Did Japan invade Korea?

Japan invaded Kangwha Island and forced an “unequal treaty” on Korea in 1876 ceding monopoly trade and extraterritoriality rights to Japan. Japanese troops were garrisoned in Seoul by the Treaty of Chemulpo, in 1882, ostensibly to protect the legation after the Imo incident.

Japan invaded South Korea again, in force, during the Sino-Japanese war in 1894 and effectively didn't leave until their defeat in August 1945 when they surrendered to the US in WWII. The 1894 invasion included the occupation of Seoul and taking the Korean "emperor" captive. The Japanese invaded the Korean island of Euleongdo in 1895 during the Sino Japanese war. They took over the police force there. Then the Japanese without notice in January 1905, "transferred" the "stateless" nearby island of Dokdo to itself. In 1895 Japanese assassins invaded the Korean royal palace and assassinated Queen Myeongseong who was opposed to their overbearing military and diplomatic presence and their continuing efforts to dominate Korean affairs.

(Source- JTBC News 8.6) Kishi Nobusuke, South Korea- Japan Cooperation Committee President (1963): "No person here thinks of this as a war of invasion." This is the revisionist mythology of Shoin school imperialists and advocates of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Kishi an accused class A war criminal, was propelled to the position of prime minister in post war Japan by the US. He was Abe's maternal grandfather and patron.

Japan was thereafter the predominant military power with interests in Korea and was only held in check by the diplomatic presence of Russia and the US, the only two military powers at the time who would conceivably oppose the Japanese. The Russians were defeated in the Russo-Japanese War, in 1904. The war was a contest to control Korea and areas of northeast China. The US had given its blessing to Japanese political and military dominance of Korea in the Taft-Katsura agreement and that was later formalized in the Treaty of Portsmouth. The infamous Ulsan Treaty of 1905 was then forced upon Korea, through a combination of threats and bribes by the Japanese legation, which they were fully capable of enforcing. At that point the Japanese took the Korean crown prince hostage and installed an even larger military garrison in Seoul. The annexation of Korea in 1910 merely formalized a process that began with the late 19th Century invasions, and culminated in effective political control in 1905. The entire period was characterized by the Japanese use of military force, intrigue, and political oppression to achieve their goals. According to a record left by Ahn Jung-geun, the Korean patriot who assassinated Ito Hirobumi, the Japanese leader he believed most responsible for the reduction of Korea to a colonial vassal status, the Japanese imposed 14 unequal treaties on Korea before it was annexed. Before the formal annexation a vicious exploitation of Korean resources, expropriation of property, and exploitation of its people by the Japanese was well underway.

Japanese revisionist history declares their occupation and annexation of Korea, not as an invasion and oppressive occupation, but "beneficial to Korea." The colonization was entirely illegal, accomplished by military invasion, characterized by exploitation of the people and resources of Korea, and enforced by torture and summary executions.

Different Path, Same Dream

(Source- Different Dream, episode 22, viki.com) The variation on the famous aphorism purportedly represents the meeting of minds between Kim Ku and Kim Won-bong. The original four character Chinese idiom is 동상이몽 (同床異夢) (same bed different dreams). It has been changed to say, "different paths, same dream."


From my prior post on the drama and it's relation to current events, June 18, 2019:

...the drama series Different Dream was produced in South Korea to celebrate the centennial of the March First Movement (the Korean independence movement).

"Uiyeoldan (Heroic Corps) was the most threatening organization to Japan in Korea's independence movement history. Along with its leader Kim Won-bong, many other activists' lives have been reflected in the story." *

*Drama portrays life of freedom fighter ( 이 몽 Different Dream 異夢)
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2019/04/688_266957.html

Interestingly, an MBC promotion of the spy action drama about the underground anti-Japanese Heroic Group explains there is a hidden meaning in the title: <이몽> 제목 속에 숨겨진 의미! From two different paths one dream. '이도일몽(異道一夢) , 두 개의 길, 하나의 꿈' The actor Yoo Ji Tae plays Kim Won-bong, the leader of Uiyeoldan (Heroic Corps).*

*출처: https://blog.mbc.co.kr/3015 [MBC 공식 블로그]

In the drama, episodes 22, near the end, and the beginning of episode 23, Kim Ku is said to have come to Keongseong, Korea, in late 1931, for the purpose of laying the propaganda backdrop for an attempted assassination by Lee Bong-chang on Japanese Emperor Hirohito in Tokyo in January 1932. A meeting of the leader of the Patriotic Corps, Kim Ku, with the leader of the Heroic Corps, Kim Won-bong is dramatized, with the delivery of the 異道一夢 four character calligraphy.

The original idiom is not uncommon in Korean vernacular and well understood. So the "hidden meaning" of the title alluded to in the press promotion and drama, is changed to a more positive meaning in an attempt to quell controversy or conflict by a shift in perspective to focus on a shared national goal.

As intended in the historical drama, the adaptation of the old expression 동상이몽 (同床異夢) was meant to mediate the ideological rift within the Korean independence movement, then, and hence, the current North- South division. Yet, the original idiom still applies to North and South Korean relations. In fact, the two competing expressions represent competing historical threads, one of which is generally unrecognized in Japan and the US for obvious reasons.

