Korea erects "Comfort Woman" Statue in front of Japanese Embassy

[kps1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WrC0MyE0qkU#!

At least it was referred to as a "peace" statue. I'm not Korean or Japanese so I don't really have an opinion in the matter. But really...IN FRONT of the Japanese embassy.

[Spongeblob]

I like it. 
I'm also hoping to see a few more Christmas trees go up at the DMZ next year. 
China needs a little nudge too.  How about riot cannons that shoot yellow sand being placed on Korean Maritime Patrol Boats. 
Finally the balls have dropped. South Korea you the man!  Show them your ROKs!

[daveb]

Brilliant!

Why shouldn't they put it in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul? Some of the women protesting there were unfortunate victims of this horrific war crime. As with any national war crime, the perpetrators must be brought to justice or at the very least their government should be held accountable. Why is this war crime any different to the thousands of others and why shouldn't they put their peace statue in front of the Japanese Embassy? Look what's happening around the rest of the world - at least they aren't blowing it up.

[Davox]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WrC0MyE0qkU#!

At least it was referred to as a "peace" statue. I'm not Korean or Japanese so I don't really have an opinion in the matter. But really...IN FRONT of the Japanese embassy.

Can you think of a better place to put the statue?  I sure can't.

[flasyb]

As with any national war crime, the perpetrators must be brought to justice or at the very least their government should be held accountable.

^
Anyone up for building a statue of a screaming, bleeding Pashtun child lying under heavy rubble in front of the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan?

Justice has already been handed down over those incidents with the trial of the predator drone. http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/?task=viewvideo&video_id=60663

I wish I could understand the commentary in the video so I would know what the Japanese make of this.

It's a fitting reminder of what some of the little ajummas you see pottering around might have gone through.

[Fanwarrior]

Brilliant!

Why shouldn't they put it in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul? Some of the women protesting there were unfortunate victims of this horrific war crime. As with any national war crime, the perpetrators must be brought to justice or at the very least their government should be held accountable. Why is this war crime any different to the thousands of others and why shouldn't they put their peace statue in front of the Japanese Embassy? Look what's happening around the rest of the world - at least they aren't blowing it up.

Within a few years, any of the perpetrators who aren't already dead will be.

[cinamon]

You'd be pretty angry too if your little old grandmother was gang raped by a bunch of soldiers during WWII.

[Theodosian]

I can understand people being incensed about this but something needs to be brought up here: issues that allow or encourage international or ethnic divisiveness are harmful to the world and humanity as a whole. Yes, what happened was wrong however individuals in the Japanese government, individuals who I may add had nothing to do with the atrocities that occurred, have offered apologies and financial recompense which was refused as being not enough. There are definitely individual wounds that do not heal but using them as a tool by which to judge a culture is as dangerous and reprehensible as the initial atrocity. It is this bearing of generational resentment that leads to never ending conflict. This sort of thinking justifies an infinite loop of retaliations. The statue itself may now be a symbol of the pain these women suffered, but in what way does that lend itself to healing or making the situation stop having happened? This is a sado-masochistic emblem of pain, pain for a part of history the Japanese would likely like to be able to live down and pain for those individuals who suffered. When these women look at this, do they suddenly feel a wave of comfort from reminding the children and grandchildren of those who harmed them that these women will never forgive a culture for a crime now almost entirely dead individuals committed? Does it make them feel better to breed racial hate among the young? It is good to remember the follies of the past to avoid committing them again and to remind everyone that if we are not careful, we can become monsters so easily. This, however, is hate mongering, little else, and is the root of that which leads to our demise. Vengeance for the sake of pride and self gratification in any fashion is nothing but harmful.

[Tpre022]

Yes, what happened was wrong however individuals in the Japanese government, individuals who I may add had nothing to do with the atrocities that occurred, have offered apologies and financial recompense which was refused as being not enough.

Well, as far as my limited understanding goes, that's because it wasn't really enough. There were a few "We're sorry if you think a bad thing happened to you" type of apologies. The financial compensation was not very much, and was given to a dictator who had seized power, and who did not forward it to the people it was meant to be for. Some Japanese officials have made some really appalling statements about it; "It could be said that the occupation was something they could have pride in, given their existence soothed distraught feelings of men in the battlefield and provided a certain respite and order.". Wow. Have a look at this article if you're curious:

http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/12/1000th-wednesday-protest-and-lies-about.html

[Theodosian]

Thank you for posting the article. Enlightening and sound with good references. I still feel how I stated previously regarding the statue, however any individual who sees such atrocities as morally correct is more reprehensible than those who act out of vengeance. Everyone is at fault until someone stops blaming. What is stated in the blog post in broadest terms is good and decent but it still does not justify the statue.

[Spongeblob]

Thank you for posting the article. Enlightening and sound with good references. I still feel how I stated previously regarding the statue, however any individual who sees such atrocities as morally correct is more reprehensible than those who act out of vengeance. Everyone is at fault until someone stops blaming. What is stated in the blog post in broadest terms is good and decent but it still does not justify the statue.

I'm thinking the mass rapes and brutal history of Japan's multiple Korean occupations are a tad worse offence than a statue depicting the victims suffering.   Japan has never officially apologized.  Perhaps when it does the statue can come down.  I personally think having avoided acts of small retribution for so many years has produced nothing in terms of settling issues between Japan and Korea.  In fact it seems Japan has taken even more liberties.  There has to be a point where a victim looks the bully in the eye and takes back their dignity.  This seems a small classy way to do it.

[woman-king]

Yes, what happened was wrong however individuals in the Japanese government, individuals who I may add had nothing to do with the atrocities that occurred, have offered apologies and financial recompense which was refused as being not enough.

Well, as far as my limited understanding goes, that's because it wasn't really enough. There were a few "We're sorry if you think a bad thing happened to you" type of apologies. The financial compensation was not very much, and was given to a dictator who had seized power, and who did not forward it to the people it was meant to be for. Some Japanese officials have made some really appalling statements about it; "It could be said that the occupation was something they could have pride in, given their existence soothed distraught feelings of men in the battlefield and provided a certain respite and order.". Wow. Have a look at this article if you're curious:

http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/12/1000th-wednesday-protest-and-lies-about.html

I'm not Korean so my understanding and feelings on it all are limited, but I think absolutely yes, they should be allowed to erect their memorial statue where ever they want. 

Ask A Korean's breakdown is good, IMO, though obviously very Korea-centric.  I think his indignation at the lack of "reflection" and genuine "contrition" on Japan's part is a little much.  Of course an apology is only words.  You can't force feelings on people, ever, and there's no way to really measure them.  And sorry, but the fact that Japan "knew" they were dealing with a corrupt military tyranny when they paid reparations for their imperialism is simply not their fault.  They were not in a position to deal with anyone else.  The Korean government needs to take responsibility for misappropriating Japanese reparation funds--though, it's a complicated issue given that the current democratic government is hardly an extension of the former military one.

But he had lots of good info on how ambiguously and shamefully Japan has handled this whole issue.  The statement quoted in this thread from his blog post by the former Japanese minister of education is absolutely appalling, and his point about apologies being made in a "I'm sorry this happened to you" way instead of making a full acknowledgment that might include legal liability is very interesting, very important and very telling. 

I guess my question is, ultimately, what do the former comfort women want?  Do they just want to make a statement and be remembered and honored for the sh*t they went through?  Or are they seeking specific monetary compensation they've never properly received due to the corruption issues AAK talked about, or are they looking for some massively emotional, self-abasing sort of apologetic response from the Japanese public?  Have they been really specific about what they're looking for?  Ask A Korean wants Japan to essentially treat Korean Comfort Women the way Germany treats Holocaust survivors--personal apologies, grand war crimes trials for surviving perpetrators, lifelong pensions, museums erected, etc.  The thing is, Korea and Japan are different countries and while he insists all of this would be a minimal cost to Japan, I think it's a much different scenario when you're talking about things done to other countries during wars and things done to your own citizens by your own government.  Has any country anywhere compensated victims of their own colonialism to that degree? 

But, that said, I can understand why Koreans want full acknowledgement of past wrongs from Japan (if that is indeed the ultimate goal here).  Korea isn't the only country where Japan pulled this kind of shit in during WWII.  The Rape of Nanking involved a massive amount of sexual violence and I believe it's been denied by many Japanese conservatives (there were war trials, though, and some perps were executed).  Similar events also went down in the Philippines.  The fact that Japan glosses over it in their own educational curriculum is very troubling. 

