"Security of North East Asia from a Historical and Geopolitical View"
Introduction
Humans unconsciously have certain patterns of behavior that
are a reflection of their environmental background and experience. The
behavior of governments also reflects the natural environment of a nation,
such as weather and climate as well as historical factors. That may be
why there have been such quotes as “Learn from History” and “History
indicates the future.”
There is little known about North Korea, the country that is known to play foreign diplomacy like a spoiled child and rattles the stability of the North East Asia region by its illegal actions such as repeatedly sending spy boats to Japan’s shores, abducting Japanese nationals, and withdrawing from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). North Korea’s future actions are often known to be unpredictable. Countries, such as South Korea that shares the same ethnic background, China and Russia that are located north of North Korea, Japan that lies across the sea, and across the Pacific Ocean, the United States, can significantly influence North Korea’s behavior. It is, therefore, important to monitor these countries’ further approach to North Korea.
The purpose of this study is to analyze North Korean issues
from geopolitical viewpoints based on the historical actions of the countries
that surround North Korea, and also to investigate Japan’s security measures
from both geopolitics and history. In order to analyze views on history
between the two Korean countries, “South Korean State-Designated History
Textbook,” and “Recognition of History of the People’s Democratic Republic
of Korea,” the website provided by the department of North Korean overseas
affairs, both translated into Japanese, were used as reference in this
study. The term Korea refers to both South and North Korea, as well as
the two countries’ geographical and historical factors. The Republic of
Korea is hereinafter referred to as South Korea, and the People’s Democratic
Republic of Korea is hereinafter referred to as North Korea.
Japan-China Relations in the Era of the Three Kingdoms (Koguryo, Baekje, Silla)

Before the modern period, China and Japan had great impact
on the security of the Korean peninsula. In the era of the three kingdoms
(Koguryo, Baekje, Silla), when China was chaotic, or not strictly in control
of the peninsula, these three kingdoms split into much smaller kingdoms
and continued to battle amongst themselves. Korea then sought Japan’s
aid for its power balance, and became allied with Japan periodically. As
the three kingdoms were heavily influenced by the political trends of China,
when China established a state power, wars broke out amongst the kingdoms
trying to be the first to bring tribute to China. While overthrowing one
or the other with the aid of China, a kingdom who overpowers the peninsula,
in return, had to face certain protocols (rules of submission to China
in order to increase its own security) and mark the start of its history
as a tributory country.
Between the end of the 4th century and the beginning of
the 5th century, by sending hostages to both Koguryo and Japan, Silla was
hedging it bets about which of the two spheres of influence it should ally
itself with. Meanwhile, with the federation of Dae Gaya (Allaguk and the
Gaya States), Baekje approached and allied itself with Japan in the campaign
against Koguryo. In 400, when Koguryo made an attempt to invade Baekje
and the Dae Gaya federation, Japan helped its allies to fight against Koguryo.
When conflicts broke out between Baekje and Silla, Allaguk showed its support
with Silla. Japan then changed its ally, from Baekje to Allaguk, and helped
Silla defeat Baekje. However, when Silla gained power in 554 by killing
the king of Baekje as well as defeating the Dae Gaya federation, Japan
was expelled from the Peninsula.
When Sui (China) was overthrown in 618, Tang (China) took
over power. After the rise of Tang, international relations in North East
Asia were stable. Silla, then under attack by Baekje, requested Tang to
provide aid in the conquest of Baekje in 660. Tang sent 130,000 troops
to join Silla’s 5,0000 troops, and the allied forces defeated Baekje.
The king and prince of Baekje were captured and taken to Chang-An, China.
As a result of Baekje’s defeat, a number of Baekje refugees fled to Japan.
With Japan’s aid, the refugees regained power while protecting the Baekje
Prince, and for a short time, they recovered over half of Baekje’s lost
territory. Nevertheless, when Japan lost against the allied forces of Tang
and Silla in a battle in 663, restoration of Baekje became unattainable.
Meanwhile, Silla was determined to fight against Tang, and by 676, it removed
Tang and retook all of the old Baekje territory on the Peninsula. Silla
eventually overthrew the Dae Gaya federation and settled 120 years of conflicts
amongst the three kingdoms. Since Silla, in constant conflict with Tang,
regarded relations with Japan important, it deepened the relationship by
exchanging envoys 30 times by the late 7th century. When Silla restored
its relations with Tang, it brought stability to the peninsula, but caused
frictions in its relations with Japan.
In 698, Balhae was founded in the region between the north
of the Peninsula and southern Manchuria. When Balhae approached Japan in
the campaign against Tang and Silla, Japan, in fierce conflict with Silla,
decided to ally itself with Balhae. Japan (the Nakamaro Fujiwara administration)
provided substantial support to Balhae in helping plot expeditions to Silla.
In 926, however, Balhae was defeated by Khitan. After Goryeo overthrew
Silla in 935, unifying the peninsula, there was stability, and no active
relations were seen amongst the countries except for trade business.
Japan-China Relations in the Era of Goryeo
Between 933 and 1019, Goryeo was able to prevent several
attacks by Khitan. When the Mongols invaded Goryeo, however, the King of
Goryeo surrendered in 1259. Defiantly, the generals of Goryeo refused to
acknowledge the surrender, and formed forces, such as the Sambyulcho unit.,
which consisted of farmers and lower class individuals. Despite their efforts,
the Mongols and Goryeo’s allied forces drove the unit out to Cheju in
1273. During this period, the Sambyulcho unit sent a mission to Japan to
seek assistance in combat. Regarding this incident, the South Korean State-Designated
History Textbook states that; “We had persistently fought in the battlefield
for over 40 years. Especially farmers and peasants fought bravely and made
significant progress,” “lower class individuals also participated to
overcome the invasions of the Mongols.” While the textbook emphasizes
the resistance of the Sambyulcho unit, it calls the King of Goryeo’s surrender
a peace treaty proposed by the Mongols. It, however, never refers to the
fact that the King of Goryeo teamed up with the Mongols to betray and defeat
his people. Here is an example that Korean history excludes inconvenient
historical facts in order to disconnect them from its history.
In regard to the conflict with the Mongols, the textbook
says “We suffered huge damage from the conflict. Our country was devastated
and many people lost their lives. Many Koreans were abducted by the Mongols,”
“The former royal family and Mongol nobles often came to look for ladies’s
maids or servants and took Goryeon girls away. They also captured many
Goryeon people as prisoners of war.” However, it emphasizes Goryeo’s
cultural influence on the Mongols by stating; “the local customs of Goryeo
spread into the former Mongol royal family and its public.”
Meanwhile, North Korean History describes how bravely and
persistently the Koreans faced foreign invasions as; “Korean people fought
fearlessly in repelling the foreign invaders. In the 612 battle, the Koreans
defeated the Sui troops of 3,000,000 men and in 645, the victory over the
Tang troops’s invasions led by Tai-tsung was brought by our strategy of
building fortifications and walls, and mounting a counteroffensive. We
are also proud of our firm and ingenious military strategic measures against
the Khitan troops’ 3 invasions, our three straight victories in the battles
of 993,1010 and 1018, our occupation in most of the Asian continent, and
the victory over the 6 attempted invasions by the Mongol troops between
1231 and 1254. Furthermore, in the 7-year battle, known as the lmjin wars,
we fought the Japanese invasion troops, which consisited of 158,000 men
of the army and the navy, by conducting a brilliant series of land and
sea operations. All of these achievements made great contributions to Korea’s
proud history of resistance against foreign invasions.”
As North Korean history indicates, the Koreans are indeed
persistently resistant against foreign invaders. At the same time, Korean
history carries many coups d’ e tats, conflicts amongst factions, break
offs between rulers and non-rulers, and corruption amongst political advisers.
Consequently, repellence towards rulers and political advisers who lost
power is quite serious and intense, and often results in severe endings.
As shown in the presidential history after WWII, all of the former presidents,
except President Kim Young Sam, faced tragic endings, either fleeing from
the country, being assassinated, or being imprisoned. The current North
Korean Government still prioritizes the preservation of the communist dictatorship
over the nation’s prosperity or welfare. It is possible that the huge
distinction between rulers and civilians would bring the nation’s collapse,
generated from a split in the military over power, or a coups d’ e tat.
On the other hand, considering the current situation of which the country
is isolated from the world, without the support of the secret police and
its people’s strong will of resistance, it may not be expected to happen
for a while.
Japan-Korea Relations during Hideyoshi Toyotomi’s Korean Expeditions and the Mongol Invasions

In 1274 and 1281, the Mongols attempted to invade Japan. On these occasions, Yuen (China) orderd Goryeo (Korea) to build warships and supply food, soldiers and boatmen. As a result, Korea suffered huge sacrifices by providing 300 warships, 5600 soliders, and 6700 boatmen for the 1st invasion, and 900 warships, 10000 soldiers and 15000 boatmen for the 2nd invasion. While no reference to the Mongol’s invasions of Japan can be found in either South or North Korean history, there is however a reference to Korea’s attacks on Japan. “In 1389, Korea sent 100 warships and conquered Tsushima (Japan) where Japanese pirates were nested. The Korean troops were successful in weakening Japanese morale, and in 1419, the Korean troops leading over 200 warships subdued the Japanese pirates, and successfully conquered Tsushima.” The Korean conquest of 1389, however, cannot be found in the chronological table of Japanese history.
The Japanese pirates (or Sea Dogs, from the Queen Elizabeth era term for traders that turned to piracy) emerged around 1226, and were most active between 1350 and 1380. The King of Goryeo and the Emperor Ming (China) repeatedly asked Japan to control the situation. The situation, however, remained unchanged until the Red-Seal Ship system was implemented. When Hideyoshi Toyotomi took over ruling power and succeeded in uniting Japan, he sent troops to the Korean Penninsula, 158,800 men in 1592, and another 141,490 men in 1597. In the 1592 invasion, the Japanese army captured Pyongyang within a month, passing beyond Tomangan, and futher advanced to Yanji,China. With China’s appearance in response to Korea’s request for assistance, the Japanese troops were pushed back by a combined Ming-Joseon army. And as a result of Hideyoshi's death and conflicts amongst the Japanese troops, peace negotiations were made between the two nations, and the Japanese forces withdrew from the peninsula.
Regarding these expeditions, the South Korean textbook
describes them as follows: “Having been unprepared, Korea was unable to
prevent the attacks by the Japanese who were fully armed and well-trained
with matchlock guns.” It explains the defeat was due to being unprepared
while covering up the internal disorders and political corruption. It also
adds; “Korea’s strong and persistent resistance drove the exhausted enemy
to seek peace negotiations,” “when the Japanese army lost the will to
fight, they started to retreat, but the Korean navy led by Admiral Yi Sunshin
destroyed hundreds of Japanese ships, and won a sweeping victory.” Although
Japan’s defeat was brought on mainly by Ming’s aid to Korea, it says;
“the loyal Korean army was raised in the cause of justice nation-wide.
Ming came to be allied with us when Korea’s victory, led by the Korean
navy, was close at hand.” And it claims that; “the Japanese plundered
Korea’s cultural assets such as typography, books, and paintings, and
abducted ceramicware technicians and scholars, which brought significant
contributions to the development of Japanese culture,” “the Tokugawa
Government requested exchanging messengers between the two countries so
that they could take advantage of our advanced culture.” “The Korean
delegations contributed not only to the diplomatic relationship between
the two nations, but to the introduction of our advanced culture and technical
skills, which greatly helped Japan develop their own culture.” In these
statements, some interesting remarks can be observed. Concerning the Chinese
invasions, the South Korean textbook mentions the names of invading countries
such as ‘Tang army’ and ‘Sui army,’ while North Korean history neglects
the name of China, rather refering to it as “foreign army.” In contrast,
in reference to the Japanese invasions, both South and North Korean history
describe Japan by modifying the Japanese army to “Japanese invading army.”
In addition, it is observed that ‘subjugation’ or ‘subdue,’ as in ‘to
defeat an evil,’ is often used in reference to the Korean attacks on Tsushima.
Apart from domestic chaos such as long lasting disputes
and conflicts among factions over interpretation of the writings of Neo-Confucianism,
the state-religion, the Koreans had to face countless invasions by China
and Japan, and had been constantly forced to fight and negotiate for their
country’s destiny. Under these circumstances, the Koreans have developed
admirable diplomatic tactics, which can be observed in the following instances;
when North Korea negotiated to make a cease-fire agreement in the Korean
War, when Korea insisted on their own foreign policy, with “Chie Chu ideology,”
opposing China and Russia at the time of the Cold War, and during the conflicts
between China and the Soviet Union, North Korea went between the two countries,
and resulted in winning substantial aid from both countries. Further, in
the negotiation talks with the United States in the early 90’s, Korea
attained aid in constructing a light-water reactor, in addition to food
supplies. Admirably, these remarkable negotiation skills are regarded as
part of the historical heritage of the country, acquired as a result of
being a lesser power.
Conflicts of Interests in Korea between Japan and China, and between Japan and Russia in Relation with the Japan-Sino War and the Japan-Russo War

Conflicts of interests in Korea between China and Japan
led to the Sino-Japan War, and resulted in Japan’s defeat of China. With
new conflicts of interests in Korea between Russia, the Russo-Japan War
broke out where Japan overthrew Russia. Then in 1910, Japan annexed Korea,
colonizing the country. In a broad sense, the Japanese occupation seemed
to have brought an end to conflicts over the Korean Peninsula. Until then,
Korea had always been in the shadow of the three nations, Sino (China),
Russia and Japan, who were each pursuing their own interests in that nation.
For instance, Sino as a suzerain power, was interested in securing the
territory of Korea, Russia was pursuing its own political interest by proceeding
south, and Japan was seeking to establish inroads to the continent, as
well as a defensive buffer zone. Japan’s perspective was that if Korea,
the isolated nation, was to be occupied by the great powers, Japan’s security
would be at stake. Hence, Japan’s priority was to induce Korea to open
and modernize the country. In 1875, Japan triggered off the Ganghwado Island
incident, which led to a Japan-Korea amity treaty the following year, and
succeeded in opening Korea. After that, Japan continued to intervene in
Korea’s internal affairs, and schemed for the establishment of a pro-Japanese
administration within the country. Sino, meanwhile, sent its troops to
Korea to repress a rebellion in 1882, and Yuan Shikai later seized real
power in the Qing (Ching) Dynasty.
Russia, which was seeking ice-free ports, built a coal
storage house in Jeoryeongdo, Korea in 1888. Due to the Triple Intervention,
concluded in 1895, Russia leased the territory of Dalian, and it then started
to show its real interests in the Korean Peninsula. When Russia increased
its interference with Korean internal affairs, King Gojong attempted to
take advantage of being allied with France to create a balance of power.
In failing to do so, Korea then decided to lean towards Russia. In the
meantime, Japan made the “Manchuria-Korea Exchange Negotiations” with
Russia that recognized Russia’s advantages in Manchuria in exchange for
Japan’s economical advantages in Korea. This resulted in concluding the
Yamagata Aritomo-Robanof convention in 1896, and the Nishi-Rosen convention
in 1898. Russia, however, disregarded these conventions, deploying its
ground forces and financial advisors to Korea. In 1896, Russia moved its
fleets from the Russian warship Admiral Nakhimov, as well as King Ko Jong,
into the Russian legation. King Ko Jong ordered to dissolve the cabinet
of the reform faction, and gave orders to kill people from the reform and
the pro-Japanese factions. Subsequently, Russia sent three warships to
the port of Masanpo where they built another coal storage, and leased Yongampo
to establish a military base in the Yellow Sea area.
On land, Russia was conspicuously making its way into Korea
by smuggling its forces beyond Amnokkang on the pretext of a deforestation
project. In response to this movement, Japan became allied with Britain,
in order to prevent Russia’s world-class army’s southward advance. The
Japan-Britain alliance was the naval alliance that tied the two island
countries that resided on either side of the globe, representing the first
alliance made between the white race and the yellow race on an equal footing.
Hence, by having the support of the seapower, Britain, Japan overthrew
the landpower, Russia, despite Germany and France’s intervention. Japan’s
victory resulted in concluding the Katsura-Taft convention in 1905 and
a revision of the 2nd Anglo-Japanese(Japan-Britain) alliance. Having concluded
the Japan-Russia entente and the Japan-France entente in 1907, Japan granted
privileges to France in Indochina, the U.S. in the Philippines, Britain
in India and Russia surrounding Mongolia in exchange for Japan’s advantages
in Korea over those of the U.S., Britain, Russia and France. After Japan
annexed Korea in 1910 by removing the influence from the great powers on
the Korean peninsula, security was brought on to the North East Asian region.
From a historical and geopolitical viewpoint, South Korea
had been always surrounded by the powerful landpowers (Mongolia, the Chinese
Empire, Russia or the Soviet Union in the modern period) that lie north
of the Korean peninsula. By utilizing Korea, the tip of the continent,
the landpowers made their attempts to extend their power beyond Korea,
which resulted in confrontations with Japan. When allied with a seapower,
Japan as well used the Korean peninsula as a bridge to advance to the continent.
Thus, the Korean Peninsula had been a bridge between Japan and the Eurasian
continent for a long period of time; it helped bring culture back and forth,
but constant threats by foreign powers also came through that bridge. History
also indicates that Korea’s stance on Japan, whether or not it was a pro-Japanese
state, had great influence on Japan’s security as seen by the Mongols
or Goryeo’s attempted invasions of Japan. Upon entering the modern period,
Japan maintained its security by allying itself with seapowers against
landpowers in its attempts to extend its power onto the continent.
What are key elements, from a historical and geopolitical
viewpoint, in selecting allies which determine a country’s prosperity
and decline? Upon entering the modern period, Japan made its ally with
the seapower, Britain, that led Japan to a victory in WWI. As a result,
Japan was ranked among the 5 permanent members of the Security Council
of the League of Nations. During WWI, Japan allied itself with the landpower,
Russia and concluded the 4th Japan-Russia entente to prevent Britain and
the U.S. from intervening in Manchuria. In the wake of the Russian Revolution,
Japan made the Japan-China Joint Defense Military Agreement with the landpower,
China, in 1918, and sent troops to Siberia to join the revolution force.
And by the late 1930s, Japan was isolated from the rest of the world, but
later made the triple military alliance with landpowers such as Germany
and Italy, which led to Japan’s defeat in WWII. After that defeat in the
war, the U.S.-Japan security treaty was concluded, which brought Japan
over half a century of peace and prosperity.
During the one century of Japan’s modern history, which
is between the time of the Japan-Britain alliance and the Japan- U.S. alliance,
Japan experienced its greatest prosperity whenever allied with seapowers,
whereas suffered hardships whenever allied with landpowers. Why do the
seapowers have such an influence on Japan’s prosperity? That is because
the sea-lanes allow the seapowers to bring in inexpensive goods in large
quantities, and Japan can establish efficient economic relationships with
trading partners while having the deregulated trade options. In contrast,
Russia and Eastern Europe suffered severe economic hardship and collapse
due to geographical restrictions or despotic governments, and as a result,
the European Community (EC) survived while the Warsaw Treaty Organization
(or Warsaw Pact) dissolved at the close of the Cold War. In other words,
the economic collapse in Russia and Eastern European nations can demonstrate
that; politically, democracy defeated despotisms, economically, a free
economy won over a Socialist planned economy, and geopolitically, seapowers
won against landpowers.
The Korean Peninsula under the Japanese Colonization
The Koreans experienced 35 years of colonization under
the Japanese Government’s control since Japan annexed the country in 1910.
Consequently, both South and North Korean history express their strong
anti-Japanese sentiments, which occupy 70 percent of the contents of their
modern history. In the outline of “The Nationalist Movement for Independence”
in the South Korean textbook, there is the following statement; “The Japanese
Empire forcibly dissolved the Korean military in order to make us powerless.
In the course of carrying out its aim to colonize our country, Japan seized
the judiciary, the police power, and the sovereignty. The Resident-General
that rules colonization, was invested in Korea in order to oppress the
Koreans through their military police. By the Japanese seizure of Korean
farm land, Korean farmers were forced to become peasants. They plundered
many of the resources of Korea, forcing our land to become a commodity
market that supplies necessary raw materials for the development of Japanese
industry. Japan’s aggressive colonizational policy was to enslave the
Korean people in order to maximize their own profits.” It describes Japan’s
occupation as being similar to the doctrinairism of Western colonialism,
while Japan’s contribution to their infrastructure such as education,
railways and public institutions, which were highly valued in Taiwan, is
not at all mentioned.

In the section of “Koreans’ sufferings,” there is the following boxed article about “Japan’s oppression of the March 1st Movement”. “In Suwon,Gyeonggi-do province, 45 miles away from Seoul, the Japanese forces ordered people to assemble in a church. When people gathered at the church, they shot and killed 35 people……..Other villages around Suwon were set afire. Hopelessly, villagers escaped from the fire, but soon, were shot or slayed by the Japanese army. there were 9 villages burnt, and many churches were destroyed. An American missionary, Minister Roberts who, at that time, lived in Pyongyang, recalls that in Chongiu, more than 100 Koreans were shot or beaten to death. Young girls were also brutally beaten. Over 300 young girls who were 7 years old or younger were killed. According to Minister Twain, the Japanese army shot a one year-old infant in the back. They fired at the backs of the wounded, and stabbed many people with swords. Within 3 months after the independence movement took place, over 30,000 Koreans were either killed or wounded by the Japanese army.”
The Suwon incident is indeed said to be the largest massacre
during the Japanese occupation. Although, the “World War Crime Encyclopedia”
reports 24 males who were 15 years or older, were killed in the church,
33 houses were burnt, and 5 males and 2 females were killed in the villages.
In the meanitme, North Korean history says: “the Pyonyang
people’s uprising in rebellion against the Japanese oppression immediately
spread out across the nation. While shouting “Cheers for Korean independence!,”
“Korea for Korean people!,” a crowd of emply-handed demonstrators bravely
fought against the Japanese armed forces, and destroyed the Japanese government
offices. More than 2,000,000 Koreans took part in the March 1st movement
for independence, and over 3,200 demonstrations and riots arose nation-wide,
resulting in 23,470 dead and wounded in addition to 46,948 arrests.” As
such, in addition to the astronomical numbers, it claimed the place of
the origin of the movement to be Pyongyang, changing it from its original
place, Pagoda Park in Seoul. It, however, must be noted that the number
of victims in the March 1st incident differs amongst 3 difference sources.
South Korea claims that there were 30,000 victims, and 23,470 victims for
North Korea, while the “World War Crime Encyclopedia” reports 553 deaths,
and 1,409 wounded, based on data compiled by the “Resident-General Statistics.”
In the next section of “Japan’s extermination policy
of Koreans,” it states that; “the Japanese forcibly squeezed agricultural
products out of the Koreans and, by the end of the war, old iron, brass
ware, spoons or chopsticks were all plundered. Aside from a seizure of
material products, the Japanese imposed brutal mining and manufacturing
labor on the Koreans. With the implementation of the compulsory military
draft system, Korean youths were drafted into the Japanese army or the
Student Volunteer Ordinance. Many young South Koreans sacrificed their
lives on the battle lines across the nation. The Japanese army also came
to take away Korean women on the pretext of a volunteer corps, forcing
them to become military prostitutes to comfort the Japanese military men.”
In the above statement, it is observed that the students in the event of
the “students mobilization” were described as military prostitutes. Although
the South Korean textbook insisted that 200,000 women were taken away by
the Japanese forces as war prostitutes, it is reported, in the “World
War Crime Encyclopedia,” that the sum of military prostitutes taken by
the Japanese forces during WWII is estimated at 8,000 up to 16,000 maximum.
And the number of applications for reparations the Korean Government received
had been reported to be about 500. As shown, both South and North Korea
often distort historical facts, especially number values, in the same way
that China does. This could result from lack of development of historical
study under the circumstances where rulers still control information.
Concerning WWII, the South Korean history textbook states:
“the Korean independence army battled against the Japanese army across
China with the Chinese forces. On the Indian as well as Myanmer battle
lines, the Korean armed forces, allied with Britain, also fought against
the Japanese army. The Korean independence army, which was well-trained
in a special program in China in cooperation with the U.S. army, plotted
a strategy to drive the Japanese out of the country in order to restore
our homeland. A number of Koreans living in the U.S. at that time, patriotically
volunteered in the U.S. army to fight for Korean independence.” The textbook
claims that the Korean army fought against Japan together with China, Britain,
and the U.S., without stating the actual number of participants in the
allied forces. In an extreme case, however, even one Korean’s participation
could substantiate the description. Granted that the Korean army’s participation
is a fact, then why did the Foreign Ministers’ conference held in Moscow
in 1945 amongst the U.S., Brtitain, and the Soviet Union, decide to place
Korea under the 5 ?year trusteeship of the League of Nations, instead of
giving it independence?
Subsequently, the South Korean textbook states that; “while
South Korea recognizes the victory of the Allied Powers brought independence
back to our nation, we must remember that the Korean people’s persistent
movement for independence and resistance against Japan finally came to
fruition.” During this period, on the other hand, it is observed that
there were many Koreans who were willingly supporting Japan and had a desire
to become complete Japanese. For instance, King Kojong’s 4th son Lee Wang
Gun graduated from the Military Academy as well as University of Armed
Forces in Japan, and became the 1st Air Force commander and a military
counselor of the Japanese army. Also, from the royal family, Lee Wu Gong
was an Army colonel, while Lee Kun Gong became an Army lieutenant colonel.
And Hong Sa Ick, a member of the general public, had become a lieutenant
general. Not only were these Koreans above Japanese division commanders
or regimental commanders, but also took command of Japanese soldiers. Moreover,
applications from Koreans to join the Japanese army were overwhelmingly
received around this time. Coupled with these facts, unlike Western colonialism,
the relationship between Korea and Japan may be considered to be similar
to that of England and Scotland.
Conflicts of Interests in Korea amongst the U.S. , the Soviet Union and
China, and the Korean War

As a consequence of Japan’s defeat in WWII in August
1945, Japan freed the Korean Peninsula. The Soviet Union then advanced
southward and occupied the territory north of the 38th Parallel. In October
1945, the Department of Public Affairs of the Soviet Army ordered a “North
Korean National Liberation Day Ceremony” in Pyongyang, where Kim II Sung,
wearing a badge of captain of the Soviet Army, appeared in public for the
first time, together with the Soviet Army commander Lieutenant General
Chischakov. In February 1946, with the Soviet military support, Kim II
Sung formed the Provisional People’s Committee (Kim II Sung’s being the
Chair - a former government body of the current North Korean regime-).
The Soviet military continued to provide its support to North Korea to
help strengthen the North Korean army, but since it regarded North Korea
as insignificant to the Soviet Union’s security unlike the Eastern European
nations, the Soviet military withdrew from North Korea in December 1948.
In the wake of the Korean War, instead of ground forces, the Soviet Union
dispatched a military advisory group in addition to air force pilots to
help North Korea map out a strategic plan and to guide “the preemptive
attack plan.”
For the U.S., since it had no clear policy concerning
Korea before the Korean War, Acting Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson
proclaimed the U.S. army’s withdrawal in May 1947, stating that Korean
affairs are no longer significant to the U.S.’s military interests. Subsequently,
in the summer of that year, claiming that there is no advantage to the
U.S. in maintaining military forces or bases in Korea, Lieutenant General
Albert C. Wedemeyer suggested a simultaneous withdrawal of both the U.S.
and Soviet’s military from the territory. By June 29, 1949, the U.S military
withdrew from Korea, and on Jan 12, 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson
renounced the U.S.’s influence on the Korean Penninsula and Taiwan, claiming
that the U.S.’s focus is on its defence line of the Aleutians, Japan,
Okinawa and the Philippines. With regards to Korea and Taiwan, the U.S.
“acknowledgs the people’s resistance resulted from severe invasions,
however, the influence on Korea and Taiwan should be in the hands of the
U.N. Charter with the assistance of the world, consisting of the civilized
nations.” Some sources say this remark may have triggered North Korea
to decide to advance south. When the Korean War broke out, however, the
U.S. immediately changed its strategy and got itself involved in the war
as the U.S. regarded the war as a sign of the intention of the Soviet Union
to increase its sphere of influence.
