politics

Moon urges Japanese leaders not to politicize forced labor issues

58 Comments
By Joyce Lee

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

58 Comments
Login to comment

Hang on, was the Korean courts and government that approved the seizure of assets? Korea has already made it a political issue.

28 ( +35 / -7 )

The situation will only be resolved when both sides get bored of saying regrettable all the time.

-13 ( +7 / -20 )

I thought that the issues were resolved by the treaty.

25 ( +30 / -5 )

I think his tone sounds quite reasonable.  Still don't agree with the constant harking back to past injustices and claiming of funds, but he appears to be saying "lets not get all heated up about this".

-19 ( +3 / -22 )

Ouch, this will not go down well in Japan and rightly so. Korea is making unnecessary problems. The Korean government didn't hand out the cash given by Japan to the victims, then they have the balls to freeze Japanese assets and say Japan should stay calm? I'd be furious, thank god im not the PM.

20 ( +25 / -5 )

Give me a break Korea... what did you actually expect to happen?

21 ( +25 / -4 )

Lindsay: "Hang on, was the Korean courts and government that approved the seizure of assets?"

When did the government approve it? It's the SK courts. Moon is bang on in what he has said here, especially with, "I don't think it is wise for Japanese politicians and leader to continue to politicize it, making sources of controversy and spreading them." NO ONE in the world sides with Japan on the issue of WWII atrocities and sex slaves outside of Japan and non-Japanese (or wannabes). Every time Japan does this, another statue goes up somewhere and the issue gets even MORE notice when Japan throws a subsequent hissy-fit and even goes to those countries demanding statues be torn down or ties will be severed with the city, that world bodies change their mind or arrears won't be paid, or that nations be quiet or Japan will "consider retribution".

gogogo: "Give me a break Korea... what did you actually expect to happen?"

Keep playing into the man's hand, my friend.

papigiulio: "Korea is making unnecessary problems."

I know, eh? All those people raped and murdered and their angry kin... they should all just shut up already and let Japan white-wash in peace! Japan is the victim, after all.

" I'd be furious, thank god im not the PM."

Nope, you're not. You're just a big part of the problem in terms of the mentality that will ensure Japan Always looks bad on this issue.

-23 ( +6 / -29 )

Well that made me laugh.

A bit of the "pot calling the kettle black" I see..

NO ONE in the world sides with Japan on the issue of WWII atrocities and sex slaves outside of Japan and non-Japanese (or wannabes). Every time Japan does this, another statue goes up somewhere and the issue gets even MORE notice when Japan throws a subsequent hissy-fit and even goes to those countries demanding statues be torn down or ties will be severed with the city, that world bodies change their mind or arrears won't be paid, or that nations be quiet or Japan will "consider retribution".

Umm... in the past when the same issues about the 1965 treaty arose, America sided with Japan. I think you'll find a lot of people side with Japan here. Money was given to SK with the expectation it was to be given to the comfort women, not used for industrial purposes and infrastructure (which is what actually happened)

24 ( +28 / -4 )

Moon has finally exposed the S Korean position along with his with regard to Japan relationship.

He is no different than Xi, where, now his rhetoric does not reflect his actions or his government's actions from outright occupation of the Senkaku islands and the homing of radar and the many statues of comfort women all over the world, not just the US. By allowing citizen groups to take actions for which his government looks the other way and forcing an issue using his legal system (the courts), he has obviously played his hand.

Interestingly, ALL Korean High Schools allow anti-Japanese societies and clubs to denounce Japan and the Japanese in their schools, often with parents and school teachers and political leaders participating.

It now brings and begs the question, as he tries to "unite" with N Korea which has again befriended China, which "side" is he and his country on?

It is a stressful time for Japan..!

China, N & S Korea and Russia taking aim.

As with China, Japanese companies must now consider relocating back to Japan and stop sponsoring technology to S & N Korea as with China.

It would also be a time to "stop" all foreign aid to those countries and spend them domestically to provide infrastructure, disaster relief and most importantly "security".

14 ( +20 / -6 )

Why don't the political leaders of Japan and Korea sit down and Japan makes it's demands clear.

i.e. "Your domestic courts are never allowed to accept any claims by your citizens which are related to Japanese wartime atrocities, or anything else related to wartime Japan, if Japanese companies or citizens stand to lose from such claim"

My suggestion.

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

"We've been saying we should continue diplomatic discussions on the issue and should not hurt our forward-looking relationship with Japan," Moon told a news conference.

How many S.K presidents used this "forward looking" flipping the table over later on?

Keep refusing to settle at international judicial decisions but keep claiming must respect judicial decision under separation of powers.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ok my question of the day is, seeing as China pretty much did the same thing here:

https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/japans-supreme-court-rejects-world-war-ii-forced-labour-claims-by-chinese-workers-against-nishimatsu-construction

Why is abe making a fuss when it comes to Korea? Is it because of the inherent racist attitudes that encompass him and his ilk? Or is it because like all bullies, he feels Korea is not as big to fight back like China would?

And btw, mitsubishi paid up

https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/mitsubishi-materials-to-set-up-compensation-fund-to-settle-wwii-forced-labour-lawsuits-by-chinese-wartime-workers

Time for the afflicted in Korea to collect.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Lol! Moon, your career is built on politicizing the past and blaming Japan for Korea’s problems. What the heck does the past have to do with 2018 anymore? Korea is also a modern and wealthy nation because of Japan and America.

Too bad you spend your time being pathetic and playing the eternal victim.

16 ( +21 / -5 )

Too bad you spend your time being pathetic and playing the eternal victim

Oh? You mean like most japanese that fail to wrap their minds around the fact that they were the aggressor? You mean like those, right?

-13 ( +7 / -20 )

Mr. Moon

Are you right or wrong? I am not sure. However you have already politicized this issue.

If you want to speak correctly you should ask Japan not to add gasoline to an already ignited fire.

17 ( +18 / -1 )

No Wallace Fred, I don’t mean that.

I’m talking about whining and living in the past. Japanese are aware of their past, and also that it was almost a century ago.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So is this an announcement of S.K government being an uninvolved innocent bystander?

12 ( +13 / -1 )

"We've been saying we should continue diplomatic discussions on the issue and should not hurt our forward-looking relationship with Japan,"

Moon, “forward looking”? No. Always backward thinking about 100 years. Bringing up issues that have been resolved in finality. Moon just does an says whay his fellow communists in PRC tell him : “Always bully Japan”. It makes me so angry and upset, but The Abe Cabinet will just ignore him.

15 ( +17 / -2 )

Haha Dear Moon.

Listen to your own advice! S. Korea makes a big deal of everything when it comes to Japan. Even a sport event against Japan your Korea can't handle itself.

Mr Moon, stop politicizing Japan for your benefits and to gather support among your falling approval.

If we let them do this, they will never stop!

13 ( +15 / -2 )

At the end, based on the 1965 treaty both nation must come to a consensus between the two nations OR have a third party mediator step in to solve the differences. This is stipulated within the 1965 treaty which ROK CANNOT walk away from.

ROK can drag negotiations but at the end there will be no consensus without Moon waving a white flag especially when his prior administrations had STATED that the Treaty is valid and ALL had been solved.

Not if but WHEN a third party mediator steps in it's game over OR a Coup occurs and Moon flees and pleas for political asylum to either NK or PRC.

In which case I believe either nation will throw him under the bus in no time.

At that point ROK as a nation will go into further Chaos.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

@Fred Wallace

Has Japan and China signed a treaty to settle those issues? Japan and Korea signed one in 1965.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Perfect example of tribalism. No matter the level of modernity achieved by mankind, basic human nature never changes.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

South Korea under Moon clearly has no intention of upholding the terms of the 1965 Treaty. His excuse that the Treaty does not over ride the Korean judiciary's authority is nonsense. Courts of other nations, including the United States have not allowed claims that were already covered by Treaties. The main reason being the unacceptable diplomatic issue that it would create. Moon has completely destroyed any "future" of good relations between South Korea and Japan.

17 ( +18 / -1 )

Hang on, was the Korean courts and government that approved the seizure of assets? Korea has already made it a political issue.

The court decision is a legal decision, not a political decision. The government had nothing to do with that decision. It may be hard for someone who lives in a country with no rule of law to understand that the judicial branch is independent. The Seizsure of assets is again a legal decision, not a political one. All firms are obligated to follow and obey the laws of the country they are operating in. The companies have been ordered by a court of law to do something, they refused to do thereby violating the law, thereby triggering a legal procesure, as would have happened in any country with rule of law. If this was in America, these CEOs would've been already in jail had they refused to comply with a court's decision.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

It's been 50 yrs. Get over it SK.

Publicize and never let it happen again. Outlaw denials, but move forward. Demanding money 50+ yrs later is not honorable.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Ever seen a guy or lady sitting around moaning about what someone sometime at someplace ever did to them and why they are a loser now?

10 ( +11 / -1 )

It seems to me that S Korea rather politicized this issue first time than Japan did, though former S Korean Presidents have acknowledged all problems/issues were resolved at 1965 treaty.

14 ( +14 / -0 )

Who's for slave labor??? Really? Anyone here think it's a great idea to be able to abduct 5.4 million people bc they're a different nationality or race and then deny you did it, say you've already apologized for what you say you didn't do, and then point to technicalities to say the matter is resolved already? How about just admitting it and paying the dying, old victims, and reclaiming a measure of decency and honor? Seems like a no brainer to me but then I don't drive around in black vans.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

1965

The reparations agreement signed along with the 1965 treaty clearly states that the issues of asset ownership and the right to seek compensation were resolved "completely and finally" with Japan offering economic assistance to South Korea.

2005

the administration of former President Roh Moo-hyun concluded in 2005 that compensation for forced laborers was included as "settlement money" in the 300 million dollars Tokyo paid to Seoul based on the reparations agreement. The South Korean government has compensated those workers.

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20181031/p2a/00m/0na/012000c

DONE!

Korean group of 1,103 former forced laborers and their families said it had filed a lawsuit demanding the South Korean government provide 100 million won ($88,500) to each of them in compensation because it had received funds from Japan.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-forcedlabour-southkorea/thousand-koreans-sue-government-over-wartime-labor-at-japan-firms-idUSKCN1OJ0F7

GOOD!! Go for it!

Bye Bye Korea!

Don't bother Japan on this issue again!

May peace prevail :)

13 ( +15 / -2 )

Did the Japanese government ever wondered why this issue happens in Japan regularly and never in Germany?

Germany apologized sincerely and took actions accordingly.

For example on Germany it is illegal to deny the holocaust.

In Japan the government denies or downplays all the war atrocities.

As much as I love Japan and the Japanese people I am afraid i must say the handle this issue very badly from the start and with Abe san things went from bad to worse...

-13 ( +4 / -17 )

This BS is sounding a whole lot like the recent Kevin Hart vs CNN Don Lemon/Gay Community/Etc who continue to complain even after the guy apologizes repeatedly. It's never enough. You say sorry, and someone tells you it didn't sound sincere enough. Say it again, someone else doesn't think you meant it. Then another party will say if you are really sorry, you should do THIS or THAT. And on and on it goes.

Japan said sorry. There is nothing, zero they can do to erase the past. And sorry has very little meaning anyway. They made agreement to pay funds to South Korea. It's documented - the amount paid and the reasoning. Let South Korean courts explain to the government of its own country that the funds can only be deducted from there and let the victims fight it out for their slice of the pie.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

Japan said sorry. Paid money. Time to move on SK.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

melonbarmonsterToday  12:30 am JST

Who's for slave labor??? Really? Anyone here think it's a great idea to be able to abduct 5.4 million people 

Why do you keep posting this nonsense? In 1945 there were only 5 million active Japanese soldiers. And this includes a great number of Koreans as well.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

@OssanAmerica

His excuse that the Treaty does not over ride the Korean judiciary's authority is nonsense.

I am just wondering whether your guys know the difference between civil and criminal trials? It is hilarious that even the Japanese PM does not understand the principle of separation of legal, administrative, and judicial powers in modern democratic countries, not to mention the differences between civil and criminal actions. Civil trials are basically for a dispute between a civilian and another civilian, and of course a state or a company can be one of the civilians. The government has nothing to do with those civil trials.

Neither the PM of Japan nor the president of SK can meddle in or influence on the domestic judiciary. Even the ICJ can not on the judiciary of any sovereign country. And, any government in any democratic country in the world can not meddle in civil trials. A role of a government is to protect the private property and right of an individual of its state. It is even comical that the PM and other politicians ask the S. Korean government to take some actions on the verdict of a civil trial. Hadn't these Japanese politicians taken basic courses at their middle schools?

I guess this kind of approach by the Japanese government is just for political propaganda without any foreseeable outcome. A proper approach on the judiciary matter of the other country by the Japanese government can be learned from the case of Michael Fay by the U.S. government in 1993, as example, albeit a criminal case:

*The official position of the United States government was that although it recognized Singapore's right to punish Fay within the due process of law**, the punishment of caning was excessive for a teenager who committed a non-violent crime. *

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay

For criminal cases, the S. Korean president can grant an amnesty like Singapore, but can not for any civil case regarding a dispute between one individual and another individual. This is the same for Japan and the U.S.