[jimmyeatworldwar]

I can’t possibly think of a better place to put such statue.
And whats wrong with erecting it in front of the embassy? Especially when Japan is denying their horrific act? Yes they have “apologized” to the Korean government but it was more like “Oops we are sorry.. but it wasn’t entirely our fault and it was a long time ago”. Clearly I don’t think anyone would consider this as a full, sincere apology like the Germans did to the Jewish Community several decades ago. Unlike the Germans, who erected memorials to reflect how sorry they are, the Japanese have never done anything like it- in fact, almost every year diplomatic relationships come cold between the two countries because government officials visit the Shinto shrine to pay tribute to the A-list war criminals. How would the Americans feel if several of the highest Afghani politicians visit Osama bin laden’s burial place to pay respect every year?(I know, there is none)
From what I can remember, regarding this matter the NewYorkTimes called it an “arrogant act of ignorance”   

Until the Japanese government give a full apology with respect and sincerity,
Heck, I feel that the Koreans have full right to throw eggs at the embassy, or build hundreds more of those memorial statues in front of the embassy.

[kps1]

I can’t possibly think of a better place to put such statue.
And whats wrong with erecting it in front of the embassy? Especially when Japan is denying their horrific act? Yes they have “apologized” to the Korean government but it was more like “Oops we are sorry.. but it wasn’t entirely our fault and it was a long time ago”. Clearly I don’t think anyone would consider this as a full, sincere apology like the Germans did to the Jewish Community several decades ago. Unlike the Germans, who erected memorials to reflect how sorry they are, the Japanese have never done anything like it- in fact, almost every year diplomatic relationships come cold between the two countries because government officials visit the Shinto shrine to pay tribute to the A-list war criminals. How would the Americans feel if several of the highest Afghani politicians visit Osama bin laden’s burial place to pay respect every year?(I know, there is none)
From what I can remember, regarding this matter the NewYorkTimes called it an “arrogant act of ignorance”   

Until the Japanese government give a full apology with respect and sincerity,
Heck, I feel that the Koreans have full right to throw eggs at the embassy, or build hundreds more of those memorial statues in front of the embassy.

Well it doesn't really matter how anyone feels in this matter, since both countries signed a treaty for the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations back in 1961. This violates Article 22 of that treaty. Japan committed some pretty heinous acts in the past, but that doesn't give Korea the right to break international treaties to make a point. In the end it only makes Korea look bad.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

[Davox]

I can’t possibly think of a better place to put such statue.
And whats wrong with erecting it in front of the embassy? Especially when Japan is denying their horrific act? Yes they have “apologized” to the Korean government but it was more like “Oops we are sorry.. but it wasn’t entirely our fault and it was a long time ago”. Clearly I don’t think anyone would consider this as a full, sincere apology like the Germans did to the Jewish Community several decades ago. Unlike the Germans, who erected memorials to reflect how sorry they are, the Japanese have never done anything like it- in fact, almost every year diplomatic relationships come cold between the two countries because government officials visit the Shinto shrine to pay tribute to the A-list war criminals. How would the Americans feel if several of the highest Afghani politicians visit Osama bin laden’s burial place to pay respect every year?(I know, there is none)
From what I can remember, regarding this matter the NewYorkTimes called it an “arrogant act of ignorance”   

Until the Japanese government give a full apology with respect and sincerity,
Heck, I feel that the Koreans have full right to throw eggs at the embassy, or build hundreds more of those memorial statues in front of the embassy.

Well it doesn't really matter how anyone feels in this matter, since both countries signed a treaty for the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations back in 1961. This violates Article 22 of that treaty. Japan committed some pretty heinous acts in the past, but that doesn't give Korea the right to break international treaties to make a point. In the end it only makes Korea look bad.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

Uhhh, no it's not a violation?  Korea would be in violation if they broke into the embassy to put the statue inside.  Seeing as that didn't happen, and the statue is in fact outside the embassy grounds, there's been no violation here.

(As an aside, it could be argued that people throwing eggs at the embassy, as jimmyeatworldwar suggests, MIGHT be a violation of the clause you quoted.  But that's a might, not an 'absolutely it is.')

[kps1]

I can’t possibly think of a better place to put such statue.
And whats wrong with erecting it in front of the embassy? Especially when Japan is denying their horrific act? Yes they have “apologized” to the Korean government but it was more like “Oops we are sorry.. but it wasn’t entirely our fault and it was a long time ago”. Clearly I don’t think anyone would consider this as a full, sincere apology like the Germans did to the Jewish Community several decades ago. Unlike the Germans, who erected memorials to reflect how sorry they are, the Japanese have never done anything like it- in fact, almost every year diplomatic relationships come cold between the two countries because government officials visit the Shinto shrine to pay tribute to the A-list war criminals. How would the Americans feel if several of the highest Afghani politicians visit Osama bin laden’s burial place to pay respect every year?(I know, there is none)
From what I can remember, regarding this matter the NewYorkTimes called it an “arrogant act of ignorance”   

Until the Japanese government give a full apology with respect and sincerity,
Heck, I feel that the Koreans have full right to throw eggs at the embassy, or build hundreds more of those memorial statues in front of the embassy.

Well it doesn't really matter how anyone feels in this matter, since both countries signed a treaty for the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations back in 1961. This violates Article 22 of that treaty. Japan committed some pretty heinous acts in the past, but that doesn't give Korea the right to break international treaties to make a point. In the end it only makes Korea look bad.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

Uhhh, no it's not a violation?  Korea would be in violation if they broke into the embassy to put the statue inside.  Seeing as that didn't happen, and the statue is in fact outside the embassy grounds, there's been no violation here.

(As an aside, it could be argued that people throwing eggs at the embassy, as jimmyeatworldwar suggests, MIGHT be a violation of the clause you quoted.  But that's a might, not an 'absolutely it is.')

Read number 2 of Article 22 where it talks about impairment of dignity. That is what the Japanese government has pointed out as a violation. Saying that it was "outside embassy grounds" really holds no water because locale isn't specified in the treaty and this statue was clearly meant to impair the dignity of the Japanese Embassy, so that is a violation.
Anyway Ii Myung-bak  thought it was a big enough deal to go to Japan and meet with Prime Minister Noda, another one of Japan's many Prime Ministers, and sort it out.  So it's all good now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOMOTIbRXtI&feature=player_embedded#!

[Davox]

I can’t possibly think of a better place to put such statue.
And whats wrong with erecting it in front of the embassy? Especially when Japan is denying their horrific act? Yes they have “apologized” to the Korean government but it was more like “Oops we are sorry.. but it wasn’t entirely our fault and it was a long time ago”. Clearly I don’t think anyone would consider this as a full, sincere apology like the Germans did to the Jewish Community several decades ago. Unlike the Germans, who erected memorials to reflect how sorry they are, the Japanese have never done anything like it- in fact, almost every year diplomatic relationships come cold between the two countries because government officials visit the Shinto shrine to pay tribute to the A-list war criminals. How would the Americans feel if several of the highest Afghani politicians visit Osama bin laden’s burial place to pay respect every year?(I know, there is none)
From what I can remember, regarding this matter the NewYorkTimes called it an “arrogant act of ignorance”   

Until the Japanese government give a full apology with respect and sincerity,
Heck, I feel that the Koreans have full right to throw eggs at the embassy, or build hundreds more of those memorial statues in front of the embassy.

Well it doesn't really matter how anyone feels in this matter, since both countries signed a treaty for the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations back in 1961. This violates Article 22 of that treaty. Japan committed some pretty heinous acts in the past, but that doesn't give Korea the right to break international treaties to make a point. In the end it only makes Korea look bad.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

Uhhh, no it's not a violation?  Korea would be in violation if they broke into the embassy to put the statue inside.  Seeing as that didn't happen, and the statue is in fact outside the embassy grounds, there's been no violation here.

(As an aside, it could be argued that people throwing eggs at the embassy, as jimmyeatworldwar suggests, MIGHT be a violation of the clause you quoted.  But that's a might, not an 'absolutely it is.')

Read number 2 of Article 22 where it talks about impairment of dignity. That is what the Japanese government has pointed out as a violation. Saying that it was "outside embassy grounds" really holds no water because locale isn't specified in the treaty and this statue was clearly meant to impair the dignity of the Japanese Embassy, so that is a violation.
Anyway Ii Myung-bak  thought it was a big enough deal to go to Japan and meet with Prime Minister Noda, another one of Japan's many Prime Ministers, and sort it out.  So it's all good now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOMOTIbRXtI&feature=player_embedded#!

I did read it, and I still disagree with you.

See, the tossing eggs thing could possibly be impairing dignity, because they're actually affecting the actual mission (I suspect to avoid that all you'd need to do is promise to punish the throwers, however).  Likewise, graffiti on the mission itself or say, the walls around it could be impairing dignity.  But I honestly just do not buy the argument that anything anywhere in all of Korea gets to count as impaired dignity specifically to the Japanese Embassy.  If that were the case, every country in the world would be impairing the dignity of every other countries' embassies constantly.

It just strikes me as an insanely juvenile argument for Japan to make, like the kind of arguments 8 year olds get into over playground games.

[kps1]

I can’t possibly think of a better place to put such statue.
And whats wrong with erecting it in front of the embassy? Especially when Japan is denying their horrific act? Yes they have “apologized” to the Korean government but it was more like “Oops we are sorry.. but it wasn’t entirely our fault and it was a long time ago”. Clearly I don’t think anyone would consider this as a full, sincere apology like the Germans did to the Jewish Community several decades ago. Unlike the Germans, who erected memorials to reflect how sorry they are, the Japanese have never done anything like it- in fact, almost every year diplomatic relationships come cold between the two countries because government officials visit the Shinto shrine to pay tribute to the A-list war criminals. How would the Americans feel if several of the highest Afghani politicians visit Osama bin laden’s burial place to pay respect every year?(I know, there is none)
From what I can remember, regarding this matter the NewYorkTimes called it an “arrogant act of ignorance”   

Until the Japanese government give a full apology with respect and sincerity,
Heck, I feel that the Koreans have full right to throw eggs at the embassy, or build hundreds more of those memorial statues in front of the embassy.

Well it doesn't really matter how anyone feels in this matter, since both countries signed a treaty for the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations back in 1961. This violates Article 22 of that treaty. Japan committed some pretty heinous acts in the past, but that doesn't give Korea the right to break international treaties to make a point. In the end it only makes Korea look bad.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

Uhhh, no it's not a violation?  Korea would be in violation if they broke into the embassy to put the statue inside.  Seeing as that didn't happen, and the statue is in fact outside the embassy grounds, there's been no violation here.

(As an aside, it could be argued that people throwing eggs at the embassy, as jimmyeatworldwar suggests, MIGHT be a violation of the clause you quoted.  But that's a might, not an 'absolutely it is.')

Read number 2 of Article 22 where it talks about impairment of dignity. That is what the Japanese government has pointed out as a violation. Saying that it was "outside embassy grounds" really holds no water because locale isn't specified in the treaty and this statue was clearly meant to impair the dignity of the Japanese Embassy, so that is a violation.
Anyway Ii Myung-bak  thought it was a big enough deal to go to Japan and meet with Prime Minister Noda, another one of Japan's many Prime Ministers, and sort it out.  So it's all good now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOMOTIbRXtI&feature=player_embedded#!

I did read it, and I still disagree with you.

See, the tossing eggs thing could possibly be impairing dignity, because they're actually affecting the actual mission (I suspect to avoid that all you'd need to do is promise to punish the throwers, however).  Likewise, graffiti on the mission itself or say, the walls around it could be impairing dignity.  But I honestly just do not buy the argument that anything anywhere in all of Korea gets to count as impaired dignity specifically to the Japanese Embassy.  If that were the case, every country in the world would be impairing the dignity of every other countries' embassies constantly.

It just strikes me as an insanely juvenile argument for Japan to make, like the kind of arguments 8 year olds get into over playground games.

It doesn't really matter what you or I think, it's simply what the treaty states. Location is not specified in the treaty, only that it is within the hosting country. It's fairly black and white if you look at the information. A statue of a comfort woman was built in front of the Japanese embassy. Why was it built? To discredit Japan and to demean their country for past war crimes, this is obvious since the people who helped resurrect the statue openly admitted to it. In this case it is fairly easy to say that the dignity, the respect and ethical treatment, of the the Japanese Embassy was impaired (damaged). Again do I agree with this? No, but I'm not sure how you could disagree with how this treaty could be used to support their case.

