뉴스레터

Editor's Notes: As Japan's rightward shift continues to accelerate, the tensions are growing in the Northeast Asian region. For this month's issue of Northeast Asian History Foundation News, we met Korea University professor emeritus Kim Hyun-gu, one of the first generation of Koreans who majored in Japanese history, for his thoughts on issues related to Japanese history from ancient to modern and contemporary times, their implications, and how these issues should be dealt with. The interview was conducted by Kim Min-kyu, an expert in the history of international relations in East Asia who is also in charge of the Office of Public Relations at the Northeast Asian History Foundation.

Q Kim Min-kyu You are one of the 'first generation of Koreans who majored in Japanese history,' and also the first Korean to receive a doctoral degree in this field. What led you to choose Japanese history as your major and decide to study in Japan?

A Kim Hyun-gu By the time I entered Korea University in 1965, there had been growing interest in Japan as South Koreans were protesting against the government in talks with its Japanese counterpart to restore bilateral diplomatic ties. My adviser, whose major was Chinese history, told me, "Korea is in need more of those who study Chinese history than of those who study Japanese history, but there is no one in this country who majored in Japanese history. Why don't you be the first one to do it?" I think he was the biggest influence on my decision to major in Japanese history. When I started working on my master's thesis, I realized that there were no existing studies I could use as references, and I had no idea where to start and how. That's when I decided to go to Japan and study there. I was in my sixth year as a school teacher at that time, but I quit and went over to Japan. I spent two years as a research student. It wasn't until I was thirty six that I finally entered the master's program. I worked all the harder because I was late in my studies.

Q Kim Min-kyu I can imagine the difficulties you must have had. What was the most difficult aspect of studying in Japan?

A Kim Hyun-gu Living in Japan wasn't very difficult for me because there were coin-operated washers and other convenient facilities and systems relatively well in place for international students. The difficulties I had were academic ones. As I wasn't quite familiar with Japanese history as a whole, I had no clue what topic to study or what approach to take. When I got hold of and read papers and books published in the past, I found them extremely sophisticated. I felt as though I'd hit a wall in Japanese scholarship that was too high and thick for me to climb or penetrate. I despaired at first, thinking that "this wasn't something I could possibly do." I still remember my feelings at that time like it was yesterday. I was frustrated that much. I desperately looked for ways to help myself while reading the research books of my adviser Mizuno Yu (水野 祐). Professor Mizuno advocated the unique theory of 'the changes of the three dynasties' which made him an antithesis of the orthodox school of history in Japan. As I devoured all the books of professor Mizuno I could lay my hands on, I was beginning to realize what I could do. From when I hit the high and thick wall of scholarship until I figured out what to do was the most difficult period of my time in Japan.

Q Kim Min-kyu As a Korean, it might have been uncomfortable for you to express your view of history that must have been different from that of your fellow Japanese students. What did the Japanese students and professors think of your view of Japanese history? Didn't they ever find it offensive?

A Kim Hyun-gu In that regard, I'm glad that I chose to study at Waseda University. Japan's history community at that time, led by the University of Tokyo, was conservative and protective of status quo and traditions. On the other hand, Waseda University was embracing critical spirits, accepting and even praising publications critical of the orthodox school of history. For instance, in my doctoral dissertation I contradicted my adviser, but he said, "I don't agree with you, but logically speaking, I think your assertion is valid in its own right." I think that it is their tradition of embracing criticism that encouraged me and helped me achieve what I did. To this day, I'm grateful to Waseda University for it.

Q Kim Min-kyu Your book Professor Kim Hyun-gu's Japan Story based on your experience of living and studying in Japan became a bestseller. What do you think made it so popular?

A Kim Hyun-gu In Japan, historians often write books based on their research that are easy to read and understand. While in Japan, I naturally began to think that once I returned to Korea I also wanted to write books that would popularize history and help improve the people's historical perception. While taking notes of the characteristics of Japanese that I had observed during my stay in Japan, I brainstormed the idea of presenting them with historical explanations of how those characteristics had formed. As Japan emerged as an economic power that ruled the world from the 1980s to the early 1990s, Japan had become the center of increasing attention. The publication of my book that I had meant to write to make it easy for Koreans to understand Japan coincided with this time period. I think that explains why my book was well received and became a bestseller.

Q Kim Min-kyu I understand that you have had quite a number of students. In my opinion, you have played a particularly important role in fostering the second generation of Japanese history majors.

A Kim Hyun-gu I'd taught at Korea University for about 25 years. But I don't think that my students are limited to those who studied at Korea University. In 1985, when I came back to Korea, I was the only one in the country who'd studied Japanese history in Japan. Therefore, those who wanted to study Japanese history often visited me to seek advice. I gave them advice, thinking that it was my duty to help those who wanted to study Japanese history in any way I could, regardless of which school they went to. For example, I once organized a class in Korea University (I'm not sure exactly in what year) that was open to the graduate students of five different schools. I'd come up with this idea as an alternative to the infeasible option of offering Japanese history courses separately in those schools. I let each of my former students who had just earned their degrees teach twice until the end of the semester. One of my former students who taught at that time is Lee Hoon, who is now the director of NAHF's Dokdo Research Institute. For many other younger students of history, I also gave advice, wrote them letters of recommendation they needed for their admission to schools abroad, and made referrals. This is how I think I have connected myself to the broad network of the second generation of Japanese history majors.

Q Kim Min-kyu Ancient history is your area of specialization, and when we think of ancient history, we usually think of 'Mimana Nihonfu (任那日本府)'' Please explain what Mimana Nihonfu is and how we should address this issue.

A Kim Hyun-gu Mimana Nihonfu wasn't the only subjects that I'd studied, but somehow I'd begun to attach importance to it when I mentioned it. It is actually impossible to discuss Japan's ancient history without addressing the Mimana Nihonfu issue, because how that issue is viewed can change Japan's ancient history as a whole, the history of Korea-Japan relations as a whole, and, in some respects, even the framework of Korea's ancient history. But how the Mimana Nihonfu issue is addressed in Korea is often frustrating to me. The gist of the Mimana Nihonfu claim is that Japan had ruled the southern Korean peninsula for 200 years from the mid 5th to mid 6th centuries, and had 'Mimana Nihonfu'as the ruling body. But the Korean academia, the focus is placed on whether Mimana Nihonfu actually existed, and, if it did, whether it was a diplomatic body or a trade body. But if they only discuss the existence and nature of Mimana Nihonfu as a body without discussing the key argument of whether "it really ruled the Korean peninsula," they're clearly missing the point. More than anything, research to identify "the nature of Wa who were active in the southern Korean peninsular" is urgently needed. I understand that one of the main issues being addressed by the Northeast Asian History Foundation is over history textbooks. Unfortunately, the Mimana Nihonfu issue, although it is at the core of the history textbook controversy, isn't being studied sufficiently.

Q Kim Min-kyu They say that even in the Japanese academia, there are few scholars who argue for the Mimana Nihonfu claim. What do you think about that?

A Kim Hyun-gu I think that they're very much mistaken. Japan still believes what Suematsu Yasukazu (末松保和) claimed about Mimana Nihonfu to be true, as can be seen from the fact that the framework of Japan's ancient history based on that claim hasn't changed at all. For example, it is still universally accepted in Japan that the Baekchon River battle in 663 was what they call an 'ancient imperialist war' to which Japan had sent troops to save Baekje. In Japan's view, this was an 'imperialist war in ancient times' in which the 'small empire of Japan' ruling as far as the southern Korean peninsula fought the great Chinese empire of 'Tang.' It is the small empire ruling the southern Korean peninsula that became a premise of the Mimana Nihonfu claim. This is described, although implicitly, in Japan's history textbooks currently in use. For example, "(Japan) advanced to the Korean peninsula and was active in Mimana as the base" or "(Japan) advanced to the Korean peninsula and allied with Baekje and Silla to fight against Koguryo by using Mimana as the base." These are simply other ways of saying that Japan had ruled the Korean peninsula for 200 years.
But the Korean academia is making a mistake of thinking that the Mimana Nihonfu claim was already gone. If they understood the framework of Japan's ancient history as a whole, they couldn't miss what Japanese intended in those descriptions in the textbooks. it. In this respect, I think it necessary for the NAHF to take action and have an in-depth review of this issue.

Q Kim Min-kyu I agree. I think that basic research to refute their logic is absolutely needed. Mimana Nihonfu was brought up as we discussed ancient history, but I feel that this issue is still relevant in modern and contemporary history. Could you elaborate on how closely relevant it still is and what makes it important?

A Kim Hyun-gu When Toyotomi Hideyoshi (豊臣秀吉) invaded the Korean peninsula in 1592, the idea of 'reclaiming' the old land that they had once 'managed' must have been working in their subconscious mind. In other words, the cause of war they upheld was that they had come to reclaim the Korean peninsula that used to be theirs. Japan also upheld the same cause when it annexed Korea by force in 1910. Unless the claim that Japan had ruled the Korean peninsula in the past is gone or settled, this Mimana Nihonfu claim will serve as the cause of war again if and when Japan wages a war to invade the Korean peninsula. Therefore, the Mimana Nihonfu issue concerns our present and future, not just our past. It must not be dismissed and neglected as an issue of the past.

Q Kim Min-kyu What problems, if any, are common to Korean scholars specializing in Japanese history or the history of Korea-Japan relations? And how can those problems be solved?

A Kim Hyun-gu I believe that the standards of researchers of Japanese history have risen considerably. Their research has been also diversified. In the past, the main areas of research were the areas of national interest. Today, they are getting into Japanese history in earnest and considering what needs to be studied for Japanese history itself. This, I believe, is a very desired trend. But my suggestion is that whatever they study, they need to keep in mind the larger picture of Japanese history as a whole. There are many things in the overall framework that we need to be very careful about, but they are often overlooked. If they were caught up in details and failed to see the forest for the trees, they could unwittingly justify parts of the big picture painted by Japanese. They should remember that even if they may not justify all of it or they never intend to do it, they could still bring out such results. They should remind themselves to keep their eyes on the big picture when they study Japanese history. And I think that the time has come for us to write Japanese history from our perspective and in our own framework. I believe that Korean researchers have reached high enough levels to do so. I would like to see the Northeast Asian History Foundation take the initiative in undertaking this endeavor.

Q Kim Min-kyu The drastic rightward shift made lately by the Abe administration of Japan and other factors are increasing tensions among the Northeast Asian countries of South Korea, China, and Japan. What do you think are the most serious challenges facing South Korea and Japan at national levels? What are the solutions of those challenges?

A Kim Hyun-gu As for the extremely rightward shift that Abe administration is making recently, we need to understand its backgrounds. The war criminals responsible for World War II were released by the United States as it feared the spread of communism, and they went on to become the leaders of politics, economy, society, and culture in postwar Japan. As a result, their descendents cannot think critically of Japan's aggression against its neighbors during WWII or colonial rule over the Korean peninsula. To admit wrongdoings or make apologies would be like denying themselves, their fathers and grandfathers. Therefore, even though they make apologies from time to time, they never mean it. That's in their DNA. We need to understand that before we deal with Japanese. If we simply think that Japanese are turning to the extreme right without understanding the backgrounds, it will be difficult for us to find the solution.
To digress a little bit, I think that it is the EU community that leads the world today and shows it the way. While the history of mankind has been a history of wars over race, religion, territory, economy, etc., at least the EU has overcome it and is moving toward a single system of universal thinking, toward another community. Of course, we don't know how long it will take, and it can also retrogress. But at least the EU knows exactly where they should be going.
I think that eventually our Northeast Asia, i.e. South Korea, China, and Japan, will follow suit. We can find clues in the trade relations of the three Northeast Asian nations. For South Korea, trade accounts for 85 percent of its GDP, and China is its largest trading partner and Japan its second largest. For both China and Japan, South Korea is the single country that is among their top 3 trading partners. This shows how deeply these three countries are connected. I think that they will build on these close relations to move toward a single partnership and community. Moving in a single direction requires universal thinking, but all the three countries are fully advocating nationalism, and especially China and Japan are fighting over supremacy. I think that's where all problems arise. I think that shedding nationalism and working toward universal thinking and one community is the way. And I believe that we can, and we will, walk the way.

Q Kim Min-kyu Tell us about what you have been working on since retirement and your plans for the future.

A Kim Hyun-gu Currently, I am working on one of my papers I've already written, "The East Asian World and the Baekchon River Battle," to make it into a book. As for the future, I'm planning on writing easy books based on my research findings that will find many readers and inspire them with historical consciousness. In particular, I want to write books that seek the path for South Korea to take in its relationship with China and Japan, thinking about the position of South Korea within East Asia and where it should be headed.

Q Kim Min-kyu You're serving as a director of the Northeast Asian History Foundation. As a director of the Foundation and also as a leading researcher of the history of Korea-Japan relations, what advice can you give the Foundation as to the direction it should take?

A Kim Hyun-gu To my knowledge, the Northeast Asian History Foundation has three main issues to address: the historical textbooks and 'comfort women' issues with Japan; the Northeast Project issue with China; and the naming of Dokdo and East Sea. Of the three, two relate to Japan. Considering this large portion, I think that more attention should be given to both the quality and the quantity of research on Japan
On more thing, I think that the NAHF needs to look at the history of the Academy of Korean Studies. The Academy of Korean Studies had been struggling for a long time over its identity, whether it should be an alternative policy institute or a research institute. Fortunately, the struggle is over and the Academy has established itself as a research institute. Personally, I believe that the NAHF should place focus on becoming more of a research institute. Not that it should neglect to propose alternative policies, of course. But I think that research should be given more weight than policy. Specifically, basic research should be given more weight than current affairs. This, I believe, is how the NAHF can fulfill its roles and be assessed highly in the future. I want them to remember that solid basic research will lead to good research on current affairs and also to good alternative policies.