뉴스레터

As part of their efforts to stress 'One China,' as exemplified in their use of such various terms as 'the united pluralistic society of the Chinese nation,' 'the great family of the Chinese nation' and 'unified multi-ethnic nation,' the Chinese academia launched projects from 2002 whereby the mainland China would be essentially divided into Inland (內疆) and Borderland (邊疆) areas, in addition to the existing China-Taiwan demarcation. This is a more traditional approach than the economic-geographic division of China into the 'East (東部)' and the 'West (西部).'
For a starter, the 'Northeast Borderland Research Project'(2002-2007) defined the three northeastern provinces of China as the 'Northeast Borderland.' The Xinjiang Project (2004-2009) defined the Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region (新疆維吾爾自治區) as the representative borderland of China. The 'Southwest Borderland Project' (2008-2012) defined Yunnan Province (雲南省), Guizhou Province (貴州省), etc. as the 'Southwest Borderland.' The 'Xizang Project' (2009-2013) defined the Xizang (Tibet) Autonomous Region as another representative borderland of China. Finally, the Northern Borderland Project (2010-2014) defined Inner Mongolia as the Northern Borderland. The 'South Sea Borderland Research Project (海疆項目)' is also known to be scheduled.
These projects have identified the Coastal Frontier (Taiwan), Inland, and Borderland as regions that need to be integrated into 'Only One China' through the 'Plans for the Three Regions of the Chinese Nation (中華天下 三分之計),' where Inland, of course, is a term derived, for convenience sake, from those used in the past, such as inland (內地) or center (本部). If Zhuge Liang's 'Plans for the Three Regions' were for the establishment of the Three Kingdoms Wei, Shu, and Wu, today's 'Plans for the Three Regions of the Chinese Nation' are for the establishment of very academic 'virtual areas.'

Conference to Review Korea's Understanding of and Response to China's 'Northeast Borderland Research Project'

On July 20 to 21, 2012, the conference on , co-hosted by the Northeast Asian History Foundation and the Society for Korean Ancient History, was held at Palgong Hotel in Daegu, Korea.
This conference examined how the Korean academia, led by the Korean ancient history community, had understood and dealt with the 'Northeast Borderland Research Project' of China. The first part of the conference, titled , consisted of five presentations :
1) The Northeast Project and Beyond: Trends and Review;
2) Major Historical/Regional Research Projects after China's Northeast Borderland Research Project;
3) Changes in China's Borderland Policies and the Northeast Region;
4) Korean/Chinese Media Coverage after the 'Northeast Project'; and
5) History Education in Korea after the Northeast Project.

Seoul National University of Education professor Lim Ki-hwan, the first speaker, noted that the Northeast Project should be understood as a both historical and strategic project and should not be reduced to either, and that historical conflicts between Korea and China ran the risk of leading to extreme nationalism and patriotism. I, as the second speaker, noted that academic studies in China over the past ten years, as pointed out by the Korean academia, had been based on the knowledge structure of cultural conservatism, and consisted of historical and regional projects as two major pillars based on 'frontier studies,' a discipline nonexistent in Korea. Dr. Lee Cheon-seok, the third speaker, noted that historical projects in the Chinese academia were originating from the 'Borderland Policies' designed to integrate ethnic minorities into the Han Chinese, and linked to the Qing's History Project and the Culture Project.
NAHF Research Fellow Kim Hyun-sook, the fourth speaker, noted that the recklessly expanded use of the term 'Northeast Project' was creating confusion that prevented understanding what the project was really about, and stressed the importance of leading roles for the Korean/Chinese media to play in international cooperation. Finally, the fifth speaker Woosuk University professor Cho Bub-chong concluded that since the need to enhance history education was raised after the 'Northeast Project,' noteworthy progress had been made, including the publication of the Northeast Asian history textbooks, although there was still a lot of room for improvement.

Chinese Research of the Hongshan Culture, the Doctrine of Liao-he Civilization, etc. Reviewed from the Perspective of Korean Ancient History

The second part of the conference, titled , consisted of six presentations :
1) The Formation of Civilization in the Northeast Region of China;
2) Trends after the Northeast Project in Chinese Research of Gojoseon, Buyeo, and Yemaek;
3) The Northeast Project and the Ensuing Trends in Chinese Research of the History of Koguryo;
4) Trends after the Northeast Project in Chinese Research of the Archeology of Koguryo/Balhae;
5) Trends after the Northeast Project in Chinese Research of the History of Balhae; and
6) Chinese Perception of East Asian History and Historiography of International Relations.
These six presentations reviewed the Chinese research of the Hongshan culture, the Doctrine of Liao-he Civilization, Gojoseon, Buyeo, Yemaek, Koguryo, and Balhae from the perspective of Korean ancient history.

The first speaker Song Ho-jung, a professor at Korea National University of Education, noted that under the nationalistic view of history dominating the Chinese academia, the individuality of a given region is regarded less important than its relationship with the Central Plain. And the discussant Kim Byung-jun, a professor at Seoul National University, noted that while the central academia stressed the nationwide presence of the 'Chinese civilization,' the local academia highlighted the 'local civilization' of a given region. The second speaker Park Jun-hyung, a curator at Yonsei University, noted that one of the important achievements of the 'Northeast Project' lay in nurturing the future generation of researchers. Park added that the Chinese academia, claiming that the Dangun myth was not a product during the Gojoseon period but a creation in a later period, was making the case for Gija Joseon as the beginning of Korean history. The sixth speaker Hong Sung-hyun, a researcher at Sookmyung Women's University, noted that since the 'Northeast Project Period,' the concept of 'East Asian' international order had been steadily taking root in the Chinese academia. This raised a question of whether the identify of China as part of Northeast Asia had been ever discussed in the Chinese academia. It seems that since the 'Northeast Project,' the overall trends in Chinese research of the ancient history of the project's target areas have been moving toward more diverse topics.

Challenges Facing Korean Academia Identified and the Importance of International Academic Exchange Confirmed

What kind of results did China get out of research that spent a tremendous amount of money, other than establishing and enhancing research institutions and collecting materials? In a nutshell, they could be called palimpsest, a manuscript page with traces of overwriting all over it.
In this respect, as it was pointed out, some of Chinese research has elements of self-denial. What kind of understanding of history should be established might be a question posed to the ancient history community, whether in Korea or China. One of the suggestions made during this conference was that academic response should be reinforced. In particular, it was suggested strongly that the Korean academia should be very careful in accepting foreign terminology and avoid using it as it is. In fact, for countries in the same East Asian region, the extent to which terminology and viewpoints differ between China and Korea is so large. It was also suggested that research should be expanded to include disciplines based on scientific analysis, such as ecology, agricultural history, and medical history. Other suggestions included reinforcing the organizations of relevant research institutions and the functions of education to foster the next generation of researchers, without which 'history education reinforcement' would be practically meaningless. There was also a suggestion for vitalizing academic and cultural exchange by, for example, conducting joint research projects between North and South Korea and designating the 'Gaeseong Special Historical and Cultural Zone.'This conference is believed to have identified the difficulties and challenges of the Korean academia, led by the Korean ancient history community, and confirmed the importance of international academic exchange.