This essay exposes the historical and legal ignorance underlying the use of the term “colonial rule” in reference to Japan–Korea annexation, drawing on Shoichi Watanabe’s scholarship and English-language sources that clearly define the event as annexation, not colonization.

2017-06-16.
This is a reprint.
Nowhere in contemporary English-language sources does one find the term “colonization.”
The term used is “annexation.”
Those who realized that Asahi Shimbun is in no way representative of Japan’s finest minds—namely, individuals who grew up reading Asahi, performed moderately well in entrance examinations, entered universities such as Waseda, and then wielded distorted ideas born of intellectual immaturity—came to understand that, for the sake of realizing those dangerous ideas, such people would fabricate lies and disseminate them globally without hesitation, prompting many to cancel their subscriptions and instead begin reading monthly journals they had scarcely read before.
They must also have realized that they had long regarded Shoichi Watanabe, a genuine scholar, as a right-wing figure due to preconceptions instilled by Asahi.
As I have written before, this realization is itself an embodiment of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are a-Changin’.”
The following is from a ten-page essay by Shoichi Watanabe published in this month’s issue of the magazine Sound Argument.
Anyone with discernment will recognize that my argument is once again proven correct beyond any doubt.
Bold emphasis is mine.
[Text omitted.]
The phrase “colonial rule” reveals utter ignorance and lack of study.
I am astonished that the advisory panel’s report contains the term “colonial rule.”
How can such ignorance exist? It is truly lamentable.
What was Korea at the time of annexation?
It was the Korean Empire.
Through annexation, it became united with Japan.
An empire does not colonize another empire.
This was an imperial merger.
Examine English documents of the period.
None use the term “colonization.”
They all use “annexation.”
Relatives of the Emperor were imperial family members, while relatives of the Yi dynasty became princely families.
A shared peerage between Japan and Korea was established beneath them.
The yangban also assumed titles such as baron, viscount, and count.
These facts attest to an imperial merger.
At the time of annexation, Korea was extremely impoverished, and some princely families struggled even to maintain appearances.
Japan therefore provided them with financial support, at times exceeding that allocated to members of the Japanese imperial family.
Colonial rule generally entails subjugation, exploitation, and plunder of colonial populations.
Japan did not do this.
Koreans were treated as Japanese nationals.
Infrastructure such as railways, schools, and dams was built, and practical literacy was spread through education.
Japan’s governance was fundamentally different from Western colonial policies.
This was not limited to the Korean Peninsula.
Living standards improved markedly, and there are places that remain grateful for Japanese rule.
These facts do not constitute colonial rule.
Yet advisory reports repeatedly use terms such as “colonization” and “colonial rule.”
Did no one involved possess even a basic understanding?
This is a failure of study.
Notably, in the Prime Minister’s statement, the term “colonial” is used primarily in reference to white colonial powers.
I express respect for the Prime Minister’s discernment.