1. The South Korean Supreme Court ruling on the “wartime laborer lawsuit” is unfair
On October 30th of this year, the Supreme Court of Korea (equivalent to Japan’s Supreme Court) issued a ruling in the “wartime laborer lawsuit” ordering Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal to pay approximately 40 million yen in compensation.
This is a court case in which four Koreans who falsely claimed that they were forced to work in Japan as laborers during the Pacific War sought damages from Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation.
Regarding this issue, Prime Minister Abe has already stated, “This matter has been fully and finally resolved under the Japan-Korea Claims Agreement of 1965. This judgment is an impossible decision in light of international law. The Japanese government will take resolute action. This is an extremely decent response, and as a Japanese citizen, I think it is only natural.
2. Japan-Korea Claims Agreement
The “Japan-Korea Claims Agreement” is an agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea concerning the settlement of property and claims issues and economic cooperation. It was concluded together with the “Basic Treaty between Japan and Korea” and states that “Japan has fully and finally settled the claims between the two countries and their citizens by providing $500 million in economic assistance to the Republic of Korea.
At the time, South Korea’s national budget was about 350 million dollars, so this was a huge amount of economic assistance, 1.4 times the national budget. Therefore, the South Korean government was to take full responsibility for making all payments to the “wartime laborers” and “comfort women.”
However, what bothers me about the recent Japanese reports is that all media outlets are using the term “former conscripted workers.” This term is being used by itself, but the fact is that they were “factory workers who responded to recruitment” and “were never forced to work.”
That is why I am very concerned about the fact that the term “conscription” has been used by itself to give such a misconception, even though it is not “forced labour” (forcible labour).
The South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs intentionally uses the term “forced labour” in the English translation, but the Japanese government has unified the term to “workers from the Korean Peninsula” to make it clear that they were people who responded to recruitment and were not forcibly taken. It is difficult to understand why the Japanese mass media uses the term “former forced laborers,” which seems to pander to South Korea’s wishes. This only spreads misunderstandings and harms Japan’s national interests. If it were to be abbreviated, it would be “recruited workers” or “applicant workers.”
3. The issue of comfort women
Also, changing the subject, there are various issues surrounding the “comfort women” issue.
The “comfort women” issue was originally born from a fabricated article by Asahi Shimbun journalist Seiji Yoshida. Although “comfort women were women who responded to recruitment efforts by Korean intermediaries and were paid considerably more than the wages they received, and were in no way forced labor,” the term “comfort women,” along with the fabricated article, spread throughout the world with the image of “forced abduction” and “forced labor,” and has been damaging Japan’s national interests for many years.
However, based on the December 2015 agreement between the Japanese and South Korean governments, the issue was “finally and irreversibly resolved,” and as proof, Japan contributed 1 billion yen to establish the “Reconciliation and Healing Foundation” in South Korea. According to Professor Park of Osaka City University, some “former comfort women” have already received their money.
However, on November 21, the South Korean government announced that it would dissolve the Comfort Women Foundation and terminate its operations. Prime Minister Abe immediately responded on the same day, stating, “If international promises are not kept, relations between countries will cease to exist. I hope that South Korea will respond responsibly. This is also a perfectly decent response, and I think it is only natural for the Japanese people to respond in this way.
I believe that the Japanese government should once again strongly urge the United Nations to “retract” the erroneous reports on “comfort women” (the “Coomaraswamy Report” and the “McDougall Report”) that the United Nations Human Rights Commission conducted based on erroneous information in a “fabricated article” by Asahi Shimbun journalist Seiji Yoshida, but this has yet to be done.
The Asahi Shimbun has neither explained nor taken any action to the international community, including the United Nations, that the issue of comfort women is a misunderstanding based on a fabricated article, following the announcement of an apology for the fabricated article in the name of its president.
Such erroneous UN reports, once issued, run a very great risk of “walking alone” and may seriously damage Japan’s national interests.
4. Japan should maintain a firm stance toward South Korea
Up to now, the Japanese government has taken a “mature” and gentle approach so as not to stir things up too much, but if South Korea “changes its administration, it will go back on its promises to the previous administration and foreign countries with impunity,” then diplomatic relations between countries in a sane manner cannot be established, as the prime minister says.
Yukichi Fukuzawa, an enlightened thinker and educator of the Meiji era, wrote in his book “Datsu-A Ron” (“Leaving Asia”), sounding the alarm that “you must be prepared from the start to realize that any promises you make with Koreans are invalid.”
Then, no matter what kind of promises Japan makes to these people（Korean people）, they are always in breach of trust and do not care a bit about it. Since we have already experienced this often in our previous diplomatic relations, we should be prepared for the fact that any promises we make to Koreans will be invalid from the beginning.
(Jiji Shimpo, October 7, 1897).
As for the judiciary, it is hard to believe that it is a proper judiciary to make decisions that completely ignore past agreements between nations, as if to curry favor with the current administration, just because the administration has changed. It is hard to believe that the Supreme Court would make such a decision, let alone a lower court.
President Moon Jae-in has made comments as if it were someone else’s problem, saying he will “respect the judicial decision,” but this is nothing short of an irresponsible statement that shows a complete lack of understanding of the seriousness of the matter.
Of course, the Asahi Shimbun should make an effort to apologize and explain to the world “for publishing fabricated articles, causing misunderstandings around the world as a result, and damaging Japan’s national interests for many years.”
And the Japanese government should also take measures such as requesting the UN Human Rights Commission to “withdraw” the 1996 “Coomaraswamy Report” and the 1998 “McDougal Report” because they are “erroneous reports based on fabricated articles.
I think it is time to make it clear internationally that Japan must have principles like former Prime Minister Yoshida and Jiro Shirasu and “be a nation that says what needs to be said properly”.
吉田元首相や白洲次郎のように、「プリンシプル(principle）」を持って、
Yesterday (November 29th), the Supreme Court of South Korea issued a similar ruling against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries as it did against Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal on October 30th, ensuring that South Korea will continue to issue similar rulings in spite of Japan’s strong protests.
In response, Foreign Minister Kono issued a statement on the same day stating, “The issue of claims was completely and finally resolved by the 1965 Japan-Korea Claims Agreement. This (the ruling) fundamentally overturns the legal foundation of the friendly and cooperative relationship between Japan and Korea, and is totally unacceptable.” This is also a perfectly reasonable response, and I think it is only natural for a Japanese citizen to do so.
Up until now, Japan has maintained a tolerant attitude despite the many inappropriate remarks and actions made by the South Korean side. However, this has now become an outrageous act that far exceeds the “limits of tolerance.” It is only natural that the Japanese government should take a firm stance toward the South Korean government and demand a sincere apology and a sincere response.
Countermeasures such as taking the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are becoming a reality. I hope that the companies that received the ruling will respond in close contact with the Japanese government.