Influence of Asia’s Colonization: Debating the Past, Present, and Future of Territorial Issues

Influence of Asia’s Colonization: Debating the Past, Present, andFuture of Territorial Issues
Monika Chansoria
Senior Visiting Fellow, JIIAOn February 23, 2018, JIIA, in collaboration with the Centre for Land War fare Studies(CLAWS), organized a symposium “Influence of Asia’s Colonization: Debating the Past,Present, and Future of Territorial Issues” in New Delhi, India. The following is a brief synopsisof the event.

Re-visiting the historical and geopolitical narratives of 20th century Asia and the enduring
legacies of its colonization, have often generated a debate on how nation-states andtheir people view the impact and fallout of colonialism in varying ways. The 20th century
remained enmeshed in terms of disputes, wars, economics, and politics. Colonialism
and the period thereafter did, after all, make an indelible mark on demographics, borders,political systems, laws and customs, economies, cultural influx, and, identities.
The defining trends of Asiaʼs colonial past during the 20th century, for that matter, seems to becontinuing to cast a shadow on the ensuing century and Asiaʼs future that remains weaved with
it. The larger conceptual debate surrounding colonialism and the Asian experience does not get
limited to historical connotations only. There is a vital contemporary geopolitical and geostrategic
relevance to it. Historical narratives, re-interpretations, and/or distortions of history have been
critically linked to colonial legacies and experiences, with the objective to redraw frontiers andexpand spheres of influence by some states in the name of history.
Every phase of colonization, whether within Asia, or outside it, brought migration, introduced
new political and social systems, boundaries (claim lines), intrastate relationships and legacies
that got created out of that. This determined the direction in which Asian states moved
economically, politically, and socially. More importantly, it defined the manner in which Asiannations developed their sense of nationhood. A major ramification of the colonial past and history
has been the failure of some states to come to terms with the past, which has been instrumental
in spurring competing/mutually reinforcing/overlapping themes of nationalisms, especiallypertaining to certain territories in the maritime domain, and on land, in East, Southeast, andSouth Asia.
To discuss this vital subject and its related themes, a symposium entitled Influence of Asia’sColonization: Debating the Past, Present, and Future of Territorial Issues was organized by The
Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA) in New Delhi, India, on Februar y 23, 2018, incollaboration with the Centre for Land Warfare Studies. The symposium sought to discussand debate the journey and prominent milestones of Asian statesʼ colonial experiences, bothindividually, and as a region. It also strived to study and debate the impact of the evolving
geopolitical and strategic narratives emanating out of this colonial past of the Asian continent.
The symposium deliberated upon whether mutual economic development and warming up
will ever become an absolute substitute for political fissures that seem to be only getting deeper
46
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Monika Chansoria

among major Asian powers today. While Asian nation-states cannot amend/rewrite their [colonial]past, the endeavor of the discourse will be to evaluate the fixed vs. variable determinants thatwill influence Asiaʼs geopolitical and geostrategic future amid the backdrop of this colonial past.
Can Asia ever come to terms with its past and strive to make a collective effort to reduce theeconomic and political fault lines and build a cooperative future regionally? A brief overview ofthe proceedings is presented as follows.

The Era of Meiji Restoration

The keynote address of the symposium discussed and elaborated upon the 150th anniversary of
the Meiji Restoration. There was a big change of politics from 1867-68 to 1890, termed as the ʻMeiji
Restorationʼ when Japan established its parliament and went in for parliamentary politics.
The period before the Meiji Restoration – 265 years long Edo period (1603-1868) came after
the warring state period of the 16th century during which many feudal lords fought each othermaking Japan the strongest military power in the world at that time in terms of the number ofarms. Following the beginning of the Edo period, there was almost no war in Japan, for more than
two centuries.
The succeeding establishment of the Meiji government in 1868 under the central leadershipof the Emperor, saw astonishing results beginning with the abolishment of feudal domains,leading to Japanʼs transformation to a real centralized nation in which social stratification becamemuch less rigid. Another major milestone of this period was the abolishment of bushi or thewarrior class – samurai. Within around 15 years, in 1889, the Japanese constitution was written
and parliament was started in 1890. Before that, a modern type of cabinet system was introducedin 1885 with Japanʼs first Prime Minister Ito Hirobumi who belonged to the lowest class of thesamurai. This was unimaginable during the Edo period, and therefore, the Meiji Restoration
was in a sense, a great class revolution as well, and became a revelation of the Japanese peopleʼspower that had gotten accumulated earlier during the Edo period.
The Meiji period saw transformational changes and should ideally be described as the Meiji
Revolution, and not just ʻRestorationʼ. From a global perspective was a rare example of successfulchange achieved without the shedding of much blood. Scholars have termed the Meiji Restorationand the American experience of revolution, and independence as the least costly and most fruitfulaccumulative change in contemporar y histor y. The Meiji Restoration did not occur suddenly
just with the enthronement of the Emperor Meiji, but, was made possible because of gradualchanges that occurred during the Edo period that preceded it, such as an increase in population,
improvements in agriculture and industrialization, a high literacy rate, the rise of popular culture,and the development of a national consciousness throughout Japan.
The ensuing period when Japan defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese war, had a big impact
on the rise of nationalism throughout Asia and Africa. Japan, unfortunately, was unable to exercise
leadership with respect to those under colonialism, and instead acquired overseas territories
and repressed those who were under colonial rule. Japan later headed down the mistaken roadtoward the Pacific War. The concept of Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere ended up being
a failure because it expected no equality among its members. Moreover, members shared nobasic universal principles such as non-intervention in domestic politics or peaceful resolution ofconflicts. Nonetheless, the Pacific War did promote Asian nationalism. Japanʼs post-war approachto the world was roughly successful, although few changes could have been done after the endof the Cold War. In the context of contemporary times, it is high time for Japan to reconsider its
foreign policy and security policy, still very much based on the basic lines from 1945 onwards.

Histor y of Asia’s Colonization: The Territorial and Boundar y Issues
The first session of the symposium addressed the origins of territorial and border issues across47
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Influence of Asia’s Colonization: Debating the Past, Present, and Future of Territorial Issues

Asia and the history of its colonization. The panelists spelled out the following points broadly.
It is widely believed that modern international law is nothing more than the development ofinternational law as was seen in Europe at a time when there were many different versions ofinternational laws around the world. When discussing current territorial conflicts, it is important
to approach such conflicts from their respective historical perspectives, including those of premodern international law, to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue.
There were distinctive territorial concepts of “hanto” ( 版図 ; territory) and “kegai no chi” ( 化外の地 ; lands outside imperial influence) in Japan before acceptance of the modern internationallaw. After the opening up to the West and onset of the Meiji Restoration period, Japan actively tookin Western “imperialist” international law and expanded its territories overseas. It is interestingthat there were intense discussions between China and Japan about the interpretation of theconcept “hodo” ( 封土 ; domain) in Article 1 of the Sino-Japanese Friendship and Trade Treaty
on whether it referred to a territory as defined by modern international law, or did it include thetributary states.
Under the French colonization, Indochina experienced rapid economic development in thefields of mining, industr y, agriculture, development of public works. Besides, infrastructure
was very impressive in Indochina at that time – with one of the largest networks of roads andbridges in Asia that served the colonial economy and transport of goods to the sea. But beyond
these material goods, one of the most important legacies was in the fields of law and usage ofconcepts considered to be better related to the principles of objective law in the management ofinternational disputes adapted to a globalized rule-of-law-based world. While it cannot be denied
that various types of inequalities and discrimination were associated with the French colonial
rule over Indochina, it needs to be noted that French rule exerted a certain degree of positive
influence on the territories in question.
For example, colonialism brought about changes in material spheres such as progress inagriculture, mining, and infrastructure, and also brought along with it: 1) Acceptance of a modern
legal system 2) Demarcation of borders based on topographic maps 3) The creation of national
consciousness in Indochinese countries through movements aimed at denying the suzerainties ofChina and Thailand.
When it comes to the issue of the Paracel and Spratly Islands, Vietnam holds its arguments
based on international law concepts, which it inherited from the modern legal system of France.
Against the backdrop of the exercise of force and balance-of-power concepts, China has been
limited to invoking vague concepts of “historical rights” over the islands and is attempting tojustify territorial rights over the islands by invoking its past suzerainty over Annam. On theParacel and Spratly Islandsʼ issue, France has limited itself to making general expressions about
legal principles and has avoided taking concrete positions. As a former suzerain of Vietnam thatwas historically involved to some degree in that country, France should reconsider the positions
that it should take.
In South Asia, India has had land disputes with almost all of the six countries with which it
shares land borders. The roots of these territorial disputes can be found in the decisions takenby the British government based on its 19th century colonial strategy. Behind the British decisionto partition India and Pakistan were: 1) its obligations to the Muslim League 2) The old British
policy of divide and rule 3) Desire for an access to Central Asia 4) Desire to contain the Soviet
Union. A British writer accurately predicted in 1944 that the separation of Muslims would result intheir impoverishment and radicalization. The end of the Cold War diminished the strategic valueof Pakistan and gave rise to a desire for peace between India and Pakistan. While this continuedfor a time after 9/11, Pakistanʼs strategic value (for the US) increased again amid the Global War48
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Monika Chansoria

on Terror because of the countryʼs proximity and access to Afghanistan. This put a dampener
on attempts to bring about peace between India and Pakistan. The land and maritime boundary
problems between India and Bangladesh were just as complicated as those with Pakistan, buthave been resolved with the establishment of democratic governments in Bangladesh.

Asia’s Geopolitical and Geostrategic Future in the Backdrop of its Colonial PastThe second session of the symposium analyzed and discussed the geopolitical implications of
the legacies left behind by history in Asia, the strategic importance of which is increasing. Thepanelists put forth the following points broadly. While experiencing significant economic growth,Asia today is a major hotspot on the global landscape where numerous conflicts and tensions
are clustered, with China being involved in many of them. China attempts to justify its “creepingexpansionism” in its border with India, in the South China and East China Seas by invoking
various and vague historical narratives.
The baggage of histor y often weighs down Asiaʼs strategic environment. In contrast toEurope, more and more attention has been paid to the past problems of Asia. Countries thathave gained confidence because of their economic successes have been playing the history card.
Asiaʼs history problem is not limited to China as that history hinders relations even between
democracies as can be seen from the strained ties between Americaʼs closest allies in East Asia
– South Korea and Japan. Still, no country uses history to change the status quo territoriallylike China. In fact, to advance the strategic interests, China is employing the very practices thatwere imposed on China by the European imperial past. For instance, when Hong Kong wasreturned to China, Beijing portrayed it as a correction of a historical injustice. Today, as thetakeover of Sri Lankaʼs Hambantota port illustrates, China is establishing Hong-Kong-style newcolonial arrangements in areas far from its shores. While the concept of a 99-year port lease wasdeveloped by the British and imposed on China in the 19th century, today, Beijing has embraced
that 99-year port lease concept and is applying it in distant lands, from Hambantota to Darwin(Australia), and now pressuring even Myanmar to sign a 99-year lease on Myanmarʼs Kyaukpyu
Port.
Efforts to change the territorial and maritime status quo will remain the biggest threat tosecurity in Asia. History is being invoked in attempts to justify the geostrategic imperative ofusing force to change the status quo in the East China Sea, South China Sea, and on the IndianChinese border. This is the most destabilizing factor in Asia. Several Asian countries including
China selectively interpret history and blend these interpretations with fiction to reconstruct theirown version of history. They do this to glorify their past, to whitewash their transgressions, and toreinforce the victimhood narratives that they might have created. A good example is Xi Jinpingʼsattempt to legitimize Sino-centrism by pursuing what he calls the ʻChina Dreamʼ.
The two biggest attempts in the 21st centur y to change the status quo by force were theannexation of Crimea by Russia and Chinaʼs construction and militarization of artificial islands in
the South China Sea. Russia is facing sanctions from the international community for its actions
in Crimea, while China got off without any sanctions at all. This sent a wrong message to China
and encouraged China to escalate its moves along its border with India and in the East China
Sea. There are two ways to conquer a country – one by the sword, and the other, by debt. China
has adopted the second path, of getting nations to borrow heavily, to exert control over small andmedium-sized countries.
China re-interprets histor y based on its national interest. When discussing the pros andcons of colonialism, the cons obviously outweighs the pros. China, where revisionism is gaining
strength, is the only country that has a victimization mentality with respect to territorial issues.
49
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Influence of Asia’s Colonization: Debating the Past, Present, and Future of Territorial Issues

With the exception of the South China Sea, territorial disputes among Southeast Asian states havebeen manageable and have not led to major confrontations. The reasons for this include 1) Lackof involvement of major powers 2) The existence of ASEAN as a confidence-building mechanism
3) The moderate nature of nationalism in these countries 4) The respect for international law heldby these countries.
Playing the history card to expand its sphere of influence, China is known to have invokedhistor y in its attempts to tarnish Japan ʼ s image in countries such as South Korea and thePhilippines. In the context of shrinking disparities in the military capabilities of the US and China,
Japan has several security options available: 1) Forge a multilateral security framework led by theUS 2) A multilateral security framework without a strong US commitment 3) An independent andisolationist policy of homeland security 4) Pursuit of a Sino-Japanese entente.

Broad Conclusions
The closing address of the symposium outlined the settlement of disputes, and the role of Asia in
the international world. Speaking of the settlement of disputes from a purely legalistic viewpoint,
the first question that arises is what is a dispute in international law? The judgment of thePermanent Court of International Justice in 1924 clearly identifies what constitutes a dispute. Theissue then arises, who decides the existence of a dispute? As for Japan, its position is that there
is no dispute between China and Japan concerning the Senkaku Islands. And, as for Takeshima,although Japan says there is a dispute, however, South Korea says there is no dispute at all overthe island.
The International Court of Justice stated in 1950 that whether there exists an international
dispute or not, is a matter for objective determination. As for the International Court of Justice,it had a system of compulsory jurisdiction, but among more than 190 countries as members of
the International Court of Justice, only 66 countries accepted compulsory jurisdiction. Out of the66 countries, only six Asian countries, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction, namely Cambodia,India, Japan, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Timor-Leste. The importance of the rule of law is vitalin the international community. Two very good and recent examples of nations displaying respect
for the rule of law are, India, in how it accepted the decision handed down by the International
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) about its maritime boundar y with Bangladesh; andJapan, in how it responded to the International Court of Justiceʼs (ICJ) ruling about whaling off
the Antarctic.
To quote James L Brierly, a former Oxford University professor of international law, andauthor of the book The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace,published in 1928 – almost 90 years ago in what perhaps is among the best textbooks oninternational law published in the 20th century. Brierly wrote that arbitration is useful as a meansof settlement only when and as far as society has accepted the rule of law as its normal way of life.
As present Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has stated, “Peace and prosperity in Asia forever,Japan for the rule of law, Asia for the rule of law, and the rule of law for all of us.”50
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Monika Chansoria

51
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018