hankyoreh

Forced labor victim Lee Chun-sik

Japan has officially requested bilateral discussions with the South Korean government as part of dispute settlement procedures according to the two sides’ Claims Settlement Agreement (1965) in response to a South Korean court’s decision to approve a request for the seizure of Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal’s assets in South Korea, which was submitted by attorneys representing victims of forced labor mobilization during the colonial era. Tokyo has been ratcheting up the pressure in its response with threats to take the matter before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and increase tariffs on South Korean products.

On the afternoon of Jan. 9, Japanese Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Takeo Akiba summoned South Korean Ambassador to Japan Lee Su-hoon to the Japanese Foreign Ministry to request bilateral discussions in accordance with the Claims Settlement Agreement. This marks the first time Japan has officially requested bilateral discussions as stipulated in the 1965 agreement. With the delivery that afternoon of the forced labor survivors’ seizure document to Nippon Steel and POSCO joint venture PNR, Nippon Steel was stripped of the right to dispose of 81,075 PNR shares (valued at around 400 million won, or US$357,644).

Following the Japanese government’s request for deliberations, the South Korean government plans to respond after taking its time to “closely review” the request. Seoul is likely to propose ordinary diplomatic deliberations rather than the bilateral deliberations outlined in the claims agreement. If a solution is not found through these deliberations, Japan plans to appeal to an arbitration board composed of members from South Korea, Japan and a third country, another measure that appears in the claims agreement.

However, the conflict resolution measures in the claims agreement cannot move forward without the consent of both sides. When South Korea requested bilateral deliberations about the comfort women issue based on the 1965 claims agreement in 2011, Japan rejected that request. Separately from this, Japan is also considering retaliating economically by raising tariffs on South Korean products, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun reported on Jan. 9.

Experts regard the question of compensation for forced labor as being fundamentally different from the comfort women issue, since it calls into question the “1965 system” that is based on South Korea and Japan’s claims agreement. There are also concerns that, if no compromise is found, South Korea and Japan’s relations could enter a long-term adversarial phase.

“Japan’s position is that this issue was fully dealt with by the claims agreement. The fact that it has asked for conflict resolution based on that agreement shows that it’s determined to stick to the 1965 treaty system while adhering to the letter of the law,” said Park Cheol-hee, a professor at Seoul National University’s Graduate School of International Studies.

Although the courts have decided to seize assets at Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal, it’s likely to take several months before the victims can actually apply for the sale of those assets and for that sale to take place. During that time, some argue, the South Korean government should actively seek a diplomatic solution that will also provide comfort to the victims and accommodate their wishes. Since the Supreme Court made its decision on Oct. 30, 2018, South Korean Prime Minister Lee Nak-yeon has led efforts to review the available options, but no definite plan has emerged thus far.

“The South Korean government and the political parties need to start taking this issue seriously,” said Yang Gi-ho, professor at Sungkonghoe University. According to Yang, the government should stop waiting for the judicial brand to make a decision and to be more proactive about seeking a solution.

During a squabble over a targeting radar incident, South Korea and Japan have launched a public relations campaign on YouTube that goes beyond debating the facts of the case, an unusual step in their bilateral relations. This was an incident that should have been cleared up by using the two militaries’ emergency communication network to verify what was happening and to issue a protest. In the view of multiple experts, Japan’s leaking this information to the press can only be regarded as having been politically motivated.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe appears to be exploiting the dispute with South Korea in a bid to bolster Japan’s military and set the mood for revising the constitution, which is his primary agenda. Another contributing factor is that, since Donald Trump was elected president, the US government’s system of alliance management has not been functioning properly.

“Another apparent cause here is that the Trump administration doesn’t value security cooperation between South Korea, the US and Japan as much as the US once did, which has led Japan to conclude that South Korea isn’t as strategically valuable as it used to be,” said Yang Gi-ho.

While the US and Japan’s official position remains that trilateral military cooperation with South Korea is important for countering China, this signals a subtle change. The US has reportedly done nothing about the military bickering between South Korea and Japan.

By Park Min-hee, staff reporter, and Cho Ki-weon, Tokyo correspondent

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