Who should take the blame for deteriorating Japanese-Korean relations?
By Mohssen Arishie
A former official in the Japanese Foreign Ministry has blamed the government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for the deterioration in the Japanese-Korean relationship in the wake of a verdict over the ‘wartime forced labourers’.
The South Korean Supreme Court ruled in favour of former South Korean forced labourers who demanded that Japanese companies that engaged in forced labour have their assets seized and take relief measures to compensate for their past human rights violations.
Japan, nonetheless, argues that it addressed the individual claims of former South Korean labourers in 1965 in accordance with the prevailing international view following the Treaty of San Francisco. However, the Japanese government’s protest has been legally disputed by Magosaki Ukeru, former Director of the Treaties Bureau at the Japanese Foreign Ministry. He said that such view must have lost ground after the International Human Rights Law was established. Commenting on the Japanese government’s argument in this respect, South Korean President Moon Jae-in said: “It is hard to understand Japan’s argument especially when we have established concepts of international human rights and humanitarian principles.”
Ukeru, who served 25 years at the Foreign Ministry, of which 9 years were at the Asia Bureau and Treaties Bureau, argued that the general international view was that states could settle individual claims on behalf of their nationals, which also served as the basis for claims settlement clauses in Treaty of San Francisco through which Japan gained independence.
Ukeru noted that these concepts can be referred to in detail in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Japan joined in 1978. Ukeru was at the forefront of efforts to secure congressional approval of this Covenant that very year; he served as the Deputy chief for International Agreement at the Treaties Bureau. Yet, he admitted that he could not find explanation for the absence of this Covenant when discussing thorny issues between Japan and South Korea.
Article 2 (3) of Covenant B stipulates to ‘ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognised are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.’
When it comes to the issue of ‘wartime comfort women’ and forced labourers, Article 7 and Paragraph 3 (a) of Article 8 holds significance to ‘persons’ whose ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’ are violated. Article 7 prescribes that ‘no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’
In his legal study and analysis of the deteriorating Japanese-Korean relations, Ukeru said: “it can be clearly stated that former wartime comfort women and forced labourers have the right to
request the Japanese government to provide effective relief measures.” He also stressed: “Since the International Human Rights Law was enacted, relief measures have been taken across the globe for victims of past violations of human rights set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
Given that countries across the globe, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, took measures of apology and reparation for state-committed violations following the enactment of the International Human rights Law, there is no question that Japan should also apologise to South Koreans who were forced to work as ‘wartime comfort women’ and forced labourers.
Ukeru referring to the statement made by the Japanese Foreign Ministry at the National Diet of Japan in 1991, said” This judgement cannot be refuted and cannot but be recognised.” Commenting on the silence kept by the Japanese government so far, the former Japanese official, said: “This is deeply unfaithful and unacceptable.”
He noted: “It is very regretful that everyone stresses the importance of human rights while being ignorant on the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights.”
