Why Ishiba shouldn’t issue a WWII 80th anniversary statement

In Japan, Aug. 15 is widely known as "Shusen no Hi," meaning "The Day of the End of the War."

But technically speaking, it might more appropriately be referred to as "The Day of Defeat for Japan." Under international law, the formal end of the Pacific War was on Sept. 2, 1945, when Japan’s foreign minister and the army chief of staff signed the surrender document on the deck of the USS Missouri battleship in Tokyo Bay, alongside representatives of the Allied powers.

Aug. 15 is referred to as the day the war ended because it is when Emperor Hirohito announced Japan’s surrender over the radio. However, a week prior, on Aug. 9, the Soviet Union unilaterally abrogated the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact and suddenly declared war on Japan. Even after Japan accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration on Aug. 10, Soviet forces continued combat operations, advancing southward through the Kuril Islands and, between Aug. 28 and Sept. 5, invading and occupying the Northern Territories.

No wonder Japan has never fully trusted Russia.

That aside, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba had likely hoped to issue a formal statement regarding the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II on Aug. 15. “In this milestone year marking 80 years since the end of the war,” he explained, “it is essential to properly examine the course of the war in order to prevent it from ever happening again.” Even now, Ishiba appears to wish to issue some kind of message, even if not in the form of an official Aug. 15 statement.

There is no shortage of opposition to this idea within Ishiba’s own party, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Among the opponents are those who hold Ishiba politically responsible for the LDP’s series of election defeats, as well as those who believe that the statement issued by then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on the 70th anniversary of the end of the war was the final and best statement. What they have in common is neither wants Ishiba to use a formal prime minister’s statement to prolong his political career or to overwrite Abe’s statement.

I too believe we do not need another formal prime minister’s statement at this point, but for reasons completely different from conservative LDP politicians.

The first point to discuss is the purpose of issuing another formal statement. Ishiba has stated, “I want to verify why the war occurred and to indicate the direction of mechanisms to prevent it.” But “to verify why the war occurred,” in this case, likely means reviewing responsibility for the war. If that is the case, there are two aspects to consider: international responsibility and domestic responsibility.

In terms of international responsibility, the three official statements from Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama (1995), Junichiro Koizumi (2005) and Abe (2015) suffice. The Murayama statement expressed “deep remorse” and “heartfelt apologies” for Japan's “erroneous national policy that led to war” and for the “enormous suffering and pain” caused by “colonial rule and aggression.” To my knowledge, there is no other example in the postwar international community of a sovereign nation officially apologizing for its “colonial rule and aggression”

In 2007, then-President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, in response to Algeria's demand for an official apology, stated that “colonialism was extremely unjust,” “it is certain that there was much suffering and injustice during those 132 years, but this is not the entirety of our relationship,” and “while I support the recognition of facts, I cannot agree to expressions of penitence, as such a religious concept does not fit into relations between nations.” He thus politely refused to apologize.

Similar demands have been made of the United Kingdom, but there is no record of the U.K. officially apologizing for its “colonial rule.” Germany, too, has only made a gesture of atonement by having its chancellor kneel before a Holocaust monument rather than apologizing for its military “invasions” or “colonial rule.”

To be clear: I am not saying that Japan should not have apologized. I just want readers to understand how sincerely Japan has worked to resolve international issues diplomatically in the postwar years, particularly in the past 30 years.

What remains to be examined is domestic political responsibility. This refers to the failure of Japan’s administrations in the 1930s and ’40s that fought and lost a war that claimed the lives of approximately 3 million Japanese citizens. In this regard, Germany has taken the lead by enacting the Anti-Nazi Law and its courts still continue to adjudicate the responsibility of individual Germans based on this law.

Japan does not have such a law. Reportedly, when the Japanese Upper House attempted to debate such issues in the late 1940s, the General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, the administrative entity of the occupying forces centered on the U.S. military at the time, was reluctant to see such discussions. Apparently, the GHQ wanted to avoid a situation where “Japan's parliament would develop its own theory of war responsibility, thereby undermining the legitimacy of the Tokyo Tribunals.”

That said, I support the idea of examining domestic political responsibility for the war. It is never too late to begin such a discussion. But such a review is not the responsibility of the prime minister, who heads the executive branch; rather it is the responsibility of the legislature, or the Diet.

For these reasons, I feel it is inappropriate for the prime minister of Japan to issue an official statement marking the 80th anniversary of the end of the war. Will Ishiba insist on issuing a statement? Perhaps. But if one reflects on the points I’ve raised here, one will see that it is unnecessary.