What's going on with all these demonstrations?

Either? I would say that Japan in most countries( outside Asia?) are rather well liked. Or, are you referring to China not liking any other country? Chinese do tend to bring up past experiences in to every dispute so what happened before and during WW2 is still used in today's situations. As a bystander i can just observe and what I see(from my angle)is not much different than what i see in most other countries. Everything that is, or can be viewed as, criticism of the own country or their politics will be somehow inflamed. Call it patriotism or what ever you like. There are always people letting their emotions run wild. In China this is one of few things that the government will allow (encourage even?) to some extent. In peoples daily 3 days ago they even stated in an editorial about this" Japan must not forget its history of aggression against China." they also later wrote "the government had tried to contain the protests, but that it may have shifted its stance after Japan put the islands into state ownership by signing a contract with private owners to buy them". Since this is not really, yet at least, any serious problem i take great interest in following this in Chinese on line forums, blogs etc. People are very open with their emotions in this case. It is seldom backed with real facts so it is much about feelings, past happenings, power, Chinese importance etc. From a cultural, historical and political angle, this is very interesting to follow. I live in Japan and follow it live from here as well, really interesting to compare the two countries views over the same issue and then compare that to my own since I do not have any own cultural or historical references to the subject. Sometimes it is just to easy to be a citizen of a small country in the outskirts of the world and without any real involvements in any of the big wars.

@ Mandarinboy

"Either"

An old forum post.

5/11/12: I don't think Japan likes China

http://www.skritter.com/forum/topic?id=174266698

Ah forgot about that one, sorry. Interesting debate there as well. I sort of having those debates live all the time. Working in Japan, wife from China etc. It is interesting to see how people look at this in Asia compared to e.g. Denmark VS. Germany. Not same scale but while Europe largely have settled the scores and went on, this still pops up in Asia. On the other hand, I where stationed in Kosovo during the UN rule and that war had its roots from the battle of Kosovo in 1389. So, i guess we can use history whenever it suits our needs.

when you look at chinas history its no wonder that the people here are extremely sensitive when it comes to foreign powers and their behaviour.

Even a former U.S. diplomat (we all know the US and Japan are allies right?) has said that, "Japan that has done the most to raise tensions". It's hardly surprising the Chinese are pissed. Still I'm sure we're all welcoming the rise in tensions (which could possibly lead to nuclear war, since the U.S. is treaty-bound to support Japan should there be a war). And all over who gets some natural gas...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenharner/2012/07/17/the-japan-china-territorial-dispute-is-serious-and-escalating/

I was once told that the relationship between Japan and the rest of Asia is like the relationship between the UK and the rest of Europe. As I'm British I feel able to comment - the Brits tolerate other Europeans, but don't really like them. Especially the French. I think China may be France for Japan :)

It's not as clear cut as you make out Antimacassar, Chinese government appears to be tacitly encouraging the self-destructive protests. Reasonable Chinese people recognise that the history is ambiguous as to ownership (http://tieba.baidu.com/p/1869184174). Attacks on Japanese citizens, calls for Japanese boycotts and financial attacks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/9551727/Beijing-hints-at-bond-attack-on-Japan.html), and the 1000 Chinese boats being sent to the islands are not helping smooth the waters.

"Diplomats say China is calibrating the crisis to probe the strength of US ties with Japan, knowing that alliance fatigue in Washington and the clumsy handling of the dispute by Tokyo has created a rare opportunity.", "The anti-Japanese fervour was systematically stoked by the “Patriotic Education Campaign” of Jiang Zemin in the 1990s to divert attention from party corruption and the growing gap between rich and poor." - whether or not you agree with this there are serious people saying the Chinese government are encouraging a crisis to test Japanese and US resolve.

In an attempt to keep this roughly on topic for Skritter, some relevant vocab...

模棱两可 - sit on the fence, be ambiguous
租赁 - rent
光复 - recover lost territory
蕴藏 - containing untapped reserves
不择手段 - by fair means or foul

---

傻闹人越来越多，了解全貌的人越来越少 - actually I guess more people understand the history after this, but they just ignore the inconvenient bits

@ximeng your analysis is wrong, at least as far as I can tell. It is clear cut, here's why:

1. You use a seemingly random internet forum to back up your story (which proves nothing) and a notoriously right-wing, jingoistic newspaper that, therefore, not surprisingly tries to pin as much of the blame on China as possible (hard to do, but they manage it nonetheless). Just the fact that at the end of the article it says that there might be a "silver lining in an Asian arms race" tells you all you need to know about that particular article and that particular paper. To spell it out: only a complete lunatic could see a silver lining in an arms race. Moreover the the so-called silver lining is that it might help the global economy. This is the same kind of thinking that has nearly led to nuclear war in the past and most probably has already led to irreversible global warming.

Anyway, the old canard that the Communist party is stoking anti-Japanese fervor is, for the most part, Western propaganda. Since, even if they are stoking it for their own gain, the fact remains that: 1. Most Chinese people still remember or know about the criminal way their country was treated by Japan (among others) and 2. Most Chinese people, rightly in my opinion, think that Japan still hasn't atoned for said crimes (for example in the way that Germany has with regard to the Holocaust). This is something that the party could only stoke because it really exists and would exist to some extent whomever was in power (at least until point 2 is resolved).

2. I used the words of a former U.S. diplomat (the U.S. being Japan's closest and most important ally, natch). He wrote that basically China was happy with the status quo but Japan has decided to raise tensions by nationalizing the islands. If that's how your main ally describes the situation, and at the same time is in some way critical, then we can be pretty sure that's an accurate description (for reasons that should be obvious).

If you really want a nuanced article on this topic I suggest reading the one below, although I fear that if the D.T. is your main source of information I may be wasting my time...still, I look forward with interest (no sarcasm intended here) to your or anyone else's comments.

http://www.zcommunications.org/troubled-seas-japan-s-pacific-and-east-china-sea-domains-and-claims-by-gavan-mccormack

Both governments are behaving irrationally (or just clever, as politicians ahead of their change of posts/elections) and so are many of their citizens. Like it or not, both countries' cultural traditions are still so strong and these traditions have an abundance of irrational roots. The terrible education and media, especially on the Chinese side, doesn't help either. Both sides can be blamed, and Japanese can always be blamed more because they started most of it, one can argue....

But to say that the Chinese government hasn't orchestrated much of the protests is silly. It was all over the internet before the protests had started; on Youku, on popups from 360, QQ, Weibo. The strongly worded accusations, the irrational cleverish style of writing in the articles of most newspapers bubbles up the negative feelings towards Japanese, as well. Then we have the news-smses that people receive on their phones, also without leaving open much room for own analysing.

And the random spam messages that can't be blocked, also mentioning the situation.

Is the government eventually behind all these medium tools? Of course they are, let's not kid ourselves. Most are state companies and, if they have any independence at all, to protect their position they need to follow certain 'advice', and to increase their chances on the market they better show off their 爱国 in combination with Diaoyu, which they did before and are doing so still now, today, with popups of images of Diaoyu Island, the Chinese flag and slogans combined.

And that's just on the internet, but the same is happening on the street and in shops.

In Chinese culture there is very little room for own opinion, the style of reporting in the media is often appalling and this constantly trickles down to the citizens. I had to laugh when I read my news-sms yesterday, when most media had already started to blatantly propagate some sort of rational perspective (damage control) - asking the people to demonstrate in a rational manner.. How about reporting rationally yourself first?;)

The sms said smth like: What is 爱国？爱国 is something that cannot be explained, it is deep in our hearts, it is how we are. It is something that cannot be taken from us. It is 面向未来. It is to protect us from the devil. It is 珍爱.

To start a news-sms that millions of people receive like that, to constantly talk to your people as if they are a child, I mean, this should not be underestimated, it's bad for our minds, especially to the minds that have already been receiving this and bad education throughout their entire lives.

Therefore foreigners shouldn't really take sides in a case that includes two sides which still have governments and media living on irrationality, preferring that more than letting their people analyse all the information available.

And besides, both govs have decent arguments for claiming the islands and in this grey world I don't believe we can say which side deserves them more... If we compare it with past cases, there is no set rule. If they want to solve it bilaterally good for them, if they want to fight over it then, sadly, go ahead. Both sides can be blamed for lack of political development and lack of taking constructive steps towards each other.

Antimacassar:
Anyway, the old canard that the Communist party is stoking anti-Japanese fervor is, for the most part, Western propaganda. Since, even if they are stoking it for their own gain,
___________________

To add something else, I do feel there is a contradiction in your words. Don't underestimate the influence of the government and its media on the people. It seems, from speaking with Chinese, that most cannot name the moments that Japan has apologized to the Chinese, whether these apologies were inadequate/insincere or not. Most cannot explain what the Japanese government has just done: buying the islands which were otherwise likely to be bought by the Tokyo governor's push or some nationalistic group, whether it's a genuine act by the Japanese government or not!

Instead they (I'm just talking about the couple of Chinese I've talked to) will tell you the Japanese government did the worst thing possible, and if you tell them you think that they might have diffused the situation and explain why it maybe could have been worse if some private group started building real estate on it, they find it hard to even listen to information that sounds a little less negative towards the situation.

My point is, they get their negative views directly from the media or from friends, and they don't even need to filter out all the information available to reach conclusions because it's done for them. There's extremely little room for letting the receiver analyse things (ALL information available) and that's the basis of why I believe the influence the government and its media has on these situations are huge.

I'm not saying the Chinese ought not to reach a negative conclusion after knowing all information possible, I'm just saying they're not getting it all and you cannot just blame the Chinese citizens' feelings on China-Japan history to justify what is going on right now. There's a force behind that, I've seen lots of evidence of it without reading forums with vague motives.

@Elwin "Therefore foreigners shouldn't really take sides" Unfortunately the whole world is far too integrated with Japan and China and the rest of that part of the world to not be affected in case of a crisis.

How are we going to get our iPhone 5s if China and Japan are at war? ;)

James

Lol yea that's definitely a big problem, trade will get a big hit. USA should appoint a 10 sq km on sea where they can fight it out so shipping can continue. Maybe Apple can bribe them;)

@ Elwin, I'll just stick to the main points here...


1. "But to say that the Chinese government hasn't orchestrated much of the protests is silly."

Please point to where I said that (easy answer: I didn't). This is what's happening here: by going on about to what extent the protests are or aren't orchestrated by the Communist party is a) practically pointless, since we can't really know and b) is completely beside the point anyway. It doesn't really matter if they are completely orchestrated by the Communist party the fact remains, proved by the article I sighted (and you can find in many other reputable sources), that it is Japan who is primarily responsible for raising tensions. It's a very simple point but you seem to have completely missed it by going on about something different so you can stick the boot into the Chinese. Let's make it very clear: the protests came after the Japanese government nationalized the island. That's a simple case of cause and effect. The extent to which the Chinese people are being manipulated by their government is open to question but is still beside the point since it was obviously not the Chinese (government or people) who are responsible here.

2. "foreigners shouldn't really take sides"

I really don't think I'm taking sides here. I have no love for the Communist party. The only side I'm on is truth.

3. "And besides, both govs have decent arguments for claiming the islands and in this grey world I don't believe we can say which side deserves them more"

Luckily I didn't "say" that. I haven't said anything on who deserves them, but I'm fairly sure that it shouldn't be decided unilaterally by EITHER side.


4."Don't underestimate the influence of the government and its media on the people."

Hmm...I really don't think I'm doing that. In fact, judging by your comments I could easily make the same conclusions about what you write with regard to regurgitating Western propaganda and ideology. What you write however in the 2nd post is kinda true to a certain extent however, but it's true for everyone in all countries. The fact is that ALL governments lie to their people. Just look at what Wikileaks has revealed. Surely you don't think what you write doesn't apply accross the board right?

What is important though is to look at the facts. Facts can cut through propaganda since they contradict it. If you want the Chinese to have the courage to face the lies that they face all the time, then it seems only fair to ask the same for yourself.

@ jww1066

I'm much more worried about Nintendo halting production and development on new games than I am about a slightly better telephone being hindered by geopolitical concerns.

I think we all can agree that:

Video games > Telephones

Hence America, at least for the forseeable future, will continue to be an undisputed ally for Japan.

These important issues, I feel, are ignored and neglected from mainstream media sources.

@Antimacassar

I never had an attempt to just 'stick the boot to the Chinese', don't worry, if I'm talking mainly about the Chinese it's not me leaning towards the Japanese. I'm just more talkative about Chinese culture and society because I live here.

'Surely you don't think what you write doesn't apply accross the board right?'

I agree it does apply everywhere, there are no real exceptions of propaganda or subjectivity, just different degrees.

'If you want the Chinese to have the courage to face the lies that they face all the time, then it seems only fair to ask the same for yourself.'

I definitely ask myself, but this was just an attempt to objectively state why I think the situation is messed up from a Chinese perspective, I'm not judging on who should be cause and who effect. Also most facts can always be disputed, after all facts are decided by human beings. So I'm not gonna join the game of who is cause and who is effect:
for e.g. one can say 'Japanese nationalized the islands and it's a direct insult to China and a threat to China's territory.'

Another can say 'Japan simply prevented a more controversial option from happening and after all I believe the islands belong to Japan as they have already for a longer period, and also did a century ago. So there shouldn't even be a cause of any effect.'

Another can say 'but China has historical information where it shows the islands were clearly theirs first, even Taiwan claims it which belonged to China too in these periods.'

Another, 'but China only showed effort and interest once they knew the worth of having these islands and its rich territorial area'

- 'but China had no international power and little credit during communist times, they were blocked out from any treaty and couldn't militarily take back the islands, back then'

- 'I don't even know if Chinese historical maps and other material that should prove it exist and are valid.'

- 'And I don't even know if the Japanese stole it or really examined the islands for 10 years before they took it.'

And then they can go argue on about who is cause and who is effect, see what I mean? It's an endless battle and most facts can be disputed by either side.

Just like in my previous post this is just an example, no verification of my opinion towards one side or the other. I don't wish to act that I'm a Chinese and Japanese history professor at the same time who both works in Beijing and Tokyo and has seen all historical information inside-out. And even if I did, my conclusion would probably still be it's gonna have to be decided by pride and fight... Sigh...

'Also most facts can always be disputed, after all facts are decided by human beings.'

To prevent a long debate on facts which some including me have had before here:) facts are facts, yes, but what I meant is that people claim things to be facts that can still be disputed to be facts.

1. "this was just an attempt to objectively state why I think the situation is messed up from a Chinese perspective"

But your "objective" analysis basically toes the Western propaganda line (since it ignores, among other things, the cause, the fact that started it all), and since you already agree with me that we have to be very careful about doing that (since you seemed to agree that all governments lie) then it seems highly unlikely that an objective analysis would do that.

In fact it seems most likely, to me at least, that an objective analysis would be biased towards neither side and critical to both sides. (Just to be clear here I'm not claiming to have given an analysis)

2. "I'm not judging on who should be cause and who effect. Also most facts can always be disputed, after all facts are decided by human beings. So I'm not gonna join the game of who is cause and who is effect"

Facts can't really disputed, which is why they are so great. And facts most certainly aren't decided by human beings. For example England won the 1966 football world cup. Try disputing that!

To make it clear, I'm not saying China should have the islands rather than Japan. I haven't said anything about who should have them and am not even talking about that. I agree that's a thorny issue but anyway, here is something I hope we can agree on:

If there is a bilateral dispute between two countries, for one of the countries to simply ignore the other countries claim and simply take the disputed territory can only be taken as a highly provocative act. But that is exactly what Japan has done. This is a fact and can't be disputed since facts ARE NOT decided by human beings. Japan is clearly in the wrong here, it really is an open and shut case (hence the quote from the former U.S. diplomat). Once you see that fact then it becomes much easier to understand how and why the Chinese are reacting.

'for one of the countries to simply ignore the other countries claim and simply take the disputed territory can only be taken as a highly provocative act.'

The so-called facts I'm talking about aren't real facts but they are often put in the category of facts. You state one country has simply ignored the other countries and simply taking a disputed territory can only be taken as a highly provocative act. You call this a fact but I will bet my (rented) house on it that you can find lots of people disputing that Japan has ignored China or other countries, or that it is a highly provocative act, as some might suggest nothing is provocative if you own the island or if it risks to be bought by another Japanese party the government better buy it now.

That's what some will say, and you can disagree on the ignoring and the owning statement, I'm just saying... Hardly a fact.

The arguments above are what many will say, unfortunately. So your fact can be disputed, that's why I say MANY 'facts' are not set, a human being needs to decide to call it a fact and there is often disagreement on that.

I can't compare it with the 1966 WC title, it's a different kind of 'fact'.

I agree that an objective analysis means it to be biased to neither side hence critical to both. I think my first attempt was to state the human psychology problem of this situation and why the discussion between both countries are highly irrational, although I don't know what is being discussed on a diplomatic level but I doubt it's of a high quality.
Therefore I also don't know to which degree both sides have ignored each other, I don't have the secretive diplomatic records in front of me...

I hope I made my point clear, that in this fascinating situation many so-called facts can still be disputed. We probably disagree which are these.
To go back to the basic point I had in my mind, is how the receivers, the people, are influenced by the senders, deliberately. I really hope one day the education and media and therefore the whole society in China can improve quicker so that people learn to think and analyze for themselves without too much unconscious filtering going on. Mny educated people in China are already more cynical, but the next step is to know why, how, what, etc. That is still missing.

Last point, what I wish to see is citizens holding an opinion (possibly the same opinion they are holding now) but through a different thought-process. That's why I feel very objective in the Diaoyu Senkaku situation, I just want the people to get to their opinion in a different atmosphere, receiving information from different angles, angles without a mission. This way we can respect citizens' opinions much more.

Last last point, I came past the Japanese embassy here in Beijing on Sunday, my gf mentioned it did seem to be mostly people from targeted groups (groups of college students, and tough lower society guys, so to speak, and the occassional government pensioner) or people not interested in any dialogue if you want to have one. To any questions they would answer I'm Chinese! But if you ask protesters in Holland questions, however high the tensions, the majority will give you some kind of analysis, or at least share their deeper thoughts. That's all I hope for in China, that children in class start learning to have constructive effective discussions. Right now it's often even missing at tv shows with supposedly high educated people. So it starts at the bottom, change of educational style. Easier said than done...

Sorry it took so long to finish zzzzzz

1. You’re really doing a good job of misunderstanding what I’m saying. One last time…

The fact I am referring to is the Japanese government’s nationalization of the islands. That is a fact that everyone accepts. The Japanese government has said that’s what they are doing and as far as I can tell no one has said anything else.

The further point (that obviously isn’t a fact) is that this is a provocative act, although I can’t see how any reasonable person can’t see it that way. Maybe, for example, there are some Japanese neo-fascists who think it’s not provocative for example (or don’t care that it is or want it to be etc.). However, a former U.S. diplomat has said that, basically, it’s provocative (and that seems to be the U.S.’s position and, obviously China’s and probably the rest of the world’s too) and based on my statement (not fact!) on what I hope we can agree on is usually provocative (namely about taking unilateral decisions that affect other people) we can therefore say (not a fact remember) that the Japanese government are acting provocatively and raising tensions. Given all that we can then go on to understand the Chinese reaction.

2. I’ll leave the semantic discussion on the nature of a fact for another time…

3. Regarding your ‘analysis’ of Chinese psychology I’ll just say one thing, since it’s a separate topic (if you want to do a post on Chinese psychology then I’ll look forward to it!). You write that, “I really hope one day the education and media and therefore the whole society in China can improve quicker so that people learn to think and analyze for themselves without too much unconscious filtering going on.” But you have already intimated that a similar problem exists everywhere since you agreed with my earlier point before regarding propaganda, and wrote that, “I agree it does apply everywhere [propaganda], there are no real exceptions of propaganda”. So the question is, no matter the extent to which your ‘analysis’ extends how do you know that you don’t suffer from the same problem as the Chinese? In other words what gives you the right to berate them for something that you probably suffer from as well? In fact, from what you have written I would say you suffer from exactly the same problem as them (and I would include myself as well), you’ve heard of the pot calling kettle black right? This is why facts are so important (so back to point 1 then please!)

Previous post you said:
'If there is a bilateral dispute between two countries, for one of the countries to simply ignore the other countries claim and simply take the disputed territory can only be taken as a highly provocative act. But that is exactly what Japan has done. This is a fact and can't be disputed since facts ARE NOT decided by human beings.'

This post you say:
'The fact I am referring to is the Japanese government’s nationalization of the islands. That is a fact that everyone accepts.'

I took your fact in your previous post as referring to provocative act and ignoring the other countries claim, but now I understand you.

About your point 3 I agree with most, just that the degree of propaganda or subjectivity can be really really different, and although experience is not factual, I do believe from my own experience that propaganda and subjectivity in China and Holland are not at all on the same level, and in China it is really problematic while in Holland it can always be improved but there are many many positives developed in society already.

'In other words what gives you the right to berate them for something that you probably suffer from as well?'

I don't think I'm berating, in my culture direct criticism is so common and I've traveled all over the world, seen many different cultures and been kinda naturally obsessed with human behavior, these make me feel comfortable to point out shortcomings in humanity as I see it. Now I'm talking about Chinese a lot but I do this just as easily about myself or the Dutch, or about humanity in general. Maybe typing this it comes over as a bit cocky or overly judging people. But if we have a real conversation you could hear my cynical tone or with a bit of humor hopefully, then it might all come over as more pleasant, less judging just to judge.

Actually the Chinese that I know well seem to appreciate constructive criticism quite well, and they might not agree or see what I mean, but when they do after a while it's enjoyable because they learn to see society from a different angle. Now my disadvantage is that I can talk a lot about situations they live in while I don't get much feedback about my own culture and situations I live in, so the risk has always been that I look at everything with an extreme Dutch eye without opposition giving me self reflection, but actually it has gone quite well and my Chinese friends show interest in listening to my views even if they are not always positive. Although for me this is still positive, lol. Hopefully it works like this: criticism -> discussion (two-sides constructive criticism) -> reflection -> improvement = positive.

I'm drifting away again:) So I mean the berating for me feels different and it gets good reception (asking for more feedback than just the polite Chinese nodding of course:)).

I guess we should both wrap this up sometime so I'll do an attempt, actually our posts are quite long which makes it always possible to disagree on something but in general I agree a lot with what you mentioned.

Last point... Of course the islands belong to Japan, it just flows well with their geography plus Tokyo is closer to it than Beijing.

So, that's it, thread closed!

@Elwin, sorry, maybe you guys didn't notice but icecream already won this thread.

Hey I didn't expect another email from this thread:(

James, really?

Onto the next one then... T_T

fair enough...Japan can have their islands then, but only if you give Venezuela theirs :-p

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/world/americas/12venez.html?_r=0


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Venezuela#The_Netherlands

In this case the sound geographical philosophy doesn't count. Chavez just wants to own a couple of holiday islands for his self-serving cocktail parties.

Besides, Holland is closer to the islands than Venezuela because the islands ARE Holland. Try going against that logic:D

I’m not sure if what you said was meant as a joke or not, but anyway, I couldn’t help myself from quoting what you have already said as a reply.

1. “And besides, both govs have decent arguments for claiming the islands and in this grey world I don't believe we can say which side deserves them more”

I agree, in both cases.

2. “I look at everything with an extreme Dutch eye without opposition giving me self reflection””

We can see an example of your Dutch eye then…i.e. toe the governments line, just like the “irrational” Chinese.

3. “All I’d like to see is “citizens holding an opinion (possibly the same opinion they are holding now) but through a different thought-process.”

Me 2


4. “I just want the people to get to their opinion in a different atmosphere, receiving information from different angles, angles without a mission. This way we can respect citizens' opinions much more.“

Can you do the same that you ask of them?

What I said about Japan and its geography and Holland and its geography was (for me obviously after all we wrote about) meant as a joke. Would be a contradiction of gigantic proportions if I was suddenly gonna chose sides like that after all I wrote:) About your point 2 I said that the risk living in China for me is to develop an extreme Dutch eye so to speak, but as I said I think it's gone well overall meaning I don't believe this is the case. It was an example, hopefully that can be seen reading the whole paragraph again.

That leads me to point 4, yes, rest assured. Would be stupid if I say what I would like to see in media and society but don't try it myself.

"I fear that if the D.T. is your main source of information I may be wasting my time...still, I look forward with interest (no sarcasm intended here) to your or anyone else's comments"

It sure doesn't sound like you want to hear my comments based on your response, however I'll give it a go.

Your former diplomat's surprise in a later article at Chinese protesters' calls for Japan to be nuked just makes me think he's naive regarding Chinese popular opinion. Language Log has more on a related message: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4200 .

If I read you right - and I do so with caution lest you accuse me of doing as good a job of misunderstanding you as Elwin apparently did - you either do not think the Chinese responses to Japan's actions raise tensions, or if they do that the responses are justified by the Japanese actions now and in the past.

My opinion is that both sides are acting very similarly and showing their weaknesses here. A mildly provocative act from the Japanese is met with a disproportionate and self-destructive response from the Chinese. You say "no wonder the Chinese are pissed", I say they should take the opportunity to show leadership, which they've really failed to do here. You say the Japanese are ignoring the Chinese claim on the land, thus justifying the Chinese response, while seemingly ignoring that the Chinese are doing the same.

The reason I linked to the cartoon was that it was Chinese-made, widely circulated, and is well-balanced. In fact it matches pretty closely with the history and opinions in the long article you posted. It shows that there are Chinese who know what's going on, even if the average response from the forums is more like the

没看懂。~
只能说钓鱼岛是中国的。~

The article below shows Japan already trying to get political leverage from the Chinese response. Regardless of your opinion on who might be more to blame, both sides look like they'll lose from this and the Chinese side have lost an opportunity to show responsible leadership on the issue.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444813104578014020227775866.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

There is good reporting from the Chinese side on Caixin, it's a step in the right direction, but the mainstream politicians are not really taking the lead here.

http://english.caixin.com/2012-09-20/100440363.html

1. A)“If I read you right - and I do so with caution lest you accuse me of doing as good a job of misunderstanding you as Elwin apparently did - you either do not think the Chinese responses to Japan's actions raise tensions, or if they do that the responses are justified by the Japanese actions now and in the past. “

Sadly you didn’t. I guess I didn't do a good enough job explaining myself...once more into the breach ;-)!

I’ll just quote myself since I really can’t be bothered to go through it all again:

“The fact I am referring to is the Japanese government’s nationalization of the islands. That is a fact that everyone accepts. The Japanese government has said that’s what they are doing and as far as I can tell no one has said anything else.

The further point (that obviously isn’t a fact) is that this is a provocative act, although I can’t see how any reasonable person can’t see it that way. Maybe, for example, there are some Japanese neo-fascists who think it’s not provocative for example (or don’t care that it is or want it to be etc.). However, a former U.S. diplomat has said that, basically, it’s provocative (and that seems to be the U.S.’s position and, obviously China’s and probably the rest of the world’s too) and based on my statement (not fact!) on what I hope we can agree on is usually provocative (namely about taking unilateral decisions that affect other people) we can therefore say (not a fact remember) that the Japanese government are acting provocatively and raising tensions. Given all that we can then go on to understand the Chinese reaction. “

So I’m not saying anything about the Chinese response, since it can only really be understood within the context of the Japanese nationalization. If we don'e recognize the fact that China was happy with the status quo but Japan has nationalized the islands then we wont be able to understand the Chinese reaction.

B) Now the problem in your post as I see it, and, I imagine, in which your whole problem lies with on this issue is twofold:

“A mildly provocative act from the Japanese”

The nationalization of the islands is not mildly provocative but highly provocative and might well lead to war. Well, since you seem to be English you know that the last time in which England had a bilateral dispute over some islands where the other side acted unilaterally the English took it as a good enough reason to go to war. So it seems pretty easy to accept the reasoning that if one side acts with no regard to the other side in a bilateral dispute it is highly provocative and may even be a good enough reason to go to war.

“My opinion is that both sides are acting very similarly”

Maybe you know of another group of islands that both sides claim but China has said it is now officially part of Chinese territory. Those islands of course must also have big gas and oil deposits and rich fishing grounds. I’m sure if said islands did exist though and China had taken said action the Japanese (and U.S. no doubt) would have reacted entirely reasonably.

2. “You say "no wonder the Chinese are pissed", I say they should take the opportunity to show leadership,”

As a side point I just wondered what you would consider that to be?

Yes, I don't really understand why it is considered highly provocative. If this small action leads to war, war was already coming. There is no change in effective ownership, Japanese government has only changed from renting the islands to owning them directly. They do appear to have been forced into a corner by the nationalist governor who was threatening to buy them.

Other disputes between the English and Dutch and other countries really don't seem too relevant to me here. Look at North and South Korea: the North killed South Koreans and it didn't lead to war, that seems to me much more serious provocation than what happened here. The response is important as well as the initial provocation, by ignoring the latter I think you're missing the bigger picture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea#2010s

I'm not sure what your point is on "Maybe you know of another group of islands that both sides claim..." there are quite a few islands under dispute with China, some of those disputes have been resolved peacefully, some are still disputed. China is perfectly capable of resolving disputes bilaterally if they choose to do so. The US generally acts extremely diplomatically on disputed islands, not doing much more than telling both sides to calm down, at least publicly.

For the leadership point, things like the Caixin article advocating self-improvement have a much more positive slant on this than e.g. the economic warfare article. More of the former and less of the latter would be welcome.

A strong statement saying that China disagrees with the Japanese position on the islands is probably all that is relevant for now from the government. I don't believe the Chinese are ready to go to war over this, and clear communication would be more effective than the rioting, knee jerk trade measures and tacit approval of the sending of a flotilla to the islands. The Taiwanese are just as bad: what exactly does having a water cannon fight do to help resolve the situation?

Given the rioting etc., I would have hoped for strong condemnation of attacks of Chinese on their fellow citizens, on Chinese and Japanese businesses and indeed on Japanese people living in China from the government. They should make it clear to the world that China is a country based on the rule of law and that they will not allow a minor provocation from Japan to divert them from this path. They should take the moral high ground and take control of the narrative rather than giving people an excuse to call them "an irrational bully" as Nicholas Kristof does in his NY Times blog.

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/

Neither side is proposing any form of compromise or admitting that there is any case at all on the other side. They're talking past each other's arguments, rather than proposing an actual solution. Submitting to an international court as Kristof suggests would be one step, though I doubt China would accept that. For real progress there should be either a bilateral resolution by whatever means, or work to develop an appropriate supranational organisation which both sides trust to address the issue neutrally.

The first thing I want to say is that there are two events we are talking about here, the first is the Japanese nationalization and the second is the Chinese reaction. They are not the same. I’ll just stick to the first of the two for now.

1. “I don't really understand why it is considered highly provocative.”

Herein lies your problem. You can’t understand why it’s provocative. You can’t understand why the Chinese are pissed. That they are pissed is not really in doubt. So I guess the problem is why they are pissed. Apart from the views of 1.3. billion people, if we also accept A (see below) and also the fact that the former American diplomat said that, “The confrontation between Japan and China on the Senkaku/Diaoyutai issue has escalated to a truly dangerous level. Objectively it must be stated that it has been Japan that has done the most to raise tensions. “. We can also add into the mix that China was happy with the status quo, as everyone agrees. Well, if you take just those things then it’s pretty easy to see why it is highly provocative. The reason why I’m really stressing this issue is that I think this is a very basic point that any reasonable person can see and many commentators on this issue have also pointed out.

2.”There is no change in effective ownership, Japanese government has only changed from renting the islands to owning them directly.”

So a change in ownership then…?! If I rent something it’s very different to owning it right? Plus I’m not sure what the U.S’s position was on the islands before the nationalization, but now that it is an integral part of Japanese territory the U.S. are 100% committed to defending it (as Panetta has basically said recently), which is also very provocative.

3. “They do appear to have been forced into a corner by the nationalist governor who was threatening to buy them.”

Well it’s hard to cut through the political rhetoric here (as you indicate by using the word “appear” ) but anyway if this is the best you can come up with then it’s a pretty flimsy excuse. I mean if that is the justification then it basically justifies almost any action that a government wants to take. It also seems reasonable to assume that if the government had really wanted to stop the governor from buying the islands then they could have done so, at least, there must have been other options available. For example maybe they could have proposed that the ownership of the islands could be settled internationally (as you suggested) or some other way that would not have increased tensions. That they took this option shows that they are willing to escalate the situation for political gain and, regardless of the reason anyway, is hardly a good enough justification from any reasonable person’s point of view as far as I can see.

4. “Other disputes between the English and Dutch and other countries really don't seem too relevant to me here. Look at North and South Korea”

I’m guessing you chose this example either because it is in Asia, since that’s the only relevance I can see between it and the one we are discussing. A border dispute is a very different thing to a territorial dispute (especially one in which both sides have decent claims and the disputed territory contains natural resources) and much less important. The two examples I have given (England/Argentina and Holland/Venezuela) are both disputes over islands between two un-friendly powers, hence there relevance. Although my point in providing those examples was not to compare them to the present situation (actually I can’t think of a similar situation in history) but to point out A which is elementary.

5. I'm not sure what your point is on "Maybe you know of another group of islands that both sides claim..."

My point is transparent. You said both sides are acting in the same way. I pointed out that only Japan has nationalized disputed territory, therefore they are not acting in the same way.


A

If there is a bilateral dispute between any two countries over territory, for one of the countries to simply ignore the other countries claim and simply take the disputed territory or take decisions over said territory can only be taken as a highly provocative act.

"So a change in ownership then…?!" - not in the relevant sense, no: the Japanese government still believed the land they bought was Japanese before. Whether a house in Tokyo is owned by a private owner or by the Japanese government has little or no bearing on whether the Japanese consider it Japanese territory.

"Flimsy excuse" or not, the governor did plan to build on the island, which I think would have been significantly more provocative. Your "A", which you've now repeated in three posts, I disagree with. If the Japanese had made any substantive change like developing the land, then I would agree with you that this is highly provocative.

The idea that the US are now committed when they were not before is also debatable. I'm not sure exactly what you think the Japanese or Chinese are going to do on the island, but my bet is that both governments will continue to, for the most part, ignore them, because as far as I can see for practical purposes this "nationalisation" changes nothing on the ground. I can't really see the two sides going to war over this, despite the former diplomat.

Without splitting more hairs over what is or is not "highly" provocative, we both agree this was a provocative act from the Japanese. We both think there may have been better ways to handle it from the Japanese, for example ICJ, although I'm not sure there was an easy or obvious way out. It seems you don't buy the "governor excuse" at all, whereas I think this is plausible, I'm happy to agree to disagree on that, as I am on points 4 and 5.

As you ignore the Chinese response, I'm not sure we have more to discuss here.

Interesting article on how China handles border disputes:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MA27Ad02.html

SCMP also quite balanced on the way forward (behind a paywall, but basically saying both sides should tone down the nationalism and increase education):

www.scmp.com/comment/article/1051692/china-and-japan-must-deal-wartime-history-and-move

1. “we both agree this was a provocative act from the Japanese.”

Well I guess that was basically my original point yes. As you seem to intimate, there are many things that people can disagree over on this topic, the extent to which the Japanese are justified in what they did and likewise for the Chinese response and so on. But if we just keep to simple things that are true (or at least seem most plausibly true) then it’s much easier for the rest to come into focus. Personally I don’t know that much about the topic, so don’t really feel qualified to talk about the parts that I’m not certain about, but the point I was highlighting is something that you don’t need to be an expert to know about and also, if we take as our frame of reference makes the Chinese demonstrations much easier to understand, well, entirely understandable I would say.

2. “I can't really see the two sides going to war over this, despite the former diplomat.”

I agree it’s unlikely, but still, a small chance is still (too high?!) a chance. If you had asked people in June 1914 of the chances of a world war that would kill millions of people they would have said the same thing. Some things look like they have a low probability till they happen. Therefore the reasonable course of action would be to try to lower tensions through ideas you suggested or some other way rather than taking the course of action they did.

3. “The idea that the US are now committed when they were not before is also debatable”

Two things might shed some light on this:

“Ever since it transferred administrative control over them to Japan in 1972, Washington has remained agnostic as to the rightful ownership of the islands, even on occasion referring to them by their Chinese name as if to drive home the point.”

“His plan [the Tokyo Governor’s] was designed to ensure, that Japan’s claims would receive, firstly, the resolute backing of the Japanese state and Japanese public opinion, and secondly, full US security guarantee under the security Treaty of 1960.”

(from an interesting article written by an acknowledged expert: http://japanfocus.org/site/view/3821)

So it seems fair to say that there was, is or has been a bit of a grey area with respect to exactly how far the Japanese were willing to officially stake their claim on the island and also Washington’s desire to get involved in the issue. The governor’s aim in this whole episode was to clarify this in getting the Japanese state to affirm the islands as an integral part of Japan (with all the implications that follow from that) and also to get firm backing from the U.S. that the mutal-defence pact is not an empty piece of paper. I would say he has been pretty successful in his aims (at the expense of China of course). All this must also be taken in the context also of Washington’s ‘turn to Asia’ (which is just obviously directed mostly at China).

Saw this popped up in the news again today, so resurrecting the thread.

In response to Antimacassar your last post, whatever the Japanese did does not make Chinese people killing each other over this understandable to me. I generally agree with your other points, but still think China and Chinese can manage this better.

A piece yesterday in the Telegraph from China's vice foreign minister:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9643177/Together-China-and-Europe-will-be-stronger.html

States China is committed to dialog, but this doesn't seem compatible with this article in the FT:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7d97be3e-227e-11e2-8edf-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2AsMugpbu

It sounds from there that they've started ratcheting up the tension on their side:

"Mr Li said the Chinese government was still restraining itself and would not lightly add to the tension. “But if the Japanese don’t change their ways and return to the path of negotiation, such friction could increase,” he said. “Then, it would not be a question of just four vessels but many more.”"

They need to do more of the touchy-feely editorials and less of the "Japan should seriously reflect on and correct its mistakes." soundbites. The veiled and not-so-veiled threats don't really help here.

I think it's called raising the stakes, you either follow suit or you're out of the game, that's how it goes right?

btw I also found an enlightening article, for example I didn't know that, "Hashimoto and Ishihara both deny Japan’s record of brutality during World War II—in particular, the horrendous Nanking Massacre in China and the sexual enslavement of Korean women—sentiments echoed by some of Japan’s leading political figures, many of whom advocate Japan acquiring nuclear weapons."

http://dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/japans-right-going-nuke/

Although perhaps it's unfair to single out them for ignorance of past crimes since it's almost par for the course in the West as far as I can see.

Not quite the way I see it, they matched the Japanese territorial claim with their own territorial claim, then raised the stakes by starting to chase Japanese ships, which is new:

"Chinese government vessels did not chase Japanese boats out of the islands’ territorial waters in the past, as these waters were an area controlled by the Japanese coastguard" as Li Guoqiang says.

I don't think the Chinese are trying to reduce tension, and I think they could if they wanted to without losing any future negotiating position. The Chinese side are doing OK, but they could do better.

On the Japanese massacre denialists and hawks: it's not exactly news that these people exist, and we've gone over this already.

Ignorance of past crimes - "搜索结果可能不符合相关法律法规和政策，未予显示", as Baidu would say. What can you say... sometimes the truth hurts...

1. If you think they can do better then let's hear youre suggestion. It's not clear to me how they could reduce tension without basically giving up their claim. If they don't do something then it would be almost certain that you'd see Japanese/US oil rigs there fairly soon. Chasing fishing boats is hardly raising the stakes anyway...either way this is a predictable outcome of the actions that the Japanese government initiated.

2. The reason I posted that story is precisely because it hasn't been gone over before (at least to my knowledge). The Governor that the Government is going along with is clearly a neo-fascist who denies past crimes and would like to see Japan become a nuclear power. The fact that that guy is even in power is just shocking. Well, perhaps it's not that surprising since the developed world seems to be headed in that direction (e.g. Greece, well most of Europe). The point anyway is that when any country starts kowtowing to right-wing loonies then it's just obvious that it wont be long before tensions with neighbors are raised (even going to war) and internally the place becomes more and more of a police state. If you can find an exception in history then I'd be interested to hear it.

I already made some suggestions here, but how about: discourage Chinese attacking Chinese at a high level, don't damage the trade relationship by snubbing IMF meetings and taking trade measures that hurt Chinese businesses. There are Chinese people making similar suggestions to these.

The Chinese border minister made it pretty clear that chasing fishing boats was intended to raise the stakes. I agree it's weak though, this kind of half-hearted point-proving is another example of the kind of thing China could safely skip in my opinion. It's a bit laughable to think that killing their compatriots, damaging their own businesses and chasing off fishing boats would scare off the US / Japanese side if they really wanted to build oil rigs. I think Chinese anti-ship missiles and submarines are rather more effective deterrents.

(This also assumes there's oil to be had: this article - http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1040659/japan-china-dispute-islands-oil-bonanza-or-just-rocks - suggests that's not certain.)

Looking through the thread, you're right we haven't gone over the Japanese revisionism and potential militarisation. My mistake. Anyway, yes these people exist in Japan, and no they don't help matters. This isn't new though. It's pretty clear that e.g. Yasukuni visits etc. don't help reduce tensions, but that is the status quo. You disagree with me I suspect, but as I have said I don't think the Japanese government felt they were changing the status of the islands significantly. I think the purchase was a clumsy reaction to Ishihara rather than a carefully planned move, but there's not much way to know for sure.

In China you get military figures speaking, like General Luo Yuan with his "A nation without a martial spirit is a nation without hope", Okinawa belongs to China, and threats against the Philippines. What I'd like to see more of is statements from their politicians. More below:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304211804577500521756902802.html

Really what's needed on the Chinese side is a bit more leadership from their leaders, not their generals, rogue fishermen and mobs in the streets. Saying the Chinese response was predictable given the Japanese actions just makes me think you don't have a very high opinion of China's leadership. This is not China at its best.

China is improving, moving away from the "Japan should seriously reflect on and correct its mistakes" style outreach (http://rthk.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/20121031/news_20121031_56_879813.htm) towards the more nuanced PR of Song Tao's Telegraph op-ed that I posted earlier. I'd like to hear more balanced news from China, but it needs leadership from the top to make it happen. That leadership is not there yet.