Japan-Korea Relations and Comfort Women

(Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty Images)

I have an unfinished blog post discussing Brad Glosserman and Scott Snyder's recent book, The Japan-South Korea Identity Clash. Unfortunately, I can't resurrect it at the moment because its on my old laptop.

Anyway, in light of last month's comfort women "resolution" I'm putting links to two good articles assessing where things stand at the moment. The first appears in CFR's Asia Unbound blog where Scott Snyder commends President Park and Prime Minister Abe's "act of political leadership and statesmanship" but then lays out challenges for both governments in maintaining forward momentum. The biggest and most immediate challenge related to satisfying the comfort women themselves, who were shut-out of the process (for not entirely bad reasons contrary to what activists might claim) and the removal of the comfort woman statue in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. The second is from Celeste Arrington who highlights the perspective of the comfort women and their advocacy movement since the 1990s, shedding additional insight on the challenge in satisfying victims' grievances.

Revisiting Jeju Anti-Base Protests

I'm making a return to my blog after a long absence...

Exactly 3 years ago I was on Jeju Island doing research on anti-base protests against the construction of the South Korean naval base. The paper I’ve written has gone through the grinder at several journals. I agree with much of what critics have to say, and most reviews do mention that I do have a potential argument worth making. I just haven’t figured out a good way to deliver it in 10,000 words or less. I’m using this blog post as a warm-up exercise to retool the article for a non-IR/poli-sci journal.

It’s no surprise that peace activists and national security/foreign policy government officials often clash on a number of issues. But little understood is how or why such differences occur – especially when both sides profess to make claims advancing peace and security. Usually differences are attributed to different political ideologies wrapped around labels such as progressive and conservative.  

Moving beyond such obvious labels, I examine discourse and text to help us understand why activists and policymakers in South Korea came to major blows (literally) regarding the construction of a naval base designed to protect South Koreans. While many reasons exist in favor of or against the naval base – the claims made by local and transnational activists on one hand and ROK government and military officials on the other align fairly neatly along two dimensions. The first is based purely on arguments based on the logic of “realism.”  Bases (as an element of power) are either a source of security or insecurity depending on whether one sees bases as defending the national interest or provoking China and other countries in the region. The government claims the former, activists claim the latter logic. The second dimension focuses on the primary referent of security: states or people. Government focus on the state; activists focus on individual lives at the very local level.

Activists and government officials tend to carry different assumptions regarding international politics. Based on these two dimensions, we can see how far they might diverge on their views about Jeju naval base construction. The figures below (click to enlarge) are ideal types, but you get the picture how, why, peace activists and government diverge sharply in their views about peace and security.

Figure 1: Coding scheme mapping realist and critical worldviews