The Taft-Katsura Agreement; An American Sell Out of Korea?
A recent topic of dispute among commenters at the Marmot’s Hole is the alleged American sell out of Korea to Japan with the mutual signing of the Taft-Katsura Agreement. This piece of history, little known to everyone else in the world, is treated with almost Dokdo like reverence in Korean society. This agreement is often used by Koreans to blame the US for the Japanese colonization of Korea. You think I’m exaggerating? Let me remind everyone what the South Korean Unification Minister had to say on this subject:
A hundred years ago, the Philippines became a U.S. colony and the Korean Peninsula a Japanese one owing to the Taft-Katsura Agreement†of 1905, Chung said. The division of the nation and Korean War were not our will either, nor was the failure of the Gwangju Uprising. A century later, Chung promised a hot summer in which our fate will be decided not by North Korea, China, the United States, Japan or Russia, but by our own pride and self-determination.
Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, July 2005
I will focus this posting on just the Taft-Katsura Agreement, though much of the rest of Minister Chung’s comments are just as equally ridiculous as blaming the US for Japanese colonialism. This view is so indoctrinated into Koreans that many foreigners in Korea end up believing it as well because they hear it so often from Koreans they work with. So is this Korean claim true? To determine this you have to first look at the historical context of the era.
The Japanese had been effectively interfering with Korea’s internal affairs since the 1880’s, but China continued to wield the most influence over the country due to it’s protectorate status over Korea. The Japanese were eager to gain a main land Asian colony to where natural resources could be accessed in order to continue the Japanese modernization of both it’s economy and military. The Japanese felt quick modernization was needed in order to prevent the western powers from exploiting and colonizing Japan like they had China. Gaining control of Korea’s natural resources was critical along with securing strategic territory that had long been used as an invasion point into Japan. Plus acquiring a Korean colony would send a huge international message that Japan was a nation ready to colonize, and not be colonized by anyone.
Map of Sino-Japanese War troop movements
The Sino-Japanese War (June 1894-April 1895) between Japan and China was Japan’s first attempt to forcibly wield it’s new power. It is important to note the long time Korean ruling class, the Yangban, did not want to lose their privileged place in Korean society and had long tried to keep Korea isolated from the rest of the world. Thus the term the “Hermit Kingdom“. They feared that the opening up of the country and the economy would dilute the power they wielded within Korea.
Plus the Yangban suspicious of a military coup that would end their power, had not raised and funded a strong national military and had instead relied on their long time protectors the Chinese for national security. The strategic incompetence of not forming a strong domestic army became quite evident when in 1871 American Marines defeated Korean defenders of Kangwha-do island at the mouth of the Han River and occupied it for a short time. This embarrassment of the Korean military eventually led to the signing of the 1883 Jemulpo Agreement between the US and Korea. This treaty confirmed friendly relations between the US and Korea. The easy defeat of the Korean military by the US Marines is probably what began to give the Japanese rulers ideas of an easy conquest and colonization of Korea.
The 1894 Donghak Rebellion, a peasant uprising in the Cheolla province of southern Korea, was used by the Japanese government as an excuse to deploy 8,000 combat troops to Korea to quell the uprising. Before quelling the uprising the Japanese troops seized the Korean capitol of Seoul and captured the Korean emperor. Obviously the Chinese government was not happy about the Japanese power play to gain influence over Korea and began to deploy a force of soldiers to Korea. While this was going on the Japanese installed pro-Japanese Koreans to run the government who legitimized the Japanese use of force to protect Korea from the Chinese. Thus this began the Sino-Japanese War.
The Chinese ultimately lost the war and signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895 that effectively granted Japan imperial influence over Korea and parts of Manchuria without Chinese objections. With the Chinese military weakened after it’s bitter defeat by the Japanese; the European powers took advantage of the situation by occupying strategic areas of Manchuria before the Japanese could move in. Most notably the Russians who occupied a huge area of Manchuria and the entire Liaodong Peninsula. The occupying of strategic areas of Manchuria by the Europeans enraged the Japanese rulers who felt the plunders of their hard earned victory over China was stolen from them. The deployment of over 100,000 Russian soldiers into Manchuria after the 1900 Boxer Rebellion only furthered caused tensions to raise because the Japanese felt that the deployment meant that the Russians were there to stay. A series of treaties were signed between the Japanese and the Europeans in an effort to quell the building tensions in the area. These treaties gave Japan recognized control of the Korean peninsula to Japan while the Europeans would continue to control Manchuria and other areas of China.
Russian controlled Manchuria in dark red.
However, the tension did not subside and open warfare would break out between Russia and Japan. The Russo-Japanese War (Feb. 1904 – May1905) ended with the defeat of the Russian military and the destruction of nearly the entire Russian navy by the Japanese. This victory gave the Japanese undisputed control of not only the Korean peninsula but all of Manchuria as well. This victory had also showed the world that the Japanese were a country to be respected as the equals to any western nation with their defeat of the Russian military.
The Russo-Japanese War was officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Portsmouth in the United States between the Russian and Japanese representatives. It was few months before this treaty was signed that the Taft-Katsura Agreement so remembered today by Koreans was agreed upon. This agreement effectively recognized that the US would not interfere with Japanese ambitions in Korea and Manchuria and that Japan would not interfere with American ambitions in the Philippines. The US leaders wanted official recognition of this reality from the Japanese so they would not have to spend the money fortifying the US colony in the Philippines from possible Japanese attack.
Plus this agreement and the following Treaty of Portsmouth would ensure regional stability after a decade of constant warfare in northeast Asia. All this agreement did was recognize reality at the time. How is recognizing reality a sell out?
Russian and Japanese delegates meet to sign the Treaty of Portsmouth
Also Koreans often site the 1883 Jemulpo Agreement as not being a mutual friendship treaty, but as a defensive pact between Korea and the US. They feel that the US was obligated to come to the defense of Korea against Japan. Here is the passage in the treaty they try to argue is a defensive pact:
Article I.
There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between the President of the United States and the King of Chosen and the citizens and subjects of their respective Governments. If other Powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either Government, the other will exert their good offices, on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable arrangement, thus showing their friendly feelings.
Only in Korea is “exert their good offices” considered a defensive pact. Here is the meaning of “good offices” from dictionary.com:
1. influence, esp. with a person in a position of power: He got the job through the good offices of his uncle.
2. services rendered by a mediator in a dispute.
No where in this definition do I see defensive pact, but this is what many Koreans believe “good offices” means though the definition of it is quite clear. The only obligation the US had was to speak on Korea’s behalf if requested; no where in there does it say the US is obligated to deploy the 7th Cavalry to Korea to take Japanese scalps. However, this didn’t stop Koreans leaders after the signing of the Portsmouth Treaty to try and argue this same point that “good offices” meant a defensive pact with then President Teddy Roosevelt, but Roosevelt refused to meet them and discounted their claims. Can you blame him? Maybe he wasn’t showing “good offices” by refusing to meet them, but no where in the agreement does it say either that the Koreans have exclusive access to the American President. If the United States didn’t come to the aid of Korea during both the Sino-Japanese War and the Russo-Japanese War what made the Korean leaders think that the US would be willing to go to war with Japan now?
A defensive pact would be a formal document all in itself much like what the US and Korea has today, that lays out clear responsibilities of each side. Almost certainly if Korea wanted a defensive pact with the US at the time the US would have requested a military presence within Korea which the Yangban rulers did not want. The US did not have the naval ability that it has today or nearby colonies from which to quickly move troops to defend Korea from external attack thus the signing of a mutual defense pact would be pointless without a forward deployed American troop presence. Even if the Yangban rulers allowed a US troop presence I don’t think the US military could have supported it with it’s already large deployment of forces in the Philippines to put down the insurgency there from Moro guerrillas.
Too many Koreans confuse the US military might of today with the US military of 1905. In 1905 the US military was at the most equal to, if not weaker than the major European powers. If the Japanese had so decisively defeated the Russians whose country is located adjacent to both Korea and Manchuria, how can the United States located on the other side of the world, be expected to sail over to Korea and conduct a 1905 version of the Inchon Landing Operation?
To blame the US for Japanese colonization of Korea is ridiculous. Saying that the US didn’t do anything to help Korea I could agree with, but to blame the US for the Japanese colonization is just another absurd attempt at historical revisionism so prevalent in Korea today. If Koreans are looking to assign blame they should first look at themselves.
Shouldn’t the first responsibility of a government be to ensure national security? Obviously the Yangban were more interested in their own security than national defense. If the Korean government had opened up their economy and simultaneously built up and modernized their army after the embarrassing defeat to the Americans on Ganghwa Island over 20 years prior they may have been able to prevent what happened to them. Remember during the Sino-Japanese War only 8,000 Japanese soldiers were able to occupy Seoul and capture the government. 8,000 for crying out loud. Why should the US be expected to defend a country that isn’t even willing to protect itself from an invasion force of 8,000 soldiers? If the Koreans fought a protracted war against the Japanese to keep them out of Korea maybe the US would have done more to help the Koreans. As it turned out the Koreans did very little to expel the Japanese during both the Sino and Russo-Japanese Wars thus why would the US government feel an obligation to free Korea when it appeared they didn’t want to be free themselves?
The bottom line is that the corrupt and incompetent Korean rulers created the conditions that led to the Japanese colonization of Korea. In their quest to keep their own domestic status quo they ignored the changes in the power structure in northeast Asia, mainly that China could not be depended on to defend the peninsula from invasion. China could not even defend themselves from the western powers at the time, much less Korea. However, the Korean rulers kept their heads in the sand and did little to develop international relations and build their own domestic military to defend the nation. By gambling that the Chinese military would protect them was a bet that they lost. It was an even worse bet if they thought the Americans were obligated to come save them after that.
The Taft-Katsura Agreement is just one of a long line of historical revisionism endorsed by Korean politicians like Minister Chung I mentioned earlier that seek to blame foreigners, in particular the United States, for all the failings of the Korean government. If the failures of prior Korean governments was the fault of foreigners and the big, bad United States; then all the failures of the current Korean government most also be the fault of foreigners and the big, bad United States now. That is why the Korean government finds it so necessary to create a historical context in order to blame current problems on the US. So when the North Koreans detonate a nuclear weapon, who does the South Korean government blame for it? The United States of course, while totally remaining silent about the fact the South Korean government are the ones that financed the nuclear weapon by giving massive amounts of aid and hard cash to the North Koreans.
