By Yoon Sojung

An op-ed piece published on Sept. 23 by The New York Times said the latest conflict between Korea and Japan stems from "the Washington-brokered 1965 treaty," referring to the agreement that normalized diplomatic ties between the two nations.

Written by Alexis Dudden, a professor of history at the University of Connecticut, the piece also blamed the U.S. as partly responsible for the conflict as it took sides with Japan by ignoring key issues in pushing for the treaty.

An expert on the history of modern Korea and Japan after Korea gained independence as well as international history, Dudden has written two books on the modern history of Korea and Japan and analyses of international relations among the U.S. and East Asian countries.

In a written interview with Korea.net on Sept. 29, she said Japan has intentionally tied the Korean Supreme Court's ruling on forced labor victims to Tokyo's trade retaliation, saying, "Prime Minister Abe and his officials have intentionally linked these issues, turning history into a security threat."

To find a breakthrough in this conflict, Dudden said, "By opening up the past shared between Korea and Japan and by preserving knowledge of it through education, we continue to work for greater understanding between these societies."

The following are excerpts from the interview.

- In your latest op-ed published by The New York Times, you said the latest trade conflict between Korea and Japan "centers on a Washington-brokered 1965 treaty that was supposed to normalize relations between both countries." Can you elaborate on that?

After 13 years of on-again, off-again meetings between Seoul and Tokyo, Washington stepped up the pressure on Tokyo to finalize an agreement that would allow the U.S. to "free up" the money it was using to support Korea in order to use the money to support its expanding campaign in Vietnam. The agreement that came about -- the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations -- established diplomatic and business relations between Korea and Japan, which is the meaning of "normalizing relations." Yet as is now well known, unfortunately Korean President Park Chung-hee decided to use the funds from Japan solely to target certain industries and not for the range of Korean victims such as forced laborers and ianfu (military sex slaves) seeking individual compensation; nor did Japan take any of the funds that were appropriated from forced laborers and ianfu and make them available to victims of its empire. Washington did not press these issues, leaving them to linger, and now we find ourselves again in the middle of a debate over how to remember the past – that is, a memory war, which is far more difficult to unravel than a debate over history.

- Japan insists that all compensation matters with Korea were definitively resolved by the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Settlement Agreement, but Seoul keeps demanding an apology from Tokyo. In your view, what position should Korea show to the world vis-a-vis its history disputes with Japan?

Well, the 1964-65 documents are clear: Japanese officials refused to consider that any of the money Japan would transfer was legal compensation or reparations. And since that moment, much has changed in international and human rights law, meaning that today, the Japanese government finds itself an international outlier on understanding this position. There is not much Koreans can do to make Japanese officials desist from undermining the numerous apologies Japan has already made – that really is up to Japanese citizens to accomplish – but I think Koreans can help the nation's cause by opening up the histories of labor under Japanese occupation. Obviously this is painful for some Korean companies whose pasts involved working with Japanese colonizers, yet I think by looking at histories between Germany and France or Germany and Poland, Koreans could realize ways to become stronger through their own national history.

- On the subject of rectifying historical issues among countries, Japan's attitude has been often compared with that of Germany. The Japanese government has shown reluctance and unwillingness to resolve its historical issues with Korea. What explains such an attitude in your view?

This is really difficult to explain because it is through this issue that Japanese society – in politics, especially – we can see the greatest divisions within Japan, right? Former Prime Minister Kan Naoto's speech in 2010 commemorating the centennial anniversary of the beginning of Japan's annexation of Korea was admirable in its understanding of the deep wounds and legacies Japan caused Korea. With the current Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, we have a polar opposite view of Japanese history and Japan's place in the world. And, unfortunately, the current prime minister of Japan "uses" an imaginary understanding of Korea and Koreans – really quite racist and similar to how U.S. President Donald Trump talks about "immigrants" – to build up his domestic support. So it is difficult to hear and see, but it is helpful for Koreans to pay attention to Japanese who disagree with their country's current leader and his supporters.

- In the latest trade conflict between both nations, many media outlets call Tokyo's trade sanctions on Seoul de facto trade retaliation because of a Korean Supreme Court ruling finding in favor of Korean victims of forced labor during World War II. The Japanese government, however, officially says the issue is purely a trade matter with no connection to the verdict. What is your objective analysis of this situation?

Since Aug. 6, Prime Minister Abe repeatedly has made clear that the issues are related, and he has continued to do so even at the speech he gave to reporters at the (United Nations) on Sept. 25. So I think Japanese should pay attention to what their prime minister is saying because he and his officials have intentionally linked these issues, turning history into a security threat.

- What would you recommend as a solution to this bilateral conflict?

History is always and forever an open-ended process. In that sense, there can be no "solution." That said, there can be better understanding, and that understanding comes from education. If the issues of Korean forced labor and ianfu continue to be mediated in Korea through democratically accountable institutions – such as the courts, parliament and media – then Koreans help create a historical record not only for Korea but for all to learn from (this includes North Korea, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, the Philippines and so on). The historical issues that Koreans are at odds with Japan about today stem from issues that permeated throughout the Japanese empire, meaning that the more internationally minded the Korean cause is, the more historically accurate and contemporarily useful it is for all involved (especially Japanese). Koreans have worked very hard to bring their society to the state of accountability and transparency that exists here in 2019. Obviously, there is still work to be done – and this is not unique to Korea. Japanese and Americans both need to fight to preserve their democratic institutions. Yet by opening up the past shared between Korea and Japan and by preserving knowledge of it through education, we continue to work for greater understanding between these societies.

arete@korea.kr