Newsletter

Interviewee: Han Myung-gi (Professor, History Department, Myongji University)

Professor Han Myung-gi received his bachelor’s degree in Korean history from Seoul National University where he continued to study to acquire his master’s and doctoral degree. He served as a special researcher for Seoul National University ‘s Kyujanggak Institute for Korean Studies, editor of the quarterly magazine Yeoksa bipyeong, and member of the second Korea-Japan Joint History Research Committee. His major publications include “Imjin War and Korea-China Relations,” “Gwanghaegun,” “East Asia and the Manchu invasions of 1627 and 1636,” and “Historical Review of the 1636 Manchu Invasion.” He has been awarded the Wolbong Book Award for Korean Studies as well as the Korea Book Award.

The year of 2018 marks the 420th anniversary of the end of the 1592-1598 Imjin War. Since the war, the Korean peninsula’s fate of having to struggle in finding ways to survive among powerful countries hasn’t changed much. As a perceptive expert in analyzing the history of mid Joseon, Professor Han Myung-gi of Myongji University claims that the Imjin War should serve as a mirror reflecting today rather than the past, which implies that Korea should bear in mind what it learned from the war and use it as a stepping stone for establishing peace in Northeast Asia. As expectations rise for peace on the Korean peninsula in May 2018, this month’s interview turns to Professor Han to examine the significance of studying the Imjin War as well as the implications such history carries for the rapid changes now taking place in East Asia.

Q

The international circumstances surrounding the Korean peninsula are about to face dramatic change. Inter-Korean relations have begun to write a new history through the inter-Korea summit near the end of April and other summit talks with powerful countries including the United States have been scheduled to take place soon, indicating that South Korea is likely to experience a huge change in international relations. How would you historically define the situation the Korean peninsula is currently in?

A

If the U.S.-North Korea Summit following the inter-Korean summit becomes successfully held, it will likely provide an outline to resolving the North Korean nuclear issue that has been going on for the past 25 or so years since 1994 and speed up the steps to establishing permanent peace on the Korean peninsula. As someone researching history, I believe now is a very crucial time. Once the North Korean nuclear issue becomes resolved, the Korean peninsula will be facing other issues such as how to co-exist with the newly rising power of China and how to cope with the contest for hegemony between the United States and China. Last year South Korea has already heavily experienced geopolitical and geoeconomic risks posed by China because of the THAAD issue. Despite struggling to maintain amicable relations with all the surrounding powerful countries, a relatively weak country is likely to be driven to a crossroads should powerful countries continue to engage in conflicts and disputes with each other. The past Roh Moo-hyun administration promoted the “Northeast Asian Balancer Theory” based on the rationale that Korea should take the lead and play the role of balancer in Northeast Asia where interests of powerful countries are entangled. However, that theory can only be realized when the two Koreas secure enough power under unification. This is why Korea now seems to be standing upon an extremely important turning point in history.

Q

This may be a bit early to discuss, but if the breeze in inter-Korean relations grow balmy and new circumstances unfold in economic cooperation and cultural exchange, what can be looked forward to the most should the two Koreas get to conduct joint historical research? Do you think such a change will affect research on the Imjin War?

A

When free travel and exchange become allowed between the two Koreas, the trend in historical research is expected to undergo significant change. I think it would probably advance historical research if South Korean scholars can gain access to a wider range of historical material by directly observing and studying relics, remains, and old documents in North Korea, like the war monument Bukgwan daecheopbi (北關大捷碑) that was returned and handed over to North Korea a hundred years after having been stolen by Japan and neglected at Yasukuni Shrine. Therefore, I do believe smoother inter-Korean relations will broaden the range and raise the quality of historical research on not just one specific topic like the Imjin War, but other topics as well.

Q

I wonder if Joseon ever experienced rapid change in international circumstances like the one surrounding the Korean peninsula nowadays. If it did, could you please draw a comparison between the foreign policy Joseon practiced and that Korea has lately been practicing?

A

The late sixteenth century when the Imjin War occurred, the early seventeenth century when the Manchu invasions occurred, and the mid to late nineteenth century when the Opium War and the First Sino-Japanese War broke out were times when drastic change took place on the Korean peninsula and in East Asia. The Imjin War in particular was a tragic series of invasions caused by a sudden change in East Asia’s situation during the sixteenth century. After its foundation in 1392, Joseon’s greatest diplomatic goal was to maintain amicable relations based on investiture and a tributary system with Ming China, the hegemonic power at the time. However, Japan managed to greatly build up its military, social, and economic power in the sixteenth century during the age of discovery and came to challenge Ming’s hegemony by demanding Joseon to serve as an instrument for conquering Ming. Joseon refused, which led to the ravages of the Imjin War over the course of seven years. Hence, the Imjin War is a vivid example of the Korean peninsula being driven to a crossroads and suffering a disastrous war due to the fall of an existing hegemony and rise of a new power. A small, weak country serving as a buffer between powerful countries is bound to grow nervous and hypersensitive whenever there are signs of a power shift nearby. So, whether it’s back when the Imjin War broke out or today, failing to properly read and react toward changes in the dynamics between surrounding powers will make it much more likely for a small, weak country to get swept up in a major crisis.

Q

Gwanghaegun (1575-1641) was a Joseon king who displayed excellent diplomatic skills between the existing East Asian power Ming and the rising power Later Jin. Can you think of any other Korean leader who had such excellent skills and remained in amicable terms with surrounding powers?

A

Gwanghaegun honed his diplomatic skills while assisting his father King Seonjo (1552-1608) throughout the Imjin War. He also came to gain an accurate grasp of circumstances in China and Manchuria from having met plenty of Ming people. Gwanghaegun did get to demonstrate his diplomatic ability during the Ming-Qing transition, but his security polices abroad eventually lost momentum because he failed to internally exercise a sophisticated degree of political power and tolerance. For a relatively small, weak country like Korea situated on a geopolitically strategic point but stuck between major powers, it is important to think and act in an extremely strategic manner both in domestic politics and in diplomacy. For the aforementioned reasons, it is difficult to ultimately regard Gwanghaegun as a successful king.

Meanwhile, I would say King Sejong (1397-1450) is someone who has been underrated in terms of diplomacy. King Sejong is not only well known for inventing and disseminating the Korean alphabet Hunmin jeongeum and heading distinguished cultural and scientific achievements, but he is also considered the greatest sage king throughout the first half of the Joseon dynasty for realizing an ideal form of Confucian politics. One of King Sejong’s greatest diplomatic achievement would be the installation of four counties and six garrisons at the northern parts of the Korean peninsula, which thereby securely incorporated the vast Pyeongan and Hamgyeong provinces into Korean territory.

At the time, Emperor Yongle had finished relocating Ming’s capital to Beijing and was in the midst of attempting to embrace the Jurchens while expanding Ming’s territory to Manchuria and the Siberian Maritime Province. Despite facing such a powerful country like Ming, King Sejong tried to remain in good terms with Ming as the four counties and six garrisons became successfully installed, which eventually solidified the Korean peninsula’s current borderline to the north. Territorial issues always end up being a zero-sum game. This is precisely why installing the four counties and six garrisons is a great achievement since it was done at the risk of earning resentment from the Jurchens and aggravating Joseon’s relations with Ming at a time when it regarded the Jurchens as its subjects. For managing to secure today’s Korean territory under challenging external circumstances, I believe King Sejong’s diplomatic skills and capability along with the significance of installing the four counties and six garrisons should definitely be reconsidered through studies on diplomatic history.

Q

You have always stressed that a country’s fate is bound to be determined by other more powerful countries unless it fails to strengthen its own capability. What lessons can Korea draw from the Imjin War and which direction should Korea’s foreign policy aim for today in order to prepare for the future?

A

Based on gross national product, Korea has already become a major economic power. Nevertheless, it is very important to remain level-headed by not forgetting that the Korean peninsula is still a place where the interests of the most powerful countries in the world intersect. Even intellectuals during the Joseon period used to use the expression “Bokbae sujeok” (腹背受敵), which means to be surrounded front and back by enemies, to describe the Korean peninsula’s situation between China and Japan. That was the circumstance under which the Imjin War broke out. During the early stages of the war, Japan suggested to Ming to divide the Korean peninsula between themselves and Ming soon came to exclude Joseon in negotiating for peace with Japan. This made Joseon not just a party in the war and its greatest victim, but also turned Joseon into an object of bargain for the two powers Ming and Japan. Today’s situation is not that different. If another war breaks out on the Korean peninsula, not only will the two Koreas become altogether destroyed, Koreans will again face the tragedy of having their fate become determined by surrounding powers. This is what Korean diplomacy should be most aware of.

Q

Japan has continued to evade the aggressive nature of the Imjin War by calling it Hideyoshi’s conquest of Joseon, a Japanese military expedition to Joseon, or the dispatch of a great number of troops to Joseon. When such disparate descriptions are being given about the past, how should we deal with them?

A

Around the time of the Imjin War, Toyotomi Hideyoshi came to regard his country Japan as a divine nation and looked down on Joseon with a sense of superiority. And since the seventeenth century, Japan has been justifying its invasions of Joseon by referring to the Imjin War as Hideyoshi’s conquest of Joseon or Japan’s conquest of the three Han tribal states. Then, after Japan’s forced annexation of Joseon in 1910, the Japanese began to refer to the war as “Bunroku-Keicho no yaku” (文祿慶長の役), which means a war during the Bunroku-Keicho period. The change in term must have been because using the word “conquest” was no longer suitable since the Korean peninsula had become part of Japanese territory. A war during the Bunroku-Keicho period may initially sound neutral, but it is no different from previous terms in that it covers up the war’s aggressive nature. Meanwhile, China refers to the same war as “Kangwo yuanchao” (抗倭援朝), a war to resist Japan and support Joseon.

As such, what the Imjin War is called in Korea, China, and Japan is as different as each country’s perception of the war. Of course, the Korean term “Imjin waeran” is problematic as well. It is therefore necessary for Korea, China, and Japan to together discuss and find a common term to describe the war so as to secure a universality in history education and pursue peace in East Asia. As for Korea, it needs to aim at building a strong academic foundation through meticulous, comprehensive studies before it begins to point out limitations or problems in the terms used in China and Japan.

Q

The Imjin War is being actively researched more than ever before in China. What do you make of the latest Chinese interest in studying the war?

A

It seems that China is looking into the Imjin War as a theme that can be beneficial to highlighting its opinion that the Korean peninsula used to be under its control. The Chinese term for the war “Kangwo yuanchao” reflects China’s awareness of itself as a power as well as its intention to intervene in matters involving the Korean peninsula. What is concerning is that I cannot dismiss the sense that China is approaching the Imjin War as a war between China and Japan that doesn’t have much to do with Joseon. Some Chinese scholars regard the Imjin War as China’s first war with Japan in which China managed to put a stop to Japan’s provocations. They wonder why China failed to do the same during the second war with Japan known as the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894. Underlining the fact that it drove Japan away and rescued Joseon during the Imjin War hints at China’s intention to set it as a historical example for China to turn to on its current rise. In a general sense, this is also indicative of a powerful country’s viewpoint. As for Korea, it needs to review the crises the Korean peninsula experienced whenever a change in hegemony occurred around it over the past five centuries. It will therefore be important to study the Imjin War in search of lessons and strategies to instill peace and prosperity in today’s East Asia.

Q

Considering the academic trend in China and throughout the world, we would like to ask for your advice to the Northeast Asian History Foundation on challenges it needs to overcome and what it needs to aim for in researching the Imjin War.

A

I hope research fellows here at the foundation can establish a system that provides easy access to all data on Chinese and Japanese primary sources related to premodern history and makes it possible to also monitor the latest trends in research. In addition, I think the foundation should have its research fellows participate in as many symposiums and academic conferences related to premodern history as possible so as to grasp the latest global research trends and strive to build their own theories in response. Rather than being mere pages of the past, the Imjin War and the Manchu Invasions are deeply connected to the present situation of the Korean peninsula as well as East Asia. History is what allows us to gain an understanding of the present and look out into the future, so I hope the Northeast Asian History Foundation can become balanced enough to equally devote its research efforts to each and every period of Korean and East Asian history.