|
The Truth Behind Japan-Korea History Issue 3-1
OTAKA: Now we have today's guest, a professor at Tokyo Christian Institute and a permanent vice chairman of the abduction victims support group, Mr. Tsutomu Nishioka.
IJIRI: Good evening.
NISHIOKA: Good evening. Thank you for inviting me today.
OTAKA: Mr. Nshioka, you wrote a book recently.
NISHIOKA: It's embarrassing.
OTAKA: It's here, "Truth of Japan-Korea history issue - All began from lies -" released by PHP. Anyway Japan-Korea history issue has really been made complicated.
MAEDA: Yeah.
OTAKA: I'd like to ask you what has made it so complicated.
NISHIOKA: OK.
OTAKA: First of all, Japan paid $500 million of compensation in 1965 for issues between nations and the compensation's been done then, hasn't it ?
NISHIOKA: Well, we don't have to compensate anymore.
NISHIOKA: Japan provided the economic assistance as I wrote in this book.
NISHIOKA: There are words like REMEDY and COMPENSATION but usually a victory nation takes them from a defeated nation, right ?
NISHIOKA: However, Japan has never fought against Korea.
IJIRI: That's right.
OTAKA: They fought with Japan against enemies.
NISHIOKA: Right, because they sided with Japan.
IJIRI: Um, um, that's right.
NISHIOKA: However, Rhee Syng-man cabinet wanted to get a compensation from Japan.
OTAKA: Yes.
NISHIOKA: So "they asked to treat themselves as one of the victory nations in the San Francisco Peace Treaty".
IJIRI: Uh Yes.
NISHIOKA: They insisted that "they had the refugee government" for the reason, but weren't accepted internationally. It means Korea didn't have the right to claim compensation. Japan didn't build the framework but the victory nations did. However, Korea became independent without any treaty or agreement and had assets Japanese left in Korea.
IJIRI: That's right.
NISHIOKA: Koreans' assets in Japan, unpaid wages, compensation for injured people etc. remained untouched in both nations. So to speak, it's like "a couple who beganseparate lives without a consent leaving one's assets in the other's house and how one should claim his or her own assets". It's so called a claim right.
MAEDA: It's very easy to understand.
NISHIOKA: As for the claim right, it's written in the San Francisco Peace Treaty as "Both nations should talk about it".
NISHIOKA: Therefore, they were done with the compensation for the past and the claims, and they achieved 1965 normalization of diplomatic relations between nations.
Everything was over.
OTAKA: Right. The claims and the economic assistance.
NISHIOKA: Speaking of the claim right a bit more, Japan MOFA made Japan's sovereignty and national interest top priority, though they were totally defferent from MOFA today, at the time th`ey claimed "Japan was able to get more than Korea".
IJIRI: Uh huh.
NISHIOKA: In fact Japan had more assets in Korea than Korea had in Japan.
IJIRI: Yeah, they overwhelmingly did.
NISHIOKA: Not wanting to accept Japan's claims, Korea lobbied at the San Francisco Peace Treaty so the US would be able to confiscate Japan's assets. After three years of US military administration, Republic of Korea was established and then the US Military gave the assets to Korea. Korea successfully made a sentence "Japan agrees with the US's process on Japan's assets." written in the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
MAEDA: Ahhh.
NISHIOKA: Therefore Japan agreed with what the US did but not Korea did. Here arises the controversy as to whether Japan lost the claim right or not. But according to the Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, one of the international laws regarding a war, an enactment of a constitution at a conquest like the Constitution of Japan was prohibited. Even a victory nation wasn't able to confiscate a civilian's assets according to the convention.
MAEDA: Uh huh.
NISHIOKA: Having signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan had to give up public assets such as the assets of Governor-General of Korea and of Chosun army.
IJIRI: I'd think so.
NISHIOKA: Japan signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty as the defeated nation. However as for assets Japanese civilians left in Korea, though the US gave them to Korea, Japan had the claim right for them. "Japan wanted them back in cash." Meanwhile Korea had the claim right for unpaid wages and assets in Japan and said, "Let's negotiate them.", then Japan said, "Japan's claim is more than yours by our estimation.".
MAEDA: And what happened ?
NISHIOKA: I want to tell you one thing before I tell you what happened.
MAEDA: Uh huh.
NISHIOKA: Japan still hasn't compensate North Korea for the past, right ?
IJIRI: Ummm.
OTAKA: That's right.
NISHIOKA: It's because North Korea didn't join the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Soviet as well.
IJIRI: No, Ex-communist countries didn't.
NISHIOKA: Ex-communist countries didn't join the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Soviet occupied North Korea. As ex-communist countries didn't join the treaty, Japan has never agreed with the process of Soviet military confiscating Japan's assets and giving them to North Korea.
MAEDA: Ummm.
NISHIOKA: Therefore Japan still has the claim right for public and private assets left in North Korea.
MAEDA: Does Japan still have the right ?
NISHIOKA: Yes it does.
IJIRI: It hasn't been settled.
NISHIOKA: Japan gave up pulic assets in Korea by the San Francisco Peace Treaty but private assets still remain unsettled. "Japan's claim is more than Korea's only for private assets.", Japan said. Then they had trouble with each other. Korea said, "What are you talking about ? No matter what you say, the "Cairo Declaration" says, "Japan's colony is in a state of enslavement.". Note: The Cairo Declaration has been unratified. They said, "It's not fair Japan gets more than we do as they have committed vicious war crimes.". Then Japanese representative Mr. Kubota said, "No matter what story you fake, we planted trees and built schools for your nation during annexation.".
IJIRI: That's right.
OTAKA: "Japan built railroads too."
NISHIOKA: "I will have no choice but to say all of those good things.", he said.
Then Korean representative thumped the desk in anger and said, "Then we can't
negotiate anymore.". Note: They haven't changed at all since then. It's known well as Kubota remark. Having looked into the news papers at the time, I found a sentence "How true, Mr.Kubota." even in Asahi news paper, the other papers as well.
MAEDA: Ohhh, even Asahi news wrote like that ?
NISHIOKA: Many people knew the facts in those days. A diplomatic negotiation usually
ends up being compromised at the center of both claims. Thus a tough claim should
be submitted first and it's changed easier gradually. Looking back to the world situation in those days, the Japan-US-Korea triangle alliance confronted the Soviet-China-North Korea triangle alliance. The West confronted the East. It would be bad for Japan's national interest to see the red flag being placed in Busan. Japan had to resolve the conflict with Korea under such circumstance. The US intermediated to settle the dispute over "Japan's claim larger than Korea's". US Department of State submitted the document the "America's understanding of the San Francisco Peace Treaty" and said, "Japan shouldn't insist on more claims than Korea's. Instead as Japan left the huge amount of assets in Korea, Korea's claim should include those assets. Consider this when both countries discuss the claims.". It was an intermediate compromise proposal and Japan accepted it.
NISHIOKA: Japan asked Korea to show the concrete number of conscripted workers and soldiers, dead and injured and how much unpaid wages were. They asked to "show the evidences and they would pay". "Korea agreed" and investigated them. What I want to clarify here is that Korea didn't claim the compensation for the war time prostitutes.
MAEDA: Didn't they ?
IJIRI: It's because there was no abducted prostitute.
NISHIOKA: You are right. And we know Rhee Syng-man was an anti Japan chief of Korea.
IJIRI: He knew the fact about it.
NISHIOKA: Nobody said at the time in Korea, those prostitutes were abducted. Everyone knew there were many women who were so poor that they sold themselves to live and the Japan army didn't have to abduct Chosun women. There were many Chosun volunteers for Japan army at the time.
IJIRI: Yeah, I know.
MAEDA: Uh huh.
NISHIOKA: Knowing their sisters and mothers had forcibly been taken to the brothels and raped, they wanted to join Japan army ?
MAEDA: No they couldn't.
NISHIOKA: They couldn't, could they ? They would have shot Japanese soldiers.
OTAKA: Uh huh.
MAEDA: Definitely they would.
NISHIOKA: Everyone knew everything at the time.
IJIRI: What you told is the fact.
NISHIOKA: Therefore they didn't claim it, but there were conscripted soldiers and workers. Japan "agreed to pay for them", but amount of money for claims wasn't more than only $100 million.
MAEDA: Was it that small ?
IJIRI: Unpaid wage was a rare case.
MAEDA: But Japan paid $500 million.
NISHIOKA: There is one more thing people misunderstood. They always compare Japan with Germany and insist "Germany compensated individuals".
MAEDA: I hear that so often.
NISHIOKA: However Korean regimes including Rhee Syng-man and Park Chung-hee also, refused Japan's pensions for conscripted soldiers who had had tough lives in Japan army and injured conscripted workers.
MAEDA: Ohhhhh.
NISHIOKA: Korea said "Don't do it." and "Korean government will get all of them". Korean government will get the compensations for all claims including those for Korean civilians' assets."
MAEDA: Well done.
NISHIOKA: I think it's natural as a dependent state.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Truth Behind Japan-Korea History Issue 3-2
IJIRI: They enjoyed the given independence.
NISHIOKA: You are right.
OTAKA: It's the issue between individuals and the Korean gov't.
NISHIOKA: You are right. Some people carried on the independence campaign. Some people died as Korean army soldiers in the Korean War. Due to the difference of the price levels, personal pensions from the Korean gov't for those people could have been less than pensions in yen from Japan for people who had served in the Japanese army.
IJIRI: Ummm.
NISHIOKA: People who had fought for Japan could have gotten more than who had fought for Korea. A Japanese liaison office was in Seoul. If it had called people who had served in the Japanese army to come and had passed out the pension books to them, Korea wouldn't be independent anymore.
OTAKA: That could have insulted Korea.
MAEDA: The Korean gov't would have been embarrassed about that.
NISHIOKA: Yeah, then they refused the individual compensation. I wrote about it in this book. However, Japan built the system in 2000 to provide ex-conscripts and ex-drafted workers with the compensations.
OTAKA: It was that Mr. Nonaka who......
NISHIOKA: Yes, he did it. And the system insulted Korea. Though amount wasn't more than $100 million, the Korean gov't received all the compensations for people who had belonged to the Japanese army. Japan also paid $500 million of the economic assistance. Why Japan decided to pay that $500 million as the economic assistance is because Korea was an anticommunistic free nation as Japan was at the time.
IJIRI: That's how it was.
OTAKA: $500 million in all ?
NISHIOKA: Uh huh. Japan decided to pay $500 million and the talks with the Korean gov't were over.
MAEDA: Was that amount, $500 million at the time, large or small ?
OTAKA: It was amazingly large because.....
NISHIOKA: Well, Japanese foreign reserves were $1.8 billion then.
MAEDA: Japanese foreign reserves ?
NISHIOKA: It was the amount only in hand.
MAEDA: They got nearly one third of Japanese foreign reserves.
NISHIOKA: Korea's foreign reserves were only $130 million in all then.
MAEDA: Didn't they have more than only $130 million in all ? Did Japan pay them $500 million ?
NISHIOKA: It wasn't so easy for Japan. They weren't able to pay in a lump sum and paid in ten year installments. They gave $300 million out of $500 million really for free and loaned rest $200 million at low interest. Comparing with Korea's $130 million, $300 million is over twice and $500 million is about four times.
OTAKA: No wonder they had remarkable economic growth as the "Miracle of Hangan".
NISHIOKA: The Korean gov't released the "white book on claim right" after Japan had completed ten year installments, in which they investigated and calculated the use of $500 million of the claim compensation. They spent 20% of $500 million from 1965 to 1975 for the economic growth. 20% of $500 million of the "Miracle of Hangan" contributed to the Korean economy. It was good for each other, wasn't it ?
IJIRI: Sure it was.
NISHIOKA: There are many countries getting large amount of economic assistances, aren't they ? A certain first lady collected a lot of shoes.
IJIRI: Bwhahaha.
NISHIOKA: It's useless no matter how much money we give corrupt countries.
MAEDA: I agree with you.
NISHIOKA: What the chief Park did good was the gov't received all individuals should have gotten. There were Koreans who had been wartime prostitutes, drafted workers and migrating workers dead in coal mines. However if they received the money, they would only spend it without leaving anything. The chief Park decided to buy only production materials and not to buy consumer products.
MAEDA: Ummm.
NISHIOKA: He also decided not to buy domestic production materials. He spent some out of $500 million for only imported materials they weren't able to produce domestically. The chief himself signed even for cement imports for the highway constructions. Otherwise the money should have disappeared as bribes. He said "he wouldn't spend the money for nothing as it had been paid to compensate for the annexation".
MAEDA: What a good chief !
NISHIOKA: They built the Pohang ironworks reflecting Nippon Steel Corporation's highest iron-making technology. It's Nippon Steel Corporation's competitor now.
IJIRI: Yes it is.
NISHIOKA: They also built the highways and the dams. These days, some kind of mid age and older women visit Chuncheon for sightseeing, where has been popular since Winter Sonata boom. The dam creating that lake was constructed with the Japanese economic assistance, which has prevented the flood damage.
MAEDA: Really.
OTAKA: Japan had a deficit due to the economic assistance.
NISHIOKA: Korean economic growth has helped Japanese exports to them drastically increase. When I looked into the amounts of trades, Japan had a surplus but Korea had a deficit.
OTAKA: It's good for each other.
NISHIOKA: It's good for each other. It's not a zero-sum game but a coexistence.
MAEDA: It's really good, isn't it ?
OTAKA: I'd like to clear up the point. Though this issue has been totally solved, recently on Mar. 1st 2005, Korean chief Roh Moo-Hyun made a speech like this. Let's see what it was like.
MAEDA: I'm going to read it. "Mar. 1st 2005. I understand the Japanese anger against the abduction issue well. Japan should try to think about the issue also from the other side. Regarding 36 years of annexation, the compulsory recruitment and the comfort women, Japan should understand our anger caused by the pains that were tens of times or tens of thousands of times stronger than theirs."
OTAKA: What's this all about ? He still claims something crazy into the solved issue. He still says the terms like compulsory recruitment and comfort women.
MAEDA: Doesn't he know the history ?
NISHIOKA: I listened to the speech while I was writing this book and added sentences as I thought it was a "big problem". He is trying to barter the abduction issue for the wartime prostitutes. The chief Roh Moo-Hyun insists on the same view of the wartime prostitues as North Korea's.
MAEDA: Yes, he does.
NISHIOKA: The abduction issue is still ongoing. The annexation was over. It has been legally solved. And the wartime prostitutes weren't any problem, were they ?
OTAKA: No, they weren't.
NISHIOKA: Therefore comparing ongoing abduction issue with nothing that happened and claiming the damage twice or three times bigger are crazy.
IJIRI: You are right.
NISHIOKA: "I thought I shouldn't be quiet." "Everything was over." I wrote the story of how Japan-Korea diplomatic normalization happened. The document of the diplomatic normalization also says "everything is done completely". The transcript of the talks also says "All Korean claims for conscripts and drafted workers are done". Despite this, they still claim such an obsession like this, which doesn't seem to be a modern state's diplomacy.
MAEDA: Mr. Nishioka, before this chief claims like that, does he know the historical background but have an evil political intention or doesn't he know the history at all ?
NISHIOKA: He said like this after the speech, "Japan should ascertain the facts of the past and sincerely apologize, then compensate if necessary before it comes to terms with Korea".
MAEDA: It's totally different from what Mr. Nisioka said a little while ago.
NISHIOKA: I heard there hadn't been a word of compensation in the first sentence and the chief himself had added it. The San Francisco Peace Treaty and whatever were done are meaningless.
OTAKA: We can call it an extortion or a racketeering, can't we ?
NISHIOKA: Some Japanese have helped them extort and racketeer, from Japan.
OTAKA: Who are they ?
MAEDA: It's a terrible story.
NISHIOKA: Asahi news and NHK have disputed lately. I think Asahi is guilty. It's easy to understand when we think about the comfort women issue. First of all, the comfort women issue is Asahi's makeup. A misinformation is made without reporter's evil conscience but a makeup is made with an evil conscience in the first place. Ms. Kim Hak-soon is the first ex-wartime prostitute who went to court and it wasn't a Korean paper that reported this lawsuit first but Asahi news did. It was Aug. 1991. However reading the bill to sue Japan, everyone can find the description as "I was sold as a gisaeng in 40 yen. A person who bought me trained me as a gisaeng and I went to the place near the Japanese army base with that person.".
IJIRI: Ummm.
NISHIOKA: She was a victim of the human traffic, wasn't she, as she was sold in 40 yen ? But Asahi news wrote on the paper as "an abuducted member of the girls volunteer corps comes forward". Note: workers in a factory such as an airplane plant
MAEDA: It's totally wrong.
OTAKA: The girls volunteer corps and the wartime prostitutes were regarded as identical though they were different.
NISHIOKA: Uh huh. Then the abduction is the next. A human traffic victim was introduced as an abduction victim. This article was written by a reporter Uemura and he is still an active Asahi news reproter.
MAEDA: Is he still active ?
NISHIOKA: He is in Beijing now as a Beijing correspondent. Being proficient in Korean language, he writes articles about North Korean problems and Japan-North Korea issues. Before he went to Beijing, he had been a Seoul correspondent. His wife is a Korean. It doesn't matter if she is a Korean but telling what she is like, her mother is one of the top leaders of the association for war-bereaved families that sued Japan.
IJIRI: Well, well.
OTAKA: They are obviously well connected.
NISHIOKA: His mother in law, top leader of the association for war-bereaved families, introduced an old ex-wartime prostitute to him so he would be able to write that global scoop.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Truth Behind Japan-Korea History Issue 3-3
NISIOKA: However in the scoop, he wrote as if a human traffic victim had been abducted so his mother in law might get an advantage in the trial.
MAEDA: Oh no.
OTAKA: Uh huh.
NISHIOKA: He hasn't corrected it until now.
MAEDA: That's insane.
OTAKA: Why doesn't Asahi fire such reporter who hasn't corrected the made up story ?
MAEDA: And he gets some hundred thousand dollars of annual income.
NISHIOKA: I pointed out his makeup many times and wrote an article in the monthly Bungei Shunju in 1992 to reveal how "Mr. Uemura was disgraceful".
NISHIOKA: Then Asahi transferred him not to Seoul but to Teheran despite his Korean proficiency. As I thought "he was demoted actually and transferred to Teheran where he couldn't deal with Korean issues", I showed samurai's mercy to him. And I didn't say his name in public for five years.
MAEDA: Mr. Nishioka is too kind.
OTAKA: But he was transferred from Teheran...
NISHIOKA: He was transferred to Seoul.
OTAKA: How could they do that ?
NISHIOKA: Five years later, the comfort women appeared in Japanese history textbooks. Then I began to criticize him again and wrote about him in this book. However, we writers don't want to write what we wrote before, do we ?
IJIRI: No, we don't.
NISHIOKA: However, finding rampant lies, I couldn't help telling the facts. Then I investigated everything in a bit more detail to write this book. And another thing I want to say is, the report about the comfort women by Asahi got Koreans mad. In response, Japanese government investigated the issue. I visited Northeast Asia Division to ask "why Japan had apologized easily and whether they had believed the abduction". They said "they would just start the investigation". Before then, the prime minister Miyazawa had apologized eight times in Seoul.
OTAKA: Uh huh.
NISHIOKA: This is the result.
OTAKA: Uh huh.
NISHIOKA: They announced the Kono statement. As for whether it admitted the abduction by the public authority or not...
OTAKA: The problem is here.
NISHIOKA: Yeah.
NISHIOKA: It says "the Japanese army mostly left private brothel managers to recruit the wartime prostitutes but in many cases they were recruited against their will through coaxing and coercion". The phrase, "against their will", means coercion, right ?
MAEDA: Yes, it does.
NISHIOKA: And "Furthermore the public authority was directly involved in some cases." This means the authority was involved in something against those women's will. The authority means the government power, right ?
MAEDA: That's right.
NISHIOKA: It's the army or the police, right ?
OTAKA: Uh huh.
NISHIOKA: However there wasn't such a fact or an evidence at all.
MAEDA: What happened to the government ?
NISHIOKA: I also asked them about it and they said "it was based on the interviews with the ex-wartime prostitutes but they hadn't been able to find any documents to prove it". Looking into the interview records carefully, a Korean expert found their testimonies "claiming the abductions" quite fishy. The four women who sued the Japanese government remained reliable but two of them actually had been "sold as gisaengs".
OTAKA: Uh huh.
NISHIOKA: The rest two women testified they had been in brothels in Busan and Japan. The army didn't need to abduct prostitutes in places except war fronts.
OTAKA: Uh huh.
NISHIOKA: Because the human traffic was popular at the time. I wrote about this story like "And Then There Were None" in detail here. Asahi made up the story first, then Korean government got mad and Japan apologized based on lies, and which made people mistake Japan to admit the abduction. First Japan had given Korea the materials to bash Japan for the abduction and as Japan had apologized, the chief Roh Moo-Hyun made that speech. In the situation these days, the Korean chief argues against Japan over the North Korean abduction issue on which Japan should never compromise.
OTAKA: After I heard the whole story, Japanese seem to have made the Japan-Korea issues complicated.
NISHIOKA: That's how "all began from lies" Japanese communists gave Korea. I mean Asahi and so called liberal academians told lies.
OTAKA: Why did Mr. Yohei Kono do such a nonsense ? Was he asked that by Korea ?
NISHIOKA: Well, then Kim Yong-sam cabinet asked him to "admit only the coercion" behind closed doors and promised "they would never claim the compensation and close the issue if he did it".
MAEDA: Ahhhhhh.
NISHIOKA: He was so careless to trust them.
OTAKA: And again they blackmail for money.
NISHIOKA: Eventually, it's impossible to unify the historical perceptions between nations.
MAEDA: Uh huh.
NISHIOKA: We can compromise on a domestic issue. The way the LDP compromises is just as adding two numbers and dividing the result by two.
MAEDA: Um.
NISHIOKA: It's a cosmetic agreement though. However we should never do that against other nations. We should never apologize easily.
IJIRI: You are right.
NISHIOKA: The government shouldn't have apologized to last minute and clarified the fact first. When they were bashed for the abduction, they should have said, "We are going to investigate the issue. I should say it's the regrettable event if it was the fact. However we trust the Japanese authority and believe they didn't commit such a crime." or something, as they actually didn't do it.
OTAKA: Uh huh.
NISHIOKA: However, the way to settle an issue by saving other's face and getting an interest just as adding two numbers and dividing the result by two, is also used against China in these days.
IJIRI: That's right.
NISHIOKA: The government should stop doing that.
IJIRI: Yes, they should.
NISHIOKA: And "we should keep insisting on the truths". As "different races and nations have different historical perceptions", "we should agree our perceptions are different". We have no other way to settle the issue.
MAEDA: The term of comfort women sounds like they were forced to work without pay but how did they go with money ?
NISHIOKA: I wrote about it here.
OTAKA: It's amazing each of them could buy some houses.
NISHIOKA: An old woman went to court claiming "she had an old passbook and wanted her savings repaid". The large amount of money was found in her passbook.
MAEDA: Well, well. How much did she save ?
NISHIOKA: Well, it was $220. A person could afford to buy some houses with that much money at the time.
MAEDA: If she really had that much money as in her passbook...
NISHIOKA: She did.
MAEDA: The wartime prostitutes earned much money, didn't they ?
NISHIOKA: Yes, they did. The brothels were sanitary and the prostitutes got paid enough.
MAEDA: I think not a few women might want to be there.
NISHIOKA: This $220 was one of the private claims at the time. Japan paid $500 million in 1965 for this kind of unpaid wages. Therefore the Korean government should pay this $220. But this woman...
MAEDA: She claimed it against the Japanese government but she got the wrong sow by the ear.
NISHIOKA: Right after claiming "she had been abducted and had a tough time", the same person said "she wanted to get $220 back", that's insane.
MAEDA: Her logic is inconsistent.
NISHIOKA: It was Japanese fault eventually to allow her to do that.
OTAKA: Now I put it all together, eventually many politicians still try to solve issues around Japan-Korea and Japan-China based on the discourses by Mr. Murayama and Mr. Kono.
NISHIOKA: Um.
OTAKA: Do you have any idea to change their way ?
NISHIOKA: I want to say they should remember the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea concluded in 1965. A discourse is an evaluation that every politician can make but this treaty is the basis of the Japan-Korea relation. All issues have been closed in it.
OTAKA: Uh huh.
NISHIOKA: And afterward, I believe the Japan-Korea relation has been good for each other as the anti-North Korea allies. Japan gave them $500 million and more of the economic assistance and they spent it for dams and highways without any corruptions, which I believe made both nations friendly to each other. If "they evaluate this relation as bad", we should give up the Japan-Korea friendship at once. They should admit the modern Japan-Korea history has been good for each other. Unless they appreciate good things Japan has done for Korea after the 1965 treaty, Japan should refuse the friendship with Korea. They should know some Koreans also have contributed to establish the friendship.
IJIRI: I agree with you. And one thing I want to say is, Korea and China tend to revise histories whenever the government changes, don't they ?
NISHIOKA: Yes, they do.
IJIRI: That's why Korean foreign affairs retreat from what they used to be whenever the government changes. Therefore they may raise issues again as we talked, unless we raise the level of the common historical perception as soon as their government has changed.
NISHIOKA: Therefore no matter what makeups they insist, we shouldn't get upset and contradict them. And we should insist on need for a friendship even when we don't reach an agreement eventually. We need a friendship of which we don't ask an agreement which is a too easy way.
OTAKA: I really think so.
IJIRI: Mr. Nishioka's study of modern Japan-Korea history is very important and I hope he keeps up the good work.
MAEDA: Thank you for your time today.
OTAKA: Thank you and I hope for the progress in the North Korean abduction issue.
NISHIOKA: Please support our upcoming sit-in protest.
OTAKA: You are going to do it.
MAEDA: Good luck with you. It's about time to say goodbye but we presented a fruitful discussion today.
IJIRI: We talked about many important facts.
OTAKA: Uh huh.
MAEDA: I had fun today as Mr. Nishioka told us interesting facts.
OTAKA: I want teachers teaching children history to learn this true Japan-Korea history.
MAEDA: I hope they will read this book.
NISHIOKA: I really hope many of them will read it.
OTAKA: Otherwise, something disastrous can happen if children learn the comfort women issue as the fact.
MAEDA: Now we have to promote the book.
OTAKA: Uh huh. It's released by PHP Institute.
MAEDA: Please remember this "Truth of Japan-Korea history issue".
OTAKA: It's fairly easy to read.
MAEDA: Uh huh. It contains other subjects we didn't talk here such as "the illusion of Korean residents being descendants of abduction victims" with the concrete evidences and numbers.
MAEDA: It's an essential book for everyone to read at least once.
IJIRI: Now it's time.
OTAKA: Thank you for staying through the end.
ALL: Thank you.
MAEDA: Please stay tuned in to the Channel Sakura.
OTAKA: All right, good bye.
|