Jeong-Ho Roh
I. Introduction
Korea has been “likened in shape to a rabbit, caught by the ear and held by Russia at Vladivostok, but to Oriental fancy it appears like a dagger pointed at the heart of Japan.”1 These words written by George Herber Jones in 1907 describe Korea’s past complicated rela- tions with its more powerful neighbors and underscore a problem which may be inherent in its geography. It is also a subtle foreshad- owing of the ultimate misfortune that would befall Korea in 1910 which would, in the most profound way imaginable, transform the course of Korean history and identity. While the destiny of a nation might be determined by forces of geopolitics, geography or internal circumstance, in the case of Korea a combination of all of the above factors have played a role, directly or indirectly, in loss of indepen- dence and then creation of a divided modern day Korea. The loca-
1 George Heber Jones, Korea: The Land, People, and Customs (New York: Jennings
& Graham, 1907), p. 7.
tion of Korea has, without doubt, contributed to this misfortune.
Regrettably, that in itself does not sufficiently explain how other smaller countries in Europe and Asia, similarly situated in a strategic intersection of powerful neighbors, have managed to maintain their independence as nation states.
During the late 19th and early 20th century, Japan waged wars against China and Russia over control of the “dagger pointed at the heart of Japan.” Japanese victory in the Sino-Japanese War provided for an independent Korea that was free from the rights of suzerainty that China had exerted for centuries and its victory in the Russo-Japanese War assured unopposed supremacy over the region. Having thus neutralized potential challenges from other powers that may stake a claim to Korea, the annexation of Korea in 1910 was but a mere for- mality in Japan’s goal to lay sole claim to the dagger.2 Previous efforts by Korea to appeal to the international community at the 1907 Hague peace conference did not result in a redress of the loss of Korean independence since Japan had in the eyes of international law legally taken over the conduct of Korean foreign relations. The concept of peace during the early 20th century had to a large degree accepted colonization as not illegal per se under international law.3 At the con- clusion of World War II in 1945 Korea regains its independence from Japanese colonial rule marking the second time in a span of 50 years that Korea secures independence as a result of outside circumstances.
Much like Korea’s experience with independence from Chinese suzerainty in 1895, independence in 1945 which had been granted
2 Charles A. Fisher, “The Role of Korea in the Far East,” The Geographical Journal, vol. 120, no. 3 (1954), pp. 285~286.
3 Alexis Dudden, Japan’s Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power (Honolulu:
University of Hawai’i Press, 2005), pp. 7~8.
by circumstances, rather than earned, did not result in creation of a fully independent sovereign state but left Korea powerless to oppose creation of a divided nation which to this day has endured.4
The phrase “Korean Question” has been used as a term to illustrate either an unresolved problem or as a means to highlight ambigu- ity that powers surrounding Korea have had regarding the precise status of Korea vis-à-vis their own interests. The question of ascer- taining the precise nature of Korea as an independent nation has been central to what is known as the “Korean Question.” The formal formulation of the term “Korean Question” in the post-World War II era began with debates surrounding the question of Korean inde- pendence and sovereignty in 1947 when the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 112 (II) under the title of “The Prob- lem of the Independence of Korea” stating “Inasmuch as the Korean Question…is primarily a matter for the Korean people itself and concerns its freedom and independence... [The General Assembly]
calls upon all Members of the United Nations to refrain from inter- fering in the affairs of the Korean people during the interim period preparatory to the establishment of Korean independence…”5 How- ever, use of the term “Korean Question” predates the 1947 Resolu- tion to the mid-1860’s and revolves around the similar question of ascertaining the nature of Korean independence during the period marking the start of the open port trading system in Korea. During this period, much of the debate centered on whether Korea was a
4 Andre Schmid, Korea Between Empires: 1895~1919 (New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press, 2002), p. 27.
5 UN General Assembly, Resolution 112 (II), “The Problem of the Independence of Korea,” November 14, 1947, <http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLU- TION/GEN/NRO/038/19/IMG/NR003819.pdf?OpenElement>.
fully independent and sovereign nation enjoying the full rights and privileges of nation states under the then forming concepts of inter- national law. What was the nature of its relations with China that caused this country’s refusal to follow the path of Japan which had ended its long period of self-isolation and had opened up to the burgeoning trade relations with the West since 1854?
Against this historical backdrop, this chapter examines the changing nature of “Korean independence” from the period 1870 to 1910.
This chapter is the first of what is envisioned to be a four part series which will be forthcoming in subsequent publications. It provides the historic and legal framework from which to approach an exami- nation of the evolution of the “Korean Question” for the subsequent periods that follow. Conceptually, the coverage of the questions relating to Korea and the Korean Question can be divided into four broad periods: (1) 1870~1910: This period is the topic of this chap- ter and covers the early period of Korea’s opening up to the Western powers. During this period, the concept of “independence” of Korea under Western notions of international law created much confusion among the powers that were seeking to open up trade relations with Korea because of the perceived dependency relationship with China.
Japan attempts to define the “Korean Question” couched in terms consistent with expansionism in Asia and uses international law as the basis upon which to achieve the goal of asserting supremacy over the region. This chapter relies on actual treaties and agreements as the basis for analyzing the historical and legal significance of this period. The aim of this chapter is not to provide a general historic chronology but to focus narrowly on the issue of “independence” and the evolution of Korean independence in the context of important historic events. (2) 1911~1946: The period immediately following
annexation by Japan up to the period prior to the “Korean Ques- tion” being taken up at the United Nations. The “Korean Question”
during this period revolves around efforts to regain independence and gain recognition of Korea’s right to independence. It explores the events leading up to the Cairo Declaration and the infamous “in due course” debate and the ultimate failure of Korea to secure full independence and sovereignty. (3) 1947~1991: In the aftermath of division of the Korean Peninsula, the “Korean Question” becomes a formal debate at the United Nations. It is first expressed as one of achieving a unified, independent and democratic Korea under a rep- resentative form of government but with the advent of the Korean War and diplomatic competition for international recognition, there is very little development in formulating a solution to the Korean Question. The international community essentially becomes divided into two camps and the focus of the debate surrounding choosing between the two Koreas develops into the question of not which Korea to recognize but recognizing that there are two Koreas. (4) 1992~present day: With the simultaneous entry of both Koreas to the United Nations, the debate over competition and legitimacy becomes overshadowed by North Korea’s nuclear program. The
“Korean Question” during this period undergoes a fundamental shift to a debate over the “North Korean” question or the “problem of North Korea.” The debate over unification continues but in conjunc- tion with resolving the question of a nuclear North Korea.