‘道義의 제국’과 식민지조선의 내셔널 아이덴티티

강해수 서울대학교 규장각한국학연구원 2008 한국문화 Vol.41 No.-

The purpose of this paper is to consider “national identity” in Colonial Korea. What was national identity in Colonial Korea, a society without “nationhood”? If it did exist in what way was it created? If the creation of the national identity by Colonial Korean intellectuals was formed as a thing in opposition to the imperial Japanese construct that national identity equaled imperial identity what exactly was it? Under the all-out war system that accompanied the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War, what kind of conditions prevailed that made the production of a national identity in Colonial Korea possible? And was there continuity or discontinuity of this national identity after “liberation” from Japan in 1945? In order to carry out this research on the “joint ownership” of Korean nationality, this study focuses on national identity in Colonial Korea in the 1930s and 1940s. In the “National Studies” (Joseon Studies) of the 1930s and 1940s we can find an emphasis on the analysis of the discourse of “morality and righteousness” as in the “Rhetoric of the Empire” between Imperial Japanese and Colonial Korean intellectuals after the Sino-Japanese War. The discourse of “morality and righteousness” also occupied the central position in the formation of Korean national identity after “liberation”. This study examines how the colonial-period discourse on “morality and righteousness” among Korean intellectuals of Colonial Korea in the 1930s and 1940s prepared the ground for post-liberation discourse on national identity. The purpose of this paper is to consider “national identity” in Colonial Korea. What was national identity in Colonial Korea, a society without “nationhood”? If it did exist in what way was it created? If the creation of the national identity by Colonial Korean intellectuals was formed as a thing in opposition to the imperial Japanese construct that national identity equaled imperial identity what exactly was it? Under the all-out war system that accompanied the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War, what kind of conditions prevailed that made the production of a national identity in Colonial Korea possible? And was there continuity or discontinuity of this national identity after “liberation” from Japan in 1945? In order to carry out this research on the “joint ownership” of Korean nationality, this study focuses on national identity in Colonial Korea in the 1930s and 1940s. In the “National Studies” (Joseon Studies) of the 1930s and 1940s we can find an emphasis on the analysis of the discourse of “morality and righteousness” as in the “Rhetoric of the Empire” between Imperial Japanese and Colonial Korean intellectuals after the Sino-Japanese War. The discourse of “morality and righteousness” also occupied the central position in the formation of Korean national identity after “liberation”. This study examines how the colonial-period discourse on “morality and righteousness” among Korean intellectuals of Colonial Korea in the 1930s and 1940s prepared the ground for post-liberation discourse on national identity.

식민지책임판결과 한일협정체제의 국제법적 검토

도시환 ( Doh See-hwan ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2014 외법논집 Vol.38 No.1

