Spearheading this sudden development is South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, who has taken proactive measures to intensify communication with Japan’s Prime Minister (PM) Fumio Kishida. Nevertheless, Yoon’s bold move to repair ties with Japan has not escaped criticism, as citizens, political parties, and even esteemed figures at Korea University (KU) have vehemently shown their dissent on the grounds of several pending moral and historical issues. In this article, The Granite Tower (GT) examines the approach of the previous Moon administration toward Japan and analyzes the implications of this latest turnaround on Korean politics in the foreseeable future. 

During an official visit to the United States (U.S.) in April, President Yoon delivered a momentous announcement concerning the recent advancements in Korea-Japan relations. Addressing Harvard University’s Kennedy School in Boston, he proclaimed, “While it was widely observed that the Japanese government was mostly unresponsive to our stimuli, to my pleasant surprise this morning, I learned that Japan has made the decision to reinstate Korea on its trade whitelist,” as reported by the institution. The news came following Yoon and Kishida’s bilateral summit in Tokyo earlier this year, breaking the 12-year hiatus after President Lee Myung-bak and Yoshihiko Noda’s meeting in December 2011. Marking the full restoration of interstate “shuttle diplomacy,” PM Kishida reciprocated Yoon’s visit by partaking in a second summit in Seoul on May 7. Agendas discussed between the two East Asian figureheads encompassed a wide spectrum of issues ranging from the escalating tensions near Taiwan, the ongoing war in Ukraine, and, ultimately, the conundrum of North Korea.

Black and White

Throughout the post-colonial era, Korea-Japan relations have experienced persistent challenges, with a notable decline during the administration of former liberal President Moon. One significant aspect that contributed to the strained ties was the series of court rulings in South Korea, which mandated Japanese companies ought to provide compensation for Korean citizens who were subjected to forced labor during World War II (WWII). However, in response to the companies’ non-compliance with the rulings, the victims resorted to legal measures to potentially seize or liquidate the companies’ assets within the country. As a potential consequence, in July 2019, Tokyo swiftly announced its decision to revoke Seoul’s status as a fast-track trade partner, effectively removing it from Japan’s “whitelist” of trusted trading nations.

Moon’s administration also witnessed the abrupt collapse of the 2015 agreements on comfort women, a longstanding and historically significant hurdle in the path toward normalizing relations. President Moon deemed the agreement illegitimate, citing the impeachment of his predecessor, Park Geun-hye, as justification for its annulment. Throughout his five-year tenure, there was a noticeable absence of progress on this matter. Adding to the complexity, there existed a history of court-ordered compensations and naval incidents, which served to magnify the preexisting tensions and contributed to a deeper sense of incomprehension between South Korea and Japan. 

President Yoon’s ideological approach, however, has attracted substantial criticism for navigating in the opposite direction. Opposing political exponents and citizens contend that his “capitalistic” pursuit of amicable exchanges with the ex-colonizer sharply contradicts the motives of the deeply ingrained anti-Japanese sentiment prevailing in the nation. Moreover, the decision to allocate national funds for compensating forced labor victims instead of demanding contributions from Japan has ignited a firestorm of outrage and raised grave concerns about the trajectory of his approval rating. Notably, on the KU campus, a protest statement against the highly controversial compensation deal surfaced near the wall poster by the West Gate, drawing support from over 100 professors who affixed their names in solidarity with the cause. 

Yoon and Kishida – Will It Last? 

The recent summits between the two politicians have elicited mixed reactions from Korea’s major political parties, as reported by the Korea JoongAng Daily. The People Power Party (PPP), affiliated with President Yoon, has emphasized the significance of these exchanges, prioritizing national interests in security and the economy. Conversely, the Democratic Party (DP) has denounced Yoon’s policy as “humiliating” and has demanded clarity regarding alleged undisclosed concessions made during the first summit. Furthermore, the DP sought answers on long-standing issues such as the comfort women agreement and the Dokdo/Takeshima Islands dispute. Responding to these allegations, the ruling PPP has refuted all claims and accused the DP of exploiting anti-Japanese sentiments for political gain. As a result of these developments, Yoon’s approval rate has shown a stark polarization among the public, with 35 percent of supporters and 32 percent of critics pointing to diplomacy as the reason, according to MBC News. 

The successful restoration of stable ties with Japan has been cited by many as crucial for Yoon’s chances of retaining office. Similarly, Tokyo has long regarded relations with Korea as their primary political challenge. Recent headlines, including those from the Hankyoreh, have indicated a significant ideological shift from previous PM Shinzo Abe’s nationalistic attitude to the current government’s approach. During PM Kishida’s visit to Seoul on May 7, the politician expressed, “My heart aches that many people went through extremely sad experiences under harsh circumstances” commenting on Japan’s colonial rule. This shows disparity with his predecessor’s 2015 affirmation that Japan no longer needed to apologize for its colonial era. Notably, the same reporting publication also voiced the perspective of expert Professor Yuji Hosaka (Daeyang Humanity College, Sejong University), who suggested that Kishida’s vague statement might also encompass the struggles of Japanese citizens during WWII, thus fueling concerns over Japan’s true intentions. 

In conclusion, the effectiveness of Kishida’s words in resonating with Koreans remains a subject of ongoing debate. However, rising anxiousness over North Korea’s recent belligerence may explain how a growing segment of South Korean public has welcomed Yoon’s attempts to provide more diplomatic stability. As Japan represents one of the few American allies in the region, an increasing number of Koreans may be willing to set aside historical tensions in order to ensure a higher level of safety from potential war scenarios.