Third IPR Conference and Preparation by China and Japan
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10
Third IPR Conference and Preparation by China and Japan
The third IPR conference and Preparation by China and Japan
After the third IPR conference was decided to be held in Kyoto in October 1929, on May 11, 1928, in the Central Office, J. Merle Davis, the secretary, stayed in Kyoto for about three weeks to hold board conferences and to get the conference ready. The very first agenda for the Kyoto conference was the board conference taking place at Trade center of Kyobashi on February 8, 1929. Followed by Central Council and other committee conferences which were held in Nara Hotel from October 23rd to 26. The preliminary conference was attended by UK’s Webster, and Curtis, Eggleston from Austrailia, Shotwell, and Kilpatrick from the United States, 위르장 from China, and Nitobe and Sakatai from Japan along with 60 others gathered to decide the chairman and the officers for the Third IPR conference. The newly picked elected officials were as following.
On May 11th, 1928 the secretary of the Central office J. Merle Davis went to Kyoto and stayed for about three weeks to assemble board meetings in order to prepare for the third IPR conference, which was to be held on October of 1929 in Kyoto. The first board meeting took place on February 8th, 1929 at the trade center of Kyobashi. Next meeting for the central council and other committees were on October 23rd to 26th at Nara Hotel. In attendance for these preliminary conferences were UK’s Webster, and Curtis, Eggleston from Austrailia, Shotwell and Kilpatrick from the United States, wirujang from China, and Nitobe and Sakatai from Japan. Along with them were about 60 other people, who gathered to decide the chariman and officers for the third IPR conference. The newly picked elected officials were as following.
The central board has carefully considered various issues, such as the principle of newspaper media reporting and programs. The Round Table Conference in principal was to be off the record. However, each attendees were free to talk with media to the extent that it does not conflict with the principles of the conference, which would bring gratefulness from the reporters. All the reporting and quotes will bear each individual’s personal name and as the source, so if were reluctant on an isuue, you are not allowed to make any announcements. There would be one person pointed being responsible for the recording all the contents of the round table, which later will used for newspaper and media reporting.
The members of central board discussed various topics, one of them being how to address newspaper reporters and programs. The principal of the round table was to be off the record. The members were allowed to talk to media as long as statements were on track with general principal of the conference. This policy was favorable to reporters, who can then direct quote each individual as the source for their writing piece. However, if any member came across on the issues they were not sure about, they were told not to make any announcements at all to the media. One person would be appointed to keep record of all the contents of discussion at the round table meetings and it will be distributed to the media.
One big chunk out of the note from the IPR conference is how to deal with the issues surrounding Manchuria. At the second IPR conference in Honolulu, the Central Secretariat had to dismiss all of its plans again because of the opposition by the British and Canadian and quickly rebuilt the program just two days before the conference. The third conference was planed out with thought that there was an important relation in deciding the success or failure of this conference, considering the experience of that time so that the fundamental change does not take place. It was thought to be very important how the main topic, the issues in Manchuria is handled could make or break the whole conference.
One of the biggest topic for the IPR conference is how to deal with the issues surrounding Manchuria. During the second IPR conference, which was held in Honolulu, the central secretariat had to dismiss all of it’s original program and re program, because of strong opposition by the British and the Canadian just two days prior for the conference. The third conference was planned out with carefulness to not deviate away from the fundamental topics so such disaster from the second conference doesn’t happen again. The main topic of the third conference was issues surrounding Manchuria and careful execution and handling of this topic would be the main factor in for a successful conference or not.
The IPR program committee handled the conference schedule with subtle consideration of relationships between the countries. Specially, the dispute between China and Japan on the Manchuria problem was so serious beyond one’s imagination it brings nervousness and fearfulness to the outsiders who were observing at the previous conference. The IPR program committee, which is well aware of possibility of repeated event, has ordered experts to study and prepare the relevant data in order for effective discussion during the topic of Manchuria. The committee worked hard to effectively arrange the conference schedule to minimize the aggressive debate between Japan and China during the topic of Manchuria.
