Marking seventy years since the end of World War II, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe expressed “profound grief” on Friday for his country’s actions. While pointing to short comings in the statement, the Stanford scholars said the prime minister’s words represented a genuine effort to reflect on the past and provided opportunities to improve relations in the region.

The highly anticipated statement, issued on behalf of the Japanese cabinet, was closely followed by its East Asian neighbors who have raised concerns over Japan’s views of the wartime era.

Leaders of South Korea and China have said Japan has not apologized fully for crimes committed during WWII and each dispute historical narratives seen in the others’ textbooks, popular culture and other domains.

Advancing historical reconciliation in East Asia is a key research area of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. The center leads a research project, Divided Memories and Reconciliation, which has produced numerous articles and books, including a ground breaking comparative study of high school history textbooks in China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the United States.

In May 2014, the center convened an international conference “Pathways to Reconciliation” on historical issues, co-sponsored by the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat, the governmental organization promoting Japan-China-South Korea trilateral cooperation.

Earlier this year, the Japan Program asked Stanford scholars to write their own version of the 70^th anniversary statement as if they were the prime minister of Japan. The scholars’ statements were compiled into a report, published in May 2015.

Eight scholars contributed to the exercise in an effort “to understand the diversity of reasonable views on the issue of Japan’s responsibility for the cruel and violent war and Japan’s role in building a peaceful and prosperous world,” the introduction stated.

Themes that emerged in the report included a need for Abe to show heartfelt remorse about Japan’s actions during WWII and its desire to work toward a peaceful future.

Three noted Japan experts who contributed to that report offered their analysis of the prime minister’s statement issued yesterday in Tokyo.

Below are brief summaries of their analysis, you may click on each link to expand in full.

Image

Duus recognizes that Abe’s statement offers a reiteration of the statements made by Prime Ministers Murayama and Koizumi by including four key words – aggression, colonial rule, apology and remorse. Unlike past statements, however, Abe’s begins by putting war in the historical context and offers a more explicit statement of the victims of the war, not only the three million Japanese but also citizens of China, Southeast Asia and the Pacific islands. The statement can be viewed as “a small but important step toward a truce in the history wars that have raged in East Asia for the last three decades,” he says. However, Abe's attempt at reconciliation will have little effect if he does not rein in contrary actions by neo-nationalists in his own party.

Peter Duus is the William H. Bonsall Professor of Japanese History, emeritus; and a senior fellow, by courtesy, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Image

Response by Takeo Hoshi

Hoshi notes that Abe’s statement mentions past apologies expressed by the Japanese government, but has no explicit apology from the current administration. He says there are two surprising elements about the statement. The first is the length – it is much larger than predecessors Murayama and Koizumi at 1,664 words in English and 3,970 characters in Japanese. The second is the emphasis on history rather than on forward-looking components. He says it is commendable that Abe provided an expanded view of history. Hoshi notes that it is nearly impossible to satisfy everyone’s views in such a statement, as scholars witnessed firsthand when working on the Japan Program project.

Takeo Hoshi is the Henri H. and Tomoye Takahashi Senior Fellow in Japanese Studies in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies; a professor (by courtesy) of finance at the Graduate School of Business; and director of the Japan Program at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University.

Image

Response by Daniel Sneider

Sneider says Abe’s statement must be judged on following criteria: that it is a valid effort to draw lessons from Japan’s wartime past and that it contributes to the improvement of relations in Northeast Asia. He says the statement advances these goals, but there remain a few caveats. Sneider says the version of history communicated “will not satisfy many people, including many historians,” but that it does move away from the idea that revisionist Japan was in a war of self-defense not aggression. To move Japan, China and South Korea toward reconciliation, the prime minister and his cabinet must embrace the spirit of the statement in full and open the door to convening a long-delayed trilateral summit.

A version of this essay was also published by Nippon in Japanese and English.

Daniel Sneider is the associate director for research at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University.

Karl Eikenberry, a distinguished fellow at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, will serve on the Commission on Language Learning at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS). The new commission is part of a national effort to examine the state of American language education.

The commission will work with scholarly and professional organizations to gather research about the benefits of language instruction and to initiate a national conversation about language training and international education.

Eikenberry joins eight other commissioners, including: Martha Abbott, executive director of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages; Nicholas Dirks, chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley; and Diane Wood, chief judge, of the 7^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The group is led by Paul LeClerc, director of Columbia University’s Global Center in Paris.

Eikenberry, who is also a member of the AAAS Commission on Humanities and Social Sciences, contributed to “The Heart of the Matter,” a 2013 report that aims to advance dialogue on the importance of humanities and social sciences for the future of the United States.

Thirty U.S. secondary school teachers, representing 11 states and multiple subject areas, came to Stanford for a three-day professional development conference that seeks to help teachers better incorporate Korean studies in the classroom.

Korea is arguably one of the most stable democracies in the world and its economic model often praised. Yet Korea-focused curriculum in the United States rarely covers much outside of the Korean War context, leaving a potential gap in students’ understanding of the Pacific nation. The Hana–Stanford Conference on Korea seeks to change that reality.

In its fourth year, the conference offers a venue for specialists on Korea to share knowledge with secondary school educators and creates an opportunity for educators to form a cross-cultural professional network toward the vision of enhancing their curriculum with Korean studies. 

For three days, scholars from Stanford and peer institutions taught the U.S. teachers about Korean history, economy, culture and the nation's regional and global relations. Speakers included economist Yong Lee and career diplomat David Straub, both scholars at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC), as well as Middlebury professor Rachael Miyung Joo, also a Stanford alum. Teachers and students from Hana Academy Seoul, a private high school in Korea, also shared perspectives with the American teachers. The full agenda is viewable here.

Supported by the Hana Financial Group, the conference is organized by Shorenstein APARC and the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education (SPICE), a program that makes globally focused Stanford research accessible to K–12 grade levels.

SPICE’s Jonas Edman and Rylan Sekiguchi followed the lectures with curriculum demonstrations. Each teacher left the conference with a set of comprehensive lesson plans and strategies for putting the curriculum into practice.

Shorenstein APARC caught up with a few of the teachers (pictured below from right to left): Anne Schaefer from San Jose Middle School (Novato, CA), Orah Bilmes from Alvarez High School (Providence, RI), and Jeffrey Scharfen and Graham Rutherford from Cardinal Newman High School (Santa Rosa, CA). An abridged version of the conversation is below.

What has surprised you about Korea?

Anne: The process it took for Korea to have such strong economic growth—so quickly—and to understand all of the components that led to that growth really surprised me. Moving from an autocratic regime through many stages to where it is today, and the interesting role that education played in its development. Education really became a motivating factor for everybody. I found that a very unique, complex phenomenon.

Jeffrey: Hearing from scholars from both Korea and the United States about the Korean experience has given me a better sense of history. For instance, the Korean-American experience in Los Angeles during the 1992 Rodney King riots. I remember being there during those riots. For me, they were defining moments, but on the other hand, I never truly had a sense of the powerful impact it had on the Korean community.

What Korean cultural themes can U.S. students most relate to? Do your students consume Korean culture?

Orah: I teach many students from the Dominican Republic. One of the presentations gave me ideas for putting together activities for students to compare baseball in the Dominican Republic with baseball in Korea. When comparing cultures, starting with something that’s accessible allows students to develop the vocabulary needed to jump into higher-level discussions.

Jeffrey: My students are very connected to Korean pop themes. My own awareness actually comes from my own children and a student that I’ve taught who was adopted from Korea. For that student, Korean pop culture gave her a sense of identity and her interests emanated, so there was a multiplying factor and her friends became interested too.

Kimchi…you learned how to make the dish and sampled it, too. How’d it go?

Graham: I enjoyed watching and seeing how kimchi is made. It’s more than a name, it has this place in society. I’ve had kimchi before but it was neat to see and hear about its background. The variety of styles was surprising. And it was really good with rice.

Jeffrey: I love kimchi. I think I was first introduced to kimchi in 1973 and I’ve been eating it regularly since then. It’s one of those culinary pleasures that breaks down barriers and gives you an entrée into other relationships. In a way, it’s a kind of diplomacy.

Anne: The culture of kimchi as a family thing – having one’s own set of tastes and different ingredients depending on family history was fun to learn about. The conference made apparent that culinary history is important and creates an understanding of a culture.

What’s one lesson from the conference you’d share with other teachers?

Orah: I teach many immigrant and refugee students. For some, they left behind very poor countries. The information on Korea’s economic policies and history has my head spinning to have students try to “apply” the Korean economic approach to their home countries, analyze its strengths and weaknesses, and decide if one country’s approach can also work for another.

Anne: One of the tangential themes was that, despite all the talk of globalization, culture continues to exist in Korea and other countries. The Internet connects everyone, but I go to “this place” and it’s still “this place.” Culture—and the fact that we can still retain it even in today’s globalized world—is truly beautiful.

Graham: I try to get my students to not just look back at the problems they are studying but to also put themselves back into the time period—to realize that the decisions made then have to be understood in that moment in time. North Korea can be examined through that lens. And while it’s easy to look back and see the problems, it’s also worth encouraging students to look ahead and consider how the Korean divide could be solved.

Image

Japan has been actively pursuing internationalization of its higher education, and recruiting foreign students has been a major part of this endeavor. In 1983, Japan announced its plan to recruit 100,000 foreign students by the year 2000, and in 2008 instituted a plan to recruit 300,000 foreign students by 2020. Subsequent government-led projects such as the Global 30 (2009-2014) and the Top Global University (2014-2023) projects have also stipulated international student recruitment as a major requirement.

As a result, the number of foreign students in Japanese universities has increased significantly from 10,428 in 1983 to 139,185 in 2014. Likewise, foreign faculty numbers have grown from just 418 (0.8% of total faculty) in 1994 to 6,034 (6.8%) in 2014. Although the figures are still relatively low compared with those in Europe and North America, they bring a potentially powerful force for social change to a country marked by high ethnic homogeneity.

In particular, the influx of foreign students and faculty to Japanese universities creates more culturally diverse campuses, often cited as a desirable result of and a key motive for pursuing internationalization. In the U.S. and Europe, such changes have led to significant discursive and programmatic efforts to create a culture of respect for diversity and inclusion. For example, Europe has, despite its critics, consistently articulated the value of "interculturality," diversity, and respect for cultural differences as a broader discourse for European higher education.

However, this is not the case with Japan and most other Asian nations. One major reason is that Japanese universities primarily attract foreign students as a means to particular ends, such as enhancing university prestige, creating "education hubs," filling the gap in the declining college student population and improving international higher education rankings. As a result, Japanese campuses have become much more diverse than in the past. However, appreciation of the intrinsic educational value of a culturally diverse student and faculty body has not been embraced.

Our study shows a noticeable disjuncture between structural, educational and interpersonal levels of diversity. That is, Japanese universities have accepted more and more students of varying racial and ethnic backgrounds (structural diversity), but the curriculum still offers limited opportunities for students to think more deeply about assumptions concerning race, ethnicity and other individual/group differences (educational diversity).

However, despite the politeness of the Japanese, many of the respondents indicated that making friends with Japanese students is difficult, with some pointing this out to be "the hardest part about being in Japan." One foreign student seemed puzzled: "Making real friends is hard. But I don't know why." One South Korean student we interviewed provided a clue: "People here are very individualistic and very independent, I think. In my laboratory, I will be the one who will approach my lab mates, especially the Japanese. They are very helpful but I have to be the one who starts the conversation."

The Japanese government and universities have worked closely to attract foreign students but due to the lack of interpersonal interaction between Japanese and foreign students, Japan is missing out on crucial opportunities in its higher education internationalization efforts.

First, international students gain many opportunities to interact with each other and learn intercultural skills for global citizenship while Japanese students much less so. As one foreign student said, "It's a very diverse environment because we all come from different countries. We can communicate different ways of thinking and share different ideas." Yet, most Japanese students are hesitant to interact with foreign students, missing the chance to learn intercultural skills. As the number of young Japanese going abroad to study has been on the decline in recent years (82,945 in 2004 to 60,138 in 2012), the contribution of foreign students to global education in Japanese colleges will be all the more important.

Second, diversity is instrumental in promoting innovation, and Japan should take advantage of the diversity that foreign students bring to its society. Much research demonstrates the positive effects of diversity on various academic and social outcomes (ability to form out-group friendship networks, increased cultural awareness, acquiring global citizenship skills, improving the campus climate, innovation, etc.). Facilitating diversity and recognizing their long-term effects for innovation and development should be a major goal of higher education in Japan.

Finally, foreign students can be valuable social capital for Japan, especially playing the role of transnational bridges between Japan and their home countries. Many come to Japan to learn about Japanese society and economy, with plans to become a bridge between Japan and their home countries after graduation. However, due to the lack of interpersonal interaction with Japanese students, foreign students often end up interacting primarily among themselves. Thus, they are also likely to bridge among themselves, rather than with Japanese, and that is a loss, given that Japan has invested so much in attracting foreign students.

Japan wants to make its top universities "super global," but they should first realize that this requires more than simply recruiting foreigners. What is most urgent is producing "global citizens" with inter-cultural skills and that can be achieved through the creation of a campus environment and culture that appreciates and respects diversity. It should also better appreciate the value of foreign students as transnational bridges with Japan.

To achieve such goals, Japanese universities need to establish institutional frameworks or programs to promote interaction between Japanese and foreign students. For example, they should offer more courses that both Japanese and foreign students can take together. Rather than just focusing on teaching Japanese languages and cultures to foreign students, Japanese students should be encouraged to take more courses in English and also those on other cultures and societies, ideally together with foreign students. These courses can instill values of cultural diversity in higher education in Japan. Japanese universities also need to ensure that structural segregation, either between programs, courses, dormitories and campuses, isn't an obstacle for promoting greater interaction between foreign and local students.

Our focus group interviews with Japanese students show that foreign and Japanese students misunderstand each other to a great extent. Foreign students are disappointed that not many Japanese are willing to approach them, but Japanese students are afraid to inconvenience their foreign visitors with their "poor" English. Foreign students are tired from guessing what their Japanese counterparts really feel and think, or their honne, but Japanese students think it is impolite to be too frank and direct even with other Japanese, let alone towards foreign students. To reduce these and other misgivings and gaps in cultural understanding, Japanese universities need to put in place more cross-cultural programs and opportunities for both sides to come into natural contact.

In short, internationalization efforts by Japanese universities should not stop at recruiting foreigners to their campuses. Rather, fostering a tolerant, inclusive university culture where foreigners are considered full, valued members should be considered an important step toward making Japanese universities truly international.

Stanford professor Gi-Wook Shin and Yonsei University professor Rennie J. Moon lead the research project, Diversity and Tolerance in Korea and Asia. This Nikkei Asian Review article was originally carried on July 16 and reposted with permission.

The Washington Post's Anna Fifield reviewed Crossing Heaven's Border (Shorenstein APARC, 2015), a book by author and journalist Hark Joon Lee. The book details the challenges facing North Korean defectors -- their perilous escapes, the repressive regime that they seek to flee from, and for some, what life looks like on the other side.

"Lee’s book is compelling because it offers a fresh perspective on the puzzle that is North Korea. He writes about the challenges he faced in reporting on this story and the ethical questions he encountered, and the toll it took on him as a person," Fifield writes.

Sensationalist stories about North Korea often swirl in news headlines, but Lee chronicles their hardships as a firsthand witness who embedded with defectors from 2007 to 2011. 

Lee, reporting for the Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo, initially published the stories as articles, and later as a documentary on the Public Broadcasting Service in 2009. Lee's account focuses on the lives of ordinary North Koreans.

"He writes about the tenderness he sees between a middle-aged couple from different social backgrounds who fled so they could be together; Soo-ryun, who had a difficult escape but found love and had a baby, only to be struck down by stomach cancer; pretty Young-mi, who dreamed of going to the United States but then found she couldn’t even understand the English that South Koreans use," Fifield writes.

The review and a Q&A with Lee is available on the Washington Post website.