[Wang Son-taek] What went wrong at the Sado mines

The Sado Mines Memorial Ceremony stands as a stark reminder of the unresolved historical tensions and diplomatic missteps between Korea and Japan. What could have been a meaningful step toward reconciliation instead became a diplomatic failure, highlighting the challenges both countries face in addressing their shared past. Understanding what went wrong is crucial for avoiding similar setbacks in the future and ensuring that historical grievances do not continue to hinder diplomatic progress.

Initially planned as a joint commemoration involving participants from both Korea and Japan, the ceremony was quickly shattered. Korea boycotted the event, holding a separate ceremony the following day. This division stemmed from disagreements over the event’s purpose, speech content, and Japan’s choice of representative. Korea envisioned the ceremony as a memorial event honoring the forced laborers from Korea who endured harsh and inhumane conditions at the Sado mines during Japan’s occupation of the Korean Peninsula. Japan, on the other hand, treated the occasion as a celebration of the mine’s addition to the UNESCO World Heritage list, offering general gratitude to all laborers without acknowledging the forced labor. These conflicting visions created a diplomatic impasse.

Korea also expected the remarks from the Japanese government to include expressions of remorse for wartime atrocities and a memorial tribute to the Korean laborers. Japan refused, framing the event as apolitical. The Japanese address delivered during the ceremony excluded any mention of forced labor or wartime regret, triggering widespread anger in Korea. For Korea, this refusal marked a betrayal of earlier promises, leaving no choice but to withdraw from the event.

Japan’s selection of Akiko Ikuina as its representative further inflamed tensions. While Korea requested a senior official as a gesture of respect, Ikuina, a parliamentary vice minister of Japan’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, was controversial due to her reported visits to the Yasukuni Shrine — a site notorious for honoring fallen soldiers including first-class war criminals during World War II. The criminals were responsible for Japanese war crimes in neighboring states including Korea, especially the inhumane act of forced labor at the Sado mines. This choice was seen as a clear disregard for Korean sensitivities and cast doubt on Japan’s sincerity. Critics in Seoul accused the Korean government of failing to anticipate Japan’s actions, calling the incident another instance of Japan disregarding Korea’s concerns.

The Sado mines incident echoes past frustrations, particularly the 2015 controversy surrounding Japan’s bid to add Hashima Island to the UNESCO World Heritage list. Korea had agreed to the listing on the condition that Japan educate visitors about the forced labor of Koreans. While Japan initially accepted this demand, it later reneged, offering only a vague acknowledgment buried in an optional audio exhibit. The parallels with Sado are striking. Once again, Korea demanded historical transparency, and Japan ostensibly agreed. Yet, as before, Japan’s actions failed to align with its commitments. For Korea, this pattern highlights Japan’s lack of sincerity and raises questions about its diplomatic effectiveness in securing enforceable agreements.

Japan’s reluctance to address its wartime past is deeply tied to the rise of historical revisionism in its domestic politics. Right-wing factions argue that Japan has already apologized and should not be forced to revisit its wartime conduct. Some even question whether certain atrocities occurred, framing them as exaggerated or fabricated. This revisionist stance has hardened Japan’s resistance to reconciliation. By refusing to confront its history, Japan not only perpetuates mistrust but also ensures that progress with Korea remains elusive.

From Korea’s perspective, the Sado mines incident also underscores significant weaknesses in its diplomatic approach. Despite having faced similar betrayals, Korean negotiators failed to secure robust guarantees from Japan. Their reliance on Japan’s goodwill left Korea vulnerable to repeated disappointments. Domestic political pressures critically complicated Korea’s position. President Yoon Suk Yeol’s administration has prioritized improving relations with Japan, viewing a stable bilateral relationship as strategically important. Influential staff like Kim Tae-hyo, the first deputy national security advisor, have emphasized accommodating Japan’s perspective. While this approach may have been intended to foster goodwill, it weakened Korea’s stance. Japanese negotiators, sensing Korea’s conciliatory tone, capitalized on this dynamic to sideline Korean demands.

Korean public opinion remains deeply sensitive to issues related to historical memory. The Sado mines incident sparked widespread domestic criticism, with many accusing the government of naivety and failure to protect national dignity. Ignoring this public sentiment risks further eroding trust in the government’s ability to manage relations with Japan. Diplomatic strategies must strike a balance between the desire for reconciliation and the need for historical accountability. Overlooking public sentiment can undermine both domestic support and the broader goal of fostering better relations with Japan.

The Sado mines debacle provides critical lessons for Korea’s diplomacy. Korean negotiators must adopt a firmer stance on historical issues. Clear, enforceable agreements should be prioritized to ensure that promises made by Japan are upheld. Improving relations with Japan is vital, but not at the expense of addressing historical grievances. Korea must remain steadfast in demanding that Japan should confront its past honestly. Diplomatic strategies must reflect the Korean public’s deep connection to historical issues. Aligning diplomatic objectives with public expectations will strengthen domestic support and ensure a unified approach.

The Sado Mines Memorial Ceremony was a missed opportunity for reconciliation and a reminder of how unresolved historical grievances continue to hinder progress. As long as Japan resists acknowledging its wartime actions and Korea struggles to assert its interests effectively, true reconciliation will remain out of reach. However, this failure can also serve as a catalyst for more strategic and principled diplomacy. By learning from the past and addressing its own shortcomings, Korea can better navigate the complexities of its relationship with Japan. Reconciliation is not impossible, but it requires mutual commitment to historical truth and a shared vision for the future. Only through these efforts can the two nations move beyond the shadows of their shared history and build a more constructive partnership.

Wang Son-taek

Wang Son-taek is an adjunct professor at Sogang University. He is a former diplomatic correspondent at YTN and a former research associate at Yeosijae. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. — Ed.