‘내파(內破)’하는 ‘대동아공영권’ －동남아시아 점령과 조선통치－

Abstract

As the idea of 'the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’ had not been established according to a detailed plan, but rather improvised in haste in order to keep up with the change in the world, the outbreak of the Second World War, its range was vague and unclear and its contents were flexible. The early idea of ‘the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’, which led to a remarkable victory at the beginning of war since the ambush at Pearl Harbor, set securing of resources and maintenance of public order in the conquered territories as prior tasks and brought Japan's position as a leader to the forefront. However, as the war progressed to its disadvantage and it was expected since the autumn of 1943 for the allied powers to counterattack in a full scale, the correction of ‘the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’ was tried in order to induce the conquered territories to spontaneously cooperate in the war. The idea about post-war local order was developed, which argued the foundation of an international organization called 'the Greater East Asia Alliance' centered around the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and 'the Greater East Asia Court of Arbitration', 'the Greater East Asia Constabulary Force', and 'the Greater East Asia Clearing Bank' as its affiliated organs, but it was not accepted in the real politics. Instead, while the imperialistic undertone of the early ‘Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’ was beautified through slogans, such as ‘autonomous independence’ and ‘peaceful reciprocity’, the Greater East Asia Council was held to get agreement to ‘the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’, but on the contrary, the problem of selecting participating nations and others became an issue, and the internal contradictions of ‘the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’ became intensified. On the other hand, Joseon, a leader nation('an inside nation') in 'the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’ and substantially a colony(‘an outside nation’), amplified the internal contradictions of ‘the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’ more. The more the slogans of ‘the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’, for instance, ‘coexistence and co- prosperity’, ‘autonomous independence’, and ‘peaceful reciprocity', were emphasized, the bigger the conflicts in the imperial order got. Japan supported the modified ‘Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’ to replace 'Atlantic Charter' while criticizing imperialism of the U.S.A. and Europe, yet, on the contrary, people of the conquered territories had no choice but worrying about becoming another Joseon or another Manchuria. On the other hand, ‘Tōjō Statement’, ‘the Greater East Asia Proclamation’, and ‘Koiso Statement’ rather stimulated Joseon people's national awareness and consciousness of independence, intensified cracks and conflicts in 'the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’, and resulted in the ‘internal collapse(內破)’ of 'the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.’ Joseon argued breakaway and independence from ‘the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’ with 'coexistence and co-prosperity', 'autonomous independence' and 'peaceful reciprocity' proclaimed by ‘the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’ as weapons. The slogans of Japan returned as a boomerang. In this way, the reorganization of the local order by Japan, that is, ‘the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’, brought about severe cracks in the imperial order of Japan, and only right before their defeat in the war, it was at last considered again to improve its political conditions as a temporary remedy to seal the rupture in the imperial order during the reorganization of international order, which was represented by 'Cairo Conference' and 'Teheran Conference'.