2008-08-04 19:08
Scholar Advises Strategic Approach on Dokdo Issue
By Michael Ha Staff Reporter A prominent legal scholar says Korea should adopt a long-term, cautious approach in dealing with the emotionally charged issue of Dokdo. He warned that some Korean politicians are taking a populist approach, which in the long run may not necessarily advance Korea's interests. Park Chun-ho, a judge serving in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and a professor emeritus at Korea University, is a leading authority on international marine law. In an interview with The Korea Times, he said the Japanese government is being ``very small-minded'' about the Dokdo issue, but that doesn't mean Korea needs to resort to raw emotion whenever Japan claims sovereignty over the islets, he added. Park's approach on this sensitive topic has its share of critics. In particular, he argues that calls to scrap or renegotiate the 1999 Korea-Japan fisheries pact should be viewed with caution. He said the Korean fishing industry benefited enormously from the agreement, more so than the Japanese side. He argued that the government should look at the potential economic impact to the Korean fishing industry before considering abandoning the agreement. Treading Carefully on Fisheries Pact Park said the government should be careful when criticizing the 1999 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) for the commercial fishing industry. Recently there have been calls by politicians here, including leaders of the governing Grand National Party, to scrap or demand a renegotiation of the pact. That economic pact did not use Dokdo but instead Ulleung-do, an island closer to mainland Korea, as a reference point in figuring out exclusionary fishing areas for each side. Critics of the agreement say it strengthened Japan's territorial claim over the islets. ``Some experts and politicians say the agreement is flawed and that it should be renegotiated. But scrapping the fisheries agreement wouldn't necessarily benefit Korea,'' Park said. He said that while there might have been procedural problems, ``the government should recognize that this agreement benefited Korea's commercial fishing industry. Economically, the agreement didn't hurt us. ``With this agreement, Korea and Japan were able to fish peacefully for the past few years. And the Korean fishermen are actually catching more fish compared to their Japanese counterparts,'' Park said. ``Besides, I don't think the Japanese government would be open to starting another round of negotiations. I actually think this is a beneficial agreement. If we were to scrap it, both Korea and Japan would suffer. And Korea stands to lose more than Japan,'' he said. ``Thanks to this pact, Koreans can fish in that region peacefully. Pulling away from the agreement would put Korean fishermen in a difficult situation.'' Park observed that Japan has been particularly aggressive in maintaining as large an EEZ as possible, as much as 10 times larger than the country's total land area. The Japanese government feels that if it loses one EEZ dispute, it might have a domino effect, he said. ``The government should closely watch Japan. And Korea should try so that the issue doesn't give other nations a negative impression on how it deals with international pacts and agreements,'' he said. ``To be sure, the Japanese government has been small-minded about this. And a lot of foreign governments don't quite understand why an economic superpower like Japan continues to make a big issue out of this and why it can't just deal with it in a mature manner.'' Steering Away From International Court Park also said it would be best to avoid taking the matter to an international court. He said such a move would not conclusively resolve the issue. It would also attract international media and possibly create an unfavorable impression that may hurt Korea's long-term interests. He commented on the possibility of the case going to the International Court of Justice: ``That would not mean a final resolution to the matter. No matter how it turns out, it could open doors to even more questions rather than conclusive answers.'' Park also cautioned that, ``to take this to the International Court, the Korean government would need to prepare extremely well. This certainly is not something that should be taken casually. It would mean committing a great deal of government resources. ``I think taking this issue to the court would not resolve it. We would just waste a lot of government resources in the end,'' he said. ``It would be best to steer away from taking the issue to the international legal system. There is no immediate solution to this.'' ``And of course, another difficult aspect is that this is not just a cut-and-dry territorial or legal issue. It stirs up raw emotions, nationalism and Japan's brutal imperialistic past,'' Park said. ``Other nations might look at it and wonder why this stirs up so much emotion. But this matter between Korea and Japan is quite unique. There is a deep psychological and emotional aspect to this. ``And it's not just in Korea that this issue stirs up emotions. Similar emotions can be found in Japan also,'' he said. Park noted that the recent controversy involving the islets' designation in the U.S. geographical board is reminding foreign governments to be more cautious as well. Look at what happened with the U.S. Board on Geographic Names and its back-and-forth change of designation for Dokdo, he said. ``I think the U.S. government