Chapter 7: Spirit of Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere

After the defeat of Russia in the Russo Japanese War, the next opposition that emerged in front of Japan was the United States.  Ever since the proclamations of “ Equal Opportunity, Open Door” policies by the United States Secretary of State John Hayes in 1899, the United States fearing that Russia would take over China began to focus its interests towards Manchuria, which has yet been colonized by any of the Western nations. Fearing that Russia would colonize Manchuria, it tacitly supported through its war bond financing.   In return Edward Harriman sought to acquire the railroad rights to Manchuria, but Japan refused to give away its hard fought war acquisition.  This refusal was construed by the Americans as an obstruction of “Open Door Policy” and triggered the “War Plan Orange”(military strategic plan which regarded Japan as an enemy nation which began in 1906)  and other anti-Japanese policies, including creation of US/UK joint effort to create another railroad parallel to Manchurian Railroad and exclusion of Japanese from financing.  (P. 203)

During this strife World War I started, thus took away the Euro/American focus away from Manchurian railroad strife.  This created a window of opportunity for Japan in 1915 to seal the “21 Articles to China Treaty” with the new Republic of China under Yuan Shikai where the rights of Japan in respect to Shandong Province, Liaodong Peninsula, Dalian, and to the Manchurian Railroad were clearly spelled out.  This once again angered the United States as a violation of “Open Door Policy”. (p.204)

After the World War I (1918) the global power stature of the United State rose, in contrast to Japan’s stature which was relegated just to the Far East.  Britain, in order to redevelop its own and its Chinese interests, cooperated closely with the United States and in l921 terminated Japan-UK Alliance. (p.205)

In order to restrict any further expansion of Japanese dominance into China,  the  Washington Conference of l921-22 was convened, regarded as an attempt to create a new world order in the Asia-Pacific amongst the developed powers, with ulterior motive to restrict further expansion of Japan into China.  It was not intended to eradicate colonies of the developed powers, but to reshuffle them. Also signed during this conference was Nine-Power Treaty, a treaty based which nullified the rights of Japan which it gained during the World War I in China and gave independent sovereignty to China.  However, it is important to recognize that the governance of China then was sub-divided amongst several competing clans, concomitant with infiltration of communism from Russia and increasing anti-foreigner movements.  On surface the Nine-Power Treaty appeared to be a treaty that would endorse the sovereign independence of China, but in reality it does not reflect the Chinese interests at all.  It does, however,  forces Japan to give up its rights vis-à-vis enhancement of the US rights, which was in agreement with the Chinese interest, especially that of anti-Japan alliance of  Nanking Government led by Chiang Kai Shak and Zhang Xueliang of Manchuria who relied heavily on US support. (p.205)

Since the Age of Exploration, the world can be said to have entered the “Age of the Oceans” where trans-oceanic colonialism and capitalism emerged as underlying forces to guide its development.   Under this development the Western Civilizations gained power at the cost of decline of non-Western Civilizations; Islamic Civilization, Indian Civilization, Chinese dynastic civilization, China-centric Asian Civilization, etc. It was the age where newly developed capitalistic nations overtook the slower developing capitalistic nations in a form of colonialism, which eventually led to the World War I.   After the World War I with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles (1919-1920) new world order was established.  It was a new world order dictated for the purpose of developing the victors-i.e.  Britain and France, United States- to the defeated-the Germans.   (p.206)

The principles of human self-determination, human rights, were discussed at the Versailles Treaty Conference in 1919, but only in the context of some eastern European nationalities, and not to the colored races of Asia, Africa, etc.   At this conference delegation from Japan tabled “Racial Equality Proposal“   to advocate human equality regardless of race and religion, but it was defeated, despite having majority support,  by  the vetoes of President Harold Wilson, the Chairman of the Conference, and Prime Minister Lloyd George of Britain, who demanded unanimity.  These equality in human rights were not congruent to the interests of British and American colonialism. (p.206)

The Versailles Treaty (1919) was followed by the Washington Conference (1921-22) which tried to establish new world order of the Asia Pacific amongst the developed powers.  Its ulterior motive was to annul the expansion of Japan into China after the World War I and establish a new order in Asia after the termination of Japan Britain Alliance.   In this conference, the ratio of naval power of Britain, United States, and Japan was decided as 5-5-3, clearly intended to limit the number of battleships that can be held by Japan, which has clearly proven its strength in the Russo Japanese War. (p.207)

