70 Years Later:
Trying to Write the Last Chapter on Reconciliation
In the 1980s, Japan was at the height of
its “economic miracle.” Countries around
the world looked with (sometimes hostile) envy at Japan’s seemingly endless
growth and prosperity.[1] Perhaps in response to these factors,
Japanese nationalism and ultra-nationalism grew; books on Nihonjinron proliferated as beliefs in Japanese exceptionalism saw
a great resurgence in popularity.[2] At the same time, emboldened politicians began to openly defend Japan’s war
legacy in ways that deeply offended their neighbors. A series of “textbook crises erupted”
starting in 1982 as the Ministry of Education sought to tone down descriptions
of Japanese aggression during WWII.[3] Public figures began to make overt
comments that denied or diminished wartime atrocities;[4] although these
men often lost their jobs as a result, the increased tension in international
relations was evident. This decade also
saw “comfort women” come forward in large numbers for the first time to testify
about their sufferings during the war.[5] This
painful and volatile issue brought new shame and anger to the surface on both
sides.
Thus,
the 1980s was a period that both revived and reframed the debate on Japan’s war
legacy. It was a war of words between newly
resurgent and vociferous Japanese nationalists, foreign peoples who still felt
that Japan had been insincere in its apologies and had not done enough to make
amends, and certain individuals in Japan who wished to delve deeper into the
past in order to atone for the wrongs of their nation and—as in the case of
Kurahashi Ayako[6]—the
wrongs of their own family members. This
inflamed atmosphere, which persisted through the 90s and into the new
millennium, led to some very conciliatory WWII anniversary statements from
Prime Ministers Murayama (in 1995)[7]
and Koizumi (in 2005).[8] These statements were brief, humble,
reassuring, and to the point.
Prime
Minister Shinzo Abe’s statement in 2015, on the other hand, was clearly
intended to shift the arc of the debate.
Although he repeated much of what was said in the previous two
statements, he also went considerably further—notably by addressing the events
that led up to WWII. Murayama and
Koizumi had focused on expressing their regret and emphasizing all the good
that Japan had done since 1945, but Abe dared to openly “reflect upon the road
to war.”[9] By taking a more comprehensive, long-term
view of the “lessons of history,”[10]
Abe carefully set the stage for making an important break from his predecessors:
his desire to write the final, conclusive chapter of this 70-year narrative by bringing
an end to Japanese apologies for WWII.
