Tamura 1
Outline
Thesis statement: Japan should take action on historical understanding between Japan and China, Korea because the lack of knowledge of what Japan has done since the Second World War ended is used for stirring anti-Japanese feeling and this feeling will be a wall of cooperation with Japan.
Ⅰ. Introduction
A. Backgroud information
B. Thesis statement
Ⅱ. Japanese historical understanding
A. What Japan have made reparation for (Awaya)
B. The problem of reparation (Comfort-Women.org)
Ⅲ. Chinese historical understanding
A. Lack of reparation for individuals
B. Nanjing Incident
Ⅳ. Korean historical understanding
A. What Korea accepted
B. What Korea did not accept
Ⅴ. Possible solutions
Ⅵ. Conclusion
Hisayuki Tamura
Professor James
ARW Section AE
22 February 2007
Thesis statement: Japan should take action on historical understanding between Japan and China, Korea because the lack of knowledge of what Japan has done since the Second World War ended is used for stirring anti-Japanese feeling and this feeling will be a wall of cooperation with Japan.
Ⅰ. Introduction
A. Backgroud information
B. Thesis statement
Ⅱ. Japanese historical understanding
A. What Japan have made reparation for (Awaya)
B. The problem of reparation (Comfort-Women.org)
Ⅲ. Chinese historical understanding
A. Lack of reparation for individuals
B. Nanjing Incident
Ⅳ. Korean historical understanding
A. What Korea accepted
B. What Korea did not accept
Ⅴ. Possible solutions
Ⅵ. Conclusion
Hisayuki Tamura
Professor James
ARW Section AE
22 February 2007
The conlfict of historical understanding between Japan and China, Korea
Introduction
The Second World War ended in 1945 as a Japan when Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration. This war not only made much tragedy but also left many problems. They are restoring diplomatic relation problem, territorial issues, American base problem, Japanese children lefted behind in China and so on. One of the important issues is the conflict of historical understanding. This includes the issue of the war responsibility as a defeated nation. Japan have intended to accept the war responsibility since the end of the Second World War, and Japan mentions the responsibility is now complete. However, some countries such as China and Korea still blame Japan for the war responsibility. This blame can't be overlooked. In order to form a good relationship Japan should take action on historical understanding between Japan and China, Korea because the lack of knowledge of what Japan has done since the Second World War ended is used for stirring anti-Japanese feeling and this feeling will be a wall of cooperation with Japan.
Japanese historical understanding
As a Japanese historical understanding, Japan claims to have accepted the war responsibility as a defeated nation and Japan claims that paying extra money is unnecessary. Japan paid totally 1 trillion yen for other countries as a reparation(Awaya 52). Moreover, Japan assisted some countries which refused the right of demanding reparation with building factories and many supplies. Therefore, Japan understands Japanese war responsibility is complete. However, Some problems seem to exist. One problem is that reparations was paid for government not individual. Chinese people and Korean people nowadays sue Japan for several reasons, such as comfort woman(Comfort-Women.org). The Other problem is that the war responsibility isn't only reparation, that is, there are other responsibilities. Therefore, Japan need to rethink what the war responsibility is.
Chinese historical understanding
In the historical understanding of China, China insists that Japan has to adequately atone for aggression during the Second Sino-Japanese War("China,Japan Scholars Discuss History"). In other words, China hasn't admitted Japanese war responsibility yet. This belief is based on the lack of Japanese supports for the individuals. Many Chinese historians mentions that Japan didn’t paid the compensation for the individuals. It is true that Japan didn’t pay compensation for the individuals, but this point of view misses the fact that Japan paid reparation for the Chinese government, and that reparation was used for reconstructing China. In other words, that reparation was actually used for reconstructing each person’s life. Furthermore, Chinese historians claim that Japan should admit that the Imperial Japanese Army killed more than 300,000 people in the 1937 Nanjing Incident("Will Japan-China study～"). This kind of argument is very difficult to solve because the nation and political representatives are in the business of justifying government actions and looking to the past(Yamazaki).
Korean historical understanding
The historical understanding of Korea is also based on the belief that Japan didn’t do anything for the individuals. Before thinking about what Japan did for Korea, it is necessary to know the Korean condition in the Second World War, that is, the Korean peninsula was ruled by Japan. This means Korean government practically didn’t exist in there. The Korean people was in there but Korean government was not in there. This situation make the understanding more complicated because Korean people was considered as Japanese soldier when Japan ruled the Korean peninsula. If Japanese participated in the war as a soldier, they were given compensation by Japanese goverment after the war. Therefore, Korean people who were considered as Japanese soldier should be given compensation, but they didn’t perceive it because of the special law. This law separated Korean from Japanese unless Korean people was considered as a Japanese during the war. As a result, Korean haven’t perceived compensation from Japan yet. What Japan did for Korea is only paying reparation. That reparation was the same case as China. Japan paid for Korean government but didn’t pay for the individuals.
Possible solution
The above shows the different historical understanding between Japan and China, Korea. Japan argues that they did pay compensation for the countries. China and Korea argues that Japan did not pay compensation for the individuals. The problem is whether Japan paid for the country or the individuals. Seeing the definition of the war responsibility, a defeated country’s due is paying something for victorious countries to or countries to restore the desolate countries. Therefore, Japanese argument is not wrong, but Japan should take an effective action on historical understanding because Chinese and Korean people haven't admitted Japanese war responsibility yet and this conflict isn’t useful for Asian society as a partner.
Conclusion
There seems to be two effective actions. One of two is that Japan keep saying stubbornly that they paid compensation for governments, and it gave them economical wealth. The second action is that Japan accepts their opinions, namely deals with them individually. However, it appears that the latter is better than the former. Most of Japanese politicians tend to prefer to the former but it is difficult to persuade them because they often use the thought that Japan didn’t achieve the war responsibility as diplomatic bargaining chip. The second one doesn’t mean passive. Though Japan deal with them individually, it isn’t all of the cases. Japan should accept the case, such as the special law. When the case is identified completely injustice, Japan should modify the past failure. When Japan can rethink the past failure and modify it, the Asian relationships will be good. (897)
The Second World War ended in 1945 as a Japan when Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration. This war not only made much tragedy but also left many problems. They are restoring diplomatic relation problem, territorial issues, American base problem, Japanese children lefted behind in China and so on. One of the important issues is the conflict of historical understanding. This includes the issue of the war responsibility as a defeated nation. Japan have intended to accept the war responsibility since the end of the Second World War, and Japan mentions the responsibility is now complete. However, some countries such as China and Korea still blame Japan for the war responsibility. This blame can't be overlooked. In order to form a good relationship Japan should take action on historical understanding between Japan and China, Korea because the lack of knowledge of what Japan has done since the Second World War ended is used for stirring anti-Japanese feeling and this feeling will be a wall of cooperation with Japan.
Japanese historical understanding
As a Japanese historical understanding, Japan claims to have accepted the war responsibility as a defeated nation and Japan claims that paying extra money is unnecessary. Japan paid totally 1 trillion yen for other countries as a reparation(Awaya 52). Moreover, Japan assisted some countries which refused the right of demanding reparation with building factories and many supplies. Therefore, Japan understands Japanese war responsibility is complete. However, Some problems seem to exist. One problem is that reparations was paid for government not individual. Chinese people and Korean people nowadays sue Japan for several reasons, such as comfort woman(Comfort-Women.org). The Other problem is that the war responsibility isn't only reparation, that is, there are other responsibilities. Therefore, Japan need to rethink what the war responsibility is.
Chinese historical understanding
In the historical understanding of China, China insists that Japan has to adequately atone for aggression during the Second Sino-Japanese War("China,Japan Scholars Discuss History"). In other words, China hasn't admitted Japanese war responsibility yet. This belief is based on the lack of Japanese supports for the individuals. Many Chinese historians mentions that Japan didn’t paid the compensation for the individuals. It is true that Japan didn’t pay compensation for the individuals, but this point of view misses the fact that Japan paid reparation for the Chinese government, and that reparation was used for reconstructing China. In other words, that reparation was actually used for reconstructing each person’s life. Furthermore, Chinese historians claim that Japan should admit that the Imperial Japanese Army killed more than 300,000 people in the 1937 Nanjing Incident("Will Japan-China study～"). This kind of argument is very difficult to solve because the nation and political representatives are in the business of justifying government actions and looking to the past(Yamazaki).
Korean historical understanding
The historical understanding of Korea is also based on the belief that Japan didn’t do anything for the individuals. Before thinking about what Japan did for Korea, it is necessary to know the Korean condition in the Second World War, that is, the Korean peninsula was ruled by Japan. This means Korean government practically didn’t exist in there. The Korean people was in there but Korean government was not in there. This situation make the understanding more complicated because Korean people was considered as Japanese soldier when Japan ruled the Korean peninsula. If Japanese participated in the war as a soldier, they were given compensation by Japanese goverment after the war. Therefore, Korean people who were considered as Japanese soldier should be given compensation, but they didn’t perceive it because of the special law. This law separated Korean from Japanese unless Korean people was considered as a Japanese during the war. As a result, Korean haven’t perceived compensation from Japan yet. What Japan did for Korea is only paying reparation. That reparation was the same case as China. Japan paid for Korean government but didn’t pay for the individuals.
Possible solution
The above shows the different historical understanding between Japan and China, Korea. Japan argues that they did pay compensation for the countries. China and Korea argues that Japan did not pay compensation for the individuals. The problem is whether Japan paid for the country or the individuals. Seeing the definition of the war responsibility, a defeated country’s due is paying something for victorious countries to or countries to restore the desolate countries. Therefore, Japanese argument is not wrong, but Japan should take an effective action on historical understanding because Chinese and Korean people haven't admitted Japanese war responsibility yet and this conflict isn’t useful for Asian society as a partner.
Conclusion
There seems to be two effective actions. One of two is that Japan keep saying stubbornly that they paid compensation for governments, and it gave them economical wealth. The second action is that Japan accepts their opinions, namely deals with them individually. However, it appears that the latter is better than the former. Most of Japanese politicians tend to prefer to the former but it is difficult to persuade them because they often use the thought that Japan didn’t achieve the war responsibility as diplomatic bargaining chip. The second one doesn’t mean passive. Though Japan deal with them individually, it isn’t all of the cases. Japan should accept the case, such as the special law. When the case is identified completely injustice, Japan should modify the past failure. When Japan can rethink the past failure and modify it, the Asian relationships will be good. (897)
Work Cited
Awaya, Kentaro., et al. Sensousekinin Sengosekinin [war responsibility Compensation]. Asahisensyo, 1994
"China, Japan Scholars Discuss History." Associated Press. 26 Dec.2006.
Comfort-Women.org. 2004. 16 Feb.2007 ＜http://www.comfort-women.org/v2/＞
Yamazaki,Jane W. Japanese Apologies for World War Ⅱ. New York:Routledge, 2006
"Will Japan-China study narrow gaps in history?" The Daily Yomiuri. 24 Dec. 2006
"China, Japan Scholars Discuss History." Associated Press. 26 Dec.2006.
Comfort-Women.org. 2004. 16 Feb.2007 ＜http://www.comfort-women.org/v2/＞
Yamazaki,Jane W. Japanese Apologies for World War Ⅱ. New York:Routledge, 2006
"Will Japan-China study narrow gaps in history?" The Daily Yomiuri. 24 Dec. 2006
