뉴스레터

On April 20, 2012, when an early summer heat wave hit Seoul, I boarded the plane for Paris. When I arrived at Monaco by way of the Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport and the Nice Airport on the Mediterranean coast, my body and mind tired in the heat of Seoul were refreshed by a sight of the indigo sea and the cool night air. However, I was not completely relieved of pressure, knowing that the attention of the Korean people hoping to see the adoption of East Sea as the international name in the upcoming IHC was focused on Monaco. To be sure, there were reporters from the Korean press, including the three major broadcasting companies of Korea, gathered together in the venue for coverage throughout the event. There were also the representatives of various civil groups and Korean residents overseas who had flown in to campaign for using East Sea as the international name, giving us delegates a lot of support.

Particularly impressive was the campaign of the 'Gatekeepers of East Sea,' a group of Inje University students. They had campaigned for the concurrent use of East Sea and the Sea of Japan through a tour of countries around world, and sent the supporting signatures so obtained to the IHO secretariat and the delegates of the nations. In the conference venue, they were dressed in the outfit of gatekeepers from the Joseon period and bowed to the delegates entering the conference room, a nonverbal demonstration that I believe was much more effective than any other verbal slogan in conveying our message. Such attention and support, however, placed us delegates under tremendous pressure.

The Important Significance of this IHC

Despite such support outside of the conference room and keen attention from the Korean people, the IHC, once again, much to my frustration, put off making the decision to adopt the concurrent use of East Sea and the Sea of Japan. Even though I was aware beforehand that, considering IHO's unique decision-making process¹⁾, it would be essentially impossible for any new decision to be made without agreement of the nations concerned, I felt really frustrated upon learning that realizing our dream that we had painstakingly pursued would have to be put off until the next IHC. However, such personal frustration aside, this IHC has important significance on many fronts as follows.

First of all, this IHC confirmed that the single use of the name 'Sea of Japan' in the IHO chart (S-23) is not justified. Japan had proposed that in order to expedite the publication of a new edition of S-23 being delayed due to the East Sea naming dispute, they should start making partial revision where agreed based on the third edition of S-23 published by the IHO in 1953. This proposal implied that the 'Sea of Japan' as used in the third edition should continue to be used for the name of the waters that Korea and Japan didn't agree. However, this proposal was discarded without even being debated since all the member states were against it when the chairman put it to vote where this proposal should be debated. It may be interpreted that the IHO member states clarified their position that in debating the East Sea naming issue, the third edition of S-23 which had only used the name 'Sea of Japan' may not used as the reference anymore. Accordingly, Japan has not only lost the ground on which they could make the claim that the 'Sea of Japan' is the only name approved by the IHO, nor can they argue that the third edition of S-23 should be the foundation of debate.

Secondly, the United States and the United Kingdoms, countries that had been reluctant to show support for the concurrent use of 'East Sea' and the Sea of Japan for the reason of their domestic policy of using single names, did not lend support to Japan's proposal. During the discussion at the Working Group under the IHO, the U.S. and the U.K. had been reluctant about the concurrent use of East Sea and the Sea of Japan. But I can say that they have changed their positions, or at least turned neutral, by choosing not to endorse Japan's proposal. Earlier at the meeting, the U. S. considered the plan of starting to revise agreed portions first based on the third edition of 1953, but later, through prior discussion with the Korean delegates, concluded their position calling for agreement between Korea and Japan. This decision seems to have been influenced to a certain degree by our continued efforts to justify the concurrent use of East Sea and the Sea of Japan and the recent efforts of Korean residents in the U.S. campaigning for the concurrent use of East Sea and the Sea of Japan.

Thirdly, it was suggested that, considering the rapid development of electronic charts, S-23 should be discarded and replaced by an electronic chart. Of course, this suggestion may be regarded as an expressed complaint about continued delay in the publication of the fourth edition of S-23. But it also implies the decreasing importance of paper charts with the growing popularity of electronic ones. Meanwhile, there was a chart exhibition held in the PR booths of the nations in the hallway throughout the conference period, and in the awards ceremony on the last day of the conference, the state-of-the-art electronic chart control system installed by a Korean oceanographic researcher had the honor of the First Prize (the Second and Third Prizes went to Japan and France, respectively). Of course, the results of this exhibition alone may not be sufficient for me to claim that Korea has the best technology in electronic charts.

However, considering that electronic charts, unlike paper ones, are closely linked to the level of information technology (IT), I find it quite significant for our electronic chart control system to have been awarded with the top prize that drew attention from the delegates and experts. I hope that this will be a turning point for Korea to start leading the international hydrographic organization.

Fourth, despite the tension created between North and South Koreas in the aftermath of North Korea's recent launch of missiles, there was unmistakable collaboration between the two Koreas in the IHC venue when it came to the East Sea naming issue. The South Korean delegates not only met with their North Korean counterparts before the conference for the discussion of collaboration plans, but maintained their close collaborative relationship throughout the conference, which contributed to justifying the concurrent use of East Sea and the Sea of Japan and exerting pressure on Japan.

Finally, this conference served us again as a reminder of the importance of understanding and swiftly coping with the parliamentary rules of an international conference. For instance, if Japan had been aware that absentation was as good as opposition under the parliamentary rules of the IHC, they could have saved themselves the humiliation of submitting such a proposal that would meet the opposition of Korea and the abstention of many and therefore be discarded without even being debated. If putting it to vote had not been their intention, Japan should have been more aggressive in expressing opposition to putting it to vote or put off the voting before they withdrew their proposal or otherwise used the parliamentary rules to their advantage to take action more swiftly, which could have saved them such a humiliation.

Wise and Thorough Preparations Needed for the Coming Age of Electronic Charts

The 18th International Hydrographic Convention was closed without yielding the desired result of adopting the concurrent use of East Sea and the Sea of Japan. However, the IHC was significant in that it destroyed ground for the justification of the 3rd edition of S-23 with the single use of the Sea of Japan and made it impossible for such editions of S-23 to be published. Although many of the delegates were reluctant to fully express themselves within the conference room, for fear of getting involved in the diplomatic dispute between Korea and Japan, a majority of the delegates that I individually contacted gave full support for the justification of the concurrent use of East Sea and the Sea of Japan while expressing frustration with Japan's stubbornness. Even though adoption of the concurrent use of East Sea and the Sea of Japan within the IHO would have to wait until the next IHC, we should continue to make effort for the concurrent use of East Sea and the Sea of Japan in the international community by working in close cooperation with domestic civil groups and the groups of Korean residents overseas without forgetting to make thorough preparations for the coming age of electronic charts.

1) While international conferences usually require a simple or absolute majority of 'present and voting nations' to pass a certain matter, the IHCs require the approval of a majority or two-thirds of the 'present nations' or 'member nations,' in which case abstention is as good as opposition.