 |
By Jeon Su-mi
Korea-Japan relations, Korea always compares the attitudes of Japan with post-World War II Germany. While Germany adequately apologized for the past and thoroughly educates new generations about its history, in Japan's case, after the prime minister's apology, Japanese politicians continue to visit the Yasukuni Shrine every year, which honors war criminals. Besides, Germany refers to losing the war as 'defeat,' but Japan refers to its loss as 'the end of the war.'
Moreover, Germany named the Allied Forces "occupation forces" at the time, but Japan referred to them by an obscure name making it impossible to know who won and who lost the war. These historical expressions are also the reason why Japan is criticized for not reflecting on its history.
Korea continues to raise the issue that Japan did not make a genuine apology and contrition regarding colonization. Japan, currently, states that South Korea's raising of the issue of forced labor is a violation of the two countries' 1965 Agreement. There are voices asking why among many other Asian countries, apologies have to be repeated only to Korea. Based on these differences, what should the government do in order to improve bilateral relations with Japan by resolving the issue of forced labor and pursuing future-oriented cooperation between Korea and Japan in a new era?
First, in domestic politics, the current government should adopt an objective and impartial perspective in resolving the issue of forced labor while reaffirming the differences in views and perceptions between South Korea and Japan. In this regard, Japanese politicians claim that in the 1965 Agreement, the forced labor issue was settled. The Roh Moo-hyun administration stated that the forced labor issue was included in the 1965 agreement, but the issue of detained Koreans in Sakhalin, comfort women and the victims of the atomic bomb were not.
On the other hand, the 1965 Claims Settlement Agreement was a negotiation under the dictatorship of Park Chung-hee without the consent of the victims. Even if it is accepted the negotiations between Korea and Japan were concluded by the related agreement, the individual victim's right to make a claim still exists under international law.
In order to resolve this issue internationally, the government needs to take a proactive approach in leading a constructive social discourse for resolving the forced labor issue within South Korea, in terms of domestic politics. One such approach is to develop an agreement between the senior representatives of the Korean and Japanese lawmakers of the ruling and opposition parties, and then come to a conclusion after the victims, civic groups, and academic officials all gather together to have a discussion on the agreement between the ruling and opposition parties.
Adhering to these methods can reduce wasteful arguments and gather public opinion. Subsequently, it is imperative to directly engage with each victim to ascertain their stance on the issue of compensation. This includes clarifying whether they desire remuneration through the liquidation of Japanese corporate assets, grounded in the recent verdict of the Supreme Court, or if they instead advocate for a sincere apology from the Japanese side.
Finally, the Korean government needs to meet with Japanese leaders with an open mind, considering the Kim Dae-jung-Obuchi declaration as a model for Korean-Japanese bilateral relations. The Japanese government prioritizes the prevention of the monetization of Japanese corporate assets in South Korea. The Korean government should emphasize that the desired outcome for the victims of forced mobilization is a sincere apology from Japan and request it. However, so far, there has been no concrete definition of a "sincere apology" in Korea. One may have various thoughts on the matter, however, in this context, I interpret "sincere apology" to mean an apology that aligns with both the words expressing remorse and the actions following it.
The past letters of apology from Japanese prime ministers to the victims have been perceived by Koreans as incongruous with their actions, such as visiting Yasukuni Shrine. In addition, the removal of content related to colonization in Japanese textbooks as per the direction of the Japanese government and as the annual statement by the Japanese foreign minister regarding the sovereignty of the island of Dokdo is observed, the Korean public' perceives the Japanese prime minister's apologies as insincere, eliciting frustration and anger among the Korean people day by day. As a result of such incidents, despite multiple instances of Japan expressing apologies towards Korea, it continues to hold Japan accountable and demands a "sincere apology."
However, it is unrealistic to request a full menu including demands for acknowledging the illegality of Japan's colonization and its description in Japanese textbooks, requesting compensation to Korea, in the scope of asking for a "sincere apology." One reason is that Japan's current economic situation, characterized by a 30-year period of decline, precludes the feasibility of demands due to a lack of resources. It is also important to recognize that the Kim Dae-jung-Ohbuchi declaration was possible due to the economic and psychological leisure in Japan as a result of its bubble economy. In the end, the demand for an apology from the Korean side will also disappear when "consistent appearance," after the direct apology to the victims by the current Japanese Prime Minister, is guaranteed.
Jeon Su-mi (sumijeon@ssu.ac.kr), an attorney, is an invited professor at the Soongsil Institute for Peace and Unification. She was a member of the Presidential Committee on Northern Economic Cooperation. Her areas of specialty include South Korean politics and foreign policy, North Korean politics and human rights.
