Asia Times: Constitution at the heart of textbook controversy : Rental Car Reservations


	May 1, 2001	atimes.com

Japan

Constitution at the heart of textbook controversy
By Yone Sugita

OSAKA - In early April, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology accepted a new Japanese history textbook for junior high schools compiled by members of the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform. Even though the authors revised more than 130 parts of their original version as ordered by Japanese government, the textbook still had strong nationalistic views, and it tried to ignore or revise the negative images of Japanese conduct during World War II.

As expected, the Japanese government's approval of the controversial textbook launched widespread criticism in Asia, especially in South Korea and China. South Korea recalled its ambassador from Japan to express its anger, and the textbook issue further destabilized already shaky Japan-China relations.

The root of this textbook controversy is the ambiguity concerning Japan's war responsibility and guilt. The Japanese should have solved this problem immediately after World War II, but a complicated development during the occupation concerning Article Nine of the new Japanese constitution prevented them from having to confront the issue.

Article Nine declares that "the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes".

The origin of Article Nine lay in conversations between General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, and Emperor Hirohito, which were held on September 27, 1945 and also between MacArthur and Prime Minister Shidehara Kijuro on October 11, 1945.

MacArthur told Hirohito that the progress of war technology, especially the increased use of air power and the existence of the atomic bomb, meant that another war could destroy all human beings. He argued that wise people would recognize the necessity of directing the world according to a peaceful philosophy.

Both MacArthur and Kijuro agreed with the importance of presenting an image of a peace-loving and democratic Japan to the world - and of retaining the imperial institution. The intention of MacArthur was to enhance the image of a completely demilitarized, peace-loving Japan by making this epoch-making clause part of its new constitution. MacArthur further tried to mollify anti-Japanese forces abroad that held deep distrust against Japan, and channel their attention to this clause. He argued that Japan had to take moral leadership, even without followers, in international relations by making a bold announcement to abolish war as a sovereign right of a nation state.

Japanese civilian leaders were generally willing to proceed with demilitarization to lessen the possibility of a social revolution and to establish their own positions. Throughout the war, the Japanese government had misguided its people through a one-way flow of information, exhorting them to sacrifice their lives and well-being for the emperor and to fight until the very end. After Japan's surrender, its people continued to lead miserable lives, suffering from hyper-inflation, serious food shortages, illness and dislocation. The Japanese people desperately needed somebody to blame for their misfortunes. The civilian leaders held the militarists and ultra-nationalists as wholly responsible for the war, thus giving the Japanese people the necessary political and psychological scapegoats. They defined the Asia-Pacific War as a great aberration: the militarists and ultra-nationalists had misguided the Japanese down a destructive road.

Demilitarization by the United States and the anti-military campaign by the Japanese civilian leaders greatly contributed to the pursuit of pacifism in postwar Japan. The new constitution's Article Nine was the culmination of the shift of power from the military and ultra-nationalist clique to civilian leaders.

This process of power transition created intricate and peculiar legacies in post-war Japan. The public was portrayed as helpless victims and as the Japanese grew disillusioned with militarism they acquired an almost fatalistic pacifism. Since they had been "deceived", the people were able to deny their role in pre-war and wartime militarism. Although Japanese militarism contained both aspects of victims and assailants, this denial emphasized only the former and ignored the latter.

Consequently, Article Nine allowed the Japanese people to avoid taking responsibility for the Asia-Pacific War, especially their invasion of Asian countries. Fatalistic pacifism and ignoring war responsibilities were complementary trends among the Japanese, and both mentalities contributed to the preservation of Article Nine. The growing pacifism among the Japanese provided support to Article Nine despite national security concerns.

The root of the current textbook controversies lies in this ambiguous solution to the issues of responsibility and guilt during the occupation of other Asian nations by Japan. Because of this ambiguity, more than 50 years after the war a certain amount of sympathy for the militarists began to emerge among nationalists, especially among the younger generations, which did not experience World War II. These young people have a hard time of understanding why China complains about internal affairs such as the text book issues, especially as Japan grants so much aid to China.

Unless the Japanese people, particularly the younger generation, reconsider the meaning of Article Nine and acquire a clear sense of responsibility for the country's actions during the way, they will continuously face the problem of the interpreting the country's wartime history.

((c)2001 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

back to the top

©2001 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd.

Building B - 5th Floor, 102/1 Phra Arthit Road, Chanasangkhram, Bangkok 10200, Thailand