法学研究 96 巻 2 号（2023：2）

Apology in Japanese Foreign Policy:
Why an Apology Is Made by a State Leader

TAKASHIMA, Asako
1. Introduction
2. Theory and Hypothesis
3. Apology by Prime Minister
4. Analysis
5. Conclusion

1. Introduction
In last three decades, the history problem became an issue for foreign policyin East Asia. As public apologies by Prime Ministers increased since 1990, thewords “apology” and “historical problem” started to be widely reported at the1）same time . These trends in East Asia have received wide spread attention in2）

the world and have often been compared to that of Europe .

As the history problem became an issue for foreign policy, the issue started
to be targeted academically. In these studies, the relationship between Germany
and France has been referred to as a “succeeded example,” while the relationship
1） The word “apology” in connection with World War II increased from three times in the
1970s and 25 times in the 1980s to 77 times in the 1990s. (It subsequently declined to 39 in
the 2000s and 1 in the 2010s.) On the other hand, “historical awareness” increased from 3
times in the 1970s and 36 times in the 1980s to 622 times in the 1990s, 942 times in the
2000s, and 962 times in the 2010s.Yomidasu Rekishikan (Yomiuri Database Service),(https://database.yomiuri.co.jp/rekishikan/).
2） Washington Post, “Germany won respect by addressing its World War II crimes. Japan,
not so much.”, August 13, 2015. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/
wp/2015/08/13/germany-won-respect-by-addressing-its-world-war-ii-crimes-japan-not-somuch/) (accessed on December 25, 2022)(1)490Apology in Japanese Foreign Policy

between Japan and China or South Korea is named as a “failed example” (Lind,
2008; Berger, 2012; Hall, 2015). These studies focus on apology by a State toreconcile with other countries.
There are also plenty studies in Social Psychology which shed lights on
conditions in successful apologies in foreign policy (Blatz, 2014; Gibney et al.,2007; Okimoto et al., 2015) . It seems convincing that apology matters in3）reconciliation and some apologies are effective . However, it is not crystal clear
why a state leader apologize even though it might fail to reconcile with othercountries. On the contrary, some apologies by a state leader could gain severe“backlash” by his own society (Lind, 2008; Hall, 2015). To answer this question, I
shed light on partisanship and ideology of the government and strategy of theregime in Japan. By doing so, I will identify the occasion that gave rise to theapology.

2. Theory and Hypothesis
2.1 Apology in Foreign Policy
Many studies which countriesʼ history problems have laid focus on theconcept of apology. Lind (2008) compares Japan and Germany, and analyzes
that “apologetic” remembrance determines reconciliation. Similarly, Berger
4）(2012) makes it clear that “narrative” is the essence of apology . Both studies

point to how a government and society narrate the history of their own country
as the determinant of reconciliation, and both concluded that the Japanese
government and society could not make an apologetic narrative to reconcile,3） See Blatz, C. W., Day, M. V., & Schryer, E. Official public apology effects on victim
group membersʼ evaluations of the perpetrator group. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 46(3) (2014), pp. 337―345; Gibney, M., Howard-Hassmann, R.E., Coicaud, J. -M., & Steiner, N. (Eds.). The age of apology: Facing up to the past. (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007); Okimoto, T. G., M.
Wenzel, and M. J. Hornsey. Apologies demanded yet devalued: Normative dilution in theage of apology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60 (2015), pp. 133―136.
4） Jennifer Lind, Sorry States: Apologies in International Politics (Cornell University Press,
2008); Thomas U. Berger, War, Guilt, and World Politics after World War II (Cambridge
University Press, 2012).
489(2)

法学研究 96 巻 2 号（2023：2）

compared to Germany, who successfully managed to do so.
On the other hand, Feldman (2012) analyzes Germanyʼs case, and showsthat there were steps in reconciliation between Germany and foreign countries.
She points that history, leadership, institutions and international contexts are5）

the variables for reconciliation . For example, she concludes that thereconciliation between Germany and France was much smoother than thatbetween Germany and the Czech Republic.
Takashima (2017) shows how apologetic narratives emerged in Japan and6）

Germany from the point of view of international politics and leadership .

These two dimensions are important, because (1) there should be an incentive tohave an apologetic narrative, however, even if there is an incentive, theapologetic narrative of the government sometimes clashes against that ofsociety. Therefore, (2) leadership is important to converge narratives ofgovernment and society. Hall (2015) brings emotion into International Relations
and also shows that politics always precedes society in terms of showing the7）

emotion of guilt .

2.2 Narratives in Apology– International Relations and Social Psychology
Many studies in International Relations point to how apologies are key toreconciliation, but it is not clear how and how deep one should apologize toreconcile with neighboring countries. This invites the question; how can one
determine some narratives as “apologetic” and others as un-apologetic? Lind
defines that “most apologetic remembrance is that which thoroughly addresses
8）both admission and remorse .” Tsutsui (2009) further classifies seven stages of
apology: denial, justification, evasion, projection, displacement, remorse, and

5） Lily G.Feldman, Germany’s Foreign Policy of Reconciliation: From Enmity to Amity(London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012).
6） Takashima Asako, “Shazai no Keisei: Dainiji Taisen Go no Nihon to Doitsu wo Hikaku
shite” (Forming of Apology: Comparative Studies of Japan and Germany after World War
II), Kokusai Seiji, 187 (2017), pp. 114―130.
7） Hall, Todd H. Emotional diplomacy: official emotion on the international stage (Cornell
University Press, 2015).
8） Lind, op cit., p.16.
(3)488

Apology in Japanese Foreign Policy
9）universalism . There are also plenty of studies in Social Psychology which focus
on finding conditions that successful apologies contain (Blatz, 2014; Gibney et al.,2007; Okimoto et al., 2015).

