SK should should show where 30 % of all the materials go them talk its not japan that need to show the documents bt SK
Again, 'Abe government should stop its puerile whining about South Korea's trade systems. Even when its argument that South Korean Government did not provide some documents in time is true, such a delay in documentation cannot justify its illegal retaliation against innocent companies and civilians. The U.S. Institute for Science and International Security ranked Korea (17th) higher than Japan (36th) in strategic trade controls this year. Besides, the U.N. panels and other Japanese media have reported that Japan "exported" prohibited items to N. Korea for years.'
-8 ( +1 / -9 )
Then you should do your homework better,Japan apologized to SK already several times...
Focus on the reality anyhow. Most of Japanese governments have often denied the facts of their “war crimes” themselves that the victims reported so far. Isn’t it just hypocritical to tell an ‘apology’ in the front and just deny the facts of their wrongdoings in the back again? Now, Abe government has been making the problems more serious, nullifying even Obuchi's and other previous Japanese governments' policies and efforts. This may be a very clear fact but you seem not to want to see it. Are an imperialist Abe Hand?
-6 ( +2 / -8 )
Why do you call Abe an imperialist ...
Abe government and its followers are the underlings of Japanese imperialists, in short, because they deny the facts of Japanese imperialist war crimes, and, after all, intend to expand militarism by entering into and developing the military industry and market from it, as their ancestors did since one hundred years ago. For example, they nullify even the previous Japanese governments’ positions: “[a]s for the annexation of the Korean Peninsula, a statement issued in 2010, the centenary of the annexation treaty, by then Prime Minister Naoto Kan and endorsed by the Cabinet at that time, still remains Japan’s official position on the matter. The statement at least acknowledged the injustice of the annexation, saying, “the Korean people of that time were deprived of their country and culture ... by the colonial rule which was imposed against their will.” Oh, ....
-10 ( +1 / -11 )
Why does any country have to share important military intelligence with the imperialists of Abe government? They deny the facts of Japanese imperialist war crimes, nullifying even the previous Japanese governments’ positions, and retaliate against innocent companies and civilians: “[a]s for the annexation of the Korean Peninsula, a statement issued in 2010, the centenary of the annexation treaty, by then Prime Minister Naoto Kan and endorsed by the Cabinet at that time, still remains Japan’s official position on the matter. The statement at least acknowledged the injustice of the annexation, saying, “the Korean people of that time were deprived of their country and culture ... by the colonial rule which was imposed against their will.”
-9 ( +4 / -13 )
As Abe government and its imperialist followers continue to deny Japanese imperialists’ past crimes and disclose their present intensions and nature, they will become the biggest threat to the common citizens of Japan, Korea, and China in real, and, in near future, to those of the U.S. and other countries as well, nullifying even the previous Japanese gobernemnts's policies and efforts: “As for the annexation of the Korean Peninsula, a statement issued in 2010, the centenary of the annexation treaty, by then Prime Minister Naoto Kan and endorsed by the Cabinet at that time, still remains Japan’s official position on the matter. The statement at least acknowledged the injustice of the annexation, saying, “the Korean people of that time were deprived of their country and culture ... by the colonial rule which was imposed against their will.”
-5 ( +2 / -7 )
Imperialist followers, isn’t it a sin to deny history, hide crimes, and even insult and retaliate against innocent people?: “The International Commission of Jurists, in its report of a mission on "comfort women" published in 1994, states that the treaties referred to by the Japanese Government never intended to include claims made by individuals for inhumane treatment. It argues that the word "claims" was not intended to cover claims in tort and that the term is not defined in the agreed minutes or the protocols. It also argues that there is nothing in the negotiations which concerns violations of individual rights resulting from war crimes and crimes against humanity. The International Commission of Jurists also holds that, in the case of the Republic of Korea, that the 1965 treaty with Japan relates to reparations paid to the Government and does not include claims of individuals based on damage suffered.” … Do not give up to be a human being having Intelligence, conscience, and partnership.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Poor imperialist followers … You may be able to manipulate people’s opinions sometimes but cannot hide the factual truth forever. Just hope you can learn what is more important to you as an 'individual human being' and not just an 'animal' sometime in future. Thanks a lot!
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
What a sad and disrespectful photo is that. ...
Japanese imperialists must stop using children for imperialist political reasons at least!
You know already that it was till just two years ago that Japan has been instilling nationalism and militarism in its 3 to 5-year-old pupils. Do you think it is right to use a photo of children that is not directly relevant to the title and content of news article for political reasons again now, especially if for a so selfish and dirty purpose to excite Abe government's followers?
-8 ( +1 / -9 )
Poor Abe ... The interest of commenters here seem to move on to the issues of "kicking" and "children", rather than to Abe's and his imperialists' big-heartedness ...
-10 ( +3 / -13 )
The fact was that Abe also requested governmental talks. Moon rejected, citing "separation of powers".
Ha ha, ... then, both Abe and Moon requested and just rejected each other's requests for having governmental talks? It's really funny! It is even more ridiculous if Moon cited the principle of separation of power as the reason for rejecting Abe’s request for having a talk. Rather, I would bet it is more realistic that there are some misunderstandings or distortions about Moon's actions, unless he, as an ex- a civil-rights lawyer, is insane.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
The fact was that Abe requested an international arbitration with regard to the said court ruling according to the 1965 Treaty. Moon rejected the arbitration even though the Treaty requires both parties to follow the arbitration procedures.
If it really wanted to solve a problem, Abe government should have started to have governmental discussion first of course, before directly requesting to bring the case to international arbitration. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court made a decision implying that the Treaty was irrelevant to the matters of criminal indemnification and it was nonsense for Korean government to discuss the matters with an international institute, unless it is an international criminal court. Furthermore, South Korea’s government actually has repeated to request Abe government to have governmental discussion soon. But, did you watch Abe government's responding attitudes shown through mass media?
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Dream2030 , Article 2 is clear, Treaties by there very definition, in this case ...
I love your approach and would agree that Japanese and Korean government may have agreed that the 1965 treaty is unequivocal as written.
However, the key issue is on the legal interpretation of “claims”. Do they mean all of those claims for civil property rights in general? Or, do they also mean the other ones for criminal indemnification? Unfortunately the treaty did not define it at all. It has not been an easy matter.
Thus, considering the nature of treaty itself, historical follow-ups by the two governments, and other international laws, South Korea’s Supreme Court has finally made a decision implying that the treaty is irrelevant to individual victim’s claim.
Now, if Abe government disliked that decision, it could request discussion about its legality of course, and, if it believed that South Korea’s government should be responsible for it, it could also have separate government discussion.
Nevertheless, what did Abe government? It just started to retaliate to irrelevant companies right after the Court’s decision and just before the national election of Japan. Who was to get benefits from such a retaliation?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Wow, so your inability to detect sense allows you to ignore the plaintext? As for the 2nd part, to be more accurate, both sides disagreed on the characterization, so they decided to just settle things with a money transfer. ..
Really sorry for not-being able to understand your wordings and logics. I will appreciate it if you can more simplify and clarify your points. ...
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I have said multiple times I wish Japan was more contrite about its past and with warming ties until fairly recently I felt there might be a chance they may start adopting a different perspective on the situation but by the route that was taken it has put Japan on the defensive. ...
Okay. Then, let’s make a step further.
Abe and his followers argued that the decision of South Korea’s Supreme Court was wrong and tried to justify his government’s restriction of exports to South Korea by it today. In contrast, Korean government and other Japanese and Korean citizens and international societies say that ‘Abe should never have introduced commercial weapons into a political dispute’. If seen from an objective perspective, while the legality of the Court’s decision is arguable at best, there will be no doubt about the fact that Abe government’s action is illegal now.
Then, what should be done? Naturally, in accordance to the seriousness of illegality, Abe government should apologize to the innocent companies and consumers that it caused damages to first and, if it wants to, suggest to discuss the legality of the Court’s decision taking enough time of grace period.
Do you think Abe government and its followers will accept this solution voluntarily? Maybe not! It Abe government has denied the facts of war crimes themselves that their victims reported so far. Isn’t it hypocritical to tell an ‘apology’ in the front, just denying the reasons for it themselves in the back?
The answers will show a reason why normal citizens with conscience and common sense should cooperate to overcome the threats from Abe government and its followers.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Just to correct some typos above comment: " ... ranked Japan 67th out of 180 countries (between Niger 66th and Malawi th) ... " and also suggest "Nationalism continues to create ignorant. Worry about [Abe governement's and is followers'] real problems and don't make up stories to distract attention. Japan [should have] already apologized, let history serve to not repeat mistakes, not as an excuse to create hate.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Nationalism continues to create ignorant. Worry about Korea's real problems and don't make up stories to distract attention. Japan has already apologized, let history serve to not repeat mistakes, not as an excuse to create hate.
Hm .. Just refer to the report of 2019 World Press Freedom Index of RWB/RSF: ranked Japan 67th out of 180 countries (between Niger 66th and Malawi 67th) and explained that there is 'a climate of mistrust toward journalists ever since Shinzo Abe became prime minister again in 2012'. Which party makes "stories to distract attention" between Abe government and "Korea"?
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
On this part, it is sufficient to point out the title is "Agreement on the settlement of problems concerning property and claims and on economic co-operation". Economic cooperation is separate from "Settlement of problems concerning Property and Claims". ...
So, ... no matter whether they make sense or not, are you saying that 1) the 1965 covered two irrelevant or different themes and that 2) its settlement amount was paid as the compensation for the losses and pains caused by Japanese imperialist war crimes related to forced labor, sexual slavery, land grab, etc. after all? Then, let's request Abe to officially confess the facts of Japanese war crimes and make your points clear. Most of the conflicts between Japanese and Korean governments will be solved definitely! Do you agree to it?
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Dream2030, the implications are clearly stated within the Treaty....
If you don’t want to, let me tell a little more about the answer. A problem of the 1965 treaty is that it by itself implies nothing clear about the terms and conditions of settlement, except the matters of money, in actual.
Rather, its nature itself was different from those of other after-war treaties and did not deal with the matters of war criminal indemnification. That is, while it states that it aimed at settling the “problem” of “property” and “claims” “between the two countries and their nationals” and “promoting the economic co-operation between the two countries,” the “property and claims” here should be interpreted by the words themselves, related to promoting economic cooperation. They are irrelevant with the matters of individual victims’ requests for criminal indemnification. It has been the fundamental view that other Japanese prime ministers’ governments have kept and it may be the reason why they at least repeated the “expression of remorse" even since that, except Abe causing problems!
In addition, your opinion that “South Korea Supreme Court has no jurisdiction” is absolutely against the territorial principle and is to make nonsense.
The last part of your comments is not so much understandable but looks just evasive from the truth unfortunately.
Just hope that Japanese and Korean common citizens can undertand their history and make compromise for the future.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
They didn't just say they can "seek justice" (even Japan says they can seek justice), they tried to impose justice on an issue that by international agreement has been settled (this is the disallowed part). We are basically getting into a Permissible Coercions problem. You should divide your thinking into several parts.
Wow, … to put it straightforward, … you say 1) the decision of South Korea’s Supreme Court is “incorrect” because it is against the 1965 treaty between governments; 2) any government can be against the principles of Separation of Powers, if in order to keep it; thus, 3) any “coercion” by governments against the Supreme Court should be acceptable; and 4) if not, “a complete Might makes Right or Suppression of Will situation” will come. Is my above summary right?
Then, your statement sounds like that of typical imperialist fascism, doesn’t it? … Why don’t you tell something more about the 1965 treaty that you may so much believe in?
0 ( +1 / -1 )
The implications are clear. This South Korean Government cannot be relied upon or trusted to comply to agreements or signed Treaties...
Point out clearly what are those "implications" and how they are relevant to the decision of South Korea’s Supreme Court that no government has right to stop an individual victim seeking a justice.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Im not Japanese and not imperialist in any way....
Let’s focus on the reality. Don’t you agree to the fact that Abe government's restrictions of exports to South Korea is damaging other innocent companies’ and consumers’ businesses and relations and it will not end in a short term? Abe himself clarified today that he did so because South Korea’s Supreme Court ordered Japanese companies to compensate forced laborers that they used during World War II. A shared request of Japanese and Korean common citizens and other international societies is that ‘Abe should never have introduced commercial weapons into a political dispute and, now, he must compromise.' What is funny but dangerous is that Abe and his followers are rather eager to criticize the Supreme Court’s decision: they deny a common sense of international law that no government has right to stop individual victim seeking a justice! Aren’t they a real threat to the future? (It is good to hear that you are not an imperialist but please notice that I did not ever said you are in fact.)
