[KS] Re: Unequal treaties

Kirk Larsen kwlarsen at fas.harvard.edu
Tue Aug 25 11:09:35 EDT 1998


Alain DELISSEN wrote:


>I am a bit bewildered however.
>The higher tariff rates, the "more generous" Treaty provisions.
>5-7% was "low" but hence not precisely "generous" toward Korea. True, it
>was higher than what China had had to swallow in 1842 and after (5%).
>The US-Korea Treaty was more generous (10%) albeit still quite unequal on
>other respects.

Apologies for not making myself more clear. The tariff rates in the
initial treaties signed between Britain and Germany on the one hand and
Korea on the other followed the pattern of the US-Korea Treaty almost word
for word. This should not be surprising since Chinese officials, most
notably Ma Jianzhong, essentially wrote them. Hence, in comparison to
other "unequal" treaties, they were "generous" to Korea in that they
allowed Korea to earn comparatively more revenue from taxing trade.
British officials, however, were furious when they discovered this (they
were also a bit worried about a provision that prohibited the sale of
opium) and demanded revision. The revised treaties were the ones with the
"low" (and hence less lucrative to the Korean government) 5-7% tariff
rates.  

>Not to recall that average rates could be misleading, the question of who
>got to be "in charge" of the custom services (Li Hongzang's China in
Korea)
>is more essential.

Chinese-appointed officials ran the Korean customs service for the nearly
two decades of its existence before the Japanese took over in 1905.
However, aside from the occasional veto when then Korean government sought
to use customs revenue as security for a foreign loan, neither Li
Hongzhang nor the officials he appointed to manage the Korean customs
service seem to have exercised much control over how the revenue was
actually spent. 
 
hope this helps,

Kirk W. Larsen
kwlarsen at fas.harvard.edu




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%





More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list