Sabre-rattling leaders' double standards
Chinese officials, despite their eagerness to receive money from Japan in the form of soft loans, have constantly insisted on Japan's need to admit war crimes and to apologise for invading China.
This tactic is hardly suitable for getting the approval of the Japanese public who ultimately must foot the bill for investment in China.
It is especially counter-productive when modern China is itself heavily committed to military expansion similar to that of Japan's in the 1920s and 1930s.
If I were a Japanese citizen and observed the rapid growth of the Chinese Army and Navy with missiles and nuclear warheads, would I wish to invest in China?
For 50 years, the Japanese economy and political system have been linked to Western patterns and especially US needs. It makes little sense for Japan to be too supportive of an emerging militaristic China which regards the US as its major antagonist in Asia.
The sabre-rattling rhetoric from Beijing and the high position of its military men in official circles is an obvious threat to Japanese interests in Taiwan and the South Pacific.
We can readily agree with the Chinese people's desire for sincere repentance by Japan for the crimes of the past, but we must remember that military conquest was traditionally considered a glorious thing.
Among China's literary classics, we often see that Sun Tzu's The Art of War was admired and used by all Oriental warriors as their Bible. Japanese soldiers used it in their campaigns against China. Chinese armies, themselves, were guilty of terrible crimes against Chinese people.
The Ching dynasty even employed Western armies under a British general, Charles George Gordon, to suppress the Christian-inspired Taiping Rebellion.
So it is highly hypocritical of one military-dominated regime to accuse another of 'war crimes' when it itself has oppressed its own people.
We must also remember that Japan came under the power of military men who admired the weapons of the West and who forced their countrymen to pay enormous sums to buy Western battleships and other armaments.
Now the pattern is repeating itself in China which has spent tremendous amounts to acquire modern weapons like nuclear missiles, submarines and aircraft carriers, while neglecting to invest in its western provinces that now suffer from drought and backwardness.
The conclusion is obvious: we should not direct our opposition against foreign governments which were dominated by generals 50 years ago, but should oppose modern regimes which are controlled by modern-day generals seeking power, recognition and resources at the expense of their fellow countrymen.
J. GARNER
Kowloon