On August 30, 2011, the Constitutional Court of Korea made a decision on the constitutional petition filed by Korean “comfort women” for the Japanese military and Korean survivors of nuclear bombing in during World War II. The Court held that the Korean government’s non-performance of its obligation to work proactively on diplomatic negotiation or arbitration under Article 3 of the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea (“Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty”) was unconstitutional. On May 24, 2012, the Supreme Court of Korea overturned the original ruling that recognized the effect of a Japanese court decision running against the core values of the Korean Constitution (i.e. forcible mobilization of Korean men and women during the colonial period viewed as a lawful act). These were historic decisions clearly reiterating that the victims’ rights to compensation―for illegalities against humanity involving the Japanese state power and other unlawful acts associated directly with its colonial rule―were not part of what was agreed on under the Basic Relations Treaty. In this paper, we discuss the limitations of and problems with lawsuits for “postwar compensation” filed in Japan, including the multiple “obstacles” of Japan’s failure to acknowledge the truth, the amount of time passed since those atrocities were committed, the lack of response or solution from the state, and political restraints. We then examine the 2010 Joint Statement from Korean and Japanese intellectuals who declared the 1910 Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty “already null and void,” followed by the ideological shift of the international community from nationalistic philosophy to human rights-centric thinking, and the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action which proclaimed cleansing the legacy of colonialism to be a historic mission. These rulings on Japan’s “colonial responsibility” have been denounced by the Japanese government, businesses and media as “politicized,” claiming that such responsibility was already fulfilled once and for all by the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty. More recently, a lengthy register of colonial victims was found in the Korean Embassy to Japan. With this respect, Ihara Junichi, director general of the Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau at Japan’s Foreign Ministry, claimed the claims of the United States and other Allied powers was resolved with the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty; as for Korea which it did not fight a war against, he asserted that the Basic Relations Treaty, which was allegedly made to handle issues with the country’s “colonial rule,” put an end to its colonial responsibility. The Korean court decisions call for Japan’s compensation for its colonial injustices, or “illegalities against humanity involving the Japanese state power and other unlawful acts associated directly with its colonial rule,” while the Japanese government argues, “The Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty, signed as a separate postwar agreement on Japanese colonial rule, waived all the relevant rights to compensation.” In other words, the Japanese government claims that Korean courts made unfair and politicized decisions going against what was agreed upon between the two countries when individual victims’ rights to compensation for forced labor and other damages caused by Japanese colonial rule had already been addressed with the Basic Relations Treaty. It is on this basis that this paper that this paper reexamines the decisions on “colonial responsibility” as well as the arguments of its advocates and opponents. The Japanese government has had the normative recognition that, as the forced annexation of Korea and Japan in 1910 was made by the conclusion of the Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty which was legal under the international laws of the time, Japan’s forcible occupation of Korea and subsequent colonial rule made on this basis were also legitimate. It has denied its responsibility to compensate for illegalities against humanity involving its state power and other unlawful acts associated directly with its colonial rule; it has also been consistent in claiming that the conclusion of the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty brought these issues to a complete end. Then comes the question: Was the Basic Relations Treaty actually intended to address issues with Japan’s “colonial rule,” as argued by Ihara Junichi? To answer this question, this paper empirically reviews the proceedings of the Japanese Diet from the conclusion of the Treaty in 1965 through the country’s first apology for its colonial rule in 1995. In the meeting of the Special Committee on Treaties and Agreements between Japan and the Republic of Korea on November 5, 1965, then-Prime Minister Sato said the 1910 Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty was lawfully concluded; Foreign Minister Shiina also stated that, with the conclusion of the 1965 Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty, the diplomatic protection of the two countries was waived while the compensation rights of individuals remained. On August 15, 1995, Prime Minister Murayama expressed his apology for Japan’s colonial rule and aggression. In the general session of the Upper House on October 5, however, he claimed the 1910 Annexation Treaty was entered into in a legally effective manner. In the meeting of the Upper House Budgetary Committee on August 27, Foreign Minister Yanai Shunji responded to a question by saying individual rights to compensation existed. Furthermore, the proceedings of the Japanese Diet―from the conclusion of the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty in 1965 through Japan’s first apology for its colonial rule in 1995―hint that Japanese government officials have been unaware of the country’s standing as the assailant and thus have not recognized its “colonial responsibility.” Until former “comfort women” filed a lawsuit in the United States in 2000, they provided fairly consistent answers that diplomatic protection was “waived only partially.” In other words, they believed the Japanese government could not override individual rights to compensation. Against this backdrop, it would be fair to say that the Restitution claims to the government of Japan, prepared in September 1949 in regards to the reality of “colonial responsibility” that should have been incorporated into the Basic Relations Treaty, represented a rational demand for legitimate rights to recover colonial sacrifices―rather than a retaliation for penalizing Japan. With only one tenth of forced laborers reporting to the United States Army Military Government, the amount of compensation for damages and sacrifices caused by the forcible annexation of Japan and Korea and the subsequent Japanese colonial rule was estimated at 31.4 billion yen, or two billion dollars at the exchange rate of the times, which is comparable with the Economic Cooperation Fund of 1965. Japan’s colonial responsibility specified in the Restitution claims to the government of Japan was left unaddressed under the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty as the Japanese government had no intention to fulfill such responsibility. Taking advantage of the United States’ Cold War strategy in East Asia, it believed its colonial rule over Korea was justifiable, viewing it as a “dispensation” for Koreans which helped modernize them. Focusing on “property” and “claims” as stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph (a) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the negotiations between Korea and Japan on postwar claims did not specify Japan’s responsibility for colonial rule. This, paradoxically, left “colonial responsibility” as an issue unresolved and to be therefore addressed under the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty. In other words, the victims’ rights to compensation for illegalities against humanity involving the country’s state power and other unlawful acts associated directly with its colonial rule could hardly be seen as subject to the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty. Since the conclusion of the Basic Relations Treaty, the Japanese government had consistently claimed that individual claims under the Treaty continued to exist. In 2000, however, its stance changed following a lawsuit filed in the United States by former “comfort women” for the Japanese troops, and Japanese courts have since made “politicized decisions” on this basis. Ihara Junichi’s claim that the Treaty was made to resolve the issue of Japan’s “colonial responsibility” mirrors the Japanese government’s stance. Released in 2010 as the centennial of forcible annexation between Korea and Japan, the Joint Statement of intellectuals from the two countries is the East Asian version of the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. Getting the regional history right, it suggests, will lay the foundation for seeking a genuine process of historical reconciliation. Going beyond “negative peace” as a basic element of international laws premising an apology and compensation for colonial rule and war of aggression, we should now go for “positive peace” in which human dignity and rights are respected as universal values. This will make sure that another 50 years following the 50th anniversary of the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty in 2015 serves as the starting point for working hand in hand to bring a East Asian peace community into reality.

