“Korea-Japan relations are increasing chaos !? ” (Part 1)  [It is a key to have private exchanges of our voices from both countries.]  I summarize chief events of the last year (2018).  ・April 27, 2018 : Moon Jae-in, the President of the South Korea and Kim Jong-un, the Supreme Leader of the North Korea had summit talks. They crossed the military demarcation line between the two countries at Panmunjeom (板門店).  ・June 12：Kim Jong-un and the U.S. President, Donald J. Trump had summit talks at Singapore.・October 30：Supreme Court of the South Korea passed the judgement on Nippon Steel Corporation to pay one hundred million Won per person to four conscripted workers who were said to have been forced to work during the Pacific War.・November 21：The Korean government declared to dissolve “Reconciliation and Healing Foundation”.  This foundation was established in July, 2016 based on the “Comfort Women Agreement” (December 28, 2015).(The year 2019)・March 25, 2019：Daejeon City District court approved “Application for distraining of two trademark rights and three patent rights properties of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries” which was submitted by “Citizens’ Association with The Workers Corps Harmoni (grandmothers)”.・June 28-29, 2019：The G20 Summit was held in Osaka. But there was no summit meeting between Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and President Moon Jae-in were not materialized.  ・June 30：The U.S. President D. Trump visited South Korea after the G20 Summit in Osaka. He walked across the military demarcation alone and came back to the South together with Kim Jong-un. And, Moon Jae-in joined. News of pleasant talks among those three tops amazed the world.・July 4：Japanese government invoked a measure which strengthen controlling export of semiconductor materials to South Korea and decided to exclude South Korea from “White Country”.・August 22：The South Korean government announced the termination (destroy) of GSOMIA (Korea-Japan Military Information Protection Agreement) which has been  signed on November 23, 2016).  Is it necessary for our considerations about the events mentioned above and recent situations between Korea and Japan, which are said to be “Crisis of 1965 System”?  The agreement was signed on June 22, 1965 and entered into efficacy on December 18, 1965, "The Treaty on Basic Relations between the Republic of Korea and Japan (Basic Treaty of Korea and Japan)", "Properties of Property and Claims" Between the Republic of Korea and Japan on the Resolution and Economic Cooperation (Korean-Japanese Claims Agreement), "Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea on the legal status and treatment of Korean citizens residing in Japan (Japan Korean Legal Status Agreement).  It is also necessary to consider the reasons why the interpretation is controversial over claims between states and between individuals. On August 27, 1991, Mr. Yanai Shunji, the then Chief of the International Legal Affairs Bureau, the Ministry of  Foreign Affairs, has explained that “both countries have confirmed that rights to claim were solved perfectly and finally” and “both countries abandoned, each other’s, our national rights to claim which based on peoples’ right of claim.”  At the same time, Mr. Yanai explained “it does not mean individual right to claim are lapsed in the meanings of civic laws”. On February 26, 1992, he answered, at the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, “it does not deny people, as a Korean citizen to raise such claim to Japan”. I think personally that Mr. Yanai’s answer is correct. But it does not seem to be correct in the Japanese Government. It is because the Korean Supreme Court declared that individual rights to claim are still alive and right to claim by the government is not included in the Agreement.  The point may be there is not official conversation through diplomatic channels. Of course, it goes without saying that both governments, which have to consider a lot of things like the relations and interests, now and future, have to be very cautious to behave carelessly at first. However, on individual basis, we have to keep interchanging without reading the facial expressions of each other. I think it is important to bring up such persons who can understand each other and can express their own opinions regarding the Korean-Japanese relations exactly. It would be my assignment to accomplish, as a bridge between the two counties hereafter.  [The Preamble to the Constitution of Korea and Japan]The Preamble to the Constitution of Korea(omission)The Preamble to the Constitution of Japan (I feel there is full of spirits of pursuing for peace)  We, the Japanese people act through legitimately elected delegates in the National Diet, determined that we shall secure for ourselves and our posterity the fruits of peaceful cooperation with all nations and the blessings of liberty throughout this land, and resolved that never again shall we be visited this horrors of war through the action of government, do proclaim that sovereign power resides with the people and do firmly establish this Constitution, Government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are enjoyed by the people, This is a universal principle of mankind upon which this Constitution is founded. We reject and revoke all constitutions、laws, ordinances, and rescripts in conflict herewith.  We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time and deeply conscious of the high ideals controlling human relationship, and we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world. We desire to occupy an honored place in an international society striving for the preservation of peace, and the banishment of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance for all time from the earth. We recognize that all people of the world have the right to live in the peace, free from fear and want.  We believe that no nation is responsible to itself alone, but that laws of potential morality are universal; and that obedience to such laws is incumbent upon all nations who would sustain their own sovereignty and justify their sovereign relationship with other nations.  We, the Japanese people, pledge our national honor to accomplish these high ideals and purposes with all our resources.  I think it the same in the point that both countries want everlasting peace. And we must cooperate together “not to have the horror of war again” and “to keep peace, to eliminate forever ‘autocracy and slavery’ and ‘oppression and intolerance’. There are a lot of problems pending between Korea and Japan to be solved through diplomatic channels and I do hope they establish the systems which they can talk openly and freely  And, we must endeavor to establish solid system and understanding, on the private level, in the exchange of culture, sports and educational fields so that such systems would not be discontinued by political dispute.  SGRA Kawaraban 612 in Japanese (Original)   Cho_Sull / Fellowship from Japan Society for Promotion of Science  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sabina Koirala  

I first visited Fukushima in May 2018. I joined the Fukushima tour organized by the Atsumi International Foundation and stayed there for two nights.  This time, I visited Iitate as a voluntary interpreter for the IPPS (International People’s Project) organized by CISV Japan Kanto Chapter.  (＊CISV：Children’s International Summer Village)  What motivated me to visit Iitate again was a desire to learn more about the issues of unequal distribution of responsibility and burden and the arbitrary or self-willed demarcation between “us” and “others,” or, more simply put, the question of  “who is the restoration of Fukushima for?”     There were also other things that left an impression on me in Iitate. I was reminded of my father’s beautiful homeland in North-East Austria where the deep green blends in with the beautiful surrounding woods and fields. There was also the non-negligible existence of piles of polluted soil covered by black sheets which stand out prominently yet ominously.  I dare say that these piles of polluted soil are being left as is in the agricultural fields because the government can use the excuse of saying that their hands are full with the Olympics. There are also solar-panels that have been left in the fields because they were rendered impossible to use due to radioactive contamination. I heard that dozens of these solar panels are owned by big companies and that Iitate can receive only the rent from them, not electricity.    In the midst of these circumstances, a fissure grew in this local community.  The accident at Fukushima No.1 nuclear plant led the younger generation, for better or worse, to leave their hometown to work in other places.  On the other hand, the elderly exerted themselves to restore their homeland where they were born and lived for most of their life.  