Sea of Japan

The Sea of Japan is part of the western Pacific Ocean, bounded by the Japanese islands of Hokkaido, Honshu and Kyushu on the east, the Korean peninsula and Russia on the west, and Sakhalin island on the north. The Sea of Japan is connected to other seas by five shallow straits: the Strait of Tartary or Mamiya Strait between the Asian mainland and Sakhalin; La Perouse Strait or Soya Strait between the islands of Sakhalin and Hokkaido; Tsugaru Strait between the islands of Hokkaido and Honshu; Kanmon Strait between the islands of Honshu and Kyushu; and Tsushima Channel between the island of Kyushu and the Korean peninsula. The deepest point is 3712 meters below sea level.

THIS IS NOT SEA OF JAPAN!@!

Read following article please..

Let's imagine one seemingly impossible scenario to relate to the issue of the naming of the sea lying between the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese archipelago.

If the United States and Canada shared a past in which one country was colonized by the other and the names of the five Great Lakes on the border embraced only one country, it would be only natural that the disadvantaged party would dispute the legitimacy of the names.

By the same logic, the Korean government has initiated efforts to convince the international community of the illegitimacy of the name "sea of Japan" since its independence in 1945. However, the term, which was adopted by the Japanese colonialists, became common usage with the growing influence and recognition of Japan in the world, with no serious attention paid to its historical integrity or legitimacy.

After Korea won a seat in the United Nations in 1992, the Korean government brought this issue to the attention of the world at the sixth U.N. Conference on the Standardization of Geographic Names (UNCSGN). For over four decades during the Cold War period, Korea? entry into the body of nations was denied by China and Russia, two permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.

Strongly arguing for the name "East Sea," the Korean government tried to enlist the support of the international community for its cause. As a result, the United Nations suggested that relevant parties consult with each other to resolve this issue.

This view is in line with the recommendations adopted by the following two authoritative international organizations in the area of the standardization of geographical names.

The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), in its 1974 resolution, endorsed the principle of simultaneous recognition of different names for a shared geographic feature when the sharing countries do not agree on a common name.

The third UNCSGN in 1977 went one step further in adopting resolution III/20 entitled "Names of Features Beyond a Single Sovereignty." The resolution recommended that, when countries sharing a given geographical feature do not agree on a common name, it should be a general rule of cartography that the name used by each of the countries concerned will be accepted.

it is inappropriate to name a sea area after a single country without the consent of surrounding countries since it may give the wrong impression that the whole area belongs to that one country,?said Kim Myong-sik, assistant minister and director of the Korean Information Service.

Under these principles, Korea has been trying to engage Japan in constructive dialogue to find a mutually acceptable solution. However, no progress has yet to be made, since Japan refused to even enter into serious discussions, said officials of Korean's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MOFAT).

Basically, Japan does not even see the issue as a problem, claiming that the name "Sea of Japan" is already widely accepted and that the introduction of other names would cause serious confusion," said Yoon Sung-mi, an official of the international organization bureau at MOFAT. Japan is intentionally avoiding discussing the issue in an apparent move to keep that name and seems to fear the naming issue could flare up into an international concern,?she told The Korea Herald.

As a result, Korea has brought up this issue at relevant international conferences to redress what is seen as the injustice of the past in naming the sea. As recommended by the U.N. organizations, the Korean government contends, as an interim measure pending a final agreement between the two countries on a common designation, the two names ?ast Sea?and ?ea of Japan?should be used simultaneously in all official documents, maps and atlases in accordance with the general rule of international cartography. So far, the Korean government? efforts have not gone unnoticed.

An increasing number of the world? leading mapmakers, newspapers, publishers and broadcasting companies are showing sympathy for Korea? concern. Notable examples in this regard include the decisions by the influential commercial mapmaker Rand McNally, Encyclopedia Britannica and the National Geographic Society to use both ?ast Sea?and ?ea of Japan?in their maps and publications.

American publisher John Wiley & Sons Inc. in New York does the same for its geography textbooks, while CNN has also installed as policy to either use both names simultaneously or simply not name the sea.

Early in 1999, the National Geographic Society recognized the fact that South Koreans ?egitimately?dispute the term ?ea of Japan.?

?he review process involves consulting a myriad of sources, including national governments, the United Nations, and the U.S. State Department,?said Juan Valdes, chairman of NG? Map Policy Committee.

?t? an in-depth process and when the changes are decided upon, they are authoritative and recognized.?

?eographical names often have serious implications for the perception of a nation? identity, culture, language and history. Thus, finding a proper name for this sea is simply not a matter of naming a geographical feature,?said Kim of KOIS.

Naming history, colonial legacy

Historically, the sea area in question had been referred to by various names, which partially supports Korea? claim for a neutral name for the sea.

Before the 18th century, no single name had been consistently used to designate this body of water. Various names such as ?ast Sea,??ea of Korea,??ea of Japan?and ?riental Sea?appeared on old maps and publications from Britain, France, Portugal and Russia, among many others.

It is from the early 18th century to the mid?19th century that ?ea of Korea?and ?ea of Japan?gained wide acceptance and became the names most frequently used by cartographers. It is worth noting that even as late as 1870, many Japanese maps referred to this body of water as the ?ea of Chosen (Choson),?which means literally ?ea of Korea,?since Choson was the ancient name of Korea.

Of particular note is that that many noted cartographers of Japan recognized the entire sea as the ?ea of Korea?up until mid?19th century, argue Korean historians like Lee Jong?hak who keeps a large collection of Japanese primary sources.

Yet, in the 1870s and 80s, official maritime charts made by the Japanese navy often used the ?ea of Korea?and ?est Sea of Japan?at the same time, referring to each coastal area.

It was not until the Russo?Japanese War (1904?1905) that the term ?ea of Japan?gained wider acceptance. The Russo?Japanese War not only influenced western perceptions of East Asia in Japan? favor, but it also drastically changed the political landscape of East Asia.

The Japanese expansion in the late 19th century played a decisive role in spreading the use of the term ?ea of Japan.?Japan deprived Korea of its right to engage in foreign relations beginning in 1905 and forcibly annexed the country in 1910. The absence of Korea? diplomatic representation in international affairs gave Japan a free hand to promote the term ?ea of Japan?with virtually no opposition, historians note.

Thereafter, unilateral Japanese influence ?without Korea? representation ?on the international scene, including the 1926 Paris Conference of International Hydrographic Bureau, led to the common use of the name ?ea of Japan.?p> During the 1929 Monaco Conference of the IHO, the preferential term for Japan was officially recognized and listed in the first edition of ?imits of Oceans and Seas,?which served as the standard reference for geographical features for decades to come.

?ut nomenclature history aside, it is archaic in a sense to allow a body of water to embrace the name of a single country, especially one that is being so fiercely contended by a neighboring country of which a large portion of its border is adjacent to the sea,?said Kim of KOIS.

On top of that, Koreans view the term ?ea of Japan?as a legacy of their colonial past that has to be redressed.

Lee Sang?tae, senior official at the National Institute of Korean History, chronicled the development of Japan? use of the term ?ea of Japan?in line with Japan? imperialist expansion policy.

?he name ?ea of Japan?is a legacy from Japan? imperialism, aimed at converting the sea into some sort of an inland lake through territorial expansion,?Lee asserted.

As a matter of fact, Korea has never accepted the name ?ea of Japan.?Since its liberation in 1945, the Korean government has made consistent efforts to restore the appropriate name to the sea in question.

It was in the negotiations of the 1965 Fisheries Agreement between the Republic of Korea and Japan that the Republic of Korea formally brought up the issue with Japan. For the designation of this body of water, Korea proposed the ?ast Sea,?while Japan insisted on the term ?ea of Japan.?Failing to agree on a common designation, the two countries agreed on a provisional basis to use their own respective names in the original texts of the agreement, i.e., ?ast Sea?in the Korean version and ?ea of Japan?in the Japanese version.

East Sea ethnocentric?

The name ?ast Sea?is not necessarily an analogy from Korea? recent practice of naming bodies of water surrounding the peninsula depending on directions, government officials contend, thus disputing the allegation that Korea is obsessed with ethnocentric nationalism.

In addition, the name ?ast Sea,?on top of its neutral character, perfectly fits with its geographical location in the far eastern part of Asia. Similar nomenclature for a body of water can be found in the example of the North Sea, which derives its name from its position relative to the European continent.

If Korea was nationalistic enough to take issue with the names of nearby seas according to their relevant locations, Korea should also launch another promotional campaign for the name ?est Sea?instead of the ?ellow Sea.?p> But the name ?ast Sea?refers to traditional views of the particular sea lying east of the Eurasian continent, not east of the Korean Peninsula.

The ?ast Sea?was one of the most common names for the sea in China proper since many of Chinese dynasties such as Yuan, Chin and Ching were ruled by conquerors from northern Manchuria. Located right above the Peninsula, these Manchu people also identified the sea to be in the east in naming the sea, said Han Maoli, professor at Beijing University during a 1999 seminar in Seoul.

Instead, some scholars have proposed a set of candidate names that can neutrally represent the water mass bordering on South Korea, North Korea, Japan and Russia.

Tadao Furuyama, professor at Niigata University in Japan, once proposed calling the body of water ?reen Sea,?associating it with the environment and peace among the countries surrounding it. Kushiya Keiji, professor at Niigata University, proposed calling it the ?ear Sea,?meaning the Northeast Asian region? open sea.

Korean historian Choi Chann?shik has suggested the name, ?lue Sea?as a neutral and historically relevant reference. He argues that the name complements the naming of other seas in the regions, such as the Yellow Sea and Korea? South Sea or the northern part of the East China Sea, which was once called the ?lack Sea?during dynastic past.

?aming the body of water the ?reen Sea?would connote peace in a region that has been marred by international conflicts and regional disputes for centuries,?said KOIS director Kim. ?n fact, insisting upon the name that explicitly represent one nation among a group of neighboring others is nothing more than a reminder of a past marked by invasions and Imperialism.?