Structural violence to suppress or eliminate ethnic minorities engenders serious conflicts in society. In modern European history, unlike in America, “immigrants” have often been seen as “invaders” or “illegitimate objects” (G. Noiriel). Nevertheless, each member state of the European Union adheres to the principles of a liberal, open, and multicultural society, as in the European Community after World War II. As citizens become more cosmopolitan and receptive to different cultures, a “welcome culture” toward immigrants and refugees should develop. However, in some countries, up to half of the citizens do not feel that they benefit from the EU economy or its free movement system, a perspective that is most pronounced among manual workers, self-employed workers, farmers, the unemployed, etc. For them, an open Europe is perceived as a threat that encourages the free movement of workers as well as capital and goods, thereby resulting in the uncontrollable flux of immigration. By exploiting their anxiety and fear, right populist parties progressed remarkably in Europe in 2010. Concentrating on repeated Islamist terrorist attacks in France and on the arrival of large numbers of refugees from Syria and North Africa (2015-2016), these parties constructed an antimigrant narrative claiming that the offenders had been raised and fostered in the milieu of immigrant communities. Furthermore, they asserted that the acceptance of refugees would directly or indirectly threaten the lives of nationals, thus constructing a so-called “refugee problem.” Such is the case in Hungary, where the majority of nationals expressed opposition to admitting refugees in line with views set out by a political leader. However, overall, citizens in Western countries lean toward accepting settled immigrants as fellow citizens rather than excluding and marginalizing them.

Although Japan is becoming multicultural, as is evident in the country’s growing number of foreign migrants; racist policies, and racial slurs persist. Japan had expected to host a large number of foreign visitors during the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics. Although these events have been postponed until the summer of 2021, due to the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic, such events allow for reflective inquiry into Japan’s foreign population as it relates to the Japanese sense of national identity.

In order to participate in the Olympic Games, some mixed-race athletes have relinquished their Japanese nationality and opted for their non-Japanese parent’s nationality. These athletes actively pursue their goals of participating in their own chosen sport. In addition, in recent years, a growing number of foreign migrants have contributed to Japanese sports by becoming professional sumo wrestlers. Finally, this paper explores current Japanese laws and ordinances that restrict and ban the hate speech of the far-right organizations, which target racial minorities. Such proactive laws and ordinances require wider support to eliminate discrimination, thereby putting an end to the structural violence, which surrounds migrant communities.

Since the creation, of the nation state, each nation has entrusted its life and peace to elected governments.

When a government initiates a war, the lives and fortunes of the nation are sacrificed on the pretext that it is beneficial to the nation. Since the end of the Second World War, and out of this regretful situation, the benefits of the nation state have been realized, guaranteeing the economic and social development of the nation.

In the 1980s, as globalization gained momentum, nation states could no longer guarantee economic prosperity and social stability. Numerous difficulties began to emerge, including higher unemployment, an increase in non-regular employment, the decline of local industries, and increasing numbers of immigrants and refugees. Governments were no longer able to solve these problems alone.

European nation states sought to conquer these difficulties by creating a supranational union of European countries. However, this did not lead to revolutionary achievements, leading to an increase in frustration and distrust of the supranational organization by the individual states. As a result, certain states now prefer to enjoy their profits and deal with their security issues at the nation state level, once again.

This paper focuses on the political phenomenon of “re-nationalization.”

The problem of national minorities arises from the conflict between the ideal of the homogeneous nation state and the reality of ethnic heterogeneity. National minorities are regarded as potentially subversive elements when they are perceived as potential allies to the states from which they have come or to which they have ethnic ties. During times of war and during post-war peace settlement negotiations, the exchange and transfer of national minorities is often conceived as a means of punishing aggressive states and their accomplices in other countries. This is the logical consequence of the doctrinal ascendency of nation building in the modern state. In fact, the transfer of national minorities is the definitive solution to the question of nationality. Throughout the 20^th century, large scale population transfer and population exchange occurred during three major changes in the international order: World War Ⅰ, World War Ⅱ, and at the end of the Cold War. It is generally regarded that each of these instances of ethnic cleansing, took place as part of a peace settlement. This article challenges conventional wisdom regarding the ethnic cleansing that has taken place at these major changes in the international world order.

This article presents two central arguments. First, I argue that the transfer of national minorities took place as a means to prevent future conflict. Second, I argue that the ethnic cleansing that took place at the end of major wars was carried out for the purposes of building homogeneous nations.

In world politics, South Korea is generally perceived as a victim. Due to its experiences during the colonial era, one of the identities that Korea claims is as a victim of Japan. However, a massacre committed by Korean soldiers during the Vietnam War calls this position of victimhood into question.

This paper illustrates and analyzes the process of Korean foreign policy-making with regard to Vietnam, following the revelation of the massacre in a magazine story in 1999. It is of importance that the government administration that had to deal with this issue was that Kim Dae Jung. Prior to becoming president of the Republic of Korea in 1998, Kim was a politician who fought for democracy and human rights, and his was the first peaceful power shift after a long era of dictatorship.

The slogan of the Kim administration was ‘Human rights and peace’. At a 2001 Korea-Vietnam summit, Kim admitted to and apologized for atrocities committed against Vietnamese civilians by Korean soldiers. He promised to promote economic cooperation, including overseas development aid. This repentant attitude, accompanied by a focus on economic cooperation, continued with the next administration, despite its different political position.

Kim’s successor, Roh Moo Hyun, improved his predecessor’s foreign policies, by paying respect to Ho Chi Minh and reforming economic policies. The next two (conservative) administrations, led by Lee Myung Bak and Park Geun Hye, also followed Kim’s policies toward Vietnam. Such actions do not reflect fundamental changes in views on the Vietnam War, but emerge from a concern for Korea’s economic interests and its relationship with Vietnam. This pattern has grown more significant since Moon Jae In was elected president, resulting in Korea now perceiving itself as a perpetrator.

Structural violence to suppress or eliminate ethnic minorities engenders serious conflicts in society. In modern European history, unlike in America, “immigrants” have often been seen as “invaders” or “illegitimate objects” (G. Noiriel). Nevertheless, each member state of the European Union adheres to the principles of a liberal, open, and multicultural society, as in the European Community after World War II. As citizens become more cosmopolitan and receptive to different cultures, a “welcome culture” toward immigrants and refugees should develop. However, in some countries, up to half of the citizens do not feel that they benefit from the EU economy or its free movement system, a perspective that is most pronounced among manual workers, self-employed workers, farmers, the unemployed, etc. For them, an open Europe is perceived as a threat that encourages the free movement of workers as well as capital and goods, thereby resulting in the uncontrollable flux of immigration. By exploiting their anxiety and fear, right populist parties progressed remarkably in Europe in 2010. Concentrating on repeated Islamist terrorist attacks in France and on the arrival of large numbers of refugees from Syria and North Africa (2015-2016), these parties constructed an antimigrant narrative claiming that the offenders had been raised and fostered in the milieu of immigrant communities. Furthermore, they asserted that the acceptance of refugees would directly or indirectly threaten the lives of nationals, thus constructing a so-called “refugee problem.” Such is the case in Hungary, where the majority of nationals expressed opposition to admitting refugees in line with views set out by a political leader. However, overall, citizens in Western countries lean toward accepting settled immigrants as fellow citizens rather than excluding and marginalizing them.

Although Japan is becoming multicultural, as is evident in the country’s growing number of foreign migrants; racist policies, and racial slurs persist. Japan had expected to host a large number of foreign visitors during the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics. Although these events have been postponed until the summer of 2021, due to the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic, such events allow for reflective inquiry into Japan’s foreign population as it relates to the Japanese sense of national identity.

In order to participate in the Olympic Games, some mixed-race athletes have relinquished their Japanese nationality and opted for their non-Japanese parent’s nationality. These athletes actively pursue their goals of participating in their own chosen sport. In addition, in recent years, a growing number of foreign migrants have contributed to Japanese sports by becoming professional sumo wrestlers. Finally, this paper explores current Japanese laws and ordinances that restrict and ban the hate speech of the far-right organizations, which target racial minorities. Such proactive laws and ordinances require wider support to eliminate discrimination, thereby putting an end to the structural violence, which surrounds migrant communities.

Since the creation, of the nation state, each nation has entrusted its life and peace to elected governments.

When a government initiates a war, the lives and fortunes of the nation are sacrificed on the pretext that it is beneficial to the nation. Since the end of the Second World War, and out of this regretful situation, the benefits of the nation state have been realized, guaranteeing the economic and social development of the nation.

In the 1980s, as globalization gained momentum, nation states could no longer guarantee economic prosperity and social stability. Numerous difficulties began to emerge, including higher unemployment, an increase in non-regular employment, the decline of local industries, and increasing numbers of immigrants and refugees. Governments were no longer able to solve these problems alone.

European nation states sought to conquer these difficulties by creating a supranational union of European countries. However, this did not lead to revolutionary achievements, leading to an increase in frustration and distrust of the supranational organization by the individual states. As a result, certain states now prefer to enjoy their profits and deal with their security issues at the nation state level, once again.

This paper focuses on the political phenomenon of “re-nationalization.”

The problem of national minorities arises from the conflict between the ideal of the homogeneous nation state and the reality of ethnic heterogeneity. National minorities are regarded as potentially subversive elements when they are perceived as potential allies to the states from which they have come or to which they have ethnic ties. During times of war and during post-war peace settlement negotiations, the exchange and transfer of national minorities is often conceived as a means of punishing aggressive states and their accomplices in other countries. This is the logical consequence of the doctrinal ascendency of nation building in the modern state. In fact, the transfer of national minorities is the definitive solution to the question of nationality. Throughout the 20^th century, large scale population transfer and population exchange occurred during three major changes in the international order: World War Ⅰ, World War Ⅱ, and at the end of the Cold War. It is generally regarded that each of these instances of ethnic cleansing, took place as part of a peace settlement. This article challenges conventional wisdom regarding the ethnic cleansing that has taken place at these major changes in the international world order.

This article presents two central arguments. First, I argue that the transfer of national minorities took place as a means to prevent future conflict. Second, I argue that the ethnic cleansing that took place at the end of major wars was carried out for the purposes of building homogeneous nations.

In world politics, South Korea is generally perceived as a victim. Due to its experiences during the colonial era, one of the identities that Korea claims is as a victim of Japan. However, a massacre committed by Korean soldiers during the Vietnam War calls this position of victimhood into question.

This paper illustrates and analyzes the process of Korean foreign policy-making with regard to Vietnam, following the revelation of the massacre in a magazine story in 1999. It is of importance that the government administration that had to deal with this issue was that Kim Dae Jung. Prior to becoming president of the Republic of Korea in 1998, Kim was a politician who fought for democracy and human rights, and his was the first peaceful power shift after a long era of dictatorship.

The slogan of the Kim administration was ‘Human rights and peace’. At a 2001 Korea-Vietnam summit, Kim admitted to and apologized for atrocities committed against Vietnamese civilians by Korean soldiers. He promised to promote economic cooperation, including overseas development aid. This repentant attitude, accompanied by a focus on economic cooperation, continued with the next administration, despite its different political position.

Kim’s successor, Roh Moo Hyun, improved his predecessor’s foreign policies, by paying respect to Ho Chi Minh and reforming economic policies. The next two (conservative) administrations, led by Lee Myung Bak and Park Geun Hye, also followed Kim’s policies toward Vietnam. Such actions do not reflect fundamental changes in views on the Vietnam War, but emerge from a concern for Korea’s economic interests and its relationship with Vietnam. This pattern has grown more significant since Moon Jae In was elected president, resulting in Korea now perceiving itself as a perpetrator.