Newsletter

In summer, I was sitting in an express train from Nanjing to Shanghai, when the Chinese passenger sitting in front of me handed me a newspaper, a tabloid called Dongfang Daily. One page of the newspaper was devoted to an interview with Han Sheng (韓昇), Professor of History at Fudan University, titled 'As early as in the Tang Dynasty, China helped Korea fend off Japan's invasion.' It turned out to be a special section on the history of China and Korea, also featuring a box that included a comment on the Imjin War written by another researcher at Fudan University and as many as five war-related photos. As I was skimming through the interview, I kept thinking that it didn't feel quite right.

Some parts of Professor Han Sheng's interview are worthy of attention. To begin with, the term 'help' in the title seems to relate to the Battle of Baekgang, which he claims to be a war that China fought in support of Silla against Japan's invasion. Secondly, he argues that Tang allowed Silla's independence and unification of the Korean Peninsula while placing Silla under its indirect rule (so-called 'bridle & halter policy') once Silla unified the Korean Peninsula, and that Tang established the Great Commandery of Kyerim in Silla's territory and continued to remain on peaceful terms with Silla. Thirdly, he describes that Korea and China had remained on peaceful and friendly terms from the Silla period until the onset of the Sino-Japanese War, arguing that since the countries established in the Korean Peninsula, although independent, were 'vassal states' under the protection of the Chinese dynasties, the Chinese dynasties protected them when major foreign attacks occurred, and that such a compassionate relationship has continued to this day for about 1,400 years. Fourthly, he says that since Tang, the Chinese dynasties have led the system of East Asian international relations, and this system certainly benefited China as the leader, because if the surrounding areas are unstable, it will not only require a million troops for defense but also threaten domestic politics and lead to problems with internal affairs. Fifthly, he argues that China and Japan were opposite in terms of their policies toward the Korean Peninsula, i.e. Tang approved of tribe-paying Silla and helped with the development of economy and culture, whereas Japan always remained as a plunderer. He says that China and Japan fought against each other in the Korean Peninsula because Japan viewed the peninsula as a stepping stone to attacking China on the continent.

Korea-China Relations Characterized by Cycles of War and Peace, and Conflict and Reconciliation

The reason why I take issue with the newspaper interview article is that the newspaper, read by the public, is an influential medium, and his opinion is unique and sometimes deviates from the facts. First of all, he perceives the Battle of Baekgang as a war that Tang fought in support of Silla. But this is not consistent with the facts. When the allied forces of Tang and Silla attacked Baekje, Wa sent a fleet to help Baekje in 663. At the mouth of the Baekgang (Baek River), Wa was engaged in a fierce battle with Tang, only to suffer a crushing defeat. This battle was waged between Wa, as a supporter of Baekje, and Tang as part of the war that broke out as the allied forces of Silla and Tang had attacked Baekje. Tang was far from a supporting State helping Silla, but merely a party to the East Asian World War involving the four countries. When the Emperor Taizong of Tang's attack on Koguryo with one million mobilized troops had failed, his successor, Emperor Gaozong switched the strategy to destroying Baekje first before setting about conquering Koguryo. Therefore, the Battle of Baekgang occurred in the process of Tang's attempt to subjugate Baekje and Koguryo. It can't be seen as a battle aimed at helping Silla.

His views that Tang "allowed" Silla's independence and unification of the Korean Peninsula and that Silla was an independent state under the indirect rule of Tang are not consistent with the facts, either. Tang's intention was to take the lands of Baekje and Koguryo after destroying both. That's why Silla, the displaced people of Koguryo and Baekje, and those who wanted to reestablish these two countries joined forces in defeating the Tang army in a fierce battle. Although Silla's unification of the three kingdoms resulted in the loss of a significant portion of Koguryo's old territory, it was achieved by thwarting Tang's ambitions to take possession of the entire Korean Peninsula. It is also far-fetched that Tang's establishment of the Great Commandery of Kyerim and appointment of King Munmu as the governor of the commandery were labeled as 'bridle and halter' relations.

His claims that Korea and China had remained on friendly terms since the Tang Dynasty until the Sino-Japanese War, or even until to this day, and that all the countries in the Korean Peninsula were China's 'vassal states' are absurd. What about the Khitan who made three attempts to invade Goryeo until giving up after a disastrous defeat by Kang Gam-chan, or the Red Turban Army who burned down the palace of Goryeo causing King Gongmin to flee all the way down to Andong, or the Manchu who invaded Korea, offered King Injo an insufferable insult, took many Korean people prisoner and enslaved them? What were they doing? Making a gesture of friendship? Ming in the early Joseon period, Later Jin in the 17th century, and Qing in the late 19th century trying to turn Korea into a de facto 'vassal state,' were not exactly friendly nations in light of the extreme pressure they put on us. It is not consistent friendship but cycles of war and peace, and conflict and reconciliation that have characterized the bilateral relations.

Everybody knows for a fact that the system of international relations led by Tang and the subsequent Chinese dynasties, commonly known as the tribute-investiture system, benefited the Chinese dynasties. In general, it also benefited the tribute-paying countries. One cannot deny that Silla and other countries established in the Korean Peninsula accepted the advanced Chinese culture in an effort to advance their own.

Humble Reflection on Historical Truth is as Important as Friendship

His view that China and Japan were opposite in their attitude toward Korea is also hardly convincing because, although it is true that Japan invaded Korea and waged a war for seven years in the late 16th century, and ruled the Korean Peninsula as a colony for 35 years, it is not like only Japan alone has invaded Korea. In addition to the ones listed above, there are other examples, where Emperor Wu of Han destroyed Wiman Joseon, Emperor Yang of Sui and Emperor Taizong of Tang made attempts to invade Koguryo and make it their territory, and Yuan, which has become part of Chinese history, essentaially ruled Goryeo for as long as 80 years. It should be recalled that the dynasties of the Korean Peninsula have always identified the northern peoples as potential invaders to watch out for.

China and Korea today have never been closer in relationship. Their friendly relations are not only fortunate for both countries but also extremely important for peace in East Asia. To enhance them, it is meaningful to identify and stress episodes of their friendship in history. I think that Professor Han Sheng's interview was also intended to highlight such friendly relations in history, not distort or downplay Korean history. But the facts should be presented as they are. To this end, it is necessary to broaden horizons to move beyond self-centered views and take others into consideration. I believe that the friendship between Korea and China, and peace in the future of East Asia including Japan, can be established through humble reflection on the truth and consideration for others.