Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures Polish Academy of Sciences Hemispheres Studies on Cultures and Societies Vol. 32 Warszawa 2017 Editor-in-Chief Board of Advisory Editors MAHNAZ ZAHIRINEJAD GRZEGORZ J. KACZYŃSKI OLA EL KHAWAGA Subject Editors NATALIA BAHLAWAN ABIDA EIJAZ PATRYCJA KOZIEŁ HARRY T. NORRIS STANISŁAW PIŁASZEWICZ English Text Consultant MILOŠ MENDEL JO HARPER MARIA SKŁADANKOWA Secretary MICHAŁ TYMOWSKI ANETTA ŁYŻWA-PIBER © Copyright by Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw 2017 e-ISSN 2449-8645 ISBN 978-83-7452-087-4 HEMISPHERES is published quarterly and is indexed in ERIH PLUS, The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, ProQuest Database and Index Copernicus Contents Olga Barbasiewicz, Aiming at Reconciliation. Political Leaders, Post-war Lieux de Mémoire, and the Memory Work (Travail de Mémoire) in the Context of the Alliance Between Japan, the United States, and the Republic of Korea until the end of Barack Obama’s Presidency……………...…..……5 Sabina B r a k o n i e c k a , Drivers for the Growth of Salafism in Northern Nigeria: The Case of Boko Haram………….......17 Elaheh K o o l a e e , Mehdi S h a y e s t e h , Good Governance and the Integrated Coastal Management of the Caspian Sea……………...…..………………………………………...31 Patrycja Kozieł, Gender-Based Violence in Northern Nigeria. The Context of Muslim and Christian Women’s Rights…………………………………………………...….....41 Artur M a l a n t o w i c z , Democracy or Stability? Everlasting Dilemma of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan……………...55 Agnieszka P a w n i k , The Roots of the Modern Japanese Educational System in the Meiji Period……………………...67 Magdalena P i n k e r , Supernatural Motifs in Chronicled Descriptions of the Foundation of Early Arabic-Islamic Towns……………...…..……………………………………...79 Martyna Rusiniak-Karwat, The Road to Freedom. Jewish Socialists in Shanghai…...…..……………………………..…91 Agnieszka Syliwoniuk-Wapowska, Identity and Inventions of the Past in the City Space: the Case of Dubai......................99 Book Review Olga Barbasiewicz, Robert Zając, Peacebuilding and Security Sector Governance, Yuji Uesugi (ed.)...............111 Editorial Principles……………...…..……………………….….115 Olga Barbasiewicz* e-ISSN 2449-8645 HEMISPHERES No. 32, 2017 Aiming at Reconciliation. Political Leaders, Post-war Lieux de Mémoire, and the Memory Work (Travail de Mémoire) in the Context of the Alliance Between Japan, the United States, and the Republic of Korea Until the End of Barack Obama’s Presidency Abstract The main aim of this article is to analyze the process of reconciliation between Japan and the United States, assuming that these countries have dealt with their past and the memory work, and to show the influence of this reconciliation onto relations in the region. This article argues that contemporary political leaders of Japan have accepted the post-war reconciliation with the U.S., and based on this experience they try to set a certain position in the triangular alliance, shaping the balance of power in East Asia. The emphasis is put on the ‘reconciliation game’ as a part of the political actions undertaken by Japanese and American political leaders. I claim that in case of both countries’ relations, the bilateral memory work was done in 2016 and all the potential, up-coming demands will be from now on a debate over a completed issue. Introduction Celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II draw the attention of the international community towards East Asia. From the beginning of 2015, Japan was preparing celebrations of this anniversary. Japanese participation in the war is often, especially in the Western world, associated with the Pearl Harbor attack or with dropping the atomic bombs onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those two events frequently overshadow Japanese-American relations. Nevertheless, in 2015 we could have observed that the process of reconciliation between Japan and the U.S. was coming to the end, or could even be considered as completed. It can be called a ‘mutual amnesia’ or a will to overshadow the past with a strong determination of bilateral cooperation to strengthen and stabilize the importance of the two countries in the region. This hypothesis can be compared to the statements given from Friedrich Nietzsche to Henry Kissinger, arguing that amnesty and forgetting are the only ways to ensure peace.1 Therefore, the main aim of this article is to analyze the process of reconciliation between Japan and the U.S., assuming that these countries have dealt with their past and the memory work (travail de mémoire) – a term provided by Paul Ricoeur, and to show the influence of this reconciliation onto relations in the region, especially onto the Japanese-American-Korean relations. The problem of reconciliation and its influence onto the contemporary relations in East Asia is frequently undertaken by political scientists. The concept of history and memory as the international relations theory in the Asia and Pacific was introduced by G. John Ikenberry and Michael Mastanduno, especially taking into consideration Japanese elites who found their solution in overcoming the problem of war memory and reconciliation by evaluating the peace constitution, but also by subordinating Japan’s military to the U.S.