Institute of Pacific Relations: Allegations of Communist Influence and Eventual Demise
The Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), once a prominent organization for the study of Asia and the Pacific, faced a dramatic decline during the mid-20th century. What began as a scholarly endeavor eventually became entangled in the geopolitical tensions of the Cold War, leading to accusations of espionage, political infiltration, and ideological bias.
The downfall of the IPR was not a single event but a gradual erosion caused by internal dissent, government investigations, and a shifting academic landscape in the United States.
Key Facts
- Internal Conflict: Dissident member Alfred Kohlberg launched the first major campaign against the IPR, alleging Communist sympathies.
- Government Scrutiny: The IPR was investigated by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS) and the FBI.
- Amerasia Connection: The IPR shared facilities and personnel with Amerasia, a magazine that became a focal point of espionage investigations.
- Political Pressure: Senator Joseph McCarthy and others accused the IPR of influencing U.S. policy to favor the Chinese Communist Party.
- Financial Decline: The loss of tax-exempt status and the rise of university-based Asian Studies centers led to its dissolution in 1960.
The Rise of Suspicion and the Amerasia Link
The first significant blow to the IPR's reputation came from within. Alfred Kohlberg, an American textile firm owner and IPR member, published an 80-page report and launched a publicity campaign claiming that the Institute, and specifically Frederick Vanderbilt Field, harbored Communist sympathies.
These suspicions were amplified by the Venona intercepts (decrypted Soviet intelligence messages) and the IPR's close relationship with Amerasia. The two organizations shared the same building, and an FBI review revealed that approximately 115 individuals contributed to both. The situation escalated when a classified report from the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was published as an article in Amerasia, triggering a formal government investigation.
[ไม่มีภาพประกอบ]
Alleged Collaborators and Spies
Several IPR staffers were identified as Communists or collaborators with Soviet intelligence. Notable names included Chen Han-seng, a member of the Sorge spy ring, and Michael Greenberg, who was named as a source by defector Elizabeth Bentley. Others, such as Kate Mitchell and Andrew Roth, were arrested during the 1945 Amerasia case.
Political Warfare and the "Loss of China"
Following the success of the Chinese Communist Revolution, the IPR became a convenient target for political detractors. Critics accused the organization of contributing to the "loss of China" by promoting policies that favored the Communist party.
Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin frequently targeted the IPR and its former chairman, Philip Jessup. McCarthy claimed that figures like Owen Lattimore, T.A. Bisson, and Frederick V. Field worked actively to steer American foreign policy toward the objectives of the Chinese Communist Party.
The SISS Investigation
In 1952, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS), led by Senator Pat McCarran, conducted a year-long review of 20,000 IPR documents. The SISS concluded that the IPR acted as "political flypaper" for Communists and served as a vehicle for Soviet propaganda and military intelligence.
Testimonies further damaged the IPR's image. Elizabeth Bentley recounted a warning from NKVD spy chief Jacob Golos, who described the IPR as "as red as a rose." Similarly, Louis Budenz testified that Communist Party leaders viewed the IPR as a significant concentration point for their operatives.
The Path to Dissolution
The IPR's legal and financial struggles peaked in 1955 when the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revoked its tax-exempt status, alleging the Institute disseminated partisan propaganda to influence government policy. Although a long legal battle led by William L. Holland eventually overturned these allegations in 1959, the damage was irreversible.
Simultaneously, the academic world was changing. Major universities—including Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, Michigan, and Columbia—established well-funded centers for Asian Studies. As foundations shifted their funding to these university centers and scholars joined the Association for Asian Studies, the IPR became redundant.
| Factor | Impact | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Political Allegations | Accusations of Soviet/Chinese Communist influence | Loss of public trust and government scrutiny |
| Legal Battles | IRS revocation of tax-exempt status (1955) | Financial strain despite eventual legal victory |
| Academic Shift | Rise of university Asian Studies centers | Loss of funding and academic contributors |
| Organizational End | Dissolution in 1960 | Catalyst for UBC Dept. of Asian Studies (1961) |
The Institute of Pacific Relations was officially dissolved in 1960. Its legacy lived on through the 1961 founding of the UBC Department of Asian Studies and later successor organizations like the Pacific Basin Economic Council (1967) and the Pacific Trade and Development Conference (1968).
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the IPR accused of being Communist?
The IPR was accused of Communist influence due to its close ties with Amerasia, the presence of individuals linked to Soviet intelligence (such as the Sorge spy ring), and the publication of articles by Marxists in its journal.
What was the "Amerasia case"?
The Amerasia case involved an investigation into a magazine that shared offices and staff with the IPR. It gained notoriety when a classified Office of Strategic Services report was published in the magazine, leading to arrests and FBI scrutiny.
How did Senator Joseph McCarthy view the IPR?
Senator McCarthy viewed the IPR as a tool for subversion, claiming that its members worked to manipulate American China policy in favor of the Chinese Communist Party.
Did the IPR win its legal battle with the IRS?
Yes. Although the IRS revoked the IPR's tax-exempt status in 1955 on grounds of disseminating propaganda, a court judgment in 1959 rejected all of the IRS's allegations.
What happened to the IPR after it dissolved?
After its dissolution in 1960, it served as a catalyst for the creation of the UBC Department of Asian Studies in 1961. Later, the Pacific Basin Economic Council and the Pacific Trade and Development Conference were established as successor organizations.