Home   Education   Events   Library   Lectures   Reviews

Shop   About us   Membership and Support

Japan Society Lectures Upcoming Lectures    and other events Recent Lectures Past Lectures Joint Seminar Series

JAPAN SOCIETY BUSINESS GROUP LUNCHTIME LECTURE "East Asian Community: Its dream and reality" At 12:30 pm On Thursday 22nd February, 2007 At the JETRO office London, UK BY HIROTSUGU KOIKE INTRODUCTION The title of my speech today is "East Asian Community: Its dream and reality." Initially, I thought I should speak mostly about the East Asian community and its implications for the world. But after several important developments in East Asia, and especially on the Korean Peninsula, I realize that I should spare more time to talk about problems in North Korea. Before that, I would like to explain some lessons I learned from my experience as a diplomatic correspondent. They are: that unpredictable things can happen at any time and we should be ready to cope with any kind of event, and that as people's perceptions vary as a result of exaggeration, we should not overreact to some events and should be calm and analyze what has happened with a cool head. As for the first point, let me show you some examples. Do you remember what happened in 1989? I do very clearly, because I was editing reports from overseas correspondents and also writing my own stories from Tokyo. In June was the Tiananmen Square Incident in Beijing; towards the end of the year, there were democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe; the fall of the Berlin wall came at the end of the year, and also the declaration of the end of the Cold War after the summit talks between the US and Soviet Union in Marta. In the following years, we witnessed very dramatic events such as the unification of East and West Germany and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Who could have predicted these events? They were really dramatic and they occurred in just two years! Just before the fall of the Berlin wall, a famous German editor clearly stated that the Berlin wall would never fall in the 20th century and that we wouldn't see unification of East and West Germany until the middle of the 21st century. Of course, you know well what happened in Germany then. This story shows us that even a prominent editor can fail to predict what will happen in the very near future. But we cannot blame him, because almost all people thought and predicted in the same way as he did. In my opinion, the most dramatic and unpredictable event was the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Who on earth thought that the Soviet Union would disappear? Almost no one. But, as far as I know, there was one scholar who predicted this thing would happen. He is Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as a special assistant to US President Jimmy Carter on national security. In his book "The Grand Failure: the Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century." published in 1989, he mentioned that regimes like the Soviet Union could not survive and would collapse sometime in the future. Nevertheless, even he could not have predicted that the communist superpower would disintegrate in 1991. The question is why such things happened. What was the reason why so many so-called specialists could not predict what would occur in the near future? A more recent example is the London bombing in 2005. The British government thought that a terrorist attempt would occur before the general election in May of that year. But nothing happened. And so the security alert level was reduced. In the Intelligence people's analysis there would be less of a security threat after the May election. However, it happened. I remember that on that day, July 7th, a new novel was released in the UK. The title of the book was "Incendiary". It was about massive terrorist suicide bombings in London, as if the novel predicted the July 7th bombing. The imagination of a novelist can be much better than the so-called specialists in predicting the future. Unpredictable things can happen. Specialists fail to predict. I think the reason for this may be that specialists are always pre-occupied with the past. Their predictions of the future are always based on their analysis of past trends. They think about what happened in the past, and that should provide a guide for the future: the Soviet Union seemed so solid they thought that it would never collapse easily; the terrorist bomb in Spain happened before the general election, so in the UK, they thought a terrorist bombing would be less likely to occur after the general election here. They all proved to be wrong. In the case of North Korea, we could say the same thing. Kim Jong Il's regime seems so solid that we think it will never collapse easily, and total war between North and South would cause so many casualties that it could never happen. But it is quite naïve to think in that way. Unpredictable things could happen on the Korean Peninsula. My second point is that sometimes exaggeration can occur. Let me explain. I think that the mass media have a tendency to carry as much content as possible about the latest event. It is quite natural. But in the cases we have limited information, for example TV repeatedly airs one scene. The result is that viewers are left feeling that they have the whole picture of the event, whereas actually they have been given very limited information. The same thing can be said about China. It is true that China is a great power. It is just matter of time until it becomes the largest economy in the world. It poses a threat to the rest of the world. But the size of the economy does not necessarily ensure the strength of the economy. With reference to Japan, some specialists in the US several decades ago predicted that this would be Japan's century and that the Japanese economy was more of a threat than the Soviet Union. There is always exaggeration. NORTH KOREA At the moment, the most important and pressing issue is the North Korea nuclear problem. No one can deny that. It would cause a nuclear arms race in Asia. For China, the problem would be not only a nuclear-armed Japan, but the possibility that neighboring South Korea and even Taiwan would try to develop nuclear arsenals. The latter would make China's very important goal more difficult. It is unification with Taiwan. Moreover, North Korea's nuclear ambition would have an affect on the international philosophy of non-nuclear proliferation. I think that it would be wrong to say that a nuclear Iran is an international issue and a nuclear North Korea is a regional issue. A nuclear North Korea should be also viewed as an international issue. Nowadays people are talking about the East Asian Community, which is a kind of goal and dream for Asian people. Can we have an EU-type community or economic integration similar to that in North America? However, I think that unless we solve the North Korean nuclear problem, any dream of community in East Asia is pie in the sky. On the North Korean issue, we have witnessed a chain of repetitious confrontations and negotiations between North Korea and other major countries. The situation has been unpredictable. But, one thing is quite clear. That is North Korea's very strong will to develop and possess a nuclear arsenal. North Korea conducted nuclear testing last October and publicly announced that they were a nuclear power. Although the so-called six party talks between North and South Korea, the US, China, Russia and Japan have produced an agreement in which North Korea will get food and fuel aid in exchange for its commitment to close its main nuclear reactor, it is still unclear whether or not this agreement is implemented as we expect. Some people point out problems with the agreement. First of all, what North Korea promised was just to shut down and seal its main nuclear reactor, not to abandon nor dismantle it. Secondly, the agreement does not mention other nuclear facilities and nuclear arsenals which North Korea has declared it possesses. Some critics argue that it is "too little, too late". Why is North Korea so eager to possess a nuclear arsenal? Let me show you some slides. One is half of the globe. You can see the UK on the far left. The second is North East Asia centering on the Korean Peninsula and Japan. If you reverse this map, you can get the third slide. This is what is known as a "reverse map." If you think of the location of North Korea using the third map, you may realize some facts which we cannot notice on the normal map. For example, for North Korea there seems to be no way to the Pacific Ocean because Japan is blocking the route. From behind, it is surrounded by the huge territories of China and Russia. It is as if North Korea is contained by major powers. China and Russia are nuclear powers, and Japan and South Korea are allies of the United States which has a huge nuclear arsenal and military bases positioned within the territories of these two allies. It is often wise to think from the other's position. This is true in the case of the North Korean issue. What can we see if we take North Korea's position? Above all, the most important thing for North Korea is survival and assurance of her security. As I mentioned earlier, the country is surrounded by major nuclear powers and their allies and lags far behind South Korea in conventional arms strength. It would not be surprising if North Korea thought there would be no other way to assure her security than to possess a nuclear arsenal. Without it, North Korea would be merely one of the developing countries. No major power cares about that kind of country. In other words, a nuclear weapon is a matter of survival. North Korea will not abandon its plans unless a dramatic event favoring them occurred. I think that the Iraq war taught North Korea an important lesson. Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State of the US, argued this in an interview with The Financial Times on Oct. 10, 2006: "The message out of Iraq is that if you don't have nuclear weapons you get invaded, if you have nuclear weapons, you don't get invaded." Of course, North Korea's nuclear weapons pose a serious threat for neighboring Japan. We really hope that North Korea will abandon them. Above all Japan, the only country which has suffered the effects of the atomic bomb, strongly opposes North Korea's nuclear weapons. Having said that, there are still some questions remaining: What is the logical reason why North Korea cannot possess nuclear weapons? If North Korea argues that preventing it from possessing them would be unfair when US, Russia, China, and even Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, how can we persuade it not to possess them? I think that we need to think about the inequality of nuclear possession. Hans Blix, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), mentioned that the double standard of the US and China whereby only themselves and some countries can have nuclear weapons but others cannot, cannot be justified. The prominent columnist William Pfaff wrote in the International Herald Tribune on Oct. 17, 2006, that: "A system that allows only the original five nuclear powers to possess these arms cannot last … A complete breakdown is likely so long as the five governments recognized in 1968 as legitimate possessors of nuclear weapons do not honor their commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to reduce