Dear Kyodo News Team,

I hope this message finds you well. My name is Yuri Hwang, and I am a college student actively engaged in advocating for the recognition of "Dokdo" and the "East Sea" in Korea.

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the article titled "Annual event held reinforcing Japan's claim on South Korea-held islets," published on your website. The article contains several inaccuracies and omissions that I believe need to be addressed to provide a balanced and historically accurate perspective.

Firstly, the designation of February 22 as "Takeshima Day" by the Shimane government in 2005 is indeed problematic. The islets, known as Dokdo in Korea, have been under South Korean administration since 1954. This administration is not an "effective control" as described in your article but is a rightful exercise of sovereignty over territory that has historically belonged to Korea. The designation of "Takeshima Day" and the subsequent ceremonies reinforce Japan's unfounded territorial claims and contribute to the misrepresentation of historical facts.

Moreover, the article states that South Korea has "stationed security personnel on the islets" and taken "effective control of them" since 1954. This phrasing suggests that South Korea's presence on Dokdo is an act of occupation, which is not the case. South Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo is based on historical evidence and international recognition. The islets have been recognized as Korean territory since ancient times, and Korea's administrative activities on Dokdo are legitimate and lawful.

The article also refers to the islets as being in the "Sea of Japan." While this name is commonly used internationally, it is important to acknowledge that the body of water is also known as the "East Sea" in Korea. Using both names (East Sea/Sea of Japan) would provide a more balanced view and respect the historical and cultural significance of the name "East Sea" for Koreans.

Lastly, the overall tone of the article seems to legitimize Japan's territorial claims over Dokdo without presenting the historical context and legal evidence that support Korea's sovereignty. This is particularly concerning given the sensitive nature of the territorial dispute and the need for accurate and fair reporting to foster mutual understanding and cooperation between the two countries.

For a more balanced and accurate representation, I kindly request that you:

1. Acknowledge the historical and legal basis of Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo.

2. Use the dual naming convention (East Sea/Sea of Japan) to reflect the differing perspectives.

3. Provide a more nuanced view of the territorial dispute, including Korea's historical claims and current administrative activities on Dokdo.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and hope that future articles will reflect a more balanced and accurate perspective on this important issue.

Best regards,

Yuri Hwang