The new President of South Korea will make his first official visit to Japan. His conservative predecessor could sign off on the statements and documents adopted at the meeting.
A necessary retreat
However, one of the most important ideological cores of South Korea since the country’s founding has been anti-Japanese sentiment. This concerns not only legitimate claims against Japan during the years of colonial rule, but is also about fostering and using anti-Japanese sentiment as a distraction from current problems and silencing the elements of Korean-Japanese relations that contradict nationalist discourse. Accusations of pro-Japanese sympathies still hold serious weight despite the fact that there are no politicians in the country who the author would call specifically pro-Japanese in terms of values and image. Moreover, the modern South Korean government is diligently building a discourse in which it presents the democratic camp as the spiritual heirs of the anti-Japanese national liberation movement, which is opposed by conservatives as the spiritual heirs of collaborators. As a result, this dogmatic layer hinders constructive interaction, and the “Japanese card” has been played by politicians from both the democratic and conservative camps.
Let us recall that President Lee Myung-bak defiantly visited the disputed Liancourt Rocks, and the issue of ‘comfort women’ went from public discussions to political solutions thanks to Park Geun-hye, who tried to resolve the issue with the 2015 agreement.
Conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol sincerely tried to change the country’s course. Unlike other presidents, he was not a professional politician who understood well what could and could not be done. In his speeches, Yoon openly stated that “a century after the March First Independence Movement, Japan has transformed from a militaristic aggressor of the past into a partner who shares with us the same universal values, and we need to build relations in the present rather than remembering the grievances of the past”. The Democrats harshly criticized him for such a statement, even accusing him of betraying the country’s national interests and calling him names for groveling before Japan.
President Lee’s Japanese vector
But then the Democrats came to power, after which many expected a return to the rhetoric of the Moon Jae-in era, since much of South Korean politics is determined by factional struggle. When the Democrats were in opposition, they could not help but criticize the turn towards Japan. However, when it comes to populist politicians like the current Democratic leader, and then President Lee Jae Myung, one must look not at words, but at deeds, and things are unfolding very curiously.
Firstly, while choosing partners for negotiations with the leaders of the great powers, President Lee followed a conservative pattern. His predecessor Moon Jae-in called Beijing after talking with the U.S. president and only then called Tokyo, however Lee, like the conservatives, preferred Tokyo to Beijing.
Secondly, Lee’s first face-to-face meeting with a world leader during the G7 summit was, again, with the Japanese prime minister. Although it took about half an hour, this was in itself quite symptomatic.
Finally, on the way to the Lee Jae Myung and Donald Trump summit – which is extremely important for modern South Korea – the President of South Korea stopped by Japan. Thus, the first foreign visit of the new president suddenly turned out to be the Land of the Rising Sun, and for the first time in 60 years following the restoration of diplomatic relations between Seoul and Tokyo in 1965, the new President of the Republic of Korea came first to Japan, and only then to the United States….
But this is not all!
A cancellation of a cancellation
Ahead of the visit, Lee gave a detailed interview to the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper, in which he presented a nuanced foreign policy program. World media mostly highlighted the fact that, despite active attempts to establish a dialogue with the DPRK and the cancellation of Yoon Seok Yeol’s unification strategy, Lee Jae Myung still talked about the denuclearization of the North. Nonetheless, the author’s attention was attracted to something that is much more important for South Korean-Japanese relations.
The 2015 agreement was mentioned previously in this article. According to Park Geun-hye, it was supposed to resolve the issue of ‘comfort women’. In fact, it boiled down to Japan making an official apology, and Korea finally accepting it, with Seoul avoiding its standard accusations of Tokyo’s insincerity. Japan then transferred one billion yen ($6.8 million) to the victims’ relief fund, which is to be used both to compensate the remaining grandmothers and to provide infrastructure to support and perpetuate the story of ‘comfort women’ at memorial sites. In turn, the South Korea pledged to finally settle the issue and “refrain from accusing or criticizing each other on this issue in the international community, including at the United Nations”.
However, the agreement was opposed by numerous South Korean NGOs profiting from the theme of ‘comfort women’. The agreement meant that their work was over and there would be no more government funding. Therefore, they began to accuse the government of “going against the opinion of the people”, and this propaganda played a role in the overthrow of Park Geun-hye. When Democratic President Moon Jae-in came to power, he bluntly stated that although the Japanese had fulfilled their part of the obligations, South Korea would not fulfill its own.
Such disregard for international obligations caused a serious crisis in the two countries’ relations, aggravated by the fact that Ms. Yoon Mee-hyang, the head of the most famous NGO dealing with this subject, was exposed for financial fraud and received a court sentence. However, the Democrats do not abandon their mates, so after Lee Jae Myung came to power, Yoon Mee-hyang was demonstratively pardoned at the next amnesty in August, 2025.
And so, the Democrat and populist Lee gave an interview, in which he used many of the same clichés as his predecessor, and, most importantly, revised the country’s attitude towards the 2015 agreement. Speaking about the Japanese vector of his policy, Yoon Suk Yeol avoided touchy subjects, while Lee Jae Myung went further and essentially said that although it is difficult for the Korean people to accept this, international agreements must be fulfilled. “It is very difficult for the people of South Korea to accept this agreement of the previous administration, but this promise was made on behalf of the nation, and it is undesirable to reconsider it”. Lee confirmed the urgency of the issue and called on Japan to admit the truth and continue talking about this topic. The desire to recognize the agreement is a very serious step forward – something not even Yoon was ready to do.
In addition, during his interview, Lee confirmed the importance of trilateral ties with Japan and the United States, and expressed the desire of Seoul and Tokyo to strengthen relations not only in the field of economics, but also in the field of security.
What does the author make of this? In the ten years since 2015, the issue of ‘comfort women’ has sort of faded away. There are fewer than a dozen grandmothers who survived this left, and considering that they are all 90+ years old, they do not have long left. Therefore, from a technical and financial point of view, the implementation of the agreement is not a big cost, especially since South Korea only needs to close the issue and move on to other delicate problems between the two countries, e.g. the forced mobilization of Koreans.
In general, given the domestic political situation, Lee Jae Myung could reduce the level of anti-Japanese sentiment – having found another way to ‘blow off steam’. The agitation of the masses seems to be redirected not to the fact that “the Japanese have not apologized”, but to the fact that “the conservatives have not repented”.
Summit results
Judging by the statements of the parties and the general atmosphere, the atmosphere at the meeting was positive. The communication between the leaders of the two states lasted about two hours, after which Lee and Ishiba made a joint statement to the press, bypassing issues in bilateral relations and instead focusing on normalizing ties and solving problems as they arise. The approach of discussing issues that cannot be settled yet and developing cooperation in the areas where it is possible is entirely reasonable, and similar to Yoon’s statements.
The media notes that the joint statement is the first of its kind in 17 years, positioned as a continuation of the 1998 Declaration signed by Kim Dae-jung and Keizo Obuchi. This is despite the fact that it was Yoon Suk Yeol who repeatedly expressed his commitment to improving bilateral relations, stating that both countries should adhere to the spirit of the Kim Dae-jung-Keizo Obuchi Declaration of 1998, which called for overcoming the past and building new relations. The reference to this document is as much a sign of the Yoon’s course being continued as the willingness to close the issue of “comfort women”.
Touchy issues were largely avoided.
What did the sides agree on?
- To continue to negotiate and cooperate in fields where there are no problems. The development of “future-oriented and mutually beneficial bilateral relations”, including through shuttle diplomacy, APEC and South Korea-China-Japan summits, as well as increasing humanitarian exchanges. An intergovernmental advisory body will be established to share experience and find solutions;
- To be friends with the USA. Promoting the trilateral US-ROK-Japan cooperation format in modern conditions, focusing on partnership in solving various international issues.
- To be friends against the DPRK. Commitment to “complete denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula (a prime example of conservative wording) was confirmed, as well as highlighting the issue of maintaining close cooperation on policy issues regarding the DPRK, including joint response to nuclear missile threats from Pyongyang, trilateral cooperation with the participation of the United States, and countering the deepening military cooperation between Russia and North Korea.
At the same time, the multi-vector nature of relations with China remains rather arbitrary. The right words are being uttered, but Lee Jae Myung politely declined Beijing’ s invitation to attend a military parade marking the 80th Anniversary of the End of World War II. South Korea will be represented at this event by the speaker of the parliament – a rather ceremonial figure compared to the president, prime minister, or foreign minister.
Conclusions
All of this shows that Lee’s policy on Japan will differ from both Yoon Suk Yeon’s and Moon Jae-in’s policies.
In this context, it is not so important to the author what specific agreements will be concluded between Seoul and Tokyo following the summit. A certain trend should be noted: the new administration seems to be continuing the course of its predecessor in relations with its main security partners. What this will lead to is a very interesting question.
And the last remark: can you imagine how sharply the Democrats would have criticized such a result of the negotiations if they themselves had not conducted them?
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Centre for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