However, as an apology is an interaction between two actors, it is possiblethat an apology will not be recognized as an apology by the country receiving it.
Although Tsutsui makes it clear that Japanese societyʼs apology became deeper
from 1945 to 2004, according to Lind and Berger, the Japanese apology did not
succeed. Similarly, Hall demonstrates that the emotion in diplomacy can be10）

misunderstood by the counterpart.

An apology which is accepted by an apologized country can be different
according to situations. If the country being apologized to needs reconciliation,
it is possible to reconcile with a lower level of apology. On the other hand, if theapologized country does not need reconciliation, it is possible for the country to
not be satisfied even with a higher level of apology. In this situation, thequestion should not be which apology is more apologetic or not, but why anapologizing country would make an apology even when it may not be accepted.
Does a country make an apology even if it has no merit? Should it only be
explained by morality or ethics? To answer these questions, this paper will shedlight on how the Japanese government apologized to other countries from theviewpoint of political narrative.
First, in section three, I will analyze the Japanese Prime Ministersʼ annual
greetings, which are made every 15th August on the Japanese anniversary of theend of the WWII. The change of narratives in these greetings will show whether
there was an apology or not. I will also analyze the Prime Ministersʼ talks which
are presented around 15th August regarding the anniversary of the end of theWar.
Tracing differences in narratives and the frequencies of talks can tell us
which administration was more active for apologizing, and which was not. This
will further allow us to understand why an apology is made. In section four, I9） Kiyoteru Tsutsui, “The Trajectory of Perpetratorsʼ Trauma: Mnemonic Politics aroundthe Asia-Pacific War in Japan,” Social Forces, 87(3) (2009), pp.1389―1422.
10） Hall, op cit., pp. 6―7.
487(4)

法学研究 96 巻 2 号（2023：2）

will analyze the Abe administration and its narratives in apology, because it will
be clear in section three that Prime Minister Abe Shinzo changed the narratives
in annual greetings on 15th August. Detailed analysis of the Abe administration,
which is seen as inactive to apologize, can tell us why an apology is made or not.

3. Apology by Prime Minister
3.1 Greeting in Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead
There are two sources from which to analyze Japanese Prime Ministersʼ
statements about the responsibility of WWII. The first is the greeting in the
Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead (Zenkoku Senbotsusha Tsuitou Shiki). The
Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead was first held on 2nd May 1952 by the11）government in Shinjuku. This ceremony was influenced by the campaign of

the Japan War-Bereaved Welfare Federation (Nippon Izoku Kousei Renmei), which
was formed in 1947. The federation later formed another foundation andchanged the name into Japan War-Bereaved Families Association (Nippon
Izokukai, hence forth referred to as “Izokukai”), which aims to help families of thewar -bereaved economically and emotionally.
The Memorial Ceremony was not annual at first, and the date and place
were different every year. In 1982, it was decided by the cabinet that theMemorial Ceremony would be held on 15th August every year in Nippon
12）

Budokan(Martial Arts Hall) and the Prime Minister, the Emperor and the

Empress would attend

13）. By this time, Izokukai had established a deep

connection with the Ministry of Health and Welfare (Kouseishou), particularly
with regards to the pension and subcontracting of collecting ashes of War
Dead

14）

. Koseishou is responsible for the clerical work of the ceremony. Izokukai

also identified deeply with the Liberal Democratic Party, and all presidents since11） Nippon Izokukai (Japan War-Bereaved Families Association) homepage, “Nippon
Izokukai ni tsuite” (about Japan War-Bereaved Families Association) (http://www.nipponizokukai.jp/category/japanese/) (accessed on December 25, 2022)
12） The building was first build for the competition of Judo for Tokyo Olympics in 1964.
13） Other politicians also attend on the ceremony, for instance, Speaker of House of Representatives.
(5)486

Apology in Japanese Foreign Policy

the third president, Yasui Seiichiro, have been politicians of the Liberal
Democratic Party.
The events that take place during the Memorial Ceremony are as follows:
After the Emperor and Empress enter the venue, the ceremony is proceeded by
the singing of the national anthem, a greeting from the Prime Minister, a silent
prayer, a speech by the Emperor and the offering of flowers to the war dead bypoliticians who attend. The most important part of the ceremony is a one
minute silent prayer from 12:00, and the greeting of the Prime Minister is right15）. Since the first ceremony at the Budokan in 1982 until 1993,

before this prayer

the greeting was mainly about mourning the more than 3 million war dead, as
16）

well as wishing the world eternal peace(“Kokyu Heiwa”).

On 9th August 1993, the first non Liberal Democratic government wasformed since 1955. The cabinet was a coalition of eight parties, and Hosokawa
Morihiro became the Prime Minister. Hosokawa was a former journalist andgovernor of Kumamoto Prefecture, and was known as an innovator of Japanesepolitics after he left the LDP.
At the Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead on 15th August 1993,
Hosokawa expressed mourning (Aitou) for “the war dead and their families inneighboring Asian countries”. It was the first time that the Prime Minister
mentioned war responsibility at the Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead.
Until then, the ceremony was only for the Japanese war-bereaved and for thisreason, Prime Ministers only mourned the Japanese War Dead. Former
Presidents wished for eternal peace, but did not mention regret for the war. With
this background, there was some criticism regarding the speech of Hosokawa
17）from the bereaved.

