뉴스레터

Editor's Note: Professor Lee Jong-Won of Waseda University Graduate School is a renowned Korean scholar residing in Japan, and he has consistently attended NAHF-hosted international conferences, such as The Centennial History of Japan's Forced Annexation of Korea in 2010 and The 50-Year History of the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea in 2015. He was the Vice President of Rikkyo University before he joined Waseda University Graduate School, where he was appointed the first director of the Korean Studies Center scheduled to be opened in this October. A scholar of international politics and expert in matters concerning peace in Northeast Asia, Professor Lee is also deeply interested in historical issues between Korea and Japan. An in-depth interview with Professor Lee was conducted at the Institute of Asia Pacific Studies at Waseda University on July 29, 2013 by NAHF Research Fellow Doh Shi-hwan during his visit to Tokyo. In the interview, Professor Lee stressed that "although faced with political and diplomatic challenges at a complex historical turning point, Northeast Asia must seek historical reconciliation from a big-picture perspective toward a new age." Research Fellow Doh opened the interview with a question about how Professor Lee's study of the ROK-Japan Agreement and the challenges it had left behind began in 1995, the 30th year after the signing of the Treaty.

Doh Shi-hwan (都時煥), Research Fellow
at NAHF Research Department

Q Doh Ever since you published a paper on "The International Political Background of the ROK-Japan Normalization Talks" in 1995, the 30th year after the conclusion of the ROK-Japan Agreement, you have been studying the Agreement and the challenges it has left behind. How did it all begin?

A Lee America's East Asia policy and ROK-Japan relations were the research themes of my studies in Japan. As part of my research, I investigated and studied America's diplomatic documents, and in the process, I learned that America had been deeply involved in the ROK-Japan Normalization Talks, and became interested in the subject. At that time, the study of the ROK-Japan Talks had to rely on only American materials because Korea and Japan did not disclose their diplomatic documents related to the Talks until 2005 and 2006 respectively in response to the demand of their citizens seeking 'post-war compensation.' Once those documents were made public, I organized an international joint research group within Japan with like-minded researchers to study them. Some of the research results have been already published in both Korea and Japan. Although the disclosed diplomatic documents of Japan have too many "blacked-out" texts to investigate and reveal the whole truth, we have now at least something to refer to in explaining the ROK-Japan Talks. I continue my research in the belief that revealing what was or was not discussed in the ROK-Japan Talks will be necessary also for repairing the past and creating a better future.

Q Doh You have mentioned that 'the Cold War, economy, and history' were the rationale for, and fundamental limits of, the ROK-Japan Agreement. How and why did the ROK-Japan Agreement remain as a historical issue between the two countries?

A Lee The normalization of diplomatic relations between the ROK and Japan was supposed to serve as a turning point to review the past of Japan's colonial rule and establish a new relationship. In the ROK-Japan Agreement, however, there is no mention of Japan's colonial rule, and the term related to "history" was used no more than once in the preamble ("Considering the historical background of relationship between their peoples and their mutual desire for good neighborliness"). In other words, the "Cold War and economy" suppressed and replaced history as the main rationale behind the Agreement. As a divided nation under the Cold War, it was inevitable for the ROK to sign the Agreement to ensure its survival. While officially promoting history as the rationale behind the Agreement, the ROK kept yielding and compromising because gaining economic aid from Japan was more important to them. Japan, on the other hand, while considering the strategic request under the Cold War to support the ROK of the "Free World" to ensure their own security, was busy trying to avoid the enormous economic burden they would have to bear to repair the past. America's interest was also focused on reducing their strategic burden while reinforcing the Cold War system in East Asia against the background of the intensifying war in Vietnam. Both Japan and America were to blame for 'sealing' the historical issues. That the past was not repaired properly and many challenges of 'post-war compensation' were put off is a main reason that ROK-Japan relations have been precarious up to this day. While the normalization of diplomatic ties between the ROK and Japan contributed to a certain degree to restoring bilateral relationship at government and national levels, it had its limits in terms of restoring trust between the citizens of both countries because it neglected to repair the past. As the issue of compensation for victims has surfaced from the 1990s onward after the end of the Cold War across the world, how to address and overcome the problems and limits of the ROK-Japan Agreement has become the most important challenge facing ROK-Japan relations today.

Q Doh The Abe administration of Japan which had advocated "emerging from the post-war regime" was brought back to power. Do you consider it a turning point in Japan's perception of history?

