|
|
August 27, 2001,
U.S. Edition

Keeping the
War Alive
Japan
needs to confront its past honestly--and the same is true for its former
Asian enemies.
By
Fareed Zakaria
If
the art of modern politics is triangulation--finding a middle ground between
right and left--then Junichiro Koizumi's visit to the Yasukuni shrine
last week was a study in failure. First, the Japanese prime minister tried
to please right-wing nationalists by announcing he would visit the memorial
to Japan's war dead on Aug. 15, the anniversary of Japanese surrender
in World War II. Then, responding to criticism, he abruptly switched plans
and dropped by two days earlier for a quick, private visit. The right
was disappointed, the left hardly mollified; Japan's neighbors were furious,
and the rest of the world was startled. Where is Dick Morris when you
need him?
But despite all
the hype, there is actually very little danger of resurgent militarism
in Japan. The country, still shellshocked by its legacy in World War II,
is almost obsessively pacifist. Japanese diplomats are squeamish about
even contemplating the use of force in places like Yugoslavia. The Army
and Navy are relegated to secondary roles in the government. In polls,
almost half the country opposes using the Army even if Japan were invaded!
In fact this ultrapacifism
is a sign of Japan's real problem. Rather than confronting its past, the
Japanese government has tried simply to get beyond it. It apologizes,
stays resolutely peaceful, but has never given a full accounting of its
role in World War II. The result is national schizophrenia. The novelist
Kazuo Ishiguro portrays modern Japan in one of his books as a nation in
a kind of trance about its past, unable to remember it distinctly and
yet unable to forget--living in "a floating world."
Thus, while the
Japanese apologize for their aggression in World War II repeatedly, they
also ceaselessly undermine those efforts. Every Aug. 15, while the prime
minister reads a wooden statement of "regret" for Japan's role in the
war, a procession of cabinet ministers pay homage at Yasukuni, which honors
General Tojo and 13 other convicted war criminals. Koizumi is now the
third prime minister to visit Yasukuni. And it's not just the politicians.
Japan's textbooks are silent about the country's atrocities. Movies that
show this whitewashed version of history become instant blockbusters.
Japan's task is
not made easy by its neighbors, who use history as a weapon against it.
Chinese, South Korean and Indonesian textbooks are no less biased than
Japanese ones in their accounts of World War II. China and Korea, in particular,
brandish their victim status for political gain. As communism has lost
its appeal in China the regime has found it convenient to fan anti-Japanese
sentiment. For example, its estimate of Chinese killed by Japanese troops
during World War II has risen over these three decades from 10 million
to 35 million. A liberal Japanese intellectual said to me, "Of course
we need to apologize more fully. But would the Germans have been able
to apologize if France had continued to spout a steady stream of anti-German
rhetoric? It takes two for real reconciliation."
Europe has achieved
its postwar peace by putting the past behind it. Asia, however, remains
a cauldron of complaints, with almost all its nations carrying around
their own versions of history. (I remember as a child in India finding
that all the maps of South Asia in my Encyclopaedia Britannica had been
blacked out by the censors to prevent readers from seeing heretical versions
of our borders with Kashmir.) And Japan is at the center of the dispute
over history. For more than a century it has been the region's strongest
power, with an economy that is even now more than seven times the size
of China's. And it was the aggressor in World War II. Until Japan gets
over its hang-ups, no other country in Asia will.
In going to Yasukuni,
Koizumi had understandable intentions. "Every society needs to find a
way to mourn its dead," says the historian John Dower. "Almost every Japanese
family lost someone in the war, and they must be able to mourn those people.
But what Koizumi needed to do was not just go to Yasukuni, but to use
it as an occasion to give a great cathartic speech about what Japan did
to its neighbors and to its own people during World War II. He could have
done for his country what Richard von Weisacker did for Germany. But instead
he left the Japanese as frustrated as ever."
Japan's search is
not an easy one. Other countries have had their own difficulties with
this task. It was, after all, the deeply pro-Western Chancellor Helmut
Kohl who asked Ronald Reagan to accompany him to Bitburg, whose cemetery
includes graves of members of the dreaded Waffen SS. It has taken the
Germans much time and great leadership to accept responsibility for their
acts. France has still not come to grips with its role in collaborating
with the Nazis during the war (nor with its support for brutal terrorism
in Algeria).
Every nation faces
this tension in some way with some element of its past. What to make,
for example, of a leader who dedicated a monument to an army that fought
for racial nationalism, who praised the willingness of the army to shed
its blood "rather than pursue the weak course of expediency" and who celebrated
a movie made to affirm the righteousness of the lost cause, calling it
"history written with lightning." The monument is the Confederate Memorial
in Arlington Cemetery; the movie was D. W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation";
and the leader was, of course, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, 28th president of
the United States of America.
Back
to top
|