Japan's Mainstream Press on War Apology Part A

Mainichi Shimbun appears to be taking the lead in Japan's new mainstream discussion of the legacies of the war and issues of apology. Last month, it published an opinion piece by Amb. Kazuhiko Togo on his opinions on the Japanese government's apology to the American POWs of Japan and Japan's "moral" responsibility.

On Monday, June 22, the newspaper published a two part article linking the Comfort Women and POW apologies to Japan's greater accountability to the US-Japan Alliance.

Below is not Mainichi's translation, but one most likely to be read by analysts and scholars in the West. In the next post you will find the translation of Part B.

One interesting point for scholars, is that the Japanese apology word used for the Japanese government's apology to the POWs is shazai. This is the same word Amb. Togo used in his translation of the apology. To date, an official Japanese government Japanese written statement of the apology has yet to be issued. Thus there is no way to confirm this historic and significant use of an apology word that implies responsibility.

---------------------------------------

New argument in Japan on the United States (Part A): Japan offers apology 68 years after Bataan Death March that claimed lives of 800 American POWs; First step to discussions on historical views triggered by wartime sex slavery resolution

MAINICHI (Top play and page 3) (Abridged slightly)
June 22, 2009

On May 30, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Ichiro Fujisaki, attending the convention of an organization of former prisoners of war (POW), offered the Japanese government's apology for the first time for the Bataan Death March. The Bataan Death March is an incident that occurred in 1942 during WWII in which the Imperial Japanese Army forced over 10,000 people, including American POWs, walk for more than 100 km on the Philippines' Bataan Peninsula, and some 800 people died as a result.

Since the history textbook issue of late 1990s, discussions have been going on in Japan over the meaning of the last major war and the question of wartime responsibility. But the issue of historical views between Japan and the United States has effectively been sealed off. What does the apology 68 years after the incident signify?

The convention of the American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor (ADBC), which sought Japan's apology, took place in San Antonio, Texas. The organization disbanded itself that day, citing the advanced ages of its members.

At the convention, Fujisaki said: "The government of Japan would like to extend a heartfelt apology for having caused tremendous damage and suffering to many people, including prisoners of war, those who have undergone tragic experiences on the Bataan Peninsula, Corregidor Island (where the U.S. military command was located) and other places. An invitation to Japan is being worked on." Fujisaki's words elicited a standing ovation from about half of the 400 attendees.

At the convention hall, Fujisaki also said: "The basic view expressed [by me] today was within the framework of the statement issued in 1995 by then Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama. But I think Japan responded clearly to the interest of former POWs. I was glad that I was able to attend the ADBC's last convention."

ADBC National Commander Lester Tenney met with Fujisaki for the first time last November. Since receiving letters of apology last December and this February, Tenney had repeatedly called for Fujisaki's attendance at the convention to make a direct apology to the ADBC members. Listening to Fujisaki's candid statement, Tenney nodded his head in approval, thinking, "The chapter has now come to an end."

The question of historical views between Japan and United States had long been a taboo. The taboo was shattered in July 2007 when the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a resolution seeking Japan's apology for having forced foreign women to serve as sexual slaves for the Imperial Japanese Army during WWII. The Japanese government tried to block it and conservative opinion leaders and lawmakers fiercely objected to it. The event exposed gaps in view between the two countries.

It sent especially strong shockwaves through the Foreign Ministry. "Japan's postwar pacifism is not sufficiently understood by the American public. If there are calls in the United States for Japan's apology, the government should respond to them as much as possible," a senior Foreign Ministry official noted.

Chuo University law professor Yozo Yokota took this view: "The handling of POWs could be a violation of international law. But if the United States tries to pursue Japan, arguments would emerge from Japan that the dropping of atomic bombs and air raids were also illicit. I believe there has been a tacit understanding between Japan and the United States to avoid subjects that could harm the bilateral security alliance."

The question of wartime responsibility has been put on the backburner throughout the postwar period for the sake of strengthening the Japan-U.S. alliance. But the question still haunts the two countries which will celebrate [next year] the 50th anniversary of the conclusion of the revised U.S.-Japan Security Treaty.

In the postwar period, the argument has gained ground in Japan that the country was forced to accept the masochistic historical view under the American Occupation. At the same time, Japan tends to direct its criticism to China, South Korea, and North Korea instead of frontally discussing the United States on which Japan heavily relies for its national security. With an increase in the use of sensational language in conservative magazines, the monthly magazine Shokun suspended its publication in May. Reportedly the reason was partly because even though its basic line was conservative the magazine's stance of carrying a wide range of arguments, including counterarguments, showed that it could no longer resist the trend.