Coyner’s Comment:
The below essay is much more encompassing than my op-ed piece earlier this week calling for the Japanese emperor to apologize to the rest of Asia, if only for the Japanese own sake. But the two essays are complimentary. As the below article states, unlike Germany, the official head of the Japanese state remained seated, though MacArthur had the option to remove Emperor Hirohito. Furthermore, much of the government officials remained in power, even if a handful had to do short stints in prison before resuming their duties.
But as this essay points out, no one country is to blame. As concisely stated in the below piece’s conclusion, Japan left Asia 150 years ago and did its best to be the “honorary white men” of Asia so that even today Japanese often naively set their fellow Asians’ nerves on edge when referring to Asia as something separate from themselves.
The Chinese foolishly squandered their cultural, political and military supremacy just at the time Western colonialism came floating upon its shores. And the Koreans, as a vassal state, did not do any better than China, leaving itself relatively weak and dependent on a destabilized China.
Given that all three nations have their own peculiar mixtures of nationalism that hide various kinds of sensitivities – often based on a failing senses of self confidence in the greater global context, the three nations are too ready to act out their insecurities by picking quarrels with their equally insecure neighbors.
At any given time, one of the three nations have or will temporarily try to rule the NE Asian roost. (Korea is the exception, but one may argue it has not more out of geopolitical weakness than political virtue. But one cannot say the Koreans will always remain so virtuous in the coming centuries.) Once upon a time it was Japan, and now China is trying to push Japan aside. Again, the Koreans pretend to act virtuous, but must act as such given their nation’s north-south division. At the same time, the Koreans have ongoing territorial and historical disputes with the other two nations.
Into this fray stand the US under the guise of Pax America with two of its strongest allies anywhere in the world constantly squabbling. Yet all three – Japan, South Korea and the US – can only benefit by better acting out a fully implemented tri-party solidarity vis-à-vis China – particularly when it comes to maritime disputes. But that is the ideal and the below essays summaries the current and foreseeable realities.
One may suppose that in the end all of this acts to China’s advantage. But China has more than its share of domestic challenges that conceivably could lead to China imploding into competing Sino states as has happened so often in China’s long history.
The good news is that many more people have much more to gain from a relatively peaceful NE Asia than any prolonged armed conflict’s likely success. Nonetheless, these long-held historical tensions make this part of the world much more volatile than many casual observers may assume. As such, it is critical for both professionals in both public and private sectors to be aware of these pressures and prepare, when possible, accordingly.
By David Pilling
Financial Times
August 22, 2012
