[Global Focus] US Pullback, Unreliable IAEA... Complex Calculations for Korea over Japan's Contaminated Water

"Poison in Earth's Well" Modern Anti-Japanese Movement Unfolds on SNS

US State Department "Japan's Transparent Decision" Followed by

Despite Korean Concerns Delivered to Special Envoy Kerry Visiting Korea

"IAEA Will Cooperate Well" Defends Japan

Government Emphasizes IAEA Information Sharing

Requests Korean Experts' Participation in Contaminated Water Verification

Japan Ranks 3rd with 8.24% IAEA Budget Contribution

Former Director General Japanese... Diplomatic Battle Favors Japan

President Moon Considers ITLOS Provisional Measures and Litigation

Unlike ICJ, Litigation Possible with One-Sided Filing

Proof of Korean Damage and Request for Information Disclosure to Japan Inevitable

Concerns Over Backlash from Japan's Possible Information Blockade

[Asia Economy Reporter Kwon Jaehee] "The Japanese poisoned the earth’s well."

On the 13th (local time), when the Japanese government announced its decision to discharge Fukushima contaminated water into the ocean, a relay movement opposing this has continued mainly on social networking services (SNS) such as Twitter. This is a reference to the false rumor spread by Japanese people during the 1923 Kanto Earthquake that "Koreans poisoned the wells," and it is being shared in three languages: Japanese, Korean, and English. This has been described as a "modern anti-Japanese movement."

Japan's decision to discharge contaminated water was made without any consultation with neighboring countries sharing the sea, such as Korea, China, and Taiwan. These neighboring countries are strongly opposing the decision.

China, which has been at odds with Japan and the US on various diplomatic issues, has been continuously criticizing the US-Japan alliance. China announced it is considering filing a lawsuit against the Japanese government along with neighboring countries based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), demanding the cancellation of the decision and compensation. On the 17th, China posted a commentary on the website of its embassy in the US, publicly opposing the Fukushima contaminated water discharge. Taiwan has threatened to claim compensation from the Japanese government in case of fisheries damage.

The Korean government is also reviewing various options, including cooperation with the US and filing a lawsuit through international dispute resolution bodies, but has yet to gain significant support in the international community where interests among countries are intertwined. Especially, on the day Japan announced the contaminated water discharge, the US State Department publicly supported Japan's position through a statement, complicating the situation further.

◆ Even the Trusted US...=What troubles our government the most is the US stance. On the 17th, Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong conveyed Korea's serious concerns about Japan's Fukushima contaminated water discharge decision and requested US interest and cooperation during a dinner with US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry.

However, at a press conference the next morning, Special Envoy Kerry said, "I believe Japan will cooperate well with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)" and drew a line by saying, "It is not appropriate for the US to intervene in the ongoing procedures." Kerry clearly indicated that the US would not intervene in response to Minister Chung's request.

This is consistent with the State Department's statement on the 13th, which defended Japan by saying, "The Japanese government's decision is a transparent decision that meets international safety standards."

Notably, Special Envoy Kerry served as Secretary of State for four years under the Obama administration and closely observed the delicate Korea-Japan relations during the comfort women agreement period. As someone who understands the nuances of Korea-Japan issues and the influence of the US stance, his clear support for Japan on the contaminated water issue is a painful point for the Korean government.

[Image source=EPA Yonhap News]

◆ Could the IAEA Be an Alternative?=In this situation, our government is placing weight on information sharing through the IAEA. Earlier, Rafael Grossi, IAEA Director General, said in an interview with Japan's public broadcaster NHK at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria, on the 14th, "I received a cooperation request related to the discharge of treated water (contaminated water) from Hiroshi Kajiyama, Japan's Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry," and added, "The IAEA shares responsibility with the Japanese government and may form an international investigation team by inviting experts from various countries and regions for safety verification."

Accordingly, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has conveyed to the IAEA the position that Korean experts' participation in the verification related to Fukushima nuclear power plant contaminated water should be guaranteed. The Ministry stated, "The IAEA is also positively considering Korea's request."

However, even if the IAEA positively reviews Korean experts' participation, there is growing speculation that the actual verification team formation and other matters will revolve around Japan's position. This is because pre- and post-monitoring and verification related to contaminated water discharge are conducted at Japan's request to the IAEA.

Previously, the IAEA welcomed Japan's decision to discharge Fukushima contaminated water into the ocean as an "international practice," which raises concerns that future diplomatic battles over Fukushima contaminated water will be centered around Japan.

In particular, Japan ranks third in the IAEA regular budget contribution rate with 8.24%, following the US (25%) and China (11.5%). Additionally, the fact that the current IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi's predecessor was Yukiya Amano, a Japanese national, also demonstrates the close relationship between Japan and the IAEA.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

◆ President Moon's Directive to File at ITLOS: Effectiveness?=Meanwhile, on the 14th, President Moon Jae-in instructed at a Blue House meeting to consider provisional measures and filing at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), drawing attention to the related procedures and effectiveness.

The ITLOS mentioned by President Moon is an international tribunal established in 1995 under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is a specialized international dispute resolution body that issues rulings on disputes related to the interpretation and application of the Law of the Sea Convention. The tribunal is located in Hamburg, Germany.

Since both Korea and Japan are parties to the UNCLOS, they can apply for "provisional measures" at ITLOS. Provisional measures are essentially "urgent relief measures" activated when marine pollution cannot be prevented until a final judgment on the violation of the UNCLOS is made. In other words, it is a kind of "injunction" requested by a party to prevent urgent damage before the main judgment.

The difference between ITLOS and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is that ICJ requires consent from both the applicant and respondent countries to start proceedings, whereas ITLOS can proceed with litigation based on one party's filing. If Korea or China, directly affected by Japan's contaminated water discharge, files a case, the trial will begin.

The problem is that the Korean government bears the burden of proving that Japan's Fukushima contaminated water discharge caused damage to Korea. To do this, requesting information disclosure from Japan is inevitable, but there are concerns that Japan's possible information blockade could cause a backlash.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.