Asian Correspondent Asia News

Even if the guy wanted to, he couldn’t do anything but this.

I think Hatoyama may be sympathetic to the idea of ending Japan’s quixotic claim that hearkens back to its imperial expansion (Hatoyama’s party is touchy-feely leftists, after all).

It would take two things for Tokyo to change course on this. First, recognition that the claim is not likely to amount to anything but it does more harm than good for Japan’s political and/or economic interests, and quid pro quo from Seoul on something else, like tacit support for Tokyo’s EEZ claims around Okinotorishima, which Beijing is steadfastly against.

It’s not really about a couple of rocks. It’s about fishing rights to the area surrounding the couple of rocks….

“A couple of rocks” I guess that flippant comment was supposed to get people angry? Anyone who knows anything about Korean history or for that matter has actually been to Dokdo knows why the place is important for Koreans.

And the Japanese laugh their heads off at the sight of Koreans losing their minds once again! Strap on the headbands boys, it’s protest time again! YEE HAW!

Who is losing their mind now?

Actually, the constant insistence that Tokto is a part of Japan is part of a deep malaise in which Japan is sinking as it drops from its vaunted position as second-in-world economy to a position in China’s shadow.

And no, I don’t think that’s a good thing. Like I said above, Tokyo and Seoul need to find a way to put this behind them and move on to a stronger partnership.

@Anonymous Koreans are passionate people and care a lot about this subject. Every country has certain subjects that provoke outpourings of pasionate behavior.

Hey, Duncan Donuts: you are new around here, aren’t you??

Darth and James, as long as Japan claims uninhabitable islands generate EEZs, which Korea does not maintain, Seoul wouldn’t be absolutely foolish to take this to an international arbitration and risk even the small possibility of losing sovereignty over the islands, because then half the waters between Tokto and Ullŭngdo — which are not now disputed — would suddenly become disputed.

Steve, the Liancourt Rocks are not large enough to have any fishing rights to the area surrounding them. They are considered part of Ulleung(?) Island’s economic zone, which already bequeaths to Korea fishing rights to those waters.

Korea’s claim to the Rocks have nothing to do with fishing, oil, or any other type of rights.

It’s not a risk of even a small possibility if it is SO OBVIOUS that the facts speak for Korea’s arguments. If it’s SO OBVIOUS, then the ruling should be a foregone conclusion, no?

That they do NOT take this to arbitration is because the facts are NOT as obvious as they claim, and they know there IS a possibility of losing. So they keep this in the court of public appeal, where in Korea everyone is one the side of the righteous and everyone else is wrong.

Darth, that has been asked and answered many times, and if I can, I’ll try to find a comprehensive link instead of reinventing the wheel.

In a nutshell, though, Japan makes two arguments that negate each other. The actual grounds for taking control in 1905 were terra nullius, which means that Tokyo said they did not control it prior to that and no one else did, but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Shimane Prefecture also argue that they knew about the island all along and it was in their control. If a court were to allow them to pursue to pursue both defenses, this would be a miscarriage of justice before a decision is even made.

Courts are made up of fallible people, Darth, and the takeover of Korea itself was deemed legitimate by supranational judiciary in the past, so Korea certainly should consider the possibility that — even at a tiny percentage of likelihood — it could lose and so should therefore weigh the benefits of taking different courses of action.

South Korea fully controls the territorial waters around Tokto, and the two countries in 1998 worked out exclusive EEZs and jointly shared waters that reflect what would exist if Tokto is not an inhabited island, which South Korea currently makes no claims that it is.

However, Japan insists that uninhabitable islands like Okinotori or Tokto are inhabitable islands and therefore generate an EEZ. Thus, if Tokto were to fall into Japanese sovereignty, Korea would be faced with undisputed waters suddenly becoming disputed waters, as Tokyo would, per Okinotori, insist that the EEZ equidistance line between Korea and Japan is no longer the equidistant line between Korea’s Ullŭngdo and Japan’s Oki Islands (the fully habitable territories closest to each other in the East Sea/Sea of Japan, but the equidistant line between Korea’s Ullŭngdo and Japan’s newly acquired territory of Tokto.

Even if the odds of Japan winning were a slim 200:1, it would be utter foolishness for any leader of South Korea to agree to take this to the ICJ as long as Japan insists on the EEZ generation schemes that it does. There is NOTHING to gain, but — even if the likelihood is slight — thousands of square kilometers of fishing grounds to lose.

What should happen is that Tokyo agrees to give up its claim in exchange for some quid pro quo, like South Korea’s tacit approval of Tokyo’s claim of a 200-nm EEZ around Okinotori Atoll. A win-win for everyone that Tokyo could claim as taking the diplomatic high ground.

Ha! That was a mighty big nutshell. Plus there’s this.

Can’t they settle this? International arbitration?

@James

Nope, neither would ever agree to it. Can you imagine the destruction that would happen if the arbitration went in Japan’s favor? The anti-US/Japanese/2MB protests would be epic. Yes, I know America has nothing to do with this, but they would get blamed somehow.

James, Japan has expressed willingness to take it to the international courts for arbitration, but Korea has unequivocally said no f’ing way. The facts “speak for themselves”, so arbitration is unnecessary; the Liancourt Rocks are “obviously” Korean.