Newsletter

Q The NAHF co-hosted a seminar in Warsaw on March 13, 2014, under the theme of "Polish Reconciliation Experience: A Model for East Asia Rapprochement," aimed at sharing in the experience of resolving historical issues between Poland and its neighboring countries. What implications does Germany-Poland relations have for Japan-Korea relations?

Heiko Ital Initially, immediately after WWII, the 'iron curtain' across Europe made it extremely difficult for Germany and Poland to enter the stage of historical reconciliation. Until 1969, West Germany's official foreign policy had been 'Western integration.' Once Willy Brandt came to power in 1969 as the first prime minister of Germany from the SPD, Germany's foreign policy toward Poland switched to what we call the 'East policy.' Willy Brandt visited the memorial tower for those killed during the Second World War, and knelt down and expressed repentance to the Poles. That was the first step for Germany and Poland to progress toward historical reconciliation. The two countries have maintained a very good relationship ever since. A few weeks ago, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier met with his French and Polish counterparts, in an attempt to sort out what was happening in Ukraine. This is a symbolic event that illustrates the bolstered Germany-Poland relations.

Q We say that Japan should apologize to Korea, just as Germany apologized for its past wrongdoing and still looks for war criminals and punishes them. I wonder what Germans feel about this.

Heiko Ital During the Second World War, Nazi Germany committed a number of crimes against humanity. Talking about our crimes and accepting them has been tough and difficult. Actually, it is still an ongoing process. Over the past sixty years, Germany has built memorial facilities and apologized to a number of victim groups, such as the Jew, the Sinti and Roma, and the Russian captives. President of Germany Joachim Gauck visited Greece in March 2014 and apologizes to the Greek victims and their families for the first time.

Any country must admit its past. Many German people and organizations fully understand the difficulties that Japan will go through in the process of accepting its past wrongdoing. There are many projects for regional cooperation. Through those projects, Germany supports the process of admitting the past in Northeast Asia. I'm not saying that Germany is a model case of reconciliation for war crimes. It's just that Germany is willing to help other countries go through the difficult process of reconciling with each other and living as good neighbors. In other words, Germany's role in Northeast Asia is not to come under spotlight but provide support behind the scenes.

Q In 2012, you published a paper that asked, "Why does Japan, unlike Germany, downplay its war crimes in history textbooks?" I really wonder why, too.

Heiko Ital There is a sea of difference between Japan and Germany in the intensity of controversy about history education, primarily because Japan has no official institution capable of mediating the controversy. Germany, on the other hand, has the Georg Eckert Institute (GEI), which mediates consensus on historical perception between German society in general and government authorities. There is no such mediating agency in Japan. And there is a tendency that civil society and government authorities in Japan are quite the opposite in terms of their historical perception. Civil society, in both Germany and Japan alike, values the principles of reconciliation and mutual understanding in history education. By contrast, the government authorities of Japan place more emphasis on "inspiring patriotism" in history education where it is accepted that their country is above its individual citizens. For this reason, they keep hidden the dark side of their country's history by, for example, referring to the Nanjing Massacre as the Najing Incident or leaving out 'comfort women' (sex slaves) or other sensitive topics associated with Japan's war crimes from history textbooks (e.g. textbooks by Fusosha (扶桑社)). When reviewing textbooks for approval, the Japanese authorities favor those textbooks that fulfill their agenda mentioned earlier. On the other hand, grass-roots movement has also become powerful enough to impose restrictions on the wide distribution of such textbooks. But given the lack of an official mediating agency in Japan, I don't think that the controversy surrounding Japan's history textbooks will go away, at least not in the foreseeable future.

Q You described the GEI as an official institute capable of mediating historical consciousness on the one hand, and between government departments on the other. Specifically, how does the GEI perform such roles?

Heiko Ital The GEI is carrying out various interdisciplinary studies to apply research in history and culture to textbooks and educational media. The GEI also provides consulting service for education policy makers, educators, and education-related organizations in Germany or other countries. And it also participates in international issues or projects surrounding textbooks, and serves as a coordinator or mediator. At the GEI, services related to research, knowledge delivery, and the research infrastructure are closely interconnected. As a non-university institute that conducts or support research in textbooks and educational media, the GEI is known to be playing central roles with excellence in relevant areas.

One of the many reasons that researchers around the world are attracted to the GEI is its library, which houses books on history, society, and religion, and geography textbooks. I can almost say there is no place quite like it elsewhere in the world. 'Edumeres.net,' which serves as the information and communication gateway to the GEI, provides online access to the world of research in textbooks and educational media. The major characteristic of 'Edumeres.net' is that it publishes user-initiated textbook reviews. The GEI is running a broad pool of scholarship, committed to raising awareness of textbooks and textbook research and advancing research in relevant areas. The GEI is also running systems to present distinguished research awards in relevant areas and support visiting scholars. In 2012, the GEI established the Textbook of the Year Award to be presented every year at the Leipzig Book Fair, in recognition of excellence in educational media.

Q In your opinion, why is historical reconciliation so much more difficult to achieve in Asia than it is in Europe?

Heiko Ital I think that the reason has something to do with the U.S.' foreign policy. The Allies, especially the U.S., the U.K., and France, thought it crucial to reeducate the German people who had lived through the Nazi period. They encouraged German citizens to visit the concentration camps set up by the Nazis and see for themselves the sites of atrocities like genocide. In the 1950s through the 1960s, the Nazi war criminals were tried while the German people were under the pressure that they should squarely face what they had done in the past. But in Asia, the U.S. took a little bit different approach, because the U.S. while being very close to Germany, didn't know much about Japan and Asia. During the 18th to 19th centuries, many Germans immigrated to the U.S. By 1945, Americans had become very familiar with what Germans were like. Japanese society and culture, on the other hand, were quite unfamiliar to Americans. They had no idea how to handle the Japanese. The U.S. was faced with the Soviet Union and Communist China at that time, and had to stop communism from spreading to the Northeast region of Asia. That explains why the Tokyo Trial was very ineffective in bringing justice to those Japanese involved in the expansion war of Imperialist Japan. Many of them escaped punishment, and were allowed to maintain their public status after the war. Without them, Americans feared, Japan might fall under communism. This is a very important point, because the U,S's different approaches to Europe and Asia would become the crucial factor resulting in the different courses of historical reconciliation in Europe and Asia.

Q There is ongoing conflict over historical issues among Korea, Japan, and China. I wonder how you understand this situation as a third party.

Heiko Ital The way I see it, it will be difficult for either Korea or Japan to independently deal with China. But the two countries could still expand their influence if they cooperated with each other as 'middle powers' of Asia in terms of economic and military power, keeping in line with the U.S. While Korea and Japan have good economic relations, the results of their political relations are limited. But they have maintained 'virtual alliance' through the security triangle of the U.S.-Japan-South Korea since the 1990s. Historical and territorial disputes remain huge obstacles to establishing deep political/security relations based on mutual trust. Japan should actively seek to express genuine contrition to the victims of the Japanese imperial invasion. The private exchange of tourists, students, and intermarried couples between the two countries is on the rise. And it helps create a bright future for Korea-Japan relations. The political leaders of the two countries have the obligation to lend support to facilitate this trend. To fulfill this obligation, they need to focus on practical policies that will prevent ideological disputes between them and help them get what they need.

Q Last year, you participated in the Exchange Program for Regional Integration in East Asia and Europe (EPRIE) sponsored by the NAHF. Do you think that Asia can achieve integration in the form of the Northeast Asian Community as did Europe?

Heiko Ital I don't think there will be European-style integration in Northeast Asia in the foreseeable future. The characteristic of the European integration is that not only economic but also political integration has been achieved. China is such a powerful country in Northeast Asia that economic and political integration in Northeast Asia wouldn't be possible without China's participation. However, given China's current political system lacking democracy and the freedom of speech, it is impossible to even begin to think about political integration. If we consider economic integration alone, there is a Korea-China-Japan FTA, among other possibilities for strengthening cooperation further. This could lead to improvement in political relations among the three countries. In the long run, it could also help the process of reform in China.

Q As an objective observer of historical issues in dispute among Korea, China, and Japan, what, if any, would you like to suggest to the Korean?

Heiko Ital China and Japan wanted to rule over the Korean Peninsula because of its strategic importance. The tragic past of Korea, China, and Japan led to the history textbook controversy mentioned earlier or China's Northeast Project, and Japan's claims to Dokdo and the issue of the naming of the East Sea. As a third party, taking an academic point of view, I think there is ample evidence that supports Korea's official position.

As we have seen for the past thirty years, it is not possible to resolve such issues among the three Northeast Asian nations with the efforts of their politicians alone. I suggest two approaches to resolution. The first is to improve international academic studies about controversies surrounding historical perception. Scholars, not only of the three countries but also of third-party ones, should reach consensus on Northeast Asian history. The other is to strengthen exchange programs like the EPRIE so that such difficult topics can be addressed at individual levels. This will show the way to educate youths and future leaders of Northeast Asia and help them grow into good neighbors. Accepting the past wrongdoing basically requires strong support of civil society. The two approaches I mentioned earlier will be useful in strengthening civil society in China, Japan, and Korea.

Q While teaching in Korea, do you notice any difference in historical perception between the youths of Germany and Korea?

Heiko Ital In both countries, the students' interest in historical issues is equally high. The difference, if any, is that German schools run many exchange programs in partnership with schools in other countries, such as France, the U.K., and Poland. So there is quite a lot of exchange on historical perception from unique perspectives, and it also helps European countries remain on good terms with one another. I understand that in Korea, support for such programs is available at the Education Ministry or the Northeast Asian History Foundation. I believe that we should see more of such activities because they benefit Northeast Asia as a whole.