|
楼主 |
发表于 2005-3-30 12:38
|
显示全部楼层
History's burden
历史的担子
Listen to scholars, pundits and officials on both sides and you get the sense that today's tense relations between Japan and China stem both from the nasty history of the 20th century and from expectations or concerns about the shape of the 21st.
Most simply, this is expressed in mistrust. In both China and Japan these days opinion towards each other is quite varied; China no longer has a single party line and the Japanese debate has always been lively. The extremes on both sides are striking, however. Gao Heng, a scholar at the usually moderate Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, claims that some members of the Japanese government want to recolonise Taiwan; to that end, he says, Taiwanese military personnel are secretly being trained in Japan. Mr Gao, it should be noted, was born in 1939 while his parents were hiding from the Japanese in tunnels.
On the other hand, your correspondent recently heard a senior Japanese businessman give a speech (off the record) at a conference in Nagoya in which he described China's territorial ambitions in East Asia, and particularly its hunger for resources, as being akin to Hitler's Lebensraum policy in the 1930s, stating that it must be resisted at all costs. Had any Chinese been present, they would no doubt have reminded him of Japan's own hunger for resources during that decade.
Such pride and suspicion can also be found in popular protest and populist politics. Last August, a Japanese victory against China in the final of the Asian soccer cup in Beijing culminated in hooliganism by young Chinese supporters in which Japanese flags were burnt and a Japanese diplomatic car was vandalised. Such protests have also occurred whenever Japan's prime minister, Mr Koizumi, has made what have become his annual visits to the Yasukuni shrine in Tokyo, which is where the souls of all Japan's 2.5m war dead since 1853 are symbolically interred, including those of 14 class-A war criminals executed in 1948 after the Tokyo war-crimes trial. A group of top Japanese businessmen pleaded with him last year to stop the visits, claiming that their sales in China were being damaged. He refused angrily, saying that Japan's war dead must be honoured. But there was another implication, too: that Japan must no longer back down in the face of Chinese pressure. Chinese computer hackers have recently disabled Mr Koizumi's website.
China is not the only one of Japan's former colonies to protest about Mr Koizumi's visits to Yasukuni. South Korea does too, and historical memories still rankle in that country. But neither the protests nor the memories stand in the way of regular top-level summits between Japan and South Korea, as they do between Japan and China. Nor does South Korea continue to demand further and deeper apologies from the Japanese, as China does. In 1998 a visit by President Jiang Zemin to Tokyo was marred by Japan's rejection of Chinese demands for an apology that went beyond language accepted shortly beforehand by President Kim Dae-jung of South Korea. Although Japan certainly has a great deal to apologise for over the conduct of its imperial army in China in the 1930s and 1940s, its prime ministers and the emperor have made official apologies on 17 occasions since diplomatic relations with China were resumed in 1972.
A simple analogy for Japan and China in Asia is, of course, Germany and France in Europe. There has been no scene in Asia equivalent to Helmut Kohl and François Mitterrand holding hands at Verdun in 1984, saying “Never again”. Nor is any such scene likely as long as the countries' leaders refuse to meet. But there has also been no officially sanctioned equivalent of the Franco-German history textbook commission that, soon after 1945, assembled scholars to try to agree on a common account of the two countries' bitter history.
Japanese textbooks have been subject to a quarter-century of legal and official wrangles, particularly over the words used to describe the invasion of China (just an “advance” in some Japanese nationalists' books) and the notorious Rape of Nanjing in 1937 in which thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands (depending on the historian) of unarmed Chinese were killed by the Japanese army. But Chinese textbooks are controversial too for their stridently anti-Japanese content. The tone was heightened, the Japanese say, in the early 1990s, when the Communist Party wanted to use nationalist fervour to dissipate opposition after their own Tiananmen Square massacre of unarmed Chinese in 1989. Hence the fact that many young Chinese seem just as anti-Japanese as their parents.
Defusing the tension
如何缓和紧张局面
Tensions between these two great powers, both fully conscious of their economic and political interests and of the weight of history, probably cannot be defused altogether for as long as the two countries' political systems remain so different, with China communist and Japan a democracy. That is also likely to put a strict limit on the East Asian Community's chances of becoming something like the European Union. Such entities require at least some willingness to share sovereignty, which China for the moment will not consider.
Tensions might be defused, though, if both governments agreed to seek ways to make history, and thus nationalism, less of a flashpoint. On the Japanese side, that really means a willingness to address two issues: the status of the Yasukuni shrine, and the question of compensation for the victims of war. On the Chinese side, it would require a willingness to sanction a joint textbook commission in which historians would be genuinely free to examine the two countries' history; a readiness to give up anti-Japanese propaganda; and a willingness to engage in serious negotiations about sea-bed rights.
A solution to the Yasukuni problem must almost certainly await a new Japanese prime minister in 2006, for Mr Koizumi has argued himself into a tight corner. He claims he must, on grounds of national honour, visit Japan's equivalent of America's Arlington National Cemetery. Yet he also claims that as Yasukuni has been, since the 1940s, a private religious institution, the government has no constitutional right to order it to change the status of the war criminals at the shrine. That is true, but it means that the solution should be to establish a genuine, government-run equivalent of Arlington or France's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, at which prime ministers could pay homage without controversy.
The nub of the compensation issue is Japan's official contention that all wartime claims were settled in the 1951 San Francisco peace treaty. Yet, just as Germany has in recent years reopened questions of restitution for slave labourers, so Japan is likely to find itself under continued pressure to offer more comprehensive compensation, to forced labourers and wartime sex slaves, among others. Its problem, no doubt, is not only the potential breadth of the class of claimants, but also the current absence of a counterpart in China likely to negotiate in good faith.
Japan's own internal debate about its wartime motives and conduct certainly stands in the way of progress. In its pluralistic society, there are plenty who claim that Japan did little wrong in the 20th century. That minority view, though, gains strength when combined with a larger political feeling that in the face of Chinese growth and bullying Japan needs now to stand firm. Such bullying shows no more sign of easing than does the growth. Only once China stops trying to explore how far it can go, and instead decides to seek a rapprochement with its ancient rival, is the tension likely to ease.
[ Last edited by 灰鸦 on 2005-3-30 at 12:52 ] |
|