 |
 |
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 |
|
Entries By Country
   |
China’s ‘cold war’ boils over, but could it burn Beijing too?
Tokyo’s call comes after groups of Chinese vigilante ransacked a number of Japanese owned businesses over the weekend under, when a protest over the possibility that Japan might be awarded a coveted permanent UN Security Council seat came under the influence of Chinese nationalists
Businesses targeted during the violence included Ito-Yokado and Aeon.
Though this weekend’s hostilities certainly weren’t the first anti-Japanese protest in China, most prior anti protests have been on a much smaller scale, and have remained peaceful.
Estimates on the number rioters involved vary, though figures released by various Chinese media outlets are thought to be ‘on the high side’ of plausible numbers.
To date, much of the anti-Japanese sentiment expressed outside China’s leadership and media has been credited to young unmarried males from the lower or mid middle classes, and it was broadly noted that the rioters were almost exclusively young male city dwellers who would have had no experience of Japanese aggression, and whose parents would not have experience it either.
Violence was limited to the Chinese mainland and was not evident in Hong Kong or on Chinese Taiwan which also suffered under Japanese agression during WWII.
In a twist of bitter irony, those at the forefront of the protest, the stores workers and managers, were Chinese and not Japanese. As were the store’s customers and suppliers.
Embarrassment
Though damaging to the confidence of Japanese citizens and investments in China, the riots have proven highly embarrassing to Beijing, which usually maintains a tight reign on all forms of protests.
Such a loss of control, in such public circumstances, not only brings Beijing’s ability to maintain public order and authority into question, but also its ability to protect foreign citizens and interests.
While Beijing largely requires Chinese companies employing foreign workers to act as a guarantor for their safety, ultimately loss of life or property during such a disturbance is the responsibility of the government.
Beijing’s embarrassment, at the international release of the news, was compounded further when the usually silent Japanese press announced that Foreign Ministry officials had summoned Wang Yi, the Chinese ambassador to Japan, to demand an explanation, and assurances over the safety of Japanese citizens and businesses in China.
During the meeting, Wang stated that safety of foreign nationals, and the right for foreign businesses to operate without disruption, were enshrined in Chinese law.
Concern in Beijing
Though aimed against Japan, the latest round of disturbances will prove troubling for Beijing, particularly as they saw the mobilization of large numbers of people, intent on a violent protest.
International history has shown that even directed mobilizations, such as occurred at the weekend, have the potential to quickly descend into undirected violence or violence directed against local symbols of authority. Recent Chinese history has also showed the potential for large directed gatherings to flare up into ‘mob’ violence even if violence was not the original intention of the gathering.
During the 1989 pro democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, there were numerous incidents where ‘gangs’, and other groups looking for a confrontation, turned on security forces and other symbols of authority, as well as each other; turning peaceful demonstrations into running battles.
There have also been incidents around the world, when scuffles among demonstrators, over unrelated incidents, have seen peaceful demonstrations turn violent.
Economic Damage?
Up until now, the deterioration of ties between China and Japan has largely been political, and attacks have largely been verbal; with China aiming barbs at Japan through the media and nationalist web portals, but this weekends events threaten to spill over and to harm not only diplomatic relations, but also the economies of both countries.
Much of China’s economic growth over the last five years has been heavily influenced by an influx of Japanese capital, experience, and technology, while Japan’s slow trail to an economic recovery has been credited to the country’s strong import/export and trade ties with China.
Where Japanese businesses to feel unable to operate safely in China, due to threats to their interests and employees, the economies of both countries would be damaged.
A loss of confidence from Japan could potentially hit both countries harder than economic sanctions or a boycott of Japanese goods from China, and while many nationalists would be pleased to see Japanese businesses moving out of China, it would serve to slow down economic growth and the spread of wealth from the cities to the countryside.
During 2004, Japan’s trade with China exceeded that of its trade with the United States, with import and export revenues between China and Japan amounting to 22.2 trillion Japanese Yen ($US205 billion).
Last weekends riots have also raised fears among investors from other countries, as to whether China would be able, or even willing, to protect their interests in the event of a diplomatic conflict.
Investors from Chinese Taiwan will be watching developments. Beijing has already promised to safeguard investments in the mainland made by island residents in the event of a conflict. However, doubts linger. PArticularly if China were to loose, or be forced to back down from a confrontation.
Nationalist Underground?
One aspect of the recent demonstrations that will be of particular concern to Beijing is that the demonstrators were nationalist protesting against Japan, not communists protesting for (under the banner of) the government.
The existence of a nationalist organizational structure, capable of rallying large numbers of supporters within China, is a threat to the authority of the Chinese government, or at least to non nationalist elements of the government.
A worst case scenario for Beijing would be for citizens, who feel that their government isn’t pressing Japan sufficiently over historical issues, to turn on their own leaders, or to act in support of nationalist elements of the government to ‘depose’ non nationalists.
Though an outside possibility at present, such a worst case scenario could potentially see China’s communist government overthrown, or critically destabilized, by a nationalist uprising initially aimed against Japan.
Similar fears have, in the past, have seen China crack down on unionists, religious groups, civil liberties groups, and pro democracy activists.
While an uprising is a ‘worst case’, a more likely scenario would be the erosion of Beijing’s authority in the eyes of the Chinese people;, who could take a passive stance against anti-Japanese violence as a green light to air their own grievances, some of which are directed squarely at Beijing, or that an initially anti-Japanese group could branch off into similarly passionate protest groups that maintain the organization and momentum of the initial group.
Farmers, dissatisfied workers, and pro democracy activists could all potentially use a lack of government action over violent anti-Japanese demonstrations to launch protests of their own along side anti-Japanese protests, or use the communication and organization networks established by anti-Japanese groups to jump-start their own initiatives to the determent of Beijing.
Even a small organized group is often seen as being a threat to the authority of Beijing. Previously, such organizational networks and non governmental protests would have quickly stamped out by the government; for fear that they might be used against it.
UN Seat?
While some have openly stated the belief that anti-Japanese sentiment in China is being used as a tool to unite divergent elements of Chinese society, frustrated by poverty, the slow pace of change, and their inability to equal the quality of life found in many foreign countries, the public face of last weekends incidents was certainly the controversy over Japan’s contention for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. An issue that has stirred up strong negative feelings in China, but also in Japan
Many in Japan have expressed opposition to their country’s acceptance of a permanent position because of the fear that Tokyo would be compelled to give up its pacifist stance because of it, and that such a move could bring embroil Japan and its citizens in foreign conflicts that have little or nothing to do with the country.
There are also concerns, both in Japan and the international community, over the level of influence that the US wields over the Japanese government, and whether granting Tokyo a seat would effectively mean granting Washington two seats on many issues.
Similar concerns exist over granting Germany a seat, which would serve to concentrate a large volume of world influence in white dominated Western Europe; further disenfranchising non whites, and those whose legal, moral, or cultural backgrounds are not based in Christianity, including both Japan and China.
Hypocrisy?
Despite their human rights records, China and Russia occupy permanent UN SC seats.
Britain and France, both former colonial powers with a long and unabashed history of genocide and the maintenance of unequal ‘subordinate’ colonies, hold two further seats.
The final seat is held by the US, which has received sharp criticism on many issues.
One possible proposal for UN reforms recently called for Germany, Britain and France to be merged to form a single EU seat. This suggestion was cleared, in principle, by Berlin but met with a cool reception form London and Paris
Interesting take on several of the current issues. Especially Chinese
nationalism.
I'm going to add a trackback to the article I just posted.
Visit me @ http://thehorsesmouth.blog-city.com
ACB,
You are Japanese, yes? And you are in Beijing? Do you feel at all threatened by the current situation? I'm asking out of personal curiousity, as I'll be in Beijing starting next January and my girlfriend, a Japanese national, would most likely be visiting every once in a while, and I want to make sure it is safe!!!
Laowai19790204 [wtl21@cam.ac.uk]
I make a point of not mentioning my nationality here, especially as it
could be used against me by people who say that my opinions are driven by
my background rather than my observations. Let’s just say that I have a
Japanese friend or two and am ‘troubled’ by what is going on.
Right now, nationalists in China are more on the media than in the population, and violence is largely limited to a few protests that target Japanese businesses rather than Japanese citizens.
