politics

Japan says S Korea export curb not retaliation for court rulings

48 Comments
By Mari Yamaguchi

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

48 Comments
Login to comment

Lies.

-7 ( +12 / -19 )

Of course, only the rabid anti-Japan crowd thinks otherwise.

-2 ( +15 / -17 )

Well the timing couldn't have been much worse.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

South Korea wouldn't stop pushing Japan's buttons so Japan is no longer putting up with SK's crap. The export restrictions aren't in retaliation for the court rulings, the rulings were just the last thing in a long line of antagonistic actions by South Korea that finally pushed Japan over the edge and forced them to stop being nice.

13 ( +24 / -11 )

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Best thing SK can do is satisfy the requests placed upon them by Japan to prove things have been done correctly. Until that time the suspicions are valid.

18 ( +23 / -5 )

At this stage the actual reason, or reasons, doesn't matter. Even without the SK court rulings, SK ripping up the 2015 CW Agreement, continued refusal to settle the Liancourt Rocks dispute before the ICJ, refusing to abide by the Arbitration clause in the 1965 Treaty, the fire radar lock on incident and the total lack of cooperation in trying to diffuse the issue, the refusal to allow JMSDF vessels flying their Naval Ensign to participate in multilateral naval functions, all add up to an evaporation of any "trust" in South Korea as an ally. Which of course is what Moon has been and continues to pursue in his belief that making Japan a "common enemy" will bring South and North Korea together. A view Moon himself just openly declared. Meantime, Japan has good grounds to question SK's security on certain exports, as they have been asking SK for the last three years to provide information in this regard, and as usual they have refused to cooperate. Japan can get along fine without South Korea, but SK is desperately scrambling to find ways to make do without Japan. Being dropped from Japan's Whitelist is South Korea's own doing. And everything they've done so far, cry to the WTO, cry to the U.S., cry to the U.N. has been a dead end. And a domestic hate-fest on the streets isn't going to fix it either. Unless the South Korean people are able to see that Moon is driving their economy off a cliff and the country is prepared to "grow up" as the rest of the world has over the last 75 years, the future of South Korea looks bleak. Unless South Korea changes it's ways, I wouldn't be surprised if Japan officially starts calling the ROK 南朝鮮 (South Korea), a move that would greatly help North Korea-Japan relations.

15 ( +26 / -11 )

It is a retaliation. But, Japan does not have a reason to give a most-favored-nation treatment to South Korea.

13 ( +17 / -4 )

The J government can insist all it wants that this economic Pearl Harbor has nothing at all to do with retaliating, but of course nobody outside of Japan believes that - except perhaps for the "rabid pro-Japan crowd". In fact, I doubt many Japanese believe it, either. Mr. Abe and his cronies have done serious and permanent damage to Japan's image on the international stage.

-13 ( +7 / -20 )

Absolutely NOTHING to do with any court rulings. The export ban of hi-tech material is due to South Korea allowing exports to communist North Korea, against UN restriction. SK cant be trusted, and is becoming too close to NK.

8 ( +19 / -11 )

I think it's pretty clear to everyone that it's in retaliation. But the Japanese government could and never would admit that. It would take the rug out from under the pressure they are putting on Korea.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

We'll know Japan really means business when it starts taping over the Korean hangul names on Tokyo Metro station platforms.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

We'll know Japan really means business when it starts taping over the Korean hangul names on Tokyo Metro station platforms.

That would be an act of pettiness on the level of a government hanging 'boycott [country]' banners in their country. Very pathetic.

Let's hope the Japanese don't drop to that level of pettiness.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Ganbare Japan!Today  07:14 am JST

Absolutely NOTHING to do with any court rulings. The export ban of hi-tech material is due to South Korea allowing exports to communist North Korea, against UN restriction. SK cant be trusted, and is becoming too close to NK.

It's just too bad that japan is the one losing credibility.

-14 ( +8 / -22 )

So SK are a significant threat to Japan's national security, but they remain military allies and Japan is happy to continue to enjoy the benefits of the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA)?

Yeah right.

-14 ( +6 / -20 )

It's just too bad that japan is the one losing credibility.

Moon lost plenty when he called for economic cooperation with NK in order to tackle their issue with Japan.

17 ( +21 / -4 )

Japan is showing restrained. Did you check your news S.Korea?

Removed from WhiteList but still in category B. They are not category C like Singapore and most others. Still getting previlage, and no new items added to the list, you hear that Koreans? We could target over 1120 items but choose not to escalate. Be smart, handle relations with Japan the way you handle North Korea or China. You care about those relationships while Japan no room to compromise. It's either Koreas way or the high way.

14 ( +18 / -4 )

It just doesn't matter. First, It is not restriction but simply ordinary treatment. Second, SK has been not trustworthy at all. Third, we all heard Moon having just proved its trustworthiness

13 ( +17 / -4 )

South Korea does not seem to understand the difference between a right and privilege. Being on the white list is a privilege that Japan grants to its best friends, South Korea has ,thru its recent behavior, shown it is not Japan's friend.

18 ( +21 / -3 )

Third, we all heard Moon having just proved its un-trustworthiness

14 ( +17 / -3 )

South Korea wouldn't stop pushing Japan's buttons

(Sigh)

While you're still dwelling in your denialism bubble, Korean companies are quickly finding alternatives so as not to be bullied ever again. Samsung for instance has set a six months to a year target to break free of these economic shenanigans. So my question to you is, who is going to be the loser in the long run?

And speaking of denialism, for all those who in 2019 still strangely wonder why japans neighbors are irked, well, let this shed some light.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=lnAC-Y9p_sY

-12 ( +5 / -17 )

Complete BS from Japan, of course it is related and to say otherwise is just childish.

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

Wallace Fred

The loser will be Japan if they back down and allow Japanese companies to be seized and sold off.

The country being bullied is Japan by a S. Korea court ruling and the Moon administration who became president with promises of better historical deals with Japan. He kept his promise especially on the 2015 comfort women deal.

PS

Japan can also find other customers for their goods, your not the only market.

13 ( +18 / -5 )

The Abe administration has been absolutely an amateur in handling this SK conflict as of late and deserves much criticism for its inconsistency and incompetency in managing the media.

Quoting from a recent article on Foreign Policy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/06/japan-started-a-war-it-wasnt-ready-to-fight/

...

Japan has repeatedly insisted that it has evidence that South Korea has not taken proper precautions to prevent the export of these products to third countries. Despite media reports that this involves North Korea, sources say the countries involved are in the Middle East. Japan has also said angrily that it has been trying to get South Korea to discuss the topic for months at least, only to be rebuffed.

Various parallels have been drawn with Abe’s actions and U.S. President Donald Trump’s use of trade as a weapon, and in a similar vein, the announcement last month has seen a Trump-style mixture of statements, re-statements, and shifts in strategy within the government.

Basic public relations knowledge would suggest that announcements of this kind should be accompanied by at least some evidence of your reasons, background briefings to specialized media and diplomatic representatives to build your case, and, most importantly, a clear and consistent line of what is going on. All information for public release should be channeled through one office to ensure consistency, and there should be one public face for comment. Finally, contingency plans should be in place to handle unexpected developments (a boycott of your nation’s goods would be high on the list).

Chief government spokesman Yoshihide Suga, who heads the Cabinet Office, has said that while the export controls were for “national security reasons,” he has also dangled the notion that South Korea “did not offer a satisfactory solution over the issue of former workers on the Korean Peninsula before the Group of 20 summit and we cannot help but to say the relationship of trust has been severely damaged.”

After the government started pushing the national security concerns, Abe switched tack, going back to the wartime issues. “South Korea, with its handling of the former Korean wartime laborers issues, clearly demonstrated that it is a country that does not keep promises. Naturally, we have to assume it also fails to keep promises on export controls,” he said on a television talk show.

...

So which story are you sticking to today?

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

The loser will be Japan if they back down and allow Japanese companies to be seized and sold off.

(Sigh)

Im thinking you didn't watch the video huh?

Ok.

-13 ( +5 / -18 )

Using YouTube video to make his argument.

Ok.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

Clearly its retaliation, only a fool would believe otherwise!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

slowguy2Today 07:13 am JST

The J government can insist all it wants that this economic Pearl Harbor has nothing at all to do with retaliating, but of course nobody outside of Japan believes that - except perhaps for the "rabid pro-Japan crowd". In fact, I doubt many Japanese believe it, either. Mr. Abe and his cronies have done serious and permanent damage to Japan's image on the international stage.

On the same token, the anti-Japan crowd can insist all it wants this is a tit-for-tat move due to the court rulings. It's literally the anti-Japan crowd's word against the Japanese government's official statement. If they say dealing with South Korea with preferential treatment is a security threat, then it is. You don't say "no way that's not it! They are retaliating because they don't like the court ruling!"

