And pigs will fly. But still...
Ideally, the governments of
Japan, Korea and China would take their escalating territorial disputes to the
International Court of Justice for a final settlement. Tokyo recently proposed
just such an action regarding the tiny cluster of islands in the middle of the
Sea of Japan, they call the Takeshimas and the Koreans the call Dokdos.
That is approximately how in 1984
Chile and Argentina settled their long-standing dispute over three islands in
the Beagle Channel off the southern tip of Terra Del Fuego, a dispute that had
brought the two South American countries to the brink of war. In this case, a
Papal mediation ruled for Chile and Argentina accepted the decision.
On August 21 the government of
Japan formally proposed to South Korea that the dispute over the sovereignty of
the islets be settled in a “calm fair and peaceful way based on International
law” through adjudication by the ICU.
But this was a deeply cynical
move by Japan. Tokyo knew full well that Seoul wouldn’t agree to any binding
arbitration. It has turned down two previous requests. And if the Koreans by
some chance had agreed to such a move, Tokyo would be in a pickle, since
leaders of Japan have no intention of accepting any kind of ruling that might
undermine their claim to the islands.
Thus the judges of the
international court were deprived of the pleasure of spending perhaps years
poring through the voluminous arcane and baroque arguments, obscure maps and
purported landings going back centuries, that Japan, China and Korea use to
buttress their territorial claims.
There is really only one way out
of this impasse, one that Japan almost certainly won’t take. But Japan could
cut through the Gordian Knot and graciously cede the Dokdos and Senkakus to
South Korea and China respectively along with their nearby resources with no
strings attached. Call it a kind of belated reparation for invasion and
occupation of the two countries during and before World War II.
That would be appropriate because
history weighs heavily on these islands. Forget about the supposed undersea
riches that possession of these islands might bring. Certainly, there are
people in the appropriate government ministries in Beijing, Seoul and Tokyo who
worry about such things. But the Chinese smashing Japanese cars in Shenzhen
were not thinking about marine hydrates.
For Koreans the Dokdos stand as a
symbol for everything that the average citizen feels aggrieved by and for which
Japan won’t fess up: the years of colonial rule, women forced into the sex
trade to service soldiers, conscripted labor to Japan – the whole truckload.
The Senkakus have much of the same symbolic power for China. The only way to
exorcise this is for Japan to give up the islands.
Fair or not, it is Japan that
bears the burden of this history. It doesn’t matter that the events took place
70 years ago, for many in Korea and China it might have happened yesterday. No
apology from the government would carry the kind of weight that ceding the
islands would carry.
Much has to do with the changing
power relationships going back 100 years. Japan annexed the Takeshimas in 1905.
Korea, then a Japanese protectorate, was not in a position to protest. Fast
forward to 1954 and South Korea, fully mobilized after the Korean War, seizes
control of the islands while Japan, just emerging from its own occupation, is
disarmed and has no means to resist.
Japan annexed the Senkakus in
1895 supposedly after ascertaining that nobody else wanted them. For the next
70 years or so China was silent. Only in the 1970s when undersea soundings and
exploration suggested that these islands might have some value did the Chinese
begin to lay claim. That is Japan’s position.
One might argue that for those
70-odd years China was distracted by its internal problems – not the least
being invasion and occupation by Japan - and a perception of weakness.
Ironically, some commentators say that the perception of confusion and weakness
in Japan’s national politics today has embolden both China and Korea to push
their claims.
Obviously, surrendering the
islands would involve a considerable climb-down for the Japanese government,
which officially maintains that there is “no dispute,” that the Takeshima and
Senkaku islands belong to Japan. But if they did, it would come to pass that
they lost nothing really valuable and gained the kind of good will in Asia that
it has always lacked.
Interestingly, at least one
important Japanese politician may have been thinking along these lines. The
Korean newspaper Dong-A Ilbo said that Ichiro Ozawa told Korea’s president that
Japan would give up its claim to Takeshima if he became prime minister provided
Seoul allowed Japanese to fish in nearby waters. Ozawa, who recently formed new
break-away party, has denied the story, however.
Another reason to give up the
islands: The Koreans and Chinese want them a lot more than the Japanese do. Of
course, right wing nationalists such as Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara would
consider any such move intolerable appeasement. But how attached to the islands
are the bulk of the Japanese people? Not very, I would venture to say.
Where are the big demonstrations
against Korean President Lee Myung-bak’s provocative visit to the Dokdo? The
issue that agitates Japanese today and sends many of them into the streets to
protest is not Takeshima; it is nuclear power and the government’s decision to
restart two reactors in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. In Korea the
government issues postage stamps with the Dokdos on them, and the largest war
ship in the Korean navy, an 18,000-ton light aircraft carrier, is provocatively
named ROKS Dokdo.
If Japan did cede the Senkaku to
China it should demand in return an unequivocal statement from Beijing that it
forever renounces any future claim to the Japanese Nansei islands, the string
of smaller islands that extend south of Okinawa, some almost within sight of
Taiwan.
Beijing makes no such claim -
yet, but part of its rationale for owning the Senkaku/Daioyu comes from
supposed visits by Chinese fishermen as far back as the Ming Dynasty. That is
probably true, but these same fishermen undoubtedly also visited Ishigaki and
other islands in the southern Ryukyu chain now part of Japan. Would that be the
basis for some future claim?
For that matter, some Chinese
chauvinists in the deep recesses of policymakers, occasionally speculate about
acquiring Okinawa based on the fact that the independent Kingdom of the Ryukyus
once paid tribute to the Middle Kingdom. Of course, if China based territorial
claims on historical tributary vassals, it would be claiming Korea, Vietnam and
Thailand.
The situation with these wretched
and totally useless outposts can only get worse. Right now a kind of arms race
is building as China acquires more and bigger “fisheries protection” vessels.
Meanwhile, in Japan, conservative outlets demand more and better armed coast guard
vessels now stretched to the limit to police the waters around the islets
against constant intrusions.
It would be hard and in many ways
unfair for Japan to unilaterally cede these two disputed island groups, but may
be the only way to lance a boil that will only get worse. A country dealing
with a tsunami and nuclear disaster, an ageing workforce, trade deficits and
fiscal problems should not be distracted by these territorial issues.
Todd Crowell
Business & Investment Opportunities
YourVietnamExpert is a division of Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd, Incorporated in Singapore since 1994. As Your Business Companion, we propose a range of services in Strategy, Investment and Management, focusing Healthcare and Life Science with expertise in ASEAN. We also propose Higher Education, as a bridge between educational structures and industries, by supporting international programmes. Many thanks for visiting www.yourvietnamexpert.com and/or contacting us at contact@yourvietnamexpert.com
No comments:
Post a Comment