DC scribe Chris Nelson asked me to comment on a column by Douglas Bloomfield about “incitement” and antagonistic Israeli-Palestinian relations, as Chris saw a lot of similarities in relations between Japan and South Korea. Bloomfield laments how each side incites hatred and distrust toward the other, arguing that “Glorifying violence and preaching hate are not conducive to peace.” Ultimately, however, he argues: “Is incitement the deal breaker? Only for those who want it to be. If Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas genuinely want peace and are ready for the decisions that requires – the key word being “if” – incitement won’t stop them.”
When I think about this issue, I agree that the parallels are striking, and I find myself thinking about this in terms of narratives. The Israeli and Palestinian narratives (about each other and about history) are hostile and incompatible. In the famous negotiation book “Getting to Yes,” authors Fisher, Ury, and Patton argue that actors seeking to cooperate must craft a narrative that respects the identity and “core concerns” (e.g., values, honor, sense of autonomy, sense of belonging) of each side.
Of course, if one side refers to the other as “cockroaches,” or denies the other’s right to exist (quoting examples cited by Bloomfield), they will not be able to cooperate or reconcile.
In the successful reconciliations that we have seen (see my recent CNN op-ed), we see countries that did indeed rewrite formerly antagonistic narratives. Thus it’s not narratives or “incitement” that’s keeping Japan and South Korea apart; their antagonistic narratives are a reflection (not the cause) of their continued strategic distance.
If Seoul and Tokyo did decide they wanted to cooperate, they would need to harmonize their antagonistic narratives. Currently, their narratives attack the other country’s sense of identity and core concerns: Japan outrages Koreans for inadequately acknowledging the harm it committed against Koreans, and the suffering that Koreans experienced. Acknowledgment of one’s own wrongdoing instills greater trust about future behavior; acknowledgment of a group’s suffering is a basic recognition of its humanity and worth.
For its part, South Korea’s narrative also threatens Japan’s core concerns. It threatens Japan’s autonomy (because the Japanese perceive that they are being berated and pressured). It makes Japan feel unappreciated (because its previous efforts at contrition are disregarded). And the Korean narrative attacks Japan’s sense of affiliation and status, by portraying Tokyo as running afoul of liberal human rights, and as a dangerous country that needs to be contained by the U.S.-alliance.
The Japanese and Koreans have ample material for a shared narrative — about peace, democracy and freedom, or their triumphant rise to wealth and global prominence. They just need the will to write it.