The original idiom has also been applied recently to the sputtering top down negotiations between Kim Jong Un and Trump.

The "peaceful" import of the Concert of Europe

The concert relied more or less on the subjugation of colonies or empire. The military impulse was extended abroad against those who were incapable of defense because they were in western terms less developed. So the competition and rivalries of the “great powers” were sublimated for extended periods in a concert of exploitation of overseas conquests. The great powers who found themselves at a disadvantage were destabilizing and at the turn of the century began attacking each other on their frontiers. Japan and Russia attacked each other in Asia. Germany at a disadvantage abroad in comparison to the French and English empires simply decided to attack its neighbors.

So imperialism laid the groundwork for the two world wars. Interestingly, Hannah Arendt posits Lawrence of Arabia as the prototypical superman model for Nazi Germany. There are today similar social archetypes or paradigms in the west such as 007, or the special forces warrior who follows in the footsteps of Lawrence in Syria or Afghanistan. The imperial god character appears in Graham Greene’s classic, the Quiet American and later in the movie Apocalypse now.

Japan modeled it’s early twentieth century imperialism on the British model in Egypt. It’s gunboat diplomacy in Asia was clearly based on US and English models. Eventually, these models of behavior resulted in direct military confrontations. The US and England made turn of the century agreements with Japan which postponed their clash until Pearl Harbor but victimized the rest of Asia. Today the CIA and SOC operate as a modern day East India Corporation carrying on a secret war which never really ended after WWII. The patterns are essentially the same. Putin dreams of something better but the old paradigm that war is the guarantor of the health of ruling elites just won’t go away without a fight. Unfortunately, the western elites have consistently designated Russia, China and lesser states as the enemy to sustain society organized on the principle of war.

Coming to Terms with Japanese Imperialism- Then and Now

There is a deep fault line in modern Korean history beginning in the late 19th Century with the collapse of the Chosun dynasty. Japan exploited late Chosun weakness invading the peninsula on various pretexts and subjecting Korea to Japan's military dominance for economic exploitation. This commenced in earnest in 1894, not 1910, as is often alleged in western sources. The fundamental fault line that developed and exists to this day is the divide between those Koreans who resisted Japanese military, political and economic domination of the peninsula, and those Koreans who facilitated and profited from it.

Syngman Rhee was essentially a US proxy installed as the initial dictator of a "liberated" South Korea. He had previously lost his legitimacy as representative of the independence movement and provisional government of Korea because of his corruption. But he had the support of the US occupation government as a US trained English speaking politician and that was all that was needed. Ultimately, he was forced to rely on the class of former Japanese colonial collaborators in South Korea for government administration and domestic political support, so he protected them from political and criminal accountability at the hands of the independence movement. Consequently, very few of the thousands of collaborators who committed criminal acts against the Korean people during the Japanese colonial and wartime rule were ever prosecuted and retained considerable political power and influence for years to come.

Rhee's successor, was the military dictator Park Chung Hee. Park had been a former Japanese Imperial Army officer and spy for the Japanese colonial administration of Manchukuo before the liberation. Shinzo Abe's grandfather Kishi Nobusuke, had been a major figure in the governance of Manchukuo, who directed slave labor operations for economic exploitation by Japanese interests. The details of Park's activities as a Japanese trained imperial officer during this period of collaboration are not clear. His history shows he switched national allegiances and political stripes more than once, to advance himself. His character reminds one of the deadly and treacherous collaborator, "goblin," depicted in historical drama, Noktu Flower, concerning the earlier Tonghak period. The characters formed necessarily a product of their respective tumultuous and brutal times.

(Source- JTBC News 8.6) Prime Minister Abe: President Park Geun Hye's father, President Park Chung Hee, was a close friend of my grandfather. It would not be an exaggeration to say that President Park Chung Hee was the friendliest president to Japan. Title of program is war crimes stained South Korea- Japan Cooperation Committee influence on South Korean politics; Arising out of the Manchurian Army- Key war crimes enterprise board executive- pivotal role.


Lately, it is said that Abe's family legacy as the political heir of Kishi Nobusuke is not the root of the current Japanese Korean dispute. This contention couldn't be more wrong. The relationship is pivotal to Japanese corporations involved in the colonial and wartime exploitation of Korea and their later central influence over Japanese- South Korean relations. After Kishi finished his term as prime minister of post war Japan, he played a key role in the negotiations leading to the 1965 Agreement with the Park regime "normalizing" relations with South Korea. This was not an arms length agreement but rather Kishi as the defacto representative of Japanese industrial interests in Korea, the old imperial order, negotiating with Manchukuo's former military agent for Japanese interests in the conquered territories, namely Park Chung Hee. Abe coyly admitted at a meeting of the Japanese Korean Cooperation Committee in 2013, the same organization that Kisi headed 50 years earlier when it first convened in 1963, that Kisi and Park were "close friends." In fact, Japanese corporate interests provided, by far, the majority of financial support to Park's political party in the years leading up to the 1965 agreement.

The 1965 agreement drafted by the committee didn't settle individual Korean claims against Japanese corporations. The legal basis for this view was expressed on July 30, on JTBC by Hosaka Fuji, professor at Sejong University. He describes the issue in terms of the the difference between claims based on contract and property principles for indemnity, which were settled by the agreement from those individual claims for injury compensation which were not. He asserted that the 1965 Agreement did not extinguish private personal injury claims based upon criminal behavior by Japanese during the colonial and wartime periods. Other Japanese and Korean experts have expressed this same view. The professor went on to describe the position of the Abe government as a fraud on the international community as the legal principles had previously been recognized by the Japanese government.

(Source-JTBC News 7.30) Hosaka Fuji, Sejong University professor: The South Korea- Japan Claims Settlement Agreement ended claims for indemnity. Claims for injury compensation still remain.

The Japanese contention today is that such claims aren't lawful under "international law" because of the 1965 Agreement. Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs documents contemporaneous to the agreement show this not to be the case:

The text of the 1965 agreement says in Article 2, “The High Contracting Parties confirm that the issues concerning property, rights, and interests of the two High Contracting Parties and their peoples (including juridical persons) and the claims between the High Contracting Parties and between their peoples, including those stipulated in Article IV(a) of the Peace Agreement with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, have been settled completely and finalized.” The Korean government received through the agreement $300 million in grants, $200 million in loans and $300 million in private loans. Regarding the interpretation of Article 2, the Japanese government maintained the attitude through the 1990s that the individual right to recourse still existed. Since then, Tokyo has been denying that stance. Recently, Japanese courts have also been dismissing claims for damages from victims, arguing that the agreement settled all claims.*

*Japanese document confirms individual right to recourse in spite of Korea-Japan Agreement of 1965, March 15, 2010
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/410123.html
Also:

The Japanese Foreign Ministry prepared an internal document in 1965 saying, “Though a treaty was signed, an individual’s right to seek damages is a separate issue.”

...The document was titled “The legal meaning of the people’s rights and the waiver of the rights to seek damages under the peace treaty.”

“When an individual’s property rights (private rights) in a country is infringed upon by another country, the former country holds the right to seek damages from the latter country, but this right is legally separate from the individual’s own right to seek damages,” the document said.*

*Individual Claims Not Covered by 1965 Treaty: Documents
Posted March. 15, 2010 09:29,
http://www.donga.com/en/List/article/all/20100315/264613/1/Individual-Claims-Not-Covered-by-1965-Treaty-Documents

(Source- JTBC News 8.6) Class A war criminal awarded by South Korean government. In 1970, Kisi was awarded the top national award in diplomacy by South Korean dictator Park Chung Hee, the Distinguished Order of Diplomatic Service. Park was a former graduate of Japanese military schools and a former military officer and agent of the Japanese Imperial Army in Manchukuo.

Most of the money in the "settlement" were loans at relatively high rates of interest. Most of what was characterized as "aid" and "approaching settlement for claims," was not delivered in funds but rather goods in kind and services in kind from the very corporations who had committed the slave labor crimes during the colonial and wartime period. The most significant portion of the settlement went to Pohang Steel. It was not settlement for injuries due to slave labor war crimes against Koreans. According to the JTBC report, arrangements for Korean projects built by Japanese corporations with loans were accompanied by bribes, kickbacks and other corruption. A JTBC expert commentator said that the primary contracts a went to Japanese corporations and that prices for goods and services were over charged. This was the so called "black fog." The committee operated primarily as a private organization run through personal connections and there was little transparency, supervision or accounting for their expenditures.

(Source- JTBC News 8.5) "Aid," the disappearing 800 million dollars, tracking how it was used.

The tainted history of Park Chung Hee, is camouflaged by the myth about his status as father of the economic miracle of South Korea. Other administrations appeared to have obscured the record of collaboration and toadying to Japanese interests out of political expediency. The reactionary right wing parties that made Park's daughter president after South Korea came out into the daylight of legitimate representative government had to conceal the pro-Japanese collaboration that had brought her family power and political influence. When the Korean courts began adjudication of litigation against Japanese corporations responsible for slave labor war crimes, she obligingly, at the request of the Japanese government led by Abe, illegally interfered in the administration of justice by the constitutionally separate judicial branch. When she was removed from power for such practices and other corruption, the proper and lawful adjudication of the slave labor claims went forward. So the "unjustified" claims against Japan aren't the result of Moon Jae In, they are the result of the rule of law permitted to go forward.

As Abe comes forward with disingenuous arguments, claiming the 1965 Agreement forecloses such claims by individual South Koreans against war crime legacy Japanese corporations, the US pretends not to understand the deeply rooted nature of the problem. William Underwood has documented the long history of evasion, obstruction, collusion and denial by the offending Japanese corporations and the Japanese government in precluding these claims. The rift was caused by the dictators in South Korea the US wholeheartedly supported, their successor administrations, and the US supported LDP party in Japan, founded, in part, by war criminal and Nazi sympathizer, Kishi Nobusuke, with the support of the CIA. It is clear from the history of the agreement that private claims for compensation due to forced labor war crimes are not foreclosed by the agreement as a matter of fact.* The agreement did not settle those claims but forestalled the issue indefinitely as a practical matter by entering an agreement with a compliant pro-Japanese dictator in South Korea.

*[Fact check] S. Korean individuals have the right to claim compensation from Japan
Posted on : Aug.7,2019 16:57 KST Modified on : Aug.7,2019 16:57 KST
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/904882.html

(Source- JTBC News 8.6) Kishi Nobusuke, South Korea- Japan Cooperation Committee President (1963): "No person here thinks of this as a war of invasion." This is the revisionist mythology of Shoin school imperialists and advocates of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.

The US military posture in East Asia would be reduced to something similar to its pre-WWII status without Japan's support and military infrastructure. That is inconsistent with the so called "pivot to Asia" and the looming US disputes with China. Abe knows this and is taking an aggressive, if not outright belligerent stance, in attempt to return South Korea to a quisling status, as it was under the Korean right wing dictators and subsequent transitional administrations. For this reason the US pretends not to know why its allies can't get along, or the very serious flaws at the heart of the US alliance system in Asia, that were present at its birth, but actively concealed from public view. At this time in history, when democracy has seen the light of day of in South Korea, these flaws are not just historical grievances but relate to the very essence of what kind of leader Abe really is, and what kind of party the LDP is. The potential dangers of yielding to Abe-LDP initiatives, such as removing constitutional limits on Japanese military operations, and conducting a devastating trade war with South Korea, rival those of American complicity in Japanese imperialism at the dawn of the 20th Century.

Sinzo Abe: Making Japan Great Again

Abe, a right wing reactionary, goes rogue to "make Japan great again." The US mistake was letting his class A war criminal grandfather Kisi Nobusuke out of prison to form the LDP party and rehabilitate the Shoin school nutcases that founded the Meiji imperial regime. The US, now desperate about the rise of China, turns a blind eye to Abe's campaign to repeal Article 9 of the Constitution restricting military activities in order to reclaim Japanese hegemony in east Asia. If one wants to understand Abe one must understand his family and political heritage:

Nobusuke Kishi (岸 信介 Kishi Nobusuke, 13 November 1896 – 7 August 1987) was a Japanese politician and the 37th Prime Minister of Japan from 25 February 1957 to 12 June 1958, and from then to 19 July 1960. He is the maternal grandfather of Shinzō Abe, twice prime minister in 2006–2007 and 2012–present.

Known for his brutal rule of the Japanese puppet state Manchukuo in Northeast China, Kishi was called Shōwa no yōkai (昭和の妖怪; "Devil of Shōwa").[2] After World War II, Kishi was imprisoned for three years as a Class A war crime suspect. However, the U.S. government released him as they considered Kishi to be the best man to lead a post-war Japan in a pro-American direction.*

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi


At the dawn of the 20th Century Theodore Roosevelt was led down the primrose path of fantasies about a "democratic Japan" by Baron Kentaro Kaneko which led to the Japanese conquest of Asia and ultimately the catastrophes of WWII. Similarly, Trump is being led down a similar path by Sinzo Abe.

Japan's two small aircraft carriers which it calls destroyers participated in the Talisman Sabre exercises this year demonstrating the capability of it's new amphibious forces to project power. The "destroyers" of the Izumo class over 800 feet long are 27,000 tons loaded displacement making their classification a misrepresentation for political reasons. The two carriers will be modified in the near future to carry F-35b stealth fighters provided by the US.

(Source- KBS 1 History Journal, ep. 199) This vision of a greater imperial Japan as depicted in the graphic was attributed to Yoshida Shoin in the mid 19th Century.

(Source- KBS 1 History Journal, ep. 199) Yoshida Shoin's memorial tablet is stored at the Yasukuni shrine. The shrine commemorates other heroes and patriots of earlier wars and conflicts associated with the Meiji Restoration and the Meiji government. The shrine also commmemorates WW II war criminals, such as Tojo Hideki. Koreans and other victims regard the shrine unfavorably as veneration of the Japanese imperial tradition.


This is from The Diplomat in January 2014:

Japan’s relations with South Korea and China have soured since the Abe administration entered government in late 2012. The Japanese prime minister’s recent visit to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine was met with protests from its neighbors and even a statement from the U.S. embassy that said that it was “disappointed.” *

*https://thediplomat.com/2014/01/china-opens-memorial-honoring-korean-independence-activist/

Generic news reporting routinely dates the Japanese colonization of Korea to annexation in 1910, but Japanese subjugation of Korea more accurately might be said to have begun with the Sino-Japanese War in July 1894, and was basically a conflict over who would dominate Korea. The Japanese assassination of Queen Myeongseong in October 1895, and the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-1905, were just further steps in consolidation of undisputed control of Korea by Japan. Japan's seizure and spurious claim to Dokdo dates from this early period of Japanese military expansion.

Abe's ludicrous statement on the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Asia from Japanese imperialism:

Citing the deaths of more than 3 million Japanese during World War II, and the deprivation that prevailed, Abe asserted: “The peace we enjoy today exists only upon such precious sacrifices. And therein lies the origin of postwar Japan.”

This is the revisionist conceit: that all that carnage in what Abe’s advisory panel termed a “reckless” war was worthwhile because it is the basis for the peace and prosperity now enjoyed by contemporary Japanese.*

Jeff Kingston elaborates on the specious revisionist reasoning of Abe:

Abe is suggesting that the peace enjoyed today came from Japanese aggression in the 1930s and ’40s, and thereby tries to bestow some legitimacy on those actions.

This underhanded justification of war is not necessary to honor the war dead. They died because Japan’s leaders at the time, including Abe’s grandfather Nobusuke Kishi, launched Japan into this avoidable tragedy. Those leaders held Japanese lives cheap, and they were sacrificed and subjected to awful horrors for an ignominious cause. Dressing this sanguinary rampage up as the bedrock of contemporary Japan is a deplorable deceit. Their deaths were in vain because Japan’s regional rampage that claimed perhaps as many as 20 million Asian lives, and trampled on the dignity and welfare of countless more, was not in service of a noble mission.*

* Abe's revisionism and Japan's divided war memories
BY JEFF KINGSTON
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/08/22/commentary/abes-revisionism-japans-divided-war-memories/#.XUjMxFVKi00

South Korean Controversy: Was Kim Won Bong a Patriot?

(Source-KBS News 6.8) Kim Won Bong photo in a contemporary newspaper during the time of Japanese colonial administration of Korea (1923). The Donga Ilbo extra headline is Power of Terrifying Violence; Kim Won Bong, leader of Uiyeoldan (Heroic Corps). Title of the KBS news report was "exploring support for 100th Anniversary of Heroic Group."

(Source-KBS News 6.8) This picture shows Kim Won Bong (highlighted) with the Korean provisional government. The famous Korean independence leader Baek Beom (Kim Gu), President of the Provisional Government of Korea in exile, stands front row center in the black suit. The banner for the KBS news broadcast says government determination of support may reignite Kim Won Bong dispute.


Recently, the drama series Different Dream was produced in South Korea to celebrate the centennial of the March First Movement (the Korean independence movement).

"Uiyeoldan (Heroic Corps) was the most threatening organization to Japan in Korea's independence movement history. Along with its leader Kim Won-bong, many other activists' lives have been reflected in the story." *

*Drama portrays life of freedom fighter ( 이 몽 Different Dream 異夢)
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2019/04/688_266957.html

Interestingly, an MBC promotion of the spy action drama about the underground anti-Japanese Heroic Group explains there is a hidden meaning in the title: <이몽> 제목 속에 숨겨진 의미! From two different paths one dream. '이도일몽(異道一夢) , 두 개의 길, 하나의 꿈' The actor Yoo Ji Tae plays Kim Won Bong, the leader of Uiyeoldan (Heroic Corps).*

*출처: https://blog.mbc.co.kr/3015 [MBC 공식 블로그]

President Moon Jae In's recent statement about the group which provoked controversy is similar in nature. Moon said on June 6, Memorial Day in South Korea, that Kim Won Bong's underground group of fighters contributed ultimately to increasing the strength of the Korean people's independence movement. Further, he maintained that the Korean independence movement became the basis for the South Korean Army and in turn the foundation for the alliance with the US. Political critics have said this is such a stretch that one might also facetiously try to maintain, that Chun Doo Hwan, a later well known military dictator in South Korea, contributed to democracy in Korea. President Moon suggests that one does not need to be a conservative nor a progressive to be a patriot. He appears to be trying to emphasize the deeper historical roots of Korean nationalism before it became bogged down in the partisan cold war politics that partitioned the country after the liberation in 1945. Older statements of Moon from before his presidential term such as wishing he could give Kim Won Bong an award, or have a drink with him are now the subject of conservative ridicule.

( Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 6.7 ) Title of program: President raises Kim Won Bong controversy. Picture shows Kim Won Bong (circle left) with Kim Il Sung (circle right). During a time of negotiations between North and South Korea, Kim Won Bong defected to the North in 1948; he was a member of the first Supreme People's Assembly; he was a member of the first North Korean cabinet censorship office. During the time of the Korean conflict in 1950 he was a member of the military committee. He had full authority as provincial representative in Pyongbukdo. In 1958 he was eliminated in the "Yunnan faction" purge.

( Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 6.7 ) Ideological tensions triggered in political circles- who is Kim Won Bong? 1898- Born in Miryang-si Gyeongsangnam-do, Korea, to a prosperous farming family; 1919- formed Heroic Corps; 1942- Deputy Commander of the Independence Army; 1944- Provisional Government cabinet minister and Chief of the Military Department.

Baek Beom (aka Kim Gu) was assassinated in 1949 allegedly at the instigation of political rival Syngmun Rhee's head of security. Baek Beom had also gone to North Korea to meet with Kim Il Sung in 1948. Unlike Kim Won Bong he broke with the communists. Kim Won Bong didn't return from his trip to North Korea in 1948 but became a part of the North Korean government and participated in the Korean War against the South. Kim Won Bong was purged from the North Korean government by Kim Il Sung in 1958.

It is said that during the provisional government period, Kim Gu didn't trust Kim Won Bong, and thought he was a "run of the mill socialist," whom he regarded warily. Kim Won Bong's anti-Japanese operations were apparently considered effective by the Japanese Imperial Government who offered a large cash reward for his capture that exceeded that offered for the capture of Kim Gu. The sore points for the South Korean conservatives are that Kim Won Bong's cardinal misdeeds include defection to the North Korean communist side in 1948, and his participation in the war against South Korea. While President Moon has said that patriotism doesn't have a right or left political orientation, Kim Won Bong's association with the communist government is the basis for the controversy. There is an inability among many in South Korea to dissociate Kim Won Bong's North Korean activities from his prior patriotic leadership against Japanese imperialism. It is quite apparent that Moon is trying to mold a new public perception of love of country that differs from the cold war perspective that has divided Korea physically and ideologically in many ways. Moon seems to be saying that was then, this is now, and wants to leave the wartime perspective of June 25, 1950, behind. Implied is that he'd like Kim Jong Un to do the same.

