Angry Chinese Blogger

Angry Chinese Blogger: The news and views about China that the big media can't, or won't, tell you

The is no single truth

Menu: Home

The Crazy World of "One China" Politics

« H E News and Politics :: Sino-Japanese :: Sino-Taiwanese :: News and Perspectives :: email
posted Friday, 10 March 2006

When it comes to the Sino-Japanese relationship, there are few things that you can take for granted except for the fact that, just when you think things are settling into a familiar pattern of acrimony, a new problem is likely to emerge when you least expect it - And emerge one has.

Describing it as being a "rude intervention in China's internal affairs", Beijing launched a strong verbal attack on Tokyo this week, accusing a senior Japanese official of making remarks that put Japan in breached of its treaty obligations, under the so-called  一個中國 (“One China”) principle.
  "We are quite shocked at the remarks made by the highest official in the Japanese foreign service, which breaches the Sino-Japanese joint declaration,"

Qin Gang, Spokesperson, Foreign Ministry, China

China's accusations were made during a press conference held this Thursday, and come in relation relation to remarks made by Japanese Foreign Minister 麻生太郎 (Aso Taro), himself a figure of revile in China, on Wednesday. Remarks in which he is reported to have referred to Chinese-Taiwan as if it were a sovereign state.

He Says, She says, I Said

The remarks in question were made during a representation to a parliamentary committee, in which 麻生 (Aso) variously described the disputed island of Chinese-Taiwan as being "a law-abiding country", and stated that is was "a country that shares a sense of values with Japan".
  "[Taiwanese] democracy is considerably matured and liberal economics is deeply ingrained, so it is a law-abiding country"

麻生太郎 (Aso Taro), Foreign Minister, Japan

Although apparently a petty issue, revolving around the use of a single word, Beijing considers Chinese-Taiwan to be 'an immutable component of greater China' and traditionally reacts with unbecoming indignation upon the use of any language that suggests that the island is independent from the Mainland.

Beijing also frequently denounces any intimations that a legal, cultural, or historical, separation exists between the Chinese-Taiwan and the Mainland, and denounces such intimations as being 'an interference in its internal affairs'.
  "We are strongly protesting against [Foreign Minister 麻生 (Aso)'s] rude intervention in China's internal affairs."

Qin Gang

Time and Again

This latest incident is not the first time that Japan has been accused of 'interfering in China's internal affairs' in relation to the status of Chinese-Taiwan.

Just under a year ago, Chinese security forces seized over 100 supplementary text books, bound for a Japanese international school in 大連 (Dalian). The books were seized on the grounds that they contained maps that displayed Mainland China and Chinese-Taiwan using slightly different color schemes.
  "The Japanese textbooks showed China and Taiwan in different colors"

Liu Jianchao, Foreign Ministry spokesperson, China

The actual texts themselves were later found to make no mention of Chinese-Taiwan being independent or separate from the Mainland.

Although cleared up quickly, as Sino-Japanese disputes go, the incident had some long consequences. Raising, as it did, serious questions as to whether international school in China were being forced to tow the state line, and leading to fears that the children taught in them might be receiving a distorted education in areas where Chinese accounts of social, political and historical issues differ from internationally accepted norms.

Bad News is Good News

While Beijing has accused 麻生 (Aso), and by association the Japanese Government, of 'interfering in China's internal affairs', this latest diplomatic spat has also seen a number of China watchers hitting back at China with their own accusations.

Observers have voiced the opinion that, if China were serious about maintaining friendly relation with Japan, it should have made its complaint in private, and through diplomatic channels, rather than in public, during a press release; An event that served little purpose other than to draw attention to the issues because it provided no opportunity for Japanese authorities to offer their side of the story, and no forum in which to resolve the issue through through dialog.

In this light, some China watchers have also accused Beijing of exploiting 麻生 (Aso)'s slip as part of a 'Bad new is good news' campaign, in which Chinese officials purposefully over-inflated the incident in an effort to 'paint Japan as a hostile nation', and to 'keep anti-Japanese stories in the headlines', in order to rouse nationalist sentiment in China.

Though not shared by everybody, this feeling is, however, highlighted by a simple fact:-

Although the Chinese media reported heavily on 麻生 (Aso)'s slip, they largely chose to exclude the fact that he stopped and corrected himself while speaking to the committee: Amending his description of Chinese-Taiwan from "country" to "region", shortly after becoming aware of his error.

Well Made, But Not Well Received?

Shortly after receiving word of China's dissatisfaction, Japan's Foreign Ministry issued an direct apology.

Indicating that 麻生 (Aso)'s choice of words should be considered a brief anomaly, Tokyo reiterated its commitment to 一個中國 ("One China"), and offered Beijing firm reassurances that the it did not represent any change in Japan's recognition of Taiwan as a component of greater China.
  "There is no change in Japan's position on the Japan-China agreement of 1972 that stated there is One China"

Kamei Keiji, China division, Foreign Ministry, Japan

As is traditional, China has yet fully accept Tokyo's apology in public, or that 麻生 (Aso) went on to change his description of Chinese-Taiwan to being a "region".

A Cultural Note

In Japan, the 'airing of dirty linen in public', as was done by China in this instance, is considered to be shameful for both sides, as it highlights differences and invokes conflicts. Politically, Japan traditionally refusing to engage unless both sides begin at an equal level, and negotiations are both neutrally toned and in private.

Conversely, it is common in Chinese political circles to publicly admonish an opponent to ensure that you start from a position of strength, and are able to bring the opponents level of face as low as possible by airing their apparent transgressions to a wide audience.

It has been suggested that these two different styles of are one reason why few Sino-Japanese political problems are ever resolved quickly.

ROC V PRC?

Although China claims sovereignty over its unwilling sibling, the disputed island has spent very little of the last century under Mainland rule, and has never been within the active jurisdiction of China's communist government.

The island was ceded to Japan under an unequal treaty in 1985, and its status was never satisfactorily verified after Japan's defeat in 1945. Leaving it in an apparent state of legal limbo with a variety of claims being made on it, and by it.

In 1949, Chinese nationalists, fleeing from the civil war on the Mainland, took direct control of the island and set up their own de facto government which was broadly recognized as being the legal successor to the defeated Mainland government.

This continued until the signing of various "One China" agreements, under which international governments, most notably the US, switched their official diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing.

Currently, Japan recognizes China's dominion over Chinese-Taiwan, under Clause 3 of the Joint Sino-Japanese Communique (1972). Claus 3 binds Japan to recognize Taiwan as a component of China, rather than as an independent state.
  中華人民共和国政府は，台湾が中華人民共和国の領土の不可分の一部であることを重ねて表明する。日本国政府は，この中華人民共和国政府の立場を十分理解し，尊重し，ポツダム宣言第八項に基づく立場を堅持する。

中华人民共和国政府重申：台湾是中华人民共和国领土不可分割的一部分。日本国政府充分理解和尊重中国政府的这一立场，并坚持遵循波茨坦公告第八条的立场。

The Government of the People's Republic of China reiterates that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Postsdam Proclamation.

Clause 3, Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China (1972)

Contentiously, the Joint Communique is also the document under which China renounced all rights to compensation and reparations for Japan's war time aggression.
  中華人民共和国政府は，中日両国国民の友好のために，日本国に対する戦争賠償の請求を放棄することを宣言する。

中华人民共和国政府宣布：为了中日两国人民的友好，放弃对日本国的战争赔偿要求

The Government of the People's Republic of China declares that in the interest of the friendship between the Chinese and the Japanese peoples, it renounces its demand for war reparation from Japan.

Clause 5, Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China (1972)

An fact that many Chinese remain unaware of.

tags:                      

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit


View Comments/Add a Comment (3)


1. will left...
Friday, 10 March 2006 12:45 pm

"The island was ceded to Japan in 1895" Looks like a slip of the finger.


2. Michael Turton left...
Friday, 10 March 2006 3:24 pm :: http://michaelturton.blogspot.com

ACB, there are a few problems here....

<b>Although China claims sovereignty over its unwilling sibling, the disputed island has spent very little of the last century under Mainland rule, and has never been within the active jurisdiction of China's communist government.</b>

It has never been ruled by any Chinese government, period. The Manchus ruled the lowlands from 1683 to 1895. No government has ever simultaneously ruled both all the mainland and all of Taiwan.

<b>The island was ceded to Japan under an unequal treaty in 1985, and its status was never satisfactorily verified after Japan's defeat in 1945. Leaving it in an apparent state of legal limbo with a variety of claims being made on it, and by it.</b>

The treaty was not "unequal" but was the result of losing a war to Japan, a war that China wanted. It was a lot like the treaties the Qing signed with the nations they defeated.

And despite the claims of "inequality" no Chinese has complained about the way Qing rule was forced on Taiwan. A strange double-standard, eh?

Also, there is a typo"1985" not 1895 as it should be.

<b>In 1949, Chinese nationalists, fleeing from the civil war on the Mainland, took direct control of the island and set up their own de facto government which was broadly recognized as being the legal successor to the defeated Mainland government.</b>

The island came under "direct control" of the KMT in 1945, not 1949.

It's good that you recognize that Taiwan's status is cloudy. Thanks, man.

<b>In Japan, the 'airing of dirty linen in public', as was done by China in this instance, is considered to be shameful for both sides, as it highlights differences and invokes conflicts. Politically, Japan traditionally refusing to engage unless both sides begin at an equal level, and negotiations are both neutrally toned and in private.

Conversely, it is common in Chinese political circles to publicly admonish an opponent to ensure that you start from a position of strength, and are able to bring the opponents level of face as low as possible by airing their apparent transgressions to a wide audience.

It has been suggested that these two different styles of are one reason why few Sino-Japanese political problems are ever resolved quickly.</b>

This is a great insight, BTW.

Michael


3. The Angry Chinese Blogger left...
Friday, 10 March 2006 5:04 pm :: http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com

Michael:

When speaking about Chinese rule over Taiwan, you often have to ignore the realities of what it means to "rule" a country, and just go by want it says on paper. Things are so tortuous that being anything but vauge is problematic at best.

I used the word 'unequal' to mean that the treaty was not mutually beneficial. and that it was forced.

It's a common word used in Asia to mean that something was forced upon one power by another, but without loosing that state face by suggesting that it was weak or defeated. It's also how the Mainland described the European concessions.