Looking back on Korean history / 박상식

Months before and after the 100th anniversary of national humiliation, the day when Japan forced Joseon to sign the Annexation Accord and put it into effect a week later (Aug. 29, 1910), the political, media and academic communities in South Korea had held many meetings, conferences and rallies throughout the country. Newspapers, TV stations and periodicals carried numerous debates and articles on the subject. Most of them focused on the wrongdoings of the Japanese imperialists, with few of them reflecting on the domestic politics and foreign policy of the Joseon Dynasty.

In order to understand the fall of the Joseon Dynasty correctly and to chart the future course of Korea, we need to review Korean history in the context of international relations in Northeast Asia and the world as well as the domestic politics of Korea.

From the perspective of international relations and diplomacy, the states in the Korean Peninsula, which have risen and fallen throughout more than 4 millennia, have gone through four periods and the two Koreas now have just entered the fifth period. The first period can be called the Age of the Middle Kingdom, the second, the Age of Imperialism, the third, the Age of Ideology, the fourth, the Age of the Unipolar Moment, and the fifth, the Age of Globalization.

The Age of the Middle Kingdom lasted for approximately 2000 years from the Han Empire’s invasion and annexation of the northern part of the Korean Peninsula (108 B.C.) to the Western powers’ penetration into Northeast Asia (the 1860s). The Age of Imperialism lasted for approximately 80 years from the 1860s to 1945. The Age of Ideology covers the Cold War era (1945-1990), while the Age of Unipolar Moment continued to 2000. Now we are living in the Age of Globalization. Of course, globalization began in the third quarter of the 20th century but the wave of globalization has become the driving force of international politics after 9/11.

I periodized Korean history into the above five ages in order to magnify how Korea has been going through the super-subordinate relationship in relations with its neighboring great powers before World War II, and with them and another non-Asian great power after the war.

In the Age of the Middle Kingdom Korea was subordinate to the successive empires in China the Han, Tang, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties. China was the center of the world and Korea its periphery. Their relationship was a kind of suzerain-tributary state relationship or lord-vassal relationship. The Chinese empires did not rule Korea as a colony except for the initial periods of conquest. Their main concerns and interests were to make sure that their vassal states do not become strong by building their own military forces or by forming an alliance with other countries. In return China protected Korea when the latter was invaded by other powers. In this sense, the Chinese and Koreans formed an alliance. For these purposes, the Korean states were required to seek the consent of the Chinese empires for the succession of the throne, to send the king’s emissaries to the Chinese courts, and to pay tributes. According to the contemporary lexicology, the status of the Korean states under Chinese suzerainty is comparable to that of the Soviet satellites during the Cold War period.

In the Age of Imperialism, after a severe power struggle with the Qing Empire first and Western imperialist powers particularly with Russia afterwards, Japan succeeded in colonizing Korea. The relationship between Japan and Korea was a typical colonial relationship a master-servant relationship. During this period, capitalism was the main economic system of the Western world, and Japan as a rising capitalist force exploited Korea economically as well as politically. This makes us wonder if this is one of the reasons why the Koreans condemned Japanese colonialism more than Chinese suzerainty.

In the Age of Ideology Korea was divided into two opposing ideological entities the South and the North. North Korea was protected by two communist giants China and the Soviet Union, while South Korea was guarded by the United States. Their relationships with their respective allies were a quasi-protector-protectorate relationship in the early period of the Cold War and were gradually transformed into a guardian-minor relationship. In the case of South Korea, it came more self-confident economically and militarily; in the case of North Korea it took advantage of the Sino-Soviet split.

After the collapse of the communist bloc, both Koreas became more assertive of their independence, partly for the resurgence of nationalism all over the world.

Now, both Koreas still confront each other, and they solicit military and diplomatic support from their respective patrons. In the age of globalization in which ideological unity is no longer the main source of identity, while outright rule and control are almost unthinkable, both Koreas are still unable to get out of the shackles of super-subordinate relationships with great powers mainly because they have not abandoned reunification and are surrounded by the great powers.

Lessons we learn from this brief historical review of Korea’s relationships with its neighbors are mainly two:

One is that Korea can hardly overcome its geopolitical disadvantages: it is surrounded by three big powers that consider the Korean Peninsula as either a bridge forward or a buffer zone against their neighboring great powers. Korea will never be able to become equal to any of them militarily and economically, although it will be able to possess self-defense capabilities.

Another lesson is that Korea could have secured the status of a much less severe and humiliating super-subordinate relationship with its neighboring big powers if the states in the Korean Peninsula had been ruled by the leaders who were less divisive and more knowledgeable about international relations and diplomacy. When Sui and Tang invaded Goguryeo, it repulsed them mainly owing to its unified leadership and powerful military forces. The strong military government of Goryeo was able to keep the Mongolian invaders at bay for 30 years. In contrast, when Qing invaded Joseon, the leadership of the Korean kingdom was not only divided into pro- and anti-Chinese factions but also had inferior military capabilities. The same happened when Japan annexed Joseon. The Korean leadership was divided into pro- and anti- Japanese factions and Joseon’s military forces were no match for Japan’s. In terms of diplomatic skill, the Joseon court had no knowledge of power politics and the balance of power. The Age of Globalization requires highly sophisticated diplomatic skills and smart power (an amalgamated form of hard and soft power) for national defense. More importantly, a unified, enlightened and pragmatic leadership is essential for national survival and prosperity. The Korean people can learn a valuable lesson on international politics and diplomacy by studying their history of national humiliation.

By Park Sang-seek


코리아 헤럴드 (2010.9.26)