뉴스레터

The Jeju Forum is an occasion to search for ways to steadily realize peace and prosperity in a region as dynamic as East Asia. For the 13th forum held in 2018, the theme was "Reengineering Peace for Asia" and the session hosted by the Northeast Asian History Foundation was titled "Historical Reconciliation and the Future-oriented Korea-Japan Relationship." An air of reconciliation has lately been brought to Northeast Asia in 2018 with the Inter-Korean summit in April and the North Korea-United States summit in June. These changing circumstances require mutual understanding and cooperation between South Korea and Japan, but issues involving disparate historical perceptions remain as an obstacle keeping the two countries from improving their bilateral relations.

Hoping to help the two countries resolve conflicts over history through a future-oriented approach, the Northeast Asian History Foundation organized a session at the Jeju Forum where NAHF President Kim Do-hyung served as chair to presentations by Professor Emeritus Chung Jae-jeong of the University of Seoul and Professor Umeno Masanobu of Joetsu University and the subsequent discussion in which Professor Ha Jong-moon of Hanshin University and NAHF Research fellow Nam Sang-gu participated.

Overcoming Self-centered Interpretations of History

Professor Emeritus Chung Jae-jeong began his presentation by summarizing the circumstances in East Asia and changes occurring in each country. The key words to describe South Korea were accomplishment and confusion, while they were plight and provocation for North Korea, rigidity and power for China, exertion and regeneration for Japan. The United States was described as undiminished as it carries out a policy to reorganize East Asia. South Korea therefore needs to become objectively aware of reality and cool-headed in examining international circumstances. Statistics on South Korea, China, and Japan's respective GDP and their volume of trade and exchange show that China and Japan are major trade partners for South Korea. Although the three countries continue to grow more interdependent and increasingly engage in exchange, they don't seem too fond of one another yet. Their growing interdependence amid animosity due to historical issues has come to be labeled as the "East Asian Paradox."

To understand the background that gave rise to the East Asian paradox, it is necessary to look at history education in Korea, China, and Japan and the process through which people in each country form historical perceptions. Korean history education possesses strong nationalistic tendencies. Japan's postwar perception of history has improved through democratic education, but the Abe administration has reverted to emphasizing local customs, traditions, myths, and loyalty to the Japanese emperor. China has been promoting the idea of a unified multi-ethnic nation and Sino-nationalism. These circumstances have developed into sources of historical conflict in East Asia and has made it necessary to dispel national exceptionalism. In other words, it is necessary to overcome excessive nationalism, place greater value on the previously neglected history of exchange and cooperation, acknowledge diversity in historical perceptions, and emphasize universal values such as human rights, peace, freedom, and democracy.

Based on his experience in joint research and exchange with historians in Japan, China, and other countries around the world, Professor Chung mentioned etiological treatment, allopathic treatment, and daily guidance as metaphors to suggest ways to overcome historical conflicts. He explained that the treatments are temporary but lasting measures that still require long periods of time to perform, which makes it important to base history education upon historical studies. If scholars make the effort, Northeast Asian countries can achieve what EU countries have managed to in expanding the realm of historical perception sharable among neighboring countries. Professor Chung further recommended that it is likely to be more effective to start with areas in which countries can easily mutually benefit from such as projects involving economic cooperation, the exchange of workers and students, or the environment.

As an example of reconciliation and communal spirit, Professor Chung mentioned Korean independence activist Ahn Jung-geun's idea of East Asian peace. Ahn Jung-geun envisioned Korea, China, and Japan forming a joint army on equal terms to defend themselves from being invaded by foreign powers and also suggested forming an economic community by establishing a joint venture bank.

Historical Discussions and Sharing Research Outcomes

Professor Umeno Masanobu diagnosed that Korea and Japan are currently in a stagnant phase and raised the importance of engaging in historical discussions as well as cumulating and sharing outcomes from academic exchange. Because Japan's postwar settlements proceeded without consulting Korea, Korea was unable to bring up issues related to differing historical perceptions in its relations with Japan up until the 1980s. Exchange and discussions regarding history were completely absent between the two countries before the textbook issue arose in the 1980s, but more genuine opportunities for historical discussion and reconciliation emerged since the 1990s.

Japanese statements apologizing for and reflecting upon past wrongdoings such as the Miyazawa Statement or the Kono Statement were criticized in Japan, but they had to be released to people both in Korea and Japan because they had been made by Japanese government officials.

Meanwhile, more than 100 lawsuits involving Japanese war crimes have been carried out in Japan since the 1990s. For various reasons, victims have rarely won lawsuits on postwar compensation, but such lawsuits still managed to bring about considerable progress for forcing Japan to acknowledge facts about its past wrongdoings. In particular, Japan had to acknowledge the fact that Asian women were forcibly mobilized as "comfort women" for the Japanese military while it carried out colonization and wars of aggression against Asian countries. Japan had to admit and openly recognize the fact that it actually took people away against their will to serve its own purposes.

It was around 2000 when the textbook authored by the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform caused controversy, but there haven't been enough opportunities to widely publicize the issue to people both in Korea and Japan. Historical discussions between Korea and Japan that ensued since then resulted in publishing joint textbooks and launching the Korea-Japan Joint History Research Committee. However, bilateral historical exchange has grown stagnant over the past ten years. No further joint publications have been released and the joint committee has ceased to engage in further activities. These circumstances are what caused Professor Umeno Masanobu to define the current situation as a stagnant phase. In order to escape this phase, Professor Umeno suggested the need to try to review and share progress made thus far. The first step to doing so would be to summarize and share official statements made by the Korean and Japanese governments so as not to waste what has been achieved so far.

Constant Efforts Toward Historical Reconciliation

On the aforementioned presentations, Professor Ha Jong-moon questioned how the recent wave of reconciliation between the two Koreas may affect historical conflicts in East Asia. He was hoping that inter-Korean reconciliation might be able to help search for a new form of historical reconciliation in East Asia. Research fellow Nam Sang-gu suggested that Japanese statements of apology and self-reflection are common assets for Korea and Japan and that it is important for such assets to be made available for East Asia to use.

The Northeast Asian History Foundation’s session was full of attendees and they were able to pose questions with the assistance of simultaneous interpretation service provided on site. NAHF President Kim Do-hyung said that historical reconciliation is not something that can be quickly achieved, but rather a process of endless discussions to discover and acknowledge similarities and differences. He wrapped up the session by pointing out that historians are not the only ones charged with the task of solving historical issues and that the task can be gradually accomplished when everyone takes part in considering such issues in their daily lives.