Japan by the Japanese/Chapter 12

I propose to make a general statement to-day respecting our foreign policy. As you are aware, Ministers of State have frequently, since the first session of the Diet, stated to the House that our foreign policy is based on the principle of opening the country, or, more accurately, of opening and developing the country. I am assured that this foreign policy, or rather national policy, having been fixed and unchanged since the first years of Meiji, the principle of opening and developing the country is unalterable either now or in the future. But I consider it necessary to make more or less additions to what has hitherto been stated. If we inquire what points are practically most important in the foreign policy that may be regarded as the national policy of the Meiji era, we find that to attain an equal footing with other Powers, as declared in the Imperial Edict at the Restoration, has been the impulse underlying all the national changes that have taken place. It was perceived that, in order to attain an equal footing with the Powers, it was necessary to change the national institutions, learning, and education. Hence the replacement of clans by prefectures took place, as well as coinage reform, enforcement of the conscription law, revision of various other laws and promulgation of new ones, establishment of local assemblies, and the granting of local self-government, steps that led at length to the proclamation of the Constitution. This national policy, this so-called opening and development of the country, or, in other words, this principle of attaining an equal footing with the Powers was, I firmly believe, the motive that has enabled Japan to become a nation advanced in civilization and respected by the world.

What I now desire to add to previous statements on the subject is that foreign intercourse is a very difficult affair, not to be regulated at will by a single country, and that it has now ​undergone gradual but great changes. Gentlemen, the foreign intercourse of former years was, as you are aware, really of narrow limits, being concerned with the relations between one country and another, or a few others. But now, through the enormous development of facilities of transportation and communication, and the close interaction of the world’s interests, foreign relations have been greatly transformed. In the affair between England and Venezuela you are aware that the dispute was about a narrow strip of marshy, uninhabited frontier territory, and that the parties to the controversy were, on the one side, England, the greatest Power in the world, with colonial possessions of over ten million square miles in area, and, on the other, the little South American Republic of Venezuela. But it was by no means so easy, for the United States of America immediately interfered. The affair was thenceforth no longer one between England and Venezuela alone, but between England and North and South America. The ground of that interference was the Monroe doctrine, which, as you are aware, was enunciated long ago with the object of averting the spread of European influence in North and South America. Thus the affair no longer concerned the two Americas and England alone; it became a general international question, for the exclusion of European influence from America was naturally a matter of grave importance to Europe, which has many colonial possessions in the New World. Thus a question that ordinarily concerned a small colony came to assume a general international character.

Take another instance, also relating to England. Last year a dispute arose between England and the Transvaal. It was due simply to an attempt by travellers, or employés of a company, to effect a revolution in the Transvaal. The affair itself was trivial, but though it arose in a little South African Republic—a country having almost the character of a British protected State—it gave rise to complications between Germany and England, and at one time threatened almost to involve the two Powers in war. This dispute between Germany and England was not confined for long to those two countries. It extended apparently to the German Triple Alliance and other Powers, and thus became also a general international affair. In truth, the limits of foreign intercourse have gradually widened to such an extent that a very small affair becomes of concern to the whole world. The war with China in the 27th and 28th year of Meiji originally concerned only Japan and China, and did not touch other Powers in any way. But even this led, in the latter year, to the interference of three of the most influential Powers of Continental Europe. Thus it also became a general international ​question. In consequence of the war between Japan and China it has come to pass that whereas the expression ‘Eastern Question’ used to apply only to the world-famed problem of Eastern Europe, it now possesses the dual significance of the Near-Eastern, or the Far-Eastern, Question. In a word, the sphere of foreign intercourse has so greatly widened that the slightest incident may affect the interests of the whole world.

I desire here to emphasize the facts that foreign intercourse must above all things be planned on a large scale, for all diplomatic projects have immediate interest for the whole world; and that, since foreign policy, or, rather, national policy, must be fixed, unchanged, and continuous, the best method of diplomacy is to adhere strictly to the principles of international law. Now, to adhere to the principles of international law, diplomacy must be based on justice. The power of justice is great, for it is sure to enlist the sympathy of the whole world. Having devoted herself for years with ardour and diligence to national progress, and having come to enjoy the great friendship of the Powers of Europe and America, Japan, which for forty years past has been fettered with disadvantageous treaties, has now advanced to such a position that, in accordance with the principles of international law, she is recognised as a truly independent Power, and, in conformity with international usage, is accorded the treatment of an equal. This is, in fact, the result of her own progress, and of England’s consent, leading the rest of the world, to a revision of the existing treaties—consent which was followed by a similar ample expression of good-will and agreement in treaty revision by the other Powers of Europe and America. Thus treaty revision, which has for decades been a great object with us, has been accomplished, the only Power that has not yet effected revision being Austro-Hungary, and the negotiations with her are sure sooner or later to be successfully concluded. Japan will thus have attained a position of equality with the world.

It has hitherto been contended, as you are aware, even by great jurists, that extraterritoriality should be exercised in all non-Christian countries, and among all other than white races. But that theory has gradually been abandoned, and Japan, having based her progress upon justice, and received the just support of the world, has, though outside the pale of Christendom and the white races, succeeded in attaining a position of equality with them. If, therefore, we would reap all the fruits of treaty revision, we must make still greater efforts to develop our country. There is no doubt that the country will progress, and its advance will go hand-in-hand with diplomacy. We must adopt that best type of diplomacy which, based on justice, ​approaches most closely to international law. This is not a mere statement of my own—that is to say, of Okuma individually. It is my declaration as a representative of the Meiji era. The kind of diplomacy that changes with its director is most pernicious and dangerous. There have been many instances of temporary success obtained by extraordinary geniuses or through extraordinary diplomacy; but such successes are as fragile as towers built on sand. That is what I mean by saying that foreign policy is fixed, immovable and unchangeable, and that foreign policy which changes with its director is pernicious. This has been the definite and settled view held since the first years of the Meiji era, though there may have been occasional errors. It is my intention to follow loyally and sincerely the principle I have just referred to, with due regard for the national Constitution, and in obedience to the spirit of progress, and I do not think there can be much error in carrying out such a policy.

Happily, our foreign relations are at present very cordial. I am assured that whatever slight differences may exist will be readily settled. These foreign relations will, in my opinion, eventually lead to a most cordial friendship towards Japan. Powers that, up to the present, have felt more or less coldly towards us will turn out to be the most friendly.

In respect of the general policy—that is, the policy of the Meiji Government—I have made but slight observations in addition to what has already been frequently stated. Before closing I desire to make a few more remarks. Since Japan, as I have already said, has entered the comity of nations, there is no doubt that all her foreign affairs will be more complicated than ever; and as Japanese interests, commerce, and other matters, abroad must extend, the expenses for legations and consulates, which are essentials of diplomacy, cannot be avoided. But since Japan’s position in the world has risen, the work she must do abroad is daily augmenting. The nation is ceaselessly expanding, so that her flag is to be seen in Europe and America. She is now no longer what she was in the days of her seclusion. I believe it really necessary that her diplomatic expenditures should gradually increase.