Unfair Treaty With Japan Drives Ahn to Kill Ito

After signing the Eulsa or Protectorate Treaty, Korean and Japanese officials pose for a photo at the Deoksu Palace in Seoul on Nov. 17, 1905 in this file photo. At fifth from left in the front row wearing a black garment is Hirobumi Ito, Japan's first prime minister and resident general dispatched to Korea, who was assassinated by Ahn Jung-geun in Harbin, northeastern China, on Oct. 26, 1909. / Korea Times

This is the second in a series of articles highlighting the life of Ahn Jung-geun on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of his assassination of the first Japanese resident general of Korea, Hirobumi Ito, on Oct. 26, 1909, in China.

By Kim Sue-young
Staff Reporter

When South Koreans are asked what independence fighter Ahn Jung-geun (1879-1910) is best known for, arguably, most will answer his assassination of Hirobumi Ito, Japan's first prime minister, in Harbin, northeastern China, in 1909.

What took this mustachioed man to Jinnampo, a small town in northern Korea where he practiced his faith of saving the nation through education?

Ito's career as the top architect of Japan's colonization of Korea and the dubious treaties between the two countries in the 1900s can offer hints of his challenge.

He and, later, other independence fighters in the Provisional Government in Shanghai tried to make accords like the Eulsa or Protectorate Treaty in 1905 and the Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty in 1910 ``null and void.''

Emperor Gojong (1863-1907) also sought help from the international community by dispatching special envoys to a world conference to formally protest that the 1905 treaty was signed under coercion and was therefore, invalid.

The secret emissaries, Yi Jun, Yi Sang-seol and Yi Wi-jong, headed to the second Hague Peace Convention to declare the invalidity of the Protectorate Treaty and secure their emperor's right to rule the country independent of Japan.

However, they were refused permission to participate in the meeting by the great powers.

Next year will mark a century since Japan's annexation of Korea, and historians are reexamining the unfair treaties in a bid to prove what Ahn, Emperor Gojong and other independence fighters wanted to say.

Protectorate Treaty Depriving Korea of Diplomatic Sovereignty

The treaty was signed by Japanese and Korean representatives, following Japan's victory in the Russo-Japanese war.

But Emperor Gojong clearly asserted its invalidity through several personal letters sent to the heads of state of countries which had diplomatic ties with Korea, said Yi Tae-jin, Korean history professor emeritus at Seoul National University.

``Emperor Gojong consistently argued the following points: First, although Japan contended that the Korean government's foreign minister signed the treaty, he did so under the threat of force,'' he said in a recent history seminar in Seoul.

The Japanese confined the tragic ruler to Deoksu Palace after the treaty was signed and hhe had confidential dispatched the secret emissaries.

He died on Jan. 21, 1919 amid speculation that Japanese officials had poisoned him.

Professor Yi also pointed out that he never permitted the government to sign the treaty as he affirmed in a letter to the German Kaiser on Nov. 18, 1905.

The emperor was also quoted by the historian as saying ``unlike the Japanese side's contention, the Cabinet meeting was convened not based on Korean laws but forcibly by Japan while Japanese people held Korean ministers in confinement.''

``This opinion was again elucidated in an announcement made by the special envoys at The Hague,'' he added.

French international law scholar Francis Rey also released a paper to support Emperor Gojong's claim about four months after the signing of the unfair treaty.

In his journal in 1905, he acknowledged that the treaty was invalid since it was coerced.

Besides, the Protectorate Treaty contradicted Article 3 of the protocol signed between the two countries in February 1904, he said.

The article says, ``The imperial government of Japan definitively guarantees the independence and territorial integrity of the Korean empire.''

His view was reflected in a Harvard Law School's report on invalid treaties in 1935, which was later accepted by the U.N. International Law Commission.

The Korean people's legal struggle against Japan's snatching of Korea's sovereignty had served as a backbone of anti-Japan sentiment and the independence movement, Professor Yi explained.

`Annexation Treaty Fails to Meet Diplomatic Requirements'

Japan forced Emperor Gojong to abdicate for dispatching emissaries to The Hague and put his docile, second son Sunjong on the throne in 1907.

Just about a week later, a new agreement was forced through which empowered Ito, then Japanese resident-general, to appoint and dismiss high-ranking officials.

The so-called Jeongmi Treaty also deprived Korea of its power to enact laws and carry out any administrative measure without approval of the resident general.

This treaty and the 1905 pact laid the foundation for Japan to expand its power in Korea.

In the end, the Annexation Treaty was signed on Aug. 22, 1910 and came into effect seven days later.

After looking into the details, it is difficult to believe that the treaty of annexation was agreed to by the Korean government voluntarily.

The treaty begins ``His Majesty the Emperor of Korea makes the complete and permanent cession to His Majesty the Emperor of Japan of all rights of sovereignty over the whole of Korea.''

The negative view Koreans have of this treaty can be seen in the fact that they commonly refer to it as the Korea-Japan ``Hapbang Neugyak'' which means ``the coerced treaty of annexation.''

This reflects their view that the treaty was invalid.

Professor Rhee Sang-chan of Seoul National University released research results last month that the Annexation Treaty appeared to fail to meet the minimum of diplomatic requirements.

He discovered that the 1910 treaty was written on the same paper, bound and sealed in the same way, and therefore drafted by the same person.

In contrast to the Eulsa Treaty and other previous agreements, the Chinese characters stipulating the handover of sovereignty in the Annexation Treaty are almost the same in both the Korean and Japanese versions of the document.

At that time, nations separately drew up treaty documents in their own language, signed them and exchanged them with counterparts and then, preserved them as a formal document, the professor said.

In the case of the Eulsa Treaty, Korean and Japanese documents show clear differences in format, handwriting and binding.

The Annexation Treaty documents, however, lack these features, which are common to treaties signed under ``normal circumstances,'' Rhee pointed out.

``Countries exchange documents when signing an international treaty in a bid to leave some evidence showing that they had come to an agreement but Japan appeared to be arrogant enough to ignore this basic fact,'' he said.

More Research Necessary for Future Relations Between Korea, Japan

The Treaty of Basic Relations between South Korea and Japan in 1965 actually declared that all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Japan and Korea on or before Aug. 22, 1910 are ``already null and void.''

But due to the ambiguous wording in Japanese, controversies over the legal validity of the 1910 treaty still linger.

Japan interprets the clause above to mean that the Annexation Treaty was still valid until the signing of the 1965 treaty while South and North Korea understand the sentence to mean that the treaty was already null and void at the surrender of Japan.

Professor Kim Chang-rok of Kyungpook National University in Daegu said a legal review of Korea-Japan treaties of the 1900s is necessary to advance bilateral relations.

``Conflicts regarding Japan's history books since 1982 are rooted in disagreement over the legal validity (of those treaties),'' he said in a seminar hosted by the Northeast Asian History Foundation in Seoul.

Some books stirred up controversies as they claimed Korea's annexation to Japan was legal and helped modernize the country.

``On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Annexation Treaty next year, the two countries should have a serious conversation in order to advance the process of wiping the slate,'' the professor said.

ksy@koreatimes.co.kr