뉴스레터

On September 4, 1909, Japan and Qing China signed the “Gando Convention” governing Gando’s sovereignty and inhabitant jurisdiction. Through this, Imperial Japan obtained a few benefits in Manchuria, including the Anbong railway rights, and it is widely known that this served as an important occasion for Japan’s invasion into Manchuria. In the days ahead of the 100th anniversary of the Gando Convention, 10 years ago, related civic groups staged protest rallies in front of the Chinese Embassy and announced a statement. Some civic groups had suggested the 100-year statute of limitations theory in relation to the convention but, in the end, there were no clear grounds for the theory. However, researchers’ interests in the Gando issue, as well as the people’s interests, have become noticeably more prevalent.

View on Research Methods on History of Frontier and Area

The Gando issue is divided into problems related to residents and territory. As they are dealing with a time in which boundaries were unclear and the management and control of boundaries were not compact, the resident problem is far more important to policymakers than the territory-related problem. As management and control indicators of boundaries were reinforced and ruling people within borders became real, problems such as demarcating border lines in equivocal frontier areas and jurisdiction over people crossing border lines (land ownership, taxation, jurisdiction, etc.) emerged. This is the time we feel the need to evolve the Gando research through the study method of frontier and area history by placing the resident problem in the center for the sake of expanding research into the Gando problems.

We need to scrutinize the famines, territorial negotiations, the Sino-Japanese War, the Boxer Rebellion, the Russo-Japanese War near the Yalu and Tumen Rivers and Yanbian during Joseon, and the Korean Empire from the 1860s through 1909 first. Then, there is a need to look at how the central governments and local governments carried out taxation and territorial policies and what kind of survival strategy the inhabitants pursued. For example, as Japan’s influence on the Korean Empire had increased after 1907, Koreans on the opposite side of the Yalu River were divided between those claiming to return to the jurisdiction of the Korean Empire’s “gun” and those claiming to revert to Qing China. This means having to consider the process of change in relations that Koreans on the opposite side had forced with each gun in Yanbian. It was the consequence of accumulated experiences over relations with Qing China’s self-defense groups like “Danryeon” and “Majeok” and each gun’s behavior concerning the taxation problem. There is a need to comprehensively explain West Gando, where the resident problem was being disputed, as well as about North Gando. On the frontier were civilian self-defense groups of the two countries called, “Chunguisa,” “Chunguidae,” “Cheongbi,” and “Mokbi.” The public groups with diverse characteristics competed against each other and reiterated armed clashes resulting in the loss of lives and properties. The result of the ensuing negotiation and compromise was “Byeongye Seonhu Jangjeong (邊界善後章程)” in 1904. The frontier is where peculiar compromises and residents’ oppressive lives could be found against a background of volatility and instability.

Public opinion, in respect to the Gando issue, was led by intellectuals in the Hamgyeong-do Province. It was the same in respect to the problem of West Gando. This had something to do with the fact that people hailing from Hamgyeong-do Province accounted for a large portion of Koreans in Wolgan, West Gando. When the Korean Empire pushed for the Gando policy in earnest in the early 1990s, people, including Lee Yong-ik from the center and Kim No-gyu and others from Hamgyeong-do Province, stood behind it. It was the process of bringing the Gando issue to the attention of the whole Korean Empire, beyond the attention of the provinces, including Hamgyeong-do Province. And at that time, the role of the press, including Hwangseong Sinmun, was crucial. In other words, the Gando issue partly meant one recognition struggle of the local people in Hamgyeong-do Province who had been alienated by the central government. The Korean Empire reacted sensitively to the Gando issue, Russia’s southward policy, and the Boxer Rebellion. Lee Yong-ik, Yun Deok-yeong, Min Byeong-seok, and other vassals made various policy suggestions competitively over the jurisdiction of the migrants on the opposite side of the Yalu and Tumen Rivers and over the drift of territorial sovereignty. These competitions made the Korean Empire’s Gando policy very popular, and in that process, the difference in views between the internal department managing family registers and the external department in charge of diplomatic negotiations became widely known.

A Context for the Names, “Gando,” “North Gando,” and “West Gando”

As residents near Jongseong began to reclaim the island in the middle of the Tumen River during the era of King Gojong in the 19th century, they called it Gando (間島, the island in between). And while gradually expanding the reclaimed land to the opposite side, the nomenclature “Gando (墾島)” was used naturally. This became mixed in with the territorial problem and its scope covered Musan, Heoryeong, Jongseong, and south of the Haeran River in Onseong, the areas which were commonly called, “Gando.” The name “Gando” contains the history of reclaiming the opposite side of the Tumen River by Koreans.

The names, “North Gando” and “West Gando” tell different stories. They contain the Korean Empire’s Gando policy. The name “North Gando (北間島, 北墾島)” appeared during the period of the Korean Empire. In 1902, Lee Beom-yun was sent to Gando under the title of “Hambukgan Dosichal (咸北間島視察, administrator).” As the press called it “Bukgan (north) Dosichal” in early 1903, the opposite side of the Tumen River began to be called “North Gando,” naturally. The name “North Gando” contains the meaning that it is Gando that is part of Hamgyeongbuk-do Province. From this point on, the opposite side of the Yalu River starting being called, “West Gando.” Moreover, the tradition to call Hamgyeong-do Province, “Gwanbuk,” and Pyeongan-do Province. “Gwanseo,” also played a part. Before then, the opposite side of the Yalu River was called “Gangbuk.” Choi Jong-beom’s inspection report of 1872 and Min Yong-ho’s activity record of 1900 there were called “Gangbukilgi.” Seo Sang-mu, who was sent in late 1903, was also called an “administrator of West Gando” and people started commonly calling the opposite side of the Yalu River, “West Gando”. The names “North Gando” and “West Gando” were the fruits of the Korean Empire’s active Gando policy.

Complete map of Korea (left: 1899, right: 1907)

ⓒ Seoul Museum of History

If the 1899 map is a map assuming that the Tumen River is a boundary line, the 1907 map included the Yanbian area on the northern side across the Tumen River, south of today’s Haeran River, in the Korean Empire’s territory with the name, “North Gando.” This reflects the result of the Korean Empire’s active Gando Policy.

Let's Write the History of Northern Relations

When it comes to writing the history of northern relations, the period when research into the Gando issue intensified is related to the time when the Gando problem stood out as a social issue. As news stories quoting foreign press reports stating that North Korea turned part of Cheonji over to China became known in Korea in the early 1960s, the post-liberation research into the Gando issue began (Lee Seon-geun, 1962). The study was a typical approach of the Cold War era. Against the backdrop of social interest in the Gando issue, researchers in various fields such as history, archeology, anthropology, folklore, etc. launched the Paeksan Society in 1966. The society’s research results are not confined to territorial problems, but rather encompass various areas, including the history of the northern region, the history of northern relations, and the cultural history.

Based on these results, society devised the history of northern relations, but to no avail. At this point, marking the 110th anniversary of the Gando Convention, I urgently feel the need to write the history of northern relations. How could we describe the history of the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria in accordance with changes in South Korea-China relations and North Korea-China relations? We will have to prepare for this one by one, staying mindful of improvements in inter-Korean relations as a variable. At the same time, this must be clearly distinct from the Manchuria-Joseon history as it is Imperial Japan’s history of invasion. At this point, when research into the Gando issue is becoming more and more scarce and on the occasion of the 110th anniversary of the Gando Convention, it is urgent to begin research into the Gando issue as seen from a new perspective. Furthermore, it is time to delve into relations between the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria in diverse ways. This will be a practical way to prepare for unification.