Diplomat Ashida Hitoshi and the Turkish Straits in the 1920s
論　説
Diplomat Ashida Hitoshi and the
Turkish Straits in the 1920s
Radomir Compel
Abstract The end of the WWI initiated dissipation of the Ottoman Empire, but
at the same time, it brought about modern nation - state with strong foundations
in the Asia Minor. Such dramatic changes, which lead to the conclusion of the
Sèvres and Lausanne treaties, only reaffirmed the strategic importance of the
Straits in the region.
The newly established regime of free passage and international control
of the Turkish Straits reflected agreement of both Great Powers and regional
states. But maintaining such an agreement over time meant facing the
challenge of historical events and of changing interests of the concerned
parties.
Most of the evaluations of the contemporary Turkey and of the Straits
in the 1920s have been supplied “from the Western perspectives.” However,
it has for long been forgotten that in Japan, diplomat Hitoshi Ashida, later to
become the Prime Minister, published at the time a profound study, based on
his experience from the participation to the Paris peace conferences and from
the period he stayed in Istanbul. His writings may provide a new light for
151
横浜国際経済法学第 19 巻第３号（2011 年３月）
understanding the issue of the Turkish Straits, their international legal status
in the late 1920s, and shaping of the international system of free passage.
This paper aims at introducing the work of a Japanese diplomat and
internationalist on the revolutionary Turkey and especially on the Straits issue.
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Ashida’s Background and Life in Istanbul
2.1 Ashida’s Background
2.2 Life in Istanbul and “New Turkey”
3. Turkish Straits in Ashida’s Eyes
3.1 “New Diplomacy”
3.2 Freedom of Passage
3.3 Demilitarization
3.4 International Control
4. Japanese Views on the Treaty Revision
5. Conclusion
1. Introduction
In Japan, Ashida Hitoshi has been known for his short - lived time in
the office of Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Welfare Minister in the
early post - Second World War period. His name is often associated with the
movement for the revision of the post - war constitution, limited rearmament,
and with the first proposal for close Japan - U.S. security relations including U.S.
152
Diplomat Ashida Hitoshi and the Turkish Straits in the 1920s
bases in Japan.
Despite substantial literature, a shared image of Ashida has yet to
be arrived at. Among the general public, his name is associated with the
conservative liberals to whom he belonged. Ashida was the key person behind
the short - lived merger with Socialists in 1947 - 1948, and behind the history making merger of Conservative parties into the Liberal Democratic Party in
1955. However, Ashida has for long time been a riddle for political scientists.
Ashida was a conservative, but among conservatives, he was considered a
liberal. He was a liberal, but among liberals he was considered a progressive
reformist. Among liberals, he was considered a pacifist too. But among pacifists,
he has been criticized for supporting postwar active rearmament.
This paper aims at drawing very different image of Ashida. Looking
at Ashida from his pre - war experience, and especially from his knowledge
of Turkey, Middle Eastern and East European affairs, might aid us in
understanding the actions he took after he became renowned.
2. Ashida’s Background and Life in Istanbul
2.1 Ashida’s Background
Ashida Hitoshi was born in 1887 to a landowner family in a mountainous
countryside of Kyoto in the center of the Honshu Island. Hitoshi’s father
Kanosuke was a local leader of the civil rights movement and a local politician.
Just at the time when Hitoshi grew up and entered the University of Tokyo,
his father was elected to the House of Representatives. Hitoshi built upon the
father’s liberal education and political carrier. After graduation in 1911 Hitoshi passed the diplomatic examination, entered the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and he was assigned to the Japanese embassy in St. Petersburg. His perfect
153
横浜国際経済法学第 19 巻第３号（2011 年３月）
knowledge of French and affection for writing assured him quick promotion.
After the Soviet revolution, Ashida was recalled, and found himself among the
Japanese mission to the Versailles Paris Peace Conference. By the time of his
assignment to Istanbul as the first secretary, he had established a professional
magazine, published 6 books, and innumerable number of articles. He was 38
and so popular, that national newspapers announced the assignment with large
headlines (Asahi Newspaper, 1925, July 10, p.3).
2.2 Life in Istanbul and “New Turkey”
For long time little has been known about Ashida’s stay in Turkey. He
wrote only little to the Japanese magazines at the time, and his biographies
remain nearly silent (Miyano, 1987 : 157 ; Tomita, 1992 : 57 ; Masuda, 2001 : 89, Shindo, 1986 : 31 ). Nor do the Japanese diplomatic archives reveal much about
his life in Istanbul and Ankara.
Japanese mission to Istanbul existed from the Ottoman period, but the
embassy was officially established only after the Japanese ratification of the
Lausanne Treaty on August 6, 1924 (Esenbel, 2007:1). Ashida arrived in
January 1926 by Orient Express from Paris. He worked as the first secretary
and deputy to the ambassador Obata Yukichi. He was joined at the embassy
by Naito Chishu, a specialist staff and later professor of Moslem cultures in
Japan, and 5 other personnel (Nagaba, 2007:14). As most diplomatic missions
at the time, Ashida lived with his wife Sumiko and children and worked at the
consulate in Istanbul. Hitoshi and Sumiko always retained deep sentimental
feelings to Istanbul, also because they lost their son Zitaro as a result of
catching fever there (Miyano, 1987: 62 and 194).
Most of his official work in Istanbul was related to the economic and trade
affairs (Ikei, 1999:139). Ashida often visited Ankara, where the discussions
154
Diplomat Ashida Hitoshi and the Turkish Straits in the 1920s
with the Turkish government officials took place. In terms of his duties, Ashida
dealt with Foreign Minister Tevfik Ruştu Aras and Cevad Bey, the Turkish
Ambassador to Japan. Ashida is known for purchasing the building of the
Embassy in Istanbul, and also for reserving the grounds for the new Embassy
in Ankara (Matsutani, 1998, 140).
Shortly after his arrival to Istanbul, Ashida started writing his doctoral
thesis about the legal and political system of the Turkish Straits. His work
proceeded speedily because his manuscript was ready by the next year. He
received Doctorate of Laws from the University of Tokyo in 1928 for the work,
and when it was published in 1930 in Japanese under the title Institutional
History of Passage through the Straits of Constantinople , the volume turned to
be 547 pages in length. How did Ashida look at the new treaty regulating the
Straits?
3. Turkish Straits in Ashida’s Eyes
3.1 “New Diplomacy”
The end of the First World War was marked by two landmark events.
U.S. president Wilson’s Fourteen Points and Soviet disclosure of Secret Pacts.
Ashida experienced the Soviet revolution, and the “new Soviet diplomacy,”
with his own eyes. He also witnessed the “new Wilsonian diplomacy” come in
full blossom at the Paris Peace Conference. As with Ashida’s fellow liberals
and internationalists, such as Baba Tsunego, Kiyosawa Kiyoshi or Hasegawa
Nyozekan, the achievements of the Peace conference brought elation with the
prospects for peaceful resolution of disputes.
The Straits have from times immemorial been considered a major strategic
crossroad, fueling instability in the region. In the medieval times, the Ottoman
155
横浜国際経済法学第 19 巻第３号（2011 年３月）
rule provided one solution to the security dilemma. It closed the Straits and
made the Black Sea its internal waters (Ashida, 1930:35). However, this
solution became unfeasible in the modern era, both because of the territorial
advancements of European Powers and Russia, and because of the “new
diplomacy”. The “new diplomacy” in the case of Lausanne Straits Convention
meant three things to Ashida. 1) Freedom of passage, 2) demilitarization, and
3) international control. These three together made Lausanne the “lawmaking
treaty” for the future (Ashida, 1930: 529).
3.2 Freedom of Passage
The Preamble of the Straits Convention ensures “in the Straits freedom
of transit and navigation”, and states that “the maintenance of that freedom
is necessary to the general peace and the commerce of the world…” It allows
free passage to commercial vessels, airplane and military ships of third parties
(Ashida, 1930: 445). Wide interpretation of the freedom of passage in the
Lausanne convention, limits on the other hand, Turkish sovereign rights. It
leaves Turkey with substantial vulnerability to put up with, especially during
the time of belligerency. Even when at war, Turkey has to assure free passage
to foreign vessels while not having enough capability for effective defense
(ibid.:456).
The above provision leaves Turkey in an unfavorable position, and
Ashida suggests that, in order for the treaty to attain the essential aim,
that of reduction of international conflict, it has to be closely combined with
demilitarization and international control.
156
Diplomat Ashida Hitoshi and the Turkish Straits in the 1920s
3.3 Demilitarization
For the Western Powers and third parties, this clause is closely related to
the above principle of freedom of passage. Western powers demanded freedom
of passage, but they were afraid, such freedom cannot be fully realized unless
Turkey demilitarizes its Straits zones (U.K. Stationery Office, 1923: 141).
