Internationalizing the Pacific: The United States, Japan, and the Institute of Pacific Relations in War and Peace, 1919-1945 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Making the Pacific, Making Japanese-U.S. Relations
Pacific Historical Review, 2019
This special issue of Pacific Historical Review, “Making the Pacific, Making Japanese-U.S. Relations: Science and Technology as Historical Agents in the Twentieth Century,” is guest edited by Martin Collins and Teasel Muir-Harmony. The special issue gives prominence to science and technology as sources of agency inextricably bound to the modern project—and thus bound to another expression of the modern, the nation state and its interrelation with other states. In the modern context, scientific and technical knowledge, practices, and things are fundamental to composing more robust historical accounts, including accounts of the nation state. This interpretive frame is vital in understanding the Japan-U.S. relationship in the twentieth century and the critical role of the Pacific Ocean therein. The special issue includes a preface from Marc S. Rodriguez, this introduction by Martin Collins, and articles by Daqing Yang on wireless telegraphy, Chihyung Jeon on postwar trans-Pacific air f...
International Politics, 2018
Between two world wars, the often under-rated Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) was perhaps the most visible and impressive international foreign policy think tank, an ambitious and idealistic effort to establish a transnational knowledge network. The IPR was among the rather few interwar international organizations that sought to accord Asians genuine input into in its administration and activities. By World War II, the IPR had become a focus for nationalist, anti-imperialist, and anti-colonial sentiment within its assorted Asian member states and also in North America. Such tendencies perhaps peaked at the pioneering 1947 Asian Relations Conference organized by one of its member organizations, the Indian Council on World Affairs. Despite its stated pan-Pacific outlook, the IPR may have thereby encouraged the pronounced pan-Asian outlook and consciousness that characterized the 1955 Bandung conference. Ironically but presciently, the IPR’s checkered experiences also suggested that conflicting national interests dividing member states had great potential to undercut attempts to establish broader transnational groupings.
Japan and the International System: Challenge from the Pacific
International Journal, 1990
Contemporary students of world politics have been concerned primarily with matters European. Discussions of war and peace, conflict resolution, foreign policy behaviour, deterrence, alliance formation, and regional integration have been focussed almost exclusively on Europe. More accurately, most observers have been interested in the creation and maintenance of the north Atlantic community (read European-American relations) and the ideological battle over the future of Europe (read Soviet-American relations). Recent events in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Germany have reaffirmed both the importance of Europe in the international system and our preoccupation with it. We must be careful, however, not to lose sight of the Pacific dimension in international politics, especially the Japanese-American relationship. The central premise of the project of which the articles in this issue form a part is that the postwar international system is in crisismore specifically, that the system is being challenged on at least three levels. The first challenge is the challenge from within, the erosion of the state and the breakdown of
Cultural Studies, 2000
This essay offers a critical genealogy of US imperial dynamics in the Pacific in the context of examining the discursive tactics of APEC and the emerging hegemony of transnational capital in the region. Moving from Honolulu to Taipei and Canberra in focus, it tracks the dynamics of globalization and localization under which Asia-Pacific is being constructed into postcolonial if not post-political identity as a coherent region of teleological belonging. Literary and cultural producers are invoked, to the contrary, in order to wrest Asia/Pacific into critical self-consciousness of regional unevenness, alternative possibility, spatial contestation, and desublimated otherness. Asia/Pacific can thus become the signifier for a cultural studies in which opposition, location, indigeneity, and alternative discursive framings of the region can come into contemporary critical play.