Promise between Japan and Korea
2021-07-21
Category:South Korea I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
If you read the Korean news, They say that Japan and South Korea are using the Tokyo Olympics for political purposes, but they are not objective.This is because Japan has not done anything this time either.Prime minister Suga has done nothing but say that Moon Jae In will respond politely if she comes to Japan.Japan's attitude has not changed consistently, and the message has been conveyed to South Korea many times.Correction of violations of the １９６５ Agreement, which was the basis for the restoration of diplomatic relations.This is all Japan has demanded, so there is no bargaining or anything.It was Moon Jae In who underestimated the issue and played tricks on it.
In addition, there are opinions that Japan and South Korea need to compromise and that the leaders of the two countries need to make a decision, but if Japan obscures the １９６５ agreement, it will mean a break in diplomatic relations.The reason is that the agreement, which is a prerequisite for diplomatic relations, should be scrapped.The biggest problem is that the Korean people do not understand this and form public opinion.In other words, Japan will not budge an inch from implementing the １９６５ agreement to prevent the South Korean government from breaking off diplomatic relations.In this respect, the act of drawing concessions from Japan itself is far from maintaining diplomatic relations.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
The new President Yoon Seok - yeol will be confused by many obstacles to its government.The general election will be held in 2024.
Yoon Seok-yul, the president, will be worried about the distortion with Congress.The Democratic Party which is ruling party has 172 seats (58.31 percent).It is still difficult to determine how the president can implement his policies in this power map.If you look at the presidential authority of the Korean Constitution, there are Articles 53, 73 and 74.Article 73 is the authority to sign diplomatic treaties and Article 74 is the command of the military.Article 53 provides the right to request reconsideration of a parliamentary resolution.Article 49 states that the bill will be approved by a majority of lawmakers and a majority of those present, but if the president requests reconsideration, it will require a majority of attendance and a 2/3 votes.If the figure is to rise from 58.31 percent to 67 percent, the ruling party will have to add to win 25 votes in favor.
The ruling party's bill is likely to be rejected if it is returned.However, since this is a request for reconsideration of the bill already approved in Congress, the bill submitted by the opposition party "People's Power" is likely to be overthrown by the ruling party in Congress.In other words, Yoon will have to wait for the 2024 general election to take effect.Before that, various bills could be rejected by Congress, and the Manifesto incident could be eliminated.In this environment, diplomatic rights such as strengthening the ROK-U.S. alliance may be exercised to sign treaties or agreements.
Yoon Seok-yeol is also eager to improve relations between Korea and Japan.In response, Prime Minister Kishida said, "It is important to communicate closely with the new president and the new administration in order to restore sound relations based on Japan's consistent position.I want to see the new government's movements in the future and talk to the new government."Yoon Seok-yeol said in her manifesto, "Japan's apology and compensation are the prerequisite for improving relations between Korea and Japan," drawing attention to future developments."
In any case, he won the presidential election, but the difference in votes was less than 1 percent, 0.73 percent, and half of the people supported the opposition candidate.
It is difficult to determine how far policies can be implemented with presidential authority alone.Anti-Japanese forces are still strong.
The South Korean government is responsible for the Korean government's refusal to allow its nationals to repatriate - Japan protected them out of human rights considerations.
The issue of forced labor and the issue of residents in Japan are related. Conscription on the Korean Peninsula took place from August 1944 until the end of the war the following year. Until then, Koreans on the Korean peninsula were not subject to conscription or conscription. Employment at Japanese companies is highly sought after, and despite being conscripted, Mitsubishi Mining received seven times as many applications as recruitment.
Normally, those living in Japan would be forced to leave because they are foreigners, but the reason why this is not the case is because of the 1965 Japan-Korea Status of Forces Agreement. The South Korean government at the time received a huge amount of aid, but refused to allow its citizens to return home. Since all Koreans in Japan were believed to be slave laborers who had been forcibly taken away from Japan, it would have been inconvenient for a large number of people who had experienced a different reality to return home. Japan restored diplomatic relations out of human rights considerations and guaranteed the Koreans' status in Japan.
As was made clear in the Gunkanjima issue, the recruitment at that time was legal recruitment under ILO standards. In terms of human rights issues, it lies with the South Korean government, which has refused to allow large numbers of its own citizens to return and has discarded them. That is a human rights issue. And what is being made a fuss about all this is the issue of conscripted labor.
South Korean delegation insists on 'efforts from both countries' - Japan is fulfilling all its promises - South Korea is the one who is not making enough efforts
South Korea says efforts from both Japan and South Korea are necessary
Intentions of both countries passing each other
What is the destination that Korea envisions?
If we misunderstand the Korean issue, the government will tilt
Japan has already apologized many times
Japan fulfills all commitments
What does the effort of both countries mean?
While the recent South Korean delegation's visit to Japan has been reported as if the two countries have once again returned to the direction of improving Japan-Korea relations, the response of the Japanese government, including the prime minister, has been criticized. The South Korean side is keen to improve Japan-Korea relations, and as a result, interviews with the current prime minister, former prime minister, and other ministers were held. The most important point is that a gap that cannot be filled has been identified.
The rift is that while Japan is demanding that South Korea "fulfill its commitments," South Korea has consistently stated that "efforts from both sides are needed." This means that South Korea will not make unilateral concessions. More specifically, before the presidential election, President-elect Yoon Seok-Yeol met with Lee Yong-soo, a self-proclaimed representative of former comfort women, and said, ``We must demand an apology from Japan.'' has promised that he will receive it. That's probably what he's saying.
What kind of efforts does South Korea want from Japan? For example, is the Japanese Prime Minister going to South Korea, meeting with former comfort women, apologizing, and reporting the moving scene as an attempt to settle the matter? However, if South Korea's next government does not understand that this is an unlikely future, improving relations seems a long way off.
If Prime Minister Kishida were to do something like that, the Kishida administration would surely collapse, and even in this meeting with the parliamentary group, there are voices calling for Kishida to be removed from the position of prime minister. There are even voices saying that they will not vote for the Liberal Democratic Party in the next House of Councilors election. Reasons for this include the forced labor judgment and the abrogation of the Japan-Korea comfort women agreement.
Regarding the South Korean delegation's visit to Japan, since it was a group of parliamentarians before the inauguration of the new South Korean government, there were many opinions that Japan should also conduct the visit within the framework of parliamentary exchanges and that the government should not deal with it.
The comfort women agreement states, ``This is an issue that has deeply damaged the honor and dignity of many women, and from this perspective, the Japanese government is acutely aware of its responsibility.'' I would like to express my heartfelt apologies and remorse to the people of... Yun Seok-Yeol seems to think that since he has expressed his apology, it would be okay to apologize face-to-face. However, the agreement states, ``As the Japanese government declares the above and steadily implements the measures in (2) above (establishment of a foundation), this announcement will ensure that this issue will be finalized and irreversible.'' to make sure it is resolved."
The 1965 Claims Agreement, including the issue of forced labor, was already resolved. Japan is simply asking South Korea to faithfully implement these agreements. Japan has fulfilled all of its responsibilities, so all that remains is for South Korea to fulfill its own responsibilities. In other words, it is no longer an issue for both countries to make efforts.
Jeong Jin-seok, head of the South Korean delegation, claps his hands together and says that only by joining hands like this can relations be improved. Hearing these words, I can't help but think that South Korea's next new government may not even understand what the current situation is. This is because the efforts of these two countries resulted in the Claims Agreement in 1965, the Japan-South Korea Joint Declaration in 1998, and the Comfort Women Agreement in 2015, which is exactly the kind of hand-to-hand situation that Chung described. It is South Korea that unilaterally abolished these . Japan must not take a step back from this line.
If we look at Japan-South Korea relations after the restoration of diplomatic relations, South Korea has completely torn up all previous agreements. Is the next agreement really necessary?
Masatoshi Muto, a former diplomat, says that making concessions to South Korea is a mistake and that South Korea needs a firm response.
Masatoshi Muto on his dealings with South Korea during his time as a diplomat. He says that he made a mistake by listening to everything and requesting as much as possible.
When asked about the anti-Japanese movement taking place in South Korea, Taro Aso, during his time as Prime Minister, asked, ``Does that have something to do with it?'' Japanese people don't care. As a result, the term ``virtual enemy country'' became popular. The view was that South Korea was conducting an anti-Japanese movement due to domestic circumstances.
There is no doubt that South Korea's current enemy is primarily North Korea. The Korean War is not over yet, and there is currently a ceasefire. When we see public opinion in South Korea calling Japan an enemy country while facing each other across the 38th parallel, we can't help but wonder to what extent South Korea is escaping reality.
When considered within the same framework, China is on the side of South Korea's enemy in the Korean War frame. Until now, the South Korean government has not been able to resolve security issues, and has abandoned its military and continued to focus on Japan, which has not fought back, because if it expressed hostility toward North Korea, China, or the United States, it would immediately take retaliatory measures. It's here. This is to gain the public's attention by saying something powerful. In doing so, it is easy to use stories from the past annexation era. Japan understands this environment and has tacitly tolerated South Korea's anti-Japanese movements.
What we need to clarify is that all of these environments are always real problems for South Korea. It seems that as long as Koreans remain anti-Japanese, they can temporarily feel as if their problems are gone. Even now, when the anti-Japan flag goes up, I forget everything due to a spinal reflex.
South Korea has always opposed registration as a World Heritage Site. The meaning of culture is different from the rest of the world. People from all over the world come to Japan for a variety of reasons, including culture, history, anime and manga, cat cafes, maid cafes, traditional Japanese food, and other gourmet food. These are evaluated within the framework of culture. If we look at the definition of culture, we find that `culture is a system of ideas and value standards shared within a society, and a unique style possessed by a group.'
Cultural heritage must be something that has survived for a certain period of time, and can be thought of as something that has had a major impact on subsequent eras, and can be considered to be the "culture" of each country. It can be said that it exists within the range of value standards and definitions. Furthermore, Japan has registered 20 World Cultural Heritage Sites.
In this sense, South Korea is the only country to raise questions about Japan's registration as a World Cultural Heritage Site. This is not a historical issue, but simply a difference in the definition and framework of culture. Can they explain why Auschwitz in Germany and the Colosseum in Italy are world heritage sites? The Colosseum is an arena for killing each other.
If the common concept of ``culture'' in each country is the premise of world cultural heritage, then no Japanese person would object to the fact that Auschwitz and the Colosseum are cultural heritage sites. This is the Japanese way of thinking. In other words, it is different from Korea.
People visiting Japan come to see that there is almost no garbage left on the roads all over the country, and to see that the natural environment is still kept clean in one of the world's most developed countries, which is unique in the world. Although it can be said that this is Japanese culture that cannot be seen, there is no framework or precedent for considering such a culture that spreads throughout the nation as a cultural heritage.
Even if such a cultural framework were to match the world's definition, only South Korea would be opposed to it.
