History and security in East Asia

Today the Washington Post published a letter I wrote about historical reconciliation and East Asian security.

***

Japan's Difficult Reconciliation
Tuesday, August 22, 2006; Page A14

G. John Ikenberry's Aug. 17 op-ed, "Japan's History Problem," provides excellent analysis but misses three key points.

First, Japanese normalization and historical reconciliation are not entirely at cross-purposes. Revising Article 9 of Japan's constitution to make the Japanese military legal, while Tokyo continues to disavow offensive capabilities, would bring Japanese law in line with reality. Constitutional reform is important for making Japan's defense policy and contributions to international security trustworthy and legitimate.

Second, the history problem in Asia is not just Japan's problem. China and Korea have biased nationalist histories to address as well. Moreover, while apologies and conciliatory behavior from Tokyo may remove the most immediate obstacles to cooperation with China and Korea, this is a long way from these countries accepting Japanese leadership. South Korea and the United States may share national interests with a more engaged Japan, but it is doubtful that China will see an elevated Japanese role as in its interest, no matter what Tokyo does to bury the past.

Finally, East Asia is not Europe. Europe is filled with democracies and has no North Korea. Even so, Russia is far from becoming a member of NATO or the European Union. Achieving an East Asian security organization inclusive of China would be a great asset to regional peace. But different regional contexts may call for different paths to integration.

For the United States, regional security in East Asia is best pursued by expanding the sphere of cooperation centered on strong alliances, built during the Cold War and transformed to meet contemporary international challenges.

LEIF-ERIC EASLEY
Cambridge, Mass.