Simple conundrum

By Hee Young Celine Tae

It is an international conundrum: despite the geographical proximity and cultural and linguistic similarities, the three Northeast Asian states are in a period of perpetual conflict and tension, seven decades after the last gunshot of World War II was fired. However, the reason behind the problem is in fact astoundingly simple.

This “Far East” corner of the world is mired in what cannot be better described than a game of chicken, each fighting a delusional fight for hegemony over Northeast Asia, while the governments shamelessly catalyze fear and alarm in the people in order to maintain their faded authority.

Above the three nations loom conflicting memories of the past. South Korea bears a grudge against Japan, traumatized by the Japanese colonial regime, which develops into massive diplomatic frictions through issues such as comfort women or Yasukuni Shrine.

The relationship between South Korea and China is equally as volatile; although South Korea and China are in agreement on the judgment of the Japanese imperialism of the past century, acute disagreement emerges when it comes to interpreting ancient history, as represented by the controversy surrounding the Northeast Project.

The conflict between China and Japan is becoming increasingly noticeable, especially as the U.S. forms an alliance with Japan for an alleged purpose of containing China.

Overall, if the events of the past century summons rage in South Korea, they humiliate and disgrace China with memories of defeat, and the bygone glory of world conquest stir up melancholy in Japan.

To suggest the conflicting perspectives on the history of the past century as the principle cause of the current stalemate in Northeast Asia, however, seems insufficient; Korea, China and Japan were certainly not the only states who took part in the two World Wars, the center stage of which has never been Northeast Asia.

Yet, seventy years after World War II, during which reconciliation took place throughout the world, we are still locked up in a state of mutual grudge.

Although the search for a reason for such slow progress in cooperation has been a duty given primarily to experts on international relations, both an explanation and a possible solution seems to be offered by a classic piece of literature: the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell.

The novel illustrates a dystopian future in which the world is divided into three oligarchical “superstates,” who are in a perpetual state of war against each other.

The only ruling party of Oceania, one of the three superstates, “seeks power entirely for its own sake. It is not interested in the good of others; it is interested solely in power.”

Although all three states are economically prosperous and politically stable, the parties need to create national crises in order to maintain firm control over the public, who are evoked by the external threat of war to unconditionally support their leaders with surging nationalism.

“War is Peace” repeats Big Brother; this oxymoronic aphorism not only explains how he maintains his tyranny, but also provides an insight into the current situation in Northeast Asia.

As extreme as the comparison might seem, this somewhat ironical mechanism is by no means unfit for the ways in which the governments in real life maintain their control over the public.

It is in fact a classic card, currently being played by Japan as it amends the constitution to rearm the country, antagonizing China as a surrogate enemy.

The three Northeast Asian states have frequently tended to seek immediate solutions for internal crises by stimulating public outrage against foreign states.

The burden of relieving the tension falls on the shoulders of the civil society. Political apathy and disinterest coupled with blind nationalism puts the civil society into lethargy, disabling it from successfully accomplishing its political duty of containing the government.

Jean Jacques Rousseau asserted that in representative democracy, the people are “free only during the election of members of parliament,” and “as soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing;” such is the precise political state of modern societies.

Civil reconciliation should not be as difficult as commonly deemed. The civil society merely has to be wary of becoming “a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph” as Big Brother dictates his party members become.

Seventy years ago, Northeast Asia was muddling through one of its darkest eras. However, time has passed: we must refrain from the urge to “beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past,” but instead put in active efforts to rightfully understand the past.

By “we,” I am not referring to the politicians, nor the government. I am referring to the people, the individuals not confined by any boundaries but the solidarity as members of the global community, who must take on the responsibility of salvaging Northeast Asia from its chronic dependency on distorted nationalism.