Peace studies

The scope of this study, while analyzed through a postcolonial lens, is based on the academic disciple of peace studies. This disciple focuses on resolution of conflicts and the transformation of societies from a state of conflict to that of post-conflict. In this way, as opposed to the security studies’

discourse on violence, peace studies shifts the focus to that of peace. As my analysis in this study centers around a society and subject matter not in active violent conflict, the peace studies theories discussed here focus on the dynamics of a post-conflict society where negative peace might have been reached while positive peace is yet to emerge.

The peace studies tradition established by Johan Galtung (1964), has conventionally centered on two aspects of peace, negative and positive. Negative peace refers to the absence of physical violence and threat while positive peace refers to the absence of structural and cultural violence in a society (Galtung, 2007). This terminology differentiates the mere cessation of hostilities in conflict from the building of peace within a society, thus offering tools to focus on the processes that take place in a society before, meanwhile, and after the most visible forms of violence.

Galtung’s (2007) approaches to peace are further expressed in his concepts of peace culture and peace structure. He sees these as enablers of legitimizing peaceful and violent structures in society.

Peace culture focuses on the deeper cultural conditions in society that enable peace or violence, such as the way history is taught or war glorified in art and other narratives. Peace structure in turn focuses on the distribution and access to power and resources. The limitations of the aforementioned can contribute to societal violence, while access to those contributes to positive peace, especially by shifting the access from only the stratum of diplomats to civil society actors. In Galtung’s approach then, the goal of peacebuilding and achieving positive peace is depolarization and humanization in the society. According to him, while the depolarization has to be reached in society, it is also the inner deconstruction of pre-existing concepts and ideas that needs to happen in individuals participating in peacebuilding. Thus, peace cannot be implemented from outside, but rather from within the members of society in conflict.

In the classification of Galtung’s (2007) model, the location of the South Korean comfort women survivors can depend on whether the perpetrated violence is considered to be the sexual slavery practiced by the Japanese state or the structural violence practiced by the Korean society. The comfort women survivors in South Korea are in a stage of negative direct peace. They no longer face a direct threat of violence from the state of Japan or the South Korean society. In terms of positive direct peace, the agency and agenda of the survivors has been somewhat heard in the terms of their local society. However, positive direct peace has not been achieved with the Japanese state, as the survivors have not been acknowledged by the perpetrator. On the structural and cultural levels of peace, obtaining negative and positive peace with the South Korean society has been partial or still lacking. While the comfort women survivors are now acknowledged within the society, their support still largely relies on the civil society actors while the governmental sphere has not taken their agenda as a part of their policy formation, or has done so only recently and with limitations (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea, 2017). The progress with peacebuilding with the Japanese perpetrators in turn cannot proceed unless they acknowledge the claims of Korean comfort women survivors through positive direct peace. This line of analysis, alongside a more elaborated definition of perpetrators and victims, could be conducted further through an in-depth conflict analysis, which is not in the scope of this study.

The concepts of peace structure and peace culture can be analyzed further through the civilization theory’s concepts of deep structures and deep culture (Galtung, 1996, 2000). This line of analysis enables the critical examination of deep-lying issues preventing or spoiling peacebuilding in society.

In accordance to Galtung’s (2000) TRANSCEND approach of peaceful conflict transformation, Graf et al. (2007) define deep structure as “patterns of relations between the segments of society” and deep culture as “religion and ideology, language and art, empirical and formal science” (pp. 132-133) that contribute to the justification of the means of structural violence and oppression.

Examining these aspects of deep structure and deep culture promote the transformation from a violent conflict to that of a peaceful one.

This line of analysis is also relevant in observing the effects of Japanese colonialism and the comfort women system in the Korean context. As part of deep culture, Galtung (1996, 2007) introduces the CGT syndrome, an emotional expression of Chosenness, Glory, and Trauma within a state. Graf et al. (2007) further describe that:

Nations with a CGT syndrome suffer from heavy traumata (multiple traumatic events), and dwell on injuries and defeats that were perpetrated by enemies. They maintain and publicize myths which tell of their past and future glory. And they live with the conception of being chosen by transcendental forces for political missions.

(p. 133)

The theory of CGT syndrome in South Korean society sheds light on the model victim narrative that can be seen in the discussions around comfort women survivors. As Park Sonen (2012) notes, The Korean Council has utilized a narrative of shared memory of injustice in order to strengthen coalition with other civil society actors aiming to address the legacy of Japanese colonialism in Korea. Park Sonen quotes Ueno, who summarizes the popular Korean narrative of comfort women survivors as

“[a]n innocent virgin is suddenly taken by force, gang-raped and forced into labor as a comfort woman. She tries to escape but is stopped and lives through unbearable suffering. This is the model comfort woman’s story” (Ueno, 1999, p. 143). Here Park Sonen highlights that this builds a model victim narrative, the suffering of “innocent virgins” in the hands of the outside force of Japanese colonial agents. While this narrative radically simplifies the issue of the comfort women system, it

also leaves out those survivors who do not perfectly fit the model of the victim deemed most beneficial to the desired narrative.

The need to build this model victim narrative resonates with the theory of CGT syndrome. The trauma of Japan in Korean, compiled of several incidents and conflict throughout the second millennium, culminated in imperial Japan’s annexation of Korea. The trauma has been dwelled on and built into feelings of anger and grief on a national level. These feelings have then been directed towards convenient vessels, such as the Koren comfort women survivors. While there is no singular religious drive of “Chosenness” in the Korean case, apart from the Confucian societal tradition, the trauma has been obtained and shared intergenerationally, thus altering the violence and trauma suffered by the comfort women survivors to that of all of the nation. Pilzer (2012) observes how

“the colonial suffering of the ‘comfort women’ became a kind of ultimate example of the violation of a metaphorically female national body” (p. 25). Seo (2008) also notes that, “[f]rom the perspective of a masculine nation state, women are regarded as domesticated for the purpose of national production, therefore the loss of the women’s chastity was treated as the loss of the nation’s essential property” (p. 377). By this process, the agenda of comfort women survivors has been transformed to also that of Korean men and their emasculation.

In this way, while there is no religious “Chosenness”, the colonial trauma unifies to a strong national ethos. “Glory” can then manifest by overcoming the perpetrators. While this overcoming and reaching of “Glory” has manifested itself most forcefully and violently in the Korean independence movement, modern day equivalence can be seen in the glorification in the independence day celebrations and how the old trauma still manifests itself in current politics (Bremmer, 2019; Kang, 2020; J. W. Lee, 2014). While CGT syndrome does not center only on the issue of comfort women survivors, the syndrome sheds light on how the agenda of comfort women survivors has been adapted to a larger national narrative of trauma.

The Galtungian take on peace studies and the processes of peacebuilding can be seen as pervasive, especially as the aims of his theory mostly entail a total reformation of society. As a response to this, peace studies scholars such as Ledarach (1997) and Richmond (2001) have discussed an alternative approach, that of sustainable practices. These practices can be seen as occupying a different level

of analysis, moving from societies as a whole to more micro-level actions, such as individual projects, programs or policies (Keating & Knight, 2004). This approach can be seen as a more pragmatic and targeted approach, while still obtaining a holistic approach to peacebuilding. An aspect that fits into the level of sustainable peacebuilding is Richmond’s (2014) critique on modern peacebuilding policies, particularly liberal peacebuilding.

The more recent focus in peace studies for the last couple of decades has been on liberal peacebuilding, and the critical response to it. As Richmond (2014) elaborates, liberal peacebuilding offers a normative framework through which statebuilding is exercised in societies in conflict by dominant states from the global North that support liberal market democracy prevalent in the Western world. Thus, in societies in conflict, negative peace is often achieved through a Western intervention followed by a security sector reform alongside with processes aimed at positive peace through establishing a civil society and democracy in the name of neoliberal modernisation. This approach often ignores asymmetrical power relations in the target society or might instead use these relations for profit while exercising this agenda. In some cases, depending on the reactions to liberal peacebuilding in target societies, a hybrid peace is achieved through these methods. In this way, a certain level of negative or even positive peace can be achieved. However, this form of peace can often be strained due to the possible tensions between the local society and the intervening power. In addition, existing and underlying tensions or power relations in society that might have not erupted in violence yet, are often left unattended.

As one the more vocal critics of liberal peace, Richmond (2011, 2014) has voiced the need to implement approaches like postcolonialism in peace studies. This way the gaps in understanding the local and the subaltern could be better addressed in peace processes. The benefits of a postcolonial approach become evident also in the case of Korean comfort women survivors. While in the narrative presented by the comfort women survivors the Japanese state and its soldiers have been designated as the perpetrators of violence (Byun, 1995, 1999), the state building practices that took place in Korea after its liberation from Japanese rule have also contributed to the systematic violence experienced by the comfort women survivors.

The measures taken in Korea after the end of the Second World War are not necessarily much different from the practices included in the 21st century liberal peace building. As Japan lost its claim over Korean peninsula, the U.S. and USSR established administrations in South and North, respectively. However, after the surrender of Imperial Japan and liberation of Korea, the existing institutions in Korea set in place by Japan and the oppression built in them were not dismantled. As the U.S. was eager to diminish the communist influence in Asia, they were quick to pardon Koreans who had worked for Imperial Japan or even fought in its army. Eckert (2016) notes that:

[Korean graduates of Imperial Japanese Military Academy] would find a welcoming presence in the American occupation forces, who were more concerned with building up a native force for maintaining order, and later, for containing a potent communist political threat than with arresting or punishing men who had served a now utterly defeated enemy. (p. 322)

In this way, while Japan’s claim on the Korean peninsula ended after the second World War, it was the state building of the U.S. that replaced the former colonial ruler. A cookie cutter method of putting in place a government ignored the underlying issues in society, leading to physical violence of Korean War and the societal and cultural violence suffered by those Othered in society.

Furthermore, after the Korean War, a military coup organized by Koreans who had formerly served in the Japanese Imperial Army, took power in Korea. This coup was headed by Park Chunghee, whose authoritarian development led rule lasted for nearly twenty years. During the Park Chunghee era, relations with Japan were normalized for economic gain and alliance with the U.S. emphasized through the rhetoric of communist threat in North Korea (S. R. Lee, 2003; Song, 2014). These policies marginalized the experiences of colonial violence that many in the South Korean society still carried with them. Thus, while a negative peace had been achieved in the society through U.S. intervention and Park Chungee’s authoritarian development, the lack of positive peace was indicated, among other groups, through the experiences of comfort women survivors.

While the basis of peace studies literature offers a wide framework to approach issues in post-conflict societies, gaps still remain. Postcolonial approaches offer some tools to address these issues left with lesser attention. These approaches offer a critical look at the processes that societies have been built on, their inner peace culture and structure, and the colonial influence that has shaped and enabled that. In this context, I turn to look at postcolonial theories next.