South Korea continues to be unswerving in its efforts to create a negative image of Japan over such issues as the so-called “comfort women” and Japan’s colonization of the Korean Peninsula (1910-1945). In the following discussion, George Akita, Emeritus Professor of the University of Hawaii, and journalist Yoshiko Sakurai exchange views on Japan’s rule of Korea.

　　　Professor Akita, a widely recognized expert on modern Japanese political history, is a Japanese-American born in Hawaii in 1926. Over the past four decades, he has conducted research into Aritomo Yamagata, a Meiji Era elder statesman known as the “father of the modern Japanese army.” Yamagata is also credited with having laid down the foundation of Japan’s colonial policy. Prof. Akita has spent more than a decade dissecting Korea under Japanese rule. Last August, he published the results of his study in a 310-page book entitled Nippon no Chosen Tochi wo Kensho Suru (Soshisha, Tokyo: 2013). The original English version, entitled Japan in Korea: A Reassessment, is slated for publication in the US in spring, 2014. Professor Akita was in Tokyo recently to promote his book, and sat down with Sakurai at that time.

　　　Sakurai: On November 4th, South Korean President Park Geun-hye was quoted as telling a BBC interviewer in connection with her refusal to have a summit talk with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe: “If Japan continues to stick to the same historical perceptions (of World War II and the colonization) … (and) say there is no need for apologies and no need to acknowledge their past wrongdoings, then what good would (such a meeting) do?”

　　　Akita: I, too, have read the report. South Korea steadfastly adheres to issues pertaining to the “comfort women” and Japanese historical perceptions with every intention of politicizing them. President Park lashes out at Japan one-sidedly, but I want to say “Madam President, please give us a break.” Because the Japanese colonial rule over Korea, for instance, was the “fairest” among all the colonial powers of the world in those days.

　　　To tell the truth, I myself had previously believed that Japanese rule was “brutal,” “cruel,” and “ruthless”—because that was the common view then. Even today, people in a host of nations believe that to be true. For example,The New York Times described it as a “brutal colonial rule” in its editorial last January.

　　　Sakurai: The New York Times isn’t alone. The US media for the most part are chained to the idea that Japan’s colonial policy toward Korea was extremely evil…that it was brutal and violent.

　　　Akita: But something occurred to me as I read a student paper, entitled “Koreans in the Japanese Army during the Second Sino-Japanese War: The Korean Special volunteer system, 1937-1943,” written by Professor Brandon Palmer as a doctoral student at the University of Hawaii. Prof. Palmer is now Assistant Professor of History at Coastal Carolina University and is the co-author of our Japan in Korea book. What I found in Palmer’s paper was contradictory to the common view, because it stated that the Government-General of Korea (GGK) provided guns to Korean enlistees in the army. GGK couldn’t have given them guns if it was as brutal as it was purported to be.

　　　Sakurai: Korean soldiers armed with guns could have retaliated against the Japanese if they had been that brutal… if Japan had imposed such a unilateral and harsh rule over the Koreans.

　　　Akita: I later read some academic articles on the Japanese conscription system. Implemented in 1873, the new system caused violent reactions in some regions in Japan, resulting in riots that produced deaths. Although the same system was adopted in colonial Korea 70 years later, there are no known cases of it being the cause of riots. So I felt that, perhaps, the Korean had in fact been willing to accommodate the system. Again, this simply didn’t jibe with the common perception that the Japanese colonial rule over Korea was brutal, as I had believed. There’s something strange here, I thought.

　　　Sakurai: I understand you then came across a fascinating book by Hildi Kang, a white American woman married to a Korean-American scholar. Entitled Under the Black Umbrella, the book is based on her interviews with 51 ethnic Koreans in San Francisco who had lived in Korea before migrating to the US. Their responses to Ms. Kang’s questions are quite interesting…

　　　Akita: Yes, they were. Kang writes the interviewees “laughed” and “smiled” as they fondly recounted their life under Japanese rule, looking back happily over their youthful days in Korea. To me, such reactions were decisively strange, as they had been expected to discuss their “dark” past with much bitterness. After all, the title of the book is Under the Black Umbrella. She regarded Japanese colonial rule as “a black umbrella.” Facing an interviewer who took such a stance, however, the interviewees recounted their life in occupied Korea laughing and smiling.

　　　Sakurai: That shows that even in a book written by someone critical of the Japanese colonial policy, there is an example of Koreans benefitting economically under colonial rule. The reference that between 60 and 70% of customers at the Washin department store in Seoul were Koreans shows that there were Koreans, an example of Koreans benefitting economically under colonial rule. You write that even Professor Wonmo Dong of Washington University, who casts a critical eye on Japan’s rule over Korea, admits that Japanese rule was in some ways fair.