and eventually eliminate their own nuclear arsenals." The philosophy of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is that we should not increase, but decrease them. It means that we allow no new nuclear powers, and at the same time all existing nuclear powers proceed with nuclear arms reduction. It would be selfish for a nuclear power to forbid another country to have nuclear weapons without any effort of arms reduction. If you argue that this is to prevent any "rogue state" getting hold of nuclear weapons, this would be very dangerous as who can decide which country is rogue, and how? If you think about the security threat, Pakistan's nuclear weapons could be very dangerous because there is a possibility that radical fundamentalists could take over the government in the future. In that case, nuclear weapons might be delivered to terrorist groups. If the US labels North Korea a "rogue state," the US should be criticized as a "rogue superpower," because it invaded Iraq and toppled its government based on the assertion that it had weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. Let me repeat. It would be difficult to persuade North Korea to abandon nuclear weapons unless the survival of the current regime was assured, and all nuclear powers made a sincere effort towards nuclear arms reduction. Overall, what action the US takes will be very important. I think that it wouldn't be wise to employ a confrontational stance toward North Korea. There is a tendency for the Bush administration to take a tough stance toward North Korea and in so doing try to gain more support from the public. Possibly, this is because this administration thinks that the previous Clinton administration had problems with appeasement. However, it would not be smart to call North Korea and its leader "rogue" when trying to negotiate to assure North Korea's security. If you think someone is rogue, you'd better not call them "rogue". The guy who is labeled a "rogue" would become more and more uncooperative. I think that it was wrong for President Bush to call North Korea, together with Iran and Iraq, the "axis of evil" in his State of Union address in January 2002. There are not a few among foreign policy analysts who have pointed out Bush's failure in his policy towards North Korea. For example, Rebecca Johnson, head of British think tank The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, told the Asahi newspaper that North Korea has become more concerned about its security since being called part of the "axis of evil". According to North Korea, there is only one way to avoid US aggression, and that is possession of nuclear weapons. What North Korea is afraid of is the United States. Therefore, it is most important that it receives assurance of its security from the US. For that purpose, the direct talks with the US are important for North Korea. Currently, the US seems more flexible about the direct talks with North Korea. The first meeting between the top negotiators of the two countries outside of China, which chairs the so-called six party talks, was held in Berlin last month. It would be important to have a full range of direct negotiations between the US and North Korea. As former Secretary of State, James Baker once said: "It's not appeasement to talk to your enemy." Let us think about possible future outcomes of the situation of North Korea. Many analysts and specialists have had discussions about it. I think there are 3 possible scenarios that could arise. They are soft landing, hard landing, and a continuation of the Kim regime with nuclear weapons. In the soft landing scenario, North Korea abandons nuclear weapons and pursues reform and an open policy, and is peacefully unified with the South. This scenario can be called "Libya-type", because North Korea abandons its nuclear weapons programme. It would also be called "German type", because it involves peaceful unification with an erstwhile opponent. In the hard landing scenario, the North Korean regime is made to collapse violently and reform and open-minded forces take power. This can be called "Romania type". It could be caused by a coup or an attack by an outside force. There may be a lot of refugees flowing to neighboring countries. In the third scenario, negotiations stall, and then North Korea concentrates on the development of its nuclear weapons. In this third scenario there might be some possibility that North Korea would attempt to overtake South Korea leading to total war on the Korean Peninsula. Of course, the soft landing scenario is considered the best for the whole region and the world. However, no one is certain if this scenario could be accomplished. I am concerned that any accidental event could cause a much bigger conflict, and even war. If you look closely at the Korean Peninsula, you may be surprised that a huge military arsenal is concentrated on the border between the two countries. The more troubling scenario would be that there may be no over-reaching authority in that area so that any conflict situation could not be controlled. We should be aware that a fourth scenario has been talked about wherein Kim Jong Il resigns. In this scenario, the role played by China is very important. It may be true that China's leaders have become frustrated by North Korean Leaders. If this trend continues, there might be some possibility that China will attempt to change the leadership in North Korea. Some analysts recommend that we should have a choice that although we pursue the soft landing scenario, we also consider the situation wherein Kim Jong Il resigns but the party remains in power. In this context, China holds the key. Let me touch upon a few remaining issues such as Japan and China. JAPAN First of all, I would like to talk about Japan. 5 months have passed since Mr. Abe came to power. Right after the inauguration, I was asked to participate in a program for BBC 4. I was a bit surprised when I learned that the place for the recording was to be the War Museum. I understood the program-makers' intention. They viewed the Abe administration as a symbol of some kind of emerging nationalism in Japan. In the TV program, I tried very hard to explain that there was not any growing nationalism or militarism in Japan. It is true that Abe is trying to change the Japanese constitution and he is quite positive in his attitude towards collective defense. Possibly, because he is proposing educational reform, he has appeared rather rightist. However, I am sure that no one believes in any resurgence of Japan's militarism. It is natural to think that we need to reform the social system including education if we think it is important to participate in solving international issues. We can say the same thing about Japanese nuclear policy. There may have been misunderstandings after a few Japanese politicians suggested that Japan should discuss the possibility of possession of nuclear weapons. I don't think that Japan will be armed with nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Abe clearly mentioned that Japan has no intention to develop nuclear weapons. People in Japan know that if Japan tries to do this, that decision would distort the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons movement. Especially, Japanese people are very sensitive about nuclear issues, because Japan is the only country to have been attacked by nuclear weapons. As for the assessment of Prime Minister Abe or the Abe administration, it is appreciated that right after the inauguration Abe visited China first, in order to improve the bilateral relationship with that country. Both countries agreed on a mutually beneficial relationship on common strategic interests. But apart from dramatic diplomacy, this administration has had a lot of problems, such as the resignation of the chairman of the government's tax commission and Administrative Reform Minister Genichiro Sata, a retreat from structural reform, provocative comments by key ministers and so on. Opposition parties argue that the Abe administration is going to end. The support rate has been declining. According to the Asahi newspaper survey, public support for Abe Cabinet has fallen to 37%, the lowest since he took office. I think that no one could have done better than Abe, though. We should remember what was said about the leading Liberal Democratic Party by the public. The economy was at its worst after the collapse of the bubble and there were a lot of scandals. After the end of the Cold War, people were becoming doubtful about the security treaty with the US as well as the LDP which has supported it. I think that former PM Koizumi's role was the survival of the LDP. He was viewed as a new type of leader. It was one of the reasons why people supported him and why the LDP survived in the end. However, we shouldn't misunderstand. He is really a traditional LDP member with more than 30 years experience in the Diet. His strength is not in his image but in his skill as a politician. One of the reasons why Abe cannot exert his leadership is simply his lack of experience. CHINA Let me say something about China. It is desirable for us that China rises peacefully as its leaders also argue. It is quite natural that a country which has a population of 1.3 billion people will become the biggest economy in the world. Its prosperity will bring a lot of opportunities to the whole world. On the contrary, if this huge country were to be in turmoil, it would bring big problems for the region and the world. I remember that the late Deng Xiaoping once said that there would be a huge flood of refugees from China to neighboring countries including Japan. When I was in Washington, D.C. in the early 90s, the perception of China was very different. I remember that a special report titled "China in the near term~1994 Summer Study for under Secretary of Defense" was released while I was in Washington. According to this report, there was a 50% chance of disintegration of the country. That was just 13 years ago. There are several possible scenarios with regard to China's future. Of course, a steadily and peacefully rising China is desirable for all of us. But, as the case of Germany in the 19th century has shown, a newly emerging power can destabilize a region. Care is needed in managing this transition. Above all, the relation between the two big powers, China and Japan should be managed very carefully. For these two countries, it is important to pay proper respect and help each other. EAST ASIAN COMMUNITY On the title "East Asian Community: its dream and reality", I think I have talked too much about the reality. Because of the North Korean issue? Probably so. Just one thing I would like to mention about the East Asian community is that it should be open and its purpose should be to enhance mutual trust among the countries. If you view the community as a tool to counter regionalism in Europe and the Americas, it would lead to regional blocs as we have learned from the 1930s. I believe that the community should be viewed and used as an instrument to eliminate regional confrontations. I also think that the community should be integrated into the world community. Fig. 13

Home    Events    Library    Lectures

About us    Membership and Support

©The Japan Society, Swire House, 59 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6AJ e-mail: info@japansociety.org.uk, Tel: (020) 7828 6330, Fax: (020) 7828 6331 Registered charity 1063952