politics

Japan warns of tit-for-tat action in wartime labor spat with S Korea

48 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

48 Comments
Login to comment

The Bank of Japan should start punishing South Korea's Financial System.

Then, close commercial air space going from and to the USA to South Korea, so that Korean Airlines will go around northern Sakhalin Island and will consume more fuel.

Then, start devaluating YEN.

The economic structure of Japan and South Korea are basically similar. However, Japan got most of it from its domestic consumption. Banned more products from SK like Samsung, LG Kimchi etc.

27 ( +32 / -5 )

Even US decided a trade war against China, though they know that they also will have some cost.

Japanese also know there will be always some damage to themselves, if they start countermeasurements.

Important point is that larger portion of Japanese are now too irritated and think as

"Niku wo kirasete, Hone wo tatsu", or "Lose a battle to win a war".

Realistic contermeasurements are not so many. (not "NO", as Samit Basu mentioned)

Following difficulties wait Japan as well as some cost to Japanese themselves.

There are difficulties being against international agreements such as WTO's rules,

(which Korea does not care), or making domesic laws to justify it, or letting domestic companies to follow.

Furthermore, possible heavy damage to large/huge Korean companies are not alwasy so important to Moon Jaein.

Even Korea's national security agains North Korea is not important to Moon Jaein.

But the Japanese goverment could do some of followings,

 - slows down license reviewing procedure for import and export

 - apply anti-dumping tax against electronic gadgets, steel, ship and variety of stuffs

 - slows down crude oil brokerage services

 - seizes Korean goverment property inside Japan

 - insists that the US troops in Japan cannot be deployed automatically to a Korea - North Korea conflict

   without agreement between US-Japan goverments.

24 ( +26 / -2 )

The court, however, has stopped short of ordering the sale of the assets as the South Korean plaintiffs are seeking to reach an out-of-court settlement.

These young lawyers often visit HQs of the defendant companies in Japan to push for out-of-court settlement despite Japanese HQs have got nothing to do with the cases as they claim those are simply Korean domestic civil suits against Korean entities. Do not let them enter the country.

23 ( +25 / -2 )

Do that countermeasure now, and let the world know exactly where Japan stands in relation to other countries when "unreasonable" and "illogical" threatening demands and actions.

23 ( +26 / -3 )

"That's Japan's dilemma, as Japan has no leverage over Korea."

...,Except the fact that the Korean unemployment rate is now at 4.0% vs Japan at 2.4% and thousands of koreans are working in Japanese companies in Korea and Japan.

Korea has no more cards to play. Game over for Korea.

23 ( +27 / -4 )

Japanese government can start auditing Korean companies and individuals in Japan in regard of tax evasion and any other business related or illegal activities. Government can keep press charges and resulting penalties.

21 ( +25 / -4 )

I understand the "countermeasures" being considered by the Government of Japan could be the legislative codification of international diplomatic business protection.

Diplomatic Protection of Private Business Companies: Determining Corporate Personality for International Law Purposes........

https://academic.oup.com/bybil/article-abstract/61/1/155/328584?redirectedFrom=PDF

Corporate Nationality and the Diplomatic Protection of Multinational.......

https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2722&context=ilj

A third party tribunal could take an inordinate amount of time to arrange under the 1965 treaty dispute mechanism.

Correct codification would enable the Japan Judicial system to systematically seize, freeze, and monetize across entire sectors. I assume this would be a last resort. It's effect would be immediate and would in all probability escalate hostilities......

Japan may seize South Korean assets amid row over wartime labor

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/12/01/national/crime-legal/japan-may-seize-south-korean-assets-wartime-labor-issue/

19 ( +19 / -0 )

Sanction them like the North Koreans. SK and NK are one and the same

18 ( +21 / -3 )

President of South Korea, Moon Jae-in would be wise observing that Prime Minister Abe is a consummate career politician. Any"countermeasures" will be timed to achieve a clear political/economic, domestic/international agenda so to maximise the desired effect and objectives.

Launch the requested bilateral consultations. Moon Jae-in can come away the statesman, or the fool.

Prime Minister Abe is remarkably resilient in office.

18 ( +19 / -1 )

Korea's GDP is about USD$ 1 trillion. Japan's GDP is about USD $6.5trillion. Is Korea really going to get in an economic fight with an economy that is 6 times larger than Korea's economy? If Korea does, than Abe would have been proven correct about them. Korea is a foolish country.

17 ( +20 / -3 )

As I post somewhere else, start from abolishing special permanent residency rights for Koreans in Japan and freeze nationalization process for Koreans in Japan. This does not go against any treaties/agreements with S.K. Ban Pachinko, K-Pop, K-Drama. Revive hino-maru semiconductor industry to replace demands from S.K. Trade sanctions could be employed after

15 ( +21 / -6 )

The best countermeasure Japan has, is take the higher ground.

Continue to be civil and rational and see how the SK courts seize foreign company assets.

Even the Chinese government is cautious throwing that threat around.

Don't worry, the (business and financial) world is quietly watching.

14 ( +17 / -3 )

"That's it. Stir up anti-Korean sentiment. Give the people a scapegoat to hate and demonize.

The oldest trick in the book never grows old."

Korea and China have been reading from the book for the past 70 years.

14 ( +16 / -2 )

@ SJ

Your link below does not support you at all,

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

 1. The forced labor issue is fundamentally a human rights issue

 2. The individual right to seek compensation has not been extinguished by the Korea-Japan Claims Settlement Agreement

 3. The ruling is in line with advances in international human rights law that values remedies for individual victims

 4. Following the ruling, Korea and Japan should seek a fundamental solution, rather than criticize one another

For about 1.

  "Forced labor", for which Korean supreme court ruled is invalid word for this particular issue.

  They came voluntary before Feb.1944, when forcing was started.

For about 2.

The Japansese goverment has also been standing on this side.

 In discussion of Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea in 1965, the Korean goverment preferred lump sum payment of compensation from Japan and wanteed to pay Korean citizens later by themselves. 

 Hence it is very natural to think that who has duty to pay compensation is the Korean goverment, not Japan.

For about 3.

  Same as 1.

For about 4.

  Who currently refuses to discuss is the Korean goverment for this particular issue.

One more issue about this statement : only less than 1% of Japanese attorneys support this statement,

and another interview pointed out that only 7% of Japanese attorneys support it

This means that

A right approach based on expertise legal analyses was already expressed by Japanese lawyers

cannot be justfied.

Using Kamikaze or biased Kanto Massacre for accusing the Japanese today is just a hate speech.

Be careful.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

@SJ

I feel really stupid for actually start looking into the source you provided since you kept on insisting to read in every related posts.

http://justice.skr.jp/estatement.html (Enlgish)

"The plaintiffs were forced to labor in brutal and dangerous conditions. As part of their jobs, they had to manually inject coke into blast furnaces, at the risk of electrocution. Moreover, they were exposed to abominable circumstances: they were not paid for their work, given scant amounts of substandard food, prohibited to leave, and faced physical punishment for any attempts to escape. This constitutes forced labor (See ILO Forced Labor Convention, 1930 (No. 29)) and slavery (See the 1926 Slavery Convention), and a serious violation of human rights."

So what does "ILO Forced Labor Convention, 1930" say?

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C029

In Article 2, it says;

"2. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this Convention, the term  forced or compulsory labour  shall not include--

(a) any work or service exacted in virtue of compulsory military service laws for work of a purely military character;

(b) any work or service which forms part of the normal civic obligations of the citizens of a fully self-governing country;

(c) any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations;

(d) any work or service exacted in cases of emergency, that is to say, in the event of war or of a calamity or threatened calamity, such as fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases, invasion by animal, insect or vegetable pests, and in general any circumstance that would endanger the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population;

(e) minor communal services of a kind which, being performed by the members of the community in the direct interest of the said community, can therefore be considered as normal civic obligations incumbent upon the members of the community, provided that the members of the community or their direct representatives shall have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services."

Whether you like it or not, there clearly are multiple factors that Korean plaintiff cannot be entitled as "forced or complusory labour" according to this covention, so why are those so-called "experts" referenced this convention to claim that it was Japanese violation against human rights?

As for 1926 Slavery Convention, I don't even understand why they even mentioned about this convention whatsoever.

"The 1926 Slavery Convention or the Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery was an international treaty created under the auspices of the League of Nations and first signed on 25 September 1926. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 9 March 1927, the same day it went into effect.[2] The objective of the Convention was to confirm and advance the suppression of slavery and the slave trade."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1926_Slavery_Convention

Slave trade?? What does it got to do with the case at hand?? Are they seriously think people would buy this??

So SJ, tell me, if you are so supportive of those so-called "expert" statement, why don't you clarify this on their behalf?

14 ( +14 / -0 )

"Any"countermeasures" will be timed to achieve a clear political/economic, domestic/international agenda so to maximise the desired effect and objectives."

Abe has already achieve his objectives.

1) Moon has destroy any pro Korean sentiment in Japan.

2) The pro Korean factions in the LDP led by Kishida and Kono are on the complete defensive on the issue.

3) Komeito has turned against Korea.

4) The Foreign Ministry's Korea hands have turned against Korea.

5) The Pro Korean academics in Japan and in the West have proven to wrong and will no longer have any influence on the issue.

6) Japanese public opinion has turned against Korea.

7) Finally, Japan has won the history wars. Japan's line of reason that the historical issue is a function of Korean Politics has been proven to be correct.

Shinzo Abe has won both a smashing diplomatic and political victory!!

13 ( +15 / -2 )

And Korea raises tariff on Japanese imports in return. Since Korea runs a trade deficit against Japan, it is Japan that comes out worse in any trade war with Korea.

@Samit Basu: That "trade deficit against Japan" is actually Korea's biggest vulnerabilities in any trade war with Japan. Koreans mostly buy Korean consumer goods, not Sony TV or Hitachi fridges, so why does Korea collectively always run a ridiculously staggering annual deficit close to 30 billion US dollar against Japan? Korea Inc, chaebols are the major buyers! Top Korean companies like Samsung, LG... are not yet technologically capable of making the most advanced components in the products they export to their overseas markets. They cannot help but buy from Japan! While Korea itself relies on its exports to sustain its economy, Korea bitterly has no choice but rely on Japan's technology and components to sustain its exports!  So if Korea raises tariff on Japanese imports in return, Korea will badly hurt its own exports. Dare Korea do that? Even worse, if Japan bans all exports to Korea altogether, Japanese companies will lose some money but will still be fine, whereas Korea's exports will suffer immensely or even collapse because they cannot churn out finished products to ship overseas. Nobody will want to buy 80% of a Samsung smartphone or 90% of an LG TV. 

This is not my fantasy, I knew about this reading the Korea Times just last year.  Korea itself is aware of this. So yes, Japan has so many powerful leverages!

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Lol Japan can hurt Korea ten times worse than Korea can do the same in return.

Japan has half a million Koreans living in Japan owning a business, that alone we can hurt Korean businesses in Japan.

Your security depends on America and Japan good will to help militarily or let mainland Japan act as a base to support this hateful Korean country if a war happens.

It's not Japan starting this. It's Korea whos constantly escalating the situation.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

@Do the Hustle

You should do some research and learn how Japan got ahold of Korean Peninsula.

Half a million Japanese died fighting Russia to keep them out of Korea and parts of Manchuria.

Koreans didn't want to fight for their country so its neighbor had to do it and pay with many Japanese life's. Just like during the Korean War when America saved them.

Japan has attoned for its sins, paid compesation multiple times and apologies dozens of times. Japan did more than Germany, more than America towards blacks and Indians,more than UK.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

SJToday 07:38 pm JST

you have better provide external sources supporting your claims,

Speaking of external sources, here is a US court ruling on world war II era Japanese forced labor litigation, in which the court turned down the plaintiff's claims against Japanese firms. It is a good read.

https://www2.gwu.edu/~memory/data/judicial/POWs_and_Forced_Labor_US/ClassAction/Sept212000Decision.pdf

10 ( +12 / -2 )

@Samit Basu

Relax dude. Why are you stressed about what Japan can do to Korea?

If Japan has 0 options to retaliate like you pointed out than you have nothing to worry about and your comments or trying to change people's opinion is completely irrelevant.

We will treat you how you treat us back in return. Enjoy

10 ( +13 / -3 )

 In the other civilized countries around the world, those are legally impossible.

 In the other civilized countries around the world, there is no special permanent residency rights.

Just ordinary permanent residency rights.

Even in N. Korea, those kind of actions are implausible. 

Please don't be so....

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Why do you have to bring that up, it isn't even relevant.

What should countermeasures be relevant to? and why?

It is amazing that in Japan any layman can so easily criticize evaluating statements of experts. What is your qualification for making such bold claims? If you are not any kind of legal expert,

Like I post somewhere else, the statement does not need any expertise to read, understand, criticize.

I just wonder what makes you keep insisting that owning legal license matters so much.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

SJToday 07:38 pm JST

It is amazing that in Japan any layman can so easily criticize evaluating statements of experts.

What is the qualification of a lawyer? Someone who can argue either way based on who pays him.

Yes, I can see a lot of names of lawyers in the letter you quoted. It looks more like a receipt than a research paper.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

@SJ

Calm down boy, I just wrote facts.

Yes I'm not expert in that field, as well as you, so I mentioned only 7% of lawyer (In Japan) were affirmative to your opinion or to these 300 lawyer's opinion.

I am really sorry that I cannot suppy any support to my claim in S.Korea where 국민정서법 is superior.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

@SJ

65% : negative and cannot understand

the rest : negative but understandable

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Concerning the lawyers in question, they maybe affiliated with this group;

http://www.lazak.jp/

http://www.iakl.net/?r=en

弁護士法人オルビス

http://www.legal.ne.jp/

双葉法律事務所

http://futaba-law-kobe.com/index.html

一心法律事務所

http://www.law-lim.com/

森岡・山本・韓 法律事務所

http://www.myh-law.com/

大阪ふたば法律事務所

http://www.osaka-futaba.com/

They are the special permanent resident South Korean Lawyer's Association.

Which begs the question are their claim based on a legal dispute or a political one?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Hi SJ both governments will only make there peace and find political common ground when both embraces a common political agenda.

May I humbly ask you to review

'1965 Korea-Japan agreement should be re-estimated'.....

http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/History/view?articleId=134245

Clause 1 of Article II of that agreement says, "The contracting parties confirm that the problem concerning properties, rights and interests of the two contracting parties and their nationals, including juridical persons, and concerning claims between the contracting parties and their nationals, including those provided for in Article IV, paragraph (a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed in the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, is settled completely and finally."

There is no way around international treaties that by design normalise, re-established their diplomatic relationship.

The only way is through through a commission without fear or prejudice. .

5 ( +5 / -0 )

All good measures on the table, all of them I proposed last week. Another would be drastically refuce the number of SK business and tourist visas to Japan, by about 90 percent. Order Japanese to cease all non-vital travel to SK. Expel some SK diplomats from Japan.

All these options on the table will force SK government to back down and declare the high court decision to seize Japanese company assets void.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Maybe you can take their silence on an affair which if they signed up to will mark them as on the side of human rights as a sign that they think it is legally insubstantiable. This is backed up by how Japanese courts have historically treated such cases, as well as manifest defects in the argumentation on the merits, which tictactogo has so clearly pointed out, and I remember myself previously pointing out one - that they can't even be honest about the international opinion on Civitella (though admittedly, the Italian Constitutional Court seems determined to set its own course on the issue).

As a general note, it is my experience that "human rights lawyers" in Japan will sign up on positions that are actually extremely weak on the merits (you might want to look up what they said, for example, in the Tachikawa case) and go against the clear meaning of the text. It basically relies on most people's blind faith in lawyers.

http://www011.upp.so-net.ne.jp/tachikawatent/seimei4.html

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The fundamental element of negotiation is the existence of another party. This is not a game where only one party can win, like with a binary score of either 100 or 0. Compromise is inevitable. This is why negotiations should not be measured by a standard frame of mind or by any moral principles. No matter how unsatisfactory the results, any achievement, if made, should be seen objectively. This is the lesson I want to deliver through my book. ........Common ground SJ could begin here

2 ( +3 / -1 )

They are the special permanent resident South Korean Lawyer's Association.

Which begs the question are their claim based on a legal dispute or a political one?

Uh I now see why you said you were skeptical in other thread.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It seems if I refer to Korean Lawyers in Japan, like those in LAZAK, mods delete me immediately so I re-post only 1st half.

I have no idea what point exactly you're expecting a reply to.

It is just a statement or an opinion made by a group of people whose profession happen to be lawyers (as I mentioned a few times already) which involve quite a bit of Koreans (both using Korean names and Japanese names) of whom some might have political motive based on Korean narrative, which SJ kept quoting and trying to impress as Japanese experts' judgement.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So I ask you, why do you think it would affect their credibility?

Personally, I think the biggest killer of their credibility are the manifest errors (if I'm a bit less nice I'll say this is deliberate deception) in their argumentation. However, since that argument has been proferred and not so much rebutted as ignored, there is nothing left to do but to point out their affiliation. At the very least, it gives people another reason to believe this will NOT be the majority opinion among the Japanese legal profession.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

manifest errors

Of course, I would agree that it would most definitely not be the majority view among the legal profession in Japan. Their "affiliation" as you call it suggests that they are a minority, as Korean special permanent residents are a minority group in Japan. I even know Japanese lawyers who made derogatory jokes more than once about Zainichi Koreans to me, which I was a bit surprised at, as I couldn't share their views, being from a country far from Japan or Asia.

I agree that the way SJ is posting is a bit unusual, but I fail to see the "manifest" errors in the lawyers' argument that you see.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@tiring

They are the special permanent resident South Korean Lawyer's Association.

Which begs the question are their claim based on a legal dispute or a political one?

@showchinmono

Uh I now see why you said you were skeptical in other thread.

I don't think it is unnatural that lawyers who are interested in this issue may also be interested in issues to do with Korean "special permanent residents". Such lawyers may speak Korean, have familiarity with background to issues their clients face etc.

So I ask you, why do you think it would affect their credibility?

I will add that if your point were valid, Japanese people interested in this issue would not be credible either, because the issue involves Japan.

I trust either of you will give a reply.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@CH3CHO

Speaking of external sources, here is a US court ruling on world war II era Japanese forced labor litigation, in which the court turned down the plaintiff's claims against Japanese firms.

I am indeed curious about the major opinion of the rest 93% lawyers on the verdict of the Korea Supreme court. So far, your guys here have provided irrelevant sources as supporting evidence. It is so pity that your claims are so much shallowly based, having difficulty in showing any link to informative sources. Even I can provide a link to an opinion on the Korean supreme court verdict expressed by a former justice of the Japan Supreme Court. Sigh.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

South Korea is counting on Japan being the diplomatic wimps they have always been.

One wonders what will happen if Japan actually follows through and imposes measures that exact real and measurable pain on South Korea.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

A right approach based on expertise legal analyses was already expressed by Japanese lawyers on the verdict of S. Korea Supreme court regarding forced wartime labor:

http://justice.skr.jp/estatement.html (Enlgish)

http://justice.skr.jp/statement.html (Japanese)

 

The Japanese administration just utilizes it together with the radar lock-on issue to politicize and instigate anti-Korean sentiment of native Japanese citizens for the upcoming double elections. It has worked very well so far.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

@showchinmono

As I post somewhere else, start from abolishing special permanent residency rights for Koreans in Japan and freeze nationalization process for Koreans in Japan. This does not go against any treaties/agreements with S.K. Ban Pachinko, K-Pop, K-Drama. Revive hino-maru semiconductor industry to replace demands from S.K.

Yes. I now agree that those kind of actions are probably possible in Japan. In the other civilized countries around the world, those are legally impossible. Even in N. Korea, those kind of actions are implausible. Japan is an amazing country featuring a very unique history such as Kanto Massacre and Kamikaze.

-15 ( +1 / -16 )

@Bamboo

@ SJ

Your link below does not support you at all,

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

It is amazing that in Japan any layman can so easily criticize evaluating statements of experts. What is your qualification for making such bold claims? If you are not any kind of legal expert, then you have better provide external sources supporting your claims, at least in S. Korea. OK. In Japan, of course I know very well that you have unlimited freedom of expression which does not require any iota of responsibility. Japan is such an amazing country.

-15 ( +0 / -15 )

@Bamboo

Yes I'm not expert in that field, as well as you, so I mentioned only 7% of lawyer (In Japan) were affirmative to your opinion or to these 300 lawyer's opinion.

Let's see what is the opinion of the remaining 93% of lawyers in Japan. As long as those 93% are silent, then I accept the opinion of the 7% as a representative one in Japan. Or you may cite any external link that may be relevant to thoughts of the 93%.

@showchinmono

I just wonder what makes you keep insisting that owning legal license matters so much.

I know you live in a wonderful country where anybody can be a lawyer.

-15 ( +0 / -15 )

Some very interesting comments and some quite naive ones as well. All these comments about Korea being petty and they should let it go are petty comments. People should not forget that, it was Japan that made an enemy of its closest neighbor by invading the country early in the last century. They then occupied this country, enslaving it’s people for the following 30 odd years. Yes, Japan’s occupation of Korea ended 70 odd years ago, but can you really expect the to forget what Japan did to them in a single generation?

-16 ( +0 / -16 )

That's it. Stir up anti-Korean sentiment. Give the people a scapegoat to hate and demonize.

The oldest trick in the book never grows old.

-19 ( +0 / -19 )

Nothing. That's Japan's dilemma, as Japan has no leverage over Korea

Ouch! Facts hurt when you reside in your own bubble of lies.

-20 ( +5 / -25 )

@nanotechnology

Why is Japan justified in punishing South Korea's financial system?

Because their courts made a decision the Japanese don't like, isn't a good reason.

To pressure the South Korean courts to change their decision is even worse as a reason.

-22 ( +3 / -25 )

@nanotechnology

The Bank of Japan should start punishing South Korea's Financial System.

Bank of Japan can't. What do you think Bank of Japan is, a US Federal Reserve Bank?

close commercial air space going from and to the USA to South Korea, so that Korean Airlines will go around northern Sakhalin Island and will consume more fuel.

All US-Korea flights already fly over Sakhalin to save money. None flies over Japan.

Then, start devaluating YEN.

And face the wrath of Trump who have long accused Japan a currency manipulator.

@Nasubi

I wonder what else they would do.

Nothing. That's Japan's dilemma, as Japan has no leverage over Korea.

-30 ( +2 / -32 )

Japan has warned South Korea that it will take "countermeasures"

There are no realistic countermeasures that Japan can take.

Options floated within the Japanese government include raising tariffs on South Korean imports

And Korea raises tariff on Japanese imports in return. Since Korea runs a trade deficit against Japan, it is Japan that comes out worse in any trade war with Korea.

and recalling Japan's ambassador to Seoul,

This is more like it. But that won't change anything in Korea.

Koreans know Japan has no countermeasures to hurt Korea more than Japan, and this is why they are playing a hardball here.

-32 ( +4 / -36 )

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