hankyoreh

Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology released a middle school teachers’ instruction manual that names Dokdo. This causes a problem quite unlike the Fuso publishing house textbook affairs of the past, in that the instruction manual will influence government-approved textbooks as a whole. By 2012, all Japanese middle school textbooks relating to social studies will describe Dokdo as Japanese territory.

We must, first of all, note that this move is a shameless distortion that ignores historical and substantial truth. Dokdo is territory proven to be Korean through authoritative historical sources and is under Korean control. But since 2001, the Japanese government has aided and abetted the distortions, and in 2005 it issued an official opinion regarding the textbook approval process, calling for clarity so that there is no mistaking that Dokdo is Japanese. An example of the result would be how Fuso’s textbook manuscript from 2005 initially said the islets are the subject of a territorial dispute between Korea and Japan but was later changed to say they are “Japanese territory according to history and international law” and that they are “illegally occupied by Korea.”

The instruction manual also goes against the “near countries clause” of 1982, in which the Japanese government stipulated that in the writing of textbooks, “necessary consideration must be given to international interests and international cooperation in the handling of the modern and contemporary historical thought between countries near Asia.” This is like saying Japan is going to give up even on making gestures in consideration of neighboring countries out of introspection for its war of aggression.

South Korea is of the view that this is a rejection of our proposal to “look straight at the past and open up the future,” and is moving to recall the ambassador to Tokyo and take measures that better assert Korean control over Dokdo. This would appear to be the unavoidable course of action.

However, it must be noted that the current situation was, in part, caused by the Lee Myung-bak administration’s flippant approach. He knew well enough how Japan has trampled on the goodwill of previous Korean administrations when they said they would not make historical issues diplomatic ones, and yet he bowed his head to Japan saying that he would “move to the future without raising questions about the past.” When it became apparent Japan was going to include its territorial claims on Dokdo, Lee’s administration got all flustered but was able to win nothing about the matter. It should take this as a lesson, realize that “unresolved issues of the past” are not issues of the past but of the present, and respond accordingly.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]