Liberation and division, military dictatorship and the democratization movement, neoliberalism and civil movements…
At the watershed of history, what debates did we have and what history did we choose?

This book, written by sociologist Professor Kim Ho-gi and historian Professor Park Tae-gyun, sheds light on and evaluates 40 controversies that shook modern Korean history from 1945 to 2018.
There are three criteria for selecting the debate.
The first is a debate about events and discourses that had a decisive impact on social development.
The second is the debate between conservatives and progressives.
The third is a debate of great current significance.
The modern Korean history and controversies discussed in this book are by no means history as the past.
We still live under its influence, and the debate is still ongoing.


Part 1 of the book traces the genesis of modern Korean time and space by examining the debates surrounding liberation, the establishment of the government, and the formation of a divided system.
Part 2 looks back at the controversies that captured the light and shadow of the Park Chung-hee era, and examines the political, diplomatic, cultural, and economic framework of the time that still influences Korean society today.
Part 3 examines the debates that heralded the beginning and progress of the era of democratization.
It analyzes everything from the battle over the truth of the Gwangju Uprising to the debate surrounding civil society and the civic movement that led to democratization.
Part 4 focuses on the controversies that shaped Korean society after the 1997 foreign exchange crisis.
The debates that make up Part 4 will likely be of considerable interest to readers as they address issues that shape the present state of our society.
In some cases, you may strongly agree with the point or present an argument from a completely opposite position.

Looking back on our modern history of over 70 years, there were times of hardship and times of glory.
Throughout this history of suffering and glory, we have always clarified issues through debate and found better solutions.
New challenges now await our society.
These challenges will invite our people into the 'square of debate.'
This book, which reflects on the path that modern Korean history has taken, centering on debates, will be of great help in exploring the path to take in the future.

Debate is important because it allows us to clarify issues and find better solutions.
Just as the debates that have taken place over the past 70 years have guided our society since liberation, we believe that we can open up the future of our society through productive debates.
I sincerely hope that future debates will become more lively, focusing on a concrete blueprint for a new nation and a new society beyond industrialization and democratization.
---From the "Prologue"

There is a big difference between areas where war criminals were properly dealt with and areas where they were not.
In areas where war criminals have been dealt with, the far right does not exist.
Without the far right, the far left cannot coexist.
There is only left, right, and center.
However, in areas where war criminals have resurfaced, the far right and the far left coexist hostilely.
It is a situation where it is difficult for either the left or the center to gain power.

---From "Chapter 1: Debate on the Causes of Division"

Literary debates were inevitably linked to the political process of building a new nation and society.
As Kim Yun-sik, a Korean literature scholar who has produced outstanding research on the literary debate immediately following liberation, has pointed out, the period of liberation was a "truly rare space where one could choose history," and this characteristic of the era intensified the ideological confrontation in literature.
---From "Chapter 3: The Left-Right Literary Debate"

The mainstream of Korean society, which continues the legacy of pro-Japanese forces, did not just watch the liquidation process by the non-mainstream.
(…) The problem of the past has become a political issue because the problems that need to be solved are not solved in a timely manner.
And it has become one of the most important issues in the conflict between men and women.

---From "Chapter 5: Pro-Japanese Debate"

The debate surrounding “Recognition of the History Before and After Liberation” and “Re-recognition of the History Before and After Liberation” makes us realize once again that history is a “dialogue between the past and the present.”
(…) In any country, there is not just one perspective in interpreting history.
The restoration and evaluation of historical facts are also not fixed.
In short, history is reconstructed and reinterpreted through the discovery of new facts and the restoration of memories.

---From "Chapter 6: Debate on the Interpretation of History Before and After Liberation"

Park Myeong-rim's research deserves attention for its comprehensive and detailed tracing of the structural origins and behavioral causes of war.
[The Outbreak and Origins of the Korean War 1·2] can be evaluated as a study that has established the pride of our academic community in the international debate on the Korean War.
---From "Chapter 9: Debate on the Interpretation of the Korean War"

The spirit of April 19 will continue to be a touchstone for protecting democracy in our society.
When historians a hundred years from now look back on history, they might describe the April 19 Revolution as continuing, following the May 18th and June 10th incidents, the impeachment of President Roh Moo-hyun, the mad cow disease crisis, and the Sewol Ferry disaster.

---From "Chapter 11, April 19 Evaluation Debate"

However, presenting revolutionary goals does not make a coup a 'revolution'.
We must examine whether the ideology pursued by the ruling power, the composition of the ruling power, and the policies and results implemented after the coup had a 'revolutionary' character.
---From "Chapter 12, May 16 Personality Debate"

A surprising twist emerged in the debate between the Korean and Japanese governments over treaty interpretation.
The two governments each decided to interpret it according to their own opinions.
(…) So, Japan gave an independence celebration fund instead of compensation, and Korea interpreted it as including the nature of compensation by calling it ‘claims funds.’
(…) However, due to the failure to reach an agreement on the issues that are actually controversial between the Korean and Japanese governments in order to resolve the urgent matters at hand, the recent Korea-Japan relationship has reached its worst state in 50 years, and the aftereffects continue.

---From "Chapter 14: Debate on Funds for the Claim for Normalization of Korea-Japan Relations"

The discussion about sending troops to Vietnam must be approached from a different perspective.
Has the original purpose of dispatching troops to Vietnam—namely, to maintain the ROK-US alliance and security—been achieved? (…) A cautious approach is also needed regarding the special wartime situation, the Yushin Declaration, and the Agent Orange issues.
If the war's impact was so significant, why did the foreign exchange crisis and the insolvent corporate crisis occur in the late 1960s? (…) Are investigations and compensation for veterans and Agent Orange victims being properly conducted in Korea?
---From "Chapter 15: The Vietnam Troop Deployment Debate"

However, the question of why secondary education equalization was implemented in the late 1960s still remains valid.
1968 was the peak of the security crisis on the Korean Peninsula, and 1969 was the year of the third constitutional amendment.
The equalization policy was implemented along with the National Education Charter announced in November 1968.
Was it because everyone had to become citizens dedicated to the 'infinite development of the country and people' through equal education?
---From "Chapter 16: Debate on Educational Equalization"

The question was whether the Yushin regime was necessary in terms of economic growth and developmental dictatorship.
The argument that it was necessary is based on the need for a restructuring of the economic structure from the light industry-centered to the heavy chemical industry-centered of the 1960s and the threat posed by the reduction of US troops in Korea and détente.
On the other hand, the argument that it was not necessary is that the Yushin system was created by personal desire for long-term power, and that it would have been more desirable if economic growth had been achieved under a democratic system. Most historians and progressive social science researchers hold this negative stance.
---From "Chapter 18: The Yushin Regime Debate"

However, this does not mean that all controversies have been resolved.
Even now, it is not clear exactly who was ultimately responsible for the shooting in Gwangju.
The parties involved are still alive, but no one is speaking out.
(…) Recently, there has been a serious distortion of the truth about the Gwangju Uprising by members of ‘Daily Best Storage’.
(…) Considering that these claims became social issues despite being baseless, Gwangju is still an ongoing issue.

---From "Chapter 22: The Gwangju Uprising Debate"

But more than anything, what mattered most was the sentiment of a particular region.
Even within the student movement factions, there was a phenomenon of groups splitting up according to candidate and region.
(…) Isn’t the true lesson of the 1987 presidential election that the trick of trying to win an election through an event of unification does not work?
---From "Chapter 25: The Debate on Unifying Presidential Candidates"

The significance of the controversy surrounding President Park's remarks was not the existence of the injection faction.
The point was that his remarks, which had no basis whatsoever, swayed public opinion.
Since then, a social atmosphere has spread that has led progressive figures to become pro-North Korea forces.
Conservative media, which wields significant social influence, began manipulating public opinion in the manner of President Park.
From then on, McCarthyism (extreme anti-communism) began to run rampant in Korean society.
No evidence was needed.
Terms such as ‘pro-North Korea leftist’, ‘left-wing communist’, and ‘North Korea follower’ began to be overused.
From this point on, ‘common sense’ disappeared from Korean society.

---From "Chapter 29: The Injectionist Remarks Debate"

Looking back from the perspective of 2015, during the era of democratization, two periods of time flowed simultaneously in our society: the 'time of democratization' in 1987 and the 'time of globalization' in 1997.
Since 1987, our society has longed for a new change called democratization, but that change has slipped from our grasp and has been forced upon us by the external force of globalization.
The centripetal force of social reform that characterized the era of democratization was gradually overwhelmed by the centrifugal force of structural coercion that characterized the era of globalization. This was the landscape of our society after 1997.
---From "Chapter 31: The Debate on the 87 System or the 97 System"

The bigger problem in the current situation is that North Korea policy changes from day to night depending on the administration, and even continues to change even under the same administration.
North Korea policy is a matter of such importance that it can determine the future of the nation, and therefore must be sustained regardless of a change in government.
(…) Another lesson learned from the Sunshine Policy is that sufficient social consensus is necessary for North Korea policy.
---From "Chapter 33: The Sunshine Policy Debate"

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the U.S. government once again pushed for the reduction of U.S. troops stationed in Korea and their conversion to a rapid response force through the overseas redeployment plan.
(…) And this created a situation where it was inevitable to push for the transfer of wartime operational control to the Korean military in the mid-2000s.
This is likely why the U.S. government said it would transfer wartime operational control in 2009, earlier than the South Korean government's request.
---From "Chapter 37: The Debate on the Recovery of Wartime Operational Control"

The important policy implications of the free school lunch debate were how to realize the construction of a welfare state that protects the socially vulnerable and resolves social polarization.
To properly implement any welfare policy, the government must maximize its strategic choices while taking into account the structural constraints and path dependencies that influence national development strategies.
In these strategic choices, we must carefully consider how to strike a balance between fiscal and welfare policies.
This is precisely why political leadership is important in welfare policy.
---From "Chapter 38: The Free School Lunch Debate"

'Ahn Cheol-soo's challenge is ongoing, but the '2011-2012 Ahn Cheol-soo phenomenon' appears to have declined.
The reason was that Ahn Cheol-soo's personal political weakness and the centripetal force of the established political society did not allow the Ahn Cheol-soo phenomenon to become a political force.
It is noteworthy that the decline of the Ahn Cheol-soo phenomenon does not mean that civil society's desire to reform the state and the market has disappeared.
---From "Chapter 39: The Ahn Cheol-soo Phenomenon Debate"

From the perspective of generational sociology, the gap in perception between the 'efforts' of the older generation and the 'failure to make efforts' of the younger generation clearly shows the generational gap in Korean society.
The fact that the ladder of class mobility is gradually disappearing is a self-portrait of our society.
Without addressing growing inequality, our society can no longer move forward and it will be difficult to reach the level of an advanced nation.
Solutions to address inequality have already been proposed.

---From "Chapter 40: The Spoon Class Theory Debate"

What is interesting is that Munch deals with the Korean case.
Munch believes that Korea prevented a retreat into authoritarianism and preserved liberal democracy through candlelight vigils.
The driving force behind the candlelight vigils was to reject leaders who seek to rule over the people and to protect democracy based on popular sovereignty.
South Korea, which led the democratization movement in Asia through the June Struggle of 1987, breathed new life into democracy in crisis through the Candlelight Revolution.

---From "Epilogue: Candlelight Revolution and Korean Democracy"