『隋書』 「百濟傳」에 보이는 武王의 二重外交와 濟ㆍ麗關係

Abstract

Regarding the time of cooperation between Baekje and Koguryo, 643 years is generally considered as the starting point. But this article asserts that the time above is around 607-611. King Mu of Baekje sent an envoy to Sui dynasty(隋) in 607 to ask for an attack on Koguryo. However, when Sui dynasty invaded Koguryo, Baekje did nothing. On this basis, Baekjejeon of Suishu(『隋書』 「百濟傳」) criticized that Baekje had allied with Koguryo from the start and deceived Sui dynasty. This article generally accepts an explanation of Baekjejeon of Suishu, even though there is an error. Baekje took advantage of Koguryo in 598 and 607 to improve the relationship with Sui dynasty, but suffered only the effects of being attacked by Koguryo without any significant diplomatic achievements. There was no benefit to be gained by keeping a check on Koguryo and it did not match Baekje's strategic goal of regaining Hangang river basin(漢江流域). So King Mu has changed his foreign policy especially about Koguryo and this is the dual diplomacy what this article asserts. King Mu judged that it would be more practical to form a cooperative relationship than to attract Koguryo. Actually, Baekje no longer had any military clashes with Koguryo since 607, and only Silla was targeted. For the same reason, Koguryo also chose to cooperate with Baekje. Becuase at that time, Koguryo stood in confrontation with Sui dynasty in the north and Silla(新羅) in the south. This consensus of interests between the two countries enabled the establishment of an alliance between Baekje and Koguryo after 607. However, Baekje had its own worries. Baekje was unable to disclose cooperation with Koguryo to Sui dynasty because it had insisted on its antagonism against Koguryo in the past. It is an act of antagonism against Sui dynasty. Therefore, Baekje was forced to cooperate secretly with Koguryo and at the same time it had to cheat Sui dynasty. In this regard, Baekje's diplomacy can not be regarded as a neutral or balanced one that can not be biased toward either side. It can be defined as diplomatic tactics, including deception and it is appropriate to call it dual diplomacy when it comes to the use of terminology.