Ieodo, the undersea rock about which China has denied Korean claims of sovereignty (see also Chosun Ilbo), apparently goes by the aliases of Socotra Rock and Suyan Rock as well.
And to think I didn’t know that.
BTW, the Great Ieodo Wikipedia War appears to have begun.
Oh, and the homepage of Okinawa Prefecture made the boo-boo of marking Tsushima Island as a “foreign territory.” The map has since been replaced, but someday 300 years from now, some Korean historian is going to cite it as proof that even Japan has historically recognized Tsushima as Korean territory.
70 Comments
“the Great Ieodo Wikipedia War appears to have begun.”
can’t we just keep the two separate entries as they are, with Korean editing Ieo, Chinese editing Suyan, with a cross-link for people to check out what the other side say?
That’s what Uncyclopedia is for.
What was the “BLANCO” stuff I saw a couple of hours ago?
The BLANCO stuff? Just screwing with my template. Everything is back to normal now.
The Japanese are sitting back, munching on some popcorn and enjoying the show–hoping that this gets heated among the Koreans and Chinese.
Nah, they’re actually probably just ignoring it.
Actually, there will soon be no Chinese editing the Wikipedia entries, unless they are from the government because the PRC is blocking Wikipedia since they will not placate Chinese censorship demands (to hell with Google and yahoo).
We are saved. Lankov has gotten to the bottom of it as usual.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HI16Dg01.html
I’m looking forward to VANK’s spamming the world that it’s always been the West Sea.
Looking at this ancient Roman map it looks like the VANKers have all the historical evidence they’ll need.
Hey Marmot, what happened to the gravatars? I miss seeing my boobs, not to mention Baduk’s cat/baby.
It’s amusing that this “geological formation” is called an island in Korea but is only a rock in Chinese and English. It seems to me that the Koreans are learning from the Japanese. At least Okinotori technically remains a few centimeters above water after being reinforced with millions of dollars of concrete and titanium. Ieodo is over 15 feet underwater even at low tide!
For this island and Dokto, whoever has more military strength will win. Island disputes are normaly solved by a war as shown in Forkland case.
Korea’d better just give these islands away to China and Japan. With the US leaving, Korea has no clout. Its military is no match to Japan or China.
Just give up. Korea’s good days are over. Only death, destruction and poverty wait for Koreans. Koreans blew it.
Ack… Baduk’s comments just aren’t entertaining without ugly baby/crazy cat to look at. How will we cope??
I looked at the Wiki article’s history page…nothing really out of the ordinary so far. When a reversion war starts (each editor reverts what the last pereson wrote), that’s when it gets heated.
Actually, one of the best measures is when the article’s discussion page becomes longer than the article itself. Not ugly so far, but I’m sure it’s just a matter of time.
Will add the gravatar in a little while.
Well… I’m the wiki article seems to be flying under the radar right now. Once someone notifies VANK (or it’s mentioned in some Korean news media), I’m sure the edit wars will start. I just hope my popcorn’s ready by then.
Yeolchae:
Exactly what I wrote on this thread, in response to Pawikirogi.
Quoth Dr. Lankov (who is no Korean nationalist, but has no Western (or even Korean?) peer, especially when it comes to his knowledge of the Norks (pace Aidan Foster-Carter, Donald Kirk, et al.):
That said, he then goes on to point out that some Koreans are up to exactly the same sort of provocative antics, especially in regards to Gando. I don’t know. I don’t thing the Gando claim has a leg to stand on, personally, and it messes up the perfect simplicity of the traditional eight-province paradigm, ending at the very natural border of the Yalu and Tumen Rivers.
Robert, the current iteration of the template (as of 1:20 a.m. your time) looks very, very nice. I humbly request that you stick to it for the time being. The banner photo, by the way…where is that?
Ack, Robert, not this one! (Sea green on off-white with a green tunnel in the picture.) Yuck! Please put back the last one!
Yeah, I’ll stick with this one, but there are some things I need to fix. The gravatars are borked and the unordered list bullets disappear on IE.
The banner, BTW, is from Damyang, Jeollanam-do.
Me too, please. The previous template added in over the last couple of weeks doesn’t show up properly on my archaic work computer. All the text columns were about an inch wide, causing the words to line up single file. This one is almost fine.
I found a picture of Ieodo — no mistaking what or whose it is — and put the coordinates on a Google Earth map. It’s 4.6M below sea level, and that’s low tide….
Incidentally, I like the new template very much.
Yeah, this template (with Damyang banner) is nice, and easy on the eyes. Robert had another one up for a bit, with a car in a green tunnel in the banner. It was pretty godawful, IMHO.
Korean claims Ieodo
Japanese claims Dokdo
Chinese claims half of Hanbando.
Thanks for the Lankov link.
His essay probably deserves a separate post.
OTOH, I lost. They already merged the 3 wiki entries.
But I disagre with Lankov’s speculation about China’s intention regarding NK. It is more about defending the current border, and the “retro-projection, period”.
i demand blanco’s return.
Dear Sunbin, I am not 100% sure myself, so I mentioned TWO possible reasons for the current Chinese “history offensive”. However, on personal note, I got such feelings from my interaction with Chinese think tank people last year and early this year (did not talk much to them recently). And, yesterday I had dinner with my old friend, once a fellow student in Pyongyang and now a professor of Korean history in Vladivostok University (DVGU). He is in good contact with the North (well, used to be, until they went ballistic about his recent book), and with China too. He himself raised this issue and expressed the same views: “Koguryo talk” might be a sign of Chinese preparations from something serious. We have not talked for 2-3 years, and it is remarkable that he has arrived to the same conclusions. Of course, nobody outside the Chinese foreign policy establishment is likely to know for sure until, say, 2046 (or longer - I do not think that CHina under any govrnment will be in hurry to declassify SUCH papers). And of course, even if Chinese are drawing some action plans, this does not necessarily mean they will ever really execute these plans. Still, I think that suspicions might be founded.
Completely off topic but this new template is a bonafide babe. It even feels smooth, like a rock solid linux platform. Hope you decide to stay steady with this one, Robert.
Dear Dr Lankov,
Thanks for your kind explanation. I have always enjoyed your insightful comments.
I can see China wanting to set up a puppet (KJI is no puppet of anyone), but I find it hard for China to annex NK.
I mean, not by intention, but how realistically China can do this without draw vehement protest from SK and the West, when China is advocating a “peaceful development” image.
In addition, annexing NK will surely bring negative repercussion on its plan on Taiwan. (China often draws the 2 Koreas as parallel to the situation across the Taiwan Strait. Taking NK (formally) goes against its traditional support for “unification” of a nation, and will give Japan/US legitimate reason to interfere on Taiwan as well)
The only possibility is that this could be a very long term plan, i.e. 30-50 years, when the barriers above no long exist. But we are talking about a different China (maybe democratic one) by then.
I mean, not that China does not have such intention, but how realistically China can do this without drawing vehement protest from SK and the West, when China is advocating a “peaceful development” image. A revival of China threat theory would lead to punitative tariff if not embargo from US, and collapse in its infant export economy.
In addition, annexing NK will surely bring negative repercussion to its plan on Taiwan. (China often draws the 2 Koreas as parallel to the situation across the Taiwan Strait. Annexing NK (formally) goes against its traditional support for “unification” of a nation, makes it difficult for China to explain to its own people, and will give Japan/US legitimate reason to interfere on Taiwan as well)
The only possibility is that this could be a very long term plan, i.e. 30-50 years, when the barriers above no long exist. But we are talking about a different China (maybe democratic one) by then.
The Chinese actions suggest otherwise:China has been trying to rewrite the history regarding Kokuryo area in the last few years and now dispute Ieodo. Watch what China does, not what it says.
Dear Sunbin, I absolutely agree with you. I sometimes even make special remarks to such effect, but not in this article. Once again, like you I am pretty sure that China does not plan to annex NK, because of many reasons.
Firstof all, it is not how things have been done after, say, 1951. Over the last half century I can think of only one case when an internationally recognized state was officially annexed by another such state, and this case did not work out well for the aggressor: I mean Iraq’s attack on Kuwait in 1990.Second, it will be very imprudent for the Chinese, since all their neighbours who now (rather foolishly, I’d admit) support their gradual rise to the global supremacy will run screaming and crying to Uncle Sam. I do not think that gains from controlling North Korea directly will overweight these huge losses.However, what I mean is a Soviet-block scenario: a puppet (or semi-puppet) government, ostensibly independent, with all Korean faces at the Cabinet of Ministers (and Politburo if they still have this vestige of Leninism) and perhaps even a measure of autonomy, but backed by Chinese money, influence, advisers and perhaps even troops. In other words, a bit like Czechoslovakia in, say, 1972. In such a case it will be possible to present it to the world as an independent state, and it will not be seen as something outrageous. After all, all great powers have implanted puppet or dependent regimes in their vicinity. Old tradition, you know… I do not think anybody will be able (or willing) to do much about such turn of events.
However, such scenario is better than outright annexation (which, once again, I believe to be very, very unlikely). Such puppet government might eventually go belly up, or being sacrificed in some diplomatic chess game with Tokyo and Washington and Seoul, or being just abandoned, or run away from its puppetmasters.
Prof Lankov,
I agree with what you said.
Say, if we assume this USSR-Czechoslovakia/Hungary scenario, as long as DPRK is still independent “on paper”, one does not need to claim Koguryo (and its ancient territory), does it?
I would think if China wants DPRK to be its Czechoslovakia, a sensible strategy would be to the contrary, i.e. not touching the Koguryo issue and keep quiet. (to hide such intention)
That is why I think the motivation is simply
1) in line with the retro-projection of current border (your “period” comment)
2) be defensive in case SK is going to (though unlike) overturn the China-DPRK border treaty upon reunification. i.e. about Gando/Ji-an.
I would not be surprised that China wanted SK to openly acknowledge the DRPK-China treaty in exchange of a clarification on Koguryo history (which SK did not when they established diplomatic relationship in early 1990s).
it is unlikely that China will give Koguryo up totally, as it sees political needs for its ethnic minorities. but it is more reasonable (and acceptable) for China to say Koguryo’s history is shared (geographically) by Jilin/Liaoning and NK, a la, Outer and Inner Mongolia.
I would not be surprised if in secret diplomatic meeting that China wanted SK to openly acknowledge …….
Thanks for excellent and informed theorizing, Dr Lankov; and sunbin’s discussion is good. China subtly and relatively-peacefully taking over the DPRK as said might indeed be the best realistically-possible endgame for this ongoing crisis for all concerned…
However, even if China does manage to accomplish this, surely it can expect its “puppet government” to be quite uncooperative, hard-to-handle, difficult-to-deal-with, just as the ROK has always been for the USA in Alliance-relationship (theoretically easier than puppet/master). And the ROK will surely interfere and provoke on nationalist grounds, even tho it’d be against its own interests; this is just how Koreans are. It will be anything but stable and smooth… and i suppose that Beijing knows this well, in advance.
That being said the comparisons between a Chinese annex of DPRK and Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait would hold little in common. First of all, Kuwait holds something of such a great value that the world powers were motivated to restore order/balance for their own respective interests. It should go without saying, but aside from securing the nukes there is nothing anyone else really wants from the North. Second, Kuwait was not viewed as the international menace that North Korea is. Third, China is not the kind of country you could easily dispatch with a small international coalition of troops.
There would be public outcry. Powers like America and Japan would publicly rebuke China worrying about an ever growing Chinese hegemony, but be secretly relieved that the North Korean issue was no longer an issue. The South Koreans would be the only ones to take it seriously, but what ally would support them in a struggle against China? Japan? America? Nothing in the current relationship indicates that either Japan or America would be willing to stick its neck out like that for the South.
I agree that it’s unlikely it will happen for a variety of different reasons. But it won’t be for the reasons that the Iraq invasion of Kuwait failed. It will be largely because of internal factors in China like an increasingly democratized China, desire to maintain appearances on the international scene, and as sanshinseon mentioned an unwillingness to deal with uncooperative North Korean population, etc.
For some reason, I find this template visually confusing and difficult to read. One has to work to get any information out. Why is that?
I seem to remember that in an earlier version, the reader could switch between templates. Is something like that still possible?
Pyotr—which browser are you using?
Interesting conversation there towards the end. Not sure what I might agree with there but creative thinking is needed to get outside the theory box, or in SK’s case the dogma box. To anyone who might know more about the non-KIS family personalities in North Korea, do you think there are figures in positions there now who could serve as potential “puppets” of China? I’m wondering if there is a more moderate way for the North to collapse, for KJI and family to be run out, and for there NOT to be a hugely visible power vacuum that China can’t manage. Or, do those personalities need to be brought in from without? Sorry if that question doesn’t make sense.
Also, how do some of you think China views the future in regards to the territory in Manchuria populated by ethnic Koreans as opposed to current North Korean territory? Are they two separate entities which in the future would be dealt with separately or is there room to group some of their interests together in some fashion?
Well, there are ethnic Thai Chinese living in Yunnan, Russian Chinese and Kazakh Chinese in Xinjiang….etc.
And Chinese Korean living in Korea, Chinese Vietnamese living in Vietname…etc.
Korean Chinese living in PRC is no different from these people.
However, there is this Gando controversy. I understand some (maybe many) Koreans regarding this as theirs. But I believe even these ethnic Koreans only moved there around 1880s, and DPRK recognized the current border. (the counter argument being the Koguryo people populated part of NE China, before driven out (or integrated with) the Manchurians and Manchurians are fully sinicized today)
So the most likely outcome is perhaps the least hassle one, status quo, regardless of what happens to the Kim dynasty in NK, whether integrated into SK or becomes a Czeckoslovakia of China. (perhaps some small hip-cup in the former case)
The ethnic groups you mentioned differ in their origins.
There are no ethnic “Thai” in Yunnan. There is in northern Thailand a hill tribe which migrated from China within the last two hundred years. This is comparable to the origins of the ethnic Koreans in northern China, who moved in about 300 years ago after the Manchus moved to Beijing. There was another influx at the end of the 19th Century as Koreans fled the economic and political instability of the period. The difference is that Chosun governed the Gando region for a time while China never had administrative control over northern Thailand.
The ethnic Chinese in Korea have roots going back less than sixty years, having fled the establishment of the PRC. Ethnic Chinese without South Korean citizenship hold Taiwanese passports. There isn’t even a real Chinatown in South Korea, nevermind an ethnic Chinese province.
As for the Chinese in Vietnam, their unfavorable treatment at the hands of the Vietnamese was one reason for China’s invasion of Vietnam and theft of its Paracel Islands. China continued to engage in border provocations and acts of sabotage throughout the 1980s.
My impressions from my conversations with ethnic Koreans in Qingdao and my visit to the Yanbian region is that the Chaoxian minority are proud and loyal citizens of the PRC, and save for the bilingual signage and the occasional sound of the Korean language, Yanbian looks and feels very Chinese. Gando is a historical footnote, nothing more.
Well, not quite. Actually, there were ups and downs in numbers, but sizable Chinese community was present in Korea since the 1880s. But this is just a pedantic note…
This is my impression, too.
The problem is that in North Korea nobody outside the Family can position itself as a politician in any sense. But if you need such people and if you can promote and support them, you’ll find them. The Russians did it in many places across Eastern Europe.
yes, that is consistent with what i saw. however, there a a caveat. they look across the river, they see the miserable NK’er. If the geographic location of NK and SK switched (or unified), there may be subtle change.
whether such theorizing is true or not, the fact is, PRC is a bit worried.
But I do agree with you that the likelihood of ‘disloyalty’ is small. I think the main worry of PRC is the potential SK claim.
that mean china has to send troop and get control of NK. that is not a most preferrable scene. a better scenario would be someone from NK comes up after KJI is gone (sudden death/exile for whatever reason). it seems unlikely at this moment, but you never know.
—
digressions — re: sonagi
1) the sino-vietnam war in 1979 was more about vietnam’s invasion in cambodia (extension of sino-soviet split), than about ethnic chinese in vietnam (which was used as an excuse mainly). the result of the war was that ethnic chinese in vietnam were put in more miserable position
[cambodia, china's ally, murder a few million people, most of them were ethnic chinese (becasue they were rich capitalists), PRC did not say a word -- even today]
Some in China today even had a theory (Liu Yazhou) that Deng invaded Vietnam because he wanted US to support his reform.
2) Spratly was a disputed area (was uninhabited). Geographically it was as close to China’s Hainan as to Vietnam’s shore. Historically Chinese fishermen has used it as typhoon shelter. Your comments above took the anti-china view in pretty strong words.
3) Your comment on Thai-China border. All I wanted to say is: In any border between countries A&B, there are people from A in B’s area and vice versa. It is only natural because borders were not rigid in the past and people trade and inter-marry. Most of these people do not care much about nationalism, which has not even reached Asia before 19th century.
(i mean to say Paracel in the above comment)
in fact, the issue of paracel has nothing to do with how vietname treated the ethnic chinese there.
1) Agreed. That is why I mentioned the treatment of ethnic Chinese in Vietnam as “one reason” not the “main reason.”
2) The Spratleys are disputed among six nations. China is the only one that claims them all and the huge body of water that surrounds them. The Paracels were occupied by Vietnam before China took them. The Paracels may be located equidistant between Vietnam and Hainan, but they comprise only a small part of the thousands of islands in dispute, many of which are much closer to the southeast Asian nation that claims them than to China. Mischief Reef is only 120 miles from the Philippine coast yet more than 600 miles from China. The Spratleys issue and China’s aggressive means of asserting control of the Paracels and sneaky installation of a “shelter for fishermen” on Mischief Reef make southeast Asian nations wary of China and hinder China’s efforts to peacefully position itself as a regional leader. At least you didn’t call them the “Nansha Islands.”
3) Agreed.
Lankov,
You are talking about civilian contacts. However, I do not believe you have extensive Military or Intelligence contacts.
What Communist governments like China and NK tell their people, even some in high echelon, and what goes on between their leaders are in many instances are very different.
I still believe KJI is under Hu’s command. I don’t believe the Chinese communist party has a hands-off approach to NK’s regime. Communists do not work like that. They are control-freaks.
Many, even in Korea, want to draw parallel between the US-SK relationship and the China-NK relationship. The two are not the same or even similar. Communism has secret police that controls their own people and in many cases its satellite countries.
KJI is under China’s control. He is making nukes and missiles under China’s permission (or under direct order).
All I have to say is Honkie Please! It just gets my goat when neophytes like Sonagi start writing absolute drivel and no one actually understands the facts or history behind the situations well enough to correct them.
Up is white! Black is down!
Sonagi bullshit 1) Gando was “governed” by Korea
The Gando region was virtually unpopulated until well into the latter half of the 19th century. Chosun “claimed” Gando as it’s territory rather than governing it.
Sonagi bullshit 2) The Chinese community in Korea is less than 60 years old.
Lankov was kind enough to correct you here politely. I’m not so charitable, you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. The Chinese residency in Korea is quite older and was socially significant as evidenced by the anti-Chinese rioting in Korea during the Japanese era. Also the Chinese community is mentioned in some of the writing of earlier Korean nationalists. One specific example I can remember by was a Korean author at the turn of the 20th century who raged against the perceived exploitation of Chinese merchants and businessmen of Koreans, the particular outrage was a wealthy old Chinese man purchasing a young Korean sex slave/indentured servant if I recall correctly. In any case the reason the Chinese community in South Korea is invisible and the China-town nonexistant is because it has been South Korean policy to drive them out of the country, simple as that. Early 20th century sentiments by Koreans towards Korean-Chinese was that they were greedy unscrupulous merchants, i.e. the covetous Jew stereotype, a sentiment also shared by the RoK government which held the irrational fear that the Chinese were going to control the economy, thus did everything in their power to make life uncomfortable for them and force them to leave.
