Why is Japan currently faced with its worst post-war territorial crisis, with conflicts over theTakeshima Islets, the Senkaku Islands, and the Kuriles (also known as Japan’s Russian-held NorthernTerritories) all erupting at once? The answer is obvious. Japan is now paying dearly for the grave error it committed following the end of the Pacific War in choosing to turn to the US for its national defense and security instead of taking up that responsibility for itself.

　　　Successive administrations have refused to grapple squarely with the rising tensions in the Asia Pacific, ignoring the simple and clear principle that military power fundamentally dictates international relations. The result has been the situation in which Japan alone has reduced its military spending, particularly over the last ten years.

　　　The policies vis-a-vis South Korea and China adopted by the incumbent Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) led by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda have derived from such a “defenseless” system of government. In that vain, the Noda administration is the child of Japan’s existing “peace” constitution, dramatically demonstrating the constraints of our basic law, which was imposed on Japan during the American occupation. That said, one must regard as an appropriate first step the decision by the administration to appeal to the rules of international law in connection with the August 10 landing on one of the disputed Takeshima islets by South Korean President Lee Myong Bak.

　　　The national character that South Korea and Japan each demonstrated over this territorial issue, which tends to stir up a fierce sense of nationalism on both sides of the Sea of Japan, was directly the opposite, with Japan reacting perhaps too gently and South Korea perhaps too indignantly.

　　　On August 11, Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba spoke to the press in even tones: “We would like to study measures for a peaceful settlement based on international law, including an appeal to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).” On the same day, the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade sternly criticized the Japanese government, declaring that its decision to involve the ICJ “is not even worth considering.” “Only thieves can be so bold,” said the spokeman for the ruling Saenuri Party.

　　　On August 17, Noda sent a personal letter to Lee. However, it is easy to see South Korea will never agree to join Japan in bringing the case before the ICJ. Japan will have to go it alone, asking the ICJ to determine to which of the two nations the islets rightfully belong. Under such circumstances, South Korea will be hard pressed to explain to the ICJ why it refused to participate in the case. This development appears to be beneficial to Japan, which has repeatedly stated that the Takeshima Islets are indigeous to Japan both historically and under international law, although they now are under effective South Korean control.

Questionalble Attributes for a Head of State

　　　Even though disputes under international law must be settled in a rational and dispassionate manner, nations are unlikely to succeed in persuading the international community of the correctness of their position unless they show passion. All of us -€ individuals and nations alike -€ ought to vent our anger when it is appropriate to do so. In this regard, Japan should have promptly expressed its anger over the remarks Lee made pertaining to Emperor Akihito four days after his Takeshima visit.

　　　Lee grossly disappointed and offended a cross section of the Japanese by remarking: “If the emperor wishes to visit (South Korea), he needs to truly apologize to Koreans who died in the independence movement during Japan’s colonial rule of Korea …The emperor need not visit South Korea if he only brings words of ‘deepest regret’ after worrying (about the wording) for a long period of time…” Noda described Lee’s comments as “extremely regrettable,” which hardly represents the depth of the hurt feelings of the people of Japan.

　　　Why doesn’t Noda take it upon himself to represent the entire people of Japan at this juncture and ask Lee what brought him to make these discourteous remarks? Doesn’t Lee realize that Japan has extended to his nation a total of 36 apologies, which include those of Emperor Akihito and his late father, Emperor Hirohito? To brush aside the Emperor’s apology as “just words” is to deny the decades of efforts to promote interchange and sounder relations between our two nations. The occasion calls for Noda to tell Lee point-blank that his thoughtless remarks make many of us question his attributes as head of state.

　　　In the name of cooperation between Japan and Korea and the national interests of both nations, now is the time for Noda to also ask of Lee this question: Why is it that, since his inauguration, South Korea has not once taken action against the North’s attacks of South Korean troops as well as the islands on the border? Why is it that the South Korean government has failed to lodge an official protest against China when the captain of a Chinese fishing boat stabbed to death a South Korean maritime police officer last December, or when a South Korean human rights activist was detained last March and tortured? Why is it that South Korea keeps silent toward North Korea and China, but forges ahead with provocative acts against Japan out of the blue?

　　　I would think the harsh reality before Japan and South Korea ridden with problems attributable to North Korea , with China behind it, calls for our two nations to candidly ask each other any question that must be asked, and engage in positive discussions of the pertinent issues no matter how heated they may become. What South Korea most imminently requires is preparations for coping with the unstable North Korean situation by closely cooperating with both the US and Japan. I would think it highly irrational for South Korea to snarl at Japan the way it recently has. It would be reasonable for Japan to persuade the South Korean government to not lose its head in order to safeguard its national interests.

　　　Although still miles away from making such an overture, the Noda administration began to react on August 15, albeit reservedly. Hitoshi Matsubara, Chairman of the National Public Safety Commission, criticized Lee’s remarks as “extremely discourteous” after visiting Yasukuni Shrine that day. Then on August 17, Finance Minister Jun Azumi said: “As a member of this cabinet, I cannot overlook the remarks in question which absolutely rubbed the Japanese people the wrong way.” Azumi then said he would cancel a scheduled meeting with his South Korean counterpart August 25 and referred to a possible review of a yen-won cash swap agreement reached between Tokyo and Seoul last October. The agreement raised the limit for swaps from US$13 billion to US$70 billion and reflected Japan’s friendly concern over South Korea’s financial situation.

The Only Effective Measure: Revision of the Constitution

　　　This time, the DPJ achieved at least two things concerning China. First, through improved communication with Tapiei, it prevented collaboration between Taiwan and Beijing over the landings on the Senkakus by Hong-Kong based activists. Second, the DPJ managed to deport the illegal entrants under Japanese domestic law (on charges of violation of the Japanese Immigration Law), successfully demonstrating to the international community that the Sensakus are in fact under effective Japanese control.

　　　However, this Japanese claim -€ that through enforcement of domestic law Japan has proved it has effective control of the island -€ likely will end up as no more than self-satisfaction unless the next steps are speedily implemented.

　　　Firstly, pragmatic budgetary measures must be put in place. Although a reduction of overall spending (excepting certain special areas) is called for in the 2013 budget, the budget for national defense and Coast Guard operations must by all means be increased. Also, Japan should under all circumstances take steps to exercise the right of collective self-defense. Furthermore, the revised Japan Coast Guard Law, which already has passed the lower house of the Diet, must pass through the upper house, too. The current crisis Japan is faced with can hardly be overcome without implementing these pertinent measures.

　　　It is a matter of course that Japan should fully honor the authority of various international bodies such as the United Nations, as well as respect international law. And yet, the ability to bring about a solution of problems on the international level is not achieved simply through a sense of justice or the power of reason. What really counts is military and economic power. That is the reality of international relations.

　　　Looking back at the history of the Korean Peninsula, it becomes clearly discernible that Koreans have always been significantly influenced by the big nations around them, geopolitically speaking, and that they have always been compelled to follow the powerful. If following the powerful is their modus operandi, the “anti-Japanese” words and deeds exercised today by members of the South Korean government reflect their perception that Japan’s national power is waning. In point of fact, President Lee aptly stated: “Japan’s influence in the international community isn’t the same as before.”

　　　South Korea obviously sees Japan as a weakening power that is unable to cope adequately with Lee’s Takeshima visit and his discourteous demand for an apology from the emperor. This being the case, the only measure to deal effectively with South Korea is for Japan to simply become a strong nation in all aspects once again, including militarily. One can say the same thing vis-a-vis China. Ultimately, what is required is a revision of the Japanese constitution. Taking this crisis over these various territorial issues as the rare opportunity it is, we must urgently strive to become a stronger nation.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 523 in the August 23, 2012 issue of The Weekly Shincho)