Several events directly or indirectly related to Japan, which have taken place since the beginning of 2024, provide an opportunity to reflect once again on the positioning of this country in the surrounding political space. Where its active presence is becoming more and more noticeable.
First of all, there was the 7.6 magnitude undersea earthquake that occurred on 1 January 2024 near the Noto Peninsula on the west coast of Honshu Island. In terms of magnitude, it is of course nothing like the “1923 disaster”, but it is comparable to the two closest earthquakes, which occurred in 1995 in the Kobe area and in 2011 near the east coast of the same island of Honshu. The second caused serious damage to three of the four reactors at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant, the consequences of which will be felt for decades (not only in Japan).
The Noto earthquake, on the other hand, appears to have been a blowout. The death toll alone is likely to exceed 300. Not to mention the destruction of some 40,000 buildings of all kinds, as well as road and transport infrastructure.
The condolences sent to the Japanese people by Prime Minister Fumio Kishida were echoed by the leaders of most of the world’s countries. Among them was the leader of the DPRK, Kim Jong-un, who once again confirmed the general impression that he is an intelligent, cold-blooded and responsible politician. He is able to separate the propaganda veneer from the realities emerging in the Northeast Asian sub-region without falling victim to it.
This impression is reinforced by the news that his sister Kim Sol-song spoke of the “rare opportune moment” for Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida to visit the DPRK. This came after he himself announced such a possibility late last year. It should also be remembered that 10 years ago, the same F. Kishida, who was then the country’s foreign minister, sent his special envoy to the DPRK (on behalf of his then boss Shinzo Abe, of course).
As 10 years ago, the formal reason for the (supposed) visit of F. Kishida to the DPRK is the so-called “problem of abductees”, which has been discussed many times in the NEO. The only difference is that 10 years ago this reason was not an obstacle for Pyongyang to resume bilateral intergovernmental contacts, while today, according to the North Korean leader’s sister, it is better not to raise this problem at all.
But the point is that in the process of resuming intergovernmental contacts, which are extremely important for both sides (as discussed below), F. Kishida cannot, for obvious domestic political reasons, simply give up this opportunity (let us repeat, a formal one). Although we are talking about events that took place almost half a century ago, it seems that it is possible to put aside “matters of long ago” for the sake of solving current problems in bilateral relations. This is particularly important in the context of the escalating situation in Northeast Asia.
Unfortunately, the dramatic (or even tragic) pages of history often continue to shake the legs of the living. And here it seems appropriate to outline once again the author’s position on this general issue, which in the case of Japan-Korea relations is by no means exhausted by the “problem of the abductees”, but goes back in time to a historical depth that is difficult to define.
One thing is certain: firstly, it is simply pointless to settle “historical scores” for these “deeds”. Since the dead cannot be resurrected, history cannot be replayed, and the present descendants of the former “perpetrators” have nothing to do with these “deeds”. Secondly, it directly contradicts the basic attitudes of (most) religious ideas on the eternal theme of “what is good and what is bad”. Finally, the revival of tragic pages from the past, which is not uncommon today, fits suspiciously into the process of “designing” the next global massacre, which is unfolding before our very eyes.
The past should not be forgotten, but it should be studied on a professional level. That is to say, it should not be replaced by surrogates, generated in particular by propagandists guided by the (specifically understood) “political expediency” of the moment. The dates of past tragic events may be commemorated in some way. But on the basis of the principle of “do no harm” to the living.
In this regard, we can refer to the joint US-Japanese commemoration in 2015 of the “significant date” of the storming of the island of Iwo Jima, which today, under the name of Iōtō, belongs to Japan again. One of the most significant battles of the ‘Pacific War’ took place six months before the end, when its outcome (after the battle for the Philippines six months earlier) was no longer in doubt for anyone, including Tokyo.
Over 30,000 of the best soldiers on both sides fought for a piece of land (an area of about 25 square kilometres) for just over a month. The event on today’s Iōtō Island was dedicated to their memory. It was attended by a dozen soldiers with national flags, middle-ranking representatives of the administration and, it seems, a minister of sects. A minimal number of words were spoken during the ceremony.
Any words spoken in public after centuries, even decades, in the context of a historical tragedy, usually meaningless (and mostly artificially motivated), inevitably seem false in the light of the scale of their consequences. Particularly ridiculous are the demands for “apologies”. In whose name and to whose address? Why does anyone today still presume to speak in the name of the long dead?
In this respect, Asia has an ancient wisdom. In China, for example, there is a memorial to the victims of the so-called “Nanjing Massacre”, the various aspects of which are still being debated by experts. Beijing’s message to Tokyo in this case is something like this: “We don’t need any apologies from you. Just come to the memorial and stand here in silence. Which, incidentally, has already been done. But not by current government officials, but by former prime minister Yasuo Fukuda, for example.
In the spring of 2016, the people of Hiroshima sent a similar message to then US President Obama on the eve of his visit to Japan: “Come and visit us, we will be happy to see you. Say nothing, just stand with us in silence at the memorial”. This was done. It should be noted that the notorious “American occupation of Japan” factor has nothing to do with the nature of the commemoration of the victims of the Hiroshima tragedy. This is simply the behaviour of government officials who feel responsible for the living, not the dead.
Returning to the issue of a possible visit to the DPRK by the present Japanese Prime Minister, we should take into account various factors of interest to both sides in the process of resuming inter-governmental contacts. One of them is the aforementioned process of sharp deterioration of the situation in Northeast Asia. But each side also has its own internal motivation, which is conditioned by this general factor.
In Japan, it is connected with the beginning of the process which the same propaganda calls “remilitarisation”. It should be noted that throughout the post-war period, defence spending as a proportion of national GDP was one of the lowest in the world. Only by the end of the decade is it expected to rise from the current 1 per cent to 2 per cent.
That is, if the money is available – which is not necessarily the case, given that there are far more real, immeasurably more serious and more financially intensive threats than those posed by “North Korea” or “China”. Already, in anticipation of the extremely dangerous challenges of depopulation, the government is taking steps to attract foreign workers, especially highly skilled ones.
Despite recent steps to improve relations with the other country on the Korean peninsula (the Republic of Korea), there will continue to be concerns on both sides. For example, the issue of ownership of several uninhabited islands in the Sea of Japan. Japan was reminded of this on 22 February, when it celebrated “Takeshima Day“.
This was apparently in response to the court ruling in the ROK on compensation by (already three) Japanese companies to “victims of forced labour” in the events of 80 years ago. And as recently as 20 February, Hitachi had to pay out money for the first time in connection with a lawsuit filed by a South Korean citizen. It should be noted, however, that money is by no means the most important issue in this “historical” problem in relations between Japan and the ROK.
The factor of an unprecedented drop in the rating of the Kishida government due to another (ongoing) scandal around a number of members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and the search for an excuse “to divert attention” apparently plays some role, but it is more of a current plan, i.e. of secondary importance.
As for Pyongyang, it has its own reasons to respond positively to Tokyo’s message under discussion. In the context of the declared rejection of the concept of “reunification of the divided people” due to the aggravation of the situation on the Korean Peninsula, the DPRK leadership is clearly interested in expanding the circle of (now very narrow) external partners. This would include such an important one as Japan.
In conclusion, it should be noted that since the beginning of this year, a number of other notable events have also taken place in Japan, which are to be considered in connection with the forthcoming visit to Tokyo of Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar.
Vladimir TEREKHOV, an expert on the problems of the Asia-Pacific region, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
