An interesting but distorted analysis

Comments on Mie Oba "Japan and the new wave of regionalism in Asia", 15/03/2016

It seems the author has an interesting but highly questionable interpretation or statements of certain events.

For example, the third paragraph reads “China’s new regionalism is not limited to economic cooperation. In a May 2014 speech, Xi outlined a new perspective on regional security, insisting that ‘it is for the people of Asia to run the affairs of Asia, solve the problems of Asia and uphold the security of Asia’. This perspective stresses the necessity of China’s leadership in building a new Asian security structure.”

The last sentence, “This perspective stresses the necessity of China’s leadership in building a new Asian security structure”, would certainly represents a distorted meaning of what “it is for the people of Asia to run the affairs of Asia, solve the problems of Asia and uphold the security of Asia”.

The fact is that Asia does not equal China alone and the people of Asia is not Chinese alone! It is hard to understand how that could be interpreted as “This perspective stresses the necessity of China’s leadership in building a new Asian security structure.”

Then, there is the following paragraph: “RCEP is an effort to promote ASEAN-centred regional economic integration. Compared to the TPP, RCEP emphasises the importance of economic developmental cooperation in the region. Some analyses tend to characterise the TPP and RCEP as reflecting a confrontation or competition between the United States and China for hegemony in Asia.”

One the one hand, the author acknowledges RCEP is ASEAN-centred and on the other hand the author seems to also imply or at least accept RCEP is a Chinese tool to confront or compete with the US for hegemony in Asia.

Is that simply an oversimplification? I am not sure.

Both China and Japan must work hard for a better relationship

Comments on Akio Takahara "Are Japan–China relations sweetening or souring?" 11/09/2015

The relationship between China and Japan is one of the most important bilateral relations within Asia, given their geographic closeness and the fact they are the two largest economies in Asia and they also represent the largest industrialised and industrialising economies in Asia.

Unfortunately, it seems from time to time problems arise between the two major Asian neighbours, whether it is due to historical or current issues in one of or both countries.

It is inconceivable neither country can become an effective leader in Asia (let alone a world leader) if they cannot handle their bilateral relations well. Both countries need to be mature enough to develop constructive relationship between them.

Reflection on war and peace - at the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII

Comments on Tessa Morris-Suzuki “70 years on, peace remains incomplete”, 8/08/2015

Yes, the 70th anniversary of the end of the second world war should be a time for reflections of costs of terrible wars and the benefits of lasting peace for the Asian and Pacific region. It would be terrible to have another and second period of cold war in the world.

The US is currently the sole superpower in every sense and it is only interested in maintaining its military, economic and political superiority over any other individual countries. In that context, the rise of China poses significant challenges to the US. China has risen to the second largest economy only behind the US and it is expected that it will overcome the US as the largest economy in the world in the not so distant future (even though some have argued that China has already been the world largest economy in purchasing power parity terms). As the Chinese economy grows further at a significantly faster speed, its military expenditures are likely to grow to be commensurate with its economic power. Given its much larger population, it won't be too long for it to catch up with the US militarily, at least in terms of military expenditures. That will be likely to cause concerns and insecurity in the US. As a result, the US will continue to take measures to contain China as much as possible.

On China's part, it has been used to the containment by the US, even though the future containment is likely to be different from the past, as an increasingly felt insecure in US may take more stringent containment strategies.

While China is a minor nuclear power, particularly as compared to the US and Russia, its industrial capacities as the world's factories mean it could become a nuclear power if it really faced with stringent security threats and if it chose to do so. Let's hope it will never be necessary for China to choose that route, given that route could mean other minor nuclear powers could do the same.

Russia is still a superpower in terms of its nuclear weapons and the recent events in Ukraine and the deterioration between Russia and the West is a reminder of Russia's power as well as its vulnerabilities.

China and Russia are likely to maintain a good bilateral relationship in the face of the containment by the US.

