Peer reviewed analysis from world leading experts

Will Japan’s war apologies ever satisfy China?

Reading Time: 5 mins

In Brief

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s speech on 14 August 2015 to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II the following day was eagerly anticipated. Given his past as a nationalist conservative, there were fears that Abe would seek to revise the general tone of the historic 1995 Murayama statement. In the end, it appeared that common sense prevailed.

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Abe mentioned Japan’s ‘aggression’, ‘repentance’, ‘deep remorse’ and ‘heartfelt apology for its actions during the war’. This speech demonstrated that Abe recognised — regardless of his personal views on history — that historical revisionism would not enjoy any international support.

Yet, many of Japan’s critics in China remain dissatisfied. Chinese commentators doubted Abe’s sincerity. Some were unhappy with the perfunctory nature of Abe’s depiction of the process by which Japan came to launch its aggressive war in the 1930s. Another point of concern was Abe’s statement that ‘[w]e must not let our children, grandchildren, and even further generations to come, who have nothing to do with that war, be predestined to apologise’.

It is important to make clear from the outset that it would be inappropriate for Japan to tell victim states that it was time to ‘move on’, and ultimately Japan should continue to express its remorse until the victimised states accept its apology. But there is still good reason to believe that no matter what Tokyo does, Beijing will never be satisfied. Japan’s exasperation towards China is therefore partially understandable.

China seems to hold Japan to almost impossibly high standards of apologising. States are actually very bad at apologising for a number of reasons. For a start, it is hard for states to apologise because they are corporate actors. But just because a state’s leaders fall short of acknowledging past wrongdoing, this does not necessarily mean that there is a collective failure of its citizens to come to terms with the past. One leader’s failure to apologise does not denote that the collective lacks a sense of guilt.

In fact, the proportion of Japanese citizens who acknowledge the Asia Pacific War as a war of Japanese aggression has grown, particularly since the 1980s. An NHK poll conducted on the eve of Abe’s speech indicated that 42 per cent of Japanese thought that some form of apology should be included. Only 15 per cent were opposed. A Yomiuri poll conducted in October 2005 also indicated that 68 per cent of Japanese citizens believed that Japan was the aggressor in the 1931–45 Sino–Japanese war. Such figures can hardly come from a state unrepentant about its past.

But many critics tend to fault Japanese society as a whole whenever a prominent politician makes a gaffe, arguing that these ‘slips of the tongue’ essentially cancel out ‘Japanese’ apologies made previously. They fail to appreciate the fact that Japanese politicians are hardly ever elected on a ‘history ticket’, but rather on the basis of their economic and social welfare policies. Instead, they simplistically assume that these politicians’ views of history must reflect the collective view of Japanese citizens because they have been democratically elected. They thus fail to differentiate between a small number of irresponsible Japanese politicians and the majority of Japanese citizens, and often come to the misguided conclusion that Japan has taken a turn to the right or refuses as a society to acknowledge its wrongdoing.

Chinese critics — often with the encouragement of their European counterparts — often chide Japan for not following the example of Germany, which is praised for its ‘model apology’. While there are certainly some lessons to be learnt, Germany is a special case, and holding Japan to the same standard is unrealistic. The Holocaust has captured the public’s imagination as one of the most chilling cases of genocide and an unprecedented failure of human morality. The German state has thus come under exceptional international pressure to overcome its exceptional crimes. Japanese war crimes have — rightly or wrongly — not been framed in the same way.

Given this context, it is Germany that is unique, and Japan should not be seen a state that is unusually incapable of coming to terms with its past. Japan is probably on par with other countries that have an equally regrettable record of imperialist aggression. Japan could do more, but it would be unrealistic to expect it to change overnight to become more like Germany.

