Let's not give Abe satisfaction

Pat on foreign minister’s back may go long way

By Oh Young-jin

Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se is in hot water over what’s viewed to be Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s triumphant visit to the United States.

Media outlets call it the start of a “new honeymoon period” between the World War II victor and the vanquished, leaving Korea diplomatically stranded.

They blame Yun for incompetency in failing to block the shrewd Abe from doing what he has done ― dancing around apologies made by his predecessors to victims of Japan’s colonial rule, namely former sex slaves or “comfort women” who were forced to serve imperial Japanese soldiers.

However, let’s be realistic.

Could Minister Yun have forced Abe to apologize?

He was not in a position to force anything on Abe, who leads an independent country that is many times stronger than Korea in economic power.

Rather, Korea was reduced to the status of bystander in Abe’s moment in the spotlight.

Indeed, he squeezed the most from his trip, making the first speech by a Japanese head of state to the U.S. Congress and being chummy with U.S. President Barack Obama.

He was remorseful about attacks on Pearl Harbor and Americans killed in the war, tugging the heartstrings of the American people.

It was not just a PR success but one of substance as well.

Abe went as far as to preempt deliberations in the Diet by telling the U.S. his plans to change its pacifist constitution and allow its armed forces to help Americans in a stronger military alliance.

It takes two to tango.

If the U.S. was as strong as just after the demise of the USSR and prior to the George W. Bush presidency, and Speaker John Boehner and Obama were on better terms, Washington could have afforded to take a moralistic approach, telling Abe to apologize for his ancestors’ beastly deeds.

But the U.S. could not do this because it feels China snapping at its heels in an attempt to dethrone it.

If the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) had failed, Washington could have put Abe on the rug and gave him a thorough puritan sermon about right and wrong.

Tokyo under Abe appears an indispensable partner in their common efforts to contain China.

The allies’ national interests against a common enemy made Americans put out a welcome mat for Abe.

On this issue, the two are so hermetically sealed that there is little room left for Korea to move in.

Some Americans criticized Abe’s opportunistic behavior during his U.S. trip but they were pushed to the margins.

Is it tantamount to exonerating Yun because he had little to say about the Abe escapade?

Not really.

The minister took flak when he said in public that Korea has grown big enough for it to be taken seriously by big powers, calling the situation “the diplomatic blessing.”

Diplomats of his age have had to bite the bullet and overcome humiliation at different stages during their careers; their country was very poor up until the 1990s.

The Korean media has given him a cold shoulder, calling him “out of synch with reality.” They called him “self-flattering” and “a diplomat of incompetency” and subjected him to other name calling.

Let’s freeze the situation and look from a outside perspective.

Is there any chance that it looks to others as if we are taking on Yun as an archenemy as Abe? If that is the case, what good can we get from doing so?

No one should be above criticism, whether the President, foreign minister, CEO, media and other leaders.

That is a democratic tenet that has powered us this far but the art lies in the when and how.

Lashing out at him now may give us an outlet for our frustrations but it can also give Abe a sense of satisfaction.

Demanding his resignation will have a demoralizing effect on our diplomatic warriors.

Then, what do we do? Let’s take a deep breath and wait until August and see what Abe will have to say during the 70th anniversary of his country’s World War II defeat.