{"id":4483,"date":"2012-10-26T09:27:44","date_gmt":"2012-10-26T08:27:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/socialism.in\/?p=4483"},"modified":"2012-10-26T09:32:12","modified_gmt":"2012-10-26T08:32:12","slug":"whats-behind-the-island-conflict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.socialism.in\/?p=4483","title":{"rendered":"China\/ Japan- What\u2019s behind the island conflict?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The conflict over disputed islands in the East China Sea has triggered the most serious diplomatic crisis between China and Japan, the world\u2019s second and third largest economies, since they normalised relations 40 years ago. Large-scale and sometimes violent anti-Japan protests swept China in September, inflicting heavy economic losses on Japanese-invested companies. Politicians on all sides have engaged in warmongering speeches about defending national sovereignty.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is part of a high stakes battle of political nerves between Beijing and Tokyo, triggered by the decision of Japan\u2019s Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, under pressure from the country\u2019s shrill far right fringe, to \u2018nationalise\u2019 three islands within a disputed island group by purchasing them from their reportedly bankrupt \u2018owners\u2019. Known as the Diaoyu in China and the Senkaku in Japan, these tiny uninhabited islands (covering just 6.3 square kilometres) have been under Japanese \u201cadministration\u201d since 1972, but their status under international law is ambiguous.<\/span><\/p>\n

The islands sit amid rich fishing grounds and possible oil reserves, but the prime driver of today\u2019s conflict is prestige, and the regional ambitions of the Japanese and Chinese ruling elites. The islands occupy a symbolically sensitive position in Sino-Japanese relations because they were first seized by Japan with its victory over the fading Qing dynasty in the Sino-Japanese war of 1895. This war marked the beginning of Japan\u2019s empire-building, with the annexation of Taiwan (Formosa) and later Korea, followed by the invasion of China itself in the 1930s, in which perhaps 20 million Chinese perished.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living,\u201d noted Karl Marx. The potential to make mischief from history is shown by the campaign of Tokyo\u2019s racist governor Shintaro Ishihara, who first proposed the scheme to buy the Diaoyu\/Senkaku Islands, thus triggering the current crisis.<\/span><\/p>\n

Inter-imperialist tensions<\/span><\/h2>\n

The current standoff in the East China Sea, and similar conflicts in the South China Sea over the larger Spratly and Paracel island groups, are part of a much wider geopolitical struggle \u2013 a struggle for economic hegemony in Asia \u2013 between the US, China and Japan, but also involving Russia and India in their respective \u2018spheres of influence\u2019, with supporting roles for several other states in the region including Australia, Indonesia, South Korea, the Philippines and Vietnam.<\/span><\/p>\n

Beijing, which has declared the whole South China Sea a \u201ccore national interest\u201d \u2013 placing it on the same level as Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang \u2013 is in dispute with the governments of the Philippines and Vietnam in particular over some of these islands. No less than seven governments lay claim to all or some of the Spratly Islands and three in the case of the Paracels. The frequency and sharpness of territorial conflicts has increased in recent years, helping to fuel a militarisation drive by all governments, with ballooning defence budgets (at the expense of urgent social expenditure) and a focus on naval expenditure in particular.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWe are all gearing up for an international tug of war in this region,\u201d noted Narushige Michishita, a Tokyo-based commentator on security matters. \u201cWhenever the distribution of power changes in a dramatic way, people start to redraw lines.\u201d [New York Times, 22 August 2012]<\/span><\/p>\n

The centre of economic gravity in the world economy is shifting eastwards, something especially noticeable since the onset of the worldwide capitalist crisis in 2008. According to IMF data, developing Asia (27 states excluding Japan, Australia and other developed economies) has this year overtaken the 17-member Eurozone in economic terms, accounting for 17.9 percent of global GDP, compared with the Eurozone\u2019s 16.9 percent. Ten years ago these Asian countries accounted for just 8 percent and the Eurozone countries 20.8 percent of global GDP \u2013 a staggering turnaround.<\/span><\/p>\n

Under capitalism, just as class divisions have not softened but sharpened during the past two decades of rapid growth, so too have the rivalries between different states. The decline of Japanese capitalism relative to its main competitors, especially China, summarised by two \u2018lost decades\u2019 and Japan\u2019s demotion to third-place in the global economy, has introduced a new source of instability into the region. The Japanese ruling class want to remain a leading world power, increasingly looking to a more assertive foreign and military policy, which means shedding the \u2018pacifist\u2019 constitution in force since the end of the Second World War. Spearheading these demands are the extreme right leaders of Japan\u2019s three major cities.<\/span><\/p>\n

