Current Status and Prospects of South Korea and Japan's Frictions over History: How to address the Judicial Problems
Lecturer: Masao Okonogi (Professor Emeritus, Keio University)
The current intricate Japan-South Korea relationship is the result of the Korean judiciary's intervention in history issues between the two countries. This paper is intended to focus on history issues we are facing at this moment, particularly the forced labor issue, and to see how the Korean judiciary has complicated the situation. The Japan-South Korea relationship is never free from history frictions. This is because the history between Japan and mainland China since the Meiji era is still affecting the Japan-South Korea relationship. Moreover, the bilateral relationship is also affected by responses to the North Korean issue. These are combined to make Japanese people feel that Japan's efforts to get along with South Korea are an interminable labor like Sisyphus's boulder in Greek mythology. The followings will focus on frictions over history in the Japan-South Korea relations, bearing in mind on how to comprehensively address the above enumerated questions.
1. The origin of South Korea and Japan's frictions over history --- An identity clash
About 20 years ago, under the Koizumi administration, the Japan-Korea Joint History Research Committee was established with participation of Japanese and South Korean researchers. Its establishment constituted a major topic at the first summit meeting between the incumbent administrations of the two countries. Another important topic was the possibility of some nonreligious state memorial to replace the Yasukuni Shrine. The present author was then involved in the Task Force on Foreign Relations --- Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's private advisory committee. For the sake of Prime Minister Koizumi, who was not well versed on Asia, the task force chaired by Mr. Yukio Okamoto, held a meeting prior to his visit to China or Korea to provide direct advice to the prime minister. At that time, I thought that a non-government joint research organ to study history issues would work in some way or other. Although from today's vantage point such an opinion may seem naïve, yet it was eventually accepted, and the present author was appointed as secretary to the committee. Professor Shinichi Kitaoka joined force with us as an influential member until he was appointed as Japan's ambassador and deputy permanent representative to the United Nations.
At the first meeting of the Japan-Korea Joint History Research Committee, the Japanese chairperson Mr. Taichiro Mitani talked about his experiences in joint research efforts between Japan and the United States and pointed out the necessity of an academic community between Japan and South Korea. It was agreed that the purpose of the committee in its first phase was to clarify common points and differences between Japanese and Korean historical interpretations and to discuss major issues. However, at the actual meetings, participants from both sides became passionate with debating and argued for the legitimacy of their respective historical interpretations.
At the root of frictions over the history between the two countries exists the question of non-negotiable identity. For example, Prime Minister Abe's remarks on the Russo-Japanese War in his statement on the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II (2015) --- "The Japan-Russia War gave encouragement to many people under colonial rule from Asia to Africa." --- raised much criticism in South Korea. The war occasioned the colonial rule of Korea by Japan. The feelings of the invaded side tend to be acutely sensitive, while those of the invading side blunt. In this connection, we must note that the French colonization of Vietnam or the British colonization of India is quite different from Japan's annexation of Korea. There are not many examples of annexation in world history. Among the few are the Italian annexation of Ethiopia; the German annexation of Poland, and the annexation of the Baltic countries by the Soviet Union. Annexation is absorption and assimilation, distinct from colonization. Ostensibly, colonization presupposes the future independence of a colony; and the colonial powers are assumed to impart political training to the colony under their rule, and then to help the colony through autonomy to independence. For example, the United States is proud to have led the Philippines to independence through colonization. The United Kingdom also returned Hong Kong to China after the elapse of 99 years in accordance with a bilateral treaty.
In Japan it seems to be PM Abe's statement on the 70th anniversary of WWII, while in South Korea it is the 100th anniversary of the March 1st Movement that have strongly urged the two neighbors to reconfirm their own modern self-portraits. Neither of them would accept each other's self-portraits as they are (the Japan-South Korea identity clash). South Korea is inclined to emphasize its idealized past rather than the real truth of history and cannot tolerate the humiliating Japanese rule. Consequently, South Korea cannot stop accusing the brutality of the Japanese rule and extolling the Korean people's brave resistance and the great sacrifices they paid. Japan claims the legitimacy of its rule of Korea and its contribution to the modernization of South Korea. This is a controversy over different "memories" and is expected to last for many years. It is necessary for Japan to continue its efforts not to make the controversy a political issue, but, as much as possible, to take it up as a theme for objective academic research.
