제주평화연구원

Direction of Creating Smart City in Jeju Recently, Jeju has been positively effected in the regional economy by the aspects of population growth, but also faced problems in areas of residence, traffic, energy and waste management. Due to limited resources and existing urban infrastructure in Jeju, it is important to come up with a new strategy that could solve this problem. In line of such process, the importance of the ‘Smart City’ concept is becoming more and more emphasized. A smart city is an urban development vision to integrate multiple information and communication technology (ICT) and enables both sustainable development of economy and enhancing the quality of life. A smart city bases ICT and convergence technology that would open up the connections to the new industry of Jeju, such as tourism. This session attempted to seek the direction of constructing the Jeju Smart City. Chair -BYUN Byung Seol Professor, Inha University Keynote Speaker -HWANG Kyung Soo Professor, Jeju National University Discussant -KIM Tae Kyung Senior Researcher, Gyeonggi Research Institute -CHOI Jeong Seok Professor, Joongbu University -SUH Kyo Professor, Seoul National University -CHUNG Chae Gun President, United Nations Project Office on Governance -CHOI Jeong Seok Professor, Joongbu University​   

Peace Begins with the People   [caption id="" align="alignright" width="150"] Shin, Kang-hyobHuman Rights policy Director, Jeju Peace Human Rights Center [/caption] Seen from the outside, life in South Korea might appear to be under the constant threat of war. Nevertheless, South Koreans manage to remain relatively unperturbed. The fact that people continue to peacefully go about their daily lives amid heightened tensions on the peninsula, conspiracy theories, and news reports of the incessant threat of war must seem perplexing to the outside world. How can we find peace amid this chaos?   War may break out on the Korean Peninsula at any given moment. North Korea has fired missiles and conducted nuclear tests with complete insouciance toward the international community’s condemnation. The United States seems to be prioritizing its own economic interests, no longer performing its traditional role as a global hegemon that negotiates hostilities. The U.S. is only aggravating tensions here with its harsh denunciations of North Korea, a regrettable behavior given its former influence.   Meanwhile China, whose relationship with North Korea is said to be as close as lips to teeth, is now in a troublesome position because of its relationship with its southern neighbor. It would have to grapple with numerous problems if it defends North Korea, but suffer strategic losses if it abandons the North. Extreme tension continues without an end in sight in this region. Then there are those who silently gloat over this situation. Russia, already under sanctions spearheaded by Western countries, could have an opportunity to pursue its interests while keeping a low international profile. Japan, by exaggerating the threat of war, now sees a chance to fulfill its long-cherished hope to become a normal state and utilize those fears to extricate its government from a corruption scandal at home. However, it is the Japanese people who are left constantly suffering from the threats of war.   Then, what does such turmoil have to do with the South Korean government? The past two conservative administrations continuously applied pressure on North Korea. A media view ascribing the continued pressure of the West, led by the U.S. and conservative governments of South Korea, for the North’s pursuit of nuclear armament to defend itself deserves attention. With nothing left to lose, North Korea has no reason to change its behavior. International sanctions pose a rather stronger threat to North Korea, thereby helping it justify its aggressive posture of seeking weapons for attack, in addition to self-defense. The hopes for dialogue between the Moon Jae-in government and North Korea were dashed altogether by its latest nuclear test. The expectations that the government would make peace efforts towards North Korea have evaporated with the deployment of the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system in Seongju, and thus only prolonging the threats of war.   Deployment of the THAAD system seems to be a demonstration of the firm will of the government to not tolerate North Korea’s provocations amid heightened tensions. However, the hasty deployment of THAAD and the tepid attitude toward dialogue has resulted in the approbation for the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea. There should be space to talk about the rights of the Gangjeong Villagers and that of all the people of neighboring countries to live peacefully. We need a discussion on a peace regime for Northeast Asian countries in which the rights to peace are guaranteed, not by the state but by the people. In this respect, Jeju Island, the Island of World Peace, occupies a core position to achieve peace but simultaneously faces realistic issues. Hence, we face the task of thinking more sincerely about the rights of Jeju Islanders to peace. The discussion about peace should start with honest conversations by those who truly yearn for it.   With this momentary misjudgment, the situation on the Korean peninsula is headed toward catastrophe. To maintain this perilous peace, South Korea is testing its luck with nuclear deterrence. In addition, South Korea also has a naval base on Jeju Island, posing a potential threat to China. The naval base, a strategic bastion harboring a South Korean naval fleet, could become the greatest menace for China. We are living on Jeju Island, which harbors this menace. Given the North’s threat to launch missiles at Guam and its demonstrated capacity to do so, who can guarantee that tensions in Northeast Asia might not escalate into a bombing of Jeju Island? It is for this reason that the military base is not compatible with the premise of “living in peace.”   Then, how can we achieve peace? Experts from neighboring countries of the Korean Peninsula have talked about a “peace regime.” There have been times ripe for peace and others when heightened tensions were on the verge of military clashes. However, there has never been a time without military confrontation and there has never been a time where the desire for peace was not spoken. Those responsible have discussed peace at the negotiation table, but once away from the table they become engrossed only in diplomatic maneuvering to safeguard the interests of their own countries or governments. Behind the veil of peace negotiations lie the desires for economic gain, regional hegemony and the continued perpetuation of political power. It almost seems that the establishment of a peaceful order through international agreement is not only a distant prospect but impossible.   Is it impossible then to establish an authentic peace regime? As a Jeju Islander and human rights activist, I would like to assert that it rests with the people. In October 2012, the residents of Gangjeong Village declared their rights to peace. According to the village, their rights to peace entitle them “to make a decent society for posterity,” “to always seek the agreement of all residents,” “to live happily greeting each other,” “to not destroy nature,” “to not be stigmatized as Pro-North Korean sympathizers” and “to safeguard all life of Gangjeong Village.” These rights represent the core values of modern human rights such as the rights to live peacefully, to not be involved in war, to independently decide how to develop a community and to form solidarity. These core values faithfully embody the Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace adopted at the United Nations General Assembly on Dec. 19, 2016. If it is extremely difficult or impossible to achieve a peace regime through the coordination of national interests, then what about the establishment of a peace regime with the realization of the rights of people to peace? Jeju Islanders have already declared themselves a regime of peace. It is only yet to be recognized as a reality and put into practice.   Jeju Island has already nominally accepted the positive concept of peace. Therefore, Jeju Island, jointly with the central government, should implement practical policies to guarantee the rights of all Jeju Islanders to peace. As a first step toward this end, it should guarantee their rights to live peacefully, resist the government and safeguard self-determination. By guaranteeing their rights to peace, peace could be achieved naturally. The government’s execrable claim for indemnity against the residents should be withdrawn and the military base replaced by a peace zone.   There should be space to talk about the rights of the Gangjeong Villagers and that of all the people of neighboring countries to live peacefully. We need a discussion on a peace regime for Northeast Asian countries in which the rights to peace are guaranteed, not by the state but by the people. In this respect, Jeju Island, the Island of World Peace, occupies a core position to achieve peace but simultaneously faces realistic issues. Hence, we face the task of thinking more sincerely about the rights of Jeju Islanders to peace. The discussion about peace should start with honest conversations by those who truly yearn for it.

Dynamic Equilibrium between Development and Preservation     The general direction of the regeneration of the old city center has been focused on the low density, culture-oriented and the residence-renewal. The ‘low density’ means to keep the population below the current size by employing the low-rise buildings. The ‘culture-oriented’ means to rule out the commercial and/or industrial development by setting up the culture zone which is full of the cultural facilities. The ‘residence-renewal’ aims at improving the residential performance by way of remodelling the residential buildings without the expansion of the residential area. These directions appear persuasive but there is no reason to set aside all the others considerations. On the other hand, we will address  an alternative way of regenerating the old city which is focused on the high density, industry-oriented and mixed-use development.   The following are excerpts from the final report of the Jeju Forum 2017.   Chair -KIM Jong Hwan Director, Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute   Presenter -LEE Sang Hyun Professor, Myongji University -LEE Sang yun Professor, Yonsei University ​-YOUN Oui Sik President, SULIM Architectural Design Firm   Discussant -LEE Jae Hoon Professor, Dankook University -KI Jung Hoon Professor, Myongji University -KIM Young Chul Professor, KAIST -LEE Yong Ho President, Real Estate Project Managing Company -JUNG Tae Yong Professor, Konkook University -Bla? KRI?NIK Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Urban Studies, Hanyang University         -LEE Sang Hyun: The development of an “old city center” assumes the establishment of a new city center. The cities of South Korea have experienced a rapid expansion from the 1960s as industrialization and urbanization combined with an increasing population. At that point, the only means available were either to develop high-density city centers or to build new downtown areas at a suitable distance from the original ones. Prior to the horizontal expansion carried out with the building of new city centers, the redevelopment of old city centers so as to increase density was rarely attempted anywhere outside of the Seoul region. Nearly every city in the provinces opted to respond to expanding spatial demand by building new city centers. As population inflows declined and low growth led to less demand for space, old and new city centers ended up in a competitive relationship in terms of population inflows. As people left the old city centers, their urban competitiveness increasingly weakened. Unlike measures that are introduced to renew old city centers, some will inevitably be abandoned, while the remaining sections will develop into slums.   The way to renew old city centers is to make residential improvements, restore productive activities, and enable the stimulation of leisure and consumption activities. Given the current focus on new city centers in the development of transportation infrastructure, it will not be easy finding ways to upgrade the old centers’ accessibility to workplaces and homes. Under the circumstances, the renewal of old city centers will require us to find the advantages unique to them. Old city centers have a longer history than their newer counterparts, along with the culture that has formed over that time. They also boast non-artificial environments. Like other regional cities, Jeju City has also experienced processes of old city center emergence and decline. The kind of “old city center renewal” being discussed for Jeju in the Jeju Future Vision is not much different from other ideas for the renewal of regional cities. Methods have been suggested for taking advantage of the history, culture, special natural environment of the old Jeju City center, but Jeju also has one thing that sets it apart from other regional cities in terms of the renewal of its old city center: the future addition of special facilities in the form of a new harbor. In other words, a new population inflow may well be possible.   Deciding whether to renew or redevelop the old city center of Jeju will require us to anticipate whether there will be an increase in spatial capacity or a population inflow. The building of the new harbor is a situation where Jeju City can expect a population inflow. It is clear that new residents will arrive, and it is simply a matter of the number of the people arriving once the new harbor is built. But the size of the anticipated population with the construction of the new harbor is not certain. If it is the kind of new harbor that is currently being discussed, it would appear to be something at the level of an old city center renewal. This means old city center of Jeju will need to undergo renewal.   A net population inflow appears possible if old city center of Jeju is developed into a “company research year town.” A company research year town is a town designed to give people opportunities for paid work in a preferred residential area for a certain period of time once they have worked at a company for a particular time period. First of all, with its natural environment, Jeju has the opportunity to be a place where anyone would want to live. There are around 50 million people working at South Korea’s top ten ranked companies and China’s top 30 ranked companies. If we can attract even a portion of them, we would be able to choose the path of redevelopment rather than renewal for old city center of Jeju.   The following is a more detailed explanation about the company research year town proposed for old city center of Jeju. High-rise office blocks would be designed so that people can see each other within the building, allowing them to learn different corporate cultures as they share the Research and Development space and communicate visually. By enabling people to see users of high-rise structures in old city center of Jeju, we would be providing a different first impression of Jeju with the sight of the coast looking down on port. There would be a shopping mall where people could move around by individual means of transport. They would have the opportunity to experience high technology at new product exhibition halls and test beds, and it could be constructed as a space where you can watch people working in and around the courtyard. ​ In terms of a more detailed architectural plan, the Research and Development wing where people would work would consist of four 50-story buildings with an area of one million pyeong(py)[33,000 m2] each, or four million py, which could accommodate one million people. The commercial wing would measure eight thousands py, or one-fifth the working facilities, and accommodate two thousand people. If you take into account that the residential wing would measure three million py(a 300 percent floor area ratio) and could accommodate one million people, it would be possible to have 1.5 million py of existing residential improvement area and 1.5 million py of area for terrace housing construction by the waterway. The construction is expected to cost around one trillion won, which means a potential GDP of around nine trillion won if you assume one million people working with sales of 900 million won per ICT employee. If you add this to GDP of Jeju in 2015, about nine trillion won including three trillion won in tourism revenues which means we could double that GDP.   -LEE Sang yun: Recovering the urban functions of declining old city center areas will require the courting of new and creative industries. We can discuss the specific program in the plan Professor Lee proposed, the transportation system, and other potential uses in terms of three perspectives. The first concerns the structure of the old city center. Cities on the water have typically developed along a concentric circle structure. There is the symbolism and economic value of the water and the patterns formed by surrounding zones, which means specialization as a central business district, a transitional belt, and residential areas from the inner city to the periphery. At the same time, linear structures develop along river and transportation corridors that spread out radically from the city center to regions on the periphery. We see a trend of residential areas specializing in a kind of fan shape according to social class. There is a multicenter model that takes shape around several centers rather than just one.   The old city center of Jeju exhibits all three characteristics. What I would propose is to analyze these characteristics and develop a format and pattern that takes into account potential mutual gains for different regions.   The second concerns expansions in cultural and other infrastructure and building public transportation and urban pedestrian systems. The city center is close to both the international airport and seaport, which results in numerous connections between them. The airport and seaport function as bases for urban growth that exists in a relationship of competition, and it is in terms of this relationship that we can talk about the success or failure of the city. With this competitive relationship, we are looking to introduce a new program, build a simple yet environmentally friendly transportation system, and increase access to the sea in different ways. This would have a major impact on the structural format and open space system that are being proposed for the old city center.   The third concerns the newly arriving population and the establishment of a mutually complementary relationship with existing residents. The biggest problem with either urban renewal or redevelopment has to do with restoring relationships among residents. This is not a problem easily resolved with proposals concerning the physical environment alone, but we are trying to make it into an issue by proposing certain elements. Some of the things we might be able to do include forming spaces that take advantage of the pedestrian system, encouraging a complex commercial area using sky decks at the front of buildings, coming up with different programs for the rear of the structures that could be spaces for interaction between the local residents and the incoming population, establishing pedestrian priority zones, and developing public programs for connecting the region ​ -YOUN Oui Sik: Edward Glaeser called human capital the “heart of a successful city.” The external effects of human capital are correlated with education and GDP. Per capita GDP for a metropolitan region increases by 22 percent for every ten percent rise in the percentage of population with a high school diploma or greater. On average, national per capita GDP has risen by over 30 percent for every additional year of education for the total population of the country. In other words, when a regional educational level increases, it brings with it a rise in the income of local residents unrelated to it.   Historically, Jeju was a place of exile where people like Kim Jeong-hui, Kim Chun-taek, Kim Jeong, Kim Sang-heon, Jeong On, and Kim Yun-sik spent time. Scholar-bureaucrats on Jeju devoted their energies to writing, training future scholars, research, and communicating ideas. Recently, tourist courses have been springing up along the so-called “exile routes.” Their knowledge may be seen as another example of the average educational level of Jeju being increased. But there is also the matter of the suffering Jeju residents endured tending to the exiles’ basic needs. If a company research year town is built, we can expect to see the arrival of highly educated researchers. The goal of redeveloping the old city center is an increase in the income for the island as a whole through their interchange, communication, and learning effects with existing Jeju residents. The area around Tapdong Park is relatively dangerous at present. You cannot have an enjoyable city when there are places where danger lurks. We provide the green space and open space that the old city center currently lacks. By offering a space where researchers can interact naturally with Jeju residents, we can a pleasant city with open spaces that preserve the essence of Jeju. If you go up on one of the oreum(volcanic cones) and go into the basin, you can experience how the wind seems to suddenly die away and time seems to have stood still in the silence. We’re providing windless spaces that use the hollowed-out the basic shape of the Jeju oreum. Around that, we offer a commercial square surrounded by exhibition venues, showcases for new products, and restaurants. We also rethe sea at Tapdong to give it back to residents and tourists. We also want to offer a space where informal contact occurs naturally between Jeju residents and researchers from companies in different industries.   -LEE Jae Hoon: Professor Lee Sang Hyun proposed building 50-story towers in the old city center and promoting the industry by bringing in a company research year town as a kind of future venture project. He interpreted the city in terms of supply and demand. He also expanded a bit more on the presentation by talking about how physical and cultural characteristics of Jeju could be reflected in it. Youn Oui Sik spoke in economic terms about how to a new identity for Jeju through the relationships between outside intellectuals and Jeju residents. While he looked at the issue of building 50-story buildings in the old city center in terms of supply and demand, people are likely to see it as impossible if you look at it in terms of the skyline. There is an example in the past where there was a plan to build a 50 to 60-story hotel in Jeju, and it ended up being reduced to 38 stories. This also resulted in the lower flowers being built in a bulky way to ensure the necessary floor area ratio. A building like that could give off a somewhat oppressive feeling. So I do not think the decision should necessarily be based on the number of stories. Jeju is a city that is blessed in terms of nature, so it is troubling to think about covering up that view with high-rise buildings. That said some degree of accessibility is necessary for the city to develop. If all of the development is concentrated in one place, that could actually be a way of combining development with the preservation needed to protect nature. One approach may be to loosen the building height restrictions in Jeju City and Seogwipo. Personally, I think it would be a good idea not to let it exceed one-tenth the height of Hallasan Mountain, which is 1,950 meters. I think Professor Lee was right with his opinion of cultural regeneration being reflected in redevelopment, and I do hope that happens. In terms of the next part about attracting new industries, what separates Jeju now from how it was before is its development into a tourism city and the way in which tourism and Jeju have developed side by side. In this case, we could have a situation in which the level of tourists could develop the level of Jeju Island. If we can a new urban industry with a knowledge-based future venture business research year town, I think it could also mean new developments of Jeju Identity.   -KI Jung Hoon: I saw it as being a bit different from the recent direction in redevelopment. It is about educating residents and emphasizing economic development over physical development. While the current approach is similar to previous redevelopment, he seems to be proposing a somewhat different approach that includes a symbolic element in terms of cultural identity and environment. Whatever the approach, I think it is good if you can get a lot of people together. I do have doubts about the feasibility of the company research year town, though. Company research years are found at places like universities and research institutes, but there needs to be more consideration as to why the focus is on companies and whether this project is actually feasible. I also think there needs to be an element of symbolism when you have a project that involves the building of ultra-high rise towers. There should be strategy for how it happens concretely, too. I think the company research year town is something that could be expanded to things like university research institutes, in addition to companies. The key to this project is bringing in more people, and I do think that may be possible with the right strategy and promotion.   ​-KIM Young Chul: Even if Jeju does support a regeneration project for its old city center, there needs to be enough of a driving force to carry it along for several years. We need to consider whether it is possible to have consistent effects from it. We should give some thought to ways of sustaining that space and allowing it to develop through the next generation.   -LEE Yong Ho: What the presenter suggested is quite different from the current approach to urban renewal. The aims stated in the Renewal Promotion Act are first to respond to decline, second to achieve urban renewal in localized areas, and third to provide maintenance and repairs for individual buildings to prevent long-term social costs. What the presenter seemed to be proposing was more redevelopment than renewal. It seems like a proposal that was about enhancing the competitiveness of Jeju as a whole. With other cities and provinces, there is a certain minimum level in terms of scale, and the industrial infrastructure is already there. That is not the case with Jeju Island, and it is likely there is only so much that can be done through an internal rearrangement of things. So I do not think Jeju Island can achieve the kind of doubling of its GDP that the presenter mentioned. Currently, there appear to be a few projects under way in Jeju with national support from the Renewal Promotion Act, but that is not going to be enough in the long term. It needs to be tied together in the long term at the national level with the issue of industry relocation. There is clearly a connection between that vision and the one in this session. With other cities and provinces, there is a certain minimum level in terms of scale, and the industrial infrastructure is already there. That is not the case with Jeju Island, and it is likely there is only so much that can be done through an internal rearrangement of things. So I do not think Jeju Island can achieve the kind of doubling of its GDP that the presenter mentioned. Currently, there appear to be a few projects under way in Jeju with national support from the Renewal Promotion Act, but that is not going to be enough in the long term. It needs to be tied together in the long term at the national level with the issue of industry relocation. There is clearly a connection between that vision and the one in this session. ?   -JUNG Tae Yong: It is important to remember the fact that the population inflow and the tourism industry are not everything. We can take advantage of the external space that arises from concentrated development of old city center of Jeju, creating a pedestrian-centered city with a waterfront. The combination of those three things is, I think, an excellent outcome. But who is this development for? We also need to think about what kind of relationship the one million new arrivals will have with current population of Jeju. You need a strong public aspect for there to be sustainable. It is a very risky strategy if the global recession continues for another ten years and we do not get the population inflow. I’m aware that a lot of efforts are being made in terms of attracting education and business, but there need to be more. There also needs to be social change.   -Bla? KRI?NIK: I spent a year working in Barcelona in the past. Barcelona has a good balance between development and the environment. They have established that balance over the past 20 years, where they continue to sustain the urban renewal, urban development, and social fusion. But there was too much tourism development, and in the mid 2000s, crisis struck. Barcelona gets around eight million tourists, while Seoul gets six million. Barcelona is about six times smaller than Seoul. In terms of scale, Seoul would have over 50 million tourists. In Barcelona, nearly all public spaces are commercialized. It has gotten more and more Airbnb and tourist accommodation, and many of its houses have become part of the tourism market. Because of speculative urban development, there has been a phenomenon of gentrification due to a segmentation as urban development is integrated with the existing city. I cannot say for certain that Jeju Island will see the same negative results as Barcelona, but we must take into account that the risks are definitely there.   Policy Implications - A net population inflow can be achieved by taking advantage of the unique natural environment of Jeju, which is something not present in most regions located within two hours flying distance from Jeju(e.g., in Korea or China). A more effective approach for Jeju City may be to adopt a course of old city center transformation through urban redevelopment that assumes a net population inflow. - A net population inflow may be produced by developing old city center of Jeju into a company research year town. By establishing advanced Research and Development industry facilities to take advantage of this outstanding workforce and allowing the shopping center supporting these facilities to serve as a meeting point for high-tech industry and its workforce to encounter tourists and Jeju residents, it may be possible to a structure that brings benefits to companies, tourists, and residents alike. - The aforementioned effects may be compounded in Jeju by developing company research year town into a pedestrian city and effectively designing waterfront spaces. ?

International Development Cooperation and Jeju Island   [caption id="" align="alignright" width="151"] Sangcheol Kwon​Department of Geography, Jeju National University[/caption] As a new Official Development Assistance (ODA) donor country, the Republic of Korea is subject to heightened expectations for international development in numerous areas. Acting on the calls from developing countries to pass on its experience in economic development from its rapid transition from a recipient to a donor country, Korea joined the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2010. Since then, Korea has since engaged in several ODA and international development cooperation projects.   ODA and international development cooperation are still being used interchangeably, necessitating explanation about the two terms in connection with recent changes in the international practice of aiding developing countries. Following World War II, ODA mainly consisted of assistance from developed Western countries to developing countries to aid the latter’s economic growth. Compassionate contributions, moral obligation, and the transfer of advanced knowledge, technologies, and systems from the West to developing countries characterized ODA in these early years. By contrast, the donor countries that have emerged since the 1990s have implemented a new practice, one that has veered away from the principles of conventional aid. Capitalizing on their prior experiences as developing countries, these new donor countries put greater emphasis on South-South development cooperation as an opportunity for mutual growth than on the North-South assistance more commonly adopted by Western countries. This new practice prioritizes empathy, instead of sympathy, and partnership ties with others based on shared identity and experiences as well as mutual exchanges and benefits.   The shift from traditional ODA to international development cooperation is a positive advancement in that it encourages developing countries to be self-reliant and participate in development cooperation, but the practice has also drawn criticism for its opportunistic approach aimed at economic or political interests. In particular, the development cooperation projects initiated by Korea and Japan in Southeast Asia and by China in Africa and Asia have received censure for their geopolitical interest-oriented strategies. Specifically, the OECD DAC’s peer review panel pointed out that Korea needs to increase the volume of its assistance, expand assistance to poor, heavily indebted countries, and provide unconditional aid and concessional loans in accordance with international norms.   Regarding the recent evolution of ODA, Korea, as a member of the OECD’s DAC, is obliged to observe international norms, share the experience of its rapid economic growth, and promote global citizenship to draw more attention to and enhance efforts to eliminate poverty worldwide. To improve development cooperation and mutual development, Korea is advised to sympathetically consider the history and culture of aid-recipient countries and cultivate a better understanding of local conditions. In general, Korea must take a balanced approach to international norms, development fields and specialties, and comprehensive and specialized knowledge about aid-recipient countries. As the East Asian model of development cooperation, which is mainly focused on grand projects to expand infrastructure, is often criticized for pursuing donor country interests rather than those of the recipient, it is recommended that smaller, program-based aid be implemented. This will enhance the effects of development cooperation in the aid-recipient countries as well as the problem-solving capacity of donor and recipient countries alike.   Local government ODA programs should also take these state-level considerations into account. Jeju province, for example, needs to have a better understanding of international norms and national strategies for ODA, identify ODA fields where it has performed well or can do so, and endeavor to become more familiar with ODA partner countries. Currently, tourism might be cited as an ODA field where Jeju province has a competitive edge. For example, aid-recipient countries could easily turn under-developed but well-preserved areas such as natural and cultural sites into tourism destinations as Jeju province has done. Given the growing demand for alternative types of tourism, such as eco-tourism, cultural tourism, and voluntourism, Jeju province should avoid proposing major tour projects to modernize accommodation facilities or build more roads. Instead, Jeju province should consider smaller, program-based aid packages, such as education for local residents on tourism and hygiene, assistance with the creation of local tourism asset lists and maps, and the creation of indices with lodging facilities and tour services in multiple languages.   As Jeju province hosts the Inter-Islands Tourism Policy Forum, which promotes cooperation between islands that have a unique natural environment and culture but lack tourism resources, it may explore ways to share its experience with islands in developing countries through development cooperation projects. Such international development cooperation projects between local governments can encourage knowledge exchanges between donor and recipient countries without entailing large-scale capital aid. Continued exchanges and the building of personal relationships would help local governments enhance mutual understanding and shared experiences as well as maintain cooperative ties, ultimately providing the opportunity to succeed in development cooperation. It would also a model case of international development cooperation for ODA in which the donor and recipient countries maintain mutually beneficial ties while advancing the growth of recipient countries and offering donor countries the chance to learn something new and mature as global citizens. In this way, Jeju province has the opportunity and potential to advance the cause of international development cooperation on the level of local government.

Identifying Roles of Local Governments in Expanding Peace Chair -KO Seong Joon Emeritus Professor, Jeju National University   Keynote Speaker -WON Heeryong Governor, Jeju Special Self-Governing Province -Yasuyoshi KOMIZO Chairperson, Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation, Japan -Marianne GERDES Executive Director, Ilan-Lael Foundation, United States   -WON Heeryong  Jeju Island, a venue for discussion on peace in Northeast Asia, was designated in 2005 as the Island of World Peace so that it may develop into a buffering zone to prevent and solve international disputes and conflicts. In this spirit, Jeju Island should continue to make efforts to contribute not only to peace on the Korean Peninsula but also in Northeast Asia and the world. Peace is the ideal and goal for world citizens, but the recent global situation shows the transformation of the world order into one prioritizing national interests amid the rise of protectionism and pursuit of hegemony among the superpowers. The expansion of peace requires cooperation beyond national interests. In this respect, cities can more freely engage in activities free from national interests than state units. To build peace on the Korean Peninsula and expand it to East Asia, an inter-city solidarity to propagate the value of peace is necessary. The Alliance of World Peace Cities is an outpost to expand peace on a global level, which was joined by cities that have experienced the atrocities of wars in the past, or host international conferences and organizations. Those who have had direct experience of violence have a stronger desire for peace. The two atomic bombs dropped onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki devastated the two cities into ashes, and no grass or trees are believed to grow there until 2020. The cities pushed ahead with “Mayors for Peace” to share the experience of the atomic bombing and their wish for peace, and to disseminate this to every corner of the world with the next generation. Starting from 1982, the conference has made efforts to realize the “2020 Vision” that demands all deployed nuclear weapons be dismantled and all nuclear weapons in the world be destroyed by 2020 under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Jeju Province has officially joined Mayors for Peace recently. It is an organization set up exclusively for peace itself, independent of certain states, cities or political interests. It is one of the best examples of diplomacy of “Peace Cities” delivering to the world peace messages based on their painful experiences. I would like to emphasize three points. First of all, it should be recognized that activities to practice peace are not appropriated solely by the state. State-organized activities to practice peace have limitations, but track two diplomacy led by the private sector or city units is relatively free from national interests. Second, solidarity among cities should be more solidified and developed for the purpose of expansion of peace. Alliances and cooperation among cities will give momentum to the activities of local governments to practice peace. The tentatively named “World Peace City Forum,” a platform on which the Peace Cities gather together to share exemplary peace-practicing activities, seek cooperative measures, and formulate joint projects, will be held on a regular basis in close collaboration with the Jeju Forum. Lastly, Jeju Province will push ahead with various peace-practicing activities with cities and the private sector. It also hopes that North Korean cities will join us in expanding peace in the near future. -Yasuyoshi KOMIZO  In August 1945, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ruined by atomic bombs. By the end of the year, a total of 210,000 people lost their precious lives in both cities, and the survivors are still living in agony, suffering from health problems and social discrimination. Though most of them are almost 80 years old, the victims of the atomic air raids are spreading the humanitarian message that nobody should experience the same tragedy they went through. The message has many implications for the young generation. In full consensus with the idea of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cities, Mayors for Peace, as heads of local governments responsible for the safety and welfare of their citizens, have been engaging in humanitarian and supra-partisan activities to achieve peace without nuclear weapons. So far, 7,355 cities in 162 countries have joined as members, and they are making their best efforts to establish an international system to eradicate all nuclear arms in the world by 2020. About 15,000 nuclear arms still exist now, and disputes can possibly develop into armed conflicts amid rising exclusiveness and uncertainty in the international arena. Since the end of the 1960s, more than 1,000 nuclear arms accidents have taken place, and there were about ten occasions which could have led to the Third World War. This indicates the possibility of an outbreak of nuclear war, possibly by accidents. In the face of the reality of nuclear proliferation such as the nuclear development by North Korea, security by means of nuclear deterrence can be maintained just temporarily, and this deterrence by military force is destined to fail in the medium to long term and will eventually end up with armed clashes. Mayors for Peace emphasizes that a civil movement is necessary for a world free of nuclear weapons. It is trying to lay a solid foundation for nuclear disarmament and sustainable world peace. Especially, it is organizing meetings with the victims of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to make public the realities of atomic bombing and pursuing UN treaties to abolish nuclear weapons. It is also engaging in activities to lay a basis for sustainable world peace. They are part of efforts to promote brotherhood by helping people acknowledge their differences and have shared values and goals. -Marianne GERDES  While uncertainties prevail in global society, many countries look to the U.S., anticipating peace and stability. But world peace cannot be achieved by the efforts of a single country, and it requires citizens’ efforts as much as that of a government. To achieve peace, it is necessary to recognize and respect the values of the Pacific Rim Park and to tackle problems on the basis of trust. The Pacific Rim Park project, joined by students and architects, promotes exchange and the sharing of culture, arts and future visions. Each park has its own characteristics and provides various educational values. The Pacific Rim Park project is pursued on three levels. First, students from across the world contribute their creativity, energy and passion. Next, local governments who provide land for the parks and citizens from around the globe play respectively important roles. Students have the experience of becoming citizens of the Pacific Rim and perform a role in bridging the Pacific Rim communities. The parks also enhance the value of host cities. This process is making the vision of James Hubbell, founder of the Park Foundation, come true. He built a Pacific Rim Park in Vladivostok, Russia, following the collapse of the communist regime in the of Soviet Socialist Republics(USSR). Each park, built through international exchanges, has its own cultural identity and vision. The conference held for four days in San Diego last May showed the effect of the experience of visiting the parks, and how the power of art moves local communities and expands peace to every corner of the world. There are plans to construct more parks that need the cooperation of member countries of the Pacific Rim Park and cities. The participants in the project are from different regions and countries, and have different opinions, but are trying to expand peace. At the meeting last month, they decided to have the third meeting of the Pacific Rim Park community at the Jeju Forum next year. Jeju City is emerging as a leader in the Pacific Rim community and is expected to play a main role in expanding peace in the future. Policy Implications Continuous efforts should be made to contribute to the expansion of world peace to: Build a coalition among cities beyond states. Hold the World Peace City Forum on a regular basis: The Peace Cities proposed to hold the “World Peace City Forum” jointly with the Jeju Forum to explore cooperative measures. Ties among cities made through the Peace Mayors conference To share a wish for peace with the next generation and spread it to the world, the Peace Mayors conference will be pushed forward. Diplomacy by Peace Cities led by local governments with a painful history will deliver peace messages to cities all over the world. A project to establish Pacific Rim Peace Parks The value of the Pacific Rim will be respected, and problems solved through mutual trust. Overcoming the barriers of language and culture, it will study and honor the value of universal humanity. Jeju Province is expected to emerge as a leader of the Pacific Rim and play a role in cultural exchanges for the dissemination of peace.

The Pacific Rim Park   [caption id="" align="alignright" width="150"] Marianne GerdesExecutive Director, Ilan-Lael Foundation[/caption] The Pacific Rim Park is an endeavor of friendship centered around the transformative power of art to foster friendships and understanding among nations.  It brings diverse people together to build spaces of beauty that become bridges of understanding.  The Pacific Rim Park creates opportunities for people from different cultures to work together toward a common good, and in so doing discover their commonalities.  The shared experience of building a park bonds them in a uniquely compelling way. Marianne Gerdes has served as Executive Director of the Ilan-Lael Foundation for 10 years, helping to introduce thousands to the art and creativity of artist James Hubbell and encouraging people to use their hands and heart to affect positive change in the world.  Gerdes is also an award-winning filmmaker whose documentary about James Hubbell titled “Eye of the Beholder” was awarded an Emmy.  Her work with the Pacific Rim Park project helps keep the connections and dialogue among our Pacific Rim Park family relevant and robust.   Partners in seven cities around the Pacific have so far joined us in the belief that having a park dedicated to friendship and a shared Pacific culture is a worthwhile endeavor.  The seven parks we’ve collectively created over 20 years-‘Soil and Soul’ in Vladivostok Russia, ‘Pearl of the Pacific’ in San Diego, USA, a park in China, ‘Entre Corazon Y Mar in Tijuana, Mexico, ‘Salinlahi’ in Puerto Princesa, Philippines, ‘Stepping Stones to the Pacific’ in Jeju Island, South Korea, and ‘Pacific Birth’ in Kaohsiung, Taiwan-are our small ways of exploring an imaginative vision…a new consciousness waiting to be born. Each Pacific Rim Park host city spends months and sometimes years gathering the necessary support, the funding, the materials, and the land to give the park a home. Through this effort, a community is created which makes each park possible and which continues to care for the parks once they’re built.   The host city community ensures that the park mirrors the aspirations of it people.  This makes each park unique to its culture, reflective of its community, and distinctive to its place on the Pacific.   The dream of a culture united around the Pacific goes back three decades to the 1980s, a time when San Diego was reaching out and taking tentative steps in citizen diplomacy.   As the Cold War was thawing, people were once again free to travel and exchange ideas.  Sister City organizations and cultural exchanges were the foundation of many of these interactions.   In 1991 five San Diego artists, including James Hubbell, were invited to take their art to Vladivostok, Russia.  There, they were hosted by the Russian Peace Organization, and by all accounts the trip was a great success with ideas exchanged and many friendships formed including contacts with the Russian Navy.  A conversation between Hubbell and Gennady Turmov, President of Far Eastern State Technical University led them to realize that if war were to break out between the US and Russia, the most vulnerable installations would be its military cities, and San Diego and Vladivostok are both home to large naval installations.  If they were to be friends over time, they needed not just talk but something physical to remind them of their shared destiny.   The park that resulted was called Soil and Earth which was built in Vladivostok, Russia.  At the park’s center was a large mosaic-encrusted orb which symbolized a pearl.  Drawn from nature and the sea, a pearl is a thing of great beauty that grows from an irritant.  The symbol was chosen by the students who came from Russia, the U.S., and Mexico to build the park.  They saw the Park as a pearl, and their new-found friendships as equally precious.  Soon there were other parks, until there was a string of parks, a string of pearls, around the rim of the Pacific Ocean.   In that string of pearls one city stands out.  Jeju Island, which calls itself a ‘Peace Island’ was a natural choice to locate the sixth Pacific Rim Park.  The island’s history of invasion and genocide have shaped its culture and people.  A park here was a necessity, a physical expression of a deep longing by its citizens for peaceful coexistence in the region.  That peace continues to be tested by governments, which makes the Pacific Rim Park a relevant and indispensable appeal by the people of Jeju to all citizens of the Pacific, a call to build a more humane and harmonious world.   Every park is unique, but all have one constant.  The artist, James Hubbell, whose vision, determination, and willingness to journey around the world to use art to transcend differences, as the creative catalyst.  He has inspired strangers to become friends, and changed lives with his Park project.  Despite skepticism and barriers, he proceeded with eyes and heart open.  He built parks, trusting in the potential of beauty, ‘the kind that makes you be quiet’ as a woman in Jeju once told him.   The Pacific contains a multitude of natural wonders and fascinating cultures-explored from the beginning by people in tune with its currents and seeking a new way of life.  In much the same way today, the Pacific Rim Park project is also probing.   What if the Pacific were a new culture, different from the Atlantic culture, and a new way of understanding our place in the world?  What if the countries and people that live by this grand lake thought of themselves as a family?  This may seem hopelessly naive, but if we are able to imagine it, it is possible.  We live in a place unmatched by its diversity of nature, by our overflowing rich cultures, and all our unique ways of celebrating life.   Our Pacific Rim Park is a place of ideas, of hope, of activism, and understanding.  The actions of our governments get a lot of attention. But the Park and its community of supporters understand that change begins with the individual.  We can toss a pebble and start the ripple and we never really know what shift we have initiated.  A hundred of these shifts, a thousand, and suddenly you have a Pacific Rim Park or a Peace Island like Jeju.   On the edge of the Pacific at a beach we call Torrey Pines, I like watching the rainbow of people enjoying the beach as the tide laps the shore.  The sun dips into an indigo sea on its way to wake up our friends in the world we call Asia.  It is their backyard too.  The Pacific, ocean of peace, is large enough to hold us all.   Marianne Gerdes has served as Executive Director of the Ilan-Lael Foundation for 10 years, helping to introduce thousands to the art and creativity of artist James Hubbell and encouraging people to use their hands and heart to affect positive change in the world.  Gerdes is also an award-winning filmmaker whose documentary about James Hubbell titled “Eye of the Beholder” was awarded an Emmy.  Her work with the Pacific Rim Park project helps keep the connections and dialogue among our Pacific Rim Park family relevant and robust.​

  Keynote Speech Delivered by Won Heeryong, Governor of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province   The Jeju Special Self-governing Province is called the Island of World Peace. In 2005, the Korean government designated it as such.   Jeju Island has to date pushed various projects to create, establish and expand peace. The Jeju Forum for Peace and Prosperity, marking its 12th anniversary this year, is one of the projects that started with the Island of World Peace designation.   I think we should look back at why the government designated Jeju Island as the Island of World Peace. The reason was that at that time the government wished to develop this island into a venue for discussions on peace in Northeast Asia, as well as a buffer zone to prevent and solve international disputes and conflicts.   Given this purpose, the Island of World Peace should continue to make efforts to contribute to peace in Northeast Asia and the world, in addition to the Korean peninsula. I think this resonates with the theme of this session.   Identifying Roles of Local Governments in Expanding Peace: Peace is the goal and ideal of world citizens   A happy life is impossible without peace. Peace has forever been the ideal and goal of mankind throughout the world.   However, it is doubtful if we have peace enough to make us happy in real life. The lack of peace is all around us. North Korean nuclear missiles pose threats to us. Dust, water pollution, poverty, discrimination, disorder and injustice are breaking peace apart. Nevertheless, peace must be the ultimate ideal and goal of the human race.   The world now seems to be going the other way around. The U.S. stressed its “America First” policy after the inauguration of President Donald Trump in an unprecedentedly stronger tone. Chinese President Xi Jinping also makes adventurous moves after securing a tight grip on power amid the rise of China as superpower. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, too, adopts bold posture toward economic and foreign affairs. President Vladimir Putin of Russia continues to make efforts to secure a stronger position in global society in an apparent move to regain superpower status.   It seems that the world is reverting to the arena of competition from the Cold War era. Protectionism and hegemony by world powers are rearing their heads. The world order is being restructured in accordance with the national interests of world powers.   To expand peace, I believe, we should seek mutual cooperation beyond exclusive national interests. In this respect, cities can engage more freely than states in activities independent of national interests.   To build and propagate peace on the Korean peninsula and in East Asia, I think, we need an alliance among cities which place particular values on peace.   Cities of World Peace: The Forefront to Expand Global Peace through Alliance   I think that we can humbly start expanding peace with the alliance between cities. Cities which have experienced wars, host international conferences and organizations for peace, and perform significant roles for peace declare themselves Cities of Peace or called as such.   Cities of Peace are Osnabruck in Germany Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Okinawa in Japan Geneva in Switzerland and Stockholm in Sweden. Jeju is also one of them.   UNESCO also selected cities for its peace prize from 1996 to 2001. It designated Caen, France Hanoi, Vietnam and other model municipalities as UNESCO Cities for Peace Prize in recognition of their initiatives in strengthening social cohesion, improving living conditions in disadvantaged neighborhoods and developing genuine urban harmony.   UNESCO Cities for Peace Prize: Hanoi (Vietnam), Bukhara (Uzbekistan), Sharm El Sheikh (Egypt), Cotacachi (Ecuador), Lubumba (Democratic Republic of Congo), Vilnius (Lithuania), Caen (France). Currently, the award of the Cities for Peace Prize is suspended.   I think this Jeju Forum session suggests to Jeju Island important lessons and directions for development.   The Lessons from Mayors for Peace: Local governments play a crucial role in peace diplomacy   Those who have direct experience of violence have greater aspirations for peace. The two atomic bombs which were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945 reduced the cities to ashes. The victims of the raids must have suffered extreme pain. The two cities expected that they would never see plants and trees again before 2020.   With a dismal future ahead, the two cities promoted Mayors for Peace to share their aspirations for peace with the next generation and propagate this across the world.   Mayors for Peace were organized on the initiative of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1982. Joined by local governments over the world, Mayors for Peace is making efforts to realize the 2020 vision to abolish all nuclear weapons with a treaty to ban nuclear arms by that year. Currently 12 Korean cities, including Jeju, Daegu and Gimpo have joined Mayors for Peace. The Jeju Special Self-Governing Province also became an official member this year.   Mayors for Peace are a conference system dedicated solely to peace, independent of certain states or cities, or political interests. It might be called a “diplomacy of cities for peace,” in which cities with a painful history send peace messages to the world, not to repeat the same tragedy.   The Project of Jeju Island to Practice Peace: Jeju seeks to join the alliance network of local governments   The United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) is also known to be keenly interested in diplomacy by cities for peace. The UCLG needs to utilize diplomatic means through the network of cities and their alliances for social cohesion, the prevention and solution of conflicts, and reconstruction after conflicts to the ultimate end of peace, democracy and prosperity.   The Pacific Rim Park, started by the Pacific Rim Park Foundation as a peace building project, was established in seven cities, including San Diego in the U.S., Kaohsiung in Taiwan and Jeju in Korea.    Pacific Rim Parks: Vladivostok in Russia (1994), San Diego in the U.S. (1996), Yantai in China (2001), Tijuana in Mexico (2004), Palawan Island in the Philippines (2009), Jeju Island in South Korea (2010), and Kaohsiung in Taiwan (2013) The Pacific Rim Park project is a model case of the voluntary activities of students and architects promoting mutual understanding about cities, and expanding peace through the means of arts and culture.   In 2012, the Pacific Rim Park City Summit was launched during the Jeju Forum to form solidarity among cities which have Pacific Rim Parks. Jeju Island is scheduled to host the third summit during the Jeju Forum next year. I think Mayors for Peace, or the city diplomacy that the UCLG calls for, or civic sector-led peace building activities through arts, provide the motivation for the Island of World Peace, Jeju.   First, we should recognize that activities to practice peace are not monopolized by the state alone. Peace practices by the state are by necessity limited. The state’s peace practice is Track One Diplomacy. The ultimate purpose of state diplomacy is no more than safeguarding national interests, thus being preoccupied with short-term interests.   However, diplomacy by cities or civic sector, “Track Two Diplomacy,” permits freer activities independent of national interests. The counterpart of such diplomacy as such might be cities and civic groups, instead of governments. Unlike conventional diplomacy, city diplomacy, seeking the expansion of peace, can freely establish new diplomatic ties.   Second, we have to further strengthen and develop the alliance between cities of peace. There are many cities aspiring for peace in the world. The alliance and cooperation with such cities will give more impetus to the activities by the local governments practicing peace.   The Jeju Special Self-governing Province will strengthen its capacity to practice peace and more actively cooperate with the cities of world peace to expand peace over the world. It will continue to host during the Jeju Forum what is tentatively called the “World Peace Cities Forum,” a platform to share peace practicing cases and explore measures and projects to achieve peace. As Island of World Peace, it will engage in various peace practicing activities jointly with the city hall and civic sector. At the same time, Jeju awaits North Korean cities to join the activities expanding peace in the near future and is prepared for this.   Conclusion   One of the characteristics of globalized world is the activation of international exchanges and cooperation led by cities. The international alliance between cities beyond the scope of the state keeps expanding.   As I have said before, I will make efforts to make the World Peace Cities Forum provide motivation for exchanges and cooperation among world citizens, based on the solidarity and cooperation with the Cities of World Peace.   I hope that all of you will enjoy the peace-loving culture of Jeju islanders and the beautiful nature of this island during your stay here. Thank you.

East Asian Peace Community and the Role of Jeju Civil Society     East Asia is a region with ongoing crises where the Cold-War and the Post-Cold War intersect because super powers confront each other militarily while they are actively engaged in economic exchange and cooperation. This session attempted to make suggestions for how to promote East Asia to a more peaceful region from the perspective of civil society. Upon the inauguration of the new administration of South Korea, the civil society of Jeju should be able to seek out the ways of how to increase communication and cooperation as well as construct peace in East Asia not from the economic and military perspective only, but from the civil and social view point. The session expected invited specialists and audience to share their ideas and insights to come up with feasible strategies and better vision for the future of peaceful and prosperous East Asia.   Chair - YANG Gil Hyun Vice President, Jeju International Council Moderator - KO Kwan Yong General Secretary, Jeju International Council Presenter - YOON Yea Yl Author, The Discourse on East Asia - JEONG Young Sin Senior Researcher, Jeju National University Social Sciences Korea Research Cluster       - YOON Yea Yl “East Asia” is a proper geographic term, but we should not be limited by it, for it is more than just the designation of a region. Since the end of the Cold War, the prospects of the region have been restored, and it has become part of the regional strategies of all the most powerful nations, from the United States on down. It has overcome colonialism and hegemonism and become a place of regional solidarity for the implementation of systems of peace. The end of the Cold War was the most important event from which discourse regarding East Asia sprang forth. The breakup of the Soviet Union, the dismantling of the socialistic systems of Eastern Europe, and the fall of the Berlin Wall brought about tremendous changes. In East Asia, Cold War institutions were shaken up and China began to open up more quickly to the outside world, creating fissures in the wall separating continental powers from maritime ones. Political, economic, and cultural exchanges increased by leaps and bounds. Thus, it was the end of the Cold War that restored East Asia’s prospects for the future.   During the Cold War, the countries of East Asia maintained an uneasy stability under the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union. Eventually, the Cold War state of affairs came undone, but even as it did, remnants of its influence could still be seen in East Asia. The transition from the Cold War to the Post-Cold War order was shaky in East Asia and characterized by complicated entanglements involving the United States’ strategic flexibility, Japan’s security policies, rapid development in China, North Korea’s nuclear program, Taiwanese issues, territorial disputes over various islands, and so on. Regional security problems motivated countries to strengthen their national security, which generated further tensions in the region which threatened each nation’s security. This in turn created a vicious circle that leads to a greater American presence in East Asia. There are differences in our understanding of where the boundaries of the East Asian community lie, with each country’s concept of the boundaries asymmetrically overlapping that of all the others. The idea of an East Asian Community as an organization of states came to be considered realistic because of China’s rapid development, but at the same time, China’s scale is also the reason the actual formation of an East Asian Community as an economic bloc, or along the lines of the European Union, looks improbable.   Ideas such as building an East Asian Community or regionally working together toward greater prosperity are often talked about, but there are always conflicts and tensions among these regional entities. Their rush to modernize has become a rivalry that breeds hostility, and the division of Korea, Taiwanese issues, and territorial disputes make matters worse. Each of the countries involved sees these problems in a different light and gives them different weight, making solutions hard to come by. Developing a constructive viewpoint on East Asia demands introspection, understanding of others, overcoming prejudices about the superiority of Far Eastern culture and customs, eliminating nationalism, resolving nationalistic confrontations, coexistence, exchange, reconciliation, cooperation, solidarity, consolidation, balance, harmonious relations, soft power, the promotion of civil society, and liaisons between civil societies.   - YANG Gil Hyun When we talk about the discourse on East Asia, we should not just limit ourselves to South Korea. We have to include the North if we are to overcome regional imbalances and stand on an equal footing with China.   - JEONG Young Sin When it comes to the overall evaluation of the Peace Island project, the organizers themselves are very positive about it, but most researchers are critical of it or have evaluated it negatively. The current reality is that the project lacks coherence and the power to push forward, and I think this is because of policies that focus on civil engineering work and avoiding issues related to, or just going along with, the militarization of Jeju. It is urgent that we rethink this and find ways to do something about it.   The April 3 Incident taught us lessons about violence committed by the state and generated criticism of the divided system that caused it, setting for us the task of overcoming those causes. Because of the geopolitics of Jeju, we have realized the need to make it a demilitarized zone and counteract its militarization. We have learned the various values and concepts of peaceful coexistence with nature and others, rather just pushing blindly ahead with development. All of these factors, when brought together, indicate that the Peace Island project needs to be reworked.   In the 1990s, in the Post-Cold War atmosphere of democratization, the Jeju April 3 Special Law was put in place with the hope of narrowing the gap between Jeju and the mainland. Jeju was lagging behind, so there was a strong feeling that its designation as an Island of Peace would lead to progress in this regard. However, the project moved away from the idea of a demilitarized province as it was carried forward and the term “Peace Island” came to be used simply to mean progress, ignoring the true meaning of peace, which needs to be clearly reinstated in any related special laws. In 2018 we will commemorate the 70th anniversary of the April 3 Incident. I hope this will be an occasion to reconsider Jeju’s future.   In order to spread the concepts of the Island of Peace and the meaning of the April 3 Incident, we have to expand exchanges with people who come from places of conflict so that a new paradigm of peace, as a realistic solution to strife, will take hold across the region. We need to spread the peaceful values of citizens’ rights and duties, and carry out active programs of social exchange.   Policy Implications • East Asia is still in the crossroads of the Cold War and the Post-Cold War situation. The reason for this is that compared to the full economic exchange and cooperation that exists in the region, the level of military confrontation and conflict is high. We need to approach this problem from an economic and military standpoint and the viewpoint of civil society. • The citizens of Jeju must figure out what direction they will take and what role they will play in promoting exchanges and cooperation in East Asia, as well as in building peace in the region. • By doing some deep thinking about Jeju as an Island of Peace, we need to come up with a new vision for how Jeju should play that role. We need to spread peaceful values as the right and duty of the citizenry, and devise ways for citizens to express their thoughts and opinions on how they can participate in many different ways in creating a new Island of Peace

What Is Peace? [caption id="" align="alignright" width="151"] Kim Tea-sukChairman of Council Operation Committee, Jeju Special Self-governing Provincial Council[/caption] The war of words between the U.S. and North Korea threatening “fire and fury” and “sea of fire” recently raised tension on the Korean peninsula to its highest pitch. What do the ordinary people leading a mundane life think about this war crisis? Would peace never come to the peninsula? How long will it take to live in a world without war or violence? What is war and what is peace? Upon this series of nagging questions, I came to think over peace again.   The origin of the word, “peace,” meant the victory of the invader or conqueror. Peace is known to have originated from a word meaning “pacify,” as in the occupied area after a war.   In contrast, “平和” (peace) in Chinese means that community members share food without anyone starving. The latter not only refers to “negative” peace simply without war, but also “positive” peace without structural violence resulting from social inequality, and thus more compatible with Johan Galtung’s concept of peace.   On Jan. 27, 2005, Former President Roh Moo-hyun designated Jeju Island as the Island of World Peace to uphold the island’s traditional culture characterized by the absence of three things (thieves, gates and beggars), to sublimate the tragedy of Apr. 3 Incident into reconciliation and coexistence and to further advance the summit diplomacy for world peace. The government also declared that it would support the island’s programs to build, promote and expand peace. One of the concrete programs was the “17 projects of the Island of World Peace.”   On the other hand, however, we face a question of what else, except for the designation of Island of World Peace, have the Jeju provincial government and the conservative central governments done for the past 10 years? The 17 projects have made no progress and can even be seen as having collapsed, judging by their efficacy. We may say that the local government’s peace-building project cannot be but limited under the influence of the central government. However, the most fundamental reason for the limited role of the local government is ascribed to the dominance of international activities on the state level, with few projects that the residents can participate in except for the program to mark the Apr. 3 Incident. Therefore, it is only natural that the residents of the island pay little attentions to the peace projects.   The Jeju Forum is no exception to this. The forum, the 12th this year, has kept expanding its scope annually. The 12th forum drew about 5,500 attendees from 81 countries worldwide to its 75 sessions divided into five categories: diplomacy and security economics and business management environment and climate change gender, education and culture and global Jeju. The sessions on the international affairs involving the Korean peninsula have received keen attention. They were about the North Korea policies of South Korea, the U.S., China and Japan the review of the Korea-China relations on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of their diplomatic ties North Korean nuclear issue and the measures to check the rivalry over nuclear weapons in Asia. In particular, the first session on the April 3 Incident in the name of “Jeju April 3 Incident, Human Rights and Peace of Woman and Minorities in East Asia” and another on Jeju haenyeo (women divers) to discuss measures to preserve and globalize the haenyeo culture attracted much attention. It is an encouraging sign that the number of sessions on the local issues of Jeju increased this year. They included the sessions in the name of “Revitalization Plan of Development and Friendly Exchange of Asia’s Local Councils,” which I attended, and “Identifying Roles of Local Governments in Expanding Peace.”   In spite of the ostensible growth of the forum, it has yet to tide over many challenges to become a representative forum of Asia-Pacific region and global one such as Davos Forum. If the concept of peace pursued by the island means “positive” peace satisfying basic human demands in just society, in addition to negative peace without war, it is high time to fully renew the 17 projects of the Island of World Peace after a thorough review of the programs. The 17 projects should expand their scope in accordance with the spirit of the times.   As the projects were oriented toward international affairs, they were destined to focus on the foreign issues involving the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia. In addition, the projects to erect institutions, buildings and other infrastructure accounted for most part of the 17 projects. Though the infrastructure was needed to support and maintain peace building activities, it made the program more oriented to negative rather than “positive” peace.   Suggestions made by global leaders about the diplomacy and security affairs at the forum have vanished as soon as the session ended, without being adopted as a policy agenda of the Korean government, to say nothing of the global agenda. The residents and civic groups of the island should play a leading role in developing the local issues into global agendas. To that end, the province should address the disputes and conflicts over large-scale development projects such as the Naval base in Gangjeong, the construction of second airport and new port, the controversial opening of a casino at Sinhwa Historical Park and Ora tourism complex.   Conflicts have not only negative effects but also positive ones. Conflicts rooted in social exchanges and interactions may provide the opportunity of social integration. Hence, the province should have a strategy to control conflicts to minimize its negative effects and maximize its positive ones. To resolve the conflicts in public arena, the Jeju Special Self-governing Province, which is also a party involved in the conflicts, should have a new perception of its role as a mediator or arbitrator of the conflicts between the central government and residents, and among residents. The residents of the island should have more self-determination by participating in the local autonomy with a heightened self-esteem and responsibility for their own life.   I propose the establishment of a “Jeju-type apparatus for a grand social compromise” at the local council to resolve the conflicts in the local community, as well as a special system to address conflicts at the provincial government. This kind of apparatus might improve the quality of life and contribute to community development by providing the parties involved with correct information to help them make rational decisions and redress structural inequality by producing quality jobs and providing non-regular workers with regular jobs.   As the lyrics of “what is peace” by Rev. Mun Jeong-hyeon, who organized the Life-Peace Village in Gangjeong for peace in Jeju Island, say, a genuine peace would be “reinstating dismissed workers / preserving natural habitats for toads, narrow-mouthed frogs and salamanders/ helping disabled persons go wherever they want to/ expropriating no farmers from his farmlands/ stopping prostitution, sexual violence and sexual discrimination/ joyous singing without soldiers and war/ in a world without starvation and sorrows/ and a world without eviction and domination.”

Jeju, Island of World Peace 2.0   [caption id="" align="alignright" width="150"] Kyungmin KoProfessional Researcher, Jeju Research Institute[/caption] Peace has historically been a value or an ideal for many states and the international community as a whole. A number of academic studies have explored theories and discourses on peace in international relations. Countries in military standoff, notably South Korea, have been preoccupied with developing strategies to attain peace for their own sake. Meanwhile, there have been few, if any, projects exploring practical alternatives to achieve peace on a local level. In this regard, “Jeju, Island of World Peace” is a novel project for building and spreading peace via the initiative of local governments, instead of national or international actors.   Designated and declared as the “Island of World Peace” by the Roh Moo-hyun administration in 2005, Jeju Island has been diligent in carrying out the so-called 17 peace in practice projects. Looking back on the 12 years since the declaration, the Island of World Peace has progressed as to be on the verge of a major breakthrough. Three reasons stand out in favor of achieving such a breakthrough and unveiling a new horizon.   First, new initiatives succeeding the 17 peace in practice projects have become necessary. Among the 17 undertakings were establishing the Jeju Peace Institute, regularizing the Jeju Forum, hosting international peace conferences and the UNITAR Jeju International Training Center, etc. Initiatives for peace-building on the Korean peninsula, such as sending mandarins to North Korea, have effectively been discontinued due to strained inter-Korean relations. Meanwhile, projects to mark the Jeju April 3rd Massacre, including opening a peace park, conserving historic sites and establishing a remembrance day, are now nearing completion. The time has come for new, more ambitious follow-up projects to be designed, taking into account the changing environment both within and beyond the country as well as the improved status of Jeju Island.   Second, new peace projects should involve efforts to promote a culture of peace in order to attain peace within the Jeju community. In fact, disputes surrounding public policies and projects carried out by central or local governments began to escalate from 2002, when Jeju was designated as a free international city and a special self-governing province. Adding to the turmoil are issues such as the soaring number of tourists and ill-planned, slapdash development, rising speculative demand, poor maintenance of water and sewage, traffic and waste treatment systems, etc. A peaceful mechanism must be devised that can help relieve the growing pains in the course of becoming a greater, better Jeju.   Third, the conventional notion of peace should be reevaluated as a popular concept and also be translated into practicable programs. In his opening address at the 2016 “Jeju Forum for Peace and Prosperity,” Jeju Governor Won Hee-ryong proposed an extended notion of peace for boundless prosperity of Asia, based on the island’s experience of overcoming painful history and achieving harmony and reconciliation. The concept is defined by “peace of healing” as derived from the nature of Jeju Island, “peace of tolerance” arising from the open-mindedness and diversity of the island and “peaceful use of energy” whereby the entire process of energy production and consumption is satisfied in an environmentally peaceful way. By clarifying overly idealistic and abstract peace discourses as concrete issues, the proposal in the address ostensibly provided a basis for new and practical peace projects.   Ten years into the project, however, the island of Jeju seems somewhat exhausted. There is a growing sense that its status and image as the Island of World Peace are fading. Without adequate support from the central government to encourage the design and implementation of new peace projects, follow-up programs seem unlikely. Recent developments on the Korean peninsula as well as in East Asia involving diplomatic and military standoffs render discussions on peace less realistic. Growing disputes over interest within the island community warrant a mechanism for peaceful resolution.   Is the peace in practice project of the Island of World Peace coming to an end? If not, the leadership of the project should not ignore the internal conflict and disarray of the island. While the past 10 years saw the building of international cooperation and infrastructure for peace, the next decade should focus on spreading the peace culture within the island and on searching for new peace projects based on an extended definition of peace.   What is called Jeju, Island of World Peace 2.0 should be oriented towards deepening understanding among the local population about peace practice, internalizing peace in daily lives for harmony and tolerance, and fostering civic virtues to resolve disagreements and disputes in a democratic and rational way. Equally important is to a comprehensive and multifaceted notion of peace to the extent of seeking peace in such issues as ecology, environment and energy.   Governor Won announced that Jeju Island would play its role as an “intellectual melting pot of peace discourse” and “incubator of peace practice” as well as a “peace entrepreneur accumulating peace capital.” It amounts to a bold declaration that the island will become a “global platform of peace.” To this end, peace within the Jeju community is undoubtedly a prerequisite.   However, peace does not come by itself. It must begin by bolstering and fostering the capabilities of the civil society of the island. Meanwhile, new peace programs should be designed and implemented based on the extended concept of peace. It would be absurd to talk of world peace without peace on the island itself. That is what makes “Jeju, Island of World Peace 2.0” different from version 1.0.