Apologies, admissions of guilt and financial support provided by Japan since the early 1990s have not been accepted by many civil groups in South Korea. And majorities in both countries have come out in opposition to the latest agreement.
Under the new agreement, Japan is required to provide a lump sum of 1 billion yen (US$8.3 million) to the surviving ‘comfort women’ in South Korea, to help restore their ‘honour and dignity’. Prime Minister Abe was also required to provide a formal apology.
South Korea pledges that if Japan meets the terms of the agreement, it will refrain from reprobation and criticism regarding this issue in international forums and will make an effort to address Japan’s concerns about the ‘comfort women’ statue outside the Japanese embassy in Seoul. But the statue was erected by and belongs to civil groups, so the South Korean state may face political and legal obstacles in removing it.
While the governments of Japan and South Korea are satisfied with the agreement, there has been a largely negative response from civil society groups in both countries. In Japan, prior to the foreign minister’s meeting, a Nikkei survey showed that 75 per cent of respondents support Prime Minister Abe’s efforts to improve Japanese–South Korean relations. But, attitudes regarding the ‘comfort women’ agreement diverge from their overall satisfaction with Abe’s South Korea policy.
According to Yomiuri Online’s survey on the agreement, only 49 per cent of respondents support the agreement while 36 per cent of respondents indicated that they don’t support it. Japanese ambivalence is rooted in a common belief that South Korean civil society is disinterested in genuinely solving the dispute.
While it has become the norm for anti-Abe protesters to amass outside the National Diet, the prime minister is politically secure. Even with the prospect of an alliance between the opposition Democratic Party of Japan and the Japan Innovation Party in the forthcoming 2016 upper house election, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party is likely to maintain its majority. Abe’s political risk is mitigated as opposition parties have not yet taken aim at the new ‘comfort women’ agreement.
In South Korea, opinion on the agreement among the citizenry is divided. According to a public survey conducted by Realmater, 50.7 per cent of respondents don’t support the agreement. Support for the agreement differs dramatically according to age: 71.3 per cent of respondents in their 60s view the agreement positively, but only 31 per cent of respondents in their 20s feel the same. This may be due to the much higher support for the ruling Saenuri Party among elderly South Koreans. Of those respondents that support the Saenuri Party 78.1 per cent also support the agreement, while only 8.5 per cent of respondents who support the opposition Minjoo Party view the agreement positively.
Some former ‘comfort women’, as well as citizens groups representing them, have also expressed their disatisfaction. Out of the 46 former South Korean ‘comfort women’ who are still living today, two joined a 6 January 2016 demonstration against the agreement outside the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. And media reports have indicated that other former ‘comfort women’ have been angered by this agreement. In light of this, President Park will struggle to gain the support of her political opposition.
The South Korean government has been busy defending the agreement amid growing pressure to amend or reject it. Even before the ‘comfort women’ agreement, the government had been under significant pressure from the political left over a series of controversial policy decisions.
South Korea’s two main opposition parties, the Minjoo Party and Justice Party, have demanded that the agreement be renegotiated to ensure that Japan clearly takes on legal responsibility, which they claim it does not in the current agreement. The pressure of the upcoming legislative elections on 13 April 2016 significantly reduces the likelihood that opposition parties will throw their support behind the deal. Park’s term will extend until 2017, but she may become a lame duck president if her Saenuri Party loses control of the National Assembly.
The new agreement made by the two governments is significant as both countries demonstrated the will to improve their bilateral relations. Public dissatisfaction was inevitable as so many of the interested groups have different goals. Japan and South Korea cannot do much to appease those taking an emotional or political stance, but they can and should focus on explaining the merits of the agreement to groups genuinely interested in reaching a conclusion.
If civil society refuses to embrace this agreement, the legacy of Japan’s colonial rule of Korea may continue to weigh down South Korean–Japanese relations for another generation, a situation that will benefit neither Japan nor South Korea. Sadly, based on civil society’s response so far, it is unlikely that the issue of ‘comfort women’ will be solved ‘finally and irreversibly’ with this agreement and in this political atmosphere.
Misato Nagakawa recently graduated from the Campus Asia Program earning a Master in Public Policy from the University of Tokyo and a Master of International Studies from Peking University. She is an intern at the Rebild Japan Initiative Foundation.
Trevor Kennedy is a Master of Arts Asia Pacific Policy Studies candidate at the University of British Columbia. His twitter handle is @TrevorPKennedy.
It is true that “If civil society refuses to embrace this agreement, the legacy of Japan’s colonial rule of Korea may continue to weigh down South Korean–Japanese relations for another generation, a situation that will benefit neither Japan nor South Korea.”
But the blame should be squarely on the nationalists’ shoulders in Japan for first, vehemently denying such an egregious ‘Comfort Women’ incident ever happened and then taking 70 years to come to an agreement, one which may not be even worth the paper it is written on.
Prof Kazuhiko Togo, the Director of the Institute of World Affairs and Professor of international politics at Kyoto Sangyo University and the former Japanese Ambassador to the Netherlands, nailed it when he wrote here: (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/01/03/whats-behind-abes-new-position-on-comfort-women/)
“It is more difficult to understand why the South Korean government consented to the agreement. The agreement does not include an acknowledgement by Japan of its criminal and legal responsibility, which had previously been a prerequisite for the South Korean civic movement.”
The polls noted in this article certainly make it difficult for President Park and PM Abe to gain the acceptance of their respective populations for the agreement they have reached. I would not agree, however, that they ‘cannot do much to appease those taking an emotional or a political stance’ against the agreement.
Each leader can make more efforts to explain their decision to the people in their respective country. Besides making public speeches about this they can meet with small groups of those opposed to the agreement. Quiet, private conversations about the issue may help change some people’s minds. At the very least, such meetings would show the resolve of Park and Abe to both address the concerns of these people as well as to implement the agreements.
Park and Abe could also coordinate their efforts together. For example, Park could invite Abe to meet with former Comfort Women and their supporters in S Korea. His presence and humble actions with these people might convince some of them of the ‘sincerity’ of his apologies and willingness to take responsibility for what took place 70+ years ago.
Abe could offer to build a memorial center/museum in honor of the Comfort Women in Seoul. Such a building could house the statue which now sits in front of the Japanese embassy.
Another contributor to the East Asia Forum recently suggested that the Emperor of Japan make a visit to S Korea. The Emperor and Emperess could offer their apologies as well. What a powerful symbolic gesture that would be!
Reconciliation requires more than just an apology. For it to take hold, reconciliation needs actions that follow up on an apology which confirm that the apology is ‘genuine.’ Do Park and Abe have the courage and the understanding of the dynamics of reconciliation to do these kinds of things? These kinds of actions would admittedly not be easy. They might even be dangerous because there may be some who might try to assassinate them. But if they would do these kinds of things, Park and Abe could overcome some, if not much, of the resistance that lingers to this agreement. If so, they could actually lead their countries into a new era of understanding and cooperation.
Thank you for your comment!
What you are saying is morally right, and if these are all going to happen, I feel that it will emotionally convince many South Koreans.
However, there should be one more factor to consider; domestic politics.
Looking back PM Abe’s political history, he has been involving many conservative political groups which usually going against the past apologies made by some of distinctive figures (Kono, Murayama etc), and it is not too extent to say these are what made and makes who he is. Needless to say, I assume PM Abe’s family history gave a birth to his conservative thought as well.
The deal made by two governments, therefore, was indeed surprising to Japanese public. It is obvious that his conservative supporters who pushed him to be PM are not happy with it. However, regardless of his own situation, PM Abe (there should be some pressure from the US) took his step to this deal. I think it was politically brave decision in that sense. (You might be interested in taking a look at the concept of “apology-then-backlash” by Jeniffer Lind)
I do not think it is realistic for PM Abe to meet one of the comfort women although I hope the same as you do. Even he does, apology without the heart will insult these victims.
It is sad that South Korean government did not explain about this deal to the victims and related civil group prior to the deal, because South Korean government has been strongly criticizing the attitudes made by Japanese government for a long time. It is the political failure for South Korean side.
For Japanese side, some of the Japanese politicians and spokesman were still causing some debate whether these victims were taken by force or not after this deal, but obviously, Japanese government should stop causing another source of debate.
In addition, it is clear that two governments were in rush to make a deal, and failed to draft the details such as whether to move the statue or not in front of Japanese embassy in South Korea.
I personally believe that understating will come when both sides equally made an efforts by balancing their own domestic politics and diplomacy. Ignoring either of them will cause another trouble, so they should be careful with it.
The civil society would hardly embrace the agreement. As the poll you mentioned in your article indicates, both the victims themselves and the Korean civil society are still furious at this agreement, and the issue is still debated now as political candidates mention this issue again these days Korea that the government should negate and invalidate the agreement as it is voting season in South. There also was a movie that was released this year about the comfort women, and this movie became the one of the most popular movies this year as the actual victims’ story illustrated in the movie enraged the Korean civil society and Korean citizens. It is pretty evident that Koreans were still deeply interested in the issue of comfort women even after the agreement, and the Korean civil society do not wish this issue to be solved ‘finally and irreversibly’ with this agreement. The reason is because Koreans do not see this agreement and the motives shown by the Japanese government as sincere apology but as another Japanese government’s political intention to deploy this issue in their diplomatic strategy and compensate their pain with money. Another reason is because Japan has declared that they will give one billion yen to a fund for surviving victims still alive in Korea today, but many Koreans see no difference between this offer and the past offers the Japanese government has been doing to resolve this issue. The Japanese government has set up Asian Women Fund with a little over $6 million and sent the apology letters from the previous prime ministers. It looks like Japan and Korea championed the agreement by making a huge progress with regards to the issue of comfort women, but it is difficult for me and the majority of the Korean people to see the actual difference between this agreement and the past actions except for the clause included in this agreement: “finally and irreversibly.”