This [is]land is my land...

Basically, Japan and Korea have been fighting over ownership of these islands ever since they developed boats sturdy enough to get to them. What was at stake for the first 300 years of the disagreement? Bragging rights, mainly. What's at stake now? Money, in the form of rights to control an area of the ocean thought to have rich fisheries and natural gas fields. And bragging rights.

For the record, these plugs of stone had been accurately mapped by Korea as early as 512 AD, and are approximately 90 km/56 miles from the Korean-inhabited island of Ullung. In contrast they are approximately 157 km/97 miles from the nearest Japanese-inhabited islands of Oki, and weren't formally recognized by any Japanese government until 1618. Now, it would seem logical that they belong to Korea by historical precedent. But I don't know how well that argument would carry in a world where the international organization dedicated to rule of law was formed in the aftermath of a punitive series of post-war treaties, spearheaded by a nation enriched from slave labor, built on land stolen from a number of nations that were essentially wiped out after a series of broken contracts and trades made with counterfeit currency.

Now, I don't normally advocate following anything found in the bible, but my initial instinct was just to suggest getting rid of the disputed islands, splitting the territory in two, and getting on with fighting about other, more interesting things. But that would be neither just nor reasonable.

Which leaves me with a couple of questions, none of which lead me towards answers I like:

• Who, after even a cursory look at the history of the islands, could possibly believe that Japan has a legitimate claim to control?
  
• Why would Japan's leaders be pushing for such an indefensible and inflammatory claim?
  
• Who stands to benefit?