Articles , Books and Media

In the previous discussion, it emphasized a key distinction between international politics theory and the Reconciliation Studies: namely, whether the “people” as the sovereign subject are regarded as a fixed and immutable entity. It also argued for the necessity of placing equal importance—alongside power and interests—on the social functions and significance, both domestically and internationally, of universal values that serve to integrate the people and constitute sources of soft power in the international arena, as well as the national memories that are closely tied to such values. In this installment, as an initial application of these fundamental perspectives of “Reconciliation Studies,” I would like to introduce a conceptual clarification of the various meanings attributed to “reconciliation,” presenting it as a tool for deepening our thinking. Misunderstandings or careless conflations of these concepts can give rise to unexpected prejudice, resignation, anger, or contempt.

Martin Leiner, the inaugural president of the International Association of Reconciliation Studies and a professor of theology at the University of Jena (formerly located in East Germany), defines reconciliation in theoretical terms as a process of re-establishing relationships following major traumatic events such as war or genocide. However, when it attempts to apply this definition to the context of East Asia, we are immediately confronted with considerable difficulties. This is because, fundamentally, the very political system in which the people are recognized as the principal agents of the state is itself an extremely recent development in East Asia, introduced only in the wake of Western influence.

The image of pre-modern amicable “exchange,” as symbolized by the missions of Korean envoys (Chōsen Tsūshinshi) to Edo-period Japan, does not directly correspond to the ideal of contemporary reconciliation between nations. In pre-modern societies, rigid hierarchical orders existed internally, with individuals distinguished from birth within the framework of Confucian “ritual propriety” (礼, li). Furthermore, political legitimacy was not derived from subjects or peasants but was instead anchored in a transcendent entity referred to as “Heaven.” Exchanges between such societies, characterized by top-down rule through “virtue,” cannot serve as models for the modern ideal of national reconciliation, which presupposes the equality and human rights of all citizens. No nostalgic past prior to war and colonial rule exists in East Asia to which one could meaningfully return. Instead, contemporary East Asia remains situated along the multilayered historical trajectory of nation-building, colonial subjugation, and postwar democratization.

The elements that sustain reconciliation between peoples are identical to those that uphold constitutional democracy domestically. These include shared memories among the people as sovereign agents, the values through which such memories are selected, and the national emotions interwoven with them (An Attempt at Reconciliation Studies, Akashi Shoten, 2021). At the core of the collective memories that evoke national consciousness as an “imagined community” lie selectively embraced historical memories, inseparably tied to universal values. In Japan, the remembrance of wartime suffering, symbolized by solemn ceremonies marking the end of World War II, is recalled alongside values such as “peace” and “prosperity,” stressing that war must “never be repeated.” In South Korea, the memory of autonomy and resistance is reawakened through the values of “freedom” and “dignity,” as exemplified by the March 1st Independence Movement. While societal prosperity and individual liberty are universal imperatives for humanity, the democratic integration of specific groups into modern nations necessitates more than shared language or culture; shared public memory and the universal values supporting it are essential. The fusion of deeply resonant emotions with collective memory and value is foundational to the formation of national identity.

Citizen exchange initiatives aimed at fostering civic reconciliation have often transcended domestic contexts, subtly expressing discomfort or dissent toward prevailing domestic values and memories while promoting exchanges through specific ideologies or symbols. A prevailing ideal has envisioned that such citizen-led initiatives would eventually ripple outward to achieve “true reconciliation” across entire nations.

Nevertheless, calls for societal change through citizen exchange frequently provoke backlash within national communities, sometimes exacerbating internal divisions. This resistance stems from the intrinsic human desire to maintain “ontological security,” wherein human consciousness instinctively reacts against the imposition of wholly unfamiliar values and memories. The media often serves as a primary arena for the interplay of appeals and counter-reactions.

Citizen-led reconciliation efforts emerged precisely because diplomatic normalization and intergovernmental reconciliation between postwar Japan and its neighboring Asian states were achieved without substantive reconciliation. The significance of the war, the meaning of Japan’s imperial governance, and the interpretation of independence movements were never subject to mutual agreement. Instead, sterile treaty texts were negotiated by military officers, high-ranking bureaucrats, and party elites who monopolized governmental power, framing normalization predominantly around economic interests and subsequently reinforcing it with anti-communist logic. This constitutes the essence of intergovernmental reconciliation. Even after the Cold War, the value of “development” continued to support such frameworks, but the neglected importance of the “heart” was recognized in initiatives such as the Fukuda Doctrine. Today, economic development levels between Japan and its neighboring Asian countries have largely equalized. Furthermore, the waves of democratization and globalization since the late 1980s have fundamentally shaken these structures, embedding universal values throughout the region. In light of these transformations, reconciliation between peoples must now be grounded not merely in governmental agreements but in a conscious engagement with the elements that sustain democracy itself, requiring profound understanding and national-level dialogue.

Note: This text was originally published in Toki no Hōrei. Minor editorial discrepancies may exist between this version and the published article.