US Should Remember the Consequences of Appeasing Japan
Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 19 July 2013
by Wu Guangquan (link to original)
(China) on 19 July 2013
by Wu Guangquan (link to original)
Translated from
by Nathan Hsu.
Edited by Phillip Shannon.
A U.S. think tank pointed out in a recent report that the rightward bent of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and other politicians has caused a significant amount of controversy. This presents an enormous barrier to peaceful cooperation within Northeast Asia. It is not yet too late for the U.S. to switch from condoning this to worrying about it. I think it would be extremely beneficial for Americans to look back upon World War II and recall the valuable lesson of how appeasement leads to war.
In the early 1930s, after Hitler rose to power, he began a frenzied military expansion in preparation for war. Under the pretext of taking so-called "living space," he brazenly fanned the flames of racial purity, making Germany the epicenter of the war. The U.K., France and the U.S. wished to avoid war with Hitler, adopting policies of appeasement. When German and Italian forces interfered in Spain, Britain and France adopted policies of noninterference and the U.S. declared its neutrality; when Germany annexed Austria, Britain and France said that the Anschluss was necessary; as Czechoslovakia was divided piecemeal, Britain and France signed the infamous Munich Agreement, selling out their ally. However, these policies of appeasement did not win them peace in return. On Sept. 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland, marking the beginning of World War II.
Japan's path to war was somewhat different than that of Germany and Italy. At the time, the strength of Japanese militarism was fast developing and, in the end, the Ministry of War seized power over the country. Japan was always dissatisfied with its share of the spoils from World War I and advocated for once again dividing the global pie. Meanwhile, the U.K., France and the U.S. sought to protect their existing interests through appeasement, most particularly the U.S. with its appeasement under the banner of "splendid isolation,” which then encouraged Japan to invade and expand into other countries in Asia. This continued until Japan launched its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, prompting the U.S. to finally come to its senses and join the war.
We should not forget the past, but learn from it. Now let us follow the trajectory of history to gain a better view of Shinzo Abe's current conduct: as soon as he was elected, he denied the history of Japanese invasions and crimes, including widespread massacres; he challenged the post-World War II global order, howled about his desire to make Japan a normal country and, with complete disregard for the terms of international treaties, made ludicrous territorial demands of neighboring countries; he was agitated by the indeterminate "definition of what constitutes an invasion" and the legitimacy of colonial rule; he encouraged many members of parliament and his cabinet to visit the Yasukuni Shrine; he contrived every possible means to modify Japan's peaceful constitution, expand the armed forces and change the Self-Defense Forces into an army; and Japan's latest white paper pointed to a desire to develop its own military strength. Under the influence of Abe's antics, Japanese society is quickly moving to the right.
What is most difficult to understand is why the U.S. is seemingly turning a blind eye to the dangers of the rightward radicalization and revival of militarism in Japan. Washington has not only done nothing to control or curb this, but instead has intentionally egged Japan further along this dangerous path of war, citing stopping a nuclear North Korea and abiding by the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan as its excuses. The U.S. has strengthened its military alliance with Japan, collaborated with it to establish reconnaissance and anti-missile systems, promised to arm Japan with even more advanced weaponry and continued to hold frequent joint military exercises. However, the aforementioned treaty only applies to Japanese territory, and the U.S. claims that it does not hold any position on the ownership of the Diaoyu [Islands]. That is to say, one cannot affirm that the Diaoyu [Islands] are Japanese territory, and consequently, it is entirely illogical to suggest that the controversy over the Diaoyu [Islands] meets the terms of the defense treaty.
The U.S. government should bring sincerity to the table, abandon its philosophies of self-interest and confrontation between powers and respect the relevant post-World War II agreements that the U.S. itself set down. In particular, it should prevent the resurgence of Japanese militarism and, with history as a guide, recognize that appeasement is the enemy of peace. Only by so doing can it avoid repeating the calamitous policies that lead to global war.
The author is a former professor at the PLA National Defense University.
In the early 1930s, after Hitler rose to power, he began a frenzied military expansion in preparation for war. Under the pretext of taking so-called "living space," he brazenly fanned the flames of racial purity, making Germany the epicenter of the war. The U.K., France and the U.S. wished to avoid war with Hitler, adopting policies of appeasement. When German and Italian forces interfered in Spain, Britain and France adopted policies of noninterference and the U.S. declared its neutrality; when Germany annexed Austria, Britain and France said that the Anschluss was necessary; as Czechoslovakia was divided piecemeal, Britain and France signed the infamous Munich Agreement, selling out their ally. However, these policies of appeasement did not win them peace in return. On Sept. 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland, marking the beginning of World War II.
Japan's path to war was somewhat different than that of Germany and Italy. At the time, the strength of Japanese militarism was fast developing and, in the end, the Ministry of War seized power over the country. Japan was always dissatisfied with its share of the spoils from World War I and advocated for once again dividing the global pie. Meanwhile, the U.K., France and the U.S. sought to protect their existing interests through appeasement, most particularly the U.S. with its appeasement under the banner of "splendid isolation,” which then encouraged Japan to invade and expand into other countries in Asia. This continued until Japan launched its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, prompting the U.S. to finally come to its senses and join the war.
We should not forget the past, but learn from it. Now let us follow the trajectory of history to gain a better view of Shinzo Abe's current conduct: as soon as he was elected, he denied the history of Japanese invasions and crimes, including widespread massacres; he challenged the post-World War II global order, howled about his desire to make Japan a normal country and, with complete disregard for the terms of international treaties, made ludicrous territorial demands of neighboring countries; he was agitated by the indeterminate "definition of what constitutes an invasion" and the legitimacy of colonial rule; he encouraged many members of parliament and his cabinet to visit the Yasukuni Shrine; he contrived every possible means to modify Japan's peaceful constitution, expand the armed forces and change the Self-Defense Forces into an army; and Japan's latest white paper pointed to a desire to develop its own military strength. Under the influence of Abe's antics, Japanese society is quickly moving to the right.
What is most difficult to understand is why the U.S. is seemingly turning a blind eye to the dangers of the rightward radicalization and revival of militarism in Japan. Washington has not only done nothing to control or curb this, but instead has intentionally egged Japan further along this dangerous path of war, citing stopping a nuclear North Korea and abiding by the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan as its excuses. The U.S. has strengthened its military alliance with Japan, collaborated with it to establish reconnaissance and anti-missile systems, promised to arm Japan with even more advanced weaponry and continued to hold frequent joint military exercises. However, the aforementioned treaty only applies to Japanese territory, and the U.S. claims that it does not hold any position on the ownership of the Diaoyu [Islands]. That is to say, one cannot affirm that the Diaoyu [Islands] are Japanese territory, and consequently, it is entirely illogical to suggest that the controversy over the Diaoyu [Islands] meets the terms of the defense treaty.
The U.S. government should bring sincerity to the table, abandon its philosophies of self-interest and confrontation between powers and respect the relevant post-World War II agreements that the U.S. itself set down. In particular, it should prevent the resurgence of Japanese militarism and, with history as a guide, recognize that appeasement is the enemy of peace. Only by so doing can it avoid repeating the calamitous policies that lead to global war.
The author is a former professor at the PLA National Defense University.