We had the 6th Meeting online for the “Possibility of Dialogue among National Historians of Japan, South Korea and China” in September. Since 2016, this meeting had been held under the support of Atsumi International Foundation for the purpose of dialogue among historians of National History in East Asia. Students who study international relations or histories of neighboring countries continue to have dialogues with the foreign people who are the subject of their research. In contrast, researchers of “National Histories” cannot have such experiences. In order to solve the historical frictions in East Asia that haunts this area since the 20th century, it is necessary to have dialogues among “National History” scholars who have been living in nationally closed circumstances. This dialogue was advocated by Professor LIU Jie, Waseda University, and were held biennially by historians from Japan, China and South Korea under the support of Atsumi International Foundation. The theme this time was “The Migration of People from the Perspective of Boundary, Political Power and Ethnicity”. After keynote speech by Professor SHIODE Hiroyuki, Kyoto University, two researchers each from Japan, China and South Korea gave response arguments.  Then, ten panelists developed their discussion for three hours and a half. In this meeting, the structure of our program was quite different from before. We asked only one speaker to present an organized discussion and let the discussions ride later. It was an adventurous attempt. Yet, we succeeded in realizing lively chain of discussions owing to the deliberate preparation and teamwork of the executive committee: MURA Kazuaki, Associate Professor of The University of Tokyo, LI Enmin, Professor of J.F. Oberlin University, NAM Kijeon, Professor of Seoul National University, PENG Hao, Associate Professor of Osaka City University, and CHONG Soon-il, Associate Professor of Korea University. In this meeting younger historians from three countries played a major role to show their willingness to step into the discussion beyond their specialized fields and nationalities. I think this was a great achievement that illuminates the future of this project. The original aim of the ‘Dialogue by National Historians’ was to resolve the historical friction among three countries in East Asia, especially between Japan and neighboring countries in order to ease the burden on international relations in this area. When the “historical perceptions” appeared as one of the controversial issues at the beginning of the 20th century, historians in my generation began historical dialogue beyond borders. After our numerous dialogues, we reached the common ground where every party tried to understand the background of the other side’s view when our understandings seemed to conflict. Recently, however, the governments in East Asia dare to confront each other by picking up territorial and other touchy issues. As a result, historical issues retroceded. We have lost the field where we can start historical dialogue on controversial period, the first half of the 20th century. It is unbearable to abandon the achievement of historians in East Asia at the beginning of this century. We would like to keep a table where historians of next generations can communicate and cooperate daily at an academic level. It will be more productive for historians to release themselves from nationally limited academies. On the other hand, we slightly changed the focus of dialogue from political deliberation into academic development. It may suit the generation change in participants. A group of younger scholars began to join this project during the former meeting in Philippines January, 2020. They took an initiative to organize the next meeting in cooperation with ex-scholarship students of Atsumi International Foundation. January this year, they took up a thoroughly new subject “19th century Pandemic and its Social Countermeasures in East Asia” having been conscious of the COVID-19. Despite of its epochal theme, they felt unsatisfactory because of lacking enough time for discussion. This was why they set up a new subject “The Migration of People from the Perspective of Boundary, Political Power and Ethnicity”. By doing so, they started to find historical narratives which exceed “National Histories” common in school textbooks in East Asia. We have to admit that we could not fully elaborate the issues during this meeting Yet, there was a session like “Certificates (Passports) for Crossing the Borders” in which the participants argued the theme from ancient to modern times. I think they can continue and develop their discussion to publish a collection of papers on East Asian experience on this subject. Today, we see the worst relations among three countries in East Asia. At the beginning of this century, we could not foresee such hostile relations. Yet, I have found a quite a different stream of cooperation in this meeting. Also, younger generation proved the capability of leading this stream. We witnessed the fact that there is a sphere not being regulated by politics. I wish this bond generated through academic dialogues would grow steadily. May our meeting contribute to start overcoming not only the COVID19 pandemic but also the hostile relations among East Asian nations. The dialogue this time gave me a happy expectation for future.  SGRA Kawaraban 648 in Japanese (Original)  MITANI Hiroshi / Professor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sabina Koirala

“The Dialogue of National Histories of East Asia” started. This was the second time, but we had met for preparations last year, this conference was the first real dialogue. Each country in East Asia has its own “National History” and there is a gap which cannot be overcome among the countries. Can we build a bridge to have something in common? This is a meaning of “Dialogue of National Histories” which Ms. Junko Imanishi, SGRA Representative, has named.Hereafter four times, we will have discussions on historical issues relating to international relations in East Asia, inviting historians from each country. The theme, this year, was so-called “The Mongol Invasions of East Asia (in the 13th century)” and we will take up other issues of more recent centuries in the next conferences. When we take up subjects, which should relate to all the concerned countries in East Asia, i.e. Japan, China and Korea, participants are mainly historians who are specialized in international relations. Specialists of domestic histories from Japan and Korea were also invited this time and we set up important points such as：How do they, who usually show no interest in histories of international relations nor political meaning behind, respond?  Do they recognize the aim of the conference?To solve these points, we had simultaneous interpretation between Japanese-Chinese, Japanese-Korean and Chinese-Korean. Interpreters were awfully busy because there were a lot of technical terms about the remote past, but I believe they did their work very well. I deeply appreciated their work. Our theme “The Mongol Invasions and the Globalization of the Mongol Empire in the 13th Century” was set up purposely to let people who come from East Asian countries sit down at the same table. At the beginning of the 21st century, many people in East Asia tried to have joint studies on histories of East Asia. But, if they take up issues of the modern period, Japan had to sit at the defendant’s seat. It was impossible to have dialogue on an equal footing. As territorial issues became radicalized, there was no Japanese who would like to participate in such conversations. Whereas, “The Mongol Invasions in East Asia” was easy to deal with psychologically as the events happened in the remote past. Also, all the people from those three East Asian countries were victims of the Mongolian Empire. The Goryeo Dynasty (of Korea) was set under the severe rule of Mongolia. In China, the Mongol Dynasty was established. Japan had to offer a lot of sacrifices for defenses against Mongolia, though Japan escaped from Mongolian invasion.The parties could have calm dialogue on an equal footing because all of them were victims. Although we invited three Mongol historians, we did not treat them as the descendants of wrongdoers. Japan has already accepted many Mongolian “Yokozuna” champions of Japanese Sumo wrestling and never associate Yokozuna with the Mongol Invasions. Korean researchers also never used accusatory words this time. Nevertheless, I do not say that our historical dialogues were made without touching on political backgrounds. There were hot discussions among historians who came from three different origins: one from the Mongolian People’s Republic, and the other from Inner Mongolia in China. They argued whether the Yuan Dynasty is a part of the Mongol Ulus or one of the Chinese Dynasties. I could not catch clearly what they discussed, but it seems, as Dr. Ge Zhaoguang pointed out, there are a few specialists who think of both of the interpretations are simultaneously possible. In the historians’ societies around the world, anachronism (understand the past based on the present national political framework) is criticized. But, governments or public opinions in East Asia sometimes conduct themselves in the way of anachronism. Is it clever for ourselves to be ridiculed by the world? A few presentations were impressive for me. One was by Mr. Yasuhiro Yokkaichi. According to him, Kublai Khan has prepared the third invasion to Japan, but he could not execute his plan because of his death. Vietnam and Java sent tributary envoys toward Yuan dynasty immediately after having succeeded in repelling Kubilai’s invasion. This diplomatic turn is very interesting because Japan made no efforts to prevent another invasion after having repelled the Mongols, although it reopened trade with them. I think Japan has been unaccustomed to international relations and there had been an isolationism background. On the other hand, the Kogryo Dynasty under Mongolian occupation was also interesting. If Japan had surrendered to the Mongol like Kogryo, what would have happened? The Emperor system of Japan might have become extinct. Or, as Dr. Lee Myung-Mihas narrated about the Kogryo Dynasty, a part of the Emperor family of Japan might have been subordinated to the Yuan Dynasty and might have engaged a princess of the Yuan Dynasty as an empress. Such a “thought experiment” was useful for me when we try to understand the Japanese Emperor System, which is one of the most difficult questions in the Japanese history. I was interested in a change of food cultures, which Dr. Cho Won took up. In the Kogryo Dynasty, meat eating had been prohibited by Buddhism, but under the Mongol rule, meat eating was practiced and maintained after the end of invasion. This means that life styles can be changed into durable culture beyond political changes. When we look at histories on a long-term basis, the history of a life style would become more important than a political history. Would structure of families or relations between male and female, both are one of the pillars of social structures, be changed by conquests? In the case of the Korean history, children were brought up in the mothers’ house until the beginning of the 19th century. If so, where were the children of the Mongol royal families brought up? In the Imperial court, or out of the court? Where were children of Mongolian empress in Kogryo brought up, in the house of wife or of husband? Such questions came into my mind one after another. When we notice such changes of the whole Asia, the reports at the conference showed us a key to understand not only international relations but also nations or societies themselves. How did the historians of national histories from Japan and South Korea feel? I am sure they have listened carefully, but if they had questioned without reserve, the conference would have become more exciting. I urged them to speak up, quoting a saying of certain doctor: “it will be a penalty, if you do not ask any question when attending international conferences”.I should have told them of the above saying at the beginning of this conference. I regret that I forgot to tell them. But once they spoke, their indications were meaningful and interesting. I hope they will speak up from the beginning at the next conferences. The conference continued for three days. On the second day, presentations continued very tightly from morning to evening. I was exhausted in the following morning when discussions for the summaries started. I appreciate Professor Liu Jie, a chairman of the wrapping up discussions, who showed a framework for putting various opinions in order. My thanks also go to Professor Cho Kwan, a representative of Korean delegation, who showed us a starting point of our discussion by summing up each presentation precisely and simply. He kindly came over to the conference from his busy schedules of official duties. I believe the next conference in Seoul would be more enjoyable and stimulating.  SGRA Kawaraban 547 in Japanese  (Original)  （Emeritus Professor, Doctor of Literature, The University of Tokyo）  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Max Maquito 

We had the forum “The Mongol Invasions of Japan and the Globalization of the Mongol Empire in the 13th Century” in the city of Kita-Kyushu in the early part of August 2017, sponsored by the Atsumi International Foundation. It was the second forum of the series “Possibilities of Conversations among National Historians”. Historians from Japan, China, Korea and Mongolia got together and discussed about the history of the Mongol Empire, especially about its impact on East Asia.  As, I, a researcher of histories, participated in the planning of this project, I had a lot of impressions which cover various things. Taking this opportunity of writing this essay, I like to briefly organize my impressions. First of all, the forum, this time, was not merely an international conference based on a key topic “The Mongol Invasions of Japan”. I would like to emphasize again the following points. We like to describe a history of mankind, first, from a viewpoint different from the historical description of the nation state. Next, we would like to correct mistaken perceptions of histories, which dominate through the influence of national history view, so as to improve relations among countries or people, which have been hindered by the problem of politicized historical recognitions which come from political confusion of means and objects.  Actually, there have been various recent conversations of histories among those three or two countries, Japan, China and Korea, as several participants of the forum referred.Some conversations were well known being led by government. Or some show high specialties in methods of researches or themes or the way of usage of historical records.Each direction or goal is not always the same. As Prof. Hiroshi Mitani pointed out, if we think of relationship, after the conversations, becoming friendly or unfriendly, we have to say that conversation based on private interaction is easier to proceed. On the other hand, private-based conversations are easy to result in deepening discussion on individual theme or technical knowledge. However, as those researchers have their own “habits” or proceed by force of habit, they are completely absorbed in discussing their interesting theme. As a result, they tend to neglect important points such as how to promote common recognition of histories from their technical discussion without thinking of social meanings of the theme. There are quite a few “conversations” which ended halfway because the participants could not continue their researches due to financial difficulties, though they got subsidy for their researches. Concerning such problems, there is a key concept: “Common Space for Wisdom” or “Platform of Wisdom”, which Prof. Liu Jie proposed as an object of the forum. The meaning of the word “Wisdom” is very broad and we can say it contains the meaning of “Knowledge” also. Through technical researches, it creates reliable historical “Knowledge” and also creates “Wisdom” which benefits to overcome adverse effects of the national historical perspective. .I dare to add this point here because we tend to forget when we proceed with our technical discussion.    