The Joongang and Chosun both bash the possibility of Japan going nuclear, while the Dong-a Ilbo goes after Roh’s security record. The Korea Times and Korea Herald both go after China’s historical approach to ancient Korean kingdoms.

Joongang Ilbo: No good in a nuclear Japan

Yasuhiro Nakasone, the former Japanese prime minister, said Japan is currently dependent on U.S. nuclear weapons and that the country needs to look into making nuclear weapons in case of a possible upheaval in the international situation, such as a rupture of the U.S.-Japan security treaty.

Mr. Nakasone is the chairman of a subcommittee of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party’s constitution drafting committee.

Shinzo Abe, who is likely to be elected chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party in this month’s election and take office next month, also plans to amend the Constitution so as to facilitate Japan’s transition into a major military power.

It is noteworthy that an unofficial spokesman of Japan’s conservative politicians publicly mentioned “the need for nuclear armament,” which has been taboo in the country.

Of course, there are many obstacles to Japan building a nuclear weapon. One of these is the strong domestic opposition.

[…]

But some factors might make it possible for Japan to have nuclear weapons. Above all would be a North Korean nuclear test. In addition, the United States might change its position if relations between the United States and China become shaky due to conflicts over Taiwan. The fundamental U.S. strategy for Northeast Asia is to maintain balance in the region through its alliance with Japan.

[…]

South Korea cannot accept Japan’s possession of nuclear weapons, to say nothing of the North’s. We should prepare for the worst case ― a nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia. (emphasis added)

Chosun Ilbo: Paving the Way for Japan’s Nuclear Armament

The former Japanese prime minister Yasuhiro Nakasone on Tuesday said Tokyo needs to consider developing nuclear weapons given its proximity to nuclear states and in case of a sea change in the U.S.-Japan Security (AMPO) Treaty.

Nakasone headed a subcommittee of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party’s committee to redraft the country’s pacifist postwar Constitution last year. He more or less represents the position of Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, who is all but certain to become the next prime minister and believes Article 9 of the Constitution banning offensive military action should be revised and that nuclear armament should be an option. Abe has maintained for some years that the Constitution does not stop Japan from acquiring nuclear arms, that it should acquire them, and that it is capable of making them within a week.

[…]

That will shake the security structure around the Korean Peninsula to the core. A nuclear-armed Japan would also upset the power balance worldwide. When a criminal country that plunged millions of Asians into catastrophe in World War II aims at becoming again a military power armed with the bomb, it means that the postwar generation is brazenly perpetuating the wrongs of their fathers. It would trample on the victims of the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It is North Korea that is providing Japan with the excuse, and our government that is egging Pyongyang on. Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso, when North Korea tested its missiles in July, said Tokyo has to thank the North. It is crystal clear what Japan will do if the North conducts a nuclear test.

President Roh Moo-hyun defended Pyongyang’s nuclear development when he said there was “some reason” in it. It may have been some kind of joke, but Japan can use the North’s nuclear program as an excuse to build the bomb. On top of it, our government is now systematically dismantling the Korea-U.S. alliance, based on which we can ask it to counter any Japanese threat to South Korea. Japan is having a high old time thanks to our administration’s half-baked views on security. (emphasis added)

Dong-a Ilbo: Roh’s Security Policy

In establishing and administering national policies including diplomacy, opinions of the masses must be reflected. That is in accordance with national sovereignty and the spirit of the national constitutions, let alone the security policies people’s lives and property depend on.

Even intellectuals are actively opposed to the rapid takeover of operational control. It is safe to say that the security policies of the Roh administration go against patriotism, let alone reflecting what the nationals want.

The National Congress for Advanced Nations led a joint declaration opposing the takeover of operational control which was also signed by about 720 intellectuals in humanities and social sciences. They said in the declaration, “It is truly worrisome that the major agenda related to national security supposed to be carefully addressed based on the public consensus and discussions is being handled so hurriedly due to political causes.”

[…]

The intellectuals particularly took strict caution that President Roh was trying to link the takeover of operational control to the issue of sovereignty.

[…]

Their declaration came after series of opposing statements and protests from previous defense ministers and military seniors, four-star generals in the reserve, and reservist organizations like the alumni groups of Military, Naval and Air Academies, Korean Veterans Association and the Christian Council of Korea. This shows how rampant the opposing opinions against the takeover of operational control are throughout Korea. On September 11, previous police chiefs are expected to express their thoughts and on September 8, the National Action Campaign for Freedom and Democracy in Korea, a conservative group will hold a large-scale rally in front of the City Hall in Seoul.

Even the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, a national policy research institute, pointed out the unrealistic feature of the current administration’s security policies, including the early takeover of operational control in a document requested by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade last December. The report said, “The national security strategies of the participatory government are not realistic blueprints but nothing more than a series of abstract and idealistic concepts,” criticizing, “Concepts suggested in the same aspect, including ‘cooperative self-defense,’ and ‘the theory with Korea potentially serving as a “balancer” in Northeast Asia’ intensify and expand the causes of internal conflicts, instead of integrating the public opinions.”

[…]

The ROK-U.S. summit talks to be held in Washington on September 14 ought to be a turning point to change the direction of the discussions on operational control rights. The U.S. has no intention to mention it first, but is said to be willing to do so if President Roh brings it up first. President Roh has to suggest delaying the takeover plans.

[…]

If the government supposed to be responsible to preserve Korea’s structure and beliefs makes a wrong choice, misguided by “sovereignty,” it would be committing a sin, damaging the next administration and onward.

Korea Times: Historical Hijacking

China is seriously challenging Japan’s reputation as Asia’s champion for revising historical and territorial truths. A state think tank in Beijing recently carried more than a dozen historical theses on its Web page claiming almost all of Korea’s ancient history as part of China’s. They went as far as to say the land north of Han River originally belonged to China, halving Korea’s history and all but wiping out its national identify. Should we Koreans get angry or laugh?

The Chinese government is trying to snatch away the history of two kingdoms _ Koguryo and Palhae _ spanning almost 1,000 years (B.C. 37 to 926) from Korea. Beijing is saying in effect all that has happened in current Chinese territory is China’s history. We can understand Beijing’s anxiety toward separatist sentiments in Tibet, Uigur and Inner Mongolia, but this is outrageous. It should find other ways to soothe popular complaints about its long, authoritarian one-party rule.

Beijing’s moves appear aimed at blocking possible Korean claims to Manchuria after reunification or preempting North Korea in case of the isolationist regime’s abrupt collapse. China reportedly wants to be qualified to criticize the United States and Japan for what it sees as their expansionist and imperialist foreign policies. It’s regrettable that Asia is running in the opposite direction to Europe, which is seeking unity in diversity.

[…]

Pyongyang’s silence, albeit understandable because of its heavy reliance on Beijing, is deplorable. Seoul needs to show a strong will _ far beyond some nationalistic TV shows _ not to tolerate China’s audacity. It could realize the Dalai Lama’s long-pending visit to Korea, for instance. Whether the government has such determination is doubtful, however, as shown by the lukewarm attitude of some of its officials. (emphasis added)

Korea Herald: Imperial approach

China has renewed a claim over Goguryeo, one of the three ancient Korean kingdoms, as being part of its own history. It also claims old Joseon and Balhae were part of ancient China, an unmistakable attempt to rewrite its influence on Korean history into Chinese history.

The claims are contained in the abstracts of papers a Chinese research institute has recently posted in its website. The posting violates a 2004 “verbal understanding” that China would take no action to trigger a diplomatic row over ancient history.

The Chinese claims, contradicted by historical records, are apparently politically motivated. The reasons range from the control of ethnic minorities to the prevention of border disputes. But China will have to understand that history is history and it cannot be sacrificed to its political goals, no matter what. Otherwise, China will be accused of being imperialistic in the interpretation of history, if not in realpolitik.

[…]

At the same time, the South Korean government needs to remind the Korean people that China’s misinterpretation of history is no less serious than Japan’s attempt to whitewash its wartime past.

—–