Talk:Institute of Pacific Relations

Comments
This article gets the totality of its information from Joe McCarthy and the McCarthy wanna-bees of the 1950s SISS committee, and doesn't cite any sources. Needs some major work. KarlBunker 00:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ...which I've just done. Further work and improvement is welcome, of course. KarlBunker 18:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The article contains a lot of valuable information, but did not first give an idea of the full range of IPR activities. I did some rearranging and cut some of the detail in order to make the article more proportional. Some of the detail could well go into the individual articles on the personalities involved. I also cut the section on the China Hands, as in fact they did not play much of a role in the IPR. cwh 06:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your mass removal of accurate, verifiable information published by reliable sources violates WP:EP and WP:NPOV. I have reverted these deletions. Feel free to add additional information, but do not remove information without discussing here. Please indicate what information "seems" second- or third-hand, and why. I'm sure we can reason our way to a consensus. Mark LaRochelle 20:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Expansion Plans
I've added a section of references and plan to expand the article over the next couple of months. I plan sections on the founding; IPR's role in the US/ China/ Japan conflict in the 1920s and 30s from Akami's book; major themes at the conferences; publications and sponsorship of scholarship; cooperation in college and university education; and legacy for Area Studies and Asian Studies.

I wonder if the material after the second paragraph in the present article should be established as a separate article, perhaps something along the lines of "Institute of Pacific Relations and Communist Influence." Otherwise, I'd be willing to condense the present material to highlight the major points and make it proportional decade to decade. ch (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd favor condensing the present material, making the article more "proportional decade to decade", rather than spinning off a new article on communist influences and McCarthyite accusations. At the same time, however, it's my impression that much of the present-day notability of the IPR is connected to its involvement with the communism/anti-communism of the fifties. So it would be appropriate for that period and that issue to get some extra coverage. I look forward to seeing your expansion. RedSpruce (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Update on Delayed Expansion Plans
I've been gathering notes and doing some thinking on the best way to represent all the themes of the present article but to add proper weight to other themes which are now either under-represented or not represented at all.

In the existing sections, I'm afraid that much of the material from the FBI investigations and the hearings still strikes me as mining primary sources to find second hand allegations. Using the FBI reports and hearings in their raw form would constitute "original research." One example: saying that Carter is a self-confessed "fellow traveler" depends on an unsourced assertion in an unsigned FBI report of 1946. Many of the other allegations are similarly weak in their sourcing, such as a witness recalling what somebody had told them in 1936 about affairs of which they had no direct knowledge.

We should be using published, peer reviewed scholarship, of which there is plenty. Some of the allegations were made under oath, but they were not cross examined or delivered under judicial conditions. Many of the assertions were clearly true, but again, it would constitute "original research" to assert on our own which were which.

Another in a series of problems I see is that the paragraph on China Hands says that a number of them were IPR members, but the article China Hands mentions only State Department FSO's, plus Fairbank and Lattimore. Should we change this to "Fairbank and Lattimore" rather than "China Hands"?

As they stand, these paragraphs strike me as leading to conclusions which are debatable without presenting the various sides of the debate. In this regard, I find the M. Stanton Evans book very useful in putting forth one view in clear form. I think we could use his quotes to establish the case against the "China Hands," but also show other views in the published scholarship, such as that listed in the reference section (which represents the academic field).

Since I'm not clear on what constitutes original research, would the best thing to do would be to try a sand box draft, paint a large bull's eye on it, and let people take aim? ch (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You have pointed out fatal weaknesses which I felt without going to the sources. The references look like a range of scholarly works, but nearly all the citations are from the postwar communist hunt and FBI files - quite an agenda there. That is seriously flawed. Also, there is nothing to help readers understand why China Hands and people with expertise in China might not think the communists were the worst thing to happen. This needs a lot of work if it is to approach NPOV.--Parkwells (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm in total agreement with both of you. Although using primary sources isn't strictly "original research," it would clearly be better to draw from more contemporary secondary sources that represent the consensus view of scholars. This is especially true when the primary source is something a s notoriously unreliable as McCarthy-era FBI files. I wish I had the time to help out with an update. RedSpruce (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Friends: I have begun a sandbox page, which I will continue to expand in response to suggestions. This first installment would follow the first couple of paragraphs in the present article. I will work on the later parts of the article to show the considerable achievements of the IPR but also the considerable criticisms, many of which are justified, of IPR members. [] ch (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Since six weeks have gone by since I invited suggestions on my sandbox draft, I have made the revisions in the article using the principles outlined above. ch (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested modifications from Paul Hooper
Note to Wikipedia “Talk” Staff:

I recently corresponded with your “Information” group about changes I felt would strengthen your generally good article (excepting the conclusions) on the IPR and my preference for simply providing a list of suggested revisions and additions for you to incorporate as judged appropriate. The reason for the latter request is that I am reluctant to rewrite someone else’s work even if this is the Wikipedia method. I was told that this would be acceptable and that I should address my list to you. Accordingly, it follows this note and I hope you find it helpful. I should mention that I have used my own articles for most of the source citations simply to avoid the clutter of the numerous original citations. If you wish, I can provide copies of the relevant portions of the documents and the related citations. Thank you for your attention and please let me know of any problems or questions.

Paul Hooper University of Hawaii

Suggested revisions and additions to the “Institute of Pacific Relations” article:

p. 1:

The IPR was an international NGO composed of national councils in its various Pacific Rim and European colonial member nations. It was formally governed by the Pacific Council, a body consisting of representatives from each of the national councils which met periodically. The International Secretariat, the center of most IPR activity over the years, consisted of professional staff members who recommended policy to the Pacific Council and administered the international program. The various national councils were responsible for national, regional and local programming. Most participants were elite members of the business and academic communities in their respective countries. Funding came largely from businesses and philanthropies, especially the Rockefeller Foundation. Its international headquarters were in Honolulu until the early 1930s when they were moved to New York and the American Council emerged as the dominant national council. Paul F. Hooper, ed., Remembering the Institute of Pacific Relations: The Memoirs of William L. Holland (Tokyo: Ryukei Shyosha, 1995), pp. 77-120.

At one time or another during its thirty-five year existence, groups in fifteen different nations affiliated with the IPR and organized national councils (Australia, Britain, Burma, Canada, China, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, the Soviet Union and the United States) but only Australia, Britain, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States were significant, consistent participants. Paul F. Hooper, “A Brief History of the Institute of Pacific Relations,” Rediscovering the IPR: Proceedings of the First International Research Conference on the Institute of Pacific Relations (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Center for Arts and Humanities, 1994), pp. 111-13.

Pacific Affairs began in 1927 as the Institute News Bulletin; it was renamed Pacific Affairs in 1928. Hooper, Brief History, pp. 117 and 121.

Edward C. Carter and his mainland American colleagues were important IPR figures from the outset and the dominant figures after the early 1930s, but the IPR’s origins are directly rooted in the activities of the international YMCA, the concerns of civic and business leaders from Hawaii (especially Frank C. Atherton) and Japan (especially Eiichi Shibusawa) and the rising regional tensions generated by American immigration restrictions, especially those imposed by the infamous 1924 law. Hooper, Brief History, pp.110-12.

p. 2:

If the prior suggestion on organizational structure is incorporated, the sentence at the beginning of this page is unnecessary.

The purpose of the conferences was to facilitate “frank and free” discussion of regional problems in the belief that this would cut through the fog of formal diplomacy and speed the formulation of needed solutions. The IPR termed this style of private diplomacy “conference diplomacy.” For the sake of completeness it should be noted that wartime and post-war conferences were held at Mont Tremblant (1942), Hot Springs (1945), Stratford-on-Avon (1948), Lucknow (1950), Kyoto (1954) and Lahore (1958). In addition, numerous national, regional and local conferences were held. Hooper, Brief History, p. 113.

Carter was Secretary of the American Council from 1928 until 1933 when he replaced J. Merle Davis as the chief operating officer of the international IPR (and changed the title of the position from General Secretary to Secretary General). Hooper, Brief History, pp. 122-24.

Carter and Research Secretary William L. Holland carried on the IPR’s increasingly important research program, but it was established earlier during the Davis years when the Research Secretary position was created and J.B. Condliffe was selected to fill it. Its initial purpose was simply to provide informational support for the conferences and raise public awareness of Asia and the Pacific, but it evolved into a more formal research program responsible for a remarkable number of important publications. Hooper, Brief History, pp. 117-18.

The emphasis upon Karl Wittfogel seems overdone. The IPR probably is responsible for saving his career (and perhaps even his life), but quite a number of other scholars (see the various listings in Holland Memoirs) figure more prominently in the group’s research activities over the years. Among these activities, the late 1930s Inquiry Project investigating the conflict between China and Japan is the best known and probably the most important. Promoted particularly by Carter, it is also a major indicator of the IPR’s shift from its original emphasis upon conferences and publicity to an advocacy-oriented concern with contemporary regional political issues. Hooper, Brief History, pp.125-26.

As noted above, the Bulletin became Pacific Affairs in 1928 and Owen Lattimore, a pioneering academic geographer of Asia, (why mention his lack of a Ph.D.; relatively few held the degree at that time) became its editor in 1933. Hooper, Brief History, pp. 117-21.

Like the Netherlands and its East Indies colony, Japan forbade Korean participation (the Philippines is the only colony that participated as a separate entity); Soviet participation was limited to attendance at one conference (Yosemite), several papers and a publications exchange; and Japanese participation, despite the increasingly difficult circumstances, continued until the outbreak of war with the United States and resumed in the postwar years. Holland Memoirs, pp. 2, 253-54 and 286-89.

Carter’s sympathy for the Soviet Union is well-known. What needs to be made clearer here is that, for better or worse, this was a respectable and common outlook within internationalist and academic circles (among others) during the “red decade” of the 1930s and that the socio-political atmosphere thus was very different from that of the McCarthy era during which the charges were made.

p. 3:

That the Wittfogel-Lattimore collaboration produced the “most important” IPR research is a debatable claim. My recollection is that Holland, the IPR’s longest serving major official, does not even mention it in his memoirs.

The “war years” paragraph needs a bit of copy editing.

“American leaders, especially those in the International Secretariat, were suspicious…” would be a more accurate way of opening the related sentence in the middle of the “war years” paragraph.

In all likelihood, Carter was forced out of the Secretary General position in late1945 by the European council leaders because of his increasingly out-spoken anti-colonialism. Holland Memoirs, p. 369.

The final sentence of the “war years” paragraph should be moved ahead to lead the next section, and “American Secretariat” should be changed to “American Council.” Also, some comment about the changing nature of the socio-political climate (as discussed above) probably should be made at the beginning of the next section.

pp. 3-5:

As one of this article’s critics argues in the related Wikipedia “Talk” section, the conclusion, focused mainly upon the McCarthy era issues and their impact, is problematic in that it echoes the sensationalist findings of Sen. Patrick McCarran’s Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS) investigation despite subsequent information that substantially challenges these findings.

Kohlberg’s charges assumed greater significance than otherwise would have been the case given the contemporaneous development the Cold War, Mao’s victory in China, the Korean War and the rise of McCarthyism. This resulted in two Senate hearings (led by Sen. Millard Tydings and by McCarran), one House hearing (led by Rep. Carroll Reece), numerous local investigations and the Institute’s temporary loss of its Federal tax exempt status. The McCarran investigation and it’s detailed fourteen volume final report is the most important of these activities in that it gave rise to the sweeping charges against the IPR (e.g. McCarran’s claim the IPR was responsible for the “loss of China” and Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s claim that Lattimore was the chief Soviet espionage agent in the U.S. in addition to a series of other charges akin to the one quoted on p. 4) which in turn shaped the extremely negative but highly distorted perception of the group that exists to this day. A good recent example of this is the IPR-related section of Stanton Evans’ Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joseph McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies ( New York: Crown Forum, 2007). The end result of the SISS hearings illustrates the degree to which their substance has been overstated. Despite the heated rhetoric, the only charges actually brought were several perjury indictments against Lattimore, and even these were subsequently dropped. Some relief came in the late 1950s with a favorable court ruling in the tax case, but it was too little too late, and the IPR was dissolved at the end of the decade. While all of this was fundamentally an American controversy involving American players, the centrality of the American Council and American funding meant that the reputation of the entire international organization was fatally damaged. Holland Memoirs, pp. 55-72 and 377-93, and Paul F. Hooper, “The McCarthy Era and the Financial Crisis of the Institute of Pacific Relations,” Towards the Construction of a New Discipline: International Conference Proceedings on the Re evaluation of the Institute of Pacific Relations  (Tokyo: Ronsosha, 2005), pp. 146-51.

However, none of this is to suggest that the IPR was above suspicion as there are a number of worrisome developments in its record. At least the following issues are of concern in this regard and need to be addressed forthrightly in future research:

The Amerasia case and the association of some of the principals with the IPR.

Chen Han-seng and Chi Ch’ao’s secret communist affiliation while working for the IPR, and Frederick V. Field’s outspoken support for Soviet causes during his association with the Institute, relationships that were acknowledged in the course of the SISS investigation. The evident liberal/left political orientation of many IPR participants, although this needs to be discussed within the context of the 1930s (as noted above) and the war years in conjunction with the awareness that this, in itself, is no proof of wrong-doing. The Sorge espionage case, particularly with respect to the IPR connections of Hotzumi Ozaki and, to a lesser extent, Chen Han-seng.

The Venona transcriptions and their identification of some ten people with close IPR connections, keeping in mind that these are partial transcriptions that mainly identify them as people who had some form of connection with Soviet intelligence and provide little if any description of their actual activities. See Hooper, McCarthy Era, pp. 146-51 for summary details on these issues.

Hence, the McCarthy era accusations are vastly inflated, but the IPR’s slate is not entirely clean either. Unfortunately, too many scholars, aware that the main McCarthy era charges need not be taken seriously, tend to either deny almost everything associated with them or, effectively if not intentionally, avoid them by writing on other aspects of the Institute’s multi-faceted record. The end result is that scholars have given popular writers little reason to change their essentially sensational SISS-inspired characterization and understanding of the IPR. While both sides are out of balance (one more so than the other, however), the fact that only the popular side attracts any substantial degree of general readership means that the more complicated and largely praise-worthy general record of the IPR remains almost completely obscured and will likely remain so until the scholarly side addresses the McCarthy era issues head on and thus provides sufficient reason for popular writers to change their tack.

Suggested additions to the list of references:

Paul Evans, John Fairbank and the American Understanding of Modern China (New          York: B. Blackwell, 1988).

Holland Memoirs (as cited above).

Lawrence Woods, Asia-Pacific Diplomacy: Nongovernmental Organizations and International Relations (Vancouver: University of British Colunbia Press, 1993). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.223.99 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * These suggestions strike me as sound and valuable. Since there is no "Wikipedia 'Talk' staff," only users like yourself, why don't you go ahead add make the additions and amendments? ch (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I think he's shy. Why don't you do it for him? DS (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I have time I will try to incorporate the good prof's suggestions, but he is much better qualified than I am. ch (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove Neutrality Tag?
Since the article has been basically reworked, I think the tag should be removed but will wait to hear arguments to the contrary. ch (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been a month since I posted my intention to remove the tag. There has been no objection, so I will go ahead and do it. ch (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)