More on the Japanese-Korean "trade" dispute

JTBC News has done some remarkable reporting on the ongoing "trade dispute" between Japan and Korea. The trade dispute was triggered by President Abe's response the South Korean Supreme Court judgement on private Korean claims based upon Japan's slave labor war crimes in Korea.

Yesterday's news program described how the Japanese foreign ministry had been pressuring the executive branch of the South Korean government to interfere in the judicial administration of the ongoing slave labor claims in South Korean courts at the Blue House (presidential) level. The unlawful interference in judicial administration by the prior pro-Japanese Park administration violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The interference by Japan started about six years ago, so it's nothing new. Unfortunately, they succeeded in influencing former president Park Geun Hye to interfere in progress of the litigation by getting the judicial branch to delay the outcomes of pending litigation unfavorable to the Japanese wartime legacy corporations for years. During this delay some of the few remaining living claimants died.

(Source- JTBC News 7.29) Title Japan from six years earlier...pressure on slave labor decision confirmed. Japan interference in sovereignty, ...encroachment on jurisdiction, full story. Former Cabinet Executive Director Pak Jun Oo, "If the court's latest decision becomes public there is going to be chaos; we need to contact the high court and delay the decision." Former President Park Geun Hye, "foreign ministry is the responsible department, if they make arrangements I guess it will be alright."

Today's JTBC news offered some statements by Japanese attorneys regarding the alleged authority under international law for the 1965 Agreement between Japan and Korea relied upon by the Abe government to dispute private domestic claims for injury based upon the war crimes of Japanese corporations against Korean individuals forced into slave labor during WWII. The Korean Supreme Court recently upheld the validity of such claims against the Japanese argument. In essence, the 1965 agreement was held only to apply to indemnity claims for damages due to otherwise lawful activities. The agreement does not bar compensation claims based upon personal injury due to unlawful war crimes upon individual claimants so injured.

(Source- JTBC News July 30) Japanese lawyer Jaima Hidekazi stated " private rights of claimants cannot be extinguished by the agreement of two governments."

The former president of the Japanese Bar Association, Utsunomiya Kenji, noted that the rights of Chinese victims of Japanese wartime forced labor were ruled valid by the Japanese Supreme Court in 2007. A third Japanese attorney, Fujida Masatosi, interviewed by JTBC on the program, has started a petition thus far signed by 3000 Japanese including 12 lawyers which calls for the removal of trade restraints recently imposed by Japan in retaliation for the Korean forced labor litigation decisions. The program noted that 58 percent of the Japanese surveyed in a poll supported proposed Japanese trade restraints against South Korea.

(Source- JTBC News July 30) Utsunomiya Kenji, former head of the Japanese Bar Association, "In 2007 the Japanese highest court also ruled that the private lawsuits of Chinese slave labor victims to compensation were not extinguished."

(Source- JTBC News July 30) Attorney Fujida Masatosi, Saying that colonization was legal in those days under international law. Who made that law? Naturally, the 1965 Claims agreement must be reexamined.

Masatosi also asked why does the Abe government fail to refer the 2007 decision by the Japanese high court recognizing the legitimacy of Chinese slave labor claims. Of course, it weakens not only Japan's arguments but also the LDP appeal to anti- Korean public sentiment in Japan. Japan's stated position on the connected slave labor issues is regarded as duplicitous. In one situation, China, Japan acknowledges its war crimes, in the other, Korea, it doesn't. Abe's LDP party failed in the July 21 elections to achieve the necessary two thirds majority in the Upper House to ratify an amendment to the Japanese constitution to remove limits on military activities to self defense. Currently, Abe is manipulating this trade dispute, falsely based upon national security claims with South Korea, in order to generate more support among politicians from third parties to so amend the constitution to remove checks on Japan's military powers.

(Source- JTBC News July 30) Attorney Fujida Masatosi, It will be easier to amend the Japanese constitution in favor of security by armed force if the relationship with South Korea worsens.

DPRK's Latest Missile Launches

(Source Channel A News Top Ten 7.25) The missile launches from the Wonson area occurred not too long after the unprecedented joint Chinese-Russian military air operation in the East China Sea and East Sea/Sea of Japan during which a Russian A-50 military aircraft violated South Korean airspace near Dokto island territory of South Korea. South Korean islands Dokto and Ulleongdo are shown in the graphic. Dokto is lowest right. "North Korea, It's been 78 days, again the launch of two short range missiles." The source of information cited is ROK Joint Chiefs.

Another element to these stories is their timing to coincide with the presence of John Bolton in Japan and South Korea to request support for the "coalition," directed against Iran.

(Source Channel A News Top Ten 7.25)

All the military bases and cities in South Korea are within the estimated range of this missile. It is further contended by some analysts that the missile is difficult to intercept because of its eccentric terminal guidance phase.

Update:

First estimated range of "Kimskander" missile track changed from 430 km to roughly 600 km. The initial estimate was based on a standard ballistic profile as the downrange portion of the flight was not within the envelope of South Korean and US missile tracking radars. The eccentric flight path of the Iskander type missile shown in the graphic below resulted in an underestimation of its flight range. So now both missile launches were estimated in the 600 km range according to analysts on Channel A News Top Ten.

(Source- JTBC News 7.26)

Implications of Russian Chinese Air Exercise in the East Sea

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 7.24 ) The thief so much the worse has a club: Japan. Japan portrays Dokdo on its Olympic web site showing the Olympic torch route (right) when in the recent past, the South Korean government removed the depiction of Dokdo from the 2018 Winter Olympic flag at Japan's request (left).

The Russian action, in particular the territorial airspace violations over Dokdo which elicited an armed response from South Korean air defense aircraft, appears calculated to aggravate a long simmering dispute over the island territory between Japan and South Korea and drive a further wedge in their current poor relations. The Japanese claim to the islands is spurious having asserted control of the islands during the period of Japanese imperial military actions subjugating Korea during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They lost this control after August 1945. The unprecedented ROK Air Force resort to warning shots against a Russian military aircraft is evidence of the potential for sudden military conflict in the East Sea.

Here is the pertinent quote from the CNN article which reveals Moscow's motive:

The Japanese government said that it had issued a strong protest against both the Russian and the South Korean governments for intruding on what they regard as their airspace.

The South Koreans said they had dismissed Japan's protests. Moscow has not responded to either country's concerns.*

* https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/23/asia/south-korea-russia-military-intl-hnk/index.html

(Source-JTBC News 7.24) Japanese MOD report shows flight path of Russian A-50 around Dokdo (Takeshima) entering territorial airspace twice. Japanese fighter aircraft had intercepted the unprecedented joint Russian Chinese air operation over the East China Sea according to JTBC News.

Beyond this the joint operation of Russian and Chinese air forces in the East Sea/Sea of Japan and the East China Sea pose a challenge to the reduction of the scope and scale of joint military exercises scheduled by the US and South Korea. North Korea has recently suggested that it's suspension of longer range missiles and nuclear testing is dependent upon whether or not upcoming US South Korean joint military exercises take place. The scope and scale of the Tong Meng 19-2 US-ROK exercise is probably more correctly the issue. The need for such exercises is bolstered by Russian Chinese military cooperation in the region. Prior South Korean news broadcasts have suggested that the 19-2 joint exercise is principally a simulated command post type exercise with limited field operations. Such Russian-Chinese actions along with today's North Korean short range missile testing today are likely to expand rather than diminish such exercises. This appears to portend a hostile attitude toward the Moon administration in South Korea, tending to promote the cause of the right wing there and indefinite division of the peninsula.

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 7.24) John Bolton meets with Jong Eui Jong, ROK National Security Adviser in the Blue House with a Turtle ship replica in the background. The Turtle ship fleet under the leadership of Admiral Lee Sun Sin was credited with defeating the Japanese fleet during the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1598. The comment notes that the model has always been there. President Moon Jae In had mentioned the spirit of Lee Sun Shin to encourage the public in the face of Japanese free trade restraints. The removal of South Korea from Japan's so called "white list" of trusted trading partners is scheduled to become operational on South Korea's Independence Day, which commemorates it's liberation from Japanese rule on August 15, 1945, in another characteristic Abe/LDP affront.

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 7.24. President Moon has breakfast with the Mayor of Pusan at the Lee Sun Shin raw fish house. The comical quote, ascribed to Moon by netizens, says "I had breakfast at the famous fish house in Pusan. I hope people don't get the wrong idea."

At the same time, one can't help but notice the coincidence that John Bolton the US national security adviser is in Asia, lobbying the Japanese and South Koreans to join the "coalition" to defend "freedom of navigation" in the Persian Gulf/ Gulf of Oman region. Increased regional operations and the prospect of future military cooperation by Russia and China in East Asia might make South Korean and Japan less likely to send their forces so far afield from the increased local military challenge. Increased Russian Chinese military cooperation certainly presents a prospect that may affect US considerations of force disposition in the widely dispersed Indo-Pacific theater. This is likely the intention of the budding partnership of the peer rivals of the US. Two historical frameworks compete for dominance in Asia the legacy of western imperial dominance and the cold war versus the legacy of an unrepentant imperial Japan and the Great Pacific War.

Boycott Japan

(Source= KBS News July 18) Title refers to the heart of the Korean Independence Movement. Boycott Japan Don't go there. Don't buy anything.


Abe jumped the economic track first mimicking Trump's merchantilist tactics against China. What Trump and the militarists have been whispering into Japan's ears is "yes go ahead, amend your constitution to allow offensive armaments, we need that to offset China's growing threat." Abe's actions are geared toward the elections this weekend, inciting old style Japanese chauvinism so he can get 2/3 control of legislature, amend the constitution, rearm and conduct offensive military operations whenever Japan sees fit.

The central issue is whether the private claims of the individual victims of Japanese war crimes were foreclosed by the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations. The current Supreme Court of South Korea says they were not. South Korea is a democracy with separation of powers. The executive cannot change the Supreme Court ruling. Neither can Japan. When one does business in a country one submits to their domestic law. Ironic that an advisor to the Abe cabinet, Tomohiko Taniguchi, made this very contention today on Ajazeera in defense of its newly imposed export controls on South Korea.*

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po4CbciGSuY

The Japanese argue that the 1965 treaty settled all claims by Korean people against Japan and carries the higher authority of international law. Their corporations made this argument in the Supreme Court and lost. Just setting aside the legal arguments which I don't think non-Koreans are qualified to judge, the treaty was negotiated and signed on behalf of Korea by a military dictator, whose background was as a formal Japanese Imperial Army officer, a collaborator of the Japanese, who received awards from the Japanese government, and had killed Koreans who fought against the Japanese occupation. That would be Park Chung Hee. Virtually, all monies received in settlement went to his pro-Japanese cronies. So there is no surprise in a political sense, that the current government of South Korea, democratically elected, doesn't regard the agreement as legitimate. It was not an arms length agreement. The pro-Japanese Park, gave virtually nothing to the victims. So if an illegitimate pro-Japanese dictatorship forecloses victims human rights and civil rights to compensation for Japanese war crimes for a peppercorn, as a US legal expression goes, is that enforceable? Not in today's South Korea.

All of Park's friends told Eckert that to understand him, one needed to understand his Ilbonsik sagwan kyoyuk (Japanese officer training) as they all maintained Park's values were those of an Imperial Japanese Army officer.[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee

Park's daughter former president, Park Geun Hye, continued the chin-il pa (pro-Japanese faction) tradition by selling out all the claims of all Korean women kidnapped during the Pacific War for sex services, tortured and murdered, the so called "comfort women, " for another peppercorn (9 million dollars). Moon Jae In repudiated that agreement as he said he would when elected President of South Korea.

The fact that Pacific War war criminals of Japan are commemorated in the Yasukuni Shrine, doesn't help much with the alleged apologies previously made. Does Germany now maintain a shrine to Hitler, Goering, Himmler, and Goebbels? Do German political leaders visit to "pay their respects?" Do German school texts omit their war crimes in the 20th Century? Do German naval vessels yet fly the Nazi flag?

Due to the enshrinement of individuals found to be war criminals by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and an approach to the war museum considered by some to be nationalist, China, South Korea and North Korea have called the Yasukuni Shrine a microcosm of a revisionist and unapologetic approach to Japanese crimes of World War II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Yasukuni_Shrine#Shinzo_Abe

Japan's Weaponization of Trade with South Korea

(Source- YTN News July 12) Title- 'Economic retaliation' Abe answers the question "What exactly is South Korea's mistake?" Abe's national security reason is an excuse. Abe, "South Korea's sanctions measures against North Korea can't be trusted." "As South Korea has not kept it's international obligations concerning the forced labor problem, clearly isn't it natural to think that economic regulations concerning North Korea aren't being kept?"

(Source- SBS/ondemandkorea.com) This historic image of General Jeon Bong Jun, also known as "Nokdu" (mung bean), was interposed with the scene recreated in the current South Korean historical drama "Nokdu Flower." The scene depicts Nokdu for posterity after he and his military staff were sentenced to death. Nokdu was the leader of the Korean peasants' revolt that arose out of the decadence, corruption. violence and poverty of late Chosun. The peasant revolution in the late 19th Century precipitated a pretext for the Japanese invasion and occupation of Korea which didn't end till August 1945. In the image the condemned General Jeon (center) is being escorted by Japanese police in 1895.


Everything Abe has arranged over the last few weeks has been a calculated insult to South Korea. JTBC reports Japan’s removal of South Korea from the “white list” of preferred trade status countries is scheduled to be implemented on August 15, Korean Independence Day, the day it was liberated from Japanese colonial rule by the United States. South Korea has offered to negotiate with Japan to mitigate the impact of lawsuits against Japanese corporations operating in South Korea with a legacy of wartime slave labor. Why wouldn’t South Korea present a request to withdraw the proposed burdensome trade license requirements recently begun against businesses exporting computer related materials to South Korea? The Japanese contention that they didn’t is absurd.

Why isn’t Japan interested in having a third party international body investigate its allegations that South Korean compliance mechanisms to prevent conversion of strategic materials to North Korea are inadequate? The truth is that Japan’s allegations are largely unsupported. Even a conservative US expert observer of Korean affairs, Scott Snyder said on VOA's Washington Talk this weekend that Japan has a “perception problem” with respect to this issue.

Abe’s motivation is to foster his nationalistic LDP party this election season in Japan with xenophobic red baiting against South Korea. While his views seem to be garnering popular support, the Japanese media are not entirely onboard. His other goal is to inflict heavy political damage on the administration of Moon Jae In which doesn’t dance to the previously dominant conservative tune of pro-Japan politics characteristic of prior South Korean dictatorships and their 21st Century progeny on the Korean right. While the US refrains from taking sides in the “trade dispute” which began with Japan’s unilateral action, (sharing characteristics of Trump’s style of foreign policy), it is neglecting the damage that will be caused to international trade, our alliances, and political stability and security in northeast Asia. Meanwhile, the Trump administration appears to be using the situation to inveigle greater military support from both South Korea and Japan for its unwise policies toward Iran.

봄비

봄비 신중현 Spring Rain written by Shin Jung Hyun



If I walk on the street in the light rain

If I walk on the street wet with spring rain

lonesome by myself

Though the sound of the raindrops is comforting

there is no path of comfort for my aching heart

Endlessly wet, above my eyes

the raindrops fall and become tears


Endlessly flowing

Spring rain, reduces me to tears, spring rain

Till when will it fall

Pulling at my heart spring rain!

No path of comfort exists for my aching heart

Endlessly wet, above my eyes

the raindrops fall and become tears


Endlessly flowing

Spring rain, reduces me to tears, spring rain


Till when will it fall

Pulling at my heart spring rain!

난 나나나 나나나
Nan, na, na...

난나 나나나 나

Spring rain falls...

Spring rain falls...

