Japan’s historical dispute with South Korea over the Dokdo islets (known as Takeshima to the Japanese) has been reignited, with both sides launching salvos against each others’ territorial claims.
The recent war of words over Dokdo started last month when the Japanese government decided to implement a one-month boycott of its diplomats using Korea’s national air carrier, Korean Air, after the airline routed a test flight over the disputed islets. Seoul condemned the action and demanded that Japan reverse the ban.
This latest spat was further inflamed in the past week as a result of a planned visit to the small islets by four members of the Japanese Diet. Seoul responded by quickly condemning the proposed stopover as a provocation, and warned that the Korean government couldn’t guarantee the safety of the lawmakers if they insisted on following through with the visit.
The chairman of the opposition Liberal Democratic Party’s (LDP) policy and research council, Shigeru Ishiba, reacted angrily to this veiled threat by claiming that South Korea was being ‘intolerant’ and noted that ‘Japanese citizens can visit anywhere in South Korea just as South Korean people are free to come to Japan.’
LDP officials claim the trip is meant to explore options at resolving the issue rather than inflaming the current situation. The Japanese government has refrained from commenting specifically on the trip, but has shown no inclination that it’s willing to get involved.
A strange corollary to this story is North Korea’s public show of support for Seoul’s position. Pyongyang’s state news agency released a statement claiming that ‘all Koreans, with a united force, should squash the (Japanese) attempt to steal Dokdo.’ While it isn’t surprising that the North condemned Japan – which it often has done in the past – it’s interesting to see the display of unity with Seoul on the issue.
Unfortunately, political posturing over this dispute isn’t uncommon. Both sides have routinely used the issue to stir up nationalist sentiment for domestic political gain. However, this comes at an inopportune time for Japan, which is involved in seemingly intractable territorial disputes with its three most important neighbours (China, Russia and Korea). Tokyo and Moscow were only recently engaged in a frosty exchange over the disputed Kuril Islands.
All sides involved in these thorny disputes would do better to avoid the grandstanding.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
PeterDownUnder
When I look at the South China Sea dispute I see China trying to create a Sea of Okhotsk for itself.
The Soviet Union and Russia hold on to the Kuril Islands so that this body of water is completely indigenous to Russia. This allows it to be closed off to outside vessels as well as ground for its nuclear submarines.
Currently the Chinese SLBMs cannot reach the US until it passes the Ryukyu islands which is heavily monitored by both the US Navy and the Japanese SDF.
The South China Sea with its claims for China if successful will create a Sea of Okhotsk for China. This can be seen with the build up of naval facilities around Hainan island.
Hainan will be the Vladivostok to China’s Pacific fleet. China already has the Bohai Sea for itself. But again the SLBMs cannot reach the US from there.
Dokdo issue for South Korea is a constant reminder of its heritage as a colonial possession as long as Japan claims it and will rile up extreme nationalism. In South Korean minds it seems as another attempt by the Japanese to annex their territory. Politicians have used anti-Japanese sentiment to curtail public support many times in Korean history. ex(suicide) president Roh Mooh Hyun gained public support by blatant anti Japanese and anti American shenanigans. As long as Japan claims these islands they will rile up extreme nationalism to the point of stupidity (people chopping off fingers in protest).
For Japan Dokdo is like Tibet for China. If they ease up or forfeit their claim all other territories they hold will be at risk from this precedent. What Japan really wants is the Kuril islands.
Best option for South Korea is to react as the Japanese do with the Senkaku islands. Personally I believe the smarter way would have been to let the Japanese politicians visit the islands and make their claim. Considering what Korean protesters can do to their own kind I cannot imagine what would have happened to these people. If anything feces would have landed on one of them.
Japan needs to point a finger to steady itself within. The best choice is South Korea which will hold the least repercussions. China and Russia could act forcefully. Japan needs the US. North Korea needs no further tickling. South Korea with its pragmatic president won’t overreact.
Politicians at work as always.
yang zi
@PeterDownUnder, some very good analysis.
The only difference, China’s hold on Tibet is much longer and earlier than modern history. Japanese hold on these islands are more recent and directly connected to its WWII atrocities.
From my point of view, South Korea is the potential aggressor. its revisionist urge is much stronger and full of fantasies. these fantasies include north China and Russia far east, like what imperial Japan had. unfortunately for them, China is not Qing dynasty anymore.
natem
The Korean side is generally much more vocal, but people treat the subject with the same false equivalence that the use to say the US Democratic Party political engine is “just as bad” as the Republican Party’s.
I won’t be long winded here.
1) The Treaty of San Francisco appears to award the Islands to Japan. Yet Korea has occupied them militarily, with the knowledge that Japan is constitutionally forbidden to rattle sabers.
2) Japan has expressed a strong desire to have the matter adjudicated by international courts. Korea says that the islands are not in dispute, and rejects the idea of international adjudication.
All the iffy historical record and possibly-maybe maps in the world don’t alter those facts. Korea has decided that its pride supersedes the rule of international law.
lotmc
1)Wrong. The Treaty of San Francisco makes no reference to Dokdo. But you are right on the fact that Japan’s military has been effectively neutered by the Allies after WWII.
2)It would be a huge political blunder on the part of the Korean government if it went to the courts (which many Koreans believe favors Japan on the basis of its larger international political influence and soft power– and thus may unfairly rule in Japan’s favor) when it already controls the islands and Japan’s castrated military and government cannot do anything about it. I would like to remind you that South Korea currently administers the islands and any attempts by the Japanese (which is unlikely) to take the islands by force will be in direct violation of international law.
ozivan
This time the quarrel is only between Japan & South Korea.
When articles were published about the clashes between Vietnam, Philippines & China in the South China Seas, there were a lot of heated comments received. I wonder whether we can hear from them on this issue, perhaps starting with who has a better claim to the Dokdo islands.
J. Berkshire Miller, through the power of the pen, and also because the parties involved are Japan & South Korea (allies of the US), he has cleverly toned down the sqabbles through his last word/advice:
All sides involved in these thorny disputes would do better to avoid the grandstanding.
Whereas, some western slanted authors posting about the SCS sqabbles, would skillfully lead bloggers to heated arguments. See the difference !?
Frank
Kuril Islands
PeterDownUnder
Japan needs an outside enemy to gather domestic support in such troubled times since Fukushima.
We may have forgotten about the incident but it is still a major issue in Japan where everybody knows somebody affected by it.
With such domestic discontent over the government growing what better way to turn the pages of public sentiment but territorial disputes with neighbouring countries.
Japan isn’t to be singled out though, every politician uses nationalism to blind the public from their follies and the nations domestic issues. But I dare say it is more prevelant in Asia especially with South Korea and China.