Abe makes it difficult for all

By Tong Kim

Following a successful visit to the United States by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe late last month, South Koreans are debating on how to put this in perspective. One group thinks Abe’s contribution to the building of a robust global alliance with the U.S. reflects Seoul’s diplomatic failure resulting in the downgrading of the Republic of Korea by Washington, while another group argues that a closer U.S.-Japan relationship will enable Seoul to strengthen trilateral cooperation against North Korean threats and attain regional stability and prosperity.

Nevertheless, both groups were equally disappointed at, or even resented by, Abe’s intentionally evasive words, skimming over historical issues, beyond expressing “eternal condolences” to the Americans lost during the war. During his speech to a joint session of Congress, Abe did not mention, or apologize for, Japan’s aggression or its sexual slavery.

Some specialists in Washington, including Richard Bush, director of the Brookings Center for East Asia Policy Studies (CEAP), still think that Abe may make a more constructive statement on historical issues on August 15, marking the 70th anniversary of the end of the WWII. They note that during Abe’s visit to the U.S., his audiences were Americans, and that when he spoke at the Bandung conference in April, he was not fully prepared to address the history issues.

After Abe’s press conference with President Obama and his address at Congress, the state department’s spokesperson was asked in two press briefings whether the department was satisfied with Abe’s response to history issues. The answer was simple: “We take note of” what the Japanese prime minister said on both occasions. It depends on how you interpret Abe’s words.

On the other hand, there are some observers, including Jeffrey Bader, former senior White House NSC director for Asian affairs, who believe that the Obama administration should not expect more statements from Japan on past history. This view seems to be prevalent within the administration, as they want to move on for the future.

However, the history issues are not so simple to put aside. They would not go away as Tokyo or Washington may wish. They are a matter of truth and justice. Enough truth has been unearthed about Japan’s wartime atrocities. But, no justice has been done. On May 5, an international group of 187 historians called on Prime Minister Abe to address Japan’s history of colonial rule and wartime aggression on the 70th anniversary of the war’s end.

The call was widely reported in the major media around the world. The Christian Science Monitor dubbed the list of historians, who signed an open letter in support of historians in Japan as a “Global Who ’s Who of Asia Scholars.” Among them were such prominent Japan experts as John Dower of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ezra Vogel of Harvard, and Herbert Bix of Binghamton University.

The Financial Times wrote, “It is a reminder to Mr. Abe that despite the broad success of his U.S. trip, he is not safe from western criticism over his record on historical memory, which could damage Japan’s crucial U.S. alliance.”

Abe’s grandfather, Nobusike Kishi was an early prime minister of Japan whom Abe spoke proudly of during his visit to Washington. Kishi was a member of Japan’s wartime cabinet and after the war, he was held as a Class A War Crimes suspect, although he was released without indictment or trial. He later became a staunch supporter of Japan’s alliance with the U.S.

U.S. embracing of Japan ironically repeats in history. A few years after the end of the world war (in 1949), Communism took over in mainland China, and the Korean War broke out in 1950. Through a policy reversal, the U.S. took its former adversary as its strategic bulwark to stop further expansion of communism. The United States went to the Korean War ultimately to protect Japan. More than 60 years later, Washington is embracing Japan again because of China.

Regardless of public statements from Washington, the primary target of the U.S. rebalance to Asia is a rising China, to augment the waning American economic prowess by an expanding Japanese military role. To the Chinese, the rebalance is clearly to contain China. Washington has reiterated that it intends to stay in Asia as a Pacific power to protect the regional order that it has established and to prevent any change in the status quo by “force or coercion”.

America is facing new challenges in the region as a result of its own policy. The U.S. created the existing order of open multilateralism for security and trade. It helped China’s economic growth by opening its markets to Chinese products and investing in China. Despite some concerns of conflict between China and the U.S., there is a good chance of coexistence and co-prosperity in today’s system of multilateralism, in which security and economy are intertwined.

Some in Seoul argue that the Park government should limit its alliance with Washington only to the security of the peninsula, and South Korea should not be involved in a security system, trilateral or multilateral, against China. Others argue Seoul should separate the history issue from security imperatives. However, few favor an option of siding with China, on which South Korea’s economy is heavily dependent.

Many others in Seoul advocate for improvement of inter-Korean relations as a first step to the eventual resolution of the security issue with the North. These people also see underdeveloped North Korea as a promising candidate for investment for the South’s economic growth, as it is getting tougher to find new areas of profitable investment.

Korea is sometimes compared to a shrimp caught between whales. The shrimp will have to make hard choices and it should see what it could do to prevent the whales from fighting each other. What’s your take?

Tong Kim is a Washington Correspondent and Columnist for The Korea Times. He is also a fellow at the Institute of Corean-American Studies.