National Attention, Support Vital to Win War of Names
Korea and Japan will stage another heated diplomatic battle at the 17th International Hydrographic Organization conference in Monaco this week. At stake is how to call the sea between the two neighbors _ the East Sea, Sea of Japan, both or none. Tokyo is striving hard to keep calling it the Sea of Japan, as the IHO first officially did so in 1929. That would be the last thing Seoul wants, which is going all out to either use both names or leave it blank on international maps.
That Seoul cannot strongly push for the East Sea at this stage is a humiliation for many Koreans. Though Chinese and Russian records had used the name of East Sea or Korean Sea since as early as 1,000 years ago, Koreans could do little when the IHO officially designated it as the Sea of Japan in the middle of the Japanese colonial era (1909-1945). When the IHO retained it in its third edition of ``Limits of Oceans and Seas,’’ which specifies maritime boundaries, in 1953, this country was barely out of the Korean War.
In short, the East Sea is a millennium-old name, while the Sea of Japan is less than a century old historically. It is also an established international practice that when a sea between two neighboring countries is in dispute over its title, both names should be used. As arbitration, the IHO put a map with no names on the disputed sea to a vote five years ago only to stop it after a month faced with Japan’s fierce lobbying against it. This should not be repeated this time.
The pre-conference atmosphere appears not so good, however. It is regrettable to hear that Japan has persuaded a considerable portion of the 78 member nations to vote for using only the Sea of Japan title. Japan’s biggest weapon, as always, has been stubborn insistence _ and money: Tokyo has reportedly committed to giving a large sum to the IHO. If the neighboring country has its own way this time, the Sea of Japan will be its official name for several decades to come.
Time is long past for the international society to rectify wrongs made in the imperialistic era. Seoul, however, can hardly afford to sit idle and expect the rest of the world to restore historical justice. It should stage equally fierce diplomatic activities, both logically and financially. Only an eye-for-an-eye tactic can defend historical and territorial sovereignty. The Korean delegation should do its best and seek help from home if needed.
Regaining what was once ours is a must for a sovereign country. The East Sea dispute shows, however, nothing can be restored easily or automatically unless the nation pays adequate attention to it and expends the required energy.