The much-awaited August 14 statement by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe marking the end of World War II 70 years ago amply reflected the philosophical essence of a man well qualified to lead his nation at this delicate juncture in our history.
　　　　　Up until the moment of his announcement, not a few members of the Japanese mass media had engaged in shallow speculation as to whether Abe would refer to any or all of the four ingredients they had selected as the “key words” pertaining to Japan’s wartime past ―“colonial rule,” “invasion,” “apology,” and “remorse.” China and South Korea had persistently been pressuring Japan to incorporate all of these words in the statement. Under such trying circumstances―in which it must have understandably been difficult to calmly reflect on our past as well as look forward to our future―Abe managed to give an enlightened and well thought-out historical perspective far beyond anyone’s expectations.
　　　　　The most conspicuous characteristic of his statement was his refusal to adopt the simplistic historical view that “Japan pursued a policy of aggressive expansion starting with the 1931 Manchurian Incident,” as recommended by his “Advisory Panel on Japan’s Vision for the 21st Century” (hereafter, the Panel). Abe declared:
　　　　　“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.”
　　　　　Tadae Takubo, Professor Emeritus of Kyorin University in Tokyo who serves as deputy director of the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals (JINF), a privately financed think tank I head, touched on this point on my “Genron TV” weekly Internet news show, declaring:
　　　　　“The prime minister was referring to World War I and the wording of the 1928 Pact of Paris (i.e., the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy), the 1945 Charter of the United Nations, and Article 9 of the postwar Japanese constitution, stating in general terms that Japan will abide by the universal principles incorporated into these international agreements. The Panel had vigorously advised Abe to accept the view that Japan stepped up its aggression across Asia starting with the Manchurian Incident of 1931. But Abe refused to take such a simplistic view. One can never come to grips with the realities of history by merely reviewing what happened starting with the Manchurian Incident. One must pay attention to what preceded it. I have a high opinion of Mr. Abe for not blindly accepting the Panel’s views concerning Japan’s conduct across Asia during World War II.”

Postwar Japan’s Aspirations

　　　　　Despite his decision not to use the Panel’s statement on the Manchurian Incident, Abe repeatedly referenced the work of the Panel and incorporated many of its assertions into his depiction of the history of Japan’s modernization. In that regard, he noted:
　　　　　“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…The Russo-Japanese War (1904-05) gave encouragement to many peoples under colonial rule from Asia to Africa…(Then) 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…took the wrong course and advanced along the road to war.”
　　　　　Both the Panel and Prime Minister Abe understand that it is within this overall historical context that Japan’s actions at the time must be viewed.
　　　　　On the other hand, Abe made a point of repeating carefully chosen words to express his heartfelt sentiment towards the nations that fought Japan and the people of those nations who lost their lives in the conflict. Michael Green, Senior Advisor and Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), highly complimented Abe on his sincere thoughts expressed throughout his statement, noting: “The references to aggression and colonization and the multiple expressions of remorse were more robust than many will have expected.”
　　　　　Abe also referred to the harsh sacrifices many Japanese were subjected to during the war―soldiers and ordinary citizens alike:“More than three million of our compatriots lost their lives during the war: on the battlefields…(and) in remote foreign countries after the war, in extreme cold…suffering from starvation and disease.” Among those who suffered, he must clearly have had in mind the 600,000-plus Japanese soldiers detained in Siberia and central Asia by the Russian army at the end of the war. The trauma experienced by more than one million Japanese women molested by Soviet soldiers in Manchuria and Sakhalin must have also come to mind. When Abe mentioned the “atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the air raids on Tokyo and other cities,” he　was of course referring to the inhumane atrocities committed against private Japanese citizens by American forces during the closing phase of the war.
　　　　　“History is harsh. What is done cannot be undone,” said Abe, obviously expressing his grief over not only the sacrifices forced on Japanese citizens by the Allies but also the inept leadership of its own military that caused tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers and sailors　in the South Pacific to needlessly perish―not in battle but primarily from hunger. Katsuya Okada, head of the leading opposition party, the Democratic Party of Japan, criticized Abe’s statement, pointing out that the prime minister “failed to tackle the four ‘key words’ directly, discussing these matters only in broad generalities.”
　　　　　What is evident from listening to the international community, however, is that China and South Korea are fundamentally wrong in still continuing to demand that Japan apologize for its past conduct 70 long years after the war. For most Asian nations, as well as the US and Australia, among others, what is far more pertinent is for Japan to continue committing itself to the peace and stability of the world as a responsible member of the international community.
　　　　　Reflecting on this point, Abe noted: “…we have engraved in our hearts the histories of suffering of the people in Asia as our neighbors: 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.”
　　　　　Abe’s remarks demonstrate how strong the desire of postwar Japan is to contribute to the international community―especially to the peoples of Asia.
　　　　　China reacted sharply against Abe for putting Taiwan ahead of it and South Korea after mentioning Southeast Asian nations. The Global Times, an English language affiliate of the People’s Daily, showed displeasure over Abe’s listing China last and mentioning Taiwan individually as a nation on a par with other Asian nations.

Time to End “Apology Diplomacy”

　　　　　Following diplomatic normalization between Japan and the People’s Republic of China starting in 1972, successive Japanese cabinets preceding Abe’s had refrained from listing Taiwan in parallel with other nations―on the premise that Japan “understands and respects” Beijing’s “one China” policy reflecting the spirit of a joint declaration committed to restoring their bilateral relationship disrupted by the war. Doesn’t one sense a message from this reference to Taiwan by Abe that Japan is not in complete agreement with the “one China” policy, although it does “understand and respect” it? Here in this message, one clearly sees the new values that Japan cares greatly about.
　　　　　Among the values Japan is committed to pursuing in the 21st century and beyond, Abe referred to the importance of the protection of women’s rights, development of a “free, fair, and open” international economic system, freedom, democracy, and promotion of a foreign policy based on proactive pacifism aimed at safeguarding human rights across the board.
　　　　　During a question-and-answer session with the press following his statement, Abe remarked: “Unfortunately, there is no end to conflicts at present. Any attempts to change the existing order in Ukraine and the South and East China Seas cannot and should not be tolerated”―a surprisingly candid and scathing message for China and Russia, indeed.
　　　　　When Japan looks back over its wartime past, its failure to grasp the “overall trends in the world” is strongly evident. Abe’s remarks to the press that both China and Russia are misreading the current international trends clearly reflect his strong sense of responsibility that Japan, based on a sincere introspection of its own conduct pertaining to the last war, must be in the vanguard of nations propagating the pertinent values of the 21st century.
　　　　　The most important part of the Abe statement, I believe, is his resolution to end Japan’s “apology diplomacy,” declaring: “We must not let our children, grandchildren, and even further generations to come, who have nothing to do with the war, be predestined to apologize.” His declaration to end the seemingly endless round of Japan’s apologies to its Asian neighbors ought to be duly evaluated in terms of its positive effects on China and the Korean Peninsula. Close cooperation among Japan, South Korea, and China is the key to the happiness and welfare of all the people in East Asia. If Japan is compelled to keep apologizing interminably, such a posture will surely create a backlash in China and the Korean Peninsula―negative values pertaining to history in the minds of Chinese and Koreans.
　　　　　I firmly believe that Abe’s pledge―that Japan will actively forge ahead towards the future while not forgetting its past―constitutes a respectable way to put an end to the negative cycle of history that has hampered constructive relationships in postwar East Asia.
(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 668 in the August 27, 2015 issue of The Weekly Shincho)