-The International Conference commemorating
the 40th Anniversary of the Normalization ofKorea-Japan Relations-Searching for New Visions forKorea-Japan Relations
andNorth East Asian Cooperation
June 2-4, 2005Seoul
Keynote Speech
New Multilateralism and New Bilateral Relations:Japan-Korea Partnership in Global Problem-Solving
Kuniko INOGUCHI, Ph.D.
Professor of Political Science, Sophia University, Tokyo
Former Ambassador of Japan to the Conference on Disarmament
k-inoguc@sophia.ac.jp

It is indeed my great honor to participate in this important conference, and share with
distinguished Korean colleagues some of my thoughts on our common future. I would
like to take this opportunity to congratulate the able leadership of organizers of thisconference, and express my wholehearted gratitude to the trust and commitment shared by
the organizers of both countries in pursuit of new visions for our bilateral relations.
is living example of a strong and foresighted partnership between Japan and ROK.

(Placing bilateral relations in a multilateral context)

1

This

I would like to start off by stating that in post-Cold War and post-9/11 international
relations today Japan and Korea cannot afford to focus only on bilateral issues. We needto consolidate our capabilities to help provide relevant and focused solutions to regionaland global issues. Our world today still suffers immensely from unstable regional andinternational security situations, and as well as from insufficient achievement in humansecurity dimensions.

The vast majority of humanity has never been free from fear orwant, and while both of our countries have enjoyed high growth and a reduction in therisk of war, millions of people around the world still live in despair of poverty andviolence. As Japan’s ambassador on disarmament issues, I have encountered numerous
instances whereby countries emerging from violent conflict revert to another conflict due
to lack of resources to rebuild a peaceful economy, and due to the proliferation of meansof violence such as small arms and light weapons in post-conflict situations.

It is my wish that in the next 40 years, Japan and Korea will not only prosper in peace but
also seek ways and means to, together, tackle global and multilateral challenges.

Ifexperts of both countries come together to think together as we are doing this morning inSeoul, if entrepreneurs of both countries work together to enhance their corporate social
responsibilities in the region, if law-makers and diplomats of both countries act together
to improve international norms and rules, if NGOs and civil society of both countries
strive together to help implement norm and goals of human society in regions deprived ofhope, and if generations to come in both countries, together, develop mutual trust andfaith in pursuit of a common future, we can make a sea change in our region and beyond.
It is my hope that both Japan and Korea indicate to the rest of the international communitya model of new bilateral relations by placing Japan-Korea bilateral relations in a
multilateral context.

And it is my hope that the accumulation of such proactive,2

cooperative, and open-minded approaches to bilateral relations will help install new
multilateralism as a counter-paradigm of neo-conservatism.

(Shared Bilateral Attributes)

There are many reasons to believe that we would be able to achieve these goals byconsolidating our efforts, since we share so many common attributes.

Both Japan andKorea have highly educated and well-trained populations, since both of our societies haveplaced a high priority on education, partly because both countries have scarce naturalresources.

Also, in overcoming the constraints posed by this scarcity of naturalresources, we have strived to achieve export-led industrialization, which has enabled us toaccomplish a rare success in economic development, now the basis of our national power.

Both Japan and Korea are resilient liberal democracies with political and economic
openness. These are invaluable social values for both countries’ citizens since both of us
know what it is like to live with non-democratic and anti-democratic repressive regimes.
We know about the difficulties of the transition to democracy, and moreover we knowthat we must always guard against setbacks, and that enhancing democratic institutions
and culture is a never-ending mission. We know that there could be several variants ofdemocratic systems according to different cultural constructions of society. Thus, bothof us are in a position to help newly democratizing regions make the successful transition
to democracy without sacrificing cherished indigenous ethnic values.

As for the security environment, we share a complex regional context and difficult
strategic calculations.

One of the tragedies of East Asia is that changes in international

security dynamics usually first take place in the Atlantic community, and arrive East Asia3with a lag in time and with an accelerated gravity. The Cold War started in Europe with
the iron curtain and so forth, but when it penetrated Asia, it exploded into tragic wars in
Korea and Vietnam. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all who suffered in thesewars. Now what about the ending of the Cold War? The Cold War ended in Europe
with the fall of the Berlin Wall and so forth, but East Asia today still suffers from variants
and remnants of Cold War-style tensions. The most recent intensification of mutual
antagonism between the US and the DPRK is but one indicative example. I should also
add that Japan and Russia have not yet been able to resolve confrontations over theNorthern Territory.

(Strong Joint Message)

In view of the new bilateral relations, Japan and Korea could maximize our effort to takecommon diplomatic positions where possible at multilateral negotiations, including theUN and various treaty bodies. We could also jointly design schemes and projects indevelopment assistance, disarmament and non-proliferation, post-conflict reconstruction,
democracy assistance, environmental protection, etc.

We could co-sponsor proposals,resolutions, and recommendations to enhance the establishment and implementation of
new international norms and rules at the frontier of global challenges.

However, the most important joint mission for Japan and Korea, in my view, is to have acommon voice in order to mainstream East Asia’s view in world politics. For example,
one strong message we must convey to the international community is that East Asia
cannot afford to have yet another war. We must never again allow a war option in East
Asia, for we have suffered disproportionately. As a Japanese citizen, I also take thisopportunity to express my deepest regrets, although I represent post-WWII generation, to4

all who died and suffered during WWII due to Japan’s aggression on this peninsula andcontinent.

On our part, we suffered from nuclear devastations, which should never be

repeated anywhere. It is my hope that Japan and Korea, the two most dynamic
democracies in East Asia speak repeatedly and strongly to claim that war is not an optionin East Asia in any foreseeable future.

On 19 March, State Secretary of the US, Dr.

Condoleeza Rice, visited Sophia University to deliver a major policy statement for theAsia Pacific region in the 2nd Bush Administration, and said “Ideas of freedom”- not raw
power- will define 21st-Century Asia. “Not raw power” hopefully means no military
option and no military threats. Japan and Korea must speak in one strong voice at alllevels of negotiation and interaction to make sure that resorting to war will never be an
option for East Asia.

(Six-party Talks and China)Now, allow me a minute to comment on the DPRK’s nuclear ambition. Proliferation ofnuclear capabilities under the guise of the peaceful use of nuclear energy is a major
security concern today.

We must commend China’s unfailing efforts to chair thedifficult 6-party talks, and we must continue to encourage China to play the leadershiprole, including informal consultations, to bring the DPRK back into the 6-party talks.
Here again, the ROK and Japan could together support China’s efforts and talk to the US
to rule out a war option.

We could argue that if the DPRK were to dismantle its nuclear

facilities in a transparent manner, we might keep the 6-party format as a kind of
confidence-building diplomatic measure in East Asia.
collective security framework in this part of the world .

5

We have never had such aIt is very important at this particular moment, right after the failure of the NPT Review
Conference, to make sure that the DPRK refrains itself from conducting nuclear tests.

Itwas a few weeks after the collapse of the Preparatory Conference of the NPT in 1998 thatIndia tested its nuclear power, as if to ridicule the lack of solidarity among State Parties tothe Nonproliferation Treaty.

This is the time to talk to the government of the DPRK

about returning to the NPT. The NPT Review Conference has just ended in complete
failure, failing to produce any formal pressure to persuade the DPRK to return to thefamily of the NPT.

Here is a window of opportunity for the DPRK to return to the NPT

on its own independent judgment, without being seen to have opted for pressure. The
States Parties to the NPT are suffering from a sense of powerlessness. If the DPRK
makes the bold decision to return to the NPT in the near future, the DPRK, ironically, may
be able to make an unexpected and unprecedented impact on the NPT process and, in theprocess, restore confidence in international law.

(Towards New Multilateralism)

Now, allow me to go back to some theoretical perspectives, and discuss elements of New
Multilateralism, which could become a new paradigm in international decision making
and an alternative to New Conservatism.

One of the increasingly important features of our international relations today can befound in the rise of the power of knowledge that influences the decision making processof states. Particularly in multilateral diplomacy, where international norms and rules arenegotiated, the power of knowledge and knowledge-based interactions have become key
elements in exercising leadership and fostering consensus. This is because governments

6today have come under increasing pressure to address and solve a wide range of complex
global issues that cannot be solved simply by military interventions or by economic poweralone. During the 19th Century, it was mostly coercive naval power that was used inexternal persuasion. During the 20th Century, economic power was often decisive indetermining international rules. In the 21st Century, it will be the power of knowledge
and knowledge-based interactions that will influence the process of creating international
norms and rules.

This is why New Multilateralism will place greater emphasis on civil society involvement,including scholars, researchers, think-tanks, non-profit organizations or NGOs, and allinterested citizens.

The military power rests with states. The economic power belongs

to states and economic sectors. But knowledge can belong only to each human existence.
Thus governments, in order to be effective and powerful, will find greater incentive toreach out to civil society for appropriate knowledge, including local knowledge, thatbelongs to the people.

In this context, it is important to invigorate the knowledge-baseof civil society, and encourage the accumulation of professional expertise, as well as local
knowledge, that includes the voice of those affected by the problem.

Another reason why governments will be driven to place increasingly more emphasis on
partnerships with civil society is because implementation of norms and rules thatgovernments negotiate in multilateral diplomacy today require intensive and extensive
outreach. Thus, this cannot be achieved without the active involvement of civil society
organizations worldwide. States will put in place legal measures to implement theirnegotiated international decisions, but many issues they negotiate today will not make adifference in the field if grass-roots monitoring and assistance is not implemented. No
governments possess enough manpower or financial resources to fully implement their7

negotiated results that affect the lives of millions of people, and thus the partnership withcivil society is a matter of urgency and priority.

Here, allow me to look back on my own experience. During my tenure I also served as
Chairperson of the United Nations first conference to implement the action plan to combat
illicit trafficking of small arms such as AK47s and MANPADS. NGOs are decisively
important partners in combating small arms that circulate globally and kill an estimated500,000 people every year. At the UN conference, I introduced an NGO session in the
midst of the plenary meeting of states. Initially, many states opposed this by saying thatNGOs have no place in UN Meetings of States, but in the end they agreed by consensus
that, without partnerships with NGOs, the norms and rules that states negotiate in New
York headquarters will never reach the people in the field. In order to combat illicit
small arms, we need more comprehensive trade laws and laws that control manufacturing,
but at the same time we must, for example, collect illegal weapons in post-conflictsocieties, provide re-education opportunities for child soldiers, increase humanitarianrelief to the victims and survivors, facilitate security sector reform, and monitor thedemilitarization of illegal groups.

No country should be alone in meeting these

tremendous challenges, and thus we need to invigorate civil society partnership to makesure that what was said and agreed at the UN will make a real difference to each childsoldier, each wounded woman, and to all villagers who used to live in terror and fear.

In the negotiation and implementation of norms and rules, endeavouring to foster an
integrated process among States, International Organizations, and NGOs is essential.
Also, in order to make a real difference, implementation at all four levels needs to becoordinated and streamlined, namely at global, regional, national, and local levels. Since
no country alone can combat the challenges of growing global issues, partnership and8cooperation, based on the sense of ownership in global problem-solving by all players,
including civil society, would be a priority. A tentative checklist of major elements of
new multilateralism is as follows:１）

Power of knowledge

２）

Ownership and inclusion

３）

Partnership with civil society

４）International cooperation in implementation of norms and rules

５）

Integrated process among global, regional, national, and local levels

６）

Integrated process among States, International Organizations and NGOs

７）

Priority on humanitarian progress

８）

Priority on affected and survivors

９）

Result-oriented mindset

9