China and Japan, Should the West Care?

I think the past few months have shown that the entire world needs to care about China!

From The Mad Monarchist (31 August 2017)

In recent years, the People’s Republic of Chinese Sweatshops has been growing at a rapid rate in terms of the size of its economy and massively building up its military forces, particularly its oddly named People’s Liberation Army Navy. They are currently finishing up their first domestically produced aircraft carrier, having one already in service they purchased from Ukraine, an old Soviet vessel basically used as a starting point for Chinese naval engineers. Similarly, China is expanding its submarine fleet faster than any other power and gone are the days of the noisy death traps known as the Han-class boats and the Romeo-class Soviet relics, the Shang-class nuclear attack subs are no laughing matter and after purchasing and studying a number of very effective Russian Kilo-class diesel boats, the recent Chinese made Song and Yuan-class boats are of comparative quality. China has also been building artificial islands, complete with aircraft platforms and weapons systems in the South China Sea and establishing naval bases in places such as Ceylon, Pakistan and Djibouti. Obviously, this is an effort to secure control of the main trade route between East Asia and Europe.

Should the western world care about this? Before addressing that, it must be noted that one country which cares very much is Japan. Ignoring the leftist, mainstream, “fake news” media like NHK, I will point to a more rational news source, the conservative Sankei Shimbun and the new online outlet Japan Forward. I think this is particularly appropriate since Japan Forward is the effort to spread a conservative Japanese news source to a wider, international, audience, particularly the Anglosphere. For example, Japan Forward frequently carries articles warning about the threat posed by China, offering advice on what the United States, Japan and other countries can or should do about it and criticizing any hint of the U.S. or Japanese governments taking their ‘eyes off the ball’ that is Pseudo-Communist China. Japan Forward recently ran a special, three part series on countering the building of militarized, artificial islands by China in the South China Sea (read it here). Any of these articles, taken on their own, put forward a compelling case. However, it is when World War II enters the conversation, which is absolutely inevitable when dealing with Japan as *everything* revolves around World War II, that we start to have problems at least so far as the U.S. and the West are concerned.

To illustrate this, I point to an interview, also in Japan Forward, by YouTube personality Yoko Mada with Hidetoshi Ishii, “a Japanese expert on the politics and history of Asia” who has very definite ideas on what needs to happen in the region (see it or read it here). First of all, for those on the left or even moderate right anywhere in the western world, any Japanese talk of a “Greater Asia” is inevitably going to cause blowback over memories of Imperial Japan’s “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” and the “Greater East Asian War” (which is what Japan calls World War II, look for Hitler and Mussolini far under the bus). They bring up something I have written about before (here, a plug for me this time) which is the claim that Imperial Japan was really the “good guys” in World War II, in fact the *only* “good guys” (Adolf & Benito still under that bus) as Japan was fighting a righteous war for ‘Freedom’ to liberate Asia from the wicked, western, colonial powers, because colonialism is a western thing, it is racist, it is wrong, it is evil and before you even ask, no, Korea doesn’t count, because it’s not colonialism if Japan does it. Silly. It is also noteworthy that, in the interview, a great emphasis is placed on Hong Kong (the former British Crown Colony now languishing under mainland rule) and that everyone in Japan, and America and the western world should back the cause of Hong Kong independence from China.

Now is the time to pose the question, in light of the Japanese argument, as to why the USA, the wider Anglosphere or Europe should really care about this. Should they? Do any really have a vital interest in seeing China stopped? To be clear, I think the current bandit regime that sits in Peking is illegitimate and monstrous, I have been unhappy with every Chinese regime since 1912 but, from a purely pragmatic perspective, what business is it of anyone in North America or Western Europe? The Chinese government, based on their military buildup, their establishment of naval bases and the ongoing construction of a new “Silk Road” are clearly, in my view, trying to gain control of the trade route which is vital to their overwhelmingly export-dependent economy. This is certainly a threat to those in competition with China but, as things currently stand, that list would not include North America or Europe which rely almost as heavily on Chinese imports as the Chinese economy depends on exports to these parts of the world. In short, the only cause for concern for the west would be China shutting off this trade route which is the last thing the Chinese would want to do as they would suffer the most from it as North America and Western Europe in particular buy more from them than anyone else. As things stand now, the west does not produce, it consumes and China depends more on that consumption than the west does on Chinese production.

In the old days, prior to World War II, things were very different. Countries such as Great Britain, France, The Netherlands, Portugal and the United States had an interest in Asia because they had colonies there which were important parts of their economies. If you go back prior to World War I, Germany did as well (and to a much lesser extent, a few others too). This is not the case anymore obviously. The British started giving up their Asian colonies almost as soon as the war was over. The Dutch had to give up the East Indies in 1949, the French were forced out of Indochina in 1955, Portugal lost Goa to India in 1961 and handed over Macau in 1999, the United States had agreed to Filipino independence before World War II, delivered it in 1946 and was evicted from Subic Bay in 1992. All of this, according to the “Japan fought World War II to end western colonialism” narrative, is ultimately thanks to Japan and, as such, runs contrary to the Japanese argument that the western powers today have any real, vital, national interest in what happens in the region. Why should, for example, the British ultimately care if Hong Kong remains a part of China or becomes independent when Hong Kong stopped being a British concern in 1997? And, again, based on the point that the same country arguing that Britain should be concerned is also arguing that they ultimately deserve the “credit” for Britain losing her Asian colonies in the first place.

“Asia for the Asians” was the Japanese slogan in World War II, and now, that is truly the case. It is why some on the right in Japan have argued that they didn’t really lose the war at all, because the goal was to get the westerners out of Asia and now they are all gone. Why then should the USA or any western power continue to take an active interest in Asian affairs? I do not doubt that some might notice that, when Japan said “Asia for the Asians” in the 1930’s and 40’s, the Empire of Japan was the strongest power in East Asia whereas today, economically and militarily, China is once again the dominant force in the region. Could that have anything to do with the Japanese attitude of, ’give up your colonies and get out of here but then come back and do something about China’? For Japan, the effort to justify their last war is running contrary to their current desire for support against a powerful and zealously anti-Japanese neighbor.

This is not unique to Japan, it is only that Japan, because of the war, casts itself more broadly, taking “credit” for the end of the other empires touching East Asia. However, since the Chinese military buildup, The Philippines has now said some U.S. troops can come back to Subic Bay after all and even Vietnam, which bases so much of its current identity on anti-Americanism, has decided that the United States isn’t really all *that* bad and now allows American warships to visit Vietnamese ports. If they were in a position to help them at all, I don’t doubt they would take the same attitude toward the French. From the point of view of western civilization, how is any of this not seen as a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too? In other words, why should western powers protect eastern powers for nothing in return? The strength and potential threat of China is supposed to justify everything and yet, the west, thanks mostly to allowing China into the World Trade Organization and other similar acts, is economically invested in maintaining good relations with China. Whether a good decision or not (and I think it was not), this is nonetheless a fact.

I also must repeat something I have said before which is, when making an argument, it is important to remember who exactly you are trying to persuade. In the case of Japanese conservative outlets trying to make the case against China, their target audience would be western conservatives. Western leftists certainly have no desire to confront China, being largely in sympathy with them, however, by tying so much back to their justification of World War II as a righteous, anti-western, “holy war” against colonialism, I fail to see how the Japanese could convince those on the right in the west who either stand by their former empires, defend their memory and deplore that they were lost, or agree that Asia should be “for the Asians” and of no concern to the west at all, these being more concerned with issues such as terrorism, immigration and demography in western countries than with anything China is doing on the other side of the world. In my experience, these same westerners often see much to admire about Japan but nonetheless view Japan as “them” and nothing to do with “us” which the Japanese narrative actually encourages by casting themselves as the ‘anti-imperialist’ empire.

Personally, I would have preferred Japan and the Allies never went to war at all or would have preferred the Japanese to have attacked the Soviet Union rather than the British and Dutch in Southeast Asia. I prefer the days when the Empire of Japan was still around and one of the club. I would have also liked to see a revived Qing Empire in China as part of that club as well. In any confrontation between Communist China and the State of Japan, my own sympathies are certainly going to be with the Japanese and, in the event of such a calamity, my friends know I would do anything to help them. When taken up to the level of countries, however, national interest is the determining factor and since the end of the colonial period, commerce is the only way the west is involved with the East Asia. The Chinese army is not threatening to invade Europe or North America and if the Australians considered such a thing remotely possible, they would probably have taken care to maintain a navy that would actually pose a challenge.

Since the European colonies in Asia were lost, no European power is frankly able to intervene in the region as they have no bases there any longer. So, as some in Britain have admitted, when anyone in the west says “we” should do something, it actually means that the United States should do something. As it concerns China, the mainstream right is concerned about China, the left is not but it is the right which most runs counter to the Japanese narrative as they are the only ones in America willing to take America’s side in its wars and interventions. The only sizeable group which actually agrees with much of the Japanese narrative are the libertarians, however, they illustrate perfectly the problem with Japan’s argument since they point to the same things Japan points to, such as western colonialism, as precisely the evidence for America not being involved in Asia at all. Just as they condemn the sanctions placed on Imperial Japan in the past, so too do they oppose any disruption of trade between America and China today.

Given the current state of affairs, it could well be argued that China poses an existential threat to Japan, not only because of their military strength but because of the degree to which anti-Japanese hatred is used as a unifying force in China. What is more difficult to argue is that China poses an existential threat to America or western civilization in general. Most of the west is frankly unable to do anything even if it should and, as for the United States, the most potent threat posed by China is the possibility of China’s new currency system replacing the dollar as the international reserve currency. That, however, is something that will not and cannot be stopped by American bases in Japan, American troops in South Korea or by the elimination of artificial islands in the South China Sea. Western civilization is under threat, of that I am in no doubt. However, that China is such a threat seems dubious, though I am open to arguments on the subject. With no real stake in the region, since the end of western colonialism, it seems more like the west is being called upon to, once again, take the side of others in a fight that is not theirs.