중국 東北工程과 우리의 대응

China’s ‘Northeastern Project’ and the Korean Response: Using of Different Perspective on ‘Northeastern Project’ in China and Building of Historical Networks between Korea and China

Historically speaking, the rise of China meant pursuit of supremacy and it means a march toward becoming a global power even today. The issue is such that the pursuit of joining the rank of global power transcends China’s national boundary. As China often pursued expansionist policy or establishment of Great Chinese order in the region beyond simply exercising influence in the past, we must keep a close eye on the Chinese move. A neighbor to China becoming a global power, Korea faces the need to study the rise of China from the perspective of its influence on the Korean Peninsular and changes in the regional order of Northeast Asia since historical/territorial issues of the present and the future exist between the two nations. The socialist regime in China is bound to emphasize nationalism as a means of pursuing global hegemony, stressing the concept of “Greater China”, in order to lay down the basis of China as a ‘unified multi-national country’. China will stumble over inner chasm or conflict involving minorities in its march toward supremacy. That is why the regime has started the Northeast Project, claiming that all histories that once appeared in the Chinese territory of today are all Chinese history. National borders and boundaries have changed over time but the Chinese government makes an unreasonable claim in total disregard of such background and only on the basis of the present borderline. Some argue that the Northeast Project aims simply to address their inner issues, but, the truth is the other way around. Chinese regime has insisted stubbornly on ‘the Northeast Project’ as a part of its pursuit of supremacy with political motives. As a result, although the autonomy of academic community is not guaranteed in socialist regime, many groups are disagreeing with ‘the government-led Northeast Project.’ Their voices are heard in interviews and their claims substantiated in publications. Since ‘the Northeast Project’ contradicts the orthodox histories of the 25 Chinese dynasties and makes unreasonable interpretation of the historical relations between China and its neighboring nations, it fails to draw unanimous agreement even within China. As a conclusion, it is fair to say that ‘the Northeast Project’ has failed in academic terms, at the central government level and in the international arena. However, it still seems necessary to address continuously the distortion prevalent in the 3 northeastern provinces of China and the so-called ‘Post-Northeast Project’ led by local social science academies. Whether it is ‘the Northeast Project’ or its similar successor, simple academic response is not enough. In addition to counter argument by academic community and the press, the best recourse must come from the government. Furthermore, it is necessary to keep trying to engage China in a dialogue over history to resolve historical/territorial issues between China and Korea. The general public and the government must make significant efforts in support of historical research network between China and Korea, organizing joint historical research committee, negotiating joint history textbook, arranging joint historical site tour programs for the youth and convening regular workshops involving academic institutions of both countries in the future.