UPDATE: According to VOA’s Steve Herman, the Korean government has postponed the signing of the intel agreement “to allow explanation of it to #ROK Nat’l Assembly.” Now THAT should prove entertaining. And ultimately pointless.
ORIGINAL POST
It would seems so, but first, a couple more reactions to the intel agreement with Japan.
The Hankyoreh, of course, is having fun with this, finding all sorts of folk to throw around the words “traitors,” “pro-Japanese,” “Eulsa Treaty,” etc.
Opposition floor leader Park Jie-won had this to say:
“We should not give away our classified military information to Japan which intends to go nuclear,” said Park Jie-won, floor leader of the main opposition Democratic United Party (DUP), Thursday. “People here still have animosity toward Japan’s claim on Dokdo and the issue of comfort women. It should be discussed at the National Assembly before going into effect.”
Hmm, don’t like secretly giving stuff to countries that intend to go nuclear, eh? I find unintentional irony amusing sometimes.
The Hanguk Gyeongje talked with experts, including former military guys, who said they aren’t expecting much from Japan in terms of intel on North Korea, but they did say the military sharing agreement might help in regards to intel on China.
The JoongAng Ilbo ran an interesting editorial on the agreement—the paper agreed with the need for it, but frowned on how the government had brought controversy onto itself by pushing it in secret. Frankly, though, listening to the opposition since news of the agreement broke, I understand why the talks were conducted behind closed doors. Secret diplomacy has its uses—just ask Park Jie-won.
Having said that, while secret diplomacy can be useful, outright lying can be dangerous. The government claims that Japan first proposed a military intelligence sharing agreement in 2010, but government sources told the Segye Ilbo that in 2008, the Korean Ministry of Defense proposed to Japan the signing of an Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA).
A military official said Korea and Japan use similar weapons, and in particular, they use many of the same kinds of ammunition. Korea, which has limited ammo stores, really needed help from Japan, which has big stores of special ammunition.
The official added that in particular, Korea couldn’t help but consider Japan as an ammo source to help with ammo shortfalls, which appeared every Ulchi-Freedom Guardian exercise, and in preparation for emergencies on the Korean Peninsula.
The Segye Ilbo said Japan was positive about the Korean offer, but things came to naught due to public sentiment and the Dokdo issue. It also said military authorities, who have the real problem of ammo supply to consider, have wanted an ACSA concluded with Japan prior to a military intelligence agreement; for this reason, they’ve continued to discuss the matter with Japan until recently.
Now, however, such discussions have been suspended. A high-ranking Ministry of Defense official told the Segye Ilbo (actually, he told a lot of reporters, apparently) that since an ACSA is a purely military-to-military agreement, it was still too soon, although they may reconsider at a later time when the public can understand.
MARMOT’S NOTE: Yeah, it’s easy to attack Korean public opinion on this, and I certainly won’t try to defend it. I will point out that it takes two to tango, though—if Japan would just cut the crap about Dokdo, Japan might actually gain an important regional ally, which is worth a lot more than two shit-covered rocks Japan will never get anyway.
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree Japan should just let it go. Though once demilitarized we will no longer enjoy Korea’s Michael Dukakis moments such as this:
http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2955307&cloc=joongangdaily|home|newslist1
Robert Koehler wrote:
Robert, you are such an asshat. It is Korea that always brings up Dokdo as a condition or an excuse, not Japan.
Dokdo issue is very clear in terms of international law. Japan should respect SCAPIN, San Francisco Peace Treaty and Cairo Declaration.
Cairo Declaration said:
General Headquarters Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers promulgated SCAPIN No. 677 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/SCAPIN677):
The SCAPIN has been revised twice: SCAPIN 841 issued on March 22, 1946 returning Izu and Nanpo Islands to Japan; the revised SCAPIN 677 dated December 5, 1951 returned the islands between 30-29 degree N. latitude and Kagoshima Ten Village Islands to Japanese sovereignty. However, no such directives, memoranda and/or orders were ever issued to change the separation of Dokdo. The territorial provisions in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty merely conformed what had already become an accomplished fact. The separation of Dokdo by SCAPIN No. 677 — so far as it has not been changed specifically — should be acknowledged and respected as the accomplished facts which were actually carried into effect by the San Francisco Peace Treaty. (Source: Professor Young K Kim, A Suggestion for an Impeccable logical integrity, Dec. 2011: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=young_kim)
After all the latest behavior from Japan regarding the islets, I just don’t understand how anyone can still sit there and say it’s only Korea who keeps bringing up the Dokdo issue.
Cm wrote (#4):
The Japanese are not the ones who make surrender on Dokdo a condition for military cooperation or even talks on a variety of other topics. The Koreans are the ones who do that in spite of the fact that it is Korea who has control of the islets.
People like Robert and you, CM, have been so conditioned by all the Korean BS about Dokdo that you seem to have lost your non-Korean reasoning abilities.
Robert writes, “if Japan would just cut the crap about Dokdo, …” even though it is not the Japanese who are making the settlement of the Dokdo isssue a condition for military cooperation.
Dokdo is irrelevant to military cooperation. Dokdo is just an excuse not to cooperation. If it were not Dokdo, it would me something else. That is how Koreans negotiate and one of the things that is so frustrating about dealing with Koreans.