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
A annexation, not invasion or war, then a world war where Japan clearly lost and paid both in their own human loss and in payments to effected countries....
Nonsense. International normal people say that it is “invasion” to occupy other countries’ territories by killing and destroying their people and political, cultural, legal systems. Only Japanese imperialist call it “annexation”. It is even funny that you understand the two words as if they are antonyms.
Then, anyway, are you arguing that Japan has paid the 1965 settlement amount for the past “annexation”, and not for the losses and pains caused by Japanese imperialist war crimes? Why? Keep in mind that the 1965 treaty was signed mainly for reestablishing diplomatic relations between the two governments and Japan has taken the benefits of huge trade surplus from Korea since that till now.
After all, you said that you are “not responsible for my brothers or fathers crimes”. Take it easy, nobody wants to accuse you of them of course. What common citizens want you to do is just not to be an underling of Abe government and its imperialist fascism. It is because, again, "human beings try to understand the present and the future through learning from the past history" but they often deny it, damaging other innocent Japanese and Korean companies and consumers’ businesses and relations.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
It is a big irony. Neither Japanese nor Korean governments have ever officially and clearly told that the 1965 treaty settlement amount was paid as the “compensation for the losses caused by Japanese war crimes” previously. Actually, Abe government and its followers have often denied the facts of Japanese imperialists' war crimes themselves and even the mainstream Japanese imperialists did not want anyone to clarify the matters of criminal indemnity in details. Now, Abe is saying that they committed the war crimes in fact?
-11 ( +2 / -13 )
juminRhee, unfortunately, yes is no, white is black, bad is good, lie is truth, that is reality in Japan today, and we all have to get used to it as citizens.
Mysterious. ... Is it rather because JT is a conservative newspaper that even your factual comments got downvoted? (The report of 2019 World Press Freedom Index of RWB/RSF has ranked Japan 67th out of 180 countries, which position may mean “not good”, while Korea 41th and the U.S. 48th.) Still I do not know well about JT though I believe that there must be respected some Japanese media.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
South Korea is on the way to build a cooperative economic system with North Korea and other countries. Though there are lots of challenges for it of course, the way itself has nothing wrong in its direction and will lead to new economic opportunities to many countries after all. Abe government and its imperialist followers do not have right to say anything about it: haven't they been rather damaging the businesses and relations of all other innocent Japanese and Korean companies and consumers by restricting experts to South Korea so far?
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
FT.com says Japan removed South Korea from the "white list" because of the dispute about compensation for forced labor during the second world war, but that is not the reason why....
What are your main information sources? Many international newspapers point out that Abe government has provided “no evidences” in fact. Do you believe Japanese media are likely free from the intervention by Abe government and its imperialist followers? The report of 2019 World Press Freedom Index of RWB/RSF has ranked Japan 67th out of 180 countries, which position may mean “not good”, while Korea 41th and the U.S. 48th. It also clearly explains that there is 'a climate of mistrust toward journalists ever since Shinzo Abe became prime minister again in 2012', though I myself still believe that there must be respected some of Japanese media.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Kurisuchan714, Focus on the reality. Almost every person may agree to this at least. Abe government’s restrictions of exports to Korea is damaging the businesses and relations of other innocent Japanese and Korean companies and consumers and it will not end in a short term. Who was to get an immediate benefit from this dirty trade war?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
indier99, I apologize myself to you. I did misread your previous comments (To my shame, it seems that I need to be more patient sometimes) and would absolutely agree to your clear points now. Appreciate your kind understanding :)
0 ( +0 / -0 )
ken1911jp and indier99, can you trust "Chosun" newspapers that you are citing? It is a pro-Japanese-imperialist newspaper published in Korea but has been criticized for its spotty fact-finding journalistic reporting for years, having its history of collaboration with Japanese imperialists during Japanese colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula (1910–1945) and, after that, with Korean military dictators during the domestic authoritarian rule (1960s to 80s).
-1 ( +0 / -1 )