The following is the official English-language translation of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo’s statement marking the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII as endorsed by Japan’s cabinet on Friday:
“On the 70th anniversary of the end of the war, we must calmly reflect upon the road to war, the path we have taken since it ended, and the era of the 20th century. We must learn from the lessons of history the wisdom for our future.
More than one hundred years ago, vast colonies possessed mainly by the Western powers stretched out across the world. With their overwhelming supremacy in technology, waves of colonial rule surged toward Asia in the 19th century. There is no doubt that the resultant sense of crisis drove Japan forward to achieve modernization. Japan built a constitutional government earlier than any other nation in Asia. The country preserved its independence throughout. The Japan-Russia War gave encouragement to many people under colonial rule from Asia to Africa.
After World War I, which embroiled the world, the movement for self-determination gained momentum and put brakes on colonization that had been underway. It was a horrible war that claimed as many as ten million lives. With a strong desire for peace stirred in them, people founded the League of Nations and brought forth the General Treaty for Renunciation of War. There emerged in the international community a new tide of outlawing war itself.
At the beginning, Japan, too, kept steps with other nations. However, with the Great Depression setting in and the Western countries launching economic blocs by involving colonial economies, Japan’s economy suffered a major blow. In such circumstances, Japan’s sense of isolation deepened and it attempted to overcome its diplomatic and economic deadlock through the use of force. Its domestic political system could not serve as a brake to stop such attempts. In this way, Japan lost sight of the overall trends in the world.
With the Manchurian Incident, followed by the withdrawal from the League of Nations, Japan gradually transformed itself into a challenger to the new international order that the international community sought to establish after tremendous sacrifices. Japan took the wrong course and advanced along the road to war.
And, seventy years ago, Japan was defeated.
On the 70th anniversary of the end of the war, I bow my head deeply before the souls of all those who perished both at home and abroad. I express my feelings of profound grief and my eternal, sincere condolences.
More than three million of our compatriots lost their lives during the war: on the battlefields worrying about the future of their homeland and wishing for the happiness of their families; in remote foreign countries after the war, in extreme cold or heat, suffering from starvation and disease. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the air raids on Tokyo and other cities, and the ground battles in Okinawa, among others, took a heavy toll among ordinary citizens without mercy.
Also in countries that fought against Japan, countless lives were lost among young people with promising futures. In China, Southeast Asia, the Pacific islands and elsewhere that became the battlefields, numerous innocent citizens suffered and fell victim to battles as well as hardships such as severe deprivation of food. We must never forget that there were women behind the battlefields whose honour and dignity were severely injured.
Upon the innocent people did our country inflict immeasurable damage and suffering. History is harsh. What is done cannot be undone. Each and every one of them had his or her life, dream, and beloved family. When I squarely contemplate this obvious fact, even now, I find myself speechless and my heart is rent with the utmost grief.
The peace we enjoy today exists only upon such precious sacrifices. And therein lies the origin of postwar Japan.
We must never again repeat the devastation of war.
Incident, aggression, war — we shall never again resort to any form of the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes. We shall abandon colonial rule forever and respect the right of self-determination of all peoples throughout the world.
With deep repentance for the war, Japan made that pledge. Upon it, we have created a free and democratic country, abided by the rule of law, and consistently upheld that pledge never to wage a war again. While taking silent pride in the path we have walked as a peace-loving nation for as long as seventy years, we remain determined never to deviate from this steadfast course.
Japan has repeatedly expressed the feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology for its actions during the war. In order to manifest such feelings through concrete actions, we have engraved in our hearts the histories of suffering of the people in Asia as our neighbours: those in Southeast Asian countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines, and Taiwan, the Republic of Korea and China, among others; and we have consistently devoted ourselves to the peace and prosperity of the region since the end of the war.
Such position articulated by the previous cabinets will remain unshakable into the future.
However, no matter what kind of efforts we may make, the sorrows of those who lost their family members and the painful memories of those who underwent immense sufferings by the destruction of war will never be healed.
Thus, we must take to heart the following.
