On March 28-29, 2013, the Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences hosted the XVII scientific Conference "Korea: Lessons of History and Challenges of our Time". The 39 reports presented were divided into four sections: "Politics", "Culture", "History", and "Economics".

The conference was opened by the Deputy Director of IDV RAS S. G. Luzyanin. He noted that 2012 was a year of change of ruling elites both in countries related to the Korean problem (the re-election of Vladimir Putin in Russia and Barack Obama in the United States), and in Asia itself (as a result of the elections in South Korea, a woman president Park Kyung-hee was elected for the first time, in Japan she came to power). (Liberal Democratic Party). In connection with the problem of security in the NEA, according to Sergey Luzyanin, there is a whole range of complex problems: Sino-North Korean relations, the active influence of the United States on this region, which was especially strengthened after the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, on the one hand, and on the other, the young leader Kim Jong Un does not yet have a solid foundation of trust the people and real political experience. Third issue In July 2013, the DPRK and ROK will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the end of the Korean War, in which neither side has yet acknowledged its responsibility for inciting it. According to Sergey Luzyanin, Russia's position on this and other issues remains unchanged: the general improvement of the situation in the NEA, the solution of the problem of nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula, and the policy of resuming dialogue between North and South Korea.

The "Politics" section (11 reports) focused on both contemporary issues that have developed on the Korean Peninsula and the NEA: the change of ruling elites in the DPRK and the ROK, the policy of the United States, China, Japan and Russia in this region, and historical issues: the lessons of the Korean War of 1950-1953, territorial problems of Japan and the ROK and Russia, prospects for the development of the North Korean missile program, etc. Presentations were made by: A3. Zhebin (Head of the Central Research Institute of the Institute of Internal Affairs of the Russian Academy of Sciences) "On the situation on the Korean Peninsula"; A.V. Vorontsov (Head of the Department of Korea and Mongolia of the Institute of Internal Affairs of the Russian Academy of Sciences) "The Korean Peninsula in 2013: traditional worries and new Hopes"; Kim Yong-un (Institute of Internal Affairs of the Russian Academy of Sciences) " The Split of Korea: lessons and prospects"; CO. Kurbanov (St. Petersburg.GU) "The history of the Republic of Korea and the DPRK at the beginning of the XXI century: the problem of choosing historical events and their interpretation"; G. N. Kim (Director of the International Journal of History). Center for Korean Studies of KNU, Kazakhstan) "Strategic Partnership in the foreign policy of the Republic of Korea"; R.N. Lobov (St. Petersburg.GU) "Seoul's foreign Policy towards Tokyo: problems and prospects"; A. Yu. Ivanov (Far Eastern State University, Khabarovsk) "Japan's Territorial Claims to Russia and the Republic of Korea: a comparative analysis"; I. V. Dyachkov (MGI(U)Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow) " Dispute over Dokdo Island (Takeshima): international and political dimension of nationalism in the NEA"; O. V. Kiryanov (Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Moscow) " The first year of Kim Jong-un's rule in the DPRK: Can we talk about the beginning of reforms?"; V. V. Evseev (IMEMO RAS)" State and prospects of development of the North Korean missile program"; D. I. Verkhoturov (Ilbek Siberia ,Moscow) "North Korea's successful launch of a launch vehicle as a factor in the military-political situation on the Korean peninsula".

A. Z. Zhebin and A. V. Vorontsov analyzed the positions of North Korea, South Korea, China, the United States and Russia, which are pursuing their policy in the Korean direction.

A. Z. Zhebin believes that now Korea has come close to a dangerous line, beyond which an armed conflict is quite possible. The main reason for this, in his opinion, was the tough position of the United States against the leadership of the DPRK, as well as UN accusations of North Korea testing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, despite the fact that similar tests in Pakistan.

the NA caused them a negative reaction. Therefore, in the foreseeable future, A. Z. Zhebin believes, the DPRK will acquire the status of a nuclear power. The propaganda campaign in the Western media and the United States also played a role in creating a negative image of Pyongyang as the main aggressor among the world community, focusing mainly on the propaganda actions of the North Korean leadership, while saying nothing about the real military preparations of South Korea and the Americans themselves. In particular, the United States and South Korea already conducted joint military exercises in 2012, the purpose of which was to work out the seizure of North Korean territory. As for Russia's position on this issue, the speaker stressed that it is interested in resolving the conflict through peaceful negotiations.

