By Donald Kirk
The names of pivotal dates and places in history should appear fairly clear. Korea's history, however, is not so simple. Take the meeting in July 1905 between the U.S. secretary of war, William Howard Taft, and Katsura Taro, who served as the prime minister of Japan during the period in which Japan assumed control of Korea in 1905, and then in 1910, made the entire peninsula a colony.
The Taft-Katsura meeting is hardly mentioned in U.S. history texts, but in their discussion in Tokyo, they vaguely agreed that Japan would hold sway over the Korean Peninsula, while the U.S. would retain the Philippines free from Japanese interference.
That understanding, well known in Korea though not in the U.S., came up again when Lee Jae-myung, running to succeed President Moon Jae-in in the March presidential election, gave a lesson in history to Jon Ossoff, the winner of a run-off election last January for the U.S. Senate. Ossoff's victory in Georgia was crucial in insuring the Democratic Party's tenuous hold over the Senate. In Korea, Lee, as the candidate of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea, will if elected build on Moon's efforts at reconciliation with North Korea.
Lee, however, offered a somewhat simplistic view of the conversation between Taft and Katsura. He referred to an "agreement" when, in point of fact, there was no formal agreement. There were unclassified notes on the meeting that happened to be discovered nearly a decade later by an American scholar. Lee attributed Japan's takeover of Korea to that alleged agreement.
One thing is sure: Japan had designs on Korea long before Taft and Katsura talked about ways to end Japan's war with Russia, in which the Korean Peninsula was the major prize. Korea had also been at the heart of the Sino-Japanese War, which ended in 1895 with Japan defeating China, taking over Formosa/Taiwan and asserting authority over Korea during the final stages of the Joseon Kingdom (1392-1910).
The U.S. went along with Japan viewing Korea in 1905 as their "protectorate." Neither that assurance nor Japanese disinterest in the Philippines was pivotal, however, since Japan already had Korea in its clutches and the U.S. had driven the Spanish out of the Philippines and then defeated Philippine nationalist forces.
The Taft-Katsura meeting was a prelude to negotiations chaired by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt that culminated at the Portsmouth naval yard in Maine in September 1905 with the signing of the treaty ending the Russo-Japanese War. The Japanese had triumphed, defeating the Russian fleet in the straits between Korea and Japan. For overseeing the settlement to the war, Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize.
For Korea, the real lesson of the Taft-Katsura "memorandum," as the notes on their talks are sometimes called, is that the U.S. historically has overlooked Korea's interests versus those of the three surrounding great powers, China, Russia and Japan. Similarly, the deal between the U.S. and the Soviet Union for dividing the Korean Peninsula at the 38th parallel after the Japanese surrender in World War II shows the U.S. tendency to see Korea as a secondary concern in resolving global or regional conflict.
Again, however, Lee, in his history lesson to Senator Ossoff, fudges facts when he blames the Korean War on the U.S. for masterminding the North-South division. He glosses over who invaded whom, and which totalitarian powers endorsed the invasion.
It's true, had Korea not been divided, Kim Il-sung would not have ordered an invasion. It's not at all clear, though, who would have led a united Korea after the Japanese surrender and whether the peninsula would have existed in peace or been roiled by civil war with sides supported by China, Russia, or the U.S. and their allies, as in the Korean War.
Now Korea faces another critical moment, when the South is urging all sides to come together on a declaration stating that the Korean War is over. Sure, the shooting stopped with the 1953 armistice signed at Panmunjeom, but that's not enough for those who say, "Yes, but we've never declared it's really, really over, much less signed a peace treaty."
Will the U.S. again be blamed for wondering whether such a proposal plays into the hands of North Korea and its big-power allies, China and Russia? Should the U.S. agree to a statement as a favor to South Korea's President Moon, who wants to leave it as his legacy? So far no one knows if North Korea's Kim Jong-un and China's Xi Jinping will sign anything. One thing is sure: The blame game will go on, whoever's really to blame.
