Day: May 3, 2024

It is probably the case that politicians who are encouraged to read the works of the ancient Greek thinker, Plato – particularly The Republic – to learn something there about the prerequisites for being able to govern appropriately and wisely, would scoff at this suggestion, with perhaps a few rare exceptions. More specifically, among these prerequisites Plato counted an understanding of the ‘nature’ of human beings – their ‘soul’ or psuche (where our word, psyche, comes from). To the question of why Plato would consider it essential for rulers to understand the people whom they govern, the answer should be obvious: unless you have a grasp of how these creatures think, what they desire, and so on, your governance may just flounder against the rock of misunderstanding. 

At least this is something on which our current ‘rulers’ (such as they are) would agree: you have to ‘understand’ the people over whom you rule, but with an important – in fact, crucial – qualification. For Plato, knowledge of human nature was essential because, as a philosopher, he wanted rulers to rule wisely, for the benefit of the people and for the polis or city-state; for those fascists who would lord it over us today, such knowledge is similarly essential, although it comes with a massive difference. Instead of utilising an understanding of humans for the benefit of all, their intent, to use and abuse such knowledge with the aim of exercising totalitarian control over the supposed ‘useless eaters,’ has been demonstrated in no uncertain terms since at least 2020, although the aftermath of 9/11 was already a warning of what was to come.  

So, how should one govern, given specific abilities, inclinations, and dispositions on the part of the governed and the governing – considering that rulers also have to understand themselves to be able to govern well and justly? If you recognise the name of Plato, you will probably know that he was an ancient Greek philosopher who lived in the 4th century BCE. You may also know that Socrates was his teacher and that he (Plato), in turn, was Aristotle’s teacher, who later turned out to be the teacher of the Macedonian prince who became Alexander the Great. This is the historical context in broad brushstrokes. What few people know is that Plato could teach politicians a thing or two about good governance. 

Politicians would probably scoff at this — a fellow who lived more than 2,000 years ago teach us ‘modern’ politicians how to do our job? Come on! Actually, this is precisely what I mean. Consider this. Plato’s Republic did not fall from thin air. When his teacher, Socrates, was found guilty of misleading the youth of the city (that is, for teaching them how to think for themselves) by an Athenian court, he was condemned to death. For Plato this was a clear sign that justice did not prevail in Athens. 

Who knew better than Plato that Socrates was a just man, whose only ‘crime’ was that he taught people to question things, especially ‘the gods of the city’ — in other words, all those things that cities (today, societies) accept conventionally and uncritically. For individuals who have political and economic power in a city or society, such a person as Socrates was a direct threat to their power, and therefore he ‘had to go.’ 

In his Apology Plato provides an account of Socrates’ trial, which gives us some insight into his reasons for believing that Socrates was a just man, and hence, that his conviction and execution comprised an unjust act. But in his Republic — which is undoubtedly one of the most important and influential works ever written — Plato has furnished us with a thoroughly reasoned account of the conditions that a city-state (or polis, in Greek), must satisfy to be a ‘just’ city. 

If Plato’s notion of justice comes across as strange today, it is probably because one does not often judge laws in light of the question, whether they are just; that is, serve justice. And yet, it has always been the case that laws are not necessarily just. (Think of South Africa’s erstwhile apartheid laws: they were not just.) However, the comparative novelty of Plato’s notion of a ‘just’ city, from a contemporary perspective, only comes into focus when one discovers that you first have to understand his conception of the human psyche or soul. In a nutshell, the structure of a just city is congruent to that of what may be called a ‘just’ soul. 

According to Plato the human psyche is composite, with three components, namely reason, spirit, and appetite (or desire). By means of striking images, functioning as metaphors, he enabled his readers to visualise their relation to one another. The best known of these images is probably the one in the Phaedrus, where he compares the psyche to a chariot, driven by a charioteer and pulled by two horses. The first of the latter was a grey-eyed, black horse, stockily built and not really beautiful, but extraordinarily strong, and disobedient to boot. The other horse was black-eyed, white, beautiful, graceful, and obedient. 

