Japan, S Korea agree to summit next month

Finally, Japan is making concessions after Abe made a mess of South Korean-Japanese relations. This issue can have only two correct resolutions: Respect for the South Korean Supreme Court ruling and just compensation for the slave laborers under Japanese rule during World War II.

Let's see what kind of compromising idea which does not respect its supreme court order at all SK would bring in

South Korea, trying to milk the goat, again.

re: "Finally, Japan is making concessions after Abe made a mess of South Korean-Japanese relations. This issue can have only two correct resolutions: Respect for the South Korean Supreme Court ruling and just compensation for the slave laborers under Japanese rule during World War II.

Why don't you ask LG, Samsung etc where the money is that Japan paid all this time for all compensation issues. Japan is not entitled to pay on this forever. Sorry it has paid the bill in full. Please read the 1956 San Francisco Treaty very carefully and clearly. It is spelled out in black and white what Japan was entitled to do regarding war reparations which includes all the bickering from South Korea. Enough the cash cow is closed. I have an idea why hasn't SKorea paid the debt it owes for the same issues it brings against Japan to those due to Vietnam by SK. hmmm. always silence. One has to wonder this one-sided affair. President Moon is only trying to save his own skin before he gets tossed out and put in jail next to former falsely indicted President Park.

Finally, Japan is making concessions after Abe made a mess of South Korean-Japanese relations.

You do realize that Abe has a say in these discussions right?

this time SK will pay themselves as no monetary aid is coming from Japan. They will use the money from comfort women fund.

Why don't you ask LG, Samsung etc where the money is that Japan paid all this time for all compensation issues. Japan is not entitled to pay on this forever. Sorry it has paid the bill in full. Please read the 1956 San Francisco Treaty very carefully and clearly. It is spelled out in black and white what Japan was entitled to do regarding war reparations which includes all the bickering from South Korea. Enough the cash cow is closed.

1956 San Francisco Treaty? Right.

Perhaps you should refer to reports by third parties such as U.N. Commission for Human Rights that stated that the 1965 treaty between Korea and Japan did not cover claims against comfort women nor forced laborers. In other words, they clearly rejected Japan’s assertion and sided with Korea.

Unfortunately, you’ve been brainwashed like the rest of the Japanese.

"The Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system made up of 47 States responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe.

It has the ability to discuss all thematic human rights issues and situations that require its attention throughout the year. It meets at the UN Office at Geneva."

Unfortunately the Human Rights Council has no legal standing and cannot adjudicate matters such as you described. Whatever they may have allegedly "found" is meaningless from a legal point of view as it cannot be enforced.

I highly doubt that they would waste their time on issues from WWII that had already been adjudicated. If you have a citation or a date that this was "found" please share.

Comfort Women: While there may have been some women that were kidnapped by the Japanese military and forced into prostitution, there also were many young Korean daughters who were sold to brothels by their parents. There were also many young women who voluntarily offered their services to the Japanese soldiers. As there are many Korean women who to this day work in bars and brothels near the U.S. Military bases. These facts need to be distinguished and brought up when discussing the issue of so-called "comfort women" and the world's oldest profession.

South Korea&s todays status is stooge of north Korea because its President from North Korean parents, that's why SK should kick out there current president first and then come to Japan...Japan is not a puppet of SK. We've pride and anytime we can get back to our past if we need....!

Wellington: Documentation please.

This is what I humbly request of al the anti-South Korean posters. I also think that matters can be cleared up much more easily with more critical thinking and logical writing and no more insults against South Korea and Korean people.

This aside, if Japan has a valid case regarding compensation to former slave labors it might start with the South Korean court system. There could be a way of appealing the Supreme Court ruling. What Japan did--that is what Abe did--way to impose economic sanctions which have nothing to do with the Supreme Court. It was a sordid act of bullying, a vile act of economic intimidation designed to damage an important segment of the South Korea economy. This in turn could well damage the international computer industry.

Predictions are that Japan is headed for a downturn. If so, it will need all the friends it can get.

@jeancolmar

Finally, Japan is making concessions

What concessions, exactly? It seems that after all the hysterical tantrums South Korea finall has a rare glimmer of common sense.

What concessions? See the article above

Abe is now ready to discuss Korean slave laborers when he would hear of it before, for instance. There will be talks about Abe's sanctions. Abe was hard-headed before. Would not listen to an SK proposal to jointly share the cost of compensating the former slave labors. Seems now he at least willing to listen.

South Korea decided to continue GSOMIA with Japan only hours before the treaty would expire. You can be sure this was not done with concessions from Japan. You will be seeing a lot of meetings that otherwise would not have happened.

South Korea has given Japan until next March to shape up.

What concessions? See the article above. Abe is now ready to discuss Korean slave laborers

Done it already. And? The phrase "Motegi had earlier said that he wanted to discuss the issue frankly" you take as a concession? Obviously you do not understand what the "diplomatic language" means.

South Korea has given Japan until next March to shape up.

Yoy expect Japan to obey? You are for a major disappointment.

Once again it is Japan that has shown to be the mature and rational party in this whole debacle.

Only AFTER South Korea decided to act like adults, THEN Japan was willing to sit down and formally talk with South Korean officials. In on way shape or form did Japan 'cave' here. Only the anti-Japan crowd sees it as such.

I highly doubt any of the talks will do any ounce of good. The South Korean government is never to be trusted in any agreements or deals. Look at what they did when Japan formally compensated and apologized to the comfort women, including the landmark deal of 2015 ("final and irreversible"). Moon unceremoniously scrapped that agreement and no one knows what happened to the money in the fund (and multiple comfort women DID accept the money and apology, just as some did from the Asian Women's Fund).

Why agree to anything when the South Korean government and their anti-Japan support groups will conveniently brush it aside in a few years. "Oh, b-b-but, it wasn't 'sincere' since no Japanese official apologized on bended knees." The sooner people realize that anti-Japanese hatred is taught to South Koreans since childhood, and that nothing the Japanese government ever says or does will ever be good enough, the better.

The biggest whitewashers of history are certainly not Japanese as we have seen the past few decades.

Yes, I know what diplomatic language is. Let me give you two quotes from the article.

"We bought time for intense discussions, but there's not much time left for us," South Korea's foreign minister, Kang Kyung-wha, told reporters after meeting with her Japanese counterpart, Toshimitsu Motegi, at a gathering of G20 foreign ministers in Nagoya.

2."I aim to hold a candid exchange of views on the matter of laborers from the Korean peninsula, which is the core problem, and other bilateral issues," Motegi told reporters in Nagoya.

!. South Korea let's the cat diplomatically out of the bag. South Korea threatened to Japan out of GSOMIA to bring Japan to the negotiating table.

You would not have heard this a month ago. Listen to Motegi's earnestness. Abe's pants are on fire. South Korea's ruse worked. There is a word for this kind of diplomacy. It is called brinksmanship.

John F. Kennedy used it against the Soviet Union 1962 during the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis. The stakes were high: a possible nuclear war.

What happened between South Korea and Japan was minor.

Time running out. Must post. Pardon any typos

@jeancolmar

S. Korea half a country and half a people need to respect Japan and treat Japan just like they do with US, China, Russia, North Korea. We will treat you with the same respect and honesty you treat us.

Korea flinch on GSOMIA

2nd they are ending their WTO dispute in court.

We can talk with this kind of Korea. More logical and submissive S. Korea and Moon.

That force labor dispute the comfort woman. You got paid in 1965 enjoy.

It would be much better to have a General Prosperity of Economic Information Agreement.

Unfortunately the Human Rights Council has no legal standing and cannot adjudicate matters such as you described. Whatever they may have allegedly "found" is meaningless from a legal point of view as it cannot be enforced. 

I highly doubt that they would waste their time on issues from WWII that had already been adjudicated. If you have a citation or a date that this was "found" please share.

A typical Japanese apologist’s response that completely misses the point.

You referred to Kono’s statement to support your narrative. The Koreans obviously have their own narrative. Therefore, a rational human being would try to rely on objective reports from experts to ascertain the truth.

Example.

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:13100:0::NO::P13100_COMMENT_ID:2218404

In her report, Ms. McDougall finds that "the Japanese military’s enslavement of women throughout Asia during the Second World War was a clear violation, even at that time, of customary international law prohibiting slavery … As with slavery, the laws of war also prohibited rape and forced prostitution" (appendix, paragraphs 12 and 17). The Committee also notes the further findings: "*The widespread or systematic enslavement of persons has also been recognized as a crime against humanity for at least half a century. This is particularly true when such crimes have been committed during an armed conflict … In addition to enslavement, widespread or systematic acts of rape also fall within the general prohibition of ‘inhumane acts’ in the traditional formulation of crimes against humanity **…*" (appendix, paragraphs 18 and 20). 

Referring to article 2 of the 1965 Settlement Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea and Article 14(b) of the 1951 Treaty of Peace, the report of Ms. McDougall states: "*The Government of Japan’s attempt to escape liability through the operation of these treaties fails on two counts: (a) Japan’s direct involvement in the establishment of the rape camps was concealed when the treaties were written, a crucial fact that must now prohibit on equity grounds any attempt by Japan to rely on these treaties to avoid liability; and (b) the plain language of the treaties indicates that they were not intended to foreclose claims for compensation by individuals for harms committed by the Japanese military in violation of human rights or humanitarian law***" (appendix, paragraph 55). **

The Committee also notes the reference in the trade unions’ comments to paragraph 58 of the appendix to the McDougall report, which states: "*It is also self-evident from the text of the 1965 Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Co-operation between Japan and the Republic of Korea that it is an economic treaty that resolves ‘property’ claims between the countries and does not address human rights issues [citation omitted]. There is no reference in the treaty to ‘comfort women’, rape, sexual slavery, or any other atrocities committed by the Japanese against Korean civilians. Rather, the provisions in the treaty refer to property and commercial relations between the two nations. In fact, Japan’s negotiator is said to have promised during the treaty talks that Japan would pay the Republic of Korea for any atrocities inflicted by the Japanese upon the Koreans [citation omitted]."The Committee notes further that in paragraph 59 of the appendix, the report states: "Clearly, the funds provided by Japan under the Settlement Agreement [with Korea] were intended only for economic restoration and not individual compensation for the victims of Japan’s atrocities. As such, the 1965 treaty - despite its seemingly sweeping language - extinguished only economic and property claims between the two nations and not private claims …*".

The Committee further notes the points made in paragraph 62 of the appendix to the report: "*As with the 1965 Settlement Agreement between Japan and Korea, moreover, the interests of equity and justice must prevent Japan from relying on the 1951 peace treaty to avoid liability when the Japanese Government failed to reveal at the time of the treaty the extent of the Japanese military’s involvement in all aspects of the establishment, maintenance and regulation of the comfort stations [citation omitted]. As an additional principle of equity, when jus cogens norms are invoked, States that stand accused of having violated such fundamental laws must not be allowed to rely on mere technicalities to avoid liability. And, in any event, it must be emphasized that Japan may always voluntarily set aside any treaty-based defences to liability that may be available to them in order to facilitate actions that are clearly in the interests of fairness and justice**." *

Also, if you think the 2015 agreement was fair, read what a group of U.N. human rights experts had to say about that.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17209&LangID=E

GENEVA (11 March 2016) – A group of United Nations human rights experts today raised concerns at the agreement on the issue of ‘comfort women’ passed between Japan and the Republic of Korea in December 2015, and urged the Japanese Government to implement without delay the recommendations* made earlier this week by the UN Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

The term ‘comfort women’ refers to hundreds of thousands of girls and women from several Asian countries abducted and forced into sexual slavery prior and during World War II by the Japanese imperial military.  

On 28 December 2015, the agreement between Japan and South Korea declared the issues arising from the widespread and systematic human rights violation of the ‘comfort women’ as final and irreversible. 

In this context, Japan agreed to acknowledge and express regret for its role and to provide a one-time contribution of one billion yen (US$ 8.3 million) to carry out joint projects with South Korea, including a foundation to be established by the country. 

For its part, the South Korean Government agreed to consider the removal of a statue commemorating the ‘comfort women’ built in front of Japan’s embassy in Seoul. Both governments agreed to refrain from accusing or criticizing each other in the international community on this issue.  

“We believe the agreement between Japan and South Korea falls short of meeting the demands of survivors,” said the independent experts on discrimination against women, transitional justice and torture. “An unequivocal official apology recognizing the full responsibility of the then Japanese Government and military, as well as adequate reparations, would protect and uphold the victims’ right to truth, justice and reparation.”

“We are also deeply concerned that the Republic of Korea may remove a statue commemorating not only the historical issue and legacy of the ‘comfort women’ but also symbolizing the survivors’ long search for justice,” they added.

The human rights experts drew attention to the fact that the agreement does not meet standards of State accountability for gross human rights violations and was reached without a proper consultation process.

“Neither the surviving victims nor the organizations representing them for more than 20 years were consulted in the preparation of this agreement,” they stated. “This undermines decades of activism and efforts to seek truth and justice and naturally leaves the survivors in considerable distress.”

The experts stated that “the Governments of Japan and South Korea should understand that this issue will not be considered resolved so long as all the victims, including from other Asian countries, remain unheard, their expectations unmet and their wounds left wide open.” They underscored that this is now a race against time given the age of the survivors.

decades of acrimony over their wartime past

The essence of the problems regarding the wartime past is that Japanese leaders have successfully brainwashed their people.

For example,

Absent is a complete record of her imperial ambitions in the neighboring countries of China and Korea, of her provocation and slaughter in the former, and subjugation of the latter.

But old habits are hard to break. Effective authority seeped back to the Ministry in the 1950s and '60s as it took increasing advantage of a textbook screening law passed in 1949 for the original purpose of preventing the inclusion of ultranationalist indoctrination in teaching material. Turning this authority on its head, the Ministry eventually applied it to weaken textbooks' descriptions of Japan's wartime deeds. The Ministry also started. to supply local school districts with textbooks free of charge. Today, the local boards are free to decline a particular text, but only from a selection approved by Tokyo. The national government remains firmly in control of the material taught throughout the land. 

https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/the-pearl-harbor-anniversary-japan-still-says-dont-blame-me

University student Mayako Shibata told McClatchyDC in 2014 she "can’t remember any class where she learned why the attack on Pearl Harbor happened. 

https://www.ranker.com/list/how-pearl-harbor-is-taught-in-japan/kellen-perry

After decades of obfuscation, Japan stated today for the first time that bungling within the Foreign Ministry 53 years ago was responsible for Japan's failure to declare war on the United States before launching its attack on Pearl Harbor.

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/21/world/japan-admits-it-bungled-notice-of-war-in-41.html

No change at all ever since the 17-th century.

There are some things to clear up first.

1). The judgment of the Supreme Court of South Korea says. That the 1965 treaty between Japan and South Korea did not include compensation for forced slave labor by Japanese companies under Japan's occupation of the Korean peninsula. That's all there is to it. And that the condemned Japanese companies were obliged to compensate economically the victims of this labor exploitation. In a personal capacity and always within the private sphere. With private money.

2). This is where President Moon comes in. Taking advantage of the existence of that judicial sentence. And using its anti-Japanese rhetoric. It again demands that Japan compensate the victims financially with public money from the Japanese taxpayer. Plus new apologies. They also want PM Abe and his ministers to kneel publicly in front of the victims. Leading to a humiliating situation for a leader of a country of 125 million inhabitants. Something Abe doesn't want to do. Obviously.

3). That's why Abe in response ordered Japanese companies not to pay the victims. Because first he wanted to settle with the international authorities that Moon's claim was unacceptable. Because the sentence itself does not condemn Japan as the country responsible for these acts. And therefore it does not have to pay any compensation. Nor does he have to apologize. Because both public apologies and economic compensation between countries is already stipulated in the 1965 treaty. I'm talking about public money. 

4). Thanks to U.S. intervention. Moon has been forced to rectify by initiating talks with Japan back to the base of: 

That the labor problem with forced labor stipulated in the sentence of the supreme court. It is exclusively a private problem. Neither Japan nor its government is responsible for this situation. And they have no responsibility in this matter.

Japan's legal liability was settled in the 1965 treaty.

That the matter of the judgment be resolved discreetly within the private channels. No state intervention by either party. Which is what Japan demands from the outset.

5). I think it's the Korean side here that's taken this matter to where it is. For wanting to use the Japanese occupation issue again. For electoral purposes only. Because Moon's party uses the indoctrination ani-japan that is widely spread within South Korea. A very dangerous situation from what I see. While on the Japanese side. That indoctrination of hatred does not exist. But that could begin to change if this South Korean attitude persists in time.

South Korea and Moon caved. Simple as that. You don't say 'let GSOMIA lapse' and then turn around and say 'we'll take measures to make it work' within 3 weeks.

For all of their bluster, the South Koreans look impetuous and foolish.

For all of you that say 'Japan hasn't done enough about the atrocities of WWII', I will say this:

In virtually all wars, after a war is complete there are reparations, treaties, etc.. Please tell me which post-war treaty has been constantly referred to as 'unfair' and which said country continues - 70 years later mind you - to refer to that treaty?

Also, why would Japan fork over that much $$ only to have Korea say 'we want more' 70 years (almost 75) later?'. You don't give that much money on the premise that 'well, we will just pay more as time goes by.'

Whenever a South Korean PM gets into trouble, the Japan-bashing commences.

*Those reports by Coomaraswamy　or McDougall are garbage criticized severely by professional historians (including even Yoshimi Yoshiaki). But let aside what makes those reports garbage in terms of CW issues for now. As far as 1965 treaty is concerned, one should notice those special reports were presented in late 90’s *when detailed minutes or dialogue for negotiation process were not yet fully disclosed and investigated. Hence those reporters had no idea what were discussed during such 14 years of negotiation process.

As a matter of fact, Korean delegates did know the existence of comfort women, and did refer to comfort women and the issues related to comfort women in 2nd negotiation held in 1953.  

Why not. They has their own comfort women called also "Ianfu" in Korean serving for themselves and UN/US soldiers already while such negotiation process took place.

Much ado about nothing by SK while Japan hadn't moved by inch. A de-facto unconditional surrender for the Moon administration.

Also, if you think the 2015 agreement was fair, read what a group of U.N. human rights experts had to say about that.

Like I repeatedly said, those experts do not belong to UN, do not represent UN's view.

Check the bottom of your source.

(Quote) The Working Groups and Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

SK is the party which reached to this agreement as final and irreversible one. Those independent so-called experts working on their own individual capacity has no say about the agreement between two sovereign nations

They had

Those reports by Coomaraswamy　or McDougall are garbage criticized severely by professional historians (including even Yoshimi Yoshiaki).

Of course it’s rubbish to the Japanese because it doesn’t fit their narratives.

As far as 1965 treaty is concerned, one should notice those special reports were presented in late 90’s *when detailed minutes or dialogue for negotiation process were not yet fully disclosed and investigated. Hence those reporters had no idea what were discussed during such 14 years of negotiation process.

As a matter of fact, Korean delegates did know the existence of comfort women, and did refer to comfort women and the issues related to comfort women in 2nd negotiation held in 1953. 

Pathetic rebuttal. The 1200 pages of declassified documents further showed that Japan kept denying all atrocities during the negotiation.

Like I repeatedly said, those experts do not belong to UN, do not represent UN's view.

They are all classified as UN experts, doesn’t make their findings any less significant.

SK is the party which reached to this agreement as final and irreversible one. Those independent so-called experts working on their own individual capacity has no say about the agreement between two sovereign nations

Which is why they made recommendation for Japan to redress the 2015 agreement as it did not follow international norms when making such agreement. In other words, it’s a stuffed up agreement.

Of course it’s rubbish to the Japanese because it doesn’t fit their narratives.

You know who Yoshimi Yoshiaki is don't you?

Pathetic rebuttal. The 1200 pages of declassified documents further showed that Japan kept denying all atrocities during the negotiation.

Like where in which negotiation (from 1st ~6 th) . Care to provide links? Did you actually read them?

They are all classified as UN experts, doesn’t make their findings any less significant.

No They don't belong to UN , hence it is wrong to call them UN experts, or to take their opinions as UN's view.

Working on individual capacity. Anything could affect them.

Which is why they made recommendation for Japan to redress the 2015 agreement as it did not follow international norms when making such agreement. In other words, it’s a stuffed up agreement.

Individuals freely make opinions or recommendations. That's all.

You know who Yoshimi Yoshiaki is don't you?

He’s Japanese.

Like where in which negotiation (from 1st ~6 th) . Care to provide links? Did you actually read them?

You want me to spoon feed you? How about you disprove my statement instead.

No They don't belong to UN , hence it is wrong to call them UN experts, or to take their opinions as UN's view.

The very first statement in that link calls them United Nations human rights experts.

Individuals freely make opinions or recommendations. 

Yeah, but they can also urge governments to take action without protesting.

You know who Yoshimi Yoshiaki is don't you?

He’s Japanese.

Yes. He is one of core scholars supporting Korean narrative

You want me to spoon feed you? How about you disprove my statement instead.

OK I take it as you can't as you haven't actually read them.

The very first statement in that link calls them United Nations human rights experts.

Yes that's why too many misunderstand it and OHCHR website is misleading and to be corrected.

Yeah, but they can also urge governments to take action without protesting.

Sure they can but that doesn't mean such individuals always correct and logical, fair, reasonable, etc worthwhile for governments to listed to. This group of the greatest so-called EXPERTS probably owned such EXPERTISE to come up with EXPERT-WORK in just 2months and 2 weeks since 2015 CW agreement was finally settled 25 years-lasted issue between 2 sovereign nations, which basically repeats nothing else but what Chong Dae Hyup claims. So Much for so called experts isn't it.

OH I see You didn't get it.

You know who Yoshimi Yoshiaki is don't you?

He’s Japanese.

Yes. He is one of core scholars supporting Korean narrative but Even Yoshimi criticized

* *McDougall reports as poor and exaggerated.

Oh President Moon. You forgot something very important. You didn't get "OK Go ahead and suspend it" approval from your supreme court in advance. Is this really OK man?

@jeancolmar

.... finally Japan is ready to shape up.... you mean what you perceived to be Japan vowing to Korea's extortion again? I dont know what kind of shaping up you're hoping, but it was SK that demonstrated a little bit of maturity with the decision on GSOMIA. Whether that maturity will hold and for how long remains to be seen.

Pope Francis is now visiting Japan. Anyone here remembers his statement made in 2014?

Pope expresses hope for a “moral rebirth” in South Korea

SK is wasting its energy and potential to anti-Japan tribalism. Wake up and Grow up!

He’s Japanese.

Yes. He is one of core scholars supporting Korean narrative

He is also a historian and not an international lawyer meaning that his interpretation of treaties carries no weight. Further, he has no credibility regarding comfort women because his backtracking of statements left him with none.

Find a non Japanese to rebut the UN report.

OK I take it as you can't as you haven't actually read them.

Honestly, it was arrogant of you to ask me to give you links from a 1200 page document. I’m not a 10 yen warrior with plenty of time. Why don’t you search and disprove it if you can, but I guarantee you won’t.

Yes that's why too many misunderstand it and OHCHR website is misleading and to be corrected.

Its your opinion. Enough said. There is a reason why the U.N. calls them “UN human rights expert”.

Sure they can but that doesn't mean such individuals always correct and logical, fair, reasonable, etc worthwhile for governments to listed to. This group of the greatest so-called EXPERTS probably owned such EXPERTISE to come up with EXPERT-WORK in just 2months and 2 weeks since 2015 CW agreement was finally settled 25 years-lasted issue between 2 sovereign nations, which basically repeats nothing else but what Chong Dae Hyup claims. So Much for so called experts isn't it.

Whatever.

Look, you're focusing on something minor like all Japanese tend to do without understanding the issue.

The fact is, 3rd party experts have already concluded that the 1965 treaty did not cover claims for any inhumane acts, such as comfort women and forced laborers. This was also the view of the Supreme Court ruling and was also the view of the 100 Japanese lawyers who supported the Supreme Court judgment. Abe and his sheep saying Korea broke promises is one of the biggest lies promulgated by nippon kaigi.

END OF STORY.

FYI, Japanese legal experts have voiced a consistent opinion supporting the ruling of Korean supreme court:

https://webronza.asahi.com/politics/articles/2018112000004.html

http://justice.skr.jp/lecture.htm

http://justice.skr.jp/statement.html

Only Japanese politicians, the controlled media such as Sankei, and brainwashed, obedient people have refuted it.

He is also a historian and not an international lawyer meaning that his interpretation of treaties carries no weight. Further, he has no credibility regarding comfort women because his backtracking of statements left him with none.

 

Gay McDougall is a lawyer and not a historian meaning that her own fact finding skills wrt CW issues carry no weight and needed assistance from professional historians like Yoshimi.　who is definitely one of core historians siding with Korean narratives, if you know how much Chog Dae Hyup has been relying on his research. You said those reports are rubbish to the Japanese because it doesn’t fit Japanese narratives and I said even Yoshimi siding with Korean narratives judged  McDougall reports about CW contained errors and exaggeration.

 

Find a non Japanese to rebut the UN report.

 

Park Yuha

Chunghee Sarah Soh

Lee Yong-hoon

Lee Woo-young

 

Honestly, it was arrogant of you to ask me to give you links from a 1200 page document. I’m not a 10 yen warrior with plenty of time. Why don’t you search and disprove it if you can, but I guarantee you won’t.

 

Honestly, it is arrogant of you not only to claim something not true like “The 1200 pages of declassified documents further showed that Japan kept denying all atrocities during the negotiation” but also to tell me to work on devil’s proof.

 

Its your opinion. Enough said. There is a reason why the U.N. calls them “UN human rights expert”.

 

Whatever OHCHR call them, they don’t belong to UN and do not represent UN’s view.

That’s the fact.

 

The fact is, 3rd party experts have already concluded that the 1965 treaty did not cover claims for any inhumane acts, such as comfort women and forced laborers. This was also the view of the Supreme Court ruling and was also the view of the 100 Japanese lawyers who supported the Supreme Court judgment. Abe and his sheep saying Korea broke promises is one of the biggest lies promulgated by nippon kaigi.

 

Always resorting to 3rd parties to back yourselves up is a typical cowardly method Koreans employ especially when those 3rd parties are ad-hoc who don’t have any idea what exactly had been discussed through negotiation process, being influenced only by particular NGO like Chong Dae Hyup, WAM, etc,

If you rely so much on 3rd parties, why doesn’t SK sit at the table asking for legally-binding judgement at arbitration (as stipulated in the treaty) or at ICJ to solve wartime labor issues or territorial issues?