On a visit to South Korea, I was astonished to watch a national weather report on televsion. It showed the weather in Seoul, in Busan, in a few other major cities, and on Dokdo! (Dokdo is this tiny island mentioned in the article, disputed by Japan, with two people living on it.)
In this case, the status of the island is largely a proxy for remaining Korean bitterness over WWII, towards the Japanese who (at least in the eye of many Koreans) have not yet fully owned up to their war crimes.
2. There is no dispute over Dokdo, it's Korean territory plain and simple. But if Japan really wants it, they should just take it or else just shut the fuck up about it and stop bringing it up every year.
But it is not so actively disputed by Japan. Meanwhile, South Korea flies a large flag there, and the two permanent residents can choose between cellular telephone service providers, as more than one company has built towers there.
Bingo! Korea puts a flag there because it's Korean territory. Koreans are living there because it's Korean territory. There's no dispute there. Like I said if Japan really thinks its theirs have the Japanese go to Dokdo and drive a geomantic spike into the island, and then build a shinto shrine on the island, and just take it. It's not the first time Japan has stolen or taken land from Korea. Just take the fucking island or just shut the fuck up about it, every single god damn year they bring this shit up.
Well, it's not "actively" disputed in the sense Japan is not trying to take it by force, but from what I can tell Japan keeps making active noises every once in a while.
I mean, from their viewpoint, Japan has to. Since South Korea has been practically controlling Dokdo pretty much since the nation was founded, if Japan remains silent they would be basically conceding that the battle is lost.
IMHO, what is a little less explicable is why some South Korean politicians wants to make a huge deal out of this. I mean, we own it right now, and every day we sit on that piece of rock furthers our claim on it. There is no need to advertise that there's any border dispute going on.
But of course politicians trying to score cheap point by appealing to emotional nationalism is nothing new, isn't it.
It gets lost in all the propaganda (designed to get the citizens behind a complex geopolitical effort) - Dokdo is mostly about fishing and other resource rights. The island itself is worthless, but the 200 nautical miles around it aren't.
Here in the U.S. I've even seen local Korean owned businesses with posters up in the window "Dokdo is Korean territory!" and other such slogans. It may seem absolutely insignificant to Americans and people from other large countries, but to South Koreans, surrounded by large powerful neighbors, in the middle of immensely crowded territorial waters, it has a not insignificant economic rationale.
You would think South Korea has bigger issues to deal with, what with North Korea to the north and China to the west. I think South Korea focuses so much on the Liancourt rocks precisely because there is zero risk of an actual confrontation with Japan. It has become a safe way of conspicuous national posturing.
To the average South Korean, North Korea is surprisingly a non-issue. Most people just don't all that fired up over it and view the efforts around it (mandatory military conscription, etc.) as a huge inconvenience and not much else.
China is mostly seen as a source of cheap stuff and transient air pollution (even when the pollution is clearly caused by domestic activities). When China comes up elsewhere its for reasons of economic competition or having to do with those weird ethnic Koreans that live along the border between China and North Korea.
What South Korea has as its most pressing problems are mostly economic, stagnant wage growth in an advanced economy, pending shrinking population, very limited agriculturally suitable land, an export dependent economy with economically depressed customers and so on. A few years ago the price of cabbage shot up a few hundred percent and almost caused riots. [1] Feeding the population cheap stuff is a national political priority.
You are right though, that the rocks are politically convenient to saber rattle over without having to worry about Japan too much (who does have bigger valueless rocks to fight over with China -- who is solving their problems my simply manufacturing new islands where they want them).
Umm, actually, as far as I know Dokdo is not considered an "inhabited island" under international rule, so it cannot be used to draw EEZ lines. In fact it currently resides in the "middle area(?)" according to the agreements between South Korea and Japan: https://www.google.com/search?q=%EB%8F%99%ED%95%B4+eez&tbm=i...
You're talking about the 2002 Korea-Japan fisheries agreement I think, which establishes catch quotas for fishing, but my understanding is that Korea is recognized as sovereign over the islands under precedent (Palmas and Clipperton) since it has permanent habitation and infrastructure, and under UNCLOS but it hasn't been formerly decided under international arbitration since Japan refuses to arbitrate while it's dealing with other Japan-China territorial disputes.
Well, of course Korea asserts Dokdo as part of its territory, and a small circle of water (of radius 12 nautical miles) around it as its territorial waters. (I don't think Japan recognizes it, but of course they wouldn't.)
It's just that Dokdo was not used as a baseline (base point?) in drawing EEZ boundaries between Korea and Japan. So, outside the 12-mile circle, Dokdo is located inside the "middle area" which does not belong to either nation's (currently accepted) EEZ.
IANAL, but I was under the impression that it was Korea who refuses international arbitration. (I mean, why would Korea agree to it? Even if the probability of the "international arbitration" deciding that Dokdo belongs to Japan is 0.01%, it is 0.01% too much.) Maybe you are talking about a different kind of arbitration.
Ha, well played BBC! You mean the state broadcaster for the UK managed to avoid mentioning the Falklands in an article about disputed barren islands. I'm truly shocked!
My word I knew it was remote and tough to access but I didn't know it was so overlooked. I remember The Reg launched a charity expedition (called "Rockall Ho!") there a decade back, however: http://m.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/22/rockall_triumph/
As an uninhabitable island with rival territorial claims from Denmark and Ireland mainly because the fishing rights are potentially worth something, it's a better comparison point than an island group which has been continuously occupied for nearly 200 years...
The UK and Iceland did tussle over fishing rights in the North Atlantic - not an outright shooting war, but there were warships posted to protect UK trawlers and collisions between ships:
It's an islet not an island, which under UNCLOS is a really important distinction. Islands get an EEZ around them, islets don't. Rockall gets 12 nautical miles of territorial waters around it, but no EEZ.
The distinction between islets and islands is the basis of what China is up to with the artificial islands it is constructing. UNCLOS is a really interesting thing to get stuck into if you are a legally inclined geek.
Falklands has 3000 or so people, a small town, lots of sheep and is not really disputed except when Argentina feels like distracting attention from whatever shitshow is going on at home.
Every national highway in Argentina has signs saying "Las Malvinas son Argentinas", meaning "The [Falklands] are Argentine". I think it's required by law.
I was in the Falklands earlier this year, and the place acts more English than England. You'd have to deport everyone en masse to make it seem remotely Argentine.
That doesn't stop the Argentinians from packing their cities with monuments and street names dedicated to the Malvinas Argentinas, and the islands (along with the brie wedge of their Antarctica claim) appear on every national map, right down to the ones on keychain fobs for tourists. That's got to do something to their collective psyche, whether it's saber-rattling season or not.
Right now there's offshore oil exploration taking place in the Falklands - you could see tons of equipment near Stanley. If that comes back lucrative, I'd expect the dispute to heat up accordingly.
> Right now there's offshore oil exploration taking place in the Falklands - you could see tons of equipment near Stanley. If that comes back lucrative, I'd expect the dispute to heat up accordingly.
I don't think it's a co-incidence given that they think there is vast oil reserves around the Falklands that within a few years the UK will have two of the most powerful aircraft carriers in the world (outside of the US carriers) or that our Type-45 was designed to engage dozens of simultaneous air threats, the argentine military isn't even the threat it was in the early 80's, a British carrier battle group carrying F35's with MBDA Meteors (which are a more advanced but similar missile to American AMRAAMS with a variant having a 200 mile range) with a support group of Type-45's and nuclear subs would make it the most one sided naval battle since The Battle of the Nile in 1798.
Any in-bound Argentine planes would be dead before they got within 300 miles of the Falklands from the F35's not to mention the Type 45's which is acknowledged as the most advanced air defense destroyer in the world at the moment.
I lament that we spend so damn much on the things but within 5-10 years we'll have the 2nd most powerful blue water navy in the World (the question then is do we need that really...)
Throw in that the British government has very effectively used political pressure to block all sales of modern aircraft to the Argentine government they'd be flying an obsolete 40 year old fighter against a state of the art 5th generation fighter, it wouldn't even be a war it'd be a damn blood bath, they can't even afford to run the planes they have now, those planes are a mix of 60's era French Mirages and upgraded vietnam era A4 Skyhawks.
Falklands have around 3,000 people who actively WANT their home to be a British Overseas Territory. Argentina's claim to them holds about as much water as my claim to Buckingham Palace.
In a way, isn't that just it? They're still 'fighting' over them because they're actually not that important? If they were important, the fight would be over much more quickly.
These fights give politicians something to do and more importantly, get people to rally around a nationalistic cause. We have always been at war with Europa.
There's also the Savage Islands that are disputed between Portugal and Spain. They are barely habitable, but make a big impact in calculating the EEZ of each country in the northern Atlantic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Islands
This is because both Sudan and Egypt claim a slightly nicer parcel of land by the coast, and presumably taking Bir Tawil results in ceding the claim on the other part. It all came about due to slight ambiguities chopping up the old British Empire colonies in Africa.
A fun example of an island which is not disputed: Märket is a small uninhabited island located between Sweden and Finland. It's divided between the countries and Finland even built a lighthouse on the wrong side of the border!
Another example i the island Kataja, which didn't even exist when the border between Sweden and Finland was drawn, but now sits on the border.
Märket’s amazing: rather than Sweden demolishing or trying to take control of the lighthouse they both agreed to redraw the border in a somewhat symmetrical way to retain the same amount of territory.
Argentina and Chile almost went to war for three little barren islands in a desolated place, but it's not about the islands but about claims to sea (or also in this case, Antarctic territorial claims) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_conflict
The reason most of these islands are of such importance is because territorial waters, customs zones, and exclusive economic zones are extended by any sovereign land permanently above water, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that binds almost all states.
So these little islands determine which state is legally entitled to write legislation that determines taxation, shipping, airline routes, oil, fish, and any other territorial, customs, and economic rights in the area around these islands.
As far as taxation and shipping go, not really. The Law of the Sea grants the right of innocent passage to all ships, so a country can't tax or harass ships merely passing through its waters. This holds for territorial waters as well as the Exclusive Economic Zone.
There are a couple exceptions for things like drug smuggling and terrorists, and now there's some concern whether these rules (fairly vague on paper) will be exploited by some for extensive search & seizures.
I made a site explaining the South China Sea disputes in particular if anyone is interested. southchinasea.co
> As far as taxation and shipping go, not really. The Law of the Sea grants the right of innocent passage to all ships, so a country can't tax or harass ships merely passing through its waters. This holds for territorial waters as well as the Exclusive Economic Zone.
I was unclear on the tax point, sorry; the extending of the baseline may determine the entitlement to tax resource use and extraction. You are correct in that UNCLOS prohibits tax of innocent passage.
On shipping it is also my understanding that UNCLOS grants broad rights to passage, though these are subject to those exceptions you mentioned, as well as an exception for "internal waters". I believe a couple cases turned on islands (which I am sure you also know about better than I do– my background is academic and dated!).
As an interesting aside, the word tariff comes from Tarifa, Spain, which would tax ships passing through the Strait of Gibraltar.
These island provide a valuable public service. If you've seen the Republican debates, you've heard Rubio declare war on Russia and Syria and ISIS, Fiorina reject diplomacy in all cases until we next decisively win a war, Kasich competing with both to be the most belligerent, and Bush wanting to go back to Iraq and Syria and celebrate his brother's big success there. A few years ago, John McCain held a campaign event where he sang a 'bomb Iran' song he made up.
If Japan and Russia and China and Korea and Argentina and Canada and Denmark keep these islands out there in uncertain status, they're doing the right thing. When a McCain or Rubio comes to power in those countries, they have a ready-made harmless casus belli to whine about without actually killing anyone. It's like how we have sports teams to consume our violent territorial primate impulses in a constructive healthy competition.
Whereas if Rubio comes to power in the USA aching for war with Russia, we're in danger of global nuclear war if the CIA and KGB guys can't keep their leaders in line.
I tell you, I didn't think it was possible to finish the debate thinking that Trump was the level headed, calm, and wise one in the group until I heard the other ones.
58 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 140 ms ] threadIn this case, the status of the island is largely a proxy for remaining Korean bitterness over WWII, towards the Japanese who (at least in the eye of many Koreans) have not yet fully owned up to their war crimes.
Let's go to war!
2. There is no dispute over Dokdo, it's Korean territory plain and simple. But if Japan really wants it, they should just take it or else just shut the fuck up about it and stop bringing it up every year.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.ht...
But it is not so actively disputed by Japan. Meanwhile, South Korea flies a large flag there, and the two permanent residents can choose between cellular telephone service providers, as more than one company has built towers there.
I mean, from their viewpoint, Japan has to. Since South Korea has been practically controlling Dokdo pretty much since the nation was founded, if Japan remains silent they would be basically conceding that the battle is lost.
IMHO, what is a little less explicable is why some South Korean politicians wants to make a huge deal out of this. I mean, we own it right now, and every day we sit on that piece of rock furthers our claim on it. There is no need to advertise that there's any border dispute going on.
But of course politicians trying to score cheap point by appealing to emotional nationalism is nothing new, isn't it.
Here in the U.S. I've even seen local Korean owned businesses with posters up in the window "Dokdo is Korean territory!" and other such slogans. It may seem absolutely insignificant to Americans and people from other large countries, but to South Koreans, surrounded by large powerful neighbors, in the middle of immensely crowded territorial waters, it has a not insignificant economic rationale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone
China is mostly seen as a source of cheap stuff and transient air pollution (even when the pollution is clearly caused by domestic activities). When China comes up elsewhere its for reasons of economic competition or having to do with those weird ethnic Koreans that live along the border between China and North Korea.
What South Korea has as its most pressing problems are mostly economic, stagnant wage growth in an advanced economy, pending shrinking population, very limited agriculturally suitable land, an export dependent economy with economically depressed customers and so on. A few years ago the price of cabbage shot up a few hundred percent and almost caused riots. [1] Feeding the population cheap stuff is a national political priority.
