By Sheila A. Smith
Some might focus on what the Japanese PM did not say; but what he did say was interesting … and important.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has presented his statement on the seventieth anniversary of the end of World War II (WWII). Much anticipated and debated, this Abe Statement included the language of statements made on the fiftieth and sixtieth anniversaries by former prime ministers Murayama Tomiichi and Koizumi Junichiro. But Abe took a different tack from his predecessors, identifying the lessons of that war and defeat, and articulating their link to Japan’s current and future ambitions.
Words matter. Four words in particular were seen as evidence of Abe’s attitude toward the past: “aggression (shinryaku),” “colonial domination (shokuminchi shihai),” “deep remorse (tsusetsu na hansei),” and “apology (owabi)”—Abe included all four phrases from the Murayama and Koizumi statements defined as markers of Abe’s intent. For those who saw the semantics as the key to success, Abe left little room for criticism. Yet opposition leaders in the Diet still found room for complaint, arguing that Abe simply quoted past statements rather than repeating them with conviction.
Abe spent some time situating his comments in the larger flow of twentieth century global currents. He opened with the broad sweep of transformation that confronted Japan in the twentieth century, beginning with the “sense of crisis” over Western imperialism that drove Japanese modernization. Noting that the international community sought to outlaw war after World War I, Abe argued that Japan’s mistake was that it became “a challenger” to the “new international order.” Japan’s economic setbacks and its “sense of isolation” separated it from other nations, implying that cooperation rather than confrontation might have produced a different outcome. Critical to his assessment of that fatal choice, Abe pointed out that Japan’s “domestic political system could not serve as a brake to stop” his country’s effort to overcome its diplomatic and economic deadlock through the use of force. Yet he stopped short of identifying who made those choices.
Read the full story at The Diplomat