Advertisement

Independent thinking: Japanese civil society and the open Sino-Soviet split, 1962–64

Chapter
  • 48 Downloads
Part of the St Antony’s Series book series

Abstract

The precursor to the incredible explosion in Japanese concern with the Sino-Soviet rift that occurred during 1963 was the aftermath of two events dating from late October 1962: the Sino-Indian border war and the Cuban Missile Crisis. In the wake of these incidents, Moscow and Beijing began direct verbal attacks on each other and engaged in increasingly fierce propaganda campaigns to win over ‘hearts and minds’ worldwide, including Japan. The effect in Tokyo was immediate, ‘the dispute… [came] to attract an interest incomparably greater than before.’1 A flood of articles appeared, dominating the headlines and academic journals throughout the next 18 months (Figure 9.1).

Keywords

Foreign Policy Peaceful Coexistence Free World Japanese Newspaper Cuban Missile Crisis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    ‘The Sino-Soviet Dispute and Japan’ Japan Quarterly (Apr./June 1963): 144. 2 Mainichi Shimbun (4 Jan. 1963). 3 Mainichi Shimbun (21 Jan. 1963). 4 Asahi Shimbun (13 Jan. 1963). 5 Sankei Shimbun (9 Jan. 1963). 6 Tokyo Shimbun (14 Jan. 1963). 7 JTW (5 Jan. 1963). 8 JTW (5, 19 Jan. 1963). 9 Seki Yoshihiko, ‘Notes by the Editor’ Journal of Social and Political Ideas in Japan (Apr. 1963): 78–9. 10 ‘Senso to heiwa no mondai ni kan sum Chu-So no kenkai’ Gaimusho Chdsa Geppo (Mar.1961): 26–53. 11 Kurihara Yukio, ‘Chu-So ronsO no rekishiteki haikei’ Gendai no Me (Mar. 1963): 34. 12 See, for example, Ikeyama Shigero [Juro], ‘Chu-So ronso to taishu undo’ Gekkan ROdd Mondai (Apr. 1963): 116; Maeno Ryo and Tsuda Michio in Yamada Munemutsu, et al., ‘Chu-So ronsO to kakushin jinei’ Gendai no Me (Mar. 1963): 44.Google Scholar
  2. 13.
    SatO Noboru, ‘Chu-So ronsO to kokusai kyosanshugi undO’ Chuo Köron (Mar.1963): 102, Mori KyozO, ‘Chu-So tairitsu kara nani o hikidasu ka’ Ronso (Mar. 1963): 7. See also, Nomura Koichi, ‘Tairitsuron ni tsuite futatsu, mitsu no gimon’ Asahi Janaru (10 Mar. 1963): 10, Tsuda (1963): 45, Ishidō Kiyotomo, Chu-So ronsoron (20 July 1963): 208.Google Scholar
  3. 14.
    Terasawa Hajime, et al., ‘Chu-So ronso to Nihon no tachiba’ Fujin Köron (Mar. 1963): 98. Many other terms were used to a lesser degree, see the bibliography for examples.Google Scholar
  4. 15.
    Taiken, ‘Chu-So tairitsu no kongen to sono yukue’ Tairiku Mondai (Mar. 1963): 10. Outside contributors included Okawa Jiro (CRO), Hatano Kenichi, Yoshida Terao (Diet Library), Izaki Kiyota (Kazankai), and Doi Akira (Showa Dojinkai). See also: Taniguchi Yasuji, ‘Chu-So ronsO no shiten’ Gekkan Sohyo (Apr. 1963): 37; Yamazaki Isao, ‘Chu-So ronsO o do miru kaEkonomisuto (22 Jan. 1963): 41; Takasawa Torao, ‘Chu-So ronso to heiwa mondai’ Shakaishugi (July 1963): 14.Google Scholar
  5. 17.
    See, for example, Taiken (Mar. 1963): 8–17; Saito Takashi, “‘Taikoku” no ronri to “jinmin” no ronri’ Chuo Kdron (Feb. 1963): 55–6; Yamazaki Taketoshi, ‘Chu-So tairitsu to Soren keizai no haikei’ Ronso (Mar. 1963): 16; Nakano Sumio, ‘Chu-So ronso ni kan sum ichikosatsu’ Tairiku Mondai (May 1963): 53; Nomura (1963): 10; Ikeyama (1963): 119–20; Aichi Kiichi, et al., ‘Watashi wa ko handan sum’ Chuo Koron (Mar. 1963): 152–3; Ishikawa Tadao, ‘Chu-So kankei no tenbo’ Kyösanken Mondai (May 1963): 33; SaitO Takashi, et al., ‘Chu-So ronsO to gendai’ Sekai (Mar. 1963): 36–68.Google Scholar
  6. 18.
    Taniguchi (1963): 37; Morinaga Kazuhiko, ‘Shiro to kiiro no arasoi?’ Sekai Shuho (16 July 1963): 13.Google Scholar
  7. 19.
    Hirota Yoji, ‘Mo TakutO ni kenri to tsugi ni kuru mono’ Ronso (May 1963): 7–10, 29.Google Scholar
  8. 20.
    See, Harako Rinjiro, ‘Wakai no cho mienu Chu-So ronso’ Sekai Shuho (12 Mar. 1963): 14; Yamazaki (Mar. 1963): 22; Ishikawa (1963): 29–38; Yamazaki Isao, ‘Chu-So ronso ni okeru jakkan no shudai’ Shiso (Feb. 1963): 71; Harako RinjirO, ‘Bunretsu o fukameru sekai kyosanshugi undo’ Ronsd (Mar. 1963): 29–30. Interestingly, Harako considered the current rift only a partial vindication of the ‘Titoisation’ theories of the early 1950s, because Chinese nationalism was not content simply to break away from the Socialist bloc, it wanted to lead it.Google Scholar
  9. 23.
    Mori (Mar. 1963): 14; Asahi Shimbun ChOsa Kenkyushitsu, Chu-So ronsd (30 June 1963): 28.Google Scholar
  10. 24.
    See, Okuno Shintaro, in Aichi (1963): 152, Nishikawa Ichiro, ‘Chu-So ronso no kOsei’ Gekkan Shakaitö (Mar. 1963): 91, Ishido (1963): 14, Eguchi BokurO, ‘Chu-So ronso to Nihonjin no tachiba’ Chuo Koron (July 1963): 48–57.Google Scholar
  11. 27.
    See: Atsugi Morio, ‘Chu-So ronsO no gendai to kaiko’ Rödö Keizai Junpo (11 Feb. 1963): 22; Fujita Shozo and Takeuchi Yoshinori, both in Saito, et al. (1963): 49, 64.Google Scholar
  12. 28.
    Ikeyama, in Yamada (1963): 55–6. For similar views see: Mitsuoka Gen, “‘Chu-So ronso” to Chugoku zo’ Chugoku Kenkyu Geppo (May 1963): 1–22; Sakamoto Yoshikazu, ‘Kakujidai no NitChu kankei’ Sekai (June 1963): 21.Google Scholar
  13. 30.
    “‘Chu-So ronso” Jiminto nimo tobihi’ Chuo Kdron (Mar. 1963) 78. See Chapter 3.Google Scholar
  14. 33.
    Shimizu Ikutaro, ‘Chugoku no kakubuso to Nihon’ Chuo KOron (Mar. 1963): 137.Google Scholar
  15. 44.
    Kawabata Osamu, ‘Burujoa rondan ni okeru “Chu-So ronso” to shuseishugisha no yakuwari’ Zenei (May 1963): 22–9.Google Scholar
  16. 45.
    In June, the Prime Minister’s Office asked nearly twice as many people a similar question-which bloc appeared militarily the stronger-and produced an almost identical result. Free world: 23%; Communist bloc: 13%; same: 26%; don’t know: 38%. Yoron chosa nenkan (1963): 69.Google Scholar
  17. 47.
    P.A.N. Murthy, ‘Japan’s Changing Relations with People’s China and the Soviet Union’ International Studies (July 1965): 15.Google Scholar
  18. 50.
    Robert Scalapino, The Japanese Communist Movement, 1920–66 (1967) Berkeley: 163–4.Google Scholar
  19. 51.
    The Communist-controlled KyokutO and Nauka bookshops in Kanda, Tokyo, also refused to stock Soviet publications. ‘Sino-Soviet Split and Present Condition of JCP’ Japan Socialist Review (1 Oct. 1963): 34Google Scholar
  20. 55.
    Nikkei Shimbun (1 July 1963); Asahi Shimbun (22 June 1963); Yomiuri Shimbun (1 July 1963).Google Scholar
  21. 67.
    See, for example, Somura Yasunobu, ‘Chu-So tairitsu no kokusaiteki hamon’ Chuo Koron (Sept. 1963): 187.Google Scholar
  22. 68.
    Hayashi Kentaro, ‘Chu-So ronsO no shinwa to genjitsu’ Jiyu (Nov. 1963): 3.Google Scholar
  23. 69.
    He later became a member of the Boei Kenshusho (National Defence College) and an advisor to Prime Minister Sato Eisaku.Google Scholar
  24. 70.
    Wakaizumi Kei, Amerika kara mita Soren to Chukyo no shorai oyobi Chu-So kankei (8 Oct. 1963) LDP (internal party document.)Google Scholar
  25. 71.
    A possible exception was SaitO Takashi, who appeared to suggest that the rift basically came down to a disagreement over timing. ‘Reisen no shindankai to nanboku mondai’ Sekai (Jan. 1964): 130.Google Scholar
  26. 72.
    Taiken, ‘Chu-So tairitsu no shOrai to sono eikyo’ Tairiku Mondai (Sept. 1963): 21. See also: Nabeyama Sadachika, ‘Chu-So ketsuretsu to Nihon no sayoku’ Keieisha (Nov. 1963): 58; Mori Kyozo, ‘Bei-So sekkin to Chu-So no tairitsu’ Kokusai Mondai (Sept. 1963): 18.Google Scholar
  27. 73.
    Iwamura Michio, ‘8 nenrai no Chu-So kankei’ Chugoku Kenkyu Geppo (Aug. 1963). See also: Eguchi BokurO, ‘Chu-So ronso no rekishiteki igi to genzai no kokusai seiji ni okeru mondaiten’ Kokusai Mondai (Sept. 1963): 5; Ichikawa TajirO, ‘Kokusai kyosanshugi undo no nijU kOzO to Chu-So ronso’ Kyosanken Mondai (Dec. 1963): 11.Google Scholar
  28. 74.
    ‘[TheirJ purpose is still to “bury” capitalism’ he warned, the world was merely witnessing the ‘agony of Communism’s rebirth’. Kusano Fumio, ‘Chu-So kankei no hitotsu no mikata’ Tairiku Mondai (Nov. 1963): 23. See also Shigemori Tadashi, ‘Chu-So kankei wa do naru ka’ Tairiku Mondai (Oct. 1963): 20.Google Scholar
  29. 75.
    SatO Noboru, ‘Chu-So ronsO to Nihon no kakushin undo’ Chuo Koron (Sept. 1963): 194.Google Scholar
  30. 76.
    Interestingly, they blamed the rapid development of the ideological dispute into a national dispute on an ‘almost complete lack of economic interdependence.’ Sato Noboru and Sugita Masao, ‘Chu-So ronsO to kokusai kyosanshugi undo no sh0rai’ Sekai (Sept. 1963): 51–3, 56.Google Scholar
  31. 77.
    Sato (Sept. 1963): 194. Author and critic Yamakawa Kikue agreed that ‘the demise of the Communist monolith…is a plus for the entire Socialist movement.’ ‘Kono me de mita Chu-So ronsO’ Bungei Shunju (Sept. 1963): 87.Google Scholar
  32. 80.
    Shimizu Ikutaro, ‘Atarashii rekishikan e no shuppatsu’ Chuo Koron (Dec. 1963): 36.Google Scholar
  33. 81.
    Inoki Masamichi, ‘Kyosanshugi to kokka no mondai’ Chuo Koron (Dec. 1963): 50.Google Scholar
  34. 82.
    Kusano (Nov. 1963): 22. See also, Taiken (Sept. 1963): 20–33, Eguchi (Sept. 1963): 4, Ichikawa (1963): 12.Google Scholar
  35. 88.
    Mori KyozO, ‘Nihon gaiko ni jishusei o motomu’ Jiyu (Aug. 1963): 2–4. See also, Taiken (Sept. 1963): 31.Google Scholar
  36. 91.
    Mori (Aug. 1963): 2, 9. Nabeyama Sadachika noted how the actual Sino-Soviet rift differed from the Titoisation predicted by Yoshida and others back in 1950. Just when their argument had run out of steam ‘China’s intense struggle with the Soviet Union occun•ed.’ Yet whereas ‘Tito had an alternative and chose the US, Mao has no altemative’, he would not come over to the West. Nabeyama (1963): 58. See also: Makiuchi Masao, ‘Ajia ni okeru Chukyo no seiryoku’ Kyosanken Mondai (Nov. 1963): 53; Kusano (Nov. 1963): 27.Google Scholar
  37. 93.
    See, for example, Somura (1963): 190–2, Makiuchi (1963): 47–58, Mori (Sept. 1963): 18; Saito (Jan. 1964): 131.Google Scholar
  38. 96.
    Shimizu ShinzO, ‘Gendaishi no naka no waga kakushin seiryoku’ Sekai (Nov. 1963): 112–3. See also: Sato (Sept. 1963): 194–201; Eguchi (Sept. 1963): 11,Google Scholar
  39. 102.
    Mishima Yukio, ‘Tenka taihei no shisO’ Ronso (Sept. 1963): 40–2.Google Scholar
  40. 103.
    ‘The rift will become deeper’ (48); ‘the possibility of resolving the rift exists’ (37); ‘even a break in diplomatic relations is possible’ or ‘depending on circumstances a compromise is possible, but not for the foreseeable future’ (12). Naikaku ChOsashitsu (1964): 51–2.Google Scholar
  41. 104.
    Makiuchi (1963): 51; Taiken (Sept. 1963): 27–8. See also: Kimura Hiroshi, ‘Sakoku Sobieto no kaiho’ Chuo Kdron (Dec. 1963): 92.Google Scholar
  42. 119.
    30 million people ultimately signed the petition. Chae-Jin Lee, Japan Faces China (1976) Baltimore: 47–8.Google Scholar
  43. 120.
    Such undertakings became explicit in 1968. Kurt Radtke, Chinas Relations with Japan, 1945–83 (1990) Manchester: 161; Nathaniel Thayer, ‘Competition and Conformity’, Modern Japanese Organization and Decision-Making, Ezra Vogel (ed.) (1979) Tokyo: 302.Google Scholar
  44. 122.
    Sino-Soviet boundary negotiations had broken down two months earlier. Dennis Doolin, Territorial Claims in the Sino-Soviet Conflict (1965) Stanford: 42–4.Google Scholar
  45. 124.
    Doolin (1965): 47–57; William Griffith, Sino-Soviet Relations, 1964–65 (1967) Cambridge, MA: 29–30Google Scholar
  46. 125.
    Doolin (1965): 68–72. He also suggested that the Habomais and Shikotan would be returned to Japan ‘if the Americans will give back Okinawa’. Young C. Kim, Japanese-Soviet Relations (1974) Washington D.C.: 34. This did not please the Japanese government, JTW (26 Sept. 1964).Google Scholar
  47. 129.
    Hirasawa Kazushige, ‘Japan’s Asian Policy’ Lecture at the ANU, Canberra, 14 July 1964, A9564, 22/1, NAA. Later, however, Hirasawa claimed that he had just been trying to provoke Mikoyan to comment. Woodward to Home, 20 July 1964, A1838, 3103/7/1/1, NAA.Google Scholar
  48. 131.
    See, for example, Kohtani Etsuo, ‘Japan and the Sino-Soviet Conflict’ Bulletin of the Institute for the Study of the USSR (Dec. 1964): 36 (The Japanese version was published in June 1964.)Google Scholar
  49. 132.
    MutO Teiichi, ‘Chukyo ni tai sum warera no yuaikan’ Raito (June 1964): 10.Google Scholar
  50. 133.
    Shimizu Ikutaro, ‘Chu-So no hinkaku’ Chuo KOron (July 1964): 33, Taiken, ‘Chu-So tairitsu no shindandan to sono eikyo’ Tairiku Mondai (June 1964): 17, 24.Google Scholar
  51. 134.
    Doi Akio, ‘Chu-So bunretsu to Nihon’ Tairiku Mondai (Sept. 1964): 4.Google Scholar
  52. 135.
    Hayashi Kentaro, ‘Sengoshi o dO miru Ka’ Chuo Koron (Sept. 1964): 82–4.Google Scholar
  53. 138.
    Tsuda Michio, “‘Zenjinmin no kokka” ron hihan’ Yuibutsuron Kenkyu (spring 1964): 5–18.Google Scholar
  54. 139.
    Nishi Yoshiyuki, ‘Chu-So ronso to Nihon no chishikijin’ Kikan Shakai Kagaku (Sept. 1964): 256.Google Scholar
  55. 146.
    KOsaka Masataka, ‘Chugoku mondai to wa nani ka’ Jiyu (Apr. 1964): 39.Google Scholar
  56. 147.
    Toyama Shigeki, ‘The World and Japan’ Journal ofSocial and Political Ideas in Japan (Apr. 1964): 111. Originally in Kinoshita Junji (ed.), Chishikijin no shisO to kOdO (1964). Google Scholar
  57. 152.
    Kosaka Masataka, ‘Kaiyo kokka Nihon no koso’ Chuo Köron (Sept. 1964): 76–7.Google Scholar
  58. 153.
    Only eight months earlier, a group of Japanese Moscow correspondents had unanimously agreed that there was no likelihood of his stepping down. Tanihata Ryozo, et al., ‘Furushichofu no shidoryoku’ Chuo Koran (Feb. 1964): 258–75. On a possible reconciliation see Asahi Shimbun (16 Oct. 1964, evening); JT (25 Oct. 1964).Google Scholar
  59. 154.
    In December, one member of a Taiken-sponsored round-table discussion even suggested that Japan had provided the main channel linking the two! Takuya Kakuzo was referring to Shiga Yoshio’s ‘Nihon no koe’ statement following his return from Moscow. Other participants pointed to domestic Soviet factors. Taiken, ‘Chu-So kankei no kongo to sekai josei’ Tairiku Mondai (Feb. 1965): 44. See Chapter 7.Google Scholar
  60. 155.
    Inoki Masamichi, ‘Chu-So kankei no shindankai’ Kyosanken Mondai (Jan. 1965): 1–3.Google Scholar
  61. 156.
    Nakajima Mineo, ‘Chu-So ronsO no shodanmen to gendai Marukusushugi’ Shiso (Dec. 1964): 93; Sakamoto Koretada, ‘Chu-So ronsO to kokkyo ryodo mondai’ Kyosanken Mondai (Dec. 1964): 1–14; Ishido Kiyotomo, ‘Chu-So ronsO no tenbO’ Shisd noKagaku (Nov. 1964): 76. Theories continued to proliferate in 1965: Shimizu Tozo later blamed the ‘root of the conflict’ on ‘Chinese chauvinism’. ‘Sino-Soviet Polemics’ Review (July 1965): 37. Onoe Masao pointed to Soviet efforts ‘to preserve the Communist camp’s unity’ as a cause. ‘Chu-So ronso’ Rekishi Kydiku (Feb. 1966): 47. Uno Shigeaki claimed that ‘US policy towards the Communist camp had an especially big influence’. ‘Chu-So ronsO no doko’ Kokusai Mondai (Jan. 1965): 22–9; a point hotly disputed by Doi Akio. Taiken (Feb. 1965): 44–53, 58.Google Scholar
  62. 157.
    ‘What do you think Sino-Soviet relations will be like in 1965?’ ‘Better’ (17%), ‘worse’ (8%), ‘no change’ (24%), ‘don’t know’ (51%). Sample: 2500, nationwide, Dec. 1964, Jiji nenkan (1966): 170.Google Scholar
  63. 158.
    ‘What do you think Sino-Soviet relations will be like in 1966?’ ‘Better’ (3.6%), ‘worse’ (14.9%), ‘no change’ (27.7%), ‘don’t know’ (53.8%). Sample: 2388, nationwide, Dec. 1965, Yoron chösa nenkan (1965).Google Scholar
  64. 159.
    In May 1965, 811 Tokyo residents were asked ‘how big an influence on the world did Khrushchev’s retirement have?’ 24% replied that it had a‘big influence’ and another 35% ‘some influence’. However, comparison with the figures for China’s nuclear test-54% and 18% respectively—reveals that the latter was deemed to be of far greater significance. Also indicative was the response regarding the ‘Vietnam problem’: 62% and 17%. Tokei Suri Kenkyujo, June 1965, Yoron chosa nenkan (1965).Google Scholar
  65. 161.
    ‘Increased danger’ (29.4%), ‘did not increase danger’ (31.6%), ‘don’t know’ (39.0%). Shukan Jji (Nov. 1964).Google Scholar
  66. 162.
    ‘Japan-US Security Treaty should be strengthened’ (22%), ‘continue the Security Treaty as it is’ (13%), ‘conclude a Japan-US-USSR-PRC Non-aggression Pact’ (12%), ‘annul the Security Treaty and become an armed neutral’ (10%), ‘annul the Security Treaty and become a disarmed neutral’ (8%), ‘other’ (1%), ‘don’t know’ (34%). Yoron chösa nenkan (1964).Google Scholar
  67. 164.
    Wakaizumi Kei, ‘Chugoku no kakubuso to Nihon no anzen hosho’ Chuo Köron (Feb. 1966): 64.Google Scholar
  68. 165.
    Mushakoji Kinhide, ‘Tachushinshugi to Bei-Chu reisen no aida’ Asahi Janaru (18 Oct. 1964): 25. Also in, Utsunomiya Tokuma, et al., ‘Chugoku no nashonaru intaresuto’ Gendai no Me (Nov. 1964): 87.Google Scholar
  69. 166.
    Kamiya Fuji, ‘Nihon gaiko no “ririku” no tame ni’ Ushio (Mar. 1965): 72.Google Scholar
  70. 167.
    Irie Michimasa, ‘Chukyo no kakuhoyu to Nihon no anzen hosho’ Jiyu (Dec. 1964): 83.Google Scholar
  71. 168.
    KOsaka Masataka, ‘Kokusai seiji no tagenka to Nihon’ Chub Koron (Dec. 1964): 94–107.Google Scholar
  72. 171.
    ‘It has a rift (lairitsu) with the Soviet Union’ (64.1%), ‘It is not a free country (it is ruled by a Communist Party)’ (68.1%), ‘It does not have diplomatic relations with Japan’ (54.1%), ‘It is not a member of the UN’ (54.1%), ‘It has exploded nuclear weapons’ (80%) ‘It undergoes the Cultural Revolution’ (69.4%). Asked to compare China and the Soviet Union, 16.2% liked China, 11.2% the Soviet Union, 2.3% liked both, 15.6% disliked both, and the rest could not say. However, this disguises an interesting generation gap: people over-40 liked China two-to-three times as much as the Soviet Union, people in their thirties only 2.3% more, and those in their twenties preferred the Soviet Union by 19.4% to 9.4%. Sample: 3000, nationwide, 24–5 JuneGoogle Scholar
  73. 1967.
    1967, Kyod’o Tsushinsha in ‘Nihonjin no Chugokukan’ Ajia Keizai Junpö (Aug. 1967): 23–5.Google Scholar
  74. 172.
    Iida Momo, “‘Chu-So ronsö” no shironteki bunkaronteki imi’ ShisO no Kagaku (Nov. 1964): 86–99.Google Scholar
  75. 173.
    See, for example, Miyamoto Yoshio, Chu-So ronso no gairyaku to hihan (1966); Kikuchi Masanori, et al., Chu-So tairitsu (1976); Kazawa GO, Chu-So tairitsu to sono haikei (1978); Nakajima Mineo, Chu-So tairitsu to gendai (1978).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© C. W. Braddick 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Musashi UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations