종전 후 한․일 양국 귀환자의 모국 정착과정 비교 연구 - 포스트콜로니얼 관점에서 본 식민자와 피식민지민의 전후실태 비교 - (A Comparative study of Social Integration of repatriates in Korea and Japan after World WarⅡ)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한일민족문제학회
· 수록지 정보 : 韓日民族問題硏究 / 31호 / 137 ~ 187페이지
· 저자명 : 이연식

초록

1945年の終戦後、日本の引揚者は軍人·軍属を含めておよそ630万人、韓国の引揚者は250万人であって、これはヨーロッパのドイツとその周辺地域間の戦後人口移動に比べられる大きな規模であった。引揚者の移動は、彼らの旧居留地(植民地や動員地)と定着地(母国)へ共に甚だしい影響を及ぼした。特に、韓国と日本は、共通的に引揚者の急激な流入により、住宅·食糧·失業などの民生問題が悪化しただけに、引揚者は社会的な「迷惑者」に見なされた。つまり、戦後日本と韓国は共に母国人と引揚者との葛藤を緩和し、円満な国民統合の実現という時代的な課題を抱えるようになった。　 この論文は、敗戦と解放と同時に同じ課題を抱えた韓国と日本において、韓国人と日本人の引揚者の母国定着過程が、どの形で行われたのかを比較考察した試論である。この研究の目的は、究極的に敗戦した帝国と解放した植民地における引揚者の受容と定着援護のプロセスを比べる事により、帝国の体験と植民地の体験が、各々引揚者を新たな国民の構成員として統合する過程に、どういう影響を及ぼしたのかを考察する事である。このために、第2章では、比較研究の障害要因を分析した上で、韓国と日本の現代史における引揚者問題の歴史的な意味と脈絡を整理し、第3章では、両国における初期引揚げおよび定着過程で現れた主な社会現象を、第4章では住宅と失業問題に対するGHQ、日本政府、米軍政(USAMGIK)、韓国社会の政策と議論の内容を整理した上で、日本と韓国における引揚者の母国定着や適応の環境の食違いが発生した究極的な原因を考察した。 研究の結果、GHQの間接統治の下に置かれた日本は、引揚者に対する最初限度の議論や制度的なアプローチがなされ、引揚者の独自的な政治勢力化や立法努力が見られた一方、韓国の場合は、米軍政の制度的な努力がなかったし、引揚者の政治的な要求も遮断されたことが明らかになった。それは、近現代において韓国と日本の歴史的な経験の違い、日本と韓国の国家運営能力と関連体験のちがい、そして戦後アメリカにとって朝鮮半島と日本列島の歴史的·戦略的な重要度のちがいが複合的に作用した結果であった。 今後、このような比較研究が発展するにより、韓国と日本の引揚者の「海外移住や動員」、「外地居留」、「母国定着や適応」の連続的な考察や、「政策」、「議論」、「実態」の細分した分析や総合考察が可能になると考える。それとともに、この比較研究の拡散は、韓日関係史の時間·空間的な外縁の拡張や自国史の相対化による研究視野の拡大にも寄与すると期待される。

영어초록

After World WarⅡ, 6.3~7.0 million japanese 2.5 million koreans repatriated to their own homeland. They had no right to select their residence, and lost one's private assets by the USAMGIK and Soviet Army's repatriate policy. After they went back to their homeland, they relied on social relief system, but it was not enough to satisfy all the repatriates because of deficient budget and goods.
Especially, japanese repatriates had a tenacity for their lost-assets because japanese relief system was worse than they thought before, and the social treatment was so cold. In 1952, Japanese government abandoned the assets the repatriates had in old-colonies for the San-francisco Peace Treaty. Just after that, repatriates made a big movement demanding compensation toward japanese government. Being Confused, japanese government made a law called “Hikiagesha kyuhukin nadono shikyuuho” in order to soothe repatriates' rage. But it was impossible to lessen their dissatisfaction, to the contrary, the suit case for compensation made by repatriates increased. For that reason, japanese government made an additional law called “Hikiagesha Tokubetsukyuhukin sikyu ni taisuru ho” to terminate the trouble with repatriates, and gave some money to them. But that money means governmental responsibility for compensation, it was just an reward for poor life.
The korean repatriates underwent similar experience to japanese who went back to their homeland. Their settlement circumstances was worse than japanese. They became so-called borderline class, failed to make their own political strength to draw some supports from USAMGIK. Unfortunately, they faced Korean War during 1950-1953. Thus korean repatriates had no chance to demand supports for better life. Even though some of the koreans received some money in 1974 when the laws of compensation for people who had been mobilized and sent to foreign areas as a soldier by japanese government general. But the laws limited qualification of receiver, who is the family member of the passed away. Therefore, so many victims like a comfort women or laborer hired in military plants had no chance to apply for the legal supports. After democratization of 1990's they began to demand revision of the support law. And since the 2000s some issues related to unsettled past affairs and Korea-Japan Treaty documents were raised, finally some laws for mobilized victims have come to be made.
These support laws in korea and japan were made for domestic use. That's why it was impossible to bring japanese government account for responsibility. It made the old japanese colonial settlers, who had been harm-doer in colony, as new victims of war.

참고자료

· 없음