Why Japan doesn't trust President Yoon Seok-yeol of South Korea

There is a certain irony in raising the issue of trust on Japan's part with respect to South Korea. This is viewed in South Korea from the perspective of being among the last countries in the world to be formally colonized in the modern era. Japan imposed it's imperial rule over Korea by force, formally annexing Korea in 1910, regardless of their revisionist contentions to the contrary. Substantial Japanese military interventions and other uses of force in South Korea began in earnest in 1894. This post is based, in large part, on Hosaka Yuji's June 25 youtube presentation on the issue of Japanese lack of trust in South Korea's new conservative President Yoon Seok-yeol.*

*[일본직격] 일본이 윤석열을 의심하기 시작했다
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOp2ng3DNQE

It is easiest to grasp the issue when the two-faced opportunistic quality of Yoon's behavior is understood. This point is made near the end of Hosaka Yuji's presentation when he discusses the Japanese right's perspective as explained by Professor Nishioka Sutomu. Nishioka Sutomu notes that although Yoon and his principal functionaries come from the legal world in South Korea, they have demonstrated a proclivity to engage in unlawful politically motivated prosecutions. Nishioka cites the cases of former president Park Geun-hye and former justice minister Cho Guk as examples of opportunistic use of the law by Yoon to achieve his own political objectives.

(Source- 이재명은 합니다 youtube 6.27.22 내 말이 틀렸어?) Right here, the culprit who carried out the impeachment, Yoon Seok-seol. Yoon Seok-yeol in photo op with former former president Park Geun-hye.


It is relatively easy to understand why the Japanese right looks unfavorably at the impeachment and prosecution of Park Geun-hye. She stood by the 1965 agreement normalizing Japan-South Korean relations, negotiated by her pro-Japanese father, former dictator Park Chung-hee. Park Geun-hye also agreed to a settlement with Japan of the so called comfort women dispute for a relatively small sum of about 9 million dollars. Additionally, her administration blocked progress and final judgement in litigation in South Korea brought against Japanese corporations for their use of Korean slave labor during the wartime period. Yoon was a principal player on the legal team that prosecuted Park Geun-hye after her impeachment. Yoon later directed the prosecution of Cho Guk and his wife. In the instance of the slave labor cases, it's arguable that the Japanese government was the party seeking to interfere in Korea's domestic judicial process.

(Source- 열린공감TV youtube 7.21.20) Former Justice Minister Cho Guk was expected to lead the reform of the administration of justice in South Korea, instead he was forced out of office by indictments against family members brought under the direction of Yoon Seok-yeol, then Prosecutor General of South Korea. Cho Guk’s wife is currently serving a four year prison term and he is undergoing criminal prosecution currently.


The Japanese legal observer Sutomu noted that former Justice Minister Cho Guk was politically targeted by Yoon and his "division" in the public prosecutors office because he was the flag bearer for the democratic party's effort to reform the administration of justice in South Korea. In other words, Yoon sought to protect the arbitrary political power of his office as Prosecutor General at that time with a politically motivated and unjust prosecution. So the gist of the Japanese LDP right's view of Yoon is that he is opportunistic and will likely conduct South Korean affairs in an "unlawful" manner, in other words, inconsistent with the Japanese legal positions on the various disputes now pending between South Korea and Japan.

Some signs of Yoon's unreliability and opportunism are evident in his announcemment of his presidential candidacy at the Patriot Yoon Bong-kil Memorial on June 29, 2021. Yoon Bong-kil is regarded as a terrorist in Japan. He brought a bomb to a park in Shanghai on Aprii 29, 1932, to kill Japanese officials at an event to celebrate the Emperor's birthday. A Japanese government official was killed along with an Imperial Army general who died from his wounds. Other Japanese dignitaries were seriously wounded. Patriot Yoon Bong-kil was arrested and later executed by the Japanese. In his candidacy annoucement, Yoon Seok-yeol tried to bridge the independence movement v. pro-Japanese rift in South Korean domestic politics by condemning the politics of the prior Moon administration as "Bamboo Spear Song" demagogy damaging to South Korean Japanese relations.* It appears that Japan didn't get the subtlety of Yoon's hypocrisy. As the prospective conservative candidate for president he had to placate the pro-Japanese collaborator legacy elites who traditionally have strongly influenced the conservative parties in South Korea since 1948. At the same time he used the venue to appeal to popular South Korean anti-Japanese nationalism. This sort of posturing by Yoon led to characterizations by otherwise knowledgeable observers that Yoon was a "centrist" and a "populist," when there is really nothing further from the truth, Yoon is far right.

*죽창가 Bamboo Spear Song
https://civilizationdiscontents.blogspot.com/2021/08/bamboo-spear-song.html

(Source- OhMyNewsTV youtube 6.25)
Then presidential candidate Yoon poses with a picture of independence movement patriot Ahn Jung-geun. Professor Hosaka Yuji (left) an expert in Japanese-Korean relations produces the program 일본직격 (Direct Hit Japan).

During his campaigning, Yoon posed with a picture of another Korean independence movement patriot Ahn Jung-geun, at his memorial site at Hyochang Park, August 15, 2021, Liberation Day (from Japan). Patriot Ahn is known for assassinating the former Governor General of South Korea, and first Prime Minister of Japan, Ito Hirobumi, in Harbin, China, October 26, 1909. He was arrested and later hanged by Japan for his act, perceived as terrorism in Japan. The humiliating Treaty of Eulsa had been forced on South Korea by Japan in 1905, making the Chosun dynasty a Japanese protectorate.

(Source- OhMyNewsTV youtube 6.25)

Next, on September 11, 2021, Yoon met with Lee Yong-su, a "comfort woman" survivor at the Comfort Woman Memorial Museum. Yoon promised to Lee that he would obtain an apology from the Japanese government for what they had done to Korean women as sex slaves for the Japanese Imperial Army during WWII. This pledge by Yoon on the campaign trail is completely contrary to the Japanese revisionist view of their WWII history in which the comfort women are described as prostitutes who volunteered to provide sexual services to Japanese soldiers for pay.

Naturally, there are the other disputes between Japan and South Korea, including Japan's territorial claims on the Dokdo islets which are controlled by South Korea. There are also disputes over UNESCO designations of Japanese historical sites, such as Gunhamdo (Battleship Island), Japan, where mines were worked by Korean slave laborers "conscripted" during WWII. There are the relaively recent so called "maritime patrol" incidents,* and the trade disputes which evolved as retaliation by Japan against South Korea for raising the other issues mentioned, primarily the slave labor court judgement finding Japanese corporations liable for damages to the victims.

*South Korea Protests Repeated Naval Encounters with Japanese P-1 Maritime Patrol Aircraft, https://civilizationdiscontents.blogspot.com/2019/01/south-korea-protests-third-naval.html

Yoon has demonstrated a pliable receptivity to US requests to improve relations with Japan. Unfortunately, Japan places all the blame on South Korea for their ongoing disputes, and claims it is the responsibility of the South Korean administration to apologize in respect to outstanding differences, admit that South Korea is wrong, and correct it ways. In a prior program, Hosaka Yuji characterized Japan's curt responses to South Korean overtures for direct discussions and a summit as "Yakusa like," reflecting a rude domineering attitude with no intention of engaging in negotiation or compromise, and demonstrating little respect for South Korea's sovereignty.

Ukraine war is a heaven sent opportunity for Japan’s right

(Source 호사카유지TV/ OhMyNewsTV May 2) “우크라 전쟁은 하늘이 준 기회”... 아베가 다시 움직인다
Professor Hosaka Yuji, "Ukraine war is a heaven sent opportunity"...Abe is on the move again. Picture shows Abe giving a speech on constitutional revision at a venue in his Yamaguchi Prefecture district, April 3. Abe has been stumping for the Constitution revision to remove Art 9 restrictions on Japanese self defense forces to permit offensive warfare capabilities, like a "normal country."

The professor who is an analyst of Korean-Japanese relations and Japanese politics goes on to describe how the far right elements of the LDP (whose views are typically carefully screened from western view by compliant English language media) see the future conflicts with Russia and China requiring a solid military alliance with the US with greater Japanese military contribution and the encouragement of greater international support in Asia against Russia and China. This Japanese view anticipates an outcome from the ongoing conflict and perhaps additional future wars, providing the groundwork for a new international system, either in the UN or similar international institution arising in the aftermath of conflict, in which Japan is elevated to Security Council status among the victorious states, while great powers like Russia and China are replaced or excluded. The process requires Japan to abandon its three non-nuclear principles along with the current Constitution’s rejection of the use of war to resolve international disputes. An interim objective would be to have Japan join the AUKUS nuclear oriented military alliance in lieu of the Quad which appears to be faltering as a basis of an anti-Russian or anti-China military alliance due to India’s equivocation demonstrated clearly in the context of the Ukrainian war. The Japanese right sees Japan as leaving behind for all time, its history as a “war criminal nation,” (which it denies in its revisionist view of history as an unfair stigma undermining Japanese pride as a people). So in the LDP’s right wing ideological vision it’s time to abandon the San Francisco Treaty system to join the ranks of the future victors in a new world order in the war against China and Russia.

On Rahm Emanuel's confirmation as US Ambassador to Japan

The US military occupation of Japan was initially conceived as a check on Japanese militarism. During the latter phases of WWII and in the lead up to the Treaty of San Francisco, the major role of post war Japan was recast by the US as the bulwark against communism in East Asia. Japan became the rear area of support for US forces in the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

The US has become so comfortable with the view that Japan will always be the reliable ally to count on in Asia, the notion that it still harbors revanchist goals, and seeks to reassert its status in Asia as a "normal country with a normal military" is hardly perceived as a risk. In fact, open discussion of "unleashing Japan," and "strangling China" has recently appeared in American media with US fears of China's emergence as a "peer rival." Necessarily, the right wing LDP leadership of Japan encourages this inclination.

War in Korea, and war in Vietnam was good for business in Japan. Wouldn't war over Taiwan, the former Japanese colony, also be good? The plutocrats in Japan encourage the worst inclinations of Washington. Won't Washington come to Japan's defense if it gets in a military confrontation over the Senkaku Islands? Oh, yes of course we will, Biden reassured them. And Japan's leadership has assured its former colony Taiwan that they will come to its aid, if it is attacked by China. Almost without any critical public discussion, the US has abandoned a more finessed policy toward the PRC and the Taiwan issue adopted during the later stages of the Vietnam era.

The political landscape of the emerging anti China alliance of the US, UK, and Japan resembles the turn of the 20th Century consensus on Asian imperial alliances of convenience that led to a series of wars, resulting in Japan's conquest and acquisition of Taiwan and Korea, and ended ultimately in WWII. The notion that Japan might be considered a revanchist power in the 21st Century, led by the modern day heirs of the Meiji imperialists and war criminals may seem absurd to Americans today, but the Japanese overestimated their reach before. The US is overestimating its reach now encouraged by Japan's leadership. In the echo chamber of alliance enthralled members poring over their geopolitical theories and legalistic rationalizations, the tactics and policies promoted and adopted by the politicians, admirals and "diplomats" in Japan and the US have become more extreme and inclined to take unwise risks staking out untenable positions.

Does anyone think Rahm Emanuel would provide wise counsel and sober restraint concerning such matters? During his hearing Emanuel spoke of the Indo-Pacific concept as a strategy formulated by Shinzo Abe and embraced by the US. He also confirmed that Japan was the paramount US ally in Asia, and that other allies needed to unite with the US-Japanese vision of the Indo-Pacific. Further he asserted that it was the Chinese (and North Korea) who sought to divide the alliance, and construct a world order in which "all roads lead to Beijing." As far as any allies, specifically South Korea, that had grievances or issues with Japan's excesses during the 20th Century, they needed to look to the future, not the past, and see the "possibilities in the 21st Century." In other words "ignore the past." This is truly ironic and in the category of the philosophy behind former President Obama's statement "we tortured some folks." Or as Wendy Sherman once asked, "when are they going to get over it?"

The possibility of the future for South Koreans is to reach some level of social, commercial, and political accomodation over time with North Korea. Our South Korean "ally" was devastated by Japan, who literally followed policies of inhumane brutality, economic expropriation and cultural destruction, during its half century colonial administration. Then Korea was divided permanently by US strategic design after the liberation and remained so after the brutal Korean war. It is clear the US and Japan have no intention of allowing their "ally" South Korea any initiative with respect to its destiny on the Korean peninsula. They will not allow a land based integration through North Korea with the rest of Asia. It might be said in terms of US policy, that all roads lead to Tokyo. The division of China from Taiwan is a similar geostrategic artifact regardless of how it is framed in terms of "our values." The notion expressed by Emanuel that all the nations of Asia are craving US leadership to confront China is a dangerous illusion.

"Unleash Japan" Really?

Recently, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson in an interview with Paul Jay,* recommended withdrawing the US nuclear umbrella over Japan, and encouraging them to defend themselves:

(Wilkerson) So, what do you do? Well, if you’re going to be pragmatic and you’re in the Pentagon and you’re thinking about it, you’re going to unleash Japan. You’re going to say to Japan, we no longer guarantee you a nuclear security umbrella. In fact, we no longer feel like the security relationship with you is the way it should be. In other words, we think you should grow up. Think about what China would think about that, how that would change the power calculus in the region. Now, we’ve got an entirely different situation.

Now, China confronts a country that is capable of building a nuclear complex that could outstrip them in a matter of months and it’s no longer hemmed in, controlled, cajoled, kept right, by the United States of America. I’m going back to my conversations with Wang Yi and Cui Tiankai, and with Richard Haass, in 2001, when we did policy planning talks. Restraining Japan is looked at by Beijing, as a plus. Unleash Japan and see how the situation changes in Northeast Asia. This−

Paul Jay
But it makes it more dangerous. (emphasis added)

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson
Maybe, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it makes a dangerous balance of power, or it creates a balance of power that isn’t there now. The balance is being destroyed by China. China is becoming more powerful than the United States in that regional context.

*The Threat of War (Nuclear) With China – Col. Lawrence Wilkerson By Paul Jay, August 11, 2021; https://theanalysis.news/the-threat-of-war-nuclear-with-china-col-lawrence-wilkerson/


"Unleashing Japan" is the most dangerous idea Wilkerson or any other US policy analyst has proposed in some time. This reveals his insight into Asian geopolitics is superficial. The "who lost China" movement in the fifties was accompanied by the "unleash Chiang Kai-shek" nonsense and US threats of nuclear war against China. So Col. Wilkerson criticizes past policy and then proposes a similar policy approach just as stupid. His recommendation, if adopted, would lead to a similar alignment of imperial Pacific powers in the early 20th Century that led to WWII: the UK, US, and Imperial Japan. Wilkerson's entire analysis during the Paul Jay interview, otherwise more or less sound, is deeply flawed by this one critical delusion. Worse still, Wilkerson proposes abandoning nuclear non-proliferation to restore a "balance of power" he claims no longer exists.

This is the same kind of grave lapse of judgement involved in committing the US to the Iraq war while he served as Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff. If the colonel thinks this is some sort of clever bluff to bring China to the nuclear weapons negotiating table, he is completely ignorant concerning Asian history. An "unleashed Japan" in the early 20th Century accelerated the rise of the communist party in China, whose entire raison d'etre was legitimized by its nationalist role defending the mainland against Japanese imperialism. Any current military action taken by Japan aimed toward China will probably precipitate a general war the scope of which hasn't been seen since WWII. Wilkerson's statement is made in the context of recent public statements by Japanese officials, particularly Taro Aso, encouraged by the US, committing Japan to the defense of Taiwan, a former Japanese colony. Seen in this light, any US adoption of Wilkerson's policy proposal would have dramatically catastrophic consequences for Japan and Taiwan. How could anyone in their right mind publicly propose taking such a dangerous and irresponsible course of action?

The NY Times anti-democratic pro- Japan prejudice toward South Korea continues

This recent NY Times article cited below reveals more anti-democratic, anti-Moon Jae-in prejudice in its editorial policy toward the current South Korean administration:

Vietnam War Victims Wanted Justice. They Were Given ‘30 Bags of Rice.’

South Korean troops were the largest foreign contingent fighting alongside American soldiers during the Vietnam War. They have long been dogged by allegations of brutality.

By Choe Sang-Hun, Aug. 21, 2021

...Nearly a half-century after the war ended, victims of the massacre at Phong Nhi and Phong Nhut are seeking compensation from the Seoul government in the first lawsuit of its kind being tried in a South Korean court.

Stung by shocking testimony, South Korean lawmakers and civic groups are also pushing for a special law to investigate long-held allegations that South Korean troops killed thousands of civilians when they were the largest foreign contingent fighting alongside American soldiers during the war.

more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/21/world/asia/vietnam-war-south-korea-massacre.html

Interesting how the NY Times tries to pin this on President Moon Jae-in. The fact is that the US-Japan supported dictator Park Chung-hee is responsible for this episode. The leadership cadre and training of ROK forces was formed early on by those officers, like Park himself, who participated in counter insurgency operations during WWII as Japanese trained members of its occupation forces in Manchuria. The Japanese Army's occupation policy for subjugating Chinese and Korean resistance fighters in North China was "kill all, burn all, destroy all." The Japanese Imperial Army trained Korean officer corps formed the cadre of the ROK Army during the Syngman Rhee dictatorship, as well. The earlier Rhee dictatorship was responsible for similar atrocities against civilian communities in South Korea before and during the Korea War. During the Rhee dictatorship the domestic atrocities were carried out by armed fascist youth league militias with the tacit support of the ROK military cadre trained in Japanese counter insurgency tactics. Some of the atrocities they committed were witnessed by US military officers.

The timing of the article is suspect as well coming so soon after President Moon's speech saying he was open to talks with Japanese leaders to resolve the issue of war crimes by Japan against Koreans during the Pacific War, specifically, the slave labor, and so called "comfort women" issues. Moon said he would like a resolution to take place consistent with international law and standards.

The Times' article implies that the Moon administration is trying to cover up ROK Army war crimes in Vietnam. The South Korean responses could be readily explained by earlier conservative administrations actively covering up their crimes by destroying records. Is the Times suggesting bad faith on the part of the Moon administration? Sure looks like it. Typically, forensic anthropologists and pathologists, have to examine the burial sites, remains, and other evidence of mass killings to determine the truth, because the bad actors, and their influential political supporters, have worked assiduously to cover up their crimes. One can understand the bitter feeling experienced by Vietnamese survivors of ROK Army atrocities. As to the "300 bags of rice," this practice, or something similar to it, is known as a solatia payment in the US Armed Forces, and is pathetically indequate to compensate families whose loved ones have been crippled or killed by the acts of the military. Obviously reconciliation and reparation proceedings are required. They will require cooperation between Vietnam and South Korea.

These issues have been buried indefinitely by South Korean conservative administrations. Fortunately, that's not the situation currently. The Times is actively trying to change the subject on the matter of outstanding and divisive war crime issues between Japan and South Korea, by substituting another atrocity discussion to unfairly tarnish the Moon administration.

In another article ostensibly concerning South Korean dislike of China,* the New York Times completely distorts the reality of election politics by throwing its weight behind presidential candidate, Yoon Seok-yeol, the far right "gaffe a day" extremist who has corrupted the administration of justice in South Korea. This candidate is notorious for his lack of knowlege on domestic and foreign policy issues. He and his family are just one step ahead of the jailer for a train of alleged corrupt acts. His mother in law was imprisoned recently after a trial conviction for a large scale medical fraud scheme. The case is currently under appeal. There are at least six investigations currently pending against Yoon, his wife and his mother in law.

*South Koreans Now Dislike China More Than They Dislike Japan, Choe Sang-hun, Aug.20, 2021; https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/world/asia/korea-china-election-young-voters.html?auth=login-google

Young voters are shown by the most recent polls to favor democratic candidate Lee Jae-myung over Yoon Seok-yeol. Yoon is viewed as Kon Dae, an officious old fart, out of touch with modern reality. The over sixty demographic is the only decade that supports Yoon at this point. His numbers have declined and stalled at a low level for weeks, because of his stupid pronouncements, and his on going political dispute with Lee Jun-seok. Lee Jun-seok who is the defacto leader of the youth vote in the conservative opposition People's Power Party. Lee himself is no prize as the pututive leader of South Korea's misogynist movement among young men. The NY Times also tries to make it appear that the opposition movement against the US THAAD missile base is somehow a thing of the past. The local demonstrations against THAAD have continued since 2017 without letup. Corruption of poll results in South Korea is a current issue. There are large discrepancies in polling results depending on the sources. *

*See: Skepticism grows over contradicting poll results in run-up to presidential elections, Yohnap News Agency, 8.18.21; https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20210818006100315?section=national/politics

If you want to be woefully misinformed about Asian affairs read the NY Times.

Abe's brother Kishi Nobuo appointed Defense Minister

The South China Morning Post covered Kishi's appointment well in their September 16 article:

"Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s decision on Wednesday to appoint his predecessor’s brother as defence minister sparked an immediate reaction from China over his Taiwan ties.

Nobuo Kishi, 61, is the younger sibling of former leader Shinzo Abe, although he was adopted by his maternal uncle as a baby and carries his surname.

Kishi is known for his close ties to the self-ruled island of Taiwan, having represented the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) over the years in engagements with current Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen and other Taiwanese leaders." *

*Taiwan ties of Japan's new defence minister Nobuo Kishi spark reaction from China, SCMP, by Julian Ryall and Maria Siow, Published: 8:45pm, 16 Sep, 2020; https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3101818/taiwan-ties-japans-new-defence-minister-nobuo-kishi-sparks

( Source- 호사카유지TV youtube 9.20; photo NHK 9.15 ) Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi

Hosaka Yuji, political science professor at Sejong University in Seoul did a commentary on the appointment of Kishi as defense minister on his youtube channel September 20. Due credit to the professor as the source of the analytical interpretation loosely summarized in the next two paragraphs.

This appointment of Abe's brother suggests a balancing act by Japan's new Prime Minister Suga. Kishi is regarded as not really senior enough to be Defense Minister and may reflect Abe's continued influence in the new cabinet. Kishi is a hard liner and part of the Abe-Aso (anti-China) faction. Before Kishi's appointment there was public discussion in media that an anti-ballistic missile system wasn't enough of a deterrent to protect Japan, implying that the new cabinet might be receptive to the installation of ballistic missiles possibly in Okinawa.

( Source- 호사카유지TV youtube 9.20; photo news.livedoor.com ) Nikai Toshihiro, with Chairman Xi

Nikai Toshihiro, as the Secretary General of the Liberal Democratic Party on the other hand is said to lean toward mainland China. His retention as LDP Secretary General reflects a priority concern for the Japanese economy and a desire to encourage tourism and to maintain a positive economic relationship with mainland China. Nikai was an early supporter of Suga for the Prime Minister's office. Economic retaliation from China could be expected in the event of deployment of offensive ballistic missile systems, similar in nature to the response South Korea experienced after the US deployment of a THAAD battery allegedly directed against the North Korean threat.


Soon after Abe stepped down he visited the Yasukuni Shrine. One of the accounts said Abe visited to apologize to Japan's war dead for not completing his mission to amend the Japanese constitution to change restrictions on Japan's use of military force. The SCMP article cited above points out Kishi's ties to far right groups, and concludes with the observation that Kishi agreed "there should be debate on Japan deploying nuclear weapons." China's discomfort with Kishi's appointment is understandable. Kishi Nabusuke the maternal grandfather and model figure to Abe and his brother, was an accused war criminal, never tried, who became prime minister of Japan under US sponsorship. So the current defense minister, like his older brother, is a historical revisionist who rationalizes Japanese invasions, occupations, and crimes against humanity in East Asia during the 20th Century. This remains a source of rancor in relationships with China and other East Asian states. The latter understandably are wary of Japan's intentions.

The potential problems and risks of Japanese historical revisionism, incident to the right wing revival of Japan's imperial legacy, to coin a phrase, "to make Japan great again," is seldom acknowledged in US media.

Correction Sep 23- The original version of this article mistakenly identified Nikai Toshihiro as the Chief Cabinet Secretary when he was in fact, retained as LDP Secretary General. Katsunobu Kato, serves as new Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga's chief cabinet secretary. One of his initial concerns appears to be Chinese military operations in East Sea.*

* Japan should hold Senkaku defense drills with US, LDP says Lawmakers call for stronger presence around East China Sea islands; Nikkei Asian Review, Sep. 23, 2020; https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Japan-should-hold-Senkaku-defense-drills-with-US-LDP-says

Did Japan invade Korea?

Japan invaded Kangwha Island and forced an “unequal treaty” on Korea in 1876 ceding monopoly trade and extraterritoriality rights to Japan. Japanese troops were garrisoned in Seoul by the Treaty of Chemulpo, in 1882, ostensibly to protect the legation after the Imo incident.

Japan invaded South Korea again, in force, during the Sino-Japanese war in 1894 and effectively didn't leave until their defeat in August 1945 when they surrendered to the US in WWII. The 1894 invasion included the occupation of Seoul and taking the Korean "emperor" captive. The Japanese invaded the Korean island of Euleongdo in 1895 during the Sino Japanese war. They took over the police force there. Then the Japanese without notice in January 1905, "transferred" the "stateless" nearby island of Dokdo to itself. In 1895 Japanese assassins invaded the Korean royal palace and assassinated Queen Myeongseong who was opposed to their overbearing military and diplomatic presence and their continuing efforts to dominate Korean affairs.

(Source- JTBC News 8.6) Kishi Nobusuke, South Korea- Japan Cooperation Committee President (1963): "No person here thinks of this as a war of invasion." This is the revisionist mythology of Shoin school imperialists and advocates of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Kishi an accused class A war criminal, was propelled to the position of prime minister in post war Japan by the US. He was Abe's maternal grandfather and patron.

Japan was thereafter the predominant military power with interests in Korea and was only held in check by the diplomatic presence of Russia and the US, the only two military powers at the time who would conceivably oppose the Japanese. The Russians were defeated in the Russo-Japanese War, in 1904. The war was a contest to control Korea and areas of northeast China. The US had given its blessing to Japanese political and military dominance of Korea in the Taft-Katsura agreement and that was later formalized in the Treaty of Portsmouth. The infamous Ulsan Treaty of 1905 was then forced upon Korea, through a combination of threats and bribes by the Japanese legation, which they were fully capable of enforcing. At that point the Japanese took the Korean crown prince hostage and installed an even larger military garrison in Seoul. The annexation of Korea in 1910 merely formalized a process that began with the late 19th Century invasions, and culminated in effective political control in 1905. The entire period was characterized by the Japanese use of military force, intrigue, and political oppression to achieve their goals. According to a record left by Ahn Jung-geun, the Korean patriot who assassinated Ito Hirobumi, the Japanese leader he believed most responsible for the reduction of Korea to a colonial vassal status, the Japanese imposed 14 unequal treaties on Korea before it was annexed. Before the formal annexation a vicious exploitation of Korean resources, expropriation of property, and exploitation of its people by the Japanese was well underway.

Japanese revisionist history declares their occupation and annexation of Korea, not as an invasion and oppressive occupation, but "beneficial to Korea." The colonization was entirely illegal, accomplished by military invasion, characterized by exploitation of the people and resources of Korea, and enforced by torture and summary executions.

Thoughts on Japanese objections to addition of South Korea to G-7

Saw this in the English web version of Kyodo News today:

Japan has conveyed to the United States its objection to President Donald Trump's idea of adding South Korea to the Group of Seven summit, saying Seoul is not in lockstep with G-7 members on China and North Korean issues, diplomatic sources said Saturday.

Japan conveys objection to Trump's plan to add South Korea to G-7
KYODO NEWS - 6.28.2020
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/06/f4cef06fe71f-japan-conveys-objection-to-trumps-plan-to-add-s-korea-to-g-7.html

Abe's popularity is dropping in Japan as the country is suffering from the world wide impact of the pandemic. But Japanese suppliers to S.Korea's semiconductor industry are also suffering as Japan shot itself in the foot by taking S.Korea off its so called "white list" of preferred trading partners. After taking measures to reassure Japan that there were no security risks in supplying those raw materials, the Japanese government has not responded, and South Korea has renewed its lawsuit against Japan at the WTO for unfair trade practices. Japan has been unresponsive on trade issues, because the actions were taken as retaliation against Seoul for court decisions in private lawsuits against Japanese corporations for the exploitation of Korean workers during WWII as slave labor.

The US has said it is neutral in that "trade" dispute and it is for Japan and S.Korea to resolve between themselves. Japanese producers of semiconductor raw materials have probably permanently lost a substantial percentage of the S.Korean semiconductor manufacturing market as S.Korea has developed alternative sources of materials. In addition, the dispute aggravated the old resentments of Japanese colonial exploitation of Korea and resulted in a boycott of Japanese goods by South Korean consumers which hurt Japanese automakers and beer exporters in particular, among others. S.Korean tourism of Japan had already fallen off by about 40 percent before the pandemic. Japanese attempts to coerce South Korea are counterproductive and cannot succeed unless South Korea returns to its prior status as an authoritarian government that can force the pro-Japanese outlook on an unreceptive public.

The Japanese framing of the G-7 membership in terms of a block of countries opposed to China is likely to receive a warm welcome among the usual interests aligned against China, but not so much in South Korea, except among the discredited right wing. The ultra conservative Mirae Tonghap Dang, is still in the process of free fall in South Korea, after its farcical and extremist actions running up to its significant losses in the April 15 elections. Ironically, the abbreviated term for the party Mi Tong Dang is appropriate as the conservatives are totally aligned with US policy without reservation, unlike its more embarrassing historical relationship to Japan. A new US deputy secretary of state, Keith Krach, recently made the mistake of characterizing the rapproachement between China and Moon Jae-in, after the disastrous move of installing THAAD at one location in South Korea, as being the result of US steadfast support for the ROK-US alliance.* This is preposterous. The result was obtained by Moon Jae-in assuring the Chinese there would be no further installations of THAAD missile batteries on the peninsula, that South Korea would not integrate its missile defense capabilities with the US, and that it would not join the US and Japan, in an alliance against China. This same under secretary said that South Korean participation in a multinational economic arrangement Economic Prosperity Network which is aimed at disrupting Chinese based supply lines, would not foreclose their trade relations with China. Does anyone see a credibility problem here?

* VOA 뉴스] “한국은 ‘중국 보복’ 대표적 피해국” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbNzlJhF_YM

There has been a lot of discussion on VOA Korea and elsewhere in the US East Asia policy echo chamber about the purported benefits of having the so called "working group" dominate South Korean policy initiatives toward North Korea. The working group is viewed warily by the South Korean administration. It is viewed, correctly one might add, as a semi-colonial vestige, akin to the Japanese protectorate, attempting to dominate and thwart South Korean initiatives. One might consider the oppressive nature of the "working group" on South Korea as akin to an "I can't breathe" problem. Pompeo and Biegun prefer to use the "no daylight" metaphor, rather than no air. On a daily basis, US Asian policy "experts," advise South Korea to join the "strategic alliance" with Japan, the US and others in the Indo-Pacific aimed at China. Why should they? This isn't in South Korean interests, nor is it in keeping with Korean policy historically. As Jeong Se-hyun, the former South Korean Unification Minister has pointed out, the US establishment in the Defense Department and war industries, have no interest at all in a negotiated agreement with North Korea or they risk losing their lucrative sinecures, bases and markets in Japan and South Korea. Their view is that the South Korean and North Korea interest in a step by step approach to denuclearization, an end to the Korean conflict, and normalization of relations, reflects an essentially an unrealistic and "naive" perspective of what is possible on the peninsula. But the US and Japanese approaches represent the legacy of the nineteeth and early twentieth century policies of overtly imperialist states, ,such as, one may dare to say if they knew, the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and Japan. Allowing Korea some breathing space in terms of sovereignty and national autonomy is just not one of the concerns of the US, UK, France and Japan, and historically, despite protests and arguments to the contrary, never has been.

Today on VOA's Washington Talk show, Defense expert Bruce Bennett from Rand, appeared to be gleeful that it appears there isn't enough to eat in Pyongyang. He also expressed the notion that it was North Korea that wasn't adhering to the principles agreed to at Singapore, rather than the US. In terms of maximum pressure, the US consistently adheres to the hostile all or nothing "Libyan model," lauded by John Bolton. Any easing of sanctions as a trust building measure in a step by step approach to negotiations, as recommended by South Korea, was described absurdly in a recent piece by Victor Cha, as "extremism." So it's not the US hardline maximum pressure "one bundle- all or nothiong," approach which even the South Korean administration finds unworkable that is extreme, it is the desire to engage in the give and take of reciprocal trust building measures which allegedly is a threat to US national security. This is a hostile approach which seeks capitulation rather than negotiation.

Different Path, Same Dream

(Source- Different Dream, episode 22, viki.com) The variation on the famous aphorism purportedly represents the meeting of minds between Kim Ku and Kim Won-bong. The original four character Chinese idiom is 동상이몽 (同床異夢) (same bed different dreams). It has been changed to say, "different paths, same dream."


From my prior post on the drama and it's relation to current events, June 18, 2019:

...the drama series Different Dream was produced in South Korea to celebrate the centennial of the March First Movement (the Korean independence movement).

"Uiyeoldan (Heroic Corps) was the most threatening organization to Japan in Korea's independence movement history. Along with its leader Kim Won-bong, many other activists' lives have been reflected in the story." *

*Drama portrays life of freedom fighter ( 이 몽 Different Dream 異夢)
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2019/04/688_266957.html

Interestingly, an MBC promotion of the spy action drama about the underground anti-Japanese Heroic Group explains there is a hidden meaning in the title: <이몽> 제목 속에 숨겨진 의미! From two different paths one dream. '이도일몽(異道一夢) , 두 개의 길, 하나의 꿈' The actor Yoo Ji Tae plays Kim Won-bong, the leader of Uiyeoldan (Heroic Corps).*

*출처: https://blog.mbc.co.kr/3015 [MBC 공식 블로그]

In the drama, episodes 22, near the end, and the beginning of episode 23, Kim Ku is said to have come to Keongseong, Korea, in late 1931, for the purpose of laying the propaganda backdrop for an attempted assassination by Lee Bong-chang on Japanese Emperor Hirohito in Tokyo in January 1932. A meeting of the leader of the Patriotic Corps, Kim Ku, with the leader of the Heroic Corps, Kim Won-bong is dramatized, with the delivery of the 異道一夢 four character calligraphy.

The original idiom is not uncommon in Korean vernacular and well understood. So the "hidden meaning" of the title alluded to in the press promotion and drama, is changed to a more positive meaning in an attempt to quell controversy or conflict by a shift in perspective to focus on a shared national goal.

As intended in the historical drama, the adaptation of the old expression 동상이몽 (同床異夢) was meant to mediate the ideological rift within the Korean independence movement, then, and hence, the current North- South division. Yet, the original idiom still applies to North and South Korean relations. In fact, the two competing expressions represent competing historical threads, one of which is generally unrecognized in Japan and the US for obvious reasons.

The original idiom has also been applied recently to the sputtering top down negotiations between Kim Jong Un and Trump.

Book Burning in Japan (and South Korea)

This link below is to an academic discussion concerning how Shinzo Abe and the right wing LDP in Japan manipulate the press and the academia in their reporting and publishing concerning Japanese historical events and foreign relations, particularly in the US. The piece is quite detailed reporting on the history of Japanese interference in the use of grant and foundation monies to support academic fellowships and peer reviewed studies. Briefly discussed is the self censorship in the Japanese press. It is an obscure subject to Americans and the article is lengthy. I don’t want to steal any of the author’s thunder, nor violate the copyright concerns, so I’ll merely place the link here:

“Book Burning” in Japan
Frank Baldwin

https://apjjf.org/2019/21/Baldwin.html

I noticed the article because I had recently heard an interview in Korean media (JTBC News) by Professor Hosaka Fuji, Sejong University professor, in Seoul, describing how the Japanese government recruits outstanding Korean scholars studying in Japan to take on a pro-Japanese bias by giving them substantial financial payments on regular basis. This bias primarily involves taking on a right wing revisionist view of Japanese history which essentially denies the validity of foreign claims against Japan for war crimes or crimes against humanity, and discourages portraying Japanese policies in an unfavorable manner. My review of historical presentations on youtube suggest this practice concerning Korean scholars has been going on for some time, as there is a clique of pro-Japanese scholars in South Korea with known Japanese political and academic ties.

Upon review of Mr. Baldwin’s essay the practices in curbing academic freedom and press reporting by Japan appear similar to press practices that one expects to find and will find in prior South Korean dictatorships but also in the recent transitional regimes of right wing political leaders Lee Myung Bak and Park Geun Hye, who ostensibly were presidents of a “democratic South Korea.” These abuses were disclosed at the time of Park Geun Hye’s impeachment trial. Investigation revealed the maintenance of black lists of disfavored performers, authors, reporters, directors, and artists, took place in public broadcasting institutions and also under the Direction of the Ministry of Culture. Sports and Tourism, against individuals who didn’t express the right political views. This is from an article in the Diplomat addressing the later topic:

MBC and KBS labor unions have accused Ko and Kim of being involved in the execution of the “culture and arts blacklist” allegedly produced by the former Lee Myung-Bak administration. The blacklist has been reportedly designed to rule out certain celebrities or journalists from participating in media activities. It includes the names of stars, journalists, and announcers from various media fields including news, radio, variety shows, and drama who are known to have progressive political views. Famous figures such as comedian Kim Jae-dong and rock singer Yoon Do-hyun were said to have been included in the list.

Strife in South Korea Over Politics in Public Broadcasting Hyungmin Michael Kang Sep 17, 2017
https://thediplomat.com/2017/09/strife-in-south-korea-over-politics-in-public-broadcasting/

Here is another report from the Korea Herald in English which reveals the scope of the censorship and persecution operation:

The scandal refers to the actions of the administrations of former presidents Park Geun-hye and Lee Myung-bak -- both currently imprisoned -- which kept a blacklist of nearly 10,000 figures in the culture and entertainment sectors, unfairly subjecting them to investigations and denying them government subsidies.

Of the 68 officials from the Culture Ministry, 10 are under criminal investigation, one was subjected to “severe disciplinary action” of unspecified nature and 33 received warnings. Of those from affiliated bodies, 21 will be subjected to disciplinary actions ranging from dismissal or suspension to pay cuts and 13 others will get warnings.*

*Culture Ministry apologizes for blacklist, gets blasted for insincerity
By Yoon Min-sik
Published : Dec 31, 2018 - 17:57
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20181231000485

And:

Park ordered Kim and Cho to establish a list – that reportedly included some 10,000 names – of talent who were to be excluded from receiving state funding. They included film directors Lee Chan-dong (“Secret Sunshine”,) Park Chan-wook (“Oldboy”,) and Han Kang, novelist winner of the Booker Prize.*

*Korea’s Ex-Culture Minister Jailed for Operating Talent Blacklist
By PATRICK FRATER January 22, 2018
https://variety.com/2018/film/asia/korea-ex-culture-minister-jailed-blacklist-1202673389/

Japan follows Trump's bad foreign policy example

T.K. Park is clearly one of the leading analysts of South Korean affairs in the US today. I particularly liked his insight near the end of today's installment, of his series of articles titled Korea-Japan and the End of the '65 System. * He observes that Abe crossed a line in Japan- Korean relations by confusing the economic and security relationship between South Korea and Japan with the untended historical disputes. This was a decisive step in the wrong direction following the poor example set by Trump's chaotic shake it up and see what happens approach to international relationships including security alliances. T.K.'s insight is this:

It is difficult to overstate the damage that Abe’s trade war caused to the ’65 System. The ’65 System was able to persist and grow because South Korea and Japan had separated the cost of System—namely, the historical issues—from the benefit of the System, namely the economic and security partnership. This was initially achieved by South Korean dictators suppressing the Korean victims of Japanese imperialism. But even after the victims began voicing their injury in the 1990s, South Korea and Japan were able to continue the ’65 System by drawing a clear line between the historical issues on one hand, and the economic and security issues on the other.

Abe’s trade war crossed this critical line. To exercise leverage on the historical issues, Abe used economic cooperation with South Korea as a chain around Seoul’s neck. When the blowback began for engaging in a trade war, Abe made up a national security excuse that no one believed in. From there, the decline of the ’65 System passed the point of no return.*

*Korea-Japan and the End of the '65 System - Part V: the End of the '65 System
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2019/09/korea-japan-and-end-of-65-system-part-v.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


During the transitional period of more liberal governance since the period of authoritarian rule in South Korea, T.K's article provides some explanation of how the separation of historical grievances from the need for cooperation somehow survived to preserve a pragmatic relationship between South Korea and Japan which he now feels is gone.

There is also a congruent but slightly different perspective. Kim Dae Jung's liberal administration only came to power by compromising with Kim Jong Pil, the former head of the KCIA during the Park Chung Hee, pro-Japanese ( 친일파 ) right wing dictatorship. Roh Tae Woo's conservative administration continued to represent the interests and parties that had flourished under dictators Park and Chun Doo Hwan until Chun was forced out of power by pro-democracy demonstrations in the late eighties. Kim Young Sam and Kim Dae Jung did not and could not come to power until they accommodated those pro-Japanese right wing interests in a political alliance with Kim Jong Pil, a minority regional politician and conservative stalwart. During DJ's rule as president, he pursued progressive initiatives such as the Sunshine Policy with North Korea, but was presented with the same obstacles Syngman Rhee had faced decades before. Namely, the notion that the popular grievances against domestic colonial era criminal colloborators with Japan (and their conservative progeny) would arrive at some just denouement was stifled by political compromise, this time by the need to form a governing coalition in a representative government. Forming a governing coalition could not yet be achieved without once again reigning back the historical issues domestically. This is what the NY Times had to say in its eulogy to Kim Jong Pil, the former KCIA director, and advocate for the 1965 Agreement with Japan:

...Any politician with presidential ambitions had to pay respects to Mr. Kim and win his favor.

He helped Kim Young-sam win the presidency in 1992, forming a political alliance with him and Mr. Roh, in which their three parties merged. Later, after a falling-out with Kim Young-sam, he merged his new party with that of Kim Dae-jung, who went on to be elected president in 1997. He became prime minister under President Kim Dae-jung, who would win a Nobel Peace Prize for his policy of outreach to North Korea, including a historic summit meeting with Kim Jong-il, then the North’s leader.*

*Kim Jong-pil, Political Kingmaker in South Korea, Dies at 92, NT Times obituary, By Choe Sang-Hun, June 23, 2018; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/obituaries/kim-jong-pil-south-korea.html

The experiment of returning to a nostalgic revisionist view of South Korean dictatorships by electing Park Geun Hye, the daughter of the former Japanese Imperial Army officer, and dictator of South Korea, failed. This has allowed Moon Jae In, to finally repudiate the costs of the pro-Japanese element in conservative Korean politics to the chagrin of the right wing governments in Japan and the US.

Correction: this article was edited Sep. 18, to delete a misstatement about the relationship of Kim Jong Pil to the Chun dictatorship and to add Kim Jong Pil's relationship to the Kim Yong Sam administration.

Always with a view to fighting the next war vs. the signpost.

Listened to two US "experts" advise the South Korean people on VOA that all political decisions must be considered from the point of view of fighting the next war with North Korea. According to this analysis the South Korean dispute with Japan is little more than irrational, "populist" rabble rousing manipulation. The elephant in the room is the fact that there is absolutely no establishment US interest in the divisive, harmful, and deceitful measures taken by the far right wing Abe regime against South Korea.

The US barely awakened from its semi-comatose state after the Moon administration gave notice of withdrawal from GSOMIA, to blame South Korea without examination of the historical issues or current Japanese policies. This slumbering state has been referred to elsewhere as the "silence of August." * Now disturbed from sleep, the US just repeats Japanese contentions about the 1965 Agreement with Park Chung Hee in a knee jerk fashion. Criticism of Japan by the US is virtually nonexistent, due to Japan's status as a major customer of US military sales, in addition to funishing the US forward military base structure in the Japan, indispensable for anti-China strategies. Abe essentially has Trump, the deal maker, over a barrel, with a lot of room for unilateral maneuver to achieve its own nationalist agenda to "make Japan great again." With the GSOMIA decision, the US only has one remedy, to criticize the democratic government of South Korea, as if badgering them will accomplish something.

*The Silence of August, ROBERT L. GALLUCCI, AUGUST 21, 2019; https://www.38north.org/2019/08/rgallucci082119/

Beyond gross over simplification about the issues between Japan and South Korea, the US is unwilling to examine its own role in creating the problem or its current policies which are destabilizing East Asia. The US, like Abe, is wishing the Moon government would go away rather than taking a more reflective view of how and why the plan to make South Korea and Japan allies moved to the fail column. Erasing the US historical role is a necessary corollary. At the same time, Pompeo and Beigun futilely insist that North Korea must come to the negotiating table while offering nothing but the abortive Bolton "all or nothing" formula. Stephen Beigun's speech on September 6, at the University of Michigan, offered little but vague platitudes unlikely to result in renewed dialogue with North Korea. In fact, his speech was less promising than public statements he has made in the past and represents the retrenchment to the hardline position by the US, revealed at Hanoi, alongside his apparent lack of authority to negotiate.* The world looks on with wonder. Do these experts, know what their doing? Are they the "best and the brightest?"

*Remarks by Special Representative for North Korea Stephen E. Biegun at the University of Michigan’s Weiser Diplomacy Center, Sep 6, 2019; https://www.state.gov/remarks-by-special-representative-for-north-korea-stephen-e-biegun-at-the-university-of-michigans-weiser-diplomacy-center/

( Source- SBS News Videomug Insight 1.17.2017 ) "When walking on a snow covered path don't walk in a disorderly way, because the path I walk forward on today, will later serve as a signpost for others." Bek Beom, Kim Ku

IOC allows Japan to display Rising Sun Flag at Tokyo Summer Olympics

This has been a headline issue in South Korean broadcast media yesterday and today. The South Korean Foreign Ministry regards the IOC judgement as a violation of political neutrality rules in the Olympic Charter. It remains to be seen how other Asian states who experienced Japanese imperialism during the Pacific War in the 20th Century will react to the decision. Most likely, China's position will have great impact. The Chinese have not objected to the use of the Rising Sun Flag at international naval reviews. However, the Asian Football Association does not permit the use of the Rising Sun Flag.

The IOC ruling was ostensibly based upon the fact that the Rising Sun flag motif is common throughout Japan and has "no political meaning." The South Korean Foreign Ministry regards the flag as symbolic of Japanese militarism and imperialism in the 20th Century and equivalent to displaying the Swastika at an international event. It's possible that the Chinese will not take a position in order to allow further deterioration in the US alliance structure in East Asia. If the decision is not reversed there is a possibility that Korean athletes may not attend the Tokyo Olympics. This is another prickly issue in addition to the matter of residual radioactivity near the Fukishima venue and the representation of Dokdo (Takeshima) as Japanese territory on their Olympic literature and accessories.

(Source YTN News - 9.3) South Korean legislator says cheering for the Rising Sun Flag is an IOC contrivance.

(Source- JTBC News 9.4) The medal design for the Tokyo paralympics brings to mind the Rising Sun Flag but is ostensibly a design based upon a fan. This is a transitional device much like the athletic uniform worn by Japanese athletes (shown below) during the 2012 London Olympics to condition the world to the revival of Japanese militarism desired by the west to counter China's rising influence.

(Source- JTBC News 9.4)

Emblem of Japanese Imperialism- Dokdo

President Moon Jae In recently described Japan's oft repeated claims to Dokdo as "preposterous." A Japanese scholar, Haruki Wada has recently characterized Japan's current disputes with Korea, historical, economic, and territorial, as the end of Japan as a peaceful state.*

*“Abe’s refusal to engage with S. Korea marks end of Japan’s status as peaceful country,” says Haruki Wada, Hankoryeh, August 27. http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/907372.html

As most observer's are aware, the government of Japan, led by the LDP's Shinzo Abe, is intent on removing the restrictions on offensive military operations in Article 9 of the Japanese constitution. In light of the upheaval in South Korea- Japan relations, some notes from my interpretation of an EBS broadcast last February examining the historical issues related to Dokdo follow.

In February 2019, the South Korean EBS program had an expert on Dokdo, aka Takeshima, aka Liancourt Rocks, on to make the historical case that Dokdo (island) in the middle of the Sea of Japan/East Sea is and always has been the territory of Korea. The narrator, Professor Shin Yong Ha, dates the claim from the fifth century during the Shilla dynasty. The islands were recognized as under Korean jurisdiction during the reign of Se Jong the Great in the 15th Century. Two historical documents cataloging Korean territory during the 15th and 16th Century were received by neighboring states, "without objection." The Japanese claim dates from a historical document in 1667, referred to by them in 1960 in an attempt to back their claim.

(Source- EBS South Korea Feb 2019) The Korean author/expert Shin Yong Ha uses subsequent charts, this latest one by a famed European geographer J. Klaproth, from 1832 to disprove the Japanese claims.

Evidently South Korea's EBS presented the senior scholar's history lesson after military confrontations in the Sea of Japan to make the historical case. The so called "radar tracking dispute," described in earlier articles here as maritime patrol incidents had taken place in December and January. The first such incident had taken place not too far from Dokdo on December 20, 2018. Analysts believe the incident was Japan's initial escalatory response for the South Korean Supreme Court decision in respect to wartime slave labor claims against Japanese corporations.

In 1696 the Shoganate prohibited Japanese fisherman from approaching Dokdo. The Japanese government claims that the historical documents that Professor Shin Yong Ha has unearthed in various national libraries are not authentic. They "dispute the credibility" of the documents.

The Japanese invaded the Korean island of Euleongdo in 1895 during the Sino Japanese war. They took over the police force there. They had no legal authority to do this. Then the Japanese without notice in January 1905, "transferred" the "stateless" nearby island of Dokdo to itself. The islands were neither stateless, nor was any state notified of the transfer per the requirements of international law. The Korean legation in Tokyo was not informed. It has to be said here parenthetically, that the press typically recounts Japanese colonization of Korea as beginning with the annexation of Korea by Japan in 1910. This is simply a pro-Japanese affectation in the western press. The Japanese invasion and occupation of Korea started with the Sino-Japanese war much earlier and never ended until the Japanese surrender August 1945. Japanese revisionist history declares their occupation and annexation of Korea, not as an invasion and oppressive occupation, but "beneficial to Korea." The colonization was entirely illegal, accomplished by military invasion, characterized by exploitation of the people and resources of Korea, and enforced by torture and summary executions.

On Feb 22, 1905, the Japanese notified the Shimane Prefecture government in its own country that Dokdo had been transferred to its jurisdiction. This day is know as Takeshima Day in Japan. The Korean government even at the end of the year still didn't know. The Eulsa Treaty had been forced on Korea Nov 18, 1905. They effectively became a protectorate of Japan and lost their right to conduct foreign policy which was transferred to the resident general of Korea. So when the King found out in March 1906, his government's complaints were not forwarded to Japan by it's protectorate administration.

The Allied Supreme HQ issued an order on Jan 29, 1946, declaring Dokdo to be Korean territory to be returned to Korea, Order 677.* However the order was not styled as a final determination of the status of the island. There has been no contradictory indication in any other international document pertaining to territorial claims relative to imperial Japan and the island of Dokdo. The only contrary claims come from Japan itself. Japan seized Dokdo as part of imperial offensive that actually began with the Japanese Chinese war in 1894, and then annexed the island by a series of actions undisclosed internationally and consummated in 1906 after the infamous Eulsa Treaty in November 1905. The treaty established the Imperial Japanese protectorate over Korea and took away it's power to make foreign policy completely. Thereafter the issue was laid to rest until the defeat of Japan by the allied powers.

*http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.com/2014/01/scapin-677-separated-dokdotakeshima.html


The status of the island was not determined in the San Francisco Treaty after WWII, in which Korea wasn't represented. The US attempted to give Dokdo to Japan in order to obtain rights to establish military facilities there (to use it for bombing practice). Other allied nations disagreed, and the status of Dokdo was avoided completely in the San Francisco treaty. This is by no means an affirmative or dispositive indication of the islands territorial status or a contraindication of the Allied Powers original disposition in Order 677.

The Korean government regards Japanese claims to Dokdo as so unsupportable they will not submit the issue to international adjudication because the Japanese claim is spurious. According to Professor Shin, UN documents from the period unequivocally recognized the sovereignty of Korea over Dokdo.

Here is the link for reference. It apparently is no longer available:
https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/k21a17B0oh0nrzsBDIP

(Source- EBS South Korea Feb 2019) According to the professor, a noted Japanese cartographer, Hoyashi Shiheiga, depicted Dokdo as within Korean territory in 1785.

(Source- Weekly Chosun Newroom supplement 2011.6) 1785년 일본 실학자 하야시 시헤이가 그린 <삼국접양지도>. Chart drawn by Japanese geographer Hoyashi Shiheiga "Three kingdoms boundaries map" (samgukjeopyangjido) Dokdo appears in the upper right corner of the red lined insert. The yellow color indicates Korean territory.

A description of the islands in 1667 in a Japanese complilation from the predecessor to the Shimane prefecture described the islands in comparison to the Oki islands, indicated that the latter marked the limit of Japanese territory. According to Professor Shin's interpretation of the document, "Eulongdo and Dokdo are to Korea as Oki is to Shimane prefecture." Japanese reliance on the documents is erroneous and misplaced.

(Source- youtube Northeast Asia History Foundation May 2016) Why is Dokdo Korean territory? Shin Yong Ha, Dokdo Studies Dean (Seoul University Emeritus Professor)

This is an earlier lecture on the topic by the professor available on youtube:

독도, 왜 한국 영토인가? - 신용하 독도학회장(서울대 명예교수) Northeast Asia History Foundation May 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7qN6byv1mY

The US trivializes the South Korea - Japan dispute as a negotiating technique.

White House indifference to the South Korea - Japan dispute is part of the transactional/coercive technique of this administration. The White House loathes the progressive Moon Jae In democratic party government of South Korea. The US defense interests want to increase South Korean payments to the US for defense costs by a factor of five, increase ROK commitments to out of area Indo-Pacific operations; deploy intermediate range ballistic missiles and more THAAD launchers in South Korea; and have South Korea buy into an integrated Aegis air defense system in the region with US and Japanese forces. Unlikely to get much cooperation on these issues from the progressive Moon government, weakening and destabilizing the Moon administration in tacit alliance with the right wing "make Japan great again" Abe government is the chosen path.

It is interesting that US "experts" refer to the situation as "spat" and "tit for tat," trivializing the dispute. The South Korean perspective is that they will no longer tolerate Japanese interference in internal South Korean affairs facilitated by prior South Korean right wing dictatorships and their progeny no matter what the US demands.

Attend the 2020 Tokyo Olympics? No Thank you.

(Source- JTBC News 8.19) Fukishima radioactive contaminated water plume into adjacent waters.

Abe says radioactivity from Fukishima nuclear disaster is completely contained. Who believes that? Are people really going to eat and drink in Tokyo? One Japanese cabinet minister from the LDP was recently heard to say, "Thank god, one cannot see radiation." The Korean Olympic team (if it attends) will bring its own independent supply of food and water. A word of advice, don't eat the kim (seaweed) or the delicious kim bab, rice rolled in seaweed with other foods. Don't eat the sushi. In fact, don't go at all. All Japanese food imports to South Korea from the Fukishima region are now subject to screening for radioactive contamination. Japan challenged the restriction before the WTO. They lost. There is a reason.

(Source- 오늘밤 김제동 8.13 )

A significant portion of the Olympic games, including men’s baseball and women’s softball and the Olympic torch run, as well as the soccer training facility, will occur on land that the government of Japan has declared to be part of a “nuclear emergency”. This means that athletes and civilians will legally be exposed to allowable radiation levels that are 20 times higher than levels that exist at other athletic facilities on any other continent. Therefore, according to the National Academy of Science’s Linear No Threshold (LNT) radiation risk assessment, the athlete’s risk of radiation related maladies has also increased 20 times higher than if they stayed home.*

*Atomic Balm Part 2: The Run For Your Life Tokyo Olympics
March 08, 2019
Written by Arnie Gundersen
https://www.fairewinds.org/demystify/atomic-balm-part-2-the-run-for-your-life-tokyo-olympics

Coming to Terms with Japanese Imperialism- Then and Now

There is a deep fault line in modern Korean history beginning in the late 19th Century with the collapse of the Chosun dynasty. Japan exploited late Chosun weakness invading the peninsula on various pretexts and subjecting Korea to Japan's military dominance for economic exploitation. This commenced in earnest in 1894, not 1910, as is often alleged in western sources. The fundamental fault line that developed and exists to this day is the divide between those Koreans who resisted Japanese military, political and economic domination of the peninsula, and those Koreans who facilitated and profited from it.

Syngman Rhee was essentially a US proxy installed as the initial dictator of a "liberated" South Korea. He had previously lost his legitimacy as representative of the independence movement and provisional government of Korea because of his corruption. But he had the support of the US occupation government as a US trained English speaking politician and that was all that was needed. Ultimately, he was forced to rely on the class of former Japanese colonial collaborators in South Korea for government administration and domestic political support, so he protected them from political and criminal accountability at the hands of the independence movement. Consequently, very few of the thousands of collaborators who committed criminal acts against the Korean people during the Japanese colonial and wartime rule were ever prosecuted and retained considerable political power and influence for years to come.

Rhee's successor, was the military dictator Park Chung Hee. Park had been a former Japanese Imperial Army officer and spy for the Japanese colonial administration of Manchukuo before the liberation. Shinzo Abe's grandfather Kishi Nobusuke, had been a major figure in the governance of Manchukuo, who directed slave labor operations for economic exploitation by Japanese interests. The details of Park's activities as a Japanese trained imperial officer during this period of collaboration are not clear. His history shows he switched national allegiances and political stripes more than once, to advance himself. His character reminds one of the deadly and treacherous collaborator, "goblin," depicted in historical drama, Noktu Flower, concerning the earlier Tonghak period. The characters formed necessarily a product of their respective tumultuous and brutal times.

(Source- JTBC News 8.6) Prime Minister Abe: President Park Geun Hye's father, President Park Chung Hee, was a close friend of my grandfather. It would not be an exaggeration to say that President Park Chung Hee was the friendliest president to Japan. Title of program is war crimes stained South Korea- Japan Cooperation Committee influence on South Korean politics; Arising out of the Manchurian Army- Key war crimes enterprise board executive- pivotal role.


Lately, it is said that Abe's family legacy as the political heir of Kishi Nobusuke is not the root of the current Japanese Korean dispute. This contention couldn't be more wrong. The relationship is pivotal to Japanese corporations involved in the colonial and wartime exploitation of Korea and their later central influence over Japanese- South Korean relations. After Kishi finished his term as prime minister of post war Japan, he played a key role in the negotiations leading to the 1965 Agreement with the Park regime "normalizing" relations with South Korea. This was not an arms length agreement but rather Kishi as the defacto representative of Japanese industrial interests in Korea, the old imperial order, negotiating with Manchukuo's former military agent for Japanese interests in the conquered territories, namely Park Chung Hee. Abe coyly admitted at a meeting of the Japanese Korean Cooperation Committee in 2013, the same organization that Kisi headed 50 years earlier when it first convened in 1963, that Kisi and Park were "close friends." In fact, Japanese corporate interests provided, by far, the majority of financial support to Park's political party in the years leading up to the 1965 agreement.

The 1965 agreement drafted by the committee didn't settle individual Korean claims against Japanese corporations. The legal basis for this view was expressed on July 30, on JTBC by Hosaka Fuji, professor at Sejong University. He describes the issue in terms of the the difference between claims based on contract and property principles for indemnity, which were settled by the agreement from those individual claims for injury compensation which were not. He asserted that the 1965 Agreement did not extinguish private personal injury claims based upon criminal behavior by Japanese during the colonial and wartime periods. Other Japanese and Korean experts have expressed this same view. The professor went on to describe the position of the Abe government as a fraud on the international community as the legal principles had previously been recognized by the Japanese government.

(Source-JTBC News 7.30) Hosaka Fuji, Sejong University professor: The South Korea- Japan Claims Settlement Agreement ended claims for indemnity. Claims for injury compensation still remain.

The Japanese contention today is that such claims aren't lawful under "international law" because of the 1965 Agreement. Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs documents contemporaneous to the agreement show this not to be the case:

The text of the 1965 agreement says in Article 2, “The High Contracting Parties confirm that the issues 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 Agreement with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, have been settled completely and finalized.” The Korean government received through the agreement $300 million in grants, $200 million in loans and $300 million in private loans. Regarding the interpretation of Article 2, the Japanese government maintained the attitude through the 1990s that the individual right to recourse still existed. Since then, Tokyo has been denying that stance. Recently, Japanese courts have also been dismissing claims for damages from victims, arguing that the agreement settled all claims.*

*Japanese document confirms individual right to recourse in spite of Korea-Japan Agreement of 1965, March 15, 2010
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/410123.html
Also:

The Japanese Foreign Ministry prepared an internal document in 1965 saying, “Though a treaty was signed, an individual’s right to seek damages is a separate issue.”

...The document was titled “The legal meaning of the people’s rights and the waiver of the rights to seek damages under the peace treaty.”

“When an individual’s property rights (private rights) in a country is infringed upon by another country, the former country holds the right to seek damages from the latter country, but this right is legally separate from the individual’s own right to seek damages,” the document said.*

*Individual Claims Not Covered by 1965 Treaty: Documents
Posted March. 15, 2010 09:29,
http://www.donga.com/en/List/article/all/20100315/264613/1/Individual-Claims-Not-Covered-by-1965-Treaty-Documents

(Source- JTBC News 8.6) Class A war criminal awarded by South Korean government. In 1970, Kisi was awarded the top national award in diplomacy by South Korean dictator Park Chung Hee, the Distinguished Order of Diplomatic Service. Park was a former graduate of Japanese military schools and a former military officer and agent of the Japanese Imperial Army in Manchukuo.

Most of the money in the "settlement" were loans at relatively high rates of interest. Most of what was characterized as "aid" and "approaching settlement for claims," was not delivered in funds but rather goods in kind and services in kind from the very corporations who had committed the slave labor crimes during the colonial and wartime period. The most significant portion of the settlement went to Pohang Steel. It was not settlement for injuries due to slave labor war crimes against Koreans. According to the JTBC report, arrangements for Korean projects built by Japanese corporations with loans were accompanied by bribes, kickbacks and other corruption. A JTBC expert commentator said that the primary contracts a went to Japanese corporations and that prices for goods and services were over charged. This was the so called "black fog." The committee operated primarily as a private organization run through personal connections and there was little transparency, supervision or accounting for their expenditures.

(Source- JTBC News 8.5) "Aid," the disappearing 800 million dollars, tracking how it was used.

The tainted history of Park Chung Hee, is camouflaged by the myth about his status as father of the economic miracle of South Korea. Other administrations appeared to have obscured the record of collaboration and toadying to Japanese interests out of political expediency. The reactionary right wing parties that made Park's daughter president after South Korea came out into the daylight of legitimate representative government had to conceal the pro-Japanese collaboration that had brought her family power and political influence. When the Korean courts began adjudication of litigation against Japanese corporations responsible for slave labor war crimes, she obligingly, at the request of the Japanese government led by Abe, illegally interfered in the administration of justice by the constitutionally separate judicial branch. When she was removed from power for such practices and other corruption, the proper and lawful adjudication of the slave labor claims went forward. So the "unjustified" claims against Japan aren't the result of Moon Jae In, they are the result of the rule of law permitted to go forward.

As Abe comes forward with disingenuous arguments, claiming the 1965 Agreement forecloses such claims by individual South Koreans against war crime legacy Japanese corporations, the US pretends not to understand the deeply rooted nature of the problem. William Underwood has documented the long history of evasion, obstruction, collusion and denial by the offending Japanese corporations and the Japanese government in precluding these claims. The rift was caused by the dictators in South Korea the US wholeheartedly supported, their successor administrations, and the US supported LDP party in Japan, founded, in part, by war criminal and Nazi sympathizer, Kishi Nobusuke, with the support of the CIA. It is clear from the history of the agreement that private claims for compensation due to forced labor war crimes are not foreclosed by the agreement as a matter of fact.* The agreement did not settle those claims but forestalled the issue indefinitely as a practical matter by entering an agreement with a compliant pro-Japanese dictator in South Korea.

*[Fact check] S. Korean individuals have the right to claim compensation from Japan
Posted on : Aug.7,2019 16:57 KST Modified on : Aug.7,2019 16:57 KST
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/904882.html

(Source- JTBC News 8.6) Kishi Nobusuke, South Korea- Japan Cooperation Committee President (1963): "No person here thinks of this as a war of invasion." This is the revisionist mythology of Shoin school imperialists and advocates of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.

The US military posture in East Asia would be reduced to something similar to its pre-WWII status without Japan's support and military infrastructure. That is inconsistent with the so called "pivot to Asia" and the looming US disputes with China. Abe knows this and is taking an aggressive, if not outright belligerent stance, in attempt to return South Korea to a quisling status, as it was under the Korean right wing dictators and subsequent transitional administrations. For this reason the US pretends not to know why its allies can't get along, or the very serious flaws at the heart of the US alliance system in Asia, that were present at its birth, but actively concealed from public view. At this time in history, when democracy has seen the light of day of in South Korea, these flaws are not just historical grievances but relate to the very essence of what kind of leader Abe really is, and what kind of party the LDP is. The potential dangers of yielding to Abe-LDP initiatives, such as removing constitutional limits on Japanese military operations, and conducting a devastating trade war with South Korea, rival those of American complicity in Japanese imperialism at the dawn of the 20th Century.