is now realizing that it should be extremely careful in the future when dealing with this sensitive topic.'' But he said it doesn't look like this matter could be resolved anytime soon. ``This is a recurring matter to us. It's almost like an annual event. We should turn away from emotional responses and embrace a more long-term, strategic approach in handling this. Tokyo's Small-Minded Approach Park also chastised the Japanese government for being small-minded and for failing to deal with the Dokdo issue in a more cooperative, mature manner. ``But also in Korea, there are a lot of pundits who resort to raw emotion whenever the controversy pops up. That kind of response doesn't really help our cause and may play into Japan's hand. This has become an annual occurrence for the two nations,'' Park said. He said it might be better for the Korean government to avoid making emotionally charged statements. ``It might even be better strategically for the government to not make major statements. But of course, if the government doesn't say much, it may look awkward and the public would ask why the government isn't saying anything. ``Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet to resolve this matter. I think this territorial issue between Korea and Japan will continue like this,'' Park said. ``Even the slightest provocation generates explosive emotional responses. The situation here is unique to Japan and Korea. It would not be easy to find a comparable example in other countries.'' He noted that this year, until just a few weeks ago, the Japanese government kept relatively quite on its Dokdo claim. ``Last year and this year until recently, the Dokdo issue took a backseat. One reason for that is that Korea and Japan saw their relations deteriorate rapidly a few years ago because of Japan's territorial claim. And still there was no resolution to the controversy.'' Park noted that usually Japan's claim over the East Sea islets renews itself annually during an early part of the year. ``There is now Takeshima Day in Japan's Shimane Prefecture, on Feb. 22," Park noted. Takeshima is the name Japan uses for the East Sea islets. ``That just further inflames emotions in both countries.'' Park said it's a shame that the Japanese government continues to make its claim over Dokdo. He acknowledged that even the Japanese themselves don't expect Korea to yield on this issue but that nonetheless Tokyo continues to make its territorial claim, to the detriment of Korea-Japan bilateral diplomacy. ``Japan is a major economic power, as is Korea. Japan is being selfish and small-minded. I hope this issue can be dealt with in a more peaceful, mature manner. But of course, that's not easy. ``Also in Korea, advice to take a more cautious approach often gets lost because of the populist, emotional responses. ``The Japanese government is always keeping a close eye on what Korea is doing on the Dokdo issue. For the most part, Tokyo keeps quiet but it will make a move when possible. The Japanese government can be crafty.'' Park said that Tokyo ought to remember its past sins committed against the Korean people. ``Japan should take a mature approach on the Dokdo sovereignty issue. But it seems like Tokyo isn't able to do that yet. Japan should realize that claiming Dokdo does nothing but hurt Korea-Japan bilateral relations.'' michaelha@koreatimes.co.kr 
Treading Carefully on Fisheries Pact Park said the government should be careful when criticizing the 1999 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) for the commercial fishing industry. Recently there have been calls by politicians here, including leaders of the governing Grand National Party, to scrap or demand a renegotiation of the pact. That economic pact did not use Dokdo but instead Ulleung-do, an island closer to mainland Korea, as a reference point in figuring out exclusionary fishing areas for each side. Critics of the agreement say it strengthened Japan's territorial claim over the islets. ``Some experts and politicians say the agreement is flawed and that it should be renegotiated. But scrapping the fisheries agreement wouldn't necessarily benefit Korea,'' Park said. He said that while there might have been procedural problems, ``the government should recognize that this agreement benefited Korea's commercial fishing industry. Economically, the agreement didn't hurt us. ``With this agreement, Korea and Japan were able to fish peacefully for the past few years. And the Korean fishermen are actually catching more fish compared to their Japanese counterparts,'' Park said. ``Besides, I don't think the Japanese government would be open to starting another round of negotiations. I actually think this is a beneficial agreement. If we were to scrap it, both Korea and Japan would suffer. And Korea stands to lose more than Japan,'' he said. ``Thanks to this pact, Koreans can fish in that region peacefully. Pulling away from the agreement would put Korean fishermen in a difficult situation.'' Park observed that Japan has been particularly aggressive in maintaining as large an EEZ as possible, as much as 10 times larger than the country's total land area. The Japanese government feels that if it loses one EEZ dispute, it might have a domino effect, he said. ``The government should closely watch Japan. And Korea should try so that the issue doesn't give other nations a negative impression on how it deals with international pacts and agreements,'' he said. ``To be sure, the Japanese government has been small-minded about this. And a lot of foreign governments don't quite understand why an economic superpower like Japan continues to make a big issue out of this and why it can't just deal with it in a mature manner.'' Steering Away From International Court Park also said it would be best to avoid taking the matter to an international court. He said such a move would not conclusively resolve the issue. It would also attract international media and possibly create an unfavorable impression that may hurt Korea's long-term interests. He commented on the possibility of the case going to the International Court of Justice: ``That would not mean a final resolution to the matter. No matter how it turns out, it could open doors to even more questions rather than conclusive answers.'' Park also cautioned that, ``to take this to the International Court, the Korean government would need to prepare extremely well. This certainly is not something that should be taken casually. It would mean committing a great deal of government resources. ``I think taking this issue to the court would not resolve it. We would just waste a lot of government resources in the end,'' he said. ``It would be best to steer away from taking the issue to the international legal system. There is no immediate solution to this.'' ``And of course, another difficult aspect is that this is not just a cut-and-dry territorial or legal issue. It stirs up raw emotions, nationalism and Japan's brutal imperialistic past,'' Park said. ``Other nations might look at it and wonder why this stirs up so much emotion. But this matter between Korea and Japan is quite unique. There is a deep psychological and emotional aspect to this. ``And it's not just in Korea that this issue stirs up emotions. Similar emotions can be found in Japan also,'' he said. Park noted that the recent controversy involving the islets' designation in the U.S. geographical board are reminding foreign governments to be more cautious as well. Look at what happened with the U.S. Board on Geographic Names and its back-and-forth change of designation for Dokdo, he said. ``I think the U.S. government is now realizing that it should be extremely careful in the future when dealing with this sensitive topic.'' But he said it doesn't look like this matter could be resolved anytime soon. ``This is a recurring matter to us. It's almost like an annual event. We should turn away from emotional responses and embrace a more long-term, strategic approach in handling this. Tokyo's Small-Minded Approach Park also chastised the Japanese government for being small-minded and for failing to deal with the Dokdo issue in a more cooperative, mature manner. ``But also in Korea, there are a lot of pundits who resort to raw emotion whenever the controversy pops up. That kind of response doesn't really help our cause and may play into Japan's hand. This has become an annual occurrence for the two nations,'' Park said. He said it might be better for the Korean government to avoid making emotionally charged statements. ``It might even be better strategically for the government to not make major statements. But of course, if the government doesn't say much, it may look awkward and the public would ask why the government isn't saying anything. ``Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet to resolve this matter. I think this territorial issue between Korea and Japan will continue like this,'' Park said. ``Even the slightest provocation generates explosive emotional responses. The situation here is unique to Japan and Korea. It would not be easy to find a comparable example in other countries.'' He noted that this year, until just a few weeks ago, the Japanese government kept relatively quite on its Dokdo claim. ``Last year and this year until recently, the Dokdo issue took a backseat. One reason for that is that Korea and Japan saw their relations deteriorate rapidly a few years ago because of Japan's territorial claim. And still there was no resolution to the controversy.'' Park noted that usually Japan's claim over the East Sea islets renews itself annually during an early part of the year. ``There is now Takeshima Day in Japan's Shimane Prefecture, on Feb. 22," Park noted. Takeshima is the name Japan uses for the East Sea islets. ``That just further inflames emotions in both countries.'' Park said it's a shame that the Japanese government continues to make its claim over Dokdo. He acknowledged that even the Japanese themselves don't expect Korea to yield on this issue but that nonetheless Tokyo continues to make its territorial claim, to the detriment of Korea-Japan bilateral diplomacy. ``Japan is a major economic power, as is Korea. Japan is being selfish and small-minded. I hope this issue can be dealt with in a more peaceful, mature manner. But of course, that's not easy. ``Also in Korea, advice to take a more cautious approach often gets lost because of the populist, emotional responses. ``The Japanese government is always keeping a close eye on what Korea is doing on the Dokdo issue. For the most part, Tokyo keeps quiet but it will make a move when possible. The Japanese government can be crafty.'' Park said that Tokyo ought to remember its past sins committed against the Korean people. ``Japan should take a mature approach on the Dokdo sovereignty issue. But it seems like Tokyo isn't able to do that yet. Japan should realize that claiming Dokdo does nothing but hurt Korea-Japan bilateral relations.'' michaelha@koreatimes.co.kr
|
.jpg)