So what lies ahead will, to a large degree, depend on how the US to choose its future and the strategies towards newly emerging and definitely growing powers.

I hope my above concerns, out of the reflection of war and peace at the 70th anniversary of the end of the second world war, will be proven to be wrong and will never be realised.

Turton's ridiculous comments on Japan's new security laws

Comments on Michael Turton's comments on "Storm brews over Japan’s new security laws" by Ben Ascione, 4/08/2015

Your comments are extremely biased and disappointing.

There are two points regarding your comments. Firstly, leaving aside how those bills will affect China and its security, the Senkaku/Diayu Island is at least a disputed territory, not undisputed Japanese territory as you biasedly claimed.

Secondly, China will not kill Taiwanese and the unification of Taiwan with the mainland is not annexation.

There is another point, that is, China is not the aggressor as you claimed, both China and Taiwan claim the Diayu/Sankaku Island as their own territory.

A suggestion to the editors of the eastasiaforum

Comments on Arthur Stockwin "Japan’s defence and diplomacy heading in the wrong direction", 2/08/2015

This is a suggestion to the editors of the eastasiaforum.

Ii is very disappointing to see that while there are so many Chinese scholars and scholars who are involved in Chinese/China studies (whether it is economics, politics, cultural, historical or whatever), working in Australian tertiary institutions and particularly at the Australian National University (ANU), there are very few who are actively involved in the eastasiaforum. I don't know whether they are not interested in this at all, because of the forum's rating or something else?

I am sure it is worthwhile to be involved to contribute to the building up of public goods for the benefit of the public. Some of them surely should have known better the facts or better knowledges regarding China, such as the war reparations were received and compensations for comfort women as Cathy Yang claimed, , due to the nature of their professional work.

I would suggest the editors of eastasiaforum should reflect on that and identify the key reasons as to why, and encourage those to be actively involved in the forum.

PS: When I compare the eastasiaforum and the conversation, it seems the former is quite slow to have comments appear with the article, as opposed to the latter. The latter has the default for any comments to appear after they were provided and take out those they deem not to meet the standards for one reason or another. The former, however, has the default that does not allow any comments to appear automatically and only allow they to appear after some time. There is a clear difference between the two.

The editors should improve their work in this regard. They should not delay the appearance of comments due to their slowness.

China and Japan must work towards closer and faster Asia integration

Comments on  Seungjoo Lee "The politics of Asian integration", 13/07/2014

It is pity that Asia, particularly East Asia has not moved to a much more closer institutional framework to reflect its underlying economic integration or links. While it is understandable that Asia including East Asia, is more diverse than Western Europe and North America, every country, particular the bigger ones, must overcome historical legacies and difficulties to look forward to a new, more dynamic, more prosperous and more closely integrated Asia, so every country can benefit much more from it.

As I have remarked somewhere else before, the major countries in Asia, particularly China and Japan, need to be more creative in handling its bilateral relationships.

For any country or countries, the aspiration to be a global leader must start with an effective, constructive and inspirational regional leader first. Without being a good regional leader, it is impossible to become a global leader.

Both China and Japan, even though Japan is a US ally and China may face from time to time an attempt of containment by the US, must reflect on their strategic relationship and approaches with each other and come up with a better strategy to make Asia as a more integrated region economically, politically and from security point of view.

They have a greater responsibility in leading Asia.

For China, more confident and assertiveness should not be aggressiveness and being perceived as bully from a bigger brother. It need to pay attention to its leadership style. And it must approach territory issues/disputes with some other countries from a regional and global leadership point of view and to resolve those issues under international laws. If there are difficulties and or ambiguities with international laws, it should seek a solution peacefully, more creatively and more constructively with other parties.

For Japan, it will probably serve its interests much better if it acts independently as opposed to using and relying its ally with the US in dealing with China and being a partner of the US's China attainment. It will simply not work and will damage its own interests more than China's.

