Originally published on October 19, 2019.
Based on an essay by Kadota Ryusho in the special issue of Sound Argument, The Fallen Media, this article examines Moon Jae-in’s Liberation Day speech, North Korea’s reaction, and the Asahi Shimbun’s editorial stance.
It argues that the Asahi Shimbun’s reporting on the comfort women issue and wartime labor issue fundamentally worsened Japan-South Korea rOctober 19, 2019.
When I think that Japan-South Korea relations would not have become so entangled if the Asahi had not existed, I feel truly regretful and angry as one Japanese person.
The following is from an essay by Kadota Ryusho, which opens the special feature “Why Has the Media Fallen?” in the special issue of Sound Argument titled The Fallen Media, a publication recommended to me by a friend who is one of the most avid readers I know, because it is filled with essays and dialogues truly worth reading.
This book, which should be read not only by the Japanese people but by people all over the world, costs only 926 yen.
In particular, those who pay about 5,000 yen a month to subscribe to the Asahi Shimbun and merely watch NHK and the like should immediately go to the nearest bookstore and buy it.
The following is a continuation of the chapter I introduced the other day.
The unexpected “Liberation Day” speech.
However, a slight change began to appear even in the “runaway” behavior of Mr. Moon and the Asahi Shimbun working as a team.
August 15, the Liberation Day commemorative ceremony marking liberation from Japan.
Mr. Moon’s speech there was unexpected.
“We have not remained in the past, but have joined hands with Japan in security and economic cooperation. Together with Japan, we have maintained the position of substantially healing the suffering of the victims of the colonial period and firmly joining hands while learning from history. Reflecting on the past does not mean clinging to the past, but overcoming the past and moving forward to the future. We hope that Japan will reflect on the past in which it brought misfortune to neighboring countries and will lead peace and prosperity in East Asia together with us. If Japan chooses the path of dialogue and cooperation, we will gladly join hands.”
This surprised those who heard it.
It was Liberation Day immediately after Japan had removed South Korea from its “white country” status.
Nearly two weeks earlier, he had gone so far as to say “brazenly like a thief crying thief,” so what on earth had happened?
Had someone finally admonished him for that remark, or had he been shocked that Japan had not reacted at all, no matter how much he cursed it?
In any case, the tone of criticism against Japan was lowered all at once.
Mr. Moon further said the following.
“We are now at the most crucial pass in the entire process for denuclearization and the construction of peace on the Korean Peninsula. Even if there are points of dissatisfaction, it is not desirable to destroy the framework of dialogue or build walls that make dialogue difficult. If there is dissatisfaction, even that should be raised and discussed at the table of dialogue. I pledge to firmly establish denuclearization and a peace system within my term of office. In 2032, we will successfully hold the Seoul-Pyongyang joint Olympics, and by 2045 at the latest, the 100th anniversary of Liberation, I promise to firmly prepare the foundation so that we may stand tall in the world as one country, one Korea, united in peace and unification. If unification is achieved, an era will open in which we become the world’s sixth-largest economy and national income reaches 70,000 to 80,000 dollars.”
It was a speech no one had expected.
The unification of North and South Korea has long been called Mr. Moon’s cherished wish, but who could have imagined that his thought would be expressed in such terms?
The Asahi’s “Abe criticism” is carried through.
However, the very next day, North Korea’s Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland returned the following words.
“We have no more words to say to the South Korean authorities and no intention of sitting face to face with them again. How shameless indeed to utter words such as dialogue and peace while joint military exercises are being conducted. The loss of momentum for North-South dialogue is of their own making. It is a delusion to think that a phase of dialogue will naturally come after the exercises.”
It was a fierce backlash.
Mr. Moon’s full-effort speech was ruined by this stinging reaction from North Korea.
Then how did the Asahi, which has always been Mr. Moon’s “greatest cheering squad,” comment on this?
On August 17, under the title “Thinking About Japan and South Korea: Maintaining a Mutually Beneficial Relationship to Pass On to the Next Generation,” the Asahi published the following editorial.
“This summer, Japan and South Korea continue a political confrontation in which not even a clue to a breakthrough can be found. Between the two countries, as if political relations have infected civil society, frayed emotions collide. As a result, dark clouds have begun to hang even over economic and cultural relations that had been said to be relatively firm.”
The editorial begins in this way, but unlike its previous arguments, its content showed considerable consideration toward the Japanese side.
Perhaps even the Asahi found it difficult to state open opposition so blatantly to the Japanese government’s policy, which is overwhelmingly supported by the people.
“The origin of the present confrontation between Japan and South Korea lies in historical issues. The Moon administration hollowed out the comfort women agreement between the two countries, and the South Korean Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering Japanese companies to compensate former wartime laborers. The ruling was derived from the premise that Japan’s annexation of Korea itself in the early twentieth century was illegal. Regarding the annexation, there was also confrontation in the negotiations for normalization of diplomatic relations up to the 1960s, and in the end the matter was settled with the ambiguous expression ‘already null and void.’ The Japanese government objects because, if the annexation is now deemed illegal, the scope of compensation could expand without limit. While the Moon administration says it respects the judgment of the judiciary, it also recognizes that there are parts that are incompatible with the previous views of the executive branch. However, if judgment continues to be postponed forever, the situation will not improve.”
This is clearly different from its previous editorials, which had unilaterally criticized Japan.
“In his speech, Mr. Moon also said the following. South Korea has ‘maintained the position of trying to substantially heal the suffering of the victims of colonial rule together with Japan and firmly joining hands while taking history as a mirror.’ This very path should have been the diplomatic wisdom that the two countries had devised. Even if the agreement on normalization of diplomatic relations left ambiguities, later politics supplemented it through unceasing efforts. In that sense, we would like to ask Mr. Moon to act now. First, he should re-evaluate and respect the comfort women agreement. Even if the agreement was concluded by the previous Park Geun-hye administration, if a promise once exchanged between states is made void, trust cannot be maintained. He needs to reflect on the fact that, by denying the achievements of a conservative administration, he has, as a result, brought about the deterioration of relations with Japan and is now tormenting himself.”
This is surprising.
That the Asahi would make such demands of Mr. Moon is probably evidence of just how much public anger is being hurled at South Korea, and perhaps at the Asahi as well.
However, only its “Abe criticism” remains completely unchanged from before.
The editorial continues as follows.
“Contrary to the speech, on Liberation Day, rallies denouncing the Abe administration were held in various parts of South Korea. The view is strengthening that the problem lies with the administration rather than with Japan itself. It is certain that the Abe administration complicated the situation by going ahead with strengthened export controls. Although there were problems with the Moon administration, it was not appropriate to expand the confrontation into the economy, which should have been separated from political and historical issues.”
The editorial deliberately placed the subheading “Why ‘anti-Abe’?” and wrote in this manner.
Its stance is, to the end, that the problem lies with Mr. Abe.
“Simply pushing South Korea away will not open a path to resolution. To begin with, regarding historical issues, the Abe administration has always been accompanied by the evaluation that it is reluctant to reflect on the past. There lies South Korea’s deep-rooted distrust. In order to dispel it, should Japan not once again clarify its historical understanding regarding the Korean Peninsula? Along with the Moon administration’s re-evaluation of the comfort women agreement, should there not be talks on measures through which the Abe administration expresses its recognition?”
This is precisely what makes the Asahi the Asahi.
It presumably means that Japan should clarify its historical understanding and “console the Korean people.”
No matter how much Japan has apologized, and no matter how many words from prime ministers have been conveyed, South Korea has never been satisfied, and yet the Asahi still tells Japan to “clarify its historical understanding.”
To begin with, the newspaper does not appear to have any awareness that it fundamentally destroyed Japan-South Korea relations by issuing impossible false reports, such as that comfort women were forcibly taken away by the Japanese military or Japanese authorities, or by confusing comfort women with the Women’s Volunteer Corps.
And the editorial concludes as follows.
“The economic cooperation funds that Japan provided with the establishment of diplomatic relations half a century ago not only built the foundation of modern South Korea, but also contributed to the growth of Japan’s economy. The two countries have a record of always developing in a mutually beneficial relationship. The painstaking bonds built up by our predecessors beyond the wall of an era in which negative memories still remained deeply are a precious asset of peace that cannot be replaced by anything. What kind of relationship will Japan and South Korea pass on to the next generation from now on? Is it not time for both governments and citizens to think calmly and deeply?”
Exactly as it says.
The predecessors who crossed “the wall of an era in which negative memories still remained deeply” knew the true history.
That is why comfort women did not become a problem, and with regard to wartime laborers as well, the distinction between recruited workers and free workers was clearly understood.
For that very reason, the sin of the Japanese newspaper that created the opportunity for history to be fabricated is grave.
When I think that Japan-South Korea relations would not have become so entangled if the Asahi had not existed, I feel truly regretful and angry as one Japanese person.
This essay continues.

elations.