South Korea has decided to compensate its own people who were made to labor in Japanese industries during World War Two.
The proposal from Seoul tries to remove a colonial grudge that has long hampered bilateral relations.
On Monday, representatives from both sides welcomed the plan as a breakthrough.
South Korean victims and opponents of the plan, however, have criticized the accord because they feel that it does not hold Tokyo responsible.
Due to Japan's colonization of the Korean peninsula from 1910 to 1945, around 150,000 Koreans were compelled to work in factories and mines in Japan throughout the war.
Under the compensation plan South Korean corporations would contribute to a public fund for victims, this was denounced by demonstrators Monday outside the foreign ministry in Seoul.
The government of Japan, meanwhile, welcomed Seoul's decision to drop its demand that two Japanese companies make restitution. Previous South Korean administrations had tried to force Tokyo to make reparations.
Which included Mitsubishi and Nippon Steel, they refused which incited even more hostility.
President Yoon Suk-yeol of South Korea, who was elected last year, has attempted to normalize ties with Japan, another regional ally of the United States. The US has pushed both countries to mend fences.
The pact was dubbed "ground-breaking" by US Vice President Joe Biden on Monday.
According to Seoul's plan, businesses that benefitted from a post-war agreement in 1965 would make gifts. Only three of the original 15 Plaintiffs are still living, therefore the $3 million (£2.5 million) money will be divided among them. All three have refused to accept the money.
The recommendations were first presented by South Korea's Foreign Minister Park Jin, who stated that ending "the vicious cycle" was in the country's best interest.
According to the Yonhap news agency, he hoped Japan would "positively respond... with Japanese companies' voluntary donations and a complete apology".
He told reporters, "If we compare that to a glass of water, I think the glass is more than half filled.
Yoshimasa Hayashi, the foreign minister of Japan, praised the proposal and pledged that his country would permit local businesses to participate in the public fund. He underlined the desire for increased political and cultural interactions with the neighboring nations.
Groups who advocate for Korean plaintiffs, however, criticized the agreement.
"The Korean government effectively provides immunity to the accused Japanese businesses from legal obligations," lawyers for the victims said in a statement.
One victim, Yang Geum-deok, reportedly said, "I won't receive money that seems to be the product of begging. "You must first apologize, and then resolve everything else."
The pact was referred to as "the largest embarrassment and stain in diplomatic history" by Lee Jae-myung, the head of South Korea's Democratic Party, the main opposition party.
It is unknown if the Japanese companies included in the 2018 court decision will make voluntary donations.
According to Reuters, Mitsubishi and Nippon Steel declined to comment on the agreement, citing prior claims that the 1965 Treaty addressed the subject of wartime reparations.
The reparations package in that accord totaled around $800 million in grants and low-interest loans. Tokyo claims to have resolved all colonial-era claims, but Seoul has long disputed this.
The new agreement is anticipated to enable both countries to overcome a significant barrier in their relationship and, as a result, cooperate more closely on security at a time when North Korea and China are posing increasingly serious Threats.
A number of bilateral disagreements have existed since 1945, notably the topic of reparations for Korean women who were held as slaves by Japan in wartime brothels.
A agreement was reached in 2015 to end the "comfort women" controversy, which included an apology from Japan and the creation of a billion-yen ($7.3m) fund for survivors.
Three years later, Seoul dissolved the fund on the grounds that it had not done enough to address the concerns of the victims, which sparked a tense diplomatic dispute.
Post a Comment