Newsletter

Cho, Gwang
He served as the president of the Research Society of Korean History and the chairperson of the second Korea-Japan Joint History Research Committee from 2007 to 2009. He is currently a professor at the Department of Korean History at Korea University. His key works include Issues in Korea-Japan History, 'East Asian Context in the Study of Korean History' (the Journal of the Korean Historical Association, 2006), 'Adoption and Circulation of Books on Western Studies in the Late Joseon Period' (KOREAN CULTURAL STUDIES, 2006).

The second Korea-Japan Joint History Research Committee has completed its term. What did the second committee seek to achieve, and what were its achievements? What were some improvements the second committee made vis-à-vis the first?

Founded in 2002, the first Korea committee carried out its activities from 2003 to 2005, and the second, from 2007 to 2009. Given their long shared history, Korea and Japan's understandings of history are strewn with disagreements. While both the first and second committees had worked on issues of historical disputes, the specific issues treated were different. Therefore, each committee holds its unique significance. The second committee formed the Textbook Committee (called "Textbook Subcommittee" by the Japanese side) and dealt with not only the history and institutions of history textbooks but also current textbook-related issues. This can be regarded as the progress the second committee made relative to the first.

What were the major issues addressed by the Korea-Japan Joint History Research Committee?

The key issue was the process of modern colonization. Japan's colonization of Korea was a singular case of one country colonizing another within the same civilization. That is why the Korea-Japan colonial experience cannot but be the focal point of Korea and Japan's modern history. Nevertheless, given that pre-modern history is the root of modern history; pre-modern issues are also given a good share of attention. We have been able to find points of mutual agreement on pre-modern history, but modern history still requires much work.

What are the most acute points of dissension in modern history between Korea and Japan?

The most severe divergence in historical understanding is in the legitimacy of the imperial treaties concluded in the process of colonization. This is directly linked to the legitimacy of Japan's colonial rule over Korea. In the past, a large majority of the Japanese claimed that Japan's colonial rule was legitimate. There has been continued historical dialogue, however, and Korea has persistently taken issue with Japan's claim that its colonial rule over Korea had been legitimate. As a result, Japan has begun to acknowledge that Korea had signed the treaties under duress. Disagreements cannot but be pronounced in the issues regarding the legitimacy of bilateral treaties, forced mobilization, "comfort women," and Japanese military sexual slavery.

One achievement of the second committee was the official rejection by the Japanese academia of the theory of the Mimana colony/military outpost [任那日本府說], which claims that Japan had ruled over the southern areas of the Korean peninsula in ancient times. However, Japan still maintains that Japan's aggression toward Korea was justified and that Japan's colonial rule led to Korea's modernization. Is this opinion of the majority of Japanese scholars?

Japanese and Korean scholars have come to an agreement that the theory of the Mimana colony/military outpost is not academically valid. The inclusion of the theory in the textbooks of Fusosha [扶桑社] and other ultra right-wing publishers had been a source of conflict. The second committee carried out a thorough period-by-period study of the theories concerning the establishment of Korea-Japan relations in the ancient period. However, the conclusions and findings of the Joint History Research Committee are not binding. This is because neither the Korean nor the Japanese government publishes school textbooks; the two governments operate textbook authorization systems. Therefore, it is up to the authors and publishers to make relevant revisions. That is why we hope that the Joint History Research Committee's reports enjoy wide distribution among textbook authors; publishers; administrative bodies; Ministry of Education, Cultures, Sports, Science and Technology; and pertinent research institutes so that historical inaccuracies can be rectified.

The legitimacy of Japan's colonization and modernization of Korea is not the opinion of the majority of the Japanese academia, which leans only toward the modernization half. There are also some Japanese scholars who agree that Japan's colonization of Korea was exploitative. Historical dialogues are gradually turning mainstream Japanese history academia away from the premise that Japan's colonization of Korea had been legitimate.

Did the second committee discuss the Dokdo issue?

Dokdo is not only a contemporary issue concerning territoriality; it is also a historical issue that pertains to Japan's imperialist aggression. Effective control is important in determining territorial sovereignty. If we raise the Dokdo issue as if Dokdo were a disputed territory, we will be playing into Japan's hands. Hence, we did not raise Dokdo as an issue for joint research.

How do you think the findings of the second committee will affect history education in Korea and Japan?

While the Joint History Research Committee had set out to address Korea and Japan's divergent historical understandings, we have been focusing more on the problems in Japanese history textbooks. The second committee aimed to provide Japanese researchers and textbook authors the findings of the first and second committees to encourage objective, academic judgments on historical issues. The committees' findings have been agreed upon by Japanese and Korean scholars. Therefore, any conscientious scholar should find no problems adopting them if they assess the findings to be logically consistent.

What are the tasks that the second committee has left behind for the third committee to address?

I can talk about the content and management. The goal of Korea-Japan Joint History Research Committee is to lay bare both those areas of mutual agreement as well as disagreement regarding Korea and Japan's historical truths. There are still many issues regarding which Korean and Japanese views diverge, including the legitimacy of Korea-Japan treaties, the Korean independence movement, and damage sustained by Koreans in the Great Kanto Earthquake. We believe that persistent dialogue to bring historical truths to light will gradually narrow these differences of perception. These are some of the issues that the third committee must tackle.

In terms of management, there is a need to raise efficiency given that the term for each session is limited to two years. A good way to enhance efficiency would be for the chairperson of either country to first appoint an executive coordinator. The executive coordinators can then contact one another to appoint the appropriate researchers for each given issue or project.

This is a historically significant year in that it is the centennial of Japan's forced annexation of Korea and the 60th anniversary of Korean War. Therefore, there is work to be done, not just by the history academia but also by the government. So what do we ask of the government?

Unless we resolve lingering historical issues, it is difficult to resolve any of the current issues facing Korea and Japan. Resolving the historical issues between the two nations is like removing a minefield. The task requires active interest in and a strong will to work out the issues of history. We believe Korean history education for the people, who constitute the nation, must be strengthened.