What the ? So this reporter now wants Japan to take credit for the election victory in Taiwan. lol
-1 ( +9 / -10 )
Remember, it's not as though the 2015 Korea was in dire straits and was forced to sign the 2015 accord. So, why did Korea sign the 2015 agreement if they were going to re-visit it/re-litigate it?
I haven't really seen an answer to that question.
Maybe you should ask Abe why he threatened S Korea with economic sanctions against the Park administration if she did not go ahead and sign the 2015 agreement, the same way Abe threatened Moon with economic sanctions if the latter did not overrule the S Korean Supreme Court rulings. Park caved in, Moon didn’t.
Furthermore, the agreement didn’t even serve its purpose as highlighted by UN experts who therefore made recommendations for Japan to redress the issues.
-11 ( +2 / -13 )
I guess you don't know that 1965 agreement covered both the comfort woman issue and the forced labor Issue,
I guess your history is as bad as your spelling.
Read the following report by UN experts before you make fun of other’s spelling. The 1965 treaty did not cover comfort women nor forced laborers. Saying otherwise is an admission of being Abe’s blind sheep because it is Abe who that created that fake narratives. Even the previous Japanese governments acknowledged the 1965 treaty did not cover comfort women nor forced laborers.
-14 ( +3 / -17 )
The last time you tried to use a quote from an article to 'prove' your point, it backfired. Then you quote an article again to 'prove' your point, and the same result.
When someone says "the move was seen as....", it is not a factual statement. It is an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Any well balanced article wouldn't just mention that statement, it would also mention the numerous times the South Korean government ignored Japan's request for clarification about it's export controls.
Backfired? Just like you did the last time, you are making an assumption about an article, and then using that to support your narrative. This time, you are assuming the article is 'unbalanced' just because it didn't include your narrative and using that to accuse me of incorrectly using a quote from the article. It's convoluted.
All I mentioned to you was that it wasn't the 'crowd' that you accused of stating the facts, but the article itself. But, as usual, you then go off tangent and falsely accuse others.
-11 ( +1 / -12 )
Has the concept of proportionate measures ever occurred to you?
If you want to defend Abenarratives, at least try to ensure it makes sense.
Two of the three export restricted items weren't even included in the list of 156 cases of potential export violations by S Korea. If it was proportional, Japan shouldn't have targeted those two items and at the same time permanently damage Japan's supply industry. Instead, they should have targeted the other materials that were included in the 156 cases. Seriously, really lame excuse.
-12 ( +1 / -13 )
Despite what the usual crowd on here would still have you believe, this whole nonsense could have been avoided had the South Korean government not ignored Japan's request for clarification for violations of export controls going on for several years.
Usual crowd? It's in the article, not the comments section.
The move was seen as Japanese retaliation for South Korean court rulings ordering Japanese companies to compensate elderly former Korean laborers for abusive treatment during Japan's 1910-1945 colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula.
And if you really want to believe in the fake Abenarratives, there are over 100 materials exported from Japan to South Korea that are classified as sensitive materials used for developing WMD. If S Korea failed to comply with Japan's request for clarification of alleged export violation, then Japan should have restricted all sensitive materials, not just the three items used for semi conductor production. There's no logic whatsoever other than pure tactical retaliatory measure attacking Korea's core industry. Grow up!
-13 ( +6 / -19 )
Glad they are talking too but unless S. Korea becomes a reliable friend and ally that can keep a promise an agreement signed, then talks can reverse back to not talking.
Again, read the following reports by UN experts. It aint S Korea breaking promises.
If you go after Japanese companies don't expect this talks on trade curb to continue, don't expect to be on white list either.
Glad you admit that the trade curbs are linked to the Supreme Court rulings unlike some other sheep still in denial.
-18 ( +1 / -19 )
and has addressed both houses of Congress to a standing ovation.
You keep repeating this as if this is something extraordinary. It’s not. There are other cases where guest speakers received standing ovations.
So from the U.S. view, he has done quite a job of further cementing US-JPN relations.
Yep, but you forgot to mention that Abe lied to Trump about the millions of tons of corn he said he’ll purchase from the US.
-5 ( +8 / -13 )
Article 9 is outdated I support Abe on that. People who dislike Japan, are bias and have posted very negative things about the country including Korean propaganda support and Love article 9. All our enemies support article 9 for Japan... For their own countries never!! But you Japan Article 9.
So we are enemies if we don’t support your views? This isn’t school buddy where kids take sides and those not on our side are considered sworn enemies. I love certain aspects of Japan but there are areas where I am critical. Doesn’t make us an enemy of Japan. So grow up!
Article 9 does not need to be amended. You have the defense force already. The only reason to amend it is to have an attack force. And don’t be naive about Japan being a pacifist country. Your neighbor across the sea won’t agree with you. Throughout written history, Japan has attacked Korea 715 times, 2 of them major invasions. This is how aggressive Japan is with an army. Not even China has attacked Korea to that extent (16 times), despite being closer and having a larger military. There’s a reason why the US imposed article 9 in the constitution - It’s for world peace.
-6 ( +7 / -13 )
He was wrong about the 2015 comfort women deal. He gave S. Korea what they asked for and wanted only to back fire on him, and Koreans don't even like him.
Abe didn’t even consult the victims so how did he give S Korea what they wanted. It was a stuffed up agreement as reported by a group of UN Human Rights experts.
Your hatred of Korea is pathetic. At least base it on facts, not your emotions.
-5 ( +7 / -12 )
Another one of his tatemae. Lost count already.
-7 ( +5 / -12 )
It had also generated massive amounts of material, 20 million cubic meters of topsoil, most of which will have to be safely stored for perhaps 30 years and eventually treated.
Yes, stored and treated. Not placed near river banks so that hundreds of bags are 'accidentally' washed away by Typhoon Hagibis so that you dont have to worry about treating it.
The way the J Gov dealt with this whole aftermath is a joke.
No wonder you have some of the Olympic teams including the US now thinking of having their bases outside of Japan (eg Busan) due to radiation fears. Its a complete joke.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Actually, Japan does recognize mental illness. They have the highest number of psychiatric people, hospitals, beds per capita than anywhere else in the world, almost double the next highest country.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
The hypocrisy of the Japanese politicians is astonishing.
Just part of Abe’s daily life.
-11 ( +8 / -19 )
Wisely stated yet again, old man. South Korea keeps backing down. Another win to Japan.
I just love these patriotic comments blinded by pure ignorance.
The fact is China and South Korea have been demanding Japan to join the multiparty discussions for some time already but Japan kept dismissing it.
Good on ICAO for knocking some senses into Japan.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Those reports by Coomaraswamy or McDougall are simply garbage criticized severely by professional historians including the one who’ s been one of core scholars siding with SK’s main narratives.
Gees, you’re still harping on about the Japanese historians as if they can objectively interpret international treaties, and as if it carries more weight than INDEPENDENT UN experts.
As far as 1965 treaty is concerned, one should notice those special reports were presented in late 90’s *when detailed minutes or dialogue for negotiation process were not yet fully disclosed and investigated. Hence those reporters had no idea what were discussed during such 14 years of negotiation process, which is obvious seen from the fact they read only the texts of the treaty itself.
**Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Art31&32 clarify not only how Treaty is worded but also all the supporting documents( agreed minutes, dialogue records) are to be referred to in case of the dispute***
If you have read the minutes, you will also know that Japan kept denying any illegal activities. Hence, they insisted the naming of the funds be called “economic cooperation” fund, and not include the word “compensation”.
Further, if you want to bring up the Vienna Convention, Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: “A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.”
Peremptory norm bans slavery which includes sexual slavery, slave labor, wartime labor, etc. (aka. comfort women, forced laborers). These basic violation of human rights cannot be waived by any treaty, and applies to all retroactive treaties.
As a matter of fact, Korean delegates did know the existence of comfort women, and did refer to comfort women and the issues related to comfort women in 2nd negotiation held in 1953. THEY KNEW WHAT CW DOES.
Japan denied all atrocities in the negotiations means that Japan concealed the truth as per the UN report. It’s got nothing to do with what the Koreans knew.