[Davox]

It doesn't really matter what you or I think, it's simply what the treaty states. Location is not specified in the treaty, only that it is within the hosting country. It's fairly black and white if you look at the information. A statue of a comfort woman was built in front of the Japanese embassy. Why was it built? To discredit Japan and to demean their country for past war crimes, this is obvious since the people who helped resurrect the statue openly admitted to it. In this case it is fairly easy to say that the dignity, the respect and ethical treatment, of the the Japanese Embassy was impaired (damaged). Again do I agree with this? No, but I'm not sure how you could disagree with how this treaty could be used to support their case.

Dude, seriously.  Every single clause of article 22, the one you stated, starts with or specifically states that it has to do with the "premises of the mission" (which if you check article 1 means the building and property they (Japan) own directly around it: ie. everything "behind the fence", AKA where the statue ISN'T) and not, say any random possible location within the host country (Korea) as whole, which is what you are asserting.  Because what you're saying is that according to you, it doesn't matter where the threat to "dignity" is within Korea, if it exists then Korea has violated the treaty.   By this standard, any paper that mentions anything bad about Japan, any location that was destroyed during the occupation and has a plaque saying so, any pamphlet that mentions anything about that part of Korea's history, any single person in Korea who says anything bad in public about Japan, in say, Busan, or Jeju or Paju or wherever, and is not arrested or prevented from doing so by the Korean government, makes Korea in violation of treaty.  If your interpretation is correct that is.  In fact, if you are correct that location doesn't matter, then Korea has a treaty obligation to shut down waygook.org, and possibly even arrest and deport every single member, including you and me, for contributing to this site, because it can be reached from Korea, and most of it's posters are in Korea, and there have been one or two posts here that have insulted the dignity of Japan.  In this very thread even! 

Or maybe your interpretation, along with Japan's, is not actually correct and this is just another crappy face-saving/Korea bashing attempt on behalf of Japan.

By the way, if you're looking for a country that's ACTUALLY violated the clause you're quoting, the country you want to look at is Iran, not Korea.  It's been in the news and everything; the UK's quite upset!

[Peekay1982]

Thank you for posting the article. Enlightening and sound with good references. I still feel how I stated previously regarding the statue, however any individual who sees such atrocities as morally correct is more reprehensible than those who act out of vengeance. Everyone is at fault until someone stops blaming. What is stated in the blog post in broadest terms is good and decent but it still does not justify the statue.

I'm thinking the mass rapes and brutal history of Japan's multiple Korean occupations are a tad worse offence than a statue depicting the victims suffering.   Japan has never officially apologized.  Perhaps when it does the statue can come down.  I personally think having avoided acts of small retribution for so many years has produced nothing in terms of settling issues between Japan and Korea.  In fact it seems Japan has taken even more liberties.  There has to be a point where a victim looks the bully in the eye and takes back their dignity.  This seems a small classy way to do it.

Real talk. Comparing German and Japanese attitudes to WWII makes you realise just how little Japan has done to atone for - even admit to - its past.

Japanese schoolbooks still whitewash WWII.

Far-right wing groups are still politically active and enjoy disturbing amounts of support amongst the population.

Prime ministers still visit war criminals' graves.

Many Japanese - including people I know personally - cling to some pretty worrying beliefs about the special, unique racial superiority of the Japanese.

Japan still claims Dokdo. I like making fun of the Dokdo thing as much as anyone but it's definitely Korean territory.

Like a lot of foreigners here I sometimes feel like Koreans' antipathy towards Japan is childish and ultimately holds them back. Then I remember some of this stuff and can kind of feel where they're coming from. Bak Jeong-hee signed the treaty (in 1965?) absolving Japan of any blame for its war atrocities in return for money. As others have said, the rape victims didn't see any of it. Bak Jeong-hee was educated in Japan and fought for the Japanese army in WWII and tortured and executed Korean resistance members (something he continued with when he seized power) so it's no surprise he let them off the hook so easily.

Someone else mentioned how current Japanese government members had nothing to do with wartime atrocities. This is true but official, public acknowledgement of guilt and regret is hugely important. I'm Irish and I remember how much it meant to a lot of Irish people when Tony Blair apologised for UK violence during the Troubles, even though he was a young man busy being in rubbish bands and making obscene gestures at photographers at the time.