Senior Adviser and Korea Chair Victor Cha of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington D,C. (Photo: CSIS)

Commentaries by various experts show rising concern over the Korea-Japan trade standoff. They are particularly anxious to see that no harm is done to the alliance between the U.S. and the two countries in defense of freedom.

The experts on the feud stand out among reports and analyses on the troubled nations, especially reports made by experts from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a renowned research institution in Washington DC. There are no easy ways out of the current crisis.

But first, all sides need to recognize the gravity of the situation and start searching for a pragmatic compromise, rather than an absolute victories, says Victor Cha, senior adviser and Korea Chair with CSIS, in his commentary entitled, “Finding a Way Out from the Japan-Korea Crisis.”

The U.S. should not mediate between the two allies, but it should publicly, and at high levels, call for its two allies to cease and desist with no further escalation, he continued. Washington should call on both sides to suspend the escalating actions for six months at a minimum to allow for each side to investigate any questions of trade diversion.

Privately, it should appoint a special envoy who would call on Japan to engage with South Koreans and who would discourage Seoul from more public maximalists statements like “We will not lose to Japan again,” which leaves no room for compromise.

Most important, the two sides should not let the current dispute bleed into critical security issues.

In this regard, the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), which is in danger of being cancelled as a result of this crisis, should be preserved. Despite historical, legal, and political factors swirling in the current crisis, it is in the national security interests of Japan, South Korea, and the U.S. to preserve this agreement.

At a time when Russia is traversing South Korean airspace, China is entering South Korea and Japan's Air Defense Identification Zone, and North Korea fired short-range missiles and projectiles aimed at South Korea and Japan, these adversaries are testing the competence of allied defense.

All that said, the Abe administration should do some soul-searching of its own about its actions and consider whether they advance Japan’s overall interests. The timing of the initial decision – coming shortly after Japan rejected a Korean proposal for a joint compensation fund and shortly before Japan’s Upper House elections in mid-July - does feed suspicions that the move was political.

But even if motivated by genuine and pressing national-security concerns, the action is likely to do damage to Japan’s broader interests, claims Mathew P. Goodman, senior vice president of CSIS, in his commentary entitled, “Korea and Japan Rising Above the Fray.”

The first of these is economic. True, the Japanese and Korean economies are not as integrated as one might expect of such close neighbors, with each accounting for only about 5-8 percent of the other’s exports. But both countries have reduced their already-weak growth forecasts as a result of the dispute.

Tit-for-tat retaliation could also do significant damage to key industries in both economies, including semiconductors in South Korea and consumer products in Japan. Moreover, a trade dispute between the world’s third- and twelfth-largest economies could have knock-on effects for a global economy already facing downsides risks from trade and geopolitical uncertainty.

President Moon’s statement on August 15, known as “Liberation Day” in Korea because it marks the end of Japan’s colonization of the Peninsula, helped to set a new tone at the leadership level, claims Katrin Fraser Katz, Korea Chair at CSIS in her commentary entitled, “How History Can Actually Solve Korea-Japan Crisis.” Rather than repeating his battle-ready rhetoric of recent weeks, Moon extended an olive branch, stating: “Better late than never: if Japan chooses the path of dialogue and cooperation, we will gladly join hands.

We will strive with Japan to create an East Asia that engages in fair trade and cooperation.” He even went so far as to promote the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics, noting, “I look forward to seeing the Tokyo Olympics become a source of hope for friendship and cooperation.”

Through this move, Moon signaled Seoul’s willingness to start a fresh chapter with Tokyo. By doing so, he left nationalist actors in Japan with less fodder to push for further hardline moves. The ball is now in Tokyo’s court to reciprocate the warmth or risk looking like the more unreasonable actor on the world stage.

In tandem with seeking outside support, Tokyo and Seoul must also summon their own capacities and resolve to pull themselves out of this bitter impasse that threatens to leave both countries, and the U.S.-backed regional order, depleted. Lessons from periods of bilateral recuperation in the past can help them illuminate pathways, continues Fraser Katz, in her commentary.

These three potential pathways to de-escalation emphasize the degree to which South Korea and Japan maintain their agency to defuse tensions, even in the context of spiraling escalation and heightened nationalism. Moon and Abe have sought U.S. and international support to help resolve current tensions and should continue to do so.