Alexander Vorontsov also believes that the situation on the Korean Peninsula is unstable. Currently, it is frozen between the possibility of breaking into a spiral of a new crisis or resuming the negotiation process. The reasons for the current crisis, in his opinion, are:: strengthening military alliances as a new concept of American foreign policy towards Pyongyang, which aims to change the ruling regime in North Korea; intensifying military preparations and developing space technologies in the DPRK and ROK, and the northerners even managed to bypass the southerners (satellite launch in 2009); tough position of the ROK and the United States regarding the return of the DPRK to the process six-party talks, from which it withdrew in 2009 due to the launch of its satellite. Despite the efforts of Russia and China, which managed to prepare the ground for the return of North Korea to the negotiating table, South Korea and the United States put forward unacceptable demands for the North Korean leadership to fully denuclearize the DPRK, etc. However, despite the alarming situation, neither the North nor the South benefit from war, and therefore the speaker is confident that there is hope for improving inter-Korean relations.

Kim Yong-un's speech was devoted to the problem of the political and state division of Korea in 1948, which led to the Korean War. The final results of the war, which ended with an armistice in July 1953, were never summed up. The Korean people have suffered incalculable human, material and cultural losses. As a result, not only the ideological, political and state division of the nation was consolidated, but also the cultural, spiritual and civilizational disintegration. According to the speaker, the Korean nation may have already passed the point of no return to restoring its unity.

In the course of the discussion that unfolded after the speeches, questions arose: what is the real prospect of unification now? And is a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula possible in the near future? Kim Yong Un replied that if President Lee Myung-bak's policy of"forcible regime change and takeover" of the DPRK is continued in South Korea, the prospects are zero. In addition, the unification is hindered by a number of objective reasons: in the course of historical development in the North and in the South, two ethnotypes of the Korean nation have already formed, which are very different in mentality and cultural and civilizational terms, and no more than 40% of relatives of families separated by war and remembering a united Korea remain. As for the war, conversations and personal meetings with politicians, scientists and ordinary citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan allow us to conclude that no one in the South wants it, because they realize what huge material costs and human casualties it will lead to.

A number of reports were devoted to Japanese-Korean relations.

According to Lobov, during Lee Myung-bak's presidency, South Korea's policy towards Japan was characterized by attempts to restore political dialogue between Seoul and Tokyo. Nevertheless, the unresolved problem of Dokdo Island, which both countries consider their own, hinders the development of trusting and partnership relations. Dokdo Island has been a sticking point between Seoul and Tokyo since Roh Hyun's presidency. Under President Lee Myung-bak, disputes have intensified, leading to strained relations between Japan and the ROK. According to the speaker, this problem is unlikely to be resolved in the near future, since for both Japan and South Korea it is not just a territory, but a matter of national pride.

Continuing the topic of territorial disputes and Dokdo Island in particular, A. Y. Ivanov noted that NEA is one of the regions of the world where territorial and water disputes between neighboring countries occur most frequently. The main parties to the dispute are South Korea, North Korea, Japan, China and Russia. And this is not accidental, since the rapid development of the economy in the NEA countries, along with the strengthening of nationalism in them, inevitably leads to competition between

with them. The main "skirmisher" of territorial disputes is Japan, which has put forward claims to South Korea in relation to the island of Dokdo (Tayushima) and in relation to the four islands of the Kuril Ridge, which belong to Russia. A. Yu. Ivanov believes that disputes over territories are hidden, so they do not yet have a significant impact on the overall political climate in the region. However, in the event of a conflict, they can become a source of aggressive actions.

I. V. Dyachkov believes that in this dispute, the ruling elites of Kazakhstan and Japan use nationalist sentiments to achieve their domestic political goals. The dispute over Dokdo Island has led to open opposition from Korean and Japanese nationalists. The seemingly stable territorial conflicts are nevertheless gradually becoming more complex and inevitably move from the discursive field to the real one, while the regional security configuration may not be ready for such changes.

Oleg Kiryanov's message was dedicated to the first results of Kim Jong-un's rule in North Korea and the possible radical renewal of the DPRK. Continuing the course of his father, Kim Jong-un introduced a number of changes in domestic policy. These include the reshuffle of personnel in the military leadership, the return of technocrats to the Cabinet of Ministers, and measures to improve the economy. Nevertheless, the speaker believes that it is too early to talk about radical reforms.

During the discussion that unfolded after the report, Yu. V. Vanin made a speech. Reforms in the DPRK, he noted, have been proceeding gradually since the period of Kim Il Sung's rule (the Juche ideology). Later, this ideology was constantly updated in accordance with the requirements of the time. Thus, under Kim Jong Il, open trade and economic zones were created (the Songun policy), which actively attracted foreign capital. However, the main thing, according to Yu. V. Vanin, is that North Korea cannot make a big breakthrough on the Chinese model, since the country's normal development is hindered by military isolation and an economic blockade.

Reports by V. V. Evseev and D. N. Verkhoturov were devoted to the prospects for the development of the DPRK's missile program. V. V. Evseev analyzed the dynamics of the development of the North Korean missile program and showed its state, taking into account new data obtained after the successful launch of the Unha-3 launch vehicle in December 2012. The DPRK has made significant progress in developing missile technologies, which may allow it to create ballistic missiles with a range of up to 6-7 thousand km in the future. Being united in assessing the success of North Korea, the speakers differ in their conclusions. D. N. Verkhoturov believes that the DPRK has already solved technical problems related to the construction of combat missiles. V. V. Evseev he believes that in the absence of sufficient funding and the backwardness of the material and technical base, such work is quite difficult to complete. Therefore, the missile threat from the DPRK should not be exaggerated.

At the "Culture" section, 10 reports were read: Lee Sang Yoon (RSUH, St. Petersburg) " New trends in modern Korean literature (1990-2010)"; A.V. Pogadaeva (RSUH) "Problems of modern society in the work of Korean writer Pyong Hyeon"; I. A. Chesnokova (RSUH) " Description of selected villages (Thenniji) in the perception of a modern Korean"; N. I. Ni (IB RAS) " On the revival of traditions in the era of globalization (sijo genre in the second half of the XX century)"; T. B. Egorov (MGI (U)Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation) "The Soft Power of Korean Cultural Expansion"; E. V. Lachina (MSLU) "South Korean Taekwondo as a prototype and element of the "Korean wave""; K. L. Khmelnitskaya (IPV, Moscow) "Specifics of Korean cinema"; A. A. Guryeva (St. Petersburg State University) "The Image System" and corporate culture in the Republic of Korea"; E. M. Ermolaeva (FEFU, Vladivostok) " Formation of a new image of South Korea during the Fifth Republic (1981-1987)"; M. A. Baklanova (HSE) " Formation of the image of North Korea in the context of the school course of moral education in the Republic of Korea (1945-2008)".

Lee Sang-yoon's report was devoted to new trends in South Korean literature. It conventionally divides its history into three periods: 1) democratic literature of the late 80-ies of XX century, covering the problems of war, divided nation, social issues, etc. These are writers such as Lee Myung-yeol, Chws Inchun, Cho Sehee, etc.; 2) megalopolis literature (the inner world of a person living in a city, problems of marriage, fathers and children, women's topics) Chws Yoon, Shin Gyeong-euk, etc.; 3) literature describing the mores and aspirations of young people who are building a career in a post-industrial society. Here, the problems of youth unemployment, interethnic marriages, etc. come to the fore.

Lee Sang-yoon concludes that South Korean literature, like that of other countries, develops in the context of changes taking place in society.

T. B. Yegorov and E. V. Lachina made interesting presentations focusing on Korean cultural expansion.

T. B. Yegorov's speech on the "Korean wave" noted that South Korea claims to be the dominant force in the NEA and strengthens its position by increasing the attractiveness of the country. As a result, the concept of "Korean wave" ("hallyu") arises-the penetration of Korean mass pop culture into other countries: China, Japan, and Southeast Asian countries. Since the 1990s, the Korean wave has spread to more than 60 countries, including the Middle East and Africa. The growing popularity of everything Korean: TV series, movies, fashion, music, etc. increases the international competitiveness of the Republic of Korea, providing the necessary potential for using "soft power".

