Goguryo Kingdom, Borders Give Way to Practical Issues

By David C. Kang

President Lee Myung-bak's visit to China is his third visit to a major country. He already visited Japan and the United States. In this early part of his term, there is much optimism that Lee can manage relations with all the countries in a stable and mature manner, revitalizing links with the United States, improving ties with Japan, and continuing cooperation with China.

Although not without its troubles, South Korea's relationship with China over the past 15 years has been moving in the direction of increased stability, with steady improvement in economic, cultural, and diplomatic relations.

Yet one enduring issue in the South Korea-China relationship continues to lurk in the background ― the question of history.

Many Koreans remain suspicious of China's motives in its northeast region, wondering whether China has any desire to modify the border, or whether China will claim that the ancient kingdom of Goguryo was actually Chinese instead of Korean.

Yet these history issues are less important than people think, and it is unlikely that questions over the border or Goguryo will become a major factor in China-South Korea relations.

China and North Korea formally delineated their border in 1962 through a modern treaty, with China ceding 60 percent of the disputed territory.

At no time since has the Chinese government made any attempt to abrogate the 1962 treaty or to re-negotiate the actual border, and we have no indications that they plan to in the future.

Thus, in contrast to South Korea's territorial dispute with Japan over the Dokdo islets that has never been formally resolved by the two governments, the China-Korea border is a legal non-issue.

In fact, the border between Korea and China has been essentially settled for over 1,000 years: by the 11th century, the Yalu was the recognized border between China and Korea, and by the 15th century the Tumen and Yalu rivers were the recognized border.

The Mount Paektu area was negotiated in 1710-1713, with China recognizing that the summit was in Korean, not Chinese, territory. In the late 1880s, the Chinese reopened the issue of the border.

In the course of these negotiations, the Koreans presented documents and maps from the 1710-13 negotiations with which to document their case. Rather than risk losing, the Chinese abandoned the negotiation and never returned to the table, and the Korean status quo has stood to this day.

There is little reason to think that China in 2008 would attempt to change a border that has stood for literally 10 centuries. China would also gain little practical benefit from a land-grab: China is supremely sensitive about external attempts to change its own borders (i.e. Tibet), and if Beijing were to question the established Korean border, it would invite other groups to challenge its other borders.

During its own period of ``unequal treaties," China learned well that territorial sovereignty is a paramount foreign policy goal. Thus, over the past few decades China has formally demarcated almost 22,000 kilometers of its land borders through various treaties.

Given the importance China places on these established borders, it would be counterproductive for China to question borders to which it has already agreed.

Furthermore, were China to claim part of North Korean territory, it would also become responsible for the economic and political conditions of the North Korean people, and it is hard to imagine any Chinese leader believing that this would be either easy or wise. What China wants is stability in Korean relations, not more territory.

The other issue that concerns Koreans is the question of whether Goguryo was Korean or whether it was Chinese. However, the answer is that it was neither. Goguryo ― a state that had existed for over 700 years ― was crushed by combined Tang and Silla forces in the seventh century in the culmination of a decades-long ``world war" among the competing kingdoms that existed on the peninsula.

Neither ``Korea" nor ``China" existed at the time, and it makes little historical sense to impose the modern definition of a nation-state 1,300 years into the past, long before any such concept existed.

National identity is a modern idea that only appeared with the birth of the modern nation-state, and the question of whether or not Goguryo was Korean would have made no sense to the ancient Goguryans.

In summing up, Lee's visit to China will be important in continuing to develop a stable working relationship between the two countries.

But the issues that will be of most concern will be current, practical issues, such as how to manage the North Korean problem, how to deal with increased economic interdependence between the two countries, and how best to manage security relations in Northeast Asia.

History and borders are unlikely to become a major issue between the two countries in the foreseeable future.

The writer is professor of government at Dartmouth College and adjunct professor of business administration at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, in Hanover, New Hampshire. His latest book is ``China Rising: Peace, Power, and Order in East Asia." He can be reached at david.c.kang@dartmouth.edu.