The Dodkos. Or the Takeshimas.
Take your pick
Tensions between the two north Asia nations have been building slowly
but surely
Tensions between Japan and Korea have been incrementally building, reaching their height over the past couple years under the watch of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Korean President Park Geun-hye.
Tokyo and
Seoul’s deep-rooted historical problems have thus far prevented any chance a
comprehensive bilateral partnership between Washington’s two key allies in East
Asia. This presents a significant obstacle for the US which is looking to
coordinate between its allies in the Asia-Pacific in order to add heft to the
Obama administration rebalancing strategy.
Historical
Grievances
The one inescapable image coming from the 2013
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] leaders’ summit in Bali was that of a
daydreaming Japanese Prime Minister hunched over in his chair next to a visibly
indignant President of South Korea. The frigid personal relationship between
Abe and Park however is merely symbolic of the fractured bilateral relationship
between Japan and South Korea.
Indeed, ties have become so strained over the
past year that Park even indicated that a summit with Abe would be “pointless.”
Meanwhile, Park’s refusal to entertain a summit with Abe over the past year
appears to be somewhat vindicated after Abe’s controversial – and provocative –
decision to visit the Yasukuni Shrine, burial place of World War II war
criminals – in late 2013.
The stumbling blocks to a Japan-Korea
rapprochement are not new to most in Washington. The most important of these
issues are an acceptable resolution of the “comfort women” saga, including a
strong reaffirmation by Japan of its historical statements on the pain it
caused Korea before and during World War II; Japan’s whitewashing of its
unsavory war history through its text books; and finally managing tensions
surrounding the sovereignty of the Dokdo/Takeshima islands.
In late December 2013, Abe made the
controversial pilgrimage to Yasukuni shrine. Abe reportedly made his decision
to visit mainly due to his personal convictions. If that wasn’t enough, Abe
obstinately refused to listen to pleas from his advisors and allies to avoid
the controversial visit claiming that ties with South Korea and China were
already at an all-time low.
According to Yomiuri Shimbun, Abe
dismissed such warnings, telling aides that “even if I pay a visit to Yasukuni,
[ties with South Korea and China] won’t deteriorate further. Japan has
established a good relationship with Russia and other countries aside from
those two countries.”
The Yasukuni visit resulted in significant
blowback. China and South Korea pointed to the trip as more ammunition for
their arguments that Tokyo remains recalcitrant on coming to terms with Japan’s
role in World War II. The Chinese foreign ministry even went as far as decrying
Abe as “celebrating the Nazis of Asia” through his visit. Seoul used less
bombast in its condemnation but still levied a thinly veiled accusation at Abe
for “digging up wounds of the past.”
The move may also derail recent efforts to
progress on trilateral free trade talks between the three countries. North
Korea’s state news agency meanwhile, in its predictably over-the-top manner,
labeled the decision as an “act of war on Asia.” But worst of all, Abe’s
decision has bailed out both China and South Korea, which were receiving flak
from Washington for their recent policies of aggression and isolation,
respectively, towards Tokyo.
To make matter worse for Japan, the visit
resulted in an unusually stern rebuke from the US which denounced the decision
as “disappointing” and one that could “heighten regional tensions.”
For example, Abe helped contribute to a rocky
start with Park when he heralded the relationship between his beloved
grandfather – former Japanese Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi – and Park’s
father, former South Korean President Park Chung-hee. The seemingly innocent
sentiment betrayed the political realities and pressures that Park faces as the
daughter of the former dictator – who also served in the Japanese Imperial
Army. Further inflaming this comparison is the role of Kishi during World War
II [accused, but acquitted, of class-A war crimes during the Tokyo Tribunal].
Abe similarly angered Seoul when he questioned
the use of the term “war of aggression” to describe Japan’s role during the
war. And then there was the case of Taro Aso, Abe’s deputy, who further riled
Seoul when he suggested that, in looking to revise Japan’s post-war
constitution, the Abe government should replicate the Nazi approach in changing
the Weimar Republic’s constitution in the 1930s. Abe also had to deal with
blowback from South Korea after a Japanese politician outside of his party
seemingly noted approval of Japan’s military using “comfort women” during the
war.
No comments:
Post a Comment