To the World Whom it May Concern,
Japan seems to have been charged with its alleged attempts to whitewash the atrocities it committed during the wars in the first half of the 20th century. Some have found three symptoms of its kind in 1) some of the descriptions in the Japanese history textbooks, 2) the Japanese insistence on its own dominion over Takeshima (alleged by Korea), and 3) the present Japanese Prime Minister’s frequent visits to Yasukuni Shrine. However, I wonder how these can be regarded as the symptoms because I observe they are just indicative of Japan’s repentance and responsibility for what it did in the wars, and its results. In another expression, Japan has a firm determination not to appeal to arms to resolve international conflicts with any other countries. So, I don’t understand how those interpretations can go so far. Let me try to rectify the misunderstandings.
1) As to the Descriptions in textbooks
Again, one of the biggest lessons the wars gave Japan was you should not appeal to arms to handle international affairs because a war is just a competition in arm, so it cannot work as a way to judge what is right over a matter in question. This must have been an axiom to Japan, but our (great-) grandfathers were driven to the wars. Why? Japan thinks it necessary to study more about the international wars in the first half of the previous century, to trace how he forced himself to participate in the wars, the Shino-Japanese war and the Pacific War, whose whole picture, according to researchers, has remained incomplete. Some attribute its decisive cause to the Japanese being extremely evil. But Japan thinks it is just a layman’s answer. A factual survey of Japan’s actions during the wars shows he did so many things, some of which should be categorized as bitter wrongdoings and others should not. Some persons think the latter actions should not be described in the textbooks, but Japan wants to get a whole picture of the wars to trace the true cause(s) of the biggest tragedy that the world had ever had, so those descriptions need to be in the textbooks, in order to let the students see the wars in perspective.
2) Takeshima (Dokto)
Which country has the authorized dominion over Takeshima (Dokto)? This has been difficult to settle because there has been no clear logic in showing who the true owner of the island has been. In the beginning, what can give the authority to either of them? Is it factual records or documents? They cannot because they are just pieces of information, so they cannot give an unerring answer to the problem, so that each of the two countries is allowed to cling to his own assertion while ignoring the opponent’s statement. What should they do then? One of the most possible solutions might be to ask the International Court of Justice for help. Japan suggested doing so, but Korea has refused to agree. I don’t know why.
What I want to let Korea know most is that Korea is doing the same thing as Japan did against Korea before. Korea has put its army in Takeshima to prevent any Japanese civilian fishermen from approaching to the island. In short, Korea has appealed to arms to handle international affairs. I suggest Korea should leave the Takeshima matter to the International Court of Justice. Let me tell you Japan is not going to handle this matter with weapon.
3) Yasukuni Shrine
I would say this is a matter of intercultural conflict. So, I think Japan needs to describe and delineate how Shinto, a Japanese idiosyncratic religion, lets Japanese pay homage at the shrine. Those who have criticized the Japanese Prime Minister’s frequent visits to Yasukuni Shrine, I’m saying, do not know what the visits mean. Do you know Shinto has no doctrine to cling to and its reason? There are so many religions in the world, but they look the same in that they may help us understand or accept a fact complicated, unfathomable, and susceptible to several readings, like why we are mortal, why my baby was gone at his or her birth, why I have had no leg since I was born, why a person whom I thought honest and sincere kills another person, etc. You can say that the kind of fact should be a phenomenon in which two or more opposite interpretations can go. On the contrary, the religions are different from each other in their ways to help or let persons understand or accept those facts. I’m saying some who criticize the visits are ignorant of the way adopted in Shinto.
An event becomes a problem to you when the event collides with the one you have had. Can you guess what Shinto requires you to do then? It advises you to let those incompatible things coexist peacefully and tranquilly. In Shinto, “praying” is correspondent in meaning with not “admiring or worshipping someone” but “contemplating the kind of situation in which there are two or more things that are inconsistent with each other.” More important, the wars were an amalgam of so many phases: Japan competed with and was lost to US in the Pacific War while Japan invaded China in the Shino-Japan War like the Powers did in the world then, and the Japanese leaders committed awful mistakes in adopting strategies and made so many Japanese soldiers die in vain though they did not intend (they were not wise enough). To Japanese, those were mingled indistinctively in the wars. You should not see just one element, or you would not be able to see the wars in wider perspective. I would say that the Japanese Prime Minister praying at Yasukuni Shrine indicates an attempt to let the whole disastrous wars remain in the Japanese minds, including Japan’s remorsefulness over having made so many mistakes and their results, distress and anguish, and his grief and lamentation for those who were forced to live and survive in the Dark Age.
NY Times(August 14, 1945)
Townhall (August 20, 2006)
