South Korea and Japan normalized relations in 1965, but unresolved historical disputes continue to undermine genuine bilateral reconciliation and optimal diplomatic, security and economic cooperation. Past efforts, both between the two countries and trilaterally with the United States, to help improve relations have generally emphasized a “future-oriented” approach that focused on common security and economic interests. However, the lack of a fundamental and permanent resolution to the historical grievances has also meant chronic bilateral unease and periodic flareups of heightened friction.
The areas of historical tension between South Korea and Japan range widely, including over the name of the body of water separating Japan and the Korean Peninsula (Sea of Japan or East Sea); sovereignty over a group of rocky islets between the two countries (Dokdo/Takeshima); the legality of Japan’s colonization of Korea from 1910-1945; and the treatment of sexual slaves (also known as “comfort women”) by the Japanese imperial military during the wartime period, as well as how the victims’ claims should be compensated and remembered.
These historical grievances often extend into other non-historical disputes, such as Japan’s 2021 decision to release wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and its 2019 tightening of export controls on chemicals necessary for South Korea’s semiconductor industry.
The recent flashpoint for bilateral friction was a 2018 decision by the South Korean Supreme Court requiring two Japanese companies to compensate a group of Korean forced laborers from the wartime period. This decision directly challenged the Japanese government’s view that a 1965 bilateral agreement had settled all claims, including individual laborer claims, “completely and finally.”
Without a fundamental resolution to the historical issues, “future-oriented” bilateral cooperation on diplomatic, security, and economic matters will likely be limited and suboptimal. For the United States in particular, poor relations between its two closest regional allies are not only an irritant but a direct threat to its longstanding aims of developing a network of allies in the region and its present goal of achieving integrated deterrence as part of its Indo-Pacific strategy.
This ongoing USIP essays series seeks to explore new and creative approaches for finding an enduring resolution to Japan-South Korea tensions. USIP’s Northeast Asia program invited subject matter experts to offer a fresh perspective on the challenge by either examining a new approach or a creative take on an existing approach. In particular, the goal was to examine ideas that could have practical policy value for policymakers.
Tom Le argues that any strategy to achieve reconciliation between Japan and South Korea must take seriously the compounding costs of delayed justice on bilateral relations, and will require extraordinary restitution and investment.
Celeste Arrington explains how litigation related to colonial-era disputes between Japan and South Korea have had impacts beyond the courtroom, and how understanding these effects can help policymakers design solutions to historical disputes that are more likely to gain traction.
Sayaka Chatani examines the origins and prevalence of anti-Korean racism in Japan, the unwitting role that the United States has played in perpetuating anti-Korean prejudice in Japan, and how U.S. actors can help fight such racism and improve the conditions for South Korea-Japan reconciliation.
Erin Chung examines how the ambiguous legal status of descendants of colonial-era Korean migrants in Japan has spurred anti-Korean sentiment among the far-right in Japan, and how reforms to Japan’s citizenship and immigration policies could help resolve this situation and even create openings for greater cooperation between Japan and South Korea.
Lily Gardner Feldman reviews the 1963 Élysée Treaty of Friendship between Germany and France, which enshrined the goal of reconciliation between the two countries, and whether there are useful lessons for Japan-South Korea relations.
Alexis Dudden describes three key aspects of the comfort women issue that the United States should recognize if it is to play a helpful role in resolving bilateral tensions between Japan and South Korea.
Gregg Brazinsky argues that creating a durable sense of goodwill between Japan and South Korea will require the two countries to listen to dissident voices, look at their history in new ways and convince the United States to play a productive role.
Nathan Park examines three issues stemming from ambiguities in the 1965 normalization treaties between Japan and South Korea that would arise if the two countries pursued arbitration to resolve the forced labor dispute.
Daniel Sneider describes how Japan and South Korea have developed separate memories of the wartime period and the colonial rule that preceded and shaped the experience of war, and then offers potential ideas for civil society-based reconciliation efforts that could help bridge the disparate national memories.
Syrus Jin delves deeper into the history of U.S. influence on the relations between the two countries and argues that greater U.S. acknowledgment of its complicating historical role could help alleviate the blame that typically falls on Japan and South Korea.
Tim Webster analyzes three key elements that have been present in past conciliation agreements related to Japan’s wartime actions and a potential U.S. role in facilitating negotiations between Seoul and Tokyo.
Frank Aum, former South Korean Supreme Court Justice Park Sang-ok, and Joseph Yun examine the forced labor court cases that gave rise to the recent flareup in Japan-South Korea tension, and argue that a joint fund idea may be the best of five difficult ways forward.
Frank Aum looks at the state of South Korea-Japan relations, how they can be improved, and the geopolitical implications of continued tensions amid the challenges posed by China and North Korea.