뉴스레터

History that Opens the Future, a modern history textbook co-written by Korea, China, and Japan, was published in 2005. The Korea-China-Japan Joint Textbook Compilation Committee is planning to publish a new history textbook in 2011. To find out about the progress on the project, we met with Professor Kim Seong-bo (History Department, Yonsei University, who had been on the committee since 2005. - Editor

It has been 5 years since the publication of History that Opens the Future. What is your assessment of the accomplishments and limitations of the work? Do you think that History that Opens the Future has made any concrete contributions to the resolution of historical disputes in the region?

There was a lot of excitement in Korea, China, and Japan when History that Opens the Future (History, hereafter) was published, and over 200,000 copies have so far been sold. The University of Hawaii has been at the helm of the effort to produce an English edition of the book, which is planned for publication at the end of this year. Therefore, History is significant in that it will contribute to the understanding of East Asian history not only in East Asia but also around the world. The book's greatest achievement is that it is the product of the combined efforts of the scholars and citizens of Korea, China, and Japan. Its limitation and characteristic feature is that while advancing "East Asia," it does not deny the distinct identities and histories of Korea, China, and Japan. History assumes a separate and distinct history for each of the three nations, comparing the three national histories and delineating the relationships among the three countries. In this sense, History falls short of presenting a "regional history" that transcends "national histories." Another shortcoming is that among the many countries that comprise East Asia, only South Korea, China, and Japan participated; North Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam and the rest of Southeast Asia were not a part of the project.

We heard that this year, you are working on a follow-up textbook. What was the motivation behind this new project? There must be some pressure to demonstrate progress from History. What are the goals of this project?

This time around, we want to lay bare for critical assessment the current level of research and scholarship of Korea, China, and Japan as well as the research direction the joint committee has taken. As such, the material may become more difficult. We are concerned that the general readership may not find it as accessible. The greatest challenge we face is raising the level of scholarly expertise while making it accessible to the public. We are putting a lot of thought into the matter.

Do you think that there have been new points of agreement or changes in Korea, China, and Japan's understandings of history since 2005?

There has been progress at the governmental level that offers us some hope. Upon the mutual agreement between the governments of China and Japan, the China-Japan Joint History Research Committee was established in 2006. The committee brought about positive progress in terms of the bridging the gap between China and Japan's disparate understandings of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937; the Japanese side acknowledged the Nanjing Massacre. This is quite monumental. As for Korea and China, there have been acknowledgments at academic seminars about the positive effects the March 1st Movement had on China's nationalist and social movements. Slowly but surely, Korea, China, and Japan are paving the way for historical dialogues and a shared historical understanding. Prime Minister Hatoyama's proposal for an East Asian community is added motivation for the government of the three countries to lay the foundation for a shared historical understanding.

Dokdo and other historical issues still linger without a resolution in sight. What are your thoughts?

We must take a long-term approach to bridging the divide between the divergent historical understandings of Korea and Japan. It is not something that can be resolved within a short period of time. It took Europe several decades, so the prospects for Korea and Japan are certainly not pessimistic. The Dokdo and Yasukuni Shrine issues are not simply matters historians alone can resolve. The resolution of these issues requires political processes geared toward the building of an East Asian community.

Joint research and mutual agreement among Korea, China, and Japan are important for the ongoing joint history reference project. What is the greatest challenge the project is currently facing?

For this project, we will focus on providing a thorough analysis of the points of disagreement. Hence, we have decided to present the points of agreement we are able to reach but also set forth the points of disagreement as they are. This way, Korean, Chinese, and Japanese readers will be able to see where the areas of agreements and disagreements are. The key issue for this project is the following: How are we to understand the tributary-investiture system (朝貢冊封)—which exemplifies pre-modern international relations in East Asia and marks the starting point of modern and contemporary history? And how are we to look at the changes it underwent starting in the late 19th century underwent with the introduction of a new international order based on international law (萬國公法)? This is an important issue, because China, considering Korea to be its tributary state, interfered in Korea's internal affairs in the late 19th century after the Imo Military Rebellion. Korea construes this as a form of imperialism. In contrast, China asserts that it had intervened on Korea's behalf to carry out its duties stipulated by the pre-modern bilateral arrangement between China and Korea's. The divergent views on this matter have to be reconciled before we can grasp the modern and contemporary interstate system. Japan admits to imperialist aggression but denies that it had been planned. Therefore, the key issue of concern in the Japanese academia centers on intention and premeditation. Japanese historians are generally leaning toward the stance that imperialism is an incorrect designation.

How is the team of writers organized, and what are the project's next steps?

Anyone who was critical of Japan's Fusosha textbook and agreed with creating a textbook for reconciliation and cooperation could be a part of the History project. Korea, China, and Japan each organized its won editorial committee, which came together to form the joint editorial committee. We will use a similar scheme for this project. However, given that the goal of this project is to create a book for which Korean, Chinese, and Japanese academics can receive scholarly recognition, our team of contributors comprise solely of scholars. Of note, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences' Institute of Modern History in Beijing has taken charge of the Chinese contribution to the project. There won't be the kind of diversity from the Chinese side as we had seen in History, but it does raise the authority of the material given that the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is the central research institution in China. Another point of interest is that all Korean and Japanese contributors are scholars, which was not the case in History. The project will produce two volumes—History of East Asian International Relations and History of East Asian Society—in.

Are there schools using History as their history textbook?

There is a textbook authorization system in Korea, so the official adoption of any history reference material is not easy. However, there are schools where the teachers using their own discretion to use History as complementary study material. Institutional support for the use of complementary reference books is desperately needed. Public Tokyo Middle School and Ritsumeikan uji High School in Kyoto in Japan and Tianjin Experimental High School and Shanghai International School in China have selected History as their complementary textbook.

What are your recommendations for the Northeast Asian History Foundation's projects concerning history education?

I wish the Foundation could provide long-term support for research and exchange programs for scholars in East Asia. After identifying key historical issues and organizing them into long-term and short-term projects, the Foundation could fund and support the building of an academic network of scholars of Korea, China, and Japan who will collaborate on the projects.

Regarding history education, I hope the Foundation provides support for the development of various forms of history reference materials for students. A guidebook to museums in East Asia may be one example of a history reference material targeting the teen readership. It is my wish that the Foundation takes interest in the production of such reference materials that are accessible to and appeal to younger readers. This would be too overwhelming an undertaking for civic organizations. I believe the Foundation has been concentrating too much of its attention on policy development alone.