By Choi Sung-jin
Last Sunday, a movie channel reran, perhaps for about the 10th time, "Roaring Currents," a 2014 film on how Admiral Yi Sun-sin rescued the Joseon Kingdom from Japanese invasion (1592-98). With little else to do, I watched again the collective struggle of the unparalleled military leader, his soldiers and civilians in repelling the aggressors.
Even before the sense of victory dissipated, however, I muttered to myself, "What were the ancestors' heroic efforts for?" Japan reinvaded Korea ― more systematically ― and finally annexed it about 310 years later when leadership here lost its people's support.
The following morning, I was going to work by subway. The train during the commute was quiet with most burying their faces in their smartphones or dozing off. Then a couple of young Japanese ladies got aboard and began to chatter loudly, and not a few heads turned.
Usually, I would have quieted them down, as I have done to Korean and American girls a few times before. However, I refrained from doing so, not because I could not speak Japanese, but because doing so would appear rather emotional at a diplomatically sensitive time between the two countries.
That is probably close to what many Koreans are experiencing now watching Japan's diplomatic provocations ― feeling angered but suppressing their emotions. Nothing spoke for me better than some North Korean media outlets in rebuking the Japanese government.
"The South Korean Supreme Court's ruling, which called for Japan to compensate the victims of forced labor during the Japanese occupation, was more than justified. Tokyo's export controls are shameless acts like the thief turning on the master with a club," said Meari (Echo), the North's government mouthpiece targeting the international audience. "Regarding the imperishable crimes Japan committed against the Korean people ― sex slavery, forced labor and genocide ― Tokyo will not be able to repay fully even if it sells off the entire archipelago."
The recent move by Japan's Shinzo Abe cabinet is less an economic retaliation than a political gambit to put South Korea under Japanese control by holding in its hand the key to the latter's economy. In other words, Tokyo wants to "fix" South Korea, once and for all, to prevent the neighboring country with a rapidly expanding economy and culture from daring to challenge its former colonial ruler. Japan's third invasion ― economic and diplomatic ― has begun.
Abe says the Korean top court's ruling violated international law, in reference to the 1965 Basic Treaty which Japan alleges settled all compensation issues, including individuals' claims to compensation. Korea's top legal experts saw it differently, and there are also conflicting views over the issue among international experts.
Seoul may leave it to the third-party arbitration or go to the International Court of Justice as Tokyo demands ― but not before Tokyo agrees to seek a diplomatic solution, including the withdrawal of export curbs and a pledge not to repeat economic retaliation for political reasons. Abe should ponder why many influential international media outlets are criticizing Tokyo's economic retaliation and calling for it to end.
No international treaties can be eternal and should be amended if the call of the times changes. The world was still smarting from the remnants of imperialism and fascism in 1948 when the allies shaped the Pacific postwar international order in San Francisco. In 1965, too, Korea was governed by a general-turned-dictator who had only economic growth and his continuous grip on power in mind.
Now, South Korea is one of the most vibrant democracies in Asia which places human rights above all else, while Japan has been under a one-party rule for nearly seven decades. The Supreme Court's decision is more about humanism than nationalism. Abe took issue with Seoul breaking international promises, but I have never heard the Japanese leader level that accusation at the Donald Trump administration, which withdrew from many international treaties, whether they were about climate change or global trade.
Faced with the third Japanese invasion, this country's political leaders are split ― as they were more than a century ago. The conservative opponents of the liberal Moon Jae-in administration accuse their President more than they censure his Japanese counterpart.
First, they criticize Moon for doing nothing to prepare for looming economic retaliation by Japan. The conservatives quote the Japanese government officials who said they have 1,000 items on their retaliatory list. If Seoul had taken some moves, Tokyo could have attacked elsewhere.
Second, the conservative politicians and media say Seoul is too unprepared to push back. Some conservatives say reason should come before emotion, and Korea should strengthen national power first. The pro-Japanese traitors did precisely the same thing 100 years ago, saying Joseon was not prepared enough to hit back Japan's moves to annex it.
After the forced occupation, these collaborators never tried to build Joseon's strength but remained complacent with the power and wealth Japan gave to them in exchange for their loyalty to the colonialists.
Third, the defeatists say Korea is still no match for Japan, whose economic and military powers are at least three times larger than Korea's. That may be true. Again, the situation was far worse a century ago, but had one-third of Koreans fought back against Japan's attempts, the island country could not have swallowed this peninsula. Afghanistan, Chechnya and Vietnam fought and are still struggling with invaders 100 times more powerful than them.
What stopped Koreans from doing so was the ruling class at the time ― the king who thought the country was his private property and aristocrats bent on squeezing out their people while fighting against each other and resorting to external power to maintain their influence and wealth. Can one find any differences, with South Korean political leaders, especially conservative ones, today?
Some describe the current situation as a mixed blessing that can reduce, if not remove, economic reliance on Japan. All these diagnoses are right and desirable, but only if the nation, especially its leaders, can unite as one and pull their wisdom together to shape a century-long strategy and work out phased diplomatic and economic action plans.
Conservative oppositionists in particular should wake up and put their nation ahead of themselves just even for once. Otherwise, Admiral Yi will be turning in his grave.
Choi Sung-jin is a Korea Times columnist. Contact him at choisj1955@naver.com.
 |
Even before the sense of victory dissipated, however, I muttered to myself, "What were the ancestors' heroic efforts for?" Japan reinvaded Korea ― more systematically ― and finally annexed it about 310 years later when leadership here lost its people's support.
The following morning, I was going to work by subway. The train during the commute was quiet with most burying their faces in their smartphones or dozing off. Then a couple of young Japanese ladies got aboard and began to chatter loudly, and not a few heads turned.
Usually, I would have quieted them down, as I have done to Korean and American girls a few times before. However, I refrained from doing so, not because I could not speak Japanese, but because doing so would appear rather emotional at a diplomatically sensitive time between the two countries.
That is probably close to what many Koreans are experiencing now watching Japan's diplomatic provocations ― feeling angered but suppressing their emotions. Nothing spoke for me better than some North Korean media outlets in rebuking the Japanese government.
"The South Korean Supreme Court's ruling, which called for Japan to compensate the victims of forced labor during the Japanese occupation, was more than justified. Tokyo's export controls are shameless acts like the thief turning on the master with a club," said Meari (Echo), the North's government mouthpiece targeting the international audience. "Regarding the imperishable crimes Japan committed against the Korean people ― sex slavery, forced labor and genocide ― Tokyo will not be able to repay fully even if it sells off the entire archipelago."
The recent move by Japan's Shinzo Abe cabinet is less an economic retaliation than a political gambit to put South Korea under Japanese control by holding in its hand the key to the latter's economy. In other words, Tokyo wants to "fix" South Korea, once and for all, to prevent the neighboring country with a rapidly expanding economy and culture from daring to challenge its former colonial ruler. Japan's third invasion ― economic and diplomatic ― has begun.
Abe says the Korean top court's ruling violated international law, in reference to the 1965 Basic Treaty which Japan alleges settled all compensation issues, including individuals' claims to compensation. Korea's top legal experts saw it differently, and there are also conflicting views over the issue among international experts.
Seoul may leave it to the third-party arbitration or go to the International Court of Justice as Tokyo demands ― but not before Tokyo agrees to seek a diplomatic solution, including the withdrawal of export curbs and a pledge not to repeat economic retaliation for political reasons. Abe should ponder why many influential international media outlets are criticizing Tokyo's economic retaliation and calling for it to end.
No international treaties can be eternal and should be amended if the call of the times changes. The world was still smarting from the remnants of imperialism and fascism in 1948 when the allies shaped the Pacific postwar international order in San Francisco. In 1965, too, Korea was governed by a general-turned-dictator who had only economic growth and his continuous grip on power in mind.
Now, South Korea is one of the most vibrant democracies in Asia which places human rights above all else, while Japan has been under a one-party rule for nearly seven decades. The Supreme Court's decision is more about humanism than nationalism. Abe took issue with Seoul breaking international promises, but I have never heard the Japanese leader level that accusation at the Donald Trump administration, which withdrew from many international treaties, whether they were about climate change or global trade.
Faced with the third Japanese invasion, this country's political leaders are split ― as they were more than a century ago. The conservative opponents of the liberal Moon Jae-in administration accuse their President more than they censure his Japanese counterpart.
First, they criticize Moon for doing nothing to prepare for looming economic retaliation by Japan. The conservatives quote the Japanese government officials who said they have 1,000 items on their retaliatory list. If Seoul had taken some moves, Tokyo could have attacked elsewhere.
Second, the conservative politicians and media say Seoul is too unprepared to push back. Some conservatives say reason should come before emotion, and Korea should strengthen national power first. The pro-Japanese traitors did precisely the same thing 100 years ago, saying Joseon was not prepared enough to hit back Japan's moves to annex it.
After the forced occupation, these collaborators never tried to build Joseon's strength but remained complacent with the power and wealth Japan gave to them in exchange for their loyalty to the colonialists.
Third, the defeatists say Korea is still no match for Japan, whose economic and military powers are at least three times larger than Korea's. That may be true. Again, the situation was far worse a century ago, but had one-third of Koreans fought back against Japan's attempts, the island country could not have swallowed this peninsula. Afghanistan, Chechnya and Vietnam fought and are still struggling with invaders 100 times more powerful than them.
What stopped Koreans from doing so was the ruling class at the time ― the king who thought the country was his private property and aristocrats bent on squeezing out their people while fighting against each other and resorting to external power to maintain their influence and wealth. Can one find any differences, with South Korean political leaders, especially conservative ones, today?
Some describe the current situation as a mixed blessing that can reduce, if not remove, economic reliance on Japan. All these diagnoses are right and desirable, but only if the nation, especially its leaders, can unite as one and pull their wisdom together to shape a century-long strategy and work out phased diplomatic and economic action plans.
Conservative oppositionists in particular should wake up and put their nation ahead of themselves just even for once. Otherwise, Admiral Yi will be turning in his grave.
Choi Sung-jin is a Korea Times columnist. Contact him at choisj1955@naver.com.
