Prime Minister's visit to Yasukuni could be misconstrued as condoning war
KURIYAMA Takakazu / Former Ambassador of Japan to the United States
February 5, 2014
Prime Minister Abe's visit to Yasukuni Shrine predictably caused big repercussions both at home and abroad. In Japan, the strong backlash from China and the Republic of Korea may have been within expected parameters, but the expression of "disappointment" by the United States government was met with surprise and made big headlines. In view of the signal sent by the United States government through the visit last October of Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to the Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery for the Unidentified War Dead, however, its disappointment could be seen as an understandable response to having had its signal ignored.
In fact, what drew my attention was how the Japanese public saw it. According to the polls, opinions were divided roughly evenly, on the surface, between those for and against the visit. However, it seemed that a great many felt, regardless of the controversial enshrinement of the Class A war criminals there, that it was only natural to pray for the souls of those who had perished in the war and that other countries had no business accusing the Prime Minister on his visit to the shrine. Even those who were against the visit apparently took issue not so much with the propriety of the visit itself but were posing the question "Why now, at this timing?"
Here, it is important not to lose sight of the larger question posed by the visit to Japan as a nation.
Let us recall the three key words contained in the statement by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama on August 15, 1995, the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II; "colonial rule", "aggression" and "fact of history". These words were repeated ten years later in the statement by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi on the anniversary of the end of the war.
Postwar Japan committed itself both at home and abroad to accepting as facts of history its colonial rule and aggression based on its "self-righteous nationalism" (the Murayama Statement) before and during World War II, making a clean break with the past, manifesting its "remorse on the war" through actions (the Koizumi Statement) and living as a nation committed to peace. It is precisely these elements that define the basis on which postwar Japan stands in the international community.
Howard H. Baker, Jr., one of the few American political leaders who knew Japan well and served as Ambassador to Japan under the administration of President George W. Bush, visited Yasukuni Shrine to see for himself why the visit there by then Prime Minister Koizumi was causing such a stir. When he went to Yushukan, a kind of museum adjacent to the shrine, he is said to have been shocked to see the exhibits there, which traced the reckless course of action taken by Japanese militarism in an apparently affirmative light. Some parts of the exhibits have been subsequently changed, but the U.S. media continue to take a critical view akin to Ambassador Baker’s impressions. I find this regrettable.
In the first half of the 20th century, Japan followed "a mistaken national policy" (the Murayama Statement), under which many Japanese fought on the battlefield and lost their precious lives. It was on these invaluable sacrifices that the edifice for a peace-loving Japan was built.
Many Japanese realize that we must not forget our remorse for past mistakes. At the same time, they want the international community to appreciate the tireless efforts made by postwar Japan as a nation committed to peace and dedicated to international cooperation. As a matter of national sentiment, they find it hard to accept the criticisms levelled against Japan by China and the Republic of Korea in disregard of such efforts on the part of Japan. At the same time, in order to overcome the problems arising from conflicting perceptions of history, Japan, for its part, should take care not to give rise to unnecessary misunderstandings on the part of other countries.
What lies at the core of the Yasukuni visit is that it could give the impression of endorsing a view of history that would be inconsistent with the basic tenets for postwar Japan set out in the statements by Prime Ministers Murayama and Koizumi.
Wouldn't we first need to dispel such an impression if our prayer for the souls of the war dead and our pledge never again to wage war were to be more persuasive to the international community?
Takakazu Kuriyama is a former ambassador of Japan to the United States. The article first appeared in the Yomiuri Shimbun Newspaper dated January 21st 2014.
In fact, what drew my attention was how the Japanese public saw it. According to the polls, opinions were divided roughly evenly, on the surface, between those for and against the visit. However, it seemed that a great many felt, regardless of the controversial enshrinement of the Class A war criminals there, that it was only natural to pray for the souls of those who had perished in the war and that other countries had no business accusing the Prime Minister on his visit to the shrine. Even those who were against the visit apparently took issue not so much with the propriety of the visit itself but were posing the question "Why now, at this timing?"
Here, it is important not to lose sight of the larger question posed by the visit to Japan as a nation.
Let us recall the three key words contained in the statement by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama on August 15, 1995, the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II; "colonial rule", "aggression" and "fact of history". These words were repeated ten years later in the statement by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi on the anniversary of the end of the war.
