남북 역사학(자) 교류와 역사인식의 공존을 향한 전망

정태헌(Jung, Tae-hern) 국제고려학회 서울지회 2009 국제고려학회 서울지회 논문집 Vol.12 No.-

The exchange between North and South Korean historians represents a seemingly small and yet very significant step toward the coexistence of different historical perceptions of the Korean history. Although somewhat limited at this moment, the exchange between the two, through its continuous progress, will contribute to the better understanding of each other by providing with the various prospects on the historical conception and background for the academic discussion. For the past ten years, the exchange between North and South Korean historians has extended to diverse areas, including the cosponsored academic conference, exhibition, preservation of the historical landmarks, and co-excavation. The level of the contents discussed during the exchange has also been developed drastically. The fundamental issue between the North and South Korea in the 21st century has already surpassed the ideological conflicts. Approached from a different angle than the power struggle between the North and the South, the objective condition has no other choices but to choose the coexistence and symbiosis at the crossroad of the war. To this end, the exchange between North and South Korean historians based on reconciliation and cooperation forms the base for the cultural communication. In fact, it has now been extended to the extent where the mutual understanding of the different historical concepts has been made instead of the mere exchange of the scholars. If North and South Korea succeed to manage the balance in their relationship and establish the peace treaty, not only the quality of their exchange categories will change but also shall the awareness of the coexistence of different historical perceptions be extended.

남북 역사인식의 상호 변화와 를 통해 본 역사인식 연합'의 전망

정태헌(Jung, Tae-Hern) 국제고려학회 서울지회 2011 국제고려학회 서울지회 논문집 Vol.14 No.-

Learned circles of history of 21st century South and North Korea has to prepare methodology for 'Union of Historical perception' between South and North Korea in union of nations stage. this process can be connected with settlement for difference of Historical perception and peace building among each country in the Northeast Asia. examining the result of , against common expectations, South and North Korea Historical perceptions thinking about korean history before 1910s, have something in common with each other. Union of Historical perception, based on this kind of commonness, is that pursues methodology coexisting differences. With external changes such as the collapse of the Cold War, recognition for the Japanese Colonial Period, which has 'political difference' understanding history between South and North Korea, is changing after 1990s. South Korean scholars study about anti-japanese armed struggle of Kim il sung. therefore critical Historical perception based on fact is spreaded. North Korean scholars have memoir of Kim Il-Sung which emphasizes on the Union with the nationalist group. It has made the circumstances being able to reinterpret Juche Idea for peace and coexistence.

‘남북 역사인식 연합’을 위한 역사학 교류

정태헌(Jung, Tae Hern) 역사비평사 2012 역사비평 Vol.- No.99

In order to accomplish a union between North and South Korea, a broadening of the homogenous historical understanding must be demanded, ‘The North-South Korean Union for Historical Understanding,’ which is towards a methodology of coexisting with difference, is the essential element at this stage of Union between North and South Korea. It does not mean the absorption of a single historical understanding, which connotes a one-sided nature. Whether the period needed for union between North and South Korea is long or short, it will depend on the level of union between North and South Korean historical perception. Historical exchange will incrementally increase interchange according to the level of the relationship between South and North Korea, following steps such as ‘the Period of Reconciliation and Cooperation’, ‘the Period of Peaceful Coexistence’ and ‘the Period of Union between North and South Korea’. The main contents of history interchange during the Period of Reconciliation and Cooperation, whose first task is composing the foundation of exchange, should be an orientation towards outstanding historical questions shared by both North and South Korea. In addition, ‘The North and South Korean Committee for the Promotion Socio-Cultural Cooperation.’ as an organization that operates between South and North Korea authorities ‘The North and South Korean History Exchange Agreement.’ Likewise, ‘The Account for History Interchange Between North and South Korea’ by the Inter-Korean Cooperation Fund. In the North, the Ministry of Unification’s administration guide, which maintains an ‘anti-market’ policy and which that fails to provide research funds for North Korean scholars, should be changed. Following this an array of ‘cultural agreements’ can be signed between North and South Korean authorities marking ‘the Period of Peaceful Coexistence’. The primary theme of history exchange at this point should be the reexamination of political difference between each history so as to find signs for a methodology that can relieve hostilities. The founding of ‘The Inter-Korea Committee for Historical Interchange and Promotion’ as well as subcommittees classified by each subject of exchange is demanded. Henceforth the biggest theme of history exchange is the completion of the methodology of ‘The North-South Korean Union for Historical Understanding’ and reaching the level of cooperation where ‘The Joint North-South Korean Commission on History’ can compile a collaborated historical outline publication.

진보적 역사학의 상징,『역사비평』25년의 성과와 과제

정태헌(Jung, Tae-Hern) 역사비평사 2012 역사비평 Vol.- No.100

1998년 소떼방북, ‘21세기 한반도’ 대전환의 문을 연 메가이벤트

정태헌(Jung Tae-hern) 역사비평사 2015 역사비평 Vol.- No.112

Chung Ju-yung, an entrepreneur who made his first visit to North Korea on January 23, 1989, made his second visit to the Joint Security Area of Panmunjeom with five hundred head of cattle on June 16, 1998. He had worked for 20 years to find a way to link Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation with the Northern Economic Zone. This was not only for the purpose of instigating a new phase in Korea’s national history, but also for commercial profit. However, as Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation proceeded, South Korea came under the IMF Management System and North Korea had economic sanctions imposed by the US government. Because of this, only two projects among many were agreed to by both Koreas’ and initiated by Chung’s humanitarian visits with cattle; the Mt. Geumgang tour program and establishment of the Gaeseong Industrial Complex. The progress of Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation has fluctuated according to several factors, e,g., the global financial crisis, the short-sighted viewpoint of conservative forces in South Korea, US sanctions against North Korea, and the topdown management structure of the Hyundai Group. Therefore the question is, who has the authority and responsibility to stabilize Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation and of resolving these problems? The answer does not lie with the Hyundai company but with the President of South Korea who is ready to proceed with “the peaceful reunification of the fatherland” under the constitution.

특집 : 평화와 통일의 사건사; 1980년대 정주영의 탈이념적 남북경협과 북방경제권 구상

정태헌 ( Tae Hern Jung ) 고려대학교 민족문화연구원 2013 民族文化硏究 Vol.59 No.-

1970년대 말 이후 1980년대를 지나는 동안 모색된 정주영의 남북경협-북방경제권 구상은 남한 내수시장 또는 수출상품 생산에 필요한 원자재 및 상품 공급기지로서의 북한과 ‘무진장한 자원의 보고’인 시베리아와 만주를 아우른 것이었다. 1989년 1월 그의 첫 방북은 남북관계를 풀어가는 과정에서 애매하고 수동적 입장을 벗어나지 못한 국가의 ‘무능함’에 기대지 않고 자유기업론자로서 적극적으로 ‘북한 열기’를 시도한 것이었다. 정주영은 한국경제의 생산력 저하라는 현실 앞에서 분단의 장벽을 넘어 동북아 대륙에서 민간이 주도하는 자유기업이 활개를 펼 수 있는 조건을 만들고 창의력을 발휘해 장애요인을 돌파하려 했던 ‘상식적’ 기업인이었다. 그러나 상식적 기업인이 한 사람뿐이었다는 것은, 한국사회 냉전의 뿌리가 얼마나 깊고 한국 기업의 내공이 얼마나 낮은 수준인가를 반증한다. As the 1980s passed Chung Ju-yung suggested that North-south economic union and Northern economic zone initiative would connect North Korea and the "limitless vault of natural resources" in Siberia and Manchuria to the South Korean domestic market and to demand for raw materials required for the production of goods and products for export. In Chung``s first visit to the North in January of 1989, he bypasses the ambiguous and passive process of the government`s ``incompetent" to disentangle North-South relations in order to pursue a plan of "opening North Korea" along the principle of free enterprise. Faced with the realities of the Korean economy`s reduction in productivity, Chung quality as a creative and commonsensical businessman can be seen in his push to overcome the wall of national division and confront the mitigating factors in order to create a place on the Asian continent where free enterprises led by the people could unfold. However, this commonsense businessman was only one person, the roots of the Cold War in Korean society were deep and Korea industry`s low level of retrocedence indicates as much.

