• Thu
  • Aug 21, 2014
  • Updated: 5:41am

Sino-Japanese relations

The relationship between the two largest economies in Asia has been marred throughout the 20th century due to territorial and political disputes including Taiwanese sovereignty; the invasion of China by Japan in the second world war and Japan’s subsequent refusal to acknowledge the extent of its war crimes; territorial disputes surrounding the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands and associated fishing rights and energy resources; and Japanese-American security co-operation.   

NewsChina
DIPLOMACY

Vice-Premier Wang Yang hands warning to Japan during meeting with Tokyo governor

Wang Yang criticises PM Abe during meeting with first Tokyo governor to visit Beijing for 18 years

PUBLISHED : Sunday, 27 April, 2014, 6:39am
UPDATED : Sunday, 27 April, 2014, 8:50am

Vice-Premier Wang Yang lashed out at Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe during a meeting with his emissary yesterday and warned that Beijing was capable of responding to any provocation.

But Tokyo Governor Yoichi Masuzoe said his landmark trip to Beijing succeeded in conveying Abe's goodwill message to improve bilateral ties.

Wang criticised Abe's government and expressed dissatisfaction with the prime minister's visit to the Yasukuni Shrine during a meeting with Masuzoe yesterday, according to reports by Xinhua and Kyodo.

Abe supported Masuzoe in Tokyo's election for governor in February.

"Wang told [Masuzoe] that China was capable of coping with any provocations and safeguarding the achievements of the second world war as well as the post-war international order," Xinhua said.

Masuzoe was also told that Japanese politicians should avoid hindering bilateral ties.

Former state councillor Tang Jiaxuan levelled similar criticisms during his meeting with Masuzoe on Friday.

Beijing has repeatedly spurned Abe's requests for a summit with China's leaders, but Wang said yesterday that local-level exchanges would be encouraged to improve ties.

Masuzoe, 65, was invited to the capital for a three-day visit by his Beijing counterpart, Mayor Wang Anshun .

Masuzoe's landmark visit, the first by a Tokyo governor in 18 years, follows a string of events that have added tension to badly strained bilateral relations.

The governor's visit came five days after Abe made an offering at the Yasukuni Shrine, where 14 Class-A Japanese war criminals are honoured. More than 100 Japanese lawmakers also visited the shrine recently.

On Wednesday, Barack Obama became the first US president to say that the Diaoyu Islands, known as the Senkakus in Japan, were covered by a 1960 security treaty between Washington and Tokyo.

The remark about the East China Sea islands, which are at the centre of a long-running territorial dispute, drew criticism from Beijing. On Friday, Beijing's ambassador to the US, Cui Tiankai , accused Washington of "taking the wrong side".

"The US-Japan alliance should not affect the interests of a third country," Cui said at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "Is it really up to date? Or is it appropriate for the challenges of the 21st century? I don't think such [an] alliance will help us."

Masuzoe said he did not discuss the US-Japan security treaty with Wang. "In my meetings with Chinese leaders, I said that Prime Minister Abe totally supported my visit and that he hoped Sino-Japan relations could take a turn for the better," he said yesterday.

"If this can help just a little to dispel some misunderstandings … then this will be the best thing about my visit."

Additional reporting by Reuters

Share

More on this story

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive
 
 

 

30

This article is now closed to comments

lamlm38
Remember China has few hundred million lives, few trillion dollars to spare and a gov which gives a rat's axx about world opinion!!! those are right cocktails for the JPs to mess about..
XYZ
Go China! Go Fierce Dragon!
How About
WW2- Russians, Pacific- USA.
.
Truman screwed up bigtime in crime against humanity by dropping the A-bombs so they thought Japanese should get a little more, but the decisions to give the other islands not belonging to Japan, to Japan was plain wrong. They also wanted to 'undo', how righteous of them ehh?, something for losing 'KMT China' to CCP China, i.e. they backed the wrong horse and clearly on the wrong side of history. TSO Cairo and Potsdam were not signed by USA alone, so they are well advised they do not have the unilateral rights to reinterpret them again as they wish, and deem that as 'order', whatever they did do in the Pacific war.
.
The minerals under the water comes with the land on top of the water as defined in UNCLOS. Historically China already claimed and named Diaoyus, Spratlys and the Paracels before anybody else did or when UN was set up, that nobody objected to, just check the documentations. Then apply the UNCLOS seabeds demarcations and bobs-your-uncles you know those mineral rights belong to whom. Yes, China!
.
No, it's actually the complete opposite. XYZ your posts elsewhere seem intelligent but this one ...you are well...very dubious. Shall look forward to a more informed view from you!
.
XYZ
Well, we can't agree on everything.
.
Truman ended the war and saved millions of lives by dropping the Bomb on Japan. It's hard to argue with those facts and, in my opinion, those facts stand up well against any sort of 20/20 hindsight revisionism produced at the safe remove of 70 years.
.
As for Daioyu, yes, there is obviously a sovereignty dispute, just like there are in many inconsequential places around the world. It's messy. But it's not worth going to war over, for goodness sake.
.
At least, that's my opinion. And I bet it's Mr. Xi's opinion, too.
.
lamlm38
keep your useless opinions to yourself please!!
XYZ
Go Fierce Dragon!
How About
FYI there is a view that Truman didn't have to drop those A-bombs. The Japanese were on the cusps of surrendering in July 1945 but the US scouts ignored the plea. The A-bombs were politically motivated because the WW2 Europe was won by Russia and the USA wanted to douse Russia’s European victory. All of these can survive fact-checks, and all 2020 revisionistic to the extent the authors' discretions, BUT you can be the judge, isn't that great?
.
It seems implied in your reply that when history is not in your side, or on Japan's or USA's side they might be deemed revisionistic otherwise look at my version of history? This is fallacious to the core as you well know but this is also precisely why we must get the history right, the textbooks syllabus that sort of thing. And what's more it's not politics at all, it's humanity [how can one pay no regards to what your ancestors do, without whom one wouldn't be here today; consider in reverse when one's ancestors were illustrious would one disregard their ancestry or legacy to you. Thus the humanity works both ways in shame or in worth.].
.
But, we can agree to disagree here if you so choose.
.
On CCP, Xi, USA and Obama perhaps we wait till the next good SCMP article for a more thorough exchange?
.
BTW SCMP IT should re-look at nested indent replies to make them readable, thanks!
.
XYZ
I take your point regarding the difficulty of defining what constitutes revisionism.
.
However, a fair person could accept the voluminous contemporaneous accounts that Mr. Truman made the decision on the basis that many allied lives would have been lost in trying to conquer the Japanese on their home islands.
.
BTW, the fact that the Japanese didn't surrender even after the first bomb wiped out Hiroshima on 6 August debunks the revisionist myth that the Japanese were ever on the cusp of surrender. They needed Nagasaki on 9 August and the threat of nuclear annihilation to finally raise the white flag.
.
It was Mr. Truman's job to win the war and to do so with as few Allied casualties as possible. Dropping the bomb accomplished that. That's why he did it. And that's what all contemporaneous accounts say why he did it. I think that's a pretty fair summary of the reasoning behind the decision and, yes, I think conjecture which strays any considerable distance from this straightforward account bears more than a whiff of uninformed revisionism.
.
Actually, I don't think Mr. Truman had any real choice in the matter. To have held back from using the bomb and thereby to have allowed hundreds of thousands of Allied troops to be killed and maimed island-hopping their way to Tokyo while he had the means to end the war and chose not to use it would have been morally outrageous and simply unthinkable.
.
I think that's why Mr. Truman slept well that night.
.
How About
"... Mr. Truman made the decision ..up to one million allied lives might have been lost in trying to conquer the Japanese ..." This is with 2020 a patent lie. 95%+ of all Japanese males in their prime were already in the battlefields so who would have inflicted that kind of mythical damage to the USA might? The Japanese military everywhere were decimated after Okinawa so when the first bomb dropped no one actually had the knew how bad it was [most Japanese reporters were busy filming the kamakaze pilots and the Nanking babies-bayoneting].
.
So why the bombs rush? As the European WW2 was already over in May- the Americans being the last Johnny to join the allies were shocked to find how far they were behind, translating into the urgency to expedite closing of the Pacific War. Here this is the other faux pas USA had been trying to wriggle themselves out of for years, unsuccessfully.
.
Not in anyway to diminish Truman, have a look at some old footage, and what Truman actually did in his time. I agree with you that Truman probably slept well the night he ordered the bombs-drop but only because he thought he was doing USA a favour (but no one else), CLEARLY not knowing that USA could have won using conventional warfare. And this can only be a 2020 hindsight conclusion!
.
USA up to that very decision, had every moral prerogative, higher ground to claim theirs was a force of good.
.
Sadly, thereafter nearly everything they did went the other way!
.
XYZ
From CSIS:
.
"The top priority for President Truman was to end the war as quickly as possible with the fewest U.S. casualties. "
.
Walker notes five additional reasons why Truman chose to use the bomb.

1. Ending the war at the earliest possible moment - The primary objective for the U.S. was to win the war at the lowest possible cost. Specifically, Truman was looking for the most effective way to end the war quickly.

2. To justify the cost of the Manhattan Project - The Manhattan Project was a secret program to which the U.S. had funneled an estimated $1,889,604,000 (in 1945 dollars) through December 31, 1945.

3. To impress the Soviets - As Yale Professor Gaddis Smith has noted, “It has been demonstrated that the decision to bomb Japan was centrally connected to Truman's confrontational approach to the Soviet Union.” However, this idea is thought to be better understood as an ancillary benefit of dropping the bomb and not so much its sole purpose.

4. A lack of incentives not to use the bomb - Weapons were created to be used. By 1945, the bombing of civilians was already an established practice.
.
5. Responding to Pearl Harbor - When a general raised objections to the use of the bombs, Truman responded by noting the atrocities of Pearl Harbor and said that “When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast.”

Pages

 
 
 
 
 

Login

SCMP.com Account

or