Back from Dokdo-Takeshima

I had many good experiences during my trip to the islands of Ulleungdo and Dokdo last week (May 19-21, 2010).  We foreign English teachers were treated as honored guests.  I thank Gyeongsangbuk-do province for a truly extraordinary travel opportunity.  I commend the sponsors' generosity, the organizers' planning, and all the participants' sheer enthusiasm.

I support Korean sovereignty over Dokdo because I have many personal reasons to favor Korea over Japan.  If it's a close call on the merits of the case, I simply must side with Korea.  I am married to a Korean citizen.  The Korean government has welcomed me to live and work among its people.  I have met hundreds of endearing Korean students during my first year of teaching English as a foreign language.  I have made many friends at my Korean school and my Korean church.  I feel an attachment to the Korean people.  I'm in a kind of solidarity with them.

As for Japan … all I can say is that I once owned a Toyota.

My personal bias notwithstanding, I won't argue dogmatically on Korea's behalf.  If it was the intention of our trip's sponsors to make us foreign  teachers into global Dokdo evangelists, the trip fell short of its aims in my case.  Here's why:

1.  My own government, the U. S. government, appears unwilling to take a strong position on the issue of Dokdo-Takeshima.  Presumably that is because American interests preclude the taking of sides on this point.  It behooves me as an American citizen to regard my government's reticence.

2.  I haven't been exposed to Japan's arguments.  Almost all the Dokdo-Takeshima information I've digested so far is pro-Korea.  I don't mean this as a criticism of the information provided to me during my Dokdo trip; it isn't the responsibility of Korean interests to educate me on Japan's position.  Nevertheless I feel that I should leave open the possibility that Japanese counterarguments might shed additional light on this complex subject.

3.  Some of the indoctrination tactics used by the Dokdo trip organizers crossed the line, in my opinion.  For example, we foreign teachers were told to write Dokdo-related lyrics to popular melodies and then to perform our propaganda songs for prizes.  A pep-rally atmosphere obtained at some of the proceedings.  The mocking and demonizing of Japan, an important U. S. ally, were encouraged.  It's one thing for Koreans to engage in activism of this kind, but it's quite another for citizens of third-party countries to do so.  Overzealous campaigning on the part of our trip's organizers cost them some credibility with me.

4.  I took from Prof. Hee Eun Lee's remarks at his lecture on Day 2 of our trip that the Japanese may well have a legitimate legal claim to Dokdo-Takeshima.  Prof. Lee, from the International Law School at Handong Global University, emphasized that Dokdo-Takeshima is a historical issue for Koreans but a legal issue for the Japanese.  Korea seems to have a longer history with Dokdo-Takeshima and a deeper cultural awareness of it, but certain technical legal arguments perhaps support Japan's position.  If Korea's legal case were plainly superior to Japan's in all respects, Prof. Lee undoubtedly would have established that for us—but he did not.

In summary, I support Korean sovereignty over Dokdo but have no compelling reason to invest myself actively in this issue.  It seems that the status quo—with Korea occupying the islands and Japan protesting peacefully from afar—is an acceptable state of affairs.  It is proper for citizens of both nations to advocate for their side, but care should be taken to avoid a dangerous ratcheting-up of tensions.