Newsletter

Last August Korea found itself in a whirlwind of uproar over Dokdo and the East Sea. Three Japanese lawmakers from the Liberal Democratic Party, including Shindo Yoshitaka, attempted to land on Uleungdo, an island next to Dokdo; it was enough to provoke Koreans who are quite sensitive to the sovereignty issue of Dokdo. Then the Japanese government released its Defense White Paper that claims its sovereignty over Dokdo, and it was like pouring oil on the fire. An onslaught of strong emotions swept the country with people condemning Japan for its ambition to usurp Dokdo and blaming the Korean government for its incompetence to deal with the situation properly; the whole country was caught up in the controversy of Dokdo sovereignty. Now, the media is bombarding the issue of the name East Sea.

Since it was reported that the US and British International Hydrographic Organizations (henceforth, IHO) supported the sole use of Sea of Japan, the controversy over the name East Sea.(Donghae in Korean) once again has aroused the patriotic passion of the Korean people. In response, the Korean National Assembly even passed a resolution that demands the sole use of East Sea to refer to the body of water between Korea and Japan. A variety of opinions have been voiced on the issue of East Sea, and they can be summarized as follows:

(1) A feeling of hurt towards the US, South Korea's long-standing staunch ally, for supporting the Japanese position and reproach on the Korean government for its diplomatic incompetence;
(2) The opinion that only East Sea should be used;
(3) The opinion that the government should promote the term Sea of Korea instead of East Sea;
(4) The proposition to discard both East Sea and Sea of Japan and adopt a new third name;
(5) Criticism on the lack of success for the past efforts to promote the co-use of the name East Sea

Logical Validity and Reasonableness Required to Persuade the International Community

First, the disappointment at the US support of Sea of Japan seems, in fact, to reflect the Koreans' feeling of betrayal after all their amity and trust towards the US. However, the US Board on Geographic Names (BGN) has long been using only the name Sea of Japan and maintains the policy of using one name for one geographic feature. Thus the US's sole use of Sea of Japan is nothing new but it is simply that this practice and policy has just been out by the Korean media. In response, the Korean government has been asking the US to co-use East Sea with Sea of Japan, on the grounds that the name Sea of Japan was internationally adopted during the Japanese colonial era when Korea was not able to voice its rightful stance, and it will continue this effort to promote the use of East Sea.

Second, regarding the opinion that East Sea alone should be used, not East Sea/Sea of Japan, I would like to point out that one should consider whether this proposition is reasonable and logically valid, and more than anything, whether it is realistic. Whatever the reason is, the reality is that the name Sea of Japan has been used worldwide for nearly 100 years. Thus it is not realistically plausible to insist that everybody should use only East Sea. But using East Sea together with Sea of Japan is in accordance with the resolutions declared by international authorities such as the IHO and UNCSGN as well as with the long-standing cartographic practices: “Recommends that countries sharing a given geographical feature under different names should endeavor, as far as possible, to reach agreement on fixing a single name for the feature concerned. Further recommends that when countries sharing a given geographical feature do not succeed in agreeing on a common name, it should be a general rule of international cartography that the name used by each of the countries concerned will be accepted” (United Nations resolution III/20). Therefore, before Korea and Japan agree on a common name, what accords with the international resolutions and practices is using both East Sea and Sea of Japan.

Third, the preference for the term Sea of Korea has the following arguments: (1) the term Sea of Korea is more commonly used in old charts than East Sea, and (2) East Sea is not an appropriate proper name because it is a simple direction term. However, Sea of Korea is a name made and used by foreign cartographers, not a traditional name used by us. The debate over whether East Sea or Sea of Korea is a rightful name closely concerns what we are pursuing. What we should never forget is that we are promoting the name East Sea in order to restore our 'lost geographic name,' and that we are not motivated from the intention to boycott the use of Sea of Japan. An endonym is regarded more important than an exonym in cartography. Thus, promoting the endonym East Sea is internationally more persuasive than the exonym Sea of Korea. Also, although East Sea originated from the direction term that means 'sea located in the east,' it is a name used more than 2000 years and hence engraved in our heart as a part of the Korean soul, a fact that should not be overlooked. Geographic names such as Tokyo and Beijing also started out as direction terms that mean 'east capital' and 'north capital' respectively, but they are now proper nouns that refer to the capital cities of Japan and China. Moreover, the Korean government decided to promote the name East Sea at the cabinet meeting in 1992 after thoroughly surveying the national sentiment and international cartographic practices. Finally, consistency in international negotiation is another matter to consider in this debate of East Sea or Sea of Korea. For the past ten years, Korea has been promoting the use of East Sea, and it could be a laughing matter to the international community if we should change the name to Sea of Korea, rendering our efforts so far useless.

Fourth, the proposal to pursue a new name instead of East Sea or Sea of Japan is believed to be motivated from the intention to avoid further antagonism between Korea and its geographically and ethnically closest neighbor, Japan. Also, it is in concert with the IHO and UNCSGN resolutions that recommend that the countries concerned agree on one name. However, this solution is feasible only when both Korea and Japan have a mind to give up their vested right to use their traditional maritime names. This option should be considered later when the pertinent circumstances change.

East Sea, the Name to Restore with Patience and Perseverance

Last, the government must take the criticism on the lack of fruitful results as a demand to make more efforts, and the Northeast Asian History Foundation (NAHF) and concerned ministries should take this as an opportunity to make more efforts. The NAHF has been continually promoting the co-use of East Sea with the help of concerned government and civic agencies. As a result, the rate of co-use of East Sea rose to 28% in 2009 from mere 2.8% in 2000. In addition, we will double our diplomatic efforts to the IHO and its member countries. Still, it will be very difficult to change the 100-year-old practice in a day; therefore, all the Koreans need to make patient and constant efforts to restore our lost name East Sea.