Domestic Politics, National Identity, and International Conflict: the case of the Koguryo controversy

Abstract

This article seeks to explain both China's motivations in, and South Korea's response to, the Koguryo controversy. It argues that it is necessary to take into account the role of national identity and domestic politics in explaining the controversy. China's claim is neither defensive nor offensive toward the two Koreas; rather, it is a logical consequence of a particular historiography in China that was developed in the twentieth century. Given the centrality of national identity construction in both countries, the conflict over Koguryo will be difficult to resolve in the future. To prevent future conflicts from reoccurring, both sides need to adopt a new perspective on history to move toward a shared history and cultural community.

Notes

*Dingding Chen is assistant professor of Government and Public Administration at the University of Macau. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago. His research focuses on Chinese foreign policy, human rights, and East Asian integration. His publications have appeared in Asian Perspective, Chinese Journal of International Politics and Washington Quarterly. The author would like to thank Bill Chou, Xiaoyu Pu and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. The author can be reached by email at [email protected].

^1. The Koguryo kingdom (37 BC–AD 668) straddled what is now China's northeastern region and North Korea. It was eventually conquered by the alliance of the Tang Dynasty and the Silla.

^2. A recent poll conducted by the BBC shows that 61% of South Koreans view China negatively—available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/160410bbcwspoll.pdf (accessed 28 April 2010). On whether China is a revisionist power, see Feng Huiyun, ‘Is China a revisionist power?’, Chinese Journal of International Politics 2(3), (2009), pp. 313–334.

^3. Although one can trace back to the 1980s and even earlier periods to find the origins of the Koguryo controversy, the real tensions over Koguryo only emerged after the Northeast Project was launched. Thus, the Northeast Project can be seen as a direct cause of the controversy.

^4. Details of the Northeast Project and the Center for Chinese Borderland History and Geography Research are available at: http://chinaborderland.cass.cn/show_News.asp?id = 1787.

^5. Eventually both applications were accepted in July 2004. Xin Dingding, ‘Koguryo sites put onto heritage list’, China Daily, (2 July 2004), available at: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/02/content_344771.htm (accessed 2 February 2010).

^6. Bian Zhong, ‘Shilun Gaogouli lishi yanjiu zhong de jige wenti’ [‘On several issues in the study of Koguryo history’], Guangming Ribao [Guangming Daily], (24 June 2003). The article was jointly written by researchers at the Center for Chinese Borderland History and Geography Research.

^7. Jung-hyun Pak, ‘Distortions part of Chinese preparations of post Korean re-unification era’, Chosun Ilbo, (10 August 2004), available at: http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2004/08/10/2004081061031.html (accessed 1 February 2010).

^8. ‘Korea, China work out verbal compromise on Koguryo history’, Chosun Ilbo, (24 August 2004), available at: http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2004/08/24/2004082461029.html (accessed 1 February 2010).

^9. Seok-jae Yoo, ‘Academic conference reveals continuing Chinese distortions of Koguryo history’, Chosun Ilbo, (16 September 2004), available at: http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2004/09/16/2004091661039.html (accessed 1 February 2010).

^10. Ha-won Lee, ‘Government considers Gando Convention null and void: foreign ministry materials’, Chosun Ilbo, (13 October 2004), available at: http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2004/10/13/2004101361017.html (accessed 1 February 2010).

^11. ‘China co-opts more old Korean kingdoms’, Chonsun Ilbo, (5 September 2006), available at: http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2006/09/05/2006090561028.html (accessed 2 February 2010).

^12. See http://english.historyfoundation.or.kr/MA/.

^13. ‘Wen: no territorial problems between China, ROK’, China Daily, (6 April 2007), available at: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-04/06/content_844928.htm (accessed 2 February 2010).

^14. ‘China says Great Wall runs up to Yalu River’, Chosun Ilbo, (29 September 2009), available at: http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/09/29/2009092900365.html (accessed 2 February 2010).

^18. Lankov, ‘The legacy of long-gone states’.

^15. Yonson Ahn, ‘Competing nationalism: the mobilization of history and archaeology in the Korea–China wars over Koguryo/Gaogouli’, Japan Focus, (9 February 2006), available at: http://japanfocus.org/-Yonson-Ahn/1837; Mark Byington, ‘The war of words between South Korea and China over an ancient kingdom: why both sides are misguided’, History News Network, (4 September 2004), available at: http://hnn.us/articles/7077html; Jae Ho Chung, ‘China's “soft” clash with South Korea: the history war and beyond’, Asian Survey 49(3), (May/June 2009), pp. 468–483; Peter Gries, ‘The Koguryo controversy, national identity, and Sino-Korean relations today’, East Asia 22(4), (December 2005), pp. 3–17; Dong-Jin Jang, Kyung-Ho Song and Min-Hyuk Hwang, ‘China's Northeast Project and contemporary Korean nationalism’, Korea Journal 49(1), (Spring 2009), pp. 120–153; Andrei Lankov, ‘The legacy of long-gone states: China, Korea and the Koguryo wars’, Japan Focus, (28 September 2006), available at: http://japanfocus.org/-Andrei-Lankov/2233; Terence Roehrig, ‘History as a strategic weapon: the Korean and Chinese struggle over Koguryo’, Journal of Asian and African Studies 45(1), (2010), pp. 5–28; Jungmin Seo, ‘The politics of historiography in China: contextualizing the Koguryo controversy’, Asian Perspective 32(3), (Fall 2008), pp. 39–58; Hwy-tak Yoon, ‘China's Northeast Project: defensive or offensive strategy?’, East Asian Review 16(4), (Winter 2004), pp. 99–121.

^16. Seo, ‘The politics of historiography in China’; Chung, ‘China's “soft” clash with South Korea’. Interestingly though, no analysis has examined the historiography of nationalism in South Korea. If South Korean nationalism is also a product of political process, then it is necessary to include such an analysis in explaining the Koguryo controversy.

^17. Byington, ‘The war of words between South Korea and China over an ancient kingdom’.

^19. Gries claims that he could not prove his hypothesis because of the lack of open discussion of Koguryo which is a result of state censorship in China. See Gries, ‘The Koguryo controversy, national identity, and Sino-Korean relations today’, p. 12. This actually is a weak claim as Chinese scholars had produced a number of books and articles on Koguryo by the time Gries was writing his article. Compared with South Korea, it is certainly true that most Chinese did not pay much attention to Koguryo; that is because to most Chinese Koguryo is not a significant issue.

^20. Jon Herskovitz, ‘South Korea uses TV dramas in history war with China’, Reuters, (24 April 2007), available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSEO2922520070424 (accessed 2 February 2010).

^21. Gi-Wook Shin, Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006).

^22. Chung, ‘China's “soft” clash with South Korea’.

^23. Seo, ‘The politics of historiography in China’, p. 43.

^25. Lankov, ‘The legacy of long-gone states’.

^24. Gries, ‘The Koguryo controversy, national identity, and Sino-Korean relations today’, p. 10.

^26. Gilbert Rozman, ‘South Korea's national identity sensitivity: evolution, manifestations, prospects’, Academic Paper Series, Korea Economic Institute 4(3), (March 2009), p. 7.

^27. Jang et al., ‘China's Northeast Project and contemporary Korean nationalism’, p. 140.

^28. Jin-sung Chun, ‘Our dispute with China isn't about ancient history’, Chonsun Ilbo, (27 February 2007), available at: http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2007/02/27/2007022761035.html (accessed 2 February 2010).

^29. James Fearon, ‘Rationalist explanations for War’, International Organization 49(3), (Summer 1995), pp. 379–414; Ron E. Hassner, ‘To halve and to hold: conflicts over sacred space and the problem of indivisibility’, Security Studies 12(4), (Summer 2003), pp. 1–33; and Monica Duffy Toft, The Geography of Ethnic Violence: Identity, Interests, and the Indivisibility of Territory (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005).

^30. Paul R. Hensel and Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, ‘Issue indivisibility and territorial claims’, GeoJournal 64(4), (December 2005), pp. 275–285.

^31. Ma Dazheng, ‘Guanyu dangdai zhongguo bianjiang yanjiu zhong de jige wenti’ [‘On several issues in the study of contemporary Chinese borderland research’], Dangdai Zhongguoshi Yanjiu [Contemporary Chinese History Studies] 11(4), (2004), pp. 86–89.

^32. Li Zehou, Zhongguo xiandai sixiangshi lun [History of Modern Chinese Thought] (Tianjing: Tianjing shehui kexueyuan chubanshe, 2003).

^33. James Leibold, ‘Competing narratives of racial unity in Republican China: from the yellow emperor to Peking man’, Modern China 32(2), (April 2006), pp. 181–220.

^34. Fei Xiaotong, Zhonghua minzu duoyuan yiti geju [The Pattern of Diversity in Unity of the Chinese Nation] (Beijing: Zhongyang minzu xueyuan chubanshe, 1989).

^35. The Chinese government has maintained such a view since 1949. For China's most recent official position on national unity and ethnic policy, see White Paper: China's Ethnic Policy and Common Prosperity and Development of All Ethnic Groups (Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, 2009), available at: http://www.china.org.cn/government/whitepaper/node_7078073.htm.

^36. Ma Dazheng, ‘Zhongguo xuezhe gaogouli lishi yanjiu de bainian licheng’ [‘A century's journey of research on Koguryo by Chinese scholars’], Zhongguo bianjiang shidi yanjiu [China's Borderland History and Geography Studies] 10(1), (2000), pp. 93–102.

^37. Tang Qixiang, ‘Lishishang de zhongguo he zhongguo lidai jiangyu’ [‘China in history and China's historical territories’], Zhongguo bianjiang shidi yanjiu [China's Borderland History and Geography Studies] 1(1), (1991), pp. 34–42.

^38. Jiang Mengshan, ‘Gaogouli shi de guishu wenti’ [‘The ownership issue of Koguryo history’], Dongjjiang xuekan [Journal of Eastern Borderland Research] 16(4), (1999), pp. 38–41.

^39. Zhang Bibo, ‘Guanyu lishishang minzu guishu yu jiangyu wenti de zaisikao’ [‘Rethinking on ownership of historical nationalities and territory issue’], Zhongguo bianjiang shidi yanjiu [China's Borderland History and Geography Studies] 36(2), (2000), pp. 1–9.

^40. Sun Jinji, ‘Dangqian yanjiu gaogouli guishu de jige wenti’ [‘Several issues in the current research on the ownership of Koguryo’], Dongjiang xuekan [East Borderland Studies] 18(3), (2001), pp. 20–25.

^41. For the Chinese and English versions of the treaty, see http://www.atchinese.com/index.php?option = com_content&task = view&id = 23920&Itemid = 64 (accessed 24 January 2010).

^42. ‘Delegation kicks off DPRK tour’, China Daily, (11 July 2006), available at: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2006-07/11/content_637968.htm (accessed 2 February 2010).

^43. Andrei Lankov, ‘Yanbian: Korea-in-China’, The Korea Times, (21 October 2007), available at: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2010/01/166_12290.html (accessed 23 January 2010).

^44. Taylor M. Fravel, ‘Regime insecurity and international cooperation: explaining China's compromises in territorial disputes’, International Security 30(2), (Fall 2005), pp. 46–83; Nie Hongyi, ‘Explaining Chinese solutions to territorial disputes with neighbor states’, Chinese Journal of International Politics 2(4), (2009), pp. 487–523.

^45. Personal interview with researcher at the Center for Chinese Borderland History and Geography Research, 26 January 2010.

^46. Byington, ‘The war of words between South Korea and China over an ancient kingdom’.

^47. Lankov, ‘The legacy of long-gone states’.

^48. The Koguryo controversy should also be understood within a larger context of China's borderland policies. For some excellent analyses on different aspects of China's borderland policies, see Bill K. P. Chou, ‘Linking China's borderland with its foreign relations’, Journal of Contemporary China 21(74), (March 2012); Yufan Hao and Weihua Liu, ‘Xinjiang: increasing pain in the heart of China's borderland’, Journal of Contemporary China 21(74), (March 2012); Simon Shen, ‘The hidden face of comradeship: popular Chinese consensus on the DPRK and its implications for Beijing's policy’, Journal of Contemporary China 21(75), (June 2012); Tim Summers, ‘(Re)positioning Yunnan: region and nation in contemporary provincial narratives’, Journal of Contemporary China 21(75), (June 2012).

^49. Barry Buzan, ‘China in international society: is “peaceful rise” possible?’, Chinese Journal of International Politics 3(1), (2010), pp. 5–36.

^50. For example, Kim Gi-bong and Lim Jie-Hyun, quoted in Jang et al., ‘China's Northeast Project and contemporary Korean nationalism’.

^51. Ge Zhaoguang, ‘Chongjian “zhongguo” de lishi lunshu’ [‘Reconstruct historical narrative of China’], Ershiyi shiji [Twenty-first Century] 90, (August 2005), pp. 90–103.

^52. The book is titled The Contemporary and Modern History of Three East Asian Countries. See Raymond Zhou, ‘East Asia history book aims to set facts straight’, China Daily, (10 June 2005), available at: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-06/10/content_450089.htm (accessed 3 February 2010).