After Hosokawa resigned as Prime Minister, Hata Tsutomu took over the14） This business is regarded as subcontracting of Ministry of Health and Welfare to
Izokukai. The Ministry was merged with the Ministry of Labour in 2001 and became the
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.
15） It lasts about 2 minutes (about 700 words).
16） Building world eternal peace is also an aim of Izokukai; Nippon Izokukai homepage,“Nippon Izokukai ni tsuite” (about Japan War-Bereaved Families Association) (http://
www.nippon-izokukai.jp/category/japanese/) (accessed on December 25, 2022)
485(6)

法学研究 96 巻 2 号（2023：2）

government, but this only lasted two months from April to June 1993. As aresult, the greeting at the Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead the next year in
1994 was made by Murayama Tomiichi, who was the leader of the JapaneseSocialist Party. The Socialist Party was the biggest left-wing opposition party inJapanese politics and was criticized for their “masochistic sense of history”(Jigyaku Shikan) by conservative politicians. Murayama expressed mourning and“deep remorse” (Fukai Hansei) for the war dead in Asian countries, who
experienced “indescribably miserable sacrifice” (Hitsuzetsuni tsukushigatai Hisan na
Gisei). Not only did he emulate Hosokawaʼs apology, but strengthened thenotion of apology to Asian countries. It is clear that the two politicians from
opposition parties changed the custom of the greeting and the narrative, butthere also remained unchanged phrases, such as “more than three million war
dead” and the wish for “eternal peace”.
In January 1996, the Murayama cabinet lost power and Hashimoto
Ryutaro, a politician from the Liberal Democratic Party, formed a new
government. Hashimoto was known to have an especially deep connection with
Izokukai, being very active for the welfare of the war dead, as well as becoming
President of Izokukai (1993-1995). His greeting for the ceremony received wide
attention, as he expressed “deep remorse” (Fukai Hansei) for the people in Asia
who suffered18）. In this phrase, one can see the continuity of the narrative of

apologizing to Asian countries by the Japanese government. Hashimoto
repeated a very similar greeting the following year, and this narrative was carriedover to proceeding Prime Ministers from the Liberal Democratic Party, Obuchi
Keizo and Mori Yoshiro.
Surprisingly, this continuity was also expressed through the Koizumi
administration, which was believed to be very conservative, especially because of17） Yomiuri Shimbun, “Senbotsusha Tsuitoushiki “Hosokawaryu” Shikiji Hannou
Samazama” (Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead: different reactions to the greeting ofPrime Minister Hosokawa), August 16, 1993.
18） Though Hashimoto was known as a conservative politician and was a President of
Izokukai, he was also known as a Minister of Trade and Industry in the Murayama cabinet. Murayama and Hashimoto had known each other since they were young politicians
who dealt with health and labor (Sharou-zoku).
(7)484

Apology in Japanese Foreign Policy

his regular visits to Yasukuni shrine. However, Koizumi stated “deep remorse” tothe victims in Asian countries six times, through his administration from 2001 to
2006. This attitude and narrative was again carried over to successive Prime
Ministers, Abe Shinzo, Fukuda Yasuo, and Aso Taro.
In 2012, the Democratic Party rose to power for the first time. The
Democratic Party has many former members of the Socialist Party, and has arelationship with the Labour Union. However, the first Prime Minister for the
Democratic Party, Hatoyama Yukio, never had a chance to make a greeting for
the Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead as he took office in September 2009
and resigned in June 2010. The next Prime Minister, Kan Naoto, made thegreeting in 2010. Here, he mentioned “deep remorse” to the victims in Asian
countries, and Noda Yoshihiko, the next Prime Minister from Democratic Party
also carried over this phrase.
This trend changed during the second Abe administration. On 15th August
2013, at the first Ceremony after he became Prime Minister, Abe did not
mention anything about neighboring countries or “deep remorse”. He also
stopped referring to the “more than three million war dead,” but mentioned thesacrifice of the war dead “who wished for the happiness of the wife, children,
father and mother” and “prosperity of his home” (Furusato no Sanga yo, Midorinase). These narratives had never appeared until then, and the description is very

detailed. He also mentioned that “Japan helped each of the countries andregions right after the war” first.
This greeting marked a big change in the narrative of the annual greetings.
Since then, Prime Minister Abe has attended the ceremony eight times, and has
never shown remorse to people in neighboring countries. Instead, the greetings
have changed every time. For instance, he stated that he went to the Independent
State of Papua New Guinea to pray for the war dead in 2014. Since 2015, theSeventieth anniversary year since the end of the war, he started to mention thephrase: “we will never repeat the horrors of war.” These change are opposite toPrime Minister Koizumi, who also attended the ceremony six times but barelychanged the narrative. After Abe administration, Suga Yoshihide and Kishida
Fumio repeated the same narrative without “remorse.”
Since the Hosokawa cabinet in 1993, even LDP cabinets had carried over483(8)

法学研究 96 巻 2 号（2023：2）

the “deep remorse” phrase and showed mourning for the loss in Asian countries.
Compared to this, Abeʼs second cabinet did not refer to mourning or remorse
for what the Japanese military did during the war. This change is drastic andinteresting due to three points: First, as it is often said, Abeʼs personal identity isvery conservative and sympathetic to Izokukai. From this point of view, thisgreeting was expected. However, secondly, in the first Abe cabinet, he didmention mourning and deep remore, and therefore it is worth exploring whatcaused this difference. Lastly, the way this greeting corresponds to the narrativein the statement by the Prime Minister around 15th August becomesproblematic.
3.2 The statement by Prime Minister (Danwa)
The second form of recourse this paper will look at is the statement(Danwa) by Prime Minister around 15th August, the day of the end of war(Shusen Kinen Bi), although these statement are not released every year. There

have been six statements by Prime Minister until today; two by Murayama, two
by Koizumi, one by Kan and one by Abe.
On 31st August in 1994, then Prime Minister Murayama made a statement.
This was the first official statement about the responsibility in WWII by aJapanese Prime Minister. Until then, Prime Ministers had not summarized the
responsibilities of what the Japanese government did during WWII. For
instance, Tanaka Kakuei apologized about the war at a dinner with Zhou Enlai
before concluding the Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and theGovernment of the Peopleʼs Republic of China in 1972, but this was anindividual and informal apology at a dinner party.
On the other hand, this was not the first time an official statement wasmade regarding War issues. During the Nakasone cabinet, Chief Cabinet
Secretary made statements on history textbooks and official visits to Yasukuni
Shrine by the Prime Minister and other Ministers

19）. This style, a statement by

the Chief Cabinet Secretary was carried over to the Miyazawa cabinet. Since thebeginning of 1990, comfort women became a problem in South Korea. The
Japanese government started to investigate documents and then Chief Cabinet
Secretary, Kato Koichi, published the result first in 1992. However, this(9)482

Apology in Japanese Foreign Policy

examination got criticism as not being enough, and in the next year, theJapanese government carried out a more thorough examination. Then Chief
Cabinet Secretary, Kono Yohei, released another document and made a20）statement. Until 1994, however, this Danwa style was not used by a Prime

Minister, only by other members of the cabinet such as the Chief Cabinet
Secretaries.
In 1994, Murayama made a statement on war responsibility as a Prime
Minister for the first time. He made another statement in 1995, for the “Fiftieth
Anniversary of the End of World War II”

21）. In this statement, Murayama

stated;During a certain period in the not too distant past, Japan, following a
mistaken national policy, advanced along the road to war, only to ensnare
the Japanese people in a fateful crisis, and, through its colonial rule andaggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many
countries, particularly to those of Asian nations. In the hope that no such
mistake be made in the future, I regard, in a spirit of humility, theseirrefutable facts of history, and express here once again my feelings of deep
remorse (Tsuusetsu na Hansei) and state my heartfelt apology (Kokoro karano
Owabi). Allow me also to express my feelings of profound mourning for all19） Statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Miyazawa Kiichi on History Textbooks (August
26, 1982) (http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/taisen/miyazawa.html); Statement by Chief
Cabinet Secretary Fujinami Takao on Official Visits to Yasukuni Shrine by the Prime
Minister and Other State Ministers on August 15 of this year (August 14, 1985) (https://worldjpn.net/documents/texts/JPCH/19850814.S2J.html); Statement by Chief Cabinet
Secretary Gotoda Masaharu on Official Visits to Yasukuni Shrine by the Prime Minister
and Other State Ministers on August 15 of this year (August 14, 1986) (http://www.mofa.
go.jp/mofaj/area/taisen/gotouda.html) (accessed on December 25, 2022)
20） The Statement by the Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono Yohei on the result of the study
on the issue of “comfort women” (August 4, 1993) (http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/
taisen/kono.html) (accessed on December 25, 2022)
21） The Statement of Prime Minister Murayama on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Endof World War II (August 15, 1995) (http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/press/danwa/07/
dmu_0815.html) (accessed on December 25, 2022)
481(10)

法学研究 96 巻 2 号（2023：2）

victims, both at home and abroad, of that history.
This statement was welcomed, especially from Asian nations

22）.

Furthermore, the Asian Womenʼs Fund was founded in the same year. This
Fund was made for individual compensation for comfort women to show
23）

remorse. The Murayama cabinet made an effort to reconcile with neighboring

countries and that effort succeeded to some extent. Thus, it became a custom tomake a statement on the anniversary year since then: Prime Minister Koizumi
Junichiro made a statement at the Sixtieth Anniversary, and Prime Minister Abe
made a Seventieth Anniversary statement. In addition to these statements madeevery decade, some statements were made around August 15.
First, Koizumi made a statement on 13th August in 2001, which was not ananniversary year. This was because Koizumi had promised to visit Yasukuni
Shrine on 15th August when he became Prime Minister. His promise madeneighboring countries angry and suspicious, with South Korean and Chinese
governments strongly criticizing the Japanese government. As the day of the endof war drew near, the criticism became stronger. This was why Koizumi held aconference on 13th and made Danwa. He stated that “Japan caused tremendous
sufferings to many people of the world including its own people. Following a
mistaken national policy during a certain period in the past, Japan imposed,
through its colonial rule and aggression, immeasurable ravages and suffering
particularly to the people of the neighboring countries in Asia. This has left astill incurable scar to many people in the region.”
These statements were clearly similar to the Fiftieth anniversary Danwa of
Murayama. On the other hand, he didnʼt express “deep remorse.” Instead, heoffered his “feelings of profound remorse and sincere mourning to all the victimsof the war,” “sincerely facing these deeply regrettable historical facts as they are.”With this Danwa, Koizumi decided not to visit Yasukuni Shrine on 15th August,22） Asahi Shimbun, September 3, 1995.
23） “The foundation of Asian Womenʼs Fund” (Digital Museum “The Comfort Women
Issue and the Asian Womenʼs Fund”) (http://www.awf.or.jp/2/foundation.html) (accessedon December 25, 2022)(11)480

Apology in Japanese Foreign Policy

but on another day

24）. It was clear that this Danwa was prepared rather hastily,

because it was only published in Japanese and English

25）.

On 15th August in 2005, Koizumi released the Statement on the Sixtiethanniversary of the end of the war. Even after the last Statement, he kept visiting
Yasukuni Shrine every year, continuously becoming a problem in Asian
countries. From this, it was doubted whether he would make Danwa on theanniversary. Despite this, the tone was not so different from the last Statement
and Fiftieth anniversary statement:
In the past, Japan, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused
tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries,
particularly to those of Asian nations. Sincerely facing these facts ofhistory, I once again express my feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt
apology, and also express the feelings of mourning for all victims, both athome and abroad, in the war. I am determined not to allow the lessons ofthat horrible war to erode, and to contribute to the peace and prosperity of26）

the world without ever again waging a war.

However, there were slight differences from the Fiftieth Anniversary
Danwa. First, Koizumi stated “more than three million compatriots died in the
war…in the battle field thinking about their homeland and worrying about theirfamilies, while others perished amidst the destruction of war, or after the war inremote foreign countries.” This is a phrase which was always mentioned in thegreeting in Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead on 15th August.

