By Guan Zhaoyu
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba on October 10 delivered a statement of personal reflections to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of WWII. If the 1995 Murayama Statement was regarded as Japan's most profound national repentance for its wartime actions, the 2025 Ishiba Statement represents a de-moralized, de-emotionalized institutional reflection.
On the 50th anniversary of the end of WWII, Tomiichi Murayama admitted that Japan's colonial rule and aggression caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations, and expressed the nation's attitude through deep remorse and sincere apology. In contrast, Shigeru Ishiba focused on "Why couldn't Japan avoid that war?" It substituted institutional reflection for emotional contrition, emphasizing the failure of political systems while deliberately avoiding any mention of Japan's aggressive actions.
In his statement, terms such as "aggression" and "apology" are notably absent, while "system failure" replaces any mention of "responsibility for harm". This represents the "safe-style reflection" long adopted by Japan's right-wing intellectual circles, acknowledging the mistake of war while refusing to admit the crime of aggression.
From a political perspective, Shigeru Ishiba seeks to reshape the conservative image through what he calls "rational analysis" plus "institutional warning." Yet, this compromised approach is marked by notable opportunism. His so-called rationality is, in essence, a form of indifference. The statement makes no mention of historical facts such as Unit 731 or the Nanjing Massacre, nor does it address the collective memory gap within Japanese society. Surveys show that only about 30% of Japanese people consider Japan's war of aggression in China to have been an act of invasion, while around 80% believe that schools have not sufficiently taught wartime history.
If reflection could not extend to education, the media, and collective memory, it can hardly foster a genuine historical consciousness. For the international community, the measure of a Japanese prime minister's statement lies not in rhetorical finesse, but in whether it squarely confronts the facts of aggression and helps shape social consensus. What the people of the countries once invaded by Japan wish to hear is not "why Japan failed," but rather "Japan was wrong."
It is also noteworthy that the Ishiba Statement is shaped by Japan's current political reality.
When Shigeru Ishiba assumed office as Japan's prime minister in 2025, the country's political landscape was undergoing intense turbulence. The Shinzo Abe faction collapsed following a series of scandals, while the Fumio Kishida administration's credibility declined amid economic stagnation and diplomatic setbacks. Public opinion increasingly called for a return to rationality and stability in politics. With his moderate conservative image and emphasis on institutional reform, Shigeru Ishiba rose to leadership under such circumstances. His decision to deliver a historical statement centered on institutional reflection was therefore not only an extension of historical discourse but also a reaffirmation of his own political stance.
Shigeru Ishiba is well aware that addressing issues such as "the military's unchecked actions" and "political dereliction of duty" would amount to a direct challenge to the ideological foundations of Japan's right wing. At the same time, he understands that continued evasion of historical responsibility would plunge Japanese society into a dual crisis of political trust at home and diplomatic isolation abroad. Therefore, he chose to use institutional reflection as a point of entry, adopting a "non-apologetic" form of reflection that avoids confrontation with conservative forces, while at the same time sending a limited signal of restoring rationality to Japanese politics.
Ultimately, the Ishiba Statement represents nothing more than a "self-examination of Japan's institutions." It demonstrates that, between historical reflection and national pride, Japan has once again chosen the latter. Genuine reflection must be grounded in an understanding of the suffering of the victims. Only when all Japanese youth have the opportunity to learn about the Nanjing Massacre in school textbooks, and when politicians dare to utter the word "aggression," can Japan truly be said to have emerged from the shadow of war. At present, Japan needs to confront its history with greater courage, not to defend itself, but to take responsibility for peace.
Editor's Note: Originally published on china.com.cn, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.