By Xiang Haoyu
Recently, Japanese Ambassador to China Kanasugi Kenji expressed reflection and apology over Japan's wartime history in a public speech, drawing wide attention from the Chinese public while also sparking some debate. In terms of Japan's official position on historical issues after WWII, the ambassador's remarks followed the standard formula, echoing the formal stance upheld by the Japanese government since the Murayama Statement in 1995. Against the backdrop of an increasingly conservative and right-leaning political climate in Japan, the ambassador's public reiteration of reflection and apology took a certain degree of courage and deserves recognition.
It is well known that, due to the unfinished nature of post-war settlement, Japan has long lacked genuine and profound reflection on its history of foreign aggression and wartime atrocities. Right-wing conservative forces have repeatedly attempted to downplay and whitewash the history of aggression, with revisionist historical narratives gaining traction in public discourse. As a result, Japan's domestic understanding of WWII remains ambiguous and distorted. In terms of Japan's official stance, while successive statements, from the Murayama Statement in 1995 to the Koizumi Statement in 2005 and the Abe Statement in 2015, have expressed reflection and apology in varying terms, the overall trajectory has been one of steady regression. Under the long-term influence of conservative politicians and media manipulation, the younger generation in Japan lacks a comprehensive and objective understanding of the country's militarist past. A poll conducted by The Asahi Shimbun in April this year showed that 58 percent of respondents believed Japan had apologized and compensated sufficiently for its wartime actions against victimized countries, while only 29 percent considered the efforts insufficient.
Meanwhile, Japan's post-war reflection has long focused on the victimhood narrative of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Literature and film have often emphasized Japan as a tragic victim of war, while downplaying or obscuring the aggressive nature of the wars launched by Japanese militarism. This narrative has subtly distorted public perception of WWII within Japanese society and gradually undermined a correct understanding of historical responsibility. Today, discussions and commemorative activities related to WWII in Japan continue to focus primarily on the victimhood narrative. At the same time, Japan remains highly sensitive to developments concerning historical issues in its neighboring Asian countries.
Therefore, Ambassador Kanasugi's recent remarks should be viewed in the context of Japan's prevailing historical narrative. While his reaffirmation of a correct stance and willingness to reflect deserve recognition, the limitations and shortcomings of his statement must also be acknowledged. At least two aspects of Ambassador Kanasugi's remarks warrant further reflection. First, regarding the terminology and characterization of WWII, the Japanese government has long employed neutral expressions such as the "Pacific War" and the "Japan-China War," which deliberately downplay the nature of aggression and the fact of defeat. This reflects a vague and passive historical perspective and has become one of the key indicators by which the international community gauges Japan's lack of genuine remorse toward the countries it victimized in Asia.
Second, a closer reading of Ambassador Kanasugi's remarks suggests that his primary intent lay in what followed, that is, to convey to the Chinese audience Japan's transformation into a "peaceful nation." In fact, China has consistently taken a positive view of Japan's post-war path of peaceful development, which has also been affirmed in the fourth China-Japan political document. The problem, however, lies in the fact that in recent years, Japan has increasingly hyped various versions of the so-called "China threat" to justify efforts to break free from the constraints of its pacifist Constitution. It has deviated from its exclusively defense-oriented policy, pursued an unprecedented course of military buildup since WWII, and even demonstrated dangerous tendencies toward military involvement in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea issues. Such actions not only betray the solemn commitment made by both countries to "be partners, not threats," but also seriously undermine the political and security mutual trust between China and Japan. They have further called into question Japan's proclaimed identity as a "peaceful nation."
Whether or not the conditions for a revival of militarism still exist in Japan, public concerns remain legitimate. A distorted perception of history could become an invisible obstacle on Japan's path to peaceful development. If Japan truly wishes to turn the page on historical issues, it must first calibrate its historical understanding from the perspective of the Asian countries that once suffered from its aggression. This is not an undue moral demand, but rather a litmus test of Japan's sincerity in upholding its identity as a "peaceful nation."
(The author is a distinguished research fellow at the Department of Asia-Pacific Studies of China Institute of International Studies.)
Editor's Note: Originally published on huanqiu.com, 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.
