Should the US join China's WWII event?

Bangkok Post

5 days ago

The latest Victory Day parade in Moscow marking the 80th anniversary of Germany's independence defeat in May will be bookended in the upcoming September with a commemorative parade at Tiananmen Square in Beijing marking the defeat of Japan.
Of the "Big Five" victor nations, only the leaders of China and Russia will be on the rostrum, with no confirmed plans for US, UK or French leaders to attend.
Two leading Chinese opinion leaders, Jin Canrong of Renmin University, formerly of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and Wang Xiangwei, former editor of the South China Morning Post, have suggested that China should invite the US to join the event at Tiananmen. This tantalising possibility was flagged by internet maven Wang Zichen in his Pekingnology newsletter
Nice try, guys. This is a bold gesture at a time of immense diplomatic turmoil, a time when it's worth a try to think out of the box, but it's unlikely to work.
Any gathering at which Vladimir Putin is party to will project mixed messages and crossed signals at odds with the spirit of the original victory against global fascism.
Winners of the war never tire of the narrative that Germany and Japan were the bad guys, on the wrong side of history, but both those countries have transformed themselves beyond recognition.
The Soviet Union and the United States emerged triumphant in 1945, of course, with immense leverage between them in shaping the peace of the post-war world order.
But the fleeting solidarity enjoyed in that moment of victory was frittered away as the two very different nations turned competitors, contenders and Cold War adversaries in the rush to determine who controlled what and where and on whose terms.
China was on the winning side, but its legacy is most pronounced as a victim nation. Its losses under Imperial Japanese aggression were among the most catastrophic in history, with estimates of 35 million dead or more, and while it is natural that China should want to celebrate the moment that the horror of Japanese occupation ended, China did not end it.
Some will argue the horrific bomb dropped on Hiroshima did the job, others credit the Soviet Union's late but formidable arrival in Manchuria.
Chinese of all political factions fought bravely and made great sacrifices, but China was part occupied, part battleground and part rump state. The KMT in Chungking offered continuity of governance, but were not winners on the battlefield.
Chiang Kai-shek's family ties and diplomatic links to the US gave him a seat at the table at the Cairo Conference and subsequent discussions about reordering a broken world order. It is fitting and proper that China should be among those who salute the march of history in 1945.
But what about Britain? Under Winston Churchill's leadership, the UK correctly perceived Adolf Hitler to be the enemy of all mankind, even before the Nazi's went on the rampage and began to pound London with bombs.
In the face of an insuperable threat, the UK, like China, did its best to delay the march of armies it couldn't singlehandedly stop. What both did, significantly, was to communicate to the world that fascism was everyone's struggle.
Long before the US entered either the Pacific or Atlantic theatre of the war, Washington was beseeched with pleas from old friends in both China and England to pay attention, to lend support, to get involved. Both frontline countries did much to convince the more powerful but geographically isolated US to join in.
Of the five big powers, France got a seat at the table despite its collaboration with the Nazis because of Charles de Gaulle's guerrilla war against the Nazis. France surrendered to Nazi occupation under the guise of cooperation, only to turn on them when US intervention became a game-changer.
A similar pattern of biding time took place in the vast swathes of China. Much of the coast was occupied directly by Japan, such as in Manchuria, or indirectly ruled under the aegis of pro-Tokyo collaborationist Wang Jingwei.
Today, as several serious regional wars are already raging across the globe, the spectre of world war cannot be entirely dismissed. Commemoration of World War II can offer a useful perspective if the ceremonies are not hijacked for partisan benefit or are tone-deaf to the past.
The presence of Mr Putin as a guest of honour at the Beijing parade, presents a problem. No one can deny the great contribution to victory that was made by the USSR in bringing the World War to an end in 1945, but the past is another country.
Furthermore, the absence of the US, Britain and arguably France, makes for a lopsided affair. It becomes instead a commemoration of convenience, serving present needs without really taking an honest look at what the fight against fascism was fighting against.
In the Western press, Mr Putin has been compared to Hitler, and as historically inaccurate as that may be, Mr Putin did recently invade Ukraine upon which he continues to wreak death and sow hatred.
Russia's blatant aggression has put all of Europe on edge, setting into motion some of the same dynamics seen in continental Europe when the Allies grappled with the rising German threat of the 1940s.
Another reason why it's worth being sceptical about the US joining China and Russia to praise the heroism of a bygone struggle against fascism is the confused state of affairs in the US at this time.
Donald Trump, self-styled strongman leader of the US, has introduced elements of fascism to his authoritarian ruling style at home and abroad. Oblivious to the nuances of history, he recently crowed about the success of his attack on Iran, comparing it to dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
Finally, there is the question of where Germany and Japan, the two aggressor nations so soundly defeated by the Allies and Soviets in 1945, stand in today's world.
It's one thing to crow about victory over the bad guys while the smoke is still clearing, but the smoke cleared 80 years ago and the world is a very different place now, with Germany and Japan rule-bound, cooperative, diplomatic and peace-abiding.
Sad to say, the two aggressor states of World War II are in many ways exemplars of the post-war peace, while the Allied victors, especially Russia and the US, are looking more and more like aggressors these days.