Japan’s National Character

　　　Akita: That is more proof of the fairness Japan demonstrated in its rule over Korea. But of course, one has to consider where Japan was situated in terms of the policies pursued by other powers. Like Japan, the other great powers of the world implemented their own respective colonial policies in Asia, with the US taking the Philippines, the United Kingdom India, and France Vietnam, and so on. In order to prove the relative fairness of Japaneserule, it must be compared with the colonial rule of these other countries.

　　　Sakurai: Can you talk a bit about America’s colonial rule?

　　　Akita: I will share an interesting anecdote with you. During America’s colonization of the Philippines, the US developed the 45 caliber handguns that were considered the “most destructive” at the time. Why? Because, with the 38 caliber handguns then available, the Americans were unable to control Filipino insurgents who fiercely opposed and fought against American rule. This shows how brutal and ruthless American rule over the Phillipines was.

　　　Sakurai: In your book, you refer to Major General Arthur MacArthur, father of General Douglas MacArthur, writing: “(Arthur MacArthur) ordered increased attention to the destruction of the civilian infrastructure in the towns that supplied the guerrillas with food, information, and shelter.”

　　　Akita: Meanwhile, how did the Japanese rule Korea? There is a pro-Japanese movie released in Korea in 1941 entitled “Volunteer Soldier.” Throughout this movie, Koreans are shown wearing Korean clothing, and, more importantly, speaking Korean. We can see this is proof that Japan’s rule over Korea was not as oppressive as it was purported to be, and that the GGK was not systematically trying to suppress the Koreans by obliterating their culture.

　　　Sakurai: That I believe reflects the gentle nature of the Japanese people.

　　　Akita: I agree. The Japanese are a gentle people. You understand it when you hear your national anthem. By contrast, the American and French anthems are spirited melodies with lyrics praising their respective revolutionary wars. On the other hand, how gentle the Japanese national anthem is—both the melody and the lyrics. The gentleness of the Japanese character was richly demonstrated in connection with Japan’s rule over Korea, I do believe.

The Otsu Incident and Japan’s Rule over Korea

　　　Sakurai: In your book, you introduce examples of Japan’s fairness in a number of fields, as Japan implemented various policies pertaining to land, industry, and education, to name a few. The section on sufferance I find particularly interesting.

　　　Akita: The Japanese fundamentally regarded the Koreans as “compatriots,” instead of “lower” beings. In 1911, the year after the Korean annexation, Interior Minister Takashi Hara, who had strong influence over Japan’s colonial policy, had this to say: that once the Koreans became competent in Japanese, it would be desirable to have them participate in the fu-ken (prefecture) administration in Korea, and that, furthermore, in the future he saw no problem in having Koreans in the Imperial Diet. Mind you, Hara made these remarks just a year after Japan annexed Korea.

　　　Sakurai: Yoshimichi Hasegawa, who served as Governor-General (1916-19), urged that the Koreans be given voting rights in the House of Peers. You write that Korean men living in Japan “had the right to vote s long as they met age and residency requirements” and that from 1930 on, Koreans could “vote in Hangul (the Korean script)…and had the right to run for political office in Japan.”

　　　Akita: Makoto Saito (1919-27), who succeeded Hasegawa as Governor-General, sanctioned the publication of Hangul newspapers and magazines.

　　　Sakurai: In his doctoral thesis, Prof. Wong, whom I mentioned earlier, quotes the results of opinion surveys conducted in 1936 under the GGK which show that 8.1% of Korean respondents “thought Korea should be independent.” In yet another survey Wong cites a certain percentage of respondents again opined that Korea should gain independence from Japan.

　　　Akita: I believe these numbers are proof that Japanese rule over Korea was quite democratic, because it shows that Koreans were able to express their opinions without feeling threatened by colonial authorities. This I find quite amazing when compared with other colonial powers, who were highly oppressive and saw their colonies only as “markets” or objects of exploitation.

　　　Sakurai: Responding to those survey results, the Japanese government at the time chose a policy of walking step by step with Koreans, instead of suppressing them, striving for gradualism in implementing policies reflecting their sentiment so as to gain support for Japanese colonial policy. As I mentioned earlier, I am convinced that such an approach genuinely reflected Japan’s intrinsic national character and values. By the way, you take up the “Otsu Incident” to illustrate your point.

