Japan's apology is necessary

By S.P. Seth

SYDNEY (JP): In the lead up to the 50th anniversary of Japan's surrender in World War II in August, the Japanese government has been wrestling for months to cobble together some sort of an apology for Japan's war-time crimes.

This was considered necessary for two reasons. One, without it, Japan's socialist Prime Minister, Murayama, was threatening to pull out of Japan's coalition government with the majority conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which would have brought down the government. Two, a conciliatory and remorseful gesture of the sort would help Japan's erstwhile Asian war- victims to come to terms with a new Japan.

Japan's new phraseology of contrition seems to have served the first purpose of saving the coalition government on this issue. As for the second, it doesn't go far enough. Japan's play with words has avoided using the word "apology" to atone for its war crimes. Indeed, by recalling and drawing a parallel with similar crimes in modern history, Tokyo seems to be saying that its record was no better or worse than others in this respect.

To quote: "We look back at the various instances of colonial rule and acts of aggression in modern history and recognize both the fact that we carried out such acts and the suffering that we brought upon the citizens of other countries, particularly Asian nations, and express deep regret."

Not surprisingly, Japan's new "apology" hasn't found favor with its former Asian victims, like China and South Korea.

Unlike Germany, which has on several occasions handsomely apologized for its Nazi past, Japan has a serious problem with a fulsome apology.

There are a number of reasons for this. First, there is a widespread belief in Japan that the war was forced on it due to the American oil embargo and other sanctions. This is not quite true.

Japan was already heading in that direction when it absorbed Manchuria in 1931 and started war against China in 1937 (much before American sanctions). Tokyo's attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, was a preemptive strike to disable American naval power; even as Japan launched its full-scale invasion of Asia on Dec. 7-8, 1941.

Second, many Japanese believe that they were actually fighting the Pacific war to liberate Asia from Western colonialism. And to these people all the stories about Japanese war crimes are sheer fabrication.

In May last year, for instance, Shigeto Nagano, then Justice Minister, dismissed the 1937 Nanking massacre (in which up to 300,000 Chinese civilians were killed in a Japanese military orgy) as a "fabrication". He also maintained his stance, in an interview with the Japanese Mainichi newspaper.

"It is wrong to say it (the Pacific War) was waged with the aim of aggression." He added, "They (the Japanese armed forces) were serious about liberating the colonies."

Because of the outcry from Japan's Asian neighbors over his remarks, the minister was forced to resign by the government. But he was not the first such minister and will not be the last to make these preposterous claims. Unfortunately, such a view is shared though not expressed so forthrightly by many Japanese.

There are indeed strong organized groups and lobbies holding and promoting a benign view of Japan's war role. These include organizations like the Association of War-Bereaved Families, the Soldiers Pension Federation and Association of Shinto Shrines -- the State religion until 1945. These organizations have large memberships with branches countrywide. Shinto shrines are visited by powerful politicians to pay homage to Japan's war-time dead, including its war criminals.

Third, there is an almost universal belief in Japan that the United States too owes them an apology for dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima (Aug. 6) and on Nagasaki (Aug. 9) in 1945. Since Germany was spared this calamity (though the British did flatten some of its industrial and population centers in a senseless act of aerial destruction towards the end of war), many Japanese regard the targeting of Japanese cities for atomic attack as an act of racist bigotry and cruelty against a non-white people.

The Japanese were outraged recently when President Bill Clinton not only refused to apologize for the U.S. dropping atomic bomb on Japan, but also justified its use at the time. The standard U.S. argument is that the atomic bomb saved lives of many allied soldiers by bringing the war to an early end.

Otherwise, a full-scale invasion of Japan, it is argued, would not only have been very costly in human and other terms for the allied forces, but would probably have caused more destruction for Japan and its people than the carnage from atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese armed forces seemed determined to fight to the end and only the atomic attack forced them into surrendering.

One can understand the Japanese people's anguish in having been singled out for the first ever use of atomic bomb against any people on this earth. And the Americans will have to atone for it at some point in time. But there is no linkage between what America did to the Japanese and what the Japanese did to their Asian victims. The Japanese owe an apology to many Asian people whose countries they occupied and where they committed horrible atrocities. These people had not done Japan any harm and didn't deserve to be trampled on by Japan's imperial army. And they do not buy Japan's self-appointed role as their liberator from Western imperialism.

Therefore, if Japan is looking for a legitimate political role in Asia and in the world, it will need to start with a clean slate. And this is only possible with Tokyo making a wholesome apology to the Asian people on whom they inflicted so much misery.

The writer is a freelance journalist.