790.94/59
The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 24.]
Sir: In despatch No. 284 of February 9, 1933,36 I had the honor to report the holding of a “preliminary conference for the establishment of a League of Asiatic Peoples” in Tokyo on January 26 of last year. This report was supplemented by two reports, No. 311 of March 7 and No. 468 of July 13, 1933.37 The former dealt with the inauguration, on March 1, last, of the “Great Asia Association” and the latter with the reported organization of a Great Asia Federation at Canton.
I have now the honor to enclose, in a translation supplied by a colleagues, a prospectus of the “Pan Asiatic League”.36 This document makes much of the supposed exploitation of Asiatic peoples by the Western nations, and pictures Japan in the rôle of a defender of Asia against White domination. It defends the establishment of “Manchukuo” on the grounds that its separation from China was not an indication of disintegration, but the rescue of Manchuria from the domination of Western nations who have hitherto controlled China. The paper dwells at some length on the mutuality of interest of the peoples of Asia and their need to defend themselves against the imperialistic West, including Soviet Russia. The peoples in danger [Page 27] include, apparently, not only the Asiatic countries under Western political domination, but Persia, and semi-European countries such as Turkey, Hungary and North Africa. The down-trodden condition of these peoples is supposed to provide an additional opening for the dollar imperialism of the United States to add to their difficulties. The paper then takes up the thesis that Japan needs to free herself also from slavish acquiescence to the practices of the west. It advocates the need for Japan to place herself at the head of a league of independent Asiatic nations and liberate them all from European and American bondage, using as a model the example of Japan’s relations to “Manchukuo”. This League would ultimately include all the Asiatic territory now under European and American control and even the peoples of the Near East. The obstacles to this project are said to be the Anglo-Saxons and Soviet Russia, the former because of economic interests and the latter because of its policy of revolutionizing the world. Another hampering factor is seen in the inability of the Chinese to understand the need for cooperation with Japan in the noble aim of freeing Asia, because the Chinese are apparently duped by the malign influence of Great Britain and Soviet Russia. This must be changed, it is stated, if necessary by force. The paper then devotes some space to the need for moral leadership, which has been lacking in the West’s contact with Asia. Japan must stand for race equality, placing moral values above economic motives; Japan should forge ahead with an Asiatic League to counteract the European controlled League of Nations, using her culture and her economic and political and even military power if necessary to accomplish it.
It would be easy to exaggerate the importance of this document. The Japanese Government undoubtedly has no such widespread projects in view. At the same time it should be remembered that chauvinistic utterances of this character have frequently characterized political thought in Japan especially during periods of political tension such as the country is experiencing at present. It is, however, only one of many such effusions, and when considered in connection with the many essays and novels of super-patriotic and war-like tone that are published in Japan today, indicates a popular turn of thought something like that of pre-Meiji days when the country was first opened to Western intercourse. During that period, covering the years between Perry’s visits and the accession of Meiji Tenno, there were many picturesque advocates of reform and expansion. Perhaps the best known of these exhorters was one Yoshida Shoin, a man who exerted a profound influence upon Kido, Ito and others who subsequently became leaders in the Revolution which abolished the Shogunate and created modern Japan, One of Yoshida’s obsessions was the [Page 28] necessity for Japanese expansion on the Continent of Asia. He felt that Japan could never be safe until she had control of the mainland as far west as the Baikal region. This aspiration has been voiced at different times since his day. While no Government has seriously considered a project of such proportions, it is interesting to note that Japan has ever since consistently followed a policy of Asiatic expansion, dictated, to the mind of the Japanese people, by the need for self-protection. Even today, as the Department is well aware, the “defense” theme is constantly used as a cloak to cover Japanese aggression. In a recent article in Yorodzu, Major General Eiki Tojo, Chief of the Military Investigation Commission of the War Office, is quoted as saying: “Japan’s desire for expansion on the Continent of East Asia as manifest in Japan’s Manchuria policy has been an unalterable policy of Japan ever since its foundation …39 The choice is whether Japan will be on a fair road to promising development or whether Japan will be shut up in small islands.…39 We mean that the Japanese nation must be united in augmenting the country’s national defense.”
It is evident that the present “Pan Asia” movement is not a new one. It is something with which the Japanese public is familiar enough. The society or association whose prospectus is enclosed is therefore merely the embodiment in new guise of an idea that in one form or another has been current in Japan for many years. Its promoters include a respectable body of men, both civilian and military. The idea seems to have spread all over the Japanese Empire, and to Manchuria and even Canton, presumably at the instance of Japanese. The Consul at Taihoku reports (Political Events in Taiwan during 1933, Page 9) the organization of a branch of this society in Formosa in January of this year. The leading figure in the formation of the Formosa branch seems to have been General Matsui, Commander-in-Chief of the Army in Taiwan. He is listed as one of the Advisers of the parent organization in Tokyo.
I have already reported in a confidential despatch (No. 608 of December 12, 193340) the uneasiness with which my Dutch colleague views this movement. According to private advices the British also are somewhat apprehensive of Japanese expansion, although their concern seems to be more economic than political, for the time being at least. The Dutch Minister’s feeling is quite understandable in the light of the report of the American Consul General at Batavia, which was enclosed in the Department’s instruction No. 432 of January 15, 1934.41 The British situation apparently is not so simple. The recent [Page 29] difficulties between the Japanese and Indians over cotton have caused much irritation, and little is now seen in the press to indicate that the Japanese have much desire to “liberate” the Indian Empire from its “yoke”. Besides, the British are much stronger than the Dutch and probably feel fairly confident of their ability to defend their colonies in case of need. In conversation with a member of my staff, one of the secretaries in the British Embassy, who is in a position to know, stated that the British did not regard the present Pan Asia movement in Japan as having political importance.
In conclusion, it is only fair to refer to an article which appeared in the Kaibo Jidai or Naval Defence Era, a political and economic review of recent origin, which is supposed to be an organ of the Japanese counterpart of our Navy League. In the February issue of this periodical one Mr. Nashimoto goes into the history of various Pan Asiatic movements in Japan, beginning with Saigo Takamori, who started a rebellion in Kyushu in 1877, one of his reasons being that the Government had refused to send an expedition to Korea. The writer then refers to Sun Yat Sen, commonly considered the father of the Chinese Republic, who is said to have been an advocate of Greater Asianism and close cooperation between Japan and China to oppose the dominance of the Western nations, particularly the “Anglo-Saxon group”. The article then reviews in some detail the various Pan Asia societies that have been organized, including the present one. The writer shows much sympathy with the idea but comes to the conclusion that while the movement is a worthy one, it cannot achieve much because Japan herself is imperialistic, and consequently cannot lead other Asiatic nations in opposition to the Whites.
Respectfully yours,