Today, it is taken for granted that the principles for the self-determination of the peoples and nationalism can co-exist. However, these two are basically opposing concepts. In Kosovo, Albanians were granted the right of autonomy, due to the principles of self-determination, but Serbs are being segregated as a result. The Kosovar war we have just witnessed has its reasons in discrimination of Albanians by Serbs, and even further, it's reasoned in Serbs' opposition to the Albanian expansion. Thus, to resolve the matter, the key was not in self-determination but in how to get rid of nationalism. It was important that the international society had to endow the answer on this matter.

In Japan, there also was a time of crisis of racial partition: It was at the Meiji Restoration in 1868. At that time, the war broke out between Emperor's side and Tycoon's side. If Tycoon Yoshinobu, did not crystallize because he declared and executed absolute loyalty to Emperor, persistently resisted with his forces, one cannot imagine what Japan looks like today. One may speculate, however, that the Emperor's side, backed by Britain, and the Tycoon's side, backed by France, could have split the nation in half, and severed the country in a great deal. However, I must note that the often ill-reputed decision made by Tycoon Yoshinobu, that he surrendered with his forces still remaining powerful, has saved Japan. But several Han (local government) resisted to the end. It seems to me loyalty toward Japan and loyalty toward their own Han (local government) must have co-existed fifty by fifty in the hearts of Japanese at that time. So, there was a possibility that the loser becomes ethnic.

The leaders of the time have appointed many bureaucrats of Tycoon's side to important positions. Takeaki Enomonoto, who resisted the Emperor's side all the way till the end, was assigned a seat as Foreign Minister and other important posts. The Meiji Government began its construction of Northeastern railroad (the region where resistance was fierce till the end of the war) earlier than the ones that links Tokyo and Osaka, although as a consequence, the Northeastern railroad finished later. The new government also built the Second Army division in Sendai, and opened the Second College, honored after the First College in Tokyo, whereas no army division or imperial university was built in Kagoshima or Yamaguchi, main components of the new government. Because of such moderate consideration, Japan by-passed its regional opposition. On the contrary, Italy who gained unification around the same time as Japan still suffers today from hatred between North and South, largely due to the exploitation done by North who held control of the entire nation. Also in Britain, the root of all the problems in Ireland is incurred by the oppression brought about by Cromwell, who conquered Ireland. Such European idea, that the winners get to punish the losers, has bred racism, ethnocentrism and racial conflict.

Next, there is a concept that the governance by others is generally evil. However, think of this question: Who were happier as a people, Chinese under the Chinese communist party, who had to suffer twenty million during the Great Cultural revolution, or Chinese in Hong Kong who enjoyed the bliss of the laissez-faire public policy?

I believe that a good government is the one that stabilizes people's living standard, gets rid of discrimination, and allows self-actualization. It is only from a wishful thinking that the governance by the same people should be more acceptable. It is due to the fact that such a governance generally has less discrimination and has more opportunity to achieve one's dream. It is similar in the company.

So, I believe that such debate can equate to another debate on whether one should work for a successful foreign company or for an unsuccessful Japanese firm. I believe that, generally speaking, Japanese people should work for Japanese companies. Even if the pay is good, discrimination at work will be quite a discourage. But if foreign company gets rid of discrimination and allows self-actualization., I believe that it's far better to work for a foreign company with more funding and better treatment of its employees than working for a Japanese company with poor funding and treatment of its employees.

In the meeting in Paris after World War I, the United States advocated self-determination of peoples and Japan contended to resolve racial discrimination. Today, Americans demand themselves to be loyal to their own nation, coming over the differences in skin colors and languages. Finally racial discrimination has resolved. What the Japanese advocated at the time has now been realized.

On the other hand, Japan has been criticized for advocating racial harmony but practicing discrimination in reality. Indeed, Japan discriminated against Koreans in the beginning of annexation: Parliament was not in the government of governor-general, and the suffrage was not permitted, even for the Japanese in Korea. Political segregation toward Taiwanese was even further, because the difficult relationship between Japan and China was taken into consideration. Especially, it should be counted as Japan's biggest mistake in this field that they banned the political activity of Isshinkai, which, with its one million members, advocated Korea's annexation to Japan.

