Yet Another Japanese Apology to Korea [2010 August]

He Who Shall Not Be Named… lest leitmotiv shows up again to defend him…

Amateur. *Yawn*

@Stereo – yup, and he cited “Gold Warriors” in the process! Yipes!

rather odd and etiolated creatures

Mighty big word there – “etiolated”. Too bad you apparently don’t know what it means, because trying to disparage someone’s views by saying that person is “pale, sickly, weak” is nonsensical.

From “Hamachiman”
First layer is, Japan has NEVER apologized to Korea. Second layer is, yea, but that’s not a “real” and “true” apology.

From “LB”
Further, the Prime Minister and his cabinet serve at the pleasure of the Emperor. Everyone knows the Emperor is the true Head of State. Unless and until the Emperor personally apologizes to each and every living Korean, Chinese, Filipino, American, Australian, Dutchman, New Zealander, Burmese, Indonesian, Malaysian, Singaporean, Frenchman, Marshall Islander, Chamorro and a whole bunch of other people, then the apology means nothing. You hear me, nothing.

Oy veh.

Who or what are you two Nobel short-listers denouncing? A one sided echo chamber of angry vitriol and sarcastic rebuttals against…. nothing? Crickets chirping? This seems a new low for argumentative idiocy, for which there is not yet an official descriptive term. Let’s call this one the “straw-man circle-jerk” and submit it to http://www.fallacyfiles.org

And the 2nd layer has it:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/08/10/japan.korea.apology/index.html

“South Korea’s ruling Grand National Party said the statement was ‘a step forward’ from past statements, but ‘not enough to allay’ Korean anger, the country’s Yonhap news agency said.
The statement ‘has no mention of illegitimacy of the forced annexation and Koreans forced to work as sex slaves or manual laborers by the Japanese army,’ Ahn Hyoung-hwan, a spokesman of the party, said, according to Yonhap.

Again,…. Rush out and buy this “Japanese only” T-shirt. Stocks are limited. Honestly.

LOL, wut?

Look, get stupidly drunk on a weekday afternoon *OR* post comments. Try to avoid doing both simultaneously.

Did we call it or did we call it.

These japan haters are annoyingly predictable.

Kamachiman, you don’t know me so pldon’t call me a Japan hater.

The links I provided are just some examples of various apologies made by governments and different entities for various reasons.
As you pointed out, many of the apologies are for specific facts, but isn’t it the case for Mr Kan’s apologies? After all, he didn’t apologize to the world for the atrocities committed by fascist imperial Japan, but to South Korea for the colonization period.

My point is, official apologies are increasingly used in modern politics as a symbol of peace and reconciliation. This is a way to acknowledge the past and create a better future. Apologies honor those who have the courage and the intelligence to see the truth, such as Willy Brandt who wonderfully exemplified the sorrow of German people for their past. Germany had paid 25 billion dollars to holocaust survivors and to this day, still pays a monthly stipend to 240000 Nazi ghettos and concentration camps survivors.

After all, apologies are part of the Japanese business culture, so this shouldn’t be difficult to find the good words, isn’t it? I think most people over the world did not really accept previous apologies because they were watered down (“regrettable”, “some pain”) and did not seem sincere. Good apologies are honest, simple and forward-thinking. I think Mr Kan’s apologies were good, but he missed an opportunity to pronounce it on Korean soil (which would have had a much bigger impact).

You can visit many museums and memorial centers in Germany dedicated to the horrors of Nazi period. If you have the opportunity, you can visit the Jewish museum in Berlin, or several former concentration camps transformed into memorial centers. Maybe one way for Japan to settle this would be to open a museum dedicated to he militarist period, showing the evolution from Meiji era to the fascist/militarist government and the the atrocities of World War 2. It would show the history of annexation of asian countries by the fascist troups, but then would show the great development of friendship between democratic Japan and other nations after WW2.

I did not justify colonialism, but objectively described the course of the history. I want to ask you, “if you had been the decision maker of Korea back in 1905 or 1910, what would you have done? What would have been the likely consequence of your decision?”

>you conveniently forget to mention the atrocities you committed during the colonization?
That raises an interesting question. Does a colonizer need to apologize for colonial rule itself, or need not to apologize for colonial rule itself but need to for each atrocity during colonial rule? Dr. Yu, you seem to believe in the latter, whereas PM Kan of Japan believes in the former.

A related question is, “Should People’s Republic of China stop the colonial rule of Tibet and apologize for it?” Dr. Yu, I want to hear your comment.

The problem with “atrocities during colonial rule of Korea” is that many of the atrocities were fabricated by Koreans and Korean Government. Anyone is reluctant to apologize for accusations based wholly or partly on lies.

>I`m talking about the truth, acknowledging what really happened many years ago for the sake of both countries and stop lying to justify what can not be justified.

You should say so to Koreans. I remember cases in which Korean accusations were proven untrue, like “forced name change”, “ban of use of Korean language”, “stealing of farm land” and so on. I do not know a case Japanese argument was proven untrue.

What? You are criticizing Japan for what Japan does not say.
Did Japan ever say that there was no war time atrocity committed by Japanese soldiers during WW2? Never. But Koreans say that Japan deny any atrocity and then get angry about Japan. Koreans must have an auditory hallucination.

Comfort women? OK. You say Japanese government does not acknowledge the truth. Then tell me if you know the official understanding of GoJ on this issue and show me which detail of it is untrue. You cannot, can you, because you even do not know the view of GoJ and call it a lie.

>Nobody in Japan told about me that.
Let me tell you my personal experience. A lot of times, Koreans told me bad things Japanese had done in Korea which I had never heard before. However, when I tried to verify what they said, things always turned out to be untrue. So, I no longer believe what they say without solid evidence. If Japanese say they never heard something before, it is likely the something is just untrue.

If your only source of information is your grand mother, no one is going to take you seriously.

Dr. Yu
“She was more fluent in Japanese than Korean because she had to study in Japanese when she was a child. ”

I see.
Your family was perhaps pro-Japanese.
Japanese was spoken at official places like at school, but in general Korean people didn’t speak Japanese in daily life. Even in 1943, only ２２．１５% of Korean people could understand Japanese. I sympathize with the plight Korean people went through to prove they were not pro-Japanese in the storm of Korean ultra-nationalism after the liberation.

” That’s not even funny”

I am sorry.

Does exposing your family secret still hurt your family?

Anyway, your confession makes it easier to understand why you comment on Japan the way you do. Thanks.

” BTW how is your black van? still running?”

Is the black van shouting, “Korea should save the comfort women exploited by Korea, at least as much as Japan did “?

Did Japanese rape, murderer and torture your family?
I think you are a Korean. Though a lot of war time atrocities by Japanese were reported in China, I do not know much of war time atrocities committed by Japanese soldiers in Korea because there was no combat in Korea during WW2.

Your argument is like this. If you raped me, you owe me an apology. So, Apologize. The answer is, of course, “if so”.

Korea was a faithful ally of Japan during WW2. There were a lot of volunteer Korean soldiers who fought against the allied forces. Provisional Government of Korea in Shanghai did nothing to fight against Japan. Yet, Koreans today behave like winners of the WW2, and claim they are the main recipients of Japanese apology. Koreans should know better. Do you think Koreans deserves so much of an apology?

Stereo,
What a stupid excuse to justify Korean colonialism.
Why every time you guys come with the lame excuse of colonizing Korea to for the sake of Koreans (saving Korea from the evil China and Russia and developing Korea) you conveniently forget to mention the atrocities you committed during the colonization? Was it also for the sake of Koreans? Than tell me something, the nukes dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was for the sake of the Japanese?
It’s because of hypocrisy like this that Korea keep refusing your apologies.
I personally believe that this time it can be different, because besides just plain words it seems like Japan will show their real regret and remorse with proper actions. No, I`m not talking about money, keep your precious money with you, I`m talking about the truth, acknowledging what really happened for the sake of both countries and stop lying to justify what can not be justified.

Dr Yu,

Thank you for proving my point.
Unless Korean nationalism weaken, there will be no way to settle this.

F.Y.I.
I believe the colonialism was wrong, and it was brutal to oppress and kill Korean protesters.
It was wrong to exploit the Korean comfort women. The apologies are due.

I also believe that there was a huge Korean political party like Iljinhoe which supported the annexation and there were also a huge number of Koreans who applied for Japanese army when Tojo, a war criminal, was a prime minister.

I also hope that Korean nationalism will weaken and start helping the comfort women Korea exploited after the colonization, at least as much as Japan did to the former comfort women.

”As long as your government stop provoking Korea with lies and acknowledges the truth, things will be ok between Korea and Japan. It’s that simple”

The problem is that often the truth provokes Korea.

>Japan is a very protectionist country economically
>for years the LDP encouraged proto-fascist nationalism.
Excuse me. What exactly are you talking about?

“What the article doesn’t say is that Samsung was targeted by unfair competition from local companies, so it couldn’t survive. Of course, Japanese electronic products are great, this is the reason they are so popular abroad. But let the market decide!”

Is there proof of this occurring?

I’m sure even now there are Samsung components in Japanese electronics and products.

Considering how cut throat the Japanese domestic economy is when it comes to electronics Samsung just couldn’t compete with a market dominated by titans with the home field advantage.

“As a rule in European Union, unfair competitive practice are illegal (cartels, eviction of foreign companies, etc…). The whole policy of Japan would be illegal in Europe.”

Funny, the EU sure seems to love giving an unfair advantage to their homegrown firms, and I believe even in the 1970′s and 1980′s even tried to keep out Japanese automobile manufacturers via quotas.

“Let me tell you something. Would Japan export-driven economy do well if foreign countries stopped buying Japanese products because of protectionist policies? Of course not. So, why would Japan take advantage of open markets abroad without allowing foreign products and services in?”

If one country or market was to shut them out I’m sure they’d find a new market to sell in.

“I believe free market benefits to all by increasing the competition and stimulating local companies to increase competitivity.”

Oh, you mean like in the US, where the manufacturing sector has been largely gutted aside from high-end products?

I have heard this argument over and over and over again – that “free trade” means consumers get goods cheaper while domestic companies are forced to become efficient. The problem is, only the first part of the equation has ever proven in practice to be true. There is absolutely no way a first-world country, with a first-world standard of living that requires people be paid a living wage, can compete with a third-world country when it comes to mass-produced consumer goods and agricultural products. No way at all. Just walk through any supermarket in the States and check out where a lot of the fruits and vegetables come from – a very large percentage come from south of the border, in spite of the fact American producers have long used migrant (and often illegal) pickers that are paid abysmal wages to artificially suppress the price of produce. And yet even when you factor in the much higher transportation costs to bring in fruits and vegetables from Mexico or Central and South America they can’t compete.

I recently visited my home town in the, which is 45 miles from Canada and 3000 miles from Mexico. I would walk in the supermarket and find tomatoes (for just one example) from Canada, California and Chile. The Chilean tomatoes were less than half the price of the US tomatoes, which were in turn considerably cheaper than the Canadian tomatoes in spite of having been transported over 10 times further to arrive at the local supermarket.

Free trade does not, in and of itself, mean “import everything”, granted. Free trade within the EU is a good example of that, but then again while there are gaps between the levels of economic development among the various EU member states they are all more-or-less on the same page. The cost of living and producing goods may be cheaper in Greece than in Germany, for example, but the difference is nowhere near that of the US vs. Mexico, or Japan vs. China. In other words, there was already in effect a “level playing field” and removal of import duties had only minimal impact in any one area. Then again, I have also heard plenty of Europeans complain about goods from Spain or Greece “unfairly” undercutting similar products in their home countries, so the EU free trade system doesn’t seem to be all good news.

