| bibo:abstract |
I. Introduction
II. The 1965 System and the Abe Government's Approach towards Wartime History
III. Analysis of the 2015 Comfort Women Deal and Forced Labor Issue
IV. Implications for Korea's Foreign Policy toworad Japan and Policy Considerations
I. Introduction
The relationship between Korea and Japan continues to remain plagued by the ongoing historical dispute between the two countries. And two issues - Japan's wartime mobilization of forced labor and the issue of 'comfort women' - remain particularly contentious.
Prime Minister Abe's government argues that the matters were settled by the agreements signed by the two sides - the 2015 comfort women deal and the 1965 Claims Agreement - and the Korean government must respect past state-to-state agreements. Japan's stance on past agreements reveals Prime Minister Abe's intentions behind his policy toward historical disputes as well as his vision for future Korea-Japan relations, which constitute the biggest barrier to the resolution of the current dispute.
In view of this problem, this article aims to provide an analysis based on the premise that the Abe government aspires to establish a 'normal' Korea-Japan relationship that does not regard Japan as a perpetrator of colonialism. This article will also take a closer look at the Abe government’s policy vis-a-vis the 2015 comfort women deal and the forced labor issue to discuss how Prime Minister Abe is shaping his argument to achieve his ultimate goal of freeing Japan from its 'perpetrator status' and establishing 'normal' relations with Korea.
II. The 1965 System and the Abe Government's Approach towards Wartime History
1. The Establishment of and the Changes in the 1965 System : The Identity of Victim and Perpetrator
The “1965 system” refers to a legal and institutional framework that is founded on the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea and the Claims Agreement. In 1965, Seoul and Tokyo signed a treaty normalizing bilateral relations without arriving at an agreement on ways to compensate the victims and the characteristics of the Japanese colonial rule. The two sides took a quick-fix approach to historical issues in order to normalize relations.
But as South Korea democratized and achieved remarkable economic growth in the post-Cold War period, the country tried to settle historical accounts, prompting changes in the “1965 system.” Japan was deemed as a “perpetrator” as historical issues tied to its colonization of Korea came to light, and the “1965” system had to undergo a modification process.
The Murayama Statement and the 1998 Japan–South Korea Joint Declaration did not bring about fundamental changes to the legal and institutional framework established in 1965, But a notable change was made to the positions of the two countries within the 1965 system. In the 1990s, Japanese governments demonstrated contrition and apologized for past misdeeds through the Statement and the Joint Declaration, and they were accepted by Korea. Such developments shaped a perpetrator-victim relationship between Seoul and Tokyo, and laid a groundwork for reconciliation and a future-oriented relationship between the two sides.
2. The Abe Government's Approach towards Wartime History : Attempting to Break Free from Perpetrator Identity and Build a 'Normal' Korea-Japan Relationship
The Abe government is in search for a clear postwar national identity, which is predicated on becoming a 'normal nation.' And it is seeking to build a 'normal relationship' with Korea based on that identity. The government argues that Japan was made a 'normal nation' when all issues related to the colonial period, including individual claims and the characteristics of the colonial rule were settled completely by the 1965 Claims Agreement. This is why the Abe government contends that Japan should have acted as a normal country when historical issues came to the fore in the post-Cold War era.
Simply put, the Abe government is taking a revisionist approach towards the modification of the '1965 system.' By tearing down the “perpetrator vs. victim” framework created in the wake of the Murayama Statement and the 1998 Japan–South Korea Joint Declaration, Prime Minister Abe's government is trying to build a 'normal' Korea-Japan relationship where the two parties are no longer embroiled in historical disputes.
III. Analysis of the 2015 Comfort Women Deal and Forced Labor Issue
1. The 2015 'Comfort Women' Deal and Forced Labor Issue
The Abe government repeatedly argues that the 2015 comfort women deal is a 'final and irreversible resolution' of the comfort women issue, although the two sides may have different interpretations of what was agreed at the time. The government's particular emphasis on the “final and irreversible” settlement suggests that Japan's priority at the time was to pave the way for the country to break free from its perpetrator identity.
2. The Korean Supreme Court's Ruling on Forced Labor Issue and the Claims Agreement
The Abe government has maintained that the Korean Supreme Court's final ruling on forced labor issue undermines the foundation of the Claims Agreement and has urged the Korean government to abide by the state-to-state agreement. Japan contends that its companies cannot compensate the Korean plaintiffs accordingly.
It bears noting that the Abe government's current stance differs from that of the Japanese Supreme Court in 2007. The 2007 court decision stated that Japanese companies can take voluntary measures to reconcile and reach settlements with the plaintiffs, while the Abe government is now barring the companies from doing so. In other words, the issue is no longer about the victims not being able to exercise their right to seek compensation; the government is trying to terminate the their right to claim compensation.
In 2019, the Korean government suggested a proposal to secure financial resources from both Korean and Japanese companies on a voluntary basis to compensate the victims. This proposal, however, was immediately rejected by Japan. The Abe government does not wish to leave open even the slightest possibility of the Japanese government and the private sector shouldering the burden of a perpetrator.
IV. Implications for Korea's Foreign Policy toworad Japan and Policy Considerations
1. Implications for Korea's Foreign Policy toward Japan
The approach to resolving historical grievances suggested by Abe's government in search of a 'normal relationship' is seemingly oblivious to Japan's wartime atrocities. In view of this problem, it is imperative for the Korean government to design mid- to long-term strategies aimed at encouraging Japan to face the past squarely and finding new ways to cooperate and improve bilateral ties.
2. Policy Considerations
(1) Short-term Measures : Managing Diplomatic Friction at Each Phase of the Liquidation Procerss and Creating Platforms to Encourage interactions
Korea's decision to liquidate previously seized assets of some Japanese companies is expected to become a source of clash between the two sides. It would be necessary for the Korean government to find ways to manage diplomatic friction at each phase of the liquidation process. Also, it is important to create platforms to bring together renowned leaders in politics, academia, media and government officials on both sides to help them interact with each other and deliver concrete solutions.
(2) Mid-to Long-term Measures : Formulating a Comprehensive Vision
While urging Japan to take a future-oriented approach toward historical issues, the Korean government should seek a balanced policy approach that opens up new avenues for bilateral cooperation. This will require a comprehensive vision that deals with historical disputes and promotes future-oriented cooperation in areas such as the North Korean nuclear problem, the ever-intensifying U.S.-China competition and disease outbreaks at the same time. In other words, finding the right balance between urging Japan to face the past squarely and providing a compelling reason for deeper bilateral cooperation will help Korea shape an effective mid- to long-term strategy to deal with Japan.
|
