Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at the much reviled Yasukuni
Shrine:
Why did he choose to worship
at the site, knowing the global rejection
his government would inevitably
face?
Abe Adopts 'North Korean Tactics' on Yasukuni
Shrine (Ismedia, Japan)
"The constitution of Japan rejects the resolution of conflict
by force, and doesn't even authorize a standing army. Most members of the
ruling, including Prime Minister Abe, believe that the
occupying forces imposed these principles on Japan. ... They have not publically
asserted the legitimacy of the Pacific War, or the innocence of the war
criminals. When they took office, they disguised themselves as followers of the
established line taken by successive cabinets. ... This is precisely the way North
Korea operates. Pyongyang acts in a way that is perceived as reckless by the
international community. When the world reacts, it backs off ever so slightly. This
is the concept that has become its diplomatic card."
Shinzo Abe: One of the most successful Japanese politicians in modern times, why did he decide to ruffle the feathers of almost the entire international community by worshipping at the Yasukuni Shrine, where the remains of 14 class-A war criminals are interred beside the rest of Japan's war dead? Both friends and adversaries conintue to be puzzled.
Various
arguments have been made to justify Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe’s visit to Yasukuni Shrine at the end of last
year, but surprisingly, or perhaps not, criticism is muted within Japan. By
focusing on the visit’s negative impact on foreign affairs and the economy, the
media has been taking a pragmatic approach, for the most part broadcasting both
sides of the debate on whether such a visit by the prime minister was
appropriate.
However,
dealing with Yasukuni as if it were simply a matter
of diplomatic or economic diplomacy is extremely dangerous, because the real underlying
issue is the fundamental philosophy that shapes the state and how Japan positions
itself in the immediate future.
Facing
the harsh reality of dramatic change in the political climate around Japan -
from the hegemony of the U.S. in the post-Cold War era to the rise of China
which poses such an expansionist threat to Japan - a notion has emerged about
how to change Japan's core philosophy on foreign policy and security.
The
constitution of Japan rejects the resolution of conflict by force, and doesn't even
authorize a standing army. Most mainstream members of the
Liberal Democratic Party, including Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe, believe that the occupying forces imposed these principles on Japan. The manifesto
of the Japan
Restoration Party runs along similar lines.
The
fact is, however, that the philosophy behind the Constitution reflected the
experience of the Japanese themselves, who witnessed the atrocities of WWII and
decided among themselves to stop war at all costs, going so far as to
relinquish a military. Initially, the prevailing view was that the even the Self Defense Forces
were unconstitutional.
The
people who claim that the Constitution was hoisted upon Japan by General
Headquarters often fail to acknowledge that the Pacific War was a war of
aggression by Japan, the legitimacy of which was in most cases denied
internationally. They don't try to defend the Pacific War in its entirety, but
argue that Japan was not the sole cause, and that other imperialistic powers also
have a degree of responsibility. The most significant feature of this
attitude is that by emphasizing the responsibility of others, there is an
attempt to justify themselves, and hence, a desire not to apologize to the
countries that Japan invaded. Furthermore, in their refusal to accept the guilt
of war criminals, they deny the legitimacy of the Tokyo trials [The post World
War II International
Military Tribunal for the Far East.]
However,
fully aware of the fact that such arguments have no chance of winning international
acceptance, they have not publically asserted the legitimacy of the Pacific
War or the innocence of the war criminals. When they took office, they
disguised themselves as followers of the established line taken by successive
cabinets. This greatly complicates the situation.
Prime
Minister Abe is definitely one of these. During Diet sessions, he repeatedly offers
vague answers on the definition of a war of aggression, and during his visit to
Yasukuni, he made an ambiguous comment when he was asked
about the issue of class-A war criminals enshrined there. He invariably fails
to answer directly. If Japan would clearly state that the Pacific War was a war
of aggression, and that worshipping class-A war criminals is internationally rejected,
making it unacceptable for the prime minister to pay tribute to them, the Yasukuni visit itself might not be such an major issue. It
is Prime Minister Abe’s unspoken justification of the Pacific War that China,
South Korea, and the United States find so objectionable.
Before
we discuss Yasukuni as a matter of diplomacy, we need
to have a discussion about it as an issue of concern to the Japanese people.
At
least, Japan must accept that internationally, the Pacific War is regarded as a
mistake. To take an opposing view now, one would have to be prepared to make a substantial
argument and bear responsibility for the expected backlash from other countries. It
rings hollow to simply say that our door is always open, and that we would like
to meet face-to-face to explain our true intentions.
To
me, though, it looks like Prime Minister Abe lacks that courage to do so, or
perhaps he believes in the Pacific War and that the war criminals are innocent
- just as the world suspects.
There
are various theories on why Prime Minister Abe chise
to worship at Yasukuni now. The Diet session was over,
the Special Secrecy
Law has been passed, tax reform has been addressed with and a budget deal concluded.
In addition, a mechanism to protect TEPCO and the banks has been fashioned, under which the
people will carry the burden in the form of increased electricity bills. In the
New Year, challenges await including visits to Africa and the Middle East, the
mayoral election in Okinawa's city of Nago, and there
will be a new Diet session. President Obama’s visit is scheduled for April, so
any controversy at that time is best avoided. Even if there are some waves as a
result of the Yasukuni visit, once a New Year is
ushered in, the mood shifts easily. Bearing that in mind, December would have
been just right.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
Above
all, Prime Minister Abe feels that "China and South Korea remain the same
no matter what he does," he has said. Last year he tried to be sensitive
to the two countries and “went out of his way” not to offend them by avoiding Yasukuni. After seeing that China and South Korea didn't
soften their attitudes, he thought “it wouldn't make any difference if he
visited Yasukuni.” Whether he lies low or does
what he likes, he reasoned, relations are not improving, so he decided on the latter.
Haven’t
we seen similar tactics somewhere before?
Yes,
this is precisely the way North Korea operates. Pyongyang acts in a way that is
perceived as reckless by the international community. When the world reacts, it
backs off ever so slightly. This is the concept that has become its diplomatic card.