I like to add my impression based on the point in dispute. One is an evaluation of the so-called “Impact of Mongolia”. Prof. Yasuhoro Yokkaichi reported an invasion to East Asia by Mongolia in perspective.  A Mongolian element, as part of the impact of the advance of Mongolia, spread to whole of East Asia including China. But, as Mongolia has ruled China and extended their influence throughout China, we can say that some areas have been affected also by Chinese culture. I was very interested in the three-dimensional report about “Mongol Impact”. In the discussion of the history of the Qing Dynasty (1616–1912), we could get a historical image that a ruler of the Dynasty had various faces besides being an emperor of China. He has built various ways of dominance depending on areas or races under his rule. Comparing the history of Qing Dynasty with that of Mongol Empire, historical documents written in Mongolian language were very limited. Especially, the history of East Asia was written mainly by classical Chinese and most of the existing historical documents are written by classical Chinese.Due to this, an image of the Yuan Dynasty, one of the Chinese dynasties, is easy to establish. But, on the contrary, we cannot distinguish an identity or independence of Mongol or plurality of Mongolian Dynasty. Recently, an image of a rich Mongol Empire became distinct by an effort of Prof. Masaaki Sugiyama.  Listening to the reports of this forum, a historical image of Mongol Empire became clearer in my mind and I was very impressed. Having related to the above, there is a problem to be solved. As Prof. Liu Jie pointed out when he summarized the whole discussion, there are double meanings in China under rule of Mongolia and China, a part of Mongol Empire. How to handle this problem when we discuss as “Common Knowledge” or “Common Wisdom”?  There are many opinions. We can take up “Yuan Dynasty” as a part of Chinese history as in the past. But, as  Prof. Ge Zhaogung pointed out, there is a way of multiple layered description, in the context of the histories of East Asia or of Eurasia.  Now, the so-called “Nation-state” has a lot of problems, which have no sign of being solved soon. But, it is not realistic to neglect their historical views about such “Nation-states”. Or rather, through such multi-layered descriptions about histories, if we can integrate various historical images, which we could not see until now, into text books, it would be useful to build “Common Knowledge” and “Common Wisdom” in the long run. I was also interested in how researchers of Mongolian histories made conversations with “the past” despite of the situations that the first historical sources were scarce. Through various reports, this time, I could understand well that reporters have strived for their creative and original studies by criticizing compiled historical books, using an approach that is not based on written datand by inference based on “common sense” in human societies and their historical background. Through the conversations of historians who handle different eras and areas, they stimulated each other in their methodology. But, I thought such conversations, in another sense, make a connection with an approach to “Common Wisdom”. SGRA Kawaraban 550 in Japanese (Original)  ( Associate professor, Graduate School of Economics, Osaka City University )  English： Translated by Kazuo Kawamura Checked by Max Maquito

Many people in Japan understand World War II ended on August 15, 1945. This is because Emperor Hirohito (posthumously known as Showa) announced on radio on this date that the Japanese Government had accepted the Potsdam Declaration by the Allied Powers that demanded unconditional surrender, saying that “we have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is insufferable…”  In the colonies like Korea, people are said to have given cheers for the Japanese defeat. However, it was on the previous day, the August 14 that Japan had conveyed to the Allied Nations its acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration.  In fact it was on August 10, four days before, that Japan conveyed its intention to accept the Declaration through Japanese ministers in Switzerland and Sweden, both neutral nations. Victory over Japan Day in the United States is September 2.  It was the day that Mamoru Shigemitsu, fully empowered foreign minister, had signed the instrument of surrender onboard the USS Missouri. The counterpart was Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers.The New York Times on September 2 wrote by just three big headlines; “JAPAN SURRENDERS TO ALLIES,SIGNS RIGID TERMS ON WARSHIP;TRUMAN SETS TODAY AS V-J DAY” In China, V-J Day is September 3, next day of the signing on the USS Missouri, although the Japanese Army had signed the instrument of surrender in Nanjing on September 9. The Soviet Union followed suit and made its V-J Day September 3.  Only Japan set August 15 as the day for the end of the war.  In Europe, the memorial day of victory in this war is May 8, eight days after Adolf Hitler committed suicide.　All the countries which fought in this War have their own memorial day.  The names of this war are also different among the countries involved, while  recognition of the war is common ---Second World War, World War II, Seconde Guerre mondiale, and ZweiterWeltkrieg. But in the United States, “Pacific War (against Japan)” and “European War (against Germany and Italy)” are well-known.  In the Soviet Union, the war was called the “Great Patriotic War”.  The name was given because it war was more furious than the war against Napoleon (1812) which has been called the “Patriotic War,” and that “Great” was added to distinguish one from the other.  In China, they call the War “Anti-Japanese Revolution” and  “World Anti-Fascism.”  Each country and people perceives the war in different ways. In Japan, the Cabinet of Hideki Tojo officially named the war the Great East Asia War on December 12, four days after the declaration of war against allied nations. Including this one, each name contains various sentiments.  The Pacific War connotes that it was fought against America but feels like ignoring the battle line in China.  The Fifteen Years War, which means the War’s duration of fifteen years, is reasonable considering that the War started from the Manchurian incident in 1931.  Other names include “The Second Sino-Japanese War” and “The Asia-Pacific War.” The reason I am thinking over the name of war and the day when the war ended, although I am not a specialist, is that I was listening at the back row of the forum “Possibilities of Dialogues among National Histories.”  What kind of works will be necessary to talk about history among not only specialists or intellectuals but among ordinary people? The round table discussion was meaningful in that specialists from Japan, China and South Korea searched for the present state of  “intellectual  community” in this region and groped where to go from there. Professor Liu Jie of Waseda University, raised a question that dialogue on history has been stagnant, emphasizing necessity of finding an agenda that would come after studying each other’s academic research situations.  He also said, “The intellectual community in East Asia is the last frontier in the region.  I am worried that dialogue among intellectuals might collapse.”  “That is why we got together to exchange opinions and each other’s knowledge so that we can make national histories in East Asia that can be shared among us.  This forum is important in that we can nurture talented international students, a special group of resources who can understand fellow countries’ material, for the future.” Cho Kwang, professor emeritus at Korea University in South Korea, said experience of the colonial period can be a factor for providing a country’s national history. He said, “One cannot discuss world peace if his political perspective is right.”  I thought it is true, not only for Japan.  I thought it is true, not only for Japan.  He said “Gokuryeo (高句麗)” hold an important position in Korean history but added that it was also part of the regional history of China.  “Things look different depending on perspective -- personal-based or location-based,” Kwang said. One solution to overcome different views and misunderstanding can be to compile a history on Japan-China Korea relations Ming dynasty and Joseon missions to Japan （朝鮮通信使）show in which histories of Japan, of Korea and China intersect. Professor Ge Zaoguang of Fudan University, China, suggested possibilities of compiling  diplomatic history of Japan, China and Korea, taking as examples of Mongol invasions of Japan (1271, 1281), Oei Invasion (1419, known as the Gihae Eastern Expedition in Korea) and Japanese invasions of Korea (1592.) Hirosi Mitani, professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo, criticized a new high school subject introduced by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, called “comprehensive histories.”  The frame work of the new subject dealing with Japanese modern history is taught in the order of (1) modernization, (2) popularization, and (3) globalization. He said, however, “The order is reverse. Globalization was the start of Japanese modern history.”  He added that the most important thing for the young generation is “to look at their own country from the outside and learn from each other the histories of neighboring countries. If they do not do this, they will miss a chance to know the histories of East Asia forever”.   He urged the participants: “we cannot possibly advance only by dialogue. Let’s collaborate. Let’s create a reference about neighboring countries which can be read in their own countries”. I was told this type of forum will continue for at least five times hereafter. If young researchers would join, this type of works will become more active, even though political, economic and national security influences of each country would affect the outcome of the researches. Let me express my hope as a non-specialist.  I want to know national histories of Japan, China, and Korea. Also, I want to know history of country-to-country relations, not limited to the three countries. For example, the Vietnam War was fought between the United States and North Vietnam. Vietnam had been fighting against France for their independence. It was Japan that ruled Vietnam before France. Historical revisionism, which tends to rewrite its own beautiful version of history, is now spreading over Japan.  I do not think such atmosphere is temporary and even feel some energy in it. The forum on “dialogue among national histories” supported by a development of intellectual community of Japan, China and Korea will become more important and urgent.  SGRA Kawaraban 507 in Japanese (Original)  (Lecturer at Tsuda College, Former staff writer at The Asahi Shimbun)  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Mac Maquito