24） The Statement of Prime Minister Koizumi (August 13, 2001) (https://worldjpn.net/
documents/texts/exdpm/20010813.S1E.html) (accessed on December 25, 2022)
25） The first Murayama Statement was published in Japanese, English, and Korean. The
second was published in Japanese, English, Chinese, and Korean. Even the Statement by
Kono was published in Japanese, English, and Korean, so it was very irregular that theStatement was published only in Japanese and English.
26） The Statement of Prime Minister Koizumi on the Sixtieth Anniversary of the end of
the World War II (August 15, 2005) (https://worldjpn.net/documents/texts/JH/20050815.
S1E.html) (accessed on December 25, 2022)
479(12)

法学研究 96 巻 2 号（2023：2）

Second, he referred to what Japan had done for other countries after theend of the war, for instance, “through official development assistance (ODA) andUnited Nations peace keeping operations.” This was very concrete in contrast to
Murayamaʼs Statement, which mentioned: “the peace and prosperity of today
were built as Japan overcame great difficulty to arise from a devastated land
after defeat in the war. That achievement is something of which we are proud,and let me herein express my heartfelt admiration for the wisdom and untiring
effort of each and every one of our citizens.”
Thirdly, Koizumi shed light on the future in the Statement. He said that“the post war generations now exceed 70% of Japanʼs population” and “manyJapanese are actively engaged in activities for peace and humanitarian assistancearound the world, through such organizations as the Japan Overseas
Cooperation Volunteers, and have been receiving much trust and highappreciation from the local people.” He also mentioned he intended “to build afuture-oriented cooperative relationship based on mutual understanding andtrust with Asian countries,” “through squarely facing the past and rightly
recognizing the history.” The last part was similar to the Fiftieth Danwa.
In 2009, the governing party changed after a long time. The LDP lost
power for the first time since 1994, and the Democratic Party of Japan came to
power. Kan Naoto, the former activist, was the Prime Minister when theanniversary of the annexation of Korea came around. This anniversary had
never been referred to by former Prime Ministers until Kan, but he decided to27）

make Danwa on hundredth anniversary in 2010

. In the Danwa, Kan

introduced many new phrases, for instance, he mentioned that “the Korean
people of that time was deprived of their country and culture, and their ethnic
pride was deeply scarred by the colonial rule.” These emotional and sympathetic
words had never been introduced in former Danwas.
Kan also decided “to have courage to squarely confront the facts of history
and humility to accept them, as well as to be honest to reflect upon the errors of
our own,” and furthermore, he mentioned that “(t)hose who render pain tend to27） Statement by Prime Minister Kan Naoto (August 10, 2010) (https://worldjpn.net/
documents/texts/exdpm/20100810.S1E.html) (accessed on December 25, 2022)(13)478

Apology in Japanese Foreign Policy

forget it while those who suffered cannot forget it easily.” This strong andreflective narrative was genuinely original in Kanʼs Danwa in 2010. He also
carried over the words “deep remorse.”
However, in the latter half of the Danwa, Kan mostly referred to “build[ing]a future-oriented Japan-Republic of Korea relationship.” He didnʼt use thephrase “postwar generations” which was mentioned in Koizumiʼs second Danwa,
28）

but both used the word “a future-oriented” relationship. On the other hand,

Kan didnʼt repeat the phrase “three million war dead” which was first introducedin Koizumiʼs second Statement.
In December 2012, the Democratic Party of Japan lost its power, and Abe
Shinzo became Prime Minister again. He was strongly criticized fromneighboring countries for the nationalistic speeches that he had done during his
29）

first government from 2006―2007. He also visited Yasukuni Shrine on 26th

December in 2013, a year after his inauguration. His conservative preference has
been widely known, and therefore great attention was paid to whether he would
make the Seventieth Anniversary Danwa in 2015.
Consequently, he released a Seventieth Anniversary Statement on 14th
August, one day before the anniversary day. Against most expectations, thelength of the seuentieth Danwa was the longest of all Danwas which had everbeen released. He referred to “deep remorse” like former Danwas, but in aslightly different way. Abe mentioned that “Japan has repeatedly expressed the
feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology for its actions during the war.”
However, in the Q&A period after the Danwa was released, the Prime Ministerpromised that the term “deep remorse” which had been expressed since28） In Murayamaʼs first Danwa in 1994, he told that “a vast majority of people today havenot experienced the war.” However, he added that “It is all the more essential in this timeof peace and abundance that we reflect on the errors in our history, convey to future generations the horrors of war and the many lives that were lost, and work continuously forlasting peace.” This narrative is different from “a future oriented relationship” which wasmentioned in Koizumi or Kan Danwa.
29） In the general policy speech in this first cabinet, he mentioned “a beautiful country,
Japan.” He planned to disseminate this phrase. (http://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/SENTAKU/
syugiin/165/0001/16509290001003a.html) (accessed on December 25, 2022)
477(14)

法学研究 96 巻 2 号（2023：2）

Murayama cabinet would be carried over into Abeʼs and forthcoming cabinets.
He also repeated the phrase “three million war dead” and “postwar generations,”
as was done in the Sixtieth Statement in Koizumi cabinet.
Abe also carried over the emotional narrative mentioned in Kanʼs Danwa.
He mentioned that;“Also in countries that fought against Japan, countless lives were lost
among young people with promising futures. In China, Southeast Asia, thePacific islands and elsewhere that became the battlefields, numerous
innocent citizens suffered and fell victim to battles as well as hardships suchas severe deprivation of food. We must never forget that there were women
behind the battlefields whose honor and dignity were severely injured.
Upon the innocent people did our country inflict immeasurable damage
and suffering. History is harsh. What is done cannot be undone. Each andevery one of them had his or her life, dream, and beloved family. When I
squarely contemplate this obvious fact, even now, I find myself speechlessand my heart is rent with the utmost grief.”
It was also mentioned for the first time that Japanʼs victory in “(t)he JapanRussia War gave encouragement to many people under colonial rule from Asia
to Africa,” and that Japan started to isolate themselves before the second World
War “with the Great Depression setting in and the Western countries launchingeconomic blocs by involving colonial economies, Japanʼs economy suffered amajor blow”. It can be said that Abe succeeded most narratives in the SeventiethDanwa.

4. Analysis
4.1 The Beginning of an Apology
In the last section, the speeches of Prime Ministers were examined toinvestigate why Japan made apologies even if they may not be accepted. Thechanges in narrative of the apologies given can be seen clearly in Table 1 and 2.
From two sources of apology, the greetings in the Memorial Ceremony for the(15)476

Apology in Japanese Foreign Policy

Table 1: Narratives in the Greetings at the Memorial Ceremony for the War DeadYear

Cabinetcharactersremorse“3 milion”

1993

Hosokawa

787(*condolence)

○

1994

Murayama

877

○

○

(*world peace)

1995

Murayama

705

○

○

○

1996

Hashimoto

879

○

○

○

1997

Hashimoto

808

○

○

○

1998

Obuchi

848

○

○

○

1999

Obuchi

809

○

○

○

2000

Mori

864

○

○

○

2001

Koizumi

858

○

○

○

2002

Koizumi

714

○

○

○

2003

Koizumi

635

○

○

○

2004

Koizumi

556

○

○

○

2005

Koizumi

520

○

○

2006

Koizumi

554

○

○

○

eternal peace

2007

Abe

578

○

○

○

2008

Fukuda

748

○

○

○

2009

Aso

570

○

○

○

2010

Kan

611

○

○

○
○

2011

Kan

676

○

○

2012

Noda

589

○

○

2013

Abe

610

○

2014

Abe

598

○

2015

Abe

577

2016

Abe

586

2017

Abe

600

2018

Abe

575

2019

Abe

676

○

2020

Abe

691

○

2021

Suga

684

○

2022

Kishida665○

475(16)○

法学研究 96 巻 2 号（2023：2）

Table 2: Narratives in Danwa
Year

Cabinet1994

Murayama

1995

Murayama

2001

Koizumi2005

Koizumi

2010

Kan

2015

Abe

Anniversary

50th of the End of the War

60th of the End of the War
100th of Japan-Korea
Annexation Treaty
70th of the End of the War

characters

language

remorse

1952

JP/EN/KR○

1282

JP/EN/CN/KR

○

1160

JP/EN

○

1135

JP/EN/KR○

1018

JP/EN/KR○

3953

JP/EN/CN/KR○“3 milion”

postwargenerations

○

○

○

○

War Dead and the Danwa, it became clear who first apologized as a Prime
Minister. In the greeting for the Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead, it was
Hosokawa Morihiro, who was then leader of Japan New Party.
On the other hand, Murayama Tomiichi, the leader of the Japan Socialist
Party, apologized in 1993 for the first time through Danwa, and both parties
were liberal parties (Kakushin Seitou). Also in 2010, Kan Naoto apologized in
Danwa for the Japanese annexation of Korea, even though there was no suchtradition before him. Democratic Party, in which he was a leader, was also a
Kakushin Seitou. From this, it can be said that an apology was made by thePrime Ministers if the administration belonged to liberal parties. In other words,
the beginning of an apology is defined by ideology and partisanship.
4.2 The Change in the Narrative of Apology
Though liberal parties brought a change in the narrative of apology by astate, partisanship is not the only reason why a country makes an apology. As
shown in Table 1, it may be possible for later Prime Ministers to change thenarrative, as the second Abe administration did in the greeting in the Memorial
Ceremony for the War Dead since 2013. This brings forth a new question: why
do some conservative leaders follow the change in the narratives of apology
made by liberal parties, while others might not?
To answer this question, I will analyze in detail the Abe administration. As
shown in Table 1 and 2, he changed the narrative in the greetings in the(17)474Apology in Japanese Foreign Policy

Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead since 2013, while he succeeded thenarrative in Danwa in 2015. Furthermore, he didnʼt change the narrative even in
the greetings of the Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead in 2007, when he
first became the Prime Minister. I will show what is the difference between thefirst and second Abe administration, and how he expressed different narratives
in the Memorial Ceremony and Danwa.
In September 2006, Abe Shinzo became the Prime Minister after Koizumi
Junichiro, whose administration lasted more than 5 years. This was the third30）

longest administration in Japan after World War II

at that time. Abe became

popular as the Chief Cabinet Secretary of Koizumi administration, and he wasalso famous for his family. His grandfather was Kishi Nobusuke, who was aformer Prime Minister, and his father was Abe Shintaro, who was consecutively
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Agriculture, and the Chief Cabinet
Secretary. It is quite often said that Abe was strongly affected by his grandfather,because his father was very busy visiting his electoral districts in Yamaguchi,
and could not meet his son often, who lived in Tokyo with Kishi.
As the grandchild of an advocate of constitutional amendment, Abeʼsconservative ideology attracted attention at the first Abe administration. Abe
published a book titled “Towards a Beautiful Country (Utsukushii Kuni e)” in
2006, and set this as a slogan for the administration. He mentioned “Utsukushii
31）

Kuni” 8 times in his general policy speech on 29th September in 2006

. Thiswas strongly criticized by liberal politicians and newspapers in Japan andabroad32）. The cabinet also experienced some scandal of Ministers, and the

support for the government plummeted from 63% to 28%33）, and Abe resigned

from illness on 25th September in 2007. His approval rating was 30%, while the34）

disapproval rate was 56%.

30） The first longest was the Sato Eisaku cabinet, and the second longest was the Yoshida
Shigeru cabinet.
31） General Policy Speech at the 165th National Diet. (https://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/
itdb_kaigiroku.nsf/html/kaigirokua/000116520060929063.html) (accessed on December
25, 2022)
32） Asahi Shimbun, September 30, 2006.
33） Asahi Shimbun, July 2, 2007.
473(18)

法学研究 96 巻 2 号（2023：2）

In his first cabinet, Abe succeeded most narratives in the greetings of theMemorial Ceremony for the War Dead. He expressed remorse that Japan“caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries,
particularly to those of Asian nations.” These are the same narratives from
Murayama Danwa, which all succeeding cabinets took over. He also took overthe narrative “overt the three million” and “eternal peace,” which was the original
narrative of the greetings. Clearly, the narrative of the first Abe cabinet was notdifferent from the former administrations.
However, things changed in 2013 after he became the Prime Minister forthe second time. On 15th August in 2013, he suddenly mentioned the sacrifice of
the war dead “who wished for the happiness of the wife, children, father andmother” and “prosperity of his home,” as I already showed in section three. Abe
promised that he “would never forget that we are enjoying the peace andprosperity based on these sacrifices.” This was the original narrative of Abe, andhe also emphasized “how Japan helped other countries to make a better world.”
This was firmly connected to the idea, “future oriented” relationship. Thus, hedeclared that “he would make a hopeful future.”
This greeting garnered wide attention in South Korea, while it did not
became an issue in Japan. Newspapers in South Korea strongly criticized that35）

Abe did not mention “remorse” which all former cabinets after Hosokawa did.

