數十年來,每當日本首相不論以官方或私人身分參拜「靖國神社」(Yasukuni Shrine),例必觸發中日兩國罵戰,關係緊張。靖國神社(見附圖一至三)位處東京都千代田區,有關其詳細資料,讀者可到互聯網上搜尋,在此不贅。

去年(2013年)12月26日,現任日本首相「安倍晉三」(Shinzo Abe) 突然前往參拜靖國神社,再加上近期的釣魚臺領土等爭議事件,自然火上添油,做成另一次中日高度對罵局面,並且蔓延至英國傳媒的戰場上。

話說中國駐英大使「劉曉明」(Liu Xiaoming) 於本年(2014年)1月2日在英國《每日電訊報》(Daily Telegraph) 發表文章,題為《China and Britain won the war together:Japan’s refusal to face up to its aggressive past is posing a serious threat to global peace》,以《哈利波特》小說中的邪惡勢力「佛地魔」(Voldemort),諷喻日本「軍國主義」(militarism),猛烈評擊安倍晉三參拜靖國神社,象徵日本軍國主義復辟,威脅國際社會的和平秩序。

另一方面,日本駐英大使「林景一」(Keiichi Hayashi) 亦迅速於四日後(同年1月6日)回應,同樣在英國《每日電訊報》發表文章,題為《China risks becoming Asia’s Voldemort:Japan is committed to peace and democracy – and a visit to a shrine will not change that》,批評中國才是東亞區內的「佛地魔」,反駁中國在過去20年大幅增加軍費,引發東北亞洲軍事競賽,挑起地區形勢緊張。

兩篇文章皆從自己國家的利益觀點出發,各說各話,可以理解,其引述的事實和論據,卻甚具閱讀價值,並可啟發歷史的思考。

有關中國劉曉明大使的文章,雅帆第一個疑問是:當年聯合英國打敗日本,究竟是國民黨軍隊?還是共產黨軍隊?代表共產黨政府的劉大使以《China and Britain won the war together》為文章主題,他所說的「China」,是指「中華民國」?還是「中華人民共和國」?但當時「中華人民共和國」尚未成立,則其文章是否歷史不正確?甚或是政治不正確?第二個疑問是:當年日本戰敗,在退出中國東北時留下大批軍火,被共產黨軍隊接收,反過來繼續成為攻擊國民黨軍隊的武器,則共產黨軍隊的戰爭角色,與日本軍隊有何差異?第三個疑問是:中華人民共和國曾軍事援助其他亞洲國家如朝鮮、柬埔寨、越南的共產黨,進行大規模殺戮戰爭,則又是否屬軍國主義的表現?

有關日本首相參拜靖國神社,是否軍國主義復辟?雅帆才疏學淺,難下定論。據說於1874年(明治7年)1月27日,明治天皇初次參拜當時的「東京招魂社」(在1879年,即明治12年,改名為靖國神社),曾為供奉的軍士亡靈吟詠一首詩歌,其大意云:

「為我國戰鬥和犧牲的人們,你們的名字將在武藏野的這座神社中永存 (我國の為をつくせる人々の名もむさし野にとむる玉かき;I assure those of you who fought and died for your country that your names will live forever at this shrine)。」

然而,自1978年後,因第二次世界大戰日本甲級戰犯入祠靖國神社引起爭議,由於日本天皇的地位及行動敏感,從這爭議開始,裕仁和明仁兩位天皇數十年來已沒有再到靖國神社參拜。

畢竟,靖國神社供奉14名第二次世界大戰的甲級戰犯,祇佔其供奉自「戊辰戰爭」(1868年–1869年)以來日本戰死軍士亡靈的二百五十萬分之十四。再者,任何國家對為國犧牲的軍士表示崇敬,是否等同鼓吹、贊成或歌頌戰爭?相對地,雅帆更關注的是:日本文部省篡改歷史教科書的侵華歷史內容,卻是鐵證的事實,則更為可恥,更加應該追究。

事實上,許多日本人亦期望中日兩國不再戰爭,在京都嵐山公園桂川中間的「中之島」東邊,便豎立一塊「日中不再戰」的石碑(見附圖四),是日本著名石匠「高城芳三郎」所雕刻的作品,由此可感受到日本人對中日兩國和平共處的期盼。假若兩國人民都不願意再戰爭,是否可以化口誅筆伐為玉帛?

除了中日兩位大使就安倍晉三參拜靖國神社各自發表的文章外,前英國駐朝鮮大使「艾維拉德」(John Everard) 於再一日後(同年1月7日) 同樣在英國《每日電訊報》發表文章,題為《Are China, Japan and South Korea fanning the flames of war? There is no political framework to settle the rancorous confrontation in the South China Sea over the sovereignty of disputed islands between Japan, China and South Korea》,以第三者的角度,評論亞洲整體的軍事形勢,指出區內缺乏一個有效的國際政治機制,去商議和解決國際間的紛爭,亦堪具參考價值。

雅帆將三篇頗具分量的文章,原文錄述自《每日電訊報》如下,供各讀者參閱。

【引述開始】
第一篇中國駐英大使劉曉明的文章–
《China and Britain won the war together:Japan’s refusal to face up to its aggressive past is posing a serious threat to global peace》

「In the Harry Potter story, the dark wizard Voldemort dies hard because the seven horcruxes, which contain parts of his soul, have been destroyed. If militarism is like the haunting Voldemort of Japan, the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo is a kind of horcrux, representing the darkest parts of that nation’s soul.

Last week, in flagrant disregard of the feelings of his Asian neighbors, Shinzo Abe, the Japanese prime minister, paid homage at the Yasukuni Shrine, where 14 Class A war criminals – defined as those who committed “crimes against peace” – are enshrined. They were among the 28 Japanese political and military leaders convicted by an international military tribunal after the Second World War.

The Yasukuni Shrine was established more than 150 years ago, and Asian people know very well how it has since been used by Japanese militarists as a spiritual symbol to launch wars of aggression. In addition, it is deeply offensive to witness convicted war criminals being venerated. These were leaders found guilty of inflicting indescribable suffering on countless individuals during the war. Rightly, within hours of Mr Abe’s visit, there were strong condemnations from China, South Korea and across the international community.

Visits to the shrine by Japanese leaders cannot simply be an internal affair for Japan, or a personal matter for any Japanese official. Nor does it concern only China-Japan and Korea-Japan relations. Deep down, paying this kind of homage reveals whether Japan is trustworthy. It raises serious questions about attitudes in Japan and its record of militarism, aggression and colonial rule.

At stake is the credit of that country’s leaders in observing the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and upholding peace. It is a choice between aggression and non-aggression, between good and evil and between light and dark. Regrettably, what Mr Abe did has raised the spectre of militarism rising again in Japan.

Mr Abe’s track record provides evidence. Since taking office in 2012, he has been talking enthusiastically about justice, democracy, peace and dialogue. But the reality is seen in his actions. He is unrepentant about Japan’s militarist past and makes no apologies for it. He has openly questioned whether his country should be defined as an “aggressor”, and did his utmost to beautify its history of militaristic aggression and colonial rule.

In May 2013, Mr Abe caused great offence in China and Korea when he was photographed posing in a military jet boldly marked with the number 731: this was the code of an infamous Japanese biological warfare research facility performing human experiments in China during the war.

With these precedents, the world should be very alert. Mr Abe wishes to amend the post-war pacifist constitution, imposed on Japan by the USA. Close attention should be paid to his colleagues, such as Taro Aso, the deputy prime minister, who asserted that Japan could “learn” from Nazi Germany about revising constitutions. Mr Abe has worked hard to portray China as a threat, aiming to sow discord among Asia-Pacific nations, raising regional tensions and so creating a convenient excuse for the resurrection of Japanese militarism.

Last year, I explained in a newspaper article the key principles concerning the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea, and pointed out the severe consequences of Japan’s provocations. This time, I believe Mr Abe has continued his brinksmanship by visiting the Yasukuni Shrine; it has rekindled bitter memories of Japan’s past-war crimes.

We know from history that a country that starts a war and ends up in defeat has two options. One is to face up squarely to its past, make sincere apologies and renounce militarism, as Germany did. The German approach has contributed to regional stability and world peace. It has earned respect and acclaim from the whole world.

The other option is to deny past aggression, allow militarism to rise and raise the threat of war. Unfortunately, Mr Abe’s actions confirm that he favours the second option: he seems determined to lead Japan on to a perilous path. The international community should be on high alert.

Next week, The Railway Man, a film based on a true story, will be released. It tells the tragic story of a British PoW tortured by the Japanese in the Second World War. The film is not only about the atrocities committed by his Japanese captors, but also how one of them is harrowed by his own past. His redemption is only effected through deep remorse and penitence.

China and Britain were wartime allies. Our troops fought shoulder to shoulder against Japanese aggressors and made enormous sacrifices. Sixty-eight years have passed since that horrible war. Yet there are always some incorrigible people in Japan who show no signs of remorse for war crimes. Instead, they seek to reinterpret history. They pose a serious threat to global peace. The Chinese will not allow such attempts. I am sure British and all other peace-loving folk will not remain indifferent.

China and Britain are both victors of the Second World War. We played a key role in establishing the post-war international order that has delivered great benefits for mankind. Our two countries have a common responsibility to work with the international community to oppose and condemn any words or actions aimed at invalidating the peaceful post-war consensus and challenging international order. We should join together both to uphold the UN Charter and to safeguard regional stability and world peace. 」

Liu Xiaoming is the Chinese ambassador to the United Kingdom
(《每日電訊報》網址–
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10546442/Liu-Xiaoming-China-and-Britain-won-the-war-together.html。)

第二篇日本駐英大使林景一的文章–
《China risks becoming Asia’s Voldemort:Japan is committed to peace and democracy – and a visit to a shrine will not change that》

「Everyone knows that relations between Japan and China are strained, especially in the East China Sea. Japan has been exercising utmost restraint. When a Chinese destroyer directed its fire-control radar at a Japanese destroyer last year, which in normal naval practice might be regarded as an act of war, the Japanese vessel made an evasive manoeuvre rather than risk further endangering the situation. Chinese ships repeatedly intrude into Japanese territorial waters surrounding the Senkaku Islands, which have been peacefully under Japan’s sovereignty for 120 years.

Further evidence of Chinese provocation was seen with Beijing’s unilateral declaration of an Air Defence Identification Zone covering the islands and overlapping with Japan’s own ADIZ. Despite such steps, Japan continues to call for dialogue. Can Japan really be considered to be displaying dangerous militarism, as stated by China’s ambassador Liu Xiaoming in this newspaper on January 2?

Let me outline some facts. Japan’s record over the past 68 years shows the strength of its democracy, its respect for human rights (one is not arrested in Japan for criticising the government), its commitment to peace (e.g. a strong contribution to UN peace-keeping operations), and its willingness to help developing countries. Our maritime forces never harass neighbours on the high seas and we have upheld in action the values inscribed in the UN Charter. Such values are so deeply ingrained in Japan that a visit to a shrine cannot undo them.

Following the great sacrifices made during the Second World War by the United Kingdom, among others, our two countries are now close allies in the pursuit of peace, sharing the fundamental values of liberal democracy. This was evidenced, for example, in recent cooperation to support disaster relief operations in the Philippines.

It is ironic that a country that has increased its own military spending by more than 10 per cent a year for the past 20 years should call a neighbour “militarist”. China’s military budget is now the second largest in the world and more than twice that of Japan’s. Its attempt to change the status quo by force or coercion has raised concerns not only in Japan, but also among its neighbours throughout the East China Sea and the South China Sea.

Prime Minister Abe issued a statement entitled “Pledge for everlasting peace” upon his recent visit to Yasukuni Shrine. He said his visit was made to pay his respects and pray for the souls of the war dead and to renew the pledge that Japan shall never again wage war. Nothing more and nothing less, and by no means to pay homage to war criminals or to praise militarism.

He also visited “Chinrei-sha”, a remembrance memorial to pray for the souls of all of those, irrespective of nationality, who lost their lives in the war. As he clearly stated at the time, Japan has created a free and democratic country and consistently walked the path of peace for the past 68 years, and there is no doubt whatsoever that Japan will continue to pursue this path.

Such a visit cannot be portrayed as a sign of reviving militarism. In the past, Japan caused tremendous suffering to the people of many countries, particularly in Asia. The government of Japan has consistently made clear that it squarely faces this history, and expresses deep remorse and heartfelt apology. This stance is firmly upheld under the Abe government.

As in the case of the Japan-UK relationship, exemplified in the meeting between Eric Lomax and Takashi Nagase described in the book The Railway Man, the only way to heal the wounds of the past is through the pursuit of reconciliation. But, critically, it takes two for this to be achieved.

In the case of Europe, not only the sincerity of the German leaders but also the magnanimity of the French, British and other European leaders were important in helping them to achieve reconciliation. It cannot help that China seeks to instil distrust of Japan among its own people while making unfounded accusations. It is important to note inconsistencies in China’s stance toward Yasukuni.

There have been more than 60 visits to Yasukuni by Japanese prime ministers since the end of the Second World War, with almost half after it was made public in 1979 that 14 Class A war criminals had been enshrined there in 1978. China began raising this issue from 1985, by which time 21 of these visits had gone unchallenged. China also formally expressed its positive evaluation of Japan’s post-war record as a nation of peace in the Japan-China Joint Statement of 2008, after all of these visits. Has Japan suddenly turned militaristic within five years? Certainly not.

China may well have different views. This is why the two countries should meet and seek mutual understanding. Prime Minister Abe stated that he wishes to build friendship with China based on respect, and that he strongly wishes to explain his thoughts directly to the Chinese leaders.

East Asia is now at a crossroads. There are two paths open to China. One is to seek dialogue, and abide by the rule of law. The other is to play the role of Voldemort in the region by letting loose the evil of an arms race and escalation of tensions, although Japan will not escalate the situation from its side. The answer seems obvious. Although China has so far refused to enable dialogue between our leaders, I sincerely hope that it will come forward, rather than keep invoking the ghost of “militarism” of seven decades ago, which no longer exists. 」

Keiichi Hayashi is Japan’s ambassador to the United Kingdom
(《每日電訊報》網址–
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/10552351/China-risks-becoming-Asias-Voldemort.html

第三篇前英國駐朝鮮大使艾維拉德的文章–
《Are China, Japan and South Korea fanning the flames of war? There is no political framework to settle the rancorous confrontation in the South China Sea over the sovereignty of disputed islands between Japan, China and South Korea》

「East Asia is a global economic powerhouse, but its economic progress has not been mirrored by progress in relationships between the countries in the region. These are mired in ancient and modern rivalries that are sometimes made toxic by strident nationalisms.

The parallels with Europe a hundred years ago are uncomfortable. Worse, unlike most parts of the world, there is no adequate regional machinery in East Asia to promote the peaceful resolution of increasingly rancorous disputes between neighbours.

Two recent articles in The Daily Telegraph – one by the Chinese ambassador to the UK, and one by his Japanese colleague – set out opposing views of one of these disputes. Tensions between China and Japan go back a very long time. Present Chinese antipathy to Japan has its roots in the brutal Japanese occupation of much of China in the Second World War – a period that has left deep scars on the Chinese psyche.

At the end of that war a group of islands, called Senkaku in Japanese and Diaoyu in Chinese, controlled by Japan since 1895, was placed under US administration. In 1972 that arrangement ended and administration passed to Japan. China claimed the islands, but lived with the status quo (with some grumbling) until September 2012, when they were sold by their private owner and bought by the Japanese government – effectively, they were nationalised.

It seems that the Japanese government took this step to prevent their sale to others in Japan who might have used them as props in support of Right-wing and nationalist political positions – their purchase was probably an attempt to calm matters.

But it backfired badly. China was furious, seeing the islands’ acquisition by the government as a provocation. On November 23 2013 China set up an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) that included the islands, which required all aircraft entering the zone to enter a flight plan and to submit radio information – a clear assertion of sovereignty over the islands.

To make matters worse, the ADIZ also included a rock claimed by South Korea. Japan and its US ally were deeply concerned, and reacted strongly. The US flew unarmed B52 aircraft through the ADIZ without complying with Chinese requirements, and Chuck Hagel, the US defence secretary, said that the US would stand by its treaty obligations to defend Japan if it was attacked. The American ambassador to Japan said that the ADIZ “only serves to increase tensions in the region”.

It is not clear whether China anticipated, let alone intended, such a reaction, and unlikely that it welcomed the closer US-Japan links that its action provoked. But it would be very hard now for China to back down and rescind the ADIZ. To do so would represent a severe loss of face – painful in any case, but almost unbearably so when Japan is involved.

A climbdown would also be difficult for the Chinese government to explain to its own people. Antipathy to Japan is widespread in China, and to show weakness on such an issue would invite a very hostile public reaction. Already, China’s lack of response to the B52 flights has been criticised as spineless by Chinese bloggers – the Chinese military will have been embarrassed by the incident. Moreover, the Chinese government has recently launched an ambitious reform agenda threatening vested interests that would probably not hesitate to take revenge by attacking the government on its Japan policy given the chance. So China is stuck.

Equally, Japan cannot back down. Sovereignty over the islands is for Japan, too, a matter of national pride, and nationalist Japanese – who carry considerable weight in politics – would ensure the death of any government that gave in to Chinese pressure.

And then, in the midst of all this tension, on Boxing Day Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, visited the Yasukuni shrine, where (among many others) 14 class A war criminals are enshrined. It is true that, earlier in 2013, Abe refrained from attending the shrine in person, sending only a representative, and that neither China nor Korea gave him any credit for this gesture. Abe issued a “Pledge for Everlasting Peace” on his visit, and has now offered to meet Chinese and Korean leaders to explain his move. But nothing has assuaged the anger of either Chinese or Koreans, to whom Abe seems to condone the brutality of his country’s occupation of theirs.

It is not only with China that Japan has a dispute over islands. A small group called Dokdo in Korean and Takeshima in Japanese are controlled by Korea but claimed by Japan. This issue, too, is emotive – Korean schoolchildren pose for photographs in front of a large picture of the islands in Seoul’s military museum.

Meanwhile, Korean courts have started to question the 1965 settlement between Japan and South Korea of claims for compensation for Koreans either forced into slave labour during the Japanese occupation or to provide sex for Japanese soldiers. (Only part of the compensation paid by Japan reached the victims – much of it was siphoned off by the military government of the day to fund infrastructure projects.)

To the exasperation of the US, relations between South Korea and Japan – its two major allies in the region – have become increasingly acrimonious over these issues, to the extent that there is hardly any relationship between President Park of South Korea and Prime Minister Abe.

China also has disputes with the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia over islands in the South China Sea, an area of complex overlapping claims. It has become increasingly aggressive in promoting its claims, building permanent structures on some islands. In December, it withdrew from a UN arbitration process dealing with its territorial dispute with the Philippines – the first time any state, let alone a permanent member of the Security Council, has taken such a step – and sent its first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, to the zone.

China has insisted that its rise is peaceful, but it is easy to understand the nervousness of its neighbours when faced with an ever increasing array of military hardware. It is easy, too, to understand the many calls in the region for increased military cooperation, and increased military budgets, to respond to the perceived Chinese threat.

