Asia
Japan's white paper on defence
Scylla and Charybdis on the Sea of Japan
Jul 30th 2010, 11:23 by T.D. | TOKYO
THE Japanese government has postponed publication of its annual defence white paper—which should have been released today—ostensibly because it needs time to add material on the sinking of a South Korean naval ship. Which seems a rather lame excuse, given that the Cheonan was sunk in March; a comprehensive investigation, which Japan accepted, was published in May. More probably the delay has something to do with the Takeshima islands. The Takeshimas, a pair of jagged islets surrounded by scattered rocks, are administered by South Korea, which refers to them as Dokdo. The defence report would have been obliged to reiterate Japan's inconvenient claim to this inconvenient bit of real estate.
Each country considers the islands to be a part of its own sovereign territory, and both countries’ claims go back hundreds of years. In South Korea the subject is extremely touchy—memories of Japanese colonisation remain fresh. In July outrage over the issue drove a South Korean man to throw a stone at the Japanese ambassador. When the Japanese prefecture nearest the islets hosted a "Takeshima Festival" in 2005, one angry South Korean mother protested by cutting off her own little finger, as well as that of her son. A disgruntled man set himself on fire.
South Korea’s government has asked that Japan’s refrain from referring to the Takeshima question. But the Japanese government is said to be unwilling to omit its mention. Still, South Korean sentiments would seem to factor into Tokyo's thinking, in so far as the paper was postponed. Its publication has been pushed back to September or later, to avoid clashing with a sensitive anniversary: August 29th, the centennial of Japan’s formal annexation of Korea.
Conservative parties and newspapers in Japan gripe that the government does not take territorial issues seriously enough. They hint that the relatively new Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) government may not be sufficiently manly to maintain Japan’s position in a rising Asia. "Failure to say what Japan needs to say could be interpreted as a willingness by our government to make concessions" sniped the Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan's best-selling daily.
Meanwhile, a draft report by an advisory panel convened by the prime minister, Naoto Kan, called for a softening in the country's stance against possessing, producing or permitting nuclear weapons to pass through Japan. Instead, to some extent, they should be accepted as a necessary deterrent. The same draft recommended easing the rules against exporting the country's high-tech military hardware, which today can be sold only to America. In all, the DPJ faces a tough balancing act when it comes to upholding Japan's territorial claims (some of them dodgy) and its defence interests (however legitimate) without angering its neighbours.
In this blog, our Asia correspondents and our Banyan columnist provide comment and analysis on Asia's political and cultural landscape. The blog takes its name from the Banyan tree, under which Buddha attained enlightenment and Gujarati merchants used to conduct business.
Advertisement
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- The euro in crisis: Groping towards Grexit
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- The euro crisis: Europe’s Achilles heel
- Should gay marriage be legal in America?
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
- Daily chart: The German motor
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- The euro crisis: Europe’s Achilles heel
- Lexington: Peter David
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- The euro in crisis: Groping towards Grexit
- J.P. Morgan’s trading mistakes: A billion here, a billion there
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Poverty: The audacity of hope
- Greece fails to form a government: Adrift
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
@southernman
The problem with that solution in this case is this; South Korea has conscription, but Japan doesn't. So, any battle between the crazies of both countries is going to be one-sided, unless the Japanese crazies include some Aum Shinrikyo leftovers, in which case, no one survives...
White paper of a country is to be published regardless of one-off events to happen from time to time.
What should be officially reported about Japan's defence should be done so without delay.The DPJ government's decision this time is simply a default of its duty.
forsize: Grown-ups will sit down and draw up plans to split the difference if they can't agree; joint development of whatever underlying resources in all disputed areas. I concede it's hard because one side still has memories of colonial occupation.
I've always felt the best way to solve this issue would be to form volunteer armies of crazed ultra-nationalists on both sides, put them on the islands and let them sort it out. The win-win is: the crazies will fight each other to the last, increasing the average IQ of both countries. The winner gets the islands, and no-one on the other side cares all that much anymore.
politico-economist, except its not about rocks, but economic rights based on territorial claims. hardly surprising that with unknown amounts of economic wealth at stake that people take it pretty seriously.
The ROK has been the care-taker of these islands for decades. They have police/coast guard facilities there as well as full time Korean residents, a small fishing family (if they're still there). The islands themselves are amazingly beautiful, an example of natural poetry, and I don't use that phrase on a regular basis.
Many are speculating the delay of this year's 'white paper' has something to do with a combination of claims to these islands as well as the Cheonan incident and that is probably accurate. What complicates things further is that the ROK has taken a little advantage of the aftermath of the sinking and has been asking for other concessions as well, namely asking Tokyo to return Korean cultural properties the Japanese acquired during their occupation of the peninsula.
I'm not suggesting Korea is wrong is asking for these things and I do think they should be returned. What I'm suggesting is that asking for all these things at the same time the ROK is aware they're looking for Japan to loose a little 'face'.
Also, further complicating issues in releasing the annual 'defence paper' are internal Japanese Gov issues and the Japanese looking to expand its own military.
Even relatively mature, rich democracies can't seem to sit down like adults to discuss and resolve what to do abt some rocks!
Well, they are kind of cool-looking islands, even if they also look like a goat turned out on them might try to swim.