産業革命遺産 祝賀に水差す韓国の政治工作

The Yomiuri Shimbun
S. Korea’s political maneuvering rains on Japan’s UNESCO parade
産業革命遺産　祝賀に水差す韓国の政治工作

It was persistent political maneuvering by the South Korean government to pour cold water on Japan’s festive mood for the World Heritage site registration.
　世界遺産への登録という日本の祝賀ムードに水を差す、韓国政府の執拗しつような政治工作だった。

The UNESCO World Heritage Committee, meeting in Germany, has officially decided to add Japan’s Meiji era (1868-1912) industrial revolution sites to the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage list.
　「明治日本の産業革命遺産」が、国連教育・科学・文化機関（ユネスコ）の世界文化遺産に登録されることが、ドイツで開かれた世界遺産委員会で正式に決まった。

The sites are mainly bases for iron and steel manufacturing, shipbuilding and coal industries in the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. They comprise 23 assets in eight prefectures, including the state-run Yawata Steel Works in Fukuoka Prefecture and Hashima Coal Mine — better known as Gunkanjima — in Nagasaki Prefecture. They are heritage sites that Japan can boast of to the world.
　遺産は、１９世紀半ばから２０世紀初頭の製鉄・製鋼、造船、石炭産業の拠点が中心である。福岡県の官営八幡製鉄所や、「軍艦島」と呼ばれる長崎県の端島炭坑など、８県の２３資産で構成される。世界に誇り得る遺産と言えよう。

It was unfortunate that the South Korean government excessively played up the “negative side” of Japan’s heritage sites.
　残念だったのは、韓国政府が日本の遺産に関する「負の側面」を過剰に演出したことだ。

South Korea initially opposed the registration, claiming that Korean workers were requisitioned at some of the facilities during World War II. But it changed its policy at a foreign ministerial meeting in June and agreed to cooperate with Japan on the bid for World Heritage status.
　韓国は当初、大戦中に一部施設で朝鮮人労働者が徴用されていたとして登録に反対したが、６月の日韓外相会談で方針転換し、日本と協力することで合意した。

However, after that, it was revealed that South Korea, at a committee meeting, prepared a draft of remarks stating that Japan had admitted the requisitioned workers were “forced labor.” It included wording that likened the facilities to slave export ports. For that reason, Japan protested the draft and the prior coordination between the two countries hit a snag.
　ところが、その後、韓国が委員会で、徴用について「『強制労働』だったと日本が認めた」との発言案を準備したことが判明した。施設を奴隷輸出港になぞらえる文言もあった。このため、日本側が抗議し、事前調整は難航した。

South Korea then seemed to shift the emphasis to an international campaign to spread the idea that requisitioned workers were “forced labor.” It was irrational of South Korea to lobby to strengthen its position over issues relating to historical perceptions at a meeting meant to discuss the protection of cultural assets.
　韓国は、徴用が「強制労働」であるかのような国際的な宣伝に力点を移したのだろう。文化財保護を目的とする場で、歴史問題での自国の立場強化を狙うのは、筋違いなロビー外交である。

Requisition mischaracterized

The requisition that Japan carried out through entire territories at that time, including the Korean Peninsula, was based on a national order and targeted all the people there. It is a fact that many Korean workers were mobilized to Japan, but it was different from “forced labor” that violates international laws.
　日本が内地や朝鮮半島などで実施した徴用は、国民徴用令に基づき、国民全般が対象だった。多数の朝鮮人労働者が内地へ動員されたのは事実だが、国際法に反する「強制労働」とは異なる。

In the statement made at the committee meeting, Japan pointed out, “There were a large number of Koreans and others who were brought against their will and forced to work under harsh conditions.” By using expressions other than “forced labor” while making concessions to South Korea, Japan intended to have come to terms with South Korea.
　日本は委員会の声明で、徴用に関して「意思に反して連れて来られ、厳しい環境の下で働かされた多くの朝鮮半島出身者らがいた」と指摘した。韓国側に譲歩しつつ、「強制労働」とは一線を画する表現で折り合ったつもりだった。

However, turning Japan’s statement to its own advantage, South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung Se said, “The Japanese government announced there was ‘forced work,’” and South Korean newspapers covered it extensively. Japan thus wound up letting South Korea cause trouble and have what it wanted, failing to remove the cause of conflicts between Japan and South Korea.
　だが、韓国の尹炳世外相は、これを逆手に取って「日本政府が『強制労役』があったと発表した」と語り、韓国紙も大きく報じた。結果的に、徴用の表現を巡って韓国にゴネ得を許し、日韓対立に火種を残したことは否めない。

In the 1965 Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation, Japan and South Korea confirmed that all such claims, including those of former requisitioned workers, were legally settled. 　１９６５年の請求権協定で、元徴用工を含めた請求権問題は法的に解決済みだ。

Seoul has told Tokyo that it will not use Japan’s statement on the workers to deal with issues concerning the claims. Is there any possibility that South Korea could bring up the issues again in relation to the statement?
韓国は、請求権問題に関連して日本の声明を利用しない、と伝えてきている。この問題を蒸し返すことはないのか。

Due to the latest dustup, “anti-South Korean” sentiment in Japan further increased.
　今回の騒動で、日本国内の「嫌韓」感情はさらに高まった。

It is safe to say that cold water was also poured onto the momentum toward the improvement of relations between the two countries.
日韓関係改善の機運にも、冷や水が浴びせられたのは間違いない。

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, July 8, 2015)