Policy or Politics? How Partisan Appeasement Inhibits Diplomatic Integrity between Japan and South Korea

The realm of East Asian geopolitics is a complex set of twists and turns. Each nation in the region looks to assert their position on the world stage, moving towards establishing a formidable international reputation. Still, political forces within these countries view the world through a different lens. This lens is one that resembles a dualistic methodology of categorizing outsiders through a procedure of skepticism. Hence the push of partisan ideologies that undermine the diplomatic process of international geopolitics. The questions remain the same:

• Are the countries in East Asia interested in resolving political differences, moving towards a future of interregional exchange?
• Can past events help us to remember what happens when partisan rhetoric takes hold of nations, leading to unforeseen (and often disastrous) consequences?
• Can we circumvent these issues in a way that everyone gains something and there is no loss of “face” by any parties involved?

These goals are entirely plausible if one geopolitical objective is assured; the lessening of ideological bulwarks that seek to divide regions, not promote growth and understanding.

Japan and its Battle with the Past

Recently, Japan had some events happen that made neighboring states in the region question the motivations of the current government. The Abe administration sparked a controversy when members of the government were alleged to have ties to a right-wing kindergarten in Osaka that preaches a revisionist history of the past. Naturally, this caused an outrage with Chinese and Korean governments, insinuating that Japan still has an idealized view of its imperialist history. Even though Japan has apologized for its dealings during times of conflict, situations like these do little to help show sincerity in their convictions.

While an argument can be made for the visitation of the Yasukuni Shrine, as its primary purpose was to honor soldiers who gave their service to Japan, adversely supporting groups that seek to camouflage controversial events as imaginary curtails the political goals of the current administration. Not to mention that Abe has ties to Nippon Kaigi, an organization that transcends party politics in Japan, and seeks to reexamine Article 9 of the Japanese constitution that prohibits a standing army. This group concerns neighboring states in East Asia, as whispers of a reemerging model of ultranationalism flourish during political discourse.

The South Korean Affair

The situation in Korea is an interesting one. Having a turbulent past with Japan (and a violent history in the region), the country has undergone a resurgence of nationalist overtones that propel the nation towards economic and cultural progress. While this in and of itself isn’t a tumultuous affair, the platform of political rhetoric through the usage of demonizing outsiders isn’t a sentiment that is viewed favorably by neighboring states. One of the more recent controversies involves the building of a comfort women statue in Busan that has upset Japanese officials, thinking they have more than paid their due for past mistakes. At one point, Tokyo even recalled their diplomats stationed in Korea due in outrage of this event.

This situation wasn’t the first time controversy like this erupted, as the statue of An Jung Geun, a Korean nationalist who shot and killed the then Resident-General of Korea, Ito Hirobumi in the early 20th century, was built in early 2014. Seen as a hero in Korean independence, some Japanese administrators see him as a terrorist. Furthermore, the Chinese and South Korean governments agreed to place this new statue in a memorial hall in the city of Harbin, where the attack took place. Once again, this infuriated Tokyo, as this act of revering someone who assassinated a prominent politician of the 20th century, warranted applause. Such situations obfuscate any negotiation and dialogue, cementing divisive lines between nations who both share the same alliances with Western countries.

Policy or Politics?

These examples showcase how party politics interfere with international cooperation. Considering that both Japan and South Korea are allied with the United States, having a united front is crucial in dealing with the aggressive moves of China and the unpredictable nature of North Korea. Although government officials have taken steps to work through their differences in a peaceful and empathetic manner, having to appease partisan dissidents is proving to be cumbersome. Harboring such ideologues push forth their dualistic agendas interfere with any bilateral negotiations. In our current era, is such rhetoric necessary? Do current government officials have to deal with past transgressions that happened before their lifetime? Essentially, it is important for bureaucrats not to forget the damage caused by viewing foreign policy as a “zero-sum” affair. However, holding on to such ideas does little in advancing the current momentum of international understanding. As we move towards global interconnectivity, partisan ideologues will eventually become the very relics of the past that many within those circles triumphantly promote. If countries in East Asia continue with economic trade statutes, burden sharing with Western allies, and bilateral talks, this will become a reality sooner than later.

The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author.