But, their relationship in these fifty years was not completely normal. On Annexation Treaty in 1910, Japanese government recognized that the treaty lost its validity with new treaty in 1965, while South Korea asserted that Annexation Treaty was “null and void” in itself. The history of colonization is still unacceptable for Korean people. Japanese government interpreted Treaty on Basic Relation as a settlement of all requirements for compensation from the Koreans, including former comfort women. Seeing deterioration of Japan ’s sincere reflection on the war, Korean government took nationalistic policy as seen in a disputed island, Takeshima.
On the eve of fiftieth anniversary, ROK Minister of Foreign Affairs, Yun Byung-se visited Japan for the first time in these four years. In the meeting with Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fumio Kishida, Yun approved registration of industrial remains in Japan to World Heritage. Although the Koreans had been negative on this issue, because those old facilities were the places where the Koreans were forced hard labor, ROK offered cooperation in return for Japan ’s support on future registration of historical district of Paekche, Korea .
In the ceremony of fiftieth anniversary in Tokyo , Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe emphasized future-looking diplomacy between Japan and South Korea . But, it did not settle the dispute over comfort woman at all. South Korea still requires Japanese political leaders to have “appropriate” viewpoints for their bilateral history. But, conservative tendency of Japanese politics does not allow the leaders appeasing approach to the Koreans.
After a half century from the end of devastating war, political leaders in Japan need to review the history again. While they are proud of reconstruction history of Japan with rapid economic growth, they need to remember the fact that there have been moderate international relationships, even with South Korea needless to say. Future-looking diplomacy will be cultivated with recognition of standpoint of Japan in international relations.
No comments:
Post a Comment