Following is a guest entry by Shogo Suzuki, a lecturer in politics at the University of Manchester, England.
The recent spat over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands has brought into even sharper focus the antipathy that exists between Japan and China—and acted as a reminder about the dangers of both nations’ persistent determination to be seen as the victim.
Japan’s arrest and detention in September of Zhan Qixiong, the captain of a Chinese fishing boat, resulted in familiar and furious nationalistic outbursts in China. The Japan Coast Guard claimed the trawler had intentionally rammed two of its vessels, but after initially saying that the case would be dealt with by public prosecutors, Japan appeared to capitulate to Chinese demands to free Zhan.
As Andy noted at the time, critics of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan-led government were quick to attack Prime Minister Naoto Kan for what they say was his failure to stand up properly to China. But such dissatisfaction with Kan is perhaps a little surprising given that it was China that incurred the greater diplomatic losses following its apparently hysterical response to the issue.
If Tokyo did indeed interfere with the Naha prosecutors’ decision-making process and pressed for Zhan’s release (although there’s no concrete evidence yet that this was the case), the government should undoubtedly be chastised for undermining the rule of law, one of the fundamental tenets of any liberal democracy.
But taking a long-term view, Japan’s response seems to have been much more rational than China’s. The fact is that Japan didn’t move to escalate the issue, and instead simply allowed Beijing to score a diplomatic own goal by damaging its carefully cultivated image as a benevolent, peacefully rising power. Worse still from Beijing’s point of view is that its response resulted in an explicit commitment from the United States to defend the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands—surely another setback for China’s long-held goal of regaining control over its ‘lost territories’.
So why all the anger aimed at the DPJ government? In part it stems from a deep-rooted ‘masochism’ among many Japanese conservative nationalists. It’s ironic really, because many of these same nationalist critics have long been deeply critical of what they see as the masochism of the Japanese left, who they accuse of constantly interpreting Japan’s past in a negative light and of perpetuating a feeble, subservient position vis-à-vis its Asian neighbours.
The thing is that conservative nationalists seem unaware of their own masochism. In order to strengthen their claims that Japan needs to be resurrected as a strong and militarily independent state, nationalists need to perpetuate the notion of Japan as an ‘oppressed’ and ‘weak’ state. Indeed, it’s not dissimilar to the approach followed by Chinese nationalists—China’s ‘patriotic’ education emphasises the Communist regime’s role in saving China from the ‘hundred years of humiliation’, a narrative that rests on the notion of China as being weak and bullied.
Of course China and Japan aren’t alone in this—Korean nationalism, often based on memories of Japanese imperialism, is no different. But the problem is that this curious strain of nationalism in East Asia, which relies on each country having its own narrative of humiliation and suffering, makes coexistence with one another extremely difficult.
For policymakers in Sino-Japanese relations, the idea that each side is determined to bully the other inevitably complicates any efforts to strike diplomatic compromises. But it also goes deeper than just the immediate policymaking level. The victimhood narrative also breeds an irrational, almost doctrinal hatred of the other country, making nationalism a point of political principle.
If China and Japan are to have any chance of improving relations, they will both have to abandon the short-sighted nationalism that sees a sense of victimhood as a cornerstone of foreign policymaking.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
David L.
Where are Japan’s humiliations from its Asian neighbors? When was the last time Chinese and Koreans raped and killed millions of Japanese civilians? Japan changed the history books to whitewash the atrocities it committed and it continues to worship war criminals. Imagine how Israel would feel if the German government denied the Holocaust even happened and worship Adolf Hitler. If Japan continues on its current path, there will be paid back from a rising China and a rising Korea.
John Chan
1. The author conveniently left out the fact that China only reacted strongly when Japan announced they would prosecute the fishing boat skipper under Japanese domestic law for the purpose of establishing a precedent for the ownership of the Sankoku/Daioyu islets which China claims sovereignty. Such provocation is equivalent to declaration of war on China by Japan.
2. The author also forgot to mention that Seiji Maehara and Japanese Coast Guard spent much of their time sabotaging top level attempts at negotiation to resolve the incident quietly by leaking information to the press in order to make Naoto Kan look like a traitor and coward.
3. Shojo Suzuki ignored the fact that the right-wing gang of Seiji Maehara chickened out of their act of brinkmanship in the Sankoku/Daioyu islets incident, and went on to seek the moral high ground by claiming victory for Japan as a victim. This ignores the fact that Japan was the brutal aggressor in the incident. Two armed JCG gunboats rammed a civilian fishing boat and sent the Chinese civilians to the jail in Japan, surly an act of the thief crying for help.
