Bridging divides: Lessons from burying painful pasts

They did so gradually – starting in 1945. Although the repercussions of the settlement between the countries did not completely eradicate ill-feeling, there are lasting effects on their peoples.

The energy that has been needed to maintain the agreement and keep relations on track has distracted from other issues that affect the future.

And so there was still work to be done by the prime ministers of the respective countries – Japan's Fumio Kishida and South Korea's Han Duck-soo –  when they met this year, first in Tokyo in March and then in Seoul last month.

The two men both braved challenging paths to get there, showing great political intelligence and courage in undertaking a task that had looked impossible for decades.

Here is a look at their diplomatic achievement and the weight of history behind it.

Colonial brutality

Han Duck-soo probably faced the more formidable challenge. South Korea suffered great and unique hardship at the hands of its neighbour.

Japanese control commenced in the mid-19th century and eventually escalated into full-scale occupation in 1910. It was to be severe and would last for three-and-a-half decades.

But Japan could not eradicate Korean identity. Even during World War II – when Japanese forces strengthened their presence and relied on local labour to assist and entertain their soldiers – the Koreans held onto their identity.

They did so despite forced labour similar to the British colonisation of Egypt and the French colonisation of Morocco. There was also a rarer colonial phenomenon: large-scale sexual exploitation.

The pain inflicted during those years remained etched in the collective memory of Koreans for generations — long after Japan's defeat in 1945 and their subsequent independence.

Transformative turning point

Losing World War II was a transformative turning point for Japan. It compelled the nation to come to terms with its colonial history by condemning it. Tokyo significantly reduced the size of its military, going as far as to reject offensive capabilities.

Japan transitioned from being one of the most belligerent nations to an admired model for others, recognised for its commitment to peace and its determination to avoid a recurrence of the bitter experiences that caused immense pain to itself and its neighbours.

On his part, Fumio Kishida faced a relatively less fraught route in Japan to bury the painful past his country shared with South Korea.

But it was far from easy. Sensitivity towards granting what the Koreans wanted – full apologies and adequate compensation – was high in certain parts of Japan's elite, and within public opinion.

The Koreans were not satisfied with the Japanese government's previous curt apology in 1992 for sexual misconduct. Nor were they satisfied with the $800 million in compensation provided by Japan in the form of non-refundable grants and soft loans, offered upon the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Nevertheless, Kishida found an effective approach to breaking down the remaining barriers by seeking to win the hearts and minds of the Koreans.

He began his visit to Seoul by paying a visit to the national cemetery, where Korean veterans were laid to rest, and placing flowers on their graves. This gesture symbolised the deep pain he felt in his heart for the Koreans who had suffered under Japanese colonial rule.

In tandem with this emotional approach, he collaborated with Han Duck-soo on the practicalities of burying the past. Their statements reflected the key elements required, including a sincere exchange of perspectives, the building and deepening of trust, and efforts to address remaining concerns.

Mutual honesty

Building trust may sound simple on paper, but it is not easy to achieve in the real world. Reaching such an accord needs strong will and great courage on both sides.

Honesty in confronting a difficult past in all its complexity so that it can be properly put to rest is vital. The more mutual honesty there is, the shorter the path to resolution becomes.

Honesty creates an atmosphere that helps dispel doubts and becomes conducive to building trust, without which there can be no progress. When full trust is present, it works like magic – at domestic and international levels­ – and can establish successful relationships, whether personal, professional, or political.

To maintain trust, it is crucial to address mutual concerns promptly and effectively.

Kishida and Duck-soo exemplified this in their second meeting by agreeing to grant South Korea unrestricted access to Japan's Fukushima nuclear site, aiming to alleviate concerns about potential radioactive contamination in the discharged water.

Arab disputes are political

Arab nations have their differences. But none run as deeply or are as profound as those between Japan and South Korea. So if the two Asian neighbours can bury the hatchet, it should be possible anywhere.

Arabs have not experienced colonisation from one another. Instead, they faced European colonialism that subjugated much of their lands until they eventually gained independence. 

But Arab disputes, including the ones in the past, are primarily political in nature. They are low-intensity conflicts, which can seem illogical and irrational, especially the ones that date back 14 centuries.

These conflicts predominantly exist among certain sectors of Arab societies and overcoming them will depend on cultural and religious-sectarian reform. That will require courage.

Perhaps the atmosphere created by the Jeddah summit can help Arabs find the courage to address lingering disputes and disagreements.

Mutual Arab openness and candidness could aid in building trust where it has been lacking, while deepening it where it exists, moving toward the alleviation of mutual concerns.

Its not impossible.

Tokyo and Seoul have shown the world how to successfully overcome differences much  more challenging and arduous than anything faced in the Arab world.