Body
Most of the sensitive history and territorial frictions picking up media coverage in Northeast Asia involve Japan. South Koreans are much less favorable to Japanese than anyone else in Asia and the source of this unfavorability is almost entirely due to divergent interpretations of history and territorial disputes. But there have been a few instances recently that underscore more low-key but quite similar Beijing-Seoul frictions as well.
In continuation of our coverage of the China-Japan-South Korea summit last week, our colleague Han-eol Lee brought a story from JTBC to our attention. The Chinese media has been reporting that during the Li-Park bilateral talks Li Keqiang raised the issue of resolving the bilateral dispute over the area surrounding Ieodo Rock in the Yellow Sea. The submerged Ieodo Rock (A.K.A. Parangdo, Socotra Rock, or Suyan Rock) cannot be claimed as territory per UNCLOS law but falls within 200 nautical miles of the coasts of both China and South Korea. It thus sits in the intersection of waters that both countries claim as part of their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ).
Talks between Seoul and Beijing to resolve the dispute started in 1996 but have yet to yield any mutually acceptable resolution. In the meantime, the issue has continued to elicit at least a modicum of bilateral tension under the surface (pun intended). In 2003 South Korea completed construction of the Ieodo Ocean Research Station on top of the Ieodo submerged rock with the goal of conducting various maritime research activities—but also clearly to show the flag. In 2011 a Chinese fisherman stabbed a South Korean Coastguard official to death in the waters surrounding Ieodo. A few months later in 2012, also in the disputed EEZ, a South Korean Coastguard official shot a Chinese fisherman with a rubber bullet. The fisherman ultimately died from the incident. China and South Korea are now planning to move forward with discussions on ending the dispute over Ieodo and the boundaries of each country’s EEZs next month. The talks are of wider significance because they will reveal how forthcoming China is willing to be in such negotiations; the record so far in the South China Sea has not been encouraging.
In the ongoing history textbook nationalization controversy, one strand of controversy is how much weight the textbooks will place on Korea’s modern history—which would appear more controversial than its ancient history. Among the issues raised by the left are concerns that the textbooks will whitewash collaboration with Japanese during the period of colonization or the repressive excesses of the Park-Chun era. But as it turns out, ancient history can be contentious too. Education Minister Hwang Woo-yea explained (in Korean) that the new textbooks will give due weight to the ancient Goguryeo Empire, a move to counter research by the Chinese government-affiliated Northeast Project. The Northeast Project claimed that the ancient Goguryeo Empire, which Koreans claim as part their history, was really a region of ancient China. If the textbooks delve into Korea’s deeper history in East Asia, it may squeeze out some debate on the more recent period. But it could also lead to a stronger emphasis on issues surrounding history disputes with China. This would not be the first time South Korea altered its textbooks to push back on China.
Park’s presidency has been characterized by warm relations with Beijing and a deep freeze vis-à-vis Tokyo. But in a recent Pew poll, South Koreans were asked how concerned they were about territorial disputes between China and its neighbors, and 78 percent responded “very or somewhat concerned,” only slightly less than the 83 percent of Japanese asked the same question. So far, China and South Korea have managed to subordinate these issues to common economic—if not strategic—interests. But given how quickly territorial and history issues can flare, it's worth keeping an eye on the Ieodo and Goguryeo issues.