As I live in Tokyo, I have little chance to learn about this situation. According to the newspapers or TV, it seems the accident at the Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant and radioactive contamination is already over. Staying at a disaster area or “the site” and listening to what the people who live there had to say gave me a very valuable experience and made me more conscious of the situation.       Last year when I tried to summarize my impressions, I was left with one question.  Is it correct to use the expression “the site”?  Where is “the site” or disaster area?  Where is the evacuation order zone which is contaminated by radioactivity?  Where is the zone that is difficult to return to?  Which are the villages or towns where restoration or decontamination work is being conducted?  Is it the Fukushima nuclear power plant?  What about Tokyo or Japan, or the Pacific Ocean? How can we understand “the site”?  When I was packing a few days before my visit to Iitate, I recalled my last visit there and these questions.  Mr. Hoshino, with whom I stayed as part of a homestay to interpret for two foreign participants of IPPS Fukushima, sent me a speech written for a speech contest by a student of Iitate Junior High School which also spurred my thoughts.  CISV is a private non-profit organization. It organizes international educational programs and area projects for people over 11 years old in 69 nations to foster global citizens who can contribute to creating a peaceful and fair world. IPPS, as one of the educational programs, held a workshop in Iitate from August 11 to August 24.  In this program, participants over the age of 19 joined with people and organizations in Iitate to tackle difficult problems in the area over a period of two weeks. In the first half, they learned about Iitate, and in the latter half contributed to the area as a form of output. Over a weekend between the first and latter half of the program, we went on a homestay in the homes of volunteers in the Iitoi and Sasu areas.  On the last day of our visit, we visited a museum for the decommissioning of the nuclear reactor and the site of Fukushima nuclear reactor number 1. I joined these visits as an interpreter together with other four Raccoons and we had a variety of activities in these two days. In visiting a cowshed in the Komiya district where several hundred cows are raised, we came to know about the agricultural situation in Fukushima after the earthquake. We also learned about the historical background of the Mano-Dam when we drove to Lake Mano, which had splendid scenery. We also enjoyed pizza which was baked in the stone oven in the garden of our host.  He had constructed this oven for people to get together. During the garden party he organized for us, we were also treated to a jam session with a variety of musical instruments. We even helped mowing grass together with the community in Iitate. There are still many problems remaining in Iitate, but we can also gain many valuable experiences through being in this area that is rich in nature and broad-minded people.  We cannot thank Mr. Hoshino, our host, enough.    Mr. Hoshino works at Iitate area support center as a public health nurse and cares for the elderly. As mentioned above, he had sent me a speech from an English speech contest by Miss. Yasumi Sato, a student of Iitate Junior High School. The title of her speech was “Don’t Call Us Victims”.  In her speech, she says, “There is a word which I do not like to use. It is “victims.”  The word “victims” means people who suffered from disasters. We are not victims now. We are disgusted by being called victims. (・・・)　Many people get information through the mass-media and trust such information. I have seen many TV programs regarding the earthquake disaster and was interviewed many times. And, I tried to let many people know the true situation that we are struggling with. But,（・・・）pictures or interviews were exaggerated. They purposely portrayed us as “victims”. Do we keep being victims as long as the media wants? Victims are considered miserable. But, I do not agree.  Victims are not necessarily miserable.” (Publicity paper “Iitate”, December, 2017)  When I read her speech, I thought about my question from last year – where is “the site”, the disaster area? Who are the victims?  Why do people like to create “victims” or to be “pitiful” ?  Any line dividing “this side” and “the other side” would be an arbitrary one,  or a result of neglect of “the other side”. However, we are unable to stop drawing the line somewhere.  As far as we are humans, in order to be “oneself” one has to draw the line somewhere, on one side or the other. Considering why we desire to draw this line and the function it serves is a worthy question of thought.  It would also provide a response to Miss, Sato’s speech and her feeling of being “disgusted” as well as my questions of place and victimhood, as well as the general questions of for whom the resurrection of Fukushima is for? Who is responsible for this resurrection?       The word “site” or “disaster area” exists on the assumption that there is a place which is not “the site” or “disaster area”. In talking about the Great East Japan Earthquake or the accident of the Fukushima nuclear power reactor, using the words “disaster area” to signify a specified area or site and the word “victims” as a specified group of people  means that there is an imaginary line demarcating “non-victims” or “non-disaster area.”  We can imagine “here” as “non-disaster area” and “myself” as “non-victim”.  Expressions such as “I will do something for somebody” or “supporting” have the same meaning as the words “pitiful” or just “Fukushima”.  In the world of renting and borrowing the words “I will do something for somebody” mean that “this side” will help “the other side” beyond a border line, entering into “the site” with “goodwill”.  However, what will happen after “doing something for somebody”?  We return to the problem of “this side” and “the other side”. In other words, the side “to support” and “to be supported” are different or distinct. Where is “the site” in such cases? Is it “this side” which supports “the other side”?  Does “the site” belong to “the other side”? Is it “this side” which supports “the other side”? When we say “let us support”, is it correct to understand resources or “time to spare” for supporting as belonging to “this side”?  If so, we are producing ourselves unconsciously to be “kindhearted”, stretching or enlarging our consciousness.  Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying “stop supporting”.  It is “we” (this side) that used the words “pitiful” or “the other side”. Do not escape from the responsibilities of empathy, sympathy and cooperation by being intoxicated by the words “I will do it for you” or “kindhearted me”. We have to recognize “the other side” who stand on different footings. Radioactive contamination and its aftereffects by the Fukushima nuclear power reactor, which was caused by the large scale earthquake and tsunami of 3.11, produced this area with its specific needs. But, it is “our” problem and responsibility. No matter where we live, “we” use the energy generated by the nuclear power reactor before 3.11 and after 3.11 as well.  It is “we”, whoever voted for or against the parties which agreed on the construction of or resuming of the nuclear power reactor.  It is also “we” and the government who regard the Olympics as more important than the restoration of Fukushima.  The restoration of Fukushima is “my” or “our” problem and responsibility regardless of whether I move to another country or stay in Japan. We should not irresponsibly adhere to “the other side” by using the term “pitiful” and by showing fake compassion on the basis of being on “this side”. This issue is not a temporary performance of goodwill. It is “we”, plural and the first person, who can make possible the access to resources that the disaster area has lost. It is not because environmental pollution and natural disasters cross the borders of prefectures. When nuclear power stations were built, their burdens and risks were enforced one-sidedly on the area where plants were built.      I saw the words “sympathy” and “cooperation” many times on the leaflets of Resurrection of Fukushima which accepted and guided us last year. I could hear the voices which called for the necessity of “sympathy”, “cooperation” and “sharing” in Iitate last year and this year. How can we make possible “sympathy”, “cooperation” and “sharing” by “myself” beyond our differences in needs and contexts?  This is a question that I brought back from Iitate last year, and which I continue to ponder.   SGRA Kawaraban 610 in Japanese (Original)  Stefan Wuerrer / 2018 Raccoon, Graduate School of Arts and Science, The University of Tokyo  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sonja Dale

Ten years have already passed since I came to Japan to study abroad, and I am now studying history at graduate school. I could not have imagined such a life ten years ago.  However, when I think back on these ten years, I realize that my past experiences have motivated my research. Why am I here?  My studying abroad started from some occurrences which cannot be captured by the term “studying abroad”.  When I entered university in Korea and majored in economics, I was an ordinary university student who had no overseas experience or connections. When I took a leave of absence from school for my military service and wanted to return to school, I was following the path which Korean society had laid out, trying to tread an ordinary road. When I graduated from university, I would start working at a stable company, get married and make a happy home. I could not afford to imagine any other way of life. However, I did have a hazy sense of unease.  Am I OK like this?  What do I want to do? I decided to travel on a whim to find the answer for myself. If I travelled, I could try to find myself overseas. Since I had been interested in J-pop and Japanese anime and manga since my junior high school days, it was quite natural to decide to go to Japan for my first overseas visit.     My ten days backpacking journey in Japan started and I traveled in the Kansai and Kanto regions by overnight bus. My first visit overseas brought me fresh and endless surprises. What I felt during this trip cannot be explained by the simple term “culture-shock”. Everything that I experienced in Japan became the starting point of what we experience when we become conscious of “the other” which is different from “ourselves” as Korean. It was also the starting point of my reflection on the concept of “ourselves” and the first time that I became aware of the meaning of a “nation”.  After returning to Korea, I immediately began to prepare for my second trip to Japan as I could not forget my first experience. Three months later, I found myself at the west exit of Shinjuku Station along with my big suitcase.    I started my student life in Japan studying Japanese language at a Japanese language school. Studying Japanese was not my only purpose. I was struggling to assimilate the shock which I had experienced on my first visit to Japan and Japan itself in my own way. I thought I could relativize “Korea” when distanced from “Korea” which made up “myself”.  I could also honestly consider what a “country” is from studying “Japan”.  I realized that what I thought to be self-evident was not really self-evident. When people doubt their common sense and contemplate why it became common sense in the first place, it naturally leads to historical consideration.  There exists a gap in historical recognition between Korea and Japan, and this has become a knotty problem. Since I could now relativize the concept of “nation,” a question formed about what would be necessary to solve such knotty problems.  I had to change my university major as I began to think that I would like to study more professionally at university. So, I took another entrance examination to change university and be able to undertake various learnings at another university where liberal arts were considered to be important.  I could approach various historical issues between Korea and Japan from a multitude of angles within specific disciplines (areas of specialization).  But, I was not sated and  decided to go to graduate school. I desired to create a new perspective to solve the issues regarding the present historical recognition between Korea and Japan. I am currently advancing my research on the Korean history of the modern and present period and the relations between Korea and Japan, focusing especially on their thoughts and cultures.  Problems of historical recognition can be found anywhere and exist as a universal problem.　Given this, through such concrete fields as the modern and present histories of Korea and Japan, my task is to study the structure of such thought and how we can overcome such problems. What I have learned through my university student life in Japan is to reconsider the premise of our thoughts and to search for a new structure of historical ability to think which exists behind our “common sense” and which can relativize truism. SGRA Kawaraban 607 in Japanese (Original) Min Dongyup / 2018 Raccoon, Research Scholar of Graduate School of Arts and Science, The University of Tokyo  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sonja Dale

There is an opinion that the year 1945 is the standard of “Japan-Korea postwar relations”.  In human history, war has always been a big issue, and , there is also the opinion that colonialism has been a defining issue of human history.    Mass-militant wars between Germany and France, which broke out many times in the past, are different from the relations between Japan and Korea. Postwar Japan”, which came about after defeat in the Pacific War, is different from postwar Korea. The Korean postwar came after the Korean War which occurred in 1950. There have been problems caused by colonialism both in Japan and Korea during the period of the Pacific War and these problems continued up until 1945. There are different perceptions and experiences in both countries, and specific differences in the histories of Japan and Korea that cannot simply be explained using the term “postwar”.   The word “postwar” possesses special significance in Japan, both as a period in Japanese history and as a conceptual turning point. For example, November 3, 1946 is the birthday of Emperor Meiji.  The Constitution of Japan was announced officially on November 3, 1946 and it is said that the political leaders back then decided on the day considering the Emperor’s birthday. We can say that Japan, which was not directly involved in the Korean War, could be considered a “peace-loving nation” despite the fact that Japan has played an important role as a base country during the Korean War.  It was also Japan that proposed the so-called “postwar regime” of the 21st century.  In the “postwar regime”, Japan proposed shifting to a social framework suitable for the 21st century - if basic frameworks under the constitution like systems in administration, education, economy, employment, relations between central government and local, diplomacy and security etc. are deemed unsuitable for the 21st century. Given this, history just after the year 1945 in Japan is directly connected with the present.  In November, 1946, then Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara established the War Research Committee.  It was necessary for Japan to investigate autonomously actual events from the war to “establish a new, peaceful and highly civilized Japan.” In the Committee, they researched not only the Japan-China War and the Pacific War, but also the First World War, the Russo-Japanese War and the Meiji Restoration (明治維新).  However, there was no regard given to the Korean Peninsula. Such treatment was not unusual.  The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (the Tokyo Trials) which started in 1946 judged cases of unlawful actions by Japanese leaders during the time from 1928 to 1945.  As many people know, colonial problems were not taken up in these trials and liberal Japanese researchers have pointed out the problems of this. However, if you read the decision carefully, you would know that the Allied Powers approved the Annexation of Korea in 1910 as a right of Japan prior to 1928.  On the other hand, the word “liberalization” in Korea is synonymous with “postwar.”  On July 26, 1945, the Allies presented the Potsdam Declaration. Prior to Japan’s acceptance of the Declaration, the United States carried out the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan is the only country to have experienced atomic bombs, but the Japanese are not the only race that were affected. Those with roots in the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan and the Mainland China were also the victims of atomic bombs.  At 11pm on August 14, Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration, and the Pacific War (the Great East Asian War) ended with the Emperor’s announcement on August 15.  The date of the Emperor’s mandate was August 14．After August 14, the battle between Japanese and Soviet armies was still going on, and it was on September 2 that this battle ended with the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.  In many countries, September 2 is the Victory Day over Japan. However, in Japan, August 15 has two meanings – the end of the war and the beginning of the postwar period.  In the Korean Peninsula, the Emperor’s mandate had another meaning - liberalization.  Three years later, on August 15, 1948, Korea declared their independence and got international recognition by Resolution 195 (III) at the United Nations General Assembly on December 12 1948.  In Korea during this period, they were arguing about claims for compensation and referred to the Treaty of Versailles between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany. The Treaty was very severe on Germany and concluded in 1919. Korean’s claims for compensation were not “punishment” nor “retaliation” against Japan, but rather “recovery from damages” which came from “violence” and “greed.”  In The Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea” concluded in 1949, it was mentioned that “Japan has ruled over Korea from 1910 to August 15, 1945”.  This means that Korea wanted to acknowledge the period of colonization by Japan. In the Treaty, they also mentioned “human damages which came from the Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War,” meaning that they considered themselves as victims of war. In other words, Korea wanted to address both “colonial responsibility” and “war responsibility”.  In 1951, however, Japan concluded “The Peace Treaty of San Francisco” with the Allied nations which brought a conclusion to “the state of war” and reinstated their sovereignty. Korea was not authorized to sign the treaty.  The Peace Treaty of San Francisco, signed during the “Cold War” and “Hot War” (the Korean War) , formed “the order after the War” after the Asian Pacific War. However, there were no special rules for the formation of order after the liberation of colonies.  It is not difficult to criticize the Peace Treaty of San Francisco if we consider the situations mentioned above. However, historically many peace treaties tend to focus on wars and their aftermath.  Separation clauses that address the colonies of defeated nations do not consider the colonial issues that come up afterwards.  Notwithstanding such examples, Korea, whose sovereignty was approved by the United Nations in 1948, and Japan, which recovered its sovereignty in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco in 1951, have entered into international relations as mentioned in the preamble of “The Japan-Republic Korea Basic Relations Treaty” in 1965. Since then, both countries have been trying to narrow their divergence little by little. “The Kono (Chief Cabinet Secretary, in 1993) statement”, “Murayama (Prime Minister, in 1995) statement” and “Japan-Korea Joint Declaration” in 1998 were typical.  However, we have to realize that “the past” is still an issue today, and affects the economy as well as security - issues which we should work together on.  As a nation, they, like all human beings, pursue “prestige,” which is the basis of all fame and desire. It is not easy to find a correct “theory of practice” and means of overcoming the present crisis in Japan-Korea relations. It is necessary to have a mutual understanding and engage in self-reflection. Both countries have repeatedly emphasized the establishment of trust among political leaders and proposed the sharing of strategies including those regarding security issues, an established order of priority for problem solving, and continued exchange in the private sectors and so on.  We can explain such opinions from the viewpoint of “international politics” as follows (although they may not be solutions):  1. There is a saying in Latin that “we have to maintain mutual consent,” meaning that promises between national sovereignties precede over individual promises in international laws, stipulated on the premise of “The Vienna Treaties” (The Laws of Treaties)2. Emer de Vattel, a Swiss jurist and diplomat, says, in his famous “International laws,” that in order to restore peace there must be negotiation through concession or compromise rather than a strict principle of justice.3. The theory of “reconciliation” in international politics has been formulated from the study for conciliation. The three-layer structure of reconciliation provides international stability. The “three-layers” refer to systematic reconciliation by agreements, physical reconciliation by compensation, and ideal reconciliation by mourning or commemorative ceremonies.  The three viewpoints from international politics mentioned above came from the theses for “war and peace”.  In Japan-Korea relations the viewpoint of “colonies and peace” is necessary, and both countries require its development for international politics.  If a war among sovereign nations were to break out in the near future, it would be possible to end it officially via a peace treaty.  In the modern world, it will not be possible to be a nation under colonial rule. War and colonization are not humane acts. If we compare the sense of crisis against a possible war crisis, the colonial issue will remain an issue of the past. This gap in understanding between Japan and Korea comes from differences in interpretations and perceptions of the past. If there existed an “international politics for relations between Japan and Korea”, it would be possible to propose a thesis for understanding war, peace and colonies” not only in Japan and Korea but for the world as well.       SGRA Kawaraban 608 in Japanese (Original) Kim Soongbae / Eminent Professor, Faculty of Humanities, Chungnam (忠南) National University (Korea)  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sonja Dale 

It was not the first time to visit Fukushima.  I visited Fukushima for the first time in 2012 summer as a volunteer.  Immediately after the Great East Japan Earthquake (March 11, 2011), I was lost in my planned study abroad program in Japan, and by chance I found a recruitment of university volunteers to Fukushima on the bulletin board of Zhejiang University in China. When I called, it was a private exchange activity where a Japanese exchange student from Keio University contacted the Fukushima Prefectural Office and recruited university students in China to go to Fukushima. During the seven nights and six nights, we visited the villagers in temporary housing and visited agricultural facilities along with the sightseeing. The most impressive thing was that many young people fled outside the prefecture, but the old people who remained there were surprisingly strong and cheerful.  When I left Fukushima, I told “I will come back soon !”  But, it was seven years later that I could visit Fukushima again.  I visited Iitate in September, 2019 as “Fukushima Study Tour”. I was interested in agriculture because I have majored in agriculture in the university and I have a little knowledge about agriculture. I checked economy of Fukushima in advance and found that manufacturing is main. Contribution by agriculture is not so big, but some of the agricultural products are famous. For example, “Akatuki” and some of other peach breeds in Fukushima are very famous in Japan. There are some rice breeds which are as good as other breeds in neighboring prefectures like Niigata, Yamagata and Miyagi. Fukushima premier branded beef is also famous, and we can find “Akabeko”, which is a folk toy of cow, everywhere in Fukushima.  However, after the nuclear power plant accident, agricultural products from Fukushima suddenly came to the spotlight from all over the world. Frequent news such as foreign import bans. I also learned that all agricultural products made in Fukushima Prefecture that were not affected by the nuclear accident were suffering from reputational damage as "from Fukushima." In China, there is a proverb “好事不出門、懐事伝千里”.  It means “There are few people who care good things. But, bad news travels quickly”.  The same is true of Fukushima's agricultural products that are being beaten. According to a report by the MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries), the change in prices of six kinds of products like rice, beef, peach and plaice etc. are showing below the national average, despite of gradual recovery. It is not radioactive contamination but a prejudice for agriculture that Fukushima people should challenge for their restoration.  Now, let us come back to Iitate. It is true that profit from agriculture are damaged by prejudice as the second damage. But they do not know their actual latent impact on their health by radioactive contamination, which comes from invisible radiation by cesium, which have long half-life period. Immediately after the accident, wind brought such radioactive materials and spread to soil of Iitate. This time, I measured radioactive rays by dosimeter by myself walking in the village and found that data on the surface of ground and muddy place shows higher figures. In the windbreak forests, the place, where the wind from the nuclear power plant blows directly, shows higher figures. In Fukushima, they removed surface soil physically in order to keep their living and production. There were various reports about this. Some of them reported that they have tried to bury contaminated soil into deeper place, but they could not do it by the opposition of the people who live there. There was a plan by country which contaminated soils would be reused as piling up soil for their new roads. There seems no good idea for contaminated soils and we saw a lot of durable plastic bags alongside roads temporarily.  After two or three weeks later of our trip, the 19th typhoon hit Iitate and the contaminated soil flowed out by heavy rain. It was a problem. When I saw the news of flowing out of contaminated soil, I had mixed feelings in my mind. I know “anybody do not like to touch contaminated water and soil”.  As a foreigner, I felt a sense of helplessness like a bystander.    Fortunately, when I saw the faces of the villagers in Iitate, I was very impressed with their spiritual strength and strong mind. Of course, it is understandable that many former villagers remain in urban areas without returning after seven years of evacuation. Therefore, I respect the villagers who return and stay alive after canceling the evacuation orders. Seeing many NPOs working hard for the future of Iitate Village, I was impressed by the variety of ways of life, and it was a memorable trip.  I saw many calves in Iitate rich in nature which villagers began to raise. I wish I could enjoy nice Iitate beef when I would come back next time. SGRA Kawaraban 616 in Japanese (Original) Photos of the Day  Jin_Hongyuan / 2019 Raccoon, Special researcher at Department of Integrated Bioscience, The University of Tokyo Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sabina Koirala

While Korea-Japan relations are becoming increasingly chaotic, I would like to look back on my short life as a foreign student in Japan, my individual connection with Japan and I would like to mention about the Korea- Japan relation in the 21st century.  [TV animations]I was born in 1982 (Showa 57 in Japanese era ) and spent my student life in Seoul, Korea. When I entered “national school”, I have enjoyed TV animations like “Tetsujin 28”, “Mazinger Z”, “Tetuwan Atom (Astro Boy)”, “Science Ninja Team Gatchaman”, and “Honoh no Tokyuji, Dodge Danpei” etc..  In my junior and high school time, I have enjoyed “Slum Dunk”. ＊On March 1,1996, the name “national school” (vestige of Japanese colonial rule) was changed to“primary school”.  It was in 2001, when I became the university student, I came to know that those enthusiastic animations were imported from Japan. Actually, I was not so interested in Japanese people, Japanese language, Japanese culture and Japanese history. I wanted to be a teacher, so I enrolled in the Japanese Language Education Department according to my score in the entrance examination. I was shocked to hear those animations were made in Japan from a friend who was familiar about Japanese culture. It was because of the character`s Korean name and the Korean language they spoke.   When I came to Japan for the first time in 2006 for the purpose of learning Japanese language, I have been crazy, rather than textbooks, about colored “Slum Dunk” in 24 volumes which I bought at a nearby secondhand book store. I took it back to Korea and read it over repeatedly.  [Okinawa, Nagasaki, Yakiniku]  In 2006, during my language training period in Japan, I went to Catholic Church every Sunday morning together with my roommate. I went to Okinawa together with Japanese, Chinese and Korean believers in June and prayed for the war deaths in the battle of Okinawa.  I learned about the past and the present of Okinawa by visiting the battle site, Peace Memorial Park, Futenma U.S. Military Base and Shuri-Jo (castle). We stayed at a religious house for five days having breakfast made by the Sisters. We travelled in Okinawa by micro bus and I could not forget enthusiastic voice of an Okinawa-born clergyman who guided us. Especially, he repeated “I am not a Japanese” which made me feel embarrassed and made me to notice that I have to study Japanese more. It might be an instant when I changed and selected my way to a scholar.  This time, Okinawa tour was planned by the father of the church where I used to visit for praying, He was born in Nagasaki and took me to Nagasaki so that, I could visit Catholic churches, Endo Shusaku Literature Museum and Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum. I read the names of Korean victims whose name were inscribed in the Foundation of Peace at the Peace Memorial Park in Okinawa. I saw names of Korean workers who were victims of atomic bombs at Hiroshima on August 6 and at Nagasaki on August 9, in 1945. It made me realized sincerely that I, as a teacher, cannot teach Japanese without knowing their existence and meaning of Korean victims who came to Japan in the foreign land.    When I came to Japan first, I could not progress my Japanese conversation ability despite of Level 2 (N2) ranking at Japanese-Language Proficiency Test. I worked as a part-time at a Yakiniku restaurant. It was strange for me to see Korean words, like ‘kalbi’, ‘kimchi (Korean lettuce)’, ‘kakuteki (cubed daikon kimchi)’, ‘Oi-Kimchi’, ‘sanchu (Korean lettuce)’, ‘gukpa’, ‘ bibimbap’ and ‘chijimi (Korean pancake)’. Some people say that such Korean words in Japan began to be used currently after the Seoul Olympic Games in 1988. The Yakiniku restaurant, where I was working, was run by a family.  I was able to take staff meals and enjoy free alcoholic drinks after work.  The staffs who were working there were all Japanese except me, so that I was able to practice Japanese by asking everything that I was worried about. There is no exaggeration to say that communications and understanding with profound Japanese, whom I met at Yakiniku restaurant, have broken my walls of prejudice toward Japanese and changed my life.  [A piece of memory at my national school]Going back to my national school time (March, 1989 - February, 1995), I would like to say about the Korean War which broke out on June 25, 1950. When the day, June 25 was near, we drew anti-communist posters and had anti-communist speech contests in school. At first, I thought that only demons and devils live in North Korea (the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea). On other hand, we sang the national anthem in which words like “Beckdu Mountain (白頭山) 2744m” or “Mountain Kumgang (金剛山) 1638m” are included.  We wrote posters and sang songs both of which are just for our hope “unification” and we were thinking that the North and the South will be unified in these five or ten years. In the year 1994, when I was in the sixth year at our national school, the Premier Kim Il-sung passed away. In our school, an announcement was made to turn on the televisions where his death was reported. I thought the unification of the North and the South would be materialized soon. Twenty-five years has already passed, but we are still divided.        [The Millennium between Korea and Japan starts from dialogue and human love]  On October 8, 1998, President Kim Dae-jung and Japanese Prime Minister, Keizo Obuchi agreed on the Joint Declaration on the Korea-Japan Partnerships toward the 21st Century.  In the Declaration, both of the countries agreed that they would talk about the ideal friendships and build new partnerships between two countries reconfirming the present amicable friendships.  Based on this agreement, “Common undertakings for foreign students from science and technology departments of both countries” was established. Korean students, who graduated high schools, were invited to the departments of science and technology of Japanese national universities and learned for four years. Since the year 2000 when this program started, about two thousand Korean students have studied under this program.  Regret to say, however, this program ended in 2018.  In October, 1998, there was a memorable change. The Korean Government released Japanese public cultures which were prohibited to import and we were able to touch with Japanese public cultures like movies or cartoons legally.  Unfortunate to say, I have to touch with “the accident at Shin-okubo station where a passenger fell down from platform”. At around 19:00, on January 26, 2001, a drunken man fall down to railroad track and a Japanese cameraman together with Korean students jumped down on the track to save him. But, unfortunately, all three of them were run over by the train to death. A plate for morning and praising for the death of victims were founded at stairs just between the platform and the ticket gate of the station. On January 26, every year, they have a remembrance event for Lee Su-hyon, Korean student who passed away at the accident. “LSH(initials of Lee Su-hyon) Scholarship” was established by voluntary fund-raising of the people and is said to be a symbol of friendship between Korea and Japan.          Success in the FIFA World Cup in 2002, which was jointly organized by Korea and Japan is still fresh in our memories. On December 19, 2002, Roh Moo-hyun was elected as 16th President against all the expectations. He visited Japan from June 6 to 9, 2003, held summit meetings and spoke with political figures. He also made a speech at the Japanese parliament, and appeared on the TBS news program, "Hundred People Hundred Heats, President Roh Moo-Hyun's Real Intent", and had heart to heart talks with Japanese people for around one and half hour. Looking back from now on, it is an exceptional thing and I think that it is necessary now.  It is the millennium now for both countries. Both of us, Korea and Japan, cannot forget have started to deepen mutual understanding through exchanges based on human love and dialogue. (To be Continue) SGRA Kawaraban 611 in Japanese (Original) Cho_Suil / Graduated School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Tokyo, Fellowships from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sabina Koirala 

Thirty years ago, back in the 1980s, I came to Japan when I was only three years old with my family.  My father was an Iranian student in Japan. At that time, it was very rare for an Iranian to study in Japan and it is said that he was the first generation to study abroad in Japan.  Japan’s economy was in top form back then, during the “bubble era.” This news reached Iran as well and people in Iran were looking for jobs as this was just after the Iranian Revolution.  In 1974, the “Visa Mutual Waiver Agreement” was concluded between Iran and Japan and we could visit Japan without a visa. Due to such changes, Iranian youth began to visit and stay in Japan looking for jobs. It is said that in the year 1992, more than 40 thousand Iranians - the highest number ever - were in Japan. Our family was also living in Japan in that period.  I do not know why Iranians have been gathering together around Ueno Park in Tokyo. On Sunday, Ueno Park became a “mini-Persian town” and a place to exchange information over Iranian foods. Sometimes, famous Iranian singers or artists came to the park to have concerts. I have a memory of our family going to Ueno for Iranian foods, music and movies.  Looking back, I have a strange memory of my father whom I believed to have been busy in preparing his doctoral thesis. When I was in the third grade of elementary school, he went out around 11 o’clock in the evening a few times a week in a luxurious car and came back the next morning. Feeling anxious about this, one day I asked my mother about it, thinking that my father had a part-time job at night because he was busy in the day.  My mother told me that a lot of Iranians were in prison for illegally overstaying.  Japanese police stations were short of interpreters for Persian and Japanese at the time and asked Iranian students such as my father to interpret.  In 1995, we returned to Iran when my father completed his studies in Japan.  Other Iranian people who had been working in Japan also began to return.  After my return to Iran, I had the chance to talk with Iranian people who had been working in Japan. When I talked with my mother in Japanese in places where there were a lot of people, we communicated freely as we assumed that Iranian people could not understand Japanese.  When we talked in Japanese in taxies or supermarkets, I was surprised on many an occasion by taxi drivers saying “I understand Japanese” or “your Japanese is very good”.  In my schooldays, I was teaching Japanese to ordinary citizens at the University of Tehran.  Some Iranians who had lived in Japan took my class and told me about their memories of Japan in the 1980s, bringing up Japanese soberness and politeness.  In 2013, eighteen years after my first visit to Japan, I came to Japan again as an Iranian student. In my doctoral course, I started my research in the field of sociolinguistics, focusing on Iranian people who have stayed in Japan for more than five years.  I aimed at an investigation of the actual situation of their use of the Japanese language.  I tried to listen to their life stories as much as possible, because their life stories relate to their abilities of speaking Japanese after their studies of the language.  Students were included in my field of research, of course. However, it was also true that many Iranians who came over to Japan in the 1980s were laborers. Some of them were married and had their families in Japan, and some of them were running good Persian food restaurants or supermarkets.   Whenever I start my interviews with these individuals, sitting in front of them and asking them to “please, tell me your “life story”, I always have a strange feeling. They came to Japan in their twenties and are in their forties or fifties now. I came to Japan as a schoolgirl and am an adult woman now. And I am sitting in front of them as a researcher. Our paths might have been different, but I have a feeling that we share something in common.     It is a fact that “we are still in Japan.” We love Japan and are sharing our memories, be they happy or terrible. We thank Japan for Japan has made us grow and gain many experiences. We are sharing wonderful lessons with each other.  Hereafter, I will continue to look into the Iranian community in Japan.  Though we are living in Japan with some similar background and reasons, we will grow and have our own way of living.  I would like to convey the stories of our small communities to the Japanese people.   SGRA Kawaraban 601 in Japanese (Original) Hourieh_Akbari / 2017 Raccoon, Researcher at Chiba University (Graduate School of Humanities and Studies on Public Affairs) Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sonja Dale

 Just after the G-20 Osaka Summit in June 2019, the third North Korea-United States summit was held at Panmunjon (板門店), Korea.  And on July 1st, immediately after the G-20 Summit, the Japanese Government released a press release about the regulatory measures of the METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry)’s licensing policies and procedures on exports of controlled items to the Republic of Korea. At first, given the timing of the announcement, most people thought that it was a “countermeasure” against the government of President Moon Jae-in who did not respond to the judicial decision regarding the wartime laborers by the Korean Supreme Court in October 2018. People anticipated that it could be possible that the Japanese Government would take countermeasures against this if the assets of Japanese companies in Korea would be forcefully cashed by the Korean government for reparation purposes, which would result in visible damages to Japanese companies.  The rights of Korean sufferers, who could not get any relief, should be reinstated.But, it should be done on the basis of “The Agreement for the Rights to Claims between Japan and Korea” which was signed in 1965 as the foundation of the “promise between the two countries”.  However, the Korean Supreme Court has tried to supersede the conditions of the agreement, despite the sentences being “perfectly and irreversibly” declared by interpreting “an extent of the agreement” in narrower terms than the “intention of lawmakers”.  Such an understanding might be supported in South Korea. However, in Japan, it has hardly been accepted.  These differences should have been resolved as “diplomatic issues”. Accordingly, South Korea should have sought agreement with the Japanese side through negotiation or made a proposal which does not go against judicial decisions and the agreement.In any case, this issue should be handled by the government of President Moon Jae-in.  Response by the government of President Moon Jae-in after the judicial decision was slow. President Moon himself, who had the experience of a counsel for a similar lawsuit, might have held the conviction that Japanese companies should provide compensation. Surrounding staff members might have thought favorably of President Moon. In Japan, there is the opinion that responsibility for this judicial decision should belong to the government of President Moon. However, the “original judgement” was made at a small claims court in the Supreme Court in May 2015, the last period of President Lee Myung-bak. Park Geun-hye, the following President, tried to take some countermeasures considering the potential destructive impact it might have on Japan and South Korea relations.  But, she failed as she was soon impeached and dismissed.  Furthermore, the head of the Supreme Court was arrested under the government of President Moon, the reason being that he exercised illegal “judicial monopoly” by trying to adjust relations between administration and judicature.  In Korea, people strongly believe that the Korean Government should negotiate with the Japanese Government to accept the judgement by the Korean Supreme Court and the Japanese Government and companies should abide by the judgement. I personally think it should be left to the judgement of the companies whether they follow the judgement or not. As for the Japanese government, they consider that the judgement by the Korean Supreme court is against “The Agreement for the Rights to Claims between Japan and Korea” which was made “perfectly and irreversibly”. This means that if the judicial procedures in Korea proceed as is, the Japanese government would have to take some “counter measures”.  However, how can we justify “counter measures” which the Japanese Government took before Japanese companies experienced any visible damages? Furthermore, they explained that they decided to take “export regulatory measures” for security reasons given that strategic goods or techniques are being outsourced to third party countries (such as North Korea or China) . in the belief that they would not get any support internationally for their “counter measures”.     In any case, we cannot deny either side regardless of the explanation by the Japanese government of what they regard as “protective counter measures” against the encashment of assets of Japanese companies in Korea. This measure has led to great tumult in Korea.  Far from being effective, the Japanese counter measure has brought about “solidarity” in Korea by encouraging a hardline stance against Japan. At first, Korean parties, both conservative and opposition, criticized the “no policy” stance against Japan by the Moon government. But, this criticism against the government changed to criticism against Japan. The wartime labor (victims of forced labor) issue, which was the reason for the “great tumult”, disappeared into thin air and Koreans now think that Japan is trying to make Korea yield through spiteful actions. Behind the act of boycotting (non-selling and non-buying) of Japanese goods in Korea, there seems to be a Korean “simple sense of justice” rather than anti-Japanese sentiment which came from the historical experience of Korea.   If Japan seriously considered this issue not as a simple “expedient” and did not consider Korea as “a problem country” from a security viewpoint, that would be a big change for Japanese diplomacy and security from previous standpoints.  We cannot deny the Abe administration’s new policy which can be called a “re-definition” of Japan and South Korea relations”.  They even deleted the sentence “Japan shares basic values, market economy and democracy, with South Korea” from governmental documents and even stated that they lowered the diplomatic order of priority for Korea.  As proof, Japan showed that South Korea sided with North Korea rather than staying with allied nations such as Japan and America, or that South Korea showed their ambiguous attitude in their response to the confrontation between America and China.  Japan should give a convincing explanation about not only South Korea but also America which shares an alliance with Japan and South Korea. Needless to say, Japan should give this explanation to a domestic as well as international audience.    At present, however, Japan has not given any explanation about their change in attitude toward South Korea for security reasons. We cannot evaluate the “counter measures” this time because there are a lot of incomprehensible parts to it. It may be difficult also to withdraw the “measure” without any reasons.   As for the judicial decision for the wartime laborers, which was a cause of the great tumult this time, I think it is necessary for Korea to present their proposals which are compatible with the judicial decision by the Korean Supreme Court and the Agreement for the Rights to Claim between Japan and Korea. Providing relief for the victims (wartime laborers) should be the basis of this proposal. It should not be on the basis of how to compensate the victims by Japanese companies. In other words, it should be on the basis for compensation by Korean and Japanese companies to take part in voluntarily under the initiative of the Korean government. It is necessary for the Japanese government also to boldly withdraw their “counter measure” if their anxiety can be cleared by talking with South Korea about national security.      Relations between Japan and South Korea have been unsymmetrical and complementary, but changed to symmetrical and competitive and compete with each other now under “justice”. So, it will be difficult to solve this issue on a so-called zero-sum basis: namely, either one side will be correct and the other side wrong. As far as this game continues, both sides will only end up miserable like the so-called “chicken game”.  This confrontation, which started directly from historical issues, is now extending to affect the economy and security.     What should we do?  It would be difficult to relieve or dissolve this confrontation without a clear government standpoint and direct negotiations. Japan and South Korea should consider the intentions of the other first.  They should judge what their top priority would be, how they would get it and what they would sacrifice. Then, it is necessary to proceed with their intellectual (not emotional) negotiation consciously and distinguish it from their diplomatic, security and social viewpoints. Not only political leaders but citizens also have to keep this situation of both countries in mind.  Now, there is a movement by nongovernmental organizations and/or local governmental bodies in Korea to discontinue their exchanges with Japan.  I want the government of President Moon Jae-in to be clear on their standpoint and forthrightly state whether this is an act that is necessary or not.  SGRA Kawaraban 604 in Japanese (Original)  Kimiya Tadashi /Professor of the University of Tokyo (Liberal Arts)  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sonja Dale

The 62nd SGRA Forum “Can Renewable Energy Change the World – Moving Beyond “An Inconvenient Truth””, a joint session with the APYLP (Asian Pacific Young Leaders Program) and SGRA, was held on February 2, 2019 at the International House of Japan (Roppongi).＊APYLP is a program organized by the International House of Japan for the purpose of connecting young leaders in the Asia Pacific region.   The theme of this forum was “renewable energy,” an issue which has made rapid progress since COP21 was agreed in 2015 in Paris. The purpose of the forum was to consider the possibility of renewable energy in our societies through considering the rapid progress of the past and its prospects in the future from the viewpoints of international politics and economy, environmental innovation, energy and community.＊COP：Conference of the Parties “parties”：UNFCCC(The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (気候変動枠組条約締約国会議) Summaries of the research papers and key-note speeches can be found below. .We started our morning session with an opening address by Ms. Junko Imanishi (Representative of SGRA), introduced by the moderator, Sonja Dale (Adjunct Professor, Hitotsubashi University), who was delighted with the full house of over 120 people.Three Raccoons presented about their research in the first session.Adjunct Professor Park Joonui (George Mason University) spoke about her research titled ” Renewable Energy in Trade Wars: Solar Power in South Korea’s Energy Mix and the Impact of Protectionism”.She discussed how the environmental policies under President Moon seem to be too ambitious, how China is monopolizing the market through mass-production as a state policy, and the protectionist stance of the US. She ended her presentation with a warning about the present situation in Korea in which the business of renewable energy is becoming distorted because of the decline in the solar cell industry in Korea, and emphasized the necessity of changing Korean national policy.The second presentation was made by Professor Gao Weijun, University of Kitakyushu、and was titled “Chinese Policy on Renewable Energy and the Direction of Environmental Improvement”. He surveyed present environmental problems in China and discussed the necessity of change in renewable energy to overcome the serious environmental pollutions at present. Professor Gao introduced large-scale domestic and overseas projects which are being carried out by government initiatives. However, he emphasized that the government should establish meticulous environmental policies in order to avoid favoring big projects.The third presenter was Associate Professor, Yeh Wen-chang, Shimane University.His presentation was titled “How low can the cost of solar power go? What tasks lie ahead?” He discussed the many innovative possibilities for reducing generating costs by solar cells, and shared his method of cost calculation for PV (photovoltaics-太陽光発電). He also called for the necessity of innovation in the combined accumulation and generation of electricity.   We had a coffee break in the garden under the spring sunshine. In the second session we heard about the situation in Iitate Village, Fukushima Prefecture. In Iitate, they are trying to promote the generation of renewable energy for regional industries. The purpose of this attempt was to gain energy independence and restore the environment after the Fukushima nuclear power incident. Mr. Kenta Satoh, a member of the Iitate Village Assembly, looked back at the damage caused by the incident on March 11, 2011 and the experiences of people who had lived as evacuees for seven years up until last year.  He explained the meaning and vision of generating renewable energy as a core for the reinvigoration of Iitate Village and as a community development project.Mr. Kei Kondo, Iitate Power Company, discussed their efforts to generate solar energy in Iitate on a small scale and spoke about the difficulty of increasing their production capacity within regional levels under the present regulations in Japan.    In the afternoon session, we had two keynote speeches and smaller panel discussions. The first key-note speech, titled “Global Shifts in Renewable Energy,” was given by Associate Professor, Llewelyn Hughes from Australian National University,.  He gave an overview of the world-wide shift towards low carbon energy and pointed out its necessity for climate change. He explained the Japanese policy for energy which, though promoting low-carbon energy, has no clear guidelines.The second keynote speaker was Mr. Hans-Josef Fell, President of Energy Watch Group (ex-Member of German Parliament), who gave a talk titled  “German Experience of Energiewende and Community Power”.  He discussed his experience of community organization by PV business operators in 1994, the first in the world. He also played a role in the establishment of the EEG (Renewable Energy Act) bill in the German Parliament, and has been working for the promotion of renewable energy around the world under the slogan “Renewable Energy 100,” a program which aims at the actualization of renewable energy societies.    After the five presentations and two keynote speeches, we separated into three separate panel sessions - “global shifts/international economy”, “environment/innovation” and “energy and community”.    In this forum, we sought to discuss solutions for problems as well as the possibilities for actualizing renewable energy societies in a single day, and we handled topics from various fields. It was not easy to integrate and assimilate these different fields and findings. I personally thought that we could share, at least, the knowledge of not only the presenters but also all of the participants, and the awareness that there is no turning back in of the global shift towards de-carbonization and renewable energy.This shift is inevitable. From the presentations, however, it became clear that this process would not go so smoothly. It also became clear that every country and every field has their own problems to solve. We cannot say that all the questions could be solved.For example, when we think of climate change and using up natural resources which has been actualized as global warming, shifting to renewable energy (non-carbon energy) would be an urgent issue for all societies on earth. We, as a result of entering big capital enterprises, may be able to change the present global environmental problems by shifting to natural energy from fossil fuel. However, even if we change the source of our power on a large scale, we cannot change the substance of civilization itself, which is supported by mass-production and mass-consumption. In the panel sessions, the many protests and demonstrations in Japan and Europe were discussed, and the issue of gigantic mega-solar power systems which are destroying the scenery and circumstances of societies. The problems of environmental pollutants which are being discharged in the process of production of solar panels were also discussed, as were other problems such as the introduction of FIT (Feed-in Tariff：(売電の)固定価格買取制度)  and the problems it caused for late-comers in entering the market and the effects of FIT on finance in Germany. The necessity of technical innovation in technology for the storage of electricity was also discussed.  As a matter of course, I do not think that an issue related to the future of the earth such as this can be solved easily.  We should be cautious of haste in discussing issues such as this.  Surely, it is a reality that societies using renewable energy will spread and expand in the world and this trend or wave is only growing. The sub-title of the forum is “moving beyond “An Inconvenient Truth,”” which is the title of the book written by Al Gore, ex-Vice President of the United States, which was written as a cautionary tale about the problem of global warming.“An Inconvenient Truth” is one which goes against the currents and thoughts of current time, and is not liable to be talked about or hidden.In the discussion of renewable energy, it became clear that in the Fukushima nuclear power incident, a lot of “inconvenient truths” were being hidden and not talked about.  I hope that many of these “inconvenient truths” will be discussed more openly and with more frequency, and not be hidden nor neglected at the level of citizenship for the purpose of establishing our consensus for spread of renewable energy.   SGRA News in Japanse (Original) on 14th March, 2019 Photos of the Day  (TSUNODA Eiichi / Secretary General, Atsumi International Foundation)  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sonja Dale       

Recently, China has made remarkable economic progress. In the academic world, however, we are unable to see similar progress. Among the scholars whom I have been indebted to, there have been some who have been communicating with scholars in China. Their essays, which were scheduled to be published in China, were sometimes prohibited from publication because of censorship. However, owing to the persistent endeavors of their friends in China, these essays were published with certain parts blacked out. When I talked with a professor about this phenomenon, he pointed out that if an essay has been partially censored, we cannot say that it is the same essay. He then explained about the spirit of “academic independence” in Waseda University. As a graduate of Waseda University, and from the standpoint of “academic independence”, I do find some agreement with his uncompromising spirit. However, I did feel some conflict over it. If not for censored publication, there might be a possibility that they cannot dispatch any information at all or that they have to give up on contributing their essays under the threat of censorship. Dispatching information under any difficult circumstances would be a different form of “academic independence”.     In Taiwan, my native country, there is no such censorship. However, “academic independence” is being challenged in a different way. When we talk about Taiwan overseas, we are asked if we support independence or unification. Actually, there are considerable supporters for both independence and unification in Taiwan. If we are allowed to have our own thoughts, siding with either independence or unification would be a form of “personal freedom”. It is in a “democratic country” that we can respect each other although we may have different opinions. However, confrontation in political ideology in Taiwanese society has taken a serious turn. Some researchers “work-out” their research in order to create a logical backing to assert their thoughts. One typical example is the “Taiwanese heritage dispute” which was based on the doctrine that “85% of Taiwanese have the heritage of Taiwanese aborigines”, which was published by Professor Lim M, National Taiwan University College of Medicine. Such a doctrine was hard for me to understand given that I am a researcher of modern history. A famous jurist, Santaro Okamatu, who crafted the Taiwanese Private Law in the colonial period of Taiwan, gave a statement which said that “all people in Taiwan have Chinese ethnicity, and do not belong to the primitive race. People have their own special cultures and characteristics.” There are some discriminatory terms in this statement, but we get the impression that Taiwan, in the colonial period under Imperial Japan before the war, consisted of Chinese (Han) people who had a specific culture and characteristics. There were some who had marital relations between such Chinese race and aborigines. But, such relations were very few. Moreover, they were not hostile against each other, but rather were not interested in the other and lived in “different worlds”. We can find this account in many historical documents. Before the war, we used the term “Go-yo (御用)” to preface words which related to the Office of the Government of Formosa, like “Go-yo newspapers”, “Go-yo merchants” or “Go-yo scholars”. However, according to recent studies, even newspapers which were known as “Go-yo newspapers” carried many articles which criticize government policies.  According to my research, professors of Taiwan Imperial University, who have been labelled “Go-yo scholars” were engaged in working for the government and practiced their “academic independence” despite the harsh environment, keeping their dignity and fulfilling their responsibilities.  Another example is the “Preservation of Historical and Scenic Spots and Natural Monuments” which was initiated by the Office of the Government -General in the 1930s.  There were many “new” historical spots possessed by Taiwan under Imperial Japan which implied their political intentions. On the other hand, there are also other spots which were designated variously while under the Netherlands, the time of Koxinga or the Qing dynasty. These spots which were designated before Imperial Japan are precious and valuable for Taiwan today and are linked to Taiwanese identity. The three cases mentioned above differ in time and the place. Yet, from them we can realize the importance of “academic independence”. In recent years, historical revisionism has become an issue. I, as a researcher of history, think it is my mission to convey historical facts to people without any bias. And, as a graduate of Waseda University, I will conduct my research with “academic independence” in mind.However, I do not think that “academic independence” only belongs to graduates of Waseda.  Rather, “academic independence” should be shared with researchers of all fields and from different countries and universities. That is why I decided to write this column.      SGRA Kawaraban 597 in Japanese (Original)  (Chiang Yung_Po / 2018 Raccoon, Research Assistant, Research Institute of Law in East Asia, Waseda University)  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sonja Dale