Wakamiya Yoshibumi and Watanabe Tsuneo: Calls for a National Memorial to Replace Yasukuni
From mid-2005, Watanabe suddenly began expressing highly critical views of Koizumi’s visit to Yasukuni Shrine, where the spirits of Japanese soldiers are enshrined. At the same time, he initiated a series of articles on Japan’s war responsibility in the Yomiuri, the world’s largest-circulation newspaper. Yomiuri was, and is, regarded as a conservative paper, articulating views indistinguishable from those of the Japanese government on many important issues. Its traditional liberal rival has long been the Asahi News. It thus came as a surprise to readers to find this series of "progressive" articles, which clearly reflect Watanabe's critical attitude toward the national amnesia on the part of other conservatives and the Japanese government regarding war responsibility. He argued that the Japanese Government should build a new secular war memorial like those in other countries and cease official visits to Yasukuni, the preminent symbol of Japan’s wartime claim that it had a divine right to dominance in Asia. The precise center of controversy is often the fact that the individuals convicted of war crimes after the war were later enshrined at Yasukuni. Apparently he feels that time is running out and that he is one of the very few remaining persons in the old guard who still has power to influence Japanese politics and popular opinion on this issue.
Watanabe Tsuneo
Watanabe may have been responding in part to the fact that recently both Yomiuri
and Asahi have lost considerable numbers of subscribers, while the readership
of the Sankei News - the most conservative paper of all - has increased dramatically.
Given that many younger people, including university students, no longer read
any newspaper, it is difficult to gauge the extent of Yomiuri's effort to raise
public awareness about Japan's war responsibility. The fundamental issue confronting
the Japanese press, as well as peace activists and educators, is how to motivate
young people to become interested in reflecting on history and establishing
peaceful and productive relationships with other nations, particularly the Asian
nations that suffered from Japanese colonialism and war.
Currently Yasukuni shrine is a major flashpoint as a result of Koizumi’s
visits and Foreign Minister Aso’s provocative suggestion that the emperor
should visit the shrine, both of which have strained diplomatic relations with
China and Korea. This was the context for a discussion between the editors of
the Yomiuri and Asahi papers on Yasukuni, the war, and historical responsibility,
published in the February 2006 issue of Ronza magazine, and presented in translated
and abridged form here. LH and YT]
As rivals, The Asahi Shimbun and The Yomiuri Shimbun often adopt different editorial
viewpoints. Yet, a recent discussion between Wakamiya Yoshibumi, chairman of
The Asahi Shimbun's editorial board, and Watanabe Tsuneo, chairman of The Yomiuri
Shimbun group found some common ground regarding Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro’s
controversial visits to Yasukuni Shrine.
Wakamiya: I was surprised by an editorial that appeared in The Yomiuri
(on June 4, 2005) with the headline, "A national memorial for the war dead
should be built immediately." Although the Yomiuri has long argued for
the construction of such a secular war memorial, I believe it was the first
time a Yomiuri editorial had clearly stated "(the prime minister) should
not visit Yasukuni Shrine, where 'Class-A war criminals' are memorialized."
Wakamiya Yoshibumi center
I had come to believe the Yomiuri was in favor of the Yasukuni visits, and,
based on the editorials of the past several years, I felt the Yomiuri had moved
excessively to the right, and that now there is very little difference between
the Yomiuri and the Sankei Shimbun. So I was very surprised by that editorial.
Around the time it appeared, you were quoted as saying that you opposed Koizumi's
Yasukuni visits. You also began arguing that the very existence of Yasukuni
was the source of the diplomatic rift in Japan's relations with China and South
Korea. Since I have the opportunity to talk with you directly, I would first
like to ask about this change.
Watanabe: Ever since I was in university, I have argued against war. In the
last war, several million people died in the name of the emperor. I was drafted
and made to work like a slave as a buck private.
Fortunately, I survived, but what was especially cruel was the system that gave
birth to kamikaze pilots. As the war situation worsened, the pilots were made
to fly in planes without sufficient fuel to return to base, forcing them into
suicide missions.
It escalated further when they began using gliders. Pilots were made to sit
in gliders that were attached to planes and released to fly toward their targets.
The only strategy left was suicide bombings. During the war, I truly felt that
no nation should be allowed to do such things, especially in the name of the
emperor. I still cannot erase the hatred I felt toward the military leaders
who gave such orders and to the politicians who overlooked such actions.
In 2001, when Prime Minister Koizumi said he would visit Yasukuni Shrine on
Aug. 15, the anniversary of Japan’s surrender, I called him and said "I'm
opposed." I told him, "You should not go on Aug. 15. If you have to
go, go on Aug. 13. Politically, it would be a bad decision to go on Aug. 15."
After that, I moved to a residence near Yasukuni Shrine. While I began taking
walks to the shrine, I still have not prayed there.
The Yushukan war memorial that stands next to the main hall at Yasukuni is wrong.
That facility praises militarism and children who go through that memorial come
out saying, "Japan actually won the last war."
This means that Yasukuni Shrine operates a war museum that incites militarism
and displays exhibits in praise of militarism. It is wrong for the prime minister
to visit such a place.
I subsequently looked into what the head priest at Yasukuni said about why Class-A
war criminals were memorialized there and the difficulty of removing their spirits.
I came to the conclusion that it was totally wrong.
Wakamiya: The Yushukan was rebuilt in 2002. It is quite a fine-looking facility.
But the contents can in no way be considered as having a contemporary feel about
them.
It is true that the letters left behind by kamikaze pilots exhibited there do
move readers to tears. But the tone of the exhibits, which cover the Sino-Japanese
War of 1894-4 and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, as well as the events from
the Manchurian Incident of 1931 to the Pacific War, consistently describes the
fighting as honorable, designed to liberate Asia, and for the defense and survival
of Japan. There is no sense of shame at all.
For example, there is a Zero fighter plane on display on the first floor. The
explanation says the Zero made its debut over Chongqing in China, and that during
dogfights over Chongqing, it shot down a large number of the Soviet-made fighters
used by the Chinese, thus giving the Zero world renown.However, the museum does
not reveal that after the Zero fighters established Japan's air superiority
over Chongqing, bombers flew over the city, killing countless civilian residents.
Those bombings became notorious internationally as the forerunner to indiscriminate
bombings. While displaying such items boastfully at Yasukuni Shrine, it is very
inappropriate for Japan’s leaders to insist that China has no right to
criticize the prime minister's visits.
Watanabe: This is why we started a campaign in our pages from Aug. 13, 2005,
to clarify where the responsibility lies for the last war. We will continue
the series for a year. After the year is up, we plan to run a story on or around
Aug. 15, 2006, summarizing the degree of responsibility by various military
and government leaders of that time.
Of course, since we are not a judicial organization, we will not hand down death
sentences or life imprisonment. But we plan to set specific standards to assess
the severity of moral responsibility for the results of the war and in that
way say who was the most responsible, who can be forgiven, and
who should never be forgiven.
Wakamiya: There has been considerable debate about the legitimacy of the Tokyo
war crimes trial. By contrast, you are planning to have the Japanese themselves
clarify the responsibility for the war. Although I believe there will be considerable
overlap with those who went on trial as Class-A war criminals at the Tokyo war
crimes trial, do you have any idea of how much overlap there will be and are
you also planning to focus on the responsibility of individuals who may not
have been put on trial but had a greater responsibility than determined by the
Tokyo war crimes trial?
Watanabe: Looked at from the perspective of international law, since Japan accepted
the verdict of the Tokyo war crimes trial in Article 11 of the San Francisco
peace treaty, the verdict can be said to be legally binding. However, when thinking
about moral responsibility for the war, Shigenori Togo, who was foreign minister
at the start of the conflict, took action from an early stage to end it. Perhaps
people like that should not be considered in the same vein as Class-A war criminals.
Also,while it was wrong for the Japanese to have killed people in other countries,
millions of Japanese also died. A large number of the people memorialized at
Yasukuni were themselves victims. I think a distinction has to be made between
those who did the killing and those who were killed. Once that is done, the
level of responsibility of the perpetrators should be examined. Only then can
we address the issue of the kind of trouble that we caused China and South Korea.
A soul-searching on our part that will satisfy them is absolutely necessary.
While the Yomiuri will do what it can, I believe this is something that the
nation-state should do at its own initiative, for example, by setting up a historical
examination committee in the Diet.
On the other hand, as a representative of the journalism sector, I feel that
we have an obligation at our newspaper to think through the issue. We may, of
course, have been a little late in starting this.
When then-Prime Minister Nakasone Yasuhiro visited Yasukuni on Aug. 15, 1985,
I told him I was opposed. I told him, "I will never forgive him or his
faction," He said, "I did not go to pray for Tojo. My younger brother
died during the war and his spirit lies there. I went to meet my brother."
At that time, I accepted his explanation. However, after thinking about the
issues, I focused on the fact that the war victims' relief bureau of the Ministry
of Health and Welfare had enshrined the Class-A war criminals at Yasukuni.
The Tokyo Shimbun recently reported that many former military officers worked
in the war victims' relief bureau, and they handed over a list of Class-A war
criminals for memorialization at Yasukuni Shrine in 1966.
Wakamiya: Yes. The head priest at the time was Tsukuba Fujimaro, a former member
of the Yamashina branch of the imperial family. During the twelve years Tsukuba
was head priest, the Class-A war criminals were not included at Yasukuni.
It was said that Yasukuni Shrine backed off because the shrine officials wanted
to pass a bill in the Diet for its maintenance by the state. They wanted to
avoid measures that could stimulate negative public opinion, such as memorializing
Class-A war criminals. It was also said that consideration was given to the
feelings of the imperial family as well as the Imperial Household Agency.
However, after Tsukuba died suddenly, he was succeeded as head priest by Matsudaira
Nagayoshi. Matsudaira was a former Imperial Japanese Navy lieutenant commander
who totally rejected the verdict of the Tokyo war crimes trial. Soon after he
became head priest, Matsudaira worked to have the Class-A war criminals memorialized
and achieved that goal in 1978. But the Showa Emperor wouldn’t visit Yasukuni
after that. I have argued for the construction of a new war memorial that the
emperor, who is the symbol of national unity, can visit. If it is built, foreign
leaders could also visit.
Watanabe: On that issue, I am in total agreement. I believe that in thinking
about war responsibility we have to look at everything from about the time of
the Manchurian Incident in 1931. Initially, the Manchurian Incident was considered
a move to build a paradise on Earth as a form of idealism on the part of Ishihara
Kanji, who was a high-ranking officer in the Kwantung Army. However, Ishihara
was also involved in illegal acts, such as the bombing of a railway line at
Liutiaohu. Therefore, Ishihara cannot be forgiven, even though he subsequently
argued against expanding the war.
Wakamiya: Ishihara Kanji was not included among the Class-A war criminals,
strange as that may be.
Watanabe: That's right. He was not considered a war criminal. But we have to
think about his responsibility. An even worse case is an even higher-ranking
officer in the Kwantung Army, Itagaki Seishiro, who engineered the invasion
of northern China. After that, as the nation proceeded toward the Pacific War,
I believe that Konoe Fumimaro, who was prime minister, was up to no good.
At first, young radical army and navy officers attempted a coup on May 15, 1932,
and later a group of army officers staged the Feb. 26 coup in 1936. Terrorism
seriously affected politics. As a result, political parties became weak.
Konoe became prime minister after those developments. He should have tried to
normalize the political situation, but he ended up creating the Imperial Rule
Assistance Association. It can be said that there is no way to question his
crimes because he committed suicide. Furthermore, it was Kido Koichi, lord keeper
of the pvivy seal, who recommended that Tojo become prime minister. He must
have known what would happen to the country if Tojo was made prime minister.
For that reason, I believe Kido bears a very grave responsibility.
Wakamiya: You said that establishing war responsibility should occur in Japan
rather than on the say-so of another nation. I agree that rather than wait until
other nations speak up, we have to think for ourselves. However, I slightly
disagree with your editorial in the Yomiuri that other nations have no right
to criticize.
Watanabe: Unless the Japanese themselves admit that crimes were committed, East
Asian nations that were victims of invasion during the war will never be convinced
of Japanese sincerity.
Ronza: Moves that glorify and justify the war are becoming quite noticeable,
although in limited quarters. That leads some Japanese to question why it is
wrong for the prime minister to visit Yasukuni Shrine. What are your thoughts
on these recent developments?
Watanabe: I am 79 years old. When we are gone, there will be nobody who remembers
the realities of that war and I worry that there will only be debate on ideas
about it rather than on experiences. Chinese and South Koreans are building
museums and taking other means to preserve extreme aspects of the war for the
next generation and thereby fanning anti-Japan movements.
I believe I should talk about what I actually experienced in the war and keep
records. I should talk and write that the Japanese military did terrible things.
Wakamiya: I don't think Prime Minister Koizumi is a rightist. And since he said
in the Diet that Class-A war criminals are indeed war criminals, I don't think
he visits Yasukuni Shrine to pay tribute to the Class-A war criminals enshrined
there per se. I don't really doubt that he goes to the shrine to honor the spirits
of the 3 million Japanese soldiers and to pray for peace in future. His thoughts
in this matter are probably along the same line as his shedding tears for the
youths who died as kamikaze suicide pilots.
The problem is the fact that the prime minister's visits to the shrine give
joy and strength to people who think Class-A war criminals are not bad and that
they were wrongly accused, a thought that is promoted in the shrine's war memorial
museum Yushukan.
As a politician, Koizumi should use his imagination a little more. The more
active rightists become, the more China and South Korea will come to see Japan
as a "dangerous nation" and inflame anti-Japan sentiments. Politicians
with firm convictions will shift positions a little if they think the course
is headed for a diplomatic disaster, not only in Japan but also in China and
South Korea.
This article appeared in the February 9 issue of Ronza. This abbreviated
version is published in Japan Focus on February 14, 2006.