1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ISSUE

According to David Kang1, the history of wars, occupation, and oppression by

Japan in the region lead to disproportionate reactions by the Republic of Korea

(ROK)—or South Korea. Japan and the ROK will have to get to a relationship where

Japan does one move, and ROK responds with one move. Now, Japan does one and

ROK does ten. The factors that have influenced the relationship between these

countries are as follows:

The major bilateral issues between the two countries included:

o Territory. Japan and Korea have a long-standing dispute over a group of

uninhabited islands in the Sea of Japan that the Japanese called Takeshima and the

Koreans call Dokdo. Each side claims the volcanic islets, located between the ROK

and Japan. The conflict—which experts say is about territorial integrity and also

fishing rights in the seas around the islands—stirs intense feelings. During the Allied

occupation of Japan, Takeshima / Dokdo was divided from Japan by so-called

―MacArthur Line.‖2 This was drawn only for the occupation authorities‘

1 David Kang is associate professor of government, and adjunct associate professor

and research director at the Center for International Business at the Tuck School of Business

at Dartmouth. He has scholarly interests in both business-government relations and

international relations, with a focus on Asia. Professor Kang has been a visiting professor at

Stanford University, Yale University, Copenhagen Business School (Denmark), the

University of Geneva IO-MBA program (Switzerland), Korea University (Seoul, Korea) and

the University of California, San Diego. 2 MacArthur oversaw the Occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1951. Although

criticized for protecting Emperor Hirohito and the imperial family from prosecution for war

crimes, MacArthur is credited with implementing far-reaching democratic reforms in that

country. He led the United Nations Command forces defending South Korea against the

North Korean invasion from 1950 to 1951. On April 11, 1951 MacArthur was removed from

command by President Harry S. Truman for publicly disagreeing with Truman's Korean War

Policy.

2

administrative convenience and was not necessarily intended as a final border

demarcation. From late 1946 onward, several drafts of a peace treaty with Japan were

prepared in the State Department. Those drafts and other relevant documents retained

in the U.S. Archives suggest that the U.S. government indeed favored the transfer of

Takeshima to Korea – until November 1949. The December 1949 draft contained an

important change, by including Takeshima in the areas that were to remain Japanese

territory. It was recognized that Takeshima be specified as belonging to Japan, and

directly or indirectly provided the reasons of (1) history validity and (2) strategic

consideration. In 1950, the peace treaty was drafted, and the Korean War broke out.

Thereafter, ―Takeshima‖ disappeared from U.S. treaty drafts. On 28 April 1952 the

Peace Treaty came into effect and the MacAuthur Line, which administratively

separated Takeshima from Japan, was abolished. Before that, however, Syngman

Rhee‘s regime in South Korea on 18 January unilaterally proclaimed the so-called

―Rhee Line,‖ essentially with the purpose of keeping the MacAuthur line in place.

The Japanese Government then protested and the dispute emerged. 3

In March 2005, two elderly South Koreans protested Japanese claims to

the islands in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul by each cutting off a finger. The

resolution of the dispute over Dokdo is still uncertain. Despite the agreement the two

countries entered into in 1996, Japanese officials still make remarks that anger people

in Korea, and Korean voices are getting increasingly indignant over the

issue. However, governments outside of Japan and Korea really have no interest in

getting involved in the issue. In cases like this, possession is nine-tenths of the

law. Therefore, Dokdo will probably remain in Korean hands; that is unless the Right

Wing in Japan takes over and/or the Japanese pacifist constitution is rewritten to

accommodate a Japanese military take-over of the Islets.

The disputes over the islands threaten the recent rapprochement between

the two neighbors and represent a significant political and economic setback. The

South Korean public is so incensed that hundreds have poured into the streets to

3 Kimie Hara, ―50 Years from San Francisco: Re-examining the Peace Treaty and

Japan‘s Territorial Problems,‖ Pacific Affairs 74, no. 3 (Fall 2001): 361-382.

3

protest and the united front against North Korea‘s nuclear ambitions is cracking.4

Picture 1:

The Picture of the Dokdo/Takeshima: The Japan-Korea disputed island

Sources: www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinion/201/02/246_24527. html

o Textbooks. Japanese ignores the history textbook controversy at its

peril. While many Japanese dismiss the tempest - exaggerated attention, they say,

given to a small group of nostalgic conservatives or a freedom of speech issue

best left to constitutional scholars - Koreans see the new history textbook as a

serious obstacle to improved bilateral relations between the two countries. It is

difficult to appreciate the depth and intensity of the anger felt by Koreans after the

Ministry of Education approved the new textbook; even moderates warn that

Japan's failure to address Korean concerns will have long-term repercussions in

Northeast Asia. The Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform has created

the problem. BBC news quoted that ―The Japanese government's approval of a set

of controversial history textbooks has reignited bitter disputes over the region's

4 Kosuke Takahashi, ―Japan-South Korea ties on the rocks,‖ Asia Times, March 23,

2005, http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=1512.

