11/02/2009

Obama should go to Hiroshima

After two successful joint workshops of Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty and Jeju Peace Institute in 2007 and 2008, the two think tanks – in order to foster peace and security through multilateral security cooperation - invited experts from Asia and Europe to travel to Jeju Island and hold a workshop on “Reconciliation: Making Peace with History” in autumn 2009.

In his welcoming remarks the director of the Korean project of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, Walter Klitz, stressed that reconciliation is more than just forgiveness. Finding peace with past events was to be an important step, but only recognizing interdependence when facing the future would lead to true understanding and rewarding cooperations.     

As exemplary case, the historical reconciliation process of Europe was studied in a first session that shed light on the European experience and on how Germany, after decades of discord, came to peace with its neighbors, gaining respect and trust as a reliable partner and friend within the European Union.

Andreas Wirsching, a German Professor of the University in Augsburg, left no doubt that the “crucial political instrument to secure a common West European future” and enable a closer collaboration was “supra-national integration”. He stressed that “European integration was not a contradiction to the nation state. On the contrary, the fully developed, sovereign nation state was the historical precondition for what happened after 1945. (…) European integration appears as nothing else as a sort of method to save the existence of the nation state. It is in that sense that the British economic historian Alan Milward called European integration after 1945 the ‘European Rescue of the Nation State’”.

Reconciliation of France and Germany, “Europe’s best enemies” as Hélène Miard-Delacroix of the Paris-Sorbonne University in France called them, “started earlier and also certainly hurt less than the reconciliation of Germany and Poland”. One of the major challenges was to “reconcile two nation’s views on recent history” and “then to travel back in time through the centuries of confrontation.”

The second session focused on some challenges and obstacles the Northeast Asian community has to face in order to finally make peace with history and come to successful multilateral security cooperation. Yang Daqing of the George Washington University emphasized that Japan so far pursued the strategic approach to deepen the alliance with the United States in order to counter-balance China. Japan would fear that regional cooperation might isolate the United States of America. Still, the newly elected Japanese Prime Minister would try to revive discussions. Yang said there were “signs that government leaders at least are aware of the need of undertaking concrete albeit gradual steps to prepare for long-term reconciliation in the future.” Since China and Japan did not argue history for a long time, Chinese-Japanese reconciliation appears to be more difficult than that of Japan and Korea.  

The ideas of Ahn Jung-Geun and his “Asia Peace Thesis” that stressed humanism, regional pacifism and the “eastern civilization principle”, were presented by Kuroki Morifumi of the Fukuoka International University in Japan. Unsettled disputes, he urged, should be addressed immediately and it was to be made sure that all sides would understand the common benefit of reconciliation. 

The Korean speaker, Sohn Yul of the Seoul based Yonsei University, stressed that “Japanese leaders should recognize that the key to a successful embrace of Asia lays in overcoming nationalism which shaped Japan’s identity in ways that conflicted with its Asian neighbors.”  Mechanism would have to be developed in order to overcome nationalism in the region and gradually create common interest. For the majority of the people a significant shift in attitude was needed.

Alexis Dudden of the University of Connecticut focused on the role the United States of America played in the aftermath of the Pacific war and the process of reconciliation. With great regret she noted that the United States had not been a “power-broker” during the 1950’s, a time where war structures in North East Asia were cemented. She recommended that Barack Obama, as soon as possible, should send out a strong signal to the region and visit Hiroshima. 

On the second day of the conference the presenters discussed the importance of reconciliation and tailor-made measures that could facilitate an understanding and cooperation in the region.
 
The participants in the discussion reached a certain consensus that the situation in Europe and East Asia was different. Yet, there were certain instruments and measures that had been deployed in Europe that could be considered for reconciliation in East Asia as well. Those measures of reconciliation should be multi-level. Some could be implemented more immediately whereas others should be taken over different phases. It was recognized that reconciliation was an important condition for trust-building among states to reduce a feeling of danger and fear towards each other, which is detrimental to the community. Reconciliation would introduce more practicability in terms of mutual perceptions which would reduce the chances of miscalculation in handling crisis-situations between countries. Reconciliation would finally restore the dignity of individual victims of war, aggression and colonial rule.

The experts recognized that measures of facilitation should evolve both, top-down and bottom-up approaches and should be implemented at different levels of society. It was agreed upon that grassroots communication between different societies is vital to overcome negative legacies of history. Joint commissions of study of history or school-textbooks, that have already been introduced in East Asia, would prove that some lessons have already been learned from the European experience, but others, such as youth offices, “sister cities” and other organizational ties across the countries that have been quite successful in Europe would need to be re-vitalized in Asia.

In news reporting the discussants detected a strong tendency to take up a more nationalistic undertone. This tone, it seems, helps to sell the papers to their national audience, but at the same time would often be based on a lack of understanding of the other party. Intercultural workshops for journalists could help fostering a common understanding and growing awareness of the media’s responsibility. 

A project that brought along quite some success in the German-French reconciliation process was the common television channel ARTE that offers programs in both languages to an audience in both countries. Such a channel emphasizes the importance of cultural exchange and deepens mutual understanding.

In Asia there were to be very sensitive issues of territorial disputes. In Europe, fortunately, such controversies have not given rise to the kind of animosity that can be witnessed in East Asia. The participants of the workshop stressed that mechanisms helping to defuse emotional responses generated by territorial disputes need to be established on all sides.

Next year a summit meeting between Korea, Japan and China will take place on Jeju Island. The organizers are well informed of the fruitful debates of the JPI-FNF workshop and will pass on the results to table of the national leaders on that occasion.

Please take a look at our Eventbox, some pictures in our gallery and read the presentation of the results of the working session.