Postwar Japan committed itself both at home and abroad to accepting as facts of history its colonial rule and aggression based on its "self-righteous nationalism" (the Murayama Statement) before and during World War II, making a clean break with the past, manifesting its "remorse on the war" through actions (the Koizumi Statement) and living as a nation committed to peace. It is precisely these elements that define the basis on which postwar Japan stands in the international community.
Howard H. Baker, Jr., one of the few American political leaders who knew Japan well and served as Ambassador to Japan under the administration of President George W. Bush, visited Yasukuni Shrine to see for himself why the visit there by then Prime Minister Koizumi was causing such a stir. When he went to Yushukan, a kind of museum adjacent to the shrine, he is said to have been shocked to see the exhibits there, which traced the reckless course of action taken by Japanese militarism in an apparently affirmative light. Some parts of the exhibits have been subsequently changed, but the U.S. media continue to take a critical view akin to Ambassador Baker’s impressions. I find this regrettable.
In the first half of the 20th century, Japan followed "a mistaken national policy" (the Murayama Statement), under which many Japanese fought on the battlefield and lost their precious lives. It was on these invaluable sacrifices that the edifice for a peace-loving Japan was built.
Many Japanese realize that we must not forget our remorse for past mistakes. At the same time, they want the international community to appreciate the tireless efforts made by postwar Japan as a nation committed to peace and dedicated to international cooperation. As a matter of national sentiment, they find it hard to accept the criticisms levelled against Japan by China and the Republic of Korea in disregard of such efforts on the part of Japan. At the same time, in order to overcome the problems arising from conflicting perceptions of history, Japan, for its part, should take care not to give rise to unnecessary misunderstandings on the part of other countries.
What lies at the core of the Yasukuni visit is that it could give the impression of endorsing a view of history that would be inconsistent with the basic tenets for postwar Japan set out in the statements by Prime Ministers Murayama and Koizumi.
Wouldn't we first need to dispel such an impression if our prayer for the souls of the war dead and our pledge never again to wage war were to be more persuasive to the international community?
Takakazu Kuriyama is a former ambassador of Japan to the United States. The article first appeared in the Yomiuri Shimbun Newspaper dated January 21st 2014.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
