Asian victims still want an APOLOGY

Abe’s decision to omit the reference is worrying because it may fuel confrontation. It is important for Japan to convince sceptical neighbours that it remains deeply committed to reconciliation for the horrors of the war. However, this is also an opportunity for a significant population in the nations hurt by the war, especially China, South Korea and Taiwan, to actually look into the apologies that Japan has made as a nation.

One of the most significant apologies is the Murayama Statement of 1995, which should be recognised by all sides, including the current Japanese government, as a critical starting point for reconciliation regarding Japan’s responsibility for wartime suffering.

The key passage in former prime minister Tomiichi Murayama’s speech runs thus:

“During a certain period in the not-too-distant past, Japan, following a mistaken national policy, advanced along the road to war, only to ensnare the Japanese people in a fateful crisis, and, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations. 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. Allow me also to express my feelings of profound mourning for all victims, both at home and abroad, of that history.”

The statement was based on a cabinet decision, meaning it represented the official position of the Japanese government. The statement on the half-century mark of the war’s end served as the basis for successive Japanese government declarations of regret on August 15.

The intertwined issues of visiting the Yasukuni Shrine and reparations for comfort women are still boiling over, as they have clearly not been addressed to the satisfaction of all parties. Unfortunately, national sentiments on these highly sensitive issues have been manipulated by politicians on all sides to the detriment of understanding between peoples.

The definition and substance of reconciliation, and what victimised peoples require of Japan, should be gradually resolved by first overcoming technical manoeuvres by politicians, who often distort or sensationalise actions or omissions by the other side for political interest or standing.

Abe’s omission is very probably calculated to demonstrate his appeal to the nationalistic elements of Japan’s population. Abe deviated from the statement of regret he himself made when he was last prime minister in 2007. Various other politicians in Japan have made statements that caused furor, such as last year when the mayor of Nagoya denied the Nanking massacre. 

Former Chinese premier Zhu Rongji offers an example of calculated distortion of national sentiment by a politician on the Chinese side. In 2000, Zhu Rongji responded to a question during a visit to Japan, asking why China is not satisfied by repeated Japanese apologies, by saying that the Murayama Statement referred to “the people of Asia” and not China specifically. Therefore, Zhu countered, “the Chinese people have never received an apology”.

Are the people of China not the people of Asia? Zhu’s verbal cleverness demonstrates a determination only to inflame national sentiment.

Incentive for Japan to participate in discussions should start from the recognition that a substantial number of Japanese were also victims of their government’s militarism in the Second World War. More importantly, a near automatic ignorance of apologetic gestures from Japan will help the right-wing groups of Japan arguing more hardline responses. Such groups include a movement in Japan that seeks to retract the Murayama statement.

None of this is to deny the magnitude of Japan’s atrocities such as the Unit 731 biological warfare unit’s experiments on human subjects, or the Nanking massacre, or the pain of women conscripted as sex slaves. Nor is this a support for Abe’s recent decision to omit mention of apology in the annual commemorative speech. But in discussion of these wounds, healing is going to be much easier to come by if the fact that Japan has repeatedly apologised can be first recognised.