Dangerous Trends: The Hard Truth About the Future of China and Japan

Gandhi said that the solution to a problem could not be addressed until two things were identified: the root cause and then the most salient evidence of the problem. For Americans under Dr. King's leadership, the root cause was the valuation of one human being as worth more than another. Though there were many derivative evils, the clearest example of this was segregation. And so the Civil Rights Movement was born.

I would ask the same questions of this Sino-Japanese internecine conflict: What is the root cause? And what is the clearest evidence of it? That is where the pressure must be applied; effort is wasted when only several small incidents are addressed.

Si vous m'excusez, I found your article lacks substance. Namely, it lacks historical, geographical, political, economic and military contexts. Not surprisingly, it is not informative at all. I think you should be able to do better than this next time.

Peter:

This is a summary containing a warning. Nothing more.

If you had been paying attention you would have found that I've previously discussed all of the above, in depth, in previous entries.

Sarah:

The root cause depends on how far you want to go back in time.

If you go back 60 years, the root cause is that Japan Invaded China and killed somewhere between 17 and 19 million people. With half of them being shot, bombed or bayonetted to death an the other half being forced out of the cities and into the countryside where they died of starvation and exposure.

If you come forward in time, the root cause is the fact that Japan and China have very different sociological views with China making an issue of things that aren't an issue in Japan and getting angry because Japan thinks that these things are stupid and doesn't tackle them.

For example Yasukuni and that text book.

Chinese see Yasukuni as a symbol of militarism and visiting it as being the worship of war criminals, because if it were a Chinese Buddhist shrine, that would be what was going on there (ancestor worship etc).

However, Japan sees it as not being an issue because it is a Shinto shrine where you can't actually glorify the dead (Shinto differs significantly from Buddhism when it comes to ancestor worship), and a lot of people go there for reasons completely unrelated to war crimes, including that its an incredibly beautiful and historic place to see. (there is a lot more to it, but I'm being brief).

On the text book, China is angry because it exists, Japan sees it as not being an issue because its takeup is 0.039 percent. Which means that it barely exists, and that it's little more than a pimple on the bottom of the universe.

These two very different view about very different things mean that China and Japan won't 'make up and be friends' (again there is more too this, but I'm not writting a book here).

Most recently though, the problem has been caused by Chinese and Japanese nationalists.

Chinese nationalists have been using hatred of Japan as a tool to rally support, and to distract Chinese from internal problems.

In turn, the fact that Chinese nationalists are on the war path is helping Japanese nationalists to gain support (If your neighbor is getting upetty, you naturally look towards people who will provide a strong front against them, it's human nature, just like America turining more neo-con after the twin towers were flattened). This is causing a cycle of hatred and distrust to emerge which is rather concerning.

On top of this, Chinese culture denotes that negotiation must be done from a position of strength, and does everything that it can to make things public in order to shame Japan and weaken its position. While Japanese culture dictates that all negotiations must be taken froma neutral stance, and in private. So when China brow beats it as a negotiating tactic, Japan simply refuses to engage.

ACB:

As you suggested, I went back to your old posts. They seem no different from what this article is about: any thing Chinese did wrong is amplified and anything someone else did wrong is minimized.

I would suggest you change your blog name to Angry At Chinese Blogger. It seems fit much better to your most posts.

By the way, I also found an interesting missing item from your site. This is the New York Times editorial: Japan's offensive minister (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/13/opinion/edjapan.php).

I quote:

"Aso has also been going out of his way to inflame Japan's already difficult relations with Beijing by characterizing China's long-term military buildup as a "considerable threat" to Japan. China has no recent record of threatening Japan. As the rest of the world knows, it was the other way around. Aso's sense of diplomacy is as odd as his sense of history."

I am wondering why this signficant piece from the most important newspaper in the US, Japan's most important ally in the world, is missing from this site.

You obviously didn't pay all that much attention to what you read on my site. Particularly the bits that I wrote under the titles of "About Me" and "Why am I blogging".

Let me quote myself:

"I decided to try and provide a source of China news that is not widely covered by the 'big media', and to cover events from the angles that they conveniently forget exist."

The reason that I didn't include what Aso said was that the New York Times had already said it, and had said it in detail. It would be pointless, and go against my site's ethos of showing "The other side of the story".

You're basicly suggesting that I should copy what the big media say, that's just plain stupid.

You also didn't check very far back, especially to all of the times that I pointedly DEFENDED China when it was being accused of being an economic predator, or where I have been among the first to denounce ANY call for western powers to 'counter China', militarily or economically.

As for the contents of the NYT editorial, Aso didn't say anything that isn't currently being said by hawls in congress. So, unless you are a Democrat, in critisizing Aso, you're critisizing your own government too.

You're seeing what you want to see, not what is there.

Hi, just dropping in to say that ACB is actually pretty fair-minded when it comes to discussing the China-Japan rift. At least, as a Japanese she's far more objective than I (as a Chinese) would be able to be if I had to write extensively about it.

