S Korean foreign minister suggests respecting 2015 comfort women deal

Curious to what the reaction will be among the South Korean public. Probably won't be too good for FM Park.

Procrastination is not a solution. Frequent meets (and news reporting of them) only waste time unless Korea has its homework done.

Action not words, Yoon.

Officially accept the agreement. Stop funding those damn statues around the world (lest the wider world become more aware of the kwan-ju massacre, know what I’m saying?) And don’t fall back on the “bash Japan for what happened 80 years ago” next time you get in a tight spot on the home front.

"Suggests respecting the 2015 deal"?

That says everything about South Korea's stance on relations with Japan.

LOL

SUGGESTS? I suggest what ever is discussed, it should be presented to the UN. These guys use this like a political football, and one stokes hatred and anger. Sort your stuff out.

Re-instating the 2015 CW Agreement is the first thing SK needs to do. Resolving the SK Court actions by first determinging their jurisdiction by agreeing to the Arbitration Clause in the 1965 Treaty is second.

South Korea has an opportunity to change the direction of it's security position in these uncertain times.

Do whatever it takes to resolve the issues and move on !

@OssanJapan

Re-instating the 2015 CW Agreement is the first thing SK needs to do. 

The comfort women themselves already declared the agreement dead, null and void. It's not coming back regardless of what FM Park says.

 Resolving the SK Court actions by first determinging their jurisdiction

The Supreme Court decides its jurisdiction, not the Yoon administration.

South Korea has an opportunity to change the direction 

And Yoon gets impeached out of office. When the approval rating drops to 20% range from current 32%, anything becomes possible, and the Democratic party does have the votes to call for impeachment at any time.

This case will NEVER be settled regardless of the outcome or agreements, it is a broken record that will just continue to keep on playing.

S Korean foreign minister suggests respecting 2015 comfort women deal

Who is he "suggesting" this to? South Korea unilaterally ripped up this "Permanent and Irreversible" agreement. All South Korea has to do is unilaterally re-instate it.

Lets be absolutely clear of the consequences if the South Korean government through there courts breach the signed settled "completely and finally" under a bilateral agreement signed in 1965.

Punitive sanctions and seizures for a breach of international law. That could ultimately have negative repercussions for SK economy and pension funds.

A signed Treaty that normalized relations! this is before the inevitable political fall out.

Chong Dae Hyup is cult. You know what to do or what not to do when dealing with cult.

@Samit

The comfort women themselves already declared the agreement dead, null and void. It's not coming back regardless of what FM Park says.

Disregarding the old agreement coming back or not, since when do the comfort women get a say in whether a bilateral agreement between two nations is valid or not?

And Yoon gets impeached out of office. [...]

What would Yoon get impeached for? Last I checked, the President can only be impeached for violating the Constitution or other laws of official duty. And even if you have a majority, you need actually two thirds of the house to successfully impeach the president, which I don't see unless his own party votes against him. (even if all the other parties' seats sans his own party voted)

So, I'm sorry if I misunderstand, but how would this issue even constitute a valid reason for impeachment?

US wants SK and Japan to be buddies to fight China. Expect more of this.

US wants SK and Japan to be buddies to fight China.

I smell immediate success when sending the two lowest birth raters against the most populated one. Sounds very logical, NOT.

"The comfort women themselves already declared the agreement dead, null and void. It's not coming back regardless of what FM Park says."

WOW!

In which part of the World do private citizens decide on the validity/coming into force of a legally valid signed Treaty?

Cluelessness at its best.

RodneyToday  02:33 pm JST

US wants SK and Japan to be buddies to fight China. Expect more of this.

Thanks for the news flash. But it's been this way since 1950.

The comfort women themselves already declared the agreement dead, null and void. It's not coming back regardless of what FM Park says.

And More and more people in SK finally start realizing what you call the comfort women who already declared the agreement dead, null and void, are not even the comfort women as defined by SK government. SK government and Chong Dae Hyup, all those Korean diaspora in the US, and in the Germany are trying their best not to touch that very essential part.

Bring Lee Yong-soo or any other survivors to Japan for open discussion in Japan, without so-called translators from those cult groups who actually coaching what to say and controlling sitting next to them . I personally have so many question and have 100% confidence to expose them being LYING

Quote "Seoul's intent to respect a 2015 bilateral agreement to settle the issue of Koreans forced to work as "comfort women" in Japan's wartime military brothels."

Forced labor was also settled in 1965 agreement as Final and Irreversible.

South Korea will back down, and respect the agreements signed, if Japan takes the agreements seriously as Final and Irreversible!

S.Korea will always ask for more if they have that option. S.Korea is like a bully who will never stop Unless You Stand Up to Them and Say No More Compensation or Humiliation.

This important issue must be resolved and concluded as soon as possible for the good of both countries. Past errors cannot be rectified, a possible agreement must be done to end this endless issue. Let's focus in the present and future

The comfort women themselves already declared the agreement dead, null and void. It's not coming back regardless of what FM Park says.

Wasn't the one of the leaders of the comfort women issue found to be CORRUPT & involved in a financial scandal? A woman called Yoon Mee Hyang? The scandal was revealed by Lee Yong Song, who was a CW herself.

