Sino-Japanese Relations: Facing the Past, Looking to the Future?
Review by Sean Curtin
As the title suggests, this book explores postwar Sino-Japanese relations through the prism of historical disputes and competing interpretations of Japan’s invasion of China (1931-45). It utilizes an impressive array of Chinese and Japanese sources to create a comprehensive and authoritative assessment of the current situation. In recent decades bilateral political ties have been frequently strained over historical spats which in recent years have grown in intensity as the two governments and peoples struggle to find a mutually acceptable narrative of their past. Caroline Rose meticulously charts this process and her wider objective is to examine the progress made on both sides during the nineties towards coming to a better common understanding and reconciliation. She aims to build upon the existing literature by considering these themes in an overreaching framework of reconciliation.
In her introductory chapter Rose outlines the underlying historical fault lines at the epicentre of bilateral tension, which persists despite the efforts of both governments to resolve matters. On page 6 she writes, “The history problem centres on an inability to agree on a shared version of history….” This point was most recently illustrated by the disputed 549-page joint history report compiled by Japanese and Chinese academics and released in January 2010. The project was initiated in 2006 by both governments to examine contentious historical issues, but Japanese and Chinese academics still remain apart on issues like the numbers killed in the 1937 Nanjing Massacre, where figures range from 20,000 to more than 300,000. Rose aims to explain why these war-related issues emerged in the 1980s and continued during the 1990s and are still presently problematic as the recent report demonstrates.
In Chapter 1, “Reconciliation and Sino-Japanese relations,” Rose provides a theoretical framework to analyze the process of reconciliation and set a context for some of the case studies presented in later chapters. She examines the various approaches in a stimulating and thought-provoking chapter, observing, “reconciliation is a future-oriented, joint endeavour between the victims and perpetrators, but one that is lengthy, complex and prone to failure. There is no single, ideal model for reconciliation, and in some cases reconciliation is impossible to achieve (page 21).” One problem for the two nations was the lack of meaningful dialogue between them until they established diplomatic ties in 1972, a gap of almost three decades over which diverging historical narratives evolved. During this period Japan constructed a “national memory” based on seeing itself as a victim of nuclear attack rather than an aggressor in China. Equally, the ideological constraints imposed by the Chinese Communist Party’s iron grip during the same timeframe distorted the Chinese perspective and did not allow victims to express their narratives if they did not conform to the Party’s officially sanctioned historical line.
Rose identifies “two cycles of Sino-Japanese reconciliation,” the first taking place in the early postwar years and during the Cold War. The initial wave encompassed the establishment of bilateral ties in the 1970s through to the Joint Statement of 1972 and the Treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1978. The second cycle begins in the 1980s and unlike the first includes many non-state actors such as victims groups, NGOs, citizens’ groupings, academics etc. Rose states, “The easing of constraints during the 1980s and 1990s facilitated much greater discussion of the past both within and between China and Japan (page 25).” She also highlights the increasing importance in the reconciliation process of transnational groups based in China, Japan, the US, inter alia which are propelling the process forward. While the reconciliation process undoubtedly moves forward, it suffers from continual setbacks often sparked by historical issues, which results in a “one step forward, two steps back” (page 121) trajectory.
In Chapter 2, “Sino-Japanese Reconciliation during the Cold,” Rose plots the initial reconciliation process in greater detail in order to explain why it did not succeed and the problems which subsequently arose in the 1980s and 1990s because of this failure. She looks at the marginalization of Chinese suffering in the Tokyo war trials and how “collective amnesia” evolved in both China and Japan. An in depth postwar overview explains how the two sides re-established ties and seemingly settled the issue of war reparations and apology, but in reality these issues were suppressed and allowed to fester.
In the third chapter a highly detailed account charting Japan’s contentious school history textbook issue is provided. During the 1980s and 1990s Japanese neo-nationalists became increasingly prominent, gaining media attention for their revisionist views. In China nationalist forces were also gathering strength, questioning past historical interpretations, and often adopting an anti-Japanese stance. Chinese anger was further ignited by revisionist claims made by prominent politicians which were later printed in a 1995 book (大東亜戦争の総括) that claimed “the Greater East Asia War (GEAW) was one of self-defence and liberation; that the Nanjing Massacre and stories about comfort women were fabrications…(page 53).” Senior lawmakers in the long governing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) also sought to clamp down on “deplorable” texts books which depicted Japan as an aggressor in China and instead encourage a “healthy nationalism” in school children. However, various citizens groups had appeared on the scene by the 1990s to challenge the neo-nationalists. Rose writes, “The revisionist groups involved in the movement to correct what they saw as masochistic tendencies in Japanese history books faced fierce opposition at home…(page 61).” Unfortunately, the result of these resurgent nationalist lawmakers made Chinese academics conclude that historical revisionism was no longer confined to fringe rightwing elements and had become mainstream, making reconciliation tougher.
This book by prominent politicians ignited Chinese anger with its revisionist stance
Chapter four presents a systematic and through analysis of compensation claims made by Chinese war time victims during the nineties. Rose looks at a representative sample of lawsuits comprising forced labourers, women forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military, victims of abandoned chemical weapons and biological warfare. The majority of cases were unsuccessful, with a few notable exceptions. One case that particularly caught my attention was that of Liu Lianren, who had been forcibly moved to Hokkaido to work as a slave labourer in a coal mine. He managed to escape in 1944 and remained uncaptured for 13 years, not realising that the war had ended. He was eventually found living in a cave and summarily deported in 1958 as an illegal immigrant by Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, who with bitter irony had implemented the forced labour policy during the war when he was Commerce and Industry Minister. Liu launched a lawsuit for compensation in the early nineties, but this was rejected. However, after several appeals he eventually won his case in July 2001. Sadly, he had passed away in September 2000 before the final verdict. While the case was hailed as a landmark, the judge made it clear that the compensation was not for his abduction and forced labour, but for the 13 years he had spent in the Hokkaido mountains as a fugitive. Even though the majority of cases were rejected, Rose see a positive outcome from these legal actions being the strengthening of ties between Chinese and Japanese citizens groups and a general raising of awareness about issues which had for too long been suppressed in both countries.
In chapter 5, “Settling the past,” using her theoretical framework Rose explores from the respective perspectives the difficulties both Beijing and Tokyo have with the apology issue and commemorating the past. One of the main problems from the Chinese perspective is that they feel apologies made by Japanese Prime Ministers often lack sincerity, especially those given by PM Koizumi who normally expressed remorse about the war before or after making a controversial visit to the war-tainted Yasukuni Shrine. In Chinese eyes such actions nullify any apology and are in fact counterproductive. Rose observes, “The main problem surrounding the apparent failure of the Japanese to come to terms with the past is, from the Chinese point of view, the refusal of successive Japanese governments to offer genuine, sincere apologies to the Chinese government and people, backed up by actions to reinforce the apologies (page 100).” From the Japanese perspective, it appears that despite numerous apologies given over the years, Beijing is never satisfied, preferring to play “the history card” for political benefit and “many Japanese feel that no further apologies are necessary (page 125).” On the positive side, the degree and extent of the apologies has markedly improved over the decades with that given by Japan Socialist Party (JSP) Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama in May 1995 normally taken as the benchmark to evaluate subsequent expressions of remorse. Murayama headed an uneasy coalition comprising mainly of the JSP and the LDP, the more neo-nationalist elements of the LDP were deeply unhappy about the level of apology given by Murayama. Once the LDP were rid of the JSP and firmly back in power, there was a marked upsurge in nationalist sentiment which is in part responsible for the Sino-Japanese tensions witnessed from the late 1990s to the present day.
In the concluding chapter Rose looks at the challenges which still continue to plague the relationship and the progress made. Fundamentally, the inability to agree a shared version of their mutual history remains the core issue. It inhibits expressions of remorse and apology being excepted while leaving victims and their descendants with a strong sense of injustice. The governments have made great strides in trying to resolve the issue, spurred on by the phenomenal growth in economic ties, but growing nationalist sentiment in both countries makes this an increasingly difficult task.
Nevertheless, there is a strong desire in both countries to try to resolve these issues and crucially with the LDP’s five-decade strangle hold on power finally broken in the landslide election of August 2009, there is a much better chance for progress. The current Democratic Party of Japan administration has little of the neo-nationalist LDP baggage and offers a real opportunity for greatly improved bilateral ties. The only danger might be if the LDP were to regain power and give momentum back to neo-nationalist elements, but this scenario currently seems unlikely. Rose must be commended for producing such a substantive and impressively researched trilingual work which significantly adds to our understanding of Sino-Japanese history-related issues. She concludes her work on a positive note, “Reconciliation between the two countries is undoubtedly making progress, but there is still a long way to go.”