► Japan’s urgent push to inscribe the Sado mine can only be seen as a ploy to avoid the preliminary examination process and to push its agenda forward before Korea becomes a member of the World Heritage Committee.

► Though the inscription of a neighboring country’s heritage into the World Heritage List is something to be commended, not criticized, the process must involve an honest acceptance of historical facts and efforts to heal historical wounds so that the correct version of history is passed on to future generations.

Tensions between Korea and Japan are escalating following Japan’s nomination of the Sado Island Gold Mines for the 2023 UNESCO World Heritage List. Specifically, the controversy surrounds Japan’s decision to limit the mine’s history to the Edo period (1603-1867) and, thereby, ignoring the period when Koreans were subjected to forced labor during the Japanese colonial period (1910-1945). Unfortunately, this is not Japan’s first attempt at distorting history. Japan’s inscription of the sites of Japan’s Meiji Industrial Revolution in 2015 caused much controversy as it refused to acknowledge the existence of Korean forced laborers on some of the sites. And Japan’s recent nomination was made even before it offered a response to the 2021 decision by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, urging Japan to carry out its promise to include information about Korean laborers at the Meiji Industrial Sites. Why is Japan refusing to fully recognize the wartime forced labor issue? Why is Japan pushing for the inscriptions of historically controversial sites on the World Heritage List despite strong oppositions from neighboring countries? Can a heritage site with only a partial recognition of its history be inscribed on the World Heritage List?

Let us first examine the Sado mines. The Sado mines are located in Sado Island’s Sado City, Nagata Prefecture. The site has been known as a gold mine since the 12th century, which developed further under the direct control of the feudal government in the Edo period. From 1918, it was operated by Mitsubishi. Following the adoption of the Meiji’s National Prosperity and Military Power policy in 1869, foreign engineers from England, the United States, and Germany were invited to the mines, and gunpowder, mine mills, ore transportation tracks, and 352-meters long Western-style vertical shafts began to be utilized. As a result, Sado mines became the first to achieve mining modernization in Japan and led the country’s metal mining industry. During its 400-years in operation, from the end of the 16th century until 1989, Sado mine produced 78 tons of gold and 2,330 tons of silver. It consisted of ten properties spanning seven different sites at the time of its inclusion to the tentative World Heritage List in 2010. Among these sites, Mount Aikawa served as the core of Sado mines, consisting of key facilities including the Doyu Valley, Kitazawa Floating Boat Plaza, the Odate Vertical Tunnel, and the departure port of Oma. Mining generally involves a process of mining, transportation, beneficiation/smelting, and offshoring. In Mt. Aikawa, Takato and Odate served as mining and production areas, Ainoyama was the area for underground and ground transportation, Kitazawa provided smelting and beneficiation zones and Oma functioned as the port of departure. In the period following the mid-1930s, the production of Sado mines reached its peak. This was also the period when Koreans were forced to provide labor. Therefore, limiting the Sado mines to the Edo period, as the Japanese government has recently done, would be leaving out the mine’s core facilities that operated outside the Edo period. If the mine’s peak production facilities and time period are omitted from its 400-year old history, it is questionable whether the mine has any value as an industrial heritage site.

Second, is ignoring a certain period of history associated with a World Heritage site justifiable? Blatantly ignoring a part of the mine’s history—one that is embedded with controversy such as wartime forced labor—would not only be inconsistent with the spirit of UNESCO, but it would also go against the nomination process outlined in the operational guidelines of the World Heritage Convention. The spirit of UNESCO is to overcome hostility and conflict between nations and to promote international peace and the common welfare of mankind through education, science, and communication. Unlike the general concept of heritage, the UNESCO world heritage is defined as history, resources, nature, and landscapes, that are inheriting past traditions, enhancing contemporary values, and passing them on to future generations. Therefore, maintaining the value of the site, such as identity and sustainability, is crucial. In particular, a complete description of history is important because the nature and the value of the site—which may change leading up to inscription—are linked to the outstanding universal values associated with the World Heritage site. That is why World Heritage nomination format requires that the site’s history and development be described in full. Describing a heritage by highlighting only a certain period of time not only goes against the spirit of UNESCO, it can only be seen as an attempt to deceive the international community.

Third, can Japan’s action to ignore certain period of the site satisfy UNESCO’s requirements for inscription into the World Heritage List? The UNESCO World Heritage system was established based on the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention. A World Heritage is defined as a monument, site and a group of building(s) that must be preserved and maintained jointly by mankind. The outstanding universal value is defined not by uniqueness or rarity, but rather on universality that transcends borders. In addition, the site must possess authenticity (truthfulness of information without falsehood) as well as integrity (wholeness, intactness, and appropriate scale of protection). In terms of an industrial facility’s authenticity, the intangible implications of the site in relation to its industrial heritage must be mentioned with other attributes. If memories of the local community are ignored and only a fragmented and tangible heritage is considered, its authenticity and integrity will come into question.

Fourth, let us reflect on the significance of being inscribed as a World Heritage site. The inscription of a site to the World Heritage List means that it is “inscribed on a list that mankind remembers and preserves by way of a way to avoid being easily forgotten, just like an engraving on a rock.” This year—the 50th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention—international expert groups such as Our World Heritage Initiative recognized the limitations of the World Heritage Convention, which only emphasize tangible heritage and universality. Rather, these group encouraged multifaceted and inclusive approaches to recognizing the value of a heritage, including collective memories of involved groups, values ​​of indigenous peoples, local and intangible values, as well as values involving geography. Heritage sites with negative history such as forced labor camps, slave trade, human rights abuses, and war are also included in the World Heritage List as they provide lessons that mankind must not forget.

Fifth, let us take a look at the type of discussion currently taking place internationally about controversial heritage. The UNESCO World Heritage Committee recommends that any heritage that involves war or battlefields not be nominated for inscription because it goes against UNESCO’s emphasis on peace. In order to avoid international disputes over inscription, the Preliminary Assessment stage will be introduced from 2023. Japan actually stated during the Memory of the World program that inscription as a UNESCO Heritage should not become a source of conflict that opens painful historical wounds. Japan’s urgent push to inscribe the Sado mines can only be seen as a ploy to avoid the Preliminary Assessment process and to push its agenda forward before Korea becomes a member of the World Heritage Committee.

Sixth, what is Japan trying to achieve by distorting history? Inscription as a UNESCO World Heritage site can serve as an important source of raising cultural pride, securing national identity, and educating future generations on national identity. Masaru Tonomura, a professor at the University of Tokyo, assessed that Japan’s failure to recognize wartime forced labor stems from its fear that it had violated the Forced Labour Convention, or the Convention Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour. More importantly, however, it stems from the different perceptions of history regarding Japanese imperialism and the wounds that imperialism had incurred in neighboring countries. It is necessary to recall the United States' concerns toward the Japanese victimized actions when the Hiroshima Peace Memorial was inscribed as a World Heritage site.

A nation's identity contributes to its survival only when it accepts both the positives and negatives of history and works toward a brighter future. Conflicts can be resolved through dialogue only if we pass on the lessons of history to future generations. Countries that distort historical facts and fail to abandon their sense of cultural supremacy will only become the target of international ridicule. The inscription of a neighboring country’s heritage on the World Heritage List is something to be commended, not criticized. However, the process must involve an honest acceptance of historical facts and efforts to heal historical wounds so that the correct version of history is passed on to future generations.