[Reading the World Through Han Feizi] Why South Korea Needs Legalist Thought

Legalism: A School of Thought Born of Geopolitical Conditions

There is a saying that to see 100 years of Chinese history, go to Shanghai; to see 500 years, go to Beijing; to see 3,000 years, go to Xi’an. And to see 5,000 years, one must go to Henan. The reason is simple: that is where history began.

History began in Henan 5,000 years ago, and the land where it began was called the Central Plains. Strictly speaking, the Central Plains did not originally refer to all of China, but to the middle reaches of the Yellow River. Yet that land had a destiny—one of hardship. It was where civilization began. It was also the center of the world under heaven. Naturally, many powerful states coveted and envied it. The envied land became a place where powers collided, a battleground of rival forces, and the state of Zheng during the Spring and Autumn period was a typical example.

Jin to the north, Chu to the south, Qin to the west, and Qi to the east—these powerful states were constantly clashing in the Central Plains. As a result, the states there were continually subjected to direct and indirect domination and invasion by outside powers. But this land of hardship produced masters of diplomacy and thinkers who advocated the rule of law. The home of the School of Diplomacy and Legalism was precisely the Central Plains. For the states and people established there, there was no room for choice. Could abstract talk, discourse for discourse’s sake, theory for theory’s sake, really emerge from a land of hardship? When survival had to be secured by any means, the only path to survival on that land must have been clear rule of law and skillful diplomacy.

The diplomatic strategists Su Qin and Zhang Yi came from the Central Plains. So too did the Legalist thinkers Zi Chan of Zheng, Wu Qi, Shang Yang, Li Si, and Han Feizi. All were from the Central Plains. That land of hardship could not help but produce Legalist thinkers who swayed the world with the power of speech, pushed through reform, strengthened states through institutional change, and organized national power through rule-based governance. Perhaps that is why, when one reads Han Feizi’s text Han Feizi and Shang Yang’s text The Book of Lord Shang, the character bi (必), meaning “must,” appears over and over again.

Must! The state must become strong! The state must become prosperous! They set forth political methods and policies that must enable the state to survive. Simply from how frequently bi (必) appears in their books, and from the content of the sentences in which it is used, one can sense how desperate they were. Struggling to survive amid the pressure of great powers, they had no choice but to cast aside rigid moral pretexts and sentiment and devote themselves to the scientific techniques of politics. Legalism, then, was a product born of geopolitical conditions.

From the Post–Cold War Era to the New Cold War

Geopolitical conditions matter so much in understanding Legalist thought that the more one studies Legalism, the harder it is not to think of Korea. Is not Korea’s own geopolitical environment every bit as perilous? Is it because our country shares its name, Han, with Han Feizi’s homeland, Han? We Koreans, who have made our home on the Korean Peninsula, have likewise had to pursue survival and prosperity under a destiny of hardship. The four great powers surrounding us are the United States, China, Russia, and Japan. These four powerful external forces have pressed in on us from all sides, and now it even seems that North Korea should be added, making it a configuration of five powers.

President Moon Jae-in’s foreign policy is deeply regrettable. Relations with Japan are at their worst, China disregards us, and the United States is suspicious of us. Is that why Russian surveillance aircraft are all too frequently entering and leaving our airspace? The situation is far from normal. Chinese Ambassador Qiu Guohong and Foreign Minister Wang Yi have not hesitated to make direct, threatening remarks regarding intermediate-range missiles and THAAD. China and the United States, and Russia and the United States, are in conflict over the deployment of intermediate-range missiles, and anyone reading reporter Minseok Kim’s article in JoongAng Ilbo would find it hard not to be concerned.

According to reporter Minseok Kim, the fallout from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) issue, which began in Europe, has finally spread to East Asia. An unavoidable danger that cannot simply be ignored is approaching. At just such a moment, the United States and Japan have begun consultations on the deployment of intermediate-range missiles, and the United States has reportedly expressed its intention to negotiate not only with Japan but also with Australia in order to deploy multiple intermediate-range conventional missiles in the Pacific region. Naturally, China and Russia are reacting strongly. But the reality is that the missile competition has already begun.

The Global Times, which candidly reveals the Chinese Communist Party’s true intentions, has said that South Korea and Japan must not become cannon fodder for the United States nor become enemies of China. Russia has made similar remarks. It even warned that any country deploying U.S. intermediate-range missiles would be regarded as an enemy and could become a target of nuclear attack.

In fact, Russia and China were the first to start and provoke this. China in particular deployed missiles aimed at attacking the Korean Peninsula and missiles designed to target aircraft carriers coming to Korea’s aid in an emergency. China’s missiles are also targeting the shipping lanes from the Philippines to Ieodo, through which the resources, energy, and trade that Korea and Japan regard as lifelines pass. The United States, of course, cannot simply stand by and watch, and is responding through its so-called Indo-Pacific strategy. Will this land become, as it was in the late Joseon period, another arena for a struggle among the powers?

People say we have entered a new Cold War from the post–Cold War era, yet our country is showing confusion in diplomacy and facing strong suspicion from its allies about the direction of its foreign policy. Both at home and abroad, there is widespread suspicion that we may be drifting away from the maritime civilization bloc of the United States and Japan and moving into the continental bloc of North Korea, China, and Russia. Will we abandon, without any national consensus, the fence and shelter that formed the foundation and safeguard of our economic development and prosperity, and submit ourselves to a China-centered order? It is hard not to be deeply worried.

On the Korean Peninsula, a land of hardship, we did not merely survive—we created prosperity. We succeeded in compressed growth, escaped the middle-income trap early, and reached the lower ranks of the advanced countries. But many now seem anxious about how long that prosperity can last and whether it can endure. Beyond the variables of China’s rise and the missile issue, people also speak of a reshaping of the international order due to the shale gas boom. Uncertainty in the international environment is increasing. The United States no longer needs to cling to Middle Eastern oil as it once did, and is now in a position to export energy. As a result, many point out that the international community could rapidly move into an utterly unpredictable, zero-visibility situation.

Perhaps that is all the more reason we need Legalist thought, and Han Feizi’s realism and objectivism, today. What we need is not abstract talk, empty high-minded rhetoric, or an excess of ideology, but the practical, reality-based thinking and empirically grounded spirit of Legalism. In this new Cold War era, we should think seriously and newly arm ourselves intellectually so that we can respond to the pressure China projects toward us and survive. That is why we need Legalism, a school of thought forged in a land of hardship. It is because the destiny of hardship seems to be approaching us once again in this new Cold War era.

---

Original title: [한비자로 세상읽기]대한민국에 법가 사상이 필요한 이유

Author: Geon-sun Im

Date: 2020-01-07

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=column&pn=10&idx=22263