hankyoreh

In South Korea, the president's Mar. 1 Independence Movement memorial address, delivered at the very beginning of the term, has great significance in connection with our Japan policy. Since the Mar. 1 Independence Movement was a sweeping effort by the Korean people to shake off the oppressive yoke of the Japanese colonial regime, it has been customary for new presidents to use the first Mar. 1 memorial address after their inauguration to provide a general outline of their policy toward Japan.

In her memorial address on Mar. 1, South Korean President Park Geun-hye said, "It is incumbent on Japan to have a correct understanding of history and take on an attitude of responsibility in order to partner with us in playing a leading role in East Asia in the 21st century."

"The historical perspective of aggressor and victim cannot be changed, even though a thousand years pass by," Park also said.

Park used the address to send a stronger message to Japan than any other president since South Korea became a democracy. The address reveals an appropriate awareness of the issue, and it flies in the face of Japan's assumption that it is possible to move forward toward a better future without addressing these historical problems.

In the Mar. 1 memorial address delivered by former president Lee Myung-bak in 2008, his first year in office, Lee took a conciliatory approach toward Japan.

"Both South Korea and Japan must think pragmatically to forge a future-oriented relationship. However, we must never ignore the truth of history," said Lee, putting priority on the future over the past.

While he bragged about the cozy relations between the two countries through the fourth year of his presidency, he ended his term in disgrace because of the comfort women and Dokdo issues.

In the same way, former presidents Kim Young-sam, Kim Dae-jung, and Roh Moo-hyun were ensnared by the problems of history and territorial disputes, and they could not escape the cycle of early amicable relations descending into friction by the end of the term. No better example than this could be offered to show that no breakthrough will be found for these historical issues until both South Korea and Japan make an effort to address them.

Recently, Japan has continued to make conciliatory gestures while at the same time intensifying its provocative behavior concerning problems of the past. One such example is the mention made of Dokdo by Fumio Kishida, Japanese foreign minister, in a foreign policy speech addressed to the Japanese House of Representatives on Feb. 28. This was the second year in a row he did this.

Prior to this, the Japanese government sent high-ranking officials to the Takeshima Day event organized by Shimane Prefecture on Feb. 23, something they had never done before.

Both of these actions took place after Park sent a message through special Japanese envoy Fukushiro Nukaga, who visited Korea in early January, that Japan must express contrition for the past before progress can be made in Japan-South Korea relations.

Of course, historical issues are not the only thing affecting Korea and Japan. There are plenty of areas in which the two countries must take joint action, including responding to the rise of China and to the regional turmoil caused by the North Korean nuclear program and collaborating in the economy, culture, environment, and other fields. However, as long as there are no changes in the Japanese attitude toward the issues of history, there are sure to be limits in the quality and quantity of any such cooperation. The question has been posed, and Japan must be the first to respond.

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]