By Jason Lim
Scott Snyder is a senior fellow for Korea Studies and Director of the Program on U.S.-Korea Policy at the prestigious Council on Foreign Affairs (CFR) and founder and former director of Center for U.S.-Korea Policy at the Asia Foundation.
In his latest CFR blog post titled, “South Korea’s Small Think with Japan,” Snyder writes that Lee made a strategic mistake by going to Dokdo and, “suggesting that Japan as the bigger country should act in accord with its national power to address historical issues. I believe that Lee is thinking small, investing disproportionate emphasis on a single, limited issue at the expense of South Korea’s broader regional and global interests.”
He goes on to argue, “Lee’s visit may hold great emotional importance for those who are still focused on past historical injustices between South Korea and Japan, but it distracts from the central reality that ultimately must propel relations between the two countries.” And that central reality is that Japan and Korea have more in common than not and that a strong relationship serves both countries’ national interests in the short and long term.
Scott’s position echoes that of the official U.S. policy that holds a neutral position over the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute and urges the two allies to work together on the issue. However, more and more, American pronouncements over the issue are sounding exasperated like the gentle scolding of a parent over two siblings repeatedly arguing over who gets to play with the same toy. For Chrissakes, get over it already. It’s only been 67 years since the end of World War II.
American frustration is understandable. Her two strongest allies in East Asia are seemingly hung up on a set of uninhabitable islets known for bad weather and seagull droppings. Here are Japan and South Korea, the world’s third and 14th economies, vibrant democracies, and dynamic economies facing a common threat in unpredictable North Korea and increasingly assertive China, and they are calling each other names and threatening to go ballistic over some pieces of jutting rocks in the middle of nowhere. I mean, it just does not make sense.
Which is exactly the point. Dokdo is not really about logic or reason. It’s not about what works best in terms of national interests or long term “Big Think” about Korea’s evolving role in the world. Despite what some pundits say, it’s not even about the potential underwater resources. Using Snyder’s own words, it’s precisely about the ``great emotional importance for those who are still focused on past historical injustices between South Korea and Japan.” Guess what? That’s pretty much everybody in Korea.
Dokdo is about emotions. By that I refer to the deep emotional trauma that occurred as a result of Imperial Japan’s brutal occupation that has since been internalized into Korea’s cultural narrative and represents an unhealed psychic scar that has become an article of faith with an almost religious significance and will continue to undergird this relationship.
Let me draw an analogy. How would Americans react when someone in Pakistan or Afghanistan say that America deserved what she got in 9/11? Probably not with cool-headed rationality. I know I wouldn’t. That’s because it was such a traumatic moment in American history when we were wrongly victimized. Similarly, Koreans don’t react “reasonably” to Japan’s claim over Dokdo because it triggers a victim’s reaction over a violent, traumatic abuse that, in this case, lasted over 35 years.
As such, Dokdo is not something that can be solved using a diplomatic framework. Like other traumas, it’s something that needs to be healed, not analyzed or negotiated. In other words, it’s more a spiritual issue than a diplomatic one because, ultimately, it’s about reconciliation.
Of all the strange places, this is where I find Catholic teachings useful because of its “reconciliation” framework. According to the Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha, key elements of a successful reconciliation effort are contrition, forgiveness, and ritual, in that order, among others.
This means that Japan would need to undergo an act of contrition, which is something that comes from within through a collective examination of conscience. It shouldn’t be a pseudo-apology that comes reluctantly because of external pressures that’s so wordsmithed by bureaucrats as to leave no one satisfied. If the victims don’t feel as if they have been apologized to, then was it a real apology? Of course not. It’s not up to the aggressor to determine whether something was an apology or not, which Japan seems to insist on doing.
Only when the act of contrition has been completed can the two nations work together to engage in “forgiveness” that heals the trauma. This is where rituals become important because a ritual ― whether a ceremony, action, or institution ― would form the visible symbol of healing. Maybe it could even take place on Dokdo.
The author lives and works in Washington D.C. He’s been writing for The Korea Times since 2006. His email address is Jason@jasonlim.net.