Abe needs to live in the present not the 1930s and 1940s

Comments on Richard Katz "What drives Shinzo Abe?" 8/07/2015

The author, Mr Richard Katz, states the following as the last two paragraphs:

"There are two groups of politicians who wish to have Japan take an active role in collective self-defence and constitutional revision. The first group is motivated by cool consideration of present-day threat assessments. Abe, however, belongs to the second group, which is driven not just by present-day realities, but also by a romanticised view of the 1930s and 1940s. Abe in particular is devoted to restoring the ‘honour’ of his beloved grandfather and role model, Nobuo Kishi, as well as the entire generation of wartime leaders.
Kishi served in Tojo’s wartime cabinet, spent three years in Sugamo Prison as a suspected Class-A war criminal, and became prime minister in the late 1950s. Upon being elected to the Japanese Diet in 1993, Abe joined an Liberal Democratic Party ‘study group’ that published a book in 1995 calling the World War II a war for self-defence and denying that Japan committed war crimes like the Nanking Massacre and the forced recruitment of ‘comfort women’ (sex slaves). In February 1997, Abe formed another group of Diet members with similar views and became its executive director. Half of his cabinet ministers are members. He is forcing through changes in school textbooks to better reflect his revisionist view of history.
Despite all this, the accusation from some in Asia that Abe wants to — or could — lead Japan back to militarism akin to the 1930s is completely outlandish. Japan’s actions back then were an artefact of that era in world history and Japan’s own status as a traditional, rural, pre-democratic society. Today, Japan is a modern democratic society in alliance with the United States. There is no going back."

I have the following comment on them:

The last paragraph appears to imply that a modern democratic society, as Japan is at the moment, can not go back to or become militarism. In another word, that assumes, in its bare logic, that the majority of any society can not become militarism. I would argue that that assumption is wrong and that some societies can become militarism with the support of a majority. That is the danger of the history revisionists who deny its country's past wrong doing and war crimes committed to other nations. For example, I would argue that Hitler probably had majority support of Germany people at some time. back to the 1930s and 1940s We all know what that support developed into.

Secondly, while I don't know for sure what Abe wants to do with his "romanticised view of the 1930s and 1940s" of Japan, one thing for sure is that the relative international strengths have changed and that Japan, though having very strong capacities in many sectors, does not have its absolute power in Asia as it had during the 1930s and 1940s, irrespective its alliance with the US or not, or wether its has majority domestic support or not. For one thing for sure, China, as well as other East Asian countries, is/are much more powerful and Japan is and will no longer be allowed to do what it did in the 1930s and 1940s.

Thirdly, as long as the Japanese government has the view of Abe's regarding Japan's 1930s and 1940s, it will have difficulty relationships with its East Asian counterparts. And that damages and will damage its own national interests if it does not stop that view.

The days of 1930s and 1940s of Japan have long gone forever and any attempts to bring that back by any Japanese politicians will be completely futile and downright stupid. Should Japan become militarism again, it would risk its own total destruction with the modern military capacities of other East Asian countries.

China and Japan: share the most responsibilities for Asian leadership in the Asian Century

Comments on Peter Drysdale "Leadership in Asia under scrutiny", 29/06/2015

While the currently perceived and real lack of leadership in Asia, to a degree or in part, reflects the complexity and diversity of Asia and Asian countries, the most pivotal part underlying those, in my view, lies in the often difficult bilateral relations between China and Japan. They are the two largest economies in Asia, but they often do not see eye to eye with each other. Further, they are the largest developed and developing countries respectively in Asia.

When and if these two countries sort out their issues and problems so they can develop a relationship similar to that between Germany and France and Britain, many issues of Asia’s lack of leadership in the so called Asian century are likely to be resolved soon.

Both countries need to make compromises for their common good/benefits. That requires true and courageous personal leadership from the top leaders among the two countries. They need to explain the benefits to their respective people and carry them with them to forge a new bilateral relationship. And that is not an easy job by any means.

