Korea faces uphill battle against Japan’s water disposal

‘Biden administration supports Tokyo for political reasons’

This is the third in a series of articles to highlight the possible effects of, and concerns over, Japan’s decision to discharge radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. — ED.

Korea’s attempts to thwart Japan’s plan to dump radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean is becoming an uphill battle as it is failing to persuade the United States to join its campaign against the discharge.

Last month, the Japanese government approved a plan to release more than 1 million tons of contaminated water from the destroyed Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant into the ocean beginning 2023. The water was contaminated after the nuclear plant was destroyed by an earthquake and subsequent tsunami in 2011.

Following Tokyo’s announcement, Seoul initiated efforts to stir up sentiment against the controversial plan that it believes was made without full consultation with neighboring countries.

However, the move has hit a major snag, with the U.S. supporting Japan’s decision, as evidenced by statements from senior officials of President Joe Biden’s administration, including U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry. Washington is regarded as the sole presence that can exert influence on Tokyo.

Diplomatic observers believe the coincident political interests of the U.S. and Japan have resulted in Washington’s endorsement.

“I think that the Biden administration supports Japan for political reasons because this is an issue of crucial importance to Tokyo, and the administration would have supported its decision regardless of whether there was the Quad or not,” said Ramon Pacheco Pardo, an associate professor of international relations at King’s College London.

As part of its Indo-Pacific Strategy, the U.S. formed the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) with Australia, India and Japan, a strategic forum many believe is designed to contain China. Unlike Japan, Korea has been reluctant to join the initiative as China is its largest-trading partner.

“So I think it is a case of the U.S.-Japan alliance serving Tokyo’s political interests because of its long endurance, not due to short-term considerations,” Pacheco Pardo added.

Kim Yeoul-soo, chief of the Security Strategy Office at the Korea Institute for Military Affairs, also said the U.S. support had to do with Japan’s importance to its regional strategy.

“As Japan is well aware, the country fully stands behind the U.S. I guess the Japanese government must have explained its plan to the Biden administration sufficiently ahead of the announcement,” he said.

Kim added that the Korean government should have made efforts beforehand to persuade the U.S. to support its protest against the water discharge.

“If the government had shown that Korea and the U.S. were on the same page in terms of the latter’s regional strategy (like Japan), things might have been different. However, currently, the U.S. must approve of what Japan wants,” he said.

Yang Ki-ho, a professor of Japanese studies at Sungkonghoe University, said the U.S. approval has to do with its decades-long involvement in the building of Japanese nuclear power plants.

“Four reactors at the Fukushima nuclear plant were designed or co-designed by General Electric and in that respect, the U.S. commitment to the Japanese nuclear industry cannot be discounted in Washington’s favorable position toward Japan,” Yang said.

The professor also said the Yoshihide Suga Cabinet’s blind adherence to the U.S. is due to its desire to successful host the Tokyo Summer Olympics, scheduled for July.

“Japan not hosting the Olympic Games will adversely affect Suga and the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, along with the huge financial losses. In this regard, the most influential presence in the Olympic Games is the U.S. and the Japanese government is badly trying to court the U.S. government,” Yang said.

Angered by Japan’s “unilateral” decision, President Moon Jaein instructed his aides to review whether to refer the matter to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Pacheco Pardo advised Korea to work together with groups and countries opposed to the decision, including U.S. and European scientists, Japanese fishermen and civic groups, Taiwan and perhaps China.

“Together, these groups could raise awareness and present their science-based position to the U.S., the IAEA and other parties,” he said.

“It would also make sense to explain how the Japanese government’s decision was based on cost rather than any concerns for the environment, as there are alternatives even though they may be more expensive. It would also be useful to clearly spell out these alternatives, which Japanese experts themselves have done for years.”

Yang said the government needs to work hard to share relevant information with Japan, while seeking to send an independent investigation team there ahead of going to the international court.

However, the professor warned against participating in an IAEA-led joint investigation.

“We need to remain cautious about joining an IAEA investigation team. If Japan tampers with data and the IAEA team comes up with results favorable to Tokyo, we would not be able to reject it,” Yang said.