뉴스레터

Born in 1940. He was the first Korean to be appointed professor at Japan's Tokyo University. He was the professor of economics at Kyungpook National University from 1971 to 2003. He also served as a member of Forum 21 of Japan's Asahi Shimbun; member of the Korea's Presidential Advisory Council of Education, Science & Technology; and the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy. He has been serving as the president of Yuhan University since August 2003.

Kim, Young-ho

On May 10, 214 Korean and Japanese intellectuals issued a joint declaration in Seoul and Tokyo, respectively, marking the centennial of Japan's annexation of Korea. How did this joint declaration come about?

Personally, I have long been interested in this issue. When I published a paper last year for the centennial of the death of the patriotic martyr Ahn Jung-geun, I thought there needed to be a declaration from Japan in 2010—the centennial of Japan's forced annexation of Korea—stating that the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty was null and void. I became determined to bring about a Korea-Japan joint declaration or a government statement or Diet resolution from Japan that surpasses the Murayama statement issued in 1995. On December 18, 2009, I went to Tokyo to meet with Japanese scholars to begin discussions. It was not a spur-of-the-moment idea. It had been a long-term interest of mine and something I had thought I needed to do as a Korean.

The mainstream attitude in Japanese academia is that while Japan can be held morally accountable for the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty, the treaty itself is not invalid. The declaration of 2010 is the first joint declaration by Korea and Japanese scholars stating that Japan's annexation of Korea was invalid. Tell us about the process that led to the consensus that the annexation was invalid.

Since the 1990s, there have been remarks by Japanese cabinet members and prime ministers admitting that Japan's annexation of Korea had been forced and imperialistic. The pinnacle was the Murayama statement. Former Prime Minister Murayama admitted that the annexation of Korea had been unjust; the Korean people were under duress and signed the agreement against their will. However, the Murayama statement still held that the treaty itself was technically valid. Given the circumstances, it was not easy for Japanese scholars to declare the annexation treaty to have been null and void; they could so only because they were courageous. Hence, I would like to express my profound respect for the 104 Japanese intellectuals who signed the declaration.

We know that you and Professor Wada Haruki played an important role in making this declaration a reality. While working on the joint declaration, which issues caused the most heated debate or posed the greatest challenges consensus-building with Japanese scholars?

The most challenging part was agreeing that the treaty was null and void because it was unfair and unjust. Proving the illegality of a treaty is a complex and challenging matter that has to with international law. Therefore, the goal was to formulate a declaration stating that the treaty was null and void because it was unfair and unjust. We figured this would be feasible if we approached the matter with a sense of justice and worked hard to persuade Japanese scholars. Thus, we decided not to include the word "illegal" and demonstrate the treaty's illegality in other ways. We were going to make it clear that the annexation did not reflect the will of the Korean people in any way whatsoever. We set out to show that the Korean officials present at the treaty's signing were not figures of authority. Thus, we planned to reveal the problems and flaws in the process by which Japan annexed Korea, and in so doing, ultimately prove that the annexation treaty was null and void. Specifically, we came to an agreement to use "many" as in "many problems" in the place of "illegal."

Afterwards, however, many pointed out that it could lead to misunderstandings if we did not use the expression "clearly illegal." It was pointed out that the term "many" holds no significance in international law. I went to Tokyo to resolve this issue. Upon discussion, we decided to revise "many" to "significant" and include "illegal" in the declaration. The process was challenging. It would have been impossible if it weren't for Professor Haruki's wide network of friends and colleagues as well as credibility and academic integrity.

The declaration was issued simultaneously in Seoul and Tokyo. Unlike the Korean press, the Japanese press' reaction is said to have been apathetic. Is that true?

First, I think it has to do with the different press cultures of Japan and Korea. I met with former Prime Minister Murayama when he visited Korea. He said he had been moved by the press coverage of the Korea-Japan joint declaration and expressed his wholehearted support. The title of the Joongang Ilbo interview with Prime Minister Murayama was "Wholehearted support for the joint declaration by Korean and Japanese intellectuals." Japanese economists whom I know personally called me, expressing their interest in signing the declaration. One Japanese magazine requested an interview. Thus, I don't think Japan has been apathetic to the declaration. On the contrary, I think it has made a significant impact on Japanese intellectuals. Professor Wada Haruki also said the declaration's impact on Japanese society has been enormous.

In a recent interview, you said, "In some respects, I think we resolved a 100-year-old issue." Nevertheless, there are still many issues two nations have yet to resolve. What are your plans in this regard?

We have decided to run a newspaper ad if the number of Japanese signatories of the declaration reaches 1,000. At the moment, we are working on increasing the number of signatories by 500 each in Korea and Japan. We are also organizing a symposium in Japan at the end of July. Thereafter, we plan for the Korean representative and the Japanese representative of the declaration to submit the declaration to our respective governments and recommend a state-level declaration of the invalidity of Japan's annexation of Korea. A Harvard professor expressed his desire to take part in the declaration after reading about it online. Thus, we are discussing ways to get intellectuals around the world involved.

It is deemed that governmental efforts are crucial for true reconciliation. Thus, some have pointed that the significance of the 2010 joint declaration by Korean and Japanese intellectuals is limited.

This is not something bureaucrats can solve. Politicians, for their part, have to worry about public sentiment. Therefore, even if they have a personal interest in the matter, it is difficult for them to contribute to the matter's resolution. Accordingly, the intellectuals in both countries must lead the way. Until now, intellectuals have not proposed solutions and applied pressure to Korean and Japanese governments on issues unresolved at the state level. Professors at Beijing University have expressed their interest in coming to a consensus on issues between Korea and China in a similar way as Korea and Japan have done through the 2010 joint declaration. I think the joint declaration on the invalidity of Japan's annexation of Korea is a new model created by the intellectuals of Korea and Japan for the resolution of Northeast Asian historical issues.

Please summarize the significance of the 2010 joint declaration by Korea and Japanese intellectuals claiming the annexation of Korea to have been null and void.

This may be an indirect answer to the question. When I was a professor at Tokyo University, I published a piece for a column claiming the following: Japan is not a frog in a well but a whale. Japan's way of thinking and ideological framework is still trapped in a well. That is why Japan is a whale in a well. By "whale in a well," I meant Japan is trying to move forward without having dealt with the lingering issues of the past. In order for Japan to emerge from the well and become a whale in the ocean, it must resolve historical issues. And the key to resolving historical issues is acknowledging that Japan's forced annexation of Korea was null and void. When it does that, Japan will be able to achieve historical reconciliation with its Asian neighbors.

Do you have any advice for the Northeast Asian History Foundation regarding its role and tasks?

Some have suggested announcing the joint declaration at the Independence Hall of Korea or the Kim Koo Museum & Library. However, the ultimate aim of the 2010 joint declaration was internationalism and an East Asian community that transcend nation-centrism. That is why we did not issue the declaration at these venues. We want to succeed Ahn Jung-geun's ideology and move beyond nationalism to realize a peaceful East Asian community. That is what I would like the Northeast Asian History Foundation to strive for as well.