You are right though, that the rocks are politically convenient to saber rattle over without having to worry about Japan too much (who does have bigger valueless rocks to fight over with China -- who is solving their problems my simply manufacturing new islands where they want them).
1 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/world/asia/15kimchi.html
It's just that Dokdo was not used as a baseline (base point?) in drawing EEZ boundaries between Korea and Japan. So, outside the 12-mile circle, Dokdo is located inside the "middle area" which does not belong to either nation's (currently accepted) EEZ.
IANAL, but I was under the impression that it was Korea who refuses international arbitration. (I mean, why would Korea agree to it? Even if the probability of the "international arbitration" deciding that Dokdo belongs to Japan is 0.01%, it is 0.01% too much.) Maybe you are talking about a different kind of arbitration.
Charming place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
The distinction between islets and islands is the basis of what China is up to with the artificial islands it is constructing. UNCLOS is a really interesting thing to get stuck into if you are a legally inclined geek.
Even their historical claim is dubious as hell.
For them, it was never about the people.
That doesn't stop the Argentinians from packing their cities with monuments and street names dedicated to the Malvinas Argentinas, and the islands (along with the brie wedge of their Antarctica claim) appear on every national map, right down to the ones on keychain fobs for tourists. That's got to do something to their collective psyche, whether it's saber-rattling season or not.
Right now there's offshore oil exploration taking place in the Falklands - you could see tons of equipment near Stanley. If that comes back lucrative, I'd expect the dispute to heat up accordingly.
I don't think it's a co-incidence given that they think there is vast oil reserves around the Falklands that within a few years the UK will have two of the most powerful aircraft carriers in the world (outside of the US carriers) or that our Type-45 was designed to engage dozens of simultaneous air threats, the argentine military isn't even the threat it was in the early 80's, a British carrier battle group carrying F35's with MBDA Meteors (which are a more advanced but similar missile to American AMRAAMS with a variant having a 200 mile range) with a support group of Type-45's and nuclear subs would make it the most one sided naval battle since The Battle of the Nile in 1798.
Any in-bound Argentine planes would be dead before they got within 300 miles of the Falklands from the F35's not to mention the Type 45's which is acknowledged as the most advanced air defense destroyer in the world at the moment.
I lament that we spend so damn much on the things but within 5-10 years we'll have the 2nd most powerful blue water navy in the World (the question then is do we need that really...)
Throw in that the British government has very effectively used political pressure to block all sales of modern aircraft to the Argentine government they'd be flying an obsolete 40 year old fighter against a state of the art 5th generation fighter, it wouldn't even be a war it'd be a damn blood bath, they can't even afford to run the planes they have now, those planes are a mix of 60's era French Mirages and upgraded vietnam era A4 Skyhawks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imia/Kardak
This is because both Sudan and Egypt claim a slightly nicer parcel of land by the coast, and presumably taking Bir Tawil results in ceding the claim on the other part. It all came about due to slight ambiguities chopping up the old British Empire colonies in Africa.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-man-plants-flag-clai...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedra_Branca_dispute
Another example i the island Kataja, which didn't even exist when the border between Sweden and Finland was drawn, but now sits on the border.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kataja
So these little islands determine which state is legally entitled to write legislation that determines taxation, shipping, airline routes, oil, fish, and any other territorial, customs, and economic rights in the area around these islands.
See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
There are a couple exceptions for things like drug smuggling and terrorists, and now there's some concern whether these rules (fairly vague on paper) will be exploited by some for extensive search & seizures.
I made a site explaining the South China Sea disputes in particular if anyone is interested. southchinasea.co
I was unclear on the tax point, sorry; the extending of the baseline may determine the entitlement to tax resource use and extraction. You are correct in that UNCLOS prohibits tax of innocent passage.
On shipping it is also my understanding that UNCLOS grants broad rights to passage, though these are subject to those exceptions you mentioned, as well as an exception for "internal waters". I believe a couple cases turned on islands (which I am sure you also know about better than I do– my background is academic and dated!).
As an interesting aside, the word tariff comes from Tarifa, Spain, which would tax ships passing through the Strait of Gibraltar.
Just for ease of any future readers, the actual convention is not horribly complex, and is at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/uncl...
If Japan and Russia and China and Korea and Argentina and Canada and Denmark keep these islands out there in uncertain status, they're doing the right thing. When a McCain or Rubio comes to power in those countries, they have a ready-made harmless casus belli to whine about without actually killing anyone. It's like how we have sports teams to consume our violent territorial primate impulses in a constructive healthy competition.
Whereas if Rubio comes to power in the USA aching for war with Russia, we're in danger of global nuclear war if the CIA and KGB guys can't keep their leaders in line.
I tell you, I didn't think it was possible to finish the debate thinking that Trump was the level headed, calm, and wise one in the group until I heard the other ones.
I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the populations couldn't care less