The Role of Civil Society in the Northeast Asian Security and Peace Dialogue: Processes and Mechanisms for Reconciliation
Kathy R. Matsui
Department of Global Citizenship Studies, Seisen University
Peace and security in Northeast Asia may depend upon developing relationships among nations based on mutual respect and trust; this relationship building may be especially important as historical scars have not been fully healed since the end of World War II. Japan also faces territorial issues with neighboring nations. Tensions in Northeast Asia are also a result of an increase in military spending. There is a need to identify peaceful methods for establishing a foundation for reconciliation and diplomatic relations. Conflict transformation processes and negotiations may resolve the tensions, but it is difficult to heal the deep hurt and bitterness in the minds and hearts of those who were victims to extreme violence and violations of human dignity. Reconciliation may have a crucial role to play in the healing process of the Northeast Asian Region. The process of reconciliation involves uncovering the truth, offering sincere apologies, achieving forgiveness, developing empathy, making amends, respecting human rights, working for an inclusive society (Tutu, 1999) and hundreds and thousands of dialogues. This article will introduce the definition, process and mechanism of reconciliation. Later, the article seeks to discover ways to apply the reconciliation process in Northeast Asia.
The Process and Mechanism of Reconciliation
When a relationship is disrupted, our well-being is threatened. Reconciliation seeks to reestablish a harmonious relationship. It seeks to reestablish trust when trust is broken. However, reestablishment of that relationship and trust is only possible with the process of true reconciliation, described as follows by Tutu (1999):
True reconciliation exposes the awfulness, the abuse, the pain, the degradation, the truth. It could even sometimes make things worse. It is a risky undertaking but in the end, it is worthwhile, because in the end dealing with the real situation helps to bring real healing. (p. 271)
Reconciliation is not achieved overnight. It is a long-term process, and all people concerned, victims and perpetrators, need to strive for its achievement by making amends, respecting human rights, and working for an inclusive community of one family, bound together in a delicate network of interdependence. Enright (2001) clarified that reconciliation is an act of two parties that requires the parties to renew trust and resume a relationship after a period of estrangement (p. 31).
The current Japanese Prime Minister Abe mentioned early this year that he will not have dialogue simply in order to have further dialogue with North Korea. However, many pre-dialogues are needed in order to create the opportunity for dialogue. There were incidents involving the abduction of Japanese citizens by North Korea between 1970 and 1980. North Korea acknowledged this and allowed five victims to return to Japan temporarily, but the Japanese government violated this agreement and refused to return them back to North Korea. Japan is determined to have all the abductees return home and states that diplomatic relations with North Korea are not possible until this issue is resolved. Further efforts to have dialogue are needed to resolve this issue and build a better relationship for peace in Northeast Asia.
Dialogue plays an important role in achieving emotional attunement of the parties involved. One act of dialogue may not be enough. Reconciliation may require hundreds of dialogues or even thousands. The founder of Sustained Dialogue, Harold Henry (Hal) Saunders has served past Presidents of the United States: D. Eisenhower, J.F Kennedy, L.B. Johnson, R. Nixon and J. Carter in international affairs. Saunders was a key participant in the Camp David Accords and helped negotiate during the Iran Hostage Crisis and developed the sustained dialogue model for resolving conflicts. At the GPPAC related Conflict Resolution Education Conference held in 2015 at the George Mason University in Washington D.C., Saunders mentioned that it took him 5 years of dialogue between Palestine and Israel until he finally was able to reach the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty in 1978.
Lederach (2003) describes the process of conflict transformation:
“Conflict transformation suggests that a fundamental way to promote constructive change on all these levels (interpersonal, inter-group and social-structural) is dialogue. Dialogue is essential to justice and peace on both an interpersonal and a structural level. It is not the only mechanism, but it is an essential one.” (p.21)
Furthermore, the order of discussion (Positive Future, negative future, positive past and negative past) during dialogue also plays a crucial role. Norwegian Peace Studies expert J. Galtung described his negotiation experience with the leaders in Afghanistan. At the dialogue roundtable, the leaders of Afghanistan clashed with differences of perspectives and ideas. When Galtung asked the leaders how they would like Afghanistan to be 30 years from now, they all responded in unison that they wanted to see peace in their country. Galtung reminded them that if the present conflict continues, there would not be a peaceful future. Then he asked them how Afghanistan was 30 years ago, and all the leaders again answered in unison that it was a peaceful country and that the negative past began with conflict. Through this discussion the leaders realized what the root of the conflict was and were able to continue their talk with respect and a shared vision. Reconciliation requires a process of relational transformation.