What do these metaphorical components of the soul – the chariot, two horses and charioteer – represent? The charioteer instantiates reason, the white horse spirit, and the black horse desire (appetite). Reason guides, spirit animates, and desire motivates. The strength of desire, in Plato’s estimation, is apparent from his argument that, unless the charioteer (reason) enlists the assistance of the white, obedient horse (spirit), the powerful black horse (desire) cannot be controlled, and pulls the chariot wherever it wants to go. 

In other words, the partnership between the charioteer and the obedient, but spirited horse is essential to prevent the headstrong horse from taking them from pillar to post in the quest, to satisfy its needs. However, if the charioteer (reason), assisted by the white horse, gains mastery over this powerful creature, he or she can guide the two steeds, which means that reason is not self-sufficient, but depends on the two other faculties (spirit and desire) to live a life in equilibrium. Putting it differently: only wisdom (reason’s ‘excellence’ or virtue) together with courage(spirit’s ‘excellence’) can rein in the excesses of appetite or desire (whose ‘excellence’ is to motivate). 

What should be prevented at all costs, according to Plato, is that desire be allowed to rule the former two faculties, as disharmony or chaos would be the result in a person’s life. Significantly, such an appetite- or need-ruled person’s soul is said to lack ‘justice.’ The ‘just’ soul is therefore also a happy one; where there is balance among reason, spirit, and desire, all three of these faculties being necessary for a fulfilled life. 

Interestingly, Plato argues that when spirit, which is characterised by ‘spiritedness’ or thumos, is lacking in a person, it has a particularly deleterious effect on such a person’s character, given its indispensable supportive function in relation to reason. Moreover, one knows that spirit is absent from a person’s character when someone fails to be angered by injustice. This gives meaning to the expression, ‘to be justly angry.’ 

This is where one can make the transition from a ‘just’ (and happy) individual soul to the state which is ‘just.’ In the Republic, Plato maps his psychology on to the state or polis. There are, or should be, three distinct classes, he argues: the rulers, guardians of the state (or so-called philosopher-kings), the protectors (soldiers and navy, also sometimes called ‘guardians’), and the producers (commercial classes). 

Furthermore, just as an individual lives happily and in harmony with her- or himself when reason rules over desire with the help of spirit, so, too, a polis (or society) is harmonious and ‘just’ when the rulers govern wisely, with the assistance of the spirited protectors, in this way restraining the sometimes excessive needs and desires of the commercial classes. Should appetite (the ‘excellence’ of the commercial producers) gain the upper hand, a city is soon in disharmony, according to Plato, particularly if reason (the rulers) is overwhelmed by the wish to satisfy appetite uncontrollably, and especially if the protectors fail to support the (presumably wise) rulers.

Although one may take issue with Plato on the class structure of his ideal republic, which is thoroughly argued in the book (and I, for one, would do so), one has to acknowledge the genius of his insight into the prerequisites for ruling well; namely a well-grounded comprehension of the way the human soul functions — that of the rulers and the ruled. Furthermore, his model of the human psyche is as illuminating today as it was in antiquity, and it is easy to test it on an individual as well as collective level. 

Freud understood this so well that at least two of the components of his structural conception of the psyche correspond with Plato’s; namely the ‘ego’ (reason, for Plato) and the ‘id’ (Platonic desire). The only two that aren’t really a match are Freud’s ‘superego’ (the subliminal representative of societal normativity in the psyche) and Plato’s ‘spirit,’ probably because the ‘superego’ presupposes the Freudian unconscious, of which Plato presumably did not have an idea. 

Recall that earlier I alluded to contemporary politicians and other technocrats, who aspire to the assumption of power over the rest of us, employing an understanding of the human psyche, not for the benefit of all – as in Plato’s (and later also Aristotle’s) case – but instead with the demonstrable intention, to use and abuse such knowledge, with the additional aim of furthering desired totalitarian control. What I have in mind is that, as evidence suggests, the kind of knowledge (pertaining to ‘rule’) that they aspire to is mainly, if not exclusively, of the psycho-technological sort, which enables them – that is, their agents and servants – to carry out what is known today as (a variety of) ‘psy-ops,’ or psychological operations usually attributed to the military. 

