International Responses to the Fukushima Water Release: Science and Politics

Introduction

In East Asia, the most recent global nuclear issue is Japan’s decision to release treated/contaminated Fukushima water into the ocean. Japan announced the discharge of Fukushima water into the ocean in 2021, shortly after radioactive material was filtered from the water. This issue had been very controversial and has triggered serious ramifications throughout East Asia. Various Asian and Pacific nations have raised concerns about this issue. China and South Korea, as Japan’s closest neighbours, immediately condemned Tokyo’s decision to release treated/contaminated Fukushima water. However, the US approved Japan’s decision, confirming the safety of the release of the Fukushima water into the ocean. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also supported this decision after reviewing and monitoring Japan’s treatment processes. In 2023, even the South Korean government did not strongly criticise Japan’s release and eventually accepted it.

Releasing the treated/contaminated Fukushima water is not only an environmental issue but also a political issue in East Asia. Specifically, security concerns about health and the marine environment have been widely raised in East Asia, particularly in South Korea and China. Moreover, this release reminds these two countries of Japanese imperialism. For South Korea and China, their historical relationship with Tokyo tends to affect diverse issues related to Japan. In the case of the Fukushima water release, the politicisation of science is inevitable, bringing about different political discussions.

The issue of releasing the treated/contaminated Fukushima water is linked to the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. In 2011, Fukushima nuclear power plants collapsed in the wake of an earthquake and the ensuing tsunami. This catastrophic event led to one of the most serious nuclear-related accidents in history. On 11 March 2011, Japan experienced a massive 9.0 magnitude earthquake, causing a significant tsunami. This earthquake and tsunami triggered one of history’s most severe nuclear accidents at the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. The three reactors of the Fukushima nuclear power plants were seriously damaged. The 2011 Fukushima disaster caused significant environmental contamination after the nuclear reactors were destroyed. The consequences of this disaster still resonate today. The plan to release the Fukushima contaminated/treated water is one of the most difficult issues that Japan still faces.

Japan and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) have adopted the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) to handle high levels of radioactively contaminated Fukushima water. The ALPS treatment can filter most radioactive substances, apart from several materials like tritium and carbon-14. However, these materials are also diluted by adding the seawater . The IAEA has confirmed that this process and the release plan meet international safety standards. Moreover, the US approved and supported Japan’s plan to release the Fukushima contaminated/treated water. However, this plan sparked a controversial debate, especially in Asia. Several Asian countries immediately condemned the treated/contaminated Fukushima water release for political and economic reasons. In some Asian countries, concerns about public health and seafood security play an important role in opposing the Fukushima water release. In contrast, many European countries tend to endorse Japan and the IAEA’s scientific claims.

Moreover, the discharge of Fukushima contaminated/treated water is closely linked to political and economic considerations. It influences decisions to lift Fukushima seafood bans that many countries had imposed over the long-term. Due to concerns about radioactive contamination from eating Fukushima seafood, numerous countries, including European Union (EU) member states, restricted seafood imports from Japan. However, the IAEA’s safety report has played a key role in lifting restrictions in some countries, particularly in European countries and the US. Specifically, in 2022, the UK removed all remaining restrictions on Fukushima seafood, which strengthened relations between London and Tokyo. Moreover, Washington’s purchase of Fukushima seafood was seen by many as a response to China’s decision to maintain bans on seafood coming from Japan. Thus, international responses to the release of treated/contaminated Fukushima water reflect broader tensions between scientific risks and diverse political concerns. It is evident that Japan’s plan to release the Fukushima water demonstrate how scientific issues are perceived very differently by various actors and can be exploited for political gain.

Against this backdrop, this report examines the diverse international responses to Japan’s plan to release the treated/contaminated Fukushima water. It also aims to analyse how different countries employ scientific risk assessments and examines geopolitical and security concerns related to the Fukushima water release. Moreover, this report studies the impacts of political and economic considerations in the process of dealing with scientific and/or environmental challenges. To do so, the first section will cover how Asian countries respond to Japan’s discharge plan and seafood ban. The second section will show international responses to Japan’s water treatment process and the lifting of restrictions on Japan’s seafood. The last section will summarise the interactions between politics and science in an unprecedented issue at the global level.

Asian Countries’ Responses

Initially, many Asian countries strongly condemned Japan’s decision to release contaminated/treated Fukushima water. However, some countries have changed their positions as well. In 2021, China and South Korea were extremely negative about Japan’s release of Fukushima water. Hong Kong also strongly opposed Japan’s discharge of the Fukushima contaminated/treated water. Officials raised health and safety concerns on behalf of Hong Kong citizens. The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) also asked Japan to delay the discharge of Fukushima contaminated/treated water into the ocean. However, the PIF and Tokyo reached an understanding in July 2024, which stipulated that transparency and rigorous safety standards would be enforced. South Korea eventually approved the Fukushima contaminated/treated water release as it respected the IAEA’s final report. Unlike these countries, however, Vietnam approached this issue more cautiously from the beginning. Officially, Vietnam stated, “The country supports the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, while simultaneously suggesting close co-operation and responsible behaviour in the event of an incident.” Although strong criticism emerged from Asian countries, most of them eventually signed off on Japan’s discharge of Fukushima contaminated/treated water. The following section will delve deeper into these responses and other relevant issues, such as Fukushima food bans in Asian countries. Also, it analyses how Asian countries reached an agreement to discharge the Fukushima contaminated/treated water.

China and South Korea: Japan’s Close Neighbours

As Japan’s neighbouring countries, China and South Korea immediately responded to the plan of discharging the Fukushima contaminated/treated water by denouncing the Japanese government. In 2011, Zhao Lijan, the spokesperson of China’s Foreign Ministry, claimed that Japan made a unilateral and irresponsible decision to manage the severe consequences of the 2011 Fukushima accident. Also, Chinese law scholars cited international law, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) , to criticise Japan’s irresponsible and unfair decision. South Korea also shared the same perspective. After Tokyo announced the release in April 2021, the South Korean government immediately opposed the decision due to potential environmental contamination and health risks. South Korea also claimed the plan to release the water was the Japanese government’s “unilateral” decision. However, South Korea changed its position completely after Yoon Suk-Yeol became President. Despite harsh criticism from the South Korean public, South Korea decided to sign off on the release, following the IAEA’s monitoring and assessment on the overall process of treating the Fukushima water.

Moreover, seafood import issues emerged as a serious concern both for China and South Korea after Japan’s announcement. In fact, South Korea already began banning food from eight Japanese prefectures near Fukushima since September 2013 due to the disaster. South Korea has still maintained its ban on Fukushima food imports, but there were public worries about lifting the ban as Seoul eventually signed off on Japan’s release. Despite the ban on Fukushima food imports, processed products including seafood from Fukushima were imported, which was seen as a problem by the opposition party, the Democratic Party of Korea. China also implemented strict restrictions on the ban of Fukushima seafood in August 2023, but one year later, these restrictions began to ease after negotiations with Tokyo. In 2023, Beijing claimed that safety was the main factor that influenced its decision to ban Fukushima seafood. Also, public opinions on the release were carefully considered as well. Chinese media and many users on Chinese social media supported their government’s decision to protest Japan’s decision to release. However, eventually, the two countries reached an agreement on releasing the Fukushima contaminated/treated water, which led to the resumption of Fukushima seafood imports.

Hong Kong, Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), and Vietnam

Apart from China and South Korea, other Asia-Pacific countries and regions raised objections about Japan’s plan to release the Fukushima water as well. Hong Kong and the PIF in particular have expressed concerns about the release. Compared to other Asian countries, however, Vietnam has been less vocal but still emphasised the importance of scientific assessments and the adherence to international safety standards. Additionally, later, some Pacific leaders expressed relatively positive reactions to Japan’s plan to release the Fukushima contaminated/treated water.

Hong Kong strongly opposed Japan’s decision and implemented a ban on seafood imports from Japan in 24 August 2023. Food safety and public health concerns motivated decisions to impose a seafood ban in Hong Kong, according to Tse Chin-wan, Secretary for Environment and Ecology. Also, Chief Executive John Lee described the discharge as an “irresponsible act” that ignores food safety and could potentially cause marine environment contamination. With strong criticism, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government implemented a ban on seafood imports from 10 Japanese prefectures, including Tokyo and Fukushima since August 24, 2023. Hong Kong designated the types of aquatic seafood ,from live seafood to sea salt and seaweed items, that had to be banned. As of writing this report, Hong Kong still maintains the ban on Japan’s seafood import even after mainland China began to ease the ban.

The PIF released a Statement from Forum Foreign Ministers on Fukushima Water Release into the Pacific. In this statement, the PIF expressed concerns about the release but acknowledged the International IAEA report on the safety of the release. Also, it requested continued dialogue with Japan and the IAEA to keep regular updates on the monitoring and assessment of the release process. The PIF argues that Fukushima contaminated/treated water can only be released when sufficient data demonstrates that biodiversity and Pacific islanders would not be in danger. However, the PIF has been split into two groups regarding the issue, with one side favouring the release and the other demanding more transparency and data. While the PIF has consistently voiced its concerns and has urged for more transparent scientific evidence, there is no indication that the PIF implemented a ban on Japan’s seafood imports.

Compared to other Asian countries, Vietnam has not issued strong statements either opposing or supporting Japan’s plan. This country only expressed their perspective on the peaceful use of atomic energy rather than directly addressing the release of the Fukushima contaminated/treated water. The Vietnamese Spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry, Pham Thu Hang, highlighted the international safety standards such as the IAEA’s regulations and the maintenance of peace and stability in Asia. Holding on to its neutral standpoint, Vietnam has not introduced a ban on seafood imports from Japan. Phạm Văn Toàn, the Deputy Director of the Vietnam Agency for Radiation and Nuclear Safety under the Ministry of Science and Technology, stated “Japan’s discharge of treated radioactive water into the ocean will not impact Việt Nam’s Sea areas.” Vietnam’s response differs slightly when compared to other responses outlined above.

International Responses: the US, European Union, the UK, and Russia

International responses were not aggressive or confrontational when compared to Asian countries’ initial responses. Many Western countries tended to trust Japan’s scientific procedures to deal with the Fukushima contaminated/treated water and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s monitoring and review. From the start, the US supported Japan’s release of the Fukushima contaminated/treated water. The UK also expressed their support for Japan’s discharge and backed the IAEA’s rigorous scientific review. This demonstrates the high level of trust in scientific advancements. However, Russia criticised Japan’s decision to release the water, arguing that Tokyo was not being fully transparent about the water’s treatment process. Most Western countries tended to accept Japan’s release, and the IAEA’s engagement is seen as the main reason why these countries approved it. Furthermore, these countries lifted restrictions on Fukushima food products before and after the IAEA’s confirmation. Decisions to end restrictions on Japanese seafood in the West were, however, not entirely based on scientific assessments. This section explores how Western countries have responded to the release of the Fukushima contaminated/treated water and their removal of Fukushima food restrictions.

The IAEA’s perspective on the safety of releasing Fukushima water has played a key role in lifting import restrictions on seafood products across Europe. European countries tended to be less concerned about the impacts of discharging Fukushima water. Firstly, the European Union (EU) lifted all import restrictions on food products produced near the Fukushima nuclear power plants in Japan in July 2023. This decision was implemented much more rapidly in Europe than in Asia. The EU’s decision to lift all restrictions followed a few days after the IAEA’s approval of Japan’s water release, following its safety review. The EU trusted the IAEA’s monitoring and respected the global authority of the IAEA as an international institution in the field of nuclear issues. Secondly, the UK also ended all import restrictions on Fukushima food products in 2022. The UK’s decision went ahead sooner than the EU’s announcement of lifting its ban. Prime Minister Boris Johnson marked the withdrawal of the import restrictions as another sign of strengthening the UK-Japan relations. He said before the G7 summit in Germany, “Two great island democracies, united in our values, determined to stand up together against autocracies and the dangers of drifting backwards in the world, but also wanting to do more together on technology, on security, on trade, and of course I’m delighted that tomorrow – finally – we are able to have Fukushima-origin products all over the shops in the UK.” His speech showed that certain decisions about scientific challenges could be used for diplomatic gains. After the UK’s lifting of import restrictions on Fukushima food products, British luxury retailer Harrods sold peaches from the Fukushima region. In Japan, the Fukushima region is the second-largest producer of peaches, having struggled with diminished sales due to fears of contamination. Compared with Asia, European countries have fewer concerns about potential contamination from Fukushima food products. The IAEA’s confirmation has led to a more favourable attitude towards Fukushima food products.

Lifting Fukushima seafood restrictions has been widely implemented across Europe. This trend reflects the widespread trust in the IAEA’s scientific procedures. However, political considerations also impacted the withdrawal of Fukushima seafood restrictions along with scientific assessments. The UK lifted restrictions on Fukushima seafood imports by underlying the amicable relationship between the UK and Japan. Moreover, the US accepted Japan’s seafood imports in response to China’s ban on Fukushima seafood. The US military purchased Japan’s seafood in bulk. This situation suggests that the competition between the US and China is growing, as the US ambassador to Japan, Rahm Emanuel, viewed Chinese import ban as a part of economic wars. Unlike Europe or the US, Russia suspended seafood imports from Japan after China’s ban. Announcing its ban on Japan’s seafood, the Russian government stated that restrictions would remain until Japan’s seafood met Russian safety standards. As of writing, Russia’s import ban seems to remain in effect as there are few updates about easing its ban. The US and Russia clearly demonstrate that geopolitical interests can often lurk behind scientific debates.

Conclusion: Balancing Science and Politics

Nuclear energy was widely viewed as an important source of electricity in Japan. However, the 2011 Fukushima disaster drastically challenged the Japanese government’s nuclear power policy and the myth of nuclear power plant safety. This disaster created diverse socio-political impacts in Japan and throughout the world. Firstly, radioactive contamination was a serious environmental issue in Japan. Moreover, socio-political changes began to emerge in Japanese society. For example, Japan’s civil society began to raise concerns about nuclear power plants and the use of nuclear energy. This situation is relatively uncommon in the Japanese context. The Japanese government has framed nuclear energy as a sovereign energy, an invaluable resource that maintains the country’s economic performance (Rieu, 2013). Thus, traditionally, civil society in Japan is less active and comparatively weak (Fraser and Aldrich, 2019, Aldrich, 2013). Secondly, the 2011 Fukushima disaster alarmed many countries worldwide. In East Asia especially, South Korea promptly took steps to prevent negative impacts. One response was to halt the importation of food products from the Fukushima region. This disaster affected nuclear energy policy in Europe as well. In Germany, the Fukushima disaster was covered in detail by the press (Wittneben, 2012). Although the disaster had no immediate impact on Germany’s nuclear phase-out policy, it did have some influence on Berlin’s latest nuclear phase-out policy (Jensen, 2015).

In 2021, the Japanese government announced its plan to release Fukushima contaminated/treated water into the ocean after scientific procedures, including the ALPS treatment. Releasing the water is one of the most serious consequences of the 2011 Fukushima disaster. After Japan’s official announcement of discharging the water, many Asian countries did not hesitate to express their concerns. China and South Korea condemned the Japanese government, claiming that the plan to release the water was Japan’s alone, a “unilateral decision” taken without consultation or consent from neighbouring countries. In contrast, the US and the IAEA supported Japan’s plan to release the Fukushima contaminated/treated water, as Japan had conducted scientifically sound reviews. Despite strong criticism, the Japanese government proceeded with the first round of releasing the Fukushima contaminated/treated water into the ocean in August 2023. The discharge is planned to continue over thirty years with regular scientific examinations of the quality of the Fukushima contaminated/treated water. Furthermore, the Japanese government succeeded in lifting seafood bans imposed by many countries across the world. The ban on Japanese seafood is a policy based on public health concerns, which is closely related to the realm of politics. Certain Asian countries and Russia were far stricter on importing Japan’s seafood, worrying about public health. Unlike these countries, many Western countries showed a favourable attitude to resuming their imports of Japanese seafood. Specifically, the US military purchased enormous quantities of Japanese seafood, partly in response to Beijing’s refusal to relax their own bans on Japan’s seafood. This clearly shows how transnational scientific issues cannot be seen as being entirely “neutral”.

Looking at the complex responses to Japan’s plan for releasing the Fukushima contaminated/treated water, scientific evidence and knowledge played a significant role in lifting and maintaining Fukushima seafood restrictions. It is apparent that the issue of releasing the Fukushima water was, at least initially, perceived as a scientific and environmental challenge. However, this issue became enmeshed in other international issues involving trade and the balance of power in East Asia. The withdrawal of Fukushima seafood restrictions suggests that scientific knowledge can become an important factor in policy-making processes. However, each country’s political considerations and interests cannot be entirely ruled out or ignored when dealing with scientific and/or environmental challenges.

References

ALDRICH, D. P. 2013. Rethinking civil society–state relations in Japan after the Fukushima accident. Polity, 45, 249-264.

FRASER, T. & ALDRICH, D. P. 2019. East Asia’s Nuclear Policies Fukushima Effect or a Nuclear Renaissance?

IAEA 2023. IAEA Comprehensive Report on the Safety Review of the ALPS-treated Water at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.

JENSEN, M. 2015. Political impact of the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Europe. Reflections on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident. Springer, Cham.

RIEU, A.-M. 2013. Thinking after Fukushima. Epistemic shift in social sciences. Asia Europe Journal, 11, 65-78.

TEPCO 2021. What is Tritium?

WITTNEBEN, B. B. 2012. The impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on European energy policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 15, 1-3.

Newspapers

Fukushima: Japan will have to dump radioactive water into Pacific, minister says https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/10/fukushima-japan-will-have-to-dump-radioactive-water-into-pacific-minister-says

South Korea signs off on Japan’s Fukushima water release plan https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/South-Korea-signs-off-on-Japan-s-Fukushima-water-release-plan

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident

https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_27411/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-accident

The science behind the Fukushima waste water release

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66610977

HKSAR Government strongly opposes Japan’s discharge of nuclear-contaminated water at Fukushima https://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/press/20230822_10450.html

Pacific islands urge Japan to delay release of Fukushima waste over contamination fears https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/pacific-islands-urge-japan-delay-release-fukushima-waste-over-contamination-2023-01-18/

Pacific leaders, Japan agree on Fukushima radioactive water discharge

https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/pacific/pacific-japan-fukushima-wastewater-agreement-07182024072904.html

Korea respects IAEA report on Fukushima wastewater discharge: official

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/politics/20230705/korea-respects-iaea-report-on-fukushima-wastewater-discharge-official

Vietnam responds to Japan’s plan to dump wastewater into sea

https://english.vov.vn/en/politics/vietnam-responds-to-japans-plan-to-dump-wastewater-into-sea-post1031048.vov

Fukushima water release making waves in China

https://asiatimes.com/2021/04/fukushima-water-release-making-waves-in-china/

Korea condemns Japan’s decision to release water from Fukushima

https://www.koreaherald.com/article/2594921