The rise in China’s military power has also alarmed the US, which has defence treaties with several countries in the region. An armed spat between China and one of them would risk drawing the US and China into direct military conflict. On December 5 there was a near-collision between the USS Cowpens, shadowing the Liaoning, and one of the aircraft carrier’s escorting vessels – a reminder of how a miscalculation or accident too could cause a US-China confrontation.

If these tensions occurred in Europe there would be several regional institutions through which the parties would be urged to negotiate a solution (notably the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe). Even in Africa, a continent not always noted for peaceful development, the African Union is developing an effective track record in mediating disputes. But nothing like this exists in East Asia. Countries are left to solve their disputes bilaterally, without the support of an institutional framework. This allows stronger countries to pick off weaker ones individually.

The situation in East Asia in 2014 is uncomfortably similar to that of Europe in 1914. A rising power, then Germany, now China, resentful of past humiliations and looking for a place in the sun, seeks to change the status quo by asserting itself. Established powers (France, Japan) seek to maintain their position and fear what a world dominated by the rising power might do to them, while the superpower (UK, US) hopes that matters can be resolved without its direct intervention.

The chances of any given dispute in East Asia turning into a military confrontation are probably not large – but neither are the chances that any of them will be resolved peacefully in the near future. So for peace to continue in the region each dispute has to be contained, and all accidents leading to conflict avoided, all the time. The cumulative risk of armed conflict is not negligible. 」

John Everard was British Ambassador to North Korea, 2006-2008 and is the author of ‘Only Beautiful, Please: A British Diplomat in North Korea’
(《每日電訊報》網址–
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10553628/Are-China-Japan-and-South-Korea-fanning-the-flames-of-war.html。)
【引述完畢】

備註:本文原文錄述的三篇文章,取材自《每日電訊報》,謹此鳴謝。

附圖一:前往靖國神社正門的林蔭大道

YShrine01

附圖二:林蔭大道中央的「大村益次郎」(Masujiro Kimura;1824–1869)銅像,於1893年建立,是東京最早的西式銅像。他是幕府末期/明治維新初期的軍事家和政治家,在引進西方兵學方面發揮重要作用,被稱為「日本陸軍之父」。

YShrine02

附圖三:稱為「神門」(shinmon) 的靖國神社正門

YShrine03

附圖四:在京都嵐山公園桂川中間「中之島」東邊豎立的「日中不再戰」石碑

YShrine04

這篇文章發表 於 星期四, 一月 9th, 2014 7:10 下午 在 國際視野 A Global View. 你可以回應這篇文章透過 RSS 2.0 feed. 你可以 留下回覆, 或 引用 從你的個人網站.

2 comments so far

雅帆
 1 

中日兩國駐英大使就日本首相安倍晉三最近參拜靖國神社而產生的爭拗,從1月2日及6日分別在《每日電訊報》發表文章,到1月8日同場出席「英國廣播公司電視二臺」(BBC Two) 電視新聞旗艦節目「新聞之夜」(Newsnight),先後接受主持人「帕克斯曼」(Jeremy Paxman) 訪問,充分顯示事件正在不斷燃燒。

在上述電視訪問中,兩位大使主要都是舊調重彈,各執一詞。雅帆特別留意帕克斯曼詢問中國駐英大使劉曉明其中的一句對話,引述如下–

【引述開始】
帕克斯曼詢問中國駐英大使劉曉明:「你認為安倍參拜靖國神社問題嚴重嗎?」

劉大使回答說:「非常嚴重。這是一個大是大非的問题。它事關日本如何看待其侵略歷史,温斯頓.邱吉爾 (Winston Churchill) 曾經說過,“不從歷史中吸取教訓的人注定重蹈覆轍”(Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it)。如果日本不能正視其侵略歷史,人們不能不擔心日本今後將走甚麼道路。」
【引述完畢】

劉大使引述邱吉爾的名句,要求日本正視歷史,雅帆固然同意,但對應用於中國,卻也感慨萬千。中國人反躬自問,大陸和香港的人民可有重視本國歷史?大陸學生在國內及海外修讀大學或中學歷史的有多少人?香港學生的情況又是如何?雅帆對大陸的情況並不熟悉,相信中國人可自行判斷;但對香港的情況卻感悲傷,詳情可參閱網誌317〈香港的中國歷史教育〉一文,在此不贅。

當中國駐英大使要求日本正視歷史的同時,假若中國的人民卻輕視本國歷史,更遑論認識世界歷史,則大使引述邱吉爾的名句,變成就算不屬自欺欺人的「謊話」,也不過是軟弱無力的「偽話」,還望大陸和香港的人民多所反思,免陷大使於不義。

雅帆慚愧,對中國近現代史所知不過皮毛,日後還須發奮研習。否則,也就正如邱吉爾所言:「不從歷史中吸取教訓的人注定重蹈覆轍。」

一月 12th, 2014 at 11:34 上午
雅帆
 2 

2014年1月7日,中國外交部發言人華春瑩主持例行記者會,回應日本首相安倍晉三於去年12月26日參拜靖國神社所觸發的中日嚴厲爭拗和國際政治風波,其中一條問答涉及對中國不斷擴充軍備的批評,原文錄述如下:

【錄述開始】
問:針對劉曉明大使撰文稱日本軍國主義是“伏地魔”,日駐英大使在英《每日電訊報》撰文稱,中國不斷擴充軍備,採取單邊措施改變現狀;有兩條道路擺在中國面前:一條是尋求對話,另一條是扮演“伏地魔”角色,威脅地區安全。中方對此有何評論?

答:你提到的這個人的言論無知、無理、狂妄,我不想做具體評論。我只想提醒大家注意這樣一個史實。歷史上,是日本發動了軍國主義侵略戰爭,給中國等地區國家人民帶來深重災難,僅在中國就造成了3500多萬人傷亡。日本軍國主義在歷史上對鄰國犯下的罪行罄竹難書,是任何人都無法否認和抹煞的。日本領導人公然參拜供奉有二戰甲級戰犯的靖國神社,神社公然宣揚當年的侵略戰爭是正當的,這不是軍國主義陰魂不散是什麼?!

我還想提醒大家注意這樣一個事實。中國的人口是日本的10多倍,面積是日本的約26倍,每人平均軍費只有日本的1/5。是誰在擴充軍備?是誰在威脅地區安全?相信大家一目了然。

最後我還想説,對于亞洲和世界其他地區的國家來説,軍國主義侵略是日本歷史上最黑暗的“魔”,日本只有敢于、勇于正視並戰勝自己歷史上和心理上的這個“魔”,才能真正重新取信于亞洲鄰國和國際社會,否則只會繼續處在歷史的被告席上。”
【錄述完畢】

雅帆對於中國外交部引用國家人口和面積來計算及比較中日兩國的軍費開支,感到非常詫異,無法瞭解其理論基礎和邏輯思維。雅帆淺見認為,軍費開支有別於福利開支,其對象並非本國國民,所有鎗炮炸彈,都不是用來對付本國國民;也不是要向每一個國民派發一份鎗炮子彈,去上陣殺敵,為何要以人口來計算軍費開支?另一方面,中國古語有謂:「戍守邊疆」,也就是軍事策略的防禦海岸線、土地接壤和邊界領空最為重要。嚴寒的雪地、炎熱的沙漠、高竣的山巔,雖或幅圓廣闊,也許亦不必派駐一般數目的軍隊守衛,故此若單純以國土面積計算及比較兩國的軍費開支,又是否完全合理?會否以偏概全?

雅帆並非軍事專家,絕對不懂如何計算軍費;不過,當中國外交部發動超過40名駐外國使節在海外主流媒體撰文,向其所屬派駐國家解釋中國的軍費開支時,採用具備理論基礎和邏輯思維的說法,才可達到預期的效果。

一月 25th, 2014 at 10:42 下午

留下回覆

Name
Mail (will not be published)
URI
廻響