Untying the knot of Sino-Japan relations (Part 3)

YUAN CHEN

TOKYO, Aug. 23

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/08/23/commentary_untying_the_knot_of_sinojapan_relations_part_3/

Throughout history, there have always been conflicts between neighboring countries. Russia seized land from China; India always regarded China as a potential enemy. If we take into account all past conflicts China has had with Korea, Vietnam and other countries, it would be endless and difficult to clear away all the debts left by history. The result would be that we would hate other countries or other countries would hate us.

Many countries grew large by attacking and invading others' lands. China is no exception. After fighting for hundreds of years, China secured its current borders as a united, multi-ethnic country.

Every country's history inevitably contains blood, tears and hatred. Rather than seeking revenge against each other, we should acknowledge each other and accept the current situation. We need to forget the hatred in order to establish a harmonious world which serves our mutual interests.

Actually, even when the war with Japan had just finished, China, under Chiang Kai-shek, already returned good for evil. So why can't we do it today? Today's situation has changed and we seem to have the opportunity to establish a more reasonable and just world. The European Union is an example of this.

Between China and Japan, Japan does not harbor hatred; only China does. If the Chinese people can abandon their hatred, there will be no emotional barrier between the two. Japan had reason to hate the United States because of its disastrous air attacks and atomic bombs. Japan had reason to hate the Soviet Union because it broke its treaty, kept Japanese prisoners of war, and invaded four Japanese islands. But Japan only has debts to China, for the 14 years of invasion, the Nanjing Massacre and the chemical experiments it conducted in China. Yet China treated Japan with grace, giving up indemnity payments, raising Japanese orphans and returning prisoners of war.

All the historical hatred was created by Japan. China did not bomb Japanese territory. Although it is natural for the Chinese to hate Japan, I still think it's better to let the hatred go. This is because hatred is not productive and cannot last forever. It is not wise for us to rigidly focus on a few dead people, the war criminals.

When the Manchus invaded China, they were much crueler than the Japanese, killing 70 to 80 percent of the Chinese people at that time. They never apologized for that. But what has happened now? The Manchus are part of the big family of China.

Hatred is like firewood; once it is sparked, disaster could follow. In this sense, Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe's ambiguous attitude toward visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, which prevents fire from breaking out, can be seen as a helpful strategy that will allow both sides to seek a compromise.

Regarding the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere proposed by Japan, the concept is not bad. The problem is that Japan has always wanted to be the leader of such a scheme and forced others toward this goal. Now regional integration and globalization have become world trends. Whether or not this can happen in East Asia depends on the relationship between China and Japan. It only hurts both sides if diplomatic issues are handled emotionally.

To untie the knot between China and Japan, some have suggested a policy of "remembering the past and looking toward the future." However, I don't think this mindset will work. This is like the situation of a husband who discovers his wife has had an affair, but both want to keep the marriage. To prevent it from happening again, the husband continually reminds the wife by saying "remember the past and look ahead." Do you think the couple can live happily? Such a slogan may be useful and necessary domestically. But as the victim in its relationship with Japan, I don't think it's wise for China to remind Japan of this unhappy history too often.

It has been more than 60 years since China and Japan have been dealing with this knotty history. Sixty years after the Manchu invasion an era of prosperity under Emperor Kangxi began in China. The people leading Japan now are the generation born after the war. Whatever views they have of the war, they are not themselves responsible for it. If China wants to make friends with Japan, China needs to be a friend first. If we constantly remind a friend of the debts his grandfather or ancestors owed us, the friendship will not develop. Even if he apologized, would it come from the heart?

It has been 20 years since I immigrated to Japan in 1987. At first I felt most Japanese were very friendly. Then Sino-Japan relations began to worsen when a Chinese official requested the Japanese people to "remember history and look ahead." His scolding tone made the Japanese sound like criminals and the Chinese their victims, as if the Japanese people should bow their heads in front of the Chinese indefinitely. If we look ahead like this, there will be no future at all.

Japanese people have good memories; they don't need to be reminded of history. Every year, on the anniversaries of the atomic bombs or the end of the war, they hold grand ceremonies, much more serious than those the Chinese have. It is the Japanese people's business to decide what they want to remember. When relieved of outside pressure they will come to their own conclusion.

Under current circumstances, it is not difficult for Chinese people to be patriotic. But to consider the country's problems objectively is not necessarily easy. Those who have smashed Japanese shops and thrown tins at Japanese sports teams are not open-minded. Such people prefer the safe route of sticking to the conventional "standpoint," thus choosing less freedom. My views may subject me to criticism from such Chinese patriots, but in this instance I welcome it.

--

(Yuan Chen is the pen name of a Chinese scholar who has lived in Japan for 20 years. He is also a freelance writer on China's politics and current affaires. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.newcenturynews.com. ©Copyright Yuan Chen.)

Untying the knot of Sino-Japan relations (Part 2)

YUAN CHEN

TOKYO, Aug. 22

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/08/22/commentary_untying_the_knot_of_sinojapan_relations_part_2/

Japanese leaders' visits to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, where war criminals are enshrined, are criticized by China on the grounds that the visits represent a militaristic attitude. The Yasukuni Shrine is a place for mourning the dead. It is a bit farfetched to say that visiting the shrine means the revival of militarism. Even if the name tablets of the Class A war criminals are removed from shrine, most of the tablets will remain and thousands of Japanese will continue to visit the Yasukuni Shrine each year.

To decide whether or not militarism is reviving in Japan, we need to look beyond acts of mourning the dead. More importantly, we should evaluate the country's present military capabilities and war preparations.

Judging from its current situation, Japan doesn't look like a county ready for war. There is no such atmosphere in the country. There are few soldiers and few politicians with a military background. Moreover, Japan always insists on remaining nuclear free.

Japan has strong economic power, which enables it to have high-tech military capacity, but it is no longer a country that can initiate a battle alone. There are still U.S. troops stationed in the nation. At most Japan can only support the military actions of others; for example, it sent troops to support the United States in the Iraq War.

Japan invaded China, so it makes sense for China to worry that Japan might do it again sometime. It's good for China to be prepared for this. But it doesn't make sense for Chinese people to oppose the revival of Japanese militarism by opposing Japanese visits to the shrine. Visiting or not visiting the shrine will not determine the revival of militarism. It could be more dangerous if Japanese leaders decided to review the country's military power but refrained from visiting the shrine. It is not logical to oppose the shrine visits because one opposes the revival of militarism.

In addition, many Japanese people hold the view that dead people can be released from blame. They think that once criminals are punished, their cases are closed. The most we can do to a murderer is to kill him or her. The victim's family cannot do anything else even though they may still feel resentful toward the murderer. It is human nature for the murderer's family to set up a name tablet to mourn the murderer who was punished by death. As long as the murderer's family doesn't try to reverse the verdict, the victim's family should just let it go.

In the case of Japan, its Congress accepted the Potsdam Agreement in 1951, acknowledged the Tokyo Trial, and signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty. They haven't regretted accepting all those agreements.

Regarding the fact that a group of Japanese, including some politicians, had the tablets of the Class A war criminals secretly brought to the shrine (in 1978), we cannot explain this as an attempt to revive militarism. In fact, some Japanese people don't think that the war was completely wrong, and don't think that the Tokyo Trial was fair, but they still accepted the result of defeat.

Why can't we Chinese just learn from the Americans, who take this matter lightly? It is not worthwhile for China and Japan to keep up this diplomatic battle only for those few Class A war criminals, who are dead.

It is reasonable for international society to punish war criminals if they commit crimes against other countries. But the countrymen of the criminals should be able to decide themselves how they will treat the criminals. In Japan, there is no law banning the people from visiting the shrine. Every Japanese citizen, including the emperor, has the freedom to decide whether to visit the shrine or not. It is the decision of the Japanese government whether or not to make an official visit to the shrine. China and other countries cannot decide that for Japan.

After all, it is the Japanese people's own business to decide whether to visit the shrine or not. Actually, the Japanese people among themselves have different points of view too. For example, Showa Emperor Hirohito did not approve of putting the tablets of Class A war criminals in the shrine and refused to visit it afterward.

Once an outside country gets involved in the issue, it becomes a confrontation between race and race, and the matter of visiting the shrine becomes a test of patriotism. As a result, those Japanese who actually oppose such visits have to keep silent, which is a common situation today.

(To be continued)

--

(Yuan Chen is the pen name of a Chinese scholar who has lived in Japan for 20 years. He is also a freelance writer on China's politics and current affaires. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.newcenturynews.com. ©Copyright Yuan Chen.)

Untying the knot of Sino-Japan relations (Part I)

YUAN CHEN

TOKYO, Aug. 20

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/08/20/commentary_untying_the_knot_of_sinojapan_relations_part_i/

A Chinese diplomat once described relations between China and Japan as being extremely difficult. "The two may be on good terms for a couple of days, then relations can just collapse again," he said. The crux of the problem is obvious -- the Yasukuni Shrine.

Aug. 15th marked the 62nd anniversary of Japan's surrender in World War II. Neither the Chinese nor Japanese people can forget this day, but they have very different feelings about it. The same is true of the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo. Because it includes name tablets for 14 Class A war criminals among the war dead it honors, many Chinese people have strong feelings about this shrine.

Former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi went to the shrine to pay his respects for five consecutive years, marking the lowest point in Sino-Japan relations. Current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has taken a milder position by not saying whether or not he will visit the shrine. This allowed Abe to make his "ice-breaking" visit to China last year, followed by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's return "ice-melting" trip to Japan this year.

Has the ice between China and Japan really melted? Will it reappear when the climate changes?

China regards the shrine visits by Japanese leaders as evidence of indifference to the feelings of the Chinese people. But for the Japanese leaders, to say they will not visit the shrine could be to deny their own feelings. So what should the Japanese do?

Japanese intellectuals and congressmen have sought a solution to this problem for years, with little success. It is a complicated matter and is linked to public opinion. There is broad public approval in Japan for visits to the shrine, which was proved by Koizumi's high popularity. It is therefore not practical for China to expect Japan to follow its wishes concerning the shrine visits.

For a long time the Chinese have stressed what they call "standpoint" in relations with outside parties. One's "standpoint" determines whether one is right or wrong, friend or enemy. This is applied to people of different social classes, countries or races. A shared standpoint is like sharing team spirit; it enables people to naturally cheer for the same side. Team spirit is good in sports, but in other circumstances, we have to consider its implications.

Different people naturally have different standpoints. Take the war criminal issue for example. The Japanese think those people made mistakes as a result of doing their jobs in wartime. No country has a law against the crime of "invasion," and these "criminals" were taking action to serve their country. Also, even if the Class A war criminals' names were removed from the shrine, there would still be Class B and Class C criminals, and the problem would remain.

There is also the issue of singling out a few people to take the blame for the war. The war was carried out by the whole country, so how can people put the responsibility on a few people? Even the Japanese emperor was relieved from responsibility for the war; why couldn't the war criminals be treated the same way? What's more, the Japanese admitted their defeat, accepted the Potsdam Agreement, Tokyo Trials and the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The war was finished with these post-war arrangements, so why should Japan be forced to accept the viewpoints of the winning countries?

In recent years China and Japan have been on unfriendly terms. The media have made lots of false or exaggerated reports; Sino-Japan relations will not improve as long as both sides remain mired in emotions.



Agreeing to disagree is one solution. The key point is that people on both sides need to be able to move on. The solution should serve the interests of both countries.

Good Sino-Japan relations will benefit both countries, whereas bad relations will harm both. Japan is a great economic power, with advanced technology and many things worth learning. China can provide Japan with a large market and investment opportunities for surplus capital. There are many advantages to friendly relations. It is a real pity that historical factors are still causing confrontation.

Chinese President Hu Jintao has introduced the concepts of building a "harmonious society" and a "harmonious world." In order to have harmony, we need to first resolve conflicts. This requires an attitude of tolerance and an effort at understanding. We need to understand our relatives and friends, but also our opponents. As Chinese, we understand how Chinese people think, but how do Japanese people think? Doesn't their thinking make sense too?

First, let's consider the issue of blaming a small group of people for Japan's aggression in World War II. Former Japanese Premier Tanaka Kakuei came to China and negotiated resuming diplomatic relations in 1972. When discussing the issue of responsibility for the war between China and Japan, former Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai proposed that only a small number of militarists should be blamed, and that the majority of ordinary Japanese people were victims of the war.

I think all Chinese people would view this as a very friendly proposal. Following a disastrous war in which millions of Chinese people lost their lives, the Chinese side was willing to forego compensation and put the blame for the war on only a few people, who were already dead. That showed that China had forgiven everything. But Tanaka did not accept this generous proposal. Thus it was included only as China's opinion in the Joint Declaration.

The reason China continues to oppose Japanese prime ministers' visits to the Yasukuni Shrine is still related to this issue of placing blame for the war on a small number of war criminals. Japanese who are concerned about Sino-Japan relations have tried to find a way of dealing with this, for example, by removing the 14 Class A criminals' tablets from the shrine, or building another memorial.

If a group of people have done something wrong, it is reasonable to punish them in accordance with the magnitude of their crimes. Even though they confess their wrongdoing, blame should not go to a single individual, or to a small group. That would be against the facts and unjustified. Therefore, if Tanaka had accepted Zhou's proposal to blame the war on a few war criminals, his political life would have been over.

The significance of the location of the name tablets of those few Class A war criminals is very questionable. Moreover, Japanese people's view toward war and war criminals may not change because of this. If the Grade A criminals' tablets were removed from the shrine, it would merely be as a show for the Chinese and Korean people.

Former Japanese Premier Nakasone Yasuhiro first openly visited the shrine in 1985, after the Class A criminals' tablets were moved in, but he stopped his visits due to China's objections. At that time, Sino-Japan relations were in a rare honeymoon period. In later days Nakasone explained that he stopped his visits for the sake of Japan's foreign relations, not for domestic reasons. Originally, the shrine visits had no real significance for China, but after Nakasone's move, refraining from them was treated as a gift for China from Japan. Does China really need this kind of superficial face-saving gift?

(To be continued)

--

(Yuan Chen is the pen name of a Chinese scholar who has lived in Japan for 20 years. He is also a freelance writer on China's politics and current affaires. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.newcenturynews.com. ©Copyright Yuan Chen.)