首相靖国参拝 ― 「戦争肯定」誤解の恐れ
栗山 尚一 / 元駐米大使
2014年 2月 5日
昨年暮れの安倍首相の靖国神社参拝は予想通り、内外に大きな反響を生んだ。
中韓両国の強い反発は想定内としても、米国政府の「失望」の表明は驚きだったのか、日本では大きく報じられた。しかし、ケリー国務、ヘーゲル国防両長官の千鳥ヶ淵戦没者墓苑訪問に込められたシグナルを無視された米国政府の反応としては、これは当然と受け止めるべきであったろう。
それよりも筆者が注目したのは国民の評価である。
世論調査の数字を見ると、表面上は賛否が拮抗していたが、大半の人は、Ａ級戦犯が合祀されていると否とにかかわらず、「戦没者の霊に哀悼の念をささげるのは当然の行為であり、首相の靖国参拝が他国から非難されるいわれはない」と考えているのではないか。
今回の参拝に否定的な人も、それ自体の是非ではなく、「なぜ、この時期に」という、専らタイミングの問題と考えたとみられる。
しかし、ここで重要なのは、靖国参拝は日本自身の問題でもある点を見失ってはならないことである。
終戦５０年に際して発表された首相談話（村山談話）には三つのキーワードがある。「植民地支配」「侵略」「歴史の事実」である。これらは、その１０年後の終戦記念日の首相談話（小泉談話）でも繰り返された。
戦後の日本は、戦前戦中の「独善的なナショナリズム」（村山談話）に基づく植民地支配と侵略を歴史の事実として受け入れ、過去と決別して「戦争への反省」（小泉談話）を行動で示す平和国家として生きていくことを内外に約した。これこそが、戦後の日本がよって立つ座標軸なのである。
米政界の数少ない知日派の大物で、ブッシュ前政権下で駐日大使を務めたベーカー氏は、小泉首相（当時）の靖国参拝がなぜこれほどの問題になるのか確かめたいと同神社に赴き、遊就館（併設の展示施設）を視察した。大使は軍国主義の暴走の軌跡を肯定するかのような展示に衝撃を受けたといわれる。その後、展示は一部変更されたが、米メディアは今も同様の指摘をしている。残念なことである。
２０世紀前半の我が国は「国策を誤り」（村山談話）、多くの国民がその国策のために戦って尊い命を落とした。平和国家日本の座標軸は、彼らの貴重な犠牲の上に据えられたものだ。
日本国民の多くは、過去の過ちに対する反省を忘れてはならないことを認識している。同時に、戦後の日本が国際協調を旨とする平和国家として不断の努力を重ねてきていることを、国際社会に評価してほしいと考えている。この努力を無視した中韓の批判は、日本の国民感情にとっては受け入れがたいものである。
ただ、歴史認識の問題を克服するには、日本自身も他国にいらぬ誤解を抱かせぬようにする必要がある。
靖国参拝問題の本質は、二つの首相談話に示された戦後の日本の新しい座標軸と相いれない歴史観を肯定しているかのごとき印象を与えかねないことにある。
戦没者の慰霊も不戦の誓いもそうした印象を払拭させてこそ国際的にも説得力を持つのではなかろうか。
（筆者は筆者は元駐米大使。本稿は２０１４年１月２１日付読売新聞に掲載された。）
中韓両国の強い反発は想定内としても、米国政府の「失望」の表明は驚きだったのか、日本では大きく報じられた。しかし、ケリー国務、ヘーゲル国防両長官の千鳥ヶ淵戦没者墓苑訪問に込められたシグナルを無視された米国政府の反応としては、これは当然と受け止めるべきであったろう。
それよりも筆者が注目したのは国民の評価である。
世論調査の数字を見ると、表面上は賛否が拮抗していたが、大半の人は、Ａ級戦犯が合祀されていると否とにかかわらず、「戦没者の霊に哀悼の念をささげるのは当然の行為であり、首相の靖国参拝が他国から非難されるいわれはない」と考えているのではないか。
今回の参拝に否定的な人も、それ自体の是非ではなく、「なぜ、この時期に」という、専らタイミングの問題と考えたとみられる。
しかし、ここで重要なのは、靖国参拝は日本自身の問題でもある点を見失ってはならないことである。
終戦５０年に際して発表された首相談話（村山談話）には三つのキーワードがある。「植民地支配」「侵略」「歴史の事実」である。これらは、その１０年後の終戦記念日の首相談話（小泉談話）でも繰り返された。
戦後の日本は、戦前戦中の「独善的なナショナリズム」（村山談話）に基づく植民地支配と侵略を歴史の事実として受け入れ、過去と決別して「戦争への反省」（小泉談話）を行動で示す平和国家として生きていくことを内外に約した。これこそが、戦後の日本がよって立つ座標軸なのである。
米政界の数少ない知日派の大物で、ブッシュ前政権下で駐日大使を務めたベーカー氏は、小泉首相（当時）の靖国参拝がなぜこれほどの問題になるのか確かめたいと同神社に赴き、遊就館（併設の展示施設）を視察した。大使は軍国主義の暴走の軌跡を肯定するかのような展示に衝撃を受けたといわれる。その後、展示は一部変更されたが、米メディアは今も同様の指摘をしている。残念なことである。
２０世紀前半の我が国は「国策を誤り」（村山談話）、多くの国民がその国策のために戦って尊い命を落とした。平和国家日本の座標軸は、彼らの貴重な犠牲の上に据えられたものだ。
日本国民の多くは、過去の過ちに対する反省を忘れてはならないことを認識している。同時に、戦後の日本が国際協調を旨とする平和国家として不断の努力を重ねてきていることを、国際社会に評価してほしいと考えている。この努力を無視した中韓の批判は、日本の国民感情にとっては受け入れがたいものである。
ただ、歴史認識の問題を克服するには、日本自身も他国にいらぬ誤解を抱かせぬようにする必要がある。
靖国参拝問題の本質は、二つの首相談話に示された戦後の日本の新しい座標軸と相いれない歴史観を肯定しているかのごとき印象を与えかねないことにある。
戦没者の慰霊も不戦の誓いもそうした印象を払拭させてこそ国際的にも説得力を持つのではなかろうか。
（筆者は筆者は元駐米大使。本稿は２０１４年１月２１日付読売新聞に掲載された。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