Psy-ops employ a diversity of psychological strategies and techniques to exercise influence over the feelings, thoughts, and behaviour of a selected group, with the obvious goal of persuading the people comprising the latter, usually via various modes of deception, to act in a desired manner. If this sounds familiar, don’t be surprised. It has been carried out on the populations of the world’s countries since at least 2020, and arguably for much longer.

Given the advanced state of electronic information and communication technology at that time, the means for the propaganda and cleverly disguised disinformation, essential for convincing people to act in a desired manner, were already there with the advent of Covid, and will be employed again in a similar future situation, such as the possibly pervasive spread of bird flu (among people?), which has already been detected in India and at least 17 US states. 

It is not difficult to recall obvious instances of psy-ops during Covid. Who can forget the endless refrain of ‘Build back better,’ or ‘It is time for the Great Reset,’ let alone ‘No one is safe until we are all safe!’ And then there were the psy-ops surrounding lockdowns, masking, and social distancing, where we were all assured that, based on scientific grounds, these strategies for combating ‘the virus’ were indispensable if we were to defeat it. However, as Robert Kennedy, Jr. reminds us in his A Letter to Liberals (p. 32), in an April 2022 interview, 

…Dr. Fauci finally acknowledged his true strategy behind lockdown mandates—a psychological warfare technique to coerce vaccine compliance: ‘You use lockdowns to get people vaccinated.’ 

Not surprisingly, Fauci has also admitted that social distancing ‘…was completely fake from the start,’ in other words, that it was a psy-op, as indeed were ‘…draconian rules around vaccines that don’t meaningfully stop transmission or infection’ (in the same article) – a reference to putatively scientifically founded ‘vaccine’ mandates. Unfortunately, this rather debonair admission from an unrepentant Covid ‘health’ czar does not reverse the immeasurable damage done to so many people by the adoption of these completely unscientific measures, especially to children, in psychological terms.   

Not that these psy-ops were restricted to people like Fauci and Bill Gates as far as their indefatigable praise of miraculous ‘vaccines’ and related matters went. Joe Biden, the president of the United States himself – in the company of dictators like Justin Trudeau of Canada and Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand, who did the same thing – endlessly reminded people on television that it was imperative to get the ‘vaccine,’ lest they die a miserable death, which he confidently predicted on the part of the ‘anti-vaxxers.’ 

And without fail they supported their exhortations with the reassurance to viewers that this was based on ‘the science.’ Some ‘science,’ given the accumulating evidence of excess deaths, occurring in the time following the administering of billions of Covid ‘vaccines’ across the globe – something that is becoming apparent regarding children too. Only a fool would argue that there is no connection between the jabs and the mortality figures. 

Is there any indication that knowledge – specifically scientific knowledge, so highly prized in our time – is employed or applied to facilitate good governance or rule today, in a way that is comparable to Plato’s use of philosophical knowledge to promote good governance? It seems to me to be abundantly obvious that this is not the case; whether it is techno-psychology, or pharmaceutical science, the exact opposite appears to be so, and while one may argue that this is not explicitly tied to issues concerning rule or governance, in effect it has everything to do with it. Except that it should be called ‘misrule,’ ‘tyranny,’ or ‘dictatorship.’ And as for being ‘just,’ it is at the furthest possible remove from it.

• This article was published at Brownstone Institute

On May 6, 2021, Javier Milei delivered a virtual presentation for FEE to 9,750 students titled “4 Record-Breaking Economics Lessons.” The following is an excerpt from that presentation.

The institutions of capitalism can be boiled down to five key principles. The first institution is what we know as private property.

The second is free markets, meaning markets without state interference.

Next is competition, but not the neoclassical concept of perfect competition. It’s closer to Adam Smith’s idea of competition, involving free entry and exit. This concept was further refined in recent times by William Baumol and the theory of contestable markets, which deals with market operations.

Lastly, there are two institutions related to the logic of the market: the division of labor, which promotes specialization, and social cooperation.

People are naturally diverse, and the larger the market, the more it promotes the division of labor. This division of labor fosters social cooperation. As Bastiat put it, “Where goods do not cross borders, armies will.” In other words, societies that engage in trade tend to have more peace.

Essentially, what is a market? A market is a process of social cooperation where property rights are exchanged. This is where the definition of property rights and free, unregulated markets come into play.

