February 1, 2010
(Mainichi Japan)
While a joint Japanese-Chinese panel comprised of academics released a report on the history of the two countries on Sunday, a section addressing the post-war period has not been disclosed due to strong objections from the Chinese members. This turn of events has exposed the limitations and complexities of a project meant to bridge the rift between Japan and China. Meanwhile, portions penned by Chinese academics have shown signs that Chinese academia is moving away from the interpretation of revolutionary history as dominated by the Chinese Communist Party, to a more positivist approach.
Release of the report came over a year later than the initial plan of 2008, which marked the 30-year anniversary of the peace and friendship treaty signed between Japan and China. "The delay was caused by a difference in perception of modern history," one Japanese panel member said. "The Chinese side feared addressing issues that could challenge the legitimacy of the party leadership, such as the Tiananmen incident."
Plans to release notes on the debates held throughout the writing of the report have also been shelved. Some observers see the repeated failures to reach an agreement as the result of pressure applied to panel members from the Chinese government, which considers historical research an important pillar of its "patriotic education."
Both sides agreed that they would undertake the second phase of the joint project, but it has yet to be seen how the Japanese and Chinese public will respond to the latest report. "Stable public sentiment on both sides is imperative to continuing this project," says a diplomat involved in Japan-China relations.
Popular Chinese sentiment toward Japan has improved since the 2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations, which was the catalyst behind the project. It is impossible, however, to include anything in the report that would suggest that China made concessions to Japan regarding the Nanking Massacre, especially when surviving family members of those who were killed in the incident still live in China.
The section on the Nanking Massacre includes not only the number of victims, but also a detailed description of the killing, rapes, and pillaging that took place. The extensive explanation of the massacre -- which is in stark contrast to the perfunctory depiction of Unit 731, which carried out germ warfare attacks -- is believed to have been written in response to the existence of Nanking Massacre deniers in Japan.
Hints of Chinese historians' departure from the "Chinese Communist Party as revolutionary history" line are evident in the report's description of the relationship between the Communist Party and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in the war against Japan. "There was friction between the two parties, but the more important objective of cooperation in the fight against Japan remained consistent."
In China, there has been a trend to re-evaluate the role of the KMT in the war against Japan as China's relations with Taiwan improve. The joint report, too, dedicates a significant number of words to the negotiations the KMT conducted with major powers on behalf of China and an elaboration on the global state of affairs at the time, and captures the Sino-Japanese War from a broader perspective.
In addition, the report refers to Japan's defeat in the war as "a turning point in history," and that Japan began taking "a step toward peace and development." Such an interpretation clashes with the view held by Chinese "patriots" comprised primarily of youth, who accuse Japan of increasing militarization.
There is a possibility that such historical interpretations will arouse great controversy, and it is likely to be some time before they are reflected in history textbooks and television dramas.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment