Asia, China, Government, History, Japan, North Korea, Politics, United Nations, United States

Essay: North Korea’s revenge for Japan’s forced occupation of Korea (pre-1945)

ASIA

THE North Korean regime of Kim Jong-un very deliberately chose Japan for its greatest act of provocation to date.

Crucially, it wanted to demonstrate the vulnerability of America’s key ally in East Asia – though Kim was playing on North Koreans’ savagely bitter memories of Imperial Japan’s 35-year occupation of Korea until 1945.

Japanese was imposed as the only permitted language in schools, but few Koreans were able to master it well enough to get good jobs.

Any new businesses were owned and run by the Japanese. Only a handful of Koreans were allowed to go on to higher education.

The Thirties were the height of Emperor Hirohito’s Great East Asia Co-Prosperity sphere, an initiative that purported to benefit all of East Asia but which, in reality, had the Japanese installed as the master race and ultimate beneficiaries.

Koreans were dragooned for forced labour and to be cannon fodder in Hirohito’s armies, while some 200,000 women were turned into sex slaves.

At that time Japan’s armies occupied a vast swathe of territory from Korea to New Guinea, and the troops needed company on garrison duty.

So-called ‘comfort women’ were provided by their caring imperial government – Korean women who were shipped around Hirohito’s Pacific Empire as well as into occupied China. They were not only degraded into forced prostitution, but faced the risk of being bombed by the Allies when they attacked Japanese bases.

After World War II, the ‘comfort women’ were deplorably treated by their own people.

They were regarded as collaborators and shunned. In North Korea – Korea was divided into North and South in the aftermath of the war – a charge of collaboration with the Japanese could mean death.

Imperial Japan neither apologised nor paid compensation. In South Korea today, the legacy of this exploitation is still seen as a humiliation for which Japan has not made amends.

Stoking more than a century of Korean-Japanese antagonism is part of Kim’s plan to split America’s allies. At the same time, he is bolstering his dynasty and ramping up national feeling by reminding North Koreans of the potent myth of his grandfather, Kim Il-sung, as a resistance hero, defying the Japanese.

In response to the North Korean threat, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is trying to push through changes to his country’s post-war ‘pacifist’ constitution which renounces war and ‘the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.’ And while other players in the regions such as South Korea, China and the Philippines don’t like Kim’s aggression either, they have lurking fears of Japanese rearmament.

What is most alarming for Abe is North Korea’s ability to overfly Japan. Japan’s Patriot missile defence didn’t intercept Kim’s rocket – but it was not because Tokyo chose restraint.

It couldn’t have stopped the missile if it wanted to, because it was launched from a new site in North Korea, most likely from a mobile launcher, and in a very unexpected direction.

This brought the issue of Japan acquiring a nuclear deterrent to the fore.

For millions of Japanese, the legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, destroyed by atomic bombs in 1945, is the only argument needed against going nuclear. The Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in 2011 has made even civil nuclear power controversial.

But North Korea’s apparent impunity and America’s dithering have brought out Japanese hawks who say their country must go nuclear. Washington is against such a move, but after events earlier this week Japan can legitimately ask if it can really rely on its ally to deter an attack.

 

JAPAN’S role in the world economy is huge and its forces – for the purposes of self-defence under that post-war constitution – are impressive. Since 1945, it has built up a large army and air force, and one of the biggest navies in the world (although the U.S. has made sure Japan lacks aircraft carriers capable of offensive action).

Given Japan’s mix of high-tech industry and nuclear power stations, it could make a nuclear bomb quickly. But there is another player in the region – China’s reaction to such a development would be off the scale.

In Europe, in the seven decades since the end of World War II, the idea of a war between the old enemies seems incredible. But in East Asia, while American power has kept the peace between Japan and her old foes, the deep-rooted enmity between the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese is never far from the surface. Disputes over sea borders, for instance, are just one symptom of the distrust between these nations.

So, while there is method and history attached to Kim’s madness, it does leave the Japanese government facing a huge dilemma. Whether the U.S. will still be able to bear influence over the direction that Japan’s military will take – in being able to properly defend itself –  is likely to be an issue that will gain increasing traction in the weeks and months ahead.

  • Appendage
Koreas Timeline

Koreas: Historical timeline

Standard
Government, North Korea, Politics, United Nations, United States

A world dangerously close to the brink

NORTH KOREA

North-Korea-missile-663759

North Korea launched a ballistic missile in the Sea of Japan. This may have been from a submarine or from a new land based launch site.

THE world has looked on in horror this week as North Korea fired a missile over Japan. That has spread panic among the 6million population of Hokkaido island and is cranking-up tension to snapping-point.

Not since the Cuban missile crisis has the world seemed as close to the brink of a genocidal nuclear exchange.

The difference is that in that terrifying stand-off of 1962, both John F Kennedy and Russia’s Nikita Khrushchev remained open to reason. For all their bluster, they saw full-scale war as unthinkable, and each was prepared to compromise.

But how confidently can the same be said of the arch protagonists in the Korean crisis?

We should all hope and believe that Donald Trump, though hugely unpredictable, is less reckless than he likes to appear. As leader of the world’s greatest democracy, he is also restrained by the US Constitution and independent-minded advisers.

But this is hardly true of the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un. Surrounded by sycophants too terrified or brainwashed to rein him in, he seems as deranged as he is ruthless.

Indeed, his countless victims include his half-brother, poisoned at Kuala Lumpur airport, and an uncle he blew to shreds with heavy artillery at point-blank range. The fear is that anyone capable of such barbarity may be capable of anything.

But are threats of ‘exterminating’ his regime, and demonstrations of military might, the best way to deal with a madman who seems only to fear losing face?

Or will South Korea’s menaces and bombing exercises, and President Trump’s muscle-flexing, merely heighten Kim’s paranoia and sense of isolation, spurring him to ever wilder acts of lunacy?

One thing seems sure. If the North Korean dictator will listen to anyone, it will be to his neighbours the Chinese, who have everything to fear from war in Korea. The West should be using all its energy and efforts by encouraging Beijing to bring him to reason.

Certainly, Mr Trump should leave him in no doubt that the US will support South Korea to the hilt. But if he wants to be remembered as a statesman, he will tone down the language – and, like Kennedy, work tirelessly to broker peace behind the scenes.

Goading this tyrant with threats of ‘fire and fury’ is surely not the answer. Such language is adding fuel to a fire that could become dangerously out of control. It could even provoke the unthinkable: nuclear war.

Standard
Britain, European Court, European Parliament, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

EU law may have precedence over UK courts for years after Brexit

BREXIT

The position paper was released by David Davis’s Department for Exiting the EU.

The UK Government has denied watering down its Brexit plans as officials have admitted EU judges could have jurisdiction over Britain for years after it leaves the bloc.

The Prime Minister, Theresa May, insisted the UK would ‘take back control’ of its laws, saying: ‘When we leave the EU we will be leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.’

But a position paper published by the Government suggested the ECJ could continue to have control over Scots and English law for up to three years after Britain leaves at the end of March 2019.

That could mean EU judges will continue to pass down rulings on key issues until an independent new body is established to adjudicate on post-Brexit rows over trade or immigration.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory MP for North East Somerset, said: ‘If the ECJ has jurisdiction, you are part of a European superstate. Once you leave, it cannot have jurisdiction – that is the simple test.’

Officials have not been able to rule out the possibility that European judges could still have some influence even after the end of the three-year transition period. They highlighted the fact that trade deals that the EU has reached with other countries including Moldova force them to take account of European law.

Justice minister Dominic Raab admitted the Government would continue to keep ‘half an eye’ on EU laws after Brexit.

The prime minister said that after leaving the EU, ‘Parliament will make our laws – it is British judges who will interpret those laws and it will be the British Supreme Court that will be the arbiter of those laws’.

Mr Rees-Mogg welcomed the fact that the position paper made it clear the UK will eventually leave the influence of the ECJ.

But he added: ‘I would oppose the continuation of ECJ jurisdiction from the moment we leave the EU. If it continues beyond that, it is a problem. Once the European Communities Act is repealed, there will be no legal basis for ECJ jurisdiction.’

The position paper released by David Davis’s Department for Exiting the EU ruled out any ‘direct’ ECJ jurisdiction over Scots and English law after Brexit. It said legal disputes involving individuals and businesses should in future be decided in the UK judicial system, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter.

It added a new dispute resolution mechanism – which could involve a joint committee or arbitration panel – will have to be created to deal with disagreements over the interpretation and application of the Brexit deal.

But it did not rule out the ECJ maintaining its authority during the transitional period, expected to last a number of years after the March 2019 deadline for Brexit, saying only that Britain will ‘work with the EU’ on the design of interim judicial arrangements.

It set out a range of existing arrangements involving the ECJ that could act as possible models for the new mechanism. These include the EU’s agreement with European Free Trade Association states such as Norway and Iceland and a treaty with Moldova.

Norway has its own EFTA Court to rule on disputes with the EU but it has to ‘pay due account’ to all relevant ECJ decisions.

The EU-Moldova agreement requires that, where a trade dispute concerns an interpretation of EU law, an arbitration panel must refer the question to the ECJ and be ‘bound by its interpretation’.

The Government document makes it clear that Britain is not committed to following any of the existing models, but it does not explicitly rule out any scenario other than direct ECJ jurisdiction.

The main job of a resolution body would be to adjudicate on disputes between the EU and the UK on how a trade deal will operate. It could also have to pass judgment on immigration matters.

Remain-backing groups accused the Government of a climbdown for saying there would be no ‘direct’ jurisdiction of the ECJ compared with its previous position of no jurisdiction whatsoever.

UK officials said that Britain would seek ‘legal autonomy’ but that the remaining power of the ECJ to rule on UK matters depended on the ‘scope’ of the transition period, which could last until 2022.

. More on Brexit UK Government threatens to get tough if Brussels bars trade deal

Standard