APAN

Vol.2 No.1
Summer 2018ISSN 2433-4456

REVIEW

History and Collective Memories
Preface ‒ The Crossroad of History
and International Relations:
Towards Historical Reconciliation in East Asia
Yuichi Hosoya

Factors of Reconciliation: Is There a European Model?
Thomas Serrier

The Past and Politics ‒ Focusing on“Vergangenheitsbewältigung” in Post-War Germany
Takumi Itabashi

A Clash of Historical Perceptions:Japanʼs Post-War Disputes with China
Jun’ichiro Shoji

History and Memory Issues in Europe and Asia:
Acknowledging Similarities for a Better
Understanding of Contemporary Tensions
Valérie Niquet

T HE J A P A N
I NS TI T UTE O F
IN TE R NA TI O NA L
A FF A I R S

Post-War U.S.-Japan Reconciliation: Healing as a
National Security Strategy
Jonathan Berkshire Miller

Inﬂuence of Asiaʼs Colonization: Debating the Past,
Present, and Future of Territorial Issues
Monika Chansoria

The Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA), founded in 1959, is an independent nonpartisan
policy thinktank specializing in foreign affairs and security policy. On top of a wide range of
research programs, the institute promotes dialogues and joint studies with other institutions
and experts at home and abroad, and makes foreign policy proposals to the government, anddisseminates information on international relations to the public. The institute, together with alarge network of affiliated scholars, aims to serve as an indispensable resource on international
affairs in a complex world.

Publisher : Kenichiro Sasae, President, JIIA
Editor in Chief : Shu Nakagawa, Director of Research Coordination, JIIAThe opinions expressed in the articles in Japan Review do not necessarily reflect the opinions
or positions of the Japan Institute of International Affairs. No article or any part thereof may be
reproduced without the express permission of JIIA.

Annual subscription(four issues):¥4,000 in Japan; US$40.00 overseas.
Please note that delivery fee is not included.

For subscription and any other inquiries, please write to:
Japan Review, the Japan Institute of International Affairs,
3rd Floor Toranomon Mitsui Building, 3-8-1 Kasumigaseki Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo Japan 100-0013

ISSN 2433-4456

Published by the Japan Institute of International Affairs
Designed and Printed in Japan by Taiheisha.Ltd

APAN

Vol.2 No.1
Summer 2018

REVIEW

History and Collective Memories
1 Preface – The Crossroad of History and International Relations:
Towards Historical Reconciliation in East Asia���������������04

Yuichi Hosoya
Yuichi Hosoya is Professor of International Politics at Keio University, Tokyo. He is also SeniorResearcher at the Institute for International Policy Studies (IIPS), Senior Fellow at The Tokyo
Foundation (TKFD), and also Adjunct Fellow at the Japan Institute of International Affairs(JIIA). Professor Hosoya was a member of the Advisory Board at Japanʼs National Security
Council (NSC) (2014–2016). He was also a member of Prime Ministerʼs Advisory Panel on
Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security (2013–14), and Prime Minister ʼs Advisor y
Panel on National Security and Defense Capabilities (2013), in which capacity he assisted todraft Japanʼs first National Security Strategy. Professor Hosoya studied international politics
at Rikkyo (BA), Birmingham (MIS), and Keio (Ph.D.). He was a visiting professor and Japan
Chair (2009–2010) at Sciences-Po in Paris (Institut dʼÉtudes Politiques) and a visiting fellow(Fulbright Fellow, 2008–2009) at Princeton University. His research interests include thepostwar international history, British diplomatic history, Japanese foreign and security policy,
and contemporary East Asian international politics. His comments appeared at New York Times,
Washington Post, Financial Times, USA Today, Die Welt and Le Monde, as well as at major
Japanese media.

2 Factors of Reconciliation: Is There a European Model?�����������07
Thomas Serrier
Thomas Serrier is Senior Lecturer at University Paris 8 and Visiting Professor at the European
Viadrina University of Frankfurt/Oder. Normalien (graduate of Ecole Normale Supérieure),
he studied in Paris and Berlin (Free University and Humboldt University) and received his
PhD at Paris 8 University in 2000. His research focuses on transnational memories in Europe.
Among his recent publications: Lieux de mémoire européens (with E. Francois), Paris, La
Documentation Francaise, 2012; Phantomgrenzen. Räume und Akteure in der Zeit neu denken(with Béatrice von Hirschhausen et al.), Göttingen, Wallstein, 2015.

3 The Past and Politics – Focusing on “Vergangenheitsbewältigung”
in Post-War Germany ����������������������������14

Takumi Itabashi
Takumi Itabashi is Professor of International Histor y at Seikei University, Tokyo, and1

concurrently Visiting Scholar at the University of Cologne, Germany. He specializes in
European histor y and the histor y of international politics. His research interests include
German politics, the histor y of European integration, and the politics of conflict andreconciliation. His studies on reconciliation and integration issues have covered the GermanIsraeli reconciliation process as well as post-war European integration and its implications
for East Asia. Among his recent publications are Adenauer (2014, in Japanese) and “The Past
and Politics: ʻVergangenheitsbewältigungʼ in Postwar Germany” (The Journal of Law, Political
Science and Humanities, 2015, in Chinese and Japanese). He won an honorable mention award
from the Japan Society for German Studies (Japanische Gesellschaft für Deutschstudien) for
his latest work: Black Europe: The Idea of the Christian “Abendland” in Germany, 1925-1965(2016, in Japanese).

4 A Clash of Historical Perceptions: Japan’s Post-War Disputes with China��19

Jun’ichiro ShojiJunʼichiro Shoji serves as Vice President for Academic Affairs (former Director of the Center
for Military History) at the National Institute for Defense Studies in Tokyo, Japan where hehas worked since 1986. He is an expert on military history, the history of Japanese diplomacy,
and war and memory in Japan. From 2006–2010, he also served as a committee member on
the Japan-China Joint Historical Research Committee. Prior, he spent time as visiting scholar
in Germany at the Historical Department of Freiburg University. He has authored numerous
articles in Japanese, English, and German. He received his M. A and B. A from the Universityof Tsukuba.

5 History and Memory Issues in Europe and Asia: Acknowledging
Similarities for a Better Understanding of Contemporary Tensions�����34

Valérie Niquet
Valérie Niquet is Senior Visiting Fellow at the Japan Institute of International Affairs and headof the Asia program at Foundation for Strategic Research. She writes extensively on Asia-Pacificstrategic affairs and security. Her latest book, La puissance chinoise en 100 questions, Tallandier,has been published in 2017. You can follow her on twitter @V.Niquet* The Japan Institute of International Affairs organized a symposium on January 17, 2018 with Foundationfor Strategic Research (France) entitled “Crossed perspectives: questions of history and remembrance inEurope and Asia” in Paris. Article No. 1, 2, 3, and 5 are written in relation to the symposium.

2Post-War U.S.-Japan Reconciliation: Healing as a National Security Strategy �41
Jonathan Berkshire Miller
Jonathan Miller is a senior visiting fellow with the Japan Institute of International Affairs basedin Tokyo, Japan. He is also a Distinguished Fellow with the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada.
Additionally, he is the Director and co-founder of the Ottawa-based Council on International
Policy. Previously, he was an international affairs fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations,based in Tokyo. Jonathan also held a senior fellowship (2014–2017) with the EastWest Instituteand a fellowship on Japan with the Pacific Forum CSIS from 2013–16. Miller also held a numberof other visiting fellowships on Asian security matters, including at JIIA and the National Instituteof Defense Studies (Ministr y of Defense - Japan). In addition, Miller previously spent nearlya decade working on economic and security issues related to Asia with the Canadian federal
government and worked both with the foreign ministry and the security community. He regularly
attends track 1.5 and track 2 dialogues in the region.
Influence of Asia’s Colonization: Debating the Past, Present, andFuture of Territorial Issues ��������������������������46

Monika Chansoria
Dr. Monika Chansoria is a Tokyo-based Senior Visiting Fellow at The Japan Institute ofInternational Affairs (JIIA). She is also a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies,
New Delhi where she heads the China-study program. She specializes in contemporary Asian
security issues, weaponsʼ proliferation, great power politics and strategy in the Indo-Pacificwith a special focus on China. Dr. Chansoria received her Ph.D. in International Relations fromthe School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi and was
subsequently awarded the prestigious French Hérmes FMSH Post Doctoral Fellowship in
Paris. Dr. Chansoria has been a recipient of many prominent international academic fellowships,
including successive stints at the Cooperative Monitoring Center (Sandia National Laboratories,U.S.), Japanese Global Chair of Excellence Fellowship at the Hokkaido University, Sapporo,
Japan, and the MSH Senior Fellowship as Visiting Professor and Associate Director of Studies at
Paris.
She has authored five books including her latest work, China, Japan, and Senkaku Islands:
Conflict in the East China Sea Amid an American Shadow (Routledge ©2018). She has written
numerous peer-reviewed research papers and articles in various edited book volumes andacademic journals. She is a regular participant in Track 1.5 & 2 diplomatic dialogues and writes
regular columns on foreign policy and strategic affairs in newspapers published out of India andJapan, namely, The Sunday Guardian and The Sankei Shimbun.

3

The Crossroad of History and International Relations: Towards Historical Reconciliation in East Asia

Preface
The Crossroad of History and International Relations:
Towards Historical Reconciliation in East Asia
Yuichi Hosoya
Professor, Keio University

Introduction

It should be noted that the importance of historical issues in international relations is notnew, nor it is indigenous to Asia. After the end of the First World War, the US and European
governments began to release their diplomatic documents to show that they were keen on
avoiding the outbreak of this catastrophic war. They all wanted to avoid responsibility for
beginning the Great War. Thus, the great powers were competing to proclaim the justice of theirown causes.
The twentieth century experienced a transformation in the nature of international relations.
After the end of the religious wars in the middle of the 17th century, international relations had
been occupied by power politics and the pursuit of national interests based upon rationality.
However, the twentieth century saw the increasing importance of values, ideas and justice. Morethan ever, international order needed to be based on particular justice. After the first and second
world wars, the victorious powers imposed their values and ideas on the foundations of the
postwar orders.
While historical issues and memories have been closely linked to international relations bothin Europe and in Asia for many decades, we have seen much more tense situations in the rivalries
over historical issues in Asia since the end of the Cold War. Jan-Werner Müller, a leading politicaltheorist of our time, wrote that “the relationship between memories and the present, or so it
seems, has been stronger and more immediate than at other times.”1 He explains that “one reason
might be that the past returns with a vengeance during times of political crisis.”2 It is particularly
important to be aware that “after the collapse of communism, memories of the Second World War
were ʻunfrozenʼ on both sides of the former Iron Curtain.”3

The Reemergence of Historical Issues after the End of the Cold War
Thus, it is important to link the reemergence of historical issues with the end of the Cold War, as
strategic requirements had long prevented the emergence of the historical issues between and
1

Jan-Werner Müller, “Introduction: the power of memory, the memory of power and the power overmemory”, in Jan-Werner Müller (ed.), Memory & Power in Post-war Europe: Studies in the Presence of the
Past (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p.3.

2

Ibid.

3

Ibid., p.6.

4
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Yuichi Hosoya

within the opposing camps. Gilbert Rozman, a professor at Princeton University, also pointed
out the importance of the link between the two: “The victimizer and the victims were artificiallyseparated through much of the Cold War era, but now they face each other without intermediaries
and with much less inclination on either side of the divide to put aside the issue of history”.4
Together with the collapse of the communist regimes, the rise of democracy and popular
movements in Asian countries have further ignited the reemergence of historical issues in
the last three decades. Governments in Asia, particularly in South Korea, have been facing
difficulties in containing historical issues since democratization. Previous authoritarian regimes
in South Korea could largely prevent the emergence of historical issues since they needed both
economic assistance from Japan and also a stable strategic relationship with the US. In a sense,
the emergence of historical issues in South Korea is related to the rise of democracy, feminism
and nationalism at the cost of a close partnership with the Japanese government. Cheol-Hee Park,a professor of Japanese politics at Seoul National University, argues that “anti-Japanese sentimentand anticommunism has constituted a core of South Korean nationalism”.5 Once communism lostits power in South Korean politics, anti-Japanese sentiment became the center of South Koreannationalism.
In China, the situation is worse than in South Korea. After having abandoned political
reforms and the possibility of democratization at the Tiananmen incident of June 1989, theChinese Communist Party began to rely more upon using an anti-Japanese historical campaign
to maintain the legitimacy of its authoritarian regime. Jennifer Lind, an expert on historicalissues at Dartmouth, argues that “the Chinese Communist Party, left ideologically adrift after thecountryʼs embrace of capitalism, has been known to stoke anti-Japanese sentiment to bolster its
domestic political legitimacy. Many China watchers worry that the party will increasingly appeal
to nationalism and xenophobia if the remaining sources of its legitimacy -- economic growth andthe claim to Taiwan -- are jeopardized.”6Thus, since the end of the Cold War, both domestic and international politics in East Asia havebeen empowering confrontation over historical issues. At the same time, East Asian countries
have begun to make more efforts to reconcile their different stances on this issue.

Politics and Diplomacy for Historical Reconciliation
If historical issues have more closely linked with international relations in East Asia, it is now
more necessary to settle, or at least to mitigate, historical confrontations among those countries.
In the last decade, Japan, South Korea and China have devoted considerable energy to creating
better relationships by facing historical issues more squarely.
There were some good reasons for these diplomatic efforts. First, intra-East Asian trade hasgrown rapidly in the last two decades. This required better inter-governmental and international
relations among the countries of East Asia. Second, these countries have basically been rationalenough to understand the damage caused by diplomatic antagonism over historical issues.
At the Sino-Japanese summit meeting between Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and President
Xi Jinping on November 7, 2014, the two governments agreed that “Both sides shared somerecognition that, following the spirit of squarely facing history and advancing toward the future,
4

Gilbert Rozman, “East Asian Historical Issues in a Contemporar y Light”, in Tsuyoshi Hasegawa
and Kazuhiko Togo (eds.), East Asia’s Haunted Present: Historical Memories and the Resurgence of
Nationalism (London: Praeger, 2008), p.54.

5Cheol Hee Park, “Historical Memory and the Resurgence of Nationalism: A Korean Perspective”, inHasegawa and Togo (eds.), East Asia’s Haunted Present, p.191.

6

Jennifer Lind, “The Perils of Apology: Why Japan Shouldnʼt Learn from Germany”, Foreign Affairs,
May/June 2009. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/japan/2009-05-01/perils-apology.

5Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

The Crossroad of History and International Relations: Towards Historical Reconciliation in East Asia

they would overcome political difficulties that affect their bilateral relations”.7 This became apositive sign of improvement in the bilateral relationship.
In this spirit, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe decided to issue a new historical statement in 2015.
Abe remarked at the beginning of January 2015 that “As we come to this milestone of the 70th
anniversary since the end of the war, I intend to consolidate wisdom when considering what the
Abe administration can send out as a message to the world concerning Japanʼs remorse overWorld War II, the path we have walked since the war as a peace-loving nation, and how Japan willcontribute further to benefit the Asia-Pacific region and the world, and then incorporate that into
a new statement”.8
Based upon a repor t submitted by the Advisor y Panel, Prime Minister Abe issued his
historical statement, the so-called “Abe Statement”, on August 14, 2015, in which the Japanese
government clearly linked “20th-century history” with “Japanʼs role in the world order in the 21st
century”.
Japan should not be the only country endeavoring to promote historical reconciliation. Both
China and South Korea should take some responsibility for creating better bilateral relationships.
The governments of both countries should not utilize anti-Japanese sentiment in their countries
as a “weapon” to enhance their domestic legitimacy and popularity. Orville Schell, the directorof the Center on US-China Relations at the Asia Society, criticizes Chinese weaponization ofhistorical issues and writes that “The Central Propaganda Department – which, along with myriad
other state organs, is tasked with censoring the media and making sure that all educational
materials tow the partyʼs line – has sealed off entire areas of Chinaʼs past”.9 China should also “facesquarely up to history” as well as its neighboring countries.
Regardless of the remaining difficulties over historical issues, Japan, China and South Korea
need to continue their efforts to reconcile differences in their stances on historical issues. By
doing this, East Asia can become another good model for how countries overcome difficulties
over historical issues and how these countries create close regional cooperation.

7

Ministr y of Foreign Af fairs, “Regarding Discussions toward Improving Japan-China Relations”,
November 7, 2014. http://www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/c_m1/cn/page4e_000150.html.

8

The Advisory Panel on the History of the 20th Century and on Japanʼs Role and the World Order in the
21st Century, Toward the Abe Statement on the 70th Anniversary of the End of World War II: Lessons fromthe 20th Century and a Vision for the 21st Century for Japan (Tokyo: JPIC, 2017), p.iii.

9Or ville Schell, “Chinaʼs Cover-Up: When Communists Rewrite Histor y”, Foreign Af fairs, Januar y/
February 2018, p.23.

6
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Thomas Serrier

Factors of Reconciliation: Is There a European Model?
Thomas SerrierT

he violence that broke Europe in pieces and resulted in millions of deaths during thetwo world wars may have created the impression that “nothing tears us apart quite likefamily.”1 What a contrast with today in any event!
A crowd of a million people in London ʼ s Trafalgar Square, in the streets ofBarcelona and Rome, 600,000 protesters in Madrid and Berlin, several hundred thousand in Paris,
demonstrations in Warsaw, Prague and up to Minsk…: the largest trans-European gathering tothis day was held on 15 February 2003 to say no to the war in Iraq. If the European states weredivided between participation (United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Central Europe)and the refusal to participate (Germany, the Netherlands, France, Belgium …) in the coalition
initiated by George W. Bush to overthrow Saddam Hussein, European opinion, for its part,
seemed united. Doubts over the legitimacy of the operation coalesced with the powerful tradition
of “Never again” that proliferated in Europe after 1945. Drawing on this mass demonstration,
Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, two of the most celebrated European intellectuals of theday, published a plea entitled “After the War. The Renaissance of Europe” in several European
newspapers on 31 May 2003.
The meaning of this title did not refer to an imagined future for the period following theongoing conflict in the Middle East, but rather interpreted the present as being the indicatorof a secular shift. Guided by geopolitical urgency and European construction expectations, theanalysis by Derrida and Habermas in fact took up the great irenic narrative which, with certain
slight differences, makes post-war Europe the period of successful consolidation of democracy
and an irreversible conversion to the culture of peace.
“Where have all the soldiers gone?” we might well wonder, with James J. Sheehan, in thinking
about the peaceful way of life that prevailed at the turn of the twenty-first century, from Lisbon
to Tallinn and from Belfast to Sofia. This was before the wave of terrorism that hit European
countries and led to a renewed stress on security.
War and, sometimes, even the idea of military intervention, seemed to have been banned,
maybe not in all European countries, but in an overwhelming majority of them. This shift had
been taking place since 1945, even though it was slowed by the Cold War. It reached its peak withthe 2012 Nobel Peace Prize that was awarded to the European Union for its contribution to “peaceand reconciliation, democracy and human rights.” It was supposed to have transformed Europe,a continent of incessant wars, into a permanent sanctum of peace. This great narrative became
commonplace. For instance, the objectives of the “House of European History”, established in
2007, to recount “50 years of the European adventure” since 1945―Year Zero―are explicit: “In1945, at the end of the war, Europe touched the bottom of the abyss.”2 And the title of the lastbook by Ian Kersaw, Hitlerʼs biographer, picks up exactly the same thread: Europe to hell and1Elie Barnavi, “Faire prendre conscience aux Européens de ce qui leur est commun (Raise awarenessamong Europeans about what is common to them),” Le Monde, 19 October 1999.

2

Exhibition catalogue, It’s our history! Fifty years of European adventure, Brussels, Tempora, 2007, p. 29.

7
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Factors of Reconciliation: Is There a European Model?

back.3
If tensions remain within the European Union or at its margins (Cyprus, Macedonia, Ukraine,
Russia), the shift that took place since 1945 demonstrates the possibility of a rapprochement
between former enemies. For many historians, this metamorphosis goes far beyond the simple
fact of the European construction in an exclusively political and institutional sense.
To analyze the scope and limits of European reconciliation, four main points must be taken
into consideration.
The first regards the historical, material, and moral context in which this movement towards
reconciliation took place. The second focuses on those players who had a leading role in both
the rapprochement itself and the effort to put the process of reconciliation itself at the centreof European collective memor y. The third will evoke the role of the political management ofmemory issues in these developments; and finally, the fourth will examine the existence of a
specific European model of conflict resolution.

The Period Following the Two Wars: Exhaustion, New Order, and Reorientation
Today it is common to hear both journalists and representatives of the EU declare that Europe
was “built on the foundations of reconciliation.” Perhaps this is forgetting that the strategic choiceof the “fathers of Europe,” including Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet, had been to promote
the interconnection of economic interests, that would prohibit any direct confrontation between
European nations (particularly France and Germany). It was not based on reconciliation, andeven less on friendship among the people, difficult to imagine so soon after the warʼs end.
With respect to both the recent past and the centuries-old legacy of conflicts, all officials, fromall sides, regardless of their political affiliation, initially chose to remain silent. In the speech hegave in Zurich in 1946, Winston Churchill summarized that position by stating that the objective
should be to “turn our backs upon the horrors of the past.”
In retrospect, however, it is the in-depth transformation of relations between former
adversaries that gains notice. Particularly because the “last catastrophe” (Henry Rousso), namely
WWII, was not the only conflict to overcome between European nations. The wreckage of 1945
echoed the ruins of 1918. Before that, there were the traces left by the Napoleonic Wars, theReligion wars and the Hundred Yearsʼ War… over the ages, quasi-standardized conflicts formatted
the relations between “hereditary enemies”. The Franco-German and Polish-Russian examples
are only two among countless others.
Even today, tensions among European countries remind us that the way of overcoming these
rivalries is not self-evident: it is neither the product of any historical necessity nor the effect ofa natural movement towards friendship between the countries in question. The resurgence,
between Poland and Russia, or between Greece and Germany, of negative stereotypes anchoredin age-old historical legacies, nurtured by a succession of institutional, social, and financial crises,
reflects the importance of the challenges.
If there is a consensus on the necessity of reconciliation, it is far from being permanently
secured. The context of reconciliation among European countries is well known: from the cost of
human and material devastation left by the war in 1945, to the absolute urgency of reconstruction,
by way of the incorporation of European countries into the two opposing Cold War blocs. The
effect of which was the control of any policy that would destabilize the new order imposed andguaranteed by the American and Soviet superpowers. One could add, to the risk of being accusedof cynicism, the disappearance of the most virulent sources of conflicts during the inter-war
period, as a result of massive transplants of populations into areas of inter-ethnic mixing by thetwo totalitarian States in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
3

Ian Kersaw, To Hell and Back: Europe 1914-1949, Penguin, 2015.

8
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Thomas Serrier“Europe is sick. Too sick even to hope for some cure. The therapeutic must yield to thesurgical. An operation is necessary. None would be more efficient than exchanges, even imposed
exchanges, of population,” wrote Nikolai Politis in 1940. “In the Europe of tomorrow, the interestof order and peace will require the coincidence of political borders with ethnic borders.” Politis
was, however, not a pro-Nazi. On the contrary, he was a jurist and political leader who embodied
a generation of cosmopolitan intellectuals committed to building European stability in the wakeof the First World War. Winston Churchill was the first to call into question the ethnic balancesof the pre-WWII period in Europe, speaking of a “clean sweep” as a necessary evil to ensure
lasting peace. This sensitive and disturbing issue continues to trouble the collective conscience ofEuropeans. In 2003, the Polish writer Stefan Chwin, who was born in 1949 in Gdańsk, wrote in a
provocative paper:“The time has surely come to stop mentioning only the losses related to the deportation ofwhole ethnic groups, but also to raise soberly and coldly the “positive aspects” of these massive
population displacements.”4This argument questions the tacit agreement of the exclusively negative nature, in terms ofconsequences, of the displacements of populations that occurred before and immediately after
the Second World War. However, would Europe that is being built today have been permitted tosee the light without the “original sin” of these massive displacements of populations by the Nazi
and Soviet totalitarian regimes? Might it be possible that it is precisely these huge displacementof populations during the 40s and 50s that finally saved central Europe after 1989 from a massivecrisis akin to that which ripped through the Balkans between 1991 and 2001?

Actors of the Reconciliation Process: Emblematic Figures and Social Foundations
In 1945, various actors pledged to (re)build Europe on the principle of confrontation of ideas
rather than confrontation of weapons.
The first condition was to take a decisive step out of the spiral of revenge and violence that had
been one of the characteristics of Europe until 1945. “Far from avenging us, whoever strikes orslaughters a German prisoner, insults us,”5 declared Robert Antelme in 1945, shortly after being
himself freed from the Dachau concentration. For this man, a member of the French resistance,
it was the memory of his friends, victims of the war, that imposed a new humanism, based on
the respect for the former enemy: “Revenge will come only from the victory of the ideas (…) for
which they died. ”6This ethic of reconstruction is the prerequisite for a new departure. Joseph Rovan, also aformer deportee to Dachau, who was born in Munich and took refuge in France after Adolf
Hitlerʼs rise to power, declared in a famous article that France will have “the Germany it deserves”
according to its attitude, unforgiving or constructive.
This new ethic arose from the substitution of national antagonisms with a new moral vision
based, on the one hand, on the rejection of the principle of collective condemnations and, on
the other hand, on the idea that the greatness of a nation can only be measured by its degree ofadvancement and capability to respect a former enemy.
In 1989, the President of Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel, during a meeting with his German
counterpart Richard von Weizsäcker, did mention that his people had already accepted theprinciple of collective guilt leading to the systematic expulsion of the German minority inCzechoslovakia: “We expelled them, not on the basis of established individual guilt, but simply
4

Stefan Chwin, « Das « Glück » der Vertriebenen », (The « luck » of the displaced), Neue Bürcher Zeitung,
20-10-2003.

5

Robert Antelme, Vengeance, Paris, Farrago, 2005, p. 10.

6Ibid., pp. 11-12.

9Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Factors of Reconciliation: Is There a European Model?

because they belonged to a particular nation. (...) In acting thus, we have injured ourselves.”7
The Franco-German situation, without necessarily being at the heart of this transformation,
became emblematic of these evolutions which emerged in the civil society well before it became
an official position.
Former protagonists of the Second World War, veterans, members of the resistance, andformer prisoners of war, invested with a moral authority played an essential and exemplary rolein this reconciliation process. Intellectuals like Władysław Bartoszewski in Poland, Joseph Rovanor Jean du Rivau in France, Jorge Semprun between Spain, France and Germany, but also thedissidents Lev Kopelev and Alexander Solzhenitsyn also played a major role. Their friendshipwith the German writer Heinrich Böll during the 60s and 70s, made a process of reconciliation
possible, beyond the memories of Operation Barbarossa, Stalingrad, Soviet troops in berlin in
1945, also beyond the ideological constraints of the Cold War.
The role of the Church is also well-documented, most notably in the German-Polish case. In
October 1965, an important letter was sent by the Polish ecclesiastical authorities to their German
counterparts. The use of the formula: “We forgive and ask for forgiveness” allowed both thesufferings endured by the Polish people throughout the war and by the Germans expelled after
the defeat of the Wehrmacht to be acknowledged.
This healing work, that carefully took into account each countryʼs suffering, had begun, in the
middle of the war, with Father Franz Stock, a German prison chaplain who helped hundreds ofFrench detainees by ensuring the exchange of messages between those sentenced to death andtheir loved ones and who, after the war, stayed in France to support German prisoners of war.
After the war, many former members of the resistance, who escaped German camps, exhorted
their comrades to avoid any nationalist excesses and to encourage mutual knowledge andexchanges involving the youth of both countries, politicians, trade unionists, journalists or evenentrepreneurs.
It is this spirit that presided over the beginnings of the Bureau International de Liaison etde Documentation (BILD) and, in August 1945, the foundation of two journals, Dokumente andDocument published in France and in Germany. The initiatives by these individual figures were,
followed by various cultural, political or professional initiatives. The Franco-German Institute (DFI)
was established in Ludwigsburg in 1948 to foster exchanges and language learning. Partnerships
grew; meetings between historians came in quick succession and for instance Georg Eckert
created a program for the systematized critical re-reading of textbooks. The Elysée Treatyof 1963 thus officially sealed a reconciliation that was well under way, and essentially further
strengthened it. Over fifty years, more than 8 million French and German youth participated in
the exchanges organized by the French-German Youth Office (FGYO).

The Role of Symbolic Gestures of Reconciliation in Europe
The echo that met the solemn gestures of reconciliation can be understood against this socialand cultural backdrop. The aura of the protagonists, the symbolic nature of the chosen historical
backdrop (Reims, Verdun, the location of a memorial to the heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto
Uprising, Krzyzowa…), the strength of these gestures, supported by the power of the speeches or on the contrary, by the silence that is sometimes preferable for adding to the impact of some ofthese gestures, played an essential role.
But we know that the official Polish press, after Willy Brandtʼs famous gesture of kneeling in
1970, held back images of the West German Chancellor repenting in Warsaw. We also know thatthe symbolic venue proposed for the “Reconciliation Mass” that was celebrated in the presence
7

Richard von Weizsäcker and Vaclav Havel, “Échange pragois sur la culpabilité (Reflections on guilt fromthe citizens of Prague),” Esprit, No. 162, June 1990, pp. 5-8.

10Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Thomas Serrierof Chancellor Kohl and the Polish Prime Minister-President Mazowiecki on 12 November 1989
in Krzyzowa was suggested at the very last moment to avoid embarrassing historical blunders.
Instead of this former Prussian territory, centre of the anti-Hitler resistance, located in Poland
since 1945, Kohl had first considered the Annaberg hill, the site of clashes between German
forces and pro-Polish paramilitary in 1921.
Another significant transnational symbol has been, without question, the handshake between
French President François Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl in Verdun in 1984. A similar pattern
emerged when Queen Elizabeth II, whose cousin Lord Mountbatten had been assassinated by
the IRA, and former IRA leader Martin McGuinness shook hands for the first time in June 2012,
remembering “all who died in the Irish conflict,” while leaders of Sinn Féin had refused the ideaof such a meeting a year before considering that it was “too early.”
The performative character of solemn rituals is, however, not certain. On the contrary, therepetition of such formal gestures can seem artificial, performed in order to “prove” the reality ofreconciliation. In a biting commentary, German journalist Klaus Bachmann criticized in 1994 the“kitsch of reconciliation”, based on the mechanical repetition of the same ritualistic and hollow
gestures.
Writing on this very topic, Valérie Rosoux stated that “the joint celebrations of WWI armistice
day each November 11 by Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy certainly illustrates the passage
from duel to duo. Do they evoke however the same emotion as the first ones in 1984?
When there is a lack of real support or popular consent or when the gestures of reconciliation
are clearly related to political ends, they can easily become counterproductive. This was for
instance the case of the “brotherly kiss” between Leonid Brezhnev and the Secretary General of
the East German Communist Party Erich Honecker on the 30th anniversary of the GDR.
Conversely, a situation may still be too sensitive to make such a gesture possible. This was thecase of Bosnia, where, after the wars between 2000 and 2010, several ceremonies, modelled after
the figure of Brandt kneeling in Warsaw, never producing unanimity, in fact quite the opposite.
When Serbian President Boris Tadic travelled to Srebrenica in July 2005, the associationsof mothers of the victims initially refused to allow the head of State to par ticipate in thecommemorations. In 2013, his successor, Tomislav Nikolic, declared that he was kneeling to ask
forgiveness, but refused to use the words “massacre” or “genocide”. Two years later, the Serbian
Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic was forced to leave the memorial of Srebrenica.

The Work of Time and Memor y: A European Paradigm?
One of the key difficulties of the process of reconciliation is to suggest that a turning point canoccur in an instant, while for the populations, especially for the victims, the process can only be
accepted in the long term. In the aftermath of violence, is it in generations that such an evolution
is possible. The issue is to transform painful memories by giving them a constructive or reconstructive meaning. The central issue is the reason of all these European conflicts that havetaken so many soldiers and civilians from us – A moral question to which politicians have oftenchosen not to respond and remain silent.
That attitude was the most common choice right after 1945 as it had always been. In fact, for
centuries, silence and amnesty were regarded as prerequisites for any reconciliation. In 1946 in
Zurich, Winston Churchill set out a clear and explicit objective that everyone could understand:“We must all turn our backs upon the horrors of the past.”
Major changes in attitude came later, during a long period that extended from the 60s to the90s. It led to a complete reversal of the imperative to forget. Today, populations and European
authorities alike insist on the importance of memory from all sides.
Despite the shor tcomings, obstacles and silences that may persist today between
neighbouring countries and former European enemies, it is true that this ability and willingness
11
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Factors of Reconciliation: Is There a European Model?

to confront the memories of the wars that ravaged Europe give the European Union Member
States a particular vocation in terms of conflict resolution. To cite Guy Verhofstadt, one example
among many, the devastating experience of the two world wars and particularly of the Shoah is8“the source of a particular European sensitivity and generosity.” Unlike the United States, often
perceived as arrogant and unilateral, Europe has learnt “humility” from past tragedies.9

The Limits of the European Model
It would be easy however, to establish the list of ongoing conflicts or unresolved issues in Europe,
from Ukraine to Cyprus, divided for over 40 years. The categorization between resolved andunresolved conflict is in itself highly subjective.
These limits do not prevent the EU from seeking to extend its model of reconciliation beyond
its borders.10 First, beyond the limits of Europe, the question concerns the normalization ofrelations among the EU members or between some of its member states and states outside of
the Union. In this specific instance, the main challenge is posed by the colonial past of European
countries. The spokesperson of the European delegation at the Conference in Durban, Louis
Michel, described a horizon of “historic reconciliation between North and South” based on anarrative that implicitly integrates, at its very core, the acknowledgement of responsibilities. “Overthe centuries, European history has been contrasted. The best has coexisted with the worst.
European countries have been in turns both conquerors and subjects, martyrs and aggressors,
fraternal and fratricidal, bearers of generous ideas but also of abject designs.”11 But recognitionof an injustice does not systematically lead to an apology. Many things are at stake, from the legal
and financial consequences that could result from possible reparations, to the consequences oninternal policies, and electoral sanction.
The fact that France and Algeria have never managed to sign their “Elysée Treaty” nor enact
their own type of “Verdun handshake” is revealing in this regard. More than half a century after
the independence of Algeria, the Franco-German model has been definitively abandoned by
the officials and the political advisers of the two countries. Without doubt because the FrancoGerman model is based on the recognition of a kind of symmetr y between the two former
enemies. Moreover, between France and Germany, there is a reciprocal cultural fascination. It is
without doubt much less the case between Germany and Poland, but the Franco-Algerian case, aswith other situations opposing former colonizers and former colonies, is entirely different.
Colonization automatically cancels any idea of symmetry as it imposes a hierarchy between
the parties.
Beyond the difficulties of applying the European model of reconciliations to former colonies,
there are other limits to this global aspiration. The European experience is without a doubt aremarkable precedent. However, at the global level, it does not constitute a unique model for all
post-conflict situations. According to Valérie Rosoux: “The grammar of reconciliation gradually
set out by the European countries does not result solely from a sui generis experience. It is alsosignificantly influenced by the example of the establishment of “reconciliation commissions”,
whether in Latin America or for the most emblematic of all, in South Africa in the 90s.
Far from dictating the way forward, the European States seem to have become fascinated,with a model of reconciliation based on forgiveness. The charisma of Nelson Mandela had a lot to
do with these developments adapted for the European theatre, as in the case of the International
Crime Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
8

Guy Verhofstadt, Brussels, 18 December 2001.

9

Guy Verhofstadt, Brussels, 08 December 2001.

10

Thierry De Montbrial, Le Monde, 7 April 2007.

11

Durban, 30 August 2001.

12
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Thomas Serrier

The concept of “forgiveness”, according to V. Rosoux, also appears nowhere in the projectof the founding fathers of the European Union. Actually, in the founding texts of the European
community, there is much more question of the pooling of each nation ʼ s interests than ofreconciliation between the people, or even of the establishing conditions for lasting peace
between European nations.
The idea that taking memory issues into account, if not as the sole instrument but at least as
an essential ingredient in the process of reconciliation, is a fairly recent development, as we havesaid. Nevertheless, it remains a strong feature and an essential factor of reconciliations in Europe.
It bears witness to the weight of the past and the pedagogical value given to the past, even themost difficult one to face, on Europe. The ravages of past centuries, especially the last one, haveregularly brought devastation to the “old continent.” The fear of diving back probably explains theEuropean obsession with the urgency of reconciliation.

13
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

The Past and Politics – Focusing on “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” in Post-War Germany

The Past and Politics– Focusing on “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” in Post-War Germany
Takumi Itabashi

A

The Theme “Vergangenheitsbewältigung”

lthough both Germany and Japan were defeated in the Second World War, they
are currently thought of in contrasting ways by international society concerning
war compensation and historical awareness. Needless to say, Germany is thoughtof positively, while Japan is thought of negatively. Why the difference? Is there
anything we can learn from Germany?
The efforts of Germany to overcome the negative legacy of its history are collectively called“Vergangenheitsbewältigung (Overcoming the Past).” In this article, the term “negative legacy of
its history” is used to refer only to the war of aggression or the Holocaust under Nazi Germany.
In regard to such history, “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” encompasses not only war compensation
but also the perception of war responsibility, legal regulations on (Neo-)Nazism, histor yeducation, and various other aspects.
Although interest in Germanyʼs “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” is generally high in Japan, there
are extremely contrasting views regarding it. On the one hand, there are so-called “idealization”
type arguments: they praise Germany for having “repented for their past,” and set it as a modelthat Japan should imitate. In such arguments, the current state of Japan is criticized based on themodel of Germany, which is excessively idealized (and not necessarily based on reality).
On the other hand, there are many “dissenting” type arguments: namely, arguments that
Germany has “conducted itself slyly and cleverly,” pointing out and criticizing issues or flaws in
its “Vergangenheitsbewältigung.” Such arguments raise as a problem the hypocrisy of Germanyʼs“Vergangenheitsbewältigung.” A typical example of such arguments is that Germany foisted theblame on Hitler and the Nazis and exempted regular German people from responsibility. Theremay be some truth to such arguments. However, it is obvious that such arguments cannot justify
the current state of Japan.
Nonetheless, Germany has not noble-mindedly promoted “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” outof goodwill alone. Based on this point, those who are the dissenting type insist that it is nonsense
to “learn” from Germany. However, what should be noted here is that even the dissenting type
people are arguing on the same premise as those who make idealization type arguments. In otherwords, they are, in reality, on a level playing field with those who idealize Germany, in that theirassertion that “we do not need to imitate Germany since they are hypocrites” focuses on moral
integrity.
Contrarily, in this essay I would like to emphasize that “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” is not
only a moral issue, but also a political one. It seems that there have been very few viewpoints so
far that perceive “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” as a political issue, whether they praise or criticize
the example of Germany.
As I will describe later, Germanyʼs “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” reached its present state
after many twists and turns, as well as processes of trial and error, in the midst of internationaland domestic power politics. If Germany has a better reputation than Japan concerning its efforts
14
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Takumi Itabashi

to overcome its past after such a history of power politics, we need to squarely look at that fact.
The point I would like to place special emphasis on is the relationship between“ Vergangenheitsbewältigung ” and international politics. Post-war Germany has advanced“Vergangenheitsbewältigung” while taking its national interests into consideration, within a scopeof action prescribed by the international environment. It has determined the responsibilities thatit should assume and the scope of compensation, while being subject to external pressure andremaining conscious of its reputation in international society.
Some specific examples will be introduced below.

Compensation Agreement with the State of Israel/Jewish Community as theStarting Point

The starting point of “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” in post-war Germany is the Luxembourg
Compensation Agreement (“Wiedergutmachungsabkommen”), which was concluded between
the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany), the State of Israel, and the representativeof the Jewish people living outside Israel (the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against
Germany) in 1952. This agreement laid the foundations for “reconciliation” between Israel andthe Federal Republic of Germany after the bitterness created as the result of Nazi persecutions ofJews during the Second World War.
It was necessary for West Germany, which was a divided nation that had just been established,to settle its past in order to return to the international community as the “only nation that
legitimately represents the Germans.” Under such circumstances, Konrad Adenauer, the firstchancellor of West Germany, reached the conclusion of the Luxembourg Agreement with thehelp of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and external pressure from Western nations, while
fighting against strong objections from ministers or members of the ruling party, as well as public
opinion that was reluctant to provide compensation. Adenauer and his aides understood that“whether the new Germany would be able to regain the confidence, reputation, and trust in theworld”1 depended on the negotiations on compensation with Israel.
What was of special importance for Adenauerʼs Israel policy was the existence of the UnitedStates. For example, John J. McCloy, the U.S. High Commissioner for occupied Germany, said
that the new Germany would “be watched very closely and very carefully by the entire world,”
and that the relationship of West Germany with the Jewish people would be “one of the real
touchstones and the test of Germanyʼs progress toward the light.”2 It can be said that Adenauer
succeeded in concluding the Agreement by sensitively responding to the intentions of the U.S.,
and using them as a trump card for countermeasures against opponents.
Adenauer recognized that the FRG as the legal successor to the German Reich had a duty toaccept responsibility for the crimes committed by the German government. Although Adenauer
felt deep shame about Nazi persecutions of Jews, he was not simply concerned with German
moral debt. A conclusive motive for the completion of the Compensation Agreement was theconcern that without such an action Germanyʼs integration into the West would be endangered.

Development of Legal Systems and Education
Based on the protocol agreed upon between West Germany and the Jewish organization at
this time, the system for compensation of people who were persecuted under the Nazi regime
for political, religious, or ideological reasons was legally established in the 1950ʼs (the law of1

Herbert Blankenhorn, Verständnis und Verständigung. Blätter eines politischen Tagebuchs 1949 bis
1979 (Frankfurt a.M. / Berlin / Wien: Propyläen, 1980), p. 138. Blankenhorn was head of the Political
Department of the Foreign Office at that time.

2

Quoted in Michael Brenner, Nach dem Holocaust. Juden in Deutschland 1945 –1950 (München: Beck,1995), p. 114.

15
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

The Past and Politics – Focusing on “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” in Post-War Germany

particular importance was the Federal Indemnification Law, established in 1953/1956). Including
bilateral agreements or other agreements stipulating individual hardship mitigation measures orcompensation for individuals, the total amount of compensation paid by post-war Germany to thevictims of Nazi injustice exceeds 7 trillion yen.
In addition, Germanyʼs “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” is not confined solely to compensation,
as was described previously.
First of all, trials were held in West Germany to prosecute Nazi crimes based on domestic
penal codes, separate from the Nuremberg trials held during the period of occupation. In orderto make it possible to punish killings conducted during the Nazi period as murders, the statute oflimitations for murders was abolished in 1979, after long debates about the statute of limitations,which started in 1960. In addition, activities of far right and neo-Nazi groups were monitored by
the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz) as
being unconstitutional, and any speech and behavior that praises Hitler or Nazism, as well as
Holocaust denial, is banned as the crime of “Volksverhetzung (incitement to hatred)” in Section
130 of the German Criminal Code. Moreover, after 1970, a reconsideration of history education
was promoted, and strengthening of modern and contemporary history education, as well asinternational dialog with countries including Poland (1972 -) and Israel (1985 -) aiming at the
improvement of textbook content, was started.

Symbolic Words and Actions of Political Leaders

What should be particularly noted in Germanyʼs “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” are the initiativesof the political leaders of each era, and their symbolic words and actions that remain in peopleʼsmemory.
The most famous among such symbolic words and actions is probably those of Willy Brandt,
the first Chancellor after the Second World War who came from the Social Democratic Party(SPD). On December 7, 1970, when he visited Warsaw to sign a treaty on the normalization ofmutual relations between West Germany and Poland, he visited the Warsaw Ghetto site, knelt
down at the monument of Jewish victims, bowing his head down. Whatever Brandtʼs motive was,the image of the Chancellor of West Germany kneeling down in Warsaw spread around the globe,
creating an impression of a “Germany that regrets its past.”3
In addition, let me mention the speech by President Richard von Weizsäcker during the
Ceremony Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the End of War on May 8, 1985. It is oneof the finest speeches given, and the part of his speech: “anyone who closes his eyes to thepast is blind to the present” is still often quoted to this day. Here, however, I would like draw
your attention to the context of this speech, which tends to be forgotten today. On May 5,
three days before this speech was given, U.S. President Ronald Reagan visited West Germany,and offered flowers at the militar y cemeter y in Bitburg with Chancellor Helmut Kohl. This
became the cause of great controversy, even before his visit. This was because the soldiers of
the Waffen-SS were buried in this cemeter y in addition to the soldiers of the German Army.
Under such circumstances, the Weizsäcker speech was delivered while the critical eye of theinternational society was cast upon the conservative government of West Germany. As a result,
this commotion in May of 1985 has come to be remembered rather as a symbolic example of
4“Vergangenheitsbewältigung.”
3

For details cf. Christoph Schneider, Der Warschauer Kniefall. Ritual, Ereignis und Erzählung (Konstanz:
UVK Verlag, 2006); Michael Wolffsohn, Thomas Brechenmacher, Denkmalsturz? Brandts Kniefall(München: Olzog, 2005).

4

Cf. Jacob S. Eder, Holocaust Angst: The Federal Republic of Germany and American Holocaust Memory
since the 1970s (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 62–75.

16
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Takumi Itabashi

The International Cold War Environment

The above-described “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” of West Germany was largely backed by
the international environment of the Cold War with regard to the following three points. First,
for West Germany, it was necessar y to reconcile with Western nations in the Western Bloc,
including France, which it invaded in the past. Secondly, half of the countries that had sufferedmuch damage by the Nazis, including Poland, were behind the Iron Curtain. Lastly, there was arival that could not be ignored, East Germany. West Germany was fighting with East Germany
concerning which country legitimately represented the German people; they both emphasized abreak from the Nazis and competed with each other in terms of moral superiority.

End of the Cold War and a Globalizing World
Lastly, I would like to mention the situation after the Cold War. Before that, however, I am goingto briefly explain the difference between “reparation” and “compensation (Wiedergutmachung),”as a premise for my argument. As is often pointed out, the compensation paid by post-war (West)
Germany was not reparation between countries for war damages, but was based on a concept
of compensation peculiar to post-war Germany, which is “compensation for injustice under the
Nazis.” War compensation by West Germany, a divided nation that had not concluded peace
treaties with its former enemies, started to enter into a framework of being obligated to provide
compensation for Nazi injustice under the Adenauer regime, while postponing war reparation
until the future conclusion of peace treaties (in this respect, it has a different starting point fromthat of the case of Japan, which accepted its obligation for reparation in the San Francisco Peace
Treaty).
According to this framework, the victims of persecution on the eastern side of the Iron
Curtain could not receive compensation during the Cold War. During that period, the recipientsof compensation by West Germany were mainly only the victims in 12 countries on the westernside and Israel.
This situation had dramatically changed by the end of the Cold War and the unification of Eastand West Germany. Due to these changes, it became necessary to incorporate the victims of Nazi
injustice residing in the former Soviet Union and Eastern European countries, particularly forcedlaborers, into the subject of compensation.
To address this situation, a foundation called “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future”
was established. It was jointly established in 2000 by the German Government and businesses(approximately 6,500 German companies), in order to help the victims of forced labor during war,
which had not been considered as a Nazi injustice, and compensation payments were made. The
number of recipients was approximately 1,660,000, mainly in the former Soviet bloc countries,
and the total amount of compensation payments was approximately 4.5 billion euros (the paymentof monetary compensation was completed in 2007).
External pressure and the response to it were also important here. From the mid 1990ʼs,
the victims who moved to the U.S. after the war filed a succession of class action lawsuits
against German companies in U.S. courts. Major German companies that were conducting
global business had to face the reality that they were involved in criminal acts under the Nazi
regime through the lawsuits, and had no choice but to respond to them due to the pressure ofinternational public opinion, including boycotts.

Lessons Learned from Germany
In present Germany, prosecution of Nazis and monetary compensation have been completed,
while the generation that directly experienced Nazism and war is dwindling. Under suchcircumstances, emphasis is shifting from “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” to “Erinnerungskultur(Culture of Remembrance).” For example, in recent years, memorials or monuments, such as
17
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

The Past and Politics – Focusing on “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” in Post-War Germany

the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe located at the south end of the Brandenburg Gate
in Berlin or the Documentation Centre for the History of National Socialism in Munich that justopened in May 2015 (the construction cost of approximately 4.0 billion yen was shared among
the federation, states, and cities), have been built successively in Germany. The characteristic ofmemorials based on Erinnerungskultur is that they are places for presenting the past they wish topass on to the next generation by means of explanatory panels or images, rather than displaying
the items from the era, like traditional museums. In other words, Germany has entered into an
era in which they strive to make the generation that has not experience war “remember” the past.
So far, I have discussed Germany. However, Germanyʼ s “ Vergangenheitsbewältigung ”
cannot serve as a model for Japan as it is. For example, the international environments in which
Germany and Japan exist are different, and the difference in the natures of the crimes committed
by the two countries cannot be ignored. Simply arguing that “Japan should become like Germany”
is unreasonable in many ways, and can be even harmful at times.
In addition, there used to be intense confrontation within Germany concerning their past,
and what impacted their “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” the most was pressure from internationalsociety. I would also like to emphasize that Germany has not necessarily been successful either.
Rather, the image of a Germany that is always facing its past has become established throughrepeated trial and error.
What we can learn from Germany now after acknowledging such aspects is, I believe, howpolitics or the public sphere should function, and how they are composed.
Governments and politicians are required to have the ability to discern the underlying logic
of international politics and determine the position that they or their country should take, as wellas the ability to communicate such information inside and outside of their country. Needless tosay, it is out of question for them to engage in falsehoods. Even if their words or actions are basedon their beliefs, such words or actions are not politics if they are not conscious of the political
functions or consequences of such words or actions.
If “public” means to be open to everyone, then “international publicness” exists already inthat sense. Discourses that cater only to oneʼs own people (or a part of oneʼs own people) would
only worsen the situation in such a world. In the modern international society, strict monitoring
and checks are in place regarding the “forgetting of the past.” For statespersons, the ability
to make their behavior conform to such values in the modern world is required. Figuratively
speaking, politicians are required to have “acting skills.” It can be said that the German statesmenmentioned in this paper are those who had perfectly acted out their roles to the end.
In addition, the media should also function as an active leader of publicness, and above all, thecitizens (or the “Japanese people”) should realize that they have kept choosing politicians who so
far have engaged in falsehoods and that they have consumed sensationalistic media.

18
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Jun’ichiro Shoji

A Clash of Historical Perceptions:Japan’s Post-War Disputes with China*
Jun’ichiro Shoji
Vice President for Academic Affairs,
The National Institute for Defense Studies, Japan

IntroductionI

t is not uncommon for diplomatic relations to develop spontaneously in a positive direction
if there is an expansion of trade and economic relations or of human exchange. However,this has not been the case in relations between Japan and China, as is encapsulatedby the phrase “hot economies, cold politics.” With on-going incidents of fishing boats
colliding in the waters surrounding the Senkaku Islands, political tensions have yet to dissipate.
Both the Japanese and the Chinese admit that historical perceptions stand as the cause of
these problems. According to a recent opinion poll, both Japanese and Chinese respondents
identified historical perceptions as a major obstacle to the development of Japan–China relations.
Chinese respondents named the Japanese perceptions of “the Nanjing Massacre” and the warof aggression as an important issue in need of resolution. Japanese respondents similarly raised
Chinaʼs anti-Japanese education and textbook content as such an issue.1
This article conducts an analysis of the historical perception issue in Japan–China relations byturning the spotlight on Japanese and Chinese nationalism. This includes the textbook issue, theYasukuni issue, the “apology” and their backgrounds, and Chinaʼs history education.

Japan–China Relations until the 1970s: Unproblematic Historical Perceptions

To a majority of Japanese, the “Greater East Asia War” is principally remembered as a war against
the US, and any awareness of violence (“aggression”) against the Chinese is viewed as muchless significant, despite the fact that it predated the conflict with the Americans (Yoshida, 1995:
chapter 3 and 4).
Yoshimi Takeuchi noted that the Japanese felt “pain to an unexpected degree over [Japanʼs]aggression against China, when taking into account also the latent [pain]” (Takeuchi, 1993:
236). We know for a fact that a portion of leading post-war intellectuals in Japan had feelings of“culpability” vis-à-vis China. This tendency was spurred on by the admiration for socialism thatwas prevalent at the time, and was partly lacking in objectivity, as symbolized by the praise for the
Cultural Revolution (Nakajima, 1981: 404-414; Mizoguchi, 1989: 5-12).
A majority of the Japanese general population disliked the USSR but felt “affection” toward
China, and this continued beyond the normalization of Japan–China relations and the Cultural
Revolution, until the 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident (Tonami, 2005: 340-345). According toopinion polls, the normalization of Japan–China relations occurred when pro-Chinese sentiments＊

The original of this article was published in Japanese as 庄司潤一郎「歴史認識をめぐる日本外交−日中関係を中心として−」『国際政治』170（2012.12）.

1

Genron NPO, 第８回日中共同世論調査結果 (Results of the 8th Japan–China Joint Opinion Poll), June2012 (http://www.genron-npo.net/world/genre/cat119/2012-a.html).

19
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

A Clash of Historical Perceptions: Japan’s Post-War Disputes with China

surpassed anti-Chinese sentiments for the first time since the war. From that point onwards,
pro-Chinese sentiment continued to grow, until this trend was once more reversed at the timeof the Tiananmen Square Incident. There have been no remarkable changes to this trend since(Murotani, 2005: 5-6).
Regarding the historical perception issue that emerged post-1980, the Japanese were generally
inclined to compromise with the Chinese which stemmed from the “culpability” they felt at thetime. Even Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone, who called for the “final settlement of post-war
politics,” fundamentally accepted Chinaʼs stance on the Yasukuni and textbook issues. This was a
product of the aforementioned “culpability,” but while it had the positive effect of easing tensions
between Japan and China, it remained problematic since “It does not fundamentally resolve ourcontradictions and maintain amicable relations, but it is the result of us trying to coexist even as
the contradictions continue to amass” (Yokoyama, 1994, 26-59: 112-113).
Moreover, although the Japanese government has clearly dissociated the Official Development
Assistance (ODA) from any repentance for the “past,” when Prime Minister Masayoshi Ohirainitiated the assistance in 1979, the Chinese were under the impression that the deal was an
expression of the prime ministerʼs gratitude for the Chinese renunciation of war reparations2.
Simultaneously, starting around 1970, the academic world began paying attention to Japanʼswartime atrocities, as represented by the “fifteen-year war debate.” Several books on the topic
were published at this time, such as Katsuichi Hondaʼs Travels in China (Asahi Shimbun, 1972),
and Seiichi Morimuraʼs The Devil’s Gluttony (Kobunsha, 1981).
Similarly, in China during the Mao Zedong era, there had been no diplomatic need to mobilize
anti-Japanese popular sentiment to request a Japanese “apology.” Rather, China made efforts
to create “peaceful and amicable relations” as a way to support their international political goalof restraining the US and the USSR. The result was the normalization of Japan–China relations
and the accompanying renunciation of war repatriations. Therefore, a history of friendship wasemphasized without ever problematizing the historical perception issue.
The Chinese in general were also less resentful of the Japanese and more of the Kuomintang,landowners, and capitalists as well as the US and the USSR, in part because of their education.
The Japanese were not enemies and Mao Zedong said that, “The Japanese and Chinese peoples
are good friends.” With regard to the Second Sino–Japanese War, the “glory” of victory in the“Anti-Japanese War,” the “devoted sacrifices” of fallen patriots in the war, and the revolution wasemphasized. For example, “the Nanjing Massacre” did not appear in Chinese junior-high-school
history textbooks until 1979, which is later than Japan (1975). This means that Chinaʼs suffering,its “national disgrace,” was not emphasized until the 1980s, which then reflected a change incircumstances (Gries, 2004: 43-53; Shirk, 2008: 261-265; Callahan, 2010: 161-190; Wang, 2011: 18,
74-75, 126-127).

The Textbook Issue
The historical perception issue with China started with the textbook controversy of 1982,
ten years after the normalization of diplomatic relations. Such textbook controversies withneighboring countries would come to transpire a total of four times. The first controversy
occurred in June 1982 over a high-school history textbook that was to be used from 1983. It beganwith Japanese newspapers reporting that the screening carried out by the Ministry of Education(presently the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT)) had
resulted in “the Japanese Army invaded North China” being rewritten as “the Japanese Army

2

Statement by Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan (ʻIn Exchange for the ODA Wartime Reparations to Chinaʼ,
Sankei Shimbun [May 13, 2000]).

20
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Jun’ichiro Shojiadvanced into North China” and a change to contents pertaining to the Nanjing Incident3. After
criticism from both China and South Korea, the matter was resolved as the cabinet of Zenko
Suzuki announced that they would revise the screening. In the end, the Japanese government
decided to add a “neighboring countries clause” to the screening criteria for history textbooks.
The second textbook controversy occurred in 1986. China, South Korea, and the Japan
Teachers Union fiercely opposed the conditional acceptance of A New History of Japan, a highschool textbook compiled by the Peopleʼs Congress to Protect Japan, arguing that the bookjustified the invasion. Nakasone responded quickly and the book was passed after a very rare
fourth round of MEXT extra revisions.
The third and fourth textbook controversies occurred in 2001 and 2005, and revolved aroundtextbooks put together by the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform, titled The New
History Textbook and The New Civics Textbook, respectively. As they were both approved by MEXT,
strong protests and calls for revision were voiced by China, South Korea, and some Japanesegroups, arguing that the books glorified or denied the invasion. On this occasion, the Japanese
government did not accede to the Chinese and Korean revision requests. In spite of this, neithercase became significant international issues.
These textbook controversies “occurred as an extension of Japanʼs domestic textbook issue.”.
The confrontations over textbook screening and contents in post-war Japan were an internal affair
and an already “politicized” issue, heavily influenced by the ideological battle occurring under the1955 system and the Cold War (Mitani, 2006: 205-206; Duan, 2007: 63-64).
Therefore, when there were reports that contents had been rewritten, there was frequently
debate about whether these were in fact “incorrect reports.” Groups critical of the screening
viewed MEXTʼs traditional position itself as problematic, while those critical of MEXT and thescreening system argued that they were “all too dogmatic” or “masochistic”(Onuma, 2007a: 272).
Moreover, as seen in the Ienaga Trial, there was also a debate on the issue of a “double standard”
in which those who criticized the screenings as being equal to “censorship” demanded that
MEXT implement stricter revisions of screenings when it came to textbooks with a divergent
position, such as A New History of Japan ( Hayashi, 1987: 182-186; Tateno, 2001: 117-118).
Since the post-Cold War era of the 1990s, efforts were made by mainly “leftist” scholars toshed light on “the aggressive nature of wartime Japan and especially the specifics of Japan ʼsinvasion of China and Asia” (Ishida, 1996: 30-34; Kurosawa, 2011: 46-47). However, because theinterpretations put forward by these scholars were not free from errors and exaggerations anddue to the perceived “politicization” of their arguments (Onuma, 2007a: 186, 356; Onuma 2007b:
210-216), many Japanese were uncomfortable with their scholarship, leading it to be criticized forbeing too “masochistic” and a target of widespread opposition. The textbooks produced by theJapanese Society for History Textbook Reform emerged from this kind of context, which is why
their validity was debated with such fervor.
As such, it cannot be denied that the debate came to revolve around a small number oftextbooks that tended to not be adopted by teachers with the majority of other textbooks being
ignored (Mitani, 2006, 222). Indeed, the controversies were partially induced by events within
Japan, which to some extent serves to explain the Japanese opposition. Regarding the textbook
controversies and the Yasukuni issue, former Ambassador Yosuke Nakae suggests that there had
existed a group that “colluded” with China for their own benefit, thus triggering anti-Japanese
movements. He recalls that, “They probably wanted to put a stop to those things by borrowing
the authority of the Chinese tiger. And then the mass media joined in to use that as ammunition
for attacking the government” (Nakae, 1991: 162; Nakae, 2010: 236, 243, 253-254).
3

There were actually no revisions made to the parts concerning China. Asahi Shimbun apologized for theʻmistaken reportʼ, writing that, ʻWe must apologize to our readers for having made a mistake, even if onlyin partʼ (ʻ 読者と朝日新聞 ʼ [Asahi Shimbun and the Reader], Asahi Shimbun [ September 19, 1982]).

21
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

A Clash of Historical Perceptions: Japan’s Post-War Disputes with China

Due partly to the Ienaga Textbook Trial and the textbook controversies as well as theincreased transparency of the screening process, history textbooks were improved so that they
included more contents on Japanʼs violence and “aggression” toward Asia as well as a better
consideration for international relations. Through this, the Japanese peopleʼs awareness of Japan
as “the perpetrator of a war of aggression” is said to have increased (Hatano, 2004a: 341; Mitani,
2006: 215). Simultaneously, some took a nationalist stance, criticizing the “external pressure”
and “internal-affairs interference” from neighboring countries, and were also critical of thegovernment for having acquiesced to such demands. This helped give rise to new textbook
projects, such as those of the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform, and eventually tomore textbook controversies.
The Chinese response to the textbook controversies also seems to have been motivatedby domestic factors. In particular, it had to do with history education for youths following the
adoption of the Reform and Opening-up Policy. It has been pointed out that, “The focused andorganized campaign was for Chinese domestic consumption, its aim being to educate youths
about history and to raise support for the Communist Party [authorʼs note: the Anti-Japanese War
was used to legitimize the government]” (Tanaka, 1983; Tanaka, 1991: 120-125).
After this, the importance of the textbook issue dissipated. As an example, we can look at
New Japanese History (approved since 2012), a junior-high-school history textbook published by
Ikuhosha. This company was criticized for glorifying the war and a movement developed to keep
their books from being used in the classroom. Yet, despite the fact that this book had an adoption
rate higher than previous controversial books, China did not raise significant concerns about it.

The Yasukuni Issue
Emperor Showa made seven visits to the Yasukuni Shrine between 1952 and 1972, and a total of
fifty-eight visits were made by post-war prime ministers, starting with the visit by Prime Minister
Shigeru Yoshida on October 18, 1951; yet none of these visits were criticized by foreign states.
Their appropriateness was instead debated domestically in the context of the constitutional
separation of religion and state, focusing on whether the visits were “public” or “private.”
Nakasone arranged “The Colloquium to Discuss the Issue of Cabinet Ministers Worshippingat Yasukuni Shrine” to resolve this issue, and it was concluded that the visits did not amount toviolations of the constitution as long as care is taken regarding the style of worship. Based on
this, on August 15, 1985, Nakasone became the first post-war prime minister to make an “official
visit” to the shrine. This was severely opposed by China, signaling that the Yasukuni issue hadgone from being a domestic constitutional debate to becoming a diplomatic issue. On 14 August,the day before the visit, Chief Cabinet Secretary Takao Fujinami expressed that, “It is our regretthat we inflicted such great suffering and injury on so many people in Asia and beyond.”
The basis for Chinaʼs criticism was the enshrinement of Class A war criminals on October 17,
1978, and the deep significance ascribed to war-end anniversaries in Chinese culture. In otherwords, “In Chinese thinking, a visit to Yasukuni Shrine by the Japanese prime minister on the day
marking Japanʼs defeat in the war, Japanʼs ʻanniversary of national disgraceʼ [carries the meaningof] wanting to wash away the shame of defeat and, thus, to retaliate” (Okabe, 2006: 13).
In response, Nakasone decided not to visit the shrine in the following year, 1986. On 14
August, Chief Cabinet Secretar y Masaharu Gotoda announced that they would not make anofficial visit since the enshrinement of Class A war criminals had led to misunderstandings anddistrust from neighboring countries, especially China.
The Yasukuni Shrine was again politicized when Junichiro Koizumiʼs cabinet came to power
after having made a “campaign pledge” to “definitely visit Yasukuni Shrine on the war-end
anniversary” during the presidential election of the Liberal Democratic Party. His first visit to theshrine as prime minister was moved to August 13 out of consideration for China. On the day of the
22
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Jun’ichiro Shoji

visit the prime minister stated that, “Following a mistaken national policy during a certain period
in the past, Japan imposed, through its colonial rule and aggression, immeasurable ravages andsuffering particularly to the people of neighboring countries in Asia. This has left a still incurable
scar to many people in the region. Sincerely facing these deeply regrettable historical facts asthey are, here I offer my feelings of profound remorse and sincere mourning to all the victims of
the war.” The contents of this statement were deemed to have surpassed those of the Murayama
Statement (Iechika, 2003: 22).
China demanded that the visits be discontinued since they “hurt the feelings of the peoplesof victim countries,” stating that Japan “should demonstrate their remorse through action.”
However, Prime Minister Koizumi continued to visit the shrine every year to “remember the war
dead and pray for peace.” Japan–China relations worsened after this.
The first point I would like to make regarding the Yasukuni issue is about the difference inperception between Japan and China. The Chinese side argued that a prime ministerʼs visit to
the Yasukuni Shrine negates what has been a leading principle since the normalization of Japan–
China relations. That is, the idea that responsibility for the war lay with a minority of militarists
and that the majority of Japanese were victims. They understood the visits as “an issue relating
to the very starting point of Japanʼs post-war responsibility, its rehabilitation to the international
community, and the normalization of Japan–China relations, thus making impossible to settle
simply with reference to Japanese culture” (Press conference with Chinaʼs Ambassador to Japan,
Wang Yi [Asahi Shimbun, November 16, 2005]).
On the Japanese side, the general purpose of the visits is to remember the war dead and pray
for peace. It is true that among those who want to see official visits, there are those who affirm theSecond Sino–Japanese War and the Pacific War, but the prime ministerʼs visits are not conductedon the basis of such an historical perception. For example, on October 8, 2001, two months after
his first visit to the shrine, Koizumi made a visit to the Museum of the War of Chinese Peopleʼs
Resistance against Japanese Aggression (Marco Polo Bridge), the first since Prime Minister
Tomiichi Murayamaʼs visit in 1995. There, he said that, “I examined the displays with a heart ofapology and condolence toward all the Chinese who fell victim to Japanese aggression. We haveto study the past well, so that our remorse can bear better fruit in the future.” Compared with
the Murayama Statement, Koizumiʼs words expressed regret more clearly. General Secretary
Jiang Zemin expressed his surprise, saying, “I have never met a Japanese prime minister thisreasonable.” The Chinese government came to expect that Koizumi would make no more visits
to the Yasukuni Shrine (“ 特集 繰り返されてきた『反省』『おわび』” [Feature: The Repeated
Expressions of “Remorse” and “Apology”], Yomiuri Shimbun, July 28, 2005). Thus, the emphasis
of Chinaʼs criticism of Koizumiʼs Yasukuni visit shifted from historical perception to the feelings ofthe peoples of victim countries (Takahara, 2010: 76). Another problem with the visit was raised aswell; it was the “pro-Greater East Asia War” historical perception that motivated the “honoring of
war heroes,” symbolized by the exhibition in the Yushukan Museum attached to the shrine, andupheld by the Yasukuni Shrine, as well as the supporting organizations of the Japan War-Bereaved
Families Association and the “Society for Honoring the Glorious War Dead.” Immediately after
the war, the Japan War-Bereaved Families Association was dedicated to the “building of a peaceful
Japan” and the Yushukan Museum was originally a museum for weapons and items left by thedeceased, not explicitly showcasing any particular historical perception. Yet, the ideologicalstruggles in post-war Japan led to the “politicization” and radicalization of historical perceptions,and the rise of the “war-of-aggression argument” in particular made room for the view that theJapanese soldiers had “died in vain.” The war-bereaved families strongly opposed such a view andcame to emphasize the “honoring of war heroes.” Since this necessitated a historical perceptionthat gave meaning to the soldiersʼ deaths and that evaluated the war positively, their efforts seemto have gravitated toward the “pro-Greater East Asia War” stance (Hatano, 2004b: 256-272). As
23
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

A Clash of Historical Perceptions: Japan’s Post-War Disputes with China

seen from this, the cause lay in a post-1960s domestic debate over how to conceive of the war
dead.
My second point relates to the widespread popular support for Koizumiʼs Yasukuni visits,
expressed each year despite Chinaʼs criticism. For example, a 2006 opinion poll on the occasionof what became the last Yasukuni visit on a war-end anniversary, 52.6% were in favor of thesevisits, stating that the primar y purpose of Koizumiʼ s visits was to comfor t and remember
the dead soldiers as well as praying for peace and the renunciation of war. In addition, some
respondents (25.3%) supported the visits because they did not think it appropriate to discontinue
them due to objections from other countries. 56.6% responded that they were unconvinced by
Chinaʼs opposition (Yomiuri Shimbun, August 17, 2006). To the Japanese public, the Yasukuni
issue changed from being about the appropriateness of the visits themselves to centeringon Chinaʼs unyielding objections. As people came to understand Chinaʼs actions as “internalaffairs interference,” their opposition grew stronger than it had been at the time of the textbook
controversies. The Chinese government, however, feared that to abandon the guiding principlesof the post-war period was tantamount to fanning emotional nationalism among the people anddamaging its own political legitimacy. Today, Yasukuni Shrine is intimately intertwined withnationalism on both sides and has undergone “symbolization” in the context of Japan–China
relations (Mori, 2006: 183).

The “Apology”

It is often said that Japan has not “apologized” enough to China for the Second Sino–JapaneseWar, but Japan is in fact said to have made more than twenty official “apologies” to that effect(Sugimoto, 2006: 328-328)4.
In October 1985, Nakasone became the first Japanese prime minister to acknowledge that
the Second Sino–Japanese War was a “war of aggression.” All subsequent prime ministers havereaffirmed this view and it was most clearly expressed by Morihiro Hosokawa. In August 1993,
he stated that, “I myself perceive the war as having been one of aggression and injustice.”
Although words like “remorse” and “apology” are used frequently in documents such as theJapan–China Joint Communiqué (September 1972) and the Japan–China Joint Declaration on
Building a Partnership of Friendship and Cooperation for Peace and Development (November
1998), the strongest expression of “heartfelt apology” was not used until the Murayama Statement
in August 1995, on the 50th anniversary of the end of the war5. When Premier Wen Jiabao visited
Japan in April 2007, he also stated that, “The Japanese government and Japanese leaders haveexpressed their stance on the history problem many times, publicly admitting the aggression,
expressing their remorse, and deeply apologizing to the victim countries. I positively appreciatethis” (Yomiuri Shimbun, evening edition, April 12, 2007). Yet, the intention expressed in the
Murayama Statement was not widely accepted within Japan. For example, one week before thestatement, Minister of Education Yoshinobu Shimamura said that, “Whether or not it was a war of
aggression is a matter of perceptive,” a statement he later apologized for and retracted. Moreover,in June on that same 50th-anniversar y occasion, the House of Representatives debated the
Resolution to Renew the Determination for Peace on the Basis of Lessons Learned from History(Fusen Ketsugi). Disagreement arose on whether to insert the term “apology” in the definitionof “aggression,” as a result demonstrating that there existed a split along the lines of historical4

An exceptional case in China, the “New Thoughts” thinker Ma Licheng points out that Japan has
apologized 21 times and that the historical problem has been settled (Ma, 2004).

5

The Murayama Statement was said to be initiated by the prime ministerʼs office, but was actually part ofa long-term post-war settlement policy promoted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. With China, South
Korea, the US, and Britain in mind, Murayamaʼs correspondence was published at the same time as thestatement (Hattori, 2007).

24
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Jun’ichiro Shoji

perception.
Referring to the Murayama Statement, a spokesperson of China ʼ s Foreign Ministr y
Information Department stated that, “The Japanese government has expressed deep remorseover its past colonial rule and histor y of aggression, and they are committed to actively
apologizing to the peoples of Asia […] There still remain those in Japanese society, including thepolitical sphere, who do not show the proper attitude with regard to this historical issue.” As such,it cannot be denied that some ministers and other politicians made “verbal slips,” with the resultof offsetting the effects of the “apologies.” In short, “In Japan, the voices of those who deny thewar of aggression and oppose any apology have grown stronger than those that express apology”(Shang, 2005: 96-101).
Moreover, since the schema of Japanese “aggression” and Chinese “resistance” was selfevident in China, the “apology” issue could never come to the point of discussing historicalperceptions. At its core, it was a fundamentally political issue, but it also concerned historicalperceptions since there was no popular consensus about the Second Sino–Japanese War inJapan and a deep rift existed between the two sides, as demonstrated by the adoption of theFusen Ketsugi. As a result, the gap between Japan and China when it came to the “apology” only
continued to widen (Mizoguchi, 2004: 63-83).
The repeated “apologies” were criticized by “sensible people with experience of engaging inJapan–China relations, who thought that a relationship that requires apologies is far from a truefriendship” (Okabe, 2006: 65-68). It has also been pointed out that the apologies might have a bad
effect on the nationalisms of victim countries, saying that, “Despite the good intentions of thosein Japan who admit the damages inflicted and want to make apologies, an undeniable side-effectis that it has fostered nationalism in neighboring countries” (Mitani, 2007: 99-100). As a result,
we see the phenomenon of “history problem fatigue” or “apology fatigue” among the Japanesegeneral population (Kokubun, 2000: 72-74). There has been a build-up of negative emotions
asking “How many times do we have to apologize?” and a sense of victimhood stemming frombeing blamed arbitrarily for a history that one had no part in, which can be seen especially among
young people born in the post-war period (Buruma, 1997: 33).
In recent years, international observers have noted that attempts at “apologizing” leads tomore divided domestic opinion, so that every apology issued by the government in reality isfollowed by opposition at home and more distrust from the country receiving the apology, thus
sometimes yielding a negative outcome. Similarly, if the other country lacks the will or foundationto accept the apology, the apology become ineffectual (Yamazaki, 2006; Lind, 2008).
There is a great discrepancy between the Chinese and Japanese stances on the “apology”
issue, with one asking “Why does Japan not apologize?” and the other “How long will China keep
asking for an apology?,” but this is not simply a matter of dealing with the “past.” It can be said tobe intimately connected with popular sentiments and nationalism on both sides.

Histor y Textbooks in China: Patriotic Education
With the rise of the anti-Japanese movement in China after 2004, a popular theory among theJapanese mass media and politicians was that its cause lay in the “anti-Japanese education” thatformed part of Chinaʼs patriotic education. Specifically, issue was taken with the contents ofhistory textbooks and museum displays in China.
Motivated by such concerns, the Japanese government has in recent years used the stage of
diplomacy to request a revision of such “anti-Japanese education,” but the response from China
has simply been that the patriotic education is not aimed to be “anti-Japanese” and no “antiJapanese education” is being carried out.
In China, patriotic education was first promoted by Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s, as a way tocontrol the domestic unrest following the shift from cultural revolution to reform and opening
25
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

A Clash of Historical Perceptions: Japan’s Post-War Disputes with China

up, as well as to magnify the unifying force of the Communist party and the state. The patriotic
education was further intensified during the Jiang Zemin period in the 1990s, in the context ofa growing sense of crisis following the democratization movement and the Tiananmen Square
Incident, coming to emphasize not only a glorious histor y but also Chinaʼs humiliation andvictimhood (Kinoshita, 2007: 114-119).
This is best symbolized by the Outline on Implementing Patriotic Education, enacted by the
Publicity Department of the Communist Party in August 1994. The “guidelines” define patriotism
as “a banner for mobilizing and encouraging the organized struggle of the Chinese people” (abovetext), and emphasize the importance of education for the youth and clearly specifies the Patriotic
Education Bases as educational institutions for that purpose. Moreover, important literature
conforming to these “guidelines” identifies patriotic education as dependent on teaching Chinaʼs
modern and contemporary history. The literature states that, “it promotes understanding of theChinese peopleʼs grave hardships and valiant struggles in the modern era as well as establishes
the peopleʼs self-esteem, self-confidence, and pride from an early age” (Okamura, 2004).
Firstly, with regard to Chinese textbooks (in this article, I refer to middle-school histor y
textbooks), it is true that the Second Sino–Japanese War is treated as the most important topic in
the history of Japan–China relations, but it still takes up only a small part of the entire textbook,and it is not necessarily the case that it has been expanded in recent years (Wang, 2006).
Rather, it is the contents that have changed under the influence of patriotic education. The
history textbooks of the 1980s already contained mentions of Japanese military activities, but theemphasis was on the heroic fighting of the Chinese Army and the leadership of the Communist
Party. Since the 1990s, the entries about Japanese acts of cruelty have been expanded, withadded mentions about “the pits of ten-thousand corpses” and “the contest to kill 100 people witha sword” as well as renewed emphasis on the cruelty and huge body counts of incidents by using
photographs and illustrations. There has been a particular increase in detailed accounts of “theNanjing Massacre” in recent years. The 2001 edition of the “Teachersʼ Text for Teaching and
Learning (Teacherʼs Version)” states that, “We have to expose the cruelty and barbarity of the warof aggression against China that was caused by Japanese imperialism […] We have to engrave in
our minds a deep resentment of and great hatred for Japanese imperialism.”6 There is concernthat these textbooks may impart a negative image of Japan to students (see also Shinbo, 2006;
Ibaraki, 2006; Yuge, 2006 and 2007).
At the same time, Chinese education as whole is also changing. The establishment of the
Nationwide Middle and Elementary School Screening Board began a shift from the earlier systemof textbooks “certified by the state” to that of textbook “screening,” which involves the “screening”
of textbooks compiled on the local level. The Shanghai history textbook created under this new
system stands out in its positive appraisal of Japan, as it has less mention of the Nanjing Incident
and other Japanese military activities, makes much more space for post-war Japan, and refers to
the ODA for the first time (Yomiuri Weekly, 21 January, 2007: 21–24; Asahi Shimbun, March 8,2007). It was used as a “trial book” in 2006, but the Shanghai City Board of Education suddenly
decided to cancel it in September 2007 (Asahi Shimbun, September 15, 2007. For details, see Sato,2008).
At the same time, a priority designation of Patriotic Education Bases has taken place inaccordance with the Outline on Implementing Patriotic Education. At present, 266 bases havebeen designated. Target areas mostly include history since ancient times, the Communist Party,
and political leaders. Although only a small number deals with the Second Sino–Japanese War,these include large-scale and well-known places such as the Museum of the War of Chinese
6This policy is also followed in the Compulsory Education Standard Trial Textbook for Chinese History:
First Book for the Eighth Grade: Teachersʼ Text for Teaching and Learning (2006).

26
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Jun’ichiro Shoji

Peopleʼs Resistance against Japanese Aggression (Marco Polo Bridge), the Memorial Hall of theVictims in Nanjing Massacre by Japanese Invaders, and the 9.18 Historical Museum (Shenyang).
Facilities connected to the Second Sino–Japanese war emphasize the violence of the JapaneseArmy; honor the Chinese resistance against the Japanese, especially stressing Mao Zedong andthe Communist Partyʼs struggle and historical victory in the Anti-Fascist War; and advocate thepeopleʼs unity and the building of a strong nation. It is especially problematic how photographs,
dioramas, and wax figures are used to appeal to the visitorsʼ visual perception and emotions.
Furthermore, doubts have been raised about the authenticity of some displayed photographs.
These exhibitions have been criticized for not contributing to the Japan–China friendship, since
they foment hate for and resentment of Japan and may cause misanthropy and the glorification ofwar (Anzai, 2008: 17-19; Hiranuma, 2009).
Discerning people in China suggest that they should not incite vengefulness. An example isthe author Ge Hongbing who wrote on his blog that the bloody and gory photographs on display
at the various anti-Japanese museums “fill the minds of young people with resentment and giverise to a mind-set of wanting to ʻtake revengeʼ on Japan” (Tokyo Shimbun, June 24, 2007; Sankei
Shimbun, June 15, 2007).7
Words like “anti-Japanese” or “resistance against the Japanese” are seldom used in Chinese
official documents relating to patriotic education and it cannot be said that Japan is the target ofthese documents. As such, most experts on Japan–China relations do not regard the patriotic
education as primarily “anti-Japanese” (Okamura, 2004: 69). Yet, the Second Sino–Japanese War
is more than a basis for the legitimacy of the Communist Partyʼs government, and Japan has
remained an important target of resistance throughout the modern and contemporary history,
which is emphasized by patriotic education. Additionally, it cannot be denied that the historicalperception issue has led to a greater focus on Japan in recent years. Since China has a “nationalism
accompanied by trauma ” in the form of its histor y of humiliating invasion, the “ people ʼ srestoration” has come to carry the meaning of liquidating Chinaʼs humiliation. Since Japan isthe principal target of this process, this means that “There is no place more acutely sensitive to
Chinaʼs nationalism than Japan” (Liu, 2001: 116-117).
Chinese scholars agree that the aim of patriotic education lay in praising the Communist
Partyʼs struggle during the Second Sino–Japanese War, thereby cultivating a spirit of patriotism
and gaining popular support, but that, “It cannot be denied that it had a dimension of inciting
anti-Japanese sentiments amongst the people” (Liu, 1998: 113). Although originally meant fordomestic consumption, the patriotic education eventually became a partially “anti-Japanese”
education and came to have an effect outside of China as it became entangled with the historicalperception issue between Japan and China.
In recent years, however, there has been a growing chorus of voices within China who identify“Chinese nationalism and anti-Japanese activities” as obstacles to Japan–China relations. Signsof change can be seen as they surpass “Japanese nationalism and anti-Chinese activities” (Kudo,
2008: 70-71).
Simultaneously, the democratization movement in recent years is accompanied by more
open expressions of the Chinese general populationʼs memories of victimhood, which had been
suppressed as part of the national policy that was diplomatic normalization (Yang, 2006:341; Nie,
2006: 33-36).

Conclusion
The historical perception issue did not become a problem in the relations between Japan and
7

Yet Ge later deleted and withdrew the blog text after a storm of online criticism.

27
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

A Clash of Historical Perceptions: Japan’s Post-War Disputes with China

China until the 1970s. Until that point, it had rather been a Japanese domestic problem, but it
became an international problem with the 1982 textbook controversy. The Japanese and Chinese
governments reached a level of political “compromise” in the process, but this stimulated radical
arguments at home, setting up a structurally vicious circle where the nationalisms on either side
kept reinforcing each other.
Each side had its own version of the “politicization” of historical perceptions, each progressing
in a different direction. Japan was heavily affected by the ideological battle of the “domestic cold
war,” which caused a split of historical perceptions. China labeled those with a “correct view ofhistory,” as seen from the Chinese perspective, as “forces of justice” and those without as “rightwing,” and since they attached importance to the former the Japanese domestic battle became anissue of Japan–China relations (Yabuki, 2004:104-108).
Since the first textbook controversy, it could often be observed how the domestic antagonism,
after having spread abroad, would return to have domestic repercussions. As this provokedcriticism of “external pressure,” the result was an arousal of nationalism within Japan. It has
been pointed out that, “ With both the textbook issue and the Yasukuni issue, the present
diplomatic solutions are ones that created various forms of dissatisfaction inside Japan. […] The
conservative nationalists have been expanding their movement by criticizing” (Tanaka, 2007: 164165).
From the Japanese perspective, it is always the Japanese historical perception that is seen as
problematic and Chinaʼs objections are heeded, so that “The essence of the historical perception
issue between Japan and China is to what extent Japan can accommodate Chinaʼs one-sided
asser tions ” (Iechika,2007: 64-65), which has given rise to a structure of asymmetr y (Ijiri,
1990:114). Against this background of “politicization” and “asymmetry” of historical perceptions,
not only the “left” but also “liberals and moderate conservatives” have abstained from objecting
to the Chinese out of “a feeling of atonement” and “an excessive ethicism.” Thus, “the result
has in fact been dissatisfaction and distrust of ʻleft-wingʼ and ʻliberalʼ debaters amongst ordinary
Japanese citizens, a growth of sympathy and support for ʻanti-Korean and anti-Chinese groups,ʼ
and more obstacles to reconciliation in Japan–China and Japan–Korea relations” as well as “arecurring vicious circle of emotional attacks by nationalistic elements on both sides that lead tofurther mutual opposition”(Onuma,2007b: 212-216).
Simultaneously, China “has posited the remembrance of the anti-Japanese resistance as animportant political and social activity throughout the post-war period” (Bu, 2007: 207), so that
historical perception became an issue of the state and partyʼs legitimacy. To young recipientsof the post-1980s patriotic education who never experienced war, the words and deeds recently
shown by some people in Japan have had a greater impact than the “facts” of history, fomenting
a new antipathetic image of an “unremorseful Japan” (Lu, 2002: 225). It has been said that, “It isdefinitely not so that an indirect experience lessens the sense of victimhood. Rather the opposite,
there is the possibility that only the imagery is amplified without obstruction,” and “This situation
becomes more dire as time goes by” (Ueda, 2005: 166-167). The patriotic education directed atyouths was not the direct cause of the textbook and Yasukuni issues, but it built the foundation
for their amplification.
Fur thermore, Japan ʼ s recession and China ʼ s prominence in recent years have fur thercomplicated the historical perception issue. The discord over historical perceptions between
Japan and China combined with the lack of historical experience of Japan and China simultaneously
existing as superpowers has encouraged a sense of rivalr y between the two. International
obser vers note that the antagonism over historical perceptions “ is really only a sur facephenomenon, hiding the real conflict that is over leadership in Asia” (Meyer, 2010: 212-215).
The scope of the historical perception issue has expanded in both countries ever since thetextbook controversies, becoming a complicated phenomenon that encompasses the different
28Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Jun’ichiro Shojidimensions of political diplomacy, academic research, and popular sentiment, making it difficult
to discuss it only within the framework of state diplomacy as was done in the past. The “official”
Japan–China Joint History Research (see also Hatano, 2009; Kitaoka, 2010; Shoji, 2010), which isfunded by both governments, is emblematic of this. It argues that neither side should stimulate
nationalism by “politicizing” the historical perception issue in politics, diplomacy, and the media,
but we should first calmly verify the “facts” that make up the premise of our mutual historicalperceptions in order to reduce the gap and prejudice between the two countries.

References
Anzai, I. (2008) ʻ『平和のための博物館』の条件――日中両国の平和的・共生的関係発展のた め に ――ʼ (The Conditions for a Museum for Peace: For the Development of Peaceful andSymbiotic Japan–China Relations), 立命館平和研究 (Ritsumeikan Journal of Peace Studies), 9,
11–19.
Bu, P. (2007) ʻ 歴史認識の共有のために何が求められているか――日中歴史共同研究の意義と課題――ʼ (What Is Needed for a Common Historical Perception? The Significance and Challengesof the Japan–China Joint Research), 世界 (World), 768, 206–210.
Buruma, I. (1997) ʻ 過去の恨みを忘れよ ʼ (Forget the Resentments of the Past), 日本版・ニューズウィーク (Newsweek Japan), 12(8), 32–33.
Callahan, W. A. (2010) China: The Pessoptimist Nation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duan, R. (2007) ʻ 教 科 書 問 題 ʼ (The Textbook Issue), in Ryoko Iechika, Yasuhiro Matsuda andRuicong Duan (eds), 岐路に立つ日中関係――過去との対話・未来への模索―― (Japan–
China Relations at a Crossroads: Dialogue with the Past, Exploring for the Future), Kyoto:
Koyo shobo, pp. 63–85.
Gries, P. H. (2004) China’s New Nationalism: Pride, and Diplomacy, Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.
Hatano, S. (2004a) ʻ『歴史和解』への道標 ʼ (A Signpost towards ʻHistorical Reconciliationʼ), in
Yoshihide Soeya and Masayuki Tadokoro (eds), 日本の東アジア構想 (Japanʼs Conception of
East Asia), Tokyo: Keio University Press, pp. 329–356.
Hatano, S. (2004b) ʻ 遺 族 の 迷 走 ʼ (The Straying of the Bereaved Families), in Chihiro Hosoya,
Akira Iriye and Ryo Oshiba (eds), 記憶としてのパールハーバー (Pearl Harbor as Memory),
Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, pp. 256–272.
Hatano, S. (2009) ʻ 日中間の『歴史和解』を求めて ʼ (For ʻHistorical Reconciliationʼ between Japanand China), 栃木史学 (Tochigi Journal of Japanese History), 23, 1–10.
Hattori, R. (2007) ʻ 村山談話と外務省――終戦 50 周年の外交――ʼ (The Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and the Murayama Statement: Diplomacy at the Fifty-year Anniversary of the End of
the War), in Tsutomu Tanaka (ed.), 日本論：グローバル化する日本 (The Japan Debate: A
Globalizing Japan), Tokyo: Chuo University Press, pp. 73–102.
Hayashi, K. (1987) 外圧に揺らぐ日本史――教科書問題を考える―― (Japan History under
29
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

A Clash of Historical Perceptions: Japan’s Post-War Disputes with China

External Pressure: Considering the Textbook Issue), Tokyo, Kobunsha.
Hiranuma, T. gen. ed., (2009) 反 日 記 念 館 (The Anti-Japanese Museums), Diet Member Group
Asking for the Removal of Inappropriate Photographs from Chinaʼs Anti-Japanese Museums,
ed. Tokyo: Tendensha.
Ibaraki, S. (2006) ʻ 歴史教科書にみる日中の相互認識 ʼ (Japanese–Chinese Mutual Perception as
Seen in History Textbooks), in Liu Jie, Hiroshi Mitani and Yang Daqing (eds), 国境を越える歴史認識――日中対話の試み (Historical Perception across National Borders: Attempting Japan–
China Dialogue), Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, pp. 227–231.
Iechika, R. (2003) 日中関係の基本構造――２つの問題点・９つの決定事項―― (The Basic
Structure of Japan–China Relations: Two Problems and Nine Decisions), Tokyo: Shoyo shobo.
Iechika, R. (2007) ʻ 歴史認識問題 ʼ (The Historical Perception Issue), in Ryoko Iechika, Yasuhiro
Matsuda and Ruicong Duan (eds)., 岐路に立つ日中関係――過去との対話・未来への模索―― (Japan–China Relations at a Crossroads: Dialogue with the Past, Exploring for the Future),
Kyoto: Koyo shobo, pp. 14–36.
Ijiri, H. (1990) ʻ 日中関係 ʼ (Japan–China Relations), in Hiroshi Tanaka (ed.), 現代世界と国民国家の将来 (The Contemporary World and the Future of Nation-states), Tokyo: Ochanomizu shobo,
pp. 1131–1144.
Ishida, T. (1996) ʻ 戦争責任論再考 ʼ (Rethinking the War Responsibility Argument), 年報現代史
第二号 現代史と民主主義 (Yearbook of Contemporary History 2: Contemporary History and
Democracy), Tokyo: Azuma shuppan, pp. 1–60.
Kinoshita, K. (2007) ʻ 中 国 の 愛 国 主 義 教 育 ʼ (Chinaʼs Patriotic Education), in Ryoko Iechika,
Yasuhiro Matsuda and Ruicong Duan (eds), 岐路に立つ日中関係――過去との対話・未来への模索―― (Japan–China Relations at a Crossroads: Dialogue with the Past, Exploring for the
Future), Kyoto: Koyo shobo, pp. 109–130.
Kitaoka, S. (2010) グローバルプレーヤーとしての日本 (Japan as a Global Player), Tokyo: NTT
shuppan.
Kokubun, R. (2000) ʻ 試練の時代の日中関係――江沢民訪日紀実――ʼ (Japan–China Relationsin an Age of Tribulations: The Facts of Jiang Zeminʼs Japan Visit), 法学研究 (Journal of Law,
Politics, and Sociology), 73(1), 65–81.
Kudo, Y. ed., (2008) 中国人の日本人観 日本人の中国人観 (The Chinese Image of the Japaneseand the Japanese Image of the Chinese), Tokyo: Genron NPO.
Kurosawa, F. (2011) ʻ 戦後の日本近代史研究の軌跡 ʼ (Traces of Post-War Research on Japanʼs
Modern History), in Fumitaka Kurosawa and Ian Nish (eds), 歴 史 と 和 解 (History andReconciliation), Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, pp. 33–60.
Lind, J. (2008) Sorry States: Apologies in International Politics, Ithaca & London: Cornell
University Press.

30
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Jun’ichiro Shoji

Liu, J. (2001) ʻ 日本と中国の和解をめざして ʼ (Aiming for Japan–China Reconciliation), in Yoichi
Funabashi (ed.), いま、歴史問題にどう取り組むか (How to Tackle the History Issue), Tokyo:
Iwanami shoten, pp. 103–126.
Liu, Z. (1998) 中国のマスメディアと日本イメージ (The Japan Image in the Chinese Mass Media),
Kobe: Epic.
Lu, X. (2007) ʻ 日 中 関 係 に お け る 心 の 問 題 ʼ (Issues of the Heart in Japan–China Relations),
in Hiroshi Mitani and Tae-Chang KIM (eds), 東 ア ジ ア 歴 史 対 話 (Transnational andTransgenerational Dialogues on Histories in East Asia), Tokyo: Kokusai shoin, pp. 215–245.
Ma, L. (2004) 日本はもう中国に謝罪しなくていい (Japan Does Not Have to Apologize to China
Anymore), trans. Kimie Yako, Tokyo: Bungei shunju.
Meyer, C. (2010) 金融危機後のアジア (Asia after the Financial Crisis), trans. Akemi Tachibana,Tokyo: Jiji tsushinsha.
Mitani, H. (2006) ʻ 日本の歴史教科書の制度と論争構図 ʼ (Japanʼs History Textbooks: The Systemand the Structure of the Debate), in Liu Jie, Hiroshi Mitani and Yang Daqing (eds), 国境を越える歴史認識――日中対話の試み (Historical Perception across National Borders: Attempting
Japan–China Dialogue), Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, pp. 205–225.
Mitani, H. (2007) ʻ 二一世紀初頭の制度と論争構図 解説 ʼ (The System and the Structure of
the Debate in the Early Twenty-First Century), in Hiroshi Mitani (ed.), リーディングス 日本の教育と社会 第６巻 歴史教科書問題 (Readings: Japanese Education and Society 6: The
History Textbook Issue), Tokyo: Nihon Tosho Center, pp. 93–100.
Mizoguchi, Y. (1989) 方法としての中国 (China as Method), Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Mizoguchi, Y. (2004) 中国の衝撃 (Chinaʼs Shock), Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Mori, K. (2006) 日中関係――戦後から新世代へ―― (Japan–China Relations: From Post-War toa New Generation), Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.
Murotani, K. (2005) ʻ 世論調査分析 日本人の『好きな国・嫌いな国』の研究 ʼ (Analysis of
Public Opinion Polls: Research on ʻCountries Liked and Dislikedʼ by the Japanese), 時事評論
(Current Affairs Review), 37(6), 2–7.
Nakae, Y. (1991) 残された社会主義大国 中国の行方 (Socialist Superpower Left Behind: Chinaʼs
Future), Tokyo: KK Best Sellers.
Nakae, Y. (2010) アジア外交 動と静――元中国大使中江要介オーラルヒストリー (Activity
and Passivity in Asian Diplomacy: The Oral History of Former Ambassador to China Yosuke
Nakae), Hidekazu Wakatsuki et al., (eds), Tokyo: Sotensha shuppan.
Nakajima, M. (1981) 北京烈烈（下）――転換する中国 (Violent Beijing (Vol. 2): A Changing
China), Tokyo: Chikuma shobo.
Nie, L. (2006) 中国民衆の戦争記憶――日本軍の細菌戦による傷跡―― (The War Memories of
31Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

A Clash of Historical Perceptions: Japan’s Post-War Disputes with China

the Chinese People: The Wounds from the Japanese Armyʼs Germ Warfare), Tokyo: Akashi
shoten.
Okabe, T. (2006) 日中関係の過去と将来――誤解を超えて (The Past and Future of Japan–China
Relations: Beyond Misunderstandings), Tokyo: Iwanami gendai bunko.
Okamura, S. (2004) ʻ 中国の愛国主義教 育 に 関 す る 諸 規 定 ʼ (Regulations on Chinaʼs Patriotic
Education), レファレンス (Reference), 54(12), 69–80.
Onuma, Y. (2007a) 東京裁判、戦争責任、戦後責任 (The Tokyo Trials, War Responsibility, PostWar Responsibility), Tokyo: Toshindo.
Onuma, Y. (2007b)「慰安婦」問題とは何だったのか (What Was the ʻComfort Womenʼ Issue?),
Tokyo: Chuko shinsho.
Sato, K. (2008) 上 海 版 歴 史 教 科 書 の『 扼 殺 』(The ʻStrangulationʼ of the Shanghai History
Textbook), Tokyo: Nihon kyohosha.
Shang, H. (2005) ʻ 中国人戦争被害意識の心理構造 ʼ (The Psychological Structure of Chinese
War Victimhood), アジア遊学 (Intriguing Asia), 72, 94–105.
Shinbo, A. (2006) ʻ 中 国 の 歴 史 教 育 ʼ (Chinaʼs History Education), 日 本 の 科 学 者 (Journal ofJapanese Scientists), 41(1), 36–41.
Shirk, S.L. (2008) 中国 危うい超大国 (China: Fragile Superpower), trans. Iehiro Tokugawa, Tokyo:
NHK shuppan.
Shoji, J. (2010) ʻ 日中歴史共同研究を振り返って ʼ (Looking Back at the Japan–China Joint History
Research), in Tokushi Kasahara (ed.), 戦争を知らない国民のための日中歴史認識 (A Japan–
China Historical Perception for the People Who Do Not Know War), Tokyo: Bensei shuppan,
pp. 93–118.
Sugimoto, N. (2006) 大地の咆哮――元上海総領事が見た中国―― (The Roar of the Land: China
as Seen by the Former Consul-General of Shanghai), Tokyo: PHP Institute.
Takahara, A. (2010) ʻ 未来へと続く歴史――東アジアの二十〜二十一世紀に向けて ʼ (History
Continuing into the Future: Towards East Asia in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Century), in
Akikazu Hashimoto, Mike Mochizuki and Kurayoshi Takara (eds), 日米中トライアングルと沖縄クエスション――安全保障と歴史認識の共有に向けて (The Japan–US–China Triangle andthe Okinawa Question: Towards Shared National Security and Historical Perception), Tokyo:
Toji shobo, pp. 65–79.
Takeuchi, Y. (1993) 日本とアジア (Japan and Asia), Tokyo: Chikuma shobo.
Tanaka, A. (1983) ʻ『 教 科 書 問 題 』 を め ぐ る 中 国 の 政 策 決 定 ʼ (Chinaʼs Policy-Making with
Regard to the ʻTextbook Issueʼ), in Tatsumi Okabe (ed.), 中国外交――政策決定の構造 (China
Diplomacy: The Structure of Policy-Making), Tokyo: Japan Institute of International Affairs, pp.
193–219.

32
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Jun’ichiro Shoji

Tanaka, A. (1991) 日中関係
of Tokyo Press.

1945―1990 (Japan–China Relations: 1945–1990), Tokyo: University

Tanaka, A. (2007) アジアのなかの日本 (Japan in Asia), Tokyo: NTT shuppan.
Tateno, M. (2001) ʻ 検 定・ 採 択 に う ず ま く 深 謀 遠 慮 ʼ (Far Sight and Deep Design in theProcesses of Screening and Adoption), 中央公論 (Central Review), 116(8), 113–125.
Tonami, M. (2005) ʻ 日本人にとって中国とは何か ʼ (What Is China to the Japanese?), in Isamu
Ogata et al., (eds), 中国の歴史 12 日本にとって中国とは何か (Chinese History 12: What Is
China to Japan?), Tokyo: Kodansha, pp. 283–347.
Ueda, M. (2005) ʻ 中国人の歴史意識 ʼ (The Chinese Sense of History), in Isamu Ogata et al., (eds),
中国の歴史 12 日本にとって中国とは何か (Chinese History 12: What Is China to Japan?),
Tokyo: Kodansha, pp. 121–181.
Wang, J. (2011) 中国「反日」活動家の証言 (Testimonies of Chinese ʻAnti-Japaneseʼ Activities),
Sun Zhongping, trans. Tokyo: Kawade shobo shinsha.
Wang, X. (2006) ʻ 中国の教科書から見る分断した日本像と日中関係 ʼ (The Split Image of Japanand Japan–China Relations as Seen in Chinese Textbooks), 東亜 (Asia Monthly), 466, 72-81.
Yabuki, S. (2004) 日本の風穴――未来に向う日中関係―― (Windhole on Japan: Japan–China
Relations towards the Future), Tokyo: Bensei shuppan.
Yamazaki, J.W. (2006) Japanese Apologies for World War II: A Rhetorical Study, London & New
York: Routledge.
Yang, Z. (2006) ʻ 戦争賠償問題から戦後補償問題へ ʼ (From the War Reparations Issue to the
Post-War Compensations Issue), in Liu Jie, Hiroshi Mitani and Yang Daqing (eds), 国境を越える歴史認識――日中対話の試み (Historical Perception across National Borders: Attempting
Japan–China Dialogue), Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, pp. 315–345.
Yokoyama, H. (1994) 日中の障壁――戦争と友好の代償 (The Wall between Japan and China:
Price of War and Friendship), Tokyo: Simul shuppankai.
Yoshida, Y. (1995) 日本人の戦争観 (The Japanese View on War), Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.
Yuge, T. (2006・2007) ʻ 中国の歴史教科書における『抗日戦争』（上）・（下）ʼ (The ʻAnti-JapaneseWarʼ in Chinese History Textbooks), parts 1 and 2, 愛 媛 大 学 法 文 学 部 論 集 人 文 科 学 編(Bulletin of the Faculty of Law and Literature, Ehime University), 20 and 22, pp. 39–57(20), pp.
111–131(22).

33Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

History and Memory Issues in Europe and Asia: Acknowledging Similarities for a Better Understanding of Contemporary Tensions

History and Memory Issues in Europe and Asia: Acknowledging
Similarities for a Better Understanding of Contemporary Tensions
Valérie Niquet
Senior Visiting Fellow, JIIA

I

n 1989, Francis Fukuyama wrote his famous essay “The End of Histor y? ” Since thenhowever, histor y and memor y issues have become more important and have acquireda greater sense of urgency. These issues have become major matters of debate when
examining the critical question of the use of history and the role of memory in post-colonial
identity constructions and contemporary power games, with a strong linkage between internal
politics and external strategies.

Similar Debates, Different Factors
In France: Between the Necessar y Acceptance of Past Deeds and the Rejectionof Non-Debatable Narratives

In Europe, two perspectives must be distinguished concerning the debates on history. The firstone is that of intra-European relations, defined by centuries of conflicts and massacres. The
two world wars of the twentieth century, with their aberrant ideologies and the mass targetingof civilian populations culminating in racial extermination marked̶until today̶the pinnacleof such a violent history. This traumatic experience also led to a determination to avoid futurewars and to erase all sources of tensions, including history. The second dimension is that of thecolonial past of European powers, and the relatively recent recognition of the need to take thispast into account, in relation to migration and identity issues.
This debate is particularly significant in France, where more than 80% of the immigrant
population comes from former colonies in the Maghreb, with the highest number from Algeria
where the decolonization was the most traumatic on both sides. This situation raises the questionof reconciliation in much more complex terms than with Germany, the usual model invoked.
In the French case, the debate is focused not just on difficult issues related to a controversialcolonial past and decolonization process, but also on integration and identity-building among
second or third-generation immigrants.
The growing attention given to former victimsʼ narratives and claims emerged from both
the reality of the colonial past and from contemporary social tensions, while at the same time
becoming an important element of these tensions.
The use of history by some groups to assert their identity and increase their influence also
poses a challenge for the historian, who may be asked to “clarify” his position on the basis ofmoral grounds rather than historical research. The adoption of “memorial laws” by the French
Parliament was a direct consequence of these debates and was intended to impose an official
version of histor y, in order to acknowledge past wrongs in the name of ver y contemporar ypolitical and social issues.
Perfect objectivity in history is illusory, but historical research is based on facts and archival
work. Historical research can be used to support memory claims, but it also exists to avoid thepossibility of completely distorting histor y. However, in many countries, histor y, more thanscience, has been for years the source of national narratives. It remains, in undemocratic orfragile countries with a poor sense of legitimacy, an instrument at the service of internal politics
34
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Valérie Niquet

and external strategies.

In Asia: A Focus on Japan Based on Strategic Rivalries

In Asia, similar issues related to history do exist, but the debate is more focused on the role ofJapan as a colonial power and an aggressor during the Second World War, and far less on thelegacies of this colonial past in contemporary Japanese society. The internal political dimensionof the debate in Japan, despite the strong presence of a Korean and Chinese minority, is far lesssignificant than in Europe, where factors such as demography and economic difficulties areomnipresent.1
In the Asia-Pacific, the strategic dimension remains the dominant factor. The reactivation oftensions linked to history is a sign of more profound rivalries in an unstable strategic framework.
Questions of history are directly related to contemporary international relations. For the Peopleʼs
Republic of China (PRC), one of the major powers in the region, historical issues constitute an
essential instrument for asserting its ambitions based on “historical claims,” nourishing strategiccompetition, and increasing ideological legitimacy.
At the military strategy level, historical issues for the PRC are also a significant element of
its offensive “information war” that can be particularly effective to degrade the image of Japanamong other democracies.
Controversial historical issues in former colonial powers in Europe are not that different fromthe situation in Asia, where Japan followed the colonial and imperial models of Western powers
after the Meiji Restoration.2 However, a lack of knowledge of the Asian context among historians,
politicians and media in Europe, and the lack of awareness of the strong similarities among the
behaviors of former colonial powers̶be it Imperial Japan, the British Empire or the French
Republic̶make it more difficult to understand the logic behind the official narratives used bysome countries to achieve purposes not related to history.
Despite the European experience of the Cold War and the propaganda war with the Soviet
Union and its allies, the similarities are not understood, and it is still often the Chinese - or Korean- narratives that prevail, failing to maintain a critical distance, that should not be confused with adenial of historical crimes.
Japanʼs ties with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy during the war, a lack of knowledge of postwar developments in Japan (apart from its close alliance with the United States, which was
also used during the Cold War to build images of resurgent militarism) and the sometimes
awkwardness of Japanese public diplomacy on sensitive issues explain this state of affairs.

Complexity versus Oversimplification

However, ignorance is mutual. In Asia, the idealized model of Franco-German reconciliation
remains the primary reference, when in fact it is probably the least relevant and ill-adapted to thecurrent tensions that have emerged around the role of China in East Asia.
The common point of history and memory issues in Europe and Asia is their complexity. The
main challenge for Europe looking at Asia, as well as Asia observing the “European model,” is tobe aware of this complexity.
At first sight, historical issues related to colonialism and imperialism only concern theEuropean powers and Japan. However, the first layer of complexity lies in the fact that colonizationand issues related to it could be perceived differently according to the situation of the countries
1

The proportion of foreigners in Japan, including second or third-generation Koreans, is less than 2%;
whereas in some European countries, including France, the percentage is above 10%. The figure does
not include French nationals whose parents are of immigrant origin.

2

The Meiji Restoration began in 1868.

35
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

History and Memory Issues in Europe and Asia: Acknowledging Similarities for a Better Understanding of Contemporary Tensions

concerned. Thus, in Southeast Asia, the Japanese colonizer sometimes initially appeared as
an “emancipator” with respect to Western colonial powers, helping to build or revive national
identities. At a more uncomfortable level, the case of elite collaboration with colonial powers is
another factor that still resonates today, particularly in countries such as South Korea.
However, complexity also results from the fact that other actors come into play, who are lessmentioned despite the significant influence they still play in contemporary international relations.
In Asia, this is the case of China, whose slogan of “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” ( 中国民族大复兴 ) evolved in direct reference to the “century of humiliatio” ( 百年国耻 ) that China
suffered from the first Opium war to the communist victory in 1949. However, this slogan also
relates to the ambition of todayʼs Chinese regime to re-establish China as the leading powerin East Asia, using ancient concepts such as 天下 (all under Heaven), 大国小国 (big and small
powers) or 和 谐 (harmony) as ways to achieve that ambition. Meanwhile, China denies any
expansionism on its part, despite the fact that its contemporary territorial claims and definitionof “core interests” ( 核心的利益 ) are an expansion of what was considered to constitute “China
proper”, based on the last Qing Manchu dynastyʼs claims to control Tibet, Xinjiang and Mongolia.
Outside of China, Vietnam suf fered French colonization, but the memor y of Chinese
domination over North Vietnam, which extended from 111 to 938 and then briefly again under
the Ming Dynasty, remains present today. Similarly, in Korea, the Manchu protectorate, under theso-called “tributary” system, remained in place from the seventeenth century until the Chinese
defeat during the first Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895, which ended with the signing of the Treatyof Shimonoseki that liberated Korea from the Qing control.3

The Role of Witnesses in Asia and Europe: A Question of Legitimacy-Building

Another level of complexity comes from the role played by witnesses in contemporary historicaltensions. The legitimacy of witnesses in histor y comes from the European model, in which
testimony of Holocaust survivors that was initially not fully recognized, particularly in France,
became essential in fighting the influence of anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers who became more
vocal during the 1980s and 1990s.
However, in the Asian context, and this is a complex issue, some witnessesʼ initiatives, while
seeking legitimacy in the European model and references to the Shoah, were less related to
the need to testify about the past than to the role played by organizations initiated or influenced
by states or political movements. As shown in some famous cases, these witnesses became̶
consciously or not̶the players in a game that, in Asia, encompasses much more than historicalissues.
This was the case in Japan with soldiers of the former Imperial army whose testimonies,
sometimes reconstructed, were taken up by the liberal press and the pacifist movements in thecontext of the Cold War.4 The same is true of the “comfort women,” who, for some of them, taking
into account their undeniable sufferings as sexually exploited women, have also become militant
actors in a cause directly related to contemporary political issues, particularly in South Korea.
In these cases, the complexity of the issues at stake is magnified by the strategy of states that
control historical narratives so that they contribute to the legitimacy of the political regime andprevent any questioning of the official line.
At another level, and regardless of the country, the decision to open archives and make themavailable is never totally neutral, and is also part of political or geopolitical objectives that can
3

Korea then became prey of Russian and then Japanese ambitions and influence, leading to the 1905
Russo-Japanese war.

4

This is for instance the case of Seiji Yoshida, a former soldier of the Imperial army, who testified how
he abducted dozens of women in Jeju, Korea. The information was published by the Asahi Shimbun in
1982, and then retracted in 2014 after Yoshida admitted that he had fabricated it.

36
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Valérie Niquet

evolve in time. After the First World War, the opening of diplomatic archives by the Allied Powers
was intended to demonstrate their lack of responsibility in starting the war. Territorial issues in
Asia are also the subject of archival confrontations involving contemporary state entities as well
as former colonial powers.

Political Regime and Political Will: The Conditions for Reconciliation
Despite the complexity of the issues at stake, a few factors do play a major role in thereconciliation process. The first factor, whatever the historical facts, is the democratic nature of
the political system in place and its degree of openness. A high degree of freedom of access tosources for both domestic and foreign historians, free debate, and limited political interferencein historical debates are conditions that facilitate reconciliation and the sincere and long term
recognition of a former adversaryʼs “repentance”. In democracies, the desire for reconciliation asa basis for positive international relations, an awareness of the risks of manipulating history, as
well as the existence of check and balances, create conditions for a dialogue that can lead to theelaboration of a shared history.
In non-democratic states, renouncing the instrumentalization of history can also be a tacticalchoice, ser ving broader issues. This is the case of China where, in the 1970s, Mao Zedong
and then Deng Xiaoping chose not to raise the issue of past historical tensions to reach a rapid
agreement with Japan. The political context in the PRC at that time, as well as the Sino-Soviet
conflict, played a role in that decision. For the communist regime, issues such as the “Nanking
Massacre,” which took place in the capital of the nationalist government during the war, were
not relevant and did not fit into a narrative where the communist party was presented as the sole
active combatant against Japan.
In other situations, as in the case of Eastern European countries eager to join the European
Union after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the evolution of historical research in the directionof greater transparency and objectivity̶on very sensitive issues such as antisemitism̶was also
intended to demonstrate the democratic evolution of these states and justify their candidacies.
The geopolitical situation is therefore another essential factor, including in Europe, whichmakes it possible to manage past conflicts, sometimes at the cost of dealing in depth with memory
issues and taking the risk of reopening old wounds at the civil society level. Reconciliation forpolitical and geopolitical reasons, such as the Franco-German rapprochement, is a good exampleof that will to “forgive” at the cost of neglecting the clarification of tensions inside both societies.
Thus, in the treatment of the First World War in histor y textbooks, the conflict is presented
as a shared tragedy, with less attention to responsibilities, and the stress is increasingly on
the common fate of soldiers on both sides. The “imperative of oblivion” between France andGermany, “hereditary enemies” since 1870, was the dominant factor until the 1970s. This was at
the cost of overlooking more troublesome issues such as collaboration, antisemitism and the roleof France in the implementation of Nazi racial policy, as well as the fact that reconciliation was
initiated at a time when civil society and political elites in Germany had not yet come to grips withthe past. An American historian, Robert Paxton, with his book Vichy France: Old Guard and New
Order 1940-1944 published in 1972, was the person who opened the debate on the factors thatwere left out of the process of Franco-German reconciliation.

The Strategic Factor
The strategic factor has been the second element at the heart of the choice between a willingness
to forget and a desire to reactivate conflicts and memor y issues. During the Cold War,incorporation into the Eastern or Western bloc based on geographical location was crucial in theway history and memory issues were managed.
West Germany benefited rapidly from the Cold War, which made it a vital ally in the heart
37
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

History and Memory Issues in Europe and Asia: Acknowledging Similarities for a Better Understanding of Contemporary Tensionsof Europe against the Soviet bloc. It was also the case of Japan, which went from the status ofenemy to being the closest ally of the United States. These global strategic incentives have played
an essential part in the success of the reconciliation process between Germany and France, as
well as between Japan and the United States. However, in the case of Germany, the process ofEuropean reconstruction also played a significant role in favor of reintegrating Germany as alegitimate state and ally.
In Asia, the fact that Japan was closely integrated into the US-led system of bilateral alliances
to counter the expansion and influence of communism in the region also made it possible to sign
a peace treaty in 1952 with the Republic of China in Taiwan that did not mandate the payment of
reparations. For President Chiang Kai-shek, the main issue was also strategic, and this issue isstill present today.
On questions related to how Taiwan perceives Japan and how Japan perceives Taiwan,
historical issues, such as for instance the question of “comfort women,” can resurface in a lowkey way, but such issues are essentially, on the Taiwanese side, a marker of the will to belong
and relate to “China.” In Taiwan, a Japanese colony from 1895 to 1945, the question of identity
and conflicting memories is at the heart of contemporar y political issues between the KMT(Kuomintang) and the pro-independence DPP (Democratic Progressive Party). Taiwanese
identity has also been built with a positive attitude to Japan and a strongly negative stance toward
mainland China. This is because political leadership coming from the continent imposed, from1945 to the democratization process of the 1980s, a strict political control over the island and any
autonomy aspirations or cultural differenciation.
Moreover, in Taiwan, the memory of the February 28 “incident” in 1947, which is estimatedto have claimed the lives of between 10,000 and 30,000 people after the mainland republican army
took control of the island, remains much more vivid than Japanʼs war crimes. Today, it is also thesharing of common democratic values that is at the heart of relations between Taiwan and Japan,
often described as a model of “positive reconciliation” in Asia.
In this context, the end of the Cold War did not play the same role in Europe and Asia. In
Western and Eastern Europe, it opened the way to reconciliation, as was the case between Poland
and Germany, while at the same time reopening questions of history inside the former Eastern
bloc that were long left unanswered by the strategic and ideological constraints of the Cold War.5
The consequences have not been the same in Asia. In that region, two elements were at play. The
Sino-Soviet conflict that erupted in 1960 and Beijingʼs perception of the Soviet Union as the mainthreat were the decisive factors that led to Chinaʼs rapprochement in the early 1970s with theUnited States and Japan.
The end of the Cold War, followed by the end of the Soviet Union, have, on the contrary, led
to a resumption of tensions with Japan. Since the mid-1990s, the “China factor” plays a major role.
The Chinese regime increasingly used Japan as a “target” in its nationalist eduction campaigns,
in the context of a growing ideological insecurities and the consecutive desire to assert itself
as the leading power in Asia. This change of posture on the part of China has led to the reinstrumentalization of historical issues and the recent increase in memorial commemorations and“Japanese war crime” museums.
The case of South Korea is, however, atypical. Japan and the Republic of Korea (South Korea)
were allies of the United States during the Cold War and still remain US allies. The two countries
share strong common strategic interests. However, political evolution in South Korea after the
democratization of 1987 has played a significant role in elevating tensions concerning historicalissues with Japan. The incentive to cultivate anti-Japanese sentiments is present on both sides of
5

The case of the Katyn massacre of Poland Military and civilian elites by Soviet troops is a major exampleof these tensions long denied by the regimes in place.

38
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Valérie Niquet

the political spectrum in South Korea.
Conser vative par ties, marred by the collaboration of elites with Imperial Japan duringcolonization, must demonstrate their nationalist credentials.6 For the opposition, anti-Japanesenationalism also ser ves to strengthen its legitimacy against conser vative. In both cases, thedenunciation of Japan also helps to build a sense of national unity and belonging in a divided
peninsula.
However, in other parts of Asia such as South-East Asia, the emergence of a perceived
growing threat from China is a major factor that explains the easing of tensions stemming fromthe Second World War. A desire to counterbalance an increasingly assertive China is contributing
to greater expectations vis-à-vis Japan, including on security questions. This is notably the caseof Vietnam, which, despite the proximity of its political regime with the PRC, has moved closer toTokyo and Washington.

The Cause of Failure: What Makes Reconciliation Impossible
Paradoxically, the more the Second World War and the Cold War fade into the past, the more
historical issues seem to regain importance. On one side, the democratic characteristics of a stateargue in favor of reconciliation, but they can also open the doors to the reemergence of tensions
that may be rooted in some segments of civil societies.
In the post-communist countries of Eastern Europe, after an initial quiet period related tothe desire to join the European Union, greater freedom of speech has set off disturbing debatesaround the notion of equal victimhood, which equates the suffering of local populations in
the Second World War with the misery unleased in the eradication of long-established Jewish
communities.
As demonstrated by the case of South Korea, despite common strategic interests, thecombination of political liberalization and nationalism in a recently democratized political system
can become a negative factor for reconciliation. In democratic countries, the rapid expansion ofsocial media and the internet also plays a role.
Processes of reconciliation implemented from the top, such as the establishment of diplomatic
relations in 1965 between Japan and South Korea, as well as the 2015 final agreement on the“comfort women” issue signed between President Park Geun-hye and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe,can be challenged for domestic political reasons, despite their positive strategic motives.
In France, positions on anti-colonialism and the Algerian war have long been strong markers
of division between left and right. Any intermediate position, such as that of the writer Albert
Camus, that takes into account the fate of people whose families had been living in Frenchcolonies for generations, or that of the harkis who fought along French troops and who wereabandoned to violent reprisals after independence, has long been rejected. The concepts of “mutual
contribution” and diversity, which are constantly referred to in an increasingly diverse France,
have little legitimacy in post-colonial societies, particularly in Algeria, where resentment against
the former colonial “ruler” still constitutes an essential element of the regimeʼs legitimacy.
Furthermore, in France, history and memory issues related to the countryʼs colonial past
have become important factors in domestic politics. How to teach history, with the controversial
adoption of “memorial laws,” is an object of political debate related to the integration of people ofimmigrant origin into society and questioning of the French model of assimilation.
In European societies, the collapse of political ideologies has also made the search for identity
based on the denunciations of past crimes such as slavery and colonization a critical element of

6

For instance, General Park Chung-hee, father of former president Park Geun-hye (who was impeachedin 2016), was an officer in the Japanese Imperial army during the war.

39
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

History and Memory Issues in Europe and Asia: Acknowledging Similarities for a Better Understanding of Contemporary Tensions

new “memory wars” that fuel resentments within some segments of the immigrant population.7

Asymmetr y and “Resentment-Nationalism”
Another factor impeding reconciliation, often related to ideological divisions and the lack of
democracy, is power asymmetry between formerly “dominant” and “dominated” states.
This is particularly the case between Algeria and France, Poland and Germany, Poland
and Russia, Korea and Japan, and China and Japan. “Resentment-Nationalism,” whose focus
is to “wash out” past and present “humiliations,” and is at the heart of some regimesʼ survival
strategies, as in the Peopleʼs Republic of China since the mid-1990s, is a factor that hinders longterm reconciliation. This type of discourse discourages debate on controversial issues that could
challenge, or diverge from, the official line.
At the bilateral level between Beijing and Tokyo, the return of Japan as a “normal” power in
Asia, which could upset a strategic balance favorable to Beijingʼs interests, is denied in the nameof past abuses and the negation of Japanʼs political choices and evolution since 1945.
The challenge for the targeted states is to maintain a balance while not appearing to be
indifferent or revisionist, as both attitudes can have negative consequences for the global image
and strategic interests of the that state.
Thus, in reaction to the erection of “comfort women” statues in the United States, Japan̶
whose main strength and influence reside in the democratic and open characteristics of its
political system and society̶has sometimes be tempted to over-react in ways that may have led
to negative consequences. The lack of knowledge of the real issues at stake, and of the similarities
between what all former colonial powers (in Europe and Asia) did, can only exacerbate thesenegative consequences, which underscores the need for finely-tuned communication.

Conclusion

In many cases, histor y itself is not the real issue or factor that prevents a long-term processof stable reconciliation. Rather, it is the utilization, according to the strategic priorities of the
moment, of issues of history by some states or interest groups that undermines reconciliation.
The decision to commemorate specific past events, such as the Vel dʼHiv roundup of the Jewish
population in France in 1942, the violent repression of demonstrations in Sétif, Algeria in 1945,
or, in the case of China, the Nanjing Massacre, is made by the powers in place to give strong
signals not just to their own public, but to specifically targeted countries and to the international
community as a whole.
The very idea of stable reconciliation is almost impossible without a political transformationthat modifies paradigms of legitimacy. But paradoxically, in the most controlled societies, it isat the level of civil society that forgiveness can exist, in spite of and in opposition to an official
narrative that puts the stress on past grievances. The growing number of Chinese tourists
and students in Japan, the importance of Algerian emigration in France, and strong culturalinteractions between South Korea and Japan are positive examples.
Reconciliation is thus possible, in spite of lingering historical issues. However, for a longterm and non-controversial reconciliation among nations, a series of conditions must be met.
Foremost of them are the establishment of democratic characteristics and the sharing of strong
common strategic interests. It is therefore problematic to speak of an ideal universal model ofreconciliation when these conditions are not met, as is the case today in Asia. Even in Europe,
where this model is based on robust democracies and a strong ambition to achieve peace andreconciliation on the continent, it remains fragile, as the rise of populism has demonstrated.
7

However, the low level of activism of the Korean community living in Japan on contentious issues like
“comfort women” must be noted.

40
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Jonathan Berkshire Miller

Post-War U.S.-Japan Reconciliation:
Healing as a National Security Strategy
Jonathan Berkshire Miller
Senior Visiting Fellow, JIIAOn November 30, 2017, the Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA), co-hosted a daylong symposium with the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace (CEIP), entitled “PostWar U.S.-Japan Reconciliation: Healing as a National Security Strategy”. The following is abrief synopsis of the event.

T

he relatively swift transformation of the U.S.-Japan relationship after World War II̶
from brutal enemies with racial animus to close allies is a remarkable product ofhistory, yet mutual efforts by many players in support of this historical reconciliation
process are rarely considered in the foreign policy arena. Moreover, the valuable
contribution that these efforts make to each countryʼs long-term national security is generally
unappreciated, even as the lack of such progress among many countries in East Asia is bemoaned
and seen to be a serious geopolitical risk factor. Last year marked the 70th year since Japan
enacted its post-War constitution and it is important to reflect upon bilateral reconciliation efforts,
what they have accomplished, what helped or hindered these efforts, and what work remains.
During discussions in Washington, D.C. a group of experts and scholars focused on the USJapan relationship gathered at the offices of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace inWashington, D.C. with an aim to consider these issues from a contemporary foreign policy andnational security perspective as well as from a historical one, in order to examine them in a global
context to think through what̶if any̶lessons might apply to broader geopolitical relations in
Asia today.
The conference began with senior representatives from JIIA and CEIP stressing theimportance of looking at US-Japan reconciliation from the perspective of how it serves as thefoundation for national strategy and modern diplomacy for both countries. Historical tension
is often so pervasive in the region that it becomes an organizing principle, of sorts, for nations
politics and foreign policy. This has been evident time and again in Northeast with tensions
between Japan and its neighbors, China and South Korea. As participants noted, the U.S.-Japansituation is unique, as U.S. and Japan shared an incredibly intense, but relatively brief periodof conflict around World War II, and yet managed steadily to overcome the animosities related
to that legacy and creating a strong security alliance and economic relationship. Histor y issomething that one cannot undo but is something that is one of the crucial determinants of where
Japan is today.

Morning Address: Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D) – MA
Congresswoman Tsongas made a morning address to start the conference and noted that Japanis one of the United Statesʼ greatest friends and most critical allies. She then recanted some of her
own personal experience with Japan when she lived there with her family in the 1960s, when her
41Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Post-War U.S.-Japan Reconciliation: Healing as a National Security Strategy

father was an air force pilot. Tsongas spent her time emphasizing the close economic and security
ties of the alliance and noted that from a state-level, Japan is Massachusettsʼs fifth largest trading
partner, with companies operating in a diverse array of fields, such as pharmaceuticals, medical
devices, manufacturing and electronics, that are Japanese-owned, supporting jobs and innovative
new products in a wide range of areas. Tsongas also highlighted the key security challenges in
the region, a fact which has been underscored by the provocative actions of North Korea as oflate, and of Chinaʼs destabilizing activities in the maritime domain (East and South China Seas).
According to the Congresswoman, it is important for Tokyo and Washington to have dialogue andcommunication at every level to further the long-term relationship.

Panel 1 Discussion: US-Japan Historical Reconciliation:
Dr. Jennifer Lind, Dartmouth College
Dr. Lind opened up the panel with a thoughtful discussion of the key milestones in US-Japan
reconciliation, such as President Obamaʼs recent visit to Hiroshima and Shinzo Abeʼs visit to Pearl
Harbor. Lind stressed that those visits, and the remarks made by both leaders, showed empathy
for the suffering on the other side and a strong commitment to friendship. But, while important,
Lind also emphasized that such visits donʼt cause reconciliation – rather they are the result of it.
According to Lind, reconciliation – which was true in the case between Washington and Tokyo comes first from a strategic need that pushes countries together. It is only in this case - and underthose conditions - that leaders have incentives to accept what are often massive domestic politicalcosts of pursuing reconciliation toward a formerly hated adversary.
Lind went on to discuss the vast gulf in remembrance on both sides, which is common
after conflict where each side sees the other as the aggressor who is at fault, toward whom no
sympathy, no concessions are owed. Each side sees itself as acting in self-defense. This gives
rise to opposing narratives in which each side frames itself as a victim. As Lind noted, often“entrepreneurial politicians” use such fears in order to seize or consolidate power. With regard
to the US-Japan alliance, Lind stressed that the relationship grew out of shared strategic needduring the Cold War, aimed at Soviet containment but continues today amidst shared interests ina geopolitically volatile East Asian environment. Lind pointed to a number of key examples over
the years that were the result of this reconciliation such as Obamaʼs visit to Hiroshima and Abeʼsvisit to the USS Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor.
Lind concluded with discussion on Japanʼs relations with South Korea, noting “cautious
pessimism” while stressing that South Korea continues to hedge between China and the US –preventing real space for reconciliation at the state level. Lind noted that the 2015 comfort womenagreement, despite the current uncertainty of the deal, was a good start and showed tremendous
compromise on both sides.

Dr. Toshihiro Nakayama, Keio University
Dr. Nakayama began his talk by noting that the basic conditions of the U.S.-Japan relationship andthen went on to discuss the historical background to this relationship before World War II, suchas the links during the Meiji restoration period. Nakayama noted that this part of history should
not be forgotten when looking at US-Japan reconciliation. At the same time, Nakayama noted thestrains within Japan in the post-war period where some groups attached themselves to pacifism
after the war and were cautious on the alliance with Washington; others say the US-Japan allianceas a hurdle to Japanʼs sovereignty and ability to be a “normal” nation. Of course, this is a point thatis less contentious nowadays and Nakayama noted all the historical markers and relationshipsthat have lifted and sustained the alliance, such as the growth during the Reagan-Nakasone years
or the George W. Bush and Junichiro Koizumi years. Nakayama stressed that these efforts made42
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Jonathan Berkshire Miller

space for the later reconciliation efforts such as Obamaʼs visit to Hiroshima and Abeʼs visit toPearl Harbor.
Nakayama concluded with discussion on the US-Japan relationship in its current state. He
noted that, while many in Japan were concerned when President Donald Trump was elected in
the US last year, Tokyo was able to move forward because the US remains the best choice forJapan as an ally and friend. This alliance will lead both sides to address a constantly evolving
security environment in East Asia.

Dr. Michael Auslin, Stanford University
Dr. Auslin closed the session by posing the question on whether US-Japan efforts since 1945
is more a sign of cooperation, due to shared interests, rather than true reconciliation. When
exploring this further, he looked at the question of “what is reconciliation?” and put forth three
types of reconciliation: temporal, geographical and societal. Auslin noted that the first one
suggests that time has “healed wounds” over the seven decades following World War II. The
second category, focused on geography, premises that reconciliation has been helped due to thegeographic distance between Japan and the US providing a geopolitical buffer of sorts. The final
category, looking at societal reconciliation, is the most important and difficult for Auslin.
Auslin noted that societal reconciliation can be sub-categorized in three realms: state, groups
and individuals. In this vein, he noted while states can reconcile without incredible difficulty –this question is much more challenging for groups and individuals. Auslin used examples of some
US prisoners of war and there lingering bitterness and inability to reconcile. He concluded thatreconciliation is a far more fraught process, beyond the state level, and is probably much morefragile than what we might think.

Luncheon Keynote Discussion:
Keynote: Ambassador Michael Armacost, Stanford University
Ambassador Armacost opened the lunch keynote speech by noting that US-Japan reconciliation
is an issue that is a personal for him, as he was alive before World War II. He noted thatreconciliation is a challenging and constant process but was necessar y to heal the ghosts of
the War. Washington and Tokyo needed to acknowledge the past and yet seek to overcome
it, transform their status from arch-enemies into strategic partners. Armacost then discussed
the immediate post-war history and the relatively benign occupation and how that contributed
to reconciliation. Afterwards, Armacost noted that the emergence of the Cold War prompted
the transformation of the US occupation of Japan into an alliance. This alliance proved not
only durable but it always provided incentive on the American side to cultivate a cooperative
relationship with the Japanese.
Armacost stressed that, in light of Cold War realities, it was hardly surprising that politicalreconciliation moved for ward. It was probably easier for Americans and was taken on withgreater comfort level and more readily than it was for the Japanese. For Japan, reconciliation
offered practical benefits and an evident geopolitical logic. Armacost concluded with discussionof current day situation and noted that he thought Prime Minister Abeʼs statement history, madeon the 70th anniversary of the conclusion of World War II, came “pretty close” to coming to termswith Japanʼs actions during the conflict. Armacost also mentioned that there should be less a
focus on apologies – for which Japan has made on several occasions – and more on education
related to the war in Japan. Armacost finished up by noting the strong links for the US and Japanand called it a “global alliance”.
During the Q&A session, Armacost noted that the Japan-South Korea agreement in 2015
seemed to be a reasonable one but it is unfortunate that it has not been implemented as expected.
43Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Post-War U.S.-Japan Reconciliation: Healing as a National Security Strategy

Discussant: Dr. Gerald Curtis, Columbia University
Dr. Curtis, as a discussant for Ambassador Armacost, noted the uniqueness of the US-Japan
relationship and its strength through reconciliation. For Curtis, reconciliation is not about
forgetting or forgiving, but about overcoming hatred and enmity and nurturing feelings of trustand friendship. Curtis stressed that this is what happened in the U.S.-Japan relationship after thewar. How did this happen? To answer this, Curtis noted a number of factors including: a relatively
benign occupation, the US government decision to retain the institution of the Emperor, and the
combination of US magnanimity in victory and Japanese humility in defeat.
Curtis also noted that the American militar y presence in Japan over decades resulted inmany soldiers and their families living in Japan and then coming back to the States with positive
stories to tell. Their experiences there was another important element in growing the US-Japan
relationship and alliance. He then went on to discuss other powerful elements such as intellectual
exchange programs like the Fulbright Commission and International House of Japan and therole the army and navy Japanese language programs played in producing a postwar coterie ofJapan specialists who were committed to a strong US-Japan relationship. This helped foster
reconciliation and, according to Curtis, showed that reconciliation was not simply about joint
strategic interests facing common threats, but also deep personal and social connections. He
noted that the JET program today is playing an important role in producing Japan specialists thatis comparable to the role played by the wartime military language program, and that it is doing so
in the context of peace rather than war.
During the Q&A session, Curitis noted, although he believes it was inappropriate for Korean
President Moon to invite a former comfort woman and serve “Dokdo shrimp” at the dinner hehosted for President Trump, the Japanese government had nothing to gain from protesting
his action. President Moon was playing to a domestic Korean audience which would not be
influenced by the Japanese protest. All it accomplished was to draw more international attention
to the comfort women issue. Continuing to protest the erection of comfort women statues incities and towns in the United States will only damage Japanʼs reputation. It would be far better
for Japanese to continue to express sympathy for these women and not do things that only
publicize the issue and inflame public opinion.

Panel 2 Discussion: US-Japan Historical Reconciliation in a Global Context:
Dr. Thomas Berger, Boston University
Dr. Berger opened the second panel by asking the question: when does histor y become aproblem? According to Berger, it tends to become a problem when you have a combination of two
factors: a collective set of memories and calculations of interest. With this background, Berger
spoke at length on the Japan-Korea relationship and noted it is unnatural in strategic terms forTokyo and Seoul to be at loggerheads. Part of the reason for the tension, according to Berger,
is the way in which the memory of relations with Japan has been politicized by South Korea
over the course of the last 70 years since the end of the colonial occupation. To illustrate this,Berger pointed to the Rhee years and his powerful movement to try to define a Korean identity
and create a sense of there being one Korea based on two principles: anti-communism and antiJapanese. Sometimes interests have trumped this political entrepreneurship in the Japan-Korea
relationship, but the struggle and emotions are social facts on the peninsula.
Berger noted that, when you have a combination of interests and of calculations, you canwind up with history becoming periodically a problem – as in the Japan-Korea case. Berger thenshifted to the US-Japan relationship as the anomaly case where there was great pain during thewar, but strong reconciliation efforts in the seven decades following. Much of this was due toshared interests and the Cold War, as previous panelists noted. As Berger stressed, history was
44Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Jonathan Berkshire Miller

not able to interfere in their strategic relationship in the way that history has interfered with theJapanese-Korean relationship. Closing on the ties between the US and Japan, Berger noted thatthe relationship is stabilized by the perception that there are common interests and network ofhuman ties that never give up on this process.
During the Q&A sessions, on the questions about the implications of political system to thereconciliation process, Berger noted, in a democratic country, while it may be more difficult forleaders to create a consensus, it is more meaningful because it has greater legitimacy and it canlead to greater societal change. He also pointed out that, in the reconciliation process, educationis one of the important tools. According to him, it can either promote or hinder reconciliation,
depending upon the type of narratives that you are perpetuating through the educational system.

Dr. Rohan Mukherjee, Yale NUS
Dr. Mukherjee focused his remarks on to issues in the context of historical reconciliation. First,
he compared U.S.-Japan reconciliation with the reconciliation that took place between the United
Kingdom and India since the end of the Second World War. And second, Mukherjee assessed theimplications of U.S.-Japan reconciliation for Asian security more broadly. On the issue of the UKIndia comparison, Mukherjee stressed the differences in the two cases but also noted importantsimilarities. As Mukherjee noted, there is similarity in the manner in which each of these
relationships periodically becomes contentious in the domestic politics of the countries involved.
So, according to Mukherjee, in Japan, there is of course resistance in certain quarters against
the U.S. alliance, particularly against the status of forces agreements and the impact of the U.S.
military presence.
The second theme of Mukherjeeʼs remarks focused on the implications of the U.S.-Japan
reconciliation on Asian security, and the most important question being: does reconciliation
between the U.S. and Japan come at the cost of reconciliation perhaps for Japan with othercountries. In this light, Mukherjee talked about historical ties between Japan and India bothduring and after the war. He also noted that the U.S.-Japan reconciliation has been beneficial forregional security but also noted that some argue that U.S. alliances in East Asia, including thatwith Japan, were structured as a hub and spoke system and so there was no complex multilateralform of cooperation that could effectively tie the U.S. down and create a community of intereststhat might eventually have evolved in a group identity in the way that the E.U. did.

Keiko Iizuka, Yomiuri Shimbun
Ms. Iizuka opened her talk by noting the series of key events that have hallmarked US-Japan
reconciliation, such as the Okinawa Reversion Agreement, and more recently President Obamaʼsvisit to Hiroshima and Prime Minister Abeʼs visit to the U.S.S Arizona Memorial, Pearl Harbor.
She insisted that these reciprocal visits clearly affected the public sentiment on both sides of the
U.S. and Japan. But, Iizuka then noted that the situation on reconciliation however is far different
with regard to Japan and its neighbors in East Asia. Iizuka spoke for some time on the difficulty ofhistorical reconciliation efforts with Okinawa and noted that the tensions over US bases, and alsothat between Tokyo and Naha, remains a big concern.
Iizuka noted that the citizen ʼ s personal sentiments could both contribute and damage
countriesʼ diplomatic relations including reconciliation on history. On the East Asian security
relationship and specifically ties between Japan and South Korea, she talked on how historicalissues have inhibited the two sides to move forward on practical security cooperation amidst
tensions on the Korean peninsula.

45
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Influence of Asia’s Colonization: Debating the Past, Present, and Future of Territorial Issues

Influence of Asia’s Colonization: Debating the Past, Present, andFuture of Territorial Issues
Monika Chansoria
Senior Visiting Fellow, JIIAOn February 23, 2018, JIIA, in collaboration with the Centre for Land War fare Studies(CLAWS), organized a symposium “Influence of Asia’s Colonization: Debating the Past,
Present, and Future of Territorial Issues” in New Delhi, India. The following is a brief synopsis
of the event.

R

e-visiting the historical and geopolitical narratives of 20th century Asia and the enduring
legacies of its colonization, have often generated a debate on how nation-states andtheir people view the impact and fallout of colonialism in varying ways. The 20th century
remained enmeshed in terms of disputes, wars, economics, and politics. Colonialism
and the period thereafter did, after all, make an indelible mark on demographics, borders,political systems, laws and customs, economies, cultural influx, and, identities.
The defining trends of Asiaʼs colonial past during the 20th century, for that matter, seems to becontinuing to cast a shadow on the ensuing century and Asiaʼs future that remains weaved with
it. The larger conceptual debate surrounding colonialism and the Asian experience does not get
limited to historical connotations only. There is a vital contemporary geopolitical and geostrategic
relevance to it. Historical narratives, re-interpretations, and/or distortions of history have been
critically linked to colonial legacies and experiences, with the objective to redraw frontiers andexpand spheres of influence by some states in the name of history.
Every phase of colonization, whether within Asia, or outside it, brought migration, introduced
new political and social systems, boundaries (claim lines), intrastate relationships and legacies
that got created out of that. This determined the direction in which Asian states moved
economically, politically, and socially. More importantly, it defined the manner in which Asian
nations developed their sense of nationhood. A major ramification of the colonial past and history
has been the failure of some states to come to terms with the past, which has been instrumental
in spurring competing/mutually reinforcing/overlapping themes of nationalisms, especiallypertaining to certain territories in the maritime domain, and on land, in East, Southeast, andSouth Asia.
To discuss this vital subject and its related themes, a symposium entitled Influence of Asia’sColonization: Debating the Past, Present, and Future of Territorial Issues was organized by The
Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA) in New Delhi, India, on Februar y 23, 2018, in
collaboration with the Centre for Land Warfare Studies. The symposium sought to discussand debate the journey and prominent milestones of Asian statesʼ colonial experiences, bothindividually, and as a region. It also strived to study and debate the impact of the evolving
geopolitical and strategic narratives emanating out of this colonial past of the Asian continent.
The symposium deliberated upon whether mutual economic development and warming up
will ever become an absolute substitute for political fissures that seem to be only getting deeper
46
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Monika Chansoria

among major Asian powers today. While Asian nation-states cannot amend/rewrite their [colonial]past, the endeavor of the discourse will be to evaluate the fixed vs. variable determinants thatwill influence Asiaʼs geopolitical and geostrategic future amid the backdrop of this colonial past.
Can Asia ever come to terms with its past and strive to make a collective effort to reduce theeconomic and political fault lines and build a cooperative future regionally? A brief overview ofthe proceedings is presented as follows.

The Era of Meiji Restoration

The keynote address of the symposium discussed and elaborated upon the 150th anniversary of
the Meiji Restoration. There was a big change of politics from 1867-68 to 1890, termed as the ʻMeiji
Restorationʼ when Japan established its parliament and went in for parliamentary politics.
The period before the Meiji Restoration – 265 years long Edo period (1603-1868) came after
the warring state period of the 16th century during which many feudal lords fought each othermaking Japan the strongest military power in the world at that time in terms of the number ofarms. Following the beginning of the Edo period, there was almost no war in Japan, for more than
two centuries.
The succeeding establishment of the Meiji government in 1868 under the central leadershipof the Emperor, saw astonishing results beginning with the abolishment of feudal domains,
leading to Japanʼs transformation to a real centralized nation in which social stratification becamemuch less rigid. Another major milestone of this period was the abolishment of bushi or the
warrior class – samurai. Within around 15 years, in 1889, the Japanese constitution was written
and parliament was started in 1890. Before that, a modern type of cabinet system was introducedin 1885 with Japanʼs first Prime Minister Ito Hirobumi who belonged to the lowest class of thesamurai. This was unimaginable during the Edo period, and therefore, the Meiji Restoration
was in a sense, a great class revolution as well, and became a revelation of the Japanese peopleʼs
power that had gotten accumulated earlier during the Edo period.
The Meiji period saw transformational changes and should ideally be described as the Meiji
Revolution, and not just ʻRestorationʼ. From a global perspective was a rare example of successfulchange achieved without the shedding of much blood. Scholars have termed the Meiji Restorationand the American experience of revolution, and independence as the least costly and most fruitfulaccumulative change in contemporar y histor y. The Meiji Restoration did not occur suddenly
just with the enthronement of the Emperor Meiji, but, was made possible because of gradualchanges that occurred during the Edo period that preceded it, such as an increase in population,
improvements in agriculture and industrialization, a high literacy rate, the rise of popular culture,and the development of a national consciousness throughout Japan.
The ensuing period when Japan defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese war, had a big impact
on the rise of nationalism throughout Asia and Africa. Japan, unfortunately, was unable to exercise
leadership with respect to those under colonialism, and instead acquired overseas territories
and repressed those who were under colonial rule. Japan later headed down the mistaken roadtoward the Pacific War. The concept of Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere ended up being
a failure because it expected no equality among its members. Moreover, members shared no
basic universal principles such as non-intervention in domestic politics or peaceful resolution of
conflicts. Nonetheless, the Pacific War did promote Asian nationalism. Japanʼs post-war approachto the world was roughly successful, although few changes could have been done after the endof the Cold War. In the context of contemporary times, it is high time for Japan to reconsider its
foreign policy and security policy, still very much based on the basic lines from 1945 onwards.

Histor y of Asia’s Colonization: The Territorial and Boundar y Issues
The first session of the symposium addressed the origins of territorial and border issues across47
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Influence of Asia’s Colonization: Debating the Past, Present, and Future of Territorial Issues

Asia and the history of its colonization. The panelists spelled out the following points broadly.
It is widely believed that modern international law is nothing more than the development ofinternational law as was seen in Europe at a time when there were many different versions ofinternational laws around the world. When discussing current territorial conflicts, it is important
to approach such conflicts from their respective historical perspectives, including those of premodern international law, to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue.
There were distinctive territorial concepts of “hanto” ( 版図 ; territory) and “kegai no chi” ( 化
外の地 ; lands outside imperial influence) in Japan before acceptance of the modern internationallaw. After the opening up to the West and onset of the Meiji Restoration period, Japan actively tookin Western “imperialist” international law and expanded its territories overseas. It is interestingthat there were intense discussions between China and Japan about the interpretation of theconcept “hodo” ( 封土 ; domain) in Article 1 of the Sino-Japanese Friendship and Trade Treaty
on whether it referred to a territory as defined by modern international law, or did it include thetributary states.
Under the French colonization, Indochina experienced rapid economic development in thefields of mining, industr y, agriculture, development of public works. Besides, infrastructure
was very impressive in Indochina at that time – with one of the largest networks of roads andbridges in Asia that served the colonial economy and transport of goods to the sea. But beyond
these material goods, one of the most important legacies was in the fields of law and usage ofconcepts considered to be better related to the principles of objective law in the management ofinternational disputes adapted to a globalized rule-of-law-based world. While it cannot be denied
that various types of inequalities and discrimination were associated with the French colonial
rule over Indochina, it needs to be noted that French rule exerted a certain degree of positive
influence on the territories in question.
For example, colonialism brought about changes in material spheres such as progress inagriculture, mining, and infrastructure, and also brought along with it: 1) Acceptance of a modern
legal system 2) Demarcation of borders based on topographic maps 3) The creation of national
consciousness in Indochinese countries through movements aimed at denying the suzerainties ofChina and Thailand.
When it comes to the issue of the Paracel and Spratly Islands, Vietnam holds its arguments
based on international law concepts, which it inherited from the modern legal system of France.
Against the backdrop of the exercise of force and balance-of-power concepts, China has been
limited to invoking vague concepts of “historical rights” over the islands and is attempting tojustify territorial rights over the islands by invoking its past suzerainty over Annam. On the
Paracel and Spratly Islandsʼ issue, France has limited itself to making general expressions about
legal principles and has avoided taking concrete positions. As a former suzerain of Vietnam thatwas historically involved to some degree in that country, France should reconsider the positions
that it should take.
In South Asia, India has had land disputes with almost all of the six countries with which it
shares land borders. The roots of these territorial disputes can be found in the decisions takenby the British government based on its 19th century colonial strategy. Behind the British decision
to partition India and Pakistan were: 1) its obligations to the Muslim League 2) The old British
policy of divide and rule 3) Desire for an access to Central Asia 4) Desire to contain the Soviet
Union. A British writer accurately predicted in 1944 that the separation of Muslims would result intheir impoverishment and radicalization. The end of the Cold War diminished the strategic valueof Pakistan and gave rise to a desire for peace between India and Pakistan. While this continued
for a time after 9/11, Pakistanʼs strategic value (for the US) increased again amid the Global War
48
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Monika Chansoria

on Terror because of the countryʼs proximity and access to Afghanistan. This put a dampener
on attempts to bring about peace between India and Pakistan. The land and maritime boundary
problems between India and Bangladesh were just as complicated as those with Pakistan, buthave been resolved with the establishment of democratic governments in Bangladesh.

Asia’s Geopolitical and Geostrategic Future in the Backdrop of its Colonial Past
The second session of the symposium analyzed and discussed the geopolitical implications of
the legacies left behind by history in Asia, the strategic importance of which is increasing. The
panelists put forth the following points broadly. While experiencing significant economic growth,Asia today is a major hotspot on the global landscape where numerous conflicts and tensions
are clustered, with China being involved in many of them. China attempts to justify its “creeping
expansionism” in its border with India, in the South China and East China Seas by invoking
various and vague historical narratives.
The baggage of histor y often weighs down Asiaʼs strategic environment. In contrast toEurope, more and more attention has been paid to the past problems of Asia. Countries thathave gained confidence because of their economic successes have been playing the history card.
Asiaʼs history problem is not limited to China as that history hinders relations even between
democracies as can be seen from the strained ties between Americaʼs closest allies in East Asia
– South Korea and Japan. Still, no country uses history to change the status quo territoriallylike China. In fact, to advance the strategic interests, China is employing the very practices thatwere imposed on China by the European imperial past. For instance, when Hong Kong was
returned to China, Beijing portrayed it as a correction of a historical injustice. Today, as thetakeover of Sri Lankaʼs Hambantota port illustrates, China is establishing Hong-Kong-style newcolonial arrangements in areas far from its shores. While the concept of a 99-year port lease wasdeveloped by the British and imposed on China in the 19th century, today, Beijing has embraced
that 99-year port lease concept and is applying it in distant lands, from Hambantota to Darwin(Australia), and now pressuring even Myanmar to sign a 99-year lease on Myanmarʼs Kyaukpyu
Port.
Efforts to change the territorial and maritime status quo will remain the biggest threat tosecurity in Asia. History is being invoked in attempts to justify the geostrategic imperative ofusing force to change the status quo in the East China Sea, South China Sea, and on the IndianChinese border. This is the most destabilizing factor in Asia. Several Asian countries including
China selectively interpret history and blend these interpretations with fiction to reconstruct theirown version of history. They do this to glorify their past, to whitewash their transgressions, and to
reinforce the victimhood narratives that they might have created. A good example is Xi Jinpingʼs
attempt to legitimize Sino-centrism by pursuing what he calls the ʻChina Dreamʼ.
The two biggest attempts in the 21st centur y to change the status quo by force were theannexation of Crimea by Russia and Chinaʼs construction and militarization of artificial islands in
the South China Sea. Russia is facing sanctions from the international community for its actions
in Crimea, while China got off without any sanctions at all. This sent a wrong message to China
and encouraged China to escalate its moves along its border with India and in the East China
Sea. There are two ways to conquer a country – one by the sword, and the other, by debt. China
has adopted the second path, of getting nations to borrow heavily, to exert control over small andmedium-sized countries.
China re-interprets histor y based on its national interest. When discussing the pros andcons of colonialism, the cons obviously outweighs the pros. China, where revisionism is gaining
strength, is the only country that has a victimization mentality with respect to territorial issues.
49
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Influence of Asia’s Colonization: Debating the Past, Present, and Future of Territorial Issues

With the exception of the South China Sea, territorial disputes among Southeast Asian states havebeen manageable and have not led to major confrontations. The reasons for this include 1) Lackof involvement of major powers 2) The existence of ASEAN as a confidence-building mechanism
3) The moderate nature of nationalism in these countries 4) The respect for international law heldby these countries.
Playing the history card to expand its sphere of influence, China is known to have invokedhistor y in its attempts to tarnish Japan ʼ s image in countries such as South Korea and thePhilippines. In the context of shrinking disparities in the military capabilities of the US and China,
Japan has several security options available: 1) Forge a multilateral security framework led by theUS 2) A multilateral security framework without a strong US commitment 3) An independent andisolationist policy of homeland security 4) Pursuit of a Sino-Japanese entente.

Broad Conclusions
The closing address of the symposium outlined the settlement of disputes, and the role of Asia in
the international world. Speaking of the settlement of disputes from a purely legalistic viewpoint,
the first question that arises is what is a dispute in international law? The judgment of thePermanent Court of International Justice in 1924 clearly identifies what constitutes a dispute. The
issue then arises, who decides the existence of a dispute? As for Japan, its position is that there
is no dispute between China and Japan concerning the Senkaku Islands. And, as for Takeshima,although Japan says there is a dispute, however, South Korea says there is no dispute at all overthe island.
The International Court of Justice stated in 1950 that whether there exists an international
dispute or not, is a matter for objective determination. As for the International Court of Justice,it had a system of compulsory jurisdiction, but among more than 190 countries as members of
the International Court of Justice, only 66 countries accepted compulsory jurisdiction. Out of the
66 countries, only six Asian countries, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction, namely Cambodia,
India, Japan, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Timor-Leste. The importance of the rule of law is vitalin the international community. Two very good and recent examples of nations displaying respect
for the rule of law are, India, in how it accepted the decision handed down by the International
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) about its maritime boundar y with Bangladesh; andJapan, in how it responded to the International Court of Justiceʼs (ICJ) ruling about whaling off
the Antarctic.
To quote James L Brierly, a former Oxford University professor of international law, andauthor of the book The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace,published in 1928 – almost 90 years ago in what perhaps is among the best textbooks oninternational law published in the 20th century. Brierly wrote that arbitration is useful as a meansof settlement only when and as far as society has accepted the rule of law as its normal way of life.
As present Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has stated, “Peace and prosperity in Asia forever,Japan for the rule of law, Asia for the rule of law, and the rule of law for all of us.”50
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Monika Chansoria

51
Japan Review Vol.2 No.1 Summer 2018

Upcoming Issues of the

APAN

REVIEW

Volume 2, Number 2 (Fall 2018)

150th Anniversary of Meiji Restoration

Published by the Japan Institute of International Affairs
3rd Floor Toranomon Mitsui Building, 3-8-1 Kasumigaseki Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo Japan 100-0013
Te l: +81-3-3503-7261 (from outside Japan)
Fax: +81-3-3503-7292 (from outside Japan)
For more information about Instituteʼs activities and publications at itʼs website: https://www.jiia-jic/en/TH E JA P A N
I N S TI TU TE O F
I N TE R N A TI O N A L
A FFA I R S