봄비가 내리네
나 나나나 나나나
나나 나나나 나...

Spring Rain performed by Jang Sa Ik 장사익 - 봄비

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=5QZZemZUezc

The author of this song titled Spring Rain, lyrics and music, is Shin Jung Hyun. Jang Sa Ik, is the performer here, adapting the traditional Korean cultural experience to the present. The song appears to have been first recorded in 1970 by 하현우 Ha Hyun Ooh. Jang Sa Ik calls himself sorikkun "soundmaker." He brings the traditional country sound of Korean Pansori style music to well known Korean contemporary songs. The commentary in the youtube video noted that Jang had added some jazz influences. One would be hard pressed, I think, to find a Korean, at least among all but the youngest who doesn't know this song.

What is the legal argument for seizure of the Iranian tanker based on EU sanctions?

The pertinent EU sanctions are:

REGULATIONS
COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 36/2012
of 18 January 2012
concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No
442/2011

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:016:0001:0032:EN:PDF

It’s pretty clear the specific sanctions on oil preclude the EU member states from buying energy products exported from Syria. The Syrian oil industry entities are targeted specifically in the annex. There are prohibitions on exporting technology related to refining oil products. There are financial transactions, contracts, brokering, and security transactions prohibited with listed entities or persons. However these restrictions apply to member states. There is also an exception for energy requirements of a subsistence nature. If Iran and Syria have a means to conduct transactions outside western financial entities, they are outside the EU sanctions regime against Syria.

While it appears clear that the spirit of the EU sanctions regime is to damage the Assad regime particularly in the energy, military, financial and technology realms, it is not clear on the face of the EU regulations how one arrives at the legal formulation to seize a ship bringing oil TO Syria. The document alludes to legal and financial mechanisms to deter, block and penalize sanctions violators. The resort to a physical seizure suggests that the administrative, financial and judicial remedies were lacking in this particular case against the third party vessel, and a resort to military force was the sole available option. It is likely that the export of oil from Iran to Syria violates US sanctions, and it is probable this is why Bolton timely chimed in publicly on the illegality of the oil shipment to bolster the UK contentions which are to say the least, less than rock solid, (no pun intended). Also the Iranian claim that the UK action exceeded the territorial limits of the EU jurisdiction bears examination as the ship may have been in international transit status. This is related to UK claims as to what the basis for Gibraltar jurisdiction is, how far it extends, and the exact position of the seizure. Naturally, the UK will choose the most expansive analysis of its jurisdiction in support of the seizure. Ironically, the UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, has indicated in the past that the UK did not support the US withdrawal from the JCPOA nor its reimposition of sanctions on Iran. The reporting on this oil tanker seizure has been characteristically vague and sources of factual details are rarely cited. One report stated that the ship was seized within 3 miles of Gibraltar. One wonders why the tanker would steer this close. What about the right of safe passage?

It seems ironic that a Brexit imminent UK is nominally taking up the cause of the EU sanctions against Syria. The move appears to fulfill the Asian proverb of one stone three birds. The UK military move superficially implicates the EU member states in an anti-Iranian action they actually don't support. The entire operation fulfills greater strategic ambitions of the US and Great Britain in the middle east with a view toward regime change in Iran and exercising Atlantic alliance dominance over world energy markets and prices. Finally, a military seizure provides a provocation designed to elicit a forcible response from Iran inviting further western military actions in turn, laying the predicate for outright US military attacks on Iran. There could be a sense of urgency in the UK and US directed at this goal as the possibility of the end of republican control of the White House looms in the not too distant future.

The timing of the leak of the Kim Darroch cables is really about distracting the media from the UK ship seizure, and at the same time, intended to manipulate Trump to be more resolute in his decisions concerning war and peace, specifically with respect to Iran:

In one of the most recent of the leaked memos, Darroch referred to “incoherent, chaotic” US policy on Iran and questioned Trump’s claim that he had called off a retaliatory air strike against Tehran after the downing of an American drone because he had heard at the last minute that 150 casualties were predicted.*

* https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/07/foreign-office-orders-inquiry-into-leak-of-cables-on-trump

Here's a opinion by twitter from Carl Bildt, Co-chair European Council on Foreign relations:

The legalities of the UK seizure of a tanker heading for Syria with oil from Iran intrigues me. One refers to EU sanctions against Syria, but Iran is not a member of EU. And EU as a principle doesn’t impose its sanctions on others. That’s what the US does.

https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1147979806593695745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Enews%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Addendum July 15

Newsclick published an interview on youtube July 7, of M.K. Bhadrakumar, former Indian Ambassador to Turkey, concerning the seizure of the Iranian tanker Grace 1 by the British off Gibraltar. His analysis of the incident is remarkably similar to the one expressed in this blog, namely, that the seizure was illegal under international law and taken to escalate tensions with Iran with a view toward war. It is remarkable that the world media have been completely silent about this unlawful action by the hypocritical English who claim their system represents the rule of law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQHm8QLn5Y8

The hidden agenda behind the seizure of Iran's tanker

Some thoughts on Panmunjom summit meeting

I'll believe there is a shift in the US position when I see it. The problem isn't just a couple of personalities like Bolton and Pompeo. Biegun is not that reliable and issues vague and contradictory statements. He showed limited flexibility before the Hanoi summit and then after went hard line when his bosses failed to negotiate. (See the prior blog entry "Who is Stephen Biegun's Counterpart?"). Now he allegedly is flexible again. An informed observer can only agree with Tim Shorrock's assessment of Biegun's so called flexibility after reading the recent article about his June 30 statements published in the Hankyoreh.

If Biegun favors a step by step approach to the DPRK talks, there's still no sign of it in his public statements. "Biegun says US will maintain sanctions until N. Korea completely denuclearizes."

See http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/900545.html

One can't help but note that Biegun's recent "off the record" statements seem to parallel Mr. Bolton's expansive demands at Hanoi, calling for the removal of all missiles, and all weapons of mass destruction, the favored lexicon of US middle eastern war making. Such an expansion of categorical demands make resolution of nuclear issues all the more unlikely.

The resistance to negotiation with North Korea is institutional and permeates the very structure of the US. It includes Congress, the UN apparatus, the state department, and the cottage industry of pundits, experts, and "scholars" in academia and non-profits, representing their defense industry sponsors who flood the media with the never ending propaganda against negotiations with North Korea 24-7.

It was just the media choreography of the Moon-Kim meeting that Trump sought to copy. He has yet to demonstrate the political will to engage in reciprocal confidence building measures at the negotiating table. The fiasco at Hanoi proved this.

President Moon's meeting with Kim at Panmunjom on April 27, 2018, captured the media world wide and stimulated speculation about what could be.

The very steps and gestures that Moon took that day with Kim Jong Un were carefully mimicked by Trump at Panmunjom with Kim. While this media buildup about "love letters" and the impending visit to the DMZ was unfolding (similar in nature to the prelude of the unveiling of Al Capone's vault), US diplomats were still twisting the knife in North Korea's back at the UN. While Trump feigned friendship for the North Korean leader, the US delegation at the UN were seeking reduction of refined fuel exports to the DPRK to zero, and encouraging the members to comply with repatriation of North Korean workers abroad as scheduled by a previous UN resolution. This is the two sided face of US diplomacy referred to by South Korea's former Unification Minister Chong Se Hyun as the policies of an "Indian killing long haired white general," after Hanoi.

Thae Yong Ho, the right wing pundit and North Korean defector, says that Trump was trying to emulate Nixon's historic visit to China. This is nonsense. No credit could ever be given by the South Korean right to President Moon Jae In's leadership in his approach to North Korea and Kim Jong Un. Trump never could get the imagery from the Moon Kim Panmunjom summit out of his mind. The significance of Trump stepping on the North Korea side of the military demarcation line really doesn't mean much if anything. President Moon's gesture was far more meaningful. It meant "We are one people." For Trump it meant nothing but a campaign media stunt, to show he could compete with Xi Jinping, among others.