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
|