South Korea has reacted bitterly to an address delivered by U.S. Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman on February 27 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. The address brought a quick response from the Foreign Ministry as well as widespread criticism in the press, including harsh commentary from the nation’s largest newspaper, Chosun Ilbo.

　　　　　Commenting on the relationships between the US and Japan, China, and South Korea, Sherman noted that a three-way ministerial meeting is expected to be held in Seoul soon “with the expectation of a summit to follow.” Referring to the heightening of tensions between Japan and China over the disputed Senkaku Islands and other controversial historical issues such as “the so-called ‘comfort women,’” the diplomat noted:

　　　　　“Of course, nationalistic feelings can still be exploited, but it’s not hard for a political leader anywhere to earn cheap applause by vilifying a former enemy. Such provocations produce paralysis, not progress.”

　　　　　Her remarks met an angry backlash. Wrote Park Seung-hee of Joong Ang Ilbo, another major daily: “Under Secretary Sherman went so far as to characterize the grave historical discord between Japan and South Korea as a mere ‘quarrel’ –―a word normally used to describe a tiff between husband and wife or between children…While taking up the vital issue of Korean women forced into Japanese military brothels during World War II, Sherman referred to them as ‘the so-called comfort women,’ putting the words in quotations.”

　　　　　Park wrote that he checked the English text of her remarks and the video several times to make sure he had quoted her right. I myself checked the video and confirmed that she did indeed use those words in her address. As she spoke, Sherman was looking down at a prepared text. This proves that her words reflected a meticulously polished, diplomatically prudent statement from the State Department.

　　　　　Tadae Takubo, Deputy Director of the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals (JINF), a private Tokyo think tank I head, took notice of Sherman’s description of “comfort women,” observing:

　　　　　“Sherman speaks about ‘the so-called comfort women’ by putting the expression in quotes and without referring to their ‘forced transportation (to military brothels by the Japanese military). I think this expression differs from previous State Department descriptions of the women’s status that were arbitrary and not open to question. I think it points to a possibility of subtle changes occurring in America’s policy toward East Asia.”

　　　　　And yet one should not jump to conclusions. On a visit to Seoul in January, Sherman had this to say about a statement Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is preparing for the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II this summer:

　　　　　“…we believe that the Kono and Murayama statements are important, and we expect that they will stand.”

Shadow of Sherman’s Remarks

　　　　　Not a small number of Japanese, including myself, find this statement hard to accept, or perhaps “too serious to leave it to take its own course,” to borrow a Korean expression from the March 3 editorial of the Chosen Ilbo. But how meaningful is it to pick this word or that from Sherman’s remarks and start making noises about which of the two countries she sides with, Japan or South Korea? What matters, I believe, is one’s historical view and one’s grasp of the historical facts.

　　　　　It is a nation’s national interests that drive its foreign policy. One must be aware that Sherman delivered her remarks with US national interests in mind. Each of the nations on the receiving end must in turn ponder dispassionately over its own national interests.

　　　　　Japanese and South Koreans generally are thin-skinned about historical issues, including the “comfort women.” Amid outraged reaction in South Korea, Park Seung-he　 of the Joon Ang Ilbo interprets Sherman’s statement as reflecting the US government’s wariness over South Korea seeking too close a relationship with China under the administration of President Park Geun-hye. His view is perhaps correct.

　　　　　Citing Korea’s reluctance to deploy the THAAD (Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense) missile system, based on a fear of upsetting China, journalist Park concludes that the US sided with Japan because “unlike the South Korean government, Japan dances like a puppet to the puppeteer’s music.” As a result, Park continues, the US bracketed South Korea and China together in comparison to Japan. (It is precisely because a major daily like Joon Ang uses such vindictive expressions as this that public opinion and Korean journalists themselves get swayed by emotion and are unable to see the broader picture.)

　　　　　Amid swirling discontent with Sherman’s remarks, US Ambassador to South Korea Mark Lippert was attacked by a man in Seoul on March 5, sustaining knife wounds requiring 80 stiches. While expressing relief that Lippert’s words were not more severe—Lippert was able to say he was alright with a smile—Park issued a warning about the Sherman remarks, saying they were a sign of a national crisis for South Korea.

　　　　　Given the statements regarding its relations with East Asia, it is obvious that the US has not taken too kindly to South Korea moving more closely toward China, as Washington becomes increasingly cautious towards Beijing. At this juncture, the South Korean intelligentsia must ask themselves this question: “Will moving closer to China really bring peace and happiness to South Korea?”

　　　　　South Korea and China have entirely different political systems and values. Is South Korea willing to sacrifice basic freedoms as it seeks closer ties with China? South Korea must deal with the threat of North Korea and China through its alliance with the US and Japan. There would be nothing beneficial to Seoul’s neighbors, including Japan and Southeast Asian nations, if South Korea were to be incorporated into the Chinese sphere of influence.

　　　　　China has territorial disputes with practically all of its neighbors, as it increasingly flexes its muscles to demand that the Chinese interpretation of international law be accepted. It is natural for any normal nation to object to China’s acts of aggression. Regarding the intolerable situation in the South China Sea, Daniel Russel, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the U.S. State Department, had this to say during a round table with the Malaysian media in Kuala Lumpur on January 24:

Candid Criticism of China

　　　　　“Where we are not neutral, where we are very strong and outspoken, is in defending universal principles, universal law, and accepted norms.

　　　　　“We oppose any bullying by bigger countries against smaller countries…we want every claimant showing real restraint and avoiding action that unilaterally changes the status quo in the South China Sea, and avoiding actions that are threatening to neighbors and destabilizing to the nation.”

　　　　　Last November, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and President Xi Jinping announced a four-point agreement in Beijing, under which it was decided that Japan and China would “prevent the situation from escalating through dialogue and consultation, and establish crisis management mechanisms to avoid contingencies” in the East China Sea. In this connection, Russel commented in Bangkok on January 26 on a popular public TV show:

　　　　　“It’s true that we haven’t seen a change for the better in terms of the behavior and the activity of Chinese vessels that are increasingly pushing into territory that has been, and is, administered by Japan…What has made this (Asia-Pacific) region prosperous has been stability and adherence to the rule of law. The recipe for stability and increased growth in the Asia-Pacific region is for each country to respect international law, to respect the rights of their neighbors, and to accept the principle of self-restraint.” No criticism of China can be more frank than Russel’s.

　　　　　China has also entered the verbal battle over Sherman’s remarks. Su Xiao Hui, Deputy Director of the Department for International Strategic Studies at the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS) criticized the US diplomat in comments made on March 3. Su also defined Abe as a “historical revisionist” and remarked that a successful resolution of historical questions depends entirely on whether “Japan can overcome the ‘devil’ in its heart.”

　　　　　It is not Japan, but South Korea and China that are resorting to historical revisionism, which of course they will never admit. Japan should stand firm on its principles and continue disseminating historical facts globally, keeping up its efforts to prove, as has been shown in its contribution to the international community over the 70 years since the end of World War II, that collaborating with Japan, certainly not China, is a sure road to peace and happiness for any of its neighbors. (End)

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 647 in the March 19, 2015 issue of The Weekly Shincho)