Domestic politics provide an additional reason to suspect that no apology from Japan will be enough for China. The ‘history card’ has proved to be a useful bargaining chip for China to exert political leverage on Japan in the past. For example, China has linked the recent dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands with Japan’s ‘incorrect view’ of history, even though the dispute has more to do with competing interpretations of the laws on territoriality. This means that it is likely that no amount of apologies would suffice unless Japan decides to relinquish its claims to the islands.

The Chinese government has also not offered any concrete proposals as to what Japan could do to facilitate reconciliation, despite frequently chiding Tokyo to show ‘sincerity’. Beijing has effectively moved the goalpost for providing a satisfactory apology, and it probably will continue to do so whenever it suits its political interests.

Reconciliation is ultimately a two-way process. While Chinese (and non-Chinese) critics of Japan’s ‘failure to face history squarely’ have good reasons to be disappointed, they need to appreciate that the Chinese side has also allowed the ‘history issue’ to fester. The, at times impractical, benchmark for an apology set by the Chinese government practically means that Japanese apologies will never be enough. This only exacerbates so-called ‘apology fatigue’ within Japan. While Japan can do more, unless Beijing makes an effort to accept Tokyo’s apologies and acknowledge it as a reformed state, disputes over history will continue to bedevil Sino–Japanese relations.

Shogo Suzuki is a senior lecturer of politics at the University of Manchester.

A version of this article was first published here on RSIS.

10 responses to “Will Japan’s war apologies ever satisfy China?”

  1. Collectively, most victimized nations of Imperial Japan (Cambodia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam…) took the monies, utilized other assistance, watched 70+ years of peaceful Japanese development and moved on. The exceptions are hypocritical China and South Korea who also took reparations long ago, used Japanese monies to prosper, pretended to satisfy but, perpetually magnified sufferings for political expediency while never looked at their own war-time atrocities or attempted to compensate (China behind the Khmer-Rouge genocide of Cambodians, massacres of Vietnamese in 1979-1989 invasion and South Korean mercenaries acting on US behalf against Vietnamese…).
    Japan should ignore their superficial cries and/or challenge them to match words with deeds, instead!

  2. This is a rather uninspiring piece of apologist article. Your own figures provide the best rebuttal to your piece. A whopping 32% of Japanese do not believe that Japan is the aggressor of the Sino-Japanese war. Excuse me, do these people believe China invaded Japan at the time? You cannot say your apologies are sincere if your politicians engage in revisionist policies and whitewash the history in school textbook. Essentially telling an entire new generation of young ppl that Japan was not at fault in WWII. It’s one thing to have a fringe element of neo Nazi in Germany (which is deemed illegal), it’s the complete opposite to have a Japanese politician to assume prominent cabinet roles and make speeches equivalent of holocaust denial type. Just because the death of Chinese doesn’t “capture the public’s imagination” as the Jews, doesn’t mean a Chinese life is any less important than a Jewish. It just means the Jews have successfully raised awareness of their plight, while the Japanese has successfully and continued to trivialise the death of millions of Chinese people. Something this author is trying to do again.

    The author should seriously find a mirror and reflect on his own lack of morality, rather than saying how Germans have an exceptional sense of morality.

  3. The short answer is no. Not until a strong leader with certifiable nationalist credentials makes the big leap and says that the apologies are enough. Remember only a strong anti-Communist like Nixon could have gone to Mao’s China. Similarly, only Mao and Zhou Enlai had the credentials to ignore Japanese crimes during the war as well as adopt a forgiving posture. The problem is the current crop of Chinese leadership is too insecure to do this.

  4. I would endorse Mr. Chan’s comments below as pretty much in accord with my own perspective on this article.

    In addition I’d note that plenty of pundits, former members of government, and concerned observers like me have noted that words of apology need to be supported by the actions of making amends. The following are the kinds of specific things the government of Japan could do which could demonstrate its ‘sincerity:’ having a Prime Minister and other high governmental officials meet with and personally apologize to surviving Comfort Women and other victims of Japanese aggression during the war, offering survivors reparations out of government coffers, building memorials and museums to honor these victims, holding frequent if not regular memorial ceremonies in their honor. IF Japanese politicians would do these things, the case that the Chinese and S Koreans make for their not being ‘sincere’ would not hold water any longer. If the leaders of these other two countries continue to complain, then it would be clear to the world that they are doing so for less than honorable reasons.

