In Korea with Marquis Ito

by George Trumbull Ladd

It was such a situation of extreme peril and emergency which compelled the Japanese Government to secure formal recognition in an agreement with the Korean Government—so far as such a thing as government then existed in Korea—that should admit of no misunderstanding. This necessity gave rise to the Conventions of February 23, 1904, and of August 22 of the same year. The latter of these conventions was the logical sequence and supplement of the former. By the first of the Protocols[29] it was designed to secure necessary reforms in the administration of Korea and, besides, such an alliance between the two governments that Japan should guard the Korean Emperor and his people against foreign aggressions in the future and secure for herself the furtherance of her military operations against Russia. Of more permanent importance still was the prevention in the future of all such experiences as she had passed through in 1894-1895, and was passing through at the present time. The Convention of February, however, was no sooner concluded than His Majesty began plotting to prevent its going into effect. With the conduct of military matters he was indeed powerless to interfere; but every attempt at reform met with either his passive resistance or open opposition. This attitude of his made necessary the additional provisions stipulated in the supplementary Protocol of August 22, 1904.[30] In this, provision was made for the appointment by the Korean Government of a Japanese recommended by the Japanese Government as “Financial Adviser,” and of some foreigner, also to be recommended by the Japanese Government, as “Adviser to the Department of Foreign Affairs.” The appointees to these positions were Mr. Megata and Mr. D. W. Stevens.

But still the intrigue and treachery of His Majesty went on. In spite of the excellent service of Mr. Megata in straightening out the confusion of the Korean finances, and in utter disregard of Mr. Stevens’ advices and endeavors to make the new Protocols both appear, and actually to be, greatly to the advantage of the Emperor and of his country, the imperial ways remained unchanged. His own Foreign Ministers were either disregarded or made tools of intrigue. Even after the Treaty of November, 1905, His Majesty sent secret telegrams from the Palace ordering the Foreign Ministers of other Governments to pay no attention to the directions of his own Minister of Foreign Affairs, while the latter was arranging for the closing of the Legations according to the terms of the Treaty. During the entire war he was in secret communication with Japan’s enemies, while claiming Japan’s protection under the Protocols of February and August, 1904. This treacherous correspondence was carried on through emissaries at Shanghai; and large sums of money, which the Japanese Financial Adviser had somehow to provide, were wasted upon these futile efforts to change the course of events. Indeed, in this correspondence and in the distribution of this money, it is probable that the chief agent in Shanghai was the same person as the chief agent of Russia herself.

The subsequent history of the relations of Japan and Korea, as these relations resulted through the events of July, 1907, in establishing a protectorate which placed all important Korean affairs, both internal and foreign, under the control of the Japanese Resident-General, cannot be understood or judged without keeping the necessity and the significance of these Protocols steadily in mind. Of the Convention of February, 1904, Lawrence significantly says:[31]

Japan took the earliest opportunity of regularizing her position by a Protocol negotiated with the native Government, and communicated with Tokyo to her Legations abroad on February 27th. In this, the last of the long series of diplomatic agreements relating to the subject, the fiction of Korean independence is still kept up, while the fact of Japanese control is further accentuated. By the third Article Japan “guarantees the independence and territorial integrity of the Korean Empire”; and by the second she covenants to ensure “the safety and repose of the Imperial Household of Korea.” The Korean Government, on its part, covenants to adopt the advice of Japan in regard to improvements in administration, and to give full facilities for the promotion of any measures the Japanese Government may undertake to protect Korea against foreign aggressions or internal disturbances. It also agrees that for the promotion of these objects Japan may occupy strategic points in Korean territory.

The effect of this agreement has been to place the resources of Korea at the disposal of Japan in the present war. The victorious army which forced the passage of the Yalu so brilliantly on May 1st was landed at Korean ports, concentrated on Korean soil, and supplied from Korean harbors. In the political sphere Korea has denounced, as having been made under compulsion, all her treaties with Russia and all concessions granted to Russian subjects. On the other hand, Russia has declared that she will regard as null and void all the acts of the Korean Government while under Japanese tutelage, and her newspapers loudly proclaim that, if our (English) neutrality were genuine, we should raise objections against the Protocol, as being inconsistent with the Treaty of 1902, whereby we, in conjunction with Japan, mutually recognize the independence of Korea. In reality there is no inconsistency, because, as we have just seen, it is clear from the first Article of the Treaty that the independence is not an ordinary independence, but a diplomatic variety which was perfectly consistent with recurring interventions to ward off foreign aggression and put down domestic revolt. In other words, it was a dependent independence, or no independence at all, and such it remains under the agreement of February, 1904. That instrument undoubtedly establishes a Japanese Protectorate over Korea, and the beauty of Protectorates is their indefiniteness. As Professor Nye, the great Belgian jurist, says in his recently published work on Le Droit International: “Le terme ‘protectorat,’ désigne la situation créée par le traité de protection.... Le protectorat a plus ou moins de développement; rien n’est fixé dans la théorie; il est cependant un trait caracteristique commun aux Etats protégés c’est qu’ils ne sont pas entièrement indépendants dans leurs relations avec les autres Etats.” These words exactly fit the condition of Korea under its recent agreement with Japan. Indeed, the description might be extended to its internal affairs also. Susceptibilities are soothed, and possibly diplomatic difficulties are turned, by calling it independent; but in reality it is as much under Japanese protection as Egypt is under ours; all state-paper description to the contrary notwithstanding.

The new Treaty of August 22, 1904, shows that this is fully understood at Tokyo. A financial adviser and a diplomatic adviser are to be appointed by the Korean Government on the recommendation of Japan, and nothing important is to be done in their departments without their advice. No treaties with Foreign Powers are to be concluded, and no concessions to foreigners granted, without previous consultation with the Japanese Government.

That the view of this authority as to the significance of the Conventions of 1904 is not the view of any individual alone has been clearly demonstrated by the acceptance of its conclusions, in a practical way, though the official action of foreign governments since the date of the conventions themselves.

In particular it is to be noted that the Government of the United States has expressed an opinion touching the effect in international law upon the status of Korea of the February and August Protocols which is substantially identical with that of Professor Lawrence. Before there was any occasion for a formal expression of opinion a significant indication of the views of the Department of State upon the subject could be found in the Foreign Relations for 1904. Over the Protocols as published therein may be found the caption “Protectorate by Japan over Korea.” (437 f.) Later on, Secretary Root had occasion expressly to state this opinion. This was when, in December, 1905, Mr. Min Yung-chan, whilom Korean Minister to France, came to the United States for the purpose of protesting against recognition by the United States of the Treaty of November 17th of the same year. In a letter to Mr. Min, explaining the reasons which made it impossible for the American Government not to recognize the binding force of that instrument, the Secretary added that there was another and a conclusive reason against interference in the matter. This reason, he said, was to be found in the circumstance that Korea had previously concluded with Japan two agreements which, in principle and in practice, established a Japanese Protectorate in Korea, and to the force of which in that particular the Treaty of November 17 added nothing.

To this view of the virtual significance of these earlier Protocols there is only to be opposed the demonstrably false assertions of the now ex-Emperor and the opinions and affirmations—quite unwarranted as the next chapter will show—of writers like Mr. Hulbert, Mr. Story, and other so-called “foreign friends” of His Majesty. These assertions and opinions are certainly not made any more credible by the willingness of their authors to denounce the President and Acting Foreign Minister of the United States in Korea, and, by implication, all the other heads of foreign governments who neither share their opinion, nor approve of their conduct in support of the opinion![32]