But in Japan, Koreans were given the same suffrage as Japanese in the mainland Japan. Park Shung Kong was elected into the House of Commons twice from the Tokyo district. There were several of them elected into the House of Lords as well. Hong Sa Yan has advanced to the post of Lieutenant General in the army. And it did not come to its fruition because the war ended, 18 members of the Common were to be elected to be from Korea in the next election. It took the United States until 1964 that the Blacks in America were allowed their suffrage in all the states. It was not until after the end of World War II that Jackie Robinson was allowed to play in the majors. Japan is criticized for discriminating the Koreans, but it was far less compared to the United States.

In the time of the Japanese annexation done at the beginning of 20th century, Korea was far behind of Japan in terms of literacy, income and infrastructure. There was virtually no tax revenue, but the government spending was immense. It seems obvious that Japan had fair reasons as seen at the European colonies from the then Japanese standpoint.

In 1909, Hirofumi Ito, the first Resident-General of Korea was assassinated by An Jun Gun. Now he is treated as hero in Korea. But it was a worst accident for Korean. It was a violence act with no knowledge of Ito's personality , no knowledge of international politics then prevailing and inconsiderate judgment. There was no leader at that time whose thoughts were as democratic as Ito. Ito wrote the constitution, formed a political party and knew the importance of holding elections. He was also a good listener, reflecting his personality. Chong Yang Fu, the anti-Japan president of Seihoku Gakkai, wrote to Ito in 1909: "I should be an elected Member of Parliament and join you in Tokyo." Even more, Arasuke Sone, the second Resident-general of Korea, passed away with stomach cancer. After these two leaders who sided with the civilian-control policy had passed, Masatake Terauchi, the third Resident-general and also first governor-general, was militaristic, drawing a good contrast to the two. He banned all the political activities, fearing it would be a hotbed for anti-Japan activities.

There is an opinion that healthy nationalism is essential to the development of a nation. Certainly, the fact that President Park has agitated his citizens "We must outdo Japan at any cost" has been one of the ingredients of the prosperity seen in Korea today. However we must note here that a nation has two means. One is country, and another is a race. In this issue I use nation means country. What Japan has demanded was, Koreans and Taiwanese alike, a loyalty to a nation called Japan, just like how the United States today demands a loyalty overcoming the differences of skin colors and languages. In multicultural nations, loyalty to one's own kind disrupts the structure as a nation, there is no good in it, although it may do a great harm. What is necessary is the spirit of harmony and dissolution of racial segregation. What President park had done should be considered nationalism, not racialism.

To develop one nation, it is vital to have the spirit of independence and healthy nationalism. However, overdone nationalism will cause international isolation. There is an example that companies with diversified operations of ten generate a powerful development by deploying a movement to buy and use their own products. But at the same time the development of the technology could be halted because the information from other companies get shut out. One needs to keep a good balance of the two.

To conclude, my personal opinion is as followed:

1. There are a lot of ethnic conflicts in the world today. To solve this problem, ethnic groups often reqest and obtain individual self-determination. Ironically, such "self-determination" produces a minority ethnic group. Therefore, the solution of Ethnic Conflicts must not be a racial self-determination but the compromise. The necessary one is "Soul of harmony", and "Country of a divine in which people is generous and pious to all the religions", on which Prime Minister Mori insists.

2. The requested society is "Society which stabilizes life, and loses discrimination, and gives the chance of the own achievement". Rule person's nationality and race are irrelevant. It is necessary to throw away the preconception which is that the different race rule is badness, and consider which policy be good, and which policy was failure. Help of the advanced country is indispensable for the development of nations where poverty and the race confrontation continue. I think that this discussion lives at that time.

3. There are two meanings of nationalism. One come from a country and another come from a race. So after here I define that nationalism come from country is Nationalism and nationalism come from race is Racism. Then Nationalism is necessary for the development of the country; but Racism is very harmful in where various races coexist. And Nationalism should be balanced with the internationalism. Nationalism which go far never becomes a national interest.