http://www.nkzone.org/nkzone/e.....p#comments

a more practical solution is for both side to “share” the kogureo history. China needs to change the wording to reflect that Koguryo people become both the people who live in China’s NE and Korea today, and also admit its history view is geographic-based and retro-projective. Korea has to acknowledge that Koguryo can be shared with the Koreans who are Chinese citizen (and represents a sizeable portion) today.

Agreed.

IMO there is really no need to fight over who owns koguryo. czechoslovia history is shared by czech and slovakia.

In fact, China’s treatment of Koguryo in 1980s makes more sense (but the NE Project is not textbook history, it is just “research in progress”. so i am not sure if the textbook has been changed at all).

see here
http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/k.....04055.html

I remember in 1986 visiting the historical museum of Jilin
Province in its capital, Changchun, and being struck by the fact that all
Koguryo-related exhibits (and there were many of them) were marked on the
exhibition label with a terminal date no later than 427 AD. Since Koguryo
existed as a state until 668, this left a considerable gap in coverage.
What about all those last 241 years? The curator explained to me that in
427, the capital of Koguryo had been removed from its old center at
Kungnaesong (modern Jilin Prov., Ji’anxian, on the northern bank of the
Yalu River) to P’yongyang in Korea, and so “it was no longer Chinese.” I
wonder what he is saying now, and if those labels have changed???

if you want to understand the history, wiki and hnn links are pretty good and quite neutral.

if you are talking about the ‘twisted interpretation’ of history, i am afraid there is no solution until Korea unifies and the uncertainty in Gando is gone. (it is unlikely for SK to recognize the border now, as it might trigger reaction from the nationalists. so SK govt would try to defer it until it has to finally face it)

a more practical solution is for both side to “share” the kogureo history. China needs to change the wording to reflect that Koguryo people become both the people who live in China’s NE and Korea today, and also admit its history view is geographic-based and retro-projective. Korea has to acknowledge that Koguryo can be shared with the Koreans who are Chinese citizen (and represents a sizeable portion) today.

……but to China’s disadvantage

that is not my word. i copied it directly from Byington’s essay (the history link).
my understanding is that byington was referring to the possibility that SK may revoke the treaty NK signed and elevate the dispute on Gando.

anyway, that is just to say there is such concern. — not saying how likely it will happen.

My ‘2nd’ statement wasn’t clear. I was thinking of the “point” SK was trying to make.

2) ohh… i think the difference is that claim Ieodo alone does not give either party the 12 mile sovereign or 200 mile EEZ, since it is not even an island

On the Leodo thread, Sunbin said:

China should recognize the continental shelf (since this is its argument in East (China) Sea). However, the point of the rock is that it establishes another 200 miles measuring from the rock (or middle line between the rock and china’s coast/continental shelf). So the boundary is different.

The rock is underwater, so it does not qualify as establishing a boundary, but your second statement implies that if it were recognized as Korean territory, then it would change EEZ boundaries.

There may be some concerns among some Chinese scholars and politicians that a North Korean collapse might result in a change in the borders, but to China’s disadvantage

Explain. Do you have links to either English or Chinese sources to explain how this might happen? I just don’t see how a united Korea would be in any financial/military position to extend its borders. Some Koreans fear the opposite - that China might carve out a buffer state between a united Korea and China.

Gando is Chinese land and is going to stay that way, so I’m actually less interested in Gando and more interested in historical revisionism. Borders change, but we have a responsibility to be as honest as possible about history out of respect to our ancestors and for the sake of our descendants.

The Byington link did mention Gando in relation to the history ‘war’, although not explicitly

“…The concerns are primarily territorial – this is why Chinese scholars have been so unwavering in their insistence that Koguryo was in fact a Chinese state. There may be some concerns among some Chinese scholars and politicians that a North Korean collapse might result in a change in the borders, but to China’s disadvantage. …”