The committee approached the scheduling of the conference with relationships of each nation in mind. During the previous conference, no one would have thought that Japan and China’s dispute on the issue of Manchuria would get so aggressive that observers felt nervous and also fearful. The committee ordered for experts to study data and come up with effective discussion of Manchuria without repeat of previous conference incident. The committee worked diligently on the scheduling, so that aggressive debate between Japan and China will be minimized when discussing about Manchuria.
If there were no changes in keeping the main topic as issues of Manchuria, Committee had to come up with peaceful strategy to make it a bountiful debate. Deciding to talk about Manchuria on the second week after another topic in the first week was seen as one of the strategy the committee had come up with.
Since taking out the Manchuria as the main topic was not viable solution, committee had to come up with strategy to keep discussion peaceful, yet productive. Scheduling to discuss Manchuria on the second week of the conference was the one of the solutions that committee came up with.
As can be seen in the schedule of the central board and in the media reports, the Manchuria issue is the main topic of the third IPR conference, which was very hot topic of interest to many countries around the world. Japan and China made sure all the preparation was to be very through and complete.
As can be seen in the concerns for the committee and the media reports, issues in Manchuria was hot topic for everyone and many nations around the world. Japan and China were making sure that they were well prepare for the discussion.
Most nations thought of Manchuria issue as emerging global conflict, which bared right to be addressed at the international conferences like IPR. Japan had it’s own point of view, which was that the Manchuria issue has already been solved, and even if there was a problem, it wasn’t anything that couldn’t be solved by Japan alone. Japan opposed discussing the Manchuria issue at the IPR conference. Japan didn’t see any business in Europe and Unite States getting involved, since Japan can sustain and solve the problem, with or without pressuring China
Most of the nations would agree that issues surrounding Manchuria was emerging conflict at global level, which earned its right as topic for international conference, such as IPR. Japan had different take on it though. They thought that the issue has already been solved or even if it isn’t it’s not the problem they can control. Japan opposed the idea of discussing Manchuria issue at the IPR conference, because they didn’t see any business in United States or European countries getting involved. Japan thought they can sustain and solve the problem on their own even if it was required putting the pressure on China or not.
Japan thought that discussion of the Manchuria issue internationally, such as at IPR conferences might bring other nations to criticize Japan’s actions and subject to sending them to seat of defendant corner in the court of international public trial. Japan believed Manchuria was picked as the main topic was because aggressive marketing and lobbying by China and also, ignorant of the Manchurian situation by other nations, especially the United States.
Japan was afraid that bringing up issues in Manchuria at the IPR conference might portrait them as bad guys and be criticized by other nation, which could lead them to the seat in the corner of defendant in international court of public. Japan believed that the Chinese lobby to put Manchuria on the topic for IPR and countries that are ignorant about the issue accepted it, especially the United States.
However, it was already decided that the issue of Manchuria was to be discussed in IPR as the main international issue and had made Japanese nervous and irritating. Japanese paid considerable attention when discussing about the Manchuria issue. There might have been diverse opinions about the manchuria issue amongst Japanese themselves, but total preparation about every detail was one common agenda. Issues of Manchuria was not only the main topic of the Kyoto conference’s agenda, but also most interestingly developing topic in Japan and China.
It was already too late to change the main topic for the IPR conference, which made the Japanese very nervous and irritated. Not everyone from Japan had same take on the main topic, but they all paid considerable attention while discussing on Manchuria issue. Everyone knew it is not just topic of discussion at some conference, but interestingly developing topic for people in China and Japan.
In Japan, the value of the IPR conference was well known so that added attendee to 139 IPR members grown from original 87members, and up again to 156 attendees were assigned to right before the third conference started. For the discussion of main topic of the conference, Naito, Kuno Shunji, and Royama was assigned to collect necessary data.
Special committee, led by Yama Masamich held 5 conferences, In February 8, February 26, March 5, March 12, and March 15 to research Manchuria issue. Special members such as Shinobu Junpei, Matsubara Kazuo, Nagano Akira, Mizuno Ueda, Ueda Yasuke, and Komura Shunzaburo gathered Surveyed data and reference materials. Roya Yamada asked Kondo Shunji to wrote a report on the general progress of the committee. He left Tokyo on March 23 for field trip to study the Manchuria issue by boarding on 바이칼호at the Kobe. After researching Manchuria and the surrounding areas he returned on May 6th.
