“ORIGINS OF THE MODERN CHINESE STATE”: PHILIP KUHN BOOK

March 12, 2012 at 12:00 am | Posted in Asia, Books, China, Development, History | Leave a comment

spin-globe.gif

books-globe.gif

globe-purple.gif

history.gif

world.gif

compass.gif

loudspeaker.gif

globeinmoney.jpg

chinesestate.jpg

Origins of the Modern Chinese State 

Philip A. Kuhn (Author)

What is “Chinese” about China’s modern state? This book proposes that the state we see today has developed over the past two centuries largely as a response to internal challenges emerging from the late empire. Well before the Opium War, Chinese confronted such constitutional questions as: How does the scope of political participation affect state power? How is the state to secure a share of society’s wealth? In response to the changing demands of the age, this agenda has been expressed in changing language. Yet, because the underlying pattern remains recognizable, the modernization of the state in response to foreign aggression can be studied in longer perspective.

The author offers three concrete studies to illustrate the constitutional agenda in action: how the early nineteenth-century scholar-activist Wei Yuan confronted the relation between broadened political participation and authoritarian state power; how the reformist proposals of the influential scholar Feng Guifen were received by mainstream bureaucrats during the 1898 reform movement; and how fiscal problems of the late empire formed a backdrop to agricultural collectivization in the 1950s. In each case, the author presents the “modern” constitutional solution as only the most recent answer to old Chinese questions. The book concludes by describing the transformation of the constitutional agenda over the course of the modern period.

Review

“This is a work of the first importance, one that successfully attempts to reach both a specialist and a broader audience. . . . It not only offers new and provocative historiographic arguments, but also recasts the familiar outline of post-1800 Chinese history in consistently novel and refreshing terms. . . . Both audiences will be intrigued by its implications for contemporary Chinese politics.”—William T. Rowe, Johns Hopkins University

“Fluently argued and genuinely important, this work has value for specialists and generalists alike.”—David E. Kelley, Oberlin College

“Admirers of Kuhn’s own writings will find in this book a consummate summing up of decades of research in late imperial and twentieth-century Chinese history. The chapters move constantly back and forth, across the twentieth-century divide and over to European and American intellectual history, seamlessly meshing archival gems with insights from wenji, gazetteers, and other published sources.”—China Review International

“This is a small book but one packed with much erudition and insight. The Harvard historian, Philip Kuhn, is a master of his craft, filling page after page with the wisdom of his vast experience and expertise.”—Journal of Asian History

What is “Chinese” about China’s modern state? This book proposes that the state we see today has developed over the past two centuries largely as a response to internal challenges emerging from the late empire. Well before the Opium War, Chinese confronted such constitutional questions as: How does the scope of political participation affect state power? How is the state to secure a share of society’s wealth? In response to the changing demands of the age, this agenda has been expressed in changing language. Yet, because the underlying pattern remains recognizable, the modernization of the state in response to foreign aggression can be studied in longer perspective.

The author offers three concrete studies to illustrate the constitutional agenda in action: how the early nineteenth-century scholar-activist Wei Yuan confronted the relation between broadened political participation and authoritarian state power; how the reformist proposals of the influential scholar Feng Guifen were received by mainstream bureaucrats during the 1898 reform movement; and how fiscal problems of the late empire formed a backdrop to agricultural collectivization in the 1950s. In each case, the author presents the “modern” constitutional solution as only the most recent answer to old Chinese questions. The book concludes by describing the transformation of the constitutional agenda over the course of the modern period.

Product Details:

  • Hardcover: 176 pages
  • Publisher: Stanford University Press
  • English  edition
  • November 2001
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0804742839
  • ISBN-13: 978-0804742832

banknotes.jpg

FUTURE GLOBALIZATION

September 29, 2011 at 1:29 pm | Posted in China, Development, Ecology, Economics, Financial, Globalization, History, Research, Third World, World-system | Leave a comment

spin-globe.gif

books-globe.gif

globe-purple.gif

history.gif

world.gif

compass.gif

loudspeaker.gif

globeinmoney.jpg

GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS MUST BE TACKLED THROUGH COOPERATION,

PORTUGAL TELLS UN

UNNews UNNews@un.org

Mon, 26 Sep 2011

New York, Sep 26 2011

GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS MUST BE TACKLED THROUGH COOPERATION,PORTUGAL TELLS UN

Portugal has called at the United Nations for concerted efforts to tackle global financial instability and create conditions for economic growth and jobs, stressing the need to correct inequalities and strengthen international monetary security.

“The economic and financial crisis, which started in the last decade, underscores that interdependence is a reality at the global level,” “http://gadebate.un.org/66/portugal said Portugal’s Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho when he addressed the annual general debate of the General Assembly on Saturday.

“Overcoming this crisis in a sustainable and structured way is a challenge that we must meet collectively.”

He urged governments, international organizations, the private sector and civil society to cooperate to restore public and corporate confidence in the financial and economic systems.

Portugal had, during the drafting of the Secretary-General’s Report on Global Economic Government, suggested greater coordination between the United Nations, the Group of 20 (G20) economies and relevant regional blocs, he noted.

“We did so because we consider that it is indispensable to promote the involvement of emerging economies, the private sector and civil society, enhancing their respective role in global economic governance.”

Mr. Coelho also had a “http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=2008 tête-à-tête with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the sidelines of the General Assembly debate on Saturday, during which they exchanged views on the situation in the Middle East and North Africa. Mr. Ban expressed his appreciation of Portugal’s continued efforts towards Guinea-Bissau’s stabilization process, and Lisbon’s contribution to UN peacekeeping in Timor-Leste.

Spain, for its part, pointed out that the financial crisis should not be an excuse for States to shirk their international financial obligations, including commitments in official development aid (ODA).

“Spain believed in supporting the development of innovative financing instruments,” the country’s Foreign Minister, Trinidad Jiménez, “http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/66/ES_en.pdf told the General Assembly.

“That is to say, the development of those mechanisms through which we should be able to mobilize mid- and long-term additional financial resources, in a stable and predictable manner, as well as complementary to official development aid, which should be maintained in any case.”

At a separate “http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=1994 meeting with Mr. Ban on Friday, Ms. Jiménez and the UN chief exchanged views on the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, including Western Sahara. The Secretary-General expressed his appreciation for Spain’s assistance in training of Afghanistan’s security forces, and for its support to the Alliance of Civilizations, an initiative launched in 2005 by Spain and Turkey under UN auspices to promote better cross-cultural relations worldwide.

Luxembourg “http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/66/LU_en.pdf stated that sustainable development informs its development cooperation policy, and pledged to do its best to ensure the success of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) scheduled to take place in Brazil next year.

“It is my pleasure to be able to say that Luxembourg has managed to maintain, and even increase its effort in terms of official development assistance, which in 2010 reached 1.09 per cent of our gross national income,” said Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister.

Sep 26 2011

UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/UN.News.Centre)

Twitter (http://twitter.com/UN_News_Centre)

G-20 SHOULD PLAY BIGGER ROLE IN GLOBAL ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE,

CHINA TELLS UN DEBATE

UNNews UNNews@un.org

Mon, 26 Sep 2011

New York, Sep 26 2011

 G-20 SHOULD PLAY BIGGER ROLE IN GLOBAL ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE,CHINA TELLS UN DEBATE

The Group of 20, the recently established bloc of major industrialized and developed economies, should have a greater role in global economic affairs, China’s Foreign Minister “http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/66/CN_en.pdf said today as he called on United Nations Member States to work more closely together to pursue development.

Yang Jiechi told the General Assembly’s annual general debate that China supported the transition of the so-called G-20 “from a short-term crisis response mechanism to a long-term mechanism of economic governance.”

Mr. Yang said the G-20 should play a bigger role in not only global economic governance, but in promoting current efforts to revive and expand the world economy.

“The underlying impact of the international financial crisis has yet to dissipate, and economic recovery is still fragile and uneven,” he warned. “We should intensify consultation and coordination and send a strong message of solidarity and win-win cooperation so as to strengthen international confidence in global recovery and growth.”

Given the scale of the current economic challenges, “we should work as a team” to pursue common development, he added, citing the need to build “sound momentum” for economic recovery, lay the political foundations for cooperative development, promote a security environment conducive to stability and development, and foster balanced development between rich and poor countries.

Mr. Yang also called on countries to use the world’s diversity as a positive factor to learn from each other, and not “as an excuse for the big to bully the small or the rich to ride roughshod over the poor in international relations.

“We should respect the right of each country to pursue the development path of its choice and respect diversity of civilizations. And we should seek common progress by drawing on each other’s strength with an open and inclusive mind and in a spirit of seeking common ground while reserving differences.”

The biggest imbalance in the global economy, he noted, is the uneven development between the so-called South and North.

“Unless underdeveloped countries shake off poverty and grow their economy, there can be no common prosperity of the world.”

Mr. Yang called on affluent nations to honour commitments on official development assistance (ODA), liberalize markets and reduce or cancel debts.

“Developing countries, on their part, should explore growth models conducive to development and poverty alleviation in order to achieve development at a higher level.”

Sep 26 2011

UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

GLOBAL FINANCIAL REFORM URGENTLY NEEDED, ARGENTINA SAYS AT

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

New York, Sep 21 2011

In the face of the world financial crisis, Argentina called from the podium of the United Nations today for true economic reform to regulate run-away speculation and other factors undermining market stability, global development and well-being.

“Speculation apparently has no brakes and can move from one place to another and from one country or region to another, affecting currencies, economies and also the daily life of citizens, destroying jobs, depriving them of a worth education and of health care,” Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner “http://gadebate.un.org/66/argentina told the General Assembly on the opening day of its annual general debate.

“It is crucial that this be understood, because today it might be speculation on food, yesterday it was on oil, and tomorrow it could be on mints if that proves profitable and provides a better market position to those capital flows that are transferred from one end of the world to the other without any type of control or regulation,” she said.

“Regrettably we continue in the same position because beyond what I would call totally cosmetic changes no serious steps have been taken towards the regulation that is required.”

At the same time Ms. Kirchner called for fundamental Security Council reform, expanding its current 15-State membership, but not by increasing the number of permanent members. That category should be eliminated, she said, along with the right to veto now held by the five permanent members – the United Kingdom, China, France, Russia and the United States.

The veto was necessary at the UN’s foundation during the Cold War when there was a bipolar world aligned either with the US or the former Soviet Union, but now it no longer defends security and stability and is used for those members’ national interests, she said.

She urged the admission of Palestine as a full UN Member State and called on the UK to negotiate with Argentina, as demanded by UN resolutions, on the future of the UK-ruled Falklands Islands (Malvinas), saying that fishing and offshore oil resources were being illegally appropriated.

Returning to a theme that her country has raised every year since 2003, Ms. Kirchner called on Iran to hand over Iranians implicated by Argentine judicial authorities in the blowing up of the Israeli embassy and a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994 respectively.

She noted that the Iranian foreign ministry in July voiced its intention to “cooperate and begin a constructive dialogue,” an offer she said Argentina would take up. But, she added, “although this may show a change of attitude on the part of the (Iranian) Government, it does not by itself constitute satisfaction of our demands which, as I have said with all clarity, are those of justice.”

Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo Mendez echoed Ms. Kirchner’s calls for financial reforms and urged the UN to establish measures that allow States to implement policies enabling them to reduce inequalities in their own countries, as well between rich and poor countries.

He stressed that inequality is growth-stifling and called on the Assembly to design and construct a new financial model that can adequately respond to cyclical economic crises.

“Solidarity is not only a moral imperative, it is a necessary reality to achieve progress and to avoid and combat the dark consequences if we ignore it: violence and delinquency,” Mr. Lugo said, emphasizing that inequality would not be reduced without cooperation from all states

He also voiced opposition to the United States’ 50-year economic embargo against Cuba.

Sep 21 2011

UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/UN.News.Centre) and

Twitter (http://twitter.com/UN_News_Centre)

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES CAN LEAD WORLD IN TACKLING GLOBAL

CHALLENGES, GUYANA TELLS UN

New York, Sep 22 2011

Developing countries, with United Nations help, can lead the world in forging the changes needed to tackle the four major challenges facing the globe – on food, energy, resources and climate – with an integrated approach to all four, Guyana has told the General Assembly.

“The United Nations can provide the platform for making the changes that are needed,” Guyana’s President Bharrat Jagdeo “http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/66/GY_en.pdf said yesterday, stressing that the world has enough land and ingenuity to feed itself, enough energy to power future prosperity, and sufficient resources for economic growth as well as the knowledge of what needs to be done to avert climate change.

Optimizing the response to these inter-linked challenges is not some abstraction but “an essential, specific call to action that has the potential to be the key global breakthrough of our time,” changing the “global paradigm of development,” he added.

“The food we need, the energy we generate, the minerals and other commodities that catalyze economic growth, and the forests and other land that can be drivers of climate solutions, these are largely in the developing world, and with the right international action, the developing world can lead the world in the creation of the transformational shift we need to see for people across our planet to be truly healthy and secure.”

He called for moving beyond the “global insanity” of the current response to potentially catastrophic climate change, and said the “anaemic delivery” on financial pledges for mitigating climate change “is leading to a disastrous breakdown in trust between the developed and developing world.

On other matters Mr. Jagdeo supported the right of the Palestinians to full statehood, and called for speedy Security Council reform with the expansion of both permanent and non-permanent membership and enhanced representation for developing countries, noting that neither Africa with 54 Member States, nor Latin America and the Caribbean region with 33, currently have a permanent seat.

Sep 22 2011

UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/UN.News.Centre) and
Twitter (http://twitter.com/UN_News_Centre)
banknotes.jpg

ASPECTS OF OLD SHANGHAI

July 29, 2011 at 6:26 pm | Posted in Asia, Books, China, History | Leave a comment

spin-globe.gif

books-globe.gif

globe-purple.gif

history.gif

world.gif

compass.gif

loudspeaker.gif

globeinmoney.jpg

Old Shanghai in the 20th century:

China’s first aeroplane – 1909

Shanghai Volunteer Corps

Anti-kidnapping Soc. – 1912

The Communist Party ‘s 1st congress

The 1927 Communist Purge

The Shanghai War, 1932

Anti-Japan demos, 1935

The Japanese War, 1937

August 14, 1937

Chungking Underground

Eat, Drink & be Merry … 

The 2nd World War, 1941

Orgy of Revenge – 1945

Capone’s armoured car, 1945

“No immediate threat”

The end

Cartoons of the day
Periodicals of the day
Quotable Quotes of the day
Excerpts from books and novels

New additions:

The Chinese Mind – Arthur Ransome
Pott history of Shanghai 1928(13-16)
Nitespot Namecards
Shanghai society? Snobbish? 1915
Sir Chaloner Alabaster
Wedding of Chiang Kai-shek and Soong Mei-ling
Pott history of Shanghai 1928(8)

Contents:
Introduction
Places
People
Cultures
19th century
20th century
Reading room
Old Maps
Gallery
Library

Business
Administration

More:

East India Trade – the Swedish Connection

History of China

http://www.earnshaw.com/shanghai-ed-india/tales/t-even20.htm

banknotes.jpg

SOLAR PANELS CHINA: SUNTECH

April 21, 2011 at 8:53 pm | Posted in China, Earth, Ecology, Economics, Financial, Research, Science & Technology | 1 Comment

spin-globe.gif

books-globe.gif

globe-purple.gif

history.gif

world.gif

compass.gif

loudspeaker.gif

globeinmoney.jpg

Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd.

Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd. (Chinese: pinyin: Shàngdé) (NYSESTP) is the world’s largest producer of solar panels, with 1,800MW of annual production capacity by the end of 2010. With offices or production facilities in every major market, Suntech has delivered more than 13,000,000 solar panels to thousands of companies in more than 80 countries around the world [3]. As the center for the company’s global operations, Suntech Headquarters, in Wuxi, China, features the world’s largest building integrated solar facade[4].

Installations

Suntech Power has supplied or installed solar modules for numerous solar power plants and systems around the world. Notable installations include:

The company’s Suntech Energy Solutions division completed Google‘s 1.6 MW solar installation in June 2007.[5]

Suntech Power joined with Israeli company Solarit Doral to build Israel’s largest solar power station, a 50 kW rooftop project in the Israeli settlement of Katzrin in the Golan Heights, which was connected to the electricity grid in December 2008.[6][7]

Global Operations

Suntech Power has representative offices in China, Australia, the United States, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan, and Dubai, as well as production facilities in Wuxi, Luoyang, Qinghai, Shanghai, Germany, Japan, and Goodyear, Arizona.

Suntech America is based in San Francisco, California, and the company has plans to start a production facility in Phoenix, Arizona in 2010.[8] Suntech also has executives of their US operations in top posts in American solar panel industry groups.[9]

Awards

Suntech Power was recognized as the 2008 Frost & Sullivan Solar Energy Development Company of the Year. Frost & Sullivan Research Analyst Mary John commented on the recognition, “The company’s pioneering success in developing energy-efficient, cost-effective and customizable building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) systems and crystalline PV cells, and modules for solar energy conversion into electricity are highly commendable. It has gone beyond just meeting global energy needs to anticipating them as well and highly satisfied customers testify that the BIPV systems and other energy-efficient products are customized precisely to their needs.”[10]

The Andalay AC Solar PV Panel was awarded one on MSN’s most brilliant products of 2009 because of innovations that advanced their ease of installation and use.[11] Suntech Power is one of the main manufacturers of components for the Andalay Solar Panel sold by Akeena Solar (AKNS).[12]

Founder

Dr Shi Zhengrong (born c. 1963[13]) is the founder [14], chairman and chief executive officer of Suntech Power.

He is a graduate of the University of NSW‘s School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering.[15][16] At UNSW, Dr. Shi studied under Professor Martin Green and met Stuart Wenham, now Suntech’s Chief Technology Officer.

Dr. Zhengrong Shi was honored in January 2010 as a finalist for the Zayed Future Energy Prize. In 2007, Dr. Shi was named one of Time Magazine’s Heros of the Environment.He is often referred to as the world’s first ‘green billionaire’.[17]

Investors

Before going public on the NYSE in 2005, Suntech was funded by a consortium of private equity firms, including Actis Capital and Goldman Sachs. The consolidated private equity investment into Suntech is generally considered to be one of China’s most profitable private equity investments ever, as each firm is thought to have made gains well over 10x on their original investments.

See also

References

  1. 1.                              a b c Suntech’s annual income statement via Wikinvest
  2. 2.                              a b Suntech’s annual balance sheet via Wikinvest
  3. 3.                              http://ir.suntech-power.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=192654&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1533389&hilight=
  4. 4.                              http://www.green-energy-news.com/nwslnks/clips109/jan09010.html
  5. 5.                              Google Solar Panel Project
  6. 6.                              Israel opens largest solar plant with Chinese help, December 10, 2008.
  7. 7.                              Chinese PV pioneer helps build Israel’s biggest solar power station, Xinhua, December 9, 2008.
  8. 8.                              http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=192654&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1355511&highlight=
  9. 9.                              Retrieved November 12, 2009, from Solar Energy Industries Association: About: SEIA Board website: http://www.seia.org/cs/seia_board
  10. 10.                         http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1342480/frost__sullivan_recognizes_suntech_power_for_its_technical_expertise/index.html
  11. 11.                         MSN Tech and Gadgets. 10 Most Brilliant Products of 2009. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from MSN website: http://tech.msn.com/products/slideshow.aspx?cp-documentid=22104619&imageindex=6
  12. 12.                         Google Finance. Akeena Solar, Inc. (Public, NASDAQ:AKNS). Retrieved November 12, 2009, from Akeena Solar Inc. company profile website: http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AKNS
  13. 13.                         The alternative rich list. September 22, 2006. Accessed May 7, 2007.
  14. 14.                         [1]
  15. 15.                         School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering
  16. 16.                         Dr. Zhengrong Shi
  17. 17.                         http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1663317_1663322_1669932,00.html

Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd. Type Public (NYSESTP)

Industry Photovoltaics

Founded September 2001

Founder(s) Shi Zhengrong

Headquarters Wuxi, Jiangsu province, People’s Republic of China Number of locations United States, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, Italy, Spain

Revenue US$1.92 Billion (FY 2008)[1] Operating income US$215 Million (FY 2008)[1] Net income US$87.9 Million (FY 2008)[1] Total assets US$3.22 Billion (FY 2008) [2] Total equity US$1.07 Billion (FY 2008)[2] Website www.suntech-power.com/

banknotes.jpg

CHINA EDUCATION: KIEL PAPER

April 7, 2011 at 7:18 am | Posted in China, Development, Economics, Research | Leave a comment

spin-globe.gif

books-globe.gif

globe-purple.gif

history.gif

world.gif

compass.gif

loudspeaker.gif

globeinmoney.jpg

Kiel Institute

ifw-publications

Birgit Wolfrat
Thu 4/07/11
Dr. Birgit Wolfrath (birgit.wolfrath@ifw-kiel.de) 
New publications from the Kiel Institute
New Kiel Working Papers
1692. Bickenbach, F., LIU, W. (2011). 

Regional Inequality of Higher Education in China and the Role of

Unequal Economic Development.

You can find it at

http://www.ifw-kiel.de/pub/kap

Kiel Institute

ifw-publications

Birgit Wolfrath

Regional Inequality of Higher Education in China and the Role of 

Unequal Economic Development.  

Thu 4/07/11

banknotes.jpg

CHINA SCIENCE

April 5, 2011 at 12:26 pm | Posted in China, Globalization, Science & Technology | Leave a comment

spin-globe.gif

books-globe.gif

globe-purple.gif

history.gif

world.gif

compass.gif

loudspeaker.gif

globeinmoney.jpg

BRUEGELPUBLICATIONALERT

Bruegel (bruegel@bruegel.org)

Tue 4/05/11

A G2 for science?

Policy brief by Reinhilde Veugelers

This policy brief analyses the effects of increasing globalisation of science. The emerging economic powerhouses, particularly China, are building up their own scientific capabilities rapidly and in a targeted way. This is provoking concern within advanced economies that they might be losing their advantage in scientific domains. Strategies for knowledge-based growth, such as the European Union’s 2020 strategy, must take these global trends into account if they are to deliver long-term international competitiveness.

Click here to download the policy brief

BRUEGELPUBLICATIONALERT

Bruegel (bruegel@bruegel.org)

Tue 4/05/11

banknotes.jpg

JAPANESE NARCO-UTOPIAN SCHEMES IN MANCHUKUO BEFORE WW II: THE JAPANESE MOVIE “THE SETTING SUN”

March 25, 2011 at 12:47 pm | Posted in Asia, China, Film, Financial, History, Japan | Leave a comment

spin-globe.gif

books-globe.gif

globe-purple.gif

history.gif

world.gif

compass.gif

loudspeaker.gif

globeinmoney.jpg

settingsun.jpg

Manchukuo and Pan-Asian Narco-Utopian Dreams

The Setting Sun (Rakuyou) is a Japanese film released in 1992, based on a novel of the same name by the director Rou Tomono. The U.S. release was in 1999.

The Japanese movie “Setting Sun” which features Donald Sutherland and Diane Lane depicts the Japanese takeover of Manchuria from 1928-1945 and the narco-utopian pan-Asian daydreams of certain Japanese military leaders such as Ishiwara Kanji.

It stars Masaya Kato, Diane Lane, Yuen Biao and Donald Sutherland.

Directed by Rou Tomono

Produced by Lee Faulkner

Written by Duane Dell’Amico

Rou Tomono (novel)

Rou Tomono (screenplay)

Starring Masaya Kato, Diane Lane, Biao Yuen, Donald Sutherland

Music by Maurice Jarre

Cinematography Yoshihiro Yamazaki

Editing by Osamu Inoue

Release date(s) 1992

Running time 150 min.

Country Japan

Language Japanese

Kanji Ishiwara (Ishiwara Kanj, 18 January 1889 – 15 August 1949) was a general in the Imperial Japanese Army in World War II. He and Itagaki Seishirō were the men primarily responsible for the Mukden Incident that took place in Manchuria in 1931.

Biography

Early life

Ishiwara was born in Tsuruoka city, Yamagata prefecture into a samurai class family. His father was a police officer, but as his clan had supported the Tokugawa bakufu and then the Northern Alliance during the Boshin War of the Meiji Restoration, its members were shut out of higher government positions.

At age thirteen, Ishiwara was enrolled in a military prep school. He was subsequently accepted at the 21st class of the Imperial Japanese Army Academy and graduated in 1909. He served in the IJA 65th Infantry Regiment in Korea after its annexation by Japan in 1910, and in 1915 he passed the exams for admittance to the 30th class of the Army Staff College. He graduated second in his class in 1918. [2]

Ishiwara spent several years in various staff assignments and then was selected to study in Germany as a military attaché.

He stayed in Berlin and in Munich from 1922-1925, focusing on military history and military strategy. He hired several former officers from the German General Staff to tutor him, and by the time he returned to Japan, he had formed a considerable background on military theory and doctrine.

Prior to leaving for Germany, Ishiwara converted to Nichiren Buddhism. Nichiren had taught that a period of massive conflict would precede a golden era of human culture in which the truth of Buddhism would prevail. Japan would be the center and main promulgator of this faith, which would encompass the entire world. Ishiwara felt that the period of world conflict was fast approaching, and Japan relying upon its vision of the kokutai and its sacred mission to “liberate” China, would lead a unified East Asia to defeat the West. [3]

Ishiwara and Manchuria

Mukden Incident

Ishiwara was assigned as an instructor to the Army Staff College, followed by a staff position within the Kwantung Army in Manchuria. He arrived there at the end of 1928, some months after the assassination of Zhang Zuolin by Daisaku Komoto. Ishiwara quickly realized that the confused political situation in northern China, along with Japan’s already significant economic investments in the area provided the Kwantung Army with a unique opportunity, and began a plan to take advantage of the situation.

On 18 September 1931, a bomb was secretly planted on the tracks of the Japanese-controlled Southern Manchuria Railway. Charging that Chinese soldiers had attacked the rail line, Japanese troops under Ishiwara’s orders quickly seized the Chinese military barracks in the nearby city of Liutiaokou. Without bothering to inform the new Kwantung Army commander General Shigeru Honjō or the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff in Tokyo, Ishiwara ordered Kwantung Army units to seize control of all other Manchurian cities.

The sudden invasion of Manchuria alarmed political leaders in Japan, and brought international condemnation down on Japan from the world community. Ishiwara thought it most likely that he would be executed or at least dishonorably discharged for his insubordination. However, the success of the operation brought just the opposite. Ishiwara was adulated by right-wing younger officers, ultranationalist societies for his daring and initiative. He was returned to Japan, and given command of the IJA 4th Infantry Regiment in Sendai.

Army revolutionaries

Ishiwara was appointed to the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff in 1935 as Chief of Operations, which gave him primary responsibility for articulating his vision for Japan’s future. Ishiwara was a strong proponent of pan-Asianism and the hokushinron philosophy. He proposed that Japan should join with Manchukuo and China to form an “East Asian League”, which would then prepare for and then fight a war with the Soviet Union. After the Soviet Union was defeated, Japan could move to the south to free Southeast Asia from European colonial rule. Japan would then be ready to tackle the United States. [4]

However, in order to implement these plans, Japan would need to build up its economy and military. Ishiwara envisioned a one-party “national defense state” with a command economy in which political parties were abolished, and venal politicians and greedy businessmen removed from power.

However, Ishiwara stopped short of calling for a Shōwa Restoration and violent overthrow of the government. When the February 26 Incident erupted in 1936, rebels assassinated a number of major politicians and government leaders and demanded a change in government in line with Ishiwara’s philosophies. However, Ishiwara confounded their expectations by speaking out strongly against the rebellion and demanding proclamation of martial law. After Vice Chief of Staff Hajime Sugiyama pulled in from garrisons around Tokyo, Ishiwara was named Operations Officer of the Martial Law Headquarters.

Return to Manchukuo, and disgrace

In March 1937 Ishiwara was promoted to major general and transferred back to Manchukuo as Vice Chief of Staff of the Kwantung Army. He discovered to his dismay that his Army colleagues had no intention of creation a new pan-Asian paradise, and were quite content to play the role of colonial occupiers. Ishiwara denounced the Kwantung Army leadership, and proposed that all officers take a pay cut. He confronted Kwantung Army commander in chief General Hideki Tojo over his allocation of funds to an officers’ wives club. After becoming an embarrassment to his seniors, he was relieved of command and reassigned to a local army base at Maizuru on the seacoast near Kyoto.

Back in Japan, he began to analyze Soviet tactics at Nomonhan, where Japanese forces were defeated, proposing counterstrategies to be adopted by the Army. He continued to write and give public addresses, continuing to advocate an East Asia League partnership with China and Manchukuo and continuing to oppose the invasion of China. He became a lieutenant general in 1939 and was assigned command of the IJA 16th Division.

His political nemesis, Hideki Tōjō, now risen to the highest ranks, felt that the outspoken Ishiwara should be retired from the Army, but feared the reactions of young officers and right-wing activists. Finally, after Ishiwara publicly denounced Tōjō as an enemy of Japan, who should “be arrested and executed,” he was put on the retired list. Ishiwara went back to Yamagata, where he continued to write and study agriculture until the end of the war.

After the end of World War II, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers called upon Ishiwara as a witness for the defense in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. No charges were ever brought against Ishiwara himself, possibly due to his public opposition to Tōjō, the war against China and the attack on Pearl Harbor. He displayed his old fire in front of the American prosecutor, observing that U.S. President Harry S. Truman should be indicted for the mass bombing of Japanese civilians.[5]

References

Books

  • Maga, Timothy P. (2001). Judgment at Tokyo: The Japanese War Crimes Trials. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-2177-9.
  • Peattie, Mark R. (1975). Ishiwara Kanji and Japan’s confrontation with the West. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691030995.
  • Samuels, Richard J. (2007). Securing Japan: Tokyo’s Grand Strategy and the Future of East Asia. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801446120.

Notes

  1. 1. Japanese
  2. 2. Ammenthorp, The Generals of World War II
  3. 3. Peatty, Ishiwara Kanji and Japan’s confrontation with the West
  4. 4. Peatty, Ishiwara Kanji and Japan’s Confrontation with the West
  5. 5. Maga, Judgement at Tokyo

Opium poppies

The opium poppy was grown to obtain opium. In November 1932 the Mitsui Zaibatsu conglomerate held a state monopoly for poppy farming with the “declared intention” of reducing its heavy local use. Fixed cultivation areas were set up in Jehol and northwest Kirin. For 1934-35, cultivation area was evaluated as 480 square kilometres (190 sq mi) with a yield of 1.1 tonnes/km². There was much illegal growing, and its high profitability retarded the effective suppression of this dangerous drug.

“Nikisansuke”, a secret Japanese merchant group, participated in the opium industry.

This group was formed by:

The monopoly generated profits of twenty to thirty million yen per year.

The military prohibited the use of opium and other narcotics by its troops (punishment was loss of Japanese citizenship) but allowed it to be used as a “demoralization weapon” against “inferior races”, a term that included all non-Japanese peoples.

One of the participants, Naoki Hoshino negotiated a large loan from Japanese banks using a lien on the profits of Manchukuo’s Opium Monopoly Bureau as collateral. Another authority states that annual narcotics revenue in China, including Manchukuo, was estimated by the Japanese military at 300 million yen a year.

Similar policies operated across Japanese-occupied Asia.

banknotes.jpg

HONG KONG AND THE EARLY OPIUM TRADE: JARDINE MATHESON

March 18, 2011 at 8:03 pm | Posted in Asia, China, Development, Economics, Financial, Globalization, History, India | Leave a comment

spin-globe.gif

books-globe.gif

globe-purple.gif

history.gif

world.gif

compass.gif

loudspeaker.gif

globeinmoney.jpg

Jardine, Matheson & Co.

Jardine, Matheson & Co. was founded in Canton on 1 July 1832

Overview

Jardine, Matheson & Co. was founded in Canton on 1 July 1832, following a meeting between William Jardine and another Scots trader, James Matheson from Sutherland. In 1834, the pair sent the first private shipments of Chinese tea to England; another big export to the UK was silk. In return, they traded opium to the Chinese.[8] Jardine Matheson’s early profits were based on this trading of Indian opium into China. When the Chinese emperor tried to ban the trade, the company called on Britain to compel China to provide compensation for the confiscated opium, leading in 1839 to the first of two Opium Wars.

Early history

In 1802, Dr. William Jardine worked as a medicinal practitioner onboard British East India Company vessels sailing between Calcutta and Canton. Under a charter granted to the company in the seventeenth century by Charles I of England, its directors in London’s Leadenhall Street held a monopoly on British trade between India and China. It was customary, however, for the Company’s servants to conduct a certain amount of private business on their own account. In order to regularise this, the East India Company allowed each officer and member of the crew a space about equal to two chests; what the men did with this space was their own business. Using this space, the doctor soon discovered that trading illegal narcotics was more profitable than practising medicine. It was during these early days that William Jardine found himself onboard a ship captured by the French with all its cargo seized. Despite this setback a trading partnership formed at the time by Jardine with a fellow passenger, a Parsee Indian called Jamsetjee Jeejebhoy, would endure for many years.

In Canton, Dr. Jardine met a naturalised Briton of Huguenot extraction named Hollingworth Magniac. He learned that there were ways by which, to a small extent, the monopoly of the East India Company could be circumvented so in 1817 Jardine left his first employers and began the process of establishing his own private firm.

At this time James Matheson was employed in his uncle’s business in Calcutta. One day his uncle entrusted him with a letter to be delivered to the captain of a soon-to-depart British vessel. Matheson forgot to deliver the missive and the vessel sailed without it. Incensed at his nephew’s negligence, the uncle suggested that young James might be better off back in England. He took his uncle at his word and went to engage a passage back home. Instead, on the advice of an old sea captain, Matheson went to Canton.

It was in Canton in 1818 that Matheson first met Jardine. The two men formed a partnership which included also Magniac and a man named Beale, an English inventor of clocks and automata. At first the new firm dealt only with Bombay and Calcutta, at that time called the “country trade” but later extended their business to London.

The activities of these four men made an important contribution to the 1834 termination of the East India Company’s monopoly in China.[9][10][11]

Establishment of the private firm of Jardine, Matheson & Co.

For a long time the British East India Company had been growing increasingly unpopular in Britain. Men such as Sheridan, Elliot, Charles James Fox, William Windham, and Edmund Burke were its bitter enemies. Many British people believed that freedom of the seas and freedom of trade were synonymous. They had fought for years to establish this freedom, only to see it threatened by a King’s charter to a group of London merchants. Further, certain high-handed methods used by the East India Company in dealing with competitors aroused the moral indignation of the British at home.

Nevertheless, open competition with the East India Company was a risky business. The Company was empowered to punish transgressors vigorously — even to the extent of having them hanged. Occasionally, free traders did manage to secure a license from the Company to engage in the “country trade,” usually with India, but never with Britain. In rare instances, other free traders, called “interlopers,” competed with the Company. The interlopers usually were friends of the Government in England from which they had been able to obtain some form of charter of their own. Sooner or later, however, the East India Company always managed to have these other charters revoked.

There was one method available by which a Briton could establish a business on the East India Company’s preserves. He could accept the consulship of a foreign country and register under its laws. This method was employed by Jardine to establish himself in Canton. Magniac had obtained an appointment from the King of Prussia, and later James Matheson represented Denmark and Hawaii. On this basis the partners had nothing to fear from the Company; in fact, relations between these two and the East India Company seemed in time to have become amicable. It is recorded that when ships of the East India Company were detained outside the harbour by the authorities, Jardine offered his services “without fee or reward.” These services saved the East India Company a considerable sum of money and earned for Jardine the Company’s gratitude.

By 1830, the enemies of the East India Company had begun to triumph, and its hold on trade with the East had weakened noticeably. Furthermore, at this time, both Magniac and Beale were getting ready to retire. In 1832, two years before the East India Company lost its monopoly over British trade with China, William Jardine and James Matheson entered into formal partnership as a private firm of Jardine, Matheson & Co.

Establishment of the firm in Hong Kong

In 1834 the first ship free of the East India Company’s monopoly, Jardine’s Sarah, left Whampoa with a cargo of tea for London. This was a signal that showed the East India Company was no longer a power in the East, and was immediately followed by a rush to participate in the fast developing China trade, which was centred on tea. From the middle of the seventeenth century this drink had been growing in popularity in Britain and the British colonies, but the trade in teas was far from simple. Due to the high taxes on tea in Britain, the tax on tea was often as much as two hundred percent of the value.[citation needed] This punitive level of taxation gave rise to widespread smuggling which became an additional hazard to legitimate businesses. To profit in the China trade participants had to be ahead of all competition, both legitimate and otherwise. Each year, fast ships from Britain, Europe, and America lay ready at the Chinese ports to load the first of the new season’s teas. The ships raced home with their precious cargoes, each attempting to be the first to reach the consumer markets, thereby obtaining the premium prices offered for the early deliveries.

Jardines became well established and thereafter commanded a sizeable portion of the China trade.

Raw and manufactured goods were imported from India and the United Kingdom whilst teas and silks were exported.

In 1842, the firm built the first substantial house and established their head office on the recently acquired island of Hong Kong. This began an era of increased prosperity and expansion. New offices soon were opened in the trading centres of Shanghai, Fuzhou, and Tianjin. Jardines has continued to expand since these early beginnings.

William Keswick, the young nephew of Dr. Jardine, was sent to Japan in 1858 to open up trading for the firm where he established an office in Yokohama. In Japan, Jardines also expanded rapidly and additional offices were opened—in Kobe, Nagasaki, and other ports. From the beginning, a large and profitable business was conducted in imports, exports, shipping, and insurance.

The firm became so important that for much of the history of the Executive Council of Hong Kong, to represent the business community the Council’s ‘unofficial members’ included the head of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and the taipan of Jardines.[12]

By the end of the nineteenth century, business in the Far East was no longer confined to simple trading. Industrial expansion had begun and in its wake the Indo-China Steam Navigation Company was formed. To aid further in this development Jardines created insurance companies as well as building cotton mills, wharves and warehouses. Cold storage and press packing plants for China’s widening export trade were erected. In 1935 the company built the Ewo Brewery in Shanghai. The directors of Jardines have since built a modern business structure on the foundations laid by the pioneers of the firm.[13]

War and reconstruction

In 1932, after the first Japanese attack on China, the firm closed its offices in Manchuria with Jardines leaving when the Japanese occupation began. In 1941 at the beginning of World War II in the Asia-Pacific region, the Japanese took over all Jardine’s interests in Hong Kong and occupied China. In the meantime offices of the firm were established in Chongqing and Kunming. (Offices in Bombay were also established around this time.) Contact with the war-time world of Chinese official and commercial life was thus maintained. Immediately on cessation of hostilities, the staff from these offices and from internment camps in China immediately began recovery of the firm’s properties from the Japanese forces.

In the summer of 1947, as soon as the authorities permitted, Jardines re-entered Japan. From that date, the task of re-establishing their former wide interests in that country has been under way.

In Taiwan Jardines have maintained offices since early in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Today the Taipei office is a leading exporter of tea to Europe, Asia, and America and is engaged in shipping and general export and import business.

Scottish leadership

Jardines is controlled by the Keswick (pronounced “Kezzick”) family who are direct descendants of William Jardine’s sister.

While the leadership of Jardines is Scottish, the firm is international in its dealings. The staff of Jardines (239,000 employees as of January 2007) is predominantly Asian, with senior management levels composed of a mixture of British, Chinese, Indonesians, Europeans, Australians and Americans.

The Keswicks have maintained a relationship with another prominent Scottish family, the Flemings, of which the author Ian Fleming was also a member. From 1970 until 1998, Jardine Matheson operated a pan-Asian investment banking joint venture, Jardine Fleming, with Robert Fleming & Co., a London merchant bank controlled by the Fleming family. In 2000, Jardine Fleming and Robert Fleming & Co. were sold to JP Morgan Chase.

Shipping interests

From the earliest days of the firm, shipping became the most prominent among the many and varied enterprises of Jardines.

Historically, it was the practice of Jardines to possess the fastest and best-handling ships available. The firm did this in order to maintain its leading position in the market. In the early days, it was often possible to make a fortune with the exclusive possession of market or budget news for a period as brief as a few hours. Conversely, a fortune could be lost if the despatches from home were late. The keen competition for faster and more efficient shipping had a significant impact on the rapid development of trade with the Far East. It was due largely to the quality of its fleet that Jardines outlived all rivals. In the days of sail, many of the most well known clippers were part of the Company’s fleet. Among these clippers were the “Red Rover”, “Falcon”, and “Sylph“, the last of which holds a sailing record that has never been beaten.[14] The ship sailed from Calcutta to Lintin in the Pearl River estuary in seventeen days, seventeen hours.

The first merchant steamer in China, the “Jardine”, was built to order for the firm in 1835. She was a small vessel intended for use as a mail and passenger carrier between Lintin Island, Macau, and Whampoa Dock. However, after several trips for unknown reasons the Chinese authorities prohibited her entrance into the river such that the ship had to be sent to Singapore.

The first steamships owned by Jardines ran chiefly between Calcutta and the Chinese ports. They were fast enough to make the 400-mile (640 km) trip in two days less than rival P & O vessels.

As time passed, more and more ships were procured for Jardines’ fleet and ports of call extended as conditions allowed. The firm was among the first to send ships to Japan, and at an early date established a regular service between Yokohama, Kobe, and China’s ports.

Until 1881, the India and China coastal and river services were operated by several companies. In that year, however, these were merged into the Indo-China Steam Navigation Company, Ltd., a public company under the management of Jardines. The activities of this company extended from India to Japan, including the Straits Settlements, Borneo, and the China coast. In the latter sphere, the “Indo-China” sector developed rapidly. The company pushed inland up the Yangtsze River on which a specially designed fleet was built to meet the requirements of the river trade.

Jardines were considered efficient handlers of shipping. As a result, the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company invited the firm to attend to the Agency of their Shire Line which operated in the Far East. This occurred shortly before the first World War and necessitated a further expansion of the firm’s shipping organisation. Today, fifteen internationally known British, Canadian, and United States shipping companies entrust their agencies to this organisation.

In China, the bulk of freight emanates from domestic sources. On account of this a Chinese staff is maintained at all Jardines’ branches. These branches continuously monitor the features and trends of the Chinese markets.

With the disappearance of Japanese competition as a result of the war, and with the resurrection of China’s merchant navy, shipping conditions in the Far East changed vastly requiring an extreme degree of flexibility in the operation of foreign shipping. Jardines experience gained in the pioneering years of the last century and extending through two world wars to the uncertainties of the present day has stood them in good stead, not only in the ports of Hong Kong and Shanghai, but at major ports in China and Japan. Since World War II the firm has operated the Australia-China Line, an enterprise owned jointly with Commons Bros., Ltd., of Newcastle. This line runs from Australia to Hong Kong and Shanghai.

Jardines are also involved in Sino-foreign shipping co-operation.

Interests in wharves and warehouses

Hong Kong

On the initiative of Jardines and the late Sir Paul Chater, the Hongkong & Kowloon Wharf & Godown Company was formed in 1886. Since that date, the chairmanship of the board has been held by the managing director of Jardines.

At the property known as Kowloon Point, ten ocean-going vessels of up to thirty-two feet draught can be berthed regardless of the state of the tide. At the West Point property on Hongkong Island itself, one coastal vessel can be accommodated.

Kowloon Point provides storage space for about 750,000 tons of cargo. The transit sheds have been designed specially to provide maximum light and sorting space. The godowns are six-storeyed, of reinforced concrete, and are fully equipped with cargo lifts and cranes. A treasury, or strong room, capable of storing up to 500 measurement tons of bullion or other valuable cargo, is a part of the facilities offered.

The company also operates a launch and lighter fleet for the discharge of vessels at buoys and for general transshipment work.

Shanghai

Following an amalgamation of several local wharves in 1875, Jardine, Matheson & Co. were appointed general managers of the Shanghai & Hongkew Wharf Co., Ltd. In 1883, the Old Ningpo Wharf was added, and in 1890 the Pootung Wharf was purchased to complete the Company’s already extensive properties. For three quarters of a century, therefore, Jardines have served the great port of Shanghai.

The Company owns some 3,000 feet (910 m) of the most valuable wharf frontage on the Shanghai side of the river. On the opposite, or Pudong (Pootung), side their frontage extends to 2,550. The wharves are capable of accommodating ten large ocean-going vessels at a time.

Before the Pacific War, the Company possessed godown, or warehouse, space of 2,505,000 square feet (232,700 m2), however there was considerable destruction by the Japanese. Rehabilitation progressed rapidly, however.

Railway building in China

1898 also saw the formation by Jardines and HSBC of the British and China Corporation (‘BCC’) which was responsible for much of the development of China’s railway system.

Airways department

Jardines also operates an Airways Department, providing services as general agents, traffic handling, or booking agents.

The firm has formed in Hong Kong an Air Maintenance Company which will bring the most up-to-date technical and maintenance facilities to the many air lines operating from and through Hong Kong.

The British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) appointed Jardines as their general agents for Hong Kong and China.

Insurance interests

Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group “JLT” is 30% owned by Jardine Matheson and is the vehicle for Jardines participation in this business field. Insurance was one of the first lines of business undertaken by Jardines in 19th century China.

Companies

The Jardine Engineering Corporation, Ltd.

The Jardine Engineering Corporation, Ltd., was founded in 1923 as a private limited company. Its purpose was to take over the business of importing machinery into China. Previously, this had been done by the firm’s Engineering Department. The new company was formed in order to be in a position to cater more efficiently to the evergrowing needs of the Chinese. This policy has resulted in the development of a large and vigorous corporation. Offices have been established in Shanghai, Hongkong, Tianjin, Chongqing, and Nanjing, and further branches are being created as the need for this company’s services becomes apparent. The Corporation represents many of the greatest engineering and manufacturing names in the world. A complete field of engineering and equipment requirements is covered.

Ewo Cold Storage Company

The Jardines-owned Ewo Cold Storage Company was established in 1920 on the Shanghai river front for the manufacture and export of dried eggs. Two or three years later, extensions were made to permit the processing of liquid and shell eggs, as well. Since then, each year, large quantities of these products have been prepared under the most hygienic conditions for shipment abroad, mainly to the United Kingdom.

During the past quarter century, export trade in eggs and egg products has become an increasingly important factor in China’s economy. Immediately prior to the outbreak of the Pacific War, egg trading was high in the list of leading exports. During the war, the Japanese occupation forces gravely diminished the stock of poultry. However, this handicap was quickly overcome, for poultry production in China was never confined to large centres, difficult to reconstruct; instead it is chiefly in innumerable small units scattered over vast areas.

Ewo Cotton Mills, Ltd.

Ewo Cotton Mills, Ltd., is a limited liability company (registered in Hongkong), managed by Jardine, Matheson & Co., Ltd. The firm was first in the field in the cotton industry in China, having established the Ewo Cotton Spinning and Weaving Co. in Shanghai in 1895. Subsequently two other mills were started up in Shanghai—the Yangtszepoo Cotton Mill and the Kung Yik Mill. In 1921 these three companies were amalgamated as Ewo Cotton Mills, Ltd., which concern operated 175,000 cotton spindles and 3,200 looms before the war. In addition the Company extended its activities to include the manufacture of waste cotton products, jute materials, and worsted yarns and cloths. The Company suffered considerable loss of machinery during the war, but its products, which have always enjoyed a high reputation, are back on the market again.

Ewo Press Packing Company

Under the name of Ewo Yuen Press Packing Company, the Ewo Press Packing Company was established in Shanghai in the year 1907. It was then owned jointly by Jardines and a Chinese partner. This partner decided to retire, and in 1919 Jardines became sole proprietors under the present name. The company operates a total floor space of 125,000 square feet (11,600 m2), providing a normal annual output of 40,000 to 50,000 bales. Double this quantity has been achieved in peak years. The activities of the concern cover raw cotton, cotton yarn, waste silk, wool, hides, goatskins, and other commodities for which press packing for shipment or storage is suitable. In addition to the packing facilities offered by the company, well-lighted and airy rooms are available to the public for sorting, grading, and storage of all types of cargo.

The plant is advantageously situated near the mouth of the well-known Soochow Creek. Whether the merchandise is destined for inland, the coast, or abroad, this location provides economical and ready access to the transporting vessels lying in the harbour of Shanghai.

Ewo Breweries, Limited

Although it is the youngest of Jardines’ enterprises, Ewo Breweries, Limited, is already as flourishing a concern as any controlled by the firm. It was founded in 1935, its production commenced in 1936, and Ewo Breweries became a public company under Jardines’ management in 1940. The brewery, built on the outskirts of Shanghai, passed unscathed through two Japanese wars, in 1937 and 1941–45, and during the first of them it was in the centre of hostilities; however, the staff kept to their posts, and the products from time to time found their way through the Japanese lines on to their own markets.

The brewery produces Pilsner and Munich types of beers, both being suitable to Far Eastern climatic conditions: The brewery is recognised as the finest and most up-to-date in the Far East, where the popularity of its brews is unrivalled.

Export and import departments

Tea

Tea is the most romantic of all China’s trades and always must remain inseparably linked in memory to the hey-day of the racing clippers. Now, as in the first half of the nineteenth century, Jardines are the leading shippers. Their connection with this trade dates from 1801 when the forerunners of the firm secured the first free license to exports teas to New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land. When the monopoly held by the East India Company finally was broken, Jardines were again to the fore, this time trading under their own name. The firm despatched the first teas to London, Liverpool, and Glasgow. Trading offices are located now in Shanghai, Hongkong, Fuzhou, Taipei, and Hankou.

From picturesque old Fuzhou and the beautiful island of Taiwan, as well as from the godowns on the Shanghai Bund, ocean steamers once again are carrying valuable cargoes of Jardines’ teas. The chests of teas are labelled with Old World names such as Keemuns. Soochongs, Oolongs, Gunpowders, and Chun Meas, and are borne to the Mincing Lane and the tea-cups of Europe, Africa, and America.

Silk

The Silk Room, operating in Shanghai, is one of the oldest of the offices within Jardines’ organisation. For over a century, the firm has been shipping raw silk from Shanghai. Before the war, silk was shipped from Japan to America, France, Switzerland, England, and elsewhere. Also, for many years before the war, the firm operated its own Ewo Silk Filature.

Silk inspectors are highly specialised skilled technicians. Usually, they are of Swiss or Italian descent. The Swiss who heads this Department of Jardines today is acknowledged to be the doyen of the silk men in China.

CHINA PRODUCE: The China Produce Department for many years has exported the raw materials of China everywhere abroad. To ensure the maintenance of Jardines’ standards, large warehouses were constructed in Shanghai, Tientsin, Tsingtao, Hankow, and Hongkong, all of these cities being the trading centres for vast producing areas. The interests of the Department, accordingly, cover the products of the cold north, such as wool, furs, soya beans, oils, and oilseeds and bristles; the produce of the vast agricultural centre, which includes tung and other vegetable oils and oilseeds, egg products, bristles, and beans; and also the marketable yield of the sunny south, its tung oil, aniseed, cassia, and ginger. And these are only a few of the commodities which pass through Jardines from China to the markets of the world. Knowledge of individual processing and marketing requirements of these articles takes many years to acquire. Jardines’ vast experience in these lines extends throughout the entire period of China’s trading relations with the outside world.

IMPORTS: The main centres of Jardines’ extensive and well-known import business are Hongkong and Shanghai, but the Department is fully represented in all of the firm’s branches. In the early days, the principal interest was piece goods, but expansion in many and varied directions has developed as China more and more showed desire to share in the goods manufactured and produced by countries far from her shores.

The range of commodities handled by this Department is amazingly wide. It runs the gamut from timber to foodstuffs, from textiles to medicines, from metals to fertilizers, and from wines and spirits to the cosmetic requirements of a lady’s boudoir.

The Import Departments in recent years formed a section for the export of Chinese articles manufactured from silks and linens. This has developed into an increasing business, with an ever-broadening scope of articles of all descriptions.

The development of the colony of Hong Kong by Jardine, Matheson & Co.

At the mouth of the Pearl River, about ninety miles from Canton, there stands a small island. It is separated from the mainland by a strip of water which, at the narrowest point, is only a quarter of a mile wide. As late as 1840, the island seemed to have no potential development value except perhaps to a few visionaries. The island lies just below the Tropic of Cancer, and its climate was always thought to be hot, humid, and unhealthy. In area the island is less than thirty square miles, and it rises steeply from the water. No one lived there except a few stonecutters and fishermen whose huts were scattered along the southern shore, and it was suspected that the island was a hiding place for pirates. Its only recommendation was a natural deep-water harbour. It was this island, together with a small strip of China’s mainland that was ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of Nanking in 1842.

Despite all obstacles of terrain and climate, in spite of opposition from many of the Canton merchants, this outpost was developed with almost incredible rapidity. Today, on the northern slopes of the island, close-packed roofs of the city blot out the natural landscape. The harbour, world-famous for its beauty, presents a scene of bustling activity, vessels from the Earth’s four corners come and go, small steamers sail to and from Canton, and ferryboats hurry back and forth from the mainland. The island has become a great port and trading centre in the Far East—Hongkong.

James Matheson had long believed in the future of Hongkong. His enthusiasm was not shared by many of his fellow merchants. Understandably, they preferred not to abandon their comfortable residences on Canton’s Praya Grande for the bleak slopes of Hongkong Island. Bad luck made matters worse for the early builders of Victoria. In quick succession, two typhoons and two fires flattened the new settlement. An epidemic of virulent malaria almost succeeded in returning the island to the oblivion from which it had risen. For years, the Canton Press in Macau never lost an opportunity to ridicule and slander the venture. Even Queen Victoria was unimpressed with her new acquisition. Once she wrote in gentle sarcasm to the King of the Belgians:”–Albert is so much amused at my having got the island of Hongkong, and we think Victoria ought to be called Princess of Hongkong as well as Princess Royal.” Nevertheless, the founders refused to be discouraged.

On 14 June 1841, the first lots were sold on Hongkong. At the instigation of James Matheson, three of these lots, comprising 57,150 square feet (5,309 m2), were purchased for the sum of Pounds 565, and Jardines set up one of the first offices to be established in the new colony. Lot No 1 is presently the site of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel (owned by Jardines) and is still referred to in the company as No.1. In the beginning, the settlement consisted of hastily constructed mat sheds and wooden buildings. Jardines built the first house of consequence. It was erected at East Point, and the firm still retains most of the original property. Among the buildings that can be seen there today is one of the old warehouses with the date 1843 engraved in the stone above the door.

Throughout the history of Hongkong, Jardines have played a large part in all the affairs of the colony. In June 1850, David Jardine was one of the first two unofficial members of the Legislative Council. Hongkong is the head office of the Company, and, on many occasions, the managing directors have been members of both the legislative and executive councils of the government. The firm has been closely connected with every phase of Hongkong’s development. Many of the essential services that are operating at present owe their inception to the firm. The Indo-China Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., has its head office in Hongkong. The chairmanship of the boards of directors of the Hongkong Land Investment Co., Ltd., the Hongkong & Kowloon Wharf & Godown Co., Ltd., the Star Ferry Co., Ltd., and the Hong Kong Tramways, Ltd., has always been held by the managing director of Jardines in Hongkong. It is worth noting that Jardines, although they control these companies, hold majority stock in none of them. The company’s power is derived from many special voting shares issued upon the formation of these companies.

There are numerous landmarks which denote the part that has been played by the seniors of the firm in the history of this thriving community. In the early days, fevers and plagues were a constant menace to the dwellers in Hongkong, and, the heat during the summer months was difficult to bear. The directors of the firm were pioneers in building residences on The Peak where living is more pleasant and healthful.

“Jardines’ Corner” is well known to the inhabitants of Hong Kong, but chief among the place names associated with the firm is a hill top known as “Jardine’s Lookout“. It was from here, in the days of the sailing ships, that a watch was kept for the first glimpse of the sails of the firm’s clippers coming from India and London. As soon as a vessel was signalled, a fast whaleboat was sent out to collect Jardines’ mails. The correspondence was rushed back to the office so that the directors could have the first possible information on the world’s markets.

The same speed, efficiency, and enterprise of those early days still persists, and are responsible for the solid foundation on which Jardines now stand. Thus, the firm’s position as the leading foreign commercial enterprise in China remains unchallenged.

Branch offices in China

(the largest office of Jardine’s), Canton, Swatow, Fuzhou, Chongqing, Qingdao, and Tianjin. The firm has correspondents in Kunming, Xiamen, Beijing, and in the Yangtze River ports of Jinjiang, Nanjing, Wuhu, Jiujiang, Yichang and Changsha. Of these branches, Hankou and Tianjin are the greatest. Today, Hankou is mostly a ruin and a reminder of hideous warfare. Rehabilitation is sure, but it will take time. Tianjin, through which vast volumes of trade flowed outwards and inwards in days gone by, survived undamaged and is returning gradually to the position of the leading port of North China. Qingdao, one of China’s few good harbours, came through the war with little or no damage, and is fast resuming its important role in the trade of China.

Jardine representations abroad

Matheson & Co., Ltd., are Jardines’ correspondents in London. “Mathesons” was founded in 1848 as a private house of merchant bankers, and in 1906 it became a limited liability company. It is controlled by Jardine, Matheson & Co., Ltd., and Keswick family. It is the leading Far Eastern house in London, enjoying an enviable reputation for enterprise and long-established reliability.

In the United States of America the correspondents are Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Ltd., New York. This is a firm of the highest standing, the centre of a network of worldwide trading and manufacturing interests.

Throughout the world, in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Europe, there are correspondents. In Calcutta, the sister firm Jardine, Henderson, Ltd. (which for many years was styled Jardine, Skinner & Co.), still maintains the closest links.

These links reach back to the early days when Jardine and Matheson and the other pioneers were trading between Canton, Hong Kong, and India.

Today

The Jardine Matheson Group is still very much active in Hong Kong, being one of the largest conglomerates in Hong Kong and its largest private employer, second only to the government. Several landmarks in present day Hong Kong are named after the firm and the founders Jardine and Matheson like Jardine’s Bazaar, Jardine’s Crescent, Jardine’s Bridge, Jardine’s Lookout, Yee Wo Street, Matheson Street, Jardine House and the Noon-day Gun. Jardines is primarily active in Asia.[15]

It went through several major internal changes throughout the 19th and 20th century, in 1947 a Trust was formed by members of the family to permit the management of the company to participate in the financial growth of the company. Jardine, Matheson and Co. offered its shares to the public in 1961 under the tenure of taipan Sir Hugh Barton and was oversubscribed 56 times. The Keswick family, in consortium with several London-based banks and financial institutions, bought out the controlling shares of the Buchanan-Jardine family in 1959 but subsequently sold most of the shares during the 1961 public offering, retaining only about 10% of the company.

The company redomiciled to Bermuda in 1984 under the tenure of taipan Simon Keswick so as to maintain its governance under a familiar British-based legal system. In the late 1980s, the corporate structure of the Jardine, Matheson Group, including all its allied companies, were restructured.

In late 1987, there was an attempted takeover of Hongkong Land, a real-estate company considered the jewel in the Jardines crown as its properties included some of the most prestigious office and commercial space in Hong Kong. The hostile bid which was ultimately unsuccessful had been led by a group of Hong Kong tycoons, including Li Ka-shing, working together with the mainland’s state-owned China International Trust & Investment Corp. As a result, Jardine Matheson asked Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) for an exemption from the takeover and mergers code in 1994, in order to give the company greater security if Chinese parties attempted a hostile takeover of its listed companies after Hong Kong’s 1997 handover from British to Chinese sovereignty. However, the SFC refused and so Jardine firm delisted from the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (Hang Seng Index) in 1994 under the tenure of Alasdair Morrison and placed its primary listing in London.[16] Officials in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) regarded the delisting as a rebuke to the future of Hong Kong and the government of PRC. This caused trouble when Jardine Matheson attempted to participate in the Container Terminal 9.

The present Chairmain of Jardine Matheson Holdings Ltd. is Henry Keswick, the company’s tai-pan from 1970 (aged 31) to 1975 and was the 6th Keswick to be tai-pan of the company. His brother, Simon, was the company’s tai-pan from 1983 to 1988 and is the 7th Keswick to be tai-pan. Both brothers are the 4th generation of Keswicks in the company. The 5th generation of Keswicks are also active within the organisation, Ben Keswick, son of Simon, is in charge of Jardine, Cycle & Carriage in Singapore and Adam Keswick, son of Chips, is in charge of Jardine Pacific and Jardine Motors Group in Hong Kong. The organizational structure of Jardines has changed almost totally, but the members of the family of Dr. William Jardine still have significant influence in the firm.

Miscellaneous

  • Jardines‘ history was the inspiration for a series of novels written by James Clavell, including Tai-Pan, Gai-Jin, and Noble House. The Noble House TV miniseries actually used Jardine as the headquarters of Struan’s & Co, the fictional company depicted in Clavell’s novels.
  • Jardines installed the first elevator in China in Tianjin.
  • Mail sent to Jardines requires no address—just the name is enough to ensure its delivery.
  • Jardines‘ official website gives no mention of their opium trading exploits (on which the wealth of the company was built).
  • Jardines‘ have a strict policy of not buying/investing in new companies as it is said to be against William Jardine’s wishes.

References

1. Businessweek: Jardine Matheson Holdings

2. Reuters: Jardine Matheson Holdings

3. “Jardine Matheson Group Outline 2010″. http://www.jardines.com/profile/pdf/outline.pdf. Retrieved 13 October 2010.

4. Jardine Matheson Archive

5. Corporate Information: Jardine Matheson Holdings

6. Transnationale: Jardine Matheson Holdings

7. “Jardines Company Profile”. http://www.jardines.com/profile/intro.html. Retrieved 13 October 2010.

8. “Four of the fastest (ships) were built in American yards for Russell & Co., the Yankee trading house, that would use their speed to challenge the great British opium merchants, Jardine Matheson & Co.” McCoy, Prof. Alfred W. (2003). “THE POLITICS OF HEROIN — CIA COMPLICITY IN THE GLOBAL DRUG TRADE”, 2nd Rev. Ed., Lawrence Hill Books. ISBN 978-1-55652-483-7, p. 87.

9. Jardines: History

10. University of Cambridge

11. Records of Social and Economic History New Series “China Trade and Empire: Jardine, Matheson & Co. and the Origins of British Rule in Hong Kong, 1827-1843” Alain le Pichon

12. Ingrams, Harold, Hong Kong (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London: 1952), p. 231.

13. Funding Universe: Jardine Matheson History

14. Hunt, Janin (28 October 1999). The India-China opium trade in the nineteenth century. McFarland & Company. ISBN 9780786407156.

15. Datamonitor, Jardine Matheson Holdings Limited – SWOT Analysis, January 2009

16. Remembrance of (bad) things past Wall Street Journal, 22 May 2009

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jardine_Matheson_Holdings

Categories: Companies listed on the Singapore Exchange | Companies listed on the London Stock Exchange | Jardine Matheson Group | History of Hong Kong | British rule in Hong Kong | Companies established in 1832 | Trading companies | Conglomerate companies | Companies formerly listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange | Former Hang Seng Index Constituent Stocks | Companies of Bermuda | Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group

William Jardine (1784–1843)

William Jardine (24 February 1784 – 27 February 1843) was a Scottish physician and merchant. He co-founded the Hong Kong conglomerate Jardine, Matheson and Company. From 1841 to 1843, he was Member of Parliament for Ashburton as a Whig.

Educated in medicine at the University of Edinburgh, Jardine obtained a diploma from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh in 1802. In the same year, he became a surgeon’s mate aboard the Brunswick of the East India Company, bound for India. Captured by the French and shipwrecked in 1805, he was repatriated and returned to the East India Company’s service as ship’s surgeon. In May 1817, he left medicine for commerce.[1]

Jardine was a resident in China from 1820 to 1839. His early success in Canton as a commercial agent for opium merchants in India led to his admission in 1825 as a partner of Magniac & Co., and by 1826 he was controlling that firm’s Canton operations. James Matheson joined him shortly after, and Magniac & Co. was reconstituted as Jardine, Matheson & Co in 1832. After Imperial Commissioner Lin Zexu confiscated 20,000 cases of British-owned opium in 1839, Jardine arrived in London in September, and pressed Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston for a forceful response.[1]

Early life

Jardine was born in 1784, on a small farm near Lochmaben, Dumfriesshire, Scotland, one of five children. His father, Andrew Jardine, died when he was nine, leading the family to some economic difficulties. Though struggling to make ends meet, Jardine’s older brother David provided him with money to attend school, also as a way help set up one of the family. Jardine started to acquire credentials at the very young age of sixteen, in 1800, when he entered the University of Edinburgh Medical School. He took classes in anatomy, medical practice, and obstetrics among others. While his schooling was in progress, Jardine was apprenticed to a surgeon who would provide housing, food, and the essential acquaintance with a hospital practice, with the money his older brother, David, provided for. He graduated from the Edinburgh Medical School on 2 March 1802 , and was presented a full diploma from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and chose to join the service of the British East India Company in 1802, at the age of 18, in the East India Merchantman “Brunswick”. On 15 March, after satisfying the requirements, William Jardine, was paid two months advanced wages as a surgeon’s mate in the East India Company’s Maritime Marine Service, and was headed to sea. A good advantage with being in service with the East India Company was that employees were allowed to trade in goods for their own profit. Each employee was allowed cargo space equivalent to two chests or about a hundred pounds of cargo. Jardine engaged in this trade with exceptional dexterity, even cleverly leasing the apportioned cargo space of other crew members who did not have interest in using the space, and was able to save quite an amount of money.

The young William’s first voyage was rather uneventful other than his first encounter with the economics of an Indiaman’s journey to Asia. Jardine also met two men on his first voyage that would come to play a role in his future as a merchant. The first was Thomas Weeding, a fellow doctor, and surgeon of the Glatton, one of the other ships in the convoy. The second was a 26-year-old Charles Magniac who had just arrived in Guangzhou at the beginning of 1801.

On leaving the company in 1817, Jardine became an independent trader and entered into partnership with Thomas Weeding and Framjee Cowasjee. The firm did very well in the domain of private traders and established Jardine’s reputation as an able, steady and experienced private trader. It is interesting to note that one of Jardine’s agents in Bombay, who would become his lifelong friend, was Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy. Both men were on the Brunswick when a French ship forcibly boarded her. Jejeebhoy was the first Parsee merchant to be created a baronet by Queen Victoria and he would become fabulously wealthy in the years to come.

In 1824, a very important opportunity arose for Jardine. The house of Magniac, the largest and most prominent of all China trading houses fell into disarray. Hollingworth Magniac, who succeeded Charles Magniac after the latter’s death in Paris, was in search for competent partners to join his firm as he was intent on leaving Asia. He was also forced to have his brother, Daniel, resign from the firm after marrying his Chinese mistress. In later years, Jardine had helped Daniel by sending his young son Daniel Francis, his child by his Chinese wife, to Scotland for school. Hollingworth, after an extensive search for a senior partner, settled with Jardine, whose business reputation was already well known throughout Asia. Both Jardine and Magniac also invited James Matheson to join the firm. Magniac returned to England in late 1820s with the firm in the hands of two of the most talented traders in Asia. Contrary to the practice at the time of retiring partners removing their capital from the firm, Hollingworth left his capital with the firm in trust to Jardine and Matheson. The firm carried the name Magniac and Co. until 1832 as the name Magniac was still formidable throughout China and India. Hollingworth wrote about William Jardine:

“You will find Jardine a most conscientious, honourable, and kind-hearted fellow, extremely liberal and an excellent man of business in this market, where his knowledge and experience in the opium trade and in most articles of export is highly valuable. He requires to be known and to be properly appreciated.”

Jardine, Matheson and Co.

James Matheson joined Magniac & Co. from the firm Yrissari & Co where he was partner. After Francis Xavier de Yrissari’s death, Matheson wound up the firm’s affairs and closed shop. Yrissari, leaving no heir, had willed all his shares in the firm to Matheson. This created the perfect opportunity for Matheson to join in commerce with Jardine. Matheson proved a perfect partner for Jardine. James Matheson and his nephew, Alexander Matheson, joined the firm Magniac and Co. in 1827, but their association was officially advertised on 1 January 1828. Jardine was known as the planner, the tough negotiator and strategist of the firm and Matheson was known as the organization man, who handled the firm’s correspondence, and other complex articles including legal affairs. Matheson was known to be behind many of the company’s innovative practices. And both men were a study in contrasts, Jardine being tall, lean and trim while Matheson was short and slightly portly. Matheson had the advantage of coming from a family with social and economic means, while Jardine came from a much more humble background. Jardine was tough, serious, detail-oriented and reserved while Matheson was creative, outspoken and jovial. Jardine was known to work long hours and was extremely business-minded, while Matheson enjoyed the arts and was very eloquent. William C. Hunter wrote about Jardine, “He was a gentleman of great strength of character and of unbounded generosity.” Hunter’s description of Matheson was, “He was a gentleman of great suavity of manner and the impersonation of benevolence.” But there were similarities in both men. Jardine and Matheson were second sons, possibly explaining their drive and character. Both men were hardworking, driven and single-minded in their pursuit of wealth.

And according to Richard Hughes, “…both men scrupulous in their personal and financial dealings.” Both men were well respected within the Foreign and local community both in India and in South China, having quietly helped so many people in financial distress. Though their charity was never belabored, it was well accepted that they were done with sincerity. Jardine’s tough exterior and candid letters to agents masked his compassionate nature, never exacting punishment when due. An elderly and longtime Portuguese employee who worked as a bookkeeper and clerk for the firm, in his latter years with the firm, had frequently been committing serious errors in the firm’s books and his mental capacity was deteriorating. Rather than dismiss the elderly employee, Jardine had allowed the man to retire in honor and in his usual generous character, set up a considerable retirement fund for the man and his family. Both men were also known to have continuously sent money home to less fortunate family members in Scotland and to have helped nephews by providing them work within the firm. Upon the death of his older brother, David, Jardine set up a fund for his brother’s widow and arranged schooling for his four sons. In a letter to Hollingworth Magniac, Jardine wrote,

“My only Brother has a very large family, three or four of them Boys, and as he has not the means of providing for them all, in the way I wish to see them provided for, I am desirous of having one of them here, to commence in the office, and work his way, by industry and application to business.”

All four of David’s sons moved on to work with Jardine, Matheson & Co. in Hong Kong and South China, starting as clerks and eventually becoming partners or managing partners or taipan in the firm.

In another example of Jardine’s compassion, in his deathbed years later, he wrote to Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy,

“I have been requested by one of my oldest and best friends in the Company’s service to introduce to your [good] and kind offices [captain] John Campbell of the Ship Scotia which vessel he has commanded since she was launched, but owing to change of owners and other [circumstances] he is now out of employ with a numerous family and very slender means to provide for them. He is, however, an active, able, and trustworthy Commander, in good health, well-known to your friends in Bombay, to the Lyalls in Calcutta, and to our friends in China. Under these circumstances, destitute at home though willing to work, he intends embarking by the October mail for Bombay, and I beg most earnestly to bring him under your notice and bespeak for him as early employment as though you and other kind friends can possibly be procured.”

But it was their reputation for business probity, innovative management and strict fiscal policies that sustained their partnership’s success in a period where businesses operated in a highly volatile and uncertain environment where the line between success and bankruptcy was extremely thin. Jardine was known for his legendary imperiousness and pride. He was nicknamed by the locals “The Iron-headed Old Rat” after being hit on the head by a club in Guangzhou. Jardine, after being hit, just shrugged off the injury with dour resilience. He had only one chair in his office in the “Creek Hong” in Canton, and that was his own. Visitors were never allowed to sit, to impress upon them that Jardine was a very busy man. Jardine was also known as a crisis manager. In 1822, during his visit to the firm’s Guangzhou office, he found the local office in management crisis, with employees in near mutiny against the firm’s officers. Jardine then proceeded to take temporary control and succeeded in putting the office in order in just a matter of days. Also a shrewd judge of character, Jardine was even able to persuade the Rev. Charles Gutzlaff, a Prussian missionary, to interpret for their ship captains during coastal smuggling of opium, using the idea that the reverend would best gather more converts during these smuggling operations. Matheson claimed to own the only piano in Asia and was also an accomplished player. He was also responsible for removing one of the firm’s ship captains for refusing to offload opium chests on the Sabbath, Matheson observed, “We have every respect for persons entertaining strict religious principles, but we fear that very godly people are not suited for the drug trade.”

In 1 July 1832, Jardine, Matheson and Company, a partnership, between William Jardine, James Matheson as senior partners, and Hollingworth Magniac, Alexander Matheson, Andrew Johnstone, Jardine’s nephew, Hugh Matheson, Matheson’s nephew, John Abel Smith, and Henry Wright, as the first partners, was formed in China, taking the Chinese name ‘Ewo’ or pronounced as “Yee-Wo”, meaning ‘Happy Harmony’, (though according to some that the name ‘Yee-wo’ was actually the Hong name of Jardines’ compradore during the 1830s), trading opium, tea and other goods. In 1833, Parliament ended the monopoly of the British East India Company on trade between Britain and China. Jardine, Matheson and Company then took this opportunity to fill the vacuum left by the East India Company. With its first voyage carrying tea, the Jardine clipper ship “Sarah” left for England. Jardines was then transformed from a major commercial agent of the East India Company to become the largest British trading hong , or firm, in Asia. William Jardine was now being referred to by the other traders as “Tai-pan”, a Chinese colloquial title meaning ‘Great Manager’. In a thunderous tribute to Jardine, Matheson wrote, “I am sure none can be more zealous in your service.”

Departure from China and breakdown of relations

In 1841, Jardines had 19 intercontinental clipper ships, compared to close rival Dent and Company with 13. Jardines also had hundreds of small ships, lorchas and small smuggling crafts for coastal and upriver smuggling. The trading concerns of Jardine’s included smuggling opium into China from India, trading spices and sugar from the Philippines, importing Chinese tea and silk into England, handling cargo papers and cargo insurance, renting of dockyard facilities and warehouse space, trade financing and other numerous lines of business and trade. During the mid-1830s, trade with China was becoming more difficult due to the Qing government’s increasing restrictions on the narcotic trade in part to control the worsening outflow of silver. This trade imbalance stemmed from the fact that Western traders were importing more opium into China than they were exporting teas and silk.

Nevertheless, Dr. William Jardine wanted the opium trade to expand in China. In 1834, working with the Chief Superintendent of Trade representing the British Empire, William, Lord Napier, tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with the Chinese officials in Canton. The Chinese Viceroy ordered the Canton offices where Napier was staying to be blockaded and the inhabitants including Napier to be held hostages. Lord Napier, a broken and humiliated man, was allowed to return to Macao by land and not by ship as requested. Suffering a fever, he died a few days later.

Jardine, who had good relations with Lord Napier, a Scottish peer, and his family, then took the initiative to use the debacle as an opportunity to convince the British government to use force to further open trade. In early 1835 he ordered James Matheson to leave for Britain to persuade the Government to take up strong action to further open up trade in China. Matheson accompanied Napier’s widow to England using an eye-infection as an excuse to return home. Matheson in England then extensively travelled to meet with several parties, both for government and for trade, to gather support for a war with China. Though in some ways unsuccessful in his forays in England, he was brushed aside by the “Iron Duke” (Duke of Wellington), the then British Foreign Secretary, and reported bitterly to Jardine of being insulted by an arrogant and stupid man. But his activities and widespread lobbying in several forums including Parliament bore the seeds that would eventually lead to war in a few years. Matheson returned to China in 1836 to prepare to take over the firm as Jardine was preparing to fulfill his temporarily delayed retirement. Jardine left Canton on January 26, 1839 for Britain as retirement but in actuality to try to continue Matheson’s work. The respect shown by other foreign opium traders to Jardine before his departure can be best illustrated in the following passage from a book by William C. Hunter.

“A few days before Mr. Jardine’s departure from Canton, the entire foreign community entertained him at a dinner in the dining room of the East India Company’s Factory. About eighty persons of all nationalities, including India, were present, and they did not separate until several hours after midnight. It was an event frequently referred to afterwards amongst the residents, and to this day there are a few of us who still speak of it.”

The farewell dinner to Jardine was held on January 22, 1839 with several members of the Foreign settlement in Canton mostly traders. Among the guests were the Forbes brothers of the prominent Forbes family and Warren Delano, a senior partner in the trading firm Russel & Co. and maternal grandfather of US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The Qing government was pleased to hear of Jardine’s departure, then proceeded to stop the opium trade. Lin Zexu, appointed specifically to suppress the drug trade in Guangzhou, stated, “The Iron-headed Old Rat, the sly and cunning ring-leader of the opium smugglers has left for The Land of Mist, of fear from the Middle Kingdom’s wrath.” He then ordered the surrender of all opium and the destruction of more than 20,000 cases of opium in Guangzhou. He also ordered the arrest of opium trader Lancelot Dent, the head of Dent and Company (a rival company to Jardine Matheson) since the Chinese were more familiar with Jardine as the trading head and were quite unfamiliar with Matheson. Lin also wrote to Queen Victoria, to submit in obeisance in the presence of the Chinese Emperor.

War and the Chinese surrender

Once in London, Jardine’s first order of business was to meet with Lord Palmerston. He carried with him a letter of introduction written by Superintendent Elliot that relayed a few of his credentials to Palmerston,

“This gentleman has for several years stood at the head of our commercial community and he carries with him the esteem and kind wishes of the whole foreign society, honourably acquired by a long career of private charity and public spirit.”

In 1839, Jardine successfully persuaded the British Foreign Minister, Lord Palmerston, to wage war on China, giving a full detailed plan for war, detailed strategic maps, battle strategies, the indemnifications and political demands from China and even the number of troops and warships needed. Aided by Matheson’s nephew, Alexander Matheson (1805–1881) and MP John Abel Smith, Jardine met several times with Palmerston to argue the necessity for a war plan. This plan was known as the Jardine Paper. In the ‘Jardine Paper’, Jardine emphasized several points to Palmerston in several meetings and they are as follows: There was to be complete compensation for the 20,000 chests of opium that Lin had confiscated, the conclusion of a viable commercial treaty that would prevent any further hostilities, and the opening of further ports of trade such as Fuzhou, Ningbo, Shanghai, and Keeson-chow. It was also suggested by Jardine that should the need arise to occupy an island or harbor in the vicinity of Guangzhou. Hong Kong would be perfect because it provided an extensive and protected anchorage. As early as the mid-1830s, the island of Hong Kong had already been used for transhipment points by Jardine Matheson and other firms’ ships. Jardine clearly stated what he thought would be a sufficient naval and military force to complete the objectives he had outlined. He also provided maps and charts of the area. In a well calculated recommendation letter to Parliament, creating a precedent now infamously known as ‘Gunboat Diplomacy’, Jardine states:

“No formal Purchase, — no tedious negotiations,…A firman insistently issued to Sir F. Maitland authorizing him to take & retain possession is all that is necessary, & the Squadron under his Command is quite competent to do both,…until an adequate naval and military force…could be sent out from the mother Country. When All this is accomplished, — but not till then, a negotiation may be commenced in some such Terms as the following – You take my opium – I take your Islands in return – we are therefore Quits, –& thenceforth if you please let us live in friendly Communion and good fellowship. You cannot protect your Seaboard against Pirates & Buccaneers. I can – So let us understand Each other, & study to promote our mutual Interests.”

This letter is in itself a reflection of the very nature of Jardine as a businessman and itself an explanation why the man was considered as the most powerful trader in the South China coast.

Lord Palmerston, the Foreign Secretary who succeeded Wellington, decided mainly on the “suggestions” of Jardine to wage war on China. In mid-1840, a large fleet of war ships appeared on the China coast and with the first cannon fire aimed at a British ship, the Royal Saxon, the British started the first of the Opium Wars. British warships destroyed numerous shore batteries and enemy warships, laid waste to several coastal forts, indiscriminately bombarding town after town with heavy cannon fire, even pushing up north to threaten the Imperial Palace in Beijing itself. The Imperial Government, forced to surrender, gave in to the demands of the British. Richard Hughes, in Hongkong: A Borrowed Place, A Borrowed Time, stated “William Jardine would have made his mark as admirably as a soldier as he did as a Tai-pan.” Lord Palmerston wrote,

“To the assistance and information which you and Mr. Jardine so handsomely afforded us it was mainly owing that we were able to give our affairs naval, military and diplomatic, in China those detailed instructions which have led to these satisfactory results.”

In 1843, the Treaty of Nanjing was signed by official representatives of both Britain and China. It allowed the opening of major five major Chinese ports, granted extraterritoriality to foreigners and their activities in China, indemnification for the opium destroyed and completed the formal acquisition of the island of Hong Kong, which had been officially taken over as a trading and military base since 26 January 1841, though it had already been used years earlier as a transhipment point. Trade with China, especially in the illegal opium, grew, and so did the firm of Jardine, Matheson and Co, which was already known as the Princely Hong for being the largest British trading firm in East Asia.

In 1841, Jardine was elected to the House of Commons a Whig Member of Parliament (MP) representing Ashburton in Devon. He was also a partner along with longtime friend and business partner Hollingworth Magniac in the merchant banking firm of Magniac, Smith & Co., later renamed Magniac, Jardine & Co., the forerunner of the firm Matheson and Co. Despite his nominal retirement, Jardine was still very much active in business and politics and built a townhouse in 6 Upper Belgrave Street, then a new upscale residential district in London near Buckingham Palace. He had also bought a country estate, Lanrick Castle, in Perthshire, Scotland. He had enjoyed the fruits of his long years of labor in China as a wealthy gentleman and MP in England and in Scotland.

Death and legacy

In late 1842, Jardine’s health had rapidly deteriorated possibly from pulmonary oedima. In the latter part of the year, Jardine was already bedridden and in great pain. He was assisted by his nephew, Andrew Johnstone and later on by James Matheson in his correspondence. Despite his illness, Jardine was still very active in keeping an eye on business, politics and current affairs. Despite his poor health, he still welcomed a steady stream of visitors from family members, business partners, political associates and his constituents. A constituent, James Stewart, once commented to a friend who wrote this letter, “…he (Stewart) had come mainly to see one Jardine, an enormous Laird from Applegarth Parish and China, and a very good man; who is understood to be dangerously ill at present.” It is interesting to note that Jardine had helped James Stewart’s son William by giving him a place in the firm in Canton as a clerk in the 1830s and eventually became a partner in 1842.

Jardine’s strength and character were brought to light with descriptions from both John Abel Smith and James Matheson. John Abel Smith wrote, “…his bodily strength and physical powers are much reduced…His resignation and fortitude are most extraordinary and really almost heroic.” While Matheson wrote, “…his mind continue clear and composed to the last.”

The taipan, Dr. William Jardine died on 27 February 1843, just three days after his 59th birthday, one of the richest and most powerful men in Britain and a respected Member of Parliament. Jardine’s funeral was attended by a very large gathering of family, friends, government and business personalities, many of whom Jardine had helped in his lifetime.

Jardine, a bachelor, willed his estate to his siblings and his nephews. An older nephew, Andrew Johnstone, administered Jardine’s issue. His other nephews David, Joseph, Robert and Andrew Jardine, all sons of Jardine’s older brother David, continued to assist James Matheson in running Jardines. Matheson retired as taipan in 1842 and handed over control of the firm to his nephew Sir Alexander Matheson, who was also known as of the same capacity and competence as the elder Jardine and Matheson. David Jardine, another nephew of Jardine, became taipan after Sir Alexander Matheson. David in turn would hand over to his brother Sir Robert control of the firm. Joseph succeeded Robert as taipan. Succeeding Joseph was Alexander Percival, a relative of Sir James Matheson’s wife. Succeeding Alexander Percival is James Whittall who is related neither to the Jardine or Matheson families. No other member of the Matheson family became active in the firm after Percival, though another nephew, Donald Matheson, served as director. Sir Robert Jardine (1825–1905) is the ancestor of the Buchanan-Jardine branch of the family. A descendant of Sir Robert, Sir John Buchanan-Jardine, sold his family’s 51% holding in Jardine, Matheson and Co. for $84 million at the then prevailing exchange rate in 1959. A great-nephew of Jardine who would be taipan from 1874 to 1886, William Keswick (1834–1912), is the ancestor of the Keswick branch (pronounced Ke-zick)) of the family. Keswick is a grandson of Jardine’s older sister, Jean Johnstone. Keswick was responsible for opening the Japan office of the firm in 1859 and also expanding the Shanghai office. James Matheson returned to England to fill up the Parliament seat left vacant by Jardine and to head up the firm Matheson & Co., previously known as Magniac, Jardine & Co., in London, a merchant bank and Jardines’ agent in England. In 1912, Jardine, Matheson & Co. and the Keswicks would eventually buy out the shares of the Matheson family in the firm although the name is still retained. The company was managed by several family members of William Jardine and their descendants throughout the decades, including the Keswicks, Buchanan-Jardines, Landales, Bell-Irvings, Patersons, Newbiggings and Weatheralls.

An arrangement was made that the management setup of the firm was that a senior partner or proprietor was based in London who had power to appoint senior managers in the firm but had little operational control while a managing director or ‘Tai-pan’ was stationed in the Far East, either in Shanghai or Hong Kong, who dealt with everyday affairs of the firm. This arrangement had been in practice since the early years of the firm up to the present.

Notable Jardines Managing Directors or Tai-pans included Sir Alexander Matheson, David Jardine, Robert Jardine, William Keswick, James Johnstone Keswick, Ben Beith, David Landale, Sir John Buchanan-Jardine, Sir William Johnstone “Tony” Keswick, Sir Hugh Barton, Sir Michael Herries, Sir John Keswick, Sir Henry Keswick, Simon Keswick and Alasdair Morrison. There was a point in time in the early 20th century that the firm had two ‘Tai-pans’ at the same time, one in Hong Kong and one in Shanghai, to effectively manage the firm’s extensive affairs in both locations. Both tai-pans were responsible only to the senior partner or proprietor in London who was normally a retired former tai-pan and an elder member of the Jardine family.

Today, the Jardine Matheson Group is still very much active in Hong Kong, being one of the largest conglomerates in Hong Kong and its largest employer, second only to the government. Several landmarks in present day Hong Kong are named after the firm and the founders Jardine and Matheson like Jardine’s Bazaar, Jardine’s Crescent, Jardine’s Bridge, Jardine’s Lookout, Yee Wo Street, Matheson Street, Jardine House and the Noon Day Gun. Jardines is also active in China, North America, Europe, Australia, the Middle East and parts of Africa. It went through several major internal changes throughout the 19th and 20th century. In 1947, a secret Trust was formed by members of the family to retain effective control over the company. Jardine, Matheson and Co. offered its shares to the public in 1961 under the tenure of Sir Hugh Barton and was oversubscribed 56 times. The Keswick family, in consortium with several London-based banks and financial institutions, bought out the controlling shares of the Buchanan-Jardine family in 1959, but subsequently sold most of the shares during the 1961 public offering, retaining only about 10% of the company. The company had its head office redomiciled to Bermuda in 1984 under the tenure of Simon Keswick to maintain control after nearly being taken over by Chinese tycoon Li Ka-shing of Cheung Kong after a hostile raid in 1980. Li, who bought nearly 20% of the company at that time the largest shareholding in the company, agreed to sell his shares to Hongkong Land, a sister company of Jardines, at a premium. Another reason for the move was fear of the Chinese take-over of Hong Kong and the threat of Chinese retaliation for Jardines drug smuggling past. Subsequent events led to the cross-shareholding structure between Jardine, Matheson & Co. and Hongkong Land which was first instigated in 1980 by then taipan David Newbigging. In 1988, instigated by Brian Powers, the first American taipan of Jardines, the entire corporate structure of Jardine, Matheson & Co., including all its allied companies, were restructured so that a holding company based in London and controlled by the Keswick family would have overall policy and strategic control of all Jardine Matheson Group companies. The firm delisted from the Hong Kong Stock exchange (Hang Seng Index) in 1994 under the tenure of Alasdair Morrison and placed its primary listing in London and its secondary listing in Singapore. The present Chairman of Jardine Matheson Holdings Ltd. is Sir Henry Keswick, who is based in the UK, was the company’s tai-pan from 1970 (aged 31) to 1975 and was the 6th Keswick to be tai-pan of the company. His brother, Simon, was the company’s taipan from 1983 to 1988 and is the 7th Keswick to be tai-pan. Both brothers are the 4th generation of Keswicks in the company. The firm’s present managing director or tai-pan is Anthony Nightingale who is based in Hong Kong. The organizational structure of Jardines has changed almost totally, but the members of the family of Dr. William Jardine still control the firm through a complex cross-shareholding structure, several allied shareholders and a secretive 1947 Trust.

Notes

1. a b Grace, Richard J.. “Jardine, William (1784–1843)”. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004 ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/37595. Accessed 29 April 2010.

References

  • William Jardine and other Jardine tai-pans are fictionally portrayed in author James Clavell‘s popular fiction novels Tai-Pan (1966), Gai-Jin (1993), Noble House (1981) and Whirlwind (1987).
  • China Trade and Empire: Jardine, Matheson & Co. and the Origins of British Rule in Hong Kong 1827-1843 by Alain Le Pichon
  • Jardine Matheson Archives Cambridge Library
  • Jardine Matheson: Traders of the Far East by Sir Robert Blake
  • The Thistle and the Jade by Maggie Keswick

banknotes.jpg

CHINA PESSIMISM FROM MINXIN PEI

February 26, 2011 at 1:34 am | Posted in Asia, Books, China, Development, Economics, Financial, Globalization, History, Research | Leave a comment

spin-globe.gif

books-globe.gif

globe-purple.gif

history.gif

world.gif

compass.gif

loudspeaker.gif

globeinmoney.jpg

Minxin Pei is a China-watcher who fled China after Tiananmen 1989 and got his degree at the Kennedy School at Harvard and is now at Carnegie.

He is against the “China euphoria” crowd and a China pessimist.

Can one argue now that Pei must be wrong given that China sailed through the current crisis better than anyone else?

China‘s Trapped Transition:

The Limits of Developmental Autocracy

Minxin Pei (Author)

Review

Minxin Pei is unquestionably one of this country’s best informed and most insightful analysts of contemporary Chinese politics. This well-written, provocative book­-a sobering picture of a China beset by severe social problems yet resistant to the political reforms needed to resolve them-­directly challenges much of the conventional wisdom about the rise of China. It is certain to be welcomed by scholars, policymakers, and general readers alike.
–Elizabeth J. Perry, author of Patrolling the Revolution (20060531)

In this superb work, Pei asks penetrating questions about the course of China’s development. He offers a very effective critique of the gradualist approach to reform, explaining that the problems China faces are not incidental to but an integral part of that approach. Powerfully argued, this is a major contribution sure to stir debate.
–Joseph Fewsmith, author of China since Tiananmen (20060612)

Pei’s notion of a ‘trapped transition’ will prove valuable­-and not just for its application to China. It serves to challenge the deterministic and evolutionary assumptions behind much of the literature on democratization.
–Philippe C. Schmitter, European University Institute (20060901)

Not only does Minxin Pei make the case that the Chinese reforms are partial and self-limiting, but he also calls into question the hopeful view that rapid growth will ultimately generate political reform. His important book has implications for current debates about the United States-China relationship, but will also force a rethinking of the broader comparative literature on the developmental state.
–Stephan Haggard, co-author of The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions (20061001)

Thought-provoking…Mr. Pei argues, persuasively, that China’s gradualism, often favourably contrasted with the former Soviet Union’s flirtation with radical reforms, is as much a political as an economic strategy.
–Martin Wolf (Financial Times )

Pei does not have much time for the optimistic assumption that democracy in China is just around the corner…For Pei, there is little chance of dethroning the Communist party behemoth in spite of the heroic efforts of the dissidents and democracy campaigners.
–Chris Patten (Financial Times )

As Pei sees it, big trouble looms [for China]. Continued progress toward a more modern economy will require the establishment of a true rule of law, which in turn will require ‘institutional curbs’ on governmental action. These two limitations on power are incompatible with the party’s insistence on dominating society. So long as the current political framework remains in place, then, China is effectively, and perhaps fatally, trapped in its state of transition…China’s Trapped Transition presents a] comprehensive and, I believe, compelling understanding of present-day China.
–Gordon G. Chang (Commentary )

[An] acute and insightful examination of China’s ongoing transition.
–Chris Hunter (China Economic Review )

Pei’s most significant contribution lies in his lucid exposition of the causal links between the structural logic of China’s “illiberal adaptation” and its manifest socio-economic and political consequences…He has arguably–like Elvin before him–raised the level of debate and altered the terms of engagement.
–Richard Baum (China Journal )

Product Description

The rise of China as a great power is one of the most important developments in the twenty-first century. But despite dramatic economic progress, China’s prospects remain uncertain. In a book sure to provoke debate, Minxin Pei examines the sustainability of the Chinese Communist Party’s reform strategy—pursuing pro-market economic policies under one-party rule.

Pei casts doubt on three central explanations for why China’s strategy works: sustained economic development will lead to political liberalization and democratization; gradualist economic transition is a strategy superior to the “shock therapy” prescribed for the former Soviet Union; and a neo-authoritarian developmental state is essential to economic take-off. Pei argues that because the Communist Party must retain significant economic control to ensure its political survival, gradualism will ultimately fail.

The lack of democratic reforms in China has led to pervasive corruption and a breakdown in political accountability. What has emerged is a decentralized predatory state in which local party bosses have effectively privatized the state’s authority. Collusive corruption is widespread and governance is deteriorating. Instead of evolving toward a full market economy, China is trapped in partial economic and political reforms.

Combining powerful insights with empirical research, China’s Trapped Transition offers a provocative assessment of China’s future as a great power.

Product Details:

  • Hardcover: 308 pages
  • Publisher: Harvard University Press
  • March 31, 2006
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0674021959
  • ISBN-13: 978-0674021952

Pei is well known is his field for writing about the political divide between the CCP and the Chinese people. This book does an excellent job in covering the realities of the economic and political situations within China. The vast majority of the book is actually quite an easy read, but the beginning of the book can be challenging for those that aren’t use to conceptual models (hence 4 stars).

I highly recommend that those interested in China read this book. While I do not agree with specific points, Pei’s general ideas are sound and provide lots to think about. China’s government (read the CCP) must withdraw from the market if the economic reforms laid down by Deng Xiaoping are to continue and be successful. However, as Pei points out, by withdrawing from the markets, the CCP will lose a lot of its hard power.

For those who’s never been to China or lived there, this book might be a little out of their scope. After all, the only things you hear in the news are how if Walmart were a country, it’d be China’s 7th biggest trading partner, or how Intel is building their fabs in China (away from Shanghai towards inland to further reduce cost). For those people, go read on how China will take over the world economically by the middle of this century and believe what you want.

For those who have any clue about China’s political system are keenly aware that the entire Chinese economy is still tied into the political system, and that is just a time bomb waiting to explode. If the CCP were to collapse, half of the country’s wealth will be exported and rest will go down with the defunct banking system. This book digs into the depth of the current geo-political situation, and is so accurate that the People’s Congress is taking note and implementing changes (albeit slowly) previously pointed out by the author. If you want to know the REAL story behind the Chinese economic system and where it’ll truly head in the next several decades, this is THE book to read. Not some “economic model that projects blah, blah, blah and threatens US’s position in the world,” where the author is totally clueless of all fundamentals of the Chinese economy other than published economic numbers.

This book is a highly intelligent, in-depth and convincing analysis of China as a dysfunctional, ‘predatory’ state. It is highly unlikely it will evolve in positive directions of increasing democracy. While it may collapse, the future may instead be that of a corrupt, stagnating failed state which exports its problems to the rest of the world – failure to control drugs, arms sales to dangerous regimes, aids, illegal immigration, etc etc. An important antidote to all the self-serving business propaganda on China’s economic miracle.

ITEM II:

Author: Minxin Pei

Looming stagnation.

(The Color of China) (economy):

An article from: The National Interest

Product Description

This digital document is an article from The National Interest, published by The National Interest, Inc. on March 1, 2009. The length of the article is 3465 words.

Citation Details
Title: Looming stagnation. (The Color of China)(economy)
Author:
Minxin Pei
Publication:
The National Interest (Magazine/Journal)
Date:
March 1, 2009
Publisher:
The National Interest, Inc.

Forecasters of the fortunes of nations are no different from Wall Street analysts: they all rely on the past to predict the future. So it is no surprise that China’s rapid economic growth in the last thirty years has led many to believe that the country will be able to continue to grow at this astounding rate for another two to three decades.

Optimism about China’s future is justified by the state’s apparently strong economic fundamentals–such as a high savings rate, a large and increasingly integrated domestic market, urbanization and deep integration into the global trading system. More importantly, China has achieved its stunning performance in spite of the many daunting economic, social and political difficulties that doomsayers emphasize…and yet Minxin Pei doubts the adaptability of the Chinese system.

China‘s Trapped Transition:

The Limits of Developmental Autocracy

Minxin Pei (Author)

Publisher: Harvard University Press

March 31, 2006

banknotes.jpg

WANG HUI: RECLAIMING ASIA FROM THE WEST: PART II OF RETHINKING GLOBAL HISTORY

January 16, 2011 at 2:48 am | Posted in Asia, Books, China, Development, Economics, Financial, Globalization, History, Philosophy, Research, World-system | Leave a comment

spin-globe.gif

books-globe.gif

globe-purple.gif

history.gif

world.gif

compass.gif

loudspeaker.gif

globeinmoney.jpg

Reclaiming Asia From the West: Rethinking Global History

by Wang Hui

Many Asians are now debating the idea of Asia. Some want to create a regional system in opposition to neo-liberal imperialism. Others want to transcend nationalism, which they regard as outmoded, and to create a fresh sense of Asian identity that does not depend on the old, and Western-invented, dichotomy of East and West.

By Wang Hui

Asia, like Europe, wants to create regional institutions strong enough to counterbalance the power of the United States. Two apparently different ideas – liberal globalisation and the new empire- have knit together military unions, collaborative economic associations and international political institutions to set up a global order encompassing politics, the economy, culture and the military. This order may be called neoliberal imperialism.

European societies have attempted to protect themselves with a form of regionalism. The German philosopher Jurgen Habermas, in an article on why Europe needs a constitution (1), proposes three major tasks in the construction of post-national democracy: to form a European civic society, to build a Europe-wide political public sphere, and to create a political culture which all citizens of the European Union will be able to share.

Regionalism is also the subject of a major debate in Asia. China, for instance, suggested a few years ago that it could join the 10 members of the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2) through a formula of ?0 plus one.? Japan immediately followed, suggesting a formula of ?0 plus three?(China, Japan and South Korea). A Japanese news agency article in 2002 said: if the unification of Asia accelerates . . . the sense of distance between Japan and China will tend to disappear naturally in the process of regional unification; eventually, based on a first regional negotiation occasion that excludes the United States, a conference of ASEAN and the leaders of Japan, China, and Korea may achieve an Asian version of the reconciliation between France and Germany (3).

When 10 eastern European nations were accepted as formal members of the European Union on 1 May 2004, a Japanese diplomat and an Indian political scientist suggested that China, Japan and India should be the axes of an Asian version of Nato.

This raises the question of what Asians mean when they speak of Asia. Since the 19th century, different forms of Asianism have been closely linked with different forms of nationalism. But in the wave of modern Asian nationalisms, the idea of Asia contains two opposing concepts: the Japanese colonial concept of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere and the socialist concept of Asia centred on national socialist and liberation movements. In the context of the collapse of the socialist movement and the reconstruction of Asian imaginations, how should we regard and deal with the socialist legacy in Asia? If we seek today to surpass the nation-state, then an idea of Asia means that we have to substitute a supranational state vision for 19th-century imaginings.

Asia: A European notion

The idea of Asia is not an Asian invention but a European one. In the 18th and 19th centuries the European social sciences (historical linguistics, modern geography, philosophy of rights, theories of state and race, historiography, political economy) developed quickly, along with natural sciences. Together they created a new world map. The ideas of Europe and Asia were integrated into the concept of world history. Charles de Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Hegel, and Marx, among others, constructed the idea of Asia in contrast with Europe and incorporated Asia in a teleological vision of history (4).

The core elements of this vision can be summed up as the opposition between Asian multi-ethnic empires and the European sovereign/monarchical state; between Asian political despotism and European legal and political systems; between the nomadic and agrarian mode of production of Asia and European urban life and trade. Since the European nation-state and the expansion of the capitalist market system were considered as the advanced stage, Asia was consigned to a lower developmental stage of history. In the European imagination, Asia was not only a geographic category, but also a civilisation with a political form in opposition to the European nation-state, a social form in opposition to European capitalism, and in transition between an unhistorical and a historical stage.

This discourse provided a framework within which European intellectuals, and also Asian revolutionaries and reformists, could represent world history and Asian societies, establish revolution and reform policies, and describe the past and future of Asia. Through most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the idea of Asia was contained in a universal discourse of European modernity that provided a similar narrative framework for colonists and revolutionaries. Ironically, European discourses presented Asia as the starting point of world history. Hegel wrote: the history of the world travels from East to West, for Europe is absolutely the end of history, Asia is the beginning . . .The East knew and to the present day knows that no one is free; the Greek and Roman world, that some are free; the German world knows that all are free. The first political form, therefore, which we observe in history is despotism, the second democracy and aristocracy, the third monarchy?(5).

This is a philosophical condensation of European discourses on Asia. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith analysed the relationship between agriculture and irrigation in China and other Asian countries to contrast it with western European cities, characterised by manufacturing and foreign trade. Smith’s definition of four historical stages, of hunting, nomadic, agriculture and commerce, coordinates with his definition of regions and races. He mentioned native tribes of north America as examples of nations of hunters, the lowest and rudest state of society Tatars and Arabs as examples of nations of shepherds, a more advanced state of society and ancient Greeks and Romans as examples of nations of husbandmen, a yet more advanced state of society (6).

From Hegel’s perspective, all these issues belonged to the political sphere and the formation of the state: hunting races were regarded as the lowest and crudest because hunter-gatherer communities were so small that the political specialisation of labour demanded by a state was impossible. When he described world history, Hegel resolutely excluded North America (characterised by hunter-gathering) and placed the East at the beginning of history. Smith divided history according to different economic or productive patterns, while Hegel classified by region, civilisation and state structure. Both linked productive or political forms with specific spaces such as Asia, America, Africa or Europe, and arranged them into a relationship of temporal periodicity.

When he expounded the evolution of socio-economic systems, Marx defined four stages: Asian, primitive, feudal and capitalist. His unique version of the Asian mode of production originated in a synthesis of Hegel’s and Smith’s views of history. According to Perry Anderson (7), a series of generalisations about Asia in European intellectual history since the 15th century formed the basis upon which Marx built his idea of the Asiatic mode of production: public or state ownership of land (from James Harrington, Francis Bernier, Montesquieu); lack of legal constraint (Jean Bodin, Montesquieu, Bernier); religion rather than legal systems (Montesquieu); lack of hereditary aristocracy (Machiavelli, Francis Bacon, Montesquieu); slavery-like social equality (Montesquieu, Hegel), isolated village communal life (Hegel); agriculture that overwhelmed industry (John Stuart Mill, Bernier); stagnant history (Montesquieu, Hegel, Mill). All these supposed characteristics of Asia were regarded as the properties of oriental despotism. This ensemble of ideas can be traced back to discussions of Asia in Greek thought (8).

Asian ideas of Asia

Asian ideas of Asia are the products of modern nationalism. Although they are historically opposed in substance, the various Asian nationalist discourses – the Japanese departure from Asia and joining Europe the national autonomy advocated by the Russian revolutionaries, and the Pan-Asianism of Chinese revolutionaries – were all based on the idea of the antithesis between the nation-state and empire.

