Yoon's Japan plan: compromise or betrayal?

Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, left, and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, right, shake hands following a joint news conference at the prime minister's official residence in Tokyo, Japan, March 16. AP-Yonhap

By Scott Shepherd

This week has been a busy one in Korean politics. While everyone was still debating the rights and wrongs of President Yoon's diplomatic trip last week to Japan, main opposition leader Lee Jae-myung was indicted Tuesday on charges of corruption and bribery. My attention has yo-yoed between the two stories all week, though there are some clear links between them.

Yoon's trip was an attempt to reset relations between Korea and Japan ― relations which reached their nadir in 2019 with the boycott movement that followed a series of Korean court cases against Japanese companies over WW2 forced labor. Last week Yoon sought to mend relations through a bit of what seemed to be surprisingly deft diplomacy. He devised a compromise whereby Korean companies would voluntarily donate money to a compensation fund for victims.

If the compromise works, it's a win-win: Korean companies will be able to engage in some great PR by showing themselves to be on the side of the people, and at the same time a huge obstacle to Korea-Japan relations will be cleared away.

However, Yoon's plan was immediately met with a hail of criticism at home, the most vociferous of which came from Lee and his DPK party. Last Saturday Lee participated in a protest in central Seoul condemning the compromise. As The Korea Times reported, Lee went as far as accusing Yoon of "choosing to be 'a servant of Japan' while ignoring the tears of the victims." Yoon's government, according to Lee, was pushing for a deal, no matter "how illegal, how unconstitutional, how nonsensical," as long as it can "appease Japan." He even hinted that Yoon may have secretly made other concessions to Japan during the summit.

Throughout this political fight, Lee has been stoking nationalism. He has appealed to Koreans' strong anti-Japan sentiment by suggesting that the summit was "humiliating" to the country and even that Yoon "denied the independence of the Republic of Korea." But on Wednesday Lee pulled out his most powerful nationalist trump card by proposing a bill to legally recognize 25 October as Dokdo Day. The message that Lee is seeking to send is obvious: while Yoon has been off betraying our country, I have been defending Korean territory. I stand for the comfort women while he disgraces their memory.

Lee's response to Yoon's actions is clearly influenced by the pressure from the charges he faces, and it would be easy to dismiss this opposition as simply party-political maneuvering. After all, even before this week's indictment, Lee only avoided arrest after a surprisingly close vote in the DPK-held National Assembly last month. His robust criticism of Yoon's diplomacy could be read as an attempt to shift the focus of public ire away from himself and back to Yoon.

But setting aside the party politics and nationalism, it's easy to understand why so many would oppose Yoon's compromise. The issue of forced labor, and especially of comfort women, is a sensitive and painful one that takes a central place in Korea's image of its own past. There is sincere, heartfelt opposition to Yoon's plan which derives from a burning sense of injustice. Japan's colonization of Korea and the accompanying atrocities have left deep wounds, and real resentment based on fundamental principles of humanity.

Naturally, money cannot in itself heal those wounds. The reason Koreans seek compensation is not the sake of the money per se but rather what it is symbolic of. When a Japanese company pays compensation, it represents a punishment for and an acknowledgement of the crimes committed during the colonial period, however small it is and no matter how late it may come. If the entity coughing up the money is not Japanese, there's no point. And worse, Yoon's solution calls for Korean companies to pay.

On top of this, critics also demand an apology from Japan. Or rather, because Japan has actually issued several apologies in the past, critics demand an apology that is earnest. In 2018, for example, then-president Moon stated that Japan should apologize "with a sincere heart" even as he accepted that it was "undeniable" that a 2015 deal (which included a Japanese apology) over the comfort women issue was valid.

Going all the way back to the opening of relations between Korea and Japan in 1965, several Japanese leaders have indeed apologized (or expressed "remorse") for the country's past actions in Korea, but it does seem hard to believe that all of these were particularly heartfelt. Up to and including the present prime minister, Japanese leaders have acted in ways that seem to contradict the emollient language they use in diplomatic relations with Korea. The most obvious example of this is the tradition of Japanese prime ministers visiting or sending offerings to the Yasukuni Shrine, which commemorates more than 2 million Japanese people who died in service of their country, including 14 Class A war criminals from World War II.

As many have noted, Japan's post-war actions compare unfavorably to those of Germany, a country that made lasting changes not just to its constitution but also to its society and its teaching of history.

With this all in mind, it's easy to see that Yoon's compromise is imperfect. There's no getting around the fact. There are only a handful of victims of Japanese forced labor left alive. They suffered terribly, and the compensation plan does not do them justice. Even if it was paid entirely by the Japanese government, it would not recompense the victims for what they suffered. Nothing could.

Moreover, reports this week have indicated that Korean companies are wary about donating to the voluntary fund. With the political climate as it is right now, this has the potential to become a serious PR problem for donating companies, rather than the great marketing boon that Yoon had hoped for.

And who knows what the next administration will do, especially if Lee survives the current political storm and wins the next election? Many companies are unsurprisingly cautious about being seen to side too obviously with Yoon.

So yes, it's an imperfect deal. But what else can be done? Japan has already issued several apologies, however insincere they may appear, and it paid hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation in 1965.

It is natural for Koreans to want more, and it is especially natural to want to see Japanese politicians seem more obviously sorry for the past. But it is impossible to force someone to be truly sorry for something. You can receive an apology, sure ― and Korea has already received several ― but you cannot force sincerity. A genuine apology can only come when one party recognizes the pain it has caused.

Ironically, if Yoon's plan succeeds and thus leads to closer ties, it is possible that Japan will in the long run provide a more sincere apology, as Japan's people and politicians gain a better understanding of the pain of their neighbors.

But looking at this from another, more practical point of view, it's not really clear that either Korea or Japan can afford to continue this fight. Korea is the tenth-largest economy in the world, while Japan is third, behind only China and the United States. Each country is the other's best and most powerful potential ally in the immediate vicinity. Together the two nations could present a formidable front to counter regional threats; cooperation would also lead to economic growth and cultural exchange for the good of both countries.

It is right for Korea to commemorate its past, including the atrocities committed during the colonial period. At the same time, in this world of global competition and strife, the country should look forward to expanded cooperation with its only democratic neighbor.

Appealing to nationalism is a tactic that works wonders for a politician in a tight spot. It's an easy and effective tool used the world over. What takes more courage is to defy that appeal and to seek cooperation with a former enemy, especially when so many issues remain unresolved. That is what Yoon has done. And while this compromise is imperfect, it's certainly better than the alternatives.

Dr. Scott Shepherd (scottshepherd@chongshin.ac.kr) is a British-American academic. He has taught in universities in the U.K. and Korea, and is currently an assistant professor of English at Chongshin University in Seoul. The views expressed in the article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.