"It is our obligation as Japan's most influential newspaper to tell our readers who was responsible for starting the Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War," writes Tsuneo Watanabe, editor-in-chief of Japan's -- and the world's -- most widely circulated newspaper, Yomiuri Shimbun, in the introduction to the book From Marco Polo Bridge to Pearl Harbor: Who Was Responsible?
Watanabe, who is now in his 80s and served in the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II, was bothered by the way unfinished business concerning the war continued to hinder Japan's progress.
As a remedy, he set up a War Responsibility Re-examination Committee at his newspaper to undertake a 14-month investigation into the causes of Japan's Pacific War.
Watanabe tells us that the committee concluded that, "not only high-ranking government leaders, general and admirals should shoulder the blame."
According to the committee, "field officers were often more influential than even the emperor, war ministers and chiefs-of-staff in making decisions to go to and escalate the wars, and were responsible for many atrocities."
It has never been easy for a nation to face up honestly to the bitter fact of having committed war crimes, genocide, unjustified foreign aggression or having mistreated and killed its own people. Japan is no exception. Although there have been numerous initiatives to investigate its war guilt, especially its occupation of China, there has not yet been an official effort comparable to what the Germans undertook to take collective responsibility for their war crimes.
While Yomiuri's unique public effort is not a government initiative, it comes as close as Japan will probably ever get to conducting an acceptable "official" inquiry and offering an adequate apology. Its style is almost scientific -- factual, staccato-like and unemotional -- and it goes a long way toward meeting China's demand for a convincing investigation and act of contrition that might allow the bitter and still poisonous past to be overcome.
Watanabe laments the fact that after Japanese war criminals were tried by the Tokyo Tribunal of 1951, "No efforts were made in the name of Japan or the Japanese people to look into where responsibility for the war rested."
As a result, "there can be no genuinely honest and friendly dialogue with those countries that suffered considerable damage and casualties in the wars with Japan."
Indeed, Yomiuri's report may well have helped convince Japan's new prime minister, Shinzo Abe, to go to China immediately after being elected in to seek better bilateral relations.
China's leaders seem to have taken note of this moment of Japanese remorse. This implies a ray of hope for a bilateral relationship -- the most important in Asia -- that over the past two decades has been battered by Japan's reluctance to face its past, which has become a lightning rod for overheated nationalist sentiment on both sides.
But does the Yomiuri study go far enough? While it assigns responsibility to Japan for World War II, and even unflinchingly names the political and military leaders who bear responsibility, one can still detect a whiff of reluctance in its failure to fully describe some of Japan's war-time actions.
For example, the horrors of the Nanking Massacre in 1937, when Japanese soldiers killed 45,000 to 250,000 Chinese -- many of whom were civilians -- are given little more than a brief mention.
But it would be a pity if China's leaders did not endorse this acknowledgement of Japanese guilt as a manifestation of Japan's willingness to repent. The damaged bilateral relationship has only made China's desire for a "peaceful rise" more uncertain. At the same time, it has left Japan's long sought transcendence of its war guilt and quasi-pariah status incomplete. Watanabe and Yomiuri Shimbun have provided a rare opportunity that should be seized for the greater good of China and Japan and the world.
Of course, it is always easier to export blame than to shoulder it. And, true, no Japanese prime minister has yet fallen to his knees in Nanjing the way chancellor Willy Brandt did on the site of the Warsaw Ghetto, where he apologized for the crimes of Germany by saying, "No people can escape from their history."
But that was in 1970, when memories of the war's ravages were fresh. Now, over half a century has elapsed.
"If things are left as they are," writes Watanabe, "a skewed perception of history -- without knowledge of the horrors of the war -- will be handed down to future generations."
It would be an immensely encouraging sign of China's growing maturity if its leaders used this moment to look beyond the bitter past toward a new future with Japan.
Orville Schell is dean of the school of journalism at the University of California-Berkeley.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS