chapter 1 introduction 1. background and significance of
Post on 13-Feb-2022
12 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ISSUE
According to David Kang1, the history of wars, occupation, and oppression by
Japan in the region lead to disproportionate reactions by the Republic of Korea
(ROK)—or South Korea. Japan and the ROK will have to get to a relationship where
Japan does one move, and ROK responds with one move. Now, Japan does one and
ROK does ten. The factors that have influenced the relationship between these
countries are as follows:
The major bilateral issues between the two countries included:
o Territory. Japan and Korea have a long-standing dispute over a group of
uninhabited islands in the Sea of Japan that the Japanese called Takeshima and the
Koreans call Dokdo. Each side claims the volcanic islets, located between the ROK
and Japan. The conflict—which experts say is about territorial integrity and also
fishing rights in the seas around the islands—stirs intense feelings. During the Allied
occupation of Japan, Takeshima / Dokdo was divided from Japan by so-called
―MacArthur Line.‖2 This was drawn only for the occupation authorities‘
1 David Kang is associate professor of government, and adjunct associate professor
and research director at the Center for International Business at the Tuck School of Business
at Dartmouth. He has scholarly interests in both business-government relations and
international relations, with a focus on Asia. Professor Kang has been a visiting professor at
Stanford University, Yale University, Copenhagen Business School (Denmark), the
University of Geneva IO-MBA program (Switzerland), Korea University (Seoul, Korea) and
the University of California, San Diego. 2 MacArthur oversaw the Occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1951. Although
criticized for protecting Emperor Hirohito and the imperial family from prosecution for war
crimes, MacArthur is credited with implementing far-reaching democratic reforms in that
country. He led the United Nations Command forces defending South Korea against the
North Korean invasion from 1950 to 1951. On April 11, 1951 MacArthur was removed from
command by President Harry S. Truman for publicly disagreeing with Truman's Korean War
Policy.
2
administrative convenience and was not necessarily intended as a final border
demarcation. From late 1946 onward, several drafts of a peace treaty with Japan were
prepared in the State Department. Those drafts and other relevant documents retained
in the U.S. Archives suggest that the U.S. government indeed favored the transfer of
Takeshima to Korea – until November 1949. The December 1949 draft contained an
important change, by including Takeshima in the areas that were to remain Japanese
territory. It was recognized that Takeshima be specified as belonging to Japan, and
directly or indirectly provided the reasons of (1) history validity and (2) strategic
consideration. In 1950, the peace treaty was drafted, and the Korean War broke out.
Thereafter, ―Takeshima‖ disappeared from U.S. treaty drafts. On 28 April 1952 the
Peace Treaty came into effect and the MacAuthur Line, which administratively
separated Takeshima from Japan, was abolished. Before that, however, Syngman
Rhee‘s regime in South Korea on 18 January unilaterally proclaimed the so-called
―Rhee Line,‖ essentially with the purpose of keeping the MacAuthur line in place.
The Japanese Government then protested and the dispute emerged. 3
In March 2005, two elderly South Koreans protested Japanese claims to
the islands in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul by each cutting off a finger. The
resolution of the dispute over Dokdo is still uncertain. Despite the agreement the two
countries entered into in 1996, Japanese officials still make remarks that anger people
in Korea, and Korean voices are getting increasingly indignant over the
issue. However, governments outside of Japan and Korea really have no interest in
getting involved in the issue. In cases like this, possession is nine-tenths of the
law. Therefore, Dokdo will probably remain in Korean hands; that is unless the Right
Wing in Japan takes over and/or the Japanese pacifist constitution is rewritten to
accommodate a Japanese military take-over of the Islets.
The disputes over the islands threaten the recent rapprochement between
the two neighbors and represent a significant political and economic setback. The
South Korean public is so incensed that hundreds have poured into the streets to
3 Kimie Hara, ―50 Years from San Francisco: Re-examining the Peace Treaty and
Japan‘s Territorial Problems,‖ Pacific Affairs 74, no. 3 (Fall 2001): 361-382.
3
protest and the united front against North Korea‘s nuclear ambitions is cracking.4
Picture 1:
The Picture of the Dokdo/Takeshima: The Japan-Korea disputed island
Sources: www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinion/201/02/246_24527. html
o Textbooks. Japanese ignores the history textbook controversy at its
peril. While many Japanese dismiss the tempest - exaggerated attention, they say,
given to a small group of nostalgic conservatives or a freedom of speech issue
best left to constitutional scholars - Koreans see the new history textbook as a
serious obstacle to improved bilateral relations between the two countries. It is
difficult to appreciate the depth and intensity of the anger felt by Koreans after the
Ministry of Education approved the new textbook; even moderates warn that
Japan's failure to address Korean concerns will have long-term repercussions in
Northeast Asia. The Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform has created
the problem. BBC news quoted that ―The Japanese government's approval of a set
of controversial history textbooks has reignited bitter disputes over the region's
4 Kosuke Takahashi, ―Japan-South Korea ties on the rocks,‖ Asia Times, March 23,
2005, http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=1512.
4
past in the South Korean and Chinese press.‖5 The group criticizes Japan's current
history textbooks for being biased; it claims the texts place too much attention on
Japanese wrongdoing against its Asian neighbors and promote a "masochistic
attitude" among young Japanese.6 Critics across Asia have accused Japan of
glossing over its wartime atrocities and responsibility in grade-school textbooks.
Anger over such textbooks sparked a series of violent anti-Japan riots7 in China in
April.
o History. The first military sexual slaves were Koreans from the North
Kyushu area of Japan, and were sent, at the request of one of the commanding
officers of the army, by the Governor of Nagasaki Prefecture. The prohibition of
alcohol and swords, the regulation of hours of service, reasonable payment and
other attempts to impose what would appear to be a sense of decorum or fair
treatment are in stark contrast with the brutality and cruelty of the practice. This
only serves to highlight the extraordinary inhumanity of a system of military
sexual slavery, in which large numbers of women were forced to submit to
prolonged prostitution under conditions which were indescribably traumatic.
The end of the war brought no relief to a large proportion of the "comfort
women" still in service, since many were killed by the retreating Japanese troops or,
more often, simply abandoned to their fate. In Micronesia, in one case the Japanese
army killed 70 "comfort women" in one night, because they felt the women would be
an encumbrance or an embarrassment were they to be captured by the advancing
American troops. Many women victims who were based at front-line locations were
forced to take part in military operations, including suicide missions with the soldiers.
Food and clothing were provided by the army, though some former "comfort women"
complain of having been kept short of food for long stretches of time. Though in
nearly all cases the women were supposed to have been paid for their "services" and
5 BBC News, ―Japan textbook angers Chinese, Korean press,‖ April 6, 2005, Asia-
Pacific Section, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4416593.stm. 6 Brad Glosserman, ―Japan-Korea: Textbook Issue Should Not Be Ignored,‖ PacNet
Number 17A (April 2001), http://csis.org/publication/pacnet-17a-april-30-2001-japan-korea-
textbook-issue-should-not-be-ignored. 7 From 2001 to 2006, China bristled when former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro
Koizumi made his annual pilgrimage to Tokyo‘s Yasukuni Shrine to Japan's war dead, which
includes the remains of convicted war criminals enshrined in a secret ceremony in the 1970s.
5
collected tickets in lieu of the pay they were due, only very few saw any "earnings" at
the end of the war. Thus, even the small consolation of having perhaps saved enough
to help themselves or their families after the war was rendered meaningless after the
retreat of the Japanese army.8
In March 2005, President Roh Moo Hyun called for Japan to apologize
and possibly pay compensation for colonizing Korea to help promote bilateral
relations. Hundreds of comfort women, whose existence Japan did not acknowledge
until 1992, are also demanding compensation and a formal apology from the Japanese
government. A non-governmental compensation fund for former comfort women set
up in 1995 is set to close in 2007.
o The shrine visit. When Koizumi visited Seoul in June, Roh urged him to
build a new, secular war memorial and visit it—instead of Yasukuni—to minimize
tensions across Asia. The two countries also agreed to collaborate on historical
research, and Japan promised to investigate the cases of South Koreans brought to
Japan as forced labor during World War II. Then Koizumi went to the shrine, and
much of the goodwill from the June visit went down the drain. After all, the leaders of
both countries know they‘re deeply interrelated on many levels and must depend on
each other. Their societies have become deeply connected: Japan and South Korea
jointly hosted the successful 2002 World Cup, and Korean culture is currently a huge
hit in Japan. A South Korean soap opera, Winter Sonata, is wildly popular in Japan.
While it‘s been a bit rocky so far, the overall picture is still good.9
8 Radhika Coomaraswamy, ―Report on the mission to the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and Japan on the issue of military sexual slavery in
wartime‖ (report of United nations, Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human
Rights E/CN. 4/1996/53/Add1, Geneva, January 4, 1996),
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/b6ad5f3990967f3e802566d600575fcb?Open
document. 9 Esther Pan, ―Japan's Relationship with South Korea,‖ Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9108/japans_relationship_with_south_korea.html.
6
2. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
1) To study whether globalization and economic interdependence could
ease historical wounds
2) To forecast the future of the Japan / ROK relationship
3. RESEARCH QUESTION
1) How did history affect the relationship between Japan and the ROK?
2) How has the economic interdependence changed the Japanese / ROK
relationship from the 1990s to the present?
3) What will be the future trends of the Japanese / ROK relationship?
4. HYPOTHESIS
Since the Colonization era, Japan and Korea relations have been bitter. The
aggressive action of the Japanese towards Koreans people during their colonial period
including war time, have made many Koreans, especially the people involved hate the
Japan. The historical issues have been created difficulty for both the Japanese and
Korean governments to normalize relationships. However, the globalization era
created economic interdependence which affected the world as a whole, as well as the
Japan and Korea relationship. The pressure from the outsiders was one of the factors
which helped further the normalization. After all, the normalization of the Japanese /
ROK relationship was significant to the region because it could increase regional
stability which helped added bargaining power to the world.
5. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This paper will provide basic information of the love-hate relation between
Japan and Korea (historical perspective) for better understanding. Moreover, it will
focus on the economic relationship between Japan and the ROK in the 1990s until the
present. This paper will also analyze internal and external influences which can help
to normalize the relationship, and whether these influences can help overcome
historical issues.
7
6. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Realism
Realist theories share the following key assumptions. First, the international
system is anarchic. There is no authority above states capable of regulating their
interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it
being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity. Second, sovereign states are
the principal actors in the international system. International institutions, non-
governmental organizations, multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-
state or trans-state actors are viewed as having little independent influence. Third,
states are rational unitary actors each moving towards their own national interest .
There is a general distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance. Fourth, the overriding
'national interest' of each state is its national security and survival. Fifth, in pursuit of
national security, states strive to amass resources. Sixth, relations between states are
determined by their comparative level of power derived primarily from their
military and economic capabilities. And finally, there are no universal principles
which all states can use to guide their actions. Instead, a state must be ever aware of
the actions of the states around it and must use a pragmatic approach to resolve the
problems that arise.
In sum, realists believe that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather
self-centered and competitive. This Hobbesian perspective, which views human
nature as selfish and conflictual unless given appropriate conditions under which to
cooperate, contrasts with the approach of liberalism to international relations. Further,
they believe that states are inherently aggressive and/or obsessed with security; and
that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive
build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma where increasing one's own security
can bring along greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms. Thus,
security is a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made. The main
argument of the realist theory is that states (or nations) are always engaged in a
struggle for power. The realist theory advocates the use of power to fulfill the interest
of a nation. "National power" is composed of geography, economy and natural
resources, population, military strength and preparedness, national character and
8
moral, and the competency of the national government.
Nationalism
The term ―nationalism‖ is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the
attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity
and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or
sustain) self-determination. (1) Raises questions about the concept of nation (or
national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or
cultural ties, and while an individual‘s membership in a nation is often regarded as
involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. (2) Raises questions about whether
self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with
complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less
is required.
As for maintenance of sovereignty by peaceful and merely ideological means,
political nationalism is closely tied to nationalism in culture. The latter insists upon
the preservation and transmission of a given culture, more accurately, of recognizably
ethno-national traits of the culture in its pure form, dedicating artistic creation,
education and research to this goal. Of course, the ethno-national traits can be actual
or invented, partly or fully so. Again, in the classical variant the relevant norm claims
that one has both a right and an obligation (―a sacred duty‖) to promote such a
tradition. Its force is that of a trump that wins over other interests and even over rights
(which is often needed in order to carry on national independence struggle).10
7. LITERATURE REVIEW
Geoff Simons, Korean: The Search for Sovereignty: The second part of the
book, “The Historical Frame‖, provided useful history of Korea and Japan. The
history provided in this book can illustrate why Korea and Japan have been in very
awkward positions toward each other in the international arena. Because the Korean
peninsula was closed to Japan, there were many invasions. In the 1590s, the invasion
of Japan was not successful. The Japanese failed to reach Korea because Korea got
10
Standford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. ―Nationalism,‖
http://plato.stanford. edu/entries/nationalism/#3.1.
9
assistance from China. Even though Japanese lost this time, it hurt the Korea. After
the great invasion in 1590s Koreans had very uncomfortable feelings with the
Japanese. Again after China lost in the Sino-Japanese war, Japan invaded Korea and
tried to control Korea. The formal annexation was in 1910, with the absolute end of
the Korean monarchy. The hardships of the Koreans were to serve the Japanese. The
Japanese were cruel to the Koreans by stealing their land (as they came and occupied
the land wherever they wanted to), torturing Koreans as slaves. During the Pacific
War, many of the Koreans had to serve in the forces and had to work hard for the
Japanese forces to supply their war materials. Moreover, the thousands of girls and
women were forced to become ‗comfort women‘ to serve Japanese troops.
Brian Bridges, Japan and Korea in the 1990s From Antagonism to
Adjustment: This book explain the Japan and Korea relationship in the 1990s in many
aspects (1) the history of the relationship, (2) Political and Security, (3) Major power
influence, (4) Economic sphere, (5) Cultural perspective, and (6) the normalization of
the relations. The book states that Japan and Korea are certainly geographically and
culturally close, but the psychological gap seems far from narrow. A long-standing
enmity, the origins of which can be traced back to the early phases of the two
countries‘ histories, was exacerbated by the brutal Japanese colonial occupation of
Korea from 1940 to 1945. The defeat of Japan did not bring about the united,
independent Korean state which the Koreans desired and the establishment of the two
Korean states which the Koreans raised a complicated diplomatic dilemma which
Japan found difficult to resolve. In fact, not until 1965, 20 years after the Pacific War,
were relations between Japan and South Korea normalized and relations between
Japan and North Korea have yet to be formalized. The diplomatic visit of the high
rank officers of the Tokyo in 1980s to South Korea had increased qualitative change
in bilateral relationship. They created the diplomatic relationship with North Korea.
However, the relation ship within these three states were complicated because the
certainly different in polities.
Donald Stone Macdonald, The Koreans Contemporary Politics and
Society: This book gives fundamental information about Korea. In brief summary, it
endeavors to explain why Korea is important—strategically, economically, and
10
culturally. It traces the historical roots of the Korean people, the development of their
culture as a blend of native heritage and foreign influence, and the problems of
national development under the conflicting pressures of Confusion tradition, U.S.
democratic capitalism, and Soviet communism.
Dean W. Collinwood, Dr., Japan and the Pacific Rim: Between the 1960s
and the 1990s, Japan experienced an era of unprecedented economic prosperity.
Annual economic growth was 3 times as much as other industrializations. In the
1960s, when the Japanese economy had completely recovered from the devastation of
World War II, the Japanese looked to North America and Europe for markets for their
increasingly high-quality products. Japanese business continued to seek out markets
and resources globally; but in the 1980s, in response to the movement toward a truly
common European economic community as well as in response to free trade
agreements among North American countries, Japan began to invest more heavily in
countries nearer its own border. The Japanese hoped to guarantee themselves market
and resource access should they find their products frozen out of emerging European
and North America economic blocs. The unintended, but not welcome, consequences
of this policy were the revitalization of many Asia-Pacific economies and the
solidification of lines of communication between governments and private citizens
within the region.
Brad Glosserman, Japan-Korea: Textbook Issue Should Not Be Ignored:
The Article stated that the issue over Japanese history textbooks should be considered
as important issue to the international arena because it was a sensitive and
sophisticated issue concerning history. The issue was criticized throughout Korea, so
the normalization process, as well as bilateral agreement would be more difficult for
both governments. Analysts came out and warned Japan of its action.
Kimie Hara, 50 years from San Francisco: Re-examining the Peace
Treaty and Japan’s Territorial Problem: This Article described many of the Territorial
problems of Japan after the San Francisco Peace Treaty in the Post-war era. The
dispute which stated in the article are (1) Japan-USSR/Russia: the Northern Territories
11
/ Southern Kuriles Dispute, (2) Japan-Korea: The Takeshima / Dokdo Dispute, and (3)
Japan-China : The Senkaku / Diaoyu Islands Dispute.
Yangmo Ku, Perceptual Change, Institutionalization and South Korea's
Foreign Economic Policy toward Japan: The Author argued that the ROK
democratization led to the establishment of the institutionalized foreign policy making
process, thus placing serious institutional constraints on South Korean policymakers‘
keeping their former strategy to connect history or security with economic issues in its
foreign policies toward Japan. Under democracy, South Korean Presidents still
contained the authority to make a final decision, yet they are placed under heavy
institutional constraints emanating from other actors, such as diverse government
organizations, the National Assembly, civic/academic organizations, and the mass
media. Unlike past practices, the ROK Presidents under a democratic system became
unable to push through their own policy ideas without taking other voices into
account. Under this condition, therefore, it was quite difficult for South Korean
policymakers – holding the changed self-perception from ―dependent‖ upon to
―competitors‖ with Japan – to keep using the former history- or security- related
negotiation strategy toward Japan.
12
8. CONTENT OF THE PAPER
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Legacies of History
The Japanese Invasions (1592-98)
The Japanese Colony
The Second World War (or The Pacific War)
Chapter 3: Normalization of the Relations
San Francisco Peace Treaty
The Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic
of Korea
o Nationalism
External Factors: The Influence of
o The United States of America
o North Korea
Chapter 4: Japan‘s Foreign Policies VS. Korea‘s Foreign Policies
The Korean Ideas
The Japanese Ideas
The Politics of the Soft Power
o Soft Power in Japan in 2000s
o Soft Power in Korea in 2000s
o Soft Power between the Two Nations
Chapter 5: Conclusion and Future Trends toward Korea-Japan‘s Relationship
Bibliography
top related