ed Korea, Japan and US

Washington ought to think historical responsibility

As the diplomatic confrontation between Korea and Japan enters into its third week, Tokyo’s behavior is getting out of hand. Speaking at the parliament Friday, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said Korea is ``illegally occupying” Dokdo, and called for President Lee Myung-bak to apologize for demanding their king’s apology.

Japan’s legislative branch joined the fray with a resolution that parroted the premier’s claims. Some Japanese opinion leaders, including senior journalists, suggested Tokyo cease what they dubbed the ``considerate diplomacy.”

Most Koreans and Chinese could hardly believe their ears: has Japan been refraining itself from making legitimate assertions in consideration of others? Most disappointing is these words came from supposedly moderate intellectuals, not radicals. Are the leaders in the island country falling into mass delusion of sorts? One can’t help but wonder what has made them so irresponsible and shameless.

Japan is vowing to bring the Dokdo case to the International Court of Justice, reportedly confident of its preparations for territorial disputes. Tokyo even asked for the U.S. help in taking recalcitrant Seoul to the ICJ. But the Japanese approach is wrong on at least two accounts. First, the sovereignty over the rocky islets between the two countries is an issue of historical clarification before it is a territorial dispute, which started with Japan’s ``illegal occupation” 107 years ago.

Second, Japan is the least qualified country in the world to talk about international laws. Nothing shows this better than the Japanese cabinet ministers’ visit to Yasukuni Shrine, which enshrines a dozen fallen generals branded as Class-A war criminals by international laws. It was none other than Prime Minister Noda who declared the WW II generals were no longer war criminals as the Japanese laws pardoned them. Contrary to his wishes, the international community, especially all civilized countries must be remembering Japan’s wartime atrocities.

Torn between its two Asian allies, Washington has recently made no secret of its discomfort, calling for the peaceful settlement of bilateral issues through dialogue. Such a neutral, non-interventionist stance is understandable but not entirely agreeable.

Even historical laypersons here know by now at the root of Korea’s sufferings and tragedy over the past century, starting with forced annexation, is the Taft-Katsura Agreement in 1905, by which the two former imperial powers acquiesced each other’s occupation of Korea and the Philippines. It is of course hard to criticize strategic decisions of a century ago which reflected the geo-political situation at the time. The less than thorough postwar revamping of the Japanese political and social system by U.S. victors, including the maintenance of the unique monarchy, might also be the byproduct of U.S. strategic calculations.

At the end of the day, Asians are suffering from endless déjà vu.

What’s going on among Korea, Japan and China is a strategic mixed blessing for the United States. Alarmed by resurgent Middle Kingdom, Tokyo would hardly dream of distancing itself from Washington as it briefly tried to do a few years ago, while strained ties between Korea and Japan is foiling the U.S. idea of a trilateral alliance.

Some facts appear certain, though. Japan cannot, and will not, leave the U.S. for China, but Korea can, and will, depending on how Washington does. And Korea will never be of any threat to the U.S. in any way, like Japan was in 1941. Not enough reason for America to sympathize more with Korea if slightly?