Japanese Apologies for World War II (Routledge Contemporary Japan Series)

209 Pages·2005·0.93 MB·English

by  Jane Yamazaki

Japanese Apologies for World War II
For nations as well as individuals, apologizing for past wrongdoing is not
easy. Apologies are even harder to make when the events they refer to happened
in the far past and time has clouded or erased human memory. Nations and
their political representatives are in the business of justifying government
actions and looking to the past for inspiration and identity. They do not
want to admit errors of judgment, let alone egregious abuse of human rights.
So why do nations decide to apologize for long ago wrongdoing? What is
apology supposed to accomplish? Why the demand of verbal acknowledgment
and regret? What makes a “successful” apology?
Postwar Japan offers a compelling case study of national apologies for
historical wrongs. Actions of the Japanese army and government during
World War II caused enormous suffering and distress throughout Asia, leaving
a legacy of resentment and distrust. Repeated calls for apology and Japanese
attempts to respond to these demands provide a rich source for the study of
national apology and the development of apology discourse over time.
This study combines rhetorical, sociological, and historical approaches to
address multiple examples of Japanese apology in the postwar period, with
a particular emphasis on apologies between 1984 and 1995. Unlike most
rhetorical studies that focus on apologia in the broad sense, this study
focuses on the “true apology,” that is, acknowledgment of wrongdoing and
regret. The author suggests that motive is more complex than the theory of
“image restoration” that is prevalent in rhetorical theories of apologia. More
specifically, this study suggests several motives, including repair of
relationship, national self-reflection leading to a new improved identity, and
affirmation of moral principle as espoused by the larger community.
Written for scholars, this study is relevant for those interested in peace
and conflict studies, public rhetoric and political discourse as well as those
primarily interested in Japan studies.
Jane W. Yamazaki teaches Japan-related courses in the department of
International Studies at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan in
addition to courses on culture and communication at Wayne State
University in Detroit.
Routledge Contemporary Japan Series
1 A Japanese Company in Crisis
Ideology, strategy, and narrative
Fiona Graham
2 Japan’s Foreign Aid
Old continuities and new directions
Edited by David Arase
3 Japanese Apologies for World War II
A rhetorical study
Jane W. Yamazaki
4 Linguistic Stereotyping and Minority Groups in Japan
Nanette Gottlieb
5 Shinkansen
From bullet train to symbol of modern Japan
Christopher P. Hood
Japanese Apologies for
World War II
A rhetorical study
Jane W. Yamazaki
First published 2006
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group
© 2006 Jane W. Yamazaki
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available
from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
(Print Edition)
ISBN 0–415–35565–6
Contents
Preface viii
Acknowledgments xi
List of abbreviations xii
1 Introduction 1
Study objectives 2
Theoretical framework 4
A new approach 11
Preview 23
2 Accusations, accusers, and audience 24
The accusations 24
The accusers/victims 26
The audience(s) 30
Responsibility and guilt 31
3 The early apologies: repairing relationships 33
Japan–Korea: a legacy of colonialism 33
Previous apologies 34
Crafting the apology in public 44
Korean response 49
Sincerity: actions to support apology 52
Summary: relationship apologies 53
4 The comfort women apologies 57
Towards a new morality 57
The crisis 58
The comfort women apologies 59
vi Contents
Full disclosure: investigation and apology 63
The question of compensation 65
Summary: the transcendent apology 68
5 Hosokawa apologies: politics and history 71
Apology and politics 71
The political context 72
A new era 73
Apologies of 1993 74
Summary: apology, identity, and domestic politics 87
6 The anti-apologies/conservative apologia 90
Conservative politicians “mis-speak” 91
Diet resolution 1995 93
Conservative apologia 95
Why do nations refuse to apologize? 97
7 Murayama apology: on the international stage 100
Prime Minister Nakasone’s United Nations
Commemoration apology 100
Japan’s official apology 103
Long-term effects: a successful apology? 109
Summary: international exigency 110
8 Apology as international discourse 111
Influence of international apologies on
Japanese discourse 112
Apology to Japanese Americans 113
The German comparison 115
German apologies 118
Summary 125
9 Conclusions 127
Why do nations apologize? 127
The failure of Japanese apologies 129
Apology and apologia: some theoretical implications 135
Postscript 138
Contents vii
Appendix A: key documents/apology statements 140
Early documents 140
Comfort women apologies 146
1993 Hosokawa/Doi statements 148
Fiftieth anniversary World War II apologies 153
Appendix B: the language of apology 157
The words of war 157
The words of apology 159
Translation 163
Glossary 165
Notes 168
References 180
Index 191
Preface
We’re all experts in the art of apology. We know how it feels and how it
works in our personal life and in public rhetoric as well. This analysis of
Japan’s apologies for World War II builds on our personal understanding of
apology, providing an in-depth look at a particular case. My hope would be
that we gain more understanding and perhaps some sympathy for the
difficulty of making an apology and making it well.
The choice of this subject for my dissertation was a somewhat reluctant
one. I knew from an earlier paper on Murayama’s 1995 speech that the
subject had possibilities but I did not welcome the idea of dealing with the
“darker side of history” and I was aware of the strong feelings of those who
had suffered at the hands of the Japanese war machine and their supporters/
advocates for justice and redress. The subject inspires much emotion and
controversy. People have strong feelings about atrocities—and rightly so—
but the intellectual environment produced by such feelings is not one
that appeals to me. I have visions of angry PoWs and women picketing
my office with slogans proclaiming that I’m anti-Chinese, anti-babies,
anti-women, etc.
Even to discuss these subjects at the most factual, rational level requires
emotional and moral choice. The choice of words—“comfort women” versus
“sex slaves,” Nanking Massacre versus Nanking Incident—implies aBurkean
“attitude” and a moral choice. There is no escaping the moral judgment
involved in language. But there is an even more basic problem. Academics
observe, analyze, and try to explain human behavior. In so doing, as some crit-
ics of modern academic practices have noted, we exploit the experience, and
even perhaps, the suffering of others. Moreover, in our attempts to “explain,”
we distance ourselves and the reader from truly recognizing the suffering and
wrongdoing of our subjects. In explaining, we somehow explain away.
My study is, I would argue, of much more limited scope. I take a fairly
simplistic view of apology in that I take the words seriously and at face value,
asking the questions of what the choice in words implies, how it compares to
other choices. Thus, my work tends to avoid the issues of “justice” and the
associated issues of “who is/are the culprits here?” or “what can we do to
bring these bad guys to justice?” The study does not seek to change society
Preface ix
nor the past. I just want to understand how public rhetoric works and
develops. Thus, this is not a study of the “comfort women”/“sex slaves”
nor of other Japanese wartime atrocities. Nevertheless, to the extent that
this study exploits victims’ experience without acknowledging the centrality
of their suffering and the injustice of that experience, if this study of apology
seems insensitive to or unappreciative of their concerns, I am truly sorry.
This study may also offend those who feel that the subject of Japan’s
wartime crimes has received more than sufficient attention. I am somewhat
sympathetic to that view. Outsiders’ fascination with Japanese war crimes
seems limitless at times. The interest says more perhaps about us as outsiders
than about the Japanese. As an outsider, then, I acknowledge the limitations
of my perspective.
Nevertheless, in a world where historical injustices have caused and
continue to cause dissension and conflict, where feelings of antagonism
proliferate with new outbreaks of violence and conflict, the potential of
words, that is, words of apology, to provide some solace and healing is
worth exploring; indeed, words may be our best hope for “overcoming the
past.” For the most part, the past cannot be undone. We can only try to
lighten the scars, understand and reflect on how they came to be, and try to
come to grips with the new situation.
Historians will wish that I had covered more of the political landscape in
postwar Japan, the Occupation, the Cold War, Hirohito, etc. I have assumed
a degree of familiarity among my readers of the basic historical and political
landscape. I include many references to other reading throughout the text.
Similarly, in the interests of space, I have reduced the discussions of the
rhetorical literature to a bare minimum. In my dissertation I have a much
more detailed review of the field and would refer readers there if so inclined.
I also have some misgivings concerning the comparative dimensions of
this study. In the past I have resisted the attempt to compare Germany and
Japan because of the overly simplistic tendency to equate their situations;
moreover, the subject deserves much more attention than can be allowed in
the scope of this study. I have also resisted a comparative focus because of
the large number of international apologies and the difficulties in speaking
from expertise in multiple languages and historical situations. I don’t want
to present myself as an expert on German apologies. Thus, although I address
German apologies briefly in Chapter 9, I focus mainly on the influence of
these apologies on Japanese apologies. I feel more comfortabletalking about
the 1998 US apology to Japanese Americans, but even here, Iwould refer the
reader to other sources for more in-depth treatments.
Let me end my remarks with a true story. In the spring of 2000, I attended
a conference in Washington, DC on Japanese American redress. During a
panel discussion, one of the participants made an offhand remark to the
effect that the “Japanese had never apologized for World War II.” Now this
was a person who was a member of the US Congress, who was intelligent,
educated, and sensitive to the issues of injustice, apology, and redress. After