경인일보는 '제3의 시각'을 살피기 위해 청일전쟁 연구자, 특히 러시아와 미국에 있는 학자들과 청일전쟁에 대한 인터뷰를 실시했다. 인터뷰 질문과 답변은 7월 20일 이후부터 주로 이메일로 주고 받았으며, 보완 차원에서 전화로도 얘기했다. '동학농민운동' '동학혁명' '한국' '조선' 등 사건이나 용어의 사용에 약간씩의 차이가 있지만, 의미를 해치지 않는다고 판단해 그대로 싣는다. 지면 관계상 분량을 줄였다. 인터뷰 전문(영문)은 아래 참조.
 | ||
■청일전쟁의 발발 원인은 무엇이라고 보나. 또 동학농민운동과 청의 파병이 전쟁의 직접적인 원인이었다고 보나.
-파추코프=전쟁의 직접 원인은 동학혁명을 진압하기위해 조선이 청에 파병을 요청한 데서 찾을 수 있다. 그러나 이것은 빙산의 일각에 불과하다. 진짜 전쟁의 원인은 일본군이 중국을 한반도 밖으로 밀어내고, 한반도에서 중국이 가졌던 영향력을 차지하려고 한 점에서 찾을 수 있다. 중국군이 파병해서 전쟁이 일어났다는 주장은 일본의 편리한 변명으로 보인다. 일본군은 자국의 영토를 넓히고 힘을 강화하기 위해서 전략적인 계획이 필요하다는 것을 알고 있었다. 중국군은 동학군을 진압하기 위해 파병을 했음에도 큰 역할을 하지 못했다. 동학군은 전주를 점령한 뒤에 더욱 잘 싸웠다. 홍계훈이 이끄는 정부군은 청군의 지원에도 불구하고 제대로 싸우지 못했다. 중국 영사관 위안 스카이(원세개)는 중국함선 '핑유안'(평원호)을 홍계훈에 빌려줬지만 동학군은 해안가에서 싸우지 않는 전법으로 대항했다. 동학군이 서울로 입성하는 것을 조선왕조와 고종은 제대로 막을 수 없었다. 고종은 청의 도움을 빌려 비교적 독립적인 국가로서의 조선의 모습을 기대할 수밖에 없었다.
-라르센=1885년 톈진 조약에 의해 한반도에 병력을 투입한 청나라와 이에 일본이 반응하면서 전쟁이 발발했다는 것은 지엽적 원인에 지나지 않는다. 전쟁의 근본적인 원인은 19세기 세계 곳곳에서 일어난 세계열강 사이의 경쟁으로 볼 수밖에 없다. 세계열강은 저마다 힘을 키울 방법을 찾았고, 일본도 청나라를 언젠가는 세계열강의 야심에 피해를 볼 수밖에 없는 곳이라 판단하고 중국 내부까지 영토를 늘리려고 했다. 중국과 일본 두 나라 간의 잠정적인 분쟁 지역은 한국만이 아니었다. 류큐열도, 타이완 등 여러 곳이 있었다. 동학혁명이 일어나지 않았다면 중국과 일본은 아마도 19세기나 20세기 초에 어떤 곳에서든 전쟁을 벌였을 것이다.
■미국과 러시아에게 청일전쟁은 어떤 의미를 가지고 있나.
-파추코프=1차 청일전쟁은 러시아에서 거의 알려지지 않았다. 청일전쟁 이후에야 러시아정부의 지시로 급하게 연구됐다. 러시아 군이 한반도의 상황을 토대로 한 전략이 필요했기 때문이다. 1895·96년에 자서전 형식으로 쓰인 몇 편의 책이 출판됐다. 책의 근간은 일본군 본부의 공식 문서들에 의존했다. 따라서 정보는 왜곡된 부분이 많았고, 러시아 독자들은 전쟁의 잘못된 면을 볼 수밖에 없었다. 내 생각에는 청일전쟁은 몇 가지 관점에서 러시아에게 매우 중요했다. 우선 청일전쟁은 일본의 전쟁, 전투의 미래 양상을 볼 수 있는 귀중한 기회였다. 그러나 러시아는 일본 서한에만 의존해 전쟁을 파악하면서 청군을 멍청한 집단이라고 인식했고, 청나라에 일본이 승리했더라도 청군이 무능해 승리할 수 있었던 것으로 판단해 일본군을 가치 있게 평가할 대상으로 여기지 않았다. 둘째로 러시아는 청일전쟁 당시 청과 긴밀한 관계를 맺을 수도 있었다. 미래의 러일 전쟁의 양상을 고려한다면 청과 동맹은 전쟁의 결과를 바꿀 수도 있었다. 1896년 러청동맹을 맺긴 했지만 1904·05년 러일전쟁때 이 동맹은 제대로 기능하지 못했다. 셋째로 러시아는 한국과 관계를 돈독히 해 청·일·러 국경지역에서 자신의 입지를 강화할 수 있었다. 부분적으로는 입지를 강화할 수 있었지만 충분치 못했다. 넷째로는 청일전쟁의 양상을 제대로 이해하는 것이 미래 전쟁을 막을 수 있다는 점을 알아야 했다. 이것은 훗날의 전쟁에서 치명적 실수를 피하는 데 큰 도움이 됐을 것이다. 그러나 청일전쟁을 무시하면서 모든 결과는 바뀌었다. 작은 일본이 수많은 전쟁에서 승리한 것을 러시아가 제대로 파악하지 못하면서 러시아는 같은 자리에 머물고 있을 수밖에 없었다. 종합해보면 러시아는 청일전쟁으로 교훈을 얻어서 10년 뒤 패배를 막았어야 했다.
-라르센=미국의 공식적인 정책(입장)은 중립이었다. 하지만 미국인 개인들의 의견은 제각각 달랐다. 영국에 부합하는 몇몇은 중국에 동정심을 느꼈고, 청나라가 이런 급진적인(Dramatic) 패배로 고통을 받는다는 것에 놀랄 수밖에 없었다. 다른 몇몇은 청일전쟁을 일본이 성공적인 현대화를 이룬 증거로 봤고, 일본이 국제권력관계에서 떠오르고 있다고 봤다.
 | ||
■당시 일본은 한국을 어떤 존재로 봤나. 또 청나라와 일본사이의 전쟁이 왜 한반도에서 벌어질 수밖에 없었다고 보나.
-파추코프=조선영토에서 전쟁이 시작된 것은 한반도의 여러 상황을 감안해보면 자연스러운 일이다. 일본군은 이미 조선에 배치돼 있었고, 중국군에 비해 군사력에서 우월했다. 아산전투 때 중국군은 4천명도 되지 않았고, 대포도 8문에 지나지 않았다. 반면 일본군은 서울을 접수하고 있었다. 당시 서울에 있던 일본군의 수만 1만2천명에 달했고, 20문의 대포를 준비하고 있었다. 또한 '중국 주둔군에 대항한 요청 지원' 등 문서를 조작해 일본군을 파병하는 당위성도 확보할 수 있었다. (조선) 지도부에도 먼저 접근해 한국군 통제권도 얻을 수 있었다. 이를 통해 일본은 한국 영토를 포위할 수 있었다. 조선지도부를 직접적으로 통제한 것은 결과적으로 미래 러시아와 중국에 대항할 수 있는 교두보를 마련한 셈이 됐다.
-라르센=당시 일본 내 여론도 갈렸다. 소위 진보주의자(Liberal)들은 진심으로 한국이 스스로 개혁을 해 현대화를 이루기를 원했고, 일본은 일종의 모델, 가이드로서 조선을 지원할 수 있다고 봤다. 다른 이들은 한국이 스스로 개혁하기는 불가능하다고 봤다. 그래서 러시아와 같은 적대국이 조선을 점령해 일본 본토에 안전을 위협하기 전에 먼저 한반도를 점령해 안정성을 확보해야 한다고 주장했다. 한반도에서 전쟁이 벌어진 부분적 원인은 앞서 언급한대로 동학혁명에서 찾을 수 있다. 청이 한국에 파병을 했고, 이에 일본이 병력을 급파했다. 게다가 청나라와 메이지 일본은 당시 한국에서 경제, 정치적 영향력을 넓혀가기 위해 직접적으로 경쟁하고 있었다. 동학혁명이 일어나지 않고, 고종이 파병을 요청하지 않았다고 해도 중국과 일본 사이에서 분쟁은 일어날 수밖에 없었고, 분쟁은 한국에서 일어날 가능성이 높았다.
■(당시) 일본이 성장하기 시작했다. 그런데 한국은 계속해 쇄국정책을 펼쳤다. 왜 두 나라는 다른 결정을 했을까?
-파추코프=일본과 한국의 운명이 갈리게 된 원인은 쉽게 찾기 어렵다. 여러 가지 이유를 생각해 볼 수 있다. 첫째 이유로 일본과 조선의 다른 사회적 관계를 들 수 있다. 일본은 세계의 정치, 경제에 더 많이 관여했다. 일본은 유럽과의 접촉을 끊은 적이 없었다. 도쿠카와 막부가 집권한 이후에도 나가사키에 있는 네덜란드 공장을 통해 세계와 관계를 유지했다. 이런 일본의 태도가 좋은 결과를 가져왔다고 본다. 1850년대 초기에 네덜란드 전문가의 지원으로 현대화된 해군이 일본에 나타나게 됐다. 1868년 메이지혁명은 국내에 진보적인 움직임을 이끌었다. 그 결과 1880년대 일본은 비교적 공업을 잘 발달시킬 수 있었고, 현대화된 해군을 보유할 수 있었다. 반면, 조선은 1637년 이후로 고립돼 있었고, 유럽 및 아시아 다른 국가와의 접촉을 끊었다. 조선왕은 국가를 통치하는 데 있어 봉건적 관계를 국내에 고집했고, 조선에서 자본주의적 관계의 시작을 알리는 트렌드는 영조시대에 나타났는데 정조는 더 이상 진전시키지 못했다. 그러나 이 시대 봉건주의는 완전히 쇠퇴했고, 강한 현대사회를 지탱할 수 없었다. 내 생각에는 조선에서 봉건적 관계를 유지한 것과, 후기 조선 왕의 정치적 무능함이 19세기 조선의 발전에 치명적 약점이 됐다.
-라르센=이 질문에 대한 부분적인 대답은 미국, 즉 페리 제독의 블랙 십이 1850년대에 일본을 개항시키기로 마음먹고 강력행동에 나선 것과 다르게, 어떤 서구열강도 1860년대 중반까지 조선을 개항시키려는 의지가 강하지 않았다는 데 있다. 1860년대 중반에 들어서야 병인양요와 신미양요가 일어났다. 게다가 조선왕조에는 신유교사상이 강하게 자리잡고 있었고, 특히 이 사상이 대원군의 리더십에 강한 영향을 끼쳤다. 조선은 일본과 다르게 협상을 하지 않고, 전쟁을 먼저 시작했다.
■세계열강의 각축 속에 일본이 한반도에 진출할 수 있었던 자신감은 어디에서 나왔다고 보나.
-파추코프=일본은 나라를 침략할 때마다 특별한 태도를 고수하며 국제관계에서 새로운 위치를 얻을 수 있었다. 일본은 결과적으로 중국과 조선을 자신의 세력권 안에 넣을 수 있게 됐다. 유럽이나 미국은 중국이나 조선을 간과했다. 이들은 일본의 발전을 보면서 중국을 보잘 것 없는 곳이라 여겼고, 청나라가 없기에 조선은 독립국으로 남아있을 수 있다고 봤다. 그런데 이 상황에서 일본이 제대로 처세를 했다. 유럽과 미국은 중국과 조선에 일본의 세력이 침투하는 것을 러시아나 독일을 견제하기에 좋다는 판단을 내렸다. 러시아, 프랑스, 독일은 3국 간섭을 통해 일본이 요동반도에서 떠날 것을 요구했고, 일본이 이를 받아들이자 일본은 열강의 말을 잘 듣는 국가로 봤다. 하지만 결과적으로 일본은 너무 커져 버렸다. 유럽과 미국의 판단은 틀렸지만, 이것을 깨달았을 때는 너무 늦었다.
-라르센=일본이 청에게 승리한 뒤 요동반도와 만주 등 중국 내 영토까지 점령하고 나섰다. 하지만 러, 프, 독은 3국 간섭을 통해 요동이 일본에 넘어가는 것을 막았다. 또한 러시아는 고종이 러시아 공사관에 보호를 요청하면서 일본이 조선에서 힘을 키워가려는 것을 일정 정도 제지할 수 있었다. 일본은 러일전쟁 때까지 분쟁을 일으키지 않고, 러시아에 대항할 수 있겠다는 판단이 내려질 때까지 계속해 현대화를 추구하고 경제를 발전시켰다. 러일전쟁 뒤에야 비로소 조선 내에서 제대로 된 통제력을 가질 수 있었다.
 | ||
■조선이 무능했던 이유는. 동학농민운동이 성공했다면 어떤 결과를 가져왔을 것으로 보나.
-라르센=조선 지배층의 무능에 대해서는 보통 대원군이 고립주의자이자 융통성없는 쇄국주의자이고, 고종은 우유부단한 왕이자, 민비 쪽에 붙은 관리들은 부패했고, 조선의 신유교주의자(양반)들이 변화와 새로운 생각에 대한 적대감이 있었다는 점 등을 원인으로 들 수 있다. 하지만 사실은 19세기 조선지배층을 보면 동정심도 느낀다. 19세기 말은 전 세계적으로 열강들의 침략이 심했던 시기다. 강한 힘을 가진 국가는 시간, 장소를 가리지 않고 다른 나라를 점령하고 합병해왔다. 아프리카, 남아시아 등 한국과 비슷한 일을 겪은 나라가 많다. 한 조사결과를 보면 1914년까지 85% 이상의 지구 땅이 열강에게 점령되거나 침략됐다고 나와 있다. 따라서 앞을 내다보고 선견지명을 할 수 있는 리더가 있었다고 해도 조선이 식민지의 논리로 다른 힘에 지배당하는 일을 막기는 어려웠을 것이다. 이런 가능성은 조선의 지리적 위치(19세기 고래에 둘러싸인 새우)를 고려해보면 더 크다. 일본, 러시아, 중국, 영국, 프랑스, 미국 등이 조선에 관심을 표명했다. 내 생각이 맞다면 심지어 동학혁명이 성공했더라도 궁극적 결과를 바꾸진 못했을 것이다. 아마 좀 더 지연될 수는 있어도 결과적으론 합병이 일어나는 것은 막지 못했을 것이다.
/홍현기기자
<서면 인터뷰 전문(영문): 알렉시 파추코프 박사, 커크 라르센 교수>
알렉시 파추코프(Pastukhov Alexey Mikhailovich)박사 인터뷰 답변 전문.
질문=I would like to know your opinion on the reason of outbreak of Sino-Japanese War.
답변= The direct reason of the war was really the dispatch of troops by Chinese Government performed by the request of Korean Government due to the successful offensive of Tonghak troops. But it was only the visible part of an iceberg. The true reason of the war was the intention of Japanese Militarists to push China out of Korea and substitute the Chinese influence with the Japanese one. These efforts to subdue Korea and beat back Chinese attempts to keep the status quo had a long history and all of them were defeated by heroic struggle of Korean people backed with Chinese relief forces. I would say the dispatch of Chinese troops was not the true reason for the war but only the convenient excuse for Japan Generals to realize their strategic plans to enlarge and enhance the Empire of Japan. But Korea had nothing to do except for the request of troops from China. The situation seemed to be critical after taking the city of Jeonju by Tonghak army. Troops of Hong Gyehun were not able to fight seriously in spite of some Chinese assistance (the Chinese Minister-resident in Korea Yuan Shikai gave on loan the Chinese battleship "Pingyuan" to Hong Gyehun but it could not help as Tonghak wisely avoided to operate in the coastal area). The direct march of Tonghak Army to Seoul could overthrow the Yi Dynasty and the King Gojong had no reserves to stop them. King Gojong had to choose either to loose his power (and, probably, the life as there were a lot of forces in Korea interested to seize the power by getting rid of the King of Joseon) completely or to try the fortune in attempt to save the throne and keep Korea relatively independent (as the tributary status of Korea did not mean the full submission to Qing Emperor as the colonial status of Korea meant).
질문=I would like to know Russia's overall opinion on the war.
답변= The first Sino-Japanese war is almost unknown in modern Russia. It was studied a little bit only immediately after the end of that war when Russian Government ordered to Russian Military Headquarters to study the matter in order to get the clear vision for the Russian policy in the region. Several books were published in 1895-1896 and it was almost all bibliography written on the case in Russia. The basis of all these books was the official communiqu?s of Japanese Military Headquarters. So the information was distorted very much and the generations of Russian readers grew up with the wrong picture of that war. I published several papers about the Sino-Japanese war and was accused by some readers that I tried to apologize the Chinese efforts in that war and depict Chinese troops and Navy much more brave and able then they were. To my mind the war between Chinese and Japanese Empires was very important to Russia from several points of view. First of all, Russian military men got the unique chance to learn the future theater of war and the real combat value of Japanese troops and Navy. But it was neglected as the Japanese official communiqu?s depicted Chinese troops as a gang of stupid cowards and Russian Generals thought that the Japanese troops were not worthy to study due to the insignificant resistance of the enemy. The second, Russia got the unique chance to build closer relations with China in order to prepare for the future war between Russia and Japan (Russian politicians considered this danger from 1850-1860th when Russia penetrated to Sakhalin and pushed out Japan from the island). But in spite of Sino-Russian alliance of 1896 Russia failed to use it in 1904-1905. The third, Russia enhanced the relations with Korea and got the chance to settle the situation in the region of Sino-Korean-Russian border. It was partially done but not so successfully as it could be. And the forth, the scenario of the war should be taken by Russian Generals and Admirals into consideration as the scenario of Russo-Japanese war was almost the same as the scenario of Sino-Japanese war. It could help to avoid the fatal mistakes in strategy but as the war was neglected at all the results were overwhelming - the tiny Japan managed to beat renowned in countless wars Russian troops almost in the same places where they beat Chinese troops 10 years ago. To sum it up I would say that Russians must study the lessons of that war better to avoid the own defeat 10 years later.
질문=How was the Russia's perspective toward Korea? I would like to know the reason why the war between Qing and Japan had to be begun in Korean peninsula.
답변= Russia could not intervene into the Sino-Japanese clash due to the lack of troops in the region. Russian diplomats did their best to persuade Japan to stick to the principle of Korean independency and territorial integrity. Chinese viceroy Li Hongzhang tried to request the dispatch of Russian troops and Navy to stop the Japanese invasion in Korea but the dispatch was not possible by 3 reasons. The first reason was that Russian politicians of that period considered China as the bigger evil then Japan and hoped to prevent the further enhancing of Chinese influence in Korea. They did not understand that China was not the real aggressor and the true troubles would start only after the defeat of China and disappearance of Chinese Naval and Military might. The second reason to give the request of the Chinese viceroy up was the lack of Russian troops and Navy in the Far Eastern Region. Russia had only several cruisers in Vladivostok and less than 50 thousands of troops dispersed from Khabarovsk till Vladivostok. It was obviously insufficient to defend the Russian territory and operate actively in Korea and the Yellow Sea at the same time. And the third reason to give up the assistance to China in the war was the real danger of big war with the British Empire allied with Japan. So Russia had to keep own borders and did the best in the diplomatic spheres to pacify the conflict.
The war started on the territory of Korea as it was the natural battlefield under those circumstances - the troops of Japanese Emperor had been already deployed in Korea and the numerical superiority of them over Chinese expeditionary force allowed not only to gain the first results (even more psychological then real) on the battlefield (Chinese expeditionary force in Asan consisted of less than 4000 soldiers with 8 fields canons versus more than 12000 Japanese troops in Seoul and in the vicinity of the Korean capital with more than 20 field canons) immediately but to gain the control over the Government of Korea to fabricate the "request of assistance against Chinese occupants" to Japan, as they used to do later, when they got the control over the pro-Japanese Ministers in Korean Government. Having seized the territory of Korea Japanese troops got the perfect bridgehead for the further activity against China in Russia in the future. So Korea was doomed to be the victim of the aggressive plans of Japanese militarists.
질문=Why two countries(Japan and Korea) made different decisions?
답변= It is very difficult to answer to this question - I see the bundle of reasons which stipulated the difference in the policy of the Korean Government and the policy of the Japanese Government. First of them is the different character of social relations in Japan and Korea. The bigger involvement of Japan into the world policy and economy (it is ought to be said that Japan never stopped the contacts with Europe even after the victory of Tokugawa clan and maintained the relations with Europe via Dutch factory in Nagasaki) yielded the good results - the first modern Navy appeared in Japan with the assistance of Dutch specialists in the early 1850th, and the Meiji Restoration of 1868 made the way for the progressive forces within the country. In 1880th Japan had relatively well developed industry and quite a modern army and Navy. At the same time Korea kept isolated since 1637 and had almost no contacts with Europe and other Asian countries. Korean kings conserved the feudal relations in the country and even the trends for the beginning of bourgeois relations in Korea appeared during the reigns of King Yeongjo and Jeongjo did not get the further development in the first half of XIX century. But the feudalism at that time declined completely and could not feed the strong modern society. To my mind the conservation of the feudal relations in Korea and the political weakness of late Joseon's kings led to the fatal lag in the development of Korea in XIX century.
질문=How was the international relationship among Japan, United States, and Russia?
답변=In that period Russia strove for keeping the status quo in Korea as it was necessary for Russia to have peaceful neighbor alongside the Russian Far Eastern borders. The real way to provide it was to strive for Korean independency by diplomatic means - all Powers wanted to get the best positions in Korea and there were a lot of possibilities to arrange political blocks to neutralize the attempts of China, Japan of England to make Korea subdue completely. USA were also interested in keeping status quo in Korea as USA had not enough forces to obtain the highest position in Korea so they had to declare Korea the independent state to spoil the play for competitors and to gain the time to enhance their own positions (e.g. via American military instructors in Korea etc.). The intensions of Japan were not the same as Russian or American ones - Japanese wanted to subdue Korea but understood that Japan had not yet enough forces to do it via direct invasion into Korea. So Japan had to take Russia and USA into consideration in its foreign policy and pretended to be the first among other nations to stand for Korean independency and progress. At the same time they prepared the fifth column in Korea by recruiting adepts among Korean officials who visited Japan in 1870-1880th. I suppose the balance was broken in the moment when Sino-Japanese discrepancies grew so much that no one Power could settle it without armed intervention. No one wanted to intervene and everybody preferred to wait to make use of the results of mutual weakening of both Far Eastern Empires.
질문=Japan started to rise as a new power of Asia, and could have the confidence to break in on the conflict. Why Qing became powerless although they tried '洋務運動', etc.?
답변=Japan could re-gain the position in international policy due to the specific attitude of Powers to the victims of the war - China and Korea. Europe and USA held China and Korea cheap when comparing their lag in development to the progress of Japan and even considered China to be unworthy to stay among the great nations as well as Korea to be the independent country due to their ignorance and lack of attributes of European modern culture. Japan was treated a little bit better as it was regarded as the military reserve for further penetration into China and Korea and possible counterbalance against the Russian and German attempts to enlarge their spheres of influence in the region. So after the protest of three Powers (Russia, France and Germany) against the seizure of Liaodong peninsula by Japanese troops and withdrawal of Japaneses forces from Manchuria Powers made themselves sure that Japan was obedient and would better give up in the argue with any of Powers then to insist upon its own position. They were wrong of course but they realized it too late.
Regarding the Qing Empire the "self-strengthening policy" failed completely due to the same reasons as Korea got weak - the conservation of feudalism and hidden feudal fragmentation, corruption of political institutions of the Empire, political impotence of Manchu leaders and only surface reforms in spheres of armaments led to the abyss of horrible defeats and national humiliation. The ironclads and Krupp canons could not change the relations between subdued Chinese and ruling Manchus. The nation was not united and was not yet eager to advance to the way of the progress.
질문=I would like to how Russia react toward Sino-Japanese war?
답변=Russia wanted to get the best position in Korea and further developments in Korea (the murder of Queen Ming and the escape of King Gojong to Russian embassy etc.) seemed to be the good chance to enhance the positions of Russia in Korea. Russia organized the protest of 3 Powers (Russia, France and Germany) in respect of occupation of Liaodong and made Japan not only withdraw troops from Manchuria but insisted upon the quicker withdrawal of troops from Korea (except for special Japanese detachments to secure the telegraph lines). Then Russia managed to send military instructors into Korean army and even prepared plan to create a modern Korean army of 40 thousands soldiers and reasonable Navy for coastal defense. But Russia failed to keep and develop that chance. So Russian reaction for the Japanese success was negative at all but Russia failed to get cardinal advantages in Korea and Machuria. Mistakes of Russian Government in connection with the so called "Bezobrazov's clique" (the group of high ranking Russian officials involved into notorious affair with timber concession in Korea) led to the sharp conflict with Japan and speeded up the Russo-Japanese war.
• 질문=I would like to know why the hierarchy of Korea was so incompetent. What result could possibly come if '東學農民運動' succeeded?
답변=I think that Korea started to develop more dynamically in the reign of the King Jeongjo but the following weak leaders failed to keep the positive changes and let conservative forces in Korea to win. It stopped the positive impulse of Korean development and led to the complete degradation of the state. The state was in the stage of hidden fragmentation and feudal parties struggled in the court not for making Korea more progressive and powerful but for getting their revenues from the working people more and more. In the parties' struggle the point of no return had been passed and by 1870th Korea was only the weak relic of the previously strong state.
What result would be in the case of Tonghaks' victory? I don't know for sure. To my mind the closest case is the Taiping rebellion in China. It started as anti-feudal movement but during the second part of the war the Government of the Heavenly State turned to the discussion of some bourgeois transformations in China presented to the Heavenly King (洪秀全, 1813-1864) by his cousin Hong Rengan (洪仁?, 1822-1864). The Heavenly King approved some of those reforms but said that all of them should be performed only after the victory in the anti-Qing war. And he kept the old feudal system in the Heavenly Kingdom. Then the Heavenly Kingdom fell under the strikes from foreign invaders and Qing troops. I suppose the same could be with Korea in case of Tonghaks' victory - the old system would be broken but it would be too much obstacles to re-direct Korea to the way of progress (e.g. Chinese or Japanese invasion in order to get the control over the situation). And I am not sure if Tonghaks won they could create strong state in Korea in that difficult international situation. But the progressive meaning of the Tonghak movement is obvious and their heroic struggle against the colonial penetration of foreign countries into Korea is the remarkable doing in the modern history of Korea and Koreans may be proud of their heroic ancestors who tried to build the better future for their descendants.
커크 라르센(Kirk Larsen) 교수 인터뷰 답변 전문
질문= I would like to know your opinion on the reason of outbreak of Sino-Japanese War.
답변= The dispatch of troops to Korea by the Qing Empire and the response by Japan, invoking the 1885 Tianjin Convention (天津__約) to send troops to the Korean peninsula, was indeed the local or proximate cause of the War. However, a more fundamental cause of the War was the imperialistic competition that was taking place across the world in late-19th century. Japan, seeking status as a rising power and seeking to expand its territory (the same as many other Western powers were doing at the time), naturally saw the Qing Empire as a competitor (and a potential victim).__The areas of potential conflict between the two were numerous: the Korean peninsula, the Liuqiu (Ryukyu) Islands, Taiwan etc. If the Tonghak Rebellion had not happened, it is likely that China and Japan would still have gone to war somewhere and some time in the late nineteenth (or early 20th) century.
질문= I would like to know United States' overall opinion on the war.
답변= The official policy of the United States toward the War was that of neutrality. Individual Americans' opinions differed. Some, like many of their British counterparts, sympathized with China and were surprised to see the Qing suffer such a dramatic defeat. Others saw the War and its outcome as evidence of Japan's successful modernization and Japan's rising power status.
질문=How was the Japan's perspective toward Korea? I would like to know the reason why the war between Qing and Japan had to be begun in Korean peninsula.
답변= Opinion in Japan was divided as well. Some (so-called liberals) sincerely wanted Korea to reform and modernize itself and felt that Japan could provide a model, guidance, and support for Korean reform. Others argued that Korea was incapable of reforming itself and that Japan needed to conquer Korea in order to ensure that a hostile power (probably Russia) did not conquer Korea and threaten the security of the Japanese home islands.
The War broke out on Korean soil in part because of the aforementioned Tonghak Rebellion, the Qing dispatch of troops to Korea, and the Japanese subsequent dispatch of troops. In addition, both the Qing Empire (China) and the Meiji Empire (Japan) were directly competing for markets and political power in Korea. Therefore, even if the Tonghak Rebellion never happened (or if Kojong never requested Chinese help in suppressing the rebellion), a conflict between China and Japan over and probably in Korea was still likely to have taken place.
질문=Why two countries(Japan and Korea) made different decisions?
답변= Part of the answer to this question is found in the fact that while the United States (Commodore Perry's Black Ships) was determined to open Japan in the 1850s, no Western power made the as forceful an attempt to open Korea until at least the mid 1860s (French attack on Kanghwa in 1866) or even the early 1870s (American attack on Kanghwa in 1871). Thus, Japan got a head start by being forcefully opened two decades (or more) before Korea. In addition, some point to the entrenched Neo-Confucian culture of the Chos__ Kingdom and particularly to the leadership of the Grand Prince Taew__'gun (대원군) to explain why the Koreans chose to fight (in 1866 and 1871) rather than negotiate with the Western powers.
질문=How was the international relationship among Japan, United States, and Russia?
답변= By 1894, all three nations had formal, Western-style diplomatic and commercial relations with each other (treaties, consulates, legations etc.). However, the nature of the relationship between the United States and both Japan and Korea was an unequal one with the United States claiming superior privileges (extra-territoriality, tariff control etc.). In addition, Japan (and the Qing Empire) claimed the same unequal privileges in Chos__ Korea.
질문=How was the international relationship among Japan, United States, and Russia?
답변= Despite the Japanese victory over the Qing Empire, Japan found its claims to territory in China (the Liaodong peninsula (遼東) opposed by the "Triple Intervention" of Russia, Germany, and France. In addition, Russia opposed and successfully blocked Japanese attempts to increase its power in Korea (especially after King Kojong fled to the Russian legation in Hans__g (Seoul) for protection). It took several years of additional modernization and economic development before Japan felt confident enough to challenge Russia in the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War and to increase its control of Korea.
The Qing self-strengthening and modernization efforts were, indeed, ultimately unsuccessful in allowing the Qing to avoid defeats on the battlefield and eventually the collapse of the Qing Empire itself. One key reason for this failure is that many of the most significant self-strengthening and modernization efforts were carried out by regional and provincial leaders rather than by the Qing imperial court. This meant that the benefits of the reform efforts were not nation-wide but rather limited to the particular province or region that adopted them. Moreover, when the Sino-Japanese War broke out, two of the Qing's three most powerful navies were kept out of the battle which left only Li Hongzhang (李鴻章) and his Northern Fleet and Army (北洋軍 and 北洋艦隊) to fight the Japanese all alone. Had the Qing forces combined together to fight against Japan, the outcome of the War may have been different.
질문=I would like to know why the hierarchy of Korea was so incompetent. What result could possibly come if '東學農民運動' succeeded?
답변= The usual explanations have to do with poor leadership (the Taew__'gun's isolationism and rigid conservatism and Kojong's indecisiveness), venal officials (especially the Min clan) and the general hostility to change and new ideas on the part of Korea's Neo-Confucian elite (the yangban).
I am actually more sympathetic to the late-19th century Chos__ government and note that the late 19th century was a time of global "high imperialism" in which the powerful nations of the world conquered and annexed territory whenever and wherever possible (the "Scramble for Africa," a similar seizure of territory in South and Southeast Asia etc.). By one estimation something like 85% of the earth's land surface had been claimed and conquered by one imperialist power or another by 1914. Hence, it is likely that even the most forward-looking and far-sighted leadership may not have been able to keep Korea from falling into colonial rule by one power or another. This likelihood is increased by Korea's geographical position (a 19th-century shrimp among whales) surrounded by Japan, Russia, and China with Britain, France and the U.S. also demonstrating some interest in Korea.