Smart Q&A: T.J. Pempel and Yeol Ryu on Historical Revisionism and Japan's Choices

YouTube Link: video.eai.or.kr/140716_sqa.flv

T.J. Pempel, a professor of political science at UC Berkeley, is a world-renowned scholar specializing in comparative politics, Japanese politics, and political economy. His publications include Security Cooperation in Northeast Asia (2012), Remapping East Asia: The Construction of a Region (2005), Beyond Bilateralism: U.S.-Japan Relations in the New Asia-Pacific (2004), and Regime Shift: Comparative Dynamics of the Japanese Political Economy (1998). He is currently conducting research on regionalism and security in Asia.

Yeol Ryu, Director of the EAI Center for Japanese Studies, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago and is currently a professor at Yonsei University's Graduate School of International Studies.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's security policy is raising ongoing concerns for neighboring countries such as South Korea and China, as well as for the United States. While China's rise presents a significant challenge for Japan, South Korea and China are strongly reacting against Prime Minister Abe's revisionist view of history and his rightward political trajectory. The deteriorating relations between South Korea and Japan are also proving to be a burden for the United States in its efforts to strengthen its regional position and pursue its rebalancing strategy in Asia. Against this backdrop of complex regional dynamics, Professor T.J. Pempel (UC Berkeley) and Director Yeol Ryu (EAI Center for Japanese Studies; Yonsei University) engaged in a discussion on the challenges facing East Asia and the strategic considerations for South Korea and Japan.

Abe's Revisionism and U.S. Concerns

“The U.S. will distance itself from Japan's historical revisionism, which does not contribute to building multifaceted cooperative relations with China or promoting security cooperation between South Korea and Japan.”

Yeol Ryu (hereafter Ryu) The U.S. appears to be pursuing a strategy that seeks to build cooperative relations with China while also containing its rise. Given that trilateral security cooperation among South Korea, the U.S., and Japan is crucial for containing China, how do you assess this cooperative relationship?

T.J. Pempel (hereafter Pempel) There are two important trilateral cooperative relationships in East Asia. One is the trilateral security cooperation among South Korea, the U.S., and Japan, which can be seen as a security framework to contain China or North Korea. The other is the trilateral cooperation among South Korea, China, and Japan, which, unlike the former, pursues cooperation and engagement. Unfortunately, the trilateral cooperation among South Korea, China, and Japan faces difficulties in drawing cooperation from South Korea and China due to Prime Minister Abe's historical revisionism.

From the U.S. perspective, Japan's historical revisionism has been a major disappointment, as it weakens security cooperation between the U.S. and Japan. The Abe administration's persistent distortion of history, visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, and the NHK chairman's remarks denying the Nanjing Massacre, among other actions, are undermining the results of the Obama administration's efforts with South Korea and Japan. The U.S. will clearly want to distance itself from Japan's overt and outrageous historical revisionism and will hope that Prime Minister Abe will "just be quiet." This is because Abe's brand of historical revisionism is of no help to the U.S.'s long-term goals of building multifaceted cooperative relations with China and promoting security cooperation between South Korea and Japan. Every time Prime Minister Abe makes nationalistic remarks, concerns in South Korea and China will deepen, and the trilateral cooperation among South Korea, China, and Japan will also face difficulties in its maintenance.

The trilateral summit among South Korea, China, and Japan, which originated from ASEAN Plus Three (APT), achieved tangible results such as the signing of an investment treaty and the pursuit of free trade agreement negotiations since its launch in 2008. However, the trilateral summit is currently suspended, and the ongoing free trade agreement negotiations are also stalled. This situation acts as a highly negative factor for promoting regional cooperation and engagement. Nor can we consider the trilateral security framework among South Korea, the U.S., and Japan, based on containment, to be solid or strengthened. Maintaining cooperation between South Korea and Japan is proving difficult due to Japan's actions, even in the pursuit of trilateral cooperation. Consequently, Prime Minister Abe's actions are ultimately counterproductive to the U.S. policy in East Asia, which seeks to pursue both engagement and containment simultaneously, and they pose a significant burden to the Obama administration.

Ryu Until recently, Japan seemed to be in a continuous decline amidst difficult domestic conditions. However, with the advent of Prime Minister Abe, Japan has suddenly become active and assertive in security and economic fields. You just explained Prime Minister Abe's historical revisionism; what impact do you think Japan's outwardly proactive stance will have on the security and economic environment in Northeast Asia? Although still in a stalemate, Japan is also actively participating in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations.

Pempel Japan's economic development has played a very positive role in Asia. Japan's economic development model served as an excellent precedent for President Park Chung-hee's economic development in South Korea, and President Chiang Kai-shek of Taiwan also adopted similar strategies from Japan. These experiences can be said to have provided a fundamental basis for South Korea and Taiwan to transform from military dictatorships in the 1970s to a period of economic growth in the 1980s and ultimately become successful democracies. Japan also played a crucial role as a catalyst for economic growth by investing heavily in Southeast Asian countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. The positive impact of Japan, which has focused all its efforts on economic prosperity and development, on the Asian region has been incredibly significant. Although China may be reluctant to admit it, Japan has also played an important role in China's economic development. Japan has provided substantial aid to China and was the first country to lift sanctions after the Tiananmen Square incident. Japan, which has been relatively quiet on China's human rights issues, was not such a bad partner for China.

From this perspective, I believe it is problematic to overreact to Japan's recent military movements. I believe there are sufficient reasons for Japan to reinterpret its constitution and pursue greater regional security and military activities. In fact, Japan's defense spending remains at a low level relative to its national economy, and experiences such as providing refueling and supply support in Afghanistan and Iraq, and dispatching small-scale units, show that Japan has generally been very cautious about military activities and has tried to avoid getting involved in any conflicts. The most significant expansion of military activity has been the support provided by the Japan Coast Guard to Southeast Asian countries for anti-piracy operations. In other words, it is a hasty judgment to assume that Japan is unconditionally returning to the 1930s simply because it slightly increases defense spending or discusses collective self-defense.

However, Prime Minister Abe is making it difficult to take a cautious approach toward Japan. By distorting history, condoning the atrocities of Imperial Japan in the 1930s, insisting on constitutional reinterpretation, or taking ambiguous stances on religious education or the social roles of women, Prime Minister Abe appears to have a very strong right-wing inclination, to the point where he is called a reincarnation of his grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, a politician before World War II. When Prime Minister Abe continuously talks about defense and security issues, visits the Yasukuni Shrine, or rides in an airplane with the number 731, conflicts with neighboring Asian countries will escalate, and Japan will be unable to focus on the crucial task of economic recovery. The Japanese people have been significantly demoralized by economic stagnation and debt over the past 20 years. Therefore, Japan's economic recovery and development are core tasks from its own perspective and are also very important for its regional neighbors, as explained earlier. Ideally, if Prime Minister Abe ceases the current historical revisionism and the consumption of national strength related to foreign policy, and instead focuses on economic revitalization and reform, he could create a good opportunity to become closer to South Korea, no longer perceive China as a threat, and strengthen Japan's position in Southeast Asia.

Ryu You assessed that Prime Minister Abe's revisionist view of history, militarism, and the promotion of Abenomics could run counter to the interests of both South Korea and the U.S. Do you see any possibility for Japan to change its foreign policy stance based on pragmatism and restore trilateral cooperation?

Pempel The U.S. has repeatedly advised Prime Minister Abe not to create further controversy on issues such as history and defense, and has expressed its opposition to his insistence on visiting the Yasukuni Shrine. However, Prime Minister Abe is not heeding these warnings. Underlying Prime Minister Abe's mindset is not only his belief that he is right but also the fact that there is no significant opposition force within the current Japanese political landscape. This situation is the most concerning aspect of the current Northeast Asian geopolitical landscape. While it is true that Japan has many advantages for economic revitalization as a U.S. ally and a democratic country, it remains uncertain whether Prime Minister Abe can fully utilize these advantages to achieve economic prosperity. In fact, Japan's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased by only 0.7% in the last quarter, and the growth rate is indeed slowing down. The Japanese stock market index, which had been rising, has also returned to its previous levels. This phenomenon indicates that the desire for economic recovery that surged with the advent of the Abe cabinet is gradually diminishing, and it will be difficult for Japan to regain vitality without decisive reform measures from Prime Minister Abe. However, Prime Minister Abe still appears to be trapped in historical and nationalistic thinking, which can only be seen as a tremendous waste of political energy.

Restoring South Korea-Japan Relations and the Park Geun-hye Administration's Northeast Asia Strategy

“The South Korea-Japan relationship is a crucial task that must be restored for the revitalization of regional cooperation in Northeast Asia, and South Korean President Park Geun-hye is the right person to achieve this. To promote trust, in addition to the Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative, summit diplomacy such as the South Korea-China-Japan trilateral summit should also be considered.”

Ryu The current South Korea-Japan relationship is worse than ever. How do you assess South Korea's policy toward Japan? What are your thoughts on President Park Geun-hye's firm stance toward Prime Minister Abe?

Pempel President Park Geun-hye has emphasized trust between nations and has stated her intention to build trust starting with relatively cooperative non-traditional security areas. I believe President Park's efforts can be a positive factor in restoring South Korea-Japan relations. However, personally, I wish President Park would have followed more closely the courage of former President Kim Dae-jung, who, when meeting with former Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi, proposed overcoming historical issues between the two countries and seeking future cooperation. Of course, we must also consider that former Prime Minister Obuchi, Prime Minister Abe, and former President Kim and President Park are different in many ways.

South Korea and Japan share successful democratic systems and alliances with the United States, and maintain highly dynamic and close economic relations, indicating significant potential for cooperation. However, the differing perspectives of the leaders of the two countries on historical issues pose a considerable political burden to pursuing cooperation.

Ryu You just pointed out South Korea's regional approach based on non-traditional security areas, which seems to align with the Park Geun-hye administration's Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative. This initiative can be seen as South Korea's regional strategy based on President Park's trustpolitik, aiming to build trust and establish cooperative practices through cooperation in non-traditional security areas or soft issues, ultimately expanding cooperation to traditional security areas. What is your assessment of South Korea's regional approach based on this initiative?

Pempel Conceptually, it is a good initiative. Given the current lack of trust among political leaders in Northeast Asia, any measure that can promote inter-state cooperation would certainly be a positive factor. However, it is difficult to expect that cooperation on environmental issues among three countries will immediately resolve issues related to territory, history, or identity. While one can hope that cooperation in areas A, B, and C can extend to D, E, and F, it is necessary to recognize that national policies are realistically independent and not necessarily interconnected. In other words, environmental technicians cooperating does not necessarily require military generals or high-ranking diplomats, nor is it necessarily linked to government policies such as official development assistance.

I believe the de facto suspension of the trilateral summit among South Korea, China, and Japan since the advent of Prime Minister Abe is the most disappointing aspect of regionalism in East Asia today. There is no better framework for multifaceted trust-building than the trilateral summit among South Korea, China, and Japan. For leaders to meet officially and engage in discussions, officials from each country must engage in continuous preparation beforehand regarding which areas to cooperate on or which agendas to exchange. This process allows for cooperation among relevant ministries and agencies, ultimately laying the groundwork for trust.

Conversely, if inter-state cooperation is limited to the director-general or agency head level, the ripple effect cannot be expected to be as significant as when the highest political leaders are involved. Only when presidents, prime ministers, or state leaders are involved can the entire government be mobilized. Of course, I believe that both President Park Geun-hye and President Xi Jinping face domestic political challenges that make it difficult to immediately resume the trilateral summit among South Korea, China, and Japan. Nevertheless, if such a high-level summit among South Korea, China, and Japan were to materialize, it would serve as a powerful driving force for promoting trust in Northeast Asia. Based on this, various initiatives such as a trilateral free trade agreement among South Korea, China, and Japan could be discussed. While it may not be easy to bring the leaders of South Korea, China, and Japan together, I believe President Park Geun-hye has the capacity to achieve this, and it could serve as a very positive and valuable achievement for President Park in the future. ■

The East Asia Institute (EAI) receives financial support for its research on middle power diplomacy from The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. EAI conducts Smart Q&A, a video interview series with domestic and international experts, aiming to provide timely and in-depth analysis of current issues through Q&A sessions with experts in relevant fields. This manuscript was translated and organized by Min-geol Kim, Chang-gyo Seo, and Jeong-hyeon Lee from an English report written by Jae-seung Yoo, a researcher at EAI's Center for Asian Security Studies. The opinions expressed herein are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect the views of the East Asia Institute. Please cite the source when quoting from Smart Q&A.