Seoul plan is also setback from 2015 agreement
South Korea’s solution is a step back from the 2015 agreement
Some things are too difficult to accept, no matter how prepared you are.
No matter how well prepared you are, some things are still hard to accept.
One such thing is the government’s plan announced Monday to resolve the issue of Korean victims of wartime forced labor during Japan’s 1910-45 occupation.
The government’s plan to compensate victims of forced labor during the Japanese colonial rule of 1910-1945, announced Monday, was one such event.
Its content had nothing new. Seoul will compensate the claimants first with money donated by Korean companies that benefited from Japan’s grants and loans according to the 1965 Basic Agreement.
There was nothing new about the government’s solution. In accordance with the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Settlement Agreement, South Korea agreed to compensate the victims with funds contributed by domestic companies that benefited from Japanese donations and loans.
That was all, however. It contained no follow-up moves from Japan, such as an expression of remorse by Tokyo or consequent participation by the two Japanese wartime employers, Nippon Steel and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
But that was it. There were no plans for Japan’s follow-up actions, such as a Japanese apology or the participation of two war criminals, Nippon Steel and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
“I hope that the Japanese government will offer a comprehensive apology and the Japanese firms will make voluntary contributions to the fund,” Foreign Minister Park Jin said. However, Tokyo said it would inherit previous governments’ expressions of regrets (without renewing them) and let the two firms decide on their own (instead of forcing anything).
Foreign Minister Park Jin said, “I hope the Japanese government will make a sincere apology and Japanese companies will voluntarily raise funds.” However, Japan is in a position to inherit the previous government’s apology (without any new changes) and to let the two companies make their own decisions (without coercion).
It was a one-sided diplomatic defeat for Seoul. As recently as January, Korean diplomats said they could not finish the bargaining because Tokyo would not promise corresponding steps. Monday’s announcement showed they couldn’t move an inch forward for two months. Still, Minister Park said, “the solution was made under our initiative,” adding that “the cup has now been more than half-filled.”
This was a unilateral diplomatic defeat for Korea. As recently as January, South Korean diplomats said the negotiations could not be concluded because Japan had not promised proper procedures. Monday’s announcement shows they haven’t made any progress in two months. Nevertheless, Minister Park said, “It is a solution completed under the leadership of Korea,” adding, “The water cup is more than half full.”
It was little more than the Orwellian twisting of “losing is winning.” The cup is undoubtedly half-empty and will likely remain so if Tokyo’s attitude does not change. Park said, unlike previous governments, the incumbent administration could no longer ignore the aged victims’ situation. But all three surviving plaintiffs rejected the plan, calling it a “beggarly solution.” Previous governments could not do it. We can’t help but wonder for whom ― and what ― does this government struggle so hard.
This announcement was nothing more than a totalitarian distortion of “to lose is to win.” The water cup is apparently half empty and will remain there unless Japan’s attitude changes. Minister Park said that unlike the previous government, the current government can no longer ignore the situation of the elderly victims. However, all three surviving plaintiffs rejected the government’s solution, calling it a “poor solution.” The previous government couldn’t do that. We cannot help but wonder who and for what the current government is fighting so hard for.
President Yoon Suk Yeol answered, “It was a decision from a broad viewpoint for the future-oriented relationship.” But Yang Geum-deok, one of the three surviving victims, responded by epitomizing the sentiment shared by most Koreans. “Is President Yoon Suk Yeol Korean or Japanese? Does he live for Japan or us Korean people?” she asked. Korea needs to cooperate with Japan ― and the United States ― for national security and the economy and the future may be more important than the past. But the ignorance of history to this extent is not good for the future relationship.
President Yoon Seok-yeol replied, “It was a decision made from a broad perspective for a future-oriented relationship.” However, Yang Keum-deok, one of the three surviving plaintiffs, summed up a sentiment that most Koreans sympathize with. She asked, “Is President Seok-yeol Yoon Korean or Japanese? Is he living for Japan or for Korea?” South Korea must cooperate with Japan and the United States for security and economy, and the future may be more important than the past. But this level of ignorance about history is not good for future relationships.
Even a Japanese civic group said the plan without Tokyo’s apology or wartime employers’ participation could not be a solution. That shows this issue is also between the conscionable and the unconscionable. Besides, in a rare swift comment on other countries’ matters, U.S. President Joe Biden said it “marked a groundbreaking new chapter of cooperation and partnership between two of the United States’ closest allies.” There seems to have been some communication, or connivancebeforehand ― as Washington did eight years ago (a hasty accord on wartime sex slavery) or 113 years ago (Japan’s annexation of Korea).
Even Japanese civic groups said that a plan without an apology from Japan or the participation of war-criminal companies could not be a solution. This shows that this issue is a matter between conscience and non-conscience. In addition, US President Joe Biden said in a rare quick commentary on foreign affairs, “It has opened a groundbreaking new chapter in cooperation and alliances between the United States and its two closest allies.” It is presumed that there was prior communication and connivance, as the United States did 8 years ago (the hasty comfort women agreement) or 113 years ago (Japan’s annexation of Korea).
March 8 (Wed) The Korea Times editorial
KEY WORDS
■ remorse
■ one-sided
■ incumbent
■ plaintiff plaintiff, plaintiff
■ -oriented ~oriented, ~oriented
■ epitomize
■ swift[재빠른]
■ connivance aiding and abetting
View original article