The following editorial in a Japanese newspaper may help study and understand the separation of legal, administrative, and judicial powers in modern democratic countries:

https://this.kiji.is/440981644791874657

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Based on some comments here, it seems that Japaneses will say it is OK that the state (Japanese government) confiscates their own private house for some reasons based on a treaty with a foreign country. In S. Korea, nobody will accept it, and an uprising against the government will start.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

It is fortunate that not all of Japanese politicians are dummies. At least one said it correctly, and a newspaper wisely cited it.

In Japan as well, the government itself admitted that the individual claim right has not disappeared. Shunji Yanai, Director-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a committee on August 27, 1991 said that " It does not mean that we canceled the individual's claim right itself in the domestic legal cases. " The ruling of this time is nothing other than the Korean court 's domestic legal recognition of the individual's claim rights.

https://this.kiji.is/440981644791874657 (Google translation)

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

The verdict of Top Court was based on it's understanding of a International Treaty, which by itself goes beyond just a domestic issue. Those insisting on independence of judicial power should better think. Those 7 Judges(majority opinions) put the dispute outside the treaty (hence cowardly keep the treaty effective so as to keep the money). Anything outside the treaty reactivates Japan's diplomatic protection rights (If both countries waived them for only the issues covered by the Treaty). It means Japan as a sovereign country has every rights and every says to protect it's citizen. The same goes with S.K. S.K Government cannnot just hide itself as an onlooker

6 ( +7 / -1 )

As for my previous post , before anyone possibly claims Nippon steel or Mitsubishi Heavy in S.K are local corps, and hence, not Japanese citizen(individual) but Korean individual. Pre-advice in advance. Then Those Korean companies, strictly speaking, are not the one to claim compensation from as they did not exist those days.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@smithinjapanJan. 10  06:25 pm JST precisely

NO ONE in the world sides with Japan on the issue of WWII atrocities and sex slaves outside of Japan and non-Japanese (or wannabes).

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

@showchinmono

The verdict of Top Court was based on it's understanding of a International Treaty, which by itself goes beyond just a domestic issue.

Do you mean that it is possible in Japan that the Japanese government takes away your private house (if you have one) for some reasons based on an international treaty?

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

The court decision is a legal decision, not a political decision. The government had nothing to do with that decision.

Yes it is but Moon had also claimed that ROK validates and confirms that the 1965 treaty is still in place, The treaty stipulates that all claims are settled between the ROK and Japan which is a diplomatic decision. If you still claim that the legal decision is valid and the diplomatic decision is also valid then the government of ROK is required to pay the sum the court demands not the company or Japan.

If ROK does not first agrees to this principle during talks at negotiations then Japan will call for a modulator to mediate differences.

Basically Moon is digging a hole for himself.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

@Triring

If you still claim that the legal decision is valid and the diplomatic decision is also valid then the government of ROK is required to pay the sum the court demands not the company or Japan.

It is not a simple question. You are not expert on legal issues. This legal case involves a complex set of interrelated issues, including jurisdiction, acceptance by South Korean courts of rulings by Japanese courts, interpretation of the 1965 Japan-South Korea agreement on the settlement of claims, and application of the statute of limitations. Your brain can not process the related complex legal processes. Even there have been disagreements among Korean courts.

But, the Japanese government already recognized it as early as 1991.

At a session of the House of Councillors’ Budget Committee on August 27, 1991, Director General Yanai Shunji of MOFA’s Treaties Bureau addressed the issue of the abandonment of individual claim rights under the claim settlement agreement, stating, “This is a mutual abandonment of the diplomatic protection rights possessed by Japan and the Republic of Korea as states. So it does not cause the liquidation of the claim rights of individuals with respect to domestic law. It means that the governments of the two countries cannot raise these matters with respect to each other by exercising their diplomatic protection rights.

https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a02703/

if you indeed want to know this legal issues in detail, please study first by reading the above article written by a Japanese expert, hopefully at least 3 times.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Sorry but it only a legal matter within ROK. As far as Japan is concerned it is a diplomatic matter in which it had been signed by both parties to be complete and final.

 It may be hard for someone who lives in a country that cannot understand the difference between a diplomatic issue and domestic legal issue which other nations abides but that is how things go.

On top since Moon had said on record that he will abide the courts ruling it's his administration that will need to pay up.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@Triring

Sorry but it only a legal matter within ROK. As far as Japan is concerned it is a diplomatic matter in which it had been signed by both parties to be complete and final.

When any Korean is in Japan, he/she should abide by the Japanese domestic law. When any Japanese is in S. Korea, he/she should abide by the Korean domestic law. If you can not accept the verdict of the S. Korean court, just leave there. It is so simple.

The court also declared that the state cannot liquidate an individual’s claim rights without the individual’s consent; it can only abandon diplomatic protection rights. The Japanese government has also recognized that the claims agreement does not address the issue of compensation based on the illegal nature of colonial rule but merely provides for the abandonment of diplomatic protection rights between the states.

https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a02703/

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

@SJ

Do you mean that it is possible in Japan that the Japanese government takes away your private house (if you have one) for some reasons based on an international treaty?

Please be more specific will you? Which int'l treaty forced a government to take away your private house?

Anyhow Korean top court stance is that the issues are "uncovered" by the treaty. S.K government stance has been "covered". Japanese government stance "covered". An International treaty always has a counterpart which S.K judicial power does not have jurisdiction over. S.K top court must stop abusing it's judicial power over international issues

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Wait, the Japanese are politicizing the issue? Wait. Am I missing something?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

@showchinmono

My answer is simple and clear: No. No international treaty in the world can take away my house. It is my house, not the state's house as in some communist countries.

Now, please answer my question: Is it possible in Japan that the Japanese government takes away your private house (if you have one) without your consent for some reasons based on an international treaty?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

@SJ

I don't understand you. Sorry If you do not have any specific cases, practical examples, why you are asking? What kind of Int'l treaty could possibly take away your private house???

International treaty, when it could affect the people of contracting countries, would normally come together with domestic law legislated to fit the treaty to be carried out. am I answering to you this way?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@showchinmono

I wrote 'No international treaty', which means that there does not exist any int'l treaty in the world that can take away my private house. What kind of Int'l treaty does not matter here.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@SJ

If NO such a International treaty exists, then what's the point to assume your house taken away by non-existent treaty?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please answer my question first. I will explain in detail for you later if you answer it.

 Is it possible in Japan that the Japanese government takes away your private house (if you have one) without your consent for some reasons based on any international treaty?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

hypothetically answering possible if new domestic law to carry it out put in place.

Realistically answering, meaningless to answer to this kind of hypothetical question

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@showchinmono

As you seem to have difficulty in understanding English, I ask you a simpler question.

Let's assume that S. Korea and Japan made a treaty that S. Korea takes away and use your private house. In this case, are you going to give away your house to the S. Korean government? If not, what would you do?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

No more house analogies please. Please comment on the story.

@SJ

I understand your English very well. Please stop questioning my English. I have already answered to your hypothetical question and Triring also explained how it works in detail (although deleted already). I suggest you to read, in particular, minor opinions at Korean Top Court over this verdict regarding so-called "Lump-Sum Agreements" by Sovereign States in relation to the people's individual rights.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Did the Japanese government ever wondered why this issue happens in Japan regularly and never in Germany?

Everyone knows the answer. Germany don't have Korea right next to them. It's as simple as that.

Did it ever occur to you that constant whining and complaints about WW2 mostly come from Korea while Korea wasn't even at the state of war against Japan during WW2?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Yes. Japan is certainly a civilized country where many legal experts can voice their knowledge and conscience:

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

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

Instead of blaming each other, it is a time to seek a solution.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Let's assume that S. Korea and Japan made a treaty that S. Korea takes away and use your private house. In this case, are you going to give away your house to the S. Korean government? If not, what would you do?

Moderator, kindly allow me to answer this question on grounds it relates to the correct relationship between domestic and international law, arguably the crux of the Korean Supreme Court's ruling, and in turn the topic in the story.

While this shouldn't have happened (as has already been pointed out), in the scenario it does, the Japanese government is obliged to deliver my house to South Korea, regardless of domestic law in order to meet its international obligations. Of course, there is a mutual understanding of the need for due process, so South Korea will (if it is playing by the usual rules) allow Japan due time to try to buy my house nicely and in accordance to the present law. However, ultimately, Japan will have to deliver my house to them if it means physically tearing me away from its pillars.

As for any complaints from me about the Japanese governments' actions, which are almost certainly a violation of domestic law, I take to Japan's own courts. I may even get recompensed for it, but my house will still be possessed by South Koreans.

0 ( +0 / -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