9 ( +11 / -2 )

slowguy2Today 07:13 am JST

The J government can insist all it wants that this economic Pearl Harbor has nothing at all to do with retaliating, but of course nobody outside of Japan believes that - except perhaps for the "rabid pro-Japan crowd". In fact, I doubt many Japanese believe it, either. Mr. Abe and his cronies have done serious and permanent damage to Japan's image on the international stage.

This just underlines that South Korea's exports to the North IS the reason for the action by the Japanese government.

As for image, after over a decade of South Korean-led anti-Japan sentiment on social media, Japan has literally nothing to lose by downgrading South Korea over security concerns. So South Korea made its own bed, now it has to sleep in it. Nobody outside South Korea is upset about this.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Im thinking you didn't watch the video huh?

That's not how it works here, or in any debate. Fine to reference a video, but you have to make your arguments yourself. Nobody is going to take time to watch a 25 minute video make your argument for you.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

> Christian WeberToday  08:29 am JST

...

So which story are you sticking to today?

It's both. South Korea's lax export controls and handling of court cases involving the 1965 treaty.

What South Korea really needs to do is: be more trustworthy trading partner, and stick to the treaties word-for-word, and if there's a problem arising involving those treaties, then talk to Japan about it... don't refuse meetings to try and get leverage through other means.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Nobody is going to take time to watch a 25 minute video 

Sure. I wasn't forcing anyone at all. Bottom line is, if you choose to step out of the denialism bubble, watch it, otherwise, carry on. No pressure.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The export ban of hi-tech material is due to South Korea allowing exports to communist North Korea

The DPRK is a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime - it's certainly not communist.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

HillclimberToday  09:31 am JST

It's both. South Korea's lax export controls and handling of court cases involving the 1965 treaty.

What South Korea really needs to do is: be more trustworthy trading partner, and stick to the treaties word-for-word, and if there's a problem arising involving those treaties, then talk to Japan about it... don't refuse meetings to try and get leverage through other means.

You can't and shouldn't mix an economic and political issue under the broad national security banner. The former is a fairly easy and technical issue to solve - Japan just needs to lay out technical requirements for SK to meet and prove that they've been met. Should be easy for both parties to come to reasonable terms. I have not heard or read that Japan has provided SK with evidence and clear demands in terms of how SK should control his exports, so I question Japan's genuine intent here.

The latter is much harder to solve and should not be meddled with economic and trading issues. That's how the global affairs are handled (until Donald Trump that is and Abe is learning quickly from his master) because there is a common understanding that "politics is bad for business." Abe is taking an amateur approach to a very complicated issue in a highly politically charged region involving the super powers. He needs better advisors.

BTW - I never understood this demand from Japan that SK should "fix" the court ruling. How should the Moon administration handle the decision by the Supreme Court in a country where there is a clear separation of power among the executive, legislative and judicial branches? Close the courts and declare martial law?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Everyone except Abe and his followers knows that it is a shameful retaliation against Supreme Court ruling of South Korea.

1965-pact doesn't cover individual compensations as Japan foreign minister and Japan supreme court admitted in 1991, 1994 and 2007. Mr. Abe, you should not keep saying that South Korea doesn't abide by the pact between two countries.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

One more thing that I'd like to address is that it is not a matter of money but the attitude of Japanese government and people regarding forced laborers and sex slavery women.

It would be helpful to know the fact that South Korean voluntarily donated about 10,000,000,000 yen to victims of Tohoku earthquake in 2011 and visited Japan as tourists and spend 700,000,000,000 yen last year.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Ha. Talk about the credibility of a government. It can't even say things as they are. The practices of "Saving face" and blatant denial are ruining Japan in so many ways. :)

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Wallace FredToday 08:17 am JST

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=lnAC-Y9p_sY

I like TIK too, Wallace, but some of us are at work and just can't watch videos. Maybe you can tell us what he said.

I can also say he is not a professional historian (something he admits to last week), so he doesn't have authority.

Further, TIK is a good secondary source collater, but he also works in the Anglosphere. If all the sources he has says one thing, he can only make that conclusion, regardless of whether it is the truth.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Sure. I wasn't forcing anyone at all. Bottom line is, if you choose to step out of the denialism bubble, watch it, otherwise, carry on. No pressure.

I actually did watch the video. It had several significant inaccuracies, and came across as very amateurish, if not vindictive. This is a typical millennial who spent a week reading about the subject (if that) and claims to present the facts. Best not to learn history from YouTubers. It's often this kind of very glib and superficial assessment posing as reasoned logic. There are many actual historians who put in years of research on this subject.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Taehong KimToday 10:04 am JST

1965-pact doesn't cover individual compensations as Japan foreign minister and Japan supreme court admitted in 1991, 1994 and 2007.

A fruit of "keep people ignorant" policy by SK Government. The fact is that 1965 Treaty covers individual compensation claims which is painfully clear to those who read it, and that individual compensation claims of Korean nationals exist against SOUTH KOREAN government as Japanese government admitted in 1991, 1994 and 2007, because SK Government received the money from Japan in lieu of its nationals.

In addition, if there is a disagreement on the interpretation of the 1965 Treaty, the governments must refer to an international arbitration. This also applies to the Korean Supreme Court, and its ruling is subject to an arbitration.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Inappropriate cases that should exclude Korea from preferential treatment

http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2019/05/17/2019051700338.html

Anger against attitudes that do not follow the treaty

Anger against remarks that insulted the Emperor

Dullness to unfounded historical recognition

All of the above exist.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

some of us are at work and just can't watch videos. Maybe you can tell us what he said.

Lol, you have time for a lengthy message though huh?

can also say he is not a professional historian 

So, despite not watching the video, you're already drawing conclusions based on your preexisting biases. Even if your claim of professional historian (whatever that means) was considered, the facts regarding the japanese governments whitewashing of factual historical records still stands. There's no spinning that.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

It's easy to claim that this is retaliation, but there's no actual proof of that. They were dropped from the whitelist bcause they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. Even if we ignore the whole issue of ignoring the 1965 treaty, there's still the problem of South Korea being unneccesarily and suspiciously evasive on answering Japan's questions about the exports, the lack of adequate export control on South Korea's part, and a general lack of communication between the two countries' export control authorities. This suggests that South Korea is hiding something. Japan wants to know what, and why, but South Korea are keeping secrets. You don't build or maintain trust through dishonesty, and so Japan has no choice but to revise South Korea's preferential treatment privilege. That's it. Any other reason being suggested is merely speculation and there is no evidence to support it. Conjecture is not helpful. If South Korea wants their preferetial treatment restored, they need to earn it back. They need to prove that they can be trusted with that privilege.

professional historian (whatever that means)

A professional historian is a history expert who gets paid to teach or otherwise provide information about historical events/people/artefacts, and do so by providing evidence. Hard, tangible evidence. Some random millennial Youtuber is not a professional historian. They are just some person with access to Google and Wikipedia.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It is sad to see Japanese always giving excuses.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Instead of complaining about the economic privilege taken away due to the security concerns as JP gov had been explaining over and over, shouldn't Koreans be more worried about upcoming retaliation once Korean plaintiffs start cashing out seized assets?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The issues here are not personal with Abe as much as with Moon and the S Korean people.

Bashing Abe has little to do with the issue. A leader of any country when facing such "unrealistic" and "irrational" accusations, must take action with what ever the reasons he or the government stance may take.

When one plays the "media" game, as with Trump and Dem Pty and Xi and now Moon, one must confront it in ways that make sense to the media as well. However the principle and the facts do not change. So to state the "facts" and the "truths" are the final cards.

As there is a saying "Nothing hurts more than the truth."

And such truths must be backed by "facts".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...and if you believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Saitama for sale...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Japan says S Korea export curb not retaliation for court rulings

Japan is telling porky pies. It is clearly retaliation and nothing more. Rather than deal with the issue, creation of a bigger issue to somehow deal with it. From an outside perspective this is all just making Japan's government look foolish.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An obvious point: If the government officials of a country have to go out of their way to publicly state that actions taken were not a form of economic retaliation, then they probably were a form of economic retaliation. At any rate, PM Abe gave away the plot the other day when he stated that the wartime labor row was the biggest issue with South Korea. Hard to disagree with him on that point. The implications of what's going on here are huge.

Seldom mentioned is maybe the most important point of all: That U.S. government officials took remarkable, extraordinary steps in the Cold War era to ensure that Japan would be shielded from litigation arising from grievances by mostly ethnic Chinese and Korean people who were dragooned into forced labor by the Japanese during World War II. But this also applied to native-born white Americans who had worked as forced laborers in the Japan-occupied Philippines during World War II. The U.S. was the obvious and major power behind both the 1951 San Francisco treaty and the bilateral 1965 treaty between Japan and South Korea. In both cases, the "all claims settled against Japan" point was heavily emphasized. Why, do you ask? I'm guessing the Americans wished to make sure that the kinds of onerous war reparations imposed upon Germany after World War I and thus blamed in part for Nazism's rise in that country would never be imposed upon their Cold War ally Japan after 1945.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites