South Korea Should Heed Its Own Advice and Learn from the Franco-German Relationship
CHINO Keiko / Journalist
February 25, 2014
Prime Minister Abe Shinzo forges ahead on his global journey in 2014 with visits to the Middle East, Africa, Davos and India, as if oblivious to the time differences involved. At this rate of exposure, it is unlikely that leading western news media would mistakenly identify the headshot of the Japanese Prime Minister, as has happened in the past.
Moreover, he has dealt with both strategic and practical issues on his round of visits, which surely merits high praise as the first instance of genuine summit diplomacy.
India is a case in point. Abe was the first Japanese Prime Minister to be invited to the Republic Day celebrations, and came away with progress on the two important areas of economic relations and national security. It certainly raised the level of bilateral relations from one that had been preceded by hollow slogans. I had once been a participant to the 21st Century India-Japan Eminent Persons' Group that was organized ahead of the 50th anniversary of Japan-India diplomatic relations. At the time I became acutely frustrated by how we were piping away yet not dancing at all. The business community, perhaps due to their interests in the giant Chinese market, were hardly enthusiastic except for those companies already doing business in India. And with economic relations in such a woeful state, collaboration in the area of security was beside the question. It was a time when the government view was: "All's well in Asia as long as we get along with China."
India will become increasingly more important, as indicated by the recent adoption of the term "Indo-Asia-Pacific" by the U.S. Pacific Command. Let us hope that Japan will expand and deepen its ties with India by seeking "2-plus-2" status for the bilateral security talks, as with such talks Japan holds with the United States, Australia, Russia and France.
It is an unfortunate twist that the greater the success scored by Prime Minister Abe's summit diplomacy, the greater the contrast it creates with the failings in Japan's relationships with China and South Korea.
Prime Minister Abe has repeatedly made overtures saying "the door to dialogue is open," yet it is China and South Korea that have remained unresponsive. His first administration also pursued the groundbreaking diplomatic policy of laying emphasis on Southeast Asia. But is it enough to stay the course into the future?
For Japan to proudly present its diplomatic efforts to the international community as one that encompasses the globe, the blank created by China and South Korea is simply too large.
Japan need not rush to make amends. We know from history that offering easy concessions based on a "friendship-first" approach has only damaged Japan's national interests. When Prime Minister Abe visited the Yasukuni Shrine - fully recognizing the risks of a violent backlash from China and South Korea, the popularity of his administration declined in the polls. But it was soon to recover, perhaps because the majority of public opinion is fed up by the way the Yasukuni visits are constantly treated as a diplomatic issue.
Last year, Seno Kiyomi, former Consul General of Chongqing, spoke at the Japan National Press Club about the Élysée Treaty signed in 1963 between longtime adversaries France and Germany. Under the treaty, each year the two sides are obliged to hold two summit meetings and four ministerial meetings, and organize exchange programs for 150,000 young people. "Even when they are not on talking terms, they would nevertheless come together at the table if only to dine in silence and go home," Seno said.
Under the current state of affairs we would probably see Japan, China and South Korea engage in a shouting match before sitting down to a meal, but it is an idea worthy of consideration. South Korea in particular should take the initiative and heed its own mantra that Japan should learn from the Franco-German relationship.
In fact, Japan does hold a trilateral meeting with China and South Korea each year in addition to the bilateral meetings. The first trilateral summit meeting was held in Fukuoka in 2008, and then Prime Minister Aso Taro praised it as a "historical necessity." While it is not an obligation as in the Élysée Treaty, we should contemplate the risks of not holding such meetings. It may be no more than a summit meeting, yet it is a summit meeting after all, and it is important not to raise the hurdles too high.
Compared with China or even with South Korea, Japan has the benefit of experience when it comes to political maturity, including the diversity of opinions that is tolerated. Herein lies an opportunity for Japan to appeal to the world as the country most open to dialogue among the three. Even in the event the summit meeting fails to materialize, it would be half a success if Japan could impress upon international opinion that it is making a diplomatic effort. After all, there is no single winner in diplomacy.
To be sure, Abe administration will face pressure from some quarters warning not to offer any easy concessions. However, former U.S. President Richard Nixon had this to say in his classic book "Leaders":
"The Pundit who exalts "'standing firm for principle"' and condemns compromise demands, in effect, that the leader throw himself on the sword. (Very few leaders are willing to do that. Nor should they.) What the pundit fails to see is that the leader frequently has to compromise in order to live to fight another day. Knowing when to compromise is part of the process of choosing priorities."'
