The Kishida administration must not be fooled by the South Korean side's insistence on an apology from Japan, saying that everything can be resolved with just that.

On the 16th, Seo Min-jeong, Director-General of the Asia-Pacific Affairs Bureau of the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told Takehiro Funakoshi, Director-General of the Asia-Pacific Affairs Bureau of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, regarding a solution to the compensation issue for conscripted labor that was discussed in Tokyo. It is absolutely necessary for the Japanese government to respond in good faith." Director-General Seo made this comment while explaining to Director-General Funakoshi the ``third-party subrogation plan'' presented by the South Korean government. This means that if the Japanese Colonial Forced Mobilization Victims Support Foundation, which is a third party to the victims of forced labor, first pays the judgment money on behalf of the Japanese defendant company, Japan will need to respond accordingly.

This is a summary of the Chosun Ilbo article, but it appears that the South Korean side is offering to compensate the forced laborers by having the South Korean government compensate them, and in return, the Japanese government will once again apologize. . Although the meaning of an act differs depending on the country, the meaning of an apology in Japan and South Korea seems to be completely different.

The general opinion in Japan is that the issue was resolved in the 1965 agreement, and the issue has been repeatedly apologized for since then. In many cases, there will be no further apologies. On the other hand, in South Korea, the South Korean government is responsible for all the money and negotiations, so why is Japan so stubborn?Japan should just offer an apology at the end. Well, the situation is like this.

This is not only a sensual difference in that the two countries' apologies have completely different meanings, but the real problem is that there is a fundamental error hidden in the premise. The point is that South Korea has not made any concessions on this matter. Before considering the theory of ``mutual concessions'', it is necessary to simply look at whether South Korea has made concessions.

What South Korea is making a fuss about and going back and forth is merely trying to fulfill an obligation that the South Korean government should have taken care of as a domestic issue. Under the Roh Moo-hyun administration, the issue of forced labor falls within the scope of the 1965 agreement, and the South Korean government is responsible for paying unpaid wages. The Moon Jae-in administration did not do anything about this and ignored it, and the Yoon administration only corrected it after the change of government. They are demanding an apology from the Japanese government for what is nothing more than a precedent-setting government action.