[Reading] Diplomacy and the Opening of Japan at the End of the Edo Period (Kodansha Academic Library 2133)

Publication Information

• Title: Diplomacy and the Opening of Japan at the End of the Edo Period (Kodansha Academic Library 2133)

• Author: Yuzo Kato

• Publisher: Kodansha (2012/9/11)

• Paperback: 280 pages

A Harmonious Signing Ceremony

The reason I started reading this book was because I heard Kenichi Murofushi say on online media (I believe it was a YouTube video) that "the Shogunate at the end of the Edo period conducted thorough research in advance, accurately grasped the opponent's intentions even at the diplomatic scene, and as a result, it was "excellent diplomacy". Rather, "the unequal treaties were concluded due to blunders in the Meiji period." I watched it quite a while ago, so I couldn't find the video itself, but I was able to find what appears to be an "email newsletter article" with a similar theme. The book mentioned as a reference in that article is this one. It depicts "the period from Perry's first arrival in 1853 to the conclusion of the Convention of Kanagawa in 1854 and the additional treaty in Shimoda", and analyzes and evaluates "the international significance of the Convention of Kanagawa."

For the details, I would definitely like you to read this book, but at the time the treaty was concluded, although the United States did of course send warships to force the opening of the country, both Japan and the US had circumstances where they wanted to avoid combat as much as possible. "In this book, the trajectory of the efforts of both Japan and the US is depicted so that it can be understood."
The writing style is so "full of a sense of realism" that I wish "NHK or someone would make a drama based on this book." The author, Yuzo Kato, is a bona fide historian who even served as the president of Yokohama City University. He is unrelated to the historical fabrication that has become an issue recently, and "a sense of realism is created through the accumulation of facts." It is worth a read.

If I were to let you taste a bit of that realism... (Those who know may already be well aware of these things...)

The following contains spoilers, so if you wish to avoid them, please leave here.

Entertainment in the Remote Village of Yokohama

After various discussions, in the end, the Shogunate staked its prestige and built a reception hall of over 100 tatami mats in the remote village of Yokohama (around present-day Kannai). About 500 people from Perry's side landed, and about 30 were shown into a large room of about 36 tatami mats. On the Japanese side, the head of the reception committee, Daigaku-no-kami Hayashi, and others attended, and they entertained them with 300 servings of food from Momokawa, the best restaurant in Edo at the time. Daigaku-no-kami Hayashi was the head of the Shoheizaka Gakumonjo, which would be equivalent to the president of the University of Tokyo today, and was a person in a position that had been heavily used in diplomatic scenes such as the Korean missions. Before that, the Japanese side had presented 800 daikon radishes, 1500 carrots, 10 boxes of mandarin oranges, 50 chickens, 1000 eggs, etc., calling it a get-well gift for Perry's illness. They also presented rice, and there is a record that the sumo elders submitted a proposal to the town magistrate's office saying, "Shall we send sumo wrestlers?" and when the wrestlers actually carried the rice bales, the Americans were surprised to see them lift two bales (nearly 100 kg) each with ease.
If you heard the roar of dozens of blank shots every day in the name of celebratory gunfire, you would want to show them, "We can do a little bit too," wouldn't you?

The food itself did not seem to suit Perry and his men's tastes, but the heart of hospitality itself seemed to have been conveyed. This time, there was a return banquet on Perry's fleet, the USS Powhatan, where the Japanese Shogunate officials smacked their lips at the Western cuisine, drank plenty of wine and sherry, and even wrapped all the leftover food in kaishi paper and brought it home. Since it was a mix of stew, sauce, and dessert all together ("
There is Gourmet Food in the Shadows of History" p31-p33), perhaps they thought, "It would be rude to leave the leftovers as they are"? Of course, it might also be because it was delicious. But they must have been scolded by their wives for their muddy, crest-bearing kimonos when they returned. The Shogunate also staked its prestige to prepare the food, but Perry also seemed to have entertained them quite hard. The band continued to play, and they seemed to have performed improvisational plays as well. Matsuzaki, who was relatively old among the Shogunate's diplomatic delegation, put his arm around Perry's shoulder like a casual drinking party in a modern izakaya, brought his face close, and repeatedly said to the effect of, "Let's get along well between the US and our country from now on." Perry's aide said, "(Are you sure you can allow such rudeness!?)", but it is said that he replied, "What, if a treaty is concluded, I don't mind being kissed." Doesn't the scene come to mind??

