US leadership key in Asian historical disputes

By Chung Ah-young

Northeast Asia is a region with historical issues deeply entangled while keeping close relations both geographically and economically. History often haunts the relations between the countries and sometimes poses a threat to regional stability. Recently, reinterpretations of history particularly in Japan, China and South Korea have alarmed neighboring countries and posed a challenge to U.S. leadership in the region.

“U.S. Leadership, History, and Bilateral Relations in Northeast Asia” edited by Gilbert Rozman with support by the Northeast Asian History Foundation in Korea approaches the issue from the U.S. position in the process of historical conflicts.

The book is a rare academic outcome written in English to shed light on the historical issues deeply rooted in the region seen from the U.S. stance through various discussions by prestigious experts for readers in Western countries.

Experts such as Gilbert Rozman, a professor of sociology at Princeton University; Scott Snyder, a senior associate at the Asia Foundation and Pacific Forum Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); Jin Linbo, a senior research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies; and Korean scholars including Park Cheol-hee, a professor at the Graduate School of International Studies at Seoul National University, contributed articles.

In many cases, historical discussions in the region have focused on the rift between China, Japan and Korea. But this book consisting of three chapters broadens the scope to historical memories and their origins within Northeast Asian countries, which are keys to the test of U.S. diplomacy and academic research in the future.

The first part deals with historical memories and bilateral ties with allies through the articles. It explores long-suppressed Japanese and South Korean memories which are ingrained by U.S. behavior in such issues as the atomic bombings, the Tokyo War Tribunal — a forum for the punishment of Japanese war criminals in 1946 — and the Korean War (1950-53). The articles show how the U.S. responded as the historical memories came out into the open and complicated vital bilateral alliances. As the rift between the two states intensifies, U.S. leadership is desperately in need.

Kazuhiko Togo writes that Japan’s historical memory toward the U.S. has always been in the consciousness of the Japanese as an underlying theme of their identity and values since the end of World War II. The article indicates that Japan is not only a tricky issue for China and South Korea but also that the country has a strong unresolved memory about the U.S., which still leaves the Japanese divided and hesitant to address some sensitive issues directly.

Shin Gi-wook, director of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University, explores relations in the first decade of the 21st century between the U.S. and South Korea. The article shows that the change of the role in the relationship between the two through the political changes over time in South Korea in terms of security, trade and alliance.

The second chapter looks at the enduring disagreement between Japan and South Korea over history and how the U.S. can invigorate urgently needed trilateral ties. It discusses historical memories, Japanese-South Korean relations and U.S. values.

Park discusses the U.S. strategic options in the historical disputes between its allies. He argues that the U.S. has rarely taken a strong position that could risk its relations with one side or the other. Active intervention would have raised the possibility of favoritism in U.S. responsibility in the postwar settlement. This doesn’t necessarily mean, however, that it was an uninterested party or a neutral observer. Its position varied over time, depending on the strategic context in which the historical controversy unfolded. The article says, in dealing with Japan and South Korea, the U.S. should manage the dual partnership in Northeast Asia with a sense of balance to stabilize the region and serve its interests. To maintain its status as an offshore balancer, it can better constrain conflicts between allies in the region by working comfortably with other regional powers, including China. If the divide between South Korea and Japan intensifies, China might gain the most in the strategic landscape of Northeast Asia.

The third part looks at historical memories, Sino-South Korean relations and U.S. values by focusing on the importance of the rise of China in geopolitics. Jin Linbo argues that in the dispute over Goguryeo history, for example, which is an apparently negative factor in Sino-Korean relations between China and South Korea, the passive stance of the U.S. is unlikely to produce a positive outcome for its long-term interests. He says that this indifference could create a situation in which China, South Korea, and other regional powers may turn to exclusive nationalism and regionalism, and pay less attention to regional stability and the U.S. role.

Throughout the chapters, the book highlights the importance of America’s role in the region’s historical disputes that could see a disruption in its diplomacy and security strategy. It advocates for the U.S. to show proper leadership to keep stability in a region with complicated interests.