Questions and answers on effects of Japan’s prime minister’s lack of an apology in WWII remarks.
Q: Why did Abe stop short of making an apology?
Members of Abe’s conservative party have long taken issue with what they see as the victor’s version of World War II history and a constitution imposed on Japan by the U.S. occupation after the war.
To varying degrees, they argue that Japan, in seeking to build a colonial empire, was only doing what the world’s great powers had done, and that it was driven into war when the U.S. and others cut off its access to oil and other vital resources to try to thwart those ambitions.
Given the outcome, they agree that the war was a mistake, but they object to Japan being singled out for blame in the Pacific theater. Many Japanese, not just conservatives, also feel that Japan has sufficiently apologized for the war, and ask why past apologies aren’t good enough.
Most Read Nation & World Stories
- CVS welcomes desperate vaccine hunters looking for second dose
- A possible QAnon slip-up suggests the truth of Q's identity was right there all along
- Sports on TV & radio: Local listings for Seattle games and events
- Plan would return beachfront taken from Black family in '20s
- Woman gets pregnant while already pregnant, gives birth to twins conceived 3 weeks apart
That said, Abe and other conservatives have questioned elements of those apologies, opening the way for others to question whether Japan is trying to deny responsibility for its wartime actions.
Q: Will Abe’s statement appease Chinese resentment over historical issues and improve relations?
Relations between Japan and China have long had their ups and downs. Leaders in Beijing have found fanning animosity a useful tactic for bolstering public support for the ruling Communist Party, so no single statement is likely to lay wartime ghosts permanently to rest.
But Abe’s remarks are nuanced enough that they are unlikely to derail modest progress toward smoothing ties roiled in recent years by a territorial dispute centered on islands in the East China Sea.
Resentment over Japan’s invasion and occupation of much of China before and during World War II has tainted ties since Emperor Hirohito announced the surrender on Aug. 15, 1945.
China’s official Xinhua News Agency said Friday that Abe’s statement had been a “perfect opportunity” for full reconciliation with its neighbors. But in reporting the statement, it highlighted that he refrained from offering an apology of his own for Japan’s atrocities during the war.
Q: Will Abe’s speech have any effect on Japan’s uneasy relations with South Korea?
There will be anger, but little surprise, in Seoul that Abe’s statement didn’t rise to the level of earlier Japanese apologies. He previously angered South Koreans by visiting the Tokyo shrine that honors war criminals and questioning past apologies, drawing accusations that he is trying to whitewash wartime atrocities.
Japanese prime ministers have repeatedly expressed remorse over the decades to South Korea, which Japan colonized, often brutally, from 1910 to 1945. But the apologies are often seen in Seoul as falling short: Only the views of a single man, the prime minister, and not the government, for instance; or not explicit enough; or ruined by, say, an official somewhere questioning the accounts of Korean women forced into wartime sexual slavery.
There have been long periods when these statements have allowed the countries to get on with their important regional diplomatic and economic efforts, such as cooperation in confronting North Korea’s push for nuclear weapons. But South Koreans see sinister designs not only in Abe’s reluctance to match past apologies, but also in his push for a stronger military and in territorial claims of South Korean-controlled islets.
Q: Will the United States, Japan’s chief ally, be satisfied with Abe’s statement?
The White House reaction to Abe’s statement was positive. Memories of Japan’s wartime abuses still provoke strong feelings among the dwindling numbers of surviving U.S. veterans, some of whom have been critical of Abe’s attitude to history. But in large part, the two nations have come to terms with the past, setting aside old enmity and forging an enduring postwar alliance.
Yet Washington also has a strong interest in how Japan handles its rift over history with South Korea. Improved relations between America’s key allies in Asia would strengthen U.S. standing as it looks to counter the rise of China and manage the nuclear threat of North Korea.
But ultimately, South Korea’s reaction to Abe’s statement will be more important in this equation than Washington’s. And since the Japanese leader stopped short of offering a fresh apology, acrimony between the U.S. allies is likely to linger.