State Violence in the 20th Century and Historical Clarification

State Violence in the 20th Century and Historical Clarification

Kim Dong-choon(Professor, College of Social Science, Sungkonghoe University)

1. Past as ‘Present’

The whole country got very annoyed at Japan’s textbook distortion recently. While an atmosphere is dominant that censures the attitude of Japan for having no self-examination of her Fascist past, voices that scold the lukewarm response of the Korean Government is high-pitched. The reasons why problems like the textbook distortion still exist even now, fifty years after the end of Second World War, are due not only to the imperfect punishment of Japanese war crimes but also to the manipulation of ‘memory’ by the political powers and the intelligentsia in Japan. Undoubtedly, history textbook writing and history education are crucially important political factor influencing people’s consciousness, and this political behavior in Japan is not a simple affair next door but is directly related to peace and prosperity in East Asian countries like Korea and China, which have experienced immeasurable suffering and damage from Japanese invasion. In other words, now in East Asia entering the 21st century, whether we can put an end to this history of plunder and war in the past is directly connected to the textbook distortion problem in Japan. We confirm anew that when the past is not resolved, or ‘clarified’ it necessarily gets hold of the ankle of the future. Half of the work of planning the future is to arrange the past justly.

However, with regard to the issue of liquidating the past, South Korea is not free from this problem. Rather, South Korea is a sort of department store where we can find almost all the problems to be liquidated that we could expect and imagine. The Korean people have been victims of external powers, such as Japan and the USA, in most cases, but there are some cases when they were assailants, like in the Vietnam War. Actually, there are uncountable historical clarification tasks to be settled in Korea, such as the punishment of cooperators with the Japanese colonial government; examination of massacres of Korean civilians by the US Army during Korean War to discover the truth; regaining the impaired reputation of the sufferers and those killed; examination of massacres of Vietnamese civilians by Korean troops; examinations of interrogative death, torture, unlawful enforcement and execution; punishment of injurers and compensation for sufferers; close search for the truth about the 5.18 Kwangju Democratization Movement and related issues of punishment and compensation; and recent movements against President Jeonghee Park’s memorial.

Korea was once praised as a model of appropriate historical clarification because of the enactment of the 5.18 Special Bill. Actually, the tragic past of 5.18 seems to have been quite properly settled by the special bill, by the imprisonment of former presidents Chun and Roh, and by restoring the reputations of, and giving compensation to, the sufferers. The clarification of 5.18 was possible since the necessary processes were enacted within a relatively short time after 5.18, and Mr. Kim Dae-jung, one of the sufferers of 5.18, was elected as the President. However, the historical clarification cannot be completely done unless we can clearly remove the causes of problems in the past and create a safety measure to prevent those tragic incidents from happening in the future. In this respect, the removal of the causes of 5.18 was not achieved as much as was compensation for the sufferers. For example, there was no sufficient examination of the scenario of the 5.18 military repression and of who gave the command to fire. Moreover, the punishment of the suppressors was not exactly executed, even though 5.18 was officially defined as a ‘democratization movement.’

If we still accept justifications of the suppression of the democratization movement and the violation of individual human rights for the sake of national security, we are simply preparing for another tragic exercise of state power in the future. Recent governmental suppression of the strike in the Daewoo Automobile Company and the exercise of public power in the case of the Lotte Hotel strike last year shows the strong possibility of state violence and of violations of human rights when advocating national security and economic recovery.

2. State Violence in the 20th Century

Violence and massacres between human groups began along with civilization. On the whole, conflicts between ethnic groups have had violent aspects, and violence based on discrimination against races and religions was the most universal aspect of pre-modern societies. In the Modern Age, however, most organized violence happened in imperialist plundering, international wars, political confrontations within a country, and suppression of political opponents. In a phrase, states and governments in the modern age became the most powerful center for exercising violence.

On the whole, nation-states were born by modern wars and the modern international order. In particular, militaristic competition for hegemony and imperialist invasions produced chronic wars. It is quite valid to connect war as organized violence to the existence of the state in modern society, since mobilization of an army by conscription and mass production of destructive arms are only possible by state power. Otto Hintze accurately noted that state organization was originally a military organization for wars, so the execution of war is the most essential activity of the state. Weber argued that the modern state concentrated and monopolized private violence, so modern war, on the one hand, is progressive in the sense that it notably removed private violence and revenge from political processes. On the other hand, modern war is the beginning of anti-civilization, in the sense that it made public violence -organized wars between states – routine and chronic.

In particular, colonial invasion in the imperial age was violence itself and colonization was usually accompanied by massacres and infringements of human rights. Since then, wars in the world capitalist system have been closely related to the capitalistic economic order. The First World War and the Second World War were derived from militarism incited by imperialism. Of course, there can be some dispute about whether capitalism itself or imperialism is solely responsible for modern wars. However, if we focus on the fact that imperialism is not a simple policy, but a reflection of political and class conflicts in late capitalist countries, and, at the same time, a way of solving conflicts of capitalistic accumulation by the acquisition of colonies, then wars between nations, races, and ethnic groups in the 20th century can be regarded as products of political struggles to secure scarce resources in the capitalistic economic system, and to seize political power.

In most of the wars in the 20th century, the number of civilians killed surpassed the number of soldiers killed. For example, among one million who died during the civil war in Spain, the number of persons who died in actual battles was only 100,000 to 150,000, while 300,000 or 400,000 people were killed by terror and execution in the areas occupied by Franco from 1936 to 1944. We can confirm that wars spread more political massacres than battles. More importantly, the Spanish Civil War had an aspect of class struggle derived from social contradiction in Spain, and it eventually developed into an international war. The ratio of fallen soldiers to civilians dead in wars between 1914 and 1984 shows that there were 7.5 million fallen soldiers and 7 million civilians killed in the First World War. In the Second World War, there were 31 million dead civilians, which exceeds the 15 million fallen soldiers by more than double; similarly, 1 million soldiers and 1.5 million civilians were killed in the Korean War.

Since the Korean War and Vietnam War, state violence has originated from the establishment of the cold war system and military dictatorships. As nuclear armaments kept all-out wars within bounds, and confrontations in the cold war age made national and racial conflicts latent, military governments that seized power in Third World countries used state violence to remove political opponents under the slogan of national security and economic growth. Even though the Geneva Agreement in 1984 stipulated punishments for inhuman crimes, its unclear treatment of political massacres of compatriots within a nation paved a way to violence. Since the 1960s, widespread state violence reappeared under the flag of national security, producing uncountable victims. Ongoing examinations of state violence committed in those countries are making little progress.

3. The Concept of ‘Historical Clarification’

All kinds of terror, torture, and massacre in war and by governmental power are clearly criminal acts against humanity. However, because they are highly political actions, the criminals responsible cannot be called to account easily. Moreover, notably different judgments can be made according to who wins a war or who takes over political power. If a state that brought on a war wins, all the damages caused by the war will not be discussed. If it loses, the punishment of responsible persons may be different according to who defeated them in the war. Similarly, the examination of violence, massacre, torture, and suspicious death committed by a military dictatorship, and the punishment of the criminals, can have different aspects according to how the dictatorship was overthrown and what kind of new political power was established.

The historical clarification clearly starts with the punishment of the persons responsible and the organizations that committed those inhumane crimes. Judgments on Nazis for their inhumane and criminal activities in Germany and in occupied territories in Europe can be regarded as the finest model of historical clarification. In Nuremberg, 22 major leaders of the Nazi regime and 1,108 persons who worked for the Reich administration and Nazi headquarters were prosecuted for war crimes and inhuman criminal activities. This mission of historical clarification is still ongoing. From May 8, 1945 to January 1, 1968, the government of West Germany investigated 77,044 suspects and prosecuted and sentenced 6,192 of them. Twelve of them were sentenced to death, 90 to life imprisonment, and 5,975 to penal servitude for a definite term. Likewise, East Germany sentenced 118 war criminals to death, 231 to life imprisonment, and 5,088 to penal servitude for a definite term. Moreover, similar judgments on inhuman crimes under the Nazi regime are still in progress in Israel, France, New Zealand, Australia, and the UK. All those efforts are not for simple revenge but for preventing those crimes from happening again in human society by giving a lesson to future generations.

With regard to the punishment of war crimes, Japan has treated the issue quite differently. After Japan surrendered, the US tried to build up a cooperative relationship with postwar Japan as part of its regional strategy in Asia, and measures against war criminals led by the US in Japan were mainly tinkering. East Asian countries that were damaged by the US postwar regional integration strategy concluded peace treaties or compensation treaties with Japan, so the official punishment process of Japanese war criminals ended. In the Tokyo Trial for war criminals, which was called ‘the Asian Version of the Nuremberg Trials’ only 26 war criminals were prosecuted, while neither the responsible organizations that actually implemented the invasions, nor Hirohito, the commander of all Japanese war criminals, were prosecuted. While Germany has continuously prosecuted war criminals since the Nuremberg Trials, Japan has never prosecuted war criminals of her own accord. Instead, Japan has made every effort to claim that the trials were unlawful and wrong. Similarly, prosecutions of Japanese war criminals in the Philippines, China, and Indonesia, which were completely led by the US, were much more a case of tinkering than were the European trials. Moreover, no war criminals have been prosecuted in Korea. Rather, Korean workers who were forced to work for the Japanese army have been accused and punished as war criminals.

Neo-Nazi groups are forming in Germany, but it is very unlikely that Germany will invade other European countries again, since she clearly broke with her Nazi past. In contrast, the Denno system, though transforming its characteristics from divine to symbolic ones, still persists in today’s Japan. The Denno system is a key word to understanding why Japan is denying her crimes of the past and turning in a rightist direction.

In contrast to the fact that European integration is accelerating, military confrontations are getting more serious in the East Asian region, and US military hegemony is still formidably dominant. These dramatic differences derive from the differences in handling the results of the Second World War and its war criminals.

Even though the punishment for the massacre of Jewish people has been done quite thoroughly, it is still doubtful if it was a perfect historical clarification. If we can put an end to wars or state violence only when international society or international political communities create a new world order without wars and conflicts, then legal punishment is merely a starting point. That is, state power always has an urge to oppress its opponents and is easily tempted to take advantage of social segmentations such as differences in races, ethnic groups, and religions and regional inequalities. Unless organizations and agents who unconditionally obeyed reckless decisions made by the highest persons in power reflect on their conduct and are reborn as humans who can respect democracy and human rights, state violence can recur at any time in the future. Moreover, we have to prepare institutional mechanisms that allow agents in a line of command to reject those reckless orders when governmental crimes are in progress, and we have to produce protection systems for them. Therefore, historical clarification directly depends on political democratization and the preparation of safety devices for human rights. From this point of view, the existence of discrimination against the weak and against minorities, and the prevalence of violence in countries relatively advanced in terms of political democracy, such as the USA and European nations, shows that even those countries have not made sufficient safety devices yet.

There are two things that are more important than legal and political historical clarification. First, we need to correct distorted history. Second, we have to cure the inhuman mental state that has been dominating agents of state violence and sufferers at the same time, and remove ideologies that drove them into those situations.

Correction of distorted history means having historians reconstitute the historical facts and establish a just historical consciousness, so that eventually every member of society gets a right and just historical consciousness. From a long time ago, reexaminations of the Nazi era have been done in Germany. This is still going on, as we could see during the Goldhagen Disputes recently. Even though the correction of history cannot be totally free from political power, it still has its own meaning and significance.

It is equally important to correct the prevalent culture of violence, and to cure inhuman states of mind. Massacres, terrors, and tortures always break out when people regard even their own lives, as well as the lives of others, as worthless, and when obedience to commands overwhelms all other values. Confederates in massacres are taught that they can treat opponents like bugs and insects, and they believe it. A policeperson who uses torture on suspects by fair means or foul regards them as a kind of cancer threatening national security, and justifies his or her behavior. Under these circumstances, nobody treats a human as a human, and all assaulters as well as sufferers are driven into a barbarous and inhuman state. Therefore, we have to thoroughly overcome racism, the ideology of national superiority, anticommunism, and state supremacism, and reeducate assaulters. Eventually, the reeducation should be extended to an education for every agent working for the state power who could be a latent assaulter.

4. The Historical Clarification: why is it important?

Unlike natural disasters, there must be individual subjects who are responsible for the violence, rapes, massacres, and tortures committed by political powers. If we do not clarify where the responsibility lies and who the responsible subjects are, there always exists a danger that those crimes will recur, and that similar tragedies will present themselves again in the form of revenge for those previous crimes. These kinds of conflicts among individuals or groups could assume an aspect of revenge. However, revenge is not a solution to the problem but an expansion of the problem. Only clarifying where the responsibility lies and meting out an appropriate punishment will cut off the repetition of crimes and the vicious circle of revenge. For this reason, a thorough historical clarification is required for a bright future.

More importantly, an intra- and international sense of community should be recovered. Without self-acknowledgement of state violence and reflection on the tragic past, accurate revelation of the truth, and appropriate punishment of criminals by concerned nations that committed invasions, reconciliation among members of human society will be impossible. Putting liability for crimes aside, responsibility as reciprocity could be a starting point for the recovery of mutual trust, as Takahashi Desya argues. Human relationships are based on mutual responsibility. Therefore, social legitimacy can hardly be secured without clarifying who the assaulters were, and who is responsible for the subjects of suffering.

Even if all the assaulters die and the sufferers no longer raise their pains and grudges actively, it does not mean that the problems have been settled and have disappeared. Assaulters and sufferers can disappear but the political and social frameworks formed between them will persist. This principle is exactly applicable to international relationships. If a nation that gave indescribable suffering to neighboring countries avoids its responsibility, truly peaceful relationships among them can not be achieved, even if they do not rush into new conflicts or wars immediately.

Without punishment for crimes, the concept of guilt cannot be established socially. Unless assaulters take responsibility for sufferers, societies cannot be maintained. Conviction of criminals is not only one of the most important activities for maintaining communities but is also the best educational activity. If indulgences are issued to state violence under the mask of governance and security, or assaulters are enjoying a normal life and possess power and capital, other members of a society will resist silently or give up making a positive relationship with the society. They will not behave as responsible subjects any longer. That is the destruction of politics and society and a paralysis of judgment, as Ahrent argues. Those destructions and paralyses are not likely to appear on the surface. However, whether politics and societies are in good shape or not depends on whether they are operating according to moral standards or are based on the law of the jungle. Similarly, we can figure out whether judgment is paralyzed or alive by looking at the state of social justice, that is, ways of settling social problems and how common people can work out their grievances and mistreatments. Under the state of war in which life and death are beyond one’s will, absence of justice and paralysis of judgment happen extensively. Especially in jails or prisoners?camps, everybody distrusts each other and we can easily see an extremely anarchistic state to the extent that people steal something from each other everyday. Sometimes a society becomes a big prisoners?camp, just like Peru or several countries in Latin America. Poverty does not necessarily make people thieves. When there is no standard of responsibility and justice, people tend to act at their own pleasure. This destructive symptom accelerates when it is impossible to clarify the responsibility for the prevalent violence which lies in a society.

Then, how have politics and society been doing in Korea up to the present? I ask the following questions to the media and to intellectuals, who are in the habit of condemning the absence of social justice, the breakdown of trust, and the lack of mutual agreement, but who do not know where those problems originated. I also put the questions to human right activists who regret that the Korean government does not have a strong will to protect human rights, and to social movement leaders who blame the Korean people for having little participation. “WHERE DOES THE COLLAPSE OF SOCIAL TRUST ORIGINATE? IS THE BARBAROUS CENTURY OVER ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA?”