Lee Min-hyung joined The Korea Times in 2014 and has worked as a journalist mainly in Korea’s finance, tech and automotive industry. He specializes in content creation, breaking news and in-depth analysis currently on transportation and mobility. You can reach him via mhlee@koreatimes.co.kr.
INTERVIEW 'Abolishing 1965 treaty is no good'
Park Cheol-hee, professor at the Graduate School of International Studies (GSIS) at Seoul National University, speaks in an interview with The Korea Times at GSIS headquarters in Seoul, Aug. 12. Korea Times photo by Choi Won-suk
By Lee Min-hyung
This is the fourth in a series of interviews with political experts and experienced analysts assessing the impact of the ongoing South Korea-Japan trade row after Tokyo removed Seoul from its list of trusted trading partners receiving preferential treatment in exports. ― ED.
By Lee Min-hyung
Seeking a possible nullification of the 1965 treaty signed by South Korea and Japan is a “risky idea” in terms of advancing bilateral ties, an experienced international relations expert said.
“Any attempt to challenge or abolish the 1965 treaty is a very risky idea, as the move also goes against the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty between the American-led World War II allies and Japan,” Park Cheol-hee, professor at the Graduate School of International Studies (GSIS) at Seoul National University, said in an interview with The Korea Times.
The professor added any efforts by South Korea aimed at nullifying the treaty won't be backed by the international community as the treaty is a legal agreement between the two countries.
The central point of the ongoing Seoul-Tokyo trade row is a legal disagreement over the treaty that triggered decades of bad blood between the two countries. Japan was upset by last year's decision by the South Korean Supreme Court, which ordered Japanese corporations to compensate surviving South Korean victims of wartime forced labor.
Japan insists that all outstanding claims including individual claims were completely settled by the treaty, which normalized diplomatic ties between them in exchange for $300 million in grants and $200 million in loans from Japan to Korea. But South Korea believes the treaty only resolved country-level claims, no individual ones.
With the neighboring countries showing no clear signs of narrowing their stark differences on the compensation issue anytime soon, some opposition politicians and analysts argued the South Korean government should consider revising the treaty.
“The 1965 treaty is based on the San Francisco agreement which says the compensation issue should be settled between Seoul and Tokyo, so any movement to revise the 1965 agreement will be viewed as an attempt to oppose the San Francisco treaty,” the professor said.
From that perspective, Washington “will not welcome the idea of abolishing the treaty” as the United States is one of the allied countries that participated in the San Francisco treaty, he added.
Even if the 1965 treaty was signed between Seoul and Tokyo, any revisions to it will require consensus from a number of countries, particularly from Washington, according to the expert.
“This will send the wrong message and signal to the U.S., and do no good to South Korea's national interests in the end. As of now, it appears there is no clear way out of the deepening diplomatic conflict between Seoul and Tokyo,” Park said.
Citing national security concerns, Tokyo, in response, removed Seoul from its “whitelist” of countries receiving preferential trade benefits. South Korea's ruling party described the measure as “all-out economic war.”
The professor advised Seoul and Tokyo to continue talks in addressing their differences and seeking to find a middle ground to resolve the worsening dispute.
Park also advised against Seoul terminating the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), signed in 2016 between Seoul and Tokyo to lift their military intelligence-sharing amid North Korea's lingering missile and nuclear threats.
“South Korea is gaining more benefits from the GSOMIA than Japan amid recently revived inter-Korean tension in the wake of the North's repeated missile launches. If the South stops extending the agreement with Japan, the U.S. will view the move as a step threatening the cornerstone of the trilateral security alliance among Seoul, Tokyo and Washington,” Park said, adding the scenario, if materialized, does no good to Seoul “at all.”