Japan office never existed in 4th century

Home > National > Politics

print dictionary print

Japan office never existed in 4th century


Cho Kwang, second from left, the Korean head of the Korea-Japan Joint History Research Committee, enters the press briefing room at the Foreign Ministry in Seoul yesterday. Cho offered findings of the joint study on sensitive historical events and admitted the two sides still had many differences. [YONHAP]

After two years of joint study, 34 historians from Korea and Japan have agreed to rewrite one small but significant point of history - but whether Japanese textbook publishers will agree to do the same remains to be seen.

The Korea-Japan Joint History Research Committee yesterday revealed that the study that began in June 2007 failed to establish common interpretations of several sensitive historical events.

However, they did agree that a disputed Japanese government office said to have been established in the fourth century to rule Korean kingdoms never existed. Some Japanese history textbooks have written that the Imna Japanese Headquarters was set up in the southern part of the Korean Peninsula and ruled ancient Korean dynasties such as Baekje and Silla through the sixth century.

The nonexistent headquarters have been used by some Japanese to justify their country’s annexation of Korea by arguing that Japan was merely following in the footsteps of its imperialist ancestors.

Cho Kwang, the Korean head of the research committee, said it will ask the Japanese government to request that textbook publishers remove sections about the Imna headquarters. But the historians’ recommendations cannot be enforced, as they are not legally binding. Cho acknowledged that historians still have much work left to do to narrow their differences.

“Seventeen historians from each country selected 24 topics of common interest, and there are many differences still left unresolved,” Cho said. “Through dozens of meetings, we discussed what we have in common and where we have our differences.”

A significant area of disagreement was the signing of the Eulsa Treaty in 1905. The deal stripped Korea of its diplomatic sovereignty and full annexation occurred five years later. While some in Japan have still argued the treaty was legally sound, Koreans have countered that the deal was forced upon them by the Japanese.

Addressing the study on the deal, Cho said the Japanese historians “offered quite different opinions and we told them we couldn’t agree with their view.” Cho added, however, that the historians’ view doesn’t necessarily represent the position of the Japanese government. The Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and Korea, signed in 1965, nullified the Eulsa deal.

Cho explained that the 1910 annexation itself wasn’t among the 24 topics of study.

The committee was established in October 2001, following a summit between the leaders at the time, Korean President Kim Dae-jung and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. The first round of the joint research was completed in June 2005.

The latest findings will be published in books and CDs and will be distributed to government agencies, universities, historical research bodies and textbook publishers.

By Yoo Jee-ho [jeeho@joongang.co.kr]
Related Korean Article

2기 한·일역사공동위 활동 종료

제2기 한·일역사공동연구위원회가 23일 최종 보고서를 발표했다. 2기 위원회는 2007년 6월 출범했다. 이날로 공식 막을 내린 셈이다. 3기의 구성 여부는 아직 정해지지 않았다.

2기 위원회는 모두 24개의 의제를 다뤘다. ‘고대 왕권의 성장과 한·일관계-임나 문제를 포함하여’ ‘14~15세기 동아시아 해역 세계와 한·일 관계’ ‘지배체제와 이데올로기’ ‘교과서와 근대·근대성’ 등이다. 양측을 합쳐 모두 34명의 역사학자가 참여했다. 총 57편의 논문을 발표했다. 한국 측 28편, 일본 측 29편이다.

이 위원회가 역사 해석에 강제력을 갖는 것은 아니다. 2001년 한·일 정상 간에 처음 구성을 논의할 때 합의한 원칙은 지금도 유지된다. 보고서 내용이 당장 양국의 교과서에 반영되는 것도 아니다. 하지만 교과서 집필자가 위원회의 새로운 연구 성과를 참고하지 않을 순 없다.

2기 위원회는 ▶임나일본부설의 폐기 ▶왜구 조선인설 폐기 ▶교과서위원회 설치 등의 성과를 내놓았다. 1기 위원회에서 다뤄지지 않았던 내용이다. 임나일본부설은 일본 식민사관의 중심축이었다. 고대 한반도의 가야 지역을 당시 일본의 야마토 정권이 군사적으로 지배했다는 주장이다. 당연히 우리는 인정하지 않았다. 이번 위원회에서 일본 측은 기존의 입장보다 신축적인 모습을 보였다. 임나 문제와 관련, 일본 측 보고서는 “한반도에서 왜인의 활동 흔적은 여러 곳에서 인정되지만, 왜국의 영토가 존재했다는 이해는 불가능하다”고 했다. 또 “왜국이 (한반도에서) 대대적인 군사 전개를 했다는 이해에는 재검토·정정이 필요하다”고 했다. 우리 입장에서는 ‘일본의 가야 지배설’이 이제 폐기됐다고 해석할 수 있는 대목이다.

  • 한글 기사 보기

  • Log in to Twitter or Facebook account to connect
    with the Korea JoongAng Daily
    help-image Social comment?
    lock icon

    To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.

    Standards Board Policy (0/250자)

    What’s Popular Now