South Korea is facing a diplomatic dilemma over the clause in its Constitution that treats North Korea as part of its territory, as Japan’s plans for contingencies on the peninsula appear to disregard it.
Seoul has argued that as South Korea’s sovereignty extends across the North according to its domestic law, Tokyo should secure consent from Seoul should it want to deploy troops there.
But Japanese Defense Minister Gen Nakatani said during his talks with Seoul’s Defense Minister Han Min-koo last month, “Some say that the South’s effective control extends (only) to areas south of the truce line.”
His remarks reflected Tokyo’s refusal to acknowledge the South’s claim to the North, observers noted.
Concerns have persisted over Japan’s military intervention on the Korean Peninsula as Japan has been pushing for the right to collective self-defense, the use of force to support its ally the U.S. if it comes under attack.
South Koreans, many of whom harbor a resentment toward their onetime colonizer, have long shown their opposition to any Japanese military involvement in affairs surrounding the peninsula. Japan colonized Korea from 1910-45.
Experts said that the two sides, which both acknowledge a need to cooperate on North Korea contingencies for their own national security, should sit down and discuss the issue rather than letting the issue fester or develop into yet another diplomatic row.
“Japan is, of course, seeking to secure its freedom of action in preparation of a contingency involving North Korea, while South Korea is concerned that Japan would step in, take the initiative and seek to expand its influence in the event of a contingency,” said Nam Chang-hee, security expert at Inha University.
“Here, Japan wants to employ the international law that recognizes the North as a sovereign nation, while South Korea is seeking to use its domestic law to claim the North. Thus, it is a situation in which the domestic law collides with international law.”
For more than five decades, Japan has recognized the North as a state. During the negotiations with Seoul to normalize bilateral relations, Tokyo refused to recognize Seoul as representing the entire peninsula — a reason it has sought to engage in separate negotiations with Pyongyang to settle all compensation issues stemming from its colonization.
“Although South Korean negotiators at the time argued that Seoul represented the entire peninsula, Japan apparently thought differently,” said Nam Ki-jeong, a professor at the Institute for Japanese Studies in Seoul National University.
“So there has been some war of nerves between them. But that war waned after the two Koreas joined the United Nations in 1991. Seoul also did not seriously object to Tokyo’s attempt to normalize ties with Pyongyang.”
Some military experts have said Seoul’s demand for consent for Tokyo’s intervention in a North Korean contingency could impede Tokyo’s military operations to support the U.S., which may intervene in the contingency to support its ally, the South.
They, therefore called on the three nations to discuss this issue in earnest and move to bolster trilateral security cooperation.
“I see this as an issue which needs trilateral discussion. If Japan is attacked because it is selflessly supporting the ROK (Republic of Korea) and the United States, and the ROK doesn’t want Japan to strike back, wouldn’t the ROK and the United States have a responsibility to cover Japanese equities?” said Bruce Bennett, a senior defense analyst at the U.S.-based think tank RAND Corp.
“Each country — the ROK, Japan and the United States — has expectations of what they would need in a conflict. Unless they share and resolve those expectations, the potential for anger and dissatisfaction exists. Our countries need to work closely together.”
By Song Sang-ho (sshluck@heraldcorp.com)
