제주평화연구원

Jeju - From Island of Trauma to Island of Peace

  [caption id="" align="alignright" width="150"] Andray Abrahamian
Research Fellow at Pacific Forum CSIS[/caption] Waves of warm water gently roll over rich, black lava shores. Electric rent-a-cars hum around the island, taking tourists to fancy cafes and local restaurants. Tour groups bundle out of buses, snapping selfies at scenic sites.   It wasn’t always so pleasant. Jeju Islanders have long had a tense relationship with the mainland. An impoverished Jeju was violently dragged into the ideological conflicts that shaped Korea’s post-colonial period. Yet it’s current successes and its painful past should allow Jeju to both convene stakeholders and act as a model for resolution of historical conflicts in Asia.   After the defeat of Japan in World War II, as the temporary division of Korea became rigidified, tensions grew between leftist locals and authorities dispatched from Seoul. Things came to head in the spring of 1948, when locals, outraged over separate Southern elections as well as police brutality and graft, began a small insurgency. The uprising was quickly branded a Pyongyang-incited communist movement and was harshly put down. Estimates vary, but 25,000 to 30,000 deaths is a reasonable guess: significant for a total population of 300,000 at the time.   Right-wing militias marauded through the Jeju countryside, sweeping up leftists as well as apolitical villagers, sending families fleeing for Halla Mountain. Men were lined up, shot and buried in shallow graves. Smoke from burning villages choked the air, overwhelming the normal scents of springtime. Tens of thousands of islanders fled for Japan and elsewhere, never to return. For decades, under dictatorship, no one could discuss this 1948 incident openly.   This “Jeju Massacre” or “April 3rd Incident” was the most modern trauma in a long line of troubles. Jeju had never really been a part of mainstream Korea, even after it was fully subjugated in the 15th century. It was a place for the central government to send exiles. Jeju was considered too barbarian, too Mongolian, or too Shamanist to be accepted by the central culture. Locals grew up marginalized, outsiders whose identity was partly defined by suspicion and resistance to central control. Violent uprisings were frequent under the Shilla, Baekjae and Goryo dynasties. At end of Joseon, uprisings broke out in 1862, 1890, 1891, 1896, 1898 and, perhaps most famously, in the 1901 Lee Jae Su uprising.   Yet now, 70 years after 1948, South Korea and Jeju have proactively confronted the Jeju Massacre and turned the island into a success story. How was this accomplished?   First, Jeju, long on the periphery and with a unique culture, was “Koreanized”. Media, education and military service were standardized with the rest of the Republic of Korea. There were elements of repression in this, but the demands of the homogenous, territorially bounded nation-state are very different from the flowing, tributary-alliance way feudal societies organized center and periphery relationships. Jeju Island was made a full province and brought more wholly into mainland society, yet a local identity has remained strong.   Jeju’s economy experienced huge investment and development with tangible results in the period of repression. Jeju’s per capita income sits right in the middle of national earnings, higher than cities such as Incheon and Gwangju. Not only has income dramatically risen along with the rest of Korea, but Jeju now boasts some of the highest rates of longevity in the country.   For the last half-century mainlanders have visited the island with increasing frequency: Seoul to Jeju is the world’s busiest air route, with multiple flights every hour of every day. (And good luck trying to get a weekend flight from spring to fall.) The idea that Jeju is ‘exotic, but Korean nonetheless’ is now a common one – the concept of Jeju as extrinsic and alien has disappeared.   Importantly, Seoul granted political autonomy in 2006, creating a Korea’s first ‘special autonomous province’. While foreign and military affairs are still Seoul’s purview (creating some tension over the construction of a naval base that opened last year), most major points of governance are in local hands. Key psychological indices include education and police. It is perhaps hard to overstate the value of this for a populace that has long been suspicious of central control.   The local government also largely controls its economic relations with the outside world, having total jurisdiction over financial and visa regulations. Furthermore, the foundation laid by prior economic development has freed up local authorities to pursue a variety of plans, including becoming a hub for regional cruise ships or for international secondary schools. Visa-free entry for most passports has helped a boom in Chinese tourism, which will likely bounce back after a slow 2017.   Finally, in the 1990’s as South Korea became a functioning democracy, the tragic events of 1948 became open for public discussion. In 2003 President Roh Moo-hyun offered an official apology to the people of Jeju and construction on a Peace Park and 4.3 Memorial commenced. The apology was widely seen as the lynchpin of the government’s attempts to address historical state-sponsored injustices and served to publically legitimize the islanders’ longstanding grievances. It went a long way toward providing emotional resolution to the tensions between the peripheral island and the society of the metropole.   Things aren’t perfect, of course, and relations between Jeju and the mainland will always require management and negotiation. Still, the success Jeju has seen in resolving painful conflicts of identity and resource-sharing can and should be exported beyond the Korean peninsula.   Jeju is already a competitor for “MICE” tourism: it is a great venue for “Meetings, Incentives, Conventions and Exhibitions” in a variety of sectors, from the cruise industry to sporting events. The hard and soft infrastructure is all in place already.   Perhaps most significantly, since 2001 Jeju has hosted the Jeju Peace Forum, a multilateral dialogue on security issues. It was renamed the Jeju Forum for Peace and Prosperity in 2011 and made an annual event. The Forum’s brand revolves around peace-building and conflict resolution. It is well known amongst practitioners of diplomacy, academics and activists. It attracts luminaries such as Goh Chok Tong, former Prime Minister of Singapore, Justice Michael Kirby of Australia and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak.   This high-profile event could be used as a jumping off point for many smaller events. Countries from around the region face a host of problems connected to resource sharing and identity, similar to the core issues that long tormented Jeju. Myanmar fails to conclude a peace process that is wracked with obstacles. Laos struggles to integrate its highland minorities into its program of nation and infrastructure building. Tensions between Okinawa, Tokyo and Washington frequently surface due to U.S.-Japan security arrangements. The list could go on.   To help tackle such issues, Jeju could bring government, military and civil society leaders from other Asian countries together for dialogues, workshops and negotiations in what is a neutral venue. The island could also host younger groups: college students and other young leaders could come for programs that will help build cooperation among key stakeholders in the long-term. Sometimes these could compliment existing dialogues. Others could be new initiatives, with Jeju in the lead.   Expertise is important. Such programs would have to source input from knowledgeable people in academia and in South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to design programs that are appropriate and effective. As always, money matters, too. Both Seoul and Jeju governments would need to supply funding to bring together actors from other countries that have dealt with ideological, ethnic or other strife.   But for that investment, Jeju’s brand as a “Peace Island” would be strengthened in Asia. The Jeju Forum could expand into year-round programming, creating synergies between the main event and smaller projects. More importantly, Jeju might contribute to resolving some of the region’s longstanding points of conflict.   Many of the pieces to turn Jeju into such a platform are in place already: Korea doesn’t have a stake in many conflicts in the region, unlike, say China Jeju has the infrastructure and brand already it is a great place to visit, people want to come. Most importantly, it has a positive historical example to present. With some vision, the island could become Asia’s premier venue for conflict resolution and peace programming.   Andray Abrahamian is a Research Fellow at Pacific Forum CSIS