Japanese Diplomacy in the Meiji Era

In the context of Japanese diplomacy during the Meiji era, it’s important to consider the overlying goals and assumptions made by the government in establishing a legitimate, modern, fully capable state in the period of modernization and hegemony. Key concepts that will play significant roles in the development of this diplomacy include nationalism, imperialism, capitalism, and the consequences of building a war-faring empire. These themes run parallel to a phenomenon not particular to Japan alone, but rather amongst growing trends of the entire world at the end of the 19th and into the 20th centuries.

International relations were directed at alleviating problems caused by the unequal treaties that were imposed upon Japan by the Western powers. These treaties were a sore mark for Japanese society, and would play a significant role in the diplomatic goals of asserting itself (Japan) as a “normal” war-faring nation; equitable to the nation-states of the West. By the end of the 19th century, Japan had already refuted notions of its own inferiority to the west, by ingratiating itself as a dominant force in Asia. It had gained colonial power over Taiwan, and turned Korea into a zone of advantage. Korea would be the end-goal of a series of diplomatic triumphs and later military campaigns in order to create a wide-spread zone of sovereignty in Asia. The combination of imperial and pan-Asian expansion was a key component to contemporary Japanese diplomacy.

In the 1870’s and 80’s, Japanese activity was particularly aimed at the Korean peninsula. Ironically, Japan utilized the same tactics of gunboat diplomacy that were used by Commodore Perry in forcing Japan to sign the Unequal Treaties in 1854 to impose colonial status on the Koreans.1 The Treaty of Kanghwa opened three ports for Japanese trade as well as imposing Japanese authority in contrast to Korean autonomy.2 These openings were thus responsible in giving Japanese traders an economic advantage which subsequently came to be perceived as necessary consequences of the growing Japanese capitalist economy.

In the 1880’s, much of the focus of international relations between Japan and its South-Eastern Asian neighbors rested on creating close political alliances and partnerships in Asia. At this time, both China and Russia had significant influences in Korean affairs, and it was to the benefit of the Japanese to isolate such international impedance and aid in the creation of a pro-Japanese regime that would ultimately serve the imperialist interests of the Japanese state. Over time, this would result in the stationing of Japanese troops in regards to various movements for independence (from all foreign pressure) within Korea, to protect Japanese citizens and investments on the Korean peninsula. Tensions in Korea culminated in the coup d’Ã?©tat led by Kim Ok-kyun, with secret support from the Japanese. This was a significant event in its own due to the nature of the coup; as Kim Ok-kyun had been influenced by Fukuzawa Yukichi and had intended to modernize Korea along the lines of the Japanese, and promote nationalism and anti-Chinese sentiments.3

The relevance of imperialism in Meiji era diplomacy is undeniable; however, it’s important to differentiate this imperialism from global domination. It was never a goal or an assumption of Japanese diplomacy to become a world-power seeking inter-continental hegemony, but rather to achieve dominance over Asian affairs along Japanese lines. Japan’s focus was primarily on establishing pan-Asian solidarity along with a growing sentiment of equality with the West. In fact, the assumption that Japanese modernization and imperialism would put them on equal terms in regards to racial standards with the White west was a central disappointment to the fact that, although concessions were made, the Japanese had yet obtained racial equality with their Western counterparts. The elements of racial confrontations were perceived as a battle between the United States and European “Aryan” stock versus that of Japan. 4

When looking into contemporary Japan, this was a time of tumultuous spread of both Western racist attitudes towards non-White easterners, and the spread of global capitalism that would force the subsequent subordination of those nations unable to resist gunboat diplomacy. Gunboat diplomacy and outright empire building weren’t the only means of creating an economic empire. However, Japanese leaders and diplomats saw the only means of maintaining independence was in fact to mirror the imperialist tactics used by the West, in an effort to avert their own future subservience.

When imperialist advantage dictates the diplomatic agenda of a nation, one can rest assured economic interests are close in mind in considerable gains for such foreign relations. It is true, that the Japanese were interested in gaining economic controls and privileges from its Asian neighbors. The political sovereignty of these nations mattered little to the minds of Japanese business leaders. This was particularly true in Korea, where large amounts of business interests were staked with increasing efforts to subject Korea to Japanese domination; culminating in the official annexation of Korea in 1907.5
Understanding the mentality that bred such feelings and acceptance can be seen within the opinions rendered both by the public and officials within Japan at the time. The notion of Japanese superiority and particularly held by the Emperor Meiji himself, a sense of divine order, transcended any particular respect for national autonomy or popular sovereignty for its Asian neighbors. Unquestionably the Japanese people saw Korea, Taiwan, and Asia in general as grounds for an expanding Japan, but furthermore, it was perpetuated by a logic that presupposed more than mere Japanese superiority, but also military prowess, economic and geopolitical social-Darwinism, and a new sense of Japanese place in the modern world.

One of the key events in Meiji era diplomacy was the Russo-Japanese War, which concluded with Japanese domination over the Korean peninsula as well as control over a number of Russian rail lines in southern Manchuria. The war proved not to be as momentous as the Sino-Japanese War, but nonetheless, it provided Japan with the undeniable control over Korea that it had strived for. This victory presented the Japanese oligarchs with a number of problems. This included a strong amount of resentment and animosity towards Japanese dominance in Korea, from both the Korean populace and the Chinese. The “victory” of the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War also aroused the eyes of the growing American naval forces in the Pacific. This new sense of awareness of Japanese mobilization and expansion brought Japan into the discourse of international politics and a newfound recognition amongst Western states.

The goals of Japanese diplomacy were clear-cut in their defining imperialistic characteristics; but what were the assumptions made by the diplomats themselves in setting these goals for imperialist conquest and subjection of autonomous peoples for pan-Asian economic growth and empire building? First, we have to understand the principles of imperialism. Imperialism, to be brief, is an advanced form of capitalism marked specifically by (not certainly not limited to) the creation of international monopolies and which the division of the world is undertaken by the advanced capitalist nation-states. This was the view espoused by great men such as Vladimir Lenin, and it’s conceivable as to how the Japanese system of late 19th century and early 20th century foreign policy circled around not only military power, Japanese emperor ideology/supremacy, but also global capitalism.

The Japanese were enduring a state of capitulation to the West ever since the signing of the Unequal Treaties that subordinated their autonomy in trade to the interests of a foreign, colonial power. This attitude opened up a variety of resentment that would seek to achieve equal status in the west. Upon understanding and analyzing the information presented before me, it seems only obvious that the Japanese sought to achieve this status of equitable presence with the West by utilizing the exact same tactics imposed upon them. There seemed to be a real sense of importance placed upon international recognition of Japan as a modern war-faring state; and this was to be accomplished through imperialism, militarism, authoritarianism, and pan-Asian expansion.

Thus, it can be determined that the assumptions behind the Meiji era diplomatic plans and legacies was that of achieving both material gains through engaging in empire building, and perhaps even more important, asserting itself as a nation with its own identity, willing and able to compete with the rest of the super-powers of the Western world. Amongst the most remarkable aspects of this era, was the acceptance and public attitude towards imperial expansion held by the public. Throughout the reign of Meiji, public attitude depicted resentment towards the West, and a growing sense of awareness and inquiry as to what it meant to be Japanese.

To concentrate these sentiments and focus them into a public attitude working in concert with Japanese imperialist expansion, a system of elite consensus helped bridge support for the diplomatic measures imposed by Japan on its Asian neighbors. This notion of expansionist policy was coupled with a new sense of Japanese nationalism. This nationalism and appreciation for imperialism were engineered by the state to generate a greater sense of loyalty, thus creating a culture abstaining from questioning state activities (including diplomacy) and in fact, supporting them.6

The state made vast attempts at political socialization and organizing coherent plans to organize citizens into loyal subjects. Group organizations, such as the Ladies’ Patriotic Association and Gratitude Societies were created to help establish a sense of national pride and loyalty to the emperor.7 Other attempts to create fervor for Japanese diplomacy (and domestic policy) included the formulation of the Imperial Military Reserve Association, whose members were being raised in line with military traditions and prepared for reinforced concepts of state loyalty in the minds of reservists.8

A key aspect into the socialization of the Japanese public was through the Ministry of Education; jointly with the Imperial Rescript on Education. The Imperial Rescript on Education was the culmination of the efforts of conservative Japanese elites such as Mori Arinori to implement an educational system based on Confucian ideals, military training, morals, loyalty, and virtue centered on the Emperor Meiji himself.9 Ensuing debates existed, but a common interest in incubating obedience to authority and the spreading of Emperor-worship ideology took priority over petty squabbles. Education did in fact play an integral role in the socialization of the populace, and the broader acceptance of the wisdom of imperial expansion. The Japanese Ministry of Education realized this as well, when they added an additional two years of an already compulsory education curriculum in 1907 that emphasized Japanese nationalism and the position of the Japanese citizens as subjects to the Emperor.10

The reinforcement of orthodoxy and Japanese patriotism helped inculcate a sense of understanding between subject and emperor. Through such measures, the populace came not only to believe in the Emperor as an individual of wisdom and piety, but also divinity. The propaganda used by the state helped provide the Japanese nation with something that it had been seeking all along, an insight to who they were as Japanese people and their respective place in the world. The prevailing Emperor-worship ideology that was established under Meiji provided the substance needed for the modernization of the Japanese state in a new era. The ideology that helped create a Japanese populace that took a benign stance on imperialist expansion was undoubtedly successful. The most significant application of this ideology was that the populace was able to be mobilized behind the emperor; it mattered little whether or not they truly believed in his divinity, but rather, he (and the new Japanese state) offered a place in the newly established world order that stood in defiance to Western imperialism, Japanese subservience, and offered Japan a spot in the international limelight as a dominant force, capable of securing its own interests and advantages abroad.

Amongst this spreading of a new ideology, was the reactionary trends of Japanese origins that placed it above others; a notion of racial supremacy used internally as rhetoric justifying imperial expansion espoused by the elites. The historian Shiratori Kurakichi outlined this belief, stressing the notion of racial divinity and homogeneity that played the role of blatant unapologetic justification for the expansion of implantation of semi-colonial status on other nations. The media played an even further role in propagandizing these notions, by distinctively reflecting the policy agenda of the ruling elites. These forces of socialization acted upon the populace in ways that reinforced imperialist goals of expansion, while providing ample supplementation of nationalistic trends in Japanese affairs.

In conclusion, the Japanese diplomacy of the Meiji era was characterized by goals of imperialist expansion, seeking equality and recognition amongst Western powers, and securing a spot in the new realm of international geopolitics. The assumptions made were that of a nation newly formulated upon an imperialist/nationalist ideology that had become embittered towards a Western dominated world, and wanted not to subvert the West, but to become a viable counterpart amongst an increasingly hostile international environment of global capitalism and colonial dominance. Not only were the populace compliant, but they openly supported actions on behalf of the Japanese state that secured interests both abroad and at home. Perhaps the most phenomenal aspect of Japanese diplomacy was how it bridled support via socialization of its public, a staple that would take priority in establishing a new sense of Japanese awareness and legitimacy, both at home and on the world stage.

Notes:

1. Gordon, Andrew, A Modern History of : From Tokugawa Times to the Present (New York:

Oxford
University

Press, 2003), p. 115.

2. Ibid., p. 116.

3. Ibid.

4. Bix, Herbert P., Hirohito and the Making of Modern (
New York
: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001), p. 66.

5. Gordon, p. 123.

6. Ibid., p. 136.

7. Ibid., p. 137.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid., p. 105

10. Ibid., p. 137

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− one = 3