Prepare for drawn-out battle against Japanese nationalists
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's statement Friday for the anniversary of the end of World War II barely avoided being the worst among the various possible scenarios.
The nationalistic leader expressed "remorse" on wartime misdeeds, and paid condolences to all fallen soldiers at home and abroad. Pressured by more conscientious Japanese, Abe also touched on "colonial rule" and "aggression." But he failed to clarify their perpetrators and victims while making only an indirect "apology," by vowing to inherit previous governments' positions.
It seemed as if the Japanese leader racked his brain to displease the least (the Japanese people, including his core supporters of ultra-rightists) rather than pleasing the most (the rest of Asia and the world), in including the "four key phrases."
A recent Japanese survey was quite suggestive in this regard: 55 percent of respondents said either Tokyo no longer has to apologize or the apology was unnecessary from the start, while only 31 percent replied it should keep apologizing. What that means is also clear ― Korea will have to deal with an increasingly self-righteous and regressive Japan.
But it should be no reason Koreans give up or ignore the neighboring country because they must not, and cannot, do so if they want to.
Like it or not, Japan is a very important country for Korea, not just in terms of economy and technology but in national security, and this is true whether North Korea has nuclear weapons or not. This is why Seoul needs to increase cooperation with the Japanese people who put peace and human rights ahead of national pride and regional hegemony, such as those who help former sex slaves and oppose nuclear energy, as well as the bill that enables Japan's military resurgence.
None represented better these repenting, peace-loving Japanese than former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, who knelt before the Korean victims of Japanese colonial rule Thursday, producing the "most touching scene of self-reflection" by Japanese political leaders, past or present, as China's Global Times said in an editorial. It would be most foolish for Koreans to antagonize even these "conscientious" Japanese people by driving the current conflict to a nationalistic competition, being mired only in self-pity and a victim mentality.
This, of course, is not to say Korea must stop demanding Japan apologize and atone for past misdeeds, but to stress the need for separating the past from the present and future, and historical issues from economic and defense matters in a "two-track" approach. And the nation's main weapon in dealing with the former colonizer should not be claims for making up for past sufferings, but moral superiority based on more humanitarian and universal values. Korea needs to be less emotional and more rational in dealing with Japan, turning bilateral national rivalry into a battle of conscientious people against unconscientious people, not just in the two countries but in the rest of the world.
All this shows why Korea should push for a three-nation summit before this year passes, regardless of the unsatisfactory statement by the Japanese leader. These efforts will no doubt gain far greater momentum when accompanied by attempts to improve inter-Korean relationship.
Only cool heads and bold initiatives can maximize national interests.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's statement Friday for the anniversary of the end of World War II barely avoided being the worst among the various possible scenarios.
The nationalistic leader expressed "remorse" on wartime misdeeds, and paid condolences to all fallen soldiers at home and abroad. Pressured by more conscientious Japanese, Abe also touched on "colonial rule" and "aggression." But he failed to clarify their perpetrators and victims while making only an indirect "apology," by vowing to inherit previous governments' positions.
It seemed as if the Japanese leader racked his brain to displease the least (the Japanese people, including his core supporters of ultra-rightists) rather than pleasing the most (the rest of Asia and the world), in including the "four key phrases."
A recent Japanese survey was quite suggestive in this regard: 55 percent of respondents said either Tokyo no longer has to apologize or the apology was unnecessary from the start, while only 31 percent replied it should keep apologizing. What that means is also clear ― Korea will have to deal with an increasingly self-righteous and regressive Japan.
But it should be no reason Koreans give up or ignore the neighboring country because they must not, and cannot, do so if they want to.
Like it or not, Japan is a very important country for Korea, not just in terms of economy and technology but in national security, and this is true whether North Korea has nuclear weapons or not. This is why Seoul needs to increase cooperation with the Japanese people who put peace and human rights ahead of national pride and regional hegemony, such as those who help former sex slaves and oppose nuclear energy, as well as the bill that enables Japan's military resurgence.
None represented better these repenting, peace-loving Japanese than former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, who knelt before the Korean victims of Japanese colonial rule Thursday, producing the "most touching scene of self-reflection" by Japanese political leaders, past or present, as China's Global Times said in an editorial. It would be most foolish for Koreans to antagonize even these "conscientious" Japanese people by driving the current conflict to a nationalistic competition, being mired only in self-pity and a victim mentality.
This, of course, is not to say Korea must stop demanding Japan apologize and atone for past misdeeds, but to stress the need for separating the past from the present and future, and historical issues from economic and defense matters in a "two-track" approach. And the nation's main weapon in dealing with the former colonizer should not be claims for making up for past sufferings, but moral superiority based on more humanitarian and universal values. Korea needs to be less emotional and more rational in dealing with Japan, turning bilateral national rivalry into a battle of conscientious people against unconscientious people, not just in the two countries but in the rest of the world.
All this shows why Korea should push for a three-nation summit before this year passes, regardless of the unsatisfactory statement by the Japanese leader. These efforts will no doubt gain far greater momentum when accompanied by attempts to improve inter-Korean relationship.
Only cool heads and bold initiatives can maximize national interests.