UNCHR can make no mistakes with possible false charge, which is the reason they only recommend. If SK seeks for absolute judgement by Int’l communities, it should sit at the table for arbitration or ICJ as stipulated clearly in the treaty.
You cannot keep running away from such judgement and keep referring to so called UN committees recommendations dated long time ago that lack significant volume of newly found information.
The truth is previous governments of Japan have all said that individual’s right to claim have not been extinguished. Only Abe has backflipped on this. Further, 100 Japanese lawyers issued a joint statement that they agree with ruling by South Korea’s Supreme Court ruling.
This is one of the biggest lies propagated by Abe, and all his gullible sheep are just blindly following it.
END OF STORY.
-17 ( +4 / -21 )
Also, a group of U.N. human rights experts said the 2015 agreement was flawed and asked Japan to address the issues.
-24 ( +5 / -29 )
I’ve posted this before, will post again. UNCHR experts sided with Korea and stated that the 1965 treaty did not cover inhumane acts. Saying otherwise is another one of Abe’s biggest lies.
-23 ( +6 / -29 )
When will people learn not to trust Abe and co.
Promised Trump personally that Japan will purchase 2.5 million tons of corn from the US, but later denied such promise to his colleagues.
Boasted ’with many days of mild and sunny weather, this period provides an ideal climate for athletes to perform at their best’, when in fact the Tokyo olympics will be hottest summer olympics ever
Said Fukushima waste was all under control, but deliberately placed contaminated bags next to river banks so that it was ‘accidentally’ swept away by typhoon Hagibis, causing IOC President Bach to announce that they will investigate radiation levels
Adjusted minimum safe radiation levels to force Fukushima residents to return home
Ordered JOC to delete/discard/remove all paper trails and financial statements to hinder investigation re allegations of bribery
Asked Korea to remove Dokdo from the unified flag on the pretense the island is in dispute, but then included them in Japan’s map for 2020 olympics
Wrongly accuse South Korea of not honoring the 1965 treaty when the Supreme Court handed judgment against the Japanese companies, despite the fact that previous governments, UNCHR, group of 100 Japanese lawyers all say otherwiseAccuse South Korea of export violation to North Korea without giving any evidence
AND NOW THIS.
What a joke!
-20 ( +2 / -22 )
Yes. He is one of core scholars supporting Korean narrative
He is also a historian and not an international lawyer meaning that his interpretation of treaties carries no weight. Further, he has no credibility regarding comfort women because his backtracking of statements left him with none.
Find a non Japanese to rebut the UN report.
OK I take it as you can't as you haven't actually read them.
Honestly, it was arrogant of you to ask me to give you links from a 1200 page document. I’m not a 10 yen warrior with plenty of time. Why don’t you search and disprove it if you can, but I guarantee you won’t.
Yes that's why too many misunderstand it and OHCHR website is misleading and to be corrected.
Its your opinion. Enough said. There is a reason why the U.N. calls them “UN human rights expert”.
Sure they can but that doesn't mean such individuals always correct and logical, fair, reasonable, etc worthwhile for governments to listed to. This group of the greatest so-called EXPERTS probably owned such EXPERTISE to come up with EXPERT-WORK in just 2months and 2 weeks since 2015 CW agreement was finally settled 25 years-lasted issue between 2 sovereign nations, which basically repeats nothing else but what Chong Dae Hyup claims. So Much for so called experts isn't it.
Look, you're focusing on something minor like all Japanese tend to do without understanding the issue.
The fact is, 3rd party experts have already concluded that the 1965 treaty did not cover claims for any inhumane acts, such as comfort women and forced laborers. This was also the view of the Supreme Court ruling and was also the view of the 100 Japanese lawyers who supported the Supreme Court judgment. Abe and his sheep saying Korea broke promises is one of the biggest lies promulgated by nippon kaigi.
END OF STORY.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
You know who Yoshimi Yoshiaki is don't you?
Like where in which negotiation (from 1st ~6 th) . Care to provide links? Did you actually read them?
You want me to spoon feed you? How about you disprove my statement instead.
No They don't belong to UN , hence it is wrong to call them UN experts, or to take their opinions as UN's view.
The very first statement in that link calls them United Nations human rights experts.
Individuals freely make opinions or recommendations.
Yeah, but they can also urge governments to take action without protesting.
-7 ( +0 / -7 )
Those reports by Coomaraswamy or McDougall are garbage criticized severely by professional historians (including even Yoshimi Yoshiaki).
Of course it’s rubbish to the Japanese because it doesn’t fit their narratives.
As far as 1965 treaty is concerned, one should notice those special reports were presented in late 90’s *when detailed minutes or dialogue for negotiation process were not yet fully disclosed and investigated. Hence those reporters had no idea what were discussed during such 14 years of negotiation process.
As a matter of fact, Korean delegates did know the existence of comfort women, and did refer to comfort women and the issues related to comfort women in 2nd negotiation held in 1953.
Pathetic rebuttal. The 1200 pages of declassified documents further showed that Japan kept denying all atrocities during the negotiation.
Like I repeatedly said, those experts do not belong to UN, do not represent UN's view.
They are all classified as UN experts, doesn’t make their findings any less significant.
SK is the party which reached to this agreement as final and irreversible one. Those independent so-called experts working on their own individual capacity has no say about the agreement between two sovereign nations
Which is why they made recommendation for Japan to redress the 2015 agreement as it did not follow international norms when making such agreement. In other words, it’s a stuffed up agreement.
-7 ( +0 / -7 )
Also, if you think the 2015 agreement was fair, read what a group of U.N. human rights experts had to say about that.
GENEVA (11 March 2016) – A group of United Nations human rights experts today raised concerns at the agreement on the issue of ‘comfort women’ passed between Japan and the Republic of Korea in December 2015, and urged the Japanese Government to implement without delay the recommendations* made earlier this week by the UN Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
The term ‘comfort women’ refers to hundreds of thousands of girls and women from several Asian countries abducted and forced into sexual slavery prior and during World War II by the Japanese imperial military.
On 28 December 2015, the agreement between Japan and South Korea declared the issues arising from the widespread and systematic human rights violation of the ‘comfort women’ as final and irreversible.
In this context, Japan agreed to acknowledge and express regret for its role and to provide a one-time contribution of one billion yen (US$ 8.3 million) to carry out joint projects with South Korea, including a foundation to be established by the country.
For its part, the South Korean Government agreed to consider the removal of a statue commemorating the ‘comfort women’ built in front of Japan’s embassy in Seoul. Both governments agreed to refrain from accusing or criticizing each other in the international community on this issue.
“We believe the agreement between Japan and South Korea falls short of meeting the demands of survivors,” said the independent experts on discrimination against women, transitional justice and torture. “An unequivocal official apology recognizing the full responsibility of the then Japanese Government and military, as well as adequate reparations, would protect and uphold the victims’ right to truth, justice and reparation.”
“We are also deeply concerned that the Republic of Korea may remove a statue commemorating not only the historical issue and legacy of the ‘comfort women’ but also symbolizing the survivors’ long search for justice,” they added.
The human rights experts drew attention to the fact that the agreement does not meet standards of State accountability for gross human rights violations and was reached without a proper consultation process.
“Neither the surviving victims nor the organizations representing them for more than 20 years were consulted in the preparation of this agreement,” they stated. “This undermines decades of activism and efforts to seek truth and justice and naturally leaves the survivors in considerable distress.”
The experts stated that “the Governments of Japan and South Korea should understand that this issue will not be considered resolved so long as all the victims, including from other Asian countries, remain unheard, their expectations unmet and their wounds left wide open.” They underscored that this is now a race against time given the age of the survivors.
-7 ( +2 / -9 )
Unfortunately the Human Rights Council has no legal standing and cannot adjudicate matters such as you described. Whatever they may have allegedly "found" is meaningless from a legal point of view as it cannot be enforced.
I highly doubt that they would waste their time on issues from WWII that had already been adjudicated. If you have a citation or a date that this was "found" please share.
A typical Japanese apologist’s response that completely misses the point.
You referred to Kono’s statement to support your narrative. The Koreans obviously have their own narrative. Therefore, a rational human being would try to rely on objective reports from experts to ascertain the truth.
