The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), published an article on September 8, 2017, entitled, “Why China Can't Stop Hating Japan”, authored by Richard McGregor. This article also appeared in the Journal's print edition next day but re-titled as “China's Self-Defeating Feud with Japan”. Mr. McGregor is the author of “Asia’s Reckoning: China, Japan, and the Fate of U.S. Power in the Pacific Century,” (Viking). He was born an Australian in 1958, worked as a journalist in Asia, UK and came to Washington DC in 2011 as the Bureau Chief of Financial Times. Although McGregor's opinion does not represent all Americans' views about Sino-Japan relationship, but it does echo many pro-Japan and anti-China American political analysts’ essays, particularly in the American right-wing camp. The fact that this article was re-titled with a bias blaming and predicting China to fail in Sino-Japan relations, those of us Americans not agreeing with the above view must speak out.
 
Ever since the U.S. initiated a Pivot to Asia policy, Japan seems to be eager to be the surrogate of the U.S. in Asia Pacific to rebalance the powers in the region. This can be seen from several developments involving Japan. These developments provide a deeper understanding of the current stressed Sino-Japan relationship and the so-called hostility between the two nations discussed by McGregor.  McGregor posted an intelligent question: Why doesn't China be friend with Japan to disentangle Japan-US long-time security alliances to devastate American interests in Asia Pacific region? China does and actually tries very hard to alleviate the U.S. and Japan’s worry of a rising China. McGregor then proceeded to analyze why China hates Japan and vice versa.  Unfortunately, he didn’t answer his intelligent question and his account for explaining the hostility between the two nations was outdated. The fact that Chinese suffered from Japanese brutality and atrocities during WW II did contribute to their unforgettable memory but did not deter their willingness to forgive. After Japan surrendered, China did not ask for war reparation was already a way of showing forgiveness (in contrast with the huge war reparation Japan demanded from China in 1895). Yes, Japan's insincere apologies were annoying to the Chinese people, but the real crocks of the matter is that Japan's way of denying their war crimes by white washing history and putting lies in their school textbooks. When these dishonorable deeds coupled with a purpose of reviving an Imperial Japan and practiced in a double-faced diplomacy, it cannot help but infuriate China and her people. 
 
Let's take a few recent developments that have caused more tension in the Sino-Japan relationship. Japan orchestrated and rekindled the Diaoyu Islands dispute in 2012 (which had been tabled by an agreement between the Chinese leader Deng Xiao Ping and the Japanese Prime Minister Takeo Fukuyama) making those uninhabitable rocky islands a hot spot in the East China Sea. The U.S. gave Japan the administrative rights of those islands under protests from both Mainland China and Taiwan. So Japan had de facto control, why Japan wanted to rekindle this dispute? Why did the U.S. let it happen? From this issue alone, one can see that any China's effort to befriend with the U.S. or Japan would be in vain since Japan would do anything to embrace the U.S. to advance Japan's ambition to return to a dominant power in Asia again. The U.S. never had any second thought to improve US-China relationship at the expense of US-Japan relationship in the past three decades, until today, such strategic thinking sounded like a wake-up call.  As China is rising as a significant trading partner with most nations in the world, and while Japan's right-wing government is busy with weapon sales and military alliances, shouldn’t the U.S. adjust her relationship with China and Japan appropriately?
 
As McGregor pointed out, Japan cannot handle China alone, thus Japan wants the U.S. to place troops in Asia and eagerly engages the U.S. to strengthen the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty allowing Japan to expand military forces, endorsing her right-wing government's intent to revise its pacifist constitution to permit Japan military to attack as well as to engage in more war exercises with the U.S. in the Pacific. However, the presence of the U.S. in Asia should not raise the tension in Asia leading to war. As China is making effort to demonstrate to her neighbors and the world that her rise is peaceful not hegemonic, then shouldn’t the U.S. think twice before placing a threatening military power in Asia? What for? To have a war with China? Or to assist Japan to counter China again? These are unethical thoughts. What does the U.S. gain in assisting Japan to return to her pre-war glory? History showed us there was a brutal Imperial Japan attacking the U.S. but never a war-monger China. In the two Asian wars the U.S. involved in, China was forced into the Korean War by the Soviet and Soviet-US confrontation. In the Vietnam War, China actually disengaged with the Soviet and ultimately helped the U.S. in ending the war.
 
