'Seoul needs to be clear about respecting 1965 treaty'

Chung Jae-jeong, professor emeritus at the University of Seoul Korea Times photo by Seo Jae-hoon

This is the seventh 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 Do Je-hae

Two months have passed since Japan's series of trade restrictions on Korea, seen as “economic retaliation” for the 2018 Supreme Court ruling that ordered Japanese firms to pay compensation to the surviving South Korean victims of forced labor during the 1910-45 colonial rule.

The two governments have been unable to make any visible headway in resolving the escalating disputes over trade and history, which have even affected the security area, with Seoul deciding not to renew a bilateral military intelligence-sharing pact with Japan.

One of the biggest points of contention between Korea and Japan has been their differences on the 1965 normalization treaty, which Japan has used as the basis to claim that all colonial-era settlements were completed when it provided $800 million in grants and loans under the Korea-Japan Claims Settlement Agreement attached to the treaty.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has continued to accuse Seoul of breaking international law by denying bilateral pacts, including the 1965 basic treaty and the 2015 agreement on wartime sex slavery.

During a recent interview with The Korea Times, Chung Jae-jeong, professor emeritus at the University of Seoul, underlined the need to assuage Tokyo's growing suspicions that Seoul is neglecting the 1965 agreement as a way to restore mutual trust between the two countries and their leaders. In particular, the former head of the Northeast Asian History Foundation stressed the need to approach the Korea-Japan conflict issue based on facts and not give way to emotion.

The following are edited questions and answers during the interview with the renowned historian at his office in central Seoul.

Q: Since the Supreme Court ruling, has Seoul given the impression that it may be disregarding the 1965 pact?

A: There is a high possibility that Japan takes this view. Seoul says that it is addressing the insufficiencies of the 1965 pact, but from Japan's point of view, all issues regarding compensation were completely resolved with the deal. The Korean government has only said it respects the ruling, and has not given clear explanations about the discrepancy between the 1965 pact and the Supreme Court ruling. There has not been any statement from the foreign minister or the President declaring once and for all that Seoul does not deny the pact. If this position was declared through an official channel, it could help to assuage the considerable level of concern Japan has. This will facilitate negotiations on how to resolve the current disputes. Abe and the Japanese foreign minister have continued to demand Korea “keep state-to-state promises and treaties.”

Q: If the President were to make such a declaration, the Korean public may see it as a humiliation and get the impression that we are succumbing to Japan's demands.

A: I think we as a country have passed a stage where we approach state-to-state conflicts emotionally. They should be handled with professional judgment and knowledge.

Q: What do you make of calls from some political and academic circles about the need to reconsider the “1965 system”?

A: It could be a topic for scholars, but if those in official posts were to say such things, it could be seen as actually denying the 1965 pact and pushing for renegotiating the agreement. In this case, it could trigger a whole other problem aside from the Supreme Court ruling and the current economic measures. It will not help to resolve urgent diplomatic issues. It has been open knowledge, even at the time of signing the agreement, that it was insufficient. So since then the two sides had discussions and made compromises to complement the deal. This should not be overlooked.

Q: The Korean government has proposed the creation of a fund by Japanese and Korean firms for the compensation. Is this something Japan can accept, when Korea has dissolved a foundation for the comfort women created through a joint fund by the two governments?

A: One of the reasons Japan refused the suggestion is probably due to the situation [regarding the comfort women deal]. The Japanese government wants Korea to take care of all of this domestically. But the Supreme Court ruling must be executed, and in the process, the assets of Japanese firms could be seized. This is the reality. So Japan should also come to the negotiation table to resolve this issue diplomatically. To improve the current situation, it is urgent to narrow the two countries' differences on the Supreme Court ruling. In the past, the two countries have faced many problems but have the experience of sitting down together to discuss them since 1965. It is time to revive such a wise approach.

Q: What do you think about resolving through a third-party arbitration panel?

A: I think this and all other methods can be put on the negotiating table. Because human rights is a globally significant issue, some experts in international law say that Korea has an advantage. Seeking an arbitration is better than the current dead end because it is at least a step toward a resolution.

Q: What is needed for the two countries to trust each other again?

A: The most fundamental reason for the current dispute is the loss of mutual trust, particularly between the leaders of the two countries. This limits the actions of those who work under them. It is important to make good use of certain occasions, such as the coronation of the Japanese emperor or the Olympics.