China Rejects Japan's Demand for Apology

Apr 17, 12:30 PM (ET)

By JOE McDONALD

BEIJING (AP) - China on Sunday rebuffed Tokyo's demands for an apology after sometimes violent anti-Japanese demonstrations, while new protests took place in several cities over perceived efforts by Japan to gloss over its wartime history and to gain a permanent U.N. Security Council seat.

Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing instead pointed a finger at Tokyo for the heightened tensions, which have been fueled by anger over Japan's wartime aggression and anxieties about Tokyo's military and diplomatic ambitions.

"The Chinese government has never done anything that wronged the Japanese people," Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing told his visiting Japanese counterpart.

Li said Japan, instead, was to blame for "a series of things that have hurt the feelings of the Chinese people" over issues such as relations with rival Taiwan and "the subject of history" - a reference to new Japanese history textbooks that critics say minimize Tokyo's World War II-era atrocities.

Many Chinese believe Japan has never truly shown remorse for its prewar invasion of China.

Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura appealed to Li to protect his country's diplomats and citizens. Tokyo denounced Saturday's violence in Shanghai, where police stood by as 20,000 rioters - some shouting "Kill the Japanese!" - threw stones, eggs and plastic bottles and broke windows at the Japanese Consulate and damaged restaurants and cars.

"I wish the Chinese government would sincerely handle this matter under international regulations," Machimura said, apparently referring to treaties obligating Beijing to protect diplomatic missions.

Japanese public broadcaster NHK quoted Machimura as saying Sunday in Tokyo that he would warn Beijing that relations, "including on the economic front, could decline to a serious state."

Relations between the Asian powerhouses also have soured amid disagreements over Taiwan, Japan's bid to join China as a permanent member of the powerful Security Council and gas resources in disputed seas.

Earlier this year, Japan and the United States appealed in a joint statement for a peaceful resolution of Taiwan's future status. Tokyo had sought to avoid direct involvement in the dispute over the self-ruled territory, which split from the communist mainland in 1949.

China's legislature last month passed a law authorizing the use of force if Taiwan moves toward formal independence.

In the southern cities of Shenzhen and Guangzhou, thousands of protesters called for a boycott of Japanese goods, a Japanese diplomat said. Smaller, peaceful rallies were held in nearby Dongguan and Zhuhai and in Chengdu in the west.

In Shenyang in the northeast, about 1,000 protesters marched to the Japanese Consulate but were kept away by police. The crowd threw stones but did not break windows, said consulate official Shoji Dai. The protest ended in about 90 minutes, he said.

In Shenzhen, two groups - one with up to 10,000 people - marched past a Japanese-owned Jusco department store calling for a boycott of Japanese goods, said Chiharu Tsuruoka, Japan's vice consul general in Guangzhou.

Another 500 protesters were outside another Jusco branch in Guangzhou, Tsuruoka said.

Earlier Sunday, police tried to block a planned protest in Guangzhou, shooing people away from a stadium where a march was to start. Police stood guard outside Japan's Guangzhou Consulate.

Some have suggested that the Chinese government, which wields tight control over its population, permitted earlier protests to undermine Tokyo's Security Council campaign. Beijing regards Tokyo as a rival for regional dominance and is unlikely to want to give up its status as the only Asian government with a permanent seat and veto power on the Security Council.

But Beijing last week called for calm, apparently afraid of causing more damage to relations with Tokyo or encouraging others to take to the streets to demonstrate against corruption or demand political reforms.

The Communist Party newspaper People's Daily called in a front-page editorial Sunday for the public to "maintain social stability."

It did not mention the protests but said "frictions and problems of various kinds ... can only be settled in an orderly manner by abiding by the law and with a sober mind."

Japan's Trade Minister Shoichi Nakagawa warned the violence would hurt China's reputation and economy. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce says Japan has $47.9 billion invested in China.

"People around the world are wondering whether it's all right to pursue economic activity (in China)," Nakagawa was quoted as saying by Japan's Kyodo News agency.

On Sunday, the Japanese consulate in Shanghai, China's commercial capital, was ringed by hundreds of police, some armed with shields, but there was no sign of new protests. The consulate's walls were splattered blue and black from paint bombs.

Last week, protesters also smashed windows at the Japanese Embassy in Beijing.

---

Associated Press reporters Natalie Obiko Pearson in Tokyo and Min Lee in Hong Kong contributed to this report.

Link

........................................................

Well it appears the Red Chinese have conquest ambitions on Japan as well as Taiwan. And the whole region for that matter. This is an old tactic. Incite your population against those you wish to vanquish so that you will not have any internal opposition. Big trouble on the horizon here.

The way i see it, this is all about the Nanking massacre which took place in China and it was the Japanese who brutaly killed an estimated over 300,000 Chinese and raped over 20,000 women- it is why the Nanking massacre is more commanly known as "The rape of Nanking".
Here's some links for more info;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/39166.stm

http://www.gotrain.com/dan/nanking1.htm

The Nanking Massacre was in a sense one of those holocausts that was forgotton/denied over time and unlike the Nazi's who have appologised countless amounts of times for their war time attrocoties(sp?), there has never ever been any official/formal appology from the Japanese for their war time attrocitys.
In fact at various points in recent history the Massacre has been completly denied it ever took place by the Japanese by various japanese politicians.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/611733.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3062141.stm

The first part of the arguement between the Chinese and Japanese was re-ignited when Japan decided to release a load of school books which apparently only glorified Japans military past and ignored the attrocitys of its war time past, in particular the Nanking massacre...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4411771.stm

The big debate now, is as far as China see's it,
"How can a country which not only cannot correctly handle history, but falsifies history again and again, have the qualifications to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a responsible member of the international community?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4416593.stm

Personally, i think China has a VERY valid point here....

Oh, and heres another link for your info- its about the current ties/relationship between Japan and China and is quite recent too

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4455315.stm

A bit naive I think.
China does exactly the same regarding Tibet......
Its all about politics, dont worry.

Mike

Can you explain that to me or are we about to go off-topic here? I admit many times now that i am just learning about politics, so please enlighten me

There's huge difference there. They might have killed the rebels in Tibet during the "Liberation". The rape is Nanking was carried out not during but after the city was takenover and under control, it was targeted to the armless civilians who had on intent to fight.

Tokis & hawkins,

There is no difference.
In no school / history books in China you will find ANY reference to Tibet or even about the Tiennammien square.

Its the pot calling the kettle story as usual.

So, how are the Chinese going to impose anything on the Japanese ?
Its all about politics and a seat at the UN security councel.

Mike

I also suspect that this could be another reason: to distract close scrutiny away from it's own looming provlems. Read this article from Stratfor. It is a pay site, and cannot be linked. Sorry

BTY, what happened to my avatar?

China: Big Trouble in Little Chinese Village

Summary

Chinese citizens of a village in Dongyang, Zhejiang province, continue to
hold their city after clashing with riot police nearly a week ago. For
Beijing, there are no good options for dealing with the situation. Doing
nothing is untenable, though negotiating with the new township committee
represents an admission of defeat and could spur similar uprisings
elsewhere. And cracking down violently is difficult given public interest
and media attention focusing on the situation. However, the longer Beijing
waits, the fewer options it has, and the more untenable the situation
becomes.

Analysis

On April 10, clashes broke out between citizens and security forces from the
small Huaxi village of Huashui town outside Dongyang, Zhejiang province --
just a few 100 miles from the bustling coastal city of Shanghai -- ending
with some 50 police in the hospital and reports that the security forces and
town leaders fled.

The clashes resulted from increasing tensions following the removal of
farmland for the construction of chemical factories a few years ago and
increasing concerns over pollution. These events represent one of the
biggest challenges Beijing has faced since Hu Jintao came to power, all
centered on one small village.

Though the demonstration and clash were relatively spectacular -- with
police cars being smashed and burned and citizens attacking security and
government officials -- the events were not entirely anomalous, given that
violent protests and demonstrations are becoming increasingly frequent in
rural China. More significant in this case, however, is that the town is now
apparently bragging about its vanquishing of the security forces --
displaying "trophies" from the clashes, including smashed helmets and
burned-out police vehicles, and offering tours of the site of the conflict
to people from neighboring villages and towns.

For Beijing, the incident represents a serious dilemma. Despite foreign
reporters having their notes and film confiscated, news of the incident
continues to flow, and people from other Chinese villages are learning about
the clash and subsequent lack of a governmental response. If Beijing does
nothing, it will set a precedent for other villages to rebel violently
against their leadership if their grievances are not addressed. But if
Beijing tries to negotiate with the citizens, the same precedent is set. On
the other hand, if the government weighs in with a heavy hand, subsequent
international attention could quickly raise the issue to Tiananmen Square
statues, undermining China's economic and political programs. In any event,
the longer the central government waits to act, the fewer choices will
remain.

The current standoff in Huaxi has several underlying causes. First, local
officials voted several years ago, without consulting the farmers, to take
back some land under cultivation (all Chinese farmland is technically owned
by the government) and sell it to chemical companies. The resulting chemical
industrial park went into operation in 2001. Farmers' grievances about this
went unaddressed by the local government, which profited from the new
investment. This type of situation is not all that unusual, and Beijing has
begun to take note in an attempt to reverse the steady decline of popular
support and trust for the local -- and even central --government and
Communist Party.

Relations between the local government and residents only deteriorated
further, however, as residents began reporting problems from pollution,
including poor or dying crops, tainted water, the release of noxious gas
clouds and an emerging trend of birth defects. Public petitions again went
unanswered, even after the Zhejiang Bureau of Environmental Protection in
January 2005 called greater attention to polluting firms in the province,
listing some 33 serious polluters.



In March, after being rebuffed several times, a group of demonstrators (said
to consist mainly of retired women), set up temporary structures near the
gates of some chemical factories to protest against pollution and the
unresponsiveness of the local government. When local officials sent in
police and representatives of governmental women's organizations to remove
the demonstrators, things got out of hand. There was, apparently, an initial
clash between citizens and security officials resulting in only a
temporarily removal of the protesters. When the protesters returned, the
local government sent in between 1,000 and 3,000 riot police and other
officials to dislodge them.

At this point, rumors -- that now appear to have been false -- spread that
at least two women had been killed after they were run over by police cars,
sparking a pitched battle between as many as 10,000 villagers and security
forces. The villagers overturned and burned police cars and buses, attacked
government offices and put some 50 police in the hospital.

Since the April 10 clash, some local government officials reportedly have
fled, and the citizens have set up a temporary leadership council. Foreign
reporters are being blocked from the area -- which the provincial government
has apparently cordoned off, though not very tightly -- or are having their
notes and film confiscated upon leaving. The provisional citizens'
government has not directly challenged Beijing, but is reportedly awaiting a
central government investigation into the former local officials and the
deals resulting in the loss of land and pollution from the chemical
industries.

This situation has left provincial and central government authorities
seriously worried, but without any good options. In typical fashion, when
faced with a unique crisis, the leadership is stricken with indecision.
However, the longer they delay, the worse their choices get. There are few
precedents for this type of action in recent Chinese history -- a local
populace rising against local leaders and establishing their own provisional
government. Though it possesses some similarities to the 1980 Kwangju
uprising in South Korea, that incident was directed against the imposition
of martial law by the central government, whereas in this case the protest
was more locally directed. And the incident is too far removed from
Beijing -- and too different in cause and reaction -- to compare to the 1989
Tiananmen Square incident. But both examples are certainly floating in the
heads of China's leaders as they seek a solution -- and both ended with
massive military intervention.

This is something Beijing wants to avoid at all costs. In fact, one of the
reasons the police were so easily beaten in the Huaxi incident is that they
were apparently employing some of the new, non-lethal riot police training
Beijing has been implementing in the wake of Tiananmen Square and the Falun
Gong crackdown. Initial reports from local officials indicated that the
police were ordered to only defend themselves and take no offensive action.
Many apparently took that to mean stripping off their uniforms and blending
into the crowd to save themselves.

But Beijing cannot let this incident go unaddressed. The idea that one
village can rise against its corrupt leaders and fight with security forces
to take control is not a precedent Beijing wants to be set. Corruption at
the local level plagues Chinese cities and the countryside, and citizen
revolts represent the extreme social instability Beijing fears. Citizens
gloating over trophies from the clash and sharing their experience with
neighbors must gall Beijing. But the intense attention of foreign media
keeps the Chinese leadership from taking drastic actions to restore order.
Thus, the leadership remains locked in indecision.

Beijing's final action likely will consist of sending graft inspectors to
the village, installing a new government, scapegoating the previous
government, and -- in a few weeks or months, after things settle down --
returning to Huaxi and arresting those viewed as the instigators of
violence. Somewhat belatedly, Beijing also announced April 15 the release of
some 7.3 billion yuan (about $882 million) for ecological projects in
Zhejiang. But though this might defuse the current standoff -- at least
temporarily -- the precedent has already been set, and Beijing's inaction
has left others wondering about the ability of the central government to
respond.

Local grievances abound throughout China, from the countryside to the
cities, and demonstrations have been on the rise, mostly directed against
local issues or perceived injustices. The difference between that and the
next level -- combined uprisings or those directed against the central
authorities -- is not great. But even if kept at the local level, incidents
at the level of the Huaxi clashes would present a terrific challenge to the
authority of the Party throughout China.

Beijing has been battling with the local corruption issues, but with little
success, given China's vast size. And as long as economic growth is the
route to power and prosperity, local leaders are unlikely to stem the
unrestrained sale and development of property, despite attempts by Beijing
to slow the overheating economy. Local officials continue to think and act
locally, and Beijing has discovered that it wields little control over most
local -- and even some -- provincial leaders.

Though the Huaxi incident will not likely trigger the countryside into
rising up against Beijing and the Communist Party, it has raised the bar for
those with grievances against local and regional governments. For a country
with such a long memory, the situation in Huaxi begins to reflect previous
times of instability, which usually have signaled massive upheaval and
complete dynastic change. For Beijing, this creates a nightmare scenario --
little central control over regional and local leaders, localized uprisings
and the establishment of citizen councils, and a central government with its
hands tied by the conflicting needs to avoid social instability and yet
retain foreign aid and investment.

No, there's huge difference on how it hurts people, and how deep it buries into how many people's memories. People are angry disregarding what politics is on the surface and what conspiracy is behind the scene.

I do not think Japan should apologize to China again and again, Japan has make formal apoligy for eight times!!!!!

Japanese should keeping pay homage to those people who died for Japanese, it is not about politics, it is about how you treat your people.

In Guangzhou, China, there was a monument for memorizing KMD's national anti-Japanese soldiers who died on war field, this monument was built by Japanese captives. After vicious Chinese communism party took control of China, the monument was destroied by communism goverment and built a market on the location, what a ######ing country and ######ing goverment and ######ing people.

The war has ended 70 years ago, no Japanese is a great democratic and civilized country, Japan has unique Peace Law, I think it is more important than Germany Prime Minister's kneeing down in front of Jew's monument.

Chinese goverment should give their people more freedom, shorten the wider and wider gap between rich and poor, Chinese goverment should give the children the equal education opportunity, Chinese goverment should eliminate the serious conruption. Chinese goverment should formally apologize to 6.4 Tian An Men Square's victims and 30 million victims during Big Skip.


What vicious Chinese communism party is doing is to shift people's eyes from domestic conflict to the war happened 70 years ago.

The Rape of Nanking was a horrible crime.

Mass riots are probably not the best way to deal with it.

THERE A LOT OF FAKED NEW ABOUT CHINA
I even wonder the person is hundreds of thousands miles away from China and had never been to China alway made lots of "news".
------------
Japan is a ######ing country which even its congress said that the person who was committed to be war criminal(especially the one who led the Pacific War to US)in the WWII is totally sinlessly.They never admitted what they have done in asia and pacific,They said all the aisan and other country welcome and expect them came in.

Even now ,they haven't made a official document apology for the last 60 years.Instead ,they destory the evidences of the chem&bio-weapon they ever used,they refuse to compensate the worker(kidnaped to Japan and forced to be miners there) and prostitute(rape women in the Korea and China terra they occupied)

Consul of The Nazi in China at that periods said they(the Japanese) were totally beast they hadn't seen.

So all Asian dislike Japanese VERY MUCH.

We Chinese Do Not Want To Recall The Terrible Times We Had.What We Want Is Everyone Sould Memorize The War Taken To The World.
But there are still a lot of ######ing people in ######ing country doing ######ing bussiness to irritate all the people in Asia.

Someone talks about the Tibet issue.
I have my own opinions.

Tibet is a part of China more that 1000 years ago.
They haven't separate from China at such a long periods.
It is about 5 times as long as the history of US.
There are so many evidences,not only in Tibet,but also in the rest of China and even all over the world(The intruder of westerner took some "trophy" from China 150 years before.Now some of them could be good evidence.)

The Dalai want to keep his slavery sovereign forever.It is really opposite to ur democracy.Why u support him?

Someone care about the Tiananman issue.
They said the government of China suppess the so-called Democracy Movement.
Okay ,try to image that there some guys rush to the White House and force the guards down the flag of USA and rise a piece of colorful cloth.They kill the guards,shoot to the army,burn the all the things they got.And they claim that the US government was overturned at last.What action would the Bush administration take?Obviously,the members of riots will be put into jail and spend rest of their life.
If they refuse hand over their weapon,perharp be shot to death at once.

But they make the riot in 1989 in BeiJing.

Let's see, China invaded Tibet and occupied it in 1959, I think. If you do the math, that does not come out to be "more than 1000 years". I thought you guys were supposed to be THE final word in math sciences? Oh, that's right, Chinese are great at learning "Rote" things. Thinking for oneself?: priceless, and rare.

Oh, and while China has had sway there, and even occupied the country previously, calling it a part of china for over 1000 years is like saying that Poland has been a part of Russia for over 1000 years as well. Both countries would dispute your contention.



Oh, I'm "getting it" now. You are in the State's employ. Even claiming that the people camped out in Tiananman Square were rioters, instead of protesters, give the State legitimacy. Brilliant!

Phil, this is all we need here. Chinese Statist infiltrators into the Bear Pit. We are about to be invaded by a bunch of Kooks just as bad as the Roadster variety. Heaven help us!

First, How much do you know about the history of China?I thought that u can get some cue form ur library...
Second , How much about me?(especially the one "served in government")

protester?the protester in ur country always kill people all the time?
Burned the policeman and put their gut out?
what is a democrat? the one fight for women in your congress(what a shame!)?

now I just express what i to say.u treat me as a "Kooks",it is ur way of freedom?

The god!

I hope the mods will forgive me for bringing up an old topic, but I have a few things to say about Tibet. I will address Tiananmen at a later time.


Actually I somewhat do agree with kidan here (despite being anti-communist myself). However, China did at some times lose control over Tibet and its western part, and control over Tibet at times was not that strong. China at least was showed to have close relations with the Tibetans as early as the 800's AD. Personally I think it depends on which way you "slice the cake" and arrive at a conclusion.

Here are some facts about pre-modern Tibetan history which are sometimes glossed over.

• A treaty in 821 recognizes a "union" or "alliance" of the Tubo King and the Chinese Emperor (depending on which translation you read. The Tang did occupy parts of modern ethnographic Tibet, and so after years of fighting the two rulers decided to stop fighting, being that the two were uncle and nephew.
• It was the descendant of the Mongolians (Kublai Khan) who was considered the first "Chinese" emperor to rule Tibet directly from the Chinese capital.
• The Ming Dynasty had set up military circuits in Tibet which were responsible directly to a Chinese High Commandery in Shaanxi, which was also controlled by the Imperial court Those were The central government of the Ming Dynasty retained most of the titles and ranks of official positions instituted during the Yuan Dynasty. Db'us-Gtsang Itinerant High Command and the M'do-khams Itinerant High Command were names these positions.
• The Qing emperor Kangxi incorporated the far western parts of Tibet into the Empire; Also, when the 5th Dalai Lama unified/reformed the Tibetan government system by force, he went to the Chinese Emperor to legitimize his authority. The Qing emperors allowed this, and so Tibet remained as a quasi-independent region for the next few hundred years. Its military forces (except for a few local militias) were largely controlled from Beijing. Also, during the Qing era, a representative called an Amban communicated orders from Beijing to Lhasa on behalf of the Qing court.

Also, the figure of "1.2 million" Tibetans killed during the Cultural Revolution might be a little bit exaggerated. Lin Dewei, a researcher at Taipei National University stated that, based on population demographics and migration patterns to India and to larger cities in eastern China, the number is significantly less than 150,000. If factors such as "mismanagement" and natural disasters were factored in, the number is probably even less than that. Of course, this doesn't excuse the fact that these people died; I thought it might help to put it into perspective.

Show me something to prove your point regarding Tibet.

Errrrrrrr, you will notice that this post was made in 2005? This guy isn't even around anymore.

yes, there are no too many visitors here.

Besta


(best • ah)

1. (adv.) a replacement for any adverb in the English language.

2. (interjection) a replacement for any greeting, inquiry, and/or affirmative exclamation. The addition of "not" following besta can be used in place of any negative exclamation.

3. (definite article) a replacement for "the"

4. (pronoun) Can replace any pronoun in the English language

5. (adj.) At the speaker's discretion, it can replace an adjective

As a adverb -- Besta pass me the pepper

As a greeting -- The Beaver: Hi, Wally! Wally: Besta!

As a inquiry-- Wally: I feel sick. Beaver: Besta? Wally: Yeah, besta got drunk last night.

As an affirmative exclamation -- Wally: Want to get krunked and find some hos? Beaver: Besta!

As a negative exclamation -- Wally: Do you want to call it an early night? Beaver: Besta not!

As a definite article -- Wally: Besta cops broke down mah door and took mah crack pipe.

As a pronoun -- Beaver: Besta smells like yo momma's coochie.

(Note: There is some debate amongst scholars as to the validity of Besta as a verb and noun. The liberal school of thought views
besta as both a noun and verb as well.

Ex. Verb -- Wally: Beaver, can you besta me a rubber for me and mah ho?

Ex. Noun -- Beaver: Besta forgot dem besta and she gave me gonorrhea.)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Besta

?

假裝，偽裝是不是一個人

That is all!!

woh, are you are English teacher ?

你甚至亞洲？

您無法讀？

I think you are using an automatic translation software, I can guess what you mean, but Chinese you input sounds strange, better speaking in English.
So you are US trader?

你能明白，现在呢?

I am a ustrader. You are from what part of Califormia?

This time I do, but the grammer is still strange

I'm from Shanghai, the other side of the Pacific.

Which state are you from, California?

Do you know the Aurora building near Jim Moa?

Do you know the tourist trap, Yuyuan Market near Yuyuan Garden?

Lastly, there were few words in my writing, so grammer could not be that difficult to decipher, so what did they say, to you?

No overtaxed, over regulated nanny state dystopia like Cally f**k ya, for me..

That is all!!