The fact that more than six million Japanese repatriates managed to come home safely after the war from various parts of the Asia-Pacific and became the driving force behind Japan’s postwar reconstruction; the fact that nearly three thousand Japanese children left behind in China were able to grow up there and set foot on the soil of their homeland again; and the fact that former POWs of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Australia and other nations have visited Japan for many years to continue praying for the souls of the war dead on both sides.
How much emotional strugglemust have existed and what great efforts must have been necessary for the Chinese people who underwent all the sufferings of the war and for the former POWs who experienced unbearable sufferings caused by the Japanese military in order for them to be so tolerant nevertheless?
That is what we must turn our thoughts to reflect upon.
Thanks to suchmanifestation of tolerance, Japan was able to return to the international community in the postwar era. Taking this opportunity of the 70th anniversary of the end of the war, Japan would like to express its heartfelt gratitude to all the nations and all the people who made every effort for reconciliation.
In Japan, the postwar generations now exceed eighty per cent of its population. We must not let our children, grandchildren, and even further generations to come, who have nothing to do with that war, be predestined to apologize. Still, even so, we Japanese, across generations, must squarely face the history of the past. We have the responsibility to inherit the past, in all humbleness, and pass it on to the future.
Our parents’ and grandparents’ generations were able to survive in a devastated land in sheer poverty after the war. The future they brought about is the one our current generation inherited and the one we will hand down to the next generation. Together with the tireless efforts of our predecessors, this has only been possible through the goodwill and assistance extended to us that transcended hatred by a truly large number of countries, such as the United States, Australia, and European nations, which Japan had fiercely fought against as enemies.
We must pass this down from generation to generation into the future. We have the great responsibility to take the lessons of history deeply into our hearts, to carve out a better future, and to make all possible efforts for the peace and prosperity of Asia and the world.
We will engrave in our hearts the past, when Japan attempted to break its deadlock with force. Upon this reflection, Japan will continue to firmly uphold the principle that any disputes must be settled peacefully and diplomatically based on the respect for the rule of law and not through the use of force, and to reach out to other countries in the world to do the same. As the only country to have ever suffered the devastation of atomic bombings during war, Japan will fulfil its responsibility in the international community, aiming at the non-proliferation and ultimate abolition of nuclear weapons.
We will engrave in our hearts the past, when the dignity and honour of many women were severely injured during wars in the 20th century. Upon this reflection, Japan wishes to be a country always at the side of such women’s injured hearts. Japan will lead the world in making the 21st century an era in which women’s human rights are not infringed upon.
We will engrave in our hearts the past, when forming economic blocs made the seeds of conflict thrive. Upon this reflection, Japan will continue to develop a free, fair and open international economic system that will not be influenced by the arbitrary intentions of any nation. We will strengthen assistance for developing countries, and lead the world toward further prosperity. Prosperity is the very foundation for peace. Japan will make even greater efforts to fight against poverty, which also serves as a hotbed of violence, and to provide opportunities for medical services, education, and self-reliance to all the people in the world.
We will engrave in our hearts the past, when Japan ended up becoming a challenger to the international order. Upon this reflection, Japan will firmly uphold basic values such as freedom, democracy, and human rights as unyielding values and, by working hand in hand with countries that share such values, hoist the flag of “Proactive Contribution to Peace,” and contribute to the peace and prosperity of the world more than ever before.
Heading toward the 80th, the 90th and the centennial anniversary of the end of the war, we are determined to create such a Japan together with the Japanese people.”
August 14, 2015
Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan
Should the United States Be Blamed for Japan’s Historical Revisionism?
ReplyDeleteIn hindsight, exonerating Japan’s Emperor was a grave mistake.
Given the controversy surrounding Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s statement on the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, it is perhaps worthwhile to briefly reexamine some of the root causes that lead to conservative Japanese revisionism.
While it is of course reductionist to focus on one single cause for Japanese conservatives’ difficulties in dealing with Japan’s wartime past, I would like to briefly discuss the American decision to exonerate Hirohito, the 124th Emperor of Japan, and the entire imperial family for the policies and actions taken by the Empire of Japan during the 1930s and 1940s.
In short, this decision was a grave mistake and my reasoning is simple: If the commander in chief of Japan’s imperial forces and the most revered personality by all Japanese was absolved from any wrongdoing during the war, why should individual soldiers and politicians feel any obligation to take responsibility on themselves?
As the historian John W. Dower once put it: “Emperor Hirohito became postwar Japan’s preeminent symbol, and facilitator, of non-responsibility and non-accountability.” In fact, the American occupation command was careful to exculpate Hirohito from even any moral responsibility for Japan’s actions during his reign, as Dower points out.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this had something to do how the Western powers understood (or rather misunderstood) Japan’s political culture and the importance of the emperor for the average Japanese citizen.
Yet other reasons were more practical.
After the Japanese surrender in August 1945, the Australian government intended to bring Hirohito to trial as a war criminal. However, American General Douglas Mac Arthur, Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, disagreed. He thought that establishing a peaceful allied occupation regime in Japan would be facilitated by the emperor’s ostensible cooperation with the allied powers.
As a consequence, by the time the International Military Tribunal for the Far East aka the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal was first convened in April 1946, the decision had been made to exclude any possible evidence that would incriminate the emperor and his family – including Prince Yasuhiko Asaka, a career officer who commanded the final Japanese assault on Nanjing in 1937. This decision made the allied prosecution team a de-facto “defense team for the emperor,” according to Dower.
ReplyDeleteDuring the two weeks separating the capitulation of Japan in August 1945 and the arrival of the allied occupation forces, the country’s ruling elite staged a carefully planned campaign to link Hirohito to the idea of peace and started destroying as much incriminating evidence of the emperor’s role in waging the war as possible.
Indeed, the American military allowed major suspected war criminals to coordinate their stories in order to protect the imperial family from prosecution, in what Dower calls a “remarkable act of collusive intrigue that brought together high occupation officers, court circles, members of both the prosecution and defense staffs (…).”
Of the hundreds of Japanese arrested as potential “Class A” war criminals (defendants charged with “crimes against peace”) only 28 were indicted, resulting in the execution of seven – including former Prime Minister Hideki Tojo – and life sentences for 16 others (two defendants died in captivity and one was excused due to mental illness). The burgeoning Cold War and political expediency led General Mac Arthur release the remaining 42 “Class A” suspects in 1947 and 1948. (Cold War considerations also lead to the suppression of evidence concerning the notorious Unit 731.)
In addition, unlike in post-war Germany, no indigenous system to put war criminals o trial was ever established in Japan in the years following the end of World War II. While not all of this can be directly linked to the decision not to prosecute the imperial family, the immunity of Hirohito nevertheless severely called into question the legitimacy of any legal proceedings against anyone involved in facilitating Japan’s war effort and war crimes.
ReplyDeleteIt has been historically proven, without any reasonable doubt, that Emperor Hirohito was instrumental in formulating and sanctioning Japan’s foreign and military policies in the 1930s and 1940s, as the historian Herbert P. Bix succinctly summarizes:
For war crimes committed by Japan’s military forces, which were the authorized servants of the emperor-state during the undeclared Japan-China War, Hirohito, as commander-in-chief, bore the strongest share of political, legal, and moral responsibility. He gave post-facto sanction to Japan’s take-over of Manchuria in violation of international treaties and agreements. He later participated actively in the planning and waging of Japan’s total war of aggression in China. (…) He also ordered and monitored the bombing of Chinese cities, use of poison gas, and annihilation campaigns to wipe out the entire populations of contested areas in North and Central China.
For the war crimes and other violations of international law committed by Japan’s military forces after December 7, 1941, the largest share of responsibility may again be attributed to Hirohito as both commander in chief and head of state. At every stage on the road to Singora, Kota Bharo, and Pearl Harbor he was free to choose alternative courses of action rather than accept the thinking of his military chiefs. (…) Over the next four years, until mid-1945, whenever confronted with the option of peace, he chose war.
ReplyDeleteBy letting the Imperial Japanese Army and its commanders, rather than the emperor, take the blame for Japan’s misdeeds during World War II, the Americans also vicariously helped turn the prosecuted military commanders into heroes for conservatives since in their eyes the officers sacrificed themselves for Hirohito and the empire. It also indirectly exculpated suspected civilian war criminals and accelerated their return to the reins of power – including Nobusuke Kishi, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s maternal grandfather.
