No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2025
This article is a contribution to a symposium on collaboration in East Asia during the Asia-Pacific War and its aftermath, which addresses some of the most fraught issues in historiography, historical remembrance, and contemporary politics. It also reflects on occupation states and collaboration in Europe and postwar East Asia, while casting important light on contemporary issues of collaboration globally. How are we to assess occupation regimes that emerged in each East and Southeast Asian nation during the Pacific War, as well as in postwar nations including those occuped by the United States or other occupiers. Issues of collaboration in a post-colonial world may be equally salient in reflecting on the experiences of newly independent nations? The issues are closely intertwined with dominant nationalist ideologies that have characteristically obfuscated and dismissed collaborationist politics while establishing their own legitimacy, or what Timothy Brook calls their “untouchability”. In the post Cold War milieu, and at a time when politicians on both sides of the Taiwan straits, and across the 38th parallel that divides North and South Korea, are redefining their relationships, it becomes possible to revisit the history of war, revolution, occupation and collaboration.
* Many thanks are due to Haiyan Lee for her astute and helpful comments on the first draft.
[1] Timothy Brook, Collaboration: Japanese Agents and Local Elites in Wartime China Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass, 2005.
[2] See for instance, Prasenjit Duara “The New Imperialism and the Post-Colonial Developmental State: Manchukuo in Comparative Perspective” Japan Focus Jan 30, 2006.
[3] Robert Ward, Hong Kong under Japanese occupation, 18-33.
[4] See Prasenjit Duara, Sovereignty and Authenticity: Manchukuo and the East Asian Modern, Rowman & Littlefield, Boulder, Co. 2003, chapters 3 and 4.