Yesterday I ran across a reference in one Japanese newspaper to the complaints of Shimane Prefecture fisherman that South Korea was not upholding a fishing agreement allowing them to fish in a provisional maritime area. It was the first I heard of it, so I scouted around to see what I could find. Otherwise, it would be difficult to find a motive for the prefecture’s recent behavior other than unbridled nationalism.

It turns out there is such an agreement that dates from 1999. It was a private-sector pact between the national associations representing fishermen in both countries. The deal was that the question of sovereignty over the islets was to be left to the national governments to resolve. Until then, fishermen from both countries could fish freely in so-called provisional waters, which cover a large area in the region but exclude the 12-nautical-mile area around Takeshima/Dokdo, which South Korea claims as its territorial waters. Here is a reference from an English-language Asahi editorial that appeared over the weekend. (Note: The Asahi is the Japanese national daily that tilts farthest to the left.)

The first person in the English-language blogosphere to notice this seems to have been GI Korea; here’s his post.

I’ve seen two specific complaints by the Shimane fisherman. The first is that the South Korean Coast Guard prevents them from fishing. The second is that the agreement calls for the South Koreans to stop using fishing nets anchored in the seabed and use trawling nets instead. Use of the anchored nets effectively prevents Japanese fishermen from operating. The nets also catch a lot more fish, and the Japanese are concerned that the South Koreans are depleting nearby fish stocks. (The International Whaling Federation will be surprised to hear about Japanese interest in maritime conservation.) Another aspect of the agreement is that the Koreans are supposed to use ships with a smaller capacity to store fish; a compromise was specifically worked out on the tonnage. The South Koreans do not seem to upholding that part of the agreement, either.

If anyone can find a reference to this agreement in the South Korean press, we’d like to know about it. (Korean on-line newspapers have both English and Japanese editions, which I can read. My Korean ability is not yet to the point of handling a newspaper article, but we’d welcome a summary or translation.) I did see a Japanese language article on one of the Korean newspaper sites about a fisherman in Busan a couple of years ago who was agitating for the agreement to be amended because he thought it was unfair.

Other aspects of the issue surfaced during my brief research. First, fishing disputes between the two countries go back decades (and probably further). There have been several incidents or skirmishes in fishing areas. One South Korean fishing vessel sunk after it was discovered in Japanese territorial waters. Apparently, it was approached by what the Japanese called a “guide ship”, which was trying to get the Korean ship to leave. Somehow the Korean ship wound up hitting the Japanese ship in the bow, and it capsized and sank as a result. (The Japanese saved the Korean crew members.)

Also, the Japanese have an international reputation for aggressively claiming economic exclusion zones. The people who benefit the most in an island country are obviously the fishermen. On the other hand, Korean fishermen have an international reputation for not giving a hoot about international agreements and fishing wherever they dang well please.

Through occasional interpretation jobs for the Japanese court system, I also know that Japanese legal authorities are a bit frustrated with South Korean fishermen because they smuggle illegal workers from other Asian countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.) to work in the Japanese construction industry. (I interpreted for some of the guys they caught; most worked in South Korea before trying Japan, where they heard the conditions and pay were better.)

I saw a source in English note that in past bilateral discussions between Japan and South Korea, the Japanese would always back down and concede the point, regardless of the issue, when the South Koreans brought up Japanese colonial rule. (So much for Japanese intransigence and unwillingness to concede its past sins). Recently, however, the Japanese seem to have decided that enough is enough, because the South Koreans have found this tactic no longer works. This leads me to wonder how much of the current Takeshima/Dokdo controversy is caused by the South Koreans stepping up the ante as a result.

Finally, all of this further drives home the futility—for me, or any other expatriate—of taking a strong stand on an issue involving the country of one’s residence and a third foreign country. I’ve been in Japan a while now, reading Japanese newspapers and watching Japanese news shows on TV, and I’ve never paid much attention to fishing disputes before. If you’re not a fisherman, who has the time? Unless you do exhaustive research, you’re likely to reach conclusions that may have an emotional rather than a rational basis, if only because your information sources are going to be biased. And there’s more than enough emotionalism going around about Takeshima/Dokdo as it is.