We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To industrialize our country, the primary issue before us is to learn from the Soviet Union…. we must set going a tidal wave of learning from the Soviet Union on a nationwide scale, in order to build up our country …‘follow the path of the Russians.’
– Renmin ribao [People's Daily], 14 February 1953
One cannot say that, as it stands, the post-1991 Russian Federation is really a nation-state. It is more a bleeding hulk of empire: what happened to be left over when the other republics broke away.
– Geoffrey Hosking, 1997
And all our decisions, all our actions must be designed to secure Russia a place among strong, economically developed and influential countries in the foreseeable future…. I believe that Russia's return to the community of rich, developed, strong, and respected countries of the world must be our fundamental goal.
– Vladimir Putin, 2003
The Russia Factor
What is most striking about the new identity and role of Russia in Korean affairs is not that there have been no situation-specific turns and twists – for indeed there were many, as we discuss later in the chapter – but that in the transition from the Cold War to post–Cold War era Moscow, more than Washington, Beijing, or Tokyo, started with a bang and ended with a whimper.
Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given, and transmitted from the past.
– Marx (1959: 320)
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.
– Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (1859)
To think about Korean unification in the post–Cold War era is to encounter a double paradox. Perhaps at no time since the end of World War II, when Korea was liberated and divided, has the prospect of Korean unification seemed closer, yet never has it been more distant. On the one hand, it is the weaker North Korea far more than the stronger South Korea that holds a master key to shaping the future of the divided Korean peninsula. On the other hand, the future of North Korea itself – if it will have any future – largely depends on the support of outside powers, most important, South Korea, China, the United States, Japan, and Russia, in that order.
A shrimp gets crushed to death in the fight between whales.
– An old Korean saying
Historically, we Koreans have lived through a series of challenges and have responded to them. Having to live among big powers, the people on the Korean Peninsula have had to cope with countless tribulations. For thousands of years, however, we have successfully preserved our self-respect as a nation as well as our unique culture. Within the half-century since liberation from colonial rule, and despite territorial division, war, and poverty, we have built a nation that is the 12th largest economic power in the world.
– President Roh Moo-hyun's Inaugural Address, February 25, 2003
The Three Koreas Revisited
The previous old Korean saying pithily captures the conventional realist wisdom about the security predicament of the weak in the region of the strong. Indeed, there is no mistaking the extraordinary ramifications of great-power rivalry for Korea's place in world affairs. For more than a century, and especially between 1894 and 1953, the Korean peninsula became a highly contested terrain that absorbed and reflected wider geopolitical struggles and even sanguinary wars involving, to varying degrees, imperial Japan, czarist Russia, the Soviet Union, Qing China, the People's Republic of China (PRC), and the United States – variations on the Big Four of contemporary Northeast Asian international relations.
Past experience, if not forgotten, is a guide for the future.
(Qianshi bu wang, houshi zhi shi)
An old Chinese saying
The China Factor
There is no mistaking the importance of the PRC in post–Cold War Korean foreign relations. The combined weight of history, culture, geography, demographics, military power, political status, and, most recently, market power virtually guarantees that China will be acknowledged as a major player. Consider China's potential trump cards in Korean affairs: (1) demographic weight as the world's most populous country (nineteen times the population of the two Koreas); (2) continental size, as the world's second largest country, forty-four times the size of the Korean peninsula, and territorial contiguity in the sharing of a 1,360-km-long border with almost the entire northern stretch of the Korean peninsula; (3) modernizing military manpower with the world's largest armed forces (but reduced to 2.25 million by 2004) and the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile; (4) veto power in the UN Security Council; 5) new economic status as the world's second largest economy (with its gross national income at $5.6 trillion in 2002 and $6.4 trillion in 2003, measured in PPP), the world's fastest growing economy (with per capita GDP passing the $1,000 level in 2003), the world's third largest trading power – with trade reaching $1.15 trillion in 2004, up 36 percent from 2003 – after the United States and Germany but ahead of Japan, the world's largest recipient/destination of FDI (at $60.6 billion in 2004), and the world's second largest holder of foreign exchange reserves at $609.9 billion at the end of 2004; and (6) traditional Confucian cultural influence with strong historical roots.
Evidence from sample surveys and local field studies have long supported opposed arguments about the impact of market reform on the value of political office in the rural economy. This article reviews the evidence, describes a gradual convergence in findings, and identifies unresolved questions about qualitatively different local paths of development. Examining previously unexploited data from a nationally representative 1996 survey, a resolution of the remaining issues becomes evident. The value of political office initially is very modest, as the first private entrepreneurs reaped large incomes. However, subsequent economic development led to rapid increases in the earning power of cadres and their kin, and by the end of the Deng era the returns to political office were roughly equal to those of private entrepreneurs. The political advantages were not limited to regions that industrialized rapidly under collective ownership: they were large even in regions where the private economy was most extensive. However, despite evidence of large and enduring political advantages, those who reaped wealth from political position were only a small fraction of the newly rich, the vast majority of whom achieved wealth without current or past office-holding or kinship ties to cadres.
This article re-evaluates an important yet usually ignored episode in modern Chinese ethnopolitical history. It seeks to argue that, in the midst of the Second World War, Chiang Kai-shek manoeuvred towards a possible war with Tibet in order to serve other military, strategic and political purposes, namely, to insert his direct control into China's south-western border provinces that were still in the firm grip of obstinate warlords. Chiang Kai-shek's careful manipulation of the Sino-Tibetan border crisis in 1942–43 also reveals how he and his top military advisors perceived wartime China's territoriality and border defence in south-west China. With considerations of regime security and national survival foremost in their minds, top KMT leaders took a pragmatic stance towards the intractable issue of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. In addition, at the diplomatic level, the Sino-Tibetan border crisis brought discord among the Allied Nations. The Chinese regarded Tibet as part of China whereas the British had long considered it within their sphere of influence. Eventually the Chinese won the sympathy of the US government. Facing Sino-British disagreement over Tibet's political status, the State Department continued to recognize Nationalist Chinese authority in Tibet, however fictitious that authority was. In retrospect, this episode, along with the US government's official stance towards China's sovereignty over Tibet, although a only a minor disagreement between the Allied Nations during the war, led to the problematic Tibetan issue that still haunts the international community today.
This article takes recent theoretical essays by Shanghai scholar and public intellectual, Xu Jilin, and other scholars of the history of thought and culture (sixiang wenhua shi) as a case study of efforts by intellectuals in the People's Republic of China to define and promote a role as public intellectuals separate from the party-state. This analysis suggests that political liberalism is used in such intellectual discourse to explain the social experience of intellectuals in China today and to promote a renewed public role for them. This public intellectual discourse is characterized by the continued privileging of sixiang (thought), by the naturalizing of foreign theories about liberalism, and by the use of such thought work to argue for a renewed public role for intellectuals as interpreters of public issues rather than as legislators of public values.
The word suzhi has become central to contemporary China governance and society. Reference to suzhi justifies social and political hierarchies of all sorts, with those of “high” suzhi being seen as deserving more income, power and status than those of “low” suzhi. This article examines the rise of the word's popularity during the reform era, the ways in which its meaning has been transformed, and the relationships of the word to earlier discourses. It proceeds through three sections: a linguistic history, a genealogy of related discourses and an analysis of the contemporary sociopolitical context. The historical section focuses on the spread of the word across various political and social contexts during the reform era. It examines the ways in which the word operates semantically and the challenges to translation these semantic structures pose. The genealogical section explores the historical antecedents of the meanings of the word in earlier political and social discourses both in and out of China. Finally, the sociopolitical section examines the uses to which the word is put and asks what the rise of suzhi discourse tells us about contemporary China's governance, culture and society.
Collective action directed at the government is not rare in China, but why some actions endure and succeed whereas many others fail remains inadequately addressed. Based on a case of home owners' sustained collective resistance in Shanghai, this study finds that state power is fragmented at the local level. While the disparate priorities among different levels of state authorities provide opportunities for resistance, social networks between participants of collective action and officials or media workers may significantly help the former to achieve success.