Cultural narratives and historic conflicts: about perceptions of Dokdo

Carolina Mera *

As has been predicted by the principal political analysts, Asia will play a leading role in the 21st century. The Asia-Pacific region as an economic powerhouse is of the greatest importance for the world political system. Furthermore, in this region converge the interests of the great economic and nuclear powers: the United States, Russia and China.

In this context the question of international security is of particular importance. However, the question of security in the region tends to be monopolized by analysis of the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and the negotiations related to attempts to reunite the Korean peninsula. These analyses place their emphasis on the situation in Korea as an inheritance of the Cold War with the key actors divided into two blocks with, on one side, the United States, Korea and Japan and, on the other, Russia, China and North Korea. Furthermore, most of the analysis tends to center on security relations and alliances between members of the first block, as well as, more broadly, the bilateral and multilateral negotiations that reflect the commitment of all the nations involved to peace and stability in the region.

There is no doubt that nuclear policy of North Korea is important for the region but there are other vital themes that ought to be considered too such as the state of bilateral relations between the countries involved –something which hardly appears in the literature– and which may, nevertheless, have important consequences in this area.

It is for this reason that the controversy associated with the Dokdo islands and the demand that the East Sea be correctly identified and mapped by the International Cartographic Association need to be considered for the impact on peace and security in the region they may have.

Let us recall that the Asia Pacific region entered into the international scene abruptly and with violence. While the Chinese Empire was fragmenting due to the presence of the Western powers on its vast territory, Japan turned itself into a modern and imperial power after its victory over Russia in 1905 and imposed its will with ever greater force on its neighbors. While an indifferent world looked, the Japanese Empire occupied the Korean peninsula in 1905 and annexed it in 1910. This is how the Dokdo Islands were seized by force during the Russo-Japanese War.

This was a critical and painful period for the Korean people, as much for the political economy of pillage and exploitation as for the cultural policies of Japan that were aimed at undermining the tradition and identity of this ancient people. Korea had to wait until 1945 to free itself from the Korea yoke. However, the happiness of this long-desire moment was shattered by the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, a war which ended with the division of the country in to the Republic of Korea and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.

From this moment on, South Korea began a struggle for democracy and development the effects of which would continue to be felt until 1970s. This process formed part of the emergences of the “Newly Industrialized Countries”, the name given to countries which implemented a development model of growth, and marked the appearance of economies in the world system whose influence would only continue to grow over time.

This brief historical survey allows us to place the complexity of relations between Japan and Korea in their context. Even though the two countries have close economic relations and stick close to each other on questions of international security, this does not reflect the totality of the universe necessary for the achievement regional harmony.

There is no doubt the process of economic growth and the growth in the importance of the region have encouraged the two nations to come together and build fruitful cooperation. However, the Japanese claim on the Dokdo islands remains an unresolved issue. Japan claims sovereignty over a territory that it usurped from Korea and occupied by force during the colonial period. As might be expected, this is a source of irritation for the South Korean government and, above all, the South Koran people, who suffered the tragic experience of occupation.

The South Koreans have maintained their sovereignty over Dokdo as the years and governments have come and gone. In the 1998 joint declaration between President Kim Dae-jung of Korea and Prime Minister Keizo Obuch of Japan, reference was made to the occupation,

Prime Minister Obuchi… accepts with humility the fact that Japanese colonial domination inflicted unbearable pain and suffering on the Korean people, expresses his profound regret and offers his sincere apologies for this.

Nevertheless, when academic analysts make reference to the “Economic Agenda 21, Korea-Japan”, the agreement on trade barriers and investment rules, they usually make no mention of the efforts of both states to resolve the human problems arising from the past and develop a relationship of trust for the future. While for Japan Dokdo offers the possibility of going forward with a maritime studies plan in the area in question, for Korea the question goes beyond the merely territorial. Dokdo is part of its struggle to vindicate its history, freedom and sovereignty.

This conflict shows once more that the international political scene cannot only be examined in terms of trade or economics and that it is fundamental that human, cultural and historical aspects, related to the dignity of peoples, be taken into account. It is only on the basis of trust and respect that important policies can be constructed and this cannot be done by discourses which negate history.

For this reason, academics and specialists in international relations should also involve ourselves in these problems and not only those related to security and the international economy. It is necessary to rethink the social actors in terms of a paradigm whose focus is on cultural questions, because the understanding of historic processes of countries and their peoples are vital for an understanding of logics of macro politics. Reflecting on the Dokdo conflict and the different reading of its history is a contribution to this process.

* Professor and researcher in the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Buenos Aires.

1. “The beginning of Korean control over the islands dates back to the year 512 when general Lee Ba Su of the Silla Dynasty conquered Usangku… numerous Korean historical documents provide support for this”. Among these are the Samkuksaki of 1145 where it is mentioned that Japan itself recognizes Korean sovereignty over the islands in numerous maps and official documents. See Choe Gyoung-joo (2005) “La controversia sobre Dokdo y perspectivas de las relaciones entre Corea del Sur y Japón”, en Corea… una mirada desde Argentina, Oviedo (comp.), UNR, p. 144 Research carried out by the The Academy of Korean Studies also supports this position.