超级军网中美友誼交流協会: 三国博弈
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 18:20:13
中美友誼交流協会: 三国博弈
作者 查蓉生 译者 王胜炜 2013年7月1日
最近中国和日本在中国东海的钓鱼群岛纠纷，获得了亚洲和美国的极大关注，它有可能演变成这个地区没有人愿意看到的军事冲突。虽然这是中日之间的冲突，美国还是有所介入，因为它是世界上唯一的超级大国，与日本具有某种防卫条约。和往常一样，每个国家都有自己的国家利益，而这些利益并不一致。有趣的是，所涉及的国家是世界上三个最大的经济体。以下是我个人对这个问题的一些看法。
中国一贯认为钓鱼群岛是其领土的一部分。自从七十年代初美国将这些岛屿的行政权交予日本以来，中国就表示反对。第二次世界大战后，日本应该交还它战前和期间占有(以条约或以武力）的所有领土，无论是美国还是日本，对这些岛屿都不拥有主权。美国和西方的新闻报导经常明确地表示，这些纠纷的原因，是中国快速增长的军事和经济力量让它试图展示其肌肉的结果。没有比这更离谱的判断了。最近冲突的真正原因，是日本政府购买了有争议岛屿的其中三个，而将其国有化。在日本政府购买这些岛屿之前，中国和日本同意搁置这些争议，俾使两国能改善关系，有利于经济发展，使两国受益。中国在这个问题上的政策是一致的，直到日本政府打破现状。
从历史上看，中国一直是一个内向型的国家。今天更是如此（因为国内的挑战是巨大的），除非涉及其主权和领土完整。大多数的中国人对自己国家的主权和领土完整极其敏感和情绪化，这是因为中国在过去的150年，遭受了许多挫折，失去主权和领土於许多外国帝国主义的列强。在20世纪的早期，几乎所有的列强都瓜分了中国的一块。最糟糕的是第二次世界大战之前和期间，日本帝国主义侵略和残酷占领了中国很大的一部分。中国人对日本的仇恨，将会持续很长一段时间（几代）。直到获得满意的解决，中国绝不会心慈手软地放弃这些争议岛屿的主权。另一方面，中国人对美国人的态度和情绪与对日本人有很大的不同，我们将在下面的讨论中得到了解。
为什么日本政府打破现状和国有化这些岛屿？很多人认为，这是因为美国大约在一年前宣布，将其安全防御”转移”至亚洲。很明显，美国正试图遏制中国，虽然美国不会公开承认这一点。美国正试图形成一个大的弧圈（韩国、日本、台湾、菲律宾、澳大利亚、越南、印度、阿富汗），企图孤立中国。跟随着美国控制中国的支持力度，日本政府显然认为，现在是一个很好的机会，来抢夺有争议的岛屿。然而，还有另一个更重要的原因可以解释，为什么日本政府认为它不得不做出这样的举动。过去15年里，日本经济停滞不前（接近零增长），中国在相同的时间内，每年则有10％左右的增长，中国的国内生产总值已经超过日本。从现在起十年，中国的经济可能是日本的两倍大，时间肯定是在中国的一边。日本的决策者，敏锐地意识到这个日本下降和中国正在崛起的趋势。如果日本现在不采取行动，更难以在未来与中国打交道。
当一个国家经济上做得不够好的时候，民族主义很容易上升，这就是日本发生的状况。大多数日本人希望看到日本军事再次发展，并返回到第二次世界大战前的辉煌时期。不过，日本宪法（这是由道格拉斯•麦克阿瑟将军草拟的）不会允许这种情况发生。你可能会认为，如果大多数的人赞成，就可以改变或修订宪法。不幸的是，在日本，这是不会发生的。尽管日本是世界第三大经济体，人口1.27亿，未经美国的批准（美国和日本政府不会承认这一点），日本不能改变其宪法。例如，大多数日本人想发展远程进攻性武器，如航空母舰和核炸弹，从而使日本能再次成为军事强国，他们有技术，有能力，在一个相对较短的时间内实现这个目的，但美国不会允许这种情况发生。日本的航空母舰，是1941年偷袭珍珠港，造成严重损害美国海军所使用的关键武器。落在广岛和长崎的原子弹，杀害了几十万日本人，这是人类历史上，唯一一次使用核武器。我不认为，日本人从来会忘记这件事，美国人也不会。令人吃惊的是，像日本这样大的主权国家不能保卫自己，仍然依赖于美国的保护。但是，美国的保护是一把双刃剑。美国仍然在冲绳保持大量拥有先进武器的兵力，部队除了在那里保护日本，还有另外一个很重要的原因，美国的驻军在控制日本，使它不会回到第二次世界大战之前和期间的军国主义。二战结束后，日本被美国占领，过去的60年里，美国已经逐步放松其控制，但到目前为止，美国还没有完全放弃其占领的地位。
日本政府不会在没有美国同意或批准的情况下，将这些岛屿国有化。根据2013年2月14日何思文(StevenHarner)在《福布斯》杂志上写的一篇文章（”美国原本可以防止尖阁列岛/钓鱼岛危机，为什麽不？”），日本曾经对这些岛屿的国有化征求过美国的立场，且被告知，美国“不反对”。如果美国反对日本政府对这些岛屿国有化，中国和日本之间目前的紧张局势将不会上升，并且军事冲突的可能性将非常小。何思文指责当时的国务卿希拉里•克林顿，但我认为这个决定符合美国遏制中国的新（構想拙劣的）政策。
除了在南方与中国的领土争端，日本也与韩国在西部和俄罗斯在北部有领土争端。与中国争端不同的是，日本没有选择现在对后者做任何事情，因为这些与韩国和俄罗斯的争议，没有这样做的紧迫性。首先，美国并不试图遏制韩国（它也是美国的一个盟友）和俄罗斯（美国回到冷战时代的政策，将是一个很大的错误）。更重要的是，韩国和俄罗斯的经济不仅比日本小得多，也没有像中国一样的快速成长，日本不必担心这两个国家在可预见的将来，超过日本。
第二次世界大战之前和期间，日本非常不幸地成为帝国主义国家，并且残酷占领和侵略许多亚洲国家。在20世纪之前，日本是西方帝国主义的受害者，但是，当日本取得西方工业国家的技术后，便转身摧残亚洲其他国家，其作为更甚於西方帝国主义国家。
世界上唯一的超级大国美国，几乎参与每一个在世界上的争端或冲突，美国也不例外地深深卷入中国和日本之间的纠纷。首先，日本是一个所谓的盟友，但更重要的是，控制中国的崛起，是美国政策的一个战略目标（虽然它不会公开承认）。中国和日本成为更敌视对方，符合美国的利益。同样地，在中国南海，美国希望看到越南、菲律宾等国家，在与中国某些小岛屿的争端中站起来。这一切都符合遏制和控制中国的大战略，虽然，这是一个非常短视的政策。
我认为美国遏制中国的政策，需要认真地重新进行审视。遏制中国能获得什么？把中国视为对手，比视为朋友或合作伙伴更有意义吗？中美之间的爱恨关系，自20世纪四十年代初期以来，一直持续。二战期间，美国和中国为盟国，共同在太平洋抗击日寇；随后而来的有朝鲜战争和越南战争；北越战事接近尾声时，中国和美国在对前苏联的冷战中，再次成为合作伙伴。我们必须记住，在第二次世界大战和冷战时期，中国是美国的盟友。苏联崩溃后，曾经有一段约20年的时间，中美两国的关系相当温暖和亲切。这主要是因为，美国将其注意力集中於伊拉克、伊朗、以及在阿富汗的恐怖活动，也因为中国仍然是一个非常贫穷落后的国家。
但是这种情况已经改变，因为中国在过去20年有过前所未有的巨大增长。美国的保守派和决策者感到震惊，最近公布的结果是在外交和防务政策作出改变，将重心转移（或安全防御”转向”）至亚洲。接著公布，美国增加与韩国、日本、菲律宾、澳大利亚等国在太平洋的军事演习。美国还宣布，转向亚洲的战略目标，是维持该地区的稳定。转向亚洲的“转向”这个词是模糊的，但是大家都很清楚，该政策是为了包围和遏制中国。
但是，美国的太平洋行动与其宣布的短期和长期战略目标，背道而驰。事实上，这个新政策立竿见影的效果，是增加中国及其邻国在中国东海和中国南海海域的紧张关系。这些紧张的局势，使得该地区加剧地更不稳定，只要看看中国和日本在钓鱼群岛上的矛盾就知道了；双方军事活动增加（喷气战斗机和巡逻舰混杂於这些岛屿附近），极易引发武装对峙，进而可能拖累两个国家（加上美国）交战。这样如何能有助於实现美国公开宣布的，在该地区保持稳定的目标？
美国遏制中国的政策，其运行，也违背维持该地区长期稳定的目标。中美关系不仅对亚洲，对世界来说，也是最重要的。如果美国和中国的关系可以变得更友好，亚洲和世界的稳定肯定会改善，更何况这对两个国家的经济有利。此外，如果美国想要中国更民主和更亲西方，最有效的实现方式，是通过建设一个大多数人口是中产阶级的社会。遏制中国只会延迟取得一个中产阶级社会的进展，更何况，它可能会适得其反，有推动中国逆向而行的可能性。这种长期接触中国的看法，可能是过去40年里，美国对中国政策最重要的驱动力。在这个节骨眼时，美国没有任何改变这种政策的理由或辯護。应该放弃遏制政策，如果不提升接触政策，也应该继续下去。
大部分的中国人，不以看日本的同样方式，看待美国。美国从来没有军事侵略中国（义和团时代除外）。过去的20至30年间，中国和美国的温暖关系，已经改变了许多中国人从毛泽东时代，视美国为世界最大帝国主义的看法。美国应该继续其接触政策，并推动中国和广大的中国人民走向一个更友好的美国。作为一位美籍华人，我当然希望看到美国和中国的关系改善。这项政策肯定适合一个更加稳定与和平世界的长期目标，因为，中美关系，将是21世纪最重要的关系。
查蓉生
2013年5月
於伊利诺州达里恩市
http://www.chinausfriendship.com/chinese/article1.asp?mn=259
A Tale of Three Nations
By Yung-Sheng Cha
July 1, 2013
Recent disputes between China and Japan on the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea received great attention both in Asia and the United States of America. They have the potential of evolving into military conflict in the region, which no one would like to see. Although the conflicts are between China and Japan, the U. S. is involved because it is the sole superpower in the world and because it has some kind of defense treaty with Japan. Each country has its own national interest and as usual, these interests do not coincide. It is interesting that the countries involved are the three largest economies in the world. Following are some of my personal views on this issue.