The price system in economics is analogous to the nervous system in the human body. Now, it becomes crucial that markets are free. Why? Because when markets are not free and the state intervenes, the price signal starts to get muddied. When the price signal becomes muddied, the signal that travels through the system is unclear. When it’s unclear, there is no coordination, no adjustment.

Moreover, many times when attempts are made to regulate these things, the result ends up being worse than the initial situation – the so-called market failure, which I don’t subscribe to.

However, some, in their arrogance and lack of understanding of how the market works, accuse the market of not functioning. And when they attempt to correct it, the state’s intervention often worsens the situation.

So, what’s the point? The point is that the more state interference there is, the worse the price system functions.

This is a crucial element. Why is it so important? Because it explains why socialism doesn’t work. In real socialism, in communism, there’s no private property.

So, with no private property, exchanges lose their meaning. There’s no concept of price. Consequently, there’s no price signal to guide resource allocation. Therefore, socialism fails precisely because it can’t perform economic calculations, and it can’t do this because it doesn’t respect property rights.

Another critical aspect of the functioning of the price system is the role of profits.

Profits are extremely important. Suppose we have an economy that produces goods A and B. For some reason, people decide to consume less of B and more of A. In this scenario, there will be excess demand in the market, causing the price of A to rise and the price of B to fall.

When this happens, resources will reallocate from the production of B to A.

We’ve seen this before, with how various governments worldwide have been meddling in the vaccine and testing markets. Why? Because they were tampering with the price signal. Instead of helping reduce scarcity, they were exacerbating it. What’s more, in many cases, these activities were monopolized by the government, which, as we’ve already seen, does everything poorly because it spends other people’s money on others, leading to inevitable inefficiencies.

Consider rent control laws. This has been attempted several times in many places. When you try to control rental prices, what will happen? It’s quite simple.

On one hand, property owners will withdraw their properties from the market, which will exert upward pressure on rental prices, and in some cases, lead to a black market.

But it doesn’t end there. If the regulator is efficient at pursuing property owners, what will happen? How will they adjust? They will adjust by deteriorating the quality of the properties. So, property quality will decline.

Thus, the supply of rental properties will worsen. Moreover, since the regulated price is below equilibrium, you’ll have a situation where more people than normal are looking for rentals. This will result in severe shortages and create a massive problem.

• This article was published by FEE

Since we are in a presidential election year, with campaigns already revealing bitter divisions, Americans are about to be carpet-bombed with assertions that “every vote counts,” and that in consequence, “you must vote” (the “right” way, of course).  

It is hard not to find evidence. Over half a year before the election, a Google search of “Every vote counts” not only turned up 638,000 hits, but plenty of websites ready to pound that message into every head by way of every medium. “You must vote” was not far behind, with 598,000 hits. 

The eagerness with which so many make that pitch means that any story that might provide a hook on which to hang such conclusions will be used for that purpose. However, that does not mean those pre-ordained conclusions logically follow.

A good example is the recent congressional primary in the Silicon Valley in which Evan Low and Joe Simitian tied with 30,249 votes each. Yue Stella Yu’s article at CalMatters even led with “Every vote counts” in the title. 

However, that conclusion doesn’t follow from the illustration.

To begin with, Low and Simitian tied for second in the race, not first. Those who voted for one of them didn’t elect anyone or determine the fate of any law or initiative. The only reason the tie mattered is that under California’s top-two primary system, it means three will make the general election instead of two. 

For it to actually make a difference, such votes would require that one of the second place primary finishers wins the general election. But they have a way to go to catch the leading primary vote-getter, Sam Liccardo, who had 38,489 votes, to 30,249 for each of the runners-up.  But even then, a vote, say, for Mr. Low in the primary could possibly result in Mr. Simitian winning the general election, or vice versa, which would not have given either of them what he or she wanted.  

Further, all three candidates are well-established Democrats who have already held elective office, running in what the Los Angeles Times described as “a coveted, safely Democratic district,” even for a very blue state, with a “more than 3-to-1 registration advantage over Republicans.” It is hard to see how “who wins” in this case would make any difference in such things as who has a majority in Congress or what policies are ultimately adopted as a result. 

