A wave of declaration of the state of affairs on the solution to forced mobilization of government is overturning university districts. On April 11th, Pusan National University (PNU) published a statement in which 280 professors and researchers participated, drawing attention as the largest scale in the country. "Channel PNU '' met Kim Ho-Beom (Prof. of Economics, PNU), who prepared the declaration and participated in the statement, in his office on April 27th to hear more details. 

Q. Professor's statement about the third-party reimbursement proposal continues. 

A. Several universities are making statements on the current situation. Dong-A University and Kyungsung University did it first in Busan, and PNU also joined. Even after PNU's statement on the situation, 486 professors and intellectuals in the Busan area united and issued a statement on April 19th. Beginning with Seoul National University, some universities such as Korea University and Chonnam National University are raising their voices criticizing the third-party reimbursement proposal. The reason for this nationwide movement is simple. It's a situation so severe that most people cannot accept it. 

Q. How come there was a movement of condemnation at PNU?

A. On March 16th, there was a Korea-Japan summit between President Yoon Seok-Yeol and Japanese Prime Minister Kishida. There, a relatively unfamiliar method called a third-party reimbursement proposal was mobilized. There is a big problem with the third-party reimbursement proposal itself but also a significant problem with the process by which the method is raised. A distorted historical perception is shared between the current government and the staff around it, which has led to the use of such a method. It is for this reason that the declaration was made. This declaration goes beyond a simple third-party reimbursement method and criticizes the perception of history itself. 

Q. Could you describe the preparation process? 

A. There are about ten professors who were specifically involved. While eating, we discussed the current situation, and thought we needed to express our opinions. By dividing roles, we were able to move forward quickly. One professor wrote the first draft, and another announced the related news through the Internet and SNS. We did our work in detail, such as writing placards, attaching posters, and examining sentences. In my case, I was in charge of the external part. I contacted the school press “Channel PNU” and various local media to inform them of the declaration.

Q. Wasn't there been a delay once? 

A. It was initially scheduled for April 6th, but it was postponed to the 11th. Wasn't there an event to welcome the members of the Enquiry Mission of 2030 World Expo during the same period? External interest is also essential, but we thought there may be difficulties in issues such as mobilizing the media. Both the declaration and the expo are essential issues. So, after much consideration, we decuded to delay the timing and changed the time with two days to inform the signatories of the postponement. 

Q. Among universities in the country, The dimension of PNU's declaration was the largest. Is there a reason why so many people were able to gather? 

A. There is a history and potential that only Busan and PNU have. People usually say the Yeongnam region is conservative, but I do not think so. Busan is a very open city. The population of Busan and the Yeongnam region increased significantly through the opening of ports, the Korean War, and the period of rapid economic growth. With the gathering of various human resources, regional discrimination has almost disappeared. Thanks to this openness, Busan can be seen as a city with a high potential for change. 

PNU also has many experiences already built in. The 1979 Bu-Ma Democratic Protests is a representative example. There was a process that started in Busan, spread to Masan, and led to the spirit of the Gwangju Democratization Movement. Some issues have been raised and protested several times about how the PNU president was elected, even at the cost of financial disadvantage. Since we have accumulated various historical experiences, we have the conditions to step forward at the university level when necessary.

Q. How does the academic world view the third-party reimbursement proposal? 

A. It is entirely different from what mainstream academia has been claiming. It makes no sense for someone who is not the perpetrator to pay compensation. For example, I fought with person A and suffered damage. Then person A should apologize and compensate me for the damage, but why did the wrong person B pay it back? And the money is the money of Korean companies regardless of whether its amount is large or small. It is a problem that corporate cash is used for political purposes rather than for companies and workers. 

Even in 2018, the Supreme Court has already ruled that Japanese companies must compensate victims. The Supreme Court of Korea ordered compensation because Japan's colonial rule and forced labor were illegal, but the government went out of its way to deny it. The administration rejected the ruling made by the judiciary. At the time, the minimum demand from our diplomatic authorities was a sincere apology from Japan and that the perpetrator companies participate in compensation. However, Japan did not correctly reflect on its colonial rule by rejecting both. 

Q. In fact, it is a new legal dispute. 

A. The third-party reimbursement method is more likely to twist the relationship between Korea and Japan from a long-term perspective rather than solving the forced mobilization issue. It is not a solution. When you raise the issue again later, you may be asked why you are raising a counterargument on a previously resolved topic. I am afraid that our country will entirely go to the stage of tolerating these false solutions. 

Q. How should we lead our relationship with Japan? 

A. We need to maintain good relations with Japan. But that is a matter of economics, I am not asking you to make what Japan did to us go away. For our Korea-Japan connections to work out, Korea must receive a genuine apology and compensation. It is not just a matter of money. Initially, a country should protect its people and consider human rights the most essential. This is completely undermining the human rights of the victims in the name of diplomacy. 

Q. Can the attitude of the current government change? 

A. I do not think it will change. Rather than being just an unexpected remark, it is part of a consistent government position that started last year. If you look at what was published in the “Washington Post,” it is said that we must not “get kneel down Japanese” or “force” an apology to Japan because of what happened 100 years ago. But in the first place, the word “force” means to demand something unreasonable. So, are our demands unreasonable? I do not think it is a matter of word choice. There must have been a procedure to inspect diplomatic expressions, but that is the result. I think the government will maintain a consistent stance even at the risk of public criticism. In the end, it is the thoughts and criticism of our citizens living in the country and living in the same era that can change that.

Reporter Im Ha-Eun

Translated by Choi Ye-Won