Font size: 
Actually, China and Japan got along fairly well for a thousand years, starting from China’s Qin Dynasty (221-206 BC). The Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD) is considered a golden time of harmony between them. There are famous stories of Chinese and Japanese Buddhist monks traveling between the two countries during this period.
On the other hand, since the late 19th century the two countries have fought two wars – the first over control of Korea, and the second during Japan’s invasion of China in World War II. Tensions relating to this history have remained between the people. Therefore, academics and politicians have long searched for a new way of thinking to overcome this dilemma and promote healthy, normal bilateral relations.
In China, this has become a sensitive and widely debated issue. The term “new thinking” first appeared in the popular vocabulary in 2000, and an article on new thinking toward Japan by Chinese scholar Wa Licheng in the Journal of Strategy and Management in 2002 stirred heated debate as to the meaning of the term among academics.
There is no clear definition of this Chinese term – which has only fueled the debate. There are several interpretations as to what direction this new thinking toward Japan should take, however.
One popular viewpoint is that historical issues should be brushed aside, that Japanese should be forgiven for the sins of their ancestors and the hatred between the two nations should be buried. Another popular idea calls for an understanding of the Japanese mentality and culture, and their political transformation after World War II, a time period in which the international has been greatly transformed, especially with the end of the Cold War.
Whichever view they take, promoters of “new thinking” have encountered strong opposition in academic and political circles, and even at the grassroots level. This was especially true at the beginning of the new millennium. At times, the new thinkers were even labeled as “traitors,” or at least pro-Japanese scholars.
Because of the recent long period of cold relations between China and Japan, during which no state visits took place between them for 10 years, the term “new thinking” nearly became a taboo, particularly when Sino-Japanese relations sunk to new lows in the economic and political fields.
However, things have shifted since Yasuo Fukuda became Japanese prime minister last year and Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Japan in May. The two countries are trying to narrow their gaps and misunderstandings and build a new future-oriented partnership.
China’s earthquake provided a chance for Japan to show its goodwill toward the Chinese people, and its human face. Japan sent both financial aid and a rescue team to the disaster area. There was a brief debate over whether Japan should send aid on military aircraft, but the Japanese side decided against this out of consideration for Chinese sensitivities.
The behavior of the Japanese rescue team really moved the Chinese people, particularly as its members showed their respect to each dead victim they pulled from the rubble, bowing their heads and treating the bodies with great care. Many Chinese praised their sincere attitude in online messages.
These interactions have actually generated a new round of debate over the term “new thinking” toward Japan.
Some people have recalled that this was not the first time Japan came to China’s aid. In fact, Japan contributed to China in the early 1970s and 1980s, and during the earthquake of 1989. The media have reported that at the grassroots level some people are suggesting that China should take a new attitude toward Japan’s role in Asia, particularly in terms of its desire for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.
Is this brand of new thinking rational? Some might call it merely sentimental, based on the unique circumstances following the earthquake. In reality we cannot conclude that Japanese mentality has changed as abruptly as many Chinese imagine. National character or mentality is cultivated over many long years, and is tied to history, geography, culture and political transformations.
Japanese mentality could not be altered because of one event such as China’s disastrous earthquake. Surely the Japanese were sympathetic to the victims, as they have experienced many earthquakes of their own. Still, their national character or mentality should be consistent, and cannot swing this way and that like a pendulum.
On the other hand, it is instructive to consider the different psychologies and mentalities on the two sides. Japan ascribes more value to life, and especially to the dead, regardless of what they did during their lives. Therefore, comparatively, they pay more respect to the dead. That may explain why the Japanese rescuers bowed their heads before the dead bodies in Sichuan province.
Chinese national character and mentality are shaped by Confucianism, which pays more attention to the present human life, therefore face, ritual and correct behavior are more emphasized. Therefore the Chinese people always encourage the living to be aware of saving face. Even the dead should be responsible for their living descendants, and if the deceased did something wrong in their lives, their descendants should at least be remorseful over their ancestors’ wrongdoing. The Chinese people always look in the mirror of history in considering their current lives.
These different mentalities lie behind the Chinese and Japanese characters, and partly explain their different attitudes toward history and the wrongdoing of their ancestors. This is why the Chinese insist that the Japanese should make a serious apology to China for the crimes committed by Japanese warriors, while the Japanese feel reluctant to do so. Some Japanese leaders, particularly former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, ignored Chinese requests and frequently paid visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, where Japanese warrior ancestors are enshrined, including 14 Class A war criminals who caused great suffering in China. The Chinese people considered this an act of insincerity on Japan’s part, and an insult to China.
States should learn to understand each other’s different characters and mentalities if they hope to develop long and stable relationships. To develop a healthy relationship, state leaders should not stress their own mentality and ignore the mentality of others; otherwise quarrels will not easily be resolved, and differences cannot be narrowed in a short time. In this regard, “new thinking” not only refers to an understanding of history, culture and political circumstances, but also means a flexible or adaptable mentality in tackling tough issues that are deeply rooted in history.
The term “new thinking” definitely will remain a topic of debate. There will always be debates over the management of Sino-Japanese relations. However, if we are to use the term in a true sense, “new thinking” should be applicable to both sides and include the ability to understand the mentality and grasp the character of the other side. Only in this way will the relationship advance.
--
(Dr. Zhang Quanyi is associate professor of political science at Zhejiang Wanli University. He has a doctorate degree in law from Shanghai International Studies University, and a master's degree from the School of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Birmingham in Britain. Dr. Zhang has published numerous articles on international relations and political psychology. His research interest revolves around generation of a world state. He can be contacted at qyzhangupi@gmail.com. ©Copyright Zhang Quanyi)
