Japan's Security and Reconciliation with its Asian Neighbors: Rectifying the Past and Promoting Trust
Speech by Councilor Satsuki Eda at George Washington University
April 1, 2014
I am Satsuki Eda, a member of the House of Councilors from Japan. I am joined by two other members of the Rikken Forum, or the Constitutionalism Forum, which is a non-partisan forum for members of the Japanese Diet.
I would like to express my sincere thanks for the opportunity to speak here today, and thank you all for coming at this crucial time in U.S.-Japan relations.
First, I would like quickly to explain where we stand.
Since the Liberal Democratic Party, or LDP, has governed Japan for most of the post-war era, you may view U.S.-Japan relations within the framework of U.S. relations with the LDP. You may also think that non-LDP groups, or the oppositions, are, if not anti-U.S., perhaps not interested in maintaining and developing friendly relations with the U.S.
The Social Democratic Party of Japan, whose former name used to be the Japan Socialist Party, or JSP, which was for a long time the main opposition party, has, in fact, delivered strong messages against U.S. policy in the past. My father, Saburo Eda, who was a leader of JSP, however visited the U.S. in 1975 and gave a speech in New York. The theme of the speech centered around the very question of “Whether JSP could be a friend of the U.S.,” and his answer was “Yes.”
40 years later, we are here to deliver the same answer, Yes. To be more accurate, the answer is “Yes, we have been good friends and want to continue to maintain a good friendship.”
I think this question has become much more important now. This is because our friendship is being undermined by the misleading messages expressed by the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. Shinzo Abe. We must deepen our understanding of one another and avoid the risk of being misled by false information. The messages that the Abe 's administration is delivering to the world diverge greatly from the messages that the LDP and Japan have been presenting to the world up to now. I hope to rectify this situation and convey a more accurate picture of the real Japan.
We want to emphasize how Japan shares the values and trends that much of the world has embraced since the end of World War II. We are sure that many Japanese people seek the common values of this world. They uphold peace, democracy and the rule of law through international cooperation and friendly relations with neighboring countries.
I was born just before the outbreak of the Second World War in 1941. After graduating from university, I served as a judge for nearly 10 years. During my term, the Supreme Court of Japan sent me to study at the University of Oxford for two years. I have served as a Diet member since 1977. During this time, I have served as the Minister of State for Science and Technology, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of the Environment, and the President of the House of Councilors. As a member of the non-LDP forces in Japan, I worked with other Diet members to create the Democratic Party of Japan, or DPJ, in 1998, to which I currently serve as the Senior Adviser. This party, the DPJ, led the government from 2009 for 3 years and 3 months. I am also the chair of the DPJ Diet Members' Association Concerned with the War Reparation Issues of Japan as well as an Adviser of the Rikken Forum.
My father was educated at Sunrin Commercial High School, where both Japanese and Korean students studied together, in Seoul, Korea, during the time of Japan's colonial rule. He dedicated himself to the peasants' movement and the anti-war struggle, and was imprisoned for nearly 3 years. When the war ended in 1945, he was working in China to help build a water supply system for the people. He returned to Japan after the war with his family, including me, and became a Diet member representing JSP. I am proud of him. Although much of history is about sovereign states, this kind of personal history that involves crossing national borders exists even for Japanese, just like they exist for people throughout the world.
I would like to discuss the issue of the Abe administration's views on history, which have caused concern among U.S. policy makers in Washington D.C. and which have provoked critical editorials in the major newspapers in the United States.
Prime Minister Abe paid an official visit to the Yasukuni Shrine last year on December 26. It was so incredibly sudden that I was shocked. He has also made statements that undermine the Statement by the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono of 1993 on “the Result of the Study on the Issue of ‘Comfort Women,” as well as the Statement by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama of 1995, entitled “On the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the War's End.” Prime Minister Abe has assumed a confrontational stance on the “Comfort Women” issue. He has also made an infamous statement at the Hudson Institute in the U.S. on September 25 last year. On that occasion, he said “So call me, if you want, a right-wing militarist.” The list goes on and on.
I would like to explain how Prime Minister Abe's statements and positions diverge from Japan's historical position and the Japanese mainstream.
Prime Minister Abe's visit to the Yasukuni Shrine, the first prime ministerial visit in 7 years, sparked criticism not only from Japan's neighbors, such as China and South and North Korea, but also more widely among the international community. Concerns were raised by Russia, Taiwan, Singapore and the EU, and the U.S. government expressed its “disappointment.” The main problem with the Yasukuni Shrine is that it enshrines Japanese leaders who were charged and convicted as Class A war criminals, by the Allied Powers' International Military Tribunal for the Far East, or the Tokyo Tribunal. After the enshrinement of the Class A war criminals came to light during the reign of Emperor Hirohito, the emperor decided to stop his visits to the shrine. This stance has continued under the current Japanese emperor.
As you know, the Potsdam Declaration, which was accepted by Japan on August 14 and ended the war, declares that “There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest,” and that “stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners.”
The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, through which Japan re-entered the international community, states clearly that Japan should accept the judgments of the International Tribunal. I am afraid that the world is concerned that the Prime Minister's official visit to the Yasukuni Shrine shows his intention to promote a revisionist view of history. If so, this intention differs fundamentally from the above-mentioned historical view which has been widely accepted by the international community.
This year marks the 100th year since World War I, and the 120th year since the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War. The history of Japan can be said to be marked by war until it signed the Potsdam Declaration. The Russo-Japanese War, World War I, Japan's intervention to Siberia and to China, and the so-called Pacific War followed. The last war began in 1941 with the Pearl Harbor attack, to which I have to express my sincere regret. All of these wars caused immense suffering in Asia and the Pacific, resulting in over 10 million deaths all over Asia, more than 3 million Japanese deaths, and the destruction of major cities because of indiscriminate air strikes.
In Japan, some say that Japan had to engage in wars, because it entered the imperialist territorial competition late. However, to be faithful to the facts, Japan's political system adopted an extreme militarist system during this period. There is no question that Japan's acts of aggression defied international norms. The fundamental principles of postwar Japan, which were established as Japan re-entered the world, are never to repeat the wrongdoing of the past, and to exist as a peaceful state. These were Japan's international promises to its neighboring countries in Asia as well as the world.
As an example, Tomiichi Murayama, then the Prime Minister, issued a statement on August 15, 1995 where he pronounced, “During a certain period in the not too distant past, Japan, following a mistaken national policy, advanced along the road to war, only to ensnare the Japanese people in a fateful crisis, and, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations. In the hope that no such mistake be made in the future, I regard, in a spirit of humility, these irrefutable facts of history, and express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology.” Subsequent LDP administrations continued to accept this statement.
The Abe administration, however, assumed an ambivalent posture on the Murayama Statement. With respect to the Kono Statement regarding “Comfort Women” issues, stating that “this was an act, with the involvement of the military authorities of the day, that severely injured the honor and dignity of many women,” the Abe administration, not only expressed an ambivalent view, but went as far as to suggest revising it . Now the administration seems to have abandoned the intention to revise the Kono Statement after all. However, no one knows what will happen tomorrow, as just recently one of Prime Minister Abe's closest aides suggested that a new statement could be issued that might supersede the Kono statement. This remark has provoked criticisms again. The administration is scheduled to issue a new statement next year on the occasion of the 70 th year since the end of World War II. This will become an anniversary in which there will be heightened attention throughout the world about Japan's stance regarding the war. Given Prime Minister Abe's current orientation, we have reason to believe that the world may raise strong concerns about the new statement. We have come here today to show that we, in Japanese political circle, share the same concerns as you and much of the world have about him and that we represent a large sector of Japan's population.
Historically, Japanese administrations have built relations with our neighbors on the basis of Japan's clear expression of “deep remorse” concerning our past. However, since the Abe administration came into office, relations with China and Korea have deteriorated to such an extent that Japan holds no summit meetings with them. While I understand that China and Korea may have their own positions and motives, I believe that we, the Japanese side, have to take some initiative to improve the present situation
In December last year, the DPJ's Diet Members Association for Japan's War Reparations, of which I am the Chair, visited Seoul and conducted dialogues with politicians, diplomats, lawyers and a civil organization that supports “Comfort Women” survivors. Besides this, members of this Association have accomplished various things, including inviting former U.S. POWs to Japan, passing legislation in support of postwar detainees in Siberia, supporting domestic and overseas atomic bomb survivors, and realizing the delivery of Korean historical cultural properties, which were long in Japanese possession, to Korea.
There is no short cut in improving relations with neighboring countries. We must hold dialogues with sincerity and openness. These efforts should not be limited to governments. We must bring forth our wisdom to foster trust with Korea, with China, with East Asia and of course with the US, through multiple political and non-governmental channels.
Lastly, I would like to discuss the issue of the reinterpreting the constitution to enable exercising the right of collective self-defense, which the Abe administration intends to carry out.
Post-war Japan started after the current constitution was promulgated in 1946. The constitution is first and foremost a document that binds the authority of state. This principle is called Constitutionalism. Our name “Rikken Forum” or, “Constitutionalism Forum,” is based on this principle. It is not the case that a government administration or an official authority at any moment in time has the authority to do whatever it desires. The government and its officials are required to abide by the constitution. Not only is it required to abide by the wording of the written constitution, but it must also abide by the fundamental principles that constitute the foundation of the constitution, as well as the interpretations of the laws as established by the power of reason. All of these comprise the constitution.
The world has arrived at a common ideal after the tragedies of World War II. It has concluded that war is illegal basically. But, of course, it is natural that each state has the right to survive. So, each state's right to individual self-defense is inherent. However, many types of conflicts occur in reality. So, the international community is allowed to deal with conflicts collectively. This is the notion of collective security. These are the fundamental common principles of the international community, upon which both the UN Charter and Japan's Constitution are founded .
Japan's constitution was enacted based on these common principles. But, as it was enacted at the time of the Allied occupation, its wording may not be comprehensive. The Preamble pronounces the principle of international cooperation and Article 9 forbids Japan to maintain armed forces. The comprehension of these concepts is difficult, but for a long time, they have been interpreted in the following way: while the constitution permits individual self-defense, it forbids the use of force for collective defense. This is the constitutional interpretation which has continuously and consistently been in force since the time of past LDP administrations.
Now, Prime Minister Abe is trying to change this legal interpretation with hardly any public discussion. Wouldn't his intended change of construction defy constitutionalism? Isn't state authority bound by a constitution in its execution of governance? Would it not mark a turning point and steer Japan away from her post-war foundation, that is, its pledge never to enter into war again? The voices of concern and criticisms of Prime Minister Abe's intentions are now spreading in Japan.
Prime Minister Abe has recently referred to a “departure from post-war education's mind control.” If I interpret what he means as follows, do you think I am unfair? That is, “Winning or losing is based on the luck of the time. Japan was unlucky to lose the war. But it did not do anything wrong. We just followed our sacred mission. Let us regain our pride.” This is historical revisionism. It is an unacceptable self-righteous ideology. This does not represent the majority viewpoint in Japan. I really think my interpretation is not far from Mr. Abe's sentiment. I would be glad if you share the same concerns I have about his historical revisionism. It is unfortunate that criticism has not been clearly raised within the ruling parties, but probably their majority would say ‘No' when necessary.
Many people in Japan uphold common world values. They uphold peace, democracy and the rule of law. People aim to build international cooperation and friendly relations with neighboring countries. This is what constitutes the mainstream in Japan.
We came here to share this conviction with the American people.
Thank you very much for listening. |