Seoul files WTO complaint over Tokyo’s export curbs on Wed.: Trade Ministry


South Korea has filed a complaint at the World
Trade Organization over Japan’s export controls – which Seoul has called retaliation over
political disputes. Tokyo has dismissed that allegation, claiming
the measures are in line with the WTO rules. Our Kim Jae-hee has the details. Korea’s Trade Minister Yoo Myung-hee told
reporters on Wednesday that Seoul has decided to file a complaint to the WTO over Japan’s
trade curbs on three key materials,…which are essential to producing semiconductors
and display panels. The complaint will be officially initiated
as Seoul handed in its request letter for consultations with the Embassy of Japan in
Geneva and the WTO to seek the end of the export restrictions. Japan’s move is widely seen as a retaliation
against Korea’s Supreme Court rulings ordering Japanese firms to compensate Korean victims
who were forced into working for them during Japan’s 1910-45 brutal colonial rule of the
Korean Peninsula. As such, Yoo added Japan’s curbs are discriminatory
and motivated by political reasons. “Japan announced its export curbs without
any prior notice and executed the curbs just three days after the announcement. It has ignored procedural justification, showing
no consideration for its neighboring country.” Seoul accused Tokyo of committing three major
violations of WTO rules. Frist, the WTO’s obligation to not discriminate,…
second, changing export procedures for three materials that used to be traded freely with
a general permit so that now they require individual permits. And lastly, Seoul claims that Tokyo’s export
curbs have taken advantage of trade in retaliation over political issues. While Yoo said South Korea wishes to resolve
the issue through bilateral talks,… if consultations with the Japanese embassy in Geneva and the
WTO do not resolve the issue within next two months,… Seoul will take the case to the WTO panel
ruling. However, that could take more than two years
to be resolved legally. Meanwhile, after South Korea’s press briefing,
a Japanese government official told reporters that Japan’s measures do not violate any WTO
rule. According to Japan’s Kyodo news agency on
Wednesday, the official said the move was merely a change in export regulations for
safety purposes,… and not an entire ban on exports. Kim Jae-hee, Arirang News.

9 thoughts on “Seoul files WTO complaint over Tokyo’s export curbs on Wed.: Trade Ministry

  1. Special to.. Normal
    •Special—————>Normal
    =
    •White list off
    How’s that illegal ???

  2. Why don't you guys mention the fact that Japan has been asking for a meeting concerning your poor trade management for 3 years?
    You guys kept ignoring Japan's request so Japan had to take it to its own hands to control strategic materials.

  3. 한국은 중국의 조선 전쟁 개입을 문제시 한 적은 있는 것인가?

    반성과 사죄를 추구한 적은 있는 것인가?

    남북분단을 초래한 중국에 대하여, 북한의 일방적 후원을 비난한 적은 있는 것인가?

    북한에 대하여, 한국 침략을 사죄시키지 않아서 좋은 것인가?

  4. 한국의 수출 관리의 문제점

    무역을 관리하는 인원이 12명밖에 없다. 일본에서 수출품의 행방을 따져 물어도 회답이 없다. 한국측에 제의해도 3년간 합의를 하지 않고 있다.

    수출 관리품이 제삼국(중국 등)에 멋대로 흘린 가능성은 높다.

    한국측이 의문점에 대답하지 않는다. 개선하려고 하고 있지 않다.

    화이트국에서의 제외를 설명할 때, 이것은 「안전보장상의 문제다」라고 설명하고 있었던 것도 한국의 오해를 조장했다. 일본측의 진의는, 이하와 같은 것이었다라고 생각된다. 한국측의 수출 관리 제도의 부족에 의해, 핵무기 등의 대량 살상 무기의 개발·제조로 채용할 수 있는 제품이나 기술이, 그러한 병기를 개발·제조하는 걱정이 있는 나라에 흐르는 우려가 있는, 그 것은 대량 살상 무기의 확산으로 연결될 수 없지 않고, 「글로벌인 안전보장의 문제」인,이라고 하는 인식이다.

  5. Relations between Japan and South Korea are currently strained due to a dispute over former civilian workers from the Korean Peninsula during World War II. The heart of the problem is whether the promises made between our two sovereign states when they decided to normalize their relations in 1965 will be kept or not.

    In some people’s view, Japan’s recent update of its export control measures related to South Korea is linked to this question of former civilian workers. I want to make it clear that they are completely separate issues.

    In 1965, after 14 years of hard negotiations, Japan and South Korea concluded the “Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Co-operation between Japan and the Republic of Korea.” Under the terms of the 1965 Agreement, Japan extended $500 million in grants and loans — a sum that totaled 1.6 times as much as South Korea’s national budget then. All problems concerning claims between the two countries and their nationals were confirmed to be “settled completely and finally.”

    Among the eight items in the “Outline of the Claims of the Republic of Korea against Japan” that were raised during negotiations, “accrued wages of the requisitioned Korean[s]” as well as “compensation of damages by war to the requisitioned Korean[s]” were included. The Agreed Minutes to the 1965 Agreement clearly state that the claims that were “settled completely and finally” included any that fell within the scope of these eight items.

    Furthermore, when seeking compensation for Korean workers “requisitioned” by Japanese companies during the war, Korean officials explained that their claim included damages for psychological and physical suffering. In response, the Japanese side proposed that its payments be made to individuals. But the Korean representatives asserted that they were putting forward the claims for compensation as a state and that their government would be responsible for distributing any money received from Japan.

    Four decades later, in August 2005, South Korea reaffirmed that the $300 million in grants received from Japan had included compensation for the “historical fact of suffering” of the victims of “forced mobilization.” In so doing, the Korean government made it clear that it bore the moral responsibility to allocate an adequate amount of the resources received to provide relief to those victims.

    Then, last year, the Korean Supreme Court rendered a series of judgments against Japanese companies, ordering them to pay “compensation” to the former civilian workers. These judgments clearly violated the 1965 Agreement. Yet the Korean government has failed to take any concrete measures to remedy the situation.

    In effect, after more than 50 years, South Korea has unilaterally abrogated the pledges made by our two governments. This is the crux of the issue we face now. If an international agreement can be broken because of the domestic circumstances of one country, we will never be able to maintain stable international relations.

    I strongly hope that the Korean government addresses this issue from the standpoint of international law as well as bilateral state-to-state relations, and takes concrete actions as a responsible member of the international community.

    Japan repeatedly sought diplomatic consultations with the Korean government after the court decisions and referred this dispute to arbitration, as provided for under the 1965 Agreement. However, South Korea refused to agree.

    Just as importantly, I would like to reiterate that this issue has nothing to do with the recent update by Japan of its export control measures, which was required to ensure the non-proliferation of weapons-related materials. This decision was made solely from the standpoint of national security.

    The materials and technologies in question are sensitive because they can be diverted to military uses. The relevant authorities in every country are responsible for appropriately managing exports of such dual-use materials and technologies.

    Since 2004, Japan had applied to South Korea simplified procedures for exporting such materials, compared to the rules applied to most countries and regions including the rest of Asia. The arrangement was predicated on sufficient trust between our two governments, which was to be fostered through continuous consultations.

    Such consultations have not been held for the past three years, despite repeated requests from the Japanese side. Meanwhile, there have been several inappropriate cases concerning export control related to South Korea. For that reason, Japan concluded it could no longer maintain the simplified procedures applied to exports to South Korea.

    This decision was not in any way meant as “retaliation” or a “countermeasure” in relation to the issue of former civilian workers from the Korean Peninsula. Such a linkage only obscures the root causes of two very different problems.

    Japan has been acting as a responsible member of the international community, adhering to international law. We hope that South Korea would do the same, so that we can continue to build a forward-looking bilateral relationship.

    Finally, I would like to touch upon the Korean government’s decision to terminate the “Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of the Republic of Korea on the Protection of Classified Military Information” (“GSOMIA”), which had contributed to strengthening security cooperation between the two countries and to ensuring regional peace and stability since 2016. I must say this decision reflects a total misapprehension of the security situation in Northeast Asia. The Korean government has linked its decision to Japan’s update of its licensing policies and procedure for exports. These two issues are of totally different nature and should not be linked together.

  6. 韓国は嘘つき

    Korea has lain. History is being rewritten selfishly.

    Female prostitution was legitimate occupation during the Second World War.

    Korean poor parents were selling their daughter to Korean's trafficker.

    Korea was Japan then and they agreed under the protection of a law as Japanese.

    It isn't a colony. School was made with Japanese money as a Japanese country and a lesson was given. Little girl buying and selling was prohibited and modal protection in those days was given. I told agricultural technique and made food production increase. Most of the people was the slave class by a slave system in Korea. It's Japan that that was freed.

    The population of the Korea increased in double by divine protection of those Japanese investment, aid and community systems development, and the life expectancy also developed on leaps and bounds.

  7. The truth is, it’ll become in this December that WTO dispute settlement system might be dysfunctional. If this happens, Korea should wait for the resolution comes up adding over several years, which normally require 2 years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *