Defining Colonial “War Crimes”: Korean Debates on Collaboration, War Reparations, and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East

Choi, Deokhyo

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53141-0_3

Defining Colonial “War Crimes”: Korean Debates on Collaboration, War Reparations, and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East

Deokhyo Choi⁴

Chapter
First Online: 11 June 2017

351 Accesses

Part of the book series: World Histories of Crime, Culture and Violence ((WHCCV))

Abstract

This chapter examines how “war crimes” were discussed and framed among Koreans in the aftermath of liberation from Japanese colonial rule. Although Koreans were not given any significant role in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), Korean political leaders and intellectuals in both Korea and Japan created their own movements and debates on how to define Japanese and Korean “war crimes” committed within a colonial context. In this chapter, I focus on how they tried to approach the problems of colonial collaboration and war reparations while appropriating ideas and principles – such as “crimes against peace” and liberation from the “enslavement of the people of Korea” – that the Allied Powers had pushed forward through the IMTFE and the Cairo Declaration of 1943. Through an examination of the Korean debates on war crimes and their critiques of the IMTFE, this chapter shows how the limits of “victor’s justice” were understood by Japan’s former colonial subjects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 89.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 119.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 119.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Yuma Totani, The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: The Pursuit of Justice in the Wake of World War II (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), 250.
2.
Historian Chŏng Yŏnghwan has shed new light on those unheard voices in his recent works. See Chŏng Yŏnghwan, Kaihō chokugo no zainichi Chōsenjin undō to ‘sensō sekinin’ron, 1945–1949,” Nihon shokuminchi kenkyū 28 (June 2016); “Tōkyō Saiban o meguru zainichi Chōsenjin hakkō shinbun kikanshi no ronchō,” Nikkan sōgo ninshiki 1 (2008).
3.
Bruce Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War: Liberation and the Emergence of Separate Regimes, 1945–1947 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), xxvii.
4.
Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War, xx, xxvii.
5.
Korean sociologist Kang Chŏnggu has discussed the consequences of the Soviet occupation of the North in terms of the “radicalization” of a Korean indigenous “historical course.” See Kang Chŏnggu, Chwajŏl toen sahoe hyŏngmyŏng: Mi chŏmnyŏngha ŭi Namhan, P’illip’in kwa Pukhan pigyo yŏn’gu (Pusan: Yŏrumsa, 1989).
6.
Charles K. Armstrong, The North Korean Revolution, 1945–1950 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003), 75–6.
7.
On 6 September 1945, the leaders of the Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence declared the establishment of the Korean People’s Republic. They hurried to form the Korean indigenous government in the face of the arrival of the U.S. occupation forces. On the significance of the formation of the Korean People’s Republic, see Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War, Chapter 3; Kim Namsik, Namnodang yŏn’gu (Seoul: Tol Pegae, 1984), Chapter 2; Rim Ch’ŏl, “Chōsen Jinmin Kyōwakoku ni kansuru jakkan no mondai,” Chōsenshi kenkyūkai ronbunshū 23 (1986); Ch’oe Sangnyong, Mi kunjŏng kwa Han’guk minjokchuŭi (Seoul: Nanam Ch’ulp’an, 1988), 77–119.
8.
“Basic Initial Directive to the Commander in Chief, U.S. Army Forces, Pacific, for the Administration of Civil Affairs in Those Areas of Korea Occupied by U.S. Forces” (SWNCC 176/8), in Foreign Relations of the Unites States 1945, vol. 6 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1969), 1076. (Henceforth, FRUS.)
9.
On the popular uprisings of 1946 in southern Korea, see Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War, 351–81; Chǒng Haegu, 10-wǒl inmin hangjaeng yǒn’gu (Seoul: Yǒrǔmsa, 1988); Chǒng Yǒngjin, P’okpung ǔi 10-wǒl (Seoul: Han’gilsa, 1991); Sim Chiyǒn, Taegu 10-wǒl hangjaeng yǒn’gu (Seoul: Ch’ǒnggye Yǒn’guso, 1991).
10.
Koen de Ceuster, “The Nation Exorcised: The Historiography of Collaboration in South Korea,” Korean Studies, 25, 2 (2001), 210.
11.
Yi Kangsu, “Haebang chikhu Nam-Pukhan ŭi ch’inilp’a sukch’ŏng nonŭi yŏn’gu,” Chŏnnam sahak 20 (2003), 27–8.
12.
Kuksa P’yonch’an Wiwŏnhoe, Charyo Taehan Min’guksa 1 (Seoul: Kuksa P’yonch’an Wiwŏnhoe, 1968), 46–8.
13.
Yi Kangsu, “Haebang chikhu Nam-Pukhan ŭi ch’inilp’a sukch’ŏng nonŭi yŏn’gu,” 28–30.
14.
Ibid., 39–40.
15.
“Kŏnjun, ingong chungang inminwi kyŏlchŏng sŏnŏn chŏnggang sijŏng pangch’im palp’yo,” Maeil Sinbo, 19 September 1945.
16.
“Ch’inilp’a, minjok panyŏkcha ŭi kijun, chungang inmin wiwŏnhoe esŏ kyujŏng,”Chayu Sinmun, 31 January 1946.
17.
Ibid.
18.
See Ch’oe Yŏngho, Chaeil Han’gugin kwa choguk kwangbok: haebang chikhu ŭi ponguk kwihwan kwa minjok tanch’e hwaltong (Seoul: Kŭlmoin, 1995).
19.
Pak Kyŏngsik, Kaihō go zainichi Chōsenjin undōshi (Tokyo: San’ichi Shobō, 1989), 61.
20.
Pak, Kaihōgo zainichi Chōsenjin undōshi, 54–6, 60–1.
21.
“Sensō hanzainin tsuikyū taikai,” Asahi Shimbun, 9 December 1945; “Kyōsantō senpan meibo shukō,” Asahi Shimbun, 12 December 1945; Shinobu Seizaburō, Sengo Nihon seijishi I: senryō to minshushugi (Tokyo: Keisō Shobō, 1965), 233.
22.
“Chosŏnin chŏnbomja ilgong esŏ 36-myŏng chimyŏng,”Chayu Sinmun, 25 January 1946.
23.
On the formation of the South Korean Interim Legislative Assembly and its role, see Kim Yŏngmi, “Mi kunjŏnggi Namjosŏn Kwado Ippŏp Ŭiwŏn ŭi sŏngnip kwa hwaltong,” Han’guk saron 32 (1994). Also see Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War, Chapter 7.
24.
Goodfellow Papers, Box 1, From Hodge to Goodfellow (28 January 1947), cited from Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War, 537.
25.
“Ippŏp ŭiwŏn ŭijang Kim Kyusik, dong ŭiwŏn ŭi cheban munje e taehae kija hoegyŏn,” Seoul Sinmun and Tonga Ilbo, 22 December 1946.
26.
Records of the South Korean Interim Legislative Assembly, No. 12 (9 January 1947).
27.
“Cheilsŏn pongjikcha chehyŏng ege p’iryŏkham,” Chayu Sinmun, 10 March 1947. Also see Records of the South Korean Interim Legislative Assembly, No. 35 (14 March 1947).
28.
Records of the South Korean Interim Legislative Assembly, No. 35 (14 March 1947).
29.
Records of the South Korean Interim Legislative Assembly, No. 36 (17 March 1947).
30.
Ibid.
31.
“National traitors” were, for instance, those who “had signed the Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty”; those who “had defected from the national movement and collaborated with the Japanese”; and those who “had mistreated Korean brethren in collusion with foreign powers.”
32.
Records of the South Korean Interim Legislative Assembly, No. 36 (17 March 1947). The full text of the bill was also published on newspapers. For instance, see “Puil hyŏmnyŏkcha e taehan pŏmnyŏng (1),” Chayu Sinmun, 4 March 1947; “Minjok panyŏk, chŏnbŏm, kansangbae (2),” Chayu Sinmun, 5 March 1947.
33.
Records of the South Korean Interim Legislative Assembly, No. 42 (26 March 1947).
34.
Records of the South Korean Interim Legislative Assembly, No. 36 (17 March 1947).
35.
Ibid.
36.
“Minjujuŭi minjok chŏnsŏn, chŏnbŏmja ch’ubangnyŏng ŭi chejŏng kongp’o rŭl yoguhanŭn tamhwa palp’yo,” Chosŏn Ilbo, 9 January 1947.
37.
Records of the South Korean Interim Legislative Assembly, No. 39 (21 March 1947).
38.
“Chŏnbom tŭng ch’ŏdanan, ibŭi ŭi nonjŏn paegyŏlhwa,” Chayu Sinmun, 26 April 1946.
39.
Ibid.
40.
On the U.S. Occupation’s stance on the anti-collaborator bill, see Hŏ Chong, “1947-nyŏn Nam Chosŏn Kwado Ippŏp Ŭiwŏn ŭi ‘ch’inilp’a ch’ŏbŏlpŏp’ chejŏng kwa kŭ sŏngkyŏk,” Han’gu Kŭnhyŏndaesa Yon’gu 12 (Spring 2000), 174–8.
41.
See Ōta Osamu, Nikkan kōshō: seikyūken mondai no kenkyū (Tokyo: Kurein, 2003), 39–46.
42.
Ibid.
43.
In mid-September 1945, a U.S. official in Korea reported on how Koreans had understood the Cairo Declaration and stated: “It was recently discovered that from the beginning the Korean translation of the term ‘in due course’ in the Cairo Declaration has been the equivalent of ‘in a few days’ or ‘very soon,’ and well-educated Koreans expressed surprise when the difference was pointed out to them.” See “The Political Adviser in Korea (Benninghoff) to the Secretary of State” (15 September 1945), in FRUS 1945, vol. 6, 1049.
44.
WM. Roger Louis, Imperialism at Bay: The United States and the Decolonization of the British Empire, 1941–1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978); Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War.
45.
It is important to note that Washington did not mean by this that Korea would be treated as an independent country. The same directive further explained that U.S. occupation policy in Korea was to “contemplat[e] a progressive development from this initial interim period of civil affairs administration by the United States and the U.S.S.R., to a period of trusteeship under the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and the U.S.S.R., and finally to the eventual independence of Korea with membership in the United Nations organization” (emphasis added). See “Basic Initial Directive to the Commander in Chief, U.S. Army Forces, Pacific, for the Administration of Civil Affairs in Those Areas of Korea Occupied by U.S. Forces” (SWNCC 176/8), in FRUS 1945, vol. 6, 1074.
46.
Yi Sangdŏk, “Taeil paesang ŭi chŏngdangsŏng,” Sinch’ŏnji (January 1948), 32, cited from Ōta, Nikkan kōshō, 44–5.
47.
Ibid.
48.
Ōta, Nikkan kōshō, 50.
49.
“Kankoku, Minami to Koiso o yōkyū,” Asahi Shimbun, 23 November 1948.
50.
“Chang T’aeksang wemubu changgwan, Han’guk ŭn Chosŏn kwan’gye chŏnbŏm chaesimsa yogu kwŏlli rŭl poyu handago p’yomyŏng,” Minju Ilbo, 20 November 1948; “Chang wemu changgwan ilmunje ŏngŭp,” Chayu Sinmin, 20 November 1948.
51.
“Koiso Minami tŭng chŏnbŏm Han’guk sŏ ŏmbol yogu,” Tonga Ilbo, 30 November 1948; “Hanminjok ŭl ch’akch’wihan wŏnhyung Koiso Kuniaki wa Minami Jirō ŭl indo hara,” Chayu Sinbun, 30 November 1948.
52.
On the Rhee administration’s attitudes toward the Anti-Traitor Law and its sabotage of Committee’s activities, see Yi Kangsu, Panmin T’ŭgwi Yon’gu (Seoul: Nanam Ch’ulp’an, 2003), 155–218; de. Ceuster, “The Nation Exorcised,” 212–4.
53.
See Chŏng, “Tōkyō Saiban o meguru zainichi Chōsenjin hakkō shinbun kikanshi no ronchō.”
54.
“Kŭktong kunsa chaep’an p’angyol e taehaya” Haebang Sinmun, 9 November 1948.
55.
“Han’guk ŭi chŏnbŏm chaep’an yogu,” Sinsegye Sinmun, 26 November 1948. Chŏng, 54–5.
56.
“Senpan wa mada iru genjū ni shobatsu seyo Kyokutō Kokusai Gunji Saiban ni nozomu,” Chōren Chūō Jihō, 11 November 1948.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Research Institute of Korean Studies, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea
Deokhyo Choi

Authors

Deokhyo Choi
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deokhyo Choi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Heidelberg University , Heidelberg, Germany
Kerstin von Lingen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Choi, D. (2017). Defining Colonial “War Crimes”: Korean Debates on Collaboration, War Reparations, and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. In: von Lingen, K. (eds) Debating Collaboration and Complicity in War Crimes Trials in Asia, 1945-1956. World Histories of Crime, Culture and Violence. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53141-0_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53141-0_3
Published: 11 June 2017
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-53140-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-53141-0
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics