미국무성의 대일점령정책안과 재일조선인 정책- 일본통의 재일조선인에 대한 인식과 정책결정 과정을 중심으로-

김태기 한국동북아학회 2004 한국동북아논총 Vol.9 No.4

When we review the history of the Koreans in Japan, usually we do not take interest in the relationship between the Koreans in Japan and the U.S. government. The occupation period of Japan by the U.S. military government was very important not only to Japan, but also to the Koreans in Japan. This period had a definite influence on the future of Japan and the Koreans in Japan. In order to discover the real truth behind the Korean problems in Japan, we have to examine the policy of GHQ/SCAP toward the Koreans in Japan during the occupation period (1945-1952) by the U.S. military government. Indeed, we have to closely examine the decision-making process regarding the Koreans in Japan by the U.S. State Department, which had absolute influence on the policy of GHQ. This paper examines the process of decision-making on the policy of the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Army Department toward Koreans in Japan during 1943-1945, focusing on the role of the pro-Japanese group in the U.S. State Department. Especially, the paper focuses on where the Korean problems in Japan were positioned in the U.S. State Department’s policies by pro-Japanese groups, how they perceived the Koreans in Japan, and what kind of policy on Koreans in Japan was given to GHQ. 한국사회는 일반적으로 재일동포의 역사를 돌이켜 보는데 있어, 미국의 관여에 대해서는 그다지 큰 관심을 가지고 있지 않는 것 같다. 일본이 패망한 이후, 미군에 의한 일본 점령기는 일본이라는 국가만이 아니라, 재일동포에게도 그들의 미래를 좌우하는 지극히 중요한 시기였다. 일본 점령기에 과연 GHQ/SCAP이 재일동포에게 어떠한 정책을 실행했는지에 대하여, 우리가 일본의 과거 식민지 통치의 실상을 규명하려고 하듯이, 그 사실을 철저히 규명하여야 한다고 생각한다. 또한 이와 아울러 GHQ에게 절대적 존재였던 미국정부의 정책이 어떠한 과정을 거쳐 이루어졌는지에 대해서도 실증적으로 검증하여야 한다. 이 논문은 이러한 문제의식을 가지고, 미국정부가 재일동포정책을 입안하는 과정에 조명을 맞춘 것이다. 당시 미국에서는 일본 패전을 앞두고, 미국무성을 중심으로 하여 대일점령정책이 입안되어 갔으며, 육군성은 일본을 점령하는 당사자로서 실무적인 차원에서의 점령 지침서를 작성해갔다. 이 연구는 양자의 정책형성 과정을 분석하는데, 특히 미국정부 정책 입안의 중심 축에 서 있던, 국무성의 이른바 일본통 실무자들이 재일동포문제를 어떠한 시각에서 바라다보았으며 그러한 인식이 정책결정에 어떠한 영향을 끼쳤는지를 실증적으로 고찰하였다. 그리고 결론에서는 그러한 정책이 실질적으로 GHQ에 의한 재일동포정책에 어떠한 영향을 끼쳐는 지 역사를 돌이켜 본다. 이 연구는 재일동포 문제에 대한 역사적 사실의 확인만이 아니라, 당시의 미일관계가 한일관계에 어떠한 영향을 끼치게 되었는지를 바라다 볼 수 있는 좋은 사례연구로서도 의미도 크다고 보겠다.

재일한인의 국적

노영돈(Loh, Yeong-Don) 백산학회 2009 白山學報 Vol.- No.83

Koreans in Japan are the ethnic Korean residents of Japan in the largest sense. But this expression in this article means those who have resided in Japan from before 1945 when Korea was set free from Imperial Japanese rule. Many of them were recruited to work in mainland Japan by forced mobilization during 1939-1945. When They were forcedly recruited, they were treated as subjects of the Empire of Japan, .as the result of the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty in 1910. But following the end of World War II, they were treated as “liberated people” or “enemy nationals” by the SCAP, and treated as Japanese nationals as they had been, or foreigners by the Japanese Government. Afterward according to the Alien Registration Ordinance of 1947, Koreans were provisionally registered under the name of Joseon, the old name of undivided Korea. In 1948, the Republic of Korea(South Korea) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea(North Korea) declared independence individually, and the new government of South Korea made a request to the SCAP, the occupying power of Japan then, to change the nationality registration of Koreans in Japan to “Daehan Minguk”, the official name of South Korea. Following this, from 1950 onwards, Koreans in Japan were allowed to voluntarily re-register their nationality as .“Daehan Minguk” or “Hanguk”, the shortened name of “Daehan Minguk”. In other hand the Japanese government officially deprived their Japanese nationality in 1952 by way of excuse of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and discriminated them through the nationality clause of various legal acts to lead them to naturalize into Japan. As a consequence, Koreans in Japan may be divided into three groups; Japanese Nationals, those who naturalized into Japan and their descendants, “Hanguk” Koreans and “Joseon” Koreans according to the Alien Registration. “Hanguk” Koreans and “Joseon” Koreans are granted the right of permanent residence in Japan by the 1965 treaty of normalization of Korea-Japan relations. “Hanguk” Koreans are evidently South Korean nationals residing in Japan but“Joseon” Koreans are de facto statelessness. Some of them are pro-North Korean, but the others neither pro-South Korean nor pro-North Korean even though they registered in the name of “Joseon” which is the shortened name of North Korea. Because of the status as statelessness of “Joseon” Koreans, they are still discriminated by the Japanese Government. When the normalization of North Korea-Japan relations is realized, pro-North Korean “Joseon” Koreans should be evidently approved as North Korean nationals but the other “Joseon” Koreans who are neither pro-South Korean nor pro-North Korean would get into a new but more complicated trouble as statelessness among tree countries. This is one of the unsolved problem in cleaning up past incidents between Korea and Japan as a post World War II settlement.

韓国政府 수립 직후 駐日韓国外交代表部와 在日韓人-鄭桓範 大使의 役割을 中心으로-

김태기 한일민족문제학회 2013 한일민족문제연구 Vol.25 No.-

The purpose of this study is to see through the practical role of Hwan-Pum Jeong as an ambassador of Korean Diplomatic Mission in Japan and the effect he rendered in society of koreans in Japan. There are some studies to some extent on the policy of Korean government, GHQ and Japanese government toward Koreans in Japan during the occupation period of Japan by U.S. military government. But there weren’t much arguments stated and any previous research about the role of Korean Diplomatic Mission in Japan. So, this study focuses on the relationship between Koreans in Japan and Korean Diplomatic Mission in Japan especially on the job Korean Diplomatic Mission in Japan did for Mindan-line Koreans in Japan. Focuses specially on the activity of Hwan-Pum Jeong the 2nd ambassador of Korean Diplomatic Mission in Japan did. The period ambassador Jeong worked in Japan is about 10 months from March 1949 to January 1950. It wasn’t enough period to get used to the local situation and to work. But he set up the Korean Diplomatic Mission in Japan’s brach offices and worked to protect the legal rights of Koreans in Japan during that period. GHQ underestimated most of ambassadors from Korea. However, Hwan-Pum Jeong was the only ambassador GHQ assessed very high. This means he did his work as an ambassador very well. Even though he diligently worked as an ambassador, for several reasons he contacted some businessmen and restricted himself from meeting other Koreans in Japan. This made Koreans in Japan’s dissatisfaction toward him. Koreans in Japan may have missed Jeong’s hard efforts writing a long sentence, having meeting and complaining to GHQ staff for rights of Koreans in Japan. Without any strict evaluation of ambassador Jeong, many Koreans in Japan made him their opponent. As a result they sent back home the only ‘man of ability’ who was evaluated very high by chief of DS. この研究は鄭桓範の駐日韓国外交代表部(以下、韓国代表部)大使としての役割と在日韓国人社会に及ぼした影響について実証的に考察することを目的としている。いままで米軍による日本占領期における韓国政府やGHQそして日本政府の在日韓人政策についてはそれなりに研究が進められてきた。しかし韓国代表部の役割についてはあまり言及されたこともなく、体系的な先行研究もない。したがって、この研究では韓国代表部と在日韓人との関係、その中でも、韓国代表部が民団系在日韓人のためにどのような役割をしたのかに焦点を合わせて検討した。特に第2代韓国代表部大使として派遣された鄭桓範の活動を中心に考察した。鄭大使が日本で大使として勤務した期間は1949年3月から1950年1月までの10ヶ月余りである。現地事情に慣れて業務をするにはあまり長い期間ではなかった。しかし、その期間中に韓国代表部地方事務所の基盤を固め、法的地位問題など、在日韓人の権益を保護するための努力をした。GHQはほとんどの韓国代表部大使を否定的に評価した。しかし、GHQが唯一その能力を評価したのが鄭桓範だった。それは、それだけ彼が大使としての役割を適切に果たしたことを意味する。鄭大使は大使としての業務を誠実に行ったにもかかわらず、いくつかの理由により、一部の実業家とだけ接触を持って、他の在日韓人たちとの接触に制限を置いた。これらの在日韓人は鄭大使に不満を持った。在日韓人の権益のために長文の書簡を作成してGHQに送り、GHQ関係者と面談し抗議するなどの業務は、外にいる在日韓人たちにはよく見えなかったかもしれない。そして在日韓人は鄭大使の役割について冷静に評価がせず、自分たちの勢力争いの対象として位置づけた。その結果、在日韓人はGHQが評価した唯一の「人物」を母国に戻した

米國의 對日占領政策과 在日韓人의 経濟的 權利

金太基(Kim, Tae-Ki) 한일민족문제학회 2012 한일민족문제연구 Vol.23 No.-

この硏究は(1)米國政府の解放後在日韓人に對する保護および生活に關する経濟政策, (2)SCAPの在日韓人の経濟的な權利(持參金, 雇用, 特別配給, 生活保護法, 財産稅など)に對する政策について考察した。 米國政府の在日韓人経濟政策において, 日本の植民地支配の犠牲者としての在日韓人に對する経濟的配慮を見つけることができない。米國政府の政策的な立場が明確であったならば, 在日韓人の経濟的な權利に對するSCAPの態度も変わったはずである。しかし, 米國政府の在日韓人に對する経濟政策は在日韓人に決して友好的なものではなかった。 結局, SCAPが在日韓人を経濟的にどのように認識したかということが重要であるが, 最も重要な担当部局であるESSの担当者は, 在日韓人の植民地支配からの解放がどのような意味を持っていたのか理解しようとしなかった。むしろ在日韓人は日本の侵略戰爭に積極的に協力し, 富を蓄積したという認識を持っていたし, 在日韓人は植民地支配の犠牲者ではなく, 日本人と同じ侵略者であり, 解放された後, 自分たちの立場を急に変えた裏切り者と見なした。解放初期の無秩序な狀況の中で, 敗戰に失望に陷っている日本人とは對照的に解放を喜んで, 日本社會から解放された民族として, 自由に行動し, 場合によっては, 日本の公權力さえ無視する在日韓人をSCAPは否定的に見ていた。 SCAPに在日韓人は日本経濟にとって負担になる存在であり, 経濟的に特に配慮する価値のない存在であった。在日韓人という解放民族が長い間日本の植民地支配を受けてきた被害者であるという認識と政策が彼らに完全に欠けていたため, SCAPは現實的な立場のみに立って, 日本を統治する支配者, すなわち日本政府を代弁する統治者の立場から在日韓人問題を見, 経濟的な權利についてもそのような立場で對處した。彼らの政策のの基準は日本の政治, 経濟, 社會秩序の維持であり, 反共という政策であった。 これらのSCAPの方針が反映されて, 在日韓人の持參金は制限され, 雇用は差別され, 特別配給も受けられなかった。生活保護法も限られた人々のみ對象となり, 財産稅を納付しなければならなかった。結局, 在日韓人の生活は改善されず, 日本社會の中で安定した生計手段を見つけることができなかった。結局多くの在日韓人は生計のため占領後も違法な商行爲をした。日本政府はこれを彈壓し, 在日韓人はこれに抵抗した。 This paper is to review (1) the U.S. government’s basic recognition and policy about the economical problems of Koreans in Japan after World War Ⅱ and (2) SCAP(General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers)’s policies concerning the economical rights(Property Individuals to carry on Living Japan, Employment Supplementary, Ration, Livelihood Protection Law, Capital Levy etc.)of Koreans in Japan during Occupation Period. First of all, the policies of U.S government over economical problems of Koreans in Japan was limited to only in basic protection and support. In addition, there were no consideration of economical rights of Koreans in Japan who were liberalized after Japan’s colonization. U.S. government’s economical policy to Koreans in Japan was not amicable at all to Koreans in Japan. If U.S. government had ordered specific direct on the employment and public assistance toward Koreans in Japan, SCAP would have handled economical rights of Koreans in Japan based on U.S. government’s keynote. Based on no specific direct, SCAP in the end, decided economical rights of Koreans in Japan based on their own judgement. After all, how SCAP perceive Koreans in Japan and economical rights of Koreans in Japan became important. Related to economical rights of Koreans in Japan, the most profound Section ESS(Economic and Scientific Section), never tried to understand the existence of Koreans in Japan who were liberated from colonization of Japan. Rather, they had a prejudice that Koreans in Japan positively cooperated Japan’s invading war and accumulated wealth, that they were not the victim of colonization, that they were the same invader as Japan, and regarded them as apostates who changed their footings post liberation. SCAP looked negatively at Koreans in Japan who were congratulating the liberation and who, as a independ

초기 한일회담(예비~제3차)에서의 재일한국인 문제의 교섭과정 분석: 한일 양국의 교섭목표와 전후 ‘재일성’(在日性) 형성의 논리

장박진 서울대학교 국제학연구소 2009 국제지역연구 Vol.18 No.2

Though the postwar historical character of Koreans in Japan is derived from the special postwar relations between the South Korea and Japan, we can say the character was formed directly in the South Korea-Japan normalization Talks. This paper discusses the negotiation processes in the early stage of the Talks from the preliminary to the third round of Talks to analyse the influences which the early stage Talks had on the formation of the character of Koreans in Japan, mainly focusing on the official documents on the South Korea-Japan normalization Talks. In contrast to the many studies on the policies of SCAP and Japanese government against the Koreans in US-occupied Japan, no studies have analysed the negotiations processes comprehensively and accurately, partly because the official documents have not been open for the long time. Accordingly, a study which clarifies the contents of the early stage negotiations concretely is indispensable to understanding the influences of the South Korea- Japan normalization Talks on the formation of the postwar historical character of Koreans in Japan. In this paper, it is discussed that after the opening of the Talks, the Korean side's main purposes were twofold; first to maintain the principle that South Korea is the only lawful in the Korean peninsula and second to secure the permanent residential rights of Koreans in Japan, on the other hand, the Japanese side aimed to restrict the residence of Koreans in Japan by getting the rights to deport them back to South Korea. And also this paper clarifies that the postwar character of Koreans in Japan which was finally formed in 1965 had already manifested itself in the early stage of the Talks. 재일한국인들이 짊어지게 된 ‘재일성’(在日性)은 전후 한일관계의 특수성을 반영한 것이었으나 그 성격이 직접적으로 규정된 것은 한일회담의 교섭과정으로 인한 것이었다. 그러나 ‘재일성’ 형성에 관한 연구로서는 점령 하의 재일한국인 문제에 관한 연구가 활발한 것과 대조적으로 초기 한일회담에서의 교섭과정 연구는 공개된 자료의 한계도 작용해서 여태까지 불충분한 상황에 머물러 왔다고 해야 하겠다. 본 논문은 소위 북송문제가 불거지기 전인 제3차 한일회담까지의 토의 내용을 한일회담 공식문서를 통해서 실증적으로 밝히면서 ‘재일성’ 형성에 영향을 준 초기 한일회담의 역사적 성격이 한일 양국의 어떤 의도로 인해 결정된 것인지 논증할 것을 목적으로 한다. 회담 개시 전 한국 측은 병합조약 무효를 뜻하는 한국국적 ‘회복’이라는 첫 번째 국가정체성으로부터의 정책적 과제를 최우선의 과제로 삼고 있었다. 이에 대해 본고는 한일회담 개시 후의 초기 한일회담에서 한국 측은 대한민국이 유일한 정당정부라는 두 번째 국가정체성과 재일한국인을 일본에 계속 거주시킨다는 두 가지 목표를 양립시킬 것, 한편 일본 측은 외국인으로 된 재일한국인들의 재류 제한과 그를 위해 무엇보다 요망된 퇴거강제 권한 확보를 각각 최우선의 정책 목표로 하고 있었음을 실증하여 그로 인해 1965년에 귀결된 ‘재일성’의 윤곽이 이미 초기 한일회담의 교섭과정에서 드러나고 있었음을 밝힌다.

