Asian AngleHow historical amnesia fuels US-China conflict

This August marks the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II in Asia. Contrary to the narrative often presented by Western commentators, the conflict did not begin in 1941, but in 1937, when Japan invaded China. Unfortunately, this has been forgotten. In a breathtaking display of historical ignorance, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly declared during his first visit to Japan: “We share a warrior ethos that defines our forces. Japan is our indispensable partner in deterring communist Chinese military aggression.” For the record, Japan’s aggression against China predated 1937 by decades. The first Japanese attack occurred in 1894-95, resulting in the seizure of Taiwan as spoils of war. In 1904-05, Japan’s victory over Russia expanded its reach into Manchuria. By 1910, Korea had been annexed as a Japanese colony. In 1931, the Japanese Imperial Army manufactured the Mukden Incident as a pretext to carve out Manchukuo from China’s northeast: a date still commemorated in China every September 18. Then, in 1937, came the Lugouqiao, or Marco Polo Bridge, incident – again orchestrated by the Japanese Imperial Army. Only then did full-scale war ensue. At the G7 summit in May 2023, world leaders gathered at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, which documents the horrific aftermath of the US’ atomic bombing on August 6, 1945. What it does not document is why Hiroshima was bombed. Japanese aggression against China led to a US oil embargo in 1941. Rather than withdraw, Japan chose to attack the colonial possessions of Britain and the Netherlands and launched a surprise assault on Pearl Harbour – resulting in America’s entry into the war and ultimately leading to the atomic bombings. Unlike Germany, Japan has never fully and honestly confronted its wartime history, especially in relation to China. China’s return The so-called Thucydides Trap – the idea that a rising power and an established one are destined to collide – is often invoked in such historical discussions. But to describe the People’s Republic of China as a “rising” power is mistaken. China is a returning power, and the psychology is fundamentally different. Failing to understand this only deepens mistrust. Between 1839 and 1945, China was repeatedly invaded, humiliated and occupied by foreign powers. Britain, seeking to address a trade deficit, launched the first Opium War against China in 1839, seizing Hong Kong and imposing the first of the unequal treaties. France, Russia, Germany and Japan followed. Foreign enclaves were imposed in Chinese ports, governed by their own laws and rulers. These foreigners, mostly Westerners, considered themselves racially and culturally superior, treating the Chinese with disdain in their own homeland. Between 1937 and 1945, Japanese forces killed an estimated 15 million to 20 million Chinese. “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles,” the revered Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu wrote. “If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.” Given China’s history from 1839 to 1945, is it any wonder the Chinese are determined never to be bullied again? To some, this resolve is mistaken for aggression. But for Beijing, it is defensive. Understanding China’s sensitivities is vital to avoid stupidly stumbling into a war that nobody wants. To understand is not to condone. The US response to perceived Chinese “aggressiveness” has been deterrence and a strategy of rallying allies: Australia and the UK through Aukus; the Philippines and Japan with enhanced defence cooperation; India in the Quad; and now Japan and South Korea, nominally aligned against North Korea, but in reality forming an anti-China bloc. Former CIA director William Burns and others have suggested that mainland China is preparing for a military move against Taiwan by 2027 – a narrative the anglophone media has eagerly adopted. US officials have even asked Japan and Australia where they would stand in the event of a conflict with China. It is as if some are eager for a quick war to neutralise the “threat” before China gets too powerful. When former aggressors show neither recognition nor remorse for past transgressions, but instead ramp up preparations for war, such behaviour only feeds Chinese fears of history repeating itself. None of this makes war less likely. Beijing, it should be noted, views Taiwan as part of China to be reunited by force if necessary. Most countries, including the US, do not recognise Taiwan as an independent state, but Washington and its allies are opposed to any attempt to take the self-governed island by force. Singapore’s role The vicious cycle of action, reaction and overreaction in US-China relations must be broken. The first step is for the anglophone media to cease its one-sided portrayal of China devoid of historical context. The wise legal maxim applies: audi alteram partem – hear the other side. In the echo chambers of the Anglosphere, a nuanced voice is essential, especially as the media amplifies increasingly strident rhetoric. Thinkers like Singapore’s former foreign minister George Yeo and former ambassador Kishore Mahbubani offer a far more balanced understanding of China than the prevailing anglophone narrative. Next, politicians and officials must be educated about the need for restraint and perspective. Too many are ignorant of history, seeing only shadows through a glass darkly from afar. Of course, it is impossible to wake someone who is only pretending to be asleep, but the effort has to be made if peace in Asia is to be preserved. Third, there has to be real dialogue – not rants by grandstanding politicians posturing for their domestic audiences. Neutral states like Singapore, which understand both world views, can provide a venue for quiet diplomacy. Consider the 2015 meeting in the city state between Taiwanese leader Ma Ying-jeou and Chinese President Xi Jinping. If rapprochement is to occur – between Beijing and Taipei, or between Beijing and the US – Singapore offers a natural place to start the dialogue. A final thought on Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War: in the end, it was not “democratic” Athens that prevailed, but autocratic Sparta. The Athenians overextended themselves by attacking other states, alienated neutrals with their arrogance and treated their allies as vassals. There are lessons to be learned from history, for those who are willing to heed them. Walter Woon is Chairman of the Singapore Society for International Law, Lee Kong Chian Visiting Professor at the Singapore Management University, and Emeritus Professor at the National University of Singapore. He previously served as Singapore's ambassador to Germany, the European Union, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Greece and the Vatican.

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}The West’s selective memory fails to recognise China’s resolve never to be bullied again. Singapore can help correct this narrative

The West’s selective memory fails to recognise China’s resolve never to be bullied again. Singapore can help correct this narrative