China, meanwhile, was reluctant to send troops to assist
Korea mainly due to the fact that it had its own issues. Taiwan, founded
only 6 months earlier, in October 1949, was not yet liberated, and was
unstable at the time of the Korean War. When the U.N. forces approached
Amnokkang, however, China dispatched 200,000 volunteer military units (1
million in the end) that China had prepared for attacks on Taiwan. Apparently,
China assisted North Korea from its fear. If the pro-American administration
was to unify the Korean Peninsula, there would be the potential that the
three nations, Japan, the U.S. and South Korea, would link up in the North
East Asia region to invade China. It is evident from the Russia-China Friendship
and Cooperation Treaty concluded in Feburuary 1950; “Both countries to
agree to the determination to jointly prevent, in any form, the rebirth
of Japanese Imperialism, invasions, acts of aggression, or any invasions
attempted by Japan’s allies.”
Fuji Kamiya states his perspective in the “Korean War”
that; China may have foreseen North Korea’s defeat would affect China’s
dignity in Asia, and was concerned that it would leave a big stain on China’s
future if it abandoned its neighboring communist country. Japan, meanwhile,
established its Ground Self Defense Forces during the Korean War. The Ground
Self Defense Forces, the former Security Forces, originated from the Police
Forces Reserved, was formed under the order of a commander of the Occupation
Allied Forces, who was concerned about Japan’s domestic security upon
dispatch of the U.S. military to Korea. As for the Maritime Self-Defence
Forces, when nearly 200,000 refugees fled to Japan’s shore, the Harbor
Guard Forces was formed in Hakata to prevent the influx of pestilence and
cholera. The Hakata Harbor Guard Forces were later transformed into the
Maritime Safety Agency, then became the present Maritime Self Defence Forces.
There is a significant difference in historical views
of the Korean War between the two Koreas. For instance, North Korea calls
it the “Liberation War for the Fatherland” while blaming the U.S. for
the cause of the war; “On June 25, 1950, with its well-plotted war strategy,
Americal Imperialism induced the South Korean army led by Rhee Syngman
to declare war against the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea in their
attempt to invade the entire Asian region.” South Korea, on the other
hand, seems to blame North Korea for the war, stating “the communist army
of North Korea invaded South Korea across the 38th parallel,” “With this
June 25 war, North Korea defied South Korea’s peace and freedom. It is,
thus, regarded as a crime against the same ethnic group of people. Because
of the war, many people lost their lives and properties. Factories, powerplants,
bridges and railways were all destroyed.” While the name of the country,
or the term ‘nation’ were not mentioned, ‘they’ or ‘the communist
army of North Korea’ were used in reference to North Korea instead.
In the commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Korean
War held in 2000, President Kim Dae-Jung of South Korea said, in his speech,
that “the Korean War was largely to blame because of Stalin, the ruler
of the old USSR in addition to Japan’s occupation.” Here, he clearly
stated that the Soviet Union and Japan were largely responsible for the
Korean War, but not Kim II Sung, the leader of North Korea. On the other
hand, it was observed that Kim Dae-Jung made such remarks as he was concerned
with the impact on the progress he had achieved with North Korea under
his “Sunshine Policy.”
In “History of the Korean War,” Japanese scholar Hideki Kaimura sympathizes with North Korea in blaming Japan for Korea’s separation. “although Japan had no intention to divide up Korea, Japan’s unforeseen surrender had driven the two Koreas to separate themselves.” He also states that Japan is responsible for the 38th paralell division of Korea, which was originated from the territory boundry fixed by the Japanese army as their defense zone.
Kim Dae-Jung, however, stated that North Korea advanced
southward as it felt the necessity of unification of homeland in the wake
of terrorism and sabotage committed by communists in South Korea. It must
be noted that Kim Dae-Jung described the Korean War as a civil war for
unification of the country, which is similar to the one that took place
in the United States. If supported by such a perspective, North Korea becomes
free from war liability issues. Instead, it would put the U.S. in a position
where the U.S. interfered with the North Korean “Liberation War for Homeland”
and would justify North Korea’s views of ‘American Imperialism,’ which
is “the U.S. officially took part in the Korean War, wearing the hat of
the U.N. forces”. Here is another example showing that both South and
North Korea twist historical facts in accordance with trends and to best
suit their purposes.
Japan-South Korea, South Korea-North Korea Relations after South Korean Independence

After the Korean war, though Japan and South Korea’s normalization
negotiations were attempted with the help of the U.S., they made little
progress due to President Rhee’s strong policy of nationalism. In January
of 1953, in order to regain Rhee’s public support, South Korea implemented
the one-sided “Rhee Syngman line” that restricted Japan’s fishing rights
on the sea around the Korean Peninsula while occupying the Japanese territory
of Takeshima. The regulation prohibited entry of Japanese fishing boats
in the area and the South Korean Government often captured Japanese boats,
claiming that the boats invaded beyond the “Rhee Syngman line.” With
Rhee’s exile from South Korea, the relationship between Japan and South
Korea improved when President Park Chung Hee took over power in 1961. President
Park regarded Japan as important for the development of the South Korean
economy. The ultimate agenda of the negotiations between the two nations
was the ‘reparations’, and the Park administration initially demanded
800 million dollars. Japan, however, provided 300 million dollars worth
of products as well as the support with economic strategic planning, 200
million dollars non-repayable financial aid, and 200 million dollars in
low interest loans. In June 1965, the Japan-South Korea fundamental treaty
was concluded with loan agreements of private trust funds for 10 years.
The South Korean Government paid 9,545 individuals (2,861,000,000 won)
for individual reparations, and 93,685 individuals (6,641,000,000 won)
for property loss reparations. Upon completion of these payments, Japan
officially paid its dues for the war liabilities.
On Aug 15, 1981, President Doo Hwan Chun made the following
speech: “We shall not blame only Japanese Imperialism for our failure
of the past, but shall acknowledge that we had the lack of awareness of
international affairs and failed to unify ourselves. We must blame ourselves
for not forming a strong force in our nation.” He further remarked that
South Korean independence was brought by the victory of the Allied Powers
by adding; “We shall not conceit ourselves meaninglessly by glorifying
our history against the truthful facts.” Japan-South Korea relations then
seemed to have made progress until December 1999, when three ex-Korean
war prostitutes demanded 20,000,000 yen in reparations against the Japanese
Government, supported by a South Korean Women’s Association and a Japanese
lawyer. This issue created a sensation in both Japan and South Korea mainly
because it disgraced the pride of the Korean people with the fact that
their women were sexually assualted by the Japanese - an inferior race-.
Agitated by the media such as the Asahi Newspaper, Japan was partly to
blame for the sensation. It was, in fact, accelerated by Chief Secretary
Yohei Kono’s imprudent apology, who commented that there was military
personnels’ involvement in the lawsuit, without conducting any investigation.
In order to cope with these matters, the Japanese Government
proposed the establishment of the Asian Women Fund, which would be a private
organization. The South Korean Government, however, refused to accept funds
from this organization, proclaiming that Japan neglected its war liabilities.
Since then, South Korea uses this issue as a diplomatic tactic against
Japan.
When South Korea suffered a severe monetary crisis in the
late 90’s, South Korea approached Japan to seek economic aid. Also, President
Kim’s decision to open the Korean market to Japanese culture, as well
as the opportunity to co-host the World Cup, made contributions to improve
Japan-Korea relations, which also helped the Japanese build a sense of
affinity towards South Korea. The World Cup was, however, predominantly
ruled by South Korea. The opening ceremony was held in Seoul, and the event’s
official name was determined to be the “Korea-Japan World Cup” to which
the international rules that names of participating countries appear in
the alphabetical order, did not apply. Despite Japan’s concessions, South
Korean’s anti-Japanese sentiments still remain unchanged.
