Abstract
Antony Best (ed.), The International History of East Asia, 1900–1968: Trade, Ideology and the Quest for Order (Routledge Studies in the Modern History of Asia), London, Routledge, 2010; xvii + 199pp.; £85.00 hbk; ISBN 9780415401241
The history of the international relations of Asian states on an economic, strategic, political and cultural level has attracted considerable interest from scholars anxious to understand the interactions among Asian states as well as the influence of Western states on the region. The current predictions of a global era of East Asian economic domination make reflection on the development of East Asia’s international relations particularly important. This collection of papers arises from a conference held in mid-2004 as the dénoument of the Anglo–Japanese History Project. As Ian Nish recounts in his reflective essay in this book, over the past ten years the Project has already produced five volumes of essays on a range of political, military, economic and cultural themes ranging from 1600 to 2000.
The present volume has an ambitious, and perhaps slightly misleading, title. It focuses mainly on Anglo–Japanese relations, albeit situated within the wider regional context. Best makes a claim in the introductory chapter for the history of the region to move beyond the obsession with the causes and impact of war by turning to address the continuities in relations on a political and economic level as well as to focus on the considerable degree of cooperation as opposed to conflict between East and West. The essays in this volume thus range across a wide canvas from the ideological foundations of Japanese expansionism (Matsuura) to the business of the end of empire in Southeast Asia (White).
Several themes emerge. In many cases the importance of China as a focus of British interest in the region is used to explain Anglo–Japanese relations – for example through the role of the ‘open door’ ideology in commercial and strategic relations (Best), Anglo–Japanese rivalry over the early twentieth century Chinese Maritime Customs Service (Bickers) or Britain’s condemnation in the League of Nations of China and Japan for the trafficking of opium (Goto-Shibata).
The controversial issue of Japanese expansionism in the 1930s and brutality during the war is a theme of several chapters, beginning with the foundations of the Anglo–Japanese History project, as noted by Nish. Matsuura provides a more positive assessment of Pan-Asianism through an analysis of the Greater Asia Society. He views this as a genuine popular ideological movement rather than a cover for imperialist ambitions. For Van de Ven the rhetorical purpose of Pan-Asianism holds more weight. He goes on to argue that the aggressive Japanese bombing campaign in China perversely undermined their efforts to dominate China because they became a foundation for nationalism and international sympathy for China.
A further theme is the importance of economic and business interests. White argues that the British viewed Japanese companies entering Southeast Asia in the 1960s not as an economic or political threat, but as a welcome bulwark against communism and as useful business partners. Akita agrees that Anglo–Japanese interests coincided after the war in his analysis of financial relations between Japan and British colonies in Southeast Asia, using the Sterling Payments Agreement of 1951–7 to explore mutually beneficial financial and commercial ties. Commercial and industrial rivalry with the USA underlies Maiolo’s account of the treaties between the British and Japanese navies over warship construction in the 1920s and 1930s. The USA as an important protagonist in Anglo-Japanese relations (as well as the importance of economic interest) is further developed in Kuniyoshi’s description of the British role in trying to influence the pace and terms of the peace treaty finally signed by Japan in 1951. Lowe follows up with an analysis of the delicate balance of power between US and British interests in Southeast Asia during the early Cold War period and the foundation of SEATO.
The Anglo–Japanese History Project has forged important and lasting scholarly links between English-language and Japanese-language researchers, which enhance our access to different conceptual and cultural traditions of modern international history. Best notes in his introduction that the many meetings and seminars associated with the project did not provide a consensus of interpretation. This is to be welcomed as it promises a stimulating continuation of the conversation among Japanese and British scholars.