뉴스레터

For Koreans, the mention of the Dokdo issue and the naming of the "East Sea" can be frustrating. Through seminars and other such activities, Korea is engaged in public- and private-sector efforts to inform the world of the name "East Sea." Nevertheless, there is still much work that needs to be done. Professor Rainer DORMELS, a visiting scholar to the Foundation, is studying the issue of the naming of the East Sea. We asked him for his advice and insight.

Your research interests span a wide spectrum, from Hangeul and Korean politics to the East Sea issue. How did you develop such an interest in Korea?

I was studying geography in the mid 1980s. There was a Korean student among my classmates. When he wrote his name in Hangeul, I found the script fascinating. That is what sparked my interest in Korea. Korea, like Germany then, was a divided nation. The world's interest in Korea was starting to grow with Korea winning the bid to host the 1988 Summer Olympics. I wanted to learn more about this country. There was hardly anyone around me in the field. The rarity value and future prospects seemed good, so I chose to go into Korean studies.

Over the past few years, you have done research and presented on the naming of the East Sea. You have hosted a joint symposium on the topic and have shown great passion for the issue. What prompted your interest in the issues surrounding the naming of the East Sea?

I was invited to a seminar on the East Sea by Professor LEE Gi-seok, a geographer. That is when I developed an interest in the matter. In my opinion, a Korean Studies scholar has two responsibilities: one is getting the world to know more about Korea, and the other is conducting research on Korea. Researching on the East Sea issue fulfills both of these responsibilities. I came to find out that there was a lot more research going on than what has been made known. I felt that there was need to comprehensively summarize and evaluate the findings of such research and propose future directions.

What is the reaction of overseas academic circles, especially those of Europe, regarding Korea's claim on the naming of the East Sea and Japan's insistence on the use of "Sea of Japan" as the sole name for the sea in question?

There are many who do not show any interest, considering the issue to be a political one. Some scholars shy away from the matter saying that there is a political undertone to searching for evidentiary materials that use "East Sea" in order to substantiate Korea's claim. They say that research on the subject is politically motivated, undertaken with a desired conclusion in mind. Some European media scoff at the dispute. When "Sea of Japan" is used in a news article concerning wars and terrorism, the respective media outlet receives an official letter of protest from the Korean government. When it makes a correction and uses "East Sea," the Japanese government complains. For the journalist, who may know about the relevant historical and political background, this cannot but be confusing. That is why it is important to inform the international community about the issue.

As a scholar from a third country studying the issues regarding the naming of the East Sea, what do you think would be a reasonable way to resolve the dispute between Korea and Japan?

Dokdo is another point of contention with Japan, but there is a huge difference between the Dokdo issue and the naming of the East Sea. The Dokdo issue is a territorial matter. Therefore, the argument should be fashioned logically on historical evidence. The naming of the East Sea, however, is a different matter. A "name" does not entail logic. The naming of a sea is no exception. The name of a sea is determined by what the people living by it decide to call it. There are no norms based on international law that govern the naming of seas. Thus, each map publisher can use whatever name it sees fit. The problem is that the name "Sea of Japan" has enjoyed a longer, more widespread use around the world, especially in the West. "Sea of Japan" was more widely used by the international community, even before Japan's imperial era. It is therefore very dangerous to claim that "Sea of Japan" is a legacy of Japanese imperialism. The naming of the East Sea must be approached as a matter of habit rather than of logic. It is not easy to get the international community to start using "East Sea" to refer to what it has long called "Sea of Japan" overnight. That being said, linguistic habits can undergo gradual changes. The biased uses of the masculine and feminine pronouns has been replaced by the use of gender-neutral pronouns as calls for gender equality in language came to be accepted over time. The naming of the East Sea must be approached in the same manner. The priority is to familiarize the international community with "East Sea." An intermediate solution would be to convince Japan on using both "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan" until Korea and Japan can agree on a new name.

What can the Korean government and people do to spread international awareness on the naming of the East Sea?

The issue has been brought to the attention of international scholars through the International Seminar on the Naming of East Sea. The seminar has been held regularly for some time now, with many international academics invited to the event. Thanks to the seminar, changes have already been made to the naming of the East Sea in many sources. I would like to laud the findings and achievements of the seminar. The next step will be to get more people around the world, not just scholars, to become aware of the issue. Simple advertising is not enough. As a matter of fact, repetitive advertising only leads to aversion. A unique and effective method is required. The involvement of foreigners in the process of spreading the word on the naming of the East Sea would be one way to enhance the efficacy of the effort. Also, there are times when it is difficult to understand the translations of Korean scholars' papers at conferences. Only by looking at the original text does one come to comprehend what is being said. For foreigners who do not have background knowledge on the subject and are not familiar with Korean idiomatic expressions, literal translations can easily create misunderstandings. While carrying out the existing efforts, it would be a good idea for Korea to expand international exchanges by holding more seminars and inviting more overseas scholars so that the international community can familiarize itself with "East Sea."