At the end of July, an agreement was reached to register Sado Mine.
The expression ‘forced’ is missing from Japanese exhibits.
Japanese government representative visits Yasukuni
‘Diplomatic failure’ stemming from the ‘concession’ tone
On July 28, visitors are looking at exhibits related to Korean workers at the Aikawa Local Museum near Sado Mine in Sado City, Niigata Prefecture, Japan. Yonhap News
As the Sado Mine memorial ceremony held by Japan on the 24th became their own event without any mention of the forced labor of Koreans or the attendance of the Korean government or the families of forced mobilization victims, criticism is being raised about the government’s failure in diplomacy. It is pointed out that the current government’s diplomatic stance toward Japan, which involves preemptively making concessions on past history issues and then waiting for Japan’s response, is a fundamental problem. There is a possibility that the memorial service agreed upon between Korea and Japan will be disrupted from the first year, which will have negative effects on the relationship between the two countries in the future.
The Sado Mine memorial ceremony is one of the measures promised by the Japanese government in late July when the Korean government did not oppose the listing of Sado Mine as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Unlike past memorial ceremonies hosted by Japanese private organizations, the government has attached significance to the attendance of Japanese government officials starting this year. It was said that the memorial service is held every year from July to August.
Even after Sado Mine was registered as a World Cultural Heritage site, negotiations were not smooth. The consultation was postponed one after another due to reasons such as Japan’s domestic political schedule. The date of the memorial service was only confirmed on the 20th, four days before it was held. The Korean government, not Japan, decided to cover all costs for the bereaved family’s visit to Japan. The name of the memorial service was decided to be ‘Sado Mine Memorial Service’, which is ambiguous as to who it is honoring. Due to this, doubts have been raised about Japan’s ‘sincerity’ in its treatment of the memorial service.
It was later revealed that Akiko Ikuina, political affairs officer (Vice Minister level) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who attended the memorial service as a representative of the Japanese government, had visited Yasukuni Shrine on August 15, 2022. The Korean government’s position, which believed that the request for attendance by political officials or higher, was accepted, became meaningless. It is known that Japan did not even properly inform Korea of the contents of the memorial address to be read by Political Affairs Officer Ikuina until the day before. As the Japanese side showed a passive attitude throughout the discussions surrounding the memorial ceremony, it is understood that the government ultimately decided not to participate.
It is pointed out that the reason for this process is that the government did not actively participate in negotiations when discussing Japan’s registration as a World Cultural Heritage site in late July. This means that the government should have agreed in advance on the status of Japanese government attendees at the memorial ceremony and the key contents of the memorial speech when it could have influenced whether or not it was registered. Since the World Heritage Committee (WHC) customarily decides on listing by consensus of all 21 member countries, if Korea objects, the burden on the Japanese government could increase. Minister of Foreign Affairs Cho Tae-yeol responded to this criticism at the plenary session of the National Assembly Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee on September 11, saying, “I accept the criticism. “I’m sorry that I didn’t think as much (that much),” he said.
The poor diplomatic skills shown by the Korean government during the subsequent negotiations between the two countries have also become controversial. The government was unable to comply with the demands or obtain proper information until the event was imminent. Another problem is that the government announced the date of the memorial service without agreeing on the content of the memorial address with the Japanese government attendees. This means that by narrowing the scope of maneuver in negotiations, the government has created an environment in which it is difficult to implement the government’s demands.
In his memorial address on this day, Political Affairs Officer Ikuina read a passage that gave a glimpse into the perception that the forced mobilization of Korean workers was ‘legal.’ On the other hand, expressions indicating coercion were not mentioned. This too was expected. This is because the exhibition that Japan installed to publicize the history of Korean workers as a condition of the government’s agreement with Japan to register it as a World Cultural Heritage site did not contain any content that revealed the context of coercion, causing controversy.
It is pointed out that this memorial service incident is fundamentally a result of the government’s diplomatic stance toward Japan. The government said that it expected a sincere response from Japan by preemptively making concessions to Japan, such as suggesting a ‘third party reimbursement’ solution in relation to the Supreme Court’s ruling on compensation for forced mobilization in March last year. If Korea concedes first, Japan will fill the ‘leftover cup’. However, there was no meaningful response from Japan. The issue of textbooks’ distortion of history and Dokdo provocation is still recurring. Yang Ki-ho, a professor at Sungkonghoe University, said, “The government considers improving Korea-Japan relations as the most important and is based on the premise that this must be maintained. This is why it is not possible to respond flexibly to the Japanese issue.”
It appears that it will be difficult to hold a memorial service attended by the Korean government again within this year. There is a possibility that this incident may serve as a factor in conflict between Korea and Japan. In particular, they are seeking to strengthen cooperation ahead of the 60th anniversary of the normalization of diplomatic relations next year. Minister Cho appeared on MBN Newswide the day before and said, “Both countries should make efforts to ensure that one single issue does not disrupt the overall flow of bilateral relations,” and added, “I plan to continue discussing with the Japanese diplomatic authorities.”
**Analyzing Japan’s Symbolic Gestures:** Discuss how Japan’s attendance at the ceremony, while seemingly conciliatory, lacked substance due to the omission of an explicit apology for forced labor and the choice of a representative who visited Yasukuni Shrine. Argue that these actions prioritize form over substance and send a mixed message to Korea, potentially fueling distrust and hindering reconciliation efforts.
## Interview: Sado Mine Memorial Ceremony and Korea-Japan Relations
**Host:** Welcome to World Today News. Today we’ll be discussing the recent controversies surrounding the Sado Mine memorial service and its implications for Korea-Japan relations. Joining us are two distinguished guests: Dr. Lee Su-jin, an expert on international relations and East Asian history, and Mr. Kim Tae-hoon, a journalist who has been closely following the developments surrounding the Sado Mine situation.
**Section 1: The Memorial Ceremony and Historical Reconciliation**
**Host:** Dr. Lee, the Sado Mine memorial ceremony was intended as a step towards recognizing and acknowledging the suffering of Korean forced laborers during Japan’s colonial rule. However, the lack of explicit mention of forced labor and the attendance of a Japanese official who visited Yasukuni Shrine sparked significant criticism. Could you shed light on why this ceremony fell short of expectations in terms of historical reconciliation? What message does Japan’s approach send to Korea and the international community?
**Dr. Lee:** (Response focusing on historical context, Japan’s responsibility for forced labor, Yasukuni Shrine symbolism, and the international implications)
**Host:** Mr. Kim, you have been covering this issue extensively. From a journalistic perspective, what were your initial reactions to the details of the ceremony? How do you think this event has impacted public perception in both Korea and Japan?
**Mr. Kim:** (Response concentrating on the journalistic perspective on the ceremony, public sentiment in both countries, and potential long-term consequences)
**Section 2: Diplomatic Negotiations and Concessions**
**Host:** Mr. Kim, the article highlights concerns regarding the Korean government’s diplomatic strategy, particularly the preemptive concessions made during negotiations with Japan. Do you think the government’s approach was effective, and what could have been done differently to achieve a more favorable outcome?
**Mr. Kim:** (Response discussing the Korean government’s approach, the effectiveness of preemptive concessions, and alternative diplomatic strategies)
**Host:** Dr. Lee, some argue that this incident underscores the inherent difficulties in achieving genuine reconciliation between Korea and Japan due to deeply entrenched historical grievances. How can these historical issues be addressed more effectively in future diplomatic engagements?
**Dr. Lee:** (Response analyzing the challenges of historical reconciliation, potential solutions, and the role of both governments in fostering genuine dialog)
**Section 3: The Future of Korea-Japan Relations**
**Host:** Looking ahead, what are the potential ramifications of this memorial service controversy for the future of Korea-Japan relations? With the 60th anniversary of the normalization of diplomatic relations approaching, how can both countries ensure that this incident does not derail progress towards closer cooperation?
**Dr. Lee:**
**(Response focusing on the long-term impact on Korea-Japan relations, the significance of the upcoming anniversary, and proactive steps towards fostering cooperation)
**Mr. Kim:**
**(Response emphasizing the importance of rebuilding trust, practical steps towards reconciliation, and the role of civil society in promoting understanding)
**Host: ** Thank you both for your insightful contributions. This undoubtedly remains a complex and sensitive issue. Continued dialog and understanding are crucial for both countries to move forward and strengthen their relationship.