E. V. Lachina showed the "Korean wave" through the prism of the spread of Korean martial arts, in particular taekwondo. In her opinion, taekwondo can be considered as a prototype of the "Korean wave" and as its element.

M. A. Baklanova's goal was to show how the image of the DPRK was transformed in school textbooks at different historical stages of South Korea. The national idea of the Republic of Kazakhstan since 1945 and practically up to the end of the 1990s was determined by the concept of reunification of the split nation and the confrontation between the North and the South. Therefore, anti-communism was one of the main attitudes in the ideological policy of South Korea. In line with this ideology, it was inevitable to create a negative image of North Korea as an enemy, and its government as the main culprit of the fratricidal war. Qualitative changes occurred only in 1998, when the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Kim Tae-joon, proclaimed the "solar heat policy". The new course meant a change in the ethno-political attitudes of South Korean society towards inter-Korean interaction: the slogan "one nation , one state" gives way to the idea of two independent states co-existing on the basis of one Korean ethnic group.

The History section (11 reports) covered a variety of topics, ranging from archaeological discoveries to U.S.-Korean relations. Presentations were made by O. V. Dyakova (Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok) "The North-Eastern Project: results and prospects"; B. S. Akulenko (Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok) "The impact of 2012 archaeological discoveries in the Republic of Korea on understanding the ancient history of the Korean Peninsula and East Asia"; Yu. A. Kovalchuk (Institute of Philology KNU, Kiev) "Korea in the descriptions of Catholic missionaries of the XVI-XVII centuries"; A.M. Pastukhov (IDV) "Circumstances of the beginning of the Japanese-Chinese intervention in Korea in the summer of 1894"; K. V. Asmolov (IDV Central Research Institute) "The Korean War as an example of a managerial crisis"; V. A. Hrynyuk (IDV Center for Japanese Studies) "History of the Formation of the Korean Diaspora in Japan"; A. I. Sharafetdinova (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences) "Signing of the US-Korean Treaty of 1882 and lessons for Korea"; K. V. Ivanov (Irkutsk State University) "Reports of the Consulate General of the USSR in Seoul as a source for studying the colonial period of Korea"; D. A. Sadakov (Vyat.GU, Vyatka) "The Soviet Administration in Korea and American diplomats (1945-1948): perception and problems of interaction"; A.D. Kurakov (Russian State Library, Moscow) "On the issue of the Jeju Island Uprising"; A. A. Kurmyzov (IDV)"South Korean-American relations in the 1970s: Problems and Contradictions".

Olga Dyakova spoke about the state of the Northeast Project, which was initiated by China to study the archaeological sites of the ancient northern states: Bohai and Goguryeo, the difficulty of studying which lies in the fact that the history of these states goes back to ancient times. Their real study began only in the 2000s. It was at this time that China established a center for the study of border cultures in the regions: north-east (Russia and Korea), north (Mongolia), etc. Special attention was paid to the search for monuments in Goguryeo and partly in Bohai. The goal of the project was to secure the Goguryeo monuments located on the territory of Goguryeo for the Chinese side, in order to prove that these states were subordinated to China. One example is the registration of UNESCO frescoes in Jilin Province. The response to this was the aggressive position of the DPRK (where it is officially considered that the current North Korea is a direct heir to the culture of the ancient Goguryeo people) and the ROK (who consider Bohai to be one of the ancient Korean states, part of which is located on the territory of present-day Siberia and the Russian Far East. - Author's note.In the media of Seoul and Pyongyang, a campaign was launched against falsifying history, and in the DPRK they even put forward a slogan that read:: "Goguryeo is a native Korean state." Following this, North Korea in a hurry

It sent representatives to UNESCO to register its monuments as soon as possible. It should be noted that since the cult of Goguryeo reigns in the DPRK, because it is directly related to the Juche ideology, there are more frequent cases of artificial "aging" of archaeological artifacts.

