Seoul Should Brace for All-Out Diplomatic War

The decades-old diplomatic friction between Korea and Japan over the rocky islets between them has entered a new phase.

That the U.S. Board on Geographic Names recently changed the status of Dokdo from Korean territory to undesignated sovereignty shows Tokyo's tenacious attempts to turn it into an international dispute has borne fruit ― at least for now. In contrast, Seoul's ``quiet" diplomacy seems to have been actually ``do-nothing'' diplomacy.

U.S. officials stressed Washington's policy of not interfering in territorial disputes of other countries remains unchanged. For Koreans, however, this can be little more than a diplomatic phrase. It's like when your friend who has sided, however tacitly, with you on an issue, suddenly declares neutrality, you can't help but feel betrayed.

To prove the U.S. change of stance, one needs to look no further than the fact that Washington has not yet made any changes regarding Japan's similar disputes with China and Russia on Shenkaku and Kuril islands, respectively.

The government should demand clear explanations as to why the U.S. government had to make this change at such a delicate time and how it could do so without even consulting Seoul, or at least informing the latter of its decision beforehand. Washington should make sincere replies, a minimal courtesy to an ally.

President Lee Myung-bak ought to include this matter in his scheduled summit with U.S. President George W. Bush in Seoul early next month, explaining to his American counterparts about Korea's position on these rocky outcroppings from the aspects of history, geography and international law. The two leaders are advised to make genuine efforts to keep this issue from serving as a catalyst to another ``candlelight'' protest, this time squarely directed at America.

It is not certain these efforts would succeed in restoring Dokdo's status on various U.S. maps and at its agencies, which have used the neutral term of ``Liancourt Rocks" instead of Dokdo or Takeshima in Japan, over the past three decades.

All this indicates Korea should start from the ground up as far as the Dokdo issue is concerned. So the possible dismissal of the Korean ambassador to the U.S. or foreign minister should not just mean only they are responsible for this diplomatic fiasco but reflect Seoul's determination to brace itself for a protracted diplomatic war on the international stage.

Equally uncertain in this regard is the effect of the visit to Dokdo by Prime Minister Han Seung-soo and Korean air forces' military drills surrounding it. This show of force or gesture to reaffirm the nation's effective control over the disputed islets appear aimed more at the domestic audience ― and belatedly at that.

Some people lament that the gap in national power, mostly in regards to financial and human resources, between Korea and Japan has brought about this situation. However, more likely it is the difference in national traits, such as between noisy argument, emotional excitement and hasty action as opposed to quiet maneuver, cold reasoning and long-term calculation.

Without calm reflection and rectification of these problems, Korea faces a tremendously uphill diplomatic battle.