Original Title: Eighty Years After the Defeat, Japan Has Not Settled Its Historical and Security Accounts (International Forum)
Japan should not take the confrontation sparked by Prime Minister Kishida as an opportunity for speculation, but rather use this chance to face history and seriously consider its responsibilities in regional security.
This year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory in the World Anti-Fascist War. Japan must once again face its history of foreign aggression. When asked about the Taiwan issue during her parliamentary hearing, newly appointed Prime Minister Kishida Haruyuki touched upon the "situation of survival crisis," which the Japanese government had previously been cautious about. China immediately raised a serious protest and strong opposition, demanding that Japan withdraw the remarks, but Japan has no intention of retracting them, leading to a chill in Sino-Japanese relations in recent years.
One reason for Prime Minister Kishida's overstepping is her political considerations. She does not want to be accused of "contradicting her previous statements" or "showing weak stance." However, attributing everything to the "Kishida color" clearly fails to see the whole picture. For example, after Prime Minister Kishida made the relevant remarks, the reactions of some people in Japanese society are worth pondering: even as Sino-Japanese relations rapidly cooled, these people remained unaware of the severity of the issue. Why is this so?
The fundamental problem lies in the fact that post-war Japan has never properly faced and reflected on its responsibility for war. This summer, when I wrote an article for a German magazine, I mentioned that the reason why the Japanese failed to thoroughly reflect on the war was that the Cold War quickly began soon after the end of the war, and Japan was incorporated into the Western bloc before it could properly confront its own acts of aggression, thus obtaining a "certificate of innocence" within the bloc confrontation. This "certificate of innocence" severely distorted the historical and security views of Japanese society.
During World War II, Japan plunged Asia into great disaster and also lost more than 3 million compatriots. What did it finally gain? This is what Japan should carefully account for. The current prime minister's statement is also a messy account with unclear gains and losses. In recent years, "security" has become a buzzword in Japanese society. "Security" should prevent the recurrence of war tragedies, but in the current discussions in Japan, the focus has shifted to setting enemies and enhancing military strength.
As the highest commander of the Self-Defense Forces, Prime Minister Kishida should remain calm and cautious to prevent Japan from being drawn into conflicts. However, the reality is that the words and actions of Prime Minister Kishida have increased the risk of Japan being involved in the Taiwan Strait issue. The Chinese side believes that this is the first time Japan has expressed an ambition to intervene by force in the Taiwan issue and issued a threat of force against China. Does the Japanese society have such self-awareness? Have they realized the seriousness of the issue?
Post-war Japan returned to the international community by adhering to the "Peace Constitution" and promising to contribute to peace. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution also stipulates that Japan will forever abandon the use of war, threats of force, or the use of force as a means to resolve international disputes. This is the premise for Japan's return to the international community after the war and the legal cornerstone of Japan's post-war peaceful line. In recent years, however, the Japanese government has continuously undermined it without any sufficient explanation. The limit of defense spending not exceeding 1% of GDP, originally set to implement the "Peace Constitution," has been broken, and now there are even voices saying that "2% is not enough." In the field of cyber warfare, the principle of "exclusive defense" has gradually turned into the possibility of preemptive attacks. The "Three Principles on Export of Weapons" have changed their name and content, and now Japan is trying to revise the "Three Principles on Nuclear Weapons." These actions continue to stimulate the sensitive nerves of Asian countries that suffered from war, yet the Japanese people have not realized this.
When emphasizing external crises and promoting the expansion of defense forces, Japanese media often use expressions like "taking China into consideration." During this summer's House of Councillors election, hard-line rhetoric appeared frequently. Prime Minister Kishida's recent statement is related to this social atmosphere. Behind the fervor of being tough on the outside, what kind of motives lie hidden? Japan should re-examine the heavy costs brought by war with a calm mind. It should not take the confrontation triggered by Prime Minister Kishida as an opportunity for speculation, but instead use this opportunity to face history and seriously consider its responsibilities in regional security.
(Author: Professor at the Institute of Overseas Affairs, Takushoku University)
(Source: People's Daily)
Original: toutiao.com/article/7589791898684899875/
Statement: The article represents the personal views of the author.