왜 <帝國主義下の朝鮮>은 없었는가? ― 야나이하라 타다오(矢內原忠雄)의 식민(정책)론과 대만・조선

문명기 고려대학교 역사연구소 2015 사총 Vol.85 No.-

There are a lot of studies concerning Colonialism Studies by Yanaihara Tadao, who is well known as a passionate supporter of liberal colonial policies during pre-war period, but there is little studies which focused on his scarcity about studying colonial Korea. He was interested in almost all Japanese colonies including Taiwan, Manchuria and the South Sea Islands, but he did not express as much interest to Korea as to the other colonies, and this is very exceptional considering his academic career. Why did not he write a book like Korea Under Imperialism? This article tries to answer this question. The process of answering this question will help us better understand the characteristics of his colony studies, and further understand the difference between Taiwan and Korea as Japanese colonies. External pressure, which previous studies pointed out as a cause of Yanaihara’s lack of Korea studies, can be equally applied to the case of Taiwan studies. Therefore we have to deal with this question from the other perspective, for example, from within his colonial studies. At this point, we have to pay attention to his general theory on colonies. He envisioned so called “substantial colonization” accompanying capitalization(=civilization), political principle of colonial autonomy, and “harmonious empire” in which necessities of each social group is well coordinated. He practiced Taiwan studies according to this general theory, and concluded that Taiwan has reached most highly capitalized society among Japanese colonies, and demanded so called “civilized colonial politics”, that is Taiwanese colonial assembly. In contrast, he lacked systematic analysis on Korean economy like Taiwan, and underestimated capital accumulation and finance development, but still insisted establishment of Korean colonial assembly. In other words, establishment of colonial assembly was the result of capitalization in Taiwan’s case, whereas establishment of colonial assembly was prerequisite of capitalization in Korea’s case. To sum up, Yanaihara thought that in Taiwan, the substance of “substantial colonization” accompanying capitalization existed in tangible form, but in Korea a sufficient condition through which Japanese government of Korea could be justified was not prepared yet. I think this led to Yanaihara’s silence on the economy of colonial Korea. 1945년 이전 일본의 대표적인 자유주의적 식민정책학자로 널리 알려진 야나이하라 타다오(矢內原忠雄, 1893-1961)의 식민(정책)론에 대한 연구는 이미 적지 않지만, 개별 식민지에 대한 연구라는 관점에서 볼 때 대만・만주・남양군도 및 인도 등에 비해 식민지 조선에 대한 야나이하라의 학술연구가 상대적으로 훨씬 적었다는 점은, 야나이하라의 조선에 대한 현실적・종교적 관심에 비추어 다소 의외이다. 왜 야나이하라는 『帝國主義下の朝鮮』 같은 저서를 남기지 않았던 것일까. 본고는 야나이하라의 연구와 활동 이력을 따라가다 보면 자연스럽게 드는 이 의문에 답해보는 것을 일차적인 목적으로 한다. 이 의문에 대한 해답을 추구하는 과정에서 야나이하라가 수행한 식민(정책) 연구의 중요한 특질이 보다 선명히 드러날 수 있고, 한 발 더 나아가서는 (특히) 대만과 조선의 식민지로서의 ‘차이’와 그 의미를 보다 분명히 드러내주는 데 기여할 수도 있다. 기존 연구에서 지적한 식민지 조선 연구에 있어서의 외압은, 단지 조선 연구에 있어서만이 아니라 대만 연구에 있어서도 동일하게 작동하고 있었다. 따라서 야나이하라에게 조선 연구가 상대적으로 결여되었던 점은 연구 외적 문제가 아닌, 연구 내적 문제에 대한 접근을 통해서 해결해야 한다. 이 때 주목되는 것이 야나이하라의 식민지에 대한 일반이론이다. 야나이하라는, 문명화 작용을 동반하는 실질적 식민, 자치주의, 그리고 양자의 결합을 전제로 한 “각 사회군의 필요가 조화된 제국”을 상정하고 있었다. 이러한 일반이론에 입각하여 전개한 대만 연구의 결과, 야나이하라는 ‘제국주의하의 대만’에 대해 “일본 식민지 중 가장 고도의 자본주의화를 달성”한 것으로 보았고, 이러한 자본주의화(=문명화)에 상응하는 ‘문명적 식민 통치’, 즉 식민지의회의 설립을 요구했다. 반면 조선에 대해서는 대만에 비해 체계적인 경제 분석이 없었고, 조선의 자본축적과 재정 발달 역시 낮게 평가하고 있었다. 그럼에도 불구하고 대만과 마찬가지로 식민지의회의 설립을 요구한 점은 동일했다. 다시 말해서, 대만의 경우 식민지의회의 설립은 자본주의화 달성의 ‘결과’였던 데 반해, 조선의 경우 식민지의회의 설립은 (아직 도래하지 않은) 자본주의화 달성을 위한 ‘방안’으로 제시되었다. 달리 말하면, 야나이하라는 대만의 경우 자본주의화(=문명화)를 동반하는 ‘실질적 식민’의 실체가 가시적으로 존재한다고 인식한 반면, 조선의 경우에는 일본의 식민 통치가 정당화될 만한 충분조건이 마련되지 못한 것으로 인식하고 있었다. 바로 이 점 때문에 식민지 조선 경제에 대하여 ‘침묵’했던 것은 아닐까.

스즈키 다케오(鈴木武雄)의 식민지조선근대화론

박찬승(Park Chan Seung) 한국사학사학회 2014 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.30

스즈키 타케오는 1928년부터 경성제국대학에서 법문학부 교수로서 경제학을 가르치면서 총독부의 경제정책에도 깊숙이 간여한 인물이다. 그는 종전 후 일본에 돌아가 1946년 일본 대장성에서 비밀리에 수행한 『일본인의 해외활동에 관한 역사적 조사』라는 프로젝트의 조선, 만주, 대만편 가운데 조선편 집필에 주도적으로 참여하였다. 스즈키 다케오는 이 프로젝트에서 「조선통치의 성격과 실적」이라는 글을 썼다. 이 글에서 그는 일본의 식민지 한국 지배정책을 미화하고, 일본의 지배에 의해 한국은 비로소 근대화될 수 있었다고 주장하였다. 따라서 이 글은 1945년 이후 이른바 '식민지근대화론'의 출발점이 된 글이었다고 볼 수 있다. 이 논문은 이 글의 내용을 분석하고 비판한 것이다. 스즈키 다케오는 "일본의 한국 영유는 본질적으로는 제국주의적, 그 가운데에서도 군국주의적 지배의 범주를 벗어나지 못하였지만, 서양 여러 나라의 소위 식민지정책과는 달리 이상주의적인 통치 행태를 보였다"고 주장하였다. 그는 당시 일본은 한국을 식민지로 간주하지 않았으며, 조선인을 식민지민으로 대하지 않았다고 주장하였다. 그는 일본정부나 총독부의 '동화주의'나 '內地延長主義', 더 나아가 '內鮮一體' 정책이 그것을 잘 보여준다고 말하였다. 예를 들어 그는 일본이 한국에서 미곡 생산 중심의 산업구조를 만든 것이나, 전쟁 중에 인적ㆍ물적 자원을 동원한 것은 일본의 한국에 대한 산업정책이 근본적으로는 일본을 위한 것이었다는 것을 보여준다고 인정하였다. 그러나 그는 일본의 한국 통치 기간을 통하여 한국의 산업경제가 그 이전과는 비교할 수 없을 정도로 비약적으로 발전하였다는 점을 강조하였다. 그는 그런 점에서 일본의 한국 지배정책을 제국주의적 식민정책이라고 간단히 말해버릴 수는 없다고 주장하였다. 그는 일본은 한국을 '一視同仁'의 입장에서 대하려 하였다고 주장하였다. 이처럼 그는 비록 일본의 한국 통치에 문제가 많았지만, 한국의 근대화가 이루어진 것은 일본의 통치에 의한 것이었다고 주장하였다. 그는 일본의 통치 기간 동안 한국인들의 경제적, 문화적 생활수준도 크게 향상되었다는 것을 특히 강조하였다. 그러나 이와 같은 주장은 역사적 사실을 은폐, 왜곡, 호도하는 내용이었다. 일제의 한국 지배정책은 한국에서 인적ㆍ물적 자원을 수탈하고, 한국인들을 차별적으로 대우하는 것을 그 특징으로 하는 것이었기 때문이다. 결국 스즈키 다케오의 '식민지조선 근대화론'은 일본의 식민지 지배정책을 미화하고 합리화하기 위한 논리였다고 평가할 수 있다. Takeo Suzuki (鈴木武雄) is the scholar who was deeply engaged in the economic policy of the Japanese Government General of Korea, while teaching economics as a professor of the Faculty of Law and Literature at Kyeongseong Imperial University from 1928. After World War II, when he went back to Japan, he leadingly took part in writing the Part of Korea out of the Parts of Korea, Manchuria and Taiwan in the Project of Historic Investigation on Japanese Overseas Activities, which was secretly conducted by Japanese Ministry of Finance (大蔵省) in 1946. Takeo Suzuki wrote, "Characteristics and Achievements of the Rule over Korea," in the project. In his writing, he glorified Japan's ruling policy of colonial Korea, and insisted Korea could be modernized by Japanese rule. Therefore, his writing can be regarded as the beginning of Colonial Modernization Theory after 1945. This paper analyzed and criticized his writing. Takeo Suzuki asserted, "Japan's possession of Korea did not go beyond imperialistic, especially, militaristic ruling scope in essence, however, Japan showed an ideal type of ruling, unlike many Western countries' colonial policies." He said Japan did not regard Korea as a colony, and did not treat Korean people as colonial people those days. He insisted that the assimilation policy (policy to assimilate Koreans to Japanese), the mainland extension policy (Korea is the extension of Japan) and the policy of "Korea and Japan are One" by the Japanese government or the Japanese Government General of Korea showed Japan's position. For example, he acknowledged Japan's building of rice production-centered industrial structure or mobilization of human and material resources during the war showed that Japan's industrial policy towards Korea was for Japan basically. He, however, stressed Korean industrial economy made a remarkable development, incomparable to the past during Japan's colonial period of Korea. In this context, he insisted Japan's ruling policy over Korea cannot be simply regarded as imperialistic colonial policy. Takeo Suzuki claimed Japan tried to treat Korea in the position of treating Japan and Korea equally. Although, there were many problems in Japan's ruling over Korea, he insisted Korea's modernization was conducted through Japan's rule over Korea. He especially emphasized Koreans' economic and cultural levels sharply improved during Japan's colonial rule over Korea. His claim, however, is actually to conceal, distort and mislead historic facts. The reason is that Japanese imperialistic ruling policy over Korea had such characteristics as exploiting human and material resources in Korea and treating Koreans in a discriminatory way. Takeo Suzuki's Modernization Theory of Colonial Korea can be rated as the logic to glorify and rationalize Japanese colonial ruling policy.

식민지관계 청산을 둘러싼 북일회담(평양선언까지)의 교섭과정 분석 ㅡ한일회담의 경험에 입각하면서ㅡ

장박진 서울대학교 국제학연구소 2010 국제지역연구 Vol.19 No.2

100 years have passed since Japan annexed the Korean peninsula. The conflict between Korea and Japan on the Korean's damage by Japanese colonial rule stemmed directly from the Japanese rule in itself, but also that depends on the outcomes of the normalizations talks between the South Korea and Japan concluded in 1965 which made the liquidation of the colonial relations insufficient. In this sense, the normalization talks between North Korea and Japan which started in 1990's have a great significance, because the talks is the final opportunity to liquidate the colonial relations. But there is not many studies that have analysed the talks, focusing on the liquidation problems, while many studies have discussed the talks in terms of the security problem in North East Asia and the abduction problem of Japanese people by North Korea,This paper discusses the normalization talks between North Korea and Japan, especially from the opening(1991) to "Pyeongyang declaration"(2002), focusing on what, why and how have been discussed on the liquidation problems of the colonial relations. This is because the negotiations from 1991 to 2002 is very important to understand the historical character of the talks on the liquidation of the colonial relations. And we think much of the experiences of the normalizations talks between the South Korea and Japan to analyse the negotiations between North Korea and Japan. The reasons are following. Firstly, the North Korea-Japan normalizations talks has been based on the talks between the South Korea and Japan. Secondly, it is useful to refer to the experiences of the negotiations between South Korea and Japan because the official documents on the North Koran-Japan talks are not opened. Thirdly, we can once again understand the problems of the South Korea-Japan talks on the liquidation of the colonial relations because the two talks have many similar points in common. This paper clarifies that the negotiations processes between North Korea and Japan have been decided by the North Korea's political thesis that DPRK should be more legitimate than ROK and the Japanese demand that the negotiations should be solved within the framework of South Korea-Japan talks. And also we show once again the problems of the South Korea-Japan normalizations talks on the liquidation of the colonial relationships. 본 논문은 1991년 개시된 북한과 일본의 국교정상화 교섭 가운데 주로 식민지관계에 기인하는 문제처리에 관해 무엇이, 어떻게 논의되고, 또 왜 그렇게 논의되었는가 등을 분석함으로써 동 문제에 관한 북일회담의 역사적 성격을 밝힐 것을 목적으로 하고 있다. 북일회담은 아직 종료되지 않는 진행 중의 교섭이기도 하나 이 가운데 본 글은 2002년 9월에 나온 평양선언까지를 다룬다. 이것은 식민지관계의 청산을 위한 북일회담의 성격을 이해하는 데 평양선언까지의 교섭과정의 고찰이 그 핵심으로 된다고 판단하기 때문이다. 본 글은 위의 목적을 진행하는 데 1965년에 타결된 한일회담의 경험에 기초한다. 그 이유는 북일회담이 한일회담의 내용을 축으로 이루어지고 있다는 점, 아직 입수하지 못하는 공식 자료 등의 한계를 극복하는 데 유익하다는 점, 한일회담의 내용을 축으로 북일회담을 고찰함으로써 거꾸로 한일회담의 역사적 한계를 오늘날 다시 한번 천명하는 데 도움이 된다는 점들이다. 이상을 통해서 본 글은 식민지 관계 청산 처리에 관한 북일회담의 내용들이 체제의 정당성 확보와 그 존속이라는 북한 측 요구와 한일회담 해결의 틀 안에서 문제를 처리할 것을 지상명제로 하던 일본 측 입장으로 인해 결정되었음을 논증하면서 동 회담의 역사적 성격 역시 불법적 식민지 지배에 따른 문제 처리에 있지 않음을 밝히고자 한다. 또 본고는 동 작업을 통해서 식민지관계 청산문제에 관한 한일회담의 한계를 재조명할 것이다.

스즈키 타케오의 조선통치론, 전전과 전후적 맥락

송병권 ( Byong Kwon Song ) 대구사학회 2014 대구사학 Vol.115 No.-

This article focuses on the context of the prewar and the postwar on governance of Colonial Korea which was advocated by Suzuki Takeo. Criticising the criticism of colonial rule, Suzuki insisted that there was few act of Japan’s economic activities in the colonial Korea. It was the resistance to reparations policy of the United States. According to the context of Suzuki, Japan didn’t exploit Korea for the colonial excess profits and Koreans had just misunderstood the ‘good governance’ of the Japanese Empire. In Suzuki’s development theory, Japanese capital had just developed the colonial Korea voluntarily. Being bound organically to Japan, colonial Korea has become a local economy of Japan. Colonial economic structure became a prerequisite of economic partnership between Korea and Japan which Suzuki proposed after World War II. Suzuki admitted that there was also something to regret the governance of Japan to Korea. Emphasizing more the ‘ideal part’ of Japan’s governance than imperialistic exploitation, he showed a hopeful prospect that Korea and Japan should be ‘re-partnering’ under the new condition of decolonization. While defending the best interest of Japan to the U.S. reparation policy, Suzuki thought that there was a need to protect the Japanese self-legitimacy in order to lead the negotiations with Korea. For pursuing to lead the diplomatic interest, Japan also recognized the need to show ‘regretting’ the colonial rule of Korea to the extent allowed by U.S. policy, however, Japan had blocked herself the room for subjective ‘regret’ for the peace in the Asian region. (Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University / songbkwon@hanmail.net)

선전과 시장 -“문예대중화론”과 식민지 검열의 교착

한기형 ( Kee Hyung Han ) 성균관대학교 대동문화연구원 2012 大東文化硏究 Vol.79 No.-

문예대중화논쟁은 ``사회주의 혁명을 위해 문학이 어떤 역할을 할 것인가``라는 과제를 둘러싸고 동아시아 근대사회가 겪었던 공통의 문화현상이었다. 그러나 그 논쟁의 경과와 내용은 한국과 일본, 중국이 지닌 각국의 특수한 상황에 따라 미묘하거나 근본적인 차이를 보여주었다. 조선에서 진행된 대중화론의 초점은 이중출판시장과 충독부 검열의 영향 속에서 문학을 통한 사회주의 선전을 어떻게 수행할 것인가의 문제였는데, 그 논의과정을 통해 식민지 문화구조의 특성들이 드러나기 시작했다. 1920년대 이후 조선사회에서 일본출판시장의 영향력이 커지면서 식민지 검열과 이중출판시장이 중첩되어 파생한 현상들이 구체화되기 시작했다. 조선의 토착 출판 자본은 이 과정에서 생존의 여부를 둘러싸고 식민지 검열과 새로운 관계를 맺지 않을 수 없었다. 조선에서 일본어 출판물의 확대는 일본어 보급의 정책 강도, 내지와 식민지의 검열 수위에 따른 표현력과 표현 내용의 차별성 등과 직간접적으로 연관되어 있었기 때문이다. 상대적으로 수준 높은 지식/정보의 상당부분을 일본 서적을 통해 얻게 됨으로써 출판물과 지식정보의 지역 간 비대칭성이 만들어졌다. 만약 식민지의 검열이 이입출판물에 대한 검열의 수위를 낮출 경우 그 비대칭성은 커질 수 밖에 없었다. 출판물의 출생지와 그 가치화가 연동되는 현상이 생겨날 여지가 있었던 것이다. 그것은 조선에서의 시장과 검열의 관계가 일본에 비해 훨씬 불리할 수 있다는 것을 시사한다. 김기진은 토착 출판자본이 압박을 받고 있는 식민지적 상황에서 합법적 시장의 확대와 사회주의 문예대중화가 결합할 수 있는 길을 찾는 것이 중요하다고 생각했다. 조선어 출판시장을 활성화시키는 것이 식민지에서 사회주의 문화운동의 생존력을 강화하는 것과 깊은 연관이 있다고 판단한 것이다. 반면 임화는 그러한 김기진의 견해를 신뢰하지 않았다. 김기진은 조선에서 ``시장``과 ``선전`` 사이의 합법적 중간지대를 기대했던 반면 임화는 김기진이 생각한 완충지대가 식민지에서 존재할 수 없다고 보았던 것이다. 임화와 김기진의 대립은 식민지 검열의 영향에 대한 그러한 인식 차이를 반영하고 있었다. 그것을 정치적 견해차이나 조직 노선 상의 충돌로만 해석할 때 식민지의 고유함은 잘 드러나지 않는다. Literary Popularization Debate was a cultural phenomenon commonly experienced in Far East Asian countries during modern era, surrounding the task-what role literature should play for the socialist revolution. Meanwhile the process and its contents of this debate showed subtle, sometimes fundamental differences, according to the specific situations of Korea, Japan and China respectively. The point of Literary Popularization in colonial Korea was an issue how literature could accomplish the propaganda task for socialism under the censorship by colonial regime and duplicated publishing market-native publishing capital and language of Korea coexisted with those from Japan. Due to this debate, peculiarities of cultural structure in colonial Korea came to be revealed consequentially. Since 1920, accompanying the expansion of Japanese publishing capital`s influence in colonial Korea, the phenomena which derived from the intricacy of duplicated publishing market and censorship reality were concretely taken into shape. The expansion of Japanese language publications in colonial Korea was directly-indirectly related with the intensity of Japanese language education drive and the differentiation of tolerance limit for expression (in form and content) between in colonial Korean and in mainland of Japanese Empire. This means it was inevitable to renew the relationship with colonial censorship situation for the native Korean publishing capitals in seeking for their way to survive. In colonial Korea, the reality that considerable part of higher-level knowledge and information was accepted generally through publications written in Japanese caused regional asymmetry of publications and knowledge-information. The more control intensity for imported publications would be lowered, the more unbalancing aspect of the regional asymmetry would come to be growing. It was because the evaluation on publications could be decisively influenced by their native place, and this implies the relationship between publishing market and censorship reality in colonial Korea might be much more unfavorable than that in Japan, the mainland. KIM Ki-jin believed it was needed to find the way for harmonizing socialist literary popularization with expansion of legal market. He judged that vitalizing the Korean language publishing market deeply connected with strengthening survival ability of the socialist cultural movement in colonial Korea. On the contrary, IM Hwa seems to have not relied on KIM`s point of view. In other words, KIM expected a legal domain between the ``marketing`` and ``socialist propaganda campaign``, while IM regarded the existence of such a buffer zone as impossible. The conflict of these two socialist figures reflects difference of understanding about the censorship and its practical influence in colonial Korea. Hence, if the conflict of KIM and IM would be paraphrased just as a crash of political viewpoint and line, the endemic characteristics of Korea`s reality during colonial period might not prove.

1931年朝鲜排华事件与中华商会的因应

冯国林 인천대학교 중국학술원 2021 비교중국연구 Vol.2 No.1

After the Wanpaoshan Incident, large-scale anti-Chinese campaigns in colonial Korea led to the loss of lives and severe damage to overseas Chinese-owned properties. They also ruined Chinese business and significantly impaired trade networks in colonial Korea. After the turmoil broke out, the Nanjing Nationalist Government could not handle overseas Chinese relief efforts due to under-staffing at the Nationalist Chinese embassy in colonial Korea. Eventually, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce's active cooperation in addressing the anti-Chinese incident in Korea helped recoup victims and provide needed assistance. The Korean Chinese Chamber of Commerce immediately transmitted anti-Chinese information back to China. It also appealed to all walks of life to tend to the anti-Chinese incident, promoted the Nanjing Nationalist Government to negotiate with Japan, and made every effort to assist distressed overseas Chinese while cooperating with the Nanjing Nationalist Government in the investigating losses. Moreover, it provided crucial information for the Nanjing Nationalist Government to carry out negotiations with Japan. After the anti-Chinese incident, Chinese commerce and businessmen also suffered heavy losses. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce thus initiated and organized various negotiations and made essential contributions to catalyze the resumption of business activities. The complicated relationship between the Chinese consulates in colonial Korea and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in colonial Korea triggers a need to rethink the relationship between the overseas Chinese society and the home country, as well as the overseas Chinese society's internal relations during the Nationalist government period. In allocating relief funds, conflicts and disputes arose between China’s Chamber of Commerce in various parts of colonial Korea that the consul general in colonial Korea failed to mediate. The relief fund turmoil reflects the contradictions within the overseas Chinese groups and reveals the Chinese Consul General in Korea’s lack of control of the overseas Chinese groups. Overall, the anti-Chinese incident in colonial Korea sheds light on the complexity of cooperation and conflict between China and overseas Chinese communities. 万宝山事件后,朝鲜发生大规模排华风潮,华侨的生命财产遭到严重损失,在朝华商贸易网络亦遭受重创。风潮爆发后,因驻朝使馆管理力量有限,处理救济华侨事务力有未逮。在朝鲜排华事件的处理中,中华商会的积极配合为其提供了重要帮助。朝鲜中华商会第一时间向国内传递排华信息,呼吁各界关注排华事件,推动国民政府对日交涉,并努力援助遭难华侨,配合国民政府进行损失调查,为国民政府展开对日交涉提供了重要的材料。排华事件后,华商商业遭受重创,华商会组织各方展开谈判,为恢复排华事件后的商业作出了重要贡献。此案展示出驻朝展开谈判,为恢复排华事件后的商业作出了重要贡献。此案展示出驻朝鲜领事机构与朝鲜中华商会间关系的复杂面相,亦透视出在朝华商团体间的复杂关系,引发我们对国民政府时期海外华侨社会与母国关系及海外华侨社会内部关系的再思考。在分配赈款过程中,朝鲜各地中华商会之间发生冲突,而驻朝鲜总领事则无法调和商会内部的争执。赈款风波体现出华侨团体内部的矛盾,同时也体现出驻朝鲜总领事对华侨团体的掌控力不足。朝鲜排华事件这一个案,揭示出祖籍国与海外华侨社会间合作与冲突交织的复杂面相。

기획논문 : 제국에 대한 학문담론과 지식 생산의 양태 ; 왜 『帝國主義下の朝鮮』은 없었는가? 야나이하라 타다오(矢內原忠雄)의 식민(정책)론과 대만,조선

