Peacemakers crucial for reconciliations

By Kang Hyun-kyung

• Published Jun 21, 2015 10:21 AM KST
• Updated Jun 21, 2015 10:21 AM KST

Franco-German reconciliation was deep, Anglo-German one shallow: expert

By Kang Hyun-kyung

Peacemakers were born out of the European countries’ decades-long efforts to reconcile with their former enemies in the wake of World War II. They are faith-based group leaders, nongovernmental organization (NGO) activists, students and artists, both from oppressor and oppressed countries during the war, who strove to find ways to live peacefully with each other.

The roles of these unsung heroes helped pave the way for post-war reconciliations in Europe, according to diplomats and experts who gathered at the Asan Institute for Public Studies in Seoul on June 17 for the Post-World War II Reconciliation and Cooperation seminar.

Although the European reconciliations may not necessarily be replicable for East Asia because of the different contexts, the experts say multiple actors at all levels in Korea and Japan should nevertheless make efforts to mend their strained relations.

Hugh Miall, a professor of international relations at the University of Kent, said diverse groups of people had been involved in the Franco-German reconciliation in the wake of World War II.

“All of the countries had significant NGOs and social actors involved in the early stage of the reconciliations. We heard that historians, intellectuals and scholars worked with each other,” he said. “Quakers played an important role in conveying their reconciliation message in Germany. These social initiatives quickly led to a dramatic process for friendship and steps toward political and economic union.”

Etienne Rolland-Piegue, the deputy head of mission at the French Embassy in Seoul, agreed. Sharing his fond childhood memories about Germans and the German language, the French diplomat said Franco-German reconciliation is still alive thanks to the roles of diverse actors in both countries. The French diplomat stressed that the media also has a role in cultivating bilateral ties between old enemies.

The British and Polish embassies proposed that the Asan institute organize the seminar to create a policy debate gathering and to identify what East Asia can learn from Europe’s reconciliation experiences, especially as the East Asian region will mark the 70th anniversary of the end of the war on August 15.

Europe has been moving forward and focusing on the future, successfully dispelling the historical animosity between states through decades of mutual efforts of both oppressor and oppressed countries. Meanwhile, East Asia is still trapped in the past, with countries blaming another for what went wrong and demanding the other to act first before they give their trust.

The contrasting situations of the two regions seven decades after World War II have prompted some experts in Korea to look at Europe as a possible model for ending its historical disputes with Japan. However, the European diplomats and experts at the seminar remained skeptical about the effectiveness of such an approach, albeit they hinted that based on Europe’s experiences, multiple actors, both in the government and the civil society, could make a difference in Korea-Japan relations.

German Ambassador Rolf Mafael said people-to-people links were one of the critical elements that made his country’s reconciliations with its neighbors possible. He noted that the German leadership has been consistent in its endeavor to reconcile with neighboring countries, despite government changes.

The envoy added that public support has also contributed to the post-war reconciliations, saying the German government successfully created a consensus among the public.

According to the envoy, Germany learned that reconciliation was the result of mutual efforts between the oppressor and the oppressed. It also helped that the neighboring countries were open to Germany’s efforts to make peace with them, he said.

Polish Ambassador Krzystof Ignacy Majka noted the significance of actors at multiple levels, including religious leaders, civic group activists and students, in successful post-war reconciliation.

Different courses

Although many European countries were able to build trust with each other after the war, Miall said the degrees of reconciliations they achieved were different. He compared the Franco-German reconciliation with the Anglo-German one, calling the former successful and deep and the latter shallow.

“For Britain, it is, of course, the victor of the Second World War. There was a sense that democracy, institutions and national sovereignty, which Britain had been fighting for, had been defended and vindicated and Britain was still the world power. There was apparently no need for Britain to change,” he said.

“For Germany, reconciliation was essential to be accepted by other countries in Europe and even to recover its national sovereignty.”

The scholar also observed that Germany and France achieved a meaningful reconciliation because of the latter’s security and economic priorities. He said post-World War II reconciliations in Europe have very different start and end points owing to the countries’ varied foreign policy priorities.

British Ambassador Charles Hay, one of the initiators of the seminar, concurred with the view that in the wake of the war, the British leadership avoided a public debate about Anglo-German reconciliation. The envoy said at that time, it would have been a lot better if Britain had a serious debate with the people about the topic.

“I think all the experiences between the countries in Europe have been quite different, depending on some factors,” he said.

The envoy questioned whether the huge amount of efforts and costs needed for the European countries to reconcile were worthwhile.

Miall said the relative slowness of reconciliation between Britain and Germany cost Britain its leadership role in the European Union. He said strong political ties and economic relations, to some degree, go hand in hand.