"Geopolitical Changes in Northeast Asia and Japan’s Choice"

Institute for International Socio-Economic Studies
Chief Fellow Izumi Harada

1. Collapse of the Cold War Structure

The end of the Cold War that split the world between East and West under American and Soviet predominance led to an immediate reorganization of the geopolitical relations in the Northeast Asian region surrounding the Korean peninsula, one of the regions that expressed the cold war structure in the most radical form. 1989: Normalization of Chinese-Soviet relations; 1990: Conclusion of an amity treaty between the Republic of Korea and the Soviet Union; 1991: Both South and North Korea joined the UN simultaneously; 1992: Restoration of diplomatic relation between South Korea and China; June 2000: Summit Conference between the Heads of South Korea and North Korea; July 1, 2005: Joint Chinese-Russian declaration on the international order in the 21st century. These were important events for the stabilization of the political climate in East Asia.

The demise of the Cold War Structure eliminated at a stroke the international political impediments that had limited international economic cooperation among the nations in the Northeast Asian region and naturally deepened the economic interrelations in the region while gradually removing the heterogeneity of the economic system that had prevailed in this part of the world. In the Republic of Korea the Kim Daejung administration came into being and South Korea’s policy toward North Korea made a 180-degree volte-face with the adoption of a more tolerant policy, the so-called Sunshine Policy. After this, South Korea connected the North-South railway and steady progress was made toward a continental economic sphere linking the peninsula with Europe, including the northeastern parts of China and the Russian Fareast. China, on the other hand, has plans for the construction of a railway line and expressway linking to Thailand. Both connect with Beijing and result in closer relations also between Southeast Asia and China. This intensification of the internal relations of the regional economy are creating the conditions that have exploited relative positions of superiority arising from the differences that exist between the countries in the region in terms of their resources, including labor, capital, and technology. This in itself is not only beneficial to the regional economy but also increases in a relative manner the economic potential of Northeast Asia toward the external world. The process of remapping the structure of the world economy that came to the fore in the latter 1980s does suggest that the Northeast Asian region may become a certain regional group power in the North America and Europe-led New International Economic Order.

2. The Rise of China

Concurrently with the disintegration of the Cold War System, China’s remarkable economic progress became a factor of the geopolitical revolution that has taken place in Northeast Asia since the 1990s. China as a permanent member of the UN Security Council is one of the major powers in international politics. Because of its lag in economic development so far China has been ranked as a “developing nation.” China’s turnover to a market economy as a result of reform and liberation programs over 20 odd years since 1979 has been successful. From the 1980s to the 1990s, China achieved startling economic growth of nearly 9% a year. From the latter 1990s, the share of Chinese products on the world market rose rapidly and at the turn of the century it consolidated its position as the “world’s factory” instead of Japan.

As predicted by many experts, especially the World Bank, China is expected to overtake Japan in terms of its GDP (Gross Domestic Product) by 2020. It is also considered most likely China will be the world’s second greatest economy after the United States. In this case, Japan will have to concede to China its position at the No. 1 economic power in Asia held since the Meiji Period and its No. 2 position in the world maintained since the 1970s after the war. This causes the structural change consisting of the gravity shift of the (world) economy to Asia.

In response to this economic development, China has also enhanced its military presence in real terms. If economic development continues China’ will definitely expand its military power. On the other hand, this has resulted not only in increased economic power and in a prominent expansion of China’s power as a nation but also produced major changes from a geopolitical viewpoint. Since after the demise of the Soviet Union Russia was forced to deal with her internal political and economic problems. This created a power vacuum in Northeast Asia. In this context, China with its increased national power emerged as new leading nation in the new regional power balance.

The locations in Northeast Asia in which military conflict is now most likely to escalate are the Strait of Taiwan, the South China Sea, and the Korean Peninsula. In all of these, China plays directly or indirectly an important role. In the Taiwan Strait China is not giving up its position of resolving the problem of unification with military force in order to suppress Taiwan’s independence movement. In the China Sea, China as well as Taiwan and the Philippines are claiming territorial rights. The Hu Jintao government emphasizes the role of a “responsible major power” by taking China’s rise as something peaceful. Yet, China does not exclude the use of military force and takes unilateral action ignoring Japanese opposition to deep-sea resource development in the East China Sea. In view of China’s heightened nationalism in recent years the use of such military force cannot be wholly ruled out.

The US, Korea and Japan, facing North Korea’s nuclear threat, are trying to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons by North Korea by making maximum use of North Korea’s diplomatic relations with China. Though China is not directly in this conflict it does play an important role in it.

3. The Korean Peninsula Problem

The problems of the Korean Peninsula are coupled with the geopolitical changes of the Northeastern Asian region as a whole. They are also linked to the US’s global policy. Underlying the United States’ traditional Anglo-Saxon Asia policy is the principle of “divide and rule.” The countries of Asia confront each other with a sense of mutual mistrust, and this very condition of “permanent potential hostility” that does not go as far as the ultimate of war is a most desirable geopolitical situation from a political and military viewpoint for the United States.

In this sense, the United States feels it must control the process in which South and North interchange on the Korean Peninsula is advancing, an economic sphere is being created, and China and Russia are establishing a climate of mutual cooperation. The US approaches the North Korean issue essentially from this context.

In geopolitical terms, it is likely that the Korean peninsula after the unification of South and North Korea might emphasize its political stance of being a balancing factor between China on the one hand and the US and Japan on the other and that if might pull back from the US and get closer with China. If the US had to withdraw from the Korean peninsula this would mean that the US would lose the wedge of supremacy it had once driven into the eastern side of the Eurasian continent. As a result, it is desirable from the American viewpoint the status of the Korean peninsula should remain what it is. Under the Clinton administration, America welcomed North Korea’s becoming an economically affluent society in connection with the “economic globalization” strategy. The Bush administration, however, is more military and geopolitical in its attitude on a “no decisive action” approach. With regard to the unification of the Korean peninsula Japanese and American interests concur in part with regard to the expansion of its neighboring countries.

For the US, North Korea’s becoming a nuclear power would mean that it would be difficult for Japan and Korea to leave the American umbrella of military supremacy. As America would need to maintain and strengthen the two nations’ subordination to the United States, North Korea’s ascendancy as a nuclear power would be convenient to the US and would also be a welcome opportunity for the US to sell missile defense systems to Japan and Korea.

On the other hand, this would also give rise to many serious problems. It would raise Japanese nationalism and would inevitably pave the way towards Japan’s becoming a nuclear power. Nor can we eliminate the fear that not only South Korea and Japan would be within reach of North Korean nuclear missiles but mainland America also.

In contrast, China as a neighbor country of North Korea on land has a large Korean population. At present, it is estimated that there are already more than 100,000 North Korean refugees illegally residing in China. If the United National were to adopt sanctions life for the North Koreans would get much tougher and millions of North Korean refugees might flood into China, with the potential of inflicting an adverse influence on security and economic growth in China. It is certain that China had the realistic assessment that rather than imposing sanctions it would be more to the point to encourage the resumption of the six-party talks with North Korea as well as reform and liberalization in North Korea.

Sanctions against North Korea would aggravate the already strained situation on the Korean peninsula and would inevitably have an adverse effect on economic growth in China. Moreover, North Korea is a military buffer zone of China and the US. If Kim Jeong Il regime collapsed and a pro-American government such as in Iraq should come about this would be an extremely difficult geopolitical problem for China.

The geopolitical rise of China, the decline of Japanese influence in the region, South Korea’s reinforcing its independent policy direction and America’s go-it-alone and anti-terrorism strategy are changing the geopolitical power balance of Asia, and these changes are headed in the direction of increased nationalism of the countries concerned. There is indeed an increasing danger that conflict between South Korea, Japan, and China may arise. The Chinese and South Korean governments are apprehensive of Japan’s emphasis on rearmament. In a situation in which the Japanese and Chinese leaders are wary of what the intention of a united Korea might be, it would help to allay unease and advance stability if multi-nation forums would function. The holding of five-nation forums based on the six-party talks would be the first step toward establishing a new security framework in Asia.

When international conflicts arise as a result of economic and social problems and attempts are made to resolve local confrontation by military means there will be an increased danger of the exercise of military power, and the threat to regional order might be worse than during the Cold War. Consequently, efforts made to mitigate regional instability that is increasing through forcible means and the promotion of cooperation on security among the various countries is an important issue.

4. Japan’s Future Choice

During the Cold War, Japan and the United States not only share the common values of protecting democracy but Japan also played a very important role in terms of anti-Soviet naval strategy in controlling the sea power of the Soviet Union, with the United States needing Japan also in a geopolitical sense. Yet the situation changed dramatically when the Cold War system collapsed and China emerged as an economic and military giant. Within this process of change the question arises what options Japan standing between the US and China should make in the foreseeable future.

First, Japan must not isolate the US from Asia and must make efforts to control and curb American independent action as a superpower. It must become aware of its role as a member of international society responsible for the bringing about of a new world order focusing on partnership. Now that the policy of the American Neoconservatives advocating “Democratization through the Exercise of Military Force” has failed, the world strategy we should build is one based on more comprehensive regional stabilization and democratization policies.

It goes without saying that Japan has and will have an important role for achieving this goal in Asia. It would be senseless for Japan to isolate herself from Asia. Equally important are Japan’s efforts to refocus the core thrust of American policy interest to the North Korean issue. Unless the US shares the common perception and is positively engaged in the North Korean issue, the nuclear development problem cannot be resolved. If we pin our hopes on a diplomatic solution America’s earnest commitment will be of the essence. Japan needs to induce a positive attitude from the United States by bring pressure to bear also on China and the Republic of Korea.

Second, it is essential to bring about more advanced relations with China. At present, a framework has been created for controlling China through the Japan-US alliance and through active involvement with China on the basis of the framework for regional cooperation and common rules in the guise of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) +3, the East Asia Summit, and other systems such as the “Establishment of an East Asian Community. It will be essential to make further progress in reinforce this trend. Further, the problem of China’s development of its military potential will be a most important issue in the long term, and efforts are required to make the East China Sea a sea of partnership and a sea of peace in all aspects, including the development of resources. For this purpose, efforts will be required to create a climate of trust in the form of military exchange between Japan and China. It will also be necessary to examine at all time what the ideal nature of our own defense system should be.

Third, it is essential that Japan herself should attach great importance to international law and international partnership. As Japan’s delay in participating in the ICC (International Criminal Court) shows, Japan too, falls short in her commitment to respect, and take part in, international organizations. In this context, it is essential that Japan should not stop adhering to Japan’s principles, rules and ideals such as the “nuclear-free peace visions” and the “self-defense principle.” Reflecting on Japan’s modern history, Japan should direct her diplomacy on a profound reconsideration of the past.

Finally, it should be stressed that it is also important to reinforce relations with Russia. There can be no stability in Northeast Asia and in a wider sense, in Asia as a whole unless and until a Japanese-Russian Peace Treaty will be signed. Elevating Japanese-Russian relations to a de-facto new level and signing at the earliest opportunity a peace treaty resolving the territorial issue between the two countries will generate a geopolitical changes that will also lead to a solution of the North Korean issue and the problems of Japanese-Chinese relations.

(October 2006 Contribution)