Connect with us

East Asia

The third ‘atomic bomb’ that convinced Japan to surrender: The Soviet Union

Published

on

The ironical and poetic conclusion of Japan’s war was that the force of the sun, as Truman put it, would deal the final blow to the people led by the descendent of Amaterasu, the sun goddess. However, upon further study, this widely accepted historical reality twists in an unexpected manner: the decisive blow may have been dealt by Big Bear’s claws – the Soviet Union.

Far from attempting a revisionist account of history, the present article seeks to emphasize a little-known fact from the hectic days when Imperial Japan’s leaders were running around their offices trying to get their country a honorable retreat.

It seems that Japan’s decision to surrender was greatly impacted as much by the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as by the unforeseen event that took place on August 9th, 1945: The Soviet Union’s decision to declare war on Japan and enter Manchukuo. This thesis was initially proposed by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa in his exceptional 2005 book, ‘Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan’. However, the present article will focus more on the accounts of Japanese officials that witnessed the confusion that took over Imperial Japan’s ministries during these vital days prior to Nagasaki, accounts mostly based on Japan’s the Pacific War Research Society ‘Japan’s longest day’.

As such, it is useful to know that state-of-mind of Japanese militaries prior to the atomic bombings. Edward Drea’s 1992 book, ‘MacArthur’s Ultra: Codebreaking and the War Against Japan’, shared a ground-breaking report on how the Allied intelligence managed to track the Japanese military’s buildup in Kyushu. This suggested that the Japanese were determined to continue fighting until the very end. Furthermore, given the large following of the ‘orthodox’ argument of the atomic bomb, many more suggest the same. This account perfectly fits the mindset of the Japanese soldiers who closely followed the model of the bushido, and who were more than willing to sacrifice their lives in kamikaze attacks. In support of this observation, it must be noted that efforts to overthrow the government and continue the war were realized by rogue soldiers until the last minute before the Emperor broadcasted Japan’s surrender.

Still. On the 27th of July, 1945, news reached Tokyo that a declaration has been signed at Potsdam by the United States, Great Britain, and China, and the object of the declaration was an ultimatum addressed to Japanese Armed Forces to surrender unconditionally. While MOFA state-secretary, Shunichi Matsumoto, was quite thrilled to draft a preliminary response, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Shigenori Togo, immediately understood that the declaration in its current form could not be accepted by the Imperial Army, and thus, if Japan was to accept it, she risked plunging into a civil war. Nonetheless, when compared with the wording used in the first Cairo Declaration, which urged ‘Japan’ to surrender unconditionally, the current one was directed at the Armed Forces, which suggested a softer tone. According to Japan’s the Pacific War Research Society, this adjustment in wording convinced Togo that there was room for negotiation.

Then and there, a race against the clock to win over the ‘good offices’ of the Soviet Union had started. The main objective was to get the Soviets to mediate the conditions of surrender and have the Allied Powers accept their two most important conditions. First and foremost, keep the Imperial structure and, secondly, to have their troops disarmed by Japanese militaries, not foreign occupants. According to this plan, Japan was going to continue fighting until she could obtain a promise that these conditions were to be met(having the Soviet Union mediate the whole process). Togo managed to convince the Prime Minister, Kantaro Suzuki, that the best course of action was to ignore (mokusatu) the Potsdam Declaration for the time being and wait for an answer from Moscow.

Then again, Japanese-Soviet relations during the Second World War were indeed strained, as they were carrying the burden left by the Russo-Japanese war from 1904-05 (in its aftermath large public campaigns of hate speech and propaganda were launched in both countries). Nonetheless, the Soviet-Japanese Border War (1932-39) offered a blessing in disguise, as far the World War went, thought the Japanese: The Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact was signed. According to this pact, during the World War II hostilities, the two states could freely attack each other’s allies, but not each other. This, of course, did not mean that Japan fully trusted the Soviet Union. In fact, Imperial troops were constantly keeping their eyes on Soviet activity to the East of Manchuria, and according to their estimates, they had nothing to fear until the spring of 1946. However, little did they know that at Teheran U.S.S.R. has promised the Allies to declare war on Japan, once Germany was defeated, and that at Yalta Stalin received generous concessions in the Far East as long as he would enterthe war with Japan.