Meanwhile, in the course of the Korean War, as well as
the Cold War, diplomatic relations between Japan and North Korea were never
negotiated until 1966, when Kenji Miyamoto, the Chairman of the Communist
Party, visited North Korea for the first time to open diplomatic relations
between the two nations. The relationship between North Korea and the Communist
Party worsened when the Communist Party defended the Red Army hijacker
(1970) against North Korea, and accused North Korea of the terrorism act
in Rangoon (1983). The Socialist Party forced their way into the relationship
by sending representatives to North Korea by 1970, and it later became
predominant in the diplomatic relations with North Korea. From then on,
while it skillfully spoke for North Korea, the Socialist Party overlooked
the illegal actions performed by North Korea’s spy agencies such as capturing
Japanese fishing boats, smuggling drugs, or abducting Japanese nationals.
Concerning the Korean Airline crash, for instance, the Socialist Party
denied the charges against North Korea, defending it with front page coverage
in the “Socialist News;” “The Case Unproven ? 7 Unanswered Questions
about the Korean Airline Crash.” In 1989, it was, however, unveiled that
9 members of the Socialist Party, in return, had received funds totaling
9,020,000 yen from the North Korean General Association and the Pachinko
Play-Machine Union.
In the 90’s, the LDP took over diplomacy with North
Korea. According to the “North Korean Diplomatic Strategy” written by
Toshimitsu Shigemura, the LDP had its own interest in pursuing normalization
with North Korea. It appeared that the LDP was counting on benefiting from
reparations paid to North Korea so that the LDP could manipulate North
Korea to contract certain Japanese corporations for infrastructure projects
in North Korea, and it would then benefit the LDP’s political funds. When
Shin Kanemaru, as a representative of the party, along with 3 other Government
parties, visited Pyongyang in 1990, he granted “postwar reparations”
to North Korea in the “North Korea-Japan Joint Declaration” as follows;
“Japan must make an official apology for the 36 years of sorrows and disasters
that Japan caused in the past as well as for the postwar damage that North
Korean people have suffered for 45 years. And Japan must commit itself
to make sufficient reparations to North Korea.”
In the postwar relations with North Korea, Japan had been
rather tolerant with North Korea concerning many issues such as; unpaid
accounts for trades where the Ministry of International Trade and Industry
had to take over insurance payments to a Japanese exporter, over 1 trillion
yen bailout to a North Korean related bank, the capture of Japanese fishing
boats, and the abduction of Japanese nationals. Bearing these incidents
in mind, what damages had Japan caused North Korea after WWII?
Although Japan-North Korea negotiation talks were held
between 1991 and 1992, and resumed in 1994 upon the U.S.-North Korean agreement,
none of the talks made any positive progress. In 2000, Japan suddenly sent
50000-tons of rice to North Korea, as a promise made by Secretary General
Hiromu Nonaka during his visit in 1997 and 1999. Whether or not it was
under similar circumstances, Japan, again, sent rice to North Korea at
the end of 2002, shortly after North Korea admitted the case of the abduction
of Japanese nationals.
South Korea’s Historical Views and Japan’s War Liabilities

In the 50 years of postwar relations between Japan and
South Korea, the Japanese Government repeatedly made apologies to South
Korea. As previously stated, reparations and apologies have already been
made, and even the South Korean Government have, whether or not it is under
a military or a civilian controlled government, agreed upon positive Japan-South
Korea relations for the future. Nevertheless, South Korea suddenly raises
Japan’s war liabilities by bringing up the issues of war prosititutes,
or Prime Minister’s Yasukuni Shrine visit, and even interferes with Japanese
history textbooks. Not to mention, anti-Japanese sentiments still remain
strong in both South and North Korea, and never seem to disappear. What
are the reasons behind all these problems? It partly seems to come from
a sense of humiliation that lies in their minds due to the fact that Japan,
consisting of a despicable and inferior race, had occupied their country
for 35 years.
In the “South Koreans’ History View,” Kuroda Katsunori
explains that the South Koreans’ anti-Japanese sentiments and war liabilities
issues have resulted from not only the Japanese colonization, but also
the fact that Koreans were almost Japanized during the war. That is to
say, in order for them to retrieve a South Korean national identity, they
needed to rewrite their history to best suit their perception by denying
the entire history, labeling Japan as evil, and distancing themselves from
Japan. When South Korea achieved success in holding the Olympics, and overcame
the IMF financial crisis, it also attained national consciousness as well
as confidence in themselves. Thus, by launching the ‘history restructure’
and ‘history adjustment’ campaign, South Korea rewrote their history
gloriously. As a result, it caused frictions between Japanese and South
Korean history, that led to South Korea’s demand for corrections on Japanese
textbooks in compliance with their history.
Moreover, according to the “Japanese Imperialism Doesn’t
Talk All About History” written by South Korean auther, Oh Seon-hwa, South
Korean history should comply with the historical views of the South Koreans’.
It is not about “filling in the gap” between the two histories, but it
is about Japan’s “rewriting” its history to reflect the views of the
South Korean people. Which means, throughout the entire history, starting
from the Jingu Empress’s conquest of the three kingdoms, Hideyoshi Toyotomi’s
invasions of the Korean Peninsula, the ‘Conquest of Korea’ during a period
from the Edo and the Meiji era, to the annexation of Korea, the South Koreans
have viewed the Japanese as hostile and aggressive against the Koreans.
South Korea’s perception of history in relation to Japan is, therefore,
to have the Japanese recognize their own aggressiveness and have them show
remorse for their past actions.
As for the constant demands regarding Japan’s war liabilities,
particularly, concerning the issues of the war prostitutes, it has become
South Korea’s diplomatic tactics to use these points against Japan. This
enables South Korea to feel superior to Japan on the international level
by labeling Japan as a nation of immorality. It is more likely that South
Korea continues with war liabilities issues as well as the Japanese textbook
amendment demands. South Korea’s anti-Japanese sentiments will remain
strong as long as it educates their people with the textbook that is distorted
against the historical facts. Therefore, it is anticipated that the fragile
relationship between Japan and South Korea, which frequently bursts into
conflicts triggered by trivial concerns, will continue for a considerable
time to come.
In the meantime, North Korean history makes no reference
to either China or the Soviet Union’s involvements in the Korean War.
It describes the war as; “the North Koreans bravely fought in firm confidence
to defeat American Imperialism. We were determined to fight as long as
we were led by our iron commander, Kim II Sung, who was undefeated throughout
100 battles and blessed with distinguished military tactics,” “the enermy
lost over 405,000 soldiers during the 3-year war.” According to American
public data, however, the U.S. lost 54,246 soldiers in total in that particular
war. Upon the 50th anniversary of the Korean War, further investigation
was conducted in which it was found that there was a miscalculation in
numbers of casualities from the Korean war, and the numbers were corrected
to be 36,516 in total (33,686 deaths and 2,830 wounded).
In terms of war liabilities, the Korean war was Korea’s
greatest tragedy in history, that brought killing, hatred, and over half
a century of divisions amongst themselves, and it had even brought much
greater misfortune than Japan’s 36 years of occupation. Both South and
North Korea, however, seem tolerant of China and the Soviet Union’s involvement
in the war. For instance, South Korean history only comments; “they (North
Korea) intensified their military forces by allying themselves with the
Soviet Union under a secret agreement,” while no reference to the Soviet
Union is made at all in North Korean history. Although China caused greater
damage than the Soviet Union, South Korean history only describes China
as; “the Chinese advanced southward with an enormous number of military
units,” “1,000,000 units of the Chinese military’s invasion forced the
South Korean and the U.S. army back beyond the boundary, and Seoul was,
again, occupied by the Communist Army.” Thus, the Chinese intervention
actually had a great influence on the war situation, resulting in rescuing
the premature collapse of Kim II Sung’s regime. This led to the division
of the two Koreas, and caused the separation of families affecting more
than 10,000,000 Koreans. It also unnecessarily prolonged the war, increasing
the number of war victims, and further interfered with South Korea’s intention
of unifying the two nations by removing Kim II Sung’s regime. The South
Korean Government demanded an apology from China and the Soviet Union upon
resuming diplomatic relations, however, neither of the countries have yet
agreed to comply with the demand.
Key Nations’ Movements in Relation to North Korea from a Historical View

The movements of key nations in relation to North Korea are very
significant for the future. For China, North Korea is very critical to
their national defense mechanism. North Korea is a country that has tremendous
international political influence, and is another of the few countries
that share the same communist political system as Vietnam. However, if
North Korea possessed nuclear weapons, that would make North Korea the
2nd military power in North East Asia, then China would have less political
influence over North Korea. Further, provided North Korea continues with
its inhuman and illegal actions, China, that is pursuing its own internationalization,
may be blamed by other nations for its leniency to North Korea. On the
other hand, should the U.S. ever attack and apply economic sanctions to
North Korea, China, as a suzerain power to that nation, would not tolerate
it as long as it promotes anti-American supremacy in Asia.
In the meantime, Russia’s interests in North Korea are
more economic in nature than political such as improvements on the engineering
tools Russia once donated to North Korea, exports of products or natural
gas, economic developments in Siberia, and a railway connection between
South and North Korea to allow Russia to open its market to South Korea
and Japan. Politically, Russia is in alignment with China by not supporting
the U.S.’s influence in North East Asia, at the same time, it has common
views with the U.S. in terms of North Korea’s inclinaiton to China, which
would disadvantage Russia in terms of power balance in North East Asia.
For the U.S., as State Secretary Dean Achison pronounced in 1950 that the
U.S.’s geographic defence line excludes South Korea, North Korea is also
‘not’ geopolitically critical to its security.
As for South Korea, even if North Korea possessed nuclear
missiles, the possibility that North Korea attacks South Korea is considered
to be very slim due to two factors; South Korea’s continued promotion
of the ‘Sunshine policy’ and their sharing of the same ethnic family.
Also, South Korea is apprehensive about the possibility of becoming a battlefield
in case a war breaks out, which marks the significant difference in views
of North Korean issues between South Korea and Japan. It must be noted,
however, in terms of South Korea and U.S. relations in recent years, coupled
with South Korea’s confidence in their strong economy, the success of
the World Cup, and rising mini-state nationalism, public support for the
South Korea - U.S. alliance has started to decline. In the meantime, North
Korea appeals to South Korea from the same racial consciousness, while
it threatens South Korea “to put them in flames” because of the U.S.
military stationed there. Although North Korea’s intention seems to psychologically
manipulate South Korea by using both pro and anti South Korea tactics,
South Korea is more likely to continue to ally itself with the U.S. The
Koreans are known to have the tendency to ally themselves with strong powers,
which mainly resulted from their long history of submission to other great
powers. In the World Cup, it was observed that the South Koreans also have
the tendency to be quite emotional and madly passionate. In the recent
presidentical election, the South Korean people elected President Roh Moo-Hyun,
who took over the “Sunshine Policy.”
These factors indicate that, the further China develops
and the greater it becomes, the more South Korea will lean towards it like
it did back in the era of Goryeo Dynasty. If the U.S. military withdraws
from South Korea, there might be the potential that the Chinese would form
a “Chinese ideological organization” to govern the entire North East
Asian region. Japan-South Korea relations then would create further friction
and conflicts, and South Korea may eventually distance itself from Japan.
For instance, when each of the Western Imperialists, such as France, Britain,
the U.S. and Russia made attempted invasions of the Joseon (Korean) Dynasty,
Korea clung onto either Sino China, France, or Russia to balance its power
against Japan. In fact, South Korea had never had the inclination to ally
itself with Japan as it follows the Chinese ideology that despises Japan.
Japan’s Security Measures from a Historical and Geopolitical View

There are some key elements to consider in order to ensure Japan’s
security for the future. Japan is a small island with few resources, counting
on an enormous amount of imports for energy, food products, and raw materials.
By adding value to the imported materials, Japan manufactures internationally
competitive products, and exports them to other nations. Having such a
state of commerce, it is the primary requirement to maintain a good relationship
with exporting countries, and secondly, it is important to have countries
that are interested in the purchase of our products. Thirdly, it is significant
to secure the sealanes for transport, by insuring that the sealanes are
stable and undisturbed, and our trading partners are peaceful and prosperous.
In other words, world peace is most critical for Japan’s economic growth
and prosperity.
Japan, therefore, ought to make contributions to maintaining
world peace by actively participating in Peace Keeping Operations. In addition,
in order to secure the sealane from the Indian Sea to Japan, Japan should
strengthen the relations with maritime countries bordering key sealanes,
such as India, Australia and Singapore.
Next, Japan must seek solutions to cease wars, disputes,
and conflicts so that world peace can be attained and maintained. In fact,
many suggestions have been addressed to this issue for a long period of
time, though, our history indicates that peace existed when a super great
power emerged to reign over the world, or when multiple nations formed
an alliance that enabled the power of each nation to be equally balanced.
In that sense, while providing assistance with the development of Siberia,
Japan can establish a co-existence and co-prosperity agreement with Russia,
which is also greatly concerned with China’s expanding military power,
to cope with overwhelming powers such as North Korea and China in North
East Asia.
Further, Japan should intensify its political and economic
relationship with a pro-Japanese country, India, by increasing investments
in that nation. The relationship with India, which neighbors China, becomes
very critical in securing the sealane that lies on the Indian Sea. In terms
of relations between Russia and China, Russia is, in fact, attempting to
build a strategic security triangle with India and China to oppose the
expansion of U.S. power. On the other hand, according to the “Janes’
Foreign Report (Dec 12, 2002 issue),” Russia regards China as a latent
enemy on the long-term basis, whereas to India, it exports cutting edge
offensive weapons. Thus, making an alliance with India and Russia may help
Japan maintain its security against China.
Concerning North Korea’s Nuclear development program,
Japan’s stance has always been “to have consultations with other concerned
nations.” However, if a trilateral meeting was held amongst Japan, South
Korea and the U.S., Japan might fall into South Korean elect-President
Roh’s stance; “to prevent war, frictions with the U.S. may be unavoidable
(Feb 14, 2003 Yomiuri Newspaper).” It may result in the U.S. military
withdrawal from South Korea and Japan, which would strategically favor
China, Russia and North Korea. In fact, when Japan issued a request to
China for holding a top-level talk conerning North Korean issues, China
refused the request by reason of its disagreement with the Japanese Prime
Minister’s Yasukuni Shrine visit. Also, as shown by such examples as Iraq’s
invasion of Kuwait, the Kosovo war, and the recent U.N. inspections of
nuclear weapons in Iraq, it seems that the bigger the problems are, the
more difficult, it is to reach resolutions through multilateral bodies
such as U.N. and NATO.
When the League of Nations was formed after WWI, due
to the awareness of the need for a multilateral security system, the Washington
Conference decided to transform the Japan-Britain Alliance to the ‘Quadrilateral
treaty concerning Pacific affairs’ by adding the U.S. and France. Further,
in Europe, an international organization called the ‘Locarno Agreement’
was established. Despite the existense of all of these organizations, none
of them could prevent WWII. History indicates that the multilateral security
system can help strengthen bilateral relations, but fails to complement
bilateral relations.
It is observed that the recent North Korean threat was
a reaction to South Korea and Japan’s disgreement, which followed Russia
and China, to U.S. President George W. Bush’s firm approach to North Korea,
insisting that South Korea and Japan would seek peaceful resolutions based
on negotiations. Namely, North Korea reacted strongly against South Korea
and Japan’s unrealistic political approach, citing that international
political negotiations and peaceful resolutions can only be attained with
a hint of possible military enforcement against illegal and disobedient
actions. Granted that taking military action should not be practiced to
resolve international affairs, at the same time, it would be unrealistic
to settle all international disputes and problems without it. In reality,
international politics somehow require force to maintain political balance.
For instance, Japan, standing on the Eastern tip of the Asian continent,
requires allies as its backbone in order to stand on its own two feet against
the sphere of Chinese influence. Now the question is, what are the key
elements in selecting allies? Nations, that share the same principles,
and have comprehensive international values or morality, are considered
to be ideal to be allied with. However, as British Prime Minister Henry
J. T. Palmerston in the 19th century quoted; “the British Empire has neither
eternal friends nor eternal enemies. What exists with us are eternal national
interests,” every nation ultimately pursues national security and interests
rather than idealism, principles, or needless to say, international justice
that constantly changes under various circumstances.
Now, despite Russia and China’s involvements in the
Korean War which caused enormous damage to South Korea, and Britain and
France’s nearly 100 years of colonization of nations such as China, India,
Burma or Vietnam, which sacrificed millions of people’s lives, none of
these powers made apologies nor reparations like Japan did. Why is it that
Japan must always suffer demands for reparations, and have our internal
politics interfered with on the pretext of war liabilities? It is simply
because Japan lost the war. In reality, Japan had become the “pariah”of
the world after WWII, and the world had nothing to do with us except punish
us.
From this viewpoint, the primary element in selecting allies,
is political power, secondly, military force that supports their political
power, and thirdly, economic strength to protect and maintain the military
force. In addition, as the media and non-government organizations have
influence on international public opinions due to the recent development
of globalization or information technology, nations that have control over
informaiton, can be a desirable candidate to be allied with. Based on long-term
national interests, and regardless of neighboring nations’ influence,
Japan should highly regard the U.S., the greatest military power in the
world, as an important ally, and focus on preparation for defence programs
such as the Ballistic Missile Defence in compliance with the Japan-U.S.
security standards. Politically, Japan can learn wisdom from our ancient
leaders who managed to keep Japan independent from the sphere of the Chinese
Empire for nearly 2000 years while maintaining an equal relationship.
In past attempts of Japan-North Korea normalization talks,
Japan’s failure in the negotiations resulted in losing the national interest
to North Korea’s tactical schemes. This was due to Japan’s lack of planning
and Japanese politician’s interests-oriented strategy. From now on, Japan
should monitor international political situations without making irrational
decisions even when U.S.-North Korea talks or South Korea-North Korea relations
improve, or when Kim Jong II receives invitations as a guest of the state
to nations such as Moscow, Beijing or Seoul. Considering Japan still positions
itself as the greatest economic power in Asia, without Japan’s economic
aid, support of North Korea would be a huge burden on South Korea’s economy,
which is one-tenth of Japan’s GDP. Consequently, either the U.S. and South
Korea, or North Korea, would have to approach Japan to resume normalization
talks between Japan and North Korea. For instance, In the 70’s, when China
went behind North Korea to conclude the U.S.-China amicable settlement,
North Korea sought South Korea-North Korea talks and Japan-North Korea
normalization, and in the early 90’s, the Soviet Union as well betrayed
North Korea in resuming Soviet Union -South Korea diplomatic relations.
North Korea then asked to reopen such diplomatic talks. It is, therefore,
apparent from the past actions that North Korea seeks to resume South Korea-North
Korea talks or Japan-North Korea normalization talks whenever it gets betrayed
by either China or the Soviet Union, and isolated from the rest of the
world.
Conclusion
Japan has already been losing in the battle of war liability
issues. There are an overwhelming amount of Chinese and Korean Websites
in English comprised of accusations of Japan’s war time conducts. However,
of that amount, only 10 percent offer Japan’s counterarguments. World
history, in fact, is comprised of historical information in English. Therefore,
unless Japan presents its history in English to appeal to the world, there
is a danger of Japan being labelled “an immoral nation” by the world,
as both South and North Korea seem to be conspiring to do, as well as becoming
a tributary nation that would continue to provide economic aid to China
or North Korea. Our first objective is, by removing the current system
which is administered by interest-oriented Japanese politicians and North
Korea’s special agencies, to re-establish diplomatic relations, following
that of the U.S. and South Korea, on a Foreign Affairs Ministry - Foreign
Affairs Ministry relation basis, and bring it back to the hands of the
people of the nations.
Secondly, based on this accurate historical information,
we must demonstrate our history in English and appeal to the world, and
accurately rewrite the Japanese textbook that had been repeatedly distorted
to comply with both South and North Korean historical views. Since it is
often said that victims only provide a one-sided story, it cannot illustrate
the accuracy of history. Therefore, we ought to provide our young generations
with a history textbook that is free from political ideological influence
in order for them to acknowledge and establish historical views based on
accurate and truthful facts. Otherwise, there is, again, the potential
that with a sense of guilt, Japan would fall into becoming a tributary
nation. This tendency is shown by a survey conducted by NHK in regards
to Japan’s war liabilities. Amongst the subjects that responded “yes”
to the question whether Japan should carry on with war liabilities, 37
percent of the subjects were born during the wars, and 52 percent of those
were born after the wars. In contrast, amongst the subjects of the “no-war
experience” group who were born after 1959, and received history education
with the revised textbook, 60 percent responded “yes” to Japan’s carrying
on with the war liabilities.
Lastly, with my strong message of the importance of learning
history, I would like to conclude with the following quote from “Spirited
Away” written by Director Hayao Miyazaki.
“
Humans without history and human races who forgot their past will disappear
like heat waves.”
Translator:
Yumiko Cochane, North Vancouver, BC, Canada
Full-time English -Japanese freelance translator, specializing in all materials
related to the business/political field.