Diplomatic rows between Korea and Japan have followed an almost fixed pattern in the past: Japan usually started them by provoking Korea over historical or territorial issues; Koreans flared up; Tokyo then backed off with an excuse or apology; and Seoul forgave and forgot ― until the next provocation. Upon the end of each episode, however, Japan savored what little progress had been obtained.
It will likely be quite different this time. Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda not only justified Tokyo's renewed claim over Dokdo islets but also went on an earlier-than-usual vacation. President Lee Myung-bak also called for careful, strategic and long-term responses. ``It would not always work if we get excited temporarily and overreact,'' he said.
All this means Seoul and Tokyo should play a different game from now on. In this regard, however, Korea has a far longer way to go than Japan.
As far as the rocky outcroppings standing halfway between the two nations are concerned, Japan has been far more systematic, elaborate and farsighted. Korea is no match for Japan when it comes to cooperation between the public and private sectors, as well as the central and provincial governments in conducting research and public relations strategies in the international community.
A shocking case in point was the replacement of the entry of Dokdo islets with Liancourt Rocks, a neutral name Japan has actively promoted, in the world's largest Internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia. That a couple of ethnic Koreans overseas barely managed to prevent similar changes from happening at the Library of U.S. Congress is a commendable but painful reminder for the rest of this country ― the government, politicians and academics ― about their negligence and incompetence.
Coming in stark contrast to the quiet endeavors of a few overseas Koreans are the belated and improvised proposals by some politicians. A call for repealing the bilateral fisheries accord by Rep. Chung Mong-joon of the governing Grand National Party, for instance, can be little more than a momentary emotional outburst, which brings more harm than good to the nation. Other lawmakers proposed Korea make similar claims on the Japanese island of Tsushima. The eye-for-an-eye approach may be suitable for academics but not for politicians, who should take practicability into account.
A government source familiar with this issue said, ``We will make Japan realize it has more to lose than gain with any further provocation over Dokdo this time.'' The official then cited the possibility of near rupture of diplomatic contacts at high levels, like the foreign ministers' meeting and even a scheduled visit to Seoul by the Japanese prime minister. He went on to threaten Seoul's possible non-cooperation in the Japanese abduction issue at the six-party talks as well as in Tokyo's endeavor to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. Korean ambassador Kwon Chul-hyun's remark that his return to Tokyo may take considerable time is on the same extension.
Seoul may take whatever diplomatic retaliatory measure it thinks necessary, depending on the future development. It is questionable, however, whether the officials should compete to unveil the strong-arm tactics all at once.
What they should do instead is to orchestrate a comprehensive strategy to prepare for a drawn-out dispute first by dividing the roles of administrative and legislative branches, public and private sectors and central and provincial governments and then by combining it into a one, long-term plan.
The real war surrounding Dokdo has just begun in earnest.