Reconstruction of the assassination of Kim Ok-gyun

The involvement of Joseon, Qing, and Japan in Kim Ok-gyun’s assassination is as follows: Qing orchestrated the plan through Li Jingfang (李經方) and Yuan Shikai (袁世凱), Japan provided financial support through Omiwa Chobe (大三輪長兵衛), and Joseon carried out the execution under King Gojong’s orders through Lee Se-jik (李世稙) and Hong Jong-woo (洪鍾宇). Behind this process were Qing’s planning and inducement, Japan’s tacit support and connivance, and Joseon’s directives and execution. The responses of Qing and Japan to Kim Ok-gyun’s assassination are as follows: First, Okochi Narimori (大越成徳), acting Japanese consul general in Shanghai, anticipated the danger to Kim Ok-gyun in Shanghai but took a passive approach by sending a secretary instead of attending the assassination site himself. He also avoided mentioning Navy Captain Shimazaki Yoshitada (島崎好忠), who was present at the scene, and instead emphasized the roles of Qing and Joseon governments. Second, Shanghai magistrate Huang Chengxuan (黄承暄) wrote a report focused on facts rather than personal opinions. He identified Hong Jong-u as the primary culprit in Kim Ok-gyun’s assassination and detailed his testimony, naturally revealing the involvement of the Joseon government. Third, Li Hongzhang (李鴻章), the Beiyang Viceroy, regarded Kim Ok-gyun as “the main instigator of rebellion in Joseon” and ordered, “Send Hong Jong-u back to Joseon,” actively supporting the Joseon government’s handling of the assassination. Fourth, Japanese Foreign Minister Mutsu Munemitsu (陸奥宗光) was aware of the assassination risk two months prior but maintained a passive stance, following Japan’s diplomatic policy of ensuring “Qing always takes the lead.” Western diplomats suspected the involvement of Qing or Japan in Kim Ok-gyun’s assassination and anticipated potential conflict between the two powers. First, Russian Minister to China, A.P. Kassinin, believed the Qing government orchestrated the assassination, with the Joseon government dispatching assassins to carry it out. He also concluded that the Japanese government, despite knowing of the assassination plan in advance due to diplomatic and economic interests, tolerated and even abetted it. Kassinin reported that after the ban on rice exports from Joseon to Japan was lifted, public opinion in Shanghai accused Japan of using and betraying Kim Ok-gyun. Second, French Minister to Korea, G. Lefèvre, suggested the Qing government might have instigated Kim Ok-gyun’s assassination and predicted that the incident would ultimately lead to a conflict between Qing and Japan. Regarding Kim Ok-gyun’s assassination, the governments of Joseon, Qing, and Japan did not oppose it. Western diplomats in Korea, except for the Japanese minister, did not directly object to Joseon’s decision to execute Kim by dismemberment. Japan, in particular, actively leveraged Kim’s execution, using it and Jeon Bong-jun’s first uprising as justification for military intervention in Joseon and the start of the First Sino-Japanese War. The issues of Joseon’s independent modernization, Kim Ok-gyun’s reforms as a political exile, and human rights were of no concern to the great powers. Even in the face of Kim’s brutal execution, a clear violation of human rights, Western legations in Korea prioritized their national interests and showed a passive stance.