International Journal of Korean History (Vol.15 No.2, Aug.2010) 97 G Transformation of the Dualistic International Order into the Modern Treaty System in the Sino-Korean Relationship Song Kue-jin* IntroductionG G Whether in the regional or global scale, the international order can be defined as a unique system within which international issues develop and the diplomatic relations are preserved within confined time periods. The one who has leadership in such international order is, in actuality, the superpowers regardless of the rationale for their leading positions, and the orderliness of the system is determined by their political and economic prowess.1 The power that led East Asia in the pre-modern era was China. The pre- modern East Asian regional order is described as the tribute system. The tribute system is built on the premise of installation, so it was important that China designate and proclaim another nation as a tributary state. The system was not necessarily a one-way imposition; it is possible to view the system built on mutual consent as the tributary state could benefit from China’s support and preserve the domestic order at times of political instability to person in power. Modern capitalism challenged and undermined the East Asian tribute GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG * HK Research Professor, ARI, Korea University 98 Transformation of the Dualistic International Order into the ~ system led by China, and the East Asian international relations became a modern system based on treaties. The Western powers brought the former tributary states of China into the outer realm of the global capitalistic system. With the arrival of Western imperialistic powers, the East Asian regional order faced an inevitable transformation. In this situation, Japan showed acceptance of the Western superiority in its relations with the West, while it tried to grasp the hegemony of the new regional order through the post-Meiji policies of strengthening the domestic economy and military. Japan brought into Korea the modern diplomatic system based on treaties by concluding “the Treaty of Kanghwa” and further tried to end the tribute system and create a new order in East Asia by winning the Sino-Japanese War and forcing “the Treaty of Shimonoseki” on China in 1895.2 One may think that the new Korea-China relations under the modern treaty system had been determined by the power and diplomatic skills of that the two nations at that time. China, however, tried to hold onto the tribute system by emphasizing the tributary status of Korea in the document of “the Korea-China Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade”. Accepting this, Korea kept the pre-modern position as a tributary state of China, while it mad agreement with Japan and Western Powers on the modern treaty system. Therefore, Korea found itself in dualistic international relations. Eventually this dualistic nature of Korea’s diplomacy made a transition to the modern treaty system as China’s tribute system collapsed as result of its defeat in the Sino-Japanese War and “the Treaty of Commerce between Korea and China” was established in 1899. There have been many studies on “the Korea-China Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade”, and “the Treaty of Commerce between Korea and China”. A general agreement emerged on the idea that the Korea-China relations transformed into a modern one based on treaty after the Treaty of Commerce, but there are disagreements on the character of the relationship after the agreement of “the Korea-China Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade”.3 Song Kue-jin 99 Concerning the pre-modern Korea-China relationship, Koo Sun-hee has provided an important insight. She argues that though lacking in imperialistic aspects, China managed to continue the traditional tribute system, thus actually attempting to put Korea under its colonial rules..4 Many scholars of “the Treaty of Commerce between Korea and China” have accepted this view and define the Korea-China relationship as that of the imperialistic power and the occupied. However, Koo’s argument is no evidence of China’s imperialistic nature other than the fact that Chinese external pressure on Korea was aggressive and leading to hindering Korea’s development to a modern independent nation. On the other hand, Larsen interpreted the Korea-China relationship as that of an “informal” imperialism.5 He contributed to the study of the Korea-China relationship by showing how China tried to maximize the imperialistic economic interest through the emphasis on China’s technological empowerment and prevent Japan and Russia’s influence over Korea through the adoption of the open ports system and by making use of treaties, international laws and “multilateral imperialism.” Nevertheless, his analysis does not differ so much from that of others, in that it lacks stronger factual evidence. This main object of my work is to examine how the Korea-China relationship was gradually transformed from the dualistic international order to a modern system.6 It is true that the Korea-China relationship changed after the Treaty of Kanghwa, but before then, the fundamental nature of the relationship remained the same. The customs of paying the tribute to China went on as usual; Kojong evidently did not change his view towards the relationship much either, as he sought Chinese military support to maintain his rule whenever political instabilities emerged. There were understandable attempts to change such realities but they all ended in failure. The real qualitative change in the Korea-China relationship took place after China lost to Japan and “the Treaty of Commerce between Korea and China” was singed in 1899. Based on my paper particularly concerns the transition from the dualistic international order to a modern treaty system. 100 Transformation of the Dualistic International Order into the ~ Modern Treaty System and the Tribute System When agreeing to the Treaty of Kanghwa, Korea understood it as an extension of the previous relationship between two neighboring countries under the tribute system, but Japan intended to establish the modern treaty relationship between the two countries. This treaty was only a beginning. Ultimately, using the modern but unequal, treatiesas a stepping-stone, Japan invaded Korea, and as a result Korea received great damages. After 1882, a series of unequal treaties with the Western powers, including the US, Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, was imposed upon Korea. For the people of Korea for whom China had been the center of the world, a change equivalent to earth-shaking chaos began and the international events now affected their daily lives.7 After the modern treaty system had been introduced, Korea tried to resolve the issues surrounding its trade with China in order to fend off Japan’s economic intrusion.8 When sending Uh Yun-jung to China to negotiate on trade, Kojong wanted new solutions for opening of the markets near the border areas requiring expensive security measures, as well as for the issues of tribute emissaries of the two parties. Most of the bureaucrats opposed this, considering it as an attempt to shift the traditional tribute system.9 Some studies have considered Kojong’s action as “an attempt to shift the Korea-China relations as an equal relationship under the common international laws,”10 but this view is problematic in that it overlooks Kojong’s consistent dependency on China until the Sino- Japanese War. China took Korean suggestions on trade as a bold challenge to its authority, and considered Korean inquiry for China to send a residing envoy in Korea as a violation of the customary rules of the tribute system.11 In his meeting with Zhou Fu, Uh argued that this inquiry does not necessarily change the traditional relationship, but China rejected his claim.12 When the Military Uprising in 1882 broke out, Kojong sent a letter to Kim Yun-sik, an emissary to Tianjin and instructed him to ask for Song Kue-jin 101 Chinese support. Accepting Korean request for military intervention, China sent troops to Korea in order to suppress the Military Uprising. In the end, the uprising was brought under control by the Chinese military and the Chinese troops was stationed in Korea. In order to secure political stability and to calm down the public, Kojong stipulated plans for a political reform and sought Li Hongzhang’s opinion through Cho Young- ha, a new appointee as an emissary to China, as well as his deputy Kim Hong-jip and assistant Yi Cho-yun.13 The Military Uprising provided China a good opportunity to legally strengthen its position as the ruling authority in Korea. Chinese intention of keeping Korea under its influence was realized by the continuation of the pre-modern tributary system, not a shift to an imperialistic approach. At the time of writing “the Korea-China Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade”, Li Hongzhang reported to Chinese authority the Regulations were written after enough consideration has been paid to the Huidian (the basic administrative laws of China) and the common international law; that it was different from a treaty; and that, even the Regulations somewhat changed the traditional ways and reflected new needs, it did not require China to make concessions to a tributary state.14 As for the meaning of the “tribute-paying country,” some have interpreted it as meaning “colony” in the world of the common international laws, but we should just see it as reflecting Chinese intention to protect the tribute system while acknowledging the common international law. Korean representative, Uh, debated with Chinese Zhao Fu and Ma Jianzhong regarding the contents of the Rule. Uh also admitted that the Rule’s contents were in line with the tribute system. While acknowledging the system, Uh requested that some revisions to be made lest Japan or the Western powers would also make similar demands.