China and North Korea - An Historical Perspective

This post is an attempt to bring some perspective into the current debate about the relationship between China and North Korea. I intend to demonstrate that the relationship between China and Korea, especially North Korea goes back for more than a millennium and needs to be understood in that context. This synthesis is based on material in John Keay's China. A History, London, 2008., though the conclusions drawn are my own

The first firm evidence for Chinese Korean relationships dates from about the first century AD.from the Han Dynasty. under the emperor Wudi. Han relationships with North Korea brought adaptiation to Chinese ways, notably in paper-making and literacy and, probably most significantly, Confucianism. While there was clearly some military conquest by China, relationships were mostly peaceful, since in this era there was no threat to China from the south. The Hans appear to have been forced out of the Korean peninsula some time in the latter part of the first century or second century AD.

During the late sixth-early seventh century the Sui dynasty mounted several disastrous invasions of North Korea, the most significant being the three failed invasions under the emperor Yangdi in 614. For a whole host of reasons Yangdi was, to put it mildly, a most unpopular emperor. His defeats in North Korea ultimately resulted in his assassination in 618, the end of the Sui Dynasty and the rise of the Tang Dynasty.

The Tang emperor Taizong was, unfortunately, driven to emulate his Sui predecessor when it came to North Korea. His two attempts to impose Chinese suzerainty on North Korea failed, the first invasion barely getting into the peninsula before being driven back. The second in 647 suffered a similar fate. Not until 669 would Tang troops enter Pyongyang. Then, under Wu Zetian, protectorates were established over the northern part of the peninsula with only the southern Korean kingdom of Silla surviving. The Tangs remained in northern Korea until 672, and were completely expelled by the resurgent Silla kingdom in 672, according to Korean sources. Nevertheless, Silla would acknowledge Chinese suzerainty and pay tribute to all dynasties up to the Southern Song in 1259.

The Mongol invasion of China and the encirclement of the Southern Song by the Mongol hordes in the same year saw a bloody invasion of the Korean peninsula and forced Korean submission and a new acknowledgement of Mongol suzerainty. The Koreans appear to have been left in relative peace until 1274, when they were forced to be the reluctant staging point of Khubilai's disastrous attempt at invading Japan. The Japanese did not forget. In the 1590s they invaded Korea, forcing the Ming Dynasty into a long, unwanted war.

The next significant involvement of Korea with the Chinese came under the victorious Manchus in 1620 when the Manchu Hong Taiji transformed Chinese military strategy via artillery and siegecraft, and the formation of the famed Manchu Bannerman, who recruited many Koreans for their regiments.

In the sixteenth century Western observers at the Chinese court, like the Jesuit Matthew Ricci, were appalled by Sino-Japanese warfare on the Korean peninsula, but they were bystanders. By and in the nineteenth century,  Korea had sent regular missions to the Manchu emperors, but essentially they maintained their independence. Japanese attempts to follow Western example and establish treaty ports on the Korean peninsula, as the West had done with China, led to the various Western powers, with Chinese encouragement, seek to open their own treaty ports on the peninsula. An internal Korean rebellion in 1894 resulted in the Korean king seeking Chinese troops. The Japanese responded by sending larger forces of their own. The result was war between the Quing court and the Japanese. For the Chinese the war was a complete disaster, leading to a Japanese invasion of China and a humiliating peace in 1895, which virtually made Korea a Japanese protectorate. Chinese influence in Korea was at an end, or so it seemed.

To understand what happened next we have to fast forward to the end of the Pacific War in 1945. As Japanese defeat seemed certain Soviet Russia and the United States rushed to occupy Japanese territory in Korea. At war's end the peninsula was partitioned along the line of occupation, the 38th parallel. In June 1950 North Korea, now Communist and sharing an ideological brotherhood with the victorious Chinese Communists who had established the People's Republic of China in 1949, invaded the American supported south in the name of Korean 'integration'. The subsequent Korean War was fought to a stalemate, with the Peoples' Republic backing Northern Korean Communists with the participation of  up to a million soldiers from the People's Liberation Army. Korea, when the armistice finally came in 1954, was divided into communist and capitalist blocs. China maintains its support of its intransigent southern ally to this day.

But, looking back over the millennium of history what can we conclude about the Chinese-North Korean relationship? Clearly, it goes back much further than a sympathy between two Communist allies. China has shed much blood over and in support of Korea, including an invasion of their own soil by the Japanese, followed by a humiliating capitulation (1895). For centuries the Korean kingdoms were tributaries of Imperial China. To a limited extent, Korea was acculturated by its giant northern neighbour, in much the way, say ,that modern Australia was acculturated by Great Britain. It is not a bond that will be easily broken. North Korea in particular has always been viewed by the Chinese, Imperial, republican and Communist, as a legitimate Chinese sphere of influence. This brief essay is an attempt to explain why, regardless of the antics of the North Korean Communist dictatorship, such a strong bond exists between the two nations. 

And as to their joint future? that is speculation, and speculation is not the business of history.

The Interrupted Performance of General Johnny Burgoyne's 'The Blockade of Boston' January 8, 1776

Boston under siege in January 1776 was a most unpleasant place to be. Fuel was scarce, so scarce that the British Commander-in-Chief, William Howe had authorised the pulling down and burning of the houses and wharves belonging to rebel supporters. There were no fresh provisions. Expected storeships from Britain had failed to arrive. Smallpox had broken out, but fortunately had not reached epidemic proportions. In the bitter winter, though not so bitter as to freeze up Boston Harbor and allow the Americans rebels under Washington to stage an attack to the Boston peninsula's Back Bay from the west, the greatest danger for the British was boredom. To the town's north east, soldiers froze in their tents on the Charlestown Peninsula on the redoubt on Bunker Hill, secured with much blood the previous June and in the outposts on Charlestown Neck, beyond which was rebel-held territory.

British officers and the town's wealthier Loyalists tried to boost morale with balls, concerts, and most importantly, plays, which were performed twice a week on the upper floor of Faneuil Hall, former meeting place of the rebel Sons of Liberty, now 'fitted up very Elegantly for a Theatre' [Lieut. William Feilding to Lord Denbigh, Boston, Jany. 19, 1776 in Marion Balderston and David Syrett (ed.) The Lost War. letters from British Officers during the American Revolution, New York, 1975. p. 58] much to the chagrin of Boston Puritans.

Though theatre had flourished in other major colonial towns, even Philadelphia, to the scorn of the Quakers, since 1750 the Massachusetts General Court had banned the performance of plays because they caused 'great mischiefs', militated against 'industry and frugality' and, most importantly, increased 'immorality, impiety and a contempt for religion.' [Jacqueline Barbara Carr, After the Siege. A Social History of Boston, 1775-1800, Boston, p.199]. This all changed with the arrival of General Johnny Burgoyne, who had set up the Faneuil Hall theatre by about December 1775.

Burgoyne was not only a noted soldier and inept politician. He was also a celebrated playwright. His two-act musical comedy, The Maid of Oaks, (later staged in Boston) had opened to a very mixed reception at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, on November 12, 1774. Horace Walpole thought it 'as dull as the author could not help making it' though Burgoyne's modern biographer notes the 'work became a prototype of a new form of musical comedy, which reflected the influence of middle-class tastes upon dramatic productions.' [Richard Hargrove, Jr. General John Burgoyne. Newark, 1983, pp.63-64]. And Boston was nothing if not middle-class. 

So, on the night of January 8, 1776, the British officers off-duty and the Boston Loyalist elite flocked to Faneuil Hall for performances of Susanna Centlivre's The Busy Body (a 1709 farce) and the premiere of Burgoyne's The Blockade of Boston. The latter was looked forward to with much enthusiasm, as a biting satire on the besieging rebels with all the roles being performed by officers. It was not to be. Across the water the same rebels were planning a raid on the Charlestown peninsula, timed for 9 o'clock, the exact time the curtain was due to rise on Burgoyne's musical fare.

Major Thomas Knowlton with one hundred men had orders 'to go and burn some houses which lay at the foot of Bunker's Hill and at the head of' the now ruined village of 'Charles Town' and 'to bring of the Guard which we expected consisted of an officer and thirty men.' The guard was not there, but with much noise the rebels did burn 'eight houses and brought with them a' drunken 'Sergeant and 4' inebriated 'privates of the 10th regiment, and a woman they were entertaining in one of the deserted houses' A fifth man was killed because he resisted. On Bunker Hill the flashing of the musketry from every quarter of that fort showed the confusion of its defenders - firing some into the air, some in the Mystick river; in short, they fired at random and thought they were attacked at every quarter.' [George Washington to Continental Congress, January 11, 1776 in The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript sources, 1745-1799, John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor, American Memory, The George Washington Papers of the Library of Congress, 1741-1799, http://memory.loc.gov 6/8/06; Extract of a letter from Cambridge, January 9, 1776, in Peter Force (ed.) American Archives,S4-V4-p.612] General Howe was deeply angered when he heard of the  confused British reaction but their confusion was nothing compared to what happened at Faneuil Hall.

An orderly sergeant outside the theatre raised the alarm crying 'Turn Out! Turn Out!' but the audience burst into applause at his appearance, mistaking him for a character in the play. When the applause died down 'he again cried out, 'What the d---l are ye about? If ye won't believe me ye need only to go to the door, and there ye'll hear and see both!' ' Finally convinced the alarm was serious, the officers rushed to their alarm stations, 'one officer was running to his Corps in his petticoats, and another with his faced blacked and in a Negro dress.' Others 'calling out for water to get the paint and smut off their faces, women fainting, etc.' Ensign Martin Hunter believed 'The enemy knew the night it was to be performed and made an attack on the mill at Charleston at the very hour the farce began;' [General Martin Hunter's Journal in G. D. Scull (ed.) The Evelyns in America, Oxford, 1881, pp. 189-190, f/n; Lieut. William Feilding to lord Denbigh, op. cit.,; cited in David McCullough, 1776. America and Britain at War, London, 2005, p.75] In fact, the Americans did not hear about the play's premiere until three days after the raid. [Cambridge, January 11, 1776 in Peter Force (ed.) American Archives, S4-V.4_p. 613, f/n.]

The piece was finally performed without interruption at the end of January, along with Marlowe's Tamerlane. One member of the audience thought '[t]he Characters of the Yankee General [Washington] and the Figure of his Soldiers is inimitable, the Genl: a man who cant Read but can Speachifye, and tell his soldiers they are to obey the Voice of the people in the streets, the Joy the Rebels are in, in reading the Resolve of the Mayor and City of London in favour of the Con-ti-nen-tal Congress in Ph-li-del-phia pa-per is truly Characteristick.' Another thought 'the Audience Expected something better from the Abilities of the Authors. its but a poor performance.' [Lieutenant William Feilding to Lord Denbigh, Boston Jany 28th, 1776 in Balderston and Syrett, op. cit., p.64; Francis Hutcheson to Major General Frederick Haldemand, Boston, January, 25th, 1776 in William Bell Clark, (ed.) Naval Documents of the American Revolution, Vol. 3, Washington, 1968, p.970.

Within less than two months, the despised rebel general would drive the British from Boston, never to return, Legal theatre would not return to Boston until 1794. [Jacqueline Barbara Carr, op. cit., p.221.]