뉴스레터

What is the solution to historical and territorial conflicts in Northeast Asia? On November 14, 2013, at the founding ceremony of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy (KNDA), President Park Geun-hye proposed the publication of common textbooks on Northeast Asian history as one of the ways toward peaceful cooperation and prosperity in Northeast Asia. The next day, the Japanese Minister of Education (MEXT) Hakubun Shimomura expressed his welcome to this proposal. At the Korea-Japan Parliamentarians' League general meeting held in Tokyo soon thereafter, the members of the parliament of both countries also agreed to urge their respective governments to work toward the publication of common textbooks. It can be said that general consensus has been reached, at least between Korea and Japan, about publishing common textbooks.

The first honest thought that came to my mind when I heard about the proposal for common history textbooks was that "making the proposal may be easy, but the execution will be difficult." There are simply too many things to consider and sort out first. The common textbooks on Northeast Asian history will obviously center on the three nations of Korea, China, and Japan. But China seems unimpressed. Because of its state system and many other reasons, China doesn't feel strongly that such textbooks are necessary. Moreover, China has a doubt about common history textbooks as a feasible tool of education, given the serious asymmetry that characterizes the development of the histories of the three countries. While such a doubt is raised all the same in Korea and Japan as well, it is much more serious in China. This means that China is not in the position to take the initiative.

A More Feasible Solution: Establish Guidelines for Writing History Textbooks

In my opinion, establishing common guidelines for writing history textbooks is more feasible than writing common history textbooks. These guidelines can provide a standard for each country when writing history textbooks, helping them choose the facts in Northeast Asian history to include in the textbooks and the perspective to adopt in describing those facts. In most cases, historical conflict arises from differences in perspectives in understanding the same facts. Therefore, I suggest that the facts should be interpreted and described from a consensus perspective. This could lead to the formation of a common perception of history, which, in turn, could lay the historical basis of building a common East Asian community. In this sense, the purpose of establishing common writing guidelines is not fundamentally different from that of publishing common textbooks after all.

Of course, preparing the guidelines isn't an easy task, either. It requires historical dialogue for a long time. Historical dialogue begins on the basis of agreement between countries. Without good foreign relations among the Northeast Asian nations, therefore, historical dialogue would be difficult even to get off the ground. So, the 'abnormal' relations between Korea and Japan, where not even a summit has been held nearly one year into the new governments, should be normalized. The increasingly confrontational relations between China and Japan should be also restored before historical dialogue can become possible.

Political Leaders Should Have a Cross-Border Historical Perception to Make Historical Dialogue Possible

To move historical dialogue forward, the historical perception of political leaders matters. The supreme leaders of the three Northeast Asian nations were all born in the 1950s, belonging to the so-called post-war generations. They grew up in periods when the vestiges of colonial rule still lingered and the Cold War system or democracy was tested. But, from a broader perspective, they lived in the 'periods of achievement and reconciliation' that saw the improvement of human rights and democracy, economic growth, and the normalization of the relations of the three nations. Unless the leaders of the three nations have a historical perception that goes beyond the boundary of state based on their historical experience, and seek peace in Northeast Asia, it will be difficult to move historical dialogue forward.

In preparing the guidelines, each government should take the lead in removing obstacles in the way toward common textbooks in the long run. The biggest obstacle is obviously the attitude and direction that each government takes toward history education. Recently, the three Northeast Asian nations are leading their history education in a direction that reinforces nationalism rather than universal values. For instance, Minister of MEXT Shimomura, in the very speech where he expressed his welcome to the proposal of publishing common history textbooks, expressed his intent to revise the textbook approval standard by adding two clauses: 1) "where the common opinion does not exist, certain facts or views should not be emphasized, but balanced descriptions should be given;" and 2) "where there is the unified opinion of the government, or the confirmed precedent, it should be the basis of description." Immediately, these clauses will affect the description of the Nanjing Massacre or 'comfort women' where the number of victims is uncertain. While the Neighboring Nations clause, which had been the important standard for writing the Japanese history textbooks since 1982, was not abrogated, there is no doubt that this revision will practically invalidate it.

The goal that the MEXT is trying to achieve through the revision of the approval standard is to clear the textbooks of vestiges of the 'self-deprecating view of history.' This was made evident when Senior Vice Minister of MEXT, Kyoko Nishikawa, gave a lecture titled "Educational Reform is the Basis of National Building" in Fukuoka on December 20, where she pointed out that "some descriptions of the Nanjing Massacre and 'comfort women' found in the textbooks are not true" and said that the revision of the textbook approval standard would help dispel the self-deprecating view of history gradually. In other words, Japan is trying to justify its history of the wars of aggression and colonial rule since the end of the 19th century and deny the crimes it committed in the process. That's why Japan's attempt to revise the approval standards is facing a strong backlash from the conscientious scholars and civil-society organizations in Korea and China as well as Japan who perceived it as de facto government designation of history textbooks.

I cannot say that Korea's situation is any better than this. Since 2008, there have been fierce conflicts between the government and the historical community over the education minister's instructions to revise the textbooks on Korean modern/contemporary history, the revision of the history education curriculum and the textbook writing standards, and the approval of high school textbooks on Korean history. When there are internal conflicts over the history textbooks, with either side calling the other 'left-wing' or 'pro-Japan and praisers of dictatorship,' it is not easy to secure a drive that will propel the publication of common textbooks on Northeast Asian history.

The Common History Textbooks Should Seek Reconciliation and Peace on the Basis of Reflection on the Past

If the common history textbooks are to be written, the writing of them should be in the direction of seeking reconciliation and peace in the future on the basis of serious reflection on the past. But facing and reflecting on the past is much more painful than one might think, not only for individuals but for nations, and it takes courage to do so. The common textbooks of Germany and France are often mentioned as an example, but it should be duly noted that they were written on the basis of Germany's heartfelt apology and remorse. In Northeast Asia, recently, however, history education is taking a direction toward emphasizing and encouraging pride and patriotism instead of reflection. Given that this direction is kept the same, I am afraid that to expect the common history textbooks to be published will be like to seek a fish from a tree.

I advise that historical dialogue and the writing of the guidelines through it should be undertaken by non-governmental rather than governmental entities. Of course, the governments have run the Korea-Japan Joint History Research Committee and the Japan-China Joint History Research Committee, and reached consensus on some issues like Mimana Nihonfu. Resuming joint research will be a good idea because joint research is one of the effective ways to review and coordinate historical perceptions at government levels. On the other hand, inter-governmental dialogue is likely to depend on the government's disposition, and the participants in inter-governmental dialogue, while taking responsibility as representatives of their nation, are likely to lose independence and autonomy. A number of private organizations, scholars, and school teachers have been engaged in historical dialogue between Korea and Japan for a long time, which resulted in the joint publication of many kinds of books. In a rare case, the three nations of Korea, China, and Japan have published common textbooks. Scholars of the three nations are still carrying on historical dialogue and attempting to create guidelines. There is trust built among them that makes dialogue possible. I advise the government to carry on historical dialogue while lending support to dialogue at non-governmental levels to encourage scholars to prepare guidelines that draw on their experiences and make full use of their assets.