Message:
Dear friends:
This is the last of this series. The following article was written by INSIDER's editor Mr. TAKANO Hajime. His view reflects the opinion of not a small number of Japanese people, including myself. I thank Mr. Takano for allowing me to port his article.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1994 Shima Media Network. All rights reserved. During the test run, our articles are freeware, and are completely free for duplication, distribution and reproduction for non-commercial purposes, provided that a clear statement is made that the article has been ported from SMN (it is not necessary to obtain permission via mail). However, we forbid distributioin or reproduction of an altered original where such an altered version might be taken to be the original. You must obtain permission from SMN for commercial porting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's do it again - A personal comment on the No War Resolution
Hajime Takano, Editor in chief, Insider
The Diet resolution to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of the World War II ended in the worst possible form.
The draft resolution, for which the three ruling coalition parties had spent couple of months striking out their differences, first of all reminded us of the innumerable instances of colonial rule and acts of aggression in modern history of the world, followed by the expression of deep reflection on such acts by Japan in the past and on the suffering inflicted upon peoples of Asia.
The connection between the first half and the latter half of this sentence is quite illogical; it is too incomprehensive even for Japanese, who are usually good at grasping such illogical phrases. Such incomprehension is quite natural since the sentence is a product of combining in words two contradictory opinions held by right wing faction of the Liberal Democratic Party and those of the Socialists.
Right wingers within the LDP assert that Japan had no other choice but to go to war in Asia in order to stand up for its own defense in the midst of the West's invasion of Asia and their pressure on Japan. On the other hand, Socialists believed otherwise with the view that Japan initiated its aggressive acts in Asia in search of such economic interests as in natural resources.
"I'm not the only one to blame"
Initially, the right wingers were opposed to the use of "aggression" and "colonial rule." However, knowing that such an opposition would split the coalition, after a hard thinking the LDP leadership came up with the idea of using those two words in a wider, more general context of innumerable instances of aggression and colonial rule in modern history to appease the Socialists.
Yet, in so doing, the right wing faction within the LDP also agreed to the wording because it gave an impression that it was the Western powers which had started such acts. The same sentence, however, could also be read as an expression of remorse with the recognition of Japan's acts of aggression and colonial rule, therefore was acceptable to the Socialists.
What this sentence as a whole is trying to say, however, is that Japan had no doubt conducted acts of aggression and colonial rule, but that Japan was not the only one to blame. Europeans and Americans had done the same. It is like a mischievous child, after being scolded by teacher, tries to lighten his guilt by saying, "I'm not the only one to blame. A and B has done it, too." When I was at school, my parents and teacher used to say, "Boys should never try to rationalize their acts. Regardless of whether other boys have done the same or not, you should take sole responsibility for what you have done."
Alas, instead of making the best use of this precious moment, Japan has sent such a trash message to the Asian neighbors.
Content and form completely torn apart
Furthermore, the Diet resolution, in accordance with the political tradition, used to be considered "sacred" in the past and passed in unanimous vote after carefully laying the groundwork before the actual voting. That's why the ruling coalition took several months in fixing the wording. The result was their inability to coordinate with the opposition Shinshinto party, and the subsequent passage of the resolution with 171 members of Shinshinto absent from the voting. Japan Communist Party was present and voted against the resolution.
Besides, within the ruling coalition, part of LDP's right wing faction did not attend the Diet session in protest against the content, as well as 73 other lawmakers from the coalition, including Finance Minister Masayoshi Takemura who didn't believe in such a quick voting on the resolution and was out of town at the time. Legally speaking, only one-third of the votes among those who attend is required for the resolution's passage, but all the efforts in the past months to create a unanimous vote have come to be wasted after all.
In addition, the Upper House has decided to cancel the voting on the resolution due to its inability to coordinate differences among parties. The result was the resolution with both its content and form torn apart. The initial plan of making the best use of the resolution as a golden opportunity to clear the ill feelings of the last 50 years between Japan and Asian countries, and to strive for coexistence in the next century, has failed completely.
A Chinese farmer's view of the War
The mishap over the resolution has shown the fact that even after half a century Japanese still lack the logical framework to come to the final reckoning with their war in the past.
It was 30 years ago --- I was 20 years old --- that I had an opportunity to visit China with which Japan had not yet established diplomatic ties. A farmer that I encountered in a village near Shanghai said to me with a smile on his face, "As you can see, Japanese soldiers had come to my village, and cut off one of my arms with their sword. They raped and killed my wife and daughter right before my eyes. But I do not hate Japanese people, because they are also the victim of Japanese imperialism, and we shall work hand in hand to create a war-free world."
It was not his generosity that struck me. What shocked me most was his ability to establish a rational perception within himself that took the War in its duality regarding the class structure within Japan of imperialistic forces over the Japanese people, and the external relationship between the two nations, one of which embraced the above structure. Moreover, I was deeply impressed by the Communist Party's efforts to educate the masses which raised the intellectual level of a farmer, who would probably have been unable to read before the Revolution.
Ever since, I have wanted to create Japan which we would be able to present to those Asian peoples, like the farmer, with pride. However, I would not dare face to the same farmer, read out that despicable resolution of the Diet, and say to him, "This is how we have come to feel after 50 years."
Japan's war dead are wasted
The right wingers of the LDP and families of the war dead behind such forces claim that the dead soldiers would be wasted if the war were to be called as that of aggression. They believe that those who died in the war sacrificed their lives purely for the sake of the country and liberation of Asia, and therefore should never be insulted.
I believe their lives were wasted. Regardless of whether they were deceived to support with passion the wrong war efforts of the imperial power or reluctantly did so with some doubt, they anyway invaded other countries' territory with armaments, and were engaged in inhumane acts there which are beyond our imagination. Tens of millions of Asians whom those soldiers killed were definitely wasted, but their lives were also wasted in the sense that they were driven by such power. There's no justification for glorifying such acts. Rather, it is the recognition of their lives being wasted that would lead to our determination not to waste their lives and never to repeat the same mistake. The mind of the families of the war dead is in confusion.
Confines of denouncing war in general
On the other hand, left wingers and peace movements are denouncing the war only emotionally. Many of us, after having been devastated by the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, have jumped to deny any war in absolute terms. Furthermore, by absorbing such tragedies, they have come to believe that they have paid enough price for their aggression against the Americans and Asians. They now believe in their mission of telling the world about the miseries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki so that the war of mass destruction, including the nuclear one, would never happen again.
That is right. But what they have to do before doing so is to make clear logically the relationship between aggressor and victim to both the United States and Asian countries. Then they should make efforts to take a compensatory measure in a manner that those countries would fully appreciate. Without such efforts, Americans and Asians would react negatively to Japanese talk of tragedies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, feeling that Japan is simply trying to act as a victim of the war while covering up their responsibility as an aggressor. "Are Japanese demanding us an apology for the atomic bombs?" was the voice among right wingers in the States that forced the cancellation of the Smithsonian's planned A-bomb exhibition.
Overwhelming Japanese do not share the idea, held by only a tiny portion of the population, of pretending to act just as a war victim or demanding an American apology. They recognize that atomic bombing was the result of a series of Japanese actions prior to the bombing (although the necessity of using them is debatable). Yet, in the face of such a magnitude of tragedies, the question of balancing the acts as aggressors with sufferings as victims lose its meaning; they simply jump to the feeling, which may even be called a religious conviction, that denounces any war in absolute terms.
From emotional reflection to rational recognition
Both right wingers and left wingers, as long as they affirm or deny the war on their emotional account, could never hope to stand on a common ground to clarify the mechanism of the war and make clear our responsibility for it. Needless to say, sharing the history with Americans, Europeans, and Asians is simply out of the question.
Shouldn't we follow the word of reason of a Chinese farmer, and start everything from scratch once again by recognizing the duality in roles played by the Japanese, one as victims of war considering their position in domestic politics, and the other as aggressors in terms of their relationship with the external world?
(6/15/95)