For a deeper analysis of this highly controversial issue, we're joined by Professor Kim Eun-mee,
the Dean of Ewha Womans University Graduate School, who was also a member of the government's
task force that was in charge of reviewing the 2015 Seoul-Tokyo agreement.
Thank you Professor Kim for coming in today.
Q1 Let’s start off by taking a look back at
the 2015 Seoul-Tokyo agreement on Japan’s wartime sexual slavery, and its much-talked-about
flaws.
As a member of the government’s task force exclusively formed to review the agreement,
could you share with us your first-hand analysis of it?
What are the biggest flaws?
Q2 The South Korean government, through an official
announcement on Tuesday, said that the 2015 agreement cannot be considered a resolution
to this issue, but also said it will not scrap, nor renegotiate the deal.
Some point out that this kind of stance is too ambiguous and worry that the government
may lose trust from many sides.
What’s your take on this?
Q3 In other corners, some argue that through
Tuesday’s announcement, the South Korean government was able to avert losing global
credibility as it could be detrimental to Korea's national image if Seoul went ahead
and nullified the deal unilaterally.
Do you agree?
Q4 Whether South Korea will return the 8.9 million-dollar
compensation fund offered by Japan with the 2015 agreement...
had been at the center of attention, as a return would imply Seoul’s will to scrap
or renegotiate the deal.
About that, the government said that it will not return the fund, at least for now, but
won’t use the money either.
Instead, it plans to use 8.9 million dollars from its own national budget to compensate
the victims, and discuss with Japan afterwards on dealing with the money initially given
by Tokyo.
Again, many claim that this plan is too uncertain, only raising more questions than answers.
How do you interpret the move?
Q5 Let’s say that South Korea decides to return
the near 9-million dollar compensation fund.
Will Japan accept it?
Tokyo is now up in arms, strongly urging for implementation of the agreement.
Q6 We can’t deny the fact that the 2015 settlement
is an official agreement made between two nations.
But I understand that parts of it violate international human rights law.
Is Seoul still obligated to implement the agreement?
Could you tell us from the perspective of international law?
Q7 Should Seoul and Tokyo fail to resolve this
issue diplomatically, can we turn to international law to find a solution?
Q8 South Korea now stands in a position that
requires careful balancing of its relations with Japan.
And experts agree that it’s important to keep a strategic partnership with Tokyo for
many different reasons, including North Korea’s nuclear standoff.
How should the government approach this issue from this point on?
Q9 One last question for you.
It’s imperative that we learn from this and prevent such problems from recurring.
What kind of measures should Seoul’s foreign ministry take to make sure such cases don’t
happen again?
[ ] There are reports that FM Kang Kyung-hwa may
hold sideline talks with Japanese FM next week in Canada where a multilateral nuclear
meeting is set to take place.
Do you think the two sides will sit down for talks and if yes, what do you expect from
those talks?
Do you think
the Moon administration's stance
on this issue will appease the victims or Tokyo in
the end?
Or do you think it
will be difficult
with just a compromise?