일본 TV 영상물의 재일제주인 표상

양인실 서울대학교 일본연구소 2013 일본비평 Vol.- No.8

최근 한국과 일본의 학계에서는 재일제주인이라는 단어를 쉽게 찾아볼 수 있다. 특히 제주도와 오 사카의 지역방송국을 중심으로 재일제주인을 중심으로 한 특집 다큐멘터리나 드라마가 많이 제작 되고 있다. 이들 최근의 드라마나 다큐멘터리는 재일제주인을 재현하면서 주로 밀항, 불법체류, 오 사카 시 이쿠노쿠, 난민 신청, 재일외국인들 간의 사랑이라는 요소를 다룬다. 그런데 한국과 일본 사이에서 밀항이 급증하던 1965년을 전후한 시기에 만들어진 다큐멘터리에도 오사카 시 이쿠노 쿠를 중심으로 밀항과 불법체류, 난민 신청이 중심이 되어 재일제주인 문제가 다루어지는 작품을 찾아볼 수 있다. 이 연구에서는 방송에서 재일제주인이 다루어질 때 반드시 나오는 제주4・3사건, 밀항, 다른 재일조선인들과는 다른 방식의 고향에 대한 향수 등을 들어, 각 방송 프로그램에서 재 일제주인들이 어떻게 재현되고 있는지에 대해 시대별로 살펴보았다. 우선 1960년대 영상물은 재 일제주인들이 4・3사건과 한국전쟁을 겪으면서 일본으로 왔고, 그 과정에서 ‘밀항’이라는 수단을 선택했으며, 불법체류자로 일본에 살면서 잘못된 선택을 했다는 걸 강조하면서도 가족애와 미담 의 대상으로 재일제주인을 선택하기도 했다. 그러나 최근 재일제주인 1세 여성들을 다룬 텔레비전 다큐멘터리에서는 재일제주인 여성으로서의 삶과 굴곡이 잘 표현되어 있지만, 한편으로는 영화화 되는 과정에서 역사와 맥락이 삭제되기도 했다. 또한 재일제주인 3세나 4세가 주인공이 되면 이들 의 관심은 정치나 역사보다는 한국의 문화로 옮겨가게 되는데, 여기에서 재일제주인 1세와 2세들 의 밀항의 기억은 이들을 연결하는 키워드가 된다. 그리고 재일조선인들을 등장시키는 일본의 많 은 영상 텍스트들이 재일조선인 1세와 3세를 아이덴티티에 대한 고뇌로 연결하고, 2세를 타자화해 왔다면, 최근의 영상 텍스트는 2세들에게 여유을 가지고 자신의 삶과 뿌리에 대해 생각해 보라는 문제제기를 한다는 점에 그 차이가 있다. 그러나 이런 부분이 기존의 텍스트와는 다르게 재일조선 인을 다룬 영상물, 특히 재일제주인을 다룬 영상물들이 발전하고 있음을 보여주지만 미래에 대해 서는 낙관적이지만 과거에 대해서는 입을 다물어온 일본의 다문화주의를 여전히 답습하고 있다고도 볼 수 있다. In recent years, the term “Koreans in Japan from Jeju (zainichi jejujin)” has grown popular in the academia of both Japan and South Korea. Also, a number of TV dramas and documentaries on Koreans from Jeju living in Japan have been aired over the last few years, led by local broadcasting stations in the Jeju Island and in Osaka. These TV dramas and documentaries often take up themes such as the Jeju people’ smuggling themselves into Japan, their illegal residence in Japan, their attempt to apply for the refugee status; at the same time, they also deal with themes such as romance with other foreign residents in Japan, or life in the Ikuno community in Osaka (where Koreans from Jeju are concentrated in), which symbolically speaks for this group. In fact, these same themes can be found in the television documentaries made around 1965, the period when the number of illegal migration from South Korea to Japan was rapidly increasing. In this study, I discuss how these television programs have represented Koreans from Jeju in accordance with the changes in different time periods, by observing how each media depicted the Jeju 4.3 Massacre, the Jeju people’s smuggling themselves into Japan, and their nostalgia for their homeland Jeju, which reveals to be different from their fellow Koreans living in Japan from different parts of Korea. These are recurring themes in the visual media where Koreans of the Jeju-origin living in Japan appear. For instance, the television texts of the 1960s use Koreans from Jeju living in Japan as subjects of heart-warming story based on familial love, while emphasizing their (direct or indirect) experiences of having crossed over to Japan after surviving the Jeju 4.3 Massacre and the Korean War, their life as illegal residents, and their feelings of regret for having made the “wrong choice” of becoming illegal residents as ex-patriots. Although recent documentaries about the first generation Korean women from Jeju present their lives as full of twists and turns, such historical contexts are often deleted when adapted to the screen. In cases where Koreans of the third or fourth immigrant generations play central characters, politics becomes their main concern, and memories possessed by the first and second immigrant generations smuggling themselves into Japan from Jeju become a lynchpin that connects them to their descendant generations. Moreover, while many visual texts on Koreans living in Japan in general, who have come from regions other than Jeju, tend to emphasize the ethnic identity of the first and third immigrant generations as that of “zainichi Koreans” (Koreans residing in Japan), such texts often present the second generation as “Others” in the story. On the contrary, visual texts on Koreans of the Jeji origin differ from such visual texts in that they try to help the second generation Koreans from Jeju build up their confidence about their ethnic origin and roots. However, even though films on Koreans living in Japan have become increasingly diversified in terms of themes, especially those films on Koreans from Jeju, these texts still seem to be reproducing the discourse of the Japanese multiculturalism, which presents an unrealistically hopeful future while silencing the past.

1923년 관동대지진 조선인학살의 현재적 의미 - 트라우마와 제노사이드적 관점에서 -

김인덕 동학학회 2024 동학학보 Vol.0 No.70

본고는 재일조선인 재난의 역사 속의 1923년 관동대지진 조선인학살의 현재적 의미를 트라우마와 제노사이드적 관점에서 고찰했다. 재일조선인의 재난사는 트라우마와 제노사이드로 특징지을 수 있다. 재난사로서 일제강점기 이후 정주의 과정과 ‘강제연행’은 재일조선인 삶의 본질을 보여주는 역사적 사실이다. 전후에서도 재난사 속의 재일조선인은 일상의 트라우마와 분단된 한반도의 정치적 현실 속에서, 구체적으로 민족교육과 한국전쟁 가운데 제노사이드를 경험해야 했다. 특히 1923년 관동대지진 조선인학살은 제노사이드의 정점이었다. 1923년 관동대지진 조선인학살의 시점은 유언비어에서 고찰했다. 유언비어가 얼마나 무서운 일인지 역사는 기억한다. 1923년 지진이 있었던 관동지역에서는 조선인학살이 자행되었다. 도쿄에서는 이미 1일 밤부터 학살이 시작되었다. 지금까지 일본 당국의 사실 왜곡과 은폐로 인해 1923년 관동대지진 조선인학살의 정확한 상황을 파악하기 어려웠다. 조선인학살에 대해서는 보도 통제로 관동지역을 제외한 곳에는 즉각 알려지지 않았다. 재일조선인은 가기 싫어도 일본에 갔던 사람이다. 그리고 지금도 일본에 살고 있다. 지금은 이들 재일조선인을 누구도 버려진 동포라고 말하지 않는다. 그런데 그들이 한국에 오면, 그들이 북한에 가서는 또 다른 이지메를 당하지 않는지 한번 생각해 보아야 한다. 문제는 재일조선인 역사 속에서 이들의 제노사이드와 트라우마 경험이 잊어지고 있는 현실이다. 재일조선인은 분단된 조국을 넘어 지금도 일본에 살고 있다. 오늘도 재일조선인은 역사적 경험에 따른 민족적 고민을 온몸으로 부등켜 안고 살아가고 있다. 제노사이드 1923년 관동대지진 조선인학살은 현재 한민족, 나의 문제이다. This paper examines the current meaning of the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake Massacre of Koreans in the disaster history for Koreans living in Japan from the perspective of trauma and genocide. The disaster history of Koreans in Japan can be characterized by trauma and genocide. As a disaster history, the process of settlement and ‘forced deportation’ after the Japanese colonial period are historical facts that show the essence of the lives of Koreans living in Japan. Even after the war, Zainichi Koreans in disaster history had to experience genocide in the midst of everyday trauma and the political reality of the divided Korean Peninsula, specifically in the midst of national education and the Korean War. In particular, the Great Kanto Earthquake and massacre of Koreans in 1923 was the peak of genocide. The timing of the Great Kanto Earthquake and massacre of Koreans in 1923 was examined in rumors. History remembers how scary rumors can be. In 1923, a massacre of Koreans was committed in the Kanto region where the earthquake occurred. In Tokyo, the massacre had already begun on the night of the 1st. Until now, it has been difficult to determine the exact circumstances of the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake and massacre of Koreans due to the Japanese authorities’ distortion and concealment of facts. The massacre of Koreans was not immediately known outside the Kanto region due to reporting restrictions. Koreans in Japan are people who went to Japan even though they did not want to go. And I still live in Japan. Nowadays, no one refers to these Koreans in Japan as abandoned compatriots. However, when they come to Korea, they need to think about whether they will face another hardship if they go to North Korea. The problem is that the genocide and trauma experiences of Koreans in Japan are being forgotten in the history of Koreans living in Japan. Koreans living in Japan are still living in Japan beyond their divided homeland. Even today, Koreans living in Japan are living with national concerns stemming from historical experiences. Genocide, the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, and the massacre of Koreans are currently the problem of the Korean people and me.

경신참변과 중국정부의 대응

박정현 대구사학회 2023 대구사학 Vol.152 No.-

이 논문은 경신참변 이후 만주 한인에 대한 영향력을 둘러싸고 벌어진 중국과 일본의 대립, 훈춘사건과 경신참변의 수습 과정에서 나타난 중국과 일본 양국의 이해관계에 대해 연구했다. 중국 입장에서 훈춘사건은 외교문제의 관점에서 인식했다. 경신참변 때 중국정부는 일본의 한국 독립운동 탄압과 한인에 대한 살상을 묵인하는 대신 조기 철병을 통해 주권 침해 상황을 해소하려는데 중점을 두었다. 따라서 경신참변 때 입적한 한인과 중국인의 살상이나 재산상의 손실에 대해서는 강하게 항의했다. 아울러 일본이 한국 독립운동을 탄압하는 것 외에 만주 한인에 대해 영향력을 확대하거나 통제력을 행사하는 것에 대해서도 항의하고 저지했다. 훈춘사건과 경신참변의 해결 협상과정에서 중일 간 외교적 쟁점이 다시 부각되었다. 핵심 쟁점에서 양국이 진전된 결론을 내지 못하면서 협상은 지지부진했고 시일만 끌게 되었다. 중국 입장에서 한인의 국적문제와 통치권 문제가 해결되지 못하면 협상을 타결할 수 없었다. 일본입장에서도 중국의 피해가 크고 국적문제 등에서 중국에 양보할 여지가 없었으므로 굳이 협상을 타결할 필요가 없었다. 중국은 손해배상을 받아내는 것보다 협상을 일본에 대한 압박으로 이용했다. 일본은 중국이 일본보다 훨씬 많은 손해배상을 요구하자 협상을 고의로 지연시키고 결렬시켰다. 결국 양국이 협상 타결의 의지가 없어 경신참변 때 엄청난 피해를 입었음에도 불구하고 한인들은 어떤 보상도 받지 못했다. 양국의 이해관계가 엇갈리고 중일 관계의 핵심 쟁점은 쉽게 해결되기 어려웠다. 결국 훈춘사건과 경신참변은 해결을 보지 못하고 미결인 채 남게 되었다. This paper studied the conflict between China and Japan over influence on Koreans in Manchuria after the Gyeongsin Tragic Incident, and the relationship between China and Japan in the process of handling this Incident. In Manchuria, China's interest was focused on how to protect China's sovereignty from Japanese aggression. After Manchurian-Mongolia Treaty in 1915, Japan tried to expand its influence on Koreans in Manchuria. China and Japan were at odds with each other over the nationality issue of Koreans, the issue of land ownership, and the issue of jurisdiction over Koreans. The Hunchun Incident in 1920 played an important role in expanding Japan's military influence in Manchuria. After the Gyeongsin Tragic Incident, Japan tried to expand its influence on the Koreans in Manchuria by withdrawing its troops and increasing the police at the same time, and tried to manage the Koreans by organizing the Korean People's Association in Manchuria. From China's point of view, the Hunchun Incident was perceived from the perspective of diplomatic issues. At the time of the Gyeongsin Tragic Incident, the Chinese government focused on resolving the infringement on sovereignty through early withdrawal of troops instead of condoning Japan's suppression of the Korean independence movement and killing of Koreans. During the Gyeongsin Tragic Incident, the Chinese government tolerated Japan's suppression of the Korean independence movement and the killing of Koreans. Instead, it focused on resolving the situation in which China's sovereignty was being infringed upon by inducing the early withdrawal of Japanese troops. Therefore, at the time of the Gyeongsin Tragic Incident, they strongly protested against the killings and property losses of Chinese and Koreans who were naturalized in China. In addition, they protested and prevented Japan from expanding its influence or exercising control over Koreans in Manchuria, in addition to suppressing the Korean independence movement. In the process of negotiating the Hunchun Incident and the Gyeongsin Tragic Incident, it was found that the loss of life and property in China was far greater than that in Japan. Since then, the situation has changed with China's offensive and Japan's defense. Negotiations for damage compensation between the two countries were sluggish even after two years, and eventually ended without a conclusion. In the course of negotiations on the settlement of the Hunchun Incident and the Gyeongsin Tragic Incident, diplomatic issues between China and Japan emerged again. Negotiations were sluggish and dragged on as the two countries failed to come to any advanced conclusions on key issues. From China's point of view, negotiations could not be concluded unless the issues of Korean nationality and sovereignty were resolved. From Japan's point of view, there was no need to conclude negotiations because China suffered more damage than Japan, and there was no room for concessions to China on nationality issues. China used the negotiations as pressure on Japan rather than obtaining damages. Japan deliberately delayed and broke down the negotiations after China demanded much more damages than Japan. In the end, the two countries did not have the will to conclude negotiations, so Koreans did not receive any compensation even though they suffered enormous damage during the Gyeongsin Tragic Incident. The interests of the two countries diverged, and the key issues in Sino-Japanese relations were not easily resolved. In the end, the Hunchun Incident and the Gyeongsin Tragic Incident remained unsolved without being resolved.

GHQ 점령기 일본의 재일조선인 정책

박창건(Chang-Gun PARK) 한국정치외교사학회 2018 한국정치외교사논총 Vol.39 No.2

본 연구는 GHQ 점령기 일본이 어떠한 형태의 재일조선인 정책을 시행했는지를 조명하는 것이다. 이는 재일조선인 문제를 ‘특수한 외국인’ 신분으로 규정한 GHQ의 재일외국인 정책에서 기인된 ‘의도적 방치’라고 하는 입장과 맥락을 같이했다. 여기에서 ‘의도적 방치’는 당시 일본 의 재일조선인 정책에 대한 전체상을 설명하는 개념적 도구로써 GHQ에게 절대적 존재였던 미국정부의 전후처리 정책이 어디에 방점을 두고 진행되었는지를 실증적으로 재조명하는 지표이다. 이를 통해 본 연구는 재일조선인 문제가 한일, 한미, 미일 즉 한미일 3자 간의 역학관 계에서 표출된 GHQ 점령기 일본의 전후처리 정책을 돌아볼 수 있는 중요한 재료로 판단된다. 무엇보다도 국무부·육군·해군 3성 조정위 원회(SWNCC)에 의한 정책결정 과정에서 난민정책의 전반을 설계한 GHQ의 민정가이드 재일외국인 정책은 일본이 자의적 이중 잣대로 재 일조선인 정책을 수립하는 기반을 제공했다. 그 결과 일본은 재일조선 인을 ‘특수한 외국인’이라는 항목으로 기술하고 일반적 연합국민을 제외한 모든 외국인으로 분류했다. 하지만 당시 일본정부가 자국민의 보호를 우선시하였기 때문에 많은 재일조선인을 형식적으로 ‘특수한 외국인’ 신분으로 다루었지만 실질적으로 ‘무국적’으로 취급했다. 이처럼 재일조선인의 문제는 ‘재일난민’의 범위를 뛰어 넘어, ‘재일성’ 형성의 중대한 영향, GHQ 점령기 동북아 지역의 구조적 역학관계에서 파생된 냉전의 기원과도 맥락을 같이하고 있다. The purpose of this study is to examine how Japan has implemented the policy of the Koreans in Japan during the GHQ occupation. This was in line with the position of ‘intentional neglect’ caused by GHQ’s foreigners policy on the Koreans in Japan as defined a ‘special foreigner’ status. In this context, ‘intentional neglect’ is a conceptual tool that explains the overall image on Japan’s policy towards the Koreans in Japan at that time. Indeed, it was an indicator for re-examining empirically where the US government’s postwar policy, which was absolute to GHQ, should be focused on. Through this study, the problem of the Koreans in Japan is considered to be an important material to look at the postwar policy of Japan in the GHQ occupation revealed in the dynamic relationship of Korea-Japan, US-Korea, US-Japan. Above all, GHQ s Civil Affairs Guide (CAG) which was an designing the overall refugee policy in the decision-making process by the State Department, the Army and the Navy Three-Party Coordination Committee (SWNCC) provided the foundation establishing the policy of the Koreans in Japan as an arbitrary double standard. As a result, Japan described the Koreans in Japan as ‘special foreigners’ and classified them as all foreigners except the general union citizens. However, Japan treated the Koreans in Japan as ‘special foreigners’ formally and as ‘stateless’ realistically because the Japanese government prioritized the protection of its citizens at that time. Thus, the problem of Koreans in Japan was in line with the origin of the Cold War which was derived from the structural dynamics of the GHQ occupation in Northeast Asia.

