By Eric Vandenbroeck and co-workers

The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere Part One of Two

Initially mentioned in an article we posted about the Kingdom of Hawaii that extended to Eastern and Western Polynesia we referred to the East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

As suggested at the time through the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, the Japanese imperialists devised and established a hierarchy structure that placed Japan at the top and placed other countries at lower levels. This hierarchical structure was seemingly intended to negate the Western concept of “colonialism” and “self-determination of nations.”

The concept resembled the United States’ Monroe Doctrine, which opposed European colonialism in the Western hemisphere. With the same conviction to dominate a unified area of influence, Japanese imperial rule had long dreamt of putting the ideals of Pan-Asianism into practice. Typically imperialistic, Pan-Asianism is characterized by the belief in the political and economic unity of the Asian people. Although the official announcement only came in 1940, Japanese propaganda from the 1930s had already demonstrated the tenets of this concept.

It showed the typical principle of divide and rule that encouraged discrimination and misconception within East Asia. The countries that were split by mutual control and opposition were bound together by the same goal of opposing the U.S. and the Western world. The case of Joseon and Taiwan, which were at once colonies and regarded as extensions of Japanese imperialism, clearly shows the contradictions inherent in this idea.

The opinions and views suggested and presented during the era of the so-called Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere bore traces of this contradiction faced by Japanese imperialism. For example, the planners of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere were the firmest believers and strongest supporters of the idea which supposed the exclusively distinctive superiority of the Japanese people. They believed that the most important accomplishment to be achieved in establishing the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was to establish the Japanese people’s basic perspective viewing other peoples of other countries.

They argued that “We, the Yamato people, the core of the construction of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, should always stay above other peoples of other countries and maintain a level of dignity and superiority as the leader figure. So, in terms of actual policies and also the execution of them, we should avoid treating ourselves the same as other peoples, and we should not hesitate to take drastic measures regardless of the status of the population”.

To do so, the expansion of the Japanese population and upgrading the Japanese people’s level of potential were considered to be the imperative tasks of the day, as only such expansion and upgrades would serve as the basis for the construction of the so-called Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. They also argued that people should get married while still young, have more children, and establish plans to support mothers with children. Ultimately, they were strongly suggesting the elimination of Western philosophies based upon individualism and ejecting them from the Japanese people’s minds, and they were also suggesting the promotion of a philosophy that had been based upon the traditional household units (家) to support enlarging the Japanese population.

They also considered two things to be very important in their policies regarding the nationality issue. One was the emphasis on the purity of the blood. The other was the suggestion of the importance that the education of the Japanese language supposedly harbored. The latter was considered important because the Japanese language would ultimately have to serve its role as the primary language in all the countries inside the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. They explained that the U.S. and U.K. were able to maintain a certain level of rule in Southeast Asia because the English language had spread throughout the world, and they argued that “the Japanese language should be promoted and spread to such extent as well, to ultimately replace the English language in the region.” In other words, “the local languages would prove to be insufficient in the task of letting all the people inside the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere understand the real meaning of being part of the national polity (kokutai) to embrace the meaning of establishing the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”, and that was why the spreading of the Japanese language was called for.

Regarding the issue of blood purity, the Japanese imperialists argued that to put all the effort and strength of the Japanese people together and to maintain a superior position to those of other countries and peoples, the Japanese people living in areas other than the homeland should live in a concentrated fashion, in groups. They also recommended that they avoid interracial marriage by not blending in other peoples’ residential areas. They believed that the “inherent superiority of the Japanese people” would be compromised if such interracial marriages occurred and strongly suggested that to maintain the level of purity, the people who were leaving the homeland might as well be accompanied by (Japanese) their life partners.

