Studies on Chinese Diplomatic History in Japan:
Chinese World Order and Modern Diplomacy in China
Shin KawashimaThank you so much. It’s my pleasure to be here and talk about Todai’s
academic history of the Chinese diplomatic history. Porf. Sonoda maybe introduced thegeneral situation of Todai’s China studies, Prof. Takamizawa introduced the Chinese law,and Prof. Marukawa talked about the Chinese economy. So today I will talk about theacademic trend in Todai about the history of Chinese diplomacy.
Prof. Sonoda provided me the topic of today's presentation about “Studies on
Chinese diplomatic history in Japan: world order and modern diplomacy in China.” I
don't know how much knowledge you have as well as the background on the history ofChinese diplomacy, but I’ll introduce them and the academic trends, as possible I can.
Todai School on Chinese Diplomatic History?
Today's topic is about the Todai school. I don't know whether we have the
Todai school or not on this academic field, but Todai school on the Chinese diplomatic
history probably exist.
This academic research field is basically based on the history as a discipline.
So my background is history. I got a PhD in the doctoral course of oriental history in the
Faculty of Literature here in 2000, twenty years ago.
The diplomatic history as a discipline was founded after World War I. History,
this old traditional discipline, has long history before 19c. However, a diplomatic
history as a specific academic discipline was founded after World War I. Germany
opened diplomatic archives about the processes to the Great War to examine theprocesses, how Germany advanced its policy toward the war. This is the moment offoundation of diplomatic history as an academic field. Before the foundation of the
diplomatic history after World War I, foreign affairs were an attractive topic for the
public, so many journalists and intellectuals talked about the diplomatic or foreign
affairs.
Anyway, as a discipline, diplomatic history itself was founded after World War
I. When Germany opened diplomatic archives. In this discipline, scholars had to use
these diplomatic archives to examine the decision-making processes and others. So,1archives are so important for us to advance our research. Before World War I,
governments did not open the archives to the public nor the scholars. So, diplomatic
history as an academic discipline did not exist.
Chinese diplomatic history as academic discipline was also founded afterWorld War I, I can say, so I talk about the processes of the formation of Chinese
diplomatic history as discipline. As I said, many persons were attracted by foreign
affairs. Chinese foreign affairs were the same. Many Chinese and foreigners wrote
so-called foreign affairs, Chinese policy towards other countries. And foreigners whocame to China and made negotiation with China, often wrote some books and articles
about China and its foreign policy. For example, Rehe riji [熱河日記], Nekka nikki inJapanese, were written by a Korean official in eighteenth century. As you know, Korea
sent tribute envoys towards Beijing or Rehe in Qing Dynasty four or five times a year.
One of officers wrote his diary, from Beijing into Ruhe (or Jehol), a palace to the northof Beijing. This is very interesting diary about how the Korean envoy went to Ruhe, oneof the capitals of China at the time. I can see so many things that Korean envoy andofficials were interested in at the time.

Western Envoys to China
Do you know these caricatures or pictures? Both are Westerners.

2

George Macartney was a very famous British noble who went to China tonegotiate on trade and to open much more with China in 1793. He also wrote the diary.
Some scholars quoted from his diary to illustrate the Chinese situation and Chinese
foreign policy toward British.
William Pitt Amherst also went to China in 1816. He also wrote documents on
the Chinese foreign policy toward British.
Somebody wrote the pictures of Mr. Macartney. As you see the pictures, theimages of the China’s emperor were different. This is the image of Emperor Qianlong[乾隆帝]. The other is also Emperor Qianlong. In the picture above, Qianlong isarrogant. However, the picture below, he is not so arrogant, but much more modest,clever, or wise as his behavior shows. Which is close to Macartney’s impression? Basedon his diary, the below picture is move close to his impression, I think.
Two Origins of Chinese Diplomatic History in Western Countries
As a discipline, Chinese diplomatic history has two or three origins. The first is
the officials of maritime customs, who wrote a series of documents, records, articles,
and books about the Chinese foreign policy. As you know, after the Opium War in 1840,
China opened the ports: Shanghai, Ningbo, Fuzhou, Xiamen, and Guangzhou. After that,
foreign countries had settlements and concessions [租界] (zujie in Chinese). Westerncountries also sent consuls [領事] to manage foreign affairs there. China also opened themaritime customs to get the tariff [関税]. After 1858, the maritime customs of the port
started being managed by both the Chinese and the Westerns. Some Westerns worked at
the Chinese maritime customs to get tariff from the Western countries. Some of theWesterns stayed there for more than 10 or twenty years. Their role was so important.
British diplomats in Beijing and consuls in Shanghai and other ports worked for three orfour years and left the consul or delegation to go to the other place. However, theofficials in the customs stay in the same place for more than 10 years. They got a lot ofknowledge about the work including the trades and the behaviors with Chinese officials,
the documentation and so on. After they leave the posts in the Chinese port for themother country, they started writing the papers and books. The most famous officials in
the maritime customs who published a book was H. B. Morse. He is still so famous atpresent. His book, The International Relations of the Chinese Empire, is one of the basic
classic books about the history of Chinese foreign policy. However, his books have one
interesting characteristic that the author’s eyes are always located at the outer of China.
He was the member of officials of the maritime customs in China. However, basically
he observed China as foreigners outside the official system. His book is so clear.
3

