonization of Korea?
>
Five year's before the above-mentioned Japanese declaration of the islets'
"terra nullius" status, in 1900 Korea's Imperial Decree No. 41 stated that
the islands under the jurisdiction of Uldo County were UllUng-do, Chuk-do,
and SOk-to--with the east-west span being 60 li and the norh-south span
being 40 li, all together [circumferance?] some 200 li. Though mentioned
as "SOk-to," it apparently referred to Tokto, of which the "all together
some 200 li" clause had in mind: the distance from UllUng-do to Tokto is
about 260 li, whereas from the two the closest island, the Japanese
Okishima, is about 400 li away.

The Korean empire (Taehan Cheguk) government at the time was certainly
mindful of the importance of protecting sovereignty and territorial
integrity in accordance with international conventions, and it issued the
Decree No. 41 in that spirit. In fact, the decree was based on an on-site
investigation by a Naebu official U YongjOng (from a prominent Seoul
chungin family that produced individuals actively involved in imperial
Korea's political, business, and cultural circles--including U HangjOng, U
KyOngsOn, and U POmsOn--and remarkably in tune with Western conventions),
a British semusa, and a Japanese puyOngsa (Akatsuka). My current research
involves the U family, and I'm coming across some documents showing that
the Korean government at the time was putting much effort into exercising
its control of both islands amidst local Korean complaints that the
Japanese were "illegally" intruding.

At any rate, unlike the current Japanese claim which relies heavily on the
February 1905 public notice (No. 40) by Japan's Shimane Prefecture, the
1900 Korean Decree No. 41 not only predated the former but was also by a
national government that published the decree in the kwanbo. Though I'm
not an international law expert, as far as I know, what the Korean
national government did in 1900 carries more weight than what a local
Japanese government did later in 1905.

I wonder if the fact that in 1905 Japan's national government chose to
assert the claim through Shimane Prefecture is a reflection of an
awareness of the relatively limited cartographical evidence supprting the
Japanese claim. My impression is that certainly in terms of color coding,
there were more Edo and pre-Edo Japanese maps that treated both UllUng-do
and Tokto as the territories lying beyond the Japanese realm. I was only
when further confusion over more obscure geographical names arose in the
1890s with large-scale importation and adotpion of Westery-style maps,
Japan sought to define Tokto as a "terra nullius" being claimed by it. So
I don't see how the islet issue can be separated from the overall Japanese
effort to expand its influence in the peninsula.

As for the second question:

> 2. The islets were not covered in the Treaty of San Francisco, so from a
> strictly legal standpoint wouldn't the islands legally still belong to
> Japan if
> sovereignty over them was not legally and formally handed back to the ROK
> in
> 1952? Historical arguments aside, is not this lack of legal clarity
> sufficient
> proof for the existence of a "dispute" which many on the Korean side claim
> does
> not exist?

As Young-Key noted, the Cairo Declaration by the Allied leaders
essentially declared that Japan was to be stripped of whatever it gained
out of greed and through violence since the 1894-95 Sino-Japanese War. Of
course I agree with the observation that there is a "dispute," but
obviously from the South Korean government's point of view, the islets are
Korean and thus cannot be a subject of scrutiny by Japan or any other
country. Isn't it a commonly used tactic by any government to refuse to
discuss an issue or even recognize that there is an issue?

Cheers,
Gene

Eugene Y. Park
Associate Professor
Department of History
Krieger Hall 200
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, CA 92697
Tel. (949) 824-5275
Fax. (949) 824-2865
http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=4926

On Wed, 7 23, 2008 04:05, David Scofield wrote:
> Scott has made some excellent points here (I think nationalistic spam sums
> the
> original post quite well), and his queries (posted below) cut to the heart
> of
> the dispute.
>
> I'm surprised there are no responses to his core questions...
>
> "
> 1. It is frequently claimed that Japan "stole" the Dokto-Takeshima islets
> in
> 1905, but from my understanding they were unoccupied at the time and thus
> Japan
> invoked the principle of "terra nullius" in justifying its claim to them.
> Is it
> too much of stretch, then, to claim that their occupation was quite
> separate
> from Japan's subsequent colonization of Korea?
>
> 2. The islets were not covered in the Treaty of San Francisco, so from a
> strictly legal standpoint wouldn't the islands legally still belong to
> Japan if
> sovereignty over them was not legally and formally handed back to the ROK
> in
> 1952? Historical arguments aside, is not this lack of legal clarity
> sufficient
> proof for the existence of a "dispute" which many on the Korean side claim
> does
> not exist?
> "
>
>
> David
>
>
> Quoting "J.Scott Burgeson" <jsburgeson at yahoo.com>:
>
>> Gene, all I will say is that I retracted the term "spam" (even though a
>> certain someone has clearly avoided my request for dialogue on this
>> issue),
>> and I wonder if I really seem to think that Dokdo-Takeshima is a
>> "non-issue"?
>> "Neutral" is a loaded term now? What's next, being "fair" and
>> "objective"? As
>> for "lobbying" for a foreign government, Hana Kim is not a US citizen so
>> what
>> is a better term for me to have used in her case?
>>
>> Around and around and around in circles we go!
>>
>> --Scott Bug
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Tue, 7/22/08, Eugene Y. Park <eugene.y.park at uci.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > From: Eugene Y. Park <eugene.y.park at uci.edu>
>> > Subject: Re: [KS] Library of Congress Korean Controversy
>> > To: "Korean Studies Discussion List" <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
>> > Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2008, 4:58 PM
>> > Dear Scott,
>> >
>> > I appreciate the spirit of your suggestions, but some of
>> > the "incidental
>> > rhetorical terms" that have been
>> > used--"lobbying" and "neutral," for
>> > example--seem pretty loaded to me. And didn't this
>> > whole discussion get
>> > started on the questions about "nationalistic
>> > spamming" over "non-issues"
>> > and "lobbying?" Again I do not know Hana Kim, but
>> > to suggest, for example,
>> > that the hapless librarian was lobbying for a foreign
>> > government seems
>> > like a serious charge to me. What do you think?
>> >
>> > Of course, there's the islet question itself, on which
>> > I think we've
>> > already had plenty of discussions here in the past, if
>> > I'm not mistaken.
>> > In this light, each of the two statements that you make
>> > (below) seem to
>> > oversimplify the frustratingly complex situation.
>> > Gene