To understand South Korea’s diplomatic behavior and treaty disputes, one must examine its historical background.
This essay explores the tradition of sadaeism in Korean history, the “Letter Incident” during the early Meiji period, and the modern forced labor rulings, arguing that Korea repeatedly shifts the conditions of agreements—what is often called a “moving goalposts” strategy in international relations.

2019-02-05

It was Haruki Wada and Kenzaburo Oe who had signed an opinion statement supporting this outrageous interpretation by South Korea.

The following continues from the previous chapter.

◎Sadaeism and a Unique National Character

Before entering the main argument, I would like readers to have a correct understanding of Korea.
Historically, Korea lived mainly as a tributary state under Chinese dynasties.
Korea has a characteristic tendency to become extremely submissive toward the strong while acting arrogantly toward the weak.
There is little doubt that this national character has been shaped by its own historical experience.
Considering this, it becomes clear that violating diplomatic protocol or breaking promises is not something that began recently but reflects the nature of this state.

Some people may have enjoyed watching NHK’s historical drama Segodon last year.
Near the end, there is a scene in which Saigo Takamori becomes enraged by Korea’s discourtesy and advocates the “Seikanron,” eventually resigning from the government.
It is an important moment that eventually leads to the Satsuma Rebellion.
The program did not explain the reason in detail, but it originated from the famous “Letter Incident.”

In the first year of Meiji (1868), the Meiji government, which had overthrown the Tokugawa shogunate, sent official letters to countries around the world announcing the establishment of the new regime and seeking the creation of modern diplomatic relations based on treaties.
Replies accepting these communications arrived one after another from many countries.
However, one country responded in an extraordinary manner.
That country was Korea.

Joseon Korea, which had been a tributary state of the Qing dynasty, discovered the characters “emperor” and “imperial decree” in the letter.
Korea claimed that only the Qing emperor was permitted to use such terms and therefore refused to accept the Japanese letter.

Despite repeated attempts by the Meiji government to establish contact, this discourtesy of refusing to accept the letter continued and eventually led to the Seikanron debate.
Even after the Qing dynasty accepted the Japanese letter and formal diplomatic relations began, Korea’s attitude did not change.

There were power struggles between King Gojong, his wife Queen Min, and the king’s father the Daewongun, corrupt officials everywhere, citizens suffering in poverty without social infrastructure, and a devastated land.
Yet Korea continued to behave toward Japan in a manner lacking diplomatic courtesy.

The attitude of “sadaeism,” following the strong while belittling others, fits Korea perfectly.
And this tendency continues into present-day South Korea.

This is also evident in the so-called forced labor rulings.
The Japan–Korea Claims Agreement, which renounced mutual claims and declared them “completely and finally settled,” was the fundamental premise of the Japan–Korea Basic Treaty that normalized diplomatic relations between the two countries.
South Korea’s judiciary overturned this agreement.

The reason given was that “Japanese rule was illegal and illegitimate, and therefore acts carried out during that period are not covered by the agreement.”
In other words, the 1910 Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty between the Empire of Japan and the Korean Empire was declared “illegal” and “invalid.”

It was Haruki Wada and Kenzaburo Oe who signed an opinion statement supporting this outrageous interpretation by South Korea.
Their signed statement exposed to the public how deeply they are poisoned by leftist ideological dogma, masochistic historical views, anti-Japanese thinking, and pseudo-moralism.

Overturning agreements between nations and shifting conditions over time.
This is the very essence of South Korea’s favored tactic known as the “moving goalposts.”

Yet they themselves do not understand how abnormal and unreasonable this behavior truly is.

(To be continued.)