뉴스레터

Kim, Yeong-ho

With 2010, the year of history, coming to a close, I think about the most "historic" undertaking of 2010. I am talking about the Joint Declaration by Korean and Japanese Intellectuals Marking the Centennial of Japan's Forced Annexation of Korea (hereafter, "Joint Declaration"). With Korean and Japanese historians spearheading the effort, some 1,000 intellectuals of the two nations issued a joint declaration stating that the forced annexation in 1910 has been originally null and void. It was truly momentous.

We believe the matter lies at the heart of the lingering historical issues between Korea and Japan. Unless the series of treaties between Korea and Japan concluded at the turn of the 20th century—i.e., Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905 (Eulsa Protectorate Treaty), Japan-Korea Treaty of 1907, and Japan-Korea Treaty of 1910 (Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty)—are declared illegal and invalid, Japan's colonization of Korea becomes legitimate, the "comfort women" issue becomes an "oversight" or "necessary evil" that occurred in the course of legal and justified colonial rule, and the Korean national independence movement becomes an illegal and illegitimate act.

Then, for what should Japan apologize regarding its past? Korea is asking that Japan breaks away from the existing framework of apology—i.e., apology for the high-handed methods of an otherwise legitimate colonial rule.

Last year, after completing my paper on Ahn Jung-geun's "Treatise on Peace in East Asia", I decided to partake in a "historic" endeavor. Professor Lee Tae-jin in Korea and Professor Wada Haruki [和田春樹], among other scholars, were working on the issue concerning the invalidity of the series of treaties leading up to the colonization of Korea. I had written about the issue relatively early on, having contributed to newspaper op-ed columns and publishing academic papers—a combined total of 5-6 pieces—around 1990. A group of historians agreed to take what had only been conducted as academic research by a small number of researchers to the next level and elevate it to a"historic"level to achieve a "historic" feat.

Ahn Jung-geun, a source of inspiration for the Joint Declaration

In working on my paper on Ahn Jung-geun, I learned that in opposition to Japan's policy of aggression led by Ito Hirobumi, Ahn had set forth a vision for peace in East Asia that would draw a wide array of supporters, including not only the Chinese and Westerners but also Japanese citizens. And standing at the very frontline of the movement, Ahn decided to sacrifice his own life. While studying Ahn's "Treatise on Peace in East Asia", I was driven to take action, not merely write academic papers.

I had been focusing my studies on the hegemonization of China-i.e., the sinicization of Asia, and it has been my conviction that to prevent a hegemonic sinocentric regional order, it is crucial to resolve the lingering issues stemming from the legacies of Japan's hegemony. Accordingly, I considered a declaration concerning the invalidity and illegitimacy of the treaties Japan forced Korea to sign around the turn of the 20th century to be an expression of the advancement of civil society and a shortcut to addressing the legacies of hegemony and building a "civil Asia". As such, I called Professor Wada Haruki in Tokyo on the very same day I completed my paper on Ahn Jung-geun and decided to do my part in a "historic" undertaking as a way to give back for the 70 years of a great life that I had been granted.

Joint Declaration issued on May 10 in Seoul
(at the far right is the writer of this essay)

First, we got 100 signatures each in Korea and Japan and issued the declaration in May and October in Seoul and Tokyo respectively. In Korea, noted intellectuals, regardless of their political leanings participated. This was only possible because the organizers committed themselves to the effort without any ulterior motives. There were suggestions that the declaration should be issued at the Independence Hall of Korea or the Kim Koo Museum & Library, but we wanted the declaration to be an expression not of nationalism but of "open internationalism" and "civil Asia".

The declaration received extensive media coverage in Korea. The response was explosive and favorable. In stark contrast, the Japanese media was cold and apathetic. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the Korean media's extensive coverage of the event and the Korean public's enthusiastic support applied pressure to the Japanese government and influenced Prime Minister Kan Naoto's statement on August 10.

The "historic" undertaking will continue until the clear skies of "civil Asia" emerge

At the press conference in Tokyo, one reporter asked, "Can the will of historians influence real-life politics?" My response was as follows: "Around 2/3 of the signatories of the declaration are historians. The fact that research specialists who have in-depth knowledge of historical truths signed this declaration signifies that the currents have shifted at the upper reaches of the river of historical issues. It is my understanding the Korea-Japan Committee for Joint History Research (hereafter, "Committee for Joint History Research") had a hard time even broaching the issue. However, many of those who had been on the Committee for Joint History Research as well as many politically conservative historians whom we had not expected would participate actually took part in the Joint Declaration. It is certainly remarkable. I am reminded of a line from the Korean poet Lee Yuksa's verse: "And a path, at last, opened by a big river." If historians have changed the currents at the upper reaches, it is only a matter of time that we will see changes in the political currents at the lower reaches of the river of historical issues."

There was a heated debate between the Korean and Japanese participants at the recent roundtable co-hosted by Dong-A Ilbo and Asahi Shimbun. Two leading Japanese intellectuals who had not signed the Joint Declaration were critical of the Joint Declaration, arguing that if Korea demands more than what was offered in Prime Minister Kan Naoto's statement, it would engender opposition from the Japanese public, and thus, make matters worse. The Korean participants countered the claim, pointing out that the public is considered not as a constant but a variable, which would posit significance to intellectuals. One person asked whether the treaties between Korea and Japan would be considered legitimate if it had been undertaken in a more elaborate and forceful manner given that the treaties' illegitimacy seem to lie in the slight oversights Japan committed due to its inexperience with modern treaties. In response, it was explained that the treaties are invalid not only because of procedural oversights but also because coercion played a role in their conclusion, making Japan's aggression and colonization themselves also illegal. Another person commented that the compensation issue is just too much to handle. In response, it was suggested that Korea could move Japan as China had, and that the chain reaction resulting from the exchange of emotions can serve to play a significant role in paving the way for "civil Asia."

The divergence in viewpoints was evident. Because of this palpable difference, some Korean newspapers published op-ed pieces suggesting that it is highly unlikely that the Japanese government will declare the invalidity of the Annexation Treaty. Even if we cannot achieve our ultimate goal, we must pressure the Japanese government by committing ourselves to what is right and reasonable until the very end. What the aforementioned op-ed pieces have done is to set forth concessionary measures and providing the Japanese government to make yet another lukewarm statement. Why can't the Korean National Assembly issue an official resolution and make demands to the Japanese government? The "alliance" between Korean and Japanese supporters of compromise caused a temporary setback in our undertaking.

Nonetheless, around 1,000 Korean and Japanese intellectuals have come to a consensus, setting off the rumbling thunder of history. Our "historic" undertaking will continue until the dark clouds that had been hanging over Korea and Japan for a century are lifted and the blue skies of "civil Asia" emerge.