　　　[Editor’s note: The Otsu Jiken—or the Otsu Incident—was a failed assassination attempt on a visiting Russian prince, Nicholas Alexandrovic, on May 11, 1891. A police officer named Sanzo Tsuda attacked the prince with a sabre, inflicting a severe wound to his head. Afraid that Russia would retaliate with a war against Japan, there were growing voices within the Japanese government that Tsuda should be executed in order to appease Russia. However, the Supreme Court strongly objected, concluding that he should be sentenced to life imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of Japanese criminal law. In this incident, Professor Akita sees undeniable proof that the independence of judiciary and rule of law existed in Japan already in the late 19th century.]

　　　Akita: Some 20 years after the incident, this legacy was handed down in Japan’s colonial rule over Korea, leading to colonial policies based on fairness and moderation. Sometimes the role of the bureaucracy in Japan is not properly understood. Karel van Wolferen, for example—a Dutch journalist and so-called “Japan specialist”—has made some incorrect assessments in this regard. He criticizes the “excessive power” that bureaucrats have in Japan in controlling the nation’s policies and economy. He calls it a bad practice. But that is not true. As regards the Otsu Incident, the Supreme Court solidly held up the rule of law by rendering a rational verdict despite strong pressure from politicians. This achievement should be viewed as more proof of the basic fairness of Japan—a sense of fairness that had a significant bearing on its rule over Korea.

　　　Sakurai : I believe not only Wolferen but also others as well—scholars such as John Dower, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the late Herbert Norman (a Canadian diplomat) have spread a twisted image of Japan as a “villain” without really looking at the facts.

　　　Akita: I feel that Professor Dower was deeply affected by the Vietnam War, and was driven to an anti-war, anti-military stance as a result of the US failure there. But basically he follows the mainstream in his thinking about Japan…Let me say a bit more about this idea of fairness. By scrutinizing history painstakingly, one can understand that Japan’s colonial governance was generally fair. I say it was “almost fair” in my book. We all know many things, tangible as well as intangible, have been brought to Japan via the Korean Peninsula—pottery and other art forms, for example, and Buddhism. As a result, the Japanese have traditionally respected the Korean culture. The Japanese are grateful to the Koreans for passing on various cultures. This open-minded spirit is, I believe, the source of Japanese strength. On the other hand, the Koreans tend to look at Japan with anger, protesting that Japan dared conquer Korea “although we are the ones who helped your culture mature.” At any rate, I think the Japanese are extremely skilled in inheriting culture and improving it.

　　　Sakurai: I think we can attribute this trait to our intrinsic gentleness, too. We Japanese are intent on improving technology exercising utmost sensitivity to contribute to the interests of others, because we genuinely want our ideas and technology utilized by the recipients, and because we always want to be useful to others.

　　　Akita: Japanese products, whether that be whiskey or wine, Lexus cars, watches or cameras, have won the highest appreciation in the international community. That is why the Japanese should have more confidence in themselves. After all, Japan’s rule over the Korean Peninsula was generally fair, a condensed example of its national character evident in its execution.

Needed: A New Constitution Drafted by the Japanese Themselves

　　　Sakurai: I have noticed about your book that you are not uncritical of Japan’ rule over Korea. Your basic stance is that Japan was wrong to annex Korea—no matter how “fair” the Japanese colonial governance may have been. This is where I sense your fairness as a scholar. I genuinely believe that, fundamentally, any nation should be governed by its own people, no matter how efficiently a foreign nation may rule it. This is a matter of utmost importance—even if the indigenous efforts should fail eventually.

　　　Akita: I can’t agree with you more.

　　　Sakurai: Of course, Japan had its own reasons for annexing Korea. If Qing China, or Russia, ruled over Korea, it would immediately have endangered Japan. In order to prevent a situation imperilling Japan’s peace and security, Japan fought the Sino-Japanese War (1894-95) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05) before undertaking colonial rule over Korea. All this was done to safeguard Japan and its people. I believe that Japan did its best, given the circumstances, as you state in your book. Meanwhile, I believe the fundamental principle of governance is self-reliance—a determination to shape your future on your own. Applying this thinking to the present, I can say with conviction that we must without fail revise its American-written post-war constitution.

　　　Akita: When I first started teaching at the University 60 years ago, I made a prediction—that the Japanese would surely start campaigning for a revision of their post-war constitution. Essentially, it’s taboo for a historian to make predictions. But I certainly made that prediction.

　　　Sakurai: What was the basis of your prediction?

　　　Akita: Because the constitution of post-war Japan was based on the so-called “MacArthur reforms.” In every nation, the constitution is its very foundation, reflecting the nation’s culture, history, values, and identity. It should never be something that one nation gives to another. The Japanese constitution must be established by no one but the Japanese. Because I am a foreigner (a US citizen), I won’t say anything about its content. However, let me stress that it is natural for the Japanese to rewrite the constitution on their own.

　　　Sakurai: As you predicted, a campaign to rewrite the constitution has gradually been gaining momentum, although those advocating it have yet to constitute a majority.

　　　Akita: I am one to think that young Japanese today are not bound by the so-called “masochistic view of history” as much as the older generation. I believe there are more Japanese today who do not think Japan alone was wrong when it fought the Pacific War. What surprised me on this trip is that AERA, a weekly magazine published by the Asahi Shimbun Co., carried a full-page review of my Japan in Korea book by Professor Tadashi Karube, a professor of Tokyo University. Now, my understanding is that Tokyo University is “progressive” and AERA is put out by the liberal Asashi Shimbun newspaper. The reviewer wrote my book “represents a significant step toward widely sharing steady historical perceptions.” Clearly, times are changing for such institutions to be willing to recommend my book, a “revisionist” look at Japan’s colonial rule over Korea. I understand that Prof. Karube was born in 1965. I feel that scholars belonging to the younger generation are changing, too.

　　　Sakurai: Surely, younger Japanese born after the baby-boom generation do not subscribe to the theory of Japan as a villain. I think there is a wide-spread belief that, after all, Japan is not as bad a nation as South Korea and China claim and, rather, a far more sensible nation. Over the last 25 years at major universities in the US, including Harvard and Georgetown, people keep saying that Japan will continue to decline, and because of that, the number of students studying Japan has decreased. China is what you should be studying, they say. But watch what will happen to China from now on. There are growing voices around the world questioning how China behaves as it tramples on freedom and human rights and stubbornly adheres to a 21^st century version of Sinocentric imperialism. Meanwhile, Japan has been steadily succeeding in winning international recognition quite different from China’s.

　　　Akita: In South Korea, too, gradual changes appear to be taking place in popular perceptions of Japan. This year, for the first time, a high school history textbook, which positively evaluates at least some part of the Japanese colonial era, has been given official approval.

　　　Sakurai: Professor Lee Yong-Hoon of Seoul University has been instrumental in promoting Korean textbooks with references that are more open-minded to Japan. He pointed out that Korea was annexed by Japan because the Rhee dynasty had failed to overcome a series of economic crises and that Koreans should give Japan due credit where appropriate for the fairness of its rule. Despite facing fierce public protests, and even being forced to prostrate himself in public humiliation, Prof. Lee has continued to stand by his position on the Japanese colonization.

Stereotypical denunciation of Japan

　　　Akita: In any event, President Park is certainly a tough lady. When she visited Washington last May, she took a walk alone with President Obama in the garden of the White House, leaving her interpreter behind. She also spoke to a joint session of the Senate and the House. On each of these occasions, she criticized Japanese historical perceptions. Being fluent in English, she readily disseminates anti-Japanese ideas across the international community. The Japanese Prime Minister is earnestly called on to speak more English. The American people, disinterested in what their forebears did in the Philippines or other places around the world, are constantly and one-sidedly fed with popular misconceptions about the negative aspects of Japan’s colonization of Korea.

　　　Sakurai: I often wonder why President Obama is tougher on Japan than on South Korea over a host of matters, including this issue of historical perceptions. My answer is that Mr. Obama probably is a politician with considerably left-wing and liberal values. His personal and professional connections as a lawyer before becoming a US senator are said to have even included some people on the edge of the extreme left. I think, therefore, that he acquired stereotypically critical views of Japan at the outset of his professional career. So, I suspect that, as a result, a critical posture toward Japan over historical issues tends to almost come naturally to him. As concerns the Senkaku Islands issue, Obama assumes a “cause no trouble” attitude toward Japan.

　　　In point of fact, I think that ought to be the attitude with which he should face China. And, as regards the issues pertaining to the South China Sea, Mr. Obama has renounced, of his own volition, the opportunity to emphasize such values as “freedom,” “human rights,” and “international law” with which the US has led the international community. Consequently, Prime Minister Abe committed himself to shouldering the burden in Bali in October in place of President Obama. I believe we Japanese should act more confidently in the international arena. Candidly speaking, I am eagerly looking forward to an awakening of us Japanese, belated though it may be.

　　　Akita: I conclude my book by quoting from an essay by Amos Oz, the Israeli author and literary critic, and on his position that precise use of words matters, that: “…what is striking are the good intentions and actions of Japan and the Government-General of Korea so that, despite the blemishes, (Japan’s) Korean colonial policy may be judged as being ‘almost fair.’” The English edition of my book is slated for publication next spring. I think I ought to send a copy to President Park. After all, her English is very good. I would be very happy if my book helped her to reconsider the historical facts about the Japanese colonization of Korea.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 583 in the November 21, 2013 issue of The Weekly Shincho)