South Korea-Japan military alliance seeks another “NATO” in East Asia

By Karen Yamanaka 

July 5, 2022 — Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal reposted from International Viewpoint. Edited for clarity — South Korean foreign minister Park Jin expressed his hope of normalizing the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) between his country and Japan at a joint press conference with US top diplomat Antony Blinken on 13 June.[1]

The GSOMIA, which was signed in November 2016, is the first bilateral military intelligence-sharing agreement between Japan and South Korea. It went through a shaky period under former South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who in 2019 expressed his desire to scrap the GSOMIA as retaliation against Japan’s restricted export of high-tech materials. Tensions between the two countries already existed due to various historical grievances concerning Japan’s past occupation of the Korean peninsula. But soon after that, Moon Jae-in temporarily extended the GSOMIA, reversing his earlier decision.[2]

The GSOMIA symbolizes a normalization of diplomatic relations, without recognition of Japan’s colonial rule and the contradictions caused by past colonial rule for US-Japan and US-South Korea alliances. The US established alliances to block the Soviet Union in Northeast Asia, such as the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951 and the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and South Korea in 1965. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the alliances were maintained, now with the purpose of “blocking China”. During this time, several North Korean nuclear and ballistic missile tests have been conducted. While the multilateral alliances remain in place, the nature of the ethno-nationalist North Korean regime may be a factor fueling continuing escalation in the ceasefire area. Past South Korean presidents since 1965, including former President Moon Jae-in, never confronted the fundamental contradictions of the military alliances formed in 1951 and 1965.

In recent years, the alliances have remained closely linked to the US’s “blocking China” strategy and Japan’s “war-capable nation” strategy. The alliances have not only contributed to strengthening the role of the United Nations Command (UNC) but also reduced US military costs in order to make preparations for an “East Asian NATO” that can block China by utilizing the multilateral military system: the UN Army. Meanwhile, political conflicts between Japan and South Korea at the government level remain unsolved and sometimes constitute an obstacle to appeal to popular mobilizations of solidarity in the area.

Strong opposition to GSOMIA

Under the Lee Myung-bak administration, South Korea conducted secret negotiations to conclude the GSOMIA. In June 2012, just before the treaty was concluded, strong opposition raged in South Korea. As a result, South Korea requested that the signing of the treaty be postponed. The postponed treaty was signed privately at the Korean Ministry of National Defense in Seoul in November 2016, with the approval of then-President Park Geun-hye. However, soon after, the conflict between South Korea and Japan reached its peak due to historical issues between the two countries, such as inappropriate compensation for former comfort women and compensations for the families of South Koreans who were unfairly treated and illegally forced to supply labor during World War II.

Relations between two countries’ deteriorated in late 2018, after the Supreme Court of South Korea and other courts issued rulings that ordered several Japanese companies to pay compensations to bereaved families. In this situation, the Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute was followed by a large political dispute between Japan and South Korea.[3] South Korea decided to terminate the GSOMIA as retaliation against Japan’s restricted export of high-tech materials and the removal of South Korea from its export “whitelist”. But after three months, South Korea reversed its decision to end the agreement. As a result, the agreement was only temporarily terminated.

Contradictions between the 1951 and 1965 treaties and the South Korean Supreme Court rulings

Different historical perspectives have caused chronic conflicts for many years between Japan and South Korea. Despite this political dispute remaining unresolved, South Korean President Yun Seok-yeol, who took office in May, is trying to revive the GSOMIA. The root causes of the conflicts lie in the Treaty of San Francisco and the Treaty on Basic Relations. In 2018, the South Korean Supreme Court accepted the illegality of past Japanese colonial rule. But Japan claims that the right to claim damages was lost under a 1965 claims settlement agreement signed alongside the Treaty on Basic Relations normalizing ties between the two countries. The Treaty of San Francisco is the basis for the Treaty on Basic Relations, which the Japanese government has used as a justification for colonial rule over the Korean Peninsula in the past. The Treaty of San Francisco was a treaty between Japan and the Allies of World War II, including the US. Under the treaty, Japan was solely responsible for World War II and granted an exemption for colonial rule over the Korean Peninsula. The Korean Peninsula was not annexed by colonial rule, but was “legally annexed and separated again and became independent” by Japan.

When the treaty was signed, the South Korean government, a victim of colonial rule, was not allowed to attend the meeting. As a result, South Korea was deprived of the right to claim colonial responsibility and compensation against Japan. The Treaty on Basic Relations, which was signed under the Park Chung-hee administration after the Treaty of San Francisco, also did not clearly define Japanese colonial rule. The Treaty on Basic Relations does not state Japanese colonial rule, and the annex treaty does not specify compensation for Japanese colonial rule. The contradiction in the Treaty on Basic Relations, arising from the problems in the Treaty of San Francisco, is the backdrop for the political conflict that exists today between Japan and South Korea. 

The treaties of 1951 and 1965 stand in contradiction with the South Korean Supreme Court ruling in 2018 on Japan’s postwar compensation, filed by victims of Japanese imperial colonial rule. This contradiction was also the result of solidarity between the victims of colonial rule and the South Korean population.

Pro-capitalist policies of Moon Jae-in administration

Former “democratic” President Moon Jae-in, who was inaugurated after the “candle light revolution”, did not confront the fundamental contradictions of the US-led alliances of 1951 and 1965. He failed to establish an equitable partnership with the victims of colonial rule. Amid intensifying tensions on the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia under the US-China hegemony, Moon Jae-in temporarily declared the termination of the GSOMIA. But he did not want to dispose of the US-Japan and US-South Korea alliances. He sought to stoke nationalism in South Korea under the pretext of national interests and provoked economic retaliation against Japan, while imposing pro-capitalist policies such as extended working hours. He merely used the GSOMIA as a diplomatic card against Japan’s economic retaliation alongside his pro-capitalist policies. The bilateral military intelligence-sharing pact was later maintained in an unstable manner under the administration.

Moon Jae-in’s mediation proposal for South Korea’s Supreme Court ruling on Japan’s postwar compensation in 2018 did not presuppose Japan’s colonial rule. It was a major setback for the Korean popular movement. Current president Yun Seok-yeol has restored a close US-Korea alliance in a joint statement after President Joseph Biden’s visit to Korea in June this year.[4] He is seeking the normalization of the GSOMIA and has also not confronted the fundamental contradictions of multilateral alliances.

Break up the US-Japan and US-South Korea alliances

The fundamental contradictions of the multilateral military alliances formed in 1951 and 1965 were visualized by the victims of past Japanese colonial rule and the South Korean population in solidarity with them. The contradictions created by US-led non-peaceful and non-democratic alliances left the victims of colonial anti-humanitarian torts behind. The Supreme Court ruling on Japan’s postwar compensation was the result of the people’s struggle since the 1990s for comfort women and South Koreans who were unfairly treated and illegally forced to supply labor for the Second World War.

The conflict between Japan and South Korea is a visualized crack caused by US-led multilateral alliances that ignore past Japanese colonial rule. The pro-capitalist policy aimed at South Korean workers was promoted in the context of the “war-able nation” strategy of the right wing in Japan that is linked to the “global comprehensive strategic alliance” led by the United States and the nationalism policy led by the South Korean government. Maintenance of the US-Japan and US-South Korea alliances that seek to block China and the US-led alliance enhancement strategy were promoted at the same time. Therefore, in order to resolve the conflict between Japan and South Korea today, we must go beyond the bilateral issues of Japan and South Korea and look at it from the perspective of Northeast Asia as a third country.

Against the backdrop of NATO and other overwhelmingly dominant forces in the world, the US is enthusiastic about building an “East Asian NATO” as part of expanding its territory since the 19th century.[5] From the beginning, the US-led alliances have been designed to tie East Asian countries to the US diplomatic, military and political leadership. The US and some Asian countries were also involved in suppressing anti-colonial mobilization.

Tensions and political instability in the East Asia/Asia-Pacific area are also related to the continued escalation in Ukraine. We must shatter the non-peaceful and non-popular cracked alliances which have fueled the vicious spiral of militarization and nuclear escalation in the areas. To that end, the Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of Korea that brought about the continued stationing of the United States Forces Korea (USFK) in South Korea should be abolished. And GSOMIA, which is the core of the US-Japan and US-South Korea alliances, must also be abolished. To clean up the contradictions of the US-Japan and US-South Korea alliances, we must aim to achieve the following: closure of all US military bases in East Asia; withdrawal of foreign forces and maintenance of military neutrality; complete dissolution of the US-Japan and US-South Korea alliances; establishment of a nuclear free zone in East Asia to block the spiral of tensions and escalation; elimination of the nationalist hysteria pushed by reactionary forces; and build international solidarity through support for self-determination. These are the missions of revolutionary, pacifist, and democratic forces in the area.

Karen Yamanaka is a member of the Japanese section of the Fourth International.

Notes

[1] U.S. Department of State, 13 June 2022, “Secretary Antony J. Blinken And Republic of Korea Foreign Minister Park Jin At a Joint Press Availability”.

[2]The agreement is automatically renewed unless either of the countries terminates it.

[3] The dispute, which occurred in December 2018, was caused by an incident between a Japanese aircraft of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) and a South Korean vessel of the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN). No weapons were used by either side, but the incident caused a large diplomatic dispute between Japan and South Korea.

[4] President Joseph Biden met with top conglomerates Samsung and Hyundai (known in South Korea as chaebol) during his visit to South Korea in June this year. It is unusual for the US president to meet individually with the top executives of a foreign company when traveling abroad.

[5] On June 29, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean President Yun Seok-yeol joined the 2022 NATO Madrid summit for the first time. The two-day summit adopted a new strategic concept that mentioned China for the first time. NATO invited the leaders of the countries, which the organization views as its “Asia-Pacific partner countries”. It was also an unprecedented move.