Another Eulsa Year, another blow to Korea’s sovereignty

By Bon-young Lee | November 19, 2025 | Originally published in Hankyoreh

US President Donald Trump shakes hands with President Lee Jae Myung of South Korea at a welcome ceremony held at the Gyeongju National Museum on Oct. 29, 2025, ahead of their bilateral summit. (courtesy of the presidential office)

This past Monday, Nov. 17, marked the 120th anniversary of the signing of what’s known in Korea as the Eulsa Treaty, which made Korea a protectorate of Japan and set the stage for its colonization. On that day in 1905, the nobles of the Korean Empire who had vowed to protect their country tucked their tails between their legs, one by one, under coercion and in the face of obstinance and placation from Hirobumi Ito. 

Thus, the most notorious treaty in all of Korean history was drawn up and signed, marking the beginning of the fall of Korea. Four months earlier, the Japanese received tacit approval to govern Korea in the confidential Taft-Katsura agreement. 

In the sexagenary cycle used by many cultures in East Asia, 2025 is an “Eulsa Year” — the Year of the Wood Snake, in zodiac terms — just as 1905 was. On Nov. 14, after a rocky negotiation cycle, the South Korean administration signed a memorandum of understanding on its tariff negotiations with the US. The National Assembly is still in a heated debate over whether the MOU about South Korea investing US$350 billion in the US requires the National Assembly’s ratification. 

The People Power Party and the rest of the opposition argue that since the treaty “will burden the state or people with an important financial obligation,” it requires the National Assembly’s ratification, as stipulated in the Constitution. 

The Lee Jae Myung administration and the ruling Democratic Party argue that MOUs are not legally binding and therefore do not require the legislature’s ratification. The administration also argues that ratifying the MOU would make it an official treaty, thereby shackling the administration to terms that would prevent it from renegotiating and maneuvering. 

If the agreement does evolve into an official treaty, either in name or form, it’s liable to be belittled as the “New Eulsa Treaty.” 

This is another reason for the government to avoid the term “treaty” at all costs. In the first phase of tariff negotiations, the US demanded the authority to decide when and where the US$350 billion went. Some within the administration reportedly reacted to it by calling it a second Eulsa Treaty.

The original Eulsa Treaty, sometimes referred to in English as the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905, made the Korean Empire a protectorate under Imperial Japan, so the trade MOU is indeed different in nature. 

Japan, 120 years ago, was in the midst of swallowing up its neighboring countries. Korean Empire nobles beat their chests in the morning about protecting their country, and in the evening stuck their tails between their legs. This time around, the Lee administration worked around the clock to ensure that Korea would not have to cave to the absurd demands of the US. Many assess the deal as one in which the Lee administration put up a good defense and at least avoided the worst-case scenario. 

But no matter how you spin it, Korea got the short end of the stick. Our economic sovereignty has been damaged. It’s difficult to think of any modern case of one country plundering another country this way. The methods used boggle the mind. Whatever happened to “give and take” being the basic principle of negotiations and deals? US President Donald Trump refers to himself as a dealmaker, but what he’s offering us is not fair compensation. 

With a big stick in one hand and a small stick in the other, he says he’ll only hit us with the small stick if we offer something in return. Now that he’s secured a deal, he’s taking a finger instead of the arm and leg that he threatened to cut off. After imposing 25% tariffs for the first time, he secured a massive payment in exchange for the kindness of lowering the tariff rate to 15%. Mobsters running protection rackets and robbers are no doubt taking notes. 

South Korea’s civil code refers to acts that defy common sense and are contrary to good morals or sound ethical appraisals — in other words, acts that contradict social norms — as “juristic acts contrary to social order,” and thereby declares them null and void. The code also refers to any unjust acts of exploiting someone’s economically deprived status as “unfair juristic behavior.” 

Referring to the domestic civil code in response to a situation in international relations is pointless. However, considering the severity of the circumstances, it’s not enough to simply console ourselves by saying, “We did the best we could.” We must face the facts. 

The Lee administration claims that it secured a more favorable agreement than Japan. Yet within the global tariff war that Trump started, the only countries that the US has arm-twisted into pledging direct cash investments from the government are South Korea and Japan. If Japan’s terms are more unfavorable than South Korea’s, Japan is in last place and South Korea is next to last. In a disaster, you cannot console yourself by saying someone else has it worse than you; it doesn’t change the fact that you’re miserable. 

Looking back, the Eulsa Year of 1965, the one that fell between 1905 and 2025, was another year of trials and tribulations for Korea. The process of the Park Chung-hee regime normalizing relations with Japan put South Korean society through the wringer. That’s the year when South Korea began sending troops to fight in the Vietnam War. Only after thousands of young men were killed were we able to escape from the jungle. 

1905, 1965, 2025 — all three years have been messy and involved the US and Japan. South Korea has always been the victim. 

While we need to be realistic, we cannot simply resign ourselves to a c’est la vie attitude. That clouds our understanding of the real problem. 

“In negotiations that we did not ask for, our sole strength is the ability to endure.” These words from President Lee Jae Myung in the press conference about the MOU sounded more like a sigh than a statement. We must harness our rage now so that our posterity does not suffer a bitter fate in the next Eulsa Year. 

Bon-young Lee is a senior economics writer at The Hankyoreh.