In her report, Ms. McDougall finds that "the Japanese military’s enslavement of women throughout Asia during the Second World War was a clear violation, even at that time, of customary international law prohibiting slavery … As with slavery, the laws of war also prohibited rape and forced prostitution" (appendix, paragraphs 12 and 17). The Committee also notes the further findings: "*The widespread or systematic enslavement of persons has also been recognized as a crime against humanity for at least half a century. This is particularly true when such crimes have been committed during an armed conflict … In addition to enslavement, widespread or systematic acts of rape also fall within the general prohibition of ‘inhumane acts’ in the traditional formulation of crimes against humanity **…*" (appendix, paragraphs 18 and 20).
Referring to article 2 of the 1965 Settlement Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea and Article 14(b) of the 1951 Treaty of Peace, the report of Ms. McDougall states: "*The Government of Japan’s attempt to escape liability through the operation of these treaties fails on two counts: (a) Japan’s direct involvement in the establishment of the rape camps was concealed when the treaties were written, a crucial fact that must now prohibit on equity grounds any attempt by Japan to rely on these treaties to avoid liability; and (b) the plain language of the treaties indicates that they were not intended to foreclose claims for compensation by individuals for harms committed by the Japanese military in violation of human rights or humanitarian law***" (appendix, paragraph 55). **
The Committee also notes the reference in the trade unions’ comments to paragraph 58 of the appendix to the McDougall report, which states: "*It is also self-evident from the text of the 1965 Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Co-operation between Japan and the Republic of Korea that it is an economic treaty that resolves ‘property’ claims between the countries and does not address human rights issues [citation omitted]. There is no reference in the treaty to ‘comfort women’, rape, sexual slavery, or any other atrocities committed by the Japanese against Korean civilians. Rather, the provisions in the treaty refer to property and commercial relations between the two nations. In fact, Japan’s negotiator is said to have promised during the treaty talks that Japan would pay the Republic of Korea for any atrocities inflicted by the Japanese upon the Koreans [citation omitted]."The Committee notes further that in paragraph 59 of the appendix, the report states: "Clearly, the funds provided by Japan under the Settlement Agreement [with Korea] were intended only for economic restoration and not individual compensation for the victims of Japan’s atrocities. As such, the 1965 treaty - despite its seemingly sweeping language - extinguished only economic and property claims between the two nations and not private claims …*".
The Committee further notes the points made in paragraph 62 of the appendix to the report: "*As with the 1965 Settlement Agreement between Japan and Korea, moreover, the interests of equity and justice must prevent Japan from relying on the 1951 peace treaty to avoid liability when the Japanese Government failed to reveal at the time of the treaty the extent of the Japanese military’s involvement in all aspects of the establishment, maintenance and regulation of the comfort stations [citation omitted]. As an additional principle of equity, when jus cogens norms are invoked, States that stand accused of having violated such fundamental laws must not be allowed to rely on mere technicalities to avoid liability. And, in any event, it must be emphasized that Japan may always voluntarily set aside any treaty-based defences to liability that may be available to them in order to facilitate actions that are clearly in the interests of fairness and justice**." *
-8 ( +1 / -9 )
Why don't you ask LG, Samsung etc where the money is that Japan paid all this time for all compensation issues. Japan is not entitled to pay on this forever. Sorry it has paid the bill in full. Please read the 1956 San Francisco Treaty very carefully and clearly. It is spelled out in black and white what Japan was entitled to do regarding war reparations which includes all the bickering from South Korea. Enough the cash cow is closed.
1956 San Francisco Treaty? Right.
Perhaps you should refer to reports by third parties such as U.N. Commission for Human Rights that stated that the 1965 treaty between Korea and Japan did not cover claims against comfort women nor forced laborers. In other words, they clearly rejected Japan’s assertion and sided with Korea.
Unfortunately, you’ve been brainwashed like the rest of the Japanese.
-9 ( +4 / -13 )
The article below authored by Taro Kano Minister of Defense of Japan and pretty much sums up this whole debacle. South Korea is a great country and one of the few developed countries that has never invaded another country. But it has to learn to stand by its word. A deal is a deal.
Relying on an article by Kono? Real smart.
Perhaps you should refer to reports by third parties such as U.N. Commission for Human Rights that stated that the 1965 treaty did not cover claims against comfort women nor forced laborers. In other words, they rejected Japan’s assertion and sided with Korea.
Furthermore, this has also been the view of previous Japanese governments, as well as the group of 100 lawyers that sided with South Korea’s Supreme Court ruling.
Abe is lying through his teeth, and you my friend, fell into the Japanese trap.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
The problem is, Japan already tried to deal with this, and negotiated a good-faith agreement to finalize the problem irreversibly. Coming to the table was an acknowledgement that there were issues left over from WWII that needed rectification. Negotiating an agreement, something they were not required to do through any force other than their own will to do so, shows that they recognized Japan had done wrong in the war, and Korea deserved compensation for that.
Korea, in signing the agreement, accepted Japan's acknowledgement of the issue, as well as the compensation for that.
But then, Korea turned around and decided the agreement was no good, started suing Japanese companies, and the government stoked anti-Japanese hatred. Now, if they were acting in good faith, they would see that Japan had already tried to act in good faith, and since Korea were the ones deciding after the fact it was not good enough, at a bare minimum, it's up to Korea to advance an alternative. Which, after an agreement has been signed, is particularly underhanded. It's something Trump would do.
You keep rambling on about something you have no idea on. I raised this up last time, but obviously some people’s brain capacity is already filled up.
The agreement was for comfort women. The suing of Japanese companies were by forced laborers. In other words, forced laborers claiming had nothing to do with the agreement, but to do with the lack of coverage in the 1965 treaty, a fact that was acknowledged by the U.N.CHR.
With respect to the agreement, the U.N.CED sided with Korea and said the agreement was inadequate. Good faith? Rear end. More like shot gun agreement.
-5 ( +3 / -8 )
You know what's truly hilarious? When someone quotes from an article to 'prove' their point, but then the quote itself actually contradicts that point.
The quote is actually another standalone point. Duh.
Japan didn't cave into anything. For several years Japan had tried to deal with the export control violations on a professional level with South Korea, and the South Koreans ignored Japan. For over three years. This white list issue would never have happened if South Korea didn't act like a spoiled, entitled brat constantly antagonizong Japan.
And not long ago South Korea threatened to take this to the WTO. Japan was like, go right on ahead, because they did absolutely nothing wrong in removing SK from the white list, something ANY other country would have done.
South Korea tried to call Japan's bluff and it failed. They knew they had no case at the WTO, so they halted it. Only AFTER South Korean notified Japan of this, THEN Japan, like the mature and rational country it is shown itself to be here, resumed trade talks. If anything it was South Korea that caved.
Herein lies your convoluted logic. Export control is a trade issue. GSOMIA is a security issue. Abe and his sheep kept ranting on about how the two must be dealt separately. But now, Abe just agreed to talk about export controls on a security issue. Go figure!
Moon stuck to his words, Abe backtracked on his words. Further, if Abe is deemed to backtrack on this promise yet again, GSOMIA ends with immediate effect.
And I can guarantee you that all of this will be misreported in the Japanese media as we speak so that Abe saves his face and to placate his ring wing sheep.
-11 ( +3 / -14 )
It’s so hilarious how the Japanese people here comprehend this article so differently.
Even a non-Japanese FIVE YEAR OLD will tell you that South Korea decided to extend GSOMIA only because Abe caved in and agreed to settle their trade dispute. Also, Moon has the upper hand because he can cancel GSOMIA with no notice if Abe lies through his teeth again.
Japan's trade ministry said it decided to resume discussions with South Korea on their dispute over the export controls after Seoul informed it of its plan to halt its WTO action.
Pathetic attempt at covering up Japan’s incompetence.
-14 ( +5 / -19 )
That Korean Supreme Court is part of that same government that made a "final and irreversible" agreement with Japan to end this whole fiasco, then immediately went on to whine about it and show that it clearly wasn't final or irreversible.
Even the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances announced that the 2015 agreement was inadequate. Abe tried to obscure its purpose by even calling the fund 'donation', not compensation. Whats with Japan and euphemisms?
-12 ( +2 / -14 )