精品学术丨孟虹 欧洲的统一与和平：与东北亚的比较

2024年8月21日，中国人民大学区域国别研究院高级研究员和外国语学院德语系教授孟虹在汉斯·赛德尔基金会网站发表文章。孟虹教授采用历史和文化记忆建构的视角，将欧洲与东北亚进行对比分析，认为东北亚正处于“亚洲悖论”之中：一方面，经济互相依赖日益加深；另一方面，历史和领土争端以及相互猜疑依然根深蒂固。尽管文化交流、贸易和旅游业不断发展，但对日本“缺乏反省”的怀疑依然强烈。在地缘政治变化、南海局势紧张和朝鲜导弹试验的背景下，地区安全合作变得更加紧迫，推动和解已成为当务之急。

原文内容

In order to learn from mistakes and achievements of the past, a delegation trip under the heading "European Unification and Peace: A Comparison with Northeast Asia" took place from 26 May to 1 June 2024 - shortly before the European elections. During numerous expert discussions and visits to historically relevant sites such as museums and memorials in five European cities in three countries, the participants from Japan, China, Mongolia and South Korea had the opportunity to gain an impression of the European path to reconciliation and peacebuilding. The trip as part of the HSS regional project was organised by Dr. Bernhard Seliger, Head of the HSS Project Office in Seoul, and his team (https://korea.hss.de).

Conflicts, wars, peace, reconciliation and cooperation have always been central themes in the development of human society, influencing its pace and direction. Due to differences in historical understanding, geopolitics, power dynamics, and social culture, friction and conflict between neighboring countries are not uncommon throughout human history. In pursuit of greater territory, developmental space, and expanded influence, militarily and economically advantaged nations have historically initiated aggressive wars against others. Defensive alliances of varying scales are formed among different nations to bolster their security; however, such defensive alignments can also facilitate the spread of conflicts from one country or region to others. The aftermath of war is often devastating: significant loss of life, damage to infrastructure, economic regression, strained relations between nations, as well as heightened tensions in regional and international affairs.

The post-war development trajectories of Europe and Northeast Asia have followed distinct paths. In the case of Europe, under the support of the US "Marshall Plan", collaborative efforts among Western European nations, facilitated by normalized treaties and mechanisms alongside historical reflection, ultimately fostered mutual understanding and contributed to the peaceful reunification of East and West Germany in 1990. However, after drastic changes in Eastern Europe, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, due to divergent aspirations and objectives among newly independent states, new conflicts and even wars have arisen. Meanwhile, Northeast Asia has evolved into a center of global economic growth, but its regional cooperation and reconciliation have followed a dualistic path of political and economic dimensions. Due to the persistent presence and dynamic changes of numerous internal and external factors, the process of integration has not progressed smoothly, with recent conflicts and risks showing no signs of abating. Whether in Europe or Northeast Asia, it is imperative to draw upon significant ideas, profound wisdom, broad vision, as well as political courage to learn from effective experiences in European reconciliation and integration along with the concept of "a community with a shared future for mankind". It is essential for upholding the long-term stability and prosperity of countries and regions as the primary objective while continuously exploring new pathways conducive to promoting peace, reconciliation, and cooperation.

This article centers on a comparative analysis through lenses of historical introspection and cultural memory construction: What distinguishes Europe's trajectory towards peaceful development following World War II? Conversely, what defines Northeast Asia's post-World War II evolution? And how can regional integration, along with efforts to promote peace and stability amidst 21st-century globalization, be effectively advanced?

The use of treaties to promote European integration

In light of the devastating losses caused by two world wars, following the signing of the United Nations Charter, the United Nations was formally established in October 1949. The five major victorious countries - namely, United States, Britain, France, former Soviet Union (now Russia), and China - became permanent members of its Security Council. The adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 further laid an important foundation for promoting and maintaining peace in Europe as well as globally. After the subsequent division of post-war Germany, France, Benelux, West Germany, and Italy joined forces in 1951 to establish the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 further propelled the creation of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, laying the foundation for the establishment of the European Community to enhance cooperation among Western countries such as Germany and France. Following German reunification, these nations emphasized "Germany's role in Europe" rather than "Europe dominated by Germany," while also promoting a transition from the European Community to a higher level as an economic union or even a political union through instruments such as the Maastricht Treaty and Lisbon Treaty.

