THE FAR EAST
THE FAR EAST: SOME INTERESTING, AND
POSSIBLY TROUBLING, DEVELOPMENTS
By
Ken Eliasberg
Within the last 60 days a couple of things have happened which, while I consider noteworthy, seem to have passed entirely under the media radar screen. Two in particular seem significant—(1) South Korea has expressed its acceptance of North Korea’s interest in developing its nuclear capacity (as long as such development is directed to peaceful uses), and (2) Japan, in connection with its celebration of the 60th anniversary of the end of WWII hostilities—i.e. V-J day—has, through its prime minister, offered up an apology for its conduct in connection with that conflagration. Each of these events struck me as odd, the first for its substance, the second for its timing. Let’s take a look at each and try to figure out what, if any, bearing they have on either U.S. policy or U.S. involvement.
First, South Korea’s concession, a concession which certainly seems at odds with the country’s national security concerns. Also, a concession which seems to fly right in the face of the U.S.’s position on North Korea’s nuclear developments. Is South Korea asking us to leave? If so, why? Her Northern neighbor has always been belligerent - to the U.S., to her own people (2,000,000 of whom she has starved to death), and, more particularly, to South Korea. Indeed, that’s the only reason that the U.S. has had a presence there for these last 50 years. And, near as we can tell, at no point during this interval has North Korea ever appeared to be pursuing peace. And premising any concession based on North Korea’s peaceful intentions not only flies completely in the face of our history with that country, but appears to disregard the fact that North Korea is run by a lunatic.
And who would be most directly threatened if North Korea were to give expression to her belligerence—SOUTH KOREA! Why then this sudden seeming indifference to her own national security interests as well as to the expressed containment policy of the U.S.? Your guess is as good as mine, but it certainly is puzzling.
While the substance of the South Korea situation is perplexing, Japan’s belated concern with formality is a source of curiosity. Why, after 60 years without an expression or any sort of admission of responsibility, let alone an apology, should Japan, per its prime minister, issue an apology? Indeed, within the last few years, the Government of Japan expressed its approval of school text books in which Japan’s involvement in WWII, let alone its responsibility for starting it (at least insofar as the U.S. was concerned), was downplayed to the point of being whitewashed—much to the chagrin of China, on whom Japan had wreaked devastating violence and bloodshed (in China’s case, for more than a decade prior to Pearl Harbor). The rape of Nanking is a particularly chilling event, in which the Japanese brutally slaughtered well over 250,000 residents of that city. In addition, until last year, Prime Minister Koizumi made regular visits to Tokyo’s Yasukuni war shrine where the Japanese war dead are buried, many of whom were designated as war criminals as the result of their behavior during this great struggle (the most prominent of whom is Hideki Tojo, the man who guided Japan’s armed forces during this struggle)
By the way, for a more recent glimpse of Japanese brutality during WWII, I strongly recommend seeing the Great Raid. It is not only a vivid portrayal of their conduct with respect to those captured at Bataan and Corregidor, but a wonderful portrayal of the bravery and gallantry of our young men an women, many of whom were slaughtered on and after the Bataan death march. It is a vivid reminder that freedom isn’t free; it’s also a great picture.
Again, why now?? For present purposes, one can only speculate. However, it does raise some interesting questions. For example, you may recall that, in a column I did some months back, I raised the possibility that the U.S.may be considering rearming Japan - for two reasons. The first was due to the fact that China had been flexing its military muscles in a manner particularly menacing to Taiwan; the second was as a possible leveraging device with which to bring pressure to bear on China to lean on North Korea to suppress its nuclear ambitions. Could Japan’s current apology be a gesture made to set the stage for its nuclear rearmament?
Another possible, and less circuitous, explanation is Japan’s desire to gain access to an expanded Security Council. Since the obvious reason for its previous exclusion was its role in WWII, the event that gave rise to the U.N., it probably realized that continuing to downplay or deny its complicity in that event was not a course of conduct calculated to improve its chances for gaining admission to that body
In any event, why would South Korea, at this critical juncture, seem to swim against the current of North Korean disarmament? That is, South Korea is the country most directly threatened by North Korea, and we are making all these efforts to disarm North Korea, and now South Korea says its ok. Isn’t this a slap in our face? Aren’t they really saying that, if we, who are most directly in harm’s way, don’t care, why should you, America, be concerned? And if we don’t care, what’s the need to arm Japan?
What’s happening here, and what are the implications of these happenings to others who operate in this region, particularly to the United States and Taiwan?
What about Taiwan? What effect, if any, do these events have on Taiwan, a country that maintains a constant vigil because of the delicacy of its situation with China - who has been making many bold moves, some economic, some political, and some military in recent months. Bear in mind that to Taiwan, because of its delicate position, an event which to us at this distance might seem like a mild breeze might look like a hurricane to Taiwan. What can she do? Merely wait, watch, and worry.
Are these events connected in any fashion? I don’t know, but I tend to believe that, in the geopoliltical arena one should not rely totally on coincidence as an explanation for unfolding events. I believe this to be particularly the case in the Far East where things may not necessarily be as inscrutable as they might seem, but. nonetheless, are rarely self explanatory. In all events, these are happenings that bear watching.