Left Flank

The brinksmanship Pyongyang practices with nukes is far more dangerous than the mini-roar of Seoul's islet stunts.

The South Korean government strongly denounced Japan Friday for describing the islets of Dokdo in the East Sea as its own territory in this year's defense White Paper again, the fourth consecutive time in a row.

The Ministry of National Defense said it would cut high-level ties with Japan's military authorities. It called in a military attache to the Japanese Embassy in Seoul Friday to protest the description.

``We urged Japan to take corrective measures on Dokdo, which is South Korea's territory from the perspectives of geography, history and international laws,'' Song Bong-heon, head of the ministry's international cooperation bureau, said. ``We also assured the Japanese military attache that Japan's claim to Dokdo is a move to justify its colonial act in the past and will hamper the future-oriented development of South Korea-U.S. relations.''

Song said working-level exchanges between the South Korean and Japanese militaries, such as goodwill visits by military personnel and navy ships, would remain intact but reconsider high-level exchanges ``seriously.''

«Seriously»? A South Korean bureaucrat can seriously use that word without falling down in laughter? Washington might be forcing the North Koreans to pay double for de-listing them from the terrorism list, but Seoul has constructed an entire foreign policy out of extortion. And, what is this mention of «international law» now?

Powered by ScribeFire.

James F. Larsen smokes the same weed recent KT contributors (Yun Chung, Choi Tae-hwan) have distributed, but does good service by leading me to Kenichi Ohmae's excellent commentary on Liancourt Rocks and the economic interdependence between Japan and ROK.

This paper examines the dispute between South Korea and Japan over the Dokdo/Takeshima Islands through the prism of liberal peace. The evidence provided in the paper shows that the transition between, and conclusion of, different rounds of clashes over the islands are closely associated with the varying degrees of economic interdependence between South Korea and Japan in the post-war period. The relationship between the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute and economic interdependence could be explosive, if the latter takes on highly asymmetric characteristics in the face of enduring rivalry and fluid geopolitics surrounding the Korean peninsula. However, as long as profitable economic opportunities continue for both sides, the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute is likely to be contained, if not terminated.

Well, Ohmae was always a bit too optimistic for me! But, he's looking in the right direction.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Before the avalanche of nationalistic gripes by governments about how former PM Yasuo Fukuda has undone their plans for dealing with Japan, Japan Observer defends Fukuda.

Fukuda clearly understands how Japan has to change; indeed, he may understand better than just about everyone in the LDP, Mr. Koizumi included. (I'm inclined to agree with Masuzoe Yoichi's description of Mr. Koizumi as a better destroyer than builder - Japan at this point needs the latter just as much as it needs the former.) When he spoke of the hardships facing the Japanese people, I did not question his sincerity.

The problem is that he faced a political situation that would have stumped all but the ablest of politicians, which Mr. Fukuda is not. I think that he would have been a huge success had he followed Mr. Koizumi in 2006, being more of a builder than Mr. Koizumi and probably being better liked by the public than Mr. Koizumi. I don't mean loved or admired in the way that Mr. Koizumi was, like a rock idol, but rather someone who the public would have trusted to listen to them, to be frank with them, and to do his best to address his concerns and begin the hard work of building a new Japanese system for the twenty-first century. Even Mr. Koizumi, for all his popularity, did not enjoy a relationship like that with the public - as suggested by scornful remarks about his policy legacy.

And now, it starts.

Washington has its Japan shopping list.

Fukuda's resignation might have been very well-timed indeed. The lenghtened session could even act as a sort of punishment to New Komeito for its lack of loyalty. A longer session would also allow for the fifty-nining of at least one or two of the contentious, deadlock-inducing measures due to face the Diet this Fall, not least of which would be the Indian Ocean refueling mission, up for renewal again, which US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently urged Japan to continue on her visit here.

I love this comment by a South Korean academic about the delicate state of Japan-ROK relations.

Some are worried that relations could turn sourer amid reports that Taro Aso, a former foreign minister known as being more conservative than Fukuda, will take over the post, while others are taking a wait-and-see approach as Japan's political situation unfolds.

Professor Ha Jong-moon of Hanshin University in Gyeonggi Province described Aso's possible inauguration as ``the worst-case scenario'' for ties between South Korea and Japan.

``Aso is well known for speaking about his opinions on historical and other political issues in a straightforward manner, so I believe bilateral relations would become worse,'' Ha said.

Above all, don't be honest when dealing with South Koreans - it's rude! Most of all, that KT article spends eight graphs on Liancourt Rocks, without once passing concern about how Japan's domestic political deadlock affects any hopes of creating a normal nation with diplomatic relations with its neighbors.

From model to villain, to atomic punching bag, to sugar daddy, and now, pariah - Japan facilitates nationalistic arrogance and government incompetence.

Powered by ScribeFire.

That editorial, «Dokdo and Liancourt Rocks», I told you about has finally found a space online at Korea Times. I actually forgot about it. The title is inelegant, but the text is unedited.

Also, I received an email from a Flickr viewer and Wikipedia user who is going to use some of my Korean food photos to embellish Wikipedia articles. I don't have the Wikipedia links yet, but here are the Flickr links.

http://flickr.com/photos/rokinfidel/44522095/ tteok
http://flickr.com/photos/rokinfidel/39950664/ jeungpyeon
http://flickr.com/photos/rokinfidel/39950717/ Perilla
jangajji
http://flickr.com/photos/rokinfidel/39950800/ salted
cabbage
http://flickr.com/photos/rokinfidel/44523004/ songpyon
http://flickr.com/photos/rokinfidel/52855932/ yangnyeom
ojineo
http://flickr.com/photos/rokinfidel/52855858/ yangnyeom
gejang
http://flickr.com/photos/rokinfidel/44522922/ jesa /
chuseok
http://flickr.com/photos/rokinfidel/44522643/ jesa /chuseok
/ yugwa

Of course, you can view them on the widget rightside anyway.

Not a bad way to start a day!

Powered by ScribeFire.

US President George W. Bush's visit to Seoul these past two days is either a draw for conservative and progressive factions, or a nasty wake-up call for the future of ROK-US relations.

Both the Christian Science Monitor and the Online Newshour highlight the breadth of democratic opinion displayed in Seoul. On the other hand, it's not all about South Koreans' opinions.

In South Korea, Bush can expect protests during his visit, though Green says it would be simplistic to view those as anti-American. Bush had to postpone a visit scheduled for earlier this year because of massive protests against the Korean government's decision to allow import of US beef. But Green says the demonstrations are directed more at the reforms brought in by President Lee Myung Bak.

Noting South Korea's phenomenal transition after the Korean War to political stability and a high-tech economy, Green says that even protests for Bush's visit «are a good-news story because it shows the vibrancy of Korean democracy.»

Still, Bush will confront lingering South Korean resistance to US beef. Relations were irritated further when a US government geographic agency recently redesignated the small Dokdo islands claimed by both Japan and South Korea from «Korean» to «disputed.»

Bush has since rescinded the change, but not before seeing resentment rekindled in Seoul.

Such squalls might be more easily dismissed if the US were on stronger footing to assert its leadership, says Michigan's Mr. Lieberthal. «We are less well-positioned to go forward in Asia than we should be,» he says, pointing not just to America's perceived diplomatic weakness but to domestic conditions on the economy, infrastructure, healthcare that will require a domestic focus at a time of Asia's advance.

How much worse could it be after eight years?

State Department spokesperson Gonzalo R. Galegos claims the U.S. Board on Geographic Names is only «standardizing» its classifications when the USGS «refiled» its information «independently» on the Liancourt Rocks.

QUESTION: My question is about Liancourt Rocks. Last week, the Board on Geographic Names changed the name of the country that Liancourt Rocks belonged to - from South Korea or oceans to undesignated sovereignty. Did the State Department give any guidelines to the BGN when they made that decision, like as the State Department did in 1977 when the BGN changed the name of the island from Dokdo, the Korean name, to Liancourt Rocks?

MR. GALLEGOS: I appreciate the question. Somebody posed it at the gaggle this morning, and I have more thorough guidance for you today. And I think it's going to be best if I read through it, because it states clearly that the U.S. position for decades has been to not take a position regarding the sovereignty of the islands in question. As we've said in the past, the question of the sovereignty of these islets is for Japan and Korea to resolve peacefully between themselves. We do not take a position on Korea's claim or Japan's claim to the islands. It's a long-standing dispute, which the two sides have handled with restraint in the past, and we expect that they will continue to do so. We'd welcome any outcome agreed to by both Korea and Japan.

In terms of the name the classification, which you asked about specifically, U.S. position - our position has for decades, and I repeat, been not to take a position regarding the sovereignty, and to use the name Liancourt Rocks to refer to the islands. The placement of Liancourt Rocks under the Board of Geographic Names file designation of undesignated sovereignty has no bearing on the USG's position, which has not changed. The refiling was done to be in conformity with U.S. Government efforts to standardize the filing of all features to which we do not recognize claims of sovereignty. The change to the website does not represent a change in U.S. policy, but rather an action to ensure consistency with that policy.

QUESTION: Did the State Department - was the State Department aware that the BGN would change the classification from South Korea or oceans to undesignated sovereignty?

MR. GALLEGOS: Well, renewed interest in this issue has prompted U.S. Government entities to independently check to make sure that their internal filing and designations regarding these islets are consistent with our policy, so -

Yes.

QUESTION: Just to qualify that, was there any communication with either Japanese or South Korean Governments before the change?

MR. GALLEGOS: I couldn't tell you.

If one takes the opportunity to play with the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency's OGC Viewer, «Tok-to» (that damn romanization controversy!), «Takeshima», and «Take Sima» (what's this, numerical bias? Why not add, «Dok-do» for fairness?) are captioned as variant names for «Liancourt Rocks», the standard name. The ROK Foreign Ministry is crying betrayal (via Ampontan's «More on the Busan - Takeshima paradigm».

Until last week, the U.S. Board of Geographic Names stated on its Internet site that the Liancourt Rocks, a term also used to refer to Dokdo, were under the control of South Korea. But yesterday the islets were identified as under “undesignated sovereignty.”

While it was not immediately known when the change was made, the islets were classified as South Korean territory as late as July 17. The board is an agency that aims at maintaining uniform usage of geographic names throughout the U.S. government.

The U.S. board uses the name Liancourt Rocks for Dokdo, derived from the name of the French whaling ship whose crew first told Europeans about the islets in the 19th century.

The board said last week that it has used the name Liancourt Rocks to identify the islets since 1977.

However, in a March 2008 State Department Background Note on Japan, a map identified the islets as «Liancourt Rocks», situated in the «Sea of Japan», geographic references matching those on a corresponding Background Note for South Korea.

Michael Breen redeems himself by pointing out a factoid I had forgotten from the last episode of Liancourt Rocks histrionics: Liancourt is not an island; it's a pile of rocks. And, in international legal terms, that's not nothing. In fact, what some cabal of South Korean bureaucrats are doing is crazy kind of smart, in an illegal, G.W. Bush-unilateral kind of way.

There is an assumption that Korea does not want to take the dispute to international resolution because that would elevate Japan's claim to equal status and, worse, because there's a good chance that Japan could win on a technicality. (Tokyo's claim is based on the fact that Dokdo was not included in the list of territories it formally renounced after World War Two).

But it is more likely that both would fail to get the resolution they really want.

That is because, by the definition of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which South Korea and Japan have ratified, Dok is not a «do» (island). It's rocks. To qualify as an island a rock must be able to «sustain human habitation,» the law says.

In other words, an inhabitant has to be able to collect water and grow or catch his own food. He can't rely on the weekly ferry from Ulleungdo for his choco pies. Having a maritime police unit and a civilian couple living there does not make the Dok Rocks an island. Nor does having a postal code and SKT connection. Nor, apparently, does the setting up of a desalination plant. Fresh water has to be naturally occurring.

You can claim rocks in international waters, but that's all. You can't claim as yours what's around or beneath them. To quote the preamble to the convention, ``Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.»

The squid, oil and other good things are Korean and Japanese.

That means drilling for 'burning ice' unilaterally «...as a means to strengthen [South Korean] dominion over the islets in the face of renewed Japanese territorial ambitions» is probably a no-go. But, that won't stop the forces of light and right, and history! And, when most laypeople, Korean or American, couldn't care less for the tedious intricacies of United Nations resolutions and international laws, it's a sad day for negotiation and global cooperation to go together slowly into that peak oil debacle awaiting us in the future.