One of the things not mentioned in the post, however, is that aside from sociological/ideational differences dividing the two countries, there's also the underlying economic rivalry, especially in regards to nonrenewable energy resources.

The whole thing would be so soap-operaish, if it wasn't also so dangerous. "Like the sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives..."

nausicaa:

Hi, it's nice to hear from you. Cheers for vote of confience.

It's very hard to be objective when it comes to China and Japan, espesially when it comes to the modern day problems. There is just so much historical and social baggage involved and its easy to loose track of the fact that a lot of this is emotive rather than representitive of the two countries as a whole, and I get these urges just ot explain things by saying that one side or other is stupid, which A) isn't true, and B) isn't helpful,

Yeah, the energy thing is quite big, but I decided a while ago that I wouldn't really get into it.

For one thing, it's already being covered in depth by a lot of othre people and, for another, its another complication in an already complicated issue and I'm already writting 2000 word blog entrie as it is, and shouldn't really make them any longer else I will turn into an essay service.

Nausicaa:

I hope you are not one of those self-loathing individuals. At first sign of challenge to your country, you choose to be a hanjian rather than defend your country's interests. Not surprising in a big country like China, all kinds of people exist.

Nausicaa:

I hope you are not one of those self-loathing individuals. At first sign of challenge to your country, you choose to be a hanjian rather than defend your country's interests. Not surprising in a big country like China, all kinds of people exist.

For anybody who doesn't know, 漢奸 literally means Betrayer of the Han Race, but also means Colabotator against China.

It's a particularly nasty slur often used by 憤怒青年 (憤青) to brand loyal Chinese, who have enough common sense to think about things rather than simply follow along blindly on Beijing's coattails, as being disloyal traitors who are selling out their country to foreigners (often Japan or the US).

The closest Ameircan Equivelent would be to call somebody unpatriotic or unamerican, except that it's about 10 times nastier.

FYI, I'm not ethnically Han, but I still find this to be extremely offensive as it's been expanded to mean Chinese in general, and I would advice people not to band it about on my site.

My little 憤青, you may call yourself Peter, but I can't help but feel that the name 小粪粪 suits you better, especially if you want to make accusations like that.

I've been reading Nausicaa's opinions for quite some time and I can tell you that Nausicaa is no traitor and no self loather, and that having the ability to think for your self does not make you one.

In fact, if anybody is betraying China, it is mindless 憤青 who give American neo-cons all of the amunition that they need to brand China as being dangerous, agressive and a destabilizing influence.

Maybe you should also ponder this, without 憤青 like you, Japanese naitonalists would have given up years ago.

Your little stunts in Shanghai, when your kind threw bricks at the Japanese consulate and beat up loyal Chinese storekeepers just because they stocked Japanese goods (which were made in Chinese factories, BTW) helped to strengthen Japanese nationalism far better than anything that any Japanese nationalist could have done.

憤怒青年 are the true 漢奸.

Hanjian? Really, Peter? Pardon my French, but f*ckez-vous. I've been called a CCP whore and a vulgar peasant on occasions because of my pro-China stance, and now you're calling me a race traitor? Allow me to laugh my head off.

I am "protecting my country's interests", as you say. Because I view it as being in my country's interests to promote cooperation and dialogue in the Asia-Pacific region, not alienation and divisiveness. It's inevitable I'm biased towards China, but I try not to fall into a "my country right or wrong" mindset.

ACB has been relatively even-handed in her blame, despite what you may think. In fact, she's probably fairer to China than she is to the United States.

I've always believed that if Japan truly wants to normalize relations with China and other East/SEA nations, it needs to do more than it is doing now in terms of addressing its wartime legacy and engaging these nations. But there's no hiding from the fact that before China can accuse Japan of ultranationalism and renewed militarism, it needs to take a good long hard look at itself.

This is a reason to worry as the enmity between China and Japan could become destabilizing for one or both. I am finding that even highly educated Chinese are prone to making what are essentially racist comments about the Japanese. It is a bad situation.

China law blog,

You are being uneducated by spreading broad accusations without supplying evidence. What is this China law blog business if you yourself are so ignorant of the law as an average person on the street would know.

You sound awfully familiar. I wonder by what other name I have known you.

Stop spoiling for a fight on my blog, and stop accusing people of making "broad accusations" when you yourself include lines like "if you yourself are so ignorant of the law as an average person on the street would know". Which is so very broad that it alluded to everything and nothing at the same time.

Specifics please, preferable the exact case or blog entry to which you are refering.

To make easier for non-Chinese reader to judge one of ACB's earlier comments, I translated a few Chinese words in it.

My little 憤青 (Angry Chinese Youth), you may call yourself Peter, but I can't help but feel that the name 小粪粪 (Peter's note: this phrase is a bit too <<Edited for Language Content>> to translate.)suits you better, especially if you want to make accusations like that.

I've been reading Nausicaa's opinions for quite some time and I can tell you that Nausicaa is no traitor and no self loather, and that having the ability to think for your self does not make you one.

In fact, if anybody is betraying China, it is mindless 憤青 (Angry Chinese Youth) who give American neo-cons all of the amunition that they need to brand China as being dangerous, agressive and a destabilizing influence (Peter's note: who believes neocons need excuses to attack or invade someone else? Blame the powerless for provoking the powerful - a typical twisted logic).

Maybe you should also ponder this, without 憤青 (Angry Chinese Youth) like you, Japanese naitonalists would have given up years ago (Peter's note: this is a typical trick in the book of some by blaming the victims or the people who are not responsible).

Your little stunts in Shanghai, when your kind threw bricks at the Japanese consulate and beat up loyal Chinese storekeepers just because they stocked Japanese goods (which were made in Chinese factories, BTW) helped to strengthen Japanese nationalism far better than anything that any Japanese nationalist could have done.

憤怒青年 (Angry Chinese Youth) are the true 漢奸 (hanjians, i.e. traitors).

While it's sweet of you to try and translate my comments, you're insulting the intelignece of my readers. A great many of whom either live in China or have lived in China, and thus can either read Chinese or have an English-Chinese dictionary to hand. So your efforts are entierly unnessisary.

As you might have noticed, I've taken the liberty of censoring your comment. It's a house rule that I don't allow the use of Curse-words on my blog unless they are *ed out.

As for the content of your comment, you're either being provicative, or you're showing your ignorance. The former of which is often a sign of the latter.

"Blame the powerless for provoking the powerful"

Wrong way round, thhere are a great many 憤青 giving their support to nationalist politicians and policies; making them powerful. Conversely, Japanese naitonalists are discredited and are unsupported by both the people and the government. Quite frankly they nothing more than pathetic little monkeys who can do little but gibber and shout while flinging their feacies around the room. They are a vocal annoyance and nothing more.

Let me quantify this with an example.

During the Anti-Japanese riots, 憤青 marched on the streets of Shanghai and co. They were so numerous that the PSB couldn't contain, and they were organized enough to use the internet and cell phone messaging services to create flashmobs that the security forces were unable to predict or prevent.

There were tens of thousends of them, they layed seige to the Japanese consulate, smashed shops that sold Japnaese goods, and terrorised the Chinese store keepers that ran them, and they did so with near impunity for several weeks.

They rose so quickly and there were so many that people actually became concerned that they might move against the government if they felt that it was making too many consesions to Japan.

On the other hand, 1 Japanese man ran a sound truck into the gates of a Chinese consular building, and a couple of mail staff intercepted a spent bullet casing, a couple of razor blades, and a note demanding more respect for the Dalai Lama which were sent to Chinese diplomatic buildings in Japan.

Who is the powerless group here, I ask you? It seems that these powerful Japanese nationalists of whom you speak can't even come up with one half decent street protest, while 憤青 can shake the foundation of the Chinese government.

"this is a typical trick in the book of some by blaming the victims or the people who are not responsible"

Actually, no. If you look at public opinion poles etc you will find that after each rise in Chinese nationalism or an anti-Japanese even, there is a rise in Japanese nationalism or the level of bad-sentiment towards China in Japan.

Note that the China even happens first, which means that it is causative, while the Japanese event occours after a short delay, meaning that it is an effect. So, its clear that anti-Japanese sentiment causes anti-Chinese sentiment, rather than the other way around.

As for your use of the word "Victim" China WAS the victim, but that was 60 years ago. Japan hasn't been doing any victimizing for a good long time. Today's 憤青 are third generation, the grandchildren of the victims, but they are not victims themselves.

ACB acquitted him/herself rather well here in the face of a troll, but I wish more attention was paid to spelling errors and typos, which can get distracting they are so frequent.

I am just now seeing Peter's vituperative response to my short comment. I find it very interesting that he should attack both my comment (and even my legal knowledge, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion) when all I did was express my concern about the deteriorating relations between the Japanese and the Chinese. I actually ended up at this post today because I thought that it was commenting on a recent post that I ran which was actually quite sympathetic to the Chinese position vis a vis Japan. This Peter guy is a zeolot who seems incapable of discerning nuance.

Here is my recent post on the issue: http://www.chinalawblog.com/chinalawblog/2006/04/the_chinese_are.html

I believe that Pete's bile was caused by this

"even highly educated Chinese are prone to making what are essentially racist comments about the Japanese."

To people like Pete, the suggestion that they or any Chinese might be rascist or hold an inncorrect view about Japan is as good as being an accusation of predetory homosexuality.

You really can tell a lot about a person by what upsets them.

In Pete's case, he believes that he has a correct view about Japan, and therefore cannot be rascist -only accurate - saying otherwise is anaphema.