Siding with the opinions of Ismet Inönü and the Turkish side at the
Conference, Ashida argues, that the gist of the demilitarization provisions
does not end with absolute limitations on the power of the coastal state, but
rather, on how to promote safety of those coastal states. Lausanne treaty did
not verbally suggest such guarantee, but Ashida argued for the Neutrality
safeguards. He did not consider Art. 18 of the Straits Treaty to be explicit
enough. “Demilitarization is merely an international action to prevent the
causes of conflict, but only by establishing Neutrality zones it is possible to do
away with the effects of international conflict” (Ashida, 1930: 530). Ashida was
proud, that Japan became one of the powers to guarantee free passage under
the art. 18, in the line with England, France, and Italy (Ibid.: 493).
3.4 International Control
The International Commission had already been established by the Treaty
of Sèvres, and Ashida argues that under the Lausanne regime, it lost most of
the powers. He proposes, the Commission should, therefore, be revised and
upgraded. It should (1) be composed of members with diplomatic immunity,
(2) be independent of the local administrative authorities, (3) be in possession
of its own ships for the purpose of execution of its duties, (4) exercise
pilotage, towing, operate lighthouse, and buoys and execute other measures
for management of the traffic, (5) have the powers to patrol, (6) possess and
operate signal stations on both sides of the Straits (Ashida, 1930: 529).
157
横浜国際経済法学第 19 巻第３号（2011 年３月）
4. Japanese Views on the Treaty Revision
Ashida believed that modern state could no longer rely on narrow minded
nationalism, and that free movement of goods was indispensable for national
development ( Ibid. : 510 ). Internationalism under the auspices of the League
of Nations was the right way to manage international conflicts. For Ashida, the
new solution provided by the Lausanne system served a good example.
But not all agreed with Ashida at the time. Major authority on the
Maritime Law at the Tokyo University at the time Ashida graduated was
Matsunami Ninichiro, an ‘old - fashioned’ Meiji realist and positivist legal scholar.
Only 4 years before Ashida submitted his Doctorate thesis, Matsunami wrote from a very different perspective, on a painstaking issue relevant to
the Straits of Korea. Japan at the time practiced 3 mile territorial sea limit,
which effectively meant, leaving the Straits open to free international traffic.
Matsunami was against such a policy. He argued Korea was under the
Japanese protection, and therefore Japan had the title to the internalization of
the Straits. His argument was also founded on international practice. The 3 mile
limit had been an increasingly ossified standard, providing coastal states with
little safety. Matsunami suggested raising the limit to 12 miles, the distance
that would both safeguard state security and sovereignty, and modernize
Japanese law to stick to the new international practice. Such a policy would
effectively close the Korean Straits, without making any further efforts in that
regard (Matsunami, 1924 (7): 15).
The Ashida’s thesis seems to be in direct opposition to the argument
raised by Matsunami. Indeed, the whole work of Ashida is rooted in his
devotion to defend international cooperation and freedom of passage, even at
the stake of limitations to national sovereignty. However, his devotion was not
158
Diplomat Ashida Hitoshi and the Turkish Straits in the 1920s
unlimited.
While being relatively liberal and idealist in appearance, Ashida was
conscious of the realist undercurrents in international politics. He recognized,
that, the system of straits adopted at Lausanne, was in part a remnant from the
interwar secret agreements and especially from the Sèvres treaty. Therefore,
Ashida realized that “international cooperation,” in the form of International
Straits Committee and demilitarization zones, was not only the result of
Turkish benevolence, but also of its inability to fully resist to the Western
demands. Therefore, when Turkey started to air its requests for revision of
the Lausanne system in 1930s, Ashida, with some reservations, welcomed the
transition to the Montreaux system (Ashida, 1935, 22 - 23).
Revision at the Montreaux conference in the mid - 1930s attracted more
attention in Japan than its predecessor. Shinobu Junpei and Kajima Morinosuke
emphasized the peaceful process through which Turkey achieved the revision
(Kajima, 1936, 6). Mori Akira focused on the power shift among the major
powers and how it was reflected in the Black Sea region, only to conclude that
the Turkish revision proposal would be recognized by all, even though some
might have reservation as to the limitations of the free passage of warships
(Mori, 1936: 42 - 43). Shinobu also advised that other “not - having” countries
should take the Turkish way as an example, in case they call for the revision
of the established postwar international treaty system (Shinobu, 1936, 10).
