The Japanese government is striking back at President Lee Myung-bak’s visit to Dokdo Friday, as expected and somewhat harder than expected. We hope that the Korean government anticipated as much and prepared perfectly for any Japanese countermoves. If not, it should start becoming so right away.
Tokyo is threatening to take the issue to the International Court of Justice, suspend or cancel diplomatic meetings, and set up an agency exclusively responsible for handling territorial disputes with its neighbors.
As most Koreans see it, all these can be little more than the proverbial ``audacity of the thief.” Japan’s strong reaction only reaffirms that the country, contrary to its ostensible apology for its World War II wrongs, has made no genuine repentance of the heart.
But that does not mean that Seoul can continue to neglect Tokyo’s moves, while being mired in internal debate over President Lee’s visit.
Opposition parties are questioning, with reason, the timing and reasons for Lee’s seemingly sudden visit to the easternmost islets also claimed by Japan. We also wonder. The President might have wanted to shake off his lame-duck status by recouping approval ratings, or vent his frustration with a lack of response from the Japanese toward his goodwill gestures, or needed to show that both he and his administration are not pro-Japanese.
Yet what’s more important than Lee’s motivation now is his shift of stance ― in the right direction ― which should have come far earlier. When someone stubbornly persists in taking your possessions away, you can either ignore it, or protest against it with words, but both approaches often prove embarrassing, and don’t work. The best way is to take action, as Lee did. Seoul needs to continue doing this to enhance its effective control over the islets.
We hope in this regard the government’s decision not to build scientific facilities on Dokdo is a temporary suspension, set aside for future use as a response to future moves by Tokyo. Critics say that Lee might have played into the hands of Japan, which badly wanted to make the issue an international dispute. Seoul has only to ignore it, not in passive but in more positive ways, and with use of sufficient historical background and legal logic. As long as Korean diplomats are armed with objective data and firm determination, Japan cannot take the matter to international courts.
As seen in the trials and errors experienced by President Lee, all Korean leaders underwent similar challenges when dealing with Japan, moving from expectation in initial years to frustration later to strained relations.
The time has long past for Korean politicians, liberals and conservatives alike, to set up a basic diplomatic stance against Japan, which will not, and should not, change despite changes in political power, because Tokyo will not, or cannot, change, either.
Korea, in cooperation with other Asian neighbors, should show to the world why Japan is a major stumbling block to regional peace. Western countries, including the United States, should also ask themselves whether Europe would be as it is today, had Germany behaved like Japan.