How should Japan go about understanding China -€ her recalcitrant neighbor bent on making strongly-worded assertions that, more often than not, are based on distorted facts?

　　　Here’s a typical example of an outrageous Chinese claim pertaining to the recent incident in which a Chinese fishing trawler violated Japanese territorial waters near the Senkaku Islands on September 7:

　　　“The Senkaku Islands and the East China Sea belong to China. Within these Chinese territorial waters, it was the Japan Coast Guard (JCG) vessels which encircled the Chinese trawler, and it was the JCG vessels which caused the collision by willfully ramming the Chinese boat.”

　　　To the Chinese, whether or not something is factual doesn’t really count, because in China what is factual is what they purport it to be. If there is a gap between the fact and their claimed fact, they make every effort to make the reality match their claim. Therefore, no matter how earnestly Japan attempts to explain, as it has endlessly, that the Senkaku Islands have been a legitimate Japanese territory since 1895 with as many as 248 Japanese living there at one time, and that it was the Chinese trawler that rammed two JCG vessels in the first place when warned it was violating Japanese territorial waters, both the Chinese government and the Chinese public consistently turn a deaf ear.

　　　I have often referred to this idiosyncratic Chinese thought pattern as “Chinese imperialism.” Meanwhile, Mr. Joh Kanaya, my associate and a top Japanese expert on Chinese affairs, explains that the Chinese first of all are a people who since ancient times have been incapable of “reason.” He asserts that China has often caused friction with Japan, as well as the United States and other western nations, despite the repeated efforts of these countries to resolve important diplomatic issues through reason.

　　　Mr. Kanaya is a visiting fellow at the Japan Institute of National Fundamentals (JINF), a fully privately financed think-tank headquartered in Tokyo. Well versed in English, Russian and Chinese, Mr. Kanaya has published a number of important books and translations, such as “The Chinese and the Japanese: Time for A True Dialogue” and “Nuclear in Tibet.” In “Why China Never Ceases Military Build-Up, Expansionism, and Intimidation,” a recent book published by Bungei Shunju, he offers an intriguing analysis of the peculiarities of Chinese thought.

　　　Mr. Kanaya argues that the democratic way of thinking has yet to take root in China because the Chinese have so far been fundamentally unable to differentiate between “ethics” and “science” in their way of thinking. In other words, according to him, the natural scientific thought pattern which allows one to set up a hypothesis, then verify it by way of experience, is far from having been established in the Chinese mind.

　　　If that is the case, it would mean that what we would term “scientific thought” -€ objective and rational thought -€ is difficult for the Chinese. We are generally aware that the national objective advanced by the Chinese Communist Party is aimed at building a nation by “putting people first as its core” and realizing “balanced, sustainable development” based on a “scientific outlook on development.” So, what is “science” supposed to signify in what they refer to as “scientific development”?

Sentimental Ethics Prevailing Over Pure Results

　　　When the word “science” is mentioned, Japanese as well as Europeans and Americans must automatically think of the “natural” sciences -€ such as biology, mathematics, and physics, all of which constitute provable fields. However, according to Mr. Kanaya, “science” as used in the “scientific development” advocated by China actually refers to the “social sciences.” Taking a step further, he notes that “science” in Chinese also is akin to Marxism, explaining that the problem for China is one in which the leadership views Marxism as a social system and model, and science as a natural law in the same light.

　　　How has this old-fashioned intellectual muddle been maintained through modern times? Mr. Kanaya’s in-depth analysis is sobering:

　　　“The dominant thought in China since the Communist revolution has been Marxism, but it was Confucianism that prevailed as the quintessential pre-revolution, traditional dynastic Chinese thought. Under Confucianism, man is thought to be capable of altering the law of nature by means of ethical conduct. From here arose a thought pattern that values sentimental ethics over pure results. In other words, if the motive is good, the conduct that follows is lauded regardless of the results. By the same token, if the motive is evil, the conduct itself is never appreciated no matter how good the results may turn out to be.

　　　“A good example is the ‘not guilty for being patriotic’ slogan chanted by Chinese youths during the widespread anti-Japanese demonstrations in China in 2005. The idea behind this slogan was that, because the Chinese are always right and justice is on China’s side, Chinese youths can do anything they please; meanwhile, because the Japanese are a ‘fundamentally barbaric and militaristic’ race, whatever they do must always be evil.

　　　“Confucian Qing Dynasty China was in the midst of intellectual confusion when the First Opium War (1839-42) forced it to undergo drastic political and social change. In quite the same way as Japan’s seclusion was brought to a forcible end by the ‘black ships,’ so were China’s first steps towards modernization induced by the aggression of foreign powers. This so-called ‘Westernization’ movement was aimed at realizing China’s modernization by simply importing weapons and machines from the West while safeguarding Qing Dynasty traditions and ideas, so that the dynasty’s traditional despotism could be maintained in a strengthened form. In other words, Qing Dynasty Chinese viewed modernization only as requiring the modernization of armaments.

　　　”However, the failure of this movement to modernize China was clearly evident during China’s defeat in the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-95, despite the fact that Japan had opened up to the world after China.

　　　”After the defeat to Japan, the real reformist in Qing Dynasty China was the young emperor Guangxi. A devoted group of supporters, including Kang Youwei, a prominent scholar and political thinker, advanced the ideas of the 27-year-old emperor, seeking to bring about legal reform. Kang’s group sincerely believed that the Westernization movement had failed because the proponents of the movement were only interested in introducing the tangible to China -€ such as weaponry, machinery, and manufacturing technologies -€ and paid little attention to the Western social and cultural system which had led to the creation of a variety of modern conveniences. Therefore, they particularly intended to introduce the ideas and values of the West that gave birth to such modern amenities. Specifically, they decided to change the very social and cultural structures that had been maintained in China since ancient times.”

Easy Sympathy Leads to Concessions

　　　Mr. Kanaya’s analysis continues: “A good example for China to follow at the time was Japan’s Meiji Reform -€ an indisputable forerunner to the legal reforms being pursued by Qing Dynasty China. In his 1875 book titled ‘An Outline of A Theory of Civilization,’ Yukichi Fukuzawa, widely regarded in Japan as the father of modern Japan, asserted that a nation ‘cannot sustain independence unless it establishes its own civilization.’ Maintaining that what Europe and the United States had and Asia did not were not only the tangible such as warships and cannons, Fukuzawa pointed out that Asian nations had failed to establish the technologies needed to manufacture modern conveniences because their civilization still needed to be further developed. Citing ‘mathematical and physical science’ and the spirit of independence as the two mandatory elements Asian nations were sorely lacking, Fukuzawa preached to the Japanese about the importance of promoting these things.

　　　“Emperor Guangxi and his entourage vigorously pursued the dream of making China a constitutional monarch like Japan, but their efforts were blocked and frustrated in just 100 days by the conservatives led by his aunt, Western Empress Dowager Cixi. Guangxi subsequently died a premature death, after having been bullied by Cixi for some 10 years.

　　　“Later, China headed toward the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty, butﾂ黴€ﾂ黴€ the spirit of the “Reform Movement” was lost altogether during this process, with the Confucian values that Emperor Guangxi and his supporters had so fervently opposed remaining dominant. Thus, a non-scientific way of thinking, recognizing science not as natural science but social science, remained the norm in Chinese society.”

　　　Liu Xiaobo, named winner of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize on October 8, makes a similar observation in his book “Criticism of Modern Chinese Intellectuals,” (Tokuma Shoten;Tokyo). Noting that “there is no point in common between China’s ‘pragmatic rationale’ and the ‘pragmatic spirit’ of the West,” Mr. Liu points out that reason in the West is based on the verification of what is presented as fact, and that what is questioned is “only whether or not it is factual, without ever referring to the political benefits involved or whether it is morally right or wrong. Even if the truth runs counter to a religious taboo or the will of the authorities, even if it clashes with moral standards or the common practices of society, the spirit of the West demands that the truth be recognized. “

　　　However, Mr. Liu points out that “China’s ‘pragmatic rationale’ has the peculiar feature of detesting facts and truths most of all” and “only conforms to political authority and moral standards.”

　　　Developing mutual understanding with China is an extremely difficult proposition -€ not only for Japan but for the other countries as well. That said, one should bear in mind that too ready a sympathy may lead to unwise concessions. China must therefore, by all means, be dealt with carefully.

　　　The aforementioned book containing Mr. Kanaya’s papers is a compilation of China studies JINF has so far sponsored since its inception in 2007. In fact JINF, as well as its China studies, were born out of our sense of danger pertaining to the intricate international situation Japan is faced with, especially in Asia. This book is a must read for those who share our sense of danger over the potential fragility of Japan in its dealings with countries like China, Russia and North Korea.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column No. 434 in the November 4 issue of The Shincho Weekly.)