    When PM Abe was here in the USA last April, he noted (in English no less!) that his ‘heart aches’ over the pain and suffering Japan caused for the people of Asia during the war. IF he really meant that, he should show it with his actions. Otherwise, these are perceived as hollow sounding words with little or no substance behind them.

    The German leaders swallowed their pride and did this over the last 70 years. They continue to hold memorial ceremonies at which surviving Jews and their loved ones are invited. A friend of mine accompanied her elderly aunt to one such gathering just a few months ago. Thus, it is no surprise that their country’s relationship with Israel is quite good.

    Can/will the leaders of Japan do likewise?!? Do they have the courage, foresight, and fortitude to do this over the next 20-25 years so that things can genuinely be better than they are now? It may take that long. It may even take longer. But is it worth it?!? You bet it is: for the Japanese as well as the Chinese and S Koreans.

  5. In my personal opinion, action speaks louder than words, especially for Mr. Abe who publicly questioned the international consensus that JAPAN INVADED CHINA (seriously, if you have to question the definition of this invasion, what kind of sincerity can Chinese expect from you)

    It is like a guy who says he is greatly pained by the suffering of Jewish people but in the end, he asked “Did holocaust actually happen? There are different understandings about this event.” I don’t think Jews will take kindly to this idea and the same applies to China and Japan.

    Honestly, I don’t think either side can please the other side in the current international environment so just agree to disagree and move on.

  6. What Japan really needs to do is stop banning textbooks and let the people study about the past without government oversight. No number of apologies will ever satisfy if the Japanese government deters its own citizens from learning more about its history. After that, I am sure things will figure itself out.

  7. Instead of “Will Japan’s War Apologies Ever Satisfy China?,” how about: “Will Japan Ever Make a Satisfactory Apology to China over the War?” Germany doesn’t equivocate on its responsibility, whereas Japan continues to try and muddle the intent and nature of its occupation, aggression and atrocities. This remains the fundamental problem. If Japan were to truly “come clean” consistently, then it would be doing everyone a favor and rob the Chinese of this narrative that they are able to continue to use.

  8. Tokyo will host the 2020 Summer Olympic Games, with the competition coming to a close on August 9, the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.

    I suspect that the history of World War II in the Pacific will be debated by the world one more time, and not just by China and Korea, and many Japanese will not appreciate the outcome of the debate.

    Hopefully, in the interim, there will be a changing of the guard in the leadership of Japan, with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and others in the LDP of a like mind about WWII, relegated to the sidelines.

  9. This is not half the story. You should acknowledge the barbaric massacre in Nanjing. Also, there were thecomfort women that Japanese forces used. The apology did not satisfy Chinese people, because the Japanese government never apologized sincerely. History and reflection qualfies this report.

  10. If you look at the way Germany has reformed laws around the Holocaust in protection of its victims and the families of their victims, such as the laws against Holocaust denial and compare it to how Japan has been obscuring history from its citizens, you will understand that a mere apology from the Prime Minister is far from enough. While the events that happened at Nanjing are not current Japanese citizens’ fault and thus they should not be blamed for the horrific occurrences, unless the Japanese government relinquish their constant “hush hush” attitude towards wrongs of the past how can any apology from a government personnel be deemed remotely sincere?

Support Quality Analysis

Donate
The East Asia Forum office is based in Australia and EAF acknowledges the First Peoples of this land — in Canberra the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people — and recognises their continuous connection to culture, community and Country.

Article printed from East Asia Forum (https://www.eastasiaforum.org)

Copyright ©2024 East Asia Forum. All rights reserved.