-Japan alliance to lower the level * Assistant professor at the Institute of the Middle and Far East, Jagiellonian University, e-mail: [email protected]. 1 Jeffrey K. Olick, The Politics of Regret. On Collective Memory and Historical Responsibility, New York: Routledge, 2007, p. 124. 6 Olga Barbasiewicz ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ of regional animosity.2 Moreover, Victor D. Cha claims, that historical anger is critical in the Japanese-Korean relations, but considers the salience of “patron commitment” in regards to the alliance of both countries with the U.S., that underlies the three states’ triangular alliance dynamics.3 Nonetheless, the paper introduces a new approach. This article argues that contemporary political leaders of Japan have accepted the postwar reconciliation with the U.S., and basing on this experience they try to set a certain position in the triangular alliance shaping the balance of power in East Asia. To test this hypothesis, several research questions should be answered. First: does the war memory affects the triangular alliance in East Asia, and in which way? Second: what is the mile stone in the Japanese-American reconciliation process, and how this process affects the triangular alliance in East Asia? Third: how can the theory of memory work by Ricoeur be applied in the international relations in Asia-Pacific region? Due to the changing balance of power in the Far East, and the growing position of the People’s Republic of China, the U.S. seeks to maintain its influence in the region also by acting through its allies, including Japan. By showing a great alliance and partnership with Japan, the U.S. is trying to counter balance the power of China in the Far East. Still, there is always the memory of the American occupation of Japan and the impact the Western superpower of the post-war era had in the Country of the Rising Sun. However, according to the realist theory in international relations and memory studies, nations are able to reconcile in case of an external threat that makes the global position of both parties insecure.4 So, the question arises whether the time of the American supremacy has influenced the current relations between the two countries? Then, does the memory affect the Japanese-American relations and in which way? Regarding the places of remembrance, it should be emphasized that they can be both tangible and intangible creations and their content, in spite of direct references the World War II, is also the result of the ‘living’ memory of those events. We can take into consideration the most important according to Japanese and American narratives places of remembrance. These are Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima/Nagasaki creating a certain bracket of events which are the symbol of the Japanese-American conflict. Going further we can refer to professor Carol Gluck’s statement that the Japanese ignore everything before Hiroshima and the Americans ignore everything after Nagasaki.5 It may become a starting point for the analysis which focuses on the perception of memorials (places of remembrance), such as Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Pearl Harbor, by the leading political actors and the influence of the perception onto the reconciliation processes between the U.S. and Japan with respect to the security concerns in East Asia in the 21st century. Nevertheless, the reelection of Abe Shinzō as Japan’s Prime Minister could potentially bring an end 2 C. John Ikenberry, Michael Mastanduno, International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific, New York: Columbia University Press, 2003, p. 12. 3 Victor D. Cha, ‘Abandonment, Entrapment, and Neoclassical Realism in Asia: the United States, Japan, and Korea’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2000, p. 263. 4 Yinan He, The Search for Reconciliation: Sino-Japanese and German-Polish Relations since World War II, New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 3. 5 Isaak Chotiner, ‘How Japan and the U.S. Remember World War II’, 11 May 2016, http://www.slate.com /articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/05/the_u_s_and_japan_have_very_different_memories_of_world_war_ii