Nationalism behind China-Japan row
Jaya PrakashPublished: May 3, 2005 3:52 AM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 10:21 AM
Regrettably, nations never seem to outgrow the feeling of nationalism.
From former Malaysian premier Dr Mahathir Mohammed's diatribe in 1996 on making the Malays a powerful race to latter-day instances of American unilateralism soon after US president George W Bush's victory in 2000 - nationalism has taken forms and hues differentiated only by what is perhaps the nuance and tone of rhetoric.
Because it is what causes one's blood to race, it all too often causes any logic (whatever there is left) in rhetoric to be tossed out. The colour and vitriol provided by such rabble-rousing only proves psychedelic, so to speak.
In time, nationalism takes on the form of physical expression, as when foreign legations are attacked. In 1979, Iranian radicals went to the extreme of storming and occupying the US embassy for 444 days.
Regrettably, nations never seem to outgrow the feeling of nationalism.
From former Malaysian premier Dr Mahathir Mohammed's diatribe in 1996 on making the Malays a powerful race to latter-day instances of American unilateralism soon after US president George W Bush's victory in 2000 - nationalism has taken forms and hues differentiated only by what is perhaps the nuance and tone of rhetoric.
Because it is what causes one's blood to race, it all too often causes any logic (whatever there is left) in rhetoric to be tossed out. The colour and vitriol provided by such rabble-rousing only proves psychedelic, so to speak.
In time, nationalism takes on the form of physical expression, as when foreign legations are attacked. In 1979, Iranian radicals went to the extreme of storming and occupying the US embassy for 444 days.
What we have seen over the last few weeks has lent credence to the notion that nationalistic feeling and tendencies were behind much of the frenzied outpourings of rancour between Japan and China.
But what is remarkable or indeed perplexing about the row between the two Asian powers is not that there was a quarrel about some new source of contention, but that it was over something that has already debated and argued about in the past.
Cause for fervour
There can be no denying that Beijing has over the years raised its international profile, which until a few years ago, was lionised by Japan on the behalf of Asia.
The fact that China holds a permanent seat in the United Nations makes it even worse for Tokyo because on record Japan is the largest contributor to the UN's purse strings and certainly economically more powerful - so powerful that it has disbursed to Beijing some US$34 billion over the years for its economy. Therefore, any talk of compensation only makes for nonsense.
Logically speaking, this should give Japan a permanent seat in the UN, but the irony is that she has not got one. At least, not yet.
For a nation so long used to internationalism, it must surely be cause for pride and nationalistic fervour.
When we recollect the unceremonious (known as 'glorious' in Japanese history books) events in Japanese history - the defeat of the Russians, the first Asian state to launch a sneak attack on America and the large-scale occupation of China - the Japanese naturally can't help feeling nationalistic.
Needless to say, this feeds on her national consciousness aided more or less by the homogeneity of the state, which when combined with its geographical insularity from the Asian continental land mass, only makes the fervour more potent.
And so when a challenger comes along, especially one which has been treated with contempt and condescension over the years, it naturally causes resentment that opens old wounds and rekindles old hatreds.
Collective insecurity
What is almost inevitable as a result of the on-going sabre-rattling and bombast, is the sense of losing one's rightly deserved sense of pride. When that sets it, it then creates some kind of an insecurity which - when again added to the national consciousness of a citizenry - becomes just as potent.
On the obverse of the imbroglio is a rapidly modernising China, attaining high levels of income unseen in its history, and ready to match her newfound confidence with the audacity to pronounce an anti-secession bill directed at Taiwan.
How much of confidence a nation oozes is as much about the tide of nationalism sweeping the country.
That Chinese premier Wen Jiabao seemed all too ready to endorse India for UN membership during his trip to New Delhi, tells much about how to contain a nation's collective sense of insecurity as how to manage the pride that brings about this in the first place.
By seeking to endorse Delhi - a nation that it has gone to war with - Beijing plans to pre-empt its encirclement triggered no less by the recently concluded Japan-US security alliance treaty.
Apart from economic imperatives, the trip also meant to wean India away from the US and build international consensus for India's proposed UN seat to gain ground.
All this was done ostensibly from the insecurity of letting Japan gain ground in Asia and dominating what now promises to be a clash between two ancient giants bent on having their way and their brand of history.
And if history were to record this moment, it would boil down to one phrase: nationalism will need to exist side by side with internationalism.
Along with globalisation, it will define a nation's policies and also its historical interpretations. And if nations elsewhere do not like it, it is just too bad.
JAYA PRAKASH lectures in journalism in Singapore.
From former Malaysian premier Dr Mahathir Mohammed's diatribe in 1996 on making the Malays a powerful race to latter-day instances of American unilateralism soon after US president George W Bush's victory in 2000 - nationalism has taken forms and hues differentiated only by what is perhaps the nuance and tone of rhetoric.
Because it is what causes one's blood to race, it all too often causes any logic (whatever there is left) in rhetoric to be tossed out. The colour and vitriol provided by such rabble-rousing only proves psychedelic, so to speak.
In time, nationalism takes on the form of physical expression, as when foreign legations are attacked. In 1979, Iranian radicals went to the extreme of storming and occupying the US embassy for 444 days.
What we have seen over the last few weeks has lent credence to the notion that nationalistic feeling and tendencies were behind much of the frenzied outpourings of rancour between Japan and China.
But what is remarkable or indeed perplexing about the row between the two Asian powers is not that there was a quarrel about some new source of contention, but that it was over something that has already debated and argued about in the past.
Cause for fervour
There can be no denying that Beijing has over the years raised its international profile, which until a few years ago, was lionised by Japan on the behalf of Asia.
The fact that China holds a permanent seat in the United Nations makes it even worse for Tokyo because on record Japan is the largest contributor to the UN's purse strings and certainly economically more powerful - so powerful that it has disbursed to Beijing some US$34 billion over the years for its economy. Therefore, any talk of compensation only makes for nonsense.
Logically speaking, this should give Japan a permanent seat in the UN, but the irony is that she has not got one. At least, not yet.
For a nation so long used to internationalism, it must surely be cause for pride and nationalistic fervour.
When we recollect the unceremonious (known as 'glorious' in Japanese history books) events in Japanese history - the defeat of the Russians, the first Asian state to launch a sneak attack on America and the large-scale occupation of China - the Japanese naturally can't help feeling nationalistic.
Needless to say, this feeds on her national consciousness aided more or less by the homogeneity of the state, which when combined with its geographical insularity from the Asian continental land mass, only makes the fervour more potent.
And so when a challenger comes along, especially one which has been treated with contempt and condescension over the years, it naturally causes resentment that opens old wounds and rekindles old hatreds.
Collective insecurity
What is almost inevitable as a result of the on-going sabre-rattling and bombast, is the sense of losing one's rightly deserved sense of pride. When that sets it, it then creates some kind of an insecurity which - when again added to the national consciousness of a citizenry - becomes just as potent.
On the obverse of the imbroglio is a rapidly modernising China, attaining high levels of income unseen in its history, and ready to match her newfound confidence with the audacity to pronounce an anti-secession bill directed at Taiwan.
How much of confidence a nation oozes is as much about the tide of nationalism sweeping the country.
That Chinese premier Wen Jiabao seemed all too ready to endorse India for UN membership during his trip to New Delhi, tells much about how to contain a nation's collective sense of insecurity as how to manage the pride that brings about this in the first place.
By seeking to endorse Delhi - a nation that it has gone to war with - Beijing plans to pre-empt its encirclement triggered no less by the recently concluded Japan-US security alliance treaty.
Apart from economic imperatives, the trip also meant to wean India away from the US and build international consensus for India's proposed UN seat to gain ground.
All this was done ostensibly from the insecurity of letting Japan gain ground in Asia and dominating what now promises to be a clash between two ancient giants bent on having their way and their brand of history.
And if history were to record this moment, it would boil down to one phrase: nationalism will need to exist side by side with internationalism.
Along with globalisation, it will define a nation's policies and also its historical interpretations. And if nations elsewhere do not like it, it is just too bad.
JAYA PRAKASH lectures in journalism in Singapore.
View Comments0