Lee Jae-myung's Anti-Japan Stance a Setback for South Korea
Lee Jae-myung is the former leader of the North Korea-friendly, anti-Japan, left-wing Democratic Party of Korea. Inaugurated on June 4, now Lee is the new president of the Republic of Korea.
In his inaugural address, Lee declared, "We will strengthen the ROK-US alliance as the bedrock and solidify trilateral cooperation with Japan." Yet, we cannot help but have concerns as to whether he will actually implement policies in line with this vow.
After all, in his campaign platform, Lee pledged to try to have materials on former comfort women entered into UNESCO's "Memory of the World" registry. He also announced his intention to set up a new foundation to address the issue. Then he raised it again, pledging to work towards international solidarity regarding the human rights of women during wartime.
Furthermore, at a debate on the comfort women issue during the election campaign, he made the following pronouncement: "I will restore the honor [of the former comfort women] and obtain maximum compensation. I will correct the historical legacy and be a responsible presidential candidate."
Lee thereby revealed his intent to rehash the issue.
Fond of anti-Japan rhetoric, opposition leader Lee Jae-myung addresses his supporters in his campaign on March 19, 2024. (©Lee Jae-myung Facebook)
'Final and Irreversible Resolution' in 2015
The governments of Japan and South Korea have confirmed that their 2015 agreement concerning the comfort women issue constituted "final and irreversible resolution." Seeking UNESCO registry or similar acts would run counter to the agreement.
There is even a possibility that Japan-South Korea relations will return to the level they were at during the Moon Jae In administration. At that time, many observers said they were at their worst in the postwar era. Should that occur, the foundation of political and economic relations between Japan and South Korea will again collapse.
In the past, Lee had labeled Japan as an "enemy state." However, during his campaign for the presidency, he changed his tune and referred to Japan as "an important partner." But a nation that does not abide by bilateral agreements cannot be considered a partner.
Moreover, scrapping the decision agreed to by South Korea and Japan would damage South Korea's own credibility and national interests.
North Korea tested a 240mm caliber multiple rocket launcher with improved guidance technology on August 27, 2024. (©KCNA via Korean News Agency)
National Security Intertwined with the Region
There are also concerns about Lee's perception of security issues. North Korea has clearly identified South Korea as an enemy state. Meanwhile, in his inaugural address, Lee signaled a shift away from the realistic approach adopted by the preceding Yoon Suk-yeol administration. According to Lee, "[South Korea] will keep channels of communication with North Korea open and pursue peace on the Korean Peninsula through dialogue and cooperation."
North Korea is receiving military technology from Russia in exchange for aiding it in its invasion of Ukraine. China, which aims to annex Taiwan, has also been stepping up its military coercion.
In the past, Lee made the following provocative statement: "The United States military should withdraw from the Korean Peninsula." He added, "Whatever happens in the Taiwan Strait is of no concern to us."
If South Korea tries to remain uninvolved in a Taiwan crisis, the US-South Korea alliance will surely collapse. South Korea should also participate in efforts to deter China.
Lee should never forget that South Korea's own security, including in the event of an emergency on the Korean Peninsula, cannot be achieved without the US military presence in South Korea and Japan, as well as Japan's security cooperation.
Advertisement
RELATED:
Author: Editorial Board, The Sankei Shimbun
このページを 日本語 で読む
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
5 hours ago
- CTV News
U.S. House panel to make Epstein files public after redactions to protect victim identities
This undated trial evidence image obtained December 8, 2021, from the US District Court for the Southern District of New York shows British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell and US financier Jeffrey Epstein. (US District Court for the Southern District of New York via CNN Newsource) The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform intends to make public some files it subpoenaed related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, though it will first redact them to shield victims' IDs and other sensitive matters, a committee spokesperson said Tuesday. The panel is expected to start receiving materials from the Justice Department on Friday, though it appears the public release will come some time after that. The spokesperson said the committee would work with the Justice Department on the process. 'The Committee intends to make the records public after thorough review to ensure all victims' identification and child sexual abuse material are redacted. The Committee will also consult with the DOJ to ensure any documents released do not negatively impact ongoing criminal cases and investigations,' the spokesperson said. Democrats on the committee complained that Comer was slow walking the release of the material by allowing the Justice Department to miss the Tuesday deadline that had been set by the panel and instead turn over the materials to the committee gradually over time starting Friday. They said DOJ had already been directed by the House subpoena to redact material related to victims' identities and child sexual abuse – questioning the need for further delay to do so. 'Releasing the Epstein files in batches just continues this White House cover-up. The American people will not accept anything short of the full, unredacted Epstein files,' said Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the panel. 'In a bipartisan vote, the Committee demanded complete compliance with our subpoena. Handpicked, partial productions are wholly insufficient and potentially misleading, especially after Attorney General Bondi bragged about having the entirety of the Epstein files on her desk mere months ago.' Many Republicans have called for more transparency surrounding the case and the release of records related to the matter – and the issue has roiled the House. Speaker Mike Johnson took steps to delay until September a vote of the full House to publicly release the DOJ's Epstein files. The Louisiana Republican has said he supports transparency in the case but wants to give the administration room to handle the matter. House Republicans are on track to be forced to take a major vote over the release of information related to Epstein when they return to DC next month. Earlier on Tuesday, the chair of the powerful House Rules Committee — whose panel has run into drama over Epstein — was staying mum on whether GOP leadership will try to kill that vote altogether. Rules Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx told reporters Tuesday that she believes the Epstein issue might be 'resolved' before the House is forced to take that vote, pointing to the ongoing investigation by the Oversight Committee. 'Chairman Comer has mentioned that he's getting the material that he's asked for from the Department of Justice. I'd really like to see this resolved, if possible, before we get back, as much information as possible to come out,' Foxx said.
Globe and Mail
6 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
What's next for the Ukraine peace talks?
For all the extraordinary spectacle involved in U.S. President Donald Trump's talks with Russia's President last week and with Ukraine's President, accompanied by European leaders, on Monday, the most likely outcome so far is more meetings. Trump stressed that his first priority would be to help organize direct talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to bring the war in Ukraine to a close. The U.S. President said that he could then join them for subsequent rounds to help iron out remaining differences. After emerging from the Oval Office, Zelensky summed up the discussion about a key issue, security guarantees, in a way that could apply to the entire process: 'There is still a lot of work to be done.' Putin has agreed to meet with Zelensky in the coming weeks as the next phase of the peace process, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday. The U.S. National Security Council is working on a framework, she added. But Putin had previously stated that he would hold such a meeting only after all the details of a peace treaty were hammered out, and there is no indication that has changed. State news media in Russia on Tuesday played down any potential meeting, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggesting that it would require intense preparation. A foreign policy aide to Putin said that the Russian leader had agreed with Trump only that the level of representation at any talks should be higher than in previous rounds. Zelensky has said that he is ready for talks in any format, and suggested at a news conference in Washington on Monday that it might require pressure from the United States to get Putin to attend. Trump rules out sending troops to Ukraine as part of security guarantees Putin has made it clear that he does not consider Ukraine a viable state, and therefore does not view Zelensky as a worthy interlocutor. On Tuesday, Lavrov dismissively referred to the Ukrainian leader, who first became famous in Russia as a television comedian, as 'this character' and 'this man.' During three earlier rounds of talks, Russia sent Vladimir Medinsky, a former culture minister and a Kremlin adviser in anti-Ukraine propaganda efforts, as its lead negotiator – a move that was interpreted as a stick in the eye to Ukraine. Putin has a reputation for slow-walking any crisis, hoping that circumstances will turn more favourable to him. There is a consensus among war analysts that Putin favours continuing the fighting because he feels that he is winning on the battlefield, and that would give him leverage in future talks, even if the gains are negligible and come with massive loss of life. Even some Russian analysts expect the Kremlin to suggest at least one more round of negotiations in Istanbul to work on a possible format for a Putin-Zelenskyy meeting. 'Each of these stages can be dragged out endlessly by diplomatic and bureaucratic negotiations, even under American pressure,' Andrei Nikulin, a Russian political commentator, wrote on the Telegram social media app. Trump has said the United States would support security guarantees provided by Europe, and that became the focus of the White House talks Monday. (While Ukraine and its European allies wanted the first step in any peace process to be a ceasefire, Trump has stressed that an overarching peace plan can be negotiated without a ceasefire.) The basic idea of the security guarantees, first broached by Britain and France last February, is that some nations, likely but not necessarily European, would provide soldiers to Ukraine to bolster its forces and create a kind of tripwire that would make Russia hesitate to invade again. Russia said Monday that it would refuse any such force from NATO countries. Analysis: Truth will likely be the last casualty of war in Ukraine Ideally, Ukraine wants weapons, foreign troops and an ironclad plan of how another invasion would be parried. No American soldiers will be deployed to Ukraine, Trump said Tuesday on Fox News, but he did not clarify what exactly he would do to support the security guarantees. 'We can certainly help in the co-ordination and perhaps provide other means of security guarantees to our European allies,' Leavitt told reporters Tuesday. 'The president understands security guarantees are crucially important to ensure a lasting peace, and he has directed his national security team to co-ordinate with our friends in Europe and also to continue to co-operate and discuss these matters with Ukraine and Russia as well.' From the outset, Putin has tried to justify invading Ukraine by accusing the West of using the country, once a pillar of the Soviet Union, as a stalking horse to undermine Russia. Putin has repeatedly referred to eradicating what he calls the 'root causes' of the war in Ukraine – his shorthand for achieving his geopolitical goals – as his red line for ending it. Those goals include keeping Ukraine out of NATO and preventing the alliance from expanding farther into former Soviet states. Among his other conditions for ending the war are annexing territory in eastern Ukraine populated mostly by ethnic Russians and ensuring that the Ukrainian military cannot threaten Russia and that the government in Kyiv is not hostile toward Moscow. The Russian military largely failed to achieve those outcomes on the battlefield, so Putin is trying to obtain them through negotiations, by leveraging the fact that Russia controls about 20% of Ukrainian territory. Having made a campaign promise that he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours, Trump has acknowledged in recent days that it was a lot harder than he had expected. Some analysts have suggested that he might just walk away, although the quest for a Nobel Peace Prize is also seen as a factor that keeps him engaged. French President Emmanuel Macron said after the talks Monday that new sanctions on Russia and on countries that trade with Russia, as well as new tariffs on Russia or its trading partners, were still possible. Putin, he noted, has continued to bomb Ukraine even after talking to Trump about peace. While threatening punishing tariffs against Russia's trading partners earlier this summer, Trump rowed back the threat after meeting with Putin in Alaska on Friday.
Toronto Star
7 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Immigrants seeking lawful work and citizenship are now subject to ‘anti-Americanism' screening
Immigrants seeking a legal pathway to live and work in the United States will now be subject to screening for 'anti-Americanism',' authorities said Tuesday, raising concerns among critics that it gives officers too much leeway in rejecting foreigners based on a subjective judgment. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said officers will now consider whether an applicant for benefits, such as a green card, 'endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused' anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views.
