Hiroyuki Ukeda
Director, Center for International Exchange
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences/College of Arts and Sciences
The University of Tokyo
The University of Tokyo hosted the second session of the Owada Chair Program at the Komaba Campus on Tuesday 21 and Wednesday 22 March. The chair was conducted in hybrid format, and taking into account the time difference between the Netherlands and Japan, the planned events took place from early evening to night. Whereas the theme of the first Owada Chair held at Leiden University was “Geopolitics of Emotions,” the second chair focused on “Memory and Reconciliation.” As with the first chair, “Memory and Reconciliation” is a theme in which we can see a marked conflict between the ideals of international law and practical international politics. In fact, “memory and reconciliation” is a political issue in both Japan and the Netherlands, and both institutions have accumulated research from various fields, including international law, making it an appropriate theme for the Owada Chair.
On the first day, Dean Takumi Moriyama, College of Arts and Sciences/Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and Rector Hester Bijl, Leiden University delivered opening addresses. The speeches were followed by a lecture given by Prof. Owada. After explaining the objective of the chair, which is to contribute to the realization of a peaceful international society, Prof. Owada remarked that in Japan, the aspect of “compromise” is often emphasized with regard to reconciliation, but it is often overlooked that this also means “realizing justice.” Prof. Owada’s lecture was full of implications that could only come from someone who has spent many years travelling back and forth between the fields of diplomacy and education and between Asia and Europe.
In the proceeding keynote speech, Prof. Atsuko Kawakita, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, who specializes in contemporary German history, laid out the issues that need to be addressed when discussing memory and reconciliation from an interdisciplinary perspective. What is remembered and how it is remembered is influenced by the interests and psychological conditions at the time it is recounted, as discussed in the “politics of memory” or “culture of remembrance.” When memory is associated with political power, nationalism, and public insecurity, it tends to encourage conflict rather than reconciliation. As a historian, Prof. Kawakita acknowledged the necessity of carefully analyzing and interpreting historical facts by examining sources, but from her point of view as a researcher in history education, she stressed the importance of having a “self-reflective historical perception.” In response to the keynote speech, Associate Prof/ Hilde van Meegdenburg, Leiden University, who specializes in diplomatic history and diplomatic discourse analysis, commented on the need to explicitly include the role of emotions in analysis, a point with which Prof. Kawakita agreed.
In the latter half of the first day, Emeritus Prof. Akihiko Tanaka, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and President of JICA, gave a lecture on how colonization and war in Asia have been interpreted and reflected in diplomacy, with a focus on Japan-Korea issues. The historical disputes between Japan and South Korea, such as textbook examinations, the visits of Prime Ministers to Yasukuni Shrine, apologies and compensation for “comfort women,” became more apparent after the conclusion of the Basic Treaty between Japan and South Korea. The relationship has continued to this day in such a way that when a compromise is proposed, the proposal is rejected with such force, causing the relationship between the two countries to deteriorate. As an expert on international political science with extensive knowledge of Asian affairs, Prof. Tanaka showed how the politics of memory in each country is intricately linked to international relations. Emeritus Prof. Laurens Jan Brinkhorst, Leiden University and Prof. Owada gave detailed comments in response to his lecture.
On the second day, Prof. Larissa van den Herik and Dr Vineet Thakur, Leiden University reported on European case studies. Prof. Herik focused on the relationship between the Netherlands and Indonesia. In 2022, an investigation report was published on violence committed by the Dutch military against Indonesians during the period between the Japanese surrender in 1945 and 1950 (independence at the end of 1949,) and Prof. Herik discussed how this report should be assessed. The report, funded by the Dutch Government, acknowledges the use of serious and structural violence by the Dutch military, but deliberately avoids using legal terms, following the logic that Indonesia was not yet independent at the time and therefore not subject to international law. While Prof. Herik maintained a cautious point of view as an international legal scholar, she pointed out that the notion that Dutch barbarism cannot be judged by international law can be refuted from several perspectives, and that collaborative work between legal scholars and historians is beneficial. The presentation was followed by a fruitful exchange of views with Prof. Taihei Okada, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, who specializes in contemporary Philippine history.
Dr Thakur’s presentation addressed the issue of reconciliation in South Africa, which, like Indonesia, was once a Dutch colony. Reconciliation, promoted by the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), is often recognized as having brought about a peaceful transition while denouncing the discriminatory system through the unravelling of the truth under apartheid. However, Dr Thakur showed that despite this assessment, the reconciliation process has many shortcomings. Compensation to black people was insufficient compared to the losses they suffered (such as delays in agrarian reform,) and white people’s reflection on their actions was inadequate as they were exempted from liability. The presentation drew on a variety of historical sources to demonstrate that reconciliation was far from over. After the lecture, Prof. Hiroyuki Ogawa, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, who specializes in British history, gave some valuable comments.
From the lectures given by Professors Kawakita, Tanaka, Herik and Dr Thakur, it seems clear that policies on reconciliation and the role of memory can vary greatly depending not only on whether one is on the side of the judge or the judged, but also on the attributes of those involved, such as historical background and class, and how to approach them depends on one’s area of expertise. At the same time, it became evident that memory and reconciliation are difficult questions, whether in Asia, Europe or Africa. Universities must contribute to the reduction of injustice and violence by breaking down barriers of expertise and opening up to society.
In the latter half of the second day, seven postgraduate students with diverse backgrounds and specializations who selected from both universities (six students, excluding the commentator) engaged in a debating session for two and a half hours. This was the core activity of the chair, organized to realize Prof. Owada’s wish to “give young researchers a place to train to become globally active in the future.” The participants from Leiden University were Maha Ali (international politics and Asian countries), Fé de Jonge (history of international law and international courts) and Jean Ndzana Ndzana (weapons of mass destruction and peacebuilding), and from the University of Tokyo side, Raymond Andaya (peacebuilding and human rights concepts), Junko Miura (anthropology of international migration), Soojin Lee (conflict resolution and transitional justice) and Chon Yoju (acting as commentator, specializing in Japanese-Korean diplomatic history.) The seven participants, having a precise understanding of lectures that they listened to over the two days, were able to discuss freely with each other. They also experienced the “privilege” of having their discussions in the presence of Prof. Owada and the 4 lecturers.
While the young researchers were aware of their respective specializations and regional characteristics, their discussions presented fresh perspectives that were not bound by conventional ideas. This was largely due to the skillful facilitation of the moderator, Prof. Ai Kihara-Hunt, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Unlike the first chair, which was based on an online format, face-to-face participation in the discussions (the commentator participated online from South Korea) also encouraged dense exchange among the graduate students and between graduate students and researchers. After the debate, Dean Moriyama gave closing remarks, and the second chair came to a successful conclusion.
The second Owada Chair was a two-day event that was held under the constraints of time difference. However, the fact that several faculty members and graduate students from Leiden University came to Japan to have an academic but open discussion on important and controversial issues of memory and reconciliation with the University of Tokyo, had social significance beyond the deepening of exchanges between the two universities. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Prof. Owada for his active participation throughout the two days and the kindness which he showed to the graduate students. I would also like to thank the Leiden University faculty and graduate students, colleagues at the University of Tokyo who participated as speakers, and staff members who engaged in the preparations to make this event a success.
