Historical Context
By Peter J. Seybolt, Center for Asian Studies
University of Vermont
At the turn of the millennium, the relations of the three great
nations of East Asia-China, Korea, and Japan-hang in the balance.
Distrust and resentment, a legacy of decades of conflict in the
19th and 20th centuries shadow prospects for a brighter era of peace
and cooperation in the 21st. Today, the peoples of East Asia are
increasingly engaged in trade and cultural exchange. They are also
arming themselves against the prospect of future belligerence.
Wars in East Asia-beginning with armed struggle between China and
Japan in 1894-95 to determine the fate of Korea and culminating
with eight years of bitter conflict during World War II-claimed
tens of millions of lives. Memories of the Nanjing massacre, the
sexual exploitation of “comfort Women,” criminal medical
experimentation, slave labor, and other such atrocities committed
more than half a century ago still affect relations today.
The barbarities of recent wars must not be forgotten. Like the
holocaust in Europe, they must serve to remind us continually of
human capacity for evil. But is retribution for crimes committed
a path to redemption? Does forgiveness offer a better prospect of
a peaceful future? And who is to be forgiven? Are succeeding generations
responsible for the crimes of their forbears? Are whole nations
culpable or only the individuals who lead them?
Those are questions that are not easily answered. But the history
of the three East Asian countries offers a distinctive prospect
for future reconciliation and cooperation. For over two thousand
years the peoples of China, Korea, and Japan lived mostly at peace
with each other and developed similar institutions, values, and
customs. Tools, techniques and material goods as well as ideas were
shared by China, Korea, and Japan and adapted to local circumstances
to become distinctive parts of a common culture. Techniques of wetland
rice agriculture became the basis of prosperity and cultural development
throughout East Asia; illiteracy was dispelled by the spread of
Chinese writing; Buddhism became the principal religion throughout
the area; and Confucianism deeply influenced social and political
institutions and eventually became the official state cult in all
three countries. Indications of a shared culture are readily apparent
as well in the literature, art and architecture of the three countries.
The structure and appearance of public buildings, landscape painting,
Buddhist sculpture, ceramic ware, and poetry in the pre-modern era
is immediately recognizable as variations on common themes and techniques.
During two millennia of cultural assimilation and adaptation there
had been, to be sure, relatively brief periods of belligerence,
such as the Mongol conquest of China and Korea in the 12th century,
and two subsequent abortive attempts to conquer Japan by Mongol-led
Chinese and Korean troops. There was also an unsuccessful attempt
in the 16th century by the great unifier of Japan, Toyotomi Hideyoshi,
to conquer China and Korea. But these and other periods of conflict
were exceptions to an amicable norm. Indeed, for almost 300 years
between 1600 and the late 19th century there was undisturbed peace.
What changed that situation was Western imperialism. In the 19th
century, Britain, the United States and France, soon followed by
Russia, Germany and other Western nations, forcefully “opened”
a reluctant East Asia to Western trade and religious proselytizing
by imposing a series of “unequal treaties.” The distinctive
ways in which China, Japan, and Korea reacted to this Western challenge
would dramatically affect their individual and collective futures.
China, disdainful of the Western “barbarians"”
and confident of its own moral and cultural superiority, tried to
buy off the imperialists with small concessions, and later, as its
vulnerability became increasingly apparent, to acquire Western weapons
and a few “self-strengthening” institutions. China's
miscalculation of Western power and determination would result in
the total collapse of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, leaving the country
in chaos and vulnerable to outside predators.
Japan’s reaction was entirely different. After a brief period
of internal turmoil, the Japanese united as a nation determined
to learn from the West techniques for “strengthening the army
and enriching the country.” Within a remarkably short time
the Japanese had acquired the power to compete with the West on
its own terms, whereupon they took the initiative to “open”
Korea, the most conservative of the three East Asian nations, and
join Western nations in imposing unequal treaties on it. In 1894-95
Japan defeated China in a war to determine control of Korea, and
a decade later it decisively defeated Russia in a war over exploitation
rights in Korea and Manchuria in northeastern China. By 1910 Japan
had incorporated Korea into the growing Japanese empire, and in
1931 it invaded Manchuria,
separating it from China and establishing a puppet government. Six
years later it became embroiled in a war with China that would last
for eight years, ending only with its unconditional surrender in
1945.
To put these events in historical context, it should be understood
that Japan’s aggression in Korea and China in the decades
leading up to WW II was viewed by many Japanese economic and military
strategists as their only hope for survival in a hostile, racist
world. Japan, a country with virtually no natural resources, had
become increasingly dependent economically on the good will of other
nations, particularly the United States, a country which had recently
passed immigration laws discriminating against Asians. Domination
of Korea and China, both politically in disarray and militarily
weak at the time, seemed to offer a way out. Undoubtedly some Japanese
also believed their own propaganda-that they were liberating the
peoples of East Asia from the yoke of Western oppression to create
a new era of collective prosperity-though their actions soon belied
the claim. Thus, they became entrapped in a brutal eight year war
that they could not win.
The costs of that conflict are staggering. Chinese historians estimate
that more than 20 million of their compatriots died as a direct
result of the war, and uncounted millions of others were injured.
In the most notorious single incident of the war an estimated 150,000
to 350,000 Chinese men, women, and children were slaughtered in
a frenzy of indiscriminate killing by Japanese troops when they
entered Nanjing, then the capital of the Republic of China. The
infamous Nanjing massacre was a calculated attempt by local Japanese
commanders to terrorize the Chinese into capitulating. The effect
was the opposite. Chinese resistance stiffened, and memories of
the atrocity are still fresh.
In Korea too resentment of Japanese policies and actions in the
past still rankles. After Korea was annexed by Japan in 1910, the
economy was restructured to serve Japanese interests, and attempts
to achieve cultural assimilation eventually went so far as to prohibit
use of the Korean language in schools, publications, and official
documents. The sexual exploitation of thousands of Korean “comfort
women” during WW II is only the most well-known of the many
grievances harbored by Koreans against their neighbors to the east.
Despite numerous acts of Korean resistance during the years of Japanese
occupation, none could prevail against superior Japanese military
might until the defeat of Japan in 1945.
From the perspective of the Japanese government in the early 20th
century, its attempts to dominate China and Korea were only commensurate
with what Western powers had already been doing all over the world
during the great age of imperialism. Indeed, when Japan seized power
in Korea, it was with the tacit compliance of the United States
and Great Britain in exchange for Japan’s recognition of their
claims in the Philippines and India. It was a perspective paid for
with blood, including the blood of many Japanese. Victims of misguided
militarism, millions of Japanese died during World War II, many
of them civilians, including those incinerated in the nuclear holocaust
in the waning days of the conflict.
Is forgiveness possible? Or will the retributive ghosts of the
past continue to haunt the collective memory of the peoples of East
Asia? Progress toward reconciliation since the end of World War
II has taken a largely economic form, with trade and investment
providing a bond of mutual benefit. Perhaps such material considerations
will open a path to peace and stability in East Asia but in the
long run, cultural considerations, the deeply grounded common heritage
developed over two millennia, offer a more solid foundation for
true forgiveness and reconciliation.