뉴스레터

With diplomatic issues piling up in Northeast Asia such as those related to THAAD and North Korean nuclear threats, national security is being pointed out as one of the most urgent matters South Korea's new administration needs to deal with. This is partly why a comment on South Korean history the United States President Trump made after his recent summit with China sparked controversy. This month's interview turns to Professor Kim Hyoung-Chong of Seoul National University, who has long studied the modern and contemporary history of China, for advice on South Korea-China relations and on the role the Northeast Asian History Foundation should play.

Interviewer: Kim Jeong-hyun (Director, NAHF Education Center for Northeast Asian History and Dokdo)

Kim Hyoung-Chong (Professor, Seoul National University)

Professor Kim Hyoung-Chong began studying Asian history at Seoul National University where he received both his masters and doctoral degree. He has been researching modern Chinese history as a professor at Seoul National University's department of Asian history since 1998. Between 2007 and 2011, he served as director of the university's Center for East Asian Studies and has been serving as chairman of the Korean Association for Studies of Modern Chinese History since 2016. He is currently a member of the Northeast Asian History Foundation's advisory committee as well. He is co-author of "Ahteulaseu jungguksa" [Historical Atlas of China], "Junggukeui cheongsagongjeong yeongu" [Studies on China's Qing History Project], and "Junggukeui cheongsa pyeonchangwa cheongsa yeongu" [Research and Compilation of Qing History in China]. He also co-translated "1880 nyeondae Joseon-Cheong gukgyeonghoedam gwallyeon jaryo seonyeok" [A Translated Collection of Material Related to the Joseon-Qing Border Talks in the 1880s] and the three-volume "Gukyeok cheonggye jungilhan gwangae saryo (淸季中日韓關係史料)" [Korean Translation of Historical Sources on Qing China's Relations with Korea and Japan].

Q1. As someone who became focused fairly early on in studying modern and contemporary Chinese history, could you tell us what attracted you toward that particular field of research? We are also curious as to which historical figure interested you the most throughout your research.

Kim Hyoung-Chong By the time I entered graduate school, the Cultural Revolution had come to an end in China and Deng Xiaoping's open-door policies of reform had just been launched. Even after going through more revolutions than any other country in the world at the time, twentieth-century China was still unable to free itself from the aftermath. So, it was no surprise for historical researchers faced with the political reality of Korea in the 1980s to be attracted to the dynamic modern and contemporary history of China. With the focus of global academic trends shifting toward the history of China's revolutions, communist party, and popular movements, many prospective scholars naturally flocked to such subjects. And many who went with the flow in the early 1980s are now actually playing a pivotal role in academia.

The figures I've been most interested in are the revolutionaries Sun Yat-sen (孫文) and Mao Zedong (毛澤東), but I haven't been able to devote all my research efforts into studying them. It is indeed a pity since there's almost no one in South Korea who's completely dedicated to studying them.

Q2. You’ve particularly done much research into the history of the Qing dynasty. What significance does the dynasty carry for the overall history of China?

Kim Hyoung-Chong If China’s modern and contemporary history was in vogue among scholars around the world during the second half of the twentieth century, the Qing dynasty’s history has emerged as the most interesting research topic in the twenty-first century. Whether the Qing dynasty’s success in building the largest ever empire by integrating multiple ethnicities should be attributed to a Sinicization (漢化) that followed the footsteps of former Chinese dynasties or to a quality unique yet completely faithful to its Manchurian identity is a hotly contested topic that will remain so in the future. The topic is not only relevant to correcting and reassessing interpretations of Chinese history in general (or even beyond that), but is directly linked to the matter of “legitimacy” for a contemporary China that has inherited the territory and multitude of ethnicities (ethnic minorities) amassed during the times of the Qing dynasty.

The three books on modern China’s Qing History Project I’ve so far co-authored and published through the Northeast Asian History Foundation were attempts to review evaluations made on the significance of Qing history. The Qing History Project China launched in 2003 will soon be completed. And when, as a result of the project, a “new version” of Qing History becomes published into nearly 100 volumes that will amount to approximately 30 million characters, we shall be able to gauge what modern China’s understanding of the Qing dynasty is. Considering that the publications on the official histories of 24 Chinese dynasties amounted to a total of 35 million characters, the extent of the soon-to-be published history of the Qing dynasty shows just how much contemporary China is interested in it. The new version of Qing history speaks to the positive regard China has for the dynasty for securing the vast territory and multitudes of ethnicities it possesses today. This sort of attempt to firmly establish the Qing dynasty as a legitimate Chinese dynasty serves as a basis for the Zhonghua minzu concept well known for representing modern China’s nationalism. The scale of China’s Qing History Project is far greater than that of the Northeast Project we South Koreans are more familiar with, which is why I believe it carries much greater practical and scholarly implications.

Q3. Since you are a member of the editorial committee for the South Korean textbook on East Asian history, the only country in East Asia that teaches the subject, and an instructor teaching the subject to teachers in the Northeast Asian History Foundation’s teacher training program, would there be any advice you’d like to contribute for the advancement of education on East Asian history in South Korea?

Kim Hyoung-Chong The textbook on East Asian history is fairly new and has gained considerable attention, enough for it to be translated and distributed in Japan. However, I am concerned that the revisions frequently being made to South Korean school curriculums might degrade the initial quality of the textbook's content. For instance, the newly installed subject on East Asian history managed to greatly intrigue students for covering the history of Vietnam, which was something previously challenging to touch upon through the subject of world history, but that section has been completely taken out after a curriculum revision. I think such decisions should be made after investing a certain amount of time to monitor developments in order to end up with a better textbook.

As for the Northeast Asian History Foundation’s teacher training program, I don’t have much to say since I’ve only participated in it twice, but I did feel that the content covered through it should be more specialized. Sticking to introductory content makes lectures repetitive because there's not much room to cover details left out from textbooks, so it might be more beneficial for the trainees if lectures were allowed to cover less topics, but cover them in-depth.

Q4. President Trump's comment that "Korea actually used to be a part of China" after his latest meeting with President Xi Jinping fueled much controversy in South Korea. What do you make of it and if the Chinese President actually did say so, how should we consider the issue?

Kim Hyoung-Chong In the tributary relationship between Joseon and the Qing that lasted up until the mid-nineteenth century, China claimed to be the "celestial empire" (天朝上國) and Joseon didn't have much choice but to accept its subordinate status. According to traditional China's self-centered world view, Joseon was a feudal state that belonged to a world ruled by the Chinese emperor. Yet, such wording was more conceptual than practical because, in reality, Joseon had a long history of autonomously making decisions over its internal and external affairs. So, its status as a tributary state was entirely different from that of a vassal state or colony in the modern sense. And the bilateral relations therefore operated through mutual recognition and consideration based on moral ideas rather than through rule of force and submission.

But as a Western order based on international law became introduced over the second half of the nineteenth century, the concept of "tributary" became distorted and caused Joseon to be considered as a vassal state in the modern sense. In Qingshigao (淸史稿), a draft history of the Qing dynasty compiled by 1928, descriptions of Joseon were placed in the section called Shuguo zhuan specifically devoted to a collection of biographies related to vassal states. This fully reflects how the late nineteenth-century Chinese viewed Joseon. Yet, in Mingshi (明史), a history of the Ming that the Qing began to be compiled from its early years, described and classified Joseon as a foreign country, showing how China's view of Joseon changed over time. So, for anyone who knows something about Korean history, it would be impossible for them to claim that "Korea actually used to be a part of China."

Q5. You've begun serving as chairman of the Korean Association for Studies of Modern Chinese History since last year, so could you tell us anything you intend to particularly focus on under that position? Also, what topics do you think require greater attention through the Northeast Asian History Foundation's research on modern Chinese history?

Kim Hyoung-Chong Since its foundation, the Korean Association for Studies of Modern Chinese History set out to concentrate on studying modern Chinese history and the history of Korea-China relations. Researchers were naturally compelled to concentrate on Korea-China relations and its history, especially after the "shock" China's Northeast Project delivered. That shock, so to speak, made Korean scholars question why they study the modern and contemporary history of China. Moreover, the Chinese economy's rapid development brought along a huge increase of historical researchers and history publications in China, which has made it much more challenging for foreigners to study Chinese history. These are the reasons why South Korean academia cannot help but take a great interest in researching the history of Korea-China relations.

Unfortunately, the first generation of scholars have now all retired after vigorously making strides of progress and we now seem to be in a period of transition in which quite some time has lapsed before the next generation has begun to emerge, but it's still hard to say that enough activity has been going on yet. Attention and support is necessary from both academia as well as institutes like the Foundation as we await the advancement of next generation scholars armed with new sources and views.

For example, extensive records like the Korean travelogue Yeonhaengnok (燕行錄) carries great significance in studying the history of Korea-China relations, but Chinese and Japanese scholars have recently been showing much more interest in it than their Korean counterparts. Sources are fundamental to historical research and are heavily relied on to introduce fresh historical perspectives, which is why it is critical to show more interest and support toward discovering and making use of such voluminous sources. Doing so properly may cost much more time, funding, and labor than it has so far, but in the long run, it will end up bearing precious fruit.

Q6. What are the research topics you're currently interested in and if there are any you're planning to or wish to study in the future, could you please share them with us?

Kim Hyoung-Chong A translated collection of material related to the Joseon-Qing border talks in the 1880s I recently published in 2014 through the Seoul National University Press well represents what I'm currently interested in. Joining the project on border issues inspired me to study the Joseon-Qing border negotiations known as Euryu gamgae (乙酉勘界) of 1885 and Jeonghae gamgae (丁亥勘界) of 1887, which are historical events that later developed into a territorial issue concerning the Gando (Jiando) area. Although research into such events relies on historical facts, I found that the discovery and organization of relevant sources has been poorly done and Koreans researching such topics have rarely consulted Chinese sources. This, I felt, was a gap that needed to be filled.

The Koguryo Research Foundation and the Northeast Asian History Foundation did manage to release many publications on relevant primary sources, but a lot of sources have remained difficult to access. So, I've been attempting to produce accurate translations of such sources into the Korean language to make them more accessible. That effort resulted in a collection of over 1,000 pages, which I've trimmed into a single volume. The manuscript has already been finished and will probably be published by next year.

As for future plans, as soon as I wrap up the work I've been doing, I should be getting back to my original occupation, which is to study the late Qing history around the time the Chinese Revolution occurred in 1911. I've only been able to read material on the Chinese constitutional movement, so I need to start writing a paper that reviews previous research on the topic. This has to do with an attempt of mine to employ a historical viewpoint to trace the starting point of democracy in China, which is still a challenging matter for the country today. I've been neglecting it by wandering into a side road called the history of Korea-China relations, which my participation in a project by the Northeast Asian History Foundation is partly to blame.

Q7. Since you're a member of the Foundation's advisory committee, what do you think was the best contribution the Foundation made over the past decade in terms of historical issues between Korea and China and what more do you think it needs to do? And please add any advice or suggestions you may have for the Foundation to fulfill its mission of contributing to the resolution of historical issues and achieving a peaceful co-existence with China.

Kim Hyoung-Chong The Northeast Asian History Foundation's establishment was mainly caused by disputes over history between Korea, China, and Japan, so there is no denying of the central role it has played in the Korean scene of historical research. Such disputes have gained attention from not only those studying Korean history, but oriental or East Asian history as well. This trend prompted the field of modern and contemporary Chinese history to vibrantly produce many research outcomes as well, to which the Foundation's contribution can again not be denied. However, the enormous amount of research outcomes being endlessly generated nowadays makes it impossible for an individual scholar to keep up with. So, I think now might be the time to pause and review the outcomes produced so far and then search for ways to advance to the next level.

This means that those studying the histories of Korea, China, and Japan need to get together to review research results from a viewpoint of East Asian history. China is newly forming their view of history through the Qing History Project. In order for us to respond, we need to "show them how we see things" rather than ask the Chinese to abandon their own views. In other words, perhaps the most appropriate way of responding against projects like the Northeast Project or the Qing History Project is for us to launch our own project on the history of Joseon. Of course, long-term goals would need to be set up to conduct such a large-scale project, so the Foundation should be ready to play a central role in it.