뉴스레터

The inter-Korean relationship and security situations in the Korean peninsula are moving fast toward an unpredictable future. As efforts from various angles are being made to re-open the Six-party Talks on the North Korean nuclear problem, the Foundation has invited Professor Sandip Kumar Mishra from Delhi University, a specialist in the security issue of the Korean peninsula. While staying at the Foundation, Prof. Mishra researched Korean identity and exchanged his ideas with scholars through talks and presentations. This month's issue of the newsletter presents an interview of Prof. Mishra, a researcher of Korean identity and the security of the Korean peninsula, and Dr. Bae of the Northeast Asian History Foundation. –Editor

Bae: Korean studies in India is not known to Korea as much as those in the United States or Europe. I've heard that Delphi University started Korean studies courses in the 1970s. First, would you briefly describe the history and status of Korean studies in India?

Mishra: Korean studies started in India in the early 1970s as Jawharlal Nehru University (JNU) first offered a Korean language class. At that time, it did not attract much interest, but now it is gaining more popularity along with the growing relations between Korea and India. The 1970s was part of the cold-war era, in which most countries were allied either with the US or with the Soviet Union, but India chose to be one of the Non-aligned Countries that rejected the dichotomous international order. India, at that time, however, had a closer relationship with the Soviet Union than with the US, so structurally it was difficult to develop a close relationship with South Korea, which was allied with the US following the cold-war world order. Therefore, few people in India took interest in Korean studies at the beginning. The conclusion of the cold war in the 1990s has brought structural changes in the international relations, and increased economic exchanges between Korea and India and Indians' interest in Korean pop culture, namely Hanryu or Korean Wave. Against this backdrop, Korean studies has become more popular since the 1990s, and more universities started to offer Korea-related classes. JNU and Delhi University have a Korean studies program, and Calcutta, Chennai and Magadh Universities also offer Korean language classes.

Bae: Could you tell me how many faculty members and students the Korean studies program at Delhi University has now? I also would like to know how important Korean history is in the Korean studies program.

Mishra: There is only one Indian professor, myself, at the Korean studies program of Delhi University. I teach Korean history, politics and foreign relations. There are two visiting professors from India who respectively teach the Korean language and literature and Korean economics. The Department of East Asian Studies, where the Korean studies program is offered, has 55 graduate students altogether; five of them are majoring in Korean politics, economics, and foreign policy and two of them are studying the Korean language and literature. History currently does not occupy a very important position in the Korean studies program. Most Korean studies students are interested in Korea's economic success, democratization movement, or foreign relations because of Korea's strategic location in Northeast Asia and its particularity. But history issue comes up when you study foreign relations of Korea, especially those between Korea and Japan and between Korea and China. Thus it is inevitable for the students studying Korea's foreign relations to look into Korean history. Also, a few students show interest in historical relations between India and Korea; for example, how Buddhism acted as a vehicle of interactions between India and Korea.

Bae: You have written a number of articles in the Korea Times about the relationship of South and North Koreas, the nuclear problem of North Korea, Korean peninsula policies of the US, China and Japan. What has motivated you to take interest in Korean studies, especially inter-Korean relations?

Mishra: I was a student of international politics. While I was studying international politics, I took a course on Korea—The Korean Peninsula and International Relations after the World War II. The professor of the course is basically the person who started a Korean language and Korean studies program in India, and he has very good knowledge of the Korean language and very deep understanding of Korea. Another person who influenced me to take interest in Korean studies is Bruce Cumings. I read his two-volume book about the Korean War, The Origins of the Korean War. Although I am not 100% in agreement with him, I think the book is very insightful—it shows how the division and war were brought into Korea by external powers such as the United States and the Soviet Union and how the Koreans suffered in the process. Korea can be said to be in a very wrong place; the peninsula is surrounded by all important international players of the world. And because of this strategic location, Korea is a very interesting topic to scholars of international politics. I started to take interest in Korea because of my major, international politics, but gradually my interest has extended to other areas of Korea and Korean affairs including Korean politics, history and culture.

Bae: At the present, we cannot see any foreseeable solution to the problems of inter-Korean relations and the relations between the countries involved in the North Korean nuclear crisis. Your main research area is the post-cold-war security of the Korean peninsula. How would you characterize the security issue of the Korean peninsula?

Mishra: The security problem of the Korean peninsula should be approached with the trilateral relations of South and North Koreas and the United States in the center. At the present, North Korea (NK) is using the nuclear card for two purposes. First, they are using it to address their threat perception from South Korea (SK) and the US, albeit it may be a subjective perception. Second, it is a bargaining chip. Although there is no easy solution to the North Korean nuclear problem, SK must continue to talk with NK and persuade them to take more responsible attitude. Another important thing is SK and the US taking a coordinate approach to deal with NK to develop a more peaceful and accommodative trilateral relationship. By doing so, the three countries must try to move out of the vicious cycle of security dilemma, where NK on one hand and SK and the US on the other consider each other a threat, and move toward to assure each other that nobody is threatening the other. During the last 10 years, the inter-Korean relationship has been improving thanks to SK's engagement policy to NK, but the relationship between NK and the US has not been going well, especially since the Republican government took over in the US. Different policies of SK and the US, I think, have brought a big problem to the trilateral relationship. Nevertheless, if SK continues to try to engage NK, I think it will help establish a better inter-Korean relationship. Also, all three countries must behave more responsibly. At this moment, however, the most important thing is for SK and the US to take a coordinated policy.

Bae: You said that the security problem concerning NK's nuclear weapons is fundamentally centered on the trilateral relations of SK, NK and the US. Since 2010, however, China has come to assume a greater role as trades and joint ventures between China and NK grow. In this regard, I think that the US-China relationship is one of the decisive elements to consider in the security issue of the Korean peninsula. What is your thought on this?

Mishra: With regard to the security of the Korean peninsula and the North Korean nuclear crisis, China's role has increased since 2003 as it initiated and hosted the Six-party Talks. In fact, this kind of multi-party talks that includes China should be helpful not just to the NK nuclear problem but also to the long-term security of East Asia and its security mechanism. One important thing that I would like to emphasize here is that China opposes to the nuclearization of NK, at least formally. China wishes to show the world, which are looking at the rise of China with concern and dread, that the rise of China is peaceful and can contribute to the peace of East Asia. A nuclear NK, however, will threaten the peace of East Asia; therefore, China does not approve NK's position. But China is in a dilemma. On the one hand, they need to show that they are against the nuclearization of NK, but on the other, they do not want to show the world that they have no control over NK and its nuclear ambition. In addition, China cannot really welcome the nuclearization of NK when it will increase the military presence of the United States in the Korean peninsula. So China clearly does not want a nuclear NK, and the fundamental reason of NK's nuclear armament is that they feel threatened by SK and the US. Therefore, the trilateral relationship of NK, SK and the US is more important than anything else. SK and the US must engage NK to the Six-party Talks without any condition. And by adopting various confidence building measures, all the involved countries should build confidence and trust one another enough to resolve the nuclear problem of NK diplomatically and peacefully.

Bae: As a visiting scholar, you have researched "Modern Korean Identity" at the Foundation. I understand that this concept is very important because it is closely related to SK-NK cooperation and hence to the security of the Korean peninsula. In the discussion of the Korean national identity, you have emphasized the primary collective identity that the Koreans share, but I wonder if Benedict Anderson's idea of "Imagined Community" should be brought in to characterize the Korean national identity.

Mishra: Benedict Anderson's concept of "Imagined Community" is used to describe the "national identity" of a community when it is difficult to find any objective and physical evidence to hold the group together under one collective identity, and thus the collective identity that holds the community is in fact really nothing but imagination. This concept applies well to a country like India, which consists of peoples of various cultures, races, ethnicities, languages and religions. However, Korea is different. The Korean nationalism had existed far before the modern definition of nationalism was formed. Since long before the modern concept of nationalism was introduced, the Koreans have been living in the more or less clearly defined territory, using the same language, sharing blood and ancestors like Dangun, and experiencing the same history. Therefore, the Korean national identity is not a collective identity created after modern nationalism was introduced, but a collective identity re-articulated in the terms and vocabulary of modern nationalism.

Bae: Both India and Korea have suffered the colonial rule of imperial powers, but our experiences can be very different due to the different make-ups of our countries: India is a multiethnic and multi-religious country whereas Korea is largely an ethnically homogeneous country. What do you think are similarities and differences between the modern Indian identity and the modern Korean identity?

Mishra: There are more differences than similarities between the national identities of Korea and India. One Indian scholar wrote in his book that "India is nothing but an idea." The Indians started to develop a collective identity as they fought against the colonialism of the British Empire. Thus, the Indian national identity was formed during the colonial era and is anti-colonial in nature. On the other hand, the Koreans had a collective identity even before the colonial rule. In the case of Korea, this pre-existing collective identity has been simply rearticulated in the terms and mode of modern, Western-defined nationalism. But India is different. What has held the Indians together, who have different ethnicities, cultures, languages and religions, under one collective identity, is the idea that they belong to one country. After the independence of India, many Western scholars studying India predicted that India would be disintegrated once the anti-colonialism, the collective identity that held India together during the colonial rule, disappeared. But amazingly, India is still one country. Of course, there exist conflicts in India, including regional conflicts due to different levels of development among regions. Nevertheless, the idea that they belong to one state—in other words, the state identity—is holding the Indians together as one country.

Bae: Your article about Dokdo, posted on www.Korea.net in 2008, criticized Japan's aggressive foreign policies regarding Dokdo and urged her to assume a responsible stance in the New Asian Century. Currently, Japanese textbooks and Dokdo are among key issues that the Foundation deals with. What would you advise to us about these two issues in relation to the security of the Korean peninsula?

Mishra: In the perspective of history, Japan still has an old mindset. Japan is still keeping its old, conventional attitude toward history, but it needs to come out of it and take a more transparent and open stance to its neighboring countries and past history. So far Japan has hardly shown any sincerely in its dealings with its neighbors. In comparison, China is bordered with 14 countries, and it is in working relations with 10 out of these 14 countries. Japan, however, can be said to be a failure in this respect. Japan has to change its attitude and be more future-oriented in order to build a cooperative security system in East Asia. I have found the research and activities by the Northeast Asian History Foundation not nationalistic but quite neutral, balanced, and comprehensive. Its neutrality will be appreciated in the future by other countries including China and Japan. If China and Japan come to understand the importance of this neutral and comprehensive approach to history and participate in joint research, I think it will bring a new future to the region and the whole Asia. In such a future, the Northeast Asian History Foundation will play a pivotal role as a neutral history research institute of Northeast Asia.