Should Japan release treated water from Fukushima into the ocean?

Yet another environmental crisis appears to be brewing and it is hard not to wonder whether Japan's decision is tantamount to contrived contamination.

The country's fishing industry has argued against releasing the water. It is worried that consumers will refuse to buy produce from the region.

The decision has also caused a flutter in the international roost, provoking criticism from neighbours. South Korea's foreign minister expressed "serious regret" on April 12. China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian has urged Japan to "act in a responsible manner".

At another remove, US President Joe Biden's administration appears to support Japan's decision. The plan also has the backing of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which says the release would be similar to the disposal of wastewater at other plants around the world. Scientists argue that the elements remaining in the water are harmful to humans only in large doses. The world must keep its fingers crossed.

Earlier this month, the Japanese government drew the attention of the international community when it announced its decision to release treated water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean.

China, South Korea, Russia and some other countries have expressed grave concern or dissatisfaction over the decision.

In contrast, Washington thanked Japan for its efforts to dispose of the treated water from the plant. But it is interesting to note that on April 3, the US also imposed import restrictions on agricultural products produced in Fukushima.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director-general Rafael Mariano Grossi also took a positive attitude to Japan's announcement. However, neither the US State Department's statement nor the IAEA'S endorsement can eliminate the concerns of the international community and the public.

Regardless of whether the water release will be implemented in 2023 or not, the official decision of Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga's government inevitably has a serious negative impact on Japan's international image.

There are many factors that contributed to the Japanese government making this decision.

First, Tokyo Electric Power Company has built many water tanks to store nuclear waste, but this is not a long-term solution.

Second, considering Japan's upcoming parliamentary elections, the government's decision to discharge water into the Pacific is also an attempt to turn hot topics that have not yet been fully discussed into established facts.

Third, after Mr Biden took office, the US and Japan strengthened their strategic coordination, and their alliance has been restored. In this case, even if neighbouring countries react strongly, Japan seems to be able to withstand the diplomatic pressure.

Since the proposal of the Fukushima nuclear waste emission plan was released, the discussion on marine ecology and industrial safety has not stopped.

The waters around Fukushima are the fishing ground of local fishermen, but the interconnectedness of the ocean also determines whether the treated water will affect regional and possibly global fisheries, marine ecology and human safety.

As one of the first Asian countries to participate in international ocean governance, Japan has great influence on global ocean issues. It should fulfil the obligations required by international treaties and international law when it comes to how the treated water is released.

And as Japan's most important ally, the US should not play a geopolitical game on this issue, or adopt double standards.

President Moon Jae-in came forward to add weight to Seoul's response to Tokyo's controversial decision to discharge treated water from a crippled nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean.

He said there is great concern among South Koreans, as the two nations are geographically close to each other and have shared waters. He later instructed his government to "proactively consider" bringing the matter to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

But the concerns raised by Mr Moon and other South Korean officials appear to be falling on deaf ears in Tokyo.

Japan has successfully secured understanding from both the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency with regard to the disposal plan. This might embolden it to ignore concerns from South Korea and other neighbouring countries.

The lack of consultation with its neighbours is heightening concerns about proper monitoring of the water disposal. It may be that sufficiently diluted treated water would not bring damage in a direct manner, but it is still uncertain what the long-term effects are.

Instead of insisting on its objection to the discharge of the water, Seoul needs to focus on ensuring objective verification of the safety of these measures.

The discord between South Korea and Japan over the water disposal plan runs the risk of hampering efforts to enhance not only their strained bilateral relationship but also their trilateral cooperation with the US.

It was apparently no coincidence that Tokyo announced the plan a few days before Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga was to hold his first in-person meeting with US President Joe Biden in Washington. Despite its positive response to Japan's move, the Biden administration needs to pay more serious attention to Seoul's call on Tokyo to ensure the transparent disclosure and verification of information.