This article was translated by JIIA from Japanese into English to promote Japanese scholarly work on international relations.
JIIA takes full responsibility for the translation of this article.
To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your personal use and research,please contact JIIA by e-mail (jdl_inquiry @jiia.or.jp).
Citation: Japan and the World, Japan Digital Library (March 2017),
http://www2.jiia.or.jp/en/digital_library/world.php

Mutual Perceptions in Japaneseand Korean Civic Society*
Noriyo Isozaki(Gakushuin University)
Introduction
With the 50th anniversary of normalized diplomatic relations approaching in 2015, Japan-South Korea
relations have entered a critical phase. In an April 11, 2014, Washington Post article, Sadako Ogata (former
United Nations high commissioner for refugees), Han Sung-Joo (former foreign minister of South
Korea), and Ezra Vogel (professor emeritus at Harvard University) comment, “Relations between Japanand South Korea are probably at their worst since the end of World War II.” They offer the political leaders of both countries some suggestions on how to improve relations, but there were few signs of such
improvement as of the second half of 2015. Their article ascribes the worsening of Japan-South Korea
relations partly to a vicious cycle of interaction between the state and the people: political and diplomaticconflict at the government level exacerbates antagonistic public attitudes between the two countries, andconversely unfavorable public sentiment incites a hard-line stance among political leaders of both sides.
In short, the deterioration of relations is driven not only by intergovernmental conflict, but also by public
attitudes. Thus, as this article and many observers suggest, conflict on the societal level and burgeoning
nationalism can be blamed in part for the worsening of Japan-South Korea relations in recent years.
Perceptions of the nature of other countries are a key influence on both specific foreign policies
determining the type of relationship sought with a country and general conceptions about foreign relations. Recent scholarship on foreign and national security policies conceptualizes national identity as“how a country defines what kind of a country it is and what kind of foreign relations it should build” (cf.
Katzenstein 1996), perceiving international relations as a function of national identity and foreign recognition as well as foreign policy. Given the “anti-Korea” and “anti-Japan” sentiment in contemporary
Japanese and South Korean society, more and more studies (Hangstrom and Gustafsson 2015, Glosserman
and Snyder 2015) have argued that the conflicts between Japan and South Korea and between Japan and
China are rooted in the national identity of these countries.
Despite this growing focus on such collision of Japanese and South Korean national identity andpublic sentiment, until relatively recently greater attention was paid to the friendly aspects of the twocountries’ relations, such as the influx of South Korean pop culture into Japan. The present situation,* This article was originally published as Noriyo Isozaki “Nikkan Shimin Shakai niokeru Sogoninshiki,” in Noriyo Isozaki

and Chong-koo Lee, eds., Nikkan Kankeishi 1965-2015 III Shakai-Bunka [history of Japan-South Korea relations, 1965-2015,
Vol.3: society and culture] (Tokyo: The University of Tokyo Press, 2015), 29-60.

1then, raises two questions: How does this situation fit into the 50-year history of Japan-South Korea relations? And, how should we understand the contradiction between the increasing nationalism and thesociocultural interaction in civic society discussed in Chapter 1?
In this chapter, we will examine changes in Japanese and South Korean average citizens’ perceptionsof each other over the past 50 years from a historical perspective, and study how the current situation isaffected by those changes. When discussing mutual perceptions of Japanese and South Korean societies
over the last 50 years, it is important to note that there have been significant qualitative differences insocietal relations between the first and second halves of that period. Before the democratization of South
Korea in 1987, the state controlled not only South Korean society, but also external, interpersonal exchanges. Overseas travel was completely deregulated in South Korea only in 1989, and until the Seoul
Olympics in 1988, Japanese people did not generally consider South Korea as a tourism destination. Thus
the Japanese and South Korean peoples did not travel back and forth between their respective countries
until the latter half of the 50-year period. Moreover, information technology (IT) was not yet very advanced during the first half of the period, permitting state control of the flow of information. In otherwords, when discussing mutual perceptions of Japanese and South Korean civic societies, we must consider questions of context, i.e., the strength of political control over society and the relationship between
the state and society, duly noting the differences in how interpersonal exchanges were conducted before
and after democratization. With that in mind, this chapter will examine how the peoples of Japan andSouth Korea perceived each other over time, given the background context of both state-society relations
in domestic politics and international relations.
Since the South Korean state exercised rigid control over its society before democratization, thelimits to available information also limit our ability to gauge perceptions of Japan among the general populace. While newspapers in both countries began to conduct joint public opinion surveys in the 1980s,
that type of information would have been impossible to gather during the 1970s. Here, we will instead
examine Japanese and South Korean perceptions based on what is presented in their respective media. We
postulate that when direct exchanges were difficult and the flow of information was controlled, most of
the information available to the general populace was from media reports about the other country, which
played a major role in shaping each country’s image of the other. Focusing on newspapers, the main
media at the time, and using the Asahi Shimbun Digital News Archives Kikuzou II Visual and the Chosun
Ilbo Archive, we will analyze and organize reporting on the other country, including attention to theimpact of the length and frequency of articles. Though the digitalization of newspaper articles has madeit easier to use search terms to identify the number of articles, this does not enable us to measure theimpact of elements such as article length. As such, we will also select and qualitatively analyze articles
about the other country and about Japan-South Korea relations. In addition to newspaper reports, we will
also consider other important contemporary sources of information about each other’s country.
After the democratization of South Korea, there have been increased exchanges of people, products,
and information about both countries, and the media have also become diversified. This suggests that wecannot adequately assess popular perceptions based on newspaper reports alone. Therefore, in the
post-democratization period, we will examine how the other country was perceived and what factors
contributed to those views based on public opinion surveys. While there were early expectations that
increased interpersonal exchanges outside of government control would encourage mutual understanding free of political relations and promote trust, the situation in recent years has not necessarily progressed in that direction. How is the situation today affected by the evolution of Japan-South Korean
relations and changes in mutual perceptions? We emphasize these questions in our analysis of the
post-democratization period.
2

The rest of this paper proceeds as follows. In Section 1, we will analyze conditions in 1965, whenbilateral relations were normalized. Section 2 examines the effect of the strengthening of the president’s
authoritarian powers in the 1970s. In Section 3, we look at media reports in Japan and South Korea
during the 1980s, just prior to democratization, to examine how the other country was perceived when
direct interpersonal exchanges were limited. In Section 4, we use public opinion surveys to consider how
relations between Japan and South Korea have changed after democratization and the conclusion of theCold War, examining changes over the past 50 years holistically and focusing on how the current situation has been affected by evolving changes in mutual perception.

1.	Normalization of relations between Japan and South Korea—Mutual perceptions as a starting point
The Japan-Republic of Korea Basic Relations Treaty was signed on June 22, 1965, ending a nearly 20-year
absence of diplomatic relations between the two countries. The treaty was pushed through against domestic opposition on both sides, with opposition being particularly fierce in South Korea. At the start ofthe building of Japan-South Korea relations, how did the media in both countries depict the other country, and how did they present the prospects of Japan-South Korea relations? During this time the Park
Chung-hee administration did not wield the degree of despotic authority that it would in the 1970s, andgovernment control over the media was not that stringent, so the South Korean media had freer rein todebate and even criticize the government. Let us look at how the media on both sides presented the othercountry to their fellow citizens following the long gap in diplomatic relations.
Japan’s Asahi Shimbun ran an editorial entitled “The Japan-South Korea Treaty Signing and theChallenges It Brings” on page 2 of the June 23 morning edition. Criticizing the Japanese government for“shelving the territorial issue” and being quick to make other compromises, the editorial discussed theoutlook and challenges for Japan-South Korea relations and international relations in Asia. It said thatthe greatest priority in Japan-South Korea relations should be placed on economic cooperation and expressed concern that normalizing relations with South Korea but not the North could spawn repercussions in Japan from the two Koreas’ antagonism and could worsen Japan’s relations with North Korea,
which would be an obstacle to the important goal of easing of tensions in East Asia. However, this discussion did not delve into the questions of what kind of country South Korea was, or what kind of relations
should be formed with its people.
On the same page is a special article titled “New Japan-Korea Age,” which notes the importance of
thinking about relations between the two countries on the level of popular sentiment. The article declaresthat “South Koreans have both a nearly unshakable anti-Japan mindset rooted in Japan’s rule over the
peninsula and a distrust based on that.” While this shows some empathy toward the opposition movement in South Korea, the article does not consider how Japan should react. It only juxtaposes the existence of the opposition movement in South Korea and its counterpart in Japan (opposition to normalizing
relations with South Korea but not the North), and simply says that the two movements are something to
be dealt with in the future. Meanwhile, the local news section (page 15) has a piece titled “The Road toFriendship” that points out the importance of fostering amicable relations between the two countries.
The article quotes Tokyo Metropolitan University professor Takashi Hatada as saying, “Japanese still havea sense of superiority over Koreans and discriminate against them. There are a lot of people who thinkthat Koreans are dirty and violent. But have those people ever actually interacted with Koreans? It’s nothing but prejudice and the discriminatory policies of the past.” However, amongst all this special coverageof normalization, there were hardly any articles that provided a tangible picture of South Korea’s society
and people.
3

As illustrated by these examples, the Japanese media zeroed in on concerns and issues in the context
of international relations while shedding little light on the implications of establishing diplomatic relations with South Korea and showing almost no interest in South Korean society and its people. Until thetreaty was ratified by both countries in December 1965, Japanese media reports on South Korea focusedon the intense opposition against ratification, mainly among students. There were also daily stories on
opposition to ratification in Japan, giving the impression that Japan-South Korea relations represented a
sharp, inflammatory political issue.
Let us now turn out attention to the Chosun Ilbo. On June 23, the day the treaty was signed, thenewspaper carried an editorial titled “Unforgettable Indignation [han] of a Half Century” that demanded
Japan to take responsibility for its history and called on South Koreans to recognize the importance of“awareness of national identity.” Subsequently, until ratification, it ran articles about the opposition
movement along with special features discussing problems with the signed treaty and ways to remedy
those issues, including a series titled, “National identity and the winds of Japan—what needs to be prevented, and how?” These included numerous warnings against again falling into a subordinate relationship with Japan.
On the following December 19, the day after the instruments of ratification were exchanged, having
been steamrolled through the South Korean National Assembly, the Chosun Ilbo ran an editorial headlined“The future of South Korea and Japan, now that they have diplomatic relations.” This piece stated, “Frankly
speaking, the current normalized relations between South Korea and Japan are nothing more than normalized relations between the governments of the two countries, and not normalization of relations between their peoples.” Moreover, as the conclusion of the treaty had brought about a new era of cultivating
diplomatic relations, the editorial called on the South Korean public to become actively engaged with thisprocess. It also stated that the most important thing in dealing with Japan was “awareness of our own national identity” and underscored the importance of dealing with Japan with a “wise heart and attitude as
the autonomous people of a dignified independent state.” In January, it ran “Know Japan,” a series of special articles from correspondents in Tokyo that depicted Japanese society through portraits of individual
working people, including office workers, farmers, and fishermen. Subsequently, the focus of Japan-related
stories shifted from Japanese society to “Japan in South Korea.” These articles examined topics such as theactivities of Japanese trading companies in South Korea and the changes in Pusan due to the normalization of diplomatic relations, with no attempt to gain a deeper understanding of Japanese society.
In sum, Japanese and South Korean newspaper articles at the time that relations were normalized
focused on the effect that the changes had on their own country, with the viewpoints greatly diverging
between both sides. There was little inclination toward understanding the other country’s people andbuilding concrete relations, and very little information was provided that could facilitate such positive
actions—a trend that continued thereafter.

2. Mutual perception in the 1970s—The Yushin System and “political image”
South Korea in the 1960s was ruled by President Park Chung-hee, who had seized power in a military
coup d’état, but political freedom and the right to vote were, in their own way, guaranteed. However,under the Yushin System instituted in 1972, the fundamental human rights of the South Korean people
were greatly restricted, and there was tight government control of the media.
Progressive forces in Japan criticized the Park administration from the start as an “anti-communist
autocracy,” and with the spread of repressive politics in the 1970s, there was an increase in critical newspaper articles. Of particular note was the “Korean College Spy Incident,” in which Zainichi Koreans(ethnic Koreans permanently residing in Japan) had gone to South Korea to study and were arrested as4North Korean spies, with the death sentence of Suh Sung reported on the front pages (October 12, 1971),
and the movement for clemency reported daily in Japan. Furthermore, the Kim Dae-jung Incident, inwhich Kim Dae-jung, a politician of South Korea’s opposition party, was kidnapped in Japan in 1973 andbrought to Seoul (August 8, 1973), was reported on continuously for days, and the incident of a Japaneseexchange student arrested in July 1974 on suspicion of spying also received considerable media coverage.
During that time media reports about South Korea were caught up in politics, with a series of news articles entrenching the image of South Korea as a dictatorship.
In addition to newspapers, the magazine Sekai, published by Iwanami Shoten, began focusing on
South Korean issues. It ran an interview with Kim Dae-jung entitled “The Road to the Democratizationof South Korea—Contradictions of the Park Administration Expanding” in its September 1973 issue,
which, in an odd coincidence, went on sale the very day Kim was kidnapped, helping to increase the levelof attention directed at the incident. In its next issue in October it ran a special feature entitled “The Kim
Dae-jung Incident—What Is Being Asked?” by which it began to take up in earnest the issues of the suppression of human rights and the demand for democracy in South Korea. Sekai has wielded great influence in the forums of opinion in post-war Japan, and the level of interest in South Korea rose largely
among its readership. A series of articles entitled “Dispatches from South Korea,” by a South Korean
writing under the pseudonym “T.K. Sei,” had already begun in the May 1973 issue of Sekai, reporting on
suppression under the military government and the then-current resistance. With interest in South Korea
rising, Dispatches from South Korea, a collection of the series’ articles up to June 1974, was published by
Iwanami Shoten in 1974 and became a best seller that year. The series itself continued until 1988, the yearthat South Korea became democratized, and was published in four volumes. This series greatly influenced the shape of Japan’s image of South Korea from the 1970s through the first half of the 1980s, when
there was only limited information from South Korea.1
Next came the Mun Se-gwang Incident of August 15, 1974, in which Mun Se-gwang, a Zainichi
Korean, entered South Korea with a Japanese passport and attempted to assassinate President Park
Chung-hee but instead struck and killed the president’s wife with a stray bullet. Adding to the shock created by the incident was the fact that Mun had used a handgun stolen from a police box in Japan. As
newspapers extensively covered the story, including suspicions that the General Association of Korean
Residents in Japan might have been involved, Japan-Korea relations, including relations with North
Korea, became a realm of images such as “spies” and “assassination,” and thus produced a sense of fear.
Demonstrations denouncing Japan and its support of the Park Chung-hee administration broke out inSouth Korea, with tens of thousands of people protesting in front of the Japanese embassy. On September
6, a group of demonstrators even broke into the Japanese embassy in an incident that was reported by the
Asahi Shimbun in a front-page article with photos in that day’s evening edition. On the following day, thenewspaper published a commentary by its correspondent in Seoul under the headline “The Anger of theSouth Korean People.” This piece suggested that the anti-Japan protests—which defied explanation
within the construct of authoritarianism versus popular resistance—erupted from a convergence of anti-communist and anti-Japan sentiment, and it outlined the opinions expressed by the protestors.2
As Japan-South Korea relations became extremely strained in the mid-1970s, Asahi Shimbun ran a
34-part series entitled “Japan and South Korea,” starting on January 5, 1975. The articles introduced
South Korean society’s reaction toward Japan, including wariness of Japan and the Japanese language(which was still used to an extent in South Korea), and the concept of a “new era of Japanese language”
in which people learned Japanese “to become patriots.” The focus was placed not on the government but
on South Korean society, depicting the people and their viewpoints regarding Japan. As such, the series
represented a novel, long-running attempt to comprehend Japan-South Korea relations, but rather than5

providing a distinct picture of South Korean life, it was more of a commentary on “how one should understand South Korea.”
Ultimately, the Japanese in this period who took an interest in South Korea and explored the solidarity of civic society grounded in human rights were members of the intelligentsia; for the average
Japanese, however, South Korea remained a distant neighbor. In a 1978 survey by Akira Tsujimura andhis colleagues that compared Japanese perceptions of 15 countries, including North Korea, South Korea
placed second after the Soviet Union as the “most despotic country,” and third after the Soviet Union and
China as the “country with the least amount of freedom,” receiving an even more negative rating thanNorth Korea (Chung Dae-Kyun, October 2010), so it can be said that it had the distinct image of an “anti-communist autocracy.”
Next, let us look at how the Chosun Ilbo reported on Japan. The first half of the 1970s was a time
when there were major changes in the Cold War structure of East Asia. The Western détente with China—
the chain of events beginning with Henry Kissinger’s secret mission to China in 1971, followed byPresident Richard Nixon’s shocking announcement that he planned to visit China, the actual visit in1972, the two countries’ rapprochement, and Japan’s normalization of diplomatic relations with China—
deepened President Park Chung-hee’s sense of crisis that the US and Japan were warming up to theCommunist Bloc. This turn of events in international relations has been cited as one of the motivating
factors behind the strengthening of the South Korean government’s power under the Yushin System. In
terms of relations with Japan, the South Korean government harbored doubts not only about Japan’s establishment of diplomatic relations with China’s communist government, but also about the signs thatJapan was looking to improve relations with North Korea as well,—misgivings that were reflected inSouth Korean newspapers. With tighter restrictions on the media under the Yushin System, it was a time
when the freedom of organs of expression of public opinion was greatly constrained.
As stated above, relations between Japan and South Korea fell into a critical state between 1973 and1974, but even before that, the Chosun Ilbo frequently carried reports lambasting Japanese policy vis-àvis North Korea, and even small articles simply reporting the facts were all placed on the front page. For
example, the top story on the front page on January 22, 1972 was a report on the visit to Pyongyang by anonpartisan group of Japanese Diet members and their agreement to expand trade with North Korea,
and the next day’s front page reported that the South Korean government considered that agreement a
violation of the Japan-South Korea treaty and was considering what actions it should take in response.
Such coverage brought into relief the perception that Japan was cozying up with North Korea in contravention of its treaty with the South. This tendency for the South Korean media to point up Japan’s willingness to abide by the treaty every time some North Korea-related issue cropped up continued thereafter,
as seen in articles reporting the Japanese government’s allowing reentry into Japan by Zainichi North
Koreans belonging to the General Association of Korean Residents who were returning from visits toNorth Korea.
In this way the South Korean press heavily criticized the Japanese government for taking a posturethat threatened to throw South Korea in crisis—namely, for conducting “two-timing diplomacy” withboth Seoul and Pyongyang, and for adopting policies considerate to North Korea, a country that rejected
the legitimacy of South Korea as a state. It can be said that this perception of Japan was connected to the“anti-Japan” movement precipitated by the Mun Se-gwang Incident. A salient example was the Chosun
Ilbo published on August 20, 1974, the day after the state funeral of President Park Chung-hee’s wife. The
top article on the front page extensively covered the funeral and included an aerial photograph of a million citizens gathered around Gwanghwamun to watch the procession. Right next to the photograph was
the second biggest headline, “Japan considers recognizing North Korea.” This article, which included the6subheading “Foreign Minister Kimura: When the UN changes its stance regarding the South Korea issue,”reported that Foreign Minister Toshio Kimura, addressing the House of Councillors Committee on the
Budget, said that “Although it’s still too soon, if sometime in the future there is a change in the United
Nations’ stance on the South Korea issue, [recognizing North Korea] could also be considered.” In otherwords, the gist of the foreign minister’s statement was that conditions were still not right for Japan torecognize North Korea, which can be understood by reading the article, but the headline alone gave themisleading suggestion that Japan was already considering recognizing North Korea. While the entire
front page reported on the shock and sadness of the assassination of the president’s wife, at the same timeit also gave the impression that Japan was taking a conciliatory attitude toward North Korea, which wasbehind the incident. It can be said that in South Korea, with the government exercising ideological control over the people under its “anti-communist national policy,” the media were criticizing Japan for
disavowing and endangering South Korea by warming up to communism in its pursuit of détente.
Framing by the government was also used in criticism of Japan in the “Japan-Korea Solidarity
Movement” that was big at the time. A civic movement in Japan, criticizing the suppression of humanrights by the despotic government of South Korea, brought up the matter of “solidarity in the democracy
movement” of South Korea. However, Park Chung-hee government saw this as a leftist power movement“supporting anti-establishment forces” and hence considered the movement in Japan as an “anti-South
Korea force” that disavowed the nation of South Korea.3 The democracy movement in South Korea in the
1970s focused on the elite and was not widespread at the grass-roots level as it would be in the 1980s, andit can be said that the movement in Japan that supported this, due to this framing, was perceived by theSouth Korean public as “anti-South Korean.”As stated above, during the time of the Park Chung-hee administration, with the governments ofboth countries needing one another for security purposes, a channel was maintained between the two
governments, but the image of each other’s country in their respective societies was not good. The imageof South Korea as an “anti-communist autocracy with no freedoms” spread in Japan, and the image ofJapan in South Korea spread by the Park Chung-hee government was that Japan was hostile to theircountry. The civic movement in Japan regarding the democracy movement in South Korea was considered by the Chung-hee government to be a “movement disavowing the nation of South Korea.”
Furthermore, this kind of civic movement in Japan criticized the Japanese government for supporting theSouth Korean government, but the image of the Japanese government that the South Korean government
projected to its domestic audience was one of a cunning government that was becoming close with North
Korea. On the other side of the same coin, the Park administration, which was criticized as being “subordinate to Japan” by the anti-establishment powers in the country, was also able to demonstrate domestically a strong stance against Japan. At this time there was a new kind of movement, that is to say, asolidarity civic movement of Japan and South Korea, but the perception for one another’s country spreading through the societies of both countries was one of nation-centric disavowal.

3. A “New Age of Japan and South Korea” in the 1980s—Advent of a new image
In 1979 Park Chung-hee was assassinated and the Yushin System collapsed. But after the “Seoul Spring,”
which brought elevated expectation of democratization, the military again intervened in politics and in
1980, Chun Doo-hwan, a former soldier, was inaugurated as president. The government employed military force to stop democratization, including mobilizing the military in reaction to democratic resistancein Kwangju, and rebuilt the authoritarian regime. However, it tried to give the impression that this formof government was different from the Yushin System that had been criticized for being a dictatorship. In
1981 the constitution was amended with an eye to a more pluralistic political system, for example
7abolishing the power of the president to appoint one-third of the National Assembly and presidential
authority enabling executive orders without passing through deliberation by the legislature. Regarding
Japan-South Korea relations, the government of Chun Doo-hwan pressed the Japanese government tobuild new relations that would differ from those under the Park Chung-hee government. The forces that
became the new national elite were a group who ran the government, taking hold of the military to intervene in politics and stepping down after grasping political power, and powerful politicians of the rulingparty during Park’s rule were at first banned from politics. Although the channel between the politicalelites in Japan and South Korea until the 1970s ceased to function, the goal was a rebuilding of JapanSouth Korea relations. Moreover, in June 1982 the first Japanese history textbook problem arose, castinga shadow over the restoration of Japan-South Korea relations. Japan-South Korea relations were finallyrestored between the government of Yasuhiro Nakasone, which was formed in November 1982, and thegovernment of Chun Doo-hwan; in January 1983 Prime Minister Nakasone became the first Japaneseprime minster to make an official visit to South Korea, and in 1984 President Chun Doo-hwan became
the first Korean head of state to make an official visit to Japan, greatly opening the way for a “New Age ofJapan and South Korea.”
The Chun Doo-hwan government endeavored to wipe away its image of violence from the time it
had usurped power. At a general meeting of the International Olympic Committee in 1981, in an effort
to bring the 1988 Olympics to Seoul, he planned to use the hosting of the Olympics to promote the solidarity unification of the nation and also to use this as a lever to improve South Korea’s international
image. In order to avoid political discontent and stabilize society, he promoted gradual liberalization in
non-political areas and in 1982 lifted the night traffic ban that had been in effect for 36 years, and in 1983
overseas travel was partially liberalized. From the 1980s there was an increase in exchange between
people, overseas contact, and the flow of information in South Korean society.
At this time there appeared a series of epoch-making articles entitled “The Way of Geug-il—
Overcoming Japan, Knowing Japan” that ran for a year (47 times) in Chosun Ilbo starting on January 1,
1983.
The term geug-il (overcoming Japan) was used as a theme because the government of Chun Doohwan, confronted with the Japanese history textbook problem of 1982, had begun advocating this concept even before efforts began to rebuild relations. The term began to appear newspaper articles in 1982,
was used in this long-running series in 1983, and again appeared in a series in 1984 before largely disappearing from the media. In a way it was a slogan that symbolized the posture toward Japan during thattime. It is possible that the South Korean government thought that by advocating geug-il, it could stimulate nationalism directed at Japan and firm up the regime, but rather than simply criticizing Japan, thisseries of articles in 1983 clearly stated the necessity of knowing Japan in order to catch up with and surpass it, and so rather than being “anti-Japanese” it advocated overcoming Japan. A panel discussion thatserved as the last of the series (December 17, 1983) asserted in its headline “the need to learn what shouldbe learned.” At the end of 1982, relations had already been rebuilt with the Nakasone government, andwith Nakasone’s visit to South Korea in January 1983 making a call for a “New Age of Japan and South
Korea,” that timing would appear to be behind that assertion.
The series pointed out that in the past information about Japan had focused on reminiscences ofpeople who had lived under Japanese colonial rule, and that when today’s Japan was covered by the media
it was from the viewpoint of Japan-South Korea relations, so the newspaper attempted to understandJapan itself. Reporting on Japanese society and culture during this period of rapid economic growth, including aspects that could be considered an advantage, while asserting that features lacking in South
Korea had contributed to the development of Japan, the series also often expressed complex feelings
8regarding “accepting Japan.” The various subjects taken up in the series began with the emperor and also
included elites such as the national assembly and the bureaucracy, the business world including smaller
businesses, family relations focusing on women, and life and spiritual culture among its wide-ranging
topics, and it was most noteworthy as the first straightforward coverage of everyday and family life. Until
then Japan had been associated with colonial rule and with being a post-war economic power, and evenafter the normalization of diplomatic relations, coverage of Japan focused on politics and economics, but
this long series provided an image of the lifestyle of the Japanese people. More than arousing familiarity
with Japan, however, the series seemed to stimulate a spirit of competition underlaid by a sense of wariness rather than trust.
The following year, 1984, President Chun Doo-hwan visited Japan, and the lead article the day after
his return home reported on the trip and included photographs. Right next to this top article, the newspaper began a six-part series entitled “Beyond the Pain of History—The True Way of Geug-il, the Futureof a New South Korea-Japan Relationship.” The third article of this series was flanked by a prominent
headline “The Bankruptcy of North Korean ‘Self-reliance’” (September 12, 1984), loudly announcing thatthe socialist planned economy of North Korea was bankrupt and its economic disparity with South Korea
was further increasing. South Korea had been victorious in its systematic competition with North Korea
and its relations with Japan were stable, the article held, and the criticism of Japan in the 1970s for its“two-timing diplomacy” was no longer emphasized.
Meanwhile, in Japan, the negative image of South Korea intensified through reporting on the assassination of President Park Chung-hee and the military intervention in politics that checked the progressof democratization. In particular, the “Kwangju Incident,” in which the military intervened to suppress thedemocracy movement in Kwangju, left an impression of a violent Chun Doo-hwan government. Due tothe oppressive rule of the Chun Doo-hwan government, the democracy movement temporarily entered aperiod of hibernation, but from the mid-1980s it was revived and reached its peak in 1987. The above-mentioned “Dispatches from South Korea” series continued running, reporting on government violence, suppression of human rights, and the democracy movement opposing such suppression, stimulating interestin South Korea’s democracy movement that had expanded its range beyond that of the 1970s.
However, starting in the mid-1980s, after the government propaganda about the “New Age of Japanand South Korea” and the decision to try to bring the Olympics to Seoul, a new and different image ofSouth Korea spread rapidly. As stated above, with progress made in liberalization in non-political areas,some Japanese started to approach South Korea in areas such as economic benefit, democracy, andhuman rights—subjects apart from strictly political concerns—and such Japanese people portrayed adifferent image of South Korea.
Perhaps the first example of that was Natsuo Sekigawa’s Souru no Renshuu Mondai—Ibunka e no
Toushi Nooto [Seoul’s Exercise—Penetrating Notes on a Foreign Culture], published in 1984 by Joho
Center Publishing. The book is a report on the author’s travels in South Korea, but as stated on the backcover of the new edition published in 2005, “At the beginning of the 1980s, a young man traveled in a‘close but far’ country. He learned that country’s language, walked around its towns, fell in love. Vividly
depicting an area in Seoul and the real faces of the South Koreans who lived there before South Korea had
become an ‘advanced country,’ this historical masterpiece of travel literature dramatically changed theview of South Korea among the Japanese, an image that thus far had been based on cookie-cutter news
reports and a back-and-forth of subservience and arrogance.” It is a repainting of the contemporary
image of South Korea and, as a book about South Korea, it became an extraordinary bestseller, with morethan 12 printings during the first year and a half after its release. Chung Dae-kyun called it “just about
the first attempt at a discussion about South Korea by a Japanese writer to describing interaction with the9South Korean people” (Chung Dae-kyun, 2003, p. 19).
Also, Mitsuo Yoshida, a specialist in Korean history, brought attention to South Korea through theinnovative changes in the country’s image in the 1980s, in the special 1985 New Year’s issue of Heibon
Punch, a men’s weekly magazine aimed at a young readership. This issue, which featured a South Korean
actress on its cover, consisted “completely of articles about South Korea,” with such comments as “I had no
idea South Korea was such a wonderful country . . . I really like it now,” and it sold so well that it was reportedly reprinted (Mitsuo Yoshida, 1999). South Korea, which had thus far been construed with the images of“despotic,” “dark,” and “poor,” began to draw attention in the second half of the 1980s with a positive image.
It was also in 1984 that NHK television began broadcast of a course on the Korean language.
This “South Korea Boom” in Japan reflected a “consumption culture” jumping on the bandwagon of
the Olympics, and so perhaps it was only natural that it would be criticized in South Korea, which wasmade into an object of desire. However, the fact that more and more people who before had not beeninterested in South Korea now visited the country promoted the transmission of information to Japan on
various aspects of the “new South Korea” through a variety of channels and aroused interest in South
Korea’s culture and the lifestyles of its people.
In this way, information about each other’s country became more diversified even before the change
in the political system and the liberalization of exchange. How each country perceived the other during
this time can be confirmed through public opinion surveys. In 1984, the year that President Chun Doohwan visited Japan, the first joint public opinion survey was conducted by the Asahi Shimbun of Japanand the Dong-A Ilbo of South Korea. Upon hearing the word “Japan,” 40 percent of South Koreans associated it with the “36 years of pain” and “36 years of memories” of the colonial period, while for Japanese
respondents, South Korea was associated most strongly with “kimchee and other Korean food” (8 percent) and “native dress, dance and culture” (8 percent). This demonstrated a gap in perceptions, withJapanese perceiving South Korea from their new consumption cultural interest, while South Koreans
could not get away from their perception of Japan as their colonial rulers.
At this time, however, the Japanese history textbook problem and Prime Minister Nakasone’s visit
to Yasukuni Shrine also stimulated awareness of such issues within Japanese society, so that people perceived the problems of the war and responsibility for colonial rule from an Asian perspective, and the“post-war cleanup” issue became politicized in Japan. According to Yutaka Yoshida (1995), a 1982 public
opinion survey found that a majority of people look at Japan’s foreign expansion since the Meiji Period asa “history of invasion,” with many Japanese people perceiving it as sharing the aggressive characteristics
and injurious characteristics of war. On the other hand, in the same survey 44.8 percent thought that
“Japan, which lacked natural resources and was poor, had no choice but to make military advances into
other countries to survive,” which means that the mainstream perception was that acts of aggression wereunavoidable. It was after the democratization of South Korea that historical problems engulfed the civic
societies of Japan and South Korea and expanded in both countries, and the issue of war responsibility
became manifest in Japan as well.
Meanwhile, during the rise of the democracy movement in South Korea in 1987, many people demanding democracy brought their demands into the streets, a state of affairs that drew attention in Japan
as well. It was just around that time that News Station, Japan’s first commercial broadcast of a prime timenews program, gained a steady audience. News footage showing political change in Asia was also widely
broadcast, and the democratization of South Korea also drew attention. The authoritarian regime responded to the rise of the movement with the “June 29 Declaration,” and the dynamic developments after
the presidential election, with the Olympics being held under a new government, giving even those who
had no interest in politics the impression that South Korea’s democracy was maturing. Furthermore,
10

amid the Cold War-related ideological conflicts in Japan, the left had supported North Korea and had not
acknowledged the nation of South Korea; but the democratization of South Korea won a positive assessment, and the Communist Party in 1988 and the Socialist Party in 1989 recognized the Republic ofKorea, with the image of South Korea portrayed by the left changing greatly compared to that of the
1970s. Amid this, the public opinion survey on “Japan’s familiarity with South Korea” (see below) foundthat 50 percent of respondents “feel familiarity” for the first time in 1988, surpassing those who “do not
feel familiarity” (although the latter response later return to the higher position).

4. Japan-South Korea relations in a state of flux
4.1. The end of the Cold War and changes in international relations in East Asia
As discussed in the previous section, even before democratization, while there were many restrictions on
mutual exchange, a more diverse flow of information started in the 1980s. After that, with the democratization of South Korea and society becoming open, direct exchange spread to the grass-roots level.
Beginning in July 1988, the last restrictions on overseas travel were gradually abolished, overseas travelcompletely liberalized in 1989. With this, people from South Korea came to account for the greatest
number of foreign travelers to Japan, and with the Olympics came a rapid increase of travelers from Japanto South Korea. By the end of the 1980s, there was increased exchange between Japan and South Korea,
with the countries mutually serving as quick and easy destinations for international travel, and startingin the 1990s there were more and more opportunities for the people of both countries to come in contact
with each other.
These developments brought expectations of increased mutual understanding through the exchange
between Japan and South Korea that accompanied democratization, but now, a quarter of a century later,
it cannot necessarily be declared that exchange between Japan and South Korea has promoted mutual
understanding and further development of the relations between the two countries. And so over these past
25 years, how has exchange between Japan and South Korea developed on the societal level and how havethe mutual perceptions of the two countries changed? Let us examine these questions in this section.
The first thing we should confirm is probably the fact that the international environment and thedomestic political affairs in both countries that influence the relations between the two countries havechanged greatly. Precisely at the time that South Korea became democratized, there were great changes
in international politics that accompanied the end of the Cold War. That caused a situation of extreme
instability, through structural changes in international relations that, in a way, had been stabilized throughthe confrontation between the super-powers at the very top. Especially in East Asia, with the continued
existence of two of the despotic states of the former communist bloc, China and North Korea, how tobuild peaceful and stable relations in the region and maintain order in the post-Cold War era became amajor question. Domestic and foreign changes and problems since the 1990s can be stated as follows.
First, as the Cold War came to an end, South Korea established diplomatic relations with thethen-Soviet Union in 1991 and with the People’s Republic of China in 1992. Until then, when South
Korea thought about relations with neighboring countries, relations with Japan were, whether in termsof security or of economic development, the only absolutes it had to take into account. Now, however,relations with China were added to the mix. Later, as North Korea increased the threat level with thedevelopment of its nuclear capabilities, this new issue also had to be addressed; and furthermore, as
China became a super-power both militarily and economically, how to deal with this new China will also
became an issue. With the changes in the security environment in East Asia, looking for a transition fromits former foreign and security policies has become a domestic political issue for both Japan and South
Korea. Both countries place utmost importance on their respective alliances with the United States, and11

during the Cold War cooperation between Japan and South Korea against communism was regarded asimportant, but in the post-Cold War era disagreement has arisen in their policies toward China andNorth Korea as well as in their ideas on how to maintain order in the region, and friction has surfacedthat did not exist in the past.
Second, through democratization of the political system, people whose rights had thus far been
suppressed have become much more vocal in their protests. Democratization of domestic politics wasroughly simultaneous with the end of the global Cold War coming at the same time, and as a result, notonly did the once-stable power structure collapse, but the standards of right and wrong that had supported that power structure came into question. What in the past had been suppressed as an “anti-establishment movement by communists” was rebranded as a “democracy movement”; progress was made in“reviewing the past,” with acts of oppression being condemned and victims’ reputations being restored.
It is a problem of transitional justice, which questions the responsibility for slaughter and violation ofhuman rights committed by people formerly in power. In South Korea, the ruling party from the days ofauthoritarian government still held the reins, with regime change coming only 10 years after democratization; but even during that time there was pursuit of liability of the past government, and a review of thehistory of the era of authoritarian regime became a major political issue—driven by the active statements
of protest from civil society.
Third, as party politics in Japan and South Korea became more fluid, there emerged a phenomenon
by which foreign policy was influenced by domestic politics. In South Korea, there has been a change in
who holds power in each of the presidential elections held every five years, the approval rating of thegovernment has influenced its ability to stably administration of government, and foreign relations havebeen influenced by public opinion. In Japan, the long-term hold on power by the Liberal Democratic
Party since 1955 came to an end with the formation of the non-LDP coalition administration of Morihiro
Hosokawa in 1993, and the country entered an extended era of structural change for politics, including
phenomena such as shifting factional alignment of political parties. Domestic politics in Japan and South
Korea were faced with a period of inevitable change in the longstanding political systems, and given thefluid nature of domestic politics, the system looked for ways to build a new order in the post-Cold War
era as foreign policy was came to be influenced by domestic politics.

4.2. Changes in Japan-South Korea relations
This domestic and foreign political flux also brought changes in Japan-South Korea relations. Let us
summarize these, focusing on the changes in the 1990s.
First, protests from within South Korean civic society extended to the issue of responsibility forcolonial rule. Among the issues of justice during the democratization process was a questioning of responsibility for the suppression of human rights under the old regime, but since the South Korean authoritarian regime had “sealed up” opposition protests regarding the earlier issue of colonial rule, giving
priority instead to national security during the Cold War, democratization results in an eruption of opposition voices questioning responsibility for colonial rule. The Japanese government took the stancethat the issue of compensation for colonial rule was “finally and completely settled by the Agreement on
the Settlement of Problems Concerning Property and Claims and the Economic Cooperation between
the Republic of Korea and Japan of 1965” and that the settlement had included the rights of the people ofeach nation to seek compensation; but after South Korea was democratized, there were moves to disallowthat settlement by the governments of Japan and South Korea. The opposition deemed that South Korea’s
non-democratic government at the time had concluded the treaty with no regard for the will of thepeople and under that authoritarian regime it had been impossible to raise the question of the12responsibility of the Japanese government and seek compensation for individuals. And one of the biggest
problems was the comfort women issue. In the summer of 1991, the former comfort woman Kim Haksun came forward and accused Japan of being responsible; in December, along with a number of anonymous victims, she sued the Japanese government for damages, turning the problem into a political issue.
Next, as part of the movement to get Japan to accept responsibility for colonial rule, efforts weremade to form a relationship that was different from the relations during the Cold War. As mentioned
above, before the democratization of South Korea, while the authoritarian regime was being supported
as the front line in the Cold War, conservative forces in Japan were important partners supporting theSouth Korean regime, and progressive forces in Japan supporting the anti-government movement inSouth Korea were considered there as “anti-South Korean” forces that rejected South Korea. Starting in
the 1980s, however, after responsibility for Japan’s colonial rule became an issue, conservatives including
influential politicians of the LDP asserted that the colonial rule had been just, thereby incurring the distrust of the South Korean people. Meanwhile, as the issue of colonial rule came to the fore, the progressive forces in Japan that were considered “anti-Korean” under the authoritarian regime began to assertthat Japan was responsible for the colonial rule; and they came to be treated, rather, as “conscientious” inSouth Korea. With the flux in domestic politics in both countries, the relationships the conservatives ofJapan and South Korea had built up as the political elite of each country began to waver.
With politics in a state of flux, and against a background of change in international relations in East
Asia, politicians trying to broaden their own political support through nationalistic assertions began todirect their assertions toward their own domestic audience, which came to have an increasingly grave
influence on international relations. The words and behavior of politicians in each country directed
toward their own country were reported in the other country as well, creating mutual distrust. Greater
liberalization of the media stirred competition, and the spread of sensational reporting began to serve as
an impetus to this. The rapid development of information and communication technologies around thistime also meant that information intended for domestic audiences soon spread to other countries.
Unlike the 25 years representing the first half of the long rule of the South Korean authoritarianregime and the LDP’s single-handed long-term rule, the new situation meant that the channels between
political circles of both countries became constricted and the capacity to adjust for friction in the twocountries’ diplomatic relations became weak. During the Cold War, both countries shared the same fundamental security strategy of preparing against the threat of communism, so even if friction arose in
their relations, ultimately a “political solution” could regularly by worked out between the two governments out of their common desire to bring stability to the East Asian regional order. After the Cold War,
however, the directions of the foreign policy of the two countries did not necessarily overlap, which
complicated the performance by the channels of mutual understanding that had made it possible to settle
problems politically.
As already noted, as political adjustment in Japan-South Korean relations became difficult, exchange on the societal level was expected to perform a new role. As the power of citizens and society
increased due to the democratization of South Korea, expectations grew for the role of civic society not
only in domestic politics but also in the relations between the two countries. Exchange in civic society
promoted mutual understanding, and it was assumed that if there were mutual profit, values and objectives, these would be reflected in the policies of both countries through their democratic systems. It wasthought that both Japan and South Korea would aim at the realization of mutual values based on cooperative relations, and thus it was expected that civic society that grew stronger under democracy would
serve to adjust Japan-South Korean relations through their mutual exchanges.4
Certainly there has been an increase in the direct comings and goings of people since the 1990s, and13

cultural exchange has progressed. Japanese popular culture including anime, popular songs, manga andmovies, which had been banned for many years in South Korea, were gradually freed from restriction
starting in 1998, and it was noted that there was a Japanese language boom sparked by the hit movie Love
Letter. From around the time of the Japanese broadcast of the South Korean television drama WinterSonata (2003), there was a South Korean pop culture boom in Japan, and South Korean drama and South
Korean popular music (“K-pop”) infiltrated Japan. But while there was more and more of this back-andforth among people, things, and information, how did perceptions toward the other country change?
Due to space limitations, we will only briefly consider mutual perceptions on the societal level based on
public opinion surveys. Unfortunately, since there are no surveys that inquire into perceptions of theother country on a regular basis by continuously asking the same questions, we will use joint public opinion surveys conducted irregularly by newspapers.
Let us look at the occasional joint public opinion survey conducted by the Asahi Shimbun and theDong-A Ilbo starting in 1984. Though sometimes the questions differed, every survey asked those polled
whether they liked or hated the other country, and the results of this question are indicated in Table 1.
What stands out first of all is that “hate” answers increased in South Korea after democratization.5 Under
the Kim Young-sam administration in 1995 and 1997 when the historical problem became politicized,
and in 2005 when the territorial problem became an issue as illustrated by the establishment of Takeshima
Day, South Korean “hate” answers exceeded 60 percent, which makes it seem that points of conflict involving historical problems strongly influenced the increase in hatred. Second, in Japan “neither” wasconsistently the most common answer, with feelings of “like” and “hate” unclear, but “like” answers increased in the 2000s. Though the percentage is not great, it seems that there was an increase in those who
affirmed that they “like South Korea” following the growing exchange in sports and culture since the timeof the Kim Dae-jung administration.
Let us further examine Japanese sentiment toward South Korea, which was characterized by manyvague “neither” replies in the joint surveys by the Asahi Shimbun and the Dong-A Ilbo, by looking at theresults of the Cabinet Office’s survey on “Whether or not you have feelings of friendship” (Figure 1).
During the mid-1990s, when the two newspapers’ survey received a high percentage of “hate” replies fromSouth Korean respondents, there was a similarly high number of “Don’t have feelings of friendship” replies
in the Cabinet Office’s survey. Feelings of friendship began trending upward during the Kim Dae-jungadministration, when the “Japan-Korea Partnership Declaration” was issued (1999). With the intensification of the territorial issue in the mid-2000s, however, feelings of friendship started to decline and havebeen rapidly decreasing since 2012. These results show that Japanese fondness for South Korea tends towane every time antipathy between the two countries intensifies over historical, territorial, or other such
issues, and thus we can say Japanese sentiment correlates with the state of Japan-South Korean tensions.
Although it cannot be confirmed that these kinds of regularly conducted surveys were being

Table 1 Feelings toward each other’s country based on public opinion surveys (%)
Feelings in Japan toward South Korea Like
Hate
Neither
Feelings in South Korea toward Japan Like
Hate
Neither

1984

1988

1990

1995

1997

1999

2001

2005

2012

11
19
64
23
39
34

11
21
63
14
51
26

12
23
61
5
66
24

11
21
65
6
69
22

8
17
73
8
65
27

13
12
72
10
43
48

21
15
61
12
57
31

15
22
61
8
63
29

17
17
65
12
50
37

Source: Joint public opinion survey by Asahi Shimbun and Dong-A Ilbo.

14

Figure 1 Survey on “Whether or not you have feelings of friendship” conducted by the Cabinet Office
70%
Have feelings of friendship

60
50
40
Don’t have feelings of friendship

30
20
10
0

1978

82

86

90

94

98

2002

06

10

14

Source: Yearly publication of the Cabinet Office’s “Public Opinion Survey on Foreign Relations.”

conducted in South Korea, from the above-cited public opinion newspaper surveys, the way in which
emergence of confrontation over historical problems seems to influence the worsening of feelings toward
Japan seems to imply an overlapping of time periods, and this can also be surmised to a certain extent
from other questions as well. The details of such surveys warrant more detailed examination.

4.3. The issue of the historical problem—Why is mutual understanding not growing?
Even though there has been a great deal of exchange on the societal level and there has been an increasein opportunities for mutual understanding, why is it that sympathy for the other country is dependent on
the historical problem and that perceptions get worse when the problem becomes politicized? And in adifferent dimension from dealing with the historical problem on the political level, couldn’t civic society
in Japan and South Korea have gotten involved in this biggest of all problems between the two countries,
to somehow deal with it? This problem is linked to examination of the reasons for the worsening ofJapan-South Korean relations over the historical problem. We will examine this problem focusing on the
comfort women issue, which is a major point of dispute.
As mentioned above, in Japanese society of the 1980s there was acknowledgement of responsibility
for colonial rule and people were beginning to get involved in the problem of compensation; but the appearance of the comfort women issue in 1991 shocked Japanese society. The comfort women issue, in
addition to being a problem of responsibility for colonial rule, also included the aspect of sexual violence
toward women and reverberated among people who thus far had not been involved with issues regarding
responsibility for the war. In South Korea, women’s groups that had been involved in problems of prostitution and sexual violence around American military bases came out in support of the issue of protecting
women’s rights. In Japan as well, individuals and groups involved in women’s issues and the problems of
post-war compensation have also begun to get involved; and, with Japan as their base, they are organizing
a network of involvement in the comfort women issue, not only in South Korea but in other regions
around Asia as well. With NGOs also bringing up the comfort women issue at the United Nations in
1992, the issue has become as an international human rights concern.
Thus citizens’ groups in Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere have worked together toward solving
15

problems of universal human rights; but the politicization of the problem has overheated the nationalistic
antipathy between the two countries, and as a result more than 20 years have passed without the problem
being solved.
Regarding compensation for the colonial period, the Japanese government has maintained its stancethat the compensation issue was “finally and completely settled by the Agreement on the Settlement of
Problems Concerning Property and Claims and the Economic Cooperation between the Republic ofKorea and Japan of 1965” and that “the settlement included claims of the people of each nation,” and it
has sought a way to handle this by means other than compensation. To address this problem, in 1994 theTomiichi Murayama Cabinet, a three-party coalition between the LDP, the Socialists, and Sakigake, established the Asian Women’s Fund.6 Under the premise that individuals cannot be compensated by theJapanese government, the fund formed a semi-governmental management organization to conduct thebusiness of compensating victims, with the business expenses paid by the national treasury, so thatformer comfort women would be paid “compensation” through a private fund. “Progressive intellectuals”
who had been involved in the post-war compensation issue for many years were actively involved in the
Asian Women’s Fund as a way to realistically help victims. This approach, however, invited criticism thatit obscured the responsibility of the Japanese government, and many of the victims in South Korea were
offended and rejected it. As the problem became politicized, there was nationalistic reaction to it in bothcounties, making it even more difficult to solve. In South Korea, the issue was emblematic of the movement calling for the Japanese government to take responsibility for colonial rule; in Japan, comfort
women issue deniers, who criticized the government for negatively portraying history and continuing toapologize, became more vocal. The Asian Women’s Fund conducted the business of compensating victims, but the fund came to an end in 2007 with many of the victims in South Korea not accepting it as asolution. With some victims continuing their protest activities in South Korea seeking an apology andcompensation from the Japanese government, this issue remains as a major unsolved problem between
Japan and South Korea.
During this process there was a growing sense in Japan that “we have done what we should havedone.” In the findings of the above-cited joint public opinion surveys conducted by the Asahi Shimbun
and the Dong-A Ilbo, there was great differences in understanding between Japan and South Korea. In
1995, in answer to “Has there been enough compensation paid for colonial rule?” the Japanese responses
were 26% “enough,” 56% “not enough,” and 18% “other or no reply,” while the South Korean responses
were 0% “enough,” 10% “to a certain extent,” 87% “not enough,” and 3% “other or no reply,” showing thata majority in Japan thought there had not been sufficient compensation. In comparison, for the question“Has [Japan] sufficiently apologized for colonial rule?” in the 2005 survey, Japanese responses were 55%“enough” and 30% “not enough,” while the South Korean responses were 1% “enough” and 97% “notenough,” and to the question “Is there a need to reconsider the compensation paid to victims of colonial
rule?” the Japanese responses were 30% “need to reconsider” and 57% “no need,” while the South Korean
responses were 89% “need to reconsider” and 8% “no need,” indicating that 30% in Japan thought it was
not enough.
In 2005, to the question “Has the issue of compensation for colonial rule been resolved?” theJapanese responses were 30% “resolved” and 60% “unresolved,” while the South Korean responses were
5% “resolved” and 95% “unresolved,” indicating a strong sense in Japan as well that compensation remained a problem, but regarding the issues of apology and compensation, Japanese respondents revealeda strong sense that Japan had done what it should have done. As of 2015, there was a high possibility that
this difference in perception between Japan and South Korea has grown. This is because many Japanese
have found it increasingly easy to accept the simplified statement that this is a result of the conflict of16

nationalism in Japan and South Korea over the issue of responsibility for colonial rule.
At first the issue of comfort women, along with being an issue of responsibility for colonial rule, wasperceived as a violation of women’s human rights and was raised as a universal problem by the civic society of Japan and South Korea along with attempts at finding a solution. However, just as those attempts
at finding a solution became entangled with the conflicts of nationalism, the problem over colonial rulethat emerged in the 1990s became the biggest issue faced in common by the civic societies of Japan andSouth Korea. Attempts at cooperation and compromise toward finding a solution to this problem were
easily engulfed by the dichotomy of conflicting nationalism.7 It can be assumed that when civic societies
take the lead in relations between nations, civic societies that go beyond national borders and that aim at
mutual benefits and have mutual values and objectives, will act in solidarity to deal with the problem. But
dealing with the historical problem has made that difficult.
Furthermore, a possible influence hindering a solution to the historical problem is the new factor ofnationalism getting a boost from the Internet. There is a growing trend of insult through discriminatory
language toward specific groups on Internet forums, with Japan’s “2channel” and South Korea’s “Ilbe” (anabbreviation for “Daily Best Store,” a giant anonymous forum) attracting attention as this kind of site.
Such remarks as “hating Korea” and “anti-Japan” that are spreading on the Internet are becoming, morethan words directed at other participants, a kind of competition among friends in using radical expressions of one-sided slander. When such a slandering competition is played out on the Internet, it is noticed
by the other side, which in turn creates a vicious circle as it stimulates competition in one-sided slanderamong the other’s group of friends. When the Internet started to become popular, it was called a “tool toenable two-way discussion,” but actually it is permitting unrestrained circulation of mutually abusive
language that has nothing at all to do with discussion. Previously, because of language barriers there had
been a limit to the overseas circulation of discriminatory talk among friends, but with the advances madein online translators during recent years, the circulation of information has become easy. While further
exacerbating nationalism, this spread of information has also become a factor in encouraging prejudice
directed at the people of the other country. Amid the recent worsening of feelings between the people ofJapan and South Korea, it has been observed that the mass media themselves have followed this situationon the Internet and aided the spread of such remarks. It is quite possible for extreme examples of theother country to be spread as the generally accepted image of the other side, thus resulting in growing
mutual misconceptions, and this situation would call for empirical study in the future.
Above we have briefly looked at changes after the democratization of South Korea sparked greater
exchange on the societal level. With the eruption of the historical problem of colonial rule that had been
sealed up in the past, there have been efforts by citizen groups and others to solve that problem, but morethan 20 years have passed without any results, and the issue is being subsumed within the framework of
the conflict of nationalism. A long blank period has elapsed since 1945 when Japan lost the war andKorea was freed from colonization, including 20 years of no diplomatic relations and the more than 20
years during which the historical problem had been shut away under wraps.” The issue of the historicalproblem has, on both sides, been the object of heightened dissatisfaction because it is still not solved andprotests continue, and a quarter of a century has gone by.
In this way the historical problem has greatly influenced antipathy between Japan and South Korea
on the societal level, but is such antipathy all there is to Japan-South Korea relations? It cannot be denied,of course, that the historical problem is very important and that solving it is an important issue, but it is
not as if the dispute over the historical problem as a point of political contention will cause a break inrelations between the two countries on the societal level. And though certainly it can be thought that thesentiments of “like” and “hate” and “feelings of friendship” seen in the public opinion surveys are largely
17

defined by the dispute over the historical problem, there are a number of aspects that need to be considered here. Let us examine them focusing on anti-Japan sentiment in South Korea.
First, in South Korean public opinion surveys, the percentage of respondents who indicated that they“hate Japan” was high across the board, but the point is what “Japan” means in this case. People have said tome, “I hate Japan, but I don’t hate the Japanese,” and “I don’t like Japan, but I like Japanese manga andanime.” There are many indications that South Koreans differentiate between “Japan,” “the Japanese people”
and “Japanese culture.”8 Based on personal experience, it seems that the “Japan” that is the object of “hate”
is the “Japanese government (policy),” but this kind of phenomenon needs to be more strictly verified.
Next, if the object of the “hate” indicated by South Koreans is limited, we must pay attention to theparts that they do accept even while saying that they “hate” Japan. When “hate” is the overwhelming response in public opinion surveys, it is important to first of all find the cause for that. In addition, realizing
the need to search for a stratified awareness that is not included in the answer “hate” is important when
considering relations between Japan and South Korea on the societal level.
From this viewpoint, it becomes necessary not only to ask people if they “like” or “hate” Japan, andto question them about the historical problem, but also to have surveys with a clear research design. For
example, a study by Choe Jong-ho et al. was the first study to hypothesize that such factors as “assessmentof Japan’s defense policy,” “assessment of the Japan-Korea FTA,” “the degree of tolerance for immigrants”
and “experience visiting Japan” influence sentiment regarding Japan and to use a public opinion survey
to verify that, so as to statistically clarify the significant factors based on the findings of the survey (Choe
Jong-ho, 2004). In the future, in addition to accumulating this kind of research, research is also neededthat will clarify the situation when people say that they “hate Japan” but also that they like or are impressed by something about Japan.”
The historical problem is a pending issue in relations between Japan and South Korea, and currently
it greatly influences the national sentiment of both countries. There exists, however, a stratified perception that cannot all be laid at the door of the historical problem, and even when the historical problem
becomes a political issue, relations and exchange continue on the societal level, as indicated in otherchapters of this collection. It can be said that to prevent the worsening of relations because of a single
problem will call for important steps such as clarifying the multilayer characteristics of the relationshipas well as the many facets of the perceptions between the two countries.

Conclusion
In this chapter we examined the perception and image Japan and South Korea have had of each othersince the normalization of relations in 1965, dividing them into the period before the 1990s when direct
exchange between the two was limited, and the period after that, mainly using media reporting for theformer and public opinion surveys for the latter.
It can be said that the first period was influenced by the relations and domestic politics of bothcountries within the structure of the Cold War in East Asia, when the image that the two countries hadof one another was strongly based on perceptions within a macro framework. The typical example was tothink of South Korea as a military dictatorship and to think of Japan as a cunning country engaged in“two-timing” diplomacy. In the 1980s the volume of information available about each other’s society andpeople began to increase, and more active direct exchange between the two countries due to the democratization of South Korea brought about an opportunity for a diversification in the perception each country had for the other. With the flux in international relations and domestic politics, however, the historicalproblem became a political issue and served as a factor in defining Japan-South Korea relations, greatly
influencing not only relations between the two countries but also relations on the societal level as well.
18

Still, the framework of perception of one another’s country and society is not so simple as to be influenced by the historical problem alone, and it has been observed that the countries have understood andevaluated one another in a different framework through direct contact with one another. But that has not
yet been verified, and clarifying such stratified perception will be a task for the future.
As stated above, examining the development of the mutual perceptions in the societies of Japan andSouth Korea over the past 50 years does not support an assertion that the current relations between thesocieties of the two countries are the worst since the end of the war. Compared to the 1970s when exchange was stopped and it was difficult to even try to build relations between the two countries, current
relations at the societal level are advancing. While antipathy does exist around the historical problem, therelations between the two countries are not based on that problem alone, and it will be important to promote mutual understanding in order to solve the problem.
Regarding this, let us finish up by raising one more important point. In this chapter we have observed the reality that, even with more active direct exchange on the societal level between the two countries after democratization, mutual understanding does not necessarily move forward even if there is
progress in such exchange. Looking at things chronologically we can certainly see that there has been an
increase in the number of people who visit one another’s country, but that is relative to the way things
were before democratization; and from the viewpoint of the total populations of the two countries, itcannot be said that there is vibrant exchange between them. This becomes clear when we compare thenumber of people visiting one another’s country with the populations of the two countries.
This can also be confirmed by a joint Japan-South Korean public opinion survey9 conducted by theJapanese NPO Genron and the East Asia Institute (EAI) of South Korea in 2013. The percentage of people
who had ever visited the other country was 21.4% for Japan and 23.8% for South Korea, with the purposeof the visits from both countries being overwhelmingly for “sightseeing and travel,” while studying andliving in the other country for an extended period was at around 1% for both countries. Furthermore, thepercentage of people with friends or acquaintances in the other country was 22.0% for Japan and 9.7% forSouth Korea, which means that between 80% and 90% of the respondents from both countries did notknow anyone from the other country. In other words, that is the extent of the people who have had direct
exchange with the other country. Although direct exchange is certainly increasing at a faster rate than it
did in the past, the fact of the matter is that in terms of absolute volume, direct exchange cannot be called
vibrant. On the other hand, the absolute volume of information from the media has rapidly increased
over the past 25 years. In such circumstances, the societies of both Japan and South Korea have no way todigest this excess of information while the two countries are lacking in a basic, concrete understanding ofeach other, and it is possible that the “current main perceptions” between the two countries are based on
the most easily understood images that are portrayed in one another’s society. In other words, the possibility remains for further mutual understanding through increased direct exchange.
Depending on just how future direct exchanges develop between the societies of the two countries,
a foundation may be laid in each society for solution of the problems of the past and promotion of theJapan-South Korea relationship. Pursuing that possibility will require further delving into questions of
the development of inter-societal relations thus far and the true status of those relations today.

1.

It became known in 2003 that the person writing under the pseudonym “T.K. Sei” was Chi Myong-kwan (originally thechief editor of Shisokai, and a professor at Tokyo Woman’s Christian University in the 1970s–1980s), who was in exile inJapan at the time. From testimony in an interview in “Dispatches from South Korea,” Chi (2003).

19

2.

As discussed later, South Korea was critical of Japanese policy regarding North Korea, given the North’s openly hostility
toward the South. This article attributed the South Korean public’s anti-Japan sentiment seen in the wake of the Mun Segwang Incident, which had occurred under these circumstances, to several factors, including: (1) The shooting attack on thepresident was the work of a Japan-based North Korean spy organization, and Japan harbored this organization that regarded
South Korea as an enemy; (2) Japan was seen as being derelict in duty, mainly because the group had been able to obtain aJapanese police handgun and a Japanese passport; and (3) Japan did not apologize for its perceived dereliction.

3.

For example, the Chosun Ilbo ran an editorial on August 30, 1974, that was twice as long as usual and was entitled “Japan’s
progressive intellectuals—Counting on the conscientious intellectuals who criticize them.” This piece lambasted Japan’s“progressive liberals” critical of the Park Chung-hee government as leftists who looked down on South Korea and fomented
prejudice toward it.

4.

This kind of “expectation” of civic society within the framework of the understanding of post-Cold War international politics is likely to occur in an environment in which attention is paid to a “democratic peace theory.” This is based on the assertion that “democratic nations are not likely to go to war against one another,” a view that was represented by Bruce
Russett. This is because in a democracy the views of civic society, which wants to avoid war out of fear of being harmed, arereflected in national policy, and it is believed that this interpretation was influenced by the spread of an optimistic outlook
on the link between democracy and peace during the early part of the post-Cold War era.

5.

This is a question regarding North Korea in the joint public opinion survey and is in contrast to the continued drop in thepercentage of South Koreans who replied that they “hate” North Korea, from 76% in 1983 to 22% in 2000. Regarding thisand changes in feelings of “like” and “hate” for North Korea and China in Japan and South Korea, readers may refer to
Isozaki (2015).

6.

The “Digital Museum: The Comfort Women Issue and the Asian Women’s Fund” (in Japanese, English and Korean, http://
www.awf.or.jp) was created on the Internet as a record of the activities of the Asian Women’s Fund and provides commentary on the comfort women issue, reports on the activities of the Asian Women’s Fund, and related materials. Murayama and
Wada’s edition (2014) is the Japanese print version.

7.

For example, there is a tendency in Japan for Japanese citizens groups who agree and cooperate with South Korean victims
in taking the Japanese government to task to be labeled as “anti-Japanese,” and there is a tendency in South Korea for concerned parties who try to accept “proposals for compromise” from the Japanese side, such as the Asian Women’s Fund, tocome under pressure. There are many examples of the former on the Internet in Japan, and regarding the latter readers may
refer to Onuma (2007, pp. 57-66, 94-100).

8.

For example, at a symposium Kohari presented a quantitative study showing that South Koreans have a low regard for thefollowing in this order: “Japan,” “Japanese people,” “Japanese culture” (Ogura, Kohari, 2014, p. 112).

9.

The Japanese language report on the “first joint Japan-South Korea public opinion survey” is available on the Genron website (http://www.genron-npo.net/world/genre/cat212/post-229.html#1). For the Korean version of the report, readers arereferred to the website of the East Asia Institute (http://www.eai.or.kr).

References
Sources in Japanese
Chi Myong-kwan, “Kokusai Kyodo Purojekuto toshiteno ‘Kankok kara no Tsushin’” [“Dispatches fromSouth Korea” as a Joint International Project], Sekai [The World], No. 718, September 2003.
Chosun Ilbo, ed. Kankokujin ga Mita Nihon—Nihon o Ugokashite Iru Mono [Japan as Seen by South
Koreans—What Moves Japan], Saimaru Shuppankai, 1984.
Dhung Dae-kyun, Kankoku no Nashonarizumu [Nationalism in South Korea], Iwanami Shoten, 2003.
Dhung Dae-kyun, Kankoku no Imeji—Sengo Nihonjin no Ringokukan: Zohoban [South Korea’s Image—How Japanese People View Their Neighboring Country in the Post-War Era (enlarged edition)].
Chuokoronsha, 2010.
Noriyo Isozaki, “Shimin Shakai kara Kumitateru Anzen Hosho” [Security Organized by Civic Society]ed. Tadashi Kimiya, Shirizu Nihon no Anzen Hosho 6: Chosen Hanto to Higashi Ajia [Japan’s Security
20Series 6: The Korean Peninsula and East Asia], Iwanami Shoten, 2015.
Tomiichi Murayama and Haruki Wada, Dejitaru Kinenkan: Ianfu Mondai to Ajia Josei Kikin [Digital
Museum: The Comfort Women Issue and the Asian Women’s Fund], Seitosha, 2014.
Kizo Ogura & Susumu Kohari, ed. Nikkan Kankei no Soten [The Issue of Japan-South Korea Relations],
Fujiwara Shoten, 2014.
Yasuaki Onuma, “Ianfu” Mondai towa Nandattanoka—Media / NGO / Seifu no Kozai [What Was the
Comfort Women Issue? The Merits and Faults of the Media, NGOs and the National Government],
Chuokoronsha, 2007.
Natsuo Sekigawa, Shinsoban Soru no Renshu Mondai [Seoul’s Exercise (new edition)], Shueisha, 2005.
Mitsuo Yoshida, “Kawaru Chosen Ninshiki—Chosenshi Kenkyusha no Jirenma” [Changing Perceptionsof Korea—The Dilemma of Researchers of Korean History], Daikokai [The Voyage], No. 30, 1999.
Yutaka Yoshida, Nihonjin no Sensokan [How Japanese People View War], Iwanami Shoten, 1995.
Sources in Korean
Bak Inhui, Gang Wontaek, Gim hogi, Jang hun, Perceptions Beyond Cold War History—Perceptions ofProblems in South Korean Society in the Age of Globalization, Seoul, Hangil-sa, 2012.
Choe Jongho, Jeong Hanul, Jeong Honju, “Empirical Analysis of the Primary Factors in Feelings Regarding
Japan among South Koreans—Japan’s Development into a Military Power, Economic Cooperation
and Identity,” Studies On International Relations, No. 19, 2014.
Sources in English
Berger, Thomas U., 2012. War, Guilt, and World Politics after World War II, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Glosserman, Brad and Scott A. Snyder, 2015. The Japan-South Korea Identity Clash: East Asian Security
and the United States, New York: Columbia University Press.
Hagstrom, Linus and Karl Gustafsson, 2015. “Japan and Identity Change: Why It Matters in International
Relations.” The Pacific Review, 28 (1), pp. 1-22.
Katzenstein, Peter J. ed., 1996. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identities in World Politics,
New York: Columbia University Press.
Online publication
Yearly publication of the Cabinet Office of Japan’s “Public Opinion Survey on Foreign Relations” (http://survey.gov-online.go.jp/index-gai.html).

21