Thirty years ago, back in the 1980s, I came to Japan when I was only three years old with my family.  My father was an Iranian student in Japan. At that time, it was very rare for an Iranian to study in Japan and it is said that he was the first generation to study abroad in Japan.  Japan’s economy was in top form back then, during the “bubble era.” This news reached Iran as well and people in Iran were looking for jobs as this was just after the Iranian Revolution.  In 1974, the “Visa Mutual Waiver Agreement” was concluded between Iran and Japan and we could visit Japan without a visa. Due to such changes, Iranian youth began to visit and stay in Japan looking for jobs. It is said that in the year 1992, more than 40 thousand Iranians - the highest number ever - were in Japan. Our family was also living in Japan in that period.  I do not know why Iranians have been gathering together around Ueno Park in Tokyo. On Sunday, Ueno Park became a “mini-Persian town” and a place to exchange information over Iranian foods. Sometimes, famous Iranian singers or artists came to the park to have concerts. I have a memory of our family going to Ueno for Iranian foods, music and movies.  Looking back, I have a strange memory of my father whom I believed to have been busy in preparing his doctoral thesis. When I was in the third grade of elementary school, he went out around 11 o’clock in the evening a few times a week in a luxurious car and came back the next morning. Feeling anxious about this, one day I asked my mother about it, thinking that my father had a part-time job at night because he was busy in the day.  My mother told me that a lot of Iranians were in prison for illegally overstaying.  Japanese police stations were short of interpreters for Persian and Japanese at the time and asked Iranian students such as my father to interpret.  In 1995, we returned to Iran when my father completed his studies in Japan.  Other Iranian people who had been working in Japan also began to return.  After my return to Iran, I had the chance to talk with Iranian people who had been working in Japan. When I talked with my mother in Japanese in places where there were a lot of people, we communicated freely as we assumed that Iranian people could not understand Japanese.  When we talked in Japanese in taxies or supermarkets, I was surprised on many an occasion by taxi drivers saying “I understand Japanese” or “your Japanese is very good”.  In my schooldays, I was teaching Japanese to ordinary citizens at the University of Tehran.  Some Iranians who had lived in Japan took my class and told me about their memories of Japan in the 1980s, bringing up Japanese soberness and politeness.  In 2013, eighteen years after my first visit to Japan, I came to Japan again as an Iranian student. In my doctoral course, I started my research in the field of sociolinguistics, focusing on Iranian people who have stayed in Japan for more than five years.  I aimed at an investigation of the actual situation of their use of the Japanese language.  I tried to listen to their life stories as much as possible, because their life stories relate to their abilities of speaking Japanese after their studies of the language.  Students were included in my field of research, of course. However, it was also true that many Iranians who came over to Japan in the 1980s were laborers. Some of them were married and had their families in Japan, and some of them were running good Persian food restaurants or supermarkets.   Whenever I start my interviews with these individuals, sitting in front of them and asking them to “please, tell me your “life story”, I always have a strange feeling. They came to Japan in their twenties and are in their forties or fifties now. I came to Japan as a schoolgirl and am an adult woman now. And I am sitting in front of them as a researcher. Our paths might have been different, but I have a feeling that we share something in common.     It is a fact that “we are still in Japan.” We love Japan and are sharing our memories, be they happy or terrible. We thank Japan for Japan has made us grow and gain many experiences. We are sharing wonderful lessons with each other.  Hereafter, I will continue to look into the Iranian community in Japan.  Though we are living in Japan with some similar background and reasons, we will grow and have our own way of living.  I would like to convey the stories of our small communities to the Japanese people.   SGRA Kawaraban 601 in Japanese (Original) Hourieh_Akbari / 2017 Raccoon, Researcher at Chiba University (Graduate School of Humanities and Studies on Public Affairs) Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sonja Dale

 Just after the G-20 Osaka Summit in June 2019, the third North Korea-United States summit was held at Panmunjon (板門店), Korea.  And on July 1st, immediately after the G-20 Summit, the Japanese Government released a press release about the regulatory measures of the METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry)’s licensing policies and procedures on exports of controlled items to the Republic of Korea. At first, given the timing of the announcement, most people thought that it was a “countermeasure” against the government of President Moon Jae-in who did not respond to the judicial decision regarding the wartime laborers by the Korean Supreme Court in October 2018. People anticipated that it could be possible that the Japanese Government would take countermeasures against this if the assets of Japanese companies in Korea would be forcefully cashed by the Korean government for reparation purposes, which would result in visible damages to Japanese companies.  The rights of Korean sufferers, who could not get any relief, should be reinstated.But, it should be done on the basis of “The Agreement for the Rights to Claims between Japan and Korea” which was signed in 1965 as the foundation of the “promise between the two countries”.  However, the Korean Supreme Court has tried to supersede the conditions of the agreement, despite the sentences being “perfectly and irreversibly” declared by interpreting “an extent of the agreement” in narrower terms than the “intention of lawmakers”.  Such an understanding might be supported in South Korea. However, in Japan, it has hardly been accepted.  These differences should have been resolved as “diplomatic issues”. Accordingly, South Korea should have sought agreement with the Japanese side through negotiation or made a proposal which does not go against judicial decisions and the agreement.In any case, this issue should be handled by the government of President Moon Jae-in.  Response by the government of President Moon Jae-in after the judicial decision was slow. President Moon himself, who had the experience of a counsel for a similar lawsuit, might have held the conviction that Japanese companies should provide compensation. Surrounding staff members might have thought favorably of President Moon. In Japan, there is the opinion that responsibility for this judicial decision should belong to the government of President Moon. However, the “original judgement” was made at a small claims court in the Supreme Court in May 2015, the last period of President Lee Myung-bak. Park Geun-hye, the following President, tried to take some countermeasures considering the potential destructive impact it might have on Japan and South Korea relations.  But, she failed as she was soon impeached and dismissed.  Furthermore, the head of the Supreme Court was arrested under the government of President Moon, the reason being that he exercised illegal “judicial monopoly” by trying to adjust relations between administration and judicature.  In Korea, people strongly believe that the Korean Government should negotiate with the Japanese Government to accept the judgement by the Korean Supreme Court and the Japanese Government and companies should abide by the judgement. I personally think it should be left to the judgement of the companies whether they follow the judgement or not. As for the Japanese government, they consider that the judgement by the Korean Supreme court is against “The Agreement for the Rights to Claims between Japan and Korea” which was made “perfectly and irreversibly”. This means that if the judicial procedures in Korea proceed as is, the Japanese government would have to take some “counter measures”.  However, how can we justify “counter measures” which the Japanese Government took before Japanese companies experienced any visible damages? Furthermore, they explained that they decided to take “export regulatory measures” for security reasons given that strategic goods or techniques are being outsourced to third party countries (such as North Korea or China) . in the belief that they would not get any support internationally for their “counter measures”.     In any case, we cannot deny either side regardless of the explanation by the Japanese government of what they regard as “protective counter measures” against the encashment of assets of Japanese companies in Korea. This measure has led to great tumult in Korea.  Far from being effective, the Japanese counter measure has brought about “solidarity” in Korea by encouraging a hardline stance against Japan. At first, Korean parties, both conservative and opposition, criticized the “no policy” stance against Japan by the Moon government. But, this criticism against the government changed to criticism against Japan. The wartime labor (victims of forced labor) issue, which was the reason for the “great tumult”, disappeared into thin air and Koreans now think that Japan is trying to make Korea yield through spiteful actions. Behind the act of boycotting (non-selling and non-buying) of Japanese goods in Korea, there seems to be a Korean “simple sense of justice” rather than anti-Japanese sentiment which came from the historical experience of Korea.   If Japan seriously considered this issue not as a simple “expedient” and did not consider Korea as “a problem country” from a security viewpoint, that would be a big change for Japanese diplomacy and security from previous standpoints.  We cannot deny the Abe administration’s new policy which can be called a “re-definition” of Japan and South Korea relations”.  They even deleted the sentence “Japan shares basic values, market economy and democracy, with South Korea” from governmental documents and even stated that they lowered the diplomatic order of priority for Korea.  As proof, Japan showed that South Korea sided with North Korea rather than staying with allied nations such as Japan and America, or that South Korea showed their ambiguous attitude in their response to the confrontation between America and China.  Japan should give a convincing explanation about not only South Korea but also America which shares an alliance with Japan and South Korea. Needless to say, Japan should give this explanation to a domestic as well as international audience.    At present, however, Japan has not given any explanation about their change in attitude toward South Korea for security reasons. We cannot evaluate the “counter measures” this time because there are a lot of incomprehensible parts to it. It may be difficult also to withdraw the “measure” without any reasons.   As for the judicial decision for the wartime laborers, which was a cause of the great tumult this time, I think it is necessary for Korea to present their proposals which are compatible with the judicial decision by the Korean Supreme Court and the Agreement for the Rights to Claim between Japan and Korea. Providing relief for the victims (wartime laborers) should be the basis of this proposal. It should not be on the basis of how to compensate the victims by Japanese companies. In other words, it should be on the basis for compensation by Korean and Japanese companies to take part in voluntarily under the initiative of the Korean government. It is necessary for the Japanese government also to boldly withdraw their “counter measure” if their anxiety can be cleared by talking with South Korea about national security.      Relations between Japan and South Korea have been unsymmetrical and complementary, but changed to symmetrical and competitive and compete with each other now under “justice”. So, it will be difficult to solve this issue on a so-called zero-sum basis: namely, either one side will be correct and the other side wrong. As far as this game continues, both sides will only end up miserable like the so-called “chicken game”.  This confrontation, which started directly from historical issues, is now extending to affect the economy and security.     What should we do?  It would be difficult to relieve or dissolve this confrontation without a clear government standpoint and direct negotiations. Japan and South Korea should consider the intentions of the other first.  They should judge what their top priority would be, how they would get it and what they would sacrifice. Then, it is necessary to proceed with their intellectual (not emotional) negotiation consciously and distinguish it from their diplomatic, security and social viewpoints. Not only political leaders but citizens also have to keep this situation of both countries in mind.  Now, there is a movement by nongovernmental organizations and/or local governmental bodies in Korea to discontinue their exchanges with Japan.  I want the government of President Moon Jae-in to be clear on their standpoint and forthrightly state whether this is an act that is necessary or not.  SGRA Kawaraban 604 in Japanese (Original)  Kimiya Tadashi /Professor of the University of Tokyo (Liberal Arts)  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sonja Dale