S. Korea expresses 'deep regret' over Japanese politicians' visit to war shrine
SEOUL, Dec. 7 (Yonhap) -- South Korea expressed "deep concern and regret" over the latest visit by a group of Japanese politicians to a controversial war shrine in Tokyo.
In a statement, the foreign ministry again urged Japan to win trust from the international community by facing up to history and atoning sincerely for past wrongdoings.
Earlier in the day, 99 Japanese ruling and opposition lawmakers paid their respects at the Yasukuni Shrine, seen by Koreans as a symbol of the country's imperial era aggression, to mark the 80th anniversary of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. They belong to a group to pay homage to the war dead enshrined there.
Choi Young-sam, the ministry's spokesman, noted the politicians' group visit to the shrine, the first in more than two years, came not long after the formation of Japan's new parliament.
"(The government) expresses deep concern and regret" over their massive visit to the "symbolic" facilities that "glorify" Japan's colonial past and invasions, he said.
The shrine in the capital honors 2.5 million Japanese war dead, including 14 Class-A criminals from World War II.
yunhwanchae@yna.co.kr
(END)
-
(Yonhap Interview) Ex-Pentagon official stresses need for war plan rethink, swift OPCON transfer, USFK overhaul
-
Foreign medical license holders to practice medicine in S. Korea amid prolonged doctors' walkout
-
(LEAD) S. Korea hints at accepting Indonesia's cost sharing reduction proposal on KF-21 project
-
Seoul vows to protect S. Korean companies from 'unfair treatment' amid Japan's pressure
-
Yoon calls opposition leader to express concern for health
-
Only 34 pct of S. Korean elites favor nuclearization: CSIS poll
-
Yoon's approval rating falls for 3 weeks straight to 30.2 pct
-
Disagreement over ambassador, presidential aide opens up fresh rift between Yoon, PPP leader
-
Political parties ramp up campaign efforts amid shifting opinion polls
-
(News Focus) U.S. focus on 'interim' steps with N. Korea raises questions about policy direction