뉴스레터

Lee Man-yeol

Marking the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the Korean Independence Army, you headed a group that went on a seven-day trip (from the 8th to the 14th) to visit sites associated with the Korean Volunteer Corp (Joseon Ŭiyong-dae) and the Korean Independence Army. What was the significance of this trip?

A group of 73 individuals, including 53 college students, traveled all the way from Wuhan—the birthplace of the Korean Volunteer Corp —to Xi'an, visiting sites associated with the Korean Volunteer Corp and the Korean Independence Army. The greatest significance of the trip was our goal of bringing the Korean Volunteer Corp back into history after Kim Il-sung purged the Yan'an faction in 1958 and removed all mention of the unit from historical texts. That is, by locating important sites associated with the Korean Volunteer Corp, we aimed to reinstate a piece of lost history, a piece of history rejected by North Korea.

A century ago, on August 29, Daehan Jeguk ["Great Han Empire"] was forced to relinquish its sovereignty. The year 1910 marked the prelude to Korea's independence movement. How did you become interested in studying the Korean independence movement?

I believe the understanding of the period from 1910 to 1945 is very important in the study of Korean history. If the period spanning from 1910 (start of Japan's colonial rule) to 1945 (liberation) is simply regarded as the colonial period, its history becomes heteronomous. From an autonomous perspective, however, it becomes a period of Korea's unrelenting struggle against Japan to regain independence. Only then do we get an autonomous historical perception that puts Korea at the center as the principal agent. It is for this reason that I became interested in the history of the Korean independence movement.

The History of the Korean Independence Movement series was completed recently. The series is a comprehensive compilation of the background and accomplishments of the Korean independence movement. Please tell us about how this series was conceived, the challenges you faced from the planning stages to completion, and how the contributors were selected. Also, please explain series' historical significance.

Through History of the Joseon People's Liberation Movement, North Korea claims that the North Korean government was established as the legitimate successor of the anti-Japanese independence movement. South Korea, on other hand, had been without any scholarly work providing a consistent overview of the complete history of the Korean independence movement. This had been the case even though South Korea's very constitution specifies that the Republic of Korea is the successor state of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea. The project was first proposed during my two-year tenure (starting in 1999) as the director of the the Institute of Korean Independence Movement Studies. The goal was to organize the history of the Korean independence movement. The project entered into full swing when the government provided a grant (3 billion won over 3 years) in 2005 to mark the 60th anniversary of Korea's liberation. I believe South Korea's legitimacy should be rooted in the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea. Only then can South Korea lay claim to the history of the independence movement (even including independence movements borne out of socialism and communism) subsequent to the founding of the Provisional Government.

The series on the Korean independence movement is composed of 60 volumes to commemorate the 60th anniversary of Korea's liberation and the founding of the South Korean government. What is noteworthy is that the series is the first work in South Korea to compile and systematize the history of the Korean independence movement in its entirety. The series includes Joseon Volunteer Unit and other Manchuria-based socialist anti-Japanese movements and groups of the 1930s. It also includes North Korea's research findings on anti-Japanese movements. The greatest significance of the work is that it is the first compilation on the history of the Korean independence movement that transcends ideologies and political systems.

There were many difficulties. Chronological records for even some of the most basic pieces of information did not match up, requiring extensive background checks. What was most challenging, however, was that we only had three years to complete the project. I wish we had been given more time.

Are there any new research topics you are working on? What research areas would you recommend for junior researchers?

We have not yet gone through all the texts related to the history of Korean Christianity written by missionaries. Records on the history Christianity toward the end of Daehan Jekguk ["Great Han Empire"] and during the Japanese colonial period are all organized and archived at the missionaries' respective countries of origin. The archival records overseas on the history of Korean Christianity must be properly read and studied. The other has to do with the question, "National history or history?" I believe that Korean history—founded on universal values—should be included within the larger framework of history. Therefore, there needs to be new approaches to history—e.g., the history of Korea and international relations, an East Asian perspective in the study of Korea's relations with Japan and China, and a world history framework. Lastly, I would personally like to write a book Korean history that is accessible to the general reader. That is, I would like to comprehensively organize the history of Korean Christianity and independence movement for the general readership.

Many say that unless the issues surrounding the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty are resolved, the relations between the two nations cannot become future-oriented. What are your thoughts?

I agree. Neither the Eulsa Treaty (Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty) of 1905 nor the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty of 1910 is legally valid. The following is stipulated in Article 2 of the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea: "It is confirmed that all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Japan and the Empire of Korea on or before August 22, 1910 are already null and void." Even though the Eulsa Treaty and the Annexation Treaty are legally invalid, Japan claims the chronological point of reference for "already null and void" to be August 15, 1948, when the government of the Republic of Korea was established. This marks a divergence in stance from the Korean side during the negotiations of the Treaty on Basic Relations. Korea argued that the point of nullification and voidance of existing treaties and agreements should be applied retroactively to include the Korea-Japan Protocol of 1904. In contrast, according to Japan, Japanese rule over Korea prior to 1948 was legally valid in its entirety.

This year is the centennial of Japan's annexation of Korea. In marking this historic centennial, a joint declaration by Korean and Japanese intellectuals was issued. In drafting the declaration, the interpretation of the above-mentioned clause surfaced as an issue. In the end, the interpretation by the Korean side was accepted, and the declaration asserts that agreements and treaties "from the 1904 Korea-Japan Protocol" onward are null and void. In effect, I believe Korea-Japan relations can only become future-oriented only when issues surrounding past treaties and agreements between the two nations are resolved. I hope that a major breakthrough is achieved in this regard on the centennial of Japan's annexation of Korea.

As for resolving historical issues, I believe a colonial perception of history must be uprooted. The distortions in Japanese history textbooks are grounded in a colonial view of history. Without fundamentally uprooting such a view, historical distortions in textbooks will not be rectified. Thereafter, there are a slew of other issues that need to be resolved, including the issues surrounding A-bomb victims, forced labor and military mobilization, and Sakhalin Koreans. In my opinion, all these issues must be resolved for there to be true penance and conciliation.