“The Backside of Japan,” Development, and Imperialism in Northeast Asia

Yijang Zhong

Abstract: Today, it is customary to describe the Sea of Japan side (Nihonkai-gawa) and the the Japanese archipelago in terms of the Pacific Ocean side (Taiheiyō-gawa). These two neutral distinction between the Sea of Japan terms are descriptive and objective. One term side (Nihonkai-gawa) and the Pacific Ocean does not require the other to be meaningful. side (Taiheiyō-gawa). For much of the 20th For the larger part of the twentieth century, century, however, these regions were called however, the regions referred to by these terms respectively ura Nihon and omote Nihon, or were called respectively ura Nihon and omote roughly “the Backside of Japan” and “the Nihon, or roughly “the Backside of Japan” and Frontside of Japan.” This continued until the 1960s when the terms were criticized as “the Frontside of Japan.” It is easy to see that discriminatory and their usage terminated. the two terms are interdependent, that is, one How, then, did the Sea of Japan coastal region would not make sense without the other, and come to be known by the discriminatory term furthermore they indicate an unequal “the Backside”? Intrigued by this question, this relationship, insinuating backwardness for the paper retraces the little-studied history of the Sea of Japan side in contrast to the Pacific place name ura Nihon. As I will show, behind Ocean side. Indeed, the two terms stopped the place name ura Nihon are forgotten being used in the 1960s precisely because ura histories not just of uneven domestic economic Nihon (“the Backside of Japan”) was criticized development but also colonial expansion and as discriminatory. How, then, did the Sea of empire building in Northeast Asia. That is, ura Japan coastal region come to be called the Nihon is both a history of the Japanese nation “Backside” and how did the term gain a and of the empire. By retelling this history, the discriminatory nuance? This paper answers paper seeks to contribute to understanding the these questions by retracing the little-studied ways in which empire building in Northeast Asia was connected to the domestic history of history of the place name ura Nihon. It shows the Japanese nation-state in the 20th century. that behind the neutral geography names “the Sea of Japan side” and “the Pacific Ocean side” are forgotten histories not just of uneven Keywords: Backside of Japan, Frontside of domestic economic development but also Japan, geography, development, empire, the colonial expansion and empire-building in Sea of Japan, Russo-Japanese War, imperial Northeast Asia. By retelling this history, the autarky, Cold War paper seeks to contribute to our understanding of the ways in which empire building in

Northeast Asia was interconnected to the Introduction domestic history of the Japanese nation-state in the twentieth century. Today, it is customary to describe the Japanese archipelago in terms of the distinction between

1 19 | 6 | 3 APJ | JF

region, especially Korea and Manchuria, during Japanese imperialist expansions on the continent in the first half of the twentieth century. While empirically informative and suggestive, these studies raised more questions than answers. One of the questions is how to understand the ideological significance of ura Nihon as a spatial term in relation to empire- building. That is, how to understand the historical relation between spatial imagination and place making on the one hand and imperialist motives of capitalist development and territorial expansion on the other? This paper is the first step in answering this large question.

The term ura Nihon originated out of late Meiji period (1868-1912) modernization for designating the Sea of Japan side as a region of relative underdevelopment in comparison to the modernizing Pacific Ocean side, or omote Nihon (Furumaya 1998). During the Russo- Two major studies in Japanese took up the topic Japanese War (1904-5), the place nameura of ura Nihon. Abe Tsunehisa (1997) and Nihon evolved into an ideological discourse of Furumaya Tadao (1997) focus on examining development and colonial expansion. This ura-Nihon as a history of peripheral formation conception identified the Backside region, in its and regional inequality in Japan’sspatial proximity and cultural association with modernization. Abe traces in detail thethe Asian continent, as climatically bleak, development of industrial, educational, and culturally backward, and economically stagnant military institutions in the Meiji period which in contradistinction to the bright progressive prioritized the Pacific Ocean side. This resulted frontside embodying Japan’s modernity. As in population flow from the Sea of Japan side to such, ura Nihon connect Japan, to Asia’s the Pacific region and the transformation of the Backside, notably China, Russia and Korea at a former into a periphery in the modernizing – time when the military, business, politicians, and centralizing – nation-state. Furumaya and intellectuals competed to modernize the examines the process of geographical,Backside region by devising arguments for economic and cultural differentiation ofura expanding trade, transportation, immigration, Nihon and omote Nihon from the beginning of and colonial development toward the continent the twentieth century to the 1970s, and argues (Yoshii 2000). that ura Nihon and omote Nihon represent an interdependent, unequal relationship inherent The ura Nihon-vs.-omote Nihon distinction then in modern capitalist development. Different not only reified the unequal relationship within from these studies of ura Nihon as domestic the Japanese archipelago but helped encode history, Yoshii Kenichi (2000) situates the ura inequality and discrimination in nation-state Nihon area of Japan in the broader Sea of Japan building into imperial projects of spatial rim region and explores the connections territorialization, military expansion and between ura Nihon and other parts of the rim economic development. Into the 1930s-40s,

2 19 | 6 | 3 APJ | JF transformation of the Backside became part of Japan. the ambitious plan for the construction of an imperial autarkic economy in Northeast Asia, The framework helped Japanese geologists in with the ura Nihon region eventually becoming the 1880s locate the Japanese archipelago in the “Frontside” connecting the Japanese the spatial context of the Asian continent and metropole with its Asian colonies (Yoshii 2000). the Pacific Ocean to understand Japan’s After 1945, however, the collapse of the empire geology. Dr. Harada Toyokichi, director of the reduced the Backside to a domestic problem, geological bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture and United States dominance of Northeast Asia and Commerce, played the key role in rendered the Sea of Japan coastal region developing a geological theory for Japan based directly confronting a hostile communist on Pumpelly’s Sinian system. He developed the continent, into a periphery again. At the same theory in his reportOn the Geological time, a rapidly developing Japan looked across Structure of Japan (Harada 1888). Harada the Pacific to the U.S. for security, economic modelled Japan’s mountainous topography as support, and a new vision of progress and divided into a front/convex side (omote-men 表 power. Despite the fact thatura Nihon was 面) (facing the Pacific Ocean) and a replaced by the neutrally sounding term “Sea back/concave side (ura-men 裏面) (facing the of Japan side” in the 1960s (Furumaya 1997, 7), Sea of Japan and the Asian continent) along the the continuing peripheral status of the region NE-SW axis identified by Pumpelly. Harada today remains a constant reminder of legacies explains, “mountain systems of the world all of empires in contemporary Northeast Asia. share certain regularity: they come in curved shape, forming a concave side and a convex side. They are known respectively in geological terms as ‘inner side’ orura-men , and ‘outer The Birth of Ura Nihon, 1866-1904 side’ or omote-men” (Harada 1888, 321). He then situates Japan in relation to the Asian The origins of the pair concept ofura Nihon continent, describing the “empire of Japan” in and omote Nihon can be traced to the the shape of a half circle surrounding the formation of modern geology and geography in southeastern part of the Asian continent. This Meiji Japan. Geology and geography offered bow-liked half circle consists of a series of new methods for classifying and explaining curved mountain ranges that connect with two physical space in the midst of modernmountain systems, the Sinian system that starts transformations. In the 1860s, American from the Himalayan range in the southwest, geologist Richard Pumpelly was invited by the and the Karafuto system extending southwest Tokugawa shogunate to conduct geological from the Kamchatka Peninsula (Harada 1888, investigations in Japan and the Qing310-312). government in China later commissioned him to explore coal mines. Combining hisTo facilitate understanding of Japan’s investigation results in the two countries, geological structure, Harada further proposes a Pumpelly identified a NE-SW-trending system virtual center line running through the of tectonic elevation and depression that archipelago to foreground its curved shape. governed the geomorphic configuration of East With the center line, Harada divides the Asia, which he would later expand to the archipelago into five parts: first is the pair of Northern Hemisphere worldwide. He named the north curve and south curve, and then each this “the Sinian system” (Pumpelly 1866). The curve is divided by the center line into outer Sinian interpretive framework reshapedside and inner side. The fifth part is the subsequent geographic understanding of massive fault when the two mountain systems

3 19 | 6 | 3 APJ | JF meet, i.e., the “Fuji belt” (see map below). This understanding of the world, manifested by the five-part interpretive framework turned out to Meiji intellectual Fukuzawa Yukichi’s slogan be very useful for illustrating the earth surface, “Leaving Asia (& Joining Europe)” in 1885. which differs drastically on the two sides of the Here, “Asia” and “the West” were objectified as central line, one side facing the Pacific, the spatial representations of stagnation and other Sea of Japan. Soon, this interpretive barbarism on the one hand and civilization and framework, in particular the geologicalprogress on the other. Spatialization of these distinction of ura and omote, were adopted by contrasting values helped Meiji intellectuals geographers and school teachers to formulate situate Japan in the civilizing and modernizing modern geography for middle school education. world in the late nineteenth century. This hierarchical conception of modern geography was in turn taught to elementary and middle school students. One of the most widely used geography primer textbooks was Fukuzawa’s kuni-zukushi, or “All the Countries in the World,” which ranked the countries according to levels of civilization and progress (Fukuzawa 1869).

In this way, geography and Civilization layed the groundwork for the emergence of modern nationalism in 1890s Japan, reinforced by Japan’s success in the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895). Accompanying the rise of Meiji nationalism was a process of restructuring space, i.e., the formation of a geo-body shaped by self-other relationships between a stagnant Asia and a progressive West. In the process, the neutral geographical distinction of ura/Backside and omote/Frontside changed to ura Nihon and omote Nihon, which came to be seen as parts of a single, synergistic whole, two compatible yet hierarchical parts of the geo- body of Japan. Formation of the ura Nihon-vs.- omote Nihon distinction as parts of the geo- body of Japan unfolded in tandem with rapid Harada Toyokichi’s Geological Map of construction of a centralized socio-political Japan order during the mid-Meiji decades, when (adapted from Abe Tsunehisa 1997, 33) railway construction, military installations, and establishment of a national education system transformed the natural and cultural spaces of Underlying modern geography was thethe archipelago. Railway projects particularly dominant discourse of Civilization (bunmei) and helped turn the Pacific coast into a magnet for progress popularized in post-Restoration Japan. industry, commerce, and population Civilization discourse used the distinctions of concentration (Oikawa 2014, Abe 1997). This civilization vs. barbarism and progress vs. Pacific coast spatial transformation made the stagnation to create a hierarchicalrest of the country appear less progressive and

4 19 | 6 | 3 APJ | JF peripheral. “as yet no continental Japanese have conquered and ruled this country. This has to do with By the 1890s, the previously neutral ura Nihon- geographical disadvantages but the climate and vs. omote Nihon geographical distinction, people’s character also have to be blamed” respectively referring to the Sea of Japan side (Tsukakoshi 1901, 26-27). and the Pacific Ocean side, had begun to be used to represent differences not only in economic development but in cultural and The Emergence of the Ura Nihon Ideology, civilizational levels as well. Geographical 1904-1918 distinction had changed to cultural hierarchy, which highlighted the contrast between a The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, a key maritime and progressive Japan – omote Nihon episode in the history of imperial rivalry in (Frontside of Japan) – and a continentally Northeast Asia, provided the impetus for the connected, culturally backward Japan –ura expansion of ura Nihon into an ideology of Nihon (Backside of Japan). The Meiji-period economic development and colonial expansion. journalist Tsukakoshi Yoshitarō’s book Chiri to The costly war was sustained in Japan by an jinji (“Geography and Human Affairs”) (1901) expansive anti-Russian nationalism which drew exemplifies this culturalization of thea gaze of the nation across the Sea of Japan geographical distinction. to the continent, particularly Korea, China and Russia. From before the outbreak of the war, Tsukakoshi explained how climate influenced anti-Russian nationalism provoked a the national character of the Japanese which continental expansionism that encompassed the for him was of two varieties: maritime and entire Russian Far East. Representative of this continental, coinciding spatially with the Pacific popular nationalism was the so-called “Seven Ocean and the Sea of Japan regions, i.e., omote Doctors of the Russo-Japanese War,” a group of Nihon and ura Nihon. He began by comparing university professors who argued for the climate of the two regions. Under the annexation of Siberia, all the way to Lake strong influence of wind and air pressure from Baikal. Leading the Seven Doctors group was the continent, ura Nihon has more precipitation Tomizu Hirondo, law professor of Tokyo especially snow in winter, more cloudy days, Imperial University, also known as Prof. Baikal and lower average temperature thanomote for his hardline argument for Siberian Nihon (Tsukakoshi 1901, 5-16). These climatic annexation. During the War, opinion leaders differences shaped different nationalsuch as the Seven Doctors projected Japan’s characters of the two regions. “Cold weather in decisive victory resulting in indemnity and ura Nihon turns people into monotonous and territorial acquisitions as war prizes. When the cowering beings. Cloudy weather slowsgovernment concluded a peace treaty with people’s sensitivities and makes them torpid. Russia without gaining an indemnity or much …People become passive and lack the will to go territory, in September 1905 people rallied in out and conquer” (Tsukakoshi 1901, 17-20). He Hibiya Park in Tokyo to protest again the peace calls this type of Japanese national character treaty. When the police intervened, a riot “continental” and contrasts it with theoccurred. “maritime Japan” of omote Nihon. “Warm and dry weather in maritime Japan warms people’s Anti-Russian nationalism reinforced by the blood …They are positive and optimistic, ready Hibiya Riot turned ura Nihon into a popular to challenge and conquer. Disliking monotony, ideological force. Formulated by politicians, people are poetic, excelling at arts, music, and lawyers, journalists, and activists from the ura philosophy” (Tsukakoshi 1901, 23-24). Indeed, Nihon region, including leaders of the Hibiya

5 19 | 6 | 3 APJ | JF

Riot, as well as such prominent figures as The ura Nihon ideology dovetailed well with Tokyo Imperial University maritime lawlocal initiatives in infrastructure building in the professor Matsunami Niichirō, this discourse Sea of Japan coastal region and colonial politicized the relative underdevelopment of developments on the continent. In the 1900s, the region as discriminatory and advocated major cities of Niigata, Tsuruga, and Fushiki linking ura Nihon to trade with and (伏木) on the Sea of Japan coast spearheaded colonization of the continent so as to lift the initiatives in infrastructure building, primarily region out of underdevelopment. Hisharbor dredging and expansion, and competed connection of ura Nihon with the continent was to open trade with Vladivostok in anticipation facilitated by Matsunami’s view of the Sea of of profit through the Trans-Siberia Railway Japan as Japan’s territorial waters. Matsunami which was completed in June 1904 (Yoshii elaborated on imperialist expansion qua2000). They also campaigned for central economic development in the nationalist government financial support through Diet journal Tōhoku hyōron in March 1906: politics.

The Sea of Japan coastal region has long The ura Nihon ideology was soon incorporated been called ura Nihon. Its progress cannot into projects of colonial development in the be compared to the Pacific Ocean coastal continent. Gaining control of the South region. Its agriculture is still primitive; its Manchurian Railway, a key prize of the Russo- industry has only habotai silk; fishing Japanese War, spurred four decades of remains primitive and maritime navigation vigorous business expansion and military can in no way rival the complex networks planning designed to turn Manchuria into a of omote Nihon. …Worst of all, railway periphery both of the Japanese metropole in transportation in ura Nihon is least general and of Backside Japan in particular developed. In other words, the region (Yoshii 2000, Matsusaka 2001). Central to facing the Sea of Japan has been treated business and military planning was railway like a stepchild of the country. …Will ura construction. The Kwantung Army on security Nihon remain asleep forever? Will Japan grounds (i.e., the need to mobilize against always remain in a state of paralysis on possible Russian attack), and the South one side? Although …people in ura Nihon Manchurian Railway Company (SMR) for today lack the confidence to compete for political reasons (to prevent Chinese national political power, this deficiency is encirclement) from 1906 began planning to not innate. We can expect them to find build a second major railway line that ways to develop. …The Sea of Japan rim connected Changchun, the northern terminal of region is rich in both maritime and land the south Manchuria railway, with northern products, whose cultivation will bring coastal Korea and then the backside of Japan enormous wealth. Now that most of the (Inoue 1990). The Korean colonial government region has become Japanese territory, …it also promoted this railway to help bring the is the responsibility of we Japanese to not Korean-Chinese borderland region (today’s be satisfied with merely maritime gains Yanbian region of China neighboring North but proceed to the continent to develop the Korea) under control. Strategic and political rich resources there. …The future of the motives were reinforced by busines interests. Sea of Japan is promising as essentially it Into the 1910s, Japanese traders in Chongjin, a has become the territorial waters of Japan. port on the northern coast newly opened by the …It is known by name as Japan’s territorial colonial government in Korea, joined local waters and is directly related to the chambers of commerce in Japan to campaign to empire of Japan (Matsunami 1906, 12-13). support open maritime transportation across

6 19 | 6 | 3 APJ | JF the Sea of Japan, which they argued would railway line connecting ura Nihon to the contribute to development of both ura Nihon resource-rich continent. On the other hand, and Korea. Opening the maritime route in 1917 amidst the predominantly pro-intervention and simultaneous completion of the railway public opinion, a number of journalists, political connecting central Korea with the Korean- activists, business leaders, and scholars in Chinese borderland region led to escalating Japan, Korea and Vladivostok opposed sending competition between transportation businesses troops to Siberia during the Siberian in Japan and those in colonial Korea. Expedition of 1918-22 and advocated mutual support and joint development in the Sea of Japan rim (Furumaya 1997, 116-120, Yoshii 2000, 140-162, Matsuo 1922). They understood Competing Ideologies ofUra Nihon, the Rice Riots (米騒動) of 1918, which started 1918-1931 in Uozu, Toyama Prefecture, of the ura Nihon region and spread throughout the country, as a The Russian Revolution (1917-1923), which manifestation of Japan’s food shortage problem promoted national self-determination as the as well as regional disparity inherent in its principle for oppressed nations to achieve development. Through the 1920s, they liberation from imperialism and the League of proposed improving ura Nihon and solving the Nations’ adoption of Woodrow Wilson’srice problem by cooperating with Chinese, national self-determination principles in the Koreans and Russians based on a conception of wake of WWI, helped consolidate the nation- national self-determination of Asian peoples. state world system and delegitimizeThey called for joint Chinese, Korean, Russian imperialism. As direct colonization fell out of and Japanese development of the Tomangan fashion, imperialism started to promote the (Toman River, Ch. Tumenjiang, 豆満江) region. new legitimizing logic of development. At the The Toman River runs between Manchuria, same time, global circulation of the national Russia and Korea. A group of journalists, local self-determination principle and conciliatory politicians, and business leaders fromura international politics fostered an ideological Nihon, seeing the region’s link with the environment favoring democracy. The evolution continent as vital for its development, was of the ura Nihon ideology during 1918-1931 is instrumental in persuading the Japanese a dual story of cultural politics of “Taisho government to recognize and establish Democracy” and transformation of localdiplomatic relations with the Soviet Union protests against uneven economic development (Yoshii 2000, 145-147). into colonial endeavors in the continent. The rice riots of 1918 also foregrounded the The ura Nihon perspective bifurcated into two reality that residents of major rice producing competing stances for connecting with the areas could not afford rice due to sky-rocketing continent across the Sea of Japan to shape prices. The rice riots contributed to the regional development. On the one hand, an transformation of ura Nihon into a regional anti-Soviet, pro-expansion colonial discourse identity based on a sense of being sacrificed for still dominated Japanese public discussion economic development in the Frontside region. which promoted developingura Nihon by As this regional identity gained traction, local transforming it into the empire’s Frontside to governments and businesses in Tsuruga, spearhead colonization and trade with Korea, Niigata and other ura Nihon port cities from Manchuria and Mongolia. This approach 1918 competed to open maritime routes with emphasized the harbors of Chongjin and Rajin colonial Korea. Significantly, this competition in Korea as terminal stations for the northern was stimulated by plans for the second railway

7 19 | 6 | 3 APJ | JF construction on the continent. The Kwantung The Manchurian Incident, accompanied by the Army and the SMR grew increasingly impatient completion of the 10-kilometer Shimizu Tunnel to complete the northern railway line despite on Honshu (which shortened travel time by 4 its high cost, low profit potential, andhours from Tokyo to Niigata), transformed the persistent Chinese and Korean resistance and ura Nihon ideology into one that sought to turn sabotage. Two major segments of the northern the Sea of Japan into a Japanese lake. This railway line project were completed in 1925 spatial ideology can be traced back to the and 1928, bringing the vision of a direct link Russo-Japanese war and the Siberian between ura Nihon and the resource-rich Intervention when opinion leaders and military continent closer to fulfillment. Such a direct figures viewed the Sea of Japan as the link fired up imaginations and arguments for territorial waters of Japan (Saaler 1998, 277). developing ura Nihon via connection to Its rearticulation in the 1930s was marked by Manchuria and Korea. In 1928, the North Japan two slogans: “the shortest route between Japan Steamship Company lobbied successfully for and Manchuria” 日満最短( ルート) and public funds to open a direct maritime route “transforming the Sea of Japan into a domestic between Tsuruga in ura Nihon and Chongjin in lake” (日本海の湖水化). The government-funded Korea. This was supported by consular officials Association for Japan-Manchuria Businesses (日 in Chongjin, who emphasized the importance of 満実業協会) spearheaded promotion of the the direct route for the development of both shortest route between the two “capitals” of ura Nihon and the Korean-Chinese borderland Tokyo and Shinkyō (“new capital,” or region of Manchuria. Changchun in Manchuria), transforming the Backside into Japan’s new Frontside connecting the metropole with the continent. Local interest groups in Niigata Prefecture were particularly quick to grasp the opportunity by campaigning Ura Nihon, “Domestic Lake,” and Imperial to develop the city of Niigata to become “the Autarky in Northeast Asia, 1931-1945 Front Gate of ura Nihon” (裏日本の玄関口) and campaigning for public funds to open trade The Kwantung Army’s desire to quicklyroutes to ports in northern Korea. This flip from complete the northern railway line contributed the Backside of the nation to the Frontside of to its radical decision to stage the Manchurian the empire points to a sharp change of spatial Incident on Sep. 18, 1931. For Ishiwara Kanji, orientation from the Pacific to the continent. the mastermind behind the Incident, the With withdrawal from the League of Nations in railway line was indispensable not just for 1933 and embarking on the building of an defense against Soviet attack but also for a autarkic empire, Japanese leaders decided to regional autarkic economy in which the Sea of join Asia (the empire) and leave the West Japan rim—stretching from ura Nihon to Korea (autarky), turning their back not on the and Manchuria—would be brought into a continent but on the ocean. comprehensive design of defense, development, and colonization. Occupation of the whole of The slogan “transforming the Sea of Japan into Manchuria expedited the planning. Army, navy, a domestic lake,” coined by national SMR, and government ministries worked newspapers in early 1932, was picked up by the together to complete the construction of the North Japan Steamship Company for promoting railway in September 1933 (Yoshii 2000, its Tsuruga-Chongjin route. The slogan 244-256). Harbor construction started at Rajin catalyzed competition for developing maritime which was set to replace Chongjin as the transportation across the Sea of Japan in the coastal terminal of the second artery line. 1930s. This competition gained government

8 19 | 6 | 3 APJ | JF backing when an ambitious plan to send one million Japanese households to Manchuria was incorporated into the industrial, commercial, trade, and military defense planning of the Northeast Asian region as part of the Japan- centered imperial zone. In 1938, the Japanese government launched a comprehensive development plan for Manchuria, ura Nihon, and three harbors in northern Korea, leading to the establishment of The General Assembly of Economic Alliance of the Sea of Japan Region (日本海経済連盟総会). One month later, the publicly funded Sea of Japan Steamship Company was established. The Backside of Japan was now formally incorporated into Japan’s empire building and seemed on its way to becoming the Frontside of the empire.

The empire itself, however, was engaged in full-scale war in China by 1937 and the developmental logic of the early 1930s quickly gave way to the need for total mobilization. While Japanese businesses monopolized the Sea of Japan, literally changing the sea into a domestic lake, the shortest route between the metropole and the continent was unable to realize the vision of the regional autarky economic bloc. By 1941, the danger of hitting mines laid by the Soviet navy had rendered the “The Shortest Route to Manchuria” “domestic lake” dangerous; maritime transportation was never able to expand as Poster of the North Japan Steamship Co. envisioned before the collapse of the empire in Ltd.; in the red circle the slogan “Turn the August 1945. Sea of Japan Into Our Lake!”

(Postcard Museum)

Rebirth of Ura Nihon, 1945-

The grand plan of imperial autarky evaporated with Japan’s surrender in August 1945. With all significant Japanese cities except Kyoto reduced to rubble by U.S. bombing and the country facing starvation and foreign occupation, any distinction between the Backside and the Frontside effectively

9 19 | 6 | 3 APJ | JF collapsed. Confrontations between the Soviet primary materials to the former. The negative Union and the U.S. reshaped geopolitical image of the new ura Nihon, in association with relationships in Northeast Asia leading to the the continent, was reinforced by the state- reimagining of Japan as a homogeneous island facilitated project of “repatriation” 帰還( ) of nation. Within the framework of American Korean residents to North Korea. Starting in dominance of the world economy and U.S. 1959 and continuing for a quarter century until naval dominance of the Pacific, another spatial 1984, the journey of nearly 100,000 Koreans turn was enacted: Japan again was urged to (and some Japanese), all departing from the look outward toward the Pacific Ocean and harbor of Niigata, to North Korea was a story beyond to expand its role in a free and of conspiracy, hope, and tragedy (Morris- prosperous world while struggling to come to Suzuki 2007). The Korean crossing of the Sea terms with the recent legacies of empire in the of Japan, coupled with incidents of abduction of Northeast Asian continent which had now Japanese to North Korea in the 1970s and largely become communist (Friedman and 1980s, only foregrounded the distance and Selden 1971). difference between the continent and Japan, between a bleak, oppressive communist state Successful postwar national economicand a free, prosperous democracy. development of Japan went hand in hand with the rebirth of economic and culturalPostwar re-formation of ura Nihon gave rebirth inequalities between the Pacific side and Sea of to a critical ideological position that Japan side in the evolving Cold War geopolitical counterposes itself to the newomote Nihon. context. As Cold War tensions intensified, the Marking the counter position of ura Nihon was U.S. fostered Japan’s economic growth, first its identification with the Sea of Japan rim (kan through emergency procurement during the Nihonkai) region and connections with the Korean War and then by opening its domestic continent even though the use of the term ura market to Japanese products and setting the Nihon itself was terminated in the 1960s for dollar-yen exchange rate in Japan’s favor. being discriminatory. From this counter Japan’s fast-growing export-oriented economy position, people in ura Nihon waged criticisms contributed to the revival of the Pacific coast of the Pacific-centered economic development which had since prewar years been the model of the postwar period. In 1970, the heartland of modern Japan, i.e., the “Frontside regional newspaper Niigata Shimbun published of Japan” omote( Nihon). Industry, a special issue Tomorrow’s Sea of Japan. Two manufacturing, and ocean shippingyears later, the local branch of the national reconcentrated along the Pacific coast, which newspaper Mainichi Shimbun issued another came to be known since the 1960s as the special issue titled The Era of the Sea of Japan Pacific Belt Zone. The postwar export-oriented – Its Fetal Movement and In Search of the economy directed the country to focus on the Future. Then in 1974, a research group from Pacific Ocean while increasingly turning away seven universities in the Sea of Japan coastal from the Asian continent despite efforts by region published Conception of the Sea of Japanese business groups to return to China Japan Rim Region and Regional Development. and left-leaning progressives seeking to build These publications criticized postwar Japan’s solidarity with continental socialist countries. development as overly oriented toward the U.S. and issued calls for a reorientation toward the The formation of the Pacific Belt Zone was continent. Eerily reminiscent of prewar accompanied by a growing gap between the slogans, they claimed that “Siberia is waiting Pacific side and the Sea of Japan side with the for our collaboration. The Chinese continent is latter serving as a purveyor of labor and impregnated with unlimited possibilities. The

10 19 | 6 | 3 APJ | JF time has come for trading with the shore on the Institute for Northeast Asia (ERINA), avoided other side of the Sea of Japan. The Sea of Japan the use of “the Sea of Japan” apparently to coast is none other than the front gate of accommodate South Korea’s protest. The Japan” (cited in Furumaya 1997, 190-191). controversy surrounding the naming of this While the language resembled prewarparticular body of water, which was supposed discourse, needless to say, the call carried no to connect rather than separate, epitomizes the imperialist inspirations although it did not obstacles that hindered and eventually crippled seem to look at Japan and the continent on ERINA’s program of transnational collaboration completely equal terms. and joint development.

It is not until after the end of the Cold War, Another initiative, the Kan Nihonkai Gakkai, or however, that the conception of “the Sea of “Association for Sea of Japan Rim Studies,” was Japan rim” (kan Nihonkai) was translated into established in 1994 to conduct research on the concrete proposals and initiatives to construct region for promoting mutual understanding and a transnational cooperative framework. In exchange. However, here too, Korean scholars October 1993, theKan Nihonkai Keizai demanded the association not use the term Kenkyūjo, or Economic Research Institute for “Sea of Japan.” While acknowledging the Northeast Asia (ERINA) in English, was naming to be a critical issue in need of established in Niigata with funds from eleven discussion and reaffirming its commitment to prefectures and eight businesses in the region promoting a shared historical awareness for the purpose of promoting economicamong its member countries, it took the exchanges and constructing an economic zone association more than ten years to change its encompassing Northeast Asia. ERINAname to The Association for Northeast Asian envisioned a developmental model ofRegional Studies in 2008. The current website complementarity and collaboration by using shows all executive members are from within Japanese and South Korean technology and Japan, compromising its call for capital, Chinese labor, and Russian natural internationality. The website itself appeared to resources. This model, however, soon fell have not been updated for more than a year behind the times as China’s economy grew and with 157 subscribing members (in 2017), rapidly during the period and by 2011 had the association does not seem to be able to superseded Japan to become the world’s pursue a vigorous research agenda. second largest economy. The Niigata prefectural government, which currently provides 80% of funding to ERINA, decided in February 2021 to significantly reduce the It seems then that into the twenty-first century, funding as it sees ERINA’s role dwindling over with the term ura Nihon long gone and the Sea time. of Japan rim concept failing to articulate a sensible program of regional development, the An equally important reason for ERINA’s ura Nihon-vs.-omote Nihon distinction, formed failure is that from the very beginning it over a century ago, is no longer capable of suffered from lack of international support, due offering alternative ways in which to imagine a significantly to Japan’s failure in coming to global—or even regional—position for Japan. In terms with its imperialist past. This debilitating 2017, Japan under the Abe administration shortage of support manifests in South Korea’s announced a new foreign policy initiative called insistence on calling the waters “East Sea” the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy”. rather than “the Sea of Japan.” The English With an emphasis on the values of democracy, name of the organization, Economic Research rule of law, and market economy, as well as

11 19 | 6 | 3 APJ | JF collaborative relations with India, the US and Harada, Toyokichi. “Nihon chishitsu kōzō ron,” Australia, this “Indo-Pacific” initiative suggests Chishitsu yōhō no.2 (1888), 309-355. a distancing of Japan from continentalInoue, Yuichi. Testudō geeji ga kaeta gendaishi. Northeast Asia, in particular China and North Tokyo: Chūō Kōronsha, 1990. Korea. While the Niigata-based ERINA reaffirmed its goal of building an integrated Matsunami Niichirō. “Nihonkai ni taisuru hōjin Northeast Asian economic zone in itsfourth no katsudō,” Tōhoku hyōron no.8 (March 15, medium-term plan (2019-2023), it is in no 1906), 12-15. position to challenge the “Indo-Pacific” initiative arising from the central government, Matsuo, Kosaburō. Nihonkai chūshin ron: located in Pacific-oriented omote Nihon. The kotōteki jikaku. Tokyo: Kaikoku Kōronsha, “Indo-Pacific” initiative, however, is not1922. sufficient as it defines the relationship between Japan and the continent only in oppositional Matsusaka, Yoshihisa. The Making of Japanese terms and does not seek to build a constructive Manchuria, 1904-1932. Cambridge, Mass.: relationship with its Northeast Asian neighbors. Harvard University Asia Center, 2001. With China being the largest trade partner of Japan, multiple and complex approaches are Morris-Suzuki, Tessa. Exodus to North Korea: required to look at China and the Asian Shadows from Japan’s Cold War. Lanham, continent not as a threat but an opportunity for Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. peaceful coexistence and joint development. In this regard, one cannot but hope that the Oikawa, Yoshinobu. Nihon tetsudō shi: historical legacy of ura Nihon may still be batsumatsu Meiji hen. Tokyo: Chūō Kōron useful in offering alternative insights, if not a Shinsha, 2014. concrete development plan, for imagining new possibilities for present-day Northeast Asia. Pumpelly, Raphael. Geological researches in China, Mongolia and Japan during the years 1862 to 1865. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1866. References Saaler, Sven. “Nihon no tairiku shinshutsu to Abe, Tsunehisa. Ura Nihon ha ikani Shiberia shuppei: teikoku shugi kakucho no tsukuraretaka. Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Hyōronsha, ‘kanestsu shihai soko’ wo megutte,” Kanazawa 1997. Daigaku Keizai gakubu ronshū 19, no.1 (Dec. Friedman, Edward and Mark Selden, eds. 1998), 259-285. America’s Asia: Dissenting essays on Asian- American relations. New York: Pantheon Books, Tsukakoshi, Yoshitarō. Chiri to jinji. Tokyo: 1971. Minyūsha, 1901.

Fukuzawa, Yukichi. kuni-zukushi. Tokyo: Keio Yoshii, Kenichi. Kan Nihonkai chiiki shakai no Gijuku Zōhan, 1869. henyō – “Manmō Kantō” to Ura Nihon –. Tokyo: Aoki Shoten, 2000. Furumaya, Tadao. Ura Nihon: kindai Nihon wo toinaosu. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1998.

12 19 | 6 | 3 APJ | JF

Yijiang Zhong’s research interests include modern Japanese and East Asian history. After publishing a book on Shinto and the Meiji state, he is now examining imagination and ideology of space in the history of the Japanese empire, focusing on the now disused Japanese place name ura Nihon or “the backside of Japan.” Zhong received his PhD from the Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations of the University of Chicago. He is currently a project associate professor at the University of Tokyo. [email protected].