During the closing argument on October 16 in the trial of the Japanese journalist charged with defaming South Korean President Park Geun-Hye, South Korean prosecutors made statements which showed the true essence of this controversial litigation. [Tatsuya Kato (48), former Seoul bureau chief of the conservative Sankei Shimbun, was indicted last fall on charges that he reported unsubstantiated rumors that Park was meeting illicitly with a former aid while her whereabouts were unknown for several hours the same day (April 16, 2014) the ferry Sewol sank, causing the deaths of more than 300 passengers.]

　　　　　Prosecutors told Kato: “The victim favors a strong punishment in this case. How does the accused respond?” Kato clearly then realized that the “victim”—as the prosecution referred to Ms. Park—wanted him severely punished for what he had written.

　　　　　Kato replied that he was “surprised” to learn of Ms. Park’s desire for a harsh punishment. It can be said that the prosecution’s statement inadvertently laid bare the significant political character of this controversial defamation case.

　　　　　A trial such as Kato’s would be unthinkable in an advanced country which values freedom of expression as one of the vital foundations of democracy. As Kato himself has pointed out time and again in his defense, that there was initially a Korean report that the whereabouts of the nation’s top leader remained unknown for seven hours on the day of a big maritime disaster itself was startling news. In Japan, the prime minister’s daily activities, worked out to the minute, are reported by the press the following day. In other advanced countries, too, every effort is made to publicize the activities and schedule of national leaders. It is only natural for all journalists, not just Mr. Kato, to take a strong interest in the activities of national leaders wherever they may be assigned.

　　　　　South Korean prosecutors have asked for an 18-month prison term for Kato. The “strong sentiment favoring severe punishment” on the part of President Park must be noted. Could that have influenced the prosecution’s judgment beyond the norms of the separation of the three powers of democracy? If so, it is difficult to say that there is true democracy in South Korea under the Park Geun-hye regime. At the very least, one can hardly term it a mature advanced nation.

　　　　　One can only surmise that Korean thinking may be steeped with insular egotism. This insular thinking can be seen as well in how South Korea has disseminated information pertaining to the October 16 summit in Washington between the presidents of the US and South Korea.

　　　　　President Park attended a joint news conference with her host following consultations at the White House. She remarked that President Obama recognizes the role Seoul played in setting up a Japan-China-South Korea summit in Seoul after a lapse of three and a half years, noting that Washington supports Seoul’s policy toward China because US-South Korea relations and China-South Korea relations are both compatible.

“Super Power on Seoul’s Doorstep”

　　　　　In short, Park emphasized that the US recognizes Seoul’s China-leaning stance as demonstrated by Park’s decision to attend—despite US objections—the military parade in Beijing on September 3 marking the 70th anniversary of China’s victory over Japan, and, with strong opposition by Beijing, continuing to refuse the US-requested installation of the THAAD missile defense system.

　　　　　But in reality what is the state of US-South Korea relations at this point? Two days prior to the summit, a news conference was held at Washington’s Foreign Press Center, with US experts—including Daniel Russel, Assistant Secretary of State in charge of East Asia and Pacific Affairs—discussing the significance of the Obama-Park meeting in the context of America’s “pivot to Asia.”

　　　　　Russel referred to the visits already made or being planned to Washington this year by several Asian leaders—including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (April), Vietnamese Communist Party General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong (July), Chinese President Xi Jinping (September), President Park of South Korea (October), and Indonesian President Joko Widodo (also October)—as a sure sign that “the rebalance is going strong.” He noted: “With regard to freedom of navigation, I’d cast my memory back to the declaration by China of an air defense identification zone in the East China Sea (in November 2013) to which the ROK (Republic of Korea) responded appropriately, vigorously, and in concert with international law.”

　　　　　Stressing that the purpose of US activities in the South China Sea is to support the rule of international law, Russell noted: “Look, it’s not lost on anyone that the only war that the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] has fought was against the South Koreans. But it’s also obvious that the strategic interest of the ROK—and I would argue not only the United States, but the international community—lies in improved and enhanced coordination between Beijing, Seoul, and other parties with regard to meeting the challenge presented by North Korea’s behavior and North Korea’s pursuit of a nuclear missile capability. The president of South Korea made her own decision, and I think that her ability to engage on substance with President Xi in Beijing afforded her and us opportunity for important consultations.”

　　　　　An extremely candid observation, indeed. Russel pointed out that US-South Korea relations and China-South Korea relations are “not zero-sum games,” but his remarks clearly indicated that the US is generally quite concerned about Seoul’s overtures to Beijing. In fact, Obama gave away his true feeling towards the end of the news conference:

　　　　　“I think as I communicated to President Park, the only thing that we’re going to continue to insist on is that we want China to abide by international norms and rules. And where they fail to do so, we expect the Republic of Korea to speak out on that, just as we do, because we think that both of our countries have benefitted from the international norms and rules that have been in place since the end of World War II. And we don’t want to see those rules of the road weakening, or some countries taking advantage because they’re larger…Obviously given the size of China right there on your doorstep, if they’re able to act with impunity and ignore rules whenever they please, that’s not going to be good for you—whether that’s on economic issues or security issues.”

Needed: Stronger Japan-South Korea Collaboration

　　　　　Obama’s remarks constituted Washington’s strong reminder that the US does not want to see Seoul follow the lead of an irresponsible China—the most significant message from the summit. This obviously was the demand the US repeatedly pressed on South Korea at various levels of their preliminary bilateral consultations. Obama made this clear during the joint news conference. However, this crucial message was entirely deleted from the information disseminated by the South Korean government concerning the summit. Hong Hyun, chief editorial writer for the Japanese language One Korea Daily News published in Japan, comments:

　　　　　“The home pages of the Blue House and the Foreign Ministry are completely devoid of any reference to this point, which proves that President Park and foreign ministry officials have been totally unable to come to grips with the seriousness of what was meant by the American message. While in Washington, Park made proposals in a fashion reminiscent of a sumptuous Korean traditional banquet in which too much food is placed all over the table. However, there was not a single ‘dish’ the US truly wanted.

　　　　　“What was the point of Park discussing Korean unification at this juncture? With her administration so weak its prospects are being compared to those of Kim Jong-un’s regime in the north, what she should be talking about is who South Korea’s true ally is and who is really committed to protecting her country. Having not done so, Park has failed to fulfill her responsibility to her people.”

　　　　　Heeding America’s strong prodding, Seoul has agreed to host a trilateral summit with Japan and China on November 1. But President Xi will not attend; Premier Li Keqiang, whose overall influence is apparently waning, will come instead. Therefore, the focal point of the coming summit is how the Japanese and South Korean leaders will deal with each other and how they can manage to open a new road to closer cooperation. Washington strongly wants South Korea to make every effort to realize a collaborative relationship with Japan, instead of falling into a dependence on China.

　　　　　However, it is difficult to believe that Park has grappled squarely with Obama’s candid advice. One wonders if Park may be the type of a national leader who cannot accept different opinions and viewpoints—or criticism against her, as evidenced by her alleged desire to have the accused severely punished in the on-going defamation trial. If so, not much can be expected from Abe’s coming visit with Park. That would be a very sorry turn of events indeed for both Japan and South Korea.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 677 in the October 29, 2015 issue of The Weekly Shincho)