Yet, unlike the issue of language, the issue of blood purity did invoke a controversy. For example, some believed that maintaining the so-called purity of blood was a rather difficult task and even simply not possible, and thus banning people from producing mixed children would, in the end, cause unexpected side effects. Some suggested that approving the production of mixed children and guiding them to become genuine members of the Japanese people would be an honorable act of serving the spirit of “hakko ichiu,” the spirit of imperial benevolence that should be prevalent throughout the Empire. Some even expressed their opinion of actively introducing Japanese blood into the veins of other people through interracial marriage.

The Greater East Asia Conference, 1943

Interestingly enough, in the case of Joseon, the idea of introducing Japanese blood to the Joseon people’s biological makeup was frequently discussed as the Korean peninsula was considered to be a potential part of their territory for the future. The land was going to be owned and regulated by the Japanese, so why not infuse Japanese blood with the Korean? In regions like Joseon, which were showing traces of advanced levels of assimilation into the Japanese Empire, the Japanese also intended to recruit women from higher levels of society, have them live in a sort of concentrated facility, and encourage them to have and give birth to mixed children, and give them extra special education.

Yet, in the end, regarding the issue of blood purity, the Japanese imperial authorities maintained a strict prohibition of interracial marriage in their effort to maintain the level of purity of the Japanese blood, despite the general position of earlier. So it was stated that “instead of going astray in an abstract and passive effort to suppress inter-racial marriage and producing mixed children, a detailed policy should be established. This racist principle was not only applied to the relationship between Japan and other Asian countries but was also applied to that between the Western world and Asia. In this vein, all the people living inside the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere were strictly instructed not to have inter-racial marital relationships with White people to maintain the purity of the blood of East Asian peoples.

This kind of perspective on the issue of the superiority of the Japanese differed slightly from the opinions of Ozaki Hotsumi (尾崎秀實), who led the effort to establish the theory of the East Asian Cooperative Community (To-a kyo-do-tai), and Koiso Kuniaki (小磯國昭), who suggested the establishment of the East Asian Coalition (To-a renmei). Koiso Kuniak

Koiso Kuniak suggested the establishment of a vast coalition that would include not only Japan, Manchuria, and China (at the center), but also Southeast Asia, the East Indian islands, and parts of the Pacific Ocean. Even though his true intentions were murky at best, and there was no way his plans could have been implemented or transformed into reality, he argued that Japan’s advance into Southeast Asia would enable it to free those countries that had been suppressed and colonized by Western powers, and the peoples in those areas would be granted political autonomy in electing their leaders, who would eventually come to serve as links between Tokyo and the local areas. He also insisted that such a political system would be very important for the economic bonding that would have to be established between the colonies and the Japanese homeland, and he hoped that the establishment of an independent economic block in East Asia would prove to be an effective tool in leveling the playground in their negotiation and trade with the Western world.

Asia for Asiatics: Driving Out Western Imperialism

Ozaki, who suggested the establishment of the East Asian Cooperative Community, showed a more ideal attitude on the issue of nationalism. First, he thought the concept of the “East Asian New Order,” which intended to implement the plan of an East Asian Cooperative Community as announced by the cabinet of the Konoe Fumimaro (近衛文 ) administration in November 1938, to be a radically different doctrine from previous ones in terms of policies regarding China since the doctrine was not resorting to the Western style of intending to rule China by dividing it, but was trying to eliminate the clashes of interest between Japan and China to ultimately find a way for them to cooperate. To him, the news of the plan to establish the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, announced in August 1940, was not a favorable thing to hear. In his opinion, such a plan was only adding Southeast Asia (Nanyo-) to the region that was already covered by the plan for an East Asian New Order.

