제주평화연구원

[caption id="attachment_7532" align="alignright" width="170"] Hee-Gwan ChinProfessor of Unification Studies at Inje University[/caption] 1. Could we witness the change on the Korean Peninsula? This year marks the 30th anniversary since Germans saw the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic unite as one nation. Europe already underwent changes a generation ago when the Soviet collapsed and Eastern Europe has been in many people’s travel bucket lists for a long time before the Coronavirus pandemic. It has been over thirty years since the 45 year long lasted Cold War ended and Europe became whole new world now. Asia, on the other hand, has not gone through much geopolitical change after the Pacific War. One would wonder what have made Asia stagnated. The postwar structure after WWII, which is also referred to as San Francisco System of which the origin of the term came from the Treaty of San Francisco, supposedly focused on preventing the Soviet from communizing Asian countries by using Japan as the outpost for it in return for exonerating Japan’s role in WWII (the Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan in 1951). The other 48 allied nations would have reluctantly agreed to the acquittal as the US was determined to preclude communization. Now the Soviet which was the reason for the San Francisco System to exist is long gone 30 years ago, however the system has kept up its existence. There are regions that are still affected by the old structure, one of which is the Korean Peninsula. One can still face geopolitical and physical barrier when they visit the inter-Korean border. One of the reasons that the San Francisco System persists stemmed from an accidental discovery in the Korean Peninsula by the time the Soviet collapsed. The French commercial satellite SPOT-2 spotted nuclear facilities in Yongbyon in August 1989 by chance and made a public disclosure, which caused a serious conflict between the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and North Korea. Although the raised conflict was settled through the US-North Korean Agreed Framework in October 1994, the nuclear issue has since become the center of attention. In the US-Japan Joint Declaration on Security adopted in April 1996, the North Korea’s nuclear weapons and the tension on the Korean peninsula are considered as one of the biggest threats of the time (clause 3) and the role and importance of the Japan’s defense capacity in global security was emphasized (clause 4a). The North Korean nuclear issue is playing a pivotal role in sustaining the San Francisco System, the relics of the Cold War. That means we might see the end of the post war structure after the Pacific War if we can solve the North Korean nuclear issue. Then, the geopolitical circumstances in the Korean peninsula will go through a volte-face which can eventually lead to ‘Peace Regime’ and the status of Japan as a strong alliance of the US will fade away. The US’s stance under the Trump administration has bolstered this prospect. Soon after Donald Trump took his office as President, he charged Japan with yen manipulation and has demanded that Korea should split up the bigger part of the military costs on the Korean Peninsula. Furthermore, Trump’s recent three rendezvous with Kim Jong-un make it seem like Trump wants to give an end to the San Francisco System, although the last meeting in Hanoi last year seemed to put a hold on that thought. For now with the US presidential election months ahead, it can be too early to say how it will pan out. Despite the current uncertainty, there is no doubt that it is a critical time for the Korean Peninsula and cooperation between two Koreas can make a big change. In this regard, the past three Inter-Korean Summit meetings are as important as Sino-US relations or North Korea-US relations in shaping security structures in Asia-Pacific and Indo-Pacific region. 2. What the Panmunjom Declaration represents It has been two years since the two leaders of Koreas had a historically memorable meeting in eleven years in Panmunjom on April 27, 2018. It was a meeting between Kim Jong-un, Chairman of North Korea whose mother was from Jeju in South Korea, and Moon Jae-in, President of South Korea whose parents were from Ham-kyeng province in North Korea. It was an unexpected meeting made, especially considering that North Korea tested an ICBM ‘Hwasong 15’ a half year ago on November 2017. Kim’s visit to South Korea draw positive attention in general, partly writing off his father’s debt that his father Kim Jong-il could not keep his promise to visit Seoul as addressed in the June 15th North-South Joint Declaration in 2000. This also lessened a big burden for Moon to make the agreed visit to Pyongyang in September 2018 which was addressed in the Panmunjom declaration. Some offer that we can sound Kim on his visit to Jeju in the future, Kim’s mother’s hometown. The Panmunjom Declaration was as successful as it was expected. It took a first step for arranging an action plan to deal with the nuclear weapons and left a message of hope that further conversations can and will be made with and by other powers. The part that both parties will make an effort to declare the end of the Korean War within the year is a very remarkable advance, however implausible it may sound. That they agreed to have frequent meetings means that there will be even more frequent sub-level meetings such as between Prime Ministers, Ministers and other high-level officials. Then, it won’t be too optimistic to talk about political unification and coalition between North and South Korea. For Peace and Prosperity part in the declaration, the previous agreements in the 2007 North-South Summit Declaration are to be sustained. It is a sensible decision given that advancing economic cooperation can receive huge backlash from the UN and the US that are keeping sanctions on North Korea. In that sense, the fact that they mentioned the possibility of connecting roads and railways can be seen just enough for now. The Panmunjom Declaration could be made thanks to the close cooperation with other powers. Trump has showed support for inter Korean dialogues and it becomes the driving force of changes in North East Asia. Xi Jinping’s treating Kim as a national guest in having the China-North Korea summit meetings also bodes well. There are also some anxieties that might hinder the positive change, the North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens or the increasing agitation in Japan under Abe administration to name a few. The US policy on Asia and ME such as the US’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal can also play a role in the international relations around the Korean Peninsula. After all, the Panmunjom Declaration can make catalyst for giving an end to the long history of the Division of Korea. A few weeks later after the Panmunjom Declaration made, two Korean leaders had another meeting again out of the blue on May 26. It was especially a surprise as the meeting was held two days after Trump canceled the planned summit meeting with Kim. Then there was the 2018 North Korea-United State Singapore Summit held on June 12, 2018. Although they did not make huge progress in denuclearization, it was meaningful as the first-ever meeting between leaders of North Korea and the US. It is said that the inter-Korean summit meetings facilitated the North Korea-US summit to be resumed. This led to another summit meeting between North and South Korea on September of that same year in Pyongyang where Kim made a promise to dismantle nuclear facilities at Yongbyon. As President Moon took a tour of Mt. Baekdu during the summit visit, some expect that Chairman Kim would be able to pay a return visit to Mt. Halla in the future. 3. Possibility of the North-South Exchange and Cooperation Business at local governments level The rupture of the North Korea-US negotiations in Hanoi last year had repercussion on North-South Korean relations. Although the most recent tone seems quite softened, North Korea has bombarded harsh criticism on South Korea since last August. Accordingly, it might not be the best time now to proceed with any Exchange and Cooperation Business between North and South Korea. We can instead take this time of stalemate as a chance to a thorough plan for the future cooperation. Moon government’s policy on supporting Exchange and Cooperation Business involving North Korea makes it seem plausible. The policy roadmap which was released in July 2017 addresses the plan for supporting inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation at local governments’ level and it was reaffirmed in the Panmunjom Declaration. It is different from the previous governments’ similar intention in a sense that it actually prepares the changing of policies and funding for support this time. The government is working on a system that can help local governments pursue direct Exchange and Cooperation Business with the North on their own. It is even said that local governments would be able to appropriate the central government’s Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Fund. Leaving the feasibility aside, the fact that the central government is mapping out a scheme that enables local governments to do their own business on their own can make good motivation for them to develop new business. There are things that local governments should keep tabs on in preparing the North Korea business. Some governments have experience while the others are new to the plan. In terms of working out a business plan, many local governments have plans focusing on promoting features of their region. It would make better results if they also study more on what the North Korean government wants and needs, or on the ‘North Korean Marketing’ if you will. There are various media available dealing with the North Korean news and issues such as newspaper and TV programs, and it is not much difficult to figure out what the current trend is in North Korea and what kind of industry each government can put emphasis on. For example, recent key words often mentioned in the media regarding North Korea include a catfish farm, Samjiyon county and Wonsan-Kalma Beach Resort area, and a lot of articles and news are talking about new technologies and modernizing equipments and facilities. Wonsan-Kalma area is one of the hottest places in North Korea where they are currently building a huge resort complex along with the extensive Myungsasip-ri beach. Due to its sheer size of the construction, some wonder whether it can ever be completed and fully occupied. There are also other 27 development zones in North Korea at which one can examine the possibility of future business. Once a local government finds a business opportunity that coincides with the North Korea’s interest, it can make the success more feasible. So, it will be a good strategy to prioritize the North Korea’s interest and then gradually extend the scope of business to other industries. Secondly, while North Korea is a country where primary industries still prevail, a lot of local governments are placing too much emphasis on industrial facilities and logistics when they map out business plans. There will be plenty of opportunities in other business like agriculture, fisheries or animal husbandry. Technologies of the fifth industrial revolution that can be used in these primary industries will also draw a big attention of North Koreans. The fact that lands in North Korea are in higher latitude than ours is another chance we can study as the global warming is increasing global temperatures. Thirdly, a local government needs to look at the UN’s sanctions on North Korea to figure out what it can and cannot do. Many plans that some of local governments have made so far are subject to violations of the UN sanctions. For instance, logistics, shipbuilding contracts, tourism can be easily caught by the sanctions as it involves so many items prohibited, not to mention that it involves huge money transactions which is also banned. Local governments therefore should work out their plans according to the progress of UN’s sanctions. Lastly, a local government should take the effect on its own district into account when they make a business plan. Past plans were criticized for its shortsighted vision and inclination toward populism, so new plans should be original with a long-term perspective and able to return the benefit from business to the community. The Exchange business that Jeju and Gangwon province each made were excellent examples for this. To support fruitgrowers and stabilize the price of citrus fruits which is the pivotal industry in Jeju, the Jeju government started to buy a big volume of fruits and shipped it to North Korea for ten years from 2000. Initially, Jeju planned to send 50K tons a year but ended up sending 5K tons annually. However, it was enough to stabilize the domestic price and assessed as a success. Gangwon province was divided into two different districts when Korea was split. As plants and fruit trees had suffered from insect pests, Gangwon government in the South took preventive measures jointly with Gangwon province in the North. In the course of providing these supports, other business made its way into North Korea. Jeju pushed forward business using garlic and native black pigs and Gangwon discharged salmon and built a hatchery in the North. What it tells us is that plans closely associated with the interest of the community can be a key to success in North Korea. Establishing an adequate system is also important in executing Exchange and Cooperation plans. For example, how a local government communicates with the North Korea and what the considerations in drafting regulations regarding the business will be can make a big difference. Participation and support of community is also very important. Although Jeju has experience in trading, it needs to develop further relations with the North so that it can expand the Exchange and Cooperation in the future. At this critical juncture in North-South Korean relations, Jeju government needs to take extra care to a communication channel such as whether it will be handled by the local government or private sector. Secondly, there need to be discussions at the local council about making regulations and fundraising. The North Korea business will require a fair size of fund and a local government must garner their own fund besides the central government’s Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Fund or private funds from NGOs. Although the Ministry of Unification recently confirmed that the central fund can be appropriated by local governments, it will take time and each local government should make up seed money in advance. Thirdly, a local government needs to help people understand governance of North Korea-related business. There need to be opportunities for citizens, NGOs, companies, educational institutions and media to participate and work together with the local council. 4. To conclude The Korean Peninsula is at the brink of significant changes. The US has long changed its global security strategy since the end of the Cold War and Trump’s administration is taking the Indo-Pacific strategy. Trump is trying to change the game in North East Asia by demanding South Korea and Japan a large increase in its share of defense costs and by making an effort to communicate with North Korea. If the US could build up an amicable relation with North Korea, we would see the emergence of a new Asia-Pacific order. That means the end of the 70-year-old San Francisco System. It then will inevitably call for the change of overall policy and strategy to cope with the new era, both at central and local governments’ level. The new policy and strategy should be planned to a win-win situation for both North and South Korea. As for Jeju, a thorough examination should be made to execute its ‘5+1 Exchange and Cooperation Business’ which includes citrus fruits, tourism, ecology and energy and a long-term plan should be mapped out. Hee-Gwan Chin is a professor of Unification Studies at Inje University. Prof. Chin received Ph.D. from Dongguk University. He is also holding posts as Vice President at the Korean Association of North Korean Studies, Vice President of the Association at the Studies of Koreans Abroad and Advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea. His research interests lie in the fields of politics in North Korea, Korean unification and studies of Korean residents in Japan. His recent works include "Understanding Korean Reunification: 12 perspectives on the Korean Peninsula, Neulpum Plus (2020)", "Reunification, Peace and North Korea, Pakyoungsa (2020)", "Analysis Contents of Jeju Shown on the Literature on Space of North Korea, the Institute for Northeast Asia Research, 2018, vol.33, no.2", "Analysis on Emergence of North Korea's Works & Kim Jong-Un's Works, the Journal of the Korean Association of North Korean Studies, 2017, vol.21, no.2", "Korean Dispora Sourcebook, AKS Press (2017)", "Study on the Changes in Power Elite of Kim Jong-un's Regime in North Korea, Korea and World Politics, 2015", "Understanding North Korea, Lexington Books (2014)"

[caption id="attachment_7528" align="alignright" width="179"] SHIN Sangbumprofessor in the Department of International Relations at Yonsei University[/caption] Recently, the European and some of the world’s developed countries have actively introduced the circular economy model. The circular economy refers to a system that repeatedly circulates to the utmost extent possible the goods that are produced and consumed, the parts and raw materials that those goods consist of, and the value created from them, thus minimizing the loss and consequential waste generated in the process. The reason for pursuing the circular economy model lies in the fact that it creates more favorable conditions for sustainable development than the linear economy model where the serial process of “taking” (acquisition of resources) → “making” (mass production) → “disposing” (product disposal) takes place. In contrast, both sustainability and development are important to a circular economy. That is, a circular economy shall be deemed not just as the waste recycling process, but as the entire process of making the environment more sustainable and simultaneously creating economic value and opportunities. The transition of a society with a linear economy to one pursuing a circular economy necessitates a fundamental and systematic change. All of the main agents of the economic activities, such as governments, companies, and consumers, should recognize the necessity and inevitability of the shift, and prepare and implement plans for a systematic transition. Most importantly, the move towards a circular economy requires a long-term perspective and should not be grounded on the economic sacrifice of any parties involved. Rather, adopting the circular economy model should be a process of creating value and bringing profits to the participants by providing solutions to current issues, creating jobs, and presenting business models. The first to practice the circular economy model in the world is the European Union. In December 2015, the European Commission released the EU Circular Economy Package, which contains an action plan for transition to the circular economy model and measures for its implementation. In January 2019, it even adopted an intensive strategy for the circular economy model that mandates the recycling of all plastic packing materials by 2030. The Commission also stated that it plans to ban the use of disposable plastic items starting in 2021. Enterprises in different countries are joining the EU-level efforts for active engagement in the circular economy and strengthened environmental regulations. In other words, a virtuous cycle of the California effect is taking place, where strengthening environmental standards in a certain region leads to the same phenomenon in other regions. Currently, the circular economy model is utilized mainly at the city level rather than at the national level. The core of the circular economy is represented as “3R,” which refers to “reducing” the consumption of resources and increasing the “re-used” and “recycled” resources for their effective “recovery.” As 75% of the world’s resource consumption occurs in cities, it is a shortcut to a circular economy to reduce the consumption of resources and increase recycling and reuse in city areas. A circular economy, if implemented on island regions, would feature a different meaning. Since the islands are geographically isolated, it is likely to cause substantial issues due to the accumulation of waste when the “metabolism” of an island is linear. It is as if experiencing in advance the crisis that will strike the entire globe. Therefore, islands need a shift to the circular economy model most urgently. Most islands are also engaged in tourism. Consumption from tourism and the resulting waste accumulation are common problems for islands. In this sense, establishing a circular economy on an island involves eco-tourism or sustainable tourism. Since small island states are mostly low-income countries, they should also work to change their “metabolism” to ones that favor sustainability and zero-waste strategies, diverging from the economy model reliant on resource consumption and tourism. Small-island developing states produce 2.3㎏ of daily waste per person, which is approximately 48% above the OECD average. Low income levels and high population densities of island states make it disadvantageous to reduce waste. However, waste from tourism is a more decisive factor. It is also urgently needed to reduce food waste on island states. Food waste contaminates rivers and groundwater. Since most islands lack water, it is important to build a circular agricultural model by reducing or recycling food waste. On Jeju Island, many efforts have been made to reduce waste, especially plastics. The island started the movement called “Plastic-Free Jeju” and developed a system to discard different types of waste on each day of the week. More recently, the Jeju City municipal government announced that it would invest 3.8 billion won to build the 3R Recycling Center by late 2020. (3R here represents “reduction,” “reuse,” and “recycling.”) As mentioned above, however, Jeju Island should also find an alternative that is suitable for its own conditions, going beyond envisioning a general 3R strategy, and this requires systematic research and investigation. There have been many attempts to identify local issues and seek solutions to them at the civic society level. However, those efforts have been studied insufficiently, and it appears that a systematic analysis is yet to be made of what attempts have been made and why some of them failed. Largely, the strategy of realizing a circular economy is divided into top-down and bottom-up approaches. All of those that first attempted the circular economy model, including the Dutch government and the governments of Amsterdam and other European cities, have established their circular economy systems with the bottom-up approach. Japan and China, on the other hand, exhibit typical examples of top-down strategies. In recent years, many cities in China have actively built smart city platforms, which emphasize public-private partnerships but are actually implemented in a top-down manner where the government leads the initiative, engaging public corporations and private capital. In the case of South Korea, the national government enacted the Framework Act on Resource Circulation in January 2018, under which it has begun building a circular economy. Mostly, the circular economy models have taken a typical East Asian-style top-down approach. In fact, almost all other South Korean projects, not just the circular economy initiative, (e.g. urban restoration, tourism hub cities, village revitalization, smart cities, etc.) are government-led projects with a short-term perspective. Since the residents that actually suffer from the issues that is, the citizens, do not lead or directly engage in the projects, most of the issues fail to be resolved or end up involving short-term solutions, if any, often causing even more serious problems. Amsterdam is one of the cities that has driven the circular economy the most systematically in the world, and its strategy is well illustrated in the report titled “Circular Amsterdam” published in April 2016. This report is deemed a gateway in the construction of Amsterdam's circular economy because developing the report itself relates to the fact that diverse agents that is, diverse stakeholders, gathered together at the city level to discuss and reach consensus on the reason why building a circular economy is needed and what change and profits are created with a circular economy established. The Amsterdam case shows that it is important and necessary for the citizens to build empathy through engagement, going beyond participation, rather than being “told to do it” by the central or local governments. In the case of South Korea, China and Japan, it is the national government that presents the documents and identifies the issues. The national government also develops appropriate projects and distributes necessary resources through open public bidding. To win a bid, local governments essentially prepare a business plan that has the possibility of winning, rather than resolving substantive problems and helping the locals in the long-term. Even if a local government wins the bid, it tends to invest its budget in the projects that are likely to bring about tangible outcomes that is, those with a higher probability of success in a limited period, because the national government urges the local government to spend the subsidy within the given time. As this vicious cycle continues, all local projects end up being one-offs with little actual benefit to residents, despite the huge investment at the national level. The city of Amsterdam concretely realizes the circular economy model in two areas: construction and food waste. The two fields were selected because the city government, universities, research institutes, civic groups, enterprises, expert groups, and ordinary citizens discussed and concluded that those two fields are the most urgent and are the areas where the most effective policies can be made. In other words, it is distinctive in the Amsterdam case that the decisions are not made in the top-down fashion. Rather, the stakeholders, who suffer from the problems and side effects of the linear economy, engage in deciding the sectors where the circular economy model can be realized first. In terms of food, Amsterdam launched a project to reduce organic residuals and recycle them into animal feed, biofuels, or bioplastics. Therefore, the project corresponds to “recycle” in the 4R model (reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover). In the current stage, it demonstrates an example of diagnosing a problem with consumption rather than production and establishing policies to improve consumption. However, the project seeks to new value and business opportunities. For reference, as of 2014, 97% of organic residuals from households in Amsterdam are incinerated and recovered as energy, and only 3% are reused or recycled for other purposes. Specific city policies include: 1) developing a comprehensive system for the separate collection of garbage and building a smart central hub to manage the system 2) distributing a manual for separate garbage collection to 430,000 households and grocery processing plants based on reclaimed land within the city and 3) properly classifying food waste and recycling it into animal feed or biofuel. These policies influence the economy and related new industries as follows: 1) An estimated 1,200 workers will be newly employed in the agricultural and food processing sectors 2) Profits from reduced feed income are expected and 3) The food processing industry, biofuel production industry, and feed industry are likely to be activated. The initiative in the construction field aims to save resources and economic value by reusing or recycling materials in the construction process. Therefore, the emphasis is placed on the “reuse” and “recycling” elements of 4R. It is an example of raising issues and suggesting solutions in the production process that is, the construction process. In terms of consumption, the project attempts to shift to a system that consumes modular materials. This whole process is based on the important attempt called the “living lab” strategy, where residents, researchers or scientists, and various other agents such as companies and environmental groups gather to ideas through research, experiments, and communication, which are realized as policies. A representative case is the “Material Passport” program. It was developed in accordance with the Buildings as Material Bank (BAMB) project, managing the life cycle of all the construction materials by issuing them respective passports. Launched in 2015 with the support of the EU, 15 experts from seven EU countries operate the platform to manage building materials. Most notably, the circular economy model is realized with the “living lab” approach in the Amsterdam case. “Living lab” literally means a “living laboratory,” indicating an innovation mechanism that solves the problems of a certain region by direct engagement of the locals. It is different from the existing innovations in that when developing new technologies or policies, people who will use them engage in such development and lead the process so that the technologies or policies that are absolutely necessary for the society can be developed. To be successful, the “living lab” strategy requires a platform, or “playground,” where stakeholders gather to identify shared problems and consider solutions. In Europe, where the “living lab” approach is most actively adopted, the European Network of Living Lab (ENoLL) plays this role. Members of ENoLL are allowed to browse many creative experiments and engage in them. The most frequently emphasized phrase concerning the circular economic strategy of Amsterdam and the European is “The governments of the future do not direct but bring parties together.” The phrase represents the idea that governments, especially local governments, serve to provide and manage the platform for innovation, while actual innovation takes place through the voluntary and free interaction of various agents in the region. In other words, the city government serves as a coordinator, and the concrete action plan for the circular economy is established by bringing together research institutes, universities, enterprises, individuals, and experts to share diverse perspectives and produce skills and knowledge. “Playgrounds” are important because people from diverse backgrounds can share information and ideas, and even accumulate knowledge about experiences of failed projects. Thus, when looking for a technical or knowledge-based alternative to a particular problem, it is easy to identify the efforts that have previously been made to solve the problem. Amsterdam Smart City (ASC), established in 2009, is Amsterdam’s representative “living lab” platform. ASC specializes in the six areas of energy, mobility, circular economy, infrastructure and technology, governance and education, and citizens and living, accumulating ideas for the circular economy using the living lab method. ASC is an innovative online platform where citizens, businesses, knowledge organizations (universities or research institutes), and administrative agencies come together to freely exchange ideas and opinions and to organize projects. It exhibits the typical form of public-private partnerships in the search for solutions to social, economic, and environmental problems in Amsterdam, and international agents also engage in the platform. The basic principle that motivates the platform is “learning by doing.” This means that innovation is not achieved by going a certain way toward a certain goal, but through trial and error. ASC also claims that technology is important but technological innovation is not the end in itself. It aims to solve real problems through innovation and vies the entire process of diagnosing and solving problems as important, and that the most basic task is to a discussion structure where all stakeholders can communicate and agree. The platform is operated by six internal staff employees and 11 from outside the platform. The external staff members include 11 program partners who work full-time, one from each of the partner organizations (enterprises, corporations, and others). Financing is provided by these 11 participating agencies, alongside the contributions from the city government. Currently, the platform has some 7,000 members. Members can access a variety of information, share their interests, form an organization with people with similar interests, and more easily start their own projects. A project begins when an investor is interested in it. Jeju Island is South Korea’s representative island and an international tourist destination. Hence, as mentioned above, Jeju is one of the regions that has experienced the same problems as some other islands worldwide and that urgently needs to move towards a circular economy. The transition to a circular economy has two prerequisites. First, the transition should not be led by the government and citizens should identify shared issues and try to build the circular economy themselves. Second, a “playground” or platform should be created where people can share their problems, ideas and experiences. After identifying the problems, they should lead the development of the “Circular Jeju,” a document that can act as a gateway, as happened with the Circular Amsterdam document. Detailed experiments should be developed based on this document. On Jeju, many similar attempts have already been made by civil society, including many examples of successful “living labs.” Important here is that if this information is not shared, it cannot be disseminated. The network such as the earlier-mentioned ENoLL in Europe must be established first, and the lesson from the European experience that should not be forgotten is that sharing stories of failure can reduce the cost of innovation. SHIN Sangbum is a professor in the Department of International Relations at Yonsei University Wonju Campus. His research topics include China's environmental politics, East Asian environmental policy, and international political economy and the environment. Recently, he has been working on some new research agendas such as circular economy, living lab and social innovation, and local self governance in Korea and Northeast Asia.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="150"] SONG, Jae-hochairman of Presidential Committee for Balanced National Development[/caption] On January 27, 2005, a former South Korean president, Roh Moo-hyun, (in office from 2003.2.25 to 2008.2.24) declared, “The South Korean government has designated Jeju as the ‘Island of World Peace’ to encourage contribution to world peace by creatively inheriting the tradition of sammu (a tradition of Jeju that emphasizes the absence of gates, thieves and beggars), subliming the tragedy of Jeju 4·3 into reconciliation and coexistence, and succeeding the spirit of inter-Korean summit diplomacy for lasting peace within the Korean Peninsula.” Hereafter, Jeju Island has set “Island of World Peace” as an initiative for “Future Vision” and is currently promoting relevant policies and projects. From a national perspective, Jeju is now truly recognized as a true island of peace, not just in name, but also in reality. However, it has not been a long time since Jeju gained attention as an island for romantic leisure and became a symbolic region for peace and human rights. Previously, Jeju has been reminiscent of banishment, periphery, backwardness, revolt, repression, exploitation, plunder and hardship, as well as the harsh natural environment. With surprising progress from the past, Jeju is now perceived as the ‘island of peace,’ a completely opposite notion. What has Jeju Island gone through? What happened in Jeju? Is peace relevant simply because the South Korean government has set Jeju as the “Island of Peace”? What is the historical background of peace in Jeju? Is peace an overcoming mechanism for weariness and pain that Jeju had to endure? What pain is hidden behind the history of Jeju? This paper attempts to investigate the answer to why Jeju has become the ‘Island of Peace’ by revisiting the island’s history of suppression, exploitation, plunder and as well as its significance and suggest a way forward along with the changing  political landscape of Northeastern Asia. First, the geographic information of Jeju island will be examined. Since ancient times, Jeju has served as a strategic point of maritime transportation in the route that spans from China to the southern part of Korea, and even to the Japanese island of Kyushu[九州]. Jeju was a port of call for ships sailing between China, Japan, and Southeast Asia. The fact that Jeju’s historic relics and sites are located mostly in the northwestern area indicates that Jeju brought in advanced products from China and the Korean mainland. During the 1928 construction of the Jeju Port, relics from China’s Han(漢) period (B.C. 202 to A.D. 220, the most powerful period of Chinese history as 92% of the Chinese population were from Han) were discovered, indicating the factual history where Jeju played the role of a stopover port along the trade route connecting China, Korea, and Japan. Marado Island’s lighthouse, built on March 4, 1915 (Proclamation No. 46, General Government of Chosun), was registered as an international marine aid to navigation because of its importance in maritime transportation. Due to its geographic position, the culture of Jeju Island came to feature distinctiveness and diversity, different from that of the mainland of Korea. Dating back to the Goryeo period, Jeju Island which used to be a strategic position between China, Japan, and Southeast Asia, emerged as an area of collision internationally. Although the island had maintained an independent culture and political order as Tamna, a kingdom, it was annexed to the mainland of Korea during the Goryeo era. Jeju became the scapegoat of a heated hegemonic rivalry among ancient powers. The Yuan Dynasty first noticed the geopolitical value of the southern island when it took control over the Goryeo Dynasty which had reached the south by suppressing the resistance of the Sambyeolcho (the private patrol forces of Goryeo). Consequently, the Mongolian empire established direct command on the island to use it as a foothold for keeping Goryeo, Southern Song, and Japan in check. Problems occurred when the empire collapsed. Ming, the then-emerging dynasty which took over the power of Yuan, claimed ownership of the island. Among the people of Tamna, many still strongly supported the Mongolian empire because it brought economic prosperity to their community. However, Goryeo’s King, Gongmin, who had suffered indignity caused by Yuan Dynasty, considered Jeju unfavorable. Under these circumstances, King Gongmin ordered General Choe Yeong to subjugate Jeju. General Choe started a battle which led to multiple incidents of the mass murder of Jeju residents. The island in the peripheral region turned out to be a victim of violence committed by the state power. After experiencing suppression due to direct military invasion during Goryeo era, Jeju faced a new phase of suppression and plunder when the Joseon Dynasty was established. Jeju, with its peripheral location, far away from the central government, became a place of exile where nearly 200 people were banished throughout the 500-year history of Joseon. The statuses of those exiled to Jeju covered all levels of society, from top to bottom, including dethroned kings such as Gwanghaegun, royal family members, politicians, scholars, Buddhist monks, eunuchs, and robbers. During that period of time, the regions that were difficult for the government to control had to endure exploitation and plunder by state-appointed bureaucrats. Of the peripheral regions, Jeju Island was located even farther from state control than the others. Hence, it had to suffer even more severe exploitation and plunder. Given that the residents of Jeju Island built a socioeconomic community to survive the harsh natural environment, it was inevitable that the local attitude of staying vigilant and protective against outsiders was created. This is the reason why the local community pursued openness internally, while strongly excluding external forces. During the Japanese colonial era, the entire nation of Korea experienced hardships, but Jeju experienced more severe agony. Just before national liberation, Imperial Japan turned the island into the last bastion of defense for the main islands of Japan, establishing Operation Ketsu-Go [a decisive battle] No. 7. In other words, during the Pacific War, Japan was prepared to use Jeju as the ‘last bastion of the decisive battle against the United States’ to protect its main islands. By deploying around 75,000 troops (half of the total Japanese forces stationed in Korea) to Jeju Island, the Japanese government prepared the so-called ‘Operation Gyokusai’ (“Gyokusai” is a Japanese term translated into ‘shattering like a jewel’), resolving to fight until the last soldier died. This means that the-then great powers newly recognized anew the strategic value of Jeju Island. In the meantime, Jeju residents were forcibly mobilized to construct a Japanese airfield in preparing for the final battle against the U.S., and also suffered an air raid by the U.S. forces. It is also widely known that not just the United States, which expanded its control over the Korean Peninsula after World War II, but also the Soviet showed keen interest in the geopolitical location of Jeju Island. Amidst the increased attention from the great powers hoping to use the Korean Peninsula for their respective strategic positions, a genocide occurred on Jeju, known as Jeju 4·3, where one tenth of the residents were massacred by state power. Furthermore, in the late 1960s, the Park Chung-hee administration expressed its intent to establish a U.S. military base on Jeju Island in the event of its withdrawal from Okinawa. The South Korean government announced in the late 1980s that it would zone the area including Songaksan Mountain into a military base and installation protection zone. Considering the latest construction of the naval base in Gangjeong, Jeju Island has experienced the same pattern in history from the Goryeo period until recently, where external forces suppressed the islanders for geopolitical reasons, under the pretext of ‘strategic’ importance. With the heightening geopolitical value, Jeju Island has continued to suffer military invasions: starting from the Goryeo period, the invasion recurred even after national liberation, throughout Jeju 4·3 and then during the subsequent proposal for a military airport and the construction of a naval base in Gangjeong. Furthermore, its peripheral location distant from the mainland resulted in plunder by officials appointed by the state government. All of the cases of suppression and exploitation were activated with the logic of power, and by external forces at all times. From all this history of suppression and exploitation, why did Jeju aim for ‘peace’? Returning to the primary question, in order to survive the naturally rough environment of Jeju, the residents had to establish a social and economic community. The above conflicts that came from external forces only strengthened the internal solidarity. For this, the ideological community spirit had to be “peace”. In a situation like this, 4·3 was an event that reinforced ‘peace’ in another dimension. The trauma that scarred the hearts of Jeju islanders does not relate to their fear of war or exploitation and plunder by external forces. It is a fear that you would feel when having to suspect your neighbor, guard against him, and even murder him to keep your family and yourself safe a fear that you would feel when realizing that you could be killed by a neighbor you trust a fear that after 4·3, you must become a member of the village community where the killer of your parents also lives and a fear that you must admit that the killer of your friend’s father could be your father or grandfather. This is why the people residing on Jeju Island had no choice but to speak nothing of it for a long period of time. Only by remaining silent, not disclosing your own scar nor that of your counterpart, can you maintain the village community and reside in it. Thus, ‘peace,’ to Jeju islanders, is neither an idealistic dream nor an unreachable hope. To live, peace was a mechanism for survival. 2018, the world has shared an unexpected experience. Every time the inter-Korean summit or North Korea-United States summit would be held, the world’s eyes focused on the Korean Peninsula, the past era of predominant military power and ideology is being replaced by the era of society led by culture and economy. Amidst the global change, the era of peace has just begun on the Korean Peninsula, with the ending of the Cold War regime. The thawing of the Korean Peninsula shifted the paradigm of the inter-Korean relations, which were formerly based on the logic of politics and military power, into the one valuing society/culture and economy, with the focus on exchange and economic cooperation. Now, it is forecast that a new geo-economic trend may emerge where the entirety of Korea as an economic community can be expanded to Northeast Asia and to Eurasia. With the growing importance of cultural exchanges and the economic community, Jeju Island, whose growth is deeply rooted in the tourism industry, could no longer set aside the controversial issues. Jeju is surrounded by 18 cities, each within 2 hours by plane and with populations exceeding 5 million people. The recent controversy over the 2nd Jeju Airport goes in line with this change of the time. The 2nd Jeju Airport issue brought up internal conflict. Again, the residents of Jeju Island got caught in the whirlpool of conflict caused by external forces. We cannot just demand limiting the number of visitors to safeguard the ecological environment. It is obvious that the enhanced environment will attract not just tourists but also migrants. Inevitably, the structure of the logic here is formulated as [ “A good environment = Expansion” ⇒ “More infrastructure” ]. We already have so many controversies over the extent and the criteria of how much more should be appropriate and also over the maintenance and the management of the appropriate extent and criteria. The problem arises here concerning the agent that solves the issues and the method it employs. This paper does not discuss the issue of whether we should stand ‘for’ or ‘against’ the 2nd airport construction, or make any suggestions on the issue. Turn your attention slightly away from the Korean Peninsula, and you will notice that the international community has already experienced enormous changes over the past seven decades since the end of World War II, and that that change has taken place in diverse aspects. The naval base issue emerged due to the island’s geopolitical position, while the 2nd airport issue should be viewed from the geo-economic perspective. When likening geopolitics to destiny, geo-economics could be understood as a strategic approach to one’s own destiny and move forward. Now, Jeju needs independence from the external force and self-sustainably cultivate its own destiny. The point is that it is important for the Jeju residents to publicly debate the matter and take a preemptive stance about whether or not to construct the airport and hold themselves responsible for the result of their decision. If the decision is made through the process of publicizing the issue and by engaging the people residing on Jeju Island, and if the residents readily take full responsibility for whatever decision is made, the Jeju community will gather recuperative power again even when problems (e.g. degradation of the environment, the ecosystem, etc.) arise due to the 2nd airport. So far, the history of Jeju has been developed with its geographic, geopolitical, and geo-economic importance strategically used by the national government and in international relations. Since inter-Korean relations are moving toward peace, it is now time to make arrangements in advance so that the symbolic geographic position of Jeju will contribute to the era of peace on the Korean Peninsula. In this context, it is necessary to utilize the nation’s well-known saying, Korean Peninsula is from Baekdu to Halla. Over the years, Jeju has implemented its inter-Korean exchange project continuously, unlike other local governments in South Korea. Particularly, the campaign for sending mandarin oranges to the North continued for almost 10 years. In addition, for the inter-Korean summit held last year, Seoul selected mandarin oranges for the gift-exchange ceremony. This exemplifies that Jeju will play a key role in the changing circumstances on the Korean Peninsula. After the 2018 inter-Korean summit talk held in Pyongyang, chairman Kim Jong-un sent 2 kilograms of pine mushrooms (matsutake) grown in North Korea. In return, South Korean president Moon Jae-in sent 200 tons of mandarin oranges that were grown on Jeju, the southernmost island of Korea. This is not the first case that mandarin oranges of Jeju Island gained attention in inter-Korean diplomacy. In January 1999, Jeju Province consulted with the Korean Red Cross and sent 100 tons of the island’s specialty fruit, coming for the first time from a local government level. Highly appreciated as ‘vitamin C diplomacy,’ the campaign of sending mandarin oranges to North Korea began the following year and continued until 2010, bringing the gross volume of mandarin oranges sent to the North to 48,328 tons. In response, Pyongyang invited a group of visitors from Jeju, and an estimated 750 total residents went to North Korea in the past four visits. However, under the Lee Myung-bak administration in 2010, specifically after the May 24 measures were taken, inter-Korean relations were deadlocked, causing the suspension of entire projects for inter-Korean exchange. When the exchanges resumed, mandarin oranges were sent from the southernmost territory of Korea to the North by air, for the first time in eight years. Finally, Jeju kick-started its growth as a hub for peace in Northeast Asia, overcoming its limits as a formerly peripheral region of Korea. The two Koreas are now walking together toward the era of exchange and cooperation based on peace, the era of shared prosperity, and the era for the new Korean Peninsula. This has gained momentum to become a huge, irreversible stream. This indicates that there has been a shift in inter-Korean relations from prioritizing political and military logic to valuing social, cultural, and economic logic. The island, which was long considered a peripheral area in Northeast Asia, has been designated as an island advocating peace, and is now positioning itself for a transition into a central area of the region. In the past, the residents reached an agreement to visions and core values for the island. In the current era of citizen autonomy and decentralization, how to pursue the goals also requires consensus by citizens. It is because ‘autonomy’ here contains the concept of citizen responsibility. To protect the mechanism for the future of Jeju, there should be active participation. Jeju’s ‘peace’ does not refer to a peaceful island but an island that seeks for peace and this will play a key role strategically in opening a sluice gate for inter-Korean relations and a strategic location for peace in Northeastern Asia.     SONG, Jae-ho is a professor of Jeju National University and a chairman of presidential committee for balanced national development. He got a master’s and doctor’s degree in Tourism Management. Based on this, he has been published various materials such as Island Tourism and Jeju Island (2002), “Reflection and Alternative of Jeju Free International City” Chapter in Reflection and Direction of Regional Development Policy in Jeju island (2003), and Theory and Practice of Rural Tourism (2005). His most recent publication is Plan for A New Korea Inclusive State (2017).

  [caption id="" align="alignright" width="150"] Yang Jo-hoonChairperson of Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation[/caption] Although it has been a long time, I still can’t forget the red flags flying around Jeju International Airport in April 1991. The flags were “The Red Banner”, featuring a golden sickle and hammer on the red field, the flag of the Soviet Union. Mikhail Gorbachev, then president of the Soviet Union, visited Jeju to attend the first ever South Korea-Soviet submit. To the people of Jeju, who had to make great sacrifices during the turmoil of the Cold War, this historical change came as something both embarrassing and somewhat confusing.   It was around this time that a somewhat unfamiliar expression, the “Island of Peace” was born. Following a series of visits by several world leaders, including Bill Clinton of the United State, Jiang Zemin of China, and Ryutaro Hashimoto of Japan, discussions on the “Island of Peace” slowly gained momentum.   Immediately after liberation from Japanese colonial rule, the winds of madness caused by the division of the Korean Peninsula and the international cold war not only destroyed Jeju’s fine custom but also victimized 30,000 residents, which equaled one tenth of the whole population. Even worse, the central government tried to cover up the truth for half a century, branding it a “communist riot.” However, the issues related to 4‧3, which choked the local residents, showed signs of settlement following the enactment of the 4‧3 Special Act in 2000, the finalization of The Jeju 4·3 Incident Investigation Report, and an official apology made by the Korean president in 2003. Breaking free from previously imposed ideological and revisionist historical constraints, the discussion on the “Island of Peace” became more concrete.   On January 27, 2005, the Roh Moo-hyun administration officially declared Jeju the “Island of World Peace.” The central government set the background and objectives of the designation as ⓛ the succession of the Sammu Spirit (sammu means that the island is devoid of three things: thieves, gates, and beggars) ② transformation of the tragedy of 4‧3 into reconciliation and harmony, and ③ contributions to world peace through summit diplomacy. The late president Roh went on to say, “Jeju, as the “Island of Sammu,” has that history of building peace. The island overcame a painful part of its history, which is known as “The 4‧3 movement,” and has served as an example for settling past issues through the process of truth and reconciliation, which is the common basis for settling a past issue.”   I still remember an article written by a CNN reporter from the United States who came to Jeju to cover what was happening on the island at that time. The reporter said that, at first, he could not understand why Jeju was designated as the “Island of Peace.” However, he soon learned about the history related to 4‧3. As he continued to learn how the people of Jeju had overcome the terrible ordeal, he began to understand. He revealed his full understanding by saying, “Jeju has the right to pursue the title of the “Island of Peace” even with its historical background of 4‧3.”   Jeju is the only island that is beautiful enough to achieve three crowns of UNESCO in the natural science fields (Biosphere Reserve, World Natural Heritage, and Global Geopark). Therefore, preserving the environment of Jeju systematically can be part of the peace movement. However, the natural environment alone is not enough to explain to the rest of the world why Jeju should be the “Island of Peace.”   When I give lectures on 4‧3, I emphasize, “The power of 4‧3 comes from the truth that holds the horrible reality.” It was the same idea that helped me stand firm against countless arguments when I covered the truth of 4‧3 in a series of articles in a newspaper as the head of the 4‧3 reporting team and when I prepared the report on the truth of 4‧3 as the senior member of the government committee. I think that the cause and the logic of the “Island of Peace” are also in line with this. This is the reason why the message that Jeju people have come to cherish peace and human rights even more because they made a terrible sacrifice has gained momentum in the end.   In addition, we should pay close attention to the reconciliation and harmony movement that Jeju residents have staged. “Come here and lower your head. Erecting this stone monument means that we forgive everyone because everyone is a victim. We hope that the dead can finally rest in peace and the living hold hands together.” This is the epitaph when the memorial altar was built for both fallen heroes and the souls of 4‧3 victims in 2003 in Hagwi-ri, a local village. It was the gathering of wisdom to open the future of reconciliation by having all the spirits in one place.   Jeju Island has long been called the “Village of Sammu” because there were no thieves, beggars, and gates. Even though the harsh natural environment, as a volcanic island, forced the inhabitants to remain poor, those living on the island led a happy life, helping each other. It was the storm of 4‧3 that even destroyed this fine custom of the local community. The movement to restore it is not confined to Hagwi-ri but has spread to neighboring villages, including Sangari-ri and Jangjeon-ri.   In 2013, the Association for Bereaved Families of 4‧3 Victims and the Veteran Police Association, the two organizations that had the most severe conflict, declared unconditional reconciliation. As a result, Jeju was able to tear down the wall of progress and conservatism and bring the private and public sectors together to heal. They have been overcoming the ideological conflict which is considered the most difficult job to do.   Yonsei University Professor Myung-lim Park has been studying this phenomenon. He said, “There has been no place in the world where perpetrators and victims, suppression and resistance, and the public and the government become one. Jeju has now come as the world’s best place to learn about forgiveness, reconciliation, and harmony.”   On June 20, 2019, the Jeju 4‧3 Human Rights Symposium was held for the first time at the UN headquarters in the heart of New York. What drew attention at the lobby of the headquarters was the statue of former South African President Nelson Mandela. This man, who was persecuted and put in prison for 27 years by the white government, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his endeavors to carry out the movement of truth and reconciliation after he took office as president. However, I had mixed emotions because I recently learned that South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Movement was stranded – the alarm for “reconciliation without justice” set off.   On the contrary, the symposium successfully held at the UN headquarters was the venue for heated discussions highlighting the terrible tragedy of Jeju 4‧3 and the spirit of reconciliation of Jeju people who have overcome it. The issue of holding the United States accountable for 4‧3 was discussed in earnest, and the 4‧3 spirit of reconciliation and harmony emerged as a new global model for settling the past issues.   It is also worthwhile to note the fact that the doctoral dissertation, which regards the efforts to discover the truth of 4‧3, the official apology made by the Korean government, and the reconciliation movement as a world-class example, has already been published at the University of Minnesota and University of Notre Dame in the United States.   The reason for the lengthy story of 4‧3 is that I feel this area has been overlooked while the Island of Peace movement has been promoted. Unlike the goals proposed when the Island of Peace was declared, the concept has become ambiguous and the projects become biased in the implementation process.   To be more specific, among the three objectives, that is, the succession of the Sammu Spirit, transformation of the tragedy of 4‧3 into reconciliation and harmony, and contributions to world peace through summit diplomacy, two have been neglected, and only the third objective has been highlighted.   When the “Island of World Peace” was declared in 2005, the whole island was in a festive mood. Festival banners were flying in every street, and there were even restaurants offering free alcoholic beverages to celebrate it. However, at some point, a gap appeared between the local residents and the “Island of Peace.” At one point, there was a voice of self-deprecation in the local community, asking, “Who is the Island of Peace for?”   2020 is a meaningful year in that it marks the 15th anniversary of the declaration of the “Island of World Peace.” I think it is time for us to reflect on what we have done. It is necessary to present a new angle for the vision beyond evaluating and complementing the adequacy of the 17 projects of “Island of Peace” and how they have been promoted. Over the last 15 years, some listed on the roadmap have already been implemented, but some of them have come to a point where a complete overhaul is needed due to the lack of timeliness.   No one can deny that the Jeju Forum has established itself as a representative international event associated with the designation of an “Island of World Peace.” Recently, efforts were made to make a connection with the local community by establishing a 4‧3 session during the forum. Nevertheless, it is still necessary to consider whether there is anything that the organizing committee needs to choose or pay attention to in the content of the event.   At present, the political landscape of Northeast Asia is in a severe condition. The peace movement has become all the more important due to the division and conflicts between world powers surrounding the Korean Peninsula. I think, at a time like this, we should prepare for the future by laying the foundation for a peace movement that adheres to the basics.   The same is true of inter-Korean issues. We have been carrying out various exchange projects with North Korea, including sending tangerines. However, such projects have been put on hold as the relations between the two Koreas soured. Nevertheless, the reason that we can still remain optimistic is that the exchange projects will resume once inter-Korean relations are restored. This is because the history and value of 4‧3, where Jeju people had to pay the price for pursuing a unified government, would be reevaluated.   Symbolically, I hope that ways to attract the “Asian Human Rights Court” to Jeju, which is in place in Europe (in 1959), the Americas (in 1979), and Africa (in 1979), but not in Asia.   Nowadays, there is also an expression of a sustainable “peace industry.” By connecting a peace brand with the industry, a new future-oriented business can be discovered. In the process, various opinions have to be presented.   However, as the old saying goes, “Nothing is complete unless you put it in the final shape,” I think that a discussion structure is needed to a roadmap for execution. In 2005, when the “Island of World Peace” was promoted, the “Island of Peace Promotion Committee” was up and running to prepare for the designation.   To this end, I hope that the system that the related agencies and organizations and expert groups, such as Jeju Special Self-Governing Provincial Government, Jeju Peace Institute, JDC which has recently shown interest in the peace movement, and the Jeju 4‧3 Peace Foundation can take part in is in operation.   Furthermore, by conducting a comparative survey on the operation of foreign peace cities, such as Geneva, Belfast, and Osnabrück, we should a model suitable for our peace community or plan to attract an international peace organization that fits our situation. ​     Yang Jo-hoon was born in Jeju in 1948 and contributed half of his life unveiling the truth of the Jeju 4.3. He used to be a journalist investigating the incident and published a series devoted to the Jeju 4.3 for 10 years. After the Jeju 4.3 Special Act was enacted, he took charge of the investigating team to write a report that unveils the illegitimate use of public authority. He played an important role to draw a President's apology as well. He served as a vice-governor of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and, now he is serving as a chairperson of the Jeju 4.3 Peace Foundation. He is the author of numerous books including Finding the Truth of the Jeju 4.3 (2015). The New York Times introduced him as 'a journalist who has been investigating the Jeju 4.3 in 2001.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="150"] Yong-Jae LeeInvited Research Fellow of Jeju Research Institute /  Professor Emeritus of Chung-Ang University[/caption]   The world’s oldest trade route connecting the East and the West is 'the silk road.' In effect, there are three kinds of trade routes crossing Eurasia: the Steppe Route in the north, the Silk Route in the center, and the Sea Route in the south. Generally, the silk road refers to the route located in the central part. The silk road was named after the fact that Richthofen, German geologist, found that silk was the main trade goods in this road. The road is also called 'the Oasis Road', as it leads to an oasis located in a dry desert area and spreads to the eastern and western part. Having water, an oasis has served as a haven for people living in a desert, but also as the center of trade, it has been flooded with civilization and the transportation has been well-developed.   One of the typical oasis cities of the silk road is Turpan. Turpan has become the central city in the silk road, thanks to 'Karez,' also known as 'the Great Wall in the Underground.' Karez indicates an irrigation canal facility which supplies water melted from the Tien Shan mountains to oasis ares through underground canal. This is a man-made 5,000-kilometer-long underground canal, built by people from generation to generation for thousands of years, digging solely with basic tools. Where water is supplied, plants grow, small animals inhabit through the food chain, and human communities are created as farming is possible. If water supply is cut off, all life shall naturally die, and communities shall vanish. Karez that has transformed Turpan, 'Land of Fire,' into a fertile land shows a simple truth that 'water is life.'   Recently, there are some signs of changes in this Karez. The Karez system has been adopted by Turpan and many cities in Central Asia for many centuries, but it's facing a serious challenge due to destruction of underground water caused by introduction of modern ways of 'water industry' and changes in natural environment, and shifts in social perception of local residents. Increases in settled population and tourists, and changes in agricultural method of mass production system have explosively risen 'the demand of water,' and a climate change and desertification in surrounding areas have dramatically decreased 'the supply of water' in a reservoir. In addition, as 'underground water pumping' projects carried out through modern mechanical equipment expanded, water level of surrounding underground water has sharply decreased. It causes drought and contamination of Karez and demotivates local residents to operate and maintain Karez by arousing anxiety about water resources. Strongly negative trends on social values (life, survival, sense of belonging, and cooperation, etc) and sustainability accumulated in Karez system for centuries are being shown.   Jeju has the yongcheon (spring) system, similar to Karez system.  Yongcheon (spring) refers to 'saem' , and yongcheon-su (spring water) is called 'saem-mul' in a pure Korean word. Jeju people also call yongcheon-su 'san-mul.' Yongchen-su, flowing from where the surface of underground water meets the ground, had been used for major residential water and agricultural water before water supply facilities were distributed.   Jeju yongcheon-su is a natural treasure created by Jeju's climate, geological features, and topography. Rainwater, collected to a certain amount, directly permeates through the ground to become an underground water, so it's hard to find ground-surface water in Jeju. Therefore, Jeju's streams are almost in a dry condition except a few in the southern part. Rainwater, permeating through the underground, finally flows out as clear spring water after going through filtration for decades. As of now, there are 911 springs in Jeju, including 841 springs, accounting for 92.3%, located in the lowland below 200 meters above sea level and the rest of them located in the mid-mountainous zone and upland. Except 637 springs that are still in good condition, there are 100 springs where amount of water is limited or depleted and 174 springs where surroundings are damaged or unlocated, but given the fact that a source of water supply is an underground water, spring water is still life-giving water of Jeju.   Jeju residents has carefully managed springs to prevent livestock from entering or not to be polluted from surroundings by building stone walls.  Villages and local communities jointly using spring water protect its amount and quality of water voluntarily, so spring water system is perfectly sustainable 'water supply' system, and it can be used for a long time by adapting to available underground water level. As the use and conservation of spring water is closely related to local communities, it can also a sense of solidarity and belonging at local level.   Water is a major public resource along with air. Public resources refer to goods and services everyone can commonly use such as defense, police, fire-fighting, parks, roads, etc. which can not be excluded from benefits of consumption even without paying. In other words, it refers to goods or services that have non-exclusion, and for this reason, they are subject to public management by the state.   Public resources including water can have inefficiency in allocating resources. Individuals tend to act only for their own self-interest, so even though they are well aware that it can be detrimental to everyone, they often waste or damage public resources whose ownership is not clear. It is called 'the tragedy of the commons.' 'The Tragedy of Commons' is the title of an article in Science written by Garrett Hardin in 1968, and the theory is originated in the early 19th centuries by the British economist William Forster Lloyd who used the concept of social tragedy (inefficiency) resulted when only individual interest is maximized under an imbalance between individual and public interest. Hardin argues that appropriate levels of intervention and control by national governments are needed to prevent tragedy, and that fundamental shifts in perception on individual rights and freedom and 'mutually coercion, mutually agreed upon' allow humans freer and happier.   Recently, there is a tendency to view water as private property. 'Commercialization of water' including the appearance of 'Jeju Samdasoo' is speeding up this tendency due to external changes such as drought and water pollution. Water obviously has economic value in itself, but obsession with the economic value sometimes destroys values of water as social and environmental resources. 'Commercialization of water' threatens the survival of the poor who cannot get enough water whenever they need it, and also there is a risk of excluding true value of water since its value only relies on economic side. Imbalance between economic and social value of water will result in division and conflicts among locals and communities and undermine sustainable development of local societies.   According to the UN report, around 70 percent of world population shall face 'water stress' by 2025. Currently, 844 million people live without safe drinking water, of which 95 million people get their drinking water directly from rivers, lakes and other surface water sources instead of water supply facilities. Also, 260 million women spend more than 30 minutes drawing water from a well. What is worse, 2.3 billion people still live without any basic sanitary facilities. The challenge of water shortage is not only about basic human rights, but also peace and security issues.   Safe drinking water and sanitation is one of the most basic living requirements that should be met for human beings to live. Goal 6 in 'UN 2030 Agenda' for Sustainable Development Goals specifies that it is needed to "ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all" and that neighboring countries should help achieve it. To address issues of increasing demand of water, stable water quality, and frequency and seriousness of drought and flood due to climate change, it's very important to efficiently use and manage water. Water is a matter of survival, and water shortage can threaten our security. It's an accountability of an individual, corporation, and the state to carefully manage water resources, fairly share it, and equally distribute to those who need it.   As water shortage is becoming a global issue, international conflicts over water frequently occur. The perfect example of that is Mekong River penetrating Southeast Asia, Nile River passing through many countries in Africa, Ganges-Brahmaputra Rivers going through China and India, Indus River passing through India and Tibet, Tigris-Euphrates Rivers passing through Turkey, Syria, and Iraq, and Colorado River across the southwestern part of the United States and Mexico, etc. It is said that these regions are not excluded from the possibility of war in the future. There are almost 10 ongoing disputed regions in South Korea including conflicts  over Namgang Dam, Gongsan Dam, Yongdam Dam, and water quality of reservoir between the Daegu city and the Gumi city.   Water should be used as 'a tool for peace,' not as 'a weapon of war.' Water shortage can fuel international conflicts, induce a large amount of human and economic costs, and have an international influence caused by refugees. Water can be easily abused as weapons or targets in conflicts. We need to strengthen international efforts to make water a tool for life, security, and peace, not a source of uneasiness. If it is necessary, we need to provide our experience and means for peaceful use of water.   As seen from changes and challenges of the Central Asia Karez System, Jeju’s yongcheon system can share valuable experiences and lessons with the world for efficient use and management of water. Both systems are very effective in addressing issues of increasing demand of water, stable water quality, and frequency and seriousness of drought and flood due to climate change. The future of Jeju Yongcheon system depends on the establishment of water supply management system. In particular, measures to respond to water shortage including drought caused by weather changes, plans to manage and increase ground water recharge, control of water-intake and maintenance of tube well based on actual amount of usage, and thorough management plans to deal with pollution source of underground water are essential elements in a sustainable water management system.   We need to disclose economic values of water in a transparent way, return parts of earnings to local communities, and fairly distribute them to achieve social value of ‘Jeju water.’ There are also ways to provide incentives to residents who are actively involved in water management. It’s because the owner of ‘Jeju water’ is Jeju residents. Since water management requires cooperation of local communities, it gives residents strong motivation to social bond and work together. Such cooperation of communities can help enhance human life and it can be a source of positive social capital. Considering the fact that Karez made Turpan, ‘a land of abundance,’ and Turpan delivered human civilization through the silk road, ‘Jeju water’ makes Jeju, ‘an island of pristine nature,’ and Jeju delivers a wish for life and peace through the sea road.     Yong-Jae Lee is an Invited Research Fellow of Jeju Research Institute and a Professor Emeritus of Chung-Ang University. His areas of specialty include Industrial Engineering, Civil Engineering. Based on this, he previously was a president of the Korean Society of Transportation and served several times as an advisory committee of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Korea. His most recent books include Connection of Time and Space, Transportation Story(2018), Highway Planning(2017).

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="150"] Lee Sung-wooDirector General of Korea Maritime Institute[/caption] In January 2005, the South Korean government declared Jeju the “Island of World Peace.” Evidently, the designation was made considering the geographical distinctiveness of Jeju Island as well as its elevation in status to a special self-governing province. Based on this consideration, the government has given Jeju the “Island of World Peace” title for the purpose of recognizing and publicizing the island as a globalized space beyond the national territory, which is visited and inhabited by people from different countries around the world. Now, fifteen years have passed since the “Island of World Peace” inscription. However, it remains doubtful whether Jeju has really become a society that enables unhindered access from across the world, while encouraging global citizens to engage in fair competition and inclusive growth for sustainable development, as expected earlier.​ To ensure fair competition and safe living conditions for people of different nationalities, Jeju, the “Island of World Peace,” - should be equipped with infrastructures that could facilitate free transport of goods, services, and people. Currently, however, Jeju lacks such infrastructures, which may explain why it has failed, despite its external development over the past 15 years, to make qualitative progress that would help global citizens peacefully coexist based on fair competition and inclusive growth. What would be the prerequisites for the free transport of goods, services, and people on a global scale? There could be many answers to this question, but the priority should be given to the logistics infrastructure and related networks. The transport of goods corresponds to freight, while that of services involves people who travel as tourists or for work. Although goods are generally transported by sea, land, or air, Jeju Island relies on marine or air transport due to its geographical distinctiveness. Currently, the biggest issue on Jeju revolves around the construction of the 2nd Jeju Airport to assist with the function of the Jeju International Airport, which is the world’s most congested airport. This appears to be a measure to better accommodate the massive influx of passengers flying to Jeju. However, the task which is as important and urgent as building the second airport would be securing Jeju’s shipping infrastructures and expanding the related networks. Jeju Island, situated off the Ssouthern tip of the Korean Peninsula, is a beloved destination with a beautiful and clean natural environment and warm temperatures. Only fFew people seem to understand the geo-economic advantages of Jeju in terms of logistics, aside from its natural merit. Jeju is located at the junction of the sea routes between Asia and Europe, and between Asia and the Americas. It also lies along the North Pole route, the recently-emerging shortcut to Europe. While the island is mainly utilized for eco-friendly tourism, it has potential to play a pivotal role as an island harbor which connects Busan in Korea, Shanghai in China, and Tokyo in Japan. In other words, the transport of goods and services for the “Island of World Peace” can be facilitated and reinforced by transforming the island into a global logistics hub based on its geo-economic strength. The Korean Peninsula lies at the intersection of maritime powers and their counterforces. Although the geo-economic condition has its merit, it is also considered disadvantageous in that the nearby superpowers have engaged in hegemonic struggles on and around the peninsula. Representative historic cases include the Mongolian invasion of Japan during the Goryeo period, the Japanese invasion of Joseon in 1592, and the confrontation between the United States, Russia, Japan, and China in the late Joseon period. It is my understanding that the term “peace economy” advocated by the current South Korean government aims at resolving Korea’s geopolitical risks by means of peace and utilizing its geo-economic advantages for economic growth. The first step to overcome geopolitical shortcomings through geo-economic strengths is to utilize logistics. Logistics is an industry which enables a seamless flow of goods and services and eventually brings economic prosperity and political stability not just to the trade partners but also to the transit sites. As is well known, cities such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Rotterdam, and Hamburg feature histories where they have achieved economic prosperity and political stability as logistic hubs and made progress on fair competition and inclusive growth. Their advanced connectivity through logistics attracts goods and services, alongside global citizens and enterprises. These people and enterprises demand the conditions for fairness, security, and inclusiveness in the regions, which has ultimately transformed them into cities advocating world peace. The fact that the latest talks on inter-Korean economic cooperation first discussed the logistics sector reaffirms the aforementioned characteristics of logistics. That is, logistics issues such as connecting railroads on land and opening up or restoring shipping routes have been addressed as key agendas during the recent dialogues between North and South Korea. Jeju is an iconic island which pursues the value of world peace. In this regard, it is necessary for Jeju to utilize its currently less-noticed advantage in maritime logistics as a meaningful means for realizing the peace that the island pursues. First and foremost, Jeju can serve as a hub of national and international logistics for freight that is transported from the Korean mainland, particularly from North Korea. During the previous inter-Korean talks, one of the first demands from Pyongyang was to allow North Korean ships to sail through the Jeju Strait. As the North has insufficient inland logistics infrastructures, it is essential that its ships pass through the Jeju Strait in order to move from the East Sea to the West Sea, and vice versa. As earlier mentioned earlier, Jeju is at the intersection of the world’s main trunk routes between East Asia and Europe and between Asia and the Americas. This implies that Jeju, as an island hub port for transshipment cargo, can contribute to a “peace economy” in Korea and Northeast Asia, and peace in the world beyond. My point here is not that Jeju should compete with its neighboring global hub ports such as Korea’s Port of Busan, China’s Port of Shanghai, or Japan’s Port of Tokyo. Instead, functioning as a hub port for integrated logistics, Jeju can distinguish itself from other ports that prioritize the economy of scale. From this perspective, consideration should be given to the cases of Malta Freeport in the Mediterranean Sea of Europe and Freeport, Bahamas, in the Caribbean Sea of the Americas. Despite the large global ports nearby, these ports differentiated themselves as island shipment hub ports and have played critical sociopolitical roles while boosting the local economic growth. The geographical conditions of the two ports are similar to those of Jeju Island. However, they are the nodes of intersectional shipping routes, which helps ships to save time and reduce costs. The ports do not simply transport or connect freight but also enable the movement of passengers, including tourists. In this aspect, they are import cruise hub ports in the Mediterranean and the Caribbean Seas. Benchmarking the given cases, Jeju can strengthen its desirous role of a cruise home port which gathers both people and cargo, creating sufficient synergy effects in line with its tourism. To build a system for lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula and in the Northeast Asia, Jeju should achieve its vision of an “Island of World Peace,” and this requires an expanded logistics network. Broadening the logistics network should be preceded by civil engineering projects. However, the projects should meet many other preconditions so that the new infrastructures can be interconnected. To connect the world through Jeju, the flow of goods and services needs to be as easy and convenient as in cities on the mainland. Since the logistics network of Jeju is separated from the mainland by sea, an integrated land-and-sea logistics would be the key to increase the efficiency of the network. The core of the integrated logistics is the “ro-ro” (roll on/roll off) method, which helps trailers and trucks (power-driven tractors) to move everything throughout the routes using ships. It is a reciprocal transportation style where loading and unloading operations can be left out. As there still exist differences in logistics-related systems between the Northeast Asian regions, including Jeju Island, transportation on trailers by car ferry requires no loading or unloading procedures. The consequential reduction in time and cost is effective in the logistics process with the possibility of additional reductions in logistics costs that should be paid for by the cargo owners, the transport companies, and shipping operators. Currently, multimodal land-and-sea transport projects are underway at the Korean Port of Busan and Incheon Harbor, between Korea and China since 2010 and between Korea and Japan since 2013. Through the projects, the freight volume between Korea and Japan surged by more than 10 times from 2013 to 2016. This is because the cargo delivery period was reduced by three or more days and the delivery cost by an estimated 30%. Second, there should be global standards for logistics. Cargo is usually transported in containers. Products imported to Jeju or exported from the island are costly because Jeju commonly uses 10ft containers, while 20ft or 40ft containers are global standards. As containers of different sizes are used in Jeju, cargo must be unloaded and reloaded in other containers either at the Jeju Harbor or at the ports of the trade partners. Eventually, the loading and unloading process creates additional cost, which is the main reason for higher prices of products exported from, or imported to, Jeju, as compared to other regions. Meanwhile, Japan also transports a large volume of cargo in 12ft containers. The difference different would place a substantial burden of time and cost on connecting and revitalizing cross-border logistics networks. Third, logistics should be improved by streamlining cargo clearance and facilitating international reciprocity. Cargo transported across borders is subject to strict clearance procedures due to smuggling and security issues. To be a transit hub for freight, Jeju should simplify necessary documents and secure compatibility through cooperation with all countries around the world. Particularly, it should maintain the safety, economic feasibility, and promptness of its clearance procedures by utilizing blockchain, big data, and other state-of-the-art 4th industrial technologies. Lastly, the Jeju Harbor area and the cargo area of the Jeju International Airport should be designated as a free trade zone. The world’s major global logistics hubs including South Korea have free trade zones. The countries with free trade zones levy no tariffs on cargo that is imported to be processed or assembled within their free trade zone, and exported again. The applicable cargo is exempt from having to enter the country’s tariff zone. However, tariffs would of course be imposed on cargo immediately upon its sales in the country’s domestic market. Many countries around the world designate and prefer free trade zones because they can perform business activities within the zones without concerns about tariffs. Time and cost are reduced by big margins as multi-national companies they (countries? Companies?) can access inexpensive local resources and a workforce, while and take advantage of geographical merits without paying tariffs. Second, reduction in time and cost occurs once again when they can process or assemble a mixture of the parts, they imported into the free trade zones with locally-manufactured parts. As clearance procedures are suspended, products that are to be exported through processing trade are of great benefit in the free trade zones. Finally, producers can benefit from using the zones in terms of taxes, which is why Hong Kong, where - many global enterprises are headquartered, - is a free trade zone in its entirety and Singapore has established a vast free trade zone behind the ports and airports. Likely, most of the regions that are located at logistically critical ports from the geo-economic perspective actively utilize the free trade zone system, regardless of whether their countries are developed or underdeveloped. Nevertheless, Jeju Island has established no free trade zone, nor a plan or designs for related ports and airports. In the logistical sense, Jeju has just taken its first steps. Thus, Jeju should make the best use of its geological merit as an island and its conceptual merit as the “Island of World Peace.” By doing so, it can grow into the peaceful linkage between different regions in the world, while contributing to building peace in the Northeast Asia, a key region with recent global tension. In order for Jeju to become a true “Island of World Peace,” there should be many efforts, including: changes in local public awareness of logistics, forward-looking ideas of bureaucrats and experts, introduction of new logistical measures such as preemptive designation of free trade zones and international reciprocity of trailers, and national and international public awareness of Jeju as a hub of logistics. To this end, Jeju should design itself into a space for the free transport of goods, services, and people, by means of the currently-unnoticed geo-economic and symbolic merits in maritime logistics, with linkage to its existing strength as a tourist destination. If Jeju becomes a hub of logistics as well as tourism in the Northeast Asia and the world beyond, it will finally achieve its vision as the “Island of World Peace” in a true sense where fair competition and inclusive growth can be pursued simultaneously. Dr. Sung-Woo Lee is a director General at Port & Logistics Division, Korea Maritime Institute. He has been involved in various governmental projects, many of which are associated with shipping management, dryport planning and port logistics park development. He was previously affiliated with the Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental Management at the University of Hong Kong as a visiting professor. His interests include managerial and strategic aspects of international logistics and maritime transport, making business model based on SCM, possibility of Arctic logistics system and port-city interaction. He is also an advisor in related to logistics field for Korea government such as Ministry of Unification, Ministry of Land & Transport, Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Resource, and so on. His representative writings are Devolution, Port Governance and Port Performance, Ports in Proximity, Shipping & Port Condition Changes and Throughput Prospects with Opening of the NSR, Port & City, Challenges of the Changing Arctic, Maritime Business and Economics and so on.

  [caption id="" align="alignright" width="150"] Kim In HoeProfessor of Inha Law School[/caption] Peace and Human Rights, the Future of Jeju   This article seeks to find answers concerning the future of Jeju from peace and human rights. The future of the island may vary. The future should include economic prosperity. The bountifulness of Jeju is an indeed appealing aspect of the island. On top of economic prosperity, Jeju may develop in various forms in the years to come. Therefore, it would be shortsighted to take action, focusing only on economic prosperity. Just as important as economic prosperity are peace and human rights more importantly, it is the happiness and well-being of every single individual and those who cherish Jeju that we should pay attention to.   The article highlights peace and human rights, as requirements for the happiness and well-being of Jeju’s future. The reason why seeking the future of Jeju from peace and human rights starts from the fact that they are two important future values. Another reason is that Jeju has a lot of assets when it comes to peace and human rights. It would be very unfortunate if we neither appreciate the value nor make use of them.   Among a number of assets that Jeju has, the first asset with respect to peace and human rights is the experience of settling the past issues related to Jeju 4.3. Jeju’s second asset is its openness as an island located in the heart of Northeast Asia. Both of them serve as the two most fundamental assets when designing the future of the island. By interpreting these unique assets as peace and human rights - two universal values - and persuading the world, you can picture the future of Jeju. All things taken together, the resulting equation is as follows: “ {4.3 + Openness = Present Jeju } + Peace + Human Rights = Future Jeju ”   The article aims to demonstrate why this equation holds. Excluded from this equation is economic prosperity however, this does not mean that economic prosperity is not crucial. Economic affluence is also essential when it comes to the happiness and well-being of each person - this is a fact which cannot be denied. Talking about a person’s mental well-being in a situation where livelihood issues such as clothing, food, and housing are not properly addressed is nothing more than Lu Xun’s euphemism for “spiritual victories”. Let’s say, in order to pay for medical expenses to save one family member who is seriously ill if one has to sell a house, it can be considered a tragedy no matter how much the family members love each other. It is hard to talk about happiness when issues regarding clothing, food, and housing, health care and education, and aging and care services exist.   However, though economic affluence is essential for happiness, it does not mean that the more people have, the happier they become. When economic affluence reaches a certain level, it is better not to pursue more – wanting more may cause people trouble. Based on the law of marginal utility, if a person accumulates a certain level of economic wealth, money does not make that person happy any more, rather leading to worries. Therefore, in human history, riches, desires, selfishness, and foolishness have been what people always have to keep vigilant against. They were once treated as taboos publicly. Having wealth to feed oneself and live a life when one becomes old would suffice.   Economic prosperity would be meaningless if an individual does not feel happy. Economic prosperity in the situations, where conflicts occur with other countries or the central government, individual human rights are not guaranteed, the gap between the rich and poor is huge, and things are not fair for everyone, cannot make people happy. If a person is not happy, economic prosperity actually means nothing. If a conflict does get serious in the process of achieving economic prosperity, personal well-being will move further away. For personal well-being, we must escape from the illusion and the myth that economic prosperity is the most important factor in life.     Settlement of the Past Issues Related to Jeju 4.3   The incident which brought the biggest pain to Jeju is Jeju 4.3. The pain was so great that some of the people have not completely gotten over it yet. Following the launch of the Moon Jae-in Administration, efforts to resolve historical issues were resumed, and settling the historical issues regarding Jeju 4.3 was included in the effort, demonstrating that the scars the tragic incident left with the people of Jeju are so great. When the late president Kim Dae-jung order his administration to ascertain the truth and the late president Noh Moo-hyun apologized, the pain of Jeju became the pain of the nation. At the national level, Jeju 4.3 became the incident to find out the truth of, appease the sorrow and resentment of the victims, and remember. Now, we are at the stage of healing and recovery.   Jeju 4.3 has become the pain of the whole world beyond Korea. It is not a domestic problem any more. The division of Korea was one reason that contributes to Jeju 4.3. It was a product of the Cold War, which led to brutal human rights abuses. Back in the past, it was caused by the Northeast Asian system formed after the Sino-Japanese War. Jeju 4.3 is the result of the combined causes of colonization, war, civil war, and violence inflicted by the central government following the Sino-Japanese War. When several countries in Northeast Asia fought against each other and one side exploded, Jeju 4.3 took place. In this regard, Jeju 4.3 is an international event.   The event that earned Jeju 4.3 internationality and universality is when the Korean government decided to properly settle the past issues. The Korean government frankly acknowledged that Jeju 4.3 is the result of violence caused by the nation and began to clean up its past. Korea sought to settle the issues of history, which no other country in Northeast Asia has ever done, and saw the outcomes. The settlement of historical issues of Jeju 4.3 is also the starting point for Korea to squarely face its painful history. What is important in the rectification of past history is to uncover the truth and address the victim's sense of regret and injustice. If a person became a victim of violence inflicted by the central government though the person did not commit any crimes, the cause should be revealed and the victim's honor and human rights should be restored. The settlement of historical issues focusing on victims will comfort their souls and help unjust historical events to be remembered at the national level. It also presents directions and leads to system improvement in order to prevent this from happening again in the future. In comparison, the assailant's apology, forgiveness and punishment are secondary It would be great if the perpetrators gave apologies and felt guilty about what they did. However, without it, still the rectification of past history will continue and be completed. What I want to emphasize is that excessive pressure on the perpetrators should not result in forcing them to apologize or feel remorse. The result should be establishing a future-oriented definition.   The rectification of the past can be done based on universal human rights. As seen in the Nuremberg trials in which former Nazi leaders were indicted and tried as war criminals after World War II, the war crimes trials highlight the values of peace and human rights. The Holocaust was not an ordinary crime committed by a criminal group called the Nazis against a particular group of Jews. Humankind realized that it was a violation of human dignity and basic human rights. Human dignity is most greatly and frequently violated during war. If not at war, human dignity and human rights are violated by state violence. Truth ascertainment of the past wrongdoings shows that in order to protect human dignity, people must choose peace over war and place human rights over everything else.   People should look more closely into the issues with respect to war and human rights. War is a conflict over sovereignty. State violence is also committed on the pretext of protecting sovereignty. However, it is individuals who have to fall victim. It is basic human rights, such as individual life, freedom and life itself that are at stake. Until now, priority has always been given to sovereignty over human rights. Indeed, we have also learned from the textbook that sovereignty is most important and most powerful. For this reason, human rights have always been sacrificed by sovereignty. However, in the process of settling historical issues, it was revealed that there is a time when human rights precede sovereignty.   Human rights violations caused by excessive exercises of sovereignty are not tolerated. Even if an exercise of sovereignty results in war and state violence, it is still regarded as an excessive exercise of sovereignty and cannot be justified if it violates individual human rights. The fact that through the settlement of past wrongdoings, a country acknowledges the infringement of basic human rights caused by war or state violence and makes a commitment to preventing the recurrence of such cases shows that human rights may be more important than sovereignty. It is still a criminal offense, if it violated human dignity and fundamental human rights even if they did it because they were commended to do so by the nation. It cannot be justified with an excuse that they did it to protect sovereignty. In this case, human rights precede sovereignty.   The settlement of historical issues shows that priority is given to peace and human rights over sovereignty. While recognizing mistakes made in the past is a matter of the individual state, the resultant outcomes are the universal and global values of peace and human rights. Universal values go beyond the framework of the state and beyond sovereignty. It also conveys the value of peace and human rights to other countries. Among the issues the Korean government should resolve, especially the ones related to Jeju 4.3 go beyond the framework of Jeju and Korea and deliver the values of peace and human rights to Northeast Asia and the rest of the world. Universal values transcend time. Although historical issues are settled, people still need to make effort to secure peace and human rights in the future. This presents us with a challenge to further make the values of peace and humanity more concrete and spread.     Openness, Peace, and Human Rights     What Jeju symbolizes is how open a country Korea is however, openness emphasizes the need for peace and human rights. If peace and human rights are not guaranteed, open systems can be neither put in place nor maintained. Jeju, which symbolizes openness, can embody the significance of openness through peace and human rights.   Korea is a nation that is almost completely open. Korea’s level of openness is the highest in the world. It appears that Korea, as a country located between powers, has no other alternative than opening. Korea has made rapid progress through an open system. An open system concerns not just the economy, but many other areas, such as politics, society, culture, science and knowledge. Jeju is an open region that leads the opening of Korea at the front.   Northeast Asian countries are also open countries. Commodities and manpower coming and going between Korea, China and Japan are already the best in the world. In terms of human exchange alone, some 10 million people are moving between Korea and China and another million between Korea and Japan. Although the figures have been slightly shrunk due to a conflict with China over problems with the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and economic conflicts with Japan, human exchanges between Korea, China and Japan are enormous. The exchange of material resources is also done on a huge scale. The movement of goods and capital has expanded in proportion to the economic development of Korea, China, and Japan. The three nations have enjoyed economic prosperity by relying on each other and opening one another.   In order for more than 20 million people to travel and for goods and capital to freely move among Korea, China and Japan, safety and convenience must be guaranteed above all. If even one person is not properly protected by the state, a situation happens, where safe travel cannot be made. If human rights are not guaranteed, human exchange is brought to a halt.   Suppose a Korean, after committing murder in China, fled to Japan and was arrested in Japan. Chinese authorities would request the extradition of the Korean who is a criminal. The demand of the Chinese government is due process because the victim is Chinese and both witnesses and evidence are in China. In addition, it is China that is shocked by the very crime. Justice must be done where the damage has occurred. However, China has its own drawbacks China still sentences death penalties and executes them. The Korean government can also request the extradition of the Korean as it has a duty to protect Koreans. The strength of the Korean government is that in South Korea, a capital punishment is rarely given and even though a death sentence may be pronounced, it is never executed. Since the last execution in December 1997, South Korea has never executed anyone for over 20 years – South Korea is a de facto abolitionist state. However, the problem is that there are no victims, no witnesses, and no evidence in South Korea.   Now, what decision should the Japanese court make? Jurisdiction is a form of sovereignty therefore, this is the case in which sovereignty and sovereignty are in conflict. If one thinks only of sovereignty, the Korean should be extradited to China. It would be a lot easier to have a trial in China and there would be a lesson for the Chinese. However, the Japanese court must give custody of the Korean to the Korean government, for capital punishment that takes a person's life is anti-human rights. It is also a punishment against human dignity in that it destroys all human possibilities. This is the reason why the European abolished the death penalty. When a person’s life is at stake, human rights must be placed over sovereignty.   Human dignity is absolutely equal to everyone. Human dignity is granted to everyone, regardless of whether it is a defendant on trial, a criminal who committed a crime, or a convict who does time in prison. Whether dignity should be extended to animals along with humans is still arguable, but there is no question that all human beings have equal dignity as long as they are humans. Human dignity and equality of dignity are the starting points of human rights. For this reason, basic human rights are given to all human beings, no matter what kind of job they have or what they did in the past.   Openness ensures human dignity internationally beyond the state that one belongs to. Koreans, at least, have the right not to be executed, so other countries should respect this as well. Just like Koreans, Chinese and Japanese have the right not to be executed. This is because human rights transcend national boundaries.   Openness expands universal values, such as peace and human rights. This is because a person needs to understand people from other towns, foreigners, and other ethnic groups to open them up. Universal values that transcend the peoples and nations can only develop when peace and human rights are present conversely, universal values expand peace and human rights. Openness ensures personal happiness and well-being this way.   Jeju symbolizes the open society of Korea. As it symbolizes an open society, it also symbolizes universal values that are accepted internationally. These universal values include peace and human rights. Jeju has geographical features that symbolize peace and human rights. On top of that, Jeju also has the historical features of settling the historical issues, which gave rise to peace and human rights, as discussed earlier.     East Asia of Peace and Human Rights      The importance of Jeju can also be seen in its geographical features - Jeju is located at the very center of Northeast Asia. Although the Korean Peninsula is located between China and Japan in Northeast Asia, Jeju is a little away from the Korean Peninsula, which means that the island is free from the direct conflict with sovereignty the central government exercises, geographically and psychologically. In addition, South Korea's central government has granted Jeju a high degree of autonomy. South Korea has 『the Special Act on the Establishment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the Development of Free International City』. Article 1 of the Act says, “The purpose of this Act is to contribute to national development by establishing the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and guaranteeing substantial devolution to its local government in order to maximize on the geographical, historical, and cultural traits of its preceding local government, Jeju-do, with highly guaranteed autonomy based on self-regulation, accountability, creativity, and diversity and also by developing Jeju-do into a free international city through extensive administrative deregulation and application of international standards.” What is special about this is that "high autonomy" is guaranteed. Jeju has relative autonomy from the central government to some degree. This serves as the basis for establishing Jeju as an island representing all of East Asia.   Northeast Asia now has an urgent need to establish peace and human rights. Peace is needed in Northeast Asia. The region is, in fact, at war it is just that, on the surface, no gunfire can be heard. Military exercises and missile launches take place all the time, and verbal battles are so harsh that it is even frightening to quote. The Inter-Korean relations surrounding the Korean Peninsula are at the heart of the issues. The two Koreas are going through a nuclear crisis and looking for a solution to the problem, but they still haven’t been able to build a stable relationship. Japan has contributed to worsening the situation. Japan, pursuing a nation that can wage war, has been creating conflicts with South Korea, North Korea, China and Russia. Japan is currently engaged in territorial disputes with almost all the countries in Northeast Asia, and even continues to sow the seeds of conflict in regards to rearmament and the revision of its peace constitution. China is also intensifying its arms race amid confrontation with the U.S. The arms race in Northeast Asia has already surpassed that of Europe. Under these circumstance, the risk of war will continue to rise. To prevent this, inter-Korean summit talks and North Korea-U.S. summit talks have been held, but no fruit has been born yet. For world peace, peace in Northeast Asia is also essential.   Historically, the order in Northeast Asia - without much change - has lasted since it was established following the Sino-Japanese War. Undergoing the Sino-Japanese War, Japan became an imperial state, Korea became a colony, and China became a semi-colonial colony. The order of Northeast Asia, surrounding South Korea, China and Japan, could have led to a new peace order after Japan's defeat and Korea's liberation, but due to the Cold War, the region failed to clear up the order in the past. Despite the Cold War system being the primary reason, the failure to resolve historical issues is another reason. South Korea, China and Japan have not had the opportunity to sit together and jointly settle the issues over past wars and human rights violations committed by state power. In particular, relations between Japan and South Korea and between Japan and North Korea are still at odds since historical issues surrounding all three countries have not been addressed.   Northeast Asia needs to establish a human rights system. The importance of human rights since World War II has been confirmed on a global level. The international human rights system is formed around the U.N. and regional human rights courts. An example of the human rights court at a regional level is the European Court of Human Rights. The court serves as the last resort to guarantee the human rights of European citizens based on the European Declaration of Human Rights. In the process of the European Union’s integration, the European human rights system played a large role. The system to guarantee human rights supported the establishment of a peace regime, and the peace regime also strengthened its human rights system.   However, in Northeast Asia, there have been no human rights declarations or human rights courts. Although Northeast Asia has already possessed a high level of common economy, culture and history which are comparable to those of Europe, Northeast Asia is insensitive to human rights. There may have been many reasons why a human rights system has not been established in Northeast Asia, but the failure to properly settle historical issues is, too, a crucial reason. In Europe, the horrible human rights violations committed during World War II were settled through the Nuremberg war crimes trials. This experience deepened, while going through the 6.8 Revolution, and bore fruit with the European Court of Human Rights. The driving forces of the European Court of Human Rights were the settlement of the past and the development of democracy. If we reflect this process on the situation in Northeast Asia, it can be seen that the establishment of a human rights court in Northeast Asia requires addressing historical issues at the Northeast Asian level and the development of democracy in each country.   Even though settlement of historical issues is needed, not all countries can do so at the same pace. In this case, other countries should share the way one country used to resolve its past history. Under the situation that Northeast Asia faces, one exemplary case that Japan might consider is the way the historical issues related to Jeju 4.3 were settled. It is the first case in Northeast Asia to address the past issues, and, in terms of timeline, it is not far from the colonial period, which is considered the brutal era of human rights violations, prior to World War II. In the process, the president publicly made an apology on behalf of the whole nation, which also set an example for other countries to follow. The more Northeast Asia shares the case of Jeju 4.3, the more likely peace and human rights in Northeast Asia will become a reality.     Possibility of Jeju Serving as the Center of the Northeast Asian Peace and Human Rights Community     Jeju has assets of peace and human rights that it has gained through the settlement of painful history regarding Jeju 4.3. These assets are universal values that are shared by Northeast Asia and the rest of the world. Based on its assets, Jeju should make an effort to have the rest of the world recognize it as an island of peace and human rights.   It is true that Jeju embodies the values of peace and human rights, but the limit is that values are abstract. Since they are not visible, it is difficult to realize that they exist. If an abstract value becomes something that is visible, it would be better for people to recognize them. People are responsive to senses and they are even more deeply moved by what is seen or heard directly. The purpose of carving the statue of Buddha and making the cross of Jesus is to stimulate human emotions, which makes it easier and faster to deliver the teachings of religion. Like this, abstract values are better communicated when expressed as sensory objects.   The values of peace and human rights that Jeju embodies should also be transformed into a visual sensory object. One way is to establish Jeju as a venue to realize the idea of the Northeast Asian Peace and Human Rights Community. Northeast Asia should be an economically prosperous community and at the same time a military security community. In fact, both the prosperity community and the security community have been attempted, but it did not succeed in establishing peace and human rights in Northeast Asia. The reason why they failed to establish lasting peace and human rights is due to an extremely strong ethnic sentiment and nationalist tradition. In order to weaken the two factors of failure, we must emphasize and establish a peace and human rights system.   Jeju has historical, geographical and human assets that will become the center of the Northeast Asian Peace and Human Rights Community. Jeju has a history of most successfully resolving historical issues in Northeast Asia, is geographically located at the center of Northeast Asia, and has the values of peace and human rights in terms of humanities. The final destination that Jeju can reach is to become the base of the Peace Committee when it comes to peace, and the location of the human rights court when it comes to human rights. What is crucial is the roadmap which would serve as a driving force.   First of all, we should share Jeju's vision on peace and human rights. This vision should be unveiled by politicians in the form of a declaration. It would be best if the head of state declared the vision, but if that is not possible, it can be done at a different level. The reason why priorities are given to politicians is that the international system that creates peace and human rights is also a matter of domestic and international politics. Just as the settlement of historical issues related to Jeju 4.3 began with the pledge made by the late president Kim Dae-jung and ended with an apology made by the late president Roh Moo-hyun, politicians' leadership plays a crucial role when it comes to the issue involving peace and human rights. After making a declaration, both the political circle and the private sector should pave the way together in the form of a forum. The job to lay the foundation should continue in the form of a forum, such as the Jeju Peace and Human Rights Forum. At this stage, the role of intellectuals is important. They should do research to introduce and spread the values of peace and human rights. In addition, they should help decide the role that each country needs to play in the process of spreading the values of peace and human rights, and further make the value of Jeju clear. If the values of peace and human rights become consolidated through such work, the declaration of peace in Northeast Asia and the declaration of human rights in Northeast Asia should be drawn. In addition, we should a peace committee and a human rights tribunal that will practice the declaration of peace and the declaration of human rights, and make it visible by constructing buildings. This process is difficult not only for China but also for Japan because they have experience of once dominating part of the world. They have no history of settling past issues and are not capable enough to guarantee the values of peace and human rights. It is the area in which Korea, with its advanced democracy and experience in establishing a democratic government, can take the lead. Among many regions in Korea, the values of peace and human rights are concentrated on Jeju.   No one knows how much time this process will require. How many people will realize the importance of peace and human rights and implement the value will determine the future. The most important thing that matters here is what politicians and intellectuals can do. Politicians should prepare the future vision for Jeju and share it with the public. Next, the activity of intellectuals is important. There should be global intellectuals who present an outlook on peace and human rights in Northeast Asia. The activities of intellectuals such as Hannah Arendt and Primo Levi can embody the values of peace and human rights. This includes cultural figures. Next, we need outstanding peace and human rights activists. They should work not only domestically but also internationally. We should have great activists who will enlighten many people about the importance of values and actions and inspire them. Business people should be willing to invest their basic assets for peace and human rights communities. When all these forces come together, leadership in peace and human rights will be formed. Once leadership is formed, the idea of a peace and human rights community can become a reality.   Jeju has a number of assets to realize the idea of the peace and human rights community at hand. With Jeju at the center, if we gather help from a lot of people, establishing the community will become more and more concrete. The idea of the Northeast Asia Peace and Human Rights Community would be the future vision that best shows what it is like to be Jeju. ​ Kim In Hoe majored in law at Seoul National University and passed the National Judicial Examination in 1993. He is a member of the Judicial Reform Committee under the Supreme Court and served as a Secretary for Civil society during the Roh Moo-Hyun administration. Currently he is the Chairman of the Department of the People’s sovereignty under the Presidential Commission on Policy Planning.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="150"] Ko Seong-junDirector of Jeju Institute for Korean Unification[/caption] As the North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit held in February, garnering a lot of attention at the beginning of this year, ended up with no deal being made, the inter-Korean relations, which seemed to be heading for peace and reconciliation following the third round of summit talk, has been brought to a standstill. As such, the actions of local governments that were preparing for exchange and cooperation with North Korea also had to come to a halt. During a few months of a lull, the leaders of South Korea, North Korea, and the U.S. had a summit talk at Panmunjom (the truce village) in June this year. As they agreed to resume denuclearization negotiations, working-level talks between North Korea and the U.S. are expected to be held sometime in October. Both nations need to make progress toward denuclearization, so talks are expected to be positive though there will be some twists and turns in the process. It may take some time, but inter-Korean relations are also expected to go back on track toward dialogue and cooperation. Now is time for Jeju, the pioneer of the exchange between the two Koreas led by local governments, to focus on making preparations to find and secure “status and roles that are different from those of other local governments in terms of class and level” by positively looking at the future of inter-Korean relations. Especially, in order to connect the strength of “the island of world peace” with the future vision of the unified Korea as well as the inter-Korean exchange and cooperation, Jeju should come up with its own unique approaches which only Jeju can offer, and materialize action plans. Looking back on the history of South-North Korea exchange and cooperation that local governments, including Jeju, did in the 2000s, it was hard to build normal relations for exchange and cooperation due to many factors, such as the asymmetrical one-sided relationship from the South to the North, exchange programs focusing on providing support, the limit in the North Korea’s acceptance, and a lack of consultation channels available at all times. Based upon the reflections on exchange and cooperation over the last 20 years, it can be said that new directions and methods are needed that will meet the new inter-Korean relations which are about to come. Jeju, first among all the local governments, began “the project to send tangerines to the North” in 1999 and continued until 2010 when it was put to a halt due to the May 24 measures. However, the project set an example for other local governments in the 2000s as a case with a “win-win” characteristic. Without missing even once, the island carried out the project for 12 consecutive years. In addition, Jeju served as the venue for a number of inter-Korean talks and the first inter-Korean sports and cultural event for citizens, and a large-scale delegation from Jeju visited North Korea 4 times. The national government designated Jeju as "the island of world peace", and taking into consideration the efforts Jeju made, in the Jeju community, formed among inhabitants was a consensus to continue exchange and cooperation with North Korea. Besides, along with the symbolism manifested in the motto “From Halla to Baekdu”, Jeju has been consistently working on a new project for inter-Korean exchange and cooperation as part of the “Island of World Peace (designated in 2005)” project in order to play a role as the hub of exchange and cooperation on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia. Under this background, the Jeju provincial government, with the 7th governor elected by popular vote, launched in July 2014 and proposed the five projects to resume the exchange and cooperation project between Jeju and North Korea which had been interrupted. At “the 2014 Jeju Forum for National Reconciliation” held in December, Governor Won Hee-ryong of the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, in his keynote speech, officially announced several projects: the resumption of the project to send tangerines to the North, the inter-Korean tourism from Halla to Baekdu, the cooperation to preserve the ecosystem and environment of both Mt. Halla and Mt. Baekdu, the promotion of operating a cruise ship between Jeju and North Korea, and inviting North Korean figures to the Jeju Forum. In November 2015, with “the Carbon Free Island 2030 project” to make Jeju free of carbon as a momentum, he also further proposed the project for “the inter-Korean cooperation for energy and peace”, giving shape to Jeju’s inter-Korean exchange and cooperation as a project. Such proposals were not put in place at that time because inter-Korean relations continued to be tightened. However, the proposals showed Jeju’s sincerity to make a breakthrough for the confrontational inter-Korean relations. They were also regarded as comprehensive proposals focusing on reconciliation, coexistence and cooperation, which broke from the existing humanitarian assistance programs. In 2018, a series of inter-Korean summits were held, which were followed by the 4.27 Panmunjom Declaration, the Pyongyang Joint Declaration of September, and the first North Korea–United States summit, in turn affecting local governments. On top of that, new local governments emerged through the local election in June and competitively revealed their intention to do business with North Korea, going along with the atmosphere for reconciliation between the two Koreas. For such promotion of exchange and cooperation among local governments not to be viewed as confusing, excessive, and overlapped, the Special Committee on Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation was established (on December 17th, 2018) so that the efforts that each local government would make could be coordinated at the municipal governor council level and a synergy effect. On July 24th, the Unification Ministry and the municipal governor council concluded “the agreement for peace and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula” and were finally able to prepare for the future inter-Korean exchanges and cooperation era led by local governments in full swing. To this day, the proposal is still considered a valid concept for the provincial government’s inter-Korean exchange and cooperation since it fits the image of “the island of peace” in connection with what Jeju can offer, such as natural ecology, geographic and cultural heritage, tourist attractions, and local specialties. If inter-Korean exchange and cooperation is resumed and promoted in the future, the proposal is believed to be carried out as the primary business project with North Korea. However, there is a time gap to some degree between the years 2014 and 2015 (when the proposal was first submitted) and 2019. Therefore, it is necessary to come up with a new approach corresponding to the changing circumstances of the two Koreas over the past decade and to thoroughly diagnose the conditions to push it forward with respect to whether it reflects the present and the past conditions of “the new inter-Korean relations” appropriately. Such work is very useful and necessary to enhance the feasibility of each proposal. To raise the feasibility of Jeju’s proposal, analysis on several issues is required: whether each project of the proposal is in conflict with the sanctions the international community and the U.S. imposed against North Korea, whether the proposal is in accordance with the agenda of the central government for inter-Korean exchange and cooperation, how willingly North Korea would respond to and accept each project, and how much it can be related to the projects that other local governments and NGOs are promoting. First, whether the proposal is in conflict with the sanctions against North Korea is an international factor to consider and is relevant to promote of all North Korean projects. In particular, the UN Security Council’s sanctions against North Korea have been imposed by 11 resolutions since 2006. In this regard, in order to promote exchange and cooperation projects, including humanitarian aid, it is required to go through the consultation process of “the Guidelines on Acquiring Exemptions for Humanitarian Assistance and Delivery to North Korea” (enacted on August 6th, 2018) of the United Nations Security Council Sanctions Committee on North Korea. As such, it is desirable to begin with the projects that are feasible within the framework of sanctions for now. Second, the fact that Jeju’s projects are more in line with the central government's policy structure toward North Korea and they are included in or close to the North Korea project agenda will give momentum to Jeju when promoting the projects. For example, momentum will be given to secondary projects in conjunction with the agreements made between the two Koreas (at the 4.27 Panmunjom Declaration, the Pyongyang Joint Declaration of September 17th, etc.) in 2018 and the North Korea projects that the central government is planning, such as the project to send a congratulatory speech on August 15th, etc.). Therefore, communication and coordination regarding policies with the government is essential. Third, exchange and cooperation is a two-way relationship that cannot be implemented without the response of North Korea. It is also necessary to consider the demand, interest, and economic incentives of North Korea as a whole, which focuses on economic development, and thoroughly look into the reciprocity, sustainability, and proliferation of the project. Fourth, since the 7th governors and mayors who were elected by popular vote took office last July, many local governments at various levels have revealed their intentions to do business with North Korea. In addition, public institutions, research groups, private organizations and companies have also presented their plans for North Korea. Based on the list of projects presented in the press release, we can see that there are overlapping or competing issues in a number of areas. Therefore, if Jeju is to pursue its inter-Korean exchange cooperation projects in a systematic and sustainable fashion, the chances of success can only be increased by establishing a filtering system to prevent the duplication and excessive competition in the projects that Jeju has been working on by setting up a mutual policy cooperation governance with other local governments. After reviewing these four requirements, policy priorities should be set based on how feasible each project is, and then a comprehensive and step-by-step project promotion roadmap, which is viable, should be decided. To achieve economic development during the Kim Jong-un era, North Korea designated 27 special economic zones, including 6 exclusive industrial zones, 17 central economic development zones, and 4 regional economic development zones, focusing on regional development. During the 2018 inter-Korean talks, North Korean officials clearly stated their intention for us to stop "humanitarian aid" and move toward a broader cause of "development cooperation”. In addition, as people have raised a need to switch from a one-time support project to development cooperation, from a project only focusing on areas around Pyongyang to regional (or urban) solidarity exchanges, and from individual unit exchange projects to comprehensive exchange ones, it is desirable for Jeju to take the lead in that direction. Jeju is not only the southernmost region of the Korean Peninsula, but also has Mt. Halla, the numinous mountain of the Korean people, and a clean sea flowing toward the Pacific Ocean. North Koreans have a great yearning and expectation about the Island as “a warm and scenic southern land.” In addition, as the phrase “from Baekdu to Halla“ implies, there are many residents of North and South Korea who believe that if Mt. Baekdu located in Yanggang Province, North Korea and Mt. Halla in Jeju, South Korea can be connected, that can be considered unification. Jeju has sublimated the pain of 4.3 into reconciliation and harmony. It has also been designated as “the Island of the World Peace” because since the 1990s, a number of summit talks between the countries concerned for peace on the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia have successfully been held. Unlike other local governments, the symbolism and image of unification and peace that Jeju holds is strong thus, based on this, pursuing, cultivating, and maintaining symbolic unification by connecting the southernmost part of South Korea and the northernmost part of North Korea should be the central task of Jeju’s inter-Korean exchange and cooperation. (Kim Dong-seong) Jeju should choose an area or a city in North Korea for exchange and cooperation based on coexistence and harmony, sustainability, symbolism, etc. Given the national symbolism, complementarity, and sustainability of exchange and cooperation that both Mt. Halla and Mt. Baekdu have, Yanggang-do, where Mt. Baekdu is located, is considered a suitable region to that end. Yanggang-do has a population of about 700,000, a number similar to that of Jeju Island, and there are many areas for exchange and cooperation in both regions, including Mt. Halla and Mt. Baekdu, the Jeju International Special Tourist Zone and the Mubong International Special Tourist Zone, Jeju City and Hyesan City, and Seogwipo and Samjiyeon-gun (Chairman Kim Jong-un visited once last year and four times this year). In addition, Jeju should establish a Halla-Baekdu regional cooperation system with Yanggang-do and expand cooperation by concentrating on the common interests of both regions. Starting from possible fields of business, including tourism, ecological environment, forests, agriculture development, energy, culture, sports, health care, and education, and gradually expanding the scale, Jeju should ultimately establish a comprehensive exchange and cooperation system. At the point where 20 years of Jeju's North Korea project and 15 years of the designation as “the Island of World Peace” crosses, it is necessary for Jeju to take the changes in the inter-Korean relations into account and complement its existing project or replace it with a renewed one or find a new approach to it. In addition, it is necessary to make efforts to improve the policy environment and build capacity to implement it. (Hong Jae-hyeong) First of all, the Jeju provincial government should have a close cooperation system with the central government and other local governments. The provincial government should strive to have its inter-Korean cooperation project ideas included in the tasks several government agencies, including the Ministry of Unification, are promoting and acquire special policy support for the ideas to be adopted when an agreement is reached between the two Koreas. Cooperation governance with other local governments should be established by making use of the Special Committee on Inter-Korean Exchange Cooperation under the municipal governor council. Jeju also has to secure a business consultation channel with North Korea which is in operation at all times, such as the inter-Korean liaison office located in Kaesong. Lastly, Jeju should concentrate on enhancing its own capacity. Through the Inter-Korean Exchange Cooperation Committee that the Jeju provincial government has recently strengthened, it is necessary to prepare a mid- and long-term basic plan, train professional manpower, raise financial resources, and a dedicated task force. < references > 1. Ko Seong-jun, Kim Yeong-su, and Hong Jae-hyeong (2018), Jeju’s Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Scheme under New South-North Relations, Jeju Research Institute. 2. Kim Dong-seong (2019), “The 2019 Visions for Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation of Local Governments and Jeju”, Presentation at the Future Vision Policy Seminar marking the 14th anniversary of designation as the island of the world peace co-hosted by Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and Jeju Institute for Korean Unification (2019.2.20.). 3. Hong Jae-hyeong (2019), “Inter-Korea Exchange and Cooperation Led by Local Governments and the Island of the World Peace, Jeju”, Discussion at the [In the year of inter-Korean cooperation, the directions and ways in respond to the new North Korean exchanges and cooperation] session of the 14th Jeju Forum co-hosted by Jeju Regional Conference and Jeju Institute for Korean Unification (2019.5.31.) Dr. Seong-Joon Ko is Emeritus Professor of Jeju National University, Jeju, Korea. he has been Professor of Political Science in Jeju National University(1977-2016.2). He was visiting Professor of Eat Asian Institute in Columbia University, New York. U.S.A(1999). He was Chairman of Jeju International Council. Also, He is chairman of the jeju citizen association for the world peace island. And the director of Jeju Institute for Korean Unification. He has Written books including 「Juche Idea and North Korea」(co-author), 「North Korea in Transition」(co-author),「East Asian and Jeju, Peace Island」(co-author), 「OKina and Peace」(co-author).「New understanding of unification problem」, 「Unified Korea and World Peace island Jeju」(co-author). He received his B.A and M.A in Mass Communication From Sogang University, Korea and Ph.D. degree in Political Science from Konkuk University, Korea.

Thomas F. Schneider Director of Erich Maria Remarque Peace Center, Germany   One of the pillars of the peace city concept of the city of Osnabrück/Germany was and still is the German author Erich Maria Remarque. Remarque was born in Osnabrück in 1898, served on the Western Front during World War I, and published his anti-war novel All Quiet on the Western Front in 1929. The book became a world-wide success, so far unseen in global literary history. Together with the famous 1930 filming of the book by Lewis Milestone, today, All Quiet on the Western Front is a global icon of pacifist culture as is Picasso’s painting Guernica or Robert Capa’s Spanish Civil War photography Fallen Soldier. Throughout his lifetime and in all of his works, Remarque was committed to pursue peace, understanding and dialogue, and he was an intransigent opponent of oppression, manipulation, barbarism and any political or cultural attempt to diminish civilizing values, civil rights and the freedom of the individual. Moreover, in his writings Remarque pointed out, that the individual is responsible for his deeds and its consequences, and that this responsibility cannot be prolonged to any authority, be it the church or religion, a political party or movement or any ideology. In this respect, Remarque’s thoughts are a blueprint for humanity and the individual’s role and value in contexts of war, crisis, migration – and everyday life. Remarque’s works have been translated into at least 65 languages, and originally published in more than 90 states. But the exceptional and outstanding point with the reception of Remarque on a global level is, that the writings were not only translated as a product of a different culture, but assimilated and integrated into the culture of the translations’ target languages. Therefore, on a global level, there exists not only one author Remarque, but many Remarques, created by history, politics, censorship in many cases, and culturally shaped values and preferences. But what all these Remarques have in common are then global values and ideas of peace, understanding, empathy and responsibility. The overall humanitarian statement of Remarque favors contexts of civilization, humanity, interpersonal relationships, and, last but not least, complexity, and thus opposes manipulation, oversimplification and prejudicial thinking. In Remarque’s short version, as a credo: Independence, tolerance, humor. For Remarque was born in Osnabrück, and for the city has a long tradition of interreligious tolerance and dialogue, Remarque’s statement and conviction could and can serve as an ideal vehicle to promote peace on official and NGO levels. Remarque’s international reputation and image, on the other hand, constitute a basis – a door opener – for several and various activities and impacts in political, social, economic, educational or research contexts on local, regional or international levels. And this is the point, where the Remarque Peace Centre’s work within the framework of the peace city of Osnabrück is situated. The Peace Center was founded in 1998 on behalf of Remarque’s 100th birthday and as a successor of an archive, situated at the University of Osnabrück. The Peace Center today is run both by the city and university of Osnabrück, and is presenting a permanent exhibition on the life, work and international reception of Remarque. Beyond we are presenting up to six special exhibitions each year which deal with the representation of war in the media, of historic conflicts or present art focusing on war and peace. In addition the center houses the worldwide leading archive of material related to Erich Maria Remarque. Beyond this normal program we are engaged in widespread co-operation projects to prolong the peace issue: On a local level with the promotion of Remarque’s work and thinking in schools and universities. We cooperate with other local institutions and NGOs in activities, which are dedicated to historical, intercultural or peace topics in order to prolong the idea of a peaceful society within an urban civil society. These activities include projects with the local schools and universities, exhibitions, workshops, seminars etc. On a broader level, our research work focuses on Remarque’s life and work, but take these topics as a starting point for research in the field of the representation of war and peace in the media in the 20th and 21st centuries. How were and are media part of warfare. What is their relevance in preparing for war or shaping the image of war in post-war periods? These questions leads us to the global level, where they are discussed in a floating network of different organizations, institutions, and individual researchers, and where the scientific community is set in a continuing discussion process with teachers, artists, civilians, and last but not least, soldiers. These networks result in programs of international relations, cooperation, knowledge exchange and cooperative projects such as conferences, publications, exhibitions, art projects, developing internet resources. All these measures aim at the scientific community as well as at the broad public. Aiming at the scientific community of peace historians, conflict and peace research is our periodical War and Literature, established in 1989, which is not only focusing on literature but discussing the role of all media in times of war and conflict. In addition since 1989 we have been organizing various conferences and workshops, mainly in co-operation with other related institutions on these topics. Aiming at the broad public we have established several travelling exhibitions on Remarque, his work and thinking, which have been presented since 1989 in more than 130 places throughout the world. Nearly all presentations have been accompanied by activities such as workshops, school projects, round tables, lectures and/or art projects. All these activities, projects, co-operations (and much more) are based on Erich Maria Remarque’s global reputation and the thoughts inherit in his works, his thinking and his international image as an icon of peace: The belief in humanity, in growing understanding by discussion and exchange, tolerance, and last but not least empathy for the other, in whom we recognize ourselves. A growing network of international institutions which are committed to the peace issue could intensify the international dialogue on a scientific level as well as – and much more important – on a level aiming at the broad public. In our times of growing nationalism, racism, and xenophobia as a simplifying reaction to a complex world, in our times, in which such values like humanity, tolerance, multilateralism and understanding seem to be suddenly endangered and attacked much more than we ever imagined in our deepest nightmares, in these times we do urgently need such affiliations, networks and co-operations – not only in order to disseminate the ideal of a more peaceful world, but more than that in order to assure ourselves of our common values and ideas and to stand together as an upright community. Dr. Thomas Schneider is director of the Erich Maria Remarque Peace Center situated in the Peace City of Osnabrück, Germany. Referring to the international reputation of the world famous pacifist German author Erich Maria Remarque, Thomas Schneider offers a perspective on the relevance of peace museums and their networking on a local as well as global level. Being an expert on the representation of war and peace in the media of the 20th and 21st centuries, Thomas Schneider and the Remarque Peace Center are members of the International Network of Museums for Peace, founding members the European Network of Peace Historians and the network Places of the History of Democracy. Since 1989 he is editor of the international Yearbook of War and Literature and author of numerous studies on war and the media he is teaching literature and cultural studies at Osnabrück University and the University of the Bundeswehr, Munich.   * Presentation by Thomas F. Schneider, Director of Erich Maria Remarque Peace Center, to Jeju Forum Panel on ‘League of Peace Cities: Building a Network of Peace Landmarks Among Cities’, Jeju, ROK, 29 May 2019.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="179"] Douglas YatesProfessor of Conflict Resolution at the American Graduate School in Paris[/caption] This essay is influenced by an older article by one the most prolific thinkers in peace studies, Johan Galtung, whose h-index of 72 gives him an incontestable name in the field: “Three Approaches to Peace: Peacekeeping, Peacemaking, and Peacebuilding” (1976) is a work still cited four decades after its original publication. Galtung’s basic idea was that conventional approaches to ending violent conflict through “peacekeeping” (interposition of international forces to separate armed belligerents) were not sufficient to lasting peace, because they only acted on the immediate effects of violent conflict, but did not resolve the deeper causes of war.  He also found insufficient the by-then fashionable business school “peacemaking” approach (third-party mediations and negotiated settlements) which acted on the conflict attitudes beneath the violent behavior of the parties, but did not change structural sources underlying the dispute.  Violent conflicts may be based on violent attitudes, he felt, but those attitudes are in turn based on real world contradictions.  “Conflict should not be confused with manifestations of conflict in terms of attitude and/or behavior.” (291)  Galtung proposed adding a third option – “peacebuilding” – to address these underlying structural issues and long-term relationships between the conflict parties.   In February 1988, South Korean President Rho Tae Woo announced his intention to normalize diplomatic relations with communist states to isolate North Korea. Thus, in September 1990, South Korea and the Soviet established formal diplomatic ties.  In consideration of North Korea’s shocked reaction to this move and, the first summit between the two countries in April 1991 was held on Jeju, an international resort island, rather than Seoul, the capital and political center.  The meeting of Rho and Mikhael Gorbachev was a milestone in the ending of the Cold War. As a result of its contribution to efforts to build peace, the Korean government declared Jeju an “Island of World Peace” on Jan. 27, 2005.   The declaration wasn’t based solely on Jeju developing as a Mecca for summit diplomacy. Seoul also considered Jeju islanders’ will for reconciliation and human rights in light of the tragic April 3rd Uprising, also known as the 4.3 (“Sasam”) Incident. In 2008 the Jeju April 3rd Peace Park was established as a memorial to this peacemaking process. The “Island of World Peace” designation was also based on recognition several folk traditions of self-reliance and pride, symbolized by Jeju island’s so-called “three absences” (no beggars, no thieves, and no gates) that embody Jeju islander’s cultural traditions for a peaceful community life.   One of the component parts of peacebuilding is peace education.  As the development of the field of peace studies has demonstrated, techniques of conflict resolution go well beyond the military doctrines of ceasefires and the schools of strategic studies which tend to dominate the field.  In order to the preconditions for a lasting and genuine positive peace, the structures of peaceful coexistence and non-violent dispute resolution mechanisms must be taught.  For as Immanual Kant said in his famous essay On Perpetual Peace (1795): “The state of peace among men living side by side is not the natural state (status naturalis) the natural state is one of war. A state of peace, therefore, must be established.”   Jeju Island has been a host to numerous heads of state, and its international profile as an “Island of World Peace” has risen ever since the first Jeju Peace Forum was held in 2001. In the final proclamation of that forum it was suggested that a separate peace institute be founded on the island, and two years later ground was broken for the Jeju International Peace Center. The Jeju Peace Forum has been held regularly on a biennial basis ever since, and the Jeju Peace Institute remains committed to furthering peace studies and promoting regional cooperation. Jeju Peace Institute is a South Korean think tank created in 2006 as a research institution devoted to the study and promotion of peace on the Korean Peninsula and to foster regional cooperation in East Asia.   The Jeju Forum is a regional multilateral dialogue for promoting peace and prosperity in Asia. It serves as a platform for discussing visions on sustainable peace in the Asia region. Hosted by the government of Jeju’s special self-governing province with the full support of the foreign affairs ministry in Seoul, the Forum was launched in 2001 as Jeju Peace Forum. Meetings had been held biennially before 2009 and when it became an annual event in 2011, and the Forum was renamed “Jeju Forum for Peace and Prosperity.” The Forum is held in May each year, in Jeju with scores of sessions, including plenary sessions and various networking opportunities. The Forum mission is to build peace in East Asia by facilitating a multilateral dialogue on peace, diplomacy and security among related stakeholders.   The twelfth forum in 2017 attempted to formulate a common vision for Asia’s future. Under the theme of “Reengineering Peace for Asia,” the thirteenth forum in 2018 focused on viable and reasonable measures to establish peace on the Korean peninsula transcending the historic summit talks between the leaders of United States, North Korea, and South Korea. As Galtung theorized, the structure of peace must be broad in scope, with many types of exchange, not just political, not just economic, of a large domain, with more than two parties, and possess a superstructure, an annual conference or organizational framework for the system, like a permanent secretariat or rotating capitals.  The Forum fulfills all three of these ideal elements of peacebuilding.   Douglas A. Yates is a professor of conflict resolution at the American Graduate School in Paris, and a professor of Anglo-American Law at the University of Cergy-Pontoise.  For the past three decades Yates has been researching and writing books and articles about francophone sub-Saharan Africa, with a particular emphasis on the so-called “resource curse” which affects oil-dependent countries in that region.  His most recent books include The Scramble for African Oil (London: Pluto Press 2012), and the Historical Dictionary of Gabon, 4th ed. (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2017).