Published on September 11, 2019.
As a continuation of Matsumoto Koji’s essay published in the September issue of the monthly magazine WiLL, this article discusses the structure of Japan-Korea relations in which Korea has created problems while Japan has sought temporary fixes to calm the situation.
It examines the danger of anti-Japanese ideology, Japan’s passive diplomacy, and the need to dismantle Korea’s anti-Japanese historical narrative by concretely showing the legacy of Japanese rule, modern Korean, Korean studies, and the reception of Japanese law.

September 11, 2019.
Until now, the Korean side has created problems and stirred up confrontation, while the Japanese side has tried somehow to calm the situation and has attempted stopgap solutions.
Korea has no such way of thinking at all.
The following is the continuation of the previous chapter.
The Danger of Korea.
—What should Japan do?
Matsumoto.
Until now, the Korean side has created problems and stirred up confrontation, while the Japanese side has tried somehow to calm the situation and has attempted stopgap solutions.
Korea has no such way of thinking at all.
Because Korea is in a state of constantly storing up the magma of anti-Japanese sentiment, it cannot endure a long period without an eruption.
Even if relations are repaired, after a while it forcibly opens a hole in a completely different place and makes the magma erupt.
It has repeated this sort of thing.
If compared to soccer, this is a truly strange match: one side plays only offense, and the other side plays only defense.
Japan gathers everyone in front of the goal net, and everyone blocks the balls that Korea kicks in.
Korea knows that Japan will absolutely never attack, so it attacks however it likes, from right to left, with shots and headers.
This is what has been going on until quite recently.
—Are you saying Japan should counterattack?
Matsumoto.
Diplomacy that always responds passively to Korean demands and searches for ambiguous solutions while saying things such as “exploring threads for repair” should now be brought to an end.
It is only a matter of time before Korea’s anti-Japanese sentiment exceeds the danger zone, and Japan no longer has the leeway to continue doing what it has done until now.
There seems to be a tendency among the Japanese people to think that diplomacy means getting along well with foreign countries, but the original meaning of diplomacy is quite different.
Japan should switch completely to a diplomacy that strongly projects Japan’s position outward.
—Do you mean switching the basic tone from cooperation to confrontation?
Matsumoto.
Unnecessary conflict should be avoided, and there are many fields in which cooperation is possible, so those should be handled well.
However, what needs to change now is the idea that the standard condition of bilateral relations is “a repaired state,” that is, the idea that things are fine as long as no waves are being raised.
Before our eyes is an abnormal state that places Japan in an absolutely negative position and has no higher thought or norm that can put the brakes on anti-Japanese sentiment.
Passive responses are no longer enough.
Japan should move proactively, not fear confrontation, and place its main emphasis on removing the danger of anti-Japanese sentiment.
—You say removing the danger, but I do not think that can be done easily.
Matsumoto.
That is true, but the essence of the problem is simple.
Solzhenitsyn said that the Soviet Union was founded on lies, and an anti-Japanese country is the same.
For the 70 years since the war, countless lies that have continued to be told about Japan and Japan-Korea relations have stirred up Koreans’ emotions of anger.
It is necessary to break them down.
Rather than simply refuting the problems raised by Korea and considering that enough, Japan should take the initiative and act.
It would be best to take up themes that are concrete and easy to understand.
Laws, for example, would be good, because they have solid written texts.
Even in Korea, remnants of Japanese imperialism in the law are often taken up, and because these are facts that cannot be disguised, they are easy to explain.
By showing the process by which Japanese law was transferred and received, the concept of the “legacy of Japanese rule” should naturally be brought into relief.
Japan should shed light on the fact that this country became independent as a result of the Sino-Japanese War, that is, that it was separated from China; on Fukuzawa Yukichi’s contribution to the creation of modern Korean; and on the achievements of Japanese scholars who created the foundations of Korean studies through research into history, ancient language, and shamanism.
It can also be concretely pointed out that a considerable portion of Korea’s modern literature consists of adaptations of Japanese works.
It is also self-evident that taekwondo derived from karate, and that Korean kendo, or geomdo, and tea ceremony, or dado, were inspired by Japan.
These should gradually be allowed to penetrate Korea through pamphlets, video channels, and the like, and at the same time Japan should officially request that they be reflected in Korean public education.
If the Korean side has objections, it should offer counterarguments.
If those counterarguments can be confirmed as true, there is no need for Japan to cling to its own claims.
After all, this is not propaganda.
This article continues.