Sandip Kumar Mishra
On 29 December 2014, Japan and South Korea concluded a military
intelligence-sharing agreement related to the North Korean nuclear and
missile programmes. It is a three-way pact in which the US is the
connecting party. The negotiations between South Korea and Japan on a
similar but bilateral pact got into controversy two years ago when the
information about it became public in South Korea. The recent agreement,
even though limited in scope and trilateral in character, was
considered to be the right note for the beginning of the new year. This
year is the 70th anniversary of the Japanese surrender in World War II.
Just as former Japanese Prime Ministers Tomiichi Murayama and Junichiro
Koizumi expressed remorse over wartime atrocities on the 50th and 60th
anniversaries, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is also expected to at least
reiterate the old Japanese position.
In another move in early January, a high-level economic consultative
meeting between the two countries happened in Seoul in which both agreed
to boost their economic relations despite politically strained ties. It
is interesting to note that despite the acrimonious verbal exchanges,
which both countries have quite frequently, their bilateral trade is
almost US$90 billion and neither tries to hamper their bilateral
economic exchanges with their political disputes.
Furthermore, in the second week of January, a parliamentary delegation
from South Korea visited Japan with South Korean President Park
Geun-hye’s message to improve bilateral relations. Japanese Prime
Minister Shinzo Abe reportedly responded that he would like to make this
year “a year to improve Japan-South-Korea relations.” These moves
indicate that Japan and South Korea may be able to forge a cordial
relationship with each other and would move forward in resolving their
differences. The top leaders of both countries who apart from a few
awkward encounters such as in November 2014 at the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) forum have not met each other after assuming their
positions - Shinzo Abe in 2012 and Park Geun-hye in February 2013 -
might finally have a direct dialogue in 2015.
But amidst these positive moves there have also been the old acrimonious
murmurs that seem to be straining the attempts to move forward in the
bilateral relationship. On 27 January, South Korea expressed concern
that Shinzo Abe may backtrack from the Japanese apology on the comfort
women issue, which was expressed by former Japanese Chief Secretary
Yohei Kono in 1993. China also expressed similar doubts because Abe
recently made a statement that he might change the terms of apology
which was used in 1995 and it would reflect his government’s present
position. The Japanese government has also not announced any specific
date about the release of Abe’s statement on the 70th anniversary which
would be in August this year.
Japan considers that it has put in ‘maximum efforts’ to address the
comfort women issue and South Korea should therefore not put any
precondition for a summit meet between the two leaders. Japanese Chief
Cabinet Secretary Yoshidhide Suga made this statement in reaction to the
South Korean President Park Gue-hye’s remarks on 13 January in which
she asked for a more sensitive response from Japan on the comfort women
issue before expecting direct talks between the two countries.
On 18 January, South Korea also protested to Japan against the
distribution of the Korean version of Japan’s Defense White Paper, which
claimed Takeshima as a Japanese territory. The islands, which South
Korea calls Dokdo, have been in Seoul’s possession for more than six
decades, and Korea has a historical claim over it.
The long trajectory of Japan and South Korea relations indicates that
even though both countries share a common friend in the form of the US
and a common threat in North Korea (also China during the Cold War),
their bilateral relations have always been complicated. There have been
impressive economic, cultural and educational exchanges between the two
countries for the normalisation of relations since 1965, but they
continue to have negative political postures against each other because
of historical disputes related to textbooks, Yasukuni Shrine visits,
comfort women and also territorial disputes such as Dokdo/Takeshima.
Basically, it is politically convenient for leaders of both the
countries to continuously use the controversial issues for their vested
political interests. Common people in South Korea are more interested in
economic opportunities and their daily lives. While they do not seek
another Japanese apology, Japanese political provocations may sometimes
induce them to behave otherwise. Similarly, Japan’s common people are
not eager about these controversial issues but when there are huge
politically motivated emotional outbursts from Korea, Japanese people
also become more adamant. This vicious cycle does not allow Japan and
South Korea to move forward towards a future-oriented relationship and
it seems that the trend of antagonism despite alignment in their
bilateral relations would continue in the near future.
No comments:
Post a Comment