Japan and Korea came to a "final and irreversible" agreement in 2011 or 2012. Then Korea ripped it up, and proposed nothing as a replacement, even though the agreement had been "final and irreversible". Now, it's in Japan's best interest to have good ties with their neighbor, so it makes sense for them to talk to Korea to try to come to some resolution. But the onus is on Korea to figure out what they want, because the last time they said what they wanted, they later decided that it wasn't what they wanted, then they spent the next eight years being angry at Japan for not knowing what they wanted, even though Korea hasn't figured out what they want or told Japan what it is that they want.

Now that I think about it, you could swap Korea out of the above with an ex-girlfriend of mine, and it would still work. She was all over the place. Fortunately, I am not forced to live next door to her for my entire life.

What is the point of talking to South Korea? Any treaty made will be ripped up in the not-so-distant future. To "honor" the Korean boycott of Japan, Japan needs to embargo south Korea. Then place our self-defense force on DEFCON 3. This will be to counter South Korea's aggression.

@Peeping_Tom

In which part of the World do private citizens decide on the validity/coming into force of a legally valid signed Treaty?

Comfort women agreement isn't a treaty. It can be withdrawn from at any time like all other agreements that's not ratified as a treaty by the parliament of both countries.

@ReasonandWisdomNippon

Forced labor was also settled in 1965 agreement as Final and Irreversible.

It didn't, thanks to Japanese negotiator's decision to delete the word "damages" from the final treaty text, leaving Japanese state, companies, and individuals exposed to damages claims. 

@YuriOtani

What is the point of talking to South Korea? 

The US is demanding Japan to talk.

And no word about seizing the assets of Japanese companies that are located in South Korea? How two-faced can they be?

Samit BasuToday  03:12 am JST

@YuriOtani

What is the point of talking to South Korea? 

The US is demanding Japan to talk.

Wrong. The U.S. is demanding South Korea to talk. Just like when the US pressured the Park Geun Hye administration to conclude the 2015 CW Agreement.

Japan has never needed US pressure concrening South Korea as they have complied with all of SK's demands. However SK under Moon has decimated any trust in SK's word through backtracking and moving the goal posts.

Samit BasuToday  03:12 am JST

@YuriOtani

What is the point of talking to South Korea? 

The US is demanding Japan to talk.

Wrong. The U.S. is demanding South Korea to talk. Just like when the US pressured the Park Geun Hye administration to conclude the 2015 CW Agreement.

Japan has never needed US pressure concrening South Korea as they have complied with all of SK's demands. However SK under Moon has decimated any trust in SK's word through backtracking and moving the goal posts.

@TrevorPeace

And no word about seizing the assets of Japanese companies that are located in South Korea?

The assets are already seized and is ready for liquidation. Mitsubishi has submitted final appeal to the supreme court on liquidation order which is expected to be denied next month. There is nothing Yoon can do to stop the asset sale once the court rejects the Mitsubishi appeal.

Park no doubt has delivered the terms of plaintiff's demands to foreign minister Hayashi, that this was the plaintiff's ultimatum and there was nothing his administration to stop the asset sale.

1) Defendant companies must issue apology addressed to plaintiffs.

2) Defendant companies must contribute to the so called joint compensation fund proposed by Park. Hayashi's counter-proposal of any Japanese companies and citizens but the defendants contributing to the fund is unacceptable.

Unless Japan agrees to both terms, the plaintiffs will go ahead with liquidation.

It didn't, thanks to Japanese negotiator's decision to delete the word "damages" from the final treaty text, leaving Japanese state, companies, and individuals exposed to damages claims. 

Not to mention this poster and the stupidest SK supreme court ignores the law of treaty, there's no historical record that Japanese delegates deleted the word " damage" from the treaty text. However there are records that Japanese delegates disagreed with the Korean delegates on their demands for compensation based on their unilateral narrative that Japan owed for the crimes of mobilizing citizens of a foreign nation. Japanese delegates offered individual compensations to each individual labors exactly the same way as done in Japan

as they were Japanese in Korea. Yet SK delegates rejected the offer and demanded for the lump-sum fund to the government.

Compensation is clearly stipulated in so-called 8 demands by SK delegates which is also one of official supporting document for the treaty in terms of Vienna treaty on the law

It all depends on the definition of " damage". It's been fully covered as clearly seen in the dialogue between delegates who spent 14 years to reach to the treaty. Korean version of " damage" is what was caused by the illegal annexation treaty in 1910. Of course Japan delegates rejected it.

Without referring to 1910 annexation treaty, if it was legitimate or not, this issue and any other issues would surely come back every time the new president of the greatest advanced democratic South Korea shows up.

Don't forget. They are cult

"Comfort women agreement isn't a treaty. It can be withdrawn from at any time like all other agreements that's not ratified as a treaty by the parliament of both countries."

Oh, really?!

"South Korea's next top diplomat says 2015 'comfort women' pact with Japan is official"

“The agreement on ‘comfort women’ is an official one, and the current Moon Jae-in administration also acknowledges it. "

"https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/04/20/national/comfort-women-agreement/"

Howz dat frog tasting?

You seem to think it's open to you to unilaterally renege on a Treaty, simply because you don't like the terms of something you've willingly signed.

A la Boris J!

And because I'm feeling "generous" today:

"Article 11 

Means of expressing consent to be bound by a treaty

The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed."

"Article 14 

Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by ratification, acceptance or approval

The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification when:

(a) the treaty provides for such consent to be expressed by means of ratification; (b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that ratification should be required; (c) the representative of the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification; or (d) the intention of the State to sign the treaty subject to ratification appears from the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.

The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by acceptance or approval under conditions similar to those which apply to ratification."

"https://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna%20Convention%20Treaties.htm"