Доклады Международного конгресса ИИСАА. Т. 1

III. Far East, South and South-East Asia / Дальний Восток, Южная и Юго-Восточная Азия 342 Proceedings of the International Congress on Historiography and Source Studies of Asia and Africa.Vol. I. 2020 Korean Participation One unfortunate consequence of the United States and Soviet Union failure was that it blocked direct Korean participation in a process dedicated toward restoring their country’s reunification and sovereignty. This, however, does not mean that the Korean people were not active in putting forth their views during the two years of Joint Commission meetings. Indeed, at the core of the US-USSR dispute was the zealous opposition to trusteeship, and in some cases the entire process, by influential Korean right-wing leaders. In truth, though, Korean activities varied in accordance with the different ideological blocs that they represented, with each influencing the talks in different ways. In the south the newspapers provided one outlet for Koreans of influence to voice their concerns over the process. Pak Hǒn’yǒng, an important leftist leader in the South Korean Worker’s Party until 1948 when he relocated to the north, was particularly active in encouraging southern Koreans to accept the Moscow Decision process as the quickest way toward their regaining national sovereignty. Pak appeared careful not to publicly criticize trusteeship directly; he also did not actively endorse it. His newspaper editorials and public lectures criticized the “fascist opposition,” its close traitorous connections with colonial-era Japanese, and its determined efforts to undermine the Moscow Decision process. He advertised the People’s Committees’ capacity to produce a unified Korean state and a land reform policy to sweep landlords from Korean society. While he hinted at the need for overseas guidance he avoided direct mention of the word “trusteeship.” Instead, he used the word “ hukyǒn ,” a term he defined asAllied “cooperation and assistance to guarantee Korea’s independence.” 1 Koreans who opposed parts or all of the Moscow Decision appealed to all “patriotic organizations” to oppose trusteeship. 2 Syngman Rhee, who later would serve as the Republic of Korea’s first president, urged Koreans to voice their opposition to trusteeship. He was among the first to advance the idea of south-only elections, perhaps over the concern that his political ambitions would be in jeopardy should Korea opt for a national election. Internal U.S. reports described Rhee as a thorn in the side of the United States administration, with Hodge privately warning Secretary of State Marshall that Rhee’s activities in Seoul “threatened to sabotage the Russian-American talks here.” Hodge also reasoned that “the state [department] 1 Pak Hǒn’yǒng. Chǒngbu suripkwa na ŭi chǒng’ǒn [My Suggestions for Government in Formation] and Chosǒn imsi chǒngbu Pusurip e tae haya (wi) [What is essential for the Establishment of a Korea Provisional Government]. Both articles are found in “Ichǒng Pak Hǒn’yǒng chǒnjip” P’yǒnjip wiwǒnhoe / Ed. Ichǒng Pak Hǒn’yǒng chǒnjip [Pak Hǒn’yǒng Collected Works]. Vol. 2. Seoul: Yŏksa pip’yŏgsa, 2004. P. 218–22. (In Korean). 2 Kim Ku. Kak aekuk tanch’e kuiha: Pantak tokrip t’uchaeng e kwanhan kǒn // Paekbom Kim Ku chǒnjip. [Kim Ku. Collected Works // To All Patriotic Organizations: Regarding the Anti-Trusteeship Struggle]. Vol. 8. Seoul: Namamch’ulp’an, 1999. P. 686. (In Korean).