Abe's omissions fuel worry

Anxiety rises over Abe omitting non-nuclear principles from Hiroshima speech

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201508070062

August 07, 2015

THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s omission of the “three non-nuclear principles” during his speech in Hiroshima on Aug. 6 has caused concerns that Japan may be about to ditch a long-held and highly cherished philosophy.

“We will make further efforts toward realization of a world without nuclear weapons,” Abe did say in this year's ceremony marking the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of the city on Aug. 6, 1945.

But it's what he did not say that is causing anxiety, particularly among atomic bomb survivors. He failed to confirm the nation's three non-nuclear principles: Japan does not possess or produce nuclear weapons and also does not permit other countries to bring those weapons into Japan.

Only after the ceremony, when Abe met with representatives of atomic bomb survivors, did the prime minister say, “I pledge that, by firmly maintaining the three non-nuclear principles, we will continue to lead the efforts toward abolition of nuclear weapons and realization of permanent peace to prevent a recurrence of disasters brought by nuclear weapons.”

As criticism spread over his omission at a widely reported ceremony attended by 55,000 people, Abe was forced to respond at a meeting of the Lower House Budget Committee on Aug. 7.

“It is a matter of course that (Japan will maintain) the three non-nuclear principles," he said. "The stance is not changing at all.”

Abe also said he would confirm Japan's adherence to the non-nuclear principles in his speech in Nagasaki on Aug. 9.

Since the prime minister’s participation became a regular fixture at the Hiroshima ceremony in 1994, it marked the first time that Japan's leader has not mentioned the intrinsic principles.

Abe has taken part in the ceremony three times, including during his first tenure as prime minister from 2006 to 2007. On all three occasions he has mentioned them.

In the evening of Aug. 6, a senior official of the prime minister’s office backed Abe.

“We have strongly said our efforts (toward realization of a nuclear-free world) are unchanged," the official said. "It will not make any difference if the prime minister did not mention the principles.”

However, the efforts of Abe and his office after the speech to dampen speculation that the three non-nuclear principles might be ushered out have done little to stop a general feeling of unease.

“If the government is thinking that it is not necessary to refer to the three non-nuclear principles on the grounds that it is a matter of course to firmly maintain them, it is the same as the case concerning the security legislation (now being deliberated in the Diet)," said Renho, an acting representative of the largest opposition Democratic Party of Japan, on Aug. 6. "We are anxious that unless there are guarantees to maintain the principles, the government could change them at any time.”

Kunihiko Sakuma, 70, director of “Hiroshimaken Genbaku-Higaisha Dantai Kyogikai” (Council of organizations of atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima Prefecture), was even more angry.

“It is little wonder if it is understood that Japan has abolished the three non-nuclear principles, which is its national credo,” he said.

Toshiyuki Mimaki, 73, a vice director of a different organization, also named, “Hiroshimaken Genbaku-Higaisha Dantai Kyogikai,” said that he was not aware that Abe did not mention the principles in his speech at the ceremony.

“It is frightful that the words went missing from the prime minister’s public speech while we were not paying close attention. The principles may be emasculated in the eras of my children or grandchildren while they are not aware,” he said.

On Aug. 5, Defense Minister Gen Nakatani caused an uproar after he said in the Upper House special committee on the security legislation that the possibility that the Self-Defense Forces will transport nuclear weapons is not ruled out.

“We are concerned because the prime minister did not refer to the principles amid a move to make it possible for Japan to wage a war,” said Hirotami Yamada, 84, head of the secretariat for the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Survivors Council.

(Shinji Muramatsu contributed to this article.)

August 7, 2015

Abe panel report mentions 'aggression,' 'colonial rule,' but mum on need for apology

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201508070067

By TAKASHI FUNAKOSHI/ Staff Writer

An advisory panel to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe submitted a report on Aug. 6 that mentions Japan's aggression before and during World War II, colonial rule and the responsibility of Japan's wartime leaders.

However, it does not touch upon the need for an apology to those who suffered during the war because of Japan.

Panel members left it up to Abe to decide if he will include an apology in the statement he will release on Aug. 14 to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II.

It remains to be seen to what extent Abe will incorporate the report's findings in his own 70th anniversary statement.

He has said he would follow "on the whole" the statements released in 1995 and 2005 by predecessors Tomiichi Murayama and Junichiro Koizumi, respectively, when they were prime minister. However, Abe has stopped short of saying he would use the same words from those two statements.

Abe convened the panel to look into historical issues to provide background for his widely anticipated statement. The report, covering developments from before World War II and including the 70 years since the war's end, was submitted to the prime minister by panel chairman Taizo Nishimuro, president of Japan Post Holdings Co., and Shinichi Kitaoka, president of the International University of Japan.

"With this year marking the milestone of 70 years since the war's end, I want to compile a statement to be transmitted to the world that will lay out what we have learned from that war as well as the course that Japan should proceed along in the future," Abe said.

The panel, officially known as the Advisory Panel on the History of the 20th Century and on Japan's Role and World Order in the 21st Century, was formed in late February. Among the 16 members were historians as well as representatives from the business and media sectors. It held seven sessions at which various topics of Japan's past were discussed.

The report said that since the Manchurian Incident in 1931, Japan "expanded its aggression against the continent, ... lost sight of the global trends, and caused much harm to various countries, largely in Asia, through a reckless war."

It added that, "Colonial rule became particularly harsh from the second half of the 1930s."

It also pointed out, "It must be said that the responsibilities of the Japanese government and military leaders ... are very serious."

Reflecting the divisive nature of the topics, the report included a footnote that said, "There were some dissenting views in the panel concerning the use of the word 'aggression.' "

However, at a news conference on Aug. 6, Kitaoka, the deputy chairman of the panel, said about the footnote, "We included the footnote because one member expressed an opposing view which was seconded by another member. We never thought about revising the main part of the report. This is not a case of including both sides of the argument."

Regarding the path Japan took after the war, the report said Japan "is one of the countries that have been faithful" to the new liberal international system based on the premises of peace, rule of law and other principles that was established under the initiative of the United States.

But the panel said Japan still had more to contribute internationally in the security field.

The report also devoted a major part to analyzing the changes in Japan's relationship with various nations since the end of the war.

Regarding the ties with the United States, the report said, "our bilateral relations achieved a rare success in the history of the world."

However, the report could not offer such glowing terms for the relations with China and South Korea.

Regarding the ties with Beijing since the end of World War II, the report said the period represented, "70 years during which ... (Japan's and China's) intentions failed to coincide fully."

The report described a "yet-to-be-achieved reconciliation" in relation to South Korea.