Newsletter

An international conference on the theme "The Historiography and Peace of East Asia: Society, Nation, and the World" was held over two days—November 5-6—in Seoul. It was the third conference co-hosted by the Northeast Asian History Foundation and the Forum for the Study of East Asian History. There were a total of 40 participants from Korea, China, Japan, and Taiwan; 20 were foreign scholars. The conference was organized into 3 sessions and 6 panels. Including the keynote speech, the conference consisted of 21 presentations.

Professor Nakamura Masanori [中村政則] delivered the keynote speech. He provided a detailed overview of Japan's security system and policies within the context of the postwar regional order in East Asia. He stressed that building a trilateral system of cooperation friendship is the only way to ensure peace and stability in the region. To me, it sounded like Japan's plea to China—"China, please don't exclude Japan". Nonetheless, the vivid presentation of the international relations of East Asia was very impressive.

Foundation for joint research and exchanges

In each panel, there were many presentations and discussions on the efforts to realize regional peace and the obstacles confronting these efforts. The specific topic treated include international organizations and the international environment, diverse approaches for the resolution of conflicts and reconciliation, historical perceptions and conflicts, war and war memory, mutual understanding, and peace ideologies. At the panel on "The Regional Order in East Asia and Peace", it was pointed out that East Asia in the 20th century had not been able to secure neutral and autonomous rules for peace. This is actually an ongoing problem. In the panel on "The Path from Conflict to Reconciliation", the panelists discussed the potential contribution of correct historiography to political reconciliation between nations, the potential contribution of a proper understanding of international cultures to global peace, and the potential contribution of shared religious faiths or cultures to peace in East Asia. The panel on "Historiography and Peace" demonstrated that divergent understandings of history and historical conflicts hinder peace. The panel on "War and Reconciliation" stressed that as is evident in the divergent understandings of war accountability and the historiography and memory of wars, wars are absolute barriers to peace even after they are over. The panel on "Mutual Understanding and Peace" illustrated that how one country sees and understands another country is closely linked to the issue of peace. Finally, the panel on "Vision for Peace and Ideological Approaches" pointed out how the formulation of various visions and conceptions of peace and the spread of peace movements are crucial for the realization of peace in East Asia.

This international conference was designed to look at the link between the historical issues in East Asia with peace within the frameworks of society, nation, and the world. The presentations were substantive and the discussions were heated and dynamic. The participants were able to reconfirm and recognize the points of divergence in their views, and thus, the conference was able to achieve the intended goal of getting us one step closer to a new and shared historical understanding. A special roundtable was organized, and it proved to be an especially fruitful event as it led to many recommendations for the activities of Forum for the Study of East Asian History and the conference. As the conference came to a close, the theme for the next year's conference was announced: "Mutual Perceptions and Their Interplay in East Asian History ".

While there have been other conferences on one nation's perception of another, it is noteworthy that 2011 conference will take it a step further and look at how the mutual perceptions among nations influence their actions and behavior. The Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the Department of History of Beijing University will take part in the 2011 conference that will be held in China. Some of the panels will have set themes, and there will be open calls for papers.

Lack of overall cohesion and an excessive focus on a few topics

The opportunity for academic exchanges, which this conference provided, has certainly expanded the possibilities for mutual understanding among the nations of East Asia. That is, it proved to be an opportunity for Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and Taiwanese researchers to broaden our perspectives beyond national borders to embrace the larger East Asia. We also got to think more seriously and in-depth about how we can apply this new perspective to the study of history. Korean scholars, in particular, were able to broaden the perspectival scope of our research through direct communication with foreign specialists studying East Asia and learning about the research trends and methodologies in other countries. The conference also established a foundation for joint research and other academic exchanges in diverse areas.

As successful as the conference was, there were a few areas in which there was definitely room for improvement. First, there was a lack of cohesion in terms of the correlation between the larger theme, panels, and individual papers. It was not readily apparent how the theme for each panel related to the larger theme of the conference, and there was a lack of connectedness among the different panels. Moreover, even the individual papers within a given panel seemed disconnected. I believe this is something that requires a lot of improvement in the future. One way to tackle the problem is reviewing the system by which the presenters for the conference are selected.

Second, as with the previous conferences, there was an uneven distribution of topics and participants. The overseas participants came from only a small handful of institutions. As for the Korean participants, their specializations and regions of interest did not show an even distribution across diverse fields. Moreover, not only were the papers dealing with pre-modern periods too few in number, they also fell short in supplementing the discussions on the modern era. There were not enough Korean history specialists.

Third, the conference must put more of an effort into encouraging exchanges among younger scholars. While there were a few young Japanese scholars in attendance, adding a breath of fresh air to the venue, the number of younger participants was lacking overall. Fostering the next generation of talented specialists is important in any field or endeavor, but it is especially important for the task of creating a shared historical perception in East Asia.

Fourth, while it was a move in the right direction that more time had been allotted for the presentations and discussions, greater effort should be made to raise the overall energy level of the conference and attract greater public attention and interest.