Paekche's Principle - The Great Secret Of Asia

At Yamato arrived a great number of Paekche refugees. The annals noted during the
winter of the year 666 the “presence of more than 2,000 Paekche women and men
installed to the east and maintained at the expense of Yamato state since 663, without
distinction between them of their black or white race”. Many of these Paekche were
quickly appointed key positions in Yamato’s state apparatus as experts in the army, in the
health system or legal administration.
An anti-Unified Shilla sentiment quickly took shape so much so that no influent
emissaries sent every year by Unified Shilla would exceed Chikushi, at the borders of
Yamato before 690 (Jito 4. Shinmun 10.) when they were finally received in Naniwa and
the imperial court. It was only in 709 that an emissary of Unified Shilla, Kim Shinbok,
could meet a ministry of Yamato, Fujiwara-no-Fuhito (658-720), in the government
palace for the first time. All documents of the time tend to show that Japan spoke of
friendly relations with Shilla only under Fujiwara-no-Kamatari (614-669) and his son
Fuhito, during the Hakuho period of art (670-710). [61].
Needless to say that the continuation of war on the diplomatic field between Paekche
refugees and continental government of Unified Shilla undoubtedly contradicts the
classical theory of unification of the peninsula, and even a pre-existing ideology of that
kind. In addition, such facts as: the role of Tang China largely exceeding that of mere
Shilla’s tactical military support; Shilla’s proven submission to Tang China, as reported
by eyewitnesses of the so-called war of unification, in Nihon shoki’s sections XXVI.18 and
the following sections of the Book of Empress Saimei [48][49]; the war of 732 that later
opposed Parhae (born from Koguryo’s ashes) to the Unified Shilla/Tang China coalition
and after which a peace agreement was reached between Tang and Parhae — of which
Unified Shilla is excluded at the initiative of Tang China — thus exacerbating tensions
between Unified Shilla and Parhae until their collapse; King Mu of Parhae (r. 719-737)
emphatic claim in his letters to the Emperor of Japan of direct parentage of his state with
the former kingdom of Koguryo which the territory it occupies and where traditions and
customs of the ancient kingdom of Puyo are perpetuated; his successor, King Mun (r.
737-793) who called himself Koguryo kukwang, King of Koguryo [62]; the brief
establishment of a kingdom of Later Paekche from 892 on the ruins of the Unified Shilla;
or even later, the very long integration in time of two national identities after the
reception of Parhae’s people into Koryo society (935-1391) [63] are other examples that
contradict the theory of a unification process. Rather they suggest the existence of
several distinctive and deep-rooted ancient peninsular national identities that I think in
line with a North Korean disputed theory refuting the notion of “unification” by Shilla to
that of a first national unification of the Later Three Kingdoms by Koryo. That North
Korean theory therefore speaks of “Later Shilla” in its “process of partial integration”
38