Note: apologies for multiple naming/spelling errors, especially, Kim Won-bong ( 김원봉, 金元鳳 ). 02.06.2022

Ito Hirobumi and Colonization of Korea

(Source- KBS 1 History Journal, ep. 199)

Ito Hirobumi is in the center of the picture above. He believed that eventually Korea would fall under complete control of Japan in all affairs and therefore, after the Eulsa Treaty in 1905, a forcible formal annexation wasn't necessary. By controlling all access to the palace and who could gain an audience with the King, Resident General Ito, separated King Gojong from the independence movement. Under the pretext of protecting the royal family he placed them under his surveillance at all times. On the far left is Katsura Taro, prime minister of Japan who made an agreement with the US in 1905 acknowledging Japan's hegemony over Korea. Second from the far right is Kisi Nobusukae, Abe's maternal grandfather, war criminal during WW II. Kisi was released from confinement and rehabilitated by the US. He became Prime Minister of post WW II Japan. Abe appears on the far right.

Katsura Taro, Japanese prime minister ultimately removed Hirobumi as Resident General of the protectorate of Korea June 14, 1909. He installed as the successor Resident General and later after the 1910 annexation of Korea, the first Japanese governor of the Korean colony, second from left, Tarauchi Masatakae. In July 1907, after Ito had forced King Gojong to abdicate, Japan disbanded the Korean army, and took over internal control of Korea, abandoning all pretense of Korean autonomy. The primary thesis of the program is that there is a continuous historical tradition shared by all the characters shown in the picture above which emphasizes the power of a greater Japan based upon industrialized militarism and a view of neighboring Asian countries as inferiors. The tradition was in essence a learned behavior adopted from the western imperial powers such as the Great Britain, Germany, and the US.

Ito had visited London and studied there for several months. He learned about English control over Egypt and later used that British colonial rule as a model for his imperialism in Korea. He even used the pretext of modernizing and civilizing Korea as a justification for the protectorate. (England controlled Egypt from 1884 to 1954, the so called Cromer model, named after the Evelyn Baring, Earl of Cromer, consul general of Egypt). Ito was removed as Resident General because his policy of gradual assimilation of Korea rather than forced assimilation, failed to effectively prevent or deal with the emergence of an armed resistance by the Korean independence movement. According to the History Journal historians, there is historical evidence that Ito was preparing Korea for forced annexation, and is therefore regarded as having a two faced policy toward Korea. Eventually he agreed with the proposals by Katsura for forced annexation.

(Source- KBS 1 History Journal, ep. 199) Ito kept the Korean crown prince as a hostage and raised him in the Japanese military tradition. Japan's educational reform in Korea involved forcing the Japanese language on grade school students.

(Source- KBS 1 History Journal, ep. 199) Ito was assassinated by Korean patriot Ahn Jung-geun, October 26, 1909 in Harbin, China.



(Source- KBS 1 History Journal, ep. 199) Yoshida Shoin, Political educator and thinker. Spiritual leader of the Meiji Restoration. Ito lived near Shoin's Shoka school and studied there for two years. Shoin was executed in 1859 for his rebellion against the Shogunate. In 1869 Ito Hirobumi tried to burn down the British legation in Japan.

(Source- KBS 1 History Journal, ep. 199) This vision of a greater imperial Japan as depicted in the graphic was attributed to Yoshida Shoin in the mid 19th Century.

(Source- KBS 1 History Journal, ep. 199) Yoshida Shoin's memorial tablet is stored at the Yasukuni shrine. The shrine commemorates other heroes and patriots of earlier wars and conflicts associated with the Meiji Restoration and the Meiji government. The shrine also commmemorates WW II war criminals, such as Tojo Hideki. Koreans and other victims regard the shrine unfavorably as veneration of the Japanese imperial tradition.

An interesting footnote to the program, was the role of a former US diplomat, Durham Stevens who was employed as an adviser to the Japanese government, and installed by them as an adviser to King Gojong in Korea. Stevens approved of Japanese dominance of Korea. Stevens was assassinated by two Koreans in San Francisco, on March 23, 1908.

For anyone who thinks these considerations of history are not material, the sequelae of the Shoin legacy and the Japanese imperial excesses are still alive and at work. The story on the opening of a small museum commemorating Ahn Jung-geun in Harbin was circulated worldwide and had adverse impact on Japanese relations with China and Korea.

The South Korean foreign ministry praised the museum, saying that it would “set the path for genuine peace and co-operation based on correct historical awareness.”

The memorial was criticized by the government of Japan, where Hirobumi Ito is regarded as one of the founding fathers of the country. Chief Cabinet Secretary and government spokesperson, Yoshihide Suga described the opening as “regrettable” during a regular press conference.

