Abe urged to atone for past

Following is the third in a series of articles marking the 70th anniversary of Korea’s liberation from the 1910-1945 Japanese colonial rule — ED.

By Kang Seung-woo

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is on the way to deliver his speech during the 2015 Nagasaki Peace Ceremony at Nagasaki Peace Park, in Nagasaki, Sunday. / EPA-Yonhap

Will Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe apologize for his country’s past aggression in his statement to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, Friday?

What he says about Imperial Japan’s wartime atrocities will set the tone for Tokyo’s relations with its neighboring countries.

“The statement will provide Abe with a good chance to bring the Northeast Asian countries closer,” said Park Strategies Senior Vice President Sean King.

“Abe should say nothing to suggest that Japan was a victim of a war, as some conservative Japanese politicians, who claim Japan was forced into the war to safeguard East Asia from Western influence, do.”

The Yasukuni Shrine, which houses the remains of 14 Class A war criminals from World War II, is a symbol to Koreans of Japan’s past imperialism. In 2013, Abe visited the shrine, heightening regional tensions and drawing criticism from Korea, China and even the United States.

Robert Kelly, an international relations professor at Pusan National University, said, “If he won’t apologize, then maybe he could at least admit that Japanese expansionism was imperialism.”

He said it was nonsense that one of the persistent denier myths in Japan was that its wars were anti-colonial.

“Korea and China were never controlled by Europeans. They were not like India or African countries,” he said.

Kim Soung-tae, a senior fellow at the Sejong Institute, suggested that Abe show a sincere attitude toward the sex slavery and acknowledge Japan’s colonial rule over Korea.

“Abe can do something to ease victims’ pain from Japan’s aggression, which may help dispel criticism to some degree from Korea and the international community,” Kim said.

According to a recent NHK report, a draft of Abe’s statement may include the key words “apology” and “aggression” although it remains doubtful among diplomatic exerts.

“Abe believes Japan’s perception of history in the Murayama and Kono Statements has been self-disparaging,” said Yun Duk-min, chancellor of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy.

“In this respect, he will speak to the people to boost the nation’s pride in its history. That means his statement will not live up to expectations from Korea.”

Van Jackson, a visiting fellow at the Center for a New American Security, echoed Yun’s view.

“I’m very pessimistic,” he said. “Abe doesn’t need to atone for the past in order to achieve what he seeks politically. It’s not about emotion; it’s about political calculation.”

Ahead of the planned statement, historians and politicians from the international community, including the U.S., have called on Abe to make a clearer statement on the atrocities.

However, Kelly does not buy into the idea that the U.S. calls are likely to affect Abe’s statement.

“Abe’s coalition is vested in historical denial,” he said. “He must dance around the imperial issue to avoid a governing split. The Americans can push him, and they have. But if he has not spoken to this issue thus far, I doubt he will later.”

Kelly added: “Japan must ultimately make its own decisions about how to interpret its history. Outsiders cannot do this for the Japanese. Korea can put forward its interpretations of events, but badgering Japan to adopt a ‘correct’ version will only create a right-wing backlash in Japan, which is already happening.”

Apology for forced labor

Whether he will apologize for forced labor of Koreans will emerge as a thorny issue between the two countries.

Last month, Mitsubishi Materials Corp. agreed to apologize and pay compensation to 3,765 Chinese people over its wartime misconduct. In addition, it had also offered an apology for using captured U.S. soldiers as slave laborers.

But Korean victims are apparently being ignored even though more than 200,000 Koreans were forced to work in Japan’s coalmines, shipyards and other facilities.

“Japan doesn’t believe it needs Korea,” Jackson said. “The U.S. alliance is the foundation of its geopolitical strategy, and if Japan wishes to extend apologies, it can do so to China, believing that Korea will then simply follow China.

“Japan looks at its strategic environment and believes it doesn’t need to mollify Korean concerns with history, especially if it has domestic political costs for the ruling party coalition.”

Japan’s position is that all legal responsibilities over the wartime forced labor of Koreans were settled in a 1965 package deal with Korea to normalize bilateral diplomatic ties. At that time, Korea received $500 million ― $300 million of which was free ― from Japan, but much of the money was used in building the nation’s infrastructure, including the Gyeongbu Expressway and Pohang Iron and Steel Company, the predecessor of POSCO.

“However, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the rights of individuals to reparations still hold true in spite of the government-level agreement (in May 2012),” Yun said.

Since then, Korean courts have ordered Japanese companies to pay compensation to the victims, with 11 related lawsuits under way here that involve Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Nippon Steel Corp..

Korea-Japan summit

Since taking office in February, President Park has refused to hold a bilateral summit with Abe due to his “flawed” perception of history despite the increasing need to share strategic interests in the region, where China is rising and North Korea is a security threat.

Diplomatic experts say the Korean government had better set up a trilateral meeting that includes the U.S. or China.

“We need to approach the issue intelligently,” said Park Won-gon, an international studies professor at Handong Global University. “President Park’s call for a resolution of the comfort women issue ahead of a Korea-Japan summit has prevented her from doing something for rapprochement between Seoul and Tokyo and the government appears to be growing impatient.

“For now, a three-way summit between Korea, Japan and China is desirable because a bilateral summit can pose a political risk to Park when the meeting fails to make any progress.”

Jackson also said, “From a Korean perspective ― especially given Korean domestic politics ― there’s no benefit to a bilateral summit.”

He added that even if a bilateral summit happened, everyone would know it was disingenuous and temporary.

“From Korea’s perspective, it’s not worth incurring the domestic political costs of holding a bilateral summit if the benefits are fleeting and people have a cynical view of it anyway,” he said.

“(It is) better to check the box on cooperation with Japan in a trilateral setting, which alleviates domestic political pressure but still satisfies the international community.”