Comments on: Great East Sea Tug-of-War

By: Infidel Confessions Primadonnas Vs. Princesses

Infidel Confessions Primadonnas Vs. Princesses — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 00:56:38 +0000

[...] Its an unsatisfactory conclusion to an unproductive situation: The standoff over the Shinpung-ho, a 77-t [...]

By: usinkorea

usinkorea — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 23:56:36 +0000

I was saying that if Korea wanted to do something about the issue against Japan, they should not have taken the direct physical confrontation route. A diplomatic, media, or limited, punitive trade smack would have been much, much more preferrable.

By this, I am taking it for granted Korea wanted to “make a statement” with its actions - that it wanted to react to Japan and the EEZ zone and fishing vessel issues.

I did not consider the “do nothing” approach at all, because it doesn’t seem like something Korea was considering. The reaction within Korea to the physical confrontation doesn’t seem, from what little I know, to have generated a “why did we feel the need to do anything” consideration of the event….

By: baduk

baduk — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 21:46:48 +0000

Who said SK and Japan can never have an armed conflict over Dokto? War can happen easily. Countries have fought over things cheaper than fish.

By: gorea

gorea — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:54:31 +0000

Mainichi Simbun http://www.mainichi-msn.co.jp/kokusai/america/news/20050603k0000m030090000c.html reported that Korean side demanded compensation and apology for the injured fisherman. The fisherman http://www.uploda.org/file/uporg117302.jpg He looked his condition got worse while he was in hospital.

By: Kushibo

Kushibo — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 14:20:40 +0000

USinKorea, you are saying that Korea should have gone the emotional route on this one?

I was glad that it ended with the Korean skipper admitting fault. I was glad that people could see that not every Korea-versus-Japan issue has the Korean side in the right. I haven’t seen yet this morning how it is playing in the press, but I was glad to see that the Korean side seemed to give in because they knew the Korean skipper was in the wrong.

By: usinkorea

usinkorea — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:54:01 +0000

I’d have to wait for a lawyer to give a definitive answer or someone quote more from the rules that apply…

but, I would think it screwy if a ship that has been documented as having broken the rules or laws of the area returns, it can’t be boarded unless it allows the ship to start breaking the law again — that it has to be caught red handed or not at all.

But, international treaties and conventions have a logic all their own frequently enough.

To me, regardless of the legal issues, I believe Korea picked a very bad way to handle the situation. Raise hell in the media. Hurt Japan by cancelling some inter-government meetings or something like that - a diplomatic tiff type move. Or, temporarily block some imports from Japan for some months, preferrably any trade in sea food.

Using brute force and a brute force confrontation isn’t the way I would have gone. It makes both nations look very petty and more so for the Koreans since their coast guard got involved second.

By: MichaelMichael

MichaelMichael — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 23:25:05 +0000

Japan has every right to sieze that boat if made a de facto violation of Japan’s EEZ, and the violation by definition would be illegal if it had been cited for illegal fishing in past. It’s in the UN convention on EEZs: “fixing quotas of catch, whether in relation to particular stocks or groups of stocks or catch per vessel over a period of time or to the catch by nationals of any State during a specified period.” The Korean gov’t shouldn’t make a big deal of this, because its been doing the same thing to Japanese fishermen for years.

By: oranckay

oranckay — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:55:04 +0000

“OhMyNews ran a rather interesting report last night that might help us understand some of the issues that were involved in this case. It would seem that last year, Tokyo informed Seoul that it had made a ?€œblacklist?€? of 22 Korean fishing vessels that Japan claimed had violated Japan?€™s EEZ a combined total of 81 times last year. Most, like the Sinpung-ho, were eel trawlers. The vessels on the list would be subject to seizure if caught in Japan?€™s EEZ, regardless of whether they were illegally fishing or not”

Leave it to OhmyNews to add some helpful and objective information to the issue and help understanding…. if true, this part:

“The vessels on the list would be subject to seizure if caught in Japan?€™s EEZ, regardless of whether they were illegally fishing or not”

Means that Japan was saying it would be acting illegally. Japan just doesn’t have the right to sieze ships that are in its EEZ but not in its territorial waters unless they are doing something illegal, so if it said it would sieze them regardless….

By: MichaelMichael

MichaelMichael — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:33:45 +0000

Back to our grilled eel.

By: Kushibo

Kushibo — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:15:32 +0000

The issue has been resolved, with the Korean skipper admitting fault.