Four-way relations
Northeast Asia, namely China, Japan and the two Koreas, has been engaged in brisk top-level meetings since last weekend to address the increasingly complex issues involving the region. While North Korean leader Kim Jong-il was touring China, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao discussed security, trade and disaster control in a summit in Tokyo Sunday after visiting the earthquake-hit northeastern Japan Saturday.
Wen broke with a tradition and admitted Kim Jong-il’s traveling to his country, which he said was intended to “familiarize” the North Korean chief with the economic development achieved in China and to offer opportunities for the North to utilize China’s experiences. In bilateral talks with President Lee, Wen said he believed Seoul would positively assess the North Korean leader’s rather frequent visits to China.
The trilateral summit, which became an annual event in 2008, agreed on a variety of subjects ranging from operating an early notification system for nuclear accidents to accelerating efforts to forge a three-way free trade agreement. The three leaders tasted cherry tomatoes and cucumbers to demonstrate their faith in the safety of the produce from areas near the tsunami-hit nuclear power plant. Beijing quickly eased restrictions on food imports from Japan.
A joint summit declaration pledged cooperation not only on nuclear safety but also on economic and security issues and a set of documents specified more detailed steps for disaster management and ways to promote environmentally-sustainable development. The devastation from the March 11 disaster, especially the destruction of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, provided a greater sense of urgency for stepped-up cooperation among the three neighboring countries.
It was for this reason that the leaders left untouched some traditionally troublesome issues, including the official perception of history up to and during World War II and territorial disputes over islands located in the seas between the three countries. On the other hand, the three leaders expressed concerns over Pyongyang’s uranium enrichment program and agreed to work together for the restarting of the six-party denuclearization talks.
The result of the three-way summit could thus be assessed as satisfactory, if thanks in part to the atmosphere of emergency in the host nation. Yet, after another round of the top-level meetings, we are again convinced of what the most important ingredients for regional peace and prosperity are.
They are, first of all, respect for the status quo regarding territorial issues; second, Japan’s acceptance of the historical guilt over atrocities it committed to its neighbors and refraining from any kind of official activities to gloss over the past; and third, China’s use of its influence on North Korea to find a reasonable course toward survival without nuclear adventures. These may sound like selfish assertions from a unilateral South Korean standpoint, but we believe that consensus will grow among the peoples of our neighbors, excluding some extremists, on how they should adjust their national claims to global standards for peaceful coexistence.
Kim Jong-il’s current visit to China, the third in a year’s time, which is exceptional between two sovereign states, testifies to the North’s rapidly deepening economic and political dependence on its only ally. Whether Seoul will positively assess it “from a far-reaching strategic dimension,” as Premier Wen presumed, will depend on how Beijing drives Pyongyang toward behaving like a normal member of the international community. Meanwhile, an improvement was seen in Japan of late with its officials’ apparent restraint on visits to the Yasukuni Shrine for the war-dead and war criminals.
Wen broke with a tradition and admitted Kim Jong-il’s traveling to his country, which he said was intended to “familiarize” the North Korean chief with the economic development achieved in China and to offer opportunities for the North to utilize China’s experiences. In bilateral talks with President Lee, Wen said he believed Seoul would positively assess the North Korean leader’s rather frequent visits to China.
The trilateral summit, which became an annual event in 2008, agreed on a variety of subjects ranging from operating an early notification system for nuclear accidents to accelerating efforts to forge a three-way free trade agreement. The three leaders tasted cherry tomatoes and cucumbers to demonstrate their faith in the safety of the produce from areas near the tsunami-hit nuclear power plant. Beijing quickly eased restrictions on food imports from Japan.
A joint summit declaration pledged cooperation not only on nuclear safety but also on economic and security issues and a set of documents specified more detailed steps for disaster management and ways to promote environmentally-sustainable development. The devastation from the March 11 disaster, especially the destruction of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, provided a greater sense of urgency for stepped-up cooperation among the three neighboring countries.
It was for this reason that the leaders left untouched some traditionally troublesome issues, including the official perception of history up to and during World War II and territorial disputes over islands located in the seas between the three countries. On the other hand, the three leaders expressed concerns over Pyongyang’s uranium enrichment program and agreed to work together for the restarting of the six-party denuclearization talks.
The result of the three-way summit could thus be assessed as satisfactory, if thanks in part to the atmosphere of emergency in the host nation. Yet, after another round of the top-level meetings, we are again convinced of what the most important ingredients for regional peace and prosperity are.
They are, first of all, respect for the status quo regarding territorial issues; second, Japan’s acceptance of the historical guilt over atrocities it committed to its neighbors and refraining from any kind of official activities to gloss over the past; and third, China’s use of its influence on North Korea to find a reasonable course toward survival without nuclear adventures. These may sound like selfish assertions from a unilateral South Korean standpoint, but we believe that consensus will grow among the peoples of our neighbors, excluding some extremists, on how they should adjust their national claims to global standards for peaceful coexistence.
Kim Jong-il’s current visit to China, the third in a year’s time, which is exceptional between two sovereign states, testifies to the North’s rapidly deepening economic and political dependence on its only ally. Whether Seoul will positively assess it “from a far-reaching strategic dimension,” as Premier Wen presumed, will depend on how Beijing drives Pyongyang toward behaving like a normal member of the international community. Meanwhile, an improvement was seen in Japan of late with its officials’ apparent restraint on visits to the Yasukuni Shrine for the war-dead and war criminals.
China should curb forcible demolitions
Forcible demolitions will not stop unless local government leaders are made to realize that they have to pay a price for exploiting land to earn revenue.
The amended regulations on requisition and compensation for State-owned land took effect on Jan. 21, but only a few local land and resources officials have been punished. The central government, therefore, has to take some strict measures to ensure that the sanctity of State Council regulations is maintained.
The Ministry of Land and Resources issued a notice early this week, saying demolitions should not start before residents are paid proper compensation. This shows the amended regulations have yet to be carried out in earnest. This is something the State Council, or China’s Cabinet, does not want to see.
The State Council’s new notice requires local governments to first find out to what extent had the regulations been implemented until the end of next month. After that, the notice says, the ministries of land and resources, housing and urban and rural construction, public security, supervision and agriculture, as well as the State Council’s Legal Affairs Office are to form joint inspection teams to review local governments’ performance vis-a-vis the amended regulations. This is the State Council’s way of adding vigor to the regulations.
Though rural land owned collectively by villagers is not under the purview of the amended regulations, the State Council has issued documents saying villagers’ interests must be protected during requisition of rural land for non-agricultural purposes.
But forcible demolitions have taken place repeatedly. The latest demolition tragedy was reported from the city of Zhuzhou, Hunan province, where a villager committed suicide by setting himself on fire when demolishers began razing his house forcibly. A resident of Xinghua, Jiangsu province, too, committed self-immolation.
These tragic incidents show why proper inspections and punishing people guilty of forcible demolitions are necessary. Seeing local departments or officials flout these regulations constantly instead of implementing them on behalf of the central authorities will shake people’s confidence in the government.
Although the inspection measure seems tough enough, the central government should order specific probes into certain forcible demolition cases or set a deadline for local governments to complete their jobs.
Also, officials found guilty of flouting the regulations should be punished accordingly.
Only in this way can the sanctity of State Council regulations on demolitions and requisition of land in the countryside be honored and local leaders made aware that there is a price to pay for flouting central government rules.
The amended regulations on requisition and compensation for State-owned land took effect on Jan. 21, but only a few local land and resources officials have been punished. The central government, therefore, has to take some strict measures to ensure that the sanctity of State Council regulations is maintained.
The Ministry of Land and Resources issued a notice early this week, saying demolitions should not start before residents are paid proper compensation. This shows the amended regulations have yet to be carried out in earnest. This is something the State Council, or China’s Cabinet, does not want to see.
The State Council’s new notice requires local governments to first find out to what extent had the regulations been implemented until the end of next month. After that, the notice says, the ministries of land and resources, housing and urban and rural construction, public security, supervision and agriculture, as well as the State Council’s Legal Affairs Office are to form joint inspection teams to review local governments’ performance vis-a-vis the amended regulations. This is the State Council’s way of adding vigor to the regulations.
Though rural land owned collectively by villagers is not under the purview of the amended regulations, the State Council has issued documents saying villagers’ interests must be protected during requisition of rural land for non-agricultural purposes.
But forcible demolitions have taken place repeatedly. The latest demolition tragedy was reported from the city of Zhuzhou, Hunan province, where a villager committed suicide by setting himself on fire when demolishers began razing his house forcibly. A resident of Xinghua, Jiangsu province, too, committed self-immolation.
These tragic incidents show why proper inspections and punishing people guilty of forcible demolitions are necessary. Seeing local departments or officials flout these regulations constantly instead of implementing them on behalf of the central authorities will shake people’s confidence in the government.
Although the inspection measure seems tough enough, the central government should order specific probes into certain forcible demolition cases or set a deadline for local governments to complete their jobs.
Also, officials found guilty of flouting the regulations should be punished accordingly.
Only in this way can the sanctity of State Council regulations on demolitions and requisition of land in the countryside be honored and local leaders made aware that there is a price to pay for flouting central government rules.
Visit to Kunashiri
It does not seem a very wise move that a group of South Korean lawmakers would visit one of the Kuril islands, the subject of a long-standing territorial dispute between Russia and Japan, as part of their campaign to manifest Korea’s sovereignty over Dokdo islands in the East Sea. First of all, there is little similarity between Dokdo and any of the four islands which have been under Russian jurisdiction since the end of World War II.
Reps. Kang Chang-il, Moon Hak-jin and Chang Se-hwan of a National Assembly subcommittee on the protection of rights on Dokdo, intend to visit Kunashiri, the largest of the four islands which Japan call the Northern Territories, to research how Russia has countered Japan’s claims. Reports on their trip caused a stir in the Japanese parliament, where Prime Minister Naoto Kan spoke of a “proper counteraction.”
We have no intent to present an opinion on the ongoing dispute but we have to make clear the differences between Dokdo and the Kuril islands in terms of legal, historical and geographical factors, so that no improper analogy is allowed regarding the two international issues. Dokdo, in the sea contiguous to Ulleung Island, was claimed by Japan through a unilateral edict in 1905 in the beginning of the Japanese imperialist encroachment on Korea after the Russo-Japanese War and Korean sovereignty was restored on the island upon the termination of Japanese colonial rule over Korea at the end of World War II.
As for the Kuril islands, there were the treaties of 1855 and 1875 between Japan and Russia and the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty plus a number of official statements by the governments of the two countries concerning the status of the archipelago, some of which cause differences in interpretation. Russia has offered the return of Shikotan and Habomai while Japan claims that Kunashiri and Etorofu too are the proper parts of its territory.
Our lawmakers should have studied more on the differences between Dokdo and the Kuril islands before making their visit plan.
Reps. Kang Chang-il, Moon Hak-jin and Chang Se-hwan of a National Assembly subcommittee on the protection of rights on Dokdo, intend to visit Kunashiri, the largest of the four islands which Japan call the Northern Territories, to research how Russia has countered Japan’s claims. Reports on their trip caused a stir in the Japanese parliament, where Prime Minister Naoto Kan spoke of a “proper counteraction.”
We have no intent to present an opinion on the ongoing dispute but we have to make clear the differences between Dokdo and the Kuril islands in terms of legal, historical and geographical factors, so that no improper analogy is allowed regarding the two international issues. Dokdo, in the sea contiguous to Ulleung Island, was claimed by Japan through a unilateral edict in 1905 in the beginning of the Japanese imperialist encroachment on Korea after the Russo-Japanese War and Korean sovereignty was restored on the island upon the termination of Japanese colonial rule over Korea at the end of World War II.
As for the Kuril islands, there were the treaties of 1855 and 1875 between Japan and Russia and the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty plus a number of official statements by the governments of the two countries concerning the status of the archipelago, some of which cause differences in interpretation. Russia has offered the return of Shikotan and Habomai while Japan claims that Kunashiri and Etorofu too are the proper parts of its territory.
Our lawmakers should have studied more on the differences between Dokdo and the Kuril islands before making their visit plan.
0 comments:
Post a Comment