Differences on Role of Fukushima Inspection Team: South Korea Says “To Assess Safety,” While Japan Claims “No Assessment”

Kim Tae-ho, chair of the parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee bangs the gavel in a plenary session of the committee at the National Assembly on May 9. Yonhap News

On May 9, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made an announcement on an inspection team that would be dispatched to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and said, “We have secured an opportunity to individually inspect and evaluate the safety of the contaminated water treatment on various levels.” However, the Japanese government announced that the inspection team would “not assess or verify safety,” revealing the different views of the two countries on the role of the inspection team, a result of the agreement between the two state leaders in the latest summit. In a meeting of the parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee Tuesday, the opposition party criticized that the inspection team was simply a show for formalities.

In a report to the Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee Tuesday, the foreign ministry listed the dispatch of a field inspection team to examine the contaminated water at the Fukushima nuclear power plant as an achievement of the South Korea-Japan summit on May 7 and explained, “An inspection team of our government and agency experts will inspect the facilities used to treat the contaminated water and secure the information necessary for our own scientific and technological analysis.” The foreign ministry further said, “Our government has secured an opportunity to individually inspect and evaluate the safety of the contaminated water treatment on various levels, in addition to the existing work by the IAEA monitoring task force, in which we already take part.”

However, in a press conference on Tuesday, Japanese Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Yasutoshi Nishimura said, “We expect the inspection by the South Korean experts to enable the South Korean society to have a deeper understanding of the safety in releasing contaminated water,” but added, “They will not be evaluating or verifying safety.” South Korea and Japan released contrasting views on the role of the inspection team.

Democratic Party of Korea (DP) lawmaker Park Jeung said to Chang Ho-jin, first vice minister of foreign affairs, in the parliamentary committee meeting Tuesday, “Our foreign ministry said we had an opportunity to assess and verify, but they (Japan) claim that that is not it. Are you aware of this?” Vice Minister Chang answered, “It is only a difference of words,” and added, “Next week, we will have a director-level meeting to discuss how to operate the inspection team.” Independent legislator Kim Hong-gul quoted Minister Nishimura and asked, “Is there a possibility for us to verify the situation?” Chang answered, “Japan is very reluctant to use the word verification,” and further said, “Whether it is a verification, an inspection or an observation, what is actually important is the activities we engage in when we enter, isn’t it?”

Democratic Party legislator Park Hong-keun pointed out that the two countries were making completely opposite statements. Chang said, “I think his (Minister Nishimura) tendency may also be an issue, but I just think it is his opinion,” and added, “Even if that is how he thinks, we will not do things according to his way.” Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Won-wook mentioned media articles suggesting that the visit by the inspection team could actually threaten the government’s principle to ban the import of agricultural and marine products from Fukushima. The foreign vice minister replied that the two issues were completely irrelevant and said that the Democratic Party lawmaker was going too far. Kim Sang-hee, another Democratic Party legislator, asked, “Didn’t Prime Minister Kishida hurry to come (to South Korea) in order to evade responsibility thinking he had to do something before releasing the contaminated water in June and July?” and argued, “Our government responded (to the dispatch of an inspection team) without any preparations.”

Legislator Cho Jeong-sik (DP) suggested that the inspection team was simply a puppet sent to Japan before the final verification process by the IAEA (on the contaminated water) in June to receive information and listen to the explanation of Japan to make it look like all the formalities had been met. He argued, “The two-day trip was improvised very hastily.” Vice Minister Chang argued that there was no need to reach a hasty conclusion when the inspection team had yet to be dispatched.

Lawmaker Woo Sang-ho (DP) asked, “When the water is released this summer, aren’t you afraid of how the people residing in the coastal areas of Jeju-do, Busan, Gyeongsangnam-do, Jeollanam-do, and Jeollabuk-do will react?” and mentioned public concern that this was simply a formality to practically give Japan permission to release the water. Chang said, “If there are some parts that we find unsatisfactory in the inspection, naturally, we will seek an explanation (from Japan).”

The ruling People Power Party (PPP) emphasized the legitimacy and effectiveness of dispatching an inspection team. PPP legislator Chung Jin-suk asked the foreign vice minister, “Isn’t the IAEA currently conducting a two-track verification, and isn’t South Korea participating in both tracks?” He also said, “Aside from this, South Korea is sending another inspection team. We are trying to look at the multiple layers of this issue (contaminated water).” When PPP lawmaker Lee Myoung-su asked the significance of the summit with Japan, Vice Minister Chang said, “The people had concerns about the treatment of contaminated water from Fukushima, and I think we created an important opportunity to considerably ease their concerns.”