On June 9, Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru had his first official conversation with newly elected South Korean President Lee Jae-myung. In a statement, the Japanese government noted that Ishiba congratulated Lee on his victory and expressed his intention to “move the Japan-ROK relations forward” (ROK is an acronym for South Korea’s official name, the Republic of Korea). Furthermore, both leaders agreed to meet in person at the earliest possible date to strengthen their personal ties.
However, regardless of Japan’s desire to move “forward,” it should begin by acknowledging that the past three years have been a unique period in the relationship between the two nations.
Lee’s predecessor, Yoon Suk-yeol, who was ousted from office for his culpability in unlawfully declaring martial law, had largely set aside historical issues. Tensions over history have become a thorny point worsening bilateral relations – especially after South Korea’s democratization, when critical voices toward Japan, previously suppressed during military rule, came to light.
In their editorials on Lee Jae-myung’s electoral victory, major Japanese newspapers briefly touched upon Yoon’s pragmatism in dealing with such issues. Yomiuri Shimbun wrote that Yoon’s effort to settle the forced labor issue dramatically improved” the bilateral relationship. In the case of Sankei Shimbun – which is the considered to be one of the most conservative mass publications in Japan – although they did not mention Yoon’s role in cooling tensions that surrounded the past, the title of their editorial implied that they were more than satisfied with his approach. “New South Korean President: Don’t Rehash the Comfort Women Issue,” Sankei’s editorial urged.
However, although some Japanese may feel that the colonization of the Korean Peninsula, and the brutal aspects of that period, are deep in the past, the issue remains relevant for many Koreans today.
During the presidential campaign, although there were signs that Lee had toned down his “anti-Japanese” rhetoric – a shift that was noted by the Japanese media – he made a pledge on Facebook that he would take a principled stance on both historical and territorial issues. That may be interpreted as an sign that Lee would not hesitate to bring up the past when it appears to be necessary. Even among Korean conservatives, who are traditionally more friendly toward Japan, there seems to be an understanding that ignoring history altogether is not feasible. One of the advisers of Kim Moon-soo, who was the presidential candidate for Yoon’s formally affiliated party, stated that Japan should continue its part of the effort to find some truce in the historical controversies.
Despite all of the concerns and speculations that Lee will reverse his stance on Japan and return to his Japan-bashing mode, the pragmatic nature of his politics and his party’s huge majority in parliament may enable him to go “against type.” Lee has a strong enough political mandate to continue Yoon’s approach to Japan by prioritizing security cooperation while deprioritizing contested issues – such as colonial legacy and territorial disputes.
On the other hand, even if Lee is able to take the moral high ground and focus on rapprochement with Japan, developments in Japanese domestic politics may force him to call out Japan. Although Ishiba recently saw a “bump” in his latest approval rating thanks to Agriculture Minister Koizumi Shinjiro’s efforts in facilitating the distribution of cheap rice, which is in short supply, his Liberal Democratic Party is facing serious doubts about whether they can maintain their majority in the upper house following the election in July. If the LDP loses and Ishiba resigns, some polls suggest that his likely successor is Takaichi Sanae, a conservative favorite and the runner-up in the party presidential election that installed Ishiba as prime minister.
Takaichi has previously pledged to visit the Yasukuni Shrine, which commemorates executed wartime leaders as “martyrs,” and has been pressuring the government to stop issuing statements acknowledging past guilt. If Takaichi or another conservative leader takes such actions, Lee would have no choice but to respond strongly. That would bring historical issues to the forefront of the bilateral relationship, potentially reigniting past tensions.
There is reason to believe that this year will inadvertently highlight the issue of historical memory, given it marks the 60th anniversary of Japan-South Korea diplomatic relations. Reaching an irreversible conclusion on these issues by the anniversary – or soon after – will be a delicate challenge. While South Koreans seek an acknowledgment from Japan regarding its illegal colonization of their country, it is unlikely that Japan would go that far. The official stance of Japan is that the colonization treaty is “null and void,” yet it does not contest the issue of its legality. Conversely, Japanese conservatives have made it their mission to suppress any attempts to reverse the so-called “Abe Statement,” which they regard as a measure that ended repeated apologies for Japan’s wartime aggression, replacing them with a forward-looking vision.
There are still numerous unresolved issues shaping Japan-South Korea relations. However, if Lee’s pragmatic approach prevails, and Ishiba, a moderate on historical memory, successfully defends his upper house majority in July, there may be a window of opportunity for a reasonable and lasting settlement that could satisfy both sides.