Pay tribute, kow-tow and be in awe of the great and glorious PRC!
So the China-Japan crisis has finally blown over with the release of the Chinese trawler skipper, Zhan Qixiong. His actions may have been part-panic part-belligerence, but he certainly caused one of the biggest international brouhahas in recent times. The Japanese have pleaded their case that the incident was not worth pursuing against the deterioration in international relations. It is clear from the customary near-hysterical rhetoric that the Chinese would not back down –never, as a matter of principle over pragmatism, as if national pride was a stake.
This sort of boating incident regularly happens all over the world. Coast Guards are supposed to intervene when faced with illegal fishing out there in the big blue yonder. Why, then, did this event threaten the stability of the region and lead to such unhappiness on the part of both governments? Why did the Chinese take such an unyielding, intransigent stance over a fisherman?
It has, of course, to do with history and how each nation sees itself.
The little Senkaku Islands (or the Diaoyu Islands if you’re Chinese) are a string of uninhabited islets between Taiwan and Okinawa about 340 miles from the Chinese Coast. They hold much potential not so much as opportunities for flag-waving by each of the three nations (Japan, China and Taiwan) so much as the staging posts for the mineral extraction on the East continental seabed. Just as the Russians staked a claim on future mineral wealth extraction from under the Arctic Ocean by planting their flag on the seabed, so are the unstated aims (of the acquisition of huge potential undersea gas fields) that underpin all diplomatic exchanges. But that won’t stop nationalists having a field day.
That the fishing boat collided with the Japanese Coast Guard vessel is not in question. Whether the skipper was acting with malicious intent, negligence or sought to endanger other marine traffic is not so clear and will not now be judiciously assessed in a Japanese court. In fact, that’s not really the point. The incident highlights several religious, historical and social factors; most prominent for me is the Chinese Confucian perception of China and its relationships with quarrelsome neighbours.
China always sought tribute as part of its’ Mandate of Heaven which is something like the divine right to rule. The gods of heaven approved of the incumbent of the throne and rewarded his perfunctory religious and imperial activities with a wealthy China and happy subjects. Of course, only one premier enjoyed this privilege and only one nation (the biggest) would expect it without question. A Chinese emperor, therefore, could hold power only as long as the gods approved and the oligarchies kept him in power. Moreover, to fund the great imperial mechanism within which they thrived taxes had to be raked in and the bordering nations needed to know their place. That is why there was such emphasis on harmony –of both the celestial and earthly kind. It also meant China not only enjoyed this ‘right to rule’, but took pains to actively seek it. If earthquakes, disasters and famine stalked the land, it was surely a sign of godly disapproval. If rebellion caused the end of one emperor the gods, it was presumed, were happy with the new one! To the victor truly went the spoils. Under the de facto legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party, the Beijing boys enjoy their rather strict harmony –perhaps even more so now they have added monetary, military and political clout as a means to secure it.
This stubborn need for legitimacy is as much a part of Chinese thinking as moneymaking, ostentatious displays of wealth and gambling. They give the Papacy a run for it’s money in terms of infallibility. Even the characters for China 中國 (which mean ‘Centre Country’) refer to a self-perception of China as being at the centre of the world. This is not hubris nor a projection of power, but a recognition of what a properly-ordered and divinely-sanctioned society must surely be. To the Chinese imperial mind-set no other nation was as civilized and none so blessed by the gods. The Emperor and the Forbidden City in Beijing were at the venerable centre of known universe and the further one traveled, the more barbarous the people. It was, indeed, the duty of the Chinese to influence their neighbours with all the munificence they could muster. Thus, even the invasion of Tibet in 1950 was and still is seen as ‘liberation’ and henceforth the Tibetans should show gratitude for the saving intervention of Mother China.
In the past, the neighbours therefore knew their place and paid tribute, either with words or gifts. It showed the order of things. From the words of Mencius,
"If one should try to prevail over others with force, their minds do not submit even though the people outwardly succumb to force. But if one prevails over others with virtue, then their minds are inwardly joyful and they submit sincerely, just as the seventy disciples submitted to Confucius. As The Odes says, “From west and east, from south and north, everyone submitted.”
Historically, the imperial policy was that no other nations could possibly be of equal status as China. It took a short drugs war with Great Britain and the Treaty of Nanjing in 1842 to force an amendment of this view. The unequal treaty, of course, meant a modification of the Chinese self-image, particularly with regard to the ceding of Hong Kong. Such loss of face in the intervening years was only really rectified after the 1997 handover.
Chinese loss of face also followed Japanese meddling in mainland China from the latter part of the 19th century onwards. After the Meiji Restoration this once-vassal state took 20 years to modernise whilst the imperial Chinese languished in outdated opinions of its own greatness. The Japanese took their technology to war with the Chinese on-and-off for 50 years. Hence, the Chinese may now buy Japanese products, drive Japanese cars and eat sushi, but everyone knows who the real bad guys on the block are. Chinese school history books say it, the government says it and the recent actions of those wicked criminals across the Yellow Sea prove it.
So, to sum up, the Chinese government objected to the way one of its citizens was treated by a historical enemy and summoned more than enough invective to paint the Japanese once again as the bad guys. Their justification not only focused on the perceived unlawful detention of its skipper but also the question of ownership of the off-shore islands and historical perception of neighbouring states. There was no question of backing down to a lesser power in the sinosphere. The Chinese had nothing to lose but face and that just wasn't going to happen. Not now, not ever. With a Mandate of Heaven, China continues to teach the barbarians who's in charge.
Comments