[In-depth interview] Attempting to mend fences with Japan
Published: 23 Feb. 2010, 19:03
Chung Jae-jeong, president of the Northeast Asian History Foundation, hopes that 2010 will go down in history as a key turning point in Korea-Japan relations.
As head of the organization that studies and attempts to resolve historical conflicts in the region, Chung said now is a fitting time to turn over a new leaf given that this year marks the 100th anniversary of Japan’s annexation of Korea.
Along those lines, he believes that Japan should take a major step forward and publicly declare that the move was illegal, which Chung says would set the tone for the next 100 years.
“We’ve reached a point where the two countries should build relationships at a higher level,” Chung said last week in his office at the foundation, which launched in 2006 and is based in Seoul.
In an interview with the JoongAng Daily, Chung offered his assessment of the current situation between the two countries and touched on what he thinks needs to happen to improve ties.
Q. What do you think of Korea-Japan relations today?
A. I think they are in very good shape. With Korean President Lee Myung-bak and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama in office, I think relations are closer than ever and that the two sides can really communicate with each other.
The Democratic Party of Japan has talked about confronting the country’s past and building future-oriented ties with Korea. But the party has also seemed overly cautious. What is your take?
There are many factions within the party but those in power have a fairly good understanding of Japan’s history in regards to Korea. Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada once said Japan’s annexation in 1910 may have been inevitable given the climate of international politics at the time. But that had long been the Japanese government’s stance and Japan is only now trying to break away from that. I think Okada himself was trying to do the same and he was caught at a crossroads. He came to Seoul soon after that and acknowledged that he understood the annexation hurt Koreans’ pride.
What should the Korean government do in response to Japan’s careful approach?
Through close consultations and dialogue, we should try to create an environment conducive to changing the Japanese government’s position. Only 50 years ago, the Japanese thought the 1910 annexation was legal and justified and that it even helped Korea. It wasn’t until 1995 that Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama issued a statement essentially apologizing for Japan’s colonial rule in general, which caused tremendous damage and suffering to Koreans.
But Murayama made no reference to 1910. Fifteen years have passed since. I think now is the time for Japan to address the issue of the 1910 annexation treaty. Okada’s words [during his visit to Seoul on Feb. 11] were a step in that direction. Japan has to acknowledge that the treaty was forcefully signed despite strong opposition from Koreans. If Japan can do that, then the bitterness and hard feelings between the two will be alleviated, and that would lay the groundwork for the next 100 years. It’s important that an atmosphere for this is built through discussions at the government and academic levels.
And you believe this is a milestone year to do that, right?
Yes, and by doing that we can build future-oriented ties. Having said that, I think Korea shouldn’t make unreasonable demands that Japan wouldn’t be able to accept. Some hard-liners have declared the 1910 treaty invalid and asked for full compensation for annexation. The Japanese government wouldn’t realistically take that. As long as the two sides negotiate over what to accept, then I think it’s quite possible that Japan would make that acknowledgement.
How would you assess Murayama’s statement 15 years after the fact?
In the context of the time, 1995, I regard it very highly. Only 30 years earlier, in 1965, Japanese considered annexation completely legal and justified. Even the progressives felt that way. Those who disapproved of the annexation did so not because they didn’t like the principle, but because they didn’t want Japan to be involved in another war in the region. But as Japan’s economy rebounded [after World War II], people gradually developed a different historical understanding.
Korea also experienced rapid economic improvement, hosted the Olympics [in 1988] and achieved democracy, and then the Japanese began to look at Korea in a different light. And by 1995, the Japanese people had a fairer understanding of history than before, and Murayama’s statement was a reflection of that. The prime minister was met with domestic opposition. But in 1998, Korean President Kim Dae-jung and Japan’s Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi reached a partnership agreement. In the introduction, Japan apologized for causing Koreans tremendous damage and suffering through its colonial rule. It was the first officially documented apology from Japan.
Can we count on a similar statement from the Hatoyama government?
Yes. The current Japanese government should go a step further than Murayama and Obuchi. First, it has to mention the 1910 annexation treaty. It has to say that the treaty was reached even though the Korean people were fiercely against it. Second, Japan shouldn’t just look back on the past 100 years; it should look forward to the next 100 years. The leaders of the two countries must come up with a message that will touch their people, East Asia and the entire world. Korea is not the Korea from the past, and Japan is not the same Japan either. It can’t do things all by itself in Asia anymore. This is the time that Korea and Japan can deliver a message that will allow them to join forces to build a new world. The leaders could visit a historical site, recognize their past and prepare to move forward.
Japanese history textbooks have been known to contain disputed information and list them as facts, claiming for instance that the Dokdo Islets are part of Japan’s territory. How should this problem be approached today?
In any country in the world, history textbooks can never be free from hints of nationalism. They give the countries their identity. But it’s important that textbooks should be written to reflect historical facts, especially when they involve other countries. However, the Dokdo issue is different. It’s about a territorial claim. Dokdo is currently our territory and the important thing for us to do is to make sure things stay that way and don’t boil over any more.
Obviously, Japan won’t simply wave the white flag and declare Dokdo is Korea’s. But if Korea can keep its composure and work with Japan on bigger issues, then I think the Dokdo dispute will take care of itself. We think of this as a sovereignty issue, but many Japanese feel that it’s about mere fishing rights.
By Yoo Jee-ho [[email protected]]
As head of the organization that studies and attempts to resolve historical conflicts in the region, Chung said now is a fitting time to turn over a new leaf given that this year marks the 100th anniversary of Japan’s annexation of Korea.
Along those lines, he believes that Japan should take a major step forward and publicly declare that the move was illegal, which Chung says would set the tone for the next 100 years.
“We’ve reached a point where the two countries should build relationships at a higher level,” Chung said last week in his office at the foundation, which launched in 2006 and is based in Seoul.
In an interview with the JoongAng Daily, Chung offered his assessment of the current situation between the two countries and touched on what he thinks needs to happen to improve ties.
Q. What do you think of Korea-Japan relations today?
A. I think they are in very good shape. With Korean President Lee Myung-bak and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama in office, I think relations are closer than ever and that the two sides can really communicate with each other.
The Democratic Party of Japan has talked about confronting the country’s past and building future-oriented ties with Korea. But the party has also seemed overly cautious. What is your take?
There are many factions within the party but those in power have a fairly good understanding of Japan’s history in regards to Korea. Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada once said Japan’s annexation in 1910 may have been inevitable given the climate of international politics at the time. But that had long been the Japanese government’s stance and Japan is only now trying to break away from that. I think Okada himself was trying to do the same and he was caught at a crossroads. He came to Seoul soon after that and acknowledged that he understood the annexation hurt Koreans’ pride.
What should the Korean government do in response to Japan’s careful approach?
Through close consultations and dialogue, we should try to create an environment conducive to changing the Japanese government’s position. Only 50 years ago, the Japanese thought the 1910 annexation was legal and justified and that it even helped Korea. It wasn’t until 1995 that Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama issued a statement essentially apologizing for Japan’s colonial rule in general, which caused tremendous damage and suffering to Koreans.
But Murayama made no reference to 1910. Fifteen years have passed since. I think now is the time for Japan to address the issue of the 1910 annexation treaty. Okada’s words [during his visit to Seoul on Feb. 11] were a step in that direction. Japan has to acknowledge that the treaty was forcefully signed despite strong opposition from Koreans. If Japan can do that, then the bitterness and hard feelings between the two will be alleviated, and that would lay the groundwork for the next 100 years. It’s important that an atmosphere for this is built through discussions at the government and academic levels.
And you believe this is a milestone year to do that, right?
Yes, and by doing that we can build future-oriented ties. Having said that, I think Korea shouldn’t make unreasonable demands that Japan wouldn’t be able to accept. Some hard-liners have declared the 1910 treaty invalid and asked for full compensation for annexation. The Japanese government wouldn’t realistically take that. As long as the two sides negotiate over what to accept, then I think it’s quite possible that Japan would make that acknowledgement.
How would you assess Murayama’s statement 15 years after the fact?
In the context of the time, 1995, I regard it very highly. Only 30 years earlier, in 1965, Japanese considered annexation completely legal and justified. Even the progressives felt that way. Those who disapproved of the annexation did so not because they didn’t like the principle, but because they didn’t want Japan to be involved in another war in the region. But as Japan’s economy rebounded [after World War II], people gradually developed a different historical understanding.
Korea also experienced rapid economic improvement, hosted the Olympics [in 1988] and achieved democracy, and then the Japanese began to look at Korea in a different light. And by 1995, the Japanese people had a fairer understanding of history than before, and Murayama’s statement was a reflection of that. The prime minister was met with domestic opposition. But in 1998, Korean President Kim Dae-jung and Japan’s Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi reached a partnership agreement. In the introduction, Japan apologized for causing Koreans tremendous damage and suffering through its colonial rule. It was the first officially documented apology from Japan.
Can we count on a similar statement from the Hatoyama government?
Yes. The current Japanese government should go a step further than Murayama and Obuchi. First, it has to mention the 1910 annexation treaty. It has to say that the treaty was reached even though the Korean people were fiercely against it. Second, Japan shouldn’t just look back on the past 100 years; it should look forward to the next 100 years. The leaders of the two countries must come up with a message that will touch their people, East Asia and the entire world. Korea is not the Korea from the past, and Japan is not the same Japan either. It can’t do things all by itself in Asia anymore. This is the time that Korea and Japan can deliver a message that will allow them to join forces to build a new world. The leaders could visit a historical site, recognize their past and prepare to move forward.
Japanese history textbooks have been known to contain disputed information and list them as facts, claiming for instance that the Dokdo Islets are part of Japan’s territory. How should this problem be approached today?
In any country in the world, history textbooks can never be free from hints of nationalism. They give the countries their identity. But it’s important that textbooks should be written to reflect historical facts, especially when they involve other countries. However, the Dokdo issue is different. It’s about a territorial claim. Dokdo is currently our territory and the important thing for us to do is to make sure things stay that way and don’t boil over any more.
Obviously, Japan won’t simply wave the white flag and declare Dokdo is Korea’s. But if Korea can keep its composure and work with Japan on bigger issues, then I think the Dokdo dispute will take care of itself. We think of this as a sovereignty issue, but many Japanese feel that it’s about mere fishing rights.
By Yoo Jee-ho [[email protected]]
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)