뉴스레터

The situation of Northeast Asia today is often compared to that of Europe on the brink of World War I exactly a hundred years ago. In both continents, although a hundred years and oceans apart, countries are, or were, in conflict with one another over historical or territorial issues. Against this backdrop, the Northeast Asian History Foundation's roles have never been greater.

Over the short period of less than a decade, the Northeast Asian History Foundation has been quite productive, carrying out various large-scale projects that are so numerous that their titles alone will easily fill more than a hundred pages. However, if the massive volume of results produced by these projects are simply wasted without being put to good use, it would be no better than not having conducted any projects at all in the first place.

One of the ideas to make better use of research results is to interlink them as they are accumulated. Only when the earlier research is accepted critically by the later research can research results be used more efficiently and can progress in learning be also made. It is necessary not only to build a research database and make it available on the homepage for easy access but to make it searchable with keyword and produce the abstract of the study for the user to read at once.

Making its research projects more accessible and useful is also a way to boost the authority of the Northeast Asian History Foundation. The source of that authority is quality rather than quantity, universality rather than specificity, and openness rather than exclusiveness.

Exclusive Occupation and Open Sharing

Given the nature of the modern state system, history and territory are inevitably very exclusive. In Northeast Asia, unlike in Europe where crossing borders is free under the Schengen Agreement, crossing borders is under strict control. In this modern state system, the idea of sharing a certain part of territory is inconceivable.

There are movements toward the exclusive ownership of a certain part of history, but I don't think that sharing our history with other countries is an absolutely bad idea. If an external force (or adjacent neighbor) lays claims to a certain part of our history, it may seem to have the effect of shrinking our territory today. On the flip side, however, it also means that we used to occupy what belongs to a different community today. Therefore, either exclusive occupation or open sharing can be both good and bad in its own right.

Present Relations Determine Historical Conflict

It is often said that the history between two countries controls their bilateral relations today. But the opposite is also true; the bilateral relations today determine historical conflict between the two countries. It is impossible to interpret history without adding subjective elements to it. The discrepancy in interpretation that results from such subjectivity can either increase or decrease, depending on whether present relations are hostile or friendly. One of the distinct features of friend-foe relations is reciprocity. If one country is friendly towards another, this country also feels friendly to the other. Conversely, if one country is hostile towards another, this country also feels hostile toward the other. Therefore, reciprocity can make historical issues undermine present friendly relations but it can also help solve historical issues.

Such bilateral relations are also closely related to preference for other countries. When the First World War broke out a hundred years ago, Italy broke its alliance with Germany and Austria and joined forces with the other side. In fact, whether to help or not help a country in a time of crisis is not fully determined by alliance alone. In Northeast Asia, there is a tendency to be friendly to an ally of an ally, hostile to an enemy of an ally, and hostile to an ally of an enemy. Although there is no tendency to be friendly to an enemy of an enemy, of course, there is an overall tendency of structural balance. It is also in the context of multilateral relations of this structural balance that Northeast Asia's historical and territorial issues unfold. If there is a historical or territorial issue with a certain country, not only the country concerned but other countries within Northeast Asia and even countries outside the region must be also taken into consideration.

It is often said that countries' real interests in territorial sovereignty determine their territorial perception. But it is more often the case that their territorial perception determines territorial disputes. This causality is quite opposite of the materialistic view of history that base structure determines superstructure. For example, the issues concerning Dokdo or Ieodo cause conflict because they relate to the identity issue, even though they do not directly concern a majority of the Japanese or the Chinese as well as the Korean in real life. Although there is a distinction to be made between resistance-oriented identity and supremacy-oriented identity, excessive identity is inevitably subject to criticism.

Post-modern Upgrade of the Traditional Territorial Identity

In particular, the Japanese government's strengthening of territorial education makes it even more difficult to resolve the territorial issue. According to the poll, conducted in 2013 by the Japanese government, the percentage of the Japanese who perceived Dokdo as their country's territory was not very high. But this low percentage will increase rapidly in a few years because of the Japanese government's intentional strengthening of territorial education. It is necessary to start right now investigating the territorial identities of Northeast Asian countries in a positive and objective manner. This is not only for bringing Korea a favorable conclusion of the issue but for preventing the widening of the gap in perception between the countries concerned to help lead to reconciliation and prosperity in Northeast Asia.

In politics, economy, international law, and history, the traditional concept of territory places emphasis on exclusive jurisdiction and specific interests. By contrast, the cultural and artistic concept of territory is closer to a universal value transcending the state and also to a post-modern concept of territory. Of course, cultural or artistic territory does not always bring about coexistence and win-win situations, as we can see in, for example, cultural imperialism and colonies. Ironically, it is because of such characteristic that those who adhere to specificity and modernity can also agree to the cultural and artistic ways of strengthening sovereignty. It is desirable to upgrade historical views or sovereignty in post-modern as well as modern ways.