hankyoreh

The Citizens Association on Imperial Japan’s Labor Mobilization and MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society’s branch in the Gwangju and South Jeolla region hold a press conference on Aug. 2 in Gwangju where they denounce interference in the process of compulsory execution of measures to compensate victims of forced labor mobilization. (Yonhap News)

The joint public-private council on the issue has effectively broken down following hints of boycotts by victim advocacy groups in the wake of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs filing an opinion with the court without the prior consent of the victims themselves

A joint civilian-government council launched by the South Korean government last month to find a solution on the matter of compensating victims of forced labor mobilization during the Japanese occupation appears likely to lose crucial representatives after the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) submitted an opinion to the Supreme Court without the prior agreement of the victims themselves.

The action prompted an immediate and intense outcry from the attorneys representing the victims, who called it an “act of sabotage” against related legal actions. Groups working on behalf of the victims also suggested they would be announcing a boycott after taking part in the council’s previous activities. Critics accused the government of being so focused on producing results quickly that it made the mistake of forgetting the principle of “victim-centered resolutions.”

According to accounts on Tuesday from the forced labor survivors and groups working on their behalf, the MOFA submitted opinions to the second and third civil divisions of the Supreme Court on July 26 stating that it was making “various diplomatic efforts” to resolve the issue.

The divisions in question are currently hearing a case concerning the ordered liquidation of trademarks and patents to compensate Yang Geum-deok and Kim Seong-ju, two women who were forced to labor at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. In effect, the opinion amounted to a request for the court to defer its final decision.

It was also submitted without any prior explanation being provided to the victims. On Thursday, a MOFA official shared that the opinion had been submitted while visiting Gwangju to meet with legal representatives of the victims and members of the Citizens Association on Imperial Japan’s Labor Mobilization.

“The MOFA tried to enlist our support by saying that with Japan having imposed export control measures in 2019 [in the wake of a 2018 Supreme Court ruling ordering compensation for forced labor], it was also likely to take other retaliatory action this time if the liquidation goes ahead,” said an official with one of the groups representing the victims.

This reportedly led to an outcry from the attorneys representing the victims, who called the actions a “serious matter tantamount to sabotaging” the current legal cases.

The basis for the ministry’s submission of an opinion to the Supreme Court was Article 134-2 of the rules for civil litigation, which stipulates that the state or a local government may submit opinions even in civil cases when they involve matters that relate to the public interest.

The establishment of this provision was spearheaded by Yang Sung-tae, a former chief justice of the Supreme Court who was also at the center of a scandal concerning abuse of judicial authority under the Park Geun-hye administration. Since the time of its amendment, critics have accused it of having been “custom-built” to deal with forced mobilization cases.

Indeed, the MOFA previously submitted an opinion to the Supreme Court in November 2016 in connection with another case filed by survivors of Japan’s forced labor mobilization. In it, it warned that acknowledging the responsibility of companies implicated in war crimes to provide compensation to the victims would “lead to a catastrophe for South Korea-Japan relations.”

Prior to the council’s first meeting on July 4, legal representatives of the victims proposed that if efforts were made to provide diplomatic protection to allow for direct negotiation between victims and the Japanese companies in question, it might be possible to delay the liquidation procedures while that is going on. In effect, this opened up a possible “escape route” for the MOFA.

The ministry’s decision instead to abruptly submit its opinion without any prior consultations with the council appeared motivated by its conclusion that the surest way of stopping the liquidation from happening would be to delay the Supreme Court’s ruling. Analysts said that by excluding the victims from this process, it only damaged its own credibility as a mediator.

After just two meetings, the council has effectively broken down.

“Having never shown any remorse for the opinion it submitted during the judicial authority abuse situation, the MOFA has now repeated the same mistake six years later,” said an official who had previously attended council meetings on behalf of one of the groups advocating for the victims.

By Jung In-hwan, staff reporter; Jung Dae-ha, Gwangju correspondent

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