Japan must continue apologizing for war atrocities

Thirty-five years ago, Ezra Vogel's "Japan as Number One" was a best-selling book that described Japan's amazing economic growth after its devastating defeat in World War II.

Today, Japan has fallen to number three due to the huge economic gains made in recent years by China.

In an interview with The Asahi Shimbun, Vogel, a professor emeritus at Harvard University who has studied not only Japan, but China as well, was asked how Japan should behave in the international community with its diminished stature.

He also spoke about how Japan's recent diplomatic spats with China and South Korea over historical issues were being viewed in the United States ahead of U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Japan on April 23-25.

Excerpts of the interview follow:

Question: After Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited Yasukuni Shrine, the U.S. government expressed its disappointment. What is your assessment?

Vogel: I was also disappointed. If relations with China and South Korea should worsen, the situation in Asia will become unstable.

In his first stint as prime minister, Abe's Cabinet was described as one made up of friends. This time, he has gathered Cabinet members with somewhat more experience.

Last August (when Japan observed the anniversary marking the end of World War II), he did not visit Yasukuni.

That is why when I visited Japan in September 2013, and was asked if Abe was a pragmatic person or a right-wing individual, I could say with hope, "He is likely more pragmatic now."

Both Congress and the White House expressed their position as an ally and passed on their desire that Abe not go to Yasukuni. However, their desires were not taken into great consideration.

Q: Are you saying that he is a hard-liner?

A: Rather than a hard-liner, he may be patriotic. But, at the very least, he did not place importance on the Japan-China relationship.

Much like former U.S. President Richard Nixon, who was anti-communist but who normalized relations with China, I had hopes that even with his background as a hard-liner, Abe would make bold moves to construct a new relationship with China.

After he did not visit Yasukuni in August, I thought there might be a chance for him to build a good relationship with China, but China continued to take a hard-line stance against Japan. He might have felt if that is the case, he might as well just go ahead and visit Yasukuni.

Q: How do you feel about the increasing view in Japan that considers China a threat?

A: The Japan-U.S. alliance played a role in resolving various difficult issues around the world. At the same time, when we think about what nation we have to have dialogue with, that would be China.

With its greater military and economic power, China tends to hold views on international issues that are different from those held by Japan and the United States. However, those issues will not be resolved without China's consent.

Q: Are you saying it is short-sighted to view China simply in an adversarial manner?

A: Japan's government and its politicians have not sufficiently researched in a strategic manner Japan's relationship with the rest of the world.

Under the 1955 political structure (in which the Liberal Democratic Party ruled and the Japan Socialist Party was the main opposition party), LDP faction leaders such as Yasuhiro Nakasone and Takeo Fukuda (who both served as prime minister) had a strategic way of thinking.

However, since the 1990s after the end of the Cold War, I have not sensed a long-term vision among the Japanese politicians that I have spoken to. After Junichiro Koizumi, there has been an almost annual turnover of prime ministers.

Q: There are some people in Japan who are worried over whether the United States will really come to the assistance of Japan should a military encounter occur over the Senkaku Islands. What is your view?

A: Because of the alliance, there is no doubt that the United States will help should the situation call for it.

If there was no provocation by Japan, and China clearly launched an attack, there would be both a desire and meaning to helping Japan.

Although there are problems with the U.S. military bases in Okinawa, there is a relationship of trust between the U.S. military stationed in Japan and the Self-Defense Forces.

However, when we think about future trends in the U.S. government budget, Japanese leaders will likely have to think about whether the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region will be the same in 10 years as today.

Q: How do you assess the greater cooperation between China and South Korea in taking a hard-line stance toward Japan on historical recognition issues?

A: The psychology of the South Korean people is very complicated. Even those who have close friends in Japan may say they hate Japan out of a sense of patriotism. Because the Korean Peninsula is connected to China and when we look at history in terms of a few centuries, there is also a concern of a possible invasion by China.

There is likely a consciousness of wanting to join hands with China, which is viewed as a latent threat.

Q: What is your appraisal about the moves in China and South Korea over the issue of "comfort women," who provided sexual services to the Japanese military before and during World War II?

A: From the Japanese standpoint, there may be the feeling that the issue has already been settled diplomatically. But that is not how South Korea views the issue.

If Japan tries to legitimize its position by bringing up debate about whether coercion was involved, its international appraisal will only worsen. It is important for Japan to maintain good diplomatic relations with the international community.

To achieve that, even if there is the feeling that it is unfair, there will be a need for Japan to continue apologizing as the aggressor in order to build a good relationship.

Q: In the minds of the Japanese, they have already apologized a number of times, in the form of the Murayama statement of 1995 and the Kono statement of 1993. They would likely feel why is there a need to apologize again. What is your view of that position?

A: From my perspective, many Japanese feel that what was bad was militarism and that ordinary Japanese did not do anything bad, but were, in fact, the victims.

Of course, the Japanese were victims due to the dropping of the atomic bombs, but from the eyes of foreigners, there is a decisive lack of awareness among the Japanese that they were the aggressors with respect to neighboring nations.

Q: Isn't there the view in Germany that what was bad were the Nazis?

A: Because I was born in a Jewish family, I have a personal interest in the issue.

Among the German people, there is the feeling of guilt that not only were the Nazis bad, but that they also were wrong and committed mistakes. For that reason, what they have done is to construct museums that describe their wartime aggression.

German leaders continue to bow their heads and offer apologies.

While the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum does have displays about wartime aggression, there is also the Yushukan museum within the grounds of Yasukuni Shrine that has displays that justify Japan's wartime aggression in Asia. That would be unthinkable in Germany.

Q: Even if the Class-A war criminals were no longer included among those enshrined at Yasukuni, that would not likely lead to a weakening of the opposition raised by China and South Korea, would it?

A: There would be much less opposition if the Class-A war criminals were not enshrined and there was no Yushukan. The Chinese feel there is no need for leaders to visit a place that has Class-A war criminals and the Yushukan.

In fact, after the Class-A war criminals were enshrined at Yasukuni, Emperor Showa and the current emperor have not visited Yasukuni. Even Nakasone has not visited Yasukuni since 1985.

Q: How do you view the debate concerning the 1937 Nanking Incident that the number of victims should be made much smaller?

A: If in relation to the view that there were 300,000 victims, the Japanese said, "There were not that many victims," the Chinese would become angry.

The heart of the issue is, even if the number is smaller, there is no way to justify the actions taken by the former imperial Japanese military. From the standpoint of the victims, they would likely play up the point that the Japanese were taking the position of saying they did nothing wrong.

If I were a Japanese, this is what I would likely say. There are various views as to the number of victims. Despite that, the Japanese people and the Japanese soldiers of that time did terrible things to the Chinese. The Japanese will never do those things again.

Q: Do you feel there is a move toward historical revisionism in Japan?

A: Abe and some of his close associates hold the view that what was decided at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East by the victorious nations in World War II was not right. I also feel that more people are coming forward with that feeling than before.

I think Abe may have been thinking about his grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, the former prime minister who was charged as a Class-A war criminal but not indicted.

Q: Could that possibly lead to feelings of hatred toward the United States?

A: The Japanese and Americans have a very good relationship. Compared to the relationship between Japan and China as well as between Japan and South Korea, I believe there has been sufficient reconciliation with the United States in the 70 years after World War II.

Q: What is your view of the debate over efforts by the Abe administration to change the constitutional interpretation regarding the exercise of the right to collective self-defense?

A: From the standpoint of Americans, they would likely feel that the SDF should assist them if North Korea launched a missile toward the continental United States or if the situation arose that led to victims among the U.S. military in Japan.

For that reason, it is my personal view that it is only natural from the standpoint of the United States for Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense.

However, regarding the Constitution, if Japan should now proceed to amend it, that would only worsen its relations with China and South Korea.

I feel that would be dangerous.

From the standpoint of the United States, there is the worry that Abe will do something provocative toward China or South Korea.

***

The interview was conducted in Japanese, and excerpts were translated into English by The Asahi Shimbun.