4. The author ridiculed China’s desperate attempts to defend its sovereignty and its citizens from illegitimate and illegal harassment as “another setback for China’s long-held goal of regaining control over its ‘lost territories’” and “familiar and furious nationalistic outbursts in China.”
5. The author disregard the JCG tradition of doing their jobs recklessly, such as ramming, aggressively cutting, outright hurting their prey.
6. Then the author glossed over the evidence of rebirth of Japanese imperial military adventurism and the excused the Japanese calculated aggression with terms like “masochism” and “victimhood”.
7. The Author ignored how irrationally Japan reacted to Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to their own territory in the Kuril chain, but accused China of overreacting on bloated nationalistic sentiment.
8. “If China and Japan are to have any chance of improving relations”, it is better for people like the author stop pumping out specious and toxic arguments to advance the interests of Japan right-wing imperialism, and the gang of Seiji Maehara stops sabotaging actions. Both of them are obstructing and poisoning the efforts made by China and moderates in Japan to resolve difficult issues.
9. Now I can put University of Manchester and Chatham House, and Shogo Suzuki and Kerry Brown in the same category, the anti-China think tank.
SE962582C
What sick and demented persons, quite frankly, would possibly call THE University of Manchester “anti-China” and “anti-Chinese”?!
THE University of Manchester is most certainly NOT a “Think Tank”.
THE Chatham House, THE Royal Institute of International Affairs is most certainly NOT a “Think Tank” either.
John Chan
@SE962582C, you can disagree my comments, just like I disagree nearly all Mike Jason’s articles, please do not degrade yourself, this site and other commenters by attacking other commenters with foul language.
SE962582C
There ARE of course Universities that ARE anti-China and anti-Chinese, but mostly, and mostly of course Indian/Hindustani (Tibetan Émigré), Vietnamese, Korean, Mongolian, Indian/Hindustani and Japanese, IN THAT PARTICULAR WORD OF ORDER, of Order of Precedence.
Outside of out-with the Old World and the Old Country, there are mostly ONLY “Free Tibet”, “pro-Tibet” and “pro Free Tibet” Universities, such as the Columbia University of New York, the Emory University of Atlanta, the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London, the (London) School of Economics of the University of London and the Magdalen (Sic.) College of the University of Oxford, with NO open, public, overt or explicit anti-China or anti-Chinese agendas or allegiances, along with the Metropolitan University of London and the John Moorse University of Liverpool.
One does however claim and allege however that PARTS OF both the Harvard University and the University of State of the State of Ohio DO have an and harbour some of such agenda and allegiances, anti-China and anti-Chinese agenda and allegiances, due to some private agendas and some ulterior motives, possibly having to do with Korean (and possibly Japanese) pseudo-Nationalism and Ultra-Nationalism.
SE962582C
One, as a Pronoun, could see that there is a hard-working busy little worker bee at Work at Here.
Strictly speaking there are NO SUCH THINGS as the so-called “Foul language”, only “Profanities” and “Obscenities”.
One, again as as a Pronoun, DOES think that he had gone too far, and it is in fact THE DUTY of any right-minded person to halt and to stop the nonsense and this nonsense from proceeding for any further, Here and Now, and for once and for all.
This is NOT the place for the advocating of, for the spreading of, to disseminate or to propagate American-style or North American style “One World Government” and “New World Order” style Propaganda and Conspiracy Theories.
He should be free to do so, should he choose to knowingly believe such Propaganda and Conspiracy Theories, BUT he SHOULD also KEEP his beliefs and such beliefs FIRMLY and STRICTLY TO HIMSELF and to himself ONLY.
As a matter of fact one would actually and in fact rewrite the Question, as it does not appear to be sufficiently strongly-worded and be stronger-worded enough.
What [sick, TWISTED, demented AND PERVERTED] persons, quite frankly, would possibly call THE University of Manchester “anti-China” and “anti-Chinese”?!
SE962582C
Apologies; it ought to be and ought to be read as “There ARE of course Universities that ARE anti-China and anti-Chinese, but mostly, and mostly of course Indian/Hindustani (Tibetan Émigré), Vietnamese, Korean, Mongolian, Indian/Hindustani and Japanese, IN THAT PARTICULAR [ ] ORDER [and in that Particular Order] of Precedence.”; and Thank you.