The author, Gong Ro Myung, 75, is a former foreign minister of South Korea, the Korean chairman of the Japan-South Korea Forum, and president of the Asahi Shimbun Asia Network. He also served as South Korea's ambassador to the USSR, Russia and Japan.

My dear Japanese friend K:

A long time has passed since I've been in contact.

I was highly discomfited when I learned early in March about Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's remarks concerning wartime comfort women. It was fortunate that Prime Minister Abe moved quickly thereafter to improve a delicate situation by confirming his adherence to the 1993 statement by the then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono and expressing words of deep sympathy and apology to the former comfort women.

The issue attracted close attention after American media displayed a profound interest in it. The New York Times, for instance, took up the remarks in an editorial and news article in its March 6 issue.

The statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono made a determination on the question of the existence or otherwise of "coerciveness" in the recruitment of comfort women that has become a focal point of Prime Minister Abe's remarks. It was one of the first problems I dealt with after assuming office as the South Korean ambassador to Japan in the spring of 1993. As shown by the "summary of the results of the study" which the Cabinet Councilors' Office on External Affairs released together with the Kono statement, the Japanese government conducted a study of the comfort women's issue from December 1991, with nine government ministries and agencies, related organizations including the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, former comfort women and Japanese soldiers being involved.

It was around this time that I became acquainted with the then Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobuo Ishihara, the controller of the Cabinet Secretariat which was in charge of the study. Mr. Ishihara, a veteran government official, served seven prime ministers. If current Japanese government officials are casting doubts on the reliability of the study results and suggesting that the study may have been defective, that is most regrettable and will only impair international goodwill and arouse suspicions.

As you have said, K, South Korea and Japan have often experienced fierce clashes of national feelings over their perceptions of history and Dokdo Island (Takeshima). As the issue of perceptions of history is not something that can be solved easily, the two countries need to continue their efforts to fill in the gaps in their mutual recognition. It is not a situation where one can move away because one does not like one's neighbor.

In recent years, there have been growing voices in Japan calling for a type of education designed to instill a spirit of patriotism in young people. In a public opinion poll the Asahi Shimbun conducted in January, 78 percent of the respondents said that they had a sense of patriotism. Moreover, 88 percent said that Japan should feel regretful about its invasion and colonial rule of Asian countries. That reaction is very reassuring as it appears to tie in with the post-WWII image of Japan as a nation of peace and democracy.

Many of my South Korean friends believe that, in order to maintain a sound relationship with China, which keeps growing as a powerful nation, it is necessary to not only solidify further the relationship of alliance with the United States but also to strengthen cooperative relations with Japan, which shares the sense of values of a liberal democracy. I also believe that it is desirable to build up a relationship of mutual confidence which equates to an alliance in each of the political, security, economic, societal and cultural sectors.

As it would not be realistic to think for now that the nuclear arms held by North Korea can pose a direct threat to U.S. security, many people are liable to think that priority may be given to preventing nuclear proliferation by North Korea. However, if the United States makes a compromise by accepting North Korea as a nuclear power, it will result in the worst possible situation for our two countries.

To prevent such a situation from becoming a reality, it is also necessary for South Korea and Japan to have closer dialogue and cooperation. To create a political environment for this purpose, it is essential, more than anything else, to enhance a mutual understanding of problems associated with perceptions of history and Dokdo Island, which are factors hampering progress in bilateral cooperative relations. Shimane Prefecture's enactment of its "Takeshima Day" declaration in the spring of 2005 triggered intensified friction between the two countries. South Koreans view Japan's occupation of Dokdo Island as an act which precisely symbolizes Japan's colonization of Korea. I would very much like you to fully understand the background to the reaction by South Korean people to the Dokdo issue.

In an article entitled "To overcome the past," which appeared in The Asahi Shimbun on March 1 and was one component of the newspaper's "Facing History" series, Harvard University Professor Andrew Gordon, in reference to friction over perceptions of history, commented to the effect that: "I do not think Japan alone is responsible for the matter but, at the very least, there is no necessity anywhere for Japan to make statements or act in a manner which stirs up others." I hope that Japan will treat these words with due seriousness.

I will now end this letter, hoping that South Korea and Japan will deepen further their cooperation with each other. Please take care of yourself.