Subscribe
E-Paper
 |
| A customer shops for locally caught seafood at the Hamanoeki Fish Market and Food Court in Soma, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, Thursday. Reuters-Yonhap |
By Lee Hyo-jin
Korea's decade-long import ban on seafood originating from Fukushima, Japan could face hurdles, as Tokyo continues efforts to reassure neighboring countries that the radiation level of wastewater, released starting last week from a crippled nuclear plant, is within safe levels.
The Korean government has been reassuring its citizens that the import restrictions would remain in place regardless of the wastewater discharge, but speculation is rising that Tokyo will increase pressure on Seoul to lift the curbs.
Yang Ki-ho, a professor of Japanese studies at Sungkonghoe University, noted a potential inconsistency in Korea's position. He viewed that Japan is likely to use the fact that Korea's soft-pedaling stance on the release of wastewater appears contradictory to its import curb.
"Korea has accepted Japan's decision on the water release saying that it meets global safety standards, but is not buying its seafood citing concerns about radioactive contamination. This sounds contradictory," said Yang. "The government should come up with better reasons and scientific data to maintain the import curb."
The professor also pointed out that Korea remains one of the few countries ― alongside China and Hong Kong ― imposing the regulation, putting the nation in a more difficult position.
China has implemented a blanket ban on all Japanese seafood products soon after Japan began releasing the water, while Hong Kong has prohibited seafood imports from Tokyo, Fukushima and eight other prefectures.
But the European Union lifted its ban on agriculture and fish products from Fukushima in July, which had been in place for 12 years following the nuclear plant meltdown in 2011.
Japan is considering taking China to the World Trade Organization (WTO) to reverse Beijing's decision on the import ban, a move that could impact Korea as well, according to Yang.
"Also, now that Japan has won the support of the U.S., it is likely to begin making official requests to Korea to resume fisheries imports," he said.
 |
| U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel gestures with a thumbs up after eating a piece of raw fish at Restaurant Takohachi during his visit to show his support for the water discharge from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, in Soma, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, Thursday. Reuters-Yonhap |
Yang was referring to U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel's visit to Fukushima Prefecture on Thursday where he said the U.S. will "stand by Japan if it decides to take China's import ban to the WTO."
Amid ongoing concerns, Korea's Prime Minister Han Duck-soo reiterated the government's stance of upholding the import curb until public safety concerns are fully addressed.
"We will not import (the seafood) until we can be assured about it, because whether to import it or not is a matter of our sovereignty," he said during a National Assembly session, Thursday.
In response to an opposition lawmaker's question whether the government would be able to stick to its current policy despite Japan's strong protest, Han replied, "We have our own internal strategies, but these cannot be disclosed to the public."
He also said that Japan has not requested the Korean government to resume seafood imports, and denied that the agenda was brought up during a recent summit between the leaders of Korea, the U.S. and Japan.
Since 2013, Korea has maintained a comprehensive import ban on fisheries products from Fukushima Prefecture and seven other neighboring regions due to worries over radioactive contamination.
Japan began releasing some 1.3 million tons of treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean on Aug. 24. The Korean government has not raised scientific or technical issues on the water discharge, which it said meets global safety standards in accordance with the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) reviews.
Opposition lawmakers and civic groups, however, have been criticizing what they called the government's soft-pedaling stance over the wastewater release, raising concerns about the potential harm it may cause to the people and the environment.
