Newsletter

Kim Young-ho, Chairman of Northeast Asia Peace Center and former Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy

He graduated from Kyungpook National University and received his Ph.D. from Osaka City University. Since then, he has been a professor at Kyungpook National University, Osaka City University, and Tokyo University. After retiring as Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy, he led ‘the joint statement of Korean and Japanese intellectuals’ as president of Yuhan University. He also served as a chair-professor at Dankook University and the Academy of Korean Studies.

He has performed various activities such as Chairman of the Commemorative Association of the National Debt Redemption Movement, Chairman of the Korea CSR Standardization Forum, Chairman of the Korea Sustainability Investing Forum, Co-representative of the Korea-Japan Intellectual Association, and now serves as a bridge between Korea and Japan civil society for peace in Northeast Asia.

Q. Please tell me what role you played when ‘the Joint Declaration of Intellectuals from Korea and Japan(2010)’(hereinafter referred to as 'Declaration') was announced, especially what process was done before more than 1,000 people from both countries participated.

Kim Young-ho 2010 was the 100th year of 'Japan's Annexation of Korea' and the 100th year of Ahn Jung-geun's death. One day I felt that my heart was getting hotter because I was impressed by writing an article entitled; Re-examination of Ahn Jung Geun's 'Theory of Oriental Peace'’. I couldn't just be impressed. I couldn't stay still. It was like Ahn Jung-geun told me to "take the lead in action" and to do something, so I called people in Japan with an electric shock. First, I appealed to Dr. Haruki Wada, a professor at Tokyo University. “You know that this is a sham treaty that was concluded by coercion, which colonized Korea 100 years ago? Also, don't you know well that there was no signature of King Gojong and King Soonjong, the head of the treaty? Now, together, the intellectuals will declare that this treaty was illegal and invalid, and make a new path to bilateral relations.”

I also told this story to Atsushi Okamoto(editor of the Japanese leading magazine Sekai), and Ko Ogawa(editor of the Asahi Shimbun). And the next morning I flew to Japan and persuaded them. In the end, Professor Haruki Wada and I decided to draft it and returned to Korea and Lee Tae-jin, Chung Chang-ryul, Lee Jang-hee and Kim Kyung-hee came together in earnest. One day, I gave a keynote lecture at the European Oriental Conference held by the University of Heidelberg in Germany, and the title of the lecture was 'Ahn Jung-geun's coup'. And when I listened to the lecture, the director of the Institute of Japanese Studies at Heidelberg University told me, 'I should not look at Asia from Japan's perspective in the future.' After that, the Institute of Korean Studies was established there. I saw it and thought that the true meaning of 'Ahn Jung-geun coup' occurred.

Q. I wonder what the Korean and Japanese intellectuals who participated in the Declaration gave their opinion on the effect and interpretation of the Treaty of Japan's Annexation of Korea in 1910. If you tell me how the agreement on the declaration was made and the process of making the declaration, it will be a model for later generations.

Kim Young-ho Making a declaration was difficult from the beginning. The consensus was not smooth as it made sure that the expression 'illegal', 'null and void', and 'there were defects and errors in the treaty conclusion process'. Article 2 of ‘the Treaty on Basic Relations between the Republic of Korea and Japan in 1965’ states that 'all treaties and agreements signed on and before August 22, 1910 are already invalid'. But the two countries’ interpretation of the ‘already’ was different. Korea interpreted it as ‘already null and void’ from the conclusion of the treaty, and Japan interpreted it as legitimate and later null and void after the establishment of the government of the Republic of Korea or the Treaty of San Francisco.

According to Japanese interpretation, colonial rule is legal, and it can not be held responsible for crimes such as sexual slavery victims for the Japanese imperial army and forced mobilization. Professor Haruki Wada and others are conscientious people who have a sense of guilt in Korea. Personal sympathy with me and them, their historical conscience and will as intellectuals, made Annexation Treaty illegal and invalid, and made the word in the statement. This has created a historical opportunity for the most difficult problems in Korea-Japan relations to be solved.

Q. I would like you to talk about how efforts to succeed the declaration of 2010 have been made and the social and political impacts on both Korea and Japan.