O. V. Dyakova's report sparked a discussion on topics far removed from archeology. In particular, K. V. Asmolov asked her to tell more about Russia's participation in the North-Eastern project. O. V. Dyakova noted that in the 1990s there were practically no professional archaeologists in South Korea. "In a relatively short time, the science of the Republic of Kazakhstan has been replenished with experienced specialists trained in Russia. Based on the results of the excavations, China managed to organize its monuments and released a colorful catalog with photos and a detailed report on the entire project. Russia does not participate in the North-Eastern project in any way.

K. V. Asmolov in his report expressed the opinion that the Korean War was an example of a geopolitical catastrophe that occurred as a result of a consistent accumulation of managerial mistakes and incorrect management decisions made on the basis of false information, ideological attitudes, personal ambitions and political conjuncture. At first, Moscow gave the go-ahead for the military operation, based on the beliefs of Kim Il Sung's ally Park Hong - yong that the Ri Seung-man regime is on the verge of collapse, and the United States will not interfere in this conflict. But the war began, and the uprising in South Korea, which was the main calculation, did not happen. Moreover, the United States intervened in the war faster and more actively than it could have imagined. When the pendulum swung in the other direction, the UN leadership was so caught up in ambition and the desire for a beautiful victory that it lost its sense of reality. Although it was much easier to anticipate the possible entry of the PRC into the war in the fall of 1950 than it was for the Kremlin to assess the future actions of the United States in the spring of 1950 (MacArthur's intelligence directly ignored the information that did not fit into the concept). Therefore, the history of the Korean War, according to K. V. Asmolova, this is a lesson and a warning to today's politicians in both the DPRK and the ROK, as their growing ambitions can pose a real danger to the entire Korean Peninsula.

The reports of A. I. Sharafetdinova, D. A. Sadakov and A. A. Kurmyzov were devoted to various aspects of US policy in Korea.

A. I. Sharafetdinov was mainly interested in the historical results of the treaty concluded by the United States with Korea. In her opinion, the Treaty of 1882 between Korea and America had an unequal character, including articles on extraterritoriality and consular jurisdiction. The United States received the rights of the most favored nation. Nevertheless, the treaty contained some favorable clauses for Korea, but it overestimated the treaty's ability to protect its independence. The lesson of the signing of the US-Korea treaty is that the leadership of present-day Korea, in the interests of preserving its security, should first strive to strengthen its own economic and foreign policy position in order to maintain more symmetrical relations with other states.

D. A. Sadakov's report was devoted to the relations between the Soviet military administration in Korea and American diplomats. As you know, after the liberation of Korea from Japanese rule in 1945, Soviet and American troops were stationed on its territory. The peninsula was managed by military administrations headed by Generals T. F. Shtykov and J. P. Blavatsky. Hodge. According to D. A. Sadakov, it was precisely the activities of the Soviet military administration that prevented the establishment of constructive, mutually beneficial cooperation and the maintenance of ties between the occupation zones. The actual refusal to exchange goods, the policy of "communization" of the North, active participation in the formation of the four-Korean army equipped with offensive weapons, all this significantly reduced the level of trust between the military administrations of both powers. The United States suspected the USSR of seeking to maximize its influence in the North, and in the near future to extend it to the entire peninsula, which prompted the Americans to bet on the split of the Korean peninsula and led to the formation of two Korean states in 1948.

Using the example of South Korean-American relations in the 1970s, A. A. Kurmyzov showed that relations between strategic partners were not always smooth. Despite the fact that Kazakhstan is traditionally perceived in Russia as an obedient junior partner of the United States, this does not exclude conflicts and contradictions between them. On the one hand, relations with the United States remain the most important foreign policy priority of South Korea, and on the other hand, Seoul seeks to pursue a more independent foreign policy. Further, using the example of the history of relations between President Carter and Park Jung-hee, the speaker convincingly showed that the ROK is not only

It was an object of political and economic influence of the United States, but also tried to manipulate its powerful ally.

The Economics section (7 reports) considered various aspects of economic realities: opportunities for integrating the economies of the DPRK and the ROK, cooperation between the ROK and Russia, foreign investment in the DPRK, etc. The section was attended by: S. S. Suslina (IDV Central Research Institute) "Complementarity of the economies of North and South Korea as a promising basis for their mutual integration"; L. V. Zakharova (IDV Central Research Institute) "On the issue of conditions and opportunities for foreign investment in the DPRK"; M. P. Kukla (Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok) "Realities and Prospects of foreign Investment in the DPRK". prospects for trade and investment cooperation between the Republic of Korea and the Russian Far East"; D. V. Gordienko (IDV) "Impact of the global financial and economic crisis on the level of economic security of South Korea"; V. G. Samsonova (IDV Central Research Institute) "Socio-economic situation in the Republic of Kazakhstan at the present stage: new challenges and prospects"; A. F. Sinyakova (MGI (U)Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation) "Some economic consequences of population aging in the Republic of Kazakhstan, Japan and China"; S. V. Tsareva (Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation) "On some aspects of trade and economic cooperation between Russia and the Republic of Korea: a business perspective".

S. S. Suslina highlighted the prospects for integration of the economies of North and South Korea. In her opinion, maintaining the complementarity of the two economies can become a good comprehensive basis for expanding the forms and potential of economic cooperation between the two countries, and then lead them to implement a consistent unification process. International support in the form of multilateral economic projects that promote the restoration of integration ties between the DPRK and the ROK can play a positive role. 65 years have passed since Korea split into two different socio-economic systems. Currently, both countries represent a special unique experiment in the duration of the competition between two parts of one tragically divided nation. Given the fundamental difference between the economies of the North and the South, Suslina believes that unification and integration are not yet possible. However, in the long run, movement in this direction is possible. It will be as follows. If for the Republic of Korea (the third economically powerful player in the NEA), the vector of further socio-economic development will be directed towards the liberalization of its market model, an innovative breakthrough into the global economy, then for North Korea, the main reference point is the reanimation of the economy using international development strategies (primarily Chinese and Vietnamese) with an emphasis on preserving the state control while combining a "sick" economic model burdened with military expenditures with the challenges of the global market system.

M. P. Kukla focused on the problem of trade and investment cooperation in the Far East between Russia and Kazakhstan. She noted that the idea of technological modernization and development of the Far East has not yet found real implementation in the state's foreign economic strategy. In the short term, it is impossible to overcome the raw material orientation of Russian exports. Gradually increasing the added value of exported raw materials through the creation of assembly plants and logistics projects is the way to gradually increase the positive effects of Russian-Korean trade and investment cooperation. Its new promising areas in the Far East may include the supply of medical equipment and the creation of medical centers, coal mining and transportation, the associated modernization of ports, and the development of new mineral deposits.

D. V. Gordienko's report was devoted to the financial and economic crisis and its lessons for the Russian economy. Using the example of South Korea, the speaker showed what steps the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan has taken since the beginning of the crisis to prevent its consequences. The anti-crisis policies of the Government and the Central Bank of South Korea in 2008-2011 could be divided into the following groups: stabilization of the financial sector; monetary policy; support for the real sector of the economy; increasing social protection of the population; tax reforms and changes in budget policy.

V. G. Samsonova described the current economic development of South Korea. In her opinion, it is difficult and controversial today. On the one hand, Kazakhstan is one of the drivers of economic growth in the Asia-Pacific region. South Korea's economic performance is as follows: in 2012, GDP reached $ 1.1 trillion, while GDP per capita reached $ 28,000, and the unemployment rate is low at 3.2%. South Korea ranks 15th in the world in terms of economic development. On the other hand, in the socio-economic sphere, the-

serious problems continue to grow: the stratification of society, the widening gap between the poor and the rich, the increase in the share of unemployed among young people; in the economy: a reduction in South Korean exports to European countries, growing discontent on the part of European partners under previously concluded free trade agreements, a decrease in the competitiveness of goods due to rising production costs, etc. The speaker believes that these problems will have to be solved by the new Korean government headed by Park Kyung-hee.

Summing up the conference, we note that it was successful. Its participants discussed a wide range of issues related to the Korean Peninsula, both political and cultural, as well as economic, and exchanged information and opinions on various issues, including in an informal setting.

Permanent link to this publication: