It's not the end at all. It's just the beginning. Controversy is expected to flare up persistently despite the recent visit here by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi. He met with lawmakers of the Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) Sunday to highlight the safety of the treated radioactive water Japan is eager to release into the Pacific Ocean. Yet his bid faced fierce repercussions from the DPK members and other civic activists.
Grossi renewed his earlier stance that Japan's release plan is consistent with international standards. He vowed to have IAEA officials stay in Japan for the coming decades to closely watch whether the potential water discharge is made as promised. He said the IAEA has already set up a branch office in Fukushima.
In reaction, DPK members criticized the IAEA for having infringed upon the sovereignty of neighboring countries by attempting to justify Japan's plan to discharge the wastewater. They described the IAEA's report as “tailored for Japan” with the goal of coming up with a “predetermined conclusion.”
An increasing number of people are still casting doubts over the safety of the treated water. For starters, a Gallup Korea survey conducted late last month showed 78 percent of the respondents expressed concerns. Of particular note, 53 percent of supporters of the ruling People Power Party were also negative about the release plan. More than 100,000 citizens joined a signature collection campaign in Busan only one month since the drive began.
Grossi also acknowledged that being consistent with international standards is not necessarily enough to dispel possible worries. It is common sense that humans cannot completely control the adverse effects resulting from the discharge of a massive amount of harmful radioactive water, even though it is treated. In addition, it is widely alleged that some radioactive materials cannot be entirely removed even with the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS). No research has so far been made regarding the possible impact the accumulated waste can have on the oceanic ecosystem.
Public opinion in Japan is also divided. Despite the IAEA report, the repercussions from the fishermen in the vicinity of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and civic organizations show no sign of abating. According to a poll conducted by broadcaster Japan News Network early this month, 40 percent of Japanese citizens opposed the discharge plan, while 45 percent approved it. Given this, it is not proper for Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's administration to release the water as planned, starting presumably within August.
Now, Kishida seems to be pressed to have the final say. In 2015, the Japanese government dismissed the possibility of a final decision unless it got concessions from relevant parties during a meeting with Fukushima fishermen. It would be inappropriate for the Japanese government to reverse its pledge.
Japan has been mobilizing all possible means to find a solution to the thorny issue through international diplomatic channels. The Yoon Suk Yeol administration has been siding with Japan, saying the discharge plan is in line with international standards. Yet, it is somewhat encouraging that the Yoon government stopped there and cited the need to more cautiously assess the properness and feasibility of Japan's release plan, before making a final determination. The Yoon government should more attentively listen to the growing opposition to the discharge.
It is time for the Korean government to clarify its position to its Japanese counterpart. It should not expect the people's concerns to be appeased easily based on the plans submitted and pledged by the Japanese government. It needs to take follow-up measures to tackle the matter effectively. Yoon needs to ask Kishida to take appropriate steps during their envisioned one-on-one meeting on the sidelines of the NATO summit, slated for July 11-12. Such measures should include information, data sharing, Korea's participation in the verification processes and so on.