Abe urges S Korea to remove 'comfort woman' statue

If I were Japan, I'd just ignore it. The more of an issue Japan makes of it, the more of an issue it becomes.

There is not one country anywhere on earth -- not a single one -- that doesn't have shameful marks on its history. Japan, Korea, America, China, Russia, you name it. No country has a perfectly unblemished historical record.

At some point we have to recognize that on a nation-by-nation level, none of us are perfect. All countries have done things to hang their heads in shame over. Best thing to do is to learn from the past, avoid repeating its mistakes, and move forward.

Strangerland

You think that the Japanese government based their admission on an Asahi shimbun article? Yeah, right. You'll have to prove that.

I didn’t say that.

I meant that NYT article on 1/13/1992 you linked was mainly based on Asahi article published 2 days before but NYT (and JapanTimes also) made falsified reporting, and that Asahi ‘s original article itself on 1/11/1992 was one of those which did include falsehood and misunderstandings about comfort women for which, though it was too late, Asahi admitted and took back and made official apologies after more than 20years passed (as you know). Asahi article on 1/11/1992 reported that prof.Yoshimi found out IJA’s document which indicated IJA’s involvement in comfort stations, which was the trigger of those NYT and JapanTimes reporting and of Japan’s acknowledgement

The fact is, the government admitted it happened. I know you don't like that, but I'll take their word over your revisionist word any day, even 25 years later.

The government admitted what? That’s the question. If you rely on the NYT you linked, it contains several falsehood. Not only NYT but also JapanTimes reported in similar manner at that time, which were nothing but intentional impression management

For example, Title is false: [Japan Admits Army Forced Koreans to Work in Brothels]. None admitted forced prostitution by IJA. Japan admitted direct or indirect involvement in setting up comfort stations (and it didnot exactly know what kind of roles IJA played exactly yet for which Japan promised to investigate @1)

@1 Japan later made offcial press conference and clearly mentioned that it could not find any document or proofs that backs up forced recruitment or forced prostitutions by the hands of IJA

Both NYT and JapanTimes reported as such,

Over the weekend Japan's Foreign Minister, Michio Watanabe, said "I cannot help acknowledging" that the Japanese military was involved in forcing the women to have sex with the troops.

whereas he actually said [I cannot help but acknowledge some involvement (in comfort stations). Period.

Japan or no Japanese officials admitted so-called forced prostitution or forced recruitment but just the fact IJA ‘s involvement in setting up/operations of comfort stations, which Involvement, Japan has never been denying since then hasn’t it..

Honestly, I don’t understand what you are trying to prove with this NYT article. It is proving nothing for Seiji Yoshida-kind of horror story which the statues symbolize to be true

And I know I should tell myself again there is nothing much I can do here in JT and give up to change the view of Japan bashers wrt comfort women issues but at least, Revisionists have been doing great jobs without giving up easily like myself. History should always be revised whenever necessary as far as closer to the truths.

@Strangerland

Art22 Clause2 does not limit receiving State responsibilities [to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity] only to on (the ground of )premises. Your on/off argument sounds nothing but quibbling.

The premises does not allow anyone to enter, erect any, leave any without it’s permission. If Clause2 limit the cause of the disturbance and impairment only to the ones on the premises, it contradicts per se as the embassy/consulate are able to get rid of those immediately by themselves without help/obligation of receiving State. Disturbance and Impairment around the premises( like 3meters off the consulate’s wall, or across the road right in front of the main gate of the embassy) does matter simply as you can see closely and you can hear closely.

All other 28 statues elsewhere are irrelevant as Embassy/Consulate do not see them, do not hear the noise of demonstration. Simple as that.

I do not agree with your argument impairment to indignity was done by Japanese and Korean just mentioning it with this reminder AT ALL when the statues come with inscription of falsified statements. The statue is symbol, with or without falsified inscription, of which every parts carry meanings, hair, fist, naked leg, vacant chair aside, etc. Typically her disturbed hair symbolizes the korean girl ( and this story presented by Lee Yong-Soo is VERY controversial and she took the story back later) was snatched up from home by Japanese soldiers who broke into her house at night. Since when Japan officially accepted such Korean narratives? Never. As long as the statue symbolizes those falsified messages, even partially, that is impairment to Japan’s dignity.

Like I said, it’s ambassador, consuls, the staffs who would feel disturbed or irritated, not you, not Koreans.

The Facts 1) S.Korea had law to prohibit any demonstration within 100m radius of the embassy 2)the government took down girls statue protesting US twice in 2002 3)Foreign minister Yun clearly expressed his concerns with regard to Vienna Convention donot support your simple argument.

I agree only with that Japan should’ve taken the issue to ICJ long before.

@randomnator

Thanks for the link but I must say I expected some links to the testimonies which were not disseminated in Japan due to political pressure. I know some NHK documentary program about comfort women was not broadcasted some years ago as I had my friends working at NHK. I am sorry to say your link do not take me to any testimonies (and the links included inthere, most of them out of work, expired). Do you have any idea which part exactly are the testimonies?

As for your and others’ other comment re Black Van right wings in front of Russia or other embassies. If the ambassadors and others keep being annoyed, yes, it is the problem and J-Gov/J-Police need to take immediate action and I believe they always do. Have you encountered any political right-wing demonstrations which went on for such long time in front of any embassy and the ambassador/staffs made offcial claims against it?

Loud speaker right wings in front of Korean embassy does matter but those Zaitoku-Kai sort of actions done elsewhere against Koreans in general present in Japan are irrelevant to this conversation about Vienna convention, and about the proper way to treat the premises of the mission.

Visiting Yasukuni is also irrelevant in terms of the J-K agreement 2015 as it does not refer at all to Yasukuni. It is also irrelevant in terms of Vienna convention unless Yasukuni built in front of such embassy and people carrying out their mission in there feel disturbed.

@Strangerland

Except that it does not say 'around the embassy'. So the premise upon which you base this statement is incorrect.

Yes It doesn't say around. but the essence of the second half of sec2 art22 is to set such environment for the premises. You may say ..except that it does not say environment so I repeat it is the essence.

Using your logic, I can also say, except that art22 sec2 second half does not say it is specifically about on the premises**.

Furthermore, using your logic, if protesters build barricade or any other obstacles right in front of, just a meter off the main gate, host country doesn’t have to do anything and the embassy cannot do anything. Is it realistic?

In addition to the 3 facts I posted previously like 1)100m law, 2)girls statue in front of US embassy 2002 3)Korean Foreign minister’s statement wrt the convention, I also want to ask If it is not violation, how the hell Korea didn’t say so in the first place when reaching mutual agreement in Dec2015 or they can even declare the two statues are not against the convention right now rather than including meaningless reference to Japan’s concern into the agreement2015? Isn’t it proving many people have different way to look at the convention from yours?

If the convention were referring to the area around the embassy, it would be clear not only that it referred to the area around the embassy, but also to what degree, whether it's a distance, such as 5 meters, or something visual or what not. That's the thing about laws and conventions, everything is and needs to be explicitly stated so that there is no vagueness. As nothing is stated about the area around the embassy, it is not covered.

Like I said, if all the treaties, conventions are clear enough, you don't need world court to fight over how to read it.

It doesn't. I can equally claim that to be the revisionist narrative, as you can to claim that the story is a Korean narrative.

It does. And please go ahead and prove it. I already gave one reference, it’s your turn despite I cannot promise timely return.

@Strangerland

Yes, you keep repeating yourself, and I've already addressed the points you've brought up, and pointed out how they are incorrect.

I don’t mind repeating and it’s you who are incorrect. Vienna did not need to write down the second half of art22 section2 if someone simply tries to enter and the erect the cause of disturbance and impairment without permission because those can be defined as intrusion, violation.

I didn’t expect to take the case this far but how the current convention can treat airborne object like drone demonstrating something loudly or keep taking photos for unknown purposes over the premises. How far above is or is not the drone floating around over the premises allowed as out of the WRITTEN sope of the treaty?

Does convention specify air rights? Does the term premises include air rights? Sounds stupid maybe?, I don’t disagree. See? If you try to dig up to find complete answers only from what are written, you don’t wait for long till you hit the wall and run into the world court for answers. The Law written down is not for what it is written or how it is written but for what it is written for. The Essence In the case we are talking about is the environment which, of course, includes some undefinable sphere around the embassy.

If you have something new like the article or professional legal opinion about sec2 art22 in line with your argument, I appreciate and will be happy to address it. Or at least, you are supposed to cook the 4 facts I have kept mentioning to align them reasonably in line with your flavor of the argument. And I hope there would not be any more [I don’t know, as I wasn’t there]

Sure, the Japanese government themselves have admitted that it happened:

Surprise I must say

As it has been always, NYT spread the copy of Asahi with unreasonable spice attached. Honestly, (don’t take it offensive), It is amazing that you linked very this one to prove you can equally claim. The link you provided, the one NYT copy/paste with unsaid exaggeration, on 1992 Jan 12th, entirely based on the sensational (which Asahi panicked with joy) scoop published a day before on 11 th, which was actually a sensational debut of prof. Yoshimi Yoshiaki** btw, and those days people believed the story of Seiji Yoshida, especially Asahi.

Since then, what have happened, if you know, or should I say you must know?

Both Asahi (more specifically Uemura, the reporter of Asahi) and Korea messed up between comfort women and Teishin-tai(women’s volunteer corps = the oprigin of the name of ChongDaeHyup)

Some Halmeonis diverted their original testimonies 180 degree to something like I was snatched up from home by Jap soldiers (but later completely took those back)

South Korea attacked back Japan for spreading out falsified story and setting fire on the issue.

Seiji Yoshida admit all those as fabricated in his own brain and disappeared to somewhere

Coomaraswamy who quoted Yoshida Seiji as a critical reference in her reports started evading contacts from Japanese Media

Asahi finally admitted and took their falsified news columns back as falsified and apologized.

I stress, Japanese government did not admit IJA forced Koreans into sex slavery as reported by NYT on Jan12 1992. That’s falsified spice to make the copy from Asahi look sensational. Japanese government got just panicked by the Asahi’s scoop a day before Miyazawa was to take off to make his first visit to SK as new PM of Japan. What J-Gov officially admitted was the fact Imperial Japan was involved into the comfort women stations( system).

Then Why Miyazawa apologized 8 times in Seoul? You tell me. IJA involved, popping out a few days ago, How anyone can prepare themselves in dialogue directly about the issue. But I stress again, He did not mention IJA forced girls into prostitution, all he and J-Govt said was IJA was involved into the system.

Now I am little surprised, your proof to claim equally turned out to be the one like this.

Are you kidding me or not? If so, please stop.

Make a deal. Ask Abe to remove Yasukuni shrine in return

Like the Russians, South Koreans also don't seem to stick to a deal that was signed and sealed. Always whining about the comfort women, as if the resolution of that problem will bring national grace and pride. Get moving with life already. Like many victim groups in the US, the Koreans are playing the victim card to get more money, more apology to make themselves feel 'comfortable." The young generation any place is all feeling and no logic. God save us.

Japan needs to ignore these things.

There are 30 or so of them in SK, Japan is only requesting two of them removed that are in front of Japan's Embassy and Consulate. No country would ignore these things.

@randomnator

maybe they know that crying like babies isn't a winning tactic. Mr Abe and Nippon Kaigi should take a lesson from others.

I take this as you have never encountered such demonstratioins in front of foreign embassy which J-Police does nothing about. Who's been crying like babies? I see korean lunatics sometimes do in their demo but never seen any Japanese crying.

The testimony is on the record and held by NHK among others. Ask your friends at NHK to transcribe the testimony and put it on the internet please.

I take this as confirmation that those are not testimonies you linked but the news again everybody knew. I don't believe there are no such definitive testimonies only NHK in the world holds. The civic group like WAM would do anything to expose them to the world long beofre if any. And I also confirmed that you have never read those yourself.

It's not irrelevant at all, if it was you wouldn't have Mr Abe's lackeys making a big show of going there, nor would you have the US government telling Mr Abe not to attend, which he hasn't.

How Yasukuni is related to the statues in front of Embassy/Consulate violating Vienna convention and the agreement 2015? Either one or both of them refers to Yasukuni in any part of the convention/agreement? or People visit there to pray for Korea to remove the statues?

Mr Abe only shows a spine when standing up to former Asian enemies but not the biggest historic enemy of all or the Russians. Is that selective bias? Not sure why he can pray for Japanese victims at Pearl Harbor but not in NanJing or Seoul. Again selective bias maybe.

Isn't it because of the big difference in military power in case of Russia? simple as that. plus much better relation with each other in case of USA. Ask the same question to China and S.Korea why just Japan?

Japanese war crime revisionists are like climate change deniers, plucking the thinnest thread that supports their position despite the overwhelming weight of evidence. Arguing with them is just as fruitless I sense.

I am one of them. We arugue regardless of the weight of evidence and we don't think the weight is overwhelming. If it is just as fruitess, just don't argue with us.

@Yubaru

As noted, it isn't just about Korea, but they are the one's doing something about it.

Right! Isn't it the reason annoying Japanese some rightwings why Korea always and the most.

IF the shoe was on the other foot I am pretty sure, wait Japan already does it, plays the "woe be us" "we were the victim" .

IF.....Woulda' coulda' shoulda' . Don't be so sure in IF story, that's your suggestion I took.

Woulda' coulda' shoulda'.........whitewashing the past does no good for anyone, victim and aggressor alike.

I don't understand why people like you always use the term :whitewashing. It's denying part of and revising part of, without those, entire world which knows better Woulda' believing still the rediculous narrative of Seiji Yoshida, a.k.a IJA hunting young girls in entire peninsula.

@StrangerlandJAN. 10, 2017 - 05:22PM JST

And the presence of a statue regarding Japanese atrocities outside the Japanese embassy does not cause that indignity. The indignity comes from the actions performed, not a reminder of them.

This idea can be tested by substituting "indignity" with its definition "infringement of its innate right to be respected ...". Infringements of one's rights cannot come from one's own actions, but from external actions.

If someone vandalizes the Japanese embassy, those are not the actions of the Japanese, so my definition is not applicable to such a situation.

The placement of the statue is also a Korean action.

I disagree. There are ways to describe a distance other than a fixed number of meters, with the one I gave being 'line of sight'. The fact that no such definitions exist, means that anything outside the premises are not in violation of the articles of the convention that have been supplied in this thread.

Suppose the treaty does have this provision. According what you said, you would have to concede the statue, which is in line of sight, is a problem. Now, suppose they move the statue behind a corner, making it out of sight, but equip it with a loudspeaker that can be heard at the embassy and beyond. Does this solve the problem in a substantive way?

In another direction, depending on the surroundings of the embassy, it can lead to a disproportionate restriction. For example, suppose the embassy is on a T-intersection and a statue is placed 10 blocks away, but where it can still be seen from the embassy.

Unless that statue is ridiculously large, its obscuration of the visual field to the embassy would be small and it would probably not have qualified as a significant "infringement to the dignity of the premises". However, once you set objective standards, they dominate the interpretation, so though the statue is perhaps 500m away it is now a valid subject for complaint.

The main point of measure is whether it infringes the dignity. Not its distance. Not even whether it is in line of sight. That's why only one standard is set in hopes people will get it right.

Stranger,

Like I've said before, I provided interpretation of the Vienna convention as you did, but then provided the relevant portion of the agreement written in text, then summarized the underlying cause of such an agreement to take into effect. The onus of providing a credible argument as to why Korea is not violating the convention is on you. So far, the only argument you made is that it is not in violation due to the lack of content written in the agreement or written in the convention. But the court will not just weigh in on just what is expressly written in the agreement unless it completely addresses such issue. Here, we have different interpretations and thus the court will look at the entirety of the agreement. Something you failed to provide in support of your argument. Furthermore, courts will almost never side with just strict interpretation of the law when two parties with similar capacity to negotiate have differences in the contents of what the agreement consists of. Kazuaki discussed very good points regarding contract interpretation which is to an extension, how a treaty will be treated in accordance with how the law will apply. Much more so than your odd interpretation of "convicting" a violation of the convention since it's not a criminal case. Differences in interpretation is for the court to determine which you are correct.

No, it clearly stated they would strive to get the civic groups to remove the statue. There was no commitment to actually remove the statue.

Now you're saying the agreement clearly stated that it would "strive" to REMOVE the statue when before you said it was not part of the agreement. Basically, the Korean government has every power to remove it if it chooses to "strive" since such statue is on public land. Thus, the importance of the removal included in the agreement. The agreement has been reached, money has been transferred and now must agree to its term under good faith which it clearly hasn't been doing.

The biggest indicator of it not being a violation of the Vienna convention is the fact that the Japanese have not filed a complaint under that convention.

Why go from 0 to 100 right away? Going to court should be the last resort especially if there are options such as repeated requests to remove the statue. Next would be what Japan did here, to recall its ambassador. Seems that they are taking steps rather rationally.

STland

Fine. Let me quickly sort out this part of our conversation. I argued the statue impairs the dignity because it symbolizes the story which I called false. You argued the statue doesn’t impair the dignity because the story is not false. I called it false because her disturbed hair, for example, implied the story that IJA soldiers broke into her house and snached her up from home (according to Mr & Mrs Kim, the creaters). Or that IJA forcibly abducted 200,000 girls (mostly Korean)(according to epigraphs of some statues.. To counter such story, I left one document which is about Korean PoW mentioning "All Korean prostitutes that PoW have seen in the Pacific were volunteers or had been sold by their parents into prostitution. This is proper in the Korean way of thinking….

You argued you can equally claim the story to be true and provided the link to NYT article. I pointed out NYT you provided falsified part of, or not accurately reporting what Japanese politicians remarked. I also mentioned Asahi article published a few day before(which NYT based the article on) also contained errors which Asahi took back and apologized. By saying those, I meant your proof was not dependable anyway in the first place over-all even before I need to gointo the details of the article. and I explained how Politicians remarks were exaggerated. I also pointed out the fact Japanese officials were not accepting in their remarks falsely reported by NYT, the claim symbolized by the statue that IJA snatched up , abducted girls in the peninsula. So I said it cannot be your proof to hold your argument that the story to be true.

Back to your last post.

So are you trying to claim that the article made up the apology by the government?

No, the article made up as if those politicians admitted there were forced recruitment, abduction of girls by the hand of IJA in Korean Peninsula, by which I think you intended to prove for the horror story to be true.

Because the apology was the part of the article relevant to our conversation. The rest of it isn't, and therefore if your comments are not in relation to that apology, they aren't relevant to our conversation.

No you did not clarify the apology is the one and everything for the story to be true. You just said you can claim the story to be true.

So if are you trying to say, because those politicians apologized, the story cannot be false, I say wrong. Making apology does not mean accepting the all claims or stories made by your opponent. I don’t have to prove this.

From the article: Today Japan's chief Government spokesman, Koichi Kato, offered a more specific apology, saying, "We would like to express our heartfelt apology and soul-searching to those women who had a bitter hardship beyond description." His specific comment: 従軍慰安婦の募集や慰安所の経営等に旧日本軍が何らかの形で関与していたことは否定できないと思う。この機会に改めて、従軍慰安婦として筆舌に尽くし難い辛苦をなめられた方々に対し、衷心よりお託びと反省の気持ちを申し上げたい

Yes. Nothing wrong with this part. Admitting some involvement and making apology this way do not mean accepting the horror story.

Yep. It's pretty hard to revise the truth.

Yes it is if it is truth and it always is good to revise untruth. Though your noisy friend seems making unsubstantial noise ,it is not always impossible to revise untruth.

Speaking of noise, What was your arugument about Vienna convention art22 sec2 in case noise or noisy sound like loud speaker disturbing the embassy but the sound source is off the wall. Is the convention covering how to treat disturbing noise from outside but from very close to the main gate? Since this is not hypothetical at all but rather actual, I bet even Vienna in 1961 tried to cover this kind of case. No?

Stland

Not exactly. I claimed that I can claim the accepted version of history to be the case, and when asked for evidence, I showed how the Japanese government had admitted [it] had happened.

OK. Accepted version must be true although I strongly believe any nation has right to revise later if it could realize it misunderstood or made errors in accepting the claims from the others. The problem is that the story symbolized or inscribed by the statue was not included in their accepted version or in [it] which had happened.

Your attachment of Kato’s statement nowhere refered to and accepted the horror story or does it look accepting it to your eyes?

If not, my argument still holds that the statue symbolizing non-accepted story impairs the dignity (Let’s put IF on the premises for now)

Let's keep it to the statue. That's real. We can discuss hypotheticals until the cows come home, but I prefer to discuss the situation we are actually dealing with. That said, I think we've already said everything on the matter. I showed how the statue does not violate the convention. You disagree. If you have something new on the matter, I'm happy to discuss it.

Well that one was new for me although Kazuaki briefly refered to it. Like rightwingers’ loud speaker van, or the noisy disturbance removing or keeping the statue for Bussan consulate, the case is actual, not hypothetical. If the noise is clearly disturbing, 2nd half of sec 2 art22, covers this case and host country is obliged to stop it? If you are fed up with this continuing, you don’t have to answer.

you can't demand a government close down a civic group over this, or else Japan better start locking down on the black trucks screaming outside embassies and foreign schools, or when foreign dignitaries visit.

Since when did he ask to shut down the Civic group? Haven't read that anywhere.

@Smith

I've read and understand the issue but I want to know when did Abe demand to SHUT DOWN the Civic group. That is totally different than requesting the government to bring down the statue in violation of the law. That has also been brought up as well.

The government never said they would take the statue down, and only that they would talk to the people. The did, and the people refused. Case closed; no reneging. But here's Abe saying the government is not living up to its bargain, which is BS.

I remember that argument and I stand by that agreement up until I found out about the Vienna convention. I read the article and it seems that the Koreans have violated it. Prior to the agreement, I think Japan cannot prevent Koreans from erecting statues since it is within their country and they have every right. Now, with the agreement, the Civic group can still erect them but not on public property. If it was in a garden held by a private museum, then Japan cannot urge the Korean government to stop since the Korean government cannot do so under eminent domain. It is completely opposite of what you're saying.

@randomnator

Your link to old japantimes news doesnot support your assert. That one was old news everynody knows and those amerian historians all depend on Yoshimi Yoshiaki and (Toshi)Yuki Tanaka and so on anyway. Care to provide any links to those not disseminated in Japan due to poritical pressure? I am greatly interested in those. please. and Thanks in advance.

@Strangerlad

If you meant some article written by someone about how you read the convention, that's his/her view. Convention should be read as it is written

http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

Article 22

1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

@strangerland

It's good that you're trying to objectively analyze this issue despite us not agreeing eye to eye (I respect that). Now, as article 2 2 section 2 states:

2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

The key interpretation here is the second half which Korea needs to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. The first half will indicate within the premise but the second half is not exclusively within the premise. The implications of the contents regarding the second half of this section therefore grants the embassy to continue its existence and purpose under the protection of the host country. In this instance, I believe the Japanese embassy has requested the statue to be removed due to violation of this article (I'm not 100%sure what they're basing it on though). However, if that is the case, Korea must oblige or provide a reason that it will not. The Korean government's response to Japan is definitely not a valid argument (we can't do anything because the civic group said no. Since the statue is on public land, they have every power to confiscate the statue just as they initially did with the statue from Pusan. Secondly, the statue up in Pusan now a direct violation of the agreement made last year. However you look at this, Korea cannot have the statue directly across from the embassy. Sorry for the late response by the way.

Mr Abe only shows a spine when standing up to former Asian enemies but not the biggest historic enemy of all or the Russians. Is that selective bias? Not sure why he can pray for Japanese victims at Pearl Harbor but not in NanJing or Seoul. Again selective bias maybe.

Or perhaps US and Russia aren't constantly hostile towards him, so he has no need to "show a spine"?

@Strangerland JAN. 09, 2017 - 08:37PM JST

Koreans are not the ones who have harmed the dignity of Japan, the actions of Japan are what harm Japan's dignity.

Dignity expresses the idea that a being (in this case, a premises) has an innate right to be valued, respected, and to receive ethical treatment. You'll notice the right is innate, so the actions of the dignity's bearer is not at stake.

As a practical matter, your definition will also turn that limitation into nothing, even in your proposed case of vandalism, since the "actions of Japan are what harm Japan's dignity". Thus, it would seem your interpretation cannot hold water on either literal or telological grounds.

BTW (glancing through some of your other replies), the lack of a prescribed distance is not cause to say the distance is zero. It means the distance is unspecified because it depends. "Premises of the mission" are in all sizes and in various forms, as are the potential infringements. As a simple example, if the Japanese consulate is in an office building (as it is where I'm living), I can place the same statue on the floor below (distance 1-2m) or in the lift lobby on the same floor (distance 3-5m). Though in the latter case, the statue is geometrically further away, in terms of its degree of infringement it is clearly greater.

@GW JAN. 09, 2017 - 09:07PM JST

IF your logic was true then ALL the BLACK VANs etc would have to impounded decades ago. You know the ones that regularly hang out near the Chinese, Russian, Korean etc Embassies..... Having a statute across from a building or having right wingers making a racket, clogging streets & being an embarrassment to their OWN country?

As far as I know, for one reason or another, the Chinese, Russian and Korean embassies haven't filed official complaints or demands against the black vans. But let's say they did.

From an international law perspective, Japan's inaction (and also, SK's inaction prior to their agreement) can be defended under Conflicting Duties - Japan has a duty to maintain the dignity of embassies on its land, but it is also under a duty to protect "human rights" like the freedom of expression as enshrined in other treaties (legal instruments of the same rank). Where two duties conflict, a margin of discretion forms in how to balance these two duties, and a state can use this to its favor.

Overall, if played to the last step this is still a losing game because the demands of VCDR 22 are much more localized than the statewide mandates of the human rights treaties, and IMO South Korea eventually realized that. But this conflict at least suffices to make inaction not manifestly wrong and thus superficially sustainable ... until an international agreement is reached, even if it is soft-soaped to "We'll take appropriate action". For one thing, that means your acquiesance to the other party's interpretation of the facts and applicable law. For another thing, if you've received something in return, now you have an obligation independent of the treaty (contract theory).

Finally, there is another distinction to South Korea's actions. I've said it elsewhere but it is common practice (despite the "good faith" demands of VCLT 26) to drag out the execution of one's side of the bargain as long as possible. Abe's relatively rapid payment of the $1 billion is in this sense in exceptionally good faith and sincerity, and if South Korea drags out the removal of the statue to eternity, it'll be disappointing but still pretty typical of State practice.

HOWEVER, a line is still being crossed when approval is actually given. To use your black van example, this is the equivalent of the Japanese (or a city government) giving a special permit to the Zaitokukai to make a permanent encampment outside the South Korean embassy. Can you identify the difference in the degree of wrongness?

If the convention were referring to the area around the embassy, it would be clear not only that it referred to the area around the embassy, but also to what degree, whether it's a distance, such as 5 meters, or something visual or what not. That's the thing about laws and conventions, everything is and needs to be explicitly stated so that there is no vagueness. As nothing is stated about the area around the embassy, it is not covered.