Thus it is fair to say that the American decision to exonerate Hirohito helped the Liberal Democratic Party and Japan’s conservatives promote their distorted vision of history. By hiding the true nature of Japan’s aggression and the complicity of the emperor thereof, it is also fair to say that the United States partially provided the pulpit from which Japan’s revisionists can preach their morally ambiguous and historically incorrect interpretation of Japan’s role during World War II. The Diplomat
By Franz-Stefan Gady
South Koreans Not Satisfied with Abe’s Speech
ReplyDeleteThe initial response on social media was overwhelmingly negative.
In Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s much anticipated speech on the 70th anniversary of Japan’s surrender to end World War II (read the full text in English), Abe encouraged Japan’s postwar generations to move on and not feel as if they must continually apologize for a war they did not start.
While he affirmed that previous apologies and expressions of remorse “will remain unshakable into the future,” he did not renew those apologies or offer any new ones, as some in neighboring countries, particularly China and South Korea, had hoped. Indeed, media coverage across the board note Abe’s carefully crafted speech “stops short of new apology.” Martin Fackler, former Tokyo bureau chief for the New York Times, writes via Twitter, “Emerging media consensus is that Abe repeated #Japan’s past #WWII apologies, but didn’t offer new one of his own.”
What specifically is the Korean news media saying about Abe’s apology-less speech? I surveyed my Korean media list on Twitter to get a sense of how the speech was received.
The list contains 17 members, including media outlets that span the entire political spectrum, from the conservative Chosun Ilbo to the consistently left-leaning Voice of the People. I looked only at the Korean-language media, under the assumption that coverage in Korean about Korea is more comprehensive. (English-language coverage, good though it is at times, shows only a snippet of coverage of any given issue, and often no coverage at all.)
ReplyDeleteThe reception across the political spectrum is decidedly negative; Abe’s speech was called “insincere” and “disingenuous,” clearly not going as far as South Koreans demand. Here is sample (not to be taken as complete) of what Korean media tweeted (linking to their longer articles) about the speech:
Donga Ilbo: “Abe’s speech not clear about ‘truth of aggression and colonization.’”
Chosun Ilbo: “[Breaking] Abe does not apologize directly for aggression and colonialism: Japanese Prime Minster Shinzo Abe’s ‘70th anniversary marking end of war’ speech on August 14.”
Voice of the People: “Abe’s ‘disingenuous apology.’ Ruling party: ‘Regretful,’ Opposition: ‘shirking responsibility.’”
Hankook Ilbo: “Abe’s 70th year anniversary speech is ‘past tense’ apology… Disingenuous.”
Hankyoreh: “Civil society organization: ‘Abe’s speech insulting, a bitter pill to swallow.’”
These findings are unsurprising. As the Brooking Institute’s Katherine Moon notes in a recently published interview with the Kyunghyang Shinmun, “criticizing Japan has become such an integral part of Korean daily mentality.” In other words, it transcends political divides — in a way similar to nationalism.
ReplyDeleteAs I’ve explained elsewhere, anti-Japanese sentiment is an integral part of Korean national identity. Troublingly, this conclusion suggests that overcoming strong anti-Japanese attitudes in South Korea is more than a political issue. It is going to take a more fundamental transformation, something that doesn’t appear to be happening — not now, anyway. By Steven Denney
The Abe Statement: Did Abe Apologize?
ReplyDeleteAbe’s statement included the right language — but not in the right way.
“On the 70th anniversary of the end of the war, we must calmly reflect upon the road to war, the path we have taken since it ended, and the era of the 20th century. We must learn from the lessons of history the wisdom for our future.”
So begins Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s hotly anticipated statement on the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II. The official Cabinet statement, delivered on August 14, will be heavily scrutinized, particularly in China and South Korea, for evidence that Abe is attempting to avoid historical responsibility. In particular, outside observers were looking to see that Abe replicated key language from the 1995 Murayama Statement and the 2005 Koizumi Statement: the word “apology” and admissions of Japan’s “aggression” and “colonial rule.” In essence, the question was how Abe would explain what, exactly, Japan did wrong in World War II and the preceding years and how (if at all) he would offer an apology for those actions.
So how did Abe do? Let’s take a look.
What Did Japan Do?
On the question of what Japan got wrong, Abe provides a litany of missteps — but all are vague. The key words of “aggression” and “colonial rule” are there, but not in the context many in China and Korea hoped.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Abe begins by emphasizing Western colonialism, not Japan’s. He even claims that “[t]he Japan-Russia War gave encouragement to many people under colonial rule from Asia to Africa,” presumably as a symbol that a non-Western country could defeat the European powers. Yet Abe’s formulation ignores the fact that the Japan-Russian War actually took place in China (Manchuria) and Korea — and is perceived by those countries as two rival colonialist powers fighting for dominance over the Chinese and Korean people, not as “encouragement.” In other words, Abe got off to a rough start.
Abe notes, however, that World War I “put the breaks on colonialization” and sparked a “strong desire for peace [all emphasis from the original document]” around the globe. When “Japan’s economy suffered a major blow” during the Great Depression, however, Abe said that the country “attempted to overcome its diplomatic and economic deadlock through the use of force.”
“Japan gradually transformed itself into a challenger to the new international order… Japan took the wrong course and advanced along the road to war,” Abe said.
“…Upon the innocent people did our country inflict immeasurable damage and suffering.”
The words “aggression” and “colonial rule” do appear later, in a list of things Japan swears never to do again: “Incident, aggression, war — we shall never again resort to any form of the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes. We shall abandon colonial rule forever and respect the right of self-determination of all peoples throughout the world.”
ReplyDeleteIt’s a clever formula — it allows Abe to use the words with only the most tacit admission that Japan was actually guilty of “aggression” and “colonial rule” in the first place. But as with most compromises, it’s unlikely to leave anyone truly satisified.
Interestingly, Abe does include an oblique reference to the “comfort women” issue, which is new: “We must never forget that there were women behind the battlefields whose honor and dignity were severely injured.” But there is no apology or claiming of Japanese responsibility. If this was meant as an olive branch to South Korea, it’s unlikely to be an effective one.
On a side note, Korea was curiously absent from most of the specific references to victim countries. Abe mentions “the Chinese people who underwent all the sufferings of the war” and “former POWs of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Australia,” in the context of praising these groups for their efforts at tolerance and reconciliation. Korea, however, only appears once in the speech, as part of a laundry list of countries Japan wronged. Seoul, which had already felt left out of historical gestures, will take note.
Did Abe Apologize?
Beyond a clear statement of what Japan did wrong, observers in China and South Korea wanted to see a clear apology. In that, they will not be satisfied. Here’s Murayama’s famous apology, for comparison: “In the hope that no such mistake be made in the future, I regard, in a spirit of humility, these irrefutable facts of history, and express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology.”
ReplyDeleteAnd here’s what Abe said: “On the 70th anniversary of the end of the war, I bow my head deeply before the souls of all those who perished both at home and abroad. I express my feelings of profound grief and my eternal, sincere condolences.” And from later on in the speech: “even now, I find myself speechless and my heart is rent with the utmost grief.”
To a layperson, this sounds very much like an apology, and quite an emotional one at that. But analysts in China and South Korea had specific expectations, which they made quite clear well in advance: they wanted the word apology, which is conspicuously absent. Abe does not even use the word “remorse,” which many had expected him in include.
Well, that’s not entirely true — Abe does include the words “deep remorse” and “heartfelt apology” (the exact quotes from the Murayama Statement). But rather than offering those sentiments again, Abe is pointing out that Japan has already apologized (and apologized enough, the unspoken sentiment seems to be): “Japan has repeatedly expressed the feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology for its actions during the war.”
Abe promises that these previous apologies will be respected: “Such position articulated by the previous cabinets will remain unshakable into the future.” But he also argues that “We must not let our children, grandchildren, and even further generations to come, who have nothing to do with that war, be predestined to apologize.”
ReplyDeleteBefore the speech, media reports said Abe would not apologize out of concern that doing so would require the Japanese government to continue to apologize in perpetuity. That sentiment seems to have guided the final version, which may win Abe points domestically but will not play well with China and South Korea.
Thus the headline from Xinhua right after the speech: “Abe’s watered-down apology fails sincerity test.” The Diplomat
By Shannon Tiezzi