Big news today is the release of more diplomatic papers related to 1965 Korea-Japan Treaty that “normalized” relations between Seoul and Tokyo and documents pertaining to Korea’s involvement in the Vietnam War. Lots of interesting stuff, much of which appears to exonerate the Park Chung-hee regime, which had been criticized for what many had believed to be “humiliating” diplomacy during the process of negotiating the deal. Well, the papers would seem to suggest that regardless of how deficient one might think the 1965 treaty was, the result wasn’t for a lack of effort on Seoul’s part. The Korea Times has a ton of stuff on the released papers — there are more links at the bottom of the story.
Seoul also said Friday that regardless of the treaty, Tokyo is still legally responsible for colonial and wartime atrocities such as the “comfort women,” and Korea would take a more active stance in pressing claims. From the KT:
Japan is legally responsible for inhumane behavior, such as forcing Korean girls to work for its soldiers as “comfort women” during the 1910-45 colonial rule on the Korean Peninsula, the South Korean government said on Friday.
The government has decided to seek a diplomatic solution to Japan’s wartime atrocities. It is the first time that Seoul has mentioned Japan’s legal responsibility, not moral or humanitarian, to help its wartime victims.
The switch in policy came at a meeting presided over by Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan on the declassification of all the diplomatic documents, regarding the 1965 treaty normalizing South Korea’s relations with Japan.
“The treaty on Korean claims to its property in Japan was designed to settle the two country’s debt and credit affairs,” a Seoul official said. “So the Japanese government and its military are still legally accountable for illegal behavior conducted during the colonial period.”
Japan, of course, has been claiming that the issue of restitution was settled with the 1965 treaty. As the JoongAng Ilbo pointed out:
As Seoul received a lump sum of $300 million in grants and $500 million in low interest and commercial loans under the treaty, Japan has maintained that the treaty absolves it of all responsibilities to compensate for atrocities committed during its colonial rule of Korea from 1910 to 1945.
I’d imagine the Japanese are going to stick to this line. Might be interesting to watch how things play out, although I haven’t seen the papers, so I’m not really in a position to comment on Seoul’s apparent change in direction. The Korea Herald is hopeful, at least:
The documents clarify that the Korean government agreed to receive $300 million in grants and $500 million in an economic cooperation fund and Seoul’s pledge not to demand further compensation.
Japan maintains that the issue of wartime claims for compensation has been fully and finally resolved under the 1965 treaty, while Korea contends the treaty does not stipulate compensation for sex slavery, for Koreans who were forced to stay in Sakhalin after World War II after being moved there to work for Japanese companies during the colonial period, and for Korean A-bomb victims.
The latest disclosure is likely to intensify Korea’s demands for reparations by claiming that Japan has both legal and moral obligations over inhumane crimes.
I could certainly buy that even if the treaty — or at least the negotiations leading up to it — prevents the Korean state from seeking compensation, individual victims might be able to seek compensation for wrongs committed during the period. Offhand, though, I do feel rather odd about forcing Japan to pay compensation to A-bomb victims — it’s not like it was Japan that bombed them, after all. I mean, yeah, I understand the logic, but man, like it’s not bad enough that you get an A-bomb dropped on you, but then you get to pay compensation to the victims of a bomb another country dropped on one of your cities. Just gives me the willies.
Needless to say, the United States was quite active in the diplomacy leading to the 1965 treaty. Letters sent between President Park and President Kennedy are interesting enough, especially Park’s observations, which some might consider somewhat prescient:
Washington continued efforts to build bridges between the two countries after John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as U.S. president in 1961. In August 1962, Kennedy sent a personal letter to Park Chung-hee, then leader of the military junta ruling Korea, expressing hope for a conclusion of the normalization talks.
“Since our meeting in Washington in November last year when we discussed the problem of normalization of relations between your country and Japan….I look forward to the achievement of an agreement,” Kennedy wrote.
Park replied the following month apparently asking Washington to support Korea in the negotiation process. “There seems to be a growing fear that passive and negative attitudes from Japan are…derived from calculations on the part of the Japanese that the United States might…gradually transfer to Japan her traditional military and economic roles in Korea,” he said. “I am firmly convinced that your distinguished statesmanship in rendering positive cooperation in this regard will be of great value in overcoming such obstacles.”
Oh, and just to put this one to bed — Kim Jong-pil didn’t offer to blow up Dokdo. The Japanese did.
Back to the Americans for a moment. Lots of interesting stuff about Korea-U.S. ties during the 1970s, namely, the extent Park was willing to go to make sure the Yankee didn’t go home. Take, for instance, Seoul’s offer in 1968 to give the United States land in Jeju Island in order to transfer U.S. military installation from Okinawa. Seoul was also reportedly keen on getting the Americans to build a base for U.S. nuclear submarines in Korea. Desire for U.S. aid — both economic and military — also played a major role in the decision of South Korea to send combat troops to Vietnam. Korea, of course, sent a total of 312,853 men over a twelve year period — the second largest outside force behind the Americans. The Chosun Ilbo detailed the calculations and the diplomacy behind President Park’s decision to send combat troops. Interestingly enough, it appears Seoul was broaching the idea of sending in the combat troops before the Americans even asked them to, and one has to appreciate President Park’s determination to get rewarded handsomely — in terms of U.S. economic and military aid — for his nation’s contributions to the U.S. war effort.
16 Comments
Oranckay,
i was taught at the school that no country has paid “compensation” to its ex-colonial countries because there was no international law for that.
i have no knowledge that u.k. paid the compensation to india or france to african countries.
so i assumed the starting point of the japanese government then was for the economic aid. on the other hand, my understanding is that japan as the loser has paid compensation to those asian countries including china which fought against japan during the WW2.
for new demand of korean government, it would be a good idea to make full investigation over the illigalities of the issue like comfort women and others. i feel deep sympathy to those comfort women, but illigality of japanese government or japanese army should be the different issue.
“Lots of interesting stuff, much of which appears to exonerate the Park Chung-hee regime, which had been criticized for what many had believed to be ??humiliating?? diplomacy during the process of negotiating the deal.”
I doubted my eyes and had to read that sentence again.
They didn’t accomplish ANY of the things they set out to accomplish, other than to get some cash, and even that was not “compensation.” It was a bribe paid to a Korean dictatorship headed by someone who had been an officer in the Japanese military to get it stop asking for anything called compensation.
Full disclosure of the documents makes it perfectly clear why Japan (and previous Korean governments) was always against making them public.
For the record, I don’t support starting again at point one, going after Japan for full compensation. But Japanese courts have repeatedly struck down individual Korean claims for reparations on technicalities and Japan says that technically Dokdo/Takeshima belongs to Japan because of a single piece of paper from 1905. Technically Japan never gave Korea compensation, and it was Japan that insisted the money not be called that.
They didn??t accomplish ANY of the things they set out to accomplish, other than to get some cash, and even that was not ??compensation.?? It was a bribe paid to a Korean dictatorship headed by someone who had been an officer in the Japanese military to get it stop asking for anything called compensation.
Yeah, and like Kim Ku would have been able to do any better? The Koreans were behind the 8 Ball the entire time, especially with the Americans pushing to get a deal — any deal — signed and Korea’s failure to get victor status in the San Francisco Treaty. The Koreans tried as hard as they could, and while one could argue that they accomplished none of the things they set out to do, it seems to me that the papers indicate that it wasn’t because “someone who had been an officer in the Japanese military” didn’t try, and try hard. In the end, a deal needed to get signed, and it would seem to me that the deal Korea got was the best it could have gotten under the circumstances. Heck, one can argue that it was a miracle that they were able to preserve the right to press claims against Japan.
“Heck, one can argue that it was a miracle that they were able to preserve the right to press claims against Japan.”
Hehe, true enough. And Japan can regret not giving Compensation.
I don’t know what the answers are, whether Korea should, can, will, might, ask for compensation, but what seems clear at this point is that Japan cannot say that it gave compensation, as it has often clamed.
btw…
I’m betting someone is going to say Roh Moo Hyun’s gov’t had political motive and I don’t want to argue otherwise. Heck, how would I know?
But in case anyone has forgotten, it was a “victims” (call ‘em what you want) organization that sued to have the documents released, and when in 2004 a court said it had to the foreign ministry applealed the decision.
The US was about to take the side of Japan on this one, back then. Under the circumstances, Korea had to sign that sucky treaty, no choice. Even then, I can almost see Japan stipulating that they’re giving this money not for war reparations or compensations, but as economic aid.
Having said that, why does this have to be revealed now? All this will do is cause more anti-Japanese and anti-American feelings. As if Japan will all of a sudden give in to all the latest demands from Seoul. Nope. It’s counterproductive and unpragmatic. The Roh government is completely wrapped up on the past issues when they should be focusing on the present and the future. Ughghgh….
Maybe Vietnam will start demanding compensation from Korea.
That’s kind of funny, Kushibo, because when Kim Dae-jung “kinda” apologized to Vietnam in 1998 for some of the things that happened during the war, I thought to myself at the time, “Gee, that sounds just like a Japanese apology.”
During a visit to Hanoi in 1998, South Korean President Kim Dae-jung expressed regret over Korean actions in the Vietnam War, but he did not apologise.
“>http://perso.wanadoo.fr/patric...../korea.htm
And gee, doesn’t this sound familiar:
In 1998, South Korean President Kim Dae-jung came to Vietnam for the annual summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and expressed regret for his country??s role in the war. Vu Hoang Hoa, Binh Dinh??s vice governor, said many in his province felt Kim??s statement wasn??t enough. “Whether there should be an apology is an affair of our governments,” he said. “But what the people heard didn??t go as far as what they wanted.”
“>http://www.koreasociety.org/TK.....202000.htm
The political motivation on the Roh administration’s part wasn’t in the court-mandated release, but in the timing. Roh’s boys could have released these papers with some of the others given out last spring but didn’t.
Strangely, for several months the public only had access to papers which seemed to confirm the image that some have of Park as a pro-Japanese minion who sold out his country for a handful of silver.
Of course, it is possible that sequence of the releases was random but just (if not more) possible that it was not.
“Korea??s failure to get victor status in the San Francisco Treaty”
Did they really make a claim to it? What possible justification could they have offered to be accorded status as a victor - not a hapless victim, whose own national ineptitude was a necessary, albeit not a sufficient, condition for Japanese success in colonizing it. Even the French made some effort.
“Compensation”? The Japanese don’t have to (they certainly didn’t want to then and won’t now)characterize the aid and economic assistance program as compensation. The treaty states quite clearly that the payments and other aid to be made are in settlement of any and all claims, whether of the (South) Korean state or individuals - which is the basis for the Japanese court rulings against Korean claimants. (The same thing is true to some extent in the Korean Agent Orange cases arising out of Viet Nam).
Since Japan wisely (at the time, anyway)declined to negotiate any North Korean demands with S. Korea, of course there’s another chapter to be written in this particular saga of Korean victimhood. Or perhaps there’s not if unification, despite the best efforts of Chung Dong-dumb, comes about either under the aegis of the South or some new entity rather than the North.
Anyone who doubts that Park Chung Hee’s government made herculean (and often shamelessly “squeeky wheel”) efforts should take a look at “Tasks and Times”,the memoir of Lee Yong Won, who was foreign minister at the time. Lee is insufferably self-important and, of course, he is a stalwart defender of the realism of Korea’s agreeing the deal, but neither of these subtracts from the sheer immensity of the effort that he and his colleagues devoted to the task.
I wonder if any Vietnamese are calling Kim Dae Jung’s apology insincere and lacking action AKA compensation. Maybe Roh can apologize again and then Vietnam can say it wasn’t sincere either.
Oranckay:
I don’t think that a Japanese pundit/ reporter’s use of the word “compensation” to characterize the 1965 settlement constitutes a claim by “Japan” that it gave compensation.
I have no knowledge that the UK paid compensation to India or France to african countries.
Fear not, taxpayers of both countries have been paying compensation ever since. Actually, as a ?? temporary I hope ?? tax payer in France, I’d rather have our gubmint pay each country a compensation, and ship back the hords of Africans, than keep on paying forever.
Then again, it’s not only the former colonies that cost us, but the current ones too, those who *don’t want* independance…
To mae and others,
I’d wouldn’t claim to know the law but the issue of compensation is not, or at least is not exclusively, about having Japan pay former colonies and occupied countries (not the same thing) for colonizing and occupying, like the UK would not be doing for the entire commonwealth.
Compensation could/should also be for individuals systematically wronged by the Japanese system. It doesn’t even have to be a nationalist issue - even if Korea was “legally” annexed and some people out there argue that Koreans for the most part didn’t mind colonial rule, there are thousands of people who were made to do forced labor and others who were raped dozens of times daily. There’s a Dutch org of people still pissed about the issue. (http://www.jesinfo.org/)
Here’s a great quote about Japan claiming that it gave compensation. See third paragraph from the end.
” don??t think that a Japanese pundit/ reporter??s use of the word ??compensation?? to characterize the 1965 settlement constitutes a claim by ??Japan?? that it gave compensation.”
I don’t either.
But Japanese courts have turned down individual claims by former Korean comfort women saying the issue was laid to rest by the 1965. (Any reason Spewer calls it a “settlement”?)
Oranckay:
I call it a settlement, because that’s what it was. Article 2.1 of the treaty between Japan and Korea signed in 1965 provides as follows:
The High Contracting Parties confirm that the problems concerning property, rights, and interests of the two High Contracting Parties and their peoples (including juridical persons) and the claims between the High Contracting Parties and between their peoples, including those stipulated in Article IV(a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, have been settled completely and finally. (emphasis added)
I also think the language precludes, as a matter of law, any of the shenanigans that Korea now is undertaking as clearly as Article 3 precludes any recourse by Korea to UNHCR or any other int’l tribunal for a hearing of its current demands. Article 3 limits the fora for resolution of any disputes regarding the treaty to “primarily … diplomatic channels”, failing a settlement whereby the only permissible dispute resolution mechanism is arbitration by an ad hoc tribunal of three composed of individual arbitrators designated by each of the parties and a third chosen by them.
Korea’s apparent unwillingness to live up to its own treaty obligations makes a mockery of its attempt to clothe its current demands against Japan with the mantle of the law. It’s another instance of the emperor’s new clothes - a common phenomenon when Korea and anything that remotely resembles the law are involved.
Sperwer wrote:??Korea??s failure to get victor status in the San Francisco Treaty??
Did they really make a claim to it? What possible justification could they have offered to be accorded status as a victor - not a hapless victim, whose own national ineptitude was a necessary, albeit not a sufficient, condition for Japanese success in colonizing it. Even the French made some effort.I should have responded a while ago, but I only recently got access to the archives I needed.
Go here for a different perspective from the idea that Koreans made no effort against the Japanese.