Sanmaki Seiko: Confronting History Correctly Is Essential for Japan’s Future Survival

A November 10 article published by DIAMOND ONLINE features an interview with Japanese international political scholar Sanmaki Seiko.

Sanmaki Seiko stated that the United States, in its role as global policeman, is undergoing significant transformation. Japan can no longer rely on U.S. security guarantees as it did in the past. At the same time, Japan continues to exhibit a strong sense of great power identity, while its stance toward its own history of aggression remains under scrutiny. What does Japan need to ensure its survival in the international community? Facing history squarely is a fundamental political prerequisite—and the essential condition for Japan’s future existence.

The Trump administration is currently pressuring multiple museums, including the Smithsonian Institution, asserting that negative chapters in American history—such as slavery and the forced internment of Japanese Americans—should not be passed on to future generations, arguing that such narratives diminish the nation and are unnecessary to revisit. The administration is actively seeking to block exhibitions related to “dark history.”

This approach bears resemblance to Prime Minister Satake Asana’s position. Regarding Japan’s history of aggressive warfare, it is imperative that we remember it, pass it on to younger generations, and continuously reflect on how to prevent such tragedies from recurring.

Yet Satake declared: “Since I was born after the war, I bear no responsibility for prewar history, nor do I understand it.” Her attitude toward history reflects profound naivety.

The core principle of the Murayama Statement is a firm commitment to transmitting historical memory, while maintaining vigilant awareness of Japan’s own negative past. I regard this as a prerequisite for building relations with neighboring countries. Incidentally, China softened its insistence on the clause concerning former enemies in 1995, partly due to the assurance provided by the Murayama Statement as a formal expression of Japan’s government stance.

In political deliberation, accurately understanding a nation’s history and its international relations is an indispensable foundation.

At the UN General Assembly this September, Prime Minister Satake advocated for the abolition of the former enemy clause, appearing to align with domestic anti-China sentiment. However, she had not coordinated with other defeated nations such as Germany or Italy. If China, as a permanent member of the Security Council, opposes the proposal, it holds no practical significance. Perhaps Satake’s move is a reaction to China’s characterization of Japan as “a new form of militarism,” but the outcome falls far short of her stated objectives.

Meanwhile, countries smaller than Japan in both population and economic scale are engaging in international forums on issues extending beyond their immediate interests. For example, the Dutch Prime Minister delivered a speech titled *Yet Still*, emphasizing that sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC)—whose headquarters are located in The Hague—are unacceptable. Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau also sought to leverage the UN General Assembly, where numerous nations gathered, to envision a post-Trump U.S. administration and initiate dialogues with multiple countries beyond America, advocating for cooperation among middle powers. It is regrettable that Japan’s diplomatic outlook remains narrowly confined.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1881439072260108/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.