Volume 13 | Issue 28 | Number 1 | Article ID 4340 | Jul 13, 2015 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Should “Gunkanjima” Be a World Heritage site? - The forgotten scars of Korean forced labor Takazane Yasunori Translated with an introduction by Tze M. minute, the Committee announced a Loo postponement of the vote by a day, citing the disagreement between Japan and Korea, and In early May 2015, the International Council on asked both countries to continue negotiations. Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) reported that The World Heritage Committee voted on 5 July, the 23 sites related to Japan’s industrialization after Japan and Korea reached an agreement in the Meiji period (“Sites of Japan’s Meiji on the wording about Korean labor at the sites. Industrial Revolution: Iron and Steel,During the voting process, Japan issued a Shipbuilding and Coal Mining”) met the criteria statement regarding an “interpretive strategy” for designation as World Heritage sites.for the sites that would allow for “an ICOMOS’ evaluation paved the way for the understanding of the full history of each site”. sites to be inscribed in the World Heritage list It included the following: at the 39th session of the World Heritage Committee in Bonn, Germany. South Korea voiced its opposition immediately, citing the More specifically, Japan is use of Korean forced labor at 7 of these sites, prepared to take measures that and criticized Japan’s nomination for allow an understanding that there attempting to obfuscate that history. Seoul were a large number of Koreans demanded that Japan address the use of forced and others who were brought labor at these sites, but Tokyo rejected these against their will and forced to calls as “political claims.” Japan and Korea met work under harsh conditions in the twice to discuss the issue (on 22 May and 9 1940s at some of the sites, and June) but failed to reach any agreement. At the that, during World War II, the same time, Korea’s foreign minister met with Government of Japan also his counterparts in Germany, Croatia, and implemented its policy of Malaysia – all three are members of the 21- requisition.1 member World Heritage Committee – to present Seoul’s case against Japan’s World Heritage proposal. On 21 June, however, The Korean delegation took the floor following Japanese and Korean foreign ministers meeting this. It noted that Korea “decided to join the in Tokyo announced their agreement to[World Heritage] Committee’s consensus cooperate to ensure the inscription of both decision on this matter” because it had “full Japan’s Meiji industrial sites and South Korea’s confidence in the authority of the Committee Baekje Historic Area into the World Heritage and trusts that the Government of Japan will list at Bonn. implement in good faith the measures it has announced” before the Committee.2 The World Heritage Committee convened its meeting on 28 June, and was scheduled to vote The successful designation was initially on the Japanese sites on 4 July. At the last welcomed by both Japan and Korea as a 1 13 | 28 | 1 APJ | JF moment of cooperation between them on a is it acceptable to ignore the historical fact that difficult historical issue. This optimism about Korean and Chinese people were forced into Japan-Korea reconciliation, however, quickly labor under extremely poor conditions at the evaporated. Commentary the very next day in coal mine there? both countries on the meaning of Japan’s statement revealed a deep schism. Korea UNESCO’s advisory body, ICOMOS, recently viewed the statement as Japan’s publicrecommended to UNESCO that the 23 acknowledgment of its use of Korean forced installations nominated by the Japanese labor at the sites. However, Japan’s foreign government for the World Heritage as “Modern minister declared that the statement’s use of Industrial Heritage Sites in Kyūshū and the phrase “forced to work” did not mean Yamaguchi” are as a whole “appropriate for “forced labor ky( ōsei renko).” Further, inscription.” Japanese newspapers decried the politicization of the nomination process, and complained that In Nagasaki, this recommendation was greeted this “threw cold water” on attempts to improve enthusiastically, especially by the local media Japan-Korea relations. Some news outlets have and tourism industry, but I was, to be honest, also began to point fingers by attributing the disappointed by it and by the “festive mood” in delayed vote at Bonn to Korea’s refusal to response. Was this a wise decision by compromise despite their agreement to do so ICOMOS? The nomination documents on 21 June. This issue has the potential to submitted by the Japanese government were return in the future: the Yomiuri newspaper inadequate in terms of acknowledging the reported that Korean government officials have whole history of each of the locations. Surely raised the possibility that a similar kind of there were other ways for ICOMOS to proceed, diplomatic row will erupt again if Japan such as by asking for the submission of proceeds with its nomination of “The Sado additional materials? complex of heritage mines” to the World In particular, one of the 23 suggested sites, Heritage List because of forced labor that was Gunkanjima (Hashima Island) in Nagasaki used there.3 Prefecture, an active coal mine until 1974, was Takazane Yasunori’s essay was published on 29 worked by Korean and Chinese forced laborers May 2015, more than a month before the World during the 1930s and 1940s, and the terrible Heritage meeting. While Japan’s nomination conditions they endured meant that many died. was successful, Takazane’s essay remains a To be clear, I am not opposed to Gunkanjima’s timely interrogation of Japan’s historicalregistration as a World Heritage site under all consciousness about the history of Korean circumstances. If Japan applies for registration forced labor at these sites, a problem that the predicated on this negative history fu( no mainstream Japanese press seems reluctant to rekishi) that acknowledges responsibility for tackle directly. The essay is also noteworthy for this exploitation, then I think there is room for his questioning of UNESCO’s responsibility in discussion. this matter. TML * * * * * The Japanese government’s nomination of Gunkanjima, [or Battleship Island] formally known as Hashima, in Nagasaki Prefecture as a World Heritage site is likely to be adopted. But 2 13 | 28 | 1 APJ | JF listen carefully to Gunkanjima: Records of Korean and Chinese forced into labor at Hashima (Gunkanjima ni mimi o sumaseba: Hashima ni kyōsei renkōsareta Chōsenjin Chūgokujin no kiroku) later in 2011. I did so under the auspices of the “Committee for the Protection of the Rights of Zainichi Koreans in Nagasaki” – an organization with which I am affiliated and which has long worked with Korean atomic bomb survivors. The South Korean government has already Hashima Island, also known asexpressed the opinion that Gunkanjima clashes Gunkanjima (Battleship island) with the mission of the World Heritage Convention, which aims to protect heritage that “Nagasaki Hashima 01” by Hisagi possesses “universal values.” We should pay attention. According to South Korean government data, approximately 60,000 Sites like Auschwitz in Poland, Hiroshima’s Koreans were pressed into service at seven of atomic dome, and the English slave-trade port the sites, including Kyūshū’s coal mines, the of Liverpool are registered World Heritage Yahata steel works, and Mitsubishi’s Nagasaki sites because of their negative histories, in order to provide materials for humanity’s self- shipbuilding works, where about 1,000 people examination, and warnings of actions that must died. never be repeated. However, the Japanese government does not regard Gunkanjima in that way. Cries from those forced into labor In January 2011, I learned of the existence of survivors who had worked as forced laborers on Gunkanjima from a DVD of a Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) program, and, visiting Korea, I met three such people who were in their 80s and 90s. I heard their vivid accounts of personal experiences and their stories of suffering there. In speaking to them of the possible recognition of Gunkanjima as a World Heritage site, I was struck by their unanimous disbelief. “Isn’t this a concealment of history?” they asked. “What kind of experiences do people think we had there?” “Are Japanese people actually proud of this island’s history? Why?” Because of this experience, I published If you 3 13 | 28 | 1 APJ | JF “Governmental Yawata Iron & Steelgreat philosopher and leader who led Japan Works” in Mainichi shimbunsha, Ichi oku into modernity.4 nin no Shōwa shi Yoshida Shōin, however, should be remembered not just as a precursor of the Meiji However, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Revolution and the associated industrialization, Suga Yoshihide responded that, “This isbut also for having drafted a grand philosophy something that an expert organization has of invasion. Yoshida Shōin inculcated these recognized. There is no need to introduce ideas into his disciples Itō Hirobumi and political claims as Korea has.” Yamagata Aritomo, the leaders of the Meiji era, and there is no question that they put them into But this is not a problem of politics, it is a 5 action. From the First Sino-Japanese and problem of history. What does Japan mean by Russo-Japanese Wars, to the annexation of the ignoring a historical event and rejecting it as a Korean peninsula, and through the Manchurian “political claim?” Is such an argument Incident and the Second Sino-Japanese war, the acceptable