Despite this, Abe did not mention “remorse” again in his greeting the following
year in 2014. As he did not mention “remorse,” the greeting became one of puremourning for the war dead. When Hosokawa first introduced the idea of“remorse” into the greetings, many bereaved family members of war deadreacted against that. It can therefore easily be imagined that this greeting of“pure mourning” was welcomed by members of Izokukai.
The greetings in 2013 and 2014 were also characterized by their poetic
expression. For instance, “Furusato no Sanga yo, Midori nase” in 2013 greetingcan be translated as “to hope the mountain and river in the hometown would be
fresh and green.” Similarly, in the 2014 greeting, Abe suddenly mentioned that34） Asahi Shimbun, July 31, 2007.
35） Asahi Shimbun, August 16, 2013.
(19)472Apology in Japanese Foreign Policy“the chorus of cicadas covers Japanese mountains” (Nihon no Noyama wo
Semishigure ga Tsutsundeimasu). These poetic expressions were very similar towhat he emphasized in his policy statement at the 165th National Diet when hebecame the Prime Minister in 2006, “Utsukushii Kuni”. In that policy speech, healso mentioned the “beauty of the nature of Japan.”
However, in the policy speech in 2013 at the 200th National Diet, he never36）

mentioned the words “beautiful” or “beauty.” This was a big change from thefirst Abe administration, and this strategy succeeded. The approval rating of the37）

administration was 59%. These differences between the two policy speeches

and the greetings in the memorial ceremony imply the possibility that the second
Abe administration was choosing their words strategically. In short, after helearned from the failure in the policy speech of the first administration in 2006,
which was very poetic and conservative, he changed the style of the policy
speech into a more realistic one. It was clear that he carefully avoided making aslogan like “Utsukushii Kuni.”
On the other hand, at the Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead, he newly
inserted the poetic and conservative narrative into the greetings. This was
because of the difference of audience. The audience of the Memorial Ceremony
38）

for the War Dead is Izokukai, which is famous for its conservative values. In

this arena, Abe emphasized his character as a conservative politician.
However, Abe has stopped mentioning poetic phrases since 2015. Instead,the pattern of the greeting has slowly transformed since 2015. In his greeting, hefirst mourns and emphasizes the sacrifice that the war dead made, and thanks
the war dead. Then, he mentions what Japan did to make a better world after
the war. Lastly, he promises to make a better future of Japan, and wishes thebest for the bereaved family of the war dead. This pattern was established in2015, when he had to make a Danwa on Seventieth Anniversary year after theWorld War II.
36） Though he mentioned once “strong Japan,” he didnʼt set as a slogan of the administration.
37） Asahi Shimbun, December 28, 2012.
38） Asahi Shimbun, August 16, 2013. It is stated that Abe ordered his Private Secretaries
to make the greeting “from 0.”471(20)

法学研究 96 巻 2 号（2023：2）

In the greeting of the Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead in 2015, Abe
did not carry over any narratives from former cabinets. He even refrained frommentioning “three million” or the “eternal peace”, which the Prime Ministers
from Liberal Democratic Party always carried over. These changes gained
attention, especially from abroad, and the Abe administration was strongly
criticized. Similarly, his experience as Prime Minister in 2006 made Japaneseliberals cautious of his ideology.
Among this background came the Seventieth Anniversary after World War
II. First, many news reported the possibility that Abe would not make a Danwa
because of his conservative values. These opinions were based on what hementioned and did not mention in the greeting for the Memorial Ceremony for
the War Dead. However, in February 2015, Abe declared to summon theconference to discuss the history problem. This conference was named“Advisory Panel on the History of the 20th Century and on Japanʼs Role andthe World Order in the 21st Century,” consisting of researchers, journalists, and39）

business leaders.

The advisory panel was held six times and discussed mainly about how tointerpret history and restore the relationship with former enemies

40）. In April,

the Prime Minister had a foreign visit to Indonesia and the United States. He
had a speech at the Asian-African Conference in Indonesia, and a speech at the
US Senate and House. In both speeches, he mentioned how Japan faces ahistory problem. Based on the report by the panel and these speeches, theDanwa on Seventieth Anniversary (Abe Danwa) was made.
The first and biggest difference of this Danwa to former Danwas was thelength. Abeʼs Danwa was characteristic for its length, almost 4,000 words. The
second difference was that Abe mentioned Japanʼs victory in the Japan-Russia
War for the first time, as seen in section three. Even though it was criticized that
he mentioned that Japanʼs victory in “(t)he Japan-Russia War gave
39） Prime Ministerʼs Office in Japan, “Advisory Panel on the History of the 20th Century
and on Japanʼs Role and the World Order in the 21st Century,” (https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/
seisaku/21c_koso/pdf/meibo.pdf) (accessed on December 25, 2022)
40） Kaisai Joukyou (Dates and Agendas of Meeting)(https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/21c_koso/index.html) (accessed on December 25, 2022)(21)470Apology in Japanese Foreign Policy

encouragement to many people under colonial rule from Asia to Africa,” Abe
still emphasized that “Japan lost sight of the overall trends in the world.”
Clearly, Abe was conscious to carry over all narratives of former Danwas,
showing “deep remorse and heartfelt apology for its actions during the war.” As
I showed in section three, he also mentioned “(m)ore than three million of ourcompatriots lost their lives during the war,” which he stopped mentioning since2015 in the greetings of the memorial ceremony. Instead, he emphasized the“sacrifice of the war dead” in the greetings of the Memorial Ceremony for the
War Dead, while he mentioned “sacrifice” in another way in Abe Danwa.
In Seventieth Danwa, he not only mentioned the sacrifice of the Japanese
war dead, he also mentioned:
Also in countries that fought against Japan, countless lives were lost among
young people with promising futures. In China, Southeast Asia, the Pacificislands and elsewhere that became the battlefields, numerous innocent
citizens suffered and fell victim to battles as well as hardships such as severe
deprivation of food. We must never forget that there were women behindthe battlefields whose honour and dignity were severely injured. Upon theinnocent people did our country inflict immeasurable damage and suffering…Each and every one of them had his or her life, dream, and beloved
family. When I squarely contemplate this obvious fact, even now, I findmyself speechless and my heart is rent with the utmost grief. The peace weenjoy today exists only upon such precious sacrifices.”
In this Danwa, the peace that Japan enjoys today was based not only on theJapanese people but also on foreigners who lost their lives or who sufferedduring the War with the Japanese.
It was apparent that Abe changed his narrative in the greetings of theMemorial Ceremony for the War Dead and in Danwa. Although he did not
succeed the “remorse” in the greeting in Memorial Ceremony and made it a puremourning event, he took over every narrative in Danwa: “remorse,” “three
million,” “postwar generations,” and even the poetic tone which the Kan cabinet
made. What does this difference mean? How does it relate with his own
469(22)

法学研究 96 巻 2 号（2023：2）

conservative ideology, which he showed in 2006 in “Utsukushii Kuni” speech?
In 2006, Abe did not hide his ideology in his policy speech and received anegative reaction by liberal politicians and media in Japan and abroad. Despite
this, he did not try to change the narrative in the greeting of the Memorial
Ceremony for the War Dead in 2006. However, when he became the Prime
Minister again in 2012, his stance changed to choose the narrative strategically.
First, he never touched his conservative ideology in his policy speech. He justmentioned the problem of economics, restoration from the Great East Japan
earthquake in 2011, and foreign policy. This was a big difference from the last
policy speech which mentioned “Utsukushii Kuni” eight times and admired thebeauty of Japanese culture and tradition.
This change also happened in the greeting of the Memorial Ceremony on
15th August 2013. Abe stopped mentioning the “remorse” and “three million”
phrase, and made the greeting one of pure mourning. As analyzed already, thiswas for the Izokukai. It can be said that he chose different narratives fordifferent stakeholders, and separated the arenas where each narrative was told.
Similarly, Abe chose the “proper” narrative in Danwa in 2015 for foreignaudiences. Especially Abe Danwa was prepared in multiple languages ―Japanese, English, Chinese, and Korean

41）, it is clear that the main target of

apology is China and South Korea. So Abe Danwa chose the narrative which
would be welcomed by both countries. Even some doubted if Abe would makethe Seventieth Danwa because of his ideology, however he decided to make it
and carried over most of the narratives which he denied to carry over in thegreetings of the Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead. This was why his
greetings in the Memorial Ceremony were totally different from Abe Danwa.
The above provided a detailed analysis of the narratives given by the Abeadministration to answer why some administrations carried over the narratives
which former cabinets made but some not. It is clear from my analysis that theanswer is not the ideology of Prime Minister. Even though Abe is marked by his41） Danwa by Prime Minister (https://warp.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/10992693/japan.
kantei.go.jp/97_abe/statement/201508/1212349_9926.html) (accessed on December 25,
2022)(23)468Apology in Japanese Foreign Policy

conservative ideology, he chose “proper” narrative in Danwa and carried over all
narratives of former Prime Ministers in Danwa, which focused to make anapology for neighboring countries. The reason was therefore not his ideology,
but his strategy to separate the narratives.

5. Conclusion
Why does a country make an apology for what it did in the war? The firstoccasion was introduced by the liberal parties, as they tried to shed light onwhat got no attention until then. Hosokawa from the Japan New Party first
introduced the apology into the greetings of the Memorial Ceremony for the
War Dead, and Murayama from the Socialist Party made the first Danwa as a
Prime Minister regarding the history problem. In 2010, Kan made the first
Danwa about the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty. Thus, liberal parties
introduced new narratives into the history problem.
Most leaders from LDP followed this change, but one did not. As seen
above, it was not because of the ideology of a leader, but the strategy to avoid
the backlash from the society. Abe chose the “proper” narrative for Izokukai inthe greeting of the Memorial Ceremony on 15th August, while he chose anotherproper narrative in Seventieth Danwa, given in multiple languages. The problem
is this separation of narratives is effective or not.
As Lind (2008) already points out, a political apology by a countryʼs leader
receives backlash from society. Both in Germany and Japan, it became
unpopular for a leader to apologize for wrongdoings during the war. For
instance, the famous “Kniefall von Warschau” by Willy Brandt was hardly
criticized by German citizens

42）. However, Willy Brandt never changed his

narrative and carried through “Ostpolitik” (East policy). This consistent attitude
helped the reconciliation between Germany and Poland.
Similarly, Feldman (2012) tells the importance of the unification of the42） Alexander Behrens hg., Durfte Brandt knien?: der Kniefall in Warschau und derdeutsch-polnische Vertrag, eine Dokumentation der Meinungen (Kempten(Allgäu): AZ
Druck und Datentechnik GmbH, 2010); Berger, op cit., p.63.
467(24)

法学研究 96 巻 2 号（2023：2）

narrative politically and socially. It is possible that the separation of thenarrative only causes the distrust between apologizing country and apologizedcountry. It is, therefore, desirable for future research to investigate what the
separation of the narrative of apology will bring to the history problem.

(25)466