The US Military Defending Takeshima?! A Conference Set Ablaze

At a press conference in Seoul, I happened to hear a question that made my eyes bulge out of their sockets. The conference took place on Feb. 13, at the time when U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was visiting Korea.

A Korean reporter leaned in and began with this question: “Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Chuck Hagel, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that the Senkaku Islands are part of the defense treaty. But does the Dokdo [the Korean name for Takeshima] — are the Dokdo Islands also part of the [U.S.-Korean] defense treaty?”

On top of the continuous overseas travel, there’s also a 14-hour time difference between Seoul and Washington. Secretary Kerry was clearly fatigued. He said, “So three questions there, I think.”* With a troubled expression on his face, he first addressed the problem of the Senkaku Islands. “On the Senkaku Islands, I agree with the statement of Secretary Clinton and I agree with the statement of Secretary Hagel. And that is the position of the United States with respect to those islands.” Following that, he also discussed how Japan-Korea relations could be improved, but didn’t answer the question relating to Takeshima. As I sat there, I was also thinking, “That question was skillfully dodged.”

At that point, Jennifer Psaki, the official spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State, tried to call on the American reporter who’d been previously designated as the fourth to last interviewer. However, when she got to the words “The final …” the Korean reporter pushed his way in and tenaciously pressed the issue.

“One point that I would like to ask again to Secretary Kerry regarding the [U.S.-Korean] defense treaty or for the Dokdo Islands, do you believe that it’s part of the defense treaty between Korea and the U.S.?”

The Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs had lined up more than 100 reporters at this press conference, and when he asked his question again the entire room went silent as the grave. One second passed, two seconds, three seconds …. The tension in the room was palpable. Finally, after eight seconds, Kerry, with a wrinkled brow, opened his mouth to speak.

“The — which island? I’m sorry. I can’t hear you.”

The Korean reporter seemed to falter for a moment, but he didn’t back down. He repeated “Dokdo” three times, and pressed Secretary Kerry, asking “In the mutual defense treaty between Korea and the U.S., how do you view Dokdo Islands?”

To that, Kerry gave the brief reply, “I think we have answered that previously, and we have affirmed that it is.” They then immediately moved on to a question from a New York Times reporter.

Due to Kerry’s obscure reply, I wasn’t really sure how to settle the Takeshima matter in my mind. Even among the reporters who’d participated in the conference, many questioned whether or not Kerry had answered the way he did because he’d confused Takeshima and the Senkaku Islands.

In a phone interview that same day, Deputy Spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State Marie Harf explained, “It wasn’t clear that the questioner was asking about the Liancourt Rocks [the name used for Takeshima by countries other than Korea and Japan] … Secretary Kerry addressed our longstanding position on that issue. Nothing has changed about our policy on the Liancourt Rocks. We don’t take a position on the sovereignty of those islands.”

I’m a little suspicious about whether or not Secretary Kerry truly misunderstood which island “Dokdo” is. For argument’s sake, though, even if he didn’t understand “Dokdo,” it doesn’t change the fact that this was an extremely troubling question about America’s stance on the issue. The Korean reporter asked if the U.S. would defend Takeshima with Korea, according to the mutual defense treaty, if it were invaded by a third country. Such a question is basically asking if the U.S. would protect it from another country with military force.

Considering the way in which current Japan-Korea relations are dangerously deteriorating, it’s not hard to imagine that the hypothetical “third country” mentioned by the Korean reporter is Japan. In other words, if the Japanese landed on Takeshima, would the U.S. expel them by force? The Japanese reporters were completely taken aback by such a question.

As far as the U.S. is concerned, Japan and Korea are allies with one another. Moreover, they see Japan positioned as the foundation of security in the Asia-Pacific region. Therefore, there’s no mistaking that Secretary Kerry was caught off guard by hearing a question about military opposition toward Japan from a country the U.S. assumed was Japan’s ally. Or, rather, perhaps his perplexed face was due to hearing such a question come up so casually and then wondering whether or not the relationship between Japan and Korea is actually genuine.

Since this press conference was between the American and Korean foreign ministers, he may have assumed they would only be discussing the usual topics like bilateral relations between the U.S. and Korea or the North Korean nuclear problem. In their opening speeches, both Secretary Kerry and Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs Yun Byung-se completely avoided touching on Japan’s historical perception problem. Despite that, of the four interviewing reporters, two asked about Japan. This also triggered a response from Foreign Minister Yun, who raised his voice to say, “With [the Park administration] we have made a lot of efforts …. But unfortunately … some Japanese political leaders have made a lot of historically incorrect remarks.”

Even if we disregard the question about Takeshima, this Korean reporter also asked about things like what the U.S. thought of Prime Minister Abe’s visit to Yasukuni Shrine. The conference took on a feel of setting fire to Japan. Although some reporters expressed an opinion that “it was a mistake to let them ask questions freely,” that can’t be helped, as Korea is a democracy. The result of this type of questioning was that, the following day, the Korean and Japanese media were full of stories emphasizing conflict within the Japan-Korea relationship.

On the other hand, Secretary Kerry’s interviews in Beijing the following day stood in sharp contrast to the press conference in Seoul. He visited China right after Korea, and there he attended successive, one-on-one meetings with leaders of the Chinese Community Party, including head of state Xi Jinping, Prime Minster Li Keqiang and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. After that, he attended an exclusive interview at a Beijing hotel.

In China, foreign diplomats almost never have press conferences with Chinese leaders. We as reporters would be grateful to have American and Chinese foreign ministers answering our questions together, as well as being able to take photos. It’s said, however, that the Chinese Communist Party and government don’t like open press conferences, so they intentionally don’t host them.

That’s how it’s always done, so that whenever a foreign diplomat is invited to China for a meeting and we want to know what was discussed, we have to wait for Xinhua News Agency or China Central Television to distribute that information. Accordingly, the information is released under the leadership of the Chinese Community Party’s central propaganda department as the party’s and government’s “official position.”

If you want to know the subject matter of the meetings as quickly as possible, you can’t even find out from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If you make an inquiry with them, you’ll just be told something like “Xinhua News Agency will be broadcasting it very shortly. Please watch that.” On the ministry’s home page, the announcement details are exactly the same. There are many diplomatic-sounding phrases, such as “bilateral relations are being developed” and “we’re forming a win-win relationship.” There’s almost nothing that could convey a negative image. With regard to this latest meeting with Secretary Kerry, there was also no information relating to Japan.

Since the Chinese side doesn’t give interviews, the American side had no other option but to host an interview of their side only at the hotel where they were staying. However, while it may have looked like an open press conference hosted by the Americans, the reality is that the reporters asking the questions were chosen beforehand. In the conference room, the reporters didn’t raise their hands or compete with one another to ask questions. The spokesperson calling on reporters, saying “Mr. So-and-so from AP News …” was obviously already familiar with their personal names.

That day, two people from American media sources asked questions. There was some strong exchange over topics like the deadlocked North Korean nuclear issue, but Japan remained untouched.

At the actual talks between Kerry and Chinese leaders, I don’t expect that the Chinese didn’t bring up issues like the conflict with Japan over the Senkaku Islands or the historical perception problem. However, they presumably didn’t see a need to share that information with the public.

Even at Secretary Kerry’s interview, because the subject never came up, the media coverage was completely different than that of the previous day. Neither Japanese nor Chinese media sources highlighted the problems within Sino-Japanese relations. While this still isn’t something to be complimented, Chinese leaders are able to control the “information that should be shared.”

I’ve digressed a little, but with these most recent visits to China and Korea, Secretary Kerry keenly experienced firsthand the seriousness of Japan-Korea and Sino-Japanese relations. The U.S. got an especially serious look at the Japanese-Korean relationship. America’s foreign policy in Asia is shifting toward its allies Japan and Korea. Even so, it’s frustrating that the quarrel between these two countries is shaking the foundation of that shift. When it comes to the North Korean nuclear issue or the security of the Asia-Pacific region, close cooperation between Japan, the U.S. and Korea is absolutely vital. However, this relationship is currently unsteady on its feet, and I believe the deterioration of Japan-Korea relations is also contrary to the national interests of the U.S.

As I was reflecting on these thoughts and thinking about Japan and Korea’s relationship, I thought about Prime Minister Abe’s visit to Yasukuni Shrine last December. It was because of this visit that the U.S. couldn’t help strongly expressing its “disappointment.” Since I’m covering the news in Washington, I feel that this is a true representation of the American government’s feelings on the matter.

At the press conference in Seoul, Secretary Kerry stated “We don’t want to wait until President Obama [visits Japan and Korea in April.]” He also wished that Japan and Korea would work together to quickly improve their relationship. In the last third of March, the Nuclear Security Summit will be held in The Hague, Netherlands. As leaders from all three countries — Japan, the U.S. and Korea — will be present at this summit, it’s been suggested that they also begin their own three-country talks there.

Korea’s Park Geun-hye administration has conveyed the message that, if Japan doesn’t change its behavior with regard to historical perception issues, then Korea will not participate. As matters currently stand, though, both Japan and Korea must compromise. Otherwise, even when President Obama visits in April, if it turns into nothing more than Japan and Korea insulting one another, there will be nothing more unproductive than their meetings.

More and more my concern over Obama’s April visit is increasing. He plans to visit on April 22, which is during Yasukuni Shrine’s annual spring festival. Immediately after his visit to Japan, he’ll then go on to visit Korea. Last year, Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso attended the annual spring festival at Yasukuni. A television broadcast also showed 168 Diet members, all from various political parties, visiting the shrine en masse. China and Korea were furious. If this year’s spring festival turns out like last year’s, it could destroy any fruits produced by Obama’s visit. The American government is no doubt worrying about just such an event.

When Japanese people travel to Beijing or Seoul, they generally get along just fine with the Chinese and the Koreans. They may still harbor some begrudging feelings in their hearts, of course, but that never really results in anything like a fight, where those feelings are directed at the other party.

The economies of our countries are, needless to say, deeply dependent on us working together. At least people in this area, far more than those working in the world of politics, are conducting themselves like adults. Why can’t politicians do the things that the rest of us normal people can do? It’s becoming completely ridiculous.

*Translator’s Note: The original transcript of the press conference shows that the Korean reporter did, in fact, ask Secretary Kerry multiple questions. However, the author only quoted one of those questions here.