A conflict between Japan and South Korea has gotten so intense, with no resolution in sight, that it may be time for the US to step in to insist that its two allies put the past behind them and tend to the more urgent issues of today.
The immediate question is a dispute about sovereignty over rocks in the sea between the two nations called Dokdo by Koreans, Takeshima by Japanese and the Liancourt Rocks by the US and most of the rest of the world.
However, that squabble is only the latest in a complicated history that goes back to Japan’s occupation of Korea from 1905 to 1945. Before that was a political, cultural, economic and military rivalry that began in the sixth century.
Today, this antipathy seems so deep-rooted that no resolution is possible.
Victor Cha, a Korean-American academic who is a leading authority on this issue, wrote recently: “Historical animosity between Korea and Japan will never die. Historical issues are inherently irresolvable.”
Cha, of Georgetown University in Washington, pointed to the “deep reservoir of distrust” on both sides. Temporary solutions have been sought, he said, “but the anger and resentment never go away.”
Cha, who served on the national security staff in the White House in 2004 to 2007, thus concluded: “We have to accept the reality that historical enmity constitutes the baseline of Seoul-Tokyo relations.”
This baseline, in turn, is the weakest link in the US security posture in Asia, a flaw that one day could be fatal if confrontations with North Korea or China erupt into hostilities.
In pursuit of its national interests, the US would appear to have four choices: One, to keep its hands off because a settlement is impossible; two, to muddle through, urging Korean and Japanese leaders to get along; three, to mediate a settlement; or four, to require Japanese and Korean leaders to find a solution as the price of a continued alliance with the US.
Options One and Two are unacceptable because too much is at stake. Option Three would be dangerous because the US would almost certainly be seen as favoring one side or the other and the mediation would most likely fail.
To pursue Option Four, the US should be unquestionably even-handed and be seen by all as even-handed. To compel Korean and Japanese leaders, the US could:
‧ Caution them that the US Congress and public have limited patience with those who bicker over rocks in the water and thus could seriously damage Japanese and Korean interests in the US;
‧ Take the issue to the UN Security Council. The council could do little to force a resolution, but Japan and Korea would be embarrassed internationally. The US would also veto Japan or Korea from taking a rotating seat on the council.
‧ Quietly inform Korean and Japanese leaders that any hint of a military show of force or other confrontation would cause their security treaties with the US to lapse. (The treaties are written to give the US an easy out.)
‧ Disclose that US forces in both nations would no longer conduct joint training with their forces and the question of whether US forces would be available for the defense of South Korea or Japan would be left open.
Complicating any US effort to lean on the Japanese and Koreans would be Americans who have become “Japan hands” or “Korea hands” through long contacts with Koreans or Japanese. Some tend to favor one side or another.
Jeffrey Hornung, a researcher at the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies funded by the Defense Department in Honolulu, has written that Korean President Lee Myung-bak’s recent visit to Dokdo/Takeshima “was irresponsible and the consequences will be long lasting.”
Hornung, a Japan specialist, asserted that “the Japanese government and society have made concerted efforts to understand, reconcile and apologize for Japan’s wartime aggression.”
Daniel Sneider, of a research center at Stanford University in California and a longtime student of Korea, has contended: “Japanese history textbooks do not provide students with a detailed accounting of Japanese colonial rule, particularly in Korea.”
He maintains Japan has “avoided or downplayed some of the more controversial aspects of the wartime period, such as the coercive recruitment of women for sexual services by the Japanese Imperial Army.”
By contrast, Ralph Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum think tank in Honolulu, has said: “Enough is enough! Obviously, the political leadership in Tokyo and Seoul never learned about the First Rule of Holes: When you find yourself in one, stop digging.”
“Each side seems to be going out of its way to make a bad situation worse,” Cossa said.
He said that “significant damage has already been done” and “it’s getting worse by the day.”
Richard Halloran is a commentator in Hawaii.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.