In the process of European integration, the democratization of mechanisms has constituted an important guarantee for this development. Since the introduction of direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979, ten general elections have been held, significantly enhancing the legitimacy and acceptance of the EU. The laws enacted by the parliament have been widely recognized and implemented in member states. In 2007, under the Lisbon Treaty, positions such as European Council President and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy were established to strengthen cooperation among EU member states in common foreign and security policy, economic and social affairs, as well as to develop the EU's role as a global power. However, it is worth noting that since 2008, with the emergence and accumulation of crises, perceptions regarding both the direction of European integration and the scope of EU authority among member states have changed. This has even led to instances of backward development; for example, in 2020 with Brexit marking an end to UK's 47-year membership in the EU. Furthermore, right-wing trends and fragmentation intensified during this year's EU parliamentary elections directly leading to changes in France's and Belgium's political landscape after these elections.[1]

The reconstruction of democratic post-war countries has been a core element and foundation for stable development in Western European nations, drawing lessons from history. Particularly, when the Federal Republic of Germany was established in 1949, it learned from the failures of the Weimar Republic's parliamentary democracy and the extreme dictatorship during the Nazi era. It introduced a British-style parliamentary cabinet system, emphasizing the central and supreme status of the Bundestag among the country's five major constitutional institutions while diminishing presidential functions. Additionally, it implemented electoral reforms such as the "5% threshold" and "two-vote system," which restricted party representation in the Bundestag, leading to a pattern characterized as "two big parties and one small party" from late 1950s to early 1980s. The entry of Green Party into the Bundestag in 1983 altered this pattern to "two big parties and two small parties." In France, after Charles de Gaulle came to power in 1954, he established France's Fifth Republic with a semi-presidential system. In Italy, the former birthplace of fascism, the constitutional monarchy was abolished through a referendum after the war and a parliamentary republic was introduced. The democratization process emphasized rule-of-law principles primarily and facilitated cooperation and stable development among member states within European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), thereby enhancing their attractiveness as well.

The successful development of post-war European integration can also be attributed to the proactive efforts of member states in promoting political education and shaping a shared historical memory. Drawing lessons from history, the core lies in reflecting on war and dictatorship, holding accountable for the atrocities committed during the Holocaust, assuming historical responsibility, organizing regular commemorative events, preserving and activating sites of memory, collaborating on the authorship of primary and secondary school history textbooks, safeguarding civil rights, enhancing citizens' capacity for autonomous decision-making and critical analysis, fostering increased youth exchanges among member states, as well as actively contributing to sustainable peace and development regionally and globally through the introduction of cooperative development policies. Upon its establishment in 1949, Article 1(1) of Germany's Basic Law explicitly stipulated: "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect it is the duty of all state authority."[2]

The Twisted Development of Northeast Asia after World War II

In terms of geographical concepts, Northeast Asia primarily refers to the northeastern Asian region, including China, the eastern regions of Russia, Mongolia, Japan, South Korea, and North Korea. But from a geopolitical perspective, Northeast Asia also includes the United States and its allies.[3] After World War II, due to the different political affiliations of the countries, the political landscape of the region was characterized by diversity under the influence of the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, with alliances, opposition, and confrontation, or a shift from alliance to independence. In terms of historical awareness and reflection, there have always been many unresolved issues due to different perspectives, which has also affected the normalization of relations between relevant countries. In terms of economic development, Northeast Asia began to become a major center of global economic growth in the late 20th century. Unlike the development of Europe, the regional integration of this region has not been able to progress smoothly due to many historical and real political issues.

After the World War II, both the United States and the Soviet Union, along with their respective blocs, engaged in a strategic competition in Northeast Asia. This geopolitical maneuvering led to significant changes in international relations and regional order. In the early postwar period, Japan, as a defeated nation, formed an alliance with the United US, which military began long-term deployment in Japan. After the Korean Peninsula, which had been occupied by Japan since 1910, was captured by the United States and the Soviet Union, the North and the South respectively established sovereign states in 1948 with the "38th Parallel" as the boundary, in which South Korea formed an alliance with United States and North Korea joined the socialist camp. The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, which lasted three years, further consolidated this pattern of division and confrontation. Additionally, after Mongolia formally separated from China to become independent, it became an ally of the Soviet Union.[4] In 1949 following victory of the Communist Party of China (CCP) in China's civil war, The People's Republic of China was established and allied itself with Soviet Union while the Kuomintang regime fled to Taiwan and became an de facto ally of the United States.

Subsequently, the relationships and order structure among countries in Northeast Asia have been in a period of adjustment. In the 1960s, relations between Japan and South Korea, both aligned with the United States, improved. The signing of the Basic Treaty between both countries in 1965 marked the beginning of normalized diplomatic relations. Sino-Japanese relations also saw improvement following the recognition of the People's Republic of China by the United Nations in 1971 and an enhancement in its relationship with the United States. The following year, these two nations shifted from opposition to establishing diplomatic ties, leading to continuous progress and close cooperation in economic, trade, and cultural exchanges. Conversely, Sino-Soviet relations experienced a rift in 1960 due to changes in their respective ideologies, international strategies, and national interests which led to gradual estrangement and deterioration. It was not until the late 1970s that Sino-Soviet relations returned to normalcy as a result of easing Cold War dynamics and China's implementation of reform and opening up policy.

After the end of the Cold War, the structure of state relations and regional order in Northeast Asia underwent significant changes again.

• Firstly, China established diplomatic relations with South Korea, altering their previous confrontational and isolated status. Subsequently, China, Japan, and South Korea collaborated to lead the development of the Northeast Asian economic zone, transforming it into a major center for global economic growth. Concurrently, amidst the wave of globalization's impact, these three countries initiated a trilateral leaders' summit mechanism based on the original "ASEAN 10+3" framework in 1999. In 2015, they issued a "Joint Declaration on Peace and Cooperation in Northeast Asia," followed by nine rounds of talks until now.
• Second, North and South Korea joined the United Nations in 1991, but the first has not established diplomatic relations with the United States, Japan, and South Korea, even has turned to the development of nuclear weapons, which has increased regional insecurity. At the initiative of China, the Six-Party Talk was held for six consecutive years, but in the end it was fruitless due to North Korea's withdrawal.
• Third, after the rapid rise of China due to his reform and opening up policy, its relations with Japan since the last decade of the 20th century not maintained a good momentum, but have become unstable due to historical issues, the island disputes, and changes in Japan's policy and reflective attitude toward China. At the same time, South Korea-Japan relations have also become tense due to the strengthening of right-wing nationalism in Japan, the improvement of Korea's own national strength and national historical awareness, and long-term historically unresolved issues, but the military alliance between the United States and Japan and between the USA and South Korea has been not only maintained, but even as a triangle alliance strengthened.
• Fourth, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia, as its successor, initially maintained cooperative relations with Japan, issued the Joint Statement on the Development of the Russian-Japanese Partnership in 2013, and began negotiations on the island dispute and a peace treaty. However, after the emergence of the Crimean crisis, especially after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in 2022, Japan and Russia imposed mutual sanctions, and relations gradually fell to a freezing point.
• Fifth, Mongolia, which is geopolitically sandwiched between China and Russia, began to expand its relations with the United States, Japan, and other "third neighbors" after the collapse of the Soviet Union.[5]

As a result, in the new era, some Northeast Asian countries have been strengthening or re-strengthening their cooperation with each other. Some have become estranged, and some have found other ways. In general, they have not been able to work together to promote regional integration.

In general, the six countries in Northeast Asia did not form a post-war development cooperation model similar to that of Europe, which was dominated by the two major camps of the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War, and later led by Western societies such as the European Union after the end of the Cold War. Instead, they have exhibited characteristics of diverse relationships and have been in a state of constant flux. In addition to the fact that the Korean Peninsula is still divided and Japan and South Korea are military allied with United States, historical issues, territorial disputes, and the liquidation of Japan's responsibilities as aggressors have always affected the development of inter-state relations, making it difficult to promote regional integrated development.

Approaches to Escape from the Shadow of History

Reconciliation, dialogue, and cooperation form the basis for promoting sustainable and stable development between nations and regions. Reconciliation involves a qualitative shift in inter-state relations following unilateral or mutual extreme harm that has led to a breakdown in the relationship. It transforms the original hostile dynamic into one of friendship and harmony. As a unique form of inter-state interaction within international relations, it represents a process of change. According to Chinese scholar Tang Shiping, reconciliation can be categorized by degree into four types: "no reconciliation," "shallow reconciliation," "deep reconciliation," and "transcending deep reconciliation." The latter signifies complete accountability on the part of the aggressor nation for past actions, coupled with significant forgiveness from the victim nation towards the aggressor. This paves the way for both countries to establish a strong and extensive shared identity.[6]