China has always considered the Diaoyu Islands to be part of its territory. It has voiced objections ever since the early seventies when the U. S. gave the administrative authority of these islands to the Japanese. After the Second World War, Japan was supposed to give back all the territories that it occupied (by treaty or by force) before and during the war. Neither the U. S. nor Japan has sovereignty over these islands. The U. S. and western news often explicitly imply that the cause of these disputes is the result of fast growing military and economic power of China which is trying to flex its muscle. This could not be farther from the truth. The real reason for the recent conflicts is the fact that the Japanese government bought three of the disputed islands and nationalized them. Before the government of Japan bought these islands, it was agreed between China and Japan to shelve these disputes so that the two countries could improve their relations and move on to economic development which would benefit both countries. China's policy on this issue was consistent until the Japanese government broke the status quo.
Historically, China has always been an inward-looking country. It is even more so today (because the domestic challenges are huge) except when its sovereignty and territorial integrity are involved. The majority of Chinese are extremely sensitive and emotional about their country's sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is because China suffered many setbacks over the last 150 years and lost sovereignty and territories to many foreign imperialist powers. Almost all the western powers grabbed a piece of China in the early part of the 20th century. The worst imperialist is Japan which invaded and brutally occupied a great portion of China before and during World War II. The animosity of Chinese towards the Japanese will last for a long time (generations). China will never abandon its sovereignty over these disputed islands until it is resolved to its satisfaction. On the other hand, the attitude and sentiment of the Chinese towards the Americans are quite different from those towards the Japanese as we shall see in the following discussions.
Why did the Japanese government break the status quo and nationalize these islands? Many people think it is because the U. S. announced about a year ago that it is shifting its security "pivot" towards Asia. It is obvious that the U. S. is trying to contain China, although the U. S. will not openly admit it. The U. S. is trying to form a big circle (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, Vietnam, India, and Afghanistan) in an attempt to isolate China. With the support of the U. S. to control China, the Japanese government apparently thought that it is a good opportunity now to grab the disputed islands. However, there is another (more important) reason why the Japanese government felt that it had to make the move. The Japanese economy was stagnant for the last 15 years (almost zero growth) while China had been growing at about 10% a year for the same period of time. China's GDP has already surpassed that of Japan. Ten years from now, China's economy could be twice as large as Japan’s. Time is definitely on China's side. The policy makers in Japan are keenly aware of this factual trend of declining Japan and rising China. If Japan does not move now, it will be much more difficult to deal with China in the future.
When a country is not doing well economically, nationalism could easily rise. This is what is happening in Japan. The majority of Japanese would like to see the build-up of Japanese military and return to the glorious time before the Second World War. However, the Japanese Constitution (which was drawn up by General Douglas MacArthur) will not allow that to happen. You would think that the Constitution can be changed or amended if the majority of the people are in favor of it. Unfortunately for Japan, it is not going to happen. Even though Japan is the third largest economy in the world with a population of 127 million, it cannot change its constitution without the approval of the U. S. (both the U. S. and Japanese governments will not admit this). For example, the majority of Japanese would like to develop long-range offensive weapons, such as aircraft carriers and nuclear bombs, so that Japan can be a military power again. They have the technology and capability of accomplishing that in a relatively short period of time. But the U. S. will not allow that to happen. Japanese aircraft carriers were the key weapons used in the sneak attack of Pearl Harbor which caused serious damage to the U. S. Navy in 1941. Atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese. It was the only time nuclear weapons were employed in the history of mankind. I do not think that the Japanese will ever forget it, neither will the U. S. It is amazing that a sovereign country as large as Japan cannot defend itself and still relies on the U. S. for its protection. But the U. S. protection is a double-edged sword. The U. S. still maintains large number of troops in Okinawa with advanced weapons. The troops are there for the protection of Japan. But there is another very important reason for the U. S. to station troops there. It is to control Japan so that it will not go back to militarism like it did before and during World War II. Japan was occupied by the U. S. after World War II. Over the past 60 years, the U. S. has gradually relinquished its control. But so far the U. S. has not completely given up its occupational status.
The Japanese government would not have moved to nationalize these islands without the consent or approval of the U. S. According to a recent article written by Steven Harner in Forbes magazine (The U. S. Could Have Prevented the Senkaku/Diaoyu Crisis. Why did it not? February 14, 2013), Japan solicited the position of U. S. on nationalization of these islands and was told that the U. S. "did not oppose." If the U. S. had opposed the nationalization of these islands by the Japanese government, the current tension between China and Japan would not have risen and the probability of a military conflict would be extremely small. Harner blamed it on the then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. But I think this decision fits the new (ill-conceived) U. S. policy of containing China.
In addition to the territorial disputes in the south with China, Japan also has territorial disputes with South Korea in the west and with Russia in the north. Unlike the disputes with China, Japan did not choose to do anything now on these disputes with South Korea and Russia because there is no urgency to do so. First, the U. S. is not trying to contain South Korea (it is also a U. S. ally) and Russia (it would be a big mistake for the U. S. to go back to the policies of the cold war era). More importantly, the economies of South Korea and Russia are not only much smaller than that of Japan but also not growing as fast as China. Japan does not have to fear that these two countries will overtake Japan in the foreseeable future.
It is extremely unfortunate that Japan became an imperialist nation and brutally occupied and invaded many Asian countries before and during World War II. Japan was a victim of the western imperialism before the 20th century. But when Japan acquired the technologies of the industrial countries of the west, it turned around and brutalized other Asian countries even worse than the western imperialist countries.
The U. S., being the sole superpower in the world, is involved in almost every dispute or conflict in the world. It is no exception that the U. S. is deeply involved in the disputes between China and Japan. First, Japan is a so-called ally. But more importantly, controlling the rise of China is a strategic goal of U. S. policy (although it will not openly admit that). It is to the benefit of the U. S. that China and Japan became more hostile towards each other. Similarly in the South China Sea, the U. S. would like to see countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, etc. to stand up to China in their disputes over some small islands. This all fits into the grand strategy of containing and controlling China although it is a very short-sighted policy.
I think the U. S. policy of containing China needs to be reexamined carefully. What are we gaining in containing China? Does it make sense to treat China as an adversary, instead of as a friend or partner? The love and hate relation between China and the U. S. has been going on since the early forties of the 20th century. U. S. and China were allies during World War II in fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. Then came the Korean War and the war in Vietnam. Near the end of the war against North Vietnam, China and U. S. became partners again in the cold war against the former Soviet Union. We must remember that China was an ally both in World War II and the cold war. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a period of about 20 years when the relation between the two countries was fairly warm and cordial. This was mainly because the U. S. was focusing its attention on Iraq, Iran, and terrorists' activities in Afghanistan. It was also because China was still a very poor and backward country.
But that situation has changed because of the tremendous and unprecedented growth in China over the last 20 years. The conservatives and the policy makers in the U. S. were alarmed and the results were the recent announcement of change in foreign and defense policy by shifting the weight (or security "pivoting") towards Asia. Followed by the announcement, the U. S. has increased its military exercises with South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, etc. in the Pacific. The U. S. also announced that the strategic goal of pivoting towards Asia is to maintain stability in that region. The word "pivoting" towards Asia is vague, but it is clear to everyone that the policy was meant to encircle and contain China.
But the actions of the U. S. in the Pacific are moving in the opposite direction of its announced short and long term strategic goals. The fact is that the immediate effect of this new policy is to increase tensions between China and its neighbors in the East and South China Seas. These increased tensions made the region more unstable than it was. Just look at the conflicts between China and Japan on the Diaoyu Islands. The increased military activities (scrambled jet fighters and patrol ships near these islands) from both sides could easily trigger an armed confrontation which could in turn drag both countries (plus the U. S.) into war. How does that help to achieve the openly announced objective of maintaining stability in the region by the U. S.?
The U. S. policy of containing China is also running contrary to its objective of maintaining stability in the region over the long term. The relation between China and the U. S. are the most important not only for Asia but also for the world. The stability of Asia and the world will certainly improve if the relation between the U. S. and China can become friendlier, not to mention the economic benefits for both countries. Furthermore, if the U. S. wants China to be more democratic and more pro-western, the most effective way of achieving that is through the building of a society in which the majority of its population is middle-class. Containing China will only delay the progress towards a middle-class society, not to mention the possibility that it may backfire and move China in the opposite direction. This long term view of engaging China has probably been the most important driver of the U. S. policy towards China over the last 40 years. There is no reason or justification for the U. S. to change this policy at this juncture. The containment policy should be abandoned and the engagement policy should be continued, if not enhanced.
The majority of Chinese do not look at the U. S. in the same way as they look at Japan. The U. S. never invaded China militarily (except during the Boxer rebellion). The warm relation between China and the U. S. during the last 20-30 years has changed the views of many Chinese from that of the Mao era which considered the U. S. as the largest imperialist of the world. The U. S. should continue its policy of engagement and move China and the majority of Chinese towards a friendlier U. S. As a Chinese American, I certainly would like to see an improved relationship between the U. S. and China. This policy certainly fits the long term goal of a more stable and peaceful world because the relation between China and the U. S. is and will be the most important in the 21st century.
Y. S. Cha
May, 2013
Darien, Illinois
http://www.chinausfriendship.com/article1.asp?mn=364
.
中美友誼交流協会: 三国博弈
作者 查蓉生 译者 王胜炜 2013年7月1日
最近中国和日本在中国东海的钓鱼群岛纠纷，获得了亚洲和美国的极大关注，它有可能演变成这个地区没有人愿意看到的军事冲突。虽然这是中日之间的冲突，美国还是有所介入，因为它是世界上唯一的超级大国，与日本具有某种防卫条约。和往常一样，每个国家都有自己的国家利益，而这些利益并不一致。有趣的是，所涉及的国家是世界上三个最大的经济体。以下是我个人对这个问题的一些看法。
中国一贯认为钓鱼群岛是其领土的一部分。自从七十年代初美国将这些岛屿的行政权交予日本以来，中国就表示反对。第二次世界大战后，日本应该交还它战前和期间占有(以条约或以武力）的所有领土，无论是美国还是日本，对这些岛屿都不拥有主权。美国和西方的新闻报导经常明确地表示，这些纠纷的原因，是中国快速增长的军事和经济力量让它试图展示其肌肉的结果。没有比这更离谱的判断了。最近冲突的真正原因，是日本政府购买了有争议岛屿的其中三个，而将其国有化。在日本政府购买这些岛屿之前，中国和日本同意搁置这些争议，俾使两国能改善关系，有利于经济发展，使两国受益。中国在这个问题上的政策是一致的，直到日本政府打破现状。
从历史上看，中国一直是一个内向型的国家。今天更是如此（因为国内的挑战是巨大的），除非涉及其主权和领土完整。大多数的中国人对自己国家的主权和领土完整极其敏感和情绪化，这是因为中国在过去的150年，遭受了许多挫折，失去主权和领土於许多外国帝国主义的列强。在20世纪的早期，几乎所有的列强都瓜分了中国的一块。最糟糕的是第二次世界大战之前和期间，日本帝国主义侵略和残酷占领了中国很大的一部分。中国人对日本的仇恨，将会持续很长一段时间（几代）。直到获得满意的解决，中国绝不会心慈手软地放弃这些争议岛屿的主权。另一方面，中国人对美国人的态度和情绪与对日本人有很大的不同，我们将在下面的讨论中得到了解。
为什么日本政府打破现状和国有化这些岛屿？很多人认为，这是因为美国大约在一年前宣布，将其安全防御”转移”至亚洲。很明显，美国正试图遏制中国，虽然美国不会公开承认这一点。美国正试图形成一个大的弧圈（韩国、日本、台湾、菲律宾、澳大利亚、越南、印度、阿富汗），企图孤立中国。跟随着美国控制中国的支持力度，日本政府显然认为，现在是一个很好的机会，来抢夺有争议的岛屿。然而，还有另一个更重要的原因可以解释，为什么日本政府认为它不得不做出这样的举动。过去15年里，日本经济停滞不前（接近零增长），中国在相同的时间内，每年则有10％左右的增长，中国的国内生产总值已经超过日本。从现在起十年，中国的经济可能是日本的两倍大，时间肯定是在中国的一边。日本的决策者，敏锐地意识到这个日本下降和中国正在崛起的趋势。如果日本现在不采取行动，更难以在未来与中国打交道。
当一个国家经济上做得不够好的时候，民族主义很容易上升，这就是日本发生的状况。大多数日本人希望看到日本军事再次发展，并返回到第二次世界大战前的辉煌时期。不过，日本宪法（这是由道格拉斯•麦克阿瑟将军草拟的）不会允许这种情况发生。你可能会认为，如果大多数的人赞成，就可以改变或修订宪法。不幸的是，在日本，这是不会发生的。尽管日本是世界第三大经济体，人口1.27亿，未经美国的批准（美国和日本政府不会承认这一点），日本不能改变其宪法。例如，大多数日本人想发展远程进攻性武器，如航空母舰和核炸弹，从而使日本能再次成为军事强国，他们有技术，有能力，在一个相对较短的时间内实现这个目的，但美国不会允许这种情况发生。日本的航空母舰，是1941年偷袭珍珠港，造成严重损害美国海军所使用的关键武器。落在广岛和长崎的原子弹，杀害了几十万日本人，这是人类历史上，唯一一次使用核武器。我不认为，日本人从来会忘记这件事，美国人也不会。令人吃惊的是，像日本这样大的主权国家不能保卫自己，仍然依赖于美国的保护。但是，美国的保护是一把双刃剑。美国仍然在冲绳保持大量拥有先进武器的兵力，部队除了在那里保护日本，还有另外一个很重要的原因，美国的驻军在控制日本，使它不会回到第二次世界大战之前和期间的军国主义。二战结束后，日本被美国占领，过去的60年里，美国已经逐步放松其控制，但到目前为止，美国还没有完全放弃其占领的地位。
日本政府不会在没有美国同意或批准的情况下，将这些岛屿国有化。根据2013年2月14日何思文(StevenHarner)在《福布斯》杂志上写的一篇文章（”美国原本可以防止尖阁列岛/钓鱼岛危机，为什麽不？”），日本曾经对这些岛屿的国有化征求过美国的立场，且被告知，美国“不反对”。如果美国反对日本政府对这些岛屿国有化，中国和日本之间目前的紧张局势将不会上升，并且军事冲突的可能性将非常小。何思文指责当时的国务卿希拉里•克林顿，但我认为这个决定符合美国遏制中国的新（構想拙劣的）政策。
除了在南方与中国的领土争端，日本也与韩国在西部和俄罗斯在北部有领土争端。与中国争端不同的是，日本没有选择现在对后者做任何事情，因为这些与韩国和俄罗斯的争议，没有这样做的紧迫性。首先，美国并不试图遏制韩国（它也是美国的一个盟友）和俄罗斯（美国回到冷战时代的政策，将是一个很大的错误）。更重要的是，韩国和俄罗斯的经济不仅比日本小得多，也没有像中国一样的快速成长，日本不必担心这两个国家在可预见的将来，超过日本。
第二次世界大战之前和期间，日本非常不幸地成为帝国主义国家，并且残酷占领和侵略许多亚洲国家。在20世纪之前，日本是西方帝国主义的受害者，但是，当日本取得西方工业国家的技术后，便转身摧残亚洲其他国家，其作为更甚於西方帝国主义国家。
世界上唯一的超级大国美国，几乎参与每一个在世界上的争端或冲突，美国也不例外地深深卷入中国和日本之间的纠纷。首先，日本是一个所谓的盟友，但更重要的是，控制中国的崛起，是美国政策的一个战略目标（虽然它不会公开承认）。中国和日本成为更敌视对方，符合美国的利益。同样地，在中国南海，美国希望看到越南、菲律宾等国家，在与中国某些小岛屿的争端中站起来。这一切都符合遏制和控制中国的大战略，虽然，这是一个非常短视的政策。
我认为美国遏制中国的政策，需要认真地重新进行审视。遏制中国能获得什么？把中国视为对手，比视为朋友或合作伙伴更有意义吗？中美之间的爱恨关系，自20世纪四十年代初期以来，一直持续。二战期间，美国和中国为盟国，共同在太平洋抗击日寇；随后而来的有朝鲜战争和越南战争；北越战事接近尾声时，中国和美国在对前苏联的冷战中，再次成为合作伙伴。我们必须记住，在第二次世界大战和冷战时期，中国是美国的盟友。苏联崩溃后，曾经有一段约20年的时间，中美两国的关系相当温暖和亲切。这主要是因为，美国将其注意力集中於伊拉克、伊朗、以及在阿富汗的恐怖活动，也因为中国仍然是一个非常贫穷落后的国家。
但是这种情况已经改变，因为中国在过去20年有过前所未有的巨大增长。美国的保守派和决策者感到震惊，最近公布的结果是在外交和防务政策作出改变，将重心转移（或安全防御”转向”）至亚洲。接著公布，美国增加与韩国、日本、菲律宾、澳大利亚等国在太平洋的军事演习。美国还宣布，转向亚洲的战略目标，是维持该地区的稳定。转向亚洲的“转向”这个词是模糊的，但是大家都很清楚，该政策是为了包围和遏制中国。
但是，美国的太平洋行动与其宣布的短期和长期战略目标，背道而驰。事实上，这个新政策立竿见影的效果，是增加中国及其邻国在中国东海和中国南海海域的紧张关系。这些紧张的局势，使得该地区加剧地更不稳定，只要看看中国和日本在钓鱼群岛上的矛盾就知道了；双方军事活动增加（喷气战斗机和巡逻舰混杂於这些岛屿附近），极易引发武装对峙，进而可能拖累两个国家（加上美国）交战。这样如何能有助於实现美国公开宣布的，在该地区保持稳定的目标？
美国遏制中国的政策，其运行，也违背维持该地区长期稳定的目标。中美关系不仅对亚洲，对世界来说，也是最重要的。如果美国和中国的关系可以变得更友好，亚洲和世界的稳定肯定会改善，更何况这对两个国家的经济有利。此外，如果美国想要中国更民主和更亲西方，最有效的实现方式，是通过建设一个大多数人口是中产阶级的社会。遏制中国只会延迟取得一个中产阶级社会的进展，更何况，它可能会适得其反，有推动中国逆向而行的可能性。这种长期接触中国的看法，可能是过去40年里，美国对中国政策最重要的驱动力。在这个节骨眼时，美国没有任何改变这种政策的理由或辯護。应该放弃遏制政策，如果不提升接触政策，也应该继续下去。
大部分的中国人，不以看日本的同样方式，看待美国。美国从来没有军事侵略中国（义和团时代除外）。过去的20至30年间，中国和美国的温暖关系，已经改变了许多中国人从毛泽东时代，视美国为世界最大帝国主义的看法。美国应该继续其接触政策，并推动中国和广大的中国人民走向一个更友好的美国。作为一位美籍华人，我当然希望看到美国和中国的关系改善。这项政策肯定适合一个更加稳定与和平世界的长期目标，因为，中美关系，将是21世纪最重要的关系。
查蓉生
2013年5月
於伊利诺州达里恩市
http://www.chinausfriendship.com/chinese/article1.asp?mn=259
A Tale of Three Nations
By Yung-Sheng Cha
July 1, 2013
Recent disputes between China and Japan on the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea received great attention both in Asia and the United States of America. They have the potential of evolving into military conflict in the region, which no one would like to see. Although the conflicts are between China and Japan, the U. S. is involved because it is the sole superpower in the world and because it has some kind of defense treaty with Japan. Each country has its own national interest and as usual, these interests do not coincide. It is interesting that the countries involved are the three largest economies in the world. Following are some of my personal views on this issue.
China has always considered the Diaoyu Islands to be part of its territory. It has voiced objections ever since the early seventies when the U. S. gave the administrative authority of these islands to the Japanese. After the Second World War, Japan was supposed to give back all the territories that it occupied (by treaty or by force) before and during the war. Neither the U. S. nor Japan has sovereignty over these islands. The U. S. and western news often explicitly imply that the cause of these disputes is the result of fast growing military and economic power of China which is trying to flex its muscle. This could not be farther from the truth. The real reason for the recent conflicts is the fact that the Japanese government bought three of the disputed islands and nationalized them. Before the government of Japan bought these islands, it was agreed between China and Japan to shelve these disputes so that the two countries could improve their relations and move on to economic development which would benefit both countries. China's policy on this issue was consistent until the Japanese government broke the status quo.
Historically, China has always been an inward-looking country. It is even more so today (because the domestic challenges are huge) except when its sovereignty and territorial integrity are involved. The majority of Chinese are extremely sensitive and emotional about their country's sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is because China suffered many setbacks over the last 150 years and lost sovereignty and territories to many foreign imperialist powers. Almost all the western powers grabbed a piece of China in the early part of the 20th century. The worst imperialist is Japan which invaded and brutally occupied a great portion of China before and during World War II. The animosity of Chinese towards the Japanese will last for a long time (generations). China will never abandon its sovereignty over these disputed islands until it is resolved to its satisfaction. On the other hand, the attitude and sentiment of the Chinese towards the Americans are quite different from those towards the Japanese as we shall see in the following discussions.
Why did the Japanese government break the status quo and nationalize these islands? Many people think it is because the U. S. announced about a year ago that it is shifting its security "pivot" towards Asia. It is obvious that the U. S. is trying to contain China, although the U. S. will not openly admit it. The U. S. is trying to form a big circle (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, Vietnam, India, and Afghanistan) in an attempt to isolate China. With the support of the U. S. to control China, the Japanese government apparently thought that it is a good opportunity now to grab the disputed islands. However, there is another (more important) reason why the Japanese government felt that it had to make the move. The Japanese economy was stagnant for the last 15 years (almost zero growth) while China had been growing at about 10% a year for the same period of time. China's GDP has already surpassed that of Japan. Ten years from now, China's economy could be twice as large as Japan’s. Time is definitely on China's side. The policy makers in Japan are keenly aware of this factual trend of declining Japan and rising China. If Japan does not move now, it will be much more difficult to deal with China in the future.
When a country is not doing well economically, nationalism could easily rise. This is what is happening in Japan. The majority of Japanese would like to see the build-up of Japanese military and return to the glorious time before the Second World War. However, the Japanese Constitution (which was drawn up by General Douglas MacArthur) will not allow that to happen. You would think that the Constitution can be changed or amended if the majority of the people are in favor of it. Unfortunately for Japan, it is not going to happen. Even though Japan is the third largest economy in the world with a population of 127 million, it cannot change its constitution without the approval of the U. S. (both the U. S. and Japanese governments will not admit this). For example, the majority of Japanese would like to develop long-range offensive weapons, such as aircraft carriers and nuclear bombs, so that Japan can be a military power again. They have the technology and capability of accomplishing that in a relatively short period of time. But the U. S. will not allow that to happen. Japanese aircraft carriers were the key weapons used in the sneak attack of Pearl Harbor which caused serious damage to the U. S. Navy in 1941. Atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese. It was the only time nuclear weapons were employed in the history of mankind. I do not think that the Japanese will ever forget it, neither will the U. S. It is amazing that a sovereign country as large as Japan cannot defend itself and still relies on the U. S. for its protection. But the U. S. protection is a double-edged sword. The U. S. still maintains large number of troops in Okinawa with advanced weapons. The troops are there for the protection of Japan. But there is another very important reason for the U. S. to station troops there. It is to control Japan so that it will not go back to militarism like it did before and during World War II. Japan was occupied by the U. S. after World War II. Over the past 60 years, the U. S. has gradually relinquished its control. But so far the U. S. has not completely given up its occupational status.
The Japanese government would not have moved to nationalize these islands without the consent or approval of the U. S. According to a recent article written by Steven Harner in Forbes magazine (The U. S. Could Have Prevented the Senkaku/Diaoyu Crisis. Why did it not? February 14, 2013), Japan solicited the position of U. S. on nationalization of these islands and was told that the U. S. "did not oppose." If the U. S. had opposed the nationalization of these islands by the Japanese government, the current tension between China and Japan would not have risen and the probability of a military conflict would be extremely small. Harner blamed it on the then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. But I think this decision fits the new (ill-conceived) U. S. policy of containing China.
In addition to the territorial disputes in the south with China, Japan also has territorial disputes with South Korea in the west and with Russia in the north. Unlike the disputes with China, Japan did not choose to do anything now on these disputes with South Korea and Russia because there is no urgency to do so. First, the U. S. is not trying to contain South Korea (it is also a U. S. ally) and Russia (it would be a big mistake for the U. S. to go back to the policies of the cold war era). More importantly, the economies of South Korea and Russia are not only much smaller than that of Japan but also not growing as fast as China. Japan does not have to fear that these two countries will overtake Japan in the foreseeable future.
It is extremely unfortunate that Japan became an imperialist nation and brutally occupied and invaded many Asian countries before and during World War II. Japan was a victim of the western imperialism before the 20th century. But when Japan acquired the technologies of the industrial countries of the west, it turned around and brutalized other Asian countries even worse than the western imperialist countries.
The U. S., being the sole superpower in the world, is involved in almost every dispute or conflict in the world. It is no exception that the U. S. is deeply involved in the disputes between China and Japan. First, Japan is a so-called ally. But more importantly, controlling the rise of China is a strategic goal of U. S. policy (although it will not openly admit that). It is to the benefit of the U. S. that China and Japan became more hostile towards each other. Similarly in the South China Sea, the U. S. would like to see countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, etc. to stand up to China in their disputes over some small islands. This all fits into the grand strategy of containing and controlling China although it is a very short-sighted policy.
I think the U. S. policy of containing China needs to be reexamined carefully. What are we gaining in containing China? Does it make sense to treat China as an adversary, instead of as a friend or partner? The love and hate relation between China and the U. S. has been going on since the early forties of the 20th century. U. S. and China were allies during World War II in fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. Then came the Korean War and the war in Vietnam. Near the end of the war against North Vietnam, China and U. S. became partners again in the cold war against the former Soviet Union. We must remember that China was an ally both in World War II and the cold war. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a period of about 20 years when the relation between the two countries was fairly warm and cordial. This was mainly because the U. S. was focusing its attention on Iraq, Iran, and terrorists' activities in Afghanistan. It was also because China was still a very poor and backward country.
But that situation has changed because of the tremendous and unprecedented growth in China over the last 20 years. The conservatives and the policy makers in the U. S. were alarmed and the results were the recent announcement of change in foreign and defense policy by shifting the weight (or security "pivoting") towards Asia. Followed by the announcement, the U. S. has increased its military exercises with South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, etc. in the Pacific. The U. S. also announced that the strategic goal of pivoting towards Asia is to maintain stability in that region. The word "pivoting" towards Asia is vague, but it is clear to everyone that the policy was meant to encircle and contain China.
But the actions of the U. S. in the Pacific are moving in the opposite direction of its announced short and long term strategic goals. The fact is that the immediate effect of this new policy is to increase tensions between China and its neighbors in the East and South China Seas. These increased tensions made the region more unstable than it was. Just look at the conflicts between China and Japan on the Diaoyu Islands. The increased military activities (scrambled jet fighters and patrol ships near these islands) from both sides could easily trigger an armed confrontation which could in turn drag both countries (plus the U. S.) into war. How does that help to achieve the openly announced objective of maintaining stability in the region by the U. S.?
The U. S. policy of containing China is also running contrary to its objective of maintaining stability in the region over the long term. The relation between China and the U. S. are the most important not only for Asia but also for the world. The stability of Asia and the world will certainly improve if the relation between the U. S. and China can become friendlier, not to mention the economic benefits for both countries. Furthermore, if the U. S. wants China to be more democratic and more pro-western, the most effective way of achieving that is through the building of a society in which the majority of its population is middle-class. Containing China will only delay the progress towards a middle-class society, not to mention the possibility that it may backfire and move China in the opposite direction. This long term view of engaging China has probably been the most important driver of the U. S. policy towards China over the last 40 years. There is no reason or justification for the U. S. to change this policy at this juncture. The containment policy should be abandoned and the engagement policy should be continued, if not enhanced.
The majority of Chinese do not look at the U. S. in the same way as they look at Japan. The U. S. never invaded China militarily (except during the Boxer rebellion). The warm relation between China and the U. S. during the last 20-30 years has changed the views of many Chinese from that of the Mao era which considered the U. S. as the largest imperialist of the world. The U. S. should continue its policy of engagement and move China and the majority of Chinese towards a friendlier U. S. As a Chinese American, I certainly would like to see an improved relationship between the U. S. and China. This policy certainly fits the long term goal of a more stable and peaceful world because the relation between China and the U. S. is and will be the most important in the 21st century.
Y. S. Cha
May, 2013
Darien, Illinois
http://www.chinausfriendship.com/article1.asp?mn=364
.
作者 查蓉生 译者 王胜炜 2013年7月1日
最近中国和日本在中国东海的钓鱼群岛纠纷，获得了亚洲和美国的极大关注，它有可能演变成这个地区没有人愿意看到的军事冲突。虽然这是中日之间的冲突，美国还是有所介入，因为它是世界上唯一的超级大国，与日本具有某种防卫条约。和往常一样，每个国家都有自己的国家利益，而这些利益并不一致。有趣的是，所涉及的国家是世界上三个最大的经济体。以下是我个人对这个问题的一些看法。
中国一贯认为钓鱼群岛是其领土的一部分。自从七十年代初美国将这些岛屿的行政权交予日本以来，中国就表示反对。第二次世界大战后，日本应该交还它战前和期间占有(以条约或以武力）的所有领土，无论是美国还是日本，对这些岛屿都不拥有主权。美国和西方的新闻报导经常明确地表示，这些纠纷的原因，是中国快速增长的军事和经济力量让它试图展示其肌肉的结果。没有比这更离谱的判断了。最近冲突的真正原因，是日本政府购买了有争议岛屿的其中三个，而将其国有化。在日本政府购买这些岛屿之前，中国和日本同意搁置这些争议，俾使两国能改善关系，有利于经济发展，使两国受益。中国在这个问题上的政策是一致的，直到日本政府打破现状。
从历史上看，中国一直是一个内向型的国家。今天更是如此（因为国内的挑战是巨大的），除非涉及其主权和领土完整。大多数的中国人对自己国家的主权和领土完整极其敏感和情绪化，这是因为中国在过去的150年，遭受了许多挫折，失去主权和领土於许多外国帝国主义的列强。在20世纪的早期，几乎所有的列强都瓜分了中国的一块。最糟糕的是第二次世界大战之前和期间，日本帝国主义侵略和残酷占领了中国很大的一部分。中国人对日本的仇恨，将会持续很长一段时间（几代）。直到获得满意的解决，中国绝不会心慈手软地放弃这些争议岛屿的主权。另一方面，中国人对美国人的态度和情绪与对日本人有很大的不同，我们将在下面的讨论中得到了解。
为什么日本政府打破现状和国有化这些岛屿？很多人认为，这是因为美国大约在一年前宣布，将其安全防御”转移”至亚洲。很明显，美国正试图遏制中国，虽然美国不会公开承认这一点。美国正试图形成一个大的弧圈（韩国、日本、台湾、菲律宾、澳大利亚、越南、印度、阿富汗），企图孤立中国。跟随着美国控制中国的支持力度，日本政府显然认为，现在是一个很好的机会，来抢夺有争议的岛屿。然而，还有另一个更重要的原因可以解释，为什么日本政府认为它不得不做出这样的举动。过去15年里，日本经济停滞不前（接近零增长），中国在相同的时间内，每年则有10％左右的增长，中国的国内生产总值已经超过日本。从现在起十年，中国的经济可能是日本的两倍大，时间肯定是在中国的一边。日本的决策者，敏锐地意识到这个日本下降和中国正在崛起的趋势。如果日本现在不采取行动，更难以在未来与中国打交道。
当一个国家经济上做得不够好的时候，民族主义很容易上升，这就是日本发生的状况。大多数日本人希望看到日本军事再次发展，并返回到第二次世界大战前的辉煌时期。不过，日本宪法（这是由道格拉斯•麦克阿瑟将军草拟的）不会允许这种情况发生。你可能会认为，如果大多数的人赞成，就可以改变或修订宪法。不幸的是，在日本，这是不会发生的。尽管日本是世界第三大经济体，人口1.27亿，未经美国的批准（美国和日本政府不会承认这一点），日本不能改变其宪法。例如，大多数日本人想发展远程进攻性武器，如航空母舰和核炸弹，从而使日本能再次成为军事强国，他们有技术，有能力，在一个相对较短的时间内实现这个目的，但美国不会允许这种情况发生。日本的航空母舰，是1941年偷袭珍珠港，造成严重损害美国海军所使用的关键武器。落在广岛和长崎的原子弹，杀害了几十万日本人，这是人类历史上，唯一一次使用核武器。我不认为，日本人从来会忘记这件事，美国人也不会。令人吃惊的是，像日本这样大的主权国家不能保卫自己，仍然依赖于美国的保护。但是，美国的保护是一把双刃剑。美国仍然在冲绳保持大量拥有先进武器的兵力，部队除了在那里保护日本，还有另外一个很重要的原因，美国的驻军在控制日本，使它不会回到第二次世界大战之前和期间的军国主义。二战结束后，日本被美国占领，过去的60年里，美国已经逐步放松其控制，但到目前为止，美国还没有完全放弃其占领的地位。
日本政府不会在没有美国同意或批准的情况下，将这些岛屿国有化。根据2013年2月14日何思文(StevenHarner)在《福布斯》杂志上写的一篇文章（”美国原本可以防止尖阁列岛/钓鱼岛危机，为什麽不？”），日本曾经对这些岛屿的国有化征求过美国的立场，且被告知，美国“不反对”。如果美国反对日本政府对这些岛屿国有化，中国和日本之间目前的紧张局势将不会上升，并且军事冲突的可能性将非常小。何思文指责当时的国务卿希拉里•克林顿，但我认为这个决定符合美国遏制中国的新（構想拙劣的）政策。
除了在南方与中国的领土争端，日本也与韩国在西部和俄罗斯在北部有领土争端。与中国争端不同的是，日本没有选择现在对后者做任何事情，因为这些与韩国和俄罗斯的争议，没有这样做的紧迫性。首先，美国并不试图遏制韩国（它也是美国的一个盟友）和俄罗斯（美国回到冷战时代的政策，将是一个很大的错误）。更重要的是，韩国和俄罗斯的经济不仅比日本小得多，也没有像中国一样的快速成长，日本不必担心这两个国家在可预见的将来，超过日本。
第二次世界大战之前和期间，日本非常不幸地成为帝国主义国家，并且残酷占领和侵略许多亚洲国家。在20世纪之前，日本是西方帝国主义的受害者，但是，当日本取得西方工业国家的技术后，便转身摧残亚洲其他国家，其作为更甚於西方帝国主义国家。
世界上唯一的超级大国美国，几乎参与每一个在世界上的争端或冲突，美国也不例外地深深卷入中国和日本之间的纠纷。首先，日本是一个所谓的盟友，但更重要的是，控制中国的崛起，是美国政策的一个战略目标（虽然它不会公开承认）。中国和日本成为更敌视对方，符合美国的利益。同样地，在中国南海，美国希望看到越南、菲律宾等国家，在与中国某些小岛屿的争端中站起来。这一切都符合遏制和控制中国的大战略，虽然，这是一个非常短视的政策。
我认为美国遏制中国的政策，需要认真地重新进行审视。遏制中国能获得什么？把中国视为对手，比视为朋友或合作伙伴更有意义吗？中美之间的爱恨关系，自20世纪四十年代初期以来，一直持续。二战期间，美国和中国为盟国，共同在太平洋抗击日寇；随后而来的有朝鲜战争和越南战争；北越战事接近尾声时，中国和美国在对前苏联的冷战中，再次成为合作伙伴。我们必须记住，在第二次世界大战和冷战时期，中国是美国的盟友。苏联崩溃后，曾经有一段约20年的时间，中美两国的关系相当温暖和亲切。这主要是因为，美国将其注意力集中於伊拉克、伊朗、以及在阿富汗的恐怖活动，也因为中国仍然是一个非常贫穷落后的国家。
但是这种情况已经改变，因为中国在过去20年有过前所未有的巨大增长。美国的保守派和决策者感到震惊，最近公布的结果是在外交和防务政策作出改变，将重心转移（或安全防御”转向”）至亚洲。接著公布，美国增加与韩国、日本、菲律宾、澳大利亚等国在太平洋的军事演习。美国还宣布，转向亚洲的战略目标，是维持该地区的稳定。转向亚洲的“转向”这个词是模糊的，但是大家都很清楚，该政策是为了包围和遏制中国。
但是，美国的太平洋行动与其宣布的短期和长期战略目标，背道而驰。事实上，这个新政策立竿见影的效果，是增加中国及其邻国在中国东海和中国南海海域的紧张关系。这些紧张的局势，使得该地区加剧地更不稳定，只要看看中国和日本在钓鱼群岛上的矛盾就知道了；双方军事活动增加（喷气战斗机和巡逻舰混杂於这些岛屿附近），极易引发武装对峙，进而可能拖累两个国家（加上美国）交战。这样如何能有助於实现美国公开宣布的，在该地区保持稳定的目标？
美国遏制中国的政策，其运行，也违背维持该地区长期稳定的目标。中美关系不仅对亚洲，对世界来说，也是最重要的。如果美国和中国的关系可以变得更友好，亚洲和世界的稳定肯定会改善，更何况这对两个国家的经济有利。此外，如果美国想要中国更民主和更亲西方，最有效的实现方式，是通过建设一个大多数人口是中产阶级的社会。遏制中国只会延迟取得一个中产阶级社会的进展，更何况，它可能会适得其反，有推动中国逆向而行的可能性。这种长期接触中国的看法，可能是过去40年里，美国对中国政策最重要的驱动力。在这个节骨眼时，美国没有任何改变这种政策的理由或辯護。应该放弃遏制政策，如果不提升接触政策，也应该继续下去。
大部分的中国人，不以看日本的同样方式，看待美国。美国从来没有军事侵略中国（义和团时代除外）。过去的20至30年间，中国和美国的温暖关系，已经改变了许多中国人从毛泽东时代，视美国为世界最大帝国主义的看法。美国应该继续其接触政策，并推动中国和广大的中国人民走向一个更友好的美国。作为一位美籍华人，我当然希望看到美国和中国的关系改善。这项政策肯定适合一个更加稳定与和平世界的长期目标，因为，中美关系，将是21世纪最重要的关系。
查蓉生
2013年5月
於伊利诺州达里恩市
http://www.chinausfriendship.com/chinese/article1.asp?mn=259
A Tale of Three Nations
By Yung-Sheng Cha
July 1, 2013
Recent disputes between China and Japan on the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea received great attention both in Asia and the United States of America. They have the potential of evolving into military conflict in the region, which no one would like to see. Although the conflicts are between China and Japan, the U. S. is involved because it is the sole superpower in the world and because it has some kind of defense treaty with Japan. Each country has its own national interest and as usual, these interests do not coincide. It is interesting that the countries involved are the three largest economies in the world. Following are some of my personal views on this issue.
China has always considered the Diaoyu Islands to be part of its territory. It has voiced objections ever since the early seventies when the U. S. gave the administrative authority of these islands to the Japanese. After the Second World War, Japan was supposed to give back all the territories that it occupied (by treaty or by force) before and during the war. Neither the U. S. nor Japan has sovereignty over these islands. The U. S. and western news often explicitly imply that the cause of these disputes is the result of fast growing military and economic power of China which is trying to flex its muscle. This could not be farther from the truth. The real reason for the recent conflicts is the fact that the Japanese government bought three of the disputed islands and nationalized them. Before the government of Japan bought these islands, it was agreed between China and Japan to shelve these disputes so that the two countries could improve their relations and move on to economic development which would benefit both countries. China's policy on this issue was consistent until the Japanese government broke the status quo.
Historically, China has always been an inward-looking country. It is even more so today (because the domestic challenges are huge) except when its sovereignty and territorial integrity are involved. The majority of Chinese are extremely sensitive and emotional about their country's sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is because China suffered many setbacks over the last 150 years and lost sovereignty and territories to many foreign imperialist powers. Almost all the western powers grabbed a piece of China in the early part of the 20th century. The worst imperialist is Japan which invaded and brutally occupied a great portion of China before and during World War II. The animosity of Chinese towards the Japanese will last for a long time (generations). China will never abandon its sovereignty over these disputed islands until it is resolved to its satisfaction. On the other hand, the attitude and sentiment of the Chinese towards the Americans are quite different from those towards the Japanese as we shall see in the following discussions.
Why did the Japanese government break the status quo and nationalize these islands? Many people think it is because the U. S. announced about a year ago that it is shifting its security "pivot" towards Asia. It is obvious that the U. S. is trying to contain China, although the U. S. will not openly admit it. The U. S. is trying to form a big circle (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, Vietnam, India, and Afghanistan) in an attempt to isolate China. With the support of the U. S. to control China, the Japanese government apparently thought that it is a good opportunity now to grab the disputed islands. However, there is another (more important) reason why the Japanese government felt that it had to make the move. The Japanese economy was stagnant for the last 15 years (almost zero growth) while China had been growing at about 10% a year for the same period of time. China's GDP has already surpassed that of Japan. Ten years from now, China's economy could be twice as large as Japan’s. Time is definitely on China's side. The policy makers in Japan are keenly aware of this factual trend of declining Japan and rising China. If Japan does not move now, it will be much more difficult to deal with China in the future.
When a country is not doing well economically, nationalism could easily rise. This is what is happening in Japan. The majority of Japanese would like to see the build-up of Japanese military and return to the glorious time before the Second World War. However, the Japanese Constitution (which was drawn up by General Douglas MacArthur) will not allow that to happen. You would think that the Constitution can be changed or amended if the majority of the people are in favor of it. Unfortunately for Japan, it is not going to happen. Even though Japan is the third largest economy in the world with a population of 127 million, it cannot change its constitution without the approval of the U. S. (both the U. S. and Japanese governments will not admit this). For example, the majority of Japanese would like to develop long-range offensive weapons, such as aircraft carriers and nuclear bombs, so that Japan can be a military power again. They have the technology and capability of accomplishing that in a relatively short period of time. But the U. S. will not allow that to happen. Japanese aircraft carriers were the key weapons used in the sneak attack of Pearl Harbor which caused serious damage to the U. S. Navy in 1941. Atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese. It was the only time nuclear weapons were employed in the history of mankind. I do not think that the Japanese will ever forget it, neither will the U. S. It is amazing that a sovereign country as large as Japan cannot defend itself and still relies on the U. S. for its protection. But the U. S. protection is a double-edged sword. The U. S. still maintains large number of troops in Okinawa with advanced weapons. The troops are there for the protection of Japan. But there is another very important reason for the U. S. to station troops there. It is to control Japan so that it will not go back to militarism like it did before and during World War II. Japan was occupied by the U. S. after World War II. Over the past 60 years, the U. S. has gradually relinquished its control. But so far the U. S. has not completely given up its occupational status.
The Japanese government would not have moved to nationalize these islands without the consent or approval of the U. S. According to a recent article written by Steven Harner in Forbes magazine (The U. S. Could Have Prevented the Senkaku/Diaoyu Crisis. Why did it not? February 14, 2013), Japan solicited the position of U. S. on nationalization of these islands and was told that the U. S. "did not oppose." If the U. S. had opposed the nationalization of these islands by the Japanese government, the current tension between China and Japan would not have risen and the probability of a military conflict would be extremely small. Harner blamed it on the then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. But I think this decision fits the new (ill-conceived) U. S. policy of containing China.
In addition to the territorial disputes in the south with China, Japan also has territorial disputes with South Korea in the west and with Russia in the north. Unlike the disputes with China, Japan did not choose to do anything now on these disputes with South Korea and Russia because there is no urgency to do so. First, the U. S. is not trying to contain South Korea (it is also a U. S. ally) and Russia (it would be a big mistake for the U. S. to go back to the policies of the cold war era). More importantly, the economies of South Korea and Russia are not only much smaller than that of Japan but also not growing as fast as China. Japan does not have to fear that these two countries will overtake Japan in the foreseeable future.
It is extremely unfortunate that Japan became an imperialist nation and brutally occupied and invaded many Asian countries before and during World War II. Japan was a victim of the western imperialism before the 20th century. But when Japan acquired the technologies of the industrial countries of the west, it turned around and brutalized other Asian countries even worse than the western imperialist countries.
The U. S., being the sole superpower in the world, is involved in almost every dispute or conflict in the world. It is no exception that the U. S. is deeply involved in the disputes between China and Japan. First, Japan is a so-called ally. But more importantly, controlling the rise of China is a strategic goal of U. S. policy (although it will not openly admit that). It is to the benefit of the U. S. that China and Japan became more hostile towards each other. Similarly in the South China Sea, the U. S. would like to see countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, etc. to stand up to China in their disputes over some small islands. This all fits into the grand strategy of containing and controlling China although it is a very short-sighted policy.
I think the U. S. policy of containing China needs to be reexamined carefully. What are we gaining in containing China? Does it make sense to treat China as an adversary, instead of as a friend or partner? The love and hate relation between China and the U. S. has been going on since the early forties of the 20th century. U. S. and China were allies during World War II in fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. Then came the Korean War and the war in Vietnam. Near the end of the war against North Vietnam, China and U. S. became partners again in the cold war against the former Soviet Union. We must remember that China was an ally both in World War II and the cold war. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a period of about 20 years when the relation between the two countries was fairly warm and cordial. This was mainly because the U. S. was focusing its attention on Iraq, Iran, and terrorists' activities in Afghanistan. It was also because China was still a very poor and backward country.
But that situation has changed because of the tremendous and unprecedented growth in China over the last 20 years. The conservatives and the policy makers in the U. S. were alarmed and the results were the recent announcement of change in foreign and defense policy by shifting the weight (or security "pivoting") towards Asia. Followed by the announcement, the U. S. has increased its military exercises with South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, etc. in the Pacific. The U. S. also announced that the strategic goal of pivoting towards Asia is to maintain stability in that region. The word "pivoting" towards Asia is vague, but it is clear to everyone that the policy was meant to encircle and contain China.
But the actions of the U. S. in the Pacific are moving in the opposite direction of its announced short and long term strategic goals. The fact is that the immediate effect of this new policy is to increase tensions between China and its neighbors in the East and South China Seas. These increased tensions made the region more unstable than it was. Just look at the conflicts between China and Japan on the Diaoyu Islands. The increased military activities (scrambled jet fighters and patrol ships near these islands) from both sides could easily trigger an armed confrontation which could in turn drag both countries (plus the U. S.) into war. How does that help to achieve the openly announced objective of maintaining stability in the region by the U. S.?
The U. S. policy of containing China is also running contrary to its objective of maintaining stability in the region over the long term. The relation between China and the U. S. are the most important not only for Asia but also for the world. The stability of Asia and the world will certainly improve if the relation between the U. S. and China can become friendlier, not to mention the economic benefits for both countries. Furthermore, if the U. S. wants China to be more democratic and more pro-western, the most effective way of achieving that is through the building of a society in which the majority of its population is middle-class. Containing China will only delay the progress towards a middle-class society, not to mention the possibility that it may backfire and move China in the opposite direction. This long term view of engaging China has probably been the most important driver of the U. S. policy towards China over the last 40 years. There is no reason or justification for the U. S. to change this policy at this juncture. The containment policy should be abandoned and the engagement policy should be continued, if not enhanced.
The majority of Chinese do not look at the U. S. in the same way as they look at Japan. The U. S. never invaded China militarily (except during the Boxer rebellion). The warm relation between China and the U. S. during the last 20-30 years has changed the views of many Chinese from that of the Mao era which considered the U. S. as the largest imperialist of the world. The U. S. should continue its policy of engagement and move China and the majority of Chinese towards a friendlier U. S. As a Chinese American, I certainly would like to see an improved relationship between the U. S. and China. This policy certainly fits the long term goal of a more stable and peaceful world because the relation between China and the U. S. is and will be the most important in the 21st century.
Y. S. Cha
May, 2013
Darien, Illinois
http://www.chinausfriendship.com/article1.asp?mn=364
.
