April 20, 2005

• China's Selective Memory (article from www.washingtonpost.com)

  By Fred Hiatt
  Monday, April 18, 2005; Page A17

  China, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, has made clear
  that it doesn't think Japan is deserving of similar status.

  You might wonder why not. After all, Japan is one of the world's
  largest contributors of foreign aid and most generous backers of the
  United Nations, a successful democracy for more than a half-century,
  with a powerhouse economy and a constitution that forbids aggression.

  But here's the problem, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao explained last week:
  "Japan needs to face up to history squarely." After another weekend of
  anti-Japanese protests and riots in China, China's foreign minister
  yesterday amplified that "the main problem now is that the Japanese
  government has done a series of things that have hurt the feelings of
  the Chinese people . . . especially in its treatment of history."

  Truth in history is an interesting standard for great-power status. One
  intriguing response would be for Japan to embrace it and suggest
  politely that, if China wants to keep its Security Council seat, it
  ought to do the same.

  There's no doubt, as Premier Wen implied, that some Japanese have a
  hard time admitting the terrible things their troops did in China,
  Korea and other occupied Asian countries before and during World War
  II. Apologies sometimes seem to be mumbled, and textbooks sometimes
  minimize past crimes.

  Recently, for example, Japan's education ministry approved a textbook
  that refers to the 1937 Nanjing Massacre as an "incident" during which
  "many" Chinese were killed, though some estimates of civilian deaths
  run as high as 300,000. News of these textbooks helped spark the
  anti-Japanese riots in Chinese cities.

  But put the issue in some perspective: Many textbooks receive ministry
  approval in Tokyo, and no school is forced to use any particular one.
  Issues of war guilt or innocence, and of proper historiography, are
  debated endlessly and openly in Japanese newspapers, magazines and
  universities. Some Japanese demonstrate against politicians who won't
  go to Yasukuni Shrine -- where Japan's war dead, including some who
  were judged war criminals, are honored -- while other Japanese
  demonstrate against politicians who do go.

  Compare this to the situation in Premier Wen's China. There is only one
  acceptable version of history, at least at any given time; history
  often changes, but only when the Communist Party decides to change it.

  For example, according to a report by Howard W. French in the New York
  Times last December, many textbooks don't mention that anyone died at
  what the outside world knows as the 1989 massacre of student
  demonstrators near Tiananmen Square. One 1998 text notes only that "the
  Central Committee took action in time and restored calm." Anyone who
  challenges the official fiction is subject to harsh punishment,
  including beatings, house arrest or imprisonment.

  And if the 300,000 victims of the Nanjing Massacre are slighted in some
  Japanese textbooks, what of the 30 million Chinese who died in famines
  created by Mao Zedong's lunatic Great Leap Forward between 1958 and
  1962? No mention in Chinese texts; didn't happen.

  Well, you might say, how a nation treats its internal history is less
  relevant to its qualifications for the Security Council than whether it
  teaches its children honestly about its wars with other nations. A
  dubious proposition, but no matter; as the Times found in its review of
  textbooks, Chinese children do not learn of their nation's invasion of
  Tibet (1950) or aggression against Vietnam (1979). And they are taught
  that Japan was defeated in World War II by Chinese Communist
  guerrillas; Pearl Harbor, Iwo Jima and Midway don't figure in.

  "Facing up to history squarely" isn't easy for any country. Americans
  don't agree on how to remember the Confederacy. Russia can't yet admit
  to Soviet depredations in the Baltic republics. And, yes, Japan too
  often sees itself purely as a victim of World War II.

  But in countries that permit open debate, historical interpretations
  can be constantly challenged, revised, maybe brought closer to the
  truth. In dictatorships that use history as one more tool to maintain
  power, there's no such hope.

  China's Communists used to find it useful to vilify Russia in their
  history texts. These days, for reasons of China's aspirations to lead
  Asia, Japan makes a more convenient villain. Next year might be
  America's turn. The reasons may be complex, but none of them has much
  to do with facing history squarely.

  • 10:37 am
  • 2 Comments