When the economy is sagging that must be the fault of the foreigners as well, so witch hunts against companies like Lone Star are undertaken in order to shift blame for the sluggish economy when in fact all this does is create further drag on the economy by drying up international investment into the country. That doesn’t matter though because the government has officially shifted blame once again to the big, bad foreigners. Don’t even get me started on Dokdo. I and others have shown over and over again how the Korean government has demagogued this issue for their own political advantage and once again Minister Chung was leading the way on this. Heck even the lack of English language skills, drugs, and defiling of women in Korea are blamed on “low quality foreign English teachers”. The list of outrageous claims against foreigners goes on and on.
What concerns me most is these backwards views are slowly but surely making it possible for history to repeat itself. Korean politicians today are becoming more and more like the Yangban of the Josen dynasty of the late 19th century. They are more interested in keeping the status quo and cementing their own power than ensuring the national security of the country. The current leftist government much like the Yangban are highly suspicious of the military and have thus sought to limit the power of the ROK military as much as possible. Thus you see massive cut backs in soldiers, a lack of national military strategy, along with deliberately causing a complacency within the ranks towards the nation’s main enemy North Korea.
Now combine this with the simultaneous steady degrading of the US-ROK alliance which may ultimately end up with the exit of US forces from Korea and you have a country that has exposed itself to an external military attack, much like in the late 19th century. There is one main reason why for over 50 years that northeast Asia has been so peaceful, the US military presence.
Another eerie similarity is the fact that Japanese agents had infiltrated and manipulated the Korean government long before the actual Japanese occupation in order to set conditions for the eventual take over of Korea by Japan to happen. The same thing is happening today as North Korean agents have infiltrated not only the government, but South Korean society as a whole in order to set conditions for a future North Korean take over of the country. The Japanese were infiltrating Korean society 20 years before the take over of Korea, imagine where South Korea will be in 20 years if North Korea is allowed to continue to manipulate the direction of the country.
If the North Koreans ever did invade and occupy South Korea 20 years from now long after the exit of US forces from South Korea; I can picture the Korean leaders coming to Washington demanding the US to come and save them though they ended the US-ROK alliance years ago and replaced it with a friendship treaty instead. Would the US president be morally obligated to help a country that independently chose to create the conditions that allowed their defeat to happen in the first place? There is plenty that can be learned from an objective look at history and unfortunately it appears that the current Korean government is only interested in following the path of the Josun Yangban at the expense of the national security of the country. If the Korean government reaps what it sows 20 years from now, any bets they will blame America for selling them out then too?
That second paragraph reads like it was lifted straight out of a Japanese high school history text. Do you really believe that? One could rationalize US colonization of the Philippines and other territories as a necessary bulwark against expansive European colonialism. Britain could argue, "Well, we were just trying to keep up with France," and France could say, "Well, Spain and Portugal started it."
The rest of the piece I have no disagreement with.
There seems to be some confusion beween 'rationalization' and 'explanation, i.e., provision of historical context'.
I'm reading and re-reading the second paragraph, and I can't seem to see a major problem with it. It doesn't say the Japanese should have colonized Korea, or that their actions were unavoidable. It just seems to state some of the reasons why Japan was interested in such a colonization. Should have contained some extra emotional passages about how Japan was hurting the Korean people and how imperialism is evil?
I agree with the other two on the 2nd paragraph.
It also touches on the problem with "blame" and how wording needs to be more carefully chosen when getting around to something like "blame."
I'll have to go back and re-read some of the sources frogmouth said he was basing his interpretation on, but I have a strong feeling I am going to find that he was reading things (into the text) like Sonagi did – which is easy to do if a topic is something that generally brings out some passion in you (which isn't a bad thing – but can be).
Frogmouth used a lot of terms like "allowed" and "gave Korea to Japan" and "sold down the river" and said those came from the sources he used.
I've read The Abacus and the Sword (a good book to read on this period) and some of the other stuff, and I know there are some historians outside of Korea (who specialize in post-colonialism) who use wording like frogmouth – that level of real "blame" —
but I don't remember that from The Abacus book.
I have a feeling he was taking basic analysis of what happened and how it happened and why it happened then reading value judgements into it that that book and perhaps the others did not — which is kind of what Sonagi did with what GI Korea wrote.
I think it is perfectly acceptable for people (especially Koreans) to rant and rave about things Teddy Roosevelt said about Korea and about his views on Social Darwinism and the benefits of colonialism and what not.
If they want to attack the manner in which the US acquired the Philippines or Puerto Rico or Hawaii or whatever, have at it.
But when it comes to the colonization of Korea by Japan, to attack the US for it is simply bad history.
There are some historians outside of Korea (besides Cumings) who do that kind of thing, but it still doesn't make bad history not bad.
For example, there is absolutely no way a person with their head on correctly can read the Taft-Katsura Memorandum and call it a "Treaty" — because the damn thing goes out of its way to explain how it is not a binding agreement.
In fact, the Taft goes out of his way to say that even coming to some kind of general agreeement on things would have to be put to the Senate and were not within his powers and were not the mandate Roosevelt gave him!!
He went on to say that he thought such a formal or semi-formal agreement was pointless, because American Roosevelt and American society were so completely in agreement with what Katsura had said.
So, if Koreans want to bitch tremendously on how American society (who had a remote clue about Korea and Japan and East Asia) thought Japan managing Korea's affairs was a good idea — fine.
But, don't say the US "caused" the colonization.
And don't imply the US was supposed to "do something" to stop it.
I'm not trying to rationalize that the Japanese were right in colonizing the Korean peninsula; I'm just providing reasons on why they did it. At no time since I have started this blog have I ever supported the Japanese colonization of Korea in anyway. I'm just pointing out that there were a variety of strategic reasons why the Japanese would want the Korean peninsula.
By the Koreans rulers leaving the country virtually disarmed and depending on a weakened neighbor for national defense, this made the decision to invade Korea that much easier for the Japanese. If the Japanese rulers knew they would face a bloody fight and a follow on guerilla campaign similar to what happened when Hideyoshi invaded Korea that may have changed their thought process.
As it was the Korean rulers did little to prepare the nation from possible assault and the Japanese rulers probably felt that it was only a matter of time before someone eventually made a power play on Korea and they wanted to make sure they were the ones who made the first move.
Being a military man the lesson learned from this I'm trying to point out is that national defense should be the number one priority of a government which in the late Josen dynasty it wasn't because maintaining personal power was more important than the well being of the state. The Yangban out sourced their nation's security which led to tragic consequences.
The Yangban out sourced their nation’s security which led to tragic consequences. This is a very true assessment.
But like it or not, I see American (and Western)lack of involvement in Korea in exchange for other territories as a sellout of sorts. Don't mistake this as blame. It was a common practice for the colonial powers to strike deals like this at the time. And more surprisingly in the eyes of the world it was legal and moral at the time.
Treaty of Friendship Text.
If other Powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either Government, the other will exert their good offices, on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable arrangement, thus showing their friendly feelings.
Regarding your clarification on what defines "good offices" Now that you've defined it, how do feel the Americans followed through on these obligations?
Treaty of Friendship??
With friends like that who needs…….
Thanks, GIK. I needed some more ammo like this right about now.
I have to say that I’ve found this to be somewhat typical of the thought process in Seoul. They sign a contract and then interpret it in a way to satisfy their wildest dreams.
What? National defense has been delegated to a foreign power on the other side of the Pacific Ocean … and all it cost was a trip to Washington? The ambassador probably thought he was due a hefty bonus in his paycheck for pulling that one off. What a coup for the motherland!
Frankly, with an attitude like this, I’m surprised that they were allowed to cross the street by themselves.
I interpret "good offices" as meaning that the Americans had no designs of colonizing Korea unlike other colonizers in the area, it doesn't mean though that the US had any responsibility to prevent other colonizers from doing so.
You keep saying America's actions were a "sell out" of Korea. Once again let me go to dictionary.com and here is the definition of sell out:
sell out,
a. to dispose of entirely by selling.
b. to betray (an associate, one's country, a cause, etc.); turn traitor: He committed suicide rather than sell out to the enemy.
The US didn't betray or become a traitor to Korea because the US never controlled Korea in order to sell it out. The US didn't help Korea, but the US wasn't obligated to. The Yangban outsourced the country's security which ended up being a tragic decision especially when Korea was in such a bad neighborhood with western colonization going on in China and an ambitious Japan right across the Korea Strait.
If you want to call somebody a "sell out" the Korean rulers are the ones who sold out their own people.
All colonial conquests can be explained or put into historical context. Although this piece deals with history from the late 1800s, it is important to note that Japan had previously invaded Korea twice during the 1500s while on its way to China. Western ships had just started making contact with Japan and the Western colonization was still in its infancy.
Besides, while Korea possessed some minerals, forests, and other natural resources, it was not not a resource-rich country. Moreover, I'm wondering which countries/dynasties used Korea as a launching pad to attack Japan. Could you give a few examples?
Mongols tried 2x at the very least.
Sonagi,
I'm refering mainly to the Mongol invasions of Japan which remember were augmented by the forced conscription of Koreans, also remember the Koreans themselves have invaded Japan across the Korea Strait during the Oei Invasion in 1419.
I don't think it is a stretch that the Japanese had concerns that a European power, ie-Russia would have territorial ambitions on Korea. If the Russians controlled Korea I also don't think it was a stretch they may attempt to next extend their colonial ambitions on Japan or at the very least they would be in a powerful position to extract favorable trade deals from Japan by controling Korea.
As far as resources Korea itself has resources that could be used by Japan but the ultimate goal on the Sino-Japanese War was the conquest of Manchuria which was denied to them by the colonial powers that wanted those resources for themselves which ultimately led to the Russo-Japanese War where they did get Manchuria and it's wealth of resources. However, instead of settling for that the Japanese got emboldened by their success and continued to push for more and more territory over the coming decades which led to their ultimate defeat in World War II.
I'm guessing from your comments that you believe the Japanese were more motivated by simply waging war, killing Koreans, and being subjugators then then the more strategic reasons I mentioned. Yes the Japanese wanted to be colonizers and subjugated Korea as I mentioned not only for their only national prestige but also to show the western powers that Japan was ready to be treated as equals to the western powers and the aftermath of the Russo-Japanese War confirmed this.
Saying the Japanese wanted Korea just to kill Koreans is as simplistic as saying President Bush went to war in Iraq for oil. Oil was part of a larger equation of why the US went to war in Iraq, just like the various reasons I mentioned contributed to the equation of why the Japanese decided to invade Korea. Bottomline is that if the Korean government had lived up to their governmental responsibilities they may have been able to alter the Japanese thought process if the Japanese knew they would be in a long bloody war for Korea.
Take China today for example, they know if they wanted to they could take South Korea if the US forces leave and didn't help them, but they wouldn't try it because of the cost it would entail on the Chinese forces due to a strong domestic ROK military. Plus the loss of prestige internationally by the Chinese would be huge because of the strong international relations the Koreans have developed with other nations unlike the Yangban rulers in the late 19th century. Thus China is content with trying to hegemon South Korea through economic might than actual military might. If South Korea doesn't keep a strong domestic military and even stronger international relations who is to say history won't repeat itself?
The 1419 Oei invasion was in response to some Japanese pirate raids on Korea. I objected to this phrasing, "territory that had long been used as an invasion point into Japan," ironically because it sounds suspiciously like how the Koreans go on and on about having been invaded throughout history. Yes, the Mongols invaded twice in the mid to late 1200s and Korea did grab the island of Tsushima after a scuffle with Japan over some Japanese pirates. Three brief invasions, the last 150 years before Hideyoshi's march to Ming, does not support the phrasing used.
You said, "I’m guessing from your comments that you believe the Japanese were more motivated by simply waging war, killing Koreans, and being subjugators then then the more strategic reasons I mentioned."
No, not at all. I believe the Japanese, like the Europeans and Americans were motivated by economic and military interests. It seems some commenters have misunderstood my initial objections to the second paragraph. I did not object out of any sense that Japan should be berated for colonizing Korea, but rather that the paragraph gives the impression that Japan pretty much minded its own archipelago until those colonizing Euros came sailing along.
I didn't have time to read the comments in detail, but
"lack of involvement in Korea in exchange for other territories"
This implies that the US had a strong interest in involvement in Korea that it swapped for territorial issues elsewhere, and that does not fly. The US was not interested in South Korea. It was not remotely close to being a major interest of the US government or forming a major block in our foreign affairs policy.
Japan's growing strength and the fate of China and its resources were thought about, but I think even there, I don't know if you could say those two nations were central figures in US foriegn policy thought. Here, I'm going out on a limb on something I don't know much about at all, but from somewhere in the back of my mind, I am getting the idea that Teddy Roosevelt was ahead of his time here. I vaguely remember reading something about how one aspect of his desire to see US power grow was to take more consideration of what was going on in far away places like the Far East, but he was bucking the dominant trend in American thought which was to avoid getting involved in foreign entanglements which had been the hallmark of US foerign policy since day one and codified in the Monroe Doctrine.
Even with Roosevelt, however, I do know the US was not interested in Korea for no bigger reason than it had no interests in Korea. There was nothing terribly special about Korea that interested the US government. The US opened relations with it like so many others of the time did when the Korean government sought desperately to come out of its self-imposed cacoon.
And I'll cut this short by repeating something I said over at Marmot's Hole:
One reason why the US was tapped to broker the deal that settled the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 was the fact that the US was considered a disinterested enough party by both sides.
I forget how the teams broke down specifically, but the general idea was that Britain, Germany, and France were not trusted by Russia or Japan or both enough to get both nations to sit down together to negociate a peace treaty.
The United States, being a late comer to colonialism (beyond the borders of continental North America), not possessing significant colonies in Asia or elsewhere that rubbed the great colonial powers raw, — thus not being close to direct conflict with Russia or Japan or Britain or France —- was considered by both Russia and Japan to be the best choice to host the peace talks.
You can't say the US sold out its interest in Korea for The Philippines when the US interest in Korea was not much to begin with….
Very good post, though some of the "meat" could have been more factually precise. I thoroughly agree with your premise. However, I do not buy the Japanese rationale for their invasion (i.e., the West made us do it), which I believe (but cannot factually prove) was internally driven. One would have to go back through the Marquis Ito's correspondence, as well as that of the other major players, but my suspicion is the 1894-95 intervention, followed by leaving a six battalion "protection" force in Yongsan, contemporary with Queen Min's assassination, followed by the Russo-Japanese War, the 1905 Protectorate, the 1907 disbanding of the Yi Army, and the 1910 Annexation, all occurred in response to perceived internal Japanese needs, of which territorial expansion was crucial. Japan was exporting workers throughout Asia then, and into the Americas. But if this emigration eased the population pressure back home, it denied the homeland the fruits of these emigrants labor, which went to non-Japanese. Yet, just above Japan, there was Virgin territory. Manchuria. A potential Japan on the mainland. Korea's problem was that it lay in between, much as it had between China and Japan during the Imjin Wars. Thus, Japan waged its colonial wars because they believed that doing so would be good for the Japanese, and because they had the power. The U.S., as a footnote, began preparing for war with the Japanese in 1921, when the handwriting on the wall became slightly visible, and in the aftermath of WWI, when it discovered that it was capable of mobilizing and deploying large forces for modern warfare and, not incidentally, because they had discovered the power of U.S. industrialization.
Again, good post, and speaking of this period, a hat tip to the Tanaka family of Shoshone, Idaho. Imagine what it must have been like for three Japanese brothers arriving in Idaho back in 1908. Now they're part of what made America great.
lirelou,
The internal reasons you state like I mentioned was necessary for the Japanese to continue the expansion of their economy and part of the rationale to invade Korea. Would the Japanese have invaded Korea even if there was no perceived security threat from Russia possibly occupying Korea or other colonial powers seeking to gobble up land in northeast Asia, probably because like I mentioned before they needed resources and Korea was the spring board to the ultimate objective of Manchuria like you stated.
However, the competition with the colonial powers and Korea's lack of a military made the decision process that much easier for the Japanese.
As far as "meat" I intentionally didn't want to get into nitty gritty details because after all this is a blog and I didn't want the post to get any longer than it already was. I leave the nitty gritty details to be argued about in the comments like we currently are doing which has led to some good discussion.
Hmmm, a couple of Marmot posters have adopted new socks for some reason. At least Steve/Frogmouth/dusty identified himself through his website.
Yes I noticed that too. It seems like he keeps grasping at straws to support his views that America is some how at fault for the colonization.
Although I agree that what US did does not constitute a "sellout", I think it proves that US (or for that matter any country) will only enforce the agreement that is beneficial to themselves. Someone once said that we Americans like to negotiate quickly and get an agreement signed, and then hire hundreds of attorney's interpret the agreement to suit their needs.
As much as I disagree with Minister Chung in many areas, I think he did nail it in the head that Korea needs to be more self-sufficient. US is not the "blood-brother" of Korea like most conservatives in Korea like to say. It is a historical fact that Teddy Roosevelt gave a tacit approval for Japan to colonize Korea and the Taft-Katsura Agreement just supports that view. Korea was not a strategically important country at the time, and whether the Jemulpo Agreement had any meat on it or not is besides the question. Korea only became strategically important when the US wanted to challenge the Soviet Union. Look at Kuwait: no historical alliance, no binding treaty, no common language / political system / social structure, yet we came to their defense in lightning speed because it became a strategic value. In the same token, if the US did not want to check China, Korea would have no strategic importance to the US, and regardless of what the mutual defense treaty states, it will not come to the defense of Korea.
It is true that Koreans are self absorbed people sometimes. But review the the comment by Minister Chung to see if we Americans are not self-absorbed at times. He mentioned three countries that wield control over Korea right now: US, China, and Japan. But just about everyone in this blog is critisizing his comment as if he committed blasphemy against the US alone. Truely, among the three nations mentioned above, who wields the most control over Korea right now?
My argument is this: just as swiftly as the US came in to South Korea in 1950, it can just as swiftly leave Korea if Korea's strategic importance expires. Just as it is silly for Korea to "blame" the US, it is just as silly for them to relie on the US.
PSL wrote:
It is true that Koreans are self absorbed people sometimes. But review the the comment by Minister Chung to see if we Americans are not self-absorbed at times.
I reviewed the paragraph quotation at the top of the entry and his remarks did not bring to mind Americans' self-absorbency but rather Koreans' tendency to place blame for its historical tragedies squarely on the shoulders of foreign governments rather than its own leaders and ruling class.
He mentioned three countries that wield control over Korea right now: US, China, and Japan. … Truely, among the three nations mentioned above, who wields the most control over Korea right now?
Actually, he mentioned five nations. Curiously, you neglected to include Russia and North Korea. None of the five nations has control over the sovereign state of South Korea. All of them have influence with South Korea.
I do agree with you that South Korea needs to become more self-sufficient in its national defense and would like to see US forces leave the Korean peninsula with all due respect to the honorable military service of GI Korea.
Sorry for the double post, GI Korea. Please delete the first one since it is incorrectly formatted. Thank you.
Here we go again with the claims of a US approval of the Japanese colonization of Korea. Does anyone think for a minute the Japanese would not have colonized Korea if the Taft-Katsura agreement didn't exist? I think it is safe to say that the fact that Japan fought two wars within 10 years shows their intention to colonize Korea no matter what document they signed with the US. Why would Japan need US approval to colonize a country the US did not control and had little influence over? Once again people grasping for straws for a failed arguement.
As far as Minister Chung I'm all for Korea becoming self reliant but once again the Korean government will say all these things about self reliance because it is good for Korean "minjok" but what they actually do are two seperate things. Need I go into the utterly predictable USFK transformation delays by the Korean government? Or should I go into the delaying of the operational control issue? Or how about the delays in properly modernizing the ROK Army? I could go on and on.
As far as US involvement in the Korean War, that was definitely a war of choice. If the US did not get involved in that war what would have changed today? Nobody would be driving any Hyundais and the people of South Korea would be eating tree bark. President Truman didn't even run for reelection because he was so unpopular for getting the US involved in the "police action". Remember the Acheson Line? Korea was not strategically important to the US and President Truman waged a war of choice against the communist to show that the US will protect democracies from agression. I am willing to bet that if Truman knew his "police action" would turn into a bloody three and half year war which we still have troops stationed in Korea to this day from, he probably would have never waged it.
South Korea has a lot to be thankful that Truman defended Korea from Communism but you don't see any statues commemorizing him in Korea though.
Once again, splitting of hairs in choice of words. If you want to take this argument down that path, where does Minister Chung say "blame" or "sellout" against the US?
Again, my point is this: Korea has been a pawn in world politics pretty much in the 20th century. Some may argue even prior to that. It is true that the US came to the aid of South Koreans to maintain a democratic and capitalistic government. One can also make an argument that the Japanese occupation made Korea a more modern industrialized nation. While Koreans can not and should not deny the contributions made by the powerful nations and acknowledge their own yangban incompetence, they should not excuse the price they had to pay for this, which is a country divided and lack of self-determination.
I don't want to defend Minister Chung. There are a lot of things he and I don't agree on. However, I do not see a lot of errors in what he said. Maybe he was not careful in his choice of words, maybe he was being way too simplistic, maybe he did not know his comments will be dissected in a blog. He was making a point as the Unification Minister that Korea can not rely on outside forces, not even its ally (namely US and Japan) to determine its desired future, especially in light of its past history.
For example, let's create this scenario: NK becomes completely bankrupt. Its government folds and there is anarchy (this is not a complete unlikely scenario given NK's economy). China swoops in and takes over NK (under the pretense of aiding the NK gov't, humanitarian aid, whatever the excuse). In effect, US's thorn in the side is eliminated without a single loss of life to either the US or SK side. China has a pretty decent relationship with the US (afterall, China is our most "favored" trading nation) and time and again, China's gov't has shown willingness to work with the US while NK has not. While not the most ideal, is this not an acceptable outcome for the US? Nothing on the Mutual Defense Pact about saving NK from China, right? But to the Koreans, this would be absolutely unacceptable. Once again, this would be a situation where the super-powers of the world would have already made their deal and the Koreans will just have to live with the hand that is dealt to them.
While Jemulpo, Taft-Katsura, Potsdam, whatever piece of paper can not be solely blamed for Korea's history, it is very telling about the attitudes of the world powers.
PSL,
It is interesting you bring up the future possibility of a Chinese occupation of North Korea. This is something I have discussed quite a bit on this blog. This post probably provides my most complete thoughts on this:
http://rokdrop.com/2006/09/07/kaplan-on-the-fall-…
What is most interesting about this topic is that the US military is actually trying to do more to prevent this scenario from happening than the Korean government. The US military has been trying to update OPLAN 5029 to plan for a North Korean collapse and the SK government won't do it. If North Korea collapses with no OPLAN in place this will open the door for the Chinese to take over North Korea. If this happens the US will not go to war with China over North Korea and I'm sure the South Koreans will blame the big bad foreigners again when in fact it was the Korean governments own lack of following American advice to plan for the collapse that caused Chinese occupation to happen. Once again read the linked post for a more detailed reading of my thoughts on this.
PSL wrote:
"Once again, splitting of hairs in choice of words."
The difference between "control" and "influence" is not splitting hairs. If I control you, I can make you do what I want. If I influence you, I try to persuade you, but you are still making a choice.
It is interesting that you began with the phrase, "once again" since it was my first post directed at you. Are you an old friend with a new sock?
"where does Minister Chung say “blame†or “sellout†against the US
Nowhere in my response to your post about Minister Chung's comments did I use the word "sellout." I did use the word "blame," but REREAD MY SENTENCE CAREFULLY:
"I reviewed the paragraph quotation at the top of the entry and his remarks did not bring to mind Americans’ self-absorbency but rather Koreans’ tendency to place blame for its historical tragedies squarely on the shoulders of foreign governments rather than its own leaders and ruling class."
Please note the use of the phrase "bring to mind." It means "remind." Thus, the sentence does not mean that Chung used the word blame. It means that he made statements that seemed to blame. Below I will give examples of Chung's "blame the foreigners" statements:
"A hundred years ago, the Philippines became a U.S. colony and the Korean Peninsula a Japanese one owing to the Taft-Katsura Agreement†of 1905, Chung said. “The division of the nation and Korean War were not our will either,†nor was the failure of the Gwangju Uprising."
The phrase "owing to" means "because of" – cause/effect. According to Minister Chung's statement, the Taft-Katsura Agreement was a cause of Korea's colonization, and since he did not mention other causes, like Yangban incompetence, it implies that Taft-Katsura was the main cause. In any case, when one attributes a misforture or negative outcome to a cause, then one is placing blame.
Minister Chung also disavowed any domestic responsibility for the division of the peninsula, the Korean War, and the Gwangju Uprising; with the phrase, "not our will," he was clearly blaming foreign countries.
Regarding the demarcation of the 38th Parallel after liberation, he is right. The Koreans had no hand in that. Lest you, Chung, and others jump up and down, shouting, "It's all the US' fault," remember that the line dividing North and South was originally drawn FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCEPTING JAPANESE TROOP SURRENDER. The Russians were already marching down the peninsula shortly after the US dropped the second A-bomb. Had the US not made that agreement with the Russians and subsequently entered the war on the side of the South, Korea would likely be united, but under KJI, the son of Stalin's best Korean friend.
As for the war, well, even Chinese official history now admits that it was the North Koreans who attacked first. Both the North and the South had international backers, but Koreans had been ideologically divided since the Japanese occupation. Communist guerillas in the northeast did not take their orders from the Shanghai government in exile. And the Gwangju Uprising? Has Minister Chung forgotten that Korea's own courts found Chun Do-hwan guilty and initially sentenced him to death for that?
"Maybe he was not careful in his choice of words, maybe he was being way too simplistic, maybe he did not know his comments will be dissected in a blog.
He's the Reunification Minister! And he made those remarks during a public speech! DUH!!! In democracies, politicians are responsible for what they say in public. (Sonagi shakes her head in disbelief.) If you're that Frogmouth fellow, no wonder you don't allow comment postings at your website.
Sonagi,
I don't where this personal hostility is coming from, but I can assure you that I am not Frogmouth. Although I have been to this website and enjoy GI Korea's work, this was my first posting.
You will notice that I did not start any of my comments with "GI Korea," or "Sonagi," except this post. That is because I feel that personal attacks are childish and only brings on fake bravery veiled in internet anonymity. I would rather agree with GI Korea in his early post that this article has led to some good discussion.
The reason that I decided to put my 2 cents in to this discussion, is that, while I am thoroughly impressed with everyone's knowledge of history and its analysis (I am being genuine here, I am not tring to be sarcastic), I think your understanding of the Korean psyche leaves a lot to be desired.
The Korean people have long lived with the understanding that they are living under the protection of their benevolent older brother, the US. Koreans have since slowly outgrown this idea (this is where you can put in your own reasons as to why, maybe it's people like Minister Chung, maybe its those rebellious students, maybe its the communist controlled university professors, maybe its the entire Uri party…) and they are starting to re-evaluate their place in global history and their relationship with the US. In fact, a good argument can be made that until the inauguration of Kim Young Sam, to question the pure intentions of the US would have been unthinkable among Koreans.
The other reason why I don't split hairs is because the speech you are speaking of was a translation from Korean and you are placing too heavy of an emphasis on each word as if it is a quote from the Bible. Also, when did we start putting politicians on such a pedastle? All politicians, regardless of which country they are from, routinely use rhetoric and inflammatory statements to stir up their base. (What, Bush never said anything stupid in public? PSL shakes his head in disbelief. This BTW coming from a guy who voted for him TWICE.) I digress.
I still can not find disagreement with bringing up Taft-Katsura, because while that document alone can not be the reason of Japan's colonization of Korea, in the larger picture, it was an agreement with the US of clear qui pro quo. The same way Potsdam Treaty was a qui pro quo, the same way all treaty's are. Why is it such a stretch to think that the Taft-Katsura was a qui pro quo, Philippines for US, Korea for Japan? Is it such blasphemy to think that Korea, one time in its past history fell out of favor with the US, and history MAY repeat itself?
GI Korea, thank you for the link. It was very interesting reading, but I have to disagree with your analysis. The US military always prepares for all scenarios, but whether that plan is carried out is another big question. The US may have a contingent plan to occupy NK (or help SK occupy NK), but whether we will actually carry the plan out is a big unknown. Here is another wrinkle in the plan. If NK collapses, it is harder for the SK troops to enter NK than it would be for Chinese to enter NK. An overwhelming majority of NK troops are located along the DMZ, and any action by SK (or US) can only be interpreted as an invasion, especially in these hostile climate. While I don't claim to have any inside knowledge to Korean government's plan, I think that the best solution they are thinking of is not necessarily a sudden collapse of NK, but a gradual tearing down of the walls, so to speak.
Lastly, military generals write OPLANS, but they don't decide to carry it out; politicians do. If enough average Americans object to engaging NK troops or the Chinese for that matter, the plan will not be carried out, and everything above the DMZ can easily succumb to the Chinese. This is where it will be ironic, if GI Korea's claim that Koreans have no plan is true: while US has the OPLAN, they may not carry it out due to polical will; Korea would want to engage the Chinese even without a plan, but can't because the US will not allow it.
The US military has not enough man power to occupy NK even if it wanted to which I have highly recommended against. Their is one combat brigade in Korea, the 1HBCT of the 2nd Infantry Divison composed of roughtly 4,000 soldiers. 4,000 soldiers cannot occupy NK if it suddenly collapses. By the way what I mean by collapse is that no one is running the place mass starvation and the military is no longer functioning. If NK collapses that leaves the ROK military to occupy it. How can the ROK military occupy it with no approval from the politicians to plan for that contingency? How can the US draw up an OPLAN to support the ROK Army if this happens if the US doesn't even know what the ROK Army is going do? Even if the ROK military moves in before the Chinese it will be just like the US occupation of Iraq. The US politicians wouldn't let the military plan for occupation because it would be leaked to the NY Times as a sign the US is committed to war when the whole sherade with the UN was going on.
What this leaves is chaos in NK which the Chinese will quickly moving in and occupying NK because they have already moved extra troops to the border area and I can assure you they have drawn up their own occupation plans that they will not hesistate to carry out. If China absorbs NK or installs some puppet to keep the peninsula divided I can already see the SK politicians blaming foreigners yet again for dividing the peninsula when in fact the SK government had a say in it's own fate and did not step up.
As far the general Korean public not thinking of the US as a big brother anymore I totally agree with and the US government agrees with also. That is why the US government wants to hand over operational control, cut troops, and consolidate what is left. Who is keeping Uncle Sam in Korea right now? It is the Korean government. I and everyone I know wants Korea to grow up but they don't want too. I want a country with a population of 48 million, a highly capable (for now) military, and the world's 11th largest economy to start acting like it.
Korea has much potential to shape their own future but the incompetence at the political level, which is influenced by NK agents, is holding the country back.
PSC wrote:
You will notice that I did not start any of my comments with “GI Korea,†or “Sonagi,†except this post. That is because I feel that personal attacks are childish and only brings on fake bravery veiled in internet anonymity
I put your name at top of my comments because the comments were in response to your post. Save for the quip about Frogmouth at the end, there was nothing in my commnents that could be construed as a personal attack. Do not confuse refutation of arguments and counterarguments as personal attacks simply because your name appears at the top of the posting.
What, Bush never said anything stupid in public? PSL shakes his head in disbelief
Nice strawman argument.
PSC wrote:
"The other reason why I don’t split hairs is because the speech you are speaking of was a translation from Korean and you are placing too heavy of an emphasis on each word as if it is a quote from the Bible. "
I did a little digging after work and found the Korean language original from the Chosun Ilbo, the same source for the English translation in the entry.
"ì • ìž¥ê´€ì€ ì´ë‚ 회ì˜ì—ì„œ 과거 100ë…„ê°„ 외세가 í•œë°˜ë„ ìš´ëª…ì„ ì¢Œì§€ìš°ì§€í–ˆë‹¤ëŠ” ì·¨ì§€ì˜ ë°œì–¸ì„ í•˜ëŠ” ê°€ìš´ë° â€œ80ë…„ 광주(í•ìŸ)ë„ ë³´ì´ì§€ 않는 ì†ì— ì˜í•´ ì¢Œì ˆë다â€ê³ ë§í–ˆë‹¤. ì • ìž¥ê´€ì€ â€œ100ë…„ ì „ ‘가쓰ë¼Â·íƒœí”„트 ì¡°ì•½â€™ì— ì˜í•´ í•„ë¦¬í•€ì€ ë¯¸êµ, í•œêµì€ ì¼ë³¸ì˜ ì‹ë¯¼ì§€ê°€ ë다â€ë©° “분단과 6·25 ì „ìŸë„ 우리 ì˜ì§€ê°€ 아니었다â€ê³ ë„ í–ˆë‹¤.
ì • ìž¥ê´€ì¸¡ì€ ì´ì— 대해 “보ì´ì§€ 않는 ì†ì€ 문맥 그대로 ì´í•´ë¥¼ 해달ë¼. íŠ¹ì • êµê°€ë¥¼ 지ì¹í•œ 게 아니다â€ë¼ê³ 했다. 1980~90년대 대학가ì—ì„ 80ë…„ ì‹ êµ°ë¶€ê°€ 광주í•ìŸì„ ë¬´ë ¥ì§„ì••í•œ ë°ëŠ” 미êµì˜ ë¬µì¸ ë˜ëŠ” 암묵ì ë™ì˜ê°€ 있었다는 ì£¼ìž¥ì´ ë‚˜ì˜¤ë©´ì„œ, 광주í•ìŸì— 대한 â€˜ë¯¸êµ ì±…ìž„ë¡ â€™ì´ ì œê¸°ë었다."
http://www.chosun.com/politics/news/200507/200507…
You're right, PSC. The flavor of one's words can be lost in translation. How does one express in English "좌지우지" and I wonder who/what he meant by "ë³´ì´ì§€ 않는 ì†," which was included in the English Chosun piece but not in the quotation above. He advised reporters to interpret the phrase "in context" (문맥), but I'm not really sure what he meant. You seem to understand Chung and the sentiments of the Korean people, PSC. Could you please explain exactly who or what is the "hidden hand" behind the suppression of the Gwangju Uprising?
It is clear from the text above that Chung did indeed place blame on the foreign powers (외세) for Korea's miseries over the last 100 years. If you feel there is any serious discrepancy between the two texts, please let us know.
PSC = PSL
[…] I wonder if anyone has bothered to tell Senator Webb the US still has nearly 30,000 US soldiers in South Korea and that the Korean War has not ended. Did Senator Webb go to the Uri Party school of history? Let me get this right the Democratic "exit strategy" from Iraq involves keeping at least 30,000 US soldiers in Iraq 50 years from now and signing an armistice with who? Iran? Al Qaida? I wonder if Senator Webb will be willing to be the US representative to the signing of the GWOT Armistice Agreement with Bin Laden, Assad, and Ahmadinejad sitting on the other side of the table from him? Then the Democrats can rely on the UN to enforce the armistice as well as it does with Hezbollah. […]
[…] Your page is on StumbleUpon […]
[…] on a great post by GI Korea. This is a topic that comes up all the time in my American history classes, and I have […]
First of all, I'm South Korean, so I may be little bit more favorable to the South Korean side. I learned about our history and the conflictions in compromises between U.S., Japan,and Korea. Please be patient, even if my writing skill is not perfect.
Only thing some of guys need to think about is that the worth of technology. Some people said that the Japanese colonazation over Korea was helpful for korean's modernization, but there was not only technology but there was so many people killed or tortured (possibly raped) by Japanese people. Think about Morality, at that time, Korea was called "Eastern Asia Moral Based District (probably)," ??????.
However, one of the most important facts that I have to mantion is that the colonization was a common in that time period; all the powerful countries in the world tried to expand their empire (empirialization period)
Korean was not intelligent and weak.
Japanese had no morality.
(they actually fire the king of korea and put a new king with military force)
The Japanese colonization of Korea was wrong but what did the Korean government do to prevent it? They simply depended on China to protect them instead of raising an Army to protect themselves. This was a bet they lost and the Korean people paid for the incompetence of this decision for over the next 40 years.
That is a common misunderstanding about Japanese's colonization.
Yes, we were depended on Chaina since the birth of our nation, and so did Japanese depended on Korea for a long time.
One thing I said about Korea was that Korea was not a really intelligent country and so did Japanese, but the only difference is European's technology. Japanese got the technology earlier, so they could develop their military technology faster. However, Korea did not want to have that power because we were the "pure" race (I do not like this part because people were too conservative.
Do you know about Hague Secret Emissary Affair? It happened after Eulsa Treaty, which is a unfair treaty that forced to pass by Japanese military power, so Korean King (Go Jong ??) tried to tell the world about this secreat things that is happening between Korea and Japan. However, this was not successful and got into the Japan, so the Residency-General, which is like a control base of Japanese over Korea, so Japanese "fired" the king of Korea and next king (Soon Jong ??).
We had military to fight against Japan, but Japan won the bettles unexpectedly. (because of technology)
My main point is that
if we were Jews, then Japanese were like a Nazi.
They did so many bad things, they used Korean people to test their wepons and drugs. (it is maruta ???) search about all the bad things then you are goning to feel something different.
[…] http://rokdrop.com/2007/01/08/…..-of-korea/ […]
Yes Japan was able to defeat China and Russia because of their modernization program following the Meiji Restoration. The Kangwha Island battle with US Marines in 1871 should have been the wake up call to Korea to begin modernizing their military because it was clear they could not compete with western technology.
The Korean rulers decided otherwise and outsourced their defense to China in order to keep the status quo. If Korea began a modernization program following the 1871 engagement with the US, Korea would have had over 20 years to develop their economy and military before the Japanese began the colonization of Korea. National defense is the responsibility of the national government. The Korean government failed and the Korean people paid for it.
People should learn from history to not repeat the same mistakes. People like Chung Dong-young would rather just blame the US.
Great Thread; a lot of grist for the mill though. Here's kernel number 1:
1. "Good Offices". It won't do to just look up a legal/diplomatic term of art in the dictionary. In the parlance of international law as then practiced, recourse to the good offices proffered under a treaty could only be had if both parties to the dispute to be mediated were willing since that's all it entailed: i.e., making your services available as a mediator. By the time, Korea asked for US good offices vis-a-vis the Japanese, it was already clear that dog wouldn't hunt as far as the Japanese were concerned, so it was simply a non-starter. Compare, by contrast, the case of the Japanese and the Russians, where both parties were anxious for mediated settlement, in the Japanese case notwithstanding that they were winning victory after victory (because they were economically strapped as a result). This was all well-known to the Koreans at the time who, even though neophytes in the world of western international law and relations, already had seen the principle in operation in previous contretemps with the Japanese and Chinese in the years leading up to and including the Sino-Japanese (the so-called Pigtail) War over the peninsula that preceded the Russo-Japanese dust-up. Hence, the efforts by Koreans and others, such as the egregious Carol Cameron Shaw (The Foreign Destruction Of Korean Independence) to invoke alleged US non-compliance with Article 1 of the Shufeldt or Chemulpo Treaty between the US and Korea as proof of US complicity and/or perfidy in connection with Japan's meddling and later take-over of Korea are both wrong and intellectually dishonest.
