This essay critically examines debates over South Korea’s policies toward Japan and international advocacy efforts, responding to an article by Professor Kan Kimura in Voice magazine. It discusses Japan–Korea relations, economic narratives, and the role of intellectuals and media in shaping public discourse.

January 8, 2019.
I once again question the nature of those who conduct anti-Japan campaigns around the world and seek financial concessions from Japan.
An essay I published on January 5, 2019, titled “Stirring Hostility Toward Japan to Maintain Political Cohesion,” ranked sixth in the official hashtag ranking under Kobe University.
In last month’s issue of Voice magazine, Professor Kan Kimura of Kobe University, who describes himself as a specialist on the Korean Peninsula, contributed an article.
He argued that South Korea’s current behavior is not driven by political leaders seeking popularity.
Approval ratings remain high.
Rather, he suggested, South Korea’s economic growth has reduced Japan’s relative importance.
However, the anger felt by many Japanese is not about relative economic size.
It concerns deep distrust toward what they perceive as persistent misinformation and hostility.
If economic growth is truly solid, why does youth unemployment remain at serious levels.
Why do many young people crowd overseas job fairs.
Why are infrastructure problems repeatedly reported.
How are these realities to be explained.
Arguments that dismiss Japanese concerns as mere emotional reactions, without thoroughly examining economic and social conditions, lack persuasive power.
Those who bear the title of university professor are expected to provide comprehensive, fact-based analysis.
Commentary praising such arguments has also appeared, yet media organizations likewise require diverse perspectives and rigorous verification.
When Soviet foreign operations were exposed in the past, published documents and testimony revealed that Japanese media had also been affected.
History continually questions the responsibility of media and intellectuals.
With regard to policies on the Korean Peninsula and China, calm and empirical analysis is required rather than emotional rhetoric.
Educational content, public advocacy activities, government support structures, and international messaging strategies.
These must be examined concretely.
For some time, I have felt that parts of academia and the press have not sufficiently fulfilled their responsibility to explain.
When the full scope of foreign influence and information activities is eventually clarified, today’s debates will also be subject to scrutiny.