Today is the 70th anniversary of victory in the Pacific (VP Day), when Japan surrendered to allied forces. For the USA, UK and Australia this marked the end of four years of merciless war; for China it marked the end of about 20 years of colonial aggression on the mainland; and for Korea it represented the end of 35 years of colonization by Japan. For the rest of the Asia-Pacific region the end of the war brought on in many cases a new era of instability as colonial governments collapsed and the independence movements of south and south-east Asia took off. The start of peace for Japan was only the beginning of years of civil war, colonial confrontations and communal violence in the rest of Asia, and in comparison to the slaughter and chaos visited on these countries before and after the war ended, the other allied powers’ experience of the Pacific war was relatively pleasant. Still, Australians have many reasons to mark VP Day as a major event in our history, both on account of the huge loss of life sustained, the cruelty experienced by Australians at the hands of Japanese captors, and the profound political implications for Australia of the collapse of British colonialism in Asia, and the UK’s inability to protect Australia (or even win a single battle against Japan!) Japan’s early, complete and ruthless victories over the supposedly superior army, navy and air force of the UK shook the foundations of the UK’s colonial project and brought on the rapid collapse of not just British but also the Dutch, French and Portuguese colonial project. For Australia that meant a major reorientation of our political outlook, first towards the USA and then (much later) towards Asia.
While the long-term political consequences of world war 1 were a second war in Europe, the holocaust and the cold war, the long-term political consequences of the Pacific war were decolonization, rapid development, and ultimately a long peace and relative stability in all of Asia, presided over initially by US power, then by a resurgent and determinedly non-colonial Japan, and now by the three great industrial powers of China, Korea and Japan – once mortal enemies who now have a shared goal of peace and development in all of Asia. Seventy years after Japan’s colonial ambitions were thoroughly repudiated, at great cost to China and Korea, they share a broad set of goals in the region. These goals are disturbed primarily by only two issues: border disputes that no one is really willing to go to war for, and the issue of Japan’s acceptance of its past crimes. Every VP Day there is renewed controversy about exactly how much Japan admits past wrongdoing, and renewed calls for an apology for past acts, and it was expected that on this day especially the Japanese government might do something special about this.
Unfortunately Japan’s current prime minister is a historical revisionist like no other in a long time, and is playing to a right-wing rump at home that prevents him from properly acknowledging Japan’s guilt. He is exactly the wrong prime minister to be making statements of contrition, but it was him who had to give a speech, widely reported, in which he stated that he did not want Japan to have to continually make new apologies. Seventy years on, he wants to draw a line over the past, and look forward to a world without war. Such lofty ideals might sound better if they were coming from someone who was not intent on denying the truth of the comfort women issue, and who was not trying to reform Japan’s constitution to enable this peace-loving nation to deploy its (considerable!) military in joint self-defense actions.
But putting aside the political background of this particular PM, is he actually wrong? Japan has made many apologies over specific incidents and general wartime aggression and violence, and in particular on the 50th anniversary of the war made an apology with the full backing of the Cabinet (the Murayama statement) that is widely seen as an official apology. This statement has been repeatedly reiterated and referred to in subsequent dealings with the affected nations, and at other VP Day events (including in 2005). Abe did not explicitly reference that statement, but he did implicitly endorse it when he stated that “Such position articulated by the previous cabinets will remain unshakable into the future”. He went on, however, to make clear that he thinks that Japan should stop continually apologizing, while remaining aware of the sins of its past and endeavouring never to repeat them:
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.
This statement is being taken by some in the media as a repudiation of past apologies and a statement of intent to forget the war, but I don’t think it can be seen that way at all. It’s simply making the obvious point that when a population has apologized, and is no longer connected to the people who did these things, there comes a point where you have to stop expecting remorse to be a key part of how they memorialize those past mistakes. Instead Abe proposes that future efforts to remember the war be focused on better understanding of the events of the past, and stronger efforts to build a global society that does not or cannot seek war to resolve economic or political problems.
As a citizen of a nation that has only recently apologized for past wrongs that were committed recently enough for a large part of the population to be connected with them, I think he raises a strong point. In 2008 the Australian federal government apologized officially to the living Aboriginal people known as the Stolen Generation who had been stolen from their families by commonwealth policy, and also made a broader statement of recognition of guilt for genocide. This apology came after long years of campaigning (in which I as a young Australian was involved) and a broadly-supported reconciliation movement which wanted to see not just an apology but full recognition of Aboriginal people’s history and the history of genocide against them, and proper compensation where proper compensation could be given. This reconciliation movement was tied in with a land rights movement that saw victories and defeats but was built on a fundamental acceptance of the role of white Australia in stealing land from black Australia and benefiting from that theft.
I don’t think at any point that when we were campaigning for that Apology, we ever intended that the government should repeatedly apologize and continually be forced to officially admit its guilt in some public and formalized way, even as it continued to work on development and welfare improvements for Aboriginal Australians. We saw the Apology as a moment to convey acceptance and recognition, and … well, to say sorry. There is discussion about formalizing a national Sorry Day, but this wouldn’t be a day intended to force every PM to continually reiterate these apologies; rather, it would be a day of recognition of the past, with local events intended to revitalize and reauthorize our commitment to working together to make the future better. I think if the official Apology had been proposed as an ongoing, annual ceremony of abject admission of guilt, no one would have supported it and no government would have done it.
There is something about apologies that requires at some point they stop. As a nation we can have ongoing recognition of the past, through e.g. national memorials, national days of commemoration, or whatever; but the requirement that every government reiterate the sorrow of its predecessors for deeds committed (ultimately) after all those involved have passed on (or been found guilty) doesn’t seem to be the right spirit of apology.
In the case of Japan, the entire Asia-Pacific has VP Day in which to remember the events of the past, but that doesn’t mean that every VP Day the Japanese government should craft a new apology and seek forgiveness again for something that happened 70 years ago; rather, a simple reiteration of past statements, the laying of a wreath, perhaps the unveiling of any new local projects (Japan is involved in projects throughout the Asia Pacific, including research projects aimed at better understanding the war itself); surely, after 70 years and multiple apologies, it’s time that everyone recognized that the past is the past, what was done was done, and moving on from that past to make a better future requires that the events of the past not be raked up and made fresh, whether out of anger or sorrow?
The same can be said of Australia’s genocidal past. There are ways still in which Australia hasn’t come to terms with that past, but mostly these are best confronted and expressed not through apologies but through concrete actions: efforts towards the finalization of land rights law and land reform; redoubled efforts to improve Aboriginal health, welfare and employment; and better incorporation of Aboriginal people into Australian political life. Although in many cases the problems that still exist are bound up with racism that needs to be confronted through political action (see, e.g. the recent shameful treatment of Adam Goodes), this political action needs to be expressly practical. This is exactly what happens in Australia now, too, I think – for example, Adam Goodes’ treatment was not tackled by further apologies, but by practical action by the football association and statements of support and respect from other football clubs and their captains.
In my view apologies are a very important part of the process of political reconciliation and healing, but they should not be some kind of constantly-repeated process of formal self-flagellation because, while on an individual level an apology usually involves an explicit admission of personal guilt for a personal act, on a political and national level they do not represent guilt, as most of the people whose representatives are doing the apologizing were not responsible in any way for the crime. Political apologies are an act of recognition and restitution, not an expression of guilt. At some point the apologies need to stop, and life needs to proceed with practical political commitments and goals.
So I think it’s time that Japan stopped apologizing, and the other nations that were affected recognize that Japan is a good neighbour, an exemplary world citizen, and a nation that is genuinely aware of and remorseful about its past crimes, with a real intention never to repeat them. Japan doesn’t deal with its past crimes in a perfect way, and indeed much work still needs to be done on understanding what Japan did (many records were lost), on coming to terms with the comfort women issue, and on dealing with the (frankly ridiculous) Yasukuni Jinja situation[1]. But these are all practical efforts, that will advance future understanding and respect much more than further apologies.
I also think it’s high time that people in (and on occasion the politicians of) the USA and UK stopped criticizing Japan’s “lack of apology” and instead started thinking about doing themselves what Japan and Australia have done: Apologizing for their own crimes. There is a new willingness in India to make demands for recognition of Britain’s colonial crimes, but many British people – including most of their politicians – still cling to the repulsive notion that the colonization of India was an overall plus for its people. The UK, Holland, Spain, France, Belgium and Portugal all owe apologies for severe and extreme crimes committed expressly in the interests of stealing other people’s land. Similarly the US puts a lot of effort into memorializing Vietnam but hasn’t apologized for its murderous war, let alone subsequent adventures that killed a million people, and whose architects are advising Jeb Bush on foreign policy. Indeed, Kissinger and McNamara are still respected in the USA, when they should be in prison. I think it’s time that the world recognized that while the great crimes of the 20th century have been pored over and guilt ascertained and accepted, there are many slightly lesser crimes that go unremarked and unrecognized, and that a mature nation should recognize those crimes. Rather than seeing Japan as a recalcitrant revisionist, Japan should be seen as a model of how to acknowledge and atone for past crimes, that “better” nations like the UK and USA could learn from.
A few other notes on Abe’s apology
Abe’s apology, which can be read here, is extensive and, I think, quite powerful. He talks about how Japan lost its way and went against the trend toward peace that other nations were following, and explicitly blames colonial aggression for its actions in China. He thrice refers to the injury done to women behind the lines, giving a nod to more than just the issue of the comfort women but also to the general evil of rape as a war crime, and explicitly identifies the need to prevent this from happening in future wars. He also has some very powerful thoughts to add on the nobility of China and Korea after the war, when he states that Japan must take to heart
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 struggle must 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?
I think this is a powerful statement of respect for how well Japan was treated after the war, and recognition that there is a great willingness on all sides of a conflict to move on from it despite great cruelties committed. I think also the paragraphs near the end of the speech, which start “We must engrave upon our hearts” are also very powerful, showing how Japan and the world can strengthen efforts to make sure that the crimes Japan committed are not possible anywhere in the world in the future.
Also, I note that this apology is a Cabinet Statement so represents official government policy, not just Abe’s personal opinion. I think it’s a good basis to move forward, recognize that Japan did wrong, and accept that apologies should not and cannot continue forever.
Instead of constantly dwelling on a world consumed by war, let’s work on building a world without it.
—
fn1: I personally think that this problem could be solved best by opening an official national war memorial – Japan currently has none – that explicitly excludes the 14 war criminals, is non-religious, recognizes Japan’s war crimes and war of aggression, includes a memorial to the people killed in other countries by Japan, and has a high quality modern museum that accurately reflects the truth of the war. Then on some nominated day that isn’t VP Day, politicians can officially go there and pay their respects to the dead and officially, without controversy, reflect on what was, ultimately, a great tragedy for the Japanese people.
Compromise and Conceit 
August 17, 2015 at 9:57 am
But the question is when is Germany going to apologise? [1]
The real question has to be who’s keeping this issue alive? I don’t recall it being raised in Australia in the last 10 years [2]. The only reports I’ve seen are about events in China on that topic.
Given the different experiences that Germany and Japan have, the question becomes what is the source of the different treatment? Is it racism against the Japanese or is it a domestic political concern primarily emanating from China. I have a strong suspicion on which is the source…
I’d also note that I have no idea whether German war memorials explicitly exclude war criminals. I’d be pretty confident they wouldn’t, given that the list of German war criminals is still growing [3]. Given that, setting up a separate non-religious war memorial is overkill. My school’s chapel was officially a war memorial – it didn’t mean I was required to lust after Ayran or Japanese blood while I was in there. (At least, not that I recall. My memories of my religious education are a little hazed by disinterest).
[1] This is a joke. Without checking, I’m pretty confident that they will have.
[2] Bill Shorten’s racist nonsense about subs in Sydney harbour during a sub build/purchase decision being the closest I can recall.
[3] The “bookkeeper of Auschwitz” was found guilty earlier this year.
August 17, 2015 at 1:08 pm
I wanted to avoid talking about the impetus for the repeated apologies, because I thought it would complicate matters but yes, I do think it is driven by political interests, primarily in just two countries, and that those interests aren’t necessarily driven from below. Political leadership from China and Korea would soon change public perception of those apologies, and indeed as you say in Australia the issue is largely dead. Although you still meet a lot of people from all of these countries who think that Japan hasn’t properly apologized. I note that in contrast to China and Korea, Abbott has largely accepted the apology and talked about moving on – but then that would be consistent with his view that the apology for Aboriginal people was not that important, so maybe he doesn’t care either way.
Bill Shorten’s racist nonsense about subs is a really good example of how the war history is deployed for temporal political benefit, rather than as part of a coherent broader moral principle. Such displays might give overseas politicians cause to think that apologizing isn’t worth the domestic political cost, since nobody listens to such apologies anyway …
It’s worth noting that there are monuments to war criminals and traitors all across the USA – Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis, that Jackson dude, were all traitors and some of them war criminals by any reasonable modern standard (plus, of course, slave owners). Most countries – China certainly – have their own blood-spattered national heroes. They shouldn’t be used as an excuse to venerate war criminals by others, but by the same token it would be nice if people could be a little more circumspect in complaining about others doing what they will not themselves stop doing …
August 17, 2015 at 3:23 pm
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/shinzo-abe-divides-region-with-a-rewrite-of-japans-modern-history-20150815-gizxev.html
Apparently I was wrong. The Age (racist rag that it is) bothered publishing a critic of Abe’s statement that explicitly disagrees with your analysis of several key phases. To summary that writer, Abe’s an asshole who not only didn’t apologise, he somehow undid previous apologies. And totally is required to apologise for not clearly specified reasons…
August 17, 2015 at 11:14 pm
That’s a pretty disingenuous presentation of the speech, in my opinion. The interpretation of his “incident, aggression, response” statement is really way out, and the attack on his reference to women’s dignity and honour is a pretty-mean-spirited interpretation of it. Also the implication that he’s dog-whistling to a Japanese audience through reference to parts written in Japanese that weren’t in the English, but without any discussion of what those parts were, is pretty deceptive. I don’t know what the extra parts were in the Japanese version, but without being shown them I have no reason to draw the implications given.
When I first read the article a lot of the comments were pretty negative about it – basically asking why Japan should keep apologizing and suggesting no apology would be satisfactory to some people. I have never seen a criticism of Japan’s apologies that lays out an idea of what they should contain – and national apologies are so rare (and often so compromised by domestic politics) that I think it would be hard to light on a model example. This makes it easy for people to object to specific apologies for expedient political reasons. In this case Abe is loathed by a large segment of Japanese society, especially for his war revisionism and his efforts on section 9 of the constitution, so it’s possible that they can’t see him doing anything good on the topic of war. I suspect that many people’s preferred apology would not look very different, though …
August 18, 2015 at 12:48 pm
Meh. The whole things a pointless beat up driven by non-Japanese domestic political concerns.
Japan is the only nation (I know of) with a pacifist constitution – everyone else regards kicking the shit though another nation as a valid extension of diplomacy. And we trust all those other assholes to not do so for reasons ranging from morality, to national interests to mutual annihilation. Why should Japan be different? Because 70 years ago their leaders where shit heels? That also applies to Italy and Germany (and probably to a lesser extent the winning side too[1]).
The only difference is that when the US had their heel on Germany and Japan’s throat they insisted on an apology from Germany and a pacifist constitution for Japan. One of these is a lighter punishment than the other, but Japan still copes shit for being punished in the “wrong way”.
If Abe wants to invade China again, good luck to him. It’s a terrible idea that would ruin his nation and kill millions pointlessly. I’ll trust the Japanese people to ensure that doesn’t happen because it’s not Article 9 of their constitution that prevents them from being assholes its simply that they are not (at the moment) a bunch of imperialist asshats. Can we guarantee they never will be again? No. But the only nations that can guarantee that are the ones with a national suicide pact [2].
The national debate in Japan would probably get easier if the right wing actually won on article 9 and venerating war criminals [3] [4]. If those debates were settled with a right wing victory then the important point of not getting into another World War through jingoistic teach could become the sole point of the debate, instead of its current status as a totemic issue that is easily divorced from the real point.
[1] Say what you want about nuking Japan, at least the Allies weren’t pushing anyone into gas chambers. There are clear good and bad sides in WWII.
[2] Excluding Daesh, if we count them as a state. They both have a suicide pact and are imperialist asshats.
[3] Apologies if this is the incorrect term for whatever visiting that shrine is officially doing. I have an anime level understanding of Japanese religion, which basically boils down to shrine maidens are cute (especially when fighting monsters).
[4] As we agreed above, this would basically bring it into line with everywhere else.
August 20, 2015 at 12:29 am
I agree. I think the point about Japan’s culture being strongly pacifist regardless of its constitution is true and important – the constitution binds them but there is no spirit for war in Japan, and a lot of people are angry and ashamed at any attempts to weaken the constitution – there really isn’t much chafing against it.
Regarding your anime-level understanding of Japanese religion … I don’t think that most people who visit Yasukuni Jinja are venerating war criminals. I think they are going there to express their appreciation of the fact that all these people gave their lives pointlessly, and see it as a way of respecting the tragedy that Japan brought on itself. I think they just don’t want to let the presence of war criminals stop them doing that, and for politicians with a right wing support base they also need to show that their willingness to respect past sacrifices isn’t going to be impinged upon by foreign concerns. Japan is hardly unique in wanting to overlook crimes committed by some of its soldiers in the process of venerating the majority. This isn’t to say that the Yasukuni Jinja isn’t associated with some seriously nasty revisionist and probably pro-imperialist asshats – the attached museum is a terrible place and shows a very twisted view of the war. But I think that is not the reason that a majority of politicians visit the Yasukuni Jinja. (I also think visiting is stupid and counter-productive, and the decision to secretly add the 14 war criminals after the war was a real dick move. I’ll care about it more when the British stop venerating their colonialist heroes, and John Kerry hands back the purple heart he got for wounds incurred while engaging in war crimes in Vietnam).
Also I think shrine maiden is just another part time job now…
August 20, 2015 at 8:31 am
“Also I think shrine maiden is just another part time job now…”
Really? They have to fight monsters and don’t even get proper health coverage? That’s terrible.
August 20, 2015 at 10:46 am
Even the shrine maidens suffered from the bubble bursting! Fortunately they can still get a form of health coverage (kokumin hoken). But they’re invincible, so they probably don’t need it …