In 2008 when Shinzo Abe was first elected Prime Minister he let it be known that Japan's dignity would finally be restored after years of humiliation following its defeat in World War II. Mr. Abe bristled at the constitution imposed upon Japan by the Americans, which in conservative political circles caused pain and resentment. As it removed Japan from "Great Nation" status and reduced it to being a vassal of American political and military dominance.
Abe completely misread the public's sentiment for his brand of conservatism and historical view. Then like today he wanted to eliminate the constraints placed upon Japan's military by Article 9 of the post war constitution. Japanese voters then as they are today are unwilling to play along with Abe's distorted view of Japan's place in the world community. The difference between know and then? In 2008 he showed his cards to soon and was forced to resign just one into his premiership. In his go around as Prime Minister he held his cards to close to the vest for more than a year before reviling, once again that he and the Liberal Democrats would once again seek to change the status of Japan's military allowing them to participate in overseas conflicts which American forces were engaged. Even with the public firmly against these revisions the ruling coalition passed the security bills through the lower house of parliament on a party line vote using its overwhelming majority to do so.
Abe and the Liberal Democratic Party aren't just focused on the constitutional revisions they also seek to revise Japan's history in the time between the the two world wars and Japan's actions during the second. Most of Japan's current political elite have family ties which go back to that era either through political connections or business associations. Given the worlds negative view of Japan's actions during that time these people are simply trying to rewrite history and are succeeding as they have control over the what students are taught through a vetting process for the publication of text books by the Ministry of Education which has final say on which books will be published. Because of this process they have left the Japanese public willfully ignorant of Japan's actions prior to and during the Second World War.
Just to make sure the world understood where Abe stood on these issues he decided that poking Asian countries in the eye with a metaphorical sharp stick was best.
Abe completely misread the public's sentiment for his brand of conservatism and historical view. Then like today he wanted to eliminate the constraints placed upon Japan's military by Article 9 of the post war constitution. Japanese voters then as they are today are unwilling to play along with Abe's distorted view of Japan's place in the world community. The difference between know and then? In 2008 he showed his cards to soon and was forced to resign just one into his premiership. In his go around as Prime Minister he held his cards to close to the vest for more than a year before reviling, once again that he and the Liberal Democrats would once again seek to change the status of Japan's military allowing them to participate in overseas conflicts which American forces were engaged. Even with the public firmly against these revisions the ruling coalition passed the security bills through the lower house of parliament on a party line vote using its overwhelming majority to do so.
Abe and the Liberal Democratic Party aren't just focused on the constitutional revisions they also seek to revise Japan's history in the time between the the two world wars and Japan's actions during the second. Most of Japan's current political elite have family ties which go back to that era either through political connections or business associations. Given the worlds negative view of Japan's actions during that time these people are simply trying to rewrite history and are succeeding as they have control over the what students are taught through a vetting process for the publication of text books by the Ministry of Education which has final say on which books will be published. Because of this process they have left the Japanese public willfully ignorant of Japan's actions prior to and during the Second World War.
At the forefront of those demanding that Japan do more to atone for its wartime legacy are China and South Korea.The Chinese still bristle at the Japanese occupation of their country’s eastern reaches. They are especially bitter over the “Rape of Nanking” in 1937-38, when Japanese troops captured the city now known as Nanjing, which was then the Chinese capital. Some 200,000 people were killed and tens of thousands of women raped by marauding soldiers, according to the judgment of an international war crimes court.South Koreans still harbor painful memories from 35 years of Japanese colonial occupation. They have focused their resentment on the fate of “comfort women,” Korean women and girls forced to work as prostitutes in Japan’s wartime military brothels.Past Japanese leaders have apologized dozens of times for their country’s behavior in terms varying from remorse and regret to sorrow and repentance. The clearest statement came 20 years ago, in 1995, when then-Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama acknowledged Tokyo’s history of “colonial rule and aggression” and offered his “heartfelt apology” for “these irrefutable facts of history.”
Just to make sure the world understood where Abe stood on these issues he decided that poking Asian countries in the eye with a metaphorical sharp stick was best.
Most provocatively, in December 2013, Mr. Abe marked the first anniversary of his election by visiting the Yasukuni shrine, where Japan’s war dead – including more than 1,000 convicted war criminals – are commemorated. He had earlier infuriated the Chinese government by arguing in a parliamentary debate that “the definition of aggression has yet to be established in academia or in the international community,” suggesting that Japan had not really invaded China.
No comments:
Post a Comment