Donald Kirk (www.donaldkirk.com) has been covering North-South Korea issues for decades.
 |
The Taft-Katsura meeting is hardly mentioned in U.S. history texts, but in their discussion in Tokyo, they vaguely agreed that Japan would hold sway over the Korean Peninsula, while the U.S. would retain the Philippines free from Japanese interference.
That understanding, well known in Korea though not in the U.S., came up again when Lee Jae-myung, running to succeed President Moon Jae-in in the March presidential election, gave a lesson in history to Jon Ossoff, the winner of a run-off election last January for the U.S. Senate. Ossoff's victory in Georgia was crucial in insuring the Democratic Party's tenuous hold over the Senate. In Korea, Lee, as the candidate of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea, will if elected build on Moon's efforts at reconciliation with North Korea.
Lee, however, offered a somewhat simplistic view of the conversation between Taft and Katsura. He referred to an "agreement" when, in point of fact, there was no formal agreement. There were unclassified notes on the meeting that happened to be discovered nearly a decade later by an American scholar. Lee attributed Japan's takeover of Korea to that alleged agreement.
One thing is sure: Japan had designs on Korea long before Taft and Katsura talked about ways to end Japan's war with Russia, in which the Korean Peninsula was the major prize. Korea had also been at the heart of the Sino-Japanese War, which ended in 1895 with Japan defeating China, taking over Formosa/Taiwan and asserting authority over Korea during the final stages of the Joseon Kingdom (1392-1910).
The U.S. went along with Japan viewing Korea in 1905 as their "protectorate." Neither that assurance nor Japanese disinterest in the Philippines was pivotal, however, since Japan already had Korea in its clutches and the U.S. had driven the Spanish out of the Philippines and then defeated Philippine nationalist forces.
The Taft-Katsura meeting was a prelude to negotiations chaired by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt that culminated at the Portsmouth naval yard in Maine in September 1905 with the signing of the treaty ending the Russo-Japanese War. The Japanese had triumphed, defeating the Russian fleet in the straits between Korea and Japan. For overseeing the settlement to the war, Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize.
For Korea, the real lesson of the Taft-Katsura "memorandum," as the notes on their talks are sometimes called, is that the U.S. historically has overlooked Korea's interests versus those of the three surrounding great powers, China, Russia and Japan. Similarly, the deal between the U.S. and the Soviet Union for dividing the Korean Peninsula at the 38th parallel after the Japanese surrender in World War II shows the U.S. tendency to see Korea as a secondary concern in resolving global or regional conflict.
Again, however, Lee, in his history lesson to Senator Ossoff, fudges facts when he blames the Korean War on the U.S. for masterminding the North-South division. He glosses over who invaded whom, and which totalitarian powers endorsed the invasion.
It's true, had Korea not been divided, Kim Il-sung would not have ordered an invasion. It's not at all clear, though, who would have led a united Korea after the Japanese surrender and whether the peninsula would have existed in peace or been roiled by civil war with sides supported by China, Russia, or the U.S. and their allies, as in the Korean War.
Now Korea faces another critical moment, when the South is urging all sides to come together on a declaration stating that the Korean War is over. Sure, the shooting stopped with the 1953 armistice signed at Panmunjeom, but that's not enough for those who say, "Yes, but we've never declared it's really, really over, much less signed a peace treaty."
Will the U.S. again be blamed for wondering whether such a proposal plays into the hands of North Korea and its big-power allies, China and Russia? Should the U.S. agree to a statement as a favor to South Korea's President Moon, who wants to leave it as his legacy? So far no one knows if North Korea's Kim Jong-un and China's Xi Jinping will sign anything. One thing is sure: The blame game will go on, whoever's really to blame.
Donald Kirk (www.donaldkirk.com) has been covering North-South Korea issues for decades.
![[INTERVIEW] 'Korea, US can create synergy in space industry': NASA ambassador](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/97d561c153754ca19e3c626ec734eb82.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
