Confronting Memories of World War II: European and Asian Legacies

6. Historical Reconciliation in Northeast Asia: Past Efforts, Future Steps, and the U.S. Role

157 Chapter 6 Historical Reconciliation in Northeast Asia Past Efforts, Future Steps, and the U.S. Role Gi-Wook Shin As with many other cases around the world, regional reconciliation in Northeast Asia first occurred between governments in the postwar era. Japan established diplomatic relations with countries it had once invaded or colonized: with the Republic of China in 1952, with the Republic of Korea (ROK) in 1965, and with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1972. The ROK normalized relations with former enemies, the PRC and Russia, in the early 1990s. Yet historical reconciliation in Northeast Asia has been “thin,” as these nations have failed to come to terms with their intertwined pasts. Disputes over war responsibilities, territories, and Japan’s colonial rule continue to shape regional relations in Northeast Asia. Anti-Japanese sentiments remain salient in China and Korea, even among the younger generation with no direct experience of colonialism or war. The Japanese suffer from “apology fatigue,” questioning why they must continue to repent for events that took place six or seven decades ago. From Japanese atrocities in China to the American decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan, no nation is immune from the charge that it has formed a less than complete view of the past. And all nations, sharing a reluctance to fully confront the complexity of that past, tend to blame others. To be sure, there is widespread recognition of the need for reconciliation and the final resolution of historical injustices. In fact, many Asians have sought to achieve that goal through various means—apology politics, litigation, joint history writing, and regional exchanges. Yet wounds from past wrongs—committed in times of colonialism and war—are not fully healed and have become highly contentious diplomatic issues. Gi-Wook Shin 158 Northeast Asian nations need to promote “thick” reconciliation to foster a shared vision for the region that transcends victimhood and exclusive notions of national history. In doing so, it is crucial to understand the complex layers of Northeast Asian history and reconciliation. While Japan is often contrasted with Germany—it is blamed for its failure to come to terms with its past wrongdoings and urged to follow the steps that Germany has taken—it would be misleading to mechanically compare Northeast Asia to Western Europe in their respective ways of dealing with the past as both regions have distinctive histories, experiences, and memories. Instead, we must continue to search for a Northeast Asian method of reconciliation , while learning from European experiences. The United States should also be a key variable in this model since it has played an instrumental role in shaping postwar regional order in Northeast Asia, including the history question. Past Efforts at Reconciliation While European nations grappled with the history question as an international relations issue from the earliest days of the postwar period, such was not the case in Northeast Asia. The “history problem” between Japan and its Asian neighbors began only in the 1980s, triggered by the so-called textbook controversy of 1982. Up to that point, textbooks were mostly a domestic issue within Japan. Yet, with the emergence of civil society in Japan’s neighboring countries in the 1980s, issues of historical injustice were no longer monopolized or controlled by governments. Civil society and transnational nongovernmental organization (NGO) groups became increasingly involved in issues of historical injustice and reconciliation. Growing global attention to national identity, human rights, and historical injustice has also contributed to the recognition of the “history problem” in Northeast Asia. Those changes in domestic and international environments brought the history question to the forefront of Northeast Asian relations, prompting the nations to search for means of reconciliation. As Yoichi Funabashi notes, however, there is no uniform or universal formula for reconciliation; it is a multifaceted process requiring varied inputs and action at many levels.1 As such, it is worthwhile to review each of the modes of reconciliation— apology politics, litigation, common historiography, and regional activism/ Table 6.1 List of Official Apologies Made by a Japanese Head of State or Government Year Speaker Addressed to Context Key terms 1984 Emperor Hirohito Korea Korean president Chun DooHwan ’s visit “regrettable” “unfortunate past” 1989 Prime Minister Takeshita Noboru Korea Speech to the National Diet of Japan “deep regret and sorrow” 1990 Emperor Akihito Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu Korea Korean president Roh Tae Woo’s visit “feel the deepest remorse” “we are...