Natoba as the chairperson, Nasu as the secretary, and the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Government Administration and Culture, were assigned two or three persons more each per division to investigate and research. . Each research division held monthly conferences to exchange opinions. After the spring of 1929, they held weekly conferences to prepare for the conference. The special committee conference was held in conjunction with the clerical work. The researching team didn’t discuss the Manchuria issue directly at the conference, but they later published research paper 만주문제 조사 요강 in English instead.
In the study case of the Manchu problem led by Yoshinaga Masamichi in Manchukuo, on June 13, 1928, it discussed the very fundamental policy of the Manchuria issue, and stated policy for the research department, which was handed to the board of directors. The Special Committee for Manchu Problems, headed by Toyama, was established in 1929 by a group of experts from various fields, such as Shinagawa, Matsubara, Nagano, Komura, Ueda ) And others. During June and July, they discussed about the policy of government authorities two to three times. The first lecture of the special committee explained the research policy on Feb. 8 by Royama. The second lecture was on February 26, by Junpei Shinobu about ther rights of Japan in Manchuria, and also International legal significance of special by Matsubara Kazuo. The third lecture on March 5th by Nakano akira was about north Manchuria railway and business residence. The fourth lecture was on March 13th by Ueda’s ‘economic interests in Manchuria’, Mizuno’s ‘foreign policy of Japan-China relations and Nanjing government. The fifth lecture was on March 19, by Komura Shunsaburo, who presented and commented on the signing of the Treaty of Non-Aggression under the Manchu Agreement.
The IPR conference special committee held a research conference with Takayanagi in the driver seat. Experts were brought on as members and held research conferences focusing on the lectures of authorities and other stakeholders. In June-July, they held several conferences under the title ‘Diplomatic Relations in the Pacific’ and held discussions on arbitration and coordination issues in the Pacific like the Chinese Inequality Treaty, the Boycott Problem, and the Navy’s disarmament issue.
China also took issues of Manchuria seriously. There were Several people from Manchuria as attendee of the IPR conference. The local newspapers reported several times about how the gathering and arrangement of the materials for preliminary conferences for the topic of Manchuria was not just about total commitment by the delegates, but how the atmosphere of the intensity of preliminary conferences was like a blazing flames.
Manchurian experts in China organized a research conference in Jilin and Fengtian. In particular, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan had a detailed understanding of the activities of the Jilin Study Group. Jilin Taepyeong (Jilin Pacific Intercultural Forum) gathered, organized the materials and held preliminary conferences in Manchuria. Considering that the discussions will be very intensified, Japan put efforts for other topics to be not distracted.
There was various topics to be discussed at the roundtable discussions during the third IPR conference held in Kyoto from October 28 to November 9, 1929. The relationship between civilization and traditional civilization, Chinese diplomatic issues, Manchurian issues, Pacific diplomatic issues (impoverished treaties and obligations of each country, significance of international wars, relations between the four countries’ treaties, and the impoverishment treaties. The small round table agenda is a matter of traffic problems, population and food problems (population policy and land use in each country; population movement and international impact; population and international solutions), foreign investment, and industrialization. The above agendas are related to China in a large part, but the Chinese diplomacy and Manchuria issues were definately the most controversial topic of all
The overall program of the third IPR conference is shown in Table 6 below
As can be seen in the above table, the Manchuria problem stand out as the main agenda of the round table from November 4 to 6, 1929. China and Japan held several unofficial conferences to discuss. Japan had try to take home court advantage, since the conference was held in their backyard. They prepared reception, which informed the foreigners about their culture and also hoped to earn favoritism to themselves during the debates in the informal conference process.
Manchuria was one of the hottest issues in East Asia, where the interests of China, Russia and Japan were colliding against each other. There was a serious debate between China and Japan, Since there was no formal delegation attending from the Soviet Union. There were limitation to listening to the Soviet (Russia) position through Soviet-American observers. So the main hostile debate was going on only between China and Japan. What were the key points of the Manchuria issue, that came up during the official and unofficial meetings during the conferencre and what can be the solution?