뉴스레터

My name is Marita Manako and I am studying International Studies at Ochanomizu University in Tokyo, Japan. The EPRIE was a long-awaited event for me because I had prior exchange-student experiences at Ewha Womans University in Korea and the University of Paris VII in France, and also had long-time interest in regional cooperation in East Asia and Europe.

First and foremost, this program brought me in contact with some of the greatest people I'd ever met. They were students of international relations, foreign languages, economics, or professionals in research, diplomacy, journalism, and NGOs. And they brought their diverse backgrounds and views to the discussion table.

The EPRIE was characterized by comparative discussion between Europe and East Asia about historical reconciliation and regional integration. Listening to Europeans talk of this matter was quite a memorable experience for me because I had never done that before, despite my long-time interest in regional integration in East Asia. And I'd like to talk about a few things that I found particularly memorable.

The first thing was that regional integration in Europe is based on the history of failure, the memory of failure. The most important foundation of the EU is the strong belief that 'the tragedy of war should never be repeated,' and this is phrased by a professor of France as 'positive aspects of history.' During the discussion, someone raised the question of on which basis Asia should pursue regional integration. I believe that establishing a common foundation beyond economic cooperation will be an important challenge for Asia.

The second thing was that in Europe the terms victim/perpetrator are not used in the domain of history. In history, there is no simple dichotomy between victims and perpetrators, and anyone can fall in either category. Such dichotomy can exist only in the court of law. In history, therefore, even though individuals may be held accountable for their actions, the victim-perpetrator notion does not apply at state levels. And I realized that since the victim/perpetrator framework forces prejudice against facts outside such framework, it is very important to take a more flexible approach to history. There were also other remarks of the European participants that I found memorable, such as "in Asia, history is being used for political purposes", and "international conflicts have become emotional matters, and more practicality is needed in approach to dealing with them."

Exchanging in-depth opinions with the Korean participants during the program period was also an unforgettable experience for me. By actually exchanging opinions, I realized that opinions on a certain matter are not necessarily divided between the Japanese and the Korean, but can vary from individual to individual regardless their nationality. I felt it was really important to understand the obvious truth that the way people think is not necessarily the same as the way their governments do, and accept such diversity in ways of thinking.

However, the program was not without room for improvement. I felt that the program's political neutrality was questionable because the speakers had been selected only from certain countries and the program was financed by certain government organizations. I thought that programs like this one needed a balanced environment conducive to truly free exchange of opinions outside the realm of politics.

Participants in the EPRIE organize alumni meetings afterwards. Last week, the Japanese participants gathered together to discuss collective suggestions for regional integration. Personally, I will draw on what I learned from the EPRIE and write my graduation thesis on identity in regional integration. And I will remain connected to the precious network of EPRIE members for exchange of opinions and ideas, gathering wisdom for making historical reconciliation and regional integration a reality.