It was Korea that stole Dokdo from the Japan, yet Koreans are the ones chastising the Japanese for mentioning that fact in their history books. Why can’t asshats like you, CM, and Robert Koehler see how ridiculous that is? Because your reasoning has become Koreanized.
CM, do you also wear a Korean hanbok everywhere?
Maybe this is old news or someone else already posted this link but what the hell. If it is redundant and/or not needed nor wanted please delete.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/29/world/asia/south-korea-japan-pact/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Call me an asshat one more time, Gerry.
obvious trolling about Dokdo
Mr. Bevers is always happy to oblige
Mr. Bevers seems to attract quite a crowd
But seriously, how many times do you guys have to have the same argument……
Robert Koehler wrote (#8):
I thought that was accepted terminology here at the Marmot’s Hole. I had never heard of the word until you used it, Robert.
Rob,
That’s not fair. You didn’t mention the possibility that there could be meaningful deposits of methane hydrates under those shit covered rocks that could/may/potentially/possibly/at some time in the indeterminate future be used as a fuel/energy source. Maybe, possibly… with some indeterminate likelihood…
Oh Gerry, you are such a “goofball”.
hmm… here is a question i am wondering about…
is this another case of lee myung bak miscalculating domestic political situation?
or is this a case of lee myung bak caving into japanese/us pressure for security cooperation only to see the “pro” US/japanese lee myung bak lose political capital and giving a small political windfall to the opposition party?
so the question is, whose imconpetence can this be attributed to?
LMB would have been better to just sign the damn treaty and get on with it.
Instead, now he’s going to have to explain this, and it’s just going to get bigger and bigger, unless he drops the treaty altogether. Even if he drops the treaty, the charges of him being a pro-American, Japan born Chinilpa traitor won’t go away anyway, so why not do what’s the best thing for Korea. It’s obvious both the US and Japan want a solidifying position by the US-Japan-S Korea to show up the Chinese and North Koreans as a deterrence.
not sure about this idea to be honest…
Hey, is it 초복 soon? I thought I just heard a 깨갱
The Hankyoreh is right. This is just a vast Japanese conspiracy to overthrow the ROK as we know it. Next thing you know we’ll be eating udon and donkatsu, and carrying Hello Kitty trinkets in our pockets.
Unimaginable. Truly.
Um.. Don’t Koreans already eat lots of udon and donkatsu?
Gerry:
Here’s a reference to help expand your vocabulary.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ass-hat
True, solely giving up claim to Dokdo would probably not ameliorate Korean demands, but it would be a step in the right direction. Regardless of whether the rocks were originally Japanese or Korean – after 39 years of colonization they should be Korean. It’s a mighty small price to pay in my opinion. Japan should give the rocks as a symbol of goodwill and friendship. They could turn the rocks into a center of naval cooperation.
Japan has got to look at trends 30 to 50 years down the road. A rising China, a N Korea with better nuclear and missile technology, and a US ally in relative decline. Japan needs allies. S Korea does too. Time to kiss and make up.
This means Japanese military could be in Korean territory in emergency. It would not be just ammo, but other accompanying military forces could follow for the sake of guarding the transport of ammo. This would be a footstep for Japanese military to stay in Korean territory. So I consider this agreement with Japan, a nation still in conflict with S. Korea about history and territorial issues, as suspicious and potentially threatening.
Those arguing about historical claims to Dokdo are ignoring a more important issue: Japanese reparations for WW2 and Colonial domination of Korea, parts of China and Taiwan. Japan paid reparations in 1965, as both Germany’s did. But Germany lost 25% of her territory to Poland and the Soviets. Japan only lost the unpopulated southern part of Sakhalin Island. Compensation according to the German model would require Japan to forfeit something more substantial: like Kyushu island, for instance. The Japanese should consider themselves extremely lucky to only lose a couple of meaningless rocks. But the shameless s.o.b.s even protest that minimal concession.
The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki lead many Japanese to consider themselves victims of WW2. To heal the relationship, I think Koreans expect something close to a German WW2 style apology, which goes far beyond a one sentence apology from the Prime Minister. The expectation would be that Japan educate its young about its war crimes and colonial subjugation of its neighbors, so that average Japanese would feel some sense of responsibility and vow not to repeat it. Instead, Japanese textbooks portray colonialism of Korea as a noble mission, don’t mention the comfort women and use of Koreans for forced labor, or the forced use of Japanese language and names. There’s complete denial.
Germany’s apology enabled it to become the leader of Euro zone. It sets the continent’s monetary policy and plays a central diplomatic role. Japan can’t even form an alliance apart from the US. It can’t align with nations with whom it shares obvious security and economic interests. Unless Japanese leadership wakes up to global realities and makes amends, the country will pay a steep price for its stubborness and misplaced pride. The US wants its allies in the region to cooperate to limit Chinese expansion. Japan should be the obvious lynch pin in a Pacific NATO style alliance. Foolish Japan apparently cares more about a couple of uninhabited rocks than the opportunity to become a diplomatic and political leader of the Western Pacific.
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 2 trackbacks }