문명기 ( Myungki Moon ) 고려대학교 역사연구소(구 역사학연구회) 2015 사총 Vol.85 No.-

1945년 이전 일본의 대표적인 자유주의적 식민정책학자로 널리 알려진 야나이하라 타다오(矢內原忠雄,1893-1961)의 식민(정책)론에 대한연구는 이미 적지 않지만,개별 식민지에 대한 연구라는 관점에서 볼때 대만·만주·남양군도 및 인도 등에 비해 식민지 조선에 대한 야나이 하라의 학술연구가 상대적으로 훨씬 적었다는 점은,야나이하라의 조선에 대한 현실적·종교적 관심에 비추어 다소 의외이다. 왜 야나이하라는「帝國主義下の朝鮮」같은 저서를 남기지 않았던 것일까.본고는 야나이하라의 연구와 활동 이력을 따라가다 보면 자연스럽게 드는 이 의문에 답해보는 것을 일차적인 목적으로 한다.이 의문에 대한 해답을 추구하는 과정에서 야나이하라가 수행한 식민(정책) 연구의 중요한 특질이 보다 선명히 드러날 수 있고,한 발 더 나아가서는 (특히)대만과 조선의 식민지로서의 ‘차이’와 그 의미를 보다 분명히 드러내주는 데 기여할 수도 있다. 기존 연구에서 지적한 식민지 조선 연구에 있어서의 외압은,단지조선 연구에 있어서만이 아니라 대만 연구에 있어서도 동일하게 작동하고 있었다.따라서 야나이하라에게 조선 연구가 상대적으로 결여되었던 점은 연구 외적 문제가 아닌,연구 내적 문제에 대한 접근을 통해서 해결해야 한다.이 때 주목되는 것이 야나이하라의 식민지에 대한일반이론이다.야나이하라는,문명화 작용을 동반하는 실질적 식민,자치주의,그리고 양자의 결합을 전제로 한 “각 사회군의 필요가 조화된제국”을 상정하고 있었다. 이러한 일반이론에 입각하여 전개한 대만 연구의 결과,야나이하라는 ‘제국주의하의 대만’에 대해 “일본 식민지 중 가장 고도의 자본주의 화를 달성”한 것으로 보았고,이러한 자본주의화(=문명화)에 상응하는 ‘문명적 식민 통치’,즉 식민지의회의 설립을 요구했다.반면 조선에 대해서는 대만에 비해 체계적인 경제 분석이 없었고,조선의 자본축적과 재정 발달 역시 낮게 평가하고 있었다.그럼에도 불구하고 대만과 마찬가지로 식민지의회의 설립을 요구한 점은 동일했다.다시 말해서,대만의 경우 식민지의회의 설립은 자본주의화 달성의 ‘결과’였던 데 반해, 조선의 경우 식민지의회의 설립은 (아직 도래하지 않은)자본주의화 달성을 위한 ‘방안’으로 제시되었다. 달리 말하면,야나이하라는 대만의 경우 자본주의화(=문명화)를 동반하는 ‘실질적 식민’의 실체가 가시적으로 존재한다고 인식한 반면, 조선의 경우에는 일본의 식민 통치가 정당화될 만한 충분조건이 마련되지 못한 것으로 인식하고 있었다.바로 이 점 때문에 식민지 조선 경제에 대하여 ‘침묵’했던 것은 아닐까. There are a lot of studies concerning Colonialism Studies by Yanaihara Tadao, who is well known as a passionate supporter of liberal colonial policies during pre-war period, but there is little studies which focused on his scarcity about studying colonial Korea. He was interested in almost all Japanese colonies including Taiwan, Manchuria and the South SeaIslands, but he did not express as much interest to Korea as to the other colonies, and this is very exceptional considering his academic career. Why did not he write a book like Korea Under Imperialism? This article tries to answer this question. The process of answering this question will help us better understand the characteristics of his colony studies, and further understand the difference between Taiwan and Korea as Japanese colonies. External pressure, which previous studies pointed out as a cause of Yanaihara’s lack of Korea studies, can be equally applied to the case of Taiwan studies. Therefore we have to deal with this question from the other perspective, for example, from within his colonial studies. At this point, we have to pay attention to his general theory on colonies. He envisioned so called “substantial colonization” accompanying capitalization(=civilization), political principle of colonial autonomy, and“harmonious empire”in which necessities of each social group is well coordinated. He practiced Taiwan studies according to this general theory, and concluded that Taiwan has reached most highly capitalized society among Japanese colonies, and demanded so called“civilized colonial politics”, that is Taiwanese colonial assembly. In contras the lacked systematic analysis on Korean economy like Taiwan, and underestimated capital accumulation and finance development, but still insisted establishment of Korean colonial assembly. In other words, establishment of colonial assembly was the result of capitalization in Taiwan’s case, whereas establishment of colonial assembly was prerequisite of capitalization in Korea’s case. To sum up, Yanaihara thought that in Taiwan, the substance of“substantial colonization” accompanying capitalization existed in tangible form, but in Korea a sufficient condition through which Japanese government of Korea could be justified was not prepared yet. I think this led to Yanaihara’s silence on the economy of colonial Korea.

일제하 조선 지방 세출의 구조와 추이, 1910~1936 - 대만과의 비교를 겸하여 -

문명기(Moon, Myungki) 중국근현대사학회 2021 중국근현대사연구 Vol.91 No.-

This paper tries to explore the structure and trends of local governments’ annual expenditures in colonial Korea with special focus on comparison with colonial Taiwan. Before I wrote this paper, I had performed serial studies on local revenues and expenditures in colonial Taiwan and Korea. My primary concern on this comparative studies was: is it possible to fully understand the characteristics of colonial public finance only dealing with public finances of the two Governments-General? Is there some possibility, if any, of viewing differently the financial phenomena in colonial period, by additionally observing local local governments’ annual expenditures? In chapter1, I presented categories related to local expenditures written in Handbook of Korea’s Local Public Finance(朝鮮地方財政要覽) and readjusted those categories in order to fulfill comparative analyses. In chapter2, I integrated the amounts of local expenditures scattered in individual categories and presented total amounts of annual expenditures of each fiscal year. And in chapter3, I explored the relationship between annual expenditures of local authorities and those of Government-General. As a result, I found that the financial strategy of the two central governments (=Governments-General) was very similar, in that they were quite positive in utilizing local governments’ revenue in order to realize its policies taking a detour to avoid interference from central government or national diet in Tokyo. But the government-general of Korea was more aggressive than government-general of Taiwan. The sum of local expenditures accounted for 41% of government-general’s expenditures in Korea, whereas the sum of local expenditures accounted for 24% of government-general’s expenditures in Taiwan(Table3-3). Colonial Korea has shown relatively more dependence on local expenditures, total expenditure per capita of colonial Korea has been only half that of colonial Taiwan for almost entire time span we have observed. This also suggests that government expenses per capita in colonial Korea was just half in colonial Taiwan. The fact that total expenditure per capita of colonial Korea was 11.29￥, whereas that of colonial Taiwan was 22.60￥, might be exactly reflected in recent studies on East Asian colonial economic history which suggest that real GDP per capita of colonial Taiwan consistently doubled that of colonial Korea.