Newsletter

The Northeast Asian History Foundation, which will celebrate its 10th anniversary next year, has conducted extensive and in-depth research, and collection and analysis of materials, on issues ranging from the military sexual slavery by Japan, sovereignty over Dokdo, and the naming of the East Sea to ancient history and distortions of history such as the Northeast Project of China. Given its limited human and financial resources, it can be said that the NAHF has been successful in carrying out its roles. In particular, the efforts that have been put into collecting, systematically managing, and exhibiting a large amount of materials supporting that Dokdo is Korean territory are praiseworthy.

But there are also aspects that need improvement. To my limited knowledge, it seems that the NAHF's research and analysis have concentrated only on certain topics of history. As provided in the Act on the Establishment of the Northeast Asian History Foundation, the NAHF's objectives are to 'conduct comprehensive and long-term research and analysis' and to 'develop systematic and strategic strategies' in relation to issues regarding Northeast Asian history and Dokdo. And to achieve the latter objective, the NAHF should 'develop and recommend strategy and policy alternatives to the government,' as specifically provided in Article 5 of the said Act. In my view, to better achieve these objectives, the NAHF should focus more on developing and presenting realistic policy alternatives to the government based on the findings of its analysis and research that have been conducted so far.

Ever-Increasing Need for Northeast Asian Strategy Research and Development

In that regard, I expect to see the NAHF grow into the top think tank of Korea on Northeast Asian policy. A good example of a think tank is the Brookings Institution or the Heritage Foundation in the U.S, a country that is home to approximately 2,000 of 5,500 think tanks in 170 countries around the world. And about 400 of those American think tanks are based in Washington D.C. The factors that make the U.S. such a fertile ground for think tanks include: its administration that values and trusts the opinions of external experts; its pluralistic culture that has a respect for the diversity of voices; its strong tradition of giving by individuals and corporations; and its abundant human resources.

Nurturing think tanks in Korea may not be easy due to its culture and traditions being different from those of the U.S. But doing so wouldn't be impossible, either, if the NAHF made that a clear, long-term goal and worked toward it, considering that the extensive research findings and achievements accumulated so far on issues related to Northeast Asian history that could serve as the foundation of policy development. Given the rapidly changing situation of Northeast Asia where the U.S., China, and Japan are playing a power-of-balance game, Korea needs Northeast Asian strategy research and development more than ever.

Having emerged as a world power in the G2, China is vying with the U.S. for supremacy in Northeast Asia. While in conflict with Korea and China over historical issues, Japan is seeking to strengthen its military power aimed at China. The U.S. is trying to keep China in check through its alliance with Korea and Japan. While relying on the U.S. for security, Korea is increasingly dependent on China for economy. China is taking advantage of this situation to quietly press Korea for a shift away from its U.S.-centered security policy.

The past few decades, from the liberation from Japanese colonial rule to the present, are the only period in its 5,000-year history that Korea has been free from the grip of either Chinese or Japanese power. And it came about solely because of the U.S. intervention in the Korean Peninsula. The traditional ROK-US security alliance system, which, once established, deprived both China and Japan of their dominant status in Korea, has been threatened since China began challenging the U.S. for supremacy in Northeast Asia. The stronger China's voice becomes, the more likely it will be for Korean society to be divided between "pro-American" and "pro-Chinese" factions and forces pitted against each other.

Ideas for a Second 'Korea Strategy' Should be Presented

The historical issues with Japan also need to be addressed and coped with wisely with the ROK-U.S. alliance taken into consideration. Korea and China are in the same boat in terms of criticizing Japan's acts of aggression. However, the U.S. wouldn't be too pleased if Korea went too far in colliding with Japan or aligned itself with China too often over this issue, because it would be incompatible with the U.S. strategy to keep China in check through its alliance with Korea and Japan. The conflict between Korea and Japan escalating to the point of negatively affecting the Korea-U.S.-Japan alliance wouldn't do Korea any good, either.

How to cope with this complex and intertwined power dynamics in Northeast Asia is a question of critical importance that will determine our survival. This is a time when a second 'Korean Strategy' is needed as desperately as the first one was back in the late 19th century. Developing and presenting ideas for such a strategy are the tasks that the NAHF should be able to perform. And that would require a change in everything from research topic to methodology and staff.

The example of new topics to study include China's policies toward the Korean Peninsula from the Ming to Qing dynasties, the Korea-China(Ming)-Japan relations before and after the Imjin War, and Korea's response to the foreign powers fighting over its land in the 19th century. As for methodology, history needs to be approached and analyzed from the perspectives of international politics as well as with purely academic methods. To this end, the staff of historians needs to be reinforced by including experts in other fields of study such as political science, international political science, economics, and military science. Also consider tapping into the resources of former government officials with hands-on experience in these fields by inviting them as visiting researchers.

Being a government-funded organization, the NAHF may find it difficult to address sensitive issues in public. But making a breakthrough would be possible if steps toward mid- to long-term goals were taken one at a time. First of all, the NAHF would need to focus more on strengthening its capability of research and policy development regarding the international situation of Northeast Asia. Once the NAHF was recognized for its competence in the process, then it would naturally lead to the expansion of the scope and areas of its activities.

Korea has the history of inviting the Manchu Invasion by weakening itself with internal fight between pro-Ming and pro-Qing factions, and the Imjin War with internal political strife combined with ignorance about the situation of Japan during the Joseon Dynasty. And while the powers were fighting over it in the 19th century, Korea didn't know what to do and its sovereignty was taken away. We should learn our lesson from the past and stop making the same stupid mistakes again.