[KS] perspectives on Korean history

[Yong-ho Choe]

I wholeheartedly agree with Mark's point as we had a small discussion on 
this point once before.  That Korea had historically enjoyed relative 
peace, free from foreign invasions, speaks very much of the nature of the 
regimes that had ruled China.  Ever since Tang's participation in Silla's 
unification wars in the 7th century, the ethnic Chinese dynasties had never 
invaded Korea (although Ming sent troops at the request of Korea in the 
Imjin war of 1592-98) until the Korean war in 1950-53 (when PRC sent troops 
at the request of DPRK).  It is truly remarkable that these two peoples had 
maintained peace through mutual respect for such a long period of 
time--certainly unprecedented in the annals of human history.  A question 
one can raise is: what had enabled the two countries enjoy such 
peace?  Here, I would like to inject an idea that the policy of "sadae" 
(respect for the senior state) pursued historically by Korea to China had 
played an important role.

As M. Frederick Nelson's classic study ("Korea and the Old Orders in 
Eastern Asia") explains, "sadae" is based on a Confucian concept of 
hierarchical universe centering around China, in which Korea accepted a 
junior status vis-a-vis China and the degree of civilization of a country 
was measured largely in terms of Confucianization.  In addition to this 
notion, I believe that configuaration of power between Korea and China was 
an important factor.  Ever since the demise of Koguryo, Korea has never 
been in a position to challenge China in terms of power.  Since the 
China-centered world order in East Asia had rejected any notion of 
diplomatic equality or parity with China, Korea simply had no choice but to 
accept China as a senior state.  This was the only way for Korea to have 
kept friendly ties with China.  Moreover, in the eyes of the Chinese, the 
Korean Peninsula has always been and still is vital to China's national 
security.  Geo-politically, China can never afford to allow Korea to fall 
into a hostile hand.  This explains the Chinese intervention in the Imjin 
and the Korean wars.  As long as Korea had maintained "sadae" policy, there 
was no reason for China to make a military move against Korea.  And then, 
from the Korean perspective, a strong China provided a protective shield 
for Korea's security.  Historically, external threat to Korea had come 
almost always from the northern tribes, such as Mongols and Manchus (though 
also occasionally from Japan).  As long as China remained strong as under 
Tang and Ming, these tribal groups in the fringes of Chinese borders were 
kept in check, eliminating potential threat to Korea.  But when China 
became weak as under Sung and late Ming, we see invasions against Korea 
taking place by Khitans, Jurchens, Mongols, and Manchus.  Thus, it had 
always been desirable for Korea to have a strong China because only the 
powerful China had been able to keep these northern tribes under 
control.  In other words, both Korea and China had historically shared a 
common security interest.  By maintaining "sadae" (this word has now become 
a dirty word in both Koreas), Korea gained peace and, ironically, its 
independence as well (meaning, not being swallowed up by China).  Besides, 
this policy had allowed Korea virtually unlimited access to the high 
civilization and culture of China.

While on this issue of peace in Korea, we can safely say that if there has 
ever been a pacifist state in the world history, it is Korea under the 
Choson dynasty.  After Korea launched attacks against the Tsushima islands 
in the 15th century under King Sejong (to eradicate "waegu"), the Choson 
dynasty made no serious military operation against its neighbors (although 
King Hyojong in the 17th century tried to raise army without success to 
attack Manchu Qing in the hope of restoring Ming in China).  The 
scholar-officials of the Choson dynasty truly believed in and practiced as 
best as they can the idea that the best way to deal with the neighboring 
countries was to demonstrate exemplary virtues, not to resort to 
violence.  Argument Cho Kwang-jo presented in 1518 in successfully halting 
a military operation that was about to be launched against a northern tribe 
is a case in point.  He argued that a surprise military move against the 
tribal group is dishonorable and violates the proper ethics of the 
sovereign.  Because of his opposition, this carefully prepared operation 
was aborted at the last minutes.  Such a thinking had permeated deeply into 
the minds of most scholar-officials of Choson.  In my view, the Choson 
dynasty very much followed this idea in its dealing with neighboring 
countries throughout its rule.  Civil supremacy was absolute during the 
most periods of Choson rule, and we can say that Korea under Choson is a 
rare example in the world history that had practiced "pacifism" in dealing 
with its neighboring countries.



At 06:31 PM 12/9/2001 -1000, you wrote:
>Dear List Friends,
>
>I'm writing a little thing about Korean History, and I'm torn between 
>soft-pedaling my views on a favorite Korean myth and going after it, 
>head-on.  It's for a popular format, that I've been asked to write, so I'm 
>not sure how controversial I should be.
>
>The issue is this:  it drives me nuts to hear oft and o'er the bit about 
>how Korea has been invaded so many times.  There are so-called scholarly 
>studies that document several thousand "invasions" -- some number them, 
>2,386, or whatever.
>
>My take is, that such a view, though nearly universal, is a product of 
>recent, 20th century, events.  Looking at the long view, however, aside 
>from the Mongols in the 13th century, and the Hideyoshi invasion in the 
>late 16th century, you've got a culture of civilian, not military 
>dominance, and peace not war -- not a product of multiple invasions.
>
>There was the Manchu Invasion shortly after the Japanese, in the early 
>17th century, but that, by comparison, wasn't much of an invasion.  The 
>Koreans were so beaten up by the Japanese that they could hardly muster 
>much resistance, and unlike the Japanese and before that, the Mongol 
>invasion, the Manchu's didn't really want to conquer Korea -- they only 
>wanted a diplomatic surrender.
>
>Now, the two major invasions were absolutely horrific; the devastation was 
>near total, and the loss of life was tragic.  I'm not playing that down at all.
>
>But, aside from those invasions, to get thousands of "invasions", one has 
>to count every penny-ante pirate raid along the coasts.  And to do that, 
>cheapens the dramatic costs of the true invasions.
>
>In other words, my take on it is that Korea's history is not so much one 
>of multiple, or constant invasions, but one of civilian, Confucian culture 
>-- not the culture of the soldier, or the warlord. In other words, not the 
>Japanese style "bushido" -- the code of the warrior, the samurai.  We had 
>no such thing in Korea.
>
>Yet, the myth, held dearly, is that "we" have been invaded, stomped-on, 
>beaten, subjugated and down-trodden.  And the Chinese are usually listed 
>as invaders -- well, aside from Han dynasty outposts and an alliance with 
>T'ang that led to unification and eventual control of the upper third of 
>the peninsula, you don't have any Chinese "invasions".  Do you want to 
>count Sui and T'ang attempts against Koguryo^ in lands north of the 
>peninsula?  That's a fair stretch, too.
>
>On the other hand, the point that Korea never invaded anther country is 
>the oft-heard counter point.  And that, to their credit, is strikingly true.
>
>Have any of you aired this kind of view with the general audience in 
>Korea.  What kind of feed-back or resistance did you encounter.
>
>People in any culture hate to see their favorite ox gored, favorite bubble 
>burst.
>
>Hope to hear from some of you....
>
>with best regards,
>Mark

Yong-ho Choe
Department of History
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Honolulu, HI  96822

Tel: 808 956-6762
Fax: 808 956-9600
E-mail: choeyh at hawaii.edu