yaponezy comments

Posted in: S Korea warns of security impact if dropped from Japan's easy-trade list See in context

Korea never broke the 1965 agreement. Individuals right to claim for damages were never included in the treaty.

Even the Japanese government internally admitted that over the past 40 years.

Even the 100 or so Japanese lawyers issued a joint statement saying they supported the decision by Korea's Supreme Court.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Posted in: S Korea warns of security impact if dropped from Japan's easy-trade list See in context

how do they know you guys won't just negotiate something and then afterwards shoot it down again?

Lol. another Japanese who does not even know who tore up the Japan Korea treaty 1904. Hypocrites!

Oh thats right, I forgot. 'History' textbooks are fictional books.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Posted in: Abe unlikely to meet Moon at U.N. in September See in context

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 )

Posted in: Abe unlikely to meet Moon at U.N. in September See in context

@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 )

Posted in: Abe unlikely to meet Moon at U.N. in September See in context

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 )

Posted in: Abe unlikely to meet Moon at U.N. in September See in context

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 )

Posted in: Abe unlikely to meet Moon at U.N. in September See in context

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 )

Posted in: Abe unlikely to meet Moon at U.N. in September See in context

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 )

Posted in: U.S. willing to hold 3-way talks with Japan, S Korea next week See in context

@pacificwest

Still not convinced?

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.

It's not me that is saying the complete opposite. It's the Japanese government.

So why does the Japanese government say one consistent statement internally, and another statement "officially"?

Think laterally. It might be due to the floodgate of claims. No?

The Abe government and its herd of black sheep are crying foul about South Korea's Supreme Court ruling, but the truth is the government already knows internally that's individual rights to claim have not been extinguished.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Posted in: U.S. willing to hold 3-way talks with Japan, S Korea next week See in context

Any person can see that property is separated from "claims", and both have been settled. You might also ask yourself why the Japanese would sign anything that would have them pay money and still leave the Koreans with the effective power to claim more money in the future. Obviously, this is absurd and it is impossible to imagine of Koreans thinking this is a serious idea.

The "claims" you talk about did not include "claim rights", the latter including compensation for damages.

The agreement applied to Japanese citizens as well. As mentioned previously, Japan did not extinguish the rights of any individual for these claims rights because the treaty would not have been ratified by the Diet if it included clauses extinguishing the rights of Japanese citizens.

That is why, I repeat:

the Japanese government in 1991 admitted twice, through Yanai Shunji, in the Japanese Diet that an individual’s right to file a claim had not been terminated despite the 1965 bilateral agreements.

Foreign Minister Shiina informed the Special Committee on the Treaty between Japan and Korea that the treaty "only waives the right to diplomatic protection but not individual rights."

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.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Posted in: Concerned citizens criticize Japanese gov't over worsening ties with S Korea See in context

@ Kazuaki Shimazaki

To say that, you will already have to have preconceptions about what the truth is, which you probably got from a bunch of women who claimed 50 years after the event.

A bunch of women provided damning statements of being 'forced' into it by the military, backed by statements from soldiers as well, is more of primary evidence than a document that completely brushes it off. It just proves the documents do not provide the complete story.

I will also point out that there is a clear monetary motive to those testimonies, while it is just bureaucratic work for the Japanese writing those documents (less motive).

I'm not sure if you are naive or just playing dumb here, but the monetary motive to forge the documents is so much greater than the monetary motive for individuals. Think from the point of view of government payouts, not individual awards.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: U.S. willing to hold 3-way talks with Japan, S Korea next week See in context

More victims coming to ask for compensation. Even the ones that should have been covered by 1965 aggrement.

It's amazing how so many Japanese are blindly follow the government's rhetoric regarding this issue.

If you read the "Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Co-operation" made between Korea and Japan, the reparation included all claims for property including those raised at the individual level. But such properties only include confiscated land, gold, currency, machinery, resources etc. of individuals. That is, "Property".

Claims for damages made by individuals as compensation for inhumane acts such as sufferings, rape, torture, accidents, human experiments, murder, etc. are NOT even included. That is, "Damages".

Japan did not extinguish the rights of any individual (whether Korean or Japanese, it was bilateral) for these claims in the 1965 agreement. The agreement did not include this because the treaty would not have been ratified by the Diet if it included clauses extinguishing the rights of Japanese citizens.

