July 23, 2013
Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, who continues refusing to acknowledge Japan’s past war as a war of aggression, deliberately disregards the results of a Japan-China joint historical research launched during his first administration, states Waseda University Professor Obinata Sumio in his article in Akahata. The following is a summary of his essay:
PM Abe started the joint historical studies during his first term in office seven years ago. At that time, he stated that he wants to leave the understanding over historical conflicts between China and Japan to the judgment of experts.
The joint research had been continued over a period of three years since December 2006, and the study group published its first report in January 2010. All the theses in that report, which includes the opinions of both sides about modern and current history, take it a matter of common knowledge that Japan initiated a war of aggression against Asian nations, including China.
Tokyo University Professor Kitaoka Shin’ichi, who served as chair of the Japanese side in the study group, stated as follows in the April 2010 issue of a monthly journal on foreign affairs, Gaiko Forum: “I guess it is an obvious fact that Japan invaded China. This is not only my idea. There are few Japanese historians who deny the fact, I think.”
Abe said in a session of the House of Councilors Budget Committee in April this year, “The definition of ‘aggression’ has yet to be established academically and internationally.” Kitaoka said in the magazine article, “Some claim Japan’s action at that time cannot be called aggression because it is only recently that the word ‘aggression’ was defined. The evaluation of Japan’s acts after the 1931 Manchurian Incident, however, has nothing to do with the so-called ‘gray zone’ arguments over the word definition. No matter how the word is defined, they are clearly judged to be acts of aggression. Regardless of the discussions from the viewpoint of international law, Japan’s war is an aggressive war in historical science.”
This bilateral joint research was a first official dialogue on historical issues which the leaders of the two countries had decided to set up and had been promoted at a state level. The prime minister should accept the conclusions reached in the research he initiated himself.
PM Abe started the joint historical studies during his first term in office seven years ago. At that time, he stated that he wants to leave the understanding over historical conflicts between China and Japan to the judgment of experts.
The joint research had been continued over a period of three years since December 2006, and the study group published its first report in January 2010. All the theses in that report, which includes the opinions of both sides about modern and current history, take it a matter of common knowledge that Japan initiated a war of aggression against Asian nations, including China.
Tokyo University Professor Kitaoka Shin’ichi, who served as chair of the Japanese side in the study group, stated as follows in the April 2010 issue of a monthly journal on foreign affairs, Gaiko Forum: “I guess it is an obvious fact that Japan invaded China. This is not only my idea. There are few Japanese historians who deny the fact, I think.”
Abe said in a session of the House of Councilors Budget Committee in April this year, “The definition of ‘aggression’ has yet to be established academically and internationally.” Kitaoka said in the magazine article, “Some claim Japan’s action at that time cannot be called aggression because it is only recently that the word ‘aggression’ was defined. The evaluation of Japan’s acts after the 1931 Manchurian Incident, however, has nothing to do with the so-called ‘gray zone’ arguments over the word definition. No matter how the word is defined, they are clearly judged to be acts of aggression. Regardless of the discussions from the viewpoint of international law, Japan’s war is an aggressive war in historical science.”
This bilateral joint research was a first official dialogue on historical issues which the leaders of the two countries had decided to set up and had been promoted at a state level. The prime minister should accept the conclusions reached in the research he initiated himself.