Not quite. The law needs to be written with just enough specificity to enforce what it was intended but also vague enough to encompass various scenarios so that violators can skirt the law by claiming what you are saying, that it wasn't expressly stated in the statute. Usually, the court will look at the language of the law and decide what that interpretation is by looking at various factors such as precedents, legislative history and even going so far as to determine what the spirit of the law was intended to establish. Thus, initially, we were focusing on the interpretation of the articles and how that was applied to the agreement. However, once there was clear and expressly worded text in reference to the statue, it is more than likely to be interpreted as part of the agreement was the statue to be removed. Going by your argument, the civic group can place dolls instead and then claim that it wasn't breaking any laws because it didn't specify to the nitty gritty details you expect which would not stand a chance in hell. Therefore, there is a need to have some vagueness in the written law as well.

Acknowledging they are aware of Japan's position does not change the Vienna convention, and violations of that convention must violate the convention, to be a violation.

STland

Japan claims the statue violates vienna convention and to be removed. Skipping all other points I and others mentioned, it is well known that there was noisy fuss around the statue in Bussan for removing or protecting. Every Wednesday, there have been demonstrations in front of the Embassy in Seoul which could be noisy and disturbing the emabssy. [That] has great deal to do with the statue issue violating the convention or not.

Aly

First of all, Japanese revisionists are not trying to revise history. They are whitewashing it and trying to rewrite it altogether.

Although I disagree with your comment, whitewashing once and rewriting could be equal to revising somthing.

We saw the EXACT SAME thing during the Fukushima crisis. The j-media and gov lied to the people about the radiation and ANYONE who said anything else was considered a Japan-basher. Sorry, but when people stand up and say the truth, they are not japan bashers. The people who really don't care about japan are those who hide the truth or try to change it for their selfish political reasons.

First of all. Fukushima has nothing to do with the statue. Read the title of the article.

Secondly. If you happen to expect proper response, stop inserting BS into your comment.

Thirdly. having said that off topic. I know it was quite shocking Freanch embassy leaked some shocking news and made their staffs evade quickly. Although then-PM was ironically not Abe you hate so much, and I cannot be sure Kan and his fellows intentionally lied or didn't grasp situations, or try not to make Panics happen or anybodyelse hid the truth or anything...the fact those foreigners who stood up for saying the truth, I personally appreciate very much and this is not sarcastic but from my heart.

To STland

My next post will be much later as I need to take off soon.

@ Mr. Aly Rustom

No. Revision is making a change to an existing document. whitewashing once and rewriting is a complete alteration..

Final document rewritten on white paper after whitewashing (coating or erasing or whatever) could be the same as the result of revising parts of an existing document.

Actually it does. ALOT. It shows that you cannot whitewash facts the way Japan always tries to do. Just like we cannot ignore the radiation coming out of the reactor you cannot ignore history or bad things happen.

Fine. I got it. I actually do not mind going way off the topic unless mods heartlessly delete our conversation for us only to find out having wasted big time. Mods or JT can control the topics to discuss but we cannot. I am sometimes frustrated as JT does not pick up the news I want to discuss about.

I wish Japan would not be like the way you think from your 15~16 years of experience in Japan, but I am not so confident at this point.

Pot calling kettle. YOU are the one trying to whitewash history, not me.

All I suggested was you do not use the impolite term like BS. Pot calling kettle. Agreed...

I sometimes use impolite terms and I think I will again too. You’re right..

I don’t think I am whitewashing if the term whitewashing means coating or hiding all the bad, shameful history. I think I am just keep posting to feel just lucky if any of my posts could provide small chance for readers to slightly change the view from negatives into positive direction.

First of all, I know who was in power at the time, and I am willing to bet my life that had Abe been PM at the time, we would have lost Tokyo. I am grateful for how PM Kan handled the disaster but am very critical about how his administration handled the info.

Do not bet your life like that in comment section of the media like JT, may I suggest? And I cannot make any comment on such hypothetical comparison.

All I can say is... that I like Abe much better than Kan and you are the other way around I noted.

I brought up Fukushima because I think that it sheds light on a very important aspect of Japanese culture...DENIAL. This is what I'm getting at. The fact that Japan thinks it can hide something that is known and out in the open is the problem. You can't ignore things and just expect them to go away. But that is a part of Japanese culture. This is why we have the statue problem, now and the same aspect of Japanese culture-DENIAL- is responsible for the mess that is Fukushima. The minute Japan learns to stop whitewashing facts and starts learning to deal with them head on is the day Japan can solve its problems with its neighbors as well as the disaster that is fukushima.

Denial, Denialism, Apologist, Revisionist, Revisionism, whatever….words often-quoted in evaluating Japan’s history recognition. I am not really sure those are right description appropriately fitting with Japan and Japanese. People use too easily, too lightly such terms and the term Truth

Anyway, I remember you said somewhere in the past you wouldn’t care about Japan even a bit unless you live in this country. I hope you would care about Japan even if you are gone to somewhere else Of course, if you like Japan and decide to spend the rest of your life, and hence, trying to make this country and your country better, I appreciate that. To be honest, I would like the person like you to be Japanese citizen rater than some ridicuouls…(I’ll stop here in order not to be a racist)

I also noted you use your real name (I suppose) which I admire and think you are serious always when posting something whereas I just use handle name. There is a difference in it.

I'll be checking regularly for your post.

There’s not much worthwhile in what I say. Take things easy. I wouldn’t be able to promise to use no BS words in future. I would rather come back with full of dirty words withour caring a bit about being deleted. So Pot calling Kettle. You’re very right.

Good Night.

@Strangerland

Ok, what does that have to do with this article?

I think I can foresee what you would say next, if I answer in the way I was about to, so it’s waste of a few posts for both of us. Let’s stop here..

Is the statue the one making the noise?

The same thing.

And have a good night.

The truth is out.

So Seoul allowed the activists to put the statue back up but plead ignorance when Tokyo decided to recall the diplomats claiming there was nothing they could do to stop said activists.

Refund and no more accords!Japan already paid 50 years ago. Let's all move on.

Japan needs to start building statues commemorating all of the sex slaves and rapes by the ROK troops during the Vietnam war. Google it before you vote me down, smith.

Thy are just the most vocal even about falsified part of the issue which you seem to claim Japan must suck up because it got let off the hook for too many things.

And MacArthur did regret already before he went to the grave

@Strangerland

Not necessarily. If someone spray paints graffiti on the wall of the embassy, they have defaced it, without entering the premises. They could also throw garbage and things over the walls. These require the protection of the country in which the embassy is in (which is why you see local guards protecting embassies in a lot of countries).

Both examples are the conduct from outside the premises that diplomats inside the premises may not notice, which local guards should hinder. I simply meant the cause on the premises does not require the Embassy to ask for host country’s permission/obligation to remove because the premises is their jurisdiction and they have any rights to remove those, in other words, it does not have to be restated as such in section 2. Section 1 states inviolable. First half of section2 states against any intrusion and damage. Anybody trying to throw over the wall, or to bring in and erect the cause from outside can be rejected and stopped as violation, intrusion, damage already even before calling it disturbance or impairment. How must the art22 be such redundant unless it wants to cover the cause of disturbance and impairment around the premises.

Well, that's your opinion, but it's not the accepted opinion of the world, so your opinion is irrelevant in this matter.

When and how the world accepted Korean narrative symbolized by the statues? Actually the academia (even in Korea) who still believe the narratives Seiji Yoshida kinda story happened in the peninsula got real minor. Even some halmeonis revised their testimonies (again and as expected) off that story. The number of halmeoni victims who still claim being kidnapped, abducted by Japanese soldiers came down to just a few if not none.

If Japan did nothing wrong, why would they be disturbed or irritated?

Is one usually disturbed or irritated if being protested against what he/she’s got nothing to do with?

Nope. The fact that Korea has acknowledged the issue regarding the statue and its relation with the articles of the Vienna convention, especially admitting that they are aware of Japan's perceived position regarding the statue's presence under Article 22 Section 2, it is reneging on the underlying principles of the agreement between the two countries. Remember, this was supposed to be the final and irreversible solution to the comfort women issue. Hence, all the other comfort women statues that are already built and may be all around Korea may not be subjected specifically to this agreement per second but since the statue in front of the embassy was specifically mentioned in this agreement, Korea has not upheld its end of the bargain. I guarantee you that if the Pusan was built before the agreement was written, it will also include the statue specifically as well.

But the agreement is specific about the premises of the embassy, and therefore a statue outside of it is not part of that agreement.

No, why would they have it in writing about a non-existing statue within the premise? If it was within the premise, section 2 would not even apply since section 1 will be more than enough. Yet, the actual agreement won't even touch on such hypothetical scenario for obvious reasons; hence, your quote above is incorrect.

@Strangerland

but cannot deal with people doing things like hurling molotov cocktails from outside the embassy - that's the responsibility of the host country.

Molotov cocktails, bombs, turd, whatever thrown over from outside, those are attacks, intrusion, damage, rather than disturbance and impairment not to mention disturbing. Of course host country must deal with those. So what?

I don’t think your responding along the line of conversation. I mentioned that bring in and erect the cause of disturbance and impairment to its dignity from outside into the premises can be rejected and removed by the embassy (with or without help from host country) as the premises is their jurisdiction without permission /obligation of host country, in other words, without art22 second half of section2. Restating as such in next half of section2 is to set non-disturbing ,peaceful environment around the Embassy.

