Originally published on October 20, 2019.
Based on an essay by Kadota Ryusho in the special issue of Sound Argument, The Fallen Media, this article examines South Korea’s notice of terminating GSOMIA, Moon Jae-in’s remarks, and the administration’s attitude of making void the Japan-South Korea Basic Treaty and the comfort women agreement.
It discusses how even the Asahi Shimbun could no longer fully defend South Korea when it went so far as to deny the rule of law.

October 20, 2019.
It seems that even the Asahi, for all its usual behavior, could not support in its articles a South Korea that denies even this “rule of law.”
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.
This is a continuation of the chapter I introduced the other day, titled The “Enemy Within” That Sides with South Korea While Ignoring the National Interest.
An “Emotion-Governed State” That Denies the “Rule of Law.”
After that, South Korea notified Japan that it would terminate GSOMIA, the Japan-South Korea General Security of Military Information Agreement, and stated that it had “obtained understanding from the United States,” but the United States said, “Do not lie. We are disappointed in South Korea,” and the Moon administration became increasingly cornered.
On August 29, Mr. Moon’s extreme “outrageous remark” became clear.
At the opening of the Cabinet meeting that day, Mr. Moon went so far as to make the following statement.
“The series of attitudes taken by the Japanese government is very regrettable. Japan must be more honest. It is an immovable historical fact that the perpetrator is Japan. It cannot be ended by saying that reflection is over because Japan once expressed remorse, or that all past issues have passed because an agreement was once reached.”
That is what he said.
In other words, he is saying that historical issues are not resolved by a single agreement.
It is exactly the same method as the Asahi’s way of reviving historical recognition again and again.
How should we receive these words from Mr. Moon?
If pursued to the end, this means that with a state called South Korea, even if one reaches an agreement and concludes a treaty or accord, that is not the “end.”
In other words, even the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and South Korea, concluded between then Prime Minister Sato Eisaku and President Park Chung-hee after suppressing enormous opposition, is “not valid.”
In the sense that South Korea itself declared that it does not keep promises made between states, this can be called an event that left even the international community unable to hide its astonishment.
It seems that even the Asahi, for all its usual behavior, could not support in its articles a South Korea that denies even this “rule of law.”
Mr. Moon, who was born during the Korean War as the son of refugees from Hamhung in North Korea, is an extreme pro-North figure who received the news that he had passed the bar examination while in a detention center after being arrested during the democratization movement.
Toward this man, who makes void everything—the comfort women agreement and the so-called “wartime laborers” issue as well—even the anti-Japan media such as the Asahi are gradually finding it difficult to offer support.
The more they do so, the more the people notice “the disease called newspapers.”
There is no doubt that the problems Mr. Moon has caused will remain in history in the sense that they have “awakened” the Japanese people in every respect.