China Hush has an interesting thread of anti-Korean rumours, started by — grab yourself — Chinese. Judging by what Chinese Government-fomented conspiracy theories and astro-turfing are out here, there will probably be more weapons of gossip deployed from now on.
Rumours: Made in China
Previous post: Rent a White Guy
Next post: First BBQ, Then Comes the Coal Mines
{ 66 comments… read them below or add one }
I started reading this link with only mild interest until I got to the section on Taiwan. I don’t know how wide-spread anti-Korean sentiment in Taiwan is today among average Taiwanese, but I know that in the late 1990s and early 2000s, anti-Korean sentiment among Taiwan’s foreign policy types was palpable.
Part of this was due to trade competition, part was the legacy of Seoul’s normalizing ties with Beijing and dumping its ties with Taipei. But a big factor was Taiwan’s sense of superiority on defense and security issues.
To this day, I can recall conversations with Taiwanese policy wonk types that always ended on the same note: “We’re not Koreans. We don’t need U.S. troops. Just sell us the weapons systems we need and we’ll take care of the rest.”
This strikes me as a useful paradigm to consider future Korea-U.S. security ties.
DLB
really? did they say these things about the japanese too? what’d they say about the germans?
the chinese have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to koreans. reminds me quite a bit about how koreans felt towards the japanese except the koreans have never done anything to the chinese. oh, i forgot; we ‘stole’ thier boat festival!
Yes… but you guys are also an island too… so… you guys will need the U.S. Navy.
That’s actually a really fair point. And the immediate answer is that, no, they didn’t.
But your instinct is a good one…the same argument COULD be made as to a whole list of U.S. allies that free ride on security and don’t adequately provide for their own defense. I focus on Korea because this is a Korea-centric blog; if I were posting on a Japan blog, I’d be much, much harsher.
The larger point, though, still holds. Both Korea and the U.S. need to start thnking of a long-term, sustainable security relationship that is adequate to changed times and changed circumstances. Right now, that’s not happening. Ironically, former President Roh and former SecDef Rumsfeld did have that kind of foreward-thinking approach. It’s conspicuously absent in both Korea and U.S. current administrations.
DLB
DLB, are you talking to me?
As much as always I like sparring with you, WK, my post was for Pawi. You and I must have been typing at the same time. You just clicked “sbumit” before I did.
DLB
Well, to further expand upon my point, the PRC currently does not have enough amphibious landing ships and a blue water fleet to effectively invade Taiwan so the Taiwanese can shake their fists and continue to say stupid things like that.
WK,
That’s also true, since if the PRC lacks that capability now, they certainly lacked it a decade ago.
But again, the larger point isn’t whether the Taiwanese are “stupid” or the Chinese “have a chip on their shoulder.” What comes across in Taipei is a willingness to accept defense and security force levels that take a real bite out of national budgetary expenditures. That’s missing in Seoul, especially under 2MB, who refuses to give his own defense ministry the budget it asks for.
On a more anecdotal level, I can also say that I have never — not once — heard any Taiwanese I’ve ever talked to complain about having had to serve in Taiwan’s compulsory armed forces. I can hardly think of any of my Korean friends who HAVEN’T made such a complaint.
There really is a very different psychology there.
DLB
DLB,
It’s called the Yoshida doctrine. Slightly modified for the ROK’s use. However, during the Cold War I remember ROK military expenditures being as high as 6% of GDP (vs. 1.6% of Japan’s GDP at the time).
Regarding complains to compulsory military service…. there is probably less hazing going on in the Taiwanese army. My dad says he still has nightmares.
WK,
That’s precisely the point…for all the talk by Korean conservatives of Korea being, as I’ve said, “the last iceberg of the Cold War,” the 2MB administration — or anyone else in the Hannaradang for that matter — is nowhere near prepared to spend 6 percent of GNP on national defense. The Yoshida Doctrine? In a post-Cold War era 20 years in the making? By a rich and successful country like Korea? Puhlease!
The challenge for Koreans is to acknowledge that they can’t take pride in the country’s considerable success and still claim to need the security quarantees provided by others. 2MB’s punting on OPCON and taking the Cheonan incident to the U.N. is not only a national humiliation (the U.N.? Really?) but was a complete surrender of any pretense that Korea is prepared to chart a new course for the country’s defense.
All of this could also be said of Japan, et al., but like I said, this is a Korea blog, so my comments are limited to Korea.
DLB
i’m not sure the anti korean rage felt by the taiwanese is just about military spending. i think there’s far more to it than that.
i feel kind of bad about all this anti korean sentiment brought on by envy. i used to like the chinese but no more. for example, i remember how disappointed i felt at the disappearance of chinese characters in everyday korean life but now, i’m glad they got rid of them. now, if only koreans would get rid of their chinese based names.
A lot have pure hangul names anyway, not really because of any anti-Chinese sentiment but because pure Korean words just sound more Korean and pretty to our ears. The North Koreans use a lot of pure Korean words in comparison. Also, names of countries are as it sounds, and not the Chinese version e.g. 오스트랄리아 instead of 호주.
DLB,
This is what I think… I don’t know if this is what the Korean government is thinking but this is what I think might be on their mind.
Ideally, ROK security concerns understand that a smaller and higher tech army to defend/deter against North Korea and China (and maybe an increasingly independent thinking and operating Japan) is the right idea. America will eventually reduce their presence in Northeast Asia, if not today than in the next decade or so. I think the Koreans know this. However, having U.S. troops in Korea, like U.S. troops in Japan, allows said country to have a bigger, but lower tech armed forces and allows said country to spend less money on their military (see Yoshida Doctrine). When you pay a conscript 25 cents a day and spartan room and board, you can afford to have a lot of said conscripts. This, at the most, buys time. Korea is trying to develop a higher tech military, but doesn’t want to rely on a dissipating ally for the technology so it’s trying to develop its own technology. Hence you will see situations where the Koreans take European tech to develop a military utility helicopter- French, Russian and U.S. technology to develop a new Main Battle Tank- U.S. technology to develop an advanced trainer and will want to sell them all to foreign countries to help defray the costs of researching and developing them. Let’s face it. R&D for high tech weapons is EXPENSIVE. Although there is much publicized regarding some of the new weapons systems that the ROK has developed, much of it has not penetrated the ROK army and its usage has not been standardized it its normal tactical doctrine. For example, there are only four prototypes of the K2 MBT and about 150 F-16s and 80 or so F-15ks. There is only one or two Aegis class destroyers and the Dokdo LPD recently finished undergoing sea trials. Much of the ROK military is stuck in the 80′s in terms of tech and tactics. Realistically, ROK is a decade away from being the high tech military that it wants to be. So what does it do? It clings to the U.S. military alliance in the meantime.
Should we fault ROK for this? I don’t think so. If having U.S. troops in your country allows you to spend less on your military and gives you greater security, wouldn’t you do it? Hell, I don’t see the Germans clamoring for the U.S. to leave either. Having U.S. troops in NATO and in Central Europe keeps the Russians honest. And deep in the recesses of the Central and Eastern European mind is a fear (rational or irrational) of the Russian colossus.
Furthermore, the U.S. military, probably for typical bureaucratic tendencies of wanting to stay big and bloated for as long as possible are certainly acquiescing to Korean security desires. All those new buildings at Camp Humphreys in Pyongtaek (including family condos, PXs, swimming pools and golf courses) don’t look like temporary structures by any stretch of the imagination. Sizable number of U.S. troops in Korea are going to be a reality for at least the next 10 years whether people like it or not. The U.S. military wants it and not enough Congressman and Presidents are not going to want it and not enough voters care either way.
WK,
There’s a lot there, but I think I can sum up by saying that the problem is that the United States is NOT a “dissipating ally,” not that it is. As you observe, the U.S. isn’t leaving Korea anytime soon. More’s the pitty.
Far more interestingly, you ask: “Should we fault ROK for this? I don’t think so. If having U.S. troops in your country allows you to spend less on your military and gives you greater security, wouldn’t you do it?”
Well, no, I wouldn’t. And that’s where this whole debate gets interesting. Maybe it’s an American thing, but I can’t imagine being Korean and wanting any foreign troops, no matter what the history or legacy of the alliance, remaining in my homeland any longer than absolutely necessary. That’s an incredible concession, expecially for an otherwise proud people, and it only seems normal in the Korean context because it’s been that way for 60+ years.
In fact, there’s nothing normal about it. Indeed, what missing from the whole OPCON transfer debate is not whether to delay or not, but a return to first principles: Why, 60+ years after the Korean War, 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, 18 years after diplomatic normalization with Moscow and Beijing, membership in the WTO and OECD, an economy that’s on fire and the envy of half the world, and an industrial base that is second to only a few other countries, is Korea STILL dependant on a foreign country for its defense? Or more to the point: What has Korea been doing for half a century that it can’t even handle a transfer of Operational Control of joint armed forces, much less the total withdrawal of U.S. troops.
What is wrong with this picture?
DLB
I’ve seen most of these rumor emails going around the Chinese community on numerous occasions. In fact, not too long ago, a Taiwanese colleague of mine sent me an email that her husband was furious about. It showed some site where Koreans mapped out where the historic boundaries of Koguryo were….stretching all the way to western China and so on. I know Koreans claim that Koguryo stretched out to the Manchuria area, but I never saw claims of it stretching further than that. I will try to see if I can find that website and link to it. I just felt the purpose of those emails was to stir up hatred towards Koreans.
This is coming from the country where a whole generation of kids believe that Tienanmen square revolt was made up by the western media.
Wangkon,
Interesting point about less military spending and greater security. If the government had to assume the entire costs of its military, what percentage would income tax rates rise to pay for this? I wonder how many people would be happy to do this, just to rid themselves of the dependency on Americans. It would be a hard politic road for those in power.
#15
Here’s the picture, I saved it a while back since it was so LOL
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff59/RollingWave/b_8DDE8656BA5A8C48.jpg
As for Taiwanese / Chinese ‘s sometimes less than friendly feelings towards Korean , some of it is envy , though not really all of it. let’s see some example of crazies to point out why they would have less than steller feelings towards the Koreans.
http://wiki.galbijim.com/Imjin_War
Taiwanese also have some negative feelings spawned from sports competitions where judging often seem to play in favor of Koreans, most notably Taekwando . (and really, anyone who’s ever seen a Taekwando match will know that when two relatively comparable person duke it out it’s pretty much entirely up to the judges , and it is very rare in high level comp for anyone to get knocked out). Korean sports general trend of preferring physicalness also does’t help that perception. (see basketball.)
#DLB
Part of it is because that Taiwan’s mandatory service have seen constant cut back since the early 90s, now people only need to serve for a year, and the plan is to cut it all the way back to something like a 3 month military camp within a few more year while maintaining a entirely professional army (personally, I think it’s dumb, both in a cost sense and a commitment sense)
And as someone who just served a couple years ago, Taiwan’s military is relatively laxed in many ways, which also contribute to why there are far less complaints these days from Taiwan, since it just isn’t that hard to serve anymore. it is nothing like the days where my highschool chinese teacher’s brother was burned alive in a tank accident while he served. Still, I nearly fliped once during my service. mostly because due to all sorts complication my off days keep getting skipped for about 2 month + . and I hardly even got off the damn ship during that span.
None of this bolds well for Taiwan in case of a military confrontation really.
As for the USA, I think your general perception is wrong, and whatever those Taiwan guys are telling you are just big talk . in reality if the USA actually WANTS to base out of Taiwan I’m pretty sure everyone would say YESSSSSSSSSSS . the issue is hardly that ofcourse, it’s that the US moved out due to Taiwan’s status at the UN, which the USA obviously allowed to happen in the 70s. Pretty much everyone realizes this . otherwise with all the crap in Okinawa these days Taiwan would have extended base offers to the US by now.
The purchases of weapon system and commitment of budget is also much less of a will issue then simply having no real alternatives, Taiwan gets some really bad deals out of these and often dramatically overpay for just about anything they buy from anyone. the Kidd class and the Lafeyette class ships are some of the prime examples. and in reality these days even when Taiwan WANTs to overpay they still often have trouble securing the weapons. and much of our equipment is suffering badly from overuse.
This was the ship I served
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cook_(FF-1083)
As you can see, the US navy already used it for 24 years, and now it’s almost another 20 years since it was decomissioned in the US. and I just left it 2+ years ago. not surprisingly, this ship made headlines a little over a year ago because it’s engine failed in the open sea for almost 24 hours. a news that comes as no surprise to anyone that ever served on the ship. oh and Taiwan have like 7 more ship just like it. and the Cook wasn’t even the worst shaped one.
Just a couple of days ago, an American friend, who does a lot of business in China, told me that he has met a lot of Chinese who say, especially when they are drunk, that China will someday take over the “whole” Korean peninsula. He said that the Chinese he talked with did not buy the excuse that Koreans were forced to help the Japanese in their war with China.
There are a lot of Koreans who believe, or want to believe, the theory that Koreans invented “Chinese” characters. I even remember the book “Chinese Characters Are Ours” once being on a recommended reading list for Korean children.
Maybe that might have been started by the TV drama 태왕사신기. It was interesting to watch a Koguryo King eating up half of the China. To bad there are a lot of lemmings out there who can’t distinguish fact from fantasy.
RollingwWave, I really enjoy hearing the Taiwanese perspective on all things Korean (and Taiwan). Thanks for sharing and keep it up.
What is up with that pseudo-historical map? I’ve seen it a couple of times. Does anyone know the origin?
Clearly there is no historical basis or evidence for it whatsoever…
The PRC has spent effort to re-invent Chinese history, especially when it involves contested areas on its present day borders. This is not rumour either and is borne out through contemporary news reports. The PRC’s rumour machine is much like their vaunted History machine, which is still warm from use.
let’s be honest here, there are plenty of grey area in history, where one’s frontier ended and another started is often highly debatable. what is and is not part of one’s relam is even more so
More over, all of that is basically just talk and excuses anyway. did the Nazi’s legitimazation really went anywhere?
So it’s one thing to push the boundery base on realistic evidence. it’s a whole nother animal to push it well out of realistic evidence.
As late as the 1990s Taiwan’s school geography were all teaching based on their old Chinese province system anyway. (the PRC made some changes. particularly in Manchuria where they merged 9 province into 3.) not to meantion they were still teaching about Mongolia (!) let alone Tibet, as part of “national geography”
In the end, in terms of present and future, the big fist speaks, legitimacy is about as relavant as who who is suppose to own the holy land anyway.
WK: Do you foresee Korea turning into a global, or at least Asian, military technology supplier (i.e. creating some kind of weapons chaebol) ?
It would be an interesting development: it would increase the geopolitical status of Seoul (i can see India and other non particularly China-friendly nations being interested) and it would more than repay the increase in defense expenditures.
Valid points
RollingWave, the voice of reason at the Marmot ?
Absolutely. I never thought it made sense to talk about some ancient historical state as an exclusive part of a modern country’s history. Gogoryeo was neither Chinese nor Korean; it was just Gogoryeo. Sure, the present-day Koreans owe a lot to these early states for their history, but that doesn’t mean they “own” them. This is akin to the Italians saying they “own” Roman history (at the expense of non-Italian states) on the grounds that Italian civilization is heavily influenced by Roman history.
That said, boundaries in those days were fuzzy, porous, constantly in flux, and basically non-existent (at least as far as the modern term is concerned). State authority even varied widely within the confines of the state. But that doesn’t mean we can’t delineate an approximate area in which the state existed. In philosophy, this is known as the “boundary demarcation problem” and it’s usually applied to notions like tall and short, science and pseudoscience, and other situations where no clear boundary exists. The fallacy arises when one declares that because there is no exact point where one can demarcate the two terms that therefore the two terms are one-in-the-same.
In the case of those modern maps of the ancient world, it is a fallacy to say that because we don’t know exactly where Gogoryeo’s borders ended, that therefore it occupied all of Siberia or that Silla occupied the entire Yellow River valley. We know from concentrations of pottery, artwork, artifacts, and other items discovered from archeological digs approximately where the state was located and where it was not. Those maps are way off the market in this regard, and were probably designed with nothing more in mind than feeding nationalistic egos.
We know—with probability closely approaching 1—that the capital of Silla was in modern-day Kyeongju. How on Earth do they reach the conclusion that Silla occupied most of the modern-day Jiangnan region? On what grounds?
milton,
There are fortresses in modern Mongolia, Siberia and deep inside Liaoning (past the Liao river) that are of Koguryo design but a lack of concentrated Koguryo ruins (such as pottery, artwork, artifacts, etc.) would likely indicate that these fortress ruins were temporary outposts at best.
Your point is well taken that Koguryo was neither Chinese or Korean. Back in the 7th century A.D. there was no Korea and there was no China as we know it. There was Silla and Tang by the end of the 7th century. By definition then Silla was not Korean and Tang was not Chinese either, per se. Thus, I don’t know what can be accomplished by saying this. As I’ve indicated before in this blog, the fact that Koguryo may be “Korean” may have already been conceded by the PRC.
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2009/10/24/china-says-koguryo-is-korean/
Other then netizens who are prone to flights of fancy, who says this?
i’m sure some of you have seen this already but for those who haven’t, here’s a threat on goguryeo by korea scholars from the west:
http://chinatalk.suddenlaunch3.com/index.cgi?board=chinamatters&action=display&num=1157577827&start=0
ps can somebody show me where goguryeo’s history is recorded as chinese in an ancinet chinese history book. you know, something similar to the ‘samguk sagi’. thanks.
‘that China will someday take over the “whole” Korean peninsula. ‘
no, it won’t. rolling wave, are you sure your people aren’t filled w rage?
Here are just a few links of the anti-Korean sites in Chinese…if you scroll down you can see the textbook maps that were supposedly published by Koreans (I’m thinking, maybe North Koreans?) and it shows how expansive (falsely) Koguryo was:
http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_3979207_1.html
http://bbs.tiexue.net/post2_3951145_1.html
‘很正常，韩国人本来就是中国人的后代,朝鲜半岛自古就是中国的一部分’
is that what your people believe? i wonder if they think about vietnam too.
DLB,
First of all, during that whole time… when did the Korean war officially “end?” And second, when does the crazy Norks ever fully follow the tune of Beijing or Moscow?
As I’ve stated before, ROK security desires does have an American accomplice/enabler- the U.S. military. Judging from the military’s actions they don’t want their western most base in the Pacific to be Guam. My suspicion is that the U.S. military sees the world like I see it. Persian Gulf access via the Indian Ocean is vital to the security and economic viability of the U.S. Since the U.S. became a net oil importer in the early 70′s there has been a continual and uninterrupted presence of at least one U.S. aircraft carrier group in the Indian Ocean. The powers that be see it as good insurance to have bases in East Asia. Currently, the U.S. Navy forward deploys one aircraft carrier in Japan. The navy also has refueling agreements with the Japanese. Imagine how difficult it would be to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Middle East and the Persian Gulf if just Guam or Hawaii were the only facilities capable of basing and supporting an aircraft carrier (does Guam even have the ability to do so? I know Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean certainly doesn’t)?
What does Korea have to do with American naval power? Directly speaking very little. Indirectly however, the U.S. military presence in Japan is always a politically and diplomatically thorny issue with the Japanese populace. If Japan throw up their hands and says enough is enough, there is always a Korean fall back option. I like to have this option. I think it’s worth the extra dozen or so billion that it likely costs. American prosperity and continued viability, at this point, requires unrestricted access to the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
lastnamekim,
Looks like classic straw men fallacies to me. I’d be curious to know if Chinese netizens have found one Korean history scholar with a PhD that would be willing to go on record to defend those “borders.”
I did not know this before… but Japan apparently houses the entire fucking 7th Fleet!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Seventh_Fleet#Forward-deployed_Seventh_Fleet_ships
Japan… more than marines in Okinawa.
WK,
I think we need to distinquish between platitudes and analysis. I have absolutely no idea what “American prosperity and continued viability…requires unrestricted access to the Indian and Pacific Oceans” is supposed to mean in the context of U.S. ground forces in Korea. Rather, the focus of ground troops in Korea (and Japan) has always been the Korean Peninsula.
One interesting alternative is the phased withdrawal (say, over ten years) of all U.S. ground troops from Korea and Japan, including the Marines from Okinawa, while maintaining U.S. naval and air force bases in the region. This would provide Korea and Japan time to bring their own capabilities up to speed, would provide the security of a continued alliance structure, and would provide Korea and Japan much needed air and naval power, in which both countries, but especially Korea, are still quite weak. It would also reduce the U.S. footprint in both countries, ease tensions with local communities, and allow the U.S. to re-deploy much needed forces to other, more crucial hotspots, particularly in the Middle East and South Asia.
American naval and air power in East Asia is formidable, and is more than adequate to provide a credible security umbrella for both Korea and Japan. The notion that countries like Korea also require U.S. ground troops is unsupportable. The idea that U.S. troops should be seen and treated as hired mercenaries is unacceptable.
Koreans are rightfully proud at their country’s economic and political success. But changed conditions require changes in policy. What that old line from Macchiavelli, something about the tragedy of man being where “circumstances change, and he does not.”
Cheers,
DLB
@pawi #30- I think most Chinese believe Korea was a part of China at some point. I have a lot of Chinese friends who tell me that when they were growing up, it was just a “given” that Korea was just a territory of China. That statement you pasted from the Chinese site: “Koreans were originally Chinese” may be true to some extent…but then again, how far back do they want to go? If you go back far enough, everybody came from some other region but whether you can classify them as “Chinese” from the start is highly debatable. The Chinese themselves are a mix of all the local regions…even the “Han” are not as pure as they would like to believe.
Wangkon #32- Yeah, no question about that. If you saw one of the maps, there was some Japanese writing on the bottom along with the Chinese characters. This makes me think that it must have been written for the Chosunjin in Japan, thus being written by a North Korean in Japan….maybe?
well, i’d like to know when korea was ruled directly from beijing. as far as i can tell, the answer is ‘never’. that’s unlike vietnam which was beijing ruled for almost a thousand years but i don’t hear chinese people talking about how they’re going to take it back.
i find all this rage to be a bit amusing since, when i was growing up, few chinese knew anything about korea. now, so many of them seem to be walking dictionaries about the place. their rage is rooted in jealousy and the discovery that koreans have no real interest in them. it must be quite a shock. of course, it’s quite a shock to me to hear chinese people say things like ‘korean is a chinese dialect’ or ‘koreans are chinese’. if they really do believe that, i’ve got some bad news for them.
Wow, a statement of drunks relayed secondhand. How airtight could a piece of evidence be?
#pawikirogii
I don’t speak for all Chinese, and certainly I agree that more than a few Mainlander kids these days are more than a little full of crap.
as for Koguryo records, obviously starting from the book of Sui and book of Tang is a good idea. though these offical history’s record on foreign countries are usually meh at best. usually prone to many errors.
http://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/%E9%9A%8B%E6%9B%B8/%E5%8D%B781
here’s a link to wikisource’s book of Sui, chapter 81 is talking about “Eastern barbarians” which includes the 3 Korean area states.
http://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/%E8%88%8A%E5%94%90%E6%9B%B8/%E5%8D%B7199%E4%B8%8A
And the same thing from chapter 199 in the old book of Tang. (though obvious biographies involving the people and emperors that had launched campaigns against the Korean area also have some tibets.)
The funny thing is there self contradiction, since if we seriously consider the territories of the Qing dynasty then the first thing they should do is to invade Mongolia and declare war on Russia, of course we all know why they wont’ do that, heh.
#lastnamekim
Well, Beijing wasn’t actually the Chinese capital until the Mongol Yuan dynasty.
In terms of history, Gojoseon’s end was marked by the invasion of the Han dynasty forces, and for a period around the 100 BC to 200 AD time span the Han dynasty probably had some pretty direct control over the northern portions of Korea.
After that though, only the Mongol invasion era seem to sort of count, and the irony ofcourse is that they’re the Mongols, though the Korean court in that period was barely autonomous.
“I have a lot of Chinese friends who tell me that when they were growing up, it was just a “given” that Korea was just a territory of China.”
There was one occasion where parts of the Korean peninsula were under direct Chinese administrative control and that’s after the Han Dynasty conquest of Gojoseon in the second century B.C. The Chinese set-up four commandaries in the Korean peninsula and southern Manchuria. Of the four, the longest lasting commandary was Lelang in central and northern Korea. Lelang commandary was conquered and eliminated by Koguryo in the 4th century A.D.
Since then different Korean kingdoms have had tributary relationships with the various Chinese kingdoms, essentially a nominal acceptance of Chinese superiority and “rule” in exchange for trade rights, technology transfers and protection (in varying degrees). Tributary relationships generally don’t mean direct administrative rule and certainly never meant that for any of the kingdoms in the Korean peninsula. However, many Chinese are confused about what a tributary relationship was and was not. It could be this confusion that breeds the belief that China had once “ruled” all of Korea and/or that Koreans are “from” the Chinese.
I regret that I can give you only one thumbs-up for that statement.
Sonagi (#41),
So you do not believe that there are Chinese who want to take over the Korean peninsula or that there are Chinese who are still angry at Koreans for their support of Japan during the war in China?
I think the main reason US forces are still in Korea is the fear of China, not the fear of North Korea.
gbevers,
You have cut to the crux of the matter…ask anyone at MND whether U.S. troops should remain on the Korean peninsula even after unification. You will be shocked at the answer. (Well, maybe not you, since you clearly “get it,” but a lot of folks would be.)
And of course, OF COURSE, that will then be seen as “the new normal.”
DLB
I’m assuming (hoping) no one serious. My whole post—including the comment you are responding to—was in response to the map RollingWave posted in #18 (the same one lastnamekim posted in #29). The map depicts Gogoryeo as occupying most of modern day Mongolia, Siberia, Manchuria and a good chunk of Central Asia. Baekche occupies all of modern-day Korea, Japan, and the entire Yellow River valley stretching all the way to India and the Gobi Desert. Silla occupies all of the area below the Yangtze River including Taiwan and Hainan Island. Tang China is relegated to Yunnan province and stretches into Southeast Asia. The map is horribly pseudo-historical. But I’m not sure what its origins are. Was this made by a bored Korean high-school kid with too much time on his hands? Is it Chinese propaganda designed to inflame Chinese nationalistic passions over how the Koreans want to steal Chinese history? Is there a scholar out there who seriously considers this a viable historical theory? I wish I knew more…
#42 history except maybe in the very immediate short terms, are almost always just a excuse. if China truely cared so much for what happened at WW2 they would start by just banning all Japanese from doing busniess in China. or at least putting in sort of punishing fee of entry .
