Korea-Japan diplomatic war

The Korea Times, an op ed piece: Korea-Japan diplomatic war

 The two geographically close neighbors ― South Korea and Japan ― are about to embark on a diplomatic warfare that could be a disturbing development to Washington’s Asia policy. It all began with President Lee Myung-bak’s visit to the Dokdo Islets on Aug. 10, to which the Japanese government waged a strong protest, threatening to take the territorial issue to the International Court of Justice.

There is an assumption in international relations theory that foreign policy often reflects the pressure of domestic politics. The latest eruption of a renewed territorial dispute over the sovereignty of Dokdo appears to support such an assumption. Both governments in Seoul and Tokyo are facing plenty of public discontent from respective sources of political trouble.

Based on strong historic evidence and international law, Korea treats Dokdo as part of its territory and effectively occupies them with security guards. However, Japan also claims its territorial rights over the islets, calling them ``Takeshima.” In defiance of Seoul’s protest, Japan has printed its claims to the islets in government documents and textbooks.

Even if Japan takes the issue to the international court, it would not be docketed unless South Korea agrees. Seoul has already made it clear it will not respond to Tokyo’s moves pertaining to the international court whose arbitration would have no binding effect. Korea’s position has been consistent whenever Japan has raised the issue.

At home, Lee’s visit to the Dokdo Islets was hailed by the ruling Saenuri Party as a legitimate exercise of presidential duty to protect Korea’s sovereignty over the Dokdo Islets. His approval rate went up to 66 percent after his trip. He also made tough statements on other unsettled issues like Japan’s practice of sex slavery during World War II.

The same visit was criticized by the opposition Democratic United Party as ``an abrupt political show by the President who revealed the limits of his diplomatic leadership.” Only in June, the Lee administration was pushing for an ROK-Japan agreement on intelligence sharing, which was blocked by the results of clumsy handling and anti-Japanese sentiment arising from issues like Dokdo and sex slavery.

Lee said he planned the Dokdo visit two or three years ago, while he was still pursuing a quiet, pragmatic policy toward Japan. While the trip itself is justified and it was generally supported by the public in Korea, some of his statements afterwards were considered unwise.

For example, he said, ``The Japanese emperor must apologize to Korean independence fighters before he visits Korea.” It is true that the Japanese emperor, as the figurehead of Japan, has never made a clear apology for his nation’s misdeeds during its colonial rule over Korea. However, there has been no recent discussion of him visiting Korea. Lee also said he would not go to Japan on a state visit, as he would not be able to freely speak what is on his mind before the Japanese parliament. Japanese leaders called Lee statement ``lacking in courtesy.”

The Korean President also said, ``Japan no longer has influence as it used to in the international community.” This was an unnecessary, improper statement. It is one thing that he talks about the positive aspects of Korea’s growing stature and increasing influence in the international arena. However, it does not accomplish anything to speak of Japan’s influence, with whom Korea will have to cooperate more closely for its own interest.

Perhaps belatedly, Lee seemed to de-escalate tensions by avoiding mentioning the Dokdo issue in his Aug. 15 speech, which celebrated Korean liberation from Japan and the establishment of the Republic of Korea. Instead, he criticized Japan for lacking an interest in resolving the issue of sex slavery which used to be called ``the issue of comfort women” until U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rephrased the term.

Japan should have no defense against Lee’s charges that Japan’s practice of sex slavery was ``an issue of women’s rights in a time of war and an act in violation of the universal value of humans and against the evolution of history.” The President previously pointed out Japanese reluctance to the resolution of these issues was largely because of its domestic politics.

There were 234 victims of sex slavery who registered with the authorities, but only 61 of them, now in their 80s, are still alive. Supporters of these victims erected a statute of a girl as a symbol of victimization in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. This became an irritant that in a bilateral summit meeting, the Japanese prime minister demanded its removal.

A private group of Japanese women came to Korea to apologize to the victims on behalf of their government. On the Dokdo issue, a poll reported only 20 percent of Japanese high school students thought Takeshima was their territory while 60 percent of them had no interest in the issue. Unfortunately, these issues are still hot potatoes for Japanese politics among adults.

In domestic calculations, President Lee may have recovered leverage in demonstrating his urgent economic policy for the remainder of his term. On a diplomatic front, his government has isolated itself with a series of policy failures on North Korea, China and now Japan. Washington stands neutral on the sensitive territorial issue between Seoul and Tokyo.

In diplomatic calculation, neither South Korea nor Japan can afford a diplomatic warfare from which neither side can gain in the long term. The two should seek a constructive exit strategy from this nagging trap, maybe with Washington’s intermediation. What’s your take?