Facebook

Original Japanese source (SYNODOS): http://synodos.jp/politics/3894

Translation(Office BALÉS): https://www.facebook.com/OfficeBALES 

--On the "Murayama Statement," LDP's Rep. Takaichi was critical about the word "aggression" and Prime Minister Abe also didn't make it quite clear... (inaudible). What is your opinion on the Murayama Statement that apologized about the colonial rule and aggression? 

[On definition of aggression]

I'm in agreement on the definition of aggression with Prime Minister Abe that it has not yet been academically defined. After World War II, an arrangement was established in the UN to allow the Security Council to make the final determination, ex posto facto. Although it is true that there is no definition for aggression, we must remember that we are a defeated state. We fought the war and lost it. So for the victor states, in this case the Allied side, this fact or the result, cannot be contradicted. So even though the definition has not been academically defined, I think we have to accept that as a result of the defeat, we have accepted it was an act of aggression. It is irrefutable that we have caused great damage and suffering to our Asian neighbors, and we have to accept that wholeheartedly. We also have to be remorseful and convey our sincere apology for it.

As I've been telling the Weekly Asahi and the Asahi Shimbun on many occasions, a party to a conflict cannot itself keep on claiming something is "over" in their own time frame. It requires some time--until the other party's grievances are reconciled and they feel that they've been heard. It undoubtedly needs some passing of time. So saying things like, "It's been 60 years since the war--or it's been 70 years since the war--so let's forget about it," should not come from our side. If it's a third-party state, like the United States or other Allied states--of course the U.S. has sustained some losses but in this case a third party in the strict sense--saying, "Let's forget about it," then that would be okay, but the party to the conflict, Japan, saying, "It's been 60 years or 70 years so let's forget about it," well that just isn't right. Is it?

But for things Japan is being unjustly insulted for that are not factual, we must take a stand. So as a defeated state, we have to accept that. That's what putting up a fight is all about. We've lost. 

So the administrators at the time has a grave responsibility, because we lost the war. When you lose a war, many things will be said about you.... things that you have to endure. But that's what it means to lose. And that's why we shouldn't fight a losing war. Of course we shouldn't be in a war in the first place, but losing a war means you can't 'just forget it'. It isn't that easy. That's what being in a fight is all about. 

[On comfort women]

But I also believe facts should be laid out as facts. 

On comfort women, for example. I think we must treat them with due care and approach them with tender heart. If they were placed in the position to take such profession against their will, this has to be taken into account. But why is it that the world only focuses on Japan's comfort women issue? In those days, the system of comfort women was present across the world in every military. There's is nothing good about it, but this was the reality in those days. Then why only Japan became the focus of the comfort women issue? Because the world sought of Japan as a rapist state, that Japan have abducted comfort women and forced them into such profession as a state practice.

Japanese must acknowledge that the whole world is criticizing us because they think we are a rapist state. That's what we have to acknowledge. I wouldn't say that the system of comfort women did not exist, nor do I refute that it was administered by the military. But during those days, it is a hard fact that the whole world's military employed such system. It even existed during the Korean War and the Vietnam war, following World War II. Then why does the world's attention focus on Japan when it comes to the comfort women issue? Because Japan is being harshly criticized with the understanding that the state have employed the military to rape these women.

On this point, I think we must take a stand to say what is not true. However, for those women who were turned into comfort women against their will, we must acknowledge it as the result of tragedies of war and that the war responsibility lies on us as well. So for them, we must understand well their emotions and treat them with due care. But for things that are not true, we must take a stand to state that it's not true.

As for the war responsibility, we must acknowledge many things as a defeated state. But looking back, we know that Western powers including the United States were engaged in colonial policies. This is not to say that this fact justifies Japan's actions, but I'm only saying that the state of the world was as such. Japan embarked into a war and lost under such status-quo. So for the victor states, the fact of Japan's defeat, the evil she has committed can never be compromised as victor state. And because we are defeated, we must accept that. 

But we must take a stand on what is not true. The world was under colonial rule, and although it cannot be solely attributed to Japan's actions, the World War II served as a turning point that marked the independence of various Asian nations. We must take a stand on this. But with the fact that we have lost the war and that aggression and colonial rule is under criticism from the world as a whole, we must also express our remorse and apology to the Asian nations to which we have caused great damage and suffering. We must accept this fact face-on.

What's wrong with the approach of the Japanese politicians in sending out the message on historical issues is that they cannot separate things that we should express our apology about and things that we must take a stand. They cannot do it. If you take only one position, without taking a stand, then you will only get stamped on. They either take a position to not take stand and get stamped on, or a position to take a stand to deny all alleged facts. It's one way or the other. It's too extreme.

We have to acknowledge what needs to be acknowledged, and take stand on what is not true. When one only study a little of modern history about what the state of the world was back in those days, and hears about these comfort women issues, one will tend to think that it was a terrible thing. But if one looks closer into the history of that era, one will understand that the system of comfort women was employed in many of the world's military, and not just the Japanese military.

Just think about it: running through a storm of bullets that aim to strike you, risking your life, a group of men, all worked up. Anyone can understand that these men need some place to rest or do the likes and that system like comfort women would be necessary. So why is Japan looked upon by the Western world in such a way? Because we are viewed as a rapist state with propaganda by nations such as South Korea. That's the most critical problem. That's why we must take a stand to insist what's not true.

If any evidence is found, then we would have to acknowledge them, but the Cabinet decision made in 2007 has determined that no such evidence has been found to date. Recently the Abe administration has made a Cabinet decision saying that additional evidence could be found. So may be, there is a possibility that some evidence could be uncovered pointing to some incidence that some comfort women were forcefully abducted by assault and/or intimidation. Nevertheless, since there is no such evidence that point out that the government itself was involved in the abduction of these women through assault and/or intimidation, we must take a stand to make this fact known.

However, we must take into account those women who were turned into comfort women against their will. We shall acknowledge what must be acknowledged, and shall express apology where apology is called for, gracefully accepting that we are a defeated state. In this regard, the LDP members, though they always talk about things like samurai spirit and Bushido, they whine too much, amounting to nothing. We've lost in the war, so we must gracefully acknowledge it.

But we must take a stand on things that are unjustly put forward or reputation determined without sufficient grounds. We must place in the forefront the state of the world of those days: that colonialism was a common practice; that although it was a common practice, Japan has lost the war. And because we have endured much damage and suffering to others, we must consider it in a sincere manner and be remorseful where remorse is called for.