fluktor -|||- study - office - newsletter January 30, 2004

artdaily - Friday, January 30, 2004

Only one third of China´s Great Wall still stands
Vandalism, pigsties and natural erosion blamed for collapse. Two-thirds of the Great Wall of China has been destroyed by sightseers, developers and erosion, Beijing´s state-run media reported yesterday in a warning that the world heritage site is crumbling out of existence.

Survey teams are said to have found large new breaches in the ramparts, which are believed to have once stretched almost 4,000 miles. Other sections are said to have been vandalised, covered in graffiti and ripped up for use in pigsties and coalmines.

"Booming tourism, development and lack of funds for protection are nibbling away the Great Wall," reported the Xinhua news agency. "Only one third of the wall now exists and the length is still shortening."

It is the clearest indication yet that booming China is failing to use its new wealth to conserve what ought to be a source of national pride. Renovations that have been carried out have ended with clumsy exploitation, such as at Badaling, where tourists can ride toboggans and cable cars, eat at a KFC outlet and have their picture taken with camels and life-size cutouts of Mao Zedong.

British experts said yesterday that past regimes had done little to preserve the wall. Attitudes were changing but the vastness of the structure made it difficult to maintain. Carol Michaelson, assistant keeper in the Asia department at the British Museum, said the Chinese government tended to try to carry out "rescue acts" on its monuments. "When something becomes really bad they do something about it."

However, she accepted that preserving the whole length of the wall was an "impossible job". She said: "The wall is of such a length that it is impractical to keep it all up and in pristine condition. In an ideal world the whole wall would be preserved but you have to be pragmatic about it.

"It is also desirable for money to be spent on literacy and health care."

According to Chinese guidebooks, the oldest sections of the wall date back more than 2,000 years, but most of the structure was built during the Ming dynasty (1368-1644). Millions of labourers were conscripted and often worked to death to build the seven-metre high, seven-metre wide ramparts, which ultimately failed to prevent invasion by "foreign barbarians".

Rescue acts

Although the wall survived the Mongol hordes, it has fared less well against sand storms, erosion and human activity, prompting concern around the globe. Last October, the World Monument Fund put it top of its annual list of the planet´s most endangered architectural sites.

Prominent overseas visitors have also expressed amazement at China´s neglect of the wall. The Badaling area, which is run by a company listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange, is the most popular section of the wall, attracting 10 million visitors a year. When the president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, visited the region last May he sighed to reporters, "Go-kart rides, Disneyland-type scenes and golden arches. Is this good?"

Worried that the issue could be an embarrassment during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Chinese authorities have taken steps to halt the deterioration.

Last year, Beijing introduced laws to protect the 400-mile stretch under its jurisdiction. Ten years ago, the central government established cultural preservation offices to keep watch over the wall.

But such well-intentioned measures lack resources and a means of enforcement. Typically, a stretch of more than 100 miles is looked over by a three-man office with an annual budget of just £150.

According to the latest report, hard-pressed and poorly trained conservation officials have even granted approval for acts of vandalism by developers. In one 600-year-old stretch of the wall in Hebei province, surveyors found a 14-metre section had been torn down by a local construction firm and refilled with concrete apparently with the approval of the local cultural preservation office.

The developer, Zhou Wen was fined 100,000 yuan (£7,000) for the damage caused by his villa resort project, but he complained bitterly that he was only trying to protect the wall by rebuilding it.

Conservation groups said such statements illustrated the lack of understanding about conservation in a country that has put such an overwhelming emphasis on economic development.

"Improper repair is just one kind of destruction," Dong Yaohui, general secretary of the Great Wall Society of China, told reporters. "It´s much better to keep it as it was if we can´t repair it properly."

Conservationists say the government needs to promote education and devote more resources to the wall. But given the scale of the problem and the growing manmade and natural pressures, even the wall´s most ardent supporters concede that public funds and tough new laws will not be enough to save the remaining third of China´s greatest cultural asset.

Peter Ferdinand, acting chair of politics of Warwick University and an expert on the Chinese government, said he believed the authorities did now have the will to preserve what remains of the wall.

He said: "For ideological reasons previous regimes did not want to preserve the past. That is partly why so much of it has crumbled. I don´t think the present regime can turn the tide and begin to rebuild the wall - the stones are scattered wide and far for that. But I think efforts are being made to save what is left."

Dr Ferdinand said the Chinese were fond of the idea that the wall could be seen from the moon, even though last year a Chinese astronaut caused controversy by revealing on his return from space that he had not been able to see the structure.

Sense of pride

"Even so, a sense of pride remains in the wall and I think the Chinese government will do more to try to preserve it."

In its latest report on the wall, the New York-based World Monuments Fund describes it as "one of the most extensive cultural landscapes on earth."

But the report adds: "Less protected areas far from the Chinese capital, known as the ´wild wall´ and its surrounding landscape, have come under ever-increasing pressure from uncontrolled tourism and commercial development."

The fund report says since it listed the wall in 2002 as one of the world´s most endangered monuments, media attention had prompted the Chinese government to legislate to protect areas near the capital. But it warns: "Significant portions of the wall remain unprotected, at risk of damage wrought by age and exploitation."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
http://www.artdaily.com/links.asp?idl=28&id=338

******************************

The Korea Herald - Friday, January 30, 2004

What lies behind China's 'Northeast Asia Project?'

The following is the first in a series of contributions by prominent Korean history scholars on the Goguryeo Kingdom. - Ed.
Since February 2002, the Center for the Study of Borderland History and Geography under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has been working on a five-year national project called "Studies of History and Geography of Northeast Borderland and a Series of Phenomena" (hereinafter "Northeast Asia Project"). This project appears to be one of China's national priority projects dealing with various problems related to history, geography and ethnic issues in Northeast China (Manchuria) in an interdisciplinary manner. In dealing with various issues, however, the Northeast Asia Project is distorting Korea's ancient history concerning the kingdoms of Goguryeo, Balhae and Gojoseon.

China's "Northeast Asia Project" In 2001, a special bill concerning the legal status of Korean compatriots living in China was submitted to the Korean National Assembly. In the same year, North Korea also applied to register a group of Goguryeo tumuli on the UNESCO's World Cultural Heritage List. It appears that these independent events promted the Chinese to plan and move forward with the "Northeast Asia Project."

And, the Chinese authorities began at the national level to develop various measures concerning such issues as the ethnic Koreans as well as the unification of the Korean Peninsula.

The Chinese reasoning appears to be that if the Goguryeo tumuli were to make the World Cultural Heritage List as submitted by North Korea, China's justifications for making the history of Goguryeo part of its own might lose ground. For this reason, not only has China been obstructing North Korea's application for registration with the World Cultural Heritage List, but it has also taken its own initiatives in the spring of 2003 by applying for registration a group of Goguryeo tumuli near Jian with the World Cultural Heritage List. Taking a long view, these Chinese moves can be construed as preliminary steps to solidifying its positions involving territorial as well as border issues upon Korea's unification.

Outline of the "Northeast Asia Project" Under the project, the research on Korea's ancient history are focused on Gojoseon, Goguryeo and Balhae, but the kingdom that is receiving the most extensive attention is Goguryeo. Goguryeo is the main theme in its preface, which argues that Goguryeo was an ethnic regime in an ancient Chinese province. There have been a lot of discussions about the history of Goguryeo. But, through this state-sponsored project China has definitively stated that in its official view that Goguryeo was one of China's provincial regimes.

To back up its argument, China has come up with various reasons, but they are poorly grounded and hardly convincing in light of historical facts. Some of them argue that Goguryeo was a provincial state founded by an ethnic group based in the territory of China; that despite several moves of the capital, Goguryeo was unable to move out of the boundary of the Four Han Provinces; that Goguryeo maintained a suzerain-vassal relationship with China's central dynasties at all times, having never attempted to sever the relationship on its own; and that after the downfall of Goguryeo, its ruling class was merged into the ethnic Han nation. The Chinese insist that these are historically accurate facts, and that Goguryeo should not be confused with Goryeo or Joseon. It argues that the Go clan of Goguryeo and the Wang clan of Goryeo are not related by blood ties, and that one did not succeed the other in light of the fact that 250 years of history separate the two kingdoms.

China's history distortions that claim Goguryeo as part of Chinese history, are far more serious than the issue of Japanese distortion of history textbooks. The Japanese history textbook case concerns a "new edition" of state-approved school history textbooks. The Chinese history issue is truly serious because the project is sponsored and led by the Chinese government itself. Moreover, it attempts to distort the histories of such old Korean kingdoms as Balhae (AD 698-926) and Gojoseon (2333-108 BC), not to mention Goguryeo (37 BC-AD 668). If these distortions are left uncorrected, they could result in undercutting the span of Korean history to less than 2,000 years and delimiting the size of Korea's territory to an area south of the Han River.

Under the circumstances, we should first of all clearly grasp the basis of and logic behind Chinese arguments in distorting the fact of history about Goguryeo Kingdom. We then have to develop systematic counterarguments, precisely pointing out the distorted parts. And, to brace ourselves for an extended debate over these history distortions, we should redouble the efforts to collect relevant materials concerning Korean history in China's northeastern region (Manchuria) in terms of history, geography, ethnic origins, etc. So far, the level of our interest in the Manchurian region has been relatively low, and we must admit that our research on the region has been at a fledgling stage.

The most urgent task at this point is to help North Korea to successfully register the Goguryeo tumuli with the UNESCO World Heritage List, because it was this application that prompted the Chinese to launch the Northeast Asia Project.

If China were to succeed in placing the Goguryeo tumuli located in Manchuria on the Heritage List as Chinese, it could lead to a serious misunderstanding of the Korean kingdom as indeed a part of Chinese history. The history of Goguryeo is not a history belonging to either South or North Korea exclusively. It is the history of the entire Korean people. Consequently, a successful defense of the history of Goguryeo will also serve as an excellent case of inter-Korean teamwork.

Research institute Korea must set up a research institute that is equal in capacity to the Chinese Center for the Study of Northeast Borderland History and Geography. This institute will develop mid- and long-term strategies for the defense of our positions, conduct systematic research on the ancient history of Northeast Asia, including the history of Goguryeo Kingdom, and establish a government-civilian-academic network for an effective promotion of research results to the Korean people and worldwide. This research center will concentrate research on Goguryeo Kingdom and pursue various projects, such as collecting related historic materials, developing basic mid- and long-term research, educating talented next-generation scholars, fostering professional civilian institutes, and exposing China's willful distortions of facts and historical truths.

The new "Goguryeo History Research Center" will focus on the histories of the regions to the north of the Korean Peninsula, including the histories of Goguryeo Kingdom, Gojoseon, Buyeo and Balhae, specifically concentrating on territorial and ethnic issues. Since the center will be charged to carry out diverse functions and responsibilities, it should be a joint government-civilian-academic project, led by the government and academic circles with civilian organizations providing broader support activities.

By Choe Kwang-sik
(kukh@korea.ac.kr)

The writer is a professor of Korean history at Korea University. He is also the director of the Korea University Museum and serves as the chairperson for the coalition of 17 historical societies calling for action against Chinese attempts to distort history of Goguryeo. - Ed.

2004.01.28
http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2004/01/28/200401280023.asp

***********************

The Korea Herald - Friday, January 30, 2004
Koreas to tackle Goguryeo issue

South and North Korea may join forces to deal with the Chinese claim that the ancient kingdom of Goguryeo was part of its legacy.

Seoul will raise the issue next week when the two Koreas hold their first ministerial talks of the year, Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun said yesterday.

His comments came a day after Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said the country would take a firm stance on what it calls the Chinese distortion of ancient history. Korea and China both claim sovereignty over the dynasty.

"Considering public opinion and the current situation, I think we will naturally discuss the issue (at inter-Korean talks)," Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun said in a weekly news briefing. "And I believe we must do so."

There has been intense speculation that the two Koreas might join forces to deal with the heated debate because both sides have grown increasingly uneasy about Chinese academics claiming sovereignty over the Gogureyo kingdom that formerly ruled over much of the Korean Peninsula.