Sonagi bullshit 3) The Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 79′ was in part caused by mistreatment of ethnic Chinese.
It’s not even “one” reason, let alone a reason at all. Completly wrong. As Sun Bin already mentioned, the Chinese invasion of Vietnam was triggered by Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia and the ouster of Pol Pot, one of China’s then allies and the fear of a Soviet encirclement via Vietnam. Persecution of ethnic Chinese abroad has historically never mattered to the PRC, whether in Malaysia or Indonesia or wherever.
Sonagi bullshit 4) China stole “Vietnam’s” Paracel islands, in part because of persecution of Chinese.
Completly wrong. The PRC seized the Paracels in 1974, prior to the fall of South Vietnam and communist takeover of the country and any communist persecution of ethnic Chinese. The Paracels have been disputed between China and Vietnam since the 19th century. The RoC occupied the islands briefly before losing the mainland. The paracels have at times been occupied by the French, Japanese, RoC, South Vietnam, and PRC in that order.
Sonagi bullshit 5) China continued to commit acts of “border provocation” and sabotage against Vietnam during the 80’s.
Not only wrong but ass backwards. The Sino-Vietnamese border is clearly dilineated, however the exact manner of dilineation was in dispute. Stone border markers are used to identify the border, however China argued that the space between the markers should follow the natural terrain and contours of the land. Vietnam felt that the space between markers should be linear and cut through all geographic features. China had withdrawn it’s forces away from the border itself creating a defacto demilitarized zone but by the early 80’s Vietnam was repositioning forces directly on the borders itself atop terrain that by China’s definition were in it’s territory but by Vietnam’s was likewise it’s territory. The problem was, was that Vietnam’s occupation of the border area provided them with the high ground (since their linear border approach bisected hills) and allowed them to shell nearby Chinese towns with artillery from their superior position. In 1984, China had had enough of the Vietnamese artillery harassment and moved en force against the border to retake the hills and stop the cross border shelling. One particular hill 5xx (I don’t remember the exact number off hand) was the scene of several pitched battles which eventually ended with the Chinese possession of the hill. Several other hills and high ground was also seized by the Chinese that even by their reckoning was inside Vietnamese territory to gain the tactical height advantage and end barrages into the Chinese side of the border. As of 1989, that land is now officially Chinese territory recognized by Vietnam.
Sonagi bullshit 6) China is the only nation that claims the Spratley’s in their entirety.
Wrong. Vietnam also claims them in their entirety, as well as the RoC. None of the other principal actors have shyed from aggressive posturing in defence of their claims. Vietnam had attempted to retake the Paracels with force before, but failed.
sonagi,
glad that we have more to agree than disagree.
so let’s try to narrow the gap even further.
1) I didn’t mean to talk about the Spratly. I meant to address your ‘theft’ allegation of the Paracels.
2) If we follow your logic. China (or Republic of China) owns the Spratly. Because they put army on Taiping (Ita Alba) first, before Vietnam was independent. Territory is artificial, and it changes over the years. I can cite equally (and even stronger) arguments from Chinese side on Paracel but I would prefer not to lead this thread there. So I refer you to wiki entry on Paracel history for why I objected to your “threft” accusation, I would also object it you use the similar line against Vietnam (regarding the part of Spratly under its control), or Japan (regarding Daiyu/Senkaku), or Dokdo. Because such simple characterization is just misleading and incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracel_Islands
3) Yes, I could call them Xisha and Nansha if the medium of this site is Chinese (or Japanese, with Kanji), for convenience. But I don’t think that change the argument much, other than saying that I have a preference and I am taking side. Since this is an English site, I used the more commonly used English name, and try to minimize my own biase to other reader and to avoid the discussion being dragged into an argument of which name should be called.
NICE racial slur, Jing! Really classy!
The 1909 Gando Treaty between Japan and Qing signed over the territory in exchange for railroad rights. If Qing already controlled Gando, it wouldn’t have needed to sign the treaty. Chosun, as far as I know, never formally annexed the territory but simply administered it after Koreans moved in.
Yes, he did, and I appreciate Lankov’s correction. BTW, I am aware of Park Chung-hee’s nationalist economic policies which made it very difficult for Chinese nationals to run businesses.
As I made clear to Sunbin, there were a number of reasons. Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge were killing ethnic Chinese along with lots of other innocent Cambodians. The treatment of ethnic Chinese in Vietnam was one reason offered at the time of the invasion, and their treatment worsened afterwards. It may not have been a real reason but just an excuse:
“On February 15, the PRC publicly announced their intention to invade. Few observers realized the symbolic importance of this date; it marked the expiration of the 1950 Sino-Soviet Treaty, and thus the first time that the PRC could invade a Soviet ally without breaking their own treaties. The reason cited for the invasion was the supposed mistreatment of Vietnam’s ethnic Chinese minority and the Vietnamese occupation of the Spratly Islands (claimed by the PRC).”
http://www.answers.com/topic/sino-vietnamese-war
and from another source:
“China’s twenty-nine-day incursion into Vietnam in February 1979 was a response to what China considered to be a collection of provocative actions and policies on Hanoi’s part. These included Vietnamese intimacy with the Soviet Union, mistreatment of ethnic Chinese living in Vietnam, hegemonistic “imperial dreams” in Southeast Asia, and spurning of Beijing’s attempt to repatriate Chinese residents of Vietnam to China.”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/.....ietnam.htm
I can see why you and Sunbin misunderstood me because of unclear wording of this statement:
I thought that China had taken them simply as a consequence of the invasion. The islands were taken in 1974. I stand corrected.
“Since the early 1980s, China pursued what some observers described as a semi-secret campaign against Vietnam that was more than a series of border incidents and less than a limited small-scale war. The Vietnamese called it a “multifaceted war of sabotage.” Hanoi officials have described the assaults as comprising steady harassment by artillery fire, intrusions on land by infantry patrols, naval intrusions, and mine planting both at sea and in the riverways. Chinese clandestine activity (the “sabotage” aspect) for the most part was directed against the ethnic minorities of the border region. According to the Hanoi press, teams of Chinese agents systematically sabotaged mountain agricultural production centers as well as lowland port, transportation, and communication facilities. Psychological warfare operations were an integral part of the campaign, as was what the Vietnamese called “economic warfare”–encouragement of Vietnamese villagers along the border to engage in smuggling, currency speculation, and hoarding of goods in short supply.”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/.....ietnam.htm
I stand corrected. And I’m glad you agree that Taiwan is an independent, sovereign nation.
Jing, I welcome corrections of factual errors, such as those provided by Lankov and Sunbin. I welcome your corrections,too, even though they spewed out in anger. You were, however, out of line with that racial epithet.
@Sunbin,
I did some googling, and I see that the Paracels have changed hands a few times. I withdraw the use of the word “theft,” and replace it with “took control.” Like you, I see territorial claims as temporary and always changing. I suppose what bothers me is that every blinking map of China makes a point of including that circle of rocks. I find it as childish as I find Koreans taking the magic marker to any map that reads “Sea of Japan.”
KJI is under China’s control. He is making nukes and missiles under China’s permission (or under direct order).
You keep repeating this over and over and over again like some goddamn broken record. So what are your own sources for this piece of information besides one of a proctological nature?
Here’s a fact that no one can dispute (even without the benefit of insider contacts within the academico-politico-whatever community)…those NORK missiles…their target radius covers China too.
Jesus H. Christ on a stick, stop being such a passive aggressive baby. Unless of course you are actually from Podunk Ohio, I doubt you are offended by being called a Honkie, cracker.
The 1909 Gando convention wasn’t a treaty which exchanged already occupied territory for concessions, but rather one were Japan relinquished it’s/Korea’s competing claim on the territory. The Chosun court never administered the area, it was the Qing court that exerciseed the power of taxation and legal jurisdiction on residents in the area.
Regarding the PRC government statements and excuses, oftentimes, they are full of rhetoric shit. This is one of them. Treatment of ethnic Chinese overseas is not a factor in China’s strategic calculus. Afterall, they aren’t Chinese citizens. It’s a matter of sovereignty.
Regarding the Sino-Vietnamese border skirmishes, note that all the claims are made by Hanoi.
I’m not offended, Jing. People who indulge in name-calling just make themselves look bad.
The claims made in my earlier post came from Global Security Org. based in northern Virginia.
Perusing the archives at TPD, I noticed you’ve gotten into quite a few shouting matches over there. Didn’t know you had such a temper, Jing. :0
Gooks, chinks, niggers, honkies, towel heads, kikes, faggots….
There are basically three ways of looking at it according to me:
1. We are all descended from Adam & Eve, so…STFU
2. We are all descended from the same single celled organism cooked in a primodial soup, so…STFU
3. “You are nothing but unorganized grabastic pieces of amphibian shit. …There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless.” -Gunnery Sargeant Hartman, Full Metal Jacket.
You have inserted a few of your own assumption here, sonagi :).
but they are not quite true. Qing was very weak then. Its option was to give up A or B or A&B.
anyway, a few good links at Asian History Carnival (this time at the mutantfrog) written by Prof Lankov’s colleagues. enjoy.
http://www.mutantfrog.com/2006.....arnival-2/
http://hnn.us/articles/7077.html
http://hnn.us/articles/21617.html
re:sonagi
The dispute of Paracel is different from Ieodo (or sea of Japan). there is economic interests (EEZ) in there.
It is a genuine dispute, if that makes you feel better. However, I rather wish all the disputes are nomenclature disputes such as that of “East Sea of Japan”. The world would be a much better place.
“a sentiment also shared by the RoK government which held the irrational fear that the Chinese were going to control the economy, thus did everything in their power to make life uncomfortable for them and force them to leave”
How ironic. Now the current administration and its leftist lackeys are willing to kiss China’s a** while kicking the US in the teeth.
Sunbin,
The second and third links, though very interesting, made no mention of Gando. In the link to Mutantfrog’s and then to the AT article, I found in the small paragraph about Gando:
” In 1909, the Japanese, acting “on behalf” of the Koreans, agreed to complete Chinese sovereignty over the area. ”
This sentence implies that Qing didn’t have full control over the area. In any case, the reason why I brought up Gando to begin with was to show that borders move, not to suggest that Koreans have a stronger claim to the land.
Yes, and no. The name of that sea between Korea and China has no economic value, but the Leodo controversy affects EEZ rights.
Yes, I’ll remember that the little box with the dotted circular line represents China’s honorable struggle to gain economic rights to most of the South China Sea.
sonagi
1) Gando in the 2 links: I guess these scholars assumed their audiences know pretty well about Gando already. I think Qing and Korea agreed to use Tumen and Yalu as their border demarcation in 1712, and sent out a collaboration team for demarcation. Unfortunately the stones were moved or disappeared, and they never really signed a treaty.
The 1909 agreement was based on that previous demarcation effort. the controversy was where Tumen River originates (as there are 2 tributaries near Mt Changbai/Baehto). Whicher tributary one takes, Gando is on China’s side.
But that was, of course, before large scale immigration from Korea.
(I think the AT article is written by Prof Lankov. So he may be the best person to tell us an objective story)
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 (see Joshua of Korea Liberator’s link in comment above). But Paracel does. Anyway…..this is digression.
p.s. If you are interested in Gando issue. I suggest you read wiki, a lot of links and maps there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gando
btw, i was just posting those links for anyone interested in the Koguryo history, not about gando. gando was not an issue in koguryo era.
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. …”
Thanks for the links. Sunbin.
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.
Sunbin said:
On the Leodo thread, Sunbin said:
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.
That is what SK is hoping for, by building the ‘oil rig’, assuming it will become an island in distant future……and dependent some unlikely verdict on int’l court.
My ‘2nd’ statement wasn’t clear. I was thinking of the “point” SK was trying to make.
Sonagi,
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.
sonagi,
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.
cont’d
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
Agreed.
i just checked nkzone.org there is an interesting dialogue between Prof Lankov and “some dude” regarding the early history of Korea.
http://www.nkzone.org/nkzone/e.....p#comments