What there is, is an air of bad feeling, snide remarks, cold shoulders and prejudice (she will probably be overcharged in shops and treated with less respect than whites or other Asians). If your girlfriend doesn’t speak Chinese, and she is unfamiliar with simplified Chinese, then she probably won’t notice too much on a brief visit or two unless there is a demonstration or a politically sensitive event at the time.
Things might of course have changed by January next year, but right now she won’t be assaulted and she won’t be physically threatened, but she might be made to feel uncomfortable, and people will presume that anything she says in defense of Japan is the result of ignorance, or is an attack on China. It is best if she doesn’t try to argue if she is confronted by somebody who makes some stupid comment because this has the potential to set escalate. People in China are not taught about Japan objectively, and what they are taught tends to leave out key things. Thus, they get angry when you contradict them because they seem to believe that everything that they haven’t been taught about Japan by a Chinese text book is propaganda that has been spread by Japan to try and cover up what went on during the war (I’ve had some really daft comments from Chinese people who believe that that everybody in Japan was taught by a whitewashing text book, when the real figure is 0.4 of people. Japanese text books actually carry more details about the war than either the US or European text books do. I studied history in Europe for several years and can personally tell you that Japanese text books are representative)
Largely, anti Japanese feeling appears to be the strongest (and most violent) among young single men living in cities who have realized that they can’t really have it as good as their Japanese counterparts, this frustration is coming out as anger about the war, but in reality they are angry about how Japan is economically stronger than China. There war is an element, but it is the face rather than the heart. A good proportion of this appears to have been deliberately encouraged by Chinese nationalists who want to deflect people’s criticisms away from China by finding a new opponent.
Ask me again in 6 month, I might say the same thing, or I might tell your girlfriend to keep her head down and pretend to be Korean.
Right now, she would be in no physical danger, but some of what people are saying would probably upset her.
FYI,I have very close Japanese friends who are polite and open-minded. But
for the Japanese government, I don't have good words. If you say Chinese
don't learn Japan 'objectively', check out this site
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/WarCrimeIntro.html)which
is run by Australian. Besides, take a look at Korea, Singapore, Malaysia
and the people's attitude towars Japan there. You could argue the
mis-education if anti Japan only happened in China. However, it is a
regional phenomena. Maybe you are the one who is in the box. I have no
intention to guess your nationality. But it is obvious that when you talk
about Japanese issue, you are blaming Chinese government's inability to
control 'the mobs' while your previous posts seemed to be critical on the
government's brutality on its people. In other words, you are defending
Japan.
For the Japanese girl, it is nothing to do with her nationality. Every individual has different opinions. It's common sense that the best way to communicate with other individual is to pursue the same interest but avoid the conflict and sensitive topic. If you have a friend who has a naughty kid, but you happen to dislike kids, you wouldn't bring out how bad kids are in front of your friends, right? Just try to be mature and not to make a big deal out of everything.
Errrr, right.
The sad truth is that China doesn’t learn about Japan objectively. China doesn’t learn about anything objectively. Everything is highly slanted to the view desired by the current government.
People in China are largely only told about the negative things that Japan does, not just in history, but also in modern times. Most people in China don’t know how much other countries suffered at the hands of Japan’s armies, they don’t know how much other countries contributed to Japan’s defeat, and they don’t know how much shame Japan feels on this issue.
China’s attitude to Japan is far worse than in Australia, the Philippines, and Singapore, and it has far less grounds in reality than Korea feelings. I never that other countries shouldn’t have strong feelings against Japan’s history, but this isn’t an Australia blog, so it isn’t relevant.
What you have also obviously not noticed is that there are two camps here.
One is those who have strong feelings about Japanese actions based on history. Most of them are not violent and most of them are calling for Japan to issue a fuller public apology.
Then there are the nationalists, they are violent, they don’t really want an apology; they want to hurt Japan. Many of these people are young single middle class men living in prosperous cities. They have very little actually knowledge about Japanese war crimes, baring that they happened, and they believe that Japan is actively acting against China, when it is not. These people are being roused by people who want to use them for their own political ends, and who want to use anti Japanese sentiment to distract people from internal problems. This is a common tactic; it has been used throughout history and throughout the world.
I will decry any government that does not control a violent demonstration against any group. I would decry Tokyo if it stood by and watched a mob attacking Chinese businesses. I am defending the rule of law. Dispersing or controlling a mob is not the same thing as brutality against peaceful demonstrators, and it can be done with out breaching human rights.
As for your second paragraph. I was telling a man to advice his girlfriend that people would be judgemental about her because of her nationality, that they would probably say things that she knew were not true and would upset her, and that she should not try to correct them because they would react angrily rather than engage in any kind of constructive dialogue on the matter.
If you spend much time in China, you will quickly learn not to correct Chinese people about these issues, because no matter how obvious it is that they are wrong, they simply will not accept it or discuss other possibilities, they will see it as being an attack, and will become aggressive or confrontational. Some people are more open minded, but on the whole, they will not be the ones who bring these issues up.
You have to be more careful with what you say in China, particularly if you are contradicting the national stance.
ACB
ABC said: If you spend much time in China, you will quickly learn not to
correct Chinese people about these issues, because no matter how obvious it
is that they are wrong, they simply will not accept it or discuss other
possibilities, they will see it as being an attack, and will become
aggressive or confrontational. Some people are more open minded, but on the
whole, they will not be the ones who bring these issues up.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Although I would like to add the "inferiority complex" that most Chinese (not all) seem to possess is very evident.
Take security guards, the reason why nothing substancial was done to disperse the crowds is because no one wants to be seen "collaborating" against the Chinese. I have not heard of any arrests made to date, prove me wrong.
I stated security guards, I was teaching in China for 2 years (at most were great times I tell you) the security guards would best describe the Chinese mindset. If there were any student who broke some rule or regulation on school (I am talking about a certain rule of getting off your bicycles when you cross the gate, the rule does not extend to automobiles)the guards would not be refrained from physically harming the students. I have seen this with my eyes.
Anyway, my American friend and I were crossing the same gate on foot. We were ambushed by 5 Chinese drunks (for whatever reason we have not been able to find out to this date), the guards who were just 10 feet away just stood there and watched as we were beaten up.
The guards did not offer assistance nor did they apologise. The school did not ask if we were alright. In fact the only thing the school and the guards were worried about was that they had lost face and if it was going to effect the school.
You will find no newspaper coverage of this i still carry the scars of that scuffle to this day.
I think that you have also hit on another reason why the security guards
did not do anything.
X security guards X*100 roudy drunks/protesters.
If security guards intervene, they could get the CR*P kicked out of them. Often this is how a peaceful protest becomes violant.
Security forces try to disperce the crowd, and the crowd turns on them.
It is also how drunks kicking you turns into drunks kicking security guards as well.
The best response that Chinese security can give at a protest is to form a human sheild around the building or site and try to rebuff the crowd rather than to endage them.
ACB
they don’t know how much shame Japan feels on this issue. ?
do they
feel shame on this issue?
gong [348999@163.com]
ACB you are probably right about the number game. In my situation my
friend and I were 2, the drunks were 5, the guards at the gate were 6.
As with the protestors, citing the 1989 precedence, China is capable of suppresing protestors regardless or numbers.
Here it's a difference of opinion...
ABC wrote:
(...)Britain and France, (both former colonial powers with
a long and unabashed history of genocide and the maintenance of unequal
‘subordinate’ colonies, hold two further seats.
what do you mean ? were there any colonial powers without unequal ‘subordinate’ colonies ?
(...) would serve to concentrate a large volume of world
influence in white dominated Western Europe; (...) further disenfranchising
non whites, and those whose legal, moral, or cultural backgrounds are not
based in Christianity, ...
Christianity==white, European ,
nonChristianity==non white, non European ?
geez wan ... ease up ! I like reading your posts, but sometimes you need to open up, and give your own little universe some color
manny
manny [m040601@yahoo.com]
(...)Britain and France, (both former colonial powers with a long and
unabashed history of genocide and the maintenance of unequal ‘subordinate’
colonies, hold two further seats.
What I was saying was that Both France and Britain pursued exactly the same kind of colonial dominance as Japan did, they committed the same kinds of atrocities, and they both claim that what they did was for the betterment of the world rather than their own enrichment. Both countries have a bloody history that is only remembered as being any different from Japan’s bloody reign across Asia because these two countries were the eventual victors.
I don’t actually know if there are any real examples of equal colonies, it depends on which side you sit on. I think that Australia probably counts as one, unless you’re an aboriginal, Japanese Okinawa is now, but it wasn’t always. Largely I meant slave colonies like those in India and Africa rather than colonies made up of ex pats who went willingly, like the US and New Zealand.
(...) would serve to concentrate a large volume of world influence in white dominated Western Europe; (...) further disenfranchising non whites, and those whose legal, moral, or cultural backgrounds are not based in Christianity, ...
By this I meant that Africans, Indians, Asians …. would have less influence than countries populated by whites, and that countries that might or might have Christian population, but whose heritage is not centered on Christianity, would have less power and influence in the world. For example, Japan and Pakistan both of which have a very different legal and social system from Europe because they were not based on Christian ethics or western views of morality that evolved from Christian views.
A polarization towards white Christian countries could disenfranchise other nations and endanger the relevance of the UN to the world. I have personally seen the US and other countries try to impose their values system on other countries, and to refuse to separate a moral life from a Christian life, or democracy from western culture. There is an overwhelming trend from countries like the US to see morality and democracy as inseparable from their religious views and to promote things (for example abstinence only education) because of their faith, even when other solutions are better for other societies.
ACB
Zhaoren
You are certainly right that Beijing could have suppressed the demonstrators, but that would have created more problems than the demonstrations themselves, especially if the protests became violent or were violently suppressed.
If Beijing had intervened aggressively, it would have become the bad guy. People are already saying that the government isn’t doing enough to pressure Japan, but if Beijing stepped in it could be seen as actively supporting Japan and this would not only loose it support, but it would risk nationalists campaigning for change in China, and nationalists are a whole lot more dangerous than pro democracy campaigners when they become roused.
Also, it is difficult for Tokyo to criticize China over anti Japanese sentiment at the best of times because of war shame, but if China were to suppress a protest with violence, Japan could criticize China on human rights grounds and slip in the anti Japanese nature of the protests as well, giving it a way to criticize China over the protests without having to address its own shame.
This would immediately make Tokyo the good guy and Beijing the bad guy to the international community. Beijing doesn’t want that.
Allowing this protest can also be used by Beijing to hurl back at the US when it says that Beijing is restricting peoples right to demonstrate. After all, this is a form of free speech.
ACB
gong
This is a very sore issue. I don’t know your background so I don’t know how much you know or from which side you see things, but yes, Japan feels a totally crushing sense of shame that has permeated every section of society at every level. The killer though is that Japan doesn’t show shame in the same way as either China or the west. Believe me, it is there.
In Japanese culture, if something is the cause of shame, or if it would bring about conflict and a loss of the semblance of harmony, then it is not discussed openly. People will go to great lengths not to discuss issues of shame and sadly this sometimes makes them seem in denial, or ignorant of the truth. In fact, the worse the shame. The only real exception to this is Japan’s teacher’s union, which goes out of its way to inform people of what happened. Largely, Japan’s teacher’s union has stamped out all forms of ignorance and has corrected any ‘distortions’ that may exist in text books.
Largely, silence on any issue such as this in Japan is a sign that the nation is shamed by it.
May I draw your attention to Japan’s staunch commitment to pacifism as an example of the influence of war shame, and the lack of denials (and engagement) over atrocities that it committed.
If the war were not a source of shame, then Japan would be standing on the rooftops denying that it was a source of shame, and if people were not both aware of, and shamed by, war crimes, then they would be actively disputing them.
ACB
ACB said: People will go to great lengths not to discuss issues of shame
and sadly this sometimes makes them seem in denial, or ignorant of the
truth.
This might as well be the definition of denial. If this is the Japanese "style" of atonement, it is simply not acceptable to anyone else. You'd be hard pressed to find another 1st world country that had intentionally, brutally and senselessly slaughtered and raped hundreds of thousands of people in the last 60 years, and then not made PUBLIC atonement before being accepted into the world community.
I am an American businessman living in China and certainly don't share any of the "living standards jealousy" b.s. arguement. The fact is, the Japanese have been arrogant and unremorseful in public for their crimes, and continue to carry on with their official denials and even celebration of what occured. No amount of heresay reports saying they really do feel shame - which is what the above arguement amounts to - can make up for being too proud and craven to publicly atone.
Quiet shame is simply not an acceptable form of reconciliation. If the Germans behaved the same way, they would never have been accepted and trusted again. Neither should the Japanese.
Mitch
Mitch
So, what you’re saying is that Japan is wrong because it doesn’t react in the same way as your country does.
I’m sorry, but I find this a particularly arrogant thing to say, and it is typical of a white American (you sound extremely white from where I am). You are trying to force your own cultural standards onto somebody else and then denouncing them for being different.
It is not a fact that Japan has been arrogant and unremorseful in public, at least not all of the time, but it is a fact that Japanese people don’t show humility and remorse in the same way as you do. You are placing your own cultural norms and norms of body language and behavior on Japan. This is your arrogance. Have you seen a Japanese leader when he is happy, or sad, or angry? Could you tell if he was without reading the closed captions?
I would suggest that you watched ‘lost in translation’ it explains some of this quite well, it is readily available and it is in English.
You are also utterly ignorant of history, Japan DID make a public apology, it made a great many over several decades and to numerous different countries, many of these apologies were also accepted by those that they were aimed at. China actually accepted Japan’s PUBLIC apology in 1972 when the two countries normalized relations. Please check your history books, it is even written in English somewhere on one of the official Chinese government websites for all to see.
When it comes to unrest, there are many issues here, and differences in living standards is only one of the, Others include the slow spread of wealth from the cities into rural area, limitations being placed on democracy and freedom of speech, lack of world standing, conflicts between reformers and conservatives, the list goes on. If you check around you will see that people have been becoming restive over these issue for quite some time.
I would say that, as a businessman, you are unlikely to have met many of those feeling disenfranchisement over living conditions, and I would certainly say that unless you are an extraordinary businessman, you have only seen what China has shown you; probably the inside of a Shanghai hotel.
On the issue of other countries and apologies, you seem to have forgotten that when the KMT retreated to Chinese Taiwan they slaughtered thousands of people without an apology in case they were pro mainland. Yet they have been accepted into the international community. What about Israel? Both of these developed countries are US allies and neither ever apologized for what they did.
What about Vietnam, and Iraq?
How about Britain and the British Empire. Millions dead, hundreds of millions enslaved for up to 300 years, and still no substantive apology.
You have no credibility here if you spout such cultural bigotry and speak without understanding history or Japanese culture.
Maybe we should all be like the US and run around suing each other and parading our shame in the streets.
If quiet shame is unacceptable to you, then maybe you should change. It was certainly acceptable to Macarthur.
ACB
So your position is that it is the apologizer who sets the terms for its
apologies? That any relativist interpretation of "I'm sorry," even if that
involves celebration of the wronging itself, should be acceptable, as long
as it is acceptable to the wrong-doer? That feeling sorry, without making
any forward acts of reconciliation is acceptable, as long as this is within
the norms of the culture that wronged in the first place?
If the Japanese felt it sufficient to issue lightly worded apologies, then vote them down in parliament, would that be enough just because we should be culturaly sensitive to the Japanese style? How about if the German leaders decided it was time to stop teaching their children about the German atrocities, and time to honor the dead Nazi leaders?
If any of that sounds familiar, it's because that's what the Japanese have done.
I am not insensitive to other world views. At some time though, there is right and wrong. Denial and contrition. Acceptable and unacceptable.
I also would not defend the behavior of western governments throughout history. There are major differences here though, the primary being that the criminals are still alive and unpunished, and the philosophy behind the crimes is still alive and well.
I have traveled to many places in the world outside of the business bubble you imply that I am. I am not a proponent of universal values, nor the Bush administration. But I can not accept a silent apology for war crimes. To say that I can not make that judgement is to say that any level of contrition, no matter how low, should be accepted, and that is road down which humanity can not survive.
An interesting summary of German acts of contrition is on this website (I'm referring to the list, not endorsing everything on this site):
http://www.skycitygallery.com/japan/japan.html#compare
There is simply no comparison with the Japanese.
If I raped and murdured your daughter and wife, then sent an email apologizing from my estate in Thailand, would you accept this because it was my way of apologizing? Could you accept it even if you heard from my drinking buddies that I really was sorry?
I think not.
Mitch
I'm happy that ACB can't defend on his view of "culture" anymore, this is
no "culture", this is simply BIG right or wrong, apply to all human moral
standard, and from his writings it's quite obvious ACB belong to the
extreme right.
hparade
Hparade
If I were part of the extreme right, I would deny that Japan committed war crimes and I would say that Japan had no reason to feel shame. Politically, I’m actually very centrist; trying to move forward without denying the past, but also without living in it.
I do not dispute that war crimes happened, I am not even talking about war crimes, I am only trying to explain the Japanese reaction. If this makes me far right, then there isn’t a single left wing person left in the entire world.
I’m giving a lesson in culture, not history, and I am explaining peoples’ views rather that excusing their actions.
ACB
Mitch
I thought that I had made it clear that this is a China only blog, and that Japanese war crimes are off limits, along with a million other non China issues. There are a great many English language forums that cover these topic in great detail, but I can’t permit this thread continue here, feelings are running too high at the moment and I don’t want my site to become a battle ground. Particularly as I have Chinese readers who don’t want to here me incessantly defending Japan.
I will give you some historical background in answer to your post, so please let this be the end of the matter. You are welcome to comment on issues that are directly raised in articles, but as a rule I keep Japanese war crimes threads from expanding because they take up too much of my time to answer, and they tend to turn into camp A versus camp B situations where everybody digs their heals in.
“So your position is that it is the apologizer who sets the terms for its apologies?”
Actually, the terms for Japan’s apology were set by a senior American officer named Douglas Macarthur. He was Japan’s de facto leader after the war and set the stage for everything afterwards, including Japan’s apologies, reparations (called ODA), and re entry into the world. Everything that came after is because of his policies.
After the end of the Pacific campaign, Macarthur wanted to stabilize the region as quickly as possible and he knew that in order to ensure peace he needed the cooperation of the Japanese People.
Macarthur had a good understanding of Japanese psychology and he knew that if he forced a foreign style of apology on Japan, or if he forced it into acts of contrition that were seen as being demeaning, then Japan would not accept US occupation and that any ensuing resurgence of conflict would cost tens of thousands of lives on both sides.
Because Japan was allowed to maintain its cultural ties and was not demeaned by the US, Macarthur was, and still is, regarded as a hero who saved Japan from itself. Had he pushed Japan into the same acts of contrition as Germany, then most historians have little doubt that the US would have been seen as a hostile invader seeking to destroy Japan.
Such a view would have lead to a drawn out guerrilla war like those seen on Japan’s outer islands. It would have been a blood bath for all concerned. America would have had to commit genocide to pacify Japan in a land war.
“to honor the dead Nazi leaders”
This is another common misconception that often comes from people confusing Japanese Shinto with Chinese Buddhism. If you visit Japan’s war shrine at Yasukuni, you will find the names of about 1000 war criminals (the leaders to whom you are referring) listed there (Yasukuni offers enshrinement without judgement, I don’t agree with it, but I don’t practice Shinto myself and so have no right to judge it), but you will not find a single shrine or alter dedicated to them, or a single person asking them for fortune. Yasukuni is a Shinto shrine, and in Shinto you don’t honor the dead, and you don’t glorify people after death. It simply doesn’t work this way and suggesting otherwise is paltry. It would be like saying that a Christian engaged in ancestor worship or that Muslims perform Hindu rituals.
If you look at Japan, there are also no parades or holidays in honor of disgraced war time leaders, and there are not statues or photographs of them on display outside an historical context. Often shrine visits are described as being honor visits, but this is because of the above misconception. Even if Yasukuni were a Buddhist temple, only a relative by blood or marriage could actually honor a war criminal in the way that you are thinking of.
Japan might not distance itself from its wartime leaders as much as Germany did, but it does not honor them either.
Honoring wartime leaders is, I’m afraid, an urban myth (OK, there are a few right wing lunatics, but similar lunatics honor Hitler in Germany, and none of the Japanese ones are in government).
