Newsletter

Transnational economic and political communities are the trend these days. Northeast Asia, too, is in active pursuit of a "Northeast Asian community." However, it has a long way to go to catch up with the European Union (EU) or even the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). We ask Judge Yanai Shunji of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), who visited the Foundation to deliver a lecture on "The Implications and Tasks Concerning the Formation of a Northeast Asian Community," for his advice on the Northeast Asian Community.

Q. Tell us about your ties to Korea

I first visited Korea in 1968 to negotiate a tax treaty. Korea was in a state of chaos back then, still reeling from the pain and devastation of the Korean War. In every subsequent visit thereafter, I witnessed Korea's astonishing growth and development. I developed an even greater interest in Korea through my Korean friends I met while I was studying in France. I also learned Korean when I worked at the Embassy of Japan in Korea from 1981 to 1984.

Q. You presented a lecture entitled "The Implications and Tasks Concerning the Formation of a Northeast Asian Community." From the lecture, it seemed as though you were doubtful of the creation of a Northeast Asian community at this point in time?

Not necessarily. I find the ideal itself excellent. However, I don't think it is feasible for something like the EU to form in Northeast Asia within the near future. The EU is a transnational community wherein the member nations have relinquished their respective sovereignty in certain areas to the EU. As for the countries in Northeast Asia, it is highly unlikely that they will agree to even a partial transfer of their sovereignty at this point in time. Even ASEAN has not been able to make any progress on that front nor has it been able to create a common external tariff even though regional cooperation has grown in terms of tariffs (cuts or eliminations thereof), import liberalization, investment, and many other areas. Thus, my message is that it is important to face realities, not just blindly pursue ideals.

Q. In the lecture, you talked about the four prerequisites of a regional community. Asia falls short. Does this mean that the possibility of an East Asian or Northeast Asian community is very remote?

There are four preconditions to the creation of a regional community. First, all countries in the region must be liberal and democratic. Second, there must not be extreme disparities in terms of the size of the potential member nations. Third, there must not be a substantial imbalance in terms of the potential member nations' stage of economic and social development. Fourth, there must not be any acute religious confrontations or fundamental hostilities between the potential member nations.

It must be noted, however, that these are not absolute conditions. There is one crucial condition, in particular, on which Northeast Asia falls short. The region is embroiled in multiple and fundamental conflicts. The North-South confrontation on the Korean peninsula and the standoff between China and Taiwan, for instance, go against an essential precondition for a Northeast Asian community. I don't think we should ignore these conflicts. Hence, I want to argue that for the time being, it is overly ambitious for Northeast Asia to have its sights set on a European-style regional community. I recommend trust building as Northeast Asia's first objective. To realize this goal, the countries in the region should engage in continued and steadfast efforts at intergovernmental cooperation, private exchanges, and regional cooperation.

Q. Although this is a matter of the distant future, what should Korea and Japan do to bring a Northeast Asian community to reality?

Korea and Japan actually share many similarities. The only countries in Northeast Asian that fulfill the four prerequisites listed above are Korea and Japan. North Korea cannot be deemed a democratic state. Although China has realized economic liberalization, political liberalization has not followed suit.

Korea and Japan, which have so much in common, have cooperated on many fronts, and I believe such cooperation should continue into the future. The only sticking point is the issue of history, which in my view, requires gradual and sensitive mutual adjustments. Korea and Japan should maintain their cooperative relations, but with Koreans adopting a more forward-looking stance and with the Japanese developing a greater interest in history.

Q. Korea and Japan have maintained relatively favorable relations of cooperation since the establishment of diplomatic ties. Nevertheless, tension escalates whenever historical issues?e.g. Yasukuni Shrine, Dokdo, etc.?flare up. As a former diplomat, you were at the frontline of the unfolding of these crises. What were you thoughts?

Every time a historical issue blew over, it was very hairy and difficult. However, historical issues were but one aspect of Korea-Japan relations. As a matter of fact, I would say that 99% of time, the two countries maintained amicable relations. Moreover, even when sensitive historical issues did flare up, economic and person-to-person exchanges continued. Therefore, it is important to look at the bilateral relations from a national perspective. Regarding this perspective, it appeared as though Koreans had a peculiar tendency of looking at the world through Japan. Koreans should think of Japan as a part of the world and view Korea-Japan relations in the larger international context. For instance, the colonization of Korea could be considered within the larger global context of great power rivalry and international relations.

Q. Your views on some historical issues between Korea and Japan are different from those of the Foundation. Nevertheless, you agreed to present at lecture at the Foundation. What is the message you would like to relay through your visit to Korea and the Foundation?

Without a doubt, there are differences in opinion between Korea and Japan over historical issues. Be that as it may, I believe in the importance of exchanging differing viewpoints, which is why I accepted the Foundation's invitation without any hesitation. The Dokdo issue, for instance, has long been a source of dispute between Korea and Japan. However, there are many similar territorial disputes around the world. An emotional response to territorial issues only aggravates matters. Reaching a peaceful resolution is vital, and this translates into the rule of law in international society. To this end, it is crucial that Korean and Japanese meet and engage in interpersonal exchanges. I have developed a favorable impression of Korea through the Korean friends I made when I was studying in France, and I, in turn, made them see Japan in a new light. Korea-Japan relations have improved thanks to the encounters, dialogues, and exchanges between the peoples of the two nations. To this day, millions of Koreans and Japanese visit one another's countries and continue to ameliorate Korea-Japan relations.