일제하 조선인 "고문(高文)"합격자들의 학교·관료생활과 시대인식

정태헌 ( Tae Hern Jung ) 고려대학교 역사연구소(구 역사학연구회) 2013 사총 Vol.79 No.-

조선철도에 대한 滿鐵 위탁경영과 총독부 直營으로의 환원 과정 및 배경

정태헌(Jung, Tae-Hern) 고려사학회 2015 한국사학보 Vol.- No.60

러일전쟁 후 만주를 ‘자기 땅’처럼 생각하던 일본 정부는 제1차 세계대전 말기에 ‘만선철도합동’ 방침 아래 만철의 조선철도 인수-병합을 내정했다. 그러나 열강 및 중국과의 관계를 고려해야 하는 상황에서 위탁경영으로 급전환되었다(1917.8). 위탁경영은 경영권과 납부금(만철→총독부) 측면에서 만철과 총독부 모두에게 불만스럽고 불안정한 것이었다. 그런데 제1차 세계대전 종전을 전후하여 일본의 중국지배정책에 대해 미국의 견제가 커졌고 영일동맹도 파기되었다. 일본은 영미와 대립을 피하기 위한 수세적 현상유지책을 취했다. 전후공황으로 자금난에 빠진 만철은 조선철도를 병합하여 인수액(정부 출자)에 대응하는 민간출자를 통해 증자(3억엔)하는 방식에 집착했다. 그러나 만주에서 불리해진 일본의 국제환경과 철도 경영권이 없어 ‘권위’가 크게 훼손되었다고 인식한 총독부의 반대로 성사되지 못했다. 이는 육군군벌의 정치적 영향력 약화, 입헌정우회 중심의 原敬내각의 성립으로 정당세력이 확대된 당시 일본 정계의 변화를 반영한다. 齋藤 총독 부임을 계기로 조선철도 직영론을 정립한 총독부는 일본의 효과적인 만주지배를 위해서도 허구적 ‘滿鮮정치통일론’에서 벗어나야 하고 조선철도망 완성의 과제를 더 이상 만철에게 맡길 수 없다는 점을 부각시켰다. 결국 일본정부는 1925년 4월 1일부터 조선철도를 총독부 직영으로 환원하기로 결정(1924.10)했다. 식민지자본주의의 ‘개발-수탈’체제 구축 수단으로서 독자적 조선철도정책의 중요성이 일본 정계에 비로소 공유된 것이다. 이러한 상황에서 1927년에 ‘조선철도 12년계획’이 시행될 수 있었다. The Japanese government which had regarded Manchuria as a portion of the Japanese national land after the Russo-Japanese war unofficially decided under the principle of joining the railways of Manchuria and Chosun that South Manchuria Railway would acquire and merge Chosun Railway at the end of World War One; however, this policy took a sudden turn for South Manchuria Railway to commit management to Chosun Railway in August 1917 having to ponder on relationships with the Western Powers and China. Still, both of South Manchuria Railway and the Japanese Government-general of Korea were dissatisfied with the trust management, and this was in disequilibrium in terms of the matter of control of the company and cost-bearing of South Manchuria Railway. Japan took defensive holing operations to avoid confrontations with Britain and the United States around the end of World War One when the United States curbed more and more Japanese invasion policy on China, and the Anglo-Japanese alliance was terminated. South Manchuria Railway which had indulged in financial difficulty because of the postwar recession was obsessed with the way to increase funds of 300 million yen from private investment and government investment by amalgamating Chosun Railway. However, this plan of South Manchuria Railway failed as the Japanese Government-general of Korea which had thought that the authority of the governor-general had been destroyed not having control of railways in Korea opposed it. It reflected the then changes of Japanese political world such as weakening of the army and expansion of political party forces. The Japanese Government-general of Korea formulated the policy of operating directly Chosun Railway after the new governor-general Saito, emphasizing to overcome a spurious idea of considering Manchuria and Chosun as a united political body for Japan to govern Manchuria effectively and contending that South Manchuria Railway should not assume the task of the completion of a railroad network in Korea any more. Finally, the Japanese government made a decision to return that the Japanese Government-general of Korea would manage directly Chosun Railway from April 1st, 1925 on October 1924. The result meant that an independent railway policy in Korea was considered significantly as a means to build ‘development-exploitation’ system of the colonial capitalism in Japanese political world; in the circumstances, a 12-year Chosun Railway plan could be implemented.

한국의 근대 조세 100년사와 국가, 민주화, 조세 공평의 과제

정태헌(Jung Tae Hern) 역사비평사 2011 역사비평 Vol.- No.94

The contents and equity of modern taxation vary with the characteristic of state power and the level of democratization. During the Japanese colonial period, tax whose main items were land tax, consumption tax and income tax was used for the maintenance of colonial rule and costs of war the Japanese empire provoked. After the liberation from Japanese colonial rule, Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world and had to increase money supply or receive financial assistance because of the lack of source of taxation. In contemporary Korean history, major companies and rich people have had the benefit of low taxation. The Korean government have recovered from the Korean War by imposing heavy taxes on peasants and secured finances from mass taxation-consumption tax until 1987. However, the government had to face stiff resistance when it started to impose taxes on assets and capital income. Income tax contributed less to recovering from the financial crisis in 1997 than any other economic resource. It was not until the 2000s that the proportion of corporation tax increased. But the proportion of consumption tax is still high and the rate of assets and capital income tax is remarkably low, compared to that of wage income tax. To establish the democratic tax equity is the foundation for economic development.

조선총독부의 慶尙合同銀行 경영권 장악 과정과 일본인은행으로의 흡수

정태헌(Jung Tae-hern) 고려사학회 2010 한국사학보 Vol.- No.40

The Gyeongsang Amalgamated Bank was created as a result of the merger of the Daegu Bank and Gyeongnam Bank on July 31<SUP>st</SUP>, 1928. The bank's operational rights were eventually assumed by the Government-General of Joseon(Korea), with the end & result being its amalgamation with the Japanese-owned Hanseong Bank on October 1st, 1941. A look at the history of the Gyeongsang Amalgamated Bank exhibits some of the commonly found characteristics of banks owned by Joseon(Korea) nationals during the Japanese colonial period. More to the point, although Joseon people invested in the establishment of banks nationwide in the 1910s, these institutions became subject to mergers after their operational rights were assumed by the Government-General of Joseon during the 1920s. For instance, the Government-General of Joseon forced the Daegu and Gyeongnam Banks to merge in 1927 by employing a strategy that involved decreasing the funds available to Joseon-owned banks, thereby facilitating its ability to 'designate' the management group and ensure the presence of Japanese nationals within this group. Although shareholders such as Jeong Jaehak managed to drag negotiations on for two years, Yamada Naohide (山田直秀) was eventually able to grasp operational rights in September 1930. While Min Daesik and Ogura Takenosuke (小倉武之助) respectively became the largest shareholders in 1934 and 1939, the Gyeongsang Amalgamated Bank was nevertheless ultimately merged with the Hanseong Bank, thus ending its existence as a Joseon-owned bank.