Furthermore, previous Japanese efforts to have the U.S.S.R. support her cause bear no fruit. Kremlin ignored the Emperor’s initiative to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special representative, and according to Japan’s Ambassador to Moscow,Naotake Sato, there was no way to convince the Soviets to argue on their behalf or mediate. Togo asked him to follow instructions nonetheless. Despite knowing that such endeavour may lead nowhere, Togo also knew that the Japanese Military would not accept direct negotiations with the Americans or British. But even the military, lead by War Minister, Korechika Anami, was not so optimistic about the Soviet Union. Still, the Supreme Council and the Emperor himself continued to put their hopes in U.S.S.R.’s answer.

On August 6th, 1945, they received an answer from the United States. The Japanese witnessed a destructive power that went beyond the imagination of any mad scientist, and their first reaction was to wait. Soon, on August 8th, the Emperor and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, agreed that Japan was facing total destruction and that hostilities must be stopped as soon as possible. At the same time, at Moscow, Sato was invited in Vyacheslav Molotov’s office. As stated by Japan’s the Pacific War Research Society, the Japanese Ambassador tried to adopt a friendly demeanour, but his attempt was cut short – ‘(…) the Soviet Government declares that from tomorrow, that is from Aug. 9, the Soviet Government will consider itself to be at war with Japan.’

Up until this point, the Supreme Council entertained the idea of continuing the war in hopes of a better agreement. Yet, this final slap convinced almost all Cabinet members that if they were not to accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, Japan was most certainly facing total destruction. The Soviet decision is especially significant, since being at war with the Soviet Union had a discouraging effect on dissenting military groups within Japan as well. The strategic coordination of the Allied Forces, and the smart decision to encourage U.S.S.R. to declare war at the perfect time, caught the fierce Imperial Japan in a check-mate.

The irony of this account lies in the fact that, up to this day, the Russian Federation remains the only state that is still officially at war with Japan.

Former Asia-Pacific Researcher at the Romanian Diplomatic Institute and current advisor at the Parliament of Romania, Committee on Defense, Public Order and National Security.

Continue Reading
Comments

East Asia

Considering the Continental Dimension of the Indo-Pacific: The Mongolian Precedent

Published

on

The Indo-Pacific is now the site of global great-power competition and contestation. And, as a reflection of its growing importance in international discourse, a number of extra-regional actors adopted the concept last year. Among those adoptees, Mongolia set a unique precedent for the regional security discourse to actively consider the continental dimension of the Indo-Pacific by highlighting geopolitical convergences with other regional actors, and the strategic threat posed by Beijing’s “Silk Road Economic Belt”.

Mongolia in the Indo-Pacific

Actors who have adopted the Indo-Pacific concept vaguely define it as beginning in the Arabian Sea and ending in the Western Pacific Ocean. Much of the discourse is also driven by the US-China strategic competition in Southeast Asia, and the US’ attempt to counter Chinese influence in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, along with its regional partners and allies, e.g the India-Australia-Japan-US ‘Quad’. As a result, actors in the Indo-Pacific have generally focused on the development of maritime military and economic measures.

In early October, during a Japan-Mongolia Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, both sides agreed to continue consolidating their efforts in pursuing a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific”, in line with the promises of the 2018 Japan-Mongolia Summit.

Mongolia’s participation as a continental, extra-regional actor with limited maritime significance, shifts the geopolitical locus of the theatre, ever so slightly, north of Southeast Asia (the current focus). Ulaanbaatar’s adoption of the geostrategic theatre appears to be driven by continued Chinese antagonism, and a result of its “third neighbour” policy.

China continues to threaten Mongolia’s territorial sovereignty by claiming Inner Mongolia,clamp down on its cultural identity, and impose costs on Mongolia’s export-oriented economy. The last issue is critical, since Mongolia’s largest export partner, approximately92.78 percent of overall exports, is China. Enclosed between two large countries, Russia and China, Mongolia has traditionally maintained a “third neighbour” policy approach: building political and economic relationships with actors other than the aforementioned.

Given the continued animosity with Beijing, Ulaanbaatar has increasingly emphasised these other relations over the years. e.g. with the UK, the US, Japan, etc. In 2019 President Khaltmaagiin Battulga visited New Delhi to develop deeper ties with another “third neighbour” state. Mongolia also shares the “like-minded” characteristics – a liberal democracy – to maintain and preserve a “free, fair, open and rules-based” order in the US-Japan Indo-Pacific strategy.

And so, actors looking to potentially partner with Mongolia or others with similar economic and connectivity deficits in Central and West Asia, will have to include, within their Indo-Pacific approaches, measures that involve non-littoral actors.

The BRI and Continental Asia

China’s rise as an expansionist Asian military and global economic power is at the core of the  Indo-Pacific security discourse. Beijing’s claims in the South China Sea (SCS), China’s growing naval power, and the colossal Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) form the major strategic threats to regional multilateralism and collective security.

The most long standing threat among them, the BRI, is divided into the transcontinental “silk route” and the maritime “silk road”. However, much of the Indo-Pacific discourse is dominated by the silk road, especially those projects directed towards the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). BRI projects in the IOR are crucial to Beijing’s expanding influence in South Asia and control on international energy and trade supply routes. Also hidden among the maritime/trans-continental connectivity and infrastructure projects, is China’s growing security presence in the region.

However, Mongolia’s entry directs attention to a dimension unique to the current maritime Indo-Pacific discourse –the silk route, that cuts across Central Asia, towards Europe and South Asia, with a similar number of projects in Southeast Asia.

Among the six ‘silk route’ projects, Mongolia’s concern is the China-Mongolia-Russia Economic Corridor (CMREC) that cuts through Eastern Mongolia, beginning in Ulanqab (or “Jining”) in Inner Mongolia, and ending at Ulan-Ude, in BurYatia, Russia. Similar projects include the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the China-Central Asia-West Asia Economic Corridor (CCWAEC).

Connecting the continental to the maritime is the main goal of the BRI. In fact, the project was first announced during a Chinese state visit to Central Asia in 2013. President Xi Jinping proposed the “Silk Road Economic Belt” with a vision to connect the Pacific Ocean to the Baltic Sea. Beijing’s vision of comprehensive global economic and military power requires a built path to various regions of the world, i.e infrastructure to facilitate dual-use logistics. Given the recent spate of BRI loans going bad, this vision continues to remain unfulfilled.

The continental dimension, Asia, is what makes the Indo-Pacific a theatre of global concern. Trans-continental connectivity, between and within Europe and Asia, narrows the distance between actors, and the shared interest in maintaining regional multilateralism and collective security ensures their continued participation in the Indo-Pacific. As more actors like Mongolia adopt the Indo-Pacific concept, connecting the continental to the maritime and vice versa, sans BRI, will become a strategic concern.

Mongolia’s entry into the theatre offers a unique precedent for those involved in maintaining and preserving a “free, fair, open and rules-based” Indo-Pacific to evaluate and initiate relationships between non-littoral actors and the maritime dimension.

The On-Ground Reality

However, there are a number of obstacles to actively consider continental Asia in the Indo-Pacific discourse. The two most important are geography and geopolitics.

Mongolia for example, is completely enclosed by two actors – Russia and China – who are averse and hostile to the idea of the Indo-Pacific. And, any “counter-BRI” connectivity project envisioned by other regional actors will have to go through their territories. The case of Afghanistan is similar. Divergences in geopolitical interests and ties with actors in the Arabian Sea, particularly with regard to Iran and Pakistan, stays the idea of trans-regional connectivity between Kabul and the world.

The geopolitical obstacle here is the dependent economic relationships that non-littorals in Asia have with Beijing. Mongolia is just one among many Central and West Asian states that have local economies indelibly tied to the political whims of Beijing. During the coronavirus pandemic, a period that saw considerable anti-China sentiment in the international community, Beijing has managed to maintain a level of trust and shared security with many Indo-Pacific states. National vaccination plans are based on the delivery of Chinese vaccines.

There is another reason why the security discourse on the Indo-Pacific is focused on maritime measures – maintaining and preserving the integrity of international Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC) and the respect for territorial sovereignty. In that endeavour, multilateral platforms like the Quad allows members to share historic and strategic advantages in the IOR and Pacific Ocean to counter Chinese expansionism in the Indo-Pacific’s various sub-regions.  On land however, in Central and South Asia, for example the clash in the Galwan river valley last year, Chinese incursions provoke bilateral responses giving it leeway to act with relative impunity.

Conclusion

While there are a number of real obstacles to consider the continental dimension of the Indo-Pacific, Mongolia sets a geopolitical precedent for a comprehensive geographic definition, one that includes both the maritime and continental. From this year on, states participating in the Indo-Pacific now have a reason to approach and include non-littoral actors in the Indo-Pacific.

This precedent also highlights the need to include the continental ‘silk route’ in the Indo-Pacific security discourse. Devising such a definition will be a similar exercise as to the amalgamation of the terms “Indo-Pacific” and “Asia-Pacific” to form the “Indo-Asia-Pacific”; now used at times in geostrategic discourse.

Continue Reading

East Asia

Time to play the Taiwan card

Published

on

At a time when the dragon is breathing fire, India must explore alternative tactics, perhaps establishment of formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan can be a landmark step

***

The standoff on the Ladakh border between the Indian Army and the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) continues amid failing talks and casus belli measures being unleashed by the Chinese regime. While the union government and the armed forces make it clear that they will do whatever it takes to protect India’s sovereignty and integrity, precious little has been done on the foreign policy front. While India and its democratic allies which comprise the Quad security grouping declare their intent to form the ‘Asian NATO’, the Quad continues to suffer from indecisiveness which was pretty much evident when the Quad did not even issue a joint statement to condemn China at the foreign ministers meeting held last year, only America publicly called out China.

In such a situation, it is imperative that India explore alternate diplomatic and militaristic routes to tame the dragon.

Recognizing Taiwan

Establishing formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan after recognizing should be vigorously pursuing by South Block. Indo-Taiwan ties date back to the early 1950s when Chiang Kai Shek, the ex Chinese president and former head of state fled to the island of Formosa following the victory of Mao Zedong in the long drawn out Chinese civil war called on Nehru to establish and further ties with Formosa, however Nehru believing that Chiang was nothing but a “peanut” decided to ignore his call, choosing instead to concentrate on building ties with People’s Republic of China (PRC).

Seven decades on, plethora of changes has taken place on the foreign affairs front, while both China and India have developed considerably both militarily and economically the dragon has surpassed elephant to become an economic powerhouse in its own might. It has now embraced aggressiveness to enforce its 5th century vision of the ‘Middle Kingdom’. In such a situation providing legitimacy to the existence of Taiwan is a necessary first step.

Paradigm shift in policy

Establishing formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan will bring about a paradigm shift vis-à-vis India’s foreign policy. It will enforce the idea that liberal democracy is the last word in the battle of ideologies as Francis Fukuyama had visualized in his landmark book ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ and that there is no alternative to human rights and liberties, not even the Chinese model of ‘authoritarian development’. It will be the boldest step that any global leader has taken, not even the mighty US which has no formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan has taken this step.

Recognizing Taiwan will entail a lot of benefits for the mandarins of India’s foreign policy regime- firstly, Taiwan is a robust democracy with a booming economy, it will prove to be an alternative to China albeit in a relatively less proportion, secondly, India can bolster the legitimacy as the leader of the democratic world at a time when the democratic institutions in the US-often regarded as the cradle of democracy has been undermined.

Thirdly, India can get the support of another powerful ally in its attempt to carve out a new supply chain alliance which India-Japan-Australia formalized recently. Fourthly, recognizing Taiwan will make it clear to China that India means some serious business and if the need arises then India will not back down from sending dedicated naval and air assets in the disputed South China Sea region to enforce freedom of navigation principle in the resource rich region. Lastly, the Quad security grouping will be institutionalized which in the near future can even be extended to include new members, it will be the first time that India will be a part of any dedicated military and economic alliance which will deter the aggression of the Chinese war machine in the strategic Indian Ocean and Indo-Pacific Region.

Caveats remain

However the recognition may invite severe ramifications for India. China will be infuriated and can choose to ratchet up tensions with India. India must be extremely careful while dealing with China as China is our second largest bilateral trade partner and a key export partner of India with regard to raw materials and goods. According to a FICCI report, India imports more than 40% of several important goods like the API (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients), television, chemicals, chips, textiles and many more.

The dragon will as a possible retaliatory measure can activate its propaganda machinery to wage psychological warfare with India. It can also activate its terror financing networks which for years remained a chronic internal security for India in the northeast of the country. China will also collaborate with its ‘iron brother’ Pakistan to try and deter India by intensifying terrorism in the Kashmir valley and elsewhere. Further, China can use its potent disinformation empire to try and peddle fake news about the credibility of India’s indigenous vaccines at a time when the light at the end of the tunnel of a pandemic stricken world has appeared.

Exercising caution

Keeping all the dangers in mind, the Modi government must keep national interests in mind. Despite all the risks, it must work with all the like- minded countries to take own the mighty dragon responsible for unleashing a deadly virus which has wrecked havoc on humanity. For the sake of the free world, India must take the hard step which will reinforce India’s position in cementing its place as the leader of the free world.

Continue Reading

East Asia

Pro-Communism warping Hong Kong

Published

on

The latest turmoil in the Covid-ridden strata of mainland China is not servile to any pandemic, however, the issue has been one of the most queer and rare kinds, enough to be classified as one of the endemic issues in the global affairs. The tension at helm is the chaos following the announcement of a “New Security Law” by the Chinese regime which is being eyed as one of the monumental events of this decade; slicing off a sliver of attention from the deadly Corona virus that continues to exponentiate around the world in its second wave and sporadic variants.

The law that set out by the Chinese lawmakers back on 22nd May 2020, threatens the liberties of subversion and sedition enjoyed by the citizens of Hong Kong under a constitution. Simplistically named “Basic Law”, it aims to tame the country scaffolded by the “One country, Two systems” framework since the power handover by the former colony to China back in 1997. This act came around amidst strained economic relations between the two superpowers of the world; China and USA, each passing the baton in the blame game of who sustains the blood-crown of the catastrophe impending on the world courtesy of the lethal virus that engulfs every periphery in each continent on the globe. The matters seem complex at sight and a glimpse to the historical timeline of how riddled the relations were could hint at how strained they could reach.

The colony, known as ‘Hong Kong’ today, had been the battle ground, figuratively, to the major competitors of the 20th century: The Great Britain and China. The British dominated the colony for more than 150 years, tracing back to the late 19th century; leasing the territory for the span to morph it into the modernised metropolis marking it as the hub we know today. In 1997, an agreement was reached via an accord, ‘The Sino-British Joint Declaration‘ between the two sides. The treaty allowed Hong Kong a semi-autonomous status, that is, relaying self-sufficiency in all the national domains except in defence and foreign affairs. The allotted autonomy arches under the sovereignty of China until year 2047, henceforward melding into the mainland China as harkened by the Chinese hegemony over decades.

Despite of the granted protection of Hong Kong’s own legislation, borders and freedom of speech, the liberties have been trampled on by the Chinese government over the last couple of decades. A similar law abolishing the right to sedition was initiated in 2003 yet mass protests calling out up and about 50,000 citizens impeded the efforts that went futile and drastically ended up being shunned for good. The Communist party under the wings of Chinese president Xi Jinping have expounded further in tightening their talons on the city since 2012 as efforts were made to corrode the educational system of the country via meddling with the curriculum, biasing the foundation to hail Chinese communism. These acts were proactive reactions to the advances of the United States forging relations with the city. China even tried to manipulate the elections in 2014, tampering with the selection their Chief Executive leading to a 3-month long protest known as the ‘Umbrella movement’ and ultimate downfall of Hong Kong’s autonomous political system.

The security law falls in tandem to the events of 2019; the legislation allowing the convicts from Hong Kong to be extradited in China causing a rave of fear of a massive tactical crackdown of the Anti-communist activists of Hong Kong, sighting it just as ruse to underwhelm the right of sedition of the people of Hong Kong. The Law passed by the parliament notions to only one thing; The ultimate end to Hong Kong. The lawmakers in China, hailing from the National People’s Congress (NPC), sight this move as extricating a threat to the national security and stability of the country while many of the pro-activists in Hong Kong deem the law as betrayal, accusing China of walking back on its promise of high-degree autonomy and freedom of speech, marking it as the final straw, the last struggle before the country could override the laws in the city and indirectly, transition from the entity holding the right to veto the laws to now gripping the law altogether.

Despite of the speculated protests to spark like the history dictates, many of the sage minds predict either a relatively dormant demonstrations or none at all, having a tint of finality in the statement shote the protests are “high stake in risk and repression”. The recent arrest of the leading activists of Hong Kong standing up to voice their disdain to the separatist efforts of China further solidify the notion. Despite of a global condemnation to the new law, the efforts of China resume to subdue any opposition in Honk Kong no matter how sparse. Foreseeing no way out for Hong Kong this time; the Covid-19 paralysis the United States in its own crisis and the legislature inclining towards the Chinese pressure, a complete erasure of Hong Kong is sighted and could not be restrained- for better or for worse.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending