Japan has conveyed to the United States its objection to President Donald Trump's idea of adding South Korea to the Group of Seven summit, saying Seoul is not in lockstep with G-7 members on China and North Korean issues, diplomatic sources said Saturday.
Japan conveys objection to Trump's plan to add South Korea to G-7
KYODO NEWS - 6.28.2020
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/06/f4cef06fe71f-japan-conveys-objection-to-trumps-plan-to-add-s-korea-to-g-7.html
Abe's popularity is dropping in Japan as the country is suffering from the world wide impact of the pandemic. But Japanese suppliers to S.Korea's semiconductor industry are also suffering as Japan shot itself in the foot by taking S.Korea off its so called "white list" of preferred trading partners. After taking measures to reassure Japan that there were no security risks in supplying those raw materials, the Japanese government has not responded, and South Korea has renewed its lawsuit against Japan at the WTO for unfair trade practices. Japan has been unresponsive on trade issues, because the actions were taken as retaliation against Seoul for court decisions in private lawsuits against Japanese corporations for the exploitation of Korean workers during WWII as slave labor.
The US has said it is neutral in that "trade" dispute and it is for Japan and S.Korea to resolve between themselves. Japanese producers of semiconductor raw materials have probably permanently lost a substantial percentage of the S.Korean semiconductor manufacturing market as S.Korea has developed alternative sources of materials. In addition, the dispute aggravated the old resentments of Japanese colonial exploitation of Korea and resulted in a boycott of Japanese goods by South Korean consumers which hurt Japanese automakers and beer exporters in particular, among others. S.Korean tourism of Japan had already fallen off by about 40 percent before the pandemic. Japanese attempts to coerce South Korea are counterproductive and cannot succeed unless South Korea returns to its prior status as an authoritarian government that can force the pro-Japanese outlook on an unreceptive public.
The Japanese framing of the G-7 membership in terms of a block of countries opposed to China is likely to receive a warm welcome among the usual interests aligned against China, but not so much in South Korea, except among the discredited right wing. The ultra conservative Mirae Tonghap Dang, is still in the process of free fall in South Korea, after its farcical and extremist actions running up to its significant losses in the April 15 elections. Ironically, the abbreviated term for the party Mi Tong Dang is appropriate as the conservatives are totally aligned with US policy without reservation, unlike its more embarrassing historical relationship to Japan. A new US deputy secretary of state, Keith Krach, recently made the mistake of characterizing the rapproachement between China and Moon Jae-in, after the disastrous move of installing THAAD at one location in South Korea, as being the result of US steadfast support for the ROK-US alliance.* This is preposterous. The result was obtained by Moon Jae-in assuring the Chinese there would be no further installations of THAAD missile batteries on the peninsula, that South Korea would not integrate its missile defense capabilities with the US, and that it would not join the US and Japan, in an alliance against China. This same under secretary said that South Korean participation in a multinational economic arrangement Economic Prosperity Network which is aimed at disrupting Chinese based supply lines, would not foreclose their trade relations with China. Does anyone see a credibility problem here?
* VOA 뉴스] “한국은 ‘중국 보복’ 대표적 피해국” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbNzlJhF_YM
There has been a lot of discussion on VOA Korea and elsewhere in the US East Asia policy echo chamber about the purported benefits of having the so called "working group" dominate South Korean policy initiatives toward North Korea. The working group is viewed warily by the South Korean administration. It is viewed, correctly one might add, as a semi-colonial vestige, akin to the Japanese protectorate, attempting to dominate and thwart South Korean initiatives. One might consider the oppressive nature of the "working group" on South Korea as akin to an "I can't breathe" problem. Pompeo and Biegun prefer to use the "no daylight" metaphor, rather than no air. On a daily basis, US Asian policy "experts," advise South Korea to join the "strategic alliance" with Japan, the US and others in the Indo-Pacific aimed at China. Why should they? This isn't in South Korean interests, nor is it in keeping with Korean policy historically. As Jeong Se-hyun, the former South Korean Unification Minister has pointed out, the US establishment in the Defense Department and war industries, have no interest at all in a negotiated agreement with North Korea or they risk losing their lucrative sinecures, bases and markets in Japan and South Korea. Their view is that the South Korean and North Korea interest in a step by step approach to denuclearization, an end to the Korean conflict, and normalization of relations, reflects an essentially an unrealistic and "naive" perspective of what is possible on the peninsula. But the US and Japanese approaches represent the legacy of the nineteeth and early twentieth century policies of overtly imperialist states, ,such as, one may dare to say if they knew, the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and Japan. Allowing Korea some breathing space in terms of sovereignty and national autonomy is just not one of the concerns of the US, UK, France and Japan, and historically, despite protests and arguments to the contrary, never has been.
Today on VOA's Washington Talk show, Defense expert Bruce Bennett from Rand, appeared to be gleeful that it appears there isn't enough to eat in Pyongyang. He also expressed the notion that it was North Korea that wasn't adhering to the principles agreed to at Singapore, rather than the US. In terms of maximum pressure, the US consistently adheres to the hostile all or nothing "Libyan model," lauded by John Bolton. Any easing of sanctions as a trust building measure in a step by step approach to negotiations, as recommended by South Korea, was described absurdly in a recent piece by Victor Cha, as "extremism." So it's not the US hardline maximum pressure "one bundle- all or nothiong," approach which even the South Korean administration finds unworkable that is extreme, it is the desire to engage in the give and take of reciprocal trust building measures which allegedly is a threat to US national security. This is a hostile approach which seeks capitulation rather than negotiation.