The Japanese nationalist slogan came from a short essay by Fukuzawa Yukichi (1835-1901) published in 1885. Departure from Asia reveals a determination to abandon the China-centred world, its politics and Confucian ideology. The idea of joining Europe was to establish Japan as a European-style nation-state. Fukuzawa’s view of Asia was that it could be considered as culturally homogenous, as a Confucian space; he aimed to break with Confucianism by transforming Japan into a nation-state. Japan’s self-consciousness as a nation-state was to be achieved through separation from Asia and reproduction, within Asia, of the dichotomy civilised/barbarian, western/eastern.

He argued that Japan should not only depart from its own past identity, but also reshape an axis in the whole of Asia. In reality, its route as a nation-state was not departure from Asia and joining Europe?but rather entering Asia and confronting Europe.?The Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere?proposed as a colonial slogan in the early 20th century was used to legitimise the Japanese invasions in Asia. Given this colonial context, it is understandable that most Chinese intellectuals became reluctant to elaborate or to adopt this idea.

National liberation movements created a new Asian imagination, echoing the socialist idea present in the Russian revolution. The socialist movement, anti-capitalist and fighting the bourgeois nation-state, was from the start directed towards internationalism and anti-imperialism. However, like the theory of departure from Asia in Japan, the theory of the right of nations to self-determination was elaborated within the dichotomy of nation-state and empire.

Outcome of European modernity

Lenin published a series of articles on Asia 27 years after Fukuzawa’s essay and soon after the republican revolution erupted and the provisional government of the Chinese republic was established in January-February 1912 (9). He described China as a land of seething political activity, the scene of a vibrant social movement and of a democratic upsurge (10), and condemned the fact that civilised and advanced Europe with its highly developed machine industry, its rich multiform culture and its constitutions came out, under the command of the bourgeoisie, in support of everything backward, moribund and medieval (11). The opposing views of Lenin and Fukuzawa are based on a common basic understanding that Asian modernity was the outcome of European modernity and that, regardless of Asia’s status and fate, the significance of its modernity manifested itself only in its relationship with advanced Europe.

In historical epistemology, there is no substantial difference between Lenin’s revolutionary judgment and the idea of Asia held by Hegel or Smith. All perceived the history of the development of capitalism as an evolutionary process from the ancient Orient or Asia to modern Europe, from hunting, nomadism and agriculture to trade or industry. Hegel’s view of world history and his designation of Asia as medieval, barbarian and non-historical was also Lenin’s premise. His Hegel-plus-revolution idea of Asia described historical development in three stages: ancient, medieval and modern (feudalism, capitalism, proletarian revolution or socialism). It provided a framework, when joined with temporality and periodisation for the capitalist era, to understand the history of other regions.

Lenin’s arguments, especially the idea of an inherent connection between nationalism and capitalism, provide an outline to understand the relationship between modern Chinese nationalism and the idea of Asia. When Sun Yat-sen visited Kobe in 1924, he (12) made his famous speech on great Asianism (13). He distinguished two Asias: one with no independent states that had been the origin of the most ancient civilisation; another that was about to rejuvenate. He claimed that Japan would be the genesis for this Asia since it had abolished a number of unequal treaties imposed by Europe and had become the first independent state in Asia. He applauded the Japanese victory in its war with Russia as the first triumph of Asian nations over the European in the past several hundred years . . . All Asian nations are exhilarated . . . They therefore hope to defeat Europe and start movements for independence . . . The great hope of national independence in Asia is born (14).

It was not just a question of East Asia as part of a Confucian cultural sphere, but of a multicultural Asia whose unity was based upon the independence of sovereign states. Sun Yat-sen’s Asian nations were the desired outcome of national independence movements and not awkward imitations of European nation-states. He insisted that Asia had its own culture and principles – the culture of the kingly way as opposed to the culture of the hegemonic way of European nation-states. He called his speech great Asianism partly because he connected the idea of Asia with the idea of the kingly way. The inherent unity of Asia was not Confucianism or any other homogeneous culture, but a political culture that accommodated different religions, beliefs, nations and societies. Great Asianism, or pan-Asianism, was antithetical to the proposed Greater East Asia of modern Japanese nationalism, and it led to a new kind of internationalism.

The connection between socialist values and Chinese traditions has inspired contemporary scholars to reconstruct the idea of Asia. Mizoguchi Yuzo argues that categories such as heavenly principles (tianli), and public/private (gong/si) ran through Chinese intellectual and social history from the Song (960-1279) to the Qing (1911), and that therefore there is an inherent continuity between some themes of modern Chinese revolution and the idea of land regulation. This attempt to define Asian culture both resists and criticises modern capitalism and colonialism (15). There is a sharp opposition between socialist and colonialist ideas of Asia.

As early as the 1940s, Miyazaki Ichisada started to explore the beginning of Song capitalism by studying the history of wide-ranging communications in different regions. He argued that those who regard history since the Song as the growth of modernity should reflect on western modern history in light of the earlier modernity in east Asia?(16). That his theory of east Asian modernity overlapped with the Japanese idea of the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere does not obscure his insights. Within a world-historical framework, he observed how the digging of the Grand Canal, largescale migration to the metropolises, and the use of commodities such as spice and tea connected European and Asian trade networks. He also argued that the expansion of the Mongol empire, which promoted artistic and cultural exchanges between Europe and Asia, not only changed internal relations in China and Asian societies, but also connected Europe and Asia by land and sea (17).

Parallel development

If the political, economic and cultural features of Asian modernity appeared as early as the 10th or 11th century, three or four centuries earlier than comparable features appeared in Europe, was the historical development of these two worlds parallel or associated? Miyazaki suggested that East Asia, especially China, not only provided the necessary market and material for the industrial revolution, but also nurtured the growth of humanism in the French Revolution. He logically concluded: the European industrial revolution was definitely not a historical event affecting only Europe, because it was not only a problem of machinery but also an issue of the whole social structure. To make possible the industrial revolution, the prosperity of the bourgeoisie was necessary, and the capital accumulation from trading with east Asia was also indispensable. To make the machines work not only required power, but also cotton as raw material. In fact, East Asia provided raw material and market. Without intercourse with East Asia, the industrial revolution might not have taken place (18).

The movement of the world is a process in which multiple spheres communicate and, interpenetrate and mould one another. When historians located Asia in global relations, they realised that the issue of modernity was not an issue belonging to a certain society, but the result of interaction between regions and civilisations. In this sense, the validity of the idea of Asia diminishes, since it is neither a self-contained entity nor a set of relations. A new idea of Asia – which is neither the beginning of a linear world history nor its end, neither self-sufficient subject nor subordinating object – provides an opportunity to reconstruct world history. This corrective must also lead to a re-examination of the idea of Europe, since it is impossible to continue to describe Asia based upon Europe‘s self-image.

The accounts of Asia that we have discussed reveal the ambiguity and contradictions in the idea of Asia. The idea is simultaneously colonialist and anti-colonialist, conservative and revolutionary, nationalist and inter-nationalist; it originated in Europe and shaped the self-interpretation of Europe; it is closely related to the matter of the nation-state and overlaps with the vision of empire; it is a geographic category established in geo-political relations. We must take seriously the derivativeness, ambiguity and inconsistency of the way that the idea of Asia emerged, as we explore the political, economic and cultural independence of Asia today. The keys to transcend or overcome such derivativeness, ambiguity and inconsistency can be discovered only in the specific historical relations that gave rise to them.

The criticism of Euro-centrism should not seek to confirm Asia-centrism but rather to eliminate the self-centred, exclusivist, expansionist logic of dominance. We will not be able to understand the significance of Asian modernity if we forget the historical conditions and movements we have discussed. In this sense, new Asian visions need to surpass the goals and projects of 20th-century national liberation and socialist movements. Under current historical circumstances, they must explore and reflect on the unaccomplished historical projects of these movements. The aim is not to create a new cold war but to end forever the old one and its derivative forms; it is not to reconstruct the colonial relationship but to eliminate its remnants and stop new colonising possibilities from emerging.

The question of Asia is not merely an Asian issue but one of world history. To reconsider Asian history requires both a revision of the 19th-century European conception of world history and an attempt to break through the 21st-century new imperial order and its logic.

This article, based on a talk at the London School of Economics in May 2004, is revised slightly from Le Monde Diplomatique, December, 2004. Wang Hui is a historian of ideas and chief editor of Dushu, Beijing. The article appeared at Japan Focus on February 23, 2005.

(1) Jurgen Habermas, “Why Europe needs a constitution”, New Left Review, London, Sept-Oct 2001.
(2) Asean, originally created in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, now also includes Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Brunei and Burma.
(3) Nishiwaki Fumiaki, “Relationship between Japan, the US, China, and Russia from the perspective of China’s 21st century strategy”, Sekai Shuho, Tokyo, 12 February 2002.
(4) Teleology is the doctrine that certain phenomena are best explained in terms of purpose rather than cause. In the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx regarded the history of western Europe as “an epoch marking progress in the economic development of society”. This preface was never reprinted during his lifetime. In 1877 he commented that one should not “transform [his] historical sketch of the development of western European capitalism into a historical-philosophical theory of universal development predetermined by fate for all nations”. See Saul K Padover, ed, The Letters of Karl Marx, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1979.
(5) Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, The Philosophy of History, Colonial
Press, Jackson, Michigan, 1899.
(6) Adam Smith, “An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of
nations”, The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam
Smith, vol II 2, Oxford University, London, 1976.
(7) Perry Anderson, Lineages of the Absolute State, Verso, London, 1979.
(8) Op cit. Anderson’s analysis of the Asian mode of production is
authoritative but he did not touch on the important influence of Smith and the Scottish school on the ideas that Hegel and Marx had about Asia.
(9) “Democracy and Narodism in China” (1912), in V I Lenin, Collected
Works, vol 18, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1963; “The Awakening of Asia” (1913), vol 19; “Backward Europe and advanced Asia” (1913), vol 19. The Russian term “narodism” means populism.
(10) “The awakening of Asia”.
(11) “Backward Europe and Advanced Asia”.
(12) Sun Yat-sen (1866-1925) was president of the first Chinese republic.
(13) Sun Yat-sen, “Dui Shenhu Shangye Huiyisuo Deng Tuanti De Yanshuo” (speech to organisations including the Kobe Chamber of Commerce), in Sun Zhongshan Quanji (complete works of Sun Zhongshan), Zhonghua shuju, Beijing, 1986.
(14) Ibid.
(15) See Mizoguchi Yuzo, Chugoku No Shiso (Chinese thought), Hoso daigaku kyoiku shinkokai, Tokyo, 1991; Mizoguchi Yuzo, Chugoku Zen Kindai Shiso No Kussetsu to Tenkai (Turns and changes in Chinese pre-modern thought), Tokyo daigaku shuppankai, Tokyo, 1980.
(16) Miyazaki Ichisada, Toyo Teki Kinsei (East Asia’s modern age), Kyoiku Times, Osaka.
(17) Ibid.
(18) Ibid. See also Philip S Golub, “All the riches of the East restored”,
Le Monde diplomatique, English language edition, October 2004.

Introducing Hui Wang

Wang Hui is a historian of ideas and chief editor of Dushu, Beijing.

As the world is drawn together with increasing force, our long-standing isolation from–and baffling ignorance of–China is ever more perilous. This book offers a powerful analysis of China and the transformations it has undertaken since 1989.

Wang Hui is unique in China’s intellectual world for his ability to synthesize an insider’s knowledge of economics, politics, civilization, and Western critical theory. A participant in the Tiananmen Square movement, he is also the editor of the most important intellectual journal in contemporary China. He has a grasp and vision that go beyond contemporary debates to allow him to connect the events of 1989 with a long view of Chinese history. Wang Hui argues that the features of contemporary China are elements of the new global order as a whole in which considerations of economic growth and development have trumped every other concern, particularly those of democracy and social justice. At its heart this book represents an impassioned plea for economic and social justice and an indictment of the corruption caused by the explosion of “market extremism.”

As Wang Hui observes, terms like “free” and “unregulated” are largely ideological constructs masking the intervention of highly manipulative, coercive governmental actions on behalf of economic policies that favor a particular scheme of capitalist acquisition–something that must be distinguished from truly free markets. He sees new openings toward social, political, and economic democracy in China as the only agencies by which the unstable conditions thus engendered can be remedied.

Wang Hui is a historian of ideas and chief editor of Dushu, Beijing.

Wang Hui is an intellectual historian at Tsinghua University in Beijing. His research focuses on contemporary Chinese literature and thought.

His early publications shed new light on the work of Lu Xun. In 1991, Wang Hui founded a journal Xueren (“The Scholar”) together with Chen Pingyuan and Wang Shouchang. Xueren has been described as the first non-official academic journal to appear in China after 1989. From 1996 to 2007, Wang Hui served as the chief editor (together with Huang Ping) of Dushu(“Reading”), the most important intellectual magazine in China during that decade.

Under Wang’s editorship, Dushu sparked a series of influential discussions and debates on a range of urgent issues ranging from the agricultural crisis, to climate change, political reform, mass media, and published reconsiderations of history, theory, and the arts. In 1997, he published a long essay entitled, “Contemporary Chinese Thought and the Question of Modernity,” a milestone in the debate between the so-called “new left” and “neo-liberal” in China.

His book, China‘s New Order: Society, Politics, and Economy in Transition, has been translated by Theodore Huters and Rebecca Karl. Published in 2003 by Harvard University Press, it describes Wang Hui as unique in China‘s intellectual world for his ability to synthesize an insider’s knowledge of economics, politics, civilization, and Western critical theory. A participant in the Tiananmen Square movement, he is also the editor of the most important intellectual journal in contemporary China.

He has a grasp and vision that go beyond contemporary debates to allow him to connect the events of 1989 with a long view of Chinese history. Wang Hui argues that the features of contemporary China are elements of the new global order as a whole in which considerations of economic growth and development have trumped every other concern, particularly those of democracy and social justice.

At its heart this book represents an impassioned plea for economic and social justice and an indictment of the corruption caused by the explosion of “market extremism.”

His book The Rise of Modern Chinese Thought was published in China. An English translation is expected in 2010.

In May 2008, Foreign Policy described Wang as one of the top 100 public intellectuals in the world.

Reclaiming Asia From the West: Rethinking Global History

by Wang Hui

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Wang-Hui/1781

Reclaiming Asia From the West: Rethinking Global History

by Wang Hui

Many Asians are now debating the idea of Asia. Some want to create a regional system in opposition to neo-liberal imperialism. Others want to transcend nationalism, which they regard as outmoded, and to create a fresh sense of Asian identity that does not depend on the old, and Western-invented, dichotomy of East and West.

By Wang Hui

Asia, like Europe, wants to create regional institutions strong enough to counterbalance the power of the United States. Two apparently different ideas – liberal globalisation and the new empire- have knit together military unions, collaborative economic associations and international political institutions to set up a global order encompassing politics, the economy, culture and the military. This order may be called neoliberal imperialism.

European societies have attempted to protect themselves with a form of regionalism. The German philosopher Jurgen Habermas, in an article on why Europe needs a constitution (1), proposes three major tasks in the construction of post-national democracy: to form a European civic society, to build a Europe-wide political public sphere, and to create a political culture which all citizens of the European Union will be able to share.

Regionalism is also the subject of a major debate in Asia. China, for instance, suggested a few years ago that it could join the 10 members of the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2) through a formula of ?0 plus one.? Japan immediately followed, suggesting a formula of ?0 plus three?(China, Japan and South Korea). A Japanese news agency article in 2002 said: if the unification of Asia accelerates . . . the sense of distance between Japan and China will tend to disappear naturally in the process of regional unification; eventually, based on a first regional negotiation occasion that excludes the United States, a conference of ASEAN and the leaders of Japan, China, and Korea may achieve an Asian version of the reconciliation between France and Germany (3).

When 10 eastern European nations were accepted as formal members of the European Union on 1 May 2004, a Japanese diplomat and an Indian political scientist suggested that China, Japan and India should be the axes of an Asian version of Nato.

This raises the question of what Asians mean when they speak of Asia. Since the 19th century, different forms of Asianism have been closely linked with different forms of nationalism. But in the wave of modern Asian nationalisms, the idea of Asia contains two opposing concepts: the Japanese colonial concept of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere and the socialist concept of Asia centred on national socialist and liberation movements. In the context of the collapse of the socialist movement and the reconstruction of Asian imaginations, how should we regard and deal with the socialist legacy in Asia? If we seek today to surpass the nation-state, then an idea of Asia means that we have to substitute a supranational state vision for 19th-century imaginings.

Asia: A European notion

The idea of Asia is not an Asian invention but a European one. In the 18th and 19th centuries the European social sciences (historical linguistics, modern geography, philosophy of rights, theories of state and race, historiography, political economy) developed quickly, along with natural sciences. Together they created a new world map. The ideas of Europe and Asia were integrated into the concept of world history. Charles de Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Hegel, and Marx, among others, constructed the idea of Asia in contrast with Europe and incorporated Asia in a teleological vision of history (4).

The core elements of this vision can be summed up as the opposition between Asian multi-ethnic empires and the European sovereign/monarchical state; between Asian political despotism and European legal and political systems; between the nomadic and agrarian mode of production of Asia and European urban life and trade. Since the European nation-state and the expansion of the capitalist market system were considered as the advanced stage, Asia was consigned to a lower developmental stage of history. In the European imagination, Asia was not only a geographic category, but also a civilisation with a political form in opposition to the European nation-state, a social form in opposition to European capitalism, and in transition between an unhistorical and a historical stage.

This discourse provided a framework within which European intellectuals, and also Asian revolutionaries and reformists, could represent world history and Asian societies, establish revolution and reform policies, and describe the past and future of Asia. Through most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the idea of Asia was contained in a universal discourse of European modernity that provided a similar narrative framework for colonists and revolutionaries. Ironically, European discourses presented Asia as the starting point of world history. Hegel wrote: the history of the world travels from East to West, for Europe is absolutely the end of history, Asia is the beginning . . .The East knew and to the present day knows that no one is free; the Greek and Roman world, that some are free; the German world knows that all are free. The first political form, therefore, which we observe in history is despotism, the second democracy and aristocracy, the third monarchy?(5).

This is a philosophical condensation of European discourses on Asia. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith analysed the relationship between agriculture and irrigation in China and other Asian countries to contrast it with western European cities, characterised by manufacturing and foreign trade. Smith’s definition of four historical stages, of hunting, nomadic, agriculture and commerce, coordinates with his definition of regions and races. He mentioned native tribes of north America as examples of nations of hunters, the lowest and rudest state of society Tatars and Arabs as examples of nations of shepherds, a more advanced state of society and ancient Greeks and Romans as examples of nations of husbandmen, a yet more advanced state of society (6).

From Hegel’s perspective, all these issues belonged to the political sphere and the formation of the state: hunting races were regarded as the lowest and crudest because hunter-gatherer communities were so small that the political specialisation of labour demanded by a state was impossible. When he described world history, Hegel resolutely excluded North America (characterised by hunter-gathering) and placed the East at the beginning of history. Smith divided history according to different economic or productive patterns, while Hegel classified by region, civilisation and state structure. Both linked productive or political forms with specific spaces such as Asia, America, Africa or Europe, and arranged them into a relationship of temporal periodicity.

When he expounded the evolution of socio-economic systems, Marx defined four stages: Asian, primitive, feudal and capitalist. His unique version of the Asian mode of production originated in a synthesis of Hegel’s and Smith’s views of history. According to Perry Anderson (7), a series of generalisations about Asia in European intellectual history since the 15th century formed the basis upon which Marx built his idea of the Asiatic mode of production: public or state ownership of land (from James Harrington, Francis Bernier, Montesquieu); lack of legal constraint (Jean Bodin, Montesquieu, Bernier); religion rather than legal systems (Montesquieu); lack of hereditary aristocracy (Machiavelli, Francis Bacon, Montesquieu); slavery-like social equality (Montesquieu, Hegel), isolated village communal life (Hegel); agriculture that overwhelmed industry (John Stuart Mill, Bernier); stagnant history (Montesquieu, Hegel, Mill). All these supposed characteristics of Asia were regarded as the properties of oriental despotism. This ensemble of ideas can be traced back to discussions of Asia in Greek thought (8).

Asian ideas of Asia

Asian ideas of Asia are the products of modern nationalism. Although they are historically opposed in substance, the various Asian nationalist discourses – the Japanese departure from Asia and joining Europe the national autonomy advocated by the Russian revolutionaries, and the Pan-Asianism of Chinese revolutionaries – were all based on the idea of the antithesis between the nation-state and empire.

The Japanese nationalist slogan came from a short essay by Fukuzawa Yukichi (1835-1901) published in 1885. Departure from Asia reveals a determination to abandon the China-centred world, its politics and Confucian ideology. The idea of joining Europe was to establish Japan as a European-style nation-state. Fukuzawa’s view of Asia was that it could be considered as culturally homogenous, as a Confucian space; he aimed to break with Confucianism by transforming Japan into a nation-state. Japan’s self-consciousness as a nation-state was to be achieved through separation from Asia and reproduction, within Asia, of the dichotomy civilised/barbarian, western/eastern.

He argued that Japan should not only depart from its own past identity, but also reshape an axis in the whole of Asia. In reality, its route as a nation-state was not departure from Asia and joining Europe?but rather entering Asia and confronting Europe.?The Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere?proposed as a colonial slogan in the early 20th century was used to legitimise the Japanese invasions in Asia. Given this colonial context, it is understandable that most Chinese intellectuals became reluctant to elaborate or to adopt this idea.

National liberation movements created a new Asian imagination, echoing the socialist idea present in the Russian revolution. The socialist movement, anti-capitalist and fighting the bourgeois nation-state, was from the start directed towards internationalism and anti-imperialism. However, like the theory of departure from Asia in Japan, the theory of the right of nations to self-determination was elaborated within the dichotomy of nation-state and empire.

Outcome of European modernity

Lenin published a series of articles on Asia 27 years after Fukuzawa’s essay and soon after the republican revolution erupted and the provisional government of the Chinese republic was established in January-February 1912 (9). He described China as a land of seething political activity, the scene of a vibrant social movement and of a democratic upsurge (10), and condemned the fact that civilised and advanced Europe with its highly developed machine industry, its rich multiform culture and its constitutions came out, under the command of the bourgeoisie, in support of everything backward, moribund and medieval (11). The opposing views of Lenin and Fukuzawa are based on a common basic understanding that Asian modernity was the outcome of European modernity and that, regardless of Asia’s status and fate, the significance of its modernity manifested itself only in its relationship with advanced Europe.

In historical epistemology, there is no substantial difference between Lenin’s revolutionary judgment and the idea of Asia held by Hegel or Smith. All perceived the history of the development of capitalism as an evolutionary process from the ancient Orient or Asia to modern Europe, from hunting, nomadism and agriculture to trade or industry. Hegel’s view of world history and his designation of Asia as medieval, barbarian and non-historical was also Lenin’s premise. His Hegel-plus-revolution idea of Asia described historical development in three stages: ancient, medieval and modern (feudalism, capitalism, proletarian revolution or socialism). It provided a framework, when joined with temporality and periodisation for the capitalist era, to understand the history of other regions.

Lenin’s arguments, especially the idea of an inherent connection between nationalism and capitalism, provide an outline to understand the relationship between modern Chinese nationalism and the idea of Asia. When Sun Yat-sen visited Kobe in 1924, he (12) made his famous speech on great Asianism (13). He distinguished two Asias: one with no independent states that had been the origin of the most ancient civilisation; another that was about to rejuvenate. He claimed that Japan would be the genesis for this Asia since it had abolished a number of unequal treaties imposed by Europe and had become the first independent state in Asia. He applauded the Japanese victory in its war with Russia as the first triumph of Asian nations over the European in the past several hundred years . . . All Asian nations are exhilarated . . . They therefore hope to defeat Europe and start movements for independence . . . The great hope of national independence in Asia is born (14).

It was not just a question of East Asia as part of a Confucian cultural sphere, but of a multicultural Asia whose unity was based upon the independence of sovereign states. Sun Yat-sen’s Asian nations were the desired outcome of national independence movements and not awkward imitations of European nation-states. He insisted that Asia had its own culture and principles – the culture of the kingly way as opposed to the culture of the hegemonic way of European nation-states. He called his speech great Asianism partly because he connected the idea of Asia with the idea of the kingly way. The inherent unity of Asia was not Confucianism or any other homogeneous culture, but a political culture that accommodated different religions, beliefs, nations and societies. Great Asianism, or pan-Asianism, was antithetical to the proposed Greater East Asia of modern Japanese nationalism, and it led to a new kind of internationalism.

The connection between socialist values and Chinese traditions has inspired contemporary scholars to reconstruct the idea of Asia. Mizoguchi Yuzo argues that categories such as heavenly principles (tianli), and public/private (gong/si) ran through Chinese intellectual and social history from the Song (960-1279) to the Qing (1911), and that therefore there is an inherent continuity between some themes of modern Chinese revolution and the idea of land regulation. This attempt to define Asian culture both resists and criticises modern capitalism and colonialism (15). There is a sharp opposition between socialist and colonialist ideas of Asia.

As early as the 1940s, Miyazaki Ichisada started to explore the beginning of Song capitalism by studying the history of wide-ranging communications in different regions. He argued that those who regard history since the Song as the growth of modernity should reflect on western modern history in light of the earlier modernity in east Asia?(16). That his theory of east Asian modernity overlapped with the Japanese idea of the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere does not obscure his insights. Within a world-historical framework, he observed how the digging of the Grand Canal, largescale migration to the metropolises, and the use of commodities such as spice and tea connected European and Asian trade networks. He also argued that the expansion of the Mongol empire, which promoted artistic and cultural exchanges between Europe and Asia, not only changed internal relations in China and Asian societies, but also connected Europe and Asia by land and sea (17).

Parallel development

If the political, economic and cultural features of Asian modernity appeared as early as the 10th or 11th century, three or four centuries earlier than comparable features appeared in Europe, was the historical development of these two worlds parallel or associated? Miyazaki suggested that East Asia, especially China, not only provided the necessary market and material for the industrial revolution, but also nurtured the growth of humanism in the French Revolution. He logically concluded: the European industrial revolution was definitely not a historical event affecting only Europe, because it was not only a problem of machinery but also an issue of the whole social structure. To make possible the industrial revolution, the prosperity of the bourgeoisie was necessary, and the capital accumulation from trading with east Asia was also indispensable. To make the machines work not only required power, but also cotton as raw material. In fact, East Asia provided raw material and market. Without intercourse with East Asia, the industrial revolution might not have taken place (18).

The movement of the world is a process in which multiple spheres communicate and, interpenetrate and mould one another. When historians located Asia in global relations, they realised that the issue of modernity was not an issue belonging to a certain society, but the result of interaction between regions and civilisations. In this sense, the validity of the idea of Asia diminishes, since it is neither a self-contained entity nor a set of relations. A new idea of Asia – which is neither the beginning of a linear world history nor its end, neither self-sufficient subject nor subordinating object – provides an opportunity to reconstruct world history. This corrective must also lead to a re-examination of the idea of Europe, since it is impossible to continue to describe Asia based upon Europe‘s self-image.

The accounts of Asia that we have discussed reveal the ambiguity and contradictions in the idea of Asia. The idea is simultaneously colonialist and anti-colonialist, conservative and revolutionary, nationalist and inter-nationalist; it originated in Europe and shaped the self-interpretation of Europe; it is closely related to the matter of the nation-state and overlaps with the vision of empire; it is a geographic category established in geo-political relations. We must take seriously the derivativeness, ambiguity and inconsistency of the way that the idea of Asia emerged, as we explore the political, economic and cultural independence of Asia today. The keys to transcend or overcome such derivativeness, ambiguity and inconsistency can be discovered only in the specific historical relations that gave rise to them.

The criticism of Euro-centrism should not seek to confirm Asia-centrism but rather to eliminate the self-centred, exclusivist, expansionist logic of dominance. We will not be able to understand the significance of Asian modernity if we forget the historical conditions and movements we have discussed. In this sense, new Asian visions need to surpass the goals and projects of 20th-century national liberation and socialist movements. Under current historical circumstances, they must explore and reflect on the unaccomplished historical projects of these movements. The aim is not to create a new cold war but to end forever the old one and its derivative forms; it is not to reconstruct the colonial relationship but to eliminate its remnants and stop new colonising possibilities from emerging.

The question of Asia is not merely an Asian issue but one of world history. To reconsider Asian history requires both a revision of the 19th-century European conception of world history and an attempt to break through the 21st-century new imperial order and its logic.

This article, based on a talk at the London School of Economics in May 2004, is revised slightly from Le Monde Diplomatique, December, 2004. Wang Hui is a historian of ideas and chief editor of Dushu, Beijing. The article appeared at Japan Focus on February 23, 2005.

(1) Jurgen Habermas, “Why Europe needs a constitution”, New Left Review, London, Sept-Oct 2001.
(2) Asean, originally created in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, now also includes Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Brunei and Burma.
(3) Nishiwaki Fumiaki, “Relationship between Japan, the US, China, and Russia from the perspective of China’s 21st century strategy”, Sekai Shuho, Tokyo, 12 February 2002.
(4) Teleology is the doctrine that certain phenomena are best explained in terms of purpose rather than cause. In the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx regarded the history of western Europe as “an epoch marking progress in the economic development of society”. This preface was never reprinted during his lifetime. In 1877 he commented that one should not “transform [his] historical sketch of the development of western European capitalism into a historical-philosophical theory of universal development predetermined by fate for all nations”. See Saul K Padover, ed, The Letters of Karl Marx, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1979.
(5) Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, The Philosophy of History, Colonial
Press, Jackson, Michigan, 1899.
(6) Adam Smith, “An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of
nations”, The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam
Smith, vol II 2, Oxford University, London, 1976.
(7) Perry Anderson, Lineages of the Absolute State, Verso, London, 1979.
(8) Op cit. Anderson’s analysis of the Asian mode of production is
authoritative but he did not touch on the important influence of Smith and the Scottish school on the ideas that Hegel and Marx had about Asia.
(9) “Democracy and Narodism in China” (1912), in V I Lenin, Collected
Works, vol 18, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1963; “The Awakening of Asia” (1913), vol 19; “Backward Europe and advanced Asia” (1913), vol 19. The Russian term “narodism” means populism.
(10) “The awakening of Asia”.
(11) “Backward Europe and Advanced Asia”.
(12) Sun Yat-sen (1866-1925) was president of the first Chinese republic.
(13) Sun Yat-sen, “Dui Shenhu Shangye Huiyisuo Deng Tuanti De Yanshuo” (speech to organisations including the Kobe Chamber of Commerce), in Sun Zhongshan Quanji (complete works of Sun Zhongshan), Zhonghua shuju, Beijing, 1986.
(14) Ibid.
(15) See Mizoguchi Yuzo, Chugoku No Shiso (Chinese thought), Hoso daigaku kyoiku shinkokai, Tokyo, 1991; Mizoguchi Yuzo, Chugoku Zen Kindai Shiso No Kussetsu to Tenkai (Turns and changes in Chinese pre-modern thought), Tokyo daigaku shuppankai, Tokyo, 1980.
(16) Miyazaki Ichisada, Toyo Teki Kinsei (East Asia’s modern age), Kyoiku Times, Osaka.
(17) Ibid.
(18) Ibid. See also Philip S Golub, “All the riches of the East restored”,
Le Monde diplomatique, English language edition, October 2004.

Introducing Hui Wang

Wang Hui is a historian of ideas and chief editor of Dushu, Beijing.

As the world is drawn together with increasing force, our long-standing isolation from–and baffling ignorance of–China is ever more perilous. This book offers a powerful analysis of China and the transformations it has undertaken since 1989.

Wang Hui is unique in China’s intellectual world for his ability to synthesize an insider’s knowledge of economics, politics, civilization, and Western critical theory. A participant in the Tiananmen Square movement, he is also the editor of the most important intellectual journal in contemporary China. He has a grasp and vision that go beyond contemporary debates to allow him to connect the events of 1989 with a long view of Chinese history. Wang Hui argues that the features of contemporary China are elements of the new global order as a whole in which considerations of economic growth and development have trumped every other concern, particularly those of democracy and social justice. At its heart this book represents an impassioned plea for economic and social justice and an indictment of the corruption caused by the explosion of “market extremism.”

As Wang Hui observes, terms like “free” and “unregulated” are largely ideological constructs masking the intervention of highly manipulative, coercive governmental actions on behalf of economic policies that favor a particular scheme of capitalist acquisition–something that must be distinguished from truly free markets. He sees new openings toward social, political, and economic democracy in China as the only agencies by which the unstable conditions thus engendered can be remedied.

Wang Hui is a historian of ideas and chief editor of Dushu, Beijing.

Wang Hui is an intellectual historian at Tsinghua University in Beijing. His research focuses on contemporary Chinese literature and thought.

His early publications shed new light on the work of Lu Xun. In 1991, Wang Hui founded a journal Xueren (“The Scholar”) together with Chen Pingyuan and Wang Shouchang. Xueren has been described as the first non-official academic journal to appear in China after 1989. From 1996 to 2007, Wang Hui served as the chief editor (together with Huang Ping) of Dushu(“Reading”), the most important intellectual magazine in China during that decade.

Under Wang’s editorship, Dushu sparked a series of influential discussions and debates on a range of urgent issues ranging from the agricultural crisis, to climate change, political reform, mass media, and published reconsiderations of history, theory, and the arts. In 1997, he published a long essay entitled, “Contemporary Chinese Thought and the Question of Modernity,” a milestone in the debate between the so-called “new left” and “neo-liberal” in China.

His book, China‘s New Order: Society, Politics, and Economy in Transition, has been translated by Theodore Huters and Rebecca Karl. Published in 2003 by Harvard University Press, it describes Wang Hui as unique in China‘s intellectual world for his ability to synthesize an insider’s knowledge of economics, politics, civilization, and Western critical theory. A participant in the Tiananmen Square movement, he is also the editor of the most important intellectual journal in contemporary China.

He has a grasp and vision that go beyond contemporary debates to allow him to connect the events of 1989 with a long view of Chinese history. Wang Hui argues that the features of contemporary China are elements of the new global order as a whole in which considerations of economic growth and development have trumped every other concern, particularly those of democracy and social justice.

At its heart this book represents an impassioned plea for economic and social justice and an indictment of the corruption caused by the explosion of “market extremism.”

His book The Rise of Modern Chinese Thought was published in China. An English translation is expected in 2010.

In May 2008, Foreign Policy described Wang as one of the top 100 public intellectuals in the world.

Reclaiming Asia From the West: Rethinking Global History

by Wang Hui

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Wang-Hui/1781

banknotes.jpg

Next Page »

Get a free blog at WordPress.com | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 267 other followers