Japan's place in the international community

[Maciamo]

Japanese culture emphasizes the importance of consensus and the avoidance of conflicts or open disputes. This is quite interesting because in the international scene (especially inside East Asia) in this early 21st century, Japan seems to be more antagonistic and trouble-making than many other developed countries, except of course the bellicose and imperialist United States. Japan has poor relations and border conflicts with all of its neighbours : Russia, North and South Korea and China.

Across the Pacific, we could frankly say that the relations between Japan and the US are quite hypocritical and artificial. Japan acts as a puppet state of the US since their defeat in 1945, although somewhat relunctantly. Many Japanese are not very happy that their government always seem to do everything Washington tell them to do. That is chiefly why independent nationalist politicians like Shintaro Ishihara got elected (in his case, thanks to his book The Japan that can say no, where he convincingly explains that Japan should stand up to the United States).

It is just a bit sad that the Japanese should pass from one extreme (servitude) to another (ultra-nationalism) instead of having a more balanced attitude. It's a love or hate relationship with the US, but in any case a too emotional one, hardly a rational one. The same is true for the relations with China, although it's more hate and fear than love and praise. No wonder that in such an environment so many Japanese people have overly emotional and prejudiced ideas of foreigners. It seems that the social rules about consensus only apply between Japanese people.

An eloquent example of Japan's obstination not to find a consensus with its neigbours is its refusal to foramally apologise for WWII war crimes and absues in China and Korea, and to include this face-losing past in its history textbooks at school. In contrast, Germany, Austria and Italy have not made any problem, have apologised, paid reparations and taught children at school about what happened during WWII. Nowadays European countries have better relations with each others than they ever had before WWII.

Another point is the territorial disputes of Japan with its neighbours. Groups of noisy nationalists frequently protest in front of the Russian embassy (in Roppongi) or in the streets of Tokyo to regain the islands of Etorofu, Kunashiri, and Shikotan (aka Southern Kuril Islands) north of Hokkaido, which are uninhabited, have little resources, strategic or cultural value for Japan, as they were only annexed by Japan in the late 19th century (Taiwan and Korea followed soon after, but are now clearly separate countries).

China claims the uninhabited Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Tai) in Okinawa, a case for which neither country have a real claim (at best it should belong to Taiwan or to an independent Okinawan nation).

Recently, the much mediatised dispute over the also uninhabited Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima) with South Korea has escalated, and even famous Korean actors popular in Japan have appeared on TV saying that Japan should return the island to Korea. Like with the Senkaku Islands, the reasons for claim are just a matter of fishing-rich territorial waters surrounding the island.

Interestingly I couldn't find any such territorial disputes between European countries (the UK and France have a few issues with former far-away colonies though, like Argentina that still claims the Shetlands). Why can't Japan agree on a settlemnt with its neighbours ? I especially don't understand why a solution about Liancourt Rocks has not yet been found since 1945, as South Korea has always been in the same "team" as Japan along the United States, and the two cultures, economic and political system are more similar with each others than with any other country in the world. Some European countries have a longer and bloodier history of conflicts between themselves, but have sucessfully put this behind them (e.g. France and Germany). The solution to a territorial waters dispute with no historical support in favour of one of the two paties is quite obvious, isn't it ? Just divide the territorial waters in two (e.g. everything north of the island to Korea, and everything south to Japan).

My question is, why in a country where consensus and avoiding confrontations is so deeply rooted in the culture as in Japan, should there be so many confrotations and disagreements with neigbouring countries ? Isn't time for Japan (and its neighbours) to grow up and stop quarreling over trifles ?

[Wang]

I disagree with some things that you state. Japan isn't a puppet state of the US and doesn't act like one. Only in regards to military does Japan support USA, because of the military alliance between these two countries.
Japan has formally apologised for WWII war crimes already in the past. If someone thinks it's not sincere that is their opinion other people think otherwise. Japan did pay reparations. And in Japan all kinds of information about ww2 can be found from any source. Although I agree that some parts of the school textbooks should be more clear about certain things.
The Senkaku Islands are officially Japanese.

Senkaku Islands have been under the administrative control of the Government of Japan since having been returned as part of the reversion of Okinawa in 1972. Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security states that the treaty applies to the territories under the administration of Japan; thus, Article 5 of the Mutual Security Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2004/30743.htm

The Northern Territories are historically Japanese. Boris Yeltsin wanted to conclude a peace treaty by the year 2000 which was in accordance with the Tokyo Declaration. Hopefully this can be solved with russian president Putin.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia/territory/
http://www.pref.hokkaido.jp/soumu/sm...en/hist-en.htm


Normal relations with the People's republic of China is not really possible, because it is not democratic and has alot of human rights violations and oppression.
The few territorial issues that Japan has mean nothing compared to the territorial disputes that the People's Republic of China has.

The People's Repulic of China's territorial disputes:

Tibet
http://www.freetibet.org
http://www.tibet.ca/en
http://www.rangzen.org
http://weijingsheng.org/tibet.html
http://www.tibetsociety.com
http://www.atc.org.au
http://www.tibettruth.com

Taiwan
http://www.taiwandc.org/taip-idx.htm
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiw.../09/2003210299
http://www.taiwanheadlines.gov.tw/20...0000927p3.html

Inner Mongolia
http://www.innermongolia.org
http://www.smhric.org/index.htm

East Turkestan
http://www.uygur.org/enorg/history/history.htm
http://www.eastturkestan.net/china05a.html

Spratly Islands
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/pg.html
http://www.american.edu/TED/SPRATLY.HTM

Ladakh - Aksai Chin
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...o-prc_1962.htm

[名無し]

Originally Posted by Maciamo

I especially don't understand why a solution about Liancourt Rocks has not yet been found since 1945, as South Korea has always been in the same "team" as Japan along the United States, and the two cultures, economic and political system are more similar with each others than with any other country in the world.

The perfect and final solution has always been there: arbitration at the International Court of Justice. Guess who refuses to show up.

Gov't Rejects Int'l Court Resolution for Dokto

It shows that the "since 1945" comment is based on the lack of knowledge on the topic; it was Jan. 18th 1952 when the islets officially became the disputed land.

[Maciamo]

Originally Posted by 名無し

It shows that the "since 1945" comment is based on the lack of knowledge on the topic; it was Jan. 18th 1952 when the islets officially became the disputed land.

Well of course as Japan was occupied by the US from 1945 to 1952. It doesn't mean that the island was not considered as a part of Japan during the occupation. The Koreans just had to wait that Japan had its own government to complain.

[名無し]

Originally Posted by Maciamo

The Koreans just had to wait that Japan had its own government to complain.

It was Apr. 28th 1952 when Japan had its own government to complain. See above post for the date of the declaration of so-called Rhee Syng-man Line.

Again, ICJ is the place to give the conclusive judgement.

[alexriversan]

Originally Posted by maciamo

Japan acts as a puppet state of the US since their defeat in 1945, although somewhat relunctantly.

(you can insert: my personal belief in...)
americas role as the big, one and only good nation has ended.

[lexico]

Originally Posted by 名無し

The perfect and final solution has always been there: arbitration at the International Court of Justice. Guess who refuses to show up.
Gov't Rejects Int'l Court Resolution for Dokto
It shows that the "since 1945" comment is based on the lack of knowledge on the topic; it was Jan. 18th 1952 when the islets officially became the disputed land...
Again, ICJ is the place to give the conclusive judgement.

There's a beam in your eyes, 名無し.
This only shows your obvious lack of knowledge to speak on any matter other than your own ignorance, 名無し. Reading can do wonders for you, 名無し, but knowing what to read could also become a problem in your case, 名無し. So, I have provided a basic reading list for you, 名無し, which can be considered minimum requirement to make any relevant comment on the matter you touched upon without much understanding.

ICJ has been judged by many Asian scholars as incompetent to pass a balanced judgement on international conflicts involving the "less civilized" Asian countries, but of course Japan is considered white or European by some standards.

Please read the following articles on ICJ & Tokdo to gain some basic knowledge if not insight. Ask youself why ICJ is facing criticism and distrust in Asia. (1) What is the nature of ICJ ? (2) How is it viewed upon by former victims of Imperialist Japan or colonialism in general ? (3) How was the sole Asian ICJ case, the Vrai Vuehell Temple Case between Thailand and Cambodia, handled ? (4) Why is the Vrai Vuehell Temple Case considered a mistrial by many Asian countries ? (5) Why is an establishment of an Asian International Court of Justice (ICJA) necessary for all future arbitrations of international conflicts involving Asia ?

reading list:

Lee, Han-ki, Han'guk ui yongt'o (Korea's Territory), Seoul: Seoul National University Press, 1969

Hori, Kazuo 1987, 堀和生 「一九〇五年日本の竹島領土編入」 『朝鮮史研究 会論文集』 第24号, 1987

Kajimura, Hideki. The Question of Takeshima/Tokdo. Korea Observer 28 Autumn 1997.

Sato, Shojin. Japanese Expansion Policy and the Question of Tokdo. Korea Observer 29 Spring 1998

Kim, Young Koo. The Dokdo/Takeshima Issue and the Validity of Some Treaties Coerced by Japan in the Early 20th Century

Kim, Chong Mi, Suihe undoshi kenkyu (A Study of the History of the Social Equality Movement), Tokyo: Gendai kikaku shitsu, 1994

Or if you are too busy to visit the library, check out this thread esp. post #35 where I gave an introductory rundown on ICJ issues. A more extensive reading list is provided therein for further information.

[alexriversan]

Originally Posted by alexriversan

(you can insert: my personal belief in...)
americas role as the big, one and only good nation has ended.

i do not mean it too serious. now i see, people are different.