7 ms·
Barren islands that countries never stop fighting over
- impendia 11y agoOn 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.
- igsmo 11y ago1. This reminds me of the territorial dispute right now between Canada and the US, http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-tiny-islands-where-canada-and-america-are-at-war/ http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-tiny-islands-where-ca... 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.
- impendia 11y agoIt is, in fact, disputed by Japan (which refers to the island as Takeshima): http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html 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.
- igsmo 11y agoBingo! 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.
- yongjik 11y agoWell, 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.
- bane 11y agoIt 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone
- TorKlingberg 11y agoYou 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.
- bane 11y agoTo 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). 1 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/world/asia/15kimchi.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/world/asia/15kimchi.html
- andy_ppp 11y agoHa, 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!
- secfirstmd 11y ago3000 people live there...hardly barren
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- sofaofthedamned 11y agoCome on, Argentina has never given a toss about the place until they needed to ramp up the jingoism.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rmc 11y agoOr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall
- creshal 11y ago> "More people have landed on the moon than have landed on Rockall." Charming place.
- smcl 11y agoMy 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/ http://m.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/22/rockall_triumph/
- bduerst 11y agoBetter they expend their border-dispute resources over these barren islands than the inhabited ones.
- tfgg 11y agoIn 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.
- jcrei 11y agoThere'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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Islands
- afsina 11y agoAntoher one is "Kardak Island" between Turkey and Greece. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imia/Kardak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imia/Kardak
- smcl 11y agoThis sort of situation has led to the exact opposite - territory which both two countries claim doesn't belong to them: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil 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.
- 100timesthis 11y agoSomeone claimed that territory because his daughter's dream was to be a princess[1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-man-plants-flag-claims-african-country-calling-it-kingdom-of-north-sudan/2014/07/12/abfbcef2-09fc-11e4-8a6a-19355c7e870a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-man-plants-flag-clai...
- selimthegrim 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland
- sanxiyn 11y agoSome of these disputes do settle. One between Malaysia and Singapore was settled in 2008. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedra_Branca_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedra_Branca_dispute
- zorf 11y agoA 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kataja https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kataja
- robin_reala 11y agoMärket’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.
- DiThi 11y agoAlso Perejil island disputed by my country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perejil_Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perejil_Island
- TorKlingberg 11y agoWhich is symbolic for the much more important Ceuta and Melilla.
- mikro2nd 11y agoI'd bet good money that there's a more cogent reason than just "symbolic". ;)
- lazyant 11y agoArgentina 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_conflict
- bmh_ca 11y agoThe 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. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
- runjake 11y agoYes. If you read the article, these reasons were explicitly mentioned.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- chrisacree 11y agoAs 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
- bmh_ca 11y ago> 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. 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/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/uncl...
- WildUtah 11y agoThese 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.
- dmichulke 11y agoDo countries fight over it or just governments? I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the populations couldn't care less
- jnky 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_China_anti-Japanese_demonstrations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_China_anti-Japanese_demon...
- mikro2nd 11y agoImproved headline: "The barren islands that countries never start fighting over"