South Korea today is a success story, but in the early 1900s the situation was different. A traditional, agrarian society partially under the dominion of a weakening China, Korea was overrun by Japan's aims to establish territorial governments in Manchuria and throughout Pacific Asia. Annexation in 1910 ushered in a period of de facto Japanese rule, ended only by the Japanese surrender in 1945.

The occupation inflicted many hardships, but these seem to have been mostly forgiven by the Koreans, and especially by the youth. An exceptional source of animosity has been the issue of women forced to serve as prostitutes for Japanese soldiers during the occupation, euphemistically known as "comfort women." Well organized and open in Japan, prostitution through military brothels was seen as a practical service for the imperial government to provide for the soldiers, for reasons of morale, sanitation, and reduced leave times. In all, 100,000 to 200,000 women were involved, the majority of them Koreans.

Since Japan admitted to the practice of military brothels officially in 1993, the issue dividing the two countries has revolved around whether the women were coerced or deceived, and whether the Japanese government has appropriately apologized and provided restitution. Korean women, maintaining that they were coerced (an accusation backed by the broad consensus of historians), demand a full apology, inclusion of the facts surrounding sexual slavery in Japanese textbooks, better compensation, and a new law to pay reparations directly. In 1988, a Japanese court ruled that the women were entitled to compensation from the Japanese government for being forced into sexual slavery.

A private fund was set up by the Japanese government in 1995 to deliver payments of US$15,000 to the women, but the majority rejected it on the grounds that it was not directly from the Japanese government and was not accompanied by an official apology. Japan has maintained its stance that, while prostitution occurred, it was not coerced and has insisted that efforts at restitution have already been made. Koreans have countered that, aside from a court ruling, Japan has not apologized for the critical point: that the prostitution was coerced by the government itself, not by a private party such as an independent contractor.

While this issue has been of emotional and historical importance to South Korea, it had not been the source of diplomatic destabilization that it threatened to become during March. Indeed, at times the South Korean government had seemed complacent and even eager to sweep the issue under the rug in the name of international stability. The South Korean president, Kim Dae-jung, himself said in 1998 that the issue of comfort women was closed, referring to a 1965 treaty that normalized South Korea's relationship with Japan. He even encouraged his countrymen to reflect on and encourage the positive aspects of modern Japan, emphasizing the importance of good relations with their neighbor. That same year, the South Korean government went so far as to offer to pay the reparations of $25,000 each to the women themselves, saying that they would address the fees with Japan at a later date.

Abe was a controversial figure prior to becoming prime minister, particularly for his role in leading efforts at textbook reform, which would paint a more romantic image of Japanese behavior during its colonial era. He has posted statements on his website in the past rejecting the claims of comfort women and has said that soldiers recognized internationally as Class A war criminals are in fact not recognized as such domestically.

Asia, having its balance of power upset by a rising India and China, and by a powerful U.S. ally entangled in a long war in Iraq, sees such efforts at revisionism as a sign that Japan is aiming to position itself as a more powerful regional leader. The Koreas, in particular, are still sensitive to their colonial history and are wary of a Japan that seeks to rebuild its military.

The issue of the comfort women, then, is causing more heat across the Sea of Japan because it is indicative of a new hostility that South Korea perceives from Japan, and it seems to confirm at an emotional level that its animosity toward Japan is justified. In this context, the debate over sexual slavery has increased in relevance, as South Korea now feels that it must not permit Japan to get away with dismissing its former crimes lest it begin to proceed on an equally hazardous course unchecked. It is not so much what Abe is saying but as to how he is saying it, and what he is saying around it.

An additional factor to consider is the increased nationalism that South Korea itself is experiencing, as well as its own reaction to the changing regional reality. Feeling frustrated in recent years by Washington's stance on North Korea, Seoul has felt more animosity toward the United States than has Japan. Therefore, South Korea is not as concerned as Japan by the decline of U.S. power, and in fact many young Koreans feel that this decline opens new doors for reconciliation with the North.

If Abe is no stranger to controversy, and if such statements had previously fueled his domestic popularity, then why apologize for this provocation? The simple answer is that he was pressured by the Japanese parliament to save face against increasing international criticism, particularly from the U.S. Congress, which caught Tokyo off-guard last week. Japan was willing to weather blows from South Korea about the comfort women, but to be threatened with a non-binding resolution demanding an apology by its strongest ally was a major source of embarrassment for Abe and the government.

Government officials, however, insist that he did not apologize because of international pressure, but because of domestic reasons. This is the other side of the coin; for an administration wracked by gaffes and scandals, support for Abe had sunk to 35 percent. Delivering a general apology admitting that prostitution existed but not stating that it was coerced allows Abe to save face by appearing to appease all sides.

South Korea looks unconvinced, as critics point out that Abe did not actually apologize for saying that the women were not coerced, and has not taken any action toward meeting the demands of the women involved. Particularly in trade negotiations with Japan, South Korea is likely to put pressure on Abe's government to take action to ameliorate the situation. South Korea appears to have the upper hand, and will use it to extract the concessions that it can. It will only push Japan so far, however, because ultimately economic concerns will trump anger over crimes from a half-century ago.

Both South Korea and Japan know that they must work together, as they are very close neighbors, and no amount of political posturing and regional political changes will dissolve their interdependence. Quite the opposite is true. As Japan seeks security from China and North Korea, it will increasingly come to rely on South Korea's support. Similarly, as Japan wishes to gain international prestige through the United Nations, it will need the active influence of South Korea's Ban as the secretary general.

For Seoul's part, although its economy has flourished from its status several decades ago, it is still an immature global economy compared to Japan's, and it will need to maintain its ties to the island country in order to continue to grow. A positive sign is that in spite of the recent outrage, South Korea is still involved with Japan in trade talks, which signals that, for the most part, international diplomacy has settled back down and will continue as usual.

The recent bristle is emblematic of increased nationalism on the part of both Japan and South Korea, and reflects efforts to find their place in the new regional political reality. It also reflects the tension between South Korean citizens and the Japanese government, augmented by the lackluster leadership of President Roh. Refusal to resolve the issue of comfort women with South Korea satisfactorily only serves to embolden Japan's critics in South Korea, and the previous position does not appear to have the same political currency it once did in Japan. However, the Japanese Ministry of Education's recent action to censure passages in high school textbooks dealing with the Battle of Okinawa demonstrates that nationalist revisionism will not disappear anytime soon from Japan.

This is cache, read story here