And yes, of course the Americans are in SK more because of China than North Korea, the entire East Asian USA military deployment is obviously directed more against China than any one else, doesn’t exactly take a military expert to see that, just a damn map.
The US have bases in every island from Japan to Indonesia, with the exception of Taiwan, which has a protection act that supposedly allowed the US to interfer militarily on the island.
Hell, the US have bases on most of the countries WEST of China as well.
Further on the above.
China will not ban doing business with Japan, or place any kind of punitive tariffs on Japan without a major incident occurring. All talk is just spin for public consumption, just as it is everywhere else.
I believe it was Chou En-lai who had privately expressed gratitude, if not for the Japanese themselves, at least for the good fortune of them invading China at a time when the communists were wittled down to only seveeral hundred and holed up in caves in the northwest. Like most places, the government in China seemingly deflects attention towards Japan at times when the potential of social unrest grows, and, like in Korea, they do that rather successfully.
The US became involved with Korea, and is still in Korea for the same reason: China.
Who here thinks a war between US and China is inevitable?
China’s economy seems to be growing at a break neck speed while the US economy seems to be spiraling out of control.
I remember reading a article somewhere not to long ago about the inevitable war between US and China as Chinese socialist ideology becomes a more favorable option to the third world nations over US capitalism.
I also remember all the articles about how Japan and Germany were going to overtake the US. And before that, how Soviet-style communism would inevitably defeat the West.
beatnix,
Why would one country make war with its it’s largest debtor and why would the other country make war against its largest creditor?
What if China won a war against the U.S.? The value of over a trillion dollars worth of their investment would go down!
And according to this opinion piece by a Morgan Stanley bigwig, the China boom is almost over.
Everybody Wang Chung tonight! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQcgZncWJYY
@Robert Koehler #48
Yes, I understand. I just wanted to gauge the feeling of the people who read your blog about the future of the US-Sino relationship. Both countries are now competing with each other over the world’s natural resources after all.
Some interesting articles at foreignpolicy.com
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/25/chinas_new_strategy
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/29/china_s_grand_strategy?obref=obnetwork
Can’t say the Chinese government isn’t good at manipulation. These rumors are a distraction from the more depressing reality.
@49
Well, there is certainly some motivation in beating the crap out of the guy you own a ton of money to
, and one could argue that was what started the Opium war, because the Brits couldn’t find anyway to make money from China while they were losing a ton of silver to the tea trade, thus they resorted to smuggling opiums and when the Qing dynasty decided to crack down on that. They decided to fight and take those money by force.
In reality though, China’s boom is hardly out of context, and again, if anyone should see the obvious similarity in their recent history, Koreans should be very high on the list. a formerly backwatered militaristic government focuses and economy and enjoy a boom? gee where have I seen that before?
It is way too early to speculate how China could continue it’s economic boom AND retain it’s political and social structure at the same time, as cases in Taiwan and Korea and many other success stories over the last century have proved, if you have real economic improvements, then social and political changes will eventually follow.
China’s GDP per capita is still very low, people are ignoring that their huge population will almost surely guarentee a high total GDP as long as they don’t completely North Korea their economy. But at the same time despite some strong ahievements after their 2 decades of modernizing their economy, they are really still just at the beginings of this process, more comparable to the Taiwan / Korean of the 60s early 70s than the 90s .
Just for fun, 3 more of similar Korean “history” pictures
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff59/RollingWave/200921823232476778.jpg
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff59/RollingWave/200921823231376850.jpg
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff59/RollingWave/200712247491129113.jpg
@rollingwave #54
I agree with all of your points. S.Korea went from a military dictatorship to a democratic society in the 80′s but, not without a struggle. In 1987 Chun Doo-Hwan dictatorship was toppled by pipe and Molotov cocktail slinging radical students and the threat of embarrassment during the upcoming 88 Olympics in Seoul.
In order for China’s political ideology and economy to align there has to be a clash between its people and the government. From the spotty reports that gets leaked out from time to time, there already are acts of dissent flaring up every now and then from the farmers, laborers, and minorities in China.
If and when the time comes, China has to deal with those problems. However, it will be 100x more violent and deadly than what Korea faced in the 80′s.
On the other hand, despite western perceptions, the CCP is also not a dictatorship, as in the fact that their power don’t center base on one person, and the man holding the highest office can not just setup his kid to inherit his throne.
Nor are they oblivious and uneffected by what what the general populous think and say, though it is certainly not as evident as a democracy. And last of all, it is not impossible for the common people to enter this circle.
All of this means that there is at least some hope that the CPP can change without truely massive violence forcing their hands. Something that happened in Taiwan anyway. though some political will was involved too, since the Chang family did bend the rules and allowed a father to son inheritence of the Presidency, but the younger Chang came out and said that his son will not succeed him a couple years before he died, and started the process of restoring towards normalized constitution function in his last days.
Rollingwave,
What is your source for these pseudohistorical maps? What is the context?
China’s government may not be centered around a single person anymore but it is still centered around a single party system. The last time people peacefully demonstrated for democracy in China, over 3,000 people were killed. Has things changed since the Tienanmen square protests? Most likely yes, but not by much. China may be economically stronger but they still have problems with human rights, freedom of speech, and censorship. I think many people have already forgotten about the Tibetans who were beaten and killed in 2008 before the Beijing Olympics. Reporters were banned or kicked out of the region, many footage of violence were shot on phone cameras and smuggled out through India.
As Chinese citizens become more aware of the world and their role in it things will change but, it won’t be a peaceful.
#58 it was circulated awhile back, seem to be from some Korean books making amazing claims on Korean history.
#59 I was more thinking along the lines of say.. a all out civil war that kills millions rather than maybe a few thousand people killed in riots. peace is certainly a relative terms, a unknown number of African Americans (probably not very low too) were killed in the years that lead up to (and even after) desegregation. and that’s supposedly the module of democracy!
and if you need evidence of plenty of Korean youths buying into this … look no further than …
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t31005.html
http://forum.koreansentry.com/viewtopic.php?t=2265
Thanks…I guess…stumbling into those forums was not much different from accidently clicking on a Holocaust-denial forum. Seems like a whole bunch of pseudohistorical prattle and uber-nationalistic cheerleading drowing out the few sane voices. One thing those clowns forgot to mention is the complete, utter absence of any shreds of physical archeological proof to support their claims (not to mention the complete lack of any written record). Certainly if Baekjae maintained a Rome-like empire or Gogoryeo extended into much of coastal China, we would see some evidence of this. We don’t. So we can conclude with reasonable certainty that what is being proposed in those maps and on those forums is nothing but ethno-nationalistic materbation.
I have serious proofreading issues
@rollingwave #60
You are absolutely right. America does not get a “get out of jail free” card for it’s misdeeds against humanity in the recent past. It still goes on to a certain extent in America with African/Americans and Hispanics placed in jails disproportionate to their actual population. I have often said to my family and friends that America is due for a revolt against the system because it is extremely flawed. Banks, Corporations, and War profiteers run our government by financially backing candidates that will back their interests regardless of the party. Democracy as a theory is only flawed by the way politicians are willing to interpret it (not unlike a bible or any other ideology) to promote his or her ideas and interests. America is headed towards Neo-Fascism and/or Neo-Corporatism in my opinion.
The idea of America heading towards neo-corporatism is interesting in that I would say that China has achieved this already since its economic interests are often guarded under its “states secrets” label or by labeling something as being a “core interest” — the same label it has stuck upon Tibet and other issues.
China is “America 2.0″, without any of the virtues and but all of the vices magnified and exemplified as if they were virtues.
As an illustration of this, consider what can happen to those who were born in China but left and became citizens of other countries. Xue Feng — an American citizen — was arrested two and a half years ago because he purchased a database containing information about China’s oil industry (states secrets). He has been tortured and now wrongfully sentenced by China to eight years. Per the article:
One can make the case that former Chinese citizens who naturalize elsewhere run the risk of falling foul of China’s de facto “race law”, meaning once a Chinese, always a Chinese, regardless of legal due process.
That reminds me of the Wen Ho Lee case. He spent a year in US jail for industrial espionage only to be proven guilty later.
WSJ had a report with a time line of Chinese industrial espionage in Silicon Valley, and I was surprised to find names of Japanese nationals who were also arrested for espionage. Who would have thought the Japanese would stoop so low.
http://www.economicespionage.com/WSJ.htm
Sad thing is the line between Chinese politics and US politics is blurred.
You must log in to post a comment.