But yesterday's comments were the first official recognition that the issue would be on the agenda for inter-Korean talks. This has also raised speculation that the Seoul government may shift from its non-intervention policy on the Gogureyo problem.

Only three weeks ago, Jeong, Seoul's top North Korea policymaker, expressed skepticism over prospects for joint inter-Korean discussions on the matter, saying intervention by government authorities was undesirable. He repeated the government's insistence that the dispute must be tackled at the academic level, in an apparent attempt not to politicize the matter.

"The authorities' role is limited to creating an atmosphere so that their academics can cope with the issue," he said.

Seoul has recently decided to provide financial support to help Pyongyang preserve tombs in its territory from the Goguryeo period.

The communist state's attempt last year to register historic mounds that UNESCO has designated World Heritage sites failed due to alleged Chinese interference and the poor condition of the tombs. But the bid is widely expected to succeed this year.

Regarding the 13th inter-Korean ministerial talks scheduled for Feb. 3-6, he said the North Korean nuclear issue would top the agenda. "We will urge the North to rejoin six-party talks over its nuclear program at an early date," Jeong said.

Since the first meeting involving the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia ended without agreement in August in Beijing, all countries have intensified diplomatic efforts to open a second round with Pyongyang.

Seoul negotiators will also call for their counterparts to agree to resume stalled talks between the North and South's defense ministers. The first and only meeting was held in September 2000.

The two countries have continued to hold working-level meetings to encourage bilateral economic and social exchanges across the heavily militarized border. But the minister said higher-level talks, such as those by defense ministers, were essential to reduce military tension and build permanent trust. Ways to promote ongoing economic cooperation projects are also expected to be high on the agenda.

(soyoung@heraldm.com)
2004.01.30

____________________

Matthias Arnold M.A.
Digital Resources
Institute of Chinese Studies
University of Heidelberg
Akademiestr. 4-8
69117 Heidelberg
Germany

Phone: ++ 49 - (0) 62 21 - 54 76 75
Fax: ++ 49 - (0) 62 21 - 54 76 39

http://www.chinaresource.org
http://www.sino.uni-heidelberg.de

www.fluktor.de
www.zhaomo.de.vu


	January 30, 2004: [Achtung! Kunst] chinese wall - the goguryeo (korguryo) problem

	artdaily - Friday, January 30, 2004 Only one third of China´s Great Wall still stands Vandalism, pigsties and natural erosion blamed for collapse. Two-thirds of the Great Wall of China has been destroyed by sightseers, developers and erosion, Beijing´s state-run media reported yesterday in a warning that the world heritage site is crumbling out of existence. Survey teams are said to have found large new breaches in the ramparts, which are believed to have once stretched almost 4,000 miles. Other sections are said to have been vandalised, covered in graffiti and ripped up for use in pigsties and coalmines. "Booming tourism, development and lack of funds for protection are nibbling away the Great Wall," reported the Xinhua news agency. "Only one third of the wall now exists and the length is still shortening." It is the clearest indication yet that booming China is failing to use its new wealth to conserve what ought to be a source of national pride. Renovations that have been carried out have ended with clumsy exploitation, such as at Badaling, where tourists can ride toboggans and cable cars, eat at a KFC outlet and have their picture taken with camels and life-size cutouts of Mao Zedong. British experts said yesterday that past regimes had done little to preserve the wall. Attitudes were changing but the vastness of the structure made it difficult to maintain. Carol Michaelson, assistant keeper in the Asia department at the British Museum, said the Chinese government tended to try to carry out "rescue acts" on its monuments. "When something becomes really bad they do something about it." However, she accepted that preserving the whole length of the wall was an "impossible job". She said: "The wall is of such a length that it is impractical to keep it all up and in pristine condition. In an ideal world the whole wall would be preserved but you have to be pragmatic about it. "It is also desirable for money to be spent on literacy and health care." According to Chinese guidebooks, the oldest sections of the wall date back more than 2,000 years, but most of the structure was built during the Ming dynasty (1368-1644). Millions of labourers were conscripted and often worked to death to build the seven-metre high, seven-metre wide ramparts, which ultimately failed to prevent invasion by "foreign barbarians". Rescue acts Although the wall survived the Mongol hordes, it has fared less well against sand storms, erosion and human activity, prompting concern around the globe. Last October, the World Monument Fund put it top of its annual list of the planet´s most endangered architectural sites. Prominent overseas visitors have also expressed amazement at China´s neglect of the wall. The Badaling area, which is run by a company listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange, is the most popular section of the wall, attracting 10 million visitors a year. When the president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, visited the region last May he sighed to reporters, "Go-kart rides, Disneyland-type scenes and golden arches. Is this good?" Worried that the issue could be an embarrassment during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Chinese authorities have taken steps to halt the deterioration. Last year, Beijing introduced laws to protect the 400-mile stretch under its jurisdiction. Ten years ago, the central government established cultural preservation offices to keep watch over the wall. But such well-intentioned measures lack resources and a means of enforcement. Typically, a stretch of more than 100 miles is looked over by a three-man office with an annual budget of just £150. According to the latest report, hard-pressed and poorly trained conservation officials have even granted approval for acts of vandalism by developers. In one 600-year-old stretch of the wall in Hebei province, surveyors found a 14-metre section had been torn down by a local construction firm and refilled with concrete apparently with the approval of the local cultural preservation office. The developer, Zhou Wen was fined 100,000 yuan (£7,000) for the damage caused by his villa resort project, but he complained bitterly that he was only trying to protect the wall by rebuilding it. Conservation groups said such statements illustrated the lack of understanding about conservation in a country that has put such an overwhelming emphasis on economic development. "Improper repair is just one kind of destruction," Dong Yaohui, general secretary of the Great Wall Society of China, told reporters. "It´s much better to keep it as it was if we can´t repair it properly." Conservationists say the government needs to promote education and devote more resources to the wall. But given the scale of the problem and the growing manmade and natural pressures, even the wall´s most ardent supporters concede that public funds and tough new laws will not be enough to save the remaining third of China´s greatest cultural asset. Peter Ferdinand, acting chair of politics of Warwick University and an expert on the Chinese government, said he believed the authorities did now have the will to preserve what remains of the wall. He said: "For ideological reasons previous regimes did not want to preserve the past. That is partly why so much of it has crumbled. I don´t think the present regime can turn the tide and begin to rebuild the wall - the stones are scattered wide and far for that. But I think efforts are being made to save what is left." Dr Ferdinand said the Chinese were fond of the idea that the wall could be seen from the moon, even though last year a Chinese astronaut caused controversy by revealing on his return from space that he had not been able to see the structure. Sense of pride "Even so, a sense of pride remains in the wall and I think the Chinese government will do more to try to preserve it." In its latest report on the wall, the New York-based World Monuments Fund describes it as "one of the most extensive cultural landscapes on earth." But the report adds: "Less protected areas far from the Chinese capital, known as the ´wild wall´ and its surrounding landscape, have come under ever-increasing pressure from uncontrolled tourism and commercial development." The fund report says since it listed the wall in 2002 as one of the world´s most endangered monuments, media attention had prompted the Chinese government to legislate to protect areas near the capital. But it warns: "Significant portions of the wall remain unprotected, at risk of damage wrought by age and exploitation." Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003 http://www.artdaily.com/links.asp?idl=28&id=338 **************************** The Korea Herald - Friday, January 30, 2004 What lies behind China's 'Northeast Asia Project?' The following is the first in a series of contributions by prominent Korean history scholars on the Goguryeo Kingdom. - Ed. Since February 2002, the Center for the Study of Borderland History and Geography under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has been working on a five-year national project called "Studies of History and Geography of Northeast Borderland and a Series of Phenomena" (hereinafter "Northeast Asia Project"). This project appears to be one of China's national priority projects dealing with various problems related to history, geography and ethnic issues in Northeast China (Manchuria) in an interdisciplinary manner. In dealing with various issues, however, the Northeast Asia Project is distorting Korea's ancient history concerning the kingdoms of Goguryeo, Balhae and Gojoseon. China's "Northeast Asia Project" In 2001, a special bill concerning the legal status of Korean compatriots living in China was submitted to the Korean National Assembly. In the same year, North Korea also applied to register a group of Goguryeo tumuli on the UNESCO's World Cultural Heritage List. It appears that these independent events promted the Chinese to plan and move forward with the "Northeast Asia Project." And, the Chinese authorities began at the national level to develop various measures concerning such issues as the ethnic Koreans as well as the unification of the Korean Peninsula. The Chinese reasoning appears to be that if the Goguryeo tumuli were to make the World Cultural Heritage List as submitted by North Korea, China's justifications for making the history of Goguryeo part of its own might lose ground. For this reason, not only has China been obstructing North Korea's application for registration with the World Cultural Heritage List, but it has also taken its own initiatives in the spring of 2003 by applying for registration a group of Goguryeo tumuli near Jian with the World Cultural Heritage List. Taking a long view, these Chinese moves can be construed as preliminary steps to solidifying its positions involving territorial as well as border issues upon Korea's unification. Outline of the "Northeast Asia Project" Under the project, the research on Korea's ancient history are focused on Gojoseon, Goguryeo and Balhae, but the kingdom that is receiving the most extensive attention is Goguryeo. Goguryeo is the main theme in its preface, which argues that Goguryeo was an ethnic regime in an ancient Chinese province. There have been a lot of discussions about the history of Goguryeo. But, through this state-sponsored project China has definitively stated that in its official view that Goguryeo was one of China's provincial regimes. To back up its argument, China has come up with various reasons, but they are poorly grounded and hardly convincing in light of historical facts. Some of them argue that Goguryeo was a provincial state founded by an ethnic group based in the territory of China; that despite several moves of the capital, Goguryeo was unable to move out of the boundary of the Four Han Provinces; that Goguryeo maintained a suzerain-vassal relationship with China's central dynasties at all times, having never attempted to sever the relationship on its own; and that after the downfall of Goguryeo, its ruling class was merged into the ethnic Han nation. The Chinese insist that these are historically accurate facts, and that Goguryeo should not be confused with Goryeo or Joseon. It argues that the Go clan of Goguryeo and the Wang clan of Goryeo are not related by blood ties, and that one did not succeed the other in light of the fact that 250 years of history separate the two kingdoms. China's history distortions that claim Goguryeo as part of Chinese history, are far more serious than the issue of Japanese distortion of history textbooks. The Japanese history textbook case concerns a "new edition" of state-approved school history textbooks. The Chinese history issue is truly serious because the project is sponsored and led by the Chinese government itself. Moreover, it attempts to distort the histories of such old Korean kingdoms as Balhae (AD 698-926) and Gojoseon (2333-108 BC), not to mention Goguryeo (37 BC-AD 668). If these distortions are left uncorrected, they could result in undercutting the span of Korean history to less than 2,000 years and delimiting the size of Korea's territory to an area south of the Han River. Under the circumstances, we should first of all clearly grasp the basis of and logic behind Chinese arguments in distorting the fact of history about Goguryeo Kingdom. We then have to develop systematic counterarguments, precisely pointing out the distorted parts. And, to brace ourselves for an extended debate over these history distortions, we should redouble the efforts to collect relevant materials concerning Korean history in China's northeastern region (Manchuria) in terms of history, geography, ethnic origins, etc. So far, the level of our interest in the Manchurian region has been relatively low, and we must admit that our research on the region has been at a fledgling stage. The most urgent task at this point is to help North Korea to successfully register the Goguryeo tumuli with the UNESCO World Heritage List, because it was this application that prompted the Chinese to launch the Northeast Asia Project. If China were to succeed in placing the Goguryeo tumuli located in Manchuria on the Heritage List as Chinese, it could lead to a serious misunderstanding of the Korean kingdom as indeed a part of Chinese history. The history of Goguryeo is not a history belonging to either South or North Korea exclusively. It is the history of the entire Korean people. Consequently, a successful defense of the history of Goguryeo will also serve as an excellent case of inter-Korean teamwork. Research institute Korea must set up a research institute that is equal in capacity to the Chinese Center for the Study of Northeast Borderland History and Geography. This institute will develop mid- and long-term strategies for the defense of our positions, conduct systematic research on the ancient history of Northeast Asia, including the history of Goguryeo Kingdom, and establish a government-civilian-academic network for an effective promotion of research results to the Korean people and worldwide. This research center will concentrate research on Goguryeo Kingdom and pursue various projects, such as collecting related historic materials, developing basic mid- and long-term research, educating talented next-generation scholars, fostering professional civilian institutes, and exposing China's willful distortions of facts and historical truths. The new "Goguryeo History Research Center" will focus on the histories of the regions to the north of the Korean Peninsula, including the histories of Goguryeo Kingdom, Gojoseon, Buyeo and Balhae, specifically concentrating on territorial and ethnic issues. Since the center will be charged to carry out diverse functions and responsibilities, it should be a joint government-civilian-academic project, led by the government and academic circles with civilian organizations providing broader support activities. By Choe Kwang-sik (kukh@korea.ac.kr) The writer is a professor of Korean history at Korea University. He is also the director of the Korea University Museum and serves as the chairperson for the coalition of 17 historical societies calling for action against Chinese attempts to distort history of Goguryeo. - Ed. 2004.01.28 http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2004/01/28/200401280023.asp ********************* The Korea Herald - Friday, January 30, 2004 Koreas to tackle Goguryeo issue South and North Korea may join forces to deal with the Chinese claim that the ancient kingdom of Goguryeo was part of its legacy. Seoul will raise the issue next week when the two Koreas hold their first ministerial talks of the year, Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun said yesterday. His comments came a day after Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said the country would take a firm stance on what it calls the Chinese distortion of ancient history. Korea and China both claim sovereignty over the dynasty. "Considering public opinion and the current situation, I think we will naturally discuss the issue (at inter-Korean talks)," Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun said in a weekly news briefing. "And I believe we must do so." There has been intense speculation that the two Koreas might join forces to deal with the heated debate because both sides have grown increasingly uneasy about Chinese academics claiming sovereignty over the Gogureyo kingdom that formerly ruled over much of the Korean Peninsula. But yesterday's comments were the first official recognition that the issue would be on the agenda for inter-Korean talks. This has also raised speculation that the Seoul government may shift from its non-intervention policy on the Gogureyo problem. Only three weeks ago, Jeong, Seoul's top North Korea policymaker, expressed skepticism over prospects for joint inter-Korean discussions on the matter, saying intervention by government authorities was undesirable. He repeated the government's insistence that the dispute must be tackled at the academic level, in an apparent attempt not to politicize the matter. "The authorities' role is limited to creating an atmosphere so that their academics can cope with the issue," he said. Seoul has recently decided to provide financial support to help Pyongyang preserve tombs in its territory from the Goguryeo period. The communist state's attempt last year to register historic mounds that UNESCO has designated World Heritage sites failed due to alleged Chinese interference and the poor condition of the tombs. But the bid is widely expected to succeed this year. Regarding the 13th inter-Korean ministerial talks scheduled for Feb. 3-6, he said the North Korean nuclear issue would top the agenda. "We will urge the North to rejoin six-party talks over its nuclear program at an early date," Jeong said. Since the first meeting involving the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia ended without agreement in August in Beijing, all countries have intensified diplomatic efforts to open a second round with Pyongyang. Seoul negotiators will also call for their counterparts to agree to resume stalled talks between the North and South's defense ministers. The first and only meeting was held in September 2000. The two countries have continued to hold working-level meetings to encourage bilateral economic and social exchanges across the heavily militarized border. But the minister said higher-level talks, such as those by defense ministers, were essential to reduce military tension and build permanent trust. Ways to promote ongoing economic cooperation projects are also expected to be high on the agenda. (soyoung@heraldm.com) 2004.01.30 ____________________ Matthias Arnold M.A. Digital Resources Institute of Chinese Studies University of Heidelberg Akademiestr. 4-8 69117 Heidelberg Germany Phone: ++ 49 - (0) 62 21 - 54 76 75 Fax: ++ 49 - (0) 62 21 - 54 76 39 http://www.chinaresource.org http://www.sino.uni-heidelberg.de www.fluktor.de www.zhaomo.de.vu