Off the wire
• 1st LD-Writethru: Three executed over Kunming terrorist attack  • Vietnam's inflation forecast up in March after four consecutive downs  • Urgent: India's Supreme Court scraps draconian information technology law  • 2nd LD Writethru: U.S. to seek funding to ensure size of Afghan forces  • U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet USS Blue Ridge visits Hong Kong  • Singapore won't go through dramatic change in post-Lee Kuan Yew era: experts  • U.S. to strengthen cooperation on clean energy with China: Pritzker  • 2nd LD Writethru: First RMB clearing bank in Western hemisphere launched in Canada  • New Zealand central banker to head OECD financial market committee  • 1st LD Writethru: Gunmen kill 13 in eastern Afghanistan  
You are here: 　 Home

Commentary: Absurd conception of history held by Abe's advisers alarming

Xinhua, March 24, 2015 Adjust font size:

Some members of the expert panel tasked to draft the Abe Statement to mark the end of WWII have revealed their absurd conception of history when they expressed doubt whether what Japanese troops did during the war should be described as aggression.

According to a report by the Kyodo News, the experts had a heated debate during their second panel meeting over whether to use the word "aggression" in the document as the landmark Murayama Statement did 20 years ago.

As if dictated by those long-time non-believers of Japan's wartime atrocities, some argued that the word "is not clearly defined in international law," and suggested it might not be appropriate to determine that "the war was an act of aggression based on present values."

Such sophistries are indeed outrageous as it is universally recognized that Japan committed heinous aggression against China and several other countries during WWII.

The revisionist tendency shown by these experts is also appalling since it once again exposed Japan's failure to squarely face up its wartime history, almost 70 years after the war ended.

Such attempts to deny or mitigate Japan's atrocities in WWII have undermined trust between Japan and its neighbors, and if unchecked, could further damage Tokyo's relations with these nations.

As a three-time prime minister for Japan, Shinzo Abe knows exactly how the war history issue could weigh on the country's foreign relations. Yet in the lead up to the 70th anniversary of the end of the war, he has made various remarks fueling concern that he may seek to blur the picture of history and water down Japan's guilt for its war-time crimes.

To be a responsible political leader, he should at least resist the urge to do so as history may repeat itself unless lessons are learned.

He should also be reminded that if he acts otherwise, the recent efforts by China and South Korea to repair frayed ties with Japan would be as well squandered.

There is also a message of caution for Washington, as it prepares to give Abe a "grandiose" welcome for his week-long official visit to the United States: however close the alliance between the two countries is, Washington should ensure that Japan poses no threat to the post-war world order. Endi