By Shi Yinhong

The history of East Asia has two sides. One is the chronological side consisting of ancient, modern and contemporary histories. The other is the generic side featuring national histories of the countries in the region and histories of relations among them. Each of these histories possesses some basic elements that hinder the birth of a regional cooperation system now or will do so in the future.

As far as ancient history is concerned, the most important and persistent fact is perhaps the "Chinese empire" many foreigners and some of our fellow countrymen often talk about, or, to be more specific, the unified and enormous Chinese nation. But, the basically independent existence and development of other nations in the region are equally significant.

Ancient China (especially at its peak) as we Chinese remember was a glorious and great nation. By glorious I mean the nation's power, civilization and cultural achievements, while "great" refers to moral principles and ethics such as benevolence or the "kingly way" in addition to peaceful exchanges with other countries and the influence of its civilization.

However, other nations in the region leading a largely independent existence and development, particularly China's land-linked neighbors, also remember negative factors that we Chinese tend to overlook, ignore or even deny.

As a result, against the backdrop of China's rapid development, some of our neighbors' worries about what China might become in the future, though the concerns are usually exaggerated or even delusional.

The modern history of East Asia can be seen as having two core components: first, from the 1894 China-Japan war to the end of World War II in 1945, the half-century is dominated by Japan's aggression with extreme violence, brutality and ferocity; second, the emergence and growth of other East Asian nations' modern nationalism, in which the experiences of opposing and resisting Japanese aggression and colonization more or less played the decisive role.

As far as the first component is concerned, the basic problem today is that the majority of Japanese are inclined to forget, trivialize or even deny the country's history of aggression and brutality.

This attitude has helped strengthen the mentality among at least the Chinese and Koreans to keep this chapter of history firmly in their hearts, repeatedly bringing it up.

The second component features a basic difference between the modern historical experiences of East Asia and Europe. With the tragic memory of the two world wars still fresh, the Europeans finally decided that nationalism, or at least excessive pride and exclusive nationalism, was something that should be banished forever.

This realization provided the cognitive conditions for the "post-modern" construction of the European Community.

In contrast, a major fundamental outlook that the two world wars, especially the second one, gave East Asian nations other than Japan was modern nationalism. The birth or liberation of these countries as modern nation states almost all took place during or even relied on the two world wars.

It is fair to say that East Asian nationalism burst forth as these modern nation states emerged, rose and developed.

These different histories all affect the possible emergence of an East Asian cooperation system. Whether the standoffs and rivalries between the countries' nationalism or their economic interdependence and common interest in security prevail remains to be seen.

The contemporary history of East Asia includes the Cold War period, with memories that definitely stand in the way of a regional multilateral system in East Asia.

In the minds of the Chinese, the US-Japan military alliance and US-Republic of Korea military alliance created during the Cold War period are more or less designed to counter China.

For the majority of the Japanese, their Cold-War era impressions of China as an autocratic or authoritarian state remain basically unchanged.

And the impression continues to give rise to misunderstanding, distortion of truth and harmful prejudice. In the minds of Koreans both north and south of the demilitarized zone, strong nationalism combined with national division and the US-ROK alliance are products of the Cold War directly or indirectly stoking suspicion and anxiety toward their big neighbors and even each other.

Not to be forgotten is the influence of the Cold War on the United States: whether physical as seen in its alliances with certain countries and military presence or psychological as characterized by a Cold War mentality, Cold War legacies of China, the ROK, North Korea and Japan still profoundly influence current US strategy and policies in East Asia. The result is Washington's obvious indifference mixed with suspicion toward the creation of a regional cooperation system.

To sum up, history has left the creation of a regional community in East Asia a multi-faceted burden. It can also be described as a multitude of barriers not easily overcome. In order to shake off the burdens and overcome the barriers, it is absolutely necessary to proceed with an awareness in touch with East Asia's complex histories.

To use a couple of words popular among foreign observers, moving forward involves "truth" and "reconciliation".

"Truth" means acknowledging and understanding history, not only from a nation's own point of view but from that of other nations concerned.

An outstanding example is found in Japan, which must view its history of aggression, colonization and brutality without bias, face up to the disastrous outcome of its injustices and learn the lessons of this history.

Otherwise neither the East Asian region nor Japan itself will have real peace. At the same time, "truth" also means looking back at and summing up the past, including the history of Japan and its relations with China, not only according to what happened back then but to the consequences.

As for "reconciliation", it first requires all governments concerned to meet two conditions: 1) respect other peoples' memories and feelings as well as their own people's and, when seemingly irreconcilable differences are found between the two, they should try their best to ease the animosity; and 2)properly treat hatred deeply rooted in history by emphasizing the present and future according to the overriding principle of sticking to the core (not fringe) historical truth and today's overriding (not insignificant) national interests today.

To do so it is advisable to leave the resolution of such disputes to future generations. Generally speaking, an East Asian country should avoid the specifics when resolving its inherited bad relations with neighboring countries.

Some of the disputes should be largely or even totally avoided while concentrating on positive issues. But, this must not apply to differences over such fundamental issues as Japan's history of wartime atrocities.

It is also necessary to discuss China's contemporary experience in light of "truth and reconciliation". The first question is how to view relationships between the People's Republic of China and its neighbors, and perhaps on what overall principle to base our view of such historical issues.

The history of China's relations with its neighbors since October 1949 is one of both great achievements and real lessons. As far as lessons are concerned, China is responsible for some of the negatives while the United States, the former Soviet Union and certain neighbors all have their share.

Also, some potential as well as current disputes and difficulties have persisted till today. Quite a few relate to historical animosity, which the Chinese and their neighbors should handle appropriately as prescribed above.

Can a regional cooperation system beneficial to peace, stability and joint development in East Asia be created?

It depends, in my opinion, to a considerable degree on whether governments and the people of East Asian countries can face the long and complicated East Asian history, particularly international relations among East Asian nations, with the right attitude and mindset.

The author is a professor at the School of International Relations, Renmin University of China.

(China Daily March 23, 2007)