The US, not Japan, was the aggressor, by MOTEKI Hiromichi
SummaryStandard histories of the Pacific War claim that Japan was the “aggressor” and that
America was the innocent victim of Japanese aggression on December 7, 1941. A
closer evaluation of the circumstances, however, will point out that it was anunbroken chain of American actions rather than Japanese “aggression” that led to war.
By engaging in solipsistic policies that absolutely placed American interests over allother considerations, war became inevitable. It appears that the real lessons fromPearl Harbor have yet to be realized in the West and in America in particular.
Early in the 20th century, President Theodore Roosevelt urged that Japan apply the“Monroe Doctrine” to Asia. As South and Central America and the Caribbean were
within the U.S.’s sphere of influence, Asia, especially Manchuria and China given
their proximity, would be within Japan’s sphere of influence. However, American
reassurance for such an arrangement was quickly overlooked, beginning with theabrogation of the Ishii-Lansing Agreement of 1917 with the Nine-Power Treaty(1923). Rather, Manifest Destiny, into the Pacific and Asia, dictated U.S. foreignpolicy.
It has been largely forgotten in these modern times that during the early 20th century
Japan was entirely reliant on trade to sustain her domestic economy. As a resource
poor nation, Japan was forced to import minerals, petroleum and food and Japanneeded access to markets to sell her products to pay for imports. Much of Asia
however, was colonialized by Europe and America, thereby restricting Japan’s accessto goods and markets. As a consequence of economic distress following the Great
Depression, Western countries formed economic blocks and raised tariffs, furtherrestricting Japanese access to foreign markets. Thus, in order to sustain national wellbeing, Japan moved into Manchuria.
Given American attitudes towards Japan, as indicated by previous treaties that
disregarded Japanese concerns for her economic security, America’s commitment tokeep China open to Europeans but not to Japan, and anti-Japanese sentimentpromoted by Christian missionaries in China, it was only a matter of time before war
broke out between the two countries. In fact, it was Franklin Roosevelt, whoinstigated a series of economic sanctions against Japan and supported anti-Japanesebelligerents despite an official policy of neutrality. Roosevelt, stridently antiJapanese in attitude and fervently wishing to completely overhaul Japanese culture(“regime change”), signed off on JB-355, the planned aerial attack of Japan proposedby the Joint (Army/Navy) Board, on July 23, 1941. Had the situation in the European
theatre not been so serious, attacks were to have started by October.
The lessons of the past have apparently been entirely lost on those who currently
clamor for the application of “economic sanctions” on their enemies. Perhaps thehighly integrated economy of today will diminish the effect sanctions. However, themere application of sanctions automatically condemns the recipient to internationalpariah status, which constrains the range of action such countries and, in desperation,
defensive war may be the only option.