2 'dos' and 1 'don't' for Korea and Japan

By Ahn Ho-young

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida made a speech at the Japanese Diet on Oct. 3. In the speech, Kishida described Korea as "an important neighbor with which Japan has to cooperate in order to deal with many issues in the international community." He also said, "Japan will closely consult with Korea, because we have to return our bilateral relations to a solid one and further develop it."

The speech was quite a departure from the position Kishida had taken so far. Through his speech to the Diet in January, Kishida said that Korea must first resolve the compensation issue on its own as a precondition for any further progress in bilateral relations. It was in line with such a position that Kishida was reluctant even to meet with President Yoon Suk-yeol. Yoon, on the other hand, used every possible opportunity to declare his intention to cooperate with Japan to resolve the issue of compensation for the forced labor and improve relations with Japan.

It was frustrating, even agonizing, to watch Korea and Japan on such separate tracks that appeared to converge nowhere. That explains why, when I first heard about the speech, I had a deep sigh of relief and said to myself, "At long last." My sigh of relief may prove to be premature. Even then, I still hope that our two countries have emerged from those never-converging separate tracks, and wish to propose two "dos" and one "don't" for our two countries to move ahead.

First, Korea and Japan must restore the firewall between the issues of history and other strategic issues between the two countries. It was almost a year ago that I recalled through this column that Korea and Japan could continue to develop their relations on important issues irrespective of frequent flares-up of issues of history, because we had the wisdom of maintaining the firewall between the issues of history and other strategic issues between our two countries.

That firewall began to be violated seriously in July 2019, when the Japanese government imposed an embargo on the export to Korea of essential materials for manufacturing semiconductors, a key export item for Korea. Several months later, the South Korean government responded by declaring that it would suspend the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) between the two countries as a countermeasure against the Japanese embargo on semiconductor parts.

I hope that Japan removes that embargo and Korea recommits itself to GSOMIA as demonstrations of good-faith efforts the two governments should make at such a tumultuous time for international security and the economy. There are so many things the two countries must do together.

Second, Korea and Japan must cooperate with each other to resolve one outstanding issue of history for the moment, namely the compensation for the forced workers. We must learn a lesson from the past. A reason for which the December 2015 agreement on comfort women was later criticized and failed to be fully implemented by the Moon government was because of the complaints by the victims and their supporters. In view of this lesson, the Yoon government has worked hard so far to consult with the victims of forced labor and their supporters.

The ruling rendered by Korea's Supreme Court in October 2018 raised many difficult challenges. It is almost impossible to come up with a solution that will satisfy the ruling and meet the demands of both the victims and the Japanese government. So far, the solution that appears to me to raise the least problems is the establishment of a specific purpose fund to compensate the victims.

This least problematic option comes with two important conditions, over which the victims and their supporters appear to be totally uncompromising. First, they demand that the defendant companies, namely Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Corp., must contribute to the fund. Second, they demand that the compensation must be accompanied with sufficient expressions of apology. The Korean government alone obviously cannot meet these conditions. That's the reason why Korea and Japan must work together.

Third, Korea and Japan must avoid taking any actions which will develop into another controversy over history. A good example is Hashima Island in Japan which was registered as UNESCO World Heritage in 2015.

Japan is proud of Hashima Island in view of the role played by the mines on the island during the early days of Japan's industrialization. What Japan should understand as well is that a large number of Koreans were taken to the island and forced to work there in harsh conditions. It was in view of this that the Japanese government committed itself in 2015 to taking appropriate measures to remember the victims of the mines, including the establishment of an information center.

After six years, Japan has nothing to show for the commitment. Accordingly, the 44th session of the World Heritage Committee adopted a decision recently, requesting Japan to implement its 2015 commitment.

With this issue of history still unresolved, it is difficult to understand why Japan is now trying to register more mines, this time gold mines at the island of Sado. The Sado mines also depended on a large number of workers taken to the mines and forced to work there in harsh conditions. Japan's efforts will run into the repetition of the same diplomatic haggling as in 2015. This is best avoided.

Ahn Ho-young (hyahn78@mofa.or.kr) is chair professor of the University of North Korean Studies. He served as Korean ambassador to the United States and first vice foreign minister.