hankyoreh

Blue House National Security Office Director Chung Eui-yong during a summit between President Moon Jae-in and Bruneian Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah at the Blue House on Nov. 24. (Blue House photo pool)

The Blue House delivered a message of warning to the Japanese government on Nov. 24 over its claims that Seoul’s announcement of a conditional suspension to the termination of the two sides’ General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) constituted a “lopsided victory” for Tokyo.

Calling the claims “a violation of the principle of good faith in diplomatic negotiations,” the Blue House warned, “We may take some form

of action if this continues.”

The Blue House also voiced a message of deep displeasure with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe over reports in the Asahi Shimbun newspaper quoting him as saying that Japan had “conceded nothing.”

“If [the reports are] true, this is extremely disappointing. We must ask whether these remarks reflect the conscience of a leader of the Japanese government,” the Blue House said.

In a press conference that day at the Busan Exhibition and Convention Center (BEXCO), the venue for a special South Korea-ASEAN summit, Blue House National Security Office Director Chung Eui-yong delivered a forceful, point-by-point critique of statements by Japanese senior government officials reported in the Japanese media after the decision to conditionally suspend GSOMIA’s termination was announced. Responding to Tokyo’s claims that the “discussions began after Seoul conveyed through diplomatic channels that it planned to drop its WTO complaint procedures,” Chung emphatically stated that this was “not the case at all.” According to Chung, the discussions between the two sides’ diplomatic channels began at Japan’s suggestion after it received notification from Seoul on Aug. 23 of plans to terminate GSOMIA.

Another Blue House senior official stressed that the factor responsible for changing Japan’s attitude during the late stages of negotiations was Seoul’s ultimatum stating that it would “allow GSOMIA to end as scheduled.”

“On Nov. 19, the South Korean government gave the Japanese government an ultimatum, stating that it would be forced to terminate GSOMIA at midnight on Nov. [23] as scheduled if there was no change in Tokyo’s stance,” the official explained.

“That afternoon, Japan informed us that it might be willing to discuss and re-examine the export controls issue,” the official added.

“At the time, the Japanese government communicated that it might be able to [lift controls on] the three items -- photoresist, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorine polyimides -- and restore South Korea’s white list [preferential export review treatment] status,” the official also said, suggesting that it was Japan rather than South Korea that yielded to pressure and proposed a compromise at critical points in the negotiations.

Chung also responded to the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) saying there had been “no change” in the individual review and permission policies for the three export control items.

“In their announcement, they have quite deliberately distorted or inflated aspects of the agreement,” he said.

“Had Japan argued this position in its negotiations with us, there never would have been any agreement,” a visibly displeased Chung added.

“When we protested at a bilateral foreign ministers’ meeting [on Nov. 23], Japan apologized for METI’s exaggerations and reaffirmed that had been ‘no change in what was agreed upon,” he continued.

In the process, Chung said, “I want to send a warning of ‘you try me’: if one side decides to start provoking the other with absurd claims, my response is, ‘Really? I may have to do something if you keep going like this.’”

“I would like to reiterate that the decisions on GSOMIA and the WTO withdrawal are both provisional and conditional,” he added.

“As far as the upcoming negotiations are concerned, everything depends on Japan’s attitude,” he said.

Meanwhile, a Blue House senior official responded to Tokyo’s claims that Seoul’s decision to extend GSOMIA was the result of it yielding to Washington’s threats to withdraw US Forces Korea troops.

“USFK never came up as an issue at all [in the discussions with the US],” the official said.

“[As an issue between South Korea and Japan] GSOMIA is not important enough to warrant damaging the backbone of a solid South Korea-US alliance. The South Korea-US alliance is not so easily swayed.”

Over the weekend, numerous Japanese media published analyses concluding that Seoul had unilaterally bowed to US pressure. In a Nov. 24 report, the Asahi Shimbun newspaper quoted Abe as telling associates shortly after Seoul’s conditional GSOMIA extension decision that Japan had “not conceded anything” and that South Korea had “backed down because the US is very strong.”

On Nov. 23, the Mainichi Shimbun quoted an unnamed Japanese Foreign Ministry official as saying that Japan had “managed to turn the export control issue from a WTO dispute into a matter for bilateral discussions without even playing its cards.” The right-wing Sankei Shimbun quoted a senior Japanese official as saying it had been “a nearly perfect game by our side,” noting that South Korea had exceeded Japan’s expectations by not only extending GSOMIA but also deferring its WTO case.

By Seong Yeon-cheol, staff reporter, and Cho Ki-weon, Tokyo correspondent

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