US at a loss over Korea-Japan conflict

By Frank Ching

When Hillary Clinton spoke about America’s “pivot” to Asia last year, she described alliances with Japan, South Korea and other countries as the “fulcrum” for Washington’s strategic turn to the Asia-Pacific.

The United States has a “hub and spokes” military strategy in Asia, with separate treaty alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines and Thailand. This is unlike Europe, where NATO member countries are allied with each other.

With the United States now renewing its military emphasis on Asia, Washington would very much like its allies in the region to cooperate more with one another. In particular, the United States wanted Japan and South Korea to increase cooperation so that there would in effect be a trilateral alliance, rather than two bilateral ones.

One step in this direction was for South Korea and Japan to sign a pact under which the two countries would share military information.

Despite considerable domestic opposition to any military agreement with Japan, Korea’s former colonial master, President Lee Myung-bak decided to proceed. The signing was set for June 29.

However, at the last minute, the South Koreans suddenly backed out, using the excuse that they wanted to get more support from legislators even though National Assembly approval was not required.

Because of his agreement to sign the pact, Lee was called ‘pro-Japanese,’ one of the worst epithets to be hurled at a Korean politician.

Perhaps to counter this, and in view of the upcoming presidential election in December, Lee has in recent weeks engaged in a series of actions that were highly provocative to Japan.

On Aug. 10, he flew to the tiny Dokdo islands, controlled by Seoul but claimed by Japan. No Korean president had ever taken this action, knowing how provocative it would be.

Days later, the President called on the Japanese king to apologize for what Japan had done during the colonial era. He also brought up the issue of girls who were forcibly turned into sex slaves to serve Japanese soldiers during the war.

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda wrote a letter to President Lee suggesting that the island issue be referred to the International Court of Justice in the Hague and asking for an apology to the king. In an unusual diplomatic move, President Lee refused to accept the letter.

While the United States has assured Japan that the Senkaku islands ― known in Chinese as the Diaoyu ― are covered by their security treaty, Washington has made it clear that it had no obligation to ‘protect Japan’ in any dispute with South Korea over Dokdo, which is called Takeshima in Japan.

Similarly, Washington has made it clear to Seoul that Dokdo is not covered by their security treaty.

The islands were incorporated into South Korea by President Syngman Rhee in 1952, but this was not recognized by the United States. Washington sent Seoul a note in 1954 in which it explained that the United States would assist Korea only in the event of an armed attack against territory ‘which has been recognized by the United States as lawfully brought under the administrative control of the Republic of Korea.’

South Korea has repeatedly rebuffed Japan’s suggestion that the dispute be taken to the World Court. As Kim Sung-hwan, the Korean foreign minister, has said: ‘Our position is that there should exist no territorial disputes over Dokdo because Dokdo is our territory.’

Relations have deteriorated to such an extent that Japanese officials have talked about economic reprisals, such as not renewing a currency swap deal with Korea when it falls due and not buying Korean bonds.

But, as an editorial Sunday (August 26) in the Japan Times recognized, ‘Japan should use caution about taking retaliatory actions on the economic and other fronts because it can harm not only Japan-South Korea relations but also Japan's own interests.’

The United States is dismayed, to say the least, to see its two major allies in Asia at each other’s throat. As the State Department said, ‘both of these countries are strong, important, valued allies of the United States. It’s obviously not comfortable for us when they have a dispute between them so our message to each of them is the same: Work this out, work it out peacefully, work it out through consultation.’

But this is easier said than done. Unless faced by a common threat, say, from China or North Korea, it is likely to be a long time before Japan and South Korea agree to bury the hatchet anywhere else but in each other.

Frank Ching is a journalist and commentator based in Hong Kong. Email the writer at frank.ching@gmail.com. Follow him on Twitter: @FrankChing1.