This article came out the other day, and I thought it had some interesting facts about post-WWII statements and apologies. This subject came up in a class at my high school. It's a sensitive topic, of course, especially considering that our student body includes people from Japan, China, Korea, and America.
When I first moved here in 2001, I felt that World War II was much easier to talk about. I was teaching adults, mostly, and it felt like we all agreed that horrible things took place back then, and that we were sorry about it. I was sorry about Hiroshima, from my American perspective. The majority of adult students in my classes were postwar births and not personally vested in what had happened those decades ago. But it was not uncomfortable for them to express regret over Japan's role in the war.
Looking back, things changed as Prime Minister Koizumi's visits to Yasukuni Shrine got reactions in China and Korea, and the outrage of course reached the media here. Pretty soon it wasn't that easy any more to talk about the past. I think all of us have a natural inclination to say "Hey, I can criticize my own country, but. . ." It's natural not to want to endure criticism from others, especially repeated criticism.
I continued teaching adults in eikaiwa schools until 2007. As discussions about WWII became more tense, one of the x-factors was always what people remembered in terms of how much Japan had already apologized, how much it had paid in reparations. Because different people had different recollections, an already emotional subject would usually get further exacerbated by lack of a common agreement about facts. The internet was there, and going strong, but it wasn't nearly as easy to get information about this topic.
Fast-forward a few years, and Wikipedia has an article, "list of war apology statements issued by Japan."
The article that came out earlier this week can be found at
and it's printed below.
______________________________________________________
Is Japan sorry for World War II?
How representative are the country's unapologetic nationalists, really?
By Noah Smith, Noahpinion | April 30, 2014
Japan's militarist nationalists never
really went away after World War II, they just bided their time and
waited for the day when they would be able to return to power. At last,
they have done so; Shinzo Abe, the current prime minister, is the
grandson of
Nobusuke Kishi,
an important WWII nationalist whom the U.S. initially imprisoned for
war crimes, and later let out (probably to fight against Communism), and
who himself because prime minister of Japan in the 50s. It's not clear
whether Abe himself thinks his ancestors did anything wrong in the
militarist era, but many of his political appointees clearly do not
think so.
Naoki Hyakuta,
whom Abe appointed to the board of governors of Japan's public
broadcaster, claims that Japan committed no atrocities in World War II
and was acting to free Asia of Western colonialism. Another board member
described the Japanese Emperor as "a living God."
The
return of the rightists seems to lend credence to the claims of China
and Korea that Japan as a country has not properly atoned for World War
II. If people who think Japan was on the side of good can gain national
power, then the country as a whole must agree with them...right? Sure,
Japan has
made a litany of apologies
for World War II, and even offered some monetary reparations. But
mustn't those have been pro forma gestures to appease the United States,
rather than heartfelt expressions of regret?
Actually, I don't
think this is the case. Japan's rightists have power now, but that seems
due much more to Japan's dysfunctional political system than to any
general militarist/nationalist sentiment among the Japanese people and
elites.
To see this, look at the votes cast on the 1995 "
Fusen Ketsugi" resolution. That resolution was an apology for World War II. The text read:
The House of Representatives resolves as follows:
On the occasion of the 50th
anniversary of the end of World War II, this House offers its sincere
condolences to those who fell in action and victims of wars and similar
actions all over the world.
Solemnly reflecting upon many
instances of colonial rule and acts of aggression in the modern history
of the world, and recognizing that Japan carried out those acts in the
past, inflicting pain and suffering upon the peoples of other countries,
especially in Asia, the Members of this House express a sense of deep
remorse.
We must transcend the
differences over historical views of the past war and learn humbly the
lessons of history so as to build a peaceful international society.
This House expresses its
resolve, under the banner of eternal peace enshrined in the Constitution
of Japan, to join hands with other nations of the world and to pave the
way to a future that allows all human beings to live together.
This resolution was approved, but almost half of the members of the
Diet abstained from voting! This means they didn't believe Japan should
apologize, right?
Actually, no. A large number of the abstainers wanted an even
stronger apology. From
Wikipedia:
Out of 502 representatives,
251 participated in the final vote on the revised resolution, and 230 of
them supported the resolution; 241 representatives abstained from
voting; 70 absentees belonged in one of the three parties in the
coalition cabinet that sponsored the resolution (Japan Socialist Party,
Liberal Democratic Party, and New Party Sakigake)
14 members of the Japanese
Communist Party voted against the resolution because they wanted much
stronger expressions in the resolution.
50 members of the
conservative Liberal Democratic Party did not participate because the
expressions in the revised resolution were still too strong for them.
14 members of the Japan Socialist Party did not participate because the expressions were not strong enough for them.
141 members of New Frontier Party abstained from voting, some of whom wanted stronger expressions. [
Wikipedia]
So if we total up those who voted against the bill with those who
abstained because the apology was too strong for them, we get at least
71 out of 502 representatives, or 14 percent. Now, some of the New
Frontier Party might also have believed that the apology was too strong,
so let's conservatively assume that half of them, or 71/502, believed
this; that brings the total percentage of Imperial apologists to 28
percent. Fourteen percent is not that big of a bloc, but 28 percent is a
pretty substantial minority.
But either way, we see that a majority of Japanese politicians
supported a World War II apology in 1995. Now, 1995 may have been an
unusually liberal moment for Japan; perhaps the electorate voted for a
less nationalist Diet than they would prefer?
Actually,
polls suggest that the Japanese public is
less
nationalistic than its politicians. This supports the notion that it is
Japan's dysfunctional political system, which is dominated by old
political families, that keeps the thin flame of militarism/nationalism
alive. At the elite level, there is a non-trivial minority of Japanese
bluebloods who thought World War II was the right thing to do. But they
are definitely a minority, and their attitude is not shared by the
Japanese public. (Caveat: Among young people, right-wing attitudes
may have become more common in recent years.)
In
other words, the Chinese and Korean perceptions of an unrepentant Japan
are not very accurate. But Japan itself has a serious problem: It finds
itself ruled by a right-wing fringe element. Unless Japanese people can
shake off their traditional attitude of political powerlessness,
apathy, and ennui, they will increasingly find their country being moved
in a direction they don't like. Freedom ain't free, fellas.