In the above "Picture of the Banquet at the Reception Hall in Bushu Yokohama," can you see that the Perry side is sitting on chairs, and the first and second meals are on a large table? In this way, a relationship with a foreign country like never before began. I don't mean to say that with this entertainment, equal diplomacy began, or that mutual understanding between Japan and the US deepened (of course, it must have been the first step toward mutual understanding). But, diplomacy exists on the extension of relationships between people, even if it was about 200 years ago, and I think we can catch a glimpse of the fact that even if it was groping in the dark, they both tried their best to be sincere and to protect their own national interests, don't you think?

International Significance of the Convention of Kanagawa

So, what is the international significance of the Convention of Kanagawa?
The author, Kato, divided the "polity" of the 19th century into the following four types (p248-p255).

1. Great Powers

   • In the mid-19th century, Britain, the US, the Netherlands, France, Russia, Spain, Portugal, etc.

2. Colony

   • India (from 1773), Indonesia, etc. Loss of all three powers of the state: legislative, judicial, and executive.

3. Defeated Treaty Nation

   • Qing China (the Treaty of Nanking as a result of the Opium War = followed by repeated defeat treaties since 1842). Involves paying reparations as a "punishment" and ceding territory. Partial loss of judicial and administrative power.

4. Negotiated Treaty Nation

   • Japan (Treaty of Peace and Amity between the United States and Japan = 1854, Treaty of Amity and Commerce = 1858). Thailand (Treaty of Commerce = 1855), no "punishment," partial loss of judicial and administrative power. In Japan's case, explicit clauses such as an opium embargo. Also achieved early treaty revision.

If treaties between great powers are considered equal, then the dependency of the treaty partner increases in the order of 1. Great Power → 4. Negotiated Treaty Nation → 3. Defeated Treaty Nation → 2. Colony. The figure above shows that it takes about 40 years for a 4. Negotiated Treaty Nation, about 100 years for a 3. Defeated Treaty Nation, and about 200 years for a 2. Colony for that dependency to become equal. In the first place,if it is a colony, it loses its head of state and has no right to conclude treaties.
So, what about Defeated Treaty Nations?

So, what about the Treaty of Peace and Amity between the United States and Japan (= negotiated treaty) that our country concluded?

The Convention of Kanagawa basically consists of two points: the Japanese side opening ports for the supply of firewood, water, etc., and protecting shipwrecked people from both sides. There are arguments that the US side was not asked to open ports, or that the Japanese side did not have most-favored-nation treatment, but in the first place, Japan at that time had no desire to go abroad to do anything, and since the treaties the US and other foreign countries were concluding involved trade, Japan did not want to conclude a trade treaty either. At that time, I think the inequality actually protected Japan, and I believe it was the optimal choice and treaty at that time.

Another important point is that there is no extraterritoriality. There is a provision that "the protected American shipwrecked people shall obey the honest laws," p214. Perry explained back home that "this does not mean 'obey the correct laws of Japan,' but rather 'obey laws based on justice and humanitarianism,'" p222. Since the conclusion of a treaty requires the approval of Congress, he probably thought that "obeying Japanese laws" would make things complicated. So, didn't the Japanese side also explain in good faith that "all American citizens understand 'laws based on justice and humanitarianism' and will never break them"? Didn't the Japanese side also understand that there could be 'laws based on justice and humanitarianism' that transcend nations? It seems to me that there is a possibility here for nations to build relationships that go beyond "only now, only money, only myself." I am surely not the only one who feels disappointed, wondering why this was possible nearly 200 years ago, yet there are so many situations today where it is not.

From their contact with Perry and his men, including the model steam locomotive (1/4 size) presented at that time, the Shogunate learned of the existence of new ideas and technologies, and was able to adapt those secrets for their own use. For example, the construction of ocean-going sailing ships, the development of new weapons, the ordering and introduction of steamships, and a strong interest in foreign scholarship, arts, and various systems, etc., p253.
The flow of secret travel to the West by patriots centered on Satsuma would eventually be inherited and developed into the Meiji era, such as sending students abroad and hiring foreign employees. This also stems from the fact that the first foreign relations were a negotiated treaty, p253.
In this way, the author Kato says that not only did the fact that the opening treaty was a "negotiated treaty" work to the advantage of technological development, policy, and human resource development within Japan, but it also had international significance.

　I see. That is a keen insight. Kato states, "Until then, treaties were concluded based on the logic of the strong, favoring the powerful and disadvantaging the weak, whereas a negotiated treaty is one where benefits and burdens are close to an equilibrium point. This was not a perception of the Western powers, but something realized between Japan and the United States," (p. 254-255). In other words, he is saying that even among treaties between great powers, there were advantages and disadvantages between the strong and the weak, whereas the Convention of Kanagawa was a 'treaty close to an equilibrium point' where advantages and disadvantages were almost equal. In short, he is saying that it escaped the world of survival of the fittest.

　After that, the Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States and Japan was concluded in 1858, and at this time, tariffs were decided through mutual discussion, so it could not be called an unequal treaty. However, the treaty with Great Britain opened the way to an unequal treaty, and in 1866the Convention for the Adjustment of Tariffsresulted in the loss of tariff autonomy. Rather than being a failure of the Shogunate, it seems that in many respects, the Shogunate was made to pay the price for wars against Western powers caused by other domains, such as the Namamugi Incident, the Anglo-Satsuma War, and the Shimonoseki Campaign, in the form of tariff rights. Furthermore, after the Meiji Restoration, the Sino-Japanese War, and the Russo-Japanese War,
tariff autonomy was restored in 1911, but after World War I, the Greater East Asia War, and the massacre of civilians through the atomic bombings, the GHQ occupied Japan, the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee was established, and Japan was successfully dragged into the world of survival of the fittest. While we were blinded by the prosperity of the high-growth period, after the 'lost 30 years,' more and more Japanese are finally realizing that we were a vassal state of the United States. Hmm? An extreme view? Is it?

　Can we regain our wisdom and pride?

Regardless of whether it is inside or outside a quotation, the distinction between bold and regular text was made by the author of this manuscript.
Regarding the numbers in the text, regardless of whether they are inside or outside a quotation, the author of this manuscript has used either Chinese numerals or Roman numerals based on which was judged to be easier to read at the time.

Bonus: For those who want to broaden their horizons or deepen their knowledge

I will post some things that caught my attention after a quick search.
There are some books I haven't read yet, but for your reference if they are helpful.

Bakumatsu Diplomacy and the Opening of Japan (Kodansha Academic Library 2133)

Bakumatsu Japan as seen through the eyes of Westerners

Who concluded the first unequal treaty?

"The first to conclude an unequal treaty was the Meiji government. That was the treaty concluded with the Austro-Hungarian Empire," it says.

Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation between Japan and Austria-Hungary

　According to Kenichi Murofushi, this treaty is the true unequal treaty.
"The culmination of unequal treaties imposed on Japan by Western powers" wiki. However, it seems that tariff autonomy had already been lost in the Convention for the Adjustment of Tariffs of 1866 (Keio 2).

A History of Banquet Diplomacy in the Bakumatsu and Meiji Periods

　From the banquet for Perry to the gourmet stories of Prince Saionji Kinmochi.

Books by Kenichi Murofushi, etc.

The unequal treaty was completed with the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation between Japan and Austria-Hungary in 1869 (Meiji 2), but before that, the translated book below seemed the most interesting.

Works by Soki Watanabe

I thought that the following works might be interesting to read as a continuation of this book.

I was congratulated on note.

I was congratulated on note. Please take a look at the article if you would like.