TPMCafe
« Matter of Record | Home | The End of Political Libertarianism? »

Japan and the Burden of History

user-pic

America’s most important ally in Asia is in the midst of a protracted identity crisis – and the stakes are high for how it is resolved not only for Japan but also for the United States and East Asia.

It has two aspects. One identity struggle in Japan is how and to what extent the country should “normalize” – that is, amend the pacifist constitution, expand military capabilities, reclaim rights of sovereign statehood, and so forth. The other identity struggle is how to come to terms with the “history issue” – that is, putting to rest the grievances and suspicions that still simmer in China and Korea over Japan’s militarist past.

The problem is that without finding a way to put the history issue to rest, Japan will continue to be a diminished regional player, isolated and incapable of helping to shape East Asia that is transforming with the steady rise of China. But Japanese leadership appears incapable of getting past the past. To make matters worse, its efforts at “normalization” are exacerbating regional tensions. It is on this issue -- how and to what extent Japan should "normalize" that the U.S. has a important if delicate role to play. Japan will get a new Prime Minister in the fall. So an opportunity will soon open up for fresh thinking in both Tokyo and Washington about how to cut through the dilemmas and contradictions of normalization and historical reconciliation.

I have a piece in yesterday’s Washington Post that explores these issues and suggests an agenda for regional diplomacy. I post it below.

Japan's History Problem

By G. John Ikenberry
Thursday, August 17, 2006; A25

Japan has a serious geopolitical problem -- and increasingly it is an American problem as well.

Essentially, the problem is that Japan has not been able to eliminate the suspicions and grievances that still linger in China and Korea about Japan's militarist past. While postwar Germany has somehow been able to put the "history issue" to rest, postwar Japan has not. The result is that Japan -- 61 years after its surrender and the inauguration of its long, peaceful return to the international community -- remains isolated and incapable of providing leadership in a region that is quickly transforming in the shadow of a rising China.

The most visible manifestation of Japan's history problem is the controversy that erupts each year when the Japanese prime minister visits the Yasukuni Shrine in central Tokyo -- the Shinto memorial where the names of 14 World War II-era Class A war criminals are listed among the honored dead. In China and Korea these visits evoke the memory of Japanese war and imperial aggression, trigger popular protests and official condemnation, and provide a readily available tool to push Japan on the defensive and shrink its regional influence and appeal.

This problem was again on display Tuesday -- the anniversary of the end of the Pacific War -- when Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi made his expected pilgrimage, covered live on Japanese television, to the Yasukuni Shrine.

Complicating matters, the United States has urged Tokyo along the course of great power "normalization." Indeed, some Washington strategists envisage Japan as America's "Britain in the East" -- a normalized and militarily capable ally that can stand should-to-shoulder with the United States as it operates around the world. This is in essence the vision of the very influential Armitage Report of October 2000 (named for former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage), issued by a bipartisan group of American security specialists, and it is the dominant view today among both Democratic and Republican thinkers concerned with Japanese security.

The problem is that "normalization" and "historical reconciliation" are working at cross-purposes. Normalization requires amending the constitution, acquiring new sorts of military capabilities and breaking longstanding pacifist norms against the use of force. Historical reconciliation requires symbolic gestures of apology and redoubled commitments to restraint and peaceful intent. This will be a tricky game to play. It is certainly going to take more enlightened and imaginative thinking than Tokyo has yet exhibited. And the United States will need to rethink its own vision of East Asia and the U.S.-Japan alliance.

There is a grand irony in the geopolitical hole that Japan has dug for itself.

The irony is that Japan has actually been remarkably successful in defining a postwar identity for itself. Turning a necessity into a virtue, Japan celebrated its "peace constitution" and defined itself as a "civilian" great power that would invest in international peace and security under the auspices of the United Nations. It provided funding for the United Nations, supported international commitments to human security and became a generous provider of official development assistance. But while the wider world admires and respects Japan -- and its distinctive civilian-style great power role -- its neighbors do not.

Koizumi's term as prime minister will end after next month's elections -- and this will be a moment when both Japan and the United States might rethink their policies.

Japan needs to find an honorable way to end the visits by prime ministers to Yasukuni -- or quietly encourage the Shinto officials who run the shrine to remove the 14 names. But more than this, the next prime minister should try to make historical reconciliation a hallmark of his time in office. Japan's ability to exert leadership in the region depends on it. Symbolic politics must be part of this strategy of reconciliation. So, too, must be Japan's approach to "normalization."

Germany should be a model. Germany has normalized, but it has done so by redoubling its commitments to European unification and institutionalized cooperation with neighbors. This dual-track approach -- normalization plus regional integration and order-building -- has helped reassure neighbors and strengthen Germany's leadership position.

Japan does not have a regional organization like the European Union to tie itself to and reassure neighbors as it normalizes. In this sense, its path forward is more fraught and complicated than Germany's. What Japan can do is pursue reconciliation through regional diplomacy, offering a vision of a future East Asian security community. It would be a brilliant masterstroke if the next Japanese prime minister announced the end of visits to Yasukuni and invited Chinese and South Korean leaders to a summit in Tokyo.

Japan should make itself the regional leader in defining the parameters of a new cooperative East Asian order -- one that includes a growing Chinese role but also a central Japanese and American role. The alternative is to do what it is doing now, which is to normalize, antagonize and grow increasingly isolated.

The United States also needs to rethink its vision of the U.S.-Japan alliance. The Armitage Report idea of turning Japan into a British-style alliance partner is not the answer because it would inflame regional antagonisms. Washington should encourage Japan to pursue the German path, tying "normalization" to redoubled commitments to regional security cooperation. What is missing in East Asia, of course, is a regional organization that can be used to embody strengthened commitments -- by Japan but also China and Korea -- to peaceful regional order. The United States should work with Japan to help lay the groundwork for such a regional order.

Today the Middle East burns -- but East Asia simmers. Tokyo and Washington should use the coming months to turn down the heat and add some new ingredients to the pot.

The writer is Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. His most recent book is "Liberal Order and Imperial Ambition."


16 Comments

| Leave a comment

Thanks for a compelling article, and a nice rubric for understanding Japan's regional conundrum.

I haven't followed the cultural politics closely in a dozen years, but when I lived in Japan, there was a very strong constituency against normalization - led by the wartime generation, but including a lot of people in younger middle age.  At the time, the thought that Japan would amend its constitution struck me as unthinkable, and I've continued to view the pressure to do so with some incredulity, perhaps outdate.  What are the polls saying on domestic support for normalization? 

I can only recount that, as a serious student of history, I made a point to visit Yasukuni Shrine. Somehow, the millions of poor SOBs who died in what they considered honorable service outweights the Major War Criminals.

Indeed, in the museum next to the Shrine, there are individual artifacts. Some belonged to people who were, according to their time and culture, quite chivalrous. A respectful bow seemed in order -- much as I have seen Japanese being respectful at Arlington National Cemetery.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Postwar Germany has somehow been able to put the "history issue" to rest". It's not an accident; Germany - meaning here the old West Germany - made huge efforts in history and civics education, and in youth and other human links with other countries (including Israel), as well as in consistent support for European integration. Public intellectuals like Günter Grass write about these issues all the time. Japan has made no comparable efforts on any level, as if civility is enough.

KikoKimba
I lived in and traveled widely in Japan and made the obligatory trek to Yasukuni Shrine. I love the Japanese and most all things Japanese, but I came to understand that they are literally and figuratively insular and xenophobia is a national trait. They also are deeply racist.

These traits go a long way toward explaining why Japan rose from the ashes of World War II to become an economic colossus but has not been able to shake off its imperialist past and become a major player on the political stage regionally and globally.

I regret to say that I don't think the Japanese will ever be able to undergo an historical reconciliation.

I blogged on the subject today at Kiko's House and share a story that a wise old Japanese woman told me.

Postwar Germany has somehow been able to put the "history issue" to rest

While it involves nearly an opposite reaction compared to what you are talking about with Japan, I would hardly call the current furor in Germany over Gunter Grass' revelation that he served in the SS as a kid an indication of things having been "put to rest" or being settled. Their demons are still there.

Perhaps they could take a hand in the North Korea debate as well.

I used to know a guy who was a veteran of the Japanese Navy - he said that, while those in the Infantry were largely convinced that the Japanese could win the war, he and his comrades pretty much knew it was a doomed enterprise.  His theory was that Naval officers and sailors prior to the war had considerably more experience with other world powers, from port stops, while the infantry's only experience with the wider world was in the areas they conquered.

That split -- and you really have to have studied modern Japanese history to know how much the Army and Navy hated each other -- existed at GHQ levels. Admiral Yonai started flirting with the peace faction after the fall of Saipan at the end of 1944, but General Anami wanted to fight to the last Japanese. On hearing the Emperor's decision, seppuku was really his only option, given he did consider himself loyal to the system.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The racism is certainly endemic, perhaps in part because there aren't significant racial/ethnic minority populations that challenge it (last I knew, the large Korean population was still fairly underground about their origins).  And the peculiar character of Japanese racism might be part of what underlies the dilemma between atonement and normalization.

Reading War Without Mercy by John Dower, I was struck by the differences in racial propaganda between the U.S. and Japan: while the Americans tended to denigrate the Japanese as sub-human, in Japan, racial superiority tended to take the form of self-aggrandizement.  In a sense, you might say that both were dehumanizing: the focus on the American side was on portraying Japanese as less than human, and on the Japanese side, it was portraying themselves as more than human.  

When you think about the normalization question, there has been for half a century a great deal of tension between the strong pacifist element in Japan (members of the teachers union, until a recent law mandating it, refused to stand for the national anthem) and the radical right wing element that took to the streets with sound trucks blasting patriotic music and demanding remilitarization, etc.  Visits to Yasukuni are necessary for Prime Ministers in part because alienating the very vocal right wing is politically untenable.

The connection on the fascist side is clear - humiliation about being forced to have less than the rights every other nation enjoy is expressed in high-decibel diatribes. But on the other side...I wonder sometimes if the pacifism doesn't also tie in to a sense of being special, extra-human - too good to engage in the kind of nasty power politics that ordinary nations do.  Not to say that this is the main psychological source for Japanese pacifism - that, surely, is due to a keen understanding of how much suffering Japanese militarism caused (at least domestically) - but I wonder if it isn't there.

As for atonement, the evolving rationale for Japanese aggression during their imperialist years went from an equality argument - getting into Manchuria was just getting a slice of the melon that all the great powers were taking - to an aggrandized sense of saving Asia from the laws of colonialism.  Highly ironic given the colonial nature of the enterprise, but it did feed into a sense of grand ethnic importance.  The paternalism in this survives rather clearly in Japanese history textbooks.

I have a certain amount of admiration for Adm. Yamamoto, who seemed to know what hell lay ahead, and did his best to win a loser war....

Had he survived and appeared before a fair war crimes tribunal, I suspect he could have made a very good case for trying to prevent aggressive war. Of course, Gen. Yamashita, before a fair court, should have been able to prove that he tried his best to prevent the atrocities in Manila. He might have hung for Malaya, but not for the Phillipines.

He had, unfortunately for him, committed the utterly capital crime of beating MacArthur in battle.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

This is true. In the 1920's, there was an arms limitation treaty concerning the size of naval fleets (the ICBMs of that day), so the Japanese Navy had a great deal of contact with the other two dominant navies in East Asia in those days, the British and American navies.

Postwar Germany has put the issue to rest among its neighbors precisely because things like the current furor over Gunter Grass's revelation show that Germany remains sincerely committed and vigilant against what it did in the past and against any attempt to hide it.