Japan may need to be really independent as opposed to be a US deputy in East Asia. China may need to embrace more of the good parts of the current global governance while at the same time to form a broad coalition to reform those areas that are no longer meet the current needs of developing and possibly many developed countries. In the process, major developing countries as a coalition, working together with most of the developed countries, can develop and design a new global governance structure.

Should a constructive and cooperative relationship be developed between China and Japan, many of the existing issues in Asia will be much easier to resolve.

China's new leadership and potential new strategies forward

Comments on Sheryn Lee “Taiwan–China relations under the new Chinese leadership”, 19/12/2012, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/12/13/taiwan-china-relations-under-the-new-chinese-leadership/

While it is true that China now is faced with many challenges, arguably there are also positive factors that may allow it to better overcome key challenges.

Inequality in income distribution: the transition from labour surplus to shortage would mean wages are likely to rise more rapidly than in the past and that will be conducive to reducing inequality.

Corruption: the new leadership could make a new and fresh start in fighting corruptions using a new approach. They could first draw a line in time from then any new corruptions will be dealt with severely and at the same time to let the past be past. This way will mean much less resistance than the past approach and is likely to be more effective. Of course, a lot of work must be done and public relations must be managed to create an environment so such a policy can be introduced.

Dispute with other regional countries: China should realistically assess the costs and benefits of possible worsening relationships with those countries and the implications for its own interests as a whole. It is not too difficult to come to the realisation that peaceful resolutions are the way to go and compromises will have to be made from all sides including China. I would say it should use examples of land border settlements with some countries in the past couple of decades or so and use that experience to settle disputes in the seas.

Taiwan unification: China could learn from its experience in the one country and two systems that have applied to HK and possibly think more boldly along the line of a confederation. Even keeping the current status quo will be working in China's favour as the two sides will get closer in many ways, such as a gradual and more liberalised China and stronger and closer economic integration.

I think the next 10 years should be a test for China and the new leadership, but the key strategy should still be peace and development. Every effort should be made to achieve this overarching objective.

Dispute of the Diaoyu Islands between China (including Taiwan) and Japan

Comments on Kazuhiko Togo “Japan must acknowledge ‘territorial issue’ over islands”, 15/10/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/10/14/japan-must-acknowledge-territorial-issue-over-islands/
The claims by the parties and disputes over the islands have a long history.

One of the stories is that the US the occupier after WWII, should have returned those islands, together with other territories, to China but deliberately didn't which has resulted in the disputed situation.

Nevertheless, one has to face the current situation of claims of sovereignty by different parties.

If the parties can resolve their disputes peacefully, it is good and they should be left to do so.

Risking for being condemned by all parties, I would suggest that the different parties long involved in a dispute of this nature should devise a mechanism based on a combination of the senate and representative voting systems to have an effective joint control.

That will involve the compromise by all parties. But it will bring peace and benefit to all sides.

If they can’t, the question is: what is the international means to resolve international disputes of such nature?

There should be an international court under the UN Security Council to undertake this task.

But international territorial disputes are notoriously difficult to resolve. Just consider the issue of the situation between Israel and Palestine.

East Asia likely to be another pillar

Comments on Amy King “China and the lessons of the past”, 29/07/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/07/29/china-and-the-lessons-of-the-past/
While obviously it is Japan that determines and will continue to determine its foreign policy, how China behaves will also be an important factor that may have a bearing on Japan's choice.

It is in every country's interest that the Northeast Asian countries, namely China, Japan and Korea become the cornerstone of a successful East Asian community, given the sizes of their economies.

If China can't get the Northeast Asian countries close to a successful regional community, how can it become an effective and responsible global leader in the future? It has to consider what the best long term strategy should be for its position as a world leader to be consistent with its growing economy.

The idea of zero sum game by any of the key players will be unhelpful to the interests of the Northeast Asian countries.

Closer relations and further economic integration of the region is likely to become another pillar to complement the North America and Europe Union as the three most important pillars in global affairs in the 21st century.

PS: I have suggested in the past that a federation model for the reunification China and Taiwan under which each would choose its own political system. Hong Kong and Macau could be given special status under that federation. The federation's role is to strengthen the common interests of all members as a federation by coordinating matters related to national defence, external security and foreign affairs, but leave its members to run virtually almost all its internal affairs.
The model for East Asia regional organisation could be between those of the United Nations and the European Union. The European model seems to have an undesirable feature in terms of another layer of bureaucracy.

Important context for East Asian Community and Japan-China relations

Comments on Yoshihide Soeya “An East Asian Community and Japan-China relations”, 17/05/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/05/17/an-east-asian-community-and-japan-china-relations/comment-page-1/#comment-118099

It is encouraging to note the author also acknowledged that "of course, there are still modern elements in Japanese society and politics, which particularly tend to surface in an emotional vicious cycle over historical and territorial issues between Japan and China."

However, an important context that the author didn't say is the military alliance between Japan and the United States that is the most significant modern element (to borrow a word from the author) in Japanese society and politics.

Yes, it is true that Japan does not have the same military spending as a share of the GDP as China does. No one denies that fact.

Isn't that modern element part of the equation and the key to that situation?

How much military spending in the US? How many times is that of China's?

Has Japan ever seriously criticised the US for its military spending or its modern elements of diplomacy and international politics?

Has Japan ever seriously thought about to terminate the military alliance and remove the US military bases from its territory? That is to say, has Japan ever really stay away with those modern elements from Japanese society and politics?

One is left to wonder what relevance the author's arguments are if the most important issues or elements are omitted from the discussion.

A more direct question is why a piece of academic analysis has left those important elements out in the first place?

Was it due to negligence or deliberation?

Speculative and cooperative

Comments on Ming Hwa Ting “The new Spice War: China, Japan and rare metals”, 22/04/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/04/21/the-new-spice-war-china-japan-and-rare-metals/

Good observations or speculations.

People, firms and countries are all rational and intelligent enough to maximise their interests in a given environment or even change that environment to do it if they can.

Whenever there is market power, they will use it to their advantages.

Why not and who will not. Haven't we seen that happens in oil, or other raw materials like iron ore in the international market?

But they are also rational enough to develop reasonably cooperative arrangements to maximise the interests of the greater whole.

While it is interesting for some parties to speculate on what may happen, it is more important for relevant parties to cooperate to achieve better outcomes for all, based on the Plato efficiency principle.

The 1990s - Japan's lost decade economically, and politically?

This is my reply to Jing Zhao's comments on my earlier comments on "The rise of China: the impetus behind Japanese regionalism", http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/26/the-rise-of-china-the-impetus-behind-japanese-regionalism/, 31/07/2009

Jing, I take your point that the 1990s is also a lost decade of the Japanese politics, although I don’t understand politics much.

From economic point of view, the Japan’s lost decade should have a deep cause not noly in its policy makers and their abilities, but in my view also and perhaps more importantly in the US-centric economics and its failure in providing theories to deal with that sort of economic problems that Japan had at that time.

Now the world, or the west major economies are having a similar sort of economic problems as Japan had in the 1990s. Hopefully the economic profession will do something useful and relevant for this sort of problems. For at least, this time it involves the US.

So far, policy makers have avoided the total collapse of the international banking system and the worst of the global financial crisis appears to be behind us. That was a huge success and the world can breath a collective sigh of relief. Hope more of this nature is coming.

An interesting but likely misleading view

Comments on Jing Zhao’s comments on “The rise of China: the impetus behind Japanese regionalism” by Takashi Terada, 26/09/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/26/the-rise-of-china-the-impetus-behind-japanese-regionalism/comment-page-1/#comment-45172

Japan, in a sense, may have always been a deformed giant of dwarfs, largely due to its actions in the War time and as its defeat in that War and under the US occupation and influence.

It had few friends in Asia after the War, although it rose very rapidly economically. Others may have loved Japanese money, they don’t have the same attitude towards it people. The sentiments in Gao’s comments reflect something of that kind.

Could Japan be different and more forceful to China following June the 4th? Yes, it could. But could that change anything, either in terms of Japan’s international standing, or its subsequent economically lost decade? I doubt it.

I understand Jing Zhao’s sentiment, given what happened back then. But I am sorry to say that I am not sure his arguments are correct.

The rise of China economically and the relative decline of Japan, irrespectively whether it could or cold not avoid the lost decade, has been, is and will be inevitable, similar as Japan’s rapid rise and the change of its relative economic position internationally from the 1950s to the 1980s. Developing countries, or at least some of them will catch up and move to the production frontier of human technologies where the industrialised countries are.

Japan’s lost decade, just like the current financial and economic crisis, had its own domestic causes. But it had nothing to do with its attitude towards China at that time. To say otherwise is a bit far-reach.

Jing Zhao seemed to argue that could be averted by Japan’s actions and attitudes along. It is far from convincing logically.

Interesting Japan and its regionalism push

Comments on Takashi Terada “The rise of China: the impetus behind Japanese regionalism”, 26/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/26/the-rise-of-china-the-impetus-behind-japanese-regionalism/

This is an interesting article to describe Japan's motives behind its regionalism push.

It provides some supports to the argument that Japan has been unwilling to see other developing nations to improve their living standards and catch up with Japan and be equal with it.

I remember someone blamed that China was ungrateful to Japan's aid in comments to an article earlier on. If Japan was like this, how and why could China be grateful to it?

It is complex regionalism, international economics and politics. This article can serve as a potential reference.

We need true and sincere international cooperation, not the kind of one undermining another or others.

As a by-product, this article also potentially increases the difficulties of Rudd’s push to establish an Asia Pacific Community, because it could be perceived as another tool to contain China.

All nations need to be rational and mature.

Japan's insecurity and its relations with China

Comments on the comments by Aurelia George Mulgan on “Australia, and managing Japan’s insecurity”, 13/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/13/australia-and-managing-japans-insecurity/

Obviously, there have been some untrust between China and Japan, from time to time.

I understand that Japan provided aid to China, although I don't know how much over the years.

I also don't know the normal international practices regarding war compensations, although I understand that China did not ask for war compensations from Japan. I also know that many Chinese are or were unhappy with that.

While Japan may feel that China is ungrateful to its aid, there have been impressions among many Chinese that Japan was half-hearted in providing assistance to China and did not like to see China to develop or become strong and rich, although it wanted to benefit from some opportunities. Was that because of its insecurity?

In terms of security, it is understandable that China did/does not like to be contained internationally, with Japan as part of the containment and as the deputy of a superpower in doing it.

So both sides may have their own stories and reasons to feel unhappy.

But past is past and few can change the history. What is important is today and tomorrow. Both sides need to look to the future relations.

Countries should respect with each other, no matter rich or poor, large or small, strong or weak. The relations between China and Japan should be based on mutual respect and trust.

There have been periods when the relations between the two countries were good. Both should reflect on how they can have long-last good relations.

China needs to remain a peaceful nation forever and an important international force for peace and stability of the region and the world, even when it becomes very strong in the future.

Japan needs to realise that sooner or later China will become a very powerful country and few individual countries will be able to match its power, even probably the US.

So the important issue is not to try to use the US to contain China, rather it is important to establish a peaceful, secure and stable international order where countries don't threat each other with force, as it has been so often in the past.

UN and some other regional forums as opposed to military alliance should be promoted as the mechanism to resolve any issues between countries. Will the alliance, even with the current most powerful country be always effective into the future?

So what is important for security? Every country needs to have a rational, strategic and realistic view.

I hope both China and Japan will choose the correct one and always have a good relation. They are two most important countries in the region. It is in the interest of each country.