China's strategy in Korea: rewriting history to weaponize it
went into the history of China and Korea. 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 alleged comment is more than a historical misstatement – it reveals Beijing's broader strategy to position China as the cultural and political center of East Asia. This influence campaign relies not just on power but also on narrative.
By invoking a civilizational legacy, China casts itself as the region's rightful hegemon, with the supposed moral authority to interfere in the affairs of neighbors like Korea. Alarmingly, as Trump's remarks show, even global leaders can be influenced by this revisionist framing.
This narrative drives Beijing's opposition to South Korea's deployment of the US-supplied Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system and South Korea's participation in the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA). But that's just the start.
China has pressured Seoul over defense policy, culture and diplomacy. In response to disagreements, it has used unofficial trade sanctions – targeting Korean firms like Lotte, restricting tourism and banning Korean entertainment.
It even objects to joint US-Korean military exercises held on Korean soil and frequently protests visits by Korean officials to US military bases or strategy meetings. These actions aim to limit Seoul's autonomy, treat South Korea as a vassal rather than a sovereign partner of the US, and dissuade the US from exerting influence in South Korea.
China's historical claims collapse under scrutiny. Korea has been continuously governed by ethnic Koreans, including during the Joseon Dynasty (1392–1897) – a contemporary of China's Qing dynasty. While Joseon maintained a tributary relationship with China, it was symbolic rather than political.
The Korean court chose its own kings, managed foreign policy and never fell under Beijing's direct control.
'China is a civilization pretending to be a state.' This oft-quoted remark captures a vital truth about China's identity and its claims over others.
In fact, for nearly half of its recorded history, much or all of imperial China was ruled by non-Han peoples, primarily from Manchuria and Mongolia. The dynasties they established – such as the Liao, Jin, Western Xia, Yuan and Qing – played major roles in shaping the territorial boundaries and ethnic makeup of late imperial and modern China.
During the Qing dynasty, under Manchu rule, Han Chinese men were forced to adopt the queue hairstyle – shaving the front of the head and braiding the rest. Seen as a symbol of submission, it clashed with Confucian values that regarded cutting hair as disrespectful. For Han Chinese, who saw their hair as a sign of filial piety and cultural identity, the queue was deeply humiliating – but they complied.
In all these cases – and this is crucial – China accepted dynasties led by non-Han rulers as legitimate Chinese dynasties. The Manchus and Mongols were accepted as legitimate rulers of China by virtue not of blood but of the fact they governed through Chinese institutions.
In this sense, China's identity has historically been more civic than ethnic, much like that of the US. Just as the US has been led by people who embraced and upheld American ideals – but not always by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants – China has been ruled by outsiders who preserved and advanced Chinese civilization. This makes Beijing's modern reliance on Han-centric historical claims all the more disingenuous
In contrast, Korea remained unconquered by foreign powers during those periods. Both the Goryeo and Joseon dynasties preserved political independence while maintaining diplomatic and cultural ties with China.
Ironically, during the very periods China now cites to assert regional authority, Korea remained sovereign – while the Han Chinese were under the rule of non-Han dynasties.
Yet Beijing continues to invoke this flawed historical narrative to pressure Seoul into curbing its defense cooperation with Washington.
By opposing missile defense systems, condemning trilateral cooperation with Japan and interfering in domestic education over historical topics like the Goguryeo kingdom, China behaves as though Korea's sovereignty were negotiable.
This is not merely a distortion of the past. It's a calculated effort to undermine Korea's sovereignty and challenge the US foreign policy framework that treats Northeast Asian states as independent and equal partners.
It's also part of a broader pattern of historical revisionism aimed at serving political objectives. By asserting such claims, China seeks to legitimize interference in Korean affairs.
South Korea and the United States have every right to define their military posture, conduct independent diplomacy and shape their shared future together – without seeking Beijing's approval. The US-South Korea alliance is built on mutual respect and shared democratic values, not on civilizational myths or distorted histories. It remains a vital pillar of peace and stability in Northeast Asia.
Washington must maintain a clear-eyed view of China's historical revisionism as a strategic tool – and firmly reject any notion that Korean defense policy requires Beijing's consent. To do otherwise would not only erode South Korea's sovereignty but also embolden China's growing influence across the Indo-Pacific and beyond.
Hanjin Lew, a political commentator specializing in East Asian affairs, is a former international spokesman for South Korean conservative parties.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
an hour ago
- AllAfrica
Time for Japan-South Korea to move beyond guilt and grievance
This August 15 marks the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. Around this time of the year, I find myself in a peculiar and often uncomfortable position: caught between two nations, two identities, and two histories. Being born to a Japanese father and a Korean mother, as someone of these two heritages, I am, in a sense, both the 'colonizer' and the 'colonized.' Growing up, I have lost count of how many times people told me that Japan needs to fully 'own up' to its imperialist past. The word 'atonement' often floats in these conversations, as though it were a single act, a measurable deed Japan must perform to finally be redeemed. I certainly don't seek to defend every decision Japan made, nor downplay the painful reality of its colonial rule over Korea and elsewhere. My Korean side remembers it. And my maternal grandparents were among those who suffered under it. But how long must guilt endure before it becomes something else — ritualized, performative or even weaponized? And what does it mean for a nation to take responsibility, and does it ever end? For Koreans, colonial memory is not abstract. It's deeply personal. My family members lived through those decades, and their ordeal was real. Yet so was the hardship of postwar Japanese civilians, many of whom had no part in the decisions made by generals and bureaucrats, and who were themselves shattered by a war their country initiated. The standard language of diplomacy has often sought to put these legacies to rest through treaties, compensation, and statements of regret. Japan and South Korea normalized relations in 1965, and further apologies and compensation from Japan followed in the decades. Still, public opinion polls in South Korea continue to show high levels of distrust toward Japan. Every few years, a new flare-up over textbooks, monuments or territorial disputes threatens to undo whatever seemingly fragile reconciliation was achieved. That's because historical wounds are not healed by legal documents alone. They exist in families, in classrooms, in cemeteries. They are passed down, not merely as facts, but as emotions such as grief, pride and resentment. Diplomatic settlements aim for closure, but memories resist it. But here's the uncomfortable truth. Not all uses of memory serve to heal, and not all grievances must last forever. At some point, nations must choose what kind of future they want to live in. Must past injustice always define present identity? If so, then the colonizer will always be guilty, and the colonized will always be aggrieved. What room does that leave for mutual dignity? Koreans have every right to remember colonialism. Yet if remembrance becomes a tool to demand endless moral submission from its neighbor, it risks turning historical justice into political capital. At the same time, if Japan continues to deny the emotional truth of colonial memory, reconciliation will always be one step out of reach. The past should not be forgotten. It should be studied, debated, written about, and passed down honestly. That said, nations cannot live forever in the shadow of their worst chapters. Guilt is not a political foundation. Neither is grievance. History must guide the future, not imprison it. The 80th anniversary, therefore, shouldn't just be a time to remember what was lost. It should also be a moment to ask what kind of peace we're still trying to build. And whether Japan and South Korea are finally ready to break free from the old shadows and reconcile for a shared future. Kenji Yoshida is a Seoul-based correspondent for JAPAN Forward. He has lived, studied, and worked in Japan and South Korea for many years and speaks both languages fluently.
AllAfrica
2 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Why Zelensky should be at the table in Alaska
The upcoming summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15 in Anchorage, Alaska, is more than a meeting between world leaders. It is a diplomatic gamble for high stakes, one that seeks to deal with the ongoing war in Ukraine but also exposes the contradictory interests between the two sides. For Trump, the summit is a continuation of his repeated promise to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. Throughout his campaign for president, Trump boasted that he could settle the war within 24 hours of being sworn in, a brash promise that now looks and sounds empty nearly eight months into his term. His August 8 ceasefire deadline came and went with minimal movement on either side. His reaction was to declare this headline-grabbing summit with Putin. The concept, in Trump's words, is to 'feel out' the Russian president and coax him into a ceasefire. But this strategy is confronted by the cold reality that Russia's goals in Ukraine were never about negotiating a peace treaty. They are about territorial expansion and imposing a new sphere of influence, something that Putin is not going to give up without a major change in the prevailing geopolitical scenario, where Moscow has Beijing's firm backing. The meeting place is symbolic as well. Convened in Anchorage, Alaska, a state that has long historical roots with Russia (sold by Russia to the US in 1867), the summit unites the heads of two countries, which are only divided by the slim Bering Strait, at a location replete with Cold War-era military history. Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, where the talks will take place, is a strategic US base in Alaska's defense posture. This context emphasizes the strategic character of the summit. It is no coincidence that Trump and Putin are meeting at a place that defines the complicated dynamic between their two nations, competing in many ways, yet neighbours bound by shared histories and interests. But there is something deeply disturbing in the structure of this summit. Trump and Putin will sit at the same table, while Ukraine itself is left out of the negotiations, much to the dismay of President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump, who has repeatedly expressed disappointment with Putin over the course of the war, has nonetheless indicated that he will push for territory to be returned to Ukraine, particularly in the wake of Russia's occupation of Crimea and the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. But Trump has also warned that the solution could involve 'swapping' land, an approach that would no doubt outrage Ukraine and its allies in Europe. For Zelensky, this represents a non-starter: any deal that cedes Ukrainian territory to Russia is unacceptable. Putin, however, stands firm in his requirements. He wants Ukraine to be neutral and outside of NATO, and for Russia to keep control of Crimea and portions of the Donbas. For Moscow, the war is not merely about winning territory; it is a battle to keep NATO from encroaching further into what Russia envisions as its sphere of influence. The fight over Ukraine is representative of a larger geopolitical battle between the West and Russia, and Putin is not likely to relinquish these core demands. The exclusion of Ukraine from the negotiations is sad but expected. Although Trump has intimated that Zelensky may be invited to the table at a later date, the implication is clear: the future of Ukraine will be determined by a select few world leaders without direct input from the people and government whose lives and sovereignty are most at stake. Zelensky's legitimate concern is that any deal not involving Ukraine proactively would be a deal imposed on the country, ignoring its people's desire and territorial sovereignty. So what does the summit ultimately represent for Ukraine? On one hand, of course, it holds out the chance for US-influenced diplomatic interaction with Russia. On the other hand, Ukraine risks its future being negotiated away in the interest of political expediency. Trump's approach of trying to browbeat Putin into a ceasefire, admirable in its intent to end the carnage, has the potential to make concessions that will not result in a durable, long-term peace. Any deal compelling Ukraine to submit to Russian domination of occupied land would not only be a moral letdown but a geopolitical mistake with profound implications for the security of Europe and the global order. In the broad context, the summit also highlights the failure of diplomacy in an environment where power politics reign supreme. The fact is that the conflict in Ukraine is not simply a local issue; it is a proxy war between global powers. The US, NATO and Russia are engaged in a battle for control of Ukraine, leaving the country's citizens in the miserable middle. Although Trump has good intentions in seeking an end to the war, however, any meaningful resolution requires a comprehensive approach that takes into account the legitimate interests and sovereignty of Ukraine while also addressing the security concerns of Russia. All in all, the Trump-Putin summit in Anchorage will be a pivotal moment, but it is unlikely to yield any simple solution. The path to peace in Ukraine will require more than just a summit between two world leaders. It will require a commitment to the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and self-determination. Until these values are upheld, any 'deal' reached will only serve to perpetuate the cycle of conflict and suffering that has already devastated Ukraine and its people. Bilal Habib Qazi is an independent researcher based in Pakistan with a PhD in international relations from Jilin University in China. His research interests span geopolitics and strategic competition, foreign policy analysis, international security and regional order, as well as global governance and international organizations. He may be reached at bhqazi@
RTHK
4 hours ago
- RTHK
Trump eases US regulations for private space launches
Trump eases US regulations for private space launches Donald Trump's latest executive order paves the way for more Starship launches by SpaceX with its 'fail fast, learn fast' corporate ethos. File photo: Reuters US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order easing regulations for the private space industry, including eliminating some environmental reviews, in a move likely to please his erstwhile adviser Elon Musk. Wednesday's executive order, aimed at "substantially" increasing the number of space launches, was described by an environmental group as "reckless". Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has talked up several space missions, including sending humans to the moon and Mars. The moon and Mars missions are planned to get a ride on the massive Starship rocket of Musk's private firm SpaceX. However, Starship has had a series of setbacks, with its latest routine test ending in a fiery explosion in June. SpaceX dominates the global launch market, with its various-sized rockets blasting off more than 130 times last year – and that number looks set to rise after Trump's executive order. "It is the policy of the United States to enhance American greatness in space by enabling a competitive launch marketplace and substantially increasing commercial space launch cadence" by 2030, the order read. The change could well benefit Musk, who has long advocated deregulation of the space industry. The world's richest man was previously a close adviser to Trump before the pair had a dramatic, public falling out in July. The executive order also called on Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy – who was at the signing and is currently NASA's administrator – "to eliminate or expedite the Department of Transportation's environmental reviews" for launches. SpaceX has been repeatedly criticised over the environmental impact at the sites where Starship, the largest and most powerful rocket in history, blasts off. The US-based nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity said the new executive order "paves the way for the massive destruction of protected plants and animals". "This reckless order puts people and wildlife at risk from private companies launching giant rockets that often explode and wreak devastation on surrounding areas," the center's Jared Margolis said. Musk's dreams of colonising Mars rely on the success of Starship, and SpaceX has been betting that its "fail fast, learn fast" ethos will eventually pay off. The Federal Aviation Administration approved an increase in annual Starship rocket launches from five to 25 in early May, stating that the increased frequency would not adversely affect the environment. (AFP)
