Japan-US-Korea Cooperation: The Park Administration's Surprising 'Stubbornness'
I would like South Korea’s Park Geun-hye administration to work toward attainment of a Japan-U.S.-Korea summit meeting from a broader perspective.
Trying to set up a trilateral summit during the Nuclear Security Summit in the Netherlands, Vice Foreign Minister Akitaka Saiki visited South Korea and met with South Korea’s first vice foreign minister, Cho Tae-yong. However, South Korea declined due to historical disputes.
Peace and stability in the region is indispensable to the Japan-U.S.-Korea cooperation. The trilateral summit meeting is also meant to be a vital reaffirmation of common values.
South Korea must consider who might be pleased by a disturbance of the trilateral unity. The nuclear summit begins on the 24th, so there is still time. I would like to strongly encourage the Park administration to reconsider.
The trilateral summit was originally the suggestion of the U.S., who had estimated that achieving a summit between just Japan and Korea would be difficult. The U.S. probably concluded that President Park would be amenable to dialogue with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe if President Obama acts as an intermediary.
South Korea has also declined the U.S.-sponsored proposal, expressing concern about the Japanese government’s plan to re-examine the Kono Statement, which recognized the forced entrainment of comfort women.
Mr. Saiki explained that Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga’s recent denial that the Kono Statement would be revised is a message to South Korea. Although review of the statement must not be done nominally, it is a form of diplomatic consideration shown to both the U.S. and South Korea.
Seeming to turn a deaf ear, South Korea countered that Japan refraining from “historical revisionist behavior” is the top priority, and so on.
Under the instruction of the U.S., which is calling for improvement of relations, Japan has ventured to change its diplomatic custom of alternate visits. Following director-general for the Asia-Pacific bureau, Junichi Ihara, this time Vice Minister Saiki was made the emissary.
However, South Korea turned down a courtesy call to Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se and cancelled a dinner meeting as well. As a result, Mr. Saiki cut his plans short and returned the same day.
One cannot help but be dumbfounded by South Korea’s stubbornness. With “anti-Japanese” attitudes being deeply ingrained, I wonder if they are capable of flexible decisions.
South Korea should recall that in February, Secretary of State Kerry called for mollification, saying to Foreign Minister Yun, “it’s up to Japan and the Republic of Korea to put history behind them and move the relationship forward.” I would like the U.S. to continue that kind of persuasion.
Secretary Suga reiterated that “the door to dialogue is always open.” Japan should not make irrational concessions due to historical issues. While adhering to its principles, Japan has no choice but to persevere in its appeal to South Korea and continue tenaciously.
Trying to set up a trilateral summit during the Nuclear Security Summit in the Netherlands, Vice Foreign Minister Akitaka Saiki visited South Korea and met with South Korea’s first vice foreign minister, Cho Tae-yong. However, South Korea declined due to historical disputes.
Peace and stability in the region is indispensable to the Japan-U.S.-Korea cooperation. The trilateral summit meeting is also meant to be a vital reaffirmation of common values.
South Korea must consider who might be pleased by a disturbance of the trilateral unity. The nuclear summit begins on the 24th, so there is still time. I would like to strongly encourage the Park administration to reconsider.
The trilateral summit was originally the suggestion of the U.S., who had estimated that achieving a summit between just Japan and Korea would be difficult. The U.S. probably concluded that President Park would be amenable to dialogue with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe if President Obama acts as an intermediary.
South Korea has also declined the U.S.-sponsored proposal, expressing concern about the Japanese government’s plan to re-examine the Kono Statement, which recognized the forced entrainment of comfort women.
Mr. Saiki explained that Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga’s recent denial that the Kono Statement would be revised is a message to South Korea. Although review of the statement must not be done nominally, it is a form of diplomatic consideration shown to both the U.S. and South Korea.
Seeming to turn a deaf ear, South Korea countered that Japan refraining from “historical revisionist behavior” is the top priority, and so on.
Under the instruction of the U.S., which is calling for improvement of relations, Japan has ventured to change its diplomatic custom of alternate visits. Following director-general for the Asia-Pacific bureau, Junichi Ihara, this time Vice Minister Saiki was made the emissary.
However, South Korea turned down a courtesy call to Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se and cancelled a dinner meeting as well. As a result, Mr. Saiki cut his plans short and returned the same day.
One cannot help but be dumbfounded by South Korea’s stubbornness. With “anti-Japanese” attitudes being deeply ingrained, I wonder if they are capable of flexible decisions.
South Korea should recall that in February, Secretary of State Kerry called for mollification, saying to Foreign Minister Yun, “it’s up to Japan and the Republic of Korea to put history behind them and move the relationship forward.” I would like the U.S. to continue that kind of persuasion.
Secretary Suga reiterated that “the door to dialogue is always open.” Japan should not make irrational concessions due to historical issues. While adhering to its principles, Japan has no choice but to persevere in its appeal to South Korea and continue tenaciously.