Natural Disasters and the Aftermath: Political Ambiguity in the Taiwan-Japan “Friendship

It seems natural that the emergency conditions in the wake of natural disasters compel the international community to take swift action to contribute humanitarian aid. However, in today’s East Asia, it is an area where nationalism is so heated and may work to oppose public sympathy. I n such a situation, how and what kind of rhetoric is used by people to appeal for public sympathy on an international scale? How disruptions in the ‘natural’ world are seen to reflect or reveal division in the social world? These questions intrigued me to look at the case of the “Taiwan-Japan Friendship” in the aftermath of the 311 Earthquake.

Few would hesitate to characterize Taiwan’s status quo as a plight or a political ambiguity. Under pressure from China, international political correctness on the China-Taiwan issue has long inclined to overshadow and marginalize Taiwan. This kind of “normalization of abnormal status”, however, might be challenged or reconfigured by another “abnormal status”, such as a natural disaster.

On March 11, 2011 a 9.0 earthquake struck Japan. The most powerful recorded earthquake in Japan’s history accompanied with the subsequent 10-metre-high tsunami and the following Fukushima nuclear leak accident eventually killed nearly 18000 people. In the aftermath of the 311 earthquake, Taiwan was the first nation to extend a helping hand to Japan and was also the biggest national donor to earthquake relief. Over US$252 million in combined aid, with 90 percent of the donations coming from the private sector are provided to Japan from Taiwan. At that time, a new term “Taiwan –Japan friendship” soon emerged and spread on the internet. It was then adopted by traditional media and governments in both countries, and still exists today. The term “friendship” seems to be a typical public rhetoric between two countries in the aftermath of a natural disaster, but since some political ambiguities with the national status of Taiwan and the tension amongst Taiwan, Japan and China, this “friendship” is worth further examination. By illustrating how the “Taiwan-Japan Friendship” was created and performed in both countries and on both government and non-governmental levels in the aftermath of the 311 earthquake, I would like to raise the issue of the role and reception, the potential and challenge of “Political Ambiguity” in terms of this case.

In the aftermath of the 3-11 Earthquake, about 65percent of Taiwanese and 67 percent of Japanese feel “close” or “really close” to each other according to surveys. The contributions of Japanese civil society to the “Taiwan-Japan Friendship” are obvious. Numerous essays, drawings, photos, clips, films and even events made by Japanese trying to send their gratitude for Taiwanese donations now can still be found on the internet. However, on the government level, the friendship seems rather vulnerable. On the first anniversary of the quake in 2012, at the memorial service held by the Japanese government under former Prime Minister Noda, apparently out of consideration for China, Taiwan was omitted from the list of nations who had provided Japan with assistance and the ceremonial flower offering.

It would not be exaggerated to say this is actually a normal situation that Taiwan is omitted or ignored in an international occasion. It is also understood that the Japanese government chose to overlook Taiwan’s humanitarian contribution in order to avoid infuriating China. The significance here, however, is that this news angered the Japanese public at that time. It seemed as if Japanese civil society suddenly could not stand this kind of political ambiguity of Japanese government’s expedient and attitude toward Taiwan. All of a sudden, the government was under fire from all sides on this arrangement. In response to questions by an opposition lawmaker Seko, Japanese government spokesman Fujimura apologized, but pointed out that the arrangement was in accordance to the protocol based on 1972 joint communique between Tokyo and Beijing designating Japan's ties with Taiwan as non-governmental. But Seko challenged Fujimura's notion. Seko emphasized Taiwan was one of the first countries to extend a helping hand and donated the most to the country. In Seko’s words, he understood that there could be diplomatic difficulties, but it was important to overcome such difficulties to reciprocate Taiwan’s friendship. Then he called for Prime Minister Noda to represent Japan and apologize to Taiwan.

And Noda did it. The Prime Minister of Japan said if Japan had hurt Taiwan, he felt truly sorry and promised to reflect on the government's inadequate treatment. Not only Noda, in 2013, current Prime Minister Abe rectified this omission and included Taiwan within the formal public expression of appreciation. Abe even apologized again and expressed his gratitude for Taiwan on his Facebook page. In addition, some policy changes have been made. For example, in 2012, when Japan began to issue new residence cards to foreigners who live in the country on a long-term basis, Taiwanese citizens were able to list Taiwan as their nationality.

It is no doubt that natural disasters create national or cultural discourse. Since Taiwan’s humanitarian assistance in the aftermath of the devastation of 311 Earthquake in Japan, the friendship between the two islands has lifted to a high point with a strong sense of mutual admiration and support. Some have already argued that Taiwan’s ties with Japan are perhaps at their strongest today since the diplomatic ‘breakup’ in 1972. However, in my preliminary finds, the most significant of abnormalities in Japan-Taiwan relations/friendship is the strange dichotomy that exists in the dialogues of their peoples and their governments. When Japan and Taiwan have no official diplomatic relations, it was the pressure from the populace forced the Japanese government broke some political rules in the aftermath of 311 Earthquake. The daily political ambiguity operated by the political authorities were challenged and reconfigured by this disaster. In addition, the reflections on the meaning of an unexpected natural disaster may invite intra-regional comparisons and references, and make profound and lasting policy changes. However, to realize the insatiability of status quo and the unreliability of this sort of “Friendship” is also critical for Taiwan. The ‘normalization’ of the international relations is always one thing worth pursuing; otherwise the ambiguity still possibly dooms the chances for a clarified and secures ‘friendship’ with other countries in the world.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. On 10 March 2015, a Japanese National Police Agency report confirmed 15,893 deaths, 6,152 injured, and 2,572 people still missing: http://www.npa.go.jp/archive/keibi/biki/higaijokyo_e.pdf. Retrieved 21 October, 2015.
[ 2 ]. "Japan omits largest donor Taiwan from thank-you note". FocusTaiwan (FocusTaiwan News). April 16, 2011..
[ 3 ]. In fact, there had already been something should have incurred Beijing’s ire: Japan’s acknowledgement of Taiwan as a separate donor entity.
[ 4 ]. “Noda Apologies to Taiwan for March 11 Ceremony Snub”, The China Post, March 13, 2012.
[ 5 ]. In previous times, Taiwanese citizens were only able to register their nation as China.