Resolutions Exchanged Behind Silence: Iwakura Tomomi Speaks of the Reality of National Unification (Late 1860s to Early 1870s, the First Year of the Meiji Era)

Resolutions Exchanged Behind Silence: Iwakura Tomomi Speaks of the Reality of National Unification (Late 1860s to Early 1870s, the First Year of the Meiji Era)
In Japan immediately after the Meiji Restoration, national unification was not an ideology but a practical task at hand. Although the framework of government had changed with the restoration of the monarchy and the restoration of the Grand Council of State, powerful feudal lords and former feudal clans in various regions still maintained their power, and the authority of the new government was unstable. In order to establish a centralized government, it was essential to have the coercive power to force people to obey the new government, even before designing the system and presenting its ideals.

One of the people who most calmly understood this reality was Tomomi Iwakura. He is said to have said in front of his foreign advisor, Guido Hrubecki, that he would not hesitate to shed blood in order to subjugate powerful feudal lords, which, in retrospect, seems radical. However, this was a pragmatic decision that eschewed idealism. Behind his words was a cool-headed calculation that national unification could not be achieved by persuasion or agreement alone, and that the use of force was an option if there was resistance.

As symbolized by the abolition of feudal domains and the establishment of prefectures, the establishment of a modern nation entails the dismantling of local power. There was no guarantee that forces with vested interests would voluntarily comply, and it was anticipated that a final settlement by force would be inevitable. Iwakura's true intention was to express his resolve not to let the nation disintegrate in mid-air.

It is noteworthy that these candid words were spoken not in public but in front of a foreign advisor named Hulbecki. In official records and speeches for the domestic market, emphasis is placed on restoring order and the cause, and expressions that assume bloodshed are avoided. In front of Hulbecki, however, Iwakura removes these preconceptions and speaks directly about the reality of the nation's formation.

This is not a careless statement. Hulbecki was a man who understood that state formation in the West had been accomplished through revolutions and civil wars. Because he was someone with whom he could share the premise that ideology and violence are inseparably linked, Iwakura revealed his true intentions. There existed a relationship of trust that was more than a mere advisor.

This exchange shows that the Meiji nation skillfully used different self-images. Domestically, it spoke of ideals and legitimacy, while in limited dialogue, it shared reality, including coercion. This dual structure was not immaturity, but a strategy for a transitional state to maintain order.

Iwakura Tomomi's overly frank and honest intentions were not a sign of ruthlessness. It was a word of resolve to undertake the inevitable choice to establish the nation. And the fact that he revealed this resolve even to his foreign advisors clearly shows that the new government regarded them not as mere technicians but as interlocutors with whom to share thoughts on the formation of the nation.

This statement is unlikely to remain in the official record. But nations are often shaped by unrecorded words. Iwakura's words behind his silence quietly tell us that Meiji Japan was a nation that was born while taking on both ideals and reality.