뉴스레터

The term 'imperialism' was not used until the mid-19th century or so. It was the British who first started using this term, which invoked the image of wars of aggression, such as the Napoleonic Wars, and represented something condemnable.

If there is a term that better describes how states or certain polities expanded their influence and established their presence overseas in modern history, or their intentions to do so, it is 'colonialism.' The dreams of Europeans, as reflected in Utopia by Thomas More and New Atlantis by Francis Bacon written in the 16th and 17th centuries, respectively, were to settle in America and build new agricultural colonies. To them, 'colonialism' meant turning uncultivated yet fertile land into fields for the production of crops, hunting abundant game for food, or cutting down the wild woods to make more room for farmlands and use the timber. In other words, they perceived 'colonization' as the process of improving nature as well as inhabitants by implanting civilization in the new region.

A Theory of Imperialism by John A. Hobson the Critic of Britain's Expansion Policy

There was a time in the late 19th century when imperialism was proudly associated with the strength and ethical obligation of the powers. But from the early 20th century, when the Englishman John A. Hobson came along and started criticizing British imperialism, the image of imperialism as we know it today, i.e. that of expansionism aimed at economic exploitation, began to be shaped. Hobson's criticism was an attempt to point out that the policy of imperialism and expansion would not benefit most of the British people because, as Hobson was well aware, it was driven by industrial and financial capitals attempting at political expansion overseas in search of new sales and investment opportunities.

A theory that was proposed against this theory of expansive imperialism is the periphery theory of imperialism. It came out of the realization that the roles and power of the periphery or colonies in imperial expansion had been underestimated. According to the analysis by periphery theorists, the empires initially wanted to exert low-cost indirect control over their colonies, and they used military force for subjugation, or other violent, imperialist means, as their last resort when they couldn't find the necessary allies in their colonies for indirect control. In other words, the periphery theorists viewed that imperial expansion was not only caused but kept, albeit indirectly, by the power of the colonies themselves that cooperated with the empires. They also identified the absence of allies, a factor on the part of the colonies, as the cause that forced the empires to seek direct control. Ironically, however, their efforts to illustrate the power of the periphery ended up illustrating the existence of a gap between the core and the periphery in capacity to change the other. Their efforts to highlight the roles of the colonies led to the conclusion that the colonies were not the main players in history after all.

The research for this book began with the idea that the legacy of the age of imperialism is one of the sources of historical conflict in East Asia today, and it covered various aspects of imperialism, ranging from theories and analyses of imperialism to case studies of the East Asia policies of the major imperialist powers, and to the way of reading colonial science as part of cultural imperialism. This book is a result of a joint study by seven scholars who recognized the need for serious studies on imperialism. And it consists of the following papers.

First, "External Expansion and State Action" pointed out that international political studies on the world before 1914 observed not so much the influence of imperial expansion upon weak states as its consequence on relations between the powers. Next, "The Grand Strategy and the 'Containment Strategy toward Russia' by Alfred T. Mahan" examined how Mahan's 'naval strategy' ("The country that rules the seas rules the world") transformed into an 'international political strategy' ("He who rules Asia rules the world"). And "Sir Halford John Mackinder and British Imperialism" analyzed the effects of the geopolitical theory by Halford Mackinder, the English political geographer and educator who proposed the geopolitical concept of 'heartland,' upon Britain's foreign policy. "German Emperor Wilhelm II's Colonial Policy and East Asia" explains the relationship between German imperialism and East Asia with focus on Wilhelm II's world policy.

And "Yamagata Arimoto's Theory of Imperialism and Korea" analyzed 'The Theory of Military Expansion' and 'The Theory of Colonial Rule' by Yamagata Arimoto, one of the two major figures in the political history of Meiji Japan, the other being Ito Hirobumi. "Imperialism and Science" examined the relationship between imperialism and science, arguing that the question to ask ourselves is not so much about the imperialistic nature of science as about in which context those debates arose.

The First Step Toward Exploring History as a Source of Solutions to the Korean Crisis

"Russia's Naval Policy and Crises on the Northern and Southern Borders of the Korean Peninsula (1885-1887)" reviewed the British Navy's occupation of Geomundo, an island off the southern coast of Korea, an incident that marks its 130th anniversary this year. This study is based on the awareness that the British fleet's illegal occupation of Geomundo (1885-1887) was what triggered a chain of events in modern Korean history that ended in Japan's forced occupation of Korea. The study calls attention to the Korean crisis which was born during the age of imperialism and has continued to this day, and offers an analysis of the reason for the failure of Britain's attempt to conclude the 'International Convention for Korea's Independence and Preservation of Its Territory' proposed in 1886 as a condition to withdrawal from Geomundo.

The British government, according to its memo (April 14, 1886), established an action plan to withdraw its troops from Geomundo on the condition that an international agreement on the preservation of Korean territory would be reached at an international conference attended by Britain, China, Russia, and Japan. If this proposal had been accepted and enforced, the neutrality of Korea, which King Gojong was pursuing, would have been guaranteed internationally. Then the Korea Peninsula could have escaped its fate as the battlefield of the modern East Asian wars (The Sino-Japanese War and the Russo-Japanese War). But Russia wouldn't give up its policy to secure ice-free ports in the Korean Peninsula. China wouldn't give up its policy to make Korea its vassal state. Japan wouldn't give up its policy to invade and subjugate Korea. As a result of their intransigency, these three countries and Korea were brought into the maelstrom of competition, prolonging the Korean crisis. It is hoped that the beginning of active research on the history of the age of imperialism, such as represented by this book, will be the first step to exploring history as a source of solutions to the Korean crisis.