Liability without Suzerainty: Making Sense of Qing China’s Alarmism during the Korean Trespasser Crisis of 1862-75

The Tongzhi reign (1862-1875) was marked by the Qing officials’ continuous voicing of concerns about Korean trespassing and illegal settlement in Primorsky Krai, part of Russia’s Far Eastern borderland. In fact, the Qing court in Beijing had been taken accountable by the French and American governments for the damage caused by the Chosŏn defense forces when the two Western countries invaded Chosŏn Korea in 1866 and 1871, respectively. The Westerners considered the Qing to be responsible for its tribute state’s acts on the grounds of their tribute relationship. Nevertheless, when Qing China attempted to preemptively spare itself from another diplomatic issue, this time with Russia, by asking both the Chosŏn king and the Russian ambassador to cooperate in repatriating Korean residents in Primorsky Krai, Russia refused to acknowledge China’s tribute relationship with Korea as its “ticket” to intervene in the matter concerning Korean trespassers. Therefore, although the Qing’s alarmism during the Korean Trespasser Crisis of 1862-75 first started for fear of facing another diplomatic issue with another Western imperialist power, Russia, it might not have continued incessantly if it weren’t also the time during which the Qing was taught that its ties with Korea could be but a “liability without suzerainty.” That is, it could be held responsible for its tribute state Chosŏn’s actions but was denied control over Koreans, not to mention unable to directly deal with the issue of Korean trespassers in Russian Far East which were the cause of potential trouble facing the Qing.