For your theory to be correct, there would need to be some statement about the distance from the embassy for which the provisions would be applicable

Many treaties are imperfect, which is the reason why ICJ exists. You are not answering to the question why S.K had law to prohibit demonstration within 100m radius (and Chong Dae hyup made silly excuse that it is not demo but is press conference!!)

Otherwise, a statue anywhere in Korean could be considered a violation of the agreement.

No. I already replied. They are not annoyed, disturbed, impaired unless they must see it or must hear it everyday. Even if they are, they don’t have any right to take down the statues somewhere far away.

It's not a Korean narrative. It's one that's been repeated by women from multiple countries.

It doesn’t change a thing. As far as the statue symbolizes some falsified story, it still impairs the dignity of Japan and women in other countries do not know what Korean women went through and hence cannot testify for them. And the issue of comfort women which Japan and Korea agreed to solve in 2015 finally and irrevocably is different from other Sexual crimes done by individual soldiers on/near battle fields against women of enemy countries.

Again World know better than Seiji Yoshida kinda story and these statues symbolizes the kinda story happened in the penninsula. I leave just a small reading for you. And my next post if needed will be delayed as I need to take off.

U.S. military documents featuring Korean POW testimony discovered at U.S. National Archives

"All Korean prostitutes that PoW have seen in the Pacific were volunteers or had been sold by their parents into prostitution. This is proper in the Korean way of thinking but direct conscription of women by the Japanese would be an outrage that the old and young alike would not tolerate. Men would rise up in rage, killing Japanese no matter what consequence they might suffer."

http://cdn.mainichi.jp/vol1/2016/06/10/20160610p2a00m0na015000q/0.pdf

Should just build Hirobumi Itoh statue right in front of Korean embassy with some remarks like "The first Japanese Resident General of Korea who strongly supported the sovereignty of the indigenous Korean monarchy yet ironically assassinated by Korean terrorist which accelerated JP-Korea Annexation". At least there are no lies here unlike some Korean statues.

smithinjapan

What the hell are you really talking about?

What is exactly what is said?? Abe nor nobody never asked, requested, to shut down or disband civic groups. How does removing the statue violating international convention become illegal. Define. The government talked to people? which one local municipality or Seoul Central government. Don't lie. Seoul delcared it left judgement to Local municipality. That's it. Did it strive to solve or not. 5.It was not the civic group which took it down once but local municipality did as so much of crazy complaints calls and mails blew up their normal operations and internet server down and it got afraid of rallies or even violence as in the a million candle protests against president Park. the government, if it is serious, can FORCE. It doesn't have to use violence from the beginings but can explain why those needs to be taken down. Did it do that or not? If it did, show me the evidence. Are you ignorant not talking about what and how government took actions in the highschool girls tragedy 2002 or in the demonstration by the family left of the victims from Sewol sunk?

@smith,

Huh? Clearly clueless as usual. The two statues in question is in direct violation of the Vienna convention regardless of Korea's failure to uphold an international agreement. You seem to not understand nor comprehend such simple concept even if it is laid out to you as many on here have provided facts. Second, going by YOUR argument, the Pusan statue was erected recently and NOT before the actual agreement between the two countries signed last year.

f you want to be literal about "shutting down" then, no, he did not attempt to disband or "shut down" (an idiom, you realize, and therefore canNOT be literal)

Lol, so now you're backtracking your post because it was your typical lies. Idiom? Hahahahaha. Sorry, that's not going to fly especially with your track record of posting half truths or flat out lies.

@randomnator.

Thanks. I am bit busy now so I read it later and come back if any.

@Strangerland

it showed that they are not. I pointed that out.

How did it show they are not. Does it have any title for art.22 like The premises???

The following part does not limit the obligation to preventing any disturbance...only within limit of embassy grounds. That's what I call nitpicking.

Answer me why then SK had law to prevent any demonstarion within 100m radius.

and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

@StrangerlandJAN. 09, 2017 - 06:48PM JST

point in the convention refers to the premises.

Yes, the victim is indeed the "premises of the mission". Its attacker can harm its "dignity" (that it has one is accepted by all the signatories) without touching it. Heck, when you are insulted or defamed, the attacker is external and not in contact with your skin, but you are still hurt.

The element is not given as "vandalism", though you want it to be. This is a recognition that it is not good enough that the embassy walls are kept clean.

The element is also not given as "defamation" but the broader "impairment of dignity". This recognizes even a charge subjectively perceived to be (or even objectively) true is not intended to be a nullification of the element. There are several good reasons for this.

First, practicality, since more nations than not have a few skeletons in their closet and would hardly appreciate tit for tat monuments outside their embassy.

Second, embassies (and consulates and other "premises of the mission") are not museums - they are for the present and future, not the past, and to do that they are agreed to need the proper dignity. The bringing up the past not only is anti-dignity, but poses an interference to its optimal function.

Third, exhibits that are technically and locally true can still be disproportionately unfavorable if presented in isolation. If we really must make a piece of art summarizing Japan's time in Korea, it'll be a mosaic of good and bad. Since this is Korean made, I expect to see comfort women in that mosaic, but it WILL have other elements. But does the comfort women statue even try for this? Of course not. It's just one woman and a plaque.

For the above reasons, nations have agreed that it is better to side on being diplomatic with each other's embassies, and the result is Article 22.

The more Japan complains, the more Koreans will consider these statues as a good way to "get back" at Japan. Japan needs to ignore these things. If Koreans want to spend their free time building and guarding statues, that's their problem.

@strangerland,

(2) The Government of the ROK acknowledges the fact that the Government of Japan is concerned about the statue built in front of the Embassy of Japan in Seoul from the viewpoint of preventing any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity, and will strive to solve this issue in an appropriate manner through taking measures such as consulting with related organizations about possible ways of addressing this issue.

This is the agreement made between the two governments. Again, Korea is violating the agreement.

<http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/12/28/full-text-japan-south-korea-statement-on-comfort-women/

Abe urges S Korea to remove 'comfort woman' statue

..or give money back...No such clause in that agreement?

@Strangerland

You do like nitpicking don't you. I read it is ambassador, or consuls, or their staffs whether they feel disturbed, or non-peaceful in carrying out their missions, not you, not civic groups, not Korean government or law makers. Or Japanese embassy or consulate cannot even make a word of complain if the cause of the disturbance taking place a few meters away from the fence/gate of premises? What the law prohobiting demonstration within100m radius distance from the premises existed for in SKorea?

@Yubaru.

It seems very easy for you to say so. If reality and history were not as those Korean narratives have been stressing, the things would've been different and nobody would've talking about this issue by now.

Japanese PM has to learn to ignore Korean Civic activity. That country has full hatreds against J'span ever since Japan made it ass colony

There were two seats, what is the purpose of putting an empty chair next to the sitting statue is for? Waiting for Abe san goto there or future Japanese PM to sit there as a kind of apology expression?

The first Japanese Resident General of Korea who strongly supported the sovereignty of the indigenous Korean monarchy yet ironically assassinated by Korean terrorist which accelerated JP-Korea Annexation

It is only natural to think that Hirobumi Ito was assassinated because he was against JP-Korea Annexation.

All readers back on topic please.

The two statues in question is in direct violation of the Vienna convention regardless of Korea's failure to uphold an international agreement.

Someone posted the article in question from the Vienna convention the other day, but it only referred to embassy grounds, not off-embassy, so what I read doesn't appear to be covered. Do you have a different part of the convention that shows that off-embassy statues would also be covered?

Sex slave, comfort woman, prostitute, camp-follower, whatever, the people who get caught up and focus on the semantics are unwilling and incapable of accepting the reality and history and the IJA's part in it all.

Obfuscate, and deflect, but fortunately the world knows better.

You do like nitpicking don't you.

Who's nitpicking? The claim was that the statues are in direct violation of the Vienna convention. Yet when they posted the Vienna convention, it showed that they are not. I pointed that out.

Japanese embassy or consulate cannot even make a word of complain if the cause of the disturbance taking place a few meters away from the fence/gate of premises?

They can complain all they want - like they are doing. But there is no legal obligation to remove the statues, same as Japan has no legal obligation to stop going to Yasukuni.

the age of an article doesn't make it irrelevant.

I am greatly interested in those. please. and Thanks in advance.

okay the writer isn't Japanese but neither were the victims of forced sexual servitude. http://apjjf.org/-Matthew-Penney/4617/article.html you are welcome.

Diplomatic protection only applies to staffers and the grounds. Using your rational the right wing speaker trucks that protest Koreans present in Japan are violating the Vienna convention but the Japanese government does nothing. How can it protest to have a convention upheld if it doesn't do the same? Taking the moral high ground seems to be foreign to Nippon Kaigi et.al. It reveals the weakness of their position.

Japanese war crime revisionists are like climate change deniers, plucking the thinnest thread that supports their position despite the overwhelming weight of evidence. Arguing with them is just as fruitless I sense.

Abe can't even talk about why the statue exists, only that Japan tried to pay SK off, but demands the statue be removed. Classic. Hope the international media picks up and this and starts asking more what the statues about. I bet a couple more go up this month because of Japan's actions: you can't demand a government close down a civic group over this, or else Japan better start locking down on the black trucks screaming outside embassies and foreign schools, or when foreign dignitaries visit.

“Japan has already paid one billion yen ($8.6 million) as we sincerely fulfilled our obligation. I think it’s now South Korea’s turn to show sincerity in an unwavering manner,” Abe said in a program aired Sunday on public broadcaster NHK

I think that was the most unappropiate statement has spoken but a statesman of western country. Strong resentment will occurs after the people of ROK heard this. When a morale issue has linked to money or a deal has struck, things will began a spiral of nasty tit for tat reactions. But I don't think Abe san will change his stance, you know he must blame the communist party of China or North Korea instigating anti Japanese mania in South Korea instead of re-thinking Japan's poor diplomatic approach!

Comfort women were not sex slaves. If JapanToday call themselves mass medium, use right words or show the evidence.

They were sex slaves! Proven as such by eye witness testimony and by the testimony of former Japanese soldiers. Their testimony has not been disseminated in Japan due to political interference and suppression including by Shinzo Abe http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/02/09/national/u-s-historians-slam-abe-effort-to-change-textbook-dealing-with-comfort-women/. "comfort women" is a Japanese revisionist euphemism derived from prostitute. Denying history such as sex slaves and Nanjing lessens the moral authority of Japan and hardens the hearts of victims. Abe is one of these revisionists along with the rest of his Nippon Kaigi cohorts. They should be held more accountable by a free 4th estate but those freedoms were greatly eroded by the current administration.

@strangerland

Thanks and yes I do believe that Korea is in violation of the article where it states "to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity."

At least you are intelligent enough to pinpoint or address what are the actual issues.

Can you post the whole thing? Hard to say whether that half a sentence is applicable or not.

All three points refer directly to the premises of the embassy. Nothing I've read has said the statues are on the premises. Do you have something that shows that the statues are on the premises? How did the Koreans get them onto the premises of the Japanese embassy?

Yumster100: "I've read and understand the issue but I want to know when did Abe demand to SHUT DOWN the Civic group. That is totally different than requesting the government to bring down the statue in violation of the law."

If it is in regard to the statue in front of the Embassy in Seoul it is not different at all, nor with Busan since it was erected previously. It's the same with the idea that it's some kind "request" when it's a poorly veiled demand (especially when they pulled out the ambassador). So, since said statue in Seoul was erected before the agreement, it is not in violation of it. If they erect new ones on public property, then yes.

If you want to be literal about "shutting down" then, no, he did not attempt to disband or "shut down" (an idiom, you realize, and therefore canNOT be literal) the entire group, but having the government take down a statue against the civic groups wishes is effectively shutting down that activity, same as not allowing black vans in front of anKorean a Embassy during a visit by. Korean diplomat, for example, would be shutting down THAT activity, or the group in that particular event.

But don't take my word for it on the desire by people here for the government to force it, or the idea that if they do not they have reneged, just look at DieRealityCheck:

"The government, if it is serious, can FORCE."

...but I thought Japan had enough and lost patience in Korea, what gives Abe!?!? Remove the war criminals from that shrine you (wife) and your buddies go to, then talk.

How did it show they are not.

Because all three points of the article referred to the premises, and the statues are not on the premises. It's a fairly straightforward concept.

and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

No one is attacking the embassy, so there is peace, and if there is any impairment to the dignity of the embassy, it's through the actions of the Japanese, not the building of a statue. If the building of a statue was an impairment to dignity, then all statues would be an impairment to dignity. But it's not all statues, it's only this statue, meaning it's the content of the statue. And the content is a reminder of Japanese actions in the past. The actions were by the Japanese, and therefore any impairment to dignity is due to Japanese actions.

Now that all said, I don't even believe that dignity in this case is referring to the feelings of any people, but rather it refers to defacement of the embassy itself. If someone paints a slogan on the embassy walls, it's an impairment of the dignity of the embassy.

So no matter which way you cut it, the statue is not in violation of the Vienna convention.

The dignity of the embassy can be affected by something outside it.

But the point in the convention refers to the premises. But if you want to keep on pushing your point, then your analogy only becomes accurate the Japanese first took a crap outside the Korean embassy, so the Koreans put a statue of that turd outside the Japanese embassy.

The only harming of dignity was done by the Japanese. The Koreans are just mentioning it.

The biggest indicator of it not being a violation of the Vienna convention is the fact that the Japanese have not filed a complaint under that convention. They hate this statue, so it's pretty likely they would be taking that action to get rid of it if they thought they had a chance.

It seems very easy for you to say so. If reality and history were not as those Korean narratives have been stressing, the things would've been different and nobody would've talking about this issue by now.

Actually it is easy, and not just for me, but for all those who were victims of the IJA

As noted, it isn't just about Korea, but they are the one's doing something about it. IF the shoe was on the other foot I am pretty sure, wait Japan already does it, plays the "woe be us" "we were the victim" .

Woulda' coulda' shoulda'.........whitewashing the past does no good for anyone, victim and aggressor alike.

As for your and others’ other comment re Black Van right wings in front of Russia or other embassies. If the ambassadors and others keep being annoyed, yes, it is the problem and J-Gov/J-Police need to take immediate action and I believe they always do. Have you encountered any political right-wing demonstrations which went on for such long time in front of any embassy and the ambassador/staffs made offcial claims against it?

maybe they know that crying like babies isn't a winning tactic. Mr Abe and Nippon Kaigi should take a lesson from others.

I expected some links to the testimonies which were not disseminated in Japan due to political pressure.

The testimony is on the record and held by NHK among others. Ask your friends at NHK to transcribe the testimony and put it on the internet please.

Visiting Yasukuni is also irrelevant in terms of the J-K agreement 2015 as it does not refer at all to Yasukuni. It is also irrelevant in terms of Vienna convention unless Yasukuni built in front of such embassy and people carrying out their mission in there feel disturbed.

It's not irrelevant at all, if it was you wouldn't have Mr Abe's lackeys making a big show of going there, nor would you have the US government telling Mr Abe not to attend, which he hasn't. Mr Abe only shows a spine when standing up to former Asian enemies but not the biggest historic enemy of all or the Russians. Is that selective bias? Not sure why he can pray for Japanese victims at Pearl Harbor but not in NanJing or Seoul. Again selective bias maybe.

section 2. Section 1 states inviolable. First half of section2 states against any intrusion and damage.

Exactly. And there has been no intrusion, nor damage.

How must the art22 be such redundant unless it wants to cover the cause of disturbance and impairment around the premises.

Because the embassy staff can deal with intruders to the embassy, but cannot deal with people doing things like hurling molotov cocktails from outside the embassy - that's the responsibility of the host country. The statue is neither on the premises, nor is it a violation of the premises of the embassy.

For your theory to be correct, there would need to be some statement about the distance from the embassy for which the provisions would be applicable. Otherwise, a statue anywhere in Korean could be considered a violation of the agreement. But the agreement is specific about the premises of the embassy, and therefore a statue outside of it is not part of that agreement.

When and how the world accepted Korean narrative symbolized by the statues?

It's not a Korean narrative. It's one that's been repeated by women from multiple countries.

The fact that Korea has acknowledged the issue regarding the statue and its relation with the articles of the Vienna convention, especially admitting that they are aware of Japan's perceived position regarding the statue's presence under Article 22 Section 2, it is reneging on the underlying principles of the agreement between the two countries

The agreement between the two countries does not state that the statue would be removed. Acknowledging they are aware of Japan's position does not change the Vienna convention, and violations of that convention must violate the convention, to be a violation.

Restating as such in next half of section2 is to set non-disturbing ,peaceful environment around the Embassy.

Except that it does not say 'around the embassy'. So the premise upon which you base this statement is incorrect.

Otherwise, a statue anywhere in Korean could be considered a violation of the agreement.

No. I already replied.

If the convention were referring to the area around the embassy, it would be clear not only that it referred to the area around the embassy, but also to what degree, whether it's a distance, such as 5 meters, or something visual or what not. That's the thing about laws and conventions, everything is and needs to be explicitly stated so that there is no vagueness. As nothing is stated about the area around the embassy, it is not covered.

As far as the statue symbolizes some falsified story

It doesn't. I can equally claim that to be the revisionist narrative, as you can to claim that the story is a Korean narrative.

“It is a matter of national credibility to implement (the agreement) even if the government changes,” he said.

Wonder if Ab has the nerve to say the same thing to the new incoming administration across the ocean?

It seems very easy for you to say so. If reality and history were not as those Korean narratives have been stressing, the things would've been different and nobody would've talking about this issue by now.

Stuck on the semantics, it wasn't just Korea, they are just the most vocal about the issue that's all. Japan got let off the hook for too many things after the war.

And I'll bet MacArthur is rolling over in his grave regretting the choices he made.

Abe urges... business as usual. Urging isnt particularly effective in my experience. But it's seemingly popularly regarded as an alternative to real action in Japan. I have tried urging too but then the wife says no.

I laughed when I read this headline.

This has got to be Abe's biggest PR bungle ever.

Korea is violating the agreement.

They have only violated the agreement if they have not striven to "to solve this issue in an appropriate manner through taking measures such as consulting with related organizations about possible ways of addressing this issue."

I can't read Korean, so I have no idea if they have done this or not. I'm open to the possibility that they may have done nothing, but I can't find any information on English to suggest whether they have tried to address the issue with these organizations or not.

But it's clear that the agreement was not for the removal of the statue.

But it's clear that the agreement was not for the removal of the statue.

You're right. I've checked all the Japanese and English sites I could find too and I couldn't find ANYTHING on the placement or removal of statues in the agreement.

If the noise is clearly disturbing, 2nd half of sec 2 art22, covers this case and host country is obliged to stop it?

What does that have to do with the statue?

Read the title of the article.

Yes It doesn't say around. but the essence of the second half of sec2 art22 is to set such environment for the premises. You may say ..except that it does not say environment so I repeat it is the essence.

Yes, you keep repeating yourself, and I've already addressed the points you've brought up, and pointed out how they are incorrect.

If you want to bring up something new, I'll be happy to address it.

Furthermore, using your logic, if protesters build barricade or any other obstacles right in front of, just a meter off the main gate, host country doesn’t have to do anything and the embassy cannot do anything. Is it realistic?

To be honest, I don't know. I haven't read the entire convention. I simply asked for the part of the convention that was supposedly being violated, and pointed out how that part of the convention isn't being violated. But my logic, which you are using, is irrelevant. All that is relevant is what it says in the convention.

I also want to ask If it is not violation, how the hell Korea didn’t say so in the first place when reaching mutual agreement in Dec2015

I wasn't there, so I don't know. All I know is that they agreed that it was a sticking point with the Japanese, but they didn't agree to remove it.

Like I said, if all the treaties, conventions are clear enough, you don't need world court to fight over how to read it.

Even when laws are laid out extremely clearly, lawyers will find ways to disagree on the points involved, and/or find loopholes in what is explicitly stated. So your logic does not hold up here.

It does. And please go ahead and prove it. I already gave one reference, it’s your turn despite I cannot promise timely return.

Sure, the Japanese government themselves have admitted that it happened:

Three days before Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa takes his first official trip to South Korea, the Government admitted today that the Japanese Army forced tens of thousands of Korean women to have sex with Japanese soldiers during World War II

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/14/world/japan-admits-army-forced-koreans-to-work-in-brothels.html?scp=1&sq=Jan%2014,%201992%20comfort%20woment&st=cse

So much expression on here. Nice!! Truth of the matter is what we have here is the scenario when an immovable force meets an immovable object.

Japanese government will never, ever admit wrong doing regarding the veneration of war criminals at the shrine. This in turn will continue to dredge up horrible memories as it portrays a government that's completely failed to exercise any kind of empathy for crimes against humanity. Hush money is in a word, a smack across the face. So all told, the statues aren't going anywhere.

“Japan has already paid one billion yen ($8.6 million) as we sincerely fulfilled our obligation. I think it’s now South Korea’s >>turn to show sincerity in an unwavering manner,” Abe said in a program aired Sunday on public broadcaster NHK.

Apparently, that statues seems to be like a war memorial type of thing for all the women who got through this, you do not remove a war memorial because you received money to compensate the victims. Talking how money is "sincerely fulfilled (their) obligations" is almost "obscene" in that context, now if Japan would simply apologize and give money to fund a memorial about "war sex slavery" then it will look more "sincere", current PM's statement looks like an attempt to wash/erase past wrongdoings with cash.

First, practicality, since more nations than not have a few skeletons in their closet and would hardly appreciate tit for tat monuments outside their embassy.

Maybe, but regardless, the Koreans are not the ones who have harmed the dignity of Japan, the actions of Japan are what harm Japan's dignity.

I know you guys really want this to be a contravention of the convention, but you're grasping at best, and not getting anywhere with it.

The statue is not on the premises, and the Koreans have not harmed the dignity of Japan.

the result is Article 22.

Except that, you know, it's not.

The premises does not allow anyone to enter, erect any, leave any without it’s permission. If Clause2 limit the cause of the disturbance and impairment only to the ones on the premises, it contradicts per se as the embassy/consulate are able to get rid of those immediately by themselves without help/obligation of receiving State.

Not necessarily. If someone spray paints graffiti on the wall of the embassy, they have defaced it, without entering the premises. They could also throw garbage and things over the walls. These require the protection of the country in which the embassy is in (which is why you see local guards protecting embassies in a lot of countries).

I do not agree with your argument impairment to indignity was done by Japanese and Korean just mentioning it with this reminder AT ALL when the statues come with inscription of falsified statements.

Well, that's your opinion, but it's not the accepted opinion of the world, so your opinion is irrelevant in this matter.

Like I said, it’s ambassador, consuls, the staffs who would feel disturbed or irritated, not you, not Koreans.

If Japan did nothing wrong, why would they be disturbed or irritated?

the statue up in Pusan now a direct violation of the agreement made last year.

No, the statue was never part of the agreement.

The agreement between the two countries does not state that the statue would be removed. Acknowledging they are aware of Japan's position does not change the Vienna convention, and violations of that convention must violate the convention, to be a violation.

100% correct. And if that is the case, then the best course of action for Japan to take is to file a complaint with the UN, not go at it bilaterally like it is doing now.

It doesn't. I can equally claim that to be the revisionist narrative, as you can to claim that the story is a Korean narrative.

Exactly. Good point.

This idea can be tested by substituting "indignity" with its definition "infringement of its innate right to be respected ...". Infringements of one's rights cannot come from one's own actions, but from external actions.

There is no disrespect. If you punch me in the face, and I point out you punch me in the face, that's not disrespecting you, it's pointing out that you punched me in the face.

The placement of the statue is also a Korean action.

Yes, but not one covered by the Vienna convention.

Suppose the treaty does have this provision.

It doesn't, so the rest of your hypothesis has nothing to do with the current situation.

The main point of measure is whether it infringes the dignity.

And as I've shown, it doesn't.

I didn’t expect to take the case this far but how the current convention can treat airborne object like drone demonstrating something loudly or keep taking photos for unknown purposes over the premises. How far above is or is not the drone floating around over the premises allowed as out of the WRITTEN sope of the treaty?

I don't think it's covered by the treaty, but that's neither here nor there, as it's not the issue we're discussing.

The Law written down is not for what it is written or how it is written but for what it is written for. The Essence In the case we are talking about is the environment which, of course, includes some undefinable sphere around the embassy.

What you're discussing is the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. Some countries weight more one way than the other. But we are not talking about something that happened in some countries, we're happening about an inter-country issue. So this would have to be taken to an international court to determine which would apply.

If you have something new like the article or professional legal opinion about sec2 art22 in line with your argument, I appreciate and will be happy to address it.

I don't need to come up with something. I've already shown how the treaty doesn't cover it. I understand you disagree. Neither of us is the one who is the final verdict, so beyond stating our positions on the matter, that's about as far as it's going to go.

As it has been always, NYT spread the copy of Asahi with unreasonable spice attached. Honestly, (don’t take it offensive), It is amazing that you linked very this one to prove you can equally claim. The link you provided, the one NYT copy/paste with unsaid exaggeration, on 1992 Jan 12th, entirely based on the sensational (which Asahi panicked with joy) **scoop published a day before on 11 th, which was actually a sensational debut of prof. Yoshimi Yoshiaki btw, and those days people believed the story of Seiji Yoshida, especially Asahi.

You think that the Japanese government based their admission on an Asahi shimbun article? Yeah, right. You'll have to prove that.

The fact is, the government admitted it happened. I know you don't like that, but I'll take their word over your revisionist word any day, even 25 years later.

The law needs to be written with just enough specificity to enforce what it was intended but also vague enough to encompass various scenarios

That's not how laws are written. Any vagueness leads to loopholes that end up being outside the spirit of the law, or an inability to act on the law due to issues like we are seeing right now - if it's not explicitly stated in the law, you cannot convict someone based on that law.

once there was clear and expressly worded text in reference to the statue, it is more than likely to be interpreted as part of the agreement was the statue to be removed.

No, it clearly stated they would strive to get the civic groups to remove the statue. There was no commitment to actually remove the statue.

We're going in circles here. You're just saying the same stuff you've previously said in different ways, and I'm just saying the same stuff I've already said, once again.

I meant that NYT article on 1/13/1992 you linked was mainly based on Asahi article published 2 days before

So are you trying to claim that the article made up the apology by the government?

Because the apology was the part of the article relevant to our conversation. The rest of it isn't, and therefore if your comments are not in relation to that apology, they aren't relevant to our conversation.

The government admitted what?

From the article:

Today Japan's chief Government spokesman, Koichi Kato, offered a more specific apology, saying, "We would like to express our heartfelt apology and soul-searching to those women who had a bitter hardship beyond description."

His specific comment: 従軍慰安婦の募集や慰安所の経営等に旧日本軍が何らかの形で関与していたことは否定できないと思う。この機会に改めて、従軍慰安婦として筆舌に尽くし難い辛苦をなめられた方々に対し、衷心よりお託びと反省の気持ちを申し上げたい

I know I should tell myself again there is nothing much I can do here in JT and give up to change the view of Japan bashers wrt comfort women issues

Yep. It's pretty hard to revise the truth.

The onus of providing a credible argument as to why Korea is not violating the convention is on you.

I've already repeatedly done so.

So far, the only argument you made is that it is not in violation due to the lack of content written in the agreement or written in the convention

Exactly. For a violation to exist, there must first exist something to be violated.

Now you're saying the agreement clearly stated that it would "strive" to REMOVE the statue

No I didn't. You quoted my exact words right before this comment: they would strive to get the civic groups to remove the statue.

Next would be what Japan did here, to recall its ambassador. Seems that they are taking steps rather rationally.

That's a matter of opinion. Recalling an ambassador seems like an attempt at pressure, due to a lack of a legal argument.

Yes it is if it is truth and it always is good to revise untruth. Though your noisy friend seems making unsubstantial noise ,it is not always impossible to revise untruth.

Now you completely backtracked on your original quote:

Revisionists have been doing great jobs without giving up easily like myself. History should always be revised whenever necessary as far as closer to the truths.

First of all, Japanese revisionists are not trying to revise history. They are whitewashing it and trying to rewrite it altogether. People like SL and myself are pointing the truth out and when we do, the rightwing screams about how we are Japan-bashers- as if hiding the truth actually does good for Japan. We saw the EXACT SAME thing during the Fukushima crisis. The j-media and gov lied to the people about the radiation and ANYONE who said anything else was considered a Japan-basher. Sorry, but when people stand up and say the truth, they are not japan bashers. The people who really don't care about japan are those who hide the truth or try to change it for their selfish political reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzCBZSCs1ZE

I showed how the statue does not violate the convention. You disagree. If you have something new on the matter, I'm happy to discuss it.

Even better than that- lets see the Japanese take the Koreans to court over it. But I'm betting that they know they don't have a chance and would be laughed at in the internatioal arena. That's why this is bilateral.

Although I disagree with your comment, whitewashing once and rewriting could be equal to revising somthing

No. Revision is making a change to an existing document. whitewashing once and rewriting is a complete alteration.

First of all. Fukushima has nothing to do with the statue. Read the title of the article.

Actually it does. ALOT. It shows that you cannot whitewash facts the way Japan always tries to do. Just like we cannot ignore the radiation coming out of the reactor you cannot ignore history or bad things happen.

Secondly. If you happen to expect proper response, stop inserting BS into your comment.

Pot calling kettle. YOU are the one trying to whitewash history, not me.

Although then-PM was ironically not Abe you hate so much, and I cannot be sure Kan and his fellows intentionally lied or didn't grasp situations, or try not to make Panics happen or anybodyelse hid the truth or anything...

First of all, I know who was in power at the time, and I am willing to bet my life that had Abe been PM at the time, we would have lost Tokyo. I am grateful for how PM Kan handled the disaster but am very critical about how his administration handled the info.

I brought up Fukushima because I think that it sheds light on a very important aspect of Japanese culture...DENIAL. This is what I'm getting at. The fact that Japan thinks it can hide something that is known and out in the open is the problem. You can't ignore things and just expect them to go away. But that is a part of Japanese culture. This is why we have the statue problem, now and the same aspect of Japanese culture-DENIAL- is responsible for the mess that is Fukushima.

The minute Japan learns to stop whitewashing facts and starts learning to deal with them head on is the day Japan can solve its problems with its neighbors as well as the disaster that is fukushima.

I'll be checking regularly for your post. Have a good afternoon.

Japan claims the statue violates vienna convention and to be removed. Skipping all other points I and others mentioned, it is well known that there was noisy fuss around the statue in Bussan for removing or protecting.

Ok, what does that have to do with this article?

[That] has great deal to do with the statue issue violating the convention or not.

Is the statue the one making the noise?

DieRealityCheck

First of all Good morning to you.

Final document rewritten on white paper after whitewashing (coating or erasing or whatever) could be the same as the result of revising parts of an existing document.

No it doesn't. When you whitewash, you make a completely new document. That is never the same as revising or editing. I've worked as a proofreader and as an editor and have had to write documents from scratch, and I'm telling you it is not the same thing. What the right wing does is try to rewrite history, NOT make corrections. There is a difference.

All I suggested was you do not use the impolite term like BS. Pot calling kettle. Agreed...

Then stop saying we are Japan-bashers because we don't agree with your revisionist history. To claim that someone hates japan because they refuse to accept historical innacuracies is BS. Sorry.

whatever….words often-quoted in evaluating Japan’s history recognition.

Gee. I wonder why...

I am not really sure those are right description appropriately fitting with Japan and Japanese.

I am sure that they do.

People use too easily, too lightly such terms and the term Truth

Yes they are called the right wing. They think they can change it anytime. People like us take the truth seriously.

I also noted you use your real name (I suppose) which I admire and think you are serious always when posting something whereas I just use handle name. There is a difference in it.

Thank you for your kind words.

I don’t think I am whitewashing if the term whitewashing means coating or hiding all the bad, shameful history.

I decided to put this at the end because I felt this is the most important. Why hide the history? Face it, admit it and move on. The world will forgive Japan like it forgave Germany. But we should not forget lest we repeat history. This is why I battle whitewashing. Its a dangerous rthing.

I think I am just keep posting to feel just lucky if any of my posts could provide small chance for readers to slightly change the view from negatives into positive direction.

We don't look at Japan in a negative light. Just the small bad history of WW2. This is not an attack on Japan. We love this country as much as you do.

Yumster100: "Since when did he ask to shut down the Civic group? Haven't read that anywhere."

You've heard it everywhere, and help push it. Have you not heard people blaming the government for the statues and not honoring the bargain by not taking them down? That is exactly what is said, and precisely Abe and others pushing to have these statues, put up. Y civic groups, removed by the government, which is illegal. There is an example in the comment next to yours by Hachidori. The government never said they would take the statue down, and only that they would talk to the people. The did, and the people refused. Case closed; no reneging. But here's Abe saying the government is not living up to its bargain, which is BS.

In fact, the civil group that put up the statue in Bunsan took it down until the Defense Minister visited Yasukura immediately upon return fro,pm Pearl Harbor -- but the same people who demand Seoul remove the statue and say it is government policy to have it their if they don't, defend the minister's visit as "personal". You don't see the hypocrisy? But with the statues the government cannot FORCE the, to be moved.

KazuakiS & other,

I think SLand has explained all this VERY WELL & in EASY language, yet still many cant comprehend what it means.

IF your logic was true then ALL the BLACK VANs etc would have to impounded decades ago. You know the ones that regularly hang out near the Chinese, Russian, Korean etc Embassies.....

Please simple question whats worse:

Having a statute across from a building or having right wingers making a racket, clogging streets & being an embarrassment to their OWN country?

Japan is only requesting two of them removed that are in front of Japan's Embassy and Consulate.

and in the US and Australia among others.

Strangerland and Randomnator, both of you are SPOT ON!

Dignity expresses the idea that a being (in this case, a premises) has an innate right to be valued, respected, and to receive ethical treatment. You'll notice the right is innate, so the actions of the dignity's bearer is not at stake.

And the presence of a statue regarding Japanese atrocities outside the Japanese embassy does not cause that indignity. The indignity comes from the actions performed, not a reminder of them.

your definition will also turn that limitation into nothing, even in your proposed case of vandalism, since the "actions of Japan are what harm Japan's dignity".

If someone vandalizes the Japanese embassy, those are not the actions of the Japanese, so my definition is not applicable to such a situation.

BTW (glancing through some of your other replies), the lack of a prescribed distance is not cause to say the distance is zero. It means the distance is unspecified because it depends. "Premises of the mission" are in all sizes and in various forms, as are the potential infringements.

I disagree. There are ways to describe a distance other than a fixed number of meters, with the one I gave being 'line of sight'. The fact that no such definitions exist, means that anything outside the premises are not in violation of the articles of the convention that have been supplied in this thread.

Yep. It's pretty hard to revise the truth.

Its impossible to revise the truth. Instead, when we try to point that out to them they just fall back on the typical "Japan bashers" BS because their arguments have absolutely no substance.

That's a matter of opinion. Recalling an ambassador seems like an attempt at pressure, due to a lack of a legal argument.

Of course. They have no legal argument or they would have taken it to court by now. The statue was not erected inside the embassy, nor was it erected by the SK gov itself, so some might claim that recalling the ambassador is exactly what you said it was- an attempt at pressure.

Sorry to leave you holding the fort on your own, by the way.

You argued you can equally claim the story to be true and provided the link to NYT article. I pointed out NYT you provided falsified part of, or not accurately reporting what Japanese politicians remarked

Not exactly. I claimed that I can claim the accepted version of history to be the case, and when asked for evidence, I showed how the Japanese government had admitted it had happened. The rest of the article was not relevant to my point. The article itself wasn't even relevant, beyond the fact that it showed the Japanese government admitting it happened.

So if are you trying to say, because those politicians apologized, the story cannot be false

See my comments above.

Speaking of noise, What was your arugument about Vienna convention art22 sec2 in case noise or noisy sound like loud speaker disturbing the embassy but the sound source is off the wall. Is the convention covering how to treat disturbing noise from outside but from very close to the main gate? Since this is not hypothetical at all but rather actual, I bet even Vienna in 1961 tried to cover this kind of case. No?

Let's keep it to the statue. That's real. We can discuss hypotheticals until the cows come home, but I prefer to discuss the situation we are actually dealing with.

That said, I think we've already said everything on the matter. I showed how the statue does not violate the convention. You disagree. If you have something new on the matter, I'm happy to discuss it.