The Boxer Rebellion and Korea’s Precarious Position

When the Boxer Rebellion erupted in China in 1900, the ripple effects were felt across East Asia. For Korea’s Emperor Gojong, the uprising presented not just a distant crisis but an imminent threat. The rebellion, which targeted foreigners and Christian converts, had drawn military intervention from eight allied nations. Gojong feared that the chaos in China might provide foreign powers—particularly Japan and Russia—with an excuse to make new demands on Korea, then known as the Korean Empire.

On June 25, 1900, Gojong summoned foreign diplomats to the royal palace in Hanseong (modern-day Seoul). Expressing sympathy for the foreigners killed in China and the besieged legations in Beijing, he lamented the Qing government’s inability to suppress the rebellion. More importantly, he sought the diplomats’ counsel on how Korea should navigate the crisis. What followed was a revealing exchange that exposed the geopolitical tensions simmering beneath the surface.

Divergent Diplomatic Reports: Japan’s Ambitions and Russia’s Suspicions

According to Japanese Minister Hayashi Gonsuke’s account, he emphasized the need for Korea to focus on maintaining domestic order. He pointed to the multinational coalition advancing toward Beijing and stressed that “the powers are acting in complete unity.” However, Russian Minister Pavlov’s report painted a different picture. He claimed Hayashi went further, suggesting that the powers might take “similar collective action” in Korea—a statement that left Gojong and his officials deeply unsettled.

The discrepancy between these reports highlights the diplomatic maneuvering of the time. Hayashi had little reason to issue overt threats, yet Pavlov’s version suggests Japan was already testing the waters for future influence. Shortly after this meeting, the Korean government deployed troops to its northern provinces bordering China, a move likely aimed at deterring foreign intervention.

Japan’s Strategic Vision: Dividing Korea with Russia

By July 5, Hayashi’s intentions became clearer in a proposal to Foreign Minister Aoki Shūzō. He argued that the partition of China was inevitable, with Russia destined to dominate Manchuria. Japan’s share, he insisted, should be the Korean Peninsula—but with conditions. Hayashi proposed a limited occupation: control over southern Korea (south of Pyongyang and Wonsan) while avoiding military deployment in the north. This would require Russian recognition of Japan’s sphere of influence, secured by stationing warships in Incheon as a strategic base.

Meanwhile, former Vice Foreign Minister Komura Jutarō, then Japan’s minister to Russia, observed Moscow’s expansion into Manchuria. In a pivotal memorandum on July 2, he suggested that Russia’s cooperative stance stemmed from its relatively weak position in the Far East. Komura saw an opportunity: a mutual agreement where Japan and Russia would each have a “free hand” in Korea and Manchuria, respectively, while guaranteeing commercial freedom in both regions. Historians later termed this the “Manchuria-Korea Sphere of Influence Agreement” or even the “Manchuria-Korea Exchange Theory.”

Media and Public Opinion: Optimism vs. Caution

Japanese newspapers reflected this strategic optimism. The Tokyo Asahi Shimbun declared on July 26 that Korea’s southern provinces were “de facto Japanese territory, beyond dispute,” citing the 1898 Nishi-Rosen Agreement as proof. The paper downplayed tensions with Russia, even applauding its withdrawal from Masanpo.

Yet not all voices were so confident. Shimada Saburō, a Christian liberal and president of the Mainichi Shimbun, emerged as a vocal critic. In his 1899 essay Urging National Reflection and later writings compiled in Japan and Russia (1900), he warned against imperial overreach. Shimada argued that Japan’s “Russophobia” was irrational and that territorial ambitions in Korea or China would only isolate Japan internationally. His book, which went through multiple editions, called for冷静 (cool-headed) diplomacy over militarism.

The Legacy of 1900: Prelude to the Russo-Japanese War

The diplomatic jostling of 1900 set the stage for the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905). Japan’s incremental control over Korea and Russia’s entrenchment in Manchuria created irreconcilable tensions. The Boxer Rebellion, often viewed as a Chinese crisis, thus had profound consequences for Korea—accelerating its absorption into Japan’s empire by 1910.

Today, this period serves as a case study in how regional conflicts can reshape alliances and borders. The competing reports of Hayashi and Pavlov, the media’s role in shaping policy, and Shimada’s dissenting voice all offer timeless lessons about the interplay of power, perception, and diplomacy.