An analysis of the Sea of Japan naming dispute, examining IHO discussions, Korean and North Korean lobbying, and Japan’s diplomatic response. Highlights historical map usage and international naming standards while criticizing media and policy approaches.

January 19, 2019.
On the nautical charts used by countries around the world, long before now—indeed since charts were first created—the name “Sea of Japan” has been used.
A moment ago, upon seeing this morning’s front-page article in the Sankei Shimbun, my blood boiled.
All emphasis in the text and sections marked by asterisks are mine.
“Sea of Japan” — Government to hold talks with South Korea and North Korea and accept the request of an international body.
What on earth is this.
Every Japanese citizen must have thought so for a moment.
Regarding the naming of the Sea of Japan, South Korea and North Korea have insisted on renaming it the “East Sea” or using a dual designation.
It was learned on the 18th that the Japanese government, responding to strong requests from the International Hydrographic Organization, which publishes the global guideline “Limits of Oceans and Seas,” has decided to hold informal talks with the two countries.
The disagreement is decisive, and if the claims of South Korea and North Korea are accepted at the next IHO General Assembly, the guideline—unchanged for more than sixty years—may be revised and the name “East Sea” could become internationally standardized.
According to multiple diplomatic sources, informal talks among Japan, South Korea, and North Korea are planned for around this spring, with director-general-level officials from Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs expected to attend.
The guideline, whose third edition was published in 1953 and which designates the waters as the “Japan Sea,” is likely to be discussed among the three parties.
The IHO has requested that results be reported at its 2020 General Assembly.
South Korea and North Korea first raised the naming issue at a UN conference in 1992, claiming it was “a result of Japanese colonialism.”
The ignorance and incompetence of those working at this international organization called the IHO are astonishing.
Japan annexed the Korean Peninsula in 1910.
On nautical charts used worldwide, long before that—indeed since charts were first created—it has been labeled the Sea of Japan.
Initially they demanded renaming it to the “East Sea,” but in recent years they have advocated dual naming with the Sea of Japan.
Within the IHO, revisions of the guideline were discussed in the 2000s, but progress stalled due to conflict between Japan and South and North Korea.
This round of talks was effectively forced through by South Korea, which actively conducted lobbying campaigns toward relevant countries for renaming or dual designation.
What were Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and media doing when these nations launched intense propaganda to seize even the name of the Sea of Japan.
Asahi Shimbun reporters have long referred to Takeshima, illegally occupied by Syngman Rhee amid postwar confusion, as “Takeshima (Dokdo)” in their articles.
In every possible way, Asahi Shimbun has encouraged and emboldened the “bottomless evil” and “plausible lies” of the Korean Peninsula.
Japan should have abolished this newspaper and confiscated its assets to compensate for the immense losses inflicted upon Japan, and even now it is not too late.
The moment such a decision is made, the Korean Peninsula would cease its provocations toward Japan.
This is the urgent task Japan must undertake today.
Japan had been reluctant to hold talks including North Korea, which has not responded to key issues such as denuclearization and the abduction problem, and also with South Korea amid tensions over the wartime labor issue.
However, with North Korea holding summit talks with the United States, Japan judged it difficult to refuse for diplomatic reasons.
The IHO Secretariat also requested cooperation, warning that if talks were refused, it might consider abolishing the guideline.
Thus Japan changed its policy.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga stated at a press conference on the 18th that Japan would contribute constructively as a responsible member of the IHO and emphasized that the Sea of Japan is the only internationally established name and there is neither necessity nor basis for changing it.
The attitude of the Korean Peninsula is precisely an example of repeating a lie a hundred times until it becomes truth.