Keiko Chino is Guest Columnist of the Sankei Shimbun newspaper. The article was first published in the February 1, 2014 issue of the Sankei Shimbun newspaper.
Moreover, he has dealt with both strategic and practical issues on his round of visits, which surely merits high praise as the first instance of genuine summit diplomacy.
India is a case in point. Abe was the first Japanese Prime Minister to be invited to the Republic Day celebrations, and came away with progress on the two important areas of economic relations and national security. It certainly raised the level of bilateral relations from one that had been preceded by hollow slogans. I had once been a participant to the 21st Century India-Japan Eminent Persons' Group that was organized ahead of the 50th anniversary of Japan-India diplomatic relations. At the time I became acutely frustrated by how we were piping away yet not dancing at all. The business community, perhaps due to their interests in the giant Chinese market, were hardly enthusiastic except for those companies already doing business in India. And with economic relations in such a woeful state, collaboration in the area of security was beside the question. It was a time when the government view was: "All's well in Asia as long as we get along with China."
India will become increasingly more important, as indicated by the recent adoption of the term "Indo-Asia-Pacific" by the U.S. Pacific Command. Let us hope that Japan will expand and deepen its ties with India by seeking "2-plus-2" status for the bilateral security talks, as with such talks Japan holds with the United States, Australia, Russia and France.
It is an unfortunate twist that the greater the success scored by Prime Minister Abe's summit diplomacy, the greater the contrast it creates with the failings in Japan's relationships with China and South Korea.
Prime Minister Abe has repeatedly made overtures saying "the door to dialogue is open," yet it is China and South Korea that have remained unresponsive. His first administration also pursued the groundbreaking diplomatic policy of laying emphasis on Southeast Asia. But is it enough to stay the course into the future?
For Japan to proudly present its diplomatic efforts to the international community as one that encompasses the globe, the blank created by China and South Korea is simply too large.
Japan need not rush to make amends. We know from history that offering easy concessions based on a "friendship-first" approach has only damaged Japan's national interests. When Prime Minister Abe visited the Yasukuni Shrine - fully recognizing the risks of a violent backlash from China and South Korea, the popularity of his administration declined in the polls. But it was soon to recover, perhaps because the majority of public opinion is fed up by the way the Yasukuni visits are constantly treated as a diplomatic issue.
Last year, Seno Kiyomi, former Consul General of Chongqing, spoke at the Japan National Press Club about the Élysée Treaty signed in 1963 between longtime adversaries France and Germany. Under the treaty, each year the two sides are obliged to hold two summit meetings and four ministerial meetings, and organize exchange programs for 150,000 young people. "Even when they are not on talking terms, they would nevertheless come together at the table if only to dine in silence and go home," Seno said.
Under the current state of affairs we would probably see Japan, China and South Korea engage in a shouting match before sitting down to a meal, but it is an idea worthy of consideration. South Korea in particular should take the initiative and heed its own mantra that Japan should learn from the Franco-German relationship.
In fact, Japan does hold a trilateral meeting with China and South Korea each year in addition to the bilateral meetings. The first trilateral summit meeting was held in Fukuoka in 2008, and then Prime Minister Aso Taro praised it as a "historical necessity." While it is not an obligation as in the Élysée Treaty, we should contemplate the risks of not holding such meetings. It may be no more than a summit meeting, yet it is a summit meeting after all, and it is important not to raise the hurdles too high.
Compared with China or even with South Korea, Japan has the benefit of experience when it comes to political maturity, including the diversity of opinions that is tolerated. Herein lies an opportunity for Japan to appeal to the world as the country most open to dialogue among the three. Even in the event the summit meeting fails to materialize, it would be half a success if Japan could impress upon international opinion that it is making a diplomatic effort. After all, there is no single winner in diplomacy.
To be sure, Abe administration will face pressure from some quarters warning not to offer any easy concessions. However, former U.S. President Richard Nixon had this to say in his classic book "Leaders":
"The Pundit who exalts "'standing firm for principle"' and condemns compromise demands, in effect, that the leader throw himself on the sword. (Very few leaders are willing to do that. Nor should they.) What the pundit fails to see is that the leader frequently has to compromise in order to live to fight another day. Knowing when to compromise is part of the process of choosing priorities."'
Keiko Chino is Guest Columnist of the Sankei Shimbun newspaper. The article was first published in the February 1, 2014 issue of the Sankei Shimbun newspaper.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
韓国こそ、「仏独」関係を見習っては
千野 境子 / ジャーナリスト
2014年 2月 25日
韓国こそ、「仏独」関係を見習っては
千野 境子 ジャーナリスト
安倍晋三首相の地球行脚は平成２６年も中東・アフリカに始まり、ダボス、インドと、時差などどこ吹く風の勢いだ。存在感の薄さから、欧米の有力メディアが日本の首相の顔写真を取り違える不始末も、この分では起きそうにない。
しかも、歴訪は戦略と実務を伴っており、初めての首脳外交らしい外交と評しても決してほめ過ぎではないだろう。
インドが好例だ。共和国記念行事に日本の首相として初めて招かれ、経済、安全保障の２つの重要分野で前進をみた。掛け声先行だった日印関係のレベルは確実に上がった。かつて筆者が日印国交樹立５０周年を前にして、日印２１世紀賢人委員会に参加した際に痛感したのは、笛吹けど踊らず、の歯がゆさだった。経済界は大市場・中国を慮（おもんばか）ってか、インド進出企業以外は腰が引け、経済がそんな体たらくだから安全保障など論外で、「アジアは中国とさえうまくやれば、それでよい」（政府当局者）時代だった。
米太平洋軍がアジア太平洋の呼称をインド・アジア太平洋と改めたように、インドの重要性はますます高まる。安保協議を米豪露仏に続いて「２＋２」に発展させ、日印関係がさらに拡大深化することを期待したいものである。
もっとも、安倍首相の首脳外交は、順調であればあるほど、逆に日中、日韓の不調が浮き彫りにされる運命にある。
安倍首相の「対話のドアは開かれている」との再三の呼び掛けに応じていないのは中韓の方だし、政権１年目の東南アジア重視外交も画期的だった。しかし、今後もこのままでよいのだろうか。
日本が国際社会に向かって、これからも地球儀を俯瞰（ふかん）する外交と胸を張るには、中韓の空白は大きすぎる。
改善を急（せ）く必要はない。初めに友好ありきの安易な譲歩が国益を損なってきたことは過去が証明している。中韓の猛反発を覚悟の上の靖国参拝で安倍政権の支持率が下降後、ほどなく回復したのも、民意の大勢が靖国参拝の外交問題化の終わりを望んでいたからだろう。
昨年、日本記者クラブで会見した瀬野清水・前重慶総領事によれば、幾度となく戦火を交えたフランスとドイツが１９６３年に結んだエリゼ条約は、年２回の首脳会談、年４回の閣僚会議、年１５万人の青少年交流を義務づけている。「だからけんかしていて仲が悪いときでも行って、話すことがなければ黙々と御飯（ごはん）だけ食べて帰ってくる」という。
今の日中韓は御飯を前に口角泡を飛ばしそうだが、一つのアイデアではある。特に日頃から「日本は仏独関係を見習え」が持論の韓国は、自ら率先してエリゼ条約を見習ってはどうかと思う。
日本と中韓には２カ国に加えて一応、年１回の３カ国の首脳会談がある。日中韓首脳会談は２００８年の福岡から始まり、時の麻生太郎首相は「歴史の必然」とまで評価した。エリゼ条約のような開催義務はないが、会わないリスクについて考えてみることも必要だろう。たかが首脳会談、されど首脳会談だから、ハードルを上げ過ぎないことも大事だ。
日本は中国はもちろん、韓国と比べても言論の多様さを含めて政治の成熟度では一日の長がある。ここは日本が対話に最も積極的、との対外発信を強めるチャンスである。たとえ首脳会談が実現しなくとも、国際世論にその外交努力を印象づけることができれば、半分は成功だ。そもそも外交に独り勝ちはない。
「安易な妥協はするな」の圧力はあるだろう。しかしニクソン元米大統領は名著『指導者とは』でこう述べている。
《政治家に向かって信念を貫けと求め、妥協するなと言う評論家は、玉砕を求めるに等しい。（中略）指導者がする妥協の多くはあす闘うための妥協だということを、評論家は知らない。妥協は、何が最も大切かの判断とワン・セットになっている》
（筆者は産経新聞 客員論説委員。本稿は２０１４年２月１日付産経新聞に掲載された。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