|
The
Tokyo-Pyongyang negotiations -
Some
reflections on reconciliation
By Johan
Galtung, TFF associate
dr hc mult, Professor of Peace Studies
Director, TRANSCEND: A Peace and Development
Network
Pyongyang, August 2000 - PeaceBoat, a Japanese NGO
of which Japan can be very proud, just concluded its
voyage No. 3 to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(DPRK), with more than 200 participants. I conducted
workshops on reconciliation and had the occasion to have
dialogues with a number of well placed DPRK officials. My
focus was on how North Korea sees the damage/suffering
caused by Japanese imperialism, what kind of compensation
they seek, and what they mean by "real apology". Some of
the answers are well known, others are not; for
completeness they are all included.
They mention six forms of damage/suffering: one
million killed/tortured (also hibakusha); six million
forced into war service including 200,000 comfort women;
economic looting; cultural treasures seized or destroyed;
the zainichi situation in Japan; and Japanese
responsibility for the division of Korea between the USA
and the Soviet Union, as a Japanese colony.
Compensation according to them depends on type of
damage, and is not only in terms of money. Comfort women
have to be compensated, but from the Japanese government,
not from Asian Women's Fund. For the economic looting
compensation in the form of economic infrastructure and
social services may be adequate. Cultural treasures have
to be handed back or compensated. The zainichi is a
question of human rights in Japan. They demand
wholehearted Japanese support in the struggle for Korean
unification. And then an important principle: The victim
will decide how much compensation is enough, not the
perpetrator.
The North Korean conception of "real apology" includes
six elements: it has to come from a Prime Minister in
power; has to be in writing, preferably in a joint
communique; has to contain the word "apology", not only
remorse, regret; has to be specific damage/suffering in
Korea; "deep", reflected in textbooks and Yasukuni
visits; and should reflect apology/compensation trends in
the world. Murayama was in 1995 a former PM and he did
not specify Korea ("Asian nations"). A good model is the
Kim Dae Jung-Obuchi joint declaration 1998 but not
Japan-China with no apology for Nanjing and the 731
"experiments", for instance.
About normalization: compensation/apology is mentioned
as precondition. They feel humiliated by Japanese
laissez-passer documents instead of real visas; resent
the word "abduction" and insist on the term "missing
people"; want missiles discussed within the framework of
a nuclear free zone for NE Asia; and reject US
participation in military exercises from the Okinawa
bases. They also reject the Japanese arguments that money
has to be given directly to individuals concerned and
serve people's needs, not to be diverted into palaces or
military purposes. Japan is not in a moral position to
dictate the use.
My own view: the DPRK position is reasonable except
for the pre-condition. Negotiations flow better with all
issues on the table, in no order. The two points about
how money is used may be accommodated by Japan giving to
infrastructure and social services. But DPRK also feels
that Japan is not free to decide, does not dare be ahead
of the USA, and searches for pretexts.
Only Japan can prove that this is not true. The two
Kims showed the way in the historical 15 June meeting.
2K=2000, they opened a peace process for the century and
deserve a joint Nobel Peace Prize. NGOs like PeaceBoat
can be pilots in this process, work with North Korean
NGOs on joint history textbooks, and a PeaceTrain
Japan-Asia-Europe when the rail connection is a fact.
©
Galtung 2000
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|