H.B.Morse
The other origin is missionaries to China. After the Beijing treaty in 1860,
Christian and Protestants missionaries, members of Christianity in some sense, could do
the activities in inner China. Such Christian services wrote seasonal documents about
China. They also left China to go to their mother country or another place. They also
wrote a series of books about China, Chinese people and their society, culture, Chinese
foreign policy, Chinese attitudes for foreigners and so on.
These are the two main origins of history of Chinese foreign policy or Chinese
diplomatic history as a discipline. This is the background.
The Formation of Chinese Diplomatic History
In two origins of the missionaries and the maritime customs, authors’ eyes werealways located out of China. Foreigners observed in China. However, Chinese
themselves also started studying Chinese diplomatic history in 20c. They also advanced
the Chinese diplomatic history as the academic discipline after World War I. Before
World War I, Liu Yan [劉彦], who was very famous journalist, published a book about
the Chinese foreign policy, Recent Chinese diplomatic history [中国近時外交史]. This
book was published in 1911. After World War I, the academic trend on the diplomatic
history also landed on China. However, Chinese government did not open the Chineseoriginal archive to the public and scholars. However, Chouban yiwu shimo [籌辦夷務始末], which is the volumes of the materials, published after World War I. This volume

over the materials included the documents in the late Qing to negotiate with the Russia
and other foreign countries, and Diplomatic materials in the Qing dynasty [清季外交史料] also published. The materials in the former book is from Daoguan [道光] period(1820-1850), to Xianfeng [咸豊] (1850–1861), to Tongzhi [同治] (1861–1874). The
latter book provides us the information from a part of the Guangxu [光緒] period (after
1875) to Xuantong [宣統] (1910–1912). These printed materials played the important4

role to advance the Chinese diplomatic history in China, instead of the Chinese
diplomatic archives that the government didn't open to the public.
Under the situation, younger scholars who educated in the Western countries orJapanese universities challenged the diplomatic history as an academic discipline.
Tsiang Ting-fu [蔣廷黻], a very famous scholar in Tsinghua University in Beijing. He
left Beijing for Moscow as a Chinese ambassador to Soviet Union and, after the WorldWar II, he became the ambassador to the United Nations of the ROC China. His
personal materials are in Harvard University now. Kuo Ting-yee [郭廷以], he's also very
famous scholar in Beijing and after 1949, he went to Taiwan to be the founder of theinstitute of Modern history, Academia Sinica. Wang Xinzhong [王信忠], he is younger
than the other persons, but his books about the first Sino-Japanese war is so substantial
and academic. This person in this picture on PPT is Tsiang Ting-fu.
Wang Yunsheng [ 王芸生 ] was a journalist at Ta Kung Pao [ 大公報 ] in
Tianjin.Wang published six volumes of books, China and Japan in the 60 years [六十年来中国与日本], from 1871 to 1931. The year 1871 was when the Qing Dynasty andJapan concluded the Sino-Japanese amenity treaty. In 1931 the Mukden incident, orManchuria incident, happened. His book is so unique. Why? Wang Yunsheng actuallyused the Chinese diplomatic archives, especially the archives of the Chinese legation to
Tokyo. I have not seen this archive. Somebody said to me that this archive of theChinese legation to Tokyo are in Beijing now.
Under the Sino-Japanese war after 1937, some scholars in Chongqing who
were at National South-western Associated University [西南聯合大学 ] like Chen
Tiqiang[陳体強] wrote some books about the Chinese diplomatic history.
What about Japan?
How about Japan? How about Todai? I introduce a little bit about the formationof the Chinese studies in Japan, or the history of China.
Japanese traditional Sinology founded in the Edo period, or much more earlier.
This traditional sinology is so important for Japanese to understand Chinese classics.
Why did this Japanese traditional sinology was advanced so much in Edo period? The
reason is that Confucianism interpretation by Zhuxi School [朱子学] was the Orthodox
and the formal basis of education and learning in Edo period.
Every warrior [武士] learned the way of reading the Chinese classics in Edo
period. After the Meiji Restoration, history as an academic discipline was imported toJapan. This new history as academic discipline combined with the Japanese sinology
and the study of historical evidence with China’s style [考証学]. Sinology in Japan; new5

history from western countries; and a study of the historical evidence with China’s style.
They were combined to form Chinese history in oriental history [東洋史学] at theFaculty of the Literature, the University of Tokyo in 1910. The Orient is called China,
Korea, Southeast Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East Asia, so vast and wide concept
until now. When I was in oriental history at University of Tokyo in the 1990s. My friend
did research about the Berber people in Northern Africa and another friend learned
about Latin America before the Spanish and the Portuguese invaded there. Oriental
history has a huge range of the history.
How about the Chinese diplomatic history in Japan?
I’ll introduce the research of Chinese diplomatic history in Japan before theend of World War II.
The department of oriental history was founded in 1910 in the Faculty of
Literature, the University of Tokyo. However, to explain the formation of Chinese
diplomatic history in Japan, I have to introduce another story.
Chinese Diplomatic History in Japan (1)The Faculty of Law, which include the department of politics, and Faculty of
Economics had the professors to research the history of law, history of politics, andhistory of economy. Before World War II, Faculty of Law had two professors: Onestudied about the history of Chinese law, and the other did research about the Chinese
diplomatic history. Maybe Prof. Takamizawa introduced it. Niida Noboru[仁井田陞] andShiga Shuzo[滋賀秀三] had posts of professors before and after World War II.
Professors on history of the politics and diplomacy were basically in the department ofpolitics at the time. Faculty of Law had three professors to research history: one is about
the Japanese history from the diplomatic viewpoint, another is about Western history of
diplomacy; and the other is Chinese or oriental history of diplomacy.
Professor Ueda Toshio [植田捷雄]. He was not a professor of Faculty of Law.
He was a professor of the Institute of Oriental Studies (Tobunken, former name of
Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia). He was a representative scholar of the Chinese
diplomacy at Todai before World War II. He published a series of books about the
Chinese diplomacy and foreign policy. His books include about the Chinese concession
and settlement [租界], Chinese leased territories [租借地], and others. He focused ontreaty itself. He interpreted and considered the contents of the treaties with China, so his
works had a strong linkage with international law. And his works were relating with theJapanese foreign policy towards China at that time because Japan’s aggression andJapanese foreign policy were so positive towards China. So there were demands for6

scholars to consider all about how to interpret and consider the treaties with China andhow Britain and other Western countries use the set of treaties to get much morenational interests. So his works had a linkage with international law and also a linkage
with the Japanese national interests at the time.

Chinese Diplomatic History in Japan (2)Besides Ueda, Tamura Kosaku [田村幸策] also published a book about the
Chinese diplomatic affairs, Great eastern diplomatic history [大東亜外交史研究]. Healso mentioned about the Chinese foreign policy at the time, but a little bit journalistic.
Prof. Yano Jin’ichi [ 矢野仁一 ], a famous scholar in Kyoto University, lead thesubstantial diplomatic history, based on a study of the historical evidence on China. His
works about the first and second Opium Wars are excellent, so you can read his books in
Chuko Bunko [a name of paperback series] in Japanese now.

Yano Jin’ichi
But, unfortunately, he cooperated the Japanese authorities and wrote the book7

about the Manchuria modern history to support the Japanese government and theManchukuo to strengthen the Japanese authority and legitimacy there and also tostrengthen the division between the Chinese and Manchuria history to show the
Manchurian independence. Because of his cooperation with the military service andJapanese government, he left his post at Kyoto University after World War II. Thisso-called Yano incident on the Chinese history was so crucial to Kyoto University.
Chinese Diplomatic History in Japan (3): After the End of WWII
After World War II in Todai, Banno Masataka [坂野正高]. He also got a job in
Institute of Oriental Studies (Tobunken, former name of Institute for Advanced Studies
on Asia) in Todai. After that, he went to Tokyo Metropolitan University, and he cameback to Todai in 1980s. Prof. Banno’s works are so important for us.
His works are so many. When he was younger, he considered China throughthe Western mirror and pointed out Chinese characteristics. His works are not linked tothe international law. This point is different from Prof. Ueda, but his works are about the
Chinese diplomacy in the 1850s and 60s. Especially, the works about Zongliyamen [総理衙門], which is founded in 1861, was basically based on the Western discipline andWestern eyes to compare the Western orthodox with China and to point out Chinesecharacteristics. Such Western orthodox or mirror is to consider China and only the
Chinese characteristics. Also, Prof. Banno and John King Fairbank of the Harvard
University were good friends. The fact that Banno and Fairbank shared a way ofteaching at a seminar and a lecture at Todai and Harvard University is a very famous
episode.
Fairbank is so famous professor Chinese history at Harvard University. If you
have a read the memoir book by Fairbank, you can know how he did research on
Chinese foreign policy. The interesting story about him in 1930 is as follows: When hewas student, he intended to write the dissertation about the Chinese maritime customs.
As I said, he intended to write his dissertation on the bases of H. B. Morse’s works
which eyes is outside of China. However, when he came to China and met TsiangTing-fu at Tsinghua University[清華大学], who I mentioned earlier today, TsiangTing-fu gifted to him Chouban yiwu shimo [ 籌辦夷務始末 ], which is publisheddocuments of China foreign policy. After that, he changed his attitude and approach to
China. Before it, his scope was an outsider of China, same as H. B. Morse. After hestarted reading the Chinese materials, he found it was so interesting for him to consider
Chinese foreign policy from the scope inside China. How did China understand theworld situation in the nineteenth century? How did Chinese officials decide something8

on foreign affairs then? This is a different perspective from H. B. Morse’s eyes.
Fairbank got this insider’s eyes from Chouban yiwu shimo. As I said, Fairbank andBanno are good academic friends and they shared the teaching style. Also, they shared
one point to observe the Chinese diplomacy in late Qing, the latter part of the nineteenth
century: modernization of Chinese diplomacy in nineteenth century. This is theimportant shared topic between Banno and Fairbank. They talk on the confrontation
between the traditional tribune system and the Western treaty system.

But I have to put a footnote. They proposed a simple framework which is theconfrontation between treaty system and tribute system. However, both professors
pointed out a series of details and exceptional cases. So they deliberately used this“simple” framework. Anyway, they proposed the simple confrontation between Westernand Eastern, between traditional and modern.
The Tribute System
The Chinese diplomatic history as a discipline in Todai, I’ll talk on thediscussion of the tribute system (sakuho taisei ron 冊封体制論), which was proposed by
Nishijima Sadao [西嶋定生], a professor of oriental history in the Faculty of Literature,
Todai.
His specialization was ancient China in Han Dynasty. He published an article
about the East Asia in six to eight century [六ー八世紀の東アジア] in 1962. His article
was published in a lecture series of Iwanami Publisher, Iwanami koza [岩波講座], about
the Japanese history. So, Prof. Nishijima proposed this concept to make dialogue withJapanese history. Prof. Nishijima or the specialist of the Chinese ancient history,
proposed this concept to talk about the tribute system. What to make out was Japanese9history, or maybe history in general.

That's so interesting, and his framework was so attractive because the Cold
Wardivided East Asia, at the Korean Peninsula, and the two Chinas. Prof. Nishijima’s
work had a big impact to think history of all of East Asia, beyond the camps of Cold
War, East and the West.
After the Nishijima’s discussion, Professor Saeki Yuichi[佐伯有一], who wasalso a professor of the Institute of Oriental Culture (Tobunken) in Todai and Professor
Sasaki Yo [佐々木揚] who was a student of the Department of oriental history inFaculty of Literature in the 1980s and the 1990s. Prof. Sasaki researched tribute
relations too, and published many articles at the journals of Saga University. Sasaki Yo
also has started his research on Chinese diplomatic history about the Chinese envoys,
Chinese ministers to foreign countries in the late Qing like Guo Song-dao [郭嵩燾] andhe introduced Mark Mancall and his book, China the center: 300 years of foreign policy,
to the Japanese academic society.
Prof. Ueda and Prof. Banno are professors of the Faculty of Law, however,these are professors to research Chinese history, but also played important role toadvance the research on Chinese foreign policy and Chinese diplomatic history as adiscipline in Todai.
The Golden Age of Marxist History (1)The 1960s and the 1970s were the golden age of the Marxist history inJapanese academic society. We have to consider about this background.
As I said, before World War II, Tsiang Ting-fu, Kuo Ting-yee, Wang Xinzhong,and others advanced the Chinese diplomatic history, based on Chouban yiwu shimo andother materials. Wang Yunsheng published his book China and Japan in the 60 years.
10But this trend was declined after 1949 when the People's Republic of China (PRC) was
founded by Mao Zedong[毛沢東] and Zhou Enlai[周恩来], or Chinese Communist Party.
In the PRC, new diplomatic history was founded under the Marxist context. Chinese
diplomatic history based on the study of the historical evidence is declined, and the newhistory strengthened the importance of the class struggle, people's resistance to theimperialism, and the context of the confrontation aggression and the resistance towards
Western countries. So, it is easy for us to find a series of books like these: imperialism
and aggression to China, history of the Western countries’ aggression, and imperial
Russia’s aggression to China. These are published after 1949. It's a new trend.

However, some scholars like Zhang Zhenkun [張振鵾], who is also famous
scholar at the Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences [中国社
会科学院近代史研究所], kept the trend of Minkuo era before World War II, led byTsiang Ting-fu and Kuo Ting-yee.
The Golden Age of Marxist History (2)How about in Taiwan after 1949?
The golden age of Marxism history was emerged in Japan and the PRC China,almost in the 1950s-1960s. In Taiwan, however, the situation was different. ROC was
the anti-communist state so that Marxism was strictly prohibited. And KMT(Kuomintang)’s revolutionary history was the mainstream in Taiwan then. However,Nankang school [南港学派] of Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica in Taipei,
led by Kuo Ting-yee kept some distance from KMT’s revolutionary history. Kuo was agood friend with Tsiang Ting-fu. Kuo Ting-yee went to Taiwan with Chiang Kaishek [蔣介石] and KMT. Kuo Ting-yee was the top of the Institution of Modern History,
Academia Sinica. He advanced a new trend of research on modern history in Taipei, and11he got much money from Ford Foundation. Their works are basically non-political.
KMT has its own revolution history and CCP (Chinese Communist Party) had its own
revolution history. So there are two kinds of revolution history then. However, Nankang
school were not belong both revolutionary history in two China’s.

Nankang is the name of the location of Academia Sinica. Everybody called agroup of Kuo Ting-yee Nankang school. Their works are non-political. There are somepoints apart from the KMT’s revolution history, and they are based on the historicalevidence. They published series of books about Chinese foreign policy and diplomacy.
And they also published a volume of diplomatic materials, because Institute of Modern
History, Academia Sinica had a huge amount of the Chinese diplomatic original archive.
So they use and interpreted a volume of the archive to publish the printed materials.
This institution got a huge amount of funds by Ford foundation under the
initiative of Professor Fairbank. Fairbank was the key person that Ford Foundation
provided much money fund to Academia Sinica to advance the new trend of research
like “Chinese Modernization”.
The Golden Age of Marxist History (3)As I said, Prof. Banno and Fairbank shared the interest on the modernization of
the Chinese diplomacy in nineteenth century. And also Fairbank and other scholars in
the USA pushed the topic of the Chinese modernization to Academia Sinica, and its
Institute of Modern History published so many books about the modernization on eachprovince in China. So modernization was a key topic for the USA at the time to makescholars in Japan, Taiwan, and other allies advance.
On an academic study, so-called modernization theory also had a specific role12

to support the camp of USA side under the Cold War, I think.
How about in Japan? Prof. Banno liked this theory as a discipline. However,Prof. Banno faced so many problems. He had strong ties with Kuo Ting-yee in Taiwan.
After the 1980s, he went to Taiwan to see the diplomatic original archive. However, he
did not get the chance to write the articles and some papers, based on the Chineseoriginal materials in the 1980s. Our generation started using Chinese original materials
with diplomatic archive at Taipei after the 1990s. And I have to point out that in Japan,
it was a golden age of Marxist history in academic studies in the 1950s-1960s, Banno
was also criticized strongly by some scholars because he was a non-political,
non-politicized scholar, so his article and book did not have any Marxism flavor: Thereis no class struggle. So some scholars criticize him that Banno’s works did not have any
Marxism flavor. They cannot understand what he did.
Actually he was not influenced by such criticism. His analysis on Chinese
diplomacy of Beiyang was positive in the 1950s, but it changed to be negative in his
book published in the 1970s.
And also he changed his academic style in the 1980s. This was pointed out by
Prof. Sasaki Yo in 1986, at his book review on Banno’s book, Chinese modernizationand Ma Jianzhong [中国近代化と馬建忠]. Ma Jianzhong was a famous private officialof Li Hongzhang [李鴻章] and played the important role on concluding the treaty
between Korea and the USA in 1882. In this book published in 1985, Prof. Banno
showed his new style. He abandoned using Western modernization theory as a mirror toconsider China, but he adopted a new style to dig into the inner context of Ma
Jianzhong himself and further a deep context in China itself. So he abandoned themirror to check the China from outside. He entered China itself. He changed his way.
Sasaki Yo wrote the book review on it. On his book, Prof. Sasaki expressed how he wassurprised by such a change of style to approach China.
Drastic Change of the Research of Chinese History
After the Tiananmen incident and the end of Cold War in 1989, the style ofChinese history was drastically changed. Maybe Prof. Banno felt such atmosphere in
1985, before most scholars changed their way of research on Chinese history after 1989.
In the 1980s, modernization theory and the inner context was a new trend
instead of the revolution histories. In the 1980s, Prof. Banno, who worked at Faculty ofLaw, used the modernization theory to see China. However, most scholars in oriental
history department, Faculty of Literature used the revolution history, or Marxist
framework to write papers on Chinese history. The Tiananmen Square incident and the13end of Cold War advanced a new academic trend. And in the 1980s, new materials are
opened and published, for example, it is also new trend. Japanese diplomatic archives
that were open in the 1970s provided a lot of facts about Chinese modern history
including its diplomatic history. For example, Japanese diplomatic archive provides thedetails about Sun Yat-sen’[孫逸仙]s activities in Japan. The Japanese archive shows us
many evidences on negotiation with China. Most of the scholars uses the printed
materials edited by the KMT and CCP to consider the Chinese history. They could use
the Japanese archives to write much more details about Chinese history, especiallyChinese foreign policy.

