뉴스레터

On April 2, 2014, an expert workshop on 'Comparison of Territorial Education Among Korea, China, and Japan and Our Response,' hosted by the Northeast Asian History Foundation's Northeast Asia/Dokdo Education Institute, was held at the NAHF Conference Room. At this expert workshop, about 20 related experts in territorial education from Korea, China, and Japan gathered together, presenting papers and having discussions on "Dokdo Education in Japan and Korea's Response" and "The Current Status of Territorial Education in Korea, China, and Japan."

Currently in Northeast Asia, a 'historical war' is being waged. There have been countless confrontations over territory since humanity came into existence. Korea, China, and Japan are supposed to conduct territorial education toward the peaceful development of the Northeast Asian region. In reality, however, these Northeast Asian countries are teaching the territorial controversies as they are in their classrooms. This academic conference was designed by the NAHF to explore practical solutions through a comparison of territorial education in the three Northeast Asian countries.

Northeast Asia/Dokdo Education In Desperate Need to Be Strengthened

At the discussions held that day, the contents and direction of Japan's Dokdo education under the Guidelines for the Course of Study announced by the Education Ministry of Japan (MEXT) in January 2014 were reviewed. In addition, the contents and direction of Japan's and China's territorial education and the direction of Korea's systematic territorial education were examined. And the direction of history education on global levels for historical reconciliation and co-existence in Northeast Asia encompassing Japan and China was explored. Finally, there was a serious look into the overall situations and challenges of territorial education in Korea, China, and Japan.

Specifically, Professor Kim Ji-hoon at Sungkyunkwan University, speaking on "Territorial Issues and History Education in China," noted that China was offering detailed descriptions about Hong Kong and Macao because they were considering the possibility of unification with Taiwan. Professor Park Chul-woong at Chonnam National University, speaking on "The Status of Territorial Education in Shimane Prefecture of Japan," claimed that Dokdo education in Japan had spread nationwide with the Japanese people's territorial consciousness becoming stronger since the launch of the Abe administration. Professor Kim Ho-dong at Yeungnam University, speaking on "How to Strengthen Dokdo Education Programs in Korea," argued that more depth should be added to the programs by identifying Dokdo's historical, geographical, political, military, and economic significances.

In addition, myself, Professor Song Ho-young at Seowon University, and Research Fellow Nam Sang-gu at the NAHF spoke on "The Status of Japan's Territory Education," "The Status and Challenge of Korea's Territory Education," and "The Status of Descriptions of Dokdo in Japanese Textbooks," respectively, presenting the status of Dokdo education in Japan and proposing the direction of Dokdo education in Korea.

The experts who attended the workshop emphasized three points: first, response logic should be developed through an in-depth review of territorial education in Japan and China; second, Korea needed to make systematic efforts for the defense of Northeast Asia/Dokdo sovereignty; and third, Northeast Asia/Dokdo Education aimed at clearly explaining Korea's determination to promote the correct perception of history through cooperation for reconciliation in Northeast Asia, history education for preparing the people for unification, and defend our sovereignty over Dokdo needed to be strengthened. They also reached consensus on the need for a Northeast Asian Territorial Education Hall.