Geum-joo vs. Japan (II)

By Semoon Chang

Sexual slavery of Asian women by the Japanese military during World War II was explained two weeks ago in this column through the introduction of Hwang Geum-joo vs. Japan. Today, I will conclude the story and make suggestions on what Korea should do to close the chapter on the brutal acts by Japan.

Let me introduce three documents that have the bearing on the sexual slavery issue. The first document is the 1905 Taft-Katsura Agreement, which is heavily quoted here from the April 29, 2015, issue of KASTN (Korean-American Science and Technology News). At the dawn of the 20th century, Japan emerged as the unchallenged military power, while Korea under the inept kingdom slid into accelerated decline.

On July 27, 1905, a meeting between Japanese Prime Minister Taro Katsura and U.S. Secretary of WarWilliam Howard Taft, who later became the 27th President of the United States, was held in Tokyo, leading to the 1905 agreement. The agreement has been said to seal Korea’s death warrant and was a precursor to the 1905 Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty. In the agreement, the U.S. agreed not to interfere with Japan’s annexation of Korea. All Japan had to do now was to just walk in and take over and Japan did exactly that.

Although the formal annexation did not take place until 1910 when the Treaty of Annexation was signed in August 1910, the year 1905 marks for all intents and purposes the end of the Joseon Kingdom of Korea. Clearly, Japan now could do whatever it wanted with hapless Koreans.

The second document is the 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan, which is explained in detail in my publication titled “The Saga of Jeong vs. Onoda Cement” in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Korean History. The 1951 Treaty, known also as the San Francisco Peace Treaty, was signed on Sept. 8, 1951, between Allied powers and Japan. There are two problems so far as the issue of “comfort women” is concerned. One is that the 1951 treaty affects only those who were U.S. nationals at the time the treaty was signed, precluding the rights of comfort women in making claims against Japan. The other is that Article 4-(a) of the treaty states in part that “claims, including debts, of such authorities and residents against Japan and its nationals, shall be the subject of special arrangements between Japan and such authorities.” This suggests that any claims by Korea against Japan should be made through special agreements between Korea and Japan.

In plain English, Korea was not considered as a member of Allied powers in the 1951 treaty, and thus unable to dictate the terms of reparations against Japan during bilateral negotiations that led to the third of the three documents that affected today’s comfort women issue: The 1965 Japan-Korea Agreement, called the Korea-Japan Agreement by Koreans, was signed on June 22, 1965.

Claims by Korean victims of the Japanese occupation relate directly to Article No. 2-(1) of the 1965 agreement, which states in part that all claims between the two countries, including requirements of Article No. 4-(a) of the 1951 Treaty of Peace, are completely settled. Japan has relied on Article No. 2-(1) to reject any and all claims against Japan, including claims by comfort women. Unfortunately, Article No. 2-(1) did not explicitly spell out the rights of Korea’s individual victims.

The main focus of the 1965 agreement was for Korea to secure funds for economic development from Japan. The actual amount of payment by Japan to Korea was based on the Nov. 12, 1962, memorandum, known as the Kim (Jong-pil)-Ohira memo that suggested a minimum amount of $500 million. Japan accommodated this amount of claims without admitting that these were reparations, effectively making it virtually impossible for Korea’s victims to file claims against Japan as individuals. Put differently, the 1965 agreement was made by the then-Korea’s leaders for political expediency with no understanding of how the agreement would later impact individual victims of the Japan’s inhumane policies during its occupation of Korea.

In retrospect, Korea during the Joseon Kingdom was never prepared for the changing world and became an innocent victim as shown in the 1905 Taft-Katsura Agreement. Korea at the end of World War II was irrelevant, and thus was not given an opportunity to dictate terms during its negotiation with Japan as implied in the 1951 Treaty of Peace. Twenty years after Japan’s defeat in World War II, Korea’s power was still inferior to that of Japan as reflected in the 1965 agreement.

To conclude, Korea should never have placed itself in weaker position for so many years. I think Korea should no longer ask Japan to apologize for its past crimes against Korea, including its treatment of sex slaves. What difference will a reluctant apology from Japan make? Korea should move on by generously compensating the precious few surviving victims from Japan’s sex slavery policy. Korea then should build a large monument, called Never Again, somewhere near the front of the Incheon International Airport, or in the middle of Gwanghwamun. From now on, Korea’s energy must be focused on getting strong and stronger than any of its neighbor countries.

Semoon Chang is the director of the Gulf Coast Center for Impact Studies.