From: lix@thames.bu.edu (Xiaowen Li)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.korean
Subject: Japan's U.N. Ambitions
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:40:30 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china
Organization: Boston University


The following is comments by an anonymous friend. I am not sure
whether it is from the same Mr. Anonymous, any way it is not
my article, all rights reserved for the original author.


      Japan's U.N. Ambitions      
            
      Japan has engaged itself in an all-out campaign to gain
a veto-wielding permanent seat on the United Nations Security
Council.  China's national interests call for an unyielding
all-Chinese, across-the-Strait opposition to such an arrangement. 
Korea's national interests call for a close cooperation with the
Chinese-speaking world in opposing Japan's ambitions.   

      The ultimate fate of the Japanese campaign depends on public 
opinions in the West.   The managers of this campaign have quite
correctly identified the U.S. as a major battleground. At present, 
several noted American opinion makers are openly supporting Japan's 
campaign, often without bothering to say why, other than the repeated 
and tiresome claim that the "democratic", "advanced", ... Japan should 
get a seat on the Security Council, from which the "totalitarian", 
"backward", etc, CCP regime should be removed, presumably permanently.

      These Americans are in effect pushers, trying to push Japan on 
to, and perhaps push China off, the Security Council. It must be inferred
that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of millions of dollars are being spent 
on the campaign.  The Yomiuri/Gallup polls, as reported by the CND, are 
in fact more an indication of these efforts than of truly significant 
sentiments in the West, where most people are totally ignorant of both 
the structure of the U.N. and Japan's long history of aggressions and
attempts to edit and revise history.  Indeed, most Americans even seem 
to have a vague belief that Japan is somehow associated with the TianAnMen 
Square.  It is quite easy to manipulate them on an off-shore issue.  The 
paymasters of the campaign are doing just that.

      It must be further recognized that many smaller countries, or
rather their governments as represented by their envoys in New York are
as vulnerable as some American opinion makers to Japanese pressures
and pecuniary enticement.  Some of the poorer ones among these 
governments are even subject to threats of withdrawal of Japanese loans.

      In a nutshell, the Japanese campaign is the grand finale of a 
long series of post World War II maneuvers to revise history, remove 
incriminating evidence, and recover all that Japan had lost as a direct 
result of its defeat and unconditional surrender at the conclusion of 
World War II.

      What did Japan lose?  All of the territories Japan was forced 
to give up were stolen by the Japanese through violence and greed in 
the first place, as so accurately described by the Cairo Declaration
issued by China, the U.S. and the British Empire in 1943.  But the Japanese 
state has never admitted they were stolen properties.  Taking advantage 
of Douglas MacArthur's panic at Mao's imminent victory in the Chinese 
Civil War and being helped by pro-Japanese (and perhaps disloyal) American 
"scholars" like Edwin O. Reischauer, it went virtually scot-free.  Most 
of the major Japanese war criminals were not punished in any material way.  

      Quite the contrary.  They were soon given back their wealth and 
positions of power.  To appease the hapless common folks in Japan, a myth 
has been propagated that Japan, not China or Korea, was the true victim 
during Japan's long history of aggression in the East Asian mainland.  
According to the Japanese and American promoters of this myth,  Pearl 
Harbor was merely a misunderstanding, all the fault of the stupid Koreans, 
who refused to become Japanese subjects, and of the equally stupid Chinese, 
who chose to fight in 1932 and 1937-45.  If those hopelessly stupid people 
had only appreciated how wonderful Japan was, there would not have been 
war nor Pearl Harbor nor atom bombings.  Japan would still have held onto 
Korea, Taiwan, and "Manchuria."  And Southern Sakhalin and the Kurile 
Islands, too.

      Western cuddling of Japan at the expense of China and Korea is 
nothing new.  Japan was in fact given a permanent seat on the League of 
Nations' equivalent of the U.N. Security Council, as part of the West's 
appeasement efforts regarding Japan after World War I.  Blatant aggression 
in Shandong, "Manchuria" and elsewhere in China led to some half-hearted 
criticisms in the West.  Japan then quit the League of Nations in a 
carefully staged tantrumly gesture of contempt for its critics.  Japan 
has never acknowledged that it did anything wrong to deserve the criticisms 
and ultimate exclusion from the League of Nations.  Instead, official 
Japanese history books almost always imply that it was wrong for others 
to make it uncomfortable for Japan to stay in its "permanent seat" there.

      There's no doubt whatsoever that the Japanese rulers today 
regard their country as being owed something by the rest of the world.  
Many Japanese appear to believe that may indeed be the case.  Depending 
on whom you talk to, this "something" may include "lost territories" 
like Taiwan, Korea and "Manchuria."  Or the "northern territories" 
currently under Russian control.  Or a permanent seat on the U.N. Security 
Council in New York, which is of course the successor to the League of 
Nations in Geneva.  At any rate, most Japanese seem to fancy that the 
world somehow owes Japan the permanent seat, with veto power, on the 
Security Council, for a starter.

      The undeniable fact is: U.N. was organized to fight Japan and 
its allies, to prevent their post-War relapse into international thuggery, 
and to preserve peace.  For a nation like Japan, which has never come to 
terms with its defeat and unconditional surrender, its admittance to 
the U.N. was by itself already a miscarriage of justice.  In the clear
absence of any Japanese admission of guilt for genocidal attempts,
germ warfare experiments on captive human beings, slave labor camps, 
mobile slave brothels, and sundry massacres, it would be a true 
travesty to give Japan a veto-bearing seat on the Security Council.

      The CCP regime is now occupying China's permanent seat at
the Security Council.  It could block any and every revision of the 
U.N. Charter designed to benefit Japan.  But, unfortunately, the CCP
has been for decades the most ardent and abject among Japan's appeasers.  
Its record is a very dismal one indeed.

>From Mao/Zhou's betrayal of the Liu Qiu people (and abdication of China's 
historic responsibility for the security of the Kingdom of Liu Qiu) to 
Hu Yao-bang's foolish wishful babblings about eternal Japanese good will, 
from Mao/Zhou's refusal to press for Japanese war reparations through last
year's incredible cancellation of the Nanjing Massacres commemorations to 
Deng's misguided but longstanding invitation to the "no-apology" Japanese 
monarch, the folly of the CCP's Japan policy seems boundless.  At present, 
all evidence is pointing to an eventual CCP acceptance of the Japanese 
demand for the permanent seat.  Indeed, it would not come as a surprise if 
part of the price of the "no-apology" visit should turn out to be full CCP 
support for the Japanese demand.  In the name of China, in the name of 
Chinese everywhere, they may even sponsor the required revision of the U.N. 
Charter for a new seating arrangement at the Security Council.

      All Chinese and Koreans worldwide should oppose Japan's ambitions 
and its attempts to regain what it lost as a result of World War II.  
Failure to do so will only cause the bitterest of regrets in the future.  
The CCP will not last forever.  China's and Korea's paramount interest in 
seeing Japan confined to the four islands will last long after the CCP's 
death.  The Japan problem is too critical for the future of East Asia to 
be left to the whims of foolish old men like Wang Zhen et al.  In his 
forthcoming state visit to Beijing, President Roh Tae-woo should press 
his hosts on the subject.  It concerns all East Asia.

      Even the most selfish Chinese should see the danger of appeasing 
Japan.  On this very critical issue, the IFCSS should take the lead, 
certainly in the U.S. which is a main battleground, especially now that
the Battle of the Green Card has been won, and an undoubtedly favorable 
environment has been created in which to carry on the fight for the 
well-being of the Chinese nation.  Opposition to the "no-apology" Japanese 
monarch's visit should be the least the IFCSS could do in way of serving 
the cause of human rights in China.  Opposition to any permanent seat for 
Japan would be even more relevant to such human rights.   After all, if 
the Japanese state should ever regain a foothold on the East Asian mainland 
or succeed in making the world believe Korea and China were the culprits 
and Japan the victim in recent Asian history, all further talks about 
democracy and human rights in China would be about as meaningful as the 
"sincere regrets" so freely offered over the fate of the inmates of the 
Japanese field brothels in the old Liu Qiu Kingdom and elsewhere during 
World War II.

-- 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong