The Precarious Position of Korea in 1904

As the 20th century dawned, Korea found itself caught in the crossfire of imperial ambitions. The Chosun Dynasty, which had maintained relative isolation for centuries, became the focal point of intensifying rivalry between Russia and Japan. By January 1904, tensions had reached a boiling point, with both powers maneuvering for control over the strategically vital Korean Peninsula.

This geopolitical struggle occurred against the backdrop of Korea’s complex relationship with its neighbors. Following the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), Japan had gained significant influence in Korean affairs, but Russian presence grew steadily through economic investments and military advisors. Emperor Gojong, seeking to preserve Korean sovereignty, found himself navigating treacherous diplomatic waters between these competing powers.

The Neutrality Declaration and Immediate Reactions

On January 24, 1904, news of Korea’s neutrality declaration spread through international channels. The Tokyo Asahi Shimbun published an article titled “The Truth About Korean Neutrality,” claiming the move originated from suggestions made by Russian advisor Karl Ivanovich Weber during his earlier visits to Korea. The newspaper framed the declaration as a product of Russian influence, arguing that “the neutral declaration was entirely orchestrated by pro-Russian factions following Russia’s directives.”

Japanese media quickly adopted a hostile stance. A January 25 editorial in the same newspaper argued Japan could not recognize the declaration, citing alleged Russian military movements into Seoul and along the Yalu and Tumen rivers. The editorial employed circular logic – branding Korean advocates of neutrality as “Russian puppets” while asserting Japanese military intervention would protect Korean independence, echoing justifications used during the First Sino-Japanese War.

Korean acting minister Hyun Bo-un formally delivered the neutrality declaration to the Japanese government on January 25, but Tokyo promptly decided to ignore it. This dismissive response revealed Japan’s determination to control Korean affairs regardless of diplomatic formalities.

Diplomatic Maneuvering Behind the Scenes

Japanese Foreign Minister Komura Jutarō reacted swiftly to news of the declaration. On January 21, he instructed Minister Hayashi Gonsuke in Seoul to confirm whether pro-Japanese minister Lee Ji-yong had sent the neutrality telegram while simultaneously pushing for the signing of a secret Japan-Korea protocol. Hayashi attempted to convince Korean officials that the neutrality declaration and secret treaty weren’t mutually exclusive, but Russian Minister Alexander Pavlov uncovered these machinations and reported them to St. Petersburg.

The proposed secret agreement contained alarming provisions: Korea would pledge never to take hostile action against Japan, while Japan would extradite Korean political refugees for the emperor’s “disposal.” Emperor Gojong vehemently rejected this proposal, labeling the three pro-Japanese ministers who presented it as “enemies of the state.” Historical accounts differ on Gojong’s exact words, but all agree he dismissed the ministers with instructions to resign if displeased.

Faced with this resistance, Tokyo temporarily abandoned its dual-track approach of pursuing both the secret treaty and neutrality declaration. By January 28, Japanese officials conceded that Gojong and his advisor Lee Yong-ik remained firmly committed to neutrality, making further persuasion futile at that moment.

Russia’s Calculated Response

On January 28, Gojong showed Minister Pavlov a troubling telegram from Korea’s minister to Russia, expressing hesitation about formally presenting the neutrality declaration due to concerns it contradicted earlier secret assurances of Korean support for Russia in case of war. Gojong explained the declaration was merely a tactical move against Japanese pressure, pledging to openly ally with Russia once hostilities began.

Russian Foreign Minister Vladimir Lamsdorf’s January 29 response carefully balanced diplomatic language with strategic interests. While welcoming Korea’s neutrality declaration “with full sympathy,” the wording (“prinialo k svedeniiu”) indicated acknowledgment rather than full endorsement. This nuanced position allowed Russia to maintain relations with Korea while preserving flexibility for future actions.

Meanwhile, Western powers offered only perfunctory acknowledgments of the declaration. Britain and the United States merely noted receipt without substantive engagement, reflecting their reluctance to become entangled in the brewing conflict.

Shifting Political Alignments in Seoul

Gojong reshuffled his government during this critical period, removing pro-Japanese officials from key positions. On January 21, he replaced Minister of War Min Yeong-cheol with Lee Yong-ik, who also assumed control of the royal treasury. By January 25, Park Je-sun became foreign minister, though Lee Ji-yong temporarily retained the acting minister role. These changes signaled Gojong’s decisive turn away from Japanese influence.

Japanese diplomats circulated dubious reports, including claims that Pavlov advised Gojong to seek refuge in the Russian or French legations if war broke out. No Russian documents support this allegation, suggesting Japanese officials fabricated intelligence to justify their anti-Russian stance.

The Russian Leadership’s Strategic Debate

A pivotal January 28 conference in St. Petersburg revealed deep divisions within Russian leadership. Chaired by Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich, the meeting included key ministers debating whether to concede Korea entirely to Japan or maintain certain strategic demands.

The navy emphasized the vital importance of keeping northern Korea as a neutral buffer zone to protect Port Arthur. Foreign Minister Lamsdorf advocated focusing on prohibiting military use of Korean territory while potentially dropping the neutral zone demand. War Minister Aleksey Kuropatkin surprisingly suggested compromise, arguing that war over Korea would disadvantage Russia militarily.

The conference ultimately produced two proposals: one maintaining the neutral zone along the 39th parallel, another abandoning it while restricting military use of Korean territory. This indecision reflected Russia’s unpreparedness for confrontation with Japan. As historian Lukoyanov observed, the meeting demonstrated “a peculiar collapse of both state rationality and political will” among Russian leaders.

The Futility of Korea’s Neutrality Gambit

Korea’s neutrality declaration emerged as a desperate attempt to preserve sovereignty amid great power rivalry, but ultimately proved ineffective. Several factors doomed the effort:

1. Japan’s determination to control Korea rendered the declaration irrelevant in practice
2. Russia’s conditional support lacked substantive commitment
3. Western powers showed no interest in enforcing Korean neutrality
4. Korea lacked military strength to defend its neutral status

The declaration’s failure underscored Korea’s precarious position as an object rather than subject of international relations. Within months, Japan would impose the Japan-Korea Protocol of 1904, effectively making Korea a protectorate and setting the stage for full annexation in 1910.

Lasting Historical Significance

This episode offers crucial insights into early 20th century imperialism and the limitations of diplomatic neutrality. Korea’s experience demonstrates how small nations became pawns in great power conflicts, with formal sovereignty offering little protection against determined imperialists.

The failed neutrality declaration also highlights the strategic miscalculations on all sides. Russia’s indecision and Japan’s uncompromising stance created conditions for the Russo-Japanese War, while Korea’s leadership overestimated the viability of neutrality as a survival strategy.

Modern parallels abound, as small states continue navigating between competing powers. Korea’s 1904 experience remains a cautionary tale about the challenges of maintaining neutrality in geopolitically contested regions, from Ukraine to Taiwan. The episode reminds us that diplomatic declarations require power to enforce them – a lesson with enduring relevance in international relations.