Hawai‘i Studies on Korea. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2021. xi, 332 pp. (Illustrations.) US$68.00, cloth. ISBN 9780824889050.
The pursuit of Chosŏn neutralization during the late nineteenth century and around the turn of the twentieth century is a relatively less-studied topic among scholars of early modern East Asia. Historians and IR scholars would do well to revisit the period for further empirical clarification and theoretical frameworks in order to shed light on underestimated aspects of international politics. Sangpil Jin’s Surviving Imperial Intrigues is a well-researched work delving into official documents from the British Foreign Office, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, German Foreign Office, Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russian Foreign Office, Russian State Naval Archive, and United States Department of State, among other primary sources, and privately produced records, approached through the lens of the discourse and (botched) attempt to establish Chosŏn’s neutrality in the timespan 1882−1907. Jin argues that Chosŏn neutrality could have been successful at some critical junctures, for example during the 1885−1887 British occupation of Kŏmundo (Port Hamilton), had certain external factors been favourable.
After briefly reviewing the concept of neutralization in the context of Chosŏn (chapter 1), Jin proceeds to re-examine, with a consistent focus on neutralization suggestions, Chosŏn’s multi-layered relations with the Qing, Japan, Russia, and the United States, chronicling in detail significant episodes of the Qing-Japanese (chapters 2, 4), British-Russian (chapter 3), and Russo-Japanese (chapters 5, 6) rivalries and strategic negotiations, centred on Chosŏn’s interpolity status and the maintenance of East Asian regional stability. In conclusion, Jin contends that the Earl of Rosebery’s proposal (80–87) was a particularly realistic one for Chosŏn neutralization due to the power balance between Britain and Russia, but Chosŏn’s “inability to defend itself, Britain’s unwillingness to assert itself” (205) and the Qing’s dominance in Chosŏn derailed it. A few other opportunities also failed to materialize, because of the lack of self-defence capabilities, internally, and the breakdown in the balance of power between the Qing and Japan and between Japan and Russia, as well as major powers’ self-aggrandizement, externally.
Despite Chosŏn’s apathy, ideas of neutralization were floated by the Japanese press and officialdom as a means to “stave off Chinese intervention in Korea” (36). Westerners’ proposals were based on the balance of power, but they could not be regarded as viable due to Chosŏn’s “inability to embrace neutralization” (57), and Qing-Chosŏn hierarchical interdependency.
According to the author, amid the British-Russian rivalry over the Kŏmundo incident, a couple of Chosŏn scholar-officials, Kim Yunsik and Yu Kilchun, also advocated permanent neutrality (213). However, what Kim mentioned in his communications sent on June 25 and June 27, 1885, to foreign representatives in Hansŏng (the Chosŏn capital) was that the Chosŏn state would take a neutral position upon a conflict between third powers by neither granting a lease of territory nor allowing a temporary occupation of part of its territory (如諸國有事則本國應守局外之分不可以地借人准其暫住), and that it would expect “good offices” (從中善爲) by third powers with treaty relations with Chosŏn on behalf of the latter in its dispute over Kŏmundo with Britain. It was not about any type of permanent neutrality. The sporadic initiatives before the Russo-Japanese War by some Russian high officials (159–165) and King Kojong’s wartime neutrality declaration (181–188) also failed to lead to a permanent arrangement.
Throughout the book, Jin overstretches his argument that foreign governments and many individuals, foreigners and Chosŏn court officials alike, contemplated the permanent neutrality of Chosŏn at one time or another to promote its prospects. In one such example, he says that British officials Harry S. Fox and William H. Wilkinson “were seeking to emulate Rosebery’s permanent neutrality proposal” (105). What the former two suggested was mere wartime neutrality for Chosŏn’s one port. Furthermore, what Rosebery wished for cannot strictly be deemed permanent neutrality. The target audience of his statement was none other than the Qing court, and his call for “an international arrangement guaranteeing the integrity of Corea” (83) by enlisting Russia and other powers was exactly what Li Hongzhang 李鴻章 had aimed at in his talks with the Russian official Ladygensky in late 1886. Neither the British government nor the Qing had in mind getting Chosŏn neutralized permanently.
Overstating or overgeneralizing the foreign powers’ not-so-benevolent intentions as if they indeed intended to bring about Chosŏn neutralization is another issue with this book. Neither the Qing, Britain, nor Japan attempted to “neutralize Korea to protect its independence” (88) and the Lobanov-Yamagata Protocol of June 1896 should not be counted as having served to “provide plausible grounds for Korean neutralization” (119). That Russia and Japan compromised on stationing an equal number of troops in Chosŏn to secure their respective sphere of authority, without consulting Chosŏn, shows that the former two had no real concern about the latter’s proper exercise of its limited autonomy, let alone independence.
Some minor errors include the rendering of Pak Yŏngho, which should read Pak Yŏnghyo 朴泳孝 (26); Treaty of Seoul, which should more properly read the Treaty of Hansŏng (50); May 6, 1884, which should read 1885 (57); and King Kojong changed the state’s name from Chosŏn to the Taehan Empire, not the Korean Empire (121). Also, the use of the terms “autonomy” and “semi(-)autonomy” (35) is both superfluous and misleading. Rather, “autonomy” would better be conceived of as a continuous variable.
Such quibbles notwithstanding, Jin’s study is a welcome contribution to the field of East Asian history, and a highly informative reference for anyone interested in the workings of imperialist power dynamics around Chosŏn neutralization.
Chun Jihoon
Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum