注意：此題目原是DSE歷屆試題，但為免侵犯版權，題目經過修改，同學可以按試題之年份及題號自行查閱原題目。以下內容乃K.W.Ho之補習教材，於課堂教授，內容乃配合K.W.Ho之答題方法及風格所製作，同時內容可能有錯誤之處以供在課堂上糾正。非補習學生在未有得到課堂教學的情況下錯誤使用，恕不負責，同學請敬請留意。
【Free】6000頁筆記及60份5**考卷免費使用：按此
Youtube教學：按此
_________________________________________________________________________
原題目題號：DSE-2017-Essay-03
「日本在1952-2000年間對亞洲各國的外交主要希望為其戰爭罪責作出補償。」評論此說能否成立。
架構及立場二次大戰後，雖然為戰爭罪責作為補償是影響日本對亞洲諸國的外交的考量之一，但此卻其非最重要的因素。因日本多次否認歷史，而且堅拒交還部分透過侵略得來的領土，此可證實為戰爭罪責作為補償並非是最主要的考量。相反，經濟因素和冷戰因素更為重要。因此，題目所言不能成立。
主旨句為戰爭罪責作出補償也是影響日本對亞洲諸國的外交的因素之一。// 主項重要性 基於日本挑起了太平洋戰爭，大肆侵略亞洲各國，包括1937年發動「七七事變」，全面入侵中國，而且及後又藉「大東亞共榮圈」及「大亞細亞主義」為藉口，將其侵占擴展至亞洲各國。加上，日本於戰時殘害亞洲人民，例如1938年的「南京大屠殺」等。因此，日本於戰後希望為其戰爭罪責作出補償，從而影響了其對亞洲各國的外交。例如其在1952年與亞洲多個戰勝國簽訂了《三藩市條約》，放棄朝鮮、台灣、南沙群島及西沙群島等領土的主權，並且進一步與多國商討賠償問題。往後，日本為補償亞洲各國，在經濟恢復後亦不斷批出大量經濟援助予亞洲各國，例如在1965年提供3億美元的無償產品予南韓；1984年為中國提供4,700億日元的長期貸款，希望修補與亞洲各國的關係。 // 小結 可見，為戰爭罪責作出補償是塑造日本對亞洲諸國的外交的其中因素。
然而，日本對亞洲各國的外交並非主要旨在為其戰爭罪責作出補償。
主旨句首先，從日本否認歷史及多次允許篡改歷史的行徑可以反映其不是旨在為戰爭罪責作出補償。 // 主項局限日本對亞洲各國的侵略及戰爭的屠殺行為已經是無可否定之事實，然而，日本並未有完全承認其戰爭責任，更甚，日本文部省自1982年起更允許一些傷害亞洲各國人民的言論出現在教科書內，包括辯稱南京大屠殺是因中國國民激烈反抗才導致大規模的死傷，佔領東南亞國家也只是為了將該等國家從西方帝國主義手中解放出來，結果導致日本與亞洲各國時不時就出現外交風波，持續損害關係的發展。此外，日本首相肆無忌憚地以官式參拜供奉了甲級戰犯的靖國神社，如1985年中曾根康弘以首相身份率內閣成員集體參拜，惹來了亞洲鄰國的強烈反對及譴責，同樣反映日本對亞洲各國的外交政策未有以補償戰爭罪責為優先考慮，更加是無視亞洲各國的訴求及譴責。 // 小結 可見，此並非是最主要的考慮。
再者，日本與亞洲各國的領土問題也能顯示其並非旨在為戰爭罪責作出補償。日本自19世紀末開始侵略亞洲各國，包括於對中國的甲午戰爭(1894-95年)，迫使了中國簽訂《馬關條約》，攫取了台灣及附近島嶼，包括佔據了釣魚台。儘管二次大戰後，日本在戰敗後被迫要歸還曾經侵略的領土，但卻未有將部分具有複雜歷史問題的領土交還予原有的宗主國，包括與中國的釣魚台問題及南韓的獨島等。日本政府一直堅稱擁有該等透過侵略而得來的領土的主權，更縱容日人作出挑釁性的行為，例如於1996年放縱右翼極端份子在釣魚台列島的其中一個島嶼興建燈塔，就導致了中國官方的強烈譴責及民間的大規模反日示威。日本未有將透過侵略而得來的領土全數歸還，更不惜為此等領土而與鄰國經常性產生磨擦，持續損害了雙方的關係。可見，為戰爭罪責作出補償並非是影響日本對亞洲諸國政策的主要考量。
相反，經濟因素及冷戰因素更加影響了日本對亞洲各國的外交。
主旨句 經濟因素方面，日本對亞洲各國的外交旨在獲取經濟利益。 // 他項重要性日本於二次大戰後經濟千瘡百孔，民不聊生，1946年時人均國民生產總值只得17美元。日本為復甦經濟，增加貿易，故積極改善與亞洲各國的關係，例如於1952年與亞洲多國簽訂《三藩市條約》作為戰敗條約，有助重新建立日本與亞洲各國的貿易關係。而且，日本希望東南亞能成為日本穩定的資源來源，同時也開發東南亞市場，因此積極援助東南亞國家，例如1967年與馬來西亞達成無條件技術援助及贈款等協定。 // 小結 此等均可反映經濟因素是影響日本對亞洲諸國外交的重要因素。
主旨句事實上，經濟因素較戰責因素更加重要。 // 駁論 就因果關係而言，日本承認戰爭罪責是為了重新建立與亞洲強國的外交關係。由於戰後的日本與亞洲各國關係差劣，缺乏出口市場，故日本在美國的協調下，簽訂了《三藩市條約》以承認其對亞洲各國的戰爭責任。然而，至日本經濟至1970年恢復並重新崛起成為經濟強國後，日本就無視過往的戰爭責任，例如在1978年將二次大戰甲級戰犯的靈位和骨灰另安置於靖國神社，日本首相更不時參拜；文部省於1982年多次允許篡改歷史責任的言論出現於教科書內。 // 小結 可見，戰責因素並非主要考慮，反之，經濟因素更加重要。
冷戰因素方面，冷戰的發展大大影響了日本對亞洲各國的外交政策。二次大戰後，共產主義於亞洲迅速滋長，包括1949年共產中國建立、1950-53年韓戰出現等。由於日本是資本主義國家，因此積極參與對抗共產主義國家，例如於1952年與中華民國簽訂《中日和約》，承認中華民國，但卻未有與共產中國建交。然而，至1970年代冷戰進入緩和時期，資本主義與共產主義陣營關係有所緩和，日本就開始改善與中國的關係，於1972年建交，其後又於1978年簽訂《中日友好和平條約》，確立雙方友好關係。可見，冷戰的形勢也塑造了日本與亞洲各國的外交發展。
事實上，冷戰因素較戰責因素更加重要。比較影響力而言，儘管中國是過往日本侵略的最大受害國，但日本並未有於二次大戰後即時補償予中國，但懷抱敵意，在戰後尚未建交，反映戰責因素的影響力有限，並非是影響日本政府與中國的主要考慮。相反，冷戰因素的影響力遠大於戰責因素。隨著冷戰出現，資本主義的日本未有與共產主義的中國建交，但至1970年代冷戰緩和後，雙方才正式建交。可見冷戰因素是影響日本外交的更重要考量。
總括而言，就影響日本對亞洲諸國的外交而言，戰責因素的重要性並不及經濟因素和冷戰因素重要。因此，題目所言不能成立。
‘In the period 1952-2000, Japanese diplomacy with other Asian countries was mainly intended to compensate its war guilt.’ Comment on the validity of this statement.
After the Second World War, compensating its war guilt was one of Japan’s concerns of its diplomacy with other Asian countries, but this was definitely not the primary factor given its repeated denials of history and blunt refusal to return part of its invaded territories. While compensating its war guilt was proved not the main concern, the economic factor and the Cold War had greater significance in comparison. Therefore, what the question suggests is not valid.
Compensating its war guilt was without doubt one of the factors that influenced Japanese diplomacy with other Asian countries. Japan was responsible for the Pacific War and its all-out invasion of Asia, as typified by the September 7th Incident七七事變 of 1937 that marked its full-scale encroachment on China, as well as the ‘Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere大東亞共榮圈’ and ‘Pan-Asianism大亞細亞主義’ as pretexts for extending its invasion to other parts of Asia. Besides, the Japanese killed Chinese people mercilessly during the world war as illustrated by the Nanjing Massacre南京大屠殺 of 1938. Therefore, Japan wanted to compensate its war guilt in the post-war period, and this influenced its diplomacy with other Asian countries. For example, it signed the Treaty of San Francisco三藩市條約 in 1952 with several victorious Asian countries to renounce sovereignty of Korea, Taiwan, the Spratly Islands, the Paracel Islands and other occupied territories as well as to further discuss reparation arrangements. After the treaty, Japan also offered substantial financial assistance to other Asian countries as compensation subsequent to its economic recovery. For instance, it provided South Korea with $300 million grant in economic aid in 1965 and China with 470 billion Japanese yen in long-term loans (1984) in an attempt to fix its relationship with them. Therefore, compensating its war guilt was one of the factors that shaped Japanese diplomacy with other Asian nations.
However, Japanese diplomacy did not aim primarily at compensating its war guilt.
First of all, Japan’s repeated denials of history and falsification of history showed that compensating its war guilt was not its primary goal. Japan never fully accepted its war responsibility despite the acts of aggression and massacres it committed being undeniable facts. The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture文部省 of Japan had even allowed comments unfair to other Asian peoples to appear in textbooks since 1982. For example, the Nanjing Massacre南京大屠殺 was whitewashed as an incident with heavy causality due to fierce resistance of the Chinese people and the occupation of Southeast Asian countries as an attempt to liberate them from Western imperialism. These comments often led to diplomatic crises between Japan and other Asian countries and undermined their relationships. On top of that, some Japanese Prime Ministers made blatant official visits to the Yasukuni Shrine靖國神社enshrining A-Class war criminals, as exemplified by the one by Yasuhiro Nakasone中曾根康弘 in 1985 with his cabinet members. Such visitations attracted fierce criticisms and opposition from the neighbouring Asian countries, showing that compensating its war guilt was not the major concern of Japanese diplomacy. Given that Japan showed no respect for the demands of other Asian countries, the captioned subject was not its primary concern.
In addition, Japan’s territorial disputes with other Asian countries also showed that its chief goal was not to compensate its war guilt. Japan launched its aggression in Asia in the late 19th century. Its attempts included the First Sino-Japanese War 甲午戰爭(1894-95) leading to the Treaty of Shimonoseki馬關條約 that enabled Japan to occupy Taiwan and the neighbouring islands with the Diaoyu Islands釣魚台 included. After the Second World War, Japan was bound to return its occupied territories due to its defeat, but it did not return some territories with complicated historical backgrounds to their home countries as required, including the Diaoyu Islands for China and the Dokdo for South Korea. The Japanese government claimed sovereignty over these invaded territories and condoned provocative acts of some Japanese radicals, including the construction of a beacon on the Diaoyu Islands by right-wing radicals in 1996 that led to official condemnation and widespread anti-Japanese protests in China. By not returning all the invaded territories, Japan caused constant friction with neighbouring countries that gradually impaired their relationships. Therefore, compensating its war guilt was not the main concern of Japanese diplomacy with other Asian countries.
In contrast, the economic factor and the Cold War had greater influence over Japanese diplomacy.
In terms of the economic factor, Japanese diplomacy aimed at getting economic interests. After the Second World War, Japan’s economy was ailing with a GDP per capita of only US$17 in 1946. In order to revive its economy and boost trade, Japan was eager to improve its relationship with other Asian countries. For example, it signed the Treaty of San Francisco三藩市條約 in 1952 with some Asian countries for its defeat, and this treaty helped rebuild Japan’s trade ties with these Asian nations. In addition, in pursuit of stable supply of resources from Southeast Asia, Japan also developed the Southeast Asian market and provided aids for countries there. This was exemplified by the grants and technical assistance offered unconditionally to Malaysia in 1967. All these showed that the economic factor was an important factor that influenced Japanese diplomacy with other Asian countries.
In fact, the economic factor was more important than the war guilt factor. In terms of causality, Japan accepted its war guilt in order to rebuild its diplomatic relations with other Asian powers. After the world war, Japan lost many export markets due to its poor relationship with other Asian countries. For this reason, Japan signed the Treaty of San Francisco under American coordination to accept its war guilt about what it did to other Asian countries. However, Japan denied its war responsibility after its revival as an economic power in 1970. For example, the Yasukuni Shrine靖國神社 started enshrining ashes and spirit tablets of A-Class war criminals of the Second World War in 1978 followed by visits from Japanese Prime Ministers. The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture文部省 had also allowed falsified depictions of Japan’s historical responsibility to appear in textbooks since 1982. Therefore, the war guilt factor was not the main concern and the economic factor was more important.
In terms of the Cold War, its development also greatly influenced Japanese diplomacy with other Asian countries. After the Second World War, communism spread quickly in Asia as exemplified by the establishment of Communist China in 1949 and the Korean War during 1950-53. As a capitalist country, Japan joined the fight against communist countries by signing the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty中日和約 with the Republic of China in 1952 in recognition of the ROC without establishing diplomatic relations with the PRC. However, with the easing of tension between the capitalist and communist blocs during the détente of the Cold War in the 1970s, Japan started improving its relationship with China by establishing diplomatic relations with it in 1972 and signing the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China中日友好和平條約 in 1978. Therefore, the Cold War also shaped Japan’s diplomatic development with other Asian countries.
In fact, the Cold War factor was more important than the war guilt factor. In terms of impact, China was the biggest victim of past Japanese aggression but Japan did not compensate it immediately after the world war and remained hostile towards it with no formal diplomatic relations established. This showed the war guilt factor had limited impact and was not the main concern of Japanese diplomacy with China. In contrast, the Cold War factor had much greater impact. With the advent of the Cold War, Japan did not establish diplomatic relations with Communist China as a capitalist country; however, the détente of the Cold War in the 1970s made possible the establishment of their diplomatic relations. Therefore, the Cold War factor was a more important concern of Japanese diplomacy.
In conclusion, in influencing Japanese diplomacy with other Asian countries, the war guilt factor was less important than the economic factor and the Cold War factor. Therefore, what the question suggests is not valid.
Comments