|
05/11/2006
Japan vs. South Korea
While I was over in Seoul, South Korea, and transiting through
Tokyo each way, all the talk in the papers was of the controversy
over the islets, or outcroppings, in the East Sea known as Dokdo
in Korean and Takeshima in Japanese.
According to South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, the islets,
a rich fishing ground also said to be a potential source of natural
gas, were forcibly taken by Japan during the Russo-Japanese
War in 1904-1905.
“Using the war as a pretext, Japan gradually seized Korea’s
sovereignty and land, including Dokdo,” Roh said.
Japan then continued possession through 1945 as it had annexed
all of the Korean Peninsula in 1910.
The controversy the past few weeks developed over Japan’s
effort to survey the territory, even though South Korea has had a
small police detachment located there since the 1950s, and a
1987 U.S. Air Force navigation map shows the islets clearly
located in Korea’s air defense zone. Korea then sent out 20
patrol boats and Japan withdrew its plan to map Dokdo.
But before this, President Roh made a speech wherein he vowed
to keep the islets safe “at all costs.” Korea’s ruling party
chairman added, “Dokdo cannot be the subject of any negotiation
or dispute. We will regard all sorts of provocations, including an
attempt to make our land Dokdo a dispute, as an act of
aggression against the Republic of Korea and will deal sternly
with it.”
Following are just a few editorial takes on the matter.
First, Japan’s Asahi Shimbun.
“South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun’s escalating rhetoric
against Japan is a dangerous development, one that can only
heighten tensions .
“Roh said the islets are a symbol of settling the history between
South Korea and Japan and restoration of sovereignty, adding
that an ‘amicable relationship between South Korea and Japan
can never be established as long as Japan continues glorifying its
history and claiming rights to the territory.’
“Roh vowed there would be no let-up in South Korea’s campaign
of sovereignty. He also mentioned the dispute over perceptions
of history in textbooks as well as visits to war-related Yasukuni
Shrine by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi
“Roh’s message is apparently this: Seoul will keep raising these
issues as a matter of principle and never make concessions. He
also seems to be urging Japan not to take his comments lightly
nor view them as mere political grandstanding directed at the
domestic audience to shore up his government’s weak power
base. His harsh language suggests there will be no
rapprochement between Tokyo and Seoul while he remains in
office .
“There is no question that Japan inflicted huge suffering on the
people of the Korean Peninsula through its 1910-1945 colonial
rule there. Japan must conduct some serious soul-searching on
this issue. Furthermore, there is no justification for Koizumi’s
visits to Yasukuni Shrine, which honors Class-A war criminals
from World War II along with the war dead .
“We do not for a moment trivialize South Korean sentiment with
regard to the territorial row over Takeshima, given the suffering
the people endured under Japan’s colonial rule.
“However, we do wish to point out that Japan had its own
reasons for claiming sovereignty over the islands .
“Despite repeated protests from Tokyo, South Korea has
effectively controlled the Takeshima islets for the past half-
century .
“In past negotiations (ed. like for a fisheries agreement), the two
governments carefully eschewed the issue of ownership of the
islets .It has been a pragmatic approach designed to promote
bilateral ties while shelving a touchy issue that is not easily
solved .
“Roh’s statement speaks volumes about the deplorable lack of
mutual trust between the Japanese and South Korean leaders.
Roh’s rhetoric stressing his government’s principles in such an
ideological manner, though, will do little to alter the situation.”
Jasper S. Kim / The Korea Herald
“As Sun Tzu explained in The Art of War, ‘All warfare is based
on deception. Offer the enemy bait to lure him.’ What Japan did
was just this, use bait in the form of one research vessel to lure
Korea into a potential legal and diplomatic global quagmire. In
other words, Japan got a lot of return for very little risk by
applying Sun Tzu’s war strategy. Specifically, the research boat
and Korea’s reaction in the form of 20 gunboats to protect the
islands against the Japanese research vessel brought about
international media exposure to the Dokdo islands issue. This in
turn placed a global spotlight on what was formerly and
primarily a regional issue, thus arguably placing potentially
greater international pressure on Korea to delay registering the
Dokdo-area seabed under Korean names (political) and may even
ultimately place greater pressure to have the International Court
of Justice to rule on this case (legal), both of which Korea does
not want .
“(Japan) has gained substantial bargaining power just by sending
one ship near Dokdo, and betting on an exuberantly strong
counter-reaction by the Korean side, straight out of Sun Tzu’s
playbook.
“So one option for Korea, in its diplomatic battle for Dokdo, is to
perhaps use a combination of its ‘hard power’ (in a manner more
proportional to its military threat to appear reasonable and
rational in front of the international community in case the issue
takes the global stage), along with its ‘soft power’ (in the form of
exporting Korean culture and history abroad), to create ‘smart
power’ and thus increase its chances of winning when it comes to
its future ‘paper, rock, scissors’ Dokdo diplomacy.”
Editorial in JoongAng Daily (South Korea)
“Although Japan’s exploration ships had in the past conducted
surveys five times in the waters near the Dokdo islets, the South
Korean government was unaware of those voyages.
“Japan’s recent provocative action was predictable because the
Korean government has carried out maritime surveys near the
islets for the past three years as a preparation to register Korean
names for the seabed area. But Korea’s foreign ministry was not
prepared for Japan’s survey plans.”
Ed: Ergo, this was labeled “amateur hour” by many in the South
Korean press in speaking of their own government.
And this rather interesting op-ed by Kim Young-hie, also in the
JoongAng Daily.
“The future of South Korea-Japan relations seems utterly
desolate .
“At Japan’s Foreign Ministry, people are reportedly saying that
the relationship between the two countries has to be put on ice
while Mr. Roh is in office. That is a logical assumption,
because President Roh said that ties between South Korea and
Japan could not be normal as long as Japan continues to glorify
its wrongdoings in the past and to claim territorial rights on the
basis of that past ‘glory.’
“Ties between the two countries were once good, so what has
worsened the relations these days? We can find an answer if we
look at the family backgrounds of Japan’s three major political
figures who are responsible for policymaking toward the Korean
Peninsula: Prime Minster Koizumi, Chief Cabinet Secretary
Shinjo Abe and Foreign Mister Taro Aso. At least we can have a
better understanding of why they stick to a nationalistic stance.
“Prime Minister Koizumi’s grandfather, Matajiro Koizumi, was a
vice chairman of the lower house of the Diet and the minister of
post from the 1920s until Japan’s surrender in 1945. He
supported Hideki Tojo, the major architect of World War II in
the Pacific, as a member of Taisei Yokusan Kai, or the Imperial
Rule Assistance Association, a political group Tojo formed to
cripple the Diet. The policies of the Yokusan Kai were the core
of Japanese totalitarian and populist politics. Matajiro Koizumi
was one of the prevailing political figures of ‘Showa fascism.’
“Junya Koizumi, the prime minister’s father, was also a member
of the Yokusan Kai. After the war, both men were forced out of
their posts, but Junya Koizumi re-entered politics and later
became minister for defense.
“Shinjo Abe’s mother was the daughter of a famous politician,
Nobusuke Kishi, who was one of the so-called ‘two ki and three
suke,’ central figures in politics and business in occupied
Manchuria in the 1930s. The two ki were Hideki Tojo, the
commander of Japanese forces there, and Naoki Hoshino,
another senior Manchurian government figure. The three suke
were Nobusuku Kishi, the vice minister of governmental
administration; Yoshisuke Aikawa, the president of the
Manchurian Industrial Development Company, and Yosuke
Matsuoka, chairman of the South Manchurian Railway
Company .
“Mr. Kishi was a minister of commerce and industry during
World War II and was later convicted of class A war crimes and
imprisoned for three years. He also returned to politics, and
served as prime minister.
“Taro Aso is from a family that ran a coal mine in Iizuka,
Kyushu, that was notorious for its cruel treatment of Korean
conscript workers. According to the Ministry of Health of Japan,
more than 1,600 workers were abused in Aso-owned coal mines.
More than half of them either escaped or died in accidents or of
starvation, or were beaten to death by supervisors. At present,
Taro Aso’s younger brother is running the company. Foreign
Minister Aso is better known as the grandson of Shigeru
Yoshida, the first prime minister after the war. Mr. Yoshida was
the consul general in Shenyang in the 1930s when Japan
occupied Manchuria.
“The trio of Koizumi, Abe and Aso, the descendants of major
war figures, may have been born with the genes for fascism and
nationalism. They seem to have nostalgia for the era when Japan
occupied and controlled almost all of Asia, judging from their
remarks about their visits to the Yasukuni Shrine or their views
on many historical matters.
“In 2003, when Prime Minister Koizumi visited the Chiran
Kamikaza Museum in Kagoshima, his father’s home town, he
shed tears. How can we expect him to accept our demand to stop
visiting the Yasukuni Shrine?
“To demand that they admit to their ancestors’ inhumane acts is a
very tall order. The three men are not equipped with the global
and cosmopolitan outlooks and intellects that would be the
prerequisites for them to transcend their ancestors morally.
“When Mr. Koizumi leaves office, Mr. Abe is very likely to
succeed to the post. The strategies of the ‘Roh Moo-hyun
doctrine’ need to be accompanied by a psycho-historical analysis
of Japanese politicians, including the top three leaders.”
---
Well, there you have it. Unfortunately it is beyond the scope of
this column to verify the authenticity of the above charges, on
both sides, but you get a good idea of just how contentious the
debate between these two nations can be. It’s more than about a
few small rock islands and to me is a further sign of how quickly
the political situation in Asia can unravel over the coming years.
Hott Spotts will return May 18.
Brian Trumbore
|
