What Japan thinks

Front matter

im-oJcTh^-OEicvvi'

Os

The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library.

Preface

* npHE articles put together between these covers ■■- have been chosen by the editor with a view to presenting what may be called representative opinions of representative Japanese on the foremost questions of the world to-day, such as the Monroe Doctrine and the League of Nations, imperialism and liberalism, democracy and autocracy, militarism and navalism, armament and disarmament, race equality and race discrimination, the "white peril" and the "yellow menace." The Japanese side of the Yap controversy is also fully presented.

Of the fourteen articles composing this book all but two are culled from newspapers, magazines, and books published in Japan or China. Most of them were originally written in Japanese for Japanese publications, and were later translated into English for various English publications in the Orient.

The value of these articles lies in the fact that they were, with a few exceptions, addressed primarily or exclusively to the Japanese. None of them was prepared especially for this book. They were not written for foreign consumption. Their respective authors had no eye upon the American or European gallery. They show just what the Japanese are talking among themselves on the vital problems of the world and their bearing upon Japan.

PREFACE

Some of the views expressed in the following articles may be found unpleasant to sedate readers in America and Europe. The editor has not shrunk from such views, believing that in the end straightforwardness is more conducive to clear understanding than evasive diffidence.

In selecting these articles from the mass of current literature in Japan, the editor purposely avoided articles written by "professional" statesmen or diplomats, whose utterances are usually characterized by what the journalistic wit of America gracefully calls "pussyfooting." They are often deliberately superficial or platitudinous, often too subtle or too vague to be of much value as a measure of real public sentiment. The editor has, however, taken an article from the pen of Premier Hara, the "Great Commoner," a second by Marquis Okuma, the "Grand Old Man," and a third by Baron Goto, the "Roosevelt of Japan." Because of their great distinction and widespread reputation, the world is eager to listen to them, whatever they may have to say.

From a literary point of view these articles, whether originally written in English or translated from the Japanese, leave much room for improvement. But the editor, conscious of his own limita- ' tions, has resisted the temptation to rewrite them. He has, however, taken the liberty of making such emendations as he thought absolutely necessary in order to avoid overtaxing the imagination of the reader. Only to that extent is he responsible for the English of this book. He presents this volume not as

PREFACE

a work of literature, but as a symposium of opinions of grave international significance which, due to the vehicle by which they were originally conveyed, have remained more or less unknown to Europe and America.

Acknowledgment is due to the editors or publishers of the journals and books, in which these articles originally appeared, for permission to reprint them in the present form.

K. K. Kawakami.

New York. May. 1921.

Table Of Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I. A World Unsafe for Democracy ... 11

By Isoh Yamagata.

CHAPTER I A World Unsafe for Democracy By IsoH Yamagata

Mr. Yamagata is the editor of the Seoul Press, an English daily paper in Seoul, Korea. He was a collaborator in the preparation of Professor James Murdoch's monumental "History of Japan During the Century of Early Foreign Intercourse." This article appeared in the Seoul Press in October, 1920.

"Y^T'HEN the phrase, "the world safe for democ- * ' racy," was first used by Mr. Wilson, it received an almost hysterical applause, and as long as it served its war purpose In France and England it was freely quoted in those countries. Tattered and threadbare though it has become, it still echoes around the world. And after all how well it sounds ! In it are rolled up all those half-formed hopes and immature formulas with which idealists delude themselves, but toward which, if we are not too officious in endeavoring to manage evolution for ourselves, we may be developing.

The staggering certainty is, however, that evolution is a great force working over our heads; something far too stupendous for us to more than dimly apprehend, and with a momentum which we can certainly not stop and probably can hardly modify. It presupposes law in the universe, but law of such a bewildering complexity that we, with our slightly evolved mentalities, can but touch the hem of its garment. And in this evolution nothing is plainer than that the individual counts for almost nothing. iWhen he becomes too obstreperous, Nature's spear point is ready, and he either falls back into his proper place, or is hit by the spear and falls and is cast aside.

