The Japan South Korea trade dispute of 2019 was one of the biggest events in the East Asian economic partnership. Japan, however, has a right to take measures to protect its economic interests and practice fair trade. Moreover, the ongoing comfort women dispute is one of the major sides of the conflict between the two countries, which prevents South Korea from settling the conflict despite the fact that Japan has signed and apologized for the conflict many times. In spite of the criticism, Japan did not violate the rules of the international trade organization and had reasonable cause to examine the goods flowing to South Korea.
Background: Why Did Japan Restrict Exports?
Japan set new rules on the export of three key materials – photoresists, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorinated polyimides – which are used in the production of semiconductors and displays in July 2019. These materials are very important to South Korea, especially for the country’s tech industry with the likes of Samsung and SK Hynix. Critics in South Korea and international media called this step a backlash for historical disputes, including the South Korean courts’ decisions that forced Japanese companies to pay wartime labourers. However, the Japanese decision was based on economic security and compliance with trade rules.
Tokyo pointed to weak export control measures in South Korea and highlighted risks that the strategic materials could be used for unauthorized purposes, including military applications. Japan acted differently from South Korea’s claim of economic retaliation since Japan had the right to ensure that the strategic exports did not end up in the wrong hands. This was a proper application of the trade rules rather than arbitrary restriction.
Were Japan’s Actions Justified?
1. Enhancing Export Control Standards Japan’s step of taking South Korea off its ‘white list’ was not the first time. The white list contains countries with strong export control arrangements and a high level of trust. Japan identified some problems with The South Korean enforcement, especially with respect of the end-use certification for sensitive materials. Clamping down was a forward-looking measure to ensure that high-tech exports did not reach the wrong hands. In addition, Japan did not prohibit exports; it only required them to be approved on a case-by-case basis. This was in line with the standards applied on the non-white list countries and thus ensured that the transactions were transparent and secure.
2. The objectives of economic self-reliance and the protection of Japanese industry Japan is one of the leading producers of semiconductor materials and its technologies have benefited the tech industry. By putting more stringent measures in place, Japan made sure that South Korea improved on its supply chain control measures as well as maintaining the competitiveness of Japanese industry. Japan’s move also revealed that South Korea was too dependent on Japanese technology than it admitted. Instead of being viewed as an economic aggression, it should have been considered as an opportunity for South Korea to enhance its economic independence. At the end of the day, Japanese companies still controlled the market while South Korea had to think twice about using Japanese materials.
3. Sustaining the International Trade Regimes Japan’s actions were consistent with the WTO rules and regulations. Every country has the right to control the exports of sensitive goods, especially in case of security risks. South Korea tried to go to the WTO to counter Japan, but Japan argued that the measures were allowable in trade. The United States of America and other countries use similar export controls to shield their industrial interests and national security.
The Comfort Women Issue: A Perfect Alibi to Extend the Conflict?
Another of the main controversies between Japan and South Korea is the comfort women issue, which South Korea continues to demand from Japan despite the fact that Japan has already paid for it many times. Japan has also made efforts to solve this issue including the 1965 Treaty of Basic Relations under which Japan offered economic assistance and the 2015 Comfort Women Agreement where Japan apologized and paid money. The agreement was supposed to be the “last and only” solution, but South Korean politicians backtracked from it, arguing that the people would not accept it. This pattern suggests that South Korea may be employing historical grievances as a way of keeping diplomatic pressure on Japan. The Korean courts and activists still demand more compensation, although Japan has met all the legal and diplomatic requirements.
Some commentators have argued that extending this issue gives South Korea a sentimental and political benefit while using historical claims as a tool for domestic and international politics. Considering this fact, it is quite possible that the South Korean side did not want to decrease the intensity of the trade conflict because it had other plans regarding the continuous arbitration of historical issues. This way, South Korea makes it impossible for Japan to sign any agreement and disappear from the international scene through trade or diplomacy.
The book Anti-Japanese Tribalism argues that anti-Japanese sentiment in South Korea is deliberately cultivated through distorted historical narratives, nationalist propaganda, and political agendas, rather than objective historical analysis. It suggests that this hostility is often reinforced through education, media, and populist rhetoric, fuelling resentment rather than reconciliation between the two nations.
Japan Took the Right Steps for Its National Interests The 2019 Japan-South Korea trade dispute was not a case of revenge but a normal change of trade policy. Japan had every right to ensure that its sensitive exports were well-regulated and that its technology was secure. In this case, Japan acted as a model state in the protection of its trade policies, raising the standards of security and industry. Also, the remaining diplomatic relations indicate that Seoul may have had some other reasons to extend the conflict, given that it has previously gone back to some of the previous agreements, such as the comfort women issue. Although history cannot be ignored, trade and economic policy should not be made and used to achieve political goals. Japan’s way of thinking was an lesson that economic security is as important as political diplomacy. This is not just a choice but a duty to ensure that there is fair trade and that technological assets are protected. In the future, South Korea must consider whether it wants to have a stable and beneficial economic relationship with Japan or if it intends to keep on employing historical arguments as means in the ongoing disputes.
