The argument for ‘Peace in the East(Peace in the Orient)’ first surfaced in the late 19th century, and continued to exist as an agenda that was commonly discussed in all three countries of East Asia at the time. In Japan, opinions of the Meiji Emperor, stance of the military and bureaucracy, ideas of far-right aggressors as well as a small pocket of humanitarians, were all mixed up to form the Japanese version of the argument. In China, Sun Wen advocated ‘Pan-Asianism’ while Lidazhao supported the ‘New Asianism,’ and in Korea, authentic discussions only began after the Eulsa-year Treaty(‘Japan?Korea Treaty of 1905’). There were many variations, involving not only the ‘Argument for Peace in the East’ but also the ‘Argument for alliance among three states,’ and even arguments for World peace.
The argument for ‘Peace in the East’ was born out of a regional order that was going through a transnational situation, especially at the time of the China-Japan War. At first it appeared as a discourse supporting regional cooperation in East Asia. The reason for Japan’s continuous support of this argument, which was never fully defined until the Second war between China and Japan, was because Japan was seeking to recruit neighboring countries into a chain of command with Japan at the top to fulfill its own cause of expansionism, and also hoped that such new hierarchy would accelerate the integration of countries and societies that had been colonized by Japan into a Japan-based regional order.
In the eyes of the governments and modernists, both on sides of Japan and Korea(the Great Han Empire), the concept of “peace” inside the argument was merely a rhetoric. The War between Russia and Japan that broke out in 1905, and the actions of Ito Hirobumi, were all numerously cited as ‘efforts toward Oriental peace.’ After the conclusion of the Russia-Japan war, the discussion in Korea over this argument was led by the Iljin-hwe society and pro-Japanese people. They supported the Japanese “Peace in Asia” theory, or defended it in terms of an expansionist cause.
But as time went on, the Korean people’s criticism on the subject began to pour out. By the time of Ito Hirobumi’s death and as annexation talks further developed, the Nationalist camp began to raise fundamental questions and criticized the fictitious nature of the “Peace in Asia” argument. Shin Chae-ho’s criticism on the subject was one of them. At first he had no interest in it as he did not trust the very notion and did not expect anything to come out of such suggestion, but as he witnessed how discussions progressed, he began to point out all the flaws, as well as some alternatives to ponder on.
The classical concept of peace, which pursues ‘social justice,’ could be an effective criterion to assess the reality of East Asia and Korea at the time. Immanuel Kant’s ‘theory of perpetual peace(Zum ewigen Frieden)’ aims at establishing international peace & order through organizing a league of countries to exercise autonomy. The ‘Declaration of Independence’ as of February 8th and March 1st, claiming for Peace in Asia, peace in the world and human happiness, falls under the category of ‘passive stance toward peace,’ while Shin Chae-ho’s position and opinions might fall under the category of ‘active stance toward peace,’ as it tried to reveal the pathological nature of the Japanese notion of peace, and form a platform for armed resistance against Japanese imperialism’s structural violence while suggesting the alliance with the international society including China.