The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 13 | Issue 28 | Number 1 | Jul 13, 2015

1

Should “Gunkanjima” Be a World Heritage site? - Theforgotten scars of Korean forced labor

Takazane Yasunori

Translated with an introduction by Tze M.Loo

In early May 2015, the International Council onMonuments and Sites (ICOMOS) reported thatthe 23 sites related to Japan’s industrializationin the Meiji period (“Sites of Japan’s MeijiIndustrial Revolution: Iron and Steel,Shipbuilding and Coal Mining”) met the criteriafor designation as World Heritage sites.ICOMOS’ evaluation paved the way for thesites to be inscribed in the World Heritage listat the 39 th session of the World HeritageCommittee in Bonn, Germany. South Koreavoiced its opposition immediately, citing theuse of Korean forced labor at 7 of these sites,and criticized Japan’s nomination forattempting to obfuscate that history. Seouldemanded that Japan address the use of forcedlabor at these sites, but Tokyo rejected thesecalls as “political claims.” Japan and Korea mettwice to discuss the issue (on 22 May and 9June) but failed to reach any agreement. At thesame time, Korea’s foreign minister met withhis counterparts in Germany, Croatia, andMalaysia – all three are members of the 21-member World Heritage Committee – topresent Seoul’s case against Japan’s WorldHeritage proposal. On 21 June, however,Japanese and Korean foreign ministers meetingin Tokyo announced their agreement tocooperate to ensure the inscription of bothJapan’s Meiji industrial sites and South Korea’sBaekje Historic Area into the World Heritagelist at Bonn.

The World Heritage Committee convened itsmeeting on 28 June, and was scheduled to voteon the Japanese sites on 4 July. At the last

minute, the Committee announced apostponement of the vote by a day, citing thedisagreement between Japan and Korea, andasked both countries to continue negotiations.The World Heritage Committee voted on 5 July,after Japan and Korea reached an agreementon the wording about Korean labor at the sites.During the voting process, Japan issued astatement regarding an “interpretive strategy”for the sites that would al low for “anunderstanding of the full history of each site”.It included the following:

More speci f ical ly , Japan isprepared to take measures thatallow an understanding that therewere a large number of Koreansand others who were broughtagainst their will and forced towork under harsh conditions in the1940s at some of the sites, andthat, during World War II, theGovernment o f J apan a l soimp lemented i t s po l i cy o frequisition. 1

The Korean delegation took the floor followingthis. It noted that Korea “decided to join the[World Heritage] Committee’s consensusdecision on this matter” because it had “fullconfidence in the authority of the Committeeand trusts that the Government of Japan willimplement in good faith the measures it hasannounced” before the Committee.2

The successful designation was initiallywelcomed by both Japan and Korea as a

APJ | JF 13 | 28 | 1

2

moment of cooperation between them on adifficult historical issue. This optimism aboutJapan-Korea reconciliation, however, quicklyevaporated. Commentary the very next day inboth countries on the meaning of Japan’sstatement revealed a deep schism. Koreaviewed the statement as Japan’s publicacknowledgment of its use of Korean forcedlabor at the sites. However, Japan’s foreignminister declared that the statement’s use ofthe phrase “forced to work” did not mean“forced labor (kyōsei renko).” Further,Japanese newspapers decried the politicizationof the nomination process, and complained thatthis “threw cold water” on attempts to improveJapan-Korea relations. Some news outlets havealso began to point fingers by attributing thedelayed vote at Bonn to Korea’s refusal tocompromise despite their agreement to do soon 21 June. This issue has the potential toreturn in the future: the Yomiuri newspaperreported that Korean government officials haveraised the possibility that a similar kind ofdiplomatic row will erupt again if Japanproceeds with its nomination of “The Sadocomplex of heritage mines” to the WorldHeritage List because of forced labor that wasused there.3

Takazane Yasunori’s essay was published on 29May 2015, more than a month before the WorldHeritage meeting. While Japan’s nominationwas successful, Takazane’s essay remains atimely interrogation of Japan’s historicalconsciousness about the history of Koreanforced labor at these sites, a problem that themainstream Japanese press seems reluctant totackle directly. The essay is also noteworthy forhis questioning of UNESCO’s responsibility inthis matter. TML

* * * * *

The Japanese government’s nomination ofGunkanjima, [or Battleship Island] formallyknown as Hashima, in Nagasaki Prefecture as aWorld Heritage site is likely to be adopted. But

is it acceptable to ignore the historical fact thatKorean and Chinese people were forced intolabor under extremely poor conditions at thecoal mine there?

UNESCO’s advisory body, ICOMOS, recentlyrecommended to UNESCO that the 23installations nominated by the Japanesegovernment for the World Heritage as “ModernIndustrial Heritage Sites in Kyūshū andYamaguchi” are as a whole “appropriate forinscription.”

In Nagasaki, this recommendation was greetedenthusiastically, especially by the local mediaand tourism industry, but I was, to be honest,disappointed by it and by the “festive mood” inresponse. Was this a wise decision byICOMOS? The nomination documentssubmitted by the Japanese government wereinadequate in terms of acknowledging thewhole history of each of the locations. Surelythere were other ways for ICOMOS to proceed,such as by asking for the submission ofadditional materials?

In particular, one of the 23 suggested sites,Gunkanjima (Hashima Island) in NagasakiPrefecture, an active coal mine until 1974, wasworked by Korean and Chinese forced laborersduring the 1930s and 1940s, and the terribleconditions they endured meant that many died.To be clear, I am not opposed to Gunkanjima’sregistration as a World Heritage site under allcircumstances. If Japan applies for registrationpredicated on this negative history (fu norekishi) that acknowledges responsibility forthis exploitation, then I think there is room fordiscussion.

APJ | JF 13 | 28 | 1

3

H a s h i m a I s l a n d(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nagasaki_Hashima_01.png#/media/File:Nagasaki_Hashima_01.png), also known asGunkanjima (Battleship island)

“Nagasaki Hashima 01” by Hisagi

Sites like Auschwitz in Poland, Hiroshima’satomic dome, and the English slave-trade portof Liverpool are registered World Heritagesites because of their negative histories, inorder to provide materials for humanity’s self-examination, and warnings of actions that mustnever be repeated. However, the Japanesegovernment does not regard Gunkanjima inthat way.

Cries from those forced into labor

In January 2011, I learned of the existence ofsurvivors who had worked as forced laborerson Gunkanjima from a DVD of a KoreanBroadcasting System (KBS) program, and,visiting Korea, I met three such people whowere in their 80s and 90s.

I heard their vivid accounts of personalexperiences and their stories of suffering there.In speaking to them of the possible recognitionof Gunkanjima as a World Heritage site, I wasstruck by their unanimous disbelief. “Isn’t thisa concealment of history?” they asked. “Whatkind of experiences do people think we hadthere?” “Are Japanese people actually proud of

this island’s history? Why?”

Because of this experience, I published If youlisten carefully to Gunkanjima: Records ofKorean and Chinese forced into labor atHashima (Gunkanjima ni mimi o sumaseba:Hashima ni kyōsei renkōsareta ChōsenjinChūgokujin no kiroku) later in 2011. I did sounder the auspices of the “Committee for theProtection of the Rights of Zainichi Koreans inNagasaki” – an organization with which I amaffiliated and which has long worked withKorean atomic bomb survivors.

The South Korean government has alreadyexpressed the opinion that Gunkanjima clasheswith the mission of the World HeritageConvention, which aims to protect heritage thatpossesses “universal values.” We should payattention. According to South Koreangovernment data, approximately 60,000Koreans were pressed into service at seven ofthe sites, including Kyūshū’s coal mines, theYahata steel works, and Mitsubishi’s Nagasakishipbuilding works, where about 1,000 peopledied.

APJ | JF 13 | 28 | 1

4

“Governmental Yawata Iron & SteelW o r k s ”(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Governmental_Yawata_Iron_%26_Steel_Works.JPG#/media/File:Governmental_Yawata_Iron_%26_Steel_Works.JPG) in Mainichishimbunsha, Ichi oku nin no Shōwa shi

However, Japanese Chief Cabinet SecretarySuga Yoshihide responded that, “This issomething that an expert organization hasrecognized. There is no need to introducepolitical claims as Korea has.”

But this is not a problem of politics, it is aproblem of history. What does Japan mean byignoring a historical event and rejecting it as a“political claim?” Is such an argumentacceptable – or is it only acceptable in Japan?Such a claim is not persuasive to countries andpeoples who have suffered the damage ofinvasion or war.

When foreign minister Kishida Fumiopresented the Japanese government’sstandpoint, he noted that “the years that arerelevant to [the World Heritage designation]are the 1850s to 1910” and are “different fromthe time frame, historical assessment, andbackground context [of forced labor].”

But the very fact that Hashima began toresemble a battleship from afar – and thusacquired its famous nickname of Gunkanjima orBattleship Island – was due to the high-risebuildings on the island, even the oldest ofwhich was built only in 1916. There are nopre-1910 buildings on the island today thatcould be added to the World Heritage Register.Does that not mean that the Foreign Minister’sremarks are divorced from reality?

Historical consciousness in question

It is also significant that while the 23 locationshave been described as “industrial revolutionheritage sites,” for some reason Shōkasonjukuin Yamaguchi prefecture’s Hagi City isincluded. I t seems that the Japanesegovernment wanted to include Shōkasonjuku atall costs, doubtless to cast Yoshida Shōin as thegreat philosopher and leader who led Japaninto modernity.4

Yosh ida Shō in , however , shou ld beremembered not just as a precursor of the MeijiRevolution and the associated industrialization,but also for having drafted a grand philosophyof invasion. Yoshida Shōin inculcated theseideas into his disciples Itō Hirobumi andYamagata Aritomo, the leaders of the Meiji era,and there is no question that they put them intoaction.5 From the First Sino-Japanese andRusso-Japanese Wars, to the annexation of theKorean peninsula, and through the ManchurianIncident and the Second Sino-Japanese war, themodern Japanese state focused on territorialaggression.

APJ | JF 13 | 28 | 1

5

“ N o . 2 D o c k N a g a s a k i ”(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:No2_Dock_Nagasaki.jpg#/media/File:No2_Dock_Nagasaki.jpg)

Is not Korean and Chinese forced labor, ofwhich Hashima was but one example, preciselyone of the things brought about by Japaneseimperialism? Shōkasonjuku too should not beadded to the World Heritage register withoutany recognition of its negative history. The factthat Shōkasonjuku and Gunkanjima are withoutquestion joined by negative history should notbe forgotten.

Furthermore, many of the Korean and Chinesepeople forced into labor on Gunkanjima weredeployed to clean up the debris caused by theatomic bombing of Nagasaki in August 1945,and they suffered radiation exposure onentering the city. Others had earlier beenforcibly moved from Gunkanjima to theMitsubishi shipbuilding works in Nagasaki andsuffered directly from the atomic bombing.Most of them passed away without everreceiving compensation for suffering A-bombexposure. What would they think upon seeingthis current push to celebrate Gunkanjima as aWorld Heritage site?

How should UNESCO decide this questionnow? There are rumors that UNESCO hopesthat the Japanese and Korean governments,who have opposing viewpoints, will hold

negotiations, which might also involve theChinese government. But this is surely not thekind of problem that can be resolved bydiscussions between governments. A failure byJapan and Korea to reach an agreement will notlead to a settlement, but it is questionable forUNESCO to throw the problem back to nationalgovernments.. UNESCO must take fullresponsibility and make its own judgment,rather than simply accepting ICOMOS’srecommendation wholesale.

S h ō k a s o n j u k u(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shokasonjuku.jpg#/media/File:Shokasonjuku.jpg)

Japan should also recognize that thesignificance of this debate goes far beyondUNESCO’s approval or not of Gunkanjima as aWorld Heritage site. The more important issueis its own historical consciousness. How shouldJapan respond to Korean and Chinese criticismson this issue? What kind of reply should Japanas the former aggressor give? As the 70 th

anniversary of the end of the war approaches,surely we have a duty to not be swept up infacile celebrations but instead to face historyearnestly.

This article appeared in the May 29 edition ofShūkan Kinyōbi. Edited by Narusawa Muneo.

APJ | JF 13 | 28 | 1

6

Takazane Yasunori is Professor Emeritus atNagasaki University. He is Director of the OkaMasaharu Memorial Nagasaki Peace Museum.

Tze M. Loo is an Associate Professor of Historyat the University of Richmond and is the authorof Heritage Politics: Shuri Castle andOkinawa’s Incorporation into Modern Japan,1879-2000.

Recommended citation: Takazane Yasunoritranslated and introduced by Tze M. Loo,

Should “Gunkanjima” Be a World Heritage site?- The forgotten scars of Korean forced labor,The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 13, Issue 28, No.1, July 13, 2015.

Related articles:

• William Underwood, History in a Box:UNESCO and the Framing of Japan’s Meiji Era(https://apjjf.org/-William-Underwood/4332/article.html)

(https://apjjf.org/-William-Underwood/4332/article.html)• William Underwood and MarkSiemons, Island of Horror: Gunkanjima andJapan’s Quest for UNESCO World HeritageS t a t u s(https://apjjf.org/-William-Underwood/4333/article.html)

(https://apjjf.org/-William-Underwood/4333/article.html)• Richard Minear and FranziskaSeraphim, Hanaoka Monogatari: The Massacreof Chinese Forced Laborers, Summer 1945(https://apjjf.org/-Franziska-Seraphim/4337/article.html)

• William Underwood, Toward Reconciliation:The Nishimatsu Settlements for Chinese ForcedL a b o r i n W o r l d W a r T w o(http://www.japanfocus.org/-Ivy-Lee/3400)

• William Underwood, Rejected by All Plaintiffs:Failure of the Nishimatsu-Shinanogawa"Settlement" with Chinese Forced Laborers in

W a r t i m e J a p a n(http://www.japanfocus.org/-Kang-Jian/3399)

• William Underwood, Redress Crossroads inJapan: Decisive Phase in Campaigns toCompensate Korean and Chinese WartimeF o r c e d L a b o r e r s(http://www.japanfocus.org/-William-Underwood/3387)

• Kim Hyo-sun, Allied and Korean Forced Laborat the Aso Mining Company and Japan-SouthK o r e a R e l a t i o n s(https://apjjf.org/-Kim-Hyo_sun/2999/article.html)

• William Underwood, Recent Developments inKorean-Japanese Historical Reconciliation(https://apjjf.org/--Hankyoreh/3348)

• William Underwood, Remembering andRedressing the Forced Mobilization of KoreanL a b o r e r s b y I m p e r i a l J a p a n(http://www.japanfocus.org/-Kim-Hyo_Soon/3303)

Notes

1 “Nihon seifu daihyōdan seimei bun,” Mainichishimbun, 7 July 2015, 2.

2 Statement by the Korean delegation(http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/39com/records/?day=2015-07-05#tMnp-FyTHr-s11825),Session of the World Heritage Committee, 5July 2015 (accessed 8 July 2015).

3 “Kankoku ‘Sado kōzan’ mo chūshi,” Yomiurishimbun, 6 July 2015, 2.

4 Translator’s note: Shōkasonjuku was theschool establ ished by Yoshida Shōin(1830-1859), who is well known for having triedto smuggle himself onto one of Perry’s ships.Several future pol i t ical leaders whoorchestrated the Meiji Restoration wereeducated at Shōkasonjuku. Popular interest inYoshida Shōin—already substantial—is

APJ | JF 13 | 28 | 1

7

currently being hyped through NHK’s historicaldrama for 2015, “Hanamoyu,” whose maincharacter is Shōin’s sister, Fumi.

5 In Yoshida Shōin’s words, “it is urgent that wenow prepare militarily; we have enough shipsand nearly enough cannon, so it is appropriateimmediately to reclaim Ezo [Hokkaidō] andfeudalize the various lords, then seize themoment and grab Kamchatka and Okhotsk,persuade Ryūkyū … pressure Korea … and thenin the north divide Manchurian lands, and in

the south acquire Taiwan and Luzon.” (TheCollected Works of Yoshida Shōin, volume 1)Yoshida moreover advocated that the Shogun’spolicy should be to “Cultivate national strength,carve up and subjugate the easy pickings ofKorea, Manchuria and China, and make up forwhat we lose to Russia through trade withlands from Korea and Manchuria,” That is,after cultivating national strength, [Japan]should aim to enlarge its territory throughmilitary invasion. (The Collected Works ofYoshida Shōin, volume 5)