The intervention of the Korean judiciary in the debate on history issues seems to have brought to the surface a latent dispute over traditional political culture. Korean culture can be viewed as a neo-Confucian culture. It is a political culture unfamiliar to the Japanese. Likewise, the Japanese warrior-dominated culture (Samurai culture) is unfamiliar to Koreans. The Japanese samurai culture demands one should kill oneself by hara-kiri (belly cutting) if one failed to keep a promise. The Korean neo-Confucian culture holds justice in the highest esteem. It matters more for a Korean to conform to justice for a promise he has made to others than to fulfill the promise itself. These cultural traits are found at the root of the identity clash between Japan and South Korea. Since the beginning of the 2010s, the cultural clash was extended to a leadership clash (Lee Myung-bak vs. Yoshihiko Noda, Park Geun-hye vs. Shinzo Abe, Moon Jae-in vs. Shinzo Abe) and further spread to the national level.
2. What increased history frictions? --- The collapse of the Korean authoritarian regime and transformation of the international system
The democratization of South Korea and the end of the Cold War can be mentioned as the impetus for the history frictions between Japan and South Korea. Transformation of the international political system since the end of the Cold War exposed frictions between Japan and South Korea, which had been limited to a minimum. When the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and South Korea came into force, South Korea, under the Park Chung-hee administration, had to address the two critical issues of security and economic development; therefore, it was obliged to prioritize an amicable relationship with Japan. Until the end of the Cold War, however, South Korea achieved economic development and democratization. The Seoul Olympics in 1988 may be remembered as a turning point in the modernization of South Korea. From that time, the Japan-South Korea relationship that had been sustained by the Cold War and the South Korean authoritarian regime headed for collapse.
Meanwhile, China grew into an economic superpower in the 2000s. The Chinese economy became the world's second largest GDP in 2010, surpassing Japan. This process had a significant impact on Japan-South Korea relations, and its implications became manifest particularly in President Park Geun-hye's diplomatic policy. President Park referred to the situation where the more economic interdependence develops, the more history frictions increase as an "Asian Paradox," and called for actions to address this phenomenon. Against a backdrop of its increasing economic dependence on China, South Korea promoted responses to frictions with Japan over history issues, along with its China-focused diplomacy, conscious of a transformation of the international political system. After taking office in February 2013, President Park visited the United States in May of the same year, and made a speech in the US Congress, arguing, with Japan in mind, that "those who are blind to the past cannot see the future". Meanwhile, at the time of her visit to China in June of the same year, President Park requested that Chinese authorities install an An Jung-geun memorial. President Park visited China again in September 2015 to watch, from a position of honor on Tiananmen Gate, a military parade commemorating China's WWII victory over Japan.
The Abe administration resisted such a transformation of the international political system, promoted Abenomics, and strengthened the Japan-US alliance. Keeping up with President Park, Prime Minister Abe also delivered a speech in the US Congress and made efforts to restore the Japan-South Korea relations toward the end of the 50th anniversary year (2015) of the 1965 treaties. In November 2015, Prime Minister Abe visited Seoul to attend the Japan-China-South Korea summit and the Japan-South Korea summit, and in December of the same year, an agreement was reached between the Japanese and South Korea foreign ministers, on, among other issues, the establishment of a foundation for a solution of the comfort women issue. At that time the present author thought that this would serve as a milestone. The public opinion in Korea was almost evenly divided between pros and cons of the agreement. At the end of the year, however, North Korea carried out nuclear tests, and Korean people's concern swiftly shifted to the North Korean issue.
3. Why can the history issues not be solved? --- The increasing "intervention" of the Korean judiciary
What is the reason for the Korean judiciary's recent intervention in the two countries' frictions over history? In my opinion, it is also related to the end of the Cold War and the democratization of South Korea. This may be viewed as the delayed democratization of the Korean judiciary. The Korean judiciary seems to hold fast to the opportunity to restore its injured pride, to keep a certain distance from the administration, and establish its prestige. After the bitter experience when the Korean judiciary was a servant of the political power, it has now begun to behave as a "guardian of justice." However, from the viewpoint of checks and balances of the three powers, are the recent behaviors of the Korean judiciary constitutionally proper? No one ventures to monitor the Korean judiciary.
The beginning of the situation goes back to the Lee Myung-bak era. In August 2011, in the second half of the Lee administration, the Korean Constitutional Court judged the "inaction" of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as unconstitutional, because the ministry had neglected to negotiate with Japan on the issue of comfort women. In May 2012, the Supreme Court of South Korea sanctioned the individual claim right of the former forced laborers. In Japan, there prevails a misunderstanding that the Moon Jae-in administration intervened in these history issues to intentionally highlight them. This is not true. The problem had emerged five years earlier. Rather, it should be noted that the Moon administration left the issue of forced laborers behind, thereby complicating it. The Park administration held back the proceeding of the forced labor trial and attempted to solve frictions with Japan over history by means of hardline diplomacy from 2013 through 2015. Therefore, during the Park Geun-hye era, the forced labor trial was completely suspended. This was an obvious administrative intervention.
After the 2016 candlelight protests brought down the Park administration, the Moon administration stopped intervention in the judiciary in respect for the judicial processes and has still kept its hands off the history issues. In March 2019, President Moon, conscious of public support for victim, made a statement to the effect that South Korea and Japan should diligently cooperate to substantially alleviate the victims' pain. In October 2018, the Supreme Court of South Korea, which had resumed the forced labor trial, dismissed an objection from Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation and ordered compensation for the former forced laborers. In November 2018, the Korean government announced the dissolution of the "Reconciliation and Healing" Foundation established in accordance with the Comfort Women Agreement.
It is unforeseeable at this moment whether or not the seized Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation's assets will be cashed out. The Japanese government demanded diplomatic talks between the two governments in accordance with Article 3 of the Agreement on the Settlement of Problems Concerning Property and Claims as soon as the steelmaker's assets were seized. South Korea is refusing to respond and the situation has reached a stalemate. If the seized shares are cashed, the Japanese government will have to take countermeasures. This is, however, not so easy. Even if diplomatic talks begin at all, they will not begin until the very last moment when the situation worsens and there is no choice but to advance, as many precedents teach us in negotiations with South Korea.
4. Three scenarios and three principles
It is impossible for either Japan or South Korea to ignore judgements made by its Supreme Court. Since the Korean judiciary views the forced labor trial as a civil lawsuit, the following three scenarios may be considered:
(1) Leave-it-alone option: If the Korean side disposed of the Japanese steelmaker's assets, in consequence of the exchange of countermeasures, the Japan-South Korea relationship would revert to the state preceding the 1965 Agreement on the Settlement of Problems Concerning Property and Claims, resulting in the collapse of the agreement. It is hard to predict what countermeasures will be taken. What is certain is that we would face the worst situation since the normalization of bilateral diplomatic relations.
(2) Arbitration: When the dispute becomes clarified, diplomatic negotiations should be started based on the 1965 Agreement on the Settlement of Problems Concerning Property and Claims. If this ends in failure, arbitration will be the next option. If all of these are unsuccessful, Japan will be obliged to file a suit at the ICJ. This scenario aims at solving the problem by judicial procedures. Decision may be entrusted to a binding third party arbitration.
(3) Reconciliation: The Korean government and corporations will establish a new foundation and realize a legal settlement with voluntary participation of Japanese corporations.
Again, the scenario (1) is a retaliatory dispute between the two countries. The bilateral relationship will revert to a non-agreement status. Given that Japan and South Korea are now in a state of complex economic interdependence, is it really possible for them to adopt this scenario? Japan is not in a position to take any countermeasures violating WTO rules.
The scenario (2) is the optimal solution if Tokyo and Seoul can behave with equanimity. Yet, is any arbitrator likely to appear? Can both sides accept an intermediate arbitration proposal? The Korean side will not agree to file a suit at the ICJ, taking into consideration its possible adverse effect on the Takeshima (Dokdo) issue.
The other option left is the scenario (3). There will be a Japanese backlash against the creation of a forced labor foundation in the wake of the dismantlement of the Comfort Women Foundation funded by Japan.
For the time being, it will be difficult to single out one and only scenario. In my view, one option may be a compromise between scenarios (2) and (3). In other words, when the preference of the both sides shifts from the scenario (1) to the scenario (2), some arbitrator may step in to propose the scenario (3). Then, the both sides will have no choice but to accept it. However, even if the scenario (3) is ultimately adopted, there will be some conditions to fulfill.
a. The Korean side should present a basic concept of a new framework without destroying the legitimacy of the old framework based on the 1965 Agreement on the Settlement of Problems Concerning Property and Claims that has been functioning for 50 years.
b. Compensation the new foundation can afford will not be unlimited. Compensation amount must be acceptable to the Japanese and Korean sides. The 100 million won (¥ 10 million) per capita mentioned by the Korean Supreme Court decision is quite expensive. It will be problematic if the number of compensation recipients is large.
c. The new foundation to be established must be a future-oriented organization capable of solving all history issues collectively and finally. The new foundation should merge the Comfort Women Foundation which is to be dismantled and utilize its resources to achieve the final solution of the comfort women issue.
A new factor is found in the current bilateral history frictions. Many Japanese people are furious about the frictions, but the Korean public is not as angry. It seems that in South Korea, hard-line movement groups fail to win all-out support from the public. The Korean business circles and major conservative newspapers are critical of the policies of the South Korean government. It is a gross mistake to think that President Moon is agitating public opinion and the whole country is ablaze. Noteworthy is Korean youth's low concern about the bilateral history issues. The evidence is that 7.5 million Korean tourists annually visit Japan.
(This paper was translated into English by Tsutomu Inuzuka, SSDP Associate)
- May 2020: Urgent Recommendations "Toward a V-shaped Recovery after the Novel Coronavirus Pandemic "Coronavirus Testing for All" --- the First Step of the Next Phase"
- March 2020, "Space and Security" Kazuto Suzuki Professor, Hokkaido University
- March 2020, "The US Security Space Policy --- With a Focus on the Establishment of Two Space Forces" Yasuhito Fukushima Chief Researcher, The National Institute for Defense Studies
- March 2020, "China's Recent Activities in Space and Cyberspace" Bonji Ohara Senior Research Fellow, Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- March 2020, "Environmental Security and Japan" Takashi Sekiyama Associate Professor, Kyoto University
- March 2020, "Changes in Global Environment and Security --- US Security Strategy" Hideshi Tokuchi Senior Fellow, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS)
- February 2020, "Cyberspace Security" Motohiro Tsuchiya Professor, Keio University
- February 2020, "Japan's Space and Cyberspace Policy" Yukinari Hirose Former President of the National Institute for Defense Studies
- December 2019, "The US-China Confrontation --- Where Will Hegemony Reside Next?" Akio Takahara Professor, the University of Tokyo
- December 2019, "Challenges Facing the Chinese Economy" Osamu Tanaka Chief Senior Researcher, Institute of Developing Economies, JETRO
- December 2019, "US Strategic Perception on China: Implications for US Allied Partners" Tsuneo Watanabe Senior Fellow, Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- November 2019, "The Xi Jinping Administration's View of the International Order– China's emphasis on United Nations diplomacy and liberal economic policies−" Shin Kawashima, Professor, the University of Tokyo
- November 2019, "The Future of China's Security Strategy" Hideshi Tokuchi, Senior Fellow, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
- November 2019, "China --- Its Confidence and Anxiety" Bonji Ohara, Senior Research Fellow, Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- August 2019: Several Perspectives on the Korean Peninsula Issue--- The Deteriorating Japan-South Korea Relationship and the Uncertain Denuclearization of North Korea --- By Masahiro Akiyama Chairman, the SSDP
- July 2019, "An Outlook on the Denuclearization of North Korea--- What is the Stance of North Korea?---", Junya Nishino, Professor, Keio University
- July 2019, "An Outlook on the Denuclearization of North Korea --- How will the US move?", Narushige Michishita, Vice President, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
- July 2019, "Discussion on Denuclearization of North Korea", SSDP Discussion Meeting on May 8, 2019
- May 2019: "Current Status and Prospects of South Korea and Japan's Frictions over History: How to address the Judicial Problems", Masao Okonogi, Professor Emeritus, Keio University
- May 2019: "South Korea and Japan's Frictions over History" (Comments), Junya Nishino, Professor, Keio University
- May 2019: Japan and South Korea Relationships (Question & Answer)
- March 2019: "The Present State and Prospects of the Indian Economy and Economic Policies" written by Koji Kobayashi, Senior Economist Mizuho Research Institute Ltd.
- March 2019: "The "Modi diplomacy" in the History of Indian diplomacy--- Departure from or maintenance of the traditional diplomacy? ---" written by Toru Ito, The National Defense Academy of Japan
- February 2019: Dynamics of Indian Politics and the 2019 General Elections, written by Chiharu Takenaka, Professor of Rikkyo University
- February 2019: "Cooperative Strategy" to Realize "Competitive Strategy"--- The composite structure of Japan's "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" strategy (vision) ---, written by Matake Kamiya, Professor at The National Defense Academy of Japan
- January 2019:, A paper, "How will the US midterm elections results affect the Trump administration's foreign policy for 2019?" written by Tsuneo Watanabe, Senior Fellow, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- January 2019:, A paper, "The Present and Future of the International Trade Order" , written by Akihiko Tamura, Professor, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
- December 2018: The US-China Competition and Japan, written by Ryo Sahashi, Professor at Kanagawa University
- December 2018: An Outlook for the US-China Trade War―What makes the two economically interdependent superpowers confront each other?―, written by Takashi Sekiyama, Associate professor at Toyo University
- September 2018: Proposal, "The Denuclearization of North Korea and the Restoration of Peace in the Korean Peninsula― Correct Perceptions and Eight Proposals on Japan's North Korea Diplomacy－" edited by the Society of Security and Diplomatic Policy Studies
- September 2018: "The Taiwan Policy of the Xi Jinping Administration in its Second Term: An Outlook on Cross-Strait Relations in the New Era" written by Yasuhiro Matsuda, Professor of the Tokyo University
- July 2018: "The EU States and Russia on North Korea Issues- Expansion of Influence through Diplomacy: Attempts and Limitations -" lectured by Yuichi Hosoya, Professor of Keio University
- "An Assessment of the US-North Korea Summit and an Outlook for the Future of the Korean Peninsula" lectured by Junya Nishino, Professor of Keio University
- "Korean Peninsula Issue and Japan's Future Security Policy" written by Hideshi Tokuchi, Senior Fellow of National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
- July 2018: "US North Korea policy affected by personnel changes in the Trump administration" lectured by Tsuneo Watanabe, Senior Fellow of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation.
- "China-North Korea relationship under Xi Jinping" lectured by Shin Kawashima, Professor of the Tokyo University.
- "North Korean Denuclearization and Russia" lectured by Nobuo Shimotomai, Professor of the Hosei University.
- March 2018: "The Network Hegemony Theory for a Security Architecture in The Asia Pacific Region" lectured by Masahiro Akiyama, Chairman, the Society of Security and Diplomatic Policy Studies
- January 2018: "A Destabilized Middle East" lectured by Koichiro Tanaka, Professor, Keio University
- December 2017: "Problems in Sino-Japanese Relations, 1992-2042" lectured by Ezra F. Vogel, Professor of the Social Sciences Emeritus at Harvard University
- November 2017: "The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region" written by Yoriko Kawaguchi, Fellow, the Meiji Institute for Global Affairs, Former Minister Foreign Affairs
- October 2017: "A New Trend in India's Foreign Policy and Japan" Written by HIROSE,Takako, Professor, Senshu University
- August 2017: "The Shocks that shook the Transatlantic World and their Implication for Japan's Foreign Policy" written by HOSOYA, Yuichi, Professor, Keio University
- August 2017: "Does Economic Interdependence not Encourage Collaboration? ―Thinking Japan-China Relations from an Economic Perspective―" written by Takashi SEKIYAMA, Ph.D., Toyo University
- July 2017: Proposal article "The Trump Administration's Impact on the Cross-Strait Relations" written by Yasuhiro Matsuda, Ph.D.
- June 2017: Proposal article "The outlook for the relationship between two great powers and implications for Japanese diplomacy" written by Professor Shin Kawashima
- May 2017: (Emergency Proposal) Facing the Inconvenient Truth: Re-examining Policy for Peace and Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (Chief author, Masao Okonogi)
- March 2017: "Economic Influences of the Trump Administration" written by Professor Motoshige Ito
- February, 2017: Proposal article "Trump's Foreign and Security Policy - Unpredictable President, Realistic Secretaries - " written by Mr. Tsuneo Watanabe is posted on the website of SSDP.
- December, 2016: Proposal article "Reconsidering North Korea Policy: How to Deal with a Nuclear Armed Divided States" written by Professor Masao Okonogi is posted on the website of SSDP.
- May 2020: "Rivalries in the Middle East in New Security Dynamics", Written by Sayed Ghoneim, Major General (retired) of the Egyptian Armed Forces, Chairman, Institute for Global Security & Defence Affairs
- March 2020: The Japan-South Korea Relationship in a Cul-de-Sac--- Where is an Exit ? Masao Okonogi Professor Emeritus, Keio Universit
- December 2019: The Hong Kong Upheaval and the Future of Cross-Straits Relations－The 2019 Japan-Taiwan Strategic Dialogue Report OGATA, Makoto Former Chief of the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association in Taipei
- August 2019: Report; 2019 FUTURE CONSENSUS DIALOGUE --Sustainable Prosperity and Future of Korea-U.S.-Japan Cooperation-- By Future Consensus Institute (Yeosijae)
- June 2019: Report on India – Japan Security Dialogue 2019 by Ms. Vindu Mai Chotani, Ph.D Student, The University of Tokyo
June 2019: Four papers on Japan-India Cooperation submitted to India-Japan Security Dialogue 2019
Japan's Rationale for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific Vision
Tsuneo Watanabe, Senior Fellow, The Sasakawa Peace Foundation
The Significance and Possibilities of India-Japan Cooperation in the Concept of the Indo-Pacific
Toru ITO Associate Professor, National Defense Academy of Japan
Japan-India Defense Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific Context - Operationalizing the Security Aspect of the Indo-Pacific Vision –
Hideshi Tokuchi, Senior Fellow, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS)
India-US-Japan Defense Cooperation: What's next?
Dr. Satoru Nagao, Hudson Institute
- Japan's Rationale for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific Vision
- November 2018: "The Present State of the Japanese Economy and Policy Issues" lectured by Motoshige Itoh, Professor Emeritus at the University of Tokyo.
- November 2018: "Expanding Social Security Expenses and Fiscal Reforms" lectured by Kazumasa Oguro, Professor at Hosei University.
- September 2018: "Taiwan Identity and Cross-Strait Relations and Trump's Taiwan Policy and the Future of Taiwan-US Relations-Discussion at The Second Japan-Taiwan Strategic Dialogue (June 21, 2018, Taipei)-" written by OGATA, Makoto
- September 2018: "Japan-Taiwan Dialogue 2018 Minutes", 21st June 2018, Taipei, Taiwan.
- July 2018: Report on The Second Japan – Philippines Strategic Dialogue prepared by Ms. Vindu Mai Chotani, Ph.D. Student, Graduate School of Public Policy, Tokyo University.
- May 2018: "Civilian Control "at Crisis"? – Perhaps Not, for the Case of the Field Sit-reps from SDF's South Sudan Mission" reported by Ippeita Nishida, Research Fellow, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- January 2018: "Fukushima, Genki？Project－Young Taiwanese volunteers introduce the facts on Fukushima's revival through documentary films－" reported by OGATA, Makoto, Former Chief of the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association in Taipei
- December 2017: "Commemorating a Quarter Century of Dispatches of the JSDF's PKO Units: Challenges and Possibilities in the Post South Sudan" written by Takayuki Shoji, Lecturer, Nihon University
- November 2017: "19th CCP National Congress" written by Mr. Bonji Ohara, Senior Research Fellow, the Sasakawa Peace Fondation
- October 2017: "What is Japan's Role in the Indo-China border conflict?" written by Dr. NGAO,Satoru, Research Fellow, Institute for Future Engineering
- July 2017: "Overview of the Current Situation in Taiwan-" the Naturally Independent Generation" will affect the Taiwan"s politics-" written by Makoto Ogata MGE.(Ret.)
- June 2017: "Japan-U.S. Economic Dialogue" written by Mr.Takaaki Asano
- March 2017: "The Japan-Philippines Strategic Dialogue" written by Mr. Hideshi Tokuchi
- February, 2017: Current topic "The Importance of Japan's Security Role Under Trump" written by Dr. Satoru Nagao is posted on the SSDP website.
- December, 2016: Current topic "Widening Security Task: Will SDF do the Job?" written by Mr. Ippeita Nishida is posted on the SSDP website.
- May 2020: A research journal "Security Studies (vol2 no1) - Cyber, Space, Environment and Security - " March 2020 (English edition)
- February 2020, "A research journal "Security Studies (vol1 no4) " (English edition)"
- September 2019: A research journal "Security Studies (vol1 no3) " (English edition)
- August 2019: Korea-Japan Joint Seminar: FUTURE CONSENSUS DIALOGUE
- April 2019: "Security Studies (vol1 no2) April 2019"
- March 2019: A research journal "Security Studies vol1 no01" just published
- February 2019: The Denuclearization of North Korea and the Takeshima Issue
- December 2018: Former Vice Defense Minister Masahiro Akiyama's Memoirs (An Ad)
- November 2018: Participation in the Future Consensus Forum held in Beijing
- September 2018: "2018 Indo-Pacific Security Dialogue" reported by Masahiro Akiyama
- 2017 December: "The Butterfly Project-A possibility of showing a solution to the North Korea problem-"
- October 2017: Campaign on the problems with North Korea
- August 2017: A New Containment Policy Strategy
- June 2017: Korean peninsla
- March 2017: President Duterte
- February, 2017: Kazakhstan
- November, 2016: Participated in Astana Club 2016 held in Kazakhstan on November 14- 16, 2016.