By Min Yea-Ji and Lee Jihae

The German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) on Sept. 23 published a letter to the editor by a scholar critical of Japan's attitude toward its wartime atrocities committed in the early 20th century.

Hannes Mosler, a professor of Korean studies at Free University of Berlin, countered arguments made by a Japanese FAZ correspondent in a column titled "East Asia's Front Line," published on Sept. 9. "If the relationship between the two countries (Korea and Japan) is evaluated only in terms of practicality, the core of the problem will be lost," the scholar said.

The correspondent had written, "Korea has refused Japan's practical expectation of trying to resolve this issue through an arbitration tribunal as stipulated by the 1965 treaty."

Mosler responded to this by saying, "This type of blind practicality, not morality, is the core of the problem wrought by the right-wing conservative governments of Korea and Japan so far."

"The ruling liberal Korean government is not prioritizing morality over practicality but placing morality next to practicality."

"Germany is trying to be moral, and is not tired of acknowledging its historical wrongdoings to its neighboring countries and the whole world and admitting its responsibilities," he said, drawing a stark contrast between Japan and Germany's responses to their respective historical crimes.

The correspondent also wrote, "The Japanese government and its people are tired of Korea's incessant new demands even after Japan apologized for its wartime deeds."

On this, Mosler said, "These are not new demands. These are old demands."

"The reason Koreans repeatedly bring this up is simple. They are tired of Japan's repeated denials of its inhumane crimes, glorification of its wartime criminals, efforts to repudiate its pacifist constitution that outlaws war, attempts to disrupt exhibitions critical of Japan's wartime atrocities and refusal to pay damages to wartime victims."

Article 9 of the Japanese constitution was written by the U.S. and outlaws war, prohibiting Japan from having "armed forces with war potential."

Earlier in his column "A trade dispute and an ancient debt" published on Sept. 17 in the German daily Frankfurter Rundschau, Mosler criticized "Japan's attitude" and its "logical argumentation."

"Japan repeatedly offends South Korea and other neighboring countries by denying its crimes against humanity, with the heroic display of war criminals, with attempts to remove Japan's peace constitution, with the prevention of historical-critical exhibitions and not least by its rejection of compensation payments to its victims," he wrote.

Mosler also denied that the 1965 treaty between Korea and Japan terminated an individual victim's right to file a claim. Even if it did eliminate such a right, he added, an agreement that terminates the right to file a claim for forced labor violates the principles of a mandatory provision and is thus void.

The professor said a proper sense of guilt and responsibility toward the victims are far more important that financial support or legal interpretation.

jesimin@korea.kr

The unofficial translation of the column "A trade dispute and an ancient debt" by the Foreign Media Support Team of KOCIS (Korean Culture and Information Service) is below:

A trade dispute and an ancient debt

South Korea and Japan are fighting a trade dispute. One reason for this is Japanese occupation of Korea in the past and its historical reappraisal.

Last year, the Supreme Court of South Korea ordered two Japanese companies to pay compensation to former South Korean forced laborers. The Japanese government rejected this claim by referencing the 1965 Korean-Japanese Basic Treaty. Furthermore, Japan imposed export restrictions on important goods to South Korea this summer.

The South Korean government sees these sanctions as part of Japan's strategy to evade its past. This, in turn, is denied by the Japanese government in official statements and articles in English-language newspapers published in various countries, apparently trying to make South Korea look unreliable and untrustworthy in the public eye.

Germany and Japan committed serious crimes against humanity before and during World War II. Yet despite the many unsolved issues, both countries deal with these crimes in completely different ways. When referring to its own dark periods in history, Japan often focuses on its past as a victim by bringing up the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortly before the end of the Second World War. And representatives of the Japanese government refuse any comparison with Germany.

It is true that Japan, unlike Germany, was not divided after World War II. In East Asia, only the Korean Peninsula was divided, which consequently led to the outbreak of the Korean War from 1950–53. The war industry significantly contributed to the economic growth of post-war Japan.

It is also true that Japan was not only allowed to retain its emperor as a symbol of national unity and historic continuity, but even anchored the empire in the first article of its post-war constitution, while Germany's Basic Law states at its very beginning the inviolability of human dignity. 

Between 1910 and 1945, the Korean Peninsula was under the brutal occupation of the Japanese empire. Similar to people in other Asian countries, Koreans suffered oppression and exploitation, forced labor, forced prostitution and experiments on humans by its neighboring country Japan.

In 1965, Japan signed an agreement with South Korean dictator Park Chung-hee to normalize relations between the two countries. Post-war Japan, which had regained its economic strength, paid USD 500 million to South Korea in the form of subsidies and loans on favorable terms. With these payments, Japan wanted to end all compensation claims made by Korea.

There were a number of apologies from Japanese government officials, but no sincere and consistent reconciliation policy has been put forth. On the contrary, Japan repeatedly offends South Korea and other neighboring countries by denying its crimes against humanity through the heroic display of war criminals, attempts to remove Japan's peace constitution, prevention of critical exhibitions on history and not least by its rejection of compensation payments to its victims.

Even the legal argumentation used by the Japanese government to deny South Korean forced laborers their right to compensation is questionable. Irrespective of intergovernmental agreements, claims by individuals do not expire, particularly if these claims are violations of human rights. In this sense, even Japan's Supreme Court has issued several court judgements in favor of Chinese forced laborers despite divergent agreements between Japan and China.

Even if one came to the conclusion that all claims were settled with the Basic Treaty of 1965, one can still argue with international law, which says a contract requiring the forfeiture of claims for forced labor violates the norm of ius cogens (peremptory norm) and therefore be null and void as such.

Far more important than all financial payments and legal interpretations, however, is a sincere admission of wrongdoing and a sense of responsibility as well as a consistent attitude toward the victims. Prosperity and peace in East Asia depend on a sustainable reconciliation between Korea and Japan. Japan's goodwill is crucial to that matter.