When it comes to addressing historical shadows and traumatic memories, fostering communication and reconciliation, German cultural scholar Aleida Assmann has proposed four cultural models: "conversational forgetting," "remembering in order never to forget," "remembering in order to forget," and "conversational remembering." Among these, conversational forgetting involves a conscious decision through negotiation to collectively forget past acts of violence in order to swiftly achieve consensus and peace. However, this approach is effective only when both parties have been mutually violent. Remembering in order never to forget represents an appropriate reflection of the entirely unequal relationship between perpetrators and victims. It serves not only as a form of healing for survivors of collective destruction but also as a spiritual and ethical obligation towards the deceased. Remembering in order to forget aims at achieving oblivion through memory, thereby facilitating the forging of a new beginning. Dialogic remembering entails formulating shared memory policies on traumatic violent heritage with the goal of promoting mutual recognition of guilt among relevant nations while showing empathy and acknowledgment for the suffering inflicted upon others. This approach allows for confronting past histories of brutal violence together and forging a peaceful future, thus yielding more enduring positive effects. [7]

In general, due to the fact that in the conflicts between China and Japan as well as between Korea and Japan, Japan was primarily the unilateral aggressor rather than engaging in mutual aggression, there has been a lack of deepened understanding and reconciliation through dialogue-based forgetting and remembering since the initial establishment of diplomatic relations. With the shift in Japan's historical reflection attitude and approach, a mode of memory preservation aimed at never forgetting has been initiated. In 2014, drawing on Germany's post-war historical reflection experience, China designated September 5th and December 8th as "Victory Day in Anti-Japanese War" and "Nanjing Massacre Memorial Day," respectively. This decision was accompanied by increased investment in the construction of anti-Japanese war memorials and massacre memorials. Consequently, war memory and historical issues have once again been emphasized.

Challenges and Responses to Future Development of Regional Integration in Europe and Northeast Asia

As we entered the second decade of the 21st century, it became evident that regional peace and development in both Europe and Northeast Asia had achieved certain successes, but at the same time, they are shrouded in multiple shadows. While the EU is continuous expanding eastward, it not only faces the dilemma of different understandings of integration practices and goals among new and old and east and west member states, but also faces different efforts and contributions in promoting integration development due to their different war experiences, historical reflections, post-war development, and factions they belong. However, the departure of the UK from the EU in 2020 did not bring too much negative impact. Whether combating the COVID-19 pandemic or the current suppression of Russia and aid to Ukraine, member states were ultimately able to reach consensus and take unified actions.

Meanwhile, following a series of crises since 2008, European integration is facing numerous new challenges.

• Firstly, there are questions surrounding the model and direction of reform for the future mechanisms of the EU. After the recent European Parliament elections, the landscape of major parties remains unchanged; however, there has been a noticeable increase in right-wing tendencies and party fragmentation. This trend is particularly pronounced in core member states where right-wing populist sentiments have emerged, posing threats to both national and EU democratic development. Far-right political parties in the European Parliament have proposed an "alternative Europe" aimed at reducing EU authority while strengthening decision-making power and influence at the national level.[8]
• Secondly, elections is a crucial avenue through which citizens of member states can influence EU development, but voter turnout for European Parliament elections has remained around 50%, with higher participation rates observed in Western European member states compared to those in Eastern Europe. For example, Belgium and Luxembourg saw turnout rates as high as 89.01% and 82.24%, respectively, due to compulsory voting laws introduced there; whereas Lithuania and Croatia recorded much lower turnouts at 28.35% and 21.35%, respectively. [9]As the EU continues to expand its membership, institutions such as the European Parliament and Commission are seeing an increase in personnel from diverse member states with varying historical backgrounds, political practices, national interests, and regional development goals. These pose significant challenges to EU efficiency and the sustained and stable development of European integration.
• Thirdly, the outbreak of conflict during the Ukraine War has led to shifts in historical reflection and recognition of experiences. Negotiation, reconciliation, and cooperation methods for resolving conflicts, contradictions, and even wars are no longer considered effective. Instead, there has been a resurgence of camp consciousness and "exclusivity," with questioning even arising regarding the validity of post-war efforts promoting East-West integration and German reunification under a "new Ostpolitik." In this "new Cold War," influenced by US policies, the EU is taking a leading role in reinforcing these trends.
• Fourthly, given recent economic downturns across Europe as well as frequent refugee crises that have increased societal burdens while impacting social stability, EU sanctions against Russia due to its invasion of Ukraine have affected not only its own economic foundations but also global competitiveness, presenting substantial challenges to constructing a framework for Europe and ensuring regional stability. How to construct the future European pattern and ensure the stable development of the region and people's livelihood has become an urgent and important question of the times.
• Furthmore, amidst uncertainties surrounding developments in US-EU relations ahead of upcoming US presidential elections, achieving strategic autonomy within the EU alongside expanding security and defense policies represents another major challenge.

In Northeast Asia, the peace situation is also facing enormous challenges. First of all, for both China and the Korean Peninsula, the issue of reunification has not been resolved. Unlike the Korean Peninsula after World War II, which was divided by the intervention of the United States and the Soviet Union the Taiwan issue originated in China's post-World War II civil warBoth conflicts cast a deep shadow over regional peace and security.

In addition, the future development of Southeast Asia is still constrained by the alliance relationships between Japan, South Korea and the United States. Following the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war, despite not being members of NATO, both Japan and South Korea have aligned themselves with the United States in imposing sanctions on Russia and providing assistance to Ukraine due to their respective alliances. Japan's membership in the G7 has led it to unequivocally support these actions rather than actively advocating for peace talks based on its own historical experiences and lessons. As a country with the most neighboring nations in the world, including sharing a border with Russia, China has experienced multiple internal and external conflicts and wars in modern times, which has affected China's social stability and economic prosperity and development, and caused many people to lose their precious lives. Therefore, since the implementation of reform and opening up policy, China attach great importance to learn the historical lessons of war and conflict, and regard the peace as a prerequisite and guarantee for development. In view of the geopolitical and economic containment policies implemented by United States and its allies against China in recent years, as well as the creation of the Taiwan Strait issue, China has not cut or weakened its relations with Russia in order to avoid isolation itself. But at the same time, China has actively advocated resolving the Russia-Ukraine dispute through political means based on historical lessons to avoid the outbreak of World War III.

Next year will mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. In light of the evolving regional and global landscape, as well as the resurgence of armed conflicts in various regions, including frequent occurrences of terrorism and violence, there is a pressing need to advocate for and defend peace. This entails fostering cross-cultural understanding and cooperation among nations and regions, enhancing the effectiveness of decision-making within the United Nations, strengthening historical memory and critical reflection on war. These efforts have become exceptionally important and necessary. In this regard, whether in Europe or Northeast Asia, it is imperative to demonstrate political courage by embracing grand ideas, profound wisdom, broad vision while taking responsibility for history. On one hand, concerted efforts are required to expedite an end to the war in Ukraine while adapting to changing circumstances. This involves proposing new strategies and objectives for establishing an effective European framework post-Cold War era through innovative thinking and action that drives the construction of a new security mechanism. On the other hand, it is essential to advance reconciliation in historical consciousness while promoting economic cooperation, cultural exchange, mutual learning between civilizations with a view towards advancing sustainable peace development at both regional and global levels.

---

[1] Ottmar Edenhofer/Matthias Krupa/Ulrich Ladurner: Europaisches Parlament:Schon kompliziert, in: ZEIT Nr. 26/2024.

[2] The German Bundestag: Parliament. I. The Fundamental Rights, in: www.bundestag.de/gg/grundrechte, accessed on 25.07.2024.

[3] Zhang Yunling: Northeast Asia in the Century-long Great Transformation (张蕴岭：百年大变局下的东北亚), World Economy and Politics (《世界经济与政治》), 2019(09), pp. 4-23, here p. 4.

[4] See Ge Pengfei: Great Power Competition and the Political Trend of the Korean Peninsula - An Analysis Combining Historical and Geopolitical Perspectives (葛鹏飞：大国竞逐与朝鲜半岛的政治走势——结合历史视角和地缘政治视角分析), International Political Studies (《国际政治研究》) 2004)(03), pp.104-111.

[5] Shen Lin: An Analysis of Mongolia's "Third Neighbor" Diplomacy (申林：蒙古“第三邻国”外交析论), Contemporary World (《当代世界》), 2013(04), pp. 45-48; Qi Zhiye: What is the Significance of the Establishment of the "Strategic Third Neighbor Partnership" between Mongolia and the United States (祁治业：蒙美确立“战略第三邻国伙伴关系”有何深意), World Knowledge (《世界知识》), 2023(18), pp. 24-25.

[6] See Tang Shiping, Reconciliation and the Reconstruction of Anarchy — a Critical Review Based on Six Works, in: International Political Science, 2012(01), pp. 61-104.

[7] See Alida Assmann: Memory or Oblivion: Four Cultural Models for Dealing with Traumatic History （阿莱达·阿斯曼：记忆还是忘却：处理创伤性历史的四种文化模式）, translated by Tao Feng and Wang Mi (陶东风、王蜜译), Foreign Theoretical Trends （《国外理论动态》）2017（12）, pp. 91-97.

[8] Florian Naumann: Rechtsrutsch bei der EU-Wahl: Was er für Europa bedeutet – und wo es verblüffende Ausnahmen gab, in: Frankfurt Rundschau vom 11.06.2024.

[9] 2024 European election results available at: results.elections.europa.eu/en/index.html.

文章来源：Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung