By Sandip Kumar Mishra
The deputy head of Japanese Embassy in Seoul, Hirohisa Soma, reportedly said on July 15 that South Korean President Moon Jae-in has been "masturbating" and in a "tug-of-war only with himself." He wanted to convey that Moon's attempts to have a summit with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga during the Tokyo Olympics opening ceremony were useless.
His message may be right but his expression was quite provocative. South Korea called Japanese Ambassador Koichi Aiboshi and conveyed strong resentment, and the Japanese embassy "dressed down severely" Soma's words.
But the issue remains whether it was just a mistake on the part of Soma or a deliberate attempt by Japan to stop an upcoming visit of President Moon to Japan? In hindsight it appears that it was deliberate as it succeeded in getting Moon's visit to Japan canceled.
Actually, Moon wanted to have an extended meeting with the Japanese leader whereas Suga wanted to have only a 15 minutes meeting with all foreign leaders attending the Olympics opening ceremony, including Moon.
In the last few months, it seems that South Korea has been looking for an opportunity to open up dialogue at the top level with Japan. The top leaders of both countries have not met even once for an exclusive bilateral meeting in the last few years.
Last time, they held a summit in Chengdu on the sidelines of the annual trilateral meetings among China, Korea and Japan in December 2019. In 2020, Suga refused to visit Seoul to participate in a trilateral meeting and in June 2021, both leaders just exchanged greetings in England on the sidelines of the G-7 summit.
Japan appears inflexible on its position that unless South Korea changes its stance on two issues ― the 2015 bilateral agreement on wartime sex slavery and the 2018 South Korean Supreme Court's order to Japanese companies to compensate surviving South Korean victims of wartime forced labor ― no summit would be held.
Actually, deadlocks on these two issues have escalated to several other actions and counteractions between the two countries. Japanese displeasure is understandable that Moon, after coming to power, decided to unilaterally review the 2015 agreement. But it could also be argued that from the very beginning the agreement did not have bipartisan support in South Korea.
Moon and opposition parties were categorical in their position that the agreement was done in a hurry and everything was reduced to compensation. So it was natural that Moon raised the issue after coming to power in May 2017.
Furthermore, Japan also has a point when it claims that the issue of compensation for wartime forced labor has been resolved through the 1965 normalization treaty. But it must be underlined that it was not the South Korean government but the judiciary that made the verdict in 2018.
As the head of the executive branch of the South Korean government, Moon had little power to intervene in the issue. Moon proposed a joint fund to compensate victims or having joint deliberations to devise a way out. However, the Japanese response was punitive and uncompromising.
The Japanese approach has not changed since then. After several denials from Shinzo Abe, Moon tried to reach out on Sept. 16, 2020, after Suga took office as prime minister of Japan. Moon said that he was ready to "sit down anytime" to improve bilateral ties. But Suga said that Japan would "continue to seek appropriate action from South Korea."
In a press conference, Suga even said that Japan did not intend to soften its stand vis-a-vis South Korea. In November 2020, when South Korean National Intelligence Service director Park Jie-won visited Japan, Suga again conveyed that "South Korea would have to make the first move to ease tensions."
Actually the message and style of Soma's statement conveys Japan's inflexible position vis-a-vis South Korea. Japan considers that to deal with the naggings from South Korea it is prudent to have a tough and uncompromising approach.
Japan does not realize that its two primary demands to South Korea for having a summit are unrealistic. Even though both countries disagree, the summit meetings and diplomatic contacts must be kept alive.
Moreover, even though there exists friction on a few issues between South Korea and Japan, holding all other positive exchanges hostage to them is not prudent. It is also imprudent to expect that South Korea would bow down and only then would Japan agree to a summit. It may not happen. Rather, it is impossible to happen. Japan may project its inflexible approach as an appropriate South Korea policy but in effect it is a fruitless exercise.
Sandip Kumar Mishra (sandipmishra10@gmail.com) is an associate professor at the Centre for East Asian Studies, the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.
 |
His message may be right but his expression was quite provocative. South Korea called Japanese Ambassador Koichi Aiboshi and conveyed strong resentment, and the Japanese embassy "dressed down severely" Soma's words.
But the issue remains whether it was just a mistake on the part of Soma or a deliberate attempt by Japan to stop an upcoming visit of President Moon to Japan? In hindsight it appears that it was deliberate as it succeeded in getting Moon's visit to Japan canceled.
Actually, Moon wanted to have an extended meeting with the Japanese leader whereas Suga wanted to have only a 15 minutes meeting with all foreign leaders attending the Olympics opening ceremony, including Moon.
In the last few months, it seems that South Korea has been looking for an opportunity to open up dialogue at the top level with Japan. The top leaders of both countries have not met even once for an exclusive bilateral meeting in the last few years.
Last time, they held a summit in Chengdu on the sidelines of the annual trilateral meetings among China, Korea and Japan in December 2019. In 2020, Suga refused to visit Seoul to participate in a trilateral meeting and in June 2021, both leaders just exchanged greetings in England on the sidelines of the G-7 summit.
Japan appears inflexible on its position that unless South Korea changes its stance on two issues ― the 2015 bilateral agreement on wartime sex slavery and the 2018 South Korean Supreme Court's order to Japanese companies to compensate surviving South Korean victims of wartime forced labor ― no summit would be held.
Actually, deadlocks on these two issues have escalated to several other actions and counteractions between the two countries. Japanese displeasure is understandable that Moon, after coming to power, decided to unilaterally review the 2015 agreement. But it could also be argued that from the very beginning the agreement did not have bipartisan support in South Korea.
Moon and opposition parties were categorical in their position that the agreement was done in a hurry and everything was reduced to compensation. So it was natural that Moon raised the issue after coming to power in May 2017.
Furthermore, Japan also has a point when it claims that the issue of compensation for wartime forced labor has been resolved through the 1965 normalization treaty. But it must be underlined that it was not the South Korean government but the judiciary that made the verdict in 2018.
As the head of the executive branch of the South Korean government, Moon had little power to intervene in the issue. Moon proposed a joint fund to compensate victims or having joint deliberations to devise a way out. However, the Japanese response was punitive and uncompromising.
The Japanese approach has not changed since then. After several denials from Shinzo Abe, Moon tried to reach out on Sept. 16, 2020, after Suga took office as prime minister of Japan. Moon said that he was ready to "sit down anytime" to improve bilateral ties. But Suga said that Japan would "continue to seek appropriate action from South Korea."
In a press conference, Suga even said that Japan did not intend to soften its stand vis-a-vis South Korea. In November 2020, when South Korean National Intelligence Service director Park Jie-won visited Japan, Suga again conveyed that "South Korea would have to make the first move to ease tensions."
Actually the message and style of Soma's statement conveys Japan's inflexible position vis-a-vis South Korea. Japan considers that to deal with the naggings from South Korea it is prudent to have a tough and uncompromising approach.
Japan does not realize that its two primary demands to South Korea for having a summit are unrealistic. Even though both countries disagree, the summit meetings and diplomatic contacts must be kept alive.
Moreover, even though there exists friction on a few issues between South Korea and Japan, holding all other positive exchanges hostage to them is not prudent. It is also imprudent to expect that South Korea would bow down and only then would Japan agree to a summit. It may not happen. Rather, it is impossible to happen. Japan may project its inflexible approach as an appropriate South Korea policy but in effect it is a fruitless exercise.
Sandip Kumar Mishra (sandipmishra10@gmail.com) is an associate professor at the Centre for East Asian Studies, the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.
