제주평화연구원

Kim Soon-Ja (Director of Center for Jeju Studies, Jeju Research Institute) 1. Languages of Jeju and North Korea When I was asked to write about ‘Jeju and Peace, the Environment, and Inter-Korean Relations’, the first memory that came to mind was an image in reading the North Korean novel ≪Kkochpaneun Cheonyeo (The Flower Maiden)≫. It was in 1989, not long after graduating from college, so it was about 30 years ago. ≪Kkochpaneun Cheonyeo≫ had been banned and then rereleased in that year. I read the novel with excitement, so the impression I felt while reading the book at that time is still fresh. It's been a long time since I've read it, so I can't remember the whole story clearly. However, in summary, the background of the novel was in the 1920s, during the Japanese colonial period. Kkotbun was the main character, who was in domestic service at the landlord's house during the day for her sick mother. At night, she diligently made her life selling flowers. I was greatly stimulated by the story because I sympathized with the harsh life of the young flower girl and the pain that the people suffered from losing their country. What attracted me even more was that the stories I heard from my maternal grandmother when I was a child, were melted into every corner of the book with many words and expressions. Now that I don’t have the book I read back then, there is no way of confirming which expressions drew me in but I’m sure that the languages in Jeju and in North Korea are very similar. Without being aware, we seem to have forgotten that the two Koreas, who have been living in hostile relations for a long time due to division, are one people at heart. Through this study. I would like to confirm that the two Koreas are the common ethinc group and the same linguistic community by revealing the many similarities between the Jeju and the North Korean language. In order to restore and maintain inter-Korean relations, continuous efforts must be made to eliminate conflicts between the North and South. This is because only then can we break down the barrier of division and the linguistic community can be kept peaceful through the Korean language which King Sejong the Great created.   2. To be summoned to discover the Korean language For 7 years from 2006 to 2012, I served as a member of the Jeju Regional Investigation Committee for the ≪Gyeoremal Keunsajeon, Dictionary≫ and then worked as a writing committee member. 'Gyeoremal' refers to ‘Korean language that the people use on a daily basis in the South and North Korea and abroad’. 'Gyeoremal Keunsajeon' is the Korean language dictionary which is published jointly by South and North Korea. [1] For this dictionary, North and South Korea Joint Compling committee of Gyeoremal Keunsajeon has collected and organized Korean words from compatriots abroad as well as in Korea. It is moving to hear that a provisional compilation of ten volumes containing the achievements was also released for consultation with the North lately. The ≪Gyeoremal Keunsajeon≫ is a vast and difficult work to unify the languages of North and South Korea. This project is very special to me in that I contributed a little to it. The process to find words that are not listed in the dictionary, explain their meanings, and write examples is hard work but making a dictionary is very valuable. Through this task, I was able to realize how precious each word is as a cultural heritage. My role is to find new words which are worth putting up in the dictionary from Jeju indigenous languages that are not listed in the ≪Standard Korean Language Dictionary≫. And it was also to prepare and submit their definitions and examples. One day in 2006, the word ‘Jwaegitteok’ was collected. To write a sentence with the word, the ≪Standard Korean Language Dictionary≫ much be referred to. Searching it in the dictionary, I found that 'Jwaegitteok' is discribed to as North Korean with the explanation, "rice cake made small round dough and then steamed." [2] I was so curious that I carefully looked up the meaning and usage of examples.   ≪Joseonmal Keunsajeon: The Great Dictionary of Joseonmal≫ Jwaegitteok 「Noun」 Rice cake made by kneading and then steaming it. (e.g.) Comrade Kim Jeong-suk thought and thought about it, and the next morning she got a big bowl of millet and pounded it in a mortar to make jwaegitteok. 《The Novel “Yugyeoggueu Gisu”》 Jwaegitteok: A rice cake made with wheat flour or barley flour by kneading it with hands, and then steaming it. (e.g.)“The rice cake was steamed with yeast in barley powder. First, grind barley or wheat and, sieve the flour then put "Shindari" in the leftover from the powder, kneading and steaming the dough. That's called "jwaegitteok”. [3]   Looking at the examples in the two regions, ‘Jwaegitteok’ in the ≪Joseonmal Keunsajeon≫ is the steamed rice cake made with millet jwaegi. [4] In Jeju, it can be seen as the steamed rice cake with wheat flour or barley flour adding “Shidari” [5] and kneading to make 'Jwaegi'. From this, "Jwaegitteok" in Jeju unlike that in ≪The Great Dictionary of Joseon-mal≫ is understood to be the steamed rice cake made by clenching the dough with leftover from the wheat or barley powder. In addition the word ‘buru’ -lettuce- in Jeju can be identified in Hamgyeongdo Province and other places, North Korea. The word ‘Buru' was written in the ≪Saseongtonghae≫ by Choi Sejin, a scholar during the reign of King Jungjong of the Joseon Dynasty. He worte it in Chinese; Wageo(1517) or Wajaju (Lower volume:28). Buru has been used since the 16th century, as it can be seen in "Buru-Wa Buru-Geo" in ≪Hunmongjahoe≫ (Upper volume:8)(1527). It is widely known as Jeju language but it is also used in Hamgyeongdo(in North Korea) and Gyeongsangdo and Chungcheongdo (in South Korea) as a Gyeoremal.   3. The same but different language of Jeju and North Korea Let's take a look at some common words in Jeju among the words listed as North Korean words in the Korean dictionary. Jeju and North Korea are far apart in terms of distance. Therefore, many words in Jeju are more similar to those used in Jeollado or Busan because they are close to Jeju. However, those words used in the two regions are often found in the North Korean language. With the words such as ‘Jwaegitteok’ and ‘Buru’, ‘Kongjang’, ‘Muljang’, ‘Bapti’, ‘Gadal’, ‘Anmok’, ‘Kalguk’, etc. are examples. The definition of ‘Kongjang’ listed as a North Korean in the Korean dictionary is as follows.   ≪Joseonmal Keunsajeon≫ Kongjang 「Noun」 ① Soybean paste. Wheat paste and ~. Acorns paste and ~. ② A side dish of boiled beans simmering in soy sauce; Kongjaban ≪Standard Korean Language Dictionary≫ Kong-jang 「Noun」 「1」 A side dish made with roasted beans in a sauce with oil, sesame, red pepper powder and chopped green onions; Dujang 「2」 A side dish made by roasting or boiling soybeans and simmering them in soy sauce with oil, sesame seeds, and starch syrup; Kongjaban ≪WooriMalSaem≫ Kong-jang (Bean) 「001」 「Noun」 A side dish made by putting roasted beans in a sauce with oil, sesame seeds, red pepper powder and chopped green onions 「002」 「Noun」 A side dish made by roasting or boiling soybeans and simmering them in soy sauce with oil, sesame seeds, and starch syrup. 「003」 「Noun」 「North Korean language」 Soybean paste 「004」 「Noun」 a dialect of ‘Joseon-ganjang’ in Gyeongsangnamdo Province   ‘Kongjang’ is a term used by our mothers to distinguish between soybean paste made only from soybeans and ‘barley paste’ made by fermenting ‘boiled barley’. ‘Kongjang’ refers to a soybean paste made with only soybeans, while ‘barley paste’ is a soybean paste made by fermenting boiled barley and mixing with Meju, boiled soybean lump. Boiled or roasted soybeans and stewed in soy sauce is also called ‘Kongjang’. However, as you look at the ≪WooriMalSaem≫, in addition to explaining the meaning of the ≪Standard Korean Language Dictionary≫, ‘Kongjang,’ a ‘jang made of soybeans,’ is introduced as a ‘North Korean word’. In Jeju, 'Kongjang' is used as the meaning in ≪Joseonmal Keunsajeon≫. In the Gyeongsannamdo region, ‘Kongjang’ is used in the meaning of ‘Joseon-ganjang’. ‘Mul-jang’ is used in Jeju to mean ‘soy sauce’, but in North Korea it is used to mean ‘diluted soybean paste’. ‘Babti’ refers to ‘each grain of rice’, that is, ‘a grain of cooked rice’. In Jeju, 'Babbangul' is sometimes used instead of 'babti'. It is used like “Ipbawie buteun Babti ttera.”, “Ipbawie buteun Babbangul ttera.”(Take off the rice grain on your mouth.)   Jeju word ‘Bapti’ (e.g.) Gemin geureut sitjyeonan mule babtido dueleogagog, Geuge gujeunmuli doeseo geugeo gatdang dosegi jueotju. (Then, rice grains went into the water when I washed the bowls, and the water got dirty, so I gave it to pigs. Seongeup-ri, Seogwipo-si)   The National Institute of Korean Language's ≪WooriMalSaem≫ describes 'babti' as a North Korean word for 'babal', and the ≪Standard Korean Language Dictionary> describes 'babti' as a mistake of ‘babal’. This 'Bapti' is used not only in North Korea, but also in Gyeongsangdo and Jeollado, South Korea, so the word is widely used. ‘Anmok’, which means ‘a seat on the inside of the room’, is also listed in the dictionary as a North Korean language. However, an example of the word was recorded in Seongeup-ri, Pyoseon-myeon, Seogwipo-si, Jejudo. A over eighty-ysear- old lady said, “Ddotdot heondire anjiren malo ‘anmok’ ijuge”(Anmok means to sit in a warm place.) ‘Anmok’ in her speech is the word introduced as a word in North. ‘Anmok’ is also mentioned ‘Anjari or Anjjari’ in Jeju. Occasionally, the expression “the fault of ~” may be encountered in the dictionary. The suggestion is that you should refrain from interpreting the meaning of the word even if a vocabulary isn’t used or known. Languages ​​change their sound and meaning as time goes by. Therefore, the words of different regions should be approached from the viewpoint of being different, not from the viewpoint of being wrong. The same is true for languages in South Korea and North Korea, as well as differences in dialects in each region of South Korea.   4. Jeju languages in ≪North Korean languages in Literature≫ From 2004 to 2007, the National Institute of Korean Language conducted for ‘Hanminjokeoneojeongbohwa (Korea Language Informatization) as part of ‘the mid-to-long-term development plan for the Korean language informatization in the 21st century’. The study was divided into the North Korean dialect, Jeju dialect, Gangwon dialect, Chungcheong dialect, Gyeongsang dialect, and Jeolla dialect. Then, dialectologists each region worked to select dialects contained in literature and establish meaning interpretation, grammar, and usage. The results have been revised, supplemented, and refined to publish ≪North Korean Dialect in Literature≫ (Kwak Chung-Gu ,Park Jin-Hyeok), ≪Chungcheong Dialect in Literature≫ (Park Kyung-Rae), ≪Jeolla Dialect in Literature≫ (Lee Tae-Young), and ≪Gyeongbuk Dialect in Literature≫ (Lee Sang-Gyu and Shin Seung-Yong) , ≪The Jeju dialect in literature≫ (Kang Young-bong, Kim Dong-yun, Kim Soon-ja), etc. In order to find the correlation between the Jeju language and the North Korean language, let's take a look at the vocabulary list of ≪North Korean Dialect in Literature≫. A total of 301 headwords with idioms were included in this book. It is accompanied by standard words, word class, meaning interpretation, different types of a dialect, areas, usage, and vocabulary explanations. Therefore, the book is very helpful in understanding the North Korean dialect which is vague on its meaning. Among the 301 headwords, only 12 words have the same or similar meaning in the North Korean dialect and the Jeju dialect. e.g.: 'Gumuk (gulmuk), neobujulughada, nolminnolmin, doenbi, deunggobsae, moggodae, bugdeogbul, saessibang(saeseubang, saesibang), seokkgaldoeda(seosgallida), jurunhi, ‘jug-eun dwi hyodoneun adeul-i hago sal-asaengjeon hyodoneun ttal-i handa’ keunmanurae(sonnim) etc. Through these words, it was an opportunity to confirm that the two Koreas are a linguistic community. If you look closely at these vocabularies through the National Institute of Korean Language’s ≪WoorimalSaem≫, which provides North Korean language and national dialects to the public, you can find the same but different words, or different but similar words. 'Gumuk' is introduced in the Hamgyeong dialect of 'chimney', and 'gulmuk' is introduced in the Gangwon, Jeju, Pyeongbuk, and Hamgyeong dialects of 'chimney'. ‘Gulmuk’ is also introduced as the Jeju dialect of ‘Agungi(fireplace)’. It can be seen that ‘gulmuk’ used in the meaning of ‘chimney’ has been extended to the meaning of ‘a fireplace made to heat a room’ in Jeju. ‘neobujurughada’ is not listed as a headword. However, ‘neobjulughada’- allomorph of ‘neobujurughada’ - is listed in Hamgyeong dialect, meaning ‘slightly wide’. ‘smooth and bulging’. In Jeju, the word is used as a form of ‘neobjurugheoda, neobsurugheoda’. 'Nolmin nolmin' and 'nolmeong nolmeong' are not listed in the dictionary, but both are used to mean 'slowly'. ‘Nolmin Nolmin’ is a word used in Pyeongando and Hamgyeongdo, and ‘Nolmyeong nolmong’ is a word used in Jeju. The structure and meaning are similar between two words. The words ‘doenbi’, ‘deung-gobsae’ and ‘moggodae’ are used with the same meaning in North Korea and Jeju. ‘Bukdeok’ in the North’s 'Bukdeokbul' and in Jeju’s 'Bukdeokbang' are used in the same dialect of 'Bukdegi'. 'Bukdeokbul' means 'fire on bukdegi', while 'Bukdeokbang' means 'a room with bukdegi on'. In ≪WooriMalsaem≫, 'Bukdeok' is listed only as a Jeju dialect of 'Bukdegi'. ‘Saessibang’ was not listed as a headword. Other dialect forms such as ‘Saeseubang’, ‘Saesibang’ are introduced as Pyeongando dialect. In Jeju, ‘Saeseubang’ and ‘Saesibang’ are used to mean ‘saeseobang’(new groom). ‘Seokkgaldoeda’ is not listed in the dictionary. On the other hand, ‘seokgalida’ is introduced as a word used in Hamgyeongdo and other places in the form of ‘seokkgallida’. In Jeju, ‘seotgalida’ and ‘hesgallida’ are used. The writer, who interpreted 'seokkgalida' in ≪North Korean Dialect in Literature≫, said, "The possibility that ‘seokkgaldoeda’ is a dialet of Hamgyongdamdo Province cannot be ruled out, but there is also the possibility that it may be the writer's personal language since its coined form is unique compared to other dialect types. “ ‘Jurunhi’ is a Pyeongando dialect meaning ‘naranhi (side by side)’. In ≪WoorimalSaem≫, 'Jureoni', which has a similar shape, is introduced as a North Korean language with the meaning of 'arranged in a line'. In Jeju, it is used like ‘Juljjureoni’, ‘Jjuljjureoni’, and ‘Jjuljjurenheoda’. 'Jjuljjureoni' is a dialect form of 'narangi', and ‘Jjuljjurenheoda’ is that of ‘naranhada( to be side by side) In the North Korean dialect, 'smallpox’ is presented as ‘keunmanurae’ or ‘sonnim’, which are similar in a dialect forms such as ‘keunmanura’ or ‘sonim’ in Jeju.   5. For the restoration of the linguistic community of the two Koreas As discussed above, speech may change its phoneme or forms in the process of language contact. Also, a word is created by the people who use it. Therefore, it is natural that dialects vary depending on region. Although the Korean people are in a language community, they suffered the Korean War and the division in the two Koreas. Even after the war, they have lived in conflict and anxiety in the division system for more than 70 years. Nevertheless, communication was possible without any inconvenience because the two Koreas are in a liguistic community. However, this linguistic community under the different systems is at risk of collapse. As we well know, language barriers over 70 years have made too many changes. In this regard, the "Writer's Action for the End-of-war Declaration and Peace Agreement", which was announced on October 29, 2020 has great implications, which was declared under the names of representatives of five South Korean literary organizations [6] and South Korean Executive Committee President of 6.15 Korean ethinc Writers Association. “The denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the end of the war cannot be abandoned because it is a matter of the existential fate of our language community. ………… The hosts of the document of the end-of-war declaration are the United States and the United Nations, North Korea and China, but our destiny should not be left to them. Above all, it is urgent for the South and the North to declare the end of the war and sign a peace treaty to pursue the peace of our people's linguistic community. Writers in Korea believe that ‘Today’ is the very day when the tragedy can be finished on the Korean Peninsula. Now, the war on the Korean peninsula - in one language communitee- must be permanently ended. At the same time, we need to move from a life-killing division system to a life-saving peace system. Peace on the Korean peninsula will soon contribute to peace in Northeast Asia. Furthermore, this will further positively affect the peace of human beings. The first step is believed to be the end-of-war declaration.” [7] Since language is like an organism, new words are born, grow and die depending on the environment. Therefore, the less people communicate with each other, the thicker the language barrier becomes, which makes them difficult to understand. The languages ​​of North and South Korea are in such environment. Now, in order to restore and coexist the linguistic community of the two Koreas, it is necessary to move from a division of death to a peace of coexistance. The restoration and well-being of the linguistic community can only be achieved through continuous exchange and peace between the two Koreas. The steps are expected to start from Hallasan in Jeju and continue to Baekdusan in North Korea.   [1] Definition of ① and ②of Article 2. North and South Korea Joint Compling committee of Gyeoremal Keunsajeon. [2] Currently, the National Institute of Korean Language transfers the North Korean and dialects in the ≪Standard Korean Language Dictionary≫ to ≪WoorimalSaem≫-Open Korean Dictionary, so the word does not appear in the ≪Standard Korean Language Dictionary≫. [3] Kang Ja-sook's oral recording (Bongseong-ri, Aewol-eup, Jeju-si) 2006 Summer. [4] ‘Jwaegi’ means a shape made by kneading the powder then clenching it with hands. [5] ‘Shidari’ is a fermented drink mixed with yeast in a hoarse rice. According to the region, it is also called ‘Shundari’. [6] PEN International-Korean Centre, The Korean Writers Association, Korean Novelist Association, Society of Korean Poets, Writers Association of Korea. [7] ‘Writers’ Actions for the End-of-war Declaration and Peace Agreement’ (Jo Yong-ho, UPI, http://www.upinews.kr/newsView/upi202010290077).     References North and South Korea Joint Compling committee of Gyeoremal KeunsaJeon (2017), ≪North and South Korean Everyday Terms at a Glance≫, Hangukmunhwasa Kwak Chung-gu, Park Jin-hyeok (2010), ≪North Korean Dialect in Literature≫, Geulnourim. National Institute of Korean Language, ≪Standard Korean Dictionary≫ (https://stdict.korean.go.kr/main/main.do). National Institute of Korean Language,≪WooriMalSaem≫ (https://opendict.korean.go.kr/main). Kim Soon-ja (2010), ≪Dolgakdolgak Minyeong Sameon Urin neurgeotju.≫ Korean Language Research Institute, Jeju National University Nam Kwang-woo (1997), ≪Dictionary of Old Korean≫, Gyohaksa. Cho Yong-ho,

Kim Soon-Ja (Director of Center for Jeju Studies, Jeju Research Institute) 1. Languages of Jeju and North Korea When I was asked to write about ‘Jeju and Peace, the Environment, and Inter-Korean Relations’, the first memory that came to mind was an image in reading the North Korean novel ≪Kkochpaneun Cheonyeo (The Flower Maiden)≫. It was in 1989, not long after graduating from college, so it was about 30 years ago. ≪Kkochpaneun Cheonyeo≫ had been banned and then rereleased in that year. I read the novel with excitement, so the impression I felt while reading the book at that time is still fresh. It's been a long time since I've read it, so I can't remember the whole story clearly. However, in summary, the background of the novel was in the 1920s, during the Japanese colonial period. Kkotbun was the main character, who was in domestic service at the landlord's house during the day for her sick mother. At night, she diligently made her life selling flowers. I was greatly stimulated by the story because I sympathized with the harsh life of the young flower girl and the pain that the people suffered from losing their country. What attracted me even more was that the stories I heard from my maternal grandmother when I was a child, were melted into every corner of the book with many words and expressions. Now that I don’t have the book I read back then, there is no way of confirming which expressions drew me in but I’m sure that the languages in Jeju and in North Korea are very similar. Without being aware, we seem to have forgotten that the two Koreas, who have been living in hostile relations for a long time due to division, are one people at heart. Through this study. I would like to confirm that the two Koreas are the common ethinc group and the same linguistic community by revealing the many similarities between the Jeju and the North Korean language. In order to restore and maintain inter-Korean relations, continuous efforts must be made to eliminate conflicts between the North and South. This is because only then can we break down the barrier of division and the linguistic community can be kept peaceful through the Korean language which King Sejong the Great created.   2. To be summoned to discover the Korean language For 7 years from 2006 to 2012, I served as a member of the Jeju Regional Investigation Committee for the ≪Gyeoremal Keunsajeon, Dictionary≫ and then worked as a writing committee member. 'Gyeoremal' refers to ‘Korean language that the people use on a daily basis in the South and North Korea and abroad’. 'Gyeoremal Keunsajeon' is the Korean language dictionary which is published jointly by South and North Korea. [1] For this dictionary, North and South Korea Joint Compling committee of Gyeoremal Keunsajeon has collected and organized Korean words from compatriots abroad as well as in Korea. It is moving to hear that a provisional compilation of ten volumes containing the achievements was also released for consultation with the North lately. The ≪Gyeoremal Keunsajeon≫ is a vast and difficult work to unify the languages of North and South Korea. This project is very special to me in that I contributed a little to it. The process to find words that are not listed in the dictionary, explain their meanings, and write examples is hard work but making a dictionary is very valuable. Through this task, I was able to realize how precious each word is as a cultural heritage. My role is to find new words which are worth putting up in the dictionary from Jeju indigenous languages that are not listed in the ≪Standard Korean Language Dictionary≫. And it was also to prepare and submit their definitions and examples. One day in 2006, the word ‘Jwaegitteok’ was collected. To write a sentence with the word, the ≪Standard Korean Language Dictionary≫ much be referred to. Searching it in the dictionary, I found that 'Jwaegitteok' is discribed to as North Korean with the explanation, "rice cake made small round dough and then steamed." [2] I was so curious that I carefully looked up the meaning and usage of examples.   ≪Joseonmal Keunsajeon: The Great Dictionary of Joseonmal≫ Jwaegitteok 「Noun」 Rice cake made by kneading and then steaming it. (e.g.) Comrade Kim Jeong-suk thought and thought about it, and the next morning she got a big bowl of millet and pounded it in a mortar to make jwaegitteok. 《The Novel “Yugyeoggueu Gisu”》 Jwaegitteok: A rice cake made with wheat flour or barley flour by kneading it with hands, and then steaming it. (e.g.)“The rice cake was steamed with yeast in barley powder. First, grind barley or wheat and, sieve the flour then put "Shindari" in the leftover from the powder, kneading and steaming the dough. That's called "jwaegitteok”. [3]   Looking at the examples in the two regions, ‘Jwaegitteok’ in the ≪Joseonmal Keunsajeon≫ is the steamed rice cake made with millet jwaegi. [4] In Jeju, it can be seen as the steamed rice cake with wheat flour or barley flour adding “Shidari” [5] and kneading to make 'Jwaegi'. From this, "Jwaegitteok" in Jeju unlike that in ≪The Great Dictionary of Joseon-mal≫ is understood to be the steamed rice cake made by clenching the dough with leftover from the wheat or barley powder. In addition the word ‘buru’ -lettuce- in Jeju can be identified in Hamgyeongdo Province and other places, North Korea. The word ‘Buru' was written in the ≪Saseongtonghae≫ by Choi Sejin, a scholar during the reign of King Jungjong of the Joseon Dynasty. He worte it in Chinese; Wageo(1517) or Wajaju (Lower volume:28). Buru has been used since the 16th century, as it can be seen in "Buru-Wa Buru-Geo" in ≪Hunmongjahoe≫ (Upper volume:8)(1527). It is widely known as Jeju language but it is also used in Hamgyeongdo(in North Korea) and Gyeongsangdo and Chungcheongdo (in South Korea) as a Gyeoremal.   3. The same but different language of Jeju and North Korea Let's take a look at some common words in Jeju among the words listed as North Korean words in the Korean dictionary. Jeju and North Korea are far apart in terms of distance. Therefore, many words in Jeju are more similar to those used in Jeollado or Busan because they are close to Jeju. However, those words used in the two regions are often found in the North Korean language. With the words such as ‘Jwaegitteok’ and ‘Buru’, ‘Kongjang’, ‘Muljang’, ‘Bapti’, ‘Gadal’, ‘Anmok’, ‘Kalguk’, etc. are examples. The definition of ‘Kongjang’ listed as a North Korean in the Korean dictionary is as follows.   ≪Joseonmal Keunsajeon≫ Kongjang 「Noun」 ① Soybean paste. Wheat paste and ~. Acorns paste and ~. ② A side dish of boiled beans simmering in soy sauce; Kongjaban ≪Standard Korean Language Dictionary≫ Kong-jang 「Noun」 「1」 A side dish made with roasted beans in a sauce with oil, sesame, red pepper powder and chopped green onions; Dujang 「2」 A side dish made by roasting or boiling soybeans and simmering them in soy sauce with oil, sesame seeds, and starch syrup; Kongjaban ≪WooriMalSaem≫ Kong-jang (Bean) 「001」 「Noun」 A side dish made by putting roasted beans in a sauce with oil, sesame seeds, red pepper powder and chopped green onions 「002」 「Noun」 A side dish made by roasting or boiling soybeans and simmering them in soy sauce with oil, sesame seeds, and starch syrup. 「003」 「Noun」 「North Korean language」 Soybean paste 「004」 「Noun」 a dialect of ‘Joseon-ganjang’ in Gyeongsangnamdo Province   ‘Kongjang’ is a term used by our mothers to distinguish between soybean paste made only from soybeans and ‘barley paste’ made by fermenting ‘boiled barley’. ‘Kongjang’ refers to a soybean paste made with only soybeans, while ‘barley paste’ is a soybean paste made by fermenting boiled barley and mixing with Meju, boiled soybean lump. Boiled or roasted soybeans and stewed in soy sauce is also called ‘Kongjang’. However, as you look at the ≪WooriMalSaem≫, in addition to explaining the meaning of the ≪Standard Korean Language Dictionary≫, ‘Kongjang,’ a ‘jang made of soybeans,’ is introduced as a ‘North Korean word’. In Jeju, 'Kongjang' is used as the meaning in ≪Joseonmal Keunsajeon≫. In the Gyeongsannamdo region, ‘Kongjang’ is used in the meaning of ‘Joseon-ganjang’. ‘Mul-jang’ is used in Jeju to mean ‘soy sauce’, but in North Korea it is used to mean ‘diluted soybean paste’. ‘Babti’ refers to ‘each grain of rice’, that is, ‘a grain of cooked rice’. In Jeju, 'Babbangul' is sometimes used instead of 'babti'. It is used like “Ipbawie buteun Babti ttera.”, “Ipbawie buteun Babbangul ttera.”(Take off the rice grain on your mouth.)   Jeju word ‘Bapti’ (e.g.) Gemin geureut sitjyeonan mule babtido dueleogagog, Geuge gujeunmuli doeseo geugeo gatdang dosegi jueotju. (Then, rice grains went into the water when I washed the bowls, and the water got dirty, so I gave it to pigs. Seongeup-ri, Seogwipo-si)   The National Institute of Korean Language's ≪WooriMalSaem≫ describes 'babti' as a North Korean word for 'babal', and the ≪Standard Korean Language Dictionary> describes 'babti' as a mistake of ‘babal’. This 'Bapti' is used not only in North Korea, but also in Gyeongsangdo and Jeollado, South Korea, so the word is widely used. ‘Anmok’, which means ‘a seat on the inside of the room’, is also listed in the dictionary as a North Korean language. However, an example of the word was recorded in Seongeup-ri, Pyoseon-myeon, Seogwipo-si, Jejudo. A over eighty-ysear- old lady said, “Ddotdot heondire anjiren malo ‘anmok’ ijuge”(Anmok means to sit in a warm place.) ‘Anmok’ in her speech is the word introduced as a word in North. ‘Anmok’ is also mentioned ‘Anjari or Anjjari’ in Jeju. Occasionally, the expression “the fault of ~” may be encountered in the dictionary. The suggestion is that you should refrain from interpreting the meaning of the word even if a vocabulary isn’t used or known. Languages ​​change their sound and meaning as time goes by. Therefore, the words of different regions should be approached from the viewpoint of being different, not from the viewpoint of being wrong. The same is true for languages in South Korea and North Korea, as well as differences in dialects in each region of South Korea.   4. Jeju languages in ≪North Korean languages in Literature≫ From 2004 to 2007, the National Institute of Korean Language conducted for ‘Hanminjokeoneojeongbohwa (Korea Language Informatization) as part of ‘the mid-to-long-term development plan for the Korean language informatization in the 21st century’. The study was divided into the North Korean dialect, Jeju dialect, Gangwon dialect, Chungcheong dialect, Gyeongsang dialect, and Jeolla dialect. Then, dialectologists each region worked to select dialects contained in literature and establish meaning interpretation, grammar, and usage. The results have been revised, supplemented, and refined to publish ≪North Korean Dialect in Literature≫ (Kwak Chung-Gu ,Park Jin-Hyeok), ≪Chungcheong Dialect in Literature≫ (Park Kyung-Rae), ≪Jeolla Dialect in Literature≫ (Lee Tae-Young), and ≪Gyeongbuk Dialect in Literature≫ (Lee Sang-Gyu and Shin Seung-Yong) , ≪The Jeju dialect in literature≫ (Kang Young-bong, Kim Dong-yun, Kim Soon-ja), etc. In order to find the correlation between the Jeju language and the North Korean language, let's take a look at the vocabulary list of ≪North Korean Dialect in Literature≫. A total of 301 headwords with idioms were included in this book. It is accompanied by standard words, word class, meaning interpretation, different types of a dialect, areas, usage, and vocabulary explanations. Therefore, the book is very helpful in understanding the North Korean dialect which is vague on its meaning. Among the 301 headwords, only 12 words have the same or similar meaning in the North Korean dialect and the Jeju dialect. e.g.: 'Gumuk (gulmuk), neobujulughada, nolminnolmin, doenbi, deunggobsae, moggodae, bugdeogbul, saessibang(saeseubang, saesibang), seokkgaldoeda(seosgallida), jurunhi, ‘jug-eun dwi hyodoneun adeul-i hago sal-asaengjeon hyodoneun ttal-i handa’ keunmanurae(sonnim) etc. Through these words, it was an opportunity to confirm that the two Koreas are a linguistic community. If you look closely at these vocabularies through the National Institute of Korean Language’s ≪WoorimalSaem≫, which provides North Korean language and national dialects to the public, you can find the same but different words, or different but similar words. 'Gumuk' is introduced in the Hamgyeong dialect of 'chimney', and 'gulmuk' is introduced in the Gangwon, Jeju, Pyeongbuk, and Hamgyeong dialects of 'chimney'. ‘Gulmuk’ is also introduced as the Jeju dialect of ‘Agungi(fireplace)’. It can be seen that ‘gulmuk’ used in the meaning of ‘chimney’ has been extended to the meaning of ‘a fireplace made to heat a room’ in Jeju. ‘neobujurughada’ is not listed as a headword. However, ‘neobjulughada’- allomorph of ‘neobujurughada’ - is listed in Hamgyeong dialect, meaning ‘slightly wide’. ‘smooth and bulging’. In Jeju, the word is used as a form of ‘neobjurugheoda, neobsurugheoda’. 'Nolmin nolmin' and 'nolmeong nolmeong' are not listed in the dictionary, but both are used to mean 'slowly'. ‘Nolmin Nolmin’ is a word used in Pyeongando and Hamgyeongdo, and ‘Nolmyeong nolmong’ is a word used in Jeju. The structure and meaning are similar between two words. The words ‘doenbi’, ‘deung-gobsae’ and ‘moggodae’ are used with the same meaning in North Korea and Jeju. ‘Bukdeok’ in the North’s 'Bukdeokbul' and in Jeju’s 'Bukdeokbang' are used in the same dialect of 'Bukdegi'. 'Bukdeokbul' means 'fire on bukdegi', while 'Bukdeokbang' means 'a room with bukdegi on'. In ≪WooriMalsaem≫, 'Bukdeok' is listed only as a Jeju dialect of 'Bukdegi'. ‘Saessibang’ was not listed as a headword. Other dialect forms such as ‘Saeseubang’, ‘Saesibang’ are introduced as Pyeongando dialect. In Jeju, ‘Saeseubang’ and ‘Saesibang’ are used to mean ‘saeseobang’(new groom). ‘Seokkgaldoeda’ is not listed in the dictionary. On the other hand, ‘seokgalida’ is introduced as a word used in Hamgyeongdo and other places in the form of ‘seokkgallida’. In Jeju, ‘seotgalida’ and ‘hesgallida’ are used. The writer, who interpreted 'seokkgalida' in ≪North Korean Dialect in Literature≫, said, "The possibility that ‘seokkgaldoeda’ is a dialet of Hamgyongdamdo Province cannot be ruled out, but there is also the possibility that it may be the writer's personal language since its coined form is unique compared to other dialect types. “ ‘Jurunhi’ is a Pyeongando dialect meaning ‘naranhi (side by side)’. In ≪WoorimalSaem≫, 'Jureoni', which has a similar shape, is introduced as a North Korean language with the meaning of 'arranged in a line'. In Jeju, it is used like ‘Juljjureoni’, ‘Jjuljjureoni’, and ‘Jjuljjurenheoda’. 'Jjuljjureoni' is a dialect form of 'narangi', and ‘Jjuljjurenheoda’ is that of ‘naranhada( to be side by side) In the North Korean dialect, 'smallpox’ is presented as ‘keunmanurae’ or ‘sonnim’, which are similar in a dialect forms such as ‘keunmanura’ or ‘sonim’ in Jeju.   5. For the restoration of the linguistic community of the two Koreas As discussed above, speech may change its phoneme or forms in the process of language contact. Also, a word is created by the people who use it. Therefore, it is natural that dialects vary depending on region. Although the Korean people are in a language community, they suffered the Korean War and the division in the two Koreas. Even after the war, they have lived in conflict and anxiety in the division system for more than 70 years. Nevertheless, communication was possible without any inconvenience because the two Koreas are in a liguistic community. However, this linguistic community under the different systems is at risk of collapse. As we well know, language barriers over 70 years have made too many changes. In this regard, the "Writer's Action for the End-of-war Declaration and Peace Agreement", which was announced on October 29, 2020 has great implications, which was declared under the names of representatives of five South Korean literary organizations [6] and South Korean Executive Committee President of 6.15 Korean ethinc Writers Association. “The denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the end of the war cannot be abandoned because it is a matter of the existential fate of our language community. ………… The hosts of the document of the end-of-war declaration are the United States and the United Nations, North Korea and China, but our destiny should not be left to them. Above all, it is urgent for the South and the North to declare the end of the war and sign a peace treaty to pursue the peace of our people's linguistic community. Writers in Korea believe that ‘Today’ is the very day when the tragedy can be finished on the Korean Peninsula. Now, the war on the Korean peninsula - in one language communitee- must be permanently ended. At the same time, we need to move from a life-killing division system to a life-saving peace system. Peace on the Korean peninsula will soon contribute to peace in Northeast Asia. Furthermore, this will further positively affect the peace of human beings. The first step is believed to be the end-of-war declaration.” [7] Since language is like an organism, new words are born, grow and die depending on the environment. Therefore, the less people communicate with each other, the thicker the language barrier becomes, which makes them difficult to understand. The languages ​​of North and South Korea are in such environment. Now, in order to restore and coexist the linguistic community of the two Koreas, it is necessary to move from a division of death to a peace of coexistance. The restoration and well-being of the linguistic community can only be achieved through continuous exchange and peace between the two Koreas. The steps are expected to start from Hallasan in Jeju and continue to Baekdusan in North Korea.   [1] Definition of ① and ②of Article 2. North and South Korea Joint Compling committee of Gyeoremal Keunsajeon. [2] Currently, the National Institute of Korean Language transfers the North Korean and dialects in the ≪Standard Korean Language Dictionary≫ to ≪WoorimalSaem≫-Open Korean Dictionary, so the word does not appear in the ≪Standard Korean Language Dictionary≫. [3] Kang Ja-sook's oral recording (Bongseong-ri, Aewol-eup, Jeju-si) 2006 Summer. [4] ‘Jwaegi’ means a shape made by kneading the powder then clenching it with hands. [5] ‘Shidari’ is a fermented drink mixed with yeast in a hoarse rice. According to the region, it is also called ‘Shundari’. [6] PEN International-Korean Centre, The Korean Writers Association, Korean Novelist Association, Society of Korean Poets, Writers Association of Korea. [7] ‘Writers’ Actions for the End-of-war Declaration and Peace Agreement’ (Jo Yong-ho, UPI, http://www.upinews.kr/newsView/upi202010290077).     References North and South Korea Joint Compling committee of Gyeoremal KeunsaJeon (2017), ≪North and South Korean Everyday Terms at a Glance≫, Hangukmunhwasa Kwak Chung-gu, Park Jin-hyeok (2010), ≪North Korean Dialect in Literature≫, Geulnourim. National Institute of Korean Language, ≪Standard Korean Dictionary≫ (https://stdict.korean.go.kr/main/main.do). National Institute of Korean Language,≪WooriMalSaem≫ (https://opendict.korean.go.kr/main). Kim Soon-ja (2010), ≪Dolgakdolgak Minyeong Sameon Urin neurgeotju.≫ Korean Language Research Institute, Jeju National University Nam Kwang-woo (1997), ≪Dictionary of Old Korean≫, Gyohaksa. Cho Yong-ho,

Ko Kyungmin (International Peace Foundation) 1. Introduction Jeju 4∙3 is a representative historical issue in contemporary Korean history, which features ideological rifts, political exclusion, and social confrontations and conflicts that are condensed not just within the Jeju society but also within the Korean society. The legislation of the 2000 Special Act on Discovering the Truth of Jeju 4·3 and Restoring Honor to the Victims (“Jeju 4·3 Special Act”) is considered a touchstone for evaluating whether we can overcome the trauma of ideological division, massacre, and victimization, moving toward reconciliation, mutual prosperity, inclusion, and integration. On Feb. 26, 2021, two months ahead of the 73rd anniversary of Jeju 4∙3, the motion on the general amendment of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act was passed at the National Assembly’s plenary session, which supplemented the act with clauses concerning reparation for the victims and ex officio retrials for those wrongfully convicted. The general revision of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act is another achievement that was made 21 years after the legislation of the act. With the passage of the revised act, many Jeju 4∙3-related organizations and the media reported, as if on cue, that a “turning point” or a “starting point” has been arranged for the “complete resolution” of the historical event. However, the meaning of the “complete resolution” has yet to be discussed more intensely. It is also observed that resolving the past historical issues was achieved in only few cases around the world. In this sense, taking the opportunity of the general revision of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act, this article aims to review the meaning of the “complete resolution” of Jeju 4∙3 and the challenges for that “complete resolution,” and to cast prospects on the future.   2. Legislation of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act Jeju 4∙3 was sparked by the March 1st police firing on a crowd which took place in 1948 around Gwandeokjeong, a pavilion in front of the provincial office building located in the northern region of Jeju City. In the subsequent course of contemporary Korean history, where state power and ideology collided, tens of thousands of innocent Jeju residents lost their lives or suffered injuries, and even the painful memory of the survivors had to be hidden for decades. During Jeju 4∙3, the people of Jeju society experienced great pain as those who knew nothing about the situation were killed by government authorities, and their families and local communities were destroyed. Having little knowledge of the truth, the survivors and the families of the victims lived with the hidden pain for over seven decades, unwillingly split into the victims and the perpetrators. Since the 1987 ‘democratic opening’ of Korean society, strenuous efforts have been made to uncover the truth about Jeju 4∙3. Nonetheless, it was not easy to draw a corresponding attention from the national political circles and the government, despite the fact that Jeju 4∙3 was one of the most tragic events in contemporary Korean history that resulted the second largest loss of human life following the Korean War. It was the democratization of Korean society and the introduction of the local autonomy system that created momentum for the movement to bring attention of the National Assembly and the government to the issue. Impetus was also gained from the democratization of Korean society for the legislation of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act, which was prosed as a past liquidation process of discovering the truth of Jeju 4∙3 and restoring honor to the victims. An explicit outcome of the movement to resolve Jeju 4∙3 was achieved with the enactment of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act. The Jeju 4∙3 Incident Investigation Report, which was developed after the investigation of the case based on the act, is another important achievement in discovering the truth of the tragic event. This report contains the first formal government position that acknowledges the involvement of state power in the massacre of civilians before and after national liberation and the outbreak of the Korean War. Therefore, the movement to reveal the truth of Jeju 4∙3 can be highly appraised for producing tangible results by realizing the enactment of the special law and the investigation of the truth. Understandably, however, it is not easy to resolve a historical issue to a satisfactory level. Even after the special act was legislated, various tasks continued to be presented for the resolution of Jeju 4∙3. As the statutory provisions failed to fully address certain matters, issues continued to be raised over the limitations to the special act, concerning the absence of clauses detailing the compensational support for those suffering residual disability and the selection of those entitled to receive the support; the financial support for the creation of the Jeju 4∙3 Peace Park; and the designation of April 3 as a national memorial day. The special act was also criticized due to the insufficient outcomes of revealing the truth due to limited access to relevant materials; the incomplete identification and punishment of those responsible for the case; the discriminate treatment of victims; and the reservation of determination on the proper name of the historical event. As such, Jeju 4∙3 was considered a case that had yet to be fully resolved, even after the enactment of the special act which provided legal grounds for various projects and measures.   3. General Amendment of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act: A Turning Point for the ‘Complete Resolution’ The bill on the general amendment of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act was passed on Feb. 26, 2021, during the plenary meeting of the 21st National Assembly. Prior to the passage of the bill, five other bills were proposed to revise the special act, and based on the Enforcement Decree of the special act, reports of the victims and their families were received six times. However, the statutory preparations were insufficient to heal the suffering of the victims and the bereaved families, which in turn aroused the efforts for the general revision of the special act that aimed to arrange special support measures for the victims and the related criteria — which would encompass the special clauses for the retrials of the wrongfully convicted, the exoneration of the victims, and the provision of consolation money. As shown in , the latest amendment includes new clauses on the exoneration of those wrongfully convicted, the reparation for the victims’ damage, the launch of ensuing investigation of the truth, and the correction of victims’ family relationship registers. The revised act also features the special case clauses for claims demanding the declaration of disappearance and claims demanding affiliation. Additionally, the new clauses address the projects for the healing of Jeju 4·3-related trauma, the expansion of Jeju 4·3-related commemorative projects, interim measures regarding previous decisions, and the term of existence of the committee, etc. Matters addressed in the revised Jeju 4∙3 Special Act The Solidarity for Collective Actions to Achieve the Revised Jeju 4·3 Special Act (Jeju Solidarity for Collective Actions), consists of 124 institutions and organizations based on Jeju, such as the provincial government, the provincial council, the association of victims’ families, and the Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation. Concerning the latest revision of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act, the Solidarity for Collective Actions emphasized that “the passage of the bill is a product of concerted efforts made in various sectors.” Specifically, the announcement pointed out that the outcome was achieved by gathering forces and wisdom from both the public and civilian sectors, which include but not limited to Jeju 4·3-related organizations (e.g., the association of the victims’ bereaved families), groups established across the country for the movement of resolving past historical issues, general civil society organizations, Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, Jeju Special Self-Governing Provincial Council, and the Jeju Special Self-Governing Provincial Office of Education. Jeju 4·3-related organizations also announced that the passing of the bill will be considered a case that embodies the spirit pursued in the Jeju 4·3 Special Act, which contains the conception of reconciliation and peace, thereby setting a “marked example of justly resolving the past issues.” In time with the news of the passage of the amendment bill, the media outlets mentioned the “complete resolution” issue. For instance, local news articles were released with such headlines as “Stepping stone for ‘complete solution’ now prepared” (The New Jeju Ilbo), “Journey for ‘complete resolution now begins” (The Headline Jeju), and “Foundation for ‘complete resolution’ prepared” (The Jeju Shinmun). The central news agencies also released articles, titled “One stop forward to achieve ‘complete solution’” (The Yonhap News), “Let’s move toward ‘complete resolution’” (The Maeil Economic Daily), “After 73 years of pain, ‘complete resolution’ now around the corner” (The Hankyoreh), “One step closer to ‘complete resolution’” (The Korea Economic Daily), and “Hopefully leading to ‘complete solution’” (The Hankook Ilbo). This clearly signifies that the remaining tasks in resolving Jeju 4·3 and the related issues after the revision of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act should be focused on the “complete resolution” of the case.   4. Meaning of the ‘Complete Resolution’ and the Need to Set Goals The general revision of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act was the outcome of the recognition of the justification and necessity of resolving Jeju 4·3, which was shared between the President, the government, and Jeju society. President Moon Jae-in, who attended the commemorative ceremony for the 70th anniversary of Jeju 4·3 in 2018, made a pledge in his memorial speech that he will “move forward unwaveringly toward the complete resolution of Jeju 4·3.” At the commemorative ceremony for the 71st anniversary of the event, Prime Minister Lee Nak-yeon read the presidential speech on his behalf, which stated that “complete resolution regarding Jeju 4·3 is a step on the path toward overcoming ideology and uniting the country.” Jeju Governor Won Hee-ryong also called for joined forces in passing the revised bill. These statements demonstrate that the general revision of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act reflects the long-desired wish of the victims and their families and Jeju society as a whole for the “complete resolution” of the Jeju 4·3, which had long been discussed on Jeju for 21 years after the act was legislated. However, doubts and regrets may remain as to whether the contents sufficient to be called the “complete solution” were satisfactorily reflected in the revised Jeju 4·3 Special Act. As a direct example, the term “consolation money” has been stipulated in relation to the issue of reparation by the state authorities, but without explicitly mentioning “indemnification” which indicates the responsibility of the state for its wrongful act. The task of properly naming the historical case also remains unresolved, thereby failing once again to have the name inscribed on “Baek Bi,” a memorial monument left without an epitaph in the Jeju 4·3 Memorial Hall. Moreover, additional discussions and incessant efforts will be required in the development of the relevant Enforcement Decree in order to prepare detailed plans for the new clauses that address a diversity of matters, such as the provision of consolation money, the ex officio retrial of collective cases of those wrongfully convicted, and the promotion of ensuing investigations of the truth of Jeju 4·3. Undoubtedly, however, the latest revision of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act can be understood as crossing the “threshold” of the “complete solution” of the case and will thereby serve as a “new beginning” of the movement. In the future, it is necessary to begin the discussions for a more concrete meaning and goal of the “complete resolution” of Jeju 4·3. With reference to the provisions contained in the Jeju 4·3 Special Act, a method will be deemed useful where the issues regarding Jeju 4·3 are classified into several sections, while the goals will be set according to these individual sections. The clauses of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act can largely be sectioned as ▴discovering the truth, ▴exonerating the victims, ▴recovering damage to the victims, and ▴holding state authorities accountable for the case. Based on the sections, the following measures can be suggested: ① the “complete clarification of the truth” by expanding the administrative and financial support for the Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation to allow for active ensuing investigations, identifying the role of the United States Army Military Government in Korea in Jeju 4·3, and properly naming the case; ② the “complete exoneration of the victims”, which includes not only ex officio retrials of victims of courts martial, but also the recognition of the rights of victims and their families, the protection of various rights and interests, and the punishment for malicious defamation; ③ the “complete restoration of damage to the victims” through payment of consolation money for the indemnification and compensation to victims, the expansion and reinforcement of trauma healing projects for the recovery of physical and mental damage to victims and their families, the expansion and reinforcement of Jeju 4·3 -related memorial and commemorative projects, and the restoration of local communities; and finally, ④ the “complete performance of the state authorities,” which is aimed not only at “complete clarification of the truth,” “complete exoneration of the victims,” and “complete recovery of damage to the victims,” but also at the integration of Jeju society and the entire Korean society. Then, the specific goals and tasks of the “complete resolution” of Jeju 4·3 can be determined in accordance with the given sections. However, the above idea is solely based on the revised bill of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act. More specific discussions and alternative options will have to seek a social consensus that reflects the opinions of the victims and their families, as well as other Jeju residents.   5. Forming a Social Discourse of the ‘Complete Resolution’ For a prolonged period of time, many media outlets, politicians, and Jeju 4·3-related organizations have called for the resolution of Jeju 4·3, whereas little has been discussed as to the definition or the state of the “complete solution” and the methods to achieve the state with. There have been few discussions with a focus on the value, vision, goals, and promotional measures of the “complete resolution”. By achieving the latest revision, however, it has become relatively clear that the “complete resolution” issue has emerged as an essential topic in the discussions of Jeju 4·3 in Jeju society. Given this new atmosphere, a process of creating a social discourse is required to establish the value and vision of the “complete resolution” of Jeju 4·3 and to prepare specific goals and strategic methodologies. In Jeju society, the issue of Jeju 4·3 does not belong to a specific group or class. Realizing the “complete resolution” of Jeju 4·3 requires the determination of goals and tasks that reflect the collective will of the victims and their families, as well as other Jeju residents. In this respect, the goals and tasks should not be absolutized or dogmatized by the state, bureaucrats, or politicians, but be established through the recognition and assertion of members of society and through dialogues and discussions. Theoretically speaking, the goals and tasks for the “complete resolution” of Jeju 4·3 should be determined from the perspective of “regional governance” based on social constructivism. It is also necessary to take one step further to approach Jeju 4·3 by addressing it as a matter of value. In the process of overcoming Jeju 4·3, the most commonly discussed universal values ​​that symbolize the case would be “reconciliation and mutual prosperity” and “peace and human rights.” Reflecting on the process from the campaign for trust revelation to the enactment and revision of the special law, there will be no room for argument that the resolution of Jeju 4·3 pursued the values of “peace and human rights.” Furthermore, there will be on doubt that “reconciliation and mutual prosperity,” which have been pursued based on a social consensus during the liquidation of the past, are also considered as essential values related to the resolution process of Jeju 4·3. As pointed out in the Declaration on the Designation of Jeju as an Island of World Peace, which states that “the designation will help sublimate the tragedy of Jeju 4·3 into reconciliation and coexistence,” the case can be a unique Jeju model of overcoming the wrongful past and resolving unresolved historical issues, which encompass reconciliation and coexistence as well as human rights and peace through mutual forgiveness and tolerance. If so, the path toward the “complete resolution” of Jeju 4·3 would include a state where the case does not become the seed of conflict and dispute, confrontation and antagonism. To put it differently, the path forward would involve efforts to resolve the political, ideological, and socio-cultural conflicts rooted in Jeju 4·3, and not to reduce the political, ideological, and socio-cultural conflicts to the Jeju 4·3 issues. This means to inherit the historical scars of Jeju 4·3 through reconciliation and mutual prosperity. Ultimately, the “complete resolution” of Jeju 4·3 would be re-incorporating the case — the source of political, ideological, and socio-cultural conflicts — into history as an objective fact. The resolution of Jeju 4·3 will also have to be considered as a historical mirror for trust and inclusion and a lesson for future development through harmonization, of which the perception goes beyond the process of relieving the pent-up anger and sorrows of the victims and their bereaved families.   6. Conclusion: Toward the Jeju Model of Peace and Human Rights Jeju 4·3 is not a case limited to the past that will be forgotten; it is an issue to be remembered and commemorated through the “complete resolution” process, and to be popularized on a national and global scale. Marking the 70th anniversary of Jeju 4·3 in 2018, Jeju residents staged a campaign with the slogan of “Jeju 4·3 is now our history.” The case of Jeju 4·3 has evolved from “communist armed riots” to “human rights violations by public authorities.” It is an evolution in public perception which has come to recognize that the pursuit of ideology through the means of violence deserves to be suppressed by state power, but the massacre of civilians must not be tolerated. The latest general revision of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act can create momentum for a shift in the public perception of Jeju 4·3, where the case will be recognized as a part of ‘Korean history’, deviating from the previous public conception of the historical event as belonging only to Jeju, an island in Korea’s peripheral area. Thus, ‘nationally publicizing’ Jeju 4·3 would be one of the core tasks to be continued; and further on, additional efforts should be made to ‘globally publicizing’ the issue. It is legitimate to share the case of Jeju 4·3 in Korea and the world beyond as it reawakened the awareness of the value of reconciliation, coexistence, peace, and human rights. The process of resolving Jeju 4·3 demonstrates the best possible model in almost all aspects, which broadly involved the revelation of the truth, the exoneration of the victims, the building of a legislative consensus, the relief of damage by judicial means, the state-level apology and pledge to prevent the recurrence of a similar case, the pursuit of restorative justice, the restoration and healing of local communities, the practice of forgiveness and reconciliation, the efforts for mutual prosperity and coexistence of the confrontational sides, and the memorial and educational projects. Importantly, the process of surmounting the case and healing the suffering of the people should also be globally publicized in that the historical case was a result of the Cold War and the ideological confrontation based on the east-west conflict. 4/3 covers almost every aspect, such as truth finding, restoration of honor, legislative agreement, judicial remedy, state apology and promise to prevent recurrence, restorative justice, community restoration and healing, forgiveness and reconciliation, mutual prosperity and coexistence, remembrance and education, etc. This is because 4·3 in Fig. 3 shows the best solution. In particular, since 4/3 originated from the Cold War between East and West and an ideological confrontation, the process of overcoming and healing should also be spread around the world. The general amendment of the special act created impetus for Jeju 4·3 to pioneer the resolution of the problems in the past based on justice, reconciliation, and restoration. In the future, the movement to resolve Jeju 4·3 need to go through a process of inviting the survivors, the bereaved families of the victims, and other Jeju residents to participate in forming a social discourse of determining new goals and related tasks for the “complete resolution” of the case. You will need to establish a vision to go out. Furthermore, the vision of realizing the Jeju model that pursues reconciliation, mutual prosperity, peace, and human rights need to be established.

[caption id="attachment_20047" align="alignright" width="205"] Jeon Young-sun (HK Research Professor, Institute of Humani ties for Unification at Konkuk University)[/caption] 1. Initiating reconciliation and cooperation with the wind of peace from Jeju “Where does peace come from?” The question would first bring Jeju Island to mind. This is because Jeju’s recognition as the Island of Peace carries an important meaning, as local projects for inter-Korean exchange and cooperation have had a significant impact on the national-scale inter-Korean exchanges. Jeju’s inter-Korean exchange and cooperation projects have popularized the meaning of its designation as the Island of Peace, and at the same time, have been differentiated as concrete practice for peace on the Korean Peninsula. The cooperative projects of the Jeju provincial government, such as the Jeju tangerine-sending project, were significant in building the foundation of the mood for inter-Korean peace and in putting concrete peace into practice. Jeju’s move toward exchange and cooperation, which was promoted along with its residents, built a model that other local governments should emulate in designing their own exchange and cooperation projects. With the experience of success, Jeju, the Island of Peace, is expected to discover promotional projects for peace on the Korean Peninsula and create substantive results, going beyond the local government level to the international level, in realizing inter-Korean reconciliation and cooperation. Facing the 80th anniversary of national division, the situation on the Korean Peninsula nearing 80 years remains unstable. The indefinite state of “armistice” has continued for nearly seven decades without declaring the “end of the war”. Over the past years, several inter-Korean summits were held, and meaningful agreements were reached to ease tensions and boost inter-Korean exchanges. The bilateral agreements meant that the Korean Peninsula, full of tension and conflict, could be transformed at will into an area of reconciliation and peace. However, concrete actions for reconciliation and peace on the Korean Peninsula also revealed limitations. Although military tensions have eased and physical clashes have decreased, social and cultural exchanges have been severed due to the stalemate of inter-Korean relations. There have been summit meetings, tourism projects, major sports games, and art troupe interactions. Nevertheless, diverse types of exchange and cooperation projects have failed to overcome the political standstill. The Korean Peninsula is still in a state of unstable peace. For concrete peace and shared prosperity that go beyond surmounting national division, it remains the utmost priority to deviate from the perspectives of the Cold War and division. The inter-Korean division and conflict has been embodied in its overall current state for a prolonged period of time. When it comes to an affair related to North Korea, one would subconsciously wonder if it will be allowed. In contemporary Korean history, ideology has not been a matter of political choice. Once a side was chosen, it was difficult to survive unless strongly opposing the other side. Showing even the slightest interest or sympathy was a matter of life or death. Koreans have spent those long years making automatic reactions before making rational decisions. They experienced the past where the terms “reconciliation” and “cooperation” sounded unfamiliar and awkward. It cannot be denied that the Korean Peninsula still bears the deeply entrenched memories of the Cold War, regardless of the détente in other areas of world history. Now is the time to create a moment of peace. Peace is not given from outside. It should be built by the hands of the parties directly related to the Korean Peninsula issues. It is necessary to overcome the decades-long sense of division and envision and experience a new Korean Peninsula. The inter-Korean exchange and cooperation project is a breakthrough in opening new inter-Korean relations and a stepping stone to realizing peace on the Korean Peninsula. In particular, for the practice of peace, the symbol and meaning of the inter-Korean exchange and cooperation project of Jeju, the Island of Peace, bears a special significance. In order for inter-Korean cultural exchange to contribute to peace on the Korean Peninsula, spread consensus on national unification, and communicate cultural differences between the two Koreas, it should take the form of an exchange and cooperation project that fits the peace regime. Local governments would play a significant role in creating a tangible energy of Korean peace in people’s daily lives and in moving toward lasting peace. As an example, the importance of proper harmony and balance between the roles of the central and the local governments was fully confirmed in the case of German unification. Inter-Korean exchange at a local government level should be promoted in appropriate harmony with the cooperation of the central government. Jeju is a symbolic and meaningful region as the Island of Peace, and has led exemplary success stories through its efforts towards inter-Korean exchanges. Jeju Island successfully conducted the tangerine-sending project, which is evaluated as a successful case of inter-Korean exchange and cooperation; and the results were carried over to the carrot- and black pig-sending projects. Jeju’s experience of success has many implications for inter-Korean exchange and cooperation on a local government scale. This brings attention to Jeju’s role in creating a stable and cooperative model. In promoting inter-Korean exchange and cooperation, Jeju should discover projects that befit the status and role of the Island of Peace that it pursues. Plans are needed to discover projects that would lead to tangible outcomes for Jeju residents, while establishing them as practical and successful cases. Simultaneously, the philosophy and vision of peace that the Island of Peace conceives should be disseminated to both the South and the North. Jeju also needs to serve as a field of practical education for a broader consensus on settling peace on the Korean Peninsula. As a process of establishing peace and unification on the Korean Peninsula, the achievements of inter-Korean exchange and cooperation should be extended to peace education. Meanwhile, a virtuous cycle of peace should be created through peace education to generate a driving force for inter-Korean exchanges.   2. Establishing the orientation and foundation for Jeju’s inter-Korean exchanges 1) Jeju’s orientation for inter-Korean exchanges Jeju Island, working to establish itself as an “island of world peace”, is required to act in accordance with its status and role of a special self-governing province. Jeju can more actively conduct projects related to exchange and cooperation, not just for the international community but also between the two Koreas. Jeju’s inter-Korean exchange and cooperation projects should be pursued under the following principles and orientations in consideration of the island’s uniqueness and current inter-Korean relations. First, the projects should fit the symbolism of Jeju, the Island of Peace. The meaning of Jeju’s designation as the “Island of World Peace” in 2005 should not be diluted. Jeju should lead peace on the Korean Peninsula while solidifying its image as the Island of Peace. Second, it is important to seek consensus from the residents of the Island of Peace. The previous inter-Korean exchange projects could form a local consensus because these projects reflected the characteristics of Jeju Island. Jeju’s forthcoming exchange and cooperation projects also need to be conducted with the consensus of residents. By featuring local uniqueness, the exchange projects should be able to serve as a driving force for regional development while expanding a consensus on the issue of building peace on the Korean Peninsula. Third, Jeju should envision a mutually cooperative project. The local project should proceed in a direction that allows mutual cooperation between Seoul and Pyongyang. The 2018 Panmunjom Declaration was agreed on, based on the principle of promoting exchange and cooperation to reinvigorate mutual understanding and common interests. Exchange and cooperation should not be a process of seeking a unilateral benefit or receptiveness. A point of inter-Korean contact needs to be discovered in areas that can bring mutual benefits. These areas would include agricultural, fishery, animal husbandry and livestock processing, and bottled water industries, which could allow inter-Korean cooperation. Fourth, Jeju’s projects should involve people-to-people exchanges. Ultimately, a project for inter-Korean exchange and cooperation would represent a project for national unification that promotes mutual understanding through emotional exchange between people living in the two Koreas. The local projects should include human exchanges also to disseminate the meaning of inter-Korean exchange and cooperation and to broaden social consensus. Fifth, inter-Korean projects for cooperation should feature potential for international cooperation. Jeju’s projects should also be promoted within an international network and cooperative partnership. The local efforts should lead to projects for communication not just between Seoul and Pyongyang, but also with the international community, so that they can be internationalized and draw global attention.   2) Jeju’s foundations for inter-Korean exchanges The foundation for promoting inter-Korean exchange and cooperation projects on Jeju would be the Jeju Provincial Master Plan for Inter-Korean Exchanges and its infrastructure. The master plan provides the basis for promoting mid- and long-term local projects for inter-Korean exchange and cooperation. Based on this master plan, a mid- and long-term roadmap should be formulated and a foundation for exchange and cooperation should be established. The core of the infrastructure for exchange and cooperation is the leading organization and human infrastructure. It is absolutely crucial to stabilize the organization that will lead the projects in the long term. Also needed is to mobilize the necessary financial resources for projects such as research and investigation for exchange and cooperation, human resource training, and practical education, while investing those resources in the relevant projects implemented for inter-Korean exchanges. Additionally, public-private governance should be established. To engage various actors and to allow for exchange in different forms, a flexible structure needs to be constructed that can accept diversity. The local government should also train specialists; the personnel who can plan policies for exchange and cooperation, develop projects to lead inter-Korean exchange and cooperation, and educate others on the results of inter-Korean exchange and cooperation projects to link them to extended educational projects on peace. The Plan for Jeju Peace Archiving Center could also be considered as a physical space where the achievements of exchange and cooperation can be accumulated. The center, as a space for peace on Jeju Island and its efforts towards inter-Korean exchange, would need to expand the achievements of local exchange and cooperation projects. To this end, the center would be able to include a space to preserve and manage data, such as information about North Korea, documents detailing administrative support and consultation for exchanges and cooperation, and archives of historical documents on the process of promoting inter-Korean cultural exchange projects. The multi-faceted functions of the space would eventually transform the center into a hub for education, helping it serve as a place for peace education.   3. Jeju’s potential fields of exchange and cooperation; project details Jeju has the experience of having achieved successful outcomes in the past inter-Korean exchange and cooperation projects. The island’s projects emphasized the necessity of mutual cooperation while demonstrating the characteristics of Jeju Island as a special self-governing province. In continuing the promotion of its inter-Korean exchange projects, Jeju should prepare for the era of peace by preparing for project resumption in line with the restoration of inter-Korean relations, while developing and implementing mid- and long-term plans in parallel. The local government of Jeju can promote a diversity of inter-Korean exchange and cooperation projects. It has sufficient experience in implementing successful projects. The provincial government has planned reciprocal inter-Korean visits by tourists, titled “From Halla to Baekdu,” and a mutual cooperation project for preserving the ecological environment of Hallasan and Baekdusan Mountains. In particular, Jeju has made a concerted effort towards the “5+1” project, which is a significant project that must be implemented with the aim of reconciliation and cooperation between Seoul and Pyongyang. While opening its doors to various possibilities, the local government should discover what can be conducted first, and, while monitoring their progress, it can promote other cooperative projects. For Jeju’s projects towards inter-Korean exchange, the following projects could be planned: First, a cooperative project in connection with events, festivals, and other special occasions held on Jeju; second, a documentary production of Jeju Island and Baekdusan Mountain; third, a joint art festival with the theme of peace; fourth, an inter-Korean academic exchange based on the Jeju Forum for Peace and Prosperity; fifth, exchange in the field of physical education. The last area of cooperation could be comprised of methods such as exchange of sports teams, joint off-season training, joint ins-season training, provision of training equipment, and provision of training sites. Exchange and cooperation projects feature relativism. These projects cannot be achieved through the efforts of others. For inter-Korean exchange and cooperation, North Korea needs to change its passive and defensive attitude. Pyongyang still perceives social and cultural exchanges with the south as a “threat” to its ideology. The hostility created by the long-standing division of Korea also remains powerful. Thus, the inter-Korean exchange and cooperation projects, from the onset, should be agreeable to the situation on the Korean Peninsula with little resistance and allow people to feel the tangible outcomes of cooperation. Exchange and cooperation projects promoted and planned by the Jeju government require a strategic approach so as to discover projects that are suitable for the local conditions of Jeju and, at the same time, are highly likely to be accepted by the North. It is necessary to secure scalability by preparing new project items in addition to the existing ones. The following projects are suggested as the projects that Jeju can first consider promoting. The first project is the production of a documentary about Hallasan and Baekdusan Mountains. Jeju’s natural environment draws attention as one of the world’s best landscapes, of great geological value. Jeju can produce a documentary about the island’s beautiful environment and the natural ecology of Baekdusan Mountain at the same time. The production of the environmental documentary on the symbolic mountains of South and North Korea will help introduce the beauty of their land to the residents on the South and the North. Eventually, it will provide an opportunity to discover the value of the Korean Peninsula as a global heritage and urge the residents of South and North Korea to pay attention to inter-Korean peace. Recently, North Korea has also actively produced travel documentaries introducing local attractions. These documentaries could be aired by both sides. It would be an opportunity to popularize Jeju to North Koreans. The Halla-Baekdu documentary on the nature of Hallasan Mountain that North Korean residents could learn in school would make a good broadcasting resource for Pyongyang. Jeju-related content introduced in North Korean geography textbooks could also be scenic spots. In the first year of elementary middle school “Geography” class, the textbook refers to the eight scenic views of Korea (“Joseon”): Baekdusan Mountain, Geumgangsan Mountain, Myohyangsan Mountain, Moranbong Peak, Bujeon Plateau, Bulguksa Temple, Jirisan Mountain, and Haeundae Beach”. The textbook also mentions “Gyeongseong Hot Spring, Monggeumpo, Hallyeosudo, Byeonsan Peninsula, Haeinsa Valley, Buyeo, Songnisan Mountain, and ‘Hannasan’ Mountain” as Joseon’s eight representative scenic spots. The second-year geography textbook for elementary and middle schools also introduces Jeju Island, Geoje Island, and Namhae Island as islands in the “South Sea of ​​Joseon”. The second project is the Halla-Baekdu Go (“Baduk”) Tournament. As both South and North Korea are very familiar with the game of Baduk, the project would create a huge ripple effect. South Korea has so many club members that Baduk is broadcast on a separate channel. It is also a popular sport in North Korea. It has yet to be popularized when compared with Janggi (Korean chess) or Jupae (cards). However, North Korea has paid keen attention to the game as shown by the foundation of the Baduk Association in September 1989 and the National Baduk Tournament, which started in 1990 and was registered in 1991 as an organization under the state-led Sports Technique Alliance. For inter-Korean exchange and cooperation projects, Baduk has several advantages. It is in the non-political field, with few variables in exchange, as well as the possibility of being conducted both online and offline. Loved by many international fans, the game has immense potential in terms of expandability into international competitions. The scope of entry is also wide as not only professional players, but also amateurs and students can participate. The third suggestion involves a tea of peace. In the past, tea plants were not cultivated in North Korea because of the sensitivity to the climate. Pyongyang has attempted to grow tea since 1982. Former DPRK President Kim Il-sung, who visited Shandong Province, China, started a tee-farming project, saying that it would be possible to grow tea in North Korea, located at the same latitude as Shandong Province. After 25 years of failure due to an unsuitable climate and other conditions, Pyongyang finally succeeded in growing tea in 2008. After the successful cultivation of tea plants, a tea culture began to be developed in earnest with a focus on Eunjeong Tea, brewed with Gangnyeong green tea, under the instruction of Kim Jong-il, who called for good production and supply of Eunjeong Tea. Enjeong Tea is a representative North Korean tea brand made with green tea leaves from the Gangnyeong region. It was also introduced during the 2018 inter-Korean summit. Major areas of Pyongyang also have Eunjeong Tea House specializing in Eunjeong Tea. At Eunjeong Tea House on Changjeon Street, visitors can taste green tea, black tea, Cheolguaneum tea, barley tea, buckwheat tea, and corn silk tea. Although Pyongyang has promoted tea as an emerging industry, it is in the initial stages in terms of product diversity, quality control, and spread to related industries. The inter-Korean exchange and cooperation project through tea cultivation and management and the related industry will create momentum for Jeju to publicize the image of its tea brand. By linking tea from Jeju Island with tea from North Korea, it could launch a product branded as “Tea of Peace” or “Tea of Unification”. Hopefully, Jeju’s efforts for inter-Korean exchange and cooperation will result in fruitful outcomes, so that scholars from the South and the North can watch the Halla-Baekdu Cup Baduk Tournament and the nature documentary of Baekdusan Mountains, while drinking the Tea of Unification together.

Park Chan-shik (Director of the Center for Jeju Historical Studies, Jeju Future Research Institute) 1. What are the archives of Jeju 4∙3? The Archives of Jeju 4∙3 refers to all pertinent resources, including, but not limited to, text-based items, audiovisual items such as photographs and films, and artifacts associated with the people involved in the incident that have been documented and/or produced concerning the massacre of tens of thousands of residents during the armed clashes between the civilian armed forces and the state-led counterinsurgency forces which took place on Jeju Island, the Republic of Korea, from March 1, 1947, to Sept. 24, 1954, as well as the subsequent process of clarifying the truth related to the incident and restoring honor to the victims. Jeju 4∙3 occurred on a small island of South Korea, which was then ruled at the time by the U.S. military amid the global-scale Cold War and the division of the Korean Peninsula after World War II. It was also the second most deadly incident in modern Korean history, the first being the Korean War. According to investigations, an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 people were killed out of the island’s then total population of 280,000. Nevertheless, the truth and justice had long been concealed as a detailed and comprehensive investigation of the truth had not been conducted until 50 years had passed since the historical event. In the process of democratization in Korea from the late 1980s, the fierce truth-finding movement of Jeju civil society, including survivors, students, civic groups, media, cultural circles, and academic circles, began to unfold, which in turn began to reveal the realities of the damage. On Jan. 12, 2000, the long-awaited Special Act on Discovering the Truth of Jeju 4·3 and Restoring Honor to the Victims (“Jeju 4·3 Special Act”) was finally legislated, followed by the launch of the Committee on Discovering the Truth of Jeju 4·3 and Restoring Honor to the Victims (“Jeju 4·3 Committee”). The Jeju 4·3 Committee initiated a national-level investigation into the case, with the findings published in the Jeju April 3 Incident Investigation Report in 2003. After the announcement of the results, then President Roh Moo-hyun made an official apology during a visit to Jeju Island, expressing his “sincere apologies and words of consolation to the victims’ families and all the other Jeju residents for the past wrongdoings committed by state power.” Subsequently, the case went through a well-reasoned procedure of overcoming the past tragedies and moving toward the future, including the 2003 creation of the Jeju 4·3 Peace Park, the 2008 establishment of the Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation, the 2012 national designation of April 3 as a national memorial day, and the 2013 official declaration of reconciliation between the Korean National Police Veterans Association and the Association for the Bereaved Families of Jeju 4·3 Victims. The Archives of Jeju 4∙3 include materials demonstrating the background of the historical event, as well as its outbreak and development. Also included are materials that document the history of collective damage suffered by the residents during the counterinsurgency operations. Additionally, the archives display the subsequent movement that the victims’ families and civil society continued in order to discover the truth and restore honor to the victims. The other items contained in the archives would be those related to the enactment of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act, the process of institutional resolution based on public-civil cooperation, and the efforts made by the victimizers and the victimized for tolerance and harmony in order to surmount the conflict and confrontation. In this regard, the archives could be deemed a comprehensive set of records on relevant contemporary history, which spans from the time of the event to the present. From a global perspective, Jeju 4∙3 is valuable in that it was a prelude to and an epitome of the Korean War, as the event was brought about by the Cold War and the division of the Korean Peninsula. The efforts to resolve the issues related to Jeju 4∙3 are also evaluated as an exemplary model of liquidating the past and achieving transitional justice in the mid-20th century. It presents a “vision for the future pursuing truth, reconciliation, coexistence, and peace,” going beyond the South African solution through “truth and reconciliation”; this is why many scholars and journalists around the world paid attention to the process of resolving Jeju 4∙3. The process also led to a range of events held in line with the global values ​​of Jeju 4∙3, including the Jeju 4∙3 Peace Award, international academic conferences, and the UN Symposium on Human Rights and Jeju 4∙3. The value of Jeju 4∙3 is also recognized as a premise for the peaceful reunification of the Korean Peninsula. As the historical case was derived from the Cold War and national division, the two Koreas were divided again in perceiving Jeju 4∙3, failing to share a mutual understanding. The pursuit of national unification and self-governance of the community represent the values of peace when examining the historical characteristics of Jeju 4∙3; but this value has been damaged by the Korean War and the ensuing solidification of national division. However, the process of resolving Jeju 4∙3 and its message of peaceful unification, as shown in the incessant truth-finding movement on Jeju Island, Korea, fully manifests the value of the case’s peace-oriented nature.   2. Types of Archives of Jeju 4∙3 Largely, the Archives of Jeju 4∙3 consist of three parts. The first is a set of records related to the victims of Jeju 4∙3 (1947-1954), while the second contains the written records of victims’ imprisonments, deaths, disappearances, and/or injuries. The third part is related to the documentation of efforts made by victims’ families to discover the truth, restore honor to the victims, and practice tolerance and harmony. The 4∙3 records are mainly composed of three parts. The first is a record related to the fact that there were victims during Jeju 4∙3 (1947-1954), the second is a record that describes the facts of the victims’ imprisonment, death, disappearance, and injury, and the third is a record which details the process of finding the truth, restoring honor, and practicing tolerance and harmony by the families of the victims after Jeju 4∙3`. The archives contained in various media such as documents, photos, videos, and audio can largely be divided chronologically into those documents that were produced at the time of Jeju 4∙3 and those produced after. Documents from the time of Jeju 4∙3 include: government data, such as the minutes of Cabinet meetings — containing “the truth of the Cold War, national division, and collective victims”; materials from the military and police; materials from the civil armed forces; execution data such as national judgments and prisoners’ lists; data held by the United States, Russia, Japan, and other nations; and materials in the form of photographs and video images. Subsequent records produced while working to discover the truth include: the reports of the victims representing “justice, peace and human rights, and reconciliation and coexistence” (1,878 victims reported to the National Assembly, 14,343 to the Provincial Assembly, and 14,532 to the Jeju 4∙3 Committee); data about the campaign to discover the truth (held by the Jeju 4·3 Research Institute, the Joint Preparatory Committee for the Jeju 4·3 Memorial Ceremony, the Jeju Residents Alliance for Jeju 4·3, the Association of the Bereaved Families of Jeju 4·3 Victims, etc.); the results of investigations by the Jeju 4·3 Committee (Jeju April 3rd Incident Investigation Report, written confirmation of victims, white paper, etc.); testimonial materials (held by the Jeju 4·3 Committee, the Jeju 4·3 Research Institute, MBC, etc.); data on the remains exhumed from secret burial sites; documents related to harmony (concerning the joint memorial services, the epitaph in the Yeongmowon memorial park, the reconciliation between victims’ families and police veterans, etc.); data on international exchange and cooperation related to Jeju 4·3 (with Taiwan, Okinawa, the United Nations, etc.); and private-sector materials (diaries, memoirs, essays, reports, etc.).   3. What is the Memory of the World Program? UNESCO established the Memory of the World (MoW) Programme in 1992. The impetus came from a growing awareness of the precarious state of preservation of, and access to, documentary heritage in various parts of the world. Because the world’s documentary heritage belongs to everyone, the mission of the MoW Programme is to facilitate preservation and protection of documentary heritage for future generations, to assist universal access to it, and to increase awareness worldwide of its existence and significance. The International Advisory Committee (IAC), the peak body responsible for advising UNESCO on the planning and implementation of the MoW Programme, met for the first time in 1993 to set the frame of the programme and create an action plan. The programme has inscribed the world’s documentary heritage on the MoW Register since the Memory of the World: Register General Guidelines to Safeguard Documentary Heritage was adopted at the 1995 UNESCO General Assembly. All kinds of documentary heritage, corresponding to the selection criteria regarding world significance and outstanding universal value, are listed on the MoW Register following an IAC review, while technical support is provided for the preservation of, and access to, documentary heritage. With the selection criteria revised in 2002, the register now covers a broad range of media and means, not just literary documentation but also digitized resources such as visual documents, virtual documents, etc. Documentary heritage is the information containing archives or the medium through which those archives are transmitted. It could be a stand-alone archive or archival fonds. It could also be materials that contain archives such as manuscripts, books, newspapers, posters in the form of paper, plastic, papyrus, parchment, palm leaves, bark, fibers, stones, or other materials. Non-textual materials such as drawings, prints, maps, and music are also included. All kinds of electronic data have also been added to the definition, including audiovisual images of historical or contemporary activities, original texts, and still images in analog or digital form. The inclusion of documentary heritage on the MoW Register is determined through a review by the IAC in its biennial ordinary session when each member state is able to put forward up to two new nominations. In the Republic of Korea, the Cultural Heritage Administration submitted to the IAC ordinary session the application for two candidates selected through a preliminary application and review. To be inscribed on the MoW Register, the nomination should be important to the world. The IAC comprehensively assesses the documentary heritage against the criteria of integrity, authenticity (irreplaceability), significance, rarity, management plan, etc. The procedures related to the MoW inscription were temporarily suspended from 2017 until finally resumed this year. There have been moves, mainly from the Japanese government, to fundamentally prevent the deliberation of controversial items, such as Documentation on “Comfort Women” and Japanese Army Discipline, attributed to the cause of being cautious about the politicization of UNESCO. There were other differences in positions between states, depending on their respective interests, regarding the order of the expert review and the method of disclosing the results of the review. Accordingly, UNESCO had discussions over said issues and has developed a new criterion for the MoW inscription. Currently, 428 nominations by 128 countries and eight organizations have been added to the MoW Register. Of them, sixteen items were submitted by the Republic of Korea, including The Hunmin Chongum Manuscript and The Annals of the Choson Dynasty. The following table shows the documentary heritage items related to contemporary history, inscribed on the MoW register, that pursue democracy, freedom, human rights, and peace as shown in the Archives of Jeju 4∙3.   4. Global value of the Archives of Jeju 4·3 The Archives of Jeju 4·3 include the materials that confirm the facts and damage related to victims that have “consistently” been recognized by the state. More than 70 years have passed since the outbreak of the historical event, and it is still used as evidence for trials and for deliberation and resolution by the Jeju 4·3 Committee. The archives will continue to be used as important data for the compensation and indemnification for the deceased and for the surviving victims. In particular, detailed information on the damage to individual victims has been compiled through the report of victims to the National Assembly in the 1960s, to the local council in the 1990s, and to the Jeju 4∙3 Committee in the 2000s. Documents from public institutions that contain measures and orders taken by the government at the time of Jeju 4·3, as well as oral testimonies that supplementally confirm historical facts and damage are comprehensively and systematically collected. It can be said that such records are rare in that they have a very strong effect and influence. In the course of the war and the dictatorship in contemporary Korean history, a lot of data have been concealed, further increasing the rarity of existing data. The Archives of Jeju 4·3 are comprehensive and conclusive records that have been collected in consideration of the time, the agent, and the purpose of their production. Given the continuous and systematic process of collecting the materials and the composition of the collected materials, it can be said that the Archives of Jeju 4·3 achieved completeness. Those who hold the Archives of Jeju 4·3 vary, ranging from public institutions to private individuals. Currently, the documentary heritage items are dispersed and held by the Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation, domestic and international archive institutions, private research institutes, and other Jeju 4·3-related groups such as the Association for the Bereaved Families of Jeju 4·3 Victims, as well as private individuals. The Archives of Jeju 4∙3 contain the records of a historical event caused due to the Cold War and national division of Korea. Jeju 4∙3 was analogous to, a prelude to, and an epitome of, the Korean War. From this global perspective, the Archives of Jeju 4∙3 contain the overall picture of the causes, development, results, and resolution of the crucial event. From a global point of view, the types and content of the records are very rich compared to those of other mass victimizations of residents by state authorities in other countries and regions. It is also important because records of over 15,000 victims have been well preserved. The Jeju April 3 Incident Investigation Report (2003) was developed by using the Archives of Jeju 4·3 as key sources and grounds. The investigation report was later translated and published in English, Chinese, and Japanese starting in 2014, enabling the global publicization of the truth of Jeju 4·3. The Archives of Jeju 4·3 are a documentary heritage that contains the truth about the massacred victims and Jeju 4·3, a documentary heritage of reconciliation and coexistence for future generations, and a documentary heritage of solidarity and cooperation that contributes to world peace. The Archives of Jeju 4·3 need be inscribed on the MoW register so that its importance and meaning can be globally recognized. Through this, the archives should become more accessible, while used for education on peace and human rights, global citizenship, and democratic citizenship.   5. Future prospects and challenges The Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation members witnessed the MoW inscription of Human Rights Documentary Heritage 1980 Archives for the May 18th Democratic Uprising against the Military Regime, in Gwangju, Republic of Korea. This provided the foundation with the impetus to consider the inclusion of the documentary heritage items related to Jeju 4·3 because Jeju 4·3 and the May 18 Democratization Movement are similar in contemporary Korean history. In December 2012, the Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation hosted a debate by experts to open the discussion on the MoW inscription of documentary heritage related to Jeju 4·3. Subsequently, the administrative authorities of the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province took the lead by designing the related project through opinion gathering, and in 2018, undertook the promotional project of including the Archives of Jeju 4·3 in the MoW Register. The International MoW Programme was recently suspended due to the discussion on enhancing the practices in memory institutions. China’s Documents of Nanjing Massacre was added to the MoW Register in 2015. In 2017 when civic groups in Korea, China, and Japan submitted Documentation on “Comfort Women” and Japanese Army Discipline as a new nomination, the Japanese government demanded a reform of the practices in memory institutions, claiming that the UNESCO Programme is being used for political purposes. In April 2021, UNESCO finalized the bill on the reorganization of the MoW inscription system, which mainly stipulates that if there is a conflict of opinion between countries over the inscription of a documentary heritage item, a resolution shall be sought through bilateral dialogues and mediators, while the final decision on inscription shall made by the UNESCO Executive Board. The Republic of Korea plans to submit in November this year its nomination forms for the documentary heritage items on the Donghak Peasant Revolution and the April 19 Pro-Democracy Movement, which underwent the 2017 deliberation process within the Cultural Heritage Administration. The next nomination period will be in 2023, for which South Korea’s candidates will be reviewed domestically in 2022. Therefore, it is necessary to thoroughly prepare to have the Archives of Jeju 4∙3 inscribed on the MoW register. The expected MoW inscription of the Archives of Jeju 4·3 will help share the universal value of the reconciliation process of Jeju 4·3 with the world and give the Republic of Korea an opportunity to be globally recognized as a country with a mature sense of human rights. The successful inscription will also help the nation overcome the history of the Cold War, national division, a series of dictatorships, segmentation, and confrontation. The official global recognition that the reconciliation process pursued the values of truth, peace and human rights, and reconciliation and mutual existence is expected to eventually help resolve ideological conflicts as well as globalize the case example of Jeju 4·3.

1. An ‘Island of World Peace’ and ecological justice community [caption id="attachment_19967" align="alignright" width="201"] Byeon Jong Heon (Professor of Teachers’ College in Jeju University)[/caption] The Korean government designated Jeju island as an ‘Island of World Peace’ in 2005. It can be evaluated as a meaningful project related to the future of Jeju, considering it expects for Jeju to play an important role in establishing peace in Northeast Asia and the world, going beyond Jeju. However, since Jeju’s designation as an ‘Island of World Peace’, in Jeju society, there have been different opinions and views on the meaning of peace and the concept of an ‘Island of World Peace’, intensifying in a flood of discourses on peace. There are different perspectives on the concept of an ‘Island of World Peace’. However, they can be divided into two views : a hub for international exchange and cooperation, and zone of peace. In other words, there are two main perceptions of what an ‘Island of World Peace’ actually menas. The one is to regard as a place to discuss peace on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia, and furthermore, in the world and the other is to consider it as a new vision associated with the future of Jeju. Since Jeju was designated as an ‘Island of World Peace’, Jeju has achieved its desired results in the projects related to it and also in promoting its image as an island of world peace. Peace has emerged as a new brand value of Jeju and together with the vision for a free international city and the ecological value of Jeju’s nature, it has served as a pivot in designing the future of Jeju. By the way, current Jeju society is also facing a paradoxical situation quite different from it. One of most regrettable things is that there have been prolonged conflicts and confusion over the value of peace between citizens. ‘Jeju 4•3’ has brought pain and feud to Jeju society and is still causing political and ideological divide. Moreover, Jeju has conflicts between different interests and clashes between values, including between environment and development and between security and peace. As a part of the efforts for the establishment of a free international city, Jeju pushed for reorganization of its administration, a shopping outlet project, the foundation of for-profit hospital, and the construction of a naval base. However those endeavors led to some complications. In addition to that, there are conflict and confusion among citizens over the construction of a second airport. Those are the current situations of Jeju, an island of world peace. Moreover, with the influx of population and a surge in the number of domestic and foreign tourists, Jeju is suffering from various complications such as a boom in the real estate market, noise, and traffic congestion, and so on. These things threaten not only local residents’ quality of life, but also undermine a spirit of mutual cooperation and a sense of community. Against this backdrop, we need to be reminded that the establishment of peace in Northeast Asia and the world, neglecting Jeju’s reality and peace doesn’t make sense. It is because that without resolving the challenges and conflicts facing Jeju rationally and peacefully, advocating and pursing an ‘island of world peace’ will end up as an empty rhetoric. Therefore, in the process for the establishment of an ‘island of world peace’, what is crucial and fundamental is a paradigm shift which could enable Jeju to overcome the several competing claims and conflict situations it is facing. In other words, Jeju has to reflect on the true meaning of peace and what top priorities for the establishment of an ‘island of world peace’ are, and then explore practical solutions to realize them in Jeju society. Creation of a culture of peace will serve as a starting point. “Culture of peace’ is a foundation for ecological justice community, which can be considered as the future of the Jeju community. ‘Ecological justice community’ can be defined as a community in a state where it is free from threat of war, violence, and poverty and relationships between humans as well as between humans and the natural ecosystem are in balance. Jeju will have to move toward a community where people enjoy prosperity and peace with humans and nature in balance and can realize individual freedom and social justice. Culture of peace is a cornerstone for realization of the future vision of Jeju community. Accordingly, Jeju’s project for an ‘Island of World Peace’ has to play a pivotal role in leading the ecological justice community by creating a culture of peace. Jeju, an island of world peace, has to focus its attention and capability on paving the way for the improvement of inter-Korean relations and the reunification of the Korean Peninsula, and furthermore for the peace in Northeast Asia and the world, by creating and spreading peace culture. The project for an ‘Island of World Peace’ needs to create peace culture in Jeju society which could help realize an ecological justice community and also make all-out efforts to spread it to the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia, and furthermore, to the world.   2. Island of World Peace and Culture of Peace A culture of peace can be regarded as peace in awareness, values, mode of behavior, and habit. This concept was first introduced in the international conference in Yamoussoukro, held by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) in 1989. Since then, it was adopted as a UNESCO’s program in 1995 and spread to the world. Peace has been usually regarded as something that can be achieved through laws and institutions to regulate activities among countries in international relations. On the contrary, peace of culture is a new approach to realize peace, focusing on change in human nature. In other words, a change is seen in finding solutions from laws and institutions to a psychological approach in which there should be peace in the minds of men. A culture of peace can be called peace which is living and moving. As a culture of life, it seeks a life where different individual live together, share, communicate, and take care each other and also includes social responsibility to fight against poverty and discrimination. At the same time, it guarantees political equality, social justice, and cultural diversity. Its purpose is to change a culture of war, violence, deception, and discrimination into a culture of nonviolence, dialogue, tolerance, and solidarity. A culture of peace can be referred to as a state where peace becomes a meaningful issue and is internalized and practiced in daily life. In this context, in order to realize peace, efforts should be made to create peace culture as a life style as well as to establish structural and institutional conditions. A culture of peace is a mode of behavior and deep devotion to freedom, justice, equality, and the principle of solidarity between humans. Moreover, it encompasses harmonious relations between human and community and between human and the natural ecosystem, going beyond human relations. In this regard, it is the way of life of coexistence and harmony that is required in relations with themselves, others, communities, and the natural ecosystem. It is an environment and condition that enables human to live a decent life with pride in themselves, where human beings respect others and protect nature for the sake of their communities. Realizing this fact and acting on it is the key to peace culture. Discussions on peace used to be regarded as structural and political matters. However, humans actively and independently cope with and make decisions on the various problems which arise from the relations with themselves, communities, and the natural ecosystem. If those humans are wrong, it is impossible to establish peace in communities, and coexists harmoniously with natural ecosystem. In this regard, it is crucial to establish and spread peace culture based on cultivation of individual peace awareness and peace competency. Based on the creation of peace culture, Jeju’s project for becoming an ‘Island of World Peace’ has to play a central role in realizing the ecological justice community, which is Jeju’s future vision. By spreading peace culture, Jeju has to take the initiative for improvement in inter-Korean relations and peace on the Korean Peninsula and furthermore in Northeast Asia and the world. These goals can be realized by using the status and capacity of Jeju, an island of world peace, including as a zone for peace discourse, a center for peace education, and a hub for an eco-vaccine.   3. Jeju’s creation of peace culture and its spread 1) A forum for peace discourse The international community has many challenges and pending issues which have been emerging in the post cold war era, including human right, the climate crisis, the environment, the spread of infectious diseases, problems between advanced and developing countries, and regional conflicts. Against this backdrop, Jeju island has drawn attention as a center for international exchange and cooperation to discuss and resolve these issues. In particular, in spite of the ups and downs in the inter-Korean relations, Jeju sent tangerine to North Korea and held ‘inter-Korean Peace Festival’. Also Jeju residents paid visits to North Korea three times. Through these efforts, Jeju island has established itself as a center for inter-Korean exchange and cooperation. For this reason, it has been in the limelight as an optimal region for discussion on the new order for peace in Northeast Asia and the world, as well as, on the inter-Korean relations and peace on the Korean Peninsula. In this circumstance, Jeju, an island of world peace has to serve as a center for discussion on peace and for exchange and cooperation between countries on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia, and furthermore, the world. By doing so, it needs to play a leading role in expanding the opportunities to create a discourse on peace seeking a new international order. For stability and co-prosperity in the region of Northeast Asia, it can take the initiative in promoting the establishment of a peace cooperation body by activating multilateral cooperation at a governmental or non-governmental organization level. For instance, the ‘Helsinki Process’ played the main role in establishing the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). The action plan for the ‘Jeju Process’ modeled on it was proposed at the ‘4th Jeju Peace Forum’ in 2007. As the diplomatic space have currently become complicated, the role of cities is gradually growing. Considering that the city diplomacy can help improve the relations between countries based on the friendly cooperation between cities, it can be an effective way to realize peace. In other words, if cooperation and solidarity between cities of peace through city diplomacy are established, it can serve as a foundation for peace in the region and the world, going beyond peace at an individual country level. In this context, Jeju, an island of world peace need to expand exchanges between other cities which are pursuing peace and to lead the solidarity between cities of peace through active city diplomacy. In order to strengthen the mutual trust and to achieve co-prosperity and peace between countries in Northeast Asia, opportunities should be expanded to understand and cooperate with each other through dialogues and exchanges at city and citizen level. In the same vein, what is noticeable is the program of ‘Dialogue with City Citizens in ROK, China, and Japan’, which Jeju is going to promote. It has the goal and expectation that Jeju, an island of world peace will play a central role in establishing solidarity between cities of peace around the world and that building on this, it will thereby expand peace culture with them. In addition, based on the promotion of exchanges and establishment of sisterhood relationships with cities in North Korea, Jeju island needs to lay the foundation for cooperation and solidarity to achieve peace on the Korean peninsula and its reunification from mid and long term perspectives. In terms of city diplomacy, cities in North Korea can also be regarded as subjects for exchange and cooperation as well as invaluable partners for cooperation in promoting peace. Starting with the tangerine donation to North Korea in 1999, Jeju island has consistently pushed ahead with inter-Korean cooperation projects and has achieved good results and experiences. Those will serve as great assets to help build friendly relations and trust with cities in North Korea and furthermore move toward peace on the Korean Peninsula and its reunification. Jeju, an island of world peace has to lay the foundation for integration and solidarity based on mutual trust. To make this possible, it has to create and spread peace culture and also actively engage in regional exchange and city diplomacy with North Korea, China, and Japan and so on. Based on this, Jeju will serve as a main actor in resolving the instability in the region and establishing co-prosperity and peaceful order. The activation of city diplomacy can be achieved through exchange and cooperation with cites of peace and local governments in Northeast Asia and furthermore the world. It could be one of attractive solutions that Jeju, an island of world peace, can choose.   2) Center for Peace Education Maria Montessori argued that while preventing war is the fundamental work of politics, creating and maintaining peace is the mission of education. It implies that through education, internalizing peace in daily life is crucial. In this context, Jeju, an island of world peace has to make efforts to create and spread peace culture. To this end, it needs to focus on research and education to cultivate so called peace generations whose aptitude and attitude may enable them to internalize peace into their daily lives and act by it. A culture of peace can pave the way for understanding not only many pending issues related to conflicts of local community, but also the conflict structure of our society, including inter-Korean relations and reunification issue and for resolving them in rational and peaceful ways. By playing a role in creating and spreading peace culture, Jeju, an island of world peace can enhance its capability to peacefully address all conflicts, which may arise from the process of social and cultural integration during and following inter-Korean unification. Peace education is one of most effective ways to emphasize and cultivate this capability. Accordingly, Jeju, an island of world peace, has to strengthen the foundation for research and education related to peace and also serve as a center for peace research and education through the network between related institutes from home and abroad. Furthermore, based on human and knowledge exchange with research institutes and educational institutions from the various countries in Northeast Asia and the world, it should take the lead in establishing peace education cluster. Through these efforts, it will not only serve as a center for peace education to create and spread peace culture, but also lay the foundation for cultivation of peace generations of Northeast Asia, who will pursue and be able to practice peace in the region and the world. When it comes to cultivation of peace generations who will be able to contribute to peace in Northeast Asia and the world, going beyond Jeju and the Korean Peninsula, we can refer to the ‘Erasmus Program’, adapted by the EU (European Union). The program, launched in 1987, has had a huge impact on the globalization of universities in Europe and to date, it has provided more than 2 million university students of Europe with the opportunity to experience the education and culture of other countries and regions across borders. The program allows young people with different languages and cultural backgrounds to gather, study, and live together for several months. As a result, they can broaden their mutual understanding and shape their identities as Europeans. The ‘Erasmus Program’ is regarded as one of the successful models which universities in the Asian region try to benchmark. In reality, international organizations related to higher education in Asia are putting their efforts for exchange and cooperation in this sector within the region through a variety of programs. However, in order to establish coexistence and peace in Northeast Asia, it is important for university students in the region to make efforts to shape identity as Northeast Asian, going beyond the borders of individual countries and encompassing the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia. And those endeavors have to be based on communication, exchange, and mutual understanding, In this context, it can be considered that an intensive program with specialized theme including peace in Northeast Asia and the world like the ‘An Jung-Geun Peace Program’ needs to be developed. The program would allow university students in Northeast Asia to share the opportunity to mutually exchange and study together. As its course and content of education is focused on the theme of peace, it would provide students with the opportunity to raise their awareness of peace and strengthen peace competency, based on the perception of the universal value of peace. Through the program, they would be able to overcome the limits of identities as the people of an individual country who blindly cave in to the exclusiveness of national interests. Moreover, as citizens of Northeast Asia, Asia, ,and furthermore, the world and as peace generation, they could develop their aptitude and attitude, through which they would be able to share and respect the value of peace.   3) Hub for Eco-vaccine When we approach issues related to peace from the perspective of coexistence and harmony between humans and the natural ecosystem, Jeju’s beautiful nature could be an invaluable asset that could emphasize and draw attention to the meaning and value of peace in a broad sense at Northeast Asia and the world level, as well as, at the Korean peninsula level. It is because that as an ecological repository recognized by the world, the value of Jeju’s nature could serve as a foundation for re-evaluation of the meaning of peace and recognition of its importance, going beyond the simple dimension of natural environment. In this context, amid the Covid-19 pandemic, Jeju, an island of world peace would be able to fulfill the role as a hub for an eco-vaccine, which remind human beings of the importance and value of the natural ecosystem for their survival and future. Based on its solid status as an eco-city, Jeju, an island of world peace, will be able to take the initiative in building solidarity to gather wisdom from the countries in Northeast Asia in order to overcome the overall crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic and to address common challenges. In other words, Jeju will be able to present solutions for North Korea to overcome the Covid-19 crisis and to lead the collective efforts in the region to make the possible. Furthermore, as a model of an eco-city to lead the project centered on ecological value, Jeju will be able to show leadership in response to the spread of infectious diseases and health crises, which can happen anytime in Northeast Asia or East Asia, as well as, global problem of climate crisis. Challenge and crisis, triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic are expanding to the entire world. With these prolonged difficult situations, it is hard to have optimism for the future of humans. As periodic outbreaks of virus, threatening to humans, are associated with global warming and the climate crisis, the future of humans and the global village has become uncertain. The crisis humans are currently witnessing can be regarded as an existential and overall crisis, considering that it has an impact on human survival itself and across all sectors of the lives of human beings in both direct and indirect ways. Seen from a different angle, the crisis can be considered a natural consequence from the limited understanding of the meaning of peace and breakdown of peace culture. If Peace is regarded as a state of coexistence and harmony between the environment and the lives of human beings, the meaning of peace needs to be interpreted more comprehensively, going beyond the passive state with no violence and conflict. Accordingly, resolving the threats to so called human security such as the Covid-19 pandemic and the climate crisis is also the important for establishing peace. Likewise, the expanded concept of peace shows that peace is about more than human relations. This implies that we need to understand the meaning of peace from the perspective of coexistence and harmony between humans and the natural ecosystem as well as of from human relations. In this regard, in order to realize peace overcoming the existential and overall crisis of the global village, we should not focus only on human relations but actively embrace and pay attention to the relations between humans and the world and between humans and the natural ecosystem. For this paradigm shift, we should step away from the previous perspective, where issues related to peace were dealt with focusing on human relations at a country level. We also make efforts to recover relations of coexistence and harmony between communities and the world, and furthermore, the natural ecosystem. In the era of existential crisis, facing the global village and human beings, peace should be redefined as building relations of coexistence and harmony between the lives of human beings and various environments, going beyond a state with no conflict and war. The harmonious coexistence between human beings and natural ecosystem is one of crucial conditions for peace culture. For this reason, Jeju, an island of world peace should make all-out efforts to spread peace culture by serving as a hub for an eco-vaccine at the regional level of Northeast Asia, and furthermore, a global level. the Covid-19 pandemic has provided the opportunity for us to realize the importance of distancing between human beings and the natural ecosystem, and global cooperation and international solidarity across the borders of individual countries for human survival and a common future. Against this backdrop, while serving as a hub for an eco-vaccine based on the beautiful local nature, Jeju, an island of world peace, should play a pivotal role in leading integration and solidarity between countries in Northeast Asia in order to achieve coexistence and harmony between human beings and the natural ecosystem. Furthermore, based on these endeavors, it should join the journey toward world peace.

1. Conflicts over the liquidation of the past [caption id="attachment_20018" align="alignright" width="187"] Koh Sung-man (Professor of Jeju National University)[/caption] Jeju 4·3 and Taiwan’s 228 Incident are evaluated as a priori model in the liquidation of the past in Northeast Asia as is the rapid social change and chaos the two regions experienced after the dissolution of Imperial Japan. This is because the two cases have built their respective distinctive models of liquidating the past, which is globally referred to as “the end of the transitional paradigm.” The purpose of this article is to attempt a comparative study between Jeju 4·3 and Taiwan’s 228 Incident by the media of the official resolution of the two cases — which are defined as “past liquidation” or “transitional justice” — and the victims’ groups who have been brought to the forefront in the process. The recognition of the “victims” of Jeju 4·3 and the “sufferers” in the case of the 228 Incident could be understood as the representative outcomes of liquidating the past in the two regions. These groups that emerged in the process of legal and institutional re-evaluation of each case are not only announced as a major achievement of the official resolution, but also reflect the unique landscapes of conflict found in the respective societies. The recognition of these official victims is regarded as a crucial barometer in reaching social consensus — and inevitably involving social conflict — about the content of the past liquidation, such as “what to adopt as the ‘past’”, “how to represent, restore, commemorate, and inherit that ‘past’”, and “which names to be selected and recognized as the souls of the deceased and to be engraved on a monument.” Thus, not only the discord and confrontations over “who the real victims are” arise, but also a fierce rivalry is reenacted in the process of selection and exclusion, identification and differentiation processes. Furthermore, observing this phenomenon recalls the undeniable reality where the “non-victims” exist in the remaining domains, who have failed to be included as official victims, thereby requiring a critical approach to the liquidation of the past at a national or nation-state level. It also triggers the need to expand the discussion on state violence to a long-term and post-state level, going beyond the limits of national and superficial regulations of the times. This article attempts to highlight those that have failed to be recognized in the self-concluding narrative with a focus on the official victims by comparing and analyzing the “victims” and “sufferers”, whose clarification is announced as a major achievement in the legal and institutional resolution processes of Jeju 4·3 and the 228 Incident. The process would enable the grasping of the reality that the post-colonial and post-Cold War tasks are intertwined due to the tasks attempted in the name of past liquidation or transitional justice.   2. The liquidation of the past concerning Jeju 4·3 and the 228 Incident The 228 Incident, comprehended as a historical experience that is similar to Jeju 4·3, has been cited as a precedent case for liquidating the past. In Jeju society, a resident movement demanding the investigation of the truth of Jeju 4·3 intensified starting from the late 1980s with the transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one. Since 2000 when the foundation was laid for the official resolution through legalization and institutionalization, there have been more vigorous attempts to broaden exchange and solidarity with Taiwan, while learning about the 228 Incident and the subsequent history. Understandably, it would be inappropriate to compare the two cases in the same context, concerning their entire histories that span from the onset towards the end, as well as the nature and historical significance of the loss of human life — estimated to be “30,000 people” — and the phenomena and issues that rise in rediscovering, reinterpreting, and re-evaluating the “past” in the name of past liquidation or transitional justice after democratization. Nevertheless, the comparative study of the two cases has played a positive role in surmounting the narrowness of perspective and interpretation, which a single case-centered approach might cause, and imagining the void that has yet to be filled. In Taiwan, the perception of the 228 Incident has rapidly changed since the 1987 lifting of martial law. The decisive momentum was created in 1995 when a monument was erected in the center of the capital, where an official apology was immediately made by then President Lee Teng-hui to the victims’ bereaved families. In the same year, the Legislative Yuan, the legislature of Taiwan, enacted the February 28 Incident Disposition and Compensation Act, soon followed by the launch of the 228 Memorial Foundation under the national government. The foundation has made it a top priority to publicize the truth of the incident through means of government-level investigations, and at the same time, to make official the recognition of the “sufferers” and pay compensation and consolation money (Chen and Hsueh, 2021). Attention needs to be paid to the fact that the 228 Incident started to be referred to as a “mirror of Jeju 4·3” (Lee, 1997), especially at a time when the heritage and tasks left by Jeju 4·3 emerged as a social issue and voices demanding the official resolution were raised in Jeju society. As Taiwan confirmed the “sufferers” and gave compensation through a legislative process alongside an official apology made by the head of state (i.e. the president) in the early 1990s, the Taiwanese situation provided a valuable resource for asserting the necessity and imperativeness of a movement demanding the official resolution of Jeju 4·3. Attempts to liquidate the past, which began in earnest after 2000 through the legalization and institutionalization of the matters related to Jeju 4·3, drew the first presidential apology, elevated the commemorative ritual ceremony to a national event, and have recently reached the stage of realizing the compensation and indemnification for individual victims through the revision of a related special act. With the legal and institutional resolution showing concrete outcomes, it is now re-evaluated as a “model of resolving Korea’s past issues” and a “Jeju reconciliation model” (Yang, 2018; Park, 2018). On the other hand, however, it conflicts with the nation-state’s ideology over the recognition of official victims and the representation of the case in the memorial space; tensions and cracks are also found in the work of designing a model for past liquidation. The transitional justice program for the 228 Incident has also set as its main agenda the harmonious combination of ethnic groups, which seeks to end the confrontation between the various ethnic groups involved in the incident, especially between those from outside the province and the natives of the province in which it occurred, and to have them reconcile and coexist. This is because Taiwanese society’s ethnic relations and the conflict over provincial membership are closely related to the influence of the 228 Incident and the perception of national identity (He, 2012). The same is also evident in Article 1 of the February 28 Incident Disposition and Compensation Act, which stipulates: “The purposes of this act are to dispose compensation matters of the February 28 Incident (hereinafter the Incident), to carry out the education of history, to clarify attribution of responsibility, to enhance public understanding of the incident, to heal the wounds of history, and to promote racial integration.” The efforts for reconciliation and harmony made by conflicting ethnic groups have led to significant achievements in the democratization and transitional justice of Taiwanese society. On the other hand, the setting of the agenda of “harmony” between those from outside the province and those from inside it rules out the postulation of non-Taiwanese people who were also involved and victimized but failed to be recognized as another subject of “harmony” (Koh, 2020). Even in the category of the “sufferers” who are recognized through official approval, ethnic minorities such as Koreans and Ryukyuans have long been considered excluded. In studies on Taiwan’s modern and contemporary history conducted in Korea and Japan (Hwang, 2005; 2006; Matsuda, 2018, etc.), it was not in their areas of ​​interest whether or not their citizens engaged in the 228 Incident, the extent of the damage, or follow-up measures.   3. Conflicts over official victims 1) Jeju 4·3 and the “victims” In completing the program of liquidating the past concerning Jeju 4·3, it served as an essential, binding barometer in constituting the group of official “victims” whether the claimed victim was “a core executive of the Jeju branch of the South Korea Labor Party (SKLP Jeju), which is directly responsible for the outbreak of the incident” or “a leader of the armed forces that took the lead and actively resisted against the constabulary counterinsurgency operations”. In 2011, the Constitutional Court defined the armed residents who led the 1948 uprisings and anti-government campaigns as “core executives of the SKLP Jeju” and “leaders of the armed forces, etc.”, while announcing their acts as what had damaged the free democratic basic order and the identity of the Republic of Korea (Constitutional Court, 2001). Additionally, the government-led Jeju 4·3 Committee accepted the opinion and agreed on creating a separate provision, titled “Criteria of Deliberating and Deciding on the Victims,” to exclude them from the “victims”. For this reason, the birth of “victims” was not strictly verified based on evidence of the structural context and specific reality of violence. Rather, the judgment was made based on the important criteria of whether the claimed victims used to be involved in anti-regime or anti-social political groups and whether they had resisted against the government’s counterinsurgency operations. Hence, even if the damage of human life occurred during the period of the incident, or even if the written applications were submitted to the government committee and underwent a series of verification procedures, not all those that had suffered the loss of human life were given the official status of “victims” as stipulated in the applicable law.   2) Taiwan’s 228 Incident and ‘sufferers’ In promoting the transitional justice program concerning the 228 Incident since the related act was legislated, Taiwan has defined those nationals of the Republic of China, especially those from inside the province, who can prove the causal relationship between the substantive truth of the “incident” and the specific damage they claim, as the “sufferers” who would be entitled for the state-led relief measures. Therefore, the so-called non-Taiwanese who had also been involved in the incident were excluded from the officialization process, and from the transitional justice program as well. The attempt to liquidate the past which is implemented based on the system of the nation-state and its order made invisible the supranational and diaspora scars that had been dispersed toward or beyond the borders of the state. The existence of non-Taiwan victims began to emerge in earnest in January 2007, which marked the 60th anniversary of the incident. The Okinawa Investigation Committee on Taiwan’s February 28 Incident was formed by researchers that study the modern and contemporary histories and the histories of migration in the two regions, which are difficult to be addressed with a segmented approach. As a result of their basic investigation, the existence of seven people from the Nansei Islands, including Yonaguni Island, was revealed. Of them, the bereaved family members of Esaki Aoyama (born in 1909), a native of Japan’s Yoron Island, requested the 228 Memorial Foundation for the recognition of the said person as a “sufferer” and for the payment of the relevant compensation. The petitions filed by the ethnically heterogeneous people such as Aoyama finally revealed the limits of the laws, systems and policies of the transitional justice program. This resulted in the readjustment of the scope of the “sufferers”; the conflict over official recognition of deaths due to the incident also entered a new turning point. The fact that a non-Taiwanese missing person has become an official ‘sufferer’ of the 228 Incident means that, above all, the scope of application of the existing law has expanded and the denotation of “sufferers” has also been broadened. Eventually, transitional justice, which used to function only within the realm of the Republic of China, gained momentum to expand its scope beyond the norms of a state and a nation, and the resulting restrictions, to the dimensions of Japan, Korea, and even East Asia. By extending the object of “harmony” to the ethnic minorities such as Ryukyuans and Koreans, it transformed the function of “sufferers” that has been mobilized to strengthen nationalism and state-centrism. Diversifying the nationalities and the ethnicities of the “sufferers” is evaluated as a factor that helps overcome nation-state-centrism that has defined the boundaries of the group of victims, triggering the diversification of historical perception.   4. On how to face the past Seeking the methodology of liquidating the past concerning Jeju 4·3 could find implications in the contemplations about what to learn from the experiences of Taiwanese society, how to interact and build solidarity with them, and what lessons to learn from the definition of transitional justice in the case of the 228 Incident. Outwardly, Jeju 4·3 officialized the significantly higher number of “victims” than the officially recognized “2324 sufferers” of the 228 Incident. However, the content category of Jeju 4·3 has been fixed and the subject of exclusion has been expanded for 20 years, as demonstrated in the process of forming the group of “victims”, whereas Taiwan’s movement to resolve the 228 Incident has improved the degenerative interpretation of the statutory ground and has continuously expanded its denotation. As a result, the definition of Taiwan’s transitional justice related to the 228 Incident accepted ethnic minorities to be included in the “sufferers” that are equal to those from inside the province, while gaining momentum to expand the concept and practice of “harmonizing the different ethnic groups” both inside and outside Taiwanese society. Moreover, the 228 Memorial Foundation has opened to the public the “List of People Eligible for Sufferer Identification” since 2018, breaking away from the previous application-based method, and has encouraged the eligible people to make applications. The list contains the real names of the 2,148 people who were kidnapped or arrested by the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) at the time of the incident, which includes the names of eight people from Okinawa and other Japanese regions. In the case of Jeju, however, the awareness of the situation by the forces that have led the past liquidation process has remained stagnant in the 1990s when the 228 Incident was called the “mirror of Jeju 4·3”. They do not envision the efforts of Taiwanese society to diversify the nationalities and ethnicities of the “sufferers” and overcome and transform the contradictions of the legislative and institutional means; nor they consider the matter as an important agenda on the table of solidarity and exchange with Taiwan. Taiwan and Korea experienced the geopolitically contemporaneous history that gave birth to the Chinese civil war and the division of Korea. It will be necessary for the two states that have liquidated the past to express reciprocal empathy and share the political culture, especially in elucidating the universality and specificity of “overcoming the past” in East Asia where the imperial rule, the national independence, the Cold War, and the ensuing dictatorship are intricately entangled. This is because, despite the diverse patterns of damage, it will be possible to present a vision of reconciliation and a method of remembrance that crosses borders and raises an objection to state violence by seeing through the essence of state-centrism inherent in those patterns.

Ko Chang Hoon (Editor-in-Chief, World Environment and Island Studies) 1. Establishment of the ‘World Environment University’ proposed The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress (WCC), which took place from 3 to 11 September 2021 in Marseille, France, was concluded with the shared recognition that we have one nature and one future. Its World Environmental Hubs Working Group session was recently held on Jeju (Jeju WEH WG), addressing the establishment of a global research and training center on Internationally Designated Areas (IDAs). The global research and training center on IDAs is expected to be opened on Jeju as a UNESCO category 2 center under the auspices of UNESCO (UNESCO C2C Jeju) in the latter half of 2022. The latest Jeju WEH WG session was greatly significant in that the meeting newly proposed the opening of the UN organization named the World Environment University (WEU). On September 5th, 2021, the international experts and the representatives of Hawaii, Okinawa, and Jeju who attended the session discussed the necessity of international cooperation in creating the WEH framework and the WEU as its governing body to tackle the ramification of global-scale climate change. The key participants included the Korea National Committee for IUCN, Jeju National University (JNU), the Asia Climate Change Education Center (ACCEC), the World Association for Island Studies (WAIS), and Hokkaido University. The Jeju WEH WG session was chaired by Suh Youngbae, a Seoul National University professor and the president of the Korean National Committee for IUCN. During the meeting, Peter Shadie, IUCN’s Senior Advisor on World Heritage, spoke about his ideas on the integration of environmental education in line with the proposed establishment of the UNESCO C2C Jeju. His idea was supported by Jeong Dai-yeon, the ACCEC director, Yoshida Kunihiko, an international environmental law professor at Hokkaido University’s Graduate School of Law, Ko Chang Hoon, President of the WAIS, and Kim Jihee, a Planning Committee member of WAIS. Suzanne Case, the director of the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), and Kim Yang-bo, the director-general of the Jeju Special Self-governing Provincial Division of Environmental Conservation, also concurred with the expected significant role of the UNESCO C2C Jeju. Notably, Case and Yoshida shared with the panel their ideas on the establishment of the WEU as an institute for interisland cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region, which will integrate education on Jeju 4∙3, human rights, and peace with environmental education in different island regions of the world. The panelists emphasized that a more substantive concern relates to the educational practice of the Jeju Declaration of Sustainability in Action, following the opening of the UNESCO C2C Jeju. It was pointed out that Hawaii, Okinawa, and Jeju have already cooperated in co-hosting the Global Green Island Summit and that efforts should continue to be made to build up such an experience. On September 9th, 2021, JNU and the WAIS co-hosted the WCC session, titled “The World Online School for the Environment Leads the Establishment of the WEU”. The session was joined by renowned specialists from South Korea, Belgium, and the United States, including Director Jeong of the ACCEC, Ignace Schops, the president of EUROPARC Federation, and Muthusami Kumaran, a climate change researcher and an associate professor at the University of Florida. During the session, the participants discussed the establishment of the WEU based on international cooperation and the responsibility of civil society. The speakers largely addressed three key topics. Jeong’s keynote presentation addressed the topic of “The Roles and Capacity Building of NGOs as Agents Responding to Climate Change”. In his pre-recorded speech, the renowned sociologist called for a concerted response to the impact of climate change on nature and society. The following keynote speaker Kumaran briefed the audience on in-depth interviews with 10 environmental leaders of Jeju Island to suggest an alternative capacity-building option for the environmental organizations and campaign groups in responding to the impact of climate change. Schops, the third keynote speaker, spoke on the topic, “Our new future; how ready are we?” The Europarc Federation president specifically pointed out that global warming and the loss of biodiversity are caused due to the impact of climate change. As a countermeasure to tackle the issues, the environmental specialist proposed the establishment of the WEU and a concrete realization of sustainability. In July 2010, JNU professor Ko participated in “A Feasibility Study of World Environment University”, a research project contracted by the Ministry of Environment which discussed Maurice Strong’s idea on the WEU. Ko revised the 2010 research findings into four English articles that were released in 2020 in World Environment and Island Studies, a registration candidate journal of the National Research Foundation of Korea published by the WAIS and JNU. During the WCC session, Ko cited his latest articles and envisaged the specific basis of establishing the WEU; that is, honoring the life of the former UN Under-Secretary-General who is also renowned as an environmentalist. The island researcher explained that cooperation with the international community should be pursued when promoting the World’s Online School for the Environment program with Jeju province and the ACCEC. In the following speech, Yoshida, a member of the Okinawa World Natural Heritage Advocates, raised an issue over the conflict between those who attempted to construct a US military base in Okinawa and others who are working to conserve the UNESCO World Natural Heritage sites in the area. The law specialist and environmental activist urged IUCN to demonstrate its volition to protect nature, even calling for negotiation with the US forces. News outlets in Okinawa later covered his claim for days on end and built solidarity with regional environmental campaigns, helping publicize the issue of mediating the conflict to the public in Japan and the US. The Okinawa case suggests that an international environmental law-based remedy would be needed to settle similar conflicts happening surrounding the military bases and natural ecosystems in other regions, such as Jeju Island’s Gangjeong and Hawaii. The political bloc has also engaged in pursuing the goal of establishing the WEU on Jeju Island. Chung Sye-kyun, South Korea’s former Prime Minister who was running for the Democratic Party’s presidential primaries in September, sent a message with the nation’s delegation to the WCC. In his message, the six-term lawmaker encouraged the delegates to run the World Online School for the Environment so that the WEU could be established with the profits earned from clean energy industries. Ko worked with his peer researcher Kim Horim, a Korea University professor, to integrate their ideas with Chung’s conception of “SK-nomics” and devise the “Korean Peninsula Linking Policy (KPLK): New Ocean Economic Civilization (NOEC) vs. New Continental Resources Civilization (NCRC)”. It is a policy proposal for opening the WEU on Jeju Island to pass on the Moon Jae-in administration’s “Korean peace process” in an eco-friendly and economical manner by adding a global economic aspect to Kim Dae-jung’s “Sunshine Policy” and Roh Moo-hyun’s “vision of South Korea as a business hub for Northeast Asia”, and to assign the special role of inter-Korean exchanges to Jeju Island. (See “The establishment of the WEU based on the KPLK” in Open Square, The Jemin Ilbo. Issue date: September 8th, 2021.)   2. Environmentally sustainable “Peace Islands Network” based on international cooperation proposed On September 13th, 2021, researchers from seven countries met online for the 2021 Forum for the Island of World Peace, hosted by the American University of Paris. The forum featured a presentation given by Park Chan-shik, a board member of the Jeju 4∙3 Research Institute, who discussed the value of the records of the Jeju 4∙3 victims as a documentary heritage. Marie Claude Machon-Honoré, BPW International Permanent Representative to UNESCO, emphasized in her keynote speech that Jeju residents had struggled in the late 1940s to build their independent Korea and had healed their own wounds that had been caused due to that struggle, including the painful massacre of many community members. In that sense, the records related to Jeju 4∙3 are a valuable documentary heritage to be shared with the people around the world and promoted as one orientation of peace education under UNESCO’s Education for Sustainable Development for 2030, she added. The business leader also advised the relevant authorities, such as the Jeju provincial government, the South Korean government, the Korean National Commission for UNESCO, and the Memory of the World Committee for Asia and the Pacific, to closely cooperate in inscribing the records onto the UNESCO Memory of the World (MoW) register. Additionally, she proposed specializing the issue as a topic for UNESCO’s human rights education in association with the educational programs that will be offered by the UNESCO C2C Jeju. Eric Yamamoto, the Korematsu Professor at the University of Hawaii’s William S. Richardson School of Law, explained that the tragedy of Jeju 4∙3 represents an international case where the wounds and scars from historical injustice have been continuously healed. The renowned jurist indicated that it is evident that the United States Army Military Government in Korea should be held legally liable for the excessive counterinsurgency operations as shown in the massacres of Jeju village members. In this regard, he called for the US government to install the Jeju 4∙3 Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the White House in an effort for the US to join in the efforts to heal the Jeju 4∙3-related wounds. The other speakers, including Douglas Yates, Professor at the American University of Paris, Grant McCall, Honorary Associate Professor at the University of Sydney, and Lee Young-chul, Professor at Chonnam National University (CNU), participated in Jeju National University’s World Peace Academy program between 2017 and 2019. The three professors expressed their support for the operation of peace education based on international cooperation with a focus on respect for human rights and the resolution of conflicts to be learned from the Jeju 4∙3 case. The scholars expressed in unison their opinion that the educational program will help Jeju surmount its tragic history and lead international projects on peace and culture by connecting South Korea’s Gangjeong Port with the North’s Wonsan Port for cruise ship operation. Korea University professor Kim gave a presentation highlighting the significance of the human rights campaign concerning Jeju 4∙3 as a systematic connecting point of the neo-oceanic and neo-continental civilizations that have newly emerged amid the US-China tech war. The tech professor stated that a specialist training program should be created in the fields of the environment of islands and the human rights of island residents.   3. An era of cultural exchanges desired at the Global Peace Bulteok Assembly The 2021 Global Peace Bulteok Online Assembly involved four different events. On June 21st, 2021, the Global Peace Bulteok Assembly on Zoom featured presentations on the “Island of World Peace” designation, Jeju 4∙3, and other similar cases found in other parts of the world. Elisabeth Steele Hutchinson and Abigail Holden at the University of Hawaii’s William S. Richardson School of Law introduced the written request to install the Jeju 4∙3 Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the White House. Cho Hyung-jae and Lee Sang-hoon, JNU’s doctoral candidates, spoke on the role of historical injustice in healing Jeju 4∙3-related trauma and the application of “social healing”. Chinese students studying at JNU compared the Nanjing Massacre with the massacres of Jeju 4∙3, while Olivier delivered a comparative analysis of Africa’s Rwandan genocide and the massacres of Jeju 4∙3. E. Tammy Kim, a New York Times contributing opinion writer, was lauded for giving a congratulatory speech expressing that the testimonials by ordinary Koreans can impress the international community just as Ko Wan-soon testified about the Bukchon Massacre in the 2019 UN International Symposium on Human Rights and Jeju 4∙3. On July 20th, 2021, CNU professor Lee chaired a seminar where JNU students shared their ideas with their peers at Hokkaido University and other Korean students studying in the US. Moon Jin-ju at the State University of New York spoke with the title, “Jeju 4∙3 convicts and the tragedy of 4∙3: Impressions I had as a record keeper of their retrials.” JNU students, including Kim Yoo-joon, Song Je-min, Kang Gwang-shik, and Lim Se-joon, gave a presentation titled “The 2022 campaign requesting the US Congress to legislate the Jeju 4∙3 Human Rights Act”. The following presentation was given by Joo Han-byeol and Lee Yoo-dong, also studying at JNU, who talked about “A social healing model on the island of peace: The stories of people in Bukchon-ri, Gasi-ri, Cheongsu-ri, and Donggwang-ri”. The presentations by Jeju-based students were followed by Kim Yoo-jeong (or Yuna), a Johns Hopkins University PhD student, who addressed the unspoken scars of Jeju 4∙3. In the following session chaired by JNU professor Ko, the speakers continued discussing Jeju 4∙3 and other similar issues around the world. A Hokkaido University student named Sato Ryohei raised the issue of the French government’s responsibility for the Rwandan genocide, while Heng and Yo, Chinese graduate students, addressed the labor environment of women in different countries and the impact of foreign court decisions on the “comfort women” cases, respectively. Japanese students, including Hironaga and Kumasawa, touched upon the historical injustice surrounding the Japanese ethnic minority group of the Ainu people and the protection of their indigenous knowledge. Another Japanese speaker surnamed Chida gave a presentation on hate speech and the issue of exoneration of victims. Finally, Chinese student studying at JNU, surnamed Lee, discussed the compensation trials of the biological warfare victims of Unit 731. On September 6th, 2021, the WAIS held an offline pre-event of the 2021 Global Ageing Network Biennial Conference in Jeju. Local high school students, who gathered at Maison Glad Jeju, participated in a contest for cultural presentations. WAIS researcher Kim Jihee moderated the final round, which allowed only 10 or fewer participants due to following the national quarantine guidelines to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The participants included four students from Jeju City’s Jungang High School (a UNESCO-associated school) and two students from Seogwipo City’s Samsung Girls’ High School, along with two teachers who joined them as instructors. In another event, a four-member team from Jeju City’s Jungang Girls’ High School, including Jeong Byeolla, Lee Hyeon-ji, Oh Rye-lim, and Kim Dan-bi, as well as their instructor, identified the problems of marine pollution and the resulting coastal degradation and that of coastal habitats. Their presentation was extended to broadly discuss the discharge of the radioactive water of the Fukushima Daiichi plant. A discussant suggested launching an international body to prevent the marine pollution resulting from the Fukushima nuclear plant water. Park Yoon-seul and Kim Chae-eun of Samsung Girls’ High School briefed on filing a lawsuit concerning Jeju 4∙3 in the US Federal Court and the healing of the victims’ wounds at the international judicial level. The young leaders’ presentation was considered a good opportunity for building empathy in resolving the Jeju 4∙3 issues. On September 13th, 2021, another round of the Global Peace Bulteok Assembly was organized by the American University of Paris, despite the difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The conference was co-moderated by WAIS researcher Kim Jihee and a Cergy Paris University student named Jana Monse, featuring presentations on the country-specific agendas presented by the student representatives of Korea, China, Japan, and the US. The Korean Team was represented by Jo Hyung-jae of JNU, who asserted the legitimacy of healing the trauma of Jeju 4∙3 victims. Elisabeth Steele Hutchinson of the University of Hawaii’s School of Law discussed the installation of the Jeju 4∙3 Truth and Reconciliation Commission at the US government level and the social healing process. The Japanese student delegation called for compensation for damage to the Japanese ethnic minority group of Ainu people and the protection of their indigenous knowledge. The group of Chinese graduate students at JNU focused on the impact of foreign court decisions on the “comfort women” cases. Monse, the moderator, called for French students’ understanding of the Jeju 4∙3 issues and the WEH initiative, and gaining knowledge of Korean pop cultural icons such as BTS, if possible. Her presentation was applauded for delivering to the Jeju delegation the list of signatures by those at Air France and Sergy Paris University who support Jeju’s bid to host the 2022 UN Climate Change Conference. Monse’s idea even inspired other participants to propose scaling up the Global Peace Bulteok Assembly and contributing to achieving “global peace” by sharing with the global citizenry the pursuit of peace during Jeju 4∙3 and the democratic attitude led by the culture of “bulteok” that Jeju haenyeo maintain in their everyday lives. In his keynote speech, McCall asked the question, “Why is Jeju the ‘Island of World Peace’?” The anthropologist said a recent archeological study in South Africa discovered proof that suggests human interaction began 2 million years ago. According to McCall, a French anthropologist named Marcel Mouss once hypothesized in the past that human groups interacted, lived, and prospered approximately 1 million years ago. The process of human interaction formed a culture after fulfilling three stages of duties, that is, 1) the duty of giving, 2) the duty of receiving, and 3) the duty of decorating. Jeju 4∙3 is deemed as the “Jeju Resistance” where Jeju residents stood up in March 1947 for their self-reliance, upholding their rights of self-determination and freedom while their land was divided into North and South Korea, with the North occupied by the USSR and the South by the US. Late president Roh recognized the local efforts, and on January 27, 2005, he designated Jeju as an “Island of World Peace”. It is reasonable that researchers and UNESCO adopted a resolution to inscribe the list of the Jeju 4∙3 victims on the UNESCO MoW register by the mid-2020’s. Leading the resistance to stop the confrontation between the occupational powers, Jeju experienced the brutality of massacres in return. The inter-Korean peace agreement that was suggested during Jeju 4∙3 has yet to be reached even today. As an agricultural region, Jeju learned the value of inter-Korean cultural exchanges after the painful historic event. As a result, the island became the nation’s first region to send its tangerines and carrots to North Korea in the late 1990s. The latest efforts of the Jeju region for inter-Korean exchanges relate to its sending of tangerines to the North in return for receiving pine mushrooms from Pyongyang in December 2018. Jeju residents have also called for consensus from the political sphere on recognizing the tolerance of Koreans as a founding spirit of inter-Korean exchanges. They have even demanded that the US, DPRK, China, Russia, and Japan, the members of the six-party talks, provide support for the sailing of “Korean Tolerance Peace Cruises” between the Gangjeong and the Wonsan ports. Former Prime Minister Chung Sye-kyun expressed his agreement while he was attending the World Peace Island Forum on May 13th, 2021. Based on this, it is now time to gain consensus from both the ruling and opposition parties, as well as from the presidential candidates. There is a clear need that Jeju residents should have a shared commitment to creating Jeju as the hub of the “Korean Tolerance Peace Cruises” and that the South Korean government should make related efforts in the international arena. If Seoul holds the 4th US-DPRK Summit in Jeju in the summer of 2022, it could allow Jeju to run the “Korean Tolerance Peace Cruises”. This will likely set an example of inter-Korean cultural exchanges as the operation of the cruise vessel would spur reciprocal support for maritime and cruise-ship tourism between Seoul and Pyongyang. Additionally, it will be considered a model for peace-oriented tourism in Asia if musicians from North and South Korea play music under the theme of peace on the “Korean Tolerance Peace Cruises”. (“The cultural exchanges at the Global Peace Bulteok Assembly” in Open Square, The Jemin Ilbo. Issue date: July 14th, 2021.)

- Attractive non-consumable culture and achievable empathy - Any plan for the future of ROK-Japan relations? [caption id="attachment_19819" align="alignright" width="244"] Somei Kobayashi (Associate Professor of College of Law, Nihon University)[/caption] Japan-ROK relations just keep on becoming more exacerbated. Both governments are still opposing each other, and the people often experience emotional confrontations. This worsened state is becoming the “new normal.” I intend to suggest some clues to improve the bilateral relations, with reflection on Japanese society. Is it true that Japanese people like, but at the same time, do not feel closeness with Korean pop culture? Hallyu, or the Korean wave, is surely settling down in Japanese society. It is common to find Japanese who are interested in Korean popular culture. The Korean wave is familiar, rather than considered a sensation. However, as various surveys show, some people in Japan feel awkward about Korea. It reminds me that some correspondents answered that while they like Korean pop culture, their sentiments towards Korea would not be considered positive. It is said elsewhere that while some Japanese like Korean culture and call themselves fans of the Korean wave, they feel uncomfortable about Korea when it comes to political and historical issues. Occasionally, when a Korean pop star comments on issues regarding historical or territorial issues between Korea and Japan, his or her fans in Japan would often say they are disappointed or even brand the star as “anti-Japanese.” The fans would feel a sentiment of betrayal, and this sentiment can easily turn into a critical view of Korea. There is a so-called “filter bubble” as to the reason they feel betrayed. They are interested in Korean pop culture. They like the drama and the food, and they would be glad to use the cosmetics from Korea. However, they are not interested in history, nor are they interested in any other issues that disturb their feelings surrounding the Korean wave. All they care about is Korean pop culture because of the filter bubble. Some might have intentionally created this filter in the hopes of firmly planting the Korean wave in Japan. What is more important is that a filtered view of Korea through the bubble might only be a fantasized one, apart from reality. When those who are interested in Korean pop culture find out the discrepancy, their feelings of betrayal can easily grow and amplify critical stances towards the Korean wave. If the filter bubble is capable of creating the sentiment of betrayal, which has the potential to grow into negative feelings towards Korea, then it is necessary to shut the filter bubble down. Importantly, we must not only see what we want to see but broaden our perspective towards Korea. Are students at the University of Tokyo not interested in Korea? University students in Japan are not interested in Korea. The trend is getting worse. I lecture on Korea not only at Nihon University but also at the University of Tokyo and Waseda University. According to undergraduate and graduate students who took my course, after 1948, annually there are about two to three undergraduate students who author their dissertations on Korea; the same students who are expected to become experts regarding the East Asian Region including Japan, ROK and DPRK. Occasionally, there are years when the number of graduates is reduced to only one. Of course, some students draft dissertations on Korea in other courses on the Komaba campus or in other departments on the Hongo campus. If fewer students at the University of Tokyo are interested in Korea, it is unlikely to say that Japan-Korea relations see a bright future. Why is such a thing happening? First, some students like Korean pop culture, but it does not automatically lead to academic interest in Korea. Enjoying pop culture is one thing. Delving into it academically, on the other hand, is another. It is unlikely that the interest in Korean pop culture effectively leads to Korean studies. Second, students hardly think Korean studies is beneficial for a future career. A vast majority of students who are interested in East Asian studies choose China as their major, beginning from the Chinese language to politics and economy. For more students to choose Korea as a subject of study, more appeals, other than regarding the career path, are required. Lastly, the obvious difficulties between the two nations, such as history issues, tend to make students abstain from Korean studies. When it comes to the interest in Korea in Japan, it is polarized into either Korean pop culture, or the difficult diplomatic/historical issues between the two nations. No wonder students would want to put fewer eggs in the “Korean studies” basket, even after they become somehow interested in Korean pop culture. The appeal of non-consumable culture So far, I have mentioned cases of the fans of the Korean wave and students (mostly at the University of Tokyo) to pinpoint social circumstances and reasons why interest in Korea in Japan remains stagnant. It is obvious that widening our perspective is paramount. How will we achieve it? It is to show the people of Japan the appeal of non-consumable Korean culture. Most people in Japan who are interested in Korean culture focus on K-POP, drama, movies, food, fashion, and cosmetics, which are consumable. On the other hand, there are Korean things that are not. In any culture, desire is what moves people. The consumables can be afforded through transactions. The non-consumable, on the other hand, cannot be bought but is connected to a fundamental drive for all. Last September 2021, BTS made a speech to the United Nations, expressing hope for the future generations across the globe. Japanese media were in favor of their speech, and it was delivered to people who were not even interested in Korean issues. Also, the novel “Kim Ji Young Born 1982” was published in December 2018, becoming a best seller. The media made a sensation covering feminism and introducing the #Me Too movement of Korea. The indication is that the voice of Koreans who speak up for women in Korea has reached into Japanese society. Another message of peace rings from the island of Jeju. In 2005, the island proclaimed itself as the “Island of World Peace.” Since 2001, the Jeju Forum for Peace and Prosperity is being held annually to send messages of peace to the world. The implementation of a low-carbon society and the shift to green energy are also efforts to protect the earth and adapt to global warming on Jeju. These voices from Korea shed light on the future of the entire human society. They include messages of human dignity, world peace, and the protection of the earth and its environment, which are universal. These values, universal to all races, ethnicities, and genders, are a fundamental drive, or a desire we all want to fulfill. The fact that Korea is able to lead the way in raising such voices makes the nation look appealing and admirable, for there are still many others who are incapable. Those who understand such messages are bound to understand the appeal of the non-consumable culture of Korea as well as that which is consumable. This is expected to be not only effective toward Japan but also other nations across the globe in widening the perspective on Korea. Expansion in the international student system and mutual exchange of faculty are required to broaden the perspective To let others know the appealing points of non-consumable Korean culture, contact between Japan and Korea should be expanded. Needless to say, such trials have been occurring, bringing quite an achievement. However, past cases of exchange show some issues to resolve, and I would like to mention two things in advance. First, the exchange between Japan and Korea tends to be somewhat exclusive to Japanese who are interested in Korea and Koreans who are interested in Japan. In both friendly and academic exchanges, this is probably true. This is why the span of exchange should be broadened to include those who are not interested in their counterparts. The second is about anxiety about the exchange’s continuity. Many exchanges between Japan and Korea tend to be one-off or are difficult to continue. Inherently, this indicates that the exchange is only superficial, and it is hard to achieve earnest conversations in such a mood. We need an expansion, both in quality and quantity, in our current exchanges. To do so, as a researcher in higher education, I would like to propose as follows: The first one is to reinforce an international student system to arouse interest in Korea. Studying abroad, unlike going on a trip, is an intellectual act. It requires the student to settle down in local society and make conversations with local people to learn about them. However, only a handful of Japanese students aim to study in Korea. Also, in the long term, there are few opportunities within grasp for Japanese college students that allow contact with Korean society. Studying in China, on the other hand, sees greater chances, which still means that students in Japan are no less interested in the East Asian region. Here is an exemplary opportunity to arouse interest in Korea among Japanese students. Now, Campus Asia, an exchange student program between Korea, China, and Japan under an intergovernmental agreement, is currently ongoing in several colleges and universities. I believe the program can be an opportunity to create some demand for Korea. There are some colleges in Japan with a “Double Degree Program,” where students are eligible to pursue a degree while they are studying in Korea or China. Improving and enlarging this program so that students are able to get degrees in all three countries would induce more students in Japan to become interested in Korea. The expansion of the international student system, which is going on in Korea, China, and Japan, can greatly motivate indifferent Japanese students as well as indifferent Korean students to take part in the Japanese-Korean student exchange. There is also the possibility that Chinese students will participate in the exchange, which is then expected to further become an East Asian exchange. Last but not least, in such a case, the participation of Taiwanese students can also be a possibility. The second is the mutual or interexchange of faculty. It is well known and commonly accepted now that the number of Korean faculty members in universities and colleges in Japan is quite large. However, in Korea, aside from language courses, the number of Japanese professors is quite low, and they are most often seen in science and engineering departments. In the fields of the humanities, only a few Korean students are given the chance to learn from Japanese professors. So, my suggestion is that there be a mutual exchange system between Japanese and Korean colleges for a lecture. The point is that the exchange lectures should last at least half a year. A one-time course does not provide sufficient chances for the teacher and the student to mingle, not to mention to have earnest conversations. From 1985 to 2008, the Japan Foundation dispatched Japanese faculty to its Beijing Center for Japanese Studies within the Beijing Foreign Studies University. Their mission was to instruct Chinese students and provide academic guidance. The program not only helped the Chinese students to better understand Japan but also the Japanese to broaden their range of interests in China. Both Japan and China praised the outcome of the program. While the case was not one of mutual exchange, it can still be a clue to implementation in Korea. The focus is to dispatch indifferent faculty members. This is about sending a Japanese faculty member who is not a Korean studies major and is indifferent to Korea. The same applies to the counterpart: sending someone in Korea who is not a Japanese studies major indifferent to Japan. Again, the criteria for selecting whom to dispatch will ultimately increase future academic conversations between Korea and Japan as they will be interested in each other based on their experiences in each other’s countries. Importance of empathy, and the role of Jeju Being in contact with Korean society and making conversations with Koreans can become an opportunity to know the true attractiveness of the non-consumable culture of Korea, which in turn broadens one’s understanding about Korea. This process can also serve as a chance to find values that are the same and, at the same time, different. Among those people who share the same values, a consensus is formed, and the consensus is not a unanimity but sharing of feelings as to “what comes first,” or “what truly is valuable.” The voices calling out for human dignity, peace, and the environment were viable languages to many people in Japan who felt the same. The non-consumable culture of Korea invokes such senses. Japan’s and Korean empathy are important not only for both but also for the future of global society. Above all, this empathy can be a clue to resolving the historical issues between the two, just as I have pinpointed in one of my other columns[i]. Then, what would be the role of Jeju in this? The following is my conclusion. First, the voices from Jeju should be amplified. Unfortunately, the active image of Jeju towards peace and climate change is underacknowledged. It is needless to say that such actions should be noticed and broadcast in every aspect possible, including from travel booklets to socia media services. Tourism promotions should also find broader potential in Japan, such as Japanese school field trips, to increase substantial opportunities to introduce to Japan what Jeju is involved with. Getting added information means finding undiscovered value. Obtaining chances to visit novel places means having opportunities for new conversations. The possibility of empathy increases with such value and conversation. My next suggestion is to reinforce the link between Jeju and Okinawa. Both entities have in common that they had a tragic history and that they were once independent. Also, the industrial structure based around tourism and the geographic features of the islands make them look more alike. Both have steadily constructed and implemented their moves regarding peace, and both are facing similar assignments. Pondering such issues will build up a base for empathy. The link between Jeju and Okinawa is capable of becoming the think tank for resolving issues, which in turn will become a driving force and a model for establishing new Japan-ROK relations. Empathy is a “bond” that firmly binds the link. There is no need to mention how important it is for us to expand this empathy. Japan-ROK relations are the sum of all the forms of connection between Japan and Korea. The connections are taken part in not only by government officials and politicians, but also by researchers, students, travelers, fans of cultures, and by those who are completely indifferent to the other nation. We witness that such connection is weakening to a seemingly irrecoverable degree because of political circumstances, international politics, and emotions and sentiments. However, the empathy created in the Japan-Korea exchange empowers this pluralistic, multilayered connection. For both Japan and Korea to step ahead together, each and every one of us needs to find something in common towards raising empathy rather than something highlighting difference, and there are still many common options both Japan and Korea can choose from. I do not take pleasure in facing the aggravated Japan-ROK relations squarely, nor do I presume it is too late for the future of the two nations. [i]https://www.japanpolicyforum.jp/diplomacy/pt2020082117020410640.html Dr. Somei Kobayashi is an associate professor of College of Law, Nihon University. He received his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. in Social Sciences from Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan. He specializes in Korean Studies and International History of East Asia during the Cold War.

The history of Jeju’s feebleness against state power [caption id="attachment_19611" align="alignright" width="189"] Hwang, Kyung-soo (Jeju National University)[/caption] In tracing the history of Jeju, one would discover a host of suffering that the Jeju people endured but could speak of only with difficulty. In chronological order, there was the deplorable conquest of Tamna [an ancient name of the island now called Jeju] by the Goryeo Dynasty to suppress the rebellion of Mokho [Mongolian horse ranch managers sent from the Yuan Dynasty]. (Specifically, Goryeo subjugated Tamna during King Gongmin’s reign while subduing the insubordinate Mokho whose number reached 1,700.) Secondly, Jeju people suffered excessive taxation and exploitation committed by state-appointed governors during the Joseon Dynasty. The third suffering would be the ban on Jeju residents’ exiting the island (1629-1825) and the poverty they experienced in the Joseon era. The fourth suffering was caused by Jeju 4∙3 and Cold War-ideology. Other historical examples include battles against Japanese raiders, oppression by Imperial Japan’s Kwantung Army (58,320 soldiers stationed on Jeju alone in 1945), and the preventative arrests of Jeju residents before and during the Korean War with regard to Jeju 4∙3 (the tracking down and imprisoning those who were thought to harm government-friendly forces by sympathizing with the enemy in wartime). Jeju also suffered pain due to the guilt-by-association system concerning the pro-Pyongyang Chongryon (General Association of Korean Residents in Japan). With respect to the Chongryon, there were cases where new cadets were not accepted into the military academies after passing their exams because of the background check. In other cases, some Korean citizens who had lived in Japan were wrongfully accused of being spies (The Hankook Ilbo, dated Oct. 11, 2009, “Chongryon ‘spy’ now aged over 80 finally acquitted after 45 years”). In the history of Jeju, it was difficult to secure freedom from state power as is taught in books. Jeju was the most oppressed place in Korea. Rather than a place of freedom, Jeju was an island of exile and a harsh place to live.   The Jeju people who needed a community of cooperation The Jeju people needed the most primitive tool of cooperation to surmount the Japanese raids, the Mongolian invasion, the tax extortion by state power and governors, the disasters, and the destitution. Even revolutionary naturalist Charles Darwin would have trouble explaining the conditions of Jeju Island. When looking at the Jeju residents, he would find them competing when viewed as individuals, while cooperating when viewed as a group. As the villages on Jeju were not a community that existed as a combination of individual people, but a community of people who were all poor and persecuted, Pyotr Alekseyevich Kropotkin's framework of cooperation (2015) would be more convincing when explaining Jeju’s conditions. Animals would not compete with each other or wield violence in their family communities. There may be special cases where an old male lion leaves its family or where nomads leave elderly people in the fields due to the difficulties of migration. Normally, however, a family community is premised on cooperation. Residents of Jeju’s villages had to live a communal family life. It is connected with the Gwendang [kinship] culture. However distant, they consider all of their relatives as somebody to rely on. They even call all of their elderly neighbors “Samchun” [uncles], be they neighbors inside or outside their kinship network, regardless of their gender. This is called the “Gwendang culture.” When two people introduce themselves to each other and notice even the slightest connection, they would say, “Oh, we’re Gwendang!” The in-laws and the most distant of relatives also ​​had to be united in a cooperative framework of Gwendang. It was an inevitable tradition in order for Jeju people to survive. The Jeju people tried to exclude selfish elements in order to protect the cooperative community. As Choi Jung-kyu (2009) indicates, an altruistic society is unstable. This is because when the selfish elements -- that is, the free riders -- appear, an altruistic society would begin to crack and most people would try to lead a selfish life. Traditionally, Jeju residents made innumerable efforts to keep their society altruistic. One example is “separately provided mutual assistance” (e.g. contributing to one’s funeral by giving money to each of their children in condolence). If a Jeju resident fails to provide mutual assistance to each and every relevant person, they will be regarded badly. In another example, Jeju haenyeo, women divers, have maintained very strict qualifications and penalties in order to protect Haenyeo Badang, the sea areas used by the haenyeo. The strong rules protect the shared space. Historically, each village agreed upon their respective Hyangyak [communal rules] and made sure that every villager followed them. It would not be an exaggeration to say that violating Jeju's Hyangyak was more terrifying than violating actual laws. Jeju residents are criticized for being exclusive. This is because there was a strong in-group tendency to abide by Hyangyak and protect the community. In order to solve problems that are difficult for a single family to handle, they developed the culture of Sunureum [exchange of labor] through the practices of Gye and Jeop, which are communal fraternities. The custom was necessary in order for Jeju residents to survive. The ceremonial occasions of coming of age could be also addressed through Gye and Jeop. Gaining a paid membership to Gye and Jeop would help the residents cope with large family events. That was how they survived. Non-members or non-contributors were not allowed to participate in the distribution of fruit. Although the custom is criticized for being exclusive, it should be seen as the solidarity of the weak.   Jeju’s village autonomy as a result of democracy, along with cooperation Jeju’s village autonomy could be presented as a form of adding the framework of cooperation to democracy as is described by Greek philosopher Aristotle. None of Jeju’s villages expelled members by voting. It was also not a republic where power was transferred to a single person through democracy. Jeju’s system was much better than Athenian democracy, which sugarcoated bad deeds with fluent, easy-on-the-ear speeches. This is because Jeju’s system was created by adding cooperation to democracy. In an interview on July 7, 2021, Prof. Go Chang-hun said: “Jeju’s village autonomy was a democracy in which decisions were made through continuous meetings. It was a way to overcome difficulties by working together, and a structure of unavoidable compliance with the decisions made within the group. The villages were not large, and the residents had to live a life of face-to-face relationships, getting to know each other.” There may have been a form of aristocratic government where community leaders discussed. However, given the mechanism of gathering public opinions through village meetings, activities of self-supporting groups, and associations by vocation and age, the government featured democracy.   An Asian mode of co-production based on the sharing economy Village autonomy in Jeju is a sharing economy system. In the context of Western economic history, it was an Asian mode of co-production before slavery or feudalism. It is proven in the systems of Haenyeo Badang and the common meadows. Even now, these rules are obeyed in the yearly adjustment or distribution of profits from the management of common meadows and the group activities of haenyeo. Village autonomy should be interpreted that the commons have been used as a tool for maintaining community, rather than interpreting it within the framework of the tragedy of the commons or the comedy of the commons. The system would have the ultimate purpose of maintaining the health of the community, rather than pursuing economic logic. Co-distribution required a strict compliance with norms. Selfishness, free-riding, immorality, untrustworthiness, lack of shared responsibility, and, especially, incapable leaders (e.g. Sanggun haenyeo [highly accomplished haenyeo] lacking work capabilities) were subject to condemnation and penalties in the co-distribution process. These were efforts for the continuity of village autonomy.   Village autonomy in Jeju: resident autonomy rather than group autonomy In the system of village autonomy, the villagers became the center. It was no different from the mentality that man is equal to heaven. People in need were constantly cared for, respect was continuously shown for the elderly, and efforts were made for fair distribution. It would have been possible as the communities were based on a village unit. To cite my childhood experience, when the neighborhood was celebrating something, we used to give away Tteokban, rice cake and boiled pork prepared to be shared, to the neighbors over a certain age in the evening. Then we reported on the reason for sharing the food. The elderly members of the community asked who we were and shared the joy with us. It was a custom that allowed us to play various roles at once, including sharing, reporting, checking on the health of the elderly, and providing enjoyment. In this sense, village autonomy in Jeju features resident autonomy, rather than group autonomy. Apparently, the national government still struggles to accept Jeju's village autonomy as a new system of autonomy in the Local Autonomy Act. This is partly because it is difficult to determine the scope of the activities by law, but also because village autonomy coexists with the practice of co-production and distribution, which are difficult to regulate with Korean laws and institutions.   Hyangyak: The standard and norm for peace in villages Hyangyak has provided a framework for building peace in the village. All 172 sub-districts called Li, the sub-districts composed of Eup and Myeon, in Jeju have established their respective Hyangyak. Mostly, Li communities directly elect their leaders called Lijang, or appoint them through recommendation. Li communities also appoint their office managers. The sub-districts also receive membership fees from the residents. (Some sub-districts secure the operational costs using the profits from their own assets and properties, without collecting membership fees.) These villages manage their own properties, while receiving and executing Li-related subsidies. They also form self-supporting groups to make collective decisions. These activities shape the standards for village economy and the essence of the village. Hyangyak induced peace while serving as a norm for villagers to follow. It played a role in managing conflicts as well as serving elderly villagers. It also laid the groundwork for village development decision-making. It served as a basis for managing the commons, managing spring water and piers, and inducing investment in social overhead capital. It served as a norm in performing Maeulje [village rituals] and providing scholarships to village youth. In the process of following these rules, peace was guaranteed in the villages. Hyangyak led the peace-building process by creating a public forum for the villagers. On communal matters, villagers consult with the Lijang first, rather than with provincial councilors or town heads. In an interview on July 5, 2021, Dr. Kim Il-soon said: “Hyangyak provided the foundation for the village’s role as a small government to encourage its members to directly participate in village affairs and solve them. It even motivated the self-supporting groups to take the role of a parliament.” In the interview on July 7, 2021, Prof. Go Chang-hun said: “The mechanism of the meeting played a significant role in keeping peace. However, it was also used as a negative tool. For example, as meetings were instrumentalized for decision-making, they were reduced to a mobilization system. The challenge for the future is to prevent the meetings from being instrumentalized so that the democratic style is properly applied.” Hyangyak realized peace through a mechanism similar to governance. Dr. Kim Il-soon said in the interview: “Jeju has the governance system of village autonomy, which enabled the residents to secure peace through the roles of self-supporting groups. Cooperation was achieved within the self-supporting groups such as the development committee, youth association, women's association, elderly association, fishing village cooperatives, farmers’ association, and property management committee. Profits from the village activities are distributed fairly, while part of the money is provided every month to the elderly over a certain age. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, some villages distributed relief grants to each household.”   Thinking of peaceful village autonomy that embraces diverse values Jeju’s village autonomy should embrace diverse values. From a geopolitical perspective, Jeju Island is the center of East Asia. Cruise ships enter the island’s ports more than 500 times a year (507 times in 2016, with recent changes concerning the THAAD deployment and the COVID-19 pandemic). In Jeju villages, not only multicultural families but also refugees coexist with locals. (484 Yemenis applied for refugee status in Jeju in 2018, and 414 of them currently live in Jeju.) Jeju is a representative region with a net increase in the number of immigrants, which surpasses the decrease in the population. These diverse values ​​should be embraced by the villages. Just as Jean Monet in France tried to embrace Germany after World War II, it is necessary to achieve coexistence and a resonating village autonomy. Attention should also be paid to women’s engagement in village autonomy. In Jeju villages, discussions have been increasingly active concerning gender equality. This is because the autonomy’s membership qualification of being the head of the household limits the participation of women in village affairs. An increasing number of villages have had such discussions. It may be a reflection of the island’s traditional feature of Yeoda, the phenomenon of women outnumbering men. The direction pursued by village autonomy must also change. My idea is that cultural and artistic needs should also be reflected. We are living in an era where village autonomy is not all about responding to tyranny and destitution as it did in the past. Village autonomy should allow us to pursue leisure, healing, and the fun of life. Therefore, village autonomy should reflect the current culture and art. I also believe that more attention should be paid to environmental protection. Recently, village autonomy has begun to take an interest in environmental protection through such efforts as the community building campaign. There is growing interest in the environment, which involves the management of common meadows, Haenyeo Badang, and spring water, as well as the prevention of groundwater pollution. I conclude this article by thinking about Jeju’s village autonomy, which leads people and nature to peace even after times have changed.   □ References Darwin, C. The origin of species. Translated by Chul-yong Song. Seoul: Dongsuh Press, 2009. Kropotkin, P. P. Mutual aid: A factor of evolution. Translated by Hoon Kim. Seoul: Summer Hill, 2015. Choi, J. K. Emergence of altruistic man. Seoul: Puriwaipari, 2004. Choi, J. S. Economic history of the west. Seoul: Seomoondang, 2018. Hwang, K. S. Cartoon: Understanding of the science of public administration. Jeju: Guide Book Publishing, 2008. Kim, Y. C. Bargaining for Advantage. Seoul: Humanist, 2016. Hwang, Kyung-soo | B.A. in Public Administration (Department of Public Administration, Jeju National University); M.A. in Urban and Regional Planning (Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University); Ph.D. in Transportation Engineering (Graduate School of Urban Science, University of Seoul); former researcher at the Jeju Research Institute (two years); current professor in the Department of Public Administration, Jeju National University. Authored “Cartoon: Understanding of the science of public administration” and co-authored “Understanding of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province.” Lecture titles include: Public Administration, City and Transportation, Negotiation, Theory of State, Cultural Administration.