Japan’s political landscape is shifting further to the right under the leadership of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, presenting new challenges for its relationship with South Korea. This development raises concerns that longstanding historical and territorial disputes might derail recent efforts at diplomatic cooperation between the two nations. Historically, South Korea and Japan have managed to separate contentious historical issues from areas where collaboration is beneficial, such as security and economic partnerships. However, a recent report from South Korea’s Institute for National Security Strategy cautions that Japan’s political instability and conservative shift could hinder progress in bilateral relations.
Tensions have flared up again following visits by Japanese officials to the Yasukuni Shrine, a site that has been a point of contention due to its association with Japan’s wartime past. Additionally, Japan’s renewed claim over the Dokdo islets, known as Takeshima in Japan, which are currently under South Korean control, has further strained ties. Despite the contentious nature of these issues, Prime Minister Takaichi refrained from visiting the shrine on the anniversary of Japan’s World War II surrender on August 15, opting instead to send a ritual offering. Nevertheless, the visits by several senior Japanese officials prompted official protests from South Korea.
In response, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung has adopted a more balanced stance. While acknowledging the historical grievances that exist between the two countries, he has also emphasized the growing importance of maintaining and strengthening cooperation with Japan. This approach reflects a recognition of the need to balance historical sensitivities with contemporary diplomatic and security needs.
Experts suggest that if these disputes over historical issues, territorial claims, and wartime controversies persist, they could undermine the “two-track” strategy that both nations have pursued. This strategy aims to separate sensitive historical issues from practical areas of cooperation. To maintain this approach, experts argue that both countries must achieve tangible progress in their diplomatic engagements while expanding their practical cooperation in areas of mutual interest.