4

past in the South Korean and Chinese press.‖5 The group criticizes Japan's current

history textbooks for being biased; it claims the texts place too much attention on

Japanese wrongdoing against its Asian neighbors and promote a "masochistic

attitude" among young Japanese.6 Critics across Asia have accused Japan of

glossing over its wartime atrocities and responsibility in grade-school textbooks.

Anger over such textbooks sparked a series of violent anti-Japan riots7 in China in

April.

o History. The first military sexual slaves were Koreans from the North

Kyushu area of Japan, and were sent, at the request of one of the commanding

officers of the army, by the Governor of Nagasaki Prefecture. The prohibition of

alcohol and swords, the regulation of hours of service, reasonable payment and

other attempts to impose what would appear to be a sense of decorum or fair

treatment are in stark contrast with the brutality and cruelty of the practice. This

only serves to highlight the extraordinary inhumanity of a system of military

sexual slavery, in which large numbers of women were forced to submit to

prolonged prostitution under conditions which were indescribably traumatic.

The end of the war brought no relief to a large proportion of the "comfort

women" still in service, since many were killed by the retreating Japanese troops or,

more often, simply abandoned to their fate. In Micronesia, in one case the Japanese

army killed 70 "comfort women" in one night, because they felt the women would be

an encumbrance or an embarrassment were they to be captured by the advancing

American troops. Many women victims who were based at front-line locations were

forced to take part in military operations, including suicide missions with the soldiers.

Food and clothing were provided by the army, though some former "comfort women"

complain of having been kept short of food for long stretches of time. Though in

nearly all cases the women were supposed to have been paid for their "services" and

5 BBC News, ―Japan textbook angers Chinese, Korean press,‖ April 6, 2005, Asia-

Pacific Section, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4416593.stm. 6 Brad Glosserman, ―Japan-Korea: Textbook Issue Should Not Be Ignored,‖ PacNet

Number 17A (April 2001), http://csis.org/publication/pacnet-17a-april-30-2001-japan-korea-

textbook-issue-should-not-be-ignored. 7 From 2001 to 2006, China bristled when former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro

Koizumi made his annual pilgrimage to Tokyo‘s Yasukuni Shrine to Japan's war dead, which

includes the remains of convicted war criminals enshrined in a secret ceremony in the 1970s.

5

collected tickets in lieu of the pay they were due, only very few saw any "earnings" at

the end of the war. Thus, even the small consolation of having perhaps saved enough

to help themselves or their families after the war was rendered meaningless after the

retreat of the Japanese army.8

In March 2005, President Roh Moo Hyun called for Japan to apologize

and possibly pay compensation for colonizing Korea to help promote bilateral

relations. Hundreds of comfort women, whose existence Japan did not acknowledge

until 1992, are also demanding compensation and a formal apology from the Japanese

government. A non-governmental compensation fund for former comfort women set

up in 1995 is set to close in 2007.

o The shrine visit. When Koizumi visited Seoul in June, Roh urged him to

build a new, secular war memorial and visit it—instead of Yasukuni—to minimize

tensions across Asia. The two countries also agreed to collaborate on historical

research, and Japan promised to investigate the cases of South Koreans brought to

Japan as forced labor during World War II. Then Koizumi went to the shrine, and

much of the goodwill from the June visit went down the drain. After all, the leaders of

both countries know they‘re deeply interrelated on many levels and must depend on

each other. Their societies have become deeply connected: Japan and South Korea

jointly hosted the successful 2002 World Cup, and Korean culture is currently a huge

hit in Japan. A South Korean soap opera, Winter Sonata, is wildly popular in Japan.

While it‘s been a bit rocky so far, the overall picture is still good.9

8 Radhika Coomaraswamy, ―Report on the mission to the Democratic People's

Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and Japan on the issue of military sexual slavery in

wartime‖ (report of United nations, Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human

Rights E/CN. 4/1996/53/Add1, Geneva, January 4, 1996),

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/b6ad5f3990967f3e802566d600575fcb?Open

document. 9 Esther Pan, ―Japan's Relationship with South Korea,‖ Council on Foreign Relations,

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9108/japans_relationship_with_south_korea.html.

6

2. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

1) To study whether globalization and economic interdependence could

ease historical wounds

2) To forecast the future of the Japan / ROK relationship

3. RESEARCH QUESTION

1) How did history affect the relationship between Japan and the ROK?

2) How has the economic interdependence changed the Japanese / ROK

relationship from the 1990s to the present?

3) What will be the future trends of the Japanese / ROK relationship?

4. HYPOTHESIS

Since the Colonization era, Japan and Korea relations have been bitter. The

aggressive action of the Japanese towards Koreans people during their colonial period

including war time, have made many Koreans, especially the people involved hate the

Japan. The historical issues have been created difficulty for both the Japanese and

Korean governments to normalize relationships. However, the globalization era

created economic interdependence which affected the world as a whole, as well as the

Japan and Korea relationship. The pressure from the outsiders was one of the factors

which helped further the normalization. After all, the normalization of the Japanese /

ROK relationship was significant to the region because it could increase regional

stability which helped added bargaining power to the world.

5. SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This paper will provide basic information of the love-hate relation between

Japan and Korea (historical perspective) for better understanding. Moreover, it will

focus on the economic relationship between Japan and the ROK in the 1990s until the

present. This paper will also analyze internal and external influences which can help

to normalize the relationship, and whether these influences can help overcome

historical issues.

7

6. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Realism

Realist theories share the following key assumptions. First, the international

system is anarchic. There is no authority above states capable of regulating their

interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it

being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity. Second, sovereign states are

the principal actors in the international system. International institutions, non-

governmental organizations, multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-

state or trans-state actors are viewed as having little independent influence. Third,

states are rational unitary actors each moving towards their own national interest .

There is a general distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance. Fourth, the overriding

'national interest' of each state is its national security and survival. Fifth, in pursuit of

national security, states strive to amass resources. Sixth, relations between states are

determined by their comparative level of power derived primarily from their

military and economic capabilities. And finally, there are no universal principles

which all states can use to guide their actions. Instead, a state must be ever aware of

the actions of the states around it and must use a pragmatic approach to resolve the

problems that arise.

In sum, realists believe that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather

self-centered and competitive. This Hobbesian perspective, which views human

nature as selfish and conflictual unless given appropriate conditions under which to

cooperate, contrasts with the approach of liberalism to international relations. Further,

they believe that states are inherently aggressive and/or obsessed with security; and

that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive

build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma where increasing one's own security

can bring along greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms. Thus,

security is a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made. The main

argument of the realist theory is that states (or nations) are always engaged in a

struggle for power. The realist theory advocates the use of power to fulfill the interest

of a nation. "National power" is composed of geography, economy and natural

resources, population, military strength and preparedness, national character and

8

moral, and the competency of the national government.

Nationalism

The term ―nationalism‖ is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the

attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity

and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or

sustain) self-determination. (1) Raises questions about the concept of nation (or

national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or

cultural ties, and while an individual‘s membership in a nation is often regarded as

involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. (2) Raises questions about whether

self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with

complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less

is required.

As for maintenance of sovereignty by peaceful and merely ideological means,

political nationalism is closely tied to nationalism in culture. The latter insists upon

the preservation and transmission of a given culture, more accurately, of recognizably

ethno-national traits of the culture in its pure form, dedicating artistic creation,

education and research to this goal. Of course, the ethno-national traits can be actual

or invented, partly or fully so. Again, in the classical variant the relevant norm claims

that one has both a right and an obligation (―a sacred duty‖) to promote such a

tradition. Its force is that of a trump that wins over other interests and even over rights

(which is often needed in order to carry on national independence struggle).10

7. LITERATURE REVIEW

Geoff Simons, Korean: The Search for Sovereignty: The second part of the

book, “The Historical Frame‖, provided useful history of Korea and Japan. The

history provided in this book can illustrate why Korea and Japan have been in very

awkward positions toward each other in the international arena. Because the Korean

peninsula was closed to Japan, there were many invasions. In the 1590s, the invasion

of Japan was not successful. The Japanese failed to reach Korea because Korea got

10

Standford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. ―Nationalism,‖

http://plato.stanford. edu/entries/nationalism/#3.1.

9

assistance from China. Even though Japanese lost this time, it hurt the Korea. After

the great invasion in 1590s Koreans had very uncomfortable feelings with the

Japanese. Again after China lost in the Sino-Japanese war, Japan invaded Korea and

tried to control Korea. The formal annexation was in 1910, with the absolute end of

the Korean monarchy. The hardships of the Koreans were to serve the Japanese. The

Japanese were cruel to the Koreans by stealing their land (as they came and occupied

the land wherever they wanted to), torturing Koreans as slaves. During the Pacific

War, many of the Koreans had to serve in the forces and had to work hard for the

Japanese forces to supply their war materials. Moreover, the thousands of girls and

women were forced to become ‗comfort women‘ to serve Japanese troops.

Brian Bridges, Japan and Korea in the 1990s From Antagonism to

Adjustment: This book explain the Japan and Korea relationship in the 1990s in many

aspects (1) the history of the relationship, (2) Political and Security, (3) Major power

influence, (4) Economic sphere, (5) Cultural perspective, and (6) the normalization of

the relations. The book states that Japan and Korea are certainly geographically and

culturally close, but the psychological gap seems far from narrow. A long-standing

enmity, the origins of which can be traced back to the early phases of the two

countries‘ histories, was exacerbated by the brutal Japanese colonial occupation of

Korea from 1940 to 1945. The defeat of Japan did not bring about the united,

independent Korean state which the Koreans desired and the establishment of the two

Korean states which the Koreans raised a complicated diplomatic dilemma which

Japan found difficult to resolve. In fact, not until 1965, 20 years after the Pacific War,

were relations between Japan and South Korea normalized and relations between

Japan and North Korea have yet to be formalized. The diplomatic visit of the high

rank officers of the Tokyo in 1980s to South Korea had increased qualitative change

in bilateral relationship. They created the diplomatic relationship with North Korea.

However, the relation ship within these three states were complicated because the

certainly different in polities.

Donald Stone Macdonald, The Koreans Contemporary Politics and

Society: This book gives fundamental information about Korea. In brief summary, it

endeavors to explain why Korea is important—strategically, economically, and

10

culturally. It traces the historical roots of the Korean people, the development of their

culture as a blend of native heritage and foreign influence, and the problems of

national development under the conflicting pressures of Confusion tradition, U.S.

democratic capitalism, and Soviet communism.

Dean W. Collinwood, Dr., Japan and the Pacific Rim: Between the 1960s

and the 1990s, Japan experienced an era of unprecedented economic prosperity.

Annual economic growth was 3 times as much as other industrializations. In the

1960s, when the Japanese economy had completely recovered from the devastation of

World War II, the Japanese looked to North America and Europe for markets for their

increasingly high-quality products. Japanese business continued to seek out markets

and resources globally; but in the 1980s, in response to the movement toward a truly

common European economic community as well as in response to free trade

agreements among North American countries, Japan began to invest more heavily in

countries nearer its own border. The Japanese hoped to guarantee themselves market

and resource access should they find their products frozen out of emerging European

and North America economic blocs. The unintended, but not welcome, consequences

of this policy were the revitalization of many Asia-Pacific economies and the

solidification of lines of communication between governments and private citizens

within the region.

Brad Glosserman, Japan-Korea: Textbook Issue Should Not Be Ignored:

The Article stated that the issue over Japanese history textbooks should be considered

as important issue to the international arena because it was a sensitive and

sophisticated issue concerning history. The issue was criticized throughout Korea, so

the normalization process, as well as bilateral agreement would be more difficult for

both governments. Analysts came out and warned Japan of its action.

Kimie Hara, 50 years from San Francisco: Re-examining the Peace

Treaty and Japan’s Territorial Problem: This Article described many of the Territorial

problems of Japan after the San Francisco Peace Treaty in the Post-war era. The

dispute which stated in the article are (1) Japan-USSR/Russia: the Northern Territories

11

/ Southern Kuriles Dispute, (2) Japan-Korea: The Takeshima / Dokdo Dispute, and (3)

Japan-China : The Senkaku / Diaoyu Islands Dispute.

Yangmo Ku, Perceptual Change, Institutionalization and South Korea's

Foreign Economic Policy toward Japan: The Author argued that the ROK

democratization led to the establishment of the institutionalized foreign policy making

process, thus placing serious institutional constraints on South Korean policymakers‘

keeping their former strategy to connect history or security with economic issues in its

foreign policies toward Japan. Under democracy, South Korean Presidents still

contained the authority to make a final decision, yet they are placed under heavy

institutional constraints emanating from other actors, such as diverse government

organizations, the National Assembly, civic/academic organizations, and the mass

media. Unlike past practices, the ROK Presidents under a democratic system became

unable to push through their own policy ideas without taking other voices into

account. Under this condition, therefore, it was quite difficult for South Korean

policymakers – holding the changed self-perception from ―dependent‖ upon to

―competitors‖ with Japan – to keep using the former history- or security- related

negotiation strategy toward Japan.

12

8. CONTENT OF THE PAPER

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Legacies of History

The Japanese Invasions (1592-98)

The Japanese Colony

The Second World War (or The Pacific War)

Chapter 3: Normalization of the Relations

San Francisco Peace Treaty

The Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic

of Korea

o Nationalism

External Factors: The Influence of

o The United States of America

o North Korea

Chapter 4: Japan‘s Foreign Policies VS. Korea‘s Foreign Policies

The Korean Ideas

The Japanese Ideas

The Politics of the Soft Power

o Soft Power in Japan in 2000s

o Soft Power in Korea in 2000s

o Soft Power between the Two Nations

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Future Trends toward Korea-Japan‘s Relationship

Bibliography