China Cannot Revise South Korea's Democratic Sovereignty

By Anders Corr

• Year 1948 is the moment when the South Korean people, rather than the Chinese or Korean kings and emperors, began significantly participating in their own governance.
• That is the governance that should serve as the strongest foundation of a contemporary understanding of sovereignty. That is democratic sovereignty

According to Trump on April 12, Xi Jinping told him that Korea used to be a part of China. 

“He then went into the history of China and Korea,” said Trump. 

“Not North Korea, Korea. And you know, you’re talking about thousands of years . . . and many wars. And Korea actually used to be a part of China. And after listening for 10 minutes, I realized that it’s not so easy.”

Xi’s claim, via Trump, that Korea historically belonged to China has South Koreans legitimately nervous. But South Korea’s real and unassailable sovereignty comes not from a history of kings, but from its democratic constitution of 1948.

A White House official on Friday "kindly" confirmed that Korea was independent. 

But a day prior, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Lu Kang, shockingly refused to clarify Xi’s comment. 

He replied that, “There is nothing for South Koreans to worry about.” 

There is something wrong when superpowers are looked to by the international community for confirmation of another country’s democratic sovereignty. 

It is too reminiscent of the most hierarchical periods of international relations, such as colonialism or the Cold War.
Contrary to China’s assertion not to worry, South Koreans are doing just that. 

According to one Asian government official who prefers to remain anonymous, “although China has an intention to rewrite the ancient history based on its own nationalistic approach, it has been keeping low profile at least at government level.” 

But, he added that for domestic consumption, “the Chinese government keeps arguing that ancient kingdoms in Manchuria established by ethnic Koreans are parts of their history.”
Academics are also worried, and are not fooled. 

“China may seek to take advantage of it [Trump's comment on Korea] all the way,” said international relations Professor Jae Ho Chung of Seoul National University in an email. 

“Lu Kang’s comment is for that purpose – maximum advantage through ambiguity.”
The Global Times, a Chinese nationalist state-run newspaper, opined on Friday, “So far, the South Korean foreign ministry has not made an official request [for clarity], which, if it does, will be disrespectful.” 

This in itself seems to be an affront to South Korea, implying paternalistically that South Korea has to show “respect” to China.
Pedestrians walk past a newstand in Beijing with the Chinese edition of the Global Times newspaper on May 16, 2011 in Beijing. 

Chinese media was incensed at South Korean media. 

“[T]he South Korean media resorted to nationalism, with some claiming this is ‘a grave challenge to the identity of the Korean people,’” continued the Global Times. 

“History is there, but some South Koreans want to remove any connection their country had with ancient China and request China’s absolute respect for their interpretation of history. This is narrow-minded.” 

South Koreans who know how China warps history for its own territorial expansion are anything but narrow-minded. 

Contrary to those who question whether Xi actually made the remark, Dr. Chung said that such a comment by Xi would “not [be] so surprising given his constant references to China’s past history.”
More concerning is that China could again seek to impose the old tributary relationship anew on South Korea.
“China’s ‘History Project’ with South Korea and elsewhere is not over,” said Dr. Chung, “but, as Chinese refer to it, has been just put aside 搁置 for now.” 

Needless to say, Dr. Chung is highly critical of China’s characterization of the history between China and South Korea.

China’s actions, or more exactly lack of clarifications, has done itself harm. 

The train wreck of events surrounding Xi’s alleged claim caused widespread outrage among South Koreans across the political spectrum. 

“The backlash in South Korea is massive,” said political science Professor Shelley Rigger at Davidson University. 

“I don’t see how it will be possible to avoid this incident having a negative effect on Sino-Korean relations.” 

If Xi’s new history applies to South Korea, it could also apply to other countries. 

“If [Xi] really said so, that is a huge strategic mistake and will destroy the very foundation of the ROK-China relationship,” according to the official quoted previously. 

“It is like saying ‘Vietnam, Mongolia and all the neighboring countries of China used to be a part of China.’”
China’s popularity in South Korea has nose-dived before, but with explosives rather than words, and triggered by North Korea not China. 

In 2010 North Korea sank the Cheonan, a South Korean navy ship, causing 46 deaths. 

Later that year, North Korea killed two South Korean marines in an artillery strike on the island of Yongpyong. 

These North Korean actions, because of the country’s close alliance with, and some would say direction from, China, had a negative effect on attitudes toward China. 

“During 2010-12, South Korea-China relations hit the nadir after the Cheonan sinking and the Yonpyong bombing by North Korea,” said Dr. Chung. 

“Then, the new administration came in, warming up the bilateral relations up to the late 2015.”
China’s adverse reaction to South Korea’s deployment of a missile defense system, called the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD), has further decreased support for China in South Korea. 

“Public opinion in South Korea about China has been worsening since China’s ‘sanctions’ related to the deployment of THAAD but, due to the presidential election fervor (May 9), this particular issue hasn’t quite grabbed the kind of media attention it should have,” said Dr. Chung. 

“At least among intellectuals, however, concerns are growing. I am sure the Chinese are acutely aware of the flammability of the issue given the previous experiences over Kokuryo,” an ancient Korean empire.
SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – JULY 13: South Koreans watch a television broadcast reporting the deployment of the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense.

Most Korean historians noted that contrary to Xi’s alleged statement, Korea had a subordinate but still independent tributary relationship with China. 

The way Trump phrased the history was Chinese nationalist spin. 

Other pro-China historians have noted as justification that China once treated Korea as a colonial possession. 

But that is even worse.
Nationalist China sought the “return” of Korea from the U.S. after the Japanese were defeated in World War II. 

“Chiang Kai-shek insisted to FDR in 1942-1943,” according to political scientist Edward Friedman at the University of Wisconsin, “soon after the U.S. Navy defeated the Imperial Japanese Navy at the Battle of Midway that Korea be ‘returned’ to China after the U.S.-led military coalition totally defeated Hirohito’s military expansionists. FDR ignored Chiang on that imperialist demand to Korea.”

A protester walks past two portraits of the late Taiwan president Chiang kai-shek written with ’228 murderer’ at the Education Ministry in Taipei during a demonstration on August 4, 2015. Talks between Taiwanese student protesters and education officials broke down after an emotional meeting about controversial changes to the school curriculum which have been slammed as ‘China-centric.’ 

Treating other nationalities as tributaries, colonies, or their territory as somehow like property that should be returned, is flat wrong. 

Territories that have broken off from another country at some point for whatever reason should only be rejoined through a democratic referendum by the people. 

China’s economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Taiwan over the years shows that they do not respect the vote of Taiwan’s people. 

That should be a warning sign to South Korea.
Since 1948, after it was liberated from Japanese colonialists, South Korea has been an independent and sovereign democracy. 

China should publicly and explicitly recognize this for China’s own good, and to put the minds of South Koreans at rest. 

That China failed to do so when given the opportunity on Thursday raises the question as to why China would pay a present public relations cost to keep alive the option of a historical argument for Chinese sovereignty over South Korea. 

China’s intentions toward South Korea are now publicly in question. 

Does China want to “reconquer” or influence South Korea to rejoin the mainland like it is attempting or nearly succeeded at doing with the South and East China Seas, Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang “autonomous” area, and in the Indian Himalayas?
South Korea does not want to become the next Taiwan, Taiwan does not want to become the next Hong Kong, and Hong Kong does not want to become the next Tibet. 

China’s reinvention of history in places like the South China Sea, East China Sea, and the Indian Himalayas have eventually led to Chinese militarization of those places, and incrementalist military tactics to take territory. 

The compromise, through valued goods, services or property, of democratically-elected officials is another method of eroding democratic sovereignty. 

In this multilayered historical, ethical, and military erosion of democratic or other sovereignty, territory and political independence is gradually lost, and in extremis, the sovereignty of the democratic polity is extinguished.
China is arguably using such incrementalist tactics against South Korea by attempts to influence domestic politics through imposing unofficial economic hardships on South Korean companies operating in China, including on rock bands, tours and retail stores. 

These companies understandably want to expand or at least maintain their revenues, so are in turn incentivized by China’s economic influence tactics to put pressure on the democratically elected government of South Korea. 

These mini-sanctions are thereby an attempt to influence South Korean foreign policy on critical issues such as THAAD and North Korea. 

China has used similar economic pressure tactics against the Philippines, for example by slowing orders to import bananas, against Japan with autos, and in the U.S., for example by threatening to cancel orders of Boeing jets.
A primary cause of the problem is an ideology of autocratic revanchist nationalism that sees distant territories or even individuals as somehow “belonging” to China long after those people took their own path. 

This includes countries like Taiwan and South Korea, but also individuals of Chinese heritage who have moved elsewhere and taken new citizenship. 

China treats its “lost” territories and people as if they could be property and should continue to be under the autocratic control of Beijing.

This leads to Chinese forced renditions (kidnapping) from places like Thailand, Burma and Hong Kong of people, including with Swedish or British citizenship. 

Whether or not China’s revision of Korean history takes hold, we should recognize that upon Korea’s democratization, the legitimacy of its sovereignty became sacrosanct. 

It should be permanently recognized as a sovereign entity by all other nations. 

The international community must resist any other state, with a literally trumped up historical argument, that seeks to peacefully or otherwise “reconquer” the territory. 

The world’s democratic countries have in the past two decades failed to defend the territories and sovereignty of democracies like Taiwan, the Philippines and Ukraine. 

We must do better, and we must do better for South Korea if push comes to shove.
Not fully recognizing the sovereignty of democratic entities, as China has done with Taiwan and now apparently South Korea, should be an international crime akin to the promotion of serfdom or slavery. 

It goes against a democratic approach that prioritizes people and a human right to democracy, over autocratic revanchism and the almost feudal notion that chunks of territory, and the people who live there, could possibly revert to elites in distant capitals based on historical arguments.
The government should belong to the people, rather than the people belonging to the government. 

In 1948 South Korea held a Constitutional Assembly that reified its own sovereignty as a nation. 

That assembly is the true lodestone of its sovereignty. 

It is an additional, and ultimately more important, claim to sovereignty than a history of succession from the ancient kingdoms of Korea. 

Any historical argument made by Beijing, whether believed or not, has no normative, ethical, or moral bearing on the sovereignty of South Korea, because South Korea is now a democracy. 

Year 1948 is the moment when the South Korean people, rather than the Chinese or Korean kings and emperors, began significantly participating in their own governance. 

That is the governance that should serve as the strongest foundation of a contemporary understanding of sovereignty. 

That is democratic sovereignty.