Political commentators in America and Britain have been persistently discussing post-war problems ever since the beginning of the war. Recently these discussions are being carried on with ever greater fervour. The post-war problems discussed, all based on the hypothesis of an anti-Axis victory, include the unilateral disarming of the Axis powers; world policing by the Allies; releasing the world's natural resources for peaceful purposes alone; the post-war establishment of a world wide network of commercial airlines so that world culture may flow in alternating currents, and kindred topics.
All these and similar Anglo-American conjectures as to the post-war world have in common the following: (1) they do not so much as touch on the fundamental causes underlying the war; (2) they take the purely propaganda assumption of an anti-Axis victory as a matter of course and (3) they imply restoration of the pre-war world order characterized by Anglo-American domination after the war. In other words all the Anglo-American arguments and discussions on the post-war world utterly disregard the fact that it was precisely the shortcomings and inconsistencies of the pre-war world order which made the second world war inevitable, and voice the Anglo-American determination to impose that pre-war order on the world once more after the war is over; to impose it, moreover, by force, and, what is more, the force of Britain and America alone. This not only constitutes an essential defect in their arguments, but it can be taken as a complete revelation of the Anglo-American ambition for absolute world hegemony.
In the previous world war the allied leaders were faced with the necessity of clarifying their confused war aims to their peoples and the world. After having dragged the American people into the war in the name of "justice" and "humanity," and to "make the world safe for democracy," Wilson made his famous Fourteen-Point Declaration in January 1918, in order to clarify the Allies' war aims. No sooner had arms been laid down, however, than the conflicting interests of the Allied Nations became apparent and all harmony among them gave way to discord. The ideals of free trade and mutual armament restriction were utterly betrayed. The League of Nations itself, which America did not join, was reduced to purely nominal existence. In facing their peoples, in whose memories the great disillusionment and disappointments of the epoch following Versailles are still fresh, it is impossible for Anglo-American politicians to repeat today the illusory war aims so lightly discarded after the last war. As, moreover, the professed aim
of overthrowing and disarming the Axis countries and subsequent policing of the world by Britain and America is nothing but a threadbare disguise for the Anglo-American ambition for absolute world hegemony, the Anglo-American leaders are particularly eager to avoid discussion of war aims. It is to sidetrack such discussions and create the impression that the war is already won that they are emitting much high-flown and deceptive phrases as to what they will do after the war, and the wonderful shape of the post-war world to come.
Were these leaders to clarify sincerely their true aims and the true underlying causes of the war, the absolute inconsistency between their professed ideals and frantic ambition in trying to restore and further consolidate their world hegemony in a perpetuation of the pre-war world order, whose economic and political deadlock made the present world war inevitable, would become immediately apparent. This slurring over of the question of war aims and preferential discussion of post-war problems is a clever propaganda trick to conceal the illogical and irrational nature of their own ambitions.
There is furthermore a tactical element in the constant discussion of post-war problems by the enemy. They have no other way to drag their peoples into long continued hostilities, whose purpose escapes them, than by continued appeals to hatred of the Axis countries and by constant marshalling of beautiful phrases about eternal peace and happiness after the war. Abroad, too, the constant broadcasting of post-war plans is undoubtedly aimed at creating the illusion among the peoples of neutrals and minor co-belligerent countries that the Allies are really winning the war. They may also entertain the vain hope that through continued reiteration of high-sounding phrases the impression can be created that an Allied victory would indeed bring happiness to mankind, and the fihtting [sic] will of their enemies be eventually undermined thereby. The Axis Powers, however, will not be misled by this spurious Anglo-American propaganda. We shall lose no opportunity to point out the glaring shortcomings of the post-war plans, whose real nature is quite apparent under the high-sounding verbal disguise, and while we thus destroy the enemy's propaganda plans we shall not fail in our duty of emphasizing the world outlook of our nation and of the liberated peoples of East Asia.
Let us take up the substance of the Anglo-American post-war schemes and investigate the true aspect of the post-war order so loudly propagandized by America and Britain. The fundamental causes of today's world upheaval can be ascribed, in the ultimate analysis, to the bankruptcy of that individualism which was the dominating idea of the nineteenth century. This individualism, placing first importance on the so-called "freedom" of the individual, had temporarily conditioned the world, politically in the form of democracy, and economically in the form of the so-called laissez-faire principle. That liberalistic world order, which may have served some useful purpose at the time of its inception, occupies, however, only one page in the long history of mankind. It is, by no means of such a nature that it should be perpetuated and should dominate the world forever.
In the internal politics of different countries, democracy, which for a time seemed to have brought stability to Europe and America, gave rise to parliamentarianism based on the supposed equality of the individual. In international politics the democratic idea was expressed in the principle of racial self-determination, and theoretically places all States, great and small, on an equal footing. In the face of the supremacy of the administration which developed with the growing complication of the social structure, parliamentarianism, however, soon revealed its inadequacy as a means for expressing the will of the people. Furthermore, parliament itself, the press, and those other organs of public opinion which form the very basis of a democratic parliamentary political structure all became the instruments and victims of capitalistic machinations and lost their independent functions of former days. Democratic countries were thus dragged involuntarily into the vortex of the chaotic struggle for private profits pursued in their midst by powerful capitalistic interests. Even greater confusion arose in international politics. Those smaller States who had been accorded theoretical equality found it totally impossible in practice to build up self-supplying or self-sufficient economies within the limits of their small territories. Moreover the constant and rapid progress in the technique of war made the broadening of the basic units of national defence unavoidable. Confronted with these problems the smaller States unable to attain either economic stability or national security, inevitably became pawns in the game of power politics pursued unceasingly by the dominating world Powers. Liberalistic economy, moreover, which, in theory seemed to promise eternal prosperity to mankind, was soon submerged under and dominated by powerful monopolistic interests, and robbed of its main tenets of national economic freedom and equality of opportunity. Indeed it soon became clear that, though it was possible to theorize about international freedom of trade, for the smaller States it was found impossible to put it into practice in face of the aggressive competition of the great Powers.
The world order of the nineteenth century is being subjected to a searching criticism even by a few American and British authors. In England, for example, Professor Carr of University of Wales in his book Conditions of Peace published last year, emphasizes the necessity for a re-examination of the principles of democracy, racial self-determination, and laissez-faire capitalism. In America, Professor Burnham of New York University sets forth in his book The Managerial Revolution his opinion that administrators drawn from a new class of technicians must be encharged with State administration in the future.
The underlying causes of the present world war sprang from remote roots. Not least among them was an irresistible historic trend demanding a general liquidation of the obsolete political and economical world order functioning exclusively in the interests of the Anglo-Saxons and under their complete domination. This is a problem which will have to be solved in the post-war world. It is impossible of solution by such superficial measures as enforcing sanctions upon so-called "aggressors" or policing the world as
advocated by the enemy.
What is set up as the joint war aims of America and Britain is the Atlantic Charter of August, two years ago. In order to refresh your memories, I will point out to you the eight points in that charter:
The two nations declared that:
(1) Their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or otherwise.
(2) They desire to see no territorial changes except as a result of the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned.
(3) They respect the rights of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live and wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.
(4) They will endeavour, with due respect for their existing obligations, to assure access to all nations on equal terms to the trade and raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.
(5) They desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing for all full economic advantages and personal and social security.
(6) After the overthrow of Nazi tyranny, they hope to see a peace established which will afford all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own territories and which will afford assurance that the men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.
(7) Such a peace should enable all men to sail the high seas and oceans without interference.
(8) They believe that all the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons, must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten or may threaten aggression outside their countries, they believe, pending the establishment of a wide and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measures which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.
Again, in a speech delivered by Sumner Welles, former Assistant Secretary of State, in May, last year, he stressed the organization of an international police force until a system for guaranteeing general safety could be established. He added that after urgent post-war economic and social measures had been taken, conditions for a lasting peace in an international system with the Allied nations at the centre should be decided upon, and that individuals, groups, and peoples responsible for the war should be punished. In the same month, Anthony Eden, British Foreign Secretary, declared that it was necessary for the four nations of Britain, America, the Soviet Union, and China alone to maintain arms with which to police the world.
In all these declarations and ideas the dominating theme is the desire to suppress the so-called "aggressors" by brute strength and restore the status quo ante bellum with a few added defects. On this point lofty ideals and honest reflection are alike omitted. These declarations, devoid of constructive
aims or any vision beyond the immediate problem of victory or defeat, touch in no way on the fundamental problem of the war, which is: "Who made the world this way?" Instead of enquiring into the causes that forced the Axis to fight for their right to live, they talk only of the unconditional surrender of the Axis nations, the disarmament of "aggressors," a world police force or an Anglo-American guaranteed system to ensure world security. It is not strange that even within America and Britain there is opposition to such reactionary and unconstructive ideas. Moreover it may be pointed out, even without looking back to Versailles, that such ideas may be easy to talk about and may gratify the baser passions of the enemy, but it is abundantly clear that they can never be put into effective practice. The post-war economic order is another favourite topic of the Americans. They tirelessly repeat well-worn phrases as to the abolition of trade barriers, the free access to natural resources by non-aggressors, and the economic welfare of each people. The Atlantic Charter itself supports the principle of equal access to natural resources and international economic co-operation. Summer Welles in his speech of May, last year, also called for the development to the full of the productive power of mankind, and the free circulation of commodities across frontiers for the benefit of all humanity. At the same time he asserted that regional spheres, such as the American hemisphere, should be preserved as part of the post-war world economic structure. In a later speech delivered in October Welles qualified his earlier speech by stressing that resources should be made available only to those who were not "aggressors," that the resources supplied be limited to what was necessary for peaceful aims, and that obstacles to free trade be abolished.
The principle of free trade, however, broke down completely in the past when weak countries were made the prey of the Anglo-American Powers, and no small country could protect itself adequately in the international trade areas. For Welles to continue to give lip service to the principle of free trade can be understood in the light of the American determination to control the trade of the world.
Moreover, for Welles to advocate in one breath the abolition of trade barriers on the one hand and the principle of preservation of the American hemisphere structure on the other is a plain indication of the American desire to have her cake and eat it too. It is but one more manifestation of that typically self-seeking American policy which makes America demand of other nations equal opportunities and free access to their resources, while at the same time zealously bent on securing monopolistic control of the Central and South American resources and markets for itself. Welles further says that resources should be supplied only to those who are not "aggressors" and within limits only necessary for peaceful aims. But how are aggressors and non-aggressors to be distinguished, and by whom? Who will decide on the amounts necessary for peaceful aims?
Secretary of State Hull, who represents America's traditions and who is at the helm of its foreign policy, in a speech made in September, this year, concerning war problems and conduct asserted that the Allied nations had
identical interests and were moreover gaining the fruits of co-operation. He then went on to say that even after the war the co-operation of the peace-loving Allied nations should be firm and close. Hull declared that international conflicts were of three kinds, those that had their roots in political or legal differences, and others which sprang from pure lust for aggression. He advocated mediation in the first type, arbitration by an international court in the second, and the enforcement of rigorous sanctions in the third. In that way, he asserted, the peace of the world could be permanently maintained. He further stated that with equality among nations, respect for international law, equal economic opportunities, and the good neighbour policy at the foundations, the welfare of all the various peoples of the world would be actively promoted. Underlying his whole speech is the idea of enforcing sanctions against whomsoever the Allied nations choose to call "aggressors," co-operation among the so-called "democracies" and "freedom" of trade under American control. There is not one word which might contribute to a new world peace; not one word seeking to discover or remove the causes of the present war. Just taking the idea of the abolition of trade barriers, it has been found that under a democratic political structure it is inherently impossible to lower barriers to trade. America's Government is democratic in form. In trade problems, therefore, though the individual members of Congress are well aware of the political machinations of various powerful vested interests in the country and the pressure brought to bear on the Government through their lobbyists, nevertheless party and other political considerations force Congress to give heed to the demands of private interests even though against the public good. As a result many of the decisions reached by Congress subordinate public welfare to the satisfaction of as many of these selfish private interests as possible, while international considerations which cannot influence the polling booth have no weight whatsoever with them. America's high tariff policy is witness to this fact, and Hull, who devoted many years of his life to the tariff problem, should know better than anyone else that it is impossible to seek freedom of trade within a democratic political structure.
Fundamentally Anglo-America's theory of post-war management is to restore the pre-war world order and to maintain it forcibly through the armed might of the two nations. The arrogant spirit in which this theory is conceived is that the post-war order is to be imposed by the victor on the vanquished by force at the victor's own will. It is based on the ideology that whatever America and Britain may choose to do, is right. Theorizing on post-war problems from various angles has been popular in America of late. Of course, there are some, like former President Hoover is one of the few, who urges America to reflect on her arrogant attitude. The greater part of the theorists clamour for rigorous sanctions to be enforced against the "aggressors."
Numerous organizations interested to be regarded as instruments of post-war management, are already being established under the leadership of America and Britain. The Lend-Lease Administration must be regarded
as one of such organizations as must the joint Allied organs concerning foodstuffs, relief, currency and others which have been established. The setting up of these bodies at this time is an endeavour to prevent America from going the same way it did after the last great war when it refused to join the League of Nations. It can also be said that these bodies are a manifestation of the determination on the part of America's leaders to move out actively in its world policy. Should these organs survive the war, as long as America and Britain aim at the rebuilding of the nineteenth century order, they would probably serve as a convenient means whereby America and Britain profiting by their superior economic position might enforce in favour of their own national policies such measures as the severance of economic relations with other countries and the freezing of assets.
In short, no matter what beautiful phrases may drop from American and British lips, as long as these countries fail to study and eradicate the fundamental reasons underlying the present war; as long as they do not divest themselves of their preconceived idea that whatever they do is right, there can be no world security.
In scanning these American blueprints for post-war management of the world in none of them can be found any consideration for the problems of East Asia, except for an occasional reference to Chungking. This is obviously the result of Anglo-American ignorance of East Asian affairs and their contemptuous attitude toward Asiatic nations in general. Possibly no more could be expected of those countries who have so long arrogated to themselves the overlordship of the Oriental races, and through lack of understanding become imbued with a totally unwarrantable sense of superiority, and a determination to exploit these peoples to satisfy their own material lust and greed.
Let us turn our attention for a moment to the situation in East Asia. Centuries have passed since the nations of Europe first embarked on aggressive inroads into East Asia. As different Powers in Europe rose and fell, so in Asia the Netherlands superseded Portugal and the Netherlands was replaced by Britain. These Occidental nations came entirely uninvited, and Britain at last had the brazen effrontery to refer to the peoples of these regions, to whom she had extended the ever spreading tentacles of aggression, as the "white man's burden," in an endeavour to stifle the uneasy consciences of the very British people themselves with that insolent slogan.
Once British dominion was firmly established over India, Britain extended her tentacles to China, while the influence of Czarist Russia which had swept across North Asia and Siberia and brought these enormous regions under its control in the early nineteen century, penetrated southward to Manchuria and threatened East Asia. The United States, also determined to get a finger in the pie, stretched out an avid hand outside of the Pacific. Our nation, suddenly aroused from two and a half centuries of absolutely peaceful sleep was in turn forced to awaken the Chinese from their more lethargic slumber through the Sino-Japanese War, and the struggle centring around the Boxer Rebellion. Then we faced our foreign aggressors. Had
Japan yielded to the nations of the West at that time the entire East would have been Africanized and split up into colonies of rival Occidental Powers. All the nations of Asia would inevitably have been reduced to the same state of vassalage as India. Japan, however, shattered the aggressive military might of Czarist Russia on the plains of Manchuria, and destroyed her mighty fleet in the Straits of Tsushima. Thus our nation's place as the guardian Power in East Asia was established. Then, through ten years of hard work, and through the fire of the first World War, we built up our national prestige and power until our Empire stood unshakable. It devolves on us, who have succeeded to the glorious task set by our predecessors, to free East Asia from Anglo-American tyranny, to enable all the nations of East Asia to find their fitting places in the sun, to rid the Anglo-Saxons of their false white man's superiority complex and to consolidate the position of East Asia in the world system of modern nations, thereby achieving the goal of true stabilization of East Asia.
Already six years have gone by since the outbreak of the China affair and we have been fighting for nearly two years in the war of greater East Asia. Unfortunately, the Chungking régime has not yet come to see the error of its ways in perpetuating a useless fratricidal war, but the Nanking Government of China now actively co-operating with us is growing stronger day by day and strengthening its ties with our country. Burma has become independent and the Philippines, too, on October 14 declared her long-cherished independence. Thus the construction of greater East Asia is steadily progressing.
Nevertheless, the armed forces of the United States and Britain are fiercely watching for opportunities to counter-attack form [sic] the north and south and their numerical strength and striking power are not to be despised. The immediate mission which must be fulfilled by this Empire, fighting as she is for the stabilization of East Asia, is, first of all, to smash these foreign foes. We must not only check their counter-offensive by armed force but also combine the total strengths of all East Asiatic countries so that an unbeatable structure may be established in this part of the world. This is the urgent first step toward the stabilization of East Asia which we must take without fail.
At the same time, we are charged with the vast task of constructing a greater East Asia co-prosperity sphere. As I have already said, the prevailing chaos in the world today is the inevitable result of the collapse of a political and economic order based on individualistic ideology. The current war is also a struggle to found a new order. In these chaotic times, it is only natural that the various nations of greater East Asia, linked by cultural ties, so near each other geographically and sharing common interests, should work together, aid each other and form a sphere of co-existence. It is such a sphere of co-prosperity that will form a strong link in the chain of a new world order. Some may argue that the ultimate ideal of mankind is to weave the whole world into a single sphere of co-existence so that the hearts of all men may beat in unison. When we consider, however, the marked differences of race, nationality, tradition, cultural form and development and geopolitical
conditions actually existing in the world today, we are led to realize that such an ideal involves too great a forward jump in thought and is difficult of any early fulfilment. Consequently, the new world order that is to come in this century is visualized as different spheres of co-prosperity with each sphere existing in harmony and co-operating with the others.
The breakdown of the world order based on individualism led to the birth of a new order. In individualism the value of each individual is held as absolute. Each individual, however, has a long history behind it which permitted its formation. Moreover, in modern social and economic organization, each individual is inseparably connected with, and mutually dependent upon other contemporary individuals. An individual, therefore, cannot and should not live isolated, independent of and from other contemporaries or be looked upon as floating free from the past and future.
Individualistic order is defective in that it lays particular emphasis only on the present, which is but a moment in the long history of mankind. It stresses contemporary human relations and holds as absolute the welfare of only one particular age, totally ignoring its connection with the past and future.
In seeking for an ideal to replace individualism, we must take note of this defect of individualism. The East Asiatic peoples who are closely united by human affinity and who share a common destiny should uphold as the guiding principles of the co-prosperity sphere, the idea of "eternity" instead of only the present passing "moment" and nationalism in place of democracy.
This ideal is one of the greatest contributions East Asia can make to world peace. The truth, "Light from the East," will be realized by this ideal.
The mission imposed upon us calls upon us first to complete the liberation of East Asia and to co-operate actively with the various peoples in East Asia, thereby creating a true co-prosperity sphere in this region, and, further, to share our happiness and well-being with the rest of the world, not seeking any kind of monopoly for the exclusive benefit of East Asiatic peoples. This will be our contribution to the establishment of a true world peace.
The various peoples in East Asia differ from each other, of course, in the relative degree of their political, economic and cultural maturity. In mutual assistance and support with a unity comparable to that of a united family they are animated alike by the ideals of the new order in the co-prosperity sphere and the brightest future is assured for all of them.
As a preliminary to realizing this lofty ideal, we must first bring about eternal stability in East Asia. For this purpose, we must fight and blast the fake superiority complex of Britain and the United States, militarily, complete the defence of East Asia and, economically, forestall any future Anglo-American attempts at renewed economic pressure whether in the form of sudden severance of economic relations or by any other means. The peace structure which we are going to establish in East Asia is, however, totally different in nature from the Anglo-American peace structure based on an
unwarranted superiority complex, plus a desire for world domination and determined by the Anglo-American idea of victory and defeat. It is our, intention, therefore, to co-operate fully, spiritually as well as materially, with those in other areas of the globe who, sharing our ideals, are resolved to work for the establishment of true world peace, and to lay the foundations for international friendship on a harmonious basis.
The stabilization and prosperity of East Asia conform to the flow of eternal history. Just as many of the causes of the present upheaval are remote, so are some of our goals distant. Our mission is a grave one, but I am firmly convinced that in the glorious future opening before us our gigantic enterprise for bringing about perennial prosperity and true and stable world peace will eventually be crowned with complete success.