15 February 2005
Japan's repressed memory syndrome
In recent times, Japan has been pushing for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council, strongly supported by the Bush administration. Yet on the surface, the neo-cons seem strange bed-fellows for a stronger, more muscular Japan. So why would the neo-cons support a less pacifist Japan? After all, don't the neo-cons want Pax Americana to remain unchallenged forever?
In the world of Realpolitik, a historically pliable Japan, long sub-servient to US foreign policy and needy of military protection makes a great counter-balance to a strengthening China. Having demonstrated time and again that it's prepared to shove back when shoved by the US, China poses the greatest threat to US power and influence in greater East Asia. So it suits the neo-cons to have a strong vassal state at the front doorstep of its enemy. And by supplying the vast bulk of Japan's key weapons systems, de facto control of the Japanese military actually resides with the US.
Many countries in Japan's neighbourhood remember all too well, the last time that country was a significant military power. It wasn't pretty and those memories of savage and brutal occupation die hard. But isn't today's Japan different? After all, since WW2 ended over 60 years ago, whole new generations of Japanese not having any direct connection with that past have been born. This is true and would be of comfort to wary neighbours, were it not for a few concerns.
Unlike Germany, Japan has never officially apologised for atrocities committed against its neighbours during WW2. Not only that, Japanese born after the war don't know and haven't been educated about their country's role and actions in the war. Official school textbooks use bland and inane terms to gloss over some truly savage and barbarous acts against non-combatants.
For example, in 1937, the systematic rape and pillage of Nanjing in which historians estimate some 300,000 civilians were murdered by Japanese Forces, is blandly referred to as the "Nanjing Incident" in history texts. Elsewhere in Asia, as the Imperial Japanese Forces over-ran many countries in a stunning military campaign, civilian populations were warned against collaborating with resistance forces by the indiscriminate arrest and summary executions of young men.
In country after country, city after city, town after town, the same patterns of atrocities were repeated. Yet Japanese government officials and pro-Nationalists until today, still deny or minimise these events, and instead denounce such allegations as politically motivated. They are right about the political motivation but wrong about the spirit and intent of these motivations.
If someone who commits a grievous wrong against you wishes to be reconciled and trusted by you again, two distinct acts must occur to signify a true sense of repentance. The first is acknowledgement of that wrong-doing followed by apology for that wrong-doing. The public acts of acknowledgement and apology are somehow cathartic for both the wrong-doer and wronged.
But Japan's continued refusal to acknowledge and apologise for its atrocities; framed as unnecessary because of having paid war reparations (said by some to be grossly insufficient) as "atonement" and an unnecessary "loss of face" should raise deep concerns - even in the dimmest neo-con mind.
Although the Japanese are generally pacifist and oppose change to Article Nine of their constitution (which forever renounces war, and strictly speaking, forbids Japan from even keeping a military force), the neo-cons want Japan to adopt a more assertive foreign policy backed by greater offensive military forces and weapons.
Imagine the domestic and international uproar if Germany's Chancellor paid an official visit to a tomb where prominent Nazis were buried. Would we not think it troubling that such an act occurred? What would we think if the Chancellor made such official visits an annual exercise? How would the world react if the German government also sanitised school history texts and repudiated responsibility and apologies for atrocities committed during the war?
Yet in 2005, a Japanese PM born after WW2, makes annual visits to the Yasukuni Shrine where executed war criminals are buried and where 2.5 million war dead are honoured. Yasukuni was the centre of pro-war sentiment and Emperor-worship before Japan's defeat in 1945. Why would Japan's PM Koizumi not follow Germany's lead and ensure all citizens born after WW2 learn about the country's true deeds?
Could it be he understands that a nation ignorant of the wrongs it has done is far less likely to oppose the wrongs he, as leader, could lead them to do? Don't believe this proposition? Just count how many Bush voters still believe Saddam had NBC weapons and was going to use them against the US! Ignorance is bliss in a neo-con democracy, as you can fool all of the people, all of the time.
It appears the neo-cons believe that a country which is unable to frankly and openly acknowledge its past deeds, prevents its citizens from learning the truthful history of their country and is led by a man who pays homage to war criminals, is worthy of US support for a permanent seat at the Security Council.
Perhaps the neo-cons should beware of feeding a tiger that may eventually bite them.
In the world of Realpolitik, a historically pliable Japan, long sub-servient to US foreign policy and needy of military protection makes a great counter-balance to a strengthening China. Having demonstrated time and again that it's prepared to shove back when shoved by the US, China poses the greatest threat to US power and influence in greater East Asia. So it suits the neo-cons to have a strong vassal state at the front doorstep of its enemy. And by supplying the vast bulk of Japan's key weapons systems, de facto control of the Japanese military actually resides with the US.
Many countries in Japan's neighbourhood remember all too well, the last time that country was a significant military power. It wasn't pretty and those memories of savage and brutal occupation die hard. But isn't today's Japan different? After all, since WW2 ended over 60 years ago, whole new generations of Japanese not having any direct connection with that past have been born. This is true and would be of comfort to wary neighbours, were it not for a few concerns.
Unlike Germany, Japan has never officially apologised for atrocities committed against its neighbours during WW2. Not only that, Japanese born after the war don't know and haven't been educated about their country's role and actions in the war. Official school textbooks use bland and inane terms to gloss over some truly savage and barbarous acts against non-combatants.
For example, in 1937, the systematic rape and pillage of Nanjing in which historians estimate some 300,000 civilians were murdered by Japanese Forces, is blandly referred to as the "Nanjing Incident" in history texts. Elsewhere in Asia, as the Imperial Japanese Forces over-ran many countries in a stunning military campaign, civilian populations were warned against collaborating with resistance forces by the indiscriminate arrest and summary executions of young men.
In country after country, city after city, town after town, the same patterns of atrocities were repeated. Yet Japanese government officials and pro-Nationalists until today, still deny or minimise these events, and instead denounce such allegations as politically motivated. They are right about the political motivation but wrong about the spirit and intent of these motivations.
If someone who commits a grievous wrong against you wishes to be reconciled and trusted by you again, two distinct acts must occur to signify a true sense of repentance. The first is acknowledgement of that wrong-doing followed by apology for that wrong-doing. The public acts of acknowledgement and apology are somehow cathartic for both the wrong-doer and wronged.
But Japan's continued refusal to acknowledge and apologise for its atrocities; framed as unnecessary because of having paid war reparations (said by some to be grossly insufficient) as "atonement" and an unnecessary "loss of face" should raise deep concerns - even in the dimmest neo-con mind.
Although the Japanese are generally pacifist and oppose change to Article Nine of their constitution (which forever renounces war, and strictly speaking, forbids Japan from even keeping a military force), the neo-cons want Japan to adopt a more assertive foreign policy backed by greater offensive military forces and weapons.
Imagine the domestic and international uproar if Germany's Chancellor paid an official visit to a tomb where prominent Nazis were buried. Would we not think it troubling that such an act occurred? What would we think if the Chancellor made such official visits an annual exercise? How would the world react if the German government also sanitised school history texts and repudiated responsibility and apologies for atrocities committed during the war?
Yet in 2005, a Japanese PM born after WW2, makes annual visits to the Yasukuni Shrine where executed war criminals are buried and where 2.5 million war dead are honoured. Yasukuni was the centre of pro-war sentiment and Emperor-worship before Japan's defeat in 1945. Why would Japan's PM Koizumi not follow Germany's lead and ensure all citizens born after WW2 learn about the country's true deeds?
Could it be he understands that a nation ignorant of the wrongs it has done is far less likely to oppose the wrongs he, as leader, could lead them to do? Don't believe this proposition? Just count how many Bush voters still believe Saddam had NBC weapons and was going to use them against the US! Ignorance is bliss in a neo-con democracy, as you can fool all of the people, all of the time.
It appears the neo-cons believe that a country which is unable to frankly and openly acknowledge its past deeds, prevents its citizens from learning the truthful history of their country and is led by a man who pays homage to war criminals, is worthy of US support for a permanent seat at the Security Council.
Perhaps the neo-cons should beware of feeding a tiger that may eventually bite them.
