Just as the Diaoyu Islands row between Japan and China intensifies over the detention of a Chinese fishing captain, whose detention has just been extended by a further 10 days, a war of words has broken out between prominent bloggers Yoshikazu Kato and Zhang Wen.
Yoshikazu Kato, bilingual in Japanese and Chinese, is currently a student at Peking University and writes extensively on international relations, including a column for FT Chinese and a popular blog on iFeng. Meanwhile, Zhang Wen is a leading Chinese journalist, media commentator and blogger, with experience in leading Chinese and Western media such as the Guardian.
Kato recently commented on the incident in a blog entitled ‘The fishing boat row is a good learning opportunity,’ which is viewed by Zhang as a specious argument used for defending aggressive Japanese behaviors.
A good learning opportunity?
First, Kato comments that the incident is a good opportunity for China to learn about how the Japanese government operates:
过去，多数中国人不关心日本的行政制度和司法制度，把政治家、公务员、外交官、检察官全当成笼统的“官” 来看待，觉得他们既然是官就会受到某种统一领导，中国外交部门只要和这个统一的领导机关交涉就行了。但是这次事件与以往东海上的巡逻船、调查船之间的对峙不同，船只毕竟相撞了，日方已经采取了法律措施，把撞船事件的处理变成了一个涉及外交、司法和行政的综合性问题，单靠外交手段已经很难奏效了。日本的体制是，外交由政府负责，而司法系统完全独立于政府，而决定拘留渔船船长的检察官和法官，甚至在司法系统内部都有相当高的自主性。
In the past, most Chinese don’t care about how the Japanese executive and judicial systems operate. They rarely distinguish between politicians, civil servants, diplomats and prosecutors, but rather view them as a single group under the order of one department. Hence, they think that the Chinese Foreign Ministry only needs to deal with one Japanese department. But the current incident is different from past ones. After the crash, Japan has employed judicial measures, which means that the incident is not only a diplomatic problem, but also involves judicial and executive aspects. The Japanese system is that diplomacy is under the jurisdiction of the government, but the judicial system is completely independent. Even the prosecutor and judge, who make the decision to detain the captain, enjoy a high level of independence within the judicial system.
Zhang criticizes the argument as complete non-sense:
这段话真是荒唐，逻辑错乱。且不说在钓鱼岛主权存有争议的形势下，日方以国内法来处置中方船只已经是极不妥当之举，暴露其司马昭之心。再者，对中方而言，这就是一起由日方挑起的外交事件，不靠外交手段，难道加藤是建议中方派出检察官、政府官员甚或干脆出兵？
This paragraph is completely illogical. It is inappropriate for Japan to handle the Chinese captain with Japanese domestic laws, not to mention the fact that the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands is disputed. Furthermore, this is a diplomatic row initiated by Japan. If it should not be resolved through diplomatic means, are you saying that China should send in prosecutors, officials, or even soldiers?
在这件事情上，加藤拿“日本司法系统独立于政府”来说辞，是本末倒置了，或者说是在诡辩。固然我承认日本的体制优于中国，但就事论事，在钓鱼岛主权存有争议的情况下，日方不应该使用国内法，这里没有司法机构什么事。
By claiming that the Japanese ‘judicial system is completely independent,’ Kato is putting the cart before the horse. Although I admit that the Japanese system is superior that the Chinese one, Japan should not employ domestic laws and judicial measures in the first place, especially under the situation that the sovereignty of the islands is under dispute.
The Chinese government and nationalism
Kato then praises the Chinese government for its control of anti-Japanese protests within China, so that the strategic and economic relations between the two countries will not be damaged:
越是在这样的情况下，中国政府肯定越要约束民间关于外交的态度，而不愿被一部分政治投机者“狐假虎威”。政府希望人们认识到：无论国家在外交上取得了什么进展，都取决于政府创造和拥有的强大政治、军事、经济实力，并非归功于少数具有冒险精神的“保钓人士”或“反日人士”，所以应当“先谢国家”。而如果暂时不能“亮剑”，已经具备了“亮剑”能力的政府也不愿意被这些人推着陷入被动。
The more difficult the situation is, the more the Chinese government should do to control citizens’ attitudes on foreign affairs, and not to let political opportunists to benefit from the incident. The government should let the people know that achievements in foreign affairs are dependent on political, military and economic strengths, not the adventurism of a few Diaoyu Protection and Anti-Japan activists. Therefore, citizens should first thank the state. Even if the government has the ability for a military showdown, it is not willing to be forced by these activists to do so.
Zhang again claims that Kato’s argument is dubious, and has hidden agenda:
这段话充分证明了加藤的日本人属性：大大的狡猾。在看似肯定实则暗讽中国政府的同时，也极大地贬低了中国的民族主义。并且挑拨了两者的关系。可谓一石多鸟。
This paragraph shows the cunning nature of the Japanese. Beneath the praise, it is satirizing the Chinese government. It is also belittling Chinese nationalism and damaging its relationship with the state. Killing two birds with one stone.
不可否认，这段话的确包含中国政府的意思，但夹带着加藤自己的私货，借中国政府去打压“反日人士”。诚然，我反对极端的民族主义，但认同理性的民族主义，例如在此次事件上，如果中国人保持沉默而不抗议，那才会令我失望呢！我要纠正加藤的是，此次“反日人士”不在少数，而是很多。尽管由于管制的原因，反日抗议未能大范围爆发，但被侮辱的感觉相信很多人都会有。
No doubt, this paragraph describes the intention of the Chinese government, but it also has a hidden agenda of using the Chinese government to clamp down on anti-Japanese activists. I am opposed to extreme nationalism, but I support rational nationalism. I will be disappointed if the Chinese keep quiet in this incident! I have to correct Kato that anti-Japanese people are not only a few, but many. Although anti-Japanese protests are not wide-spread due to government control, I believe that many Chinese feel humiliated by the incident.
加藤自作主张地替中国政府为某些“反日人士”定性：政治投机者。更不堪的是，加藤竟不知其为谁地为中国政府代言起来：（中国）政府也不愿意被这些人推着陷入被动。
By his own dubious conclusion, Kato equates anti-Japanese people with political opportunists. Worse still, he is speaking on behalf of the Chinese government: the [Chinese government] is not willing to be forced [into a military showdown] by these activists.
The verdict
Finally, Kato concludes that this incident is a good opportunity for both countries to understand each other better:
日中之间围绕着撞船事件展开的交涉是一个案例，给了两国国民深入认识，并学习对方国内政治的机会。如果此事得到比较圆满的处理，它必将成为日中两国走向相互理解的一个契机，甚至反过来推动双方解决各自内政中涉及对方的问题。
The fishing boat row is a good chance for the citizens of Japan and China to learn about each other’s domestic politics. If it is dealt with satisfactorily, it will be a juncture for a rapprochement, and could even further lead to solutions to internal domestic problems which involve the opposite side.
And Zhang reiterates that Japan should be held responsible for the row:
我固然也严厉批评了中国政府以往的“无所作为”，导致日方一步一步掌握了钓鱼岛实际控制权。但我的立场是清清楚楚、明明白白的，日方主动挑起事端，要对由此导致的中日关系大倒退负历史责任。正如当年的侵华战争，在这上面，没有什么可以辩护的余地。
I criticize the Chinese government for not acting more toughly, with the result that Japan is gradually grasping material control of the Diaoyu Islands. But my stance is real clear – that Japan starts the incident, and should bear historical responsibility for the deterioration of Sino-Japanese relations. Like the Japanese aggression on China during World War II, there is no room for Japan to defend.