Stalk No.2:
2. It's important not to underestimate the importance of the actual meaning of the term "good offices" in international law and practice in assessing the nature and extent of US obligations to Korea under Article 1 of the Chemulpo Treaty. On the other hand, it's equally important not to engage in misplaced legal pettifoggery about the nature and significance of the Taft-Katsura Memorandum. It certainly was not intended to be any kind of formally enforceable agreement under international law. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence – besides the already important fact that Taft and Katsura saw fit to memorialize their conversation – that both Japan and the United States took some comfort in the understanding that it recorded. Japan, whose Foreign Minister Katsura sought out Taft and initiated the discussion, was quite keen to make sure that the U.S. continued its long established policy of non-interference in peninsular affairs – a policy that it's penultimate diplomatic representative in Korea, the self-importantly meddlesome Horace Allen, did not always faithfully follow, despite increasingly stern warnings from Foggy Bottom – as Japan moved to the next, more intrusive stage of its interference in Korean affairs. The principal selling point in Katsura's pitch was not the Philipines. Instead, it was the suggestion that greater Japanese involvement would not prejudice American commercial interests in Korea, relatively paltry though they might be; in other words, Katsura offered assurances that Japan would respect the principal American policy in Korea – all of East Asia for that matter – the Open Door Policy, which was far more practically important to the US vis-a-vis China, but was a fragile enough craft that an exception to it in the case of Korea could readily sink it. As far as the Philippines were concerned, the Japanese were not then in a position to threaten US interests there. Japan was exhausted and literally bankrupt as a result of the Russo-Japanese War a fact of which Taft (and Roosevelt, et al were well aware) and of which Katsura (who was a friend of Roosevelt's from Harvard, where they were classmates and roommates) was aware that the American government was aware. Moreover, even assuming that there were any US interest at stake in Japan's greater involvement in Korea that conceivable could warrant a serious protest, let alone, armed intervention, the US simply wasn't in a position to take any action that required the credible threat of the use of military force to make it plausible. Despite its victories over the decrepit Spanish in the Spanish-American conflict that brought Cuba and the Philippines to the US in its wake, the US at the time was a decidedly second rate military power, and only rated that highly because of the Navy. The Army and the Marines together constituted a pathetically small land force, fully one-half of whose manpower was needed just to secure the Philippines against the indigenous opposition to Uncle Sam's stepping into the shoes of the departed Spanish monarch. Thus, although the Taft-Katsura Memorandum can't simply be dismissed as a "mere" statement of pious intentions, it hardly rises to the level of the sort of grand conspiratorial diplomatic trade-off between Japan and the US at the expense of Korea (interesting, isn't it, that fact that it must also then have been "at the expense of the Philippines" doesn't ever seem to have become the same sort of subject of debate) that the "Korea the victim" crowd want to make of it. While it's understandable that the frog in the well might see it differently, the fact is that, at least from the American perspective, Korea simply was not important enough at the time to warrant such operatic treatment.
Do you think this is just paying? GI Korea?
Would you just say to Jews "You are a Jew so you were repayed by Germens because you were a dirty money maker! You "Paid" your mistake!"
Do not say "pay" again because that "pay" was not like a "pay" for something.
I may look like a selfish Korean, but what happened in Korea at that time is really serious problem. It is not like "paying" stuff.
To Mr. won
I think you can't campare your people with jewish people.
Your population was doubled and came to live twice longer under the colonization.
I think Mr. Won is having a translation issue.
I said in my prior comment – "The Korean government failed and the Korean people paid for it."
What that means is not literally the Korean people paid for something. It is a English figure of speech that means that the Korean people were forced to suffer under the Japanese occupation because the Korean rulers did not take any measure to stop them. For example the Korean rulers made few economic reforms, had little international diplomatic presence, and did not modernize the Korean military.
The lessons learned from this is for today is that Korea needs to maintain a vibrant economy, strong diplomatic ties with other nations, and a start of the art and well trained military to avoid ever being colonized again.
Sorry about my selfishness GI Korea…
I was little bit mad about this mistranslated "pay" thing.
Hello, Arai
It was my mistake to compare Korean to Jewishs…
But the colonization over Korea was not about Korean population or how long life became, and, yes, I know it is western technology which came in with Japanese.
But my main point is that Japanese were just "lucky".
Japanese was wrong so made a lot of mistake in Korea, and there was many "murder" case of Korean leaders who fought for our liberty. If our life situation was better that before, than why would we want liberty?
Please consider about that point.
For Mr. Won and others interested in these topics, I've put up several blog posts recently on a book I'm reading written in 1920 on the situation in Korea that talks about much of this stuff…
http://usinkoreajournal.wordpress.com/
Many books from before 1940 are not copyright protected these days and are coming online via google books:
http://books.google.com/bkshp?hl=en&tab=wp
The New York Times archives for most or all of the colonial period and back into the 1800s are also free and available at the NY Times website.
Anybody with internet access can now do research into the colonial period and early US-SK relations (and about the world at large before about 1950)…
If our life situation was better that before, than why would we want liberty?
Please consider about that point.
Your statement presumes that most Koreans wanted "liberty." Actually, "independence" may be a more correct word to convey your meaning.
By 1910, Japan had killed or driven out resistance fighters and the March 1919 movement was likewise suppressed with only 7,000 deaths by Korea's own estimates. At the end of the war, Japan had lost its oolonies but remained in firm control of Chosen Prefecture, where a generation of young Koreans were being raised as citizens of Japan, learning the Japanese curriculum in Japanese schools. "Under the Black Umbrella" by Hilda Kang is probably the most balanced English-language account of life in Korea under Japanese rule. Koreans who resisted the Japanese suffered greatly. Those who didn't were generally left alone. There was discrimination, but this wouldn't have been anything new to Koreans, whose society was rigidly hierarchical with legally defined social classes and practically no upward mobility. Prior to 1910, Korea was not a free society in the modern sense of the word, nor did most Koreans have liberty, for oppressive government regulations and taxes were burdensome to nobleman and commoner alike.
[…] manchuria1.png 300 X 247 – 170 kB rokdrop.com/2007/01/08/the-taft-katsura… [Found on Yahoo! Search] […]
When I saw the picture of Chung, DoungYoung, I basically knew where the story was going to end up.
Although I agree that the self-protectionist actions of the yangban (and, apparently, the current administration) is the weak link in Korea's struggle for autonomy, one point that Koreans justifiably demonize the US for is its monetary and political investment in Syngman Rhee. He received his BA from George Washington, Master's from Harvard and PhD from Princeton–all while having no appreciable assets in Korea. He could never have wrecked such destruction and desecration at "home" were it not for the support of the US government. Had the US not funded the power-monger-Rhee, or at the very least not swooped to his rescue when Koreans were on the verge of lynching him, US-Korean relations might not be so complicated today. (&Not that this would have benefited the US agenda of the time, but just imagine if the US had supported Kim Koo…)
[…] The Taft-Katsura Agreement; An American Sell Out of Korea? (51) […]
late to the party,
You are in luck, I have written about Syngman Rhee as well.
In my opinion though as bad as Rhee was he has little to do with how US-ROK relations are today.
[…] Top Five Posts for the Month of March 2008 1. Lee Dong-gun’s Younger Brother Identified as Sydney Stabbing Victim 2. Michelle Wie Dating Stanford Basketball Player Robin Lopez 3. Korean Student Murdered, One Other Stabbed in Sydney 4. Osan “Playboy” Faces Loss of Job 5. The Taft-Katsura Agreement, An American Sell Out of Korea? […]
Shucks…didn't read your post from Jan 2007. Glad I did now. Well done. New perspective on the Yangban wanting to hold power that I'd never thought about. Interesting, though I'd find it hard to prove. I agree with your points of how far off-base most of the Korean revisionist historians are in applying the past to the present.
However, though a bit off topic may a Hawaiian interject a bit from the Hawaiian nationalist perspective?
"…Taft-Katsura Agreement so remembered today by Koreans was agreed upon. This agreement effectively recognized that the US would not interfere with Japanese ambitions in Korea and Manchuria and that Japan would not interfere with American ambitions in the Philippines. The US leaders wanted official recognition of this reality from the Japanese so they would not have to spend the money fortifying the US colony in the Philippines from possible Japanese attack."
Actually the US wanted international recognition of the "properties" it obtained after the Spanish-American War — not so much the fear of Japanese attack. The European colonial powers refused to recognize the US territorial gains of the Spanish-American War. The old European colonial powers were still well-vested in the area and didn't like the new US interloper. The Japanese provided the international recognition of its right to "possess" these territories — but not only the PI but also Guam as a Spanish War prize.
The US recognized Japan's hold (sphere of influence) on Korea; in exchange, Japan recognized the US hold on the Philippines — and at the same time also Guam as well as Hawaii. The agreement was not a bilaterally signed document, but only a meeting memorandum meant to smooth over Japanese-American relations — but one which the powerful Japanese (after Sino-Japan and Russo-Japan victories) backed the US as a "friendly nation" to govern the PI and other areas. The US had its international recognition.
What's this have to do with the Hawaii nationalists? The Taft-Katsura Agreement of 1905 also sealed the fate of Hawaii as a "possession" of the US.
The Kingdom of Hawaii was a sovereign nation but was ursurped with the collusion of US Minister Stevens and the oligarchy of white sugar plantation interests. The US and the Kingdom of Hawaii had a treaty protecting Hawaii's sovereignty. However, Minister Stevens overstepped his bounds and had the naval guns on US naval vessels in Honolulu Harbor trained on Iolani Palace where the US Marines — bivouacked across the street in Iolani Barracks — imprisoned Queen Liliokalani under house arrest. She was forced to abdicate on 17 Jan 1893 fearing for the safety of her people — but did so only under the stipulation that the US government would vindicate her. The oligarchy took over and immediately declared itself the Republic of Hawaii. The US Congress sent Sen Blount (Blount Commission) to Hawaii and he concluded that US Minister Stevens had indeed overstepped his power and recommended the US restore the monarchy. The new President Cleveland chose to NOT do so. Instead, the Republic was annexed to the US and became the Territory of Hawai?i on 7 July 1898. The Taft-Katsura Agreement of 1905 sealed Hawaii's fate — a land lost to the colonialist powers. Modern Hawaiian nationalists wish those of the oligarchy to be castrated in abstentia — since they are long dead. And if you want to see some parallels to how a people's language and culture were almost exterminated don't look to Korea, but look to Hawaii where the white man's benevolence almost erased a people's culture.
The bottom line is that when the Koreans were sold down the tubes by the Taft-Katsura Agreement of 1905 by the US, so were the Chamorro people of Guam and the Hawaiian people of Hawaii by Japan. It was a reciprocal arrangement. The British monarchy — godfathers and godmothers to Hawaiian royalty — and the French — with their Catholic influence in Hawaii — simply backed off and let Hawaii lapse into American hands under the blessings of "Manifest Destiny." The fate of Hawaii was sealed.
Kalani,
This posting has had many great commments and this one adds to it and yes it makes sense that Taft-Katsura laid out the framework of the new order in the Pacific.
In regards to Hawaii the biggest mistake the royalty made IMO was when they allowed the immigration of so many foreign laborers on to the island to work the plantation to the point where they became the minority on the island.
If the plantation owners did not have the immigrants they would not have had the ability of creating the prosperous plantations that led to wealth and political power for its owners.
Correct me if I'm wrong but when Queen Liliokalani came to power she tried to reassert the power of the throne through creating a Hawaiian militia force after years of the royalty being nothing more then figure heads receiving funding from the plantation owners in return. This upset the plantation owners who liked the status quo an thus turned to the US for support which was more then happy to annex Hawaii before the Europeans made a move on the islands.
I think the Hawaiian story is a perfect example of the dangers of becoming a minority in your own land.
Getting off-topic. Answer is yes. But there are a lot of social factors that would make this a very long discussion — and completely off-topic. Thus I'll try to be short.
The transition from the traditional ahupua'a system (pigs head — shape of land from mountain top to the sea) where the monarchy distributed the land — was being threatened as western land systems were instituted. Laws that made the adoption of "haole" names for land ownership were very disturbing — and added to confusion. The Hawaiian commoners were being systematically stripped of their lands as they did not understand the white man (haole) system. Landless, homeless, without hope — more and more sank to the depths of degradation. Like the American Indian, the Hawaiian people The songs of Iwi'lei tell in couched Hawaiian verse — steeped in double entendres — how low the common people had gone.
After the Kamehameha line died out, the monarchy became a constitutional monarchy. The monarchy under the now revered "Merrie Monarch" — King David Kalakaua — started the shift to return to the cultural roots of the Hawaiian people with the revival of the hula and other things banned under the puritanical missionary teachings. He also went to excess and nearly bankrupted the Kingdom — relying on the sandalwood trade to bring in wealth but in the end created environmental havoc. In one sense, Kalakaua was a belove monarch — but on the other had somewhat of a spoiled despot. Riled, things got worse as the oligarchy — all sprung from missionary roots — chaffed as the constitutional monarchy they had shaped as the ministers of government started to be threatened as King Kalakaua tried to gain control again of the government. At the end of his reign, his cabinet was overthrown and a new constitution — called by th Hawaiians as the "bayonet Constitution" — deprived him of almost all his power. An ill-fated insurrection took place favoring the abdication of Kalakaua and his replacement by Princess Lili'uokalani.
After Kalakaua died in San Francisco, Lili'uokalani became the monarch. Unlike the portrait that many want to paint of her in the past as an educated WOMAN who had no understanding of the problems her people faced, her writings reveal she was VERY politically astute and new just who of the "foreign devils" (oligarchy) were waiting to stab her in the back. With this in mind, she sent her emissaries to Washington to make treaties to protect the monarchy from them — and the oligarchy was at the same time working with Congress to stab her in the back in the sugar wars. The US media depicted her in black face as an ignorant monarch — like the carpet bagger black men — something that still churns the guts of Hawaiians who read history. Sorry…I digress.
Yes, she signed her fate when she placed her trust in international treaties — and the balancing of powers (Britain, France and US) — to maintain her monarchy. One cannot play a game based on law if the players on the other side are thieves and two-faced liars. Guess who I'm talking about? The US stabbed her in the back. The oligarchy stabbed her in the back. Her announcement that she wanted to repeal the Bayonet Constitution signed her fate. The rest is history…
Little does GI realize: there is a Taft-Katsura agreement planned against America. Like the American Indians and Hawaiians, Americans are now being systematically degraded in order to prepare for an international colonization called: the North American Union. It began with NAFTA, and now is incrementally upgraded by bureaucratic stealth. It happened in Europe. It's being prepared for America.
Due to GI's incompetence and failure to protect his own country … he too will be blaming foreigners.
Everyone who posted here should read The Foreign Destruction of Korean Independence. It was written by Carole Cameron Shaw and released in 2007. I am proud to be an American but the US did sell out Korea. US backed Japan in its war with Russia; and, Japan owed big money to many who backed their military conquest. Some of the financers were US historical figures and they wanted their money. The gold in Korea was one way to solve Japan's money problems. Japan was broke after the war with Russia. I researched at the Independence Hall in Korea and the collection of Homer Hulbert's personal letters about his time in Korea in the late 1800's and early 1900's revealed to me there were pro-Japan interests by prominent Americans. Shaw's book sheds more light on this subject and changes some of the image of King Kojong. It would be interesting to see if this book made people posting here think differently. I think the obliteration of Korea during the Colonial period was a crime involving many countries besides Japan. From Teddy Roosevelt to Truman and even today's US leaders have done some pretty sneaky things in Korea. Korea has absolutley prospered from some American help but some US actions have hurt Korea, too.
The Taft-Katsura agreement was not a positive development for Koreans.
Cummings?
A regular MH commenter named Sperwer read The Foreign Destruction of Korean Independence" and gave it a good frisking, not only for its distorted content but for its awful prose.
Regarding the book what does "awful prose" mean? Is Sperwer a scholar of Korean studies? Where are his posts on the book?
First of all Flip, Shaw's book is poorly written and has been widely criticized:
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2007/04/26/us-aided-japa…
Secondly, you have provided nothing to counter my argument which probably means you can't. The bottom line is that people can say that the US didn’t do anything to help Korea back then which is something I could agree with, but to blame the US for the Japanese colonization is just another absurd attempt at historical revisionism so prevalent in Korea today. If Koreans are looking to assign blame they should first look at themselves.
GI Korea,
I found this site recently. It seemed like a decent site to possibly learn things from. I have studied Korean and Korean American history. My family donated the largest personal collection of historical documents to the Korean governemnt in 1984 and that donation helped straighten out a lot of Korea's modern history. There is alot more to do to get the story straight.
I asked three very simple questions. And from that you know everything about my intentions. I did not try to find an argument. I just wanted to know about your response before I made any in depth reply. After reading your rude reply why would I want to respond? You have already postured yourself saying I can't respond implying I am no match for your knowledge of Korean history.
I had not even started to counter your reply. I could argue toe to toe with you. I won't waste time doing it here because it may expose what a dunce you really are.
You are probably a fan of Durham White Stevens and feel he did nothing to hurt Korea.
I have criticized Koreans for not blaming themselves and for not knowing more about their own history. It's rare Americans blame themselves, as well.
I do find evidience that the US did influence Japan's colonization of Korea. I also know that Americans like Homer Hulbert tried to stop Japan.
I am an American. My mom was the first Korean American woman in the US services in 1942 and the first woman gunnery officer in the Navy. My grandfather came to America in 1902 and my mom was born in LA in 1915. Both my mom and dad worked for Navy Intelligence and NSA. My grandfather is Dosan Ahn Chang Ho and you probably have some uninformed response about him.
My first trip to Korea was in 1973 and I have been there almost every year since. I studied and worked as a researcher at the Independence Hall in Chonan and have access to a lot of documents most people do not. I have researched some of the dcouments used by Carole Cameron Shaw. I wonder if your even read her book yourself or just go by what others have said.
Since you are such a self proclaimed authority about this stuff I am not going to waste any more time on an egotistical pompus moron like you.
I guess the name dropper doesn't want to play with us anymore, GI. 😥
I don't see where I was rude? 😕
I don't see anyone else being rude either. No one called you a name. The only one name calling is you who called me a dunce with no evidence of such.
There are some very smart people who comment here at the ROK Drop that will challenge your ideas so you need to be prepared to debate.
I asked you to counter my points made in the posting that the Korean government made a failed gamble to outsource their own national security to China. The US had no defensive pact with Korea or even the military capability to stop the Japanese from colonizing Korea even if they wanted to.
The US government did nothing to help Korea but then again the Korean government did little to help themselves either. The colonization of Korea is of course the majority fault of the Japanese aggressors but the Korean government is also to blame for doing little for their own national security especially considering the huge power shifts going on in the region.
I would hope that instead of this historical revisionism to assign blame elsewhere Koreans would look at themselves and be motivated to never again set the conditions for the collapse and occupation of the country ever again. Unfortunately like I mentioned in the posting there are eerie similarities that led to the occupation of the country then that is happening right now.
"My grandfather is Dosan Ahn Chang Ho and you probably have some uninformed response about him."
He is a terrorist. A bomber of innocents. No better then Bin Laden. I spit on his grave.
Kalani, I must confess to total ignorance about Hawaii. I have always presumed that life for the indigenous people there prior to the arrival of Europeans was nasty, brutish, and short. I also presumed that, having a monarchy, the nobles or the crown owned most of the land, while the commoners had only what the nobles would allow. This is not an answer to you comments, merely an admission that Hawaii is of little interest to those of us who are not from there. (Unless, of course, we are Pacific strategists.)
Flip, if you like Carole Cameron Shaw, you'd love Noam Chomsky. The few pages I skimmed through reminded me of Seumas MacManus' turgid "History of the Irish Race" (Hint, everything wrong in Ireland is the fault of the English.)
The key term in your argument is "sold out". That implies that the U.S. had an obligation to Korea (Moral, legal, or otherwise); that the U.S. had the power to do something in defense/support of Korea that it failed to do; and finally, that the U.S. received some concrete benefit from Japan for knowingly failing to do so.
Other posters have already mentioned these factors, but it serves to remember that the only instrument which can create obligations between the U.S. and any other foreign power is a duly ratified treaty that specifies such obligations. The Chemeulpo Treaty had no provisions obligating the U.S. to defend Korea. Rather, it laid the basis for both countries to establish mutual diplomatic relations The Taft-Katsura Agreement was a mere memo of understanding between two Cabinet members, not two heads of State, and especially not between two governments. It was no treaty, and it contained no provisions obligating the U.S. to do or not do anything vis-a-vis either Korea or Japan. Since it made no such pretensions it was never submitted to nor duly authorized by the Congress. Under American law and practice of the period, the U.S. President could have committed an expeditionary force (as they had in China during the Boxer Rebellion), but this would have been insufficient to counter Japanese naval and ground power in East Asia. The President could not have committed the country to War at the time, because the Truman Doctrine was several generations into the future, and the 1904 Congress would NOT have allowed him to do so. (Note the years of "yellow journalism" it took to get the public to push for the Spanish-American War, and U.S. reluctance to enter both WWI and WWII.) Those two realities moot the final point. First of all, the U.S. received NO actionable benefits from the Taft Agreement (i.e., something they could take before an international tribunal), and second, the benefits that they did receive were illusory. The U.S. would soon agree to put the Philippines on the road to Independence (Commonwealth in 1935, full independence in 1946), and it soon became clear that Japan's "non-interference" would only last as long as convenient, as the attacks of 8 December 1941 would prove. If that constitutes "selling a nation out", then the U.S. was guilty of selling out France and Belgium in 1914, the Spanish Republic in 1936-38, China in 1937, Poland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Lichtenstein in 1939-40, East Germany in 1952, and Hungary in 1956. Note that the U.S. got involved in some of those conflicts only when it was in their perceived interest to do so. That is what prudent nations do. The first rule in diplomacy is that nations do not have friends. They have interests.
I have a slightly different take on the events — just a little bit different. Below is a link to a map for a General Foreign Community in Kunsan in 1899. Note the signatories at the top. The Japanese was creating its "treaty" port and reclaiming the land — and all the rest of the major powers were simply signing off on it. None of the signatories would ever move in there — and it is the old Japanese district of Kunsan that still exists today. The Japanese had already obtained by threat the treaty the opening of the 8 TREATY ports. In effect, the other countries, US, France, Germany, Russia, and China were simply bowing their heads — and trying to protect what little gains that they had left in Korea.
http://kalaniosullivan.com/Korea/KunsanCity/Kunsa…
The Koreans weren't "sold out" by Taft-Katsura Agreement of 1905. They had already been "bought and paid for" years before — and the foreign powers were just squabbling about the spoils left by the Japanese.
Modernization of Japan was due not just because of their swift switch to the "western" mode, but also Japan's socio-economic status was much better than Korea and perhaps even China BEFORE the Meiji restoration/revolution. Japan was ready to modernize while other E Asian countries were not. This is no news for western scholars of Japan, they have done intensive studies comparing pre-Meiji Japan with Europe, but I think many western (and yes, Korean) scholars on Korea miss this point completely, and is one of the reasons behind the blame-game.
the March 1919 movement was likewise suppressed with only 7,000 deaths by Korea’s own estimates.
==> As you probably know, the March 1919 movement was in a large peaceful demonstration, not a uprising with amrs, you say 7,000 deaths caused in suppression of peaceful demonstraiton was 'only 7,000 deaths'???
ha~ impressive.
7,000 is a small number compared to the estimated 2 million who took part in some way.
The protests sparked by the March 1st Movement were not all peaceful. It seems clear it was the aim of the leaders to have a peaceful movement, but violence flared in many places across the nation – both as part of the "uprising" and as anger to the Japanese authority's suppression.
There are a fair number of books from the period (in English) available for free via Google books.
The NY Times archives are also free for this period.
to sonagi/
7,000 deaths among 2,000,000 in the demonstrations is a small number? wierd idea. if the movement had been an uprising with guns, I would agree. but you know, it was not a war.
The following is a quote from wikipecia article of 'Rice Riots of 1918 (???, kome s?d??)', which I think is somehow comparable to the march 1st movement in size and severity of violence and number of participants, and also the time of occurrence.
(if you know a better one to compare, let me know)
"
The Rice Riots were unparalleled in modern Japanese history in terms of scope, size and violence. The initial protest occurred in the small fishing town of Ouzu, Toyama Prefecture, on 23 July 1918.
Starting with peaceful petitioning, the disturbance quickly escalated to riots, strikes, looting, incendiary bombings of police stations and government offices and armed clashes. By mid-September 1918, over 623 disturbances had occurred in 38 cities, 153 towns and 177 villages, with over 2 million participants.
Some 25,000 people were arrested, of whom 8200 were convicted of various crimes, with punishments ranging from minor fines to the death penalty. [1]"
seeing the above quote, the deaths caused in the suppression of 'The Rice Riots' seems much less than 7,000.
Numbers have both absolute and relative values. 7,000 deaths in Korea is significantly more than the undetermined number executed by the Japanese in the wake of the rice riots. My point is not that those 7,000 lives didn't have value. It's that relatively few Koreans died resisting the Japanese occupation, whether those Koreans were armed or unarmed. The small armies that fought the Japanese in northern Korea from 1905 were vanquished or driven into Manchuria by 1910.
I agree the United States–Korea Treaty of 1882 wasn’t a official defensive pact, but you go ridiculously too far in the other direction.
“The only obligation the US had was to speak on Korea’s behalf if requested”
Yes and did the United States even do that? No!
“However, this didn’t stop Koreans leaders after the signing of the Portsmouth Treaty to try and argue this same point that “good offices” meant a defensive pact with then President Teddy Roosevelt, but Roosevelt refused to meet them and discounted their claims. Can you blame him? Maybe he wasn’t showing “good offices” by refusing to meet them, but no where in the agreement does it say either that the Koreans have exclusive access to the American President.”
Now this is laughable. You’re blaming the korean leaders for having a weak argument that the 1882 treaty being a defense treaty, but they never even got to make that argument because Roosevelt wouldn’t meet with them.
This is a little like if the police came into my house without a warrant and found illegal drugs in my house. The fact I had drugs is nullified by the fact they had no right to search my house without a warrant first.
Your argument that the koreans had no case for asking the US to come to their defense is nullified by the fact that Roosevelt never even heard them out as “There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between the President of the United States and the King of Chosen” seems to dictate.
Lets say you have a friend and one day they beg you for a one million dollar loan or their house will be taken away. Are you obligated as a friend to give them that loan? No. But as a friend is it at least common courtesy that you hear them out? If knowing beforehand that he/she’s coming to your house to ask for a huge loan you lock the doors and turn off all the lights so it looks like you’re not home so you don’t have to deal with the awkwardness of being asked for money, is that the act of a friend?
“Maybe he wasn’t showing “good offices” by refusing to meet them, but no where in the agreement does it say either that the Koreans have exclusive access to the American President”
Oh give me a f**king break. See this is where I know that you’re not a reasonable person but a highly biased person. A reasonable person would at minimum acknowledge that this was wrong. “Exclusive access”? It’s a emergency, the korean leaders were desperate. Roosevelt can’t hear them out? Is me calling 911 in a emergency asking for exclusive access of 911 dispatchers?
Of course Roosevelt had already made up his mind at this point. But his snub demonstrates pretty clearly he never even tried to give off the impression that the United States would live up to the treaty of friendship in good faith. Koreans were simply not worthy of this much thought in his view. Not surprising considering how racist he was as well as the history of the United States when it makes treaties with non-whites.
“If Koreans are looking to assign blame they should first look at themselves.”
Its kind of amazing how easy it is for you to blame the victim.
So when it comes to the enslavement of african-americans or the colonialization of Africa, you’d of course bring up the fact that the leaders of the africans failed them and that they should get more blame?
I’m fine if that is how you feel but lets not have a double standard where you only blame koreans for this common trait. The leaders of the africans who were enslaved were at fault for being too incompetent to protect their fellow citizens/tribesman/whatever from the white european slavers. Not to mention the fact that a lot of Africans were sold by other Africans to the slavers. Yet how many african-americans today blame the weak leaders of the various western african tribes/states for slavery?
Do you only have the guts to have hold this standard to koreans but not african and african-americans?
“No where in this definition do I see defensive pact, but this is what many Koreans believe “good offices” means though the definition of it is quite clear. The only obligation the US had was to speak on Korea’s behalf if requested; no where in there does it say the US is obligated to deploy the 7th Cavalry to Korea to take Japanese scalps.”
The US wasn’t just standing by tearily in the sidelines as their buddy Korea was absorbed by Japan. They were active cheerleaders.
“I should like to see Japan have Korea” – Teddy Roosevelt
Is that showing perpetual peace and friendship and showing “good offices”?
Again, lets say you have a friend called “Tim”. Tim is not a “I’d take a bullet for him” type of friend to you but a acqutainance type of friend.
Lets say one day you got into a fist fight with a person I’ll call “Brad”. Brad beats you up badly and you’re lying on the ground, bleeding, as Brad stands triumphant over you. And here walks up Tim. Tim does not show a ounce of concern even though you are lying on the ground and bleeding, but instead he high-fives Brad and tells him “nicely done!”.
Now does Tim have a obligation to come to your defense and attack Brad? No. Because as I said he’s not that (emotionally) strong a friend.
But being a friend does he at minimum not have a duty to check up on you and see that you’re ok? A “you ok man?”? Even barring that shouldn’t he at least stay neutral and stay out of the way? No congratulating your attacker? I’d say Brad is not a friend if he’s high fiving the guy who beat you up.
My point being I wouldn’t have blamed the United States if they had just stood idly by and let Japan have Korea. But they didn’t, now did they? Roosevelt negotiated the treaty and got a Nobel Prize for it. Then he said “I should like to see Japan have Korea”
That goes beyond, “the US didn’t have a obligation to leap to the defense of Korea”, that’s actively cheerleading Korea’s demise.
Maybe the Koreans who say the US was obligated to defend Korea, or blame the United States directly lead to Korea being annexed by Japan are wrong and they’re too blinded by their anti-americanism but your argument is wrong also. You go too far in the other direction to the point where you’re whitewashing the actions of Roosevelt, the US and even Japan.
“Plus this agreement and the following Treaty of Portsmouth would ensure regional stability after a decade of constant warfare in northeast Asia. All this agreement did was recognize reality at the time. How is recognizing reality a sell out?”
Boy, that really worked out well for all the parties involved right? The United States never had trouble with Japan later on right?
That treaty ensured asia would never have a war again right? No atrocities in asia thanks to that treaty right?
And “recognizing reality” is now my new favorite phrase. “Hitler invading Czechoslovakia? Well we’ve just got to recognize reality that Germany is strong and we can’t stop them.”
“Oh that man is raping that woman? Well I’m too weak to stop him so I’ve got to recogonize reality and just walk away”
“Living under a Stalinist regime? Fighting back is no use, we’ve just go to recognize reality and just live our lives as best as we can under this repressive regime”.”
You are a pathetic.