Smart Q&A: T.J. Pempel · Son Yeol] Historical Revisionism and Japan's Choice

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

T.J. Pempel, Professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley, is a world-renowned scholar proficient 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 researching regionalism and security in Asia.

Son Yeol, Director of EAI's Japan Studies Center, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago. He is currently serving as the Dean of the Graduate School of International Studies at Yonsei University.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's security policy is causing ongoing concern 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 to Prime Minister Abe's revisionist view of history and his rightward political trajectory. The deteriorating relations between South Korea and Japan are also a burden for the United States in its efforts to strengthen its regional position and pursue its Asia rebalancing strategy. In light of these complex regional dynamics, Professor T.J. Pempel (UC Berkeley) and Director Son Yeol (EAI Japan Studies Center; Yonsei University) engaged in a discussion about 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 and promoting security cooperation between South Korea and Japan.”

Son Yeol (hereinafter Son) The U.S. seems to be pursuing a strategy of cooperating with China in various aspects while also containing its rise. In particular, trilateral security cooperation among South Korea, the U.S., and Japan is considered crucial for containing China. What is your assessment of this cooperative relationship?

T.J. Pempel (hereinafter Pempel) There are two important trilateral cooperative relationships in East Asia. One is the trilateral cooperation among South Korea, the U.S., and Japan, which can be seen as a trilateral security system to contain China or North Korea. On the other hand, there is also 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 is facing difficulties in garnering 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., South Korea, and Japan. The Abe administration's continuous distortion of history, visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, and the Nanjing Massacre denial by the NHK representative 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 blatant and outrageous historical revisionism and will hope that Prime Minister Abe "just be quiet." Abe's 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 system among South Korea, the U.S., and Japan, based on containment, to be solid or strengthened. The pursuit of cooperation among South Korea, the U.S., and Japan is also difficult due to the reality of maintaining a cooperative system between South Korea and Japan because of Japan's actions. Consequently, Prime Minister Abe's actions are ultimately counterproductive to the U.S. policy in East Asia, which seeks to implement both engagement and containment simultaneously, and pose a significant burden to the Obama administration.

Son Until recently, Japan seemed to be in a continuous state of decline amidst difficult domestic conditions. However, with the advent of Prime Minister Abe, Japan has transformed into an active and assertive player in security and economic affairs. You just explained Prime Minister Abe's revisionist historical stance. What impact do you foresee this outwardly proactive stance of Japan having on the security and economic environment in Northeast Asia? Although it remains in a stalemate, Japan is also taking a relatively proactive stance 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. These experiences can be said to have provided the foundation for South Korea and Taiwan to transform from military dictatorships in the 1970s through the economic boom of the 1980s into 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 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 about China's human rights issues, was not such a bad partner for China.

From this perspective, reacting excessively to Japan's recent military movements is problematic. I believe there are sufficient reasons for Japan to reinterpret its constitution and pursue greater regional security and military activities. In reality, 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 deploying small unit detachments, show that Japan has generally been very cautious about military activities and has tried to avoid getting involved in any conflicts. The only expanded 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 approach Japan with such caution. By distorting history, condoning the atrocities of imperial Japan in the 1930s, insisting on constitutional reinterpretation, or taking ambiguous stances on religious education or women's social roles, Prime Minister Abe appears to have a very strong far-right inclination, to the point of being 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 neighboring countries in the region, as explained earlier. Hopefully, if Prime Minister Abe ceases the current revisionist actions 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.

Son 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 a 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 listening to these warnings. Underlying Prime Minister Abe's mindset seems to be not only his belief that he is right but also the fact that there is no opposing force within the current Japanese political structure. This situation is the most concerning aspect of the current East Asian geopolitical landscape. While it is true that Japan has many advantages for promoting economic revitalization as a U.S. ally and a democratic country, it is uncertain whether Prime Minister Abe can sufficiently 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 administration is gradually diminishing, and without decisive reform measures from Prime Minister Abe, it will be difficult to regain vitality. 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 Regional 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, trilateral summit meetings among South Korea, China, and Japan should also be considered.”

Son Current South Korea-Japan relations are worse than ever. What is your assessment of South Korea's policy towards Japan? What are your thoughts on President Park Geun-hye's firm stance towards 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 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 respects.

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

Son 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, specifically aiming to build trust and create 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 of territory, history, or identity. While one can expect 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 trilateral summits among South Korea, China, and Japan since the advent of Prime Minister Abe is the most disappointing aspect of East Asian regionalism today. There is no better framework for multifaceted trust-building than trilateral summit meetings among South Korea, China, and Japan. For leaders to meet officially and discuss issues, officials from each country must engage in diligent preparation beforehand regarding what areas to cooperate on or what agendas to exchange. This process allows for cooperation among relevant ministries and agencies, ultimately laying the groundwork for trust.

Conversely, if inter-state cooperation occurs only at the director-general or agency head level, the ripple effect cannot be expected to be as significant as when top 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 difficulties that make it challenging to resume trilateral summit meetings among South Korea, China, and Japan immediately. Nevertheless, if such top-level meetings among South Korea, China, and Japan are realized, it will be a very positive driving force for enhancing trust in Northeast Asia. Based on this, various initiatives such as a free trade agreement among South Korea, China, and Japan can be discussed. While it may not be easy to bring the leaders of South Korea, China, and Japan together, I believe President Park has sufficient 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 video interviews with domestic and international experts to provide timely and in-depth analysis of current issues through question-and-answer sessions with experts in relevant fields. This manuscript was translated and compiled by Kim Min-geol, Seo Chang-gyo, and Lee Jeong-hyun from an English report written by Yoo Jae-seung, a researcher at EAI's Asia Security Program. The opinions expressed herein are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the East Asia Institute. Please cite the source when quoting from Smart Q&A.