“The Japanese opinion of Ahn Jung-geun is that he is a terrorist who was sentenced to death for murdering Ito Hirobumi, our first prime minister,” he stated.

https://thediplomat.com/2014/01/china-opens-memorial-honoring-korean-independence-activist/

Also from the same The Diplomat article:

Japan’s relations with South Korea and China have soured since the Abe administration entered government in late 2012. The Japanese prime minister’s recent visit to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine was met with protests from its neighbors and even a statement from the U.S. embassy that said that it was “disappointed.”

Generic news reporting routinely dates the Japanese colonization of Korea to annexation in 1910, but Japanese subjugation of Korea more accurately might be said to have begun with the Sino-Japanese War which began in July 1894, and was basically a conflict over who would dominate Korea. The Japanese assassination of Queen Myeongseong in October 1895, and the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-1905, were just further steps in consolidation of undisputed control of Korea by Japan.

History Journal lesson - Advice to South Korean Leadership?

There was an interesting discussion on the KBS History Journal recently about the so called Treaty of Eulsa signed by representatives of the Chosun dynasty on Nov. 17, 1905 which established the "protectorate" status of Korea under the Japanese Imperial government. It appears that one of arguments that led to the treasonous signing of the agreement was that Korea should leave foreign policy to the rich and powerful countries.

The discussion among the South Korean historians gave the impression, they were trying to make a point here about the dangers of giving up foreign policy to foreign powers. This as Secretary Mike Pompeo and his special representive to "North Korea," Stephen Biegun, and their working group with South Korean officials, attempt to restrict South Korean policy initiatives toward North Korea. This is the so called "no daylight" approach. The US is clearly trying to take control of South Korean policy after being caught flat footed by President Moon Jae In's numerous initiatives, political, cultural, economic, and military with North Korea. Whether it should be called foreign policy as it pertains to North Korea, could be said to be a matter of perspective. According to Pompeo and Biegun, the South Koreans shouldn't "get ahead of the US." The South Koreans and the US should "speak with one voice." Further according to the unofficial but connected spokespeople from the ultra conservative think tanks who typically appear on VOA broadcasts to Korea, our ally can be subjected to secondary sanctions and the US can even walk away from the alliance.

(Source- KBS 1 History Journal, Episode 197 11.25 ) Han Kyu Seol, bottom far right, wears traditional Korean attire. He was the only hold out, who didn't succumb to the Japanese arguments, financial inducements or physical threats to give up Korean sovereignty. It was said that there were five Eulsa traitors, a sixth Korea official was persuaded to abandon opposition at the meeting with Ito Hirobumi, the seventh came around to the pro-Japanese position at a later time. Han Kyu Seol, ultimately was the only steadfast opposition of the original group of Korean government officials. He was arrested immediately, and later stripped of his political position.

(Source- KBS 1 History Journal, Episode 197 11.25 )

This graphic represents the situation in 1905. England and Japan had a treaty in which Japan recognized UK rights in India and UK recognized Japan's dominance of Korea. This actually achieved Britain's goal of using Japan to check Russian power. US diplomats not only approved of the Portsmouth Treaty but negotiated secretly with Japan to recognize Japan's status in Korea, and in exchange Japan would respect the US colonization of the Philippines in the Katsura- Taft agreement. Similar great power gamesmanship in Northeast Asia affects the treatment of the Koreas today as they jockey for position around the North Korean denuclearization issue.

The great powers bargained away Korea's sovereignty to Japan to serve their own imperial interests. Russia actually was the only power to resist the Japanese, but that was because they wanted to make Korea their sphere of influence. They lost the Russo-Japanese War and had to sign the Portsmouth Treaty in which Japan's dominance in Korea was acknowledged. In September 1905, King Gojong still thought the US might be of help to avoid the Japanese takeover of Korea when Alice Roosevelt visited Korea.

(Source- KBS 1 History Journal, Episode 197 11.25 ) Teddy Roosevelt's daughter Alice is the woman on the left, center. She was treated like a queen by the Korean Royal family while she was in Korea. In the background is Empress Meongseong's grave. The Korean queen was assassinated by the Japanese in her quarters in the Kyongbok palace October 8, 1895. King Gojong's message to the Americans about Japan fell on deaf ears.

The History Journal participants in the program did not refer to current affairs in the broadcast, this is the author's opinion of what the implicit message was. The historians only suggested that given the decades long awful sequelae for Korea of the so called Eulsa "Treaty," one should keep in mind it's principal lesson.

Ancient Bangudae Petroglyphs Still Endangered

Source KBS "Heaven's Collection" broadcast: computer facsimile of Bangudae Petroglyphs Oct 20, 2018

The South Korean cultural entertainment program "Heaven's Collection," presented a feature on the Bangudae Petroglyphs, World Heritage Site and Korean National Treasure No. 285, explaining their world historical and anthropological significance. There are roughly 300 animal forms depicted primarily by engraving the rock face on a river tributary in Taegok Ri, Ulchu County, South Korea ( 반구대암각화, 울주군 대곡리 ) upriver from the city of Ulsan. The most abundant single type of animal engraved are various species of whales. The narrator for the feature suggested that the site reflected thousands of years of neolithic history up to the bronze age. He declined to call the site prehistoric in nature. The abstract nature of the rock engravings, rather than being illustrative as the more famous earlier Altamira cave paintings, are conceptual in nature, bordering on the features of an ideographic language. Various human forms and hunting implements are depicted along with drawings of unknown nature.

Source EBS Culture Legacy Korea Nov. 3

An unfortunate development concerning this site, is that it is endangered by the dam constructed on the river tributary to control water levels and water supply in the area. When the water level rises, the glyphs are submerged and subject to weathering, erosion, and other material deterioration. The threat to the world and national cultural heritage has been the subject of various proposals and engineering plans to preserve the site for years, but the competing cultural and agricultural interests and the desire to maintain the fresh water supply have obstructed meaningful progress on conservation measures.

Reportedly the local and national government authorities yet again have plans under consideration that will result in a decision on a proposal by the end of the year to preserve this important anthropological treasure.

Wikipedia has an excellent description of the site with pictures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangudae_Petroglyphs

"From the abundant representations of marine animals, the site seems to be in close relationship with hunter-fishers attributed to the Neolithic era (between 8000 BP and 3500 BP). Consequently, the Bangudae site has the most ancient evidence of whaling worldwide and is considered highly important not only as a first whaling representation, but also for understanding prehistoric maritime culture in the northern Pacific area."

Moon Jae In - Resurgence of the Nationalist Drive for Unification

(OhMy News youtube podcast 9.28 놀랍도록 닮은 김구·문재인의 ‘평양 연설’ Wonderfully similar Kim Gu- Moon Jae In Pyongyang speech)


Kim Jong Song, a historian, did a presentation on OhMy News concerning South Korean President Moon Jae In's speech, and it's historic similarity to the speech of Korean national independence hero Kim Gu, in Pyongyang in April 1948. Kim Gu, (pen name Bek Baum) Korean anti-Japanese independence fighter during WW II, and former premier of the provisional Korean government, became an advocate for unification of the divided country after the establishment of the separate South Korean government in 1948. Kim Gu's nationalism emphasized that unification was essential for the continued existence of the Korean people, and that party and ideology were secondary. The sequelae of WW II and the exigencies of the cold war obstructed and hindered that vision politically. Kim Gu went to the conference in Pyongyang shortly after the formation of the South Korean state, to encourage the North Koreans including Kim Il Sung, to be friendly to the international community, while struggling for the nationalist goal, because peace would promote the the progress toward unification. The national aspiration of the Korean people was weaker in fact, than the ability of the opposing forces, including the US, to maintain the indefinite separation of the two Korean states. The thesis of the short presentation was that this is no longer the case.

(Kim Gu, left, outside the conference venue with Kim Il Sung April 1948 Pyongyang)

The host and narrator, Kim Jong Song, presented the four letter Chinese aphorism (사자성어) "An open mind promotes common benefit" (개성포공) as the underlying principle of Kim Gu's efforts to encourage and facilitate unification. He said in his speech in Pyongyang, "If we, as a unified people, put our effort toward international friendship and understanding and our struggle, it is certain we can change everything for the better." Essential to Kim Gu's thinking was that unified Korean efforts to build peaceful international relations would contribute to unification efforts. He said, "Be friendly to the international community while we struggle - let's propel ourselves forward." Ultimately, he believed, a unified Korea would contribute in turn, in no small way, to world peace. His ultimate goal in Pyongyang was to prevent the separation of the Korean people, "It is unreasonable if we don't make the object of our struggle to smash this decision to be separate."

Moon's speech 70 years later in Pyongyang, at the Neungrado stadium, in front of a huge crowd, of over a hundred thousand people, revealed a similar structure, orientation, and goal, according to the Ohmy News speaker. President Moon said, "Our people are remarkable. Our people are strong. Our people love peace. Our people must live together. We've lived together for 5000 years, we've been apart for 70 years." Moon pledged that new epoch making change in North South relations would include restoration of the severed arteries of the nation, inducing rapid development, cooperative prosperity, and advancing an independent unified future. Further, "Chairman Kim Jung Un and I, north and south, 80 million people, firmly holding hands will go forward to make a new nation." Also, "I here today, at this place, completely settle the last 70 years of hostility...I propose to again become one, let's step out, one large stride for peace." One can observe the reactions of the crowd oneself and estimate whether the reaction when the crowd roared was an affect or genuine. It appeared from Kim's reaction, that even he was impressed by Moon's oratory and it's impact.

Update 10.3

I was looking at reports of the speech in other news coverage to confirm my translation. I saw this presentation on the SBS live coverage video by the card section in the stands at the Neungrado stadium:

(Source SBS News)

"The entire nation combining it's strength. Let's build a strong united country."

This appeared at the end of Moon's speech. Of course this is something that the North Koreans arranged. It is likely that Kim's sister, Kim Yo Jong was the director of the card section message presentations. Earlier in the speech when Moon commented on the development of North Korea, and complimented the North Korean people on their efforts and courage in achieving such results under adverse circumstances, I noticed Kim giving him a wary look, evidently a sensitive point for him.

The Aljazeera translator, it seemed, had to translate live, which I couldn't actually do but I had the advantage to study the subtitles in hangul, and listen repeatedly. In the case of the Arirang translation there is no excuse really for how they toned down the rhetorical flourishes and missed the context. It's as if one took one of JFK's memorable speeches and turned it into a weather report.