Letter from the Director

Dear Delegates,

Welcome to this year’s Joint Crisis Committee (JCC) on the Supremacy for the Far East, 1894. My name is William Tsai and I have the distinct honour of serving as the Crisis Director of the JCC. This is a crisis committee in which delegates will represent the ministers and military leaders of the Russian Empire and the . Crisis committees provide an excellent means for delegates to experience not only the many facets needed to manage a government efficiently and effectively, but also the struggles in decision-making that confronted these historical figures. Unlike other Model UN committees, crisis committees allow delegates to see the positive and negative consequences of their decisions and challenge them to engage in personal diplomacy, balancing individual agendas with collective compromise.

Within this committee, you and your fellow delegates must decide the future of , fight for political dominance, and make compelling arguments for your plans. I encourage you to research your role thoroughly and brainstorm possible solutions that suit your character’s ideology and ideals. Be prepared to play your role and make snap judgments on whatever topics crop up during the committee.

As for your other amazing Staff members, the Japanese bloc includes Steven Long as the Bloc Director, and Jessy Ma and Alec Yang as Chairs. On the other hand, the Russian bloc comprises of Alex Shojania as the Bloc Director with Derek Wu and Armaan Jaffer as Chairs.

I, along with the other Staff members, hope you all have a wonderful experience at CAHSMUN 2020. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected]

Sincerely,

William Tsai Director of JCC—CAHSMUN 2020

1 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder Committee Description

The Joint Crisis Committee (JCC) stands as one of the most diverse, challenging, and rewarding Model UN experiences. Every decision, delegate, and directive affects not only one committee environment, but two. These two opposing blocs, representing the cabinets of the Empire of Japan and the Russian Empire at the turn of the 20th century, will have to face the same historical challenges, disagreements, and pitfalls that these nations faced more than two hundred years prior.

The JCC will be made up of two separate committees whose directives and decisions affect the shared world. For delegates new to crisis committees, directives serve as your delegation’s way of interacting with the crisis itself. Updates, either in response to your directives or notifying you of new information, will be given to each bloc regularly. These updates will only contain information that the cabinet itself is realistically aware of. Due to the regularity of these updates and how they may change the crisis entirely, directives need to be written swiftly in response to these updates, but not without a clear intention, an understanding of the potential consequences, and other opinions from your bloc. Directives can either be private, which utilize your delegation’s powers as stated later in the backgrounder and remain confidential from the rest of your bloc, or public, which use the entirety of your bloc’s shared power as a cabinet and require a public vote to put into place. However, private directives are not always employed for subversive purposes; it may be much more efficient to immediately submit a private directive in lieu of waiting for a public one to be properly read out and voted upon.

Instead of representing a country, you will be representing a historical figure, with their own motivations, beliefs, and ideology. Adhering to your character’s interests, even when they contradict those of your fellow committee members, will be vital in creating a dynamic and intriguing committee environment. As such, I implore you to not only research the historical context behind this topic, but also your character as well. As a reminder, neither you nor your delegation should be affected by real-life historical events after the initiating crisis. The world in which this committee occurs will be constantly changing due to the actions of both blocs, and strictly adhering to the historical events of the past will be nearly impossible. Any historical event, treaty, or idea that occured after July 23, 1894, cannot be referenced or used as justification for a delegation’s actions. Although not historically accurate, the Emperors of each bloc, represented by your Bloc Directors, will remain relatively neutral throughout the proceedings; nevertheless, they reserve the right to veto any extreme or unrealistic directives. You may, however, still backstab, overthrow, or execute any of your colleagues if you deem it necessary.

2 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder

This JCC may differ from previous iterations of this committee in that the two blocs do not begin in direct opposition of one another. Instead, imperialist competition over colonial concessions should naturally drive the rivalry between these two blocs. Delegates should always strive to forward their nation’s own goals rather than make unnecessary attempts to destroy the opposing bloc. This committee is as much about nation-building, industrialization, and diplomacy as it is about starting a naval arms race and war with the opposing bloc. Despite this, the committee is built upon outcompeting the other bloc, either directly or indirectly.

Crisis Topic: Supremacy for the Far East, 1894 Overview

It is July 23, 1894. has been captured by Japan and the First Sino-Japanese War has truly begun. In fact, the turn of the 20th century marks an important turning point for the empires of Russia, Japan, and China. The Empire of Japan, seeking to wrest from the Qing’s sphere of influence and into their own, has aggressively modernized in the last half- century.1 Meanwhile, the Russian Empire is preparing for the death of Tsar Alexander III, the ultra-conservative reactionary known for maintaining a stable, peaceful, and orderly Russia.2 As the former Asian hegemon, the , wanes in both power and prestige, its riches found in Manchuria, the Korean Peninsula, and in China’s northern coast seem ripe for the taking.3 These two competing empires, similar in goals yet dramatically different in status and prestige, seek to expand their imperialist ambitions throughout these lawless lands.

As the first non-Western great power during the Age of Imperialism, the Empire of Japan found the roots of its success in the period of rapid modernization following the Meiji Restoration of 1868. Since then, the Japanese have modernized all facets of life, including its military, government, economy, and industry. However, to be truly recognized as one of the Great Powers in the Age of Imperialism, Japan requires colonies to fuel its ever-growing economy. Thus, Japan has now begun a war against the decaying Qing Dynasty over the suzerainty of Korea.4 Internally, Japan faces challenges with centralizing the nation, renegotiating the colonial treaties of its past, and balancing how independent its military is from the government.

1 www.jstor.org/stable/27919535 2 www.jstor.org/stable/44581433 3 https://www.mironline.ca/century-humiliation-understanding-chinese-mindset/. 4 www.jstor.org/stable/1875849 3 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder

After a diplomatic victory that freed fellow Slavic nations in the Balkans, the industrializing Russian Empire now looks towards the East. So far, Russia has secured its de facto ownership over Manchurian resources and concessions through the and , signed in 1858 and 1860 respectively.5 Furthermore, in order to connect the industrializing West to its resource-rich East, Russia has begun the construction of the Trans- Siberian Railway. However, Tsar Alexander III now lays on his deathbed, radicalism spreads within the cities, and some wonder whether the young Tsareveich Nicholas will command the same authority as his authoritative father.

Timeline

1689 - The border between Russia and the Qing Dynasty is drawn in the and later Kyakhta.6

1842 - The ends the and opens the Qing Dynasty to foreign trade, marking the beginning of European imperialism in China.7

1854 - United States Commodore Matthew Perry forces Japan to sign the , opening the country to foreign trade for the first time in 220 years.8

1856 - Russia faces defeat in the Crimean War, exposing its underdeveloped economy and society.9

1858 - The British and French force another Qing surrender in the with the , cementing European dominance over the Chinese.10

1860 - At the Convention of Peking, attended by the British, French, and Russian Empires, Britain ratifies the Treaty of Tientsin, France guarantees the rights of Christian missionaries in China, and Russia gains the territories of Outer Manchuria, reversing the Treaty of Kyakhta.

5 www.jstor.org/stable/2339062 6 www.jstor.org/stable/25642205 7 https://www.mironline.ca/century-humiliation-understanding-chinese-mindset/. 8 Ravina, Mark. To Stand with the Nations of the World: Japan’s Meiji Restoration in World History. Oxford University Press, 2017. 9 www.jstor.org/stable/4204004 10 www.jstor.org/stable/25642205 4 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder With its new territory, Russia settles the port of Vladivostok, reasserting Russia's presence in the Far East.11

1864 - The , the bloodiest civil war of all time, ends in the Qing Dynasty after 14 years. This revolt further weakens the Qing’s control over its subjects and East Asia.12

1868 - The Meiji Restoration brings an end to the Tokugawa Shogunate and creates a new centralized Empire of Japan.13

1875 - The Treaty of Saint Petersburg, signed between Russia and Japan, gives the island of Sakhalin to Russia and the Kuril Islands to Japan.14

1878 - Russia achieves both military and diplomatic victory in the Russo-Turkish War and the subsequent Congress of Berlin, where the Great Powers outline the creation of the new Balkan states. This event secures Russian hegemony in the West and allows Russia to focus its attention on the Far East.15

1885 - After the failure of the , a pro-Japan coup d’état in Korea, the Convention of Tientsin is signed, giving Japan influence in Korean politics.16

1893 - The Franco-Russian Alliance forms in response to Germany’s Triple Alliance.

June 12, 1894 - After the Qing Dynasty sent troops to help quell the Korean Donghak Rebellion, Japan claims they were not notified of this intervention. Thus, the Sino-Japanese War begins.17

11 Ibid. 12 https://www.history.com/topics/china/taiping-rebellion 13 Ravina, Mark. To Stand with the Nations of the World: Japan’s Meiji Restoration in World History. Oxford University Press, 2017. 14 www.jstor.org/stable/2339062 15 www.jstor.org/stable/4204004 16 https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Sino-Japanese-War-1894-1895 17 Ibid. 5 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder Historical Analysis

Japanese History Since the establishment of the Tokugawa Shogunate in the 17th century, Japan had pursued an isolationist foreign policy known as sakoku (closed country), where Japanese nationals were prohibited from leaving the country and the nation was effectively sealed off from the rest of the world.18 Trade and diplomacy with the outside world was conducted through a small number of ports on the island of Kyushu, in southern Japan. In 1853, an American mission led by Commodore Matthew C. Perry arrived in Japan, utilizing gunboat diplomacy to force the Japanese to open ports to American trading ships.19 Further treaties prompted Japan to slowly reopen its borders to foreign countries, bringing an end to the sakoku period. However, as industrialization and technological advancement swept through Japan, the nation entered a period of constant turmoil. The conflict culminated in the Boshin War, where a faction of samurai and Imperial officials with the support of clashed with the establishment forces of the shogunate led by Tokugawa Yoshinobu. With the victory of the Imperial faction in the war, the young Emperor Meiji consolidated his power and led sweeping reforms to Japan’s political and social spheres. Meiji’s Charter Oath, delineating the Emperor’s goals for the nation’s modernization, laid the foundations for Japan’s rapid growth in the years to come.20

Following the restoration of Imperial power, Japanese society was rebuilt from the top-down. The Japanese political oligarchy, made up of the leaders behind the Boshin War, was now firmly in charge of shaping this new nation-state. They first began with the abolition of the samurai class in 1873, the feudal elite that had existed for centuries. However, this action against the samurai was not taken lightly. When a proposal to invade Korea—seeking to give jobs to the now-unemployed samurai—was rejected in 1873, disgruntled samurai waged the Satsuma Rebellion against the new Meiji government.21 The rebellion was put down swiftly and brought upon the formal end of the samurai.

Centralization, not only in governance but also in language, culture, and education, was encouraged to forge a new national identity. In line with this, mandatory four-year conscription was established under Field Marshal Yamagata Aritomo to kickstart the growth

18 Ravina, Mark. To Stand with the Nations of the World: Japan’s Meiji Restoration in World History. Oxford University Press, 2017. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 6 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder of the new .22 Rapid government-funded industrialization, primarily headed by the zaibatsu (four business conglomerates that dominate the Japanese economy), brought the efficiency, economy, and technology of the Industrial Revolution to Japan.23 In just four decades, Japan was transformed from a backward feudal shogunate into a fully- industrialized modern nation-state. Meanwhile, calls for a constitution and a formalized national government rose among liberal elements of Japanese society. Before the promulgation of a constitution, Japan’s oligarchy ruled directly through the Daijo-kan (Great Council of State). However, after Ito Hirobumi’s trip to Europe in 1882 to study the constitutions of Western nations, the statesmen drafted a constitution in 1889 styled after Prussia’s mix of absolutism and constitutionalism.24 This brought upon the creation of an Imperial Diet, Cabinet, and the Privy Council of the Emperor, three organs that were tied directly to the Emperor and his power.

Territorially, Japan annexed the neighbouring Ryukyu Islands in 1879, and expanded into the Kuril Islands in 1875 following the Treaty of Saint Petersburg with the Russian Empire.25 While talks of conquering Korea have existed since 1873, only now in 1894, after fully westernizing all facets of society, was Japan prepared. To understand the background behind the ensuing Sino-Japanese War and Japan’s sudden turn towards imperialism, we must first analyze the prevalent Japanese policy goals of the time.26 The revision of unequal treaties imposed on Japan by a litany of Western nations was the most important foreign policy of the early Meiji administration. This process has already begun with the recent signing of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Commerce and Navigation which redefined the United Kingdom’s position with the industrializing Japan as an ally instead of an imperialist master.27 The need for the military strength to resist Western encroachment, in order to avoid the humiliating fate of China, dominated Japanese policy circles at the time. It was this mindset that guided the genro (the elder statesmen of Japan) in their attempts to build an empire. To be considered a legitimate empire, an empire must be first recognized by other empires. The best way to achieve this recognition, in the eyes of the Japanese, was to emulate the systems and stylistic elements that defined the empires of the time.28

22 www.jstor.org/stable/2951803 23 www.jstor.org/stable/27919535 24 www.jstor.org/stable/41304926 25 www.jstor.org/stable/44636655 26 www.jstor.org/stable/1875849 27 www.jstor.org/stable/25119238 28 Ibid. 7 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder Russian History After its harrowing victory in the Napoleonic Wars, Russia, under the leadership of Alexander I, was a key player in reorganizing and rebuilding the Concert of Europe at the Congress of Vienna in 1815.29 However, despite their perceived military strength and prestige, the Industrial Revolution in Western Europe failed to spread to agrarian Russia. This can be mainly attributed to the policy of serfdom, where Russian peasants would be feudally tied to their land and landowners, not unlike colonial slavery. Nicholas I, a reactionary compared to his relatively liberal brother, unexpectedly took the throne in 1825 ahead of his older brother Constantine. During this confusion, liberal officers, who called for the abolition of serfdom and the implementation of a constitutional monarchy, rose up and started the Decembrist Revolt. While this revolt would be quickly quelled by Tsarist forces, it marked the beginning of internal strife in Russia. Wanting to return to absolutism, an ideology first established in Russia by Peter I and Catherine I, Nicholas created the national ideology of “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality” which shaped Russian foreign policy for the remainder of his reign.30 Externally, Russia continued expanding its influence with a war in Persia over the Caucasus and in the Russo-Turkish War of 1828, during which Russia secured Greek independence and Romanian protectorates.31 Furthermore, Russia aided its ally Austria in quelling a Hungarian uprising in 1848. However, despite all these military successes, the Russian army was internally weak and technologically outdated. This was demonstrated in the Crimean War, where Russia suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the combined British, French, and Ottoman forces.32 Its failures on the battlefield revealed the flaws within not only the oversized Russian army, but also its backwards society.

After the death of Nicholas I, his son, Alexander II, took the throne. Recognizing the empire’s need for reform, he tackled the largest issue facing Russian society at the time, serfdom. Emancipating the serfs, Alexander II became known as “The Liberator” and went on to reform many other facets of Russian society.33 In the Far East, Russia’s first concession from the Qing Dynasty came with the signing of the Treaty of Aigun in 1858, where Russia pressured the Qing for territorial concessions north of the Amur river.34 At the time, the Qing Dynasty was struggling with the Taiping Rebellion and the Second Opium War. By the latter’s conclusion in 1860, Russia won itself a seat at the Convention of Peking where it once again

29 Nicolson, Harold G. The Congress of Vienna: A Study in Allied Unity 1812-1822. Cassell, 1989. 30 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Orthodoxy-Autocracy-and-Nationality. 31 www.jstor.org/stable/4204004 32 Ibid. 33 www.jstor.org/stable/2164280 34 www.jstor.org/stable/2339062 8 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder redrew its borders with the Qing, this time annexing the entirety of Outer Manchuria.35 Following the acquisition of the new territory, the new port and later capital of the region, Vladivostok, was soon founded. This would mark the beginning of Russian interest in the Far East, particularly Manchuria.

Meanwhile, a victory in the Russo-Turkish War brought upon the Congress of Berlin, where the Great Powers defined the status of the newly freed Balkan states.36 The congress firmly established Russia’s position in the Balkans, leaving room for a renewed focus on Far Eastern politics. In the later stages of the Tsar’s life, a draft for a “constitution” was brought to the liberal Tsar by Count Loris-Melikov. However, two hours after the draft’s approval by the Tsar, Alexander II was assassinated by Russian revolutionaries.37

Following his ascension to the throne in 1881, the hardline conservative Tsar Alexander III dismissed the plans for the constitution.38 Instead, he once again pursued his grandfather’s reactionary policy of “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality.” Therefore, his first counter- reforms were aimed at weeding out the revolutionary ideals within the peasantry and reestablishing autocratic rule within Russia.39 In spite of his father’s efforts, he reversed many social reforms his father had implemented during his rule, including autonomy for minorities such as the Germans, Polish, and Swedish living in the borders of the Russian Empire. Although Alexander III’s reign was difficult for those within Russia, his peaceful foreign policy ensured that Russia stayed out of any major wars. In fact, in 1891, Russia entered an alliance with France to counteract Germany's Triple Alliance. Through this alliance, French financial and technological assistance helped with the industrialization of Western Russia.40 Nevertheless, the Russian economy is still agrarian and resource-dependent, meaning that a lot of emphasis is put on Russia’s imports and exports. However, due to their climate, almost all Russian ports are only accessible for portions of the year. Therefore, if Russia were to acquire a warm-water port in East Asia, Russian success in the region would be almost guaranteed.

While Russia’s vast dominions symbolize Russian splendor throughout the entirety of the nation, the truth is far less glamorous. Across the Urals, Siberia remains sparsely populated and strategically worthless, its many natural resources untapped. The industrializing

35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 www.jstor.org/stable/1877215 38 Ibid. 39 www.jstor.org/stable/44581433 40 www.jstor.org/stable/2115912 9 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder European part of Russia remains unconnected to its Eastern possessions. Realizing this, the government commissioned the creation of the Trans-Siberian Railway in 1890.41 Stretching from Moscow to Vladivostok, the railway is poised to require a momentous amount of engineering, time, and funds. Nonetheless, the railway will also bring prosperity to the Far East, the burgeoning industrialized economy, and help to realize Russian goals for Manchurian dominance.

Chinese History In Chinese history, the 19th century would be called the Century of Humiliation, and for good reason. 100 years of imperialism, oppression, and exploitation would follow after the First Opium War between the Qing Dynasty and the United Kingdom in 1839.42 The conflict began with the import of British opium into China, as the European empire sought to open up the protectionist Qing Dynasty to foreign trade. When efforts to stop the smuggling of the drug failed, the Qing resorted to the removal of all foreign trade into the empire. In retaliation, the British declared war, decisively defeating the Chinese with the use of their superior technology and firepower. The ensuing peace treaty, the Treaty of Nanking, saw the abolishment of Canton as the sole trading port for Western nations, the opening of five Chinese ports to trade, monetary reparations, and the cession of Hong Kong to the British. The Treaty of Nanking is often considered the first of many unequal treaties imposed on Qing China by foreign powers.

In 1850, a full-blown civil war broke out in China as the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, led by Hakka revolutionary and self-declared brother of Jesus Christ, Hong Xiuquan, broke away from the Qing in the area surrounding the Yangtze River.43 With their radically different religious beliefs and social order, a victory by the Taiping Kingdom would have revolutionized the structure of the Chinese state. Fought over more than a decade, the Taiping Rebellion claimed an estimate of 20 to 30 million lives. The war ended with the death of Hong Xiuquan, and the fall of the Taiping capital at Nanjing.

The Qing Dynasty further descended into the Century of Humiliation with the Second Opium War as primarily British and French forces intervened in China. The war saw the British and French armies nearly occupying the Qing capital, Peking–forcing the Imperial Family to flee– and the looting and burning of the Old just outside the city walls. The war concluded with the signing of more unequal treaties including the Treaty of Tientsin. This

41 www.jstor.org/stable/2114774 42 https://www.mironline.ca/century-humiliation-understanding-chinese-mindset/. 43 https://www.history.com/topics/china/taiping-rebellion 10 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder 1858 treaty forced the Qing to open new trading ports and to accept further foreign influence, including the establishment of new legations in Chinese cities. Signed in 1860, the Convention of Peking, agreed upon between the Qing, British, French, and Russians, forced the Chinese to cede further territories surrounding Hong Kong to the British, as well as transferring territories in the outer regions of Manchuria to the Russian Empire.44

Manchuria, the homeland of the ruling Aisin-Gioro Imperial Family, had dealt with widespread Han Chinese immigration over the 18th and 19th centuries.45 In addition, Manchuria had grown to be a rather lawless land, where corrupt officials, exiles, and criminals were sent. While the Qing fought the Taiping Rebellion and the British and French in the Second Opium War, Russian expeditions were sent towards the Pacific. The Russians had long desired to strengthen their Pacific naval influence, and the country steadily built up its military presence in the region surrounding the Amur River. In order to avoid yet another conflict, the Qing began negotiations with Russia that concluded with the 1858 Treaty of Aigun, which marked the Sino-Russian border at the Amur River in northern Manchuria. In the 1860 Convention of Peking, Qing China agreed to cede what would become the Primorskaya Oblast to Russia, including the key port of Haishenwai, known in Russian as Vladivostok.46 47 As the Russian Empire sought to secure its grip on its Manchurian territories, numerous conflicts were fought to drive out the Chinese population residing in the region. Manchuria remains a key area of expansion in both influence and territory, for both the Russians and the rising Japanese–ultimately, at Qing China’s expense. Current Situation

Initiating Crisis On the Korean Peninsula, the Joseon Dynasty has ruled for just over 500 years, though Joseon Korea has largely remained under the influence of the Chinese imperial dynasty. While the Ming Dynasty had pursued largely cordial and friendly diplomatic relations with Joseon, its successor, the Qing, has long wielded immense control of Korean affairs and foreign policy, with Joseon Korea effectively becoming a Chinese protectorate.

The reigning Korean monarch, King Gojong, came to the throne as a mere 11 year-old child in 1863, with large portions of his early reign being dominated by his father, the staunch isolationist Heungseon Daewongun. Despite reaching the age of majority, Gojong is a weak

44 www.jstor.org/stable/25642205 45 https://journals.openedition.org/cjs/952 46 Ibid. 47 www.jstor.org/stable/25642205 11 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder and incompetent ruler, overshadowed by his wife, Queen Myeongseong. The Queen is a key player in Korean politics, and remains aligned with both the Chinese and Russians, in addition to her widely known anti-Japanese political views. In the Imo Incident of 1882, with the uprising of military leaders and soldiers opposed to the reforms of the royal family, Qing forces reentered Korea, and the Korean Peninsula subsequently fell further under the Chinese sphere of influence. In 1884, the Japanese-backed Gapsin Coup was attempted in the Korean royal court, where several well-educated members of the nobility attempted to oust the ruling pro-Chinese faction.48 The coup was suppressed by the Qing garrison in Seoul, though the Japanese demanded reparations from the Koreans. In an effort to prevent further conflict on the Korean Peninsula, Ito Hirobumi and prominent Qing diplomat negotiated and agreed upon the Convention of Tientsin, where both the Qing and Japan agreed to withdraw their forces from the Korean Peninsula, putting an end to Chinese dominance of Joseon Korea.49

In the early 1890s, a series of rebellions by peasants in southwestern Korea began to threaten the power of the royal court in Seoul. Provoked by a corrupt local government, anti-Japanese and anti-Western peasants and followers of the Donghak movement–sometimes considered both a religious and political movement–began a revolt against government armies. Though in the spring of 1894, a relative peace was achieved, the concerned King Gojong and the Korean royal court requested that Qing China send military assistance to the Korean Peninsula to aid in suppressing the rebellions. Attempting to protect their interests in Korea, the Qing agreed, sending thousands of Chinese troops to Korea under . An incensed Japan, claiming China had essentially violated the Convention of Tientsin, also sent thousands of their own forces into Korea.50 Both nations refused to withdraw their forces, and all-out war broke out, as in June and July, 1894, Japanese forces began to capture Seoul and the palace of Gyeongbokgung, the symbol of sovereignty over Korea and the seat of power of the Joseon Dynasty.

48 https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Sino-Japanese-War-1894-1895 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid. 12 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder Bloc Positions

Japanese Bloc The new Meiji-Era national slogan fukoku kyōhei dominates the political sphere; however, civilian and military elements within the government disagree whether to focus on “Enriching the Country” or “Strengthening the Military.” To represent the complex nature of Japan’s constitutional monarchy at the time, the Japanese bloc will embody the nation’s cabinet during peacetime and Emperor Meiji’s Privy Council during times of war.

Inoue Kaoru - Home Minister:

A close childhood friend of Ito Hirobumi, Inoue Kaoru is a Japanese civilian statesman wishing to see Japanese society industrialize, progress, and follow in the footsteps of the West. As Home Minister and a man connected closely to the zaibatsu Mitsui, Kaoru can dictate the actions of Japan’s police, public works, and religion, as well as communicate with one of Japan’s largest corporate monopolies.

Itagaki Taisuke - Leader of the Jiyuto

A civilian politician responsible for Japan’s early democratic reform, Itagaki Taisuke wants to see Japan move towards classical liberalism through expanding its suffrage, promoting constitutionalism, and adopting parliamentarianism. The largest opponent of Japanese militarism among the noble politicians, Itagaki believes state funds should instead be dedicated to infrastructure projects and lowering taxes. Currently the leader of the largest political party in the National Diet, his approval is needed for the establishment of long- lasting legislature.

Ito Hirobumi - Prime Minister of Japan:

The chief statesman of the Meiji Restoration, Ito Hirobumi is responsible for shaping and creating the modern state of Japan. Wanting to reach out to Western nations as equals, Hirobumi supports a strong Japanese government able to carry out the momentous task of industrialization. His role as Prime Minister of Japan allows him to have two votes during times of peace.

Ito Sukeyuki - Chief of the General Staff

13 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder An admiral of the Imperial Japanese Navy with little interest in government politics, Ito Sukeyuki is a proponent of Japanese supremacy over its neighbouring seas. Working closely with the Minister of the Navy, the Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy General Staff will be firmly in charge of managing Japanese naval manoeuvers and operations.

Katsura Taro - Minister of War

Alongside his mentor Yamagata Aritomo, Katsura Taro is one of the few Japanese generals who have successfully transitioned their military career into a political one. As such, he is a strong supporter of Japanese militarism and territorial expansion. His position as Minister of War enables him to enact military policy, recruit new divisions in the Army, and mobilize the country in times of war.

Matsukata Masayoshi - Minister of Finance

The politician responsible for crafting Japan’s taxation system, Matuskata Masayoshi wants to see Japanese industrialization continue and wishes to see Japanese industry protected from foreign influence. As Minister of Finance, Matsukata is tasked with managing economic reform, industrialization of the economy, and commerce with other nations.

Okuma Shigenobu - Minister of Foreign Affairs

A politician and head of the Rikken Kaishinto, the second largest political party in Japan, Okuma Shigenobu was brought onto this Ito administration for the purpose of renegotiating Japan’s unequal treaties brought upon them by the Western powers. As Minister of Foreign Affairs and leader of the Kaishinto, he is responsible for shaping Japan’s foreign policy towards the outside world.

Oyama Iwao - Chief of the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff

A general responsible for helping establish the early Imperial Japanese Army, Oyama Iwao is a strong believer in Japanese militarism, authoritarianism, and protecting Japan’s oligarchy from democratic forces. As Chief of the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff, he is responsible for organizing the operations and actions of the Imperial Japanese Army.

Saigo Judo - Minister of the Navy

14 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder An admiral of the Imperial Japanese Navy, Saigo Judo recognizes the need for Japanese naval expansion and technological advancements. As Minister of the Navy, Saigo is responsible for the creation of new ships, the adoption of new naval technologies, and the mobilization of the navy in times of war.

Yamagata Aritomo - President of the Japanese Privy Council

The father of Japanese militarism, Yamagata Aritomo is the general and political leader responsible for the creation and modernization of the Imperial Japanese Army. Sent as an envoy to Europe in 1869, he sees adopting Prussian militarism, nationalism, and authoritarianism as Japan’s path to Great Power status. As President of the Japanese Privy Council, the body responsible for advising the Emperor in times of crisis, he is able to cast two votes during times of war.

Russian Bloc In light of the weakening Qing Dynasty, a committee tasked with furthering Russian interests within the region has been called upon by the dying Tsar. This committee, ranging from government ministers in Moscow to military officers in Vladivostok, must maintain Russian supremacy of Manchuria, supervise the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway, and encourage the prosperity of Russia and Siberia. To accurately simulate the autonomy of the Siberian military leaders and the distance between St. Petersburg and Vladivostok, military forces directly under the command of Paul Simon Unterberger and Yevgeni Ivanovich Alekseyev cannot be controlled by committee-wide directives and must be controlled individually.

Aleksandr Mikhailovich Bezobrazov - Russian Businessman

With business connections to the royal family, Aleksandr Bezobrazov is the architect of a plan to secure Russian supremacy in the Far East. The plot involves the establishment of a private company given economic authority in Korea and Manchuria paired with the adoption of an aggressive foreign policy towards Japan. To properly succeed, he will need to convince the Russian government for funds, political leverage, and military support.

Aleksey Lobanov-Rostovsky - Minister of Foreign Affairs

15 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder As the Balkan Peninsula settles down, Aleksey Lobanov-Rostovsky looks towards pursuing a policy of Russian hegemony in the Far East. He is also a strong advocate of Franco-Russian relations. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, he is responsible for deciding Russian foreign policy, communicating with the various governments of the world, and drafting formal treaties.

Alexei Alexandrovich - General-Admiral of the Russian Imperial Fleet

The younger brother of Tsar Alexander III, Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich wants to modernize and strengthen the Imperial Russian Navy as the importance of naval supremacy proves itself in the latter half of the 19th century. As General-Admiral of the Russian Imperial Fleet, Alexei is at the forefront of the construction of new battleships, naval harbours, the advancement of Russian naval technology, and coordinating the Russian naval effort.

Ivan Durnovo - Chairman of the Committee of Ministers

Although viewed as somewhat incompetent amongst his peers, Ivan Durnovo represents the conservative order that has been ruling Russia for last couple of centuries. As Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, he is able to cast two votes instead of one during the approval of state-wide operations.

Ivan Goremykin - Minister of the Interior

A staunchly conservative Russian statesman, Ivan Goremykin wants to ensure Russian values of Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality are rightfully upheld. As Minister of the Interior, Ivan is responsible for directing not only the police, but the state-sponsored secret police, the Okhrana. The chief responsibility of the Okhrana is to combat the spread and influence of the many left-wing revolutionary organizations that exist within the sprawling Russian Empire.

Paul Simon Unterberger - Military Governor of the Primorskaya Oblast

As the Russian frontier has expanded ever eastwards, Paul Simon Unterberger and his military career has followed it closely. So far through his career in Eastern Siberia, he has grown the vital port city of Vladivostok into the region’s capital. As Military Governor of the Primorskaya Oblast, he is in charge of leading the military garrison and overseeing the construction of infrastructure, fortresses, and ports in the region.

Pyotr Vannovsky - Minister of War

16 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder

The senior minister responsible for shaping the modern Russian army, Pyotr Vannovsky still has a lot of work to do in terms of training military tactics, streamlining mobilization, and updating military equipment. As Minister of War, he is responsible for the operation, mobilization, and modernization of the Imperial Russian Army.

Sergei Witte - Minister of Finance

The most prominent of the government ministers, Sergei Witte views the industrialization of Russian infrastructure as vital to bringing Russia firmly into the modernized 20th century. As Minister of Finance, he presides over Russia’s industrialization, the management of its railroads, and commissioning the construction of new infrastructure.

Yevgeni Ivanovich Alekseyev - Admiral of the Russian Pacific Fleet

Perhaps the most senior-ranking official in the Russian Far East, Yevgeni Ivanovich Alekseyev is an admiral fervent in expanding Russian influence in Manchuria and Korea. As Admiral of the Russian Pacific Fleet, headquartered in Vladivostok, he is responsible for managing the naval maneuvers, operations, and engagements of his fleet.

Zinovy Rozhestvensky - Admiral of the Baltic Fleet

A veteran of the Russo-Turkish War, Zinovy Rozhestvensky is an aggressive proponent of projecting Russian naval supremacy across the empire. As the admiral of the Baltic Fleet, he is in charge of commanding the fleet through thick and thin.

17 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder Works Cited

Bolsover, George H. “Nicholas I and the Partition of Turkey.” The Slavonic and East European

Review, vol. 27, no. 68, 1948, pp. 115–145. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4204004.

Dolliver, Jonathan P. “Significance of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.” The North American

Review, vol. 174, no. 546, 1902, pp. 594–605. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25119238.

Giblin, James F. “National Strategies and Japan's Northern Territories.” Naval War College

Review, vol. 40, no. 1, 1987, pp. 53–68. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44636655.

Heilbronner, Hans. “Alexander III and the Reform Plan of Loris-Melikov.” The Journal of

Modern History, vol. 33, no. 4, 1961, pp. 384–397. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/1877215.

History.com Editors. “Taiping Rebellion.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 22 Feb.

2018, https://www.history.com/topics/china/taiping-rebellion.

Kitaoka, Shin'ichi. “The Army as a Bureaucracy: Japanese Militarism Revisited.” The Journal

of Military History, vol. 57, no. 5, 1993, pp. 67–86. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/2951803.

Kokaze, Hidemasa. “The Political Space of Meiji 22 (1889): The Promulgation of the

Constitution and the Birth of the Nation.” Japan Review, no. 23, 2011, pp. 119–141.

JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41304926.

Lee, Andy S. “A Century of Humiliation: Understanding the Chinese Mindset.” McGill

International Review, 18 Feb. 2018, https://www.mironline.ca/century-humiliation-

understanding-chinese-mindset/.

18 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder McKay, John P. “Foreign Entrepreneurship in Russian Industrialization, 1880-1914.” The

Journal of Economic History, vol. 26, no. 4, 1966, pp. 582–585. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/2115912.

Nicolson, Harold G. The Congress of Vienna: A Study in Allied Unity 1812-1822. Cassell, 1989.

Perdue, Peter C. “Boundaries and Trade in the Early Modern World: Negotiations at

Nerchinsk and Beijing.” Eighteenth-Century Studies, vol. 43, no. 3, 2010, pp. 341–356.

JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25642205.

Ravina, Mark. To Stand with the Nations of the World: Japan’s Meiji Restoration in World

History. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Rimlinger, Gaston V. “THE MANAGEMENT OF LABOR PROTEST IN TSARIST RUSSIA:

1870-1905.” International Review of Social History, vol. 5, no. 2, 1960, pp. 226–248.

JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44581433.

Tang, John P. “Technological Leadership and Late Development: Evidence from Meiji Japan,

1868–1912.” The Economic History Review, vol. 64, no. S1, 2011, pp. 99–116. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/27919535.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “First Sino-Japanese War.” Encyclopædia Britannica,

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 25 July 2019, https://www.britannica.com/event/First-

Sino-Japanese-War-1894-1895.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality.”

Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 26 Jan. 2016,

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Orthodoxy-Autocracy-and-Nationality.

“The Territorial Acquisitions of Russia During the Reign of Alexander II.” Journal of the 19 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder Statistical Society of London, vol. 44, no. 3, 1881, pp. 584–588. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/2339062.

Vié, Michel. “Manchuria and the ‘Far Eastern Question’, 1880‑1910.” Cipango - French

Journal of Japanese Studies. English Selection, INALCO, 1 Jan. 2015,

https://journals.openedition.org/cjs/952.

Vinacke, Harold M. “Japanese Imperialism.” The Journal of Modern History, vol. 5, no. 3, 1933,

pp. 366–380. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1875849.

Von Laue, Theodore H. “The High Cost and the Gamble of the Witte System: A Chapter in

the Industrialization of Russia.” The Journal of Economic History, vol. 13, no. 4, 1953,

pp. 425–448. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2114774.

Wortman, Richard. “Rule by Sentiment: Alexander II's Journeys through the Russian

Empire.” The American Historical Review, vol. 95, no. 3, 1990, pp. 745–771. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/2164280.

20 CAHSMUN JCC Backgrounder