A recent development in the Santa Clara County race further calls into question whether every vote counts. A voter (which one of the second place finisher’s camp asserted was a “scheme orchestrated with the top primary vote-getter) has requested a recount which “would almost certainly change the final tally.” So as long as someone is willing to pay for a manual recount (expected to cost several hundred thousand dollars in this case), even a tie vote is unlikely to remain a tie, so a voter who created a tie would no longer have their vote count in determining the winner. In this case, the ongoing recount is a machine recount, combined with a manual recount of 28 challenged ballots, which seems to offer a similar guarantee of breaking the tie at a lower cost. And now the recount has has done that, finding five more votes for Evan Low than for Joe Simitian. And ironically, a spokesman for the top vote-getter in the primary could claim the reason was that “every vote should be counted.” 

So this example is far from a demonstration that “every vote counts” is true. In fact, it would be truer to say all it shows is that someone must add the word virtually at the beginning of the claim that “no individual vote ever counts” (determines the outcome) in a large numbers election. That is, it doesn’t mean your vote matters, but rather that there is an exceedingly slight chance that it might matter.

Some have likened such a result to finding a four-leaf clover on one’s first try. But since websites commonly cite 10,000-to-1 for such an effort (but one large study put it closer to 5,000-to-1), I think that overestimates the odds. 

Not only are there federal elections, but elections in 50 states, in 3,143 counties and “county equivalents,” and 780 cities with more than 50,000 residents (and nearly 20,000 total cities), in addition to nearly 40,000 independent special districts. And how rarely are even near-ties encountered? With such a large sample size to draw from, I think the odds are far worse than finding a four-leaf clover. I think that makes the odds worse than other rare events such as the 14,000-to-1 odds of dying in a volcanic eruption (US Geological Survey), or the 19,556-to-1 odds of being injured by fireworks this year (National Safety Council), or the even the 74,817-to-1lifetime odds of dying from an asteroid impact (NASA). Such infrequent cases where your vote might change the outcome are a far cry from proving that “every vote counts” or that “you must vote.” In virtually every case, the outcome will remain unchanged regardless of whether you voted for the winner, a loser or “none of the above.”  

Suppose that, despite the poor odds, your vote did change the result of an election. Every vote might be counted, but not every vote would count in the sense of changing the outcome in one’s desired direction. In fact, in every election, every outnumbered voter will get something other than what they wanted.

Further, we should notice the irony of how many of those candidates who have vociferously insisted that “every vote counts” push policies that deny vast numbers of Americans the right to get what they would vote for if given the choice.

Every price floor and every price ceiling overrides some individuals’ economic votes. Regulations and almost uncountable mandates make many people owners of their property, who can determine its uses, in little but name only. Government restrictions of entry and competition, including international protectionism, licensing and antitrust laws, deny many who would like to offer their services for sale in open competition the ability to do so. So it would seem that even a determinative vote primarily matters in determining who will take away individuals’ ability to choose for themselves.

Those who proclaim obeisance to the principle that “every vote counts” are, in fact, telling lies to get power via the only political votes that matter — those for the winner—to override millions of Americans’ votes about what they would do with themselves and their property, if they were allowed to choose. And there are very few choices we must share in common. We should recognize that hypocritical hyperbole both for what it is, and what it is not — a means to defend our unalienable rights or liberty and justice for all.

• This article was also published at AIER

By Ryan Ashley and Joseph Su

(FPRI) — Japan-Korea relations, historically strained by disputes over historical memory, seem to be experiencing a cautious upswing. Despite the lingering effects of historical, political, and economic disagreements, the rapprochement best seen in 2023’s Camp David summit between the leaders of South Korea, Japan, and the United States points to a noticeable shift. Beyond geopolitics, observers of Japan and Korea have long noted an intriguing cultural exchange among the youth of both nations. In Japan, Korean music, television dramas, and cuisine are deeply popular, while in South Korea, Japanese anime, manga, and culinary delights are equally embraced.

However, this cultural affinity has not translated into a significant increase in regular people-to-people connections between the two countries, especially in the realms of political and security cooperation. Why does this disconnect exist, and what steps can be taken to bridge this gap? While the deeply rooted historical disputes that shadow Seoul-Tokyo relations are unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, fostering stronger interpersonal connections through formal policies is essential for building a foundation that can support future dialogue and mutual understanding.

Background

Japan and South Korea’s cultural disconnect is not a surprising one to those conscious of the extensive and contentious history between the two countries. Under Imperial Japanese rule, the Korean people were subject to brutality and atrocities. From 1910 to 1945, Tokyo enforced policies that included the forced conscription and labor of Korean men, compelling them to fight and work for their oppressors. During this period, Japan also established a “comfort women” system that subjected women to sexual slavery and implemented nationwide practices aimed at eradicating Korean culture, history, and languages.

In the wake of this history, a majority of Koreans feel that Japan has failed to properly atone for and recognize the scale of their historical actions. To many in Japan, in contrast, these disputes are best left in the past and have been adequately handled through diplomacy. An instructive example of the interplay of these forces can be seen in the 2015 deal surrounding comfort women announced by then Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-hye. Abe agreed to the pact, which included Japan’s official acknowledgement and apology for the comfort women issue and provided financial compensation to the victims, largely thanks to its inclusion of the statement: “The Government of Japan confirms that this issue is resolved finally and irreversibly with this announcement.” Despite this concession from Seoul, conservatives within Abe’s party hounded him for acceding to an unnecessary agreement, as they believed the dispute had already been settled. Alternatively, in South Korea, Park experienced broad public backlash thanks to accusations that the agreement was selling out the victims. This backlash, in turn, led to Abe making comments in the Japanese parliament which dismissed claims of the nature of the comfort women stating that, “There was no document found that the comfort women were forcibly taken away,” which only further angered Koreans. When the South Korean government once again asked Abe to apologize for his statement, he declined. Finally, in 2019 the Japanese-funded organization established to compensate the victims was shut down.

However, simultaneous with these tensions, both Japanese and South Korean culture have taken the world, and each other, by storm. Japanese “manga” (comic books) sales are sharing the market with their South Korean “manhwa” equivalents, while at the same time Japanese anime movies are taking first place in Korean box offices. Japan is now the leading consumer of the top-100 K-Pop groups, while Japanese restaurants in Korea have surged in the past years.

Yet, while a cross-sea cultural exchange has boomed, a multitude of reasons have kept their respective populations from making the trip. While by some standards tourism is surging, the pattern is somewhat one-sided, with South Koreans leading the charge in comparison to their Japanese counterparts. In 2023, 5.25 million Koreans visited Japan while only 2.32 million Japanese visited Korea in return. Furthermore, Japan has the highest number of self-proclaimed “never travelers” at 35 percent. This complex interplay of historical grievances and contemporary cultural exchanges illustrates the well-known paradox of Japan-South Korea relations. While pop culture creates bridges, the deep scars of the past and differing perspectives on historical accountability continue to hinder the development of interpersonal connections between the two nations.

The Challenge

Enhancing people-to-people ties between Japan and South Korea is a complex challenge, yet it remains crucial for fostering a more cooperative relationship between Seoul and Tokyo. While there have been various attempts to strengthen these ties, most of these have fallen short due to several key factors.

First, the dynamics are changing within younger generations in both nations. Unlike their predecessors, who were directly affected by wartime atrocities, today’s youth are growing up in an environment that is increasingly distant from these historical grievances. Despite this, it would be a misunderstanding to say the youth have “forgotten,” as these grievances still heavily influence public opinion amongst the younger generations—regardless of many contemporary Japanese and Korean youth forming new memories rooted in cooperation and shared cultural touchstones. This shift is evident in recent surveys, such as the joint study by Genron NPO and the East Asia Research Institute, which revealed a significant improvement in youth mutual perceptions when compared to older ones, but still pointed to a looming gap. In particular, political ideology seems to play a role here, as wartime memory is taking on an increasingly important role in left-leaning South Korea and right-leaning nationalism in Japan, further complicating the picture.

Next, Japan-Korean relations have often been exacerbated rather than ameliorated by government actions on both sides. Political leaders in both Japan and South Korea have sometimes responded to disputes with resolutions and statements that escalate tensions, seeking domestic political appeal over bilateral reconciliation. The 2018 Korean Supreme Court ruling on forced labor, followed by Japan’s retaliatory export controls, exemplifies this pattern. More recent developments, such as the lifting of trade sanctions and attempts at diplomatic reconciliation, show promise but still lack the depth needed for sustainable improvement. President Yoon Suk Yeol’s local funding initiative to compensate forced labor victims and Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s apologies, while steps in the right direction, fall short of a formal, legal acknowledgment of past events.

Another significant hurdle is Japan’s approach to historical education. The tendency to downplay or whitewash certain aspects of wartime history in Japan, while not as dire as some in Seoul would have commentators believe, still stands in stark contrast to countries like Germany’s handling of its past. An example of this can be seen in the persistent issue of the Dokdo/Takeshima islands. Young people in Japan and Korea, who embrace a combative relationship with their counterparts across the Tsushima Strait, particularly depend on this issue to define their animosity, with their exposure to the issue typically originating in nationalist-leaning educational materials on the subject.

Proposals: Tourism

A first step to bridge the gap centers on actively promoting deeper tourism between Japan and South Korea. While niche tourism has benefited from cross-cultural exchanges, there has not been a significant increase in broader tourism. Targeting two key demographics could boost these numbers. Firstly, the younger generations, spanning from early Millennials to late Gen Z, in both countries show potential for increased travel interest. Secondly, addressing the phenomenon of the Japanese “never traveler”—individuals who rarely or never travel abroad—could tap into a significant, yet unexplored market segment within Japanese society.

In 2017 and 2018, the Japanese Tourism Board cited that roughly 7.1 to 7.5 million inbound Korean tourists had visited Japan. During the pandemic, these numbers dramatically fell, with no full rebound to pre-pandemic numbers since. As noted previously, Japan also retains a unique cultural and nationwide trend of dramatically low passport-holding rates with just 15 percent of citizens holding a passport. Japan has the highest number of self-proclaimed “never travelers” at 35 percent. Many have cited a preference for readily available domestic trips within Japan due to a variety of reasons. Changing long-standing cultural practices is not possible overnight, however, promotion and ease of access from a dual private-public approach could be a huge leap forward. The respective governments have an opportunity to promote inbound tourism to support local economic growth, while private sector companies stand to benefit from increased passenger travel through more sales.

To address the tourism gap and promote tourism among the identified subgroups above, several concrete proposals show promise. For the younger generations in Japan and South Korea, creating government-sponsored tailored travel packages that align with their interests, such as technology, pop culture, and ecotourism, could be highly effective. These packages could be promoted through social media platforms and influencer partnerships, leveraging the digital landscape that resonates with these age groups. For the Japanese “never traveler,” a targeted campaign that highlights the ease and benefits of international travel could be beneficial. Simplifying visa procedures, providing language support, and offering introductory international travel packages can lower the barriers to entry. Collaborative efforts between the Japanese and South Korean governments to promote cultural exchange events and festivals could also pique interest. By addressing these specific needs and interests, both countries can significantly boost cross-cultural tourism and bridge the current gap.

EASTEP

In 1987, the European Union established a program named Erasmus meant to foster greater cooperation between universities within the European Union. By 2014, the program had become so successful it was expanded to include education, work training, teaching opportunities, and sports education. Between 2014 and 2021, over 13 million people participated in the program in some capacity. It still stands as a respected program to foster greater unity amongst EU nations and develop their own workforces for a European market. In turn, Japan and South Korea should create a similar program tentatively titled East Asian Student Exchange Program (EASTEP) to provide opportunities for students in university programs to study in, learn about, and experience each other’s nations first-hand.

Logistically, both Japan and South Korea host a fair number of prestigious universities that already support robust international study abroad programs, which could provide the initial knowledge to support a fledgling program. Schools in Japan such as Tokyo, Waseda, and Osaka Universities all hold student bodies made up of at least 10 percent international students. In Korea, schools like Yonsei and Seoul National University support roughly 15 percent and 7 percent international student population. While not all-encompassing, these universities demonstrate that higher education in both nations can support a robust international student body.

