In an op-ed piece published in today’s International Herald Tribune, Philip Bowring warns that for all the attention paid to popular nationalism among Chinese youth, nationalism in Korea potentially could be just as damaging to regional stability.
While the recent flap over imports of U.S. beef dominates the headlines and the US-ROK strategic partnership remains a sore subject for many Koreans, I would argue that it is the relationship between Korea and its larger neighbor China that is the most fraught with the complications of extreme popular nationalism.
Korea and China have had long historic ties dating back to a time before there was even a “China” or a “Korea” as we understand those terms today, and that gets us to the crux of the problem: the extension back through time of present day national boundaries, definitions of ethnicity, and geopolitical concerns.
For all their historical links with China, Koreans sometimes like to see themselves as kin, however distant, of the non-Han peoples of mainland Northeast Asia now under Chinese and Russian rule.
The surge in national sentiment owes much to the fact that few southerners now see North Korea as a real threat. Pity has replaced fear. But China itself also must take some blame. Its recent attempt to claim ethnic Korean landmarks - notably the semi-sacred Mount Paekdu - and ancient Manchurian kingdoms as part of China’s cultural history has naturally helped spur Korean sensitivities and remind Koreans that what was once their heartland is now a part of China. Koreans were in Manchuria centuries before the region became part of China with the Manchu conquest in the 17th century.
The surge in national sentiment owes much to the fact that few southerners now see North Korea as a real threat. Pity has replaced fear. But China itself also must take some blame. Its recent attempt to claim ethnic Korean landmarks - notably the semi-sacred Mount Paekdu - and ancient Manchurian kingdoms as part of China’s cultural history has naturally helped spur Korean sensitivities and remind Koreans that what was once their heartland is now a part of China. Koreans were in Manchuria centuries before the region became part of China with the Manchu conquest in the 17th century.
For all their historical links with China, Koreans sometimes like to see themselves as kin, however distant, of the non-Han peoples of mainland Northeast Asia now under Chinese and Russian rule.
Well, actually it became part of the Qing Empire in the 17th century, but who am I to quibble?
Nationalism is always an emotional topic, especially in East Asia where textbooks, religious shrines, and even figure skaters and soap operas can find their way into the scrum. Glancing through the flame war in the comments section of a recent clip from a PRC-ROK women’s soccer match, it’s clear to the extent to which nationalist sentiments run deep on both sides of the Yellow Sea/黄海 Huang Hai/황해 Hwang Hae.
As Bowring concludes, while these sentiments do not appear to directly threaten trade and investment relations between the two countries, the flashpoint of nationalism does have the potential to circumscribe the negotiating parameters for government leaders (as President Lee Myung-bak is discovering). China’s leadership, despite maintaining tighter controls on expressions of popular sentiment, are not immune from the need to consider public reaction, lest the government is seen by Chinese nationalists as not standing up to foreign powers–or dissenting elements within the PRC–with sufficient vigor.
Education policy in East Asia, and not only in the PRC, is often enlisted in the service of national unity and national pride. When history becomes merely a tool for the building of states, it is not only history which suffers.
The virulent forms of nationalism bubbling to the surface in China, and elsewhere, are examples of what happens when the chickens of educational indoctrination start coming home to roost, and it’s a situation that is worth following closely.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Cao Meng De // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:22 pm
China’s leadership just outlined a win-win deal with Japan on East China Sea oil/gas field. Sun Bin posts a excellent summary.
This is with Japan, public enemy Numero Uno on Chinese cyberspace!
I must say, I am more and more impressed with Chinese leadership. Deng Xiao Ping handpicked his successors wisely (Panda Jiang was just a compromise candidate).
In last 30 years, China has, hands down, by far the best top management team of the world.
Having said that. If China and US are businesses, I would still buy US. Peter Lynch said a good business is the one that any idiots can run because sooner or later some idiot will run it. Well, it just happened that it’s a bunch of idiots’ turn to run US for 8 years.
US has good fundamentals and strong institution, so it limits the damage that any one idiots could inflict.
Human nature is the same, I see much of going in the current administration that parallel follies of Cultural Revolution. Sidelining of Middles East and Far East experts in favor of politically loyal and pliant cronies reminded me of “Better Red than Expert” of the yore.
Yet fortunately for US, the founding fathers have made a robust institution of check and balances that keep the lunacy in control whereas China’s one party system magnified Mao’s madness.
Hopefully China could make gradual transition into a political system of strong institution and check and balances while current crop of top leaders are still sane, rational and capable. Gotta prepare for the bad times when times are still good. Never known when Chinese version of “W” is being delivered to the world.
As for Koreans. My surf buddy is half-Korean, and I jokingly call him half-angry. If Chinese leadership could come up with the oil/gas deal with Japan. Dealing with bunch of loud, angry Koreans will be like a Sichuan man downing a small dish of Kim Chee appetizer. Besides some silly historical spat, we Chinese have no “beef” with Koreans.
2 Cao Meng De // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:51 pm
The silly history spat had been quite educational. I used to consider Gaogouli part of Korean heritage, not anymore thanks to studying the issue due to the controversy. While Gaogouli might’ve been debatable, Bohai is definitely not a Korean kingdom, not Han Chinese for sure, though Manchu and Han with Manchu ancestry has much much more stronger claim to it.
More interesting would be how Gaoguoli people viewed themselves. How did Gao Xianzhi, a Gaoguoli man, whose father served Kingdom of Gaoguoli then served Tang empire after the conquest of Gaoguoli, who was born in the Tang Central Asian territory, who rose thru the ranks of Tang army to be the Protector General of Anxi and Beiting, controlling vast expanse of Tang’s Central Asian Empire, commanding tens of thousands of horsemen, view his own identity. How did he view his own Gaoguoli ethnicity in the context of the multicultural Tang empire when his superior Fumeng Lingcha, a Turk called him a Gaoguoli slave to his face?
As he was leading Tang army to cross Pamir to conquer Kashmir and sack Tashkent and eventually to defeat on the banks of Talas river by combined Arab and Qarluq forces, how did he see his role as the long arm of Tang might in Central Asia?
Thanks to him, technology of paper making was transfered to Arabs and would later spread to Europe.
It’s bit silly for Koreans to claim Gao as their own, but in the interest of “harmonious” relationship with neighbor, maybe we could have a joint sharing agreement on past histories and heroes.
3 Gomer Pyle // Jun 19, 2008 at 4:08 am
That must be why the central planning committee is so happy to exploit President Bush’s strategy blunder in relying on chinese in the 6 party talks with north korea. a reunified nuclear Koguryo is more allied with US interested in the region.
4 Cao Meng De // Jun 19, 2008 at 6:29 am
“President Bush’s strategy blunder in relying on chinese in the 6 party talks”
I know, the US policy toward North Korea was such a astounding success before the return to 6 party talks.
We even force the Nork to waste their precious nculear material in conducting their nuclear tests.
Pure genuis!
5 Phil // Jun 20, 2008 at 9:41 am
It’s all a bit received wisdom, this article, isn’t it? I guess we shouldn’t look to new articles for incisive angles every time, but… I feel like I’m back in 2002 reading this, and Bowring seems to have more sympathy for and affinity with that idiot US ambassador than anyone else here.
“Of course, the Koreans have their legitimate grievances against foreigners - the Japanese, Chinese, Americans and Russians who have used them as pawns in wider wars. But these rivalries have mostly abated.”
Wha? How? Eh? We’re not in a cold war situation any more, I agree. But a lot of people in East Asia seem to feel (wrongly, perhaps) that rivalries in this area are just gearing up. With Japan rethinking its military position, America potentially on the wane and China getting way uppity, there’s plenty of potential for these “rivalries” to get very serious indeed.
I personally am pretty optimistic, I think it won’t go pear shaped. But that opinion is not shared by a lot of fen qing and their Korean equivalents.
6 Gomer Pyle // Jun 24, 2008 at 3:54 am
You should study more science boy. No material has been wasted. It only demonstrates to the PRC that Koguryo will endure for sometime and not fall under the boot of people like the criminals running the Tibetan Autonomous Region.
7 20th Asian History Carnival, Part II | Jottings from the Granite Studio // Jul 10, 2008 at 8:30 am
[...] In an op-ed piece published in the International Herald Tribune, Philip Bowring warns that for all the attention paid to popular nationalism among Chinese youth, nationalism in Korea potentially could be just as damaging to regional stability. Further commentary can be found here. [...]
Leave a Comment