It is almost certain that President Park Geun-hye will hold a summit with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Seoul in about two weeks’ time. It would be the first one-on-on talks between the two leaders since Abe took office in 2012.
The strongest indication came from none other than Park, who had refused to meet Abe over his revisionist stance on Japan’s military sex slavery. During a trip to Washington, Park said there could be an opportunity for her to hold summit talks with Abe when she hosts the Korea-China-Japan summit in Seoul.
Despite their need to remain close -- not least in matters related to North Korea -- relations between South Korea and Japan have been at their lowest level in recent years -- to the degree that their leaders have shunned a summit for more than 2 1/2 years -- over Japan’s, more specifically Abe’s, historical revisionism and rightist shift.
Like the Korea-Japan summit, the tripartite talks had been in hiatus since May 2012, mainly due to the deterioration of Japan’s relations with both South Korea and China.
Now that they have agreed to resume the group talks, it would serve no one’s interest if the three leaders getting together in the same place don’t get a chance to hold bilateral talks with each other.
As Park said in Washington, Japan’s position on the sex slavery issue is important “if there could be a meaningful summit,” and we hope that in Seoul, Abe will address worries about his policy on history and security -- especially the expanded role of its self-defense forces -- in a way to restore its strained relations with both Korea and China.
The tone of Abe’s speeches in Seoul may be presaged by his Defense Minister Gen Nakatani, who will come to Seoul on Tuesday for talks with his Korean counterpart Han Min-koo.
The talks are well-timed, not only because it would serve as a warm-up event for the Park-Abe summit but also because it comes after Japan passed the so-called “collective self-defense” laws in September.
The laws, which allow Japanese forces to fight third countries overseas in case its allies -- like the U.S. -- are under attack, raised concerns among some Koreans -- who are still haunted by the memory of the aggressiveness of imperialist Japan -- that Japanese forces could be involved in a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula.
Given this sentiment, Nakatani should clarify Japan’s positon on the issue and the two ministers should work out concrete guidelines for Japan’s military role in case of contingencies on the peninsula. Abe, of course, should reaffirm them in his talks with Park.
By and large, Japan -- specifically Abe’s rightist expansionism and historical revisionism -- are to primarily blame for the years-long tension between Seoul and Tokyo, but restoration of their relations is long overdue, and the series of upcoming high-level talks in Seoul should provide a breakthrough.