Within an exchange program such as this, certain areas of focus should be emphasized. First, any exchange program would be either a semester or an entire academic year abroad for students to gain as much exposure and experience as possible within each other’s nations. Given the immense political dynamics and extensive contentious history, this program would have a strong co-curricular focus on cultural and historical education to expose students to historical narratives and perspectives often dismissed within their home countries. Museum visits, historical site visits, and in-class education are all methods that could help expand students’ perspectives. The proposed EASTEP program, drawing inspiration from the European Union’s successful Erasmus scheme, aims to enhance mutual understanding and cooperation between Japan and South Korea through comprehensive academic exchanges, leveraging their strong university networks to facilitate deep connections for students.

Job Credentials

Finally, the liberalization of professional and educational credentials between Japan and South Korea presents a compelling opportunity to strengthen ties and address labor shortages in both countries. Japan and South Korea, with similar educational and governance standards, are well-positioned to mutually recognize professional qualifications and university credits. This would facilitate a smoother flow of skilled labor between the two nations, particularly benefiting Japan, which is grappling with acute labor shortages in skilled, white-collar industries—a domain where South Korea has a surplus of talent.

However, the issue extends beyond the realm of professional and educated sectors. Both countries also face critical shortages in less educationally intensive, or blue-collar, sectors. Here, the mutual recognition of educational and professional standards may not be as directly impactful. This highlights the need for a comprehensive approach that considers various sectors and their unique requirements.

One significant barrier to this collaboration is the notoriously demanding work culture prevalent in both Japan and South Korea. The prospect of moving from one strenuous work environment to another, potentially leaving years of previous efforts behind, might not appeal to many potential participants. While the primary goal is not to overhaul the work cultures of these nations, it is crucial to acknowledge this aspect when advocating for increased professional and educational exchange.

A potential solution to make this transition more attractive could be the introduction of incentives such as temporarily expanded salaries and benefits for participants in programs like EASTEP. This approach could help ease the initial challenges of working in a foreign environment. However, this raises concerns about how domestic populations might perceive foreign workers receiving higher compensation. Addressing these perceptions requires a delicate balance, ensuring fairness and avoiding any resentment or backlash from the local workforce.

Implications

While the above recommendations presented for enhancing Japan-South Korea relations are not novel, their re-evaluation is timely due to a unique convergence of political will in both Seoul and Tokyo. The current leadership in both countries exhibits an openness to improving ties, creating a critical window of opportunity. It is imperative to capitalize on this moment to solidify advancements in tourism, cultural exchanges, and professional collaboration.

However, these initiatives are not without challenges. Historically, political frictions between Japan and South Korea have hindered similar efforts. The complexity of these relations, steeped in a contentious history, requires sensitive handling. Progress will demand not only governmental will but also societal acceptance. The successful implementation of these proposals hinges on their ability to resonate with the public, a task easier said than done given the deep-seated historical grievances.

The role of external actors, such as the United States, in this context, is minimal. The intricacies of Japan-South Korea relations are primarily regional and should be addressed bilaterally. External intervention, especially from distant powers, might not be beneficial and could potentially be seen as intrusive. The focus should remain on fostering a self-sustaining dialogue and collaboration between Japan and South Korea.

Conclusion

Despite historical tensions and recent political and economic challenges, there is a growing cultural affinity among the youth of Japan and South Korea. However, this has not significantly increased interpersonal connections, creating implications for political and security cooperation. This article suggests several avenues to enhance these ties, including promoting tourism, establishing an academic exchange program similar to Erasmus, and mutually recognizing professional and educational credentials. These proposals aim to bridge the gap between cultural affinity and actual people-to-people connections, acknowledging youth potential and the necessity of bilateral efforts to aid, if not overcome, issues over historical memory. The success of these initiatives hinges on both governmental will and societal acceptance in navigating the sensitive history and current dynamics of Japan-South Korea relations.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a non-partisan organization that seeks to publish well-argued, policy-oriented articles on American foreign policy and national security priorities.

• About the authors: Major Ryan Ashley (USAF) is a Fellow in the Asia Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and an Air Force Intelligence Officer.
• Joseph Su is an undergraduate at Boston University pursuing a B.A. in International Relations with a concentration in Foreign Policy, Security Studies, and East Asia. He served as a research intern for the Asia program at FPRI during Summer 2023 and Fall 2023.

Source: This article was published by FPRI