Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
politics

South Korea, Japan to hold summit next week to expand ties

36 Comments
By HYUNG-JIN KIM

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

© Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments
Login to comment

Crushing the hand of Kishida with that face expression.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Expand military ties only. Old Japanese men don’t care about the mass sexual abuse, because, well, it’s highly likely they were there. Apparently 300,000 girls and young women were abused, and I presume it wasn’t by just one Japanese soldier.

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

I have to think this is good, even though they are right wingers.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

While there is some criticism that South Korea made too many concessions, the official said the step could push Japan to think about how to react while letting the U.S. and other countries know South Korea is open-minded in cooperating with the international community.

You must be kidding. If South Korea had abided by Article 3 of the 1965 Treaty and agreed to an arbitration as Japanhad requested, it woould have been firmly established whether Japan has already made payments that covered forced labor. But the anti-JPN Moon administration allowed the SK courts to hear and rule on the matter without establishing jurisdiction in accordance with international norms.

And while we're at it, agreeing to settle a territorial dispute at the International Court of Justice is also cooperating with the inernational community. Japan has requested South Korea to settle the Liancourt Rocks dispute at the ICJ three times, and SK has refused each time.

What President Yoon is doing now is "undoing" all the damage that Moon has done in his 5 years. And it will take a tremendous effort, step by step, especially because in South Korea where the anti-JPN sentiment fueled by activists and lawyers combined with an anti-JPN education system in their schools have created a few generations of bias. But Pres Yoon sees the necessity to change all this for the sake of South Korean and regional security.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

@OssanJapan

But the anti-JPN Moon administration allowed the SK courts to hear and rule on the matter

Unlike Japan, no president in Korea can interfere with court's activities. In fact, the supreme court is still handling the asset liquidation case as if nothing happened, whatever Yoon proposes has no effect on the court's handling of the liquidation case.

Japan has requested South Korea to settle the Liancourt Rocks dispute at the ICJ three times

And Japan refused to accept Taiwan's ICJ challenges on the Diaoyu Islands.

What President Yoon is doing now is "undoing" all the damage that Moon has done in his 5 years.

He's actually making it worse, because the liquidation order is still coming regardless of his plan, his plan is not legally binding and there is no legal maneuver that Yoon can take to make the liquidation stop.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

Good. Neighboring countries should be in constant communication. I expect Kishida will announce a future date to visit South Korea during Yoon's visit in Japan.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

@deanzaZZR

I expect Kishida will announce a future date to visit South Korea during Yoon's visit in Japan.

I strongly advise against such visit. Kishida's life is danger in Korea after Yoon's plan.

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

“ The leaders of South Korea and Japan will meet next week for a summit on strengthening ties, both governments said Thursday, days after South Korea unveiled a step toward resolving strained ties stemming from Tokyo's colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula.

President Yoon Suk Yeol is to visit Japan on March 16-17 at the invitation of the Japanese government and will meet with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, according to the South Korean and Japanese governments.

Yoon's office said in a statement that the summit will be "an important milestone" in the development of South Korea-Japan relations. It said South Korea hopes the two countries will "overcome an unfortunate past" and expand cooperation on security, the economy and other sectors as a result of the visit. “

I’ve been following these developments with some skepticism but it appears that things are finally going in the right direction…; we’re talking about two great nations that should… need to be united…(!); everyone wins… except our common enemies.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

@rcch

t appears that things are finally going in the right direction

It's not, because the Japanese asset liquidation is still happening.

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

It's great how they are putting aside past animosities in the name of preparing for war with China.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It is indeed great that they can work together, but how is yoon a conservative thinking that an agreement between two governments can solve all issues including citizens and public companies…

both yoons party in korea and ldp seem to think they control their people.

dont like.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

both govs keeping talking for decades but results...

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Japan legally did settle everything with S Korea in 1965. Not Japan’s fault the military dictatorship of S Korea at the time pocketed the money and never distributed it to the victims. How many S Korean presidents since the late 80’s now have been impeached, jailed or committed suicide so far for corruption and nepotism charges so far?

6 ( +9 / -3 )

What is the point of talks when South Korea will rip up any agreement within two years? As for comfort women, Japanese soldiers of Korean descent also used these brothels.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@Gaijinjland

Japan legally did settle everything with S Korea in 1965. 

