How did Japanese policy evolve under the principles of ‘Sakoku’ and ‘Kaikoku’? ‘Sakoku’ means to isolate the country. ‘Kaikoku’ stands for opening the country.
Introduction
At the time of early modern Japan, and more specifically in the 18th century, the Asian island chose an unusual diplomatic course in foreign policy. During Yokugawa’s rule, not everyone was welcomed equally in the land of the rising sun; With the exception of residents of a few countries, foreigners were not welcome. Which countries were admitted and for what reasons is a question that arises. This concept was and is often referred to by the term Sakoku, which literally means closing the country. The term has often been given a different meaning and must therefore be placed in the correct context. It is necessary to briefly outline the evolution of the concept and the alternations of Japanese values that often accompanied it.
Based on the insights of Joken and Kaempfer, more can be said about the advantages and disadvantages of the system. They investigated the causes of the Sakoku system. In addition, the attitude of the Japanese people towards this concept, the evolution that took place and the eventual transition to Kaikoku (literally: opening up the country) are also discussed in more detail.
Japanese foreign policy: from ‘Sakoku’ to Kaikoku’
What does ‘Sakoku’ mean?
The nature of foreign-diplomatic relations in early modern Japan was often defined in terms of Sakoku or ‘national seclusion’. ‘Sakoku’ (literally: closing the country) comes from Sakokuron, a term first used by Engelbert Kaempfer, a German scholar employed as a foreigner with the Dutch East India Companies in Deshima, in his History of Japan. Shizuki translated this work, thus adopting the term and ensuring its dissemination through his manuscript. Tashiro points out that the word was specifically tied to the Tokugawa shogunate. This term must be qualified: it did not stand for complete isolation but rather for strict control and organization of foreign interactions. Yasunori suggested in this context the use of ‘maritime interdiction’ and civilized order’, which may be a more accurate representation of reality.
Although Japan still maintained trade ties, these could hardly be considered full-fledged trade ties by European standards. Dutch and Chinese ships were given access to the port of Nagasaki for trade and in this way also provided some cultural baggage. Christianity was avoided there. Korea and Ryukyus also maintained ties with Japan. This situation must be considered in a larger context. Until the 19th century, there was a unique international community in Asia with China as its absolute center: the world of China and the barbarians. The Chinese therefore regarded Japanese as inferior and ill-mannered. Initially, Japan participated in this regulated system, although national awareness and thus criticism also grew.
From the mid-16th century, Japan’s North Asian system of control gave way to chaos. While Japan was embroiled in local wars, Europe also came into its own for the first time: a first confrontation with Europeans came in 1543 when Portuguese sailors were unintentionally stranded on Japanese shores. At the end of the 16th century, Hideyoshi ordered the invasion of Korea. The international order was completely disrupted. His successor himself managed to conquer both China and Korea.
The evolution of the ‘Sakoku’ system in the 18th and 19th centuries in Japan
As early as the late 17th and 18th centuries, Japan’s world order was being examined by members of the ruling class. Further research into the concept was necessary due to its subjective nature. During this period, the Hayashi family described the order as ‘maritime interdiction’ in the True Chronicle of Tokugawa. This also corresponded to an answer given to the Russian envoy Rezanov in 1805.
From 1830 the term was also used by non-intellectuals and by the Bakufu officials. So the term had reached the authorities. In this phase it was still possible to adopt an alternative attitude towards the system.
Watanabe Kazan, a painter and statesman, feared that the ship ban order could provide an economic advantage to Western nations. Together with Shizuki, he was one of the few who saw advantages in a system of cultural and commercial interaction with several countries at the beginning of the 19th century and one of the few proponents of the Kaikoku system (a system in which the country’s borders were open). are)…
Between the 1830s and 1850s, Japan, under the impetus of the civil service, clung to the system of relative isolation. An illustration of this was the Dutch king’s recommendation in 1845 to open Japan to trade; however, this proposal was negatively received. American Admiral Matthew Old Matt Perry caused a change. Through the powerful Western naval forces, he put pressure on the Japanese order, which quickly had to give way. The bakufu were, as it were, obliged to open the borders, and once this had happened, they had to deal with a succession of new developments…
Between 1853 and 1868 there was a definitive change in the established Japanese ideal of Sakoku. By 1868, Japanese policy had undergone structural changes. T he transition to a more open policy came about for certain reasons. The main one was that public opinion increasingly shaped and influenced policy. More and more people were open to opening up the borders, which brought about an ethical change. This social mobilization caused people to doubt the positive connotation of the term ‘Sakoku’. The Perry issue had caused the term to reach a wider audience and give it a negative connotation. The concept of Sakoku no longer received general attention in Japan in the meaning that Japanese officials wanted to give it because the average resident was of the opinion that it did not correspond with the prevailing order, which Perry changed. The passivity of thoughts had to make way for political commitment. This process took place in the ideas of individuals, and was a shared opinion…
Van ‘Saikoku’ naar ‘Kaikoku’
After the Perry incident, it was clear that Japan’s seclusion was in jeopardy. Although it still had a period of relative support between 1853 and 1858, people had been made aware of its vulnerability; there was a threat of imminent decline, both economically and materially. Initially, the people with fiscal responsibility only wanted to know about Japanese ships going overseas, but not the other way around. In this way, the character of Japanese policy was maintained for a while, until Townsend Harris put pressure on Japan – Russia, Great Britain and France were at war with Asia – to realize a new trade agreement. This treaty was supposed to protect Japan from colonial powers, but it ultimately turned out to be to the US’s advantage.
Harris’s proposal was largely opposed, except from Bak Ufu diplomat Iwase Tadanari, whom Beasley describes as one of the most progressive officials of that period in Japan, who adopted a more moderate attitude. Under this great pressure from outside, more and more civil servants adopted a more nuanced attitude. An example of this was Hotta’s position, which, although still more in favor of exports than imports, also paved the way for other prominent figures to change their position.
In 1864, it became clear that Sakoku could no longer produce any profits and people became more aware of the benefits of extensive foreign relations. Ikeda Nagaaki made this statement; he wanted a national unity with special attention to the development of land and naval forces, and a better organization of foreign relations. Ikeda’s ideas gradually became more appreciated; In 1867, Japanese embassies were established in Paris and London…
The Kaikoku quickly experienced growing success. For example, the diplomatic and political failure of the early 1860s had made people realize that the order might be replaceable by an alternative policy. In addition, people became more interested in a centralized bureaucratic state. This was previously unthinkable in Tokugawa Japan, but it took shape partly due to the early sixties. People also became increasingly aware of the European political-social organization, in which imperialism was rampant… The administration was centralized and structured and this example was followed by Japan.
Ironically , the rivalry between Japan and America was only sparked after the opening of Japan’s borders. The United States was the military enemy par excellence. When Japan reopened its borders after World War II (until 1970), the US became a major economic enemy. Currently, Japan is engaged in a third kind of Kaikoku, again encouraged by the US.
Joken and Engelbert Kaempfer on Japanese policy
Joken and Kaempfer both agree that the reason why Japanese were not allowed to travel overseas had to do with the mixing, interaction and inconveniences this could cause. Christianity was the prime example here. For example, Joken considered the exile of Portuguese ships as a just measure. Kaempfer, who was critical of the Spanish and Portuguese, also agreed with this. Joken did not agree with Kaempfer that Japan was completely shielded. According to Joken, Nagasaki was a world-famous city that could provide a perfect hub for the circulation of goods and bring about a time of prosperity. Nagasaki was the window to the world. Joken rather saw success in a system in which contacts with foreign countries were regulated by the state. Banning overseas travel was a necessary measure to achieve this.
Unscheduled travel in Japan was unthinkable during that period. Joken stated that at the time this was associated with disorder and piracy. Japanese pirates were hated and their habits were not at all appreciated by the authorities.
Joken concludes that Japan’s lockdown was aimed more at maintaining order and peace than at hindering interaction with other nations.
Conclusion
The term Sakoku was spread throughout Japanese territory during the 18th century, where it stood for control and organization of foreign interactions and maintained trade ties with Ryukyus, Korea, Holland and China – and not for a complete isolation of the country from the rest of the world.
The concept of isolation was already being considered by the ruling class in the 17th and 18th centuries. At the beginning of the 19th century, there were already some who doubted the value of the system. Furthermore, in that century there was also increasing opposition from abroad, which culminated in the person of Matthew Perry, who used Western power to open up the borders. This rubbed off on the Japanese population and was the reason to revise Japanese ideals and adjust the structure of the policy.
Initially, the transition to an open policy did not go too smoothly, until Townsend Harris put pressure on Japan, causing Japanese officials to reconsider their position. Once we were introduced to the advantages of Kaikoku, the system became increasingly successful. In 1860, more attention was paid to a centralized and structured policy.
Finally, Joken and Kaempfer both agree that interaction with other countries was avoided to avoid mixing and inconveniences. Joken saw Nagasaki as the window on the world and therefore saw weaknesses in a system in which the state had a far-reaching impact.