While being more moderate than Ashida in their appeals, the language they
employed showed their reservations towards the behavior of the three major
“not - having” countries, and appealed caution at the increasingly volatile state of
international affairs.
More realist scholars, such as Kano Kizo focused on the strategic aspects
of the Turkish Straits and of the treaty revision, and they emphasized its
159
横浜国際経済法学第 19 巻第３号（2011 年３月）
rearmament attribute (Kano, 1936 : 146 - 147 ; Kano, 1940, 273). Based from the
colonial perspective, Izumi Tetsu shares with Kano the argument that in order
to face properly the challenges of other major powers, Japan should follow
the Turkish example in the pursuit of its revision of the Washington Treaty
System (Izumi, 1936 : 158).
The revision process at Montreaux was not smooth. One of the
complications was the position of Japan. Japan withdrew from the League of
Nations in March 1933, while still being the party to the Lausanne Treaty. No
longer in the League, Japan was left out of the negotiating table at Montreaux,
but it could refuse to accept revision of the Lausanne terms. But Japan was
cooperative. Sato Shun assures with air of legalism, that Japanese government
accepted “ad referendum” the Turkish request for revision of the system of
passage (Sato, 1937 : 471).
The specialist on Turkish affairs from the embassy staff and a colleague of
Ashida, Naito Chishu, reviews the problem of the Straits from the 1699 treaty
of Kucuk Kainardji that determined Ottoman retreat. Based on the concept of
Asian weakening vis - à - vis Europe, Naito arrived at the debate of the Lausanne
and Montreaux conferences, where he argued what some Turkish generals
were for long whispering about. That times may come Turkey, prompted by
Italian provocations, may be tempted to take hold of the Dodecanese Islands,
and thus initiate the “Asian come - back” (Naito, 1936 : 136 - 137).
How did Ashida’s opinion fit into the above framework? In his manuscript,
Ashida warmly supported the Lausanne system of demilitarization and
international control, and of the freedom of passage, but for him, this trend
was not necessarily contradictory to his later calls for remilitarization and
nationalization of control over the Straits, if the principles of freedom and
cooperation were diligently upheld (Ashida, 1935 : 22).
160
Diplomat Ashida Hitoshi and the Turkish Straits in the 1920s
5. Conclusion
Ashida Hitoshi and the Legacy of the 1920s in the Turkish – Japanese Relations
The diplomatic relations between Japan and Turkey were established in
1920s. Until today, analyses of two trends prevailed. One stressed economic
diplomacy, and it focused on the role of the Ambassador Obata. The
Ambassador received much trust of the Foreign Minister Shidehara Kijuro,
a rationalist and liberal politician. Obata had long experience in China and
Manchuria, and he shared with Shidehara the vision of Japan as a strong
trading nation (Obata, 1957).
The other trend came from very different corner, that of military
diplomacy. Since the Russo - Japanese war, Turkey had always been a country
of interest to Japanese strategists. Hashimoto Kingoro, a military attaché at
the time of Ashida’s presence was one of them. He is well known for being
an admirer of Atatürk, and for his failed attempt to realize what Atatürk had
succeeded with in Turkey, radical reforms (Tuncoku, 1998).
This paper suggests one more trend. That of diplomatic diplomacy. Of
that for what diplomacy has originally been for. Dissemination and gathering of
information, discussions, agreements, peaceful settlement of disputes, but first
of all, careful analysis. Ashida Hitoshi was certainly a master in that.
Ashida’s writings show that there were threads common to the thought
of Japanese and Turkish liberals. However, his ideas on the new regime of the
Straits diverged substantially. With the non - western Japanese background
criticizing particularism in the Western definitions of the New World Order,
and at the same time his appraisal for the new universalistic institutions, he
shed a new light at the Straits issue. The light, which the Turkish liberals were
not at ease to embrace, but still the light which has enriched our understanding
161
横浜国際経済法学第 19 巻第３号（2011 年３月）
of the relationship between the Staits and the States in the interwar period.
In the last decades, the accounts of the liberal views in Turkey at the
times of the creation of the Republic, have attempted re - writing the modern
Turkish history. Recently elaborated by Demirel, Kansu, Tuncay, Koçak,
Pamuk, Keyder, and others, the classical discontinuity thesis has been
substantially revised and updated. Also in Japan, the postwar consensus on
the “Taisho Democracy” has been revised in the works of Sakai, Kitaoka, Ito,
Murai, Arima and others.
The modest conclusion that this paper might offer, is that Ashida’s review
of the Straits Problem might give us some suggestions about the possibilities
(and limitations) of political liberalism in Turkey and Japan during the
interwar period.
Being of anti - authoritarian, liberal, internationalist and pacifist leaning,
Ashida was, in the name of middle - way politics, ready enough to accommodate
limited forms of corporatism, nationalism and re - militarization, in the postwar
period. This “realist” attribute had already been manifested in his interwar
thought about the Turkish Straits.
References
Ashida, Hitoshi, Kunfu Kaikyo Tsuko Seidoshiron (Institutional History of Passage through
the Straits of Constantinople), Ganshodo Shoten, 1930. Ashida Hitoshi, “Toruko Kaikyo saibusou to Oshu seikyoku - Oshu ni aiutsu genjou ijiha to
genjo dahaha, ” Sekai Chishiki, 8 (6), 1935.
Esenbel, Selcuk, Nihon to Toruko no Kindaishi no Basho to shite no Istanbulu kyu- Soryojikan.
Symposium “Istanbulu wo meguru Nihon to Toruko no kankeishi to kyu -Nihon
Soryojikan” , Nihon Toruko Bunka Koryu Kenkyukai, 2007.
162
Diplomat Ashida Hitoshi and the Turkish Straits in the 1920s
Ikei, Masaru, 1926 Nen Kinto Boeki Kaigi, in Masaru Ikei and Tsutomu Sakamoto, Kindai Nihon to Toruko Sekai, Keiso Shobo, 139, 1999.
Izumi, Tetsu, Montreaux Kaigi no Seika. Gaiko Jiho , 762, Sept. 1926.
Kajima, Morinosuke, Doyo no Europa, Kokusai Chishiki , 5, 1936.
Kano, Kizo, Dardanelles Mondai, Gaiko Jiho , 755, May, 1936.
Kano, Kizo, Oshu no Gensei , vol. 2, Kokon Shoin, 1940.
Matsuda, Hiroshi, Ashida Hitoshi, in Watanabe Akio, Sengo Nihon no Saishotachi , Chuo
Koronsha, 2001. Matsunami, Ninichiro, Chosen Kaikyoron 1, 2, 3. Kokusaiho Gaiko Zasshi , 24 (5), (7), (8), 1925.
Matsutani, Hironao, Istanbulu wo Aishita Hitobito , Chuo Koronsha, 1998.
Miyano, Tooru, Saigono Liberalisto – Ashida Hitoshi , Bungei Shunju, 1987.
Mori, Akira, Toruko Kaikyo Seido Kaisei Mondai, Kokusai Chishiki , 6, 1936.
Nagaba, Hiroshi, Nihon to Toruko: Kousho Juritsu ni katsuyaku shita hitobito. Symposium
“Istanbulu wo meguru Nihon to Toruko no kankeishi to kyu -Nihon soryojikan” , Nihon
Toruko Bunka Koryu Kenkyukai, 2007.
Naito, Chishu, Da-Bo Ryo Kaikyo Mondai to Ajia no Kaifuku, Gaiko Jiho , 755, 1936.
Obata, Yukichi, Obata Yukichi Papers , National Diet Library, Tokyo.
Obata, Yukichi Denki Kankokai, Obata Yukichi , Obata Yukichi Denki Kankokai, 1957.
Sato, Shun, “Montreaux” Joyaku ni Yoru Shin Kaikyo Seido, Kokka Ho Gaiko Zasshi , 36 (5),
1937.
Shindo, Eiichi, “Kaidai: Nikki to Hito to Shogai” in Shindo, Eiichi and Shimokobe Motoharu,
eds., Ashida Hitoshi Diaries , vol.1, Iwanami Shoten, 1986.
Shinobu, Junpei, Toruko no Ryo Kaikyo ni Kansuru: Montreaux Shin Joyaku no Igi. Kokusai Chishiki , 3, 1936.
Tomita, Nobuo, Ashida Seiken 223 Nichi , Gyoken, 1992.
Tuncoku, A., Mete, 1930 -40’lar Japonya’sında Atatürk hayran bir Japon subayı: Kingoro
Hashimoto, Altıncı Askeri tarih Semineri Bildirileri I , Genelkuray Basımevi: Ankara, 1998.
163