I would like to do a post on the history of border conflicts along the Sino-Korean border, with emphasis placed on the Paekdusan / Baitoushan and Kando / Jiandao disputes - I have plenty of material in Korean explaining (at length) how those regions are sacred and indivisible parts of the Fatherland, but what I would like is a little help from those with Chinese language skills (Brainysmurf, I’m talking to you) in getting the Chinese perspective on this. Japanese speakers might be able to help me out, too, since it would appear a number of the relevant documents were concluded between Japanese advisers (later, colonial officials) and their Chinese counterparts. There seems to be a paucity of material on these disputes in English, and since these currently dormant issues may one day pop back up with a vengeance, I figure that it wouldn’t hurt to get a head start on them.
Also welcome would be any material on the rather obscure Nokdun-do Island (near Khasan) dispute between Korea and Russia.
For your viewing pleasure, here’s a photo I took of one of the disputed regions a couple of years ago - I was quite lucky, as I’m told the lake is usually covered by fog.
4 Comments
You’ve probably already looked at it, but Andre Schmid’s _Korea Between Empires_ includes some discussion of the Choson-Qing negotiations that led to the border demarcartion as well as how the issue was raised again around the turn of the century.
Is that Tian Chi, in the Changbai mountain range (sorry, I only know the Chinese names for it, but on the border of China and Korea with the Chinese side in Jilin province)? I went there a few years ago myself… the drive and climbing hundreds of meters of stairs to get to the top was less than fun, but it was totally worth the view.
Today’s issue of the Korea Herald (Saturday, December 13, 2003) has a feature article on the dispute over Goguryeo: “Korea, China restart old fight on history” (page 13). It summarizes the arguments and gives the names of Korean historians involved in countering China’s claims.
Interestingly, the article also includes a few Korean historians who criticize both the Chinese historians and some of the Korean ones for the fault of “presentism.” This is a flawed paradigm for history that defines national history based upon one’s current territory — according to Lim Ji-hyun, of Hanyang University.
This label doesn’t quite fit Korea’s own way of defining its national history, it seems to me, since Korea’s current borders don’t include Goguryeo. I think, rather, that Korea is defining its national history based upon the greatest geographical extent of political control ever held, historically, by those who were at least arguably Korean.
I’m keeping an eye on these developments because they are potentially disruptive, possibly destabilizing — and because I suspect that conflict with China over its imperialism will make American ‘imperialism’ look far more benign. America might even begin to look like a friend again. The story will be interesting as it unfolds. I hope that we don’t end up living in interesting times.
Jeffery Hodges
The Monday, December 15, 2003 edition of *The Korea Herald* adds another article to the growing number critical of China’s Northeast Asian Project, which is claiming Goguryeo for China. See page 9, columns e-f: “North Korea denounces China’s claim on Goguryeo.” It would be a historical irony if the rise of Chinese nationalism contributed to Korean unity.