In the "cosmological perspective" that Haeckel , wrote of, the human individual is of not much greater worth than the ant, the fly, or the elephant. His real strength lies in unity and an obedience to law — in his ability, indeed, to enter into the rhythm of the whole and willingly become one note in the big music. The great bandmaster does not tolerate small individual footings that are not in the score, and a music-loving audience leaves when this occurs.

The agitators who are preaching democracy and freedom in various parts of the world to-day are out of harmony with Nature's teachings and are themselves shackled men. They believe they are free — in reality they are like sheep, for they are all following a few leaders who have the mental virility to hypnotize them with their fine-sounding phrases. Their words may be their own, but their ideas are manufactured for them by the arch-hypnotists of democracy. If one of these agitators were seized with a bad attack of palsy or St. Vitus's dance, in which all of his fingers and toes and other members wished to go their own free and individual ways, he

A WORLD UNSAFE FOR DEMOCRACY

would speedily, so far as his own personality was concerned, become an ardent advocate of autocracy, and long for the restoration of power to his sovereign brain. An individual with shaking head, twitching arms, jerking legs, and a stuttering tongue would be absurd if he got up to recite Whitman's "I am the captain of my soul." His arms and legs might assert that they were of equal rank, and his tongue might decide at the last moment on some other poem. This would be disconcerting to him, as well as painful and unpleasant to his audience.

The analogy Is not as far-fetched and absurd as it appears, for during the late war It was only because the St. Vitus germs of Individualism had not yet gotten the upper hand In Britain, France, and America that these countries, together with Japan — who has so far retained the captaincy- of her soul — were able to raise conscript armies, put things on an autocratic basis, submerge the Individual, and finally conquer Germany. Simple honesty requires the admission that, without becoming monarchical In practice, if not In form, the United States Government could never have given the help which the lordly and supercilious Briton now so derides.

But surely one may ask, if In time of crisis and stress an autocratic government Is necessary to the accomplishment of great ends, why In time of peace should It not be equally efficacious? As a matter of fact it is, and Japan and Germany, as the latter country was before 1914, prove it. One knows that it is highly reprehensible to see any good in Germany, and in daring to do so one must be willing to face ostracism by the greater part of society. Still, as things are, one doesn't lose much by this, for tiresome and unoriginal people with their cut-and-dried opinions may bore exceedingly, even though they be highly respectable and of the proud majority. It is futile to deny that Germany with her imperialism and her unity had built up a marvelous state, and the time may come, with the rising tide of Bolshevism threatening to engulf the world, when even her enemies may wish that she were as strong and powerful as in the days when It required the combined force of many nations to subdue her.

After all, we might as well recognize the fact that, in spite of the upward trend of evolution, we are still merely human beings built on a substratum of neolithic man. Even in this twentieth century, after the tragic lessons of the last few years, we are still considerably lower than the angels, and being so we need strong rulers rather than the democracy and individualism that are being preached by all the devotees of the great god Fashion.

Balzac, one of the greatest thinkers of the nineteenth century, makes one of his characters in "The Country Doctor" say:

"The disease of the present day is superiority. There are more saints than niches; and the reason is obvious. Losing the monarchy we lost honor, losing the religion of our fathers we lost the Christian virtues, and through our fruitless attempts at government we have lost patriotism.

A WORLD UNSAFE FOR DEMOCRACY

"Power is, as it were, the heart of a State. Nature, in all her creations, shuts in the vital principle to give it greater stamina ; so with the body politic.

"Abolish the peerage, and at once every rich man becomes a privileged person. Instead of a hundred (peers), you have ten thousand, and you enlarge the sore of social inequalities.

"The triumph of the bourgeoisie over the monarchical system, which has for its object the increase, in the eyes of the people, of the numbers of the privileged class, will find the inevitable end in the triumph of the masses over the bourgeoisie. When that struggle arises, its weapon in hand will be the right of suffrage, given without restriction to the masses. He who votes, discusses. Authority when discussed does not exist. Can you imagine a Society without authority? No, well then, authority means force, and force rests on a judgment rendered."

Even though the cosmic laws are beyond our understanding, clear hints are given us as to our course. We may not know the harbor we are bound for, but if we follow the channel marked out by the buoys we shall escape the shallows and the rocks.

We see that independence is unwelcome when it invades the nerves of the individual. It works out in a similar way in the family, and a father, if he be wise and thoughtful, governs his children. They are not allowed, with their immature brains, to decide important questions for themselves. The unwelcome scrubbing, the necessary dose of castor oil, the prompt spanking that follows too much individuality on the part of an enterprising youngster, are all highly imperialistic, and to the youngster, wholly to be condemned. But even the most ardent upholder of democracy would probably prefer this family as neighbors to one in which the children were brought up according to the Montessori method or one of the new fids in which "self-determination" is the slogan.

Great corporations, great shipping companies — ' indeed, all important undertakings — ^must be ruled by one master. There is no time for the talk and disputations which would paralyze effort if there were not a supreme head.

All the great nations have been built on imperial foundations, and the phenomenal growth and development of modern Japan were possible only because she was united and had as a ruler a great, farseeing, and unselfish monarch, one of the great men of history. Is it possible, with the noble old samurai training of the past, the spirit of which enabled her to become what she is, that twentieth century Japan will repudiate that training and follow the false gods of democracy and "freedom" ? The condition of Russia to-day is exactly what Balzac said would happen when the masses ruled. Do the Japanese liberals believe that America is a haven of rest and peace, and that democracy is justifying itself there? Let them investigate conditions there minutely, and they will find that a "world made safe for democracy" works out as a world made safe for crime, dishon-

A WORLD UNSAFE FOR DEMOCRACY

esty in government, and a general waste and inefficiency that are appalling, and that democracy though it be, the United States has had to adopt autocratic methods in every supreme crisis in her history in order to spell Success.

Moreover, in many American university circles at present, there is a very decided reaction against democracy, although this movement is denied or ignored by those who wave the flag of freedom so wildly. This movement was voiced last year in "The Degradation of the Democratic Dogma" by Henry Adams, with a striking preface by his brother, Brooks Adams. In this, the latter says, "for physical reasons, which are capable of mathematical proof, it is clear that democracy must ultimately disintegrate in chaos." The Atlantic Monthly reviewer of this book says that "it is refreshing to have some one say bluntly what he thinks, and not temper the wind of his criticisms to a sensitive public. What is more, the state of the world, including America, is such at the present time that no one can lightly put aside the thesis that the democratic dogma has suffered serious degradation."

A disintegrating, crumbling process seems to have begun all over the world. Individualism, with its pernicious and deceptive doctrine of freedom, is undermining all that civilization has so slowly and with such huge travail built up. This vaunted freedom is a freedom that invariably degenerates into license, and accords liberty to criminals; a freedom for looting, burning, and a general bouleversement of all that real government has hitherto stood for. It must of necessity work out in just this way, because human things have still within them all the springs of selfish energy that enabled their prehistoric ancestors to survive. A true democracy can never exist until altruism has really become the ani- ' mating impulse of every individual. And justice to the "lower" classes is by no means incompatible with the most autocratic form of government. Indeed, this justice might be far more quickly and wisely secured by such a government than by one in which individuals, with their own selfish purposes to serve, may obstruct just legislation, or by one in which the legislators, bought by the labor vote, accord far too much freedom to the workers and make of them a class which eventually is certain to become the worst of tyrants.

In regard to Japan and democracy, there are many foreigners, even Americans, who believe that her very existence still depends upon her remaining a military and imperialistic nation. Her courtesy and forbearance are too great — one remembers the parable of casting pearls before swine — and perhaps if more of the spirit she is credited with, rather than less, were manifested, there might be a sudden quiet reigning in the ranks of foreign missionaries, business men, newspaper editors, etc., who are spreading their malignant anti-Japanese propaganda.

But for her army and navy and great military leaders, Japan would have become an English or Russian outpost, and instead of being the sturdy and

A WORLD UNSAFE FOR DEMOCRACY

efficient race that they are, the Japanese to-day might have become a subject race bearing the yoke of a European rule.

The enemies of Japan, and they are numerous, would be glad to see socialism undermining the empire's strength, and it is not so long ago that a man who is now an attache at one of the embassies in Tokyo came over here, nominally as a teacher, but in reality to report to his government how far socialism in Japan could be counted upon as an ally in case of war.

Before the missionaries, the teachers, the doctors, the men who boast of having carried papers and photographs out of Korea between the double soles of their shoes, to be used by them as proofs of Japanese atrocities in that country — ^before the newspaper editors who are ceaselessly carrying on their nefarious work and who preach against Japan's militarism and imperialism chiefly to incite the young and immature against the existing order of things — before these agitators do further harm, let them be unceremoniously hustled out of the country — or, to use more dignified language, deported as undesirables. They will perhaps be happier, live more luxuriously, and be under a less severe mental strain on the banks and braes of their own bonnier lands, and Nature will doubtless fill the vacuum that their departure causes.

Let the men of the younger generation in Japan realize that they may be the ones who will last hold civilization in their grasp — to preserve or to crush forever. If they would be world saviors, let them curb a little their responsiveness and eagerness in following Western thought, and beware the snares and pitfalls that are so cleverly set for them around the clay feet of the Goddess of Liberty.

CHAPTER II The Monroe Doctrine and the League OF Nations

By Professor Rikitaro Fujisawa

Professor Fujisawa was born in 1861 in Niigata, Japan. He was educated in the University of Tokyo, University College of London, and the Universities of Berlin and Strassburg. The last-named institution conferred upon him the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Since 1887 he has been Professor of Mathematics in the Imperial University of Tokyo. He was Japan's delegate to the Second International Conference on Mathematics, Paris, 1900, and also to the International Commission on the Teachings of Mathematics, 1910. Although a mathematician by training. Dr. Fujisawa has written many articles on international politics. He is a facile writer both in Japanese and in English. This article was published in the Asian Revieiu, Tokyo, for April and May, 1920, under the title of "The Feaji Doctrine."

TN a certain aspect history repeats itself; in a cer- -^ tain other aspect history never repeats itself. History will repeat itself in the sense that the future, in spite of the best efforts of the world's greatest and wisest men gathered together at the Peace Conference, has in store some sort of world calamities commensurable with, or even eclipsing, the World War which we have just gone through. History will not repeat itself in the sense that the next world calamity will not be a war as we now conceive it or, even if It be destined to be a war, It will not be caused by the military genius and daring despotism of a Napoleon or by the avarice of autocratic militarism of the Prussian type led by the morbid vaingloriousness of a Wilhelm Hohenzollern.

Nature Is cynical and not seldom plays a trick by attacking humanity from the quarter least expected, while mankind Is busily engaged In entrenching Itself against the recurrence of the danger experienced a little while ago. Paris has still fresh remembrance of the long-range Berthas. A few hours' railway journey from the seat of the conference brings Its participants to the scene of the horrors and devastations wrought by German brutality. As a natural consequence, the wisdom and sagacity of the peace movement will be handicapped, If not blinded, by the vivid memories of the shocks and emotions felt during the war and the enduring sufferings and distress of bereavement which will long survive the war, and by the horrible sight of the devastated regions all around. In the dizzy eyes of the too ardent advocates of any peace movement, the danger of arrogant militarism outshines all other sources of danger which are, in reality, equally appalling and disastrous, to the detriment of sober meditation and sound judgment. Let those who are jubilant over the formulation of the constitution of the League of Nations be reminded of the very many perilous isms silently glaring from behind the walls of the great banqueting hall at the Qua! d'Orsay. Capitalistic Imperialism, even subject to Drago llmitations, is as cruel and detestable as Bolshevism, though it may not appear so terrifying as the latter, simply because it works in an indirect, roundabout way. Besides isms like the two just mentioned, whose existence in our midst is well known, there are isms still in an embryo stage like Adventism which, we are told, will some day crush Russian Bolshevism.

Again it does not lie beyond the scope of our imagination to think of Ultrabolshevism, compared with which the Bolshevism of Lenine and Peter may appear humane and tame. Another example of such an ism is Dictatorism. It exists in a great nation which may unwittingly own the potentiality of becoming the greatest nation upon the earth, monopolizing the privilege of interpreting fineries such as right, justice, freedom, and so forth in a manner as suits its own convenience and in a way conforming to its exalted and advantageous position among the 'comity of nations, denying the other nations even the right of criticizing such interpretations, and unconsciously but aggressively setting itself up as the dictatorial arbiter in all disputes among nations. It is a facsimile of the world domination dreamed of by the pre-war German chauvinists, attained not by miffht but by the apparently pacific means of one-sided or hypocritical ri^ht backed by might camouflaged. Viewed from the historical standpoint, it is the eighteenth century spirit of "enlightened despotism" clothed in the garment of the twentieth century fashion of "safe for democracy." Over and above these, there are still other dangerous isms impervious to our myopic vision, or perhaps yet to be born, for which human inventiveness will some day be called upon to find fit names. Let us be always conscious of the indisputable truth that we live amidst a universe of unknown forces pregnant with fathomless good or evil and immeasurable happiness or woe.

We have but a vague idea of how far we can possibly penetrate into the mystery of the future. At the same time, we feel certain that the future has in store innumerable surprises. Human foresight, even discounting unlooked-for occurrences, is subject to a limit prescribed by earthly wisdom, in spite of our ignorance as to where in the sequence of time this limit lies. People are apt to think that tinned food will be preserved forever free from mildew, while our appetite instinctively shuns dusty tins in a dark corner of a grocer's shop. As my mind was flying to and fro among very many such instances of human Incongruities, my fancy happened to perch for a while upon the visionary spectacle of so many Illustrious Peace Delegates lately assembled In Paris, some sipping from, and some others smacking their lips over, cups of French wine of the Napoleonic age. Meanwhile my thought went astray to Rhine wine bottled with scrupulous care and not to be uncorked till the next world peace conference. And as the climax of my whim, I was utterly bewildered In speculating on what would in the end become of California wine in a hermetically sealed bottle never to be broken.

Anything created by mankind can be destroyed by mankind. As long as there exists harmony among the primary causes which led to the creation of a certain thing, that thing will exist. But no sooner than this harmony is disturbed, it will cease to have real existence. The very conception of the League of Nations presupposes that the atmosphere of the self-sacrificing, conciliatory spirit should pervade the whole world. Self-denial on the part of an individual is occasionally met with, though very rarely. Self-denial on the part of a nation is something which we can even hardly dream of. The smooth working of the League of Nations presupposes self-denial to a greater or lesser extent on the part of the most powerful nations. Is this humanly practicable? The only possible answer to this enigma is to be found in the words of the British Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George : "Let us try it. Let us try it seriously and in earnest." Here a -priori arguing is not of the slightest avail. We have to attack the problem inductively, whereby we have to admit in advance that, in this respect, we are moving in the times of Roger Bacon and not so far advanced as the days of Francis Bacon. Even the most optimistic proponent of the League of Nations must recognize that it is merely an experiment. The most carefully prepared covenant cannot work miracles. The next question is: Is the prospect more or less hopeful? Were we allowed to indulge in the silly habit of prophesying, we cannot help thinking of human weakness appealing to omens in such a case. Even taking into due consideration the extremities to which party interests may lead, it does not seem to bespeak a happy augury for the world peace movement that there should be, in a responsible body of the distinguished politicians of a country often identified with the cradle of the conception of the league of nations, a man who wantonly talks of going to war with a friendly Power at a self-made provocation.

While we desire most whole-heartedly the success of the League of Nations, we cannot help thinking that its very conception shows inherent frailty in a futile attempt to go far beyond the boldest stretch of imagination. By so doing, it loses much of its efficacy by attenuation. What can be achieved by the League of Nations within the period, during which we may reasonably expect it to remain effective, may be more rationally and, indeed, more efficiently, accomplished by adopting a principle, for which I was striving to seek a name which will forestall misinterpretation. Etymological considerations are of no avail, as any name so derived is unfailingly prone to misconstructions one way or other. So, in homage to, and as souvenir of, the disinterested labors of the Big Five at the Paris Conference, I took the initial letters a, e, f, i, j, of their names, and these letters were arranged by repeated trials so as to conform to phonetic ease, resulting in the permutation feaji.

II

The Feaji principle or doctiine is the general name given to the "regional understanding" in the wording of the proposed Covenant of the League of Nations, without reference to any particular specified region. The principle avows the political predominance of a Power or a combination of at most two Powers best qualified for maintaining order and for furthering progress and civilization in a region determined by geographical considerations following the line of absolute impartiality. Viewed from another angle, it vindicates the noninterference, in matters relating to a particular region, of Powers other than the one which, by reason of geographical propinquity, coupled with its national strength and just aspirations, is naturally and worthily entitled to be looked upon as the dominating guardian Power in this region.

The Feaji principle applied to the Western Hemisphere is no more or less than the Monroe Doctrine itself. If, in the definition of the "Monroe Doctrine" to be found in any lexicon or dictionary, the words "American continent," the "United States," "European Powers" be replaced by "a particular region," "the dominating Power," "other Powers" respectively, there emerges a perfect definition of the Feaji principle.

It would hardly be necessary to say that the Monroe Doctrine was foreshadowed by President Monroe nearly a century ago, discountenancing the interference of Europe in matters relating to the American continent. It has since passed through various phases of metamorphosis. In particular, during the World War, it has gone through eruptive convulsions giving rise to wild, arrogant interpretations. Strange to say, however, with the signing of the armistice, it settled down in its primordial significance, in which sense it appears In Article XXI of the Covenant of the League of Nations. As to its future, if we are allowed to push our imagination beyond the barrier of sensible possibility, we may build a castle in Spain of South America having in some remote days her own Feaji doctrine, squeezing Panama between it and the Monroe Doctrine which will then be confined to North America. Incidentally we may add that the new President of Brazil, not long after he received a warm reception as President-elect at New York, is alleged to have gone so far as to say that the inclusion of the Monroe Doctrine in the League of Nations covenants Is a domestic question of the United States alone. Mexico's contention that the Monroe Doctrine as recognized by the Peace Conference is Intended to be forced on all the American countries, irrespective of their views, and that she would not recognize the doctrine, since it injures her sovereignty and Independence, would not be worth any serious consideration, although its contrast with the Brazilian declaration may be amusing to a leisurely observer.

ni

Let us now throw a hasty glance upon the Feaji doctrine of the British Empire. I do not know why, but somehow I was led to think that Mr. Lloyd George, Lord Northcliffe, and Lord Reading were the three men at the helm, who, in the darkest hours during the World War, directed the fortunes of the British Empire. As a monument to the invaluable services they have done in reaching the safe shore, the thought flashed through my mind to name it the Lloyd George-Northcliffe-Reading Doctrine. However, I had to give up this idea, as the name sounds discordant in view of the recent vehement rupture between the first-named two. Dispensing with the recital of other similar failures, I go straight to the point and propose to call it the Sun-Never-Sets Doctrine.

For the British Empire with dominions, colonies, dependencies, settlements, protectorates, and what not, scattered all over the face of the globe, in which the sun never sets, safe high-sea routes are necessary for binding the fragments into an organic whole as well as for intercommunication just as much as interstate railways are indispensable for the well-being of a continental federal country. That these ocean routes should be protected by the biggest navy in the world of the two-powers-standard gauge will require neither elucidation nor justification. It has nothing to do with the so-called freedom of the seas in the sense in which hypocritical Germany used to speak of it in pre-war days, provided it will not be used for unjust aggressive purposes. The guarantee for this is to be sought not in verbal declarations, but in the British character which never turns a deaf ear to the call of chivalry and which is ever ready for self-sacrifice in upholding the cause of real justice and humanity. Great Britain has been a genteel mistress of the seas; she will never be an arrogant master of the seas. "Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves" should henceforth resound "Reign Britannia, Britannia reigns o'er the waves." The British Empire lives by the sea. The power of the British fleet to command the sea was the mainspring of the allied victory, and the chivalry with which it has wielded that command is worthy of the highest sympathy and admiration of all those who know what chivalry means.