As a result, the Japanese government in 1991 admitted twice, through Yanai Shunji, in the Japanese Diet that an individual’s right to file a claim had not been terminated despite the 1965 bilateral agreements.

Furthermore, Foreign Minister Shiina informed the Special Committee on the Treaty between Japan and Korea that the treaty "only waives the right to diplomatic protection but not individual rights."

Even last year, 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, but later changed his stance saying that Korea violated the 1965 bilateral treaty.

The case regarding the Korean Courts seizure of assets did not fall under the realm of the 1965 treaty.

The Abe government's stubborn stance and backtracking are all to avoid paying damages, not just to the South but to North Koreans. Just wait and see how the Japanese government will react after all the victims are dead.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Posted in: Concerned citizens criticize Japanese gov't over worsening ties with S Korea See in context

@ Kazuaki Shimazaki

But that gives me another reason to slam him and Koreans. In other words, the contemporary documentation he had access to told him that there was no such thing (basically). He chose to favor verbal accusations made about 50 years after the fact. In 50 years, you should be able to rehearse enough to make a convincing accusation of anything, regardless of its truth value.

You are trying really hard to hang on to thin air aren't you?

Do you honestly believe that if a third party (non-Japanese/Korean) looked at your statement above, they would sincerely believe you?

You are talking about a document that is developed and kept by a government which is known to the outside world to distort and whitewash history. What makes you think it's not possible to change documents in one day?

It's possible that one victim can churn out rubbish, but to have hundreds of people giving consistent statements, not only in Korea, but pan-Asia, now do you think those statements are all rubbish?

Furthermore, there are WWII soldiers that had been interviewed in Japan previously that all provided consistent accounts with the victims. It is funny how the Japanese government ignores these stories.

You talk about Japan's superior legal system over Korea's, although it's ironic because the Japanese have no sense of morality about their actions from the past, but to even suggest victims' statements are not as valuable shows the fallacy of your supposed superior legal system.

The victims, survivors and soldiers are the living and breathing evidence, not some document that is known to have been forged.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: Concerned citizens criticize Japanese gov't over worsening ties with S Korea See in context

@ Kazuaki Shimazaki

Did you not read the following?

*Lee Young-hoon never stated the above. He, an economist and not a historian, went on a TV show and talked about what he found in the available documents in Japan regarding comfort women (which itself is limited due to censorship or destruction by the Japanese government).*

What conclusion would he gain from that? You tell me.

Perhaps if the Japanese have the courage and consider victim impact statements (or interview the comfort women), and interview the actual soldiers who participated and admitted these crimes, you won't get a one sided story - just like LYH tried to understand where the Japanese were coming from.

Reflect on yourself before you start charging Koreans as brainwashed and extremists.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Posted in: Concerned citizens criticize Japanese gov't over worsening ties with S Korea See in context

@ pacificwest

Or you have Lee Young-hoon, professor emeritus of economics at Seoul National University who clearly stated, on the basis of actual research, that

The comfort woman system was a licensed prostitution system under the control of the military…. The comfort women were not sex slaves…. Korean comfort women were recruited by pimps by means of advance payments and outright fraud…. There is no evidence that there were 200,000 Korean comfort women. The number is somewhere around 5,000.”

Funny how you conveniently only tell half the story. What about telling the full story next time, hey? Obviously you can't because it would be against the Japanese narrative.

Lee Young-hoon never stated the above. He, an economist and not a historian, went on a TV show and talked about what he found in the available documents in Japan regarding comfort women (which itself is limited due to censorship or destruction by the Japanese government). A journalist at the show misunderstood his comments and wrote the above statement which spread like wildfire and caused mass outrage from the public.

Lee Young-hoon then provided a public explanation saying he never ever said the above statement, that it was mis-represented by the journalist, and that he received an apology from the journalist. Furthermore, he reiterated that he knows that the comfort women were all forced by the Japanese military, and he visited them directly to apologize for the misunderstanding, even though it wasn't his fault.

Why do you stoop so low just to support a fake narrative? Do you not have any moral conscious? Do you still need to dishonor the victims from what little remaining dignity they have left? Seriously, big shame on you!

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Posted in: Japan to decide on Aug 2 to remove S Korea from preferential treatment list See in context

I have yet to understand why the Abe government will take South Korea off its "white list." Also, why is trust between South Korea and Japan "severely damaged." There have been no rational explanations that I have read.

Anyone want to explain it here?

No one here will be able to explain it because the Japanese shepherd hasn't taught the sheep the answers yet.

My guess is that the Japanese government don't even know how to contain their double standard.

On the one side, they have trust issues when it comes to trade, on the other side, they don't have trust issues when it comes to sharing military information and want to maintain GSOMIA.

Unfortunately, they accuse South Korea for leaking materials into North Korea (without showing any evidence), yet evidence was found that Japan leaked equipment used for military into North Korea.

-20 ( +1 / -21 )

Posted in: Japan to decide on Aug 2 to remove S Korea from preferential treatment list See in context

This irrational hatred of all things Japan is indoctrinated among all levels of SK society.

In which country can you find 80% of ALL comments in social media and youtube platforms that are dedicated to anti-Korean? It's amazing how the Japanese have nothing to talk about except bash Koreans.

Furthermore, in which country do you have bookstores with a section dedicated to bashing Koreans? It's a feel good thing for the Japanese. You're depressed, so you go to a book store, see titles like, 'Why I'm glad I wasn't born in Korea' and voila, you're all happy again.

Of course that's just normal part of life for the Japanese, but when the Koreans do it, you demonize them.

What a hypocrite bunch of people you are. At least for the Koreans, it's not part of their every day life.

-19 ( +1 / -20 )

Posted in: Competing claims make northeast Asian sea a flashpoint See in context

@ Kazuaki Shimazaki

The new standard procedure according to who and for what reason?

In other words, follow the new standard procedure because you think the Koreans should and because it was terra nullus.

The only problem is that Korea and China were in a state of unawareness concerning the islands they would later claim. The Japanese were in a state of awareness concerning the islands they claimed. But you can't stake a claim on something you weren't in a state of awareness of, can you?

It amazes me how much your take on history is so distorted, to the extent that your argument is, in my opinion, not even in unison with your government's stance.

Do you actually know when Korea was aware of Dokdo and neighboring island Ulleungdo?

I can tell you that Japan was also aware of Dokdo before Japan actually stole it (not claimed). But unfortunately for Japan, these old Japanese documents only emphasize and prove that Dokdo is not part of Japan.

There is no dispute whatsoever.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Posted in: Competing claims make northeast Asian sea a flashpoint See in context

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

One uses what they can, I guess, but I am seriously questioning the mentality of Koreans who actually think this is supposed to be some kind of strong point. Stronger than actually following the new standard procedure. But then, had law ever been Koreans' strong suit?

The new standard procedure according to who and for what reason?

Dokdo has always been Korean (except when it was colonized). Japan agreed to return non-Japanese territories to their rightful owners after WWII in an AGREEMENT with the US (in which Korea had no say).

But after the agreement, Japan, as they try to test all boundaries, has to stake a claim on the islands based on some ambiguous statements that were made between the US and Japan.

It is rather ironic that you accuse Koreans of not versed in law when the Japanese today have no sense of morality about their actions of the past.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Posted in: Competing claims make northeast Asian sea a flashpoint See in context

@ Cogito Ergo Sum

We had the 1st, the 2nd and we looked back and said never again. We are real close to the 3rd / 4th big one... depending. I ask again, is peace such a lofty subject for humanity ?

Unfortunately, according to history (based on non-distorted text books of course), this may be inevitable. You have too many superpowers in north east Asian region trying to dominate it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Competing claims make northeast Asian sea a flashpoint See in context

@ oldman_13

It is the Sea of Japan both by geography and culture.

Which culture?

Of course it's the Japanese culture, the only culture you know, the only culture that exists in this world. Right?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Posted in: Competing claims make northeast Asian sea a flashpoint See in context

@ SJ

You may be right if you consider just one island. But all of the 7 islands called Takeshima (bamboo) have bamboo, and only the disputed so called bamboo island does not. It is a consistency problem.

Exactly what happens when one tries to force a fake narrative.

If Dokdo did have bamboos, then the Japanese would be shouting out, 'See, it's consistent with all of our other bamboo islands. It's therefore ours'.

So many cases of inconsistency to support their narratives. Another one is where a Japanese company apologized to the US/British PoWs for their inhumane treatment, but the same company wouldn't apologize to the Koreans because they were Japanese at that time (but most likely because the supposedly superior Japanese race should never bow down to the Koreans because it would mean loss of face). Now take the case of the Kanto earthquake where thousands of Koreans were slaughtered for 'causing' the earthquake (which itself is another case of people blindly following government sponsored narratives). Same Korean race, different nationalities according to narrative.

The Japanese will slyly push all boundaries to get what they want and if you object to their fake narratives, they will constantly attack and belittle you until you submit to them, while all trying to show how respectable they are to the outside world. Unfortunately, people have started to realize this. They live in a fake world inside a real world.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Posted in: Colonial-era Korean laborers want Mitsubishi compensation See in context

@ Strangerland

The current stalemate is a direct response to incompetent leadership by the Koreans, who were too stupid to realize that no one is ever going to negotiate in good faith again with a country that rips up something they agreed was "final and irreversible."

WRONG.

Had the Japanese government shown full remorse backing up the apologies, then this situation would not have occurred. The victims don't care about the money per se. If they did, they would have already taken it.

The victims main request before they depart this earth with the little time that they have remaining is to ensure that the pain and suffering that they all endured for a full 70-80 years be never ever repeated on any other human being.

To remorse means that you understand the victims pains, and make efforts to make it never happen again. To not remorse means that future generations won't know about the pain, and hence history can repeat itself.

Showing full remorse by the Japanese government is a small price to pay to ensure closure of this once and for all.

And don't be such a hypocrite. The Japanese can't even honor the 1965 agreement and the SCAPIN.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Posted in: Colonial-era Korean laborers want Mitsubishi compensation See in context

@ pacificwest

So then Japan makes 53 highest level sincerely honest, remorseful official apologies, and then they say, "Ah, but the sincerely honest, remorseful official apologies weren't humble enough"

You have just proven to me that you, like many other Japanese posters here, that you have no idea what remorse is.

*just repeated *ad infinitum*** by uneducated White racists in the West *

We seek the truth and if you call that uneducated, then what do you call yourself who blindly follows state censored media and fake textbooks?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Posted in: Colonial-era Korean laborers want Mitsubishi compensation See in context

@ Strangerland

It would be improper for you to single out Korea for breaking agreements.

Japan is reneging the 1965 agreement regarding claims rights of individuals.

Further, Japan is also reneging on SCAPIN regarding the territory of Dokdo. Don't make it sound like Korea is the only culprit regarding the breaking of agreements.

Whilst I agree the nullification by Korea regarding the comfort women issue is bad, the negotiation was never done concretely with the victims in the first place.

Irrespective of negotiations, this whole topic was all about remorse which Japan has never shown.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Posted in: Colonial-era Korean laborers want Mitsubishi compensation See in context

@Strangerland

Right? Why can't the Japanese make a good-faith effort to work together with South Korea to come up with a solution, a final, and irreversible solution even, one that both countries could agree to, in order to solve this problem?

Wow, I see you have a very hard time understanding remorse because you just ramble on about a solution.

The remorse should come first before any solution. The solution you talk about is just like a quick transaction, we pay you, end of story, now get on with life.

That's exactly what happened with the funds for the comfort women. In the eyes of the victims, there was no remorse. Abe gave the funds, THEN went on to honor the war criminals. Do you really think the victims would want money from a like-minded criminal?

To the victims, remorse (not apologies) far outweigh the token compensations from the solution you talk about. Although I can't speak on behalf of the comfort women, I dare say if Japan showed true remorse in the eyes of the victim, no solution would even be necessary. The victims are all old, with no families. What use would the money be to them?

Do the Japanese ever think from the view of the victims? Obviously not.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Posted in: Colonial-era Korean laborers want Mitsubishi compensation See in context

@ oldman_13

These facts were hidden from the South Korean people for over 40 years.

Not hidden per se. They were considered classified documents and were declassified after the statutory time elapsed. Furthermore, the entirety of the document was made available to the public.

This is in contrast to Japan, where the government will continue to hide from the public or even destroy materials (eg comfort women data) if it means that the declassified materials do not suit their narratives.

Like I always say, those who are loudest of claiming Japan whitewashes it's history, are the themselves the biggest whitewashes of history to make Japan look bad. All it does is make these people look foolish.

Quite the contrary. Korea has nothing to gain by whitewashing its shared history with Japan. Japan on the other hand, will attempt to minimize the atrocities in order to limit the damage to their reputation and save face.

The South Korean government offered to demand no more compensation.

Correct, the Korean government did say that, and they never demanded more within the scope of reparations covered in the 1965 agreement. Note, this agreement did not extinguish claims made by individuals.

The Japanese government put forth the idea of compensating Korean individuals, which the South Korean government refused. 

The Japanese government did put forth the idea of compensating Korean individuals, but ultimately agreed that there was no obligation to pay individuals by saying, "As Korea says, the $500,000,000 fund provided to Korea under Article 1 does not have the character of debt or liability for the claims of Korea against Japan. The fund was provided solely for the purpose of economic cooperation."

The Korean government nevertheless distributed compensation funds to individuals pursuant to the reported claims made by individuals from 1971 to 1982 after domestically enacting relevant laws. But these distributions were mainly for property claims (eg. house, cash, machinery etc.).

Now, compensation for inhumane acts and damages (eg. pain and suffering, specific injuries, psychological damages from rape and torture etc.) were not even included in the scope of reparations under the 1965 agreement.

Individuals rights to claim for these damages were even recognized by the Japanese government. For eg, the Japanese government in 1991 admitted twice, through Yanai Shunji, in the Japanese Diet that an individual’s right to file a claim had not been terminated despite the 1965 bilateral agreements.

Furthermore, Foreign Minister Shiina informed the Special Committee on the Treaty between Japan and Korea that the treaty "only waives the right to diplomatic protection but not individual rights."

Even last year, 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, but later changed his stance saying that Korea violated the 1965 bilateral treaty. (Why the back flip here?)

The judgment by Korea's Supreme Court with regards to individuals did not contravene the 1965 agreement.

Nor, was the (recently scrapped) collection of a separate fund for comfort women included in the 1965 agreement.

So what is the "biggest whitewash of history" you talk about?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Posted in: Colonial-era Korean laborers want Mitsubishi compensation See in context

@ oldman_13

January 17, 1992: Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa

May 25, 1990: Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu

January 1, 1992: Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa

It's amazing how the Japanese cannot distinguish between being apologetic and showing remorse. Is there no such concept in Japan? Is seppuku the only way?

Any criminal can apologize for all he likes, but it's his actions that determine whether he is truly remorseful or not.

The examples you provide are good apologies. But what did the subsequent leaders do?

They went and honored war criminals (which basically says you think the criminals did an excellent job in murdering/torturing your enemies), use the rising sun flag (which basically says that the empire that tortured the victims still exists), distort history (which basically says the atrocities didn't happen), say that women weren't coerced as comfort women (which basically says women were prostitutes) etc. etc.

So from the eyes of the victims, do you think Japan has shown remorse? Of course not. Only lip service apologies.

Why is it so hard for the Japanese to understand this?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Posted in: Colonial-era Korean laborers want Mitsubishi compensation See in context

@ Kazuaki Shimazaki

In other words, no more claiming. The people can file their lawsuits and if someone is nice enough to choke up money you can receive it, but in court they are to bounce. The reason you use is up to you.

In the agreement, the settlement of properties, rights and interest relate to substantiated rights. Again, I point out that this does not include individual claim rights, which are unsettled rights for which the legal foundation can be disputed. Ie. compensation for damages.

I cannot understand why you keep disputing against the concrete examples that were given at the Diet.

Property, rights and interest - creditor rights, rights to collateral, and the right to demand receivables

Claim rights - claims for compensation for damages for which evidence is lacking, pain and suffering claims, and wage claims etc.

The Japanese government is fully aware that individual rights to claims have not been extinguished and spoke so on numerous occasions.

It's unfortunate that the government today is back-flipping on that agreement.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Posted in: Colonial-era Korean laborers want Mitsubishi compensation See in context

@ pacificwest

It also needs to measure and be grateful for all the positive things that Japan did give to it. A huge amount of investment and development.

Another Japanese mentality perpetuated by the Japanese government and media. Does the US continually ask you to be grateful to them for developing your economy?

I don't think any Korean would thank Japan during the occupation as the negatives far outweigh the positives, but I'm sure the Koreans would thank Japan for helping them post liberation, only if the Japanese government were truly remorseful and helped the victims overcome their pain. Just don't go around asking to be thanked until you have shown remorse. Otherwise, it's just pure arrogance.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.