A Lee The Abe administration was frustrated once but reborn. It wouldn't be an overstatement that Japan is now at a historical turning point. Although Shinzo Abe is not advocating the slogan of "emerging from the post-war regime" as he was in 2006 during his first time in office, he is stressing time and again that "the constitutional amendment is his mission." Japan's Peace Constitution system, which has been in existence for about 70 years since their defeat in World War II, has been one of the foundations for establishing international order in East Asia. In this regard, the constitutional amendment will be not just a domestic issue but an issue with an overarching influence across East Asia. Furthermore, under the circumstances of East Asia, a region where mutual trust is still weak and conflict is intensifying, pushing forward with the consitutional amendment will most likely threaten to make the regional situation more precarious. Not just Japan but also the East Asian regional order is at an important turning point. Germany also often amended its fundamental law, but with the framework of human rights protection intact. By contrast, the draft of the LDP-proposed constitutional amendment harks back to the past for its nationalist clauses, such as the one that restricts basic human rights, as well as clauses concerning security, such as the foundation of the national defense force and the acknowledgement of the right of engagement. For this reason, the Japanese public is cautious and opposed to the constitutional amendment. Whether the Abe administration will succeed in getting the constitution amended still remains to be seen. In the wake of the geopolitical change in which China has overtaken Japan and the devastating Great East Japan Earthquake, Japanese society is feeling a great sense of loss, and in a precarious state because the public opinion is very volatile.

Lee Jong-Won (李鍾元),
Professor with the Graduate School of
Asia-Pacific Studies at Waseda University

Q Doh What do you think of the historical perception of the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe who had been critical of the Kono Statement of August 1993 and the Murayama Statement of August 1995?

A Lee When it comes to historical perception, Shinzo Abe is among the most traditional and ideologically right-wing politicians. On the other side of claiming to advocate overcoming the post-war system is the historical conception acknowledging the pre-war nationalism. His remarks have been consistent in speaking of these values. Shinzo Abe's ultimate political goal is to change the post-war Peace Constitution system, but amending the constitution takes time. Therefore, it seems that he is going to start by doing what he can in his power, that is to set about reversing the trend of the Kono and Murayama Statements exemplifying the past Japanese government's reflective perception of history. Since the 1990s with the end of the global Cold War, the Japanese government has made it an official stance to reflect on the war and colonial rule and move toward historical reconciliation with the rest of Asia, in part to meet their economic and strategic needs. From the outset, however, this view of history was denounced as "self-deprecating" by Shinzo Abe and other right-wing politicians. And during the campaigns for the election that would bring him back to power, Shinzo Abe made it a political pledge to revise the Kono and Murayama Statements. Right after he took office as Prime Minister at the end of last year, Shinzo Abe started to declare his plan to revise those statements, but it has stalled a little bit as it met with strong criticism from the U.S. as well as from the ROK and China. While his official position is to leave the Kono Statement intact and "basically inherit" the Murayama Statement, the move to essentially water down those statements is likely to continue.

Q Doh In 2009, the Northeast Asian History Foundation proved that Japan's annexation of Korea was invalid under international law. And in 2010, 1,139 Korean and Japanese intellectuals issued the "Joint Statement Declaring the Invalidity of the 1910 Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty." And in 2011, the Constitutional Court of Korea confirmed that the ROK-Japan Agreement had legal responsibility for 'comfort women' and the victims of the nuclear bombs. And in 2012, the Supreme Court of Korea ruled in a lawsuit seeking compensation for demage done to those forced to fight or labor for Imperialist Japan that Japan's ruling that deemed Imperial Japan's colonial rule itself legal may not be accepted as valid because it conflicted with the core values of our constitution. Regarding this series of fundamental challenges to Japan's historical perception and post-war compensation, how do you think it relates to the 1965 ROK-Japan Agreement System?

A Lee The Constitutional Court's and the Supreme Court's decisions are both revolutionary and they were the fruit of the continued efforts made by the victims and the civil-society organizations. In particular, I think that the Supreme Court's decision was a fundamental challenge to the 1965 system. The Constitutional Court's decision of 2011 acknowledged the framework of the ROK-Japan Agreement, but ruled that "legal responsibility" remained in "the crimes committed against humanity in which state power, like government or military, had been involved, such as military sexual slavery. In other words, this decision's view is that the ROK-Japan Agreement needs a complement. The Supreme Court's decision of 2012, on the other hand, specified that the colonial rule itself was illegal, directly pointing out the limits of the 1965 System. It is urgent and necessary for the Korean government to use these judicial decisions as the basis to formulate rationale and strategies for diplomatic policies toward Japan.

Q Doh Analysts may say that the Abe administration's huge victory in the upper-house election in July is explained by the voters' expectations for 'Abenomics' as a policy to turn around the economy that has been stagnant over the Lost Two Decades. On the other hand, there are rising concerns about the Abe administration's rightward shift. What is your opinion on this?

A Lee The LDP led by Shinzo Abe won both the lower-house election at the end of last year and the upper-house election in July this year by a landslide, but it is mainly for their promise to "revive the economy" that they gained support from the voters. When it comes to ideological issues, such as the constitutional amendment or the right of collective self-defense, the public is divided in its opinion, and basically not much interested. Even though he won an overwhelming majority of seats in the Diet, he is not rushing toward fulfilling his wish of getting the constitution amended because the public is still highly cautious about the matter. Perhaps Shinzo Abe will push forward with his agenda step by step while keeping in mind a plan to stay in power for a long time. His strategy is to create an atmosphere that will allow the change of interpretation of the right of collective self-defense without having to amend the constitution while focusing his energy on reviving the economy. Once he gains strong support from what he will have done for the economy, he will attempt at the constitutional amendment in earnest.

Q Doh Regarding the 'responsibility for colonial rule' that remained unresolved under the ROK-Japan Agreement System, what is your outlook for the 50-year ROK-Japan Agreement System in 2015 marking the 70th year after Korea's independence from Japan as a follow-up historical challenge?

A Lee I think that the ROK-Japan Agreement system of 1965 is reaching a turning point in many respects. The judiciaries of both countries are in confrontation with each other over the issue of 'post-war compensation.' When it comes to this issue, Japan is also placing on emphasis on the ROK-Japan Agreement and the San Francisco Peace Treaty as its basis. However, the logic of Shinzo Abe's case for overcoming the post-war system is contradictory to the San Francisco system. On the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II and the 50th anniversary of the ROK-Japan Agreement in coming 2015, I think that academic and policy efforts need to be made to have a brand-new outlook for ROK-Japan relations and international order in East Asia. Keeping in mind the increasingly close social and economic relationship among South Korea, Japan, and China, we must do anything we can to use the political wisdom and reach the decision to turn historical issues into an opportunity to move forward to the future.

Q Doh Since 2011, the NAHF has worked with Japanese scholars and lawyers among other experts for the joint study of the 50-year history of the ROK-Japan Agreement, holding international conferences and publishing research papers and books. What do you suggest that the NAHF should do in preparation for the future?

A Lee I have two suggestions I'd like to highlight. One is to take an international and universal approach. As the issue of responsibility for colonial rule resurfaced recently, specific measures are being taken across the globe. Domestically, however, this trend is still not being recognized well in Japan. To create a desirable perception of history in Japanese society, I think it would be essential to adopt a more universal framework within which to address the historical issues between Korea and Japan. The other is to investigate and reveal the historical truth and take an approach in terms of policy. I think that presenting truths based on objective materials is a basic effort to bridge the gap in historical perception. At the same time, it is also necessary to seek policies from many angles that will solve the pending issues.

Q Doh What's your assessment of the NAHF's activities so far in resolving the Northeast Asian historical issues? And what roles do you think the NAHF should play in the future?

A Lee I think that the NAHF has done a lot of underlying work for Northeast Asian historical issues. In my opinion, the NAHF's systematic research activities covering both facts and theories have raised the public's awareness of historial issues, and provided a framework and a basis for Korea in taking policy measures. Such roles of the NAHF will become more important in the future. I expect that the NAHF will build on those roles to take an approach of public diplomacy to Japan and other relevant countries. I think that continued efforts need to be made to bridge the deep chasm in historical perception. Also needed are future visions and strategies that will turn the controversial historical issues into an opportunity for cooperation in the Northeast Asian region.

Q Doh Do you have any particular plan for your future studies?

A Lee In coming October, the Korean Studies Center will be opened at Waseda University that will cover a complete range of humanities and social sciences. The decision to open it was made because I and my colleagues at Waseda shared a sense of crisis while watching the rapid deterioration of ROK-Japan relations recently. Japan today is at a great turning point. Japan is in a confusing transition period for them to adapt to the changes in geopolitical power. And Japan's new generations have a poor understanding of their nation's historical relationship with the rest of Asia. As a result, Japanese society is quite unstable, pulled between the "Korean Wave" and the "Hate Korea Wave." I feel that it is essential to figure out how to study and teach Korea in this convulsion of Japanese society. Let me borrow your strength and wisdom and use them in various activities I will conduct in order to lay a new foundation for Korean studies in Japan.