politics

Abe unlikely to meet Moon at U.N. in September

58 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

58 Comments
Login to comment

And when you ask someone a favor, add please beforehand and say thank you afterwards

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No It's not that they are stubborn. They are sick. Imagine your counterparts across discussion table for trustworthy relationship or whatever are like them.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@yaponezy Today  06:47 pm JST

These are about claims Korean delegates demanded specifically as compensation for psychological and physical pain caused ( and suffered by foreign citizen by insisting illegal nature of Japan's annexation in the negotiation process but Korean delegates withheld discussion on those in the 6th negotiation meeting)

Typical piecemeal evidence. What was the conclusion of this discussion? Hint. Japan kept denying the illegality of the annexation.

What was it? It's written in my previous post part of which you just copied. Korean negotiators withheld the discussion about those claims in the 6th meeting 1961.10~1964.12. (in other words, they gave up including wording of those into the text of the treaty. Surrendered as Chosun Ilbo described as they did)

Sure Japan negotiators denied illegality of annexation simply because they were confident it was legitimate. But comprehensive arrangements were made into 5th item as I showed, in the 4 Compensation for the damage suffered by the conscripted and 7 Other claims. And Don't forget Korea agreed everything as recorded in Agreed Minutes and those are not piecemeal evidence. Just check the documents regarding so-called 8items as primary reference and try to face inconvenient truths rather than escaping to the argument on individual claim rights.

Individual claim rights have not been extinguished. However, because of 1965 treaty by which individual claim rights have been all settled completely and finally、individual claim rights are not legally relieved and any legal responsibilities to be assumed by a High contracting party and its people toward the claim rights of the other High contracting party and its people have been also extinguished.

 

You should not ignore another half of the story.

Kokuta Keiji vs. Kono Taro   2018 11 14  Upper House Foreign Affairs Committee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlZiD0Sua2A

 

Technically speaking, because individual claim rights have not been extinguished, you can go to the Japanese company and make a claim directly by yourself. Although the Japanese company does not have any legal liabilities to deal with your claim, if it wishes to do so, it could substantiate your claim rights (out of courts) and arbitrarily compensate you(arbitrary bilateral out of court settlement) as in the case of Nishimatsu Construction Co. Needless to say, this is not something the government nor judicial branch of the other High contracting party could enforce the Japanese company. 

More simple and proper approach is, because individual claim rights have not been extinguished, JUST GO TO THEIR GOVERNMENT AND ASK FOR IT.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Shochinmono: “It's rather difficult not to find it out unless you don't know how to use google search”

What kind of a convoluted gobbledegook answer is that? Anything not to have to admit that you’ve been caught out again being economical with the truth.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Given that the Occupation of Japan did not end until 1952, and subtract three years because of the Korean War, I’d like to know where you get your 14 years from for a treaty that was concluded in 1965.

It's rather difficult not to find it out unless you don't know how to use google search

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Showchinmono: “You’re basically denying the international treaty, even with 14 years of struggles needed for the run-up to final conclusion.”

Given that the Occupation of Japan did not end until 1952, and subtract three years because of the Korean War, I’d like to know where you get your 14 years from for a treaty that was concluded in 1965.

As for your spurious assertion that I’m “calling Japan stupid,” the less said the better. You are just going to have to accept that there are people out there who have a different (much better) idea than you about what is best for this country and how to go about achieving it.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It's an AGREEMENT, not a good faith agreement. Glorifying an agreement which was a quick fix transaction to get the comfort women off the Japanese back is such a typical Japanese mentality.

Umm, both countries agreed to it. Not just one, both.

Japan negotiated in good faith. Korea came to an agreement with them. Then Korea ripped up that agreement - destroying any good faith. Then, instead of trying to fix that, they whined for the past four years and haven’t even figured out what they are demanding.

How can they expect anyone to ever negotiate with them in good faith again?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@oyatoi  Today  01:35 pm JST

With the legitimacy of the bargain basement 1965 Treaty with an unrepresentative despot unraveling before their eyes, they double down on it.

 

As if those SK Supreme court judges were all stupid wasted their big time making up distorted interpretations of the treaty, after all, between a sovereign country and an unrepresentative despot

 

The right thing to do once the Treaty had been signed would have been to take a magnanimous view, acknowledging that no single treaty could ever hope to resolve all the issues but that it was a start and a gesture of good faith, statesmanlike and honorable. Instead, they lit a powder keg that will end up costing them far more than what it otherwise would have had they taken the long view.

 

You’re basically denying the international treaty, even with 14 years of struggles needed for the run-up to final conclusion. You reminds me of the old Korean proverb “Fools who lend the books and fools who return the books”

 

We need to remember though that the Koreans (only half the nation mind you) were not bargaining as equals but had only recently emerged from a shattering civil war and their military government’s first and foremost priority was rebuilding infrastructure.

 

Again you are nullifying the significance of Int’l treaties by bringing in such excuses. In present world, the excuse making countries like you just did are judged as ones with considerable “ sovereign risk” and are to be naturally removed from preferential treatments. You are basically calling Japan stupid for making efforts to normalize diplomatic relationship with a country like North Korea.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If Japan and Korea got together, they could totally kick Russia's bottom. Putin must be thrilled to see the two neighbors squabbling over nothing.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

These are about claims Korean delegates demanded specifically as compensation for psychological and physical pain caused ( and suffered by foreign citizen by insisting illegal nature of Japan's annexation in the negotiation process but Korean delegates withheld discussion on those in the 6th negotiation meeting)

Typical piecemeal evidence. What was the conclusion of this discussion? Hint. Japan kept denying the illegality of the annexation.

Instead of chasing dead ends, perhaps you should ask the government why they consistently stated that individual rights to claim have not been extinguished in internal discussions, and why they say the complete opposite officially?

Alternatively, find one of the 100 or so Japanese lawyers who issued a joint public statement supporting the decision by Korea's Supreme Court last year regarding the class action for forced labor against the Japanese companies.

Maybe the government (if they were honest) and the 100 or so lawyers can enlighten you on the reality.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@Strangerland

No buts. Both nations agreed on it. Then Korea reneged and has never offered up an alternative.

Did you not understand what I wrote?

It's an AGREEMENT, not a good faith agreement. Glorifying an agreement which was a quick fix transaction to get the comfort women off the Japanese back is such a typical Japanese mentality.

Before you start rambling about Korea breaking agreements, now tell me which country broke the Japan Korea Treaty 1904?

I've lived in both South Korea and Japan for over 10 years each for work, so I know my fair share of what goes around in both countries. But the hypocrisy of the Japanese is unbelievable. Everything bad the Japanese point out about the Koreans, I have actually observed that the Japanese do the same, if not worse.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

There is no fight like a siblings fight (or is this a case of father and son? ). Whatever the differences, I hope they come to their senses sooner rather than later.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The USFK doesn't need Korea-Japan GSOMIA to gain access to any data that Japan provides to the US.

Actually no, since under normal circumstances Japan only agrees on intelligence sharing not real time information gathering.It's only when Japan is attacked when the US gains access to all Japanese information gathering on real time basis. So USFK is not covered with US-Japan intelligence sharing agreement.

As for AEGIS ashore, it's a much better system with the SM-3blk2A with longer range of 2,500Km and faster speed at 4.5Km/s(Mach 13.2) THAAD's operational range is only 200+Km with speeds of only 2.8Km/s (Mach 8.24).

0 ( +2 / -2 )

“Japan says the court's decisions violate international law because compensation was settled under the 1965 treaty. In Tokyo's latest effort to bolster its position on the issue, a Japanese foreign ministry official unveiled a document on Monday that describes exchanges between Japanese and South Korean negotiators in the run-up to the 1965 treaty. The document has a South Korean negotiator say in a 1961 meeting that it is natural to demand compensation for psychological and physical pain arising from forced labour. "The South Korean Supreme Court decision says "But, compensation for psychological and physical pain was clearly asked for during the negotiations (towards the conclusion of the treaty)."

The perfidy of the Japanese side is on full display here with this ham fisted, own goal revelation. With the legitimacy of the bargain basement 1965 Treaty with an unrepresentative despot unraveling before their eyes, they double down on it. The right thing to do once the Treaty had been signed would have been to take a magnanimous view, acknowledging that no single treaty could ever hope to resolve all the issues but that it was a start and a gesture of good faith, statesmanlike and honorable. Instead, they lit a powder keg that will end up costing them far more than than what it otherwise would have had they taken the long view.

In presenting the Korean negotiator’s completely justified 1965 demand as somehow invalidating any additional claims is totally disingenuous. We’re it not justified, the Japanese would never had included such compensation in the 1965 Treaty. We need to remember though that the Koreans (only half the nation mind you) were not bargaining as equals but had only recently emerged from a shattering civil war and their military government’s first and foremost priority was rebuilding infrastructure. Japanese anticipation of eventual Korean dissatisfaction with the deal is demonstrated by their eagerness to sign off on compensation for psychological and physical pain arising from forced labour. By doing so, they figured they’d firewall themselves from any later claims, no matter how legitimate and unaddressed they were.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

If Japan wants a ballistic missile defense system without early warning from Korea, then it should have chosen the THAAD

I think Japan has shifted their focus from wanting anything from Korea. They've given up on you guys due to your bad-faith negotiations.

Poor leadership.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Let me clarify once more.

If Japan wants a ballistic missile defense system without early warning from Korea, then it should have chosen the THAAD, but the nationwide THAAD coverage($10 billion) cost 4 times that of Aegis Ashore($2.5 billion). This is the reason why Japanese government has chosen the Aegis Ashore, due to lack of funding.

Now is probably the good time to cancel the Aegis Ashore and switch to THAAD at 4 times the cost, because Japan isn't getting the ballistic missile early warning from Korea that Japan was counting on when it made the Aegis Ashore decision.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

On top Japan has it's own surveillance satellites above and the data is all fed into the early warning system. This system is much faster than any land based surveillance. It consists of radar as well as infrared optical sensors so the weather does not interfere.

The reason the US is warning Korea not to withdrawal from the treaty is because the US troops in Korea will not have access to Japan's surveillance satellite data without GSOMIA  not the other way around.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

better ignore korea gov movemnt! they still talking about ww2 while ww3 is about to start. this is the real concern

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Aegis Ashore doesn't work without an early warning. The GSOMIA was the mechanism that provided that early warning necessary to operate the Aegis Ashore.

Once again, you're incorrect. The Aegis system doesn't work without an early warning. The Aegis Ashore system is a version of the Aegis system that includes highly advanced radar systems providing a packaged system of sorts. GSOMIA while still a good idea to have, isn't required to Aegis Ashore to operate.

Curious why JT allows this kind of crass overgeneralization? Why must language that denigrates a whole nation be accepted? And why do most gaijin on here continue to wear blinders when it comes to Japan and SoKo? It truly baffles the mind. If any other country had shunned responsibility for it's actions during the war, you'd all rightfully condemn it. But not japan. Oh no. Every single time I bring up the need for a German like model of contrition for the very well documented acts against humanity perpetrated by japan, I receive alot of downvotes. How come? Why must japan skirt through unscathed? Why must the supportive gaijin continue to ignore the blatant abuse of power through misinformation and disinformation exemplified by historical revisionism in japan? Seriously, why?

No one I know is ignoring the historical revisionism that happens in Japan. Everyone is painfully aware of it, even the Japanese. The issue with what you're seeing is that in the case of Germany and the Jewish for example, is that there was large groups of people on both sides willing to find an agreement and willing to accept apologies. Korea on the other hand won't settle for anything else than Japan on a silver platter. Also, Japan never shunned responsibility for its actions. It settled fairly and quite significantly with SK in the past. The current SK doesn't want to respect that though, that isn't anything on Japans shoulders..

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

kind of amazing korea thinks they are above japan. name one thing korea does better than japan (other than cry like petulant children)

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Only northeast Asians can resolve northeast Asians' problem, as simple as that.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

drlucifer, I find a problem with your title. It should read.

Abe and Moon are unlikely to meet at the U.N. in September.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

I find a problem with the title of the article. It should read.

Abe and Moon are unlikely to meet at the U.N in september.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I should re-write in order to avoid misunderstanding. I meant...

As you can see, even only with 4 compensation to the conscripted, it's enough to cover wartime labor issues. If you add 7 other claims, it's just perfectly and undeniably covers everything ,

3 ( +5 / -2 )

To make it further clearer

"Outline of the Claims of the Republic of Korea against Japan" (the so-called "Eight Items"

 

No 5th item

 Skip 1~3 and 5, 6

4. Compensation for damage suffered by the conscripted due to events related to war.**

**Note those who voluntarily came and worked as wartime labors in Japan before 1943 were also registered as conscriptee by the laws enacted in 1943. 

**7. Other Claims  *****

***These are about claims Korean delegates demanded specifically as compensation for psychological and physical pain caused ( and suffered by foreign citizen by insisting illegal nature of Japan's annexation in the negotiation process but Korean delegates withheld discussion on those in the 6th negotiation meeting)

As you can see, 4 compensation to the conscripted only covers wartime labor issues. If you add 7 other claims, it's just perfectly and undeniably covers everything , even Comfort women issues. because Delegates from two countries discussed about comfort women too. It's Korean Lie they did not know about comfort women in 1965.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Was the 2015 agreement really a good faith deal? It's an agreement, yes, but...

No buts. Both nations agreed on it. Then Korea reneged and has never offered up an alternative.

Who would ever negotiate in good faith with them again after that. Other than negotiating that agreement in the first place, when has Korea acted in good faith on the matter anywhere? The fact is, they haven’t. Now they’re whining about the results of their own actions and expecting others to feel responsibility for them. Yeah, right.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

If only the countries would come together in good faith to negotiate a final solution.

Japan tried that in 1965. Look what happen

Japan tried that in 2015 Look what happen.

If you step away from the Japanese government's rhetoric, there is no agreement that was broken. South Korean citizens are exercising their right to claim for damages as it is not part of the 1965 agreement. This has been acknowledged by the Japanese government on numerous occasions. See my above post. The Japanese government is doing their best to insert an 'invisible clause' in the treaty for fear that there would be a floodgate of claims.

Was the 2015 agreement really a good faith deal? It's an agreement, yes, but if Japan sets the terms and forces a gun down your throat (economic retaliation) to accept it which ex-President Park caved in, would you call that good-faith? Reparation for pain and suffering of comfort women was not even included in the 1965 agreement, so it's not good-faith in that sense. Further, the deal was so rushed because all Japan cared about was quickly removing the comfort women statues around the world. Japan had no regard for the victims. Good faith?

You forgot to mention the Japan-Korea Treaty 1904, SCAPIN (677). Who 'broke' those agreements?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

@yaponezy Today  08:52 am JST

But, compensation for psychological and physical pain was clearly asked for during the negotiations (towards the conclusion of the treaty).

Asking for it in the negotiations, and it being included in the agreement is separate.

It is clearly included as you can see Agreed Minutes which you continually try to ignore.

Agreed Minutes to the Agreement

 2. Re Article II of the Agreement:

(g) It is confirmed that problem concerning property, rights and interests of the two countries and their nationals and concerning the claims between the two countries and their nationals, which is settled completely and finally as mentioned in paragraph 1, Includes any claim falling within the scope of the "Outline of the Claims of the Republic of Korea against Japan" (the so-called "Eight Items"), which was submitted by the Korean side at the Japan-Republic of Korea negotiations and that, therefore, no contention can be made with respect to the above mentioned Outline of the Claims of the Republic of Korea against Japan;

"Outline of the Claims of the Republic of Korea against Japan" (the so-called "Eight Items"

 

No 5th item

 

4. Compensation for damage suffered by the conscripted due to events related to war.**

**5. Other Claims*  

**Note those who voluntarily came and worked as wartime labors in Japan before 1943 were also registered as conscriptee by the laws enacted in 1943. 

***These are about claims Korean delegates demanded specifically as compensation for psychological and physical pain caused ( and suffered by foreign citizen by insisting illegal nature of Japan's annexation in the negotiation process but Korean delegates withheld discussion on those in the 6th negotiation meeting)

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Even the Japanese who supported the 2015 deal to compensate, apologies, that it will make things better between nations are silent now.

I'm not Japanese, but other than that, I was in the above camp. I was very critical of Japan in not negotiating in good faith on the issue. But then they did - and Korea didn't. So now I can't fell any sympathy for anyone other than the comfort women, whom have been screwed by inept actions of their government.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Strangerland

Right on the button with your comment.

No good faith in return from Korea. That's the whole problem here. We call it ''Korea fatigue''. It took Japan decades to reach the point your seeing right now in relations.

Even the Japanese who supported the 2015 deal to compensate, apologies, that it will make things better between nations are silent now.

The actions of Moon administration speak for themselves.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

This tug of war between these two countries is really sad.

I hope someday north east asian governments will get along together as the europeans do.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If only the countries would come together in good faith to negotiate a final solution.

Japan tried that in 1965. Look what happen

Japan tried that in 2015 Look what happen.

Really? Well surely Korea has shown some good faith in return negotiations, right? I mean they must have since they are whining about Japan, right? No competent country would ever be whining about the other side when they themselves have acted in good faith, so we have to assume the Koreans have acted in good faith, right?

...right?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

If only the countries would come together in good faith to negotiate a final solution.

Japan tried that in 1965. Look what happen

Japan tried that in 2015 Look what happen.

Do you see a pattern? Koreans can't keep their agreements.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

But, compensation for psychological and physical pain was clearly asked for during the negotiations (towards the conclusion of the treaty).

Asking for it in the negotiations, and it being included in the agreement is separate. Even the Japanese government knows that individual rights to claim have not been extinguished by the treaty.

For example in 1993, Mr. Tanba, Director General of Treaties at Ministry of Foreign Affairs said to the House of Councilors:

Our government has long been representing that the claims rights individuals may have are not waived directly by the effect of the Treaty.

In 2000, Mr. Fulushima, Member of the House of Councillors inquired

What about Foreign Ministry's then Director General of Treaties Yanai's statement in 1991 that only the diplomatic protection was waived and that individual claim rights were not extinguished?

Mr. Hosokawa, Director General of Civil Affairs of the Ministry of Justice, responded

We are all aware Mr. Yanai's answer, and we also agree with this statement.

Even, Taro Kono told reporters that a victim’s individual right to file a claim had not expired when Korea's Supreme Court verdict was upheld last year. It's funny how he now changed his stance saying that Korea violated the agreement on a permanent solution reached through the 1965 bilateral treaty.

The Japanese government have consistently been aware of individual rights to claim despite the 1965 agreement, but externally or "officially" they would say the complete opposite.... all to stop the floodgate of claims opening.

Hence, you have these brainwashed black sheep on JT persistently accusing South Korea for breaking international law because the 1965 Treaty included all claims. But no, it does not include claim rights for damages (pain and suffering, psychological damage, specific injuries, rape, torture, etc.).

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

"South Korea has leverage with the alliance with the US."

With Trump? LOL LOL

0 ( +7 / -7 )

This is why Japan wants to keep the GSOMIA shamelessly and why Koreans are eager to terminate it.

The Koreans are not keen to renew the GSOMIA because this has almost been one-sided sharing of information. Japan would not release much information (perhaps because they don't have any) yet they would continually ask for street-level information regarding NK assets and movements.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

America can't. The US agreed to not share all intelligence it collects within the ROK territory with third party without an ROK permission. GSOMIA was that permission and it's going away.

South Korea and the US both love to rip up agreements lately. Why would you think this one is any different? South Korea has no leg to stand on.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

If only the countries would come together in good faith to negotiate a final solution.

If only...

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Japan tightened restrictions on exports to South Korea of key high-tech materials in making memory chips and display panels, accusing its neighbor of inadequate management of sensitive items.

No evidence given by Japan yet there are evidences Japan couldn't control exports to NK.

The fact is, Japan has been preparing this move for 6 years. Japanese officials, with their usual sly behind-the-scene moves, have threatened the South Korean government multiple times of these consequences if they didn't alter the course of the judicial process.

Furthermore, just look at how the Japanese companies (Sony, Panasonic etc.) stockpiled massive quantities of consumer components (LCD, OLED, semiconductors, etc) from South Korean companies during the two months prior to the start of the export restrictions, for fear of retaliation by South Korea.

This has been a concerted effort by government and corporations.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

inflammable Koreans

Curious why JT allows this kind of crass overgeneralization? Why must language that denigrates a whole nation be accepted? And why do most gaijin on here continue to wear blinders when it comes to Japan and SoKo? It truly baffles the mind. If any other country had shunned responsibility for it's actions during the war, you'd all rightfully condemn it. But not japan. Oh no. Every single time I bring up the need for a German like model of contrition for the very well documented acts against humanity perpetrated by japan, I receive alot of downvotes. How come? Why must japan skirt through unscathed? Why must the supportive gaijin continue to ignore the blatant abuse of power through misinformation and disinformation exemplified by historical revisionism in japan? Seriously, why?

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

There is big difference between not likely and not

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

There are so many ways to resolve the problem, very easy.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Replace SK with China, would this spat have taken the turn it has, I don't think so. As that would be really economic suicide. SK is a very small market thus Abe can take the risk of indirectly restricting exports to SK.

Hold your fire, I know China is not on the whitelist.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Abe will meet Moon, no matter what.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

What this will do if it continues is bring the two Koreas closer together and closer to China, both not in Japan’s interest.

That would not be SK's best interest either unless they want Kim as their leader. And we've seen what China does to the minorities, that a bright future either way...

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Unlikely means not likely, as simple as that. so..

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Wait quietly until inflammable Koreans calm down.

This is it. It's impossible to make peace with someone who only wants to fight. Japan tried to make peace with good-faith negotiations. The Koreans agreed with the Japanese on a "final and irreversible" solution, then the Koreans renegged, and have never acted in good faith since.

Until they calm down, figure out what they want, and make a balanced effort to come to an actual "final and irreversible" solution, Japan is best to isolate themselves from the Korean inanity as best they can. A strictly neutral approach to Korea moving forward is the only viable solution until Korea cleans up their inept mess internally.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Stay away from Korea. Do not play politics. Time will solve the problem. Wait quietly until inflammable Koreans calm down. Do not get them on your nerves. Difference of national power is evident.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

What this will do if it continues is bring the two Koreas closer together and closer to China, both not in Japan’s interest.

While Japan’s leverage now maybe chemicals used for technology products, South Korea has leverage with the alliance with the US.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Samit Basu

Doesn't need to use Nukes to destroy South Korea, can be done with conventional weapons. Completely go to nuclear weapons to touch Japan, nice comeback Basu.

If North used 1 nuke against Japan=The end of the Kim regime. It's a suicidal move with nukes coming their way in the dozens.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

Jesus, the Koreans are really scrambling to try to fix their screwup. But they're in their scrambling, they're only making things worse! What a mess. Complete and utter incompetence.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

@AlexBecu

Small percentage of weapons can reach Japan from North and we have our own missile shield

Aegis Ashore doesn't work without an early warning. The GSOMIA was the mechanism that provided that early warning necessary to operate the Aegis Ashore.

America who can pass down the information if needed.

America can't. The US agreed to not share all intelligence it collects within the ROK territory with third party without an ROK permission. GSOMIA was that permission and it's going away.

This is why Japan wants to keep the GSOMIA shamelessly and why Koreans are eager to terminate it.

North doesn't want to invade Japan and they have no navy

But Kim surely wants to nuke Tokyo, doesn't he?

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

Samit Basu

Small percentage of weapons can reach Japan from North and we have our own missile shield, advance radars and America who can pass down the information if needed.

Can you guess how many artillery pieces, rockets, bombs, bullets from across the border can reach you? It's in the tens of millions. Look at a map. Guess who's closer.

North doesn't want to invade Japan and they have no navy, it does want to take over and reunite with South.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

This is a big big deal, in Korea.

If Korea wants to get further away from Japan and closer to China...ok.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

@AlexBecu

Just today S. Korea had such beautiful things to say about aggressive North Korea who fired 2 missiles just this past week.

Well, Japan is on its own when the GSOMIA termination notice is sent by Moon next month.

Japan won't see NK missiles coming right before it drops near Japan, all thanks to Abe san.

-13 ( +4 / -17 )

Here would be another ideal opportunity for Abe to FINALLY make an attempt and show the world he is a leader.

Do your damn job!

-6 ( +10 / -16 )

If Moon wants to meet and talk, negotiate on things Japan cares about as well, definitely.

Just today S. Korea had such beautiful things to say about aggressive North Korea who fired 2 missiles just this past week.

No Nukes have been given away or abandoned, no missiles given away, yet Kim is getting everything he dream off.

Moon administration came to power with the promise of going back on agreements signed with Japan, the promise of a better deal and new apology. He also promised to get closer to North Korea, embrace Kim regime.

Seeing South Korea behavior towards North, they should definitely be removed from the WhiteList of nations, national security was not on my agenda, but seeing their relationship unfold is starting to concern me in that area.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

Good for Japan. Moon had better stop anti-Japan rhetoric before he is granted a meeting with PM Abe.

8 ( +17 / -9 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

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

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites