Korean Fate

There are some interesting developments in Korean Penisualr in 2007. Koreans have increasingly been aware of Chinese shadow. Typical examples include:

In May 2007: At least 16 sailors were dead after a South Korean ship sank following a collision with a Chinese vessel in waters off the east coast of China. SK governmen failed to make strong protest against China for its delay in rescue.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=65636

In July 2007: Seoul and Beijing were at odds over the controversial death of a Korean diplomat who died last month during treatment at a clinic known as V Clinic in Beijing. SK governmen failed to make strong protest against China but followed Beijing's official announcement.
S. Korea, China at Odds Over Diplomats Death

Coincidentally, Korean intellectuals began to speak about Second Manchu invasion of Korea in 1637. Since then, Korea became a tributary of the Chinese Qing Dynasty until Japanese annexation in 1910.
Qing invasion of Joseon - Wikipedia
http://www.nikkei.co.jp/neteye5/suzuoki/20070928n5a9s000_28.html

In February 2008: New Korean President Lee Myung Bak said he would seek a "mature relationship" with Japan. http://uunet.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200802040057.html

To me, it is likely that S Korea has begun to swing again between China and Japan (Japan-US alliance) because Koreans feel it unavoidable that Korea will become a tributary of China again but YET still attached to Japan-US alliance.
Anyhow, USA is giving back SK defence to SK ... meaning that USA is leaving from the Penisular, and Chinese shadow is approaching to them. Despite their wish, Koreans may be convinced that it is fate to return to sme 100 years ago.... and thus struggling.

Too much consideration?

What does your thread has to do with Korea & Japan Bilateral Relations?

"Korean fate" may be because of its geographical location, i.e. in-between.

It used to be in-between Japan and China, but Japan was replaced by USA after WWII. US-pullout shall be unavoidale because US wants to pull out from the Korean Penisular and put more emphasis on reorganization of global defense plan rather than Korean wish.

Historically and culturally, Korea has been tied with China much more than anybody else.
Thus Koreans are unconsciously preparing their minds for the next era. Bilateral tie with Japan (Japan-US alliance) was probably exceptional in view of their history. But in a way it was good for their economic growth.

But now flow of history has been refluent..... In fact, after some 10-years of anti-Japan & anti-USA regime, Koreans chose new president Lee Myung Bak, and he has begun to re-establish ties with Japan (Japan-US alliance).

However, from Japanese perspective, Korean better keep their position - anti-Japan & anti-USA - because "returning to the past" is their fate anyway. "Intervene to Korean Penisular is not our benefit" is the lesson of Japan and USA.

GOOD LUCK.

They should be allowed to be just them, and they would have us on their side in a way, and always had.

Astroboy,
So you're saying Korea should be anti-Japan? Are you korean? You're always making these kind of posts.

kameron said:

Astroboy,
So you're saying Korea should be anti-Japan? Are you korean? You're always making these kind of posts.

Click to expand...

I intend to tell my assumption.

1. It is fate for Korea to return to be under Chinese hegemony in view of history and geographical location.

2. Korea is not only anti-Japan, but also anti-USA, and anti-China. But anti-China is not realistic for Koreans because of its historic, cultural and economic ties with China. Plus their geographical location.

3. Even if Korea wants to resume ties with Japan or Japan-USA alliance, we see less benefits in the Korean Penisular. So must be uneasy.

So I am suggesting Koreans to seek better relationship with China rather than considering bilateral relationship with Japan (including Japan-US alliance).

Is this something strange?

I have one old academic report to share here.In an article titled "Korea Thinks It is Sandwiched by China and Japan," emphasized that Korea, China, and Japan should all be open and welcoming of each other.

It was a remark stating that the "sandwich analogy" that has recently surfaced in Korea does have positive aspects, but will have side effects if it is taken to the extreme.


Chinese Researcher: "Sandwich Paranoia Could End Up Hurting Korea"

APRIL 10, 2007


* The following excerpts are from a contribution Dr. Yang Dan Ji of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences made to the April 6 edition of Xinhua News.

"Korea can help itself in the short run by being paranoid about becoming sandwiched by Japan and China. But it can hurt itself in the long run by being too prejudging and narrow-minded."

"The 'sandwich analogy' of late has its roots in history as well as the current situation. The 'sandwich analogy' has its roots in Korea's victim mentality and feelings of being in crisis. Korea is surrounded by four strong nations: China, Russia, Japan, and the U.S. Korea saw many nations clash and observed many nations fall and become divided in the modern era. This left an inerasable scar on Koreans. Koreans became worried that they would be hurt in the battles of the big nations around them.

The Japanese economy's rapid rise from the 70s and China's from the 80s gave more for Korea to worry about. Nonetheless, the Korean economy grew at almost the same clip. Korea, however, always was worried it might lose its voice in the Northeast Asia stage.

Nationalism in Northeast Asia is another reason that led to Korea's paranoia of becoming sandwiched. When the Cold War ended, nationalism spread around the world. Nationalist spirits also ran high among Korea, China, and Japan.

The development of the Korean economy lead to the rise and spread of nationalism in Korea after the 70s. Korea tried to find its role in the international stage and strengthened ties with allies. Korea participated heavily in international organizations and worked hard to spread its culture, even building Hallyu (the Korean wave) along the way.

Korea, however, did not increase its presence in security and economic cooperation within Northeast Asia. Korea justifies this weak performance by blaming China and Japan.

Korean's are experiencing a big discrepancy between their recent confidence boost and the lack of confidence. If Korea wishes to become a great nation, it must build powerful hardware and software. But what is even more necessary is the psychological well being of its citizens. Korea, China, and Japan should become open and receptive nations."

Both the SK government and people do seem desperate to forge their own path in the region, and globally, without China, Japan or the US.I think it's very difficult to accomplish as Korea needs allies and difficult to march ahead on their own without interdependency with other nations, especially China and the US.

Korea is in a very unique geopolitical position where delicately balancing relations between China and the US is key to its success. It needs China as an ally in the event of future hostilities with Japan. And it also needs the US as an ally to curb potential, suspicious motives from the PRC.

Probably better to maintain friendly relations with both China and the US without becoming too close to either country.

Just my 2 cents ....

South Korean is realizing that tie with China must not be easy, but tributary or hostile relation. But hostility against China is not realistic because of their past experiences, such as:

- Tributary of China since Second Manchu invasion in 1637 - Japanese annexation in 1910
- Korean War 1950 - 1953
- A number of incidents that I previously mentioned in 2007
- Plus the recent disputes over Baekdu Mountain (between North Korean and China)
Paektu Mountain - Wikipedia

I think Korea is too close to China, and unlike Japan and USA, China is not easy country to negotiate.

South Korean knows that North will not be reunited with South because they know China will not allow SK to consolidate North. China spent millions of lives to protect North Korea from US-allies and spent trillions of dollar to North Korean regime for help. IF I were Chinese, I will keep North Korea under its hegemony.

Koreans know well about their FATE. Thus, the new SK government has begun to re-establish the relations with Japan-US alliance. Or at least SK wants JAPAN to swing together between China and USA.

Probably the new SK government will launch new tactics against Japan in order for better relationship with Japan, and try to engage Japan in the same boat against China.
But I hardly think that the SK approach will work out because Japan knows their FATE and Why they are struggling.

World Public Opinion Poll tells ...

South Korean views China the mainly NEGATIVE, and they views Japan more NEGATIVE than China.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/325.php?nid=&id=&pnt=325&lb=hmpg1

We all know that South Korean don't like Japan and China. BUt I assume that South Korean is preparing to accept China because it is their FATE.

Too much consideration?

"Korean fate" may prompt S Korea to destroy traditional Korean society....

Korean fate is not only about Politics but also Economy. Because S Korea introduced Japan-model and technology, Korean industry fully relies on Japan. In order to export more, S Korea needs to import more from Japan. So today South Korea is a good customer of Japan.

However, such a business model of South Korea is not unique, but can be followed by anybody. In fact, China is following S Korea, and SK is realizing Korean Products Sandwiched in the market.
Korean Products Sandwiched in U.S. Market

In order to break through such deadlock, S Korea began to seek FTA with USA. SK manufacturing sector will benefit from FTA as US tariff barrier for most of industrial products becomes zero. Price competitiveness may help boost share of SK products in US market.

However, FTA is a double-edged blade. In fact, FTA with USA will help boost share of US agricultural products in S Korea. US agriculture industry may destroy Korean agriculture industry, which helped maintain stable society and tradition of S Korea.

Because of Korean fate, the option that SK government can choose is not abundant. Collapse of agriculture sector in S Korea may cause unknown problems. Maybe because of such, S Korea has begun to think of FTA with Japan.

Astroboy said:

World Public Opinion Poll tells ...
South Korean views China the mainly NEGATIVE, and they views Japan more NEGATIVE than China.

We all know that South Korean don't like Japan and China. BUt I assume that South Korean is preparing to accept China because it is their FATE.
Too much consideration?

Click to expand...

From my experience, Japaneses have more negative views than Koreans have negative views on Chineses.
For example, look at the currently occured event such as "Made in China" dumplings which was exported to Japan but had to be recalled. But, that incident encountered into anti-Japanese sentiment and anti-Chinese sentiment.

Also, in WC2002, Japanese soccer fans didn't want Chinese National team play in Japan.

That "FATE" argument in itself is wishfull thinking, and nothing else.

It probably needs a definition of the meaning itself.
Like the funny "Colony" argument before.

Sounds like another fixed idea to me.
Especially, since it is very generalised, because there are these and those Koreans, and there is north and south etc., not just one pot.

look at how these japanese talk about korea. they think they know so much about korea. telling about korea's "fate".

really laughable.

Definitely, the same people do not even know anything about Korea's long culture, nor mentality, for example a very good memory, hehe ;-) nor, how closely they are connected with Germany these days, because some prefer to delete those informations here. . .as laughable

Chinese views on North Korea

Arguments in support of retaining close ties with North Korea include China's long-standing friendship with North Korea, sealed in blood during the Korean War; the need to maintain stability in the region and along the border regardless of Pyongyang's policies; the importance of retaining and expanding Chinese influence in both North and South Korea so China will be well-positioned to protect its interests in the event of reunification; and the need to preserve a buffer zone along China's border.

The contention that China must keep a buffer zone is challenged by a growing number of experts, however, regardless of whether they view North Korea as a strategic asset or a burden.

Click to expand...

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20080214a1.html

Despite Korean wish, the status of Korean penisular will remain unchanged or go under more Chinese influence.

Thus, SK wants Japan to get invloved with it. I do hope that my assumption is wrong.

Astroboy said:

Chinese views on North Korea
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20080214a1.html
Despite Korean wish, the status of Korean penisular will remain unchanged or go under more Chinese influence.
Thus, SK wants Japan to get invloved with it. I do hope that my assumption is wrong.

Click to expand...

Japan want to get involved in SK issue?
Japan has nothing to do with the current status of Korean penisular.
So, you don't have to worry about Korea at all.
Why don't you worry about your own country?

brave_new_world said:

Japan want to get involved in SK issue?
Japan has nothing to do with the current status of Korean penisular.
So, you don't have to worry about Korea at all.
Why don't you worry about your own country?

Click to expand...

This thread is about Japan-Korea relation, isn't it?

There is not any issue in Korean penisular as it remain unchanged.

Or are Koreans afraid of something? Or what I tell is right, you think?

Younger generation S Koreans are indifferent to Chinese people and De-Sinicization is a huge success in both N & S Koreas.If anything,I only see S Korea's regional political manuveuring woud be leaning towards Japan.

China's " Sinocentrism 中華思想 （ 華夷思想 ） " ruled Korea peninsula.It's fear & respect in the past subjugated Korea to China's sphere of influence.

朝鮮からみた華夷思想 (世界史リブレット) | 山内 弘一 |本 | 通販 | Amazon

I don't know the details about Korean history, but I know History is important to Koreans and Chinese.

Goguryeo or Koguryo was an ancient kingdom located in southern Manchuria, southern Russian Maritime province, and the northern and central parts of the Korean peninsula.

Click to expand...

Goguryeo - Wikipedia

Over the history of Goguryeo (or Koguryo), both Korea and China recently started arguments. Younger generation of Koreans speak loud and against China, but they feel powerless in these days. China says it was part of China, but Korea says it was independent.
Sino-Korean relations: Lessons in antiquity
atimes.com

Friction over history may be FATE of Koreans again?

Futher to my previous post, the following link is more about.

The Korea-China Textbook War - What's it all about?
The Korea-China Textbook War--What's It All About? | History News Network

Frictions with neighbours over history may be their FATE.

Koreans have very thin lineage to Koguryo anyways,just look at major Silla originated Korean surnames Kim & Pak constitute over 50% of population.

There are very few evidences can prove the existence of an intensive relationship between Koguryo and Koreans.

Parhae ( Bohai ) is not nearly as Korean as most Koreans would hope it would be.The Mohe contribution is undeniable and significant.Koguryo ( Goguryo ) is not as Korean as modern Koreans think it is as well,although Chinese have a better case there.

* Here is an abstract on Dr. Reckel's work for you guys to read directly. Enjoy!

Bohai-Geschichte und Kultur eines mandschurisch-koreanischen Konigreiches der Tang-Zeit, dargestellt nach den Schriftzeugnissen und dem arch?¤ologischen Fundmaterial [in German]. To be published as Aetas Manjurica 5 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995)

Reckel, Johannes, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Guettingen, 1993


Comprehensive archeological study on the Parhae Kingdom by Dr. Johannes Reckel (his Ph.D thesis actually), professor at the University of Guettingen.

Bohai flourished between 698 and 926, when it was overrun by the Mongolian Kitan. It occupied the area of Manchuria, northern Korea and the Russian territories east of the Ussuri and along the Amur. The importance of Bohai lies in the fact that it stands on a major turning point in the history of Northeast Asia and more specifically, Manchuria. Until the middle of the 1st m. AD, Manchuria was dominated by Korean kingdoms like Koguryo and Puyo, and the Sushen, whom the old Chinese historians believed to be the ancestors of the modern Manchu. Around 500 AD, the Wuji, who soon afterwards are called Mohe, poured into the whole of Manchuria, destrouying Puyo and eventually making up a considerable percentage of the population of Korugyo. In 668, Silla destroyed her two rivals, Paekche and Koguryo, with the help of the Chinese army. But neither China nor Silla managed to bring the northern parts of Koguryo under their own rule, and in 698 a new kingdom, soon afterwards called Bohai, emerged from the former Koguryo upper class and the Mohe. Bohai's third king, Da Qinmao (r. 737-93), built five large capitals ( a tradition later carried on by the Kitan and Jurchen) ca. 3400×4600m, after the model of the Chinese capital Chang'an. The ruins of three of these five capitals have been found and (partly) excavated; they belong to the largest cities in Asia of those days.

Unfortunately, all written historical records of Bohai herself have been destroyed. Thus we have to rely on the rather biased Chinese sources and on records the Japanese kept concerning Bohai missions arriving in Japan. Korean sources pass over this unpleasant rival in the north, which claimed to be the rightful heir of Koguryo, altogether in silence. Today it is still a matter of discussion amongst historians if Bohai is a Korean kingdom, a Manchurian-Tungus state or just a Chinese vassal. Bohai definitely had a mixed population. The Koguryo upper class represents the old "Korean" Manchuria, whereas the majority of the rural population-probably even the royal family-was of Tungus-Mohe stock, pointing towards the future Manchuria.

This thesis is not a specialized study on certain aspects of Bohai but tries to establish a basis upon which more detailed research could be carried out in future. Part one (ca. 200 pp.) offers a complete translation [into German] of all Chinese and Korean written sources on the Mohe (from ca. 500 AD onwards) and on Bohai, and it summarises in translation the Japanese Six National Histories (rikkokushi), etc. Part two lists all known archaeological sites of Mohe/Bohai culture in China, Korea and Russia, with longer or shorter descriptions for each site arranged according to areas centred around one of the ancient capitals or major provincial towns. Where possible, certain archaeological sites have been linked to places mentioned in the written sources. 150 pages of figures show the objects found on the archaeological sites in B&W drawings. Part three tries to give a description and analysis of Bohai history and culture on the basis of the material previously presented.

Through the archaeological materials, the picture drawn by the scanty written sources becomes much clearer: three different materials cultures are found in Bohai territory. Firstly, the old Koguryo culture is mainly confined to old Koguryo territory along the Tumen river and its tributaries and the royal burial ground of the first two or three generations near modern Dunhua: represented by tiles with ornamented surfaces, small stepped-pyramid forming underground stone tombs, certain types of Buddhist stone images, and stone-faced town walls, etc. The Chinese Tang culture flourished mainly in and around the Supreme and Central capitals (Shangjing, Zhongjing). It is represented by brick pagodas, brick tombs with murals depicting Tang-style courtiers, the structure of the capitals, and three-coloured glazed ceramics, etc. The picture of the third culture, of the Mohe, is slightly more complicated. The "Leitfossil" of this culture is a small urn-shaped pot with a double rim near its mouth. Together with certain highly ornamented belt-plaques, it is found in nearly all Wuji/Mohe tombs or house ruins from the 5th-10th c. AD. Interestingly enough, we also find it in the burial ground of the first generations of the royal family of Bohai. But thereafter it is absent from the rather sophisticated culture of the new capitals developing since the second half of the 8th c. and is pushed towards the northern fringes of the empire.

This archaeological evidence is confirmed by an analysis of the personal names of Bohai. (Of course, the sources would not record the names of the common people but rather of officials and representatives of the ruling class.) Typical Mohe-names disappear completely after the first two generations, whereas members of the old Koguryo upper class-represented by those bearing the family name Gao (Kor. Ko as short for Koguryo)-continue to play a leading role, especially in the frequent missions to Japan. The Mohe in the southern and central parts of Bohai had become completely sinicised by the time of the downfall of Bohai, whereas the Mohe culture along the lower Sungari and Amur in the 10th c. develops into the Jurchen culture, represented by typical pottery with pumpkin-shaped bellies and high necks. Towards the end of the 11th c. the Jurchen reconquer lost ground and again occupy nearly the whole of Manchuria.

The limits of this thesis do not allow a detailed study of the Mohe culture; however, a comprehensive bibliography on the Mohe and Bohai of nearly a thousand titles invites the reader to further studies.

Thanks Tokapi.

Probably Koreans want to re-establish their history - which is fairly vague, and it may be part of China or may be not.

Looking for lost history must be another Korean fate.

The Han-Chinese population being the majority (but not a huge majority as it is today) was fairly consistant after the Khitan conquest of Parhae.

The ONLY time we know with any amount of certainty that Han-Chinese made up a majority of the population was during the time when Manchuria was dominated by the Khitan Liao Dynasty. They actually did a census and divided it up by ethnicity. If memory serves me correctly, Khitans were 600k, former Parhae was like 300k, various Jurchens made up 500k and Han Chinese made up 1.5 to 2 million.

OMG. You are so detailed person.

Are you historian majored in East-Asia history?

I remember, when Japan established Manchuko in North East China, many Koerans loved the national concept and joined the force. Probably Korean feels nostalgia in such a region because they believe it is mine while Chinese don't think so.