Why did Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, one of the most successful Japanese politicians in modern times, choose this moment to worship at the notorious Yasukuni Shrine, where 14 class-A war criminals are interred? For Japan’s Ismedia, columnist Koga Shigeaki seeks to explain Abe’s apparently self-destructive behavior, and in the process issues a powerful indictment of the Japanese right.
For Ismedia, Koga Shigeaki writes in part:
The constitution of Japan rejects the resolution of conflict by force, and doesn’t even authorize a standing army. Most mainstream members of the Liberal Democratic Party, including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, believe that the occupying forces imposed these principles on Japan. The manifesto of the Japan Restoration Party runs along similar lines.
The fact is, however, that the philosophy behind the Constitution reflected the experience of the Japanese themselves, who witnessed the atrocities of WWII and decided among themselves to stop war at all costs, going so far as to relinquish a military. Initially, the prevailing view was that the even the Self Defense Forces were unconstitutional.
The people who claim that the Constitution was hoisted upon Japan by General Headquarters often fail to acknowledge that the Pacific War was a war of aggression by Japan, the legitimacy of which was in most cases denied internationally. They don’t try to defend the Pacific War in its entirety, but argue that Japan was not the sole cause, and that other imperialistic powers also have a degree of responsibility. The most significant feature of this attitude is that by emphasizing the responsibility of others, there is an attempt to justify themselves, and hence, a desire not to apologize to the countries that Japan invaded. Furthermore, in their refusal to accept the guilt of war criminals, they deny the legitimacy of the Tokyo trials [The post World War II International Military Tribunal for the Far East.]
However, fully aware of the fact that such arguments have no chance of winning international acceptance, they have not publically asserted the legitimacy of the Pacific War or the innocence of the war criminals. When they took office, they disguised themselves as followers of the established line taken by successive cabinets. This greatly complicates the situation.
Prime Minister Abe is definitely one of these. During Diet sessions, he repeatedly offers vague answers on the definition of a war of aggression, and during his visit to Yasukuni, he made an ambiguous comment when he was asked about the issue of Class-A war criminals enshrined there. He invariably fails to answer directly. If Japan would clearly state that the Pacific War was a war of aggression, and that worshipping Class-A war criminals is internationally rejected making it unacceptable for the prime minister to pay tribute to them, the Yasukuni visit itself might not be such an major issue. It is Prime Minister Abe’s unspoken justification of the Pacific War that China, South Korea, and the United States find so objectionable.
READ ON IN ENGLISH OF JAPANESE AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.
Founder and Managing Editor of Worldmeets.US