From the experience given above, reconciliation in Northeast Asia would require hundreds and thousands of dialogues, instead of threats and economic sanctions; instead of dividing and labeling societies as good or bad. If opportunities for true dialogue are made possible, then the countries of Northeast Asia will probably share the same hope for a positive future.
Uncovering the Truth
Those who have been the instruments and perpetrators of oppression must deal with their past in a way that sets them free from shame and guilt whether acknowledged or repressed, as well as from the attempt to cling to unjust privilege to the disadvantage of others. Those who have been victims of oppression have to remember the past correctly, so that they are set free from a soul-destroying bitterness and uncontrollable desires for vengeance.
Japan is still being criticized for not fulfilling its moral obligation and social responsibility towards the victims of the military atrocities and violations against humanity it committed during its colonization of countries in Northeast Asia and during World War II. Unless these issues have been properly addressed by Japan, the perpetrator, it would be very difficult to establish a good relationship between Japan and its neighboring countries in Northeast Asia and the Pacific. Ogawa (2000), a staff writer of Harvard International Review, explains, “Japan’s World War II occupation of a substantial part of Asia left indelible scars. The Nanking Massacre and the plight of the Korean ‘comfort women,’ stand out among examples of Japanese cruelty during the war era” (p. 42).
If human injustice is committed, it is important to restore honor to those who have been treated in an undignified way. There is a need to uphold the basic human rights for the dignity of human life and pursuit of justice. Processes of public forgiveness, apology, justice, and reconciliation are considered instruments for social healing (Montiel, 2002, p. 221). The victims of Japan’s military sexual slavery have carried the hurt and shame for more than 70 years. In addition to legal reparations and sincere public apology by the Japanese government, there is a strong need for the victims to find means to restore their dignity, to heal the past, and overcome historical trauma.
Truth must be uncovered, and guilt acknowledged for the region to move beyond the past, to be healed, and to feel renewed. For healing to take place, De Gruchy (2002) noted that the perpetrator needs to honestly admit the wrong done and to have sincere remorse:
Whether necessary for amnesty or not, an honest recognition of guilt and genuine remorse is necessary for the healing of perpetrators and makes forgiveness, and therefore the healing of victims, more probable…. We need to recognize ourselves in our guilt, and therefore come to appreciate that accepting responsibility for the past will in fact set us free from its destructive potential. (p. 199)
This acknowledgement of guilt can serve as the basis of a new commitment to restore justice.
The Role of the Apology
An act of apology humbles the offender and offers the offended the power to forgive. A collective apology would diminish the resentment that has been built up in a person over the years. To apologize is to lower oneself; it is an act of humility. Apologizing is necessary for a nation to be at peace with the countries they have done wrong to.
More than seventy years have passed since the end of World War II, yet to this day, the Japanese government has been the focus of criticism for not taking adequate responsibility for the military atrocities committed in the past. Er (2002) states that “grudging offers of deep reflection and remorse (but not amounting to a genuine apology) to its neighbors (from Japan), coupled with Chinese and Korean refusals to forgive and forget past atrocities, have led to profound distrust among the countries involved” (p. 34). Furthermore, Er argued that Japan’s refusal to officially apologize for its wrongdoings during occupation and its military aggression would be an obstacle to establishing a good relation between Japan and its neighboring countries (p. 33). Japan would have to acknowledge wrongdoing, articulate sincere sorrow, and apologize for the harm done, if peace was to be obtained. (Matsui, 2019 p.219)
Forgiveness is a complex process. Tutu (1999) claimed that unless the perpetrator acknowledges the wrong done to the victim, the process of forgiveness and healing is not possible (p. 270). Past atrocities committed during conflicts remain as scars in the memories of the victims. Those who were harmed carry a long history of grievances and unless these memories are identified and understood, reconciliation will not be achievable. Montiel (2002) explained, “public forgiveness requires sensitivity to the historical, cultural, and political contexts of both conflicting groups. Because of its context sensitivity, there is no unitary formula for public forgiveness, except perhaps a respect for pluralism and local experimentation” (p. 271).
A sincere apology from the perpetrators is mandatory, if the victims are to overcome a traumatic past and embrace healing. Transgression involves both perpetrators and victims. The victims have the choice to forgive. Perpetrators, too, have the choice to (a) feel truly sorry for the wrong committed, (b) promise never to repeat the same wrongdoings, and (c ) make an effort to make up for their horrendous acts. Some perpetrators, however, may choose to deny their wrong deeds. The perpetrator’s attitude can have a large impact on the victim.
Further research of this reconciliation process is needed to search for an appropriate method to be applied in Northeast Asia, to heal the past and move forward.
The Role of Forgiveness in Reconciliation
Forgiveness is an internal process, whereas reconciliation is an external, interpersonal process. Forgiveness is granted or received, whereas reconciliation is earned through trustworthy behavior. The process of reconciliation is a restoration of trust among the participants. (Worthington et al., 2000, p. 229). Reconciliation is not possible without forgiveness, nor is it possible if the offender is not repentant. In other words, a person may forgive but not reconcile, but forgiveness is necessary for reconciliation.
Emerson (1964) described the concept of forgiveness from various perspectives. According to the original Hebrew word, forgive means “to have a weight lifted (p. 75). The Bible relates forgiveness to strength and the freedom to be newly creative. From the Christian perspective, people forgive others as they are already forgiven by God (Emerson, 1964, p. 147). The Christian faith revolves around this concept, and Christians are encouraged to give themselves openly to others, even if others hurt them; for humanity, there is no life where there is no forgiveness (Emerson, 1954, p. 188).
Buddhism mentions the importance of transforming the pain inflicted by others and embracing anger and suffering (Hanh, 1998, p. 193). When people are angry at someone, they have the tendency to punish those who have hurt them. However, the Buddha teaches that such an act of retribution will cause more suffering. Kornfield (2008) stated:
In Buddhist philosophy, forgiveness is not presented as a moral commandment — “Thou shalt forgive.” It is understood as a way to end suffering, to bring dignity and harmony to our lives. Forgiveness is fundamentally for our own sake, for our own mental health. It is a way to let go of the pain we carry. Practicing forgiveness, we may go through stages of grief, rage, sorrow, hurt, and confusion. As we let ourselves feel the pain we still hold, forgiveness comes as a relief, a release for our heart in the end. (p. 346)
Buddhism also suggests that the people who make others suffer actually are the ones who need help and guidance to end their suffering (Hanh, 1998, p. 196).
Role of Empathy in Reconciliation
Empathy can enhance the reciprocal nature of the reconciliation process. Worthington et al. (2000) found that, in group interventions to promote forgiveness, people with empathic capacity were more likely to benefit from forgiveness treatment (p. 241).
The process of reconciliation can be described using a medical metaphor where empathy is the antiseptic and forgiveness is the bandage keeping away threats of infection. Love is the heart pump of healing, bringing the lifeblood to nourish the relationship and absorb germs (Worthington, 2003 p. 179). Empathy can also help people develop the capacity to see a mass of humanity as individual human beings with individual souls, as a throbbing human soul that loves and hates, toils and tries, laughs and weeps in bitter tears. (De Gruchy, 2002 p. 64).
Empathy can help the transgressors imagine others’ suffering and lead them to apologize. Empathy can help the victims know how the transgressor feels and allow them to replace negative feelings with positive emotions. Empathy can transform unforgiveness into a willingness to forgive.
In addition to empathy, Worthington (2003) mentioned the characteristics of humility and the absence of pride as, “character traits that most predict being willing to risk seeking forgiveness” (p. 196). Pride discourages people from seeking reconciliation. True humility allows one to think about and care for others. Along with empathy, humility is an emotion that can help replace negative feelings with positive feelings, promoting healing.
Making Amends, Respecting Human Rights, and Working for an Inclusive Society through Restorative Justice
In general, justice pursued by criminal law requires that the level of punishment be proportionate to the severity of the wrongdoings committed. This type of justice is known as retributive justice. In contrast, restorative justice is a form of justice that is relational and social. The emphasis of restorative justice is on rehabilitation, on compensation, on the recovery of dignity and the healing of social wounds. Similarly, restorative justice is part of the process of reconciliation as it seeks to restore a relationship that has been broken by human rights violations and to make healing possible.
Tutu (1999) mentioned that justice fails if people only seek retributive justice, since that concentrates on the punitive aspect and does not take into account the victims. In contrast, he claims that restorative justice is the means to recover certain characteristics of the traditional African practice of ubuntu:
In the spirit of ubuntu, the central concern is the healing of breaches, the redressing of imbalances, the restoration of broken relationships, a seeking to rehabilitate both the victim and the perpetrator, who should be given the opportunity to be reintegrated into the community he has injured by his offense. (pp. 54–55)
Thus, restorative justice seeks healing, and reconciliation. In the case of South Africa, both the victims and the transgressors are still alive and are bound to live in the same area. In the case of Northeast Asia, both the victims and the perpetrators of the past war are living in the same region and they, too, are locked in cohabitation, with the perpetrators often living a privileged economically strong existence. Thus, a similar reconciliation process that rehabilitates both the victims and the transgressors may be the key to promoting positive relations in Northeast Asia.
Worthington (2003) noted that seeking justice is restoring “the balance that was upset…. But achieving justice is no guarantee that reconciliation will occur” (p. 182). Justice can act as an agent to process transition from conflict to reconciliation.
Atonement may include building trust, revealing the truth, acknowledging the wrong, stating an apology, and paying compensation. As Jeong (1999) explained:
Building trust has to follow overcoming past wounds of victimization by such means as acknowledgement of past crimes and expression of contrition…. Exposure and full accounting of the past ought to lead to an apology on the part of aggressors. Material compensations as well as apologies can be offered at both an individual and institutional level to make good for past damages. (p. 25)
Compensation and reparation can be key elements in making reconciliation possible. Compensation does not necessarily mean just monetary payments, but could take other forms, such as a memorial. Moreover, compensation is important in establishing a long-term vision of social transformation. Tutu (1999) also stated the importance of compensation as a matter of reparation, “without adequate reparation and rehabilitation measures, there can be no healing and reconciliation, either at an individual or a community level” (p. 58).
De Gruchy (2002) noted that restorative justice involves more than just compensation or restitution:
Restorative justice is rather the attempt to recover certain neglected dimensions that make for a more complete understanding of justice. Its emphasis is on rehabilitation, on compensation, on the recovery of dignity and the healing of social wounds. (p. 202)
Furthermore, Sullivan and Tifft (2005) mentioned a needs-based approach to restorative justice that weighs the importance of involving everyone concerned and listens to the voice of each, striving to ensure:
Everyone feels that his or her present needs are being presented, acknowledged, respected, and met, and, therefore, feels justly treated….The aim of needs-based, restorative justice is to respond to the unique needs of each person, and thereby achieve a level of “equal well-being” that expands the collective well-being of all. (p. 113)
Thus, restorative justice is not complete unless the victims’ individual needs are understood and met. Needs-based restorative justice also strives to restore the well-being of the wrong-doers, in hopes of improving the collective well-being of all citizens. A process of restorative justice is encouraged in Northeast Asia to listen to the needs and pain of the victims of Japanese atrocities during the years of colonization and World War II.
Northeast Asian Civil Society’s Efforts to Create a Lasting Peace
Peacebuilding addresses structural issues and the long-term relationships between parties in conflict (Ramsbotham et al., 2005, p. 30). Efforts at peacebuilding are actively undertaken by civil society. To conduct healing, reconciliation, and peacebuilding, there is a need for civil actors to perform these processes. The Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) was formed by worldwide civil society organizations to contribute to the process of reconciliation where governments and the United Nations fall short. The GPPAC collaborative network of civil society organizations includes citizens of various sectors and disciplines, all the way from the community to the international level. These are citizens who joined together to make conflict prevention a sustainable and achievable objective.
Another process would be a learning process through peacebuilding training. NARPI is designed to educate peace leaders to build a culture of peace and to transform Northeast Asia, with all its potential for conflict, into a resourceful region of collaboration and peace. The Northeast Asia Regional Peacebuilding Institute (NARPI) began in 2009 with the aim of strengthening and empowering people in Northeast Asia through providing peacebuilding training and building cross-cultural networks.
Another process would be led by religious leaders of the Northeast Asian region. The International Peace Corps of Religions (IPCR) plays that leadership role. IPCR consists of participants of various religious traditions and meets every year either in Korea or in Japan to share research findings and to discuss issues in the region.
Each of these processes highlights actions to restore and maintain peace in Northeast Asia that should be taken immediately. There are issues in the region that have not been resolved for more than 60 years, since the end of WW II. There are domestic and regional conflicts that the Northeast Asian region still faces today. These include the crisis of the Korean Peninsula, territorial disputes (Senkaku/Diaoyu/Diaoyutai, Kuril Islands/Northern Territories, Dokdo/Takeshima), the revision of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, threat of remilitarization, increasing nationalism, lack of historical understanding and reconciliation, challenges of human security, and the recent diplomatic friction between Korea and Japan on export controls over vital manufacturing materials. Grassroots social and religious organizations have mobilized to help Japan regain broken trust, begin the process of reconciliation and peacebuilding, and build positive domestic and international relations. By achieving these objectives of justice, and effective reconciliation, the countries in Northeast Asia may be able to build a collaborative future.
It is crucial that GPPAC, NARPI and IPCR continue with their activities to bring stability and peace in Northeast Asia. Such organizations are instrumental to developing harmonious and collaborative relation in the region.
References
De Gruchy, J. W. (2002). Reconciliation: Restoring justice. Minneapolis (MN); Fortress Press.
Emerson, J. G., Jr. (1954). The dynamics of forgiveness. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Enright, R. D. (2001). Forgiveness is a choice: A step-by-step process for resolving anger and restoring hope. Washington DC: APA Lifetools.
Er, L. P. (2002). The apology issue: Japan’s differing approaches toward China and South Korea. American Asian Review, 20(3), p. 31–54.
Galtung, J. (2005) Pax Pacifica: Terrorism, The Pacific hemisphere, globalization, & peace studies. London: Pluto Press.
Gerzon, M. (2003). Becoming global citizens: Finding common ground in a world of differences. Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://www.mediatorsfoundation.org/ related1reading/becomingglobalcitizens.pdf
Hanh, T. N. (1998). The heart of the Buddha’s teaching: Transforming suffering into peace, joy and liberation. London: Rider.
Jeong, H. (Ed.) (1999). Conflict resolution: Dynamic and process and structure. Hants, England: Ashgate. Kornfield, J. (2008). The Wise Heart. New York: Bantam Books.
Lederach, J. P. (1999). The journey toward reconciliation. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.
Lederach, J.P. (2003). The little book of conflict transformation. New York, NY: Good Books
Matsui, K. R. (2019). Shared Reflections and earnings from Betty Reardon — Action Planning Models: National and International Partnerships in Asia — . In D. T. Snauwaert (Ed.) Exploring Betty A. Reardon’s perspective on peace education: Looking back, looking forward. (pp.217–228). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Montiel, C. J. (2002). Sociopolitical Forgiveness. Peace Review, 14(3), 271–277.
Ogawa, S. (2000). The difficulty of apology: Japan’s struggle with memory and guilt. Harvard International Review, Fall 2000, 42–46
Sullivan, D. & Tift, L. (2005). Restorative justice: Healing the foundations of our everyday lives. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.
Tutu, D. (1999). No future without forgiveness. New York: Doubleday.
Worthington, E. L. Jr. (2003). Forgiving and reconciling. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press.
Worthington, E. L. Jr., Sandage, S. J., & Berry, J. W. (2000). Group interventions to promote forgiveness. In M. F. McCullough, K. L. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 228–253). New York: Guilford.
Kathy R. Matsui, Ph.D. is professor at the Department of Global Citizenship Studies, Seisen University (Tokyo, Japan) and teaches courses on conflict resolution and peace related subjects. She received doctorate degree from Leadership Studies Program, Gonzaga University, Spokane, Washington. Her research concerns are development of capacities for conflict transformation and reconciliation. She works with peace researchers and educators internationally in International Institute on Peace Education and Global Partnership for Prevention of Armed Conflict. As a peace educator, she recently focuses her activities on Northeast Asia Regional Peacebuilding Institute (NARPI), which is held annually for participants from Northeast Asia to study conflict transformation and practice building a culture of peace. She is currently an advisory board member for Hague Appeal for Peace, Global Campaign for Peace Education. She is also active in her participation in inter-religious dialogue and cooperation for world peace as a member of the Women’s Executive Committee, Peace Research Institute and the Reconciliation Education Task Force of World Conference of Religions for Peace (WCRP).
