A Discussion of Pan-Asianism and Meishuron Pan-Asianism‘s effect on East Asian

2022.April

The concept of Asia is an oriental imagination created by Europeans in opposition to Europe. While satisfying the superior concept of the Western world under Eurocentrism, Asia is described as a mysterious exotic area that was undeveloped and opposite ‘other’ to the West1. Due to a shared fear of western aggression, geopolitics gave Asian countries including India, China, and Japan a shared willingness to form alliances, which set the stage for Pan-Asianism. As Japan became the pioneer of modernization after the Meiji Restoration, it played a leading role in promoting the formation of the Asian community and Pan-Asianism under Japan’s order and interests. Pan-Asianism was thus developed into Meishuron Pan-Asianism.

Hence the interconnections of East Asia, the formation of Asian modernization, Pan-Asianism and its development as Meishuron Pan-Asianism, are all complicated. The modernization of Asia, especially East Asia, is both a product of European colonization logic and a manifestation of the nationalist resistance of Asians, who were the subjects but not the precursors. A discussion of Pan-Asianism and Meishuron Pan-Asianism will lead to a critical understanding of the interconnections within East Asian regions.

In this paper, I first discuss the different realistic meanings of Pan-Asianism and Meishuron Pan-Asianism. The different actions led by these two different Pan-Asianism thoughts prove that East Asia is neither unified nor antagonistic. Secondly, I discuss the different spiritual meanings of pan-Asianism and Meishuron Pan-Asianism. The different defects of spiritual meanings lead to different contradictions of modernization in East Asian countries, which proves that there were different obstacles in constructing East Asian modernization. Finally, I conclude that pan-Asianism is an anti-nationalist romantic fantasy, and Meishuron Pan-Asianism, which appears to be anti-colonialism, is another form of colonialism. The concept of national liberation in pan-Asianism is meaningful, but the expansionism and aggressiveness of later Meishuron Pan-Asianism are manifestations of Japanese invasion. Therefore, we should combine our actual conditions and ideal vision, oppose colonialism and the threat of war, and learn from the lessons of modern Asia. The realistic significance of Meishuron Pan-Asianism and pan-Asianism to unite and divide East Asia respectively, proves neither unity nor an antagonistic relationship in East Asia. Due to different reasons, the two concepts have different practical meanings: Pan-Asianism embraced the idea of Asian unity; Meishuron Pan-Asianism became a policy of Japanese colonization.

1 James Morris Blaut, “History Inside Out,” in The Colonizer's Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History (New York: Guilford Press, 1993), pp. 1-43, 17.

Under the background of the West opened the East by force and spreading Eurocentric values, the autonomous territorial rights of Asian countries were in danger2. Moreover, the original Asian order with China as the core was collapsed as China became a semi-colony to different western countries and western colonizers constructed a new image of Asia under Eurocentric ideologies that took Asia as an evenly undeveloped, unenlightened, and non-modernized region and China was nothing advanced comparing to other Asian countries. 3Therefore, Asian countries under this circumstance developed a new concept of Pan-Asianism to avoid being colonized. The underlying thought of this concept was the antagonism between East and West, but as the criticism of the West grew, it became so strong that China, Korea and Idia ignored the practical differences between each country even though the distrust and the cultural differences among Asian countries were objective.4 In general, the realistic significance of Pan-Asianism was that Asian countries, based on hostility to the West, were eager to get rid of anxiety and seek unification with the stream of consciousness beyond realism.

Sometime after the concept of pan-Asianism was established, although China, Japan and Idia agreed with the concept, they had different ways to realize Pan-Asianism. On the one hand, China wanted to continue its leading position in history; on the other hand, Japan had a low attachment to the Asian identity as Japanese nationalists, like Fukuzawa Yukichi, were advocating "De-Asianism" 5and learning from Western. Japan, after the Meiji restoration, believed that it had the ability to create a new modernized Asia under its lead. Meishuron Pan-Asianism was the result of Japan’s leadership-seeking mentality. Meishiuron Pan-Asianism refracted the particularity of Japan and confused it with the particularity of Asia under the trend of Japan's ambition after modernization6. Therefore, the underlying logic of Meishuron Pan-Asianism is that Japan, as the leader of Asia, will lead Asian progress against western colonization. In reality, such aggressive thoughts became the theoretical support of Japanese militarism. Although the slogan was still to resist the colonization of western countries, the policies under Meishuron Pan-Asianism were mainly to serve the interests of Japan and pretended justice for Japan's invasion and colonization from the moral level.

2 Fukuzawa Yukichi, “On De-Asianization” (1885), 2. 3 John Fairbank, Edwin Reischauer, and Albert Craig, East Asia: Tradition and Transformation (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989), 56. 4 E. Hotta, Pan-Asianism and Japan's War 1931-1945 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 204. 5 Fukuzawa, De-Asianization, 4. 6 Hotta, Pan-Asianism, 169.

The overwhelming superiority of Japanese military combat against the Qing Government in the Sino-Japanese War was an opportunity for Japan to transform its vaulting ambition into reality. This victory not only enhanced Japan's confidence in its military nationalism but also enhanced its ambition for colonial expansion. Meishuron Pan-Asianism avoids Japan's isolation between East and West by flattering Japan's importance to Asia and its goal of liberating the whole Asian.7 During this period, the interests of Asian countries were not protected, but events such as the Second Sino-Japanese War took place. Overall, multilateralism in the interconnection of Asian nations, especially Japan's relationship with China, made it clear that East Asia was neither unified under the ideology of Pan-Asianism totally dispersed due to Inter-Asia wars like the sino-Japan war8.

The spiritual significance of the Meishuron and pan-Asianism that united and divided East Asia, respectively, prove that the formation of East Asian modernization was obstacled. Due to the different purposes, the two concepts have different spiritual meanings: Pan-Asianism is an ideal utopian vision of Asian countries against all wars. It forcibly ignores the differences between countries and pursues unity in spirit. On the other hand, in Meishuron Pan-Asianism, Japan emphasizes the opposition of different races to ensure the necessity and legitimacy of its "help," which is actually the embodiment of militaristic culture. In the past, The Asian order was a tributary relationship centred on China, which established a cultural circle including Korea and Japan with Confucian morality9. In the subsequent development, although countries were influenced by shared values and historically intersected by geographical reasons, civilizations were not precisely the same. The aim of pan-Asianism was to form an idealized union pursued in response to a common crisis under pressure and the pursuit was only a vision of a more promising future, destined to be developed by the counterforce of Anti-European colonialism. There is no problem for Pan-Asianism to transcend materialism and seek the eternal national resistance against aggression in spirit, but it is too grand and reflects the romantic characteristics of pan-Asianism. It tries to transcend the concepts of "west" and "past," or "modernity" and "tradition"10 to establish collective understanding and cognition between Asian countries.

7 Brian Tsui, China's Conservative Revolution: The Quest for a New Order,1927-1949 (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2019),218. 8 Ibid. 9 Fukuzawa, De-Asianization, 5. 10 Hotta, Pan-Asianism, 220.

Contrary to the spiritual unity of all pan-Asianism, Meishuron Pan-Asianism was grounded in the opposition between East and West. Through the propaganda of "The fate of the East should be determined by the Orientals themselves"11 during this period, Japan changed from learning from the East to learning from the West and finally considered itself were in opposition to the West, which is reflected in the fact that Japan stood in opposition to the Wast as the East during this period. Emphasizing the opposition between white and yellow people provides justification and necessity for Japan's aggression in Asia and links Japan's expansion with the survival of Asia. In Meishuron Pan-Asianism, the idea that the East can only be developed by taking Japan as a role model to promote civilization is to persuade countries to accept Japan's leadership. The Asian interconnection under Meishuron Pan-Asianism was a new order of inequality centred on Japan, which other Asian countries' territorial autonomy was usurped not by the West but by Japan as an Asian power.12

Due to different spiritual meanings embraced in different Pan-Asianism ideas, the process of East Asian modernization had different problems: the hollowness of the united Asian anti-colonialism actions and Japan's aggression under the name of "liberating Asia". Although the anti-colonialism and independent development tendencies of pan-Asianism and Meishuron Pan-Asianism played a positive role in promoting the modernization development of East Asia, the different shortcomings of the two cultures led to the different limitations of the modernization of East Asia.

The laudable hollow goals of Pan-Asianism led to the intentional neglect of the differences and diversity of Asian countries: the geographical commonness of Asian countries was developed into the one and only basic attribute13. Japanese, Chinese and Indian were just shouting the slogan of building an Asian unity to modernize Asia but had no concrete plans for how to construct this unity or how to pursue modernities after Asia united. On the other hand, the negative influence of Japan on the modernization of East Asia in Meishuron Pan-Asianism was undeniable. Japan used the liberation of Asia as a gloss, denounced western colonialism in a noble position, and didn’t reconsider its aggression against Asian countries, dragging down the modernization process of East Asia by hindering the development of individual nationalities within their own. Overall, the interconnection relations show that there were obstacles to the formation of East Asia's modernization.

11 Tsui, New Order, 198. 12 Hotta, Pan-Asianism, 205. 13 Tsui, New Order, 225.

As Pan-Asianism is a utopian fantasy against nationalism, Meishuron Pan-Asianism, ostensibly anti-colonialism, was another form of colonialism. Pan-Asianism laid too much emphasis on commonality and seeks greatness: It is anti-nationalistic as it hoped that all nations would give up their national identities and pursue collective Asian interests. Meishuron Pan-Asianism was another form of Japanese nationalism, which centralized the leading role of Japan and the development of Japan by turning other Asian countries into ‘supportive’ colonies. 14 Thus, Asian countries were invaded by Japan under the slogan of Anti-Western colonialism. The modernization of Japan under the influence of western colonizers changed the country from colonized to colonizer.15 The most typical example was that Japan took for granted that its occupation of local rights and seizure of wealth was justified as it brought modernities to backward regions. Hidden behind Japanese Pan-Asian policies were Japan's colonialist behaviours. Overall, we should unify the ideal with reality, both to avoid pretentious formalism and to fight against colonialism.

From an analysis of practical significances and spiritual consequences of Pan-Asianiam and Meishuron Pan-Asianiam driven by causes and goals respectively, we have a better understanding of interconnections within East Asian regions. Pan-Asianism was the unifying fantasy of formalism, Meishuron Pan-Asianism was another form of colonialism that embodied Japanese nationalism. We can also see the complexity of modernization and relationships among the countries in Asia, especially Japan and China in East Asia. 14 Tsui, New Order, 221. 15 Andre Schmid, Korea between Empires, 1895-1919 (New York: ACLS History E-Book Project, 2005).

Bibliography

Blaut, James Morris. “History Inside Out.” Essay. In The Colonizer's Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History, 1–43. New York: Guilford Press, 1993. Fairbank, John, Edwin Reischauer, and Albert Craig. East Asia: Tradition and Transformation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989. Fitzgerald, John. “Chapter 6.” Essay. In Awakening China: Politics, Culture and Class in the Nationalist Revolution. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998. Fukuzawa Yukichi, “On De-Asianization” (1885). Hotta, E. Pan-Asianism and Japan's War 1931-1945. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. Schmid, Andre. Korea between Empires, 1895-1919. New York: ACLS History E-Book Project, 2005. Tsui, Brian. China's Conservative Revolution: The Quest for a New Order,1927-1949. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2019.