Japan debates its role in Indonesian independence

Japan debates its role in Indonesian independence

JAKARTA (JP): While Japan played a role in paving the way for
Indonesia's proclamation of independence in 1945, this in no way
atones for the atrocities it committed during it's World War II
occupation of Indonesia, a leading Japanese historian said
yesterday.

Aiko Kurasawa-Inomata of Nagoya University said there is still
debate between politicians on the one hand and historians and
scholars on the other as to the sincerity of Japan's apology to
Indonesia for their war-time occupation.

"We are closer to the view that the role of the Japanese
government in the war cannot be tolerated," she told The Jakarta
Post during an international seminar to review Indonesia's
history since independence in 1945.

Ken-Ichi Goto of Waseda University earlier explained in his
paper that there are two views in Japan of their precise role in
World War II.

The first is that the Japanese should apologize, while the
other, held by many statesmen and politicians, is that no apology
is necessary given that Japan facilitated Indonesia's
independence struggle.

"Historians must be more careful (of this later view)," Goto
said.

Goto and Kurasawa said many Japanese politicians strongly
believe that the military training given to Indonesian youths and
their recruitment into para-military units during the Japanese
occupation, plus the eventual transfer of arms after the Japanese
defeat from the Allied Forces, helped Indonesian freedom fighters
repel the return of the Dutch colonial forces.

"This is why they doubt that Japan should have apologized (to
Indonesia)," Goto said.

Their attitude differs when it comes to apologizing to Korea,
China and Taiwan because they were not under any Western colonial
ruler when the Japanese arrived, he said.

Goto also argued that further research into one particular
incident in Semarang, Central Java, in October 1945, when
Japanese forces clashed fiercely with Indonesian independence
fighters, could shed more light on Japanese policy at the time.

He said that lack of understanding of historical relations
between Japan and Indonesia, particularly between the postwar
years of 1945 to 1951, caused "ambiguity in historical
recognition of the Japanese control of Indonesia."

He blamed this same lack of understanding during the "unstable
years" for leading the Japanese to rush into an 'economy-first'
approach to build its relations with Indonesia.

Goto said the Japanese government's policy to declassify
official documents after 30 years has resulted in a dearth of
studies on historical relations between Japan and the countries
it invaded during the war.

"Even with the already released historic documents, highly
important and sensitive parts of the government policy ... are
still not known," he said.

An Indonesian participant in the conference, noted writer
Marianne Katoppo, earlier raised the issue of comfort women, to
whom she said Japan should apologize and compensate.

She referred to the existence of official documents mentioning
the recruitment of women for the pleasure of Japanese soldiers.

Goto said tensions still exist in Japan over particular
chapters of Indonesian occupation, including the Semarang
incident.

In this particular incident, Indonesian independence fighters
fought tooth and nail to take over arms and ammunitions.

The Japanese forces, under orders from the Allied Forces, had
the responsibility to maintain order and ensure that no weapons
fell into the hands of the Indonesians.

The Indonesians inflicted heavy casualties on the Japanese
forces, Goto said. "(This) might have offset the guilty
consciousness .. of having been an assailant during the war."

Japan has already made a formal apology for the atrocities it
committed in the Asian countries that it occupied during the war.
The Indonesian government has accepted the apology and received
huge war reparation funds.

Some members of the public, however, feel that the apology has
not gone far enough and that the expression of "deep remorse" was
more a statement of atonement than apology. (anr)