As China and South Korea persist in denouncing Japan’s view of its war-time history, I continue to firmly believe that historical facts are our mightiest and most reliable ally.

　　　I was strongly reminded again of that when I recently came across an edition of The New Korea (E. P. Dutton & Company, New York; 1926) by Alleyne Ireland, a British Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and leading expert on colonial policies in East Asia during the early 20th century.

　　　Originally published in 1926, the particular edition I read is a bilingual version recently reprinted by Sakuranohana Shuppan Publications Inc., Tokyo.

　　　Ireland had earlier published three volumes on colonial administration in the Far East, touching on Britain, France, the Netherlands, and the US. Why was he interested in Japan’s rule over Korea? Ireland explains it was because Korea “presents the rare spectacle of a civilized race ruling another civilized race…”

　　　“It is true that at the time Japan annexed Korea, in 1910, the actual conditions of life in the peninsula were extremely bad,” he notes. However, he does not attribute it to the inferiority of the Korean race, writing that it was largely due to “the stupidity and corruption which for five hundred years had, almost continuously, characterized the government of the Korean dynasty” and to “the existence … of a royal court which maintained … a system of licensed cruelty and corruption.”

　　　Ireland makes it a point to assume a strictly objective viewpoint in reviewing Japan’s rule, explaining he did his best to stay away from arguments of imperialism versus nationalism, instead focusing on “the aims, the methods, and the results of Japanese administration in Korea.” He explains that the title of his book “gives the key to its contents.”

　　　The book leaves a number of strong impressions on the reader. For one, Ireland gives high marks in general to Japan’s rule over Korea. Most Japanese today tend to look back on the Korean annexation with a sense of guilt. However, there are scholars from third countries who, while stringently acknowledging the blemishes, interpret Japan’s rule over Korea quite differently from the stereotypical notion of it having been “a dark era for Korea marked by violence and exploitation,” as we Japanese have been taught in our post-war school curriculum.

Large Number of Korean Students Studying in Pre-War Japan

　　　Ireland, for one, writes about Makoto Saito, who served as the third (1919-1927) and fifth (1929-1931) governor-general in Korea, as follows:

　　　“All sincere and humane colonial governors—none is more worthy of such a description than is Viscount Saito, Governor-General of Korea since 1919.”

　　　What prompted Ireland to evaluate Saito as so “sincere and humane”? To begin, Ireland credits Saito—despite an attempt on his life right after assuming his post—with having resolutely pursued reforms without taking a heavy hand, implementing, among other things, “the speedy disappearance of countless swords and uniforms” that had previously characterized the Japanese colonial regime. Ireland also praises Saito for his unstinting efforts in improving education as well as for the promotion of effective government at the local level.

　　　I believe we can regard JAPAN IN KOREA: Japan’s Fair and Moderate Colonial Policy (1910-1945) and Its Legacy on South Korea’s Developmental Miracle (Soshisha Publishing Co., Tokyo; 2013) by George Akita, Emeritus Professor of the University of Hawaii, as an extension of Ireland’s research. Professor Akita himself favorably assesses Japanese rule over Korea, concluding that it “can be judged as being ‘almost fair’” in comparison with the other colonial powers of the same period.

　　　Among Saito’s many accomplishments, Professor Akita credits him with having adjusted the wages of Korean bureaucrats, reorganized and expanded the police force, abolished the unpopular gendarmerie (“kempeitai”) system, opened provincial governorships to civil officials, instituted educational reforms, and permitted the printing of vernacular newspapers and journals.

　　　Rhee Yong-hoon, professor of economic history at Seoul National University, has written extensively on some of the same points raised by Akita. In The Story of the Republic of Korea: Korean History Textbooks Must Be Rewritten (Bungei Shunju Ltd., Tokyo; 2009), Prof. Rhee points out:

　　　“As regards education for the general populace in Korea during the 1920s, the colonial regime raised the school attendance rate of school-age children between 20 and 30% … (and) the rate exceeded 60% for boys toward the end of the 1930s.”

　　　Prof. Rhee notes the number of Korean students studying in Japan by 1942 had increased drastically—to a total of 29,427, of whom 75% were middle school students, which he notes reflects a serious lack of institutions for higher learning in pre-war Korea.

　　　He further points out that, in 2004, there were a total of 16,446 Korean junior, middle, and high school students studying away from their home country which by then had become dramatically affluent. When these figures are compared, one is surprised by the great number of Korean students who had left Korea under Japanese rule to study in Japan. That shows precisely how much emphasis Japan placed on improvement of Korean education.

　　　While the people of the peninsula have accused Japan of stealing Korean farmland, Ireland observes that the government-general actually rented uncultivated state land to tenant farmers “on easy terms” and, when their reclamation had been effected, transferred them “gratis to the cultivators.” Ireland adds that the government-general further assisted farmers to own cultivated lands “by allowing the purchase price to be paid in ten annual installments,”

Needed: Dispassionate View of History

　　　Prof. Rhee also has scrutinized the land issue. Closely examining Korean land registries, Rhee notes he has found not a single case of plundering by the Japanese, concluding that land acquisition in Korea was done “fairly” by the colonial regime.

　　　On his part, Ireland emphasizes that the land reform implemented by the Japanese was aimed at helping poor tenant farmers, noting: “I have formed the opinion that Korea today is infinitely better governed than it ever was under its own native rulers, that it is better governed than most self-governing countries … (the government-general) having in view as well the cultural and economic development of the people as the technique of administration.”

　　　When discussing Japanese colonial rule over Korea positively, as I am, one is sure to invariably draw a bitter rebuttal claiming that, regardless of whether there may have been some merit in Japanese administration, colonial rule was wrong in the first place and that Japan’s rule over Korea was hardly acceptable.

　　　Such a contention sounds reasonable. And yet, I am afraid it will fall short of enabling one to come to terms with why Japan had to set about annexing Korea—i.e., why Korea was annexed. Ireland lists two factors as the causes of the Korean Peninsula becoming a menace to Japan:

　　　●Centuries of misrule by the Rhee Dynasty had reduced Korea to
　　　　a condition from which it was hopeless to maintain
　　　　independence; and,
　　　●As a result, Russia or China might take possession of the Korean
　　　　peninsula, creating a strategic situation intolerable in terms of
　　　　Japan’s national defense.

　　　The above view, as stated in a book written nearly a century ago, reflects the thinking of the international community at the time. In order not to repeat the same mistake, we Japanese must naturally learn from history, as President Park Geun-hye has repeatedly pointed out since assuming office in February 2013. That is why nothing is more vital than dispassionately viewing the past within the framework of the prevailing values of those times.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 591 in the January 23, 2014 issue of The Weekly Shincho)