By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Lee Jae-myung indicated on June 8 that military cooperation between South Korea and Japan is difficult for the Korean people to accept, asserting that a genuine bilateral relationship can only be forged upon the resolution of historical and territorial disputes. During a press conference commemorating his first year in office, President Lee addressed the South Korea-Japan Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA), emphasizing that while a multilateral security framework is desirable for Northeast Asia in the long term, current confrontational dynamics necessitate caution and a measured approach. He drew an analogy to illustrate that an apology for past transgressions must precede any move toward friendship, highlighting that lingering issues prevent full cooperation.
Read the original article here
It’s understandable that President Lee Jae-myung would articulate the sentiment that “it is difficult for our people to accept military cooperation between South Korea and Japan.” This statement reflects a deep-seated historical reality that continues to cast a long shadow over the relationship between the two nations. For many Koreans, the historical grievances and territorial disputes are not merely abstract political issues; they are vivid memories and ongoing concerns that profoundly shape public opinion and national sentiment. The notion of close military cooperation, which implies a significant degree of trust and solidarity, naturally meets resistance when these foundational issues remain unresolved.
The core of this difficulty lies in the painful history of Japan’s colonial rule over Korea from 1910 to 1945. During this period, Japan implemented policies aimed at suppressing Korean culture and identity, a deeply scarring experience for the Korean people. This historical trauma is not easily set aside, and the memory of forced labor, cultural suppression, and immense suffering remains a significant barrier. When considering military alliances, the past atrocities, including the enslavement of Koreans and the immense loss of life, resurface as potent reminders of past injustices that have yet to be fully acknowledged or atoned for in a way that resonates with the Korean public.
President Lee’s assertion that “A genuine relationship between the two countries can only be achieved when historical and territorial issues are resolved” underscores the belief that a superficial alliance or security pact without addressing these fundamental problems will ultimately be fragile. True partnership, in this view, requires a foundation of mutual understanding, respect, and reconciliation. Until Japan takes steps that are perceived as genuinely acknowledging and taking responsibility for its past actions, and until territorial disputes are settled in a mutually acceptable manner, any talk of robust military cooperation will likely continue to face strong domestic opposition in South Korea.
This is not to say that the geopolitical landscape doesn’t present compelling reasons for such cooperation. The rise of threats from North Korea, China, and Russia certainly creates an impetus for neighboring countries to strengthen their defenses. However, the immediate need for security against future threats cannot entirely erase the weight of past injustices. For many, prioritizing future security over addressing past wrongs feels like an incomplete or even a betrayal of historical memory and justice.
The complexity of the situation is further amplified by the fact that public opinion in both countries plays a crucial role. While some may advocate for pragmatic alliances in the face of current threats, the emotional and historical context cannot be ignored. The idea of military cooperation is a particularly sensitive one, as it implies a level of trust and shared purpose that is difficult to forge when deep historical wounds remain open. It’s akin to asking individuals with a traumatic past to immediately embrace someone who has inflicted that trauma, without any form of apology or reconciliation.
The statement also implies a distinction between a superficial or politically motivated alliance and a “genuine relationship.” The latter, it suggests, requires a more profound reckoning with the past, allowing for a more authentic and sustainable partnership to emerge. The focus remains on the necessity of addressing historical grievances and territorial disputes as prerequisites for any deep and lasting cooperation. This perspective highlights the importance of acknowledging the lived experiences and historical narratives of the Korean people in shaping foreign policy and security arrangements. It’s a call for a partnership built on more than just shared strategic interests, but also on shared understanding and a willingness to heal past wounds.