Kim Young-ho In 1995, Japanese Prime Minister Murayama apologized for the injustice of colonial rule and invasion of Korea. But then he acknowledged the validity of all the treaties signed during the End of Joseon Dynasty, including the Annexation Treaty. But after the announcement of the declaration, Murayama said he supported the 2010 declaration and withdrew his previous position, claiming that “the Treaty of Japan's Annexation of Korea in 1910 is valid." It is quite important that the former prime minister of Japan has shown such a dramatic change in attitude and clearly expressed his opinion.

Above all, the greatest achievement of our declaration is that Naoto Kan has released the following states: “The Koreans were deprived of their country and culture by colonial rule that was made against their will, and were deeply hurt by the pride of the people. I am deeply repentant and apologetic of the great damage and suffering caused by colonial rule.” This was announced after passing the decision of the Japanese council, which is the most highly regarded of the past Japanese prime minister's statements. And it is the most notable Japanese statement related to past history, and it is about 75% similar to the contents of our declaration.

Our declaration has also had a great impact on the legal circles in Korea. So in 2011, the Constitutional Court decided that it was unconstitutional for the state not to resolve the sexual slavery victims issue. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that "Japanese companies are responsible for compensation for victims of forced mobilization." In 2018, the original verdict was confirmed: "compensate 100 million won per victim." And in 2019, Mitsubishi and Nippon Steel, which did not compensate for the victims of forced mobilization, ruled to freeze their assets in Korea. This is a ruling based on the premise that Japanese colonial rule is illegal.

But we can legally cash their assets from August 4. Abe's government is strongly opposed to the sale of assets and cash in its own companies, saying that it will retaliate against Korea. To prevent a series of events that Abe has said, we need to come up with a new solution to the forced mobilization issue. Sometimes we need a head-on collision with Japan. And on the contrary, if we violate the principle and compromise with a lackadaisical attitude, our efforts so far may end up in nothing. Perhaps this fall will be hotter than ever.

Q. I wonder how many other countries have supported this declaration since 2010, and is there another project planned with the intellectuals who were together at the time?

Kim Young-ho As soon as this declaration was announced, 400 historians from the Chinese Society of Korean History and the Chinese Society of Japanese History declared their support for us. In 2015, "Joint Declaration of Korea, Japan and World Intellectuals", we also received statements of support from more than 500 world-renowned scholars, including Noam Chomsky, Bruce Cummings and Alexis Dudden.

We have been holding an international symposium for four years since 2015 to look at the Treaty of San Francisco, which has been the source of long-standing conflict between Korea and Japan. The United States regarded Korea as a member of the Allied Powers that fought against Japan, but eventually Korea was not a party to the treaty due to the interference and rejection of Japan and Britain. ‘the Agreement on the Settlement of Problem concerning Property and Claims and the Economic Cooperation between the Republic of Korea and Japan’ and the Dokdo issue are also sub-pacts created by the Treaty of San Francisco.

The problem that Treaty of San Francisco contains is the subject of internationality. Therefore, international academia such as China, the United States, Canada, Russia, and Australia as well as Korea and Japan are discussing critically reviewing the San Francisco system. In the future, we will join not only many intellectuals who reflect on history with a bitter reflection, but also general civil society who want to make historical reconciliation with mature consciousness. Based on this consensus, we are trying to completely dismantle the San Francisco system, which has made war criminals the biggest beneficiary.

Q. The historical conflicts between Korea and Japan are not getting better. I am worried that not only the link between intellectuals who were once firmly united but also the solidarity between civil society has been regressed.

Kim Young-ho Historical conflicts have been amplified, but I do not think that the solidarity between civil society has become loose. Shinzo Abe is trying to change Japan to a war-able country by revising the Pacific Constitution of Japan(Article 9), which contains the content of ‘the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.’ He puts Japanese citizens in the composition of ‘Article 9 of the Constitution’ or ‘Security’. And to boost his approval rating, he exploits populism.

However, in Japan, the Nobel Prize-winning writer Oe Genzaburo is actively working on the 'Article 9 Association', a civic group to prevent the retrogressive revision of Article 9. Japan's conscientious citizens think that only a sincere apology and resolution of their war of aggression is the way to realize peace in Asia. If they defend Article 9 against Abe's constitutional conspiracy, it will be recorded as the first civil revolution in Japanese history.

The German novelist Günter Grass said: “Unless we solve the problem with Auschwitz, we should not think of a unified state. If we don’t overcome Nazism and reflect on the past, we don’t deserve to unify.” And so did Oe Genzaburo. “As long as we remember war, we must atone for what happened in Asia forever. This is the root of my thoughts. Japanese who do not really apologize to Korea and China are not eligible to live on Earth. Article 9 is more important than the development of Japan.” It was amazing that the two consciences representing the East and the West made a sound like a thunderstorm in the sky.

Q. What direction should civil society in Korea and Japan go in the future? Please give us the ultimate direction to pursue peace and prosperity.

Kim Young-ho The first public criticism of slavery and colonial rule was the 2001 UN conference in Durban, South Africa. These are very scathingly criticized under the concept of ‘crimes against humanity’. Of course, at that time, there was a stubborn resistance of colonial states that denied legal responsibility for it. But we have argued that colonial rule is a ‘crimes against humanity’ under international law and that legal, diplomatic and interdisciplinary efforts are needed. It is already a global trend to be held accountable for colonial crime. As a result, colonial rule was established at the same level as war crimes.

I have been trying hard to connect the organizations of both countries for the development of Korean and Japanese civil society. As a result, on July 2, more than 500 Korean and Japanese civic groups gathered remotely to launch ‘the Korea-Japan reconciliation and peace platform’. The word 'Platform' is attached to the name of the organization, which is the intention of citizens to take the lead in solving the problems of Korea-Japan relations. I think that if Korea which has already succeeded in the civil revolution in Asia, and Japan which is in the process of the civil revolution, build a citizen platform and solidify it, and if potential citizens of China, Taiwan and Hong Kong are united here, we can create a great unit 'Civil Asia'.

Q. When the declaration of ‘the Treaty of Japan's Annexation of Korea in 1910’ was announced as injustice, unfair, and null and void, it was the most dramatic moment in Korea-Japan relations. What will the government and academia have to do in the future? In particular, I would like to advise NAHF, which has a mission to achieve peace in Northeast Asia through historical reconciliation.

Kim Young-ho Looking back on the process of declaration in 2010, I think it was a miraculous construction of a bridge between Korea and Japan in a storm. More than 1,000 Korean and Japanese intellectuals jointly declared the illegal and invalidation of Japan's Annexation of Korea. And according to the decision of the Japanese government, the Naoto Kan statement came out. Subsequently, more than 500 prominent intellectuals from all over the world made a statement saying that they would join our declaration. And in 2019, representatives of civil society in Japan expressed their support for declaration in 2010.

Moreover, Francis Ray(France) who are called builders of international law and Henry Hudson(U.S.) also emphasized the nullification by taking the Eulsa Treaty as a representative example of international treaties by coercion. In 1935, the United Nations’ predecessor, the League of Nations, ruled that Japan's Annexation of Korea was illegal, calling it ‘a treaty that could not take effect in history’. In 1963, a report was submitted to the United Nations General Assembly to resolve the nullification of the Eulsa Treaty.

By the way, the main document on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan does not contain the Naoto Kan Statement. This means that Abe is completely ignoring the official position of the former government, which has passed the resolution of council. The bigger problem is that Korea rarely mentions the Naoto Kan Statement. We must realize the importance of this statement. There should be efforts to reaffirm the Murayama Statement and the Naoto Kan Statement as the official position of the Japanese government.

Think again about the contents and achievements of the 1998 Joint Declaration on the New Korea-Japan Partnership in the 21st Century(Kim Dae-Jung-Obuchi's Joint Declaration). So far, Japan has expressed its apology politically, but has legally assumed the legitimacy of colonial rule. It is the joint statement of 1,000 Korean and Japanese intellectuals, and the Naoto Kan statement that has been dramatically achieved by breaking the limit. Does it matter if we break down this bridge that we made in the storm? Ahn Jung-geun's coup has drawn unlimited support and consensus from all over the world on legal justice and the illegality of colonial rule. Now it's time to open up an era of reversal that transforms conflict into peace beyond just anti-Japanese and anti-imperialist.