Just the title of this post could be offensive, now that I think about it.

I read up a bit before the trip to Japan on the seemingly eternal conflict that goes on between Japan and its neighbors. Diplomatic or violent by turns, there’s a long history. Tonight I saw this story about an online Chinese game that has players shoot Japanese war criminals. As the article states, this game “is likely to please Chinese nationalists but do little to ease tensions between Beijing and Tokyo,” for some pretty obvious reasons.

Why is there conflict at all? 

A quick summary, courtesy of the BBC:

Japan’s relations with its neighbours are still heavily influenced by the legacy of Japanese actions before and during World War II. Japan has found it difficult to accept and atone for its treatment of the citizens of countries it occupied.

A Japanese court caused outrage by overturning a compensation order for Korean women forced to work as sex slaves.

South Korea and China have also protested that Japanese school history books gloss over atrocities committed by the Japanese military. Japan has said China promotes an anti-Japanese view of history.

There are a lot of really useful articles on the BBC on this topic, like this one with more details on “Japan’s Quest for Empire” and the motivations behind it.

What does this mean for the citizens of East Asian countries now? 

The best explanation I’ve read so far, at least for China and Japan, is this piece written by a Japanese journalist accompanied by a Chinese journalist as they both visited both Japan and China. It’s written at a personal level, going through the Japanese journalist’s experiences and interviews to describe the conflicts between the two countries over their shared histories, as well as the conflict each country has internally about their history and future. It’s history as seen through the eyes of those who experienced it and who must deal with it as a part of their identity.

Another interesting perspective, further showing the complexity, comes from the readers of the Atlantic commenting on Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to the Yasukuni shrine amid tensions with China. This shrine honors Japan’s war dead, both heroes and war criminals. There were initial comparisons to a German visiting a concentration camp, but those quickly vanished because as the article’s author writes,

Auschwitz and Buchenwald aren’t the right comparisons. Those and other former Nazi concentration camps have become memorials to the suffering and sacrifice of their victims and, as anyone familiar with Germany knows, symbols of the country’s introspection through 60+ postwar years. 

A reader adds:

…When German chancellors visit Nazi concentration camps, as they often have, they are sending a message of contrition. Yasukuni, on the other hand, is dedicated to the memory of those who fought for Imperial Japan, and a visits by Japanese politicians send the opposite message…

All readers note the difficulty in coming up with an comparison in the West, but given the recent violence in Ukraine, this comes close:

Perhaps if the Stalin museum were in Russia, rather than Georgia, there could be a comparison with Putin visiting there before going to Ukraine. 

But remember, says another reader, that there are major cultural differences between the West and East that should be taken into account when interpreting events like this:

While the Japanese acted barbarously in the 1930s to 1945, they were also terrible victims at the end of the war, and they have been the model of peaceful world citizens for the past 70 years, even in the face of serious provocations, including from those who criticize Japan now…

The main East Asian nations still gripe loudly about each other’s sins and defects, but reserve special criticism about the Imperial Army.   The louder the Chinese and everyone else shout about the sins of the Imperial Army, the more that a Japanese leader has to do something to save face.  A visit to Yasukuni is less belligerent than many alternatives, like lobbing missiles or sinking boats.

What about countries other than China? 

The Economist has a good summary here, noting that:

Even in countries with a direct experience of Japanese occupation, China’s approach [of constantly highlighting Japanese war crimes] seems ineffective. Asian governments disapprove of Mr Abe’s going to Yasukuni. But few seem worried by his plans to boost defence spending. On the contrary, most quietly welcome it, being far more concerned about China’s military build-up and its vigorous assertion of its claims in maritime disputes…

Thankfully, this is not yet the first world war, or even the cold war, where Soviet and American allies fell into two mutually hostile camps. Countries do not have to choose between China and Japan. Instead they can hope the two countries’ mutual antipathy stokes competitive generosity. That hope, however, is overshadowed by the fear that it might tip over into conflict—that at this diplomatic dinner party, someone might actually throw a punch.