When the March 11 earthquake hit north-eastern Japan, I was preparing an article on Libya. After the earthquake struck, though, we dropped the Libya article and within a day had planned 16 special reports related to the massive 9.0 temblor.
This is just one small example of the Chinese media’s enormous interest in the earthquake and tsunami. In the days since it struck, China’s media coverage of the crisis has been comprehensive. We dispatched four reporters to Fukushima, who travelled within 22 kilometres of the stricken Daiichi nuclear power plant (the Japanese government had ordered a 20-kilometre exclusion zone from the plant, while residents living within 30 kilometres were asked to evacuate).
Chinese media interest in the unfolding events in Japan has been matched by that of the general public—an official from the Japanese Embassy in China told me that over the past few days, many Chinese have called up the embassy to express their condolences. Their gestures touched the Japanese staff. Some Chinese also reportedly went to the embassy to make donations.
Of course it hasn’t all been positive. Some took to Internet chat rooms to gloat over the disaster, with a number of netizens suggesting that it was God’s will because of Japan’s supposed failure to properly admit its guilt over World War II. But others responded that such natural disasters are a threat to everyone, and that by helping our fellow men and women, we are really also helping ourselves.
Many Chinese have expressed genuine sympathy for the impact on Japan, and have expressed awe at the way Japanese have maintained such social discipline in the face of the hardships they are now confronted with. Major Chinese media outlets also reported that some ordinary Japanese were swept away by the tsunami while trying to save about 20 Chinese students, and they praised their bravery.
In my opinion, even though the earthquake was a catastrophe, it’s also an opportunity to ease diplomatic tensions between Japan and China. Chinese President Hu Jintao, for example, visited the Japanese Embassy to pay his respects—a rare move in recent years.
More generally, there have also been calls on the Web asking people to buy Japanese products during this difficult period (excluding, of course, agricultural products that have been exposed to radiation).
Speaking of radiation, this is perhaps the issue that the Chinese are most concerned about. An All Nippon Airways cargo plane from Tokyo bound for China’s Dalian was reportedly refused permission to land due to radiation fears, for example.
And there has also been a run on salt along China’s southeast coast following rumours that iodine in it can prevent radiation sickness. It’s a silly response, but mainland Chinese aren’t alone in this kind of overreaction—the number of Chinese buying salt in New York’s Chinatown has also apparently recently risen.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
jim1980
Chunshan, I feel the way you feel about Japanese. I do hope relationship between Chinese and Japanese improve for the better since Japanese and Chinese share so more common than difference. Since I live in US, Japanese, Chinese and Koreans are in fact labeled as Asian Americans and most Asian groups get along just fine.
Besides the war crime issue, the biggest block for both China and Japan, China and Korea is North Korea. If in the some ways, North Korea just become normal country, then there is good chance for real improvement among all East Asian countries.
Mu Chunshan
Dear JIM1980
I have some different idea from you about Northeast Asia cooperation.
Biggest block to China-S.Korea relations should be North Korea.
But if we only talk about China-Japanese relation, North Korea is not the biggest obstacle. Besides the war crime issue, the territorial and economic interests is the biggest one that influence China-Japanese deepen their relations, such as the Diaoyu Islands and the East China Sea gas fields.
The potential obstacle to closer relationship among China, Japan and S.Korea is the United States, not North Korea. Because even the Kim dynasty disappears immediately, the United States will also maintain a military presence in Northeast Asia.
nwnlhs
Dear Mu Chunshan:
I understand your feelings regarding the United States as “the potential obstacle to closer relationship among” East Asian neighbors. However, one important issue this feeling overlooks is the fact that many of China’s Asian neighbors actively seek US engagement in Asia and were quite enthusiastic when the Obama administration “[came] back to Asia.” Can this be understood as a US obstacle? Or perhaps well-documented concerns, even among Chinese scholars, that many of China’s neighbors–even those who have histories of conflict with the United States–actively seek US engagement can be seen as the US being the obstacle? Moreover, I highly doubt that immediately after a potential disappearance of the “Kim dynasty” South Koreans and Japan would demand the United States’ leave Asia. Such issues would begin cropping up once a Seoul-like stable form of government consolidated power in the North. Even then, massive amounts of foreign aid would be needed to alleviate poverty in the North and bring some form of balance and stability to the newly united Korean peninsula. Indeed, when faced with this enormous economic task, many South Koreans have questioned the feasibility–nay, the desirablity–of unification. The situation, I think, is not so simple as blaming the US presence in Asia for tensions in Asia.
Perhaps a Chinese desire to “roll back” US presence in Asia is what you are communicating. I can also understand this desire. But were the United States to abandon its Asian allies and security partners, I’m quite certain China will find its neighbors balancing against China and seeking to deter a “dominant” China. It is easy for the PRC to claim that all will be well once China gets its way. (In such a scenario, all will be well for the PRC if the PRC gets its way; let us make that differentiation.) But one can be certain that a China that might indeed get its way will also be faced with a good amount of resentment among its neighbors, US or no US presence.
Mu Chunshan
Dear nwnlhs
Your understanding is deeply. I would like to further illustrate what I want to say.
Although China is regarding the United States as a threat to peace in the region, but the current U.S. military presence maintains the region’s fragile balance. This balance is in fact beneficial to China.
Thanks to it, China has enough time to develop the economy. We called this as a period of strategic opportunity; pre-judged duration is about 20 years.
China’s attitude toward the United States is a dilemma, which is that not only worried about expansion of U.S. power affect Chinese interests in East Asia, but also worried that the U.S. military reduction may lead to Japanese military enhance or fragile peace was broken, even to local conflicts.
However, this dilemma attitude of China cannot shake doctrine that United States is the potential obstacle to peace in the region. Because Chinese government and people believe, the U.S. military officials have regarded China as the future’s greatest threat to the U.S.
China’s neighboring countries almost adopt skillful balance-diplomacy between China and the U.S. They have much considered of American military power, but also afraid of China’s business contact damaged, so they do not offend either.
Now the situation in East Asia is that China is “managing” the DPRK; the U.S. is “charging” of Japan and South Korea.
China and the United States are the real boss in the region, North Korea, Japan and South Korea are only little brothers. So the so-called East Asia issue is to be a final analysis to Sino-US relation issue.
jim1980
Here is my reason why I say North Korea, not US, the biggest obstacle for East Asian relationship.
It is true that US-Japan and US-Korea maintain very friendly term and those countries accept US military base in their countries. However, nobody likes the idea of foreign troops in their territories, specially in strong nationalism countries like Japan and South Korea. If you look at Japanese nationalist point of view, US force represented occupied force in the Japan. In fact, there were multiple demonstrations in both Japan and South Korea against US military in those countries in the past.
The only reason those US military able to stay in those countries is real threat of North Korea (of course, potential threat from China). Of course, if North Korea becomes normal country, the real threat is gone. I predict that all those protests against US military will be back in no time and US will have to reduce or eliminate their troops in East Asia.
That’s what happened in Philippine in early 70s. Even though Philippine got a lot of benefits from US military base, once Philippine see no threat from communist, they ask US military to leave.
As for territory dispute, that’s problem for all East Asian countries. Just today, South Korea protest against Japanese textbook on their territory dispute. However, there are ways to solve those issues. Because North Korea cause so many problems, all those territories (those are important issues but still managed issues) has elevated into so high levels between China and Japan. It caused basically mini-cold war.
Mu Chunshan
Dear Jim1980
Maybe you are not Chinese; so let me explain the issue from the perspective of Chinese.
As you said, the U.S. military presence in South Korea and Japan is mainly to deal with North Korea; the potential threat is China. If the Kim dynasty collapses, who will become next goal of the U.S? Of course, it is China.
Even people in Japan and South Korea want U.S. forces to leave their countries, the United States can find excuses to exist to the end; it is very easy to do so. Excuse is may be Taiwan, Diaoyu Islands and others.
In fact, many ordinary people from South Korea and Japan believe it is just a matter of time that North Korean regime collapses. And China will be a greater threat to them for a long time. A recent poll in Japan is to reflect the similar concerns of ordinary Japanese to a rising China. This will be public opinion basis for the U.S. military presence in East Asia in the future.
East Asia is second only to the Middle East has been the most important interests of the United States. We should have no illusions about United States withdrawal from East Asia.
Look at East Europe, which is a mirror to East Asia.
The United States hopes to deploy anti-missile system in the Czech Republic and Poland. the excuse is to deal with Iran, but anyone knows it actually aims at Russia.
Now, North Korea is East Asia’s “Iran”; China become East Asia’s “Russia”. “Mini-NATO” that Surrounds China has been established, which is the root causes “mini-Cold War” happened in East Asia.
China does not want East Asia to change into East Europe, so we can only believe that the U.S. is the main threat to peace in the region.
nwnlhs
Dear Mu Chunshan:
The United States has been an established power in East Asia for so long and to such a degree that many in the region consider the United States an Asia-Pacific regional power although its geographical location is nowhere near the Asia-Pacific region itself (geographically speaking). The United States was a welcome ally during WWII to China (albeit Nationalist China), and has been a stabilizing force despite numerous uprisings and conflicts in the region; it also participated in several of these conflicts, as we know. Even when China itself, 1945-1949, 1954-1955, 1958-1961, 1966-1976, and so forth, was thrown into disarray, the United States played a stabilizing, if at times resented, role.
My question to you is how can you claim that (somehow by default) the United States is the “main threat to peace in the region”? Does it not instead seem that China’s rise, which has had Japan especially in a tizzy for the better half of a decade (and particularly since 2006), that has drawn far more attention regionally than the ever-present strong US force? There seems to be some cognitive dissonance here. Chinese actions in 2010 riled the region up. Sure, the United States was quick to pick up on this and exploit it, but the United States did not commit the acts against the Japanese Coast Guard, for example. Is a rising power a threat to peace and security or is the established power a threat to peace and security? Napoleonic France invaded her neighbors; sure, she reacted from outside threat, but such a threat does not necessarily lead a rising power to invade a neighbor. Hitlerian Germany is another case; Hitler had very little to worry about from France (a difference from the situation Napoleon faced), and there was hardly any reason to suspect Poland would strike the Nazis. Yet Hitler invaded many of the neighboring countries. Are the neighboring countries in either situation threats to peace? Or perhaps from Chinese history–the Mongol invasion; was China, the established power, the threat? I’m curious as to why the belief is that the established power, which helped create the established order and helped continue it, is a threat to regional peace and security, while the rising power, which would arguably gain from changing the status quo (at least to a far greater extent than the established power would gain from changing the status quo itself helped create), is not a threat at all?
It seems to me your argument has very little to do with a study of strategic thinking and far more to do with Chinese strategic interest. But then how can you argue that the United States is a threat to the region? Shouldn’t your argument rather be that China sees the United States as a threat to China? And one more thing: how many times has the United States invaded China militarily? How many US bombs have fallen on Chinese cities? How many bullets have killed Chinese in China (please understand this is a far different question from what happened in Korea in the early 1950s, as BOTH nations were involved in a foreign war)? When has it been US official policy to do harm to the People’s Republic? It seems to me the United States was far more friendly to China after the Sino-Soviet split (even though the Chinese were aiding the Vietnamese Communists; you’ll note the Chinese later in the same decade invaded the same Vietnam). How does this all lead to calling the United States a threat to Chinese–or regional–security?
Thank you.