You are here: Home > Opinion > Columnists

A brief history of revisionism

By Zhao Jinglun: 0 Comment(s)Print E-mail China.org.cn, May 2, 2013

Adjust font size:

[By Gou Ben/China.org.cn]

Shinzo Abe told the Japanese Diet on April 23 that "the definition of what constitutes an 'invasion' has yet to be established in academia or in the international community." The statement mirrored a comment he made back in 2006.

The history of World War II, of course, belongs to the Department of Settled Questions, as The Wall Street Journal put it. The Journal calls Abe's reinterpretation of that history "news to survivors of Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March or the Rape of Nanjing."

The Abe regime also marked on April 28 the first "Restoration of Sovereignty Day" in commemoration of the day in 1952 when the San Francisco Peace Treaty took effect, formally ending World War II and the U.S. occupation of Japan. Abe called for a renewal of a sense of hope and determination, "to make Japan a strong and resolute country". This is a clear implication that he has plans to revise the Japanese constitution.

Don't miss:

Surprise chant puts Abe in media glare

The presence of Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko gave the ceremony added gravitas. They were sent off by Abe and company who threw up their hands and cried "Banzai!" This was an astonishing turn, as "Banzai" was the cry of the Japanese warriors during the Pacific War.

Sunday's ceremony upset the residents of Okinawa, which, after the war, remained under U.S. control for another two decades until 1972. The island remains the reluctant host to some 50,000 U.S. military forces. Residents are especially opposed to the deployment of Osprey transports, which are prone to accidents.

Another surprise came when Abe questioned whether Japan's occupation of Korea was aggression. He said, "Things that happened between nations will look different depending on which side you view them from." So, for the Japanese PM, there is no objective truth. This is pure sophistry.

Abe went further still, donning a camouflage suit and mounting Japan's new tank. It reminded me of another joker who landed aboard an aircraft carrier to announce "mission accomplished" in Iraq. History will record both actions as shameful.

Abe's denial of Japan's war crimes especially infuriated China and South Korea. A spokeswoman from the Chinese Foreign Ministry declared that Japan's relationship with its neighbors will have no future if it does not learn lessons from its history of aggression.

Shinzo Abe went to such lengths to deny Japan's war crimes that even America's major media reacted with disbelief. Abe, however, is not crazy. There is a twisted logic to his statements. In Japan's current political climate, the more right-wing you are, the more popular you become, and the more votes you will likely get in the upcoming Upper House election. This says something about the Japanese national psyche.

Abe needs absolute control of both houses of the Japanese Diet to carry out his plan to revise Japan's constitution, especially Article Nine, so as to become a "normal nation;" not only that, but to revive Japanese militarism.

Will the Obama administration allow this to happen, considering the fact that the constitution was written by the Americans in the first place? But there are prominent Americans who consider the constitution "anachronistic". Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and former Assistant Secretary of Defense Joseph Nye, Jr., in a report last August sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, advocated Tier I status for Japan. They argued that Japan and the U.S. should face the rise of China together and they advocated a larger role for Japan's Self Defense Forces.

The Obama administration, however, does want the Japanese military to play a larger role. In his recent talks with his Japanese counterpart Itsunori Onodera, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel made it clear that the islands at the center of a territorial dispute between Japan and China are covered by a military protection accord between Washington and Tokyo. He also emphasized that the U.S. recognizes they are under the administration of Japan and that Washington opposes any unilateral or coercive action which seeks to undermine Japan's administrative control.

All of this seems clear enough. Will Washington really allow Shinzo Abe to revise Article Nine of Japan's constitution? Does it really want to see a repeat of Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March? China's new ambassador to Washington Cui Tiankai pointed out that it was Japan that took "unilateral and coercive action" which stirred up the islands dispute. He warned both Tokyo and Washington not to engage in actions which would, ultimately, be self-defeating.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit: http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/zhaojinglun.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.