中美友誼交流協会: 三国博弈
作者 查蓉生 译者 王胜炜 2013年7月1日
最近中国和日本在中国东海的钓鱼群岛纠纷，获得了亚洲和美国的极大关注，它有可能演变成这个地区没有人愿意看到的军事冲突。虽然这是中日之间的冲突，美国还是有所介入，因为它是世界上唯一的超级大国，与日本具有某种防卫条约。和往常一样，每个国家都有自己的国家利益，而这些利益并不一致。有趣的是，所涉及的国家是世界上三个最大的经济体。以下是我个人对这个问题的一些看法。
中国一贯认为钓鱼群岛是其领土的一部分。自从七十年代初美国将这些岛屿的行政权交予日本以来，中国就表示反对。第二次世界大战后，日本应该交还它战前和期间占有(以条约或以武力）的所有领土，无论是美国还是日本，对这些岛屿都不拥有主权。美国和西方的新闻报导经常明确地表示，这些纠纷的原因，是中国快速增长的军事和经济力量让它试图展示其肌肉的结果。没有比这更离谱的判断了。最近冲突的真正原因，是日本政府购买了有争议岛屿的其中三个，而将其国有化。在日本政府购买这些岛屿之前，中国和日本同意搁置这些争议，俾使两国能改善关系，有利于经济发展，使两国受益。中国在这个问题上的政策是一致的，直到日本政府打破现状。
从历史上看，中国一直是一个内向型的国家。今天更是如此（因为国内的挑战是巨大的），除非涉及其主权和领土完整。大多数的中国人对自己国家的主权和领土完整极其敏感和情绪化，这是因为中国在过去的150年，遭受了许多挫折，失去主权和领土於许多外国帝国主义的列强。在20世纪的早期，几乎所有的列强都瓜分了中国的一块。最糟糕的是第二次世界大战之前和期间，日本帝国主义侵略和残酷占领了中国很大的一部分。中国人对日本的仇恨，将会持续很长一段时间（几代）。直到获得满意的解决，中国绝不会心慈手软地放弃这些争议岛屿的主权。另一方面，中国人对美国人的态度和情绪与对日本人有很大的不同，我们将在下面的讨论中得到了解。
为什么日本政府打破现状和国有化这些岛屿？很多人认为，这是因为美国大约在一年前宣布，将其安全防御”转移”至亚洲。很明显，美国正试图遏制中国，虽然美国不会公开承认这一点。美国正试图形成一个大的弧圈（韩国、日本、台湾、菲律宾、澳大利亚、越南、印度、阿富汗），企图孤立中国。跟随着美国控制中国的支持力度，日本政府显然认为，现在是一个很好的机会，来抢夺有争议的岛屿。然而，还有另一个更重要的原因可以解释，为什么日本政府认为它不得不做出这样的举动。过去15年里，日本经济停滞不前（接近零增长），中国在相同的时间内，每年则有10％左右的增长，中国的国内生产总值已经超过日本。从现在起十年，中国的经济可能是日本的两倍大，时间肯定是在中国的一边。日本的决策者，敏锐地意识到这个日本下降和中国正在崛起的趋势。如果日本现在不采取行动，更难以在未来与中国打交道。
当一个国家经济上做得不够好的时候，民族主义很容易上升，这就是日本发生的状况。大多数日本人希望看到日本军事再次发展，并返回到第二次世界大战前的辉煌时期。不过，日本宪法（这是由道格拉斯•麦克阿瑟将军草拟的）不会允许这种情况发生。你可能会认为，如果大多数的人赞成，就可以改变或修订宪法。不幸的是，在日本，这是不会发生的。尽管日本是世界第三大经济体，人口1.27亿，未经美国的批准（美国和日本政府不会承认这一点），日本不能改变其宪法。例如，大多数日本人想发展远程进攻性武器，如航空母舰和核炸弹，从而使日本能再次成为军事强国，他们有技术，有能力，在一个相对较短的时间内实现这个目的，但美国不会允许这种情况发生。日本的航空母舰，是1941年偷袭珍珠港，造成严重损害美国海军所使用的关键武器。落在广岛和长崎的原子弹，杀害了几十万日本人，这是人类历史上，唯一一次使用核武器。我不认为，日本人从来会忘记这件事，美国人也不会。令人吃惊的是，像日本这样大的主权国家不能保卫自己，仍然依赖于美国的保护。但是，美国的保护是一把双刃剑。美国仍然在冲绳保持大量拥有先进武器的兵力，部队除了在那里保护日本，还有另外一个很重要的原因，美国的驻军在控制日本，使它不会回到第二次世界大战之前和期间的军国主义。二战结束后，日本被美国占领，过去的60年里，美国已经逐步放松其控制，但到目前为止，美国还没有完全放弃其占领的地位。
日本政府不会在没有美国同意或批准的情况下，将这些岛屿国有化。根据2013年2月14日何思文(StevenHarner)在《福布斯》杂志上写的一篇文章（”美国原本可以防止尖阁列岛/钓鱼岛危机，为什麽不？”），日本曾经对这些岛屿的国有化征求过美国的立场，且被告知，美国“不反对”。如果美国反对日本政府对这些岛屿国有化，中国和日本之间目前的紧张局势将不会上升，并且军事冲突的可能性将非常小。何思文指责当时的国务卿希拉里•克林顿，但我认为这个决定符合美国遏制中国的新（構想拙劣的）政策。
除了在南方与中国的领土争端，日本也与韩国在西部和俄罗斯在北部有领土争端。与中国争端不同的是，日本没有选择现在对后者做任何事情，因为这些与韩国和俄罗斯的争议，没有这样做的紧迫性。首先，美国并不试图遏制韩国（它也是美国的一个盟友）和俄罗斯（美国回到冷战时代的政策，将是一个很大的错误）。更重要的是，韩国和俄罗斯的经济不仅比日本小得多，也没有像中国一样的快速成长，日本不必担心这两个国家在可预见的将来，超过日本。
第二次世界大战之前和期间，日本非常不幸地成为帝国主义国家，并且残酷占领和侵略许多亚洲国家。在20世纪之前，日本是西方帝国主义的受害者，但是，当日本取得西方工业国家的技术后，便转身摧残亚洲其他国家，其作为更甚於西方帝国主义国家。
世界上唯一的超级大国美国，几乎参与每一个在世界上的争端或冲突，美国也不例外地深深卷入中国和日本之间的纠纷。首先，日本是一个所谓的盟友，但更重要的是，控制中国的崛起，是美国政策的一个战略目标（虽然它不会公开承认）。中国和日本成为更敌视对方，符合美国的利益。同样地，在中国南海，美国希望看到越南、菲律宾等国家，在与中国某些小岛屿的争端中站起来。这一切都符合遏制和控制中国的大战略，虽然，这是一个非常短视的政策。
我认为美国遏制中国的政策，需要认真地重新进行审视。遏制中国能获得什么？把中国视为对手，比视为朋友或合作伙伴更有意义吗？中美之间的爱恨关系，自20世纪四十年代初期以来，一直持续。二战期间，美国和中国为盟国，共同在太平洋抗击日寇；随后而来的有朝鲜战争和越南战争；北越战事接近尾声时，中国和美国在对前苏联的冷战中，再次成为合作伙伴。我们必须记住，在第二次世界大战和冷战时期，中国是美国的盟友。苏联崩溃后，曾经有一段约20年的时间，中美两国的关系相当温暖和亲切。这主要是因为，美国将其注意力集中於伊拉克、伊朗、以及在阿富汗的恐怖活动，也因为中国仍然是一个非常贫穷落后的国家。
但是这种情况已经改变，因为中国在过去20年有过前所未有的巨大增长。美国的保守派和决策者感到震惊，最近公布的结果是在外交和防务政策作出改变，将重心转移（或安全防御”转向”）至亚洲。接著公布，美国增加与韩国、日本、菲律宾、澳大利亚等国在太平洋的军事演习。美国还宣布，转向亚洲的战略目标，是维持该地区的稳定。转向亚洲的“转向”这个词是模糊的，但是大家都很清楚，该政策是为了包围和遏制中国。
但是，美国的太平洋行动与其宣布的短期和长期战略目标，背道而驰。事实上，这个新政策立竿见影的效果，是增加中国及其邻国在中国东海和中国南海海域的紧张关系。这些紧张的局势，使得该地区加剧地更不稳定，只要看看中国和日本在钓鱼群岛上的矛盾就知道了；双方军事活动增加（喷气战斗机和巡逻舰混杂於这些岛屿附近），极易引发武装对峙，进而可能拖累两个国家（加上美国）交战。这样如何能有助於实现美国公开宣布的，在该地区保持稳定的目标？
美国遏制中国的政策，其运行，也违背维持该地区长期稳定的目标。中美关系不仅对亚洲，对世界来说，也是最重要的。如果美国和中国的关系可以变得更友好，亚洲和世界的稳定肯定会改善，更何况这对两个国家的经济有利。此外，如果美国想要中国更民主和更亲西方，最有效的实现方式，是通过建设一个大多数人口是中产阶级的社会。遏制中国只会延迟取得一个中产阶级社会的进展，更何况，它可能会适得其反，有推动中国逆向而行的可能性。这种长期接触中国的看法，可能是过去40年里，美国对中国政策最重要的驱动力。在这个节骨眼时，美国没有任何改变这种政策的理由或辯護。应该放弃遏制政策，如果不提升接触政策，也应该继续下去。
大部分的中国人，不以看日本的同样方式，看待美国。美国从来没有军事侵略中国（义和团时代除外）。过去的20至30年间，中国和美国的温暖关系，已经改变了许多中国人从毛泽东时代，视美国为世界最大帝国主义的看法。美国应该继续其接触政策，并推动中国和广大的中国人民走向一个更友好的美国。作为一位美籍华人，我当然希望看到美国和中国的关系改善。这项政策肯定适合一个更加稳定与和平世界的长期目标，因为，中美关系，将是21世纪最重要的关系。
查蓉生
2013年5月
於伊利诺州达里恩市
http://www.chinausfriendship.com/chinese/article1.asp?mn=259
A Tale of Three Nations
By Yung-Sheng Cha
July 1, 2013
Recent disputes between China and Japan on the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea received great attention both in Asia and the United States of America. They have the potential of evolving into military conflict in the region, which no one would like to see. Although the conflicts are between China and Japan, the U. S. is involved because it is the sole superpower in the world and because it has some kind of defense treaty with Japan. Each country has its own national interest and as usual, these interests do not coincide. It is interesting that the countries involved are the three largest economies in the world. Following are some of my personal views on this issue.
China has always considered the Diaoyu Islands to be part of its territory. It has voiced objections ever since the early seventies when the U. S. gave the administrative authority of these islands to the Japanese. After the Second World War, Japan was supposed to give back all the territories that it occupied (by treaty or by force) before and during the war. Neither the U. S. nor Japan has sovereignty over these islands. The U. S. and western news often explicitly imply that the cause of these disputes is the result of fast growing military and economic power of China which is trying to flex its muscle. This could not be farther from the truth. The real reason for the recent conflicts is the fact that the Japanese government bought three of the disputed islands and nationalized them. Before the government of Japan bought these islands, it was agreed between China and Japan to shelve these disputes so that the two countries could improve their relations and move on to economic development which would benefit both countries. China's policy on this issue was consistent until the Japanese government broke the status quo.
Historically, China has always been an inward-looking country. It is even more so today (because the domestic challenges are huge) except when its sovereignty and territorial integrity are involved. The majority of Chinese are extremely sensitive and emotional about their country's sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is because China suffered many setbacks over the last 150 years and lost sovereignty and territories to many foreign imperialist powers. Almost all the western powers grabbed a piece of China in the early part of the 20th century. The worst imperialist is Japan which invaded and brutally occupied a great portion of China before and during World War II. The animosity of Chinese towards the Japanese will last for a long time (generations). China will never abandon its sovereignty over these disputed islands until it is resolved to its satisfaction. On the other hand, the attitude and sentiment of the Chinese towards the Americans are quite different from those towards the Japanese as we shall see in the following discussions.
Why did the Japanese government break the status quo and nationalize these islands? Many people think it is because the U. S. announced about a year ago that it is shifting its security "pivot" towards Asia. It is obvious that the U. S. is trying to contain China, although the U. S. will not openly admit it. The U. S. is trying to form a big circle (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, Vietnam, India, and Afghanistan) in an attempt to isolate China. With the support of the U. S. to control China, the Japanese government apparently thought that it is a good opportunity now to grab the disputed islands. However, there is another (more important) reason why the Japanese government felt that it had to make the move. The Japanese economy was stagnant for the last 15 years (almost zero growth) while China had been growing at about 10% a year for the same period of time. China's GDP has already surpassed that of Japan. Ten years from now, China's economy could be twice as large as Japan’s. Time is definitely on China's side. The policy makers in Japan are keenly aware of this factual trend of declining Japan and rising China. If Japan does not move now, it will be much more difficult to deal with China in the future.
When a country is not doing well economically, nationalism could easily rise. This is what is happening in Japan. The majority of Japanese would like to see the build-up of Japanese military and return to the glorious time before the Second World War. However, the Japanese Constitution (which was drawn up by General Douglas MacArthur) will not allow that to happen. You would think that the Constitution can be changed or amended if the majority of the people are in favor of it. Unfortunately for Japan, it is not going to happen. Even though Japan is the third largest economy in the world with a population of 127 million, it cannot change its constitution without the approval of the U. S. (both the U. S. and Japanese governments will not admit this). For example, the majority of Japanese would like to develop long-range offensive weapons, such as aircraft carriers and nuclear bombs, so that Japan can be a military power again. They have the technology and capability of accomplishing that in a relatively short period of time. But the U. S. will not allow that to happen. Japanese aircraft carriers were the key weapons used in the sneak attack of Pearl Harbor which caused serious damage to the U. S. Navy in 1941. Atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese. It was the only time nuclear weapons were employed in the history of mankind. I do not think that the Japanese will ever forget it, neither will the U. S. It is amazing that a sovereign country as large as Japan cannot defend itself and still relies on the U. S. for its protection. But the U. S. protection is a double-edged sword. The U. S. still maintains large number of troops in Okinawa with advanced weapons. The troops are there for the protection of Japan. But there is another very important reason for the U. S. to station troops there. It is to control Japan so that it will not go back to militarism like it did before and during World War II. Japan was occupied by the U. S. after World War II. Over the past 60 years, the U. S. has gradually relinquished its control. But so far the U. S. has not completely given up its occupational status.
The Japanese government would not have moved to nationalize these islands without the consent or approval of the U. S. According to a recent article written by Steven Harner in Forbes magazine (The U. S. Could Have Prevented the Senkaku/Diaoyu Crisis. Why did it not? February 14, 2013), Japan solicited the position of U. S. on nationalization of these islands and was told that the U. S. "did not oppose." If the U. S. had opposed the nationalization of these islands by the Japanese government, the current tension between China and Japan would not have risen and the probability of a military conflict would be extremely small. Harner blamed it on the then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. But I think this decision fits the new (ill-conceived) U. S. policy of containing China.
In addition to the territorial disputes in the south with China, Japan also has territorial disputes with South Korea in the west and with Russia in the north. Unlike the disputes with China, Japan did not choose to do anything now on these disputes with South Korea and Russia because there is no urgency to do so. First, the U. S. is not trying to contain South Korea (it is also a U. S. ally) and Russia (it would be a big mistake for the U. S. to go back to the policies of the cold war era). More importantly, the economies of South Korea and Russia are not only much smaller than that of Japan but also not growing as fast as China. Japan does not have to fear that these two countries will overtake Japan in the foreseeable future.
It is extremely unfortunate that Japan became an imperialist nation and brutally occupied and invaded many Asian countries before and during World War II. Japan was a victim of the western imperialism before the 20th century. But when Japan acquired the technologies of the industrial countries of the west, it turned around and brutalized other Asian countries even worse than the western imperialist countries.
The U. S., being the sole superpower in the world, is involved in almost every dispute or conflict in the world. It is no exception that the U. S. is deeply involved in the disputes between China and Japan. First, Japan is a so-called ally. But more importantly, controlling the rise of China is a strategic goal of U. S. policy (although it will not openly admit that). It is to the benefit of the U. S. that China and Japan became more hostile towards each other. Similarly in the South China Sea, the U. S. would like to see countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, etc. to stand up to China in their disputes over some small islands. This all fits into the grand strategy of containing and controlling China although it is a very short-sighted policy.
I think the U. S. policy of containing China needs to be reexamined carefully. What are we gaining in containing China? Does it make sense to treat China as an adversary, instead of as a friend or partner? The love and hate relation between China and the U. S. has been going on since the early forties of the 20th century. U. S. and China were allies during World War II in fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. Then came the Korean War and the war in Vietnam. Near the end of the war against North Vietnam, China and U. S. became partners again in the cold war against the former Soviet Union. We must remember that China was an ally both in World War II and the cold war. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a period of about 20 years when the relation between the two countries was fairly warm and cordial. This was mainly because the U. S. was focusing its attention on Iraq, Iran, and terrorists' activities in Afghanistan. It was also because China was still a very poor and backward country.
But that situation has changed because of the tremendous and unprecedented growth in China over the last 20 years. The conservatives and the policy makers in the U. S. were alarmed and the results were the recent announcement of change in foreign and defense policy by shifting the weight (or security "pivoting") towards Asia. Followed by the announcement, the U. S. has increased its military exercises with South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, etc. in the Pacific. The U. S. also announced that the strategic goal of pivoting towards Asia is to maintain stability in that region. The word "pivoting" towards Asia is vague, but it is clear to everyone that the policy was meant to encircle and contain China.
But the actions of the U. S. in the Pacific are moving in the opposite direction of its announced short and long term strategic goals. The fact is that the immediate effect of this new policy is to increase tensions between China and its neighbors in the East and South China Seas. These increased tensions made the region more unstable than it was. Just look at the conflicts between China and Japan on the Diaoyu Islands. The increased military activities (scrambled jet fighters and patrol ships near these islands) from both sides could easily trigger an armed confrontation which could in turn drag both countries (plus the U. S.) into war. How does that help to achieve the openly announced objective of maintaining stability in the region by the U. S.?
The U. S. policy of containing China is also running contrary to its objective of maintaining stability in the region over the long term. The relation between China and the U. S. are the most important not only for Asia but also for the world. The stability of Asia and the world will certainly improve if the relation between the U. S. and China can become friendlier, not to mention the economic benefits for both countries. Furthermore, if the U. S. wants China to be more democratic and more pro-western, the most effective way of achieving that is through the building of a society in which the majority of its population is middle-class. Containing China will only delay the progress towards a middle-class society, not to mention the possibility that it may backfire and move China in the opposite direction. This long term view of engaging China has probably been the most important driver of the U. S. policy towards China over the last 40 years. There is no reason or justification for the U. S. to change this policy at this juncture. The containment policy should be abandoned and the engagement policy should be continued, if not enhanced.
The majority of Chinese do not look at the U. S. in the same way as they look at Japan. The U. S. never invaded China militarily (except during the Boxer rebellion). The warm relation between China and the U. S. during the last 20-30 years has changed the views of many Chinese from that of the Mao era which considered the U. S. as the largest imperialist of the world. The U. S. should continue its policy of engagement and move China and the majority of Chinese towards a friendlier U. S. As a Chinese American, I certainly would like to see an improved relationship between the U. S. and China. This policy certainly fits the long term goal of a more stable and peaceful world because the relation between China and the U. S. is and will be the most important in the 21st century.
Y. S. Cha
May, 2013
Darien, Illinois
http://www.chinausfriendship.com/article1.asp?mn=364
.