Japan did not settle damages. Not only there is not a single instance of word "damages" in the treaty text, there is also a paper trail of diplomatic exchanges showing that it was Japan's will to leave the word damages out of the treaty text after they were proposed for inclusion by the Korean side.

This is why the Korean Supreme court concluded the 1965 treaty didn't cover damages and awarded damages to the plaintiffs.

This is why the correct history education is so important, and Japan needs it badly for its own sake.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

@YuriOtani

What is the point of talks when South Korea will rip up any agreement within two years? 

1) There is no "agreement", only Yoon's "plan".

2) But it won't even take 2 years for the plan to fall apart, because Yoon's plan is not legally binding, and can't stop the asset liquidation process which is still ongoing and 9 out of 15 winning plaintiffs vowed to reject Yoon's plan and continue the liquidation. What maybe shocking to the Japanese is that these plaintiffs have more lawyers working for them than the foreign ministry, because human rights lawyering and the league of democratic lawyers is massive. The final liquidation order could come as soon as by the end of this year.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Japan has requested South Korea to settle the Liancourt Rocks dispute at the ICJ three times

And Japan refused to accept Taiwan's ICJ challenges on the Diaoyu Islands.

Source please. Did the President of Taiwan Ma Ying-jeou just mention his wish or possibility or actually took the case to ICJ. When did Taiwan declare to accept ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction? When did ICJ or UN recognnize Taiwan as a sovereign independent nation to be able to make lawsuits at ICJ?

7 ( +10 / -3 )

If South Korea had abided by Article 3 of the 1965 Treaty and agreed to an arbitration as Japan had requested.

Anyone who argues thus is being completely disingenuous. Righting the terrible wrongs it inflicted over 35 years of occupation was never Japan’s main concern. Rather, it was about taking advantage of (then) Korean weakness to minimize liability. The assiduous effort it put in to vetoing Korean representation at the San Francisco peace treaty negotiations is of a piece with that.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

@Ego Sum Lux Mundi How very Christian, LOL. The last time Korea attacked China was never. Well, there was that tussle over the Liaoning Peninsula in early Ming China but Ming prevailed. Korea has always wanted peace with its big neighbor.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You'd think that the countries would meet more often rather than bickering over tiny issues like whether to have a statue or not. No wonder America has such a strong presence in the region when it's the only rational head in the room.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I hope this, along with the rapid developments of world affairs, is a wake up call to South Korea, that they are historically close to Japan, whereas the northern peninsula is historically close to China.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@deanzaZZR Goguryeo(modern day north Korea) never attacked China, they had been a subject of either Chinese conquest or tribute since about 600AD. Baekje (South Korea) was a close allie to Wa (Japan).

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Yoon and Kishida are world champions at bootlicking the US.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

Samit BasuToday  08:47 am JST

@OssanJapan

Japan has requested South Korea to settle the Liancourt Rocks dispute at the ICJ three times

And Japan refused to accept Taiwan's ICJ challenges on the Diaoyu Islands.

Total frabrication as usual. Japan is a signatory to the ICJ agreement which makes acceptance of a case before the ICJ, as well as recognizing it's ruling compulsory. In other words, Japan can not refuse any case brought againt it at the ICJ. Your credibility is absolutely zero.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

oyatoiToday  02:28 pm JST

If South Korea had abided by Article 3 of the 1965 Treaty and agreed to an arbitration as Japan had requested.

Anyone who argues thus is being completely disingenuous. 

Incorrect. This isn't an argument, it is a fact. The Aribtration clause is part of the 1965 Treaty which South Korea negotiated amd signed. It stipulates that if ever a difference in interpretation of the Treaty contents occurs, both parties will resolve the issue through Arbitration. There is a clear difference in interpretation; Japan says they already paid and South Korea says they didn't.

The correct anmd legally sound procedure would be to go to Arbitration and let the ruling decide. Instead the rabidly anti-JPN Moon adminitration allowed the South Korean Court to accept and rule on the Forced Labnor issue, without having established the Court's jurisdiction over the matter. This is what is disingenious, by passing a legally correct procedure in order to produce a desired outcome.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Anyone who argues thus is being completely disingenuous. Righting the terrible wrongs it inflicted over 35 years of occupation was never Japan’s main concern. Rather, it was about taking advantage of (then) Korean weakness to minimize liability. The assiduous effort it put in to vetoing Korean representation at the San Francisco peace treaty negotiations is of a piece with that.

No different from typical Korean excuse, which ironically admits SK was and never have been a independent sovereign nation who should not sign the international treaty on it's behalf and the people living there.

A known Korean Japanese historian born in China describes this nation as " SK as a nation is mentally breaking down especially on history recognition and it doesn't care what the historical truths were" No wonder we see the patients here and there and even at this discussion boards

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Such kind of typical Korean excuse sounds just like...

We were babies...didn't know any rules... We had a military dictator then....not democratic... We didn't chose it but forced (AGAIN!!) ... We signed on it but actually could not read English/Japanese....so we have no idea what that clause means... We don't want to hear anything against our narratives, as a matter of fact, we don't care what actually happened and how those had happened.

FYI, this national schizophrenia of SK is not limited to Japan.

No wonder, those people still spewing their own stories that Japan forcibly colonized the peninsula or forcibly snatched girls off the street at gunpoint

7 ( +11 / -4 )

First reputable poll number from Gallup.

59% oppose Yoon's plan, 35% in support.

64% says there is no need to improve relations with Japan, 31% says improvements in relations with Japan was needed.

64% says they do not consider Japanese private contribution to so called "Future Youth Fund" to be following the Supreme Court's order.

58% oppose Yoon presidency, 34% support.

The No. 1 reason people oppose Yoon presidency is his dealings with Japan.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Looks like the Koreans see more benefit over using this as a political attack vector, than trying to work with their neighbors to get past it and forge a new future.

The Japanese made a good faith effort a couple of times. But you can only apologize, if the someone never wants to let it go, then the only thing to do is to ignore them.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

@Strangerland

Koreans see more benefit over using this as a political attack vector

The supermajority of Koreans oppose Yoon's plan, backs not improving relations with Japan. Thus there will be no public opposition when the Supreme Court finally rules liquidation of Japanese assets or Yoon's Democratic successor tear up the plan, declares that the forced laborer issue must be decided by the court and not by the executive administration.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Koreans see more benefit over using this as a political attack vector

The supermajority of Koreans oppose Yoon's plan, backs not improving relations with Japan.

See! They would rather hate Japan than work with them.

You can only work with someone who is willing to work with you. Japan did bad, bad stuff in the war, that deserves a proper apology. But Korea is more interested into holding on to anger, than working with the Japanese to come together to resolve the issue.

What is Japan supposed to do in such a case? I'd suggest they should put out an official apology regardless of Korea, on a government level, put some education into their curriculae, then move on and let Korea seethe in anger of the past while Japan moves forward in the world.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

@Strangerland

What is Japan supposed to do in such a case?

A one page letter of apology(Language doesn't matter, can be in Japanese) plus the 10% contribution into the compensation fund under the name of Mitsubishi and Nippon Steel will do.

The plaintiffs aren't asking for Japanese defendants to pay the full court ordered amount, any symbolic amount is acceptable, like 10% or $10,000. Heck, they are probably paying more in weekly lawyer's fee than that.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

A one page letter of apology(Language doesn't matter, can be in Japanese) plus the 10% contribution into the compensation fund under the name of Mitsubishi and Nippon Steel will do.

Then why isn't Korea proposing this to Japan as a solution?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

@Strangerland

Then why isn't Korea proposing this to Japan as a solution?

Japanese corporations were willing to take it, but Abe refused and Kishida inherited Abe's position.

To the misunderstanding in Japan, the plaintiffs aren't making an outrageous demand, but a very modest demand by common sense but unacceptable to Japan's history denying elites.

This was in fact an easier problem to solve than the comfort women and Nippon Steel's court filing stated while it was willing to settle, it was prevented from doing so by Japanese government.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

The truly stupid thing about South Koreans who prefer to perpetuate hatred towards Japan instead of having good relations is that South Korea gains absolutely nothing to it's benfit from a hatred policy. Whereas it gains evreything to it's advantange from having good relations. Seems like Pres Yoon and his supporters are the only ones who can see this,

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@oyatoi

It is often good to Zamaamiru yourself

1 ( +2 / -1 )

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