DISCUSSION PAPER

Managing JapanSouth Korea Tensions
Mark E. Manyin
December 2015

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization,
think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, businessexecutives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens
in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the UnitedStates and other countries. Founded in 1921, CFR carries out its mission by maintaining a diverse
membership, with special programs to promote interest and develop expertise in the next generationof foreign policy leaders; convening meetings at its headquarters in New York and in Washington, DC,
and other cities where senior government officials, members of Congress, global leaders, andprominent thinkers come together with CFR members to discuss and debate major international
issues; supporting a Studies Program that fosters independent research, enabling CFR scholars to
produce articles, reports, and books and hold roundtables that analyze foreign policy issues and makeconcrete policy recommendations; publishing Foreign Affairs, the preeminent journal on international
affairs and U.S. foreign policy; sponsoring Independent Task Forces that produce reports with both
findings and policy prescriptions on the most important foreign policy topics; and providing up-todate information and analysis about world events and American foreign policy on its website,
CFR.org.
The Council on Foreign Relations takes no institutional positions on policy issues and has
no affiliation with the U.S. government. All views expressed in its publications and on its
website are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.
For further information about CFR or this paper, please write to the Council on Foreign Relations, 58
East 68th Street, New York, NY 10065, or call Communications at 212.434.9888. Visit CFR’s
website, www.cfr.org.
Copyright © 2015 by the Council on Foreign Relations® Inc.
All rights reserved.
This paper may not be reproduced in whole or in part, in any form beyond the reproduction permitted
by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law Act (17 U.S.C. Sections 107 and 108) and excerpts
by reviewers for the public press, without express written permission from the Council on Foreign
Relations.

2Introduction

Fifty years after the establishment of official diplomatic relations between Japan and South Korea,
continued animosity between the United States’ two Northeast Asian allies remains a problem for
Washington, hampering its ability to deal with the challenges posed by North Korea, China, and a hostof nontraditional security threats. Mutual suspicion and mistrust between Tokyo and Seoul, fueled bydisputes over territory and history, jeopardize the Barack Obama administration’s rebalance to Asia,
which seeks to strengthen “minilateral” partnerships among Asian allies and partners. The ongoing,
and in some areas worsening, tensions between Seoul and Tokyo constrain Washington’s influence in
East Asia by limiting joint contingency planning and trilateral coordination for crisis management aswell as the ability to address the challenge of China’s rise. As North Korea expands its nuclear andmissile capabilities and as China pushes to expand its influence in East Asia, often at the United States’
expense, an increasing number of U.S. policy analysts are calling on the United States to shed its longstanding reluctance to intervene more forcefully in Japan-South Korean disputes despite the risks of
doing so. U.S. policymakers have a number of options for facilitating closer bilateral cooperation
between Tokyo and Seoul, as well as trilateral cooperation among Tokyo, Seoul, and Washington.
Although more forceful intervention in Japan-South Korea relations carries risks to the United States,
the costs of nonintervention are rising.

3

The Evolution of Japan-South Korea Relations Since 1965

Compared with other fraught bilateral relationships, the list of grievances between Japan and South
Korea is not particularly long, but it has remained largely unchanged since the two sides signed their
Treaty on Basic Relations in 1965, normalizing their relationship. Tokyo and Seoul continue to feud
over a set of small South Korean-controlled islets, called Dokdo by Koreans and Takeshima by theJapanese. Furthermore, the South Korean government argues that the Japanese government has notadequately acknowledged and apologized for Imperial Japan’s actions during the first half of thetwentieth century, especially during the Japanese empire’s colonization of the Korean Peninsula from1910 to 1945. Tokyo’s handling of the issue of “comfort women,” who were forced to provide sex toJapanese soldiers under the Imperial military’s system of “comfort stations,” has been particularly
fraught.
Not only is acrimony over these matters increasing, but leaders in both countries are also unwillingor unable to prevent the disagreements from spilling over into other areas of the bilateral relationship.
Opinion polls indicate that majorities in both countries view the other country negatively. 1 Thesesentiments make it more difficult for leaders to improve the relationship and have contributed to azero-sum dynamic in which many media outlets and interest groups regard compromise as akin to
betrayal of their country’s national interests.2
That said, since the normalization of ties fifty years ago, the Japan-South Korea relationship has
undergone considerable expansion and integration. Tokyo and Seoul now cooperate across a myriadof fields, including coordination on North Korea, joint disaster-relief planning, and overseas
development assistance. U.S. alliances with Japan and South Korea have also evolved since the mid-tolate 1990s to focus on global, regional, and nontraditional security issues.3 Japan and South Korea
cohosted the 2002 FIFA World Cup, and Japanese and Korean pop-culture trends—including TV
shows, music, and food—regularly sweep from one country to the other. The two populations also
have far greater exposure to one another than they did in 1965. For example, until 2013 in Korea and2015 in Japan, each country was the largest source of visitors for the other—only recently surpassed
by China—with thousands of Japanese and South Koreans entering and leaving each other’s country
every day.
Nevertheless, greater contact has also fostered mistrust and suspicion between Tokyo and Seoul, adynamic that has deepened under the current leadership of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe andSouth Korean President Park Geun-hye. Since the two leaders assumed office in late 2012 and early
2013, respectively, relations have deteriorated to the point of “mutual abandonment,” according to
one Korean analyst. 4 Although there have been some signs of improvement in recent months—
including the first Abe-Park summit in early November—in general, neither government has been
willing to channel enough political capital to fundamentally improve relations.

4

Why Japan-South Korea Relations Matter to the United States

Tokyo and Seoul’s partial estrangement from each other affects U.S. interests in a number of ways.
OPPORTUNITY COSTS
U.S. policymakers expend considerable effort trying to prevent, contain, and settle disagreements
between two U.S. allies. The opportunity costs of these efforts are significant. Diplomatic time andenergy spent reacting to flare-ups of Japan-South Korea tensions could be channeled moreproductively. Chronic friction between Japan and South Korea reduces the influence of Washington,
Tokyo, and Seoul in East Asia by causing the trilateral relationship to operate less efficiently andexpansively than it would otherwise and by creating opportunities for China and North Korea toexploit differences among the three. Additionally, these tensions periodically create problems for
Washington in situations where Tokyo or Seoul believes that the United States is not doing enough tochange the other country’s behavior.
THE DANGER OF A NAVAL CLASH
Tokyo and Seoul’s inability to find a lasting modus vivendi for managing, let alone resolving, theirdispute over Dokdo/Takeshima jeopardizes trilateral cooperation and Northeast Asia’s stability, bothof which are important U.S. goals. Few observers believe that the Japan-South Korea territorial
disagreement will erupt into a military conflict, but it should not be ruled out completely.5 In 2006,
South Korea and Japan narrowly avoided a clash between their coast guards over the disputed islets.
Open conflict, particularly if any lives were lost, could cripple, if not rupture, U.S.-Japan-South Korea
relations. Furthermore, if either country developed methods for mining the methane hydrate deposits
that some surveys have discovered in surrounding waters, the islets’ importance would increasesignificantly, adding to regional instability and unpredictability.6
LOST OPPORTUNITIES FOR POLICY COORDINATION ON NORTHKOREAIn addition to preventing conflict, closer relations between Japan and South Korea would also expand
the range of options for dealing with North Korea. This is arguably the area where the mostcooperation currently is occurring. U.S., South Korean, and Japanese officials meet frequently to
discuss North Korea in an informal, ad hoc version of the Trilateral Coordination and OversightGroup that convened routinely in the late 1990s. However, U.S. officials have, for years, pushed for
greater integration and institutionalization of the three countries’ efforts. South Korea has rejected
formal efforts to significantly integrate intelligence-sharing with Japan, limiting the three countries’
abilities to identify and respond to threats from Pyongyang, plan for and implement various North
Korean contingencies, and coordinate diplomatic efforts. A trilateral arrangement reached in5
December 2014 to share classified intelligence on North Korean missile and nuclear threats is
considered by many defense analysts to be far less extensive than the types of cooperation that could
be achieved.7
The strength of Japan-South Korea relations also directly affects a major component of Washington
and Seoul’s shared North Korea strategy: convincing Chinese leaders that they have more to gain frompressuring Pyongyang than from supporting it. Cementing greater bilateral and trilateral cooperation
among the United States, South Korea, and Japan could signal to China that North Korea’s behavior
is causing the Northeast Asian security environment to move in ways that run counter to China’s longterm goals.8
LOST OPPORTUNITIES FOR GREATER POLICY COORDINATION ON
CHINA
North Korea is one of many areas where U.S. policymakers seek to influence Beijing’s behavior. Closer
Tokyo-Seoul relations could create new opportunities for the United States, Japan, and South Korea
to place pressure on and provide incentives for Beijing to play by the rules of the established liberalorder in East Asia and adopt policies more amenable to the three countries’ positions on issues such as
naval and airborne freedom of navigation and access. China seeks to prevent greater U.S.-Japan-South
Korea cooperation, viewing the expansion of the U.S. alliance system as further evidence of a U.S.-led
encirclement of China. Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul emphasized trilateral cooperation at a
December 2010 trilateral foreign ministerial meeting that convened during a high point in JapanSouth Korea relations. The meeting materialized in response to a North Korean artillery attack against
South Korea’s Yeonpyeong Island the month before and may have played a role in China’s efforts torein in North Korea’s behavior. The three top officials’ joint statement mentioned discussions on
issues that transcend the Korean Peninsula, including freedom of navigation, maritime security, anddemocracy promotion.9 The subsequent deterioration in Japan-South Korea relations prevented thethree sides from following through on the statement’s call for more “joint endeavors” on these issues.
Such trilateral coordination is not the same as forming an anti-China front. A true containment
strategy would entail mobilizing military and economic tools of statecraft to isolate China, somethingthat no country sees as desirable even if it were practical. South Korean policymakers, in particular,want to avoid such a development, as they almost certainly need Chinese support for unification to
occur on South Korea’s terms. Rather than seeking to contain China, greater trilateral cooperation isa way for the United States, Japan, and South Korea to expand their options in dealing with Beijing in
those areas where China’s actions infringe on their interests and to bring China to play by the rules ofthe existing order in East Asia. Conversely, a poor relationship between Tokyo and Seoul “inhibits
America’s capacity to shape China’s rise in constructive ways,” and creates opportunities for Beijing todivide the three countries, thereby weakening each individually and reducing its options in its bilateralrelations with Beijing.10
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A NEW ORDER IN NORTHEAST ASIA
China’s rise is fundamentally altering the calculus of all players in Northeast Asia. For instance, the trend
is one of Abe’s justifications for relaxing Japan’s seven-decade-old prohibition on participating in6collective self-defense activities, a move that could pave the way for the Japanese military to play a greaterrole in Asian and global security. Perceptions among regional leaders that the United States’ relative
power is declining, along with related questions about the credibility of U.S. security commitments inEast Asia, reflect a regional tectonic shift. On the Korean Peninsula, Pyongyang’s improving missile andnuclear capabilities, along with Park’s focus on the benefits of reunification, are leading policymakers andanalysts to think more deeply about possible reunification scenarios. At the societal level, Japan’s
population—already the world’s oldest—is shrinking and South Korea’s is not far behind, leading to alikely diminution of the material capabilities of both countries and consequently altering the regional
order over the next ten to twenty years.
Amid this regional uncertainty about the future, mistrust between Japan and South Korea is likely
to lead each country to take actions that undermine, rather than reassure, the other’s security concerns
unless their relations are fundamentally improved. These tensions were on display during an October
2015 meeting of the two countries’ defense ministers in Seoul, the first trip by a Japanese defense
minister to South Korea in more than four years. The two sides reportedly disagreed over whether
Japan would ask permission from South Korea before launching military operations in North Korea,
creating a political firestorm in Seoul. Deeper coordination among Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul
could help reassure Japan and South Korea about each other’s intentions in the event of turmoil on the
Korean Peninsula and Korean reunification, thereby increasing the chances that a reunified Korean
Peninsula would decrease tensions in Northeast Asia. For Tokyo, such reassurances could lessen
concerns that a reunified Korea would pose a threat to Japan. For Seoul, better Japan-South Korea
relations could provide insights into Tokyo’s support for the reunification process as well as increase
the chances that Japan will provide financial and diplomatic help with reunification in a manner thatserves Seoul’s interests. In short, as scholars Brad Glosserman and Scott A. Snyder argue, better
bilateral relations can provide mutual reassurance as each country gains deeper insights into the goals,
capabilities, and strategies of the other.11 This in turn, could lead to a more secure region by not only
reducing the chances that a fundamental shift in Northeast Asia’s system will inflame Japan-South
Korea tensions but also increasing the chances that Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul can develop
common strategies for shaping the region’s future.

7

Possible Roles for the United States

The United States has several options to manage Japan-South Korea relations. Washington could
avoid interfering in the relationship or it could actively seek to reshape it.
NONINTERFERENCE OPTION
One option for the United States is to minimize its involvement in Japan-South Korea disputes. Thisapproach makes sense if one believes that the two countries’ common security and economic interests
will help contain any bilateral flare-ups. There are also considerable risks if the United States inserts
itself more directly between Japan-South Korea disputes, including the possibility that doing so could
damage Washington’s relationship with one or both allies. These obstacles, combined with the
stubborn nature of the disagreements, led Japanese scholar and former Ambassador Kazuhiko Togoin 2011 to conclude reluctantly that the United States in general should adopt a “noninterference
policy.”12
However, there are three drawbacks to this approach. First, it leaves the bilateral relationship more
vulnerable to an external shock. For instance, an outbreak of military conflict between Japan and China
over their territorial dispute in the East China Sea could lead to expectations in Japan of South Korean
diplomatic support, something that Seoul likely would be hard-pressed to provide. The damage toJapan-South Korea relations would be far more serious if such an event were not preceded by the
resolution or mitigation of existing bilateral tensions.
Second, the nonintervention approach is unlikely to change the prevailing domestic dynamic ineither country; compromise is politically risky for both sides.13 It remains unclear whether the rise ofanti-Korean sentiment in Japan is a temporary phenomenon. If not, Japanese leaders’ interests inimproving and expanding relations with Seoul may decrease. As Seong-hyon Lee argues, the twocountries could drift further apart over time.14
Third, even if Japan-South Korea cooperation expands, the mutual mistrust between the twocountries—at times flaring into animosity—might persist. If the past fifty years have not repaired thewounds in this relationship, there is no guarantee that the next few decades will. One of the striking
revelations of expanded bilateral cooperation over the past fifteen to twenty years is that increased
cooperation and contact have not helped build confidence between the two countries. Instead, greaterinteraction and attempts at cooperation between the two governments appear to have raised
expectations; when the other side disappoints, the anger and sense of betrayal are greater.15
This is precisely the dynamic that seems to explain at least some of the dramatic downturn in
relations in 2012. Hopes in both countries had been raised by the 2008 election of South Korean
President Lee Myung-bak, who placed a priority on improving relations with Tokyo, and the 2009
victory of the Democratic Party of Japan, which likewise wished to solidify Japan-South Korea
relations and was more willing to express contrition over the past than the displaced Liberal
Democratic Party. When the expected breakthrough in relations failed to materialize, it not only
signaled that the relationship had not improved, but the relationship may have even worsened because

