Japan, China at odds over Nanjing Massacre victims in history report

TOKYO, Jan. 31 Kyodo -
Academics from Japan and China remained apart on the controversial number of
victims in the 1937 Nanjing Massacre in a joint history research report
released Sunday, after three years of efforts to improve mutual understanding
between the two countries.
While both sides affirmed that the 1937-1945 Sino-Japanese War was an ''act of
aggression'' waged by Japan, the postwar history section was not disclosed at
the request of the Chinese panel members, fearing a possible public backlash
against the sensitive content.
The release of the 549-page report, which covers ancient, medieval and modern
history, marks the end of the study that started in 2006. It consists of papers
submitted both from Japanese and Chinese academics on the same subjects,
apparently because of the differences in perceptions.
The panel, chaired by Shinichi Kitaoka, a professor at the University of Tokyo,
and Bu Ping, director of the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy
of Social Sciences, labeled the study as ''the first term'' and both called for
the need to carry on such a study to ''the second stage.''
While Kitaoka said that being able to announce the outcome itself was ''an
achievement,'' Bu said that he wants to emphasize that ''differences in
academic views are not the same as the gap between the two countries.''
As for the number of Chinese killed by the Imperial Japanese Army after its
seizure of Nanjing, the report referred to the different views that exist in
the two countries, ranging from 20,000 to more than 300,000. But both sides
refrained from asserting which figure should be regarded as legitimate.
Japanese academics said China's view is ''based on the ruling of the 1947
Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal,'' which said the number was more than 300,000,
while noting that ''various estimates up to 200,000, such as 40,000 and
20,000'' exist in Japanese studies.
Chinese researcher Rong Weimu also touched on the figures of the Nanjing
tribunal, as well as data from the International Military Tribunal for the Far
East, which says the number totaled more than 200,000, but did not stipulate
China's view on the issue.
The reason for the various arguments is because of the differences over the
definition of ''massacre,'' the area and period in which the incident took
place and others, said Sumio Hatano, a professor at the University of Tsukuba
and another Japanese academic.
But they admitted that ''mass killings'' of prisoners of war, some civilians,
stragglers, and others did occur, along with frequent rapes, lootings and
arson.
On the eight-year Sino-Japanese War, the two sides used in the report the word
''aggression'' by the Japanese army and said it ''left a deep scar on China
that became the battleground and we have to say that most of the causes were
created by the Japanese side.''
''The full-scale Sino-Japanese War not only inflicted a heavy toll on the
military personnel of both countries, but especially on noncombatants in
China,'' according to Hatano.
The remarks clearly describe Japan as the victimizer in the war. There are
concerns in China that some people in Japan seem to be denying its war
responsibility and even the historical fact that it conducted a war of
aggression.
The Chinese paper also concluded that the Sino-Japanese war was ''an all-out
aggressive war by Japanese militarism.''
On the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, an exchange of gunfire between Japanese and
Chinese troops near Beijing that led to the war, the Chinese paper indicates a
softening of its stance, saying that ''there is a possibility that it may have
occurred accidentally.''
The Japanese paper said the first shooting occurred accidentally, while adding
in the annotation that such a view is ''dominant'' among Japanese researchers,
but many Chinese researchers insist that it was ''planned or plotted'' by the
Japanese army.
In the modern history section, the Chinese papers tend to criticize Japan's
wartime act and stress the suffering of the Chinese people based on its
historical perspective that China continued to resist Japan's aggression.
The Japanese paper, for its part, placed importance on explaining how Japan
headed to war and its background. It also avoided making reference to Unit 731,
the Japanese army's germ warfare arm, known for conducting experiments on
living humans, although the Chinese paper included the word.
The Japanese and Chinese academics also presented different views on earlier
ages, such as over whether Japan was in a vassal relationship with China during
the ancient and medieval eras.
Ten academics each from Japan and China served as the members of the panel,
with an initial plan to report its findings by the end of 2008, the 30th
anniversary of the bilateral peace treaty.
But the release of the report was postponed several times, with China citing
''technical reasons'' in one occasion.
It remains a challenge as to how the countries would deal with their postwar
history, which includes the deadly 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown on
pro-democracy protesters.
The incident is a delicate issue in China, with press reports prohibited.
Chinese leaders say the use of military force was necessary to maintain
stability.
During the panel meeting, a Chinese panel member opposed Japan's call to take
up the issue as a subject to study, saying it has nothing to do with their
bilateral ties.
Japanese panel members said there is a link because Japan moved ahead of other
countries in lifting the economic sanctions imposed on China after the
incident.
Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said Friday that he welcomes the
completion of the report, saying, ''Even if there may have been differences in
views, especially in modern and contemporary history, I think common
understanding can gradually be nurtured by working on it.''
==Kyodo