Another recent development can also illustrate the delicate Sino-Japan relationship. Though not a party in the South China Sea (SCS), Japan arbitrarily took sides against China (support the arbitration court case filed by the Philippines who discarded it later). Japan openly advocated a ‘China Threat’ theory and diplomatically trying to build defense treaties with Asian nations to form a Japan-centric military alliance, presumably with permission of the U.S. The SCS was peaceful; the disputes of small islands were old fishing right issues which China sensibly preferred to handle them through bilateral negotiations. Hindsight, the island constructions made by China would never got accelerated if the U.S. did not threaten China and SCS with Freedom of Navigation Operation (FON OP) which developing into military confrontation would potentially choke China’s trade route transporting 60% or more goods to and fro China. Why has Japan been busy building military alliances and beating war drums for the U.S.?  As a great power, China is inviting Asian nations to engage joint developments. The real balance of power the Asian countries wished for is for peace not for tension, thus what will the U.S. gain by playing with Japan in a ‘China Threat’ drama, not crafted by rational thoughts?
 
Japan should realize that accepting honest historical facts and a rising peaceful China is not a bad thing. Japan eagerly promoted the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) a trade agreement excluding China, but ultimately the U.S. pulled out. On the other hand, many of the Chinese initiatives like the One Belt and One Road (OBOR) program, obviously beneficial to the world economy and the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), surely helpful to Asia, have received overwhelming global support including EU powers. Japan as the third largest economy ought to join the effort for mutual advantages. Recently, the BRICS Summit was held in Xiamen, China, where many political and industrial leaders attended. The 2017 BRICS Summit promises a great future for those participated. Because of BRICS, India and China rationally buried their dispute in Bhutan. This is a bright example that Japan and the U.S. can learn from.
 
The U.S. is still a superpower. Her behavior has a great influence on other countries. McGregor mentioned that China is building a Sino-centric club, but that is no reason for Japan to be jealous, a business club is not a military alliance like NATO. It opens to everyone. In assessing Sino-Japan relationship, McGregor is partially right about the domestic issues in Japan may be the culprit. China has grown up with sufficient confidence to rely on 'Japan' sentiment to guide her diplomacy.  The U.S., reshaping a new administration, is in an excellent position to renew her China policy and revise her legacy strategy based on outdated assessment of China, Russia and Japan. Both the U.S. and China stand to gain if joining hands to pursue economic development for mutual benefits and for world peace.
 

 
The American Civil War is history whether one considers it as a glorious war from the victors point of view (that slavery had been finally abolished) or as a memorable war from other point of views  (including defeaters that Americans would be reminded of her shameful past). Historical facts can never be denied, be it slavery in America, Nazi’s slaughtering of Jews or Japan’s war crimes in Asia, massacres, sex slavery, biochemical experimentation on Chinese, Koreans and Americans and brutal murder of Taiwanese including Taiwan aborigines during Japan’s 50 years of occupation. So the violent incidence at Charlottesville, Virginia regarding the issue of removing the statue of General Robert Lee with pro and con demonstrators leaving one dead and several injured is a sad and unforgivable tragedy. General Lee was the leader of the Confederacy Army during the civil war. His statue, larger than life size riding on a horse sculptured by a New York sculptor, Henry Merwin Shrady, had stood in the city of Charlottesville since 1924. Instead of holding memorial services to recall history, some residents along with National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) wanted to remove the statue. Why? You wonder? The statue is a reminder of history which Americans should never forget but abolishing it serves the opposite effect. In Charlottesville’s case, the idea of removing a historical statue triggered emotions and served the political agenda of current time activists groups pitting against each other dividing the nation.
 
General Lee was a career military man, a WestPoint graduate and a Virginian who was even considered as a candidate for Commander to lead the Union or Federal Army. When Virginia chose independence, Lee made a personal career choice to be the commander of the Confederate Army, perhaps more motivated by career opportunity than racial ideology. When the war ended, General Lee made the remark that he was sorry the Confederate was defeated but he was glad that the nation was united after the war. The civil war toll was 620,000 to 750,000 dead, 280,000 wounded and 200,000 missing or deserted which could easily explain the emotional charge left on large number of descendant Americans. General Lee will be always a figure in Virginia’s history which will be a part of American history. There should be law and procedure for establishing statue to memorialize historical facts and there should also be law protecting established statues and permitting memorial events held by any contemporary organizations. Virginia residents and NAACP could hold memorial services to highlight any part of the history rather than demanding removal of a historical statue. No wonder the international press is calling Charlottesville event a (Mao’s) “Cultural Revolution” act.
 
President Trump made a point that both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had slaves, should their statues be demolished? He was right to say that we could learn from history but could not hide history. The recent American racial incidences in Virginia and North Carolina not only are lessons for Americans but also lessons for people in Japan where a German reporter asked a right-wing Japanese a question about his WW II view and he was haunted by the mob audience after the reporter made a remark that the Japanese politician’s speech would put him in jail if he were in Germany. Japan to this day opposes any statue featuring Japan’s WW II crimes, Massacres or ‘Comfort Women’. Another sad example is that some radical people in Taiwan recently destroyed the statues of Chiang Kai-Shek who retreated to Taiwan in 1949 with skilled people to practice Sun Yet San’s Three Principles of People for economic reform saving Taiwan from becoming a Communist province. 
 
One undercurrent below the recent racial unrests such as in Virginia and Carolina seems to be stimulated by political actions of the Democratic Party/press against the Republican President Trump. During the presidential campaign, Trump made remarks that had been interpreted and sometimes inflamed by the media to be too ‘white’ – promoting white supremacy in his campaign of ‘make America Great Again’. The Democrats seem to be latching on the racial issue in preparing for a comeback in 2020. The Republicans indeed should not tarnish Lincoln’s image (Republican President) as a hero who liberated the blacks from slavery by expressing a firm anti-racism position. However, the Republican Party and the President must be aware that the nation is facing more pressing issues such as creating jobs, making tax reform, fixing immigration laws and enacting deregulation initiatives to pump our economy as well as steering our foreign policies to deal with nuclear threat, trade imbalance and tensions with rising powers. Racial violence does create headlines in media but they are political issues fed by emotions. The President and his staff must manage and not inflame people’s emotions, otherwise any racial violence activities may backfire. Steve Bannon might be right to say that “if Democrats would keep focusing on Identity and Racial Issues and Republicans on economy and nationalism, we got them.”
 
Being honest with respect to history will win (over being hypocritical) in the long run, especially regarding racial issue. The U.S. has been preaching human rights in the world; the U.S. must be honest to herself in human rights. The very first thing to be honest is about history and the slow progress made regarding human rights. Historically, the immigrant Americans had not been fair to the Native American Indians. History evolves with time and racial cultural assimilation may take centuries. Therefore it is unfair and hypocritical to demand other nations to solve their human rights issues in a short time while we Americans still have our own racial problems. Throughout the years we did make progress in human rights. It took centuries to evolve to granting all Native Indians American citizenship uniformly in 1924. Educational and civil rights for Native Americans were only established in the late 1960’s.
 
Slavery came to North America in 1619. Civil War began in 1861 and ended on April 9, 1865 ending the slavery, but the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was formed right after the war ended (May, 1865). Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution gave citizenship right to native born (including slaves) in the U.S., then voting rights to the blacks in 1870 by 15th amendment. Segregation persisted and legalized in 1896 by Supreme Court decision. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was founded in 1909. Military service right allowing integrated U.S. Armed forces was in effect in 1948. Racial segregation in schools declared unconstitutional in 1954. Martin Luther King established Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in 1957 and he was assassinated in 1968. President Johnson signed the most significant Civil Rights Act in 1964 prohibiting discrimination based on color, race, religion and national origin. Senator Barack Obama became the first black President 2008 but the racial issues continue to exist till today.
 
Incidences like Charlottesville may come and go and the statue removal is not the real issue. The real issue is to make significant progress in acquiring equality in social and economical status through education and job opportunities and political rights through laws. Blacks should treasure their rights and favorable status for college admission (than other minority races) rather than spend energy arguing symbolic representations of statues. If a college kid could not understand and interpret the real meaning of a historical statue and the real history behind it, he or she would never appreciate what equality and racial discrimination really mean in life.      

 
Abstract

Paris Climate Agreement was signed by 147 nations after 25 years of effort in negotiation since a UN Framework Convention on Climate Control (UNFCCC) was established in 1992. It was a visible deed by the Obama Administration now being reneged by the New Trump Administration by its announcement of withdrawal from the Accord on 6-1-2017. Why? New Science Evidence, military strategy or simply a political decision driven by the notion that reduction of carbon emission kills American jobs? The answers are no. Therefore, shouldn't Americans be asking the question seriously: is it wise to pull out of the Paris Agreement?
 
-----------------------------------------------------
 
The Paris Climate Agreement (in short PA) is an impressive achievement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The agreement took effect on November 4, 2016 with 147 country members signed, exceeding the required threshold of 55 countries producing over 55% greenhouse gas emission according to the 2015 list.  On 4/1/2016, the Obama Administration and China issued a joint statement that they would sign the Paris Climate Agreement. 174 countries and EU signed on the first date, 4/22/2016. France Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, Called it a turning point in the goal of reducing global warming and the ratification of PA was celebrated by Paris Mayor, Anne Hidalgo by illuminating the Eiffel Tower and the Arc de Triumph in Green. However, on June 1st, 2017, less than six months into effect, the new US Administration decided to pull out of the PA agreement, making the world's effort in climate change control vulnerable and the ultimate effect of PA questionable.
 
When Donald Trump won the 2016 US presidencial election on November 8th based on his 'make America great again' slogan, he took it as a mandate to launch an ‘America first agenda’. Therefore, it is no big surprise for Trump to renege on the PA since it requires developed countries not only to pledge a commitment to reduce voluntarily greenhouse gas emission so the global warming can be controlled to below 2 degree centigrade increase by 2050 but also to contribute to the  $100B/yr green climate fund by 2020 until 2025 to help developing and vulnerable nations to deal with weather induced damages. Trump and his advisors seem to equate climate control or the greenhouse emission reduction to job loss in the U.S. and regard PA to be favoring developing countries and unfair to the U.S. Trump Administration cancelled the two unpaid $2B of the $3B contribution to the green climate fund the Obama Administration pledged. Needless to say, the U.S. action caused a heavy blow on PA and aroused a heated discussion in the U.S. and in the whole world.
 
The environmental issue concerning global warming caused by greenhouse gas emission was a long recognized problem going through debate for its validity and seeking solution in an equitable way. The Kyoto Protocol (KP) linked with UNFCCC was adopted on 12-11-1997 and put into force on 2-16-2005; KP set emission reduction target with its first commitment period starting from 2008 and ending in 2012. Unfortunately, the KP failed to produce either a meaningful emission reduction or a sustainable development mechanism. The UNFCCC was a treaty adopted on 5-9-1992 (while George W H Bush was the US president) and signed on 6/3-14/1992 in Rio de Janeiro and put into effect on 3-21-1994.  Fortunately, the UNFCCC treaty (with 197 parties as of 2015) accomplished a framework acknowledging the principles about the necessity of climate change control, but unfortunately, it contained no binding nor commitment of any action for reducing gas emissions which contribute to climate change. It took 25 years of negotiation to reach the Paris Climate Agreement. For the first time, there is a goal in PA and a technology and finance plan to deal with global warming.
 
PA is an agreement not a treaty, thus Obama could sign it without the necessity of approval by the US Senate (A Republican controlled Senate in 2016). As an agreement, Trump can reverse it with no need to seek the Senate approval. But the UNFCCC is a treaty which is not so easy to disengage. Even for PA, Trump Administration must wait three years till 11-4-2019 to send a letter to withdraw from it and then officially leave it after 11-4-2020 according to a PA clause. November 4, 2020, of course, is after the next US presidential election, it is likely that the PA withdrawal may become an election issue and face a new decision if the U.S. gets a new president. The PA deal is a broad package of actions to reduce emissions and to combat the impacts of climate change, including a specific goal to limit global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, or a more desired target of 1.5 degree Celsius temperature rise, if possible. To this end, countries have had to submit “nationally determined contributions.” These are nationally designed pledges containing climate targets. The U.S., for example, agreed to cut greenhouse gases by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, which was a much welcomed news when Obama and Xi made a joint announcement to the media in 2014 committing the U.S for the above pledge and China for the first time to cap her emissions by 2030 or earlier.
 
Comes to Climate Change Control, both political parties of the U.S. weren't keen for any mandatory action by any international body out of a 'selfish' consideration: ‘the interest of US industries and the US economic development and standard of living’ according to world opinions. Internally, through decades of public education, especially in the school system, global warming and climate change control had been accepted as a real problem by the US public.  Any debate or argument cannot deny the climate change phenomenon except perhaps there exists different interpretations of the results of climate change computer modeling regarding how soon the disastrous effect will precisely occur. It has certainly been accepted by the US public, the climate change control requires global collaborative efforts. The two great nations, China and the U.S. contribute almost 40% of world's total greenhouse gas emission. Therefore, Trump Administration may want to adopt a climate change control pace suitable to ‘America first agenda’ but it is unwise to pull out of the PA entirely. 
 
Apparently the G7 nations failed to convince Trump not to withdraw from PA, The EU members’ disappointments are easily understandable. As an agreement, PA has no teeth to bite the U.S. legally. However, there has been talk in some nations of a climate-related trade tariff on products coming from the U.S., a clear resentment.  In Asia, Piyush Goyal, India’s energy minister, said that India remains committed to its Paris pledge — no matter what happens in the rest of the world. “We are not addressing climate change because somebody told us to do it, it is an article of faith for this government,” Goyal said. “Sadly the developed world does not show the same commitment to fulfill their promises, which could help speed up the clean energy revolution.” “China will continue to carry out innovation, green, open and shared development regardless of how the other countries’ positions are changing, based on the inherent needs of its own sustainable development,” Hua Chunying, a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said in a news conference in Beijing. China is clearly stepping into a leadership position in the arena of climate change control.
 
Trump may argue for his decision based on cost consideration, saving Americans tax dollars and enhancing competitiveness for US energy industry, however, the oppositions from American citizens, US oil companies and environmentalists do not buy his arguments. Pulling out of PA does not show US toughness or leadership; on the contrary, it hands over the ‘leadership’ on a platter to China. The U.S. has little excuse to cancel contribution ($2B) to the green climate fund and to spend it on Naval Freedom of Navigation (FONOP) in South China Sea for no apparent justification other than butting into some island disputes for which the U.S. is not a claimant.   
 
 
.