US imperialism\u2019s \u2018Asia pivot\u2019<\/span><\/h2>\n

Alongside this we have the aggressive push by US imperialism through the Pentagon\u2019s \u2018Asian pivot\u2019 to recapture lost ground in the region, pushing back against China\u2019s growing influence after a decade in which the US was distracted by its wars in the Middle East. When the US launched its disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003, China was the world\u2019s sixth largest economy. By the time the \u2018pivot\u2019 was unveiled in 2011, China had become the second largest economy.<\/span><\/p>\n

The new US strategy will shift 60 percent of US naval power to the Asia-Pacific region by 2020, with new bases and military agreements being established across the region. Newly announced US troop and naval deployments in Australia (in Darwin and Perth), for example, and a bigger US naval presence in Singapore, are to safeguard \u201cfreedom of navigation\u201d in the Malacca Straits and South China Sea. The real aim of these deployments is to control strategic oil routes from the Middle East and Africa, which are vital to both China and Japan, in the event of a full-blown conflict. Washington has in effect made common cause with Japan\u2019s right-wing nationalists, urging a bigger Japanese military role as part of the wider US strategy to contain China.<\/span><\/p>\n

The pull of China\u2019s economy means the Beijing regime now wields formidable \u2018soft power\u2019 throughout Asia and globally, in terms of economic and political leverage. But despite Beijing\u2019s double-digit increases in military spending it is still no match for US \u2018hard power\u2019 \u2013 its huge military superiority. This is especially the case in terms of naval power, despite the rapid Chinese naval build-up of recent years. The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) estimates that annual US military spending exceeds US$1 trillion, a larger sum than the military spending of the next 42 nations combined. China by comparison spends around US$107 billion annually, which is the second highest in the world.<\/span><\/p>\n

The American \u2018pivot\u2019 and China\u2019s naval build-up are spurring an Asian arms race. The continent\u2019s military spending is poised this year to overtake Europe\u2019s for the first time in modern history, according to IISS. The combined military budgets of Southeast Asian countries increased by 13.5 percent in 2011, to US$24.5 billion. By comparison, just US$8 billion per year would ensure safe drinking water for the Asia-Pacific region, where 500 million people lack access today.<\/span><\/p>\n

A region-wide backlash against the effects of capitalist globalisation can be seen in recent massive strikes in Indonesia (against outsourcing and for increases in the minimum wage) and India (against opening the retail sector to multinational companies). As popular opposition mounts governments everywhere are turning to nationalism to divert popular anger away from their own policies.<\/span><\/p>\n

Governments and nationalist politicians have deliberately seized upon these disputed islands to whip up nationalism for their own gain. South Korea and Japan are at loggerheads over the Dokdo\/Takeshima Islands, while Russia and Japan recently squared off over the Southern Kuril Islands, known in Japan as the Northern Territories. Medvedev, the Russian Prime Minister, visited the islands in July, drawing condemnation from Tokyo. Both governments claim these islands as \u2018integral\u2019 parts of their territory.<\/span><\/p>\n

Taiwan, which sits closest geographically to the Diaoyu\/Senkaku Islands, has also seized upon the current diplomatic crisis to renew its own claim to the islands, which overlaps and competes with Beijing\u2019s (both governments claim the islands for \u2018China\u2019 \u2013 but disagree on which \u2018China\u2019).<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/object>A new cold war?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The conflict between China and Japan has the potential to destabilise the entire region. Jerome A. Cohen, a veteran China commentator and expert on maritime law, expressed the fear that this was \u201cthe region\u2019s most dangerous challenge to peace in over half a century.\u201d [South China Morning Post, 5 October 2012]<\/span><\/p>\n

During his September visit to Tokyo and Beijing, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta also cautioned that, \u201ca misjudgement on one side or the other could result in violence, and could result in conflict\u2026 And that conflict would then have the potential of expanding.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Panetta\u2019s statement is steeped in hypocrisy given that the US military \u2018pivot\u2019 is a major cause of the current conflict. Right-wing demagogues like Tokyo\u2019s Ishihara know their anti-China brinkmanship is only possible because the US military machine has their back. But Panetta\u2019s remarks show that Washington wants to cool the conflict, fearful of the economic fallout and other uncertainties. US imperialism does not want to be drawn into a military conflict over tiny islands \u2013 hence its reiteration of \u201cneutrality\u201d on the Diaoyu\/Senkaku issue \u2013 although it is also bound by long-standing military treaties to support Japan. In the event that China captured control of the islands by military means, the US would be forced to assist Japan to maintain its own superpower status in Asia.<\/span><\/p>\n

While a military clash between China and Japan is therefore not the most likely perspective in the short-term, even a prolonged \u2018cold war\u2019 of economic protectionism and diplomatic sanctions would deal a major additional blow to the global economy. This point was made by the IMF chief Lagarde, expressing the fears of the capitalist class globally, when she said at the IMF-World Bank summit in Tokyo that the world \u201ccannot afford\u201d a conflict between China and Japan.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nationalist politicians<\/span><\/h2>\n

Even aside from the economic damage caused, the fanning of nationalism and racism by ruling elites throughout the region means they are playing with fire. Right-wing nationalist ideas and movements are gaining ground, especially without a counterweight \u2013 in the shape of genuine left parties \u2013 showing the need for common struggle by the masses across national borders against the corrupt elites that are plundering the region\u2019s wealth.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is a clear link between the latest upsurge in nationalism and the imminent change of governments in China, Japan and South Korea. In all cases these are fundamentally weak and unpopular governments, wracked by internal splits. In Japan the \u2018brains\u2019 behind the latest crisis is Tokyo\u2019s governor Ishihara, who the New York Times described as \u201cJapan\u2019s Le Pen\u201d. Like governor Hashimoto in Osaka, and mayor Kawamura in Nagoya, Ishihara is a historical revisionist who denies Japanese atrocities during the Second World War, including the forced military prostitution of 100,000s of Korean and Chinese \u2018comfort women\u2019. Kawamura recently made the incredible statement that the Nanjing Massacre of 1937 \u201cnever happened\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

These hardline nationalists are exploiting the crisis in the East China Sea to position themselves as a \u2018new\u2019 force on the national political stage. Toru Hashimoto, the governor of Osaka, has launched the ominously named Japan Restoration Party, which includes a map of the Diaoyu\/Senkaku and Dokdo\/Takeshima islands on its party logo. The newly-elected Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) leader Shinzo Abe, another virulent nationalist, is likely to seek alliances with the extreme right if, as expected, he wins the coming election. These forces represent the most vicious wing of the Japanese bourgeoisie, who want to dispense with the fetters of \u2018pacifism\u2019 both in international affairs, but also in confronting the Japanese working class.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ishihara instigated the current conflict with China in order to advance a right-wing political agenda that goes far beyond the Diaoyu\/Senkaku issue. He used his campaign to buy the islands on behalf of the Tokyo municipality both to subvert Noda\u2019s crisis-ridden government, but also to push forward his agenda for a militarised and nuclear\u2013armed Japan. Unfortunately, the equally nationalistic and militaristic message from China\u2019s regime-controlled media has only assisted Ishihara & Co.<\/span><\/p>\n

A case in point is the call made by Chinese generals and academics for the current dispute to be \u201cwidened\u201d beyond the Diaoyu Islands to include the entire Ryukyu archipelago, including Okinawa with its 1.3 million inhabitants (and big US military bases). These calls are based on the dubious assertion that before its incorporation by Japan, the Ryukyu Kingdom was a Chinese tribute state under the Ming and Qing dynasties. Even on some anti-Japan protests in China, placards have been seen with slogans such as \u201cRetake Ryukyu\u201d and \u201cTake back Okinawa\u201d. While Okinawans are a culturally and linguistically distinct group that suffer discrimination in Japan, there is little support for independence on the island, and no support whatsoever for a Chinese takeover. Regardless of Beijing\u2019s official position, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has encouraged these outbursts in its war of nerves with Tokyo. Rather than anti-imperialism, such slogans convey an expansionist and imperialist agenda.<\/span><\/p>\n

Closely intertwined<\/span><\/h2>\n

Trade between China and Japan has tripled to US$345 billion in the past decade, dwarfing any prospective gains from oil or other resources around the Diaoyu\/Senkaku Islands. The island conflict has above all been a setback for Japan\u2019s automakers in the world\u2019s largest vehicle market. For Nissan this is especially the case, as China accounts for 27 percent of its global sales. Nissan reported a US$250 million loss during just one week in September arising from the anti-Japan demonstrations in which several car showrooms were attacked, production facilities closed, and Japan-branded cars came under attack.<\/span><\/p>\n

Toyota sales fell 49 percent in September from a year earlier, while Honda sales fell 40.5 percent. Rather than a purely spontaneous movement, the boycott of Japanese goods is being used by the Chinese regime as a deliberate weapon to increase pressure on Tokyo. But this is a tactic fraught with risks, in a global economic environment where protectionist pressures are rising and Chinese companies are themselves increasingly encountering barriers.<\/span><\/p>\n

The boycott calls against Japanese companies threaten to boomerang on the Chinese economy. According to John Gong, associate professor at the Beijing-based University of International Business and Economics, \u201cThe two nations are today so closely intertwined economically that it\u2019s even hard to actually define a Japanese product. Parts and components made in Japan probably permeate every sophisticated electronic product. Apple iPhones, Lenovo laptops, Haier television sets, to name just a few, all have things in them that were made in Japan.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Many Japanese branded goods are actually manufactured by joint-ventures in China \u2013 using Chinese capital and Chinese workers. As Gong argues, \u201cBoycotting cars from them is essentially the same as boycotting those Chinese companies.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Anti-Japan demonstrations<\/span><\/h2>\n

Given the legacy of Japan\u2019s wartime atrocities there has been understandable anger and fear among the Chinese masses over what is seen as a provocative and unilateral act by the Japanese government, egged on by extreme nationalists supported by US imperialism. The protests also reflect much wider issues of growing discontent and frustration in society. But the Chinese regime has manipulated this sentiment, translating it into the language of chauvinism and militarism, in order to promote its own superpower aims and shore up domestic support.<\/span><\/p>\n

Japan\u2019s Kyodo News said anti-Japan protests occurred in as many as 125 cities in China. The Chinese regime used these protests to increase the pressure on Japan and the US. Although it sanctioned the demonstrations, including cases of companies giving workers time off to participate, and security forces \u2018directing\u2019 crowds, the movement was not fully under the regime\u2019s control. In many cities the protests took on a decidedly anti-government character, but in a muddled, contradictory way, which combined extreme nationalism with hostility to the CCP and its pro-capitalist policies. For this reason the demonstrations were only tolerated for a short period by the regime.<\/span><\/p>\n

The appearance of Mao\u2019s image on demonstrations across the country was a shock and embarrassment for the regime, and especially its liberal wing. Many complained that the protests, which included the ransacking of Japanese department stores and other acts of violence, \u201cresembled the Cultural Revolution\u201d. The factional supporters of Bo Xilai within the party and security apparatus undoubtedly used these protests as an opportunity to embarrass Beijing and accuse it of \u201cweakness\u201d against Japan. This may in fact have tipped the balance as far as Bo\u2019s fate is concerned, with the top leadership mustering sufficient \u2018unity\u2019 to expel him from the CCP and initiate criminal proceedings shortly after these protests.<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite being a millionaire, Bo Xilai is seen by many radical youth especially an advocate of a more nationalist and assertive stand towards foreign capitalism. Ironically, in Dalian, the launching pad for Bo Xilai\u2019s national political career, there were reportedly no anti-Japan protests. One-third of foreign companies in Dalian are Japanese-owned. It is Bo, as mayor of Dalian during the 1990s, who is credited with attracting Japanese investments.<\/span><\/p>\n

The use of Mao placards is a popular way to express opposition to the current CCP leadership. But the resurgence of Maoism does not necessarily imply a grasp of left-wing or socialist ideas. Many linked their support for Mao with calls for war against Japan. The problems for the regime came not only from Mao and supporters of Bo Xilai. Police in Shenzhen clashed with protesters who tried to storm a government office. Some have speculated the violence was orchestrated by factional supporters of Bo and ex-president Jiang Zemin in order to embarrass Guangdong party boss and leading liberal Wang Yang, to sabotage his chances of elevation to the Politburo Standing Committee.<\/span><\/p>\n

Clearly the bitter internal power struggle within the Chinese regime spilled into the anti-Japan protests and influenced their chaotic and contradictory character, underlining the current fragility of the regime and the limits of control from the centre.<\/span><\/p>\n

In evaluating any mass movement socialists must take all sides into account, separating the progressive features from the reactionary. These protests expressed the extremely confused consciousness of the Chinese masses today. While attracting support from many layers who oppose CCP rule, the protests channelled this in the direction of nationalism and militarism. Moreover the protests have had a negative effect upon the consciousness of the masses in other parts of Asia, where the so-called \u2018China threat\u2019 is being exploited by local ruling classes and the US for their own ends.<\/span><\/p>\n

In all the countries of the region there is a massive political vacuum on the left, brought about by the degeneration and collapse of former mass left parties. It is noticeable that ex-Stalinist parties everywhere serve as loyal adjutants of their capitalist governments in today\u2019s territorial disputes. The Japanese Communist Party, while distancing itself from Ishihara\u2019s provocations, supported Japan\u2019s nationalisation of the Diaoyu\/Senkaku to \u201ccalmly maintain\u201d (!) the islands. In the Philippines the exiled former Maoist leader Jose Maria Sison defends Manila\u2019s \u201cnational sovereignty\u201d in the Scarborough Shoal dispute with China.<\/span><\/p>\n

What socialists stand for<\/span><\/h2>\n

Socialists and the supporters of the CWI do not support any of the feuding governments or states in these territorial disputes. We oppose Japan\u2019s control of the Diaoyu\/Senkaku Islands and the Noda government\u2019s nationalisation, which has further inflamed the situation.<\/span><\/p>\n

We defend the rights of fishermen from all the neighbouring states to access these disputed waters, while also recognising the urgent need for a comprehensive international plan to safeguard endangered marine life and prevent overfishing. We oppose the harassment and detention of fishing crews by national coastguards, of which all governments have been guilty, and the use of fishing fleets as a disguised tool of government policy in these disputes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Socialists oppose the provocations of the Japanese capitalists and extreme right, but not by supporting the slogan of Chinese sovereignty over the Diaoyu\/Senkaku Islands. The Chinese regime is also using this issue, and the legitimate fear of Japanese militarism among the Chinese people, to further its own great power ambitions. The regime\u2019s nationalistic rhetoric and racist, warmongering statements broadcast in sections of the official media, rather than weakening the Japanese nationalists, have played into their hands.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Diaoyu\/Senkaku Islands are uninhabited and therefore this is not a struggle to defend the rights of an oppressed people. As in the South China Sea, this conflict is primarily about strategic control of the seas, the resources below, and the military implications associated with control over the islands.<\/span><\/p>\n

Socialists and the CWI warn that the current nationalist wave instigated and manipulated by leaders on all sides, will be used to bolster repressive, anti-democratic and anti-working class policies. The right-wing nationalists in Japan are anti-union, anti-foreigner, and oppose women\u2019s and LGBT rights. They represent a growing threat to the interests of Japanese workers and youth. Hashimoto supports military conscription and \u2013 echoing China\u2019s leaders \u2013 says Japan needs a \u201cdictatorship\u201d, albeit one subject to electoral checks and balances. Their policies would add massive new military costs to the current economic burdens of the Japanese masses.<\/span><\/p>\n

But the way to defeat Japan\u2019s nationalists and warmongers is through common struggle and solidarity by workers and youth in China, Japan, Korea, and throughout the region, with the recent huge anti-nuclear protests in Japan showing a good example.<\/span><\/p>\n

Socialists oppose the militarisation drive of all governments in the region. We demand massive cuts in military spending; for a transfer of resources to meet society\u2019s real needs. Socialists and the CWI demand the closure of US military bases, such as those in Okinawa, which have long been opposed by the local population. We demand the total withdrawal of US forces from Asia \u2013 for the people of the region to decide their own future.<\/span><\/p>\n

There can be no solution to today\u2019s national conflicts on the basis of capitalism. Some are pointing to the European Union (EU) as a possible model of multi-national cooperation. But not even the Nobel Prize can hide the acrimonious disunity and splits within the capitalist EU, which was always contrived as a means for the ruling classes to maximise profits at the expense of the masses. Likewise, the 10-nation ASEAN (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia. Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam) has been powerless to offer a solution to the territorial disputes among its own members concerning islands in the South China Sea.<\/span><\/p>\n

Rather than control by one or other national gang of thieves, the resources of the ocean and its endangered fishing stocks should be jointly owned, controlled and democratically managed by the peoples of the region. The rush to plant flags on uninhabited islands and rocks, and the nationalist-militarist chorus this engenders, go against the interests of the working class everywhere. Socialists stand for shared access to these islands and the surrounding waters, superseding national control through the establishment of a \u2018maritime commons\u2019 under the democratic control of the people of China, Japan and all the neighbouring countries. We stand for an Asian socialist confederation, established through mass working class struggle, to replace the misery and chaos of capitalist rule.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is an abridged version of an article from chinaworker.info<\/a>\u00a0(\u00a0<\/a>chinaworker info\/en\/content\/news\/1900\/).<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Vincent Kolo<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Chinaworker<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The conflict over disputed islands in the East China Sea has triggered the most serious diplomatic crisis between China and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19,"featured_media":4485,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4483","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-analysis"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.socialism.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4483","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.socialism.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.socialism.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.socialism.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/19"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.socialism.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4483"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.socialism.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4483\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4495,"href":"https:\/\/www.socialism.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4483\/revisions\/4495"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.socialism.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/4485"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.socialism.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4483"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.socialism.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4483"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.socialism.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4483"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}