Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T22:35:55.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New Order in East Asia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Kenneth Colegrove
Kenneth Colegrove
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Get access

Extract

The foreign policy of Japan known as the Tōa shin chitsujo or New Order in East Asia was officially announced by Prince Konoye on November 3, 1938, the birthday of Emperor Meiji. Further statements were issued by Foreign Minister Hachirō Arita to correspondents of foreign newspapers on December 19, 1938 and by the premier to the nation, three days later. When the fall of the Netherlands and France in May and June 1940 pointed to the complete collapse of European colonial empires in Asia and offered opportunity for the expansion of Japanese hegemony, the cabinet of Prince Konoye, on August 1, 1940, issued a restatement of the policy under the name of the New Order in Greater East Asia or Dai Tōa shin chitsuj. The Greater East Asia included not only Japan, Manchukuo and China, but also Indo-China and Thailand or Siam, and possibly the Dutch East Indies and the South Seas.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , November 1941 , pp. 5 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the texts of the government's statement and Prince Konoye's explanation, sec the Shūhō [or Weekly report] no. 108 (Nov. 9, 1938), pp. 28–30Google Scholar. For an English translation of the texts, see the Tokyo gazette, 1 (Dec. 1939), pp. 16–20Google Scholar. The Shūhō is a weekly periodical that serves as supplement to the Kampō or Official gazette, issued by the Jōhō Kyoku or Board of Information. The Tokyo gazette is a semi-official periodical published monthly by the board of information of the cabinet and contains English translations of selected articles from the Shūhō.

2 Arita's statement is found in the Japan advertiser (Tōkyō), Dec. 20, 1938Google Scholar, and Konoye's statement of December 22, 1938, in the Shūhō no. 115 (Dec. 28, 1938), pp. 42–43.

3 Shūhō no. 200 (Aug. 8, 1940), pp. 1–3Google Scholar. See also the Tokyo gazette 4 (Sept., 1940), pp. 89–91.Google Scholar

4 Shūhō no. 195 (July 3, 1940), pp. 14–16Google Scholar. See also the Tokyo gazette 4 (Aug., 1940), pp. 78–79.Google Scholar

5 Compare the Nippon keizai nempō [or Japanese economic annals] 36 (May 25, 1939), pt. 1, ch.2.Google Scholar

6 Compare editorials in the Tōkyō Asahi, Aug. 25, 26 and 28, 1939Google Scholar; Tōkyō Nichi nichi shimbun, Aug. 26, 1939.Google Scholar

7 Compare the Tōkyō Asahi, July 17 and 18, 1939.Google Scholar

8 Concerning the dissolution of the Minseitō and the various factions of the Sciyūkai, see the Tōkyō Asehi, July 14, 17 and 31 and Aug. 16, 1940Google Scholar; Tōkyō Nichinichi shimbun, July 14 and Aug. 17, 1940.Google Scholar

9 See his radio address to the nation on July 23, 1940 and his address on August 28 to Preparatory Committee of the New Political Structure in the Shūhō no. 198 (July 25, 1940)Google Scholar, and no. 203 (Sept. 4, 1940). Compare the Tokyo gazette 4 (Aug. and Oct. 1940), pp. 45–47, 133–36.Google Scholar

10 For the report of the Shintaisri Jumbikai or Preparatory Committee on the New Structure, see the Tōkyō Asehi, Sept. 18, 1940Google Scholar. A statement regarding the new organization prepared by the Cabinet Information Bureau appears in the Shūhō no. 209 (Oct. 10, 1940).Google Scholar

11 For the text of the plan see the Tōkyō Asahi, Dec. 9, 1940.Google Scholar

12 For the Japanese text, see the Kampō Official gazette, no. 4137, Oct. 21, 1940, pp. 684–85Google Scholar. An English translation is published in the Tōkyō gazette 4 (Nov. 1940), pp. 193–94.Google Scholar

13 See his speech of January 21, 1941 in the Imperial Diet. Kampō gōgai or Imperial gazette, supplement, House of Representatives, no. 3 (Jan. 22, 1941), pp. 16–18.Google Scholar

14 For the Japanese text, see the Tōkyō Asahi, April 14, 1941Google Scholar. An English translation is in the New York Times, April 14, 1941.Google Scholar

15 Compare editorials in the Tōkyō Asahi, July 16 and 17, 1941; Tōkyō Niehinichishimbun, July 17, 1941.

16 Murdock, James, History of Japan (London, 1910–1926), vol. 2, pp. 304–05.Google Scholar

17 Compare Okamato, Keiji, Meiji-Taishō shisō shi: kokka oyobi kohrmin seikatsu no jissō o josu [History of ideas in the Meiji and Taishō eras: the life of the state and the nation] (Tōkyō, 1929), pp. 104–05, 209–11Google Scholar; Kinoshita, Hanji, Nippon kokka-shugi undō shi [History of the nationalist movement in Japan] (Tōkyō, 1939), pp. 3–7Google Scholar. A biography of Tōyama gives many details. See Tōyama Mitsuru ō ginkōroku [Record of words and deeds of the grand old man Mitsuru Tōyama] (Tōkyō, 1928).Google Scholar

18 The name Yūsonsha is difficult to translate. It may be said to imply “Nevertheless Existing Association.”

19 See Wittfogel, Karl, Sun Yat Sen, Aufzeichnungen èines chinesischen revolutiondrs (Vienna, 1926), pp. 329–37.Google Scholar

20 Foreign relations of the United States, 1917, pp. 264–65.Google Scholar

21 Gaikō yoroku or Diplomatic Commentaries vol. 2, chapter 6 (Tōkyō, 1930)Google Scholar. An English translation of portions of this book has been made by Langdon, William R. under the title Diplomatic commentaries (Baltimore, 1936).Google Scholar

22 See his article on “A Japanese Monroe Doctrine and Manchuria” in Contemporary Japan 1 (Sept., 1932), pp. 175–84.Google Scholar

23 Gaikiyō yoroku, pp. 201–03.

24 Compare Kawai, Tatsuo, Hatten Nippon no mokuhyô [The goal of expanding Japan] (Tōkyō, 1938), pp. 165–71.Google Scholar

25 “My views on the requirements of a permanent peace,” Gaikō jihō [Revue Diplomatique] 15 (Sept. 15, 1921), pp. 32–44.Google Scholar

26 See the statement of November 5, 1940, by the Cabinet Information Bureau. Shūhō no. 237 (Nov. 6, 1940). Compare Haushofer, Karl, “Bericht aus dem indopazifishen raum” in Zeitschrift ‘ūr geopolitik 17 (Nov., 1940), pp. 556–60.Google Scholar

27 Japanese literature employs a combination of the two characters jikyū (self-subsistence) and iisoku (self-sufficiency) for the modern concept of self-sufficiency.

28 The maipan are Chinese agents or compradores who have made fortunes in assisting European and American importers and exporters. The term “maipan capitalism” frequently occurs in the Japanese literature on foreign trade as a symbol of the backward capitalist system in a so-called semi-colonial country.

29 For instance, it is repeated in scholarly and convincing studies published in the Nippon keizai nrmpō [Economic annals of Japan], the Tōyō keizai shimpō [Oriental economic review], the Kokka gakkai zasshi [Journal of the association of political and social science], and the Kokumin keizai zasshi [National economic review] published by Kōbe University.

30 Among the army pamphlets issued by the Information Section of the War Office which discuss the need for acquiring self-sufficiency through political action are: Kokubō no hongi to sono kyōka no teishō [Principles of national defense and proposals for its augmentation] (1934), and Tenkan ki no kokusai jōsci to waga Nippon [The international situation at a crisis and our Japan] (1935). Among the navy pamphlets should be cited Kaiyōkoku Nippon to sono hatten [Sea girt empire of Japan and its development] (1936).

31 Among the somewhat scholarly but also popular works, see Masamichi (Seidō) Rōyama, , Sekai no kenkyoku to Nippon no sekai scisaku [The changing world situation and Japan's world politics] (Tōkyō, 1938)Google Scholar; Itani, Zenichi, Nippon keizai oyobi keizai seisaku [Japanese national economy and economic policies] (Tōkyō, 1937)Google Scholarj Kawai, Tatsuo, Hattcn Nippon no mokuhyō [The goal of expanding Japan] (Tōkyō, 1938).Google Scholar

32 See the Nichi-Man kankei no saininshiki ni tsuite [or The relations of Japan and Manchukuo re-examined] (Rikugunshō, Tōkyō, 1935).Google Scholar

33 Compare Itani, Zenichi, Nippon keizai oyobi keizai seisaku, pp. 604–50.Google Scholar

34 This analysis is based on Prince Konoye's statements of November 4 and December 22, 1938 and the statement of Foreign Minister Arita on December 19, 1938, to correspondents of foreign newspapers. See the Shūhō no. 108 (Nov. 9, 1938), pp. 28–30Google Scholar, and no. 115 (Dec. 28, 1938), pp. 42–43.

35 Shūhō no. 237 (Nov. 6, 1941). An English translation is found in the Tokyo gazette 4 (Dec. 1940).

36 For the remarks of Baron Hiranuma, see the Kompō gōgai or [Imperial gazette] supplement House of Peers, no. 2 (Jan. 22, 1939), pp. 10–12Google Scholar; and House of Representatives, no. 3, pp. 15–17. For Admiral Yonai, see Ibid. House of Peers, no. 3 (Feb. 2, 1940), pp. 12–13; and House of Representatives, no. 4, pp. 16–17.

37 Compare the Nippon keizai nempō 37 (July 5, 1939), pp. 73–74.Google Scholar

38 See, for instance, the radio address of Foreign Minister Matsuoka on January 5, 1941, in the Tōkyō Asahi, Jan. 6, 1941. See also the Kokka sōryoku sen no senshi ni tsugu or [Appeal to soldiers of the total national war] (War Office: Tōkyō, July 3, 1939), pp. 25–27.Google Scholar

39 Compare the Tōkyō Nichi nichi shimbun, April 25 and 26, 1941Google Scholar; Tōkyō Asahi, April 28, 1941.

40 See the remarks of Major-General Seiitsu Tanaka before the special committee of the House of Representatives on the revision of the Peace Preservation Act which was proposed to cope with new manifestations of Communism in Japan. Tōkyō Asahi, Feb. 13, 1941.

42 Kampō gōgai or [Imperial gazette], supplement, House of Representatives, no. 5 (Feb. 3, 1940), pp. 40–43.Google Scholar

44 Compare the Nippon keizai nempō 37 (July 1939), p. 74.Google Scholar

45 Japan advertiser (Tōkyō), Dec. 20, 1938.Google Scholar

46 Kampō gōgai, House of Representatives, no. 4 Jan. 23, 1941, pp. 28–29.Google Scholar

47 Sec in particular the speech of Masazumi Andō in Kampō gōgai House of Representatives, no. 5 Jan. 23, 1939, pp. 44–45.Google Scholar

48 Kampō gōgai. House of Representatives, no. 5 Feb. 3, 1941, pp. 40–43.Google Scholar

49 Kampō gōgai, House of Representatives, no. 6 Feb. 5, 1940, p. 54Google Scholar. See also Tōkyō Asahi, Feb. 5, 1940.

50 Compare Gempachirō Imano, “Grossraumwirtschaft in Europe” in the Chūō kōran 49 (Sept. 1940), pp. 44–56Google Scholar; Kōzō Murayama, “Place of the South Seas in the East Asian economic sphere” in Ibid. 49 (Sept. 1940), pp. 110–116; Tateyama, Toshitada, “Inevitability of East Asian Grossraumwirtschaft” in the Kaizō 23 (Jan. 1941), no. 1, pp. 42–66Google Scholar; Saburō Okazaki, “The new world order and colonies” in Ibid., 23 (Jan. 1941), no. 1, pp. 34–51; Nanayasu, Yosaku, “Various aspects of the East Asia co-prosperity sphere” in the Bungei shunjū or Literary review 19 (March, 1941), no. 3, pp. 176–89Google Scholar. See also various articles in the Tōkyō Asahi, Feb. 25 and March 13, 1941; and the Tōkyō Nichi nichi shimbun, March 8, 1941.Google Scholar

51 Notably his speech of January 21, 1941 in the Imperial Diet. Kampō gōgai, Jan. 22, 1941, House of Representatives, no. 3, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

52 Remarks before the Settlement Committee of the House of Representatives on February 24, 1941. Tōkyō Asahi, Feb. 25, 1941, p. 1.Google Scholar