Mr. Ikenberry,
I think you have left out the most important and most fundamental piece. Japan as a nation never faced and accepted that it had done something truly bad. Germany did.
Germany's neighbors accept Germany, not just because of apologies and policies, but because those flowed from a sincere repentance. Committed repentance demonstrated consistently in large actions and small. Reparations to Israel and to individual concentration camp survivors, the German Prime Minister kneeling in Poland at a memorial and publicly admitting his nation's guilt, the acceptance of the loss of a large chunk of German territory to Poland. Rigorous education that has made the contemporary German people the most reliable bulwark for human rights. Even sacrificing a fragment of freedom of speech by banning pro-Nazi speech.
Japan did the exact opposite. It made pro-forma apologies, then acted consistently as though it did nothing to be ashamed of. Fighting in its courts against reparations even for women kidnapped and forced into prostitution, using four nearly worthless islands seized by the Soviet Union as an excuse to proclaim its victimhood, a near complete absence of education about WW2 at all. Racist rightwing sound trucks in major cities. To this day, public figures in Japan can not mention even basic facts of Japan's atrocities in China without risking attack or assassination by right-wingers.
Yes, Japan forged a new commercially-based identity. And used the a-bomb to identify itself as victim and forget its role as perpetrator. But Japan never faced and never repented for colonizing Korea and the war it launched against China. As a nation, Japan did not regret the war. It only regretted _losing_ it.
Unfortunately, Germany's admirable response to its crimes is the exception and Japan's response more typical in history. Will my America ever apologize for the damage we have done to Iraq and to those in the rest of the Middle East and the rest of the world who will have to live with the results? And, yes the Chinese and Korean governments have used and stoked the anger of their citizens against Japan to those government's own purposes.
But Japan will never put its past behind it unless it turns and faces it honestly. And given the considerable continuity between war-time and post-war Japanese leadership and society, that will require wrenching change at the top of the nation and at the bottom of people's hearts.

Many of my friends in Japan were part of that pacifist element. Yet it is important also to note the limitations even on their response.
The leftist organizations I knew treated war-time Japan the way East Germany treated its war-time past. In East Germany, it was what "those Nazis" did. In West Germany, it was what "our Nazis" did. Crucial difference.
In private, many of my friends understood this difference quite well, but I never saw it expressed by the organized left, which treated the Japanese militarists as though they had mysteriously appeared out of nowhere.
There is a lesson to be learned here for post-Bush America.

Excellent points.  It is kind of amazing how the Japanese made such solid, lasting (though perhaps dying?) pacifism out of a sense of victimhood coming out of their war of aggression.  Some definitely got it - the Navy fellow I mentioned above - who used to go on tirades about all the stupid, long, essentially Chinese words that they came up with in Japanese because they no longer were allowing the use of any borrowed words.  The head of the teacher's union where I lived was clear on the lack of true atonement, but being teacher's union, I assume he was also a communist, and they had their own self-serving reasons for being strident about imperalism.  

I would say, however, that the victim-pacifists, many, did regret the war, and not just losing the war. At one end of that spectrum, surely, there are those who continue to feel that Japan was justified in seeking a slice of the melon, but at the other end are those who feel that the outcome of the war proved its folly, the folly of all wars.  Granted, they don't feel guilty, exactly, but it's not entirely fair to say that they just regret losing.

In some ways, the West German response is fairly amazing.  In a war of aggression waged by an anti-democratic totalitarian state, it is surely easy - as the Japanese victim-pacifists do - to say that, as the people, you never really had a choice, and are just as much victims of the belligerence of your government as those who were invaded.  Maybe self-serving, but easy. 

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »



Book Club Calendar


This Week

Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream, Leonard Zeskind

Next Week

Henry Waxman, The Waxman Report: How Congress Really Works

July 13-17

Justin Fox, The Myth of the Rational Market: A History of Risk, Reward, and Delusion on Wall Street

July 27-31

Plenty Enough Suck To Go Around, Cheryl Wagner

« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Kyle Krahel-Frolander



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address