뉴스레터

Editor's Note: The Northeast Asian History Foundation, an organization dealing with historical issues among the three East Asian nations, is doing its part in historical diplomacy. With the recently escalating historical conflict in the Northeast Asian region in mind, the NAHF had an interview with Chairperson of the Asan Institute for Policy Studies Lee In-ho (Professor Emeritus at Seoul National University, Advisor for the Association for Contemporary Korean History), who is an elder of the historical community and former Korean ambassador to Finland and also to Russia, seeking wisdom with which to overcome historical conflicts in Korea as well as in East Asia. An expert in Russian history who is also deeply interested in Korean history education, Ms. Lee emphasized that "History shows that in the rise and fall of a nation, the roles of enlightened intellectuals of that nation were extremely important." The in-depth interview with Professor Lee In-ho was conducted on June 10 in her office at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies by NAHF Research Department Team Head Choi Deok-gyu. Choi began by asking her about her great-grandfather, Lee Jung-ha (李重夏), who in the late 19th century dealt with border issues with China with determination.

Choi Deok-gyu,
Director of NAHF
Research Department Team 2

Q Choi Deok-gyu You are known to be a descendent of the patriotic loyalist Lee Jung-ha (李重夏) of the Korean Empire who dealt with the Sino-Korean border issue in 1887. Iadang (二雅堂) Lee Jung-ha is known to have flatly refused the Chinese representative's request when it came to border issues, saying that "I may cut off my topknot, but I can never agree to shrink the border." Tell us more about him.

A Lee In-ho The Korean Empire at that time was so weak that our ancestors' struggle to save their country failed. According to Lee Jung-ha's journal, King Gojong, when briefed on the border issue, seemed resigned to the thought that "part of Korean territory would be taken away and there was nothing he could do about it." Lee Jung-ha, on the other hand, struggled to buy time that would at least allow Koreans who would find themselves outside the border of the Korean Empire to move back into Korean territory. This shows that he cared about the life of the ordinary people and at least tried to help them. As a former diplomat for the Korean government, I can relate to him and understand how difficult it must have been for him as a subject of a small and weak country in the late 19th century to speak for his country about border issues in foreign language. I imagine that our ancestors tried to figure out which of the countries surrounding the Korean peninsula they could turn to for help to save national sovereignty. In this respect, I believe that the Korean Empire's history of rise and fall needs to be examined from various angles, with both the internal problems of the Korean Empire and the moves of surrounding powers taken into consideration. I imagine that the international relations of the time had a profound impact on the fate of the Korean Empire. Unfortunately for me, Lee Jung-ha's journal was written in Chinese. It is regret and shame that even though I am a history major, my Chinese is not good enough for me to read the original and my dialogue with my ancestor is only through a translation.

Q Choi Deok-gyu We are living in a time when the people' interest in history is increasing. However, the youth's knowledge of history is becoming relatively shallow. In your opinion, what caused this problem and how can it be solved?

A Lee In-ho I have long criticized Korean people's increasingly shallow perception of history and the dry and boring method of history education in Korea. History education is supposed to be fun because history is all about the stories of people. But that's not happening in history classes in Korea. History is a story. The Russian term 'istoria' for 'history' also means 'story.' History education is the best way to learn about human beings and society. History humbles us. But in Korea, there is something fundamentally wrong with history education. We need to make history textbooks targeted for different age groups with varying levels of understanding, such as preschoolers, primary/middle/high school students, and college students. Studying history is supposed to be fun and about learning from the past. But in Korea, history is perceived as 'a boring subject,' and history education is mostly about filling students with facts and knowledge.

Many years ago, I was on a project to make a history textbook. We were asked to "make a book" on a very tight schedule of a few months and a tight budget that could only produce a least expensive KBS drama. This is an example of the serious problem of the history community where 'young' historians under fifty, former student activists, introduced their historical perception, which wasn't deep. Besides, the political force in power made history books that highlighted their recent achievements, aggravating the distorted perception of history. History books made by scholars younger than me are favorable to North Korea and disapprove of South Korea for being pro-Japan and pro-America, and have been used in classroom. This is wrong. If we fail to perceive our own history correctly, it is no wonder that we're failing to come up with good measures against Japan's and other neighboring countries' distortion of history. This is unfortunate, but we have brought it upon ourselves because he didn't study our history properly.

For example, liberal democracy and people's democracy are two separate concepts that conflict with each other. They should not be mixed up together and collectively described simply as democracy. While debating historical perception, the history textbook must still uphold the fundamental framework of the Republic of Korea. Some left-wing history textbooks seem to have chosen to reflect North Korea's viewpoints. This is wrong. South Korea and North Korea may have started at the same line after liberation from Japan, but there is a world of difference between them now. This will be enough for students to instantly recognize the legitimacy of South Korean history.

Q Choi Deok-gyu You majored in Russian history, and you were also at the interface between Russian history and Korean history. Is there any piece of Korean history found in Russian history? And how do you think historians connect to diplomats?

A Lee In-ho I don't remember exactly when, but it was probably either before or after I was appointed as Korean ambassador to Russia when Russia was in chaos. At that time, I had a chance to visit the archive of the Russian foreign ministry and look at the original record about King Gojong, a person that I believe deserves a good historical review. According to the record I found in the archive, written in a piece of paper in half A4 size, King Gojong instructed the minister Min Young-hwan who would attend the coronation of Nicholas II to get and bring back for him a pistol, a telescope, a pair of strong glasses, and farming equipment.

The situation at that time where King Gojong could hardly go outside was perhaps very frustrating to him. Under the circumstances, I can see why he wanted the first three objects. As for why he wanted farming equipment from Russia, considering that the Russia was then an agricultural power, I think it shows that King Gojong was interested in developing agriculture in Korea. Visiting the archive of Russia and seeing original documents was an invaluable experience for me as a scholar.

Browsing the archive gave me the impression that there was a practically infinite amount of materials for scholars to study. Russia was maintaining the archive in German style, and keeping a detailed record of who visited the archive to see what on which day. Russia is a country of records and in its culture everything down to its minutest detail is written down and kept in records. If we want to find out more about how Russia perceived the Korean Empire and what the international situations were like at that time as well as Russia's internal situations, we may need to look no further than the archives in Russia. In Russia, studies about Korea started as early as in the early 19th century in the Asia Bureau of the Foreign Ministry.

Q Choi Deok-gyu You laid a foundation for the study of Russian history in Korea, and taught many students who became great scholars. But once the Cold War was over, the study of Russian history in Korea seemed to have lost steam a little bit.

Lee In-ho,
Chairperson of the Asan
Institute for Policy Studies

A Lee In-ho Unfortunately, conducting in-depth studies of Russia was not possible in Korea (during the Cold War) because it could be accused of being procommunist.

In the early years of South Korea, only Hankuk University of Foreign Studies had a department of Russian language, and other universities couldn't have interest in Russia. When I returned from the U.S., in 1972, democracy activists in South Korea were studying Russia from anticommunist points of view. It was after the Gwangju Democratization Movement that the Russian Revolution was beginning to be perceived as a significant revolution in itself. But the focus of research was lost as the views of activists in South Korea who glorified the Stalin era spread. Activists fail to see the correct picture of Russia because they view Russia from the standpoint that revolution is best. Some of the students attending my lecture understood it all backwards sometimes. During the Cold War, Russia was not studied properly in South Korea. There are few, if any, in-depth studies of the Russian Revolution, even though it had a profound effect on our fate. During the Cold War, the Russian Revolution as the origin of communism was not deeply studied in South Korea. Ideological issues prevented Russia, Marxism-Leninism, and North Korea from being studied deeply. Consequently, the relationship between these nations with South Korea was not understood properly. In particular, the Russo-Korean relations were not understood correctly because they were not studied deeply in connection with the changes of Russia after perestroika.

But things began to change when South Korea established diplomatic ties with Russia. Many universities across the country established a department of Russian language. It created a short-lived boom of Russian studies that failed to lay a solid foundation for research. The interests of frist-generation researchers who studied in Russia were limited to the revolution. The culture and other aspects of Russia were hardly studied. In the recent decade or so, however, there seem to have been various studies of Russia. While there is a world of difference between Russia and Korea, starting from their sizes, the two countries also have many things in common such as ethnicity. Russia became a power in the 20th century, but it still has the traditions of putting government over people and men over women that make Russia different from other Western countries. The Russian are similar to the Korean in terms of how they perceive law, and other such aspects. For example, when I was studying in the U.S., I learned the Russian expression of greeting (for mealtime) "Don't you eat?" But as I was told later, there is no such expression in Russian language. The Russian expression when serving food is (obviously) "Let's eat." Similar expressions were also used in Korea a few generations ago. Nowadays, however, many people try to be on a diet to lose weight, which is causing changes in the expressions of greeting for mealtime in both countries. Russia is a great country, but that doesn't mean that its people are wealthy. Because of the rise of adversaries immediately after the Revolution, Russia couldn't care about the people's livelihood. Later, Russia launched the New Economy Plan (five-year plan) and walked the path of industrialization, but couldn't start industries that would improve the quality of the people's lives.

Q Choi Deok-gyu Thank you for your words on how Korea compares to Russia in history. By the way, what do you think the Northeast Asian History Foundation should do as an organization specializing in historical studies to grow big into a think-tank for historical issues in East Asia? As a director of the NAHF, please give the NAHF staff useful advice.

A Lee In-ho I understand that the NAHF researchers and staff are very hardworking and committed. The NAHF is publishing many research books, up to 50 to 60 a year. But I think that the NAHF needs to expand exchanges with academic communities in Northeast Asia and the rest of the world. At the same time, I hope that the NAHF will also deepen its understanding of Japan and China. The NAHF will have to solidify the foundation of research while studying Northeast Asian history further. Simply paying external experts to conduct research will not work very well. Instead, the NAHF will need to invite in experts in Northeast Asian history to do research, and also provide a lot of support for research. It is also important to study other regions as well as Northeast Asian history, of course. I've seen some research institutes that spent research funds even though there were no people to conduct research. In this respect, we need to foster researchers and help them focus on research. It is also necessary to constantly check if and how much the NAHF-produced materials are put to use. The NAHF has a lot of information not found anywhere else. Many people also point out that the NAHF should do what the private sector cannot. I suggest that the NAHF should increase its international exchanges. In this global world, the NAHF needs to upgrade its research to meet the global standards while frequently observing the research trends of neighboring countries.

Q Choi Deok-gyu What is your most memorable book or paper?

A Lee In-ho 'Philosophy of Economics,' the doctoral dissertation of Sergey Bulgakov (a Russian philosopher of religion), is an excellent paper that made a deep impression on my mind. According to him, people's interests are focused only on economy (money). He had a philosophy of economics that was more fundamental than what Marx had. While Marx viewed economy in terms of monetary value only, he emphasized that "people do economic activities, whether they are compensated or not, as proof that they are alive." After the 1917 revolution, he became a priest and worked as dean of the Russian Theological Seminary in Paris before he passed away. Had his Russian papers been translated into other languages, it would have been better. In particular, had his papers been written in English or German, his thought would have spread far wider.

Q Choi Deok-gyu Lastly, tell us about your plans for future studies.

A Lee In-ho I would like to study the history of knowledge or the history of thought. Many problems occur because intellectuals fail to study and analyze reality correctly. Intellectuals exist to reveal the truth. Some intellectuals achieve success by adapting well to the changing times, but in the long run it is necessary to put ourselves in others' shoes to understand others or other countries. Politicians, on the other hand, tend to be too short-sighted and realistic.

Professor Lee In-ho noted that "South Korea is a very rapidly changing society with quite a complex structure," and pointed out that "such rapid change has caused serious generation gaps in language and culture." For example, our great-grandfathers and grandfathers communicated in Chinese, and in Japanese during the colonial period, but they cannot use these language to communicate with today's generations. She noted that "there is not even a common language for communication across generations" and said that when she returned from her study in the U.S., the languages used in the Departments of Korean History, Eastern History, and Western History in university were so different from one another that scholars from one department couldn't even read and understand the papers of scholars from the other departments. Professor Lee In-how was calm and elegant throughout the interview, and said that she visited Russia, 'her home of learning,' once every two years or so.