Torsten Weber
The Greater Asia Association (Dai Ajia Kyōkai) was probably the single most influential organization to propagate Pan-Asianism between 1933 and 1945. Despite its prominence and its far-reaching activities, it received little attention in English-language research (the only comprehensive work in Japanese to date is Matsuura 2010). As a result, relatively little is known about its activities.
The Greater Asia Association was the successor organization to the Pan-Asia Study Society (Han Ajia Gakkai), which was founded in April 1932 by the founder-owner of the publishing house Heibonsha Shimonaka Yasaburō (1878–1961), the writers and activists Nakatani Takeyo (1898–1990) and Mitsukawa Kametarō (1888–1936), the Indian revolutionary Rash Behari Bose (1886–1945), and Vietnamese Prince Cuong De (1882–1951) (see previous chapters). The society’s self-declared aim was to study the political, economic, and cultural problems of Asia. Unlike most other pan-Asian organizations, its focus was not limited to East Asia but explicitly included South, Southeast, and Central Asia. According to Nakatani, who later became the chief disseminator of Pan-Asianism within the Greater Asia Association, the society’s name was inspired by existing pan-movements in other parts of the world (Nakatani 1989: 349).
Shortly after the society had been founded, Lieutenant General Matsui Iwane (1878–1948) of the Army General Staff proposed that the original study group be expanded into a larger organization (on Matsui’s Pan-Asianism, see Matsuura 2010: chap. 9). Initially, the members of the Gakkai were reluctant to allow Matsui to join their group out of fear that it might be mistaken for an organization influenced or controlled by the army. But they changed their minds soon and permitted Matsui to join, although only as a private individual, and eventually they also agreed to Matsui’s proposal to develop a more practically oriented organization with a view to initiating a popular Asianist movement. Thus, a new organization, named the Greater Asia Association, was founded in Tokyo on 1 March 1933, the “auspicious day of the first anniversary of the founding of Manchukuo,” with the aim of promoting “the unification, liberation, and independence of the Asian peoples” (Murakawa Kengo in Dai Ajiashugi 1:1, 62).
The Greater Asia Association managed to attract as members leading representatives from the political, cultural, academic, and military worlds—
figures such as Prince Konoe Fumimaro (president of the House of Peers future prime minister), Hirota Kōki (future foreign minister and prime minister), the writer Tokutomi Iichirō (see I:28), Yano Jin’ichi (1872–1970, professor of Sinology at Kyoto University), Murakawa Kengo (1875–1946, professor of history at Tokyo University), and Admiral Suetsugu Nobumasa (1880–1944). Shimonaka Yasaburō became the organization’s president. Nakatani Takeyo assumed the duties as acting president, while Tanaka Masaaki (1911–2006), who would become notorious as a revisionist publicist in postwar Japan, became the editor in chief of the organization’s publications, such as the bulletin Dai Ajiashugi (Greater Asianism), from which the founding manifesto of the association reproduced here is taken. Dai Ajiashugi was published from May 1933 through April 1942, and the topics covered ranged from “A History of the Republican Movement in India” (Subhas Chandra Bose, September 1936) and “Pan-Slavism and the Third Reich” (Imaoka Jūichirō, February 1935) to “The New Order in East Asia and in Europe” (Sugimori Kōjirō, September 1940) and “The Structure of Greater East Asian History and Japan’s Historic Mission” (Yano Jin’ichi, April 1942). In its earlier volumes it also published translations of theoretical writings by Hans Kohn and Oswald Spengler, but contributions by non-Asians remained scarce. In addition, the Shanghai Greater Asianism Research Institute, a branch of the Dai Ajia Kyōkai set up in 1940, between 1941 and 1943 published an English-language journal called Asiatic Asia, which mostly reprinted articles from the Dai Ajiashugi in translation.
Nakatani, a “professional nationalist” (Storry 1957: 150), who was also a professor at Tokyo’s Hōsei University, had been a member of various nationalistic and pan-Asian societies. Later he claimed that during his time with the Greater Asia Association he experienced the closest intimacy in thought, trust, and human relationships and named Shimonaka, Tanaka, and Matsui as forming the “central axis” of the organization (Nakatani 1985: 5). Judging by his copious contributions, Nakatani himself must certainly be included in the core of the group. In 1947, when Matsui was tried for war crimes at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (also known as Tokyo Trials, 1946–1948), both Shimonaka and Nakatani appeared in court to testify for Matsui and emphasized the philanthropic character of their organization. Whereas Matsui was sentenced to death and executed in 1948, Shimonaka, following a three-year ban from public office under the American occupation, launched the movement for the World Federation of Nations (1951) and resumed his post as president of the Heibonsha. Nakatani dedicated himself to the cause of Afro–Arab–Asian solidarity.
Following the suggestion of Suzuki Teiichi (1888–1989), an army officer and later acting director of the Asia Development Board (Kōa-in), both the Dai Ajia Kyōkai and its bulletin Dai Ajiashugi were named after Sun Yat-sen’s famous speech on “Greater Asianism” in 1924. In his memoirs, Nakatani insisted that the organization’s name was changed from Han Ajia (pan-Asia) to Dai Ajia (Greater Asia) for this reason only and should not be mistaken for the adoption of an expansionist or imperialist agenda (Nakatani 1989: 349–53). In fact, the Greater Asia Association did appropriate some of Sun’s key terminology, in particular when referring to the assumed distinctive features of “the West” and “the East.” While, according to Sun, the former was culturally (and subsequently also politically) characterized by the unjust “rule of might” or “the way of the hegemon” (badao) based on force and aggression, the latter represented the virtuous “rule of right” or “Kingly Way” (wangdao), based on benevolence and virtue. The Greater Asia Association interpreted the founding of Manchukuo as the epoch-making first step in the revival of the Kingly Way on the Asian mainland. It declared that its aim was “to mediate communal and cultural cooperation between Japan and Manchuria and to promote the Greater Asianism movement on the continent” (Dai Ajia Kyōkai Nenpō 1934: preface).
On its first anniversary, the Greater Asia Association declared that, despite the fact that only the preparatory stages had been achieved in terms of the “great 100-year plan for Greater Asia,” the organization had already “caused a remarkable stir both at home and abroad” and had sounded “an incredible echo throughout the world” (Dai Ajia Kyōkai Nenpō 1934: preface). As proof, in its first annual report it reprinted articles about the association and its activities that had appeared in English, German, Russian, Turkish, and Chinese newspapers. Interestingly, the leaders of the association seemed to care little about the negative responses it had received—some of which were included in the annual report—but appeared to be pleased that, unlike previous pan-Asianist organizations, its existence had been widely noted both at home and abroad. The organization’s illustrious membership, its broad agenda, and the new political situation that developed following the Manchurian Incident and Japan’s withdrawal from the League of Nations may have helped attract such wide attention. Tachibana Shiraki (1881–1945), a scholar-journalist based in Manchuria, where he published another journal with a strong pan-Asian bias, the Manshū Hyōron (Manchurian Review), conceded that the Greater Asia Association commanded the greatest authority among the existing pan-Asian organizations but went on to emphasize that, because of their theoretical immaturity and dullness, “it is not worth listening to their claims” (Manshū Hyōron 1933). The French journalist Marc Chadourne (1895–1975) was rather shocked by what he called a “quasi-official, detailed imperialistic program” when he read of the organization’s aims during his travels in East Asia in 1934. However, he expressed little concern over the potential damage Japanese pan-Asian ambitions might inflict on other Asians. Instead, he criticized Nakatani’s outspoken anti-Westernism, which threatened British and French possessions in Asia (Tour de la Terre, Paris 1935).
In addition to its publication activities mentioned previously, after its inauguration the Greater Asia Association began establishing branches outside Japan. Already in May 1933, the Da Yaxiya Xiehui (Greater Asia Organization) was set up in Guangdong (Canton) in southern China. In 1934, it was followed by a Taiwan branch, the Chōsen Dai Ajia Kyōkai (Korean Greater Asia Association) in Seoul and the Filipino Greater Asia Association in Manila. In December 1935, on a visit to Northern China, Matsui and Nakatani set up the Chinese Greater Asia Association in Tianjin (Tientsin) (for a list of Asian branches of the Association, see Matsuura 2010: 581). The main character of the association, however, remained that of “a group devoted to thought and culture” more than political action and it focused on publishing journals and pamphlets and holding lectures and seminars. Like a number of other pan-Asian organizations, in 1941 the Greater Asia Association was absorbed into the Greater Japan Alliance for the Revival of Asia (Dai Nippon Kōa Dōmei).
The most prominent figure in the Greater Asia Association was Matsui Iwane, who is today remembered chiefly for his role in the Japanese campaign to occupy southern China in 1937 and the subsequent Nanking Massacre. Matsui was born in Nagoya as the sixth son of an impoverished former samurai. He graduated from the Military Academy in 1897. His studies at the elite War College (Rikugun Daigakkō) were interrupted when he was appointed as a company commander in the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905). He completed his studies after the war and, graduating in 1906, was immediately posted to the Army General Staff. Around this time he developed a strong interest in Asia, particularly China; he admired Arao Sei (1859–1896; see I:4), a “continental adventurer” (tairiku rōnin) and pioneer of modern Japanese research on China. However, as with most of the military high-fliers, Matsui was sent to study in Europe (in his case France). On his return he requested to be stationed in China, where he served as a resident officer from 1907 to 1912 (and again from 1915 to 1919). There he met influential Chinese political and military leaders, including Sun Yat-sen. In the army, Matsui was rapidly promoted becoming a full general in 1933. However, in the factional in-fighting after the assassination of the Army Ministry’s Director of Military Affairs, Major General Nagata Tetsuzan, by Lieutenant Colonel Aizawa Saburō in August 1935, Matsui was placed on the retired list.
From the mid-1920s onwards, Matsui commented frequently on foreign affairs in the influential journal Gaikō Jihō (Diplomatic Review). Matsui’s proposal for an Asian League (Ajia Renmei) dates to that time and was triggered by debates over the reform of the League of Nations. In particular, Matsui was influenced by a detailed reform plan proposed by Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, the Austrian founder of the pan-European movement, whose writings were also published in Japan. But it was only after Japan’s withdrawal from the League of Nations in 1933 that Matsui’s proposal gained greater attention, as an Asian League was now more widely discussed as an alternative to the Western-dominated League of Nations. Several journals, including the popular Kingu (King), from which the text reproduced here is taken, published Matsui’s writings and speeches.
After the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, Matsui was restored to active duty and appointed commander of the Japanese Central China Area Army (Naka Shina Hōmen Gun), which committed atrocities in Nanking in 1937–1938. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East held Matsui primarily responsible for these massacres, and thus he was sentenced to death and executed on 23 December 1948. While in China Matsui has become a symbol of Japanese wartime atrocities and Japan’s war guilt, among rightist groups in Japan he is revered as a hero in Japan’s “just war” for the “liberation of Asia” and an innocent victim of “victor’s justice” at the Tokyo Trials. In the city of Atami (Shizuoka Prefecture) a statue of the goddess of mercy (Kannon) was built on Matsui’s initiative in 1940 to commemorate the revival of Asia (Kōa). An issue of the English-language journal Asiatic Asia carried a photograph of this Kōa Kannon as “enshrined by General Matsui for the happiness and spiritual peace of the Asiatic peoples.” (Asiatic Asia 1–2, March 1941) The Kōa Kannon still stands today and is now dedicated to the commemoration of the seven executed class A war criminals, including Matsui, as heroes devoted to the defense of Japan and Asia (Saaler 2005).
Like the founding manifesto of the Greater Asia Association, Matsui’s speech reproduced here arose out of the increasing international pressure on Japan following the Manchurian Incident of 1931. China appealed to the League of Nations, which formed a commission that presented the results of its investigation in February 1933. The so-called Lytton Report acknowledged Japan’s special interests in Manchuria but rejected Japan’s claims that it was acting in self-defense in Manchuria and that Manchukuo was as an independent country. After the General Assembly of the League adopted the Lytton Report, the Japanese delegation walked out of the Assembly in protest. However, as Matsui notes, the solution to the crisis was hotly debated by the Japanese public. One month after Matsui’s speech, Japan announced its formal withdrawal from the League on 27 March 1933.
Source 1 (translation from the Japanese original by Torsten Weber)
“Dai Ajia Kyōkai Sōritsu Shushi” (The reasons for the founding of the Greater Asia Association). Dai Ajiashugi 1:1 (May 1933), 2–5.
The reasons for the founding of the Greater Asia Association
1. In the wake of the Manchurian Incident, world politics are about to undergo an epoch-making transformation and conversion. The independence of Manchukuo, the world’s youngest state, has already achieved the status of a major miracle in the postwar history of international affairs. Yet the emergence of an independent Manchukuo is merely a prelude to the historical transformation which is set to rapidly succeed it on the world stage. Following the independence of Manchuria, the autonomy of East Asia must be secured. The freedom and glory of Asia, the Mother of Civilization, must be revived, hard on the heels of the founding of the new state of the Kingly Way (Ōdō shin kokka). Once Manchuria was East Asia’s final bulwark against the European conquest of the world. Now Manchuria itself has been strengthened and established as a state in its own right. With this new situation in the Far East as a model, we must begin working for the unity and reorganization of all of Asia.
2. We certainly believe that Asia constitutes a community with the same fate (unmei kyōdōtai)—culturally, politically, geographically and also racially. Real peace, welfare, and the development of the various peoples of Asia is only possible given Asia’s self-awakening to its unity and its systematic unification. Mutual enmity and rivalry among Asian countries provides a favorable opportunity for foreign interference and can only aggravate the heavy burdens that Asia is presently being forced to bear. In order to eliminate this mutual rivalry among the countries of Asia and to halt foreign interventions and manipulation, it is vital to strive for the creation of a league (rengōtai) of the currently scattered and disorganized peoples of Asia. Moreover, the present chaos and disorder in Asia is not only the cause of Asia’s own misery but, as it habitually stimulates the evil intentions and greed of Europe and America, it must also be seen as the greatest obstacle to world peace. The insecurity and unrest of the East are directly connected with insecurity and unrest in the world in general. Reforming Asia according to the principles of autonomy and self-reliance for Asians is in fact the first step to stabilizing world politics.
3. Seen in this light, the heavy responsibility for Asia’s reconstruction and reorganization rests on the shoulders of Imperial Japan (kōkoku Nihon). Once before, a quarter of a century ago, when our national destiny was at stake, we pushed back the angry waves of an invasion of East Asia by Imperial Russia, rescued all of Asia from defeat, and even began empowering the colored peoples of the world to raise their heads again. Now, on the occasion of the Manchurian Incident, the human race is again facing a wave of great historical change. It is now time for Imperial Japan to capitalize on the historical significance of the Russo-Japanese War and concentrate its entire cultural, political, economic, and organizational power on planning the next step in the revival and unification of Asia.
To be frank, as the leading player in the self-empowerment and uniting of the Asian peoples, Japan’s efforts to improve the current international system dominated by Europe and create a new world order on the principles of racial equality and equal access to resources is the best way of propagating the founding ideals of our country and establishing the Imperial Way (kōdō) throughout the whole world. The formation of a “Greater Asian League” (Dai Ajia Rengō) is the great historical duty that the Japanese people are facing today.
4. Viewed from the perspective of the current evolutionary process in international politics, the formation of a Greater Asia Union is an extremely natural prospect. It is necessary for human societies to organize political and economic alliances based on geographical, cultural, and racial affinities. On the other hand, it is both unnatural and impossible to jump from a nation-state (minzoku kokka) to a world state (sekai kokka). Because the League of Nations was prematurely established as a pan-world union without waiting for important historical factors to mature—in fact, it was an unintended outcome of the European War—it is now undergoing fundamental revisions by pan-continental and pan-nationalist movements as a natural consequence. Despite efforts made in good faith by member countries, the League of Nations has remained almost powerless to solve international disputes and relieve ethnic conflicts. On the contrary, its efforts to solve conflicts have actually served to intensify them. Such weaknesses are the result of the League’s conceptual basis in the notion of worldism (sekaishugi) and its ignoring of the evolutionary processes determining the realities of international politics mentioned above. The international politics and international economic structures of the present and future will in all likelihood be marked by a mix of opposition and cooperation among pan-continental and pan-national groups such as a European Union, Asian Union, American Union, Soviet Union and Anglo-Saxon Union. The structure of any new world peace must surely be based on the attitude of mutual co-operation.
5. Thus the organization of a Greater Asia Union is not only necessary for the Asia of today, but it is also the best and absolutely necessary step for securing real world peace. To this end we have together planned and founded the “Greater Asia Association” in the firm belief that there is no other or better way to bring about the realization of an Asian League, which will eventually bring together all the peoples of Asia, than through the study of the cultural, political, economic, and other affairs of the various Asian countries, the promotion of friendly relations and guidance between the Imperial nation and the Asian countries, and through efforts to introduce and spread the culture of the Imperial nation in those countries. This is also the best and only way of contributing to the progress of human culture and of securing world peace. It would be our greatest blessing if we could obtain the cooperation and approval of large numbers of well-informed people (shikisha shoken) in this endeavor.
1 March 1933
Greater Asia Association Founding Committee
Representatives (in no specific order):
Konoe Fumimaro, Hirota Kōki, Matsui Iwane, Suetsugu Nobumasa, Yano Jin’ichi, Kikuchi Takeo, Murakawa Kengo, Ogasawara Naganari, Tokutomi Iichirō (Sohō), Fujimura Yoshirō, Katō Keizaburō, Kanokogi Kazunobu, Shiratori Toshio, Tsubogami Teiji, Negishi Tadashi, Shiraiwa Ryūhei, Tozuka Michitarō, Yamawaki Masataka, Nonami Shizuo, Hiraizumi Kiyoshi, Shimonaka Yasaburō, Sumioka Tomoyoshi, Honma Masaharu, Sakai Takeo, Higuchi Kiichirō, Suzuki Teiichi, Ōta Kōzō, Mitsukawa Kametarō, Ishikawa Shingo, Shibayama Kenshirō, Naitō Chishū, Tsutsui Kiyoshi, Nakahira Akira, Ujita Naoyoshi, Shimizu Tōzō, Imada Shintarō, Imaoka Jūichirō, Nakayama Masaru, Handa Toshiji, Nakatani Takeyo.
Source 2 (translation from the Japanese original by Torsten Weber)
Matsui Iwane (1933), “Dai Ajiashugi” (Greater Asianism). Kingu, May Issue Supplement “Jikyoku Mondai: Hijōji Kokumin Taikai” (The Problems concerning the Current Situation: A People’s Rally in Times of Emergency), 2–9.
Matsui Iwane: “Greater Asianism”
An Honorable Isolation
My friends! Japan has eventually arrived at the point where leaving the League of Nations has become unavoidable. Whether we should be happy or sad depends on the determination of our people from this point on. But there is one thing we must not forget: Japan has resolutely upheld the principle of justice. For the sake of international cooperation, it has ceaselessly continued to make every possible effort. Unfortunately, despite the sincere efforts made by the Empire over the past year and a half, it failed to make the League reconsider. As a result, Japan left the League and its international isolation has become inevitable. However, this is an honorable isolation. To stick firmly to right in this world of untruthfulness, one must occasionally be determined to defend an honorable isolation. This is my conviction, and I think it must also be the conviction of the Japanese people. It is at times when this belief is shaken that the danger comes, not from outside but from within. When the Manchurian problem reached its eleventh hour over the past twelve weeks, we sent a negative message to the League to the effect that public opinion was divided here. The atmosphere in Tokyo directly reflects the atmosphere in Geneva and has given the League reason for groundless suspicions.
“Although Japan has taken an extremely resolute attitude, this is the response of only a section of the military and the government and not the opinion of the majority of the Japanese people. Consequently, is it not possible that Japan’s management of Manchuria will fail halfway through the task for reasons of finance, economics, politics, and national opinion?”
This erroneous observation has influenced the League and was no doubt one reason why this unfair resolution was passed. Therefore I believe even more strongly that my 90 million Japanese compatriots must go forward, holding onto a firm conviction. The conviction of the people over the Manchurian problem is firm. Even more, our convictions on the Asian question are firm. Even if our homeland should be burned to the ground, we cannot sacrifice justice. It is precisely as a result of these firm convictions that justice was achieved in the first place and that, following the founding of the Imperial country, an honorable national policy could be established. . . .
For the Asian Nations
Ever since the great Meiji Emperor, the Empire’s Asia policy has, through the two wars against the Qing (China) and Russia, become part of the spirit of our people. Looking back to forty years ago, we had to face the extremely demeaning and unbearable national crisis of the Triple Intervention [of 1895]. And, on that occasion, sparing no effort in struggling against difficulties, the Japanese people prevailed. The national crisis that afflicts the Empire today is several times more serious than the Triple Intervention. Given this situation, the people must again spare no effort in their struggle to overcome these difficulties and show their backbone to the world. It goes without saying that we must first strengthen the confidence and unity of the people and be determined to face the national crisis in perfect coordination.
The thirty million people of Manchuria were relieved by means of the Empire’s sympathy and good faith. They stand to gain an honorable independence. But things must not stop there. Next we must also extend to the 400 million people of China the same help and deep sympathy that we have given Manchuria and relieve them from their miserable condition of political, economic, and intellectual subjugation by various countries of the world. This serious responsibility and mission is a double burden for the Empire. In this way we must relieve Manchuria and China, and then gradually extend our power to other countries in Asia and provide relief to the Asian peoples who share our race and stock (dōshu dōzoku). Starting from that very point, real freedom and peace will eventually come to the world and, at the same time, Japan will implement justice and shake off its present state of isolation.
Such opportunities have already started to make their presence felt in Asia. For example, the only countries that abstained from the unjust motion tabled in the General Assembly of the League were our fellow Asians from Siam. Moreover, there were over ten countries that were absent from the General Assembly and among them we counted with pleasure our Asian comrades from Iraq and Abyssinia (sic). Their abstention or non-attendance offers a few rays of hope for the creation of an Asian League in the future.
The Greater Asia Movement
In order to deal effectively with today’s difficulties, from last summer we began propagating the Greater Asia Movement.
Needless to say, our Greater Asia Movement is not advocating the annexation of Manchuria. And we would never insist on ruling China or expelling all Westerners from Asia. The primary object of our association is to relieve the peoples of Asia from the political, economic, and spiritual suffering which the region is currently undergoing. I believe that this goal, pursued together with our fellow Asians, is the supreme destiny of Japan as the only fully independent country in Asia. Consequently, everyone who lives in Asia and binds himself to the mission of Asia and makes efforts for the welfare of Asia—be he British or American—is our comrade. It is precisely our hope that we will all strive together for the cause of Asia. Therefore we must first make sure that we have a firm foothold in Asia. Today, we must be like the European Federation in Europe or the Pan-American Movement in both American continents, where fellow Asians of the same stock (dōzoku dōhō) band together and take a firm foothold in their respective homes. In this way, pan-unions of Asia, Europe, America and the Soviets can harmonize their efforts and, beginning from there, proceed on the road to a genuinely just peace in this world.
In this time of unprecedented difficulty for the Empire and observing the world in terrible disorder, I firmly believe that there is only one path to a solution and that nothing else will do. My friends! Let’s first observe the wide world, and then turn our attention to Asia on our doorstep. Then, I hope, our 900 million fellow Asians will wake up to Japan’s vital mission and rise up as one man. In other words, “First return to Asia. Then return to Greater Asianism.”