Today the USC Korean Studies Institute published an interview I did regarding Japan's elections and relations with the two Koreas.
***
Q: The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) won enough seats in Japan's legislative election today to form the next government without the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) that has governed Japan for all but 11 months of the last 54 years. What are the general implications of this change in power?
Easley: The election results are testament to the Japanese public's frustration. The LDP was instrumental in realizing Japan's economic miracle and postwar security, but since the burst of Japan's economic bubble and the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, the LDP has struggled to adjust. The Japanese public has been dissatisfied with the pace of progress on various domestic issues, including economic growth and inequality, bureaucratic mismanagement, and coping with Japan's aging society. If the DPJ is able to effectively deal with Japan's domestic challenges, this can strengthen Japan economically and as a security partner, and that would be good news for Washington and Seoul. The trouble is that nearly all the governing experience in Japan and most of the personal relations with diplomats and officials of other countries is held by the LDP. This will put the new DPJ government under enormous pressure to make a good first impression with its Japanese voters, as well as with Japan's international partners.
Q: Japan's relations with South Korea and China have often been plagued by issues of history and memories of war. How will the DPJ handle these historical sensitivities?
Easley: The DPJ has long advocated that Japan seriously reflect on its history and show greater sensitivity to its neighbors' memories of the past. Toward this end, the DPJ may take a more conciliatory position on the content of history textbooks. Regarding Yasukuni Shrine, DPJ President Yukio Hatoyama has pledged not to visit the shrine and that as prime minister he will see that no members of his cabinet go either. The DPJ may pursue the construction of a secular war memorial for Japanese officials to visit instead of Yasukuni. Such gestures would almost certainly be appreciated by the Korean people and other Asian populations.
On the other hand, the DPJ does not sound flexible on Japan's maritime and territorial disputes with its neighbors, promising to remain firm on Japan's claims. Hatoyama has said that these issues [such as the Dokdo/Takeshima island dispute between Tokyo and Seoul] are difficult to resolve bilaterally because if one side is seen as giving concessions, a nationalist backlash would follow. So Hatoyama suggests that these disputes be resolved in the process of developing an "East Asian Community," along a path of regional integration similar to that traversed by the European Union. This sounds good in principle, but will prove very difficult in practice. Nonetheless, it is important to have big cooperative visions to help nations gradually overcome historical issues. In the short-term, a more realistic but still worthy goal for politicians and diplomats will be not allowing historical issues to derail relations or delay urgently needed cooperation on financial stability, human security and the environment.
Q: What about the implications of the election for Japan's policy toward North Korea?
Easley: Hatoyama has mentioned the possibility of restarting talks with North Korea. Much will depend on how the DPJ handles the issue of Japanese citizens abducted by North Korea decades ago. [Several abductees were returned to Japan; some are reported dead, others are still considered missing. The issue has complicated not only Japan's diplomacy with North Korea, but also Tokyo's ability to coordinate policy in the Six-party Talks]. The DPJ may want to focus on North Korea's nuclear program, missiles and potential political-economic instability, but can not appear soft on the abductions issue because of Japanese public opinion and the possibility that the LDP opposition might use the issue against the DPJ. The interaction between Tokyo and Seoul will also be key. The new DPJ government will need to closely coordinate with Seoul on North Korea, but it is also important for Seoul to reassure Tokyo. Japan in particular has legitimate concerns about North Korea's nuclear and missile programs. If South Korean President Lee Myung-bak's administration shows understanding of Tokyo's security concerns, this would facilitate U.S.-Japan-South Korea trilateral coordination, which in turn could encourage China to be increasingly helpful in pressing for North Korea's cooperation.
Q: What does the advent of a DPJ government mean for the Obama administration's Korea policy?
Easley: President Obama's team and relevant officials at the State Department are well aware of the complicated strategic geometry in dealing with North Korea. They know pushing too hard could spark a military conflict with North Korea or serious break with China [since Beijing wishes to avoid the collateral effects of a collapse of the North Korean regime]. On the other hand, the Obama administration recognizes that taking a soft line at this point would present credibility problems for U.S. alliances and the international nonproliferation regime and undo progress made to date in having the world hold North Korea accountable for its provocative actions. United Nations sanctions are a counter-proliferation device and punish North Korea's breech of its international commitments. In principle, the sanctions should not be eased just because North Korea is willing to talk. It is important to reengage North Korea diplomatically given the opportunity, but President Obama and President Lee said the pattern where North Korea raises tensions and then returns to talks seeking rewards must be broken. The new government in Tokyo will likely agree. The question now is whether Washington, Tokyo and Seoul, working together with Beijing, will stay on the same page to hold North Korea to account – demanding concrete actions from Pyongyang on disarmament in exchange for concrete improvements in economic and diplomatic relations.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Legacy of Kim Dae-jung
Today the USC Korean Studies Institute published an interview I did regarding the legacy of former South Korean president Kim Dae-jung.
***
Q: Former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung died today at a hospital in Seoul, reportedly of heart failure and complications from pneumonia. He was 85 and remained engaged in politics until his death. How will he be remembered?
Leif-Eric Easley: Kim Dae-jung's administration helped stabilize the South Korean economy after the Asian Financial Crisis in the late 1990s. But he will be remembered most for contributions to South Korean democratization and for the "Sunshine Policy" which sought political reconciliation and economic integration with North Korea. It was for these efforts that Kim won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000. His legacy was subsequently tarnished however, by revelations of political corruption involving his family and evidence that the landmark inter-Korean summit may have been "bought" via secret payments to Pyongyang. Kim's strategy of engaging North Korea, which was continued by his successor Roh Moo-hyun, was dealt a serious blow when North Korea tested a nuclear device in 2006 and over the years reneged on most agreements it made with Seoul. Nonetheless, former president Kim's efforts for democracy and North-South reconciliation have lasting effects and are a significant legacy.
Q: What does former president's Kim life say about South Korean politics?
Easley: A tremendous amount – the arc of Kim Dae-jung's life is closely tied to that of South Korean politics for the last five decades. It would be a gross over-simplification to only remember Kim Dae-jung as South Korea's president from 1998 to 2003. In the 1960s, Kim Dae-jung emerged on the national stage as President Park Chung-hee's archrival. The divide between these two men reflected and helped define the left-right divide in South Korean politics that persists to this day. Park was of the military and the South Korean elite; Kim was a product of and voice for the masses. Kim Dae-jung was a leading critic of Park Chung-hee's legitimacy (Park came to power in a military coup). Park jailed Kim as a political dissident and may have had him killed if not for U.S. intervention. Kim came from South Korea's southwest region, which has a strong rivalry with the southeast region, home to Park and other presidents. To their respective followers, Park embodied South Korea's rapid economic development while Kim embodied South Korea's democratization. Park was deeply suspicious of North Korea and wanted a strong South Korean military and economy to employ against it; Kim wanted to politically embrace North Korea and integrate the two economies as a step toward ultimately reunifying the Korean Peninsula.
Q: Mr. Kim's funeral will actually be the second this year for a South Korean leader?
Easley: Yes, and the death of a former president is a significant event in South Korea. The passing of former presidents Roh Moo-hyun and Kim Dae-jung this year will likely mark 2009 as the end of a political era for many South Koreans. But while former President Kim Dae-jung will long be a controversial figure in South Korean history, his death of natural causes at age 85 is much less controversial than former President Roh Moo-hyun's suicide three months ago. Former President Roh was the immediate predecessor of the current president, Lee Myung-bak, and was under investigation for corruption charges. Roh's untimely death prompted a public outpouring of sympathy for him and criticism for the current government and its policies. Former President Kim Dae-jung's passing will certainly prompt a period of national mourning, but does not come as such a shock to the Korean public as did former president Roh's suicide.
Q: What implications might D.J. Kim's passing have for North-South Korean relations?
Easley: Perhaps as former President Clinton's visit to Pyongyang provided 'face' for North Korea to adjust its tone toward the United States, public reflection of Kim Dae-jung's life may help provide the political packaging for a new South Korean attempt to talk with the North. While it is not realistic to expect a generous memorial for Kim to forge a grand compromise between South Korean conservatives and progressives on policy toward North Korea, Kim's passing may provide symbolic impetus for some form of reengagement with Pyongyang. Since coming to office last year, the current South Korean president has been rebuffed by Pyongyang as hawkish and disingenuous. But President Lee Myung-bak is making a renewed effort to engage North Korea based on reciprocity, offering humanitarian aid and economic assistance if both sides reduce conventional military deployments along their shared border and if North Korea recommits to dismantling its nuclear weapons program.
Q: Is there any sign that North Korea will respond in a constructive manner?
Easley: North Korea has sent condolences to the South and may ask to send a delegation to former president Kim Dae-jung's funeral. Pyongyang recently received a visit by Hyun Jeong-eun, the chairwoman of Hyundai Group, and released a Hyundai employee held for months on charges that he made inappropriate political statements while in North Korea. There is talk of restarting South Korean tourism to the Mt. Kumgang resort in North Korea and resuming inter-Korean family reunions. However, United Nations mandated sanctions on North Korea's nuclear and missile programs remain in place and are still only in the process of being implemented. Ultimately, you should expect Pyongyang to act according to its interpretation of its own interests. The regime of Kim Jong-il appears focused on securing a stable internal political succession and externally promoting North Korea as a nuclear weapons state. The coming months will be an important period for international efforts aimed at persuading North Korea that its open economic development and complete nuclear disarmament are in everyone's interests.
***
Q: Former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung died today at a hospital in Seoul, reportedly of heart failure and complications from pneumonia. He was 85 and remained engaged in politics until his death. How will he be remembered?
Leif-Eric Easley: Kim Dae-jung's administration helped stabilize the South Korean economy after the Asian Financial Crisis in the late 1990s. But he will be remembered most for contributions to South Korean democratization and for the "Sunshine Policy" which sought political reconciliation and economic integration with North Korea. It was for these efforts that Kim won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000. His legacy was subsequently tarnished however, by revelations of political corruption involving his family and evidence that the landmark inter-Korean summit may have been "bought" via secret payments to Pyongyang. Kim's strategy of engaging North Korea, which was continued by his successor Roh Moo-hyun, was dealt a serious blow when North Korea tested a nuclear device in 2006 and over the years reneged on most agreements it made with Seoul. Nonetheless, former president Kim's efforts for democracy and North-South reconciliation have lasting effects and are a significant legacy.
Q: What does former president's Kim life say about South Korean politics?
Easley: A tremendous amount – the arc of Kim Dae-jung's life is closely tied to that of South Korean politics for the last five decades. It would be a gross over-simplification to only remember Kim Dae-jung as South Korea's president from 1998 to 2003. In the 1960s, Kim Dae-jung emerged on the national stage as President Park Chung-hee's archrival. The divide between these two men reflected and helped define the left-right divide in South Korean politics that persists to this day. Park was of the military and the South Korean elite; Kim was a product of and voice for the masses. Kim Dae-jung was a leading critic of Park Chung-hee's legitimacy (Park came to power in a military coup). Park jailed Kim as a political dissident and may have had him killed if not for U.S. intervention. Kim came from South Korea's southwest region, which has a strong rivalry with the southeast region, home to Park and other presidents. To their respective followers, Park embodied South Korea's rapid economic development while Kim embodied South Korea's democratization. Park was deeply suspicious of North Korea and wanted a strong South Korean military and economy to employ against it; Kim wanted to politically embrace North Korea and integrate the two economies as a step toward ultimately reunifying the Korean Peninsula.
Q: Mr. Kim's funeral will actually be the second this year for a South Korean leader?
Easley: Yes, and the death of a former president is a significant event in South Korea. The passing of former presidents Roh Moo-hyun and Kim Dae-jung this year will likely mark 2009 as the end of a political era for many South Koreans. But while former President Kim Dae-jung will long be a controversial figure in South Korean history, his death of natural causes at age 85 is much less controversial than former President Roh Moo-hyun's suicide three months ago. Former President Roh was the immediate predecessor of the current president, Lee Myung-bak, and was under investigation for corruption charges. Roh's untimely death prompted a public outpouring of sympathy for him and criticism for the current government and its policies. Former President Kim Dae-jung's passing will certainly prompt a period of national mourning, but does not come as such a shock to the Korean public as did former president Roh's suicide.
Q: What implications might D.J. Kim's passing have for North-South Korean relations?
Easley: Perhaps as former President Clinton's visit to Pyongyang provided 'face' for North Korea to adjust its tone toward the United States, public reflection of Kim Dae-jung's life may help provide the political packaging for a new South Korean attempt to talk with the North. While it is not realistic to expect a generous memorial for Kim to forge a grand compromise between South Korean conservatives and progressives on policy toward North Korea, Kim's passing may provide symbolic impetus for some form of reengagement with Pyongyang. Since coming to office last year, the current South Korean president has been rebuffed by Pyongyang as hawkish and disingenuous. But President Lee Myung-bak is making a renewed effort to engage North Korea based on reciprocity, offering humanitarian aid and economic assistance if both sides reduce conventional military deployments along their shared border and if North Korea recommits to dismantling its nuclear weapons program.
Q: Is there any sign that North Korea will respond in a constructive manner?
Easley: North Korea has sent condolences to the South and may ask to send a delegation to former president Kim Dae-jung's funeral. Pyongyang recently received a visit by Hyun Jeong-eun, the chairwoman of Hyundai Group, and released a Hyundai employee held for months on charges that he made inappropriate political statements while in North Korea. There is talk of restarting South Korean tourism to the Mt. Kumgang resort in North Korea and resuming inter-Korean family reunions. However, United Nations mandated sanctions on North Korea's nuclear and missile programs remain in place and are still only in the process of being implemented. Ultimately, you should expect Pyongyang to act according to its interpretation of its own interests. The regime of Kim Jong-il appears focused on securing a stable internal political succession and externally promoting North Korea as a nuclear weapons state. The coming months will be an important period for international efforts aimed at persuading North Korea that its open economic development and complete nuclear disarmament are in everyone's interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
