Dr. Masao Shimojo, a professor at the Takushoku University Institute for International Development, wrote an article for the Mainichi Shimbun’s evening edition of March 22 briefly outlining the Japanese claim for the Takeshima/Dokto islets and describing several inconsistencies with the Korean position. Dr. Shimojo believes the islets are Japanese, and has written a 400+ page book on the subject, Nikkan–Rekishi no Kokufuku e no Michi (The Road to Overcoming Japanese-Korean History). Therefore, his treatment of the issue here is by no means exhaustive, nor is it meant to be.

Dr. Shimojo lived and taught in South Korea for 18 years, is fluent in Korean, and is married to a Korean woman.

In the article, he relies on original sources to show there is no basis for the Korean claim that Takeshima/Dokto has been Korean territory since the 6th century. He notes that Ahn Yong Bok, the father of the Korean navy and a pivotal figure in the dispute, was in error about about the location of Takeshima. He also points out that the Koreans have used the word “visible”, a key word in the original documents, to refer to two different geographical entities at two different times depending on their objectives.

The article is too long to post on the main page, so if you’re interested in reading my semi-official translation (Dr. Shimojo’s permission, but not the Mainichi Shimbun’s), click here.

PLEASE NOTE

Neither JP nor I have an opinion about the ownership of Takeshima/Dokto. This is presented solely as a contribution to the marketplace of ideas.

We are aware this might cause some heated discussion. Please be advised that I will mercilessly delete any personal attacks or nationalistic foofaw in the comment section.

Also, we are well aware that there is a boatload of information on this subject, and we have seen a lot of it, including the Korean arguments. If you disagree with something that Dr. Shimojo says, please follow his lead and use original sources for your rebuttals. Telling us that Professor OOO thinks this or that is meaningless unless we know the basis for his ideas.