On the issue of rape and murder, I’m afraid that you have been mislead again.
After WWII, Japan’s most heinous leaders and other war criminals were rounded up, put on trial, and executed. There are detailed records available on the internet to confirm this.
What confuses the issue is that Japan maintained several figurehead leaders whose positions were purely hierarchical and who had no actual power. China and Korea often call some of these people leaders and war criminals, but in truth many of them were little more than glorified paper-stampers and ceremony masters who dotted the Is and crossed the Ts on decisions made by other people. A lot of these people were either found to be innocent, were jailed for complicity etc rather than executed, or their positions were recognized as being ceremonial and they were found not to be complicit in war crimes, or to have only been the messengers.
If you are Chinese or Korea then yes these men are seen as being war criminals walked free, if you are not, then these men were found innocent or not culpable by the allies.
At the end of the day, justice was done to a book written by the US. Japan had no control over the process and so no blame should be laid on it. Japan rightly has no power to overturn an innocent verdict handed down by a US war crimes court, allowing it to do so would also grant it the power to overturn a guilty verdict as well. Legally, Japan can do nothing on this.
Germany
There are three substantial differences between German contrition and Japanese contrition.
Germany was a European nation apologizing to other European
nations.
Many of Germany’s apologies were internal, to its Jewish
population, rather than external, as Japan’s apologies were.
Germany
went too far.
It is my personal opinion that Germany is acting out of guilt, but that it feels almost no shame at all. An apology made without dignity is an apology made without shame, which makes it worthless. I would be insulted if Germany were apologizing to me. It hasn’t reflected at all, it knows how to make a public apology and public acts, but it doesn’t know how to feel shame for what happened during the war.
Germany feels guilt so it tries too hard, it bans or denounces everything because it feels no shame. If people felt shame, then there would be no need to make so many acts of contrition, or to enact so many anti Nazi laws and to make so many acts of remembrance. If Germany felt shame, to do the things that were banned would be unthinkable.
Japan feels little guilt, only those who perpetrated war crimes, or who allowed them to be perpetrated by not stopping them, need feel guilt. Japan’s guilt rests on those who are guilty, not on their grandchildren. What Japan feels is shame. This is the fundamental difference between the two countries.
Germany needs to make acts of contrition as much for itself as for those that it slaughtered. Japan does not need to make these acts of contrition for itself, that it has already made them to others, and that guilt died with the guilty. Japan’s system has changed and such acts can never again be perpetrated.
To this day, Germany has recurring Neo-Nazi threats, anti Semitism is on the rise, and the Jews still haven’t forgiven Germany.
In Japan, Imperialism and militarism are dead, Japan maintains a pacifist stance that it refuses to breach, and China and Koreas still haven’t forgiven it.
In reality, the only nations that actually did get over the war were the allies. This has little to do with Germany or Japan, but is because the allies were more forgiving countries. They would have forgiven far greater crimes with far smaller apologies.]
I would also like to make it very clear. I am talking about Japan’s response, and not its actions during the war. They were indefensible and my writing about post war Japan should not be taken as condoning wartime actions in any way. I am only explaining why Japanese people feel the way that they do post war.
This is back on topic -
I asked a friend of mine what he thought of the protests - he's from Beijing doing a Phd in my institute in the UK - and after listing all the stuff about "the japanese did this, then they did that, they still haven't done this" etc. he said - "but you know the real reason why they were protesting? because japan is viewed as being too close to the USA, and China views the US as the real problem, but the USA is too powerful to protest, so we just protest Japan."
He admitted that Chinese history with Japan made it really easy to protest, too, but thought that the USA was the main culprit in fueling Chinese political protestations. I thought this was interesting, and insightful. wondering what you think.
Laowai 19790204 [wtl21@cam.ac.uk]
Well I think at least this discussion clarified some facts and the deep
divisions at play, but you're right this is not the place to debate this to
conclusion. Living in Shanghai, I am certainly sympathetic to the Chinese.
I might feel differently if I lived in Tokyo.
Mitch
Laowai 19790204
Yes, this had crossed my mind more than once, largely I saw this issue as being part of China's view that it should have a larger role in the world , but yes, Japan's relationship with the US is a big psycological factor.
ACB