hankyoreh

June 22 marks the 50th anniversary of the normalization of diplomatic relations between South Korea and Japan. Today, relations between the two countries are so strained that their leaders have not held a summit in nearly three and a half years. It can be argued that bilateral relations are the worst they have been since being normalized.
One common approach is to blame the worsening relations on the “tattletale diplomacy” of President Park Geun-hye and on the “retrogressive historical mindset” of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
There are others who go further back to 2012 when former President Lee Myung-bak (in office 2008-2013) visited the Dokdo islets, called Takeshima in Japan, demanded an apology from the Japanese Emperor, and remarked on Japan’s declining prestige overseas.
In the sense that the leaders of a country play an important role in diplomacy, such views make sense on a certain level. But even if there had been other leaders in place, it is difficult to say with certainty that relations between South Korea and Japan would have been strong on this anniversary.
To be sure, the leaders of Japan and South Korea may be one factor causing or contributing to the deterioration of bilateral relations. But a more fundamental cause is likely that the framework that has defined the two countries’ relations for the last 50 years, which is to say the treaty that they signed in 1965, is facing structural challenges.
That treaty was hastily signed without accounting for the problems of the past in order to establish an anti-communist international front in opposition to the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea during the Cold War. Thus, it was inevitable that it would run into problems when the Cold War regime unraveled after the 1980s.
Furthermore, the rapid democratization and economic development of South Korean society turned out to be a catalyst that brought to the surface pressing issues of the past that had been pressed down and hidden from view, issues such as the comfort women, or sex slaves for the Japanese imperial army.
There have also been increasing demands for the vertical relationship between South Korea and Japan to be made horizontal. The mere fact that, in terms of GDP, the gap between the two countries’ power has shrank from 30 to 1 at the time of the treaty to 3 to 1 more recently hints at the need to realign their relationship.
Another more recent factor is a difference in South Korea and Japan’s strategic perspective on how to respond to the rapid rise of China. South Korea values cooperation with China in consideration of its importance in trade and in policy toward North Korea and in the interest of maintaining peace in Northeast Asia. Japan, however, seems to be standing in the vanguard of efforts by the US to blockade and contain China.
While the treaty regime between South Korea and Japan is facing a structural threat, the two countries’ leaders do not get along, and there are subtle differences in their strategy toward regional politics, none of this means that they should allow their relationship to proceed along its current course.
There appears to be some awareness of these problems even on a governmental level, as is evidenced by the recent revival of bilateral meetings between the finance ministers, trade ministers, and defense ministers of the two countries, and by South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se’s plans to visit Japan to mark the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations, his first visit to Japan since taking office.
However, the important thing is not simply the fact that the problems facing bilateral relations must be addressed, but a clear understanding of why those problems must be addressed. Furthermore, the South Korean government needs to provide the public with a transparent explanation about why it is resuming high-level contact with Japan now, regardless of whether or not such contact had been discontinued because of the comfort women issue. Using sleight-of-hand to shift an important policy framework is not something a responsible government should be doing.

editorial writer

Some time ago, South Koreans were thrown into consternation when the Japanese government supposedly “downgraded” South Korea from “an important neighbor that shares with Japan the basic values of freedom, democracy, and market economy” to “Japan’s most important neighbor.” Japan was apparently taking issue with the arrest of Tatsuya Kato, former Seoul bureau chief for the Sankei Shimbun newspaper, on charges of defamation. To be sure, a country is free to make whatever judgment it wants about another country, but whether that judgment is accurate is another question.

By way of reference, in the Economist’s democracy index for 2013 and 2014, which compares 167 countries, Japan scored 8.08 points both years to rank 20th, first in Asia, and South Korea scored 8.06 points to rank 21st, second in Asia. In fact, South Korea ranked 20th in 2012, which was ahead of Japan at 23rd.

The two countries are also virtually identical in freedom of the press indexes for 2015. According to Reporters Without Borders, South Korea was 60th and Japan was 61st, while Freedom House ranked South Korea as 67th and Japan as 41st.

It is undeniable that, in the eyes of the world, South Korea and Japan are the Asian countries that have the strongest democracies and the greatest freedom of the press. As I see it, the two countries must squarely face this fact before they can find a breakthrough for their next 50 years as neighbors.

By Oh Tae-kyu, editorial writer

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]