politics

U.S. says it will do what it can to help settle S Korea-Japan dispute

47 Comments

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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.

47 Comments
Login to comment

The SK-Japan dispute plays right into China's hands, who do not want a strong SK-Japan alliance. You can just picture Xi grinning from ear to ear at the recent developments.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

The United States fully understands the seriousness of South Korea's festering trade dispute with Japan

Understanding something is not the same as agreeing with something or taking the side of someone.

20 ( +22 / -2 )

The US fully understands the seriousness of the matter. It's not retaliation. But of course it 's a serious decision of Japan. And nobody can arbitrate the matter. Because It's a purely domestic affair of Japan.

14 ( +16 / -2 )

Well, the United States may be able to contribute to resolving this question by strongly pressuring South Korea to follow the mandates of international law.

17 ( +22 / -5 )

Trump and Stillwell will surely take Japans side, since Korea started the problem. And the Japan-USA relationship has never been stronger than it is now, under Trump and PM Abe. Moon should be very worried right now.

6 ( +16 / -10 )

It appears S. Korea and its people do not think their attitude to Japan recently inappropriate - building statues of comfort women here and there, demanding apology of the emperor, seizing assets of Nihon Steel, Mitsubishi and other Japanese corporations in South Korea. Japan and Japanese kept silence very long to the rudity of S. Korea it got getting beyond their patinces.

21 ( +24 / -3 )

Deja vu. Didnt the US say they would help settle the dispute between Israel and Palestine, decades ago?

Be careful that Japan doesn't become the "Palestine" in this equation.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

any country that did what japan did to korea must never be forgiven

-26 ( +4 / -30 )

I hope both countries can peacefully resolve the situation.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Ganbare Japan

The only side in Business is profit. Come'on...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

America, UN, WTO is the loophole S. Korea is looking to force Japan to give them privilege treatment reserve for friends and best of allies.

Japan has a right to defend its companies from S. Korean aggression and violation of past aggrements, seizing a foreign companies assets and selling them off is the true danger to global stability.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

macv, back to 1945 we go hey?

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Problem can be solved easily and quickly by the Korean side if they choose to do so.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

Trump can not meddle in this issue, because Abe is imitating himself.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/business/japan-south-korea-trade-war-semiconductors.html

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

@AlexBecu

What specific actions must Korea do to solve the problem "easily and quickly"?

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

macy what about what was done to the Native Americans, should we forgive the settlers for that? What about the Jewish holocaust, should we forgive the Germans for that? What about the slave trade, the evil of apartheid, let me know which country can be forgiven and which can't
12 ( +14 / -2 )

S. Korea can solve this issue by paying the victims of force labor with the money Japan paid in 1965.

Having good relations with Japan is a win for S. Korea. Economically and security we would help if another war with North happens. Do the right thing Moon administration.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

Well well. South Korea picks a fight with Japan. Japan gives South Korea a bloody nose and South Korea runs to America. Cry Korea Cry!

8 ( +13 / -5 )

"South Korean officials have warned Japan not to escalate the dispute"

OR What?

11 ( +15 / -4 )

South Korean can start acting like grown adults first.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

If SK believes the US is going to to bat for them on this issue which they themselves created, they are dreaming. The last time the US got involved the landmark 2015 Comfort Women Agreement was signed giving everyone hope that relations would improve. The Moon comes into office and rips it up. Does SK think the US is going to back SK when they are doing everything possible to destroy the US-JPN-SK strategic alliance?

macvToday  06:50 pm JST

any country that did what japan did to korea must never be forgiven

Yes no one should forgive a country that forced a long dominating power to recognize your sovereignty, built roads, schools, hospitals, railways, enabled girls to attend school, and increased the average lifespan of the population.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

"The only side in Business is profit. Come'on..."

Read the following:

Japan’s holdings of U.S. government debt jumped to $1.101 trillion in May, a level not seen since August 2017 and up from $1.064 trillion in April.

In others words , Japan is America's banker. Washington knows this. Washington will stay on the sidelines and Japan will crush South Korea.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Only smart people can find a smart solution, as simple as that.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Next Korea will want to annex Tsushima! It is pointless to make deals with Korea as they will soon break them!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@OssanJapan

If SK believes the US is going to to bat for them on this issue

But that's exactly what Stilwell said he would do.

Basically Japan is facing the tag team of US and Korea alone.

@Ganbare Japan!

Stillwell will surely take Japans side,

StilWell is a Korea specialist within the USAF who speaks fluent Korean like a native speaker, followed by a moderate fluency of Mandarin.

StilWell has a limited comprehension of Japanese.

@AlexBecu

Problem can be solved easily and quickly by the Korean side if they choose to do so.

Unlike Japan, Korea has a clear separation of powers, the executive branch cannot "suggest" the judiciary what to do like Abe san does in Japan.

After all, Park Geun Hye was kicked out of office by constitutional court judges that she appointed.

Unthinkable in Japan, but a reality in Korea.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

That's all SK does.....whine, whine, whine. They're never going to be satisfied with anything or anyone, just like a spoiled kid.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

 After all, resorting to tattletale diplomacy again. 

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Tokyo has requested third-party arbitration of the Korean wartime labor dispute as stipulated in a 1965 treaty. The deadline for a response is Thursday, and Seoul has indicated that it will not respond.

This tells us everything we need to know about which country is trying to solve the problem and which is trying to perpetuate it.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

extanker, obviously you don't understand the issue. The justice has nothing to do with the court, as simple as that. The court could make wrong decision, but the history can't be rewritten. You can't reduce history problem to a court problem, a court problem to a decision problem, a decision problem to a sentence problem, a sentence problem to a word problem.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

When smart people meet smart people, the best manner is honesty.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

extanker, obviously you don't understand the issue. The justice has nothing to do with the court, as simple as that. The court could make wrong decision, but the history can't be rewritten. You can't reduce history problem to a court problem, a court problem to a decision problem, a decision problem to a sentence problem, a sentence problem to a word problem.

Actually, yes you can. South Korea sure seems to agree, seeing as how their court cases are what started this whole mess.

It isn't about "justice", it is about interpreting the wording of a treaty. That absolutely is for a court to decide. The fact that South Korea is refusing to participate says that they know they are in the wrong here and worry they would lose.

It looks like you are the one who obviously doesn't understand the issue. As simple as that.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Both Koreans and Japanese are polite people, embedded in the Confucian culture.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

@extanker

It isn't about "justice", it is about interpreting the wording of a treaty. That absolutely is for a court to decide. The fact that South Korea is refusing to participate says that they know they are in the wrong here and worry they would lose.

I assume that you have basic intelligence to understand and evaluate the issues here, unlike some other Japaneses here.

If S. Korean government accepts the Japanese request of third-party arbitration, it means that S. Korean government would defy the ruling of the Korean supreme court in 2012, which basically says the damages from illegal actions of Japaneses companies were not covered in the 1965 treaty. And, the 1965 treaty mentions third-party arbitration. The ruling says that the 1965 treaty covered only legal actions, as the Japanese officials denied any wrongdoing during the WWII. This means that the court says that this ruling is irrelevant of the 1965 treaty, as it is about damage from illegal actions.

Even the Japanese government gave the deadline based on the 1965 treaty. If S. Korean government replied to the request by the deadline, it would mean that S. Korean government completely ignores the ruling to surrender to the Japanese government. It would be completely illegal within the territory of S. Korea, and all involved government officials would be indicted.

What the Abe administration asked was a request that is completely impossible within the judiciary system of S. Korea. Abe had to ask an alternative method that can allow S. Korean government to circumvent this judiciary problem. He and Kono asked a completely nonsensical request in the name of diplomacy.

S. Korean government suggested to Japan an alternative method to solve the issue without defying the supreme court ruling. And Abe and Kono still say the same thing that S. Korean government should defy her own judiciary ruling.

IMHO, this is just political propaganda of Abe. Abe and Kono are not fool. They at least know what they are saying, unlike most brainwashed Japaneses here who do not know what they are saying.

To check whether you understand this, let me ask you one question: Is it possible to pay money for damage while not admitting any damage?

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

This is not something new. S. Korea has been doing this for decades now. The agreement signed can mean anything S. Korea wants it to mean.

They can pick and choose what they like and what they want to agree or disagree.

They can use supreme court ruling in a Korean court as excuse to get Japan to pay again. This will never end if you listen to S. Korea

8 ( +10 / -2 )

extanker, obviously you don't understand the issue. The justice has nothing to do with the court, as simple as that. The court could make wrong decision, but the history can't be rewritten. You can't reduce history problem to a court problem, a court problem to a decision problem, a decision problem to a sentence problem, a sentence problem to a word problem.

That really sums up Japans sense of law and justice, which leaves a lot to be desired.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

S. Korea accepted the agreement in 1965 to settle all claims.

Lets bring in a 3rd party to read the agreement you signed, look at the money you received and what the understanding was between nations.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

I assume that you have basic intelligence to understand and evaluate the issues here, unlike some other Japaneses here

Thanks, I think... although I'm not Japanese.

If S. Korean government accepts the Japanese request of third-party arbitration, it means that S. Korean government would defy the ruling of the Korean supreme court in 2012, which basically says the damages from illegal actions of Japaneses companies were not covered in the 1965 treaty.

The problem with this statement is that the treaty is between two parties who disagree on what the treaty covers. That right there means that the supreme court of only one of the countries cannot interpret what the treaty means for both countries. The South Korean supreme court's decision is unenforceable outside South Korea. Third party arbitration is the only way to solve it equitably for both countries. On top of that, Korea refuses to even simply respond to the request, and that is Moon being childish.

S. Korean government suggested to Japan an alternative method to solve the issue without defying the supreme court ruling.

The alternative method that they offered was for Japan to pay the money first, then discuss it. Do you not see how ridiculous that is, when the problem they need to discuss is the act of paying the money?

Is it possible to pay money for damage while not admitting any damage?

Yes it is, but that is irrelevant here because Japan believes they should not have to pay any money, period.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Samit BasuToday  12:06 am JST

@OssanJapan

If SK believes the US is going to to bat for them on this issue

But that's exactly what Stilwell said he would do.

Basically Japan is facing the tag team of US and Korea alone.

Not in the real world. Read it and weep.

U.S. diplomat says United States won't intervene in Japan-South Korea dispute

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-japan-laborers-stilwell/u-s-diplomat-says-united-states-wont-intervene-in-japan-south-korea-dispute-idUSKCN1U71G3

3 ( +4 / -1 )

SJ Today  03:36 am JST

I assume that you have basic intelligence to understand and evaluate the issues here, unlike some other Japaneses here.

If S. Korean government accepts the Japanese request of third-party arbitration, it means that S. Korean government would defy the ruling of the Korean supreme court in 2012, which basically says the damages from illegal actions of Japaneses companies were not covered in the 1965 treaty.

How does following what is clearly stipulated in the treaty SK signed defy your stupid court decision?

Show me your basic intelligence. Did your stupid top court verdict say do not follow or ignore articles in the treaty?

And, the 1965 treaty mentions third-party arbitration.

It does. So what is SK supposed to do?

The ruling says that the 1965 treaty covered only legal actions, as the Japanese officials denied any wrongdoing during the WWII. This means that the court says that this ruling is irrelevant of the 1965 treaty, as it is about damage from illegal actions.

National mobilization law existed. Don't you understand what it means by your basic intelligence?

Even the Japanese government gave the deadline based on the 1965 treaty. If S. Korean government replied to the request by the deadline, it would mean that S. Korean government completely ignores the ruling to surrender to the Japanese government. It would be completely illegal within the territory of S. Korea, and all involved government officials would be indicted.

Again, How does SK replying by the deadline mean complete ignoring of the court decision.

Responding to the other high contracting party over the diplomatic issue conflicts with judicialy branch?

Aren't you continuously insisting SK respects separation of powers? How could judicial branch possibly block the acts of the executive branch?

What the Abe administration asked was a request that is completely impossible within the judiciary system of S. Korea. Abe had to ask an alternative method that can allow S. Korean government to circumvent this judiciary problem. He and Kono asked a completely nonsensical request in the name of diplomacy.

S. Korean government suggested to Japan an alternative method to solve the issue without defying the supreme court ruling. And Abe and Kono still say the same thing that S. Korean government should defy her own judiciary ruling.

Their alternative method " 1 + 1 + alpha" fund is OK? not defy, not ignore the court order? or What?

As long as Japanese companies are the one of them who pay into the fund?

> IMHO, this is just political propaganda of Abe. Abe and Kono are not fool. They at least know what they are saying, unlike most brainwashed Japaneses here who do not know what they are saying.

To check whether you understand this, let me ask you one question: Is it possible to pay money for damage while not admitting any damage?

You didn't read at all the 8 items SK demanded and all covered, didn't you? What were specified in the 5th of the list? Tell us all if you can.

You are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about. even worse than Samit Basu.

Your stupid top court given separated power arbitrarily declared

"1910 annexation was illegal, therefore mobilization of foreign citizen was illegal."

That's the essence of this issue.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

To check whether you understand this, let me ask you one question: Is it possible to pay money for damage while not admitting any damage?

How can it be impossible? SK insisted, Japan didn't agree inserting the word "reparation" into the text as both could not agree the legitimacy of the annexation. Nonetheless money paid to end the conflicts and settle the all the issues to start new relationship. That's what happened. Is is so difficult for you to understand?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@extanker

Is it possible to pay money for damage while not admitting any damage?

Yes it is, but that is irrelevant here because Japan believes they should not have to pay any money, period.

You are no better than most Japaneses here. Japaneses government has insisted it is possible, but it is impossible. This is the essence of the issue.

Damage compensation is paying for illegal actions. In the 1965 treaty, Japan tried best to deny any illegal action or wrongdoing, and payed 300 million dollars "free of charge", not for damage. In 2012, the Korean supreme court ruled that the Japanese companies should pay damage compensation for illegal actions, which were not covered in the 1965 treaty.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@SJToday 12:05 pm JST

Here's what happened. Japan and Korea, two companies, agreed to a settlement. Because of the weakness of their position, Korea can't get Japan to concede to any illegality, and finally signed a formulation where a net transfer of money was made to Korea but without any explicit or implicit acknowledgment of illegality and that the issue of claims was completely resolved with this.

Decades later, Korea company targets individual representatives from Japan company based on the unilateral determination of illegality by their legal department. Further, they "declare" the agreement just covers the legal entities Japan and Korea, and doesn't stop them from taking swings at individuals (natural, physical entities) of that Japan for real or alleged faults.

When Japan protests this obvious absurdity, Korea claims they can't do any because according to their internal organization chart and regulations, the determinations by their legal department are unchallengeable regardless of their actual merits or the consequences it inflicts on anyone else, and everyone in the company must blindly obey and execute such determinations.

Is this on, SJ?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

While this is obviously a tactic on Abe's part right before the upper house elections, I can't say I'm too upset about Japan retaliating for SK's constant scapegoating. Problem is that it'll hurt Japanese businesses down the line.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If US handshake and tell you that settle the dispute between, then you lost on the spot ):):):

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki Today 12:39 pm JST

It is not so simple. Please read an opinion of another Japanese legal expert (in Japanese):

https://www.newsweekjapan.jp/stories/world/2018/12/icj_1.php

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@SJ Today  05:35 pm JST

@Kazuaki Shimazaki Today 12:39 pm JST

It is not so simple. Please read an opinion of another Japanese legal expert (in Japanese):

https://www.newsweekjapan.jp/stories/world/2018/12/icj_1.php

Funny you say it's not so simple despite you are insulting Japanese posters' opinions by simply wrapping them up as if they do neither have any basic intelligence nor know what they're talking about. You must be a simple Japan-hater.

First off, Kan Kimura is not a legal expert. He is a political scientist at Kobe Univ.

Secondly, I have been saying the essence of this issue is that your greatest supreme court judged 1910 annexation was illegal in complete unilateral manner.

Lastly, You can keep ignoring my questions as you cannot dispute. As far as I am concerned, it was good that I could confirm that you can read Japanese, so I don't have to translate it to English when you demand external source as always.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@SJ

If all you can do is to just copy Samit Basu or all both of you can do is to just copy what majority opinions at supreme court said, people you are insulting do not need your help. They know what majority opinions and verdicts were and still arguing against the verdict to make discussion here meaningful. Otherwise, you just read news and don't bother

Don't you still get it yet?

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