이분법에 갇힌 조선사람

김진환(Kim, Jin Hwan) 건국대학교 인문학연구원 2014 통일인문학 Vol.58 No.-

이 글은 현재 한국인이 통일을 지향하는 과정에서 나와 네가 겪고 있는 ‘고통’의 감소?제거라는 윤리적 의무를 제대로 수행하고 있는지를 국내이주 재일조선인의 한국살이를 통해 돌아보는 글이다. 재일조선인이야말로 일제 식민지배와 남북분단이 초래한 고통을 과거 식민 종주국이었던 일본에서 살아오면서 온몸으로 체험했고, 지금도 상처 받고 있는 조선사람이다. 따라서 국내 이주 재일조선인, 곧 자기 삶의 공간으로 가까이 다가온 재일조선인을 대하는 한국인의 모습은 한국인이 과연 통일을 윤리적 차원에서 사유하고 있는지, ‘제도의 통일’을 넘어서 ‘사람의 통일’을 위해 어느 정도 노력하고 있는지를 평가해주는 좋은 지표가 될 수 있다. 2014년 2월부터 5월까지 국내 이주 재일조선인 12명의 증언을 들어본 결과, 현재 한국인이 그들을 대하는 모습은 윤리적 차원에서 볼 때 좋은 평가를 내릴 수 없다. 한국인은 국내 이주 재일조선인을 ‘진짜 한국사람’ 아니면 ‘가짜 한국사람’이라는 ‘문화적 이분법’과 한국 국민 아니면 일본국민이라는 ‘정치적 이분법’에 동시에 가두고 있다. 앞으로 재일조선인과 한국인의 생활문화가 서로의 차이를 존중하면서 공존하는 단계로 나아가려면 재일조선인의 국내 이주를 수월하게 하는 법적?제도적 정비뿐 아니라 한국인이 국내 이주 재일조선인을 가둬 놓은 ‘이중적 이분법’을 없애기 위한 노력이 계속되어야 한다. This writing is to review the lives of Korean returnees from Japan in their fatherland in order to see if contemporary native Koreans are carrying out their ethical duty of easing and removing ‘pains’ experienced by ‘me’ and ‘you’ in the process of promoting reunification. Koreans in Japan suffered fully the pains caused by the Japanese colonial rule and the division of South and North Koreas while they lived in Japan the former colonial ruler country, and even the pains still continue in their lives. Accordingly, how native Koreans treat Korean returnees from Japan who came close to their realm of life can be a good indicator of whether Koreans think of reunification in the ethical dimension and how much they are making effort for ‘unification of people’ beyond ‘unification of systems.’ According to the results of hearing the testimonies of 12 Korean returnees from Japan during the period from February to May, 2014, native Koreans’ attitude toward them cannot be assessed favorably in the ethical dimension. Native Koreans are trapped in ‘cultural dichotomy’ that they are either ‘true Koreans’ or ‘false Koreans’ and, at the same time, in ‘political dichotomy’ that Korean returnees from Japan are either Koreans or Japanese. In order for Koreans in Japan and native Koreans to co?exist with respecting each other’s difference in the future, efforts should be continued not only for legal and institutional improvements to ease the immigration of Koreans in Japan to their homeland but also for removing ‘dual dichotomy’ through which native Koreans confine Korean returnees from Japan.