Subscribe
E-Paper
 |
"Ichiitaisui" (一衣帶水) means "close neighbors separated only by a narrow strip of water." This phrase originated from Emperor Wen of the Sui Dynasty, referring to the Yangtze River, on his offensive advance into the Qin Dynasty to unify China. Relations between Japan and Korea are likened to "ichiinomiz" (一葦水), an expression considered to convey an even closer relationship than "ichiitaisui." To Japan, Korea is a close neighbor that has maintained longstanding, friendly ties in history. Amenomori Hoshu (雨森芳洲), a Japanese Confucian scholar of the Edo Period (1603-1868), even called Japan-Korea ties "good neighborly and friendly relations (善隣友好)."
The total number of Japanese and Koreans who traveled between the two countries last year reached 10 million. However, such close bilateral relations have turned sour following Korea's Supreme Court ruling on October 30 last year regarding Koreans forced to work for Japanese companies during World War II.
In July 2019, the Japanese Government imposed tighter restrictions on the export of semiconductor-related materials to Korea and removed Korea from a preferential "whitelist" for trade in August. Afterward, the Korean Government announced that the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) would be terminated. Japan-Korea relations are yet to show any sign of improving.
2. Korea's Supreme Court ruling on forced labor: The inevitable reexamination of the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations and the Japan-Korea Claims Agreement based on the Treaty
In Japan, it is common to hear complaints that Korea's Supreme Court ruling violated the 1965 agreement between the two countries. However, some journalists and scholars whom I've met and several TV programs have raised questions about such criticisms.
The 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations and the Japan-Korea Claims Agreement based on the Treaty (the Japan-Korea Claims Agreement) was insufficient in completely addressing all issues related to Japan's colonial rule when compared to the 2002 Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration signed between then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's Cabinet and North Korea.
Article 2 of the Japan-Korea Claims Agreement stipulates: "All treaties and agreements signed between the Great Japanese Empire and the Great Han Empire before August 22, 1910, have now been confirmed to be null and void." According to this article, it remains unclear whether Japan's colonial rule was legal and valid or illegal and invalid. The time of nullification was also not specified, thereby making the resolution equivocal. There was neither an expression of apology nor even remorse over the colonial rule. On the other hand, the Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration clearly states remorse and an apology.
The Murayama Statement, issued about 50 years after World War II on August 15, 1995, specifies that: "The Japanese side humbly accepts the historical fact that its past colonial rule caused tremendous suffering and damage to the people of Korea and expresses its feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology." Current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, in his capacity as deputy chief cabinet secretary at that time, attended the ceremony where the statement was read.
It may be necessary to conduct a reexamination of the Japan-Korea Claims Agreement, which failed to mention a complete settlement of the issues concerning Japan's colonial rule, and the "completion of resolution" claimed by the Japanese Government proves unconvincing. Specific matters that have to be resolved include sexual enslavement by the Japanese military, remedy and compensation for Koreans who suffered the effects of the atomic bombings, and assistance for the ethnic Koreans still on Sakhalin Island to help them return home.
3. Utilizing reconciliation with Chinese and Korean victims of forced labor by some Japanese companies as a resource for peace
I am often asked questions about the difference between Korean and Chinese victims of forced labor. In essence, there is no difference in the legal aspect of "slave labor." However, there is a huge difference in terms of the period and the number of victims. The forced mobilization of the Chinese people took place for about a year from September 1944 to August the following year, with the number of victims standing at about 40,000. In contrast, the forced mobilization of Koreans lasted for a long time, from 1939-1945, with the number of victims reaching hundreds of thousands. After understanding this difference, it would be wise to strive for a solution to the problem of the forced mobilization of Koreans based on the accomplishments made in regard to the Chinese forced laborers.
Kajima Corp. (the Hanaoka Copper Mine Case, settled November 2000), Nishimatsu Construction Co. (October 2005) and Mitsubishi Materials Corp. (June 2016) are leading Japanese companies that reached settlements with Chinese victims of forced labor. In particular, major Japanese media outlets welcomed Mitsubishi Materials' settlement, which inspired assurance and trust among the Chinese that there were businesses willing to face history and citizens who support the act in Japan as well. This is playing a significant role with regard to security guarantees between Japan and China.
After all, what matters most is to squarely face the true nature of colonial rule from the victims' perspectives. Mere criticism that the Korean Supreme Court's ruling violates an international agreement cannot solve anything. Until settlement issues from the colonial rule are resolved, the two countries ― Korea and Japan ― cannot become genuine friends. What is necessary to gain the trust of a neighboring country? It is none other than a willingness to earnestly face the history of one's counterpart. This is because the essential element of a security guarantee is not deterrence but international trust.
4. Resolving historical issues and guaranteeing security through reconciliation
Commenting on the Japan-Korea Claims Agreement, former Japanese Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Ryozo Sunobe candidly wrote in a contribution to the February edition of the foreign policy journal Gaiko Forum in 1992: "It was concluded before the Japanese economy revived, and the priority in terms of compensation was to reduce Japan's burden. Although it was certainly concluded both in terms of legality and agreement, there remained a somewhat uncomfortable discontent."
In another article, "Reconciliation ― Japan's diplomatic task," former Japanese Ambassador to the United States Takakazu Kuriyama wrote that: "Reconciliation with neighboring countries (China and South Korea, and eventually North Korea) is an important task left unsolved in the foreign affairs of Japan ― because it is not only an indispensable element for East Asia's peace and stability, which is of great geopolitical importance to the extent of a matter of life and death in terms of guaranteeing security for Japan, but also more concretely an issue that defines the shape of Japan in the international community in the 21st century."
The issue of the Korean victims of forced labor must be resolved based on the spirit of reconciliation emphasized in an additional statement issued by the Japanese Supreme Court ― a proviso in its ruling in the Nishimatsu Construction Co. and Mitsubishi Materials Corp. case that involved Chinese victims of forced labor: "Considering the gravity of the damage, voluntary resolutions between the parties directly involved are required." If cases concerning historical issues are ruled upon, resulting in a winner and loser, grudges will remain. The issue must surely be solved through reconciliation.
Masatoshi Uchida is a Japanese lawyer who worked to resolve the issue of Chinese victims of forced labor, including suits against Mitsubishi Materials and other Japanese companies. He is vice chairman, Council on Constitutional Issues, Tokyo Bar Association.
