Shinzo Abe’s election as leader of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) this past week and his imminent installation as Junichiro Koizumi’s successor as prime minister is something Americans should look forward to with mixed feelings. Koizumi was a mold-breaking leader, bringing the Japanese economy out of the doldrums, reforming the postal savings system, and smashing the LDP’s faction system. But much less heralded is his legitimation of a new Japanese nationalism, described in greater detail in the article by Mike Mochizuki in the current issue of The American Interest. Abe is, if anything, even more committed to building an assertive and unapologetic Japan than Koizumi, who for the past five years has managed to antagonize China and South Korea by his annual visits to Yasukuni Shrine.
Anyone inclined to think that the controversy over Yasukuni is an obscure historical matter that the Chinese and the Koreans use to badger Japan for political advantage has probably never spent much time there. The problem is not the fact that 12 Class-A war criminals are interred in Yasukuni; the real problem is the Yushukan military museum next to it, which is operated by a private religious foundation. Walking past the Mitsubishi Zero, tanks, and machine guns on display, one finds a history of the Pacific War that the museum proudly explains restores “the Truth of Modern Japanese History.” It follows the nationalist narrative by which Japan was a victim of the European colonial powers, one that sought only to protect the rest of Asia from them. Japan’s colonial occupation of Korea, for example, is described as a “partnership”; one looks in vain for any account of the victims of Japanese militarism in Nanjing or Manila.
One might be able to defend the museum as one point of view among many in a pluralistic democracy, but for the fact that there is no other museum in Japan that gives an alternative view of Japanese 20th-century history. Successive Japanese administrations have hidden behind the fact that the Yushukan museum is run by a religious organization to wash its hands of responsibility for the views expressed there. The fact of the matter is that Japan, unlike Germany, has never come to terms with its own responsibility for the Pacific War. Although the socialist prime minister Murayama officially apologized to China for the war in 1995, Japan has never had a real internal debate over exactly what its degree of its responsibility was, and has never made a determined effort to propagate an alternative account to that of Yushkan to its young people.
My exposure to the Japanese right came in the early 1990s, when I was on a couple of panels in Japan with Watanabe Soichi, who was selected by my Japanese publisher (unbeknownst to me) to translate The End of History and the Last Man into Japanese. Watanabe was professor at Sophia University and a collaborator of the elder Ishihara, the nationalist politician who wrote The Japan That Can Say No. In the course of a couple of encounters, I heard him explain in front of large public audiences how the people of Manchuria had tears in their eyes when the occupying Kwantung Army left China, so grateful were they to Japan, and that the Pacific War was all about race on the part of the United States (i.e., keeping a non-white people down). He is the equivalent of a Holocaust denier, but one who unlike his German counterparts can easily get large and sympathetic audiences to listen. (I am regularly sent books by Japanese writers explaining how the Nanjing Massacre was a big fraud.)
There have been a number of disturbing recent incidents in which physical intimidation has been used by nationalists against critics of Koizumi’s Yasukuni visits, such as the firebombing of the home of former prime ministerial candidate Kato Koichi (see Steve Clemons’ account). On the other hand, the publisher of the normally conservative Yomiuri Shimbun has stepped up to the plate, attacking Koizumi’s Yasukuni visits and publishing a fascinating series of articles on responsibility for the war.
There are a number of American strategists who are eager to ring China with a NATO-like defensive barrier, building outwards from the US-Japan Security Treaty. Since the waning days of the Cold War Washington has been pushing Japan to rearm, and has officially supported a proposed revision of Article 9 of the postwar constitution that bans Japan from having a military or waging war. We should be careful in what we wish for, however. The legitimacy of the entire American military position in the Far East is built around the fact that we have taken over the sovereign function of self-defense for Japan; a unilateral revision of Article 9 by Japan against the backdrop of its new nationalism will isolate Japan from virtually the whole rest of Asia. We presume that Article 9 revision has long been part of Abe’s agenda, but whether he pushes ahead with it will depend in large part on the kinds of advice he gets from close friends in Washington. President Bush has been unwilling to say anything to his “good friend Junichiro” on these historical issues out of gratitude for Japan’s support on Iraq; perhaps he could start with a clean slate once Abe becomes prime minister.
2 Comments »
If no one else has a word to say, let me agree. I like my non-militarist friends, the Japanese. They joined us in Baghdad. It was a trade. Bush asked why aren’t you coming to Baghdad. The Japanese reply was “You are not yet coming to Expo 2005 in Aichii?” They came, we came.
They (our first Japanese envoys to Iraq – much prior to Aichii back in 2003) did not bring troops. They were diplomats. We would have and could have negotiated vehicle deals but for their untimely demise. We would have provided escort, but we were advised they did not think it necessary. (Am I speaking out of house? But it is true.)
If Japanese troops had been there it would not have changed history. They would not have had a military convoy. It wasn’t that kind of mission.
But, on the other hand, we have wanted to arm allies and have them join us. That is a sometimes good thing, having allies. In Iraq, we had the coalition of the willing, (CP’s influence). But in a different century, didn’t we support Saddam against our then “enemy?” And, here I am post Iraq, and Baghdad saying, “Short term, real-politik is dangerous.”
And so back to my original statement, I like my non-militarist Japanese friends. I want to rely on their friendly non-militarist aid and assistance, thank you very much.
Comment by Ed Muller – September 30, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
While Mr. Fukuyama is correct that Japan hasn’t come clean like Germany and that Japan should do more to confess its sins, I think it’s unfair to compare Japanese role in Manchuria with that of German genocide of the Jews. Japanese invasion and rule over Manchuria was brutal and exploitative, but it wasn’t genocidal. Why should Japan kick itself forever over its imperialist ventures when European nations don’t do likewise? Do Belgians spend every day of the year expressing remorse over the Congo? Do white Afrikaners beat themselves over the head on a daily basis over past sins of Apartheid? Do Americans really spend much time looking its conquest and genocide of American Indians? Do Russians express remorse over their imperialism in Asia, its ruthless domination of Central Asian and Baltic republics? Do Russians apologize for the Iron Curtain. Do Jews apologize for the radical leftists among their own kind that brought so much misery throughout the world thru communism?
So, why pick especially on Japan?
And, who’s doing the picking? China? Chiang Kai Shek was no less ruthless than Japanese militarists. Mao was 100x worse. Mao killed far more Chinese in peacetime than Japanese killed during war.
And, what about North Korea? A regime that murders 3 million of its own people in a few yrs thru man-made famine shouldn’t be lecturing to any nation. And, South Korea, which tolerates the crimes of Kim Jong-Il–who has enslaved and killed more Koreans than Japanese during colonial rule–is hypocritical when it focuses on Japanese evil. Indeed, it is mostly political in both South Korea and China; Japan-bashing is an easy way for the leaders of those nations to diverst attention from domestic problems.
Anyway, I do believe that the Japanese far right is genuinel crazy. And, I think the unwillingness to face history has been shameful on the part of most Japanese. But, let’s not compare Japanese role in Asia with Nazi deeds. Japanese were not trying to wipe out entire peoples. Rather, they were imperialists albeit a more brutal kind than the French and the Brits though not always and at all times.
Also, I think there was greater pressure for Germany to face its crimes. For one thing, it was far graver as it involved a massive program of genocide. But, Germany was also a more advanced and modern nation than Japan so should have known better; as Mccarthur said, Japan was like a boy of 14.
But, more importantly, the main victims of the Germans were Jews who have great power and influence around the world. If Germans had killed 6 million gypsies or Serbians, there would have been less of an international outcry because gypsies or Serbians don’t have the kind of power/influece as the Jews. Indeed, who cares that 8 million Ukrainians were killed by Stalin? How much international power do Ukrainians have?
I’ll bet if Japanese had killed 6 million Jews and German had killed 10 million Chinese, there would be more pressure on the Japanese to be come clean. And, in order to do business, Japan would have to come clean.
It’s also true with blacks. It’s less acceptable to oppress blacks because of Western guilt associated with black slavery. Because of American sense of guilt and large and powerful black presence in the US, South African apartheid got far more coverage than Chinese brutality in Tibet, Israeli occupation of West Bank and Gaza, and Indonesian oppression of East Timorese which was far more brutal and savage than anything under apartheid in South Africa.
Also, it depends on who the guilty party is. In the modern Western world where intellectual and political thought is dominated by the left, white folks are held to a higher standard than non-whites. If Afrikaners kill a few dozen blacks, it’s worldwide news. But, if Rwandans kill 100,000s, it’s just statistics. Indeed, the West was very slow to acknowledge the moral monstrosity of the Rwandan genocide. Indeed, Westerners were reluctant to use the term ‘genocide’. I mean only white people commit such crime, not noble blacks.
Also, we must keep in mind that Germany after WWII neighbored advanced liberal democracies. There was more pressure, influence, and contact with genuine democracies. There was more pressure for Germany to join the club of moderate sane nations.
In contrast, Japan was the ONLY genuine democracy in Asia after WWII. Whatever its prior sins, it was more liberal, advanced, and humane than the realites of governance and social life in the Koreas, China, Taiwan, and elsewhere.
Indeed, many Asian nations were being run by their own brand of intolerant ultra-nationalist militarists.
Anyway, Japan needs to grow up and face the truth of history. But, let’s not confuse issues by comparing Japan with Germany. Indeed, Germany has been truly an exception manner. No other nation has done this. But, its crimes were truly horrendous. But, were the crimes of communism in Russia less horrendous? Where is the call for Russians and leftwing Jews to apologize for that monstrous system?
Also, too many on the Japanese Left exploit history to condemn not just Japanese militarism but all of Japanese nation and culture. These are self-loathing Japanese and they lack credibility. Many of them have been communists or communist-sympathizers. They supported Stalinists like Ho Chi Minh, revered that mass murderer Mao, and has supported North Korea.
While the Japanese Right want to rewrite history, Japanse Left want to sensationalize Japanes crimes to trash everything Japanese, everything American, and everything capitalist.
Ienaga Saburo, for instance, may have been courageous in speaking out against the far right. But, he was just as blind and obsessive in his own way. His new religion was hard leftism, Maoism, and Ho Chi Minhism. I mean it’s no good if you go from worshipping Hirohito to worshipping Mao.
Also, example of US political correctness and so-called anti-American ‘multiculturalism’ should remind Japanese that the past can easily be exploited by the left to trash and undermine what is essential and fundamental to national unity, pride, and confidence. It’s one thing to acknowledge the evils of the past, but to keep enflaming them to cause divisions, distrust, self-loathing, and self-hatred is not the way to go.
Also, Japanese are not entirely wrong to say that Japan was resisting Western domination in the Pacific(they felt they had a right to dominate Asia like US dominated the Americas). By the time Japan entered the imperial adventure, Anglos and the French had gobbled up much of the world, including large parts of Asia. Also, United States was a creation of imperialist conquest. Indeed, the main difference between US and Japan was that the former was a victorious imperialist venture while the latter was a failed imperialist venture.
In a way, WWII was a war between established imperial powers vs upstart imperial powers. The Allies–US, Britain, France, Russia, even China–were nations with either large imperial holdings or whose nation was a kind of vast empire. In contrast, Germany, Italy, and Japan were nations that felt left out or left only with crumbs. They felt they had a right to create their own vast imperial holdings. Now, two wrongs don’t make a right. Also, with the exception of stalin’s russia, UK, France, and US were more advanced and humane than germany, italy, or japan ever hoped to be.
Still, it was not a simple war between good vs bad.
Comment by Santor Praetorius – October 5, 2006 @ 5:57 pm
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Leave a comment
