Newsletter

Although nearly five decades have passed since the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Settlement Agreement, it still remains a topic of heated disputes. That is because the agreement's interpretation directly affects the outcomes of suits victims of forced mobilization currently filed against Japanese companies to demand reparations, making the interpretation very much a matter of the present rather than of the past.

Therefore, the intention lying underneath an interpretation, rather than objective historical sources, has become the foremost criterion in terms of interpreting the agreement's contents. Under these circumstances, the publication of The Rationale and Practical Interests Behind Korea's Diplomacy Toward Japan is meaningful in that it offers an empirical analysis of diplomatic documents from both Korea and Japan in order to reveal the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Settlement Agreement's true nature and significance.

Yoo Euy Sang, the publication's author and current Ambassador for Geographic Naming, joined South Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs after passing the 15th foreign service exam in 1981. He has become an expert of Japan from twice serving at the South Korean embassy in Japan for a total of six years and heading the first Northeast Asia division at the ministry's headquarters. Yoo first became interested in the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Settlement Agreement and began researching related matters when victims of forced mobilization filed a lawsuit against the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs in September 2002 for the disclosure of diplomatic documents that were exchanged during the past Korea-Japan talks.

In August 2005, the South Korean government disclosed all such documents. The disclosure was carried out in the hopes of clearing any misunderstanding that the government had obscured from the public any part of negotiations in the past and with expectations that research and evaluations would thereafter be able to be conducted based on facts instead of speculations or current interests. However, the disclosed diplomatic documents ended up driving different interpretations about the claims settlement agreement further apart and fueling even fiercer disputes over the agreement. This reality was what motivated Yoo to study the very documents and reconstruct the negotiations that led to the claims settlement agreement in order to reveal the true nature of the agreement as well as the drawbacks to it.

An Empirical Analysis and Critical Reconstruction

Just as declared in its subtitle "Reconstructing the Negotiations Regarding the Right to Make Claims Against Japan," the book provides an empirical analysis on the diplomatic documents exchanged between Korea and Japan for thirteen years and eight months between October 1951 and June 1965 when the negotiations on the right to make claims against Japan took place. Such an analysis is then used to critically reconstruct the situation back then in order to uncover the negotiations' significance and limitations. Many research outcomes have been produced so far about the agreement, but this book sets itself apart from previous studies in that it analyzes diplomatic documents disclosed by the governments of both Korea and Japan. In other words, such disclosure has made it possible to prove with historical sources what has only been presumed in previous studies.

By comprehensively reviewing the diplomatic circumstances, the state of international affairs, and the stark difference of diplomatic power between Korea and Japan when the aforementioned negotiations took place, while also closely investigating each individual issue related to the agreement, the author argues that the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Settlement Agreement should be revalued as a diplomatic achievement made by the Korean government. Based on the domestic and international situation back then, the agreement should be properly considered, despite its shortcomings, as an outcome that the Korean government and delegation tried their utmost to achieve. The author further argues that it is unfair to judge and criticize the agreement by applying today's morals or specific values. Hence, the book's arguments seem to precisely reflect the author's actual experience of engaging in Korea's diplomatic practice toward Japan as a member of the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

An Objective Identification of Diplomatic Rationale and Practical Interests

The book also points out historical sources that obviously reveal the true historical nature of things that have so far remained unknown or misunderstood about the claims settlement agreement. For example, the book describes the story of how the United States separately arranged Korea's bilateral talks with Japan because Korea had not been invited to attend the San Francisco Peace Conference, or the actual reason as to why it took four long years to resume talks after they had been suspended due to a remark made by the Japanese representative Kanichiro Kubota, or what was negotiated between the two countries to work out the Kim Jong-pil-Masayoshi Ohira memorandum. Because such unfamiliar details are enough to satisfy one's intellectual curiosity, the 534 pages are likely to be an entertaining read.

Based on research about the negotiations for the claims settlement agreement, the author also considers whether the agreement has actually functioned as a resolution for two key issues involving the past between Korea and Japan, which are the Japanese military "comfort women" issue and the issue of reparations for victims of forced mobilization. The South Korean government has so far considered that the agreement has resolved the latter issue, but not the former, so the author points out how this position has been conveyed through the disclosed diplomatic documents.

The book should be a good opportunity to gain an objective understanding of what kind of rationale Korea has applied for what practical interests through its diplomacy toward Japan and thus contribute to forming thoughts on how to approach and resolve issues of the past between Korea and Japan in the future.