Since the end of the Sino Japanese War (1895) the United States began to exhibit clear interest to China.  Since the opening of the Panama Canal (1914) it had the capability of locating its navy in the Pacific.  The Washington Naval Treaty was clearly a victory for the United States in the Pacific. (p.207)

When the Anti-Japanese Immigration Law was passed in 1924 in the United States the Japanese public opinion construed this act as an indication of Euro/America nations to force Japan to remain as a second rate nation. The anti-Japan sentiment in America arose after the Russo Japanese War, with the emergence of new military power on the opposite side of the Pacific.   This sentiment was certainly fanned by the fear of “Yellow Peril” a phrase coined by the Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany, but also by the anti-Open Door Policy against Japan and large scale emigration Japanese to the United States, along with the threat to the transportation route to the Philippines by the Japanese Navy who now occupied the former German held islands in the South Pacific. (p.207)

In spite of this unfair environment, Japan continued a posture of non-aggression as represented by “Shidehara” Diplomacy. The adherence to the Washington Naval Treaty was a clear indication that Japan under no circumstances will choose to confront the United States, which has become the new threat to Japan after Russia.  This passive posture was also a compliant posture to the new Anglo/American order, which also meant a new compromising posture to China. (p.208)

This posture today would be regarded as “Pacifist” or “Good Neighbor”, thus would receive support of many Japanese, but in the context of brutal power struggle of international diplomacy, such a posture can be only be construed as irresponsible “peace-at-any-price” posture, which impaired Japan greatly and complicated the status quo.   There are similarities to the present day Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Japan, perhaps due to the inherent characteristics of the Japanese people.

In the backdrop realm of anti-foreign movements in China, the presence and the influence of Communist International was clearly evident.  Britain, acknowledging this proposed a common front with the Japanese, but Ambassador Shidehara chose cooperative posture to the Chinese and Russians to maintain a pacifist and good neighbor posture. (p. 209)

At that time the anti-foreign posture was overwhelming.  Zhang Xueliang, when he failed in his anti-Russia activities supported by the French and the United States, he focused his movement to anti-Japan activities, and the one million Japanese living in Manchuria suffered in their livelihood.   It was the retribution against this attack of the Japanese interests that ultimately led to the Manchurian Incident triggered by the Japanese military in China, bringing an end to the pro-Anglo American Shidehara diplomacy, which clearly accentuated the anti-Japan posture of Britain and the United States. (p. 209)

In 1933 when Litton Commission sanctioned by the League of Nations repudiated the sovereignty of Manchuria, Japan exited the League of Nations. In l934 at the London Military Arms-Control Conference Japan sought equalization of naval power to the United States and Britain, but was denied so decided to renounce the Washington Naval Treaty of l922, and after l937 naval expansion was unlimited for Japan. (p.210)

“Who forced the collapse of the Washington Treaty on l922 was not Japan but the Euro-American nations” was the claim by American Ambassador to China in the l930s, John Van Antwerp MacMurray .  He asserted that the United States paid too much capricious favoritism to the various nationalistic elements within China. (p.211)

Japan, under such historical backdrop, began to seek a new international order and framework for Asia.   It was not just a simple game of conquest but a search for an existential answer for Japan and Asia. (p. 211)

The search by Japan for the new Asiatic order was a search that began since the opening of Japan, a way to defend its and Asian existence from expansionary and colonizing threat from the Western nations.  Within this framework, firstly it fought Russia relying on the assistance from Britain and the United States, then received pressure from Britain and the United States which has become its life line, at the same time making Manchuria the barrier against the tide of communism. (p.211)

The framework for an Asia-centric order was already being contemplated at the end of Edo Era.  And after the Russo Japanese War, Japan started its march towards such a goal amidst the framework where Britain and the United States tried to obstruct such a development. Looking from a perspective, it can be said that China was also obstructing this progress all along. (p. 212)

China has always looked condescendingly towards Japan.  Prior to the Sino Japanese War when Japan, fearing the southern expansion of Russia, was calling for the independence of Korea.  China not only ignored these warnings, even while they themselves were potentially threaten by Russia encroachment and sub-division of their own territories by Western nations, they simply adhered to their antiquated dynastic o Asian order, insulting, detesting and intimidating Japan, resulting in the Sino Japanese War.  China, who lost the war, who conspired with the Western powers, created the “Three Nations Intervention” to pressure Japan.   But, this intervention not only endangered the Japanese but China themselves as well; China was forced to give land and property to the Western nations.  Such prevailing conditions in China was a threat to the entire East Asia, and could not be ignored. Eventually, as Russia expanded into Manchuria and began to seek the right opportunity to expand into Korea, Japan confirmed the resolve to fight Russia. At such a moment, China was secretly signing a secret anti-japan military treaty with Russia. (P. 212)

Not only were there any resolve within China to defend Asia, threre were no will and know how to defend themselves.   At the time of Russo Japanese War everyone in Japan knew they were fighting this war to defend Asia.  Such spirit was shared not only by the Chinese revolutionaries but some of the Chinese who were awe stricken by the dawn of Japanese nationalism. (p.212)

It is an undeniable fact that because Japanese won this war the southern expansion of Russia was stopped.   If Japan had lost, thus losing Asia’s only credible resistance force, Russian would have advanced into Manchuria and Korea as planned with likely certainty into China as well. Thus, unequivocally, it can be said that Japan rescued China from annihilation.  This was not accidental, but a result of the prevailing spirit de corps of the Japanese at the time, that they must save Asia. The Japanese leaders who already had envisioned the inevitability of war between white and yellow race from the time of arrival of Black Ships of Perry’s fleet,   had embraced a spirit of “Dai Asia Shugi” (Great Pan- Asiaism) of common Asia defense with ethnic races of East Asia who share the similar languages, cultures, territories, identities, to not pursue national interest of Japan only, but the ideals of “One Asia”, to stop the subdivision of China and defend all of Asia.  (p.212)

It was the kind super-national ethnic consideration inherent in the Japanese national character that tried to help the declining nation of China, in spite of the insults, lies, conspiring deceits, it levied against Japan.   Japan continued to believe in the virtues of China until the defeat of Greater Asia War, and as such was the history of Great Japanese Empire.  (p. 213)

After the Sino Japanese War, especially after the Russo Japanese War, Chinese citizens were inspired by the Japanese nationalism and began to embrace nationalism of their own.  However, the Chinese nationalism began to aim its goals to against all of foreigners, Western nations, including Japan.  This became particularly pronounced after the Republican Revolution in 1911.  For Japan acquisition of Liaodong Peninsula and Dalian were spoils of the war for the sacrifice it made with lives of 100,000 soldiers. Furthermore, the Chinese revolutionaries did not regard Manchuria as part of China.   Sun Yat sen also had discussed about allowing Japan to develop Manchuria together with China with Prime Minister Taro Katsura. But, after the Chinese Republican Revolution they re-drawn the purview of Han China to include, all of Mongolia, Tibet, and Mongolia, territories now under the control of Japan.  (p. 214)

Thus, the Chinese nationalism that was inspired by the Japanese nationalism became foreign exclusionary, arrogant, and blindly China centric again, and the tide turned against Japan.   Han Chinese have never occupied Manchuria, nor have any sense of territorial awareness about China as a country; they simply possessed a world view that all of the world belong to China, thus international territorial perceptions based on international laws were totally missing.  Who legally governed a particular territory in a modern sense was an irrelevant matter for China.  (p.214)

About the time of Manchurian Incident (1931) the anti-Japanese movements were rampant. At the same time, Japanese sentiments were roiling as well as China would default on debts it owed to Japan, break one treaty after another, deny rights to lease land (with intimidating death threats to those who did), obstruction of rail road, intimidation and persecution of  resident Japanese as well as Koreans, etc. being perpetrated by so called Chinese nationalists.   As the result of Manchurian Incident the independent nation of Manchuria was established, which even the dovish left supported.  This should be not be viewed as right wing tilt within Japan, but that there simply were no other alternative for Japan given the status quo.  It should be noted that the Chinese and Manchurians who have been subject to exploitation, theft, amongst many other sufferings, under the warlord rule of Zhang Xueliang, welcomed the arrival of the well-disciplined Japanese army as their emancipator, and other nearby provinces renounced their loyalty to Zhang Xueliang and joined the newly formed nation of Manchuria.  (p. 215)

At the time slogans like “Asia for Asians” were very popular and invigorated about the prospects of new world order in Asia. And for the Mongolians and the Chinese, the new nation promised life; with no civil wars; no starvation; with rights to hold private assets; civil safety were secured and protected; with advanced education and healthcare services.   More than one million Chinese crossed north of the Great Wall every year since inception into to Manchuria.  With this foundation Japan developed and expanded its efforts to construct “Great Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” during the Great Asia War (World War II). (p.216)

What the Japanese truly sought was the Japan-China alliance as a defense of East Asia against southward advance of Russia.  Why the Chinese turned against a nation who tried to save it from subdividing Western powers, and continued to give into the Western nation’s demands?  The answer may be that Chinese have no sense of national identity and feel the need to defend it. That Chinese seem to have expressed and possess to today an ethnic trait that cannot embrace a concept of “co-exist, co-prosper”.  (p.216)

When we think about the origins of “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” we should never forget the “Dai Asia Shugi” (Greater Pan-Asiaism). The term “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” was coined by the Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka of the 2nd term of Konoe Cabinet (1940-1941). The first term of Konoe Cabinet (1937-1939) had already started the development of the Japan-china-Manchuria centric new East Asia order, but in  the second term added the “southward expansion” and expanded the purview of the new order from “East Asia” to “Greater East Asia “; this would include South Pacific islands, French occupied Asia, Thailand, Malaysia, Borneo, Burma, Australia, New Zealand and India, and Japan would guide the development of this entire region for the ensuing 20 years. (p. 217)

In the war in Europe the Germans made fast blitzkrieg advances, influencing  Konoe Cabinet to break away from Anglo-American dependent economic ties and began to embrace a self-sufficient Asia-centric economic structure, as Japan perceived that world will eventually divide into 4 separate economic blocks-US Block, Euro Block, Russian Block, and Great Asia Block.   (p.218)

The objective of the Greater East Asia War was, as per Imperial Edict, was for the “Self-Preservation and Self Defense”.  And the reason the Japanese Cabinet decided to call this war “Greater East Asia War” 4 days after the start of the war on December 12th, 1941 was due to the objective to “establish new order in the Greater East Asia “; For Japan it meant the annihilation of Anglo-American dominated colonial order. (p. 219)

Countering this was the Atlantic Treaty signed by Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt in August, 1941; Equality in human rights for the various ethnic groups were recognized in this treaty, but Churchill adamantly refused to accept it for the British colonies. Thus, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mamoru Shigemitsu, in order to point out blind ignorance of Churchill’s posture, then coined the phrase “Emancipation of East Asia” and invigorated the inspired the Japanese.  (p.219)

The economic development of China initiated by Japan cannot simply be deemed as a part of military strategy.  The concept of new East Asia order and its expanded iteration, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, were both a challenging and antithetical concepts to the prevailing order of Western domination.  It can be construed as the counter attack by Japan to the Western domination of the East.  As a result, China who up to that point was weak declining nation who could not with its own powers rise from its half-colonized state has begun to awake from its stupor. Today the Chinese would denounce this as an “intrusion into China”, or its goal was a “decimation of China”, but these allegations are nothing but fictitious.  (p.220)

The economic development of the Japanese occupied territories was done with long term goals in mind.  After the China Incident on October of l938 the actual implementation of grand vision of totally modernizing the China began initially with the economic development of Japan-China-Manchuria Co-Prosperity Sphere in October.  At that time Japanese Government made an Official Communique stating that the long term objectives were to “construct a new order to secure eternal stability in in East Asia” and this effort “which will require government of Japan, Manchuria, and China, along with its economies, culture, to coordinate and mutually assist at its core, to establish international virtues, mutual defense, new cultural foundation, economic unification, for East Asia.” These efforts were executed during the time of the war; in spite of  the construction of economic infrastructures being executed concomitantly with the military efforts,  the new hardware and technologies introduced into China created efficacious results in agriculture, industries, mining, transportation, far superior to what could be done with existing means, and modernization advanced dramatically. (p. 221)

Manchuria can be construed as the first experiment in Asia to construct a modern multi-ethnic nation, and its success and achievements gave Japanese Government about the forthcoming project of creating Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.  In pre-Russo Japanese War Manchuria the industrial base was very basic-e.g. making and polishing pots and pans-and remained undeveloped. But, upon the creation of new Republic of Manchuria it transformed itself into an industrial giant.  It was as if a modern nation suddenly emerged in the northeast corner of East Asia continent. (p. 222)

This nation would never have emerged if it was not for the Japanese.  If the powerful Japanese military presence was not there Manchuria would never have been able to free itself from the dominance of the Chinese warlords.  Educated populace, which is essential for a development of a modern state, besides the Japanese did not exist. Most of the industrial investments were made by the Japanese.  Japanese Government put its credit backing to the bonds issued by Manchurian Government, thus enabling it to access investment funds.   Also, it was the establishment of police system, working along with the military, that brought law and order to what can only be described as a lawless state where marauding war lords and renegade soldiers roamed.   The first 5 Year Project Plan was conceived; it included development of industries in electric utility, coal, liquid fuel, aluminum, copper, zinc, gold, asbestos, salt, soda ash, pulp, livestock farming, military goods, auto, air plane.  Also, Japan established a national currency, central bank and national financing structure.

In l937, 5 years from the establishment of Manchuria, China Incident occurred and the relationship between Japan and Manchuria strengthened further. More than 1 million Chinese annually immigrated to Republic of Mongolia seeking peaceful society with law and order. In l941 during the Greater East Asian War Manchuria did not declare war, and unified war time economic policies were applied in Manchuria as in Japan.  By the 10th year since inception, Manchuria reached an economic fruition as a heavy industrial center. (p.223)

Amongst the post-War generation of the Japanese, there are too many who do not know the Japanese military in the war eradicated colonial domination by the Western nations. (p.226)

As described, the world order in East Asia evolved in cycles, synchronous with rise and fall of Chinese Empire, but the rise, the redevelopment of China was done always at the hands of “Ih Testsu” (foreign Barbarians).  Only the Han, Sou, and Ming are the only Imperial Chinese dynasties that were redeveloped by Han Chinese.  All the rest were redeveloped by the outside Barbarians.   It was the Mongols who unified the conflict between the Sou and Kin dynasties, and it was the Qing Dynasty from Manchuria who unified the Late Ming.   And, in the late stages of the Qing Dynasty when near anarchy prevailed in East Asia, it was the Japanese Empire that brought the age of redevelopment and new world order. (p. 227)

As explained, the history of East Asia was not just about the ethnic Han race, but about the rise and fall of the ethnic groups in the surrounding region as well.   And, in the modern era, on the stage of ethnic history appeared the Japanese.(p.228)

In the later stages of Ming Era, historical facts are quite available; there were marauding bands of warlords everywhere, famine occurred often and cannibalism was prevalent.  It was the Manchus and Mongols , particularly the Manchu 8 Flag Force, who saw this dreadful condition and brought new order to East Asia.  When the 8 Flag Force entered Peking and other areas, not only did the populace not resist, but welcomed their arrival with royal guards at the head of the parade, and welcomed them as the emancipators.  In the modern era, the advancing Japanese army were also welcomed in a similar way; they were viewed as the enforcers of peace to a war torn chaotic society. In the Chinese world order there is an ‘historical cycle’; at the end of every monarchy or dynasty in China there is a violent coup and anarchy.  It is then followed by some sort of unification.  This historical pattern if it occurs synchronously with natural disasters, like famine, floods, disease epidemics, tens of millions die and social fabrics destroyed, followed by emergence of chaos and war lords, religious movements and uprises by the desperate farmers.  These chaotic periods continued for decades, and it was always the ‘foreign barbarians’ who came to resurrect peace and order to this anarchy.  In another words, it was the foreign barbarians who played an important benevolent role in the historical evolution of China. (p.228-9)

Even in the modern era, the ‘Torched Earth’ strategies (military strategy to burn and destroy virtually everything so as to leave nothing behind that could be of use of advancing enemy) used by the Chinese war lords against the advancing Japanese caused a chaos amidst Chinese populace, causing millions of migration into safe and orderly Manchuria governed by the rule of law is a historical fact not to be ignored. (p.229)

It was not Britain or United States, nor Germans or Russians who could bring new world order to the East Asia.   It was the Japanese who took the heavy burden of this role.   After the exit from the League of Nations Japan developed its own framework of international relationships and sought the possibilities in the unified Japan Manchuria China federation. In order to achieve this new order Japan had no other alternative but to withstand the economic pressures from Britain and the United States and create its own economic block for self-sufficiency and survival. If one looks at Japan’s expansion into the continental Asia from the perspective of world order in East Asia, one can grasp the destiny and mission of Japan.  (p.230)

Amongst modern historians there are many who try to explain about the reason why Asia did not modernize by blaming the Japanese expansionary aggression.  But, such view is a distortion of reality that exact opposite is true; it was Japan that redeveloped order in Asia that was already in chaotic ruin.  (p.230)

Marx tried to explain that Qing dynasty deteriorated as result civil strife resulting from of Opium War, but in reality more than half a century prior to the Opium War the White Lotus Rebellion occurred (1796-1804), and Qing Dynasty was already in a decline.  (p.230)

As seen to the beginning of recorded history, the history of anarchy in East Asia was the synchronous with anarchy of China.  With the wave of modernization from Japan to Taiwan, Korea, then to Manchuria new civilization order began to emerge.  In these regions marauding warlords, famine, disease epidemics disappeared, and highly stable society emerged, food production grew, education standards rose, birth rate and population rose dramatically.  (p.230)

The most important agenda for Japan since its opening was to create a countervailing new Asian world order by Asians against colonial domination order brought by European nations, Russia, and the United States. The development of Korea and Manchuria was clearly motivated by the Western encroachment into Asia, and looking at it from a macro perspective, it was an act of development of defensive fortress against an advancing enemy.   (p. 231)

Prior to the Government of Japan called for “Emancipation of East Asia”, President Harold Wilson of the United State propagated the concept of “self-determination of ethnic groups” at the Versailles Treaty Conference at the conclusion of World War I; It was a statement that “Ethnic groups should not be ruled by another ethnic group. Ethnic groups should have their own independent nation.”, and was included into the articles of League of Nations, and now is a foundation of ideals of international community.   However, this principle was applied to the ethnic minorities under the purview of Austria, totally ignored by the Britain and France, and absolutely not applied to Asia or African nations.   (p. 231)

At the Versailles Treaty Conference the Japanese delegation made a proposal for a racial equality bill but was struck down by the United States and England. At the time social waves of racial bigotry was rampant in the United States.  In 1924 Anti-Japanese Immigration Law was passed. It was only the Japanese who sought true emancipation of Asians from the Western nations.  (p.232)

The design of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere has concentric spheres with Japan at its center; Secondary sphere will include Taiwan and Korea; Third sphere included Manchuria, Mongolia and China; Fourth sphere will include South East Asia nations with natural resources, which would include India, Australia and New Zealand.   Looking at the post-war development of economic blocks-like ASEAN, NIES- the concept of Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was based on logical foresight at the time.  (p.233)

Furthermore, Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere concept actualized a Greater East Asia Conference (1943) with primary proclamations are as follows:

For Greater East Asia nations

  1. Secure stability and create a co-existence and co-prosperity based on moral rules
  2. Gain independence and promote amity
  3. Uphold its tradition, raise its creativity, and cultivate culture
  4. Promote economic development and prosperity
  5. Eliminate racial discrimination

In another words, this is a challenge to the world order dictated by white domination with Britain and the United States at its center. In the post war Japan the Greater East Asia Conference is generally regarded as a meeting of “Asian Puppet Nations”, but that is nothing but Japanese paying lip-service to a perspective of the white victor nations. From the perspective of white nations there could be nothing more inconvenient than the Greater East Asia Conference which negated the colonial domination. (p. 234)

At the Bandon Conference (Asia, Africa Conference) in l955 attended by 29 nations, the ideals of peaceful coexistence, anti-colonialism, very much in line with the ideals expressed at the Greater East Asia Conference. ASEAN economic bloc developed under the leadership of Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia conceptually is based very much on the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Conceptual foundations for APEC, or EC and EU in Europe are very much similar as well. (p.235)

Chandra Bose, the leader of the Provisional Government of Free India, who attended the Greater East Asia Conference, on his return trip stopped at Nanking and through and conveyed the following message over radio to Chiang Kai Shek who has moved his command post to Chungking:

“Until now the existence of imperialism of the Western nations, and missing helping hand from Asian nations to the small and weak Asian nations, have been the obstruction to the unity and emancipation of various ethnic groups of Asia.  Japan is the only nation willing to fulfill that later role. For Japan to fulfill that role they must break away from the Western Imperialism.  Japan has decisively chose to declare separation from the United States and Britain and entered an epic life or death struggle. Comrades in Chungking, who are you fighting against? Aren’t you colluding with the enemy and fighting against your own ally?”(p.236)

Chinese, in respect to other ethnic groups, regardless of whether they are eastern Barbarians or southern Barbarians, they cannot regard them as a partner in co-existence and co-prosperity. (p. 236)

Leave a Reply

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