Just as China was a hot issue within the context of the theory of establishing an East Asian New Order, he asserted, the Southeast Asian area (Nambo) was an important issue in the creation of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The area was the arena in which world powers such as the United States and Great Britain confronted the self-liberation movements of the nations in the region. The core meaning of Nambo was related to the “national.” Furthermore, the promotion of national movements in Southeast Asia was going to be deeply related to national movements in China. So, he argued that the colonized and suppressed peoples of both regions (that is to say China and Nambo) should liberate themselves, stand up independently, and cooperate to establish the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

In order to establish a new order throughout East Asia, he asserted that “national movements in the Nambo region should neither be fostered nor regarded as part of political intrigues or strategic operations, but be embraced with wholehearted understanding”. He said that Southeast Asia should not be considered solely as “resource pools for Japan’s economic interest” or “military outposts for Japan,” and naturally he was tremendously critical of those who supported the Southward advance (nanshin) only in terms of extracting resources to establish the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The very first step and the overall premise for establishing the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was to not only expel the U.S. and U.K. entrepreneurs but also to eliminate the old order that had suppressed Asian nations for years. According to him, the liberation of the Asian nations that had suffered Western colonial rule would only be complete when the bases of old ruling systems were dismantled; he argued that that was the single most important factor in creating a new order that would prevail throughout East Asia.

Although a minority, part of the Japanese Communist Party also argued against the Japanese invasion and campaigns continuing in China and Southeast Asia and supported the liberation of those regions. Against the intentions of Japanese imperialists, they criticized the emptiness of the policies regarding national issues employed in Southeast Asian countries. In the cases of Malaysia, Java, Sumatra, and Borneo they argued that despite the vast lands and rich resources, the Japanese were not granting them any level or kind of independence, not even a false one, which they had granted to Burma or the Philippines. They also pointed out that the Japanese always openly addressed those regions as Japanese territories and colonies.

 

The Issue of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere as Dealt with in Japanese Post-1945 East Asian Studies

Differences of opinion on the nation and nationalism appeared not only during the so-called Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere period. East Asian studies also touched on such differences after the end of the War. Studies conducted on the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere in this period did not view the material as a mere historical fact or event. During the 1950s, Japan was advancing economically into Southeast Asian countries and needed to restore diplomatic relationships with nearby East Asian countries. Japan and its people also had to revise their role in the East Asian community, which would be required of them for their future. Right after the War, war tribunals found Japan responsible for the War, and the new Peace Constitution was enacted. During that time the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere had no place in Japan. It was a total nightmare that no one wished to have again. But in the 1960s, when Japan was actively involving itself in advances in Southeast Asian countries, the idea of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere came to be regarded as a historical concept that was quite attractive to researchers trying to find historical experiences that were positively related to the role that Japan had played in the region.

During the post-war period, Takeuchi Yoshimi, a specialist in Chinese studies in Japan, had to join a conference, which revealed the aforementioned atmosphere fairly vividly. The moderator said that, although the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was a concept somewhat apart from reality, it indeed had certain values and virtues that deserved an affirmative evaluation. He also tried to emphasize the supposed fact that the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere has indeed affected the national movements of various Asian countries. Another participant of the discussion pointed out that the concept had a certain historical meaning in that the Greater East Asian War (Pacific War in the United States) led to the liberations of many colonies, and that same participant also argued that Japanese activities were pretty similar to the French advances that had been made into several nearby European countries after the French Revolution. Takeuchi also agreed to such an assessment, pointing out as well that there had indeed been similarities. But in response to an argument saying that the Japanese invasions invoked the national awareness and sentimentalities of the Southeast Asian countries, Takeuchi said that it was the national movements that had existed even before the Japanese invasions that utilized such Japanese advances and invasions and not the other way around. Yet, in essence, he also agreed with the argument that the Japanese “advances” did have qualities that had stimulated national movements.

Notwithstanding efforts to acknowledge negative aspects generated by the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, actively trying to excavate new positive meanings out of the same concept has become a new major trend in post-war studies dedicated to the issue of this topic. For example, It is said that the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere did promise the fulfillment of some noble causes like the liberation of countries or the liberation of Asia but was rather detached from reality, and therefore ended up being mere rhetoric. Yet at the same time, it is also argued that naming all those things that Japan had done or uttered at the time to have been wrong or meaningless would be a self-negating act of depreciation and a willful distortion of facts. According to him, the sense of equality among the Asian people, the understanding of nationalism, and the respect toward the traditions and customs of the Asian people were things that came out from the Japanese people’s minds at the time. This kind of approach usually evaluates Japanese policies during wartime as an antithesis to the Western powers’ sentimentality of being rulers and their policy of divide and rule, and also perceives Japanese policies as an alternative way of Asian modernization against communist revolution theory. In other words, they find the Japanese policies toward Asian nations at that time worthy of re-evaluation.

There have been two different opinions conflicting with each other regarding the influences that Japan had upon South Asian countries under occupation by Japan. Some scholars emphasize the fact that the Japanese indeed nurtured and educated the people who later took charge of national movements. They argue that therefore all the national movements of the period had nothing to do with indigenously developed national movements. On the other hand, other scholars stressed the indigenously and also independently developed national movements and the relationships between those movements. They usually do not place much value on the experience of the Japanese occupation. The first opinion could be labeled as the theory of separation, and the second one could be labeled as the theory of consecutiveness. Needless to say, on a positive note the former tends to evaluate the intention of Japan, which triggered the Pacific War as leader of their own Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Surely these two opinions have not always been mutually exclusive, and recently they have been showing apparent compromise under the agreement of re-evaluating individual policies in terms of the role they played in maintaining the status of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. But the increasing level of conservatism of Japanese society is a fact that can no longer be ignored, and in such an atmosphere, affirmative re-evaluations of the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, and also that the war started under such cause, are turning up more and more often.

Then again, there have also been negative and critical opinions regarding the role of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Okabe Makio mentioned that the Japanese policies that were devised and implemented were all based upon considerations of the impending war, and were all chosen in Japan’s best interests, regardless of the issue of victory or defeat; there was no evidence that  Japan indeed intended to provide the day of true liberation and independence of Asian countries which they promised would come after the end of the War. He also said that the masterminds of certain political actions should face the consequences and take responsibility when the outcome did not turn out the way it was intended, but when such actions triggered a result that was not intended but ended up being positively received by the people in later days, the people behind such action should not try to take credit for that. It was his way of asking the Japanese people to re-evaluate their historical consciousness and ethical sensitivity.

This kind of minority opinion in Japan is serving as the opinion of the majority among Western scholars. This is especially true for the North American case. For example, Mark R. Peattie argued that Japan could not have possibly considered the people in the colonized regions to have been on the same level as their own considering the fundamental contradictions among the basic principles that underlay most of Japanese colonial doctrine.5 To him, the Japanese case was an entirely different one from the French ideology of assimilation which had such universalistic elements as the Republican ideology of 1789. Although the Japanese colonial rulers endlessly asserted the obligations that bound Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese, and Micronesians to a common emperor, they excluded these subject peoples from the rights held by Japanese citizens in the homeland under the Meiji constitution. And so, according to him, the assimilation of the Japanese Empire was only a useful administrative concept, a mechanical means by which to remold the colonial peoples into loyal, law-abiding subjects who could become almost Japanese.

A Japanese map detailing the southern resources such as oil, tin, and rubber, 1942, via Story of Hawaii Museum.

Peter Duus was also critical in evaluating Japanese policies on Asian nations during the era of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Although it was decorated with catchphrases like the “Destiny of the Nation,” the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was only a temporary and arbitrary answer to the situation that Japan was facing. By suggesting the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, Japan was able to harness the hopes and wishes that the Asian people had had for their liberation and channel them to be used for Japan’s desire and ambition to conquer the entire region. While claiming its own identity as a Pan-Nationalist one, in reality, Japan intended the expand its imperial rule throughout the region, and the concept also served to spread Japanese ideology throughout the region. Peter Duus asserted that it intended to reconcile world opinion by justifying military assaults in the name of Pan-Nationalism. Such an attempt, if it were successful, would have enabled Japan to justify the cause and initiation of an imperialistic expansion of territory in the era of anti-imperialism. Also, in another aspect, the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere could have served as a reason for local leaders and countries conquered and occupied by the Japanese to cooperate with the Japanese.

 

Hierarchies of the East Asian Nations

Then, how was the issue of nationalism embraced within the basic principles of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, and also how did it function along the actual implementation of policies based upon such principles? It is a well-known fact that by suggesting such a concept as the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere Japan was attempting to devise a set of principles constituting a philosophy of universality based upon supposedly Asian values, but in reality upon Japanese values, to fend off the Western world. Especially after the Japanese-Chinese War, Japan continued its efforts to develop new principles that would replace existing Western ideas such as “sovereignty,” “colonies” and “the self-determination of the nations,” and announce their own to the international society. Since justifying warfare with theories based upon a structure of conflicts with rich and poor nations as the main opponents was deemed insufficient, it became necessary to completely re-evaluate the principles of the self-determination of the nation and to extract an alternative.6 Either successful or not, all the theories such as the East Asian Cooperation Community of the Sho-wa Research Society (Showa kenkyu-kai) or the East Asian Coalition theory suggested by Kanji Ishiwara  (石原 莞) were all considered to have been part of such attempts.

In order to establish the distinctive characteristics of a specific realm of its own based upon mutual prosperity, and also a starkly discernible line between oneself and the others (in this case the Western world), openly negating and denying the existence of colonies would have been the most effective step to take. So, the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was propagated as a concept designed to serve the cause of dismantling traditional versions of colonies, and in an overall sense, denied the historical existence of the concept of colonies altogether. By creating and establishing a new realm of life, they argued that they would be able to suggest a new worldwide order based upon guidance and cooperation on a previously unseen, unprecedented level. In the hierarchy of the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, colonies as components were denied, and establishing military bases inside colonized areas was deemed unacceptable, in the spirit of enhancing the welfare of the world and mankind.

But as we all know, this was a very empty argument. The pre-designed nature of the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere had proven that already, as seen in the cases of Joseon and Taiwan which had already been considered as annexed and assimilated into the Japanese realm, and also in cases of Indonesia and Malaysia which the Japanese did not grant any level of independence because control over those countries (in terms of extracting resources) was crucial to Japan’s war effort after the Japanese established advances into Southeast Asian regions. Inside the hierarchy structure (the “New Order”) of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, as we know, the Asian countries were placed and linked with each other in a fairly multi-layered fashion. In the system, all the countries and peoples were assorted into several categories such as “leading states,” “independent states,” “independent Protectorates,” and “under supervision” etc. according to their statuses in terms of values, capabilities, the level of the public, and honorable achievements.

In August 1940, Japanese foreign minister Yōsuke Matsuoka announced on national radio the concept of a unified East Asia free of Western colonial subjugation. This came to be known officially as the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It promulgated the belief that Asia was meant for Asians and that any foreign subjugation would no longer be accepted under the newly established Japanese rule. Geographically, on top of mainland Japan, Manchukuo (Japan-occupied Manchuria), and China, Japanese rule would be expected to stretch to Southeast Asia, Eastern Siberia, and even extend to the outer regions of Australia, India, and the Pacific Islands.

Intuitively, most political observers would assert that the concept resembled the United States’ Monroe Doctrine, which opposed European colonialism in the Western hemisphere. With the same conviction to dominate a unified area of influence, Japanese imperial rule had long dreamt of putting the ideals of Pan-Asianism into practice. Typically imperialistic, Pan-Asianism is characterized by the belief in the political and economic unity of the Asian people. Although the official announcement only came in 1940, Japanese propaganda from the 1930s had already demonstrated the tenets of this concept.

All the opinions and views suggested and presented during the era of the so-called Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere were contradicted by Japanese imperialism. For example, the planners of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere were the most firm believers and strongest support ers of the idea which supposed the exclusively distinctive superiority of the Japanese people. They believed that the most important accomplishment to be achieved in establishing the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was to establish the Japanese people’s basic perspective viewing other peoples of other countries. They argued that “We, the Yamato people, the core of the construction of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, should always stay above other peoples of other countries and maintain a level of dignity and superiority as the leader figure. So, in terms of actual policies and also the execution of them, we should avoid treating ourselves the same as other people, and we should not hesitate to take drastic measures regardless of the status of the population. To do so, the expansion of the Japanese population and upgrading the Japanese people’s level of potential were considered to be the imperative tasks of the day, as only such expansion and upgrades would serve as the basis for the construction of the so-called Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. They also argued that people should get married while still young, have more children, and establish plans to support mothers with children. Ultimately, they were strongly suggesting the elimination of Western philosophies based upon individualism and ejecting them from the Japanese people’s minds, and they were also suggesting the promotion of a philosophy that had been based upon the traditional household units (家) to support enlarging the Japanese population.

They also considered two things to be very important in their policies regarding the nationality issue. One was the emphasis on the purity of the blood. The other was the suggestion of the importance that the education of the Japanese language supposedly harbored. The latter was considered important because the Japanese language would ultimately have to serve its role as the primary language in all the countries inside the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. They explained that the U.S. and U.K. were able to maintain a certain level of rule in Southeast Asia because the English language had spread throughout the world, and they argued that “the Japanese language should be promoted and spread to such extent as well, to ultimately replace the English language in the region.” In other words, “the local languages would prove to be insufficient in the task of letting all the people inside the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere understand the real meaning of being part of the national polity (kokutai) to embrace the meaning of establishing the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”, and that was why the spreading of the Japanese language was called for.

Regarding the issue of blood purity, the Japanese imperialists argued that, to put all the effort and strength of the Japanese people together and to maintain a superior position to those of other countries and peoples, the Japanese people living in areas other than the homeland should live in a concentrated fashion, in groups. They also recommended that they avoid interracial marriage by not blending in other peoples’ residential areas. They believed that the “inherent superiority of the Japanese people” would be compromised if such interracial marriages occurred and strongly suggested that to maintain the level of purity, the people who were leaving the homeland might as well be accompanied by (Japanese) their life partners. Yet, unlike the issue of language, the issue of blood purity did invoke a controversy. For example, some believed that maintaining the so-called purity of blood was a rather difficult task and even simply not possible, and thus banning people from producing mixed children would, in the end, cause unexpected side effects. Some suggested that approving the production of mixed children and guiding them to become genuine members of the Japanese people would be an honorable act of serving the spirit of “Hakko ichiu,” the spirit of imperial benevolence that should be prevalent throughout the Empire. Some even expressed their opinion of actively introducing Japanese blood into the veins of other people through interracial marriage.

Interestingly enough, in the case of Joseon, the idea of introducing Japanese blood to the Joseon people’s biological makeup was frequently discussed as the Korean peninsula was considered to be a potential part of their territory for the future. The land was going to be owned and regulated by the Japanese, so why not infuse Japanese blood with the Koreans in regions like Joseon, which were showing traces of advanced levels of assimilation into the Japanese Empire, the Japanese also intended to recruit women from higher levels of society, have them live in a sort of concentrated facility, and encourage them to have and give birth to mixed children, and give them extra special education.

Yet, in the end, regarding the issue of blood purity, the Japanese imperial authorities maintained a strict prohibition of interracial marriage in their effort to maintain the level of purity of the Japanese blood, despite the general position of earlier. So it was stated that instead of going astray in an abstract and passive effort to suppress inter-racial marriage and producing mixed children, a detailed policy should be established. This racist principle was not only applied to the relationship between Japan and other Asian countries but was also applied to that between the Western world and Asia. In this vein, all the people living inside the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere were strictly instructed “not to have inter-racial marital relationships with White people to maintain the purity of the blood of East Asian peoples.

This kind of perspective on the issue of the superiority of the Japanese differed slightly from the opinions of Ozaki Hotsumi (尾崎秀實), who led the effort to establish the theory of the East Asian Cooperative Community (To-a kyo-do-tai), and Koiso Kuniaki (小磯國昭), who suggested the establishment of the East Asian Coalition (To-a renmei).

Koiso suggested the establishment of a vast coalition that would include not only Japan, Manchuria, and China (at the center), but also Southeast Asia, the East Indian islands, and parts of the Pacific Ocean. Even though his true intentions were murky at best, and there was no way his plans could have been implemented or transformed into reality, he argued that Japan’s advance into Southeast Asia would enable it to free those countries that had been suppressed and colonized by Western powers, and the peoples in those areas would be granted political autonomy in electing their leaders, who would eventually come to serve as links between Tokyo and the local areas. He also insisted that such a political system would be very important for the economic bonding that would have to be established between the colonies and the Japanese homeland, and he hoped that the establishment of an independent economic block in East Asia would prove to be an effective tool in leveling the playground in their negotiation and trade with the Western world.

Ozaki, who suggested the establishment of the East Asian Cooperative Community, showed a more ideal attitude on the issue of nationalism. First, he thought the concept of the “East Asian New Order,” which intended to imple ment the plan of an East Asian Cooperative Community as announced by the cabinet of the Konoe Fumimaro (近衛文 ) administration in November 1938, to be a radically different doctrine from previous ones in terms of policies regarding China since the doctrine was “not resorting to the Western style of intending to rule China by dividing it, but was trying to eliminate the clashes of interest between Japan and China to ultimately find a way for them to cooperate”. To him, the news of the plan to establish the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, announced in August 1940, was not a favorable thing to hear. In his opinion, such a plan was only adding Southeast Asia (Nanyo-) to the region that was already covered by the plan for an East Asian New Order.

Just as China was a hot issue within the context of the theory of establishing an East Asian New Order, he asserted, the Southeast Asian area (Nambo) was an important issue in the creation of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The area was the arena in which world powers such as the United States and Great Britain had confronted the self-liberation movements of the nations in the region. The core meaning of Nambo was related to the “national.” Furthermore, the promotion of national movements in Southeast Asia was going to be deeply related to national movements in China. So, he argued that the colonized and suppressed peoples of both regions (that is to say China and Nambo) should liberate themselves, stand up independently, and cooperate to establish the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

He adds that the China and the Nambo problem were not mutually exclusive issues. He argued that the issue of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was based upon bonds that were established at the highest levels of each nation or people, and so should be approached with the same leadership spirit and ways kept in mind.

To establish a new order throughout East Asia, he asserted that “national movements in the Nambo region should neither be fostered nor regarded as part of political intrigues or strategic operations, but be embraced with wholehearted understanding” . He said that Southeast Asia should not be considered solely as “resource pools for Japan’s economic interest” or “military outposts for Japan,” and naturally he was tremendously critical of those who supported the Southward advance (nanshin) only in terms of extracting resources to establish the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. To him, the very first step and the overall premise for establishing the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was to not only expel the U.S. and U.K. entrepreneurs but also to eliminate the old order that had suppressed Asian nations for years. According to him, the liberation of the Asian nations which had suffered Western colonial rule would only be complete when the bases of old ruling systems were dismantled; he argued that that was the single most important factor in creating a new order that would prevail throughout East Asia.

Although a minority, part of the Japanese Communist Party also argued against the Japanese invasion and campaigns continuing in China and Southeast Asia and supported the liberation of those regions. Against the intentions of Japanese imperialists, they criticized the emptiness of the policies regarding national issues employed in Southeast Asian countries. In the cases of Malaysia, Java, Sumatra, and Borneo they argued that despite the vast lands and rich resources, the Japanese were not granting them any level or kind of independence, not even a false one, which they had granted to Burma or the Philippines. They also pointed out that the Japanese always openly addressed those regions as Japanese territories and colonies.

 

 

For updates click hompage here