TOKYO: If North Korea’s Kim Jong-il was hoping to drive a fresh wedge into regional faultlines with the test-launch of missiles last week, he may be celebrating already.
Kim’s daring move has stoked tensions between the United States and Japan on one side, and China and South Korea on the other: Tokyo and Washington want sanctions to stymie Pyongyang’s missile programme while Beijing and Seoul favour a softer touch.
It has also played into the hands of hawks in Tokyo who, suspicious of Beijing, are keen to strengthen the nation’s military and tighten security ties with the United States.
Analyst say those conservatives have been further spurred in the hard line towards Pyongyang by jockeying to succeed Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who steps down in September.
“A UN resolution, at this moment, creates deep divisions in the region and makes it harder for the United States and Japan to cooperate with China and South Korea,” said Brad Glosserman, executive director for Hawaii-based Pacific Forum CSIS.
Japan reacted angrily to the missile tests, introducing a package of its own sanctions that included a six-month ban on a North Korean ferry entering Japanese ports.
But its push with Washington for a binding UN Security Council resolution that would impose sanctions on the reclusive state has met resistance from Beijing and Seoul, which would rather lecture than punish their impoverished neighbour.
China criticised Tokyo’s proposed UN resolution on Tuesday, saying it would aggravate the situation and hurt efforts to resume six-country talks on winding up the North’s nuclear arms programmes.
But polls show most Japanese voters favour tough sanctions.
“The reason Japan is being so aggressive (on North Korea) is because public opinion is strong,” said Masao Okonogi, a Korea expert at Keio University in Tokyo.
Short term, the missile crisis is boosting the popularity of Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, a political blue-blood known as a hawk on China and North Korea who is the top contender to succeed Koizumi.
Japan’s next leader will be selected at an election for ruling Liberal Democratic Party president on Sept. 20. The dominant ruling party leader is virtually assured the premiership by virtue of the LDP’s grip on parliament.
Just over 48 per cent of respondents to a poll carried out by Kyodo news agency after the missile tests said they wanted Abe to become the next leader, up 2.5 points from a June survey.
Veteran LDP lawmaker Yasuo Fukuda, seen as taking a more conciliatory line with Japan’s Asian neighbours, was supported by 22.4 per cent of respondents. That was down nearly two percentage points on the previous poll, Kyodo said.
“I think this is an initiative from the prime minister’s office with the LDP election in mind, so the stance is tougher than the original position at the foreign ministry,” said Okonogi.
Koizumi is thought by many to favour Abe as his successor.
The missile tests have also rekindled a debate over whether Tokyo should develop the capability to make pre-emptive strikes and whether these would violate its pacifist constitution.
“This gives Japan an opportunity and rationale to do things China would prefer it did not do,” said Glosserman. “It forces Japan closer to the United States, creates a greater constituency for increased defence spending ... and creates impetus to acquire force projection capability and push missile defence.”
Sino-Japanese ties have already been frayed by rivalry for regional dominance, mutual suspicion over military ambitions and Beijing’s anger over Koizumi’s visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, which is seen as a symbol of Tokyo’s past militarism.
China is also wary of a US-Japan plan to embed Tokyo more firmly in Washington’s global military strategy and set the stage for Japan to play a bigger role in the alliance.
“Japan has its own objectives here,” said Zhang Liangui, an international relations expert at Beijing’s Central Party School, a leading party think-tank.
“Japan appears to be using the missile issue to strengthen ties with the United States and raise its own military stance.”
