“Japan v. Korea: Tensions Rise, Peace Dies?”

It is often said that the more things change, the more things stay the same. This seems to be the case with relations between South Korea and Japan. Both countries have gone from being underdeveloped agrarian societies to economic and technological powerhouses by the end of the 20th century. However, despite their prominence and prosperity, it seems that they have difficulty letting go of a good deal of antagonism in their shared history. For centuries, Japan unsuccessfully sought to invade Korea until the peninsula’s colonization in 1910 by the resurgent Asian superpower. During a brutal occupation period, the Japanese used Koreans as forced laborers, among many other atrocities. This finally came to an end when Japan was defeated in World War II and Korea was liberated. However, tensions between the Western powers and the Communist bloc resulted in the forced division of Korea into North and South along the 38th parallel.

About a decade after the end of the Korean War, Japan reached an accord with South Korea to make amends for the period of colonial exploitation. The two countries signed the Treaty on Basic Relations in 1965, which was intended to promote diplomacy and settle humanitarian and socioeconomic issues arising from the colonial period. However, this was concluded at a time when Japan was already enjoying economic prosperity and ascendancy, partly because they had supported the U.S. in the Korean War. South Korea, on the other hand, was still an underdeveloped and struggling agrarian society. Despite Japan’s assertion that this treaty was the final resolution of any and all war-related claims, South Korea remained unsatisfied.

Recently, South Koreans who lived through the traumas of colonization have begun seeking redress from Japanese companies in Korean courts. Mr. Lee Chun-shik, who suffered as a forced laborer in colonial times, sued his former “employers,” Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Company, for a huge sum in exchange for both violations of his rights as a Korean citizen and as a human. The South Korean Supreme Court ruled that victims of forced labor have the right to claim damages for compensation notwithstanding the 1965 treaty, allowing the victims to seize assets of Japanese companies in South Korea to satisfy their claims. Not long after this, Japanese trade minister Hiroshige Seko announced that Japan would take South Korea off of their “whitelist” of countries cleared for preferential export screenings, which limited the shipment of three important chemicals for South Korean conglomerates like Samsung. The Japanese asserted that South Korean export controls were weak, potentially allowing the chemicals to be diverted to weapons use, while the South Koreans claimed the export restrictions were simply retaliation for the Supreme Court ruling.

While the law may be on Japan’s side, it seems that justice is on South Korea’s side. It is undeniable that the Koreans are the victims of colonial abuse and even modern exploitation. During the colonial occupation and even during the Treaty on Basic Relations, Korea was severely underdeveloped and was taken advantage of by Japan. While the Japanese enjoyed rising economic prosperity after World War II, partly due to the largesse of the U.S., the Koreans struggled economically until well into the latter half of the 20th century. Even today, while the Japanese have taken some measures to assure the world that there is no export ban in effect against South Korea, the timing of their export restrictions seems suspect, especially given their Trumpist appearance.

The acrimony between South Korea and Japan has nonetheless reached the point where it is harmful to their own self-interests and the interests of the U.S. while being helpful to their rivals in Asia. South Korea announced that a crucial intelligence-sharing pact with Japan would be null and void in early September 2019, deeming it unable to meet “national interests.” The rift between the two countries could not arise at a worse time, given the rising nuclear threat of North Korea and the expansionist designs of China. The U.S., which is allied with Japan and South Korea while having an adversarial relationship with North Korea and China, has strongly urged the two countries to set aside past personal conflicts. Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Dave Eastburn even noted that “intel sharing is key to developing our common defense policy and strategy.” Decades of U.S. efforts to foster peace and stability in Asia could unravel if Japan and South Korea continue the apparent tit-for-tat measures that give no one an advantage except their common adversaries.

Japan and South Korea should strive to reconcile and reach a final accommodation to right any lingering wrongs of the past that the lopsided 1965 treaty failed to address, and the U.S. should do what it can to mediate between the two countries to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. North Korea continues to develop its nuclear missile program at an alarming pace, seeking to ensure the survival of its communist regime and even to promote reunification of Korea on its terms. Meanwhile, as China continues to flex its newfound economic muscle, it has continued to militarize the South China Sea, wholly disregarding the territorial claims of its neighbors. China seeks to reassert its primacy as the “Middle Kingdom” or dominant power in Asia, and perhaps in all the world. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump’s preference to cozy up to dictators and authoritarian governments while alienating and insulting allies like Canada, France, and Germany does not give Japan and South Korea the luxury of squabbling, lest they find that China and North Korea have gained insurmountable advantages in the meantime.

South Korea and Japan now stand at a crucial crossroad. As we speak, President Trump continues to pursue a policy of “America First” ironically all around the world. Given the rise of authoritarian powers and the fraying of alliances between democratic nations, the time has come to put aside selfish interests in the world and work together for what is right, just, and protective of freedom for those who value it. Japan could take a leading role toward this worthy goal by more fully assuming responsibility for its wartime actions, while South Korea could stand to be more pragmatic in recognizing the advantages of a more harmonious relationship with Japan. Meaningful change may be hard to come by in the world of international politics, but the opportunity here should not be wasted by petty squabbling.