Seikanron
Seikanron ( Japanese 征 韓 論 ; Kor. 정한론 , Jeonghanron , literally: "Debate about the conquest of Korea ") describes a political dispute within the Japanese government that broke out over the question of military action against Korea and which began in October 1873 Peaked. The point of contention between the proponents of Saigō Takamori and Itagaki Taisuke and the opponents of Ōkubo Toshimichi and Iwakura Tomomi was not so much the question of an expansionist foreign policy as such, but rather that of the right time and the future direction of Japanese policy.
The dispute led to a split in the new Meiji government and the departure of Saigō Takamori, Itagaki Taisuke and Etō Shimpei from the Japanese Grand Council of State ( Dajō-kan ). Ultimately, the government rift in the fledgling Meiji state gave rise to a series of attacks, uprisings and rebellions.
Historical context
Only a few years earlier, a group of young samurai from the fiefs ( han ) of Satsuma and Chōshū had overthrown the Tokugawa shōgunate in the Boshin War and the subsequent Meiji Restoration , nominally restored the political importance of the Tennō and formed a new government. The latter had recognized the technological lead of the West and therefore committed itself to modernizing all areas of Japanese society in order to avoid colonization by a Western power. However, many of the fundamental reforms aroused resentment, especially among members of the former warrior caste. As early as 1869, Kido Takayoshi recognized the possibility of channeling internal conflicts through a military adventure in Korea. This was a strategy that Toyotomi Hideyoshi had already pursued during the Imjin Wars at the end of the 16th century.
The start of the debate came at a time when key members of the new government as members of the Iwakura Mission lingered in Europe and North America, the economy and technology, politics and society of the Western world to explore and the revision of the unequal treaties to to reach.
In the course of the reforms, the orientation of Japan's external relations with China and Korea was redefined. The Korean king, however, refused to recognize the Japanese emperor , since in the traditional relationship system in East Asia only the Chinese emperor was recognized as the son of heaven . Japan's unilateral efforts to reform traditional relations with Korea, which were maintained during the Edo period by the Sō family of the Tsushima -han, in accordance with international law , also led to tensions in the old Japanese trading post in Tongnae near Busan with Koreans. Korean behavior was viewed as an affront in Japanese government circles and gave rise to calls for military action against Korea.
course
The concrete proposal to send a military expeditionary force to Korea was first put up for debate in the Dajō-kan on June 12, 1873. However, this did not yet envisage the conquest of Korea, but merely a demonstration of strength to protect the Japanese citizens in Korea and to demand treaty negotiations. Itagaki Taisuke was the strongest proponent of such an action, as he believed the government had to ensure the safety of its citizens. Initially, a majority favored the proposal, but it was decided that a. Saigō Takamori , who is regarded as one of the sharpest advocates of military action against Korea, against hasty steps, since in the event of such an action an intervention of a Western power is to be feared. Saigō, for his part, suggested first sending an emissary to Seoul. However, if he were to be injured or even killed, the legitimation for sending an expeditionary force would be given. At the same time Saigō volunteered for this mission. Convinced of these arguments, Itagaki withdrew his proposal and henceforth supported Saigō's plan.
Grand Chancellor Sanjō Sanetomi postponed the decision to send Saigōs until Interim Foreign Minister Soejima Taneomi returned from Beijing , where he protested the murder of 54 traders from the Ryūkyū Islands by Taiwanese natives. Upon his return, he was accordingly surprised that a punitive expedition against Korea and not against Taiwan had been planned while he was away. At an intergovernmental conference on August 17, Saigō's proposal was finally accepted. Saigō should not be appointed special envoy in Korea until after the participants of the Iwakura mission returned to Japan.
When Iwakura Tomomi , Ōkubo Toshimichi , Itō Hirobumi and Ōkuma Shigenobu returned from their journey through the west, however, they voted against sending Saigō. There are several reasons for this: First there were more urgent matters, such as the solution of the Taiwan problem or the tensions between Japanese settlers and Russian soldiers on Sakhalin . More serious, however, was the concern on the part of Iwakura and especially kubo of a hasty action that could provoke a clash with a western country, since they had been able to see with their own eyes the technological and military superiority of the western countries during their trip.
On October 23, 1873, Iwakura presented in his capacity as Vice President of the Dajō-kan the Tennō the result of the discussion of the council because Sanjō, who was actually responsible as chairman of the council, had failed after a vein burst in his brain. After Iwakura had explained to the emperor that internal reforms had to be pushed ahead first, the decision to send Saigō to Korea as an envoy was reversed. The latter as well as Itagaki, Soejima, Etō and Gotō Shōjirō then resigned from the Dajō-kan under protest . However, the fronts in the dispute over the direction were not as clearly defined as it may appear in retrospect and changed significantly in the course of the debate. Kido Takayoshi initially supported an aggressive policy towards Korea, but spoke out vehemently against it in the decisive phase.
Consequences and meaning
The historical significance of Seikanron does not lie in the foreign policy directional decision, but rather in the realignment of the political leadership and the domestic political upheavals that the debate brought about. For the next few years, based on the findings of the Iwakura Mission, the Meiji leadership focused on the industrialization and modernization of Japan to create a strong and wealthy nation. The signing of the Japanese-Korean friendship treaty less than three years later shows, however, that the opponents of Saigō's proposal also supported an expansive foreign policy in principle.
The losers in the debate continued their opposition to the government even after leaving the Dajō-kan . Itagaki Taisuke called - initially with the support of Etō Shimpei - for this purpose, the Aikoku Kōtō, the first political party of modern Japan and later became a central figure in the movement for civil rights and freedom. Anders Etō Shimpei: He decided in 1874 in the Saga Rebellion for the violent opposition, as did Saigō Takamori, who in 1877 led the most extensive uprising against the government, the Satsuma Rebellion , taking advantage of the discontent of the former samurai for which the invasion of Korea should have been an outlet. After suppressing the rebellions against the new Meiji state, Ōkubo Toshimichi fell victim to the assassination attempt by Shimada Ichirō , a supporter of Saigo, in 1878 .
literature
- Hilary Conroy: The Japanese Seizure of Korea 1868-1910. A Study of Realism and Idealism in International Relations. Philadelphia 1960.
- Marlene J. Mayo: The Korean Crisis of 1873 and Early Meiji Foreign Policy, in: The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4 (1972), pp. 793-819.
Individual evidence
- ^ A b Marlene J. Mayo: The Korean Crisis of 1873 and Early Meiji Foreign Policy, in: The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4 (1972), p. 793.
- ↑ Peter Duus: The Abacus and the Sword. The Japanese Penetration of Korea, 1895-1910, Berkeley 1995, p. 33.
- ↑ Alexis Dudden: Japan's Colonization of Korea. Discourse and Power. Honolulu 2005, p. 49.
- ↑ Peter Duus, 1995, p. 39 f.
- ^ Hilary Conroy: The Japanese Seizure of Korea 1868-1910. A Study of Realism and Idealism in International Relations. Philadelphia 1960, p. 43.
- ↑ Peter Duus, 1995, p. 42 f.
