뉴스레터

Sixty years have passed since the outbreak of the Korean War, yet its aftermath still has a dominating influence on the lives of all the constituents of the Korean peninsula. Most research on Korean War history has tended to focus on the origins, outbreak, and process of the war. In the meantime, there has been a dearth of studies analyzing the war based on the framework of international political history. We interviewed Professor Ha Young-sun of the Seoul National University's Department of International Studies for a new perspective on the Korean War and Korea's future task in East Asia. _ Editor

2010 marks the 60th anniversary of the Korean War. What has been the main direction of the research on the Korean War in the Korean academia? What have been some notable accomplishments and limitations?

Research on the history of the Korean War needs to be conducted within the framework reflecting the contemporary changes in the international order. Until the late 1960s, mainstream international research efforts on the history of the Cold War and the Korean War remained in the traditional realm. While revisionist historians have been active for 20 years from the 1970s to 1990s, the end of the Cold War led many researchers to abandon the rigid ideological silos of the Cold War. As historical sources from the ex-Soviet Union became available on a massive scale, post-revisionist approach remedied the shortcomings and maximized the advantages of both the traditional and revisionist approaches and became the dominant mode of research. Starting in the 2000s, researchers have been focusing on comparing the historical materials from the individual nations previously comprised the Soviet bloc. Through such a process, researchers have been able to deepen their understanding of the Cold War history from the perspective of individual nations. This signaled a departure from the traditional research paradigm, which centered on the United States and Soviet Union.

However, research in Korea has not been able to progress further from the issue of whether the Korean War can be characterized as a national conflict, international conflict, internationalized national conflict, or a nationalized international conflict. Since the 2000s, there have been new research findings by the Korean academia on the history of the Korean War. However, domestic research has not been able to sufficiently move on from the Cold War construct, characterized by the conflict between traditionalist and revisionist approaches. Consequently, it has largely failed to bring together the international system aspect, North-South division aspect, and the national system aspect of the Korean War. The Korean academia will only be able to lead international research on the history of the Korean War when a new generation of researchers, free from the ideological rigidities of the Cold War and equipped with the necessary perspective to analyze the three aspects of the Korean War aforementioned, can freely conduct research based on historical materials from multiple countries, including those from North Korea.

How would you summarize the impact of the Korean War had on the international politics of Northeast Asia?

While we refer to the conflict as the "Korean War" since it occurred on the Korean peninsula, the war takes on global significance as it was the true starting point of a worldwide military Cold War. Despite the fact that the United States and Soviet Union both emerged as victors of World War II, they soon turned their backs on each other and initiated a "non-military" Cold War in Europe in 1947. The Korean War became the turning point whereby the previously "non-military" Cold War expanded its scope to the global arena and escalated into a "military" Cold War. What had initially started off as a local military conflict between the politically unstable Koreas became interlocked with the new choices made by the United States and the Soviet Union and escalated into a violent, international military conflict.

Inevitably, the Northeast Asian international order went to the East-West polarization of the Cold War. The Soviet Union and China provided full-scale support to North Korea while the United States and Japan backed South Korea. Through this process, Japan managed to switch its role (or elevate its status) from a defeated nation to a key strategic ally of the United States, the relations between the two nations were quickly normalized. Accordingly, the post-war Cold War international system came to have a three layered structure composed of the global Cold War, Cold War in East Asia, and the Cold War on the Korean peninsula.

What is the significance of the Korean War when seen from a more macro—i.e., Northeast Asian or global—perspective?

The United States swiftly decided to intervene in the Korean War because it felt the need to send a clear warning signal to the Soviet Union, its main Cold War adversary. If the Soviet Union attempted to extend its influence in the world order, the United States was willing to actively promote a military blockade on a global scale. Only from this perspective can we see why the Korean War produced 3 million casualties, commensurate to that of World War II.

A plethora of historical materials related to the Korean War have been disclosed after the end of the Cold War. However, the availability of historical sources does not automatically reconstruct the Korean War. A certain viewpoint or a broad and mature perspective is required to properly derive the historical implications of the Korean War from the newly available materials.

The purpose of research on Korean War history in the 21st century should not be directed at healing the pain of the Korean tragedy but should rather be future-oriented and preventative in focus. We must start from the perspective of "peace on the Korean peninsula within the international order" and undertake an honest reconstruction of the history of the Korean War with a balanced three-dimensional view to answer the following question: "Why did the Korean peninsula have to experience the tragedy of war in the early 1950s?"

What is the requisite attitude and viewpoint the Korean people must adopt in order to understand the Korean War?

We must ensure that we do not resort to violent means such as war to resolve any conflict that occurs on the Korean peninsula. We need vision and perspective on international politics that can promote a prudent, peace-based diplomacy that will prevent conflicts from escalating to war. Furthermore, we must recognize the painful reality that the animosity (generated from the Korean War) between the North and South cannot be relieved easily and that we must have patience in finding a resolution to the problems between the two Koreas. At the same time, we must search for ways to strengthen the democratic capabilities of both North and South Korea.

The Democratic Party of Japan proposed an East Asian Community. How do you assess the viability of this proposal? Furthermore, what kind of preparations should Korea make in relation to this?

The East Asian Community is a very desirable goal. However, before we even discuss the formation such a community, we must face the reality that East Asia is having difficulties in even creating an international society. This is mainly because of unresolved historical conflicts.

As can be seen from the territorial dispute regarding Dokdo and the textbook issue, Japan's diplomatic policy has largely been unable to operate outside the framework of narrow-minded ethno-nationalism. A large gap exists between Japan's actual policies and its call for an East Asian Community.

Japan, Korea, and China have experienced significant conflicts over the past 150 years. Currently, the three East Asian nations have only just the process of establishing am integrated network. North Korea is excluded even from this very preliminary stage. Therefore, we must strive to strengthen East Asia's integrated network and establish a basic foundation upon which we can reconcile national interests through compromise and dialogue rather than physical conflict. Only when a regional consensus on an East Asian identity founded on peace and stability is reached, the East Asia Community will become a possibility rather than a mere slogan.

What are your proposals on the roles and future tasks of the Northeast Asian History Foundation at a time when peace and coexistence in East Asia are increasingly emphasized?

As the emerging locus of East Asian order in the 21st century, China has simultaneously displayed confidence as well as the dangers of self-centered arrogance. Therefore, China is not yet ready to become a leading nation in East Asia that enjoys the support of its regional neighbors. Meanwhile, Japan, which had led the East Asian order in the 19th and early 20th century, is mired in domestic issues and not cut out to take on a leadership role in the East Asian regional order of the 21st century. Amidst debates of its waning power, the United States wishes to construct the future and vision of East Asia with its regional partners. The future of 21st-century East Asia awaits a new leader for an integrated regional history. Under these circumstances, South Korea must formulate a new blueprint for peace in Northeast Asia in the 21st century.

For some two millennia prior to the modern era, East Asia successfully maintained a relatively peaceful world order vis-à-vis the West. The Northeast Asian History Foundation, therefore, must creatively fuse the historical studies on the peaceful traditional East Asian international order with those on the modern European international order, and generate research and discourse that can drive the realization of a peaceful international order of 21st-century East Asia. In so doing, the foundation can expand its role and solidify its status, developing countervailing arguments and alternatives to China's Northeast Project and Japan's attempts at historical distortion.