제주평화연구원

4·3, which occurred during the US military regime in the Cold War era, should be considered not only as a domestic issue but also as a global concern. This session, under the theme of ‘National Violence and its memory,’ discusses how foreign journalists have dealt with the issue, what viewpoints they have had on it and what prospects should be sought for peace. It is to raise the scope of 4·3 to the international level. The following are excerpts from the final report of the Jeju Forum 2018.   ● Chair KO Hee-Bum Former Director, The Hankyoreh ● Moderator KIM In-Hee Former Announcer of MBC ● Keynote Speaker YI Mahn-Yol Honorary Professor, Sookmyung Women’s University/Former Chair, National Institute of Korea History ● Presenter Tim SHORROCK Journalist, the Nation & Newstapa-Korea Center for Investigative Journalism Hideaki ISHIBASHI Journalist, Asahi Shimbun       ● Discussant KWON Hyukchul Director, The Hankyoreh Peace Institute ● Opening Remarks LEE Kyu-Bae Chairman, Jeju 4·3 Research Institute/Professor, Jeju International University ● Congratulatory Remarks WON Heeryong Governor, Jeju Special Self-Governing Province ● LEE Kyu-Bae Jeju 4.3 Research Institute makes it a rule to have an academic seminar every year to prepare for what is expected ahead. This year marks the 70th anniversary of the Jeju 4.3 Incident. I hope today’s session will provide an opportunity to remind us of the meaning of the Incident, discuss how it should go down in history and how to hold the U.S. accountable for its role in the tragic incident. If we could find the path we should take in the spirit of the Jeju 4.3 Movement, the institute would have fulfilled its task, I think. Jeju 4.3 Research Institute has followed the history of Jeju and have been with the people of Jeju ever since it was founded 30 years ago. At long last, spring is coming to Jeju just as President Moon Jae-in said when he attended a memorial ceremony marking the 70th anniversary of the Incident. I hope the government would have more interest in the historical incident and do what it has to do. I expect that a lot of great proposals, including the ideas on what to do at this turning point, will be presented at today’s session. I expect honorary professor YI Mahn-Yol will share his insights on exactly what direction we should pursue with regard to the Jeju 4.3. I also think that we can learn about the viewpoints of the foreign press on the Jeju 4.3 as well as many cases of victimization of women by state violence in different parts of the globe. Today, I hope, we can share deeper thoughts about how we should carry on the spirit of the Jeju 4.3. ● WON Hee-ryong I think this is a truly meaningful and valuable occasion to ruminate on the Jeu 4.3 Incident. This year marks the second time that the Jeju Forum has organized a session on the Incident. I hope this session will provide an opportunity for the entire nation to remember the historical incident and to make it known around the world. I appreciate Chairman Lee Kyu-Bae of Jeju 4.3 Research Institute and others at the institute, the staff members at the Association for the April 3 Victims, and the staff at the Jeju 4.3 Peace Foundation for arranging this opportunity. I would also like to thank honorary professor YI Mahn-Yol for being here to deliver a keynote speech and other guests such as journalists and professors. This year marks the 70th anniversary of the Jeju 4.3 Incident. We recently held a historic memorial ceremony that President Moon Jae-in attended. The Jeju 4.3 is part of Korean history. So far, topics about the Incident have been sporadically discussed on the civic level. It is so meaningful to have them discussed in a public session such as this. I pledge to formulate official policies on the remembrance of the Jeju 4.3, based on the discussions we have here today. In celebration of the 70th anniversary of the Jeju 4.3, we have already declared this year as ‘Visit Jeju Year’ and have been focusing our efforts to make the Incident known at home and abroad. Your interest will be greatly appreciated. And I would like to ask for your continued support for the amendment of the Jeju 4.3 Special Law, the long-pending wish of the victims. ● YI Mahn-Yol Sexual assaults on women were no exception in the case of the Jeju 4.3 Incident. Female victims were raped and then brutally murdered. Those that survived sexual assaults were traumatized for the rest of their lives. This genocide of innocent people and sex crimes against women committed by government authorities testify to what the Incident was. As Kim Ik-ryeol, then commander of police forces on the island, said about the rebel leader Kim Dal-sam in his memoir, the Jeju 4.3 was a righteous uprising against the Japanese collaborators and police forces. That means, I believe, the Jeju 4.3 deserves to be written in history as one of the great social movements in modern Korean history along the lines of the peasant revolts in the early 1900s the Imsul Rebellion of 1862 Donghak Peasant Revolution the Anti-Japanese Righteous Army Movement the Independence Movement against Japanese Rule the March First Movement the independence fight of the Korean Provisional Government the April 19 Revolution the Gwangju Uprising the 1987 Struggle for Democracy and the most recent candlelight protest. That being said, the Jeju 4.3 is still characterized as a genocide. It is a unique incident because the tragedy took place on the isolated island of Jeju. The genocide was committed during peacetime, not wartime, and the victims were killed by law enforcement authorities on the isolated island. But the Incident, seen as a byproduct of the Cold War to some extent, is also imbued with international factors. Japan had something to do with the Jeju 4.3 in social and economic aspects of the Incident. At the same time, there is an issue of statute of limitations on anti-humanity crimes, including sexual assaults. So, whether and how to revise the relevant laws should be subject to further research and discussions. The victims were ideological scapegoats sacrificed by the state power in the period of national liberation. They were also scapegoats of the Cold War, the na-tional division and the segregation between islanders and mainlanders. Jeju people should never forget this painful period. The Incident was sparked by the central government’s discrimination against the islanders, so the Jeju community should make efforts to identify themselves with the spirit of the struggle. The designation of ‘April 3’ as a local Memorial Day is part of those efforts. Its memories should be passed on to the succeeding generations, so that they can “contemporize” the Jeju 4.3. To achieve “reconciliation and co-prosperity,” we should revive the Jeju 4.3 spirit of self-sacrifice under the Cold War system, national division and ideological confrontation. We do not have to torment ourselves over the unresolved issues. It is difficult to settle them all at once. I expect that we can make progress step by step and reach maturity while endeavoring to address the 4.3 issues and carry on the spirit. As the history is completed in the “passage of time and procedures,” it is important that we wait and see how our next generation would reincarnate the spirit. ● KO Hee-Bum On the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the Jeju 4.3, Korean society came up with the thematic statement, “The Jeju 4.3 is a history of the Republic of Korea.” This statement indicates the awakening to the fact that we know little about the Incident. We have been talking about how to make it a national and an international issue. I think, if we listen to the views of the foreign journalists here, we can see how it would go down in world history. ● Tim SHORROCK The Jeju 4.3 Incident and the Gwangju Uprising Through the Eyes of an American Journalist: I was surprised when I found out the Jeju 4.3 and the Gwangju Uprising had a lot in common. The Jeju 4.3 was an armed rebellion against the U.S. Military Government in Korea, while the latter was a pro-democracy struggle against the then martial law government of Korea. In both cases, the U.S. got involved in the violence committed by the Korean government. The U.S. involvement was clearly seen in the Jeju 4.3. The U.S. Military Government was behind the suppression of the rebellion on Jeju. The Jimmy Carter administration was also behind the Korean government’s bloody crackdown on the uprising in Gwangju. The declassified documents, dated between April and May 1980, confirmed that the U.S. government approved of the dispatch of Korean troops to Gwangju. Today, many citizens of Gwangju are still upset by the fact. However, civic groups did not take note of the role of the U.S. armed forces here, just taking issue with the role of then Korean general Chun Doo-hwan in the crackdown on the Gwangju Uprising. To me, that is because of the fact that the Jeju 4.3 Incident happened in 1947, when South Korea was ruled by the U.S. Military Government, while the Gwangju Uprising took place in 1980, when the coup forces were in control of the country. However, both of them had their roots in the Cold War. There is a slight difference between what the U.S. did in Gwangju and what it did on Jeju. However, it is clear that the U.S. government was directly involved in the acts of the Korean government backed by the U.S. Intervention in Korean affairs was a conventional practice of the U.S. since 1945, and it should be understood in the context of Cold War history. The two incidents were the only struggles against the U.S.-backed governments, hard to find elsewhere during the Cold War order. The two incidents provide us with an opportunity to examine the perspectives that the U.S., the Soviet and their respective allies had during the Cold War. What counts, aside from the role of the U.S., is how the Korean government oppressed the people. One of the tragic feature of the Jeju 4.3 is that anti-Communist rightists not only remained in power for a long time, but also kept a lid on the history. How many years did it take to talk freely about the tragic incident that happened in Jeju and Gwangju? The news media was not allowed to report about them from the 1980s to 1990s. The suppression of the press is something the two incidents have in common. ​● Hideaki ISHIBASHI The Jeju 4.3 Incident as Seen by a Japanese Journalist: I happened to write a news article about the Jeju 4.3 after having a conversation with a Korean-Japanese living in Osaka. Most Japanese do not know about the Incident. There were few people who had heard of it at that time. Nevertheless, the news story carried substantial weight in Japan. There is a Koreatown in Ikuno Ward in Osaka. Many people from Jeju have been living in Osaka since World War II. In the 1990s, the Korean community in Osaka was experiencing a generational shift, and the second Korean-Japanese generation began to learn about the Jeju 4.3 Incident and do something for reconciliation with the past. The second-generation Korean-Japanese planned Jeju 4.3 memorial ceremonies, and I covered a story about them. My article, the leading story in the city section of the morning newspaper on the Jeju 4.3, was published under the title “A taboo for half a century – Looking back upon the Jeju 4.3 Incident in Korea.” The article was about a woman who had no choice but to escape to Japan at the time of the 4.3 Incident. The Incident was something directly concerning the people of Jeju living in Osaka. It was painful for them to talk about the tragedy. But I thought that they could talk about the Incident because the Korean-Japanese community was going through a generational shift from the first to the second. I sympathized with the pain of the Korean-Japanese living in my country and that encouraged me to write the story. On the other hand, as the Kim Dae-jung government took office in Korea, a mood of reconciliation with the past seemed to settle in the Korean-Japanese society. I could write the story because the Japanese news media also started to show interest in the Incident. A Korean-Japanese from Jeju asked me after my article was published, “Why did you, a Japanese, write about it?” I thought Japanese people should look squarely at the tragedy as one of the parties involved in the Incident, because it broke out in the power vacuum following the withdrawal of Japanese troops from Korea and amid the distorted power balance Japanese colonial rule left behind. I walked around Osaka’s Ikuno Ward every day from 1997 to1998 to learn about the Korean community and the Apr. 4.3. I thought it would be more important to describe the overall feature of the community of Jeju people in Ikuno Ward than to merely collect testimonies from them. ● KO Hee-Bum I would like to say that Mr. Shorrock seems like an investigative journalist with scholarly insight, whereas Mr. Ishibashi appears to be a journalist with a warm heart who knows how to thoroughly probe the wound as to heal it. ● KWON Hyukchul Like many other mainlanders, I was not previously interested in the Jeju 4.3. It was ten years ago, when I was walking along Jeju’s Olle Trails, that I started to think hard about it. At first, I noted the beautiful scenery. After walking on the trails several times a year, I came to know that there are many sites of the April 4.3 massacres along the trails and started to feel the suffering of the victims. I asked myself why I did not know and why I, as a journalist, was not interested. I soon found myself looking for books about the Incident. I was much surprised when I came across Mr. Ishibashi’s article. I felt ashamed to find that a foreign journalist was more interested in and knew more about it than I. I felt sorry for myself as a journalist for being ignorant and doing nothing about it. The Jeju 4.3 has been a taboo subject in Korea for the last 70 years. We are discussing ways to make it a national and global issue. Recent surveys show, however, that it has yet to become one. It is still considered just a past of Jeju Island. The motto, “The Jeju 4.3 is a history of the Republic of Korea,” adopted by the National Committee for the 70th Anniversary of the Jeju 4.3 Incident paradoxically testifies to the reality that the tragedy is still seen only as a history of the remote island, not of the Republic of Korea. I would like to ask Mr. Ishibashi how he came be interested in the Jeju 4.3 Incident, how Japanese people perceive it and how much coverage the Japanese media has allotted it as a news item. And I would like to ask Mr. Shorrock how the U.S. Military Government or the U.S. government was related to the Jeju 4.3. Why did the former president Roh Moo-hyun mention the Cold War when he formally apologized for the massacre on behalf of the Korean government? It was because the Jeju 4.3 was inseparable from the then Cold War order, I believe. The fact-finding report on the Jeju 4.3 published by the Roh Moo-hyun government in 2003 support this view. The government report indicated that the U.S. Military Government and the U.S. Military Advisory Group were culpable, holding them accountable for the losses of lives during the Incident. American Professor Bruce Cumings claimed that the U.S. was responsible for the Incident as a whole, while John Merrill said that the U.S. was responsible until the Republic of Korea was established in August 1948, but afterwards, the government of Syngman Rhee should have been held accountable for it. I would like to ask you for your opinion, Mr. Shorrock. ● Hideaki ISHIBASHI I covered the story about the Jeju 4.3 partly because I wanted to portray it in the eyes of the Korean residents in Japan. The existence of Korean-Japanese in Japan might be called a byproduct of Japanese colonial rule. They might be entitled to the compensation of the Japanese government for the violation of their human rights. I have covered their story as a mirror of Japanese society. I wrote about what they had in mind about the Jeju 4.3 and what was in the background of their migration to Japan. I am not saying that there was no Japanese news media which delivered the Korean-Japanese version of the Jeju 4.3 story. The regular memorial ceremonies have been reported in Japan whenever they were held. Many news outlets did not fail to report about how Korean-Japanese paid tribute to the victims of the Incident. It is true, however, that many of them still think it is an unpopular subject that only concerns a small group of Koreans living in Japan. I feel sorry about that. After all, we should admit that the root cause of the Incident lies in Japanese colonial rule. ● Tim SHORROCK It seems that you have cited John Merrill’s report, “The Cheju-Do Rebellion,” to point out the U.S. government’s responsibility for it. Jeju was labeled as the “Reds’ Island” after the Korean government was established in 1948, and I suspect the U.S. has been involved in the stigmatization of the island. It is not certain whether the U.S. involvement was direct or not, but I believe that the U.S. still got involved in the crackdown on the leftists in different ways and tacitly allowed the Japanese-trained police to continue to serve the government after national liberation. The Cold War order dominated Korean society. Koreans wanted independence and reunification but ended up with unwanted national division. It was due to the policies of the U.S and other world powers. So, it is not a matter of whether the U.S. was involved in it directly or indirectly. I still believe that the U.S. has been fully involved in the tragic incident. ● KO Hee-Bum I believe the reason we delve into the tragedies of the past is that it is a procedure we have to go through to move toward a new future. The same is true for relations between countries. It is necessary to find truth in the past to move toward a new and friendly partnership. I hope that the Jeju 4.3 as discussed in today’s session will go down in world history as one of the resistance movements against unjust state violence. Policy Implications • Also, we should endeavor to make the Apr. 3 Incident better known around the world. These efforts should include support for exchanges among local governments, art and culture circle and academic organizations, in addition to the issue of educational material and translation of the historical texts on the Jeju 4.3 in foreign languages. On the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the Incident, we should consider a world-tour exhibition of Jeju 4.3 in cooperation with world-famous museums to globalize the historical incident, in addition to the one-off exhibition organized recently by the National Museum of Korean Contemporary History. • The perceptions about the Jeju 4.3 vary among Koreans, foreigners, islanders, mainlanders, the generation that experienced it and those that did not. The perception gap would widen as time passes. And such a gap will be a major obstacle to understanding the Jeju. 4.3. Thus, the efforts to close the perception gap are necessary, among others, to have the Jeju 4.3 go down in world history, and the government should support it with its policies. • Also, we should endeavor to make the Apr. 3 Incident better known around the world. These efforts should include support for exchanges among local governments, art and culture circle and academic organizations, in addition to the issue of educational material and translation of the historical texts on the Jeju 4.3 in foreign languages. On the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the Incident, we should consider a world-tour exhibition of Jeju 4.3 in cooperation with world-famous museums to globalize the historical incident, in addition to the one-off exhibition organized recently by the National Museum of Korean Contemporary History.​

  [caption id="" align="alignright" width="149"] Sukin JangResearcher in the Department of International Relations, University of Seoul[/caption] During the Cold War, there were islands in East Asia that were the scenes of brutal ‘hot wars.’ Though the Cold War ended almost thirty years ago, the deep scars and painful memories of war and violence have left lasting legacies here. These are the so-called ‘Islands of the Cold War’ such as Okinawa, Jeju Island, Jinmen Island and Yeonpyeong Island. These islands show that, throughout the Cold War and into the post-Cold War era, discourses of war and peace at the regional and global level can be experienced completely differently at the local level. One of the most iconic embodiments of this is Jinmen Island, located between China and Taiwan. Contrary to regional and international political changes, Jinmen Island continues to carry the memories of the Cold War and the battles that took place there.   Jinmen Island was a ‘Hot War in the Cold War’ in which military conflict and confrontation continued from the Chinese Civil War in the 1940s to the Cold War in the 1950s and 1960s and to US-China detente in the 1970s. Beginning with the October 1949 Battle of Guningtou (古寧頭) between the People's Liberation Army and the Nationalist Army, the Island was the site of intermittent battles until the Korean War in 1950-53. After the end of the Korean War, during which China’s attack on Taiwan had been temporarily suspended, a massive bombardment began again in 1958 followed by periodic, intense battles and skirmishes for 21 years until 1979, when the United States and China established diplomatic relations.   In the 1970s, there was a renewal of peace and reconciliation in Northeast Asia. The United States began to improve relations with China. With its reform and opening up policy, China began to play a positive role in promoting friendly foreign relations with neighbouring countries, including Taiwan. In addition, Taiwan created a peaceful atmosphere both at home and abroad by reducing military tensions with China and undergoing democratization. However, it seems that Jinmen Island's own Cold War has continued as a way to strengthen the memories of military confrontation and to emphasize Taiwan's existence and identity. In the 2000s, Jinmen Island began to restore peace to its daily life and move beyond the memory of war. People-to-people and market exchanges between China and Taiwan had been gradually developing since the 1980s but took off in earnest in the early 2000s. Jinmen Island, a military battlefield between China and Taiwan, became the starting point for bilateral reconciliation and cooperation.   The military facilities and fortifications on Jinmen Island that housed war materials were redeveloped as cultural and tourism resources that recalled the history and memories of past conflicts. The old and rusty shells left over from massive bombardments became local specialties that saved the economy. Millions of Chinese tourists have become the main customers of the tourism industry and the economy’s lifeline. In addition, the government and local enterprises made efforts to develop industries that utilize the Island’s natural ecology, geography and cultural heritage to revitalize the local economy and improve livelihoods. Through these efforts, Jinmen Island has been transformed into an 'Island of Peace' since the Cold War.   Jinmen Island, which has fostered peace in daily life out of the battlefields of the Cold War, symbolizes the transformation of cross-strait relations between China and Taiwan from hostility and confrontation to reconciliation and exchange. The island, previously at the forefront of military conflict, was able to further expand exchanges and cooperation as it became a link between China and Taiwan. The local interaction and ties between Jinmen (金門) and the city of Xiamen (廈門) across the sea in China have progressively expanded into the mainlands of both countries. Jinmen Island was once a vertical barrier between China and Taiwan as a symbol of the Cold War, but it has since become a horizontal bridge connecting the two. It might be said that Jinmen Island has succeeded in becoming an 'Island of Peace' from an 'Island of the Cold War'. It is now making peace a part of daily life while preserving the natural ecological environment and revitalizing local communities.   Jeju Island, the 'Island of World Peace', also needs to make a contribution to creating and promoting peace in Northeast Asia and at the global level, just like Jinmen Island. Jinmen Island shows how expanding exchanges and cooperation between China and Taiwan can be a virtuous cycle in which everyday peace is achieved at the local level. Jeju Island has been acknowledged as an island of peace both domestically and internationally. In order to make its image of peace more persuasive, Jeju Island should seek to play a leading role in building peace on the Korean Peninsula and inter-Korean relations as well as at the regional level.   There are lessons for Jeju Island and the Korean Peninsula in how Jinmen Island has changed from a 'Island of the Cold War' to an 'Island of Peace'. Jeju Island could similarly move from 'Cold War and Division' to 'Unification and Peace'. Jinmen Island also demonstrates the power and possibility of peace discourses that begin at the urban and local level.   First of all, Jinmen Island is a region where bilateral exchanges have begun with the active support of the local and central governments. It has become a beautiful and historic tourist resort that showcases unique local attractions and features, thus enhancing the image of 'peace'. In addition, by developing a tourism industry and local specialty products, it has evolved into a place that revitalizes the local industry and economy and provides high-quality social welfare services throughout the region.   However, Jinmen Island has not played a leading role in forming a peace discourse at the city and local levels by sharing the historical pain of war with other regions. It has focused on pursuing economic benefits through the development of tourism resources and industries that use the image of ‘war’, rather than explaining the history of the Cold War and the importance of ‘peace’ and ‘reconciliation’. It has also unfortunately been engaged in forming networks related to discourses on war and peace, not only within the regional level but also with outside parties.   The exchanges initiated at the local level have both positive and negative aspects. Communication and cooperation through low-level exchanges can potentially promote peace on some issues, but if it solely concentrated on the economic side, it is not easy to establish a basic foundation for the formation and expansion of a peace discourse. Essential to the notion of a peace discourse at the regional level are the clear limitations from systemic differences or political hostility. Despite the fact that exchanges and cooperation started from below could serve as a driving force to a peaceful atmosphere and proceed to a higher level, it is not easy to overcome closed perspectives at the national or global level. For instance, while a majority of exchanges and cooperation between Jinmen and Xiamen have focused on economic aspects, there has been little discussion between the two sides on raising awareness of war and peace, discussing the need for overcoming and healing historical wounds, and informing others about the importance of peace. It is difficult for two cities to go beyond the national identity of 'China' and 'Taiwan', respectively, in the process of building a discourse on peace.   It is time for Jeju Island to become an island of world peace by sharing with others the values learned from its own painful history and past isolation. To this end, Jeju Island should play an important role in forming a peace discourse at the national and global levels through a network of islands and regions that have experienced the lasting scars and legacies of war and violence in East Asia. In conclusion, the past and present experience of Jinmen Island, which has been a bridge for exchanges and cooperation, raises questions that can guide the present and future of Jeju Island. But the answer is one that Jeju Island will have to make on its own.

Le Clézio, the Nobel laureate of literature, has created a reverberation among European readers with his travelogue about Jeju Island, which was carried in a French magazine. Ten years later, he draws a parallel in his essay, “Jeju Revisited,” between his homeland Mauritius and Jeju Island as volcanic islands that have been victims of colonization by the world powers and the April 3 Incident, respectively. In the essay, he also ruminates on the spirit of Jeju, expressing his affection for the island. In this session, Chairperson Suh Myung-sook, who is called a “pathfinder” as chairperson of the Jeju Olle Foundation and has made the “26 trails of happiness” over 10 years after her return to the island, gave a keynote speech following the video message from the Nobel laureate. Actress Moon Sori, who joined the nationwide campaign, “The Jeju April 3 Incident: The History of the Republic of Korea,” and Prof. Song Ki-jeong who translated Clézio’s novella, “Tempest,” which was dedicated to Jeju Haenyeo, held a discussion on this theme. They exchanged their views on how to find a path toward reconciliation, coexistence and happiness in their talks about the remaining historical scars of Jeju islanders.   The following are excerpts from the final report of the Jeju Forum 2018.   Moderator KIM Suk-Beom Director, KCTV Jeju Broadcasting co.   Video Message Jean-Marie Gustave LE CLÉZIO Nobel Laureate of Literature in 2008   Keynote Speech/Discussant SUH Myung-Sook CEO & Chairperson, Jeju Olle Foundation        Discussant MOON Sori Actress, Movie Director SONG Ki-Jeong Professor, Ewha Womans University   ● LE CLÉZIO (video message) I am truly saddened to say that I cannot visit Jeju Island to see you. I cannot attend the Jeju Forum because health complications do not allow me to travel long distances. I really love Jeju Island. Jeju is a place that has its own spirit, courage and virtue. Particularly, the island is home to an amazing people, the women working at sea, haenyeo (women divers). Jeju is also known for its long and rich tradition of art and literature. There are also many gods, fairies and spirits blessing the island. No other place in Korea or in the world provides a venue more befitting peace talks than this island. It reminds me of Mauritius, a small country that is the motherland of my ancestors. Both people on Jeju Island and Mauritius who have waded through adversity have dauntless courage and willpower in common. In my view, Jeju is a very special and important place, as it can usher in peace in the future and contribute to the advancement of culture and literature. There will be another meeting on Jeju for world peace, especially for the fight against all nuclear weapons. In this respect, I hope you have many successful encounters at this year’s Jeju Forum.   ● KIM Suk-Beom Anyone who lives on Jeju Island loves the Jeju Olle Trail. It is Suh Myung-sook, chairperson of the Jeju Olle Foundation, that blazed the trail. Quitting her 23-year career as a journalist, she embarked on a solitary pilgrimage to the Way of St. James (Camino de Santiago) when she turned 50. On the pilgrimage, she was reminded of her home-town on Jeju. She decided to make a “more beautiful and peaceful road than the Way of St. James” and started to blaze a trail after establishing the Jeju Olle Foundation. The foundation completed opening a 425 km-long foot path that circles the island in November 2012. In addition to the regular 21 courses, the Olle Trail also opened on Udo and Chuja-do Islands, and even on foreign soils in Mongolia, Japan and Turkey.   ● SUH Myung-Sook I’m pleased to have this opportunity to talk about the Olle paths to those from overseas. You can circumambulate Jeju Island in 26 days by walking on 21 regular courses, constructed over 10 years, and five alpha courses. On Jeju, there were roads on which the ancestors used to tread, the way that haenyeo (women divers) took to get to the sea, and the way to schools. I connected and transformed these scattered roads into a flat trail anyone could use without difficulty. It is a multi-purpose road where you can see the nature of the island, meet the village people and discover the history, unique culture of Jeju, and haenyeo. In the earlier days, news media and many others expressed skepticism regarding the Olle Trail. It was very hard and painful, but I constantly recalled the Jeju proverb on life, “If you keep living, you can manage to live.” Now, Mongolians, Japanese and Vietnamese have their own Olle courses. I will continue to spread Jeju Olle to the world. In the earlier days, news media and many others expressed skepticism regarding the Olle Trail. It was very hard and painful, but I constantly recalled the Jeju proverb on life, “If you keep living, you can manage to live.” Now, Mongolians, Japanese and Vietnamese have their own Olle courses. I will continue to spread Jeju Olle to the world. ​   ● KIM Suk-Beom You all are known to have deep affection for Jeju Island. What does Jeju mean to each of you?   ● SUH Myung-Sook When it comes to Jeju, many think about Mt. Halla. But, it is all about the sea. I am always reminded of the sea, possibly because I have lived near the Seogwipo coast. Whenever I see the sea, I feel much relieved. The better part of what raised me was the wind. Hence, when it comes to Jeju, it is all about the sea and the wind.   ● MOON Sori It has not been long that I have had a special attachment to Jeju. I have walked only five Olle courses after a chance meeting with chairperson Suh, and I am just starting to fall in love with Jeju. I am from Busan. I grew up seeing the sea and feeling the wind all the time. When I was in sixth grade, my family moved to Seoul to get out of poverty. I often felt stifled in Seoul and remember a short story by Oh Yeong-su, “Gaenmaeul (The Seaside Village)” in which the female protagonist, who went mad during her stifling married life, talks to the sea. I have cried when reading that part. The sea of Busan is not what it used to be after many tall buildings were erected around Haeundae Beach. On Jeju, the buildings are mostly low-rise, with the sky remaining the old sky and land being the old land. So, it is comforting at the moment I get off the plane. Jeju is like the warm arms of my grandmother hugging me. When nestled in the bosom of Seolmundae Halmang (a mythical figure of Jeju folk tales), it feels as if I fill up the void inside myself. Now, I am developing a special attachment to Jeju.   ● SONG Ki-Jeong When it comes to Jeju, I visualize the black basalt, particularly the wall loosely built with basalt rocks. The basalt walls, the green barley fields and the blue skies are a touching scene to me.   ● KIM Suk-Beom I wonder how Prof. Song came to know Le Clézio.   ● SONG Ki-Jeong South Korea is the first country that Le Clézio visited in Northeast Asia. Since moderating his lecture, I have had a friendly relationship with him for nearly 20 years. Le Clézio loves Korea so much that he dedicated his “Tempest” to haenyeo (women divers) on Udo island in 2014 and published “Bitna–sous le ciel de Séoul (Bitna – Under the Seoul Sky)” last year. I would like to say that I contributed to the awakening of his love of Korea.   ● KIM Suk-Beom What do you think Jeju is to Le Clézio?   ● SONG Ki-Jeong Le Clézio has dual nationality as French and Mauritian. His spiritual motherland is Mauritius, which lies between Europe and Africa. He is always in touch with Mauritian culture, thinking himself as a Mauritian. His ancestors migrated from Bretagne to Mauritius during the French Revolution (in the late 18th century). Jeju Island seems to remind him of his motherlands. Mauritius and Bretagne are windy places. He seems to have felt the wind of his homeland in the strong wind of Udo Island. It seems that he thought about Mauritius, while learning about the troubled history and extreme living condition of the island. He is much interested in haenyeo, noting their virtue and courage to pioneer their lives. When he comes to Korea, he wants to visit Jeju Island. He is known to have often visited the island without telling anyone about it.   ● KIM Suk-Beom Ms. Moon, you told us that you have fallen in love with Jeju Island. What is so attractive about Jeju?   ● MOON Sori I did not come to Jeju often in the past. It is because I did not want to when I heard the stories about Jeju from the visitors to this island. All the images that I had about Jeju were nothing more than “rape flowers” and “horse riding,” so I did not feel like going. But it changed when I started a walk on the island. It might be thanks to the realization that I know nothing about Jeju. As I walked, I became aware that I did not know Jeju, and I became more interested in Jeju’s history, culture, and people. The study of Jeju history was about the history of Korea. When I met haenyeo while walking, I thought I found a role model for my own life. In the meantime, I have been asked in many interviews about which actor/actress is my role model, and I used to answer that I had no role model, as each actor/actress has his/her own personality. I can say that I have found my role model, after watching Jeju haenyeo. I wish I would become a self-reliant, independent, and communal person like haenyeo, when I grow old. I still do not know much about Jeju. I did not walk many Olle courses, either. Now, I want to know more about the inner life of Jeju, while walking more.   ● KIM Suk-Beom Are you perhaps planning to settle down on Jeju?   ● MOON Sori Many art genres allow solitary work, but the film cannot. It is a genre that requires collaboration of many people. It is almost unthinkable to do film work on this island. I am not that greedy as to monopolize Jeju. I am grateful enough for the comforts I sometimes find on this island.   ● KIM Suk-Beom As an artist who loves Jeju, what do you think Jeju should do to be loved for long?   ● MOON Sori I wish the island would stop the development modern Korea has pursued. I wish the island to do away with the “mindset seeking more grand development and more values.” When small things accumulate over time, unexpected, phenomenal effects can be the end result. I also wish the island would not be so preoccupied with the tourism revenues and the number of tourists. The island should stop quantifying its beauty and value in the development plan. Jeju Island should prepare 100-year and 200-year plans to become a land for consolation and healing. I hope that this island is loved in this way. Actors should be so. The most local has the global power. We should think about what is most local and concentrate on what we can do our best. The same is true of actors in this regard. Jeju also should give more weight to its locality. We should develop Jeju in such faith.   ● KIM Suk-Beom Prof. Song has been making strenuous efforts to globalize Korean culture, particularly literature, as well as introducing the literary works of Le Clézio to Korea. Prof. Song, what do you think is the attraction of Jeju Island? And what is the attraction of the island Le Clézio notes?   ● SONG Ki-Jeong Le Clézio is one of the most popular writers in the world. His books have been translated into many languages. Once I thought about why he is favored by many people over the world. In the modern world of materialism, his works give us insights into secular values, indifference to institutions, commwith nature and the importance of every moment as well as the vital energy to muster courage in the face of sad realities. Likewise, Jeju Island provides the contemporary people with the same realizations. In this respect, I wish the island would remain a place of consolation and healing for the people fatigued by materialism. There is nothing that gives humanity as much consolation as nature does. Whenever I see damage to Jeju, my heart hurts. I am afraid of seeing further damages. To prevent further deterioration of this island, I am engaged in the activities of Jeju Culture Supporters. It is my desperate wish that the last remaining beauty of Jeju would be preserved.   ● SUH Myung-sook I agree with Prof. Song. I remember Seogwipo of the mid-1960s. At that time, Mt. Halla was visible anywhere in Seogwipo. However, now we cannot see it, because the high-rise buildings block the view. Sometimes I had an extreme wish to blow those buildings away. With legal permission, they erect those high-rise buildings. It is deplorable that there is no law to check this kind of practice. Younger people should be wary of such reckless development lest the older generation mangle the land for the next generation. Mt. Halla and Gotjawal, the gem of Jeju Island, are being destroyed by the older generation pursuing their own interests. The younger people should step forward to put an end to this. In preserving the land of Jeju, we should help the younger people design a land where humans and nature coexist. Seogwipo is being destroyed day by day. Jo Jeong-rae, the author of Taebaeksanmaek (Taebaek Mountains) who loves Seogwipo, lashed out at the skyscrapers. It would be no use to criticize the bureaucrats only. Citizens should act, and younger people should raise their voices and admonish their parents over this. We should leave an uncontaminated land behind for the next generation. The fight for a better life starts with the protection of nature of this island.   ● KIM Suk-Beom The Jeju Olle Trail contributed much to preserving the value of the beautiful nature of Jeju. I wish more stories about Jeju culture, including haenyeo, would be known more widely. What should be known and shared by more people about Jeju culture and history?   ● SUH Myung-Sook I wish the myths of Jeju women would be shared by the public. Haenyeo is a living goddess. In addition to haenyeo which was recognized as cultural heritage, Jeju has many goddesses, such as Baekjotto, worshipped at the Songdang Bon-hyangdang Shrine, Yeongdeung halmang (goddess of wind and riches) and Seolmun halmangdae (goddess of genesis). It is a rare case to worship so many goddesses. The myth of Seolmun halmangdae symbolizing femininity that embraces nature, in particular, is very rare around the world. In the 21st century, the age of women, women should find self-esteem in Jeju myths. We need cultural works that reinterpret the Jeju myths about women against historical backgrounds. I wish younger talents would reproduce them as characters of games, novels and animations.   ● MOON Sori Actors use their whole body to act, but language basically accounts for much of acting. As a native of Busan, I am proficient in the Gyeongsang-do dialect. Also, I can speak the Jeolla-do dialect as my mother was from the province. In Korean dramas and movies, you can hear the dialects of all provinces, even of North Korean language, but it is hard to hear the Jeju language. Only once did I hear it in the film, Jiseul, which delivered it in subtitles. It indicates that there have been no film characters who speak the Jeju dialect. I wish the Jeju dialect is known better and spoken more often. I want to see poems, plays and films in the Jeju dialect to help the public familiarize itself with it. Someday, aspiring actors might practice the dialect as their special talent. Anyhow, I would like to see more cultural content rendered in the Jeju language.   ● SONG Ki-Jeong Like chairperson Suh, I am also interested in Jeju myths. Koreans do not have many myths of women. Just the Baridegi princess tale and nothing more. But I was surprised at the Jeju myths that feature many goddesses. Jeju has also the tale of goddess of genesis, hard to find anywhere else. Jeju myths have rich resources for storytelling. As the world is now interested in myths, we would have to utilize them well. Jeju is also known for its culture of shamanism. There is a reason for it. In the face of the tremendous power of nature, they had to rely on gods, thus developing the culture of shamanism. We should promote and preserve this culture.   ● SUH Myung-Sook I agree on the importance of language and myths. The use of a language is based on the pride in it. As for me, I kept on using the standard language after attending college. So I used what the Jeju people call “the noble language.” When I was young, I had no pride in using the Jeju language. While living in Seoul, I had a sense of guilt about the Jeju language. After coming to Jeju and seeing the nature of Jeju, I realized how the language was created. What could more realistically describe the mercilessly hot sunlight than the Jeju words, “warang warang.” The landscape, nature and culture of Jeju are embodied in the dialect. I wish the Jeju language would be more widely used in movies and computer games. A memorial hall for Dr. Seok Joo-myung will open next year. Dr. Seok was a world-renowned lepidopterist and an expert in Jeju studies. He visited every nook of Jeju to collect Jeju words and academically systematized them. I wish many students visit the memorial hall next year and read books about him.   ● KIM Suk-Beom What should Jeju do more to let its attractions (culture, history and tales) be known around the world?   ● MOON Sori I am now interested in the history of Jeju. We have a Jeju history that should never be forgotten. I have read a poem by Heo Yeong-seon, “To You Asking about the Apr. 3 Incident.” I felt sorry for myself because I thought that I have nothing to do with the past Apr. 3 Incident. The poem revealed the stigmatization of innocent people as commies and the National Security Law. Jeju history is a painful one but represents the tumults of modern Korean history. The anti-Japanese struggle of Jeju haenyeo was also impressive. I was surprised at their fight against the exploitation by the Japanese, which also constitutes a meaningful part in the history of Korean women’s activism. I learned from a book about the Apr. 3 Incident that Jeju has denounced the May 10 general elections, the first election to establish the Republic of Korea. The Apr. 3 Incident originated from the boycott of the general elections. We should never forget and be proud of the Apr. 3 Incident which happened in protest against the division of the nation. Jeju history dramatically represents the painful but proud history of Korea. I did not like to read history, but now it interests me more than any novel. So, I would like to advise you to study the history of Jeju.   ● SONG Ki-Jeong I came to be interested in history while studying literature. The history of Jeju is dramatic. The history of the Tamna Kingdom which once existed on this island, the occupation of the island by the Mongol Empire, and its annexation by the Joseon Kingdom read like a drama. Jeju natives around me seem to try to be away from this island but return here eventually. And they are doing something about Jeju. They have ambivalence toward the island, their birthplace, but feeling the instinctual call of the place they love the island even more for its problems. I hope that we study and understand the long history of this island against this background and in the context of the Northeast Asian region. By doing so, we can foresee the future of Jeju.   ● KIM Suk-Beom Would you please tell us three things that you think Jeju should never do?   ● SONG Ki-Jeong I do not want to see Seoul transplanted to Jeju. Those who come to Jeju do not seek the comforts of Seoul here. So, I would say Jeju should never establish undersea tunnels, cable car lines and high-rise buildings.   ● MOON Sori We should never forget the history of Jeju, its dialect and the beauty of its nature. I would do whatever little things that I can for Jeju.   ● SUH Myung-Sook I agree with the opposition to undersea tunnels, a cable car system and high-rise buildings. At the same time, I wish the historical heritages, culture and nature of Jeju to be preserved as they are. They should remain intact, without undergoing changes except for the inevitable ones for daily necessities. To protect Mt. Halla and Gotjawal is to safeguard our hearts. The best value in the 21st century is nature itself. We cannot nature even with the investment of tens of trillion won. As Le Clézio said, Jeju should be an island of peace. Every Jeju resident has an opinion about peace and a yearning for peace as they have a painful history in which one-tenth of Jeju’s population was killed. I want to see the opening of the Olle Trail for peace, when South and North Korea connect the inter-Korean railways. Korea is the only divided country in the world. I wish Jeju to become the place where the two Koreas would d eclare the end of the war. It would be a new history for the world, too. All of us are dreaming of that day.   ● KIM Suk-Beom Jeju Island is a tourist destination. Economic growth and development are necessary to improve the quality of the residents’ life. What should we do to keep a balance between growth and preservation efforts?   ● SUH Myung-Sook That is the question only the governor of the Jeju Special Self-governing Province can answer. It is not easy to control the demands of tourism. Jeju is also talking about over-tourism. It is a task for the future to figure out how to control the individual desires of residents and communities, how to treat wastes, and how to estimate the proper number of tourists. In fact, there is no answer to these questions. We would have to reach a consensus through discussions. While regulating reckless development, we should find a viable ecological tour model at the same time.   ● MOON Sori In Bhutan, they are said to limit the number of foreign tourists to 200 a year. Bhutan seems to be pursuing a value different from ours. We should first agree to settle on a value before figuring out a desirable volume of tourism for us.   ● SUH Myung-Sook As each country and region has their own environment, it is important to coordinate the opinions of citizens.   ● MOONSori We should reach a compromise while discussing values.   ● SONG Ki-Jeong I think of a measure to make it difficult to buy land on Jeju Island. Jeju natives’ development of their land as a tourism spot is different from the investment of mainlanders in the real estate of Jeju. Even in the mainland, it is hard to procure land in a village, if the buyer is not a resident there. I do not know much about the administrative affairs involving real estate, but Jeju should impose administrative restrictions on the development of real estate on this island.   ● KIM Suk-Beom Jeju women seem to have a duality of self-reliance and respect for patriarchal value.   ● SUH Myung-Sook They are economically independent and have a democratic and communal mindset. However, they are patriarchal and conservative when it comes to family. I think they have been brainwashed by the patriarchal system for a long time. They also stick to exclusivist culture, called Goendangmunhwa. It is deplorable to see them fail to sublimate the feminine energy into a social energy. I wish the future generation could do so.

  [caption id="" align="alignright" width="151"] Glyn FORDDirector, The Track2Asia/Former Member of the European Parliament[/caption] Jeju justly deserves to be seen as an island of world peace because for so long it was its antithesis. The people of Jeju were amongst the first victims of the ‘Cold War’, the ensuing civil war and the North East Asian war it became. They remained so until years the collapse of the Soviet Empire.   There has been a protracted debate between North and South, and the penumbra of academics around them, has to who started the civil war on June 25th 1950. There is little doubt that it was the North that initiated that particular military incursion. Yet by far the more interesting question has always been ‘when’ rather the ‘who’. The opening salvos of the civil war go back almost to the point of the Peninsula’s Liberation. Before the formal declaration of hostilities in the South there were years of savage repression by Syngman Rhee’s Government as he and his right wing militias and gangs of former Japanese collaborators tried to discipline and control the population in the aftermath of liberation and separation.   The population was an inchoate ideological cocktail of nationalists, socialists and Marxists in many cases imbued with anti-Western notions. Many were two or more of these at the same time. They had high expectations of the future that were not to be easily thwarted. Yet thwarted they were. Tens of thousands died in savage pogroms against progressives as hopes and aspirations were sacrificed in a bloody struggle to turn the clock back to the past. Jeju was the epitome of that process.   Effectively the island was the only part of the Peninsula not embroiled in the civil war itself but it was still its victim. Jeju was never invaded, never shelled and never bombed. A unique environment where a ferocious and covert second and more protracted civil war took place across a long decade spanning the period before, during and after the conflict of 1950-53. The subjection of the people and the real nature of the regime is laid bare uncontaminated and unobscured by the impact of that other war. The same happened across the country as with the massacre of 200,000 out of the 330,000 supposed fellow travellers dragooned into the National Guidance Alliance in the first days of the civil war. In Jeju its starkness strips it naked of excuse and justification.   On April 3rd 1948 a group from the South Korean Labour Party started an armed uprising in Jeju in protest at the forthcoming Constitutional Assembly elections which with a deeply flawed franchise was to unilaterally establish the Republic of Korea in the face of Pyongyang’s objections. The 9th Regiment of the Korean Army was swiftly sent it to resolve the situation and by the 28th April they had negotiated a reasonably amicable settlement. This was arbitrarily rejected by General Dean representing the United States Military Government in Korea.   The consequence was - under the justification of ‘false flag’ atrocities - wave upon wave of murder and massacre swept to and fro across the island that resulted in thousands fleeing for refuge in Japan and between 30-80,000 murders, deaths and executions over the following ten years. Up to a third of the island’s men were killed alongside thousands of women and children. It was only in April 1957 the killing ended when the last ‘rebel’ was officially captured.   Yet it was still not over for the people of this benighted island. In the aftermath of the armistice the surviving family members of the victims continued to be punished. They were shorn of voice to mourn and the manifestations of their suffering. Instead they and their children were denied educational opportunities, harassed by the police and authorities and designated social outcasts. It didn’t end with Syngman Rhee’s resignation. It continued under Park Chung-hee and his successors. As Hwang Sukyoung documents in ‘Korea’s Grievous War’ (2016) those trying to remember and memorialise their dead were accused of ‘anti-state activities’. They were tried and imprisoned. An elderly widow in Ulsan was sentenced to a year in prison for excavating the remains of husband and teenage daughter.   It was a half-century before the people of Jeju could publically lament their loss and acknowledge their trauma. It was not until the elections of Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun that the forces of forgetting were finally thwarted. The full horror of the South’s savage suppression of its own people and their aspirations could begin to be told. History is written by the winners. The tragedies of Jeju have begun to emerge from a past shrouded in shame and the events are becoming part of a new history embodied in memory and stone. The hidden, the forgotten and the marginalised are finally emerging as the winners on an island whose past makes it all too appropriately a place of peace. The end of the Korean War will finally bring to an end this second savage war of peace as much in need of closure as the first. Glyn Ford was a Member of the European Parliament for over 25 years, leaving the EP in June 2009. Before entering the European Parliament Glyn was a Senior Research Fellow in Manchester University’s Department of Science and Technology Policy and was at various times a Visiting Fellow/ Professor at Sussex University, the University of Tokyo and the East-West Centre in Hawaii. At the European Parliament he served on both the International Trade and Foreign Affairs Committees, particularly on dossiers related to Asia. During his time as an MEP, Glyn was rapporteur for the Free-Trade Agreement with ASEAN, for implementing the Scientific Partnership Agreement with the Republic of Korea, and he was ‘shadow’ on the EU-Japan and EU-China trade agreements.   Glyn was also a member of the Delegation with the Japanese Diet from 1984 to 2009, and the Delegation for relations with the Korean Peninsula from its creation in 2004 to 2009. Glyn was leader of the European Parliamentary Labour Party and Deputy Leader of the Socialist Group and served at various times on the Research, Technology and Energy, Justice and Home Affairs, Petitions and Rules Committees along with the Sub-Committee on Security and Defence. He was the Socialist Co-ordinator on both the Rules and Petitions Committees.   (For more information about Glyn Ford’s activities in the European Parliament, please follow the link below: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/alphaOrder/view.do?language=EN&id=1413) After leaving the Parliament, Glyn Ford founded POLINT, focusing on European Politics, International Relations and International Trade. He also continued his political and academic engagement with the DPRK and the East Asian region. These activities, which have always been conducted on a ‘non-profit’ basis, are now carried out in the framework of the NGO Track2Asia.   Thanks to his engagement with the DPRK, he is now considered one of the most pre-eminent European experts on the Korean peninsula in particular, and East Asia in general. A sample of this expertise can be seen in his books “North Korea on the Brink” (Pluto Press, 2008 and later translated into Japanese and Korean) and "Talking to North Korea" (Pluto Press, 2018).

  “Jeju Peace Island for Koreas” initiates both Six Party Talks Culture Peace Education (connected program of Jeju Peace Island Forum for Jeju 4.3 Peace in March of 2019) and Tourism Welfare (collaborated program of Global Aging Network Korea 2019 and Jeju Peace Exploration 2019) at the Grass Roots Level in Jeju Island with American, Japanese, American, Russian, French, Australian, and Korean. The goal is to promote peace building and post-conflict healing in Korea and other countries through peace education and tourism welfare as one component of peace building, privileging non-violence and enabling a space and a process through which the values and interests of the Korean peoples might be negotiated (www.jejuworldpeaceacademy.com).   The following are excerpts from the final report of the Jeju Forum 2018.     Chair/ Moderator KO Chang Hoon Professor Emeritus, Jeju National University   Presenter KANG Woo Il Bishop, Jeju Catholic LAI Jeh-Hang Professor, National Central University, Taiwan Douglas A. YATES Professor, American Graduate School in Paris Sachio NAKATO Professor, Ritsumeikan University, Japan CHENG Cheng-chen Professor, National Central University, Taiwan Anton KOSLOV Journalist/Professor, American Graduate School in Paris Michael B. RAMBAROSE CEO, Whitney Center       Discussant Christine STOPKA Board Member, East Rock Institute, USA LEE Kyung-Won Professor, Jeju National University IM Ae-Duck Adjunct Professor, Jeju National University Charles M. SMITH CPA, CohnReznick Director KOH Kwon-Il Peace Activist, Gang Peace Village WI Sung-Gon Congressman, Korea National Assembly KANG Sun Seok Director of Jeju Geology Institute OH Seong Hak Teacher, Jeju Halla Middle School WON Hyung Joon Director, Lindendaum Orchestra HAN Geum-Soon Teacher, Jeju Nam-nyeong High School PARK Young-Hye Professor, Sookmyung Women’s University   ● KANG Woo Il Jeju and peace education:  Jeju is designated as the “Island of World Peace,” but it is vulnerable to social conflicts. Permanent peace education programs need to be in place to resolve such conflicts and pave the way for all residents of Jeju to come together as one. More than 40 participants from seven countries around the world are to attend the 2018 Jeju World Peace Academy, an internationally esteemed peace education program organized by Jeju National University. I propose that we share the culture of peace by learning about the Jeju 4.3 Incident, the Gangjeong peace movement and other peace initiatives at the Academy. Let us help citizens and teachers join hands to make sure the Academy serves as a graduate school of peace studies on Jeju.   ● LAI Jeh-Hang The Meaning of the Inscription of Taiwan’s 2.28 Incident on UNESCO’s Memory of the World Register:  It is hard to talk about Taiwan’s decades-long conflicts without mentioning, among others, a tragedy that took place in 1947. It happened after a new government took office in Taiwan after Japanese colonial rule ended. It was a conflict between corrupt government officials and residents, and a confrontation between Taiwanese and mainlanders. Estimations vary, but casualties are reported to have totaled 1,500-2,000 people. I heard Jeju experienced a similar tragedy, the Jeju 4.3 Incident. I would say all these took place in the process of a power shift. We studied and taught the tragedies to remember the victims, who did not die in vain. With these efforts, we had the Taiwanese government pay compensation to the victims of the 2.28 Incident, while designating February 28 as a national Memorial Day to share the suffering of the victims and their families.   ● Douglas YATES Jeju’s Strategy to Promote the Island of Peace:  In Paris, I do research on the untold stories of the 4.3 Incident. I am not just studying about them. I am teaching about what we should do to build peace. Korea is planning to submit the documents on the Jeju 4.3 Incident to UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee to inscribe them on the Memory of the World Register at the annual session to be held at this time next year. They stand a fair chance of being listed as such because, earlier in 2011, the archives for the May 18th Gwangju Uprising were inscribed on the UNESCO Memory of the World Register. The register, an archive of records of historical significance, is distributed across the world. South Korea needs to make sure the Jeju 4.3 Incident is listed on the Memory of the World Register for global society’s research on peace. It is important to lay a foundation for peace studies on the global level by promoting inter-disciplinary research and education on peace studies.   ● Sachio NAKATO Jeju’s Six-plus-One-Party Talks Strategy:  Japan is also providing a lot of peace education programs, with most of them available in the prefectures of Okinawa, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Peace is usually taught from early ages in these regions. That is because peace education is something that can achieve its goal by going through the process of building consensus among different generations. The U.S. troops are stationed in Okinawa, and Okinawans often complain about the inconvenience the Americans have caused. I held a lecture in Japan the other day on the “Security Treaty Between the U.S. and Japan” and the “Australia, New Zealand, U.S. Security Treaty.” It was a lecture given from the American perspective. A female college student, a native of Okinawa, pointed out that the mere absence of war between world powers does not mean peace for Japan. She was against the world powers’ version of peace. That tells us that the way Asia views peace is different from the way major powers do. We should take into consideration that the perceptions about peace on Jeju, and in Okinawa and Taiwan are different. If we really want to pursue true peace, we need solidarity and a new peace concept, independent of the perspective of power politics, to protect human rights from state violence and to share each other’s pain. The Six-plus-One-Party Talks that Jeju has put forward sounds like a fresh idea to me. The Osaka Prefecture can host the talks in 2020 in cooperation with Ritsumeikan University.   ● WON Hyung Joon Talks about Music for Peace on the Korean Peninsula:  I have engaged in music performance and talk shows on the theme of peace since 2009. Music is a language of communication. Young musicians are talking about peace, and playing music for peace in harmony. Those many harmonies bond young people of different races and nationalities together. I want to deliver a peace message through music to the world. I am trying to heal the scars of the Jeju 4.3 Incident through the language of music.   ● CHENG Cheng-chen Taiwan’s 2.28 Incident and peace in Taiwan:  In Taiwan, we had pretty much discussions about what we should teach about the tragic 2.28 Incident. I believe they did too on Jeju about the 4.3 Incident. What should you teach about the tragic incident? Jeju has gone through the same pain as Taiwan has. You have the 4.3 Incident. Taiwan’s 2.28 Incident is a tragic history, in which innocent civilians were suppressed by soldiers and policemen. Learning lessons from such a painful history, we have taught ourselves, shared the suffering, and done research to discover the truth to make sure such things are not repeated again. Although Jeju is called the Island of World Peace today, it has the same painful history as Taiwan. The scars from the tragic history of Jeju, I hope, will be healed through well-organized education programs for reconciliation and cooperation. Also, I hope the sad history of Jeju will be inscribed on UNESCO’s Memory of the World Register.   ● Anton KOSLOV Six-Party Talks and the Role of Russia:  Relations between South Korea and Russia – members of the Six-Party Talks on the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula – have a special history. Russia has a great interest in promoting permanent peace in Central and Northeast Asia. Russia is making more efforts to find its own role than any other member of the Six-Party Talks. Russia has maintained a balance in the talks. I do not believe denuclearization of North Korea will be completed within a decade. And yet, I am very interested to know how quickly they will improve relations and how soon they will achieve complete denuclearization, the kind of peace all members of the Six-Party Talks desire. The recent summit between Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump has brought many changes. Russia supports the latest developments and will continue to contribute to peace on the Korean peninsula. I think it would be a good idea if Russia hosts the Six-plus-One-Party Talks in the Far East city of Vladivostok in late 2020 or 2021.   ● Michael RAMBAROSE Global Ageing Network Korea 2019:  South Korea is becoming a super-aged society, too. Healthcare of elderly people is looming as a challenging issue. Many studies are being carried out in the U.S. as part of efforts to reform the care programs for the elderly. Through these programs, elderly citizens in 30 countries across six continents are receiving healthcare services. The worldwide population aged 60 and older is projected to reach about 1 billion by 2020. Studies are being conducted to improve the healthcare system for the elderly and help them feel that they belong to the community. I would recommend that Jeju National University, the Korea Tourism College and the Whitney Center host the Global Ageing Network Korea next March on Jeju, which has a reputation as the island of longevity and peace, and ultimately the “Global Ageing Conference,” in 2021.   ● Charles SMITH & IM Ae-Duck & PARK Young-Hye & BOO Eun He Jeju Talks about Combining the Kim Mandeok Culture and Global Ageing Network Korea 2019:  We agree on the idea of South Korea building peace through cultural education. We believe that the philanthropic culture of Kim Mandeok, coupled with Jeju’s commitment to women’s rights and world peace, will help in bringing peace to Northeast Asia. The Global Ageing Network Korea 2019 slated for next March will be a landmark event, if it is combined with the philanthropic culture of Kim Mandeok on the global stage. We would like to assist in international exchanges between Jeju National University, the East Rock Institute and Yale University.   ● Christine STOPKA Convergence of Oriental and Western Cultures:  I was ten years old when I left Korea for New York. I experienced a wide range of cultural diversity there. I learned about cultural differences as I interacted with people. I also had a chance to teach about peace. As we talk about peace with each other, we sometimes find ourselves standing on the opposite side of the fence on certain issues. Going through these processes, people get to understand each other better and share each other’s stories. There are differences between Eastern and Western cultures. However, the East and West share the same practice of making efforts to understand one another and talk about peace. Jeju culture, represented by “bulteok” (a rest place for Jeju haenyeo) and jeongnang (the front gate of a traditional Jeju house) in Seongeup Historic Village, was impressive. If the Global Ageing Network Korea 2019 is held to discuss the unique culture of Jeju, I will do my best to support it.   ● KOH Kwon-Il Policy Shift toward Promoting Gangjeong as the Port of Peace:  As inter-Korean relations have improved, I suggest that Gangjeong Port be converted back into a civilian-military complex, as planned before, to start a cruise tour service. In a related move, Rep. Wi Seong-gon of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea pledged to establish an international graduate school of environmental studies at Gangjeong Village in cooperation with Jeju National University, a plan I support. I hope the school will be set up in Gangjeong or Seogwipo.   ● KANG Sun Seok Asian Standards for Use and Preservation of UNESCO Global Geoparks and World Natural Heritages in Connection with the Establishment of the ASIAPARC Federation:  There are some problematic issues with the management of the World Natural Heritages of Jeju such as the extreme commercialism and bureaucratic interference since 2012. To address these problems, I think, we should consider introducing an independent organization modeled after the Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe. We need to completely re-examine the way Jeju heritages are managed. Among recent issues are the controversies about an access road to Sanbang Mountain and the installation of a pedestrian bridge over Yongmeori Beach.   ● HAN Geum-Soon “Cherry Tree & Peace Culture Festival” of Jeju National University and American University:  According to a U.S. Congressional document, an American senator announced in a speech on March 29, 1943 that the cherry trees planted around the Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. were found to have not originated from Japan, but from South Korea’s Jeju Island. Decades later, on April 20 this year, students and faculty members of Jeju National University visited Washington D.C. to attend the Jeju 4.3 Reconciliation Conference. After the conference, they stopped by Capitol Hill to see the flowering cherry trees from Jeju, and American University, which has a stone grandpa (Dolhareubang) from Jeju. During the visit, they proposed the two universities hold a cherry tree-themed culture festival on Jeju, which deserves support from the island.   Policy Implications   ● Peace education serves as global infrastructure for building peace and easing tension through civic initiatives. Let us promote the Jeju World Peace Academy of Jeju National University as an international education program that might be joined by Japan, the US, Switzerland, Hong Kong, France, Australia and other countries. If Jeju succeeds in launching the Six-plus-One-Party Talks in March next year within the framework of the World Peace Academy, it will upgrade the civic diplomacy of Jeju and its global profile.   ● Jeju is the island of longevity. Jeju is also a place of tragic history, the Jeju 4.3 Incident. Most of the victims of the incident are very old now. That means they are fading into history without having their trauma treated. The Global Ageing Network Korea 2019 might provide us with an opportunity to heal their pain, move toward peace and solidify the cultural identity of Jeju. If the Global Ageing Network Korea 2019 is held jointly with the Six-plus-One-Party Talks in March next year, we might introduce the Jeju bulteok culture and jeongnang tourism network to North Korea.   ● It is expected that it will take up to ten years to have a documentary heritage of the Jeju 4.3 Incident listed on UNESCO’s Memory of the World Register. Jeju Special Self-governing Province also unveiled its roadmap for the project. We propose that Jeju National University conduct a joint research with Taiwan universities and the American University of Paris, as well as seek cooperation with other relevant institutions.   ● As the management of Jeju’s World Natural Heritages and Geoparks of UNESCO remains in disarray, there should be a measure to address this issue by establishing an international graduate school of environmental studies in Seogwipo or the ASIAPARC Federation.

  [caption id="" align="alignright" width="159"] Hun Joon KimAssociate Professor in the Department of Political Science, Korea University[/caption] The Jeju 4.3 events (4.3 events) is a series of communist armed uprisings and counterinsurgency actions that occurred between 1947 and 1954 in the region of Mt. Halla on Jeju Island. The counterinsurgency strategy was extremely brutal, involving mass killings, arrests, detentions, torture, and forced relocations, which resulted in an estimated 30,000 deaths. As of October 2018, the government officially announced that 15,483 victims and 61,030 family members of the victims had been identified.   After many years of advocacy by victims, families, local activists, students, and journalists, the National Commission for Investigation of the Truth about the 4.3 Events and Recovering the Honor of the Victims (4.3 Commission) was established in 2000. The path to the establishment of the commission was a long and arduous one. The first effort that the commission made was to launch an investigation, which ended in 2003 with the release of the final report. Since the release of the report, the commission focused on identifying victims and restoring the honor of victims.   It started with President Roh Moo-hyun’s official apology in 2003, which marked the first presidential apology for the abuse of state power in South Korean history. President Roh visited Jeju again in 2006, participated in a memorial service for the victims, and issued a further apology for the abuse of state power. Subsequently, the 4.3 Commission has focused on identifying victims, exhuming mass graves, and carrying out various commemoration projects, including the establishment of the permanent Jeju 4.3 Peace Foundation, the Jeju 4.3 Peace Memorial Park and Museum in 2008.   Along with these efforts, there was a parallel move to make Jeju as the World Peace Island. It was initially started as a local initiative and President Roh officially declared Jeju as the World Peace Island in January 2005. Among three main goals of making Jeju the World Peace Island, the second one was about exploring and disseminating the lessons from the 4.3 events in Jeju, particularly through promoting peace by transforming the tragedy of the 4.3 events into reconciliation and coexistence.   However, peace is a universal concept while the 4.3 events are particularistic and historically bounded events. What is the link between the 4.3 events and peace? To answer this question, I address the following question: Which aspects of the 4.3 events should be emphasized in the Peace City Initiative?   The 4.3 events have been understood using two concepts – the uprising and the massacres. The first aspect is to view the 4.3 events as a legitimate uprising against the repressive US military government and the South Korean regime. From this perspective, the 4.3 events are viewed as a unification movement. The second aspect is to see the 4.3 events as civilian massacres of Jeju residents by the military, police, and paramilitary groups. The 4.3 events, from this perspective, are understood as a human rights crisis. From this perspective, the 4.3 events are understood as a dark and painful history.   I contend, however, that each perspective represents the partial truth of the 4.3 events. Certainly, uprising against repressive regimes and civilian massacres both contain universal elements and can be linked to peace. However, I find both views have limitations and suggest the third understanding, which is to see the 4.3 events as sees as a movement for peace and justice.   The 4.3 events are not just a historical event that happened between 1947 and 1954. It was only the beginning of long movement toward peace and justice. Victims and activists in Jeju have successfully addressed the past abuses through seventy years of consistent and painful activism. This story, including the ups and downs of the process, should be the core contents of the Peace City Initiative.   Seventy years of this movement was not easy at all. The movement for peace and justice occurred under suppression by consecutive anti-Communist authoritarian regimes. Even after democratization, however, repression continued.   For examples, between February 2008 and May 2017, victims and activists faced the return of the conservative regimes of Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye. Lee Myung-bak criticized the 4.3 Commission immediately upon assuming office, attempted to close down the commission, and greatly reduced its budget. The situation of the 4.3 Commission was no better under Park Geun-hye who considered any attempts to uncover past historical wrongdoings as a “personal offensive” against her.   However, even during those difficult times, the Jeju society effectively resisted this pronounced repression and made important and significant achievements, such as resisting the government’s effort to close down the commission, thwarting legal challenges by conservatives, and progressively revising the law to proclaim April 3rd as a national memorial day for the Jeju massacre.   With the inauguration of President Moon Jae-in, Jeju society is beginning a new phase and is awaiting another leap in the movement for peace and justice. The Peace City Initiative should commemorate this persistent and consistent movement by victims and activists. Only through these local and grassroots efforts can peace and justice be achieved in countries torn by gross and systemic human rights violations of the past.   By Hun Joon Kim (hunjoon7@korea.ac.kr)   Hun Joon Kim is Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science in Korea University. He has research interests in human rights, transitional justice, and international relations. He is the author of The Massacres at Mt Halla: Sixty Years of Truth-Seeking in South Korea (Cornell University Press 2014) and a co-editor of Transitional Justice in the Asia Pacific (Cambridge University Press 2014).

Amid mounting political economical regional tensions around the world, easing conflict by cooperating on international exchange among local governments, cities and international organization especially Global Peace Cities and seeking for the way of expanding Peace to the world by sharing the cases of Global Peace Cities at the Session. The following are excerpts from the final report of the Jeju Forum 2018.   Chair/Moderator KANG Kun-Hyung Professor, Jeju National University Keynote Speaker WON Heeryong Governor, Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Speaker/Discussant Thomas SCHNEIDER Director, Erich Maria Remarque Peace Center Akitoshi NAKAMURA Director, Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum Enrique LAHMANN Global Director, IUCN   ● Won Hee-ryong Establishment of a Peace Vision for Northeast Asia Through the Alliance of Peace Cities: Jeju Island has made strenuous efforts beyond the region¬al and national levels to build peace in Northeast Asia. Local governments and nongovernmental or¬ganizations can contribute to peace as much as states do. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has succeeded in making the Trea¬ty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) adopted by the UN last year and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year for its role in the adoption of the long-pending TPNW. Given this civil society coalition, the city which has a potential role in build¬ing peace can be as powerful and important an actor as the central government. If exchanges between cit¬ies and among citizens are promoted, it can ease the conflicts between states and improve their relations. By strengthening solidarity and cooperation with peace cities around the world through urban diplo¬macy, the city can revitalize its infinite potential and will open the door to unprecedented peace. Jeju aims to build a “World Peace Cities Solidarity” with other peace cities through its municipal diplomacy as well as spreading the peace culture more vigorously with peace cities around the world. Municipal diploma¬cy can contribute to peace in a more effective way. Friendly cooperation between cities can improve the relationship between countries. Jeju will strengthen its solidarity with other cities aspiring for peace. As the consecutive summit meetings between the two Koreas and the U.S. and North Korea eased the preceding 70 years of tension on the Korean penin¬sula, Jeju will actively pursue municipal diplomacy to settle peace here at this opportune moment. Jeju will also strengthen solidarity and cooperation with North Korean cities to promote peace. North Korean cities are important partners and collaborators in the municipal diplomacy to promote peace. As Jeju has maintained amicable ties and built trust with the North through the inter-Korean exchange project that donated mandarin oranges to the North for 12 years starting with an initial campaign in 1999, it will help Jeju to take joint action with North Korean cities for peace. For peace on Earth, the cities should strive to safeguard peace together by solidifying the intercity alliance. To practice peace with the alliance, it is necessary to overcome various differences in na¬tionality, culture and tradition, and share awareness through uninterrupted dialogue. Jeju will spare no effort to continue dialogue and cooperation in the long journey towards peace. ● Thomas SCHNEIDER Peace Culture of Tolerance and Di¬alogue: It is said that they opened the new era of peace culture of tolerance and dialogue when the Westpha¬lian Peace Treaty, which ended the religious war in 1648, was concluded in the West Osnabrück city of West Germany. During the Second World War, 80 percent of the city of Osnabrück was destroyed, and more than 15,000 British soldiers and their families have lived there for 40 years since 1945. These his¬torical experiences have promoted dialogue between past enemies and understanding of each other. Like many other cities in Europe, the city of Osnabrück has a “twin city” relationship with other cities of France, England and the Netherlands. These twin cities ap-point ambassadors who serve as main actors in the citizenry-led exchanges and dialogues. Osnabrück has sought to establish its image as “a city of peace” since the early 1980s, and in 1998, it celebrated the 350th anniversary of the Westphalian Peace Treaty on a grand scale. These activities are taking place in a bottom-up rather than top-down manner. The city of Osnabrück is populated by a people of more than 160 nationalities and is home to various religions. They believe that the real politics cannot bring global peace. But the people are preparing blueprints for another type of communities. They focus on interreligious dialogue on an international and a national level. In recognition of Germany’s historical responsibility, they make effort to put an end to the prejudices espe¬cially against Muslims and Islamic culture through dialogue and education. The German writer Erich Maria Remarque is cited as one of the pillars of the peace spirit of Osnabrück for his activities commit¬ted to peace. Remarque resisted adamantly to the oppressive political and cultural attempts to diminish civil rights and the value of freedom and civilization, and to other barbaric practices. Remarque pointed out in his works that individuals are responsible for their action and its consequences. He insisted that the responsibility cannot be shifted to other organizations such as churches and political parties, or movements or ideologies. In this vein, Remarque’s thoughts have become a blueprint after which individuals should perform their roles in war, crisis and immigration, as well as establish the value of humanism. The city of Osnabrück, where Remarque grew up, has a long tradition of religious tolerance and dialogue, and his conviction and assertions can serve as an ideal basis upon which public and private organizations promote peace. The city of Osnabrück has broadened the scope of its twin city activities around the world by tapping into Remarque’s concept of peace. A small city with a small budget and a population of only 160,000 will not be an important agent in global politics. However, the city was content with its public image as a city of peace and has delivered trustworthy and respectable messages to the world. These messages address the conflicts of the contemporary world, which have no precedent in the historical events in Germany or Europe and remain beyond the scope of the Westphalian Peace Treaty. As a city of peace, Osnabrück is promoting the value of independence, tolerance and humor as well as engaging in activities for peace. ● Akitoshi NAKAMURA The Peace Vision of Nagasaki City: An atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki at 11:02 am on Aug. 9, 1945. In a flash, the city became heaps of ashes, 74,000 people died, and 75,000 people were wounded. Based on this experience, Nagasaki City aims to achieve six goals of peace building. The first is to let the actual risks of nuclear weapons be known around the world. Testimonies of atomic bomb victims are available at the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum. The second is to discuss peace in terms of human security. It is important to visit the site where the atomic bomb was dropped and see what happened to people under the mushroom cloud, and it is nec¬essary to discuss peace in terms of human security aspects. The third is to suggest a move forward for nuclear disarmament. For the advancement of disar¬mament, we support the “Nuclear Free Zone in North¬east Asia.” The fourth is to expand the peace network jointly with the Mayors for Peace, the National Coun¬cil of Local Authorities and the Nagasaki Peace Cor¬respondent. The fifth is to manifest the goals of peace building. The Nagasaki Peace Declaration is read to the public on the anniversary of the atomic bombing on Aug. 9 every year. The sixth is to produce human resources to build peace. To encourage youths to join the movement to abolish nuclear weapons, the city launched the Nagasaki Youth Delegation. The 2017 Nobel Peace Prize was given to the non-governmen¬tal organization, ICAN, which voiced the following quote: “Our individual voices for peace, though weak they might be, can bring about worldwide changes, if we make concerted efforts in firm resolution.” ● Enrique LAHMANN Peace and Nature Preservation Should Go Hand in Hand: Costa Rica, known as a country of peace, abolished the death penalty in the 19th century and decided not to have an army in 1948. Costa Rica established the UN Peace Uni¬versity 40 years ago and a peace park to conserve tropical nature 10 years ago. The Peace Cities have the following characteristics in common. They are the municipalities that have the experience of ending wars with peace treaties research institutes which have made outstanding research achievements for peacekeeping and recipients of the Nobel Peace Prizes. There are also war-ruined cities striving for peace and those with historical figures who advo¬cated peace. Cities with an important peace institute are known as peace cities for their international conferences on peace or famous research institutes and peace training institutions. Also, there are cities that have become peace cities by realizing peace in a multi-polarized society with various religions and by preserving important peace-related documents. I want to add another dimension here. It is peace with nature. In this context, I would like to ask you to take note of the World Environmental Hub, launched jointly by Jeju Island and the International for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources(IUCN) under the leadership of Governor Won Hee-ryong and with the technical support of IUCN. The World Environmental Hub initiative will play a crucial role in protecting the ecosystem and pro¬moting sustainable development of cities and local governments. As measures to address the problems of urbanization, the initiative suggests nature-based solutions and investments in nature, demonstrat¬ing to the local governments that such measures promote economic prosperity, social welfare and peace. Nature-based solutions enable sustainable development. IUCN is well aware that many deci¬sions affecting biodiversity are being made at the lo¬cal-government level. It supports and encourages the efforts of the municipalities to restore what Earth’s environment provides. To restore and preserve the global environment, government, private businesses and the scientific community must work together. Our goal is to make the usefulness of this solution known around the world. Policy Implications • It is difficult for central governments to cooperate with one another, but it is easy to forge cooperative ties between local gov¬ernments and among civil societies. So, the cooperation between peace cities and civil societies will contribute to world peace. • Local governments, business enterprises and academic circles should make concerted efforts to solve urbanization problems in an environmentally friendly manner. • The German writer Erich Maria Remarque’s thoughts on peace are cited as one of the peace spirits of Osnabrück. Jeju Island is advised to refine its peace spirit. • To encourage youths to join the peace movement, Nagasaki City instituted the Nagasaki Youth Delegation. Jeju Island should consider the introduction of a similar system to let youths participate in the Island of World Peace activities. • It is necessary to expand human exchanges among local govern¬ments with less political import and among peace cities, in par¬ticular, to spread peace culture through international exchanges. • Peace cities should protect bio-diversity by coupling the ef¬forts to conserve the environment with their peace initiative. • Local governments, business enterprises and academic circles should make concerted efforts to solve urbanization problems in an environmentally friendly manner. ​

  [caption id="" align="alignright" width="151"] Pyeongeok ANAssociate Professor in the Department of International Relations at Daegu University and Visiting Fellow at the Jeju Peace Institute[/caption] War not only brings destruction but also common efforts by its victims not to repeat the tragedy. This was particularly true of the Second World War which left Europe emaciated and in global decline. It is no coincidence that the first endeavor to promote peace and mutual understanding in Western Europe was undertaken in the newly-created Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, West Germany). The new Republic was the result of the Holocaust committed by the brutal Nazi regime and the territorial division of Germany created by the emerging Cold War.   On 19 December 1949, a businessman named Dr. Kurt Pfeiffer proposed at a book club in Aachen, a city in the western part of the West German North Rhine-Westphalia Land (state), that an ‘International Charlemagne Prize of the City of Aachen’ be launched. People from business, academia and literary circles in the city met regularly to read and discuss new books in this reading group. Other members gave their whole-hearted support to the idea and it soon gained momentum with the drafting of a Public Declaration specifying the aim, scope and other procedures regarding the prize. The city’s mayor, bishop, the Vice Chancellor of the Technical University of Aachen, and other representatives of business and intellectual life joined in founding the organization to implement the civilian initiative. The prize was to be awarded to an individual who had made an outstanding contribution toward mutual understanding and peace in Europe.   The prize was an important symbol of peace and unity from a young Federal Republic just four years after the devastation of the Second World War. It was a small gesture by a tiny city long before it would become one of Europe’s preeminent peace prizes years later. The first European project for integration was proposed by then French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950. The proposal turned into the European Coal and Steel Community a year later involving the six member-states of France, West Germany, Italy and the three Benelux countries of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. Thus, the civilian initiative of the Charlemagne Prize started half a year earlier than the formal inter-governmental efforts of the European Coal and Steel Community.   The name of the prize itself signifies a powerful historical symbol. At Rome’s Old St. Peter’s Basilica on Christmas Day in the year 800, Carolus, a Frankish king, was crowned by Pope Leo III as the emperor of the Western Roman Empire. He was later named Charlemagne for bringing peace by vastly expanding and consolidating his incipient Carolingian Empire. His territory at its peak spanned from southern Italy through parts of Central and Eastern Europe to parts of modern Spain. His reign (771-814 AD) also witnessed a flourishing of culture known as the Carolingian Renaissance. The emperor built schools, both at royal and monasteries. He also let scholars collect and edit Latin books scattered throughout the various parts of Europe and laws of the Germanic tribes. That the city of Aachen founded the Charlemagne Prize after the dark shadows of the devastating Second World War testifies to the willingness of the German people to initiate the bringing together of West Europeans modelled on the great Kaiser, one of the unifiers of Europe.   A glance at the prize’s recipients from 1950 to 2018 reveals a who’s who of European politics, economics and culture. The prize’s first recipient was Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, the founder of the Pan-European movement during the inter-war years. A number of American statesmen such as George Marshall (1959), Henry Kissinger (1984), and Bill Clinton (2000) were also honored for their service to the European project. The fall of the Berlin Wall saw an increasing number of Eastern Europeans receive the prize, including Vaclav Havel, President of the Czechoslovakian Republic in 1991, and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in 2000. Scholars such as French philosopher Simone Veil (1981) and Oxford historian of contemporary Europe Timothy Garton Ash (2017) have also received the prize.   Over six decades, the prize has established itself as representing the integration of Europe, particularly after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. One of the factors leading to its success is the independence that the prize’s board of directors have maintained since its inauguration. As of 2018, the board has twelve members from business, academia and politics. The independence of the board in the selection of members and decision of the prize winners was reaffirmed in a joint declaration in 1990 both by the city and the society.   Since 2008, the Foundation of the Charlemagne Prize has partnered with the European Parliament to award the European Charlemagne Youth Prize. As part of an outreach effort to young people aged between 16 to 30 in the member states of the European Union, the prize is given to a team of young people who have presented projects that can contribute towards European unity. The first prize in 2018 went to the Polish team, whose program was entitled ‘Worcation’ (a portmanteau of work and vacation). Young people from the various member states participated in the education and training program at a former German prisoner-of-war camp to share and learn about the tragedy.   Aachen, the city of peace in Germany, has sister city arrangements with Arlington County in the United States, Reims in France, Ningbo in China, and Toledo in Spain to exchange ideas and share its experience. Jeju can join hands with the city in the Federal Republic.   Jeju, the Island of Peace, is unique among provinces in South Korea in that it has two charters: a citizen’s charter and a peace charter. Looking back on the tragedy of the Jeju April 3 Uprising in 1948, which left up to 30,000 people massacred by the Syngman Rhee Government with the aid of the U.S. military, both charters are striving for peace at home and abroad. Jeju has the International Peace Foundation and has organized the Jeju Forum for Peace and Prosperity for over a decade, bringing together prominent figures across the world to promote the importance of the often-fragile peace on the Korean Peninsula and in the world. In an era of thawing relations between the two Koreas after this year’s three inter-Korean summits, it is high time that Jeju reach out to the cities of peace around the world to further extend its aspirations for peace. A group of researchers at the Jeju Peace Institute and several universities in Korea have teamed up to conduct research on the activities of peace cities across the globe and share their experience with the island of peace in Korea.   By Pyeongeok AN (anpye9@gmail.com) Professor AN teaches international relations at Daegu University in Daegu, South Korea. He received his MPhil and PhD from the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. His research focuses on comparative regionalism and peace studies. He was editor-in-chief of the biannual academic journal Korean Journal of European Integration from 2015 to 2018. He is currently a visiting fellow at the Jeju Peace Institute.

Ending the Korean War and Finding Peace on Jeju   [caption id="" align="alignright" width="150"] Sung-Youn ChoProfessor, Department of Sociology, Jeju National University[/caption] The year 2018 will be remembered as a very special year for Koreans on both sides of this peninsula. Two inter-Korean summits were held at the border village of Panmunjom in April and May, and the United States-North Korea summit was held in Singapore in June. Many people were excited watching the talks. Perhaps it was because of the first ever meeting between a sitting American president and a North Korean leader, the results of which might change the course of our lives on the peninsula. President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un agreed to realize a nuclear-free Korean peninsula through complete denuclearization, improve inter-Korean relations, declare an end to the Korean War before the end of this year, and change the 1953 Armistice Agreement into a peace treaty. There were inter-Korean summits during the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun administrations, but this year’s summits have raised hopes for peace higher than ever before. We now see the dawn of a new era. For the last 70 years, we have lived under the constant threat of potential war. North Korea, as well as South Korea, had large military forces and harbored hatred and hostility towards each other. While North Korea has been under a hereditary dictatorship for 70 years, South Korean society has suffered from the authoritarian rule of Syngman Rhee and the military dictatorships of Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan. Both Koreas have taken advantage of this quasi-state of war as a tool for maintaining political power. South Koreans had to live in a “garrison state,” adapting to the regimental atmosphere of society. “Barracks culture” dominated schools and even business offices. The garrison state system was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of democracy.   From the time of the nation’s liberation from Japanese occupation until the end of the 1980s, the entire world was in a state of Cold War. The advanced capitalist states, especially the United States, regarded the Soviet and other socialist countries as enemies in tense confrontation with them. The Cold War ended after the collapse of the Soviet communist regime. However, the Korean peninsula was still under the Cold War order and yet to be democratized. The conservative forces in South Korea repressed the citizens’ demands for democratization by stigmatizing them as “Commies” and maintained their dictatorship by promoting anti-communism in the purported cause of national security. Then, after the candlelight protests, or candlelight revolution, against the government, Korean society started to break away from the status quo. This change was possible because the citizenry gave its absolute support to the Moon Jae-in government.   I hope that the inter-Korean summit and the North Korea-United States talks will lead to a declaration ending the Korean War and a peace treaty. I pray for the end of the war and peace on the Korean peninsula. Of course, I know that it will not be easy and might take a long time. But I think that a narrow window to a new era of peace has just opened. So, I hope that the two Koreas will cut down on military expenditures, strengthen economic cooperation, and allow the separated families of North and South Korea to meet again. I also wait for the day when we can visit Pyongyang or Wonsan.   Jeju Island of Peace and the Military Base Amid the easing tensions, the reconciliatory mood, and growing inter-Korean exchanges, one place remains an exception to these developments: Jeju Island. Since the end of the Korean War, there had been no military presence on Jeju Island, except for certain security forces. Since the enemy of South Korea was the North Korean army, military forces and bases were concentrated along the 38th parallel. Hence Jeju Island remained a peaceful place without the threat of war. However, over time the South Korean military have started to build new military bases in the southern regions of the peninsula, and Jeju Island was one of them.   It was the Republic of Korea (ROK) Air Force that moved first. In 1988, the Air Force announced plans to build an airfield at Moseulpo Port, Daejeong, on the island. This included plans to construct new airfields and facilities, including the Altteureu Airfield, on a lot of 6,512 km². With the implementation of this plan, three villages would have disappeared. The local residents and civic organizations of Jeju Island launched a campaign against the plan and foiled it, eventually.   Then, the ROK Navy made a similar move. In 2001, the Ministry of National Defense announced that it would build a naval base at Hwasun Port, Andeok-myeon, Seogwipo City. Residents and civic organizations protested in response and the naval base plan was cancelled. But the Navy came up with a bigger plan in the spring of 2005 to build a 396 km² base with a budget of 800 billion won to station 7,500 Navy soldiers and host 20 Navy vessels, including the Aegis ship (KDX-3), the main fighter of the fleet. The controversy over the naval base led to intense debate among Jeju residents. At first, the naval base site was Hwasun Port, but it shifted to Wimi Port and again to Gangjeong in the face of strong local opposition. Each time the naval base was designated at a certain village, the village was embroiled in serious controversies that led to the disruption of the community. The community of Gangjeong was torn apart amid the confrontation between those who agreed to and opposed the naval base for over 10 years, thus leaving indelible scars in the residents’ minds.   In March 2017, shortly after the completion of the Gangjeong naval base, the Air Force announced its plan to establish a strategic base on Jeju Island. It was to resume the earlier plan that had been suspended when the Air Force failed to implement the plan in 1988. Subsequently, the plan was included in the 1997 Mid-Term Defense Plan but was postponed due to the naval base construction. Mindful of the residents’ opposition to a military base, the Air Force renamed the base as the Southern Search and Rescue Task Force. The Air Force is also planning to start construction of the strategic base in 2021 at the site of the second Civil-Air Force airport around Seongsan. The plan has not been publicly announced, but the new airport has already been agreed upon by the government ministries in the planning stage. So, it is only a matter of time before an Air Force base will be established on Jeju Island. If the second airport is used by the Air Force and the private sector, within a decade Jeju Island will become the most important military base in Korea with both Navy and Air Force facilities. If that happens, the island of peace is likely to turn into a military base that poses threats to East Asia.   Jeju Islanders and Island of Peace   Starting with the Gangjeong naval base, the construction of the military bases on Jeju?now underway amid the thaw in inter-Korean relations?is expected to successfully lead to the establishment of an Air Force base at the second airport in Seongsan. However, the military base is not welcomed by Jeju residents. There was fierce opposition to the naval base, and the soldiers and their family members stationed at the base do not mingle with Gangjeong villagers. The children of the Navy servicemen, who settled in the village during the confrontation over the base, now attend schools far away from Gangjeong because they are concerned about possible conflicts with Gangjeong residents. This is what the ROK Navy has done on Jeju Island.   The Ministry of Defense, the Navy, and the Jeju Provincial Government did not take heed of the pain of the residents. They ignored it. The Navy even went on to demand Gangjeong residents and representatives of civic organizations compensate the Navy for billions of won in damages incurred due to delayed construction. As long as the Navy sticks to this position, it is impossible for the servicemen to reconcile and mingle with the residents.   Jeju Islanders, drafted by the Japanese Army during the Second World War, have long been subject to mass atrocities. After national liberation from Japanese colonial rule, they were massacred by Korean troops and police during the “April 3 Incident”, which occurred amid the leftist-rightist confrontation. Most of the victims were stigmatized as Communists. The victims’ families have lived with the stigma and those who witnessed the massacre were forced into silence for fear of being branded Communists. For Jeju residents, the April 3 Incident remains a source of trauma. Seventy years later, Japanese colonial rule and the April 3 Incident are still painful memories for them, and they have a fear of military troops who are associated with war and genocide. In 1997, President Kim Dae-jung said that Jeju Island should be an “Island of Peace”. Then, a group of intellectuals, including professors from Jeju National University, suggested a measure to designate the island as such, and the Jeju provincial government asked the central government to do so. In 2005, President Roh Moo-hyun officially designated Jeju as the “Island of World Peace.” It was a measure to respond to the wishes of Jeju residents to make Jeju a “place of international exchange and peace to establish a peace regime on the Korean peninsula and in Northeast Asia.” In this respect, the greatest goal of Jeju Island in the 21st century is to become “Peace Island Jeju” and to establish a “peaceful Jeju beyond the pain of the April 3 Incident.”   The Korean government and the Jeju provincial authorities failed to recognize that the naval base contradicts the island’s policy of peace. They have occasionally claimed that there is no problem in becoming an island of peace even if the naval base exists on Jeju Island. They also insisted that the construction of the naval base would help improve the economy of the island. While the Ministry of Defense tried to convince residents by relying on economic arguments, the citizens were more interested in making Jeju Island an island of peace than in economic gains. The long-running anti-naval base campaign of Gangjeong residents, civic groups, and Catholic and other religious groups, to safeguard their villages and preserve the nature of the island is now changing into a movement for the island of peace. Here, we may foresee the future of the peace movement of Jeju.   The Navy announced that it will host the International Fleet Review at the Gangjeong naval base this October. More than 30 countries’ naval fleets will gather for the colorful festival held under the official slogan of “Sea of Jeju Embraces World Peace.” Could the Navy, which antagonizes and tries to coerce residents, become the subject of world peace? It might rather hurt the Gangjeong village again, which has suffered ordeals for over 10 years. Gangjeong villagers and Jeju residents now ask, for whom does the Navy host the fleet review? Could the Navy and Korean troops truly be called the people’s troops who protect their lives and property? I doubt that an event rejected by Jeju residents can promise peace.

Jeju Island and Its Ties with UNESCO   [caption id="" align="alignright" width="152"] Suh Chung Ha   President of the Jeju Peace Institute Chairman of th Executive Committee, Jeju Forum[/caption] For Jeju Island, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has a special meaning. The UNESCO logo and that of the World Heritage Convention adorn various locations throughout the island. Jeju Island’s triple designation as a UNESCO World Heritage site, Global Geopark, and Biosphere Reserve have paved the way for the island to emerge as a world-renowned tourist destination. In addition, the folk traditions of the island have been inscribed on the UNESCO Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, including Chilmeoridang Yeongdeunggut, an annual ritual to the Goddess of the Winds, and haenyeo, Jeju’s renowned traditional women divers. It was in December 2016 that the Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage decided to inscribe haenyeo culture on the List at its 11th session. Many of us may remember how delightful it was to learn of the decision. Jeju culture is now recognized as a universal value for humanity. Audrey Azoulay, the Director-General of UNESCO, attended the Jeju Forum to deliver a special lecture on June 28. It was unusual that the head of UNESCO decided to attend this forum so early after taking office late last year. In fact, because of the 42nd World Heritage Committee session in Bahrain scheduled for June-July 2018, she was thought unlikely to participate in the forum. However, her personal aspiration to experience Jeju Island, home to five UNESCO heritage sites, has made this visit possible. The visit by the head of UNESCO had a special importance for the nation’s diplomacy as well. UNESCO has a longstanding relationship with Korea. Since the Republic of Korea joined UNESCO in 1950, it was one of the most important international organizations for South Korean diplomacy up until the country became an official UN member in 1991. In the Cold War era, UNESCO was one of the main diplomatic battlegrounds between the two Koreas. When the Republic of Korea became a member of the UNESCO Executive Board, the organization’s key body, for the first time, Korean diplomats including myself had to struggle with the persistent anti-South Korean campaign by North Korea and the Communist bloc to win the diplomatic battle. In comparison with that time, we are seeing a sea change in Korea’s status in UNESCO given the South Korean Ambassador to UNESCO is in charge of the chairmanship of the Board. The presence of the UNESCO Director-General at the Jeju Forum is testament to South Korea’s heightened status. UNESCO deals with politically and socially sensitive issues and therefore upholds its position as an important international organization for Korea. The organization is a platform where the interests of the member states often fiercely clash. For example, even the United States, though it is a superpower, decided to withdraw from UNESCO two times in the past because of its dissatisfaction with the organization’s decisions after it failed to accomplish its diplomatic goals. Korea, too, has been often engaged in intense diplomatic clashes at UNESCO with its neighboring countries over historical issues. The inscription of the five heritage sites of Jeju Island on the UNESCO lists was an outcome of the Korean government’s successful multilateral diplomacy. That is another reason why we attach importance to the UNESCO Director-General’s presence at the Jeju Forum. Last but not least, her attendance at the Jeju Forum deserves our special attention because of the Korean government’s all-out efforts to establish permanent peace on the peninsula. What is occurring on the Korean peninsula corresponds to UNESCO’s goals. UNESCO has a unique role and position in contributing to world peace by promoting international cooperation in education, science and culture. Her decision to attend the Jeju Forum this year represents the spirit of UNESCO to contribute to the promotion of peace on the peninsula. In this regard, Director-General Azoulay’s presence at the Jeju Forum, marking the first ever visit by the head of the UNESCO to Jeju Island, helped highlight the value Jeju has preserved as the Island of World Peace. Consequently, the Jeju Forum has significantly contributed to elevating the cooperative and friendly ties between the island and UNESCO to a new dimension.