8of the sense of betrayal on both sides. This dynamic arguably set the stage for Lee’s unprecedented
August 2012 visit to Dokdo/Takeshima, which plunged the two countries into a deeper state of
antipathy.
Regardless, a pure noninterference approach has never been applied and the United States remains
a factor in Japan-South Korea relations, both for its own reasons and because Japanese and South
Korean officials have sought U.S. assistance in dealing with each other.16 Moreover, as analyst Ralph
Cossa has written, the United States has become “part of the extended battlefield” between the twocountries in recent years. Both the Japanese and South Korean governments have tried to influence
individual U.S. states’ textbook requirements, U.S. congressional resolutions regarding Northeast
Asian history, and U.S. cities’ and towns’ efforts to erect statues commemorating the suffering of the
comfort women.17 The costs of Japan-South Korea animosity are rising, causing many observers toquestion whether a diplomatic strategy of avoidance would be sustainable.18
INTERVENTION OPTIONS
Since Japan-South Korea relations took a turn for the worse in 2012, a growing number of analysts,
including some former U.S. policymakers, have urged the United States to intervene to improve
relations.19 The United States could pursue four strategies. They are not mutually exclusive; eachcan be used in combination with the others. Glosserman and Snyder’s ambitious “grand bargain”
proposal to reshape the Japan-South Korea relationship, for instance, envisions the United States
incorporating elements of all four options. These strategies could help Japan and South Korea
resolve their disputes over history and territory or at least manage these tensions so that
disagreements cause minimal disruption to other areas of the relationship.
Role Model
Several observers have called on the United States to address its own role in the Northeast Asian
historical events, particularly during and immediate after World War II, that trouble Japan and South
Korea. One option is a U.S. presidential visit to the peace park at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or some other
U.S. acknowledgement of the suffering caused by the atomic bombings that brought an early end toWorld War II. Such gestures, as Glosserman and Snyder argue, could undermine the appeal ofJapanese historical “revisionists” denials of the actions committed during the first half of the twentiethcentury, including those committed during the occupation of the Korean Peninsula.20 Another option
is that the United States could reveal more information about the U.S. decision-making process in theaftermath of World War II, especially regarding the decision not to determine the sovereignty of the
Dokdo/Takeshima islets in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty that formally ended the Allies’ waragainst Japan. 21 By doing so, the United States could show South Korean and especially Japaneseleaders how to deal with a state’s past transgressions. 22 Historian Alexis Dudden argues that theUnited States’ openness over how Washington treated Dokdo/Takeshima from 1945 to 1952 could
better position the United States to gain the credibility needed to help resolve or at least dampen the
territorial dispute. 23 Arguably, such a step also could pave the way for U.S. policymakers andacademics to press for a revision of the portrayal of South Korea and Japan’s shared histories intextbooks, especially the depiction of Imperial Japan’s behavior during the twentieth century.

9
However, opening up the U.S. role in the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute runs the risk of upsetting either
or both parties, particularly the South Korean public for whom attachment to Dokdo has assumed aquasi-religious tenor. If done without careful orchestration among the three governments, unilateral
action could inflame the dispute and create antipathy toward the United States. 24 Similarly, apresidential visit to Hiroshima or Nagasaki almost certainly would require joint planning with theJapanese government—perhaps including a visit by Japanese prime minister to Pearl Harbor—tominimize the possible damage caused by the emotions unleashed in the United States and Japan. Thismay be one reason Glosserman and Snyder embed their recommendations on the atomic bombingsand Dokdo/Takeshima as part of their broader grand bargain, which would involve a series of steps all
three countries would take. Significantly, Glosserman and Snyder recommend that Japan relinquish
its claims to the islets, a step that appears unlikely but may be necessary for the success of any U.S.
revelations about Washington’s role in the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute. At a minimum, the UnitedStates would presumably need assurances from Japan and South Korea that their governments would
try to tamp down any uproar by expressing their support and understanding of the U.S. actions.
Additionally, the United States should make clear that such steps do not mean it is taking sides; rather,
the United States should emphasize its goal is to help Japan and South Korea to resolve or better
manage the dispute.
Referee
Another option for the United States is to call attention to violations by Japan and South Korea of what
U.S. policymakers believe are the unwritten rules of good behavior between the two U.S. allies. Acting
as a kind of referee can take the form of private or public exhortations. These messages can be usedpreventatively to avoid certain outcomes—such as when the United States asked Abe not to visit
Yasukuni Shrine in the fall of 2013—or after an undesirable outcome has occurred, such as thestatement from the U.S. embassy in Tokyo that Washington was “disappointed” in Abe after the prime
minister visited the shrine in December of the same year.25 Individually and collectively, members ofCongress have played this role, such as when the House of Representatives passed the 2007 “comfort
women resolution” (H.Res. 121) largely in response to statements and actions by Abe and nationalist
Japanese groups. Although less direct, U.S. officials publicly voiced their concerns over Lee’s surprisevisit to Dokdo/Takeshima in 2012. In all cases, the message was clear: a repeat of these actions andstatements would damage U.S. interests and, consequently, relations with the United States.
The referee role need not be solely accusatory. The United States can recognize and, in some cases,
reward certain moves. For example, Abe’s avoidance of especially flagrant words and actions since his
Yasukuni visit, combined with his public emphasis on upholding previous governments’ statements
about World War II and the comfort women, arguably made it possible for Abe to address a joint
meeting of Congress in April 2014, the first Japanese prime minister to do so.26 In South Korea’s case,the United States could encourage more public recognition and appreciation of Japan’s productive
actions on history issues, something that many Japanese and U.S. observers say has often been missingin South Korean leaders’ handling of relations with Japan. Coming the day after Abe’s statement
marking the seventieth anniversary of the end of World War II, Park’s August 2015 Liberation Day
speech expressed her disappointment in Abe’s statement but also called attention to the fact that Abe
upheld previous Japanese governments’ apologies.27 Park’s magnanimity—at least to the ears of many
U.S. observers—appears to have played a role in facilitating the November 2015 China-Japan-South

10
Korea summit in Seoul, the first such meeting in three and a half years, which was accompanied by the
first formal summit meeting between Abe and Park.
A referee is primarily a minimalist role designed to prevent and contain actions and words that
could worsen bilateral relations. These moves are often effective. Since the Obama administration
expressed disappointment with his visit to Yasukuni, Abe has avoided the most high-profile actions
that would indicate his support for Japan’s historical revisionists. Likewise, Park has taken a relatively
restrained stance on the Dokdo/Takeshima issue. The knowledge that the United States would look
unkindly on more flagrant actions appears to have worked as a restraining force on both Abe and Park.
Although it may be necessary for the United States to play this role to manage Japan-South Korea
tensions, a referee strategy has proven insufficient to helping resolve the underlying sources of thetensions, resulting in a one-step-forward, one-step-back diplomatic pattern. The generally reactive
nature of the referee approach means that even if steps are taken to head off a brewing dispute, it may
be too late to contain the domestic forces that have already been roused. Therefore, if the United States
seeks to reduce the chances that such disputes metastasize, it will need to develop more proactive
strategies for bridging the gaps between Tokyo and Seoul.
Mediator
Another option is for Washington to use the broad support it enjoys in both Tokyo and Seoul tomediate between the two sides. The goal would be to help the two sides resolve one or more disputes
or to craft a framework in which disputes are less likely to become politicized and spill over into otherareas of the relationship. Some analysts have proposed that the United States appoint a high-levelenvoy to help the two nations, as the United States did for Ireland and Great Britain in mediating apeace deal in the 1990s. Playing such a role would require a formal invitation from both countries.28
However, Washington could work behind the scenes to persuade the two governments to take thisstep. One strategy might be to focus a special envoy’s task on one or two issues, such as the comfort
women, in which the United States has expressed the greatest interest and where the path forward isclearest.29
While mediation offers the possibility of great rewards, it also carries significant risks. U.S.
mediation efforts may not resolve the differences between Japan and South Korea. Perceived
failure could damage U.S. relations with either or both countries, as well as U.S. credibility in theregion. More direct intervention in the comfort women dispute, for instance, would almost
certainly anger many members of the Abe government who deny or downplay the Imperial
Japanese military’s role in the system of sexual exploitation. It is perhaps for this reason that U.S.
officials, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden in December 2013, have explicitly rejected a
mediation role. 30 However, the counterargument is that the downsides of nonintervention haveincreased over the past five years due to the deterioration in Japan-South Korea relations at a time
when the United States needs trilateral cooperation more than ever to deal with the shifts inNortheast Asia’s strategic environment. For these reasons, U.S. policymakers should take a fresh
look at whether mediation is becoming not only more viable but also more necessary. Track 2
dialogues among academics and nongovernmental experts—occasionally elevated to Track 1.5
level by including government officials—could be useful venues to explore opportunities for an
expanded U.S. role.

11
Commissioner
The United States could also try to improve Japan-South Korea relations by doubling down on
trilateralism and expanding institutions and forms of cooperation. In playing the role of a kind ofcommissioner of U.S.-Japan-South Korea cooperation, the United States could seek to end what
Korean scholar Cheol Hee Park calls the “awkward” Japan-South Korea partnership by having theirgovernments, elites, and media focus on areas of common interest rather than points of tension.31 The
U.S.-organized March 2014 Obama-Abe-Park summit in The Hague is an example of using trilateralsettings to reorient the two countries’ priorities. Glosserman and Snyder’s recommendation to holdroutine trilateral summits and “2+2+2” meetings of foreign and defense ministers also fits this model.
If nothing else, such meetings could serve as an important signaling effect, sending a message tobureaucrats and the public regarding the three leaders’ support for trilateralism. In addition, thesemeetings could identify and publicize the ways trilateral cooperation advances each country’s
individual regional and global interests. At the less public level, the three countries could increase
working-level trilateral cooperation and discussions over a range of issues.32
The recently concluded Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement among the United States,
Japan, and ten other countries could provide another opportunity for the United States to deepen
Japan-South Korea relations. Since late 2013, South Korea has indicated its interest in eventuallyjoining TPP, a desire Park made clear during her October 2015 visit to Washington.33 South Korea andJapan opened free trade agreement (FTA) talks in 2003, but they stalled in 2004, largely due todifficulties in the overall relationship. Negotiations have yet to reopen. Since South Korea has FTAs
with nearly all TPP participants except for Japan, TPP’s biggest effect on South Korea’s trade portfolio
would be the effective creation of a Japan-South Korea FTA. Having reached an agreement in Octoberwith the current TPP participants, the United States could facilitate South Korea’s inclusion byencouraging Japan to enthusiastically welcome South Korea into TPP. More aggressively pursuing
integrated ballistic missile defense systems among the three countries is another example of how theUnited States could help build collective and individual capacities for preventing and responding toregional crises.
Expanded trilateralism would not preclude flare-ups in disputes over history and territory. Indeed,
one of the benefits of playing commissioner is that cooperation could continue even amid bilateral
disputes. Even if trilateralism fails to improve bilateral relations between Tokyo and Seoul, thisapproach could contain the damage unleashed by any disputes by raising the costs of escalation. For
example, skipping a routinized trilateral meeting would hurt the relationship with the United States
directly, making Seoul and Tokyo more likely to continue their institutionalized cooperation in orderto maintain good relations with Washington. In addition, greater trilateralism could provide a forum
for Japan and South Korea to continue bilateral discussions when domestic politics do not allow for astandalone meeting. As Glosserman and Snyder explain, trilateralism could provide a hedge against
the politicization of bilateral cooperation and the effects of domestic political volatility.34
Deepening trilateral cooperation would require an investment of time and energy from all three
governments, and the United States would be responsible for orchestrating the meetings and forums.
Therefore, it will not be easy to convince top U.S. policymakers—up to the presidential level—of theimportance of prioritizing U.S.-Japan-South Korea cooperation. Making a persuasive case will involve
demonstrating not only that the benefits of this investment will pay off but also that the costs of notdoing so are growing.

12
Another potential obstacle would be China’s reaction. Although verbal protests from China areprobably a foregone conclusion, the question is whether increased U.S.-Japan-South Korea
trilateralism would lead to changes in Chinese behavior. Some policymakers, particularly in South
Korea, suggest that Seoul, Tokyo, and Washington should avoid taking trilateral moves that alarm
Beijing.
On the one hand, China could see these moves as further evidence that the United States is
attempting to contain Chinese ambitions and respond by increasing its assertiveness in the South
and/or East China Seas. It could become even more difficult to obtain China’s cooperation in dealing
with North Korea, and China could reverse the gradual drift away from Pyongyang that has
characterized the government of Chinese President Xi Jinping thus far. South Korea may beparticularly sensitive to Chinese objections for this reason.
On the other hand, it arguably is not in the interests of policymakers in Washington, Tokyo, or Seoul
to in essence, “give China a veto” over trilateral actions just because they conflict with China’s
desires. 35 Moreover, convincing Chinese leaders that North Korea’s behavior is causing regional
dynamics to shift unfavorably could encourage Beijing to increase pressure on Pyongyang. 36
Expanded U.S.-Japan-South Korea cooperation could also pressure Beijing to continue its recent reembrace of China-Japan-South Korea trilateralism—as Presidents Obama and Park called for during
their October 2015 summit—which had stalled, largely due to Chinese reluctance.

13

Conclusion

The options for intervention in Japan-South Korea relations are not mutually exclusive. Over the past
decade, the United States occasionally has played the role of a referee and sometimes a commissioner.
However, neither role appears to have been undertaken as part of the proactive, concerted strategy
that a growing number of U.S. analysts are arguing is needed to help expand Japan-South Korea
cooperation. In order to implement a new approach, leaders in all three countries should make theJapan-South Korea relationship a higher priority. However, forceful U.S. involvement is almost
certain to be necessary to produce results, given the mutual mistrust between Tokyo and Seoul.
Although wading directly into the morass of Japan-South Korea tensions carries risks, the changes inNortheast Asian international relations are driving up the costs of letting the relationship between thetwo most important U.S. allies in Asia stagnate or deteriorate further. A failure to create the conditions
for more robust Japan-South Korea cooperation and deeper U.S.-Japan-South Korea trilateralism willhinder U.S. ability to deal with North Korea, respond to the challenges posed by China, and plan for a
future Northeast Asia that is more democratic, peaceful, and stable.

14

About the AuthorMark Manyin is a specialist in Asian affairs at the U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS),
a nonpartisan agency that is part of the Library of Congress and provides information and analysis
to members of the U.S. Congress and their staff. At CRS, Manyin’s general area of expertise is
U.S. foreign economic policy toward East Asia, particularly Japan, the two Koreas, and Vietnam.
From 2006 to 2008 and again in 2013, Manyin served as the head of the CRS’s ten-person Asia
Section, overseeing the service’s research on East, Southeast, and South Asia as well as Australasia
and the Pacific Islands. Prior to joining CRS in 1999, Manyin completed his PhD in Japanese trade
policy and negotiating behavior at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He
has written academic articles and given numerous lectures on U.S.-East Asia relations, taught
courses in East Asian relations, and worked as a business consultant. The views expressed in thispaper are those of Manyin and are not presented as those of CRS or the Library of Congress.

15

Endnotes

1. According to the most recent Genron–East Asia Institute survey, over 70 percent of South Koreans hold unfavorable views of Japan,
while over half of Japanese view South Korea unfavorably. The Japanese numbers are notable because they have been on the rise since
mid-2012, when South Korea’s then President Lee Myung-bak made the first visit by a South Korean president to Dokdo/Takeshima.
Anti-Korean sentiment is particularly notable among the more conservative factions of Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party. The
3rd Japan-South Korea Joint Public Opinion Poll (2015), Analysis Report on Comparative Data, The Genron NPO and the East Asia
Institute, May 2015, http://www.genron-npo.net/pdf/forum_1505_en.pdf.
2. For a useful analysis of the domestic forces and conflicting perceptions of national identity that often prevent Japanese and South
Korean leaders from compromising with one another, see Brad Glosserman and Scott A. Snyder, The Japan-South Korea Identity Clash:East Asian Security and the United States (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015).
3. Cheol Hee Park, “Getting Away or Getting In? U.S. Strategic Options in the Historical Controversy between Its Allies,” in U.S.
Leadership, History, and Bilateral Relations in Northeast Asia, Gilbert Rozman, ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
4 . Bong Yongshik, “ROK and US Views on the Foreign Policy of the Abe Administration,” Asan Forum, November 6, 2013,
http://www.theasanforum.org/rok-and-us-views-on-the-foreign-policy-of-the-abe-administration/.
5. Kazuhiko Togo, “Japan’s Territorial Problem: The Northern Territories, Takeshima, and the Senkaku Islands,” National Bureau of
Asian Research, May 8, 2012, http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.aspx?id=247; Paul Midford, “Historical Memory Versus
Democratic Reassurance: The Security Relationship Between Japan and South Korea,” in Changing Power Relations in Northeast Asia:
Implications for Relations Between Japan and South Korea, Marie Söderberg, ed. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2011), pp. 77–98.
6 . “Dokdo, Islets of Solitary Beauty in the East Sea,” Korea.net, July 9, 2012, http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Travel/
view?articleId=101153. Korea.net is produced by the Korean Culture and Information Service.
7 . For the text of the arrangement, see http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Trilateral-Information-SharingArrangement.pdf. In 2012, with encouragement by the United States, the two sides completed negotiations on a more substantial
general security of military information agreement (GSOMIA) that would have permitted the sharing of confidential information.
However, less than an hour before the agreement was scheduled to be signed in Tokyo, the Lee Myung-bak government pulled out after
public outcry against it in South Korea.
8. Michael J. Green, “Japan Is Back: Unbundling Abe’s Grand Strategy,” Lowy Institute for International Policy, December 2013,
http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/japan-back-unbundling-abes-grand-strategy.
9 . U.S. Department of State, “Trilateral Statement Japan, Republic of Korea, and the United States,” December 6, 2010,
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152431.htm.
10. Victor Cha and Karl Friedhoff, “Ending a Feud Between Allies,” New York Times, November 14, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/
2013/11/15/opinion/ending-a-feud-between-allies.html?_r=1.
11. Glosserman and Snyder, Japan-South Korea Identity Clash, Location 2988–3021.
12. Togo, “Japan-South Korea Relations and the Role of the United States on History,” p. 122.
13. Glosserman and Snyder, Japan-South Korea Identity Clash, Chapter 6; Jennifer Lind, Sorry States: Apologies in International Politics(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008).
14 . Seong-hyon Lee, “Time to Hit the Reset Button on Tokyo-Seoul Relations,” PacNet #35, June 18, 2015,
http://csis.org/publication/pacnet-35-time-hit-reset-button-tokyo-seoul-relations.
15. Glosserman and Snyder describe a similar phenomenon occurring at the popular level. See Japan-South Korea Identity Clash,
Location 186.
16. Alexis Dudden, Troubled Apologies among Japan, Korea, and the United States (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008).
17. Ralph A. Cossa, “S. Korea-Japan: Time for Outside Mediation?,” Diplomat, July 30, 2012, http://thediplomat.com/2012/07/skorea-japan-time-for-outside-mediation.
18. Gilbert Rozman, “Introduction,” in U.S. Leadership, History, and Bilateral Relations in Northeast Asia, Gilbert Rozman, ed. (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2011).
19. American Enterprise Institute Panel Discussion, “Japan-Korea Relations at 50: The Weakest Link in Asia,” March 13, 2015,
http://www.aei.org/events/japan%C2%AC-korea-relations-50-weakest-link-asia/; Jim DeMint and Bruce Klingner, “Easing theStrains between Japan and South Korea,” Heritage Foundation, August 19, 2015, http://www.heritage.org/
research/commentary/2015/8/easing-the-strains-between-japan-and-south-korea.
20. Glosserman and Snyder, Japan-South Korea Identity Clash, Location 3142–3157.
21 . Alexis Dudden, “Korea-Japan Standoff: Why Americans Should Care,” Huffington Post, September 14, 2012,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexis-dudden/koreajapan-standoff-why-a_b_1885534.html.
22. Glosserman and Snyder, Japan-South Korea Identity Clash, Location 3023–3032.

16

23. Alexis Dudden, “American Responsibility in Korea and Japan's Island Dispute,” Institute for Corean-America Studies Lectures,
ICAS Fall Symposium, October 11, 2012, United States House Rayburn Office Building Room B 318, Capitol Hill, Washington, DC,
http://www.icasinc.org/2012/2012f/2012fabd.html.
24. Togo, “Japan-South Korea Relations and the Role of the United States on History.”
25. Embassy of the United States in Tokyo, “Statement on Prime Minister Abe's December 26 Visit to Yasukuni Shrine,” December
26, 2013, http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20131226-01.html.
26. In August 1993, then-Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono issued the “Kono Statement” (available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/
policy/women/fund/state9308.html) apologizing to the comfort women victims and admitting responsibility by the Japanese military.
On August 15, 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II in Asia, then-Prime Minister Murayama Tomoiichi issued astatement (available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/press/pm/murayama/9508.html) apologizing for the suffering caused by
Japan during the war. It is widely regarded as Japan’s most significant official apology for wartime acts.
27. The Blue House, “Commemorative Address by President Park Geun-hye on the 70th Anniversary of Liberation,” August 15, 2015,
http://english1.president.go.kr/activity/speeches.php?srh[board_no]=24&srh[view_mode]=detail&srh[seq]=11748&srh[detail_no]=44; Office of the Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, “Statement by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe,” August 14, 2015,
http://japan.kantei.go.jp/97_abe/statement/201508/0814statement.html.
28. Cossa, “S. Korea-Japan: Time for Outside Mediation?”
29. Cha and Friedhoff, “Ending a Feud between Allies.”
30. Yuka Hayashi, “‘No Easy Way Out’ For South Korea-Japan Feud, Despite Biden’s Efforts,” Wall Street Journal Japan Real Time,
December 13, 2013, http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2013/12/13/no-easy-way-out-for-south-korea-japan-feud-despite-bidensefforts.
31. Park, “Getting Away or Getting In? U.S. Strategic Options in the Historical Controversy Between Its Allies,” p. 124.
32. Glosserman and Snyder, Japan-South Korea Identity Clash, Location 2945–2978.
33. During an October 15, 2015 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), President Park said: “I believe
Korea
is
a
naturalpartner
for
the
TPP
as
well.”
The
full
speechcanbeaccessedat
http://csis.org/files/attachments/20151016__PresidnetPark_StatesmensForumAddress.pdf.
34. Glosserman and Snyder, Japan-South Korea Identity Clash, Location 2988.
35. Ibid., Location 2919.
36. Green, “Japan Is Back,” p. 14.