Responding to the court ruling ordered by the Supreme Court of Republic of Korea on the former Korean workers who were forced to work for a Japanese company, not only the government of Japan and the ruling Liberal Democratic Party but also people from various strata of the society call it ‘unfair’, complaining loudly about the decision. Some people ruin, again, dignity of Korean people. What kind of plight were these former forced-laborers subjugated to before and during the World War II? The issue remains challenging today.

WE MUST LOOK AT HISTORY AND HUMAN RIGHTS SINCERELY

The decision of the Supreme Court of Republic of Korea (ROK) says the right to demand restitution of the former laborers who were forced to work in the Japanese company constitutes ‘the right to seek redress from the firm for which they worked as they were treated inhumanely and illegally as the company had direct links with the unlawful colonial rule and war of aggression’. It continues to say that the said right is not contained in the Japan-ROK Agreement on the rights for compensation concluded in 1965 and that both of the diplomatic protection right of the government of ROK and the individual right of Korean forced-laborers to demand compensation have not yet vanished.

Concerning the court ruling, Prime Minister Abe Shinzo insists that ‘the issue of the right to demand compensation has been solved completely and finally by the 1965 Agreement’ and that ‘the ruling cannot be possible in light of the international law’, telling that he would cope with the issue sternly.

He does not end here. Premier Abe alternates his expressions, replacing a term forced-laborers with ‘workers from the Korean Peninsula’, flatly denying the forced labor practices which prevailed during the colonial rule of Korea. Premier Abe sees recruitment of workers was made legally.

Foreign Minister Kono Taro is worse. He criticizes the decision as ‘confrontation against the international community’ and ‘a violent act’. The Japanese government lacks correct understanding on the agreement and the international law, using twisted interpretations.

Government views in the past

The recent ruling says ‘the right to demand compensation is not included in the Agreement’. The Japanese government used to tell that ‘it is the diplomatic protection right that the Agreement renounces and the right of individuals to demand restitution has not vanished’ (in 1991 and 1992, by Yanai Shunji, Director, Treaty Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan).

As far as the wartime Chinese laborers are concerned, the Supreme Court of Japan ordered in 2007 that the appeal right has been lost but that the right of individual victims to demand compensation has not practically vanished. The interpretation means that relevant Japanese firms can pay compensations arbitrarily and voluntarily from a legal point of view and that the loss of the appeal right does not constitute a legal obstacle.

Under the circumstances in the cases involved by Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal, Nishimatsu Construction, Mitsubishi Materials and others the Japanese firms admitted the fact to take responsibilities, made apologies and set up a fund as a proof to help the victims. If the right for compensation has vanished completely, expenditure of the relevant business entities is regarded by shareholders as compensatory damages.

ILO’s advice

According to the text of the recent ruling, ‘the plaintiffs applied for the recruitment under which the conditions say applicants can learn skills in the two-year training’. But no wages were paid, they were forced to work in the terribly hard and dangerous conditions, food was scarcely given, laborers were not permitted to go out and were physically punished on the ground they had attempted to escape. They were subject to the extremely atrocious circumstances. That means forced labor, or slavery, infringement of the human rights which constitutes violation of the international law.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) advised the Japanese government in 2009 to take appropriate measures to cope with the demands of old-aged, former forced-laborers. Noone can erase the history. The Japanese government must be aware of its responsibilities and take actions to lead to a sincere settlement.

December 4, 2018