Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 07:37:25 -0500
Sender: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture <H-ASIA@H-NET.MSU.EDU>
From: Leibo, Steven A.
<leibo@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: H-ASIA: Book review of Iriye, Japan and the Wider World
To: H-ASIA@H-NET.MSU.EDU
FROM: Robert Entenmann, East Asia book review editor, H-Asia
H-NET BOOK REVIEW
Cross-posted from H-Japan@h-net.msu.edu (February, 1999)
Akira Iriye. Japan and the Wider World: From the
Mid-Nineteenth Century to the Present
New York: Longman, 1997. viii + 213 pp.
Bibliographic references and index.
$53.75 (cloth), ISBN 0-58221054-2; $16.09 (paper), ISBN
0-58221053-4.
Iriye bases this review of modern Japanese foreign relations on two earlier works, Nihon no gaiko (1965) and Shin Nihon no gaiko (1991). He begins in 1868, not 1853, and ends about 1990, after the end of the cold war but before the current economic difficulties or the end of the Soviet Union. He includes a useful survey of English-language literature, has no notes, and says nothing about the sources he used. Those who have read Across the Pacific will find themselves in familiar territory—this is a work about the socio-intellectual framework of foreign relations.
I'd consider using this book just for the cover. Against a corner
of bright, grey industrial sky, a spherical gas tank—its
gleaming, sun-reflecting surface a map of the world—squeezes its
bulk into the photographic frame. In the foreground a single
carpenter squats on the roof of a half-built house, his back to the
looming globe. It is entirely blue and green, except for a
half-visible streak of red on its edge, which marks Japan's place
in the world.
This crowded photograph is a catalog of cliched
dichotomies—the wood and tile of traditional
houses
vs. the steel and gas of the tank, global reality
vs. Japanese
insularity, Japanese fragility vs. the explosive outside world,
Japanese dependence vs. the world's indifference, and others of
gender, capital, and nature. Iriye's organizing metaphor for his
review of modern Japanese foreign relations is this dichotomy between
Japan and the greater world. In principle, then, the international
environment,
as he puts it, is to receive much more attention than
bilateral relations. In practice, relations with Britain, the United
States, China, and much less, Russia, dominate the book.
Put another way, Iriye combines Japanese writers' speculations on
their nation's place in the world or Asia (he calls this perceived
reality), with the reality of an international
environment—actually, largely relations with first Britain, then
the United States. He ends by saying that Japan has benefited from
this environment—its interests have been ensured by factors
generated elsewhere so that its policy has tended to consist of
fitting itself into the environment. That has not required much
intellectual effort
(p. 188). That is, Japanese pursuit of
security and economic interests has, for much of its modern history,
not conflicted with international order. There have been two long
windows of opportunity for Japan to pursue its interests with little
restraint—the first beginning in the Meiji Period and lasting,
Iriye suggests, well into the 1930s-the second, the cold war era. The
first ended with the failed attempt to construct an Asian order
independent of the international order. Now, Iriye says, Japan again
will be forced to adapt to a change of environment, and must actively
join and strengthen the international community. In a noteworthy
passage (p. 8), Iriye locates the beginnings of Japanese foreign
policy pragmatism in the congruence between Japanese goals of
state-building and the relative lack of great power interest in East
Asia in the late nineteenth century, and in the closeness of
realities
and perceived realities.
Apparently, the
Japanese leadership confronted a situation so completely apprehensible
as the balancing of the interests of powers that they were not forced
to develop a policy framework flexible enough to accommodate anything
else. And that anything else? There are two—(irrational) race
prejudice, and Chinese nationalism (pp. 29-32).
Before we follow this path of seeing Japan as rationally fitting
itself to an internally stable system that could not withstand the
irrationalities of the twentieth century in Europe or in Asia, we
should remember that the Japanese state and Japanese nationalism
(hardly mentioned by Iriye) were not stable, but expansionist. The
Japanese state grew, (pursuing its interests in a context of big power
diplomacy) incorporating Korea and parts of China. This inevitably
provoked Chinese and Korean nationalism—issues that for Iriye
did not fit within the traditional precepts of diplomacy.
Meiji
expansion surely has something to do with the demise of big power
diplomacy in Asia. Why was Japanese nationalism congruent
with
big power diplomacy, while Chinese and Korean nationalism were not?
Was this only a question of timing? Is it possible that Korean
nationalism was no less congruent with British imperialism than was
Japanese?
If the pragmatic, non-ideological foreign policy still in some ways
with us grew out of the Meiji Period, then the idea of economic
interdependence so important in postwar Japanese policy arose from the
1920s attempt to participate in a new global order (p. 62). Iriye
believes that Japan must now give up its passive adjustment to a
disappearing environment and help to construct a new order, and he
devotes a long section to the failure of 1920s Shidehara diplomacy.
He proposes three possible reasons for this failure: Japanese
militarism, the international environment, or problems with
Shidehara's approach (p. 54). Iriye places great weight on the
global economic crisis, the divergence of world realities
from
the conditions, including international order, necessary for economic
diplomacy (p. 64). But, Iriye says Japanese militarism itself helped
to destroy this system. He also argues that Shidehara's policy
framework of economic interdependence could not deal with Chinese
nationalism at this time.
In this sense, it could not be
considered an advance over pragmatism. But, as Iriye describes it,
Shidehara's policy did not always differ from the earlier
pragmatic maintenance of privileges: He was even willing to
sacrifice international cooperation to achieve his ends.
Therefore
Shidehara diplomacy does not meet Iriye's policy criterion of a
purpose going beyond self-interest
(p. 188).
Apparently, in the environment of the 1930s, neither the policy of Shidehara nor the military could have worked, and after 1945, the military approach was impossible. Fortunately, a framework of economic interdependence allowed pragmatism after 1945, and Japan was able to pursue self-interest for more than four decades. Now, however, Iriye thinks, this period is ending, as did the first. Japan must, after a century and a half, think through a basis for foreign policy. Who is it that will?