Font size: 
Unfolding a rosy and future-oriented prospect is always appealing. However, if Lee thinks he can restore the two countries’ damaged relationship by simply sweeping their bitter past under the carpet, he may be facing a painful disenchantment.
There is no doubt that Korea and Japan have long shared the desire for a constructive economic relationship. It is true that their trade relationship and economic interdependence have been notable. Some have even claimed that their model of economic cooperation could be the foundation for an East Asian Economic Community. Their economic interests are also reflected in the long history of their discussions to establish a free trade agreement since 1998.
At their April summit meeting in Tokyo both countries’ leaders came out with good news. Negotiations on their FTA, halted in 2004, will resume in June. In an attempt to resolve their trade issues the leaders suggested an investment promotion plan. A working-holiday visa program will be expanded to cover 10,000 people by 2012. They also stressed their partnership in energy and environmental cooperation.
It would seem that these bright proposals could easily cover up uncomfortable realities and create a diplomatic breakthrough for South Korea and Japan. However, the truth is that the two have never given up attempts at friendly relations, but have somehow failed to reach their diplomatic goals despite such efforts.
For example, former South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, at South Korea-Japan summit talks in December 2004, initially took a soft attitude toward Japan by announcing that he would not mention the countries’ past issues. Afterward, however, Japan provoked him to change his mind. By way of nationalistic politics, Japan never ceased seeking to justify its past atrocities. Japanese actions -- such as a legislative proposal to establish a holiday named after the disputed Takeshima (Dok Do in Korean) island, former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s repeated visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, and the official affirmation of an educational textbook which justifies Japan’s acts of war during World War II -- continued to irritate South Koreans.
Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda is seen as someone who can normalize diplomatic relations because, unlike his insensitive predecessors, he seems to care about Japan’s relations with other Asian countries and seek to soothe Japan’s disgruntled neighbors.
Most probably Fukuda will do his best to improve relations with South Korea, but it remains an open question how much progress he can really make. Japan’s political circumstances seem to repeatedly stir up a nationalistic stance that ends up provoking South Koreans.
Japanese nationalism has grown worse recently. It was unremarkable during the 1980s, when Japan enjoyed economic prosperity unprecedented since the end of World War II. As the world’s second most powerful economic player, right behind the United States, Japan could afford to conceive of an ambition to exercise political power in proportion to its economic power. Today, however, this dream has radically faded and Japan is mired in a domestic deadlock.
In the aftermath of Japan’s stock market collapse in the late 1980s, its economy has remained stagnant. To save Japan from its struggling economy, Koizumi drove liberal economic reform. However, this policy left unresolved problems such as social and economic inequality and growing unemployment. These results have destabilized Japanese society, particularly the middle class.
In an attempt to remedy Japan’s deepening social instability, Koizumi and his Liberal Democratic Party implemented a nationalist policy. At the same time, this provocative stance clearly hindered Japan’s diplomacy with its neighboring countries. As a prime example, Koizumi insisted on repeatedly visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, a memorial to the country’s war dead -- an act seen as justifying Japan’s wartime atrocities and strongly opposed by China and South Korea.
This nationalist stance continued through the short Shinzo Abe era. After Abe resigned, purportedly due to health problems but not without political pressure from the LDP after it suffered its worst defeat in the Diet’s upper house election, Yasuo Fukuda, Japan’s current leader, was chosen as an emergency alternative.
According to the Korean National Strategy Institute, although Fukuda is considered diplomatically dovish, he will not be able to shape the LDP’s diplomatic policy because he was chosen as a temporary solution to stabilize the current political situation. His political discretion is narrow and is unlikely to temper the LDP’s nationalism.
In this regard, it is very unlikely that Japan will give up its nationalist stance. This means that the possibility of a rupture between South Korea and Japan will always exist. For now, this possibility must remain hidden because the two countries’ leaders are trying to override any negative outlook in their relationship.
If these leaders believe that they can simply become friends by burying their countries’ bitter past without addressing Japan’s nationalism and past issues, they need to seriously reconsider, because their people do not believe so. Especially, the Korean people cannot stand the thought that such friendly efforts indirectly justify Japan’s past.
It is always possible that an emotional clash will break out whenever Japanese nationalism emerges in the view of the Korean people. Both leaders need to consider their own peoples’ thoughts and emotions before expressing such confidence in their future relationship. The only way to do this is to address their problems in a straightforward manner. Otherwise, it is possible that if a conflict arises, they themselves will become the targets of their disappointed people.
--
(Lee Jae Young is a freelance writer and citizen reporter for Ohmynews International. He has a master's degree from Cornell University Law School in Ithaca, New York. ©Copyright Lee Jae Young.)
