Volume 16 | Issue 9 | Number 1 | Article ID 5140 | May 01, 2018 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus History and the State in Postwar Japan Hatano Sumio, translated by Christopher W. A. Szpilman and with an introduction by Sven Saaler and Christopher W. A. Szpilman Introduction The Handbook is divided into four sections, “Nation, Empire and Borders,” “Ideologies and The Routledge Handbook of Modern Japanese the Political System,” “Economy and Society,” 1 History, a concise introduction to Japanese and “Historical Legacies and Memory.” The history between the middle of the nineteenth first three address the history of the political century and the end of the twentieth, was system, international relations, society, published in late 2017. In preparing the work, economy, environment, race and gender. The the editors were fortunate to obtain the final section consists of three chapters that cooperation of 30 historians from Japan, address the important and, given the current Europe, Australia and the U.S., who provided situation in East Asia, highly relevant issues of succinct yet comprehensive overviews of their historical memory, war responsibility, historical field of expertise. revisionism and Japan’s not always successful efforts to come to terms with its own past. This article is by Hatano Sumio, professor emeritus at the University of Tsukuba. Professor Hatano is Director-General of the Japan Center for Asian Historical Records (JACAR); he chaired the Editorial Committee of the Nihon gaikō bunsho (Diplomatic Documents of Japan) series published by the Japanese The Routledge Handbook of Modern Japanese History Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and between 2008 and 2011 he was a member of the Japan-China Joint History Research Committee. Hatano is the author of numerous books including Taiheiyō sensō to Ajia gaikō (The Pacific War and Asian Diplomacy, 1996, winner of the Yoshida Shigeru Prize) and Kokka to rekishi (The State and History, 2011) and co-edited the four-volume Jijūchō bukan Nara Takeji nikki, kaikoroku (The Diaries and Reminiscences of Aide-de-Camp Nara Takeji, 2000). In the chapter, Hatano addresses the legacy of the Asia-Pacific War and its effects on Japan’s relations with its neighboring countries. The Routledge Handbook of Modern Although many themes the article discusses Japanese History such as war reparations, territorial disputes, 1 16 | 9 | 1 APJ | JF and comfort women have been discussed in The (Hatano Sumio) Asia-Pacific Journal/Japan Focus before, Hatano’s article is of great value not only The history problem (rekishi mondai) has been because it provides a wealth of historical detail plaguing Japanese foreign relations in the but also because it reflects the views of postwar period. Japan is often criticized as Japanese mainstream historians. For it must being unable to come to terms with its past, not be forgotten that, in spite of the efforts of and doubts are cast on the historical awareness historical revisionists, a consensus prevails of the Japanese government and the Japanese among academic historians both on what people. Neighbouring countries have pointed happened in the past and on the ways in which out that the coverage of war-related issues in Japan has addressed – or failed to address – its Japanese history textbooks is inadequate. In the past. We should add that Hatano’s article is an background of such criticisms there are strong updated distillation of the themes he discusses fears, based on the experience of Japanese in great detail in Kokka to rekishi, a book that colonialism and aggression toward Asia prior to draws heavily on his personal experience in the end of the Second World War, that Japan exploring these controversial and sensitive might once again become a ‘military issues relating to modern Japan’s historical superpower’. In addition, it is frequently legacy. pointed out that reparations, indemnities, expressions of remorse and apologies It is also a matter of record that Hatano, concerning damages caused by Japanese though serving on a number of governmental colonialism and aggression to Asian countries bodies, joined 73 other scholars, in signing a and peoples of Asia have been insufficient and petition in protest against the Abe Shinzō that many issues remain unresolved. Many in government’s support for revisionism and its Japan share this view. Of course, these efforts to politicize history and historical questions could have been settled all at once by education. The main purpose of this petition means of a peace treaty between the victorious was to counter the official statementsand defeated powers, as had been done in the questioning the assessment that the Asia- Versailles Peace Treaty after the end of the Pacific War was a war of aggression made First World War. However, that did not happen repeatedly by Prime Minister Abe in blatant in East Asia after 1945. disregard of the views of the overwhelming majority of Japanese historians. Although in the end Abe felt constrained to phrase his Statement on the Occasion of the 70th Anniversary of the End of the War inoffensively, he refused to make a clean breast and continued to obfuscate, which earned him the criticism of the signatories of the above- mentioned statement. All sources included in this article are listed in the Handbook’s bibliography which is freely accessible online as is the Introduction which will provide the reader with more detailed 3 information about the Handbook. History and the state in postwar Japan 2 16 | 9 | 1 APJ | JF Figure 1: Japanese Prime Minister Yoshida quite a number of people in the neighbouring Shigeru signs the San Francisco Peace countries, in the former Allied Powers, and Treaty (1951). even in Japan who think that Japan has not properly come to terms with its past and that reparations to the victims, apologies and remorse about the war have been inadequate. Especially with regard to Korea and China, one It is true that Japan signed the San Francisco must conclude that the attempt to establish Peace Treaty in 1951 (in effect from 1952) with sufficient trust has failed as a result of 48 countries including the United States, problems with history, and that this failure Britain, France and Australia. But not all allied constitutes an obstacle to an improvement in nations that had been at war with Japan signed Japan’s relations with these two countries. this treaty.4 As expressed in the phrase ‘a What is the root of this problem? How has separate peace’, the United States was keen to Japan reacted to it? What is necessary to go ahead with granting Japan independence, achieve ‘historical reconciliation’? I will try to and in the climate of the intensifying Cold War address these questions by focusing on how the gave priority to peace treaties with countries in position of the Japanese government has the Western bloc, while the Soviet Union, the evolved over time (see Hatano 2011 for People’s Republic of China (PRC) and other details). socialist countries stayed away from the peace conference. As a result, Japan had to negotiate separate agreements with the countries absent from San Francisco to normalize relations. The ‘History Problem’ prior to 1970 Such separate agreements included the 1952 Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty (the Treaty of War reparations and war responsibility Taipei between Japan and the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan), the 1956 Soviet-Japan Joint The 1919 Versailles Peace Treaty made a Declaration (between the Soviet Union and provision concerning war responsibility and Japan), the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations imposed reparations on Germany. However, the between Japan and the Republic of South 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty in principle Korea, and the 1972 Japan-China Jointwaived any claims to reparations. In the peace Communiqué (between Japan and the PRC). In treaty, also known as a ‘generous’ peace, the addition, the Philippines, Indonesia, Burma chief allied powers, that is, the United States, (Myanmar), and Vietnam had refused to sign or Britain and France, waived their right to claim ratify the San Francisco Peace Treaty on the reparations from Japan. However, countries grounds that reparations were insufficient. that objected to this waiver, such as the With those four Southeast Asian countries, the Philippines, obtained the right to conduct Japanese government later signed bilateral separate negotiations with Japan. This led later ‘reconciliation’ agreements that conformed to to the conclusion of reparation agreements and the model of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. peace treaties between Japan and a number of As a result, Japan at present takes the position Southeast Asian countries. Japan paid that problems caused by the war and colonial reparations to four Southeast Asian countries, rule were settled through these ‘public acts of namely, the Philippines, Indonesia, Burma reconciliation’ (i.e., the San Francisco Treaty (Myanmar), and Vietnam. The payment of these System) and that it thus made a contribution to reparations, totalling one trillion yen, was the stability of the international order in the completed by the end of the 1960s. However, Asia-Pacific area. However, even now there are this huge amount was not paid to compensate for direct damage to the countries. The 3 16 | 9 | 1 APJ | JF settlements gave priority to ‘economicthe reasons for the sentence as given by the cooperation’ (economic aid) that brought tribunal. Moreover, in Japan this has led to benefit to both parties. As such theyclaims that the War Crimes Tribunal contributed both to the revival of Japan and to represented ‘victors’ justice’ by the Allies and the economic development of Southeast Asia. thereby to doubts being cast on the legitimacy But it is also a fact that they weakened the of the tribunal. original goal of reparations that was to bring a sense of responsibility and remorse to Japan.