Changing Concept of Intellectual Cooperation in the Interwar Period:
the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, Japan and China∗
Takashi Saikawa
Heidelberg University, Germany

THE SECRETARY. I didnt do it. It was done by theCommittee for Intellectual Cooperation.
SIR O. The what??! I never heard of such a body.
THE SECRETARY. Neither did I until this business
was sprung on me. Nobody ever heard of it.
Bernard Shaw, Geneva, 1939.

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to examine the changing meaning of intellectual
cooperation in the interwar period. The term “intellectual cooperation”, now used in a
broad sense, came into existence as an idealistic expression for world peace after WorldWar I. In addition, it came to be embodied in 1922 as an international organization, theInternational Committee on Intellectual Cooperation (ICIC). The ICIC, boasting famous
intellectuals such as Henri Bergson, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann, andPaul Valéry, can be seen as one of the most remarkable international organizations forintellectual and cultural exchange 1. In the postwar period, most of those ideas andprograms have been taken over by UNESCO. For this reason, the ICIC has recently
attracted attention as a pioneering international organization for cultural exchange in thefield of international history 2.
However, persuasive research has not been done on the ideological background of
intellectual cooperation. In fact, little attention has been paid even to the conceptualchange of intellectual cooperation itself 3. Considering that the ICIC was launched by theThis paper is preliminary and incomplete. Please do not cite without permission.
Akira Iriye, Global Community: the Role of International Organizations in the Making of theContemporary World, Berkley: University of California Press, 2002, pp.21-22
2
As an example, see Akira Iriye, Cultural Internationalism and World Order, Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997, Ch.2. For details on the ICIC, see Jean-Jacques Renoliet,
L’UNESCO oublée: La Société des Nations et la coopération intellectuelle (1919-1946), Paris:
Publication de la Sorbonne, 1999.
3
For example, Iriye understands the meaning of intellectual cooperation according to his
definition of “cultural internationalism” – “the fostering of international cooperation throughcultural activities across national boundaries” (Iriye, Cultural Internationalism and World Order,p.3). However, it seems that Irie’s argumentation has little awareness of the historical change of∗11

League of Nations as a new project, and that the fundamental principles of intellectual
cooperation were repeatedly redefined throughout the course of its activities, this problem
is even more serious. For this reason, this paper follows the track of the conceptualchanges of intellectual cooperation in the interwar period by scrutinizing the discourses
on it in the ICIC.
Moreover, this paper examines the changing concept of intellectual cooperation fromthe perspective of Japan and China, because it can be thought that Japan and China, as
non-Western countries criticizing the Euro-centric character of the ICIC, developed theunique ideas on intellectual cooperation 4. In other words, this paper argues that Japan and
China played decisive roles in the ideological shift of intellectual cooperation. In doing so,
the paper will, it is hoped, contribute to a deep understanding of the ICIC’s intellectual
cooperation and its significance in the history of international cultural exchange.

Formation of Intellectual Cooperation in the League of Nations
It was in the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 that the establishment of some sort ofinternational organization for intellectual cooperation was firstly proposed. This proposal
was made by a Belgian delegate, Paul Hyman, for the purpose of “developing
international, moral, scientific and artistic relations among nations as well as proving by
all means the formation of international mentality” 5. However, as Hyman withdraw the
proposal in the end, the League of Nations Covenant came into existence without any
article concerning intellectual cooperation 6.
Yet, after the Paris Conference, suggestions that the League should launch a new projectfor intellectual work were continually made from various quarters7. In 1922, the French
Association for the League of Nations sent a letter to the Secretary-General of the Leagueof Nations, arguing for the need to establishment of “an International Bureau forIntellectual Intercourse and Education” 8 . In this letter, the French Association,
concepts, because there is no doubt that the meaning of the term “international cooperation”, forexample, differs considerably according to the historical context it was used in. The same thingcan be said for the concept of intellectual cooperation.
4
Takashi Saikawa “From Intellectual Cooperation to International Cultural Exchange: Japan and
China in the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation”, Asian Regional Integration
Review, vol.1, April 2009, pp.83-91.
5David Hunter Miller, The Drafting of the Covenant, vol. 1, New York: G.P. Putnum’s Sons,
1928, pp.349-350.
6
Ibid.
7
A report prepared by the Secretariat of the League showed 47 proposals from variousorganizations and persons. See, League of Nations, “Report from the Secretariat of the League of
Nations on the proposals submitted to it with regard to intellectual Cooperation by variousorganisations and persons”, 29 July 1922.
8“Institution of an International Bureau for Intellectual Intercourse and Education”, Letter, dated
8th July 1920, from the President of the Executive Committee of the French Association for the
League of Nations, League of Nations, Official Journal, No.7, Oct. 1920, pp.445-451.

2

emphasizing the importance of “more intimate and active interchange of ideas,
impressions, scientific discoveries, moral improvements and literary and scientificpublications” 9 for the permanency and power of the League of Nations, regarded theorganization as “a moral union of hearts and consciences” 10. In other words, the French
association unfolded the idea that an organization for intellectual work became a moral
basis of the League of Nations11. As will be shown later, this idea was taken over by the
ICIC at the time of its establishment.
In addition, the Council of the League discussed the two proposals submitted by
L’Union des Associations Internationales (the Union of International Associations),
which asked for assisting financially the International University established in Brussels
as well as subsidizing its publishing 12. In the end, the Council, withholding financial
assistance to the International University, approved £1,500 subsidy to publishing of the
UIA13. More importantly, however, the League had a keen interest in the projects of the
UIA, most of which came to be included in the programs of the ICIC later.
At the first Assembly of the League in 1920, the problem of intellectual work came tobe widely discussed. The discussion started with the motion cosponsored by Belgium,
Romaine and Italy, which recommended that the Council should bring about an“international organization of intellectual labor” 14. Accepting and approving this motion,
the second committee of the Assembly appointed Henri La Fontaine a rapporteur
submitting a resolution on the international organization of intellectual work to theplenary meeting of the Assembly 15. Thus, in the plenary meeting, La Fontaine reported
the necessity to establish an international organization of intellectual work under the
auspice of the League, referring to the UIA as its prototype 16.La Fontaine subsequently
proclaimed the ultimate aim of the organization.
A happy circumstance has compelled us to make our last task to consider a factor which is thenoblest, highest, most disinterested and most powerful in the evolution of mankind – the9

Ibid., p.445.
Ibid.
11
As will be shown later, this idea was taken over by the ICIC.
12The League of Nations, Procès-Verbal of the Eighth Session of the Council of the League of
Nations, held in San-Sebastian, from July 30th to August 5th, 1920, p.13, pp.95-97. The UIA,
established in 1910 by two Belgian internationalists, Henri La Fontaine (Secretary-General) andPaul Otlet, can be regarded as one of the first INGOs. Despite its significance in the history ofinternational relations, very little research has been done on this organization. For a brief
historical overview, see, Georges Patrick Speeckaert, Le premier siècle de la coopérationinternationale, 1815-1914, Brussels: Union des Associations Internationales, 1980, pp.171-182.
13
The League of Nations, Procès-Verbal of the Eighth Session of the Council of the League of
Nations, p.13.
14
League of Nations, The Records of the First Assembly, Meetings of the Committees, I, Geneva,
1920, p.271.
15
La Fontaine, co-founder and Secretary-General of the UIA as mentioned before, was one of theBelgian delegates in the first Assembly of the League of Nations. He was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize in 1913 for his achievements in promoting the establishment of internationalorganizations.
16
League of Nations, The Record of the First Assembly, Plenary Meetings (Meeting held from the15th of November to the 18th of December 1920), Geneva, 1920, p.770.
103human mind. You are paying your final tribute to the human mind, which has led mankind
from barbarism and shown him the way to peace. Nothing which makes for the glory ofcivilisation could have been accomplished except through the mind. It is the task of the
League of Nations to find the best and the most perfect, the most harmonious and the most
speedy, methods by which that mind can act.17

Obviously, La Fontaine’s idea on the organization for intellectual work inherits theBelgian proposal in the Paris conference that emphasized the organization as “a moral
union of hearts and consciences”. However, at the same time, it is notable that La
Fontaine pays particular attention to the role of intellectuals in terms of the developmentof “human mind”, that is, civilization. In other words, La Fontaine thinks here thatbarbarism can be overcome by those intellectuals who represent civilization as thehighest point of human mind. In this way, the organization led by intellectuals was
expected to contribute to civilization as well as to overcome barbarism. As a result, theAssembly, approving this resolution, recommended the Council to make an effort toestablish the international organization of intellectual work, and to present to the
Assembly the report on educational influence for developing “a spirit of good-will andworld-wide cooperation” 18.
At the Council in the following year, two different ideas concerning intellectual work
were proposed; the former idea was to make the existing UIA into an organization likeother technical organizations and attach it to the League, while the latter was to create an
entirely new organization 19. Holding off making a decision, the Council was reluctant toincorporate intellectual work into the League of Nations as an inter-governmental system,
because the Council believed that intellectual work should be done by privateorganizations such as the UIA, and that League should assist such voluntary efforts byintellectuals 20.
Thereafter, according to the two directions, two memorandums were prepared by the
Secretary-General. The Secretary-General, on one hand, highly evaluated the efforts andachievements made by the UIA, saying that the “League of Nations should regard these
institutions to-day as most valuable organs of collaboration” 21. On the other, he supported
the creation of a technical organization for intellectual work, stating that “it is17

Ibid., p.755.
League of Nations, Resolutions adopted by the Assembly during its First Session (November
15th to December 18th 1920), p. 22. As the result of this resolution, the secretariat of the League
launched the project to establish the organization for intellectual work. In fact, the Directors’Meeting of the League Secretariat immediately after the First Assembly appointed Nitobe Inazo,a Deputy Secretary-General, to be in charge of this matter (League of Nations, Minutes of
Directors Meeting held at the Hotel National at 3.30. p.m., on Wednesday, December 29th,
Geneva, 31st December, 1920).
19“Organisation of Intellectual Labour: Report by M. Quiñones León, Representative of Spain,
adopted by the Council on March 1st, 1921 ”, League of Nations, Minutes of the Twelfth Sessionof the Council of the League of Nations, held in Paris, in the Palais du Luxembourg, from
Monday, February 21st to Friday March 4th 1921, p.151.
20
Ibid.
21
League of Nations, “Educational Activities and the Co-ordination of Intellectual Work
accomplished by the Union of International Associations, Memorandum by the SecretaryGeneral”, September 5th, 1921, p.6.
18

4

unanimously of opinion that the League of Nations should include in its programme theco-ordination of intellectual activity and international co-operation as regards
education” 22. It can be though here that the Secretary-General intends to influence eachnational society by means of education, the “diffusion of a spirit of understanding andworld-wide co-operation” 23. Thus, by the initiative of the Secretariat, the creation of atechnical organization for intellectual work came to be envisaged.
At the meeting of the Council in September 1921, a French delegate, Léon Bourgeois,
called for approving his detailed draft on intellectual work as well as the twomemorandums by the Secretary-General. This Bourgeois resolution, which was
obviously based on the Secretary-General’s memorandums, defined the nature of the
League’s intellectual work more clearly than before.
The Assembly calls upon the Council to appoint a Committee to examine internationalquestions regarding intellectual co-operation and education. This Committee will consist of
not more than twelve members, appointed by the Council. It will submit to the next Assembly
a report on the measures to be taken by the League to facilitate intellectual exchange between
nations, particularly as regards the communication of scientific information and method of
education24.

Here the term “intellectual co-operation” was firstly, at least officially, used. It must also
be noted that “intellectual cooperation” was thought to be closely related with education.
As previously mentioned, this reflected the intention of the League to expand its
influence not only at the international level but also at the national level by means ofeducation. Though the meaning of “intellectual co-operation” was still ambiguous, theBourgeois resolution the Council clearly stated that the League should implement the
project for “intellectual cooperation and education” by establishing its technicalorganization.
Adopted by the Council, the resolution was sent to the Assembly of 1921. At the Fifth
Committee of the Assembly, Henri La Fontaine reported again on the question of
intellectual work and requested the adoption of the Bourgeois resolution 25. Though all
members agreed on the necessity to establish this kind of organization by the League,
some delegates expressed concerns that the term “education” possibly led to amisunderstanding that the League had a scheme to take the direction of education into its
own hands 26. Thus, the committee eventually approved the Bourgeois resolution on the

22

League of Nations, “The Desirability of Creating a Technical Organization for Intellectual
Work, Memorandum by the Secretary General”, September 5th, 1921, p.1.
23
League of Nations, “Educational Activities and the Co-ordination of Intellectual Work
accomplished by the Union of International Associations, Memorandum by the SecretaryGeneral”, p.6.
24
“Organisation of Intellectual Work, Report by M. Léon Bourgeois adopted by the Council on
September 2nd, 1921”, League of Nations, Minutes of the Fourteenth Session of the Council ofthe League of Nations held at Geneva, Annex, p.2.
25
League of Nations, The Records of the Second Assembly, Meeting of the Committees, II,
Geneva, 1921, pp. 332-333.
26
Ibid., pp.334-335.

5condition of omitting the word “education” 27. Even if it was a political consideration, theomission resulted in the confusion of the meaning of intellectual cooperation.
In this situation, Gilbert Murray, a delegate of South Africa, who was appointed as arapporteur to the preliminary meeting, prepared a report with an attempt to conceptualize“intellectual co-operation” as clearly as possible 28. At the beginning of the report, he
explained the purpose of organizing intellectual work by the League of Nations.
The Committee realises the great importance of the Organization of Intellectual Work; it
knows that the future of the League of Nations depends upon the formation of a universal
conscience. This can only be created and developed if the scholars, the thinkers and the writers
in all countries maintain close mutual contact, and spread from one country to another the idea
which can ensure peace among the peoples, and if the efforts already made in this direction
receive encouragement.29

Like La Fontaine, Murray assumes that this organization for intellectual work should bebased on intellectuals such as scholars, thinkers and writhers, who shared a “universal
conscience”. Moreover, Murray articulates its fundamental principles by suggesting someissues to be addressed by the organization: (1) international action for the protection of
the intellectual worker; (2) international action for the practical advance of knowledge;(3) international action with a view to the spread of the international spirit and theconsciousness of human brotherhood 30. However, this report was thought to be confusing
and paradoxical. Because Murray identifies “the spread of the international spirit and theconsciousness of human brotherhood” as one of the primary tasks, while the draft
resolution that he proposes here lacks the word “education”. Therefore, in fact, a Haitiandelegate pointed out this problem, asking for the reinsertion of the word “education” 31.
Responding to this motion, Murray, while consistently reluctant to make explicit
provisions of education so as to avoid the false impression to the League, implied that27

Ibid., p.335.
Even Murray, who later became one of the most ardent advocate for intellectual co-operation as
the chairman of the ICIC, was complaining about the ambiguity of its meaning; “the International
Organization of Intellectual Work – a somehow hazy and obscure subject, on which nobody but a
few cranks seemed to have any clear views…” (Salvador de Madariaga, “Gilbert Murray and the
League”, Jean Smith and Arnold Toynbee ed., Gilbert Murray: An Unfinished Autobiography,
London: George Allen and Unwin, 1960, p.189). Before reporting at the plenary meeting, he also
expressed his true sentiments; “Now I must go to the Assembly again, to report on Intellectual
Work. This subject is almost joke… I hate reporting to that indifferent Assembly on Int. Work!”(ibid., p.190).
29“International Organisation of Intellectual Work: Report presented to the Assembly by
Committee No. V”, League of Nations, The Records of the Second Assembly, Meeting of theCommittees, II, p. 469.
30
League of Nations, The Record of the Second Assembly, Plenary Meetings (Meeting held fromthe 5th of September to the 5th of October 1921), Geneva, 1921, p.310.
31
The delegate rightly noted that “I consider that the words ’and education’, which are in theoriginal draft by M. Léon Bourgeois, should be restored because it is extremely important for us,
with a view to the formation of that international spirit of which Professor Gilbert Murray has justspoken, that an exchange of information should take place with regard to the pedagogic work
carried out all over the world, so that we may arrive at that unity in varied form which we areendeavouring to achieve in this institution.” (ibid., p.312)
28

6

there was room for the interpretation that the broad phrase “co-operation in intellectualwork” included education among its other activities 32. As a result of the discussion, theHaitian delegate withdrew the motion, and the resolution was approved by the Assembly.
In this way, the League decided to found a technical organization for intellectual work.
The following year, in 1922, the organization came into existence under the name of theInternational Committee on Intellectual Cooperation. At the first plenary session, Nitobe
Inazo, welcoming 12 members on behalf of the League, made an opening address, inwhich he defined the characteristics of “intellectual cooperation”.
The members of the Committee were all personalities eminent in the various branches ofhuman knowledge, and their relations with their respective Governments, which they in noways represented, were those of complete independence.
The work of the Committee, the scope of which had not been strictly defined, either by theCouncil or by the Assembly, was to submit to the Assembly a report on the step to be taken by
the League to facilitate intellectual relations between peoples, particularly in respect of thecommunication of scientific information33.

Obviously, this remark is based on the Bourgeois resolution. Yet, it is notable that Nitobe
regards the members of the ICIC as independent from governments. This comes from theuniversalistic nature of this organization that La Fontaine and Murray emphasized. In
other words, absorbing the ideas of La Fontaine and Murray on intellectual work, theICIC identifies itself as a sort of universal community by intellectuals all over the world.
On the other hand, however, the fundamental principle of the ICIC was narrowed down
to facilitating “intellectual” relations among nations by means of communicating
scientific information. In addition, Nitobe made no reference to the possibility that the
ICIC included “education” in its activities.
In this way, the ICIC made a start with the universalistic but ambiguous idea ofintellectual cooperation. This characteristic of the early ICIC provoked strong reactions
from Japan and China, each of which conceptualized intellectual cooperation in its
original way and urged the ICIC to redefine the meaning of intellectual cooperation.

Intellectual Cooperation in JapanIn 1926 when the Japanese national committee on intellectual cooperation wasestablished, the term “intellectual cooperation” was also translated into Japanese, that is,
Gakugei Kyōryoku 34. Though the Japanese government had used some names for it suchas Chiteki Rōdō (Intellectual Labor), Bunka Kyōryoku (Cultural Cooperation) andGakugei Kyōryoku, the term “Gakugei Kyōryoku” came eventually to be chosen as adefinitive translation. Since this term is no longer used as the Japanese translation of
intellectual cooperation, it should be understood in the historical context of the time.
32

Ibid., pp.312-313.
League of Nations, Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, Minute of the First Session,
Geneva, August 1st-5th, 1922, Geneva, 1922, p.3.
34
Therefore, the Japanese national committee was named “Gakugei Kyōryoku Iinkai”.
33

7

In Japan through the 1920s, a great variety of discourses on culture (Bunka Ron) was
produced. This is because Japan, as was the case in Europe and the united States,
experienced the massive transformation of the socioeconomic structure after World War
I35. With the rapid development of capitalism and the penetration of American culture,
the mass consumer society emerged in urban areas such as Tokyo36 . Furthermore,according to the rapid expansion and development of capitalism, Japan intensively
experienced modernity, in which the expansion of capitalism inevitably accompanied agreat deal of unevenness that was materialized as differences such as urban and rural,labor and capital, modernity and tradition, gender 37. For this reason, diverse discourses onculture were produced during this period, with a view to offer a coherent narrative against
the fragmentation of Japanese society 38.
From the point of view of semantics, these discourses on culture (Bunka Ron) werestrongly influenced by a German concept, Kultur. It is true that the word “civilization”(Bunmei), which came originally from the French word civilisation and meant Western
civilization as a sole and universal one, had been more widely used in Japan since the late
19th century. However, as skeptic feelings toward the universality of Western civilization
came to be globally shared by intellectuals in the aftermath of World War I, the word“culture”, which emphasized the particularity of culture rather than universality ofcivilization, instead became predominan 39 . At the same time, the meaning of“civilization” itself was increasingly shifted from universality to particularity, from
(Western) civilization to different civilizations 40. Thus, reflecting the German Kultur,
which laid great stress on spiritual and national values, the discourses on culture of thetime, tended more or less to concentrate on Japanese national culture 41.
Gakugei Kyōryoku, the Japanese term of intellectual cooperation, was based on this idea
on culture. In a pamphlet entitled “Gakugei no Kokusai Kyōryoku” (International
Intellectual Cooperation), which was published by the Japanese national committee, themain purpose of the committee was clearly stated.

35

For details of the socioeconomic structural changes in the 1920s Europe, see, Charles S. Maier,
Recasting Bourgeois Europe: Stabilizing in France, German, and Italy in the Decade after WorldWar I, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.
36
Harry Harrotuanian, Overcome by Modernity: History, Culture and Community in Interwar
Japan, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000, Ch.1.
37
Ibid., preface.
38
For example, Soda Kiichiro’s and Kuwaki Genyoku’s philosophical “Bunka Shugi”(Culturalism), Oyama Ikuo’s “Puroretaria Bunka” (Proletarian Culture), Kon Wajiro’s “Kōgen
Gaku” (Modernology), Gonda Yasunosuke’s “Goraku no Tetsugaku” (Philosophy of Fun). For
details, see Minami Hiroshi, Taishō Bunka, 1905-1927 [Taishō Culture], Tokyo: Keisō Shobō,
1978.
39
Akira Yanabu, Bunka (Culture), Tokyo: Sanseidō, 1995.
40
On the conceptual transformation of “civilization”, see Bruce Mazlish, Civilization and Its
Contents, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004.
41
See Yanabu, Bunka. In this sense, “Nihonjin Ron” (theories on Japanese) or “Nihon Bunka
Ron” (theories on Japanese culture), which has been produced in terms of constructing Japan’snational identity, can be traced to the discourses on culture in the 1920s.

8The primary purpose of our committee is to introduce Japanese culture. In terms ofinternational cooperation, it must be an urgent task to show the true nature of Oriental culture
to Western people who often know little about it42.

The national committee underscores the particularity of Japanese culture, in the hope that
introducing Japanese culture to Western people contributes to international cooperation.
In other words, the committee was established as a national organization of the ICIC, its
main purpose as defined not as to correspond and cooperate with the ICIC but tointroduce Japanese culture to the West. Therefore, the meaning of intellectual
cooperation in Japan was primarily to introduce Japanese national culture to the West.
In addition, it must be noted that the active engagement of the Japanese government was
anticipated in the Japanese meaning of intellectual cooperation. In fact, the Japanesenational committee on intellectual cooperation was established by the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and had been under its strong influence 43 . The reason why the Japanese
government embarked on the project for intellectual cooperation is that it was keenly
realized after World War I that the Japanese government should implement cultural
diplomacy toward Western countries. For example, Goto Shinpei, a politician andcolonial administrator of Taiwan and Manchuria, asserted that Japan after the war had agreat cultural mission toward the world 44. Goto’s argument about “Nihon no Bunka teki
Shimei” (Japan’s cultural mission) was motivated by his strong resentment against
Western racial prejudice of Japanese people and their culture. Taking the rejection ofJapan’s proposal for racial equality in the Paris Peace Conference and the anti-Japanese
movement in the United States as examples of the Japan’s high priority issues afterWorld War I, Goto alleged that these problems undoubtedly resulted from the widespreadmisunderstanding and ignorance of Japan in Western countries 45. According to Goto,
since the Japanese nation is inherently peaceful and cooperative, it is needed to introduce
Japanese culture to Western people so that they can have a right understanding 46. Since
this growing frustration was held not only by Goto but also by many Japanese policy
makers and intellectuals, the mission to introduce Japanese culture to the West become ageneral goal of Japanese foreign policy in the 1920s.
42

The National Committee of Japan on Intellectual Cooperation ed., “Gakugei no Kokusai
Kyōryoku” (International Intellectual Cooperation), Tokyo: the Japanese Association of the
League of Nations, 1928, pp.18-19.
43
For details, see Takashi Saikawa “From Intellectual Cooperation to International Cultural
Exchange”, p.86.
44
Goto Shinpei, “Nihon no Bunkateki Shimei” (Japan’s Cultural Mission), Gaiko Jihō, No.382,
Oct. 1920, pp.19-28; “Nihon no Bunkateki Shimei ni tsuite: Sairon” (Japan’s Cultural Mission
Revisited), Gaiko Jihō, No.383, Nov. 1920, pp.11-23. Needless to say, Japan’s proposal for racialequality in the Paris Conference was nothing more than the self-oriented appeal for the equality
between Japan and Western powers. For further discussion, see Naoko Shimazu, Japan, Race andEquality: the Racial Equality Proposal of 1919, London: Routledge, 1998. On anti-Japanese
movement in the United States in the 1920s, see Izumi Hirobe, Japanese Pride, American
Prejudice: Modifying the Exclusion Clause of the 1924 Immigration Act, Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 2001.
45
Goto, “Nihon no Bunkateki Shimei”, p.28.
46
Goto, “Nihon no Bunkateki Shimei ni tsuite: Sairon”, p.20; “Nihon no Bunkateki Shimei”,
p.22-23.

9

Together with the idea of Japan’s cultural mission, there emerged a fundamental
principle of Japan’s international cultural exchange after World War I: that is, “Tōzai
Bumei Chōwa Ron” (the Idea of Harmony between Eastern and Western Civilizations).
Though the idea that Japan should (and can) be a cultural mediator between the East andthe West was seemingly banal, it has been a widely shared ideology in the field ofinternational cultural exchange since the 1920s 47. This is because “Tōzai Bunmei Chōwa
Ron” has functioned as an ideological basis of constructing Japan’s national identity
towards the world. To be more precise, on the premise that Japan is, historically andculturally, the first nation to achieve modernization among non-Western counties, theideology makes it possible to think that Japan is qualified to ask for its equality with theWest as well as superiority over the East, particularly Asia 48. Thus, employing theEast/West dichotomy, a vast number of discourses on Japan’s national identity as a
special mediator between them has been (re)produced 49 . As with Japan’s Cultural
Mission, “Tōzai Bunmei Chōwa Ron” came to be a prevailing and influential discourse in
the 1920s50. For this reason, as mentioned above, the Japanese national committee on
intellectual cooperation stated that introducing Japanese culture as an “Oriental” culture
to the West contributed to international cooperation.
In this way, taking advantage of its geographical, historical and cultural position in theworld, the national committee regarded intellectual cooperation as an effective means forconstructing its national identity. Therefore, unlike the ICIC’s universalistic
comprehension, the meaning of intellectual cooperation in Japan was besed on theparticularity of culture, Japanese national culture.

Intellectual Cooperation in China
The Chinese translation of intellectual cooperation was fixed as “Shijie Wenhua Hezuo”
in 1933 when the Chinese national committee on intellectual cooperation was established.
This committee came into existence as the result of the “Mission of Educational Experts
to China”, which was dispatched by the ICIC in1931. Initiated at the request of the
Nationalist Chinese Government in Nanjing to cooperate with the League of Nations, this47

Atsushi Shibasaki, Kindai Nihon to Kokusai Bunka Kōryū (International Cultural Relations andModern Japan), Tokyo: Yūshindō, 1999; Tetsuya Sakai, Kindai Nihon no Kokusai Chitsujo Ron(The Political Discourse on International Order in Modern Japan), Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2007.
48
Sakai, Kindai Nihon no Kokusai Chitsujo Ron.
49
For the discussion on the Postwar period since 1945, see Hirofumi Takase, Sengo Nihon no
Keizai Gaiko (Japan’s Economic Diplomacy in the Postwar Period), Tokyo: Shinzansha, 2008. It
can be seen in this work that the Japanese Economic Policy has been implemented according to“Japan image” projected by the dichotomy between the East and the West.
50
For example, Hara Takashi, Japanese prime minister at the time, proclaimed the harmonization
between Eastern and Western Civilizations as one of the most critical policy issues (Takashi Hara,“Tōzai Bunmei no Chōwa” (Harmony between Eastern and Western Civilizations), Gaikō Jihō,No.388, Jan. 1921, pp.27-34.

10

project became the first experience for the ICIC to assist a particular government 51. The
mission, investigating the educational situation in China, submitted to the ICIC the reporton the reform of Chinese educational system 52. In this report, the mission suggested that
China should preserve its national unity, the unity of Chinese national culture, from avariety of foreign influences while modernizing – westernizing – its educational system 53.
Thus, the ICIC not only consolidated a close relationship with the Chinese government
but also supported the construction of Chinese national culture. On the other hand, theNationalist Chinese Government in Nanjing intended to use the League, the ICIC in thiscase, for its own purposes, particularly the domestic development of China 54. Particularly,
after the Manchurian Incident in 1931, the Nationalist Government sought to reinforce its
relations with the League in the framework of “Technical Cooperation with China” 55. In
fact, the project of the mission was also formulated and implemented within thisframework.
Though the activities of the Chinese national committee on intellectual cooperation,“Shijie Wenhua Hezuo Zhongguo Xiehui”, were limited on a small scale, through thefoundation of its national committee, Chinese idea on intellectual cooperation wasincreasingly crystallized 56 . For example, in the report of the committee in 1933
intellectual cooperation was classified by actors into three types: (1) intellectual
cooperation directly implemented by the League of Nations, (2) intellectual cooperation
jointly by the League and national organizations, (3) intellectual cooperation
independently by national organizations 57. Among them, the Chinese committee attachedoverriding importance to intellectual cooperation by national organizations, asking for the51

League of Nations, International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, Report on theCommittee on the Works of Its Fourteenth Plenary Session submitted to the Council and to the
Assembly, Geneva, 1932, p.19.
52
The League of Nations’ Mission of Educational Experts, The Reorganization of Education in
China, Paris: League of Nations’ Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, 1932.
53
Ibid., p.197.
54
China’s failure to maintain its position of nonpermanent seat in the Council in 1928 led to thedomestic controversy over China’s withdrawal from the League. In opposition to it, Wei Zhou,
one of the Chinese delegates in the League, pointed out advantages of staying and using it:international collaboration, impression of peaceful Chinese culture, cooperation with small
countries in the League, assistance from the League, China’s international position as a great
nation, acquisition of new knowledge through technical cooperation, diffusion of Sanmin Zhuyi(Three Principles of the People). Wei Zhou, “Tuichu huo Liyong Guoji Lainmenghui Wenti”(Exit or Use: Problem of the League of Nations), Zhongwai Pinlun, 17th April, 1929.
55
For details, see Li Zang, Guoji Hezuo zai Zhongguo: Guoji Lianmeng Jiaose de Kaocha, 19191946 (International Cooperation in China, with special consideration to its relations with the
League of Nations), Taipei: Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica, 1999; Margherita
Zanasi, “Exporting Development: The League of Nations and Republican China”, Comparative
Studies in Society and History, vol.49, no.1, pp.143-169; Jürgen Osterhammel “’Technical Cooperation’ between the League of Nations and China”, Modern Asian Studies, vol.13, no.4, 1979,
pp.661-680.
56
See, Organisation internationalle de coopération intellectuelle, Commission nationale chinoisede coopération intellectuelle, Shanghai, 1937; Li Zang, Guoji Hezuo zai Zhongguo, Ch. 2.
57
Hexi Chen, Shijie Wenhua Hezuo: Canjia Guolian Shijie Wenhua Hezuohui di Shisi ci Huiyi
zhi Jingguo (International Intellectual Cooperation: a report of the 14th Session of theInternational Committee on Intellectual Cooperation), Shanghai: Shijie Bianyiguan, 1933, p.49.

11

organization of research and education institutions in China as well as the establishmentof China’s national organization for international cultural exchange 58. Furthermore, at the
15th Plenary Session of the ICIC in 1933, Chinese delegates, after considering the ways
and means of intellectual cooperation, suggested the differentiation of the relationshipbetween governments from the relationship between societies, both of which they equallyemphasized 59. The reason why the social dimension of intellectual cooperation wasemphasized is that, as discussed, China sought to use the ICIC for developing Chinese
domestic society in terms of education and research.
The meaning of the Chinese intellectual cooperation, “Shijie Wenhua Hezuo”, wasmanifested at the Second General Conference of the National Committees of Intellectual
Cooperation in 1937. Li Shizeng, a representative of China in the conference, presented
Chinese understanding of intellectual cooperation from the perspective of the multiplicity
of civilizations 60.
Each country has its traditions, its genious and its individual culture. The International
Committee on Intellectual Co-operation has, on many occasions, recognised the diversity ofcivilisation, a diversity which, in fact, enriches the common heritage of mankind. It is thismutiformity of civilizations that renders intellectual co-operation necessary. Between theInternational Organisation and each nation, the agency of the National Committees is ofprimary importance, particularly for making known the Organistion’s activities in eachcountry61. (2)58

The move toward unified Chinese national organization for international cultural exchange wasaccelerated by the establishment of Kokusai Bunka Shinkōkai (The Society of International
Cultural Relations) in 1934. China was on alert against the Japan’s national organization forinternational cultural exchange, and sought for the countermeasure against the programs that wasclosely related with Japan’s foreign policy. In this regard, see Deming Liu, “Guoji Wenhua Shiyeshi Shenme?” (What is International Cultural Echange?), Waijiao Yuebao, vol.6 no.6, Jun. 1935,
pp.141-157.
59“Shijie Wenhua Hezuo Zhongguo Daibiaotuan Zuzhi Dagang Chenbao Dahui Beian Tongqi”(A Notice of a Report that the Chinese Delegation Announced the Outline of Organization in the
Meeting of the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation), Li Shizeng Xiansheng Wenji(Collected Works of Li Shizeng), vol.2, Taipei: Zhongguo Guomindang Zhongyang Weiyuanhui
Dangshi Weiyuanhui, 1980, p.371.
60
Li Shizeng, formally a member of the Chinese anarchist group in France, was one of the mostimportant figures in the Chinese project of intellectual cooperation. Even after Wu Zhihui wasnominated as the Chinese member of the ICIC in 1930, Li acted virtually as a pillar of intellectual
cooperation in China. This is because Wu Zhihui was reluctant to engage in intellectual
cooperation, and in fact, he never appeared at Geneva during his term (1930-39). Nonetheless, Li
highly evaluates Wu Zhihui as a pioneer in the field of cultural exchange in China. Shizeng Li,“Zhihui Xiansheng Liushinian Jiaoyi Sigong zhi Guanxi” (60 Year’ Friendship with Wu Zhihui),Wu Zhihui Xiansheng Shishi Shizhounian Jinian Teji (Commemorating the 10th Anniversary of
Wu Zhihui’s Demise), no date, p.15; Shizeng Li “Shijie Wenhua” (World Culture), Li Shizeng
Xiansheng Wenji (Collected Works of Li Shizeng), vol.2, Taipei: Zhongguo Guomindang
Zhongyang Weiyuanhui Dangshi Weiyuanhui, 1980, p.279-280.
61
Li Yu Ying, “the Role of the National Committees in Making Known, in the National Field, theActivities of the International Organisation for Intellectual Co-operation”, League of Nations,International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation, Second General Conference of the National
Committees of Intellectual Co-operation, July 1937, p.2.

12

It can be seen that Li intended to redefine the meaning of civilization from a monism
based on Western civilization to the diversity of civilizations, underlining the significanceof national cultures. In fact, this viewpoint on diverse civilizations had been repeatedly
expressed by China in the League of Nations. For example, as early as the 4th Assemblyof the League in 1923, a Chinese delegate stressed the intellectual and spiritual values of
the “Orient” or the “East”, and requested Western people to pay more attention to
Chinese culture as its representative 62 . This Chinese appeal for the multiplicity ofcivilizations, because of its quasi-multicultural appearance, had been supported by mostmembers, non-Western members in particular, of the League 63. For China, however, thetrue motive was obviously to improve its status in international society by manipulating
the situation of the League of Nations, especially its Assembly in which non-Westerncountries had a majority 64. It is obvious that Li insisted on the diversity of civilizations inconscious of this motive. All the same, in so doing, he thought primarily of enhancing
China’s position in the field of intellectual cooperation.
As seen above, intellectual cooperation in China was though to serve two purposes: thedevelopment of its domestic society and the enhancement of its international status. In
this regard, the idea of civilization functioned as a bond between the two purposes.
Particularly, China regionalized the concept of civilization by prefixing “Oriental”,“Eastern” or “Asian”, so as to achieve the Chinese national goals at the same time.
Therefore, again, it must be noted that the focus of the intellectual cooperation in China
was primarily on its national values, not on the universal values that the ICIC emphasized.
This was clearly stated in the report of the Chinese national committee on intellectual
cooperation.
We are convinced that we have a special part to play in the work of co-operation, as there is an
aspect of Chinese civilisation which is peculiar to itself, independent, and more original thanthat of the Western civilisations. In view of these differences we feel the need to multiply
opportunities for the exchange of intellectual and scientific ideas and for the exchanges of62

League of Nations, Records of the Fourth Assembly, Text of the Debates, Geneva 1923, p.104-

5.
63

Even Japan, disputing over the Shandon Peninsula with China, expressed its support for theidea with the exception of regarding Chinese culture as a representative of the “Orient” (Leagueof Nations, Records of the Fourth Assembly, Meeting of the Committees, Minutes of the FourthCommittee (Social and General Questions), Geneva, 1923, p.56).
64
To be precise, the top priority of Chinese diplomacy with the League was to win and retain anonpermanent seat of the Council in its election. For details, see Chi-Hua Tang, Beijing Zhengfu
yu Guoji Lianmeng (1919-1928) (The Beijing Government and the League of Nations, 19191926), Taipei: Dangda Toshu Gongsi, 1998, Ch.3. Along the same lines, China asked the League
to nominate a Chinese as a member of the ICIC. The basic principle for an enhanced international
status can be seen as one of the main characteristics of Chinese diplomacy. According to ShinKawashima, China has consistently sought to enhance its international status as a great nation
since the early 20th century. On this point, see Shin Kawashima, “Chūgoku Gaikō ni okeru
Shōchō toshiteno Kokusaiteki Chii” (The Long-term Target on Chinese Diplomatic History toEnhance Its International Status on Hague Peace Conference, the League of Nations and theUnited Nations), Kokusai Seiji, Vol.145, 2006, pp.17-35.

13

ideas in all fields. Our collaboration will therefore extend to a quite new and particularly
important work which will subserve civilisation in the future65.

Thus, it can be said that China, emphasizing its national values like Japan, challenged the
ICIC’s universalistic understanding of intellectual cooperation.

Conclusion
As above, in confrontation with the universalism of the ICIC, Japan and China
respectively conceptualized intellectual cooperation in their original ways, urging the
ICIC to redefine the meaning of intellectual cooperation. In Japan, the meaning ofintellectual cooperation was to introduce Japanese national culture in order to remove
misunderstandings of Japanese people and their culture in Western countries. On theother hand, in China, intellectual cooperation was implemented to develop Chinese
domestic society and enhance its international society. In this sense, they shared the sameideological background, the idea that intellectual cooperation should be primarily basedon national values. More importantly, both countries laid great emphasis on such regional
concepts as the “Orient”, the “East” and “Asia”. Nonetheless, there was no possibility
that Japan and China sought a common ground of understanding about these regional
concepts. This is because the concepts of region manipulated by Japan and China
functioned as a logic connecting national values with the universalistic nature of the ICIC.
Therefore, the regional concepts emphasized by Japan and China in intellectual
cooperation in this period were dependent on the ideas of nation and national culture.
Finally, it must be noted that the ICIC, through cooperating with Japan and China, sifted
the paradigm of intellectual cooperation, from the universality to the particularity ofculture. At the same time, as is the case for the Mission of Educational Experts to China
in 1931, the ICIC came to seek a close relationship with governments, acknowledging
the significance of national culture. This paradigm shift was clearly shown by the“International Act concerning Intellectual Cooperation”, which was prepared by the ICIC
with the help of the French government and ratified at Paris in 1938 by 45 governments 66.
This can be regarded not only as the first international arrangement on intellectual
cooperation but also as the final achievement of the ICIC, which was eventuallycompelled to cease all of the projects by the outbreak of World War II. Reflecting theparadigm shift from the universality to the particularity of culture, the act stated clearly65

League of Nations, Intellectual Cooperation Organisation, “Statement on the Work of theChinese National Committee on Intellectual Co-operation from June 1922 to May 1934”, Geneva,
June 8th, 1934, p.8.
66
League of Nations, “International Act concerning Intellectual Cooperation”, Geneva, 1938. The
governments that finally ratified this act are as follows: Albania, Argentine Republic, Belgium,
Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa-Rica, Cuba, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Egypt,
Ecuador, Spain, Estonia, Finland, the French Republic, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iraq, Iran,
Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Mexico, Monaco, Norway, Panama, Paraguay,
Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Siam, Sweden, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia,
Turkey, the Union of South Africa, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia. The Japanese
government sent a representative to the diplomatic conference, but finally refused to sign the act.

14

that “National Committees on Intellectual Cooperation…act as centres for thedevelopment of this work on both the national and international planes” 67. In other word,
the work of intellectual cooperation should be based on national committees, each ofwhich represents its national culture. The ICIC was no longer regarded as a universal
intellectual community envisaged in the 1920s, but as an organization among national
cultures, a “League of Cultures” as it were. In this way, the ICIC as a “League ofCultures” provided the international basis of national organizations for cultural exchange,
which were simultaneously founded in various countries in the 1930s.

67

Ibid., p.17.

15