However, the point I am trying to make is that while “free trade” does not in and of itself mean “import everything”, that would be the very real result if Japan entered into a free trade agreement with China. The way things are now in terms of differences in economic development and standards of living, there is absolutely no way Japanese producers and farmers could ever become efficient enough, within Japan, to compete with Chinese goods and produce. The only way any Japanese company would be able to survive would be to do what US companies did, and outsource everything. Japanese industry would be effectively gutted. Japanese farmers would be reduced to a small handful of local producers selling to those who were willing to pay a premium for domestic organic fruits and vegetables. Everyone else would be completely dependent on imported food. This would be the reality, and it is borne out by plenty of case examples – I am not offering a theory as you are piglet, all I have to do is look around and see what has actually happened to countries that were in far better positions in terms of import “needs” versus what domestic production could supply than Japan.

Finally, of course Peter Mandelsen and Murray McLean want Japan to “open up”. It is in the EU’s and Australia’s best interests that Japan do so, as it increases their countries’ chances to make money. That is what they are paid to do – create an advantage for their home countries. I don’t have a problem with that, as Japanese ambassadors and politicians do the same. I expect them to do nothing less – any Japanese pol that said “Forget about what is good for Japan, what can we do to benefit the EU and Australia?” should be thrown overboard. Mandelsen’s and McLean’s position have absolutely nothing to do with any concern for Japanese consumers or corporations. The whole “well if you do this,it will be good for Japan” argument they present needs to be taken for a very large grain of salt. They don’t give a rat’s ass what is “good for Japan”. All they care about is “what is good for the EU/Australia”.

The question that then needs asking, from the Japanese side, is “Is this proposal good for Japan?” If so, fine. If not, Mandelsen and McLean should be told to go pound sand.

Indeed – there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Piglet

” > Mandelson described Japan as “the most closed investment market in the developed world””

The point is not whether he said it—I know he said it— but whether what he said is true.

“Japan is mainly an export-driven economy”

I agree japan is export-driven economy but what you need to show is your statement that ” Japan is a very protectionist country economically (it is still the most closed developed country of the world in economic terms)”.

In particular, I am interested in how you measured protectionist-ness and the closed-ness and what parameter you used to make your point.

I am not criticizing Japan, I am just stating the fact that its economy is oriented towards exports while keeping a relative protectionist policy. As a free-trade advocate, I am convinced it would in Japan’s best interests to try a new economic approach radically different from the past: no more keynesian incentives (none of them produced any result), open markets, a liberal immigration policy and a limited government.
(By the way I am also very critical of some protectionist policies of my home country, France, and I can say the current French government is absolutely terrible.

To answer your questions, are are some parameters that let me affirm Japan is still a protectionist country:

FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT
is an appropriate indicator to evaluate the “openess” of a country. Some countries have low foreign investment because nobody wants to invest in them (Tajikistan), some because the regulatory system does not encourage foreign investment (Japan).
James, your link shows that Japanese FDI is relatively low compared to the size of its economy and to similar major economies.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08320.pdf
“Japan possesses the third largest economy in the world. However, foreign investment is significantly less in Japan than for other large economies.”
“Officials also offered multiple explanations for why foreign investment in Japan has been low. One explanation is that foreign acquisitions of Japanese companies face barriers caused by business practices such as cross-shareholding—the practice of companies holding shares of each other’s stock—and keiretsu relationships—groups of affiliated companies that hold each other’s shares and may also have financial (such as bank loans) or manufacturer-supplier ties or distributor relationships. Cross- shareholding and keiretsu relationships lessen the amount of shares available on the stock market. In addition, cross-shareholding may prevent a foreign company from taking management control of a company, even if the foreign company is the largest individual shareholder. ”

A very interesting paper (a few years old though): Japan: A Continuing Dilemma for Open Trade Ideals
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/tdrc/research/japan.pdf

The gradual movement toward more open markets for trade and investment, and the domestic political support for that movement over the past half century has depended on a broad sense of reciprocity. One country is willing to lower its trade barriers when it believes that its trading partners are doing likewise, so that the specific losses incurred by domestic businesses facing increased competition from abroad are offset by gains for industries that obtain new opportunities to sell abroad. Through both bilateral negotiations and the series of multilateral trade rounds under the auspices of the GATT, the United States and its trading partners have made considerable progress in lowering barriers since the 1940s. However, the continuation of that process has been seriously jeopardized by Japan over the past two decades.
Both anecdotal and statistical evidence indicates that Japan has not played its expected role in providing reciprocal access to its markets in exchange for more liberal rules of access to the United States or other countries. As American businesses, labor unions, and other politically active groups because increasingly aware of this problem during the 1980s, American government pressure on Japan to open its markets increased. High profile trade negotiations characterized the second term of the Reagan administration, the Bush administration, and the first term of the Clinton administration, spanning a 12-year period. The knowledge of continuing protectionist Japanese behavior in the face of formal moves to increase market access also eroded the traditional liberal trade coalition in the United States.

(…)

MANUFACTORED IMPORTS
As figure 2 shows, this ratio of import penetration hovered around 13 percent for Japan until the late 1980s, but increased to 21 percent by 1996. Although these data are currently available only up to 1996, separate data on Japan indicate that this ratio has not increased any further by 1999, when it stood at 22 percent.5 Even with the increase in import penetration during the 1990s, therefore, the ratio remained well below that of other nations. The United States had an import ratio to apparent domestic consumption of manufactures of 22 percent back in 1980, rising to 42 percent by 1996. Other industrial nations—France, Germany, and Britain—are all much higher still. Even India, a large continental nation (which usually have lower import penetration ratios) with a known policy of protecting domestic industry, had a ratio of 19 percent in 1980, rising to 33percentby1996. AndJapan’snearbyneighborSouthKoreahasaveryhighratio (though presumably much of the imports are assembled into exports rather than consumed in the domestic market).

(…)

INTRA-INDUSTRY TRADE
Japan’s intra-industry trade index statistic was up modestly from 31 in 1988 to 42 in 1996, but much lower than that of the United States (72 in 1990, rising to 80 by 1996) or other major industrial nations. In fact, of all 30 countries reported by the OECD for 1996, only five others had an overall intra-industry trade index statistic lower than Japan’s: Australia (41), Greece (36), Iceland (19), New Zealand (34), and Turkey (40). These five countries can be easily explained. They have small populations that limit the scope of the manufacturing sector (especially Iceland), have abundant natural resources and resource processing industries (with less product differentiation and, therefore, low intra-industry trade) that have developed at the expense of other manufacturing industries (especially Australia), have an overwhelming comparative advantage in agriculture that developed at the expense of manufacturing (such as New Zealand), or are still low- income countries with poorly developed manufacturing sectors (Turkey). None of these characteristics applies to Japan, a large mature economy with a well-developed manufacturing sector and a large population. These are all characteristics that should have pushed Japan’s intra-industry trade to much higher levels.
What does this mean for American business? Many leading American industries experience rather high levels of intra-industry trade at home; even though they are highly successful export industries, they also face large imports in the American market. These same industries often find that they face a quite different situation in Japan, where intra- industry trade is lower in the same industry, and usually lower because Japan does not import much. Table 2 presents trade data for the 15 largest American export industries.

(…)

SERVICES
Second, the anecdotal evidence indicates the presence of substantial barriers to trade in services. AmongthebilateraltradedisputesconcerningaccesstoJapan’s domestic market, those in the following industries exposed particularly pernicious barriers and in most cases access issues remain unresolved today: construction, legal services, telecommunications, international civil aviation, and financial services.

Piglet

“I am not criticizing Japan”

You can criticize Japan but you should do it without hyperbole and with substance.

You cited Edward J. Lincoln in 2000 when he was at The Brookings Institution

Here is what he said in 2004

”

Interviews (Edward J. Lincoln) –
23 Jun 2004

Nikko Salomon Smith Barney (Nikko Citigroup) chief equity strategist, Alexander Kinmont, concluded that “well-informed opinion of Japan [in terms of finance] has become a mere ‘luxury’” (see JRN interview). On a wider policy-oriented basis, do you think Kinmont may be right or is he wrong?

“To a large extent he is correct. Keep in mind that this development is not necessarily a bad thing. That is, part of the sag in interest in Japan is due to the fact that it is becoming a more “normal” nation, an affluent, large economy that has fewer serious problems of market access than in the past. In the 1980s people thought Japan was either the bogeyman or a tremendous opportunity for personal careers. Today perceptions have evened out. The Japanese do not dominate the world economy. Job opportunities for foreigners in Japan (particularly in investment banking) have improved, but overall the slow economic growth make Japan a less interesting site abroad to seek one’s fortune than appeared to be the case in the past.

http://www.japanreview.net/interview_lincoln.htm

flowby

“Which if you re-read and re-read your original comment you DID ask ”

I did re-read it I said.

“I don’t think you have a malice intention, but let me ask you a few question.

“Japan is a very protectionist country economically (it is still the most closed developed country of the world in economic terms)”

Is your reasoning based on statistics? Could you cite one?”

If you read it carefully , his claim is not just that Japan is relatively closed country but that Japan is still the most closed developed country in economic term.

I asked to cite he statistics to prove it.

What is wrong with that ?
And where did he cite the statistics?

”
And you DID make a snide out of place comment towards him. ”

Again could you quote my comment in which I made a snide？

Now allow me to remind you of the fact that this is the thread about “Yet Another Japanese Apology to Korea”

Who started “this area of discussion” about Japan as ” the most closed developed country of the world in economic terms” the , LDP having been encouraging proto-fascist nationalism, Samsung “targeted by unfair competition from local companies”

1)These are off topic; they have little to do with backing up his claims about the apology by Japan.

2)The claims, it seemed to me, are unfounded.

3)I asked to substantiate them.

I wonder why you are attacking the way I commented.

Re-read them again, come again with the exact quotes you want to attack.
And start arguing for his claims and for your claim about my comments if you want to a fair discussion.

　ぼくはある種の人々のworld-constructと異なる意見をもっているせいか、ご承知のように、子供じみた横やりを入れられることがあるのです。そのせいかもしれないですか、正直な感想を申しますと、あなたの私に対するコメントも、単なる、横やりではないか、という印象を持っています。以前にもありましたからね。横やりではない、ということでしたら、どうぞ、反論したい、あるいは、たしなめたい、私のコメントの正確な引用と、Piglet氏の主張に対する弁論をして下さい。

.

flowby

I I re-iterate, you haven’t directly answered my 2 simple questions.
Just reinforce piglet’s argument and quote my comment you want to attack.

“I wouldn’t suggest you play a non sequitur card well, but you have great skills in leading questioning and answering questions with questions.”

I’ll ask you again who started ““this area of discussion” about Japan as ” the most closed developed country of the world in economic terms” the , LDP having been encouraging proto-fascist nationalism, Samsung “targeted by unfair competition from local companies”

And tell me why asking to substantiate them is non sequitur

“The successful spectator enjoys the spectacle of the game without having to pick sides. Whether it be olympics, world cup or J-probe discussions.”

Then I wonder why you fail to be a successful spectator.

fowby

Okay flowby, Let’s finish it up.
Either you answer my questions or you promise you won’t stork me again.
I’ll sincerely answer your questions.

“better leave it here, because now you’re really tugging at strings judging my spectatorship as a failure”

You said,

“The successful spectator enjoys the spectacle of the game without having to pick sides”

You picked one side. You said.

“Piglet’s comments rise above.”

You refused to give any substantial arguments for the support and refutations against my comment.

Therefore by your own words, you fail to be the successful spectator who enjoys the spectacle of the game without having to pick sides.

Is my reasoning not sound?

I am not sure which two questions you are talking about?

“Ponta – this area of discussion began because you asked piglet to give one example of protectionism and then you hit him with a snide remark about “what’s his debito handle”? Like – what’s that?”

The first sentence is not the question but a snide remark about my comment.
And we’ve already discussed it. right?

You asked,

“What’s that?”

That is the question to Piglet, because he cited the links which were on Debito’s blog.
What’s wrong with asking if he had a handle on it?

And you have some other questions in mind, please restate them clearly.

Now my questions to you are,

1)Who started this area of this discussion about Japan as ” the most closed developed country of the world in economic terms” the , LDP having been encouraging proto-fascist nationalism, Samsung “targeted by unfair competition from local companies”

2)Are they not off topic?

3)What is wrong with asking to substantiate them?