However, Japanese archives are the secondary materials for Chinese history
because the Japanese archives provides only Japanese observation and information on
China.
Volumes of materials of Academia Sinica also had large impact because it has
the original materials for Chinese history.
Why did Academia Sinica have the original Chinese archives? When Chiang
Kaishek [蔣介石] went to Taiwan, he took most of the diplomatic archive to Taiwan.
Until now, the documents of the Nanking Treaty in 1842, or the document of the
Shimonoseki Treaty (Maguan tiaoyue), and other important event of Chinese diplomacy,
original documents are in Taipei. The PRC government does not have original
documents of main treaties in the Qing and Minkuo eras. Actually, the Nanjing and
Beijing archives have some documents about Chinese diplomatic history. However,important documents are basically in Taipei. So, Academia Sinica got the materials fromthe foreign office of ROC to publish the materials. Scholars in the world could use theprinted materials by Academia Sinica in the 1980s to research the Chinese modern
14history.
However, scholars in Japan hesitated to use the materials that Taiwan's
Academia Sinica got published in the 1980s. Why? As I said, Prof. Banno went to
Taiwan in 1980s is to see original materials, but most scholars at Faculty of Literature
hesitated to use them. Marxism history influence on the scholars in the Faculty of
Literature, oriental history. For their point of view, Taiwan, Chiang Kaishek’s
government was opposite to the CCP. Marxist scholars basically had sympathy towards
the Beijing CPC side. For them, KMT Taipei was the opposite side. So, they hesitated touse the materials from Taiwan, even though we cannot imagine such a situation now.
Chinese Diplomatic Archives
After the 1990s, a new station has emerged. In the 1980s, Chinese diplomaticarchives, it’s original one, were open to the public and the scholars. After the 1990s,
scholars in the world started visiting Taiwan to see these original documents. It was thefirst time for me to stay there to see the materials in 1992, when I was a master course
student, the first grade. I was so astonished to see the original diplomatic archives in the
Qing dynasty and Minguo era.
Why was I surprised so much?
Because we had seen the printed materials, edited by the KMT or CCP to
research diplomatic history. Especially the level of the details, is different between theoriginal and printed, and also the volumes of history materials of the KMT and CCP
were politicized so strongly to support their narratives of the revolution history, however,archives are basically not.
Why did the ROC government agree on opening such documents? Opening thearchives to the public by the ROC was linked with the democratization of Taiwan.
Taiwan's democratization basically started in the late 1980s. Under Taiwan's
democratization, the KMT government, or Lee Teng-hui[李登輝] government decided
to open the archives of the ROC government when it was in mainland China. The
democratization of Taiwan advanced the opening the archives to the public.
So the younger scholars went to Taiwan to collect them to advance new
Chinese diplomatic history. An ideological sensitivity of Japanese historians to Taiwan
is also declined in the late 1990s. So many scholars of Japanese scholars, including
Todai professors and master and doctoral students, went to Taiwan to collect materials
to write papers. The situation was drastically changed.
In 1990s, Chinese historical archives in the Beijing and Nanjing were opened
to the scholars with some extents. The Beijing one is the first historical archives that is15

located in the old palace. The second history archives in Nanjing also opened to the
public with an invitation. Now we can use both Taipei and Beijing, Taipei and Nanjing.
New Trends of Chinese Diplomatic History since 1990s
Prof. Banno died in 1986. After his dead, no successors came to the post of
Todai. At Faculty of Law, nobody could succeed to Banno’s post of the Chinese
diplomatic history, so I studied in oriental history, Faculty of Literature in 1990s. My
supervisor was Professor Hamashita Takeshi[ 濱 下武 志], who was a professor at
Tobunken.

Hamashita Takeshi
In 1990s, the many scholars of Chinese diplomatic history started using theoriginal materials. However, in the 1980s and 90s, the trend of history was changed
drastically and to criticize the nationalistic, the nation-based history, and also the
diplomatic history was the symbol of the nation-based, nationalistic history.
I can understand such a trend, but most of the facts of the diplomatic history, or
diplomacy, are clear, just based on the diplomatic archives in Japanese history and thewestern histories. Britain and the USA opened huge amount of materials for a long timeand scholars use the first materials to write many papers. Fact findings have basicallyended in Japanese history and the history of Western countries. However, in the field of
the Chinese diplomatic history, we had just started using first materials, even thearchives, to write the papers. We know the nationalistic and nation-based history wascriticized. However, the situation was different between the Chinese diplomatic history
and the other advanced countries.
And in the 1990s and the twenty-first century, a new trend of Chinese
diplomatic history also emerged under the new trend of the history itself in the Westerncountry and Japan. For example, Professor Hamashita criticized the framework of the16tribute system, led by Prof. Nishijima and others. Prof. Hamashita combines the historyof economy with the tribute relations. Also, Professor Hamashita proposed the regional
economic and trade network in East Asia. So he rewrite the tribute relations from theeconomic eyes.
And, some scholars digs much more deeply in a context of the modern Chinese
intellectuals and diplomats, like Sato Shin’ichi [佐藤慎一], who was a vice president of
Todai. He also published the book about Chinese intellectual history in the nineteenth
century. Fact finding of Chinese diplomatic history was also advanced. A politicized
revolution history is criticized so strongly. So many new trends were emerged about
Chinese history of the late twentieth and twenty-first century in Todai.
Recent Trends
And I talk on the recent trends. Firstly, after opening diplomatic archives about
China in the late 1980s and the 1990s, we could use other kinds of new materials.
Actually we are much busier to check the materials. Material is too much.
For example, Chiang KaiShek diary in Hoover Institute, Stanford University
are so important. We cannot copy them. We have to write it down. It takes many, manytimes to collect this material. And also, we can see the T. V. Soong[宋子文]’s materials,
and also we can see the materials of C. T. Wang[王正廷] in Columbia University, and soon. We can combine the Chinese diplomatic archives and other private documents towrite papers.
And also Taiwan government opened much more archives after the 1950s until
the 1970s or the 1980s in Taipei. And the Beijing government opened the academicarchives, maybe 50 years ago until 1964. Ten years ago, however, China stopped
opening them. Recently China's diplomatic archives for foreign affairs opened up a little
bit with a strong limitation.
The second is a multi-archival approach. We have to see the archives of many
countries as well as Japan, Britain, the USA, and others.
Thirdly, some scholars dig much more deeply in Chinese intellectuals anddiplomats, so they illustrate the Chinese context so strongly. They strengthen the
Chinese way and Chinese style. Those trend is sometimes sympathetic with Chinas
Guoxue[国学].
Recently, the diplomatic history has been criticized so strongly. However,somebody strengthened the importance of diplomatic history. They wrote the papers on
the “diplomacy and what”. for example, diplomacy and the radio.
Next, I talk about the PRC. Recently, the fields of social history and economic
17

history strengthened the continuity before and after 1949. However, actually it is a bit
difficult for historians on Chinese diplomatic history to talk about a discontinuity of
diplomacy before and after 1949. As you know, diplomacy links with nation-state. So
the ROC’s diplomacy is different from the PRC’s diplomacy, as it is a little bit difficult
for us to talk about the continuity. However, some diplomats and some policies are
similar before and after 1949.
The Cold War changed the main target of the historians. So like Wilson Centerin Washington DC and East China Normal University [華東師範大学] in Shanghai,advanced a new Cold War history. Professor Shen Zhihua [沈志華] lead the project inShanghai. So the Chinese PRC diplomatic history is linked with the new Cold War
projects in the world, so we can find many facts and the new trend about Cold War
history. Although the Chinese diplomatic history has so many challenges, but we canfind so many possibilities to achieve something for the challenge.
If you are interested in Chinese diplomatic history as an academic discipline,
you can join the lectures and seminars of me and other scholars, like Prof. Matsuda
Yasuhiro[松田康博] in Tobunken, Prof. Hirano Satoshi[平野聡] in the Faculty of Law,
and Prof. Yoshizawa Seiichiro[ 吉 澤 誠 一 郎 ] in the Faculty of Literature. Prof.
Yoshizawa’s books and articles have so many interesting points, concerning the Chinese
nationalism and diplomatic history. Prof. Shiroyama Tomoko[城山智子]in the Facultyof Economics. Her book about the Shanghai concession is excellent. It talks about thehistory of the negotiation between Western countries and China in Shanghai. And Prof.
Watanabe Miki [渡辺美季] provides Ryukyu's
I can say that historical materials changed the academic trends. The
publishment of Chouban yiwu shimo was the opening of this academic field. Secondly,
the trend of academic circle is also important. Thirdly, the demand of society andgovernment is also important. Also fourthly, I can point out some characteristics ofcross- discipline, cross-faculty and the global networks like Prof. Banno and Fairbank.
Todai School?
Finally, I have to point out some originality of Todai’s academic atmosphere.
Prof. Hamashita proposed a new scope on combination between the economy and thepolitics with the tribute system. Prof. Nishijima pointed out the East Asia networks.
Todai's professors have strong networks with other disciplines and other countries,
China and others. Additionally, former scholars (senpai) provide us a series oforiginality in the field of Chinese diplomatic history. And Todai’s diversity is so
important to keep academic resilience. About Chinese history, Todai had some different
18trend in it. Prof. Banno’s scope was different from some professors in faculty ofliterature. Although Banno was criticized before the